Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 6.B 06/19/2017
Agenda Item #6.B DATE: June 19, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Discussion of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision Project, located at Windsor Drive and D Street. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive public comment and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and, by motion, authorize staff to move forward with preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). BACKGROUND In 2004, the City received a complete application for the Davidon/Scott Ranch single - family residential development project located on 58.66 acres consisting of two parcels (APNs 019 -120- 040 and -041) at the corner of D Street and Windsor Drive ( "Prior Project "). The application included a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, a Planned Unit Development, and a Vesting Tentative Map for 93 single - family lots. On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was to be prepared for the prior project was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to responsible and /or trustee state agencies. EIR scoping meetings were held on August 11, 2004 and August 25, 2004. On February 14, 2013, the City released a DEIR for the prior project. The DEIR was circulated for 60 days from February 14, 2013, to April 15, 2013, and staff received approximately 300 comment letters. In addition, both oral and written comments were received during a Planning Commission meeting on March 12, 2013 and a City Council meeting on April 15, 2013. The Planning Commission deferred recommendation on the environmental document until review of the Final EIR and requested clarification of certain topics in the DEIR. On April 15, 2013, the City Council directed staff to proceed with preparation of the FEIR with clarification and additional information being provided. In December 2013, the applicant submitted a revised project description and associated plans (Project Description Section 3.0 of the DEIR) for a reduced development proposal including two options for development, one for 63 single - family lots and one for 66 single family lots ( "Davidon/Scott Ranch Project "). The revised submittal is the subject of this staff report and associated revised DEIR for the Davidon/Scott Ranch Project. The revised DEIR was released on March 2, 2017 for a 60 -day public review period, which will end on May 1, 2017. However, comments will be accepted up until the end of the City Council meeting on June 19, 2017. On April 4, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the revised DEIR and to receive public comments. The Planning Commission received over 20 speakers providing verbal comments. Most of those commenting expressed concerns about the project's impacts on visual character of the site, on sensitive wildlife and habitat, and on site drainage. In addition, the public expressed concerns about increased traffic, a general opposition to the project, and a desire for a reduced number of homes. The Planning Commission also provided comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR including discussion on the red barn structures, tree removal, setbacks from Kelly Creek, aesthetics impacts, hydrology impacts, geotechnical impacts, traffic impacts, project consistency with General Plan, impacts on energy and greenhouse gases, mitigation monitoring, and assurance that the City receives input on the DEIR from resource agencies. A complete transcript of the Planning Commission meeting is included at Attachment 1. Additionally, comment letters received to date are included at Attachment 2. All comments provided by the public and the Planning Commission will be responded to as part of the Final EIR. Comments related to the merits of the project will be responded to in the staff report when the project is brought forward for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. On April 4, 2017, the Planning Commission, by motion, recommended that the City Council authorize preparation of a Final EIR document that includes an adequate level of analysis of an alternative that excludes development south of Kelly Creek, and requested that the Final EIR return to Planning Commission for consideration and a recommendation to City Council. DISCUSSION The purpose of the public hearing is to facilitate the gathering of comments on the DEIR for the Davidon/Scott Ranch Project. After closing the public hearing and providing any Council comments on the DEIR, it is recommended that the City Council approve a motion authorizing staff to move forward with preparation of the Final EIR for the project. The purpose of this DEIR is to inform decision makers for the City of Petaluma, other responsible agencies, and the public of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the Davidon/Scott Ranch Project, as proposed. The DEIR has been prepared in accordance with and in fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines). The City of Petaluma is the Lead Agency for the EIR. The Petaluma City Council has the principal responsibility for authorizing the implementation of the project, as proposed. 2 As described in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are generally under a substantive obligation to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects of a project, where feasible. Consistent with that obligation, this DEIR identifies the following: (1) The potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including cumulative effects resulting from the proposed project together with other past, present, and probable future projects; (2) Mitigation measures that could substantially lessen or avoid any such significant environmental effects; (3) Any significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, and thus are unavoidable; and (4) Reasonable, potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project while substantially lessening or avoiding at least one significant effect of the proposed project. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency's decision - malting body (the City Council) is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other relevant information, in making its decisions on the proposed project. Pursuant to the City's Environmental Review Guidelines, all projects requiring an EIR shall be referred to the City Council for certification of the adequacy of the EIR and a final determination. The Planning Commission shall first consider the DEIR and any comments received and may make recommendations to the City Council on the adequacy of the EIR. The Planning Commission may also request review of the FEIR prior to certification by the City Council. At the April 4, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission formally requested review of the FEIR prior to certification by the City Council. Although the EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that the City Council will make regarding implementation of the proposed project, CEQA requires the City Council to consider the information in the EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect identified in the EIR. If the City Council determines the EIR to be adequate, it will certify the FEIR as complying with CEQA requirements prior to acting on the proposed project and requested entitlements. If the project is expected to have one or more significant environmental effects, and the City Council chooses to go on to approve the proposed project, the City Council must make a "statement of overriding considerations" explaining why the project's economic, social, technological, legal and other benefits outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental effects. Certain other public agencies, known as "responsible agencies ", may be asked to issue approvals or permits required to implement the project. These responsible agencies may also use this EIR in their review and approval processes. The Davidon/Scott Ranch Project DEIR is comprised of following sections: Section 1.0: (Introduction) provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose and scope of topics addressed in the DEIR and the environmental review process. Section 2.0: (Executive Summary) presents a brief description of the proposed project, summarizes environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed project, provides a summary table that denotes anticipated significant environmental impacts, describes identified mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation. In addition, this section also presents a brief description of alternatives to the proposed project and provides a table comparing each of the alternatives to the proposed project. Section 3.0: (Project Description) describes the proposed project, including the requested approvals and entitlements, proposed land uses, on -site parking and circulation, as well as other improvements such as pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and utilities to serve the proposed development. Section 4.0: (Environmental Impact Analysis) describes the environmental and regulatory setting for the project, provides an analysis of the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts. Section 5.0: (Alternatives) summarizes alternatives to the proposed project and the comparative environmental consequences of each alternative. This section includes an analysis of the No Project Alternative, among others, as required by CEQA. A complete copy of the DEIR was delivered to the City Council on March 2, 2017. In order to facilitate a quick understanding of the DEIR's contents and to focus public comment, the Executive Summary is included at Attachment 3. A complete copy has been made available online at cityofpetaluma .net /cdd /major- projects and may also be viewed in person at the City Clerk's Office or Planning Division counter. When reviewing the DEIR, the City Council and public should consider the following framework for providing comments: (1) Consider the adequacy of the DEIR in disclosing the potential impacts of the project and identifying mitigation measures; and (2) Identify any changes, clarifications, or additional information that should be incorporated in the Final EIR for certification. It is recommended that the City Council find that the DEIR adequately discloses potential impacts and identifies mitigation measures. The City Council should also identify changes, clarifications, and additional information to be incorporated in the Final EIR. Comments about the social and economic merits of the project that are not related to its potential environmental impacts and the DEIR (e.g., whether to amend the Petaluma General Plan) should be reserved for a later time when the project's requested entitlements are up for consideration. This is typically 11 on the same meeting as the FEIR is certified. Comments provided on the project's merits will be documented but not responded to in the FEIR unless they are specifically related to a CEQA issue. The public review period for the DEIR.ended on May 1, 2017. The City will provide written responses to all comments on the DEIR received during that period. Comments may be submitted at any time prior to the end of the final City Council hearing on the DEIR on June 19, 2017. Although the City is not required to provide written responses to comments submitted after the close of the public review period, the City has traditionally accepted public comment for consideration in the FEIR through the end of the City Council hearing. As such, oral comments before the Planning Commission (April 4, 2017) and City Council (May 15, 2017) on the DEIR will be transcribed and considered during the FEIR's preparation. At the direction of City Council, staff will initiate preparation of an FEIR, which incorporates the necessary revisions and responses to environmental points raised during the public review period. The FEIR will be considered by the City Council for certification following a meeting for consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Certification of the EIR is required before action may be taken on the project's requested entitlements. However, the requested entitlements may be brought forward for consideration on the same date. While response to each of the public comments received during circulation of the DEIR will be included in the FEIR, the following clarifications may be helpful to the Council's consideration of the environmental analysis. Reference to a recent California Supreme Court case, Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, (2017) 2 Cal5th 918, was made as being relevant to the DEIR for the Davidon project. In Banning, the court cited to Section 21003(a) in CEQA and Section 15124(d)(1)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding the need for lead agencies to consult with other responsible agencies in the preparation of the EIR. The court also emphasized the importance of doing so with regard to the discussion of project alternatives (citing Section 15126.6(a) and (f) of the Guidelines). In Banning, the court concluded that the EIR's omission of any analysis of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) under the Coastal Act, despite ample evidence of ESHAs on the project site, was not reasonable, and the EIR therefore deficient. In its ruling the court noted that reversal is not called for whenever an agency may have failed to integrate its CEQA review with other environmental review procedures to the maximum feasible extent. To be prejudicial, a failure to account for related regulations must substantially impair the EIR's informational function. The City of Petaluma, acting as lead agency, has sought and obtained agency coordination during its review of the project, as summarized below. These efforts have bolstered the information within the EIR, and no responsible agency has, to date, noted failure to account for their related regulations. • August 11, 2004 and August. 25, 2004: Notices sent to responsible agencies for participation in EIR scoping meetings; 5 • February 14, 2013: Notice to State Clearinghouse which includes distribution to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other State agencies; • April 15, 2013: Written comments received from California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board; • November 4, 2014: City staff and applicant met with representatives of Sonoma County Regional Parks and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and conducted a walking tour of the site including the alignment of the offsite trail connecting to Helen Putnam Park; • April 8, 2015: City staff met with representatives of California Department of Fish and Wildlife to receive input on a proposed trail alignment and the red legged frog. California Department of Fish and Wildlife advised against a trail within the Urban Separator and that their input would be to require mitigation for impacts and coordination with other agencies; • March 7, 2016: Email sent by City staff to US Fish and Wildlife Service requesting their input; • April 12, 2016: Email response from US Fish and Wildlife Service received by City staff; • March 2, 2017: Notice of Preparation/Availability sent to State Clearinghouse with subsequent routing to all responsible agencies including California Department Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board and other State agencies; and • March 1, 2017: Notices were sent from City of Petaluma directly to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service and Regional Water Quality Control Board. To date, no comments have been received from either of those agencies. It is also noted that coordination efforts have not concluded and would continue to be carried out, as required by Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, through the response to comments portion of the EIR process. Net density is discussed in the Land Use Chapter of the General Plan as the basis for determining the residential density range allowed in each of the city's land use designations. Net density is defined within the narrative of that chapter as the project site "exclusive of existing and proposed public street and other vehicular rights -of -way from back -of -curb to back -of- curb ". Within the General Plan glossary, the term "Acre, Net" is defined as "the portion of the site that can actually be built upon. Not included in the net acreage of a site are public or private rights -of -way, public open space, and floodways ". While these two definitions vary slightly, the DEIR for the Davidon project uses the more conservative of these two definitions to calculate a net acreage of 44.23 (58.66 gross acres minus public and private rights -of -way, public open space, and floodways). While the General Plan recognizes proposed urban separators as open space areas to buffer agricultural lands from urban lands and provide opportunities for recreation, the General Plan also includes policy that allows for the transfer of development potential of land designated as urban separator (Policy 1- P -16). The net density calculation used in the DEIR includes the 300 -foot urban separator overlay, consistent with General Plan policy. Based on the net acreage of the site and the Residential Very Low Density land use designation of the site, the property's allowable density is between 26 and 110 residential units. The proposed project, both Alternative A with 66 units and I Alternative B with 63 units fall within this range, with proposed density at 1.49 and 1.42 respectively. The importance of the City's Urban Growth Boundary is a critical component in the General Plan in terms of both maintaining visual separation between Petaluma and neighboring communities and in focusing growth within the Urban Growth Boundary to discourage sprawl and maintain the desired buffer at the edge of town. There are a variety of policies within the General Plan that touch on this topic (1 -P -33, 1 -P -35, 1 -P -36, 1 -P -29, 1 -P -18, 1 -P -19, 1 -P -20, 1- P-1, 1 -P -2). The General Plan also directly addresses the density ranges outlined in the General Plan land use designations both by allowing very limited exception to minimum density (1 -P -4) (none of which appear to apply specifically to the Davidon project) and by clearly stating the "the city does not guarantee that any individual project will be permitted to achieve the maximum densities shown on the Land Use Map" (1- P -28). There have been several comments received that maintain that the DEIR is inadequate due to an unclear project description and the fact that mitigation measures laid out within the analysis of the DEIR result in modification to the project description and therefore the project description is not complete or secure for purposes of the environmental analysis. The project description within a CEQA document is an outline of the actions being proposed by the applicant, including both on and offsite improvements. The project description should contain adequate information to facilitate a meaningful assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The importance of a stable project description is directly tied to the ability to accurately evaluate the potential environmental impacts. It is anticipated that every exact detail may not be possible and it is inevitable that some changes to the project description will occur, especially for complex projects. It is important that the project description hits the right balance between enough but not too much detail and when assumptions must be made that those assumptions be conservative to avoid changes that would impact the findings of the environmental analysis. The fact that a mitigation may require reduction in the overall number of lots or variation to a fence line to provide greater buffer does not invalidate the project description. The project description is an outline of the project as proposed by the applicant. Changes to the project through the environmental and discretionary review project may modify the ultimate project to avoid environmental impacts or better respond to policy discussion within a community. If the ultimate approved project does not create additional significant impacts, the original environmental analysis would provide the more conservative analysis to support the ultimate approval of the project. Another commonality between several public comments received to date on the DEIR involves the proposed public parking lot along D Street and partially within the 300 -foot Urban Separator. The southern property boundary of the project site is concurrent with the Urban Growth Boundary. An area running generally parallel and 300 feet inside of the property line/Urban Growth Boundary is designated Urban Separator in the General Plan land use map and is further described as including "open space lands within and /or directly adjacent to the Urban Growth 7 Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development, as designated by the City of Petaluma. 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. On lands with development potential, the Urban Separator allows transferability of development potential to the remaining portion of the same property." Chapter 6 of the General Plan (Recreation, Music, Parks, & the Arts) also touches on Urban Separators and identifies the Davidon property as being a proposed urban separator where parcel size allows for fee title dedication of land to the City. Policy 6 -P -12 directs location of recreational uses (e.g. trails, athletic fields, picnic areas, etc.) in the urban separator on the east and west side of the city, taking into account terrain, accessibility links to other parts of the city and related factors in determining whether or not a particular use is appropriate ". Project plans include a public parking facility that overlaps with the Urban Separator closest to D Street. The parking area was included in the project in response to a request from Sonoma County Regional Parks and to resolve parking conflicts with Helen Putnam park users in the surrounding neighborhoods. The location of the parking lot as currently proposed was chosen for ease of access, topography, and proximity to the trailhead and new public access through the project site and into Helen Putnam. The policies regarding the Urban Separator do not preclude development of this type within the Urban Separator and in fact Policy 6 -P -12 provides flexibility for the City Council to determine the appropriateness of trailhead parking within the Urban Separator specific to this property. There has been similar development for public amenity completed in the Urban Separator in Petaluma. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The processing of the entitlements is subject to a cost recovery account with all staff time paid by the applicant. That cost recovery account currently maintains a positive balance. Additionally, the City has entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Impact Sciences to prepare the EIR with a budget of $379,160. All costs associated with preparation of the EIR are paid for by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Meeting Transcript, April 4, 2017 2. Comment Letters Received to Date 3. Draft EIR — Executive Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND COMMENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED DAVIDON /SCOTT RANCH PROJECT - -- 000 - -- Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Petaluma City Hall 11 English Street Petaluma, California FILE NO.: 03 -TSM -0396 REPORTED BY: DEBORAH FUQUA, CSR #12948 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION DIANA GOMEZ, Chair RICHARD MARZO, Vice Chair JENNIFER PIERRE, Commissioner GINA BENEDETTI- PETNIC, Commissioner BILL WOLPERT, Commissioner CHRIS ALBERTSON, Council Liaison HEATHER HINES, Staff Liaison, Planning Manager PETALUMA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LISA TENNENBAUM, Deputy City Attorney PETALUMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALICIA GIUDICE, Senior Planner ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT DR. SHABNAM BARATI, Impact Sciences, Principal ANGELA PAN, Impact Sciences, Project Planner DAVIDON HOMES, (applicant) STEVE ABBS - -- 000 - -- 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC COMMENT PAGE STEVE ABBS ..................... 4 BRIAN GAFFNEY .................. 13 SHERRI FABRE MARCIA............ 18 CHRIS CORT ..................... 25 SUSAN JADERSTROM ............... 26 SIGRUN SEIFERT ................. 28 JOSEPH GRUBAUGH ................ 30 TAMARA GALANTER................ 32 GREG COLVIN .................... 39 MAGGIE JENSEN .................. 46 PETER COHN ..................... 51 MARCIA JOYNT ................... 53 PAUL SCHARFE ................... 56 JEFFREY WEISS .................. 57 LYDIA SCHINDLER ................ 60 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:55 p.m. --- 000 - -- PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIR GOMEZ: I understand that the applicant is here and would like to have a comment. Yes, can you come forward, sir? And if you could announce your name for us. STEVE ABBS: Hi. Good evening. Steve Abbs with Davidon Homes. I'm understanding that I get a limited amount of time here tonight? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: We can't hear. STEVE ABBS: I'm sorry. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. Yes. STEVE ABBS: Okay. CHAIR GOMEZ: We're asking you limit the comments to what you wanted us to know. STEVE ABBS: Okay. Sure. CHAIR GOMEZ: And of course, you have an opportunity to add written comments as well. We don't want to table you, but as you can see, there's a lot of people that want to speak. STEVE ABBS: Understood. I understand. Well, thank you and good evening, Chair Gomez, Members of the Commission. I'm Steve Abbs from Davidon Homes, and it's a pleasure to be here tonight. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jeff Thayer, my predecessor who had worked on this project for several years and met many of the neighbors, many regulators, and worked closely with the Sonoma County Parks District, has retired, and I am the lucky inheritor of this project. So I look forward to working with the City and implementing the vision that the City has for this property in regards to housing, open space, parks and the trail system. I would like to thank you guys for your time that you already spent in reviewing this lengthy document and also thank you for the time -- it looks like we're going to be here for some time tonight, so. This is a big milestone, for us to be here. As you know, the City General Plan calls for housing on this 58 -acre property with densities of 0.6 to 2.5 units per acre. We originally started with a 104 -unit project. That was,our original submittal. And then in 2004, that was reduced to 93 lots when our application was deemed complete. You know, during that EIR process, the original EIR process, Davidon had some extensive conversations, discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game, and they supported a 66 -lot alternative. And so the 2013 Draft 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 studied both the 93 -lot application and the 66 -lot alternative, but did it in a way where Planning Commission, Council, and the public were very confused. So even though that the Planning Commission and Council went ahead and voted for that Draft to continue to the Final EIR, Davidon was concerned with that confusion, and we weren't confident that it can be addressed in the Final EIR. So in addition, at the 2013 Council hearing, we learned that there was some interest in considering two different approaches to the Red Barn complex; one, leaving the large red barn and its accessory structures in place, and a second one of relocating just the large barn to the south side of the creek up on higher ground. In discussions with staff, it was concluded that this revised Draft EIR would eliminate the study of the 93 -lot plan. It only focused on the barn options. And that would provide a much more clear document and more useful for the public and for decision makers to review. And so four years later, here we are and -- with the City releasing the Revised Draft EIR. And we find this Revised Draft EIR very well written. It's clear; it's comprehensive; and staff and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the EIR consultant has done a very thorough job with it. And we'd just like to thank them for their efforts. And we urge tonight, Planning Commission, to recommend authorization for the staff to move forward with the Final EIR. The current project proposal includes 66 -lot Option A and the 63 -lot Option B. We believe these are well- designed projects -- or plans. And they meet and exceed the General Plan's mandate for housing, for wildlife corridors, a public park, a parking lot, and trails to the Helen Putnam Park. In addition, they give the decision makers the option of what to do with the Red Barns. So we are excited about this application, and we look forward to this entitlement process. So we will be submitting some written comments, but that's all I have for tonight. I just want to thank you for your time. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. Any burning questions? (No response) CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Thank you. Then we're going to move on to public comment. And I wanted to read something. Thank you all for 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 being very respectful. I appreciate that. We all appreciate that. I know now, as we all talk about what's happening, it might get a little emotional. So I wanted to read something to make sure we're all on the same page with public comment. If you want to speak, there's a speaker card. I have a number of them. If you have not filled one out, please fill one out and pass it to our clerk that's sitting over here in the corner so that I can get it. If you don't have a speaker card, I can't let you speak. So please get that if you have not done so. You will be limited to three minutes of public comment. When the buzzer sounds and the light flashes, which is in front of you on the speaker podium, you may finish your sentence -- that was quite an entrance or an exit. Congratulations. So when the buzzer sounds and the light flashes, which is right up here at the speaker podium, you may finish your sentence, but you will not be allowed to go beyond that. Up to two members of the public may cede their time to a third so that the third speaker has nine minutes total of public comment. I will call -- when I call everybody up, I'll call the speaker and the second person; the second 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 person have a seat here in the empty chair. That way, we can just keep the process rolling so we don't have to wait for someone to come up from the back. And that always makes this go a little more smooth. If what you want to say has already been said, you do not need to repeat it. We all are listening very closely, believe me. It's all being recorded. You can say you agree with or concur with somebody else; you can say, "Yes, everything that the gentleman five ahead of me said, I absolutely 100 percent oppose" or "support," whatever the case may be, and move on, if you want to, without adding or -- so you can add some new things. And just again, a reminder that this meeting is to seek and provide comments on the Draft EIR in terms of whether that -- this document, this big thick document in front of us, adequately identifies the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Tonight's meeting is not for discussion of the merits, whether or not you like the houses or they're ugly or whatever the case may be. That doesn't address the environmental impacts in the document. That's what this is all about tonight. That opportunity you will have at another time if this goes on and gets passed. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So please focus your comments on that. Tonight's meeting is not to answer comments or questions on the Dr.aft EIR and associated environmental impacts identified. So we will not be answering questions. This is for your comments, for you to let your comments be known to us. We just don't have time to answer your questions. But we may incorporate some of your comments into our questions later of the applicant and staff. Just so you know, that oftentimes happens at these meetings. We hear what you say, and we will answer and get answered a lot of those questions, hopefully. All comments received by members of the public and the Planning Commission will become part of the Final EIR, so they.will be included in the final document and will be addressed in that document which the public will then have a chance to review and comment on at a to -be- determined meeting which will be noticed as required by law, just like this meeting tonight was noticed. So this -- your comments will be noted, recorded, put in the package, and you can -- you can see that, and you'll have a chance to comment again when this comes up in front of other bodies. All CEQA- related comments will be included in the Final EIR and be appropriately responded to in that 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 document, meaning, if you say something about the environmental impact, the final document's going to have.that comment, and then they're going to answer that question in that final document. So those questions will be answered, not tonight but in the next stage. So rest assured, if your comments have weight, have merit, have impact, they will be answered in that final document. So, and finally, you have all been very respectful. I appreciate that. I know you will continue to be respectful of each of the speakers. And with that, thank you very much for being here. And we all are waiting for your comments. So I'm going to be calling. -- okay. First up will be Sharon Risedorph and followed by -- oh, I'm sorry -- Brian Gaffney. So Sharon Risedorph followed by Brian Gaffney. Okay. Is that Sharon? SHARON RISEDORPH: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: Are you wishing to cede your time? to? SHARON RISEDORPH: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: And who are you ceding your time SHERRI FABRE MARCIA: She's ceding her time to 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sherri Fabre Marcia, when I'm speaking. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. So remind me when I call your name that this time was ceded, and I'll keep it in front of me. Okay? All right. So then we'll have Brian Gaffney, whose time I believe is ceded by Tom Joynt? I have a list here, so I'm trying to -- is that correct? SHERRI FABRE MARCIA: Tom Joynt is ceding his time to Brian Gaffney. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. So Brian -- and you are -- BRIAN GAFFNEY: Brian Gaffney. CHAIR GOMEZ: So Tom Joynt -- that's what I thought I said. Okay. Okay. So it's very complicated. It's like a spreadsheet that I have, believe me. So Tom Joynt is ceding his time to Brian Gaffney and then followed by Chey Moore, who's ceding his time or her time -- I'm sorry if I missed that -- to Sherri Fabre Marcia. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. CHAIR GOMEZ: And I'm sorry if I butchered that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. CHAIR GOMEZ: So if you could come up to the 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second speaker chair, that's how we're going to roll. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But I'm ceding my time to Sherri. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Well, on my -- just so you all know, on my spreadsheet, those two, first two, are reversed. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Sorry about that. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. It's not me. And then somebody is ceding -- just to get it clearer. So, Sherri, your time is also being ceded by Sharon. SHERRI FABRE MARCIA: Two people? CHAIR GOMEZ: Two people. Okay. So you get nine minutes, and you get three -- or six. SHERRI FABRE MARCIA: Six. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. All right. Thank you. Now that we have all that done -- okay. So Mr. Gaffney gets six minutes. BRIAN GAFFNEY: Commissioners, Planning Staff, Brian Gaffney for Petalumans for Responsible Planning, a local organization concerned about thorough environmental review. As a preliminary matter, we would urge you not to recommend preparation of a Final EIR at this point 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and not to make a recommendation that the Draft EIR is adequate. And the reason for that is that it's premature. You don't have all of the comments from the public and you won't until May 1st. Secondly, the Draft EIR is inadequate. Excuse me. I'd like to go to the significant and unavoidable impacts that the EIR consultant mentioned. Those were aesthetic impacts from moving the barn, biological and land use impacts from the parking lot within the D Street tributary, and cumulative impacts at two intersections, D and Windsor, during the afternoon, and D and Lake Street [sic] in the morning and the afternoon. There's two other significant and unavoidable impacts that were mentioned in the 2013 EIR which deserve consideration which aren't explained in this EIR as to why the same conclusion wasn't met. And one had to do with construction - related noise and vibration, which the 2013 found was significant and unavoidable from steady jackhammers over a 39 -month period and vibrations within 50 feet of the closest homes. And the 2013 EIR also found significant and unavoidable impacts from greenhouse gas emissions. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, this is important because there's a CEQA guideline, 15042, that says that a city may disapprove a project if there are significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved, and here already you have that evidence in front of you from the Draft EIR. So you have that authority under CEQA. I'd like to turn to some of the inadequacies in the EIR. One thing that was a glaring thing for me, had to do with the parking lot. Now, the parking lot has been identified as significant and unavoidable because it's within 50 feet of the D Street tributary, but it also appears to be within the urban separator. There's two policies in the General Plan, P -- 1 -P -18 and 1 -P -20. And they talk about an urban separator that's a minimum of 300 feet. The project description says that's maintained here, but the parking lot is within those 300 feet. And that's within Option A, B, and the 47 -lot and the 28 -lot alternative. But in addition within the urban separator, it's also inconsistent -- this project is also inconsistent with those because there's going to be substantial grading with eight- foot -high benches, retaining walls, a cut slope, quote, "extending up to 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 feet into the proposed urban separator and drainage improvements consisting of concrete ditches which will extend almost 1,000 feet at the top of the slope." So there's an impact that shows an inconsistency with the City's General Plan that hasn't been honestly evaluated. A few other issues that I'd like to bring to your attention, there was some discussion of cumulative impacts, cumulative impacts having a consideration of the project with projects in the pipeline. But the definition for cumulative impacts has to do with consideration of the project in consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable. So it appears this EIR is flawed because it left out that "past" part. There was a case that went to the California Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court said, "To assess the incremental effects of an individual project in connection with the effects of past,projects signifies an obligation to consider the present project in the context of a realistic historical account of relevant prior activities that have significant environmental effects." And that hasn't happened here. I'd also like to bring your attention, when you have a chance, go and look at Mitigation 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Measure -1B. Now, there it talks about a whole bunch of changes that are supposed to be made to the project but doesn't explain exactly what those changes will mean on the ground. And in legal terms, we call that an impermissible deferral of a mitigation. And those have to do with lots that will be moved and eliminated, and the mitigation is very vague about it. And it can't be. One last thing I wanted to bring to your attention -- I know I'm getting close to the six minutes -- has to do with the frog analysis. We know there's loss of foraging, habitat, and dispersal. But the EIR is supposed to work in this way: It says whether or not an impact is significant, then discusses mitigation. Only with an honest evaluation of significance can there be an honest evaluation of mitigation. Here, for the frog, the EIR talks about a proposed wetland mitigation program, and then says that it will be insignificant in consideration of that. And that's the improper way to approach it. There's more comments we'll make in writing, but I wanted to bring those issues to your attention today. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you so much. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. So the next speaker will be Sherri Marcia. And she is given nine minutes because her time is being ceded by Chey Moore and Sharon Risedorph. And the speaker beyond that will be Chris Cort. SHERRI FABRE MARCIA: Good evening. My name is Sherri Fabre Marcia, and I am president of Petalumans for Responsible Planning. First of all, I would like to say that I'm a proud citizen of Petaluma, and I've lived here for over 23 years. Regarding our open space, all the parks in our town are special, but my favorite is Helen Putnam Park. I walk in the park every day or evening, and I enjoy seeing people of all ages out in the park enjoying the beautiful vistas or riding their mountain bikes or sometimes riding their horses, which is extra special. There is a proposal in front of you to build 63 to 66 luxury 51 -- luxury 1- to $2 million homes at the last pristine gateway to Petaluma located at Windsor and D Street. Over the past 12 years, our group has willingly spent our time attending Planning and City Council meetings in discussion of the new General Plan for our city, submitting public comments about the geographic area and its designation, giving input into 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Hillside ordinance, and working collectively to continue the beauty and the importance [sic] that we know as Petaluma and how vital the planning session was. So many members of our community came together, and the 2025 General Plan was adopted to represent the needs and the goals of our community. In 2006, an anonymous donor gave $1 million as a start to purchase the 58 acres next to Helen Putnam Park. We have spoken to Sonoma County Open Space and the Sonoma County Regional Parks persons, and some Sonoma County Supervisors trying to get the right people together to make our ideas a reality. Several years ago, I attended a very interesting meeting with the developer's agent at that time and their contact, a former City Council Member from the 1980s. They were not willing to open any discussions on alternative plans to their development such as giving a large parcel of usable land to open space for the enjoyment of the community, adding more walking trails to connect to Helen Putnam Park with less homes on sensitive areas, greater setbacks from Kelly Creek, and protection of the Red Barns. This meeting showed that the developer wasn't necessarily interested in considering a feasible 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compromise. In the past,.we have worked with the Bay Institute, holding our funds, and are currently working with Sonoma Land Trust, who is holding the $1 million anonymous donation. This money, along with other future funds, can be used to convert this site to parkland for the enjoyment of the public. We also submitted public comments at City meetings stating that Davidon's last DEIR was deficient, which in part helped to slow the project until a new DEIR for the property was completed. So we waited; the City waited; and now it's here. Petalumans For Responsible Planning now oppose any development on this property. Many in our community have shared the following thoughts and observations with our group and have written letters. They feel that we've now exceeded thresholds for safe traffic flow on our crumbling streets located in the southwest part of our city. Even though the DEIR does not acknowledge this truth, the residents are living the truth. They've experienced downstream flooding on their property from prior developments over the last 30 -plus years. Landslides and slope instability? Guess what. Victoria residents paid for that several times. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is an environmentally sensitive area with an endangered species, the red - legged frog. And any building would destroy all the areas near the pond and the stream -side habitat. The infrastructure alterations required to build homes on this property would destroy the visual beauty. The removal of the woodland trees and natural landscape would destroy existing wildlife corridors. We know that any project on this property would increase greenhouse gas emissions with added homes and cars. We live here. And it would increase light and noise pollution in a portion of the southwest Petaluma corridor. And it would not improve the quality of life for the people or the wildlife. Developing this property with luxury housing will do nothing to alleviate the affordable housing shortage in Petaluma. According to prior conversations with the developer, these homes will be selling, as I said, for 1- to $2 million. Many who are moving to Petaluma or adult children of Petaluma residents, they will not be able to afford them. This development does not address the concerns The community deserves better. Remember, for the last 40 years, Petalumans 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have consistently been against land development in this area. We believe that, as a group of concerned members of our community, we have the responsibility to file public comments and guide the Planning Commission and the City Council in their decision - making processes. For the future of the land and resident animal species and for the future generations of Petalumans, our community deserves a better solution. I love science. And I've really enjoyed looking.at the three volumes of the DEIR. And I'm still going through it. I think it's a really interesting document. And there's a lot of thought, but I have some concerns. And just jumping around, Section 4 -12 6 [sic], under the proposals of 66 homes, they came up with a number of 628 car tips. And under proposal of 63 homes, 600 car trips. I know that this is an underestimation, since I've raised two children and I know what daily automobile trips I certainly made. There was school drop -off and pick -up, then working in the classroom. Then twice a week -- in the classroom. Then I was still working in my career. Then I'd go shopping. I'd have business trips. Then I'd have after- school enrichment. Then I'd have after - school sports practices. Then I'd have play dates. And then, 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if you add teens that now are of driving age, you could increase it. And the size of the homes, I didn't see anything in the DEIR what numbers of cars per home do they project. I'm still looking, though. Maybe it's there. I'm confused regarding Section 4 -12 -44 in Volume 2. It talks about if our city does not have a congestion management program -- called a "CMP" -- in the development of a proposed project, it can't have a conflict. Really? Is this because there's just no language or comparison? In Volume 1, Pages 3.010 to 11, the General Plan amendment, whereby the private sector, to meet their financial goals for their investors, they now want to amend the policies. But what about the values that the citizens worked so hard on the General Plan? The developer wants to change the intent and not just the verbiage to satisfy their project and ideas. But I don't believe the citizens of Petaluma had any intent -- on all the meetings we went to and giving the input and making comments to our City officials -- thought that granting future developers of any project around town was actually giving a pass. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I really have a problem with the setbacks from Kelly Creek. The 100 feet is not measured from the banks of creek, but instead, as we saw on the slide, they want to measure from the center line of the creek. In Volume I, Section 2.06, when talking about the Regional Park Trail, "While there is" -- it says, "While there is no guarantee that the Regional Park Trail would be constructed, however with the access provided by the project site multi -use trails between D Street and the eastern boundary of the Regional Park, the probability that the Regional Park Trail would be constructed would increase." That's a lot of guesswork. There's no guarantees. In looking at the City of Petaluma's identification of housing needs which specifically addresses the need for affordable housing, this project price point will not be helpful, except to Davidon Company. Thank you very much. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you very much. All right. So I think we'll just hold the applause because we have the applause, and I have to wait to call the speaker up, and imagine doing that 30 times. It's okay. You get the hint. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. So we have Chris Cort followed by Susan Jaderstrom. And Chris Cort is being ceded his time by Julie Cort, so six minutes. CHRIS CORT: Good evening. My name is Chris Cort, and I'm with Petalumans For Responsible Planning. We have a short video that we'd like to present to you tonight that addresses some of the issues we feel are germane to the DEIR. So we'll go ahead. CHAIR GOMEZ: Can we dim those lights? Thank you. (Whereupon, a video was shown.) CHAIR GOMEZ: Is that it? Just you were going to present the video? CHRIS CORT: (Nods head affirmatively) CHAIR GOMEZ: And does staff have a copy of the video? CHRIS CORT: Yes. Thank you very much for your time this evening. We appreciate it. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. And just, Madam Reporter, you did not record -- you did not transcribe that; is that correct? THE REPORTER: Correct. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Thank you. All right. So the next speaker then will be Susan 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jaderstrom, followed by Joe, Sigrun -- Joe Sigrun [sic] . SUSAN JADERSTROM: My name is Susan Jaderstrom, and I'm a member of Petalumans For Responsible Planning. I've lived in Petaluma for over 30 years. We created a petition on March 12th. And this is a petition that you should have received. Did you? CHAIR GOMEZ: Mm -hmm. SUSAN JADERSTROM: And in two weeks, 486 people signed the petition. Many of those people are here today. Instead of reading the petition, I'm just going to highlight parts of it. Looks like this. And there are -- the first sentence is, "There are certain places in Petaluma that are so beautiful in their natural state and so environmentally sensitive they should not come under the bulldozer." It goes on to talk about the 63 luxury homes, how we've been fighting this project for 13 years. Then we -- we focus in on the significant severe impacts, which are worsening traffic and the destruction of the California red - legged frog habitat. And we're calling on you to find a way to preserve this land as an extension of Helen Putnam Park 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for future generations. People had the option of the commenting on the petition. And many people do. And I'm representing the public with their unedited comments about how they feel about this development. It -- the comments are broken down in about four major categories. Number one is traffic. And there were many comments about traffic. People wonder how the current unacceptable traffic today can possibly be mitigated with the addition of new homes which will generate even more traffic. And as you can -- as you will hear from others, the traffic studies are dated and flawed in this DEIR. The second general comment that people make is how beautiful the land is and how it gives a glimpse of the old Petaluma at its best. People used words like the land should be saved for future generations, it's one of nature's jewels, it's an irreplaceable treasure, and it's what makes Petaluma one of the best places to live. Number three, people want this land to be part of Helen Putnam Park. People talk-about how they want to improve the open space in our community. And the fourth general comment is about an out -of -town developer and how a developer can come into 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 town and destroy one of the most beautiful places in Petaluma for a financial gain for people who don't live here. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. SUSAN JADERSTROM: I'll just -- okay. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. Okay. Next speaker will be Sigrun Seifert, followed by Joseph -- boy, you guys are killing me with your names. JOSEPH GRUBAUGH: Grubaugh. CHAIR GOMEZ: Grubaugh, thank you. So Sigrun Seifert, followed by Joseph Grubaugh. SIGRUN SEIFERT: I was wondering why you couldn't pronounce the name. CHAIR GOMEZ: Because this said "Joe" and -- "Joe Sigrun." SIGRUN SEIFERT: Okay. My name is Sigrun Seifert, and I've been living here since 1980. And my property is bisected by Kelly Creek. And some years ago, I discovered in my -- on my property, a red - legged frog. And one of the people that were here before with the DEIR, I gave a picture to. We are on Kelly Creek. We are part of the II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corridor of wildlife. And knowing that there is also the red - legged frog on the property, we feel that it should be more protected because, looking at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says that Petaluma, the segment of SON -3, is -- the unit is essential for the colonization of the species because it provides for connectivity between populations farther west in the North Bay and contains high - quality habitat. So any building within that vicinity would really disturb the development of these animals. And when people talk about mitigation, I find that usually what means "mitigation" is this horrible word called "extirpation," extirpate, which is in effect a place to destroy, eradicate, stamp out, or root out the animals where they are right now and then move them to another location and spend money there to be -- giving them their habitat somewhere else away from this place. I'm not sure that's done here, too, but any -- any impact of building will be part of a destruction of habitat. And so we hope that that will not happen and we leave the animals where they are and hope we can extend Helen Putnam Park so they can continue to live in Petaluma. That's it. Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you very much. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Joseph, followed by Tamara Galanter. JOSEPH GRUBAUGH: I'm Joseph Grubaugh, also with Petalumans For Responsible Planning. We live -- this is my wife that just spoke. I live quite downstream on Kelly Creek between Sunnyslope and F. Again, we were bisected by the creek, and our backyard is listed as a private creek at that point. It's been polluted since the advent of Victoria. We used to have chorus frogs in our back that were -- we just -- we couldn't stop hearing them. They were so loud. And you can hear them now about 40 yards or so across the street from us. They're dead now in our part of the creek. This is the kind of thing that happens with development, that you don't think about the people downstream. The east side of town is made with two -lane boulevards. We've got D Street. Also, when we don't have D Street, we have Sunnyslope Avenue, which wasn't mentioned in the DEIR. It was just an intersection there. But when people get there, they rip down Sunnyslope if it's crowded. And it's just one drip, drip, drip of traffic in an area that was designed in, what, 1880, something like that, D Street, 1880, 1850 - something. It's just not made for more and more 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and more. And yet we keep -- I guess there are laws that says that a developer can come in and do what they want. The City expands, keeps expanding its -- its zoning to allow for things like that. It's too bad that somebody -- people from Davidon don't look at this and say, "Oh, that's a community. Maybe we can do something else somewhere else if there's enough people that are against it." But so far, Davidon's been very uncooperative with not even wanting to meet with us. We met with Mr. Thayer a number of times. You're not Mr. Thayer, of course, but as you see, you got his -- but it's -- yeah. It's just -- it just keeps building and keeps building. It's too much. It's just too much. I hate to get so emotional about it, but we've lived here for 37 years. We've seen our property devalued by it, by all of the -- you know, and again, it's -- there's now -- it's not Kelly Creek anymore where w.e are; it's Kelly Ditch. And it's the same way between 12th Street and Eighth Street. It's crumbling infrastructure along there, and yet more water is going to be added to that, more quick drainage, a real bad idea. Unless you fix 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 everything that's there before you put something in that's new, I think it's really irresponsible. So thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. The next speaker is Tamara Galanter. And I understand -- is Sue Davy here? And you're ceding your time? And also Pam Appell, are you here? PAM APPELL: Yes, and I'm ceding my time. CHAIR GOMEZ: And you're ceding your time? PAM APPELL: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: So Ms. Galanter, you have nine minutes. Thank you. TAMARA GALANTER: Good evening, Chairperson Gomez and Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tamara Galanter. I'm a partner at the environmental law firm of Shute, Milhaly & Weinberger in San Francisco. And for over 28 years, I have represented community and environmental groups and public agencies on land use matters including CEQA. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Kelly Creek Protection Project of the Earth Island Institute. And based on our firm's preliminary review of the Draft EIR, we have concluded that the EIR violates CEQA in numerous respects. And we'll be submitting 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 detailed comments about this. But what I'd like to highlight tonight for you description, and the other concerns the analysis of biological impacts. I think one of the most fundamental problems with the EIR is the EIR's project description. As many of you probably know, CEQA requires that an EIR describe a proposed project with sufficient detail and accuracy not only to permit informed decision making but also a meaningful analysis of the project impacts. Under CEQA, the project must be -- description must be finite, accurate, and stable. And here we have an EIR that meets none of these CEQA standards. The Draft EIR's project description states that the project would develop the site with between 63 and 66 homes. But if one reviews the environmental analysis chapters, it is clear there is simply no way the site can support this amount of development. In fact, it seems the EIR preparers were faced with really an impossible task because they have tried to analyze the effects of a project that is in a constant state of flux due entirely to the fact that the site is too ecologically sensitive to support extensive development. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I want to give you all a few examples. So in order to develop the project, the applicant seeks a General Plan amendment, as the consultants described, to revise Policy 2 -P -68, which, as you know, includes critical protections for Kelly Creek and its But even with this amendment, the project EIR finds that the project would still be inconsistent with the General Plan. And to avoid this inconsistency and to protect Kelly Creek's biological values as the General Plan requires, the EIR admits the project would have to be modified to eliminate or relocate a minimum of eight lots. Then, to comply with General Plan Policy 4 -P -1, which seeks to protect and enhance the Petaluma River by requiring setbacks from the river's tributaries, the EIR admits that the project would have to be modified to eliminate another two lots. Then we have mitigation measures that are needed to address the project's extensive biological impacts. And these require the elimination of yet another two lots located east of the stock pond. So by all counts, even if the General Plan is amended, the project would have to be modified to eliminate up to 12 lots. Now, these aren't little 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 superficial tweaks to the project descriptions. Rather, they are major changes and modifications to the project. And this is only the beginning because, once the EIR accurately takes into account site constraints such as the flooding, drainage, and unstable slopes, the number of units will likely have to be reduced even further. In the end, we read the EIR, and we don't know what the project is. We don't know how many homes will be built or where those homes will be. Now, the Draft EIR's environmental impact analysis fares no better. From an ecological perspective, the site's most important resource is the California red - legged frog. And as some of you may recall if you were here in 2013, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was sharply critical of the 2013 EIR's analysis of the impacts on the frog and its critical habitat. And the agency actually provided a very helpful step -by -step tutorial for preparing an adequate analysis. Now, despite the passage of four years to resolve the deficiency, this EIR does not follow the resource agency responsible for regulation of endangered and protected species and does not accurately analyze the impacts of the frog. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The documentation of the status of the frog on the project site is still mostly based on information that was originally gathered in 2003 and 2005. This is more than 12 years ago. Because the information is so out of date, new surveys need to be conducted and the site conditions need to be reassessed before the EIR preparers can even begin to evaluate the project's impact on the frog and its critical habitat. Our client has retained a renowned herpetologist to evaluate the project's implications for the frog. We don't have a final report, but we do have his preliminary findings. And they confirm, one, that the site is simply too ecologically valuable to support extensive development; and, two, the EIR does not begin to address the severity of these impacts. The majority of the site is within one of only three remaining small critical habitat units within the entire county. And this is information that the EIR does not even acknowledge. Furthermore, it is doubtful the impacts to the.frog can be mitigated even with replacement habitats because there's not sufficient mitigation habitat acreage available in Sonoma County. But the DEIR's flawed analysis of biological impacts isn't limited to the frog. Our herpetologist has looked at the site, analyzed the documents, and 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concluded that the site provides habitat for the western pond turtle, which is a California species of Despite this, the EIR includes no focused surveys for this species. And the herpetologist has concluded its presence on the project site is highly likely given the numerous riparian areas, including the stock pond. In sum, today's staff report to the Commission calls for the Commission to recommend that staff move forward with preparation of a Final EIR. This is premature for two reasons. First, before making any such recommendation, the Planning Commission must have the benefit of the public's comments on the Draft EIR at least through the public comment period. And secondly, the Planning Commission should not find this document adequate and recommend a Final EIR. It should not waste any more time on an inadequate EIR until there are new biological studies for both the red - legged frog and the western pond turtle and there is a clear project description so the EIR can actually analyze whatever the project will be with the actual number and location of homes that will be constructed on the property. The magnitude of the flaws in the Draft EIR 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make it clear that this project has not been designed in consideration of the site's environmental constraints. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you very much. Our next speaker will be Greg Colvin followed by -- oh, I'm sorry. Greg Colvin? GREG COLVIN: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: Hi, Mr. Colvin. And is Jerry Beene here? JERRY BEENE: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: And Mr. Beene, you're ceding your time to Mr. Colvin? JERRY BEENE: I am. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. And then following Greg Colvin will be Maggie Jensen. KATHLEEN BILLINGS: Can I give my time to Greg? CHAIR GOMEZ: What's your name, ma'am? KATHLEEN BILLINGS: Kathleen Billings. CHAIR GOMEZ: I've got to -- I've got to find you. Yes, you can. Did you fill out a speaker card? KATHLEEN BILLINGS: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: So I found you. So -- and 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kathleen Billinger [sic] will also cede her time to Mr. Colvin. So, Mr. Colvin, you will get nine minutes. Thank you. GREG COLVIN: Thank you very much, Commissioners. My name is Greg Colvin. I am the director of.the Kelly Creek Protection Project. I've been working with Tamara Galanter to prepare presentations here for you. I'm also connected to the Petalumans For Responsible Planning, but my main participation at this present time is with the Project. This, of course, is the land that you have already viewed with the presentation from the EIR consultants. One of the things you should keep in mind always is that it looks flat, but it's not. And, in fact, I think one of the values of seeing the video was to see how steep those hills are and how much contour topography you have to work with. The other word that you will not find in the EIR is the word "beautiful." I don't know how you can write pages and pages on aesthetics and never use the word "beautiful," but it is. I also want to point out that there's not just one creek here of substantial volume but two. One is 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kelly Creek, which runs from D Street there to the west, with the tree line. The other is what's called the D Street Tributary, which runs up D Street to the top of the hill and contains just as much water as Kelly Creek does. CHAIR GOMEZ: There may be a pointer. Maybe that would be -- great. GREG COLVIN: Yes. This is Kelly Creek here; this is the D Street Tributary running up here [indicating]. That's the tributary that they would like you to ignore by eliminating the word "tributary" from the General Plan. Also, this is a unique piece of natural land because it's only a 15- minute walk from the Post Office. It's not as far away as Lafferty or Tolay. There are three elementary schools within walking distance, the junior high, and the high school. When we talk about creatures on the land, we're not just talking about the fact that there's some non -human species that need to be regarded with care. We're also saying, you know, this is a place where you could actually experience the existence of these animals if it were developed as a natural study area with educational elements to it. I think you've seen this before, too 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [indicating]. There are many overlapping constraints here -- biology, hydrology, urban separator. And they are, for the most part, concentrated at the creek, Kelly Creek, and below the creek. And I'll have more to say about that. This, I think, is an important overlay because it shows the four areas that the Davidon development would include. And then there's a red line that runs this way [indicating]. This is the northern tip of what's called SON -3, declared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2010 as a critical habitat corridor allowing the frog to move from one part of Sonoma County to another. It is, as I'll show you in a moment -- well, no. Before I get to that, I just want to help people understand what these four different locations are. This is the knoll below Oxford. It is a hundred feet from top to bottom and very steep. And we have a hillside ordinance that requires compliance that needs to be seriously evaluated in this particular site. Then up here, north of Windsor, is a ridge with neighbors -- in this area here, on B Street and Victoria -- who've experienced flooding in their backyards. Even at the top of a ridge, the water just comes pouring out of the gopher holes during 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rainstorms. That also needs to be evaluated. This area here, at Windsor and D, this is the pasture in front of the Red Barn. None of the scenic views that were shown, from an aesthetic point of view, gave you the perspective of what it looks like to walk or drive on Windsor right here [indicating] and look at the Red Barn and see the cows in the pasture and see what would happen if there were 11 or 8 homes built here. It would destroy the gateway. Then, finally, below the red line in the frog habitat in the most environmentally sensitive area and, as I'll show you in a moment, the most unstable geologic area, the developer would like to put in 16 homes. I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Abbs' predecessor, Jeff Thayer, several times trying to see if there's some way we could come to a compromise, and he was absolutely adamant that this was a place for beautiful houses, period. Here's the frog. There's no pictures of the frog in the EIR report either. They just talk about it in print. It is the Calaveras jumping frog that Mark Twain made famous. It was declared, since you last considered this EIR, the State amphibian. And the ranch is in the critical habitat area. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Oh, I just want to go back -- there. Now, Mr. Abbs said and Mr. Thayer had said so also, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had supported or in some way certified or approved 66 homes to be built here. I spoke to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service myself. They say they were just beginning to look at it. They're looking at the same EIR as you are. And their determination about whether housing would be appropriate to build here, what the environmental impact would be, is not a decision that has been made. There is no piece of writing that says that the Fish and Wildlife Service supports building on this property. Also, I used the word "our" California red - legged frog. This frog doesn't belong to Davidon. It doesn't belong to any of us. It belongs to whatever deity you believe created it. But it is within the City limits. So I strongly believe you should not accept the idea of off -site mitigation because that's like pushing an endangered species out of our city and hoping that it will survive somewhere else in the county. There's another problem with the frog habitat the creek. I live nearbv. And when it rains 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 film that I will submit to you because I believe that your geohydrologists or hydrogeologists need to know what it looks like in a serious rain. You don't build homes where it can turn into a waterfall. Whenever I've talked to people, officials, City and County, they talk about, "How will this pencil out for Davidon? How many homes -- something's going to be built. It was zoned Rl when they bought it. They're entitled to build something." Well, entitlement is just a question of what does a General Plan allow for a particular number of acres in a particular location, assuming it can be built consistent with the environmental issues. Well, here, the range for R1 goes -- for 44 buildable acres -- from 110 down to 26. There's no legal challenge that could be mounted against you for approving more than 26. Also, the density of 0.6 housing units per acre has some precedent because that's the density that was approved for West Haven, which is on the other side of Victoria. Now I want to get to the most meaty of my remarks here. Throughout our entire opposition, 13 years of this project, we have certainly come to believe that no houses should be built south of Kelly Creek or in the open space below Windsor. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Secondly, the shortcomings of the DEIR should be fixed based on public comments from 2013 as well as now. You've had 300 comments. But because of legally how they started over with the new EIR consultant, they weren't required to address those 300 comments. I guess we're going to have to submit them again in bulk, because they were very well thought out and very pertinent, so that they can be regarded in this new, revised EIR. The environmentally superior alternative that was cited is 28 homes. We believe the entire property is unsuitable for residential construction, but you should take a look at the 28 alternative. If it turns out that the City Council, who makes the ultimate decision here, thinks that something needs to be built and 28 homes is that number, there's still more that could be done. And I want to get to that. Is that the end of my nine? Can I -- CHAIR GOMEZ: No, we can only go up to nine. That is nine, correct? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yes. GREG COLVIN: Okay. Well, my last sentence is that -- CHAIR GOMEZ: Finish your last sentence. That's fine. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GREG COLVIN: -- we have more than a million dollars to work with to try to resolve this in favor of the citizens of Petaluma. I've spoken with Mr. Thayer, and I hope I'll be able to talk to Mr. Abbs sometime about what more money could do to buy out whatever rights they have after the environmental considerations have been fully taken into account. And I sincerely hope we'll reach that point. This doesn't have to be resolved by you giving an absolute no to the developer on every point. There is money to buy out their economic interests at fair market value. So, Mr. Abbs, perhaps we'll talk. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you, sir. All right. Next is Maggie Jensen, and I understand -- Mary Beene, are you here? MARY BEENE: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: And you're ceding your time to Maggie Jensen? MARY BEENE: I am. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. So Ms. Jensen will get six minutes, and followed by Peter Cohn. MAGGIE JENSEN: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Maggie Jensen, and I'm a landscape architect. I work for the firm Koneksi Chatham in Sebastopol. And 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm working with the Sonoma Land Trust and developing an alternate concept for the Davidon development plans that could have been considered in the Draft EIR. In summary, the concept basically shows the former Scott Ranch land as an extension of Helen Putnam Regional Park. Using the 28 -- this particular slide shows the 28 -home alternative. And it preserves the existing open space both north and south of the creek. And it also enhances the natural agricultural and recreational elements. This plan is modeled after the Davidon concept, and it includes the parking lot; it includes a tot lot; it includes the trail to Helen Putnam Park. But the elements have been reconfigured in such a fashion to make the design a more natural environment for the park user with an enhanced trailhead experience and overall a more environmentally friendly design. The alternative includes the improved access to Helen Putnam Park. It preserves the existing pastoral views that serve as a gateway into the City. It maintains agricultural land use and creates opportunities for agricultural and environmental education. It preserves the Red Barns and integrates park users with them, celebrating the historic nature of the site, and protects and enhances the biological 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resources which include -- they've been discussed: the wetlands, native grasses, red - legged frogs, western pond turtles -- with specific intention to increasing the riparian corridor. So I'm going to move through -- if I can use this pointer, yes -- the design for you. One thing to note if I don't get to it at the end is if the amount of homes that are shown in the design are further reduced, it could change the location for the parking lot; the parking lot could be smaller and potentially not be located on D Street, where there is heavy traffic and fast - moving traffic. So the current configuration shown in this alternative concept design would move you into the parking lot, which is smaller than what's shown in the Davidon plan, and it meets the 50 -foot setback. And it's just -- just grazing on that urban separator that could be adjusted. And the storm water would infiltrate into a basin there. So the storm water wouldn't enter into the D Street Tributary, which also shows enhanced riparian planting, native shrubs, bays, oaks to basically, you know, make these waterways not just ditches anymore. Then you would cross -- go through -- there's M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a historic alley of cypress here that could be restored or replanted. There would be the bathroom, a picnic area with native butterfly gardens, and a natural playground including the tot lot. Then the visitor would go over what's shown here as a pedestrian bridge to the barn center. There would be interpretive panels along the bridge talking about the health of our watersheds and, you know, how important it is to protect our creeks in Sonoma County. So this is really, you know, pushing it on the environmental education aspect that this is being a perfect platform for. Then, as you come out of the -- CHAIR GOMEZ: Could you talk into the microphone more, please. MAGGIE JENSEN: Oh, sorry. Sorry. CHAIR GOMEZ: That's okay. MAGGIE JENSEN: Then as you come out of the riparian canopy, you emerge into the farm center. This can be an education center. There's parking for buses, an outdoor amphitheater for learning. There would be an agricultural museum, parking for service vehicles. There could be demonstration corrals for livestock. This would all remain as livestock grazing, all to the south of the creek and this piece here [indicating]. Then you would continue on to the trailhead, 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and then there would be a creek walk that goes to the connector to Helen Putnam Park. Again, there would be interpretive panels educating park users on all of the sensitive biological resources and the land. And that essentially gets people over into Helen Putnam. Outside of that, we're proposing to install riparian livestock fencing to protect the water quality and reduce erosion in the creek. We are also proposing to fence out the existing gullies that are on the steep slopes, plant them with native species, create wildlife refugia. Where there's head cuts, install boulder grade control structures. Fence out the stock pond for improved water quality. And that water could be pumped to troughs, and that will increase pasture production as well. Some, you know, basically regenerative oak planting throughout the site. There would be sidewalks, access from the development here [indicating], the path would cut through the pasture, and benches for enjoyment of the views. So basically what this plan does is it takes that 28 -- I'm done. CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes, I'm sorry. MAGGIE JENSEN: Okay. I think I'm pretty much wrapped up. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGGIE JENSEN: Okay. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you very much. Next speaker then would be Peter Cohn, and followed by Marcia Joynt. PETER COHN: Good evening, Members of the Planning Commission. I'm Peter Cohn, a 30 -year resident of Petaluma. And I'm working on the advisory -- the Kelly Creek Protection Project Advisory Committee. And I wanted to share with you both a written document that I believe each of you now have. So I won't go over all of that in detail, but I would add that I fully incorporate by reference and concur with the presentations of Brian Gaffney, Sherri Fabre Marcia, Chris Cort, Susan Jaderstrom, Joe and Sigrun, Tamara Galanter, Greg Colvin, and Maggie Jensen. And I think that one of the reasons that I take exception to the Davidon proposal is, as Greg Colvin noted, that it would -- it would effectively destroy the land that is quite beautiful and quite scenic. And on the one hand, you can have environmental impact analyses of a very technical nature for you to deal with, but there's something to be said for simply looking at the beauty of the area. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And when one takes a look at one of the items that happens to be attached to my letter -- it's the visual of the land, and it was in Greg's presentation as well. And when you look very honestly, very candidly at the visual of the land, that wooded, naturally beautiful area, it really does belong in Helen Putnam Park and not -- and should not be developed. And I would respectfully ask you to -- and I know you're citizens of Petaluma, so you walk in that area, and you know that area. But I think in your decision making process simply to walk through that area and take a look -see, either on the ground or from the air, it tells you this land belongs in the park. Secondly, I would add that, when you look at the E Street proposal, walking along there, hiking along there, you get, as a citizen, very uncomfortable walking along there because it's a blind curve. And the idea of cutting a street into a blind curve would create a very dangerous situation. And so all the homes, the 17 homes along there that are basically the primary justification for the E Street area, should not be a part of the plan. And when you think about the safety of the children -- there's a proposal that there be a tot lot potentially at Windsor and D Street. If this area were 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preserved as a part of Helen Putnam Park, you would have safe access for the public into and out of this beautiful area along Windsor and not on the dangerous corridor of D Street. Thank you very much. CHAIR GOMEZ: And thank you for getting that sentence out, too. So Marcia Joynt followed by Kathy Meagher. KATHY MEAGHER: I'm going to cede my time to this gentleman. CHAIR GOMEZ: Oh, I think he's done. KATHY MEAGHER: Okay. Well -- CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Maybe the next speaker will take your time. KATHY MEAGHER: Okay. CHAIR GOMEZ: So then I'm going to hold Kathy Meagher, and Paul Scharfe will be next. MARCIA JOYNT: Okay. I'm Marcia Joynt. CHAIR GOMEZ: Marcia. Thank you. MARCIA JOYNT:- And I live on Grossland Way, and I look right out at D Street. So I am affected directly by this -- I live on Kelly Creek. It goes right in back of my house. We bought this house over 30 years ago. We have cleaned out the creek. We are so careful not to put any chemicals in. We carried out 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 debris that the City obviously had dumped at the edge of town at some time. So I want to talk about four things. My main concerns are traffic. I look out at D Street; I see the traffic. The creek itself, which south -- I mean, which down from Sunnyslope is now considered a private creek -- I don't really know when that happened. But anyway, we're now considered private creek, which means we have to take care of it without any kind of homeowners association or any partnership agreements. We're all very good about it, but now we are at risk of having lots of water, lots of chemicals, lots of debris coming down into our creek that we don't really have any recourse with the City or any -- so that's a whole issue that is not addressed in the EIR. The storm drain is supposed to be remade between 10th and Grossland. As it is now, the water comes down out of Victoria, out of all the hills. It comes down D Street; it makes a turn at Grossland Way, comes down to a storm drain which is directly in front of my house. The drain goes under my driveway, under my shop out to the creek. I see how much water comes down there. There's another storm drain directly across the street. So the water pools in our street. We have 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a rake that we keep out by our hedge, and the neighbors all know that, when you go by, you want to rake the leaves and everything out of the storm drain so that we don't get a lake in front. I am more worried about the lake in the front of my house than I am of flooding from the back. Now, I am hoping that this new storm drain that will go down D Street is going to mitigate this issue, but I did not see it in the EIR. So that's an issue I have. The City has been very good to us in terms of working with us on that drain that ran under our house because it was crumbling. And they came, and they redid it. But now we have, you know, potentially a mess because the street goes up like this [indicating], and the water comes down on both sides. I don't see that addressed. So I have traffic; I have the creek itself, which I feel is in danger of becoming just a drainage ditch. We used to have tadpoles; we don't anymore. I think we are getting water -- my fourth is the crown jewel above Petaluma, and that is this park that is so beautiful. I'm an educator. I can't believe that I taught kids to have this appreciation for the outdoors and now we're going to take that away. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Paul Scharfe, followed by Jeff Weiss. PAUL SCHARFE: Hi. I'm just another Petaluma resident here to voice concern over this, the impact of this development. My family has been -- has lived on D Street for the past 22 years, and we've seen a lot of change here in that time, particularly the traffic and the danger that it presents for families, children, and just normal everyday residents that, you know, use this street as a major thoroughfare. Over the last few years, it's been particularly significant as people have begun to use clever mobile apps to find the fastest route south on 101 by journeying, you know, from the center of town down D Street and out towards San Antonio Road. So my wife and I actually just recently decided to move to Petaluma in the last six months and to call this place, you know, our permanent home, hopefully. So our major concern is that you look at this documentation and you ask yourselves, "What does it mean to mitigate, to lessen the impact of these things that are, you know, very dramatic with people that live in these areas ?" Because once the environment has been 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 destroyed, once the traffic has overtaken these beautiful historic areas, there's really nothing left to be done. So I hope that you will take the recommendation of the other concerned citizens and prevent this development from happening. Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. Jeff Weiss, and then followed by Bob Billings. BOB BILLINGS: I cede my time to Jeff. I'm CHAIR GOMEZ: Would you like his time? JEFF WEISS: Uhmm, if I need it. CHAIR GOMEZ: You've got it. Okay. Then Bob Billings ceded his time. JEFF WEISS: Well, I'd like to point out some of the language in the EIR report that talks about 18 landslides. When the EIR was presented, it seemed like that was -- that landslide slide [sic] was just glossed over. But that's significant because I live on Oxford Court, bought a house about four years ago. And in escrow, I received documentation that was at least four inches high about a slide that occurred not only in that backyard that I now own but it happened 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 previous to my ownership. And it affected four or so of my neighbors. And that mitigation was tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of time because the previous developer was no longer around, I think, bankrupt. And so there were geological reports; there were contractors; there were walls, cement walls, retaining walls that were built to mitigate the slide that occurred after development. So this is the same topography, same geology. You know, we're right next to where this proposed project is. And I'm concerned because of where -- you know, in the EIR report itself, it talks about "all cut slopes shall be inspected at the time of construction by an engineering geologist focusing on evidence of potential instability, and if areas of adverse bedrock structure are encountered, then remedial measures for these slopes will be performed." So even during the construction, they're concerned with potential problems. So to be cutting severe cuts in unstable geology is a concern. I'm not sure how well it's been addressed and mitigated. And then getting to the -- just reemphasizing the importance of the environmental sensitivity of this land that so many speakers have addressed so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eloquently, including the pictures that say a lot. And then addressing the zoning, which is R1, very low- density residential, so why our City would be considering anything above the minimum of that 0.6 is beyond comprehension because this is not a parcel to be heavily or even moderately, if at all, developed. It should be as minimal as possible to protect the natural beauty for the current residents and posterity. So there's a lot of complexity in this property. There are private property rights. But the City is not required to consider extreme development. And I think you should consider as minimal as possible. Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. So Elaine Ellsworth, followed -- excuse me, not Elaine. Lydia Schindler, followed by Kelsey Dunbar. Oh, I see. I'm sorry. Lydia, are you here? LYDIA SCHINDLER: Yes. CHAIR GOMEZ: You're ceding your time to Kelsey Dunbar? LYDIA SCHINDLER: No, she's ceding it to me. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. So Kelsey is ceding -- is Kelsey here? LYDIA SCHINDLER: She had to leave. She 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 couldn't -- CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Then she can't cede her time because she's not present. But I think Kathy Meagher would like to cede her time. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. So you get six minutes. KATHY MEAGHER: Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: And then followed by -- followed by Deirdre Hockett, I think, if I can read that right. HEATHER HINES: What about Julia? CHAIR GOMEZ: Who? HEATHER HINES: Julia Cort? CHAIR GOMEZ: Hold on. I'm sorry. I guess I'm kind of -- make hide nor hair of this. I have -- okay -- followed by Julia Cort. So Julia Cort will be after. Thank you. LYDIA SCHINDLER: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. My name's Dr. Lydia Schindler. I've lived here for four decades, raised my family here. I serve the community as a physician. And now that I have more time, I have an opportunity to enjoy this community, to enjoy the lands here. And what I'd like to address, and it's been brought up before, is the -- and I also want to say that I'm founder of a coalition called the West .1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petaluma Hills Wildlife Corridor. And so what.I really want to talk about is wildlife corridor. What a corridor is, actually -- and you probably already know this. It is an area where animals and birds will pass through and forage. But it has to be a significant amount of land. It can't be a little area. It has to be a significant amount. And there is enough now along the West Petaluma Hills, but that's adjacent to the Kelly Creek area, Red Barn area, so that that corridor actually goes -- if you look to the north from Bodega, the west Sonoma -- or the Sonoma Coast all the way around to the West Petaluma Hills, Helen Putnam Park, and to Kelly Creek area, and then actually all the way to West Marin coast, to Point Reyes National seashore. So what I have seen there, there's actually a woman that did a phenology between 2013 and 115, where she literally went out to these areas, the West Petaluma Hills, and made observations. And she saw many mammals. She saw coyotes and dennings. There's badger that's in the area, and this habitat is for badger. Of course, there's all the other animals that we would normally see here, which is fox and deer. There's herds of deer that you've seen pictures of. There's even mountain lion sightings, bobcat sightings. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We have multiple raptors here. Raptors are birds of prey, and they can only exist in this area when there's enough habitat to hold the various ground rodents like the field mice, like the gophers. And if you encroach in those areas, you're not going to have those smaller animals for the larger animals to eat. They need to forage on this land. So that's what makes this property, this whole area, so sensitive, a sensitive habitat. So I would like to read a little about the red - legged frog because actually there's not very much known about them. And we think of a holding pond. Well, there's more to them than the holding pond. And actually, this is what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said. And, "During dry periods, California red - legged frogs are seldom found far from water. However, during wet weather, individuals may make overland excursions through upland habitats over distances of up to two miles." So they can actually be quite far from a water source. "These dispersal movements generally follow straight line, point -to -point migrations rather than specific habitat corridors. Dispersal distances are believed to depend on the availability of suitable habitat" -- which we have because we do have red - legged 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 frog in this area -- "and prevailing environmental conditions through very little" -- "though very little is known about how California red - legged frogs are upland hab- -- use upland habitats during dispersal. "During summer, California red - legged frogs often disperse from their breeding habitat to forage and seek summer" -- and it's called "aestivation "; that means they go underground and they basically hibernate during the summer dry season -- "habitat if water is not available. This habitat may include shelter under boulders, rocks, logs, agricultural drains, burrows," and that includes badger dens and burrows, that includes burrowing owl burrows, which we have. So what I'd like to say is that, even the encroachment of these few homes is going to be significant. We need as much habitat -- we have it here. We should -- as Petaluma citizens in the community, we should be a model for others to see to balance our lives -- our livelihoods, our lives here with the natural habitat. It's really important. And we can do that by trying to look at this particular property and say no, let's take care of our nature. And as you all know now, the California legislation is making some big moves about corridor -- wildlife corridors. And the reason is is that there's 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now -- they're finding now that this is actually having some impact on the climate change. So let's be a model to make a change. We can do it. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. Julia Cort, I'm sorry. You've already ceded your time to your husband, so you can't -- JULIA CORT: Someone else ceded hers to me. CHAIR GOMEZ: Oh. JULIA CORT: Ann Digges. CHAIR GOMEZ: Can we do that? We're going to look for advice. HEATHER HINES: I don't think we can do that. CHAIR GOMEZ: Yeah, since you already ceded -- way? JULIA CORT: Can I submit my points in another CHAIR GOMEZ: Somebody else can read them. Or in writing. HEATHER HINES: You can submit them to the clerk in writing, and they'll go into the record. CHAIR GOMEZ: I'm sorry. So Ms. Digges, would you like to speak? HEATHER HINES: She's not here. She had to 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go. CHAIR GOMEZ: Oh, okay. So I'm just going to put those aside. Thank you. The next is Deirdre Hockett, I believe, and then followed by Saramay Borders. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no Deirdre. CHAIR GOMEZ: No Deirdre? Okay. She's not here. Saramay Borders? Hope I'm saying that first name right. (No response) CHAIR GOMEZ: Not here? Okay. Then we have the -- okay. Elaine Ellsworth who ceded her time. Do you want to talk? No? (No response) CHAIR GOMEZ: She's not here either. Okay. So that's all the cards I have. Oh, I -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm here. CHAIR GOMEZ: I have a card that you wanted to cede to somebody, but nobody is available. Would you like to speak or would you like to not speak? It's your choice. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All the speakers have been ceded, so no. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. No? Okay. So any other speakers? That's all the speaker cards I have. (No response) CHAIR GOMEZ: All right. Thank you. Then public comment is closed. So thank you all, appreciate that. And I appreciate all your cooperation and your respectfulness as well. Okay. Does anyone want to take a break for five minutes before we go on to Council Commissioner comments? All right. We'll be adjourned for five minutes. (Recess taken) CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Thank you. We're going to reconvene the meeting of the Planning Commission. And we've just concluded public comments. We have a reporter who's here, ready. And now we're going to move it on to Commission comments or questions. So -- to the Draft EIR. And, Commissioner Pierre, did you have any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I do. Maybe I should -- sorry. .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I do have one question, sorry, then a lot of comments. Should I just do both? CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: All right. So my only one question, I didn't understand, just trying to -- maybe I'm not understanding this right. But the dwelling units per acre were calculated for this project at 1.12? I read that in the Land Use section of the EIR, and I'm trying to understand how that is if the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. And I realize there's variation across, but that just seems like there's actually quite a few more dwelling units per acre, unless we're taking into account the entire 58 acres. ALI GIUDICE: What page is that on? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I didn't -- you know what? That's like the one thing I didn't mark the page on, but it would have been in the Land Use section. CHAIR GOMEZ: 4.8? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I don't know. CHAIR GOMEZ: That's Section 4.8. I tabbed my -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yeah, it's definitely the Land Use section. I don't know what page, but let 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me -- let me see. I'm sure I highlighted it. But I mean, I guess I'm just trying to understand. So the dwelling -- just as a question on calculations. So dwelling units per acre are calculated based on the entirety of the site, not the portion of the site that's being developed? ALI GIUDICE: Dwelling units per acre is based on -- the way it's calculated is -- the way the City calculates it is based on net acreage. And that takes the -- away any public street, public or private street, any public open space and public park area. So -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Open space? ALI GIUDICE: Private open space -- sorry, public open space. So the private open space does not -- am I correct? HEATHER HINES: I'm sorry, Ali. I think it's just streets that are taken out, correct? I'm reading from the General Plan. "Residential density is expressed as a minimum and maximum number of existing housing units per net acre that is exclusive of existing and proposed streets and other vehicular rights of way from back of curb to back of curb." ALI GIUDICE: I think there is something in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the -- in the Land Use -- there's something in the General Plan that also identifies -- COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: That seems to contradict what you just -- ALI GIUDICE: -- "public open space," except for the urban separator, where the urban separator could be -- the transfer of that area could contribute. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. Okay. Maybe I'll look for it while others are commenting so I don't hold this up. But there was a statement made in the EIR that it's dwelling units per acre is 1.12, which I was having -- trying to understand what that's really calculated on because, if it's 10,000- square -foot minimum lots, then that's really four dwelling units per acre, depending on -- right? HEATHER HINES: It says -- COMMISSIONER MARZO: Says minimum lots are 20,000. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: No, that's R1. Now what's being proposed is 10,000. CHAIR GOMEZ: Because you're talking about PUD. HEATHER HINES: On Page 4.8 -7, it says "Option A would develop 66 single- family homes at a density of 1.49 dwelling units per acre, and Option B .• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would develop 63 single- family homes at a density of 1.42 dwelling units per acre based on the net acreage of the project site of 44.23 acres. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. But on -- okay. I found it. On 4.8 -16 in the table for Policy 2 -P -60, which is basically the feathering concept, the transition from urban densities to more rural, it says in the second sentence, "At 1.12 dwelling acres under Option A and 1.07 under B, the density would be within an approved density." I'm just trying to understand what's being calculated relative to density and dwelling units per acre. that. HEATHER HINES: So we can -- we can look at COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. There's some inconsistency. HEATHER HINES: We'll have to figure out what the difference -- because they're kind of saying two things. There might be a -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. But in general, are you -- are we in agreement, dwelling unit per acre is calculated just the developable area minus street, or is it the entirety of the lot size? 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEATHER HINES: It's not the entirety of the lot size because it's net acreage. But what we're going to have to get clarity on, that I -- what I just read from the General Plan is the gross minus the streets and vehicular rights of way. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. HEATHER HINES: This is also taking out public open space and floodways but does not exclude the urban separators. So we'll need clarification on that. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Thanks. Okay. So, first, I write EIRs, so I spent a lot of time with this one. I read the 2013 one. I submitted comments. I'll be resubmitting those comments with notations where I think the comment's been addressed. And there were quite a few, so I just wanted to say I appreciate that. I thank you for the slope map. I didn't find that. So I'm glad to see that. There's still a number of, I think, unresolved issues. And, you know, I think for me, in my review, the general theme is we're trying to squeeze some homes south of Kelly Creek that just don't belong there. And all of the impacts that are both significant and that were deemed in the EIR to be less than significant but that I would think actually are significant -- for 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 example, aesthetic scenic views was found to be less than significant. I just -- I can't reconcile that. I don't think the record supports that there's not a So even though -- so I think -- I'm trying to figure out how best to characterize this, but basically it's like a baseline issue. It's, like, where are starting? What's the setting? How are we describing what's actually there in order to then add on top of it the project because, if we don't start with the right baseline, it's hard to ascertain the right impact statement. And I think for some of the impacts, that's where we're at. I think that's the case with aesthetics. I think that's the case with the oak trees. I think that's the case with some of the landslide issues as well as the red - legged frog issues. All of these impacts can be almost entirely avoided just by removing the homes south of Kelly Creek. It just seems like a really obvious mitigation measure. And, actually, CEQA and our General Plan -- our General Plan is specific to sensitive ecological areas they first avoid. That's what our General Plan says is you first avoid the ecological impact. And the 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way to do that is to not put homes south of Kelly So to make a long story short, although, I'll go over some of my specific comments, Alternative 2 with Option B is, I think, a way to allow development that's consistent with what's been developed along this corridor but still meeting our General Plan policies and essentially reduces or eliminates what really are the most substantial impacts, whether or not they've been found to be significant here or not, because I disagree with some of the conclusions, but I think we all know, I think it's obvious, some of these are significant. And they are not -- you cannot mitigate that. You cannot mitigate a natural stock pond and move it somewhere else and call that mitigation. And the Service and DFW have not weighed in on this. So we can talk to them all the time, but they have not weighed in on this. And the mitigation ratios for wetlands and for red - legged frog habitat and how that gets designed and how close homes can be and all of those parameters that come through ESA consultation and consultation with the Corps are not outlined. And I encouraged in March 2013, when I reviewed this before, that you have to go talk to those 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agencies. And that should have been incorporated here because I think, as a project approval and entitlement, how can we say that you're entitled to 66 or 63 homes or whatever this number is when we start subtracting out the recommendations in mitigation when talking with fish and wildlife agencies and wetland agencies is likely to substantially change what it is we're approving here. So I think I -- I'm very happy that we're not looking at, you know,. 90- -- I think it was 93 and 66 and trying to figure that out. So I totally agree that was a really nice -- it's much more concise. It's easier to see what we're looking at. But now that we're looking at it, I think it's pretty obvious. South of Kelly Creek doesn't make sense. It's just not -- I don't just think you're going to get there. I don't think you're going to get there with your permits either. So I'd rather focus on an alternative that makes sense that I think might be a good compromise that allows a lot of the components that I think the community is looking for but also allows you to proceed with development. But in terms of the EIR, again, I think a lot of the comments were addressed -- I think a lot of that was cleared up by just picking a project and having W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that evaluated. So I appreciate that. Even though the slope map is in here, when I look at it, what we've done is colored a 15 to 30 percent slope. And just as a reminder, our IZO discourages development on slopes greater than 15 and precludes it on slopes greater than 30. So the 15- to -30, you know, gradient is actually really important. And I think breaking that down a little bit more to really understand -- you know, if it's 15 or 16, maybe that's an area that we can live with under certain conditions versus something closer to 30 and helping us better understand that. And I think, you know, that's kind of part of the constraints we need to look at. But thanks for the map. I'm glad to have that pointed out early in the meeting. One thing that remains unclear from 2013 for me is the feasibility of moving the barn structure itself. So this is a large EIR. And I think I read it. But maybe I did miss that there's some explanation that this -- that Option B can actually happen. So that was a 2013 comment that I did not find the answer to. So, you know, my written comments will also just -- I think there's some unjustified conclusions 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that things are less than significant, and that's especially related to the red - legged frog and tree On the tree removal issue, we're removing essentially an oak woodland along the creek and along not even -- it hasn't even been demonstrated that that amount of trees can even be planted on this site. So to then find it to be less than significant, I just don't think that's justified. So there's examples of that nature that I'll submit in writing where I just don't think we can say it's less than significant. I just don't think -- I think it's so significant based on the baseline that even the mitigation may not even mitigate that. Let's see. Regarding the setback language, I was trying to find what we did also for Deer Creek. And if you look at the original General Plan language, it actually says 100 feet from the creek. So I think it's pretty clear it wasn't ever meant to be from center line. And that's something that I think over time we've been getting better and better about, including in Deer Creek, where we increased the buffer, I believe, beyond the General Plan. So I think that's 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the direction we're headed. And I think that needs to stay that way. And, again, development off of south side is going to take care of a lot of these issues, especially if we can keep drainage and runoff from coming into the creek, which is also part of our General Plan is to essentially not have urban runoff into our natural creeks. I'm not sure where that was. That was probably in the Land Use section. I had -- I guess it's a question or a comment; I'm not sure. But in the geology section, I'm sure it was -- it's really good. I just don't understand it because it's written by a geologist, I think, and it's super technical. So I think some better translation into lay person so we can really understand what the recommendations are, what the real risks are. I appreciate the landslide map. Again, two of the three active landslides are located on the south side of Kelly Creek. So eliminating development there would avoid impacts on that landslide. But one of the questions I had was there's a repeated statement that there will be no cut or fill greater than 2 -to -1. So what is unclear is where the 2 -to -1 overlaps with slopes greater than 15 or 30 percent and how that then affects what we're really 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talking about in terms of slope development. So I think we need to reconcile the 2 -to -1 with the Hillside Ordinance and figure out what that really means and what that looks like and how much we're really affecting the side of the hills. There was some more information provided on flooding, so I personally was satisfied with that, including the downstream flooding. I saw that they did go back and do 200 -year flooding modeling. And so I found that, and I found that to be acceptable compared But there wasn't any description of the D Street storm drain project. And in the 2013 EIR, that was a really important component of the cumulative impact assessment was that upgrade. And I think at that -- in that EIR, it was mentioned as kind of a project that was going to happen. But in this EIR, there was no mention of it. So I just think getting a better sense of the status of that project and then how that feeds back into cumulative and downstream impacts for flooding and, you know, water capture, essentially, how that relates to this project. I'm not comfortable with the change in R1 zoning. I mean, this is -- this is actually, in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mind, one of those foundational components of our General Plan is intense, dense urban development and very, very low density development towards the outskirts. And this is as outskirts as it gets. And I can't help but note that, in 2013, it was the bottom of the market, and we're probably back to the top now. And so it seems like -- I mean, I'm not going to -- I'm not running your numbers, but it seems like there is some space here to be more consistent with our feathering and rural approach and still maybe come out similar to where you were in 2013, proposing 93 homes. So I'm not comfortable going there. I think R1 is R1 for a reason. And on top of that, this is the edge of town where we want the feathered large lots. I'm trying to understand -- and this is an old comment as well. But we have a 58 -acre site. But really anything over 30 -- 30 percent slope is just not -- it shouldn't even be counted as acreage. It's just plain out -- it's like our drive - through ordinance. It's not going to happen. Not developing on slopes greater than 30. So how many acres is that, and then what's the density we're talking about? That might be someplace to start. Maybe it's consistent already, but it was information I requested that I 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wasn't able to find again. I do appreciate the increase in park size, so that was an issue previously. So, you know, I do think we should give the applicant credit where it's due. And, you know, I think there have been some improvements; that is definitely one. Also the pedestrian improve- -- there was an improvement. There was previously a roundabout proposed that's now removed that I think makes things safer and makes more sense from a pedestrian perspective. So am I following that right? Everyone's looking at me like I'm crazy. So that's how -- it's a lot of information to absorb and remember. So I think that's true. And if that is true, then I'm pleased with that change. There's, you know, in 2013, we were reviewing this project against the '87 General Plan. So I was actually happy to see, okay, we're -- I don't know why that happened or how, but thank you. That's a really good thing too, makes life a lot easier, except when for when you're going back to look at your comments compared to those 187 General Plan. But both General Plan versions essentially make the same -- have the same policy, which says that :I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 every effort shall be made to preserve landmark and major groves. And I don't think there's any question that the grove of trees along the creek and along D Street are landmark or major grove. Maybe not landmark, but they're major. Maybe they're not major, but they're landmark. So one way or another, we're there. And preservation of them means leaving them in place, and it doesn't mean planting saplings elsewhere of other types. This is a -- you know, I don't know. This is an ecologically sensitive area because of what it is but also because of what it's next to and the fact that it's on the edge of town. So it's just -- it's different. And the EIR can't quite capture that; it's very technical. But somehow we need to capture that in how we are formulating the project. Again, the trail, the park, you know, thank you. That was a nice improvement. I think -- I think that's it. Oh, actually, I have new comments. So that's -- that was my review of my old comments and the backup. So there's a mitigation measure Aesthetic 1A which requires a certain number of lots to be single story. And I think that measure should also mandate that Lots 8 through 16 are also single story. And that ''I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has to do -- Lots 8 through 16 are the ones I think along Windsor. So I think, you know, again, I'm looking for an ability to -- you know, this is private property. It is zoned for residential. So right now we're reviewing a residential project, and so I'm looking for opportunities to minimize the impacts I see. And that would be one of them. So I think that is one way to do that is to have those -- those lots, 8 through 16 which run along the north side of Windsor, to also be single story to kind of reduce the massing along the drive there. If Alternative -- if the proposed project moves forward and these trees are removed, they need -- the mitigation measure for the replacement needs to be in,the same corridor that they're being removed. So somehow we need to retain, as best we can, that function. I am -- I think -- my opinion is Alternative 2 with Option B is the way to go. But if that's not where we go, I think I just want to have on the record that the mitigation needs to actually replace the function of the trees. And the function of the trees is not just a tree. It's the grouping of the trees in that location along the creek. And, again, pointing out the EIR is saying M. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they're not even -- we are not even sure we can do that replacement. There's not sufficient land. The EIR project site to accommodate the replacement tree plantings. Impact Aesthetic 3 states, and I quote, "The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual.character and quality of the project site and its surroundings." And this is the foundation for the conclusion that it's less than significant. And this just doesn't pass the straight -face test. I mean, it just doesn't. I mean, aesthetics is not a technical area; it's very subjective. But to say this is not substantially changing the visual character is just -- we can't say that in this EIR. So I think this needs -- if we're going to move forward with the project, I mean, part of our CEQA process is to identify significant impacts. And if the City so chooses to accept those significant impacts in light of the economic benefits that a project brings, then that's part of the record. That's the purpose of CEQA in our decision. So we should -- that should be, in my opinion, clearly laid out. We're going to give up this visual resource, we're going to give up this ecological E:IC3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resource because we're making a decision that the economic value of development is greater. And that's a CEQA -- I mean, those are the findings at the end of the process that CEQA allows us to do. But I think we need to be honest about making that choice if that's the choice we choose. Impact Hydro 3 describes a number of new storm drain outfalls that would be constructed at Kelly Creek which is inconsistent. It conflicts with our General Plan which essentially says you need to have storm drainage away from our natural creeks. So I don't know that that -- I don't believe that that one was found to be an inconsistent one in our EIR. So I can look that up for you. I just found that a minute ago. The feathering approach -- it's also inconsistent with Policy 2 -P -8. And this is one of the significant unavoidable impacts, I believe, because 2 -P -8 says that anything that's affronting the urban separator has to be single loaded, which means there's only houses on one side of the street. And there's two -- there's two sides of housing on the -- on the E Street. Again, could be completely addressed. Without south of Kelly Creek's development. And it's also inconsistent with -- and I mentioned this before, but specifically Policies 4 -P -2 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and 4 -P -3, which is the emphasis our General Plan puts on first avoiding impacts to natural habitats. It's pretty clear, those two policies. It says first things first. It's not mitigation; it's not avoid or compensate or minimize. It's first avoid. So those are all of my comments. Thanks for your patience. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Albertson, questions, comments? COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Well, I have some comments. I have a question for the attorney first. And I guess basically it deals -- I'm sitting as a member of the Commission. CHAIR GOMEZ: I don't think your mike's on. I'm sorry. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Thank you. I have a question for the attorney first. I'm sitting as a member of the Commission but I -- I also, if I have to submit something in writing, it becomes part of the public record. CITY ATTORNEY TENNENBAUM: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: And then other Councilmember read that -- or do we have any type of Brown Act issue there or -- CITY ATTORNEY TENNENBAUM: No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: We do not? CITY ATTORNEY TENNENBAUM: No. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Super. Rock and roll, rock and roll. I have a -- just a couple of the deals, and then I'm going to put in this in writing, and I'll make it part of the record. But a couple of things that I looked at is the -- or had questions about, the Red Barn that we talked to, there was a question here maybe about moving the barn and going back up -- Option A, Option B, going back 2013, I, at the time, was favoring moving the barn because I wasn't sure that they could safely legally get the permits to reinforce the bank on the D Street creek to preserve that lower corner of the barn which has a concrete pier going down into the creek right now. So something in -- either have to adjust the creek bed, the bank on D Street creek, or you have to move the thing back because it's -- in a course of time it's just, appears to me, going to wash away. So, and then the Red Barns, I see a red barn on the property personally. I see a red barn and I see a three -car garage that's painted red, and I see what appears to me to be a storage building that's also :. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 painted red. But there is one red barn with, I would call, classic architectural design, a hay loft door or maybe a facade of a hay loft door. But it appears to be a hay loft door, one barn in there. And the others are unnecessary. I have a concern about the stock pond and not so much the pond itself but the drainage. It appears to go down through Lots -- I don't have my glasses -- 60, 59, 58, 57. And I'm just curious how that works, how they pass through -- and not just through the lots but it looks like right underneath some of the homes themselves. So something that should be looked at. I have concerns, as was mentioned earlier, about the landslides on the south side of Kelly Creek, the elimination of E Street and the houses on that side would certainly address that. I don't know that it addresses all of the landslide issues, but engineering I think can address that satisfactorily. The south side of Kelly Creek going up the side of the hill further south, right to the edge of the urban separator, you can see where it's sloughing right now. You just stand on D Street and look across there -- or on Windsor and look across. There was mention of -- mention of single story on Lots 18 through 16, and that's because they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sit up the hill to the north side of Windsor Drive. And I looked at that same idea, but I also included Lots 44 to 50. And for that same reason, they sit to the high side of the hill. It builds up right there. And what I'm reminded of is the -- the houses the condos, the duplex buildings that are part of Quarry Heights property that are right down on Petaluma Boulevard South, sit right above the traffic circle. And those places remind me -- however nice they are and I'm sure the people who are there are very comfortable, but the architecture at the time reminded me of a bird of prey on a fence post looking down on the street. And I'm -- these houses, I think, would be the same idea. There was a couple of images on the screen that gave a quick rendition, and I think there was something in one of these documents that also showed that. It's -- you drive down through the green hill, and now, with the houses on top, the two -story houses, it's quite a canyon that is being created. So I think single story is something to be considered when it gets to that. And that's ahead of maybe where we are tonight. Removal of 119 trees. I think that was the COMMISSIONER PIERRE: 98 protected and 119 :: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 total. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: But I understood most of those to be the eucalyptus and not the oaks and the -- I'm getting a lot of shaking heads here. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: No, I think I read it as -- well, go ahead. CHAIR GOMEZ: Go ahead. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Well, as that gets resolved and staff needs to look at that, I had 22 bullet items that I -- I don't remember the details for them because I just put bullet items and titles on these. One of the things that came up tonight was the public comment period goes to 1st of May. HEATHER HINES: Correct. And we make it a standard practice to take comments through the Council hearing. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Okay. And that being said, we're -- it just seems -- recommending that this go forward to a Final EIR when the public comment is still outstanding seems premature to me. So I'd like to see if we schedule a hearing. And it could always and canceled or rescheduled, but -- for Council to do something. But scheduling a hearing to move this forward when this could be some comment made that goes, :• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "Whoa, no one thought of that before. No one brought that up," that could be a game changer. I think that's important, and I think it just gets the cart ahead of the horse. One person's opinion. Thank you Madam Chair. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. I was just going to say, tag on that, especially with some of the comments we heard tonight, such as the -- I don't know if it's true or not -- but the pond turtles, I heard for the first time tonight that might be there, that we don't know. HEATHER HINES: Can I make just a response to that? CHAIR GOMEZ: Of course. HEATHER HINES: So the City Council would not consider the Draft EIR or any kind of direction to staff on the Draft EIR until after that 60 -day public comment period. If we -- because the City of Petaluma in its local CEQA guidelines has Planning Commission review before City Council reviews -- that's our local. That's not under State requirements; that's our local requirement. And we make it a practice to accept comments through the City Council meeting when they're making a decision, it's kind of a -- we have to bring I'll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it to the Planning Commission before we bring it to the Council. But we're going to have comments after the Planning Commission meeting because we accept comments up until and through the actual City Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Okay. And just a different direction, is this -- there are other instances of this occurring? This is not unprecedented with this specific project? HEATHER HINES: No. Correct. And what we .try to do is give enough time, one, for the Planning Commission -- that's why you have had your document just about a month now before we've come here. So understanding we need time, the public needs time to review it. The Planning Commission needs time to review it. So that's kind of -- it's a -- this is how we've always done all the EIRs we've done. Since I've been here, this is the way we've done it. And just because it's a -- there's no way to get ahead of it if the Planning Commission doesn't look at it until the public comment period is closed if we, as a local jurisdiction, decide that the public comment isn't closed until the Council meeting. Does that make sense? COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARZO: Could I -- 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes? COMMISSIONER MARZO: Just off of that, is there any time frame, as Commissioner Pierre was saying, about waiting for any comments from Fish and Wildlife? Is there a mechanism, or how does that work? HEATHER HINES: Well, that would happen before we get to Council for -- COMMISSIONER MARZO: How do you -- they're under our deadline? They're under -- how does that work? HEATHER HINES: It was referred to them through the Public Clearing -- the State Clearinghouse. It's referred to them, and they know the public comment period, and so that -- right. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Well, wait. So that's DFW. I mean, is Service planning to comment on this? They don't typically comment on EIRs. They're waiting to be consulted with, right, through the Corp? HEATHER HINES: I'll let Ally -- AEI GIUDICE: They don't comment, but I did reach out to them. They did identify that, you know, appropriate mitigation measures would be applied at their ratios. And I believe it was between 2 -to -1 and 3 -to -1, depending on the what the impact was and what the development encroachment would be. 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So there was some outreach, but you're right, I don't know that we're going to get a response from them, official response from them until we've completed the process. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. And I've been through that process a number of times, and it's never -- it's going to be different. It always is at the end. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. I'll go ahead with my comments. And I have a few questions and a few comments. And I'm going to -- I had it organized, but I think I'm just going to go through comments and then get to the questions when I have. The first question I had was regarding the interpretive center with the Red Barn under Option A versus Option B. And I don't know who can answer this, but why is the barn only going to be used as an interpretive center if it's moved? ALI GIUDICE: So this is the applicant's proposal and request, that -- their proposal for or request for a General Plan amendment is the way you've seen it tonight. Staff has not provided you with a recommendation, but that's what the applicant's proposing. CHAIR GOMEZ: The reason I'm asking is the in 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 General Plan it encourages -- it encourages to do those types of things. And it sounds like we're only -- the only option is to do that if it's allowed to build more houses; therefore, it has to move the barn. But it's not doing that which is encouraged by the General Plan if the barn stays put, is what I was asking. ALI GIUDICE: That's correct. That's the way the applicant is proposing the language right now. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Okay. So the few comments that I had to the Draft EIR are as follows: One is I didn't see in here that this -- that talked about the General Plan regarding using the recycled water. I saw in here that, in terms of water resources, that the project is going to catch rooftop rainwater, but then it doesn't say what it's going to do with it. And since the General Plan talks about using recycled water for landscape and, in looking at the water rates for this project, the landscape water is twice as much as it is for just the residential use, it seems like -- I don't know. Is purple pipe going to be up there, or are they just going to be used -- so ., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there's no purple pipe up there -- gray water, excuse me. So we don't really have recycled water being used, which the General Plan suggests and wants to use on these projects. So that's one question. Second is again with the energy, I know through here is -- the General Plan talks about a 15 percent minimum reduction in new projects, but I don't know what the reduction in the energy saving measures of this project is. I didn't see that anywhere in this report. It also says our General Plan talks about complying with 2020 standards as much as we can, but I don't see anything regarding energy usage other than energy efficient -- some energy efficient appliances and so forth. And also what stuck me as odd is the DEIR, under Energy Efficiency and how this project is going -to be more energy efficient, says the way the project is going to be built, it's going to allow for homeowners to be more energy efficient in the future. But it doesn't talk about -- what does that mean? What do you mean homeowners can be more energy -- they can put solar on their roof at their own cost? They're going to change appliances? So I don't understand what that has to do with using renewable M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 energy and being energy efficient. Greenhouse Gasses is the next one. Policy 4 -P -26 talks about implementing all measures within the City's Climate Action Plan. And, again, the same comments as the Energy, I didn't see a discussion about how this project is implementing all measures in conformancy with the City's Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gasses. I would note that it says this project is expected to generate 865.38 metric tons when the threshold is 1100 metric tons. So we're close to the threshold; we're not at the threshold. But when you have a project like this with affluent home buyers and an upscale project, I just don't understand why we're not doing everything we can to minimize greenhouse gasses, minimize that project's input -- footprint on the environment, especially when we're looking at an EIR as the project's impacts. Moving on, Traffic. I read all the traffic surveys, but one of the things that bothered me about the traffic was it looked like for pipeline that it wasn't updated because it talked about pipeline things that are pending or in the mix that are already done such as Highway 101 and Old Redwood Highway, the new 'interchange, that's done; the East Washington WEV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Interchange, that's done. And in the report, it says that's going to happen -- unless there's other changes that are set for that intersection of East Washington, Highway 101, those things are finished. So that bothered me a bit. When we're looking at traffic impacts, we know we have things that we can measure right now with traffic impacts because those two projects are completed. And there were a couple others in there with the projects that said they were pending that already completed. So it just -- I don't want to say sloppy, but it just seems that it could be tightened up in terms of we should know more about impacts now. Those are not future impacts; those are current impacts because those projects are done. A lot of them are built out; a lot of them are currently operated. And some still have a little more build -out, but some of those projects were finished. And that was in Section 12. It also says, and this always bothers me, but the DEIR says, "Project makes no cumulative considerable contribution to freeway impact standing alone." Well, any project standing alone makes no considerable contribution to freeway impacts. But when you're looking at this project in the pipeline with every other project -- all the projects standing alone 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would make no cumulative considerable contribution. So I just think that's a bit facetious because it's not standing alone. It's adding on to everything else that's in the pipeline. And we talked about Lakeville being -- D at Lakeville being significant and unavoidable. I know the project going to not add as -- it makes a minor impact, but it still makes some impact. I just don't see how it makes no impact. Let's see. Going on to Urban Gateway, I'll move on to the alternatives. The urban gateway to me was one of the biggest problems that I had with this -- the Draft EIR. It's a significant impact. And the EIR says it's significant and unavoidable. But it can be avoidable, depending on the configuration of the subdivision. I mean, it's completely avoidable. And the General Plan talks about preserving the gateway at D Street and -- and Victoria. It's preserving the gateway. So I drove that gateway yesterday. I've been up there a million times. I drive out there all the time. It's beautiful, and it is. And I think one of the speakers spoke about the public had input into our General Plan. And that was a significant issue for the public, for the Council, for the City was to preserve s: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the gateway And I did not see -- I took some pictures, and I actually went on Windsor Drive -- and I'm going to have this for the record -- of the barn complex. And part of the gateway that's significant and I was looking for it this time was, as you come up D Street and you make the turn, what's the first thing you see? You see the barn. And that is the gateway that is significant. And I just don't understand why we would be talking about moving the barn structure as being an impact that's not -- that we can mitigate. We shouldn't be mitigating it. We should not be doing it. So that's one issue I have. I just don't see why -- you know, why it's something that we should make any type of attempt to mitigate when we can just avoid it altogether by not building on that location and not moving the structure. The General Plan is to preserve it, period. That's what it says, "preserve the scenic" -- preserve that gateway. And there's really only one way to preserve that gateway -- or one and a little bit more, but is preserve the structures. And I will respectfully disagree with Councilmember Albertson. I think the structures are .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 part of the gateway, not just the singular barn because they are -- even though they might be a garage, they might be -- what they're used for is not significant. It's what they look like. It's the aesthetics of what they look like. It just so happened there was a little deer outside laying down when I took the picture, too. But anyways, not that it tugged at my heartstrings. But it's just the vista. I was concerned with the vista. It was. It was laying there. It was like serendipity. So because of that, I just don't see how we can either -- how we can mitigate our scenic vista and mitigate a General Plan policy. It's there for a reason. And it's a significant impact if removed, and again, it's completely unavoidable. Okay. On to the Biological Resources. I agree with Commissioner Pierre. If we just remove everything -- and I think it goes further than that, but everything south of Kelly Creek, we get rid of a lot of what we have to mitigate. And we're talking about a mitigation that we hope works. We're not talking about any type of mitigation that -- we hope it works. It's less than significant, but it still has impacts. And when you're talking about a special 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 species and you're talking about native grasses that we are losing at a rapid rate in this state and the other biological resources out there, the trees and everything else, I just don't see why we would have a discussion about building there when we can have a project that works. It works within the General Plan; it doesn't require mitigation; and, what I like to say, even though there's going to be building, it's more bulletproof later on. There's just so much that has to be mitigated to build south of Kelly Creek, that this -- a project of 63 homes I think -- I did some math. It goes down, you know, I think the attorney said you take ten out here, you take four out there, you take three out there to mitigate all these issues if we build south of Kelly Creek. So why roll the dice and, you know, risk losing a viable and biological resource. And those -- and I found at Page 4.3 -38, it just went on and on about -- and it's difficult and costly. And, again, there's no guarantee that those efforts are going to work and do what they hope they will do. It does mitigate, but it doesn't ensure that those resources can come back. One of the things was, in terms of the trees, they were going to grow seedlings and then hope -- you know, watch the 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 seedlings grow and then plant them someplace else. And maybe the seedlings grow, hopefully they would grow, but they wouldn't grow there. And if anyone's a green thumb, great, but it's difficult to do. Also if -- since, you know, again, as Commissioner Pierre said, this is part -- this is also our comments. One of the things that was in here, if they build Option A or B, there was going to be an education program for future owners about endangered species because they're building so close to the creek, and they're worried about the kids going in there or dogs or animals. And what education? I mean, that's a great concept, but I did not see the EIR go into detail about what do you mean "education program "? What about I buy a house up there and I sell it to Mr. -- Commission Marzo. Is he going to be educated? Who's going to educate him? And he can't be educated. No chance. But not to make light of that, but there's just -- I just don't see any viable plan for that. What does that mean, educate the owners about the biological resources and how things have to be changed? And then who's going to pay for that education? And that goes up into the trees. So there's 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not enough space to replant all the trees that are taken out of Option A or B. They -- it's a given. They said there's not enough. The only alternative that allows the all trees to remain is the alternative that allows the 28 homes. And when you look at our policy to preserve those trees, the policy to preserve the biological resources, the policy to mitigate effects of development, the 28 homes, to me, is the most viable option. Also if -- in part of the tree replanting program, it says that one of the mitigation measures is to keep it and upkeep them and make sure they are maintained for five years. Well, who's going to do that? Again, that's not set forth in the Draft EIR. There's no funding source. There's no penalties. There's no consequences for failure to maintain those trees. So it's nice to have a program. I live in a subdivision. We have HOA. But if we don't have an HOA, we just have CC and Rs. And who is in charge of making sure that the neighbors comply? Nobody. So it just starts degrading. So I don't see anything in here to say, yes, it's a good idea. But there's nothing behind the idea to say it's going to happen or we can make it happen. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I think that does not mitigate the removal of the trees if you have an idea but nothing to back it up. And that's the same for the grasses and the education program for the neighbors. Oh, small thing about cultural resources is -- and I was a little unsure about this. But in that section, it talks about this borders the Cal Sonoma 1082 area. And in the prior review, AR's peer review, and I'll quote from Page 4.4 -20 in the Draft EIR -- I wrote down the page numbers, by the way. Just so you know. I tried to. It says that it was -- But your comments are better; I'll give you that. It says that it was peer reviewed, and the cultural resources report and the site's important [sic] should have been more strongly noted. But then it mentioned another firm that thought the reports were adequate. So I just thought, if we're talking about whether there's cultural resources there, it's 50/50 about whether we've done -- if there's enough of a report to feel confident about that. And I may be wrong; I may have read that wrong, but that's as I was going through it, that's how I read it. Finally, as to the alternatives, I understand 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the City or somebody put forth, "Here's an alternative. We're going to take out everything south of Kelly Creek, and we're going to have a 47 -home -- what's left? It'd be the 47 -home alternative." But the problem with that is the 47 —home alternative says, "We're going to have this alternative, and we're going to move the barn complex." There's no discussion of having a 47 -home alternative and keeping the barn complex. And there's no discussion about having the 47 -home alternative but deleting Lots 22, 23, 18, and 19 that are mentioned in the Draft EIR about Option A and B and the impacts of Option A and B and how to mitigate them by removing those lots from Options A and M So I just think that that -- the alternative options can be more robust. We can discuss how are we going to have this option yet still comply with what we found in the initial review of Options A and B to mitigate some of the impacts of A and B. And just so you know, Option A -- let me strike that. So that's part of the problem with the 47 -home The Option A is -- I'm not going to repeat it, 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that you have to eliminate a bunch of lots with Option A. And I won't go through that again. And the same thing with Option B. And, again, the same comments about why no interpretive center if we keep the barn there. Finally -- I think I'm towards the end here. There is a typo on Page -- I know, I always find the typos. It confused me. And I went through this whole report. I had to go back to it because I didn't understand it, but I realize it was a typo. On Page 2.0 -55, Impact Transportation 4, it says that it's less than significant, the mitigation measures. I think you meant to say potentially significant. So just an FYI for that. And then let me see. I'm almost done. I know everybody's -- it's getting late. Just -- and final, I just think when we look through this, it's -- you know, we're looking at do we want to mitigate something and hope and cross our fingers that we've done enough, or do we want to have a project that we know has done enough by how many homes are going to be allowed up there. And in my humble opinion, I think that 28 -lot home -- the 28 lot gets rid of all of these problems and all of those potentials. And it's not a question 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of hopefully the mitigation works. There is no need to mitigate most of it. And finally, with the General Plan, discussion about the General Plan changes, I talked about the gateway changes, but also I do not understand why we're asking to remove tributaries from the General Plan. I can't remember which General Plan, but they wanted to remove the line -- strike -out the word "tributaries." And what we heard from a speaker, which -- I didn't get this from the Draft'EIR; I looked through the whole thing. I was wond- -- I thought the tributary, and maybe I just didn't read it carefully, was just something minor. But it goes down along all of D Street. I mean, it's a major tributary. So I don't think we should be deleting it. It was there for a reason. It's significant to have protected because it might go into the Petaluma River. So I did not see any reason that I thought sufficient, now knowing what that is, to strike that language from the General Plan. And I think that is that for my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Benedetti- Petnic. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI- PETNIC: My fellow Commissioners have done a pretty exhaustive discussion. So what I will say is that I'm trying to very carefully 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bear in mind that our job tonight is to provide comment and feedback on the Draft EIR, on the analysis, the validity of the analysis, and the assumptions and, with that -- with those comments, make a recommendation what to do with this thing. It's not our job tonight to talk about the merits of the project, which is what we listened to for about two hours. And it's not our job to talk about the entitlements that we aren't reviewing tonight, proposed entitlement requests and changes and et cetera. So my comments -- I will say that we had two speakers that spoke very directly to the Draft EIR. Not coincidently, they're both attorneys. And their comments were, I think, valid and worthy of scrutiny and consideration on the part of the Commission and our consultants and our staff. I don't disagree with much of what has been said ahead of me. Commissioner Pierre, as always, has done an exhaustive and detailed review. Thank you very much. And I will say that, at a gut- instinct level, it feels like there is a lot amiss. And between some assumptions that have been made that I might disagree with, there are some impacts, of course, here that 1' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 never really get mitigated even with the 47- and the 28 -lot developments. Most of them -- you know, and I -- I do take exception to Commissioner -- Chair Gomez's comments because, when I look at the summary table comparison of project alternatives, and we talked about this at the beginning of the meeting, there's only one of them that is favorably impacted by the -- by the alternative developments. And that was -- and that is a questionable -- a questionable change on the -- on AES2 that went from significant down to less than significant. And that's the only one that changed. Now, that doesn't pass the smell test either because that's a big difference in my mind, when I look at this project and I'm thinking about avoiding all the slide areas, avoiding the creek, and avoiding, you know, the environmentally sensitive area to a large extent reducing the construction impacts and the drainage impacts and the utilities impacts and the traffic impacts by cutting a project almost in half, in one case more than that, and the only -- the only change is one of the aesthetic metrics? I don't know. I just -- I just am -- did I misunderstand that? SHABNAM BARATI: All the impacts go down. If you look at the other impacts too -- 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Can you come to the microphone, please? SHABNAM BARATI: Sorry. What I meant to say was that that particular one, of course, is singled out because we were focusing on the significant and unavoidable impacts. But if you look at the comparison table, you will see that all impacts are shown as reduced relative to the project, with negative numbers or lower -- you know, the minus signifies reductions. HEATHER HINES: If I can add to that, what it's saying is the only significant and unavoidable that gets taken off the table is that one. That doesn't mean that other impacts don't lessen. It's just a lot of those impacts were less than significant to begin with or less than significant after mitigation and they remain less than significant with that alternative. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI - PETNIC: So I was missing the -- I saw that dash.and did not read that as a negative. SHABNAM BARATI: You got it. HEATHER HINES: So it does lessen, it's just that -- COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI- PETNIC: Okay. Good. 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I feel better about that. At any rate, I do have a hard time -- so, you know, as far as mitigations that -- that don't -- that don't seem to be well -- that don't seem to be easily defendable, the ones that really strike me are the tree removal questions raised about the raw data that was used for those assumptions, and the visual character, the aesthetic. What else -- and biology, the -- I guess the fact that we don't have any feedback from the environmental agencies yet. We may or may not have that in the next two to three months. We don't really know. Right? And that seems -- that seems a little capricious to move forward without that input. So I'm not comfortable with the Draft EIR. I'm not comfortable handing this to our City Council, certainly, to move forward with. All that said, you know, it is a General Plan, residential zoned within the urban growth boundary property. And I think that it might be appropriate to have a development there. But I don't have a report that's helping me -- that's helping me analyze that with confidence at this point for all of the reasons that have been stated before this. And I don't disagree that one of the 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alternatives is definitely -- and I don't know which one. I don't know that I have that big a problem with the 47 -lot alternative, assuming that you have -- you do have to deal with the barn, which this doesn't quite address. I'm not particularly fussed about whether the barns and the accessory structures move or stay. They aren't historically significant in my mind. I see a lot of these barns. These are in -- you know, these are nothing spectacular. They're charming, yes. That's nice. But in terms of mitigation and CEQA, I don't know that we're any better off leaving them versus moving them elsewhere on the site. So I'm just ambivalent on that. I'm not going to take issue with those. So I would like to see a -- I would like to see a less impactful proposal. And I think that there could be something done that is respectful of this sensitive environment and of our General Plan and a report that more accurately reflects those mitigations and where -- where they can be and can't be applied. There was one other thing -- oh, the tot lot. I, from the day one, have never understood who wants a tot lot on D Street. It's just -- it's madness. It is utter madness. I live on D Street. I live on D Street 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where the traffic limit -- the speed limit is much less than what it is out there. And people are flying down that road. And putting children in a playground anywhere near D Street is just asking -- is just asking for accidents. It just seems foolhardy to me. I mean, the idea of a children's playground is a great idea. And I would just suggest that there must be a better place to incorporate that in the project than on D Street. Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you. It's 10:45, and by rules we have to have a vote to go past 11:00. I'm going to guess we have two more comments from the Commission and will probably put us past 11:00 a little bit. So would someone entertain a motion to -- for us to go past 11:00? COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: Move to extend to meeting. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I'll second. CHAIR GOMEZ: All those in favor? (Unanimous "Aye ") CHAIR GOMEZ: That passes. Thanks. Thanks and sorry. Commissioner Wolpert? COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple questions for staff, just for 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 clarification. Of all the -- the property's is divided into, I think, seven parcels. I was just trying to clarify which parcels the City is going to end up being responsible for. Is that the -- the park properties that will contain the barn and the tot lot and the parking areas on D Street? ALI GIUDICE: So the General Plan identifies the urban separator as an area to be dedicated to the City. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. ALI GIUDICE: The park area would be dedicated to the City. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. ALI GIUDICE: And I believe the parking lot as well. I don't know that we've made a formal determination on that, but that's an area that we're discussing about. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: And in your presentation, I thought all those green areas were identified as City property. ALI GIUDICE: The green areas would be -- yes, those would be. HEATHER HINES: But not the -- not the bulk of the open space. 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Right, correct. HEATHER HINES: It would not be. And I believe the trail along Kelly Creek would be a public easement dedicated to the City but not the -- COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: So the public -- the open space along the Kelly Creek buffer is what? Is a public, private? ALI GIUDICE: Private. HEATHER HINES: It would be private with a public easement. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. All right. So the City would be responsible for taking care of the parcels turned over to the City, the parks, maintaining the barns? ALI GIUDICE: Yes, except for I believe the open space areas would not be. HEATHER HINES: We would be entering into some maintenance agreements, and there's policies in the General Plan that talks about maintenance, by -- up -- the private maintenance. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Another question, in the changing the wording of the General Plan amendment, I was curious about the minimum hundred -foot setback, that the words 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "residence" and "fence" are added to precede "setback." And I'm wondering why those two items are important or what's being possibly excluded from the setback by not just saying it's a hundred -foot setback, period. ALI GIUDICE: So there -- some of the lots on the north side of Kelly Creek -- COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Right. ALI GIUDICE: -- currently propose property lines to extend beyond that. And so those would be -- but the fence lines would be -- what the applicant is proposing is that the fence lines would meet the hundred -foot setback. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: That would be part of the mitigation? ALI GIUDICE: Part of the mitigation is actually requiring the property lines also comply with the hundred -foot setback. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Oh, okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: That is in the EIR? ALI GIUDICE: Mm -hmm. Yes. Then the other part is the trail runs through the southern boundary of Kelly Creek, and the applicant wanted to clarify that the trail would not be required to comply with that hundred -foot setback. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. Can grading take 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place within the hundred -foot setback? ALI GIUDICE: Grading would take place within the hundred -foot setback -- COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. ALI GIUDICE: -- under the applicant's proposal. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. I think those are all my questions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: You know what? Can I follow up on that? COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Because I'm confused now. Looking at Figure 3.0 -6, which is the Option A kind of setback and lot -- proposed lot areas. So -- what? CHAIR GOMEZ: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. So, like, Lot 24, for example, the hundred -foot -- so first of all, I guess I'll ask the question. On this figure, which is kind of the main map of the project, is the hundred -foot setback which is denoted onto Kelly Creek, is that a hundred -- that's a hundred foot from each bank, right? That's not a hundred foot from center? ALI GIUDICE: That is the hundred -foot from 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 center line. And this drawing -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: In each direction? So it's 200 feet total? ALI GIUDICE: Total. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. So then Lot 24, for example, shows that, as proposed by the applicant, which is a hundred feet on center, that -- you wouldn't be able to put a fence in there and -- because you're saying now the mitigation says no, you can't have a fence within the hundred foot. ALI GIUDICE: It says you can't have a fence within the hundred feet. It also -- with mitigation, it also says that the property lines need to respect that hundred -foot setback. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: So then how would Lot 24 even be feasible? ALI GIUDICE: I mean, it is possible that they may have to eliminate it, but I believe the plan is they would have to modify the size of that lot. HEATHER HINES: What that -- I believe what the applicant is proposing is that the lot stay as is but the fence line would be at the hundred -foot. So the fence line would not be at the rear property. The fence line would be at the hundred -foot setback. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: But that still -- I 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mean, right now it's noting the lot size as 10,084 square feet. And if you move the fence line back to -- I mean, you're going to lose more than 84 feet. HEATHER HINES: But the lot -- the way the applicant has it proposed -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I see. So there would be lot outside the fence. HEATHER HINES: Right, correct. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: And there could be grading beyond the -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. Which, actually, I think our General Plan also discourages grading a -- HEATHER HINES: I believe the grading has to happen for the trail. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Only the trail? Because how could -- I mean, looking at, for example, Lots 29 and 30 -- well, 29 is just about barely 10,000 square feet. So how do you build a house on a hill and not grade within a few feet of that line? COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: That was my question. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. Thanks. I had to get there in the non - architect engineering way. Okay. Was it answered? COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: No, not really. I mean, so I disagree with the way the amendment's worded 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on there. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. Right. It doesn't make sense. I thought our General Plan -- so maybe we need to go back more through some of the boundary on creek stuff because the General Plan also discourages grading, fences, all that stuff within a hundred feet. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Yeah. HEATHER HINES: So the policy language that's proposed is what has been proposed by the applicant. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. HEATHER HINES: And the way it was worded was I believe it just said "hundred -foot setback." And what the applicant is attempting to do with the proposed modification is to clarify what the setback is, setback of the lot, setback of the fence, setback of the buildings. That's -- so what they have proposed is the setback would be the fence -- residence and fence would respect that set back. So they've proposed language to get clarification on what exactly the setback is to. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: And the Draft EIR is assessing the impacts of consistency with land use based on that proposed change instead of the language that's in the General Plan right now? 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEATHER HINES: Right. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: So basically we should be finding it as a conflict with our General Plan versus consistent with Plan language that's being proposed? ALI GIUDICE: Well, with the existing General Plan. But with the proposed General Plan, it would be consistent. Correct? SHABNAM BARATI: So, yes. Currently, if you look at the policy as it's worded currently, yes, it's in conflict. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. But that's again -- SHABNAM BARATI: But the idea is to modify the policy and then demonstrate consistency. And we were finding that we were not having complete consistency even with the revised policy. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. SHABNAM BARATI: Which indicated that we needed to have the fence lines moved because we were intruding into the hundred -foot buffer on some properties. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I still just go back to, if this project is approved, there is going to be a 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 policy decision made by the City Council that there are going to be environmental impacts, there are social - economic impacts that are going to be approved in light of economic development. I mean, our General Plan has done that. In fact, that's the traffic. That's why we have traffic impacts at D and Lakeville and Oliver and Corona because we've already said we're going to take the traffic impacts so we can further our development. I guess what I'm asking is that the final or be more clear about the trade -offs that we're asking the decision makers to make. And like that, to me, is one of them, to be extra clear because that's not -- that's not language proposed by staff. That's proposed by the applicant. So, you know, if it was staff language and we were going through ordinance process and that's what we're looking -- but we're being told, you know, we're not reviewing entitlements, we're not reviewing the project, we're not reviewing the PUD, but we kind of are. And so if it all goes together with the package, I think it just needs to be clear for us and the Council ultimately to say, yeah, we're making this 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trade -off. We're recognizing that, under the existing General Plan that the community adopted in 2008, this is inconsistent, but we think these changes are correct, and therefore it's less than consistent, and here's how we're dealing with the remaining inconsistencies. So I think that would be helpful in the next draft. CHAIR GOMEZ: Is that it? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: No, I have one more comment, if you let me. CHAIR GOMEZ: Of course. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Sorry. Well, since we already voted to go past 11:00 -- just kidding. The only -- COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: I'm patient. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Oh, I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Oh, no, I'm just getting started. CHAIR GOMEZ: He's just done with questions. Yeah, he has comments. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: I have comments. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Sure. 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. I'll just make my one more point. The idea of moving the barn, I just want to -- since you guys brought this up and you were saying you no, and, Gina, you were saying, you know, "I'm indifferent," the reason that I was suggesting that that would be a path forward was because ideally what we want to do is put all of the resources we're trying to protect on the same side of the creek so we're not doing a pedestrian bridge and we're not doing something where there's a lot of traffic over and around the bridge. And so I think there's obviously pros and cons, but that's why -- I just wanted to clarify that that's why I was suggesting moving the barn over so that we can really solidify the protection of the structure and the natural resources, you know, along the south side more easily than having it kind of, you know, go over the creek. So anyway, I just wanted to clarify that. I'm sorry, Bill. I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Well, no, that's okay. And that actually brings up my last question, which was the only way to get from the parking lot to the tot lot or the barn is by walking along D Street, 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right? There is no bridge. There is no way to walk directly from the parking area or the restrooms to the You've got to walk along D Street along the 10 -foot path to get there; that's correct? ALI GIUDICE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. All right. Comments. You know, in reviewing the policies in our General Plan, this site, D Street at Windsor, is really the only one that is called out so specifically. The others are referring to general areas or corridors. But this property is considered important enough by the people that were involved in updating our General Plan that it mentions this property specifically. It wants it to be a gateway. It wants to have the minimum hundred -foot setbacks from the creek. It wants to preserve the Red Barns in place and the incorporation of a nature study area, preserve and maintain the habitats, avoid the slide areas, provide the minimum 300 -foot urban separator, a three -acre park minimum, and trail head facilities with restrooms, and respect the City Hillside ordinance. So that is such a clear direction to me, I have a hard time with the amendments being suggested. I think a setback is a setback. And it includes -- it includes exclusions from grading, fences, buildings. 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's what a setback is, and I think that should be respected. I am willing to go with the center line of the creek rather than the bank of the creek in this instance. I'm also not happy with that tot lot being on the corner. I also think it's kind of a visual blight from the gateway into the natural setting that we're trying to create for that area. Seems like it should be closer to the restrooms. I'm in agreement with my other Commissioners on so many of the significant impacts all being related to development on the south side of Kelly Creek. So I won't -- I won't go into a lot of comment about that other than I'm in agreement. The Red Barns, I've been advocating for the Red Barns to be preserved in place from the very beginning. That's what preservation is. The place is important to the structure. And rural farm dwellings usually are clustered buildings, so it's important not to just save a barn, but it's important to save the structure. There are some comments and mentioned in the Cultural Resource component that there wasn't any significant finding for this barn. And I find that interesting. There was a nice short essay forwarded by 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Katherine Rinehart, who's a noted historian, architectural historian, not only in the town but in the county, that this property is associated with Carl Wiese, who bought it in 1868, right after the Civil War -- that sounds kind of historic -- and was one of the first dairy ranches to supply milk to the town, retail trade. His family is associated with Petersen family and Magnus Vonsen, who was a prominent granary and food merchant that owned warehouses along the Petaluma River. So it's not only architectural history but cultural history that's associated with these buildings and this property. And I think it is very worthy of historic consideration and protection. My notes are a little more scattered than the others, but the land use planning -- you know, I tried to look at what can be justified for the PUD. I -- I can understand and respect how sometimes, if you're going to reduce the minimum lot area in order to get more open space, that that's a good trade -off. Clustered development makes sense when you're trying to preserve infrastructure and resources, but where it doesn't make sense to me is on the south side of Kelly Creek, especially when we're talking about 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homes that are 3500 to 4500 square feet. It just seems like it's exactly the kind of density and the type of development that our General Plan is trying to describe against. Our General Plan also talks about preserving our steep topography. And we're doing everything we can on that south side to change that, to make it something than what it is. I covered the Scott Ranch. I don't understand why the Red Barn can't be considered with the same care and integrity in Option B that it's described in Option A, getting an upgraded foundation, being converted to a useful public building. There was discussion of mitigating for asbestos and lead paint in Option A, but it said Option B that was not included. Again, if this becomes a use for the public, I think those mitigations should also be included. Some of the geo comments, again, they relate mostly to the south side. But realistically, when you're looking at slopes that are in excess of 20 percent gradient, the type of mitigation that's necessary -- the excavating, the removal of expansive soils, addressing the seeps, supplying drains -- there 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is so much that has to be discovered and then corrected and, if it's not a hundred percent discovered and corrected, then we're looking at probable failure somewhere along the line. So I think it's a difficult -- I agree with the comment made earlier. Anything that's over, like, 25 percent I think should probably be off limits. On the greenhouse gasses, again, these are exceptionally large homes. And large homes use more energy than smaller homes. We definitely should be looking at addressing the mandates that we're going to be facing for 2020 rather than looking at, you know, the Building Code for now. The -- the measures that were mentioned in the EIR are baseline minimums right now. In fact, I think -- well, they are. R19 was mentioned as an extra measure of insulation. But if you're going to end up using 2 -by -6 studs, that is the baseline. That's the minimum requirement. Bigger homes, you know, take more heat and cool. All of that should be considered in terms of greenhouse gasses and energy. There was no mention or study that the -- under Public Elements that no significant impact to schools is -- is anticipated. I was just wondering if there was anything to back that up. 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The mitigating roundabout which -- at Windsor and D Street is a mitigating measure, I understand. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: It's still in? COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: It's not on the drawing, but it's measured as a mitigating factor, reducing the traffic from LOSF to LOSC. CHAIR GOMEZ: Yeah, it's in there. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Yeah. CHAIR GOMEZ: Under All Options. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Oh, okay. So I -- all right. Well, then, I still have that comment. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. Which I find a traffic circle being able to make that kind of miraculous. It's -- I don't quite understand how that works, but that's me and traffic. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: And the sidewalk is going on the east side of D Street. So you have to cross the roundabout to get to the sidewalk that connects to D Street. That was my comment. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: And it stands. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: So anyway, in closing, I definitely would be looking at the 47 -unit alternative or something less than that. I don't -- I don't see how going beyond that really works with what 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our General Plan is asking for. CHAIR GOMEZ: Thank you, Commissioner Wolpert. Commissioner Marzo. COMMISSIONER MARZO: Thank you very much. I know it's getting late. I really sincerely appreciate everyone's time, staff, Davidon, the public. It's been a -- it's been a very productive evening. A lot of my questions have already been asked, but one that I did have was concerning water and wastewater. And it -- there's no -- there's no calculation and I don't know if the City has this answer. You know, how many more homes will Ellis Creek be able to handle? You know, I'm a local business owner, and I pay a lot for my water. And I'm constantly being told that, you know, the City can't handle it. So I just felt like that, in the EIR, it wasn't necessarily addressed. Not that it -- and perhaps it didn't need to be, but I just felt like that -- that the wastewater and the City's ability to handle it wasn't -- wasn't addressed. Again, a lot of -- a lot of my comments have already been mentioned. And I'm not a big tea leaf reader, but we can all tell where we're headed here. So what I want to do is also highlight my specific 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And starting with I am not going to be on board with eliminating the words "and its tributaries" from Kelly Creek. That's -- I'm not going to be on board with that today or tomorrow. So I also believe that, at some point, you know, this Regional Park Trail is going to need to be constructed as opposed to talked about and planned for. And perhaps maybe the million dollars sitting at the Sonoma Land Trust can help in that effort. But talking about it is great, but I believe that that trail needs to be constructed. I can't get around the level of service regarding the traffic and specifically at D and Lakeville. Perhaps -- again, it just -- the traffic along D Street -- and I live off Sunnyslope -- it's just getting worse. And whether it's, you know, as one citizen mentioned, maybe mobile apps that are helping reroute people or the fact that it's just a very robust economy and more people are at work -- but it's not going away. I, too, agree that every -- south of Kelly Creek, there's just too much stuff going on to justify any homes being built south of Kelly Creek. I'm in favor of maintaining the barns for 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where they're at. I believe it is an important aesthetic as the gateway to Petaluma, coming or going. And so I do -- I think that's important. I think, you know, that that needs to -- I would be in favor of an Alternative No. 2, 47 homes, maintaining the barn and the clusters, which I also believe are important as a cluster that they remain in place. So, again, not to continue on, but those are my questions and comments. Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Marzo. So that -- anybody have any other comments on the Draft EIR before we move on? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I'm done. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. You're done? You're sure? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: I'm sure. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. Great. Thank you. So staff has requested we bring a motion, someone bring a motion the Commission recommend Council accept the Draft EIR. Does anyone want to discuss what we should to at this point? You know, do we need to bring a motion? It doesn't look like -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: We're not voting to accept the EIR. We're voting to have them move forward 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the process. CHAIR GOMEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Okay. CHAIR GOMEZ: Right. I misspoke. I'm sorry. I wrote it down wrong. So do we want to do that? What -- so question. Let's just hypothetically say that nobody brings a motion to move this forward. So would we continue it? Would it be tabled? What would we do? HEATHER HINES: We would move it forward to the Council. This is what happened last time -- CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. HEATHER HINES: -- where the Planning Commission said, "We're not ready to say that this is adequate, we'll wait and make that decision when we see the Final EIR and see if all the questions and comments that have come up have been adequately addressed in the EIR." So we took that direction up to the Council and presented the document to the Council and kind of reported out what happened at the Planning Commission and that there wasn't a level of comfort to make a recommendation that the Draft -- on the Draft and summarized some of the comments. And so we would have do the same thing this 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time around and have the Council provide direction and comments and -- as well. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI - PETNIC: I have a question. CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI - PETNIC: In that scenario, the Final would never come back to us. HEATHER HINES: No,, you can request to see the Final. And that's what happened last time, so I would assume that the Planning Commission would be asking to see the Final again. CHAIR GOMEZ: Right, and I had -- COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI- PETNIC: With the ability to comment prior to going to Council? HEATHER HINES: Yeah. When it would come back to -- when the Final would come back to the Planning Commission, it would be the Final EIR with all of the comments and the response to comments as well the project as a package for the Commission to review and comment and make formal recommendations to the City Council on the EIR and the entitlements. CHAIR GOMEZ: And that would be before Council approves it, if they approve it. HEATHER HINES: So before Council certifies the EIR, yes. 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR GOMEZ: Yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLPERT: I don't imagine, though, we're going to see or have an opportunity for a third draft. I mean, if we don't move this forward, it's not going to come back a third time as a draft. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: It could. HEATHER HINES: Well, last time, the Council did not direct that it -- that it come -- that a draft be redone. The Council said if the comments that have come in and the questions and the clarifications that have come into the record can be addressed in a final, staff, go ahead and prepare the final. So there was not -- the Council, the last time around, did not say, "No. Go back to the drawing boards with another draft." It was we went back to the drawing boards with another draft because there was a change the project proposal. There was, you know, discussion back and forth with the applicant about some of the comments and the need to -- the need to relook at the project proposed under the current General Plan instead of looking -- trying to look at it at two General Plan [sic], that those were kind of some fundamental issues. So when the applicant revised the proposal, it was staff's decision to restart the EIR because it was 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a new proposal under the new General Plan. CHAIR GOMEZ: So assuming this goes forward and the Council looks and we make changes and get a Draft -- or a Final EIR, some of the proposals we said nothing south of Kelly Creek, for example, or we don't go Option A, Option B; we do 47 or 28. And the question was asked but what if -- what if let's say we do 40- -- the 48 proposal, but we have to cut some out because of things that were also said, could that happen? Could that be part of that -- HEATHER HINES: (Nods head affirmatively) CHAIR GOMEZ: So they can have another alternative? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: No. HEATHER HINES: Well, you can -- you can make a recommendation or approve a project that is a slightly a variation of an alternative, as long as the alternatives are broad enough to cover the scope of what the ultimate project is. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: So I think that's why I think, for me, it depends because if we were going to say I'm okay moving forward with the CEQA review process, but you know, I don't want -- I want to be clear to the Council that I don't think this body is 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommending it go forward with 66 homes. And that's a as a proposed project because we can complete the CEQA review process on pretty much anything between 20 and 68 homes, based on this EIR, you know, and wherever that falls through the response to comments and working with the applicant and the Council and all that. And, personally, I'm comfortable with that. I think we can -- I think there's enough here to work with and understand. I mean, if we're going to have a development here, I think this is bracketing the impacts of what could happen. But I just would want to make sure that, if we're going to make this motion, that the recommendation come along with a clear report from this body that I think we're all consistently saying that -- HEATHER HINES: Yeah. And I would say -- I mean, throughout my notes one of the things I heard, I think across the board, is the development south of Kelly Creek, that nobody on -- that just went through was supportive, whether that's a 28 -unit or a 48 -unit or something in between. But what I heard across the board was that the Planning Commission is not supportive of the project with development south of Kelly Creek, that the removal 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of development south of Kelly Creek removes many of the impacts and concerns that this Planning Commission has and that have been identified by members of the public and in the EIR. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. And that the Final -- I mean, the process from here on out then, as we would be recommending it, is to essentially ensure that the Final EIR, if we're recommending that it be, you know, developed, ensure that that is going to be a document that a decision can be made on based on something different than what we're seeing in the Draft as a proposed project -- so just that clarification of the process. HEATHER HINES: Right. But what I also want to be clear on is that the applicant may not revise their project. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yeah. HEATHER HINES: I mean, it might be -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: But it's the City's proposed project, not the applicant's. Right? HEATHER HINES: On the -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: The EIR. HEATHER HINES: -- in the EIR, right, so to make sure it covers that. But you might find that the project asking for approval that comes back before you 13 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may not be -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Right. But we can have -- I mean, it's an applicant - proposed project and the City's, right, proposed project. I mean, we can -- you can build the record around that based on the comments that we're providing and the public. Right? So I guess I'm just saying I'm comfortable with saying, yes, let's keep moving in this process as long as it's attached with that nuance that we've been discussing. That's my -- me, personally. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI - PETNIC: So, I'm sorry. I hate to beat a dead horse, but -- so a corollary question then is is it a viable Final EIR that would be put forward with -- with a non - south -of -Kelly Creek development as an alternate, not part of the main -- COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI - PETNIC: -- main Draft suggestion? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Mm -hmm. Because alternatives are meant to avoid or mitigate significant impacts of the proposed project. So the idea is that then, as a decision making body, we could adopt that then in order to avoid having to call out significant impacts. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI - PETNIC: So the 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 structure of the EIR would stand? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Mm -hmm. It could. But I think that's why I'm saying we would recommend continue preparing Final, making sure that there was an ability to adopt something different than the proposed project -- like, you know, just making sure that that's all nice and clean, we can do -- because we have to do findings. You know, we review the findings so just making sure the information's in the final to support findings. HEATHER HINES: I'm just looking at our CEQA consultant, too, to make sure that she's -- can I -- SHABNAM BARATI: Yeah, if I can add here, I've had a project where we did something very similar, that when we got to the Final EIR, we included another alternative, which would be a modification, perhaps, to the 47 -lot alternative that we have at this time. We added it into the EIR because -- for consideration by the decision makers. It wasn't the preferred project or anything like that. It was just another alternative. And we disclosed the impacts. And as you can imagine, like, you appropriately said, the impacts are bracketed in this document at the current time. So it's a matter of just clarifying it 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and presenting that information in the Final EIR. CHAIR GOMEZ: So I'm assuming that you heard the comments -- you're going to look at all the comments. SHABNAM BARATI: We got a sense of what you were pointing out. CHAIR GOMEZ: Right. Right. A little sense. So you might see that the 47 proposal could be viable, except for whatever things that came up in comments that maybe weren't taken into consideration. SHABNAM BARATI: Right, right. Right. I mean, it's a modified 47 -- CHAIR GOMEZ: Sure. SHABNAM BARATI: -- perhaps that you folks are looking for. CHAIR GOMEZ: Right. SHABNAM BARATI: We definitely have to talk with Planning staff, Ally and Heather and others, to make sure we don't misinterpret anything you folks said. But such an alternative could be carried into the Final EIR for consideration. CHAIR GOMEZ: So I'm satisfied with that. I'm satisfied with the -- COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI- PETNIC: Can I make a 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motion? CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER BENEDETTI- PETNIC: I will make a motion that we recommend City Council authorize them to move forward with the preparation of the Final EIR for this project. CHAIR GOMEZ: Any seconds? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yeah. Does that -- I mean, that's -- is that good enough for you? HEATHER HINES: So I believe what -- the previous discussion was to recommend to Council moving forward with the Final EIR with adequate analysis of an alternative with no development south of Kelly Creek, to provide adequate environmental analysis. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yeah. CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Second. CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes, Councilmember Albertson? COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: There were many comments made tonight, I mean, above and beyond the south of Kelly Creek issue. So are those comments -- they're incorporated in a Council packet document? Or how do we -- how do we include those? Some may be pertinent, some not, but... HEATHER HINES: Well, we'll have -- I mean, so 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when -- all the comments received would still be included in the Final EIR. And a response to all the CEQA- related comments would be in the Final EIR. When we go to City Council, we'll kind of summarize the discussion, what happened. We'll include all written public. And I believe last time what we did is we created some sort of matrix based on the comments that the court reporter will have taken to show what verbal comments were presented at the Planning Commission meeting so the Council has an idea. And then there's another opportunity for public comment at the Council meeting leading up to the Council meeting. So between all of that, the Council would have a full sense of all the comments that have come in at this meeting, have come up leading up to this meeting, have come up between the two meetings, and what happens verbally. COUNCILMEMBER ALBERTSON: I'm good. Thank you. CHAIR GOMEZ: Okay, And I also want to make sure -- I don't know if that would be part of this motion or just a request that we review the Final EIR, that we want to make sure that that's part of the -- should it be part of the motion, or is that just a 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 request? HEATHER HINES: Would you like to add that as a modification to your motion? CHAIR GOMEZ: Yes, I think so. Yes. HEATHER HINES: So a second on that modified motion? COMMISSIONER PIERRE: Yes, second. CHAIR GOMEZ: So all those in favor of the motion as presented? (Unanimous "Aye ") CHAIR GOMEZ: All those opposed? (No response) CHAIR GOMEZ: So the motion carries, 6 to zero. So that's all for our business tonight. I just want to again thank all the members of the public that stayed this late. And as you can see from the process, we really do listen to what you have to say. And a lot of your comments were incorporated into some things that opened another avenue. So it's part of the process, and we appreciate your being here and sticking with us tonight. So with that, the meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, the proceedings concluded at 11:24 p.m.) 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF MARIN ) I, DEBORAH FUQUA, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were reported by me, a disinterested person, and thereafter transcribed under my direction into typewriting and is a true and correct transcription of said proceedings. I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing proceeding and caption named, nor in any way interested in the outcome of the cause named in said caption. Dated the 16th day of May, 2017. DEBORAH FUQUA CSR NO. 12948 147 April 26, 2017 Petaluma City Council Mayor David Glass Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett Council Member Chris Albertson Council Member Dave King Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney Council Member Kathy Miller Senior Planner Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, ATTACHMENT 2 MAY 2017 d 3 .;� The undersigned Petaluma residents would be directly affected by the proposed Antonio Road or on D Street in areas that Y Davidon/Scott Ranch development. We would like to raise the following concerns with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) relating to that development. First, the transportation impact study presented in the DEIR does not accurately reflect current traffic conditions on D Street, the D Street Extension and San Antonio Road. Accordingly, it cannot serve as a reliable benchmark for assessing the traffic impact of the potential Davidon/Scott Ranch development. The transportation impact study is inaccurate for at least the following reasons: According to the date nene�dxo4 the traffic fic Counts1SSynchro 88 Report), the consultants (DEIR App traffic study was conducted on 9/1/2014. That was Labor Day. Obviously, traffic flow on a national holiday would not be representative of normal daily traffic, which would include commuter traffic. The Davidon traffic analysis was also performed just one month after the opening of the Silveira Ranch Road overpass on Highway 101. Drivers (and navigation apps) have since become familiar with the overpass as a shortcut to avoid highway congestion and reach Petaluma via San Antonio Road and D Street. This recent increase in traffic has been acknowledged by CalTrans and the Transportation Authority of Marin. The two agencies have jointly hosted two community meetings in the last six months to address problems with high traffic volume and speeding on the routes, and —1 we understand that they are currently studying potential mitigation strategies. Adding traffic volume from a Davidon development would exacerbate already serious problems and undermine the agencies' ongoing efforts to ameliorate them. At a minimum, any updated traffic review should be done in coordination with the two agencies, as more development would undermine their mitigation efforts. Second, the DEIR mainly addresses the effect that additional cars would have on wait times at the intersection of San Antonio Road and D Street. However, more cars on the road would affect more than just traffic congestion at this intersection. San Antonio Road is part of a wildlife corridor, stretching from Napa, through Sonoma and into Marin. Many species, including foxes, skunks, rabbits, deer, coyotes, mountain lion and pond turtles traverse the road day and night. The DEIR does not address the increased threat to those species that the additional traffic would pose. Many runners and cyclists use San Antonio Road in the morning and afternoon, and especially on the weekends. It, is a narrow road and lacks any shoulder. Putting more cars on the road (especially if traveling at a high rate of speed) would jeopardize the safety of those enjoying the open space for recreation. More traffic would further compromise the safety and quality of life for residents of our neighborhood. For example, many ranches span the road, requiring movement of livestock across the road when moving from one pasture to another. Increased traffic makes these practices treacherous for owners and their horses and cattle, and threatens the way of life of farmers and ranchers. Finally, we feel strongly about preserving open space for use by all Petalumans, human and wildlife alike. We believe the expansion of Helen Putnam Park would be a far better step for Petaluma residents than allowing Davidon to build a housing development on the Scott Ranch site. Sincerely, Signatures Attached 2— r Nam ® Address / c� Phone Name Address Phone 0� Name r Address P, I-. Phone d- Name 1 Address Phone a� Name- Addres Phone r% ,C' PC Phone rl V5 ° l l 0 Name Address Name Address_ Phone _ Name Address Phone Name Address Phone e dress Phone Name Address Name Address / , Phone '10'7 97 Phone Name Address Phone Name Address i'I- �►�•�ti'. '�� Phone , O-7 -�� 3 5 8 2- Name �r - � - & -A)1- � V -\C(- Address Phone 701 q 7L-) 6 c) 8 L4 Name W f kV Crum � Address Phone°�`Z Name L Z- 4 Address /,J - :50 Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone m Name Address �C C-A Phone ,7 `7 q L( Name Address Phone Name iC) S(Lp ( be J�a-U C C) Name Address q 51 � �+ F)esck- Address Phone -745 aCoc� Phone Name /C Name ell- Address --' �� . � �A ,Address ii��.Aia -z -� Phone 09" 6 ; -"(P Phone Name Address Phone 777K--O) Phone Name_o C(—,- � /p-1 Name Address # , 1 0 jD 4� Address Phone --7--% " [ _ Phone Name Address Phone Name Address IQ �Ti M w \' .| ` ow Y Save I the land on Windsor & D Street! Red barn and rolling hills There are certainplaces in Petaluma that are so beautiful in their nAtUFaJ state and so that nhmddnotoon�nundert6obm||6ozoc environmentally sensitive they hi� The old SooMRanch atU Street and Windsor onthe west side, v|to red barn, Kelly Creek, rolling bills with grazing covis, and abundant wildlife-, is one of those places. The proposai by Davidon Hornes of Walnut Creek to build 63 luxury homes on this land should 6erejected. The cornillullity has been fighting this project for 13 years and has prevailed so far. This may bm the final stage. As the EnvironnieFital Impact Report you are now reviewing should recognize, tbere are many severe impacts, from worsening our traffic to destruction of our California red-legged frog's critical habitat, thatjuutify saying N0toDavi6on. We call upon you to find a way to preserve this land as all extension of Helen Putnam County Park instead, for tile public's oNoyment and for future generations' We believe t1lat the S1 111illion now held by Sonoma Land Trust for tile puTpose of tile park extension iue good start VV|t�your6rmnasoKyeangovemmootof6o|aloaodtbog000mo|ty ' f of our oommumit�wo can turn apotential disaster i�uogreat reoo uroe.or all mfus. Parks Thopot�unwNbe6��ore6to the C�yofp�a|omu and SonomaCou�yxeg�nan'an� Pmtallummansfmr Responsible Planning —mwxnm.PetRr.omg—PewRP@~=".c~~~.._- /'- / a w ;.i N i +� N' '�' i L v �� CL H "`� .k� q 0 t �D From: Petalumans for Responsible Planning [PetRP @comcast.net] Sent: Monday; May 1, 2017 4:31 PM To: c _ouncilman.albertson @gmaii.com; teresa etaluma comcast.net; mthealy sbcglobal.net; davekinapcc@amail.com; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @amail.com Cc: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Petition & Signatures - 2017 Davidon DEIR Dear City Council, Attached is a petition created at the beginning of the 60 -day comment period for the Davidon 2017 DEIR. Also attached are the names and comments of 862 Petalumans who signed the petition. Susan Jaderstrom Petalumans for Responsible Planning PetRP(acomcast.net ,?-iq Save the land on Windsor & D Street! Red barn and rolling' hills certain OE'�'ce`s) 6 Petaluma that boaWful in thOir"rikiftal. statea,M so There 6 I not come under the bull doZen environmentally sensitive ihatthey should, n The old 9,cott.kanoh at D.Street and Windsor on the west side, with its,red.barn, Kelly Creek, rolling hills vvith.griazing cows, and abundant wildlife, is one of those The proposal by Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek to build 63 luxury homes on this land should be-(ejedt.ed. Ttiye6ri)mpi itylii3sbopjl*fidhi ihgillls qIe�jf&1q.ybars:briO has prevdiled,sofari Thl may rfl, y be i he. final 4 ge: As tjip, 1=6 vi ro rirr iI enjal impact R60oit you are ji-Ow reviewing should r66og h are' many severe im pacts, from wor sening our traffic J [c to. destruotion-61 our red egged 'frog's--crjtic-aiiiijbftat;tb&ljust(fysayin.gNOtoi)avid.on, we call upon you to find a wayjg presetve this land as an extension of Helen Putna M. Qou6ty . Park iristp4djfqrf 'j:-)'ubIic4s;enj6 r6l" t,bqdfprfUtu gone flobs. y en future Web6lievethatthe:$I hillhoh now held .. b.. ySonoma L'a.id, Ti;t:: , st: '.o. r.-t,. l e- .i). u.t'. pc6, s, E. 6� fti " h' 8nark extension is a.good rm re- o ve fh m nt QfficialQ.and the o Of y of our community, we canturn-a potential disaster Into -a- great resource. !or all -ofu& TI I i1spetition will be del[veredto the fty, of Petaluma and $onoma.,'County. Regional Parks: Petalurnans for Responsible Planning — www.PetRP.org — PetRp@comcast-net o (02 0 U) N o o 0 o N o O _ Nt O ro N ro O N ' U E',Dn c0 °.n man pro I O Q. 0).s; O 4i C p ` CL to I p 00 3 E O N CL cco o� ° � 0000-0 � � °' ° C .0 i ca I ro aro Nero root k o ° .n ai L� a E N p 7 (A ro ro C) roE .aro"� n co>, fV ` E O o U ro c +- 'c � Z3 O N r I N i i j O a) O) ro p ro d c N CL 0) 1 ro ro = c0 ° w- U- a j ( � N m ro ro L N ro�`�O G)O � ! � N 0) �n G 2� °c O I I ro N o ° -0 6) 0) zJ0 =N -0 oc N roc u�o` -ro N! �cv� p Q �I a o°N� JCL a�%°v 0 of a�°co V °� �! Eo a¢i� 3aroi�N 46 4>) °;� a ICoro > l m 2– ro 'a) 0) c � N o o ,a f -o No c o co ov nv c E o E a ac > c o N � EE � ' $co ro °aN o ° 0 'CL a) of roB ro.Q 2- a-r— a ai O a 0 a) O o E o 2a U) o ro p E cn o 0) p.C. 0. o cn 0) (n ch w (n C c c E – 's3 - o = a ca , I Q .N Q �F2-�a) c � o a N sZ _ N ' o o a ro rov a) c o 45 - ro (a o S_- ro = r- ro c N ro a) >j c N ro a t E rn o 0 6 0 °) ro E o m` ate) L_?_ —°o �_� I -� - - - - -`-- I ro _ 2) ro L cc ro ( : > 0 � > o ro o ro co ro Z3 ro a N ro w N _ ° a D C9 .n jI U) I U` — i- -IIII- I� IN i Id i� ! � I Io vi C6 1 r C 0; ME o n ID_ o) ro Q C O ° ro �S ro 'J O f G Q +� ro a) a) v- L ikon >'�a , {> O Qro� o ca o mro o aDn L �m3m CL jN_v° �� w :(DZ= h-z ro coa r !2 01 v o o o—o �ca n x ° n pvCo % � n> o ro ff coE pa> Z.> '- a) 0i D ro � o � +0 >0 o m E > :o oho = O romro a a) ro2� oa > > cg � -c E oO (OD- ro> f o U) -0 o 0 Z, = o o c � C O ^Q p N O I a L' a ma o c ac% a� as W e co u co E I .n o i _ C tq II a) N O 0 O L_ � v N 0 C LL I O j O >' « N 3> a ro 0 A N f ro Nz}+ ,= O.. N ro O �O N I to U N N ca N N L (moo >, ca cm � E cLI 0_ 'o E u i��>: `«°per I �°)> cnca) a �0co �cnc U.) LC) I �(D ro ca-° �� - rowtc >a�i= oa roU =daro O �� o-a� ro� cndc�mI.� m NCI to >:' 0 (D °�,° i �o� 5I.YO�n.� - > u E0� o I '= c 3 a I° o�� o S E �.a a) N m o 0 3 U o c �4 INO � a ro-- o >,>' �i c v ro= a —� =� L o gi c (D Cr +r n o� i�0 ro c n ° «�� u ° -0 5 cnrod v > '-"- E ° �ro 3i a O� ic°c� o� 3 v c E I> o m �c '2 E. o.. ro =' 3� a� fez o ai s o � 00> 3 a> C E ° .0. > v Et -1 I aid o o �_�� -Q � o �= a)- �'� 0 3 0 o-oc a�i 4. ro N N v- a 3 j O Y O a) (�0 0 e O c L o' N O a) i I O -ro toE a Ir j I N I ` - -"� � - - - -- - a) a -- w o ro Co J-- m C O N0 a N L U 1 0 • N ro U U - -. -- C) E m c' a ro E ro cn �� (WD - '` - - -- - - -? -� CSI ._ - -� �i C,5 �r 0O ui (6 i~ N N N N � N N N 0? �-/ 'I N O N rl P. G O U U m f a a a� s 0 a 0 W z Ln a m -1 9 M U RO0 O I { >,p �S Noo 0 a) °�c I > !k r� °� ` U) a U I j I ° 11 a�i ° I n co U o o co [ ! f �° 3 c° LL vi{ i ai L ccn.co Ig Q43oo � w ro 4- aa) I o v cn w 1 I 1 o I m W ca O 0 E U ,� N to a) NZ ;� O (�-0 N a J O O a N o- n v i II «. N ( ato ) cL n to (D ° ° p � (Q c a cu 0--a 01 � � i E ra) O o °rn =3 ° Q.. C N U 0 u) 0 O U U N to C Q..r = O U N O 'a N r- O C C i`` 0 N N N O N< O N C i i p a) I I O Q co N (a C N N ° °or.•� m { I �! (a ` N •Co ca o,I�2� Ern ����� I a)0(0 � a� •0 a> Q ro N ° L E- C p F b 0 I- (o U) I { c ` ,j o a) aD aa)i a V '° 'c ° c m o m o > Vu c U � I m U ¢ N a��i Q •E, u - -- — - - — — —n- —j - - - - - - -- -- - - - j c i ai L L •L cc G L • C_ :P c 2 U{ (a C Y LLJ t~ ch P� p d r d N C7 d L6 (0 d I� 00 N (� C m -1 9 (n D E �o E ° u, �� ro �ro I cr l N! —r,(Oo- l D ro - Q> x _ ��S a > ro ro LL G! o � a) >, E Q F O ( ro U E f2 7 I I a> j 0 cu ro , ! 0- V C> O C c mocn>moo. !Io@ ° U ai -�o o te m f f I > Eta `°o ool �o (a � I I i -am �°' c 5 _0 L! _ D � m rl rn -• ca�c � �s`n m ro ro 4 N =c m �,n °roro(D �X F o{ o ro�� ro II Q ° U Z (�0 l - ° ! I :t:! ro t_ I N y O a O N o c ca S) o� o E� I n i 0 10 Ina�,EQQ € G N �o` ro Qo) =t ° a `-° a '3 p = o �� cn E O � ro �1 (6 (D o i 0O N u) 0� O ro —_ U Y E ro L I j C ro p O O E 4 1 -0 3 E a CL E k �` m n o ro ro a) V O Nj I O N, I N �O O, 2 rop' > O E QQ Q ��ro� iro a:.L� d ZI- a> -ro c -0 0�_I «� I ! ° �Q� ° ��a�roi�'om m!'� = oro °Q3��y �, l «� C oa cn a r o� E rod ro '� = ro� (n c� L 0 O ro > ro i p O p i L O L1 O 4 p J- to o U l CI �� �i) 2 Q (f) { �! is -.c ro 4 o uroi ?, ro� ro�%�!a) a Ll aa) ro�XoV f p0) I 1 ri o N�°v c ���cl�roo a) E xlN� CL ? a f 0 c (a `oU (n i 0ai += Nom — ro 6 0 :E m4 a) c` ro N v ro o Co rn� °' co m° a a�*� °' and �l c!� O� -5 a>i ro c�jj r' E av 3 �I (D ro *' c?,� �a>roE mom cn ° -EE �`0 °3� o M°� I C o o- E aroi (n m N c(ro a> n 0 3 I W� >- O� p � 4 z t- ° I- ro �ILi «, Ln I i o o N p N 'O J J O i U MI N L C ro > 0 > O i O (aVf f � N I N L - Qi 2 .� � �� �� N a��i �� m �i- �� �I t �I �I _ II - -� (n D E C Y E ° u, ro ro cr l N! —r,(Oo- D ro - i ro x _ °- a > ro ro LL G! o � a) >, E Q 'o W� N f O cu 3 �I 0 Z00i 0fC� � O (a _ ui E ol cuEuI E i (n a) 0 V) o w l 4- N �6 -p 10oC{ � o oEoj a� C co -50)1 -a Q 0 w o N O 4- > O O U 1 m U) I O >, G I 02 S1 � N 1O >, >1 .f O F I rte+ > o E U C!. C I t7 >I U _ ctj C L2 > O v C igEoi m ff E N i N p E d C Q C � O p i C I i c6 N .0 O o ro ° +, E O (o (>U O Ln a O I f CO v o o U s W I 0 ai I I 1 on � N ` I o C o ! E 1 CO ') I a) !O N p O p C p I I I L ( C > + U L s U) Q I N p o Y ui ( a C a) Q) ca L f E N Ij N � j{ S] C ( � O N a) V � o 'o O ag C w E o o ° ! c ��o E� �° 'a °c � am .� E i C ( 0 f�oo00� 11I I o> o N1 I C 0 CL3 C LO -0 c o II. a) lj r N � � �, ! � N O I I l 0 '00 L k UO V Q I i1 p W i C CL ro 0- ' (D 1 0 -0 a—oi a-0i E —O �o n f�� v– O 3 a! � � 1 I n L 0 a?�-0 E o 0 owl- o o I o o oa a0 �� o a IR 5� +� - Call, N N a") a) a� I u) C C �� U `oNO��i� 1 N�cco O� o �(D UCEa�L ! I a)O c— Q 0 CSI C to C2. I I ( 1 0� Q (s — (3 U) I ) i u) ap O O a) u) (ff "00 a) N O p 6 I O CL > �O CL o O Q "o- �? -w - -� m O _ z O (Q i Q N 2 uj C W U as -.f— = o C m ° 1 I >,i 'Z O� ro ol m = o --d Ln '? -2L9 L ca cCV m o co � � Z [� D co Ln '? -2L9 m i ro I L. 2i O E I N� I� V d) Q N _ (6 N I ! I I I ro c c ! aN m ro� ro i N I I [� �o :2 E D- Q U_ U O = z 'E i N Do- a) I3 a N p ro 1 V N > o V N m N C ��� o IiV;E aa) .0 ° > f0 U) f {o� n o - a) o E a� ro o -a N N ,= o N a) > L 4 E ° I C rn°� _0 U m n � o c a I a) i ki o3 7 r Q N 3 Q i f N i ro o C Flo f C a o ro I f Q--n% op � a=i oI 3 �! ca °� � � p NO C: m _ E -Y; E O i N V? ) a) I -0 > ! c { E � ��om —o o� N m Co I U I D p N I � D ro > e � i =c pQ j ! C I X I 1 R ro � = o N N �N m C 9; = CO I p i O N 'N a) L ro to i N C I I aa) ID a' o m fo3c o�ui Ea)a) o'ro� ') o �kp�I wok o a c E �o = °D o o a g3 o c 00 j O� `o N o �-- ro t °�Ejia�on NMOluroi�� �i cj =± n�j a ( �,. >crioNi>cN ia=io��;a a2cv 0. C o IL N+r �aY l roo o }roW JLJ�)J- a 0 a) ro _ I .0 .1-+ Q) i— V"a ro�H U N �O �•«+�I N Q I II ( f ca CD E �'� a' p p o = ai m o ro �k Y) { Y � E I co N N C I p o a� ro� ro ° o ro ro ro i a) = E ro E I I i � L6 � i 0 � � m a r O C :o a v ca 0 0) m ob E L �'� °� -° 0.0 � 0 > ,°a a0o.ax0 ca w> L� °U).c ao) o� >,� o �� c o o �� >, .- aa)i o 0- C ° (a i N o O a 7 L > = a) Ll 0 a7 a r- (n C= I i E `�° P C�_� c�a aoi c� p a) O� > o'O O U �� n. _ i C 4E: a) N W v- > O Z N �' Mn -a LO a .N E N O N O (axca ca°+'- cnao°o /�UL U L� _ �Ncn((� ova r V L ca O a �� a ° >'6c E- -a O .� 0 o a)o a G E > 3� m> O O C -p o °..a) a) a� 0- U) a c o _ L L !� u) r O O t] a o C - -0 O O O O '- C L a) a) O C N a C ! ado tea°)° °cn - roc�aw (D O•a �' caoc>a on.cn C O C i> v a) 'o "' N a) -C- O a u) p to O to �a ° o- ° OJQ c°n �° c 0 c°n -0 °ice a°) > a) °) L a Cu � a cn a° L a� 3 o ca pI N L cn (a c m 0 �- -a a 3 n ° a �� a Q °= o.a_4 -- E a) ° ca 3 E aL� cn U) , E a o . 4= o � 0- CL :3 .c a) a) a) ° 0 ro n o co a o a �c c a o 3 cn a_ cn. p L_� o >�- L a), a o c 7 > aC J � , � - -C L i a) ._ (� C +� -a C) O m i 7 is { a) -ca0E a C}io� 0UC_° °o�ci moo° Ica ":6- —( oo `i EE4-p Nw ���cor-aa) >aa))u of oc° Oj"U)4— �aa))QU)s- >. °°>,�° c°O a u)ca�-4-- a)Q>,o o a °o 0co��'� -coca C .0 , O a) .2 C O C a) N O L m p a) a 3 C - C '� ;F- G 4-- .0 c no c°o�N"��o-0 �Ea) aa))o;rca -a; U) vi 0 0 E N o 0 o 0 rn N a) (C6 0 4; N= i ° N N °c 0.-ap -0UOCa)w,0) N-p_E (aC'ao- O cE >ta ��� °�>, co�ava >pa0 o a�0 o�aL �aU m � 4- o a U) U) y r- cn w a�� c �- p ° f1 .. cII C t7 a� 0 0 � a 0 a) c E Q - -a 0 ac�o� - > m>, r 00 =0' O L ° ) a E o .a — C Q .Q Y o -a a) i u n ° a� °o a � ° > c� Ca o� U) Da a) E E -. c �° a� a �` °a aca N°)0om° oa"J � ca a) a-a)C: a>3 a) or o o as 0 (D a) - QCo).c— co u) E IL c.) ocn >o., tea° �- a coaE >�-i - o E °) ron E > c o-J Co a) - � 01 co c M a) 0 (a i= a :t 6 � a) C O a C 7 LA Z '' n o f Q co 3 � O a U a) . (a a t� aC v- O a C.. a) 0- a c a) (n f a " n�a a 0.c O. +,��0)Il Oaa a Oa) �a)�� N l 0 4C-- 0 a) O (a N U Oa aC a s 4) (a Q ca N a)- (7 (a O> 7 c 1 a-0 a C O O N Q C C o� p cn o a o m c >= a s a) aW� 3 a n o QfO�F- ca Z a ID °0 �U E Imo- 3 a=) o E °i cam °off a= cnw o i m N a) N C C O a s (B c E ° O a a) o a ca L a O a (n fn 3 a aa a a L OO U >, c'-a O 0 C :3 N J-- U - -- m --- - - - - -- Y - -z - - - -�- U ---- �'j- - - - --� - N - - - --tn —� r' 0 O O O O O r r r r r r r- 9 n 0 N O U U m 3 a a s O a� a 0 In "= O O me -p> i (0 co O — to C O a) p O >+ p f+ oU)�c i � i I I L ��=o N�o�a) pLE'G C N -a i ` I I C O p C C> i I N I D (6 ! V O C, X Q) U O U E I N a� a) .0 c� 3 c� p .co i o a o c a O cm: O N L L ^ N �wo �� °0a) jm E t0 N 0 p 0 nl L ao�'cc I ( cam' WE 'ED I f I I 1 CU c t) -02 Q'a ° 1N�'a� IoE��ao�ai I ob Cm IEE oa_aa �' N ; N N -Z G C O C C — Q l C f rn a) >, a 0 a (u g o a - V N 3 ` 0 � O cc Co C C a) � N N I •L LA L L a p a > L co .1 a I a (� (lf s (6 _ (t3 v (1T p! I p Y -j — - - -- —I N - — crj — — d - CO i� [O 6) O N �- N CV N N I (h d N N N N I t0 h 00 N co') N M M I th M me -p> )\ O N Sm L �U C 0 U m a m a a� s 0 C a a 0 f� WIL p g. O 'p ro C L N fl j a) N E f ! O C c=v v p 0 ro ! Oj � o p c)o!oOm2o 0 E CL �m�c=ro'UY L a) O�O 'O O O ff i QO a N p � oov°,L�a���a �i0-ac n - Im d E �a °°' �0�u�3°'�m� ��>E( O a L> �) a O O N a) E O tea = ro U V I a" O -p � - N U O 0 r U 3: co = 0) 0 a) O o- a) N ova ° a) cu Q a�= E tQ N— U O E c a) w U cu ro O Q to Q (a ro a) i 0 'r- E r- 0 7 ro a) i p O N -C +' T O C l a a) L a) .t ro� O v- C T O >, 0 0 -a O O E 3 O O p a) ; O � 4- a) N OC N O Q> o Uo 0 a) E (D ro> , L ro ro ~ N U O LO O a) 4v-- O C € aI a) 'C N v° n o c c o p o o �L I 0 3 0 1 (a a) a) a) ? ro -0 E U 'a a) C ro a m > ro oQ f i c C r C E 0 ,r a) O coon Q U U (LO 5 ro O C N E O '> Q) > p to _ t� C S -- :E ,s L N N ro 0 ro UQ 0 N N N NI •� E O O U �+ N U }' >' ro � C "p ro O O� -p O OL O. 0 ro ro ,� U O U > ro N> I E— � A ro O U —� a) N N O > N >+ ro i Cl. O O N >� O I N 4 ro C t0 L N 4-- a) 1' ro C O N ` B C� .U— _n a) ro O f— U O cu. O C a) O-o N r- a) a C �'- O — I I w N a) A ro p C O O -p i c 0 oo.N �_ m m E ro Qo ° O { C ro d 3 4) �° aa) o �o `� ro 3° U a) o N 0)o cn m ! p -0 (D 'r -p N a) r ro a) i U) (LII cu a) p, y_ C N aC G— p' 7 to p ro L ro N a) N O Cu C m i I U I= t� 6,- 3 o 3 ° a)U 3 a� C E i i o L !�/ Q U) m- cu E I m_ L LL i i 4 ) Q ro MM ( co co 4 L6 co T T T T T T T T T T T T WIL 0 N �U c 0 0 U v c� a a� s 0 c a a 'r 0 - -� I I ) I °LSE I C N O ��NVE;� L O t0 _ i V (6 tti O Q `3a�m2 v n ai ai c i I. 3 °'c� E aD 00 c 'EL f �I �a ° °° ` I I ��oow -p W N ! a� ai ro 1 � c ow 'E c�v Y n m a) E V ( N tpi� N =° o, _V _= n7 v pt o � ro� o X k w a o cnU 0 wY c- ° o a� _,j ° o oI a� nc oo m . i �Uz � o amp I �rooj 2 I o m I 4 c I � Q°= ° � r 02 �0.o E a m1 M 0 � 0 am� — c - oo f Cv L m 00 'go I `° EmQ 02 in I aiN 30 �o I °� ! I o ��a���_�°mI 3 a� �� i O)0 °�� 13 C p��IE [L Inc °� m� o c3 o a I C: � >D, owl cn0 o E o� E ro a� �m a) I I �° ao °o °~�' c .� I (n S•" (� i f 0 .y.. L W j ca -ar 42 �, E O i I, p N N i i I Q D N. N. L O _ (n i O CJ Vl N 4= C 2 w c=oN CL c c �° v I m` k I E rn�000 0 EEo� ad)) a) a) oo2 I Vii, �00(n (QEE - -I- 3 L _c I — — ! - - - -- a s - - -I —� 0 0 i ►— E ,� 0 )- -� 5 Lo LL _. f U) o lI a a N Z V1 U ❑ r ❑ oo t Q rn .�. _ _ o VIfI � —_ r r ,o Lo -- tp -- ail - - Lf� { — i 16 (0 _ LO r p r co O W LO r N p o cfl O r o o N o r co (D C 0 )- -� 5 c-I 0 :3 U r is o r � (6 T -- T I, CD � w N Fu � E i pro o0, p I o_ I >❑ 0 j o i U 0E a U W •0 N a) +' .F CtS L lLB i •a 3 L � � � 7 � � � � ui I � a) � !1 I i I .fl C NOS y... N O L L I C O ! ISM cm: a; ! Vo_, OU O I ° a) o ££ E �m o) o I I CL a� p :0 o X- �. oo o . c to = U� > p >n o o) -a 8V_ ro Q o E 1 C (n 7 O L o�i C t0 7 a) Q ! O> I I p a) I I oo o j O r+ a'ol N °-, fa O .L N I N �O p >O N Z lV I a) 7 O C (i3 9)G.0Co� L N� i I Eo;a Q) O I p Q AI N a) U O � a O I N a) j � N 21 ca a) I p E Ua)M0 F-m — m — - - — H 0 4- 1 - -- -- - -i- -- - - - - -, - —� a � I 0 I +, O L y- N o _ _ O - L L y yto i+ C N v L U O , _ 2 ca co c-I 0 :3 U r is o r � (6 T -- T CD � w N Fu � E i c� O d O� c-I N 9 —al - - - - -- - -- I� o a,- l , 0 r- 1 1 � c °� a o a> O 0 0 .v a N w I N LAi {0'S_En3 U N N N 3aia) o (b c0 L (a �' ° -- �ww U U ~ ( O I�W (0 ��� I�� �0� vU) i 1 'f� a N* O J o�4 I���� ���� N 7 N 4- ��� p ��� no 0� I s m t r- c-- �❑ a a) US o m ! o Uz E f N O N { N 0 I CL Q� N E 7 N vim- —� -0,- ._ "O O y-U L i N O I E O d 0 ca ' XW oo N N j U C ei N "� Co 0 3 0 N O O i O N L0 O ) C i ` N U O C G N 7 N N L] T N N e I .0 am) �_ ' to N L I •�1 U _a T? O (n 7 N w '� ..UC Q D O L o .� T f a 7 i i L� 0 .2 Q) ❑ 00 N- N I L 27 `D O N CO fl ca r i 0 0 Q C =E m V ++ O co �_ N� C (D I� Q U) N i N J fl O 1 �� � N N� � N i%i � .n o �� o O� 8) i Lf c c� rn o 0> i� o� i��Il �-0 o E o U o,,- cv ``O°U�7 N N O N fl N N{ (n a � Q N N OL { I I -O t Q 5. O 7 O o O N M. n N = O C -0 W C O '0. •SU . ' Y i NE t6 c U O U> I L 1Nc C a O C C N O N / t] ] 0 O } o, o � � of C � m 0 /^ cQ ( a) LL .V ❑ .0 - y-+ M(D - i .� l O N O O a O N N 1 fl C a E ° C o o - c 4 ai 0 � � ) co co N (0 �� c + O U N C CL m 0. m� Z o mi d �� Q ❑ c s m (�i Y U) - - - -- � O T N 0 (h O 0 r O N OD T 000 co r T T 0 T O T 0 T r N 9 —al a) m I 3 ai ro E N W o =° o � o p ` ro 3 ° rn 0 0_ c ��� Q �-° a o T � o_ Wx3o ��°ov > 0 € I f r 1 o o cf u� :t: E o U% no E — a'° 0)o 0Oo- -o c E a o U cn va) -Z c t°m O a). E� U coo I I L 3 a � w� ro %fro c n a ° ° a)IDa) Ewe Uroai �,ro 0) o 0 x 0 ] O a) �i Q i N to N i I i as D -0 O N >+ EO O N Q :F ¢ = O p ` i n n�vc ��°' ��� ��6�00 --° ono �N> o�a�� � U) o ro � > = N p u> N L '� t E p OL N O ro i 7 ..0 L 'O O .F� L ` i T °�oc E NC Doc `ooaioc0 �a 3 ! I ro ro O (6 O :E � +' L ca a) N a j C— L CL i f LI) . > 7 U U) co C .� 3: cu UJ O Cu O E O 0 u � cLoo O ,� ro C cno .' °o a) ro°� ro�,?,WOC. cn(� " E°� I °mc°a +'mn� cn00- rnrorooL ELo 0_ a) ro j U EO Q 0_ N N -0 U t N a N 'O E° N N 3 i 0 4O- a 7 O F= O p Y O °O O N oa f No co a) c m a) >,— -� rooc-) oF� -�co E o� i o a) o a) m Es U o a L �,ro 3J ° can o o ±. 4. �cL:�� uoi��� �a � °c�acoo o-o � �o� o�Y v 3 G-0ui o�_>' o °ate! ° c0a ca o ° ° I o v�Erow � —uro,0E 0�� o 3 ca CO a°� i ! ++ ro C ro n Q ro O p 0 O ro C a) N O L- N .L to 0- O O '� 4k-- = ro a) ro O N p ro N 4 O oc � a cu � L 0 Y� c Fes- n Q O � �� I t— n� o -- a I o i N N I X(U c o t •L I L a) .ro � I I L a) S21 S2 Y fzf • � i Iro�(D ro ro c ro a) ' a) roa 4T E > ° ate) a�i o 0 coo ( � cG [0 n' o- U) O I N - 16 p O O O ~O O O N N N N N N N N N- m It -a9 i N w -- I- -- O o I ° � to i ca I o O F(DI a�� ro N _ __ N ,— N - -- N — — I N �.— v — N vim � �-3 N -- a; Oo f I N - -- - -- - - - - -- N - - -- cn 5 - -- � �mo>, E ;' i V QU O C °= i�c oo I'Cnoc j �E II ICm �a�iro - 0'C: o0 ��C �rL mo0� i Op .0 ro ��� a) C' 0? 2 O O � 7 N O O Co. S LO I+CO 1 Q4+ _Oi' OO N i '¢O ( O O U tq i N '- la)O I U U U N O� C ��Q7 I N 2i O tea)( CQ .0 a) ca L O a) 1 O a) I3 a) 'a) L O° c a) ° a) Q N ° III p f O O -0 N p v O O U N N m -- i_ 6 O C i C). "'' to >' { >' N a) N O N° i i 1 U), I a) E c�I N N — O C ! O d I O p fl N O Q.. (a f �S] 7� O U j a)O a) { O v- 3 O N U) I � to N i I >' ycG > O L ° L i C Q r a m E N (� �cNa { ro >, N m EE>°1hcmaoc°)ia�i �ccn� Z) �ovi C Ea) Em �—°m rnv,Q-2 Nof a a) >� a .cam i=. F'v 1.0 Cq>jH pON >Q °� U E a° C oC (E O u �" I = o a� O ai E 1 co): a) � U) U ca cn 4- p a E f Y I U L+ N p' �E O Q p a° �O m` to N B C 3 O m y N i �' co 3 m �- ° �� �� I C 3 3 � �LcaOr- ca o is c o ' a�l 3!� cao�� N LQ a)� tea) ��,}'o��E N D I O a) i I' N t ° E > O cam >.a) a) O Z�oC" a) a) O l a) p 0 -'�C�; a) a� >(D Q � cni g U ca 21-0 N a) a) ~ c 4) ~ C N y U a) "� C O i ! c W c roal�a)I U) 4) boo >��)��( ca Lp 3 W �— __ - -► -_ _; Irl L a C ! I i i I I I I I i (D a` )) II 0 ) oc ro M ro i .F E p > N I m l rn ; p It -a9 Y N w E m O o I c � to i ca I N O N, 6 a7 N _ __ N ,— N - -- N — — I N �.— N - -- — I r �-- N -- , cq - - f I N - -- - -- - - - - -- N - - -- oi N - -- It -a9 O C C 1 U U Z O (D � to i � (q , Q N i N N, N � N It -a9 - -�1 _ a) -0 Q O (C6 N? N O � � (a N CD C ° m .� L cD C 3 E >, E -0 (II �/ Q) v 4N a) a O OL t6 (D O O = n O N L Q -Do- N fl 2 :p O � aC L ) N V) (a cn 8- E O O •p a O 0.E E 0 O C �0) ° >o o -0 U) 3a) C :3 � o o N� w ° oC "o- cE > Eo a) E O � _ a) N OV �+ N ° C _ O N .00 O Q a O a 3 a O N (n (II °C � (nC� -0) C ma �m°)(n°, 0WN L ^o x �Eoor�0) o� `L°ca v >C (0 L S) N i C A a O E C a) L Ti .a � N Q N � C C C A � U c O o0 4 o a) aa O � L A "q "a o a) •C -C C 0 � D- .0 U) U � D a) D- O C O C N C Q > A N N V O O ( 3 6 O c N O (n U J 0 ) 0)+'C' (n U 0) C a) U D 4O N in cn N ) r C C a_ ° C N o (0 ca 'u m a°i u°)) �o a) 12 -se aa))� m - o (II ��° -C S-- W m aa)O - ma) o o °Craa)i� >>, U { 2 Tani ai a) �� ° (a c CU a>) oa a E 5 N aa))`� � *= oCO L °O�«�� ia(nn (EX�CL xNE U 'a o= N >+ a o Z c0 C i s U i a) M O° 0 N N d. O tcC O E o L 0 C O o W C a) a) N N Q M(0 CO C v L U G a) 0 o m O- 3: a) O C a) C d O N ° C N C -- 0) Q (d N V C U C" 0 0 0 N CEU °C r.�(n>. >_(nQ) ova) _0C of to C O C Q) O= 0= U 7 CO n —. > C a) N >' E O •N a) a I o'= O> 3 p C L o o «� =-a 1 o 0 0� ca 3 -0 N O v— C 7 L cn ca CO a) 7 O M U 0 a. cQ t a) r_ c(0 OEEE0a) X36 EC- 6>,00) o°j *' a)r_ 4E E(a� Eon cva3m CO 5 UQ.o) p -°° _E °v °0�o> Ems,. �ro°�E� I CL N �o - - - -- - - - - - -- - -I —{ I � , N � C C OC C >+ O C O a) (°n 4 E 0) $ C N a) o O U - - -- u C ° N C ca co o a m a ° Y 0 -C LL a0 p N - - -- ` N N N N I N N I N N N ce) N I N I N N Ln a-i a^•i O N 0 v U m is d d 47 C a y- 0 Ln Ln cit C o N N -p O N L (.06 (C6 � d) N C � U O � c m � �+ C O 'U) N E O ° U V 0 0 o D- c N ,0-0 O ° >, N (SS � N i a� al C N (aa a� .fl U) it N O 0 c O E U) N O cn c� N a c c S] O E O f Z N (B �U O L cu D.. m c 0 �a C (6 U I� a c� 0 M N D O U > N U (Q 'Q ~ Y 2 >,L O N E ' N on O 0 0 N N or) C (n U O cL E cm- OD- 0) ICE) -40) a R O (a N N N (6 C G ❑. (A 0 0 °a.00La 0 N N a E 'C U � O N (v E N-0 O O 2 Q E X o > ° E c CD 2 v C° o++ N (0 ° E N N a 00)C 30 U c:r, oQ ° �•N (moo >� O o � c mad N to U O - > C " C o- OL 4+ Y 0 0 ° °> o0 >0-0 °-a (D >,E U OQ) O a C cn N N 0- a t0 ° N O C Y N L O N 6- (1) O E Z D N 0 0 a O ((3 C a O C L O N U i A 1 = N yN •� N y L C •L > Q N N E O C a) r_ •- v- O m > N M z a N > C o ro �a°i ° 0 E o- (tea .0 O N o 3_ -1,6 '� N U 0 L 0 . +>_, E C c 5 �' o cn 0 0 >0= a a� �cE2 L N 0 o � a a) '� ro 0 �+ N N E >, 0" -r- C c� �I �'! 0 o U 0 r- 0 , 0 o o °U C N L E ca (ca (° c C .o N n. CL (o N a 3 O a c t� a� a C 7 O (d c c O O > O 3,) - •L �� Q- m m ° E o M z c 0 0 0 (tea m o (o N cL- (II 0 L W N E C (ca (° c [o Q D aoi fi m U - - - -- -- - -- - -_- 4 Q — I D - �- I (V IN ai IN d IN tri IN co �N�N I` 00 �N IN _ T Lr) �N Ln L N N Lo N � N N IN 3,) - FT I I C N a.+ ro ro C +' a) p p C -O C = C to U � C O a) a - ..00 w O CL CL :3 �T� a) �� -0c U) d io a- �� > >o �cn�O m zo ro 0E ml0C L a E x ro c �^ 3 m Ca (D �o jo U) —� rn o.._° u°'i Ca) t 3(a ro��E aL X ro ro ro> C cn as-2 1 Ic ma) 0 '�U.) i !EEL, m I N U 'FO p i C Q U ro L +C p N Q f (� O N N C O +aO O� ) �= (N � U U cc, O O C II p ! ` l C 3 O L 0 41 O O " 'o a) mom ON a) 0p y C I (C n N Ca '(D C a) N N .o N O N a) ) U O ) I N C O p r- O o c -0. c0 E u, I ro 6 3 3 �� �c OO- yc aic0T a c°na)°, °� m ro ro O > C 7 a) C O (q o o�� ro j13 -0 a E -0YC ro U o_ ro L7 O O (n ro o L 7 C N N (0 � Y U O ?� O a)(o Q. roo °Ly � (D a) a:a)��o� o p �a oro� Ia) Ca) C-0 am) _ O o N a) ro .a C ro v- -p p O !n ro N E Ero �. �c �C� LS2 U)6a) °0Ocn� =ro E 3 c�V Oa)a)� 0 o� Cro �� ro > cYa roav proioaa)) C�� ��� a)o� �YOc c Io� ro _ rs ca o u� () ro a) ;� o a) a) a aa)i ca o u) a E szU 2 �� 0)��� O o °)a m -0 'o c a- E U) I 0 3 vo) m+ a) E E �c n •p ow v°)i ° `��(n �ro -a3 `�roUE� °� O ro N U (n ,, a N N 5 a) O c a) O O Z v Y F- 0 ` f a)p a) :E a) i �c`6 mC F-s�wCCA L -- I - -- a f- (3 , — _i - - - -- 4 _ — 10 i I tt U) co L 3 UO O I n C U) O O m m _ - - ->' — - -- ` w¢ I - -m - -- I l� a) D N 00 IN ro p U C IN to 3 �N �N C O _— �N ca - " N — !" O - �N n O �" I r- (.0 0 O (a N N 0 -- pj N -- p N � r N U •7 - N N a) O — co N l� Q N cm G C O O U V f3 O m aJ a Q) O C dl d O N tY U U O O L N O E E S1 7 (TQ - ; T wog tai O O O co r- Y E 46 E U F C N U Y U N U ro Q O iro ro Q j (n O S Q a) U > Z N ro 4� "O N Q O) 'O 1 ¢ p E 2 N � O U f -6 N N 160-5 I Z C 1 ,9 (n N O i a- o 0- � > _ � >I o i ° o � ' { ?' 0- v� U I I m c' —° rooms i ro O U = (D UJ II!II > O 3 a) N i ro +O ro O p L_ p CL U l a) "_ to X N N O N Z p > ro 6 N 0o 4O > > c n N N > a Y 06 U II ( C I O (D 6 7 E 2 'o O a) L i O (n 4) o -0,- ro a ro c U �p U LO a> w N� p I�flcLa? a) O .1 _ N a {— a j p E N O O roC it: v-- I- J - - - - -` U U O O L N O E E S1 7 (TQ - ; T i j a> C O N ro N ro G N N Q V] G N i N V ro .X ro N LIM a) O ° w � W ca m u) Y J Q o � --3 �-.4 - -- _ - -o N Cf) N N N {N N N N N N CV cc) C fN IN co co N N 00 11 L a> "° 1 m ro co N N N I N O O O co L Y E E U N N U Y U N ro Q Q f fp S S Q Q Q Q j a> C O N ro N ro G N N Q V] G N i N V ro .X ro N LIM a) O ° w � W ca m u) Y J Q o � --3 �-.4 - -- _ - -o N Cf) N N N {N N N N N N CV cc) C fN IN co co N N 00 11 L a> "° 1 m ro co N N N I N 00 11 L a> "° 1 m ro co N N N I N Q � c v E v a) ro a) cn 0, c a) S E ro N m- '"7 I I t I f � I I 0O 6 M N M N I I rn a -3y U) OF o 1) i I C O o L I u ) op Q aa) O O a C ca O U II O y O U ) uj cf a C ro E = 4� 0 C: � O cu O _ _ a o �3 m ', 4o � � Y i O ro E E o a N a 'a Q to 3 O O O_ d a) ++ �O �a�j roE pO �CccO> G�tcno� 3 ap c3o, ) ) } CD E3 p E U u N II p_ f1. O u m o E U 2 L ro a O o I ro O i N ro 3 d O E O -0 p ro `i o ro CCU aroi 0)c 0 = CD a O co C 22 r O O ` O O O Q c .-a) ro= 0 cn 03:0— c aroi W0)n o > f O O. E k- a) U > N W O O I U) O Q. O N° `Q w O + ro 0- L (q O U N c 0 p LSy + s= O ° L) o ?�+ E N N� =E' "' c a) ¢� V m w� o t a) a)ti .f3 o °o m N N� E E �! a) s=0 a) N V N = L7 rnro�(na) S1 �+ O C E +_ > 12 `m o m 3i-- �O Uj �* a -,cn :3 �4-� a) m oy % I.� c cu 0) N C O u) �- ° Q ca o�� ° 0) a) ° a) CL c°�� 'o o CU �roE nom a 0aa)i>, 3 Z =30 no(a O ;6��m�Ovim�?o CL oa`y'?o>mN a) > _ C p (D q) O p Q) p a) Z>ca3ma a) N 7 N cnorocroa)s= E'�n� -- G _— aa) a 0 o fJl N r C a) I O 0 Q -a cu °^ ° L ! a) ro a) U 'C: ro O ro L U co u) O E Q1 0 Q ro 0 m m �- i ~ O p >O 7 > ❑ — -- -- - - - - -� — � ; Q � c v E v a) ro a) cn 0, c a) S E ro N m- '"7 I I t I f � I I 0O 6 M N M N I I rn a -3y e^-1 O N e-i O U U m m a a� s 0 C d a y.. 0 a� M 3 0 a) c o -o a � �, o O a LD L ca i N co _ cn ` '— a! o a� I >, U cv > U ca C 3 o o E m C' w o c Q co o lo C N m v - m (A L > co 3 C: U m a) N E 7 o (D � a) N C� 0) 4- O +' r caO N 7 U- J U. � a) > C'a C Q N a) -- - - nom. 0) 0 —� r 12 O0 (c0 N Q E IN N N o r r N N N r oi O.> C� ):3 N � N � C r r n � ° M O 0 U O E m E M IM i O Vm N{ p) O + 41 N- c : , 'I a) 0 ,~ i0 E�W -0 I W W N E N =a E CA L� CL a) N L Q .21— N W W CL c N 0 o v a> >N U 7 O N (n U 0 � � Q) -o C �� I N 0 N o aro (! > > o c° x uo) co U)� `a 0) a) e r a) ICI o o 5 a) o R I �, CO (a E N 0 N C_l in in a) ups -0 N o L y,., (U O .O r N A >, p E C p � c 7 'C LN - .N 7 .N N N ( 9 p. ,�,, I N 0 ( .o p 0 N L c N� o oQ C co o -0 � °� -C CL O Z O z E° �0ca o 4- `3J ca a C p 4 c q� n¢ C U �U, 6 V > O 0 o N + a � a) o 5= c 0 �...� N O C.) c �� ca O a�i �I =: _; CL - c c 0 CL C �, � > o� o o �= m 2 ro 0 O a) � No o 0 n N— ca co oO _ M _ >5 E E m o Zj �O � E ro � a o c a 76 t * E 0 c a) fl O o oa) � O o ��a z M 3 0 a) c o -o a � �, o O a LD L ca i N co _ cn ` '— a! o a� 3 � c >, U cv > U ca C 3 o m E U E m C' w o c Q f L o ca r caO -- - - -- O —� a0 IN N N o r M N � r oi � � � T- � r r � � �N M (o m M M IM Vm i� IM I I 0 N µ ° O µ= I O jll O N O N N C O N I O U) m >0- ��'O�3c U) r N 0 ° L �, aci c� °> °c 3 > �� N �a N { ca a ns � � �� a�? (a -0 ro 0 N E = -a a) E :3 �,o� -_++ °�rO Lo o o c do aau3aiccrn a E �c 3 E� 0)+ uoi o0 0" Co o a cO nc ccv [ aaiU) a)a)N >oC- � -°0 °� -0 42 c�v 0a0 >co �� c0 m4- N rn�0 O�-0 a c-aa E o L a0) "ma) o� o o o o o N culli U �° i E _ C ' c1 c C o l 0 c O M 0 Q c N o n -0 °0 °c c�0)LO:2 a) aa) a�n.ai°�E0E00E °a o� 0U) E o c� cco Y� o>, 0 ° Q. c c Co - cn Q- Y > N = ' nrn U) �:tnc����c�«� cc ��c w E 0ca>>,«� >a)0�c a�° ono c rn •N c o co �, 0 rn a a) _ a c a) ° ai ° s a c o cc of °a�a'O��"_��n oo w° 0 coy 0� p olEcca °Q.aoa0 0 c _ _` 0) >_ o ov a�� c a c a� c �, aoi°) --,a> °cam -c> nE> 0U) ''orn � N v �w •°ca =�c°000a)a)a� �� I �Ma� c o ! a) o m c° 3co c>a20-a o>w o P a m o c - 4- �� o.0 ao`� � c o c-0 0- a ° _ CO °D m °° uicn �'� o 0 oc 3° L o nom. o °� �.W E �aN� a> > E 6 CD o m s �� 0 (� 0 E 6> a°) 0 0 roZ 2 ro°� o �o a 0 +� 0 > E~ o a0 �'E N� a)v-a. 0 o �{ CL a�i � c o >,vi c co o 0 ca *' a� o nv5 -0 0i 0 c 0 cu o �oo cE° �> °nmE`��°Em° _I`�cay - i= - -- i aa) a w- 0 o 75 0 g y rn c a� L O to !°!) 0 C to '0 N 'L O O I W .� E O p � N O 0 0 2 W U Q U fA = -UI - - - -- m — -- - - - -- -- - — 4 � L I O O O m m m E o c 0 m m c c ° > .� ° L c`v 0 ca '' a = E ti �mm � C6 oi co CO co ce) co CN7 I M I M I M co M I co I co I M 16 � 6 N N N 0 --;1 Q: L ai N >+ 7+ (0 (6 a o (D —>, -0 L v_ c O L O O •ro � O m N -� � -0 E � c ... o � c � c ca cl ca � Y Y cn II - --- Y Q Q W_ -N ¢ —a - -- —cQ 1 - r: 00 O N r 'LF Lo Lo LO a°'i o M co �� Im I� �M �CO Ico M co c co f7 M Cl) If+7 I Im M co 40-; 1('7 QU) N I N ` { l 0- I O C) -0 o I N �- V cm ° � `o z 3 = CL ». °' I V E a aoi U O p u ro> o L o 3 c -0 L > O A O N � U c a N U C = � (Do o L o I O r V W L O N 0) N N C C r c O U a ` t6 c L2 °o > cn ro t6 0 U ro 17 0 U n 0 Q 7 7 m U U O tL '� Y m tD � m- ° m o ro � LL N N 0 --;1 Q: L ai N >+ 7+ (0 (6 II (D —>, -0 L v_ c O L O O •ro � O m N -� � -0 E � c ... o � c � c ca cl ca � Y Y cn II - --- Y Q Q W_ -N ¢ —a - -- —cQ 1 - r: 00 O N th 'LF Lo Lo LO , LO 1 co M co �� Im I� �M �CO Ico M co M co f7 M Cl) If+7 Im M co 1('7 N N 0 --;1 N ri S� G 0 U m 0 f0 a a, 0 Y a 4- 0 a� N I > N ID � o C o (D a) s j L O O O C I– CO a C (A I—C N D �lm Y�O 2 1 . � W co co -- fi co a7 ti M > –U_�_W oi M O M T L 7 N t0 0. co i Q. O N �' S1 O I C N O N I, N Tj O I N � O O d3 +'C+ + a) C 0 O tq I N a U L 1 N �~ I Qi O O C O t 10 (B `i N O O i to >0 C p a) 1� 0 a3 E C ro° 0 I a a� c o 1 I m o a N ) _ C C N O {j L CL Q) O C C (0 a) fI C 0. N«�0 O E N N E�� i I E �oN IN i fD2 E (D O -C O a) ` a) 'JCO a 0 C Lill N �� a3 O :~ (A co U CO X- — v— C ON (w6 N v� U E CO N N N 3 0 O i Q a7 a+ C O a) N 7+ C I O C O ca _ N I > N ID � o C o (D a) s a) O O O C I– CO E W C (A I—C N D �lm Y�O 2 1 . � N I > N ID M N o o s a) O O O C I– CO E W C (A I—C N D �lm U t6 - -- co w�-- co M W co co -- fi co CU M ti M > –U_�_W oi M O M T L 7 N t0 0. co i M N s a) L -� co O C I– CO E W C (A I—C N D �lm ai - U �- o) M - -- co w�-- co M W co co -- fi co CU M ti M W� a0 M –U_�_W oi M O M N ao co C � Q N IM L 7 =J II M co N N —w d M M N i 0 � m � � � a 0 u � u / � 4� a 2 2 C 0 k � 0 k Ln � � 2-37 o f � / §® / \ � \ ) ƒ \ \ 3 . .2 = 2 \ \ \ �k� ( / 0 S //\ \k ) \ f0 \\ :D0 \) 'a) �S \$\ mE oo °moo M > m \6 /\ 4 // \ �. \ \ \ \ ƒ 0 CL �\ 2ff a ® 5 0 . § CL §f $\ \\ \\ 7 e oa = e .pf-0 -0 c 2$ o m @/ / E w/§ , k\ �a) 0 \ \: .a 7 a) a) a) (D .> 7\ S e �^ b f/ 2 o \3� 6 ° E \ E c) 2 s 0. § t r . $ o m m 2 f E_ ¥ 0 k k \ a) f$ E o o k mR 2/ ~ > 0= �. / $ ƒ E \ C R �(l0 / = o / �) E $ ƒ 33 \/ M\ $ / ƒf _\ £ \�� 0..�. — - \— � - -- � -- - - - -� — v 2 §� Sƒ E m E r - ƒ % » E= e$ 2 2$ c a e n 5 a G S 7 c 5 > o ^ 7 m w \ E/ R 0 I &\ 7 - m � — ® -- � - -- �r--- �---- � - - -� -- ---------------- \ . \ m \ e @ ¥ m m § ; ® 2 \ \. § » ƒ f 2 f f \ 3 \ m �_ ( �_ j \ /� j 2 m_ m_ @ _@ m_ m _m _e % S \ \ \ E \ ? § �7 % % \ $ |/ CD CD k \ # / k 4# n n r n n m m o n n n r n . r . � # - - - ## -�� — --- �- - - -- � 2-37 -- o ° o ' c W m m ° o o °� cn E >, � p- 0 U U O o c a) c a)o m z _ ° O N L 3 W W (�6 U m O ~ U U V +� fn '°a 7 _ = O B) a) O a) U a iQ ..Q +. �- ca (Q E C to (a N N a) !II DCl E -6 �� j Q� D ° U�7 coo ca°i 0)3 W U w °� N c c Z o � gi p° 0 -0 _ `��° > � 1� W +� Q- N >, ca >, c6 -0 to (n p } -O f O E N I z N z U J O p1'� 0, z O a) 'p^ ° — W U a) i N o oN z �o ~O o�� rL o W E c� (a CO L- w p) � � 0 u ° m0 a) ��° D cc WQ ` I =� o F- > F- c u- v) cn o 0 0 �> `� m - F... a) W— 3 U a) V P W� a c � �aa) ate) CL - o 0 E a 0� ° o ° o c • �� WD N a) C Q m W U W z N U a) N •- m E i 0 a) 0 E_ O C i 0 J N�� U) cG d ° 2U ° o a) N o 0 0 o W W c (a c N0 a) a) z00 cm- >0EcL F- co Y Ow om0 s U 4i)- °a� �m °� W �� n�o¢ °o� ac O a E W to m o -a �' U O m E 'a ` a) c Off' lu-a ofnao a LN 2Z o t0 O fl > 0 a) a L -- CL f-- -all-- f- � Q O N o — —_ a) a 0 N z 3 i c 9 m u) p O ) o c j E M a a ro CL a) 7a-) w c o .n Z3 U) ai S:: ° IL Y — - -- tfj GD N 07 O N C', 0 IV Id' Id Id Id Id Ia �d Id Id,d d d d d d d N —90 N r-I O N ri a m �U c 0 v U m .N a� a a, 0 ice+ d a 4- 0 Ln 7 a —�l — CL Q O -p C O C E o _ { Q) (L6 L p ro (� N U 0 O L a) Co p 0 0 -C -0 Cro O D U C O N >, cn N� o O ro E E 0 o cc o c cn a :3 E (D -° ro p M >°,-0 > ; o m C p o o a' ro> O o a) E m uroi p O y c �no>,a r () o a) a) ro a) 3 Cr N O c a)c—° _ c �c+oa(D �n 03 U) OO I Y E Etp>, c co a� 4-�- aa)) m I a�� Q O o (aa ° �o��cn� E �,� l E�roccv o o °� O' F > p O n w N a) �� o 0) to W-o I c o ro � ro � a`) �� aroi ca L L 75 ) o cn N c � G •a) O v 0 a) 0 a L C°c3 n o = 0 --r-E 0 ,o c > L 0 n o � � L mm Lrn �o ` o Co ' > �co a m o mm c c y�c ro� I { o Eo°C.r0ac) tU) o'er a °"°_:� _ N ,� Ca, oz r- o a)��U) a D.ro `w row; w ro c 3 x a °� ° N �a) cn `� 0 4 >, p p rna>i�r a-' " _C "0 .rte ro �'0 a�`) . c C c ! N C > -0 LO LO OC E � ` U O) CU a) C c 'i i 0 ` p +� � +' +L o m 4 to a E N i ?i E L E ro 0 a 4- V I N 0 a) { p) E� p p a) -o "'' U E C •r }; (D q � Q 0 N C { U) C ro— to C C N O >, N t en � r- N C "'' a) Q o a°� 3 E m j Q*' ,O ro ro ° Qci� oi- E �U� 0.E -0 a) o_ cn c 'c U) CU > � cu "a-) roCE S -r- ` 5 aa))� �� �:`~ c c o o 0 0 "Fn�0o- -% `Z6 o >ca I >�� ro>,0om >ro L 0) f a) E cn a) N a) �_ , o ro C- ro L o a °o o� -z E cn E ro 0_ a) L FE D — - -I - - - -I >, — — ro o — = L CL — >, +r-.+ C X Q I U j CU Y to -) - cci CO t� a0 6i O CV M d � c) CO t` ch c*) m N N N N N CO M (� c� —�l m a) a% 6 a) yin„ L.1. L X ro }r N U '� U) L a) c cn p p i p 3 a) Co v O p U N N N G a) �' O 'g ca U N N •J O % ( a) X- p cLOOC uiro caa.�dw o3 0� rn z'ccv�° r � a Q �>ro 2) ,- M o ro= a) 0 ;o c =3 E X a o 0) U 0 L 0 a) ,c °-0 L c ro t0 • p U>� 00 .0 c O N °° >' O b - 0 v v ° c c N E :c � O � �-a a)� � 6 0 " 0 m •C�t � . -a E 3 0-0 a p ascro is 300 �E X- cc0o >� n E�� >� �' ?0 a) ca apiE� o 00'3 c(D �a a) ro ° a7 U° O E N +� N '' a 3 O a N O° ai a) U Q? OL E— a O L +L a O 0 0— O X- O U 0 N aN- :6 U- a) o1- Q. Lo 3 E -0 p� Oc n "= t>v o� % 0 U U C) _ c •� -V. U L N N v- p a� O� O a) o a) � c0 ro 4) U O 'C >+ O N e^-! - O c a �O N p O O C O 0 X c O a) p N O c Q. 3 0 ° r- 0 L c L C Co a+ 0O �, O V p N ,O� E U d ro N a S1 = U a LO Q U y W r- U O c0 c m a) = 0 _ _ a) E O a-i co O M p N O O (0 N O OC 4) ro� Q o Co v ( m- 0 3 3 x 0 E c C ° � wo ow a vi« ai a c O N •-- a ro O ro L O c a) .� >, a) = O U L p p ro 0 O 0.0 ~ 0 0 o ro N m ou o °� o� �� a3 0t5 oLL a) .V Q U U 3 i N yO c 3 C N 0 ro 3 N '' •- Y 00 p ro' o O ro sN a) r ro �Co 'a ° O c O ro •� ° to U 't ro N U 0 ac' -aro °cep W� 0 a) a) 0 U) a) ��C0 o.ron�, c= S V 0-0 %>, oaro� cma 3=-°)3 ron n�> m-0M 02 3 41 0° m ro 0 0 0 0 m o 3 c� X- r- 0 0 c- o`o o v ° ro ° E U� o ° �' ° ° ° E ° ro o ro o =o a)ro ro c �� mW0 V 0a >0�0c� a)� y --64 -- o EE�-a cam rob app oE000Ep r� a) 0.-.- c m 0 a° ro rn� Nc aco c w o'E_.c E'c m m 3 L ca L 0 a) E m � c ro aa) a) _ E o E o a - w c a LO ° Y m °"J BOO a) E a ro 0co roti c « o n U) o 0 3 a)� ro y r cn c av 0° °c"='' c o N 0m ro *' ° w O ° o cci w E ro> ro ro n� m- u)'a°�o °� ° d 0 cam c c_ ° �_�ro �a) �, w- ro�aMC:) (D c m +• romp (D U) co �E� 0° a)0 >rn �c�0 mc�mccooaci °ate � C ) m w 0> N O� m Nt c ` N Q a E in 4- t 0 L in 0 w c ° c Ne m 0 O—_- - -_� N 2 -9 �2-- `O I --C c � � N a) _ LLl � d r N N 2 -9 �2-- ° 6 :F; 4 � z o f o m N 0 .o m c co o c o arowc E ° 0c Q-0Ec (D o n o °'ado 0 ca ow m cn cu 0 n 75 (D cu c– 3 m (D (n C: ai �o na)ccc w � o > ? ��' of o° E IL o c a� ° ° c° a o E a 4- a) o a 4- �v ° o a) -ate° °� °E �E' o� ac Cl, a a� ° ° ° w � 0 0) O w a j c6 0 C n ° 4? o M o a co U a O N O CL O O O O Oa) a) 'a Q. N � 0- O. O (a N 0 E� 0 a° a� cn a E E a) `a) a a) Y N V 3 N O 3 � cu > -C (Q +� a) C G. � (a o i � a) u°i a7 °� IL (- ca U) � � Z a 0 I a) 0 co Z Z r- 0 0I Q o g, 0 N 0 N 0 A N Q. N O a) ° O O S] to Y ,� O 0 O * , CL O N N N N L N 0(a O 0 0 U a) Ln o O N C f�0 N 3 o E 0_' o °1 C� ti Q Q m - U U �– Y - Y _� -a - - —° - - - -- - -- c a f3o' > U O C O D 'L 0 O 0 i z N (Q m co d� Ids Ids Ids Id �co I`t Id I `t I`t �d �d I �i I d Id d Id I�t Id d co N >, O O >1 c U) ° N 0) `p U n. 0. > Z Q. � - N a� c o ro °° o w° m o L o ° a Q a (D CL E am oa) nN L o- c mca� (0 -C D C: cO �3 co w� r � o >, C a3 > u) cd-`na o ca -r C 0 80 0° o o a in c a a C ro a � w E E o Q E - ° � c . n O p 4O O C C a-a ate o c L o ° 0)i a) (U > 42 U 0 c w E�5 a) O ° �c c E 00Z6 >+ O V U ~ -0 n Co O L a p O C N N O V 30 V(a (0 4�- (0 C t°o 3 S2 O(o >, U) C ❑ c� p = p) C O O (o E O '� 0-;L- 0 '= I a) N O C 4- �. C N a C F, N C O E U S] L7 C OD. T U f0 C t7 L 0 (a N p p) C N C O u) p N G p N O O Z N" O C C C Co °C U 4- N a O) O) u) N t0 a) ,C O U) p N >, u) _ 3 C t' C C — N C a) Co u� o V O Q.. fl.. C ca II + N L u E ro a) a) CL °� a) 0 E a) N u) O O L '- CO N 'J E cn 42 u -p O ro N m � M a) E> > E co U L v o E L u :a p o.E c o U) � �� � ° >• E o s , v � c c� 3 m i p U C U Co 3 E ++ C L 0) aI y- L O 3 N a) (0 ± +� O O ,j O O (n L .V a) a) >, .O C i� oo° CEO oo Ca) oc+ ECL"�C a) 4= CL L a) . >1 4- U _ Q '~ a� c�a� �a°�i(ai °ate aT � come ca u� (acCo��o � •~ .f II. a) V) •L co `N o a) p N .0 U) �' � CO 44-- Y N 0 c +�+ a) O Q- >1 to U yd O ' � -0 2 � 0 o N a) � o a) (1) a) cu 0 v > Q E m co ° —° - -- — � m � > o = n 4= a o 4a= - -- a� CL 4- 0 = L L U (D Q a) C r OG ° L n c E C N c U) -C au'i m ca o W �, c rn N ,?—IN c c ° >, N N C y k(wD 0) Y (a 0 m n - -- > -_�- -� n -� - - - - -- — ->' — -� — L6 -- r cV C7 16 I� I� Id �,t mot' rn N ,?—IN n r-1 O N rl �U C O U U m E is a ar 0 d a 4- O W a� 0 I f a >I > I (D @ j CL ° c a E I L I co O N a) L � i (D L I a) CO > V OI I O 0- UO a @ I N @ 1+ O C7 @ 0 0 -C E I N O O _�' w w C a) c.0 O N @ N E • @ N N L () @ O Q O Y N N a) (a c U � I o a) O f O @ m @ @ @ @ - fA 2 C) Q ---- I r N - -- - - -- -- 06 - - of - - -- N (d h L ` 0rn 0 E w ao oo d 0c) OD ao 0d 0 d o �t d d d d O 3 O w @@ U N I I E 2 la 'c) � N OW U N :0, > E E I o l a) > I co -E ° 0) to g J Y- p :3 4' a) to c a) 0- c° i 0 °' @ E E l a@i a) j a + E c i @ 3 c c a E Q 3 c y @ @ I a) C @ E@ L� a M Q Z Q O C @ N >i 0 U { L O I a) � N O 0�) i Q E am i O o > aL ) - If 0)1-0 N 0 v @ N r c� a) (a U I o O @ I c o � Z3 °@ d c a) ( 2 � .c a) j �p> � � O a)ca �I o0 _ 0. � (D �I a) D (D - a � O a) a : a � I � n o Lu U c `° ci o ) C o @ N' > 0 (D m :E (n c (D- i CL W I F- o - -- - -1 - -- - - -! a - - - - -r r— -i I I 0 I f a >I > I (D M j CL ° c a E I I co O N a) L O L U a) CO > V OI I O a @ I N @ i @ w w C a) c.0 O N @ N N N () @ O Q a) N N a) (a c a) � I o a) @ m @ @ @ @ - fA 2 C) Q ---- I r N - -- - - -- -- 06 - - of - - -- N (d h I (6 ! iij ti rn (Y) ` 0rn 0 oi w ao oo d 0c) OD ao 0d 0 d o �t d d d d P§ Q N a-1 A m 0 U E m w a a� 0 I a a 0 y NNw cz m s,-/ W c !d c moo! wo o-� a L N �+> U N > �' c O > E O O O � cui X_� O U N N co 7 m m 02 i *' N pC O Y i p j O >, U ..�- •� C 0_ E cn N O a) 0) 0. � c ' o a 0) >,o me >m " c p a) A to 0 p p >' CO a- U 0 Q) > a) 0_ Q ` E U E c c N a) Co =c p �-�� E ;_ r- °_ ° F- a D_ c 0 = � a� Q) .2 - c ro arc N ; > CL c c a)- 0-12 O a I Ca • 'a a) F- O U co c CL N >� > cn Q 0. M � ,c 0) O 3 Q p L N 'O 00 0 :� U) Q O cn U> c _ i c ft3 i C N O + p a) m p U O 0 a) o a c O z 0 > E �z � c cn o IN L o c c c � a _ ,r< 0) 0 (D oc oar m� �`�� 0a� Cl) n c �� E a)' ns 0. "0 °oE ° w .n O p cn ° a) 0 MO o. = .- 'a E (a a) v - 3 c O .0 �� - +, �o_ C 3 o a) j a) 3 c0 a oc No ° cnc ca Ln a)E -0o� c om° roo W LL N ro co o ff cn a a) (a O 3 0 L a m cn m Y c ooi o ccaa °`' ° N-0 3 0 3 o� m 0 E' a) �co_ p(D a�i o ca N (D -0 0. a) cn aci ° o c °a cn m� c c CD a0i m o T- �Y� 2- E da) a o ai o � aci o � :• 2 ao C a ac a) Co ° n >;� co .0 oc�c� 0 co a5 ro Co �� wcca I a0•� a- o�� {S mo a. u) a� � ca: 3 a _ fl- ° I -- - - - -I_ �- o_ - o_ I a o- n - - -! -- �3c - --- cons - -i I O N N i N (D .0 c a) a D N _ (CS J, a) L O p c 0 � Q 7 : X iL 0 C O cf) t U O o_ N _ t3R v� N _ N u. O z U- i Y ._°, a. — -- -� - -- f a7 N N c > 0 c n o a N c ca ° _ c U E a) Z O (c6 ca C- m (A (q J -7 - U -(6 D —O _I m Q -� — C:l O Ln 07 O lf) O r �— Ln N C7 c) r r tj Ln L() Ln O LO - - -- LO - -I-- � -- Ln - - -- LSD -- Lo ° - --- Lo to - ----- - - - - -- -- -- - --- -- -- m s,-/ W n 0 N A m G 0 v v m 7 io a a� 0 c a a 0 fe _ 3 o O L U o U > o{, O m c o O ° U a)= r p � ((b O c 0 a) ..O Co N ca E ° w H 3 m c a) c6 ° >orn ro Y w ° a) E o0 E = :r- 0) o co°c o oc aa)ic -0 v rE �C'a) co (a � a) = i � T = .O O (a �O °' 3:4- a tea, L Eo°//� U) E� '> 4-. oU% c a) c� N c I C >� C' vJ ++ O aimCl• a ° 0 > O CO O 76 ro La Q °m ocl•m �' a°'io a) CL da) MU' ° ES :3 OL ca J a) O 0 U O(D (Ea L co j °QO > c '� L °mom' O L yc o co �+ L °D 6 a) E �-� a n3 c� m m ��aa)) 0 rn o L � c o n = > ro C X- N ac' G � N ca 4) s D i Q O uoi" 0 O a) mcn .n +' � c-0 O (nE O co O ro c Q U �� _> a) ro - to m a� o'er a a) 0 Co ro N m C N ca 0 a) m c O ° a� � � ai °cam (D n 2:1 (n � (n v E CO '- Er�ccaca cn m O U U (a o� aUi v� c>i°0 CL 0 aa)io co cn c m :6 42 v° >, °roc m.•E 0 o �(� off° a> > 0 0 °- ° a) U) o QUA rn� -aa co ��° a� dui °ornv a) to � -0 ca 0�m �(D c(D c° ro t-U�'c Lam? ocYi c a °ca oa�i O m •� N 0 cn ++ Q U C (CS _ O °ai cQUSroE h- 3> L� 0 1 30 co -0c ZuQic`a�n ° c ro m° m c E o Nc c 0- ov E (� N ° o E o� O a E o U N > m co ` a) N T U' N> �m a°)ij � o a).2 E �o a) w 0, aa) `n �,0 > 3 �'a o U c °, (D (D nc -2 :2 co v° +, c ( �( ° N N a� L O N °ci CO N o o� Z 3 c -0 i I U) - - -- O ca - - - -_ `1 t f- o_ Q o cn m r _�� 0) U) a ° `0 c U) ai m ro � to 0 = O T Y (a i U) — N N N ro W o ° ai LL .2- E o O C7 (a U m U ! U- O - ¢ U - O _ O ~ o 2 O = U — (. - - - - - -- — .. —_.— Z CO - - -- A O (a (a U } T i O O N fl (a (II (n aI 0 U O U U Q N (a ca N U Z Z co Z llJ - -� —I O N N N N (M N d N to N c0 N tl- N 00 N 6) N � LO LO LO LO LO 10 N M q7 r- 0 U 'cV f� 7 a a� s 41 a 0 m LA O7 m m — 0�� � C y_ C Y Q) 0 O p a > i 7 O O ° O E N O CL Q .2 C m Q 7 p N � N Q H O 0 m- 0 E 3 O 0 ,3 _ U Cmm TN O C C 3 m c o >+ -0 j U O a) C-0 N O C E r� O a Q- � aJ ) w W 0 Q L = O (D U I C a) C a) ° m > _ D a) N O i s a) 7 N cc 75 a) L m 'o 0 Q m -p r- a) N a) L C o o 3a? O o-o (U — a� vi a m v� Z3 ++ �a� m �3 >m°N �� c °°�'� 0) oo Y o 00 i O � U O U� E O 0 3 +� a) 3 (U °� oo J m ��o_°0 3� U m(°�E =icn0O 3 o n i �v o U) Q a� m � a E a v C o 3 � m a o do o m m 3: m °° o o- m Q� o c N > a) O � +� a) O L 7 O OC O C = a m N Q J p C 3 N D m U) O° o>- a � C >. Q N U Q• a .`gyp_ i (a s�Q oo"o I-� p = m ° aoi p Eo pm C cn m n m m_ o° o ° a p o pc m o m.�� C E p �.3m� �' o m *'3 Oa ��umi0 q p � n x 0) C C w m o o `� �m J m (d �LmQ -m3 r m Q m �Y°� C m ++ C O ocu3FN'°cE_ n Q m+- Cp (� v_- 7 (� C U :E a m m ++ C O o� U _°-U .p .3 oo ro 3X-a .5, m a �' a`ni ;,c {moo p) >j m m L y... O p N p— U > p N C � a U m C i oo3cpiro °o ro> N - (DLO ((a a) 0)N ° - - ° �> �� L = O) cn (c 0- p L a) N o `c 4".. a- ++ m .� p o '�... ° °) U a) c E Y° m o° m4- 0 3 L m a° m cnnooNEo3 ° 2 �� mu ��po o a) 0 � �� ° ° umi E 3c�1 �� >,U p- p m U � 'a a) o m• p CO V L mII N >,m m e a? o m p � p.0 o f p > v 2 o L m >,p mI C i - 4) � N p p> pj O N p m- C a a� E =� H C a .0 p O I- (n E N cn M p m N i o E a L 2) I- (n o o } Z m co O F- n 7 o C C N O C O N C m ` U) (n �f co O E m C N E LO C C (EQ O O -0 L m I 2) o o �' T y co r m E cA W U W U J ° -� W Y -pi _ C15 co C) LO LO L L to LO Lo LO LO LO LO LO 10 m m N O N e-1 c� G .0 O O u C1 a Gl 0 G d a v- O ,It M - - -_ - -- ro L ro 3 co L ro L 4- U: m O i O .a C 0 0 L i3 v � � w '�o L to En• O N ' -p Q ro ro S] m ro U) a) o C C fl a '_ C 3 +' W Oa �O co O.. O 0) p C Q O N O 4) (U U) a) O a) p L, N () ro v tQ .Q a o s p a) p p c p 0 (L E-5 0 w > O ro r- C 0 J C p w C 0.0 4 U) a) -p W> N fl N L ro O O N E a p �- cn = N a L a) N o of ro S ro +' p a) L 0 0 ro n ro (n m C C p ro 2-0 m �_. C E� ro 3• a) to 3 - p .p C .0 3 .> .O p -- o c 0 J u- a) (a � j '" O � O -p ro � C -a -0 a) L ro> O 0� U a) p 40- v C O op W m-C m ((a " o - a p� ro (U ro o 0� ro 7 C U) -0 c O� Q� L c O q- o a) � �� � ��— 3 c n Q. c 0) r- =3 ro L� O.ON�' >�(roi U ro� :3cL aa))3ro(o) c ° >,�(3L° ?«� o o Jcm��°w 4) u! N U F- O U � p t6 a) O 7 a co 'U N i C C C O 2)O o ) C E N U) Z 0� r O U -p O O p O i U) O W— a) a) -E C U) + N LO a) L O ro O C w N U) a m U (� a) � O vi 75 0 U °-c c a) o= U v 2; L ro �� E E o ° a- ro aa)) a) a) N ro d W O O? X -0 0.4- r'0 0 uUi X C m ro a) O L (D CU m 0 E3��'aY) c >1U) a o3 a�i 0U p 0c� 40- o c C ro c �o d cn(Lv(cv�-� a._ c� (Da) ro f w EaUi= Q ro 0 L a) Y ro C a U) *. cu 0 c c 4- -p o `J N a) V) a C O ro a C cu a) C N C U m � Y a) c O a N aU U � o t C C a) m � a) m a) u) `� O O 3 a) ro ro a > J o o ro ro a v E° io Q (Q C O ~ � ♦ 0 o EL =3 a) 7- O C N � � � Q y II > O L o J c U v- c° (° i ro E° x 0 a) > U o ► ro ro a W c om o o a� ro ro> L p �'c m m E Cllj I /� a) p N a) a) C a). W c �j N N w U 'Q ro ro� E a O a) m a) .Y —_ro > j a) o' u) CO Z moa E co cu E CO M ca •� "' p Y(n =�C. a) L> E a) ro ro La)w roroU��Lroc •i-+ ro •Y .1-•i a) E «- �u)a)L 4) �a� (n (n > L Q •� L L f- FL 0 I- fl -p Q O= Z ro -C L 1- a O O F- i- 0 U ro 0 fn U) ro C F- F- = ro L a) a a C i� x � a) C ro C 7 Cu C (U — 0) C U O 0 U) I p L v) D > ¢ w __ OD U) J I ro o c � > a) N 0 c r E ( o `� C E U) U f w -- — ~ - - - - -- -- m- - -- — - -- d LO Lo L ((j LO 10 LO LO c6 LO Lo Lo Lo m Lo to LO Lo Lo ,It M 0 N e-1 A ca 0 U CU m �a a 0 c w� W a 0 y 75 d Ln m 4. U) cna) Y Y 3 0 ,a p tr .� O p p 0 E ° � QE cn .N L O C.a) M L, O- a) ° C 4 a) i- u) z N C '� N L U 't O ( ' ° 00 � a) N N q I C 0) a) � (D C -a � L � ro ) � o N a) to —6 3: a- a) > u) 0 N a � O Y c�a r" U a) O o L a) to a) O Ecaa O O p a) CO a) E «� a C a) U �(o c� ca n E Vin. Japes°) o N ��au,°0 m -C �' o ° w ca o� : 3 a) 2 � � o � N +j zi Q) � a ca Di O C U) C � y ° (� O ca C N .0 '- C 'a O O � _ � N C 'a O N a) CL O N o C- O C cC6 N u) - O N ca ca j °a CO a a) r- cEL (D EL I o ° .0 «_ CL ++ u) N Z U y O O 7 O Y N �_, v- Y Y a) 0.0- 7 O (a L a) .E-• °cn na) °� C2r.- ONCE ^a)E Ica °� Ec0aa "°0N Ea ? a) (D E° (D �o O �N °" °a)> C am0".000 ccn a,a�a)> C P a� a �E !L O 0 ° C EO ca a) -a a L u�Ero� Oa Co w O V C O O u)Eca+' °a) Ivoi 0 > 0 >) °C w0' Co > M Z +� N co - I O Q N +• ° CO L a a) N M n C N N- a) O �° °° ac°ioc�aa)ECa a)oca�ECQ- L v c°a � c o ui o o ar In a aS ° 0 °3 °c ai i 0 � ca o ) � m 0- ro a) � o � � � L o Q� � j = cn ,0 a)� ca p 3 a) 0 N > Cn Q a) C 0 aa)) > > ° �QQo 4 7 C o- E° 0- co a) ca Q' Ec L C 4- 0) q) O 0ca0r- L C v- a) a) 46 u) a)c o� a) _v co E - I LN i1 O �+,= 2,2 U w I �X N a) n m cl, Ein(D rn to U ca3cataEoi� .2 + N a) 3 � 0 0- +� O O U) C O U CII -0 C N CO C N Q m.��mwa)`� U ca p C (a C C a) O *' N l A c 4- > C 2 C O O o.. i= 0 O N U � N N�nlnma) V a N jEj O O E N C 7 V• ca N C C o (a ca O Ln to C C f C 0 0 �° N L O a a E C N N m .0 -� O� L a) O O N L L E CL a) 0 ° a) ca a) E V � ' a c a o p co 5- a O o a) a) ca ai > N o u O 0 a O ca °) c u) a Y :c o a Q a 'C0 a •1 a a) E ° o c xO a > a) �- ) •II .2 A? O IL L U U LL. L U _- _ -._- I- E ! o � 1 � � L ; 7 L C `0 a) N C C L - C a) ° Q V Q i G V, V N I U) a) a (D N 2 C U -Oi -Oj OD U 75 --- - ¢ - - -- - - --� —? -J LO -(0 - -- CO CNO CC) (O f0 LLB U) W LO L(i L LO LO In Lo LO LO LO LO Ln m N e-1 O N r-1 c� �U C 0 U u IM n�. m a a� s c a a 0 N CA CA -IT,O P O V Q a' 0) O —0 I Q O N G { U N C I Z � a) a) cn O c N ?= O p O ! O 5 O N Q a? C ° v; l i l �{ I o O I i —nca Ca o V O E Co E iI c� i Q a; ._ _ =3 0- i i > � I N052 o o ° w [ a) � �l ° 3 U) I i CL i (CD N CL (D o°U aw irn i i mnO� � C ° ca Q o ° to 3 o ) au) to I +� E W to � aO Cp °o a a � E L f... T Q c �1 0� ° i Q W N ca 'o o �0 N c ; O cn 0 { ° O� l � f f o f co 0 c l 0� o 0 a) (n N fA = m F- -- O i a) N c +� m i v ! a) N O � a7 N a (O U U C (0 N{ N N W N (� J (LO N N Y O Z� W U (>U Jz c�Q LL LLII- �I d= --- -U -� -m ti ti o a0 a0 { N 00 c6 00 d 0o 1 a0 (6 a0 h 00 a0 a0 m rn 00 o r N fh 61 ---- -� - -�- � -- � -- � -- � -� � —� - - -- � - � - -- -� --- W m _S °t r- O N e-I T �U 0 U is d a a� w a 0 Ln tA tA n m o O co !1 Y > CL o i E E �� ° l IL N CL O O7 U N O A C U) o ° 46 ° C 1 ca c0o ii I ° W cn c a v ! (D CL 0 E OL p N 'f = U O ) C N+ o N 4c i N (� 1 0 u) G { >� > I m ° != ° 0_0 �� I ° X30 0 caC ' a C Ij 0 CO I! �O -00 L 0 : 0 _ > CL a- ° E u) I c U U (a i i 9 o oYU 0_ cn I N N cn i _�' I `m va) R o m cv —° o;° E o c c c mo mo ` t�Q N 0 N C 0 ° CL U a ; o c v �� _ > 0 ` n> r �� iE a)C ► 0 X00 ICI zi FL IL T__ —___ c � � L ° N oY 1 0 o C i Y U N LA <0 (6 ° N N O 0 O U) N Z �_ O C7 N 0. �' (�0 O LL r-(0 (� CD C7 L IL N C N N �S N T C: (Q E +o— �_ U a O - -- c (o ICO O L6 c6 oi p pj O 0 O O 10 (0 10 (0 (0 -10 -- -N n m O N A m O V U m 3 m d a a) O c d a 0 0 44 ii. a i o �N 0 0 N a O E to a) a m a) C ?� O E O) O a) a U N � 0) C2 N C 0 co U Q) O 'C m U U �O i U) 3 (150 o a =3 a) CL 0 30�aoi =°U)�� U O (Q �o X m O O o O � n O 0-- O c L amU o (%)L °o= C ° o a- 6-0 E E N m "� 0 1. E -0 4- 0--) 0 = C O a) m a. V Y m >, a. 4- X N m 0 m E oU NC°) u°i ID N � �J" 0 >a a) °Emm°' N L C O Q.N O ?a)'Os O (L) C2 U 7 C ms��E O ° m m 0 c m O X Q) a) 0 3 a. 0- a) ca o ° O a)Y 00> U N 0 >' Q) > N a) m n ° m o e c ts4_. U C" m E O a) .fl N W IL6 00 M S 3 0 O (6 > N Q •7 0, E (D O D ! �aa))`0 _0 D o m E ° > 0) 3 0 3 c U ! m n a) EL 9 a) ' O U 0.U) i 1 0 L a) 0 o I m a 0 0 O.. N o �c :3 mL E O O °( •0 +� a C2 L � ( cu _. a) N a) 0 co N I U ,i., . L a) E _• O 4 ! iJ N° O C f N 0 E LI o i a) !' O E O L O I � ;a 0- N� 0 cif 7 a) m E! N Z E "- C: (D m� Cs W CL a°i — O Q I a) > a) ( ma)� ! L ��H� o ! j I 0 a) a) c m m L l E I I 7 7 U N > o cu L fn m -C (n m ca O C� Q-- (S) �_ N Y - -- -- J — J R — -- U I —1Z Z -- - -'- -- k — y f - - - --- a) m C_ ° ( I m _ {I ?, lu 0 to 0 m E c °� m U to E F- m a m m E E m( m T r N N N N N N N N N N M 10 00 M N N ei (a .0 7 O U . U ca is d a O7 O a+ C 1p N a 0 LA En En lw cc F J O � ID O W L 55 O E a) ID p E � aC ) I N C 41 — a) Q ( 0- p 0 C p F O a) U O = O O d) >' r_ to C a) L y0 (D 0 O C C O = a) U L (4 1�0.. C C O 0- N°�� ++ .Y O U C� i (Q 0 XC °ID ° o (D I(i� i (( !E E z•Q o ° o a) E o�m U to E >U , p p > Y a) (a W > to C > E (a O CC E fl Q U) a a) N° �C O O U (D fl a O_ O M O pC (D O (Q Q) O Co Q. N� (a N A U Co (a E (D O N N .0 O E i _+ a) (a U� N Q C N a) 0 W. (D (a �` a) a) (a E C >, O (a (n a) C o C 7 O C a) 0 > ='a N p E U) -a U —° ' Y rn U — c: 0 N N > Y O a) — O ca C- a C .1 a) L-x c O — C N 'a a) C_ a a) C i > W w a) . m (A O v p a) C a) +r > N m (a ° o (0 '*'' n �i ° o — Q � °vo �0 �i - 0 to ` �E p >u) E (a V) W � (1 o� o� CL c -O wo .c "' (a30 -0 u)'- �_ a) a)I� +� = O to J O V a= O � O !- N u) � ( N Q' '� L a) I -a =3 C •°C a c L N i a- a (a CU C � c .0 E= x c ..0 a) p ° Cale p UO N a) -a c (D O c 3 ^ (D a) N �� 0 0 N C U Q t06L ?� > L O (� C "' a U (a III C a) a) L L C to O0 U 4=- O L C O Y �- � ° m a °C � p — � c � Y > o: Cj sn o O (aC `m a) cnCy s0) ���c > `, �+��o - a(°�ocao� CL a) > c >c° Q O —°U O (a 0 a). r-° I a p a N ++ a) N (a Q� U .N E co UO L O O O Z 00 •E N v=- O (a C Q' a) N° E i Y N Q U a) o +� N a) CO C a) U) a P O(a p p _. 7 Q o L 7 O E ' N > E— a) ` I (a � N O U O (a 0 o- "a a) O p O _ _ _ L a) 'a (A B a) E C a) N C a) rn W (D C N C a) X :+ C o o):6 p N `� C? (—Cp 0 to N a C N o 0 Q�C�QaU ?) D i �, ! l a) I C 0 C L a) a) f a) E C a) a) Y L Q C p a) Q -0 0 E F 7 6 a) C o O co L co a m a d-+ 0) m C L o C E C a � C C d) C U i N 4 a E p le -- - - -- - (N (�7 M M co can Cf) (� � d �i �h (o ( E � (O (O (fl (fl (fl (O (fl F J n 0 N a-I T m G O u U co m a a a) s 0 d a 0 ul 0 0 (2 - S�;- "� I O O N i ii ° N . -p o E ro o •O E 0 1 0 N 0 m C W I .0 a) .a ` > Cl. O a) >l L U O O Cn L .�..• Q a) (] i11 ro U U) ° r. a) 0) •O a) .a w 0 i- °L -C ro> a O o oW r_ —i C ro v �no -aa) o r• °-a >. a) a >� a) O E c o > ro a) -C O ;� c°a� c a)- co Q _ .0 o 0 0CLa)N 0 E 3 u � o� q`) �oro ° O IV N a) co- ro 0 6 +' C O >i ro 0-a = c c = ro� mg aroi ro �° co ca L �d ° cOO Co 0 C, roV m� 0 r >a)a) Q tm co :6 a) m ro aa) ) o L- (n c 0 Z) ` 0- 4- c a) 0) n� o Co w ro co o o° d) ° a) on J Q) 42 U C E -a - 0 m " mo > C 6 = C Q my O a�i (D O c' 0 v a) �°)�o� (p 03 N mom o 2 ° a a) =-0 a) U •roCN0 a a o;0 .°c0- T Q �' O_ °> n !`nam a) C I a) d t O (o O '- ro ro co ro N p C j 0) V N :3 i Er- 00 U C C N CL -0 C ca 02 C U o Cl) U� (a = o a� �� a) aro roar- mN o= 0> C (� (D o (no a ro aa) aa)) Oa), - n °O °�� o tea) a oro -C a30 oD)_ C:Ca)� c° oQ@ v-° 0� ° a) �"_ a) ow a) o E -° O 3 ate~ n C CL i 1i ¢ �c ���_ �-cvroi CC oa>i (a =Uo a)o o U E ro _ a>)�6 a U) c C O ro ��- 0 U) E `� vio 0y- > O �' (00 0 O U 0- 7-C E O ro o -a a) 31- o0 O C 3- o 2 c(D o° �o E a) a) 'a a �� oc' (n fl.-0 Eai to CI- C oa= >' O `poo co Ero o= n �ro a°ia i _aco NW C E� F-=-c a)> a)o�a � o »- , a) .0 >Q. °L.° °-aa c: co 0U °0 pa53 ° �� o o o �3 ro° c a �o Z co n o ro a) >' 0 _ " N a 0 N N i O L a - L n- S Y +� 0 a) � • •O � � o - C L ( c c: C: a (n Y I•S2fU O O• >_ � O Ij > T T ❑ 112, =1 al 0 3 E � o w O w c � O a)� L O N N 0 0 0 ac I I �� � ���'�_ cr � � ' a) > > I ItI N 0 0 . .00 >, 0 C ! ! I w0 ❑ ❑En.00 I I I f (n a 0 0a) 3Y'a) �°0 w i i f c E — —° a m m �� O o 2 0)2 i i L • •0 a) . as •� 'a (II I I I I j j O c .O c O Ec� � � C Oo-O ' QO F > Q I a a) C I (D i� L L 0 00 O = O_ N I w 7 O O O (0 t to N O O a a) �>> O co I I L O (a 4? � O 6 a) � O c c o � cn � 0 0 -j (n E >, Q ! ! co c co E uU) — 7 76 - 10i a) a -0 0 0 ) E O f (L v 0 - co .0 c - - -1 - -- a) (a ( a) c i � c E (n ( (n O E) > � I I 0) = O ' c o o c ' a) Q z Z Z U Q ( (U t tU p p 9 9 > > N N > > N N ( (0 > > U)-- D 2 z U Z Z � �� � � E - - Q L L Y -- — —i - -- - - - - -- m m - - - - - - - - - -- - -- — - —,1 - - L c 0 N II i 0 � � � � c c E E c _ _E c c C C E E � �' c c _ _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c L L N N 0 0 w w 0 0 a a Y > > d d U U U U h -- - -, — —I _ -Ni F FO- F Fes- - - D .I J j —� - - - -i —I I I �, I I �.; I ( I t I( I( I0 -i lzt -5 N 0 N i-i m .0 O U U m E a .� a 0 tA LA LA 0 I I �° ° �o �a c i co o I I Q C c�6 ! 7 O I N N P I o I I E° .0 � � I M I j I I j N ca I E4- ° cu 1 m N rn ro I L I E � 0; it I � 2 a) ° p N N j 4? I L N O M II{ i O N O N U _ N C O =3 N O N w CL N M +0 f f O ° a °' E _ m o ' E x W o -0 O °= co � -� o o m a Y w -� o � m I W n ca LL W I U` -� j ti M M M c c � 00 rn 0 cfl rn (D rn 0 co co co co co co cfl co co cfl co co cQ co co cfl i P% e"1 O N r-1 0 U U to m a QJ s 0 C a 0 0 Cu a �-So - C O a) L p� O aj C �? 0 :'_'• O L C tq O L O � f+ O ca �- o p C O L� ro O >, C ro v i a) O> a) OC v ro �0 + U O O o. E ro ro C a) (a i ca w ro 'o a r N ° p 0 E° �acnEE-o���aoc 00--wo20�o C c O E o co �E >,o a) a) .� o o a) tf 0 o °c , 0 o L- E- ° •- 0 ro a) ro >, C >� L C j Ca C Q O a) ro a) N N >+ o C C `� 0 i E �r000Up �° �o � � m �� o Imo a v as � a�i � ac � a) �c N �—n€€ O ro 0 p C C N cno �� C 2ro � LEI O w »� E= a� p ro p)7 N 0° C: 0) _ ro o o� a) NmLCCcv� U O o 'r C -0 2r + N C v) �N N O 0) 0- (L6 O 0U) M�� ° >�w �LN ou°i�a �0 0 0) i 0 �-a o 0 o-0 (D >�� �� o r c°a °° ro0ro aD I� a��oo —���oro ���C�� E ro L ro -) j !I a) -o Co> Q) - ro cA tIJ C O �= C,a`)a)�30o 0 O 0 +a) a) E a�(n,� roams .0 O 0 Q C + o d p a) •0 7 0 Ca N O O 3 Q) � a o O _ a) U v7 0 S1 ++ U O ro 0 a C N L U p 7 a) O 1- C �, N Q {� ro () 0-0 o- a) -,.e C N N p ro�C o' L (D ot'Ji_)a�iQ�'= LV Q OL I I U) 10-- 0 O C C T O 7 C .5- U L O I� rox IL ! a) i 0 Q. 4-- �.7CQ. C>,° EEroosN� Co OECro>, =a mya�)mv0 ui o i a) CO O N m 5 c U O N> -c p O C O 0) -C c _. = Z. -(D 0 o > ° ro C CL Ca E cc w E E c am-, C -C ro-0 a) ° p O, CL Y N sQ O rn m n m - a)= -C-+ E O O C a) ro rooms x N O> o Q C m (� L S2 0 cn 3 O"= > C Lid a) 0C � ro a) a) OO E �.N NCO c- m o :E N N to N- "C Z C E n >, Q N N `' �' 0 ro Y N C L- E L N f O) ro a O ' O O � a ° ° o i mo °o � 0 -C >c nc a oE U4 — - -- -- - -- -- U - - -- o O >I �, c @� O a) C L ++ 1 + a) U) C N C O O O Ca a (U Cp O CCp O Lro ii �_ pNro/ Ca L fn ro _ N o E o O ro ro '0 E C p o C 4 � CP � a0 6 O r N r (7 r ti �-So N ei Q N rl 5m L �U O 7 O U U m 3 f0 d a d t 0 C d a y- 0 E� L a) C X N Q I O U L C L N C cu O n = O 2 N (6 cn N N c) 2 a) O —� 46 V -� (a � _1 r- a) O n) a) o U ro J O U O O ti ti ti ti ti N � N ti N ti ti N ti N ! a) a .L 'II L N VJ a) a) a L U) 'a a) o 0 0 C a) 0) N Q. ( 0(o -- U.n N C N C= O (II = O O ~ O O C E N I t N i ;= N CL Q f— O ui m O O C O I •� N ❑ r- N > a) O a) -o fl E m 'L '~ 'a = O Q. a) 0.- O a U) ca (> N O O r- (0 O C O > cn c , O N F- n co s= O O N N O W `) C — ' O a) a) > a O cu N O❑ 0- O O E co O O O O C (� V O OX. f� a a)oW r' i CL -°)a 7 ( -C °30 -_ > CL E a) E C U � rn� o c ro as u a) n7 tU a) !^t Q. ° L C > ❑ a) m° �) a — L a) � d? I.l. I E a yJ C a X a N ip' t0 a O N 0 E p=a) 000 aa))o ca a) (n °C O N o. 6> N ' o� _ > N 3 cLcL o a I ca N .a C W4° -j°c a) Q ���a) O �3 c 0).c0ro O II O co '5 L a) CL CL ❑O > +%= o m o a) mow- U� a �� C L "Ile sY.., C Q ` N O C-) v I O a) C ,�' U) to O E to = Q O C C Z 6 N L y a `� C {"' N O n O C a) a°i a ° 0 c a) N N a) 0 ro i O a°)i 0) �olacQicm c>a0 c)Ui c�Lo �U�I ------ ~- °`�f�m�c L a) C X N Q I O U L C L N C cu O n = O 2 N (6 cn N N c) 2 a) O —� 46 V -� (a � _1 r- a) O n) a) L a) C X N Q C CD ❑ C C J (0 T Q) Iti IN U C LL c O a) a) .0 a) N w C 0 U a) O a CL O O U N � N a) N a) N N O U E co O O N T 3 a � a ham- E 8 O r cn c (D _T a) d C E a U N Q C Q. O >` O U O N -ffi () > = U cLa c a) a m yam+ U a) CL o CD w c a) 7+ I O U N a) TI (D o U ro J > m '— ti ti ti ti ti ti N � N ti N ti ti N ti IN C CD ❑ C C J (0 T Q) Iti IN U C LL c O a) a) .0 a) N w C 0 U a) O a CL O O U N � N a) N a) N N O U E co O O N T 3 a � a ham- E 8 O r cn c (D _T a) d C E a U N Q C Q. O >` O U O N -ffi () > = U cLa c a) a m yam+ U a) CL o CD w c a) 7+ a -s9 O U a) a) (D oi N co I co h I,- ti a -s9 n 0 N rl n%. O U U m t4 a s a a 0 Ln �_�o > N O o U N a) O O _ O O c ro N •tn Q) U N Q) f] 3 a) a) = Q Q. - O a U O a) O CL co ro u 3 j c c c Q (S oc ��c � o E W o O O «n iO - (a c o E N am y-' C c+ +.O m Q ' ) O O L U (a L 7 (D O N O O r O ��=' 0) ro O L 4) `� E I o U a o y o ;v c v U G >_ -oa N 7 ° C 7 0 O ro O r E 4) U to 0 0 (n o oaEoO c , ro d a E> 4-. a � � > � �� �����3 Q O U ++'L N OL � QE c U Q c o roU U 0 3 °a0CL� a) D ro !! O 0 L �a ro U O c U ro V c N O Q O N naoa� o t aroi 0 � >, n roro Z� c N o >'roaa))co Q ° m Ico� � o ca) c CL ro(n�oa) � c o o (n U) o >-0 a ° 0 CL ° Em 3 0- E� U) 0- CL 0 �—° o O L p _) U n -a O Co. (n (n oQOa) c 0 t 3 aoi v3 �oo a oa o 0 0� o 0 N�Nrc c N a UJ LO i c a) N 0 -0 U ro 0 L O U o C a) c �1 (a a o� ro E oc ro E 'a cc o o II_L ro o W L >,� C O N ro Fic ca (n :n a) a) L T a) E E (n Q) N E Q +ro+ Q) i N ..c -c .c O a L C u o ro - - - - -- m -! a- 1 S L o O L' L � ro w -0 c (o ro ro E E ro o i T lu ;> Y O co o c 0 .1 -Y O �m a) O O /^1U /O {a�j N > L z ro [ a) o O N c U L o a) (n E ) a o : I ( 5 o N (ron -oi C a EL J O Y m to J _ U. - -- - - -- - -- - M m M CO ~ M C�YJ d d ti .4 ti Ld ti h,- ti C6 ti i6 C:) ti t� h (m f� f� I� ti ti ti ti ti Ln �_�o 61 Q N e-1 A m G �U C 0 0 v t0 f0 d a Gl s 0 C a+ QJ a 4- 0 y Ln N N >, 0 CO N D I o m 0 a — ° F- 0 � ! -- m_ C, c J - -- o CO I - - - - o -- ---- U a) - - - I�° - -- � m ------ - - - - -- ---------- — -- — - -- - - - -- — - -- - I r` a) o roc' a) C m �. w U c i N +_ C -3 - - -- O � CU aci -- ti 0 Iti a C9 - - -- Iti — I— LO !~ ti m `mW � ti tmo ti 4 ti L6 ti a) a) m CO E �'!/�) � U) '� 3 'L LL V .o il� 1 ii% a) Lo a) O ° O N a)° C V z o N-0 C C 0"00 U) O c ai (n ° (D (D (0 p p 3 a) J m O _ N � m C a) N C E m 0d U (a,, Q- ° m L p p p O to m Q.0 C (III i N ° ccs O C m 7 O T U m N Oma)m N�>oE +,Eom N a) a) IL w c O U a L Q ° r--- _>�0 Cn 3 N a) ° ° D o >i C O L ~ O �� (� m 0. O a) C O L m O () N L U O O ° m U N i cL (U O (� C Ito L N ,U '^ °n= ° O a t)( ca OC N� o� m E Q.. a) m m U .N U � ` N N . '- . O O) .0 a) C — m O O O U 0- c 0� � i c-0 .a) _ -0 O N >i N-C r a) J p U O 0_, � r, C N Q) C .�.+`- ( U N4 0- m� O O- C a) U O m �_; as L 0) ° d N'N r- 0 m C O O b Cc�° La)m °° = O m c n CU ma U v- ) U) CU �c0 ca N ~ �� c c o0)C v + °) - o m o Co� a) --a a) o N o C CL O I C O E ro N O) 0 N C C +� U 3 O CD Q) C C to u) E N m 0- ( C° O CL u> m am) `� �' � a) 0) a) I a) m 70 E ° a) O CL C a) >, Co �c O C O m CQ° �a) � ° O N m E ° p v • a 2 0 O W a) b > a) c ma c 0C: °3 me Nv c om a) U) " O o L u)a)wrom O O 2 C CL v- ±+ E C m> > i ami a a >- I � !------ - - - - -- — >, 0 CO N D I o m 0 a — ° F- 0 � ! -- m_ C, c J - -- . m I - - - - -- -- ---- U a) - - - I�° - -- � m ------ - - - - -- ---------- — -- — - -- - - - -- — - -- - I r` L Z) -� C m �. w U c i N +_ C -3 - - -- O � CU lCD L C Q -- ti 0 Iti a C9 - - -- Iti — I— LO !~ ti � ti � ti tmo ti 4 ti L6 ti tD d' -( I n O N ei A m C 0 v CU m m a a) s 0 a 0 Ln 0 N Q) d' ) -� O N U +r (U U O Q a) p O O C c (Ci U) U o a) O r 0 C co O O C a) (oU � o U 4= 0) 000a) oO0 ° mw - CL o n E -4) 0 15 o o > iU) o D)o O to O .Q.c .r... o { .� O N N to fl OC a 3: 3 I O i� p 6¢ O N O a— !_ O 4 -0 C >cc, I N Ci . jn a) (n i w� . v0 Qi Y - o a •a) 0 OIL O o o a a) M° ca _"• I Co p N o o o� E a o 3 E ° m ° ui o oc ) c oo > a N ° a U) E o V 7 U o ro w a U o a Y ^� a) o > co" p N 0- Q _ a) co >, ooapi�03 a) o _� > o oc o Lcoc- mo n. c° �' aE 5 ov 0 + � i E (' >+ N ° N =3 ui a) a) '�:3 0 ° a p -coo a) Q;+ (D O a) U) L 3r co 4 i N C o 3 ..; O) p tq C °O O a -,z �O ( U a V N o" Y E O N E 0 u) — a) E a) N C U o a) X ro U r N O p > a ' C 7 C� ° 0 a v E U 7 O U. -o Q a) { U '0- o) O �a)a)Eo a)ooc ca i I'0ncoo oa)°�3 m fl a) °) o a) p �u c Q G i� o o t- N N c a) E o n U) c O O W p a) o O N N 4 N Co E m _ w p z v -- E a � C: ro a a) 2 co N , O O 1 "O p >, p O i a) .o-C .)0:2:3 > 0 c 000 Co C: i E u) - 5 aU ) N 7 O _ .« s... N C N (Q o () r- N -p O_ .Y ai a) o I a I i 0) 4.- 0) r_ z O Q ro> wn >,a)°o a)c°. joco a uoi 0Mc0° m ) ~mooI °)°� ir,o�o a`�E FL 0- d �c�o3�oay�coa _j L a) (n M L rt+ L U) ai ai DU U co '? 1 S] r Co I .o p O O ' _ } m m -- - - - - - - - -- - - - --- --, — -- - -� - - - - -- c0 ;° > coo L E cu U Y ! mo I - -- -� - -- ti ti ti 4 ti L6 h ti h ti ti h ti ti ti d' ) -� O N ci T m 0 U V m 7 a d s 0 a Ln W w cc co dt )-6-5 a) = O a) c6 O O Wo Coo 0 N N O Q U O t� 0 R U N a +cII' N N= O p () +G O O 0) C N L N trn o c cn N 0 °"> ro �' c FuaU))� (D (D 0 = 0 m'ocE mocE OC co U p U i rn N O J 07 O O. C O N N EO C N _I F a) aD C > a 6 ° y E I E I C 7 a) I--' Im� w+? ! I 0N °(n 0T�N a) 7Z CL - §Y I _ ,� 0--� EL O��- �, aa) 0 Z 0 -0 c ( o co a o 'a C`• o� �� o f �r oZ CL 4 a� f �Ec°vc0i ccuE�� 0 U) •N n. ac) > c Q- ro � a� ( f c ! E E� N ° C (A I ° co I s N Q. O O V a) .� O o c`. O N CL -0 1 0 O CL > — 4) (n N w O > I.Q0 4� a) o)U ca O0 0 L�� CD E �' 0 I �I ° t'a W -c-�° E ca ca rn° E (a 7> f -° O i � = N O 50) O i U C c L 4 a) > rO. C CL CL _ owl o f a) ! > rno 3 n7 L O a) .n o f v f O ( ; E O j� Co = a a) o ++ (Cf "C I L �� �, I LN�E N !A ��� E ca c aEl �� m ° co +,I ; a) 3 ' a) a) - c a) 0) co a) c 0) m 3 ``'= w a) I'L S� S N a)� a) c c c E cu > i 7 L o c m -°o M �� i M n 3 n o a) ° E a a) NL O "E �0 - E °)ai? a`�i� o `� i c� n n.4- ooc°>' oa)�aa))° n 4_ ooXo �°voa)� co ca � -C Eo� >(a+ m CL c0 o d cn ! i-j caI cua)cn�m a c�v!_a mvw�() c o - - - - -- - -_ ca Q a °m ° a k I 0 W U) = L m (n O L v C m p f N - c a) C .0 fl m /ate) c C N oo O L) cu (a It ( W O LJ G Q Z LL CL ^LC G CL ._-� U I_ W �t 7 — - -_ d' —_—_ lfj — CO 1.: � ti _ 00 co ti h � h N ti M I- ti ti 67 ti O co r � CV oo _ P'7 a0 ti ti N ti ti h N !ao I~ co dt )-6-5 n O N e-I m 0 U U m m a a) s 0 C a 0 0 rn � -6'1 > � o o � f j O L (. M LL >> 7 (a i- O > U OC =5 V (D I j of o c ca o�a)3 L�cN i — 4E ° LOS 0) °�,N E -�`° Q �3 i a) m m > ° x I co I j Cl. N Z >. i a)4�o a) O �C� (A N �U 99 4 ? EiEQa)a) 3 O ! (_cd a) N cn vU_ cn (0=c i c N pp - -0 E I U I C O E j, I N f a) 0. a' v- p 5, O N -O 7 i t I c � E ��c a- �-ccac o _ C: (D ID = ca CO Lp� a) ��� Inc+�o o ' ` j�n c E E " -.� >,� Qm j ! f I O �. j °� a) p > U a) m � N N C) �,��;ca V N 7 x E f , o ° n >,�Y o 3 _ Q L-,z oI O a � � m ' Op O f -1-- Q° c =3 O O s I I j t i � c aS (a c O U c N a a) -0 c O a) 0 1 U, U 7 N N c N Ua w Q) N 'U U 'D a) j, Y L a) ° C tea L N °L N N tL6 C 7 c N (� ' i { NA Y a) .N E c c p L c c c '� i .0 w a) I—p (? z -c° J Q o v w¢ i= Y` w A — - -- CO O l� O O O O O O r O N O M O d O Lo O (6 O f� CO O O a0 Fooco) O r r r co O CV r CO M 0o d ao 00 ti O W O O a0 00 O a0 . rn � -6'1 e-1 4 N e-1 U i O U m 7 f0 W a a� s ! a 0 V) yy� id. NN I jlll I-) .o m a� U) cti E L c N �'� >,o 1 I O 'O� � L O � ! � U � O p O � p Y O O> O N N U O E= °c O to + O 0-0 N N :5 O N 10 d O Q O C � O p > «f N 0 -6 CL xO E t O ° fa) >0 o � � � ao 0 , C N L O � (0 O C +� >, O N 7S' L p - N� p I wa IS o 30-00 o. '3 °a) �n .4+ (Q -L a) N "a .N-� O � � t0 to � :) (d C a) O N C U N t0 Z7 O O j O 2- O (6 O `J t0 -0 n � � U) p � 7 � a) p rte— ! N��� �� .�v O a' I t0 N C a) t0 oZj N CL O U = E 3015 —• O C, U of I 5 0-0)0 E I O .� a) CLC O +R3+ O 3 7 a U d I >, I I 0- a) O Co U OU U f O Q U N C -a N I O p I v'- N U) O -co 21 II � N p E y N C � a) a) 0- 0) i i p f0 3 4 I L a) U a) _ O (0 N R) f p p -0 (O 0 o > t0 t o a 3 ! co a)fl� a) ` N p 0 a) >00 a) N YL icAmi aU)� E�o� tiNaa i I d a a)oa a _I a) ,L W 0- L N N 1 O r I N I a+ I V! ! j I •u O > a) O >, �0 ca � > O V (0 U I O Mi ca (a 0 :E LL _ co -_- _ _ _____ _ E _ w C N � c � R U > O C to A (0 p OI C Q p I� j, ~ N — �- �- W �WO� - -- - -� -- ��- - - -- I m m -- r of N N C�] ` oN0 oN0 aN0 0�0 ac0 00 I co a0 CO 00 00 oD co oN0 co - - -- NN a N t-I A m �U C O O U U 7 ca d a a� s c d a 0 to Ln (0 I E k i I I I l { a I N Y a V m= w I L =_ (0 N co w .nC 5 O 5 U 0 r- 41 (6 4- N > t Lo r- U a. cn U O 00 Ur Q7 > 4 = Q)� UO _`= , UO f j_� i k j �! c k 'qp k 4 W_.L_i N 3 1 V- i > ca V- j O �l X 1 0 00 4J N U f2 Q. m (n Q m LL 7 Ln (0 U N Y a V m= w L =_ (0 > af6 5 U 0 r- 41 (6 4- N > Lo r- U a. cn U (D 00 Gi O V) rl L(1 1 N m M 111 d LO Ln LI) lO Ln 00 00 00 00 00 Ln U L 0 c > 5 U 0 r- 41 (6 4- N > Z U a. cn U (D 00 Gi O V) rl L(1 1 N m M 111 d LO Ln LI) lO Ln 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ln 0 N ei m I �U G O U v E m G t0 07 a a� s 0 c O d a y.. 0 An 3 a� CL s N 0 -q 0O E V of c N RS N 0 � CC G � a m 0 -0 C Y C tB U U (1) �p V I 00 I 00 I 00 I 00 100 00 N L M. Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development (Petition #2) No. First Name Last Name Address Comment 36 L Wolft 12995 Bodega Hwy, 1 Sebastopol 2 Jenny L Mattert 1707 Spring Hill Road 3 Michelle Rudeler 1929 Fallbrook Lane 4 Juliann Anello 1836 Village East Drive 5 Kathy James 840 Western Avenue 6 Christina Machado 9 Webster Street 7 Nancy Osman 27 Pinnacle Drive g Yuri Hauswald 806 F Street g Jeffrey W. Norman 8325 th Street Lisa Sedjenizk 7206 th Street 10 11 Lyndsay Worel 1018 Gailinda Court 12 Shirley Heue 827 B Street 13 B. Hudson Graham 853 D Street F. Feurtle 13 Freedom Lane 14 15 Leah. Martinez 418 1 Street 16 Simone Roche 2001 Vista Lane 17 Karl Hutchinson 1732 Putnam Way 18 Keith Wallace 2001 Vista Lane 19 Staci Hyatt 613 B Street 20 Name ? Jones 127 Fiesta Lane, Rohnert Park 21 Jennifer Friesen 515 Keller Street 22 Kristen Olsen 734 Bordeaux Drive 23 Wind McAlister 511 East D Street 24 Tamisha Smith 2217 Mari Lane 25 Paul Matheson 230 Nila Mae Way, Penngrove 26 Troy Petersen 23 Warrick Court 27 Cecilia G. Hallinan 905 C Street 28 Natal Modica 200 Upland Drive Jill Britomley 316 Benton Street, Santa 29 Rosa 30 John Chavigny 613 B Street 31 Scott Goldberg 625 F Street, Apt 4 32 Jaimee Modica 1 Nob Hill Wade 22 Wamibild Lane 33 Dana Julie Petersen 23 Warrick Court 34 n 'IAr) U_ CA /altar Ovani is 35 Undecipherable `-- — —11— 1 "�- 36 Richard Alpert 1377 Westgate Lane, Penngrove 37 Mina Elhitz 21 10th Street Li 655 Library Street 38 Betty --TC 1316 Jasmine Circle, 39 Caixx Rohnert Park Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development (Petition #2) No. First Name Last Name Address Comment 40 Justin Merrell 1120 Daniel Drive Kati Miller 1677 Andover Way 41 42 Ken Sanders 1007 G Street 43 Mary Sanders 1007 G Street David Kuern 1993 Spring Hill Road 44 309 12th Street 45 .Undecipherable 222 12th Street 46 Julie Elias 1993 Spring Hill Road 47 Undecipherable 48 Julie Undecipherable 319 Post Street 49 Alan Hirsh 320 Post Street 50 Undecipherable 500 Western Avenue 319 Post Street 51 52 ?Name Barbara Stanberry 907 C Street 53 Undecipherable 100 10th Street 54 Undecipherable 614 Sunnyslope Avenue Brandt 1017th Street 54 Joan Annie Tayler 2.15 G Street 55 56 Murray Rockowitz 418 Eighth Street 57 Kevin Tayler 815 G Street 58 Penelope Gillis 464 Sunnyslope Avenue 59 Richard Reynolds 805 Keokuk Street 60 Judith Schimmer 10 Windsor Lane 61 Pat O'Brien 109 2"d Street 62 Deborah Ohlenke 1030 Thompson Lane 63 Undecipherable 5004 Hessel Road, Sebastopol 64 Richard Persons 907 C Street White 763 Chapman Lane 65 S. 66 Alison Hutchinson 1732 Putnam Way 67 Amy Evans -Reber 729 Elm Drive 68 Heather Luttrell 3091 Eastman Lane 69 Danielle Bolla 1030 Thompson Lane _B 70 Robert Scerri 827 Street Scerri 827 B Street 71 Tiffany Modica 837 B Street 72 Jesse � _O Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development (Petition #2) No. First Name Last Name Address Comment 82 April Howell 315 Walnut Street 83 Janet Muther 640 E Street 84 Sherry Knager 638 E Street 85 Undecipherable Costello 640 E Street Donald Nue 924 Sunnyslope Road 86 Haroly 117 Ravenswood Court 87 Kati Smith 1205.West Street 88 G Bannat? 301 English Street 89 R 953 B Magnolia Avenue 90 Undecipherable 91 Carlin Finke 708 Olive Street 250 Cambridge Lane 92 Undecipherable 93 Stephanie Gonzalez 1165 Lombardi Avenue David Grover 176 Westridge Drive 94 Supp 176 Westridge Drive 95 Renee Machasin 1016 Bush Street, Santa g6 Julie Rosa 97 Amber Marshek 15 6th Street 98 Undecipherable 152 2nd Street 1316 Jasmine Circle, gg Undecipherable Rohnert Park 100 Maayan Schoeman 34 Payran Street 101 Megan Berka 133 Upham Street 102 Athena Sargent 820 C Street h 103 Undecipherable 101 10t Street 104 Christine Prentice 204 Bodega Avenue 105 Robyn Klein 101 10th Street -10- Anne Undecipherable 204 Bodega Avenue 06 107 Judy Pasdach 808 F Street 108 Undecipherable Pasdach 808 F Street 109 Siena Lambert 11 Lavender Terrace 110 Undecipherable 827 D Street Pat Undecipherable 12 Fair Street 111 Schuler 136 McNear Circle 112 113 Dave Kim Baumann None 114 Maureen McGiugan 904 Western Avenue 115 Elizabeth McKasden 445 Eucalyptus Avenue Mohammed Khan 8564 Cypress Ave, Apt 6 116 Cotati Joel Rose 7834 Montero Drive 117 Rohnert Park Catt 390 Monte Vista Lane 118 D. L. Undecipherable 1843 Carneros Circle 119 Katie Christina Wallace Berg P.O. Box 853, Penngrove 120 Wolfe 121 Rocca Drive 121 Courtney Danskin 603 Mtn View Avenue 122 Gary o� Y� Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development (Petition #2) No. First Name Last Name Address Comment Lankston 11 Acorn Circle 123 A. Lankston 11 Acorn Circle 124 125 N. Pauline Andres 830 D Street Bulette 298 E Cotati Avenue, #7, 126 Julie Cotati 127 Karin Weber 417 1 Street 128 Martha Johnson 518 Keokuk Street 846 Corona Road 129 Undecipherable 130 Undecipherable 101 -A Post Morray 422 Kentucky Street 131 Suzanne Brin 109 7th Street 132 Irene Jarch 524 Kent Street 133 Cassie Argyle 109 Webster Street 134 Adrienne D -Y l Date: To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson Council MemberDave King, Council Member MikeHealy, CouncilMember Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Gludiee, Senior Plammr City DfPCWUMa 11 English street petah=a, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As a tegistered voter: 1. I oppose the Davidon development of 63+ now houses at Windsor & D St, 2, I support fully preserving the land, the historic redbarnsand tirewildlife corridor ofKelly Creek 3. 1 support adding to file open space of Helen Putnam Park with a trailheadnear the red barns. The Davidon development is notthe right housing project for Petaluma. Please considermyvoice in deciding whether to approve this proposal for development. Respectfully, Signature Address Yet+knn Fa prW mr, forPWunsiblcPlenuing PctRPQcamcasl not • ww+vPo[RPorg Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development _ /D.titinn ft1I No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 First Name Emma Patrick Janet Edgar John Leslie Michael Ronda Tim Andy Elizabeth Marlene Elaina Kaye Donald Francis Frederica Pamela Kelin Wayne Constance Sue Dominique Stephen Michael Jeffrey Randall Donna Josey Tom Andrew Joe Miguel Last Name Gardner McDarrel Bukszar Address 2 Borazon 2 Borazon Ct 410 English Street Comment Havis Bertucci Curbeck Foulkes Black Crowley Rado Holman Slutsky Chandler Lounibos 250 —A Water Street 651 N. Fair Street 713 F Street 237 Wilmore Lane 8066 th Street 122 Hill Blvd 2002 Crinella Drive 633 F Street 306 Edith Street 301 Dana Street 301 Dana Street Rohlen 154 Rohde Lane Moore 720 Petaluma Blvd #40 Backman Moyentueler Madden Dary Oliva Tynan Segura Grove Johnson Agoitin Freeman Indermanr Freeman 101 Margo Lane 282 Skillman Lane 282 Skillman Lane 130 Sunnyslope Road 529 F Street 408 4" Street 1012"" Street, #312 39 5th Street, Apt A 1757 Pine Avenue 120 Park Place Avenue 422 1 Street 614 Sunnyslope Avenue 422 1 Street Peer 1009 West Street Elliott _.._� 393 Sunnyslope Road 1 R Street 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Snaron Jennifer Eve Judy David Patricia Peter Conor Douglas Lori Michael Paul Paula 111— , r.. Sloan 1071 Western Avenue O'Rourke 300 Sixth Street McHose Murphy 102 Seventh Street Brouillette 1003 G Street Brouillette 1003 G Street Wright 312 K Street Bihn 8 Douglas Street Lund Lund 715 Vanessa Way 715 Vanessa Way Welch 1989 Cooper Road, Sebastopol Heavenridge Freund 625 D Street 625 D Street �, 7 3 Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development — (Petition #1) No. First Name Last Name Comment 45 Dylan McCallum 130 Sunnyslope Road 46 Ben Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court 47 Eric Backman 101 Margo Lane 4g Preston Bailey 114 Post Street 49 Dale Axelrod 522 E D Street 50 Alex Johnson 1757 Pine Avenue 51 Kevin McCallum 130 Sunnyslope Road 52 Joe Durney 618 2m Street 53 David Sullivan 1505 Abercrombie Way 54 Tim Welch 611 2 °d Street 55 Barbara McCall 1554 Bungalow Lane 56 Katherine Milano 69 Oxford Court 57 Jerry Beene 56 Oxford Court 58 Mark Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court 59 Todd Baker . 405 Broadway Street 60 Amanda Baker 405 Broadway Street 61 Jenny Christensen 2 Marlie Lane 62 John Dietz 645 D Street 63 Lauren Berger 645 D Street 64 Kathi Murrin 1014 F Street 65 Christina Berlanga- Gonzalez 1916 St. Augustine Way 66 Arthur L. Wagner 1040 D Street The unenforced 67 Ronald H. Bausman 1040 D Street speeding & increased traffic on D Street is terrible & will only worsen with this project. It is nearly impossible to get onto D Street safely as it is. Please help to keep this historic roadway an. important part of our town's heritage! 68 Susan Bono 11 Wallace Court 69 George Bono 11 Wallace Court 70 Christina Tetreault 10 Wallace Court 71 Carol Treacy 13 Wallace Court a -74� Attached is an example of a form letter signed by the following citizens opposed to the Davidon Development — (Petition #1) No. First Name Last Name Address Comment 72 Kim C. Osborn 13 Wallace Court 73 Abbey Levine 21 B Park Avenue 74 Sheralise Barnett 1221 % Hill Blvd 75 Shane McGee 431 Douglas Street 76 Derck Boulrer 220 Ridgeview Drive 77 Jasmine Shepard 569 Cortin Lane #5, Sonoma 78 79 80 Bryan Roy Timothy Burnett Crowley Crowley 220 Casa De Arroyo 122 Hill Blvd. 122 Hill Blvd. 81 Eric Lundy 4941 Yerger Drive, Santa Rosa 82 Jude Domino 319 Post Street 83 84 85 86 87 88 Abigail Alvin David Ashley Catherine Julie Smyth Hirshten Kucera Burnett Loustaunau Elias 500 Western Avenue 320 Post Street 1993 Spring Hill Road 1993 Spring Hill Road 309 12th Street 22212 th Street 89 Katie Miller 1677 Andover Way 90 Justin Herrell 1120 Daniel Drive 91 92 93 Mary Ken Colin Sanders Sanders McLarney 1007 G Street 1007 G Street 1316 Jasmine Circle, Rohnert Park 94 Undecipherable Colin 1316 Jasmine Circle, Rohnert Park 95 Harnsa Baumann 480 Wilson Hill 96 Kim Baumann 11 Lavendar Terrace 97 Pat Riley 12 Fair Street 98 gg Patti Dave Schofleer Schenk 827 D Street 136 McNear Circle 100 Siena Lambert 11 Lavender Terrace 2 ®'� S- Date: Name: To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Cowlcil Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma I 1 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As a registered voter I urge you to re- evaluate the DEIR proposed by Davidon to construct 63+ homes at Windsor and D Street. This is not the kind of growth Petalumans want or need. . . Specifically, I object to the following issues as outlined in the DEIR: 1, The biology studied reflects data sampled in 2003. Clearly this -is not an accurate representation of the Kelly Creek ecology as it currently exists. The Red - Legged Frog population and its companions in the local food web create an organic, changing ecological balance that demands a current study to determine best practices to impose upon it for sustained health and longevity. Additionally, the data needs to be collected by experts that can be relied upon to present credible and unbiased interpretations of their findings. 2. The traffic studies are inconclusive and obsolete as they are based on a 2014 traffic study. The significant and unavoidable impact this study has found does not factor into account Smart Train presence or the increased vehicle load presently carried on D Sheet due to the new 101 exit at Kastania and San Antonio Rd. Both of these improvements will increase or have already increased traffic numbers and should be accounted for in a new DEIR. As a Petaluma local I do not support: • Highly compromised or complete loss of habitat for the threatened California Red - Legged Frog and the ensuing negative deleterious effect on the entire local food web and wildlife corridor • The alteration, removal or relocation of the historic Red Barns at Kelly Creek • Permanent contamination and pollution to the already over -taxed Kelly Creek • 3 1/2 years of D Street traffic impediment due to sewer main retrofitting and construction traffic • The increased permanent vehicle load that another 63+ homes along Windsor will filter onto D Street • A dangerous "tot lot" at Windsor and D St. and a badly- designed trailhead to access Helen Putnam Park • Increased flooding and mudslide potential due to building on extreme slopes • Permanent alteration and loss of scenic vista at our gateway to southwest Sonoma and Marin. • $1 -2M homes that most Petalumans can't afford I do support: • Preserving the beautiful 58 -acre parcel on Windsor & D St. as it currently stands • Keeping the historic Red Barns at Kelly Creek intact • Preserving our sensitive established wildlife corridor at Kelly Creek for generations to come • Expanding our southwest scenic gateway to our town • Smart growth that Petaluma families can afford The Davidon development is not the right project for Petaluma. Please seriously and genuinely consider the demands of your voter constituency. Respectfully, Signature Address Vetarumans Pw Rzspsan5le T Petahunans for Responsible Planning Pknnsn PetRPGcomcast.net • taM1Vw.PetREorg From: Will Carpenter <wearpenter84�c gmail.corn> Date: June 7, 2017 at 6:47:13 PM PDT To: <PetRP a,comcast.net >, <ina o.rdavidglassgi mail.com >, <councilman @), albertson gmail.eom >, ast.net>, <davekingpcc(c�r gmail.conl >, <nitllsalynsbcZlobalalet >, < couilcilmeml )erlcearney(.me.coin >, < k_ atlileencl llllle_roffice <a),amail.coni >, us> Subject: Davidon Development Project Hello, I am writing as a concerned citizen in regards to the planned Davidon housing development project. I.agree that Petaluma is a unique, increasingly popular town envied by commuters looking fora home close to their work in Marin and San Francisco counties. We cannot stop peoples' desire to live here and we need to develop homes. There is an influx of people which is only going to continue to grow. But is developing 63+ luxury homes in a sensitive habitat the solution? 1 grew tip on sleepy San Antonio road where milk trucks and the occasional commuter would travel. We would spend summer days playing on the street with our dogs, ride horses, walk to neighbors' houses, all without the fear of being hit by a car. As Petaluma has continued to develop more housing projects, San Antonio road has since turned into an easy detour avoiding the horrific traffic of 101 between north and south Petaluma and has become a danger to the neighborhood. Traffic has become so bad on San Antonio road with a large volume of cars ignoring the posted speed limits. I. once witnessed my pet turkey being hit by a large Ford Bronco that continued to barrel down the street without even slowing. We have had two dogs hit and killed, numerous cats and we take our lives into our hands going to our mailbox. There have also been numerous accidents on San Antonio road including a recent fatality. 51 -year old Heidi Griffin of Petaluma was driving alone westbound on San Antonio Road when her white GMC Terrain SUV crashed into a ditch along San Antonio Road south of Petaluma, the CHP said (Press Democrat,.January 13, 2017). Increasing the number of homes on D street will only exacerbate an already horrendous traffic problem. Developing the land at D street and Windsor also contributes to the habitat destruction of the Red - Legged frog. According to the National Wildlife Federation (2017), loss of habitat is the second leading threat to the California Red - legged Frogs. This frog is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 1 understand the need for housing, Sonoma county is lacking in available homes and we need more. But is developing luxury housing necessary? Shouldn't we devote this energy to developing affordable housing close to the SMART train? There are so many questions that need to be answered before we develop a unique piece of land that makes Petaluma the desirable location people want to move to. A piece of land that is home to a threatened species. We need to think about solutions to the appalling traffic conditions of Petaluma and not exacerbate the problem. Please reconsider allowing this development to happen. Sincerely, ' William R. Carpenter ')-77 From: ste h.car� _ @amail.com [steph.carp @gmail.com] on behalf of Stephanie Carpenter [ stephanie .louise.carpenter @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:13 PM To: councilman .albertson@cimail.com; teresa4petaluma comcast.net; davekinqpccQc@qmail.co sbc lobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice@gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP a comcast.net Subject: Re: Proposed Davidon Development Dear City Council and Planning Commissioners, I write in reference to the proposed Davidon development at Windsor and D Street. I stand with the 90% of individuals opposed to this project (per the Argus survey). Not only is this project an environmental disaster, and a poor example of urban planning, this project fails to protect a beautiful and iconic landscape in Petaluma. D Street can't handle the density that this project would bring. Nor can the supplementary roads -- San Antonio, Windsor or Sunnyslope. This project will stress the already clogged streets and ultimately present a huge urban planning burden upon the Petaluma taxpayers. There is no doubt that Petaluma, and the, entire bay area, needs more housing. However, urban sprawl is not the way to solve housing crises. Housing should be located in urban centers where high density housing is practical from a environmental and transit perspective. As we face a global environmental crisis, we need to divorce ourselves of the idea that a single family home is the American dream. Beautiful and quaint Petaluma shouldn't succumb to external market forces that seek to destroy the nature of this town. Petaluma is a beautiful little town. It has a long history of agriculture and community. We shouldn't destroy every last bit of its history. Build infill housing. If you want luxury homes, rip down old ones and fix them up -- but don't destroy our precious few beautiful areas (and frogs!) for the sake of new luxury housing. This development does not reflect the spirit of this town. Stephanie Carpenter Stephanie 858.337.5051 ,� --19 From: Nancy Schwartz [nancyschwartz247 @gmaii.com] Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:56 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon development Dear Planning Commission Petaluma is becoming a very very desirable city in which to lay down roots. The resulting increase in population necessitates increased recreational areas. There is now 4 million dollars in funding available.... PLEASE facilitate this opportunity to negotiate the purchase of some, if not ALL of Davidon's property interests, recognizing the developmental downfalls of this treasured site. Please help extend Helen Putnam Regional Park down to D Street for all of Petalumans.... For us and our children. This is a momentous decision that will have a significant impact on this town forever. Act wisely..... Sincerely, Nancy Schwartz 12 8th Street Petaluma A resident since 1984 From: Barbara DiCostanzo [badicostanzo @gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:18 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: matt.brown@arguscourier.com Subject: Comments on Davidson Homes Draft EIR To the city council of Petaluma: I am strongly opposed to the proposed building of "mega mansions" in the beautiful rural open space that now exists. As a cyclist, I am frequently riding in and out of Petaluma on D Street. The countryside is beautiful. The red barn is iconic and a reminder of times gone by. Although I am carefully watching the road and traffic, I am aware of the birds, the grasses, the hills. Having reviewed the report, it seems the damage to the environment is huge. This was a bountiful water year, but after our prolonged drought, it seems unconscionable that these homes should be built. They will of course will require water and sewage and electricity and leveling of hills and building of roads.There will be other dry years. When I came to California in 1970, the population was 19 million. It is now 38 -39 million. We will always need to be stewards of the land and and our diminishing natural resources. Please do not approve these homes. Respectfully submitted, Barbara DiCostanzo Sent from my iPad From: Tina Anders [tjquantums @hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:32 PM To: councilman,albertso��mail.com; councilmemberkearney me.com; teresa4petalumaC�comcasfi.net; Giudice, Alicia; kathleencmilleroffice (-Ogmail.com; mthealy sbcglobal.net; davekingpcc@)gmail.com Cc: rLat.brown@a[gqscouCier.com Subject: davidon - please reject Hi there, Concerned citizen Tina Anders here. I would like to ask you to reject the Davidon project slated to build luxury homes in the beautiful park and habitat for wildlife area on the corner of D Street and Windsor Drive. I sent other emails, but just want to underscore my concerns I recently sent to each of you. We do not want the lane closure and workarounds required to accommodate the retrofitting of the sewer main. We do not want years of heavy equipment and hauling trucks on D Street. We do not want the increased flooding and landslide potential due to building on extreme slopes. We do not want a "tot lot" dangerously placed near trafficked areas of D St. and Windsor Dr. We do not want a poorly designed trailhead to access our lovely and cherished Helen Putnam Park. We do not want our highly threatened, or complete loss of, habitat, as well as the impending loss of local animal food web and wildlife corridor. We do not want $1 -$2M homes that most Petalumans cannot afford. Please take these comments into serious consideration when making your decision regarding the Davidon project. We feel strongly that this project is a detriment to much of what we love about our Petaluma, and our lovely Helen Putnam Park area. Many thanks, Tina Anders Tina Anders, Certified Financial Planner (TM) Anders Wealth Management Fee -Only Planning and Investment Management Registered Investment Advisor NAPFA Advisor I a :/ www.anderswealth.conn 7 Fourth Street, Suite 66 Petaluma, CA 94952 T. 707.765.9025 F. 888.708.8392 One of my Most important Goals is to Help You Achieve Yours The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If this message was misdirected, Anders Wealth Management does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly s-,)rohjbited and unauthorized. if you have received this communication in error, please �jojjfy us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Although Anders Wealth Management operates anti-virus programs, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever caused by viruses being passed. From: Tina Anders [tjquantums @hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:11 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: please, please reject davidon ® The Draft EIR does not indicate whether the hillside soil and hydrology testing was conducted during recent wet months. It also does not disclose the assumptions and methodology that were used for this hydrological testing. The barn is an invaluable cultural resource. Its loss or relocation would destroy the cultural integrity of the area. The EIR should disclose the cost to move it vs. leaving it as is. The Draft EIR should include a project alternative that repurposes the barn as a museum, displaying the old dairying methods. As part of this museum, the cows could be kept there with a weekend milking demo for kids. I drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. a The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic viewshed, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. a 1 have seen birds, owls and /or bats (describe species) nesting in the eucalyptus trees above the barn (describe what you have seen and at what times of year). a We cherish the peace and quiet in our communities. The Draft EIR does not evaluate how the increase in traffic or noise from construction will affect the livability of our community. The Draft EIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. The Draft EIR tries to explain that this impact can be "mitigated." I don't believe it. There are several babies in the nearby community. A heightened risk of cancer is simply unacceptable. a The Draft EIR does not indicate whether there are any underground tanks left over from the ranch operation on this site. If you have any indication that there may be tanks on the project site, please state this and explain your reasoning. a The project will increase recreational demand but we can find no analysis of this issue in the Draft EIR. Where is the nearest open field for recreational play? There's no place in this neighborhood to throw a frisbee, play catch, touch -S football, volleyball. The City should study the recreational needs on the west side. • Will the project's houses have solar -ready roofs? What is the carbon footprint of this development? • The Victoria homebuilder went bankrupt and did not fix defects in construction and site preparation. The City should require that Davidon post an adequate bond, guaranty, or trust fund to cover the long -term possibilities of adverse impacts on the homeowners and the City. • What will happen if the developer of the Davidon site goes bankrupt after all of the trees are cut down and the site is graded? The City must require that the developer grade only that portion of the site where development is imminent. • Kelly Creek and its tributaries are critical natural resources, yet the project proposes dense development adjacent to these waterways. The project tries to downplay the existence of the large D Street tributary, running it through a culvert so that houses can be built on top of it with no setback. The project also proposes excessive density at the edge of the City's urban growth boundary. The EIR should include an alternative that clusters houses on the less- sensitive parts of the site, away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries, and away from the urban growth boundary. Also, if there is a plan to continue grazing cattle on parts of the land, what will be done to exclude them from the creek so they don't continue (as they do now) to affect the water quality? • The project would build a new trail along Kelly Creek that would run behind and between the project houses' back fences, on both sides. This design would result in a degraded park experience for walkers. The EIR should mitigate this recreational impact by clearly separating the private and public areas here and by building on only one side of the creek, if at all. From: Ms. MacMillan [sheswebsurfing @gmaii.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:06 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: the new proposed development on D St I currently live just off of D St. near the intersection of D and Sunnyslope. The traffic on D St. at commute hours, both morning and evening, has become ridiculous. The back up of traffic at the signals and stop signs during these hours is horrible and has ruined the lovely D St. neighborhood. So adding a development of overpriced mini - mansions in the Windsor area will be the death of reasonable driving in the D St. corridor during commute hours. I am also certain that added traffic turning out of that area onto D St. will result in some bad auto accidents during rush times. I know that the city is drooling at the added tax dollars these new homes will bring, but it also makes it clear that the city is not thinking about the character that makes the greater Petaluma area so special, nor is the city thinking about developments of homes for middle class citizens, built in less ecologically sensitive areas of Petaluma Valley. I know the city is in a financial pickle, but I am losing respect for a city government that is willing to destroy itself for tax dollars. Susan MacMillan 33 El Rose Drive From: Lawrence DiCostanzo [lawrence.dicostanzo @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 8:23 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon /Scott Ranch DEIR M. The DEIR for the above - listed project discusses significant view or aesthetic effects caused by the project. The area of the project is a gateway to the town of Petaluma which is currently circumscribed and surrounded by rural country. In respect to this southern approach, Petaluma is unique in this area of California as it has avoided aesthetic degradation attendant on projects of multiple single -home residences. The DEIR does not discuss the aesthetic degradation caused by such projects as a whole as opposed to compromising mitigations. The DEIR also does not discuss the significance of establishing a precedent for further adjacent development and the creation of sprawl. As to the property itself, the red barn is an invaluable cultural and aesthetic resource. The barn has proportions harmonious to its time and to its location landscape. The barn's loss or relocation and change to the location landscape would destroy the integrity of the area. The DEIR should discuss the "mitigation" of leaving the barn and location landscape as is and maintaining a D Street greenway so that the area remains aesthetically as a Petaluma gateway and screen for any development behind it. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Lawrence N. DiCostanzo 9 — � k From: Harmony Karp Hayes [harmonykirsten @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:52 PM To: councilman .albertsonCn?gmail.com; teresa4petaluma comcastmet; davekingbgm email co u mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmaiLcom; Giudice, Alicia; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: No Housing South of Kelly Creek Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you to urge you to please accept the unanimous recommendation of the City's Planning Commission that there must be no housing units constructed south of Kelly Creels, given the critical wildlife habitat and unstable hillsides there and the extreme difficulties of accomplishing effective mitigation. This land is incredibly unique and special to so many people who live in this town, the nature that currently exists is priceless and what makes this town so unique. Thank you for representing the interests of the residents who care about the long term impacts of this development. Sincerely, Harmony Hayes Petaluma Resident M• From: Elaine Daly [elaine.mh.daly @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8,48 PM To: Chris Albertson; Petalumans for Responsible Planning; Giudice, Alicia; councilmemberkearney@me.com; davekingpcc gmail.com; Kathleen Miller; mthealy@sbcalobal.net; Teresa Barrett Subject: Re: Buy Davidon!!! Dear Councilman Albertson and all City Council Members, Thank you for your thorough responses. In short, the city council members are elected to represent the members of the city. As far as I can tell, by driving around west Petaluma, the community wants Helen Putnam extended and the development to be minimal, if at all. Davidon does not live here and will not feel the impact of this development on our town. I am hoping that the city council will continue to do their best to minimize the development and encourage Davidon to sell the land that is contiguous with Helen Putnam. Thank you for listening to all of our concerns and acting accordingly. with respect, Elaine Dal, MFT Petaluma Resident Elaine Daly, MFT 707.5o8.1352 yaavvy.elainedal -m ft.coin This electronic document may contain confidential information and is intended for use by the addressee and /or their intended representatives only. Review by unintended individuals is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please do not read, transmit, copy, disclose, or utilize this communication in any manner. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this message from your computer. Email is not guaranteed to be a secured medium for exchange of information; therefore, confidentiality cannot be assured. On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Chris Albertson < councilman .albertson @g),mail.coin> wrote: Thank you for your inquiry. As I am certain you realize, I and other members of the city council have received many pieces of correspondence regarding the Scott Ranch, currently seeking development by Davidon. Some of these messages have been accusatory and factually inaccurate, suggesting that I do not care about this land and /or I am in the pocket of the developer. I consider myself a realist, seeking compromise to protect individual property rights while attempting to maximize the neighboring public's desire to protect this open space into perpetuity. Allow me to run down a list of points: Yes, I too ( and the recorded record is clear here) want this land to remain open space and possibly attached to the Helen Putnam Park. However, the land is not publicly owned but owned by a private company who is seeking to develop the land. The current owner paid a reported sum of $ 7.8 million for this land. The land, all within the city limits, is zoned R -1 for single family homes. For years, the current owner has paid their property taxes, based in part on this R -1 zoning. The city om has accepted their tax payments and subsequently spent those revenues for city expenditures. That being said, the city potentially granting some form of approval for this project is not a "fund raising" plan or scheme. If approvals are granted and to whatever level, it is acknowledgment that the land IS zoned for houses, taxes have historically been paid, and the owner has some level of property rights based on that pre- existing zoning. Yes, Mr. Colvin has indicated that he has not only the original $ 1 million but now a figure of $ 4 million that can be put toward the purchase of all or some of this property. It should be noted, that neither I nor anyone I am aware of, has actually seen any documentation that the $ 1 million or the $ 4 million is available or is available under whatever conditions /criteria the donor may require. Neither the city nor the county has the fiscal resources necessary to purchase this land. The fact is, no one knows if Davidon is even interested in selling the land. To my knowledge, so far there has been no indication that a sale is possible. If so, $ 4 million is does not seem adequate to secure the land. • I met with Mr. Colvin and and discussed this very issue. He asked me to try to arrange one more meeting between the current property owners and himself to discuss the possibility of selling all or part of the development. I reached out to Davidon's agent and asked if there was interest in further discussions and if so, to please contact Mr. Colvin. Today's edition of the Argus- Courier, has a story about this project. The story quotes the Davidon representative as willing to talk about possible sale of at least part of the project land, without making any commitments. • Yes, this community is very generous in supporting open space. However, this project is not alone in seeking the public's support. There is a group of people seeking funding for the development of Lafferty Ranch, 5 -1/2 miles outside the city limits. There is a group seeking funding for the purchase of the McNear peninsula, just out beyond the River Heritage Center. In today's Argus there is an article of a group seeking funding for a community river boat house in the Turning Basin. If funding were attempted for Scott Ranch, they would have to compete with all these other pre- existing proposals that are out there in the community. • Let's assume that Davidon, hypothetically, was willing to sell the land for $ 4 million. That is not all the money that is necessary. There are the development costs -- the EIR's for a park, the construction cost for parking lots, pathways up to Helen Putnam, bathrooms (all of these costs are currently required of the developer as part of the proposed project) as well as the annual maintenance costs for the extended park. The Planning Commission, to which I am the Council's liaison, voted unanimously to recommend no development on this property south of Kelly Creek. This reduces the potential housing numbers to approximately 48. A far cry from the original proposal of 93. I hope this clarifies my position. Again, thank you for writing. -- Chris Albertson Im On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Elaine Daly oln> wrote: Dear Councilman Albertson, Thank you for responding to my letter. To begin, I am curious, from the city's point of view, can you tell me what you see the benefits of the development are? I am obviously so steeped in the desire to protect the land that I am not clear, other than money, why it is a good idea to develop this land. I sincerely would like to hear your thoughts. Regarding my previous email, all of the questions you raise are valid. I cannot claim to be an expert in understanding this funding, but I have copied the email that describes it below. I agree, the $4 million may not be enough to purchase the whole property. I believe if the city council made a statement to the public that they would not approve the development, especially as it stands now, and would like to give the community a chance to fund raise to acquire this property, that it would happen. We can preserve this land! It is possible to fund raise without it coming from the city or the county. Let's assume, as a community, we can come up with the money to buy it Park development can be part of the longer term plan; it may not happen right away, but at least the land would no longer be under threat of development. The Regional Parks just raised thousands of dollars with matching money from an anonymous donor to improve Helen Putnam. Likely we could raise millions to buy it and develop park infrastructure. Perhaps, Davidon would compromise and only build on the east.side of Windsor and leave the Kelley Creek side to be open space. It's not quite a middle ground, but maybe a meeting spot, and therefore, the remaining land will be more affordable. And, wouldn't Davidon be more likely to sell if the city council told them they will not approve development! (I'm no sure if they bought it with a contract with the city to develop, or if it really is up to the city council to block it or put it though.) I would just like us and the city council to think long term for Petalumans and our grandchildren. There is so little hiking land in and around town and it really enriches all of our lives. There are other properties in town that can be developed to house people. Again, I really appreciate your time and thoughts. I am happy to come and meet in person or talk on the phone. warmly, Elaine ,?-1(0 From: Gregory L. Colvin Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 4:38 PM Subject: $4 Million Available toward Resolution of Davidon Land Use Issue To: Mayor David Glass, Petaluma City Councilmembers Chris Albertson, Teresa Barrett, Mike Healy, Gabe Kearney, Dave King,. and Kathy Miller CC: John Brown, City Manager, City of Petaluma Bert Whitaker, Director, Sonoma County Regional Parks David Rabbitt, Supervisor, Second District, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Bill Keene, General Manager, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District From: Greg Colvin, Director, Kelly Creek Protection Project of Earth Island Institute Date: May 8, 2017 RE: Additional Funds Raising Amount Available to Acquire Some or All of Scott Ranch ( Davidon) Land to Expand Putnam Park, to Four Million Dollars At the May 1 meeting of the City Council, I announced during public comment that the amount of money offered to help resolve the Scott Ranch development issues had been raised from $1 million to $4 million. Councilmember Kathy Miller expressed interest in seeing verification that, in addition to the $1 million currently held by Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), $3 million had been made available for the same purpose -- to acquire some portion of the Davidon land at Windsor and D Streets for an extension of Helen Putnam County Regional Park with a new trailhead closer to town. The $1 million in a restricted fund at Sonoma Land Trust is dedicated to the following purpose: The cost of acquisition and /or maintenance by the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, some other governmental entity or public charity, or a combination thereof, of some or all of the Scott ranch land ... including its historic structures, for public park use including a walking trail connection to Helen Putnam Park and which may include related agricultural and /or open space elements. This fund was established first at The Bay Institute in 2006 and later conveyed to Sonoma Land Trust, with a 10 -year deadline. If not used for its intended purpose, the grant would be returned to its anonymous source. The grant expired in 2016 but was extended to 2019. The additional $3 million has been set aside in a charitable 501(c)(3) donor - advised fund at a major investment institution in San Francisco. It is in a money market pool so that it is not subject to market risk and is liquid and available on short notice as soon as a compromise is reached with the public and private parties involved with this property. The $3 million could be granted to a 501(c)(3) public charity such as the Sonoma Land Trust or the Sonoma County Parks Foundation, or to an agency of city or county government. Terms and conditions could be exactly the same as the $1 million at SLT or could be adapted to the circumstances of the compromise. For instance, if the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District ( SCAPOSD) can make matching funds available, the grant could be contingent on the SCAPOSD match. The assets in the donor- advised fund can be released on my recommendation and my signature. There is no expiration date. )-9/ The Kelly Creek Protection Project stands ready to meet and confer with all interested parties to put this funding to use for the benefit of the public, and to finally resolve this long- standing land use controversy in Petaluma and Sonoma County. We urge the City Council to help facilitate this resolution. If you have further questions about this total of $4 million in private philanthropic funds, please do not hesitate to contact me. Elaine Daly, MFT 707-508,135-2 l���v.elainedal�ift.com This electronic document may contain confidential information and is intended for use by the addressee and /or their intended representatives only. Review by unintended individuals is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please do not read, transmit, copy, disclose, or utilize this communication in any manner. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this message from your computer. Email is not guaranteed to be a secured medium for exchange of information; therefore, confidentiality cannot be assured. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Chris Albertson <councilman albertsonLogmail.com> wrote: I too have heard this report of $ 4 million but I have not seen any documentation .... anything in writing. Personally, I would like some form of written confirmation. Then there are the questions: How much money will it take to purchase the land? $ 4 million might be a purchase price .... or it might be a down payment. IF ... $ 4 million buys the property, where does the money come from for the development of the park property .... the development EIR costs, the development costs for parking lots, walking paths, restrooms? Does the current owner even want to sell the property? Yes, I too would like to see the property remain open space and attached to Helen Putnam Park. However, neither the city nor the county has the resources to make this possible. Yes, there is $ 4 million stated to be available. Let's see it. Then there is the question: "Is it enough ?" If not, then what? On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Elaine Daly <elaine mh dal r �maiLcom> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I just read the email from Greg Colvin explaining that there is funding available to purchase the Kelly Creek land that is under threat of development. What an incredible opportunity to expand that beautiful park of Helen Putnam, protect endangered species, keep traffic 'flowing' in and out the D St (as much as possible) and develop land more wisely in town. With $4 million in charitable funds now available, please do not lose the opportunity to negotiate the purchase, at fair market value, of some or all of Davidon's property interests, recognizing the development constraints of this site. The goal is to extend Helen Putnam County Regional Park down to D Street and ensure environmentally - sensitive recreational access. =12� What an incredible accomplishment to be able to hang your hat on. You could take your family on hikes and say, I helped protect this land. I am so happy I thought about the future generations" Or, you could drive by, yet another, huge sprawling developement and say, "I could have extended Helen Putnam park, but I was short sighted." Which would you prefer? I hope you make the choice to protect that gorgeous piece of open space. Again, I thank you for all of your time and dedicated work for our city. best, Elaine Elaine Daly, MFT 707 508.1aS; www elainedalym-fC.com From: Harmony Karp Hayes [harmonykirsten @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:40 PM To: councilman.albertson@gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc gmail.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; councilmemberlcearney0me.com; kathleencmillerofl =tce@gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Compliance with CEQA and Banning Decision Dear City Council Members, As per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we are all on the same page that we need and EIR and we need to review it carefully, It is my understanding that thus far the city is not in compliance with the Banning decision which states that the lead agency of a development needs to confer with all affected agencies before a development receives approval. It is my understanding that as of May 15, 2017 the following agencies have not been met with regarding the DEIR: Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sonoma County Regional Parks and Petaluma's Site Plan and Architectural Review. All these agencies are key to fully understanding the long and short term impacts of this development as well as the community impacts. Please do not move forward with this plan without further alliance with these agencies. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Harmony Hayes Petaluma Resident � ' Lf From: Kathleen Billings [K.Billings @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:17 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; David Glass; Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Kathy Miller; Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR ". Dear Elected Officials, The Draft EIR does not indicate whether the hillside soil and hydrology testing was conducted during recent wet months. It also does not disclose the assumptions and methodology that were used for this hydrological testing. The sight is not suitable for buildings. The land is subject to land slides. Please do not allow this sight to be developed. Thank you, Kathleen Billings From: Kathleen Billings [K.Billings @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 3:57 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR ". Dear Alicia, A new traffic study needs to be done. There should be a signal at the corner of D and Windsor. There is so much traffic and it is building up as people find the back roads into Petaluma. Traffic can not be mitigation when the number of cars is increasing every month. The traffic study in the Draft EIR is outdated and was done over a Holiday. This shows shady dealings from the developer in my book. Please order a new traffic study. Thankyou,.Kathleen Billings Q -9 s- From: Kathleen Billings [1<.Billings @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 3:48 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR ". Dear Alicia, I live near the subject sight. There are steep, unstable, sliding hillsides. Fixing the problem (or mitigating) might only be a temporary band aide. A long term insurance bond should be required by the City to be in place to cover unforeseen landslides in the future. The existing homeowners and if approved, new homeowners should not have to spend thousands of dollars to fix issues that should have been avoided in the first place. I have personalty seen landslides, and know of many homeowners that were caught in the financial nightmare of fixing issues that were supposedly mitigated when the developer built the homes that are in Victoria. The developer can claim bankruptcy and be long gone when things start to fall apart. Who pays? Development of this sight is not worth the financial cost to City and homeowners in the long run. This is not a suitable sight for housing. The City needs to step up and protect the citizens of Petaluma and save the City further unnecessary expenses. Please stop this development from happening. Thank you, Kathleen Billings MEN From: Elaine Daly [elaine.mh.daly @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:59 PM To: co uncilman.albertson mail.com; teresa4petaluma comcast.net; davekingpcc gmaiLcom; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney@me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @ci ail.com; G!udice, Alicia; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Buy Davidon!!! Dear City Council Members; I just read the email from Greg Colvin explaining that there is funding available to purchase the Kelly Creel, land that is under threat of development. What an incredible opportunity to expand that beautiful park of Helen Putnam, protect endangered species, keep traffic 'flowing' in and out the D St (as much as possible) and develop land more wisely in town. With $4 million in charitable funds now available, please do not lose the opportunity to negotiate the purchase, at fair market value, of some or all of Davidon's property interests, recognizing the development constraints of this site. The goal is to extend Helen Putnam County Regional Park down to D Street and ensure environmentally - sensitive recreational access. What an incredible accomplishment to be able to hang your hat on. You could take your family on hikes and say, "I helped protect this land. I am so happy I thought about the future generations" Or, you could drive by, yet another, huge sprawling developement and say, "I could have extended Helen Putnam park, but I was short sighted." Which would you prefer? I hope you make the choice to protect that gorgeous piece of open space. Again, I thank you for all of your time and dedicated work for our city. best, Elaine Elaine Daly, MFT 707.508.1352 wv,rw. elainedahlmftcoin 9-91 From: Elaine Daly [elaine.mh.daly @gmail.com,] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:47 PM To: couuesday_alay 23,n 017 8:.7 P teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; davekingpcc@grnail com; mthealy sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney@rne.com; kathleencmillerofficeCgmail .com; Giudice, Alicia; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Davidon 2017 DEIR rewrite Dear City COUCH, I am writing to you to ask you to please reject the Scott Ranch/Davion 2017 DEIR. It has been deemed incomplete and inadequate based on dates studies were done, how studies were done, and that there are missing studies. Please require updated professional studies and analysis of biological, traffic, hydrology, and other impacts and recirculation of a new, revised DEIR for public comment. We, the public, would like to be able to make comments on the new DEIR before it is finalized. These issues cannot just be addressed in the Final EIR. The DEIR is so fundamentally inadequate that CEQA requires the preparation and recirculation of a new revised DEIR. Please take into account that many of us who are writing in are concerned Petaluma community members. We want what is best for out community, which includes developmemnt; but, not on lands that are on the edge of town and adjacent to our one west side regional park. Please consider the above, but more importantly consider finding a way to stop the development all together and expand our regional park. Thank you for your time and clear vision (I hope) for our community. best, Elaine Daly, MFT Elaine Daly, MFT 707.508.1352 ���,�v.elainedalyinft.c�m From: Harmony Karp Hayes [harmonykirsten @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:40 PM To: councilman albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekinqpcc@qmail.co councilmemberkearney@me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Compliance with CEQA and Banning Decision Dear City Council Members, As per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we are all on the same page that we need and EIR and we need to review it carefully, it is my understanding that thus far the city is not in compliance with the Banning decision which states that the lead agency of a development needs to confer with all affected agencies before a development receives approval. It is my understanding that as of May 15, 2017 the following agencies have not been met with regarding the DEIR: Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sonoma County Regional Parks and Petaluma's Site Plan and Architectural Review. All these agencies are key to fully understanding the long and short term impacts of this development as well as the community impacts. Please do not move forward with this plan without further alliance with these agencies. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Harmony Hayes Petaluma Resident From: Elaine Daly [elaine.mh.daly @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:30 PM To: councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa Petaluma @comcast.net; daveking )cc gmail &Omm; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney@me.com; kathleencmillerofficeC�gmail .com; Giudice, Alicia; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Davidon: Non - compliance with CEQA Dear City Council Members, As per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we are all on the same page that we need and EIR and we need to review it carefully, It is my understanding that thus far the city is not in compliance with the Banning decision which states that the lead agency of a development needs to confer with all affected agencies before a development receives approval. It is my understanding that as of May 15, 2017 the following agencies have not been met with regarding the DEIR: Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sonoma County Regional Parks and Petaluma's Site Plan and Architectural Review: All these agencies are key to fully understanding the long and short term impacts of this development as well as the community impacts. Please do not move forward with this plan without further alliance with these agencies. Thank you for your time and please make a choice that will provide open space for all us, not just for a lucky, wealthy few. best, Elaine Daly, MFT Elaine Daly, MFT 707.508.1352 ynnvw;elaine(Ialytnft.cem )_100 From: Sue Riley [sueinpetaluma @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:36 PM To: David Glass; Chris Albertson; tere5a4getaluma @comcast.net; davekinqpcc@qmail.co councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP @comcast.net; Mike Riley; Lydia Schindler; Jenny Christensen Subject: Preserving the Kelly Creek open space Dear Mayor and Esteemed City Council Members, I'm writing as a 10 -year resident of Petaluma. My husband and I love being so close to the West Petaluma Hills open spaces and wish to protect this area from development. I learned recently that all but 5% of Sonoma County land is privately owned. This makes it all the more imperative to preserve what little open space still remains. I attended the May 1 City Council meeting and will be present on June 19 when you next address the proposed Davidon development of the 58 -acre parcel known as the Kelly Creek property. I urge you to be diligent in your responsibilities to residents of Petaluma and Sonoma County in preserving as much open space as possible for enjoyment of natural flora, wildlife, as well as future generations of residents. I respectfully request that the City Council take the following actions. First, please comply with the CA Environmental Quality Act based on the Banning decision. You are required to coordinate and collaborate on the Draft EIR with all key government agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife, CA Department of Fish & Wildlife, Sonoma County Regional Parks, and Petaluma's SPAR process. All of this is required NOW, before any decision is made by the City Council on the proposed Davidon development. I ask that you review evidence, community standards, potential consequences and alternatives contained in the public comments submitted on the 2017 DEIR. Note that the 300 comments on the 2013 DEIR are ALSO pertinent to this proposed development. Reject the Scott Ranch /Davidon 2017 DEIR as incomplete and inadequate. Please require updated professional studies and analyses of biological, traffic, hydrology and other impacts and then circulate a new, revised DEIR for public comment. Reject Davidon's proposed amendments to Petaluma's 2025 General Plan. The amendments would undermine the City's general Plan solely so Davidon could build more houses on this land. Accept the unanimous recommendation of the City's Planning Commission. It states that there must be NO housing units constructed south of Kelly Creek, given the critical wildlife habitat and unstable hillsides there, as well as the extreme difficulties in accomplishing effective mitigation. Ensure that any approved Davidon project is consistent with ALL policies in the City's 2025 General Plan. The current proposal of 35 lots violates General Plan policy 9-19 mandates. To comply with the 2025 General Plan, the development would be reduced from 53 to fewer than 30 housing units. In the revised DEIR, you must specify additional lots to be eliminated to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by the Project's violations of the General Plan. I learned at the May 1 City Council meeting that $4 MILLION in charitable funds are now available to purchase this property. NOW is the time to negotiate the purchase - at fair market value - some or all of Davidon's property interests. The goal is to extend Helen Putnam County Regional Park down to D Street to ensure this important wildlife corridor and to ensure environmentally - sensitive recreation access by the public. And last, I urge the City Council to encourage Davidon to meet and confer with Kelly Creek Protection Project, Petalumans for Responsible Planning, the newly- formed West Petaluma Hills Wildlife Corridor Coalition, as well as the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma. The hope is that Davidon will discuss with these groups - as a willing seller - a solution that benefits all parties, and especially future generations of families in the City of Petaluma and within Sonoma County. It's imperative that open space be protected so that local flora and fauna can thrive. Many thanks for all you do on behalf of residents of Petaluma. With best regards, Sue Riley 6 West Haven Way Petaluma, CA 94952 707 - 658 -2841 From: Javiera Pierattini [ Javiera .Pierattini @cushwake.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:06 AM To: Giudice, Alicia; councilman.albertson @gmaii.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; teresa4petaluma00comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com;.mthealy sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearne me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP @comcast.net Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Petaluma City Council, I am writing to address the issues of the Davidon project in regards to the EIR. As a native to Petaluma and currently living in the Victoria neighborhood the red barn is an icon of pure Petalu na culture. I did not realize how beautiful it was to grow up in a town that is so prideful of our old ways until I moved away for college. I longed for our rolling golden hills, the cows in the morning, the flocks of turkeys that block our road, the goats in the summer that eat the dry grass to prevent a wild fire from starting. When I drive past the barn you can see the owls and the bats from the land, although I have seen this spectacle a dozen times this still leaves me in awe and reminds me to be grateful every day. Our rolling golden hills is what sets us apart from Marin County, from the rest of Sonoma County as well. With. consumerism at its peak in 2017, Petaluma still remains to be a humble town (and that is what we call ourselves a town, even though we are a city). The City of Petaluma should have this land protected, become forever part of the landscape as it was once intended because it is our culture. Let us add Kelly Creek to be part of Helen Putnam Park, let us use this barn to educate our youth. To let them understand the heritage of our town and keep it for many years to come. The only thing I really regret growing up in Petaluma is that although my schools had a fantastic curriculum I was never taught the history of our town. Let us use the red barn as a museum; the students at Petaluma High School who are part of FFA or the agricultural classes PHS offers could use the red barn for their classes as well and teach the elementary students about our beautiful Petaluma culture. Classes such as milking a cow, the importance of our ecosystem on a macro and micro level, the benefits of locally sourced products, ect. This -red barn should be dedicated to the future youth of Petaluma. This notion of our town allowing the building of luxury homes is anti- Petaluma, it is against our culture and everything we were raised to believe. As a millennial who is surrounded by technology constantly, being able to come back to my roots is necessary. It gives me peace of mind, and allows me to restart. I have the choice to live in San Francisco or in any major city in the world, but I choose to live in Petaluma. I choose to commute to work for an hour. I choose to still be part of a town that has so much to offer. I hope ten years.down the line, when I have children they will be able to live in a town that continues to honor the same traditions I was able to enjoy and perhaps even enhance those tradition through eduation. I am proud of my heritage and would be sadden and disappointed to see an out of town developer take advantage of our town and culture for profit. Thank you for your time. Kindest Regards, Javiera Pierattini Marketing Coordinator / Business Development "'), -10 3 Retail Services Direct: 415- 451 -2412 Mobile: 707 - 766 -4430 Fax: 415 -485 -1341 javiera.pierattini E cushwake.com The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the above named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way using any information contained within this communication. If you have received this communication in error please contact the sender by telephone or by response via mail. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. - /0 I From: Jim Stoutenberg Dimstoutenberg @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 8:53 PM To: mayordavidglass a mail.com; councilman .albertson(abgmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberl<earngy @me.com; II <athleencmilleroffice @gmaiLcom; Giudice, Alicia; ienpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh yahoo.com; richard@lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @amail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: June 19 Council Meeting Dear Council and Planning Commission Members: I am familiar with the issues concerning the Davidon project and the issues facing the City Council on June 19t ". I fully support in detail the Eight Action Issues Petalumans for Responsible Planning have enumerated ahead of the City Council meeting on June 19. I encourage you to review them. Not only is the Davidon project an extractive industry wanting to suck the value out of the undeveloped land of the Scott Ranch property and cart the profits off out of town, leaving us with only more suburban sprawl, the Helen Putnam Park proposal is a far, far better and higher use of the land, and the Petaluma City Council should favor it over Davidon's. That is the responsible and civic thing to do. As for Davidon carrying the taxes on the undeveloped land it acquired 13 years ago in an effort to strike it rich, any "losses" they suffer beyond selling the land undeveloped for public use "at market value" would count as part of Davidon's normal cost of doing business as a developer. The real loss to Davidon is Davidon's speculative snatching of the property for extractive purposes ahead of Petalumans who at that same time wanted to buy the land for public use. Boo hoo for Davidon. As for being sued by Davidon? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Don't cave to a well- known bully. Don't be afraid to let Davidon know that what they want to do isn't welcome in this town. That's why we elected you to positions of responsibility for the town.. Sincerely, James Stoutenberg JS James Stoutenberg Member New York Bar 537 Rosewood Circle 707 - 559 -3150 (h) Petaluma, CA 94954 415 - 516 -4840 (c) www.jimstoutenberq com jimstoutenberg(cDcomcast.net )-105- From: Jean Grant -Sutton Umgsyogi @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 7:49 PM To: councilman.albertson gmail.com; Teresa Barrett; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmillerofficeCc?gmail .com; Giudice, Alicia Subject: The Scott Ranch /Davidon issue I am one of so many of my neighbors that feel very strongly that we need to keep that beautiful property as part of the Petaluma Open Space /or part of Helen Putnam Park. Please don't allow $$ to influence your decision in this important matter. 1. Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as interpreted by the state supreme court in the recent Banning decision. That requires the City, as lead agency, to coordinate and collaborate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with other key government agencies now, not later: the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife; Sonoma County Regional Parks, and the City's own Site Plan Architectural Review (SPAR) process. 2. Carefully review the factual evidence, community standards, potential consequences, and alternatives contained in the public comments submitted on the 2017 DEIR, as well as the 300 comments on the 2013 DEIR that still pertain to this virtually identical housing project. 3. Reject the Scott Ranch /Davion 2017 DEIR as incomplete and inadequate. Require updated professional studies and analysis of biological, traffic, hydrology, and other impacts and recirculation of a new, revised DEIR for public comment. These issues cannot just be addressed in the Final EIR, The DEIR is so fundamentally inadequate that CEQA requires the preparation and recirculation of a new revised DEIR. 4. Reject Davidon's proposed amendments to Petaluma's 2025 General Plan. The amendments would undermine the City's general plan solely so Davidon could build more houses on this land. 5. Accept the unanirnous recommendation of the City's Planning Commission: there must be no housing units constructed south of Kelly Creek, given the critical wildlife habitat and unstable hillsides there and the extreme difficulties of accomplishing effective mitigation. 6. Ensure any approved Davidon project is consistent with all Policies in the City's 2025 General Plan. As currently proposed, 35 lots violate General Plan policy mandates. Compliance with the 2025 General Plan would reduce. the development footprint from 63 to fewer than 30 housing )-104 4 units. In the revised DEIR, specify the additional lots that must be eliminated to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by the Project's violations of the General Plan. 7. With $4 million in charitable funds now available, do not lose the opportunity to negotiate the purchase, at fair market value, of some or all of Davidon's property interests, recognizing the development constraints of this site. The goal is to extend Helen Putnam County Regional Park down to D Street and ensure environmentally - sensitive recreational access. 8. Tell Davidon the handwriting is on the wall. Encourage them to meet and confer with KCPP, PetRP, the City and the County and to discuss in good faith, as a willing seller, a solution that benefits all parties. Jean Grant -Sutton Integrative Yoga Therapist Program Coordinator at P.O.S.T. Wellness by Design 707 -481 -4122 kansinte,gratiyO,ogatherapy. com P_ 101 From: Lark Schumacher Coryell [lark @lark.net] Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:19 PM To: councilman.albertson mail.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; davekingpcc mail.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice ((?gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP(a)comcast.net Subject: PLEASE READ: Scott Ranch /Davion 2017 DEIR comments Dear Petaluma City Councilmembers Chris Albertson, Teresa Barrett, Mike Healy, Gabe Kearney, Dave King, and Kathy Miller: As stewards of Petaluma, Sonoma County, and the land we all love, you have a very important job to protect our city, county, lands, and most importantly, consider the impact on our kids and their kids. We ask of you the following: Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as interpreted by the state supreme court in the recent Banning decision. That requires the City, as lead agency, to coordinate and collaborate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with other key government agencies now, not later: the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Sonoma County Regional Parks, and the City's own Site Plan Architectural Review (SPAR) process. Carefully review the factual evidence, community standards, potential consequences, and alternatives contained in the public comments submitted on the 2017 DEIR, as well as the 300 comments on the 2013 DEIR that still pertain to this virtually identical housing project. Reject the Scott Ranch/Davion 2017 DEIR as incomplete and inadequate. Require updated professional studies and analysis of biological, traffic, hydrology, and other impacts and recirculation of a new, revised DEIR for public comment. These issues cannot just be addressed in the Final EIR. The DEIR is so fundamentally inadequate that CEQA requires the preparation and recirculation of a new revised DEIR. Reject Davidon's proposed amendments to Petaluma's 2025 General Plan. The amendments would undermine the City's general plan solely so Davidon could build more houses on this land. Accept the unanimous recommendation of the City's Planning Commission: there must be no housing units constructed south of Kelly Creek, given the critical wildlife habitat and unstable hillsides there and the extreme difficulties of accomplishing effective mitigation. Ensure any approved Davidon project is consistent with all Policies in the City's 2025 General Plan. As currently proposed, 35 lots violate General Plan policy mandates. Compliance with the 2025 General Plan would reduce the development footprint from 63 to fewer than 30 housing units. In the revised DEIR, specify the additional lots that must be eliminated to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by the Project's violations of the General Plan. With $4 million in charitable funds now available, do not lose the opportunity to negotiate the purchase, at fair market value, of some or all of Davidon's property interests, recognizing the development constraints of this site. The goal is to extend Helen Putnam County Regional Park down to D Street and ensure environmentally - sensitive recreational access. Tell Davidon the handwriting is on the wall. Encourage them to meet and confer with KCPP, PetRP, the City and the County and to discuss in good faith, as a willing seller, a solution that benefits all parties. Please regard this as a public comment on the Davidon DEIR. THANK YOU for doing the right thing. Regards, Lark Coryell Roger Coryell lark�r)lark.net 11711 Highway 116 Guerneville, CA 95446 0 -rd9. From: Gregory L. Colvin [colvin @adlercolvin.com] Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 10 :27 AM To: 'mayordavidglass @gmail.com'; 'Chris Albertson'; 'Teresa Barrett'; 'mthealy @sbcgloba1.net'; 'councilmemberkearney @me.com'; 'davekingpcc @gmail.com'; 'Kathleen Miller'; Dave King (love a-davekinglaw.com); Alicia Giudice (AGiudice(a-)m- group.us) Cc: citymgr; 'David Rabbitt'; ' Bert .Whitaker @sonoma - county.org'; 'bill.keene @sonoma- county.org; 'Andrea Krout'; Brown, John; Giudice, Alicia Subject: Eight Official Actions for City Council, 2017 Scott Ranch /Davidon DEIR, Lot Eliminations To: Mayor David Glass, Petaluma City Councilmembers Chris Albertson, Teresa Barrett, Mike Healy, Gabe Kearney, Dave King, and Kathy Miller CC: John Brown, City Manager, City of Petaluma Bert Whitaker, Director, Sonoma County Regional Parks David Rabbitt, Supervisor, Second District, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Bill Keene, General Manager, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner, City of Petaluma From: Kelly Creek Protection Project (KCPP), jointly with Petalumans for Responsible Planning (PetRP) Date: May 20, 2017 Re: Eight Official Actions for the City Council to Take on the 2017 Scott Ranch /Davidon DEIR 1. Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as interpreted by the state supreme court in the recent Banning decision. That requires the City, as lead agency, to coordinate and collaborate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with other key government agencies now, not later: the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Sonoma County Regional Parks, and the City's own Site Plan Architectural Review (SPAR) process. 2. Carefully review the factual evidence, community standards, potential consequences, and alternatives contained in the public comments submitted on the 2017 DEIR, as well as the 300 comments on the 2013 DEIR that still pertain to this virtually identical housing project. 3. Reject the Scott Ranch /Davion 2017 DEIR as incomplete and inadequate. Require updated professional studies and analysis of biological, traffic, hydrology, and other impacts and recirculation of a new, revised DEIR for public comment. These issues cannotjust be addressed in the Finial EIR. The DEIR is so fundamentally inadequate that CEQA requires the preparation and recirculation of a new revised DEIR. 4. Reject Davidon's proposed amendments to Petaluma's 2025 General Plan. The amendments would undermine the City's general plan solely so Davidon could build more houses on this land. 5. Accept the unanimous recommendation of the City's Planning Commission: there must be no housing units constructed south of Kelly Creek, given the critical wildlife habitat and unstable hillsides there and the extreme difficulties of accomplishing effective mitigation. 6. Ensure any approved Davidon project is consistent with all Policies in the City's 2025 General Plan. As currently proposed, 35 lots violate General Plan policy mandates. Compliance with the 2025 General Plan would reduce the development footprint from 63 to fewer than 30 housing units. (See attached table and map prepared for Kelly Creek Protection Project.) In the revised DEIR, specify the additional lots that must be eliminated to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by the Project's violations of the General Plan. 7. With $4 million in charitable funds now available, do not lose the opportunity to negotiate the purchase, at fair market value, of some or all of Davidon's property interests, recognizing the a -I Io development constraints of this site. The goal is to extend Helen Putnam County Regional Park down to D Street and ensure environmentally - sensitive recreational access. 8, Tell Davidon the handwriting is on the wall. Encourage them to meet and confer with KCPP, PetRP, the City and the County and to discuss in good faith, as a willing seller, a solution that benefits all parties. For further information, contact Greg Colvin for KCPP colvin ,adlercolvin.com or Susan Jaderstrom for PetRP (PetRP Ocomcast.net). Please regard this as a public comment on the Davidon DEIR. Gregory L. Colvin Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415- 421 -7555 x.211 Fax: 415-421-0712 email: colvin(iDadlercolvin.com w vw.adlercolvin.eom Davidon /Scott Ranch DEIR March 2017 Lots Requiring Elimination Due to Mitigation in DEIR or Conflicts with City's 2025 General Plan: Option B (63 Units) Mitigation Measure or General Plan Policy Requiring Lot Reduction Lot Elimination A, Mitigation Measure BIO -1b: Restrict development near stock pond 59, 60, 611 (See DEIR at 4.3 -40) B. Mitigation Measure BIO -1b: Restrict development near D Street 51 tributary (See DEIR at 4.3 -41) C. Impact BIO -5: Restrict development due to inconsistency with 24, 25, 29, 30, 31 proposed amended.Policy 2 -P -68 requiring that no development be within 100' of centerline of Kelly Creek (See DEIR at 4.3 -66) D. Impact BIO -5: Restrict development due to inconsistency with Policy 29, 30, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 66 4 -P -1 requiring a minimum 50' setback from top of bank of tributaries to the Petaluma River, with extended buffers where significant habitat areas, (See DEIR at 4.3 -66 and Figure 3.0 -7: based on vernal pools, or wetlands exist measurements derived from Sonoma County LiDAR) E. Maintain consistency with General Plan Policy 2 -P -8: Require single- 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, loaded streets along the urban separator and along riparian corridors 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 (See Figure 3.0 -7) F. Maintain consistency with General Plan Policy 10 -P -1: Avoid 8, 9, 10, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 development on slopes greater than 30 percent (See Figure 3.0 -4) G. Deny Proposed Amendment to General Plan Policy 2 -P -68: Maintain a 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 100' setback from top of bank along Kelly Creek and its tributaries 59, 62, 65, 66 (See Figure 3.0 -7: based on measurements derived from Sonoma County LiDAR) Total Potentially Buildable Lots = 28 Potentially Buildable Lots: 1 -7; 11 -20; 32 -36; 41; 42; 45; 48 -50 47 -Lot Alternative: With the elimination of the lots identified above, for the DEIR's 47 -Lot Alternative, the site could accommodate 27 buildable lots: 1 -7; 11 -19; 32 -36; 41; 42; 45; 48; 49; 50, 28 -Lot Alternative: With the elimination of the lots identified above, for the DEIR's 28 -Lot Alternative, the site could accommodate 23 buildable lots: 1 -7; 12 -16; 32 -36; 41; 42; 45; 48; 49; 50. In addition, to comply with the City's Hillside Protection Ordinance and General Plan Policy 1- P -17's requirement to retain ridgelines and prominent hillsides as open space through appropriate clustering and /or transfer of density to other parts of a development site, the project would have to be redesigned to avoid the prominent grassy hillsides and the ridgeline on the north and northwest portions of the site. Such redesign could include single- story, rather than two - story, homes. Prepared by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP for Kelly Creek Protection Project, May 2017 1 The DEIR identifies Lot 61 as potentially being eliminated or relocated. '? --1/ 1 E� .o \ p d = J � E (O O C C O 0 @ .O § O w Q. Co Q mac L, a_ o - y ^p � v ♦ ` � �. hs� gyB ti2 imp 6AA oaf -, _ ti: v 1 m am Eo°. vpi ° c9a `. J E� .o \ p d = J � E (O O C C O 0 @ .O § O w Q. Co Q mac L, a_ o - y ^p � v ♦ ` � �. hs� gyB ti: 1 m Q-v L N � / 1 ! ! ! / Y( 1 i1fj {( �ew mo ti >E O a 4 o -O O Q C @ v m o 0 n O. O 7 y m � N � L 0 o = O tiJ to zww 0,r � � c .0 +j LIOO 040" G1 L vp � c v � 0 , N C N Ll E ti N W � c U tr W N Q 1 U J 0 V ` O e � _ a a. v < < F 8 �t 7'' ( J e Ep 1\ 1NW 4 U Who 10 1 1 { � 1 1 (J(dYd 'IYNp;J3tl WVNLId Ki81 21p1 N3!)VM A dp Sawi < U Ha yhpq pq C€ t. April 29, 2017 y ;I E E-" MAY 01 2017, I � CLERK Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) AIicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As stewards of the land where we live, and the beautiful quality of life we enjoy in Petaluma, I urge you to re- evaluate the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) proposed by Davidson Homes to construct 63 or more homes at Windsor Drive and D Streets. First, the DEIR is flawed in its reporting of old data, and there is some question as to the integrity of its findings. Second, traffic studies are outdated and incomplete by not taking into account exit changes on Highway 101 causing increased traffic on D Street, as well as not including impacts from the Smart Train, This project would destroy the beauty of the creek and hillsides, and the habitat for the Red - legged Frog, forever: I want the Arnold Scott Ranch to be preserved. You may be aware that in a recent poll in the Argus Courier 90.2% of the respondents are not in favor of the Davidson Homes luxury housing project (507 responding "No," 55 responding "Yes "). I would ask, is this the way to address a shortage of housing, by allowing the building of homes to be sold for $1 to $2 million dollars'each? What about affordable housing for those who want to live and work in Petaluma? What about infill as a city planning guideline? Thank you for your serious consideration. Kind rega ds, , Tiffany Mitchell 431 Stadler Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 April 30, 2017 Dear Council Member, I writing to discuss the development of the Scott Ranch Property by the Davidon Group. I am a relatively new member to this community having moved here in 2014. It was the small -town appeal and beautiful rural setting that first attracted me. Something'that I didn't realize was part of that small -town appeal is how it leads to community engagement by fostering the sense of being a stakeholder. As a stakeholder, I am grateful to have the opportunity to voice my concerns to a receptive city council and planning commission. I attended the most recent meeting of the planning commission held on April 4th regarding the proposed development of Scott Ranch. I would like to echo many of the concerns I heard voiced at that meeting. For the past 5 years, I have been either a visitor (2yrs) or a resident (3yrs) in this community. In that short time, it became obvious that the city has a traffic capacity problem especially on certain westside corridors, in particular D Street. As stated in the DEIR, there will be significant unavoidable impacts to traffic along one of the most historically valuable avenues in the city. As it currently functions, D Street is inadequate to handle the volume of vehicles during peak travel hours. Adding the long term traffic increase of a large -scale development and the short term impact of its construction will only exacerbate this problem. It is my understanding that the traffic study that informs the conclusions of the DEIR were conducted in 2014. As such the traffic impact of the smart train may not have been considered. Given that many commuters currently take D Street to Lakeville to access 101 additional traffic study needs to done to assess this potential impact. Lastly, D Street is comprised of mostly historic homes. The people who own these homes have gone to great expense to maintain them in this fashion. As a result, we all benefit from that investment as it creates a "Living Museum" for all of us to enjoy and take pride in as part of our town. At what point are the residents of these homes dis- incentivized to want to live in and maintain them if they feel they must bear the lion's share of the impact of this proposed project. In addition to the increase in traffic this project will create the impact on the scenic resources as well as habitat, disruption will be just as significant. The red barn and it's picturesque setting will be dramatically altered if this project is built to its current proposed density. Additionally, Kelly Creek will become the recipient of all the household garden products that will be used to maintain the 60 plus yards this project will create. All manner of herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers will migrate to the lowest point which is Kelly Creek. There they will put even greater pressure on the unique animals that call this area home. I strongly urge the city council members to consider the merits of this project very carefully and balance them mindfully against the significant negative attributes it will bring. Thank you, Alan DeWitt 96 th Street Petaluma CA 94952 Joanne Figone 17 Halsey Avenue Petaluma, CA 94952 April 7, 2017 Ms. Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Commission 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Comments on Davidon homes Draft EIR I have major concerns regarding the development that is proposed for this piece of property. I would prefer that there be NO development on the property; or at least only development in the proposed A Street section off Windsor Road. 1. This is an important piece of property that provides a good buffer between urban area and open space. 2. This area provides a wildlife corridor. Without it, we may have wildlife walling down city streets only to be run over. 3. It would be important for future generations for us to preserve the space and expand Helen Putnam Park. It provides an easy access for school children, walkers, and families to experience, grassy hills, wildflowers, and wildlife, including birds, mammals, and amphibians. 4. This development will not help with the lack of affordable housing in Petaluma. These houses will not be in the price range that local people can afford. There are better places within Petaluma for housing. Questions: 1. How will you handle the increased flooding that can occur when there is a lack of hillside to absorb the water? 2. How will the city plan to handle the increased traffic that it now found on D Street many afternoons? This report regarding traffic was done two years ago. The traffic is worse now! 3. Cutting into the steep hill to build big houses will damage the terrain in ways from which it cannot recover. Why does there need to be so many houses on the property on the same side as the red barn or up the hill from the red barn? 4. How will you be able to protect the red legged frog and other wildlife, when the construction process itself, and later new homes with landscaping will damage the land. Any run off will impact the wildlife. When this is all taken into consideration, maybe there should be NO development on this special piece of property. Sincerely, Joanne Figone 9 -(1 � May 1, 2017 TO: Petaluma City Council CC: Alicia Giudice Neither our backgrounds nor careers has involved reading technical documents. However, for the last 13 years, we have been reading the Davidon DEIR documents. After trying to interpret the poorly written and confusing 2013 Davidon DEIR, we were looking forward to reading the 2017 Davidon DEIR to see whether the comments from 2013 were incorporated into the draft. To our dismay, we discovered that none of the 2013 comments were included. The 2017 DEIR in many ways repeated the 2013 DEIR. Below are examples: #1 The housing plans are basically the same between 2013 and 2017. Below is the plan presented in 2013 with 66 homes (plan drawn in 2009): �blrlf •'? d Below is the plan presented in 2017 with 66 homes (plans drawn in 2016). FIGURE 3.0 -8. One change: Added a parking lot. 1 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR Because we live in Victoria, we were interested in whether the comments of the Victoria residents were taken into consideration for the housing that backs up to Victoria. Below is the 28 -plan housing for 2013: 'S r -- - --.:'a i s CaIt yl �!IY 01(•'N`'i,�l!_ 1. Gd >:•ni, -1 fLL'. -53Ei i—"' - -'KO •m r.axi -t Below is the 28 -plan "environmentally superior alternative housing" (p. 5.0 -33) for 2017 DEIR (developed in 2013). FIGURE 5.0 -2 Absolutely no change. No consideration for Victoria residents in 2013 who sent pictures and letters of concern about'flooding, noise, landslides, etc. 2 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR �)-It 0 J + s. � � 1•�- + rid r � h a3-<°e.. s `_�J.d C[v ?.4 •i:sliieiis r�'t'.P�i Absolutely no change. No consideration for Victoria residents in 2013 who sent pictures and letters of concern about'flooding, noise, landslides, etc. 2 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR �)-It 0 We live at 69 Oxford Court (the house with the red X below). Because our lot is wide (but not deep) Davidon lots 40,'41, and 42 back up directly to our fence line. We have repeatedly asked how much actual soil will need to be removed below our house. We cannot tell the percentage of hillslope behind our house. Victoria is prone to documented landslides. The only thing that we can review are lines drawn on a map. Quote from DEIR 3.4.4.1, p. 3.0 -24: "The development of the individual lots would likely consist of 2 -story and split -level homes ranging in size between 3,500 to 4,500 square feet." � ._,. �`• .tit. ^,� � e � __� .-,_ _ _ 4 zw. 41 :'(� �1 I The land behind our house is flat. See the picture below taken from the path near the City water tower. The 2017 DEIR states p. 4.5 -15: The project would likely experience strong ground shaking which "could affect the proposed residential structures and result in seismically induced landslides in areas of moderate to steep slopes underlain by thick soils, weak or fractured rock (i.e., much of the Franciscan melange bedrock), or loose fill. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to hazards from seismic activity. The impact would be potentially significant." 3 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR The 2017 EIR fails to disclose which of the 18 landslides on the project site are the "moderate to steep slopes" underlain by the susceptible soil or fill which could expose people and structures to seismically - induced landslides. Question that needs answering: Does the land behind Victoria Oxford Court and Victoria B Street contain landslides and is this land prone to seismic activity? #2 — Section 4.1, Aesthetics - Misleading 2017 DEIR. Figure 4.1 -9 - Views from Victoria Subdivision 2017 DEIR. Figure 4.1 -10 Views from Victoria Subdivision Showing Buiidout of Options A and B. The deception in these pictures are the tree heights. The red arrows do not point to existing Victoria homes but to new proposed homes. How many years and how much rain does it take for trees to grow this high and mask the homes from Windsor Drive? 4 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR g 12-0 Below are pictures from the 2013 DEIR. 2013 DEIR Figure 4.2 -11. Viewpoint 5 Vlewpdni 5:1- Asiing Vies,' Vl N*iot 5: proposed project Figure 4.2 -16.. Viev,pahl 5, Wiindmir tar9ao an lha Northam Oar'rwi Of thU PR IJeLl Rita Lnaktng 8DUlh With Landscaping towra Davtdan Harms I&M 8iffia`lvislan .Map and Rtzb aing Projact �alv�v�*wnipyrA� a �iut;xn�rs City of Petaluma, CaRo r;ia At least the 2013 DIER showed the site without landscaping. The houses are the same depictions that we have seen for 13 years: 2 -story and split -level homes ranging in size between 3,500 to 4,500 square feet. When Jeff Thayer of Davidon Homes was asked at a meeting at the Petaluma Women's Club on November 28, 2012, about one -story houses, this was the response: "No one -story houses— the square footage allocated for the homes would not allow space for one -story homes." 5 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR 1) - I?_ 1 2013 DEIR Figure 4.2 -12. Viewpoint 6 Vlcmpoim 0: €xlsiing V6-w irinRpolnl F; Pmpr zmd Prpje I €qure A.2 -t2 VIMpul A 6, :' adsor [i€ O dn the Nc M'in Patlfon of the Prbiecl > to Liking Boult-,eask i ^Fftut Landscaping esowra L aMon Times ?enkflive,SxtlLydi hlan Map and , 4?nI Prgf W eaueaalehatdrsa rnriau�rr.vre d;:tt}t of N13114m9. eafi(rsmie Looking at the simulations from 2013, the massive sizes of the houses can be seen. As one planning commissioner said on April 4, 2017: "Driving down Windsor Drive with large houses bordering the street will be like driving down a canyon." The 2017 DEIR contains no simulations of what driving down Windsor toward D might look like. How can the public judge how this development will look if it is masked by large trees that take years to grow in the 2017 DEIR simulations? The 2017 DEIR has given no consideration of the Victoria residences located approximately 50 feet from the project site except for a couple of pictures at the stop sign on Windsor. This is a picture from our backyard at 69 Oxford Court: 6 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR �_i 2 2017 DEIR, p. 4.1 -38 Cumulative Impact AES -1: "The proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch project and the park trail project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact with regard to scenic vistas, visual character, or scenic resources. (Less than Significant)" How can the cumulative impact be "Less Than Significant" if the 2017 EIR does not consider Victoria (50 feet from the project site) or Pinnacle Heights located across D Street (approximately 300 feet east of the site}? The 2017 EIR only considers "one project, Sunnyslope ll," which is not even included in the references section for aesthetic impacts. Conclusion These are the issues that personally affect our lives. You will be hearing from other Petaluma residents about how the Davidon development will affect their lives. We know that the 2017 DEIR is flawed in many ways. What is troubling for members of the public to understand is the following: Why did all of the time and effort that Petalumans, attorneys, and governmental agencies put into commenting on the 2013 DEIR not be considered in developing the 2017 DEIR? For Petaluma residents, reading and commenting on the DEIR is very difficult and time consuming. We hope that you, as our elected representatives, will care how the residents feel about this development on our wildlife corridor and gateway to Petaluma. Instead of a development, this land should be an extension to Helen Putnam Park. We ask you to join with the residents and other agencies to make this a reality for Petaluma. Sincerely, Susan and Mark Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court Petaluma CA 94952 707 - 762 -5166 jaderstrom@comcast.net 7 Jaderstrom comments 2017 DEIR April 29, 2017 MAY 01 *2011; Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As stewards of the land where we live, and the beautiful quality of life we enjoy in Petaluma, I urge you to re- evaluate the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) proposed by Davidson Homes to construct 63 or more homes at Windsor Drive and D Streets. First, the DEIR is flawed in its reporting of old data, and there is some question as to the integrity of its findings. Second, traffic studies are outdated and incomplete by not taking into account exit changes on Highway 101 causing increased traffic on D Street, as well as not including impacts from the Smart Train. This project would destroy the beauty of the creek and hillsides, and the habitat for the Red - legged Frog, forever. I want the Arnold Scott Ranch to be preserved. You may be aware that in a recent poll in the Argus Courier 90.2% of the respondents are not in favor of the Davidson Homes luxury housing project (507 responding "No," 55 responding "Yes "). I would ask, is this the way to address a shortage of housing, by allowing the building of homes to be sold for $1 to $2 million dollars each? What about affordable housing for those who want to live and work in Petaluma? What about infill as a city planning guideline? Thank you for your serious consideration. Kind rega ds, Tiffany Mitchelli 431 Stadler Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 -12� March 28, 2017 G _i. 2017. To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Chris Albertson, Dave King] Mike Nealy,'Gabe Kearney, Kathy Miller, and Senior Planner Alicia Giudice) 0 TOAJ�A,)n Dear Elected Officials, As a recent transplant to the city of Petaluma (we reside on C St. and 10th), I am deeply concerned about the Davidon (D street and Windsor drive) development for several reasons. There are several issues that the DEIR was unclear on, I am hoping to get answers to these questions: 1. The draft EIR does not say whether the testing for soil and hydrology was done during our recent wet months. We have been in a drought for far too long. We now have finally had a very wet season, Even while in a drought, the amount of water that pours into our property (both our backyard and through the street into the front of our property) from behind us (coming from D street) is overwhelming. It is often impossible to park in front of our house as one can't avoid the deep standing water. 2. 1 would like to know the plan in case Davidon goes bankrupt (at any point, be it during tree removal, grading or while building); is there an adequate bond etc to cover any long -term impact on the city; and what plan is in place if this occurs when the site is graded and the trees have been cut? And 3, The DEIR stated emissions for construction will cause a "significant" increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. Where do I begin with this? How is this ever possible to be mitigated? How can a heightened risk of cancer to local families be considered acceptable? Clearly I could write a dissertation of a letter about how unacceptable I find the possibility of this bucolic land turning into homes. The issue of expensive homes versus affordable housing is food for another letter. This is not the space for either. The intrinsic value of this land is far more valuable than any increase to Petaluma's possible revenue. We have been looking in Petaluma for 24 years and finally bought our property six years ago. We have been enjoying the drive to and from the coast along D St. for years, the feeling that-we get passing that barn with the trees and creek is not something we can attach a dollar sign to, We chose to buy a house in close proximity to this location so that we could continue to use and enjoy it, and so that our children could enjoy this natural area as we have and love. My son has written his own letter to you. The amount of wildlife we have seen is quite stunning this close to downtown (we have seen several birds of pray including owls and hawks, we have seen the usual opossums, skunks, raccoons, and dear, as well as the necessary beautiful bats at sunset). My children have found the elusive tiger salamanders. Where it stands, the barn (and the surrounding trees /creek/ wildlife) are an invaluable resource both culturally and environmentally. The tributary of Kelly Creek is critical. It is not something that we just appreciate, it is something that we need. The fact that the Red Legged frog is in this area and is on the threatened species list should be enough to stop any and all development along that 58 acre "parcel," how is something without a voice able to protect itself? The public outcry and opinion of not wanting this should also be enough. We have been hiking this area (Helen Putnam Park) for over 20 years, when we came to town we also ate, shopped and supported the local economy. Leaving this 9 )r- treasure as is (as part of Helen Putnam park) will continue to bring money into the city of Petaluma. We are now happy to pay property taxes for the lifestyle that we thought we were buying into, Had,l known this was already part of the city plan we may have thought otherwise about investing in homeownership here. It.is.not too late to keep.this natural area as it stands, even though the city has it earmarked for homes. I am deeply concerned about the amount of traffic and how that will negatively affect our lives as well as the rest of the community. My children are not allowed to approach D street because of the amount of traffic. The amount of time it takes to turn onto D Street is atrocious not to mention the increase in traffic coming from San Antonio Rd. In order to take my children to school and pick them up I must turn onto D Street. The traffic in the last few years has increased exponentially. Furthermore frustrated cars turn onto our corner street (which is 10th) and fly down the block to avoid the traffic, Our street butts up to the parking lot of a church and we often have people flying down our street & whipping U -turns (when they realize it does not go through). The increased amount of road rage in our gem of a neighbor is disheartening and frightening. For so many reasons the alteration of the existing land /addition of homes is a bad idea. The negative and lasting effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated (eliminating /altering the fragile ecosystem of the wetlands and the trees that provide the necessary habitat for these plants and animals to thrive), the loss of open space, the increase in traffic, the aggravation of years of construction, increase in water use that inevitably comes from new housing, etc is a bad idea. What we are hoping to see is the area left as it is, leave the red barn where it stands without housing around it, leave the important habitats and nesting trees, find an area that will do the least amount of harm and put in a reasonably sized parking lot to serve Helen Putnam Park instead. Please consider the option and alternative of preserving the 58 acre parcel, of creating a corridor, to the rest of Helen Putnam Park. It is my hope that the city council members will listen to the input they have received from so many people; that you will take into very serious consideration, what it is that your constituents want. Thank you in advance for your reply. Respectfully, M gin Cecilia Hallinan 4 t 1 +` (j( n �_' / z6 Ir Ijy +. 71 Vv CC ot f . + Y A3� t: •t r"` t k +, �1',v may+ s } ,t t s ;} ? O " yt JL, x .N", v � ,S•' t_ 1 � „`L } � ;i'` ;S s iis .• £ g'y' 8` F'"°� g.r31`. ._� p .�`�,.�k. 4�x...svt. 1 ; y ^a?z� N CIO IYI,v' ( *aye' 'ylC .......... .. . ... _ .. .... - -.._, .. ._W`.b. "i._..... i i , ` Yv F YL i r „ 9-/, 7 To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller), Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma I 1 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As a registered voters, we urge you to re- evaluate the DEIR proposed by Davidon to construct 63+ homes at Windsor and D Street. This is not the kind of growth Petalumans want or need. We reside just a few blocks from the proposed development. We chose to purchase our residence at 808 F St. after a long search and cherish the peace, quiet and beauty of this community. We believe the proposed development would have a negative impact on our environment and in general on this neighborhood. Specifically, we object to the following issues as outlined in the DEIR- 1. The biology studied reflects data sampled in 2003. Clearly this is not an accurate representation of the Kelly Creek ecology as it currently exists. The Red - Legged Frog population and its companions in the local food web create an organic, changing ecological balance that demands a current study to determine best practices to impose upon it for sustained health and longevity. Additionally, the data needs to be collected by experts that can be relied upon to present credible and unbiased interpretations of their findings. 2. The traffic studies are inconclusive and obsolete as they are based on a!2014, traffic study. The significant and unavoidable impact this study has found does not factor into account Smart Train presence or the increased vehicle load presently carried on D Street due to the new 101 exit at Kastania and San Antonio Rd. Both of these improvements will increase or have already increased traffic numbers and should be accounted for in a new DEIR. As a Petaluma local we do not support: ® Highly compromised or complete loss of habitat for the threatened California-Red-Legged Frog and the ensuing negative deleterious effect on the entire local food web and wildlife corridor The alteration, removal or relocation of the historic Red Barns at Kelly Creek � -,) • Permanent contamination and pollution to the already over -taxed Kelly Creek • 3 1 /2 years of D Street traffic impediment due to sewer main retrofitting and construction traffic • The increased permanent vehicle load that another 63+ homes along Windsor will filter onto D Street • A dangerous "tot lot" at Windsor and D St. and a badly - designed trailhead to access Helen Putnam Park • Increased flooding and mudslide potential due to building on extreme slopes • Permanent alteration and loss of scenic vista at our gateway to southwest Sonoma and Marin • $1 -2M homes that most Petalumans can't afford We do support: • Preserving the beautiful 58 -acre parcel on Windsor & D St. as it currently stands • Keeping the historic Red Barns at Kelly Creek intact • Preserving our sensitive established wildlife corridor at Kelly Creek for generations to come • Expanding our southwest scenic gateway to our town The Davidon development is not the right project for Petaluma. Please seriously and genuinely consider the demands of your voter constituency. Respectfully, Brian Pasdach sos F St. Petaluma, CA 9 +952 J dy P sdach )-' t D q JUN 6 5 2017 Sandra Anfang 276 Cambridge Lane MAY ®R Petaluma, CA 94952 May 31, 2017 Dear Members of the Petaluma City Council, I ant writing this letter to urge you to carefully consider the ramifications of the Davidon housing project proposed for D Street and Windsor Drive, and to explain why I think allowing it to come to fruition would be a terrible loss for our town. The site of the proposed development is in a very sensitive riparian habitat. Not only is the Red - Legged Frog population threatened, but the habitat of flocks of wild turkeys, deer, and the cows and other animal residents of the red barn farm adjacent to D Street. Helen Putnam County Park is a jewel of a local resource, enjoyed by local residents as well as visitors to Sonoma County. I believe it should be expanded, not impinged by a development such as Davidon. It is located on a sensitive hillside, where more development may well lead to erosion, landslides, and flooding. Petaluma does not need more luxury housing! One to two - mullion dollar homes do nothing to benefit most residents of our town. With teachers and other middle -class residents virtually priced out of local rents, what's needed is more affordable housing, not luxury homes. Furthermore, I understand that constructions crews for Davidon will be brought in from Walnut Creek. If this is true, this project will not create any new jobs for Petalumans. Traffic is a huge issue. After 4:00 p.m., the line of cars heading into town down D Street is long and slow-moving. Construction trucks will bring dust, pollution, and three years of noise to our neighborhood. No one wants this, least of all the deer who I've seen running down the sidewalks of D Street in times of heavy traffic. Please reconsider all these points before making a decision on this unpopular, frivolous, and elite proposed development, Let's keep our town visitor- friendly, but primarily a place we will want to raise our children and grandchildren. S'ncerely, Sandra Anfang March 13, 2017 City of Petaluma Planning Division ATTN: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report April 4, 2017 Public Hearing Dear Ms. Giudice; In the event that I cannot attend the public hearing I would like to submit my thoughts on the negative impact of transportation & traffic; noise; and air quality to Windsor Drive and surrounding residences that will result from this project. Windsor Drive is one of the last thoroughfares and connectors between Western Ave. and D Street on the west side of Petaluma. During peak hours Windsor currently accommodates cars, domestic trucks, and 16- wheelers - over 200 vehicles east & westbound using the street (if I am interpreting the data correctly from the report). Other than stop signs there are no limits on the speed or type of vehicles. As a resident whose home borders Windsor Drive I can attest to the current noise and amount of traffic in its current state. With a minimum of 63 homes proposed by Davidon x 2 /cars - per -home the impact to Windsor Drive would be another 126 vehicles using Windsor Drive each day. This would severely increase the noise, air quality, and character of the existing Victoria and West Haven neighborhoods. Without any mitigation by Davidon to address these impacts I cannot support this project or the current DEIR. Thank you, a Margaret L. Alfrey 2.66 Cambridge Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 o -131 RECENED MAY 0 3 2017 PLANNING DIVJSJOI,�v CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY fitsu .r. via Electronic Mail and USPS (iv/attachments) May 1, 2017 Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 agiudice@ci.petaluma.'ca.us Re: Comments on Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report for Davidon /Scott Ranch General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Map Project (SCH No. 2004072137) Dear Ms. Giudice: . These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity ( "Center ") regarding the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "REIR") for the Davidon/Scott Ranch General-Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Map Project (the "Project ").. The Project is anticipated to result in many significant environmental impacts that will degrade the current ecosystems on the Project site and reduce the health and quality of life in the surrounding community. Yet, the CEQA mandated environmental review for the Project is not adequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the statute. For the reasons detailed below, we urge approval of the Project be denied, or at the very least substantial revisions to the REIR to better analyze, mitigate or avoid the Project's significant environmental impacts. The Center is a non - profit, public' interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Northern California, including Sonoma County. I. The REIR Fails To Adequately Describe The Baseline Conditions. CEQA requires that the baseline must be analyzed using existing physical conditions in the project area. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a) [existing physical conditions "normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant "].) Moreover, the California Supreme Court held that a project's impacts should be compared to actual, existing pre - project conditions rather than to hypothetical Alaska, Arizona . California, Florida . .Minnesota . !Nevada . New Mexico . New York . Oregon . Vermont. Washington, DC www.8/ologicalQiversityorg -d —! 32— conditions when'determining the significance of a project's impacts, and the current environmental baseline level of emissions must be disclosed in the REIR. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Ca1.4th 310, 322 [CBE].) The federal counterpart to CEQA (NEPA) similarly requires that a lead agency properly disclose the true no build conditions. (See N. C. Wildlife Fed'n v. N. C. DOT (4th Cir. 2012) 677 F.3d 596, 603 ( "[C]ourts not infrequently find NEPA violations when an agency miscalculates the `no build' baseline or when the baseline assumes the existence of a proposed project. ").) A. The surveys relied upon in the REIR are woefully outdated. The REIR does not comply with these mandates. In particular, the surveys conducted for the Project — including surveys for California Red Legged Frog ( "CRLF ") — are over ten years old. (See REIR at 4.3 -2.) In a letter submitted by California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( "CDFW ") on an earlier version of the Draft EIR (the "CDFW Letter "), CDFW recommended that "the draft EIR be revised to provide an updated habitat assessment and survey results for special - status plant and wildlife species located within the proposed Project area and surrounding lands. Since no detail into the scope and depth of data collected during additional reconnaissance -level surveys performed since 2003 is given in the draft EIR, the Department does not consider the additional surveys, to be sufficient to accurately assess project impacts in the draft EIR." (CDFW Letter at 2.) Unfortunately, the REIR suffers from the same defects. Without current information on actual environmental conditions, the REIR prevents informed decisionmaking and fails to ensure that actual, meaningful mitigation will occur through the CEQA process. B. The surveys relied upon in the REIR fail to comply with USFWS protocols. The REIR's failure to conduct . current surveys also runs afoul of CDFW Survey Protocols. USFWS's "Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red - legged Frog" states that even when applicants comply with the Guidance, surveys are only valid for two years unless exceptional circumstances apply, as determined by USFWS.r USFWS's Guidance also states that at least two day surveys and four night surveys are recommended. Id. Here, the REIR openly concedes that "Of the four required surveys for California red - legged frog, only two were conducted." (REIR at 4.3 -2.) The REIR also fails to establish that the applicant or City conducted adequate surveys for the California Tiger Salamander ( "CTS "). USFWS cautions that CTS "can be difficult to detect depending on weather and time of year. "z Accordingly, USFWS states: I See USFWS, "Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red - legged Frog," (Aug: 2005), available at httpss: / /www.fws. gov/ sacramento /es /survey_protocols- guidelines /documents /crf survey guidance au 2g 005.pdf. 2 USFWS, "Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander," (Oct. 2003), available at https: / /nrm.dfg.ca. gov /FileHandler.ashx ?DocumentID= 83915. 2 ')- -1.3� For sites with suitable breeding habitat, two consecutive seasons of negative larval surveys and a negative upland drift fence study in the intervening fall /winter are recommended to support a negative finding. For sites with no suitable aquatic breeding habitat, but where suitable upland habitat exists, two consecutive seasons of negative upland drift fence studies are recommended to support a negative finding.3 C. The surveys should be disregarded because they were conducted by a convicted felon who has a history of falsifying survey results. While the surveys cited the REIR are inadequate because they are outdated and non- compliant with established protocols, they should also be disregarded because most of them were prepared by John Zentner and /or his consulting firm. In similar circumstances, Mr. Zentner was responsible for conducting surveys for CRLF. Instead, Mr. Zentner and his employees unlawfully relocated and harmed CRLF in order to accommodate his client, a developer. The media reported: "John Zentner, 46, was hired as a consultant for Holly Creek Estates, a 6 -acre housing development to ensure compliance with-federal and state wetland and conservation laws. Instead of informing authorities about the presence of the endangered red - legged frogs, Zentner and his employees attempted to relocate at least 64 red - legged frogs and 500 tadpoles from a watercourse and a pond area. They moved the amphibians to a portion of the pond that was to be preserved. The remaining part-of the pond became part of the housing development project. Marty of the frogs died because the preserved pond was small and shallow and within 15 feet of new homes, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Jacobs. U.S. Magistrate Wayne Brazil sentenced Zentner yesterday to 200 hours of community service, a $10,000 fine and three years of probation. Zentner's company, Zentner & Zentner, was fined $65,000. "4 Mr. Zentner engaged in this outrageous and illegal conduct less than two years prior to conducting surveys at the Project site. At a minimum, there is a substantial question whether Mr. Zentner and his firm can be trusted to adequately and accurately conduct surveys regarding CRLF and other imperiled species. The City should retain its own independent consultants to conduct surveys for CRLF, CTS, and other special status species on the Project site. 3 See USFWS, "Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander," (Oct. 2003), available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=83915. 4 Berkeley Daily Planet, "Consultant who lied about endangered frogs sentenced," available at http: / /www.berkeleydailyplanet. com/issue /2001 -02 -26 /article /3639. 3. 2--/-3y U. The REIR Fails To Adequately Analyze Or Mitigate The Impacts Of The Project On Biological Resources. A. habitat destruction is a leading cause of extinction. Species diversity is critical for healthy ecosystems, and ensuring habitat integrity if a key component to species survival. (Dobson 1997) Habitat destruct or alteration can increase incidents of wildfire and flooding as the ecosystem becomes imbalanced, making it more susceptible to these events. (Brooks 2004; Nilsson 2000) Developments that convert open space into another use, such as housing, industry, energy or agriculture, negatively impact the species that live in these areas, and the ecosystem as a whole. (Walston 2016; Chaplin- Kramer 2015; Minnich 1998) Many of these species are already imperiled or endangered, and further encroachment onto their habitat worsens the threat to their success and survival. While the entire habitat may not be converted or destroyed through development, it may be fragmented such that it becomes useless as a habitat for particular species. Even if the habitat remains intact, light and noise pollution can negatively impact the health and reproductive rates of species that are sensitive to these types of pollution. (Slabbekoorn 2008; Longoore 2004) Pollution in the form of pesticides and rodenticides are also a threat, in addition to run -off pollution from roads that impacts water quality and aquatic life and the species that depend on it. (Perez 2007; Miller 2006; Relyea 2005) Roads create habitat fragmentation since they act as dangerous physical barriers that many species won't cross, or are killed or injured if they do. (Poessel 2014; Ware 2015; Brock 2004; Swihart 1984) Additionally, roads facilitate the spread of non- native and invasive species, particularly plants and their seeds, which threaten the survival of species native to these areas. (Gelbard 2003) Fences create another type of habitat fragmentation by reducing mobility and prevent species from accessing all areas that they depend on for survival, or worse, they ensnare the animals that do try to cross them, resulting in injury or death. (Baines 2003; Paige 2008) For many species, climate change will mean the need for adaptation in the form of migration to new habitats that support their needs. Fragmentation or obstruction of this mobility will result in greater mortality. (Scheffers 2016) Urban inf11 projects reuse land that has already been disturbed and that is located near urban centers, thus removing the need for conversion of open space for housing, businesses, shopping, roads and other infrastructure. (Wheeler 2002) These projects are also good candidates for citing distributed solar, further reducing impacts to species and habitat. (Powers 2009) Wildlife corridors, bridges and underpasses can be constructed in places where roads bisect and disconnect habitat and mobility. (Servheen 2007) Fences should be used with an understanding of the impacts they have on species mobility, and should be constructed in such a way as to . specifically exclude the target species, not all species. Consideration should be given to the type of fencing and the ways in which species could become entangles, injured or killed. (Paige 2008) Connective corridors between fragmented habitats will enable species to utilize the habitat and retain needed mobility for survival. (South Coast Wildlands 2008) Alternatives to toxic and poisonous pesticides and herbicides should be used whenever possible to reduce harm to species and their habitats. (Litmans 2004) E �rl 3S B. The REIR fails to set forth adequate or enforceable mitigation measures to protect the CRLF. The REIR must include the full range of potentially significant impacts, as well as reasonably prudent avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the EIR to comply with California Environmental Quality Act's ( "CEQA ") information disclosure requirements. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code .§ 21000 et seq.) CEQA requires the City to "mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(b).) Mitigation of a project's significant impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990)222 Cal.App.3d 30,41 (1990).) Importantly, mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" so "that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development." (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) It is the "policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) Under CEQA, "[e]conomic unfeasibility is not measured by increased cost or lost profit, but upon whether the effect of the proposed mitigation is such that the project is rendered impractical." (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 (internal citation omitted).) Even where an EIR includes some actual discussion of economic infeasibility, it must still be sufficient "to allow informed decision - making." (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866, 884.) Here, the proposed mitigation measures are woefully inadequate to protect CRLF and other imperiled wildlife. In designating critical habitat for CRLF, USFWS expressed special concern about habitat connectivity for CRLF: The long-term probability of the survival and recovery of the California red - legged frog is dependent upon the protection of existing breeding habitat and associated uplands (Fellers and Kleeman 2005, pp. 1, 17 -18), the movement of individuals between aquatic habitat patches, and the ability to recolonize newly created or vacated habitats. Recolonization of vacant habitat patches, which is vital to maintaining the California red - legged frog populations and the recovery of this species, is dependent upon landscape characteristics, including appropriate distances between suitable breeding and non - breeding aquatic habitat, and limited fragmentation of interconnecting habitat. (75 Fed. Reg. 12,816, 12,818 (Mar. 17, 2010).) Unfortunately, the REIR does not; appear to adequately address the need to connect critical habitat onsite with other critical habitat. Similarly, the Project further includes,at least one stream crossings and alterations to Kelley Creek that will result in direct impacts to waters of the U.S., and the applicant plans to obtain permits from USACE and CDFW for these activities. (REIR 4.3 -60). Yet, there appears 5 —13� to be-no analysis of how these activities may affect CRLF and other imperiled wildlife and no explanation of how these effects will be minimized or mitigated. 1. The buffers proposed in the REIR are woefully inadequate to protect CRLF. The REIR's MM Bio -lb provides for only a 100 foot buffer from Kelly Creek. (REIR at 4.3 -40.) There is no scientific basis for such a meagre buffer, and studies demonstrate that far greater buffers are necessary to protect CRLF. In particular, CRLF frequently utilize upland habitat and can use habitat much further than 100 feet from an aquatic habitat; studies compiled in the Final Critical Habitat Designation for the CRLF found that the frog can disperse up to 1.7 miles with the majority of California red - legged frogs in one study dispersing within a 1,640 foot buffer. (75 FR 12816 at 12817 (March 17, 2010).) This information is lacking from the REIR and should have been used to inform the City's analysis of impacts on this species, as well as the adequacy of its mitigation measures. Given the CRLF's use of upland habitat outside of the planned setbacks, this threatened species is likely to be encountered during construction activities and thus the City must work with the USFWS to determine how to avoid "take" and to obtain an incident take permit, -in order to avoid violating federal law. 2. The CRLF mitigation measures are vague, deferred, and enforceable. The REIR purports to mitigate impacts on CRLF through MM BIO -1B and MM BIO -1C. After the City released an earlier version of the EIR in 2013, CDFW criticized the CRLF mitigation measures as improperly deferring mitigation: "the draft EIR currently defers development of such measures for CRLF to consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) after the Project has been approved. The draft EIR should determine and quantify what the impacts are to CRLF, and then present biological mitigation measures, such as avoidance, minimization and potential habitat mitigation, to conclude that the impacts have been mitigated to less - than- significant levels." (CDFW Letter at 4.) Unfortunately, the REIR suffers from the same defects as the Draft EIR released in 2013. MM -Bio 1 -9 is replete with qualifying language that renders most of the conditions meaningless or impermissibly vague. For instance, MM Bio -lb states, "Restrict residential development a minimum of 300 feet east of the stock pond to preserve adjacent'areas of grassland habitat, maintain as much of the existing outfall drainage from the stock pond where it continues downslope and connects to the Swale east of the pond as possible, and to.improve conditions for enhancing the realigned drainage without creating an excessive gradient along the alignment." (REIR at 4.3 -40.) Here, it appears that the phrase "as possible" either (a) modifies the phrase regarding maintenance of.existing outfall drainage or (b) the phrase regarding maintenance of existing outfall drainage and the previous phrase regarding the 300 foot. restriction. Under either reading, the REIR fails to provide any standard as'to how "possibility" will be determined. This language allows the project applicant to claim it is not . "possible" to limit development in these areas, and provides no benchmark for making such a determination. Similarly, the vague rel 2137 language about "improving conditions" provided they do not "create an excessive gradient" leaves the reader entirely in the dark as to what will be required, if anything, by the REIR. A few sentences later, MM Bio -lb promises to "[p]rovide for a larger undisturbed upland corridor between the stock pond and D Street tributary along the southern edge of the site." (REIR 4.3 -41.) But this measure does not provide any comparison or perspective as to how "larger" will be determined — in short, what will the undisturbed upland corridor be "larger" than? Without such detail, this sentence is practically meaningless. Next, MM Bio -IB promises that disturbance outside the Urban Separator shall be restricted "to the maximum extent feasible." (REIR 4.3 -41.) Again, this language gives the applicant the opportunity to engage in posthoc rationalizations about what constitutes the maximum extent "feasible" — and such rationalizations would occur long after public review of the Project. This type of vague and deferred " mitigatioon" is categorically prohibited by CEQA. The REIR needs to determine and clearly describe the scope of the area that will be avoided. MM Bio -1B then states, "Eliminating and relocating the two or three residential lots (Lots 59, 60, and potentially 61) at the southwestern end of E Street would serve to .maintain more of the existing topography and grassland habitat within the Urban Separator to the south of the proposed residential development." (REIR 4.3 -41.) This sentence is phrased as an observation; not a mandate. While it may or may not be true that eliminating "two or three" homes would maintain more habitat, this section does not state that the elimination of these homes actually will be a condition of the Project. MM Bio -1B also promises that "lot lines" would be "designed" to "funnel" CRLF across the site. (REIR 4.3 -41.) - MM Bio -lb fails to provide any detail as to what this design would entail or how it would ensure that CRLF are "funneled" across the site. Again, this vague, standardless, and unenforceable language has no place in a CEQA mitigation measure. MM Bio -lb continues with its vague promises by stating: "Control unauthorized access to the on -site stock pond and undeveloped open space in the southwestern portion of the project site to protect these essential habitat features for CRLF." (REIR 4.3 -41.) Lacking from the sentence is any indication who will be exercising this "control." Given that this sentence suggests an ongoing restriction on "unauthorized access," a funding and implementation plan must be set forth in the REIR. Here, the REIR does not even enlighten the leader as to which agency /entity /person will be in charge in exercising this "control." In addition, the REIR fails to specify how this "control" will be achieved; will "control" be achieved through fences? If so, will those fences properly accommodate for wildlife movement? None of these questions are answered in the REIR. MM Bio -1B next states it will "eliminate or relocate" certain portions of the - development, but only states this will require eliminating or relocating "one residential lot" and a possible adjustment to one other lot. (REIR at 4.3 -41.) The REIR fails to specify where these "relocated" lots will go. Will other areas of the Project site be impacted when these lots are "relocated "? The REIR needs to analyze and disclose the impacts of all mitigation measures. 7 I MM Bio -1B then states, "Design the proposed vehicle crossing of D Street tributary as an arched culvert or bridge structure, utilize a free -span bridge structure for the proposed multi -use trail crossings of D Street tributary and Kelly Creek, and minimize fill or modification to the existing channels to the minimum necessary to accommodate the crossings to preserve riparian habitat at these locations." (REIR 4.3 -41.) "Minimizing fill" to the "minimum necessary" to preserve riparian habitat is not an enforceable mitigation measure; this sentence represents little more than an exercise in verbal gymnastics. More importantly, this sentence does not state how the applicant or City will ensure that riparian habitat will be preserved, nor does it set forth any objective standard to determine whether adequate preservation has in fact occurred. A subsequent passage from MM Bio -1B contains similar language promising to "minimize" disturbance and "minimize removal of riparian habitat, and avoid creating ponded conditions that could attract predatory species such'as bullfrog and crayfish." (REIR at 4.3 -42.) Once again, the REM does not explain what standard will be used to achieve these "minimizations." And the REIR fails to describe what types of "conditions" may attract predatory species or how these "conditions" will be "avoided." This section also contains vague language promising to "ensure" that CRLF can move "along'channels," but does not describe how it will achieve that result. Id. 3. The REIR fails to acknowledge or mitigate the impacts of pesticides on the CRLF., It is well known that pesticides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides can have damaging effects on amphibians such as the red - legged frog. (See EPA (2013) Miller (2006); Litmans & Miller (2004).) For frogs, pesticides cause birth defects, brain defects, reproductive disorders, immune system dysfunction, cancer, and neurological disorders. ( Litmans & Miller (2004), at 10 -15.) Some pesticides may also-directly kill or paralyze CRLF individuals. (Id. at 22.) Although the REIR acknowledges that the homes onsite will generate pesticides and other types of pollution (REIR at 4.7 -16), the REIR does not analyze how such pesticides may impact the CRLF. III. The REIR Failed to Adequately Analyze or Mitigate The Project's Impacts To Aesthetics. The REIR concedes that the Project will alter views of the project site and that views of grassy slopes would be replaced with single family homes, (REIR at 4.1 -7.) In addition; "the wooded riparian corridor would be altered with the removal of trees." (RE)R at 4.1 -7.) Despite the REIR's conclusions to the contrary, the Project would have a significant impact on aesthetics. Figure 4.1 -5 demonstrates how views of green rolling hills and oak trees will be replaced with large homes. In addition, Option A would remove a scenic barn complex that is expressly considered a scenic resource by the City. (REIR at 4.1 -15.) The Project will also result in the destruction of approximately 120 trees, 88 of which qualify as protected trees under the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Id. Although the REIR claims that a "Tree Mitigation Plan" would result in planting 2 to 4 times as many trees as are lost (REIR at 4.1 -16), the Tree Mitigation Plan is absent from the REIR. The REIR also does not include any details describing the plan. The REIR does not -) ®13q describe where these trees will be planted or how the mere act of planting trees will offset*the visual impacts of destroying 120 trees. The REIR incorrectly concludes that impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant because the Project would allegedly comply with general plan policies. (See REIR at 4.1 -31.) However, mere compliance with existing policies does not necessarily render an impact less than significant. (See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dept. of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.AppAth 1, 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts).) The-REIR further claims impacts would not be significant because the Project would be "similar to adjacent residential subdivisions ...." (REIR at 4.1 -31.) However, just because there are other impacts to aesthetics arising from similar subdivisions does not render impacts from the Project less significant. Indeed, such similar subdivisions cumulatively contribute to greater visual impacts. IV. The REIR Does Not Adequately Analyze The Project's Impacts On Air Quality. Air quality is a significant environmental and public health concern as unhealthy, polluted air contributes to, and exacerbates, many diseases and mortality rates. In the U.S., government estimates indicate that between 10 -12 percent of total health costs can be attributed to air pollution. (VCAQR 2003) Many plants and trees, including agricultural crops, are injured by air pollutants. This damage ranges from decreases in productivity, a weakened ability to. survive drought and pests, to direct mortality. (VCAQR) Wildlife is also impacted by air pollution as the plants and trees that comprise their habitats are weakened or killed. Aquatic species and habitats are impacted by air pollution through the formation of acid rain that raises the pH level in oceans, rivers and lakes. (EPA 2016) Greenhouse gases, such as.the air pollutant carbon dioxide which is released by fossil fuel combustion, contribute directly to human- induced climate change. (EPA 2016) In this feedback loop, poor air quality that contributed to climate change will in turn worsen the impacts of climate change and attendant air pollution problems. (BAAQMD 2016.) Some of the nation's most polluted counties are in California. (ALA 2016) Air pollution and its impacts are felt most heavily by young children, the elderly, pregnant women and people with existing heart and lung disease. People living in poverty are also more susceptible to air - pollution as they are less able to-relocate to less polluted areas, and their homes and places of work are more likely to be located near sources of pollution, such as freeways or ports, as these areas are more affordable. (BAAQMD 2016; ALA 2016) Pollution sources include transportation, industry and manufacturing, construction, the importation and movement of goods; and energy development. Transportation presents one of the most significant sources of pollution in urban areas, where large segments of the population are constantly exposed to roads and traffic. (BAAQMD 2016; Newman) Although there are many different types of air pollution, Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter and Toxic Air Contaminants are of greatest concern in urban areas. These three air pollutants have been linked to an increased incidence and risk of cancer, birth defects, low birth weights and premature death, in addition to a variety of cardiac and lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, stroke and heart attack. (Laurent 2016; ALA 2016) Ozone, also commonly referred to as smog, is created by the atmospheric mixing of gases resulting from fossil fuel combustion and other volatile organic compounds, and sunlight. Although it is invisible, ozone poses one of the we 2 °//(0 greatest health risks, prompting the EPA to strengthen its National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in 2015. (ALA 2016) Fine Particulate Matter is generally found in urban areas as a result of vehicle exhaust emissions, and these microscopic particles are what contribute to visible air pollution. These tiny participles are dangerous because they are small enough to escape the body's natural defenses and enter the blood stream. Fugitive dust is a term used for fine particulate matter that results from disturbance by human activity such as construction and road - building operations. (VCAQR 2003) Fine Particulate Matter can also result from ash caused by forest fires, which will continue to impact those living in the urban- wildland interface and increasingly beyond as climate change exacerbates the risk of forest fires. (BAAQMD 2016) Toxic Air Contaminants are released from vehicle fuels, especially diesel, which accounts-for over 50% of the cancer risk from TACs. (BAAQMB 2016) Urban infill is an effective plan for reducing the air pollution and greenhouse gas emission resulting from heavy reliance on vehicles. Centrally locating housing, shopping and places of employment reduces vehicle miles traveled and new road construction. With fewer roads and less traffic, it will be less likely that housing will be located near busy, polluting roads, which is a large source of exposure. (BAAQMD 2016) Infill planning also allows for realistic promotion of alternative transportation such as walking or biking. Public transportation options should be converted or retrofitted to clean fleets. A life -cycle assessment of the entire project should be conducted to inspect the totality of the resultant air pollution, from manufacturing of the materials to their transport to the site, and beyond. (BAAQMD 2016; Ghattas 2013) Despite the serious impacts of air pollution, the REIR does not adequately analyze or disclose the impacts of the Project. For instance, the REIR states that a community health risk assessment was conducted because the Project will result in construction within 50 feet of existing residents. (REIR at 4.2 -26.) Yet, this health risk assessment does not appear in the REIR or the appendices. As such, the REIR does not provide adequate detail on the impacts, of the Project on other people. Similarly, the 'REIR reports that the Project's construction activities will exceed the lifetime excess cancer risk for infants by over 330 percent.' (REIR at 4.2 -29.) The REIR claims that MM AIR -3b — which requires compliance with U.S. EPA Tier 3 emissions standards — would reduce the lifetime excess cancer risk from 33.1 per million to 9.1 per million. (RE1R at 4.2 -31.) However, the REIR is devoid of any analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. A. The REIR fails to include all feasible measures to mitigate the significant air quality impacts of the Project. The REIR concedes that the Project will have potentially significant air quality impacts, particularly with regards to fugitive dust. (See REIR at 4.2 -21.) In light of such air quality impacts, "the EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures that will minimize the significant environmental effects that the EIR has identified." (Napa Citizens for Honest Oov't v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 342, 360.) CEQA requires that agencies "mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(b).) Mitigation of a project's significant impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. 10 Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41.) Only when the mitigation measures are "truly infeasible" can the lead agency reject mitigation. measures for significant impacts. (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 369.) Despite acknowledging that the Project will result in significant air quality impacts, the Project includes only two air quality mitigation measure — MM AIR -1 and MM AIR -3 (MM AIR -2 is the same as MM AIR -1). (REIR 4.3 -32.) These measures appear to only require compliance with existing laws and regulations regarding fugitive dust such that they amount to nothing more than the REIR claiming that construction activities will comply with a law. (See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dept. of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.AppAth 1, 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts).) Nonetheless, the REIR claims without reference to any facts or analysis that this limited mitigation measure will reduce air quality impacts from construction to less than significance levels. (REIR at 2.0 -9.) The REIR further is inadequate because it does not include even an.analysis of available mitigation measures for reducing air quality impacts, such as those provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association and California Office of the Attorney General to reduce GHG emissions, which also facilitate the reduction of criteri�L'pollutants. (Attorney General 2010; CAPCOA 2008). Those mitigation measures, as well as others, should be analyzed as a means to reduce the significant air quality impacts and fully adopted if feasible. V: The REIR Fails To Adequately Assess The Project's Cumulative Impacts. CEQA defines "cumulative impacts" as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355.) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project "when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) And while an agency is not expected to foresee the unforeseeable, it is expected to use its "best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." (CEQA Guidelines § 15144; see also City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.AppAth at 96; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 428.) The purpose of analyzing cumulative environmental impacts'is to assess adverse environmental change "as a whole greater than the sum of its parts." (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625.) Absent meaningful cumulative analysis there would be no control of development and "piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the [] environment." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) Unfortunately, the REIR does not adequately analyze such cumulative impacts. Instead, the REIR merely recites a list of nearby projects but contains no analysis of these projects. (REIR at Table 4.0 -1.) If the City lacked the information to conduct such an analysis, it should have at least attempted to obtain such information. I1 g- (1-(2- Finally, the REIR does not properly "define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic area." (See Guidelines § 15130(b)(3)). While the REIR contains a table of projects (Table 4.0 -1), neither the table nor other portions of the REIR materials do not define or justify a specific geographic area for the cumulative impacts analysis. VI. The REIR Fails to Adequately Address its GHG Emissions Action to address climate change becomes ever more urgent with each. passing day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( "NOAA ") and National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( "NASA ") confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. (NASA 2015.) Climate change will affect California's climate, resulting in such impacts as increased temperatures and wildfires, and a reduction in snowpack and precipitation levels and water availability. Although some sources of GHG emissions may seem insignificant, climate change is a problem with cumulative impacts and effects. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic SafetyAdmin., (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 ( "the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis" that agencies must conduct).) One source or one small project may not appear to have a significant effect -on climate change, but the combined impacts of many sources can drastically damage California's climate as a whole. Therefore, it is the "policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) We urge the City to revise the REIR and take all possible steps to limit and mitigate the Project's GHG emissions. A. The Project Should Incorporate On -Site Renewable Energy Measures to Reduce its GAG Emissions Climate change and the finite nature of fossil fuel energy sources require the increased development of renewable sources bf energy, such as solar and wind. (Cameron 2012) However, these developments, especially when done on a large scale, can have negative impacts on local species and their habitats. (Subramanian 2012; Lovich 2011) Renewable energy development projects need to ensure that the solution to environmental harm doesn't become part of the problem. (Cameron 2012; Walston 2016) Distributed solar, as opposed to utility scale, is one way to avoid energy developments that convert prime habitat into unusable areas for species. (McDonald 2009) When solar becomes part of already existing infrastructure and development, its footprint and impact is reduced. (Elkind 2009) The generation and consumption of electricity pose many negative impacts to human and environmental health. Therefore, it is necessary to both reduce consumption through conservation and efficiency, and also transition to less damaging forms of generation. Electricity generation accounts for 20% of California's greenhouse gas emissions. (CARB 2016) Without energy efficiency measures, California's combined electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.41 percent from 2010 -2020, while efficiency measures could reduce that to a projected .91 12 2 /�3 percent. (CEC 2011) Electricity generated from fossil fuels contributed to air pollution from carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter, and water pollution from direct spills or impacts to groundwater through drilling, mining and injection activities. (Heberger 2015) The generation of electricity is highly water intensive, which is problematic in persistent drought conditions.. (Larson 2007) In order to reduce the negative impacts to water supplies, water and energy utilities should work together to design more efficient systems for both resources. (Tarroja 2016) Wildlife and their habitats are impacted by electricity generation and transmission. (Cameron 2012) The land -use footprint of energy production is significant and will continue to grow with population unless conservation and distributed generation siting measures are put in place. (Trainor 2016) The concept of energy efficiency as a resource has the potential to decrease energy production requirements and associated costs and negative impacts. Energy efficiency reduces the need for resource consumption and is thereby in itself a consumable resource with positive impacts rather than negative. (Hopper 2009) Shifting from non - renewable fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,. air and water pollution, and impacts to wildlife and habitat provided these renewable sources are sited appropriately in the vicinity of the demand they serve. (McDonald 2009; Hernandez 2015) As mentioned above, distributed solar, often referred to as rooftop or on -site solar, is a good example of appropriately .sited renewable energy that maximizes system and cost efficiency and protects open space, wildlife and habitat. (Elkind 2009; Powers 2009.) Rooftop solar power is the most energy efficient, least - environmentally damaging form of renewable energy available for the Project and is ideal for the Project's location. Nonetheless, the Project does not require any rooftop solar to be used on -site. This is a significant missed opportunity to reduce the Project's environmental impacts. The Center urges that on -site renewable energy be used to meet a significant portion of the Project's energy use and be incorporated as mandatory parts of the Project's design. B. There are Many Additional Measures the Project Can and Should Adopts to Reduce its GHG Emissions The REIR can and should take a far more aggressive approach to reducing GHGs arising from the Project. Measures to reduce_vehicle miles traveled, energy use, waste, water consumption as well as use of solar power could lower the Project's impact on climate change (as well as air pollution and water use). CAPCOA has identified existing and potential mitigation measures that could be applied to projects during the CEQA process to reduce a project's GHG emissions. (CAPCOA 2008). The California Office of the Attorney General also has developed a list of reductionmechanisms to be incorporated through the CEQA process. (CAPCOA 2008 at Table 16.) These resources provide a rich and varied array of measures to be incorporated into the Project. Potential measures include ease of access to public transit, alternative construction materials, and onsite energy generation. In general, the REIR should also require measures that will ensure the Project will use energy efficiently and conservatively. In doing so, it should analyze incorporating "green building" in the development. Green buildings -are those buildings that lower energy consumption, use renewable energy, conserve water, harness natural light and ventilation, use 13 ,2_ — f I/ 4f environmentally friendly materials and minimize waste. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Specific measures for the GHG emissions generated by the Project.'s energy consumption include, but are not limited to: • Requiring that the Applicant seek and obtain the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED or comparable standards for energy- and resource efficient building during pre - design, design, construction, operations and management; • Designing buildings for passive heating and cooling, and natural light, including building orientation, proper orientation and placement of windows, overhangs, skylights, etc.; • Designing buildings for maximum energy efficiency including the maximum possible insulation, use of compact florescent or other low - energy lighting, use of energy efficient appliances, etc.; • Reducing the use of pavement and impermeable surfaces; • Requiring water re -use systems; • Installing light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting • Limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting; • Maximizing water conservation measures in buildings and landscaping, using drought tolerant plants in lieu of turf, planting shade trees; • Ensure that the Project is fully served by full recycling and composting services; • Ensure that the Project's wastewater and solid waste will be treated in facilities where GHG emissions are minimized and captured; • Installing the maximum possible photovoltaic array on the building roofs and/or on the project site to generate all of the electricity required by the Project, and utilizing wind energy to the extent necessary and feasible; • Installing solar water heating systems to generate all of the Project's hot water requirements; • Installing solar or wind powered electric vehicle and plug -in hybrid vehicle charging stations to reduce emissions from vehicle trips; The Project should further utilize the following measures related to construction: • Utilize recycled, low- carbon, and otherwise climate - friendly building materials such as salvaged and recycled- content materials for building, hard surfaces, and non -plant landscaping materials; • Minimize, reuse, and recycle construction- related waste; • Minimize grading, earth - moving, and other energy - intensive construction practices; • Landscape to preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity; • Utilize alternative fuels in construction equipment and require construction equipment to utilize the best available technology to reduce emissions. New construction, like this Project, has a unique opportunity to fully embrace and incorporate the use of renewable energy in its design, construction and operation. We urge the City to take full advantage of those opportunities, if it chooses to move forward with the Project. 14 —N S_ VI. Conclusion Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of 'CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the "administrative record." As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes "pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency's compliance with CEQA ...." (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.AppAth 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and-text messages sent to or received by the City's representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City's representatives or employees and the Applicant's representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia' the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is-made. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Project. We look forward to. working to assure that the Project and environmental review conforms to the requirements of state law and to assure that all significant impacts to. the environment are fully analyzed, mitigated or avoided. In light of many significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that will result from the Project, we strongly urge the Project not be approved in its current form. We look forward to reviewing the City's responses to these comments in the Final EIR for this Project once it has been completed. Sincerely, AA-A, Aruna Prabhala J.P. Rose Attorneys for the Center for Biological Diversity PMB 447, 8033 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90046 -2401 Ph: (408) 497 -7675 irose ,biologicaldiversityg. 15 IQ ®/ 4 _/4P References (Attached on CD) American Lung Association (ALA), State of the Air 2016.. -Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Planning Healthy Places: a guidebook for addressing local sources of air pollutants in community planning (2016). Baines, D. and M. Andrew, Marking of deer fences to reduce frequency of collisions by woodland grouse, Biological Conservation 110, 169 -176 (2003). Brock, R. E. and D. A. Kelt, Influence of roads on the endangered Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi): are dirt and gravel roads different?, Biological Conservation 118, 633- 640 (2004). Brooks, M. L. et al., Effects of-Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes, BioScience 54:5, 677 -688 (2004). CAPCOA. 2008. California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association. CEQ,4 & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Greenbuilding in North America: Opportunities and Challenges (2008). California Office of the Attorney General 2008, The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming at the Local Agency Level, Mitigation Measures. California Energy Commission, Preliminary California Energy Demand Forecast 2012 -2022, CEC (2011). Cameron, D.R., Brian S. Cohen and Scott A. Morrison, An approach to enhance the conservation - compatibility of solar energy development, PLoS One 7:6 (2012). CPUC, California long term energy efficiency strategic plan: Achieving maximum energy savings in California for 2009 and beyond (2008). Chaplin - Kramer, R. et al., Spatial patterns of agricultural expansion determine impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage; PNAS 112:24, 7402 -7407 (2015). Dobson, A. P., A.D. Bradshaw and A.J.M. Baker, Hopes for the Future: Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology, Science 277, 515 -522 (1997) Elkind, E., In Our Backyard: How to increase renewable energy production on big buildings and other local spaces, Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law (2009). EPA, What isAcidRain? Webpage https: / /www.epa.goy /acidrain /what -acid -rain (last updated 3/31/2016). 16 1�_- //-(I EPA, Causes of Climate Change, Webpage hops: / /www.epa.gov /climate - change - science /causes- climate- change (last update 10/11/2016). Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap, Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape, Conservation Biology 17:2, 420 -432 (2003). Ghattas, R. et al., Life Cycle Assessment for Residential Buildings: a literature review and gap analysis, Concrete Sustainability Hub, MIT (2013). Heberger, M. and Kristina Donnelly, Oil, food and water: Challenges and opportunities for' California agriculture, Pacific Institute (2015). Hopper, N. et al., Energy efficiency as a preferred resource: evidence from utility resource plans in the Western US and Canada, Energy Efficiency 2:1 -16 (2009). Laurent, O. et al., Low birth weight and air pollution in California: which sources and components drive the risk ?, Environment International 92- 93:471 -477 (2016). Larson, D. et al., California's energy -water nexus: water use in electricity generation, Southwest Hydrology (Sept. /Oct. 2007). Los Angeles Dept. of City Planning, Opportunities for Conservation in Residential Development, Housing Element 2013 -2021 (2013). Litmans, B. and J. Miller, Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered Species, Center for Biological Diversity (2004). Longcore, T. and Catherine Rich, Ecological Light Pollution, Front. Ecol. Environs 2(4): 191- 198 (2004). Lovich, J. E. and J. R. Ennen, Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States, BioScience 61:12, 982 -992 (2011). McDonald, R. I. et al., Energy Sprawl or energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitatfor the United States ofAmerica, PLoS One 4:8 (2009). Miller, J., Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife, a Center for Biological Diversity Report (2006). Minnich, R. A. and R. J. Dezzani, Historical declined of coastal sage scrub in the Riverside - Perris Plain, California, Western Birds 29, 3 66-3 91 (1998). Newman, P., Inland Ports of Southern California —warehouses, distribution centers, intermodal facilities, costs and trends, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Regional Air Quality Task Force (RAQTF), Good neighbor guidelines for siting new and /or modified warehouse /distribution facilities (2005). 17 .?_ — q� Nilsson, C. and K. Berggren, Alterations of Riparian Ecosystems Caused by River Regulation: Dam operations have caused global -scale ecological changes in riparian ecosystems, BioScience 50 :9 783 -792 (2000). Paige, C., A Landowner's Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences, Landowner /Wildlife Resource Program, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena MT (2008). Perez, G. L. et al., Effects of the Herbicide Roundup on Freshwater Microbial Communities: A Mesocosm Study, Ecological Applications 17:8, 2310 -2322 (2007). Poessel, S. A. et al., Roads influence movement and home ranges of a fragmentation- sensitive carnivore, the bobcat, in an urban landscape, Biological Conservation 180, 224 -232 (2014). Powers, B., CEC cancels gas fed peaker, suggesting rooftop photovoltaic equally cost - effective, Natural Gas & Electricity 8 -13 (2009). Peterson, K., Paul Torcellini and Roger Grant, A Common Definition for Zero Energy Buildings, U.S. Dept. of Energy and The National Institute of Building Sciences (2015). Relyea, R. A., The Lethal Impacts of Roundup on Aquatic and Terrestrial Amphibians, Ecological Applications, 15:4, 1118 -1124 (2005). Scheffers, B. R. et al., The Broad Footprint of Climate Change from Genes to Biomes to People, Science 354:6313 (2016). Servheen, C., Rebecca Shoemaker. and Pat Basting, Measuring the Success of Wildlife Linkage Efforts, Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, eds. C. Leroy Irwin, Debra Nelson, and K.P. McDermott, Raleigh, NC, 409 — 421 (2007). Slabbekoorn, H. and Erwin A. P. R.ipmeester, Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation, Molecular Ecology 1:72 -83 (2008). South Coast Wildlands, South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network-for the South Coast Ecoregion (2008). Subramanian, M., An Ill Wind, Nature 486, 310 -311 (2012). Swihart, R. K. and N. A. Slade, Road crossing in Sigmodon Hispidus and Microtus Ochrogaster, Journal of Mammalogy 65:2,357-360 (1984). Tarroja, B. et al., Capturing the benefits of integrated resource management for water and electricity utilities and the partners, U.S. Dept. of Energy and UC Irvine (2016). Walston, L. J. et al., A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility -scale solar energy facilities in the United States, Renewable Energy 92, 405 -414 (2016). Ware, H. E. et al., A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation, PNAS 112:39, 12105 -12109 (2015). 18 �? --/L-iq Wheeler, S., Smart Infill: Creating more livable communities in the Bay Area, A guide for Bay Area Leaders, Greenbelt Alliance (2002). 19 From: Petalumans for Responsible Planning [PetRP @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 3:41 PM To: councilman.albertson gmaiLcom; teresa4 etaluma comcast,net; davekina cc (@gmail.com; mthealyCa)sbcglobal.net; council memberkea rneyO me. com; kathleencmillerofFice Ca?gmail.com Cc: Giudice, Alicia Subject: CA Fish & Wildlife Letter April 2013 - Davidon Development Dear Council Members, The attached letter from CA Fish & Wildlife April 2013 was acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. The reference section of the 2017 Davidon DEIR in Biological Resources 4.3, p. 4.3 -79- 81 does not mention the letter as a reference. Susan Jaderstrom Petalumans for Responsible Planning PetRP[>Comcast.net � - is� State of California — The Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G SROWN JR., Govemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM DJrocfor '= Bay Delta Region 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 (707) 944 -5500 Xw.wildlife.ca.cloy April 15, 2013 vtz APR 5 2013 Ms. Alicia Giudice P ANIVIA14", ; ff I; 'n y City Petaluma -- - i f b Community Deveiopment Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Ms. Giudice: Subject: Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2004072137, City of -Petaluma-, Sonoma County The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project (Project) in the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County. The draft EIR was received at our office February 15, 2013. The Project includes subdivision and rezoning of two parcels on each side of Windsor Drive at the intersection of D Street in the City of Petaluma. The' Project site totals approximately 58.7 acres. The Project would create 93 single - family homes on approximately 35 acres. The remaining 23 acres would become open space, including: an approximately 20 -acre public open space to the north and south of Kelly Creek; an approximately 100 -foot wide public open space area along the southern project boundary; an approximately 300 -foot wide open space area at the southwest portion of the site; and an approximately 2.35 -*acre private open space around the stock pond. Within the Kelly Creek open space, an approximately 200-foot wide corridor would include a meandering public pedestrian /bike path that would connect to Helen Putnam Regional Park. The Department is- identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) § 15386. As a trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species pursuantto California Fish and Came Code § 1802. in this capacity, the Department administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act, the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the State's fish and wildlife trust resources. Pursuant to our jurisdiction, the Department has the following concerns, comments, and recommendations regarding the Project. Conserving Ca(fomia's Wirdffe Since 1870 P ®!s-2- Giudice, Alicia Ms. Giudice, Please see the attached letter. Original to follow. Thank you, (Xeanna Tatin Habitat Conservation Secreteary Bay Delta Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7329 silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 Phone; (707) 944 -5566 9-15-3 Ms. Alicia Giudice April 15, 2013 Page 2 Habitat Assessment A Biological Resources report (Report) by Zander Associates, dated August 25, 2003 (draft EIR: Appendix I,) was initially prepared for the draft EIR. The Report presents the results of special- status plant and wildlife surveys conducted within the proposed Project area during 2003, As more than a decade has passed since the Report was prepared, the Department recommends that the draft EiR be revised to provide an updated habitat assessment and survey results for special- status plant and wildlife species located within the proposed Project area and surrounding iarids. Since no detail into the scope and depth of data collected during additional reconnaissance -level surveys performed since 2003 is given in the draft El R, the Department does .not consider the additional surveys, to be sufficient to accurately assess project .-Impacts in the draft EIR. Botanical surveys should be conducted throughout the blooming period for all sensitive plant species potentially occurring within the proposed Project area. Please refer to Department protocols•for surveying-and- evaluating impacts- to rare-plants available at h ttp: / /Www.dfa,ea.gov /habcon /olant/. The assessment should include endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. Rare; threatened'and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (see CEQA Guidelines, section 15380). The potential for sensitive plant species, including those listed by the California Native Plant Society should be evaluated, -Prior to- the-assessment,--a scoping process using- information, gathered since, 2003 °should -_-. occur and include various methods of assessing suitability of habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species, including aerial imagery, historical and recent survey data, field reconnaissance, scientific literature and reports, as well as "positive occurrence" databases such as California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDS). Tha CNDDB contains onty records of species and natural communities which have been observed and documented. Absence of data in such sources does not confirm that the species is absent from the proposed Project area. Sources used in the assessment-should be predictive in nature, and discuss occurrence based on habitat type and geographic area. Special- Status Species: American Badger and Burrowing Owl The American badger (Taxidea faxus; hereafter badger) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, - hereafter burrowing owl), are both listed• by the State of California to be a Species of Special Concern, defined as a species with declining population levels, limited ranges, and /or continuing threats which make them vulnerable to extinction ( http: Lwww. dfg. ca .gov /wildlifelnonaame /ssclindex html). Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the greatest threats to badgers and burrowing owls in California. The State's long history of urbanization in coastal counties has already resulted in either extirpation or drastic reduction in badger.and burrowing owl populations in Sonoma County, Further, loss of agricultural and other open lands (such as grazed landscapes) also negatively affect badger and burrowing owl populations. Because of their need for open habitat with low vegetation, badger and burrowing owls are unlikely to persist in agricultural lands dominated by vineyards and orchards or urbanized lands. �_15-y Ms. Alicia Giudice April 15, 2013' Page 3 Subsequent to the biological surveys conducted for the draft EIR in 2043, Department staff have observed and documented occurrences of the badger within two miles of the Project site along the City of Petaluma's western edge in habitat very similar to that which occurs on the Project site, Also, fossorial mammal burrows, including badger, are important habitat to burrowing owl, especially in southern Sonoma County, where the Department has noted a high correlation between badger burrows and the presence of burrowing owl. The badgeris a grassland specialist with °a large home rangd. -They area m adium- sized_...._.._ ... . carnivore with a distinctively flattened body shape due to its broad shoulders and short legs. Badgers are uniquely adapted to maintaining an underground lifestyle. The chance of observing the badger's distinctive burrow is far more likely than sighting the animal itself. Badger burrow entrances are typically slightly wider than they are tall, and measure an average of 20 to 25 centimeters across. There is usually a large mound of soil tailings in front of the-entrance. Burrows are often found amongst other badger digs (hunting holes) of varying depths, but - occasionally are found alone: The burrowing owl is a small, long - legged, ground - dwelling bird species, well- adapted to open, relatively flat expanses. In California, preferred'habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography and well - drained soils. Grassland, shrub steppe, and desert are naturally occurring habitat types used by the species. In addition, burrowing owls may occur in some agricultural areas, ruderai grassy _..._......._ .._....fields; vacant °lots- and - pastures . -ifithe- vegetatiomstructure is-suitable- and - there - are- useab lem__...._._.._.._....._...__. burrows and foraging habitat In proximity. Unique among American raptors, the burrowing owl requires underground burrows or other cavities for nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year- round. Burrows used by the owls are usually dug.by other species. in California, California ground squirrel and round- tailed ground squirrel burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls but they may use dens or holes dug by other fossorial species including badger, coyote, and fox: Burrowing owls have been documented in Sonoma County using artificial burrows for nesting and cover. The Department recommends that systematic surveys for badger, burrowing owl and fossorial mammal burrows, which may indicate the presence of potential habitat for these species, be conducted on the Project site and the draft EIR be updated with the survey results. in order to accurately.assess. impacts to these species. Burrowing owl surveys should follow the methodology described in the Department's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation Appendix D: Breeding and Non - breeding Season Surveys (available at http://dfq.ca.gov/wildiife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pd , The Department recommends that a minimum of four survey visits be conducted during the owl breeding season which is typically between February 1 and August 31. A minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, should be conducted during the peak nesting period which is between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15. Pre - construction surveys should be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction work with a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. s_ Ms. Alicia Giudice April 15, 2013 Page 4 If.burrowin.g owls are observed within the Project area during surveys, the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site should be delineated 'by a qualified ornithologist. Any impacts to burrowing owls and occupied burrows during the breeding season must be avoided. The Department recommends that any burrows occupied during the non - breeding season by migratory or non - migratory resident burrowing owls also be avoided. Special-Status Species: Mitigation Measure 1310 -1b and BIO -1c Within Project Impacts and Mitigation 'i eiasures, the draft*EIR discusses California red - legged frog (CRLF) mitigation in Mitigation Measure SIC? -1b, on page 4,4-28: "The proposed project shall be substantially revised to provide additional avoidance of essential habitat for CRLF around the stock pond, and improve opportunities for movement and dispersal between the pond and Kelly Creek, Helen Putman Regional Park and the main tributary drainage along D Street. These project revisions are required to provide minimum habitat avoidance of essential habitat for CRLF necessary to mitigate potential impacts under CEQA. Additional mitigation would be more fully defined as part of the CRLF Mitigation Plan called for below in Mitigation Measure 810 -9c, which would serve to prevent inadvertent take of individual CRLF and reline mitigation details of habitat replacement and enhancement as part of permit authorization from the USFWS and CDFG." CEQA *Guidelines- [Section 15126.4,(a)(1)(B)] stipulate that it is not appropriate to'defer feasible mitigation measures to a future date. Also, the Court of Appeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645 struck down mitigation measures that required formulating management plans developed in consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies after project approval. - As stated above, the draft EIR currently defers development of such measures for CRLF to consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) after the Project has been approved. The draft EIR should determine and quantify what the impacts are to CRLF, and then present biological mitigation measures, such as avoidance, minimization and potential habitat mitigation, to conclude that the impacts have been mitigated to less- than - significant levels.. Without review of the "California Red - Legged Frog Mitigation Plan" proposed in Mitigation Measuie BIO -1c, it is unknown whether or not mitigation measures for CRLF are sufficient to mitigate the Project impacts to less- than - significant. The Mitigation Plan should address both permanent and temporary site Impacts. It should also clearly outline feasible mitigation. The Department is concerned that mitigating for the.proposed alterative at a 3:1 off -site mitigation ratio would result in needing over 100 acres'of suitable CRLF habitat. It is unclear if this quantity of habitat exists nearby or is available for purchase. The CRLF Mitigation Plan may also require activities that in and of themselves have 'impacts that must be analyzed within the draft EIR. For example, creation or enhancement of a CRLF 5-6 Ms. Alicia Giudice April 15, 2013 Page 5 breeding pond may convert emergent wetland habitat to open water habitat or vice versa; in which case, impacts to species that use these habitats should be addressed in the draft EiR. A CRLF Mitigation Plan may also require an Invasive Species Management Plan which would impact additional species not analyzed in the draft EIR. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The Department concurs with the draft EiR's finding, which was made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), that Alternative D (28 Single- Family Lots) would be the environmentally superior alternative among the proposed project alternatives. This alternative proposes the fewest homes and no development to the south of Kelly Creek, which would minimize impacts to CRLF and other species. Alternative 6 (47 Single - Family Lots) also minimizes impacts to CRLF and species occurring south of Kelly Creek. In' early 2009; the "Project proponent coordinated with the Department and the USFWS on developing the site plan identified as Alternative B (66 Single - Family Lots). While this site plan has greater permanent and temporary biological impacts than either Alternatives C or D, it does protect the CRLF breeding pond, maintains an uninterrupted overland connection to Kelly Creek, and provides additional upland dispersal habitat towards Helen Putnam Regional Park. if a thorough CRLF Mitigation. Plan is developed, as noted above under Mitigation Measure 610 -1c, Alternative B may maintain the integrity of the CRLF population on the site However, as rioted in previous sections of this letter, 11116 CRLF Mitigation Plan should be developed and reviewed within the context of the draft "EIR in order to fully understand the Projects mitigation requirements as they relate to "each project alternative. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) is needed pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. for the proposed Project- related activities within Kelly Creek, and any other 1600 - jurisdictional waters within the proposed Project area. Notification is required for any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural change the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resource o s, use material from the stream /channel bed, "or substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. Issuance of an LSAA is subject to CEQA. The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the Project. The Department may not execute the Final LSAA until it has complied with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 et, seq.) as the Responsible Agency, The Department considers riparian /wetland habitat as a sensitive plant community that is valuable for a diversity of wildlife species. Riparian zones maintain shade, protect against windthrow, produce litterfall, provide important migratory routes for wildlife, and serve to recruit instream woody debris which provides habitats, food and shelter for invertebrates and fish. Riparian vegetation also acts as a filter strip for sedimentation from erosion sources. Any tree, shrub or wetland removed with the bed, bank, or channel of a stream is therefore considered a permanent impact, and should be adequately mitigated. ,)—/51 Ms. Alicia Giudice April 15', 2013 Page 6 The draft EIR should include a more detailed description of the physical and hydrologic characteristics of the streams, wetlands and riparian habitat to be affected by the proposed Project. All potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project activities on stream /wetland hydrology should be fully identified. Impacts to the stream and riparian area resulting from the construction of public areas, fencing, pedestrian paths and bridges should be analyzed. Adequate and effective avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments should be provided for completion of the LSAA. Any impacts to the bed and banks- -of the stre-ams,from, falling trees 'and' cti5er'Project activitte�'sh'ould be described: Banks of streams affected by Project activities should be revegetated with native plant species. A detailed Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be Included in the LSAA notification package. To obtain information about the LSAA notification process, please access our website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600 ; or to request a notification package, contact the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (707) 944 -5520. The Department appreciates the.opportunity-to ..comment.on the Project. Department staff is available to meet with you to further clarify our comments and provide technical assistance on any changes necessary to protect resources. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Adam McKannay, Environmental Scientist, at (747) 944 -5534; or Ms. Karen Weiss, Senior Environmental Scientist, at (707) 944 -5525. Sincerely, ✓`�u�f s� Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Region cc: State Clearinghouse V?- 151 BALI ►RMMT1 Water Boards San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Sent via electronic mail: No hard copy to follow. Alicia Guldice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma Community Development Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 -2610 Email: aguidiceft.petaluma.ca.us r.. EOWU.d a, BROWN JR. OQMNPA MA-rn�ew Renmouee i[LRETAM ICM 1MYIAOMMa11A4 PnMrpgaX March 29, 2013 CIWQS Place ID 792712 *�I Vt APIA 1 5 1.01,3 %t�11 Subject: Comment o.1 Draft Environn, ental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Davidon Homes Tentativre Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, SCH No. 2004072137 Dear Ms. Guidice San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board staff (Regional Water Board) have reviewed the DEiR for the proposed Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project (Project) located southwest of the intersection of Windsor Drive and D Street in the City of Petaluma. The Project involves the following major components: grading to construct 93 single family lots; constructing housing related infrastructure and a pedestrian bridge over Kelly Creek (Creek). The Creek bisects the Project site with one main tributary and two smaller drainage.gullies flowing to it (total of 826 linear feet). There is an additional drainage that drains to the stock pond that is located south of the Creek. There are also a total of 11 seasonal wetlands (approximately 0.24 acres) scattered on the southern portion of the Project site. Based on the information provided in the DEIR, we offer the following comments. These comments are to advise the City of Petaluma Planning Department and the Project sponsor of our regulatory requirements and concems, so they may be incorporated into the planning and design process at an early date. Any calculations noted in this letter are the best estimates that could be calculated based on the submitted materials. Alternatives Analysis The DEIR proposes four alternatives. Alternative B would involve the construction of 66 single family lots, which meets the City of Petaluma's housing density requirements and reduces impacts to waters of the State, Of the four alternatives evaluated, Alternative B appears to be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative because it avoids the following: 9 of the 11 wetlands, three of the four drainages, and 3t of the length of the fourth drainage (which is the main tributary). Alternative B would result in filling 0.014 acres of Wetlands and 206 linear feet of the main tributary. In contrast the JOHN MVLLE'R, CHAIR BRUCE H. WOLre, EXECVnve OFFICER 1515 CfAy $1., BuHa 1ACC, OAklmd. CA Nd612 ( www.waterbo0rde.ao _ govl a trgnciscobay �� REOYOLrO PAPER Alicia Giudice City of Petaluma Community Development Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Subject: Davidor/Scott Ranch General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Map Project SCH #: 2004072137 Dear Alicia Giudice: 'The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR. to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinahouse has listed the state agencies that reviewedyouur document. The review period closed on May 1,2017, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package. is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse.number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the.agency. Those. comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter ack- nowledges that,you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements ,for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, fF tt Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources. Agency 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445 -0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wH ,",.opr.ca.gov Document .*Details Report 'State Clearinghouse ".Data -Base `SCH# .2004072137 ProjectTitle Davidon /Scott Ranch General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Map Project - Lead.Agency Petaluma, City of -Type 'EIR Draft EIR 'Description Note: Review Per Lead -The proposed consists of single family res development located on approx 58.66 acres. The project proposes•two options-for.development: option A-proposes 66 single family residential units with relocation of the existing large red barn structure and option .B proposes 63 single family residential units and maintaining of the existing cluster of red barn structures in place. 'The project proposes a .300 -ft urban.separator, private and public open space, a. public park, a multi -use trail, -trailhead facilities, and a -40 -space public parking lot. Access-to the proposed development would .be .via public roadways connecting to Windsor'Dr from the north and south. An additional roadway is,proposed south of Kelly Creek, providing access from.D St on the southern portion of-the-site. .Lead Agency Contact Name Alicia Giudice Agency City of Petaluma Community.Development.Department _Phone "707778 -4401 :Fax email Address -11 English Street .City Petaluma ;State CA .Zip 94952 Project`Location Count y Sonoma City Petaluma Region _Lat /.Long Cross.Streets D Street / Windsor Drive Parcel No. 019 - 120 -040, 041 Township Range Section Base Proximity-to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land .Use 101,116 -Petaluma River Numerous GP: very low density res (0.6 to.2.5 du per acre), urban separator., open space. Z: R1 Project issues Archadologic- Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic /Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Other Issues; Public Services; Recreation /Parks; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland /Riparian; Wildlife; AestheticNisual; Biological Resources; Flood Plain /Flooding; Population /Housing Balance; Air Quality Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; State Water . Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, District 18; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 03/02/2017 Start of Review 03/02/2017 End of Review 05/01/2017 / J RECEIVED 04/28/2017 13:26 916- 323 -3018 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Apr 29 2017 12: 31PM HP LASERJET FAX F. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO DISTRICT 4 P,0O 13OX 23660 OAKLAND, try. 94623.0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5528 FAX (5 10) 2$6 -5359 'TTY 711 www.dotca.$4v April 28, 2017 Ms. Alicia Giudice City of Petaluma Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 a� /< Governor's Office of Planning 8 Research a Ifyf t �; SeriousDrougkt Delp save waarl SIATE C AU S S ®04 -SON -201 P-04-SON-2017'-00099 099 SCH* 2004072137 Davidoh/Scott Ranch Residential Subdivislon (File #03 -TS - 035) .— Draft Enviroumental Impact Deport (DEIR) Dear Ms. 4iudice; Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (CaltranS) in the environmental review ,process for the above- referenced project, In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Caltrans mission signa).s a modernization of our approach to evaluating and mitigating impacts. to the State Transportation Network (STN), Caltrans' Strategic Management Plan 2015 -2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the DEIR. Additional comments may be forthcoming pending final review. Project Understanding The applicant proposes to develop approximately 58.66 acre site currently an undeveloped property with a barn complex (comprising a largo bmm and two smaller structures) and a mobile home present in the northeastern portion of the site. 'Mr, applicant has put forth two development proposals; The first proposal would develop the site with 66 single - family residential. lots and relocate the large barn to another portion of the project site where it. would be renovated. The two smaller structures and mobile home would be removed. The second proposal would develop 63 single- family residential lots and would retain and rehabilitate the barn complex at its eurreut location: Both proposals would construct a public park with a tot lot, .a pedestrian and bicycle trail (multi -use trail), and trailhead parking lots. The multi -use trail would bo constructed along the souther side of Kelly Creek and would cross the creek via a pedestrian bridge near the project's western: boundary, and then would continuo west up to the Regional Park boundary where it Would connect with a future park trail within Helen Putnam Regional park. Another trail section would be constructed along D Street to connect the multi- -use trail to the future Petaluma Ring Trail. Access to the development is provided via the US 101 on�and -off ramps at State Route (SR) 116 (Lakeville Street). The project site is approximately 2.1 miles west of US 101, "Pruyileasgre,sustainable, integrated and offlalettttraasportatlan ,Vstem ro e bance'6'allf0rnia9 economy and llvabltIV 0 --16 RECEIVED 64/28/2017.18;26 916- 823 -3018 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Apr 28 2017 12:31PM HP LASERJET.Fnx p,3 Ms. Alicia. Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page, 2 Access from local streets would be provided from Windsor Drive via three new oral- do-sac streets (proposed A, B, and C Streets) and from D Street via a now cul -de -sac street (proposed E Street), Sidewalks would be constructed along the project frontage on Windsor Drive and TD Street. A traffic roundabout would be installed at the intersection of Windsor Drive, A Street, kw B Strect. A 300 -foot Urban Separator would be maintained betwoeri the proposed development and -the southern boundary of the project site. The applicant has applied to the City of Petaluma fcrr the approval of- fve entitlements: Two Oonetxal Flan Amendments, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Plan. slid Guidelines, and Vesting Tentative Map. I,etad - 4gency As the Lead Agency,* the City of Petaluma is respottsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project's fmancimg, scheduling', implementation . responsibilities and monitoring should be Fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures, prior to:the submittal of ati encroachment permit, n4fflo Impact Fees In the Transportation and Traffic section of the DEIR, page 4,12 -12, Table 4,12 -4 illustrates that the southbound ramps at US lal /SR 116 (Lakeville. Street) are at level of service. D, which noticeably influences queuing. We are cone ned with the increased projected generated trips and existing conditions on the OS 101 /Sit 116 (Lakeville Street) southbound ramps, which have the potential to create significant speed differentials and increase the number of conflicts. Another concern is the potential- for queuing vehicles to encroach on the mainline and the ramps SR 116 (Lakeville Street), which could again present a significant conflict due to the speed differential . between exiting vehicles and highway traffic. To reduce fese potential impacts, the applicant should work with Caltrans in order to determine. the fair -share contributloia that will *be used to ameliorate impacts to STI*T, In addition, please identify project- generated travel." demand and estimate the costs of public transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed project; viable funding souroes such as development and/or transportation impact fees should also be identified, We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi - model and regional transit improvements to fiillymitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also stroriglyaupportmeasures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing YM* T. Vehicle Trip Reduction With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focusing on transportation infrastructure. that supports smart growth and efficient development. Recently approved guidance for incorporating SB 743 (Local Development- Intergovernntental RevfewProgram Interim Guidance, November 201 b) intends to ensure that dovelepment projects align with State policies through the "Provide a saJk sacrtatnable, tnregrarvd and Ocient brans,66natio» jjulem to enhance CalVornia s aamiany and livability d, -/4 3 RECEIVED 04/28/2017 13:26 916- 323 -3018. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Rear 28 2017 12; S1PM HP LRSER.JET FAX P.4 Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 3 use of eiTiciunt development patterns, itmovative travel demand reduction strategies, necessary multimodal roadway improvements, and VMT as the primary transportation impact metric, In Caltrans' Smar't ILfobih7y 2010 A Call to Action for the New Decade, this project falls under Place .4 Suburban Communities — Neighborhoods,, which includes areas with a low level of integration of housing with jobs, retail QCrvlce, poorly connected street networks, low levels of transit service, a large amount of surface parking, and inadequate .walkability, residential subdivisions and complexes including housing, public facilities and low - serving Commercial. uses that are typically separated by corridors. Given this Place Type and' intensification of use, which typically leads to high levels of VMT and corresponding low levels of active transportation, we encourage the City to establish a Transportation. Management Association (TN4A) in partnership with other developments in the area to pursue aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement, Transportation Demand Management. programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an -omits TDM coordinator to demonstrate .effectivenbss. These smart growth approaches are consistent with the M'TC's PITP /SCS goals and would,meat Caltrans Stinategic Management Pfau, Reducing parking supply can encourage. active forms of transportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future transportation impacts on US 101, SR 11 b, and other nearby State facilities, For information about harking ratios, see the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) report _Reforming Parking Policies to S"i ppo, -t Smart Growth or visit the MTC parking webpage: http : /lwww.mto.ca.gov /planning/sm __gowth/parking. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) elements described below should be included in the program to promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the STN. o Transit fare incentives for residents such as subsidized transit passes on an oxigoing basis, 40 Project design to encourage walking, bicycling, and convenient transit access; Enhanced bus stops including bus shelters; and Secure designated bicycle parking. Multamodal Planning in addition, the project should be conditioned to ensure conneetiQUs to existing bike-lanes and- multi-use traits to facilitate walking and biking to the project site.: Specifically, provide . connoctions to the existing aa,dproposed Class II lanes on Windsor Drive and D Street per the City of Petaluma's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2008, Providing, these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will reduce VMT by creating multi - modal -links to nearby transit centers, Petaluma Transit Bus Route 1T, and the future Petaluma Sonoma -Matin . Area Rail Transit Station. "Provide a safe. swlahiable, Otegrated and efficient Irallsponation .7ysi m to enhanee Cpllonda's emion))' and livability " 1 — / / RECEIVED 04/28/2017 13:26 916- 323 -3018 Apr 28 2017 12.31PM HP LRSERJET FAX Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of petaluma, April 28, 2017 Page 4 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Tran -yPorl ation Permit Project work that rewires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles 01a the STN requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans, To apply, a completed transporta.tio:a permit application with the dotomin6d specifio routes) f'ar the shipp6r to follow from origin to destination raust be submitted to: Caltrans Transportation Permits Office, 1823 14th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 -7119, See the following websito forL more information: http://www.dot.ca,govfhq/traffops/Pennits, Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Stephen Conteh at 510 -286 -5534 or stephen.conteh(a dot.ca.gov, Sincerely, PATRICIA. MA[_JRICE District Branch Chief Local -Developnment- Intergovernmental Review c; State Clearinghouse 'Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and eclent fransporratlon system lP enhance California's economy and llvablilly" ,? °/6 D I S T R I C T RE: EIR for the Davidon Ranch ALAMEDA COUNTY Dear Ms. Gludice, Pauline Russo Cutter Scott Haggerty Rebecca Kaplan Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff has reviewed the Draft Nate Miley Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Davidon/Scott Ranch General Plan CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Map Project. This project will demolish John Gioia David Hudson two barns on a former farmstead, create a recreational trail segment, and convert (Vice Chair) nearly 59 acres of greenfield into 63 -66 single - family homes at the edge of Petaluma's Karen Ross ff urban growth boundary and adjacent to a regional parkland. Mark Ross b y j regional MARIN COUNTY Katie Rice This project's EIR assesses greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts and determines that (Secretary) "[o]peration of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, NAPA COUNTY or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions" (Impact Brad wagenknecht GHG -2). Air District staff observes that this assessment of greenhouse gas. (GHG) SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY impacts uses significance thresholds based on the State's 2020 GHG target under AB Edwin M. Lee Hillary Ronen 32, which is now being superceded under SB 32 by a target of 40% reduction of GHGs Jeff Sheehy below 1990s levels by 2030. This 2030 goal is itself only an interim step toward a SAN MATEO COUNTY longer -term climate stabilization goal of GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by David Canepa 2050 (EO S- 3 -05). The Air District's recently finalized 2017 Clean Air Plan, as well Carole Groom Doug Kim as the Air Resources Board's draft 2030 Scoping Plan, also provide a basis for stronger action to reduce GHG levels. SANTA CLARA COUNTY Margaret Abe -Koga Cindy Liz Kn ssez We encourage the City to look beyond 2020 toward the State's 2030 target as a basis (Chair) for GHG significance determination. For this reason, as well as in light of this Rod G. Sinks project's limited public transit and walking options to everyday amenities, we SOLANO COUNTY recommend that the City require the project developer to implement these additional Pete Sanchez James Spering best management practices (BMPs): (1) integration of solar energy systems.into all homes; (2) inclusion of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in all homes; (3) SONOMA COUNTY Teresa Barrett integration ofbike storage that provides easy bike ingress/egress in all homes; and (4) Shirlee Zane enhancement of bike lanes along D Street to assure enticing bike commute to the SMART station. Jack P. Broadbent EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO Connect with the Bay Area Air District: 375 BEALE STREET, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO CA • 94105 • 415.771.6000 intivti+.baagnrd.gov Ms. Giudice Page 2 April 26, 2017 Air District staff is available to assist the City in addressing these comments. For more information, or if you have any questions, please contact Chad White Senior Planner, at (415) 749 -8619 or via email at cwhite @baagmd.gov. Sincerely, Jen�l oggenkam Deputy Executive Officer cc: Director Teresa Barrett Director Shirlee Zane �? -/6 `1 Dear Honorable Commissioners and Council Members: I hope you will vote no on the Davidson /Scott Ranch development. I lived in Portland, OR for a short while, and they had the most admirable forward thinking no growth urban development policies. If you are not familiar, I encourage you to study their methodology: They have successfully created an urban space that is it intimate, livable and creative. They focus on using space more creatively to accommodate housing needs while protecting green space. The few number of households who will benefit from this development are far fewer than those will suffer. Please vote no. Best regards, Lisa Lisa Oman Iisaannoman@outlook.com c: (707) 758 -7350 � —/ � lJ From: Elaine Newman [elainetnewman @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 5:42 PM To: councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davel<ingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberl<earney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @ gmail.com Giudice, Alicia Cc: petrp @comcast.net Subject: We oppose Davidon /Scott Ranch development Dear City Council, We are writing to strongly oppose the proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch development. This proposal speaks to everything that is wrong with development in California. 1. Increased housing without improved traffic infrastructure. Why would you put a development of luxury homes on the outskirts of city limits, where the access out goes through old streets designed for horses and buggies not lines of idling cars? D street, and the limited access across the Petaluma River is at peak capacity. We have read the draft EIR which claims only one impacted intersection with "Operations with high delays, and long queues ". May we politely ask the council members to go drive their cars on D street with the traffic flows at morning and evening commute? We live a half block off D street (224 7th st) and do everything we can to avoid that traffic. The traffic studies in the draft EIR are inconclusive and obsolete as they are based on a 2014 traffic study. The significant and unavoidable impact this study has found does not factor into account Smart Train presence or the increased vehicle load presently carried on D Street due to the new 101 exit at Kastania and San Antonio Rd. Both of these improvements will increase or have already increased traffic numbers and should be accounted for in a new draft EIR. 2. Luxury housing on the outskirts of town, increasing sprawl without relieving the strain on the housing market. Why would we build expensive large homes? Why are we trying to make already rich developers richer? We should be building affordable housing so that regular people who work in Petaluma — middle and low income Petalumans — can live where they work. 3. Eliminating irreplaceable beautiful pastoral scenery, interfering with natural water management, and native flora and fauna. Keeping the boundaries of the town small, and being within walking or biking distance of the downtown is what makes this a nice place to live. It is what differentiates Petaluma from the sprawl of the Bay Area. Petaluma needs affordable housing, and housing that is clustered around public transit stations, like the SMART train stations, or close access to the highway. We have trusted your judgement to lead Petaluma in responsible development. We have voted for many of you. We will be watching this vote very carefully. Any council member who approves this development in any form will not be getting our vote ever again. Sincerely, Chuck and Elaine Newman Registered voters who always vote 224 7th St (707) 481 -5072 (831) 325 -3131 - /6 C� From: Neil Smith [cheersguvnor @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 3:57 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Kristin Nelson; Petalumans for Responsible Planning; councilman. albertson(a)gmail.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; davekin4pcc @gmail.com; mthealyCa)sbcgloba1.net; councilmemberkearney(a�me.com; kathleencmillerofficeOa gmail.com Subject: Davidon development Ms. Giudice: I'd like to comment on the proposed development by Davidon on the Scott Ranch property at D Street. 1. Although the DEIR has addressed some of the most significant flaws from 2014, it still falls dramatically short when it comes to traffic. As presented in the DEIR, it appears as though expected traffic volumes would be within acceptable ranges. However, the survey that is used as the basis for those figures is hopelessly out of date (it was carried out in 2014), and doesn't reflect the dramatic increase in traffic along D Street that has occurred since the new intersection at the Waste Disposal site was opened. For this reason alone, the DEIR should be rejected, and the developer should be required to carry out a new survey to analyze real -world traffic volumes, 2. Historically, low density housing has cost municipalities more than it brings in through tax revenue, making this a financial drain on the city, even with homeowner association fees. 3. One of the characteristics of Petaluma that makes it desirable, and its housing market more resilient, is the strict growth plans combined with the significant natural beauty. Although this development does comply with the letter of the 2025 General Plan, the dramatic natural beauty that will be displaced means that this development is not in the spirit of a plan that was written with the intention of preserving the unique feel of Petaluma. By building in a manner more akin to our neighbors in Novato and Rohnert Park, the city will be putting a downward pressure on home values, thus cutting working families out of potential opportunities for modest wealth creation and subsequent reinvestment into community businesses, such as contractors, designers, plumbers and others, who will then themselves spend that money locally. Regards, Neil A. Smith 1290 D Street 415.846.6990 -7a From: Pamela Appell [pamappell @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 6:52 PM To: mayordavidglass(Nmail.com; councilman .albertsonCabamail.co; teresa4petalumaOcomcast.net, mthealy@sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearneyCa me.com; davekinapccogmail.com; kathleencmilleroffice@gmail.com Cc: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Please vote NO on Davidon developement! As a business owner and resident of Windsor Drive I am asking you to please consider the many Petaluma citizens who are horrified at the idea of what will happen to our quality of life if the Davidon development is allowed to proceed. Personally speaking I moved to Petaluma four years ago from the peninsula and after looking at over 50 homes for sale in Marin and Petaluma east a house on Windsor Drive became available. On the way to look at it I drove up the iconic D Street with the beautiful homes and when I got to the intersection of D and Windsor Drive I actually gasped at the beautiful vista before me. On my way on Windsor Drive I saw deer, sheep, wild turkeys, & cows and stunning vistas on both sides of the road. At that point I knew that no matter what the home looked like this was where I wanted to be. Now after four years there isn't a day that goes by when I don't catch my breath when I make that turn. I enjoy Helen Putnam Park daily and the proposed plan to expand it would be wonderful for our community. With these emotional reasons aside the 3 years of the noise and disruption of heavy equipment cutting into the hillside and the increased traffic on already congested D Street would directly affect our area of the west side. When 101 northbound backs up commuters take the backroad into Petaluma and on many days D Street is bumper to bumper. The construction as well as increased traffic from 28 — 64 homes will force people to cut through Windsor Drive creating a nightmare for those of us who live in the Victoria and West Haven neighborhoods. Western Ave will also see increased traffic as a result. Along Windsor Drive there are two children's playgrounds that are right along the street and the safety of the children and families who currently enjoy those facilities will be compromised. From what I understand drainage problems and flooding especially down D and neighboring streets can be expected as can the potential for landslides. The damage to the sensitive ecology of the area around Kelly Creek would be significant and the red - legged frog habitat destroyed. There are so many reasons to say NO to this development and instead look towards the benefits of what the expansion of Helen Putnam Park can do for our town. There are reasons why many commercials and movies have been filmed here and building these McMansions will take away so much of the charm, beauty, and quality of life that Petaluma is known for. Thank you for making the responsible choice. Pamela Appell Open Gate Travel enrich — enlighten — explore 150 Windsor Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 707 981 -8092 707 981 -8574 fax CST # 2061880 -40 � —( -7 From: Aaron Daly [aaron.n.daly @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 11 :55 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Aaron Daly Subject: Please don't allow development of Arnold Scott Ranch Hi Alicia Giudice, I'm writing as a Petaluma resident (13 00 Sunset Drive) to ask you to deny the development application for the Arnold Scott Ranch. In my view, the only thing in short supply in Petaluma is close proximity open space (like Helen Putnum park). One thing we have an abundance of is single family houses. We do need more housing and there are many areas in town that are currently under developed (such as across east washington from the library and near the rail station for example). We need to focus additional development within the current boundaries of the city - not extending the sprawl of single family home lots out into the surrounding countryside. The countryside around our town is a big part of what makes it great. We need to preserve it - and ideally, in the case of Arnold Scott Ranch, find a way to open it up to public access. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Aaron Daly -I1-)- *1 May 2017* Dear Alicia Giudice and the City of Petaluma, My name is Michelle Katuna. I was born not far from Petaluma and have called this town home all my life. I've been away for a while —to study abroad in Europe during high school thanks to a scholarship from the Petaluma Rotary club; to write my major and complete my studies in Sustainable Agriculture at the University of California at Berkeley, and then, in the years since, to learn to care for the land and the creatures on it as an apprentice and employee at biodiverse and ecologically complex vegetable farms, meat farms, and cattle ranches across the country. I have always wanted to come back to Petaluma when the settling years are upon me —a town that honors its history and takes care to preserve and celebrate it, a town of agricultural roots and open spaces, and a town that I've always believed would take care to preserve its best parts so my children and grandchildren have reason to call it home. I write because I am deeply disturbed to hear that the City of Petaluma may allow the Davidon housing development project on the grazing land bordering Helen Putnum. From my studies in ecology and biology at Berkeley, I know that further fragmentation of habitat is detrimental to wild animal populations. From a few years in observation of large tracts of land and study under masters of land management; I know that conversion of grasslands to cement tracts and houses has dire environmental impacts. I am most disturbed by how careless this proposal is towards maintaining the aesthetic, cultural and environmental well -being of Petaluma for our future generations. This decision has many implications for the future, many of which are not divulged by the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report. I have read over parts of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and urge you to re -visit the following findings: Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Assessment — Appendix 4.2 claims "Air quality and GHG impacts could occur due to temporary construction emissions and as a result of direct and indirect emissions from future residences." Air quality and GHG impacts will occur if this project goes through. The DEIR does not look at the greatest causes of the GHG impacts that this project would impart. The loss of the grassland ecosystem —and thus, the lost ecosystem function of GHG sequestration —needs to be analyzed in this report. The mere single -time tillage of grasslands to roads, houses, driveways will release enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (COA methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, of greatest concern is the long -term implication of removing a functioning grassland ecosystem. The simple equation of photsynthesis says that with the help of the energy of the sun, plants convert atmospheric carbon dioxide and water to sugars and oxygen. Much of this carbon dioxide taken in by plants (grasses are extremely well- adapted and efficient at this conversion in our area) is stored in the grass roots, and parceled out as food to the macro food chain and to the biological soil food web. When these plant /microbial interactions are intact, soil can act as a slow - release carbon sink. If we are assessing greenhouse gas impacts of this project, it must be made clear that the roads and housing footprints of 66 single - family homes will literally pave over `2 -173 *1 May 2017* the functioning ecosystem that is right now sequestering atmospheric carbon (and will into the future if preserved as grassland). ® From Vol. 1, 4.0 -10: "The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use.... the project site is designated as Grazing Land." This project would involve changes in the existing environment. In my studies and experience, grazing is part of farming and agriculture. Thus, leaving functional grazing land in tact is culturally important, and preserves part of Petaluma's history, folklore, and local producer and product pride. This section of the report goes on to justify conversion of the grazing land to housing development: "the proposed project would not involve any other changes that could directly or indirectly result in the conversion of any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non - agricultural." I argue that this grazing land, the Scott Ranch red barn, and the proximity of the parcel to Helen Putnum regional park —both the Scott Ranch and Helen Putnum together making a contiguous habitat that wildlife are currently traveling between —is of Townwide importance. This is important agricultural land that should be preserved. , Aesthetics 4.1. The word aesthetic can be defined as what one finds beautiful and should be left to be assessed not by the developer or the report preparer but by Petaluma residents themselves. I grew up on the West Side of Petaluma on the cul -de -sac at the end of McNear Avenue. My parents still live there. There are many ways to drive home to that house from Berkeley or from a southern California cattle ranch. My favorite homecoming is taking the San Antonio Road exit off of 101 so that I can take the meandering route through the pastures of D- street—so that, before I sink back into town I am reminded of the open space and small cattle operations, mustard fields and goldening grasses that have represented the heart of Petaluma for many in our past and all of us who have fallen in love with it since. I have been deeply disturbed by the proposed housing development that may be put in at the corner of Windsor and D street —the last land of pasture before I reach home. Helen Putnum has been a place I ran to as a child, in the cold moods of adolescence, recently to meet old friends and new lovers. I sit on the eastern slopes and look out across my hometown if life gets heavy and needs sorting out. It's the undeveloped, pastured views around Helen Putnum that I find beautiful. This is an aesthetic we should preserve. This part of the report brought up pertinent city policies, several of which I find very applicable to the project: o "Policy 2 -P -61: Protect existing agricultural uses, wildlife, historic and cultural resources, and natural vegetation." The Davidon project does not protect agricultural use, wildlife, the historic red barn and would be harmful to natural vegetation, especially oak trees and native grasses. '? ®!7y *1 May 2017* o Policy 2 -P -62: Preserve the rural aspect of the area by maintaining the existing density (Rural, Very Low and Low Residential) and land use patterns. The Davidon project minimizes the rural aspect of this entry corridor to town. • Biological Resources 4.3 – "The mosaic of natural community types, available surface water, and the extent of adjacent largely undeveloped land to the south and southwest of the project site contributes to generally high wildlife habitat values on the project site. Wildlife use and movement is currently unrestricted across the site and onto the adjacent undeveloped lands to the south and southwest. An open wire fence along the border with Helen Putnam Regional Park currently disrupts movement by larger wildlife species to the west, but signs of access under the fence by black - tailed deer and other wildlife are evident." Furthermore: "The proximity of the project site to undeveloped grassland and woodland habitat to the south and west contributes to its use by larger mammals and raptors." This is an ecologically invaluable and irreplaceable piece of land! * ** And so I propose several alternatives for the use of the Scott Ranch parcel: • Put the land in a conservation easement with a land trust such as Sonoma Land Trust so that it can stay in small -scale agricultural use, or as open space for perpetuity. • Allow a local producer to lease the land to graze animals aligned with the environmental, social and financial goals of the city and its inhabitants. There are many examples of cattle, goats and /or sheep being grazed to achieve management goals on mixed use land— cattle at Pepperwood Preserve, the grazing program at the Sonoma Mountain Institute, custom - grazing work being done by Grounded Grasslands, custom - grazing with goats and sheep by Brittany Cole Bush, to name a few in the area. I worked with Joe Morris of Morris Grassfed Beef where we managed a herd of cattle at Hollister Hills State Park. We managed for increased plant diversity and abundance of native grasses, oak tree regeneration, and a healthier water cycle, while sharing the pastures with the public who came to use the trails and motor -bike park. With the right manager, grazing would be of great benefit to the land, support a local agricultural producer, and keep Petaluma's history and culture of agriculture alive. o Make the barn an agricultural education center open to the public, perhaps something like the Little Farm and Nature Area at Tilden Regional Park in Berkeley, California. Open spaces, wild places, must be kept in Petaluma, in honor of our past, for the land, creatures and people of today, and out of something much more than hope for our future to come. Most sincerely, Michelle Katuna – �� S7 TO: Petaluma City Council RE: Davidon Development DATE: 5/1/17 Dear Council Members; My objection to the Davidon Development is rooted in the ongoing catastrophe of development I have watched unfold in Petaluma since moving to my home on Western Avenue in 2004. Petaluma development has occurred with no evident consideration for the greater community, for traffic gridlock, for quality of life of current residents, or for the planet as a whole. Please see information below, taken directly from the CA Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, and from a recent study of Ecosystem Services provided by open space lands in Sonoma County. The Davidon development is ill - conceived and represents an outmoded form of suburban development we can no longer afford to support as a society. THE CALIFORNIIA 2017 CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN UPDATE: THE PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING CALIFORNIA'S 2030 GREENHOUSE GASTARGET JANUARY 20, 2017 California Air Resources Board P. 111: 2. Cross - Sector Interactions Strategies that reduce GHG emissions or increase sequestration in the natural and working lands sector often overlap and result in synergies with other sectors, most notably at intersections with land use, biomass and waste utilization, and water. Landowner, local, and regional decisions affect land use development patterns and natural and working land conversion rates; conversely, conservation activities can support infill- oriented regional development and related transportation needs. ...Under SB 375, Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs) aim to link transportation, housing, and climate policy to reduce per capita GHG emissions while providing a range of other important benefits for Californians. Some SCSs include policies, objectives or implementation measures relating to conservation and land protections, and to urban greening.168 Protecting natural and working lands that are under threat of conversion can promote infill development, reduce VMT, limit infrastructure expansion, and curb associated GHG emissions. An integrated vision for community. development, land conservation and management, and transportation was presented at the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Workshop on September 14, 2016,169 P. 114: a) Protection of Land and Land Use California will continue to pursue development and new infrastructure construction patterns that avoid greenfield development, limit conflicts with neighboring land Stnn Dnvicinn nPvetnnmPnt- incrPCmP(@snnic.nPt 1?47� uses, and increase conservation opportunities for natural and working lands to reduce conversion to intensified uses. Success here will depend on working through local and regional land use planning and permitting, as well as developing incentives for participation by local governments and individual landowners. P. 116: 4. Efforts to Support Sector Objectives To ensure the natural and working lands sector is a net carbon sink, the State will complete an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Action Plan by 2018. - Promote and provide incentives for infill development through community revitalization and urban greening and support for permanent and temporary voluntary conservation of lands under threat of development, paired with stewardship plans where possible. P.130: Support compact development and land use patterns, and associated conservation and management strategies for natural and working lands-that reduce per capita water consumption through more water - efficient built environments. P. 134: The State must accommodate population growth and economic growth in afar more sustainable manner than in the past. While State -level investments, policies, and actions play an important role in shaping growth and development patterns, regional and local governments and agencies are uniquely positioned to influence the future of the built environment and its associated GHG emissions. P. 136: Beyond plan -level thresholds and actions, local governments can also support climate action when considering discretionary approvals and entitlements of individual projects through CEQA.206 Absent conformity with an adequate geographically specific GHG reduction plan, CARB recommends that all new land use development implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions.207 4/29/17. Butsic V, Shapero M, Moanga D, Larson S. 2017. Using InVEST to assess ecosystem services on conserved properties in Sonoma County, CA. Calif Agr 71(2):81 -89. DOI: 10.3733/ca.20170008: Carbon sequestration is being monetized in the California carbon markets, and methods to evaluate carbon storage are needed statewide. Land conversions to more developed uses generally reduce carbon on the landscape. Sediment and nutrient retention impact water quality, which is important for human needs and also ecosystem needs; conversions of vegetation often result in poorer water quality. In the current era of drought, water yield from California landscapes is a topic of public concern, as every drop of water becomes more valuable. Land -use conversions can impact the amount of groundwater recharge or loss through runoff. Stnn D;ividnn l) avPlnnment- iarrPnuP(@.gnnic.nPt 9 -111 Sonoma County - population has doubled over the last 30 years to nearly half a million people; during that time, over 10% of the best agricultural land has been converted to more intensive uses, and this trend is likely to continue in the near future. Total acreage of Sonoma County lands converted to urban use in that period is over 7,000 acres. Protecting ecosystem services while communities grow is a significant challenge across California. Every acre lost to development is an acre lost to terrestrial carbon. sequestration, watershed function and increasingly scarce habitat. The Davidon development is ill conceived and represents an outmoded form of suburban development we can no longer afford to support as a society. Sincerely, Jeffrey Creque, Ph.D. jacreque @sonic.net Stnn nnvidnn DevelnnmPnt- iacrPmiPl@snnic_net R 0 173' S. BIAGGI /sculptural landscapes Landscape Design + Sculpture April 30, 2017 City of Petaluma Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 RECEIVED MAY 0 t 2017 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Nis. Giudice, I currently live on Keokuk st. I have lived in Petaluma since 1933. For the first 20 years I resided on the rural west side on Eucalyptus ave. I am very familiar with the site the Davidon /Scott Ranch site that is being considered for development. I have serious concerns with the project and the draft EIR Report, which I have summarized below. ® 1 drive by the red barn frequently. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. • The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. • The barn is an invaluable cultural resource. Its loss or relocation would destroy the cultural integrity of the area. At the very least the EIR should disclose the cost to move it vs, leaving it as is. The Draft EIR should include a project alternative that repurposes the barn as a museum, displaying the old dairying methods. As part of this museum, the cows could be kept there with a weekend milking demo for kids. • It is very troubling that the Draft EIR does not indicate whether the hillside soil and hydrology testing was conducted during recent wet months. It also does not disclose the assumptions and methodology that were used for this hydrological testing. Nearby Victoria is an area of very steep, unstable and sliding hillsides. The EIR should analyze how the Davidon project will address the possible increase of landslide threats in the area. ® The Draft EIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. The Draft EIR tries to explain that this impact can be "mitigated." I don't believe it. There are several babies in the nearby community. A heightened risk of cancer is simply unacceptable. Will the project's houses have solar-ready roofs? What is the carbon -footprint of this development? Kelly Creek and its tributaries are critical natural resources, yet the project proposes dense development adjacent to these waterways. The project tries to downplay the existence of the large D Street tributary, running it through a culvert so that houses can be built on top of it with no setback. The project also proposes excessive density at the edge of the City's urban growth boundary. The EIR should include an alternative that clusters houses on the less- sensitive parts of the site, away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries, and away from the urban growth boundary. Also, if there is a plan to continue grazing cattle on parts of the land, what will be done to exclude them from the creek so they don't continue (as they do now) to affect the water quality? Thank you for considering my concerns when reviewing this project. Sincerely, 240 KEOKUK ST, PETALUMA, CA 94952 susanna @sbiaggi.com 707 483 5314 SBIAGGLCOM 9-/So STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN Jr Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5528 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April 28, 2017 Ms. Alicia Giudice City of Petaluma Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 i RECEIVED Serious Drought. Help save water) MAY 0 1 2017 PLANNING 04- SON - 2017 -00099 SCH# 2004072137 Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision (File #.03 -TSM -039) — Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Ms. Giudice: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above - referenced project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Caltrans mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluating and mitigating impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans' Strategic Management Plan 2015 -2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the DEIR. Additional comments may be forthcoming pending final review. Project Understanding The applicant proposes to develop approximately 58.66 acre site currently an undeveloped property with a barn complex (comprising a large barn and two smaller structures) and a mobile home present in the northeastern portion of the site. The applicant has put forth two development proposals: The first proposal would develop the site with 66 single - family residential lots and relocate the large barn to another portion of the project site where it would be renovated. The two smaller structures and mobile home would be removed. The second proposal would develop 63 single - family residential lots and would retain and rehabilitate the barn complex at its current location. Both proposals would construct a public park with a tot lot, a pedestrian and bicycle trail (multi -use trail), and trailhead parking lots. The multi -use trail would be constructed along the southern side of Kelly Creek and would cross the creels via a pedestrian bridge near the project's western boundary, and then would continue west up to the Regional Park boundary where it would connect with a future park trail within Helen Putnam Regional Park. Another trail section would be constructed along D Street to connect the multi -use trail to the future Petaluma Ring Trail. Access to the development is provided via the US 101 on- and -off ramps at State Route (SR) 116 (Lakeville Street). The project site is approximately 2.1 miles west of US 101. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" a �' 00 l Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 2 Access from local streets would be provided from Windsor Drive via three new cul -de -sac streets (proposed A, B, and C Streets) and from D Street via a new cul -de -sac street (proposed E Street). Sidewalks would be constructed along the project frontage on Windsor Drive and D Street. A traffic roundabout would be installed at the intersection of Windsor Drive, A Street, and B Street. A 300 -foot Urban Separator would be maintained between the proposed development and the southern boundary of the project site. The applicant has applied to the City of Petaluma for the approval of five entitlements: Two General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Plan and Guidelines, and Vesting Tentative Map. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Petaluma is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project's financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures, prior to the submittal of an encroachment permit. Traffic Impact Fees In the Transportation and Traffic section of the DEIR, page 4.12 -12, Table 4.12 -4 illustrates that the southbound ramps at US 101 /SR 116 (Lakeville Street) are at level of service D, which noticeably influences queuing. We are concerned with the increased projected generated trips and existing conditions on the US 101 /SR 116 (Lakeville Street) southbound ramps, which have the potential to create significant speed differentials and increase the number of conflicts. Another concern is the potential for queuing vehicles to encroach on the mainline and the ramps SR 116 (Lakeville Street), which could again present a significant conflict due to the speed differential between exiting vehicles and highway traffic. To reduce these potential impacts, the applicant should work with Caltrans in order to determine the fair -share contribution that will be used to ameliorate impacts to STN. In addition, please identify project- generated travel demand and estimate the costs of public transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed project; viable funding sources such as development and/or transportation impact fees should also be identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi -modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Vehicle Trip Reduction With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focusing on transportation infrastructure that supports smart growth and efficient development. Recently approved guidance for incorporating SB 743 (Local Development Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, November 2016) intends to ensure that development projects align with State policies through the "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 6. Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 3 use of efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, necessary multimodal roadway improvements, and VMT as the primary transportation impact metric. In Caltrans' Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, this project falls under Place 4 Suburban Communities — Neighborhoods, which includes areas with a low level of integration of housing with jobs, retail service, poorly connected street networks, low levels of transit service, a large amount of surface parking, and inadequate walkability, residential subdivisions and complexes including housing, public facilities and low- serving commercial uses that are typically separated by corridors. Given this Place Type and intensification of use, which typically leads to high levels of VMT and corresponding low levels of active transportation, we encourage the City to establish a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area to pursue aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. Transportation Demand Management programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an -onsite TDM coordinator to demonstrate .effectiveness. These smart growth approaches are consistent with the MTC's RTP /SCS goals and would meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan. Reducing parking supply can encourage active forms of transportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future transportation impacts on US 101, SR 116, and other nearby State facilities. For information about parking ratios, see the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) report Reforming Parldng Policies to Support Smart Growth or visit the MTC parking webpage: http://www.mte.ca.gov/planning/smart—growth/parlcing. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) elements described below should be included in the program to promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the STN. • Transit fare incentives for residents such as subsidized transit passes on an ongoing basis; • Project design to encourage walking, bicycling, and convenient transit access; • Enhanced bus stops including bus shelters; and • Secure designated bicycle parking. Multimodal Planning In addition, the project should be conditioned to ensure connections to existing bike lanes and multi -use trails to facilitate walking and biking to the project site. Specifically, provide connections to the existing and proposed Class II lanes on Windsor Drive and D Street per the City of Petaluma's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2008. Providing these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will reduce VMT by creating multi -modal links to nearby transit centers, Petaluma Transit Bus Route 1T, and the future Petaluma Sonoma -Mann Area Rail Transit Station. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" g 3 Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 4 Transportation Permit Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on the STN requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed transportation permit application with the determined specific route(s) for the shipper to follow from origin to destination must be submitted to: Caltrans Transportation Permits Office, 1823 14th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 -7119. See the following website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/Pennits. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Stephen Conteh at 510- 286 -5534 or stephen.conteh @dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, P" �' -(, C_-, L' �- � PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability Alicia Giudice Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Dear Alicia, - E Ginger and I have lived on D Street for thirty eight years. In that time we have met with city representatives (police, traffic management) at least three times regarding traffic on D Street. The following responses from the city may be of use in preventing an increased traffic load on D Street: According to the traffic managers D Street is a regional artery, meaning that Petaluma cannot modify D Street without, presumably, county approval. We have asked for a round -about at the intersection with Windsor drive and been told that eighteen wheel trucks cannot negotiate a round -about so no change is possible. The right of way for D Street is 60 feet wide with many homes within 2Q feet of that right, of way. 60 feet cannot support additional lanes and condemnation to gain added right of way would require destruction of some existing homes, arbitrary reduction of most other properties to less than the regulatory set back and a cost at fair market value approaching $1,000;000 for some properties. We have observed that traffic on D Street flows in four modes: When traffic exceeds the capacity of highway 101 cars are baqked up from Petaluma Boulevard past Sunnyslope every afternoon. When construction is underway the same or worse congestion occurs. Within 3 months after construction is completed congestion returns and, In the short periods when there is no backup, much of the traffic, including those 18 wheel trucks, moves at over 40 mph - a threat to kids and adults alike. Across this cycle heavy traffic is now the norm - over 90 percent of the time. Any added traffic load on D Street cannot be accommodated! We note that where B Street and Windsor road should intersect there is a driveway -like connection chained to prevent car traffic. A small plan and construction change could send some of Victoria's and all Davidon's traffic down the wider and less used B Street. This could actually reduce the load on D Street. Thank you for your attention, Ginger Irwin and Harry Nieuwboer 1309 1/2 D St. 763 -7Q 10 VI' M__ '? -- ( e 5— May 1,2017 /Ubia{Hudice, City ofPetaluma 11 English St* Petaluma, CA94952 Dear MS. GiUdice, Not only are n)y husband and V voters � . ' � dedicated to maintaining -the special elements ufdhinlomelytomvnandiissmrnoundings — eventothe point of running for council in the future (especially if this vote goes the wrong direction). We understandthattheneiaanecessarybabnoethatnuustbemchievedlpnogressandpmeserxadon.|t|sn't easy and You are never going to please everyone. So we'll come at this practically, |n our mind, thatmakes -the Council's decision an easy one asan elected body: NO to the DaVidmo development. Not a smaller development, not with mitigation, a simple and total NO. Your constituents have spoken. The Council heard from a very large body of constituents on -the last meeting. You heard very specific problems -that this development only exacerbates — real problems for real people, real voters. VVe thank you forthe careful consideration you have put tm this, but now xve urge you for action. Any sort ofdevelopment is going tmbea black eye to this community. Please put this 1obed for good. Petaluma From: Trevor Pitts [tpitts @pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:36 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; councilman.albertson@gmaii.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc@gmail.com, Michael Healy; council memberkearney@me.com; kathleencmilleroffice gmail .corn; Matt Brown Subject: I could not care less about the red barn and neither should you Ladies, Gentlemen, and Editor, I find the "concern" over the red barn as a counter to the Davidon development proposal as seriously dangerous. Historical or architectural preservation designations are a potent weapon in the new NIMBYism, perhaps better described as NOBNOWN- No building, Nowhere, Never. One can always find some old structure strategically placed to block development. If mere age alone rather than actual rarity, architectural merit or genuinely wide historical significance, is enough to freeze progress forever, then no -one's property is safe. There are much more important issues with this development. If demolishing the barn furthers a superior compromise to mitigate these issues, then send in the bulldozers. Trevor Pitts 1- 707 - 765 -0420 1- 707 - 338 -3336 cell 1236 B St, Petaluma CA 94952 �_V From: Jess Cenica Ucenica @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 7:19 PM To: councilman .albertsonCa) gmall.com; teresa4petaluma()comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmaiLcom; mthealyCa)sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearneyCQ?me.com; kathleencmillerofficePgmail.com Cc: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Comments on DEIR Davidon /Scott Ranch 1. Traffic analysis on D Street in the draft EIR at peak times is obsolete. The City must require a traffic light at D Street and Windsor Drive instead of a roundabout, as it is planned if the project is approved. Monday to Friday from 3:30 there are times I wait up to 10 minutes to access D Street towards downtown and a roundabout will not be an improvement to the present signaling. 2. 1 live off Windsor Drive and drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. 3. Our developer went bankrupt and left us with serious issues. What happens if Davidon goes bankrupt after all of the trees are cut down and the site is graded, the City must require that the developer grade only that portion of the site where development is imminent. 4. In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic views, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. .less Cenica 104 Dublin Court From: danach(daol.com [danach @aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:15 AM To: Giudice, Alicia; PetRP@comcast.net; councilman.albertson@gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc(d)gmail.com; mthea101sbcolobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmaii.com Subject: Save the Red Barn property from development To all concerned, This is a heartfelt letter to say I am strongly opposed to building homes on and development of the Davidon /Scott Ranch. A native of this area, I have witnessed the loss of view shed, open space and historical buildings - once gone (or barns moved) our town will become generic and Petaluma's character erased. The natural landscape, trees and barns are precious and part of Petaluma's Identity and appeal. Additionally, the development will certainly increase traffic and congestion on D St. A long time country property owner, I have seen how removing soil, grading and tree removal can devastate the landscape, these resources can not be restored in decades, once a natural grade is compromised, it will never be natural looking again. Below are numerous points that reinforce that this property is better suited for preservation - there are funds to source for land preservation - and possibly add acreage to Helen Putnam park open space. The Draft EIR does not indicate whether the hillside soil and hydrology testing was conducted during recent wet months. It also does not disclose the assumptions and methodology that were used for this hydrological testing. The barn is an invaluable cultural resource. Its loss or relocation would destroy the cultural integrity of the area. The EIR should disclose the cost to move it vs. leaving it as is., The Draft EIR should include a project alternative that repurposes the barn as a museum, displaying the old dairying methods. As part of this museum, the cows could be kept there with a weekend milking demo for kids. drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. � j • In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic viewshed, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. • We cherish the peace and quiet in our communities. The Draft EIR does not evaluate how the increase in traffic or noise from construction will affect the livability of our community. The Draft EIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. The Draft EIR tries to explain that this impact can be "mitigated." I don't believe it. There are several babies in the nearby community. A heightened risk of cancer is simply unacceptable. ® The Draft EIR does not indicate whether there are any underground tanks left over from the ranch operation on this site.- If you have any indication that there may be tanks on the project site, please state this and explain your reasoning. 0 ® The Victoria homebuilder went bankrupt and did not fix defects in construction and site preparation. The City should require that Davidon post an adequate bond, guaranty, or trust fund to cover the long -term possibilities of adverse impacts on the homeowners and the City. • What will happen if the developer of the Davidon site goes bankrupt after all of the trees are cut down and the site is graded? The City must require that the developer grade only that portion of the site where development is imminent. • Kelly Creek and its tributaries are critical natural resources, yet the project proposes dense development adjacent to these waterways. The project tries to downplay the existence of the large D Street tributary, running it through a culvert so that houses can be built on top of it with no setback. The project also proposes excessive density at the edge of the City's urban growth boundary. The EIR should include an alternative that clusters houses on the less- sensitive parts of the site, away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries, and away from the urban growth boundary. Also,. if there is a plan to continue grazing cattle on parts of the land, what will be done to exclude them from the creek so they don't continue (as they do now) to affect the water quality? ® The project would build a new trail along Kelly Creek that would run behind and between the project houses' back fences, on both sides. This design would result in a degraded park experience for walkers. The EIR should mitigate this recreational impact by clearly separating the private and public areas here and by building on only one side of the creek, if at all. Please vote to deny development of the Davidon /Scott Ranch. Sincerely, Dana Hooper, 626 F St, Petaluma 94952 P_190 From: NaomiticklCabaol.com [Naomitickl @aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 10:28 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: petrp @comcast.net; jenpierrepetaluma()yahoo.com; jocelynyeh@yahoo.com; richard@lacehouselinen.com dianae omez gmail.com; ainamarie.bD(a)gmail.com: councilman .albertson(o)gmail.com Subject: Proposed Davidson Development DEIR Attention - Petaluma City Council, Petaluma is a unique community one that really needs to be preserved, there are very few communities like this in California. We need to preserve the scenic valley and beautiful, pristine gateway to Petaluma. If we allow large housing developments on this beautiful piece of land, it will be gone forever. Residents select the West side of Petaluma because of the incredible community and unique landscape that surrounds us. Once taken away it will be gone forever. Expanding Helen Putnam Park would add to the quality and enjoyment to the residents and visitors to this park. We heed this open space, it's such a wonderful feeling of peace and tranquility. Putting up large expensive housing takes away from this historic town. It is also important for the community to have this open space to walk in. In England, where I come from, they have miles of trails all over the British Isles that are open to the public. This includes going through farmers fields and sometimes gardens. The trails have signs posted by the trail head, which indicates the public have access to cross the lands. We need to do this here in the States, Petaluma could be the leader in this new venture. It could be a whole new start to preserving more land for recreation and providing more open space within the towns and cities throughout the States. Once the word gets out along with the positive feed back, you the council could take credit for this. We need to preserve this historic town, it is so precious. I have lived in many different locations in the States, like most of us who live here, we feel it is the best town we have ever lived in. We need to keep it this way. As members of the Council you have an opportunity of leaving a legacy of making a difference in people's lives. It's not about money, it is about preserving the history of this town which is so important. Please vote to keep the land as open space, it will be well appreciated by thousands of people who live year and visitors. A vote that could effect the quality of life for the next generation. Thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Naomi R. Tickle Speaker & author of What Makes People Tick & Why Who Am I Who Are You? Creating successful relationships. Phone: 707 769 0290 www.naomitickle.com -Iql From: adam klein [aklein @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:56 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Susan Jaderstro; Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; davekingpcc @omail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; Kathleen Miller; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard@lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Alicia, Thank you for the work you do for our city. I am writing with regard to the DEIR for David Development by Windsor and D Street. We love living in the unique town known as Petaluma and hope that the spirit and characteristics that have it be a such a special place are not lost with the unfolding of time. My family lives on 10th Street just a few houses down from D Street. One of our main concerns with the project is the traffic implications. In the draft EIR one of the non - signaled intersections that was overlooked is -D Street & 10th Street. As is widely known D Street has significant traffic issues and many drivers use 10th Street as a cut over to access B Street or other alternate streets to access downtown Petaluma. In the almost three years we've lived here we notice a marked increase in traffic on D Street as well as cutover traffic down 10th Street. Just the other day at approximately 8:20am I was taking our daughter to school which has us go down D Street toward downtown (a left turn off of 10th Street). We had to wait 5 minutes for a break in traffic so we could make the left turn. This was just to get on D Street -- from there it was a line cars to through town. This has become the new normal getting onto D Street. As I sit here (8pm) writing this not a minute goes by where a car doesn't go speed down I Oth Street to cutover to access Petaluma. Many times the drivers are driving too fast for a residential street. This is a major concern as there are children in the neighborhood, including our daughter. When spring and summer arrives is gets only worse as visitors use the road. Adding more housing on this already saturated road will cause noise and exacerbate existing traffic issues. The other significant issue is the aesthetics of the projects. As indicated on page 4.1 -14: However, the proposed project would be highly visible from the vantage point on D Street, and would result in a potentially significant impact on scenic views from this roadway. Additionally it would significantly impact the view from Windsor Street and Helen Putnam Park. Any development will have significant issues on the hillside view and the feel of the area. The proposed mitigation efforts would have very minimal effect on the aesthetics of the site. The greenbelt area is a significant asset to the town of Petaluma and altering it would negatively effect the look, feel, and noise level. As a regular to Helen Putnam I am very concerned about shrinking green / open space. This does not include the environmental impact which is detailed somewhat in the EIR. It's been brought to my attention that over 119 trees would be removed -- how would these replaced? When remove them, disturb then environment to only re -plant? What about the red frog? And the Red Barn? These were not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. As I review the EIR further I will provide more comments. Sincerely, Adam Klein 415.894.0386 1 @daibew I http: / /activelystill.com From: Mary Lynn Bryan [bryanmarylynn @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:43 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear City Council Members, I am very concerned about the inadequacy of the EIR about the Davidson Homes Project and the possible impact of this project on our environment— especially for someone who lives in an area that will be affected by this project. I live on D at the intersection of Sunnyslope and already it is almost impossible to now get in or of our driveway due to the increased number of cars that back up on D Street waiting for the light on Sunnyslope. We have live in our home for 17 years and we have never experienced such congestion as we do now. This project will only increase the number of cars driving, stopping and backing up in front of our home. The exhaust alone has increased so much that we need to clean our windows every other week whereas previously we could get away with once a month. I did not see anything in the EIR that addresses the increase in CO2 being released from cars due to the new traffic in and out of the proposed home site. Also, we spend much time walking and hiking in this area and the aesthetic is something we will not get back if the trees are cut down and the barn no longer exists. Even if the barn is left in its current location, it will certainly not have the .same aesthetic with houses built all around it. It does appear that the EIR has addressed these kinds of concerns either. It has been suggested that the City require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put the proposed houses. This way the public could have a much better idea of how the project will affect our views. Please slow down, ask for more in the EIR report as I have noted. It truly seems the aesthetic piece has been missed as well as the impact of increased cars on D Street and their environmental impact. Thank you for your consideration of this request, Mary Lynn Bryan D Street Resident From: Stevan Bosanac [sbosanac @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:43 AM To: councilman .albertson(a)gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc@gmail.com; mthealy sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearngy(cbme.com; kathleencmilleroffce@gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: mayordavidglass @gmail.com Subject: It's Never Too Late to do the Right Thing! To City Council Members: Why, again, must the corporation be considered above the environment? Just say "NO" to Davidon! • Build higher density closer to downtown, closer to the train station. • Build affordable housing, in higher density, closer to downtown and the train station. Don't build just for the wealthy. • Windsor Drive is already approaching a constant stream of traffic early morning /late afternoons. This Davidson monstrosity will make it untenable to live on this street. • Just say "NO." Be creative; there are other avenues to developing housing in Petaluma and to increasing our tax base. Regards, Stevan Bosanac 707 - 293 -7989 Petaluma, CA x-19 41 From: Tonia [tmsassi @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:34 AM To: Stevan Bosanac Cc: councilman .albertson(a)gmail.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; davekingpcc(agmail.com; mthealyCabsbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney@me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; mayordavidglassCkgmail.com Subject: do the Right Thing! To City Council Members: Why, again, must the corporation be considered above the environment? Just say "NO" to Davidon! • Build higher density closer to downtown, closer to the train station. • Build affordable housing, in higher density, closer to downtown and the train station. Don't build just for the wealthy. • Windsor Drive is already approaching a constant stream of traffic early morning /late afternoons. This Davidson monstrosity will make it untenable to live on this street. • Just say "NO." Be creative; there are other avenues to developing housing in Petaluma and to increasing our tax base. Regards, Tonia Sassi From: Stephanie Gonzalez [stephaniemarie8240 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:51 AM To: teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekin cc gmail.com; mthealy sbcalobal.net; councilmemberkearney(abme.com; kathleencmilleroffice (a)gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; councilman .albertsonCa)Qmail.com Subject: Dear Alicia, Kathy, Gabe, Teresa, Dave, Mike, and Chris, Please vote "NO" on development of the red barn area and instead choose to EXPAND Helen Putnam Regional Park. As a resident, homeowner, and constituent of Petaluma for the last 40+ years, I urge you to help us protect our open spaces and the ecologically -rich entrance to Petaluma from the West. This park has enriched my families lives immeasurably. We have sustained our Regional Park pass for over 10 years to do our part to preserve it. Thank you for your attention and for doing your best to represent our interests. Just like you, we want to preserve what is most special about Petaluma. Stephanie Gonzalez 1165 Lombardi Ave Petaluma CA 94954 a -156 From: Pat S [adepasi @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 5:44 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP@comcast.net Subject: City Council /Planning Comm comments re Scott Farm /Davidon dr EIR I live in Victoria and we have steep unstable hillsides. The draft EIR does not address these slope failures. They have occurred on Oxford Ct and on Windsor Lane — to mention only two. We have a 15- 20 foot wall behind our home. How will this new construction take in to account these features — all part of the same hillsides? The draft EIR does not state if soil and hydrology testing was done on the hillsides involved in this proposal. Recent heavy rain indicates a possible new weather pattern so testing should take that into account. As a person living in Victoria, I am dismayed that runoff from our development still negatively affects people on D Street and their neighborhoods. How can we contemplate more .development in the same area? I have seen the pooling of water on D Street after rains. This is or has been a quiet area. The additional traffic [Google now routes people into town past the planned site -did you know] will add to the noise and since there are only two exits out of Victoria and we are near the maximum capacity according to the original plans IT'S POTENTIALLY UNSAFE TO ADD TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING ON THIS CORRIDOR— WINDSOR ST. The draft EIR says there will be significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants due to the construction. As a person with diminished immune capacity, I read that and am concerned for myself and others who could be in this category too- some without knowing it. There need to be provisions in case the developer goes into bankruptcy, as happened in Victoria. So grading and tree removal [argh] should proceed in stages -where the next area to be developed is. And the developer must post adequate bond, guaranty or trust fund to cover long term possible adverse impacts on homeowners and the City. The density planned is too much at the edge of the city. If it proceeds, it should be clustered on less sensitive areas away from Kelly Creels. Thank you for taking all this into account. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. Petaluma, CA 94952 d-(? From: Grubaugh & Seifert [gsviolin @sonic.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 5:40 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon Nine Reasons to Reject the Davidon Project. #1 — Neither D Street nor Sunnyslope Avenue (or any of the streets around this area) were designed for the current traffic load much less more. D Street has recently become a new shortcut for freeway traffic to and from the Santa Rosa area; especially with the assistance of navigation apps. This traffic burden will be an ongoing problem. The traffic now is a strain to the already overtaxed road repair load of Petaluma Public Works. #2 - Although B Street might have relieved D Street traffic into and out of Victoria, there are no plans to open B Street up to Windsor with the proposed Davidon development. There was no reason (other than political at the time) that upper B Street wasn't planned to pass through onto Windsor. This decision is lucky for those living on B Street. If the Davidon project is approved, the brunt of traffic will again fall on D Street and to a large extent, Sunnyslope Avenue and the other lettered and numbered streets down to I Street and Petaluma Blvd. The traffic on these streets is already like a race course as people try to find a way around congestion. #3 - Developments like Victoria have caused many problems for the existing citizens on this side of Petaluma and especially for those of us living downstream from Kelly Creek. Because of a flawed design in 1992, draining on the Victoria streets simply pushes the problem downstream. Since then, Kelly Creek between Sunnyslope Avenue and 8th Street has flooding and pollution issues. The City has absolutely no plans to improve the flooding problems or the pollution problems. The street runoff at the foot of Windsor Drive dumps directly into Kelly Creek as do the streets in Pinnacle . Again, the City has no plans to address this issue. The City of Petaluma has absolutely no plans to fix what needs to be re- thought. #4 This is a beautiful piece of land and could so wonderfully connect downtown Petaluma with Helen Putnam Park. As it is, the land is a wildlife corridor, which connects the wildlife traveling from Marin to the coast and from our hills to the river. This land must be treated with special sensitivity. #5 - It is our opinion that Davidon knows that south of Kelly Creek will not be approved and has thrown it into their proposal as a give -a -way for more gains on the rest of the site. #6 - So many of the neighbors in this area are flatly against development on this land. Though we've all been accused by Davidon as being NIMBY's, we would like to point out that Davidon plans to sell their homes to future NIMBY's. #7 - The taxes gained by the City for allowing Davidon to go ahead with this project will not begin to cover the multitude of negative impacts. # 8 — The endangered Red Legged Frogs living in this area are also citizens of Petaluma and should be protected at all costs. They are not secluded to the stock pond but migrate out in the breeding season. One even migrated into our small fishpond a few years ago and our house is a mile distance down Kelly Creek. Their continued existence will be far less probable if any development is scheduled near Kelly Creek. � -I ? 9 #9 - Davidon has so far not entertained any interest in selling the property even though it is probable that money could be raised. We understand the rights of a company to make money on its investments. Please remember, however, that you been entrusted with the responsibility of representing the citizens of Petaluma. You owe it to the current residents of this area to stop this project. At the very least, it should be limited to just a very few homes and only on the north side of Windsor - -but only after the problematic DEIR is revised to give Petalumans an accurate way to evaluate this project. We have lived at 307 Sunnyslope Avenue for 37 years. Kelly Creek runs through our property. This is the same Kelly Creek that runs through the Davidon property. Attached is a picture taken in our yard on April 24, 2017. Both the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma Fire Department are aware of this latest insult to Kelly Creek. Joseph Grubaugh & Sigrun Seifet 307 Sunnyslope Avenue �_I� � From: aaron edmondson [adepas @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:13 PM To: mayordavidglass() gmail.com; council man. albertson(cbg mail. com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net, davekingpcc@gmail.com; mthealy(�bsbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney(cbme.com; kathleencmilleroffice (a)gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; iocelynyehC-Oyahooxom; richard(&Iacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez@gmail.com; ginamarie.bp()gmail.com Cc: Pat S Subject: Davidon project I wish to register my opposition to the Davidon proposal to build more houses on the slopes of Windsor Dr. and D Street. We moved here about 10 years ago and the view as we drove into the Victoria area was enough to make us want to live here. We live on Oxford Ct. and I drive by the red barn and Kelly Creek every day and it makes me so glad to live here. I do not feel that the Draft EIR does an adequate job of describing the environmental degradation that the project will cause. The beauty that will be destroyed by the project will be lost forever. The cows in the pasture, the deer under the trees, the turkeys crossing the road and the spectacular view will be lost and can never be replaced. Can the red barns be replaced, can the slopes stand the excavation, can the water run off be controlled? It will be very sad to lose all of this. Aaron Edmondson 33 Oxford Ct. Petaluma P -2-00 From: Robert [rmateik @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:45 PM To: Giudice,.Alicia Cc: Jenpierrepetaluma@yahoo.com; wolpert(absonic.net; jocelynyeh@yahoo.com; richardCcblacehouselinen.com; dianaeaomez(0)gmail.com; ainamarie.bp(d)gmail.com; councilman. aIbertson(cbg mail. corn Subject: Davidon project Dear Sir /Madam... After attending the Davidon planning commission meeting 1 was very disappointed to see several obvious flaws ignored or classified as'can be mitigated' or'negligible impact'. These terms for solving 'problems' are PC terms for huge inconveniences, sacrifices and property value loss due to prolonged construction. These problems can be itemized by various concerned parties but it appears that the empaneled 'experts' don't want to listen to the residents. Rather than bore you with facts and observations, I would just like to go on record as being opposed to the Davidon project. After becoming aware of the extent of the 'problem' with the city councils view on this project I will be assisting the local groups opposing Davidon's development as presented. Please, if you would like to see 'negligible impact' traffic problems already, just take a stroll any week day afternoon out D street from Lakeville. Sincerely.... Robert Mateik 700 D St., Petaluma, Ca. 9 —20 1 From: Josh Argyle Doshargyle @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:23 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject; Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Alicia Giudice, I writing to you regarding the proposed Davidson project. I have multiple. concerns regarding this project. I want you to deny this project for the reasons I have listed below. Traffic- My family and I live on the Westside, near the Petaluma High School, and the traffic is an issue. We live on Webster Street, across from the high school, and this street is very overused. People use this to get across the westside. Webster St, along with B Street, which was overlooked in the traffic analysis. Should this development go through, the traffic would compound the traffic issues on Webster street, along with traffic issues on the D street bridge. It took me 30 Minutes to go from 8th and D street, to Lakeville and D Street on Friday. Scenery - One of our favorite places in Petaluma is Helen Putnam Regional Park. The scenery is amazing, and it is one of the quietest places in Petaluma. Adding another subdivision on the other side of the park will greatly diminish the beauty and overall ambiance. I know a lot of people that use this park often, and highly value this park. Environment - I have multiple concerns regarding the environment. My first concern is the hardscaping that will be generated by the project. This will cause major run off points, lack of water penetration, which will effect the creek.The fences and houses would also will effect wildlife migration in the area. My second concern is the habitat of the red frog. As a consequence of development on this land, the habitat of the red fiog could be dramatically effected or destroyed. My last concern is the additional noise to the area in the form of cars, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, etc. I am hopeful you will take my opinion, along with those of my fellow neighbors, and deny this project. Thanks for your time. Best, Josh a -"�D2 From: Catherine Sky [catrsky @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:51 PM To: councilman .albertson(a)amail.com: teresa4Detalulma(a)comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy(a)sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearneyPme.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: ienpierrepetalumapyahoo.com; wolpertCa)sonic.net; jocelynyeh@yahoo.com; richard@lacehouselinen.com; ginamarie.bp@gmail.com Subject: no Davidon development Dear Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council- I am writing to express my position that no homes be built on the land at D ST and Windsor, currently owned by Davidon development co. I am a homeowner in West Petaluma and I believe that open spaces like this parcel are integral to Petaluma and should be preserved for people and wildlife. Helen Putnam park should be extended to D st. to save the red barn and include a hiking trail to the park. Luxury homes with enormous footprints and even bigger price tags are not an acceptable use of precious wild land. Are any of these proposed homes affordable for teachers, nurses, public servants? We do not need any more McMansions in this town. I also understand that the necessary environmental review has not taken place due to Davidon's refusal to allow inspections on the land. This is reason enough to reject this plan outright. Please understand that in future elections, I will not vote for any members that approve this terrible deal. Catherine Sky 307 12 th Petaluma CA "Go and make interesting mistakes, make amazing mistakes, make glorious and fantastic mistakes. Break rules. Leave the world more interesting for your being here. Make. Good, Art." Neil Gaiman From: Adrienne Bell [adrienneleebell @gmail.com] Sent. Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:03 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR To Alicia Giudice, Petaluma's beauty, especially the open land on the west side is breathtaking. I beg you not to allow another development dig itself into the landscape. asked my daughter, who will turn five this May, what Petaluma's slogan should be. We were driving back from Point Reyes, and we had just passed the red barn area. Without hesitation, she said, "The green grass grows all around, all around." This is her view of Petaluma, and I hope that it will always be. To live in nature, with views of grass,. pasture, cows, deer, goats, horses, foxes, frogs, trees, blackberries and wildflowers is why we chose Petaluma. The gorgeous landscape and small town feel of the west side makes the commute to San Francisco, the potholes, the distance from loved ones well worth it. We chose to live here because this city has something to offer that Santa Monica, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Berkeley and Austin did not. We picked Petaluma as our home. Housing developments that we could never afford to purchase a home in are a strike against the city. More construction, more traffic, more noise and more pollution are hard to justify. Petaluma's west side doesn't need to become the hills of Berkeley. Please do your best to preserve the precious land that his community treasures. best, Adrienne Argyle Adrienne Argyle (911 From: Chey Moore [cmoe6 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:38 PM To: councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealyCd)sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathieencmillerofce (a)gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP @comcast.net Subject: Proposed Davidon Development Dear City Staff, I am writing in strong opposition of the proposed Davidson Development @ D St. and Windsor. I am not a professional geologist, biologist, hydrologist, etc. But I can tell you that I don't have to have those credentials or make a million dollar environmental study to realize the devastation that development on this land will create. I do live nearby. I do drive down the streets that are already rated "D" and "F ". Please tell me how an "F" rating can be mitigated? Day after day at 5:00 pm, you spend 20 minutes trying to drive into town via D Street — one of our most beautiful, historical streets in Petaluma. When is it OK to turn our neighborhood streets into bumper to bumper grid lock. I do live next door on the same hill sides as the proposed development. Our development of houses have had to repair several hill slides to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars. I would guess our developer also said all of these unstable hill sides can be mitigated. Cut and fill. That's all it takes I'm sure they said —just like Davidon says. Well, it's not true. We have lived it. These hillsides have underground springs that cannot be controlled. We humans have to realize we cannot always control nature. The hill sides are unstable as documented. Certain land areas are just not suitable for development, for many different reasons. This area is one of these land areas unsuitable for development. The death of Kelly Creels is a by- product of the Victoria development. I'm sure the developer said he could mitigate all concerns relating to the development of Victoria and Kelly Creels. Well, Kelly Creek is dead now. People are saying "Save the environment. Save the trees. Save the frog, Save the barn." What about save the humans! We have to have natural resources to exist and thrive. When do the people count too? You have heard from so many Petaluman's not to develop this land. We are pleading with you to leave it for the community — to expand Helen Putnam Park. There are not enough areas for people to get out in a parldnature environment in Petaluma. Compare Petaluma with Marin County or Sonoma County. We fall far behind them in hiking trails, nature walks, public open spaces. Developers have certain rights to develop land but the City staff must require development to be in the best interest of the community. Davidon has consistently brought inadequate environmental studies to City staff. It is apparent that he cannot and will not address concerns brought forth by City staff and the community. Davidon should just realize he made a bad business decision to purchase this land for development. Just because he thought it would be a good investment doesn't make it one. He made a bad judgment and bad business decision to purchase the land for development. Thank you for your service to our community. ')� -'-) ©S- Sincerely, Chey Moore 2-20 From: Suzanne Biaggi <susanna(a,sbia i com> Date: Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 5:11 PM To: <aZiudice(a?ci.petaluma.ca> Cc: "councilman.albertson gmail.com" < councilman .albertson@gmail.com >, "teresa4petaluma@comcast. net" <teresa4petalumagcomcast.net >, <davekin pcca *mail.com >, "mthealygsbcglobal.net" <mthealy@sbcglobal.net>, < kathleencmilleroffice @,gmail.com> Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Ms. Giudice, I currently live on Keokuk st. I have lived in Petaluma since 1983. For the first 20 years I resided on the rural west side on Eucalyptus ave. I am very familiar with the site the Davidon /Scott Ranch site that is being considered for development. I have serious concerns with the project and the draft EIR Report, which I have summarized below. • 1 drive by the red barn frequently. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. • The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. • The barn is an invaluable cultural resource. Its loss or relocation would destroy the cultural integrity of the area. At the very least the EIR should disclose the cost to move it vs. leaving it. as is. The Draft EIR should include a project alternative that repurposes the barn as a museum, displaying the old dairying methods. As part of this museum, the cows could be kept there with a weekend milking demo for kids. • It is very troubling that the Draft EIR does not indicate whether the hillside soil and hydrology testing was conducted during recent wet months. It also does not disclose the assumptions and methodology that were used for this hydrological testing. Nearby Victoria is an area of very steep, unstable and sliding hillsides. The EIR should analyze how the Davidon project will address the possible increase of landslide threats in the area. • The Draft EIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. The Draft EIR tries to explain that this impact can be "mitigated." I don't believe it. There are several babies in the nearby Community. A heightened risk of cancer is simply unacceptable. • Will the project's houses have solar -ready roofs? What is the carbon footprint of this development? • Kelly Creek and its tributaries are critical natural resources, yet the project proposes dense development adjacent to these waterways. The project tries to downplay the existence of the large D Street tributary, running it through a culvert so that houses can be built on top of it with no setback. The project also proposes excessive density at the edge of the City's urban growth boundary. The EIR should include an alternative that clusters houses on the less- sensitive parts of the site, away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries, and away from the urban growth boundary. Also, if there is a plan to continue grazing cattle on parts of the land, what will be done to exclude them from the creek so they don't continue (as they do now) to affect the water quality? Thank you for considering my concerns when reviewing this project. Sincerely, Suzanne Biaggi S,BIAGGI I oroptoftj ordkVIIm-q susannagsbiag i com 707.483.5314 From: Iangheaton(&comcast.net [langheaton @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:24 AM Dear Ms Giudice: Here are my comments regarding the proposed development at D Street and Windsor: The citizens worked very hard during the years of identifying a new General Plan for our community. The plan by the Davidon company to get considerations to not follow the plan which includes : destroying the wildlife corridor; increasing traffic along D street making an impossible traffic flow even worse for all residents that live and contribute to our community; not following the intent of the Western reaches and Hillside preservation, removing the native Oak tree canopy along Kelly Creek and not at all considering the value of the aesthetic beauty of this parcel at the gateway to Petaluma unacceptable to the community. What value does this development hold for our community members? Certainly not affordable housing near the core of our city which is so needed in all of our county and specifically our town. The development monies that the city will receive from the developer on this project will be outweighed by the destruction of the land and the value it holds for the community not to mention the infrastructure costs to the city. This plan does not make financial sense nor is it the choice for the majority of the community members according to the poll in the Argus Courier and just by talking to the citizenry. Once the hills and creek are ripped and filled -in; healthy beautiful oak trees are bulldozed and re- planting done, once the streets and homes that only very rich people can afford are built, once are traffic flows are forever negatively impacted with no mitigation's that can make a difference - because there are none, the town is the forever loser in this situation. The developer took a risk when he purchased the land -not a promise to make a profit -just like in all of our business choices in the real world. There is an alternative that would satisfy the task of the developer being compensated for the monies that they have invested in this land so far and the identified goals of the majority of the community -the developer should be compensated with a Fair Market Value for the land and the community wins at preserving this land and including it into Helen Putnam Regional Park for the enjoyment of generations in the future. Petalumans For Responsible Planning and the Kelly Creek Project have a working plan for accomplishing this goal -if all the parties just start to dialogue this can become a reality and everyone is a winner! I personally will continue to volunteer my time to work with all the stakeholders to make preserving the 58 acre parcel a reality- just as I have been doing for the last 13 years. Sincerely Sherri Fabre- Marcia 778 -9429 From: Donna Emerson [donnaemerson05 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2.017 12:44 PM 1b: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Public comment re: DEIR for Davidon Homes proposal Dear Ms. Giudice and Council Members: This is my second letter to you. I am seriously concerned about the current (2017) proposal by Davidon Homes for the 58 acre Scott Ranch at the corner of Windsor and D Streets. I am concerned for the same reasons I wrote about in my first letter to you in 2013 (attached): 1) destruction of habitat for wildlife such as the red legged frog, western pond turtle, deer, turkeys, 2) the effects of this building will create serious problems with water, traffic congestion, and demolition of the last remaining "old Petaluma" vista sought after by artists and Petaluma residents alike, 3) such massive building places money as a higher value than the integrity of this land, the history of Petaluma. Since I've read the DEIR for this year, 2017, I can see that it does not fully address these concerns. Some of the mitigations are not true solutions, Several issues are not addressed at all. Because I've kept up on the research gathered by independent experts for Petalumans for Responsible Planning, I know more now than I did in 2013, I know how fragile these hills on the red barn side really are. Geologic experts predict much mud sliding as a result, problems with Kelly Creek, beyond what I feared in 2013. I do not think any homes should be placed on the red barn side of Windsor. We have photographs of current sliding during and after storms. We've seen the mudslides and what it costs afterwards, there on the Scott Ranch and here, where we live near Cambridge and hills above. A month ago,the Planning Commission responded much the way I do. they voted: no homes on the northwest side of Windsor. I also know from environmental specialists that this region contains the wildlife corridor for larger animals, such as fox, mountain lion. With bulldozers tearing up these hills, the eco- system for raptors will also be destroyed. Over the many years we have fought Davidon, new and creative solutions have been proposed. Why not add this property onto Putnam Park? Why not make this gateway to our town reflect its history and stay as a link from new Petaluma to Helen Putnam Park? There may be enough money, combining resources from the Open Space District, the Parks, and community donors,with leadership by people like David Rabbit. . Please add this letter as well as my first letter to the public comment for both times we replied to DEIR. We learned at the Planning Commission that our over 330 letters from 2013 were never included in the files and thus never seen by the City Council. Thank you, Donna L Emerson, MSW„ LCSW, Petaluma resident since 1986 From: Donna L. Emerson, 111 Dublin Court, Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Draft EIR from Davidon Homes: Public Comment We,purchased a home in Petaluma in 1992 because we wanted to live in a family community and liked the rural ambiance of the hills around Putnam Park. We were drawn to the gateway into town from Pt Reyes, with its red barn, 17 acres of black oak trees, Kelly Creek, even the herds of dairy cattle at either end of Windsor. We liked that Petaluma townspeople protected their town from overdevelopment, e.g.we read the history of the East side during the 1960's, liked that the Petaluma River runs through town, that almost everyone votes in elections. Living in Victoria, we got to know the dairy cows, giving them names, photographing them in every season, watching them amble up the hills, over the creek. We counted and watched the nine deer that visit us regularly, as well as the turkeys visiting near Windsor Lane. This is not a plea to keep any development out of my neighborhood. We did not fight the West Haven development at the Western Ave. side of Windsor, because they left the rural farmland /hill intact. When Davidon came to the Women's Club in 2004 and had a first meeting with about 30 of us, they showed beautiful architectural drawings of large homes they planned for the Arnold Scott ranch. I wrote down two of their questions to us: "Wouldn't you like such beautiful homes to increase the value of your own ?" "How many of you would protest such a well planned project ?" Many of us raised our hands for that second question.This particular development idea included the entire 58 acres at the bottom of Windsor Drive, on both sides of the street. We had already heard of the water problems people had down B St. due to part of Victoria's development. We had heard at other meetings about flooding down D St., 11th St., 12th St, due to building in these hills. We had read in our HOA newsletters about the hill slippage in two spots, within Victoria,hills the size of and near the hills Davidon plans to build 66 or 93 homes on. We now see from the DEIR that the red legged frog in the creek will be decimated due to building, as well as the pasture land for the cows, deer, turkey, and various birds of prey. What's alarming is that this pristine gateway to our town, including the old red barn with its cows' milking collars inside, will be taken down or moved. This view that we've relied on as the signature of our town, the reason many of us moved here, will be torn up and spit out. This does not raise the value of our homes, but lowers their value, and worse, demonstrates that the almighty dollar holds more sway than a sense of place, its flora and fauna, its people. In our family, we oppose the entire development as it is currently proposed and certainly urge the council1) not to allow the changed zoning soon to be requested by Davidon to build bigger,2) not to let the project be measured by the old 1987 General Plan standards, but by the 2025 standards you passed a few years ago and 3) allow enough time for the public to react to the lengthy EIR. Most important, Petaluma's integrity and connection to the dairy industry and the land, must be preserved. This corner of town is its last physical remnant, a reminder of our unique Sonoma landscape and history. 7-21 Apri121,2017 We have two specific concerns based on our experiences as a residents of the area. It is not clear to us from the Draft Environmental Impact Report that the following concerns have been addressed. Traffic concern: We live near the intersection of 8th and D Streets. I often walk down D Street to Windsor and cross there. This will be a much more dangerous intersection and I notice bikers and pedestrians use this area as well and I feel it will become more dangerous with the development and added cars. I often walk up the hill at Helen Putnam Park between 4 and 6pm and watch the traffic come down D Street extension into town. The steady stream of cars at this time of day is significant. Added traffic would be a stress on the roads and pedestrians. We notice that a children's playground is planned for the corner of Windsor and D. Anyone who has been at this intersection knows that this would be a very unrealistic and unsafe place for children to play especially with the added traffic. Has the presence of pedestrians, children and bikers been taken into account? Draft EIR Photos: The photographs in the Draft EIR that were intended to show what a development like this would look like, and how it would alter the landscape were not realistic. One was taken behind a hill so that the houses were not seen except for one rooftop. But obviously the houses will be seen from many perspectives. And the public deserves to know what the project will really look like. Only one photo shows the true scope of the project (the one from the view point from Pinnacle Rd) The obvious fact that this land is uniquely beautiful is especially clear by the fact that the Draft EIR did not show the reality of the impact that a large project like this would have on this spectacular and important area of land. Cindy Wood and Gerry Bojanowski 14 Coady Court Petaluma, CA 94952 Cindy.gerry @comcast.net From: Pat S [adepasl @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 5:45 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP @comcast.net Subject: City Council /Scott Farm /Davidon: comments re dr EIR - Aesthetics Dear Council Members and Planning Committee, I am a local artist and I can't say enough about how lovely the red barn, other buildings, the meadow and fields at the former Scott Ranch are. In fact because I seek such beauty to portray it, I can say there are very few spots that rival this one in Sonoma County. We artists provide FREE ADVERTISING for our town and area when we depict these spots and show them in galleries, shows, websites. Please preserve this iconic historical spot. Moving the barn would affect its standing to be considered as a National Historic Site and it would not be the same for me and other artists. This farm was run by a woman for 17 years - what an educational opportunity for our children! If this beautiful gateway view is at risk then does that say to all others - they are too? This is the best spot in town. There should be story poles to show where houses,would go and their effect on current views. Also, the developer should abide by the new City Plan 2025 - not the old one. A copy of my previous comments are attached. Pat "Spiz" Spitzig From: Pat S [mailto:adepasl @ comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:48 PM To: ' councilman.albertson @gmail.com' < councilman .albertson @gmail.com >; 'teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net' <teresa4petaluma @ com cast. net>; 'mike4pet @aol.com' <mike4pet @aol.com >; 'mthealy @sbcgloba 1. net' <mthealy @sbcglobal. net >;'councilmemberkearney @me.com' <councilmemberkearney @me.com >; ' kathleencmI Ile roffice @gmail.com' < kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com >; 'ag!udice @ci.petaluma.ca.us' Subject: City Council /Davidon comments re dr EIR - Aesthetics As a local artist I treasure the red barn at D and Windsor - where it is - along with the trees, the meadow in front of it, and the creek and trees behind it and the long views into the hills beyond. This is a Petaluma gem. Moving the barn would affect its standing to be considered as a National Historic Site and it would not be the same for me and other artists. This farm was run by a woman for 17 years - what an educational opportunity for our children. Artists provide free publicity for our town. If this beautiful gateway view is at risk, then does that say to all others they are too? This is about the best spot in town. Also, the developer should abide by the new City Plan 2025 - not the old one - they had representation at the meetings for the new one. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig, 33 Oxford Ct. From: Connie Madden [connie.madden @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:30 AM :?-2)r-5, To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Keep the space adjoining Helen Putnam Park OPEN, please! Dear Alicia Giudice, Planning Division, Petaluma, CA As one of the contributors to the Celebrating Petaluma Sequecentennial book, I've studied the warp and woof of the River, the health of the little businesses downtown, the overall economic and cultural aspects of Petaluma for articles in the Argus and for blogs at Petaluma360.com in years past. We now live on Petaluma AG land, and are part of the little city through many organizations and circles of friends - and we all from time to time hike in Helen Putnam Park, the only hill park with a big view, the only accesss many children and parents have to the little hills we are named for. To block those views is to shut down the imagination and sense of peace derived from hiking in that area. We sincerely hope Lafferty Park will be open to us "some day "! We should ask ourselves, are we to be dictated to by developers or can we go beyond that action to truly represent the wishes of the people who live here - to preserve our open space and in particular, the marvelous views afforded by an as yet undisturbed view from Helen Putnam Park? Thank you for your consideration, Connie Madden Connie Madden Oasis Community Farm 282 Skillman Lane, Petaluma, CA 94952 707 - 789 -9294 (c) 707 - 933 -6837 littp •// oasiscommunityfarm .blogspot.com/ http://cotinie-madden.blo.gs.petaluma360.com/ Connle.Madden(2 gmai l.com Petaluma Community Guild Secretary 2--2/ y From: Tom Corbett [yosemitecorb @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 12:12 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Brodhun, Scott; teresa4peta luma @comcast. net; council man.albertson@g mail. com; mthealy sbcglobal.net; Kathy Miller City; davekingpcc @gmail.com; Gabe Kearney; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; jocel nyy eh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; wolpert @sonic.net Subject: Davidon DEIR 2017 - Problems with Backyard at 1243 B St? Hi Alecia, I understand that you are the lead planner for the Davidon development that is currently under review. Attached is a letter describing our concerns about the impact of the project on our home at 1243 B St in the Victoria neighborhood and some photos of flooding that continues to occur on our property. Linda and I have lived at this home since June of 1994 and we've experienced flooding in our backyard many of those years. The letter and photos will explain and illustrate our concerns and our hope that you and your team will address them with Davidon and require mediating changes to the EIR. We have also expressed concerns about additional aspects of the project. Thank you in advance for your attention to these important issues, Tom & Linda Corbett, 775 3636 9 - -alb �2- - �.I I From: James Garrahan [jamesgarrahan @me.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 1:45 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: D Street Project Dear Petaluma Council Members, In 2005 my family moved from a beautiful heritage home on Howard Street to a newer home in Victoria. Why ? Because we absolutely loved the unique rolling hills and oak trees that surrounded the community. We wanted to be in a country setting and get out of the traffic of mid town. Victoria is all about the pristine nature of surrounding hills . The thousands of people who live here, moved here to be part of this beautiful countryside. We did not EVER want Victoria to be turned into a SUB - DIVISION of more crowded houses, traffic, water restrictions, and noise. The people of Petaluma do not want the purposed Davidon Project to destroy our natural environment. We are shouting loud and clear that we emphatically oppose such a monstrous development that violates the core of what make Petaluma unique. Beyond the unethical greed of Davidon, they have horrible record of backing their construction. Victoria homes have been plagued with leaking roofs, windows, poor construction issues. There are sewage drainage problems , and stucco exteriors cracking . When Davidon is contacted about these issues, they simply deny any responsibility because the warranty has expired. They offer no solutions, no references, they simply hang up and ignore our needs. Their public relation service is horrible ! City council members voting on this issue BE AWARE that you WORK for US, the people of Petaluma, who you represent, and WE ARE SAYING NO!! Absolutely NO, to Davidon Project On D Street!! You work for US, NOT DAVIDON ! We will remember next time you're up for office. Everyone of you will be accountable if you turn West Petaluma's Victoria into an ugly sub - division, and massacre the sacred landscapes that surround us. Vote NO on Davidon ! James Garrahan Family ,t Prom: Deirdre Hockett [dahockett @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 4:01 PM To: councilman .albertson@clmail.com; councilmemberkearney(a)me.com; Davekingpcc@gmail.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net Cc: Giudice, Alicia; Saramay Borders Subject: Concerns about the DEIR for the proposed Davidon development Dear Council Members, This letter was prepared by my neighbor, Saramay Borders, a long time resident of San Antonio Road and friend of Arnold Scott. She asked me to send it to you. Best, Deirdre Hockett To Whom It May Concern, In Sept. 1965, my husband and I purchased 16.9 acres on San Antonio Road, then a quiet country road with 4 other homes and 5 dairies for neighbors. At that time, we also became charter members of San Antonio Volunteer Fire Dept. through which we met Arnold Scott, the owner of the 58 acre parcel on Windsor and "D" Streets. Our young teen -aged sons worked for Arnold doing odd jobs and we became good friends with Arnold. Arnold often discussed with my husband and me his hope for the future of his property as he had no descendants. He told us that he thought by bequeathing it to his alma mater, U.C. at Berkeley, it would be protected from development. My family and I are concerned about the future of the wild life on his property and by the future increase in traffic. One of the great attractions in our area is the large amount of wild life, some of which is endangered. My job causes me to commute to Petaluma from San Antonio Road. Out of curiosity, I started counting the cars going south in the morning as I travelled north. During the past few years, traffic has increased from a few cars going south to many autos taking the route from city limits to San Antonio Rd. During the 8:00 AM commute the amount of cars has increased from a few cars to an average of 50 — 60 vehicles going south. In the 5:00 PM rush hour, the usual count is 75 —110 vehicles going north on the same route. One time when there was a problem on the freeway, I counted 305 vehicles progressing north in that three mile span ! On this section of the road, there have already been several deaths attributed to impatient drivers trying to pass slower traffic. Do we want to add to the congestion by building more homes ? I THINK NOT !! -2-zI`i However, if a few parking spots and connection to Helen Putnam Park would be built as Arnold Scott desired, I think that our community would benefit as would the surviving wild life. Sincerely yours, Saramay Borders Deirdre Hockett 415- 713 -4458 2- zc> From: Patty/Pete Bordiga [ppbord @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 4 :20 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Fwd: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Ms. Giudice, As a concerned citizen of Petaluma who has resided in this beautiful town for nearly twenty years, I must comment on the proposed development of the Scott Ranch by the Davidon Corporation. Holding degrees in both Geology and Engineering, I tools particular interest in reviewing those sections of the draft EIR pertaining to those disciplines. Based on 35 years of experience in industry, seeing things fail as well as succeed, I can vouch for the old adage "nothing is as easy as it looks ". I believe a lot of the mitigations, as stated in the EIR. as being attainable with an easy sweep of the hand, are going to run into challenges when the bulldozers start cutting into the hillsides dominated by that scenic, but unstable (as stated in the report) geology. I won't be the least bit surprised if "mitigations to mitigate the mitigations" occur to address the unstable land and drainage issues as the project develops. In any case, the final result will be a drastically changed valley, with all the trademark Petaluma beauty gone forever. I will hope, along with many other fellow Petalumans, that somehow this beautiful property will be preserved, ideally making it an extension of Helen Putman Park. Thank you. Peter Bordiga #2 Fullerton Lane 2 -'2 2) April 26, 2017 Subject: Davidon Development DEIR Comments including flooding issues at 1243 B St Dear Alicia, After further review of Davidon's DEIR for the proposed development next to Victoria at D St and Windsor we have some comments as follows: First, we believe the developer has the need and the right to develop a portion of the Scott property in light of their investment and purchase from UOP. However, we believe they must be held to the standards of our current General Plan and respect the needs of our community, our quality of life and especially their closest neighbors in Victoria. Our preference is to keep the development to approximately the same home density that was agreed to when development of this valley was originally approved. Since one of their proposals is for 47 homes, this should be the maximum and would allow for the protection of numerous trees, wildlife, the Red Barn and provide an excellent entrance to Helen Putnam Park from D Street. We would also like to see parking considered for the flat area near the Barn and perhaps a place to picnic west of the parking area. The confusion Davidon has created by presenting a 66 home proposal to members of the community while formally submitting a 93 home DEIR to the City with the contingency of using the out dated General Plan has damaged our trust that they will do the right thing for our community. The apparent "bait and switch" tactic of avoiding the 08/25 General Plan vs the outdated 04/87 General Plan is pretty transparent. I trust that the City will see through this and require use of the current plan. Our City Council, their staff and many of our citizens worked hard and spent significant tax dollars developing the current General Plan to protect our heritage and our quality of life, now and for future generations. We live at the upper end of B St; against the knoll for the proposed Davidon lots numbered 1 and 2 and have had significant problems with flooding in our backyard, especially during prolonged and heavy rains (see attached photos from 12/2012 and 01/2017). The original developer (Garrett) clearly anticipated considerable water flow sheeting down the hill (from what is now the Davidon property) during heavy rains and tried to mitigate the problem by installing eight drains in our yard which all feed into a pipe running out to the curb. In spite of this significant drain system, we have still flooded almost every year. We have been so concerned about flooding that we have been reluctant to travel during the winter. In 2012 we purchased a submersible pump and about 80 feet of PVC pipe to drain the excess water from our yard to the curb and prevent its entry into our home. Further, in the summer of 2015, we removed a sidewalk, trenched and replaced our main drain pipe with a larger one and replaced the sidewalk ... all to drain the water more efficiently. In spite of this expensive work we flooded again in January 2017 (see photos). Since the Davidon DEIR indicates that we may see an increase of 70% in water flow at B St, this could be disastrous for our property and others along the B St side of the knoll. The DEIR suggests that retention ponds may mitigate this increased flow but it is not clear where they would be placed and how the drainage would work. At minimum, we believe a V Ditch is needed running along the western -most Davidon property line and intercepting the water on the downward slope towards our B St properties. We trust that you will address these drainage issues and the impact on Kelly Creek in the review of their plans. Since the plot plans of houses do not clearly indicate the distance or placement of houses 1, 2, 3, etc. on any of the proposed plans in the DEIR (28, 47, 66 or 93 homes) we cannot determine the impact on our drainage situation nor the impact on our privacy and on our views to the east and south, not to mention the increased traffic. We are also concerned about rotational landslides that may result from the extensive cut and fill that Davidon's plans indicate. Finally, since we purchased our homes with the expectation that our privacy would be preserved by protecting open space behind our homes and enlarging Helen Putnam Park, we propose that Davidon provide a buffer of <2— 2' trees, running between the V Ditch and our their property line to provide privacy for both the new home owners and our existing homes. This will also allow the numerous deer and other wildlife that have historically passed along our back fence to continue to do so. We also trust that we will be given the opportunity to see plot plans of house footprints and paving before the end of our DEIR comment period plus height indicator (story) poles on the knoll are critical to understanding the impact on existing Victoria homes. These are our most immediate concerns but since full review of this substantial DEIR will take more time we hope to provide more comments later. Thank you for your attention to our concerns, Tom and Linda Corbett 1243 B St, in the Victoria Homeowner's complex 707 775 3636 - 2r?-,3 From. John Crowley [john @aqus.comj Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 4:54 PM To: Chris Albertson Cc: Giudice, Alicia; Susan Jaderstro; - City Clerk Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Chris, The DEIR produced for the proposed Davidon project at Lynch Creek has been declared "as having a questionable baseline on which it's conclusions have been drawn" by one of the planning commissioners. This was backed up by other professionals in the comment period and residents in the community. Upon reviewing the impacts - aesthetics, biological, hydrology and water quality and particular cumulative impacts I believe that this development and any development South of Windsor Drive will unquestionably have a devastating and irreversible impact on the landscape, wildlife, neighboring community, and overall health of nearby residents. Although there is a housing need in Petaluma, this kind of housing should not be permitted in that it does nothing to relieve the "housing crisis" and instead puts at risk the health and well -being of our community. Especially a development that creates such an environmentally devastating impact. The traffic, especially on and around the "D" street corridor is already at an atrocious level. Adding this many housing units would render "D" street a veritable highway with respect to carbon monoxide from gas and nitrogen oxides from diesel. Apparently the traffic study that were included in this DEIR are outdated and should be redone. Can you please let me know the details about how and why this traffic study was included as part of this DEIR? As I'm sure you will be receiving other letters I have listed only a few of the many glaring deficiencies of this. DEIR. As one of our council members recently pointed out, developers are knocking on Petaluma's door to develop in our city. I would like to see our council demand a higher and more relevant standard for projects with our city. This is not a fine example of what we should be developing for our residents and our residents' children. Thank you for taking the time to review these items and I look forward to a response. Yours John Crowley ,-) - ,� a L{ From: Kerrin [ kerrin @therealestatedetective.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 4:22 PM To: mayordavidglass @ gmail.com; councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; counc!Imemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @ gmail.com; G!udice, Alicia Cc: PetRP @comcast.net Subject: FW: My comment on the Davidon DEIR Resending as my service provider said message not sent. I apologize if this is a duplicate. Kerrin Shettle From: Kerrin fmailto: kerrin (a)therealestatedetective.coml Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 4:13 PM To: 'agiudice@ci.petaluma.ca.'; 'mayordavidglass @ gmail.com; ' councilman.albertson@gmail.com; 'teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net; 'davekingpcc @gmail.com; 'mthealy @sbcglobai. net'; 'councilmemberkearney @ me.com'; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com' Cc: 'PetRP @comcast.net' Subject: My comment on the Davidon DEIR To Alicia and other members of the council, What in the world has occurred that has turned our government against the people they were elected to represent? This land is special to EVERYONE who drives through our area and we have a moment in time (one in which most folks would even agree to pay a tax on to keep as it exists today) to use our heads and not our wallets for the benefit of the very few and take a stand and side with the CITIZENRY WHO HAVE EXPRESSED SUCH A TREMENDUOUS OUTCRY TO SAVE THIS LAND FROM DEVELOPMENT. What planet do you people wake up on every day if you don't see and hear this surge from the community? Exactly with whom are you working? If you dare say the City of Petaluma, you are liars as the citizens who don't want the development ARE the city of Petaluma. I will not bore you with more data that we all have at our finger tips but rather I pose the question to you "If far more than a simple majority DO NOT CONDONE this development project how dare you move forward ignoring this protest ?" The people say NO and yet you feel empowered to shove us all aside in favor of development. If you ram this deal through, the land will be changed forever and ALL OF YOU WILL BE TO BLAME. Is it any wonder the citizens of our country are so disillusioned when we on the local level, see up close and in person the rich and powerful continue to outweigh the voice of the people. Shame on you. If you do this, you will own this as it will be a scar on your faces forever and we the people will not forget! Kerrin Shettle Neighbor on Spring Hill From: Petalumans for Responsible Planning fmailto:PetRP= comcast net(o)mai194. at[ 161.mcsv.net] On Behalf Of Petalumans for Responsible Planning Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:02 AM To: kerrin @therealestatedetective.com Subject: Comment NOW on the Davidon DEIR PetRP @comcast.net (http: //gailery mailchimp com[5f26943deb477b16lde4a432f /images /B W.1.ipgI <http: / /PetRP.us5.list- manage com/ track / click? u= 5f26943deb477bl61de4a432f &id= b358ca9e8e &e= 549b477a98> Monday, May 1 Deadline DEIR Comments to City Council fhttps: //gallery mailchimp com /5f26943deb477bl6lde4a432f /images /btn donateCC LG. gifl <http: / /PetRP.us5.list- manage1 com / track / click? u= 5f26943deb477bl6lde4a432f &id= a981847eab &e= 549b477a98> fhttps:llgallery mailchimp com /5f26943deb477bl6ide4a432f /images /06bfa47b -c551- 4434- 997e- f2bbale7963e.ipgl fhttp: / /gallery mailchimp com /5f26943deb477bl6lde4a432f/ images /RollingHillsSJ364245.ipg] fhttps:/ /gallery mailchimp com /5f26943deb477b16lde4a432f /images /PetRP Cows Barn.lpg] fhttp:/ /gallery mailchimp com /5f26943deb477bl6lde4a432f /images /hills8.ipg] [https:llgallery mailchimp com /5f26943deb477bl6lde4a432f /images /a80d7486- 2407- 4ba4- bl55- 965f90cd068f.ii)gl A big THANK YOU to those who have written wonderful, factual, and heart-felt letters about the proposed Davidon develpment at Windsor Drive and D Street next to Putnam Park. Time is running outl If you haven't written your email or letter yet, you have five days left. We must step forward to help preserve this property as open space and parkland and a public asset to Petaluma. How will you feel if this scenic valley and beautiful, pristine gateway to Petaluma is gone forever? Many, many voices need to be heard to make a difference to local decision makers. If we don't let elected officials know how we feel, we will soon have bulldozers destroying the hills, watershed, and wildlife. The red barn could be moved, and more than 63+ large homes will line Windsor Drive and D Street. In order for your comments on the Davidon Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to be considered by the City, you must send your e -mails by Monday night, May 1, to Alicia Giudice, Planning Division. agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us and to the City Council: <http: / /PetRP.us5.list- manage com/ track / click? u= 5f26943deb477b161de4a432f &id= 4c7992039d &e= 549b477a98> What to put in your comments? We prepared a "Tip Sheet" for writing your comments: http: / /www. petrp. org /deir- response - tip -sheet <http: / /PetRP. us 5.list- manage2. com / track/click ?u= 5f26943deb477bl61 de4a432f &id= 715435498c &e= 549b477a98> Your comments should address the inadequacy of the EIR's analyses. You can find examples of how to write your comments. You can write multiple letters, each one on a separate topic. Please send a copy to: PetRP @comcast.net You may also deliver your written comments to City Hall by close of business on Monday, May 1. Form letters Available! What if you look at the Tip Sheet and still don't know what to write? We have some solutions for youl Look for our wonderful volunteers wearing frog t- shirts during the Butter & Egg Day parade, at Helen Putnam Park, or at the Antique Fair. Our volunteers will be carrying the form letters with them for you! Or, download a form letter, print it out, sign your name, and take it to the Planning Division, 11 English Street. You can either sign the long letter or the short letter. Form Letter <http: / /PetRP.us5.iist- managel. com/ track / click? u= 5f26943deb477bl6lde4a432f &id= 6fdgd29ga3 &e= 549b477a98> Volunteers Needed Do you want to spread the word to others? Let us know! We have many ways for you to help. We have new flyers arriving today that need to be delivered! If you are willing to help, please send an email, and we will put you to work! Use the subject line: Volunteer PetRP @comcast.net Come to the Aqus Cafe on Sunday, April 30, 2 -4 p.m. Maybe you know what you want to say but don't know where to find the information in the DEIR. Email us at PetRP @comcast.net Or, better yet, meet us at the Aqus Cafe (189 H St., corner of 2nd and H Street) on Sunday, April 30, from 2 -4 p.m. You can drop off your form letter, or we can help you write a letter. We will turn in your letter to the Planning Division for you! How about those yard signs? Thank you so much for volunteering for a yard sign. We were out of signs in two days! (Heads up, the next email you receive from us will be asking for donations, so we can order more signs!!) If you haven't been down D Street lately, take a look at the level of yard sign participation. Thank you D Street! �)J Now is the time. Let's do this! This is our chance to let the city know how we feel about this development! Write those letters! Put May 15 on your calendar City Council Meeting More details will follow. Thank you! Thank you for helping us get this far. With all of us working together, we expect to be successful in saving this land for future generations of Petalumans! fhttps:lkgallery mai[chimp com/5f26943deb477b161de4a432f /images /btn donateCC LG gifl <http: / /PetRP us5 list - manage com/ track / click? u= 5f26943deb477bi 61 de4a432f &id= a195b5b7a5 &e= 549b477a98> To save us the fees that PayPal charges, you could mail a check to: Petalumans for Responsible Planning 307 Sunnyslope Avenue Petaluma, CA 94952 Please FORWARD this e -mail to your friends who live elsewhere in Petaluma and Sonoma County. OEM From: Carol Casselman FinailtoJargentineRcomcast.netj Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:38 PM To: 'agiudicc(@ci.petaluma.es.us'<agiudicepei.potaluma.cs.us> Subject: Davidon Dear Alice, I want to express my opinion on the proposed Davidon development om Windsor and D Street. For more than 25 years, my sister -in -law and I have walked a 7 mile loop that starts at the top of the B Street bike path and winds along Windsor, out Western Ave., up Chileno Valley Rd. and back over the top of Helen Putnam Park, and back down Windsor to D Street. This is a very serene and beautiful walk. We see so many wild animals and love the peaceful and pastoral setting. So many people, young and old use this stretch of land for recreation and relaxation. Having 63 houses will just destroy this part of Petaluma. While not wild about the smaller version, with 33 homes, I feel that this is a better alternative. The traffic would not be as bad and you might be able to confine it to the south side of Windsor, which already backs to homes on B Street. Please do not approve this plan. It would be just tragic to lose this beautiful entrance to our city. Carol Casselman i From: David Airey [davidairey01 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:28 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Comment on Davidon. Homes Draft EIR To:'City of Petaluma Attn: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner Dear Ms. Giudice; I attended the recent public planing committee hearing about the Davidon Draft EIR, and didn't know whether to laugh or cry as the drafting consultant described the long list of ways in which the project does not meet environmental requirements, but then quickly added that they could almost all be'remediated. There was no real explanation as to how, and no reference as to who would be committed to carrying out that remediation, and under what conditions (I understand that that wasn't her job, but I'm making the point that the means of and commitment to remediation remains an open question, and the history of such remediations on prior projects in Petaluma does not give much cause for hopel) The irrecoverable damage to the land and landscape right next to Helen Putnam Park, and to the endangered fauna that live there would in my opinion be a great folly, an irrecoverable loss to us all, and a crime against future generations of Petalumans. And to what end? is the property tax from these luxury homes going to pay to accommodate all the new traffic it will generate, or to prevent the pollution of the creek? Are we going to drive or walk past these homes in future and say'I'm so glad we approved these lovely houses. They're such a great addition to our community'? Speaking for myself I find that very hard to imagine. I implore the planning commission to reject this DEIR and to at the very least, if it ultimately goes ahead, to obtain formal commitments from the developer for the remediations, and to create an enforcement regime. Thank you for your attention. Best Regards, David Airey 9 Payran St. Petaluma - 37® From: Nicole Camarda fncamarda28 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:08 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: NO DAVIDON To Alicia Giudice and the Planning Division, I am writing for your support to oppose to the Davidon development at D and Windsor. I understand that Petaluma needs to build more housing, and that property taxes and high income residents are appealing to the city and the council. I also know the devastating effects that development can have near environmentally sensitive areas. I have come to several planning and council meetings and listened to the last iteration of the DEIR. It is thorough, and it seems that due diligence has been done. That being stated, nearly every item had significant impacts but "mitigation" practices could be put in place to meet the standards to go ahead with the project. The public was not informed of any of these mitigating processes, and none of the effects of the projects that will end up downstream or downhill were discussed either. I was also concerned by the request by Davidon to delete the use of the name "Kelly Creek" and Kelly creek tributary. We can voice our legitimate concern for the red tree frogs and the creek, but we know that Davidon can dangle an expensive carrot that will make us forget about these concerns. The biggest problem is that the most accessible, most diverse, most remote, and most beautiful public park in Petaluma is going to be encroached upon by big money development. This is unnecessary and an inequity. Petaluma DOES NOT NEED $2,000,000 HOMES. Petaluma needs affordable housing. Petaluma needs accessibility to SMART. Petaluma needs to honor it's citizens and historical agricultural community and families. Please consider the future of Petaluma and it's parks, and consider the real needs of our community rather than the money this development may provide. Respectfully, Nicole L. Camarda 2 Rain Tree Court Petaluma, CA 94952 415.250.5107 From: Pat S [adepasl @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 5:45 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP@comcast.net Subject: City Council /Scott Farm /Davidon: comments re dr EIR - Aesthetics Dear Council Members and Planning Committee, I am a local artist and I can't say enough about how lovely the red barn, other buildings, the meadow and fields at the former Scott Ranch are. In fact because I seek such beauty to portray it, I can say there are very few spots that rival this one in Sonoma County. We artists provide FREE ADVERTISING for our town and area when we depict these spots and show them in galleries, shows, websites. Please preserve this iconic historical_ spot. Moving the barn would affect its standing to be considered as aNational Historic Site and it would not be the same for me and other artists. This farm was run by a woman for 17 years - what an educational opportunity for our children! If this beautiful gateway view is at risk then does that say to all others - they are too? This is the best spot in town. There should be story poles to show where houses would go and their effect on current views. Also, the developer should abide by the new City Plan 2025 - not the old one. A copy of my previous comments are attached. Pat "Spiz" Spitzig From: Pat S [mailto:adepasl @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:48 PM To: 'councilman.albertson@gmail.com' < councilman .albertson @gmail.com >; 'teresa4petaluma @ com cast. net' <teresa4petalu m a @comcast. net>; 'mil<e4pet@aol.com' <mike4pet@aol.com>; 'mthea ly@sbcglo ba 1. net' <mthealy @sbcglo bal. net >; 'councilmemberkearney @me.com' <councilmemberkearney @ me.com>; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com' <kathleencmilleroffice @ gmail.com>; 'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us' <agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us> Subject: City Council /Davidon comments re dr EIR - Aesthetics As a local artist I treasure the red barn at D and Windsor - where it is - along with the trees, the meadow in front of it, and the creek and trees behind it and the long views into the hills beyond. This is a Petaluma gem. Moving the barn would affect its standing to be considered as a National Historic Site and it would not be the same for me and other artists. This farm was run by a woman for 17 years - what an educational opportunity for our children. Artists provide free publicity for our town. If this beautiful gateway view is at risk, then does that say to all others they are to This is about the best spot in town. Also, the developer should abide by the new City Plan 2025 - not the old one - they had representation at the meetings for the new one. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig, 33 Oxford Ct. -2 —��- From: Pat S [adepasi @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:27 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: 'Petalumans for Responsible Planning' Subject: Riparian Buffer This is a copy of material I provided 4 years ago regarding the riparian buffer All these things are protective of frogs and fish and birds and people living around and downstream. Erosion, turbidity, ecosystem health, flooding, water quality Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:15 PM To: Pat S Subject: Riparian Buffer 1) Buffer 2) Buffer 3) Buffer 4) Buffer 5) http://,A-ww.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/Water issues/programs/agricultural lands /pdf/120402 /Riparian Buffer Reference Web Links.pdf Thank you for your interest in aquatic habitat. In responding to your inquiry, I reviewed relevent literature. Based upon this review, it appears that the appropriate Riparian Buffer for Kelly Creek is at least 100 feet. I believe there is an ordinance in Marin County requiring a minimum buffer of 100 ft. I have attached some supporting documents.- - - - -S. Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 2004 2 -z3y Table of Contents Introduction 3 Background 3 Purpose 3 Why Establish Creek Buffers? 4 Regulatory Context 6 Political Reality 8 Methodology 9 Limitations of Study 9 Results 11 Findings 12 Typical Issues of Controversy 12 Approaches to Regulation 13 Discussion 16 Summary of Analysis 16 Analysis /Priority for Regional Board Outreach and Implementation 16 The Role of Community Outreach 18 References 19 APPENDICES 20 A. Riparian Resources and Erosion Control Survey 21 B. Summaries of Buffer Policies and Stream Protection Approaches 23 C. Relevant factors when evaluating a stream buffer policy: 27 D. Graphical Summary of Results 28 2 2. -13s- INTRODUCTION Background As indicated in the Plan for California's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (Plan), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) supports local agency efforts to reduce erosion and sedimentation and protect riparian areas. The Plan calls on local agencies to: • Develop a technical assistance program for project design that will include guidelines for designing projects that avoid wetlands and riparian areas • Develop a framework linking stream, hydrological, and ecological function to beneficial uses • Develop criteria for protecting ecological functions and other beneficial use of streams • Draft Stream Protection Policy The Water Board is currently working to support local agency efforts to enact stream protection regulations that protect and restore natural stream function. As part of that effort, the Water Board published A Primer on Stream and River Protection for the Regulator and Program Manager (April 2003), which discusses the link between channel stability and water quality and outlines ways to avoid excessive erosion and sediment deposition. The Water Board has also prepared a draft Stream Protection Policy that contains the following objectives for riparian buffer zones: Buffer zones shall be maintained or enhanced to protect stream functions. Examples of ways in which buffer zones protect stream functions include: removing agricultural and urban stormwater pollutants, reducing sediment from upland sources, stabilizing stream banks, minimizing changes to the hydrograph by infiltrating stormwater runoff, metering stream baseflow, and supporting vegetation which provides nutrients and shade. Purpose This survey of local government efforts to regulate land use for the protection of water quality and habitat for aquatic species was conducted in order to: 1) Determine what land use regulations and management measures local jurisdictions are already undertaking to protect riparian corridors; 2) Inventory riparian buffer widths and the methods used to calculate the width of the buffers 3) Identify obstacles to establishing riparian protection regulations 4) Make recommendations for local governments regarding riparian buffer regulations with the goal of drafting a model ordinance. This can serve as a point of departure for local jurisdictions crafting new or revised ordinances. 2 -z�% Many Bay Area cities and counties have riparian protection policies, rules, or ordinances and others are considering adopting such rules. As the embarks on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development and implementation and the issuance of Phase 2 Urban Stormwater Permits, we are interested in knowing how local jurisdictions regulate land use to protect water quality and preserve aquatic habitat. Other topics that will be addressed in this study are: • The number of cities and counties that are currently working on or considering proposing riparian setback ordinances. • The key areas of controversial issues that have arisen over riparian buffers in each community Why Establish Creek Buffers? Stream buffers can be effectively established through a variety of planning tools, including overlay zoning, creek setback ordinances, and conservation easements. The preparation of local regulations typically involves several components. The first step is to develop the purpose and need for the regulation. Purposes and needs statements contained in ordinances typically cite public safety, hazards reduction, health, and other compelling traditional "police powers" of local government. Protection of environmental habitats has been added to these purposes recently because responsibilities for complying federal and state laws, including the federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the state Porter Cologne and Endangered Species Acts, are increasingly being shifted from federal and state levels to local levels. The next section describes the regulations, which must have a clear and logical connection to the purposes just described. Other sections typically describe enforcement provisions, variances allowed, and often an appeals process. Riparian zones perform many ecological functions important to enhancing water quality, water quantity, biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and flood capacity. The stream channel itself conveys runoff, supports aquatic plants and animals, provides groundwater recharge, and supplies water to trees and plants that typically thrive in the riparian zone. Stream buffers are an effective way to physically protect and separate a stream or wetland from future disturbance or encroachment. A network of stream buffers acts as a right -of -way during floods and sustains the integrity of stream ecosystems and habitat (Center for Watershed Protection, www .cwp.org /aquatic_buffers.htm). Riparian forest and wetland buffers, if properly maintained, appear to have a significant capacity to mitigate some of the effects of development. Riparian buffers protect stream function, protect habitat, and provide additional capacity for flood flow conveyance. 4 2 -2-��L The Water Board's Watershed Management Initiative identifies the following major non -point source problems in the San Francisco Bay Region, many of which can be partially or fully addressed through establishment of riparian buffers: • Elimination of natural channels, including loss of wetlands, wildlife, fisheries and riparian areas; • Increased sedimentation due to construction activities and land clearing; • Unmitigated changes in hydrology that upset the geomorphic equilibrium of streams, causing destabilization and erosion of channels, and more frequent flooding; • Increased pollutant loads associated with urban activities; • Impairment of fish habitat from water diversions and fish passage barriers due to the construction of in- channel reservoirs and diversion structures, the sedimentation of channels, and the removal of vegetation; and, • Increased pollutant loads associated with agricultural activities. Stream Function The riparian zone functions to decrease sedimentation by intercepting sediment and debris in root zones before sediment -laden runoff enters the stream system. The capture of sediments has the added benefit of trapping particle -bound chemicals and pollutants, preventing them from degrading aquatic environments. Also, the vegetation within a creek buffer will decrease erosion and allow for increased soil infiltration by stabilizing stream banks and slowing flow velocities. In some settings, intact riparian areas will remove pollutants traveling in stormwater or groundwater. Riparian Habitat The riparian zone is an ecotone, or transition zone, between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Because riparian zones contain both aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species they have unusually high species diversity. Riparian zones are also important migratory corridors. A continuous buffer provides migratory and wildlife corridors, which are of particular value in protecting amphibians and waterfowl populations, as well as fish spawning and nursery areas. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California has lost 90 percent or more of its wetlands, which includes riparian communities. This is despite the fact that according to government biologists, riparian communities in the Western states, such as California, provide habitat for up to 80 percent of western wildlife species. It is estimated that about 50 percent of endangered species require wetlands at some point in their life cycle. Flood Conveyance Riparian zones form the part of the floodplain that is closest to the edge of the water body and are the most frequent areas to be inundated. To minimize property damage, it is advantageous for local regulations to include the entire 100 -year floodplain within the riparian buffer to reduce flood risks. 5 �2 - -Z 3 5 Regulatory Context Federal Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401 The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards review applications for water quality certifications under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA Section 401 is tied to CWA Section 404, which requires federally issued permits for all proposed fill and dredge activities in waters of the United States. Section 401 gives states the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Section 404 permit to ensure that federally permitted actions are consistent with state law. Section 404(b)(1) provides guidance for evaluating project alternatives. It calls for first avoiding impacts, and then minimizing impacts to assure that there is no net loss of fully functional streams, wetlands, and/or water bodies. Implementation of stream protection regulations can go a long way to avoiding impacts and can ease the Section 404/401 permit process for projects. Additionally, projects that avoid all impacts, or potential impacts to waters of the State will not require 401 water quality certification. California's Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act California's Porter - Cologne Act provides both immediate and long -term authority for the protection of the physical integrity of river and stream environments. The Act directs regional boards to regulate' impacts to waters of the State by the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for any activity that results in a waste discharge that directly or indirectly impacts waters of the State. WDRs can and are being used to maintain and promote stable waterways. When used to condition discharges such as fill into a water body, WDRs may encourage a balance between erosion, sediment transport, and deposition as a means of avoiding the degradation of water quality. In the past, WDRs were primarily used to regulate point source discharges of liquid or solid waste to land (e.g., septic tank discharges, landfill operations, etc.) However, WDRs are an appropriate means to regulate discharge of waste including fill material, sediment and changes in flow to waterways. Each of the nine Regional Boards has a master policy document that describes the legal, technical, and programmatic foundation used for protecting water quality. In the Bay Area, this Water Quality Control Plan, or `Basin Plan," details beneficial uses that are directly related to the concern of the physical integrity of stream and river channels. While there are many beneficial uses provided by aquatic ecosystems, the uses best preserved by riparian buffers are: cold freshwater habitat for trout and anadramous salmon and steelhead; fisheries migration including unimpeded river flows; preservation of rare and endangered species; and protection of wildlife habitat. These beneficial uses can be effectively protected and maintained through riparian and wetland land use regulation at the local level. 6 6 '2, Federal Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) Section 303(d) of the CWA requires identification of impaired water bodies (those that do not meet water quality objectives or support designated beneficial uses). Many water bodies in the Bay Area have been listed under Section 303(d) as impaired and the Water Board is developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to address these impairments. TMDLs create a plan to attain the designated water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses for impaired water bodies. Impairment due to excess sediment, nutrients, and pathogens are common in the Bay Area. The Water Board is developing TMDLs to address impaired water bodies in the Bay Area. We are encouraging a broad watershed management approach that allows for flexibility in attaining water quality goals and objectives. The TMDL may combine the concept of load allocations with aggressive Best Management Practice programs and local "commitments to action" tied to measurable factors such as extents of riparian setbacks, riparian canopy coverage, and stable vegetated stream banks. TMDLs provide an opportunity to identify and apply locally based remedies to improve watershed conditions. Endangered Species Act The Regional Board works cooperatively with the California Department of Fish and Game and the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (N FS) to assist in the protection of threatened and endangered species. In June 2000, NMFS adopted regulations affecting fourteen groups of salmon and steelhead listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other listed aquatic species found in the Bay Area include freshwater shrimp, red - legged frog, western pond turtle, and other non - salmonid fish. In addition to aquatic species there are a number of threatened and endangered birds and mammals that use sensitive riparian and wetland habitat for vital life functions. The ESA provides a variety of tools for saving species threatened with extinction. Review of activities that could affect endangered aquatic species is facilitated by proactive riparian and wetland land use policies. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the potential environmental impacts of projects be evaluated and that mitigation measures be developed to reduce any identified significant impacts. CEQA requires evaluation of hydrologic, water quality, and biotic resource impacts. Mitigation measures, developed on a project -by- project basis, often include riparian buffers. Local stream protection policies and ordinances limit development in riparian areas and can alleviate the need to conduct a project - specific impact analysis. 7 �2- :2 q 0 Political Reality Many cities and counties in the Bay Area are struggling to adopt stream protection policies and ordinances to provide a mechanism for complying with the wide range of water quality and endangered species regulations discussed above. However, in many jurisdictions there is concern that riparian buffers could result in undesirable restrictions on private property. These concerns can be addressed through ordinance exceptions or variance provisions. It is important for local government to initiate a stakeholder outreach and education program prior to releasing a draft ordinance for the decision - making body to consider. On the other hand, in some communities concerned citizens and environmental groups may believe that the riparian protections are not stringent enough or that enforcement mechanisms are weak. The success of riparian buffer regulation lies with the community. The community must be educated about the benefits of riparian protection, what the proposed regulations will and will not allow, how exceptions to the regulations are permitted, and finally, who will implement and enforce the ordinance. 8 `���� METHODOLOGY In February 2003, a "Stream Protection and Erosion Control Survey" (Appendix A) was drafted by the Water Board with the intent of being administered to staff in city and county planning departments. In an effort to identify policies that contribute to sediment reduction and aquatic habitat protection throughout the San Francisco Bay region, questions were asked regarding stream and tree protection, and hillside development policies. San Francisco Estuary Project Interns Orrin Cook and Brendan Thompson conducted phone and email surveys between March and November 2003. At times, planning staff deferred questions to their jurisdictions' public works or community development departments, who then replied to the survey questions. Between March and May 2004, the data were fact - checked to ensure that the results were current. The survey questionnaire consisted of nine questions, and question results were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and then summarized. For survey question #1, which asks if a given General Plan contains policies about the protection of riparian resources, a threshold was established whereby if the General Plan had a clear statement about restricting development in the riparian zone, then an affirmative answer would be assigned. All affirmative responses from city and county staff were checked with that jurisdictions General Plan to ensure the threshold was satisfied. For some of the cities that did not respond to the survey, we were able to access their General Plans online. These cities were included in the survey results for question #1. If the General Plan could not be accessed, then the question was not assigned a response. Survey question #3 asks if a municipality has a zoning ordinance regarding riparian buffers. If a stream buffer policy existed in the jurisdictions zoning ordinance, municipal code, or supplemental policy document, an affirmative response was assigned. General Plan policies were not included. "Easement" and "setback" policies were included in our definition of a stream buffer. For all of the questions, responses were confirmed by checking the corresponding policy document. During our study, we discovered that the initial scope of the survey was too broad, given the available resources. Information was gathered on tree protection policy, hillside development policy, and flood hazard issues (see Appendix D). Once much of these data were gathered, it was evident that there was not enough information for analytical applications. Later survey participants were given an abbreviated survey that only asked the questions of the survey that applied to issues of stream resource protection. Limitations of Study The survey began with the intention of fording several meaningful, quantitative descriptions to describe stream, tree, and hillside protection policies in the 85 incorporated cities and nine Bay Area counties within the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2). Not surprisingly, the absence and presence and characteristics of these policies were not clear - cut, and did not lend themselves to be easily summarized within discrete categories. Consequently, the only absolute quantitative data we can report from this survey is the number 9 ') -2Li?, of jurisdictions with some form of riparian buffer policy in their city and county codes. We also provide a range of buffer widths prescribed by local regulation, as well as a percentage of jurisdictions with tree protection ordinances -and hillside development ordinances (Appendix D). We intended to develop a rating system that would evaluate the effectiveness of the stream buffer policies. This proved to be unmanageable, as the effectiveness of a given stream buffer policy is a function of many variables. For a list of stream buffer policy characteristics that would be used to develop evaluative criteria of a given policy, see Appendix C. Additionally, we were unable to determine how closely or effectively a given jurisdiction was following their stream protection policies. It is possible that some communities protect their riparian areas more effectively through their, design review process than other communities who have an established buffer policy. Although it is difficult to assess the success of these buffer policies, it can be said that vague definitions of allowable land use in buffer zones, or liberal granting of variances do not lend themselves to an effective buffer policy. We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided by participants. We interviewed senior planners, principal planners, planning directors, city planners, planning managers, assistant planners, and various staff in public works departments. It is also possible that certain participants' unfamiliarity or inexperience could have resulted in inaccurate survey replies. The reported results reflect conditions that were accurate at the time the surveys were conducted. The information was gathered between March 2003 and May 2004. Since the time interviews were done, General Plans may have been updated or new ordinances may have been implemented. 10 2--�43 RESULTS With 89% of cities reporting, 41% have some form of a stream buffer policy in their municipal code, zoning ordinance, or supplemental policy document. Of the nine counties in the Region 2 jurisdiction, with San Francisco County not responding, 75 %, or '6 of 8 have a stream buffer policy established. After examining the General Plans of 81% of the 85 Region 2 cities,.we determined that 32% of those cities have General Plans describing an implementation policy that restricts development within riparian zones. A summary of some local stream buffer policies and stream protection approaches is provided in Appendix B. Of the 59% of cities that do not have a stream buffer policy, 4% are working to adopt such policies, 7% are considering the possibility, 80% are not considering adopting one, and for 9 %, it is unknown whether or not they are working on or considering a buffer policy. See Appendix D for a graphical summary. 11 �2 _ Iy9 FINDINGS Typical Issues of Controversy Property Encroachment Fear of private property encroachment is the most common contention raised at the mention of stream buffer policy. Enactment of a policy has the perceived potential to restrict property owners of some uses or activities on portions of their parcels. This becomes less of an issue in communities with large lots; in cities with small lots, the buffer would have a greater effect on a landowners' "reasonable use," thereby making the implementation of a stream buffer policy much more difficult. Planners expressed a need to accommodate property owners who may have small parcels, or parcels with a high ratio of total property line adjoining a creek. Cupertino is the only city found with a buffer policy that establishes buffer widths based on lot size. In Cupertino, lots less than one acre in size must provide a 50 -foot stream buffer zone; sites over one acre must leave 100 -foot buffers. Some policies reflect other methods of protecting landowners. In 1990, when the City of San Ramon established a 100 -foot stream buffer ordinance within "resource conservation areas," properties that were already parceled prior to conservation district approval were precluded from the ordinance. In a very small percentage of jurisdictions, a proposed, amended, or approved stream buffer ordinance has met opposition from members of the community. Amidst concerns and debate from. citizens opposed to regulation of private property, Napa County Supervisors adopted a stream setback Revision Ordinance that ambitiously expanded upon an existing stream buffer policy (see Appendix B). The Board of Supervisors then withdrew the ordinance after critics of the new policy submitted a referendum petition. According to a senior planner from the County, resistance came from private properly owners who thought that the county was taking land unjustifiably. Private landowners argued that the science behind the stream buffer guidelines might not be valid. The fate of the ordinance was determined by a countywide vote in March 2004, whereupon it was defeated. The City of Portola Valley in San Mateo County has also been having difficulty increasing an existing 20 -foot from creek center setback policy, due to property owner opposition. Many landowners have misconceptions about existing and proposed riparian buffer ordinances. Often landowners assume that their land will be transferred to public ownership. In addition, landowners are often unfamiliar with existing land use restrictions and state and federal law pertaining to wetland fill and stream alteration. (Some existing regulations are described in the Introduction). The goal of riparian buffer regulation is to reinforce at the local level Section 404 and Section 401 CWA regulations on all streams (see introduction, pg. 6) and to further provide for a setback from the top of bank to allow for improved water quality, to promote riparian habitat values, and to protect stream banks from erosion. A Napa county planner noted that if the county could start the entire process again, it would have "done more public scoping and more public education." He emphasized the need for open workshops and town meetings with scientists present, since planners and commissioners are 12 '?-�1(�- often now well versed in stream science. Doing this, he said, would have allowed the public to better understand the environmental benefits of a stream buffer ordinance. Jurisdictional resistance Some communities, and more often community groups, have pressured their city or county to adopt a stream buffer ordinance or make an existing ordinance more stringent. However, these groups have occasionally met opposition from the city or county. The governing body often cites a lack of funding, departmental resources, or political will to pursue stream protection legislation. Instead, jurisdictions frequently respond to political pressure by focusing on the design review or permit process as a way to limit development within riparian zones. Though these results may be beneficial, the sincerity of their efforts can sometime be viewed as questionable. As one county senior planner stated, " If you throw enough money at [a proposed development], anything is possible." This approach also leads to a case -by -case approach to stream setbacks that can be inconsistent and inefficient. In similar respect to the aggrieved property owner who must compromise development potential because of a riparian buffer, jurisdictions may tend to perceive the buffer as an expensive policy that further depletes an already finite reservoir of developable land. One city planner suggested that setting aside and preserving riparian areas would reduce the amount of land available for development, thereby adversely affecting housing availability and affordability. Development and a riparian buffer need not always be at odds with one another. We learned from the survey of one instance where the passage of a proposed large residential development would have been facilitated by the presence of a riparian buffer ordinance. The city's conditions of approval for the development were being heavily contested partly due to public demand for a significant level of riparian protection. If the city had already had a riparian buffer ordinance in place prior to the project introduction, the developer would have presented a different plan at the outset, and the conflict could have been greatly diminished, or avoided entirely. Aside from providing the developer with a level of certainty, the city would be alleviated of the need for extra analysis within the CEQA process. Cities can provide incentives, such as housing density bonuses, for development that avoids riparian areas. Approaches to Regulation Throughout the region, cities are employing various tools to regulate riparian zones. No two are quite the same. Appendix B describes some representative policies that demonstrate the wide range of riparian resource management. The 59% of cities without a stream buffer policy do exercise some regulation of development in their riparian areas. When asked whether or not they regulate land use in riparian zones beyond state and federal law, planners often responded affirmatively, noting that through development permits and CEQA processes, riparian areas are protected. This "case -by- case," or "project -by- project" approach to riparian regulation may result in inconsistent and 13 2:r2y6 inadequate riparian protection. Some planners earnestly described community and planning commission support for protection of riparian resources. It was likely in many of these cities that unwritten buffer policies and other riparian protection guidelines were adhered to by the planning departments, and that even in the absence of an ordinance or formal policy, the watercourses were in good health. In other cases, a case -by -case approach is tantamount to not having a riparian protection policy. In municipalities or counties where the planning commission is more supportive of development, or community interest in preserving riparian zones is lacking, the absence of a formal policy will contribute to degradation of the riparian areas. Without a formal policy, adequate long -term creek stewardship is not assured. Virtually all the cities in the Bay Area without a stream buffer ordinance have within their General Plan a paragraph that acknowledges and praises the value of their creeks. Far fewer have implementation policies that attempt to actively preserve -those waterways. The General Plan of Colma contains a recommended stream setback that does not have specific implementation policies. When a development project comes under review by the planning department, the General Plan recommended stream setback is referenced as an attempt to establish some degree of riparian protection. While such a policy is not as reliable as a code %ordinance, it provides a tool for riparian preservation where a code or ordinance does not exist. It is also an alternative approach to riparian protection for communities where a riparian buffer ordinance is not yet a political possibility. Contra Costa County also has a stream buffer policy within their General Plan. This policy is stronger than the aforementioned, because the policy is not "recommended," but rather states that setback areas "shall be provided." The City of San Jose has a stream buffer policy that is neither in the code nor the General Plan. The city administers a riparian buffer policy through use of a "riparian corridor study" document that describes suggested buffer widths. The document recommends a 100 -foot setback, but exemptions are given that may reduce the setback to 50 -foot distances. Some cities protect watercourses by requiring that development projects near riparian areas obtain a special permit. Although a stream buffer requirement is not part of the regulatory process, this approach ensures that every project adjacent to a creek will be evaluated in terms of avoiding watercourse impacts. The permit will typically have conditions of development that are designed to protect riparian functions. Jurisdictions that claim to effectively protect creeks through the design review process could adopt a permit requirement, thereby providing assurance that potential creeks impacts are receiving due consideration. The city of Oakland uses this permit approach (see Appendix B). There is much variability among the established stream buffer ordinances. Stream buffers are measured from either the top of the stream bank, the centerline of the creek, or sometimes from the outward edge of riparian vegetation. Measuring the buffer from the outward edge of vegetation has the potential to discourage property owners from preserving their riparian zones. Some ordinances use the dimensions of the stream channel to formulate a buffer width, and the calculations can get rather complicated (see Lafayette, Appendix B). Operative assumptions within these policies are that steeper and deeper channels require wider buffer widths. The cities of Orinda and Lafayette in Contra Costa County, and the County of Napa have such policies. 14 - )qJ Many policies apply only to waterways that are specifically identified in the text of the codes. These policies are excellent for high- profile waterways, but can leave headwater and other unnamed tributaries unprotected. While not stream buffer policies per se, some cities and counties have floodplain ordinances that will leave a stream buffer as a consequence of limiting development within FEMA or high -risk flood zones. Contra Costa County has a Floodplain Management Ordinance that incidentally protects riparian areas by prohibiting development within a one- to two -foot elevation range above a FEMA or Floodplain Adininistrator- determined base flood elevation. This approach doesn't specifically target preservation of riparian functions, and will leave higher - elevation watercourses unprotected by the ordinance. 15 DISCUSSION Summary of Analysis Responses to our survey indicate that some city and county planning departments lack awareness of stream issues and functions. Many of the established stream buffer policies have ineffective or sub - optimal buffer distances for effective sediment and pathogen filtration functions. An effective buffer would require increasing buffer distances with gradients; few of the policies we researched account for this need. Also, many of the policies do not mandate that buffers apply to the entire jurisdiction, but rather to special zoning districts and/or areas within the cities and counties. Most survey participants informed us that their jurisdiction's General Plan addressed the protection of riparian areas. Upon inspection, the Plans did often have excellent objectives to protect creeks, but the implementation measures lacked a detailed performance standard. In the cities without riparian protection policies, planners often justified their absence by citing the lack of riparian areas within their community. Analysis/Priority for Water Board Outreach and Implementation There are many areas in which the Water Board can provide regional leadership. Many city and county planners have a vague familiarity with stream issues. While some planning departments are extremely knowledgeable and competent in riparian science, many planners we spoke with were unaware of stream issues relevant to Water Board goals. Before the Water Board encourages the adoption of stream buffer policy by local jurisdictions, there must be an effort to educate the community on the water quality, habitat, and property protection benefits of stream buffers. It will be easier to argue the relevance of adopting such policies within cities or counties that still have significant amounts of undeveloped area. However, cities that have either reached, or have nearly exhausted, their reserve of developable land will need to be convinced why their communities would benefit from the enactment of a stream buffer policy. During the survey, planners from these heavily urbanized or "built -out" cities acknowledged not having or planning stream buffer policies, and justified this by mentioning that the scant developable land is generally devoid of drainages, and all existing watercourses are already in culverts, channelized, or underground. In their opinion, there is no need to adopt an ordinance to protect streams where there are none to protect. Only the most obvious of open - channel, flowing waterways are considered creeks. One city was devoid of riparian protection because, in the planner's words, "we don't have too many riparian zones." This situation appears to be quite common, and is most likely a major reason why riparian issues are perceived as non- existent or irrelevant. An "out -of- sight, out -of- mind" mentality is present, where the role of watercourses in non -point source /sediment transportation is overlooked. The lack of awareness of creek functions may inhibit any beneficial regulations from being considered or enforced. In 16 9- �� ` a built -out community, a riparian buffer policy is critically needed to protect the remaining riparian areas from future re- zoning and/or development intensification. Survey participants had varying levels of familiarity with the stream protection policies iii their jurisdictions' General Plans, municipal codes, and zoning ordinances. A thorough knowledge of municipal code and zoning ordinance regulations was typical. However, often when planners were asked to summarize and evaluate the level of protection of riparian resources in their General Plans, they appeared to be unfamiliar with the associated policies. The apparent lack of familiarity on the part of some planners with these portions of their General Plans suggests that the Plan is not often referenced for riparian protection guidance. The Water Board should encourage actions that are consistent both with local General Plans and with code requirements. An annual training of General Plan policies for planning department employees would be a good way to ensure that the Plan has a role in the decision - making process. The Water Board should require jurisdictions to include a clear, outlined vision for the protection of their riparian areas in their General Plans. The General Plan policy must serve as guidance for each jurisdiction, and be known and used for decision - making purposes by the corresponding planning department. Implementation measures must be drafted using the active voice (word choice such as- "will" and "require," not "should" and "encourage "). We found many General Plan policies for riparian protection were written using a passive voice, suggesting that waterways protection was not a significant priority. Buffer Distances Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary, but most of the scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose (Jones & Stokes 2002). Although any buffer distance from the top of bank is helpful for maintaining channel stability, a minimum 33 -foot riparian buffer is required for contributing to a significant reduction in sediment levels (Corely et. al. 1999, Peterson et. al. 1992, as cited in Jones and Stokes 2002). In Bay Area cities, approximately 38% of stream buffer policies require a 33- foot or greater minimum buffer distance (Appendix D). The buffer distances in the region vary greatly, and it is likely that many were not chosen based upon specific buffer thresholds designed to satisfy water quality considerations. A scientifically based approach can help quantify buffer - induced benefits to water quality, thereby allowing the Board to more easily quantify TMDL reduction amounts when communicating with the region cities. Preserving headwater drainages is a critical step in environmental protection and must be conveyed. The culverting and filling of these typically ephemeral watercourses will concentrate flows and destabilize creek channels downstream. Within the assorted stream buffer policies we reviewed, "first- order" or "headwater" streams were not specifically identified as watercourses to be protected. However, these streams would be subject to protection in the jurisdictions in which buffer policies identify ephemeral streams as part of the stream network. An additional and important level of protection is given to these streams in the jurisdictions that require wider buffer widths with increasing slope. These streams are typically regulated under sections 404 and 401 of the CWA for fill or alteration of the channel. Grading and Hillside Ordinances Another possibility for protecting headwater streams is through local grading and hillside development ordinances. Many jurisdictions either prohibit or, limit development beyond a particular average slope threshold. These regulations have the effect of incidentally protecting first -order drainages, but are not a guarantee that these headwater streams will be preserved. While a potentially important tool for maintaining the functional integrity of higher - elevation riparian zones and for reducing erosion, these policies are limited to areas that meet a locally determined slope threshold, and therefore, are not substitutes for a stream buffer policy. However, communities that are built -out at lower elevations could provide a significant level of protection for their creeks by implementing protection within their grading policies in lieu of formal stream buffer regulations. The Role of Community Outreach Jurisdictions looking to adopt a stream buffer ordinance should, in general, open the process for public participation and comment. Governments that do not address community concerns or provide scientific justification face the possibility of public outcry and backlash similar to what happened in Napa County. Community outreach and education is especially key in areas where lack of information or misinformation has formed a foundation of opposition. This can include areas with strong agricultural communities or areas with expensive hillside lots. 18 2 -2 1� I REFERENCES Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements - A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878 -882. Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Principals of Watershed Protection. http: / /www.cwp.org. Center for Watershed Protection. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. http: / /www.cwp.org. Center for Watershed Protection. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(4): 155 -163; 1(1): 19- 21. Corely, C.J., G.W. Frasier, M.J. Trlica, F.M. Smith, and E.M. Taylor, Jr. 1999. Technical Note: Nitrogen and phosphorous in runoff from two montane riparian communities. Journal of Range Management: 52 (6): 6000 -6005. Dahl, T.E., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's A Report to Congress. Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991.,4n Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones. BioScience 41:540 -551. Heraty, M. 1993. Riparian Buffer Programs: A Guide to Developing and Implementing a Riparian Buffer Program as an Urban Storinwater Best Management Practice. Metropolitian Washington Council Government U.S. EPA Office of Oceans, Wetlands, and Watersheds 152 PP. Jones & Stokes. October 18, 2002. Stream Setback Technical Memorandum. L.R. Johnson Associates. 1989. Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management, ,4 Status Report on the Nations' Floodplain ManagementActivity. April. Petersen, R.C., L.B.M. Petersen, and J. Lacoursiere. 1992. ,4 building block model for stream restoration. pp. 293 -309. In: River Conservation and Management., P.J. Boon, P. Calow and G.E. Petts (eds). Chichester: John Wiley. Verpeet, Karen. 2001. Protecting Streams and Riparian Habitat, Sonoma County, California. Sonoma Ecology Center, July. 19 -� S� APPENDIXES -2S-3 20 APPENDIX A Riparian Resources and Erosion Control Survey 1. Does your General Plan contain policies about protection of riparian resources? Do you consider them to be weak, moderate, or strong? Why? 2. Do you regulate land use in riparian zones, beyond State and Federal law? If yes, how? 3. Does your municipality have a zoning ordinance regarding riparian buffers (e.g. biotic resources district, stream conservation area, erosion control ordinance, floodplain regulations)? • If yes, please answer the following questions: When was the ordinance first approved? Do you feel that the ordinance is generally weak; moderate, or strong in protecting the riparian corridor? How is the regulated stream network defined? (in the General Plan, USGS blue -line streams, other regulatory definition ?) Where is the setback measured from? (stream center line, top of bank, edge of riparian corridor) What are the various stream categories? (upland, urban, lowland) What are the setback distances? What are the provisions for exceptions or variances? . If no, is your community currently working to approve such an ordinance? • If not, is your community currently considering a riparian buffer ordinance? 4. Does your municipality have a heritage tree ordinance? If yes, please answer the following questions: Has the ordinance been effective in preseiving riparian trees? Do residents generally comply with the ordinance? What are the provisions for exceptions or variances? 5. Does your municipality have an ordinance that specifically regulates hillside development? If yes, please answer the following questions: Is there a maximum allowable slope for development? How effective are these regulations at reducing soil erosion (weak, moderate, or strong ?) 6. Does your community have unresolved flood hazard related to creeks? Please explain. 21 ��� Are there any plans for flood control projects? 7. What are the main controversies, if any, regarding riparian protection in your community? (property rights advocates, environmental groups want better protection, etc.) 8. Has there been any litigation regarding your stream protection regulations? 9. How can we get a copy of your General Plan or stream /tree/hillslope regulations? Additional comments: 22 x,25 S APPENDIX B Summaries of Buffer Policies and Stream Protection Approaches Oakland, Alameda Countv In December 1997 the City of Oakland amended their Stormwater Ordinance to include a heightened level of protection to the city's many riparian areas. While not a setback policy, the ordinance requires that construction and development projects nearby creeks first obtain a "creek protection permit" from the city. In order to get permit approval, the applicant must meet criteria and guidelines that are intended to either minimize or avoid negative impacts to the creels area and its natural functions. Activities that are typically not allowed by the city include: construction of structures across a creek; agricultural activities on the creek banks; any disturbance of the creek channel and flow; removal of tree canopies, and the. installation of structures on the creek bank. The City is amending the ordinance to include more - specific standards and guidelines for the development of creekside properties. The standards and guidelines will include criteria regarding slope, soils, flows and types of vegetation, and provide guidance on appropriate setbacks and mitigation measures for development. The amended ordinance will also provide a detailed map of creekside properties subject to the policy. Fremont, Alameda Counts• In November 2002, Fremont adopted Measure T that among other things stated, "No development shall be located within a riparian corridor except for otherwise permitted flood control, erosion control, water supply, transportation facilities, fences or hiking or equestrian trails. `Riparian corridors' are the areas within 200 feet from the center of a permanent or intermittent stream bed." Measure T, however, was geared only at the zone delineated as "Hill Area," which included the Open Space zone and two residential districts. The 200 -foot buffer is not applied elsewhere in the city. Other riparian areas in Fremont are protected via the Fremont General Plan and the design review process. A General Plan implementation policy requires that as part of a development application, the "extent and characteristics of riparian corridors shall be carefully assessed to a minimum distance of 100 feet from the center of the creek bed." 23 3 `2`x? Lafayette, Contra Costa County The City of Lafayette has a creek setback policy in their municipal code that prohibits construction of structures within a creek setback area. The creels setback area is determined by calculating a creek setback line based on the creek depth, steepness of bank, and topography of the top of bank. Project plans must show that proposed work is outside the calculated setback area before the city will issue a building permit. Exceptions are granted if a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils analysis certifies that there is no likelihood of a hazard to persons or property resulting from the proposed construction. From the City of Lafayette Creek Setback Requirements: (a) As defined by Section 6 -312 and Section 6 -355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows: (1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top -of -bank setback as follows: Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback (Feet) Minimum Width (Feet) 0-6 12 each side 6-12 15 each side 12-18 18 each side 18-21 21 each side If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. 24 ? 51 Fairfield, Solano County In 1992, Fairfield updated their stream protection policies to include a Creekside Ordinance that mandated at least a 200 -foot "steam environment zone" that includes "the stream bed, stream banks, and a riparian zone at least 50 feet wide, measured from the top of the channel bank." In practice, the 200 -foot requirement can be split between adjacent property owners in a variety of ways, depending on when one owner bought his /her lot and if it was registered with the city before Fairfield's first ever stream ordinance in the 1970s. The ordinance applies to eight major stretches of creels and does not apply to low -order drainages, although the City "would still consider these setbacks when dealing with smaller scale streams with any significant riparian coverage." Sonoma County Sonoma County zoning code provides "streamside conservation area" protection to all waterways that are designated as "riparian corridors" in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The width of the conservation area is determined based upon classification of urban, upland, flatland, or Russian River riparian corridors. The corridors in urban and upland areas have a 50 -foot from top of bank conservation area, while streams traversing level flatland areas are required to have a 100 -foot wide conservation area. Russian River riparian corridor conservation areas extend 200 feet from the top of bank. New buildings cannot be built within the conservation area, unless the lot would be rendered undevelopable as a result of the setback or develop were designed in such a way as to avoid impacts to riparian habitat. Agricultural setbacks are half the distance of the building setbacks. In terms of setback -width distances, Sonoma County requires one of the greatest in Region 2. Since the policy only protects the corridors identified in the General Plan, many waterways of all types are left unprotected by the zoning code. The General Plan is currently being updated, and many additional streams are proposed to be designated as riparian corridors. The urban and upland riparian corridor widths are also proposed to be widened to 100 feet from top of bank. Planning Commission hearings on these proposals are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2004. 25 Napa County The Napa County Conservation Regulations has been in use since 1991. They use slope percentage adjacent to creeks to formulate required setbacks that range from 35 -150 feet. Protected waterways include: those designated by "a solid line or dash and three dots symbol" on the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map; watercourses with well - defined channels at least four -feet deep; and banks steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) with hydrophilic vegetation or specific streams specified by resolution by the County Board of Supervisors. The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted 3 -1 to adopt a Stream Setback Revision Ordinance on April 8, 2003. This ordinance would have, among other things, increased standard stream setbacks for non - residential projects to 100 to 150 feet on all Class I streams depending on slope, 75 to 150 feet on all Class Il streams depending on slope, and 25 feet on all Class III streams. Community critics of the policy, led by property owners who felt the ordinance imposed on their land ownership rights, successfully organized a referendum petition, and the Board of Supervisors reversed their adoption of the policy. The Board of Supervisors decided to put the issue before Napa County voters. The Ordinance was presented as Measure P in March 2004, and was voted down with a 65% majority. 26 �r2�� APPENDIX C Relevant Factors When Evaluating Stream Buffer Policies A city or county with a setback policy is not necessarily more effective at protecting riparian habitat and functions than a city without a policy. The mindfulness and determination on the part of city and county planners to be aware of potential riparian impacts from all development projects is a vital part of riparian protection. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a given stream buffer or setback policy is a fiinction of several factors, and a successful ordinance will address some or all of these criteria: • Buffer width • Level of enforcement • Type of watercourses protected • Breadth of application (i.e., entire city, special districts) • Provisions for, and frequency of, exemptions and/or variances • Inclusion of specific directives in General Plan • Riparian vegetation protection • Mitigation standards • Clarity of purpose, goals • Clarity of definitions 27 2-260 Appendix D Graphical Summary of Results 28 9-161 U) L m � O }i L N •>•+ O V 0 N °) ao O co 0 � o m 0 C1 29 m U — N O o C: U) N EL zCL 'a Cl) 0-0 � o T N O � � o N U N M O CL U u) o L X N to T LL -�Z6 RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Stream Buffer Protection in General Plan No 47(68%) *69 of 85 (81 %) of cities reporting RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Tree Ordinance No 19(30%) Yes 44(70%) " bs of s5 (13 %) or cities reporting RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Hillside Ordinance No 20(36%) 0. 30 Yes 36(64%) *56 of 85 (65 1/6) of cities reporting Jurisdiction Canyon Calistoga Madera )r ino City East Palo Alto El Cerrito Emeryville Fairfax Fairfield Foster City Fremont Half Moon Bay Lafayette Larkspur Livermore Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Martinez Menlo Park Mill Valley Monte Sereno Moraga Mountain View n1a = not applicable G0 �� O 40 X ?. O Contra Costa O O O n1a x x nla x n1a no response x O O O San Francisco O O ? O 0 O 0 x x x n1a x x x n1a Pacifica O O O n O' O O x x x n1a Petaluma O O O n1a O x O O O x ? O O O O O O O Pittsburg x x n1a o O O O O O O O x x n1a no response 0 no response x O O x 0 o O O x x n1a Richmond x O n1a O O O O x x n1a San Anselmo x x n1a n1a O O ? O O O ? San Carlos no response O x x n1a San Jose O O 0 n1a O x ? no response no response San Mateo x O n1a O O O O O O O O O ? ? X x O x San Ramon O O O n1a 0 0 0 O O ? ? O O O ? O 0 ? Sausalito x O n1a X O O O x x x n1a Alameda X ?. O Contra Costa Jurisdiction x n1a Merin x x n1a Napa x ? c� San Francisco Oakland O ? x x Orinda x x n1a x Pacifica O O n Sonoma Palo Alto x no response Petaluma O ? n1a Piedmont O O o Pinole O O o Pittsburg O X o Pleasant Hill O O o Pleasanton no response Portola Valley x x x Redwood City O O O Richmond no response Ross x O n1a San Anselmo x ? n1a San Bruno O O O San Carlos x O n1a San Jose x X n1a San Leandro no response San Mateo O ? O San Pablo O x O San Rafael X X n1a San Ramon x O n1a Santa Clara O O O Saratoga x ? ? Sausalito x x X Sonoma x O n1a South S.F. O O O St. Helena x O 121a Suisun City O O ? Sunnyvale O O O Tiburon x x n1a Union City 0 O O Vallejo O O ? Walnut Creek O O O Woodside x x n1a Yountville X O n1a COUNTIES Alameda X ?. O Contra Costa x x n1a Merin x x n1a Napa x ? n1a San Francisco no response San Mateo x x n1a Santa Clara o x x Solano O x ? Sonoma x x n1a ? = unknown x = affirmative 31 O = non affirmative s � � @ x � ■ @ U c e D � � � § e 2 � e � Q � e � c _ � � � a / $ / $ a ° ° x 7 § §\ f§ f _/ k§ 0 k Q@ e° m£ a § 3 ® e E 2/ 3 2 2 ■ m « Q ƒ e f o ¥ / ¥ / %� f / R§ E 0 U) CL % § 2 0 0 / 7 y / E 5 5 / LL 0 \ ƒ k k co / / / / / / 32 / E q 2 2 C) C) � B / � � / 2 ? \ ME a - ,a// 0 N -r c t O IN yr r s r �L ..fir°- .,...�,�= � �" � -� +r-'� ✓r „-� `^ `` O d (MU r Q s O CL d "-�` % -.�,.' ,„ O rte+ 2 4 � n yr aw No O � F O O N .N (00 U N U N Q C� co U U E m v °� a m a U z CL pq U m TO m m N U r- m O o z o o c° O µ a U m a� U = m E o 0 LL 0 U) Mpim ja}jnq auiwia)op o} pasn olgeilen) fqiledioiunW 33 -)� �6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources http: / /anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu PUBLICATION 8240 FOREST STEWARDSHIP SERIES 10 Riparian Vegetation SUSAN D. KOCHER, UCCE Natural Resources Advisor, El Dorado County; RICHARD HARRIS, UCCE Forestry Specialist, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley Areas immediately adjacent to rivers and streams are known as riparian areas, and the vegetation that occurs there is called riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation is often quite distinctive when compared with upland vegetation because it is comprised of plants adapted to high soil moisture (fig. 1). For example, in areas where uplands are dominated by coniferous forest or grassland, riparian vegetation may consist of deciduous trees and shrubs including cottonwood, willow, alder, and sycamore. Riparian communities in the western United States can resemble the hardwood forest communities of the eastern and southern parts of the country. PEER \-I REVIEWED Figure 1. Riparian vegetation is often distinctively different from surrounding upland vegetation. The boundaries of a riparian zone can be inferred from the presence of species such as willows, alders and cottonwood. Photo. Richard Harris. ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION Riparian vegetation performs important ecological functions. These include serving as terrestrial and aquatic habitat, stabilizing stream banks, providing shade to streams, and providing large woody debris to increase complexity of in- stream fish habitat. Terrestrial Habitat Healthy riparian vegetation is a critical component of habitat for many terrestrial wildlife species. For exam- ple, many birds are common visitors to riparian forests. These include songbirds that feed on insects; herons and cranes that feed on fish and frogs; and hawks, eagles, and osprey that feed on fish. Migratory birds such as waterfowl and some songbirds use riparian '2 - �' O 2 ANR Publication 8240 Figure 2. Shade provided by riparian canopy overhanging a stream helps maintain lower water temperatures during the summer and fall and benefits resident fish and other aquatic life. Photo. Richard Harris. areas for resting, feeding, and breeding habitat. Most small carnivores, such as foxes, will use the water's edge in their search for food. Riparian zones can also serve as important corridors of movement for larger wildlife such as deer and bear. Aquatic Habitat Riparian vegetation provides habitat for insects, some of which fall in the stream and become food for fish. Plant litter derived from riparian vegetation can be the largest source of nutrients to the stream. Vegetation overhanging stream banks also provides cover for small fish. Overhanging branches or toppled trees can trap debris and can alter stream flow patterns, creating refuges for fish during high flows. Stream Bank Stability The large and fine roots of riparian vegetation stabilize stream banks, reducing bank erosion and preventing excessive widening of the stream channel. During high stream flows, riparian vegetation may slow and dissipate the energy of floodwaters, reducing erosion from these events. Riparian vegetation may act as a filter in some locations, trapping sediment and pollutants from upslope sources. Shade The temperature of stream water varies according to season. During the summer when stream flow is low, heat from the sun (solar radiation) reaching the water surface can dramatically affect water temperature. Increased stream temperature in turn, can adversely affect coldwater fish and other aquatic life. Shade provided by riparian veg- etation reduces inputs of solar radiation, helping to maintain cool water temperatures and to moderate temperature fluctuations (fig. 2). Large Woody Debris Large woody debris (LWD) includes tree stems, roots, and branches that enter the stream as a result of tree mortality, bank erosion, wind throw, or large floods. Large wood provides fish with cover to escape from predators, serves as a refuge during high stream flows, and creates rearing habitat. Large wood in streams obstructs and diverts flows in complex patterns, slowing water and changing its depth, helping to form pools (fig. 3). 9_�bg 3 ANR Publication 8240 Figure 3. Large woody debris (LWD) helps stabilize stream channels, create habitat for fish and other creatures, and store sediment. Accumulations such as the one in the figure are espe- cially important because they tend to provide beneficial functions for a long time. Photo. Richard Harris. Large woody debris also creates storage sites for sediment in all types of stream channels. In smaller streams, single pieces of large wood spanning the channel can be the primary factor keeping sediment from moving downstream. In larger streams, LWD is transported downstream and often accumulates in debris "jams." These jams act as escape cover for fish and storage sites for sediment, which can provide spawning gravel for fish. LWD on floodplains and gravel bars on large streams provide escape habitat for fish at high flows when floodplains are inundated, and they also promote streamside forest development. HUMAN - INDUCED CHANGES IN RIPARIAN VEGETATION Although change occurs naturally in riparian communities, many human activities have caused dramatic and widespread changes well beyond the norm. Agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, forestry, and urban and residential development near water bodies can all lead to removal or reduction of riparian vegetation and the impairment of its ecological functions. Once riparian vegetation is removed, it no longer serves to shade water, provide food for aquatic organisms, maintain stream banks, provide a source of large woody debris, or slow or filter runoff to streams. The result is degraded water quality and fish habitat. For those reasons, maintenance of riparian vegetation is a critical element of almost any type of land use. ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS Wetlands are distinguished from riparian vegetation primarily because they are mostly comprised of herbaceous plants such as sedges, rushes, and grasses. Trees and shrubs that are present are adapted to a permanent high water table and saturated soils. ®� -,�67 4 ANR Publication 8240 Figure 4. Spring -fed and other wetlands are common on many forested lands and are protected under current forest practice rules during timber harvesting operations. The occurrence and size of mountain meadows such as the one shown have been reduced due to a combina- tion of hydrologic impacts, grazing, fire exclusion, and invasion by conifers. Photo. Gary Nakamura. Wetlands can be associated with stream systems or may be found in upland areas with no obvious connection to streams. The mountain meadow is a common example of a wetland often associated with a stream. Spring -fed wetlands or bogs are usually not associated with streams. Vernal pools (shallow pools that form only during the rainy season) are a special type of wetland that is found in grassland, oak woodland, and prairie landscapes with little topographic relief. They are essentially depressions in otherwise flat terrain. They are uncommon in most forests and will not be discussed further here. Wetlands along streams are inundated at high flows (fig. 4). These wetlands slow floodwaters, allowing sediments and pollutants to settle out. Vegetation in wetlands can assimilate nutrients, including some toxins, thereby protecting downstream water quality. Wetlands intercept, delay, and store surface water runoff and reduce the sever- ity of downstream flooding. Wetlands are often dependent on groundwater and are indicative of underlying aquifers. Wetlands also discharge water to streams during periods of low flow, extending the season of stream flow during dry summer months. Because wetlands are able to store water and make it available in the dry summer months, they provide critical habitat to many aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species. CHANGES IN RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND WETLANDS Riparian vegetation naturally changes over time and may establish in new areas under favorable conditions. For example, newly deposited gravel and sand bars may be colonized � - 0 ?ig ANR Publication 8240 by willows or other plants that may gradually capture sediment from floodwaters, caus- ing the bar to get larger and higher above the stream. As the willows get older, other plants such as sycamore or oak may establish and eventually overtop the willows. In heavily forested regions such as the North Coast, vegetation changes over time (i.e., succession) may lead to the establishment of a riparian community dominated by coni- fers like redwood. Floodwaters can sweep away entire riparian communities, leaving bare gravel or sand bars. When this happens, the development of the plant community from pioneer plants such as willows to later - successional species like cottonwood, oak, or redwood begins again. RIPARIAN BUFFER STRIPS Buffer strips are areas of vegetation left beside a stream or lake to protect against land use impacts. For example, a fence may be installed at the landward edge of a riparian community to create a buffer between the stream and livestock. Buffer strips are also used to protect streams during forest harvesting operations. Whether or not harvesting . is permitted within the buffer strip. well-;designed and managed buffers can contribute significantly to the maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat and the control of pol- lution. Riparian buffer strips are designed to protect the ecological functions associated with riparian vegetation. In addition, they help protect aquatic and riparian plants and animals from upland sources of pollution by trapping or filtering sediments, nutrients, and chemicals from forestry, agricultural, and residential activities. On private forestland in California, legal requirements are imposed during tim- ber harvesting to protect the ecological functions associated with riparian vegetation and to maintain water quality The California Forest Practice Act requires maintenance of riparian vegetation in buffer strips called watercourse and lake protection zones (WLPZs). How WLPZs are defined and maintained must be specifically described in a written timber harvest plan filed by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). California defines four classes of watercourses (I, II, III, and IV) on the basis of the watercourse's use (see box). WLPZ width is determined by the watercourse class and the steepness, or slope, of the adjacent land draining to the watercourse. Watercourse Class Description I Perennial streams that contain fish or are domestic water supplies. II Perennial streams that do not contain fish but do contain other aquatic life or are Nvithin 1,000 feet (305 m) of a Class I stream. III Watercourses that do not support aquatic life but have the potential to deliver sediment to a Class I or II stream. IV Human -made streams for domestic, agricultural, or hydroelectric supply or for other beneficial use. As of 2007, WLPZs for Class I watercourses ranged from 75 to 150 feet (23 to 46 m) on each side of the watercourse, depending on slope and region of the state. On Class II watercourses, WLPZs ranged from 50 to 100 feet (15 to 30 W. Along Class III and IV streams, equipment exclusion zones (EEZs) or equipment limitation zones (ELZs) are required to prevent equipment from operating near the watercourse. Buffers are estab- lished on a case -by -case basis for these watercourses. Alternative prescriptions for Class I and II watercourse WLPZs are allowed on a site - specific basis if they provide at least as much protection as the standard WLPZ. 6 ANR Publication 8240 The specific WLPZ requirements for timber harvesting are subject to change, and it is always advisable to consult with an RPF or the CAL FIRE to determine current regulatory requirements. Because of the importance of the streamside zone, regulations are stringently enforced. In California, there is no state law equivalent to the Forest Practice Act for pro- tecting riparian zones from infringement by other uses. Consequently, regulatory con- trols are left up to local jurisdictions, primarily counties. Agricultural uses, including rangeland grazing in riparian zones, are regulated in only a few counties. RESOURCES Several educational and cost -share programs promote riparian protection as it applies to agricultural uses. Educational programs are offered through the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE). The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) administer cost - share programs for landowners seeking to protect and restore riparian zones by exclud- ing livestock and other measures. To find out about these and other programs. contact your local UCCE, DFG, or CAL FIRE offices. Riparian Forest Restoration While few people agree on just how much large moody debris is needed in a stream, many biologists feel that most California streams need more. The present deficit is in large part a result of past policies advocating the clearance of LWD from streams. Currently, most clearing of wood from streams is limited to that required to prevent damage to roads and stream crossings. Riparian forests are critical for supplying new LWD to streams. However, many riparian forests have few large trees because of conversion of timberland to agricultural and residential use, as well as timber harvesting conducted before the current forest practice rules were instituted. To reverse LWD deficiencies, a landowner can manage the riparian forest to pro- mote recruitment of I_WD. Most LWD falling into streams comes from within 100 to 200 feet of the stream. Depending on the size of the stream, you may want your riparian LWD recruitment zone to be equal in width (on each side of the stream) to the height of the tallest tree that might realistically fall into the watercourse. Growing large trees as potential sources of LNVD may require active management, such as planting coni- fers, controlling competition, and thinning. Actively managing riparian zones must be done with caution to minimize soil disturbance and leave a good shade canopy intact. Indiscriminate removal of LWD from streams or floodplains can destabilize streams and reduce habitat values, so this should be avoided. In the long term, creative management of riparian forests offers the most promise for improving conditions. However, on some streams, reintroduction or placement of logs in the channel may provide a short -term solution until natural recruitment processes recover. The novice should not attempt to do this. Your local DFG staff can provide advice and guidelines for placing wood in streams. Cost - sharing programs are often available for these projects. Rural residential uses are prevented from adversely affecting riparian zones in some counties by ordinance and in all counties through implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Before engaging in activities that may affect riparian zones, a landowner should contact the local county planning department. 7 ANR Publication 8240 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To order or obtain printed ANR publications and other products, visit the ANR Communication Services online catalog at http: / /anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu. You can also place orders by mail, phone, or FAX, or request a printed catalog of our products from: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication Services 6701 San Pablo Avenue, 2nd Floor Oaldand, California 94608 -1239 Telephone: (800) 994 -8849 or (510) 642 -2431 FAX: (510) 643 -5470 E -mail inquiries: danres @ucdavis.edu An electronic version of this publication is available on the ANR Communication Services Web site at http: / /anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu. Publication 8240 ISBN -13: 978 -1- 60107 -460 -7 © 2007 by the Regents of the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. All rights reserved. The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical con- dition (cancer - related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (covered veterans are special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, or any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized) in any of its programs or activities. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiries regarding the University's nondiscrimination policies maybe directed to the Affirmative Action/Staff Personnel Services Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 -3550 (510) 987 -0096. For a free catalog of other publications, call (800) 994 -8849. For help downloading this publication, call (530) 297 -4445. This publication has been anonymously peer reviewed for technical accuracy by University of PEER \'� California scientists and other qualified professionals. This review process was managed by the REVIEWED ANR Associate Editor for Natural Resources. pr- 12/07 -SB/RW ,?-a73 Riparian Function and Protection Riparian Function and Protection Page 1 of 8 area of vegetation near streams is known as the riparian zone. A riparian zone helps maintain good stream habitat for salmon, steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout in the following ways: Helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate over the stream • Provides food resources for the aquatic ecosystem in the form of leaves, branches, and terrestrial insects Stabilizes banks through provision of root cohesion on banks and floodplains Filters sediment from upslope sources Filters chemicals and nutrients from upslope sources Supplies large wood to the channel which maintains channel form and improves in- stream habitat complexity • Helps maintain channel form and in- stream habitat through the restriction of sediment input or slowing of sediment moving through the system • Moderates downstream flood pears through temporary upstream storage of water - ") }7 � http://www.laisweb.com/streanVriparian.htm 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection Page 2 of 8 rootwad provides excellent habitat for coho salmon and steelhead juveniles in the winter, when the water is high. Fish hide behind it to avoid getting washed downstream during high flows. Large redwoods that fall into the stream may last several hundred years before decaying. These trees play a critical role in provision of aquatic habitat diversity in northwestern California. Photo by Pat Higgins. Considerable study and discussion has taken place in recent years regarding riparian zone protection. - Protection zone distances are often referred to in site potential tree heights which is the expected __ height of coniferous trees upon maturity (200 years). This averages 170 feet in much of the Pacific Northwest, but may exceed 200 feet in areas such as the Olympic Peninsula or the redwood zone in California (Spence et al., 1996). The Northwest Forest Plan ( FEMAT, 1993) recognized the importance of maintaining riparian protection on Federal lands for both Pacific salmon and amphibian species and recommended buffer widths of two site potential tree heights on perennial streams and one site potential tree height on ephemeral water courses. Zones of protection under FEMAT (1993) are also extended to the break in slope of the inner gorge to prevent landsliding. Kondolf et al. (1996) recommended a riparian buffer with a minimum of one site potential tree height for protection of Sierra Nevada streams. Spence et al. (1996) concur with one site potential tree height buffer widths on private land as part of Habitat Conservation Plans. California Forest Practice Rules (CFPR) have some restrictions on timber harvest and equipment operation in riparian zones which vary with the steepness of surrounding slopes (Table 1). However, these protections do not restrict harvest of conifers and do not prevent harvest of all trees adjacent to ephemeral streams when slopes are less than 30 %. Further restrictions on riparian harvest in California were recommended by Ligon et al. (1999) and improved protections were implemented under the Pacific Lumber Company Habitat Conservation Plan (PALCO HCP) . (Table 1). Jurisdiction Class I (Fish Bearing) Class II (Non -Fish Class III (Ephemeral) Bearing) FEMAT Two Site Potential Tree Two Site Potential Tree One Site Potential Tree Heights = 340 -400 ft. No Heights = 340 -400 ft. Height 170 -200 ft. Cut No Cut No Cut http://www.krisweb.com/strean.L/riparian.htm 'd _ D S 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection 5 ft. selective harvest on 150 ft. selective harvest on Practice 1<30% slope 0% slope 100 ft. selective harvest on 175 ft. selective harvest on 0 -50% slope 50% slope 150 ft. selective harvest on 1100 ft. selective harvest on >50% slope >50% slope ALCO HCP 11.70 ft. protection zone* X100 ft. protection zone* 0 -100 ft. no out 10-30 ft. no cut Page 3 of 8 on site - specific ft. equipment exclusion ie on slope >30% 50 ft. protection zone ** -30 ft. no cut 100 -170 ft. retain 240 sq. ft. 30-130 ft. retain 240 sq. ft. 1(<40% 30 -50 ft. selective harvest basal area basal area basal area removal * May be modified through watershed analysis ** May be modified through watershed analysis but also PALCO may choose 2175 acres of Class III stream areas from its holdings where greater timber harvest may take place. Even the enhanced protection afforded streams by the PALCO HCP may not be sufficient in light of recent studies of blow -down in riparian zones after adjacent areas were clear -cut (Reid and Hilton, 1998). Reid and Hilton (1998) found increased tree fall rates from blow down in riparian *zones as far. as 200 meters from the edge of clear cuts in the North Pork Caspar' Creek basin. They also found that 30% of trees recruited to the stream were knocked in by "trigger trees" which were outside one site potential tree height. It seems likely that large wood recruitment could be substantially altered by blow down under the HCP with only 100 foot and 30 foot no cut zones on Class I and II streams, respectively, and clear cuts allowed up to the edge of the outer band width (170 feet and 100 feet). ecent regional studies have demonstrated that existing riparian protection under CFPRs are insufficient (Ligon et al., 1999). Pacific Watershed Associates (1998a) found that timber harvest in ephemeral streams in the Elk River basin, tributary to Humboldt Bay, lead to greatly elevated sediment yield. Steep slopes in the inner gorge of Bear Creek, tributary to the lower Eel River, failed after timber harvest, sending sediment 8 to 15 feet deep down the stream channel (PWA, 1998b). The debris torrent run -out distance in Bear Creek was substantially increased because landslides lacked large wood. The example at left is in neighboring Jordan Creek and it shows an inner gorge landslide associated with recent cable logging in an area that would be protected on National Forest lands. The removal of most large coniferous trees from the riparian over -story has also caused elevation of stream temperatures, sometimes to levels that no longer support coho salmon or sensitive amphibian species (see Temperature). :?T 2 -7 � http://www.laisweb.com/streamhiparian.htrn 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection Page 4 of 8 trees have trapped sediment that was moving downstream during high flows in Bear Creek, Humboldt County, in 1997: A healthy riparian zone can trap soil already in transit from uplands, thus reducing sediment impacts to downstream reaches, as tree roots bind the soil and build terraces. Riparian trees also block sediment coming directly from the adjacent land, which helps to reduce and moderate the rate of sediment input to the stream. Van Duzen River, with Yager Creek entering from the left in 1997. The riparian zone of the Van Duzen has expanded substantially in width due to substantial quantities of sediment in transport and valuable dairy land is being eroded. 77 http:// www. krisweb.com/stream/riparian.htm 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection Page 5 of 8 multi -level canopy over this stream keeps air and water temperatures cool. Fallen trees help create the complex habitat that salmon and steelhead need. The return of the salmon and their death after spawning brought a great store of nutrients from the ocean, which helped the riparian forests to thrive. Even if riparian zones are protected from timber harvest or other land use activities, elevated sediment transport can overwhelm them (see Van Duzen photo above). Consequently, riparian protection must be accompanied by control of cumulative effects in upland areas to achieve salmon restoration objectives. Grant (1988) discovered that sequential aerial photos from different time periods can show changes in the width of riparian areas which are indicative of cumulative watershed effects. Watersheds suffering cumulative effects show expanding stream widths and those in recovery, such as the North Fork Garcia River, show riparian encroachment (Hagans and Higgins, 1996). On the East Coast, Welsch (199 1) recommended a minimum of 100 foot buffer strips surrounding agricultural lands for protection of aquatic resources, particularly for nutrient buffering. Smith and Prichard (1992) recommend several steps for restoring riparian zones. References CDF [California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection]. 1998. California Forest Practice Rules Forest Practice. CDF, Sacramento, CA. FEMAT [Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team]. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: an ecological, economic and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993 - 793 -071. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Grant, G. E. 1988. The RAPID technique: A new method for evaluating downstream effects of forest practices on riparian zones. Gen. Tech. Rep: PNW- GTR -220. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific'Northwest Research Station. 36 p. http://www:l<risweb.con--L/streara/riparian.htm 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection Page 6 of 8 Hagans, D.K. and P.T. Higgins. 1996. Analysis of Stream Channel Recovery of the North Fork Garcia River Using a Modified RAPID Methodology. Performed under contract to Coastal Forest Lands, Inc. Willits, CA. 5 p. Kondolf, G.M.; R. Kattelmann, M. Embury, D.C. Erman. 1996. Status of riparian. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center Report no. 37. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources; 1009 -1030, Ligon, F., A. Rich, G. Rynearson, D. Thornburgh, and W. Trush. 1999. Report of the Scientific Review Panel on California Forest Practice Rules and Salmonid Habitat. Prepared for the Resources Agency of California and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Sacramento, CA. 181 pp. Pacific Watershed Associates. 1998. Sediment Source Investigation and Sediment Reduction Plan for the North Fork Elk River Watershed, Humboldt County, California. Report to The Pacific Lumber Company. Scotia, CA. Pacific Watershed Associates. 1998b. Sediment Source Investigation and Sediment Reduction Plan for the Bear Creels Watershed, Humboldt County, California. Prepared for The Pacific Lumber Company.Scotia, California. Arcata, California. 57 pp. Reid, L.M. and S. Hilton. 1998. Buffering the Buffer. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Redwood Sciences Lab, Arcata, CA. http: / /www.psw.fs.fed.us /Tech Pub /Documents /gtr- 168 /08reid.pdf Smith B. and D. Prichard 1992 Riparian Area Management: Management techniques in riparian areas. Technical Reference 1737 -6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO. 48 pp. [l l9k] Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomrucky, R.M. Hughes and R P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Funded jointly by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. TR- 4501 -96 =6057. Man Tech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. http: / /www.nwr. noaa. gov/ lhabcon /babweb/ManTech/front.htm #TOC Welsch, D. J. 1991: Riparian Forest Buffers; Function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. USDA publication NA- PR -07 -91 http: / /www.na.fs.fed.usispfo /pubs /n resource/buffer /cover.htm I)-1�7� http://www.krisweb.com/st,eani/ripa,rian.httn 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection Background Streams • Water QualAy • Temperature • Dissolved Oxygen oD o N11friPnf z Other Pollutants • Sediment Measuring sediment • Riparian • gig Woo • Habitat Types Watersheds • Vegetation TYes • Slope Stability • Roads & Erosion • Cumulative Impacts • Urbanization Fish & Aquatic Life • Fish Populations • Amphibians • Aquatic Insects • Hatcheries • Fish Disease Restoration • Stream Clearance • Structures • Riparian • Watershed • Strategy Geology / Hydrology • Geology • Soils • Precipitation • Stream Flow • Channel Processes Page 7 of 8 ') -4- D, S 6 http:// www .Icrisweb.com/sticamhiparian.htm 5/4/2017 Riparian Function and Protection Page 8 of 8 Policy & Regulation • ESA • TMDL • Forest Rules • 1603 Permits • Water Rights KRIS Sheepscot Background KRIS Kootenai Background KrisWeb Home Bibliography I Background I KrisTeam I Contact I KrisWeb Home © 2011 Kier Associates / IFR I Original design by Andreas Viklund. http://www.Icrisweb.cornJstreamVriparian.htm 5/4/2017 Riparian buffer and stream set back links (in no particular order of importance): U.S. EPA — A Review of Current Science and Regulations http://wvvw.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/60OR05118/60OR05118.pd f Quantitative Review of Riparian Buffer Width Guidelines from Canada and the United States http:// www. biology.uaIberta.calfacuIty/stan boutin /uploads /pdfs /Lee et al 2004 JourEnviroMamt Chagrin River Watershed Partners — Why Riparian Setbacks? http: / /www.crwp.org/pdf files/why riparian setbacks jan 2006.pdf U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center — Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and Vegetated Buffer Strips http: / /dnr.wi.gov /org /water /wm /dsfm /shore /documents /sr24,pdf Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies — Riparian Buffer Zones: Functions and Recommended Widths http: / /www.eightmileriver .org /resources /digital librarL/appendicies /096 Riparian %20Buffer %20S cience YALE.pdf University of Georgia Institute of Ecology — Implications of Changes in Riparian Buffer Protection for Georgia's Trout Streams http: / /www.gaepd.org /Files PDF/Water /buffer science.pdf Chagrin Rivers Watershed Partners — Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers http: / /vvww.crwp.org /pdf files /riparian setback paper jan 2006.pdf Vermont Agency of Natural Resources — Riparian Buffers and Corridors http://www.anr.state.vt.us/site/html/buff/buffer-tech-f i na I. pdf Connecticut River Joint Commissions — Riparian Buffers http:// www.cr-ic.org /riparianbuffers.htm University of Georgia Institute of Ecology — A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Widths, Extent and Vegetation http:// www. chathamnc .org/WatershedReviewBoard /supporting documents /stream buffers /LitRevi ewRiparianBuffers.pdf From: Pete Gang [pete @commonsensedesign.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 8:33 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP@Comcast.net; councilman .albertsonCagmail.com; Teresa Barrett; Dave King; mthealy@sbcglobal. net; councilmemberkearneyC6me.com; kathleencmilleroffice(c gmail.com; David Glass Subject: Proposed Davidon Development at D Street and Windsor Drive To Whom It May Concern, As an architect and 25+ -year resident of Petaluma, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Davidon (Scott Ranch) development at D Street and Windsor Drive. It is clear from the testimony at Council meetings, from the recent Argus- Courier poll, and from yard signs currently in place around town that an overwhelming majority of people of Petaluma likewise " stand in opposition to this project. The Walnut Creek -based developer is interested in making a killing. The residents of Petaluma, in contrast, are interested in maintaining the vitality of the living world around them. We need housing that is affordable to our teachers, our nurses, our baristas, and our mechanics. We do not need and we do not want more $1.5 million - dollar mini - mansions. I urge you to put the interests of the residents of Petaluma foremost in your minds as you give consideration to ill- conceived project. Respectfully submitted, Pete Gang "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. " - - -- Albert Einstein STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (SIO) 286 -5528 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April 28, 2017 Ms. Alicia Giudice City of Petaluma Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Serious Di aught. Help save mater! 04- SON - 2017 -00099 SCH# 2004072137 Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision (File #03 -TSM -039) — Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Ms. Giudice: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above - referenced project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Caltrans mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluating and mitigating impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans' Strategic Management Plan 2015 -2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the DEIR. Additional comments may be forthcoming pending final review. Project Understanding The applicant proposes to. develop approximately 58.66 acre site currently an undeveloped property with a barn complex (comprising a large barn and two smaller structures) and a mobile home present in the northeastern portion of the site. The applicant has put forth two development proposals: The first proposal would develop the site with 66 single - family residential lots and relocate the large barb to another portion of the project site where it would be renovated. The two smaller structures and mobile home would be removed. The second proposal would develop 63 single- family residential lots and would retain and rehabilitate the barn complex at its current location. Both proposals would construct a public park with a tot lot, a pedestrian and bicycle trail (multi -use trail), and trailhead parking lots. The multi -use trail would be constructed along the southern side of Kelly Creek and would cross the creek via a pedestrian bridge near the project's western boundary, and then would continue west up to the Regional Park boundary where it would connect with a future park trail within Helen Putnam Regional Park. Another trail section would be constructed along D Street to connect the multi -use trail to the future Petaluma Ring Trail. Access to the development is provided via the US 101 on- and -off ramps at State Route (SR) 116 (Lakeville Street). The project site is approximately 2.1 miles west of US 101. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's econonti, and livability " Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 2 Access from local streets would be provided from Windsor Drive via three new cul -de -sac streets (proposed A, B, and C Streets) and from D Street via a new cul -de -sac street (proposed E Street). Sidewalks would be constructed along the project frontage on Windsor Drive and D Street. A traffic roundabout would be installed at the intersection of Windsor Drive, A Street, and B Street. A 300 -foot Urban Separator would be maintained between the proposed development and the southern boundary of the project site. The applicant has applied to the City of Petaluma for the approval of five entitlements: Two General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Plan and Guidelines, and Vesting Tentative Map. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Petaluma is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project's financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and monitoring should be Rilly discussed for all proposed mitigation measures, prior to the submittal of an encroachment permit. Traffic Impact Fees In the Transportation and Traffic section of the DEIR, page 4.12 -1.2, Table 4.12 -4 illustrates that the southbound ramps at US 101 /SR 116 (Lakeville Street) are at level of service D, which noticeably influences queuing. We are concerned with the increased projected generated trips and existing conditions on the US 101 /SR 116 (Lakeville Street) southbound ramps, which have the potential to create significant speed differentials and increase the number of conflicts. Another concern is the potential for queuing vehicles to encroach on the mainline and the ramps SR 116 (Lakeville Street), which could again present a significant conflict due to the speed differential between exiting vehicles and highway traffic. To reduce these potential impacts, the applicant should work with Caltrans in order to determine the fair -share contribution that will be used to ameliorate impacts to STN. In addition, please identify project - generated travel demand and estimate the costs of public transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed project; viable funding sources such as development and /or transportation impact fees should also be identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi -modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Vehicle Trip Reduction With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focusing on transportation infrastructure that supports smart growth and efficient development. Recently approved guidance for incorporating SB 743 (Local Development IntergoverniizentaI Review Progra ni Inter hn Guidance, November 2016) intends to ensure that development projects align with State policies through the "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation systen to enhance California's economy and livabillo, Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 3 use of efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, necessary rnultimodal roadway improvements, and VMT as the primary transportation impact metric. -In Caltrans' Sinart Mobility 2070: A Call to Action for the New Decade, this project falls under Place 4 Suburban Communities — Neighborhoods, which includes areas with a low level of integration of housing with jobs, retail service, poorly connected street networks, low levels of transit service, a large amount of surface parking, and inadequate walkability, residential subdivisions and complexes including housing, public facilities and low- serving commercial uses that are typically separated by corridors. Given this Place Type and intensification of use, which typically leads to high levels of VMT and corresponding low levels of active transportation, we encourage the City to establish a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area to pursue aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. Transportation Demand Management programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an -onsite TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. These smart growth approaches are consistent with the MTC's RTP /SCS goals and would meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan. Reducing parking supply can encourage active forms of transportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future transportation impacts on US 101, SR 116, and other nearby State facilities. For information about parking ratios, see the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) report Reforming Parking Policies to Support Sinart Growth or visit the MTC parking webpage: http://�www.mte.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) elements described below should be included in the program to promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the STN. • Transit fare incentives for residents such as subsidized transit passes on an ongoing basis; • Project design to encourage walking, bicycling, and convenient transit access; • Enhanced bus stops including bus shelters; and • Secure designated bicycle parking. Multimodal Planning In addition, the project should be conditioned to ensure connections to existing bike lanes and multi -use trails to facilitate walking and biking to the project site. Specifically, provide connections to the existing and proposed Class II lanes on Windsor Drive and D Street per the City of Petaluma's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2008. Providing these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will reduce VMT by creating multi -modal links to nearby transit centers, Petaluma Transit Bus Route 1T, and the future Petaluma Sonoma -Mann Area Rail Transit Station. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and elrtclent hransportatron system to enhance California's economy and livability " 4 r Ms. Alicia Giudice, City of Petaluma April 28, 2017 Page 4 Transportation Permit Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on the STN requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed transportation permit application with the determined specific route(s) for the shipper to follow from origin to destination must be submitted to: Caltrans Transportation Permits Office, 1823 14th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 -7119. See the following website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/liq/ti-affops/Pelinits. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Stephen Conteh at 510- 286 -5534 or stephen.conteh @dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's econon v and livability" �`' S "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR" Marion Matthews agiudiceo_ci.petaluma.ca.us PetRP@comcast.net "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR" From: Marion Matthews, Resident of Petaluma California Davidon Project scene and Helen Putnam Park, viewed through Google Earth As our open and wild places begin to disappear, we don't want to look back as a City and ask ourselves, how could we allow these places to vanish? This, as well as other wild places are worth speaking out for, a bit of grace that we can still together hold onto for our town, our children and the wild biodiversity that lives within these ecosystems. You might ask yourself, "Why should we get excited about a little red frog, a red barn, a watershed and vista views from Helen Putnam Park ?" "In 100 years, fifty percent of all species could be gone,... and within 20 years'/ of all frog species will disappear (Racing Extinction, a documentary from Sundance Film Festival and Discovery Channel)" ....The California Red - Legged Frog simply matters and has worth and once it is gone, we cannot bring it back — forever just a photograph for our children. This Davidon Project will fragment the existing habitat of many species, threaten existing endangered species and reduce or eliminate existing wildlife corridors adjacent to Helen Putnam Park — the largest open space park next to Petaluma. 1 "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR" Marion Matthews One of the greatest weaknesses of the Davidon Homes Draft EIR is its silence regarding the impact the project will have on Helen Putnam Regional Park and its visitors. This park is currently ranked, excellent, #3 out of 56 things to do in Petaluma per "TripAdvisor ". And it should be! Wide open Oakland Vista's supporting wildlife and beautiful views attract new visitors and helps our town be connected to wild creatures and the great outdoors - A selling point for maintaining Petaluma as a beacon tourist and visitor location and one of the best places to live in the Bay area. An example, of how the Davidon project affects Helen Putnam Park and its visitors steers us to one of two entrances into the park. At the north -end entrance, a paved path climbs up and over into a mesa area of the park. The Davidon project will greatly affect this area by diminishing the aesthetics in this area — see picture above. Instead of a continuing vista, your new view would fragment the existing habitat and be replaced by another housing tract. Per the draft EIR it states: "5.3.1 Aesthetics The analysis in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR identified a potentially significant impact associated with scenic vistas (Impact AES -1) as a result of project implementation. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation." However, the draft EIR is silent to and does not address the aesthetic impact to the visitors of Helen Putnam Park and is in conflict with the City of Petaluma's plan for "Guiding Principles of General Plan 2025 Details found on p. i7 -8, #3: 3. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's natural environment and distinct setting'in the region - -a community with a discrete edge surrounded by open space" I have included a few pictures of this aesthetic impact. Both are where people would stand on and from the Northerly access route into Helen Putnam Park. One photograph is from mile point one, the other from the paved trail above mile point one. 2 "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR" Marion Matthews These picture were taken on April 28th, yesterday, and upon my drive back into Petaluma I was struck by the wildlife that I saw both in the Park and adjacent Kelly Creek and "Red Barn "area. As it was still the heat of the day, around 3:30 pm, I didn't expect to see a lot of wildlife. However I was greatly encouraged that raptors (large birds of prey) were in the air and Turkey Vultures were observed in shady cooler habitat. However, the Turkey Vultures were NOT in Helen Putnam Park, where I had seen them three weeks prior, but they were in the shady area near Kelly Creek and the Red Barn "courting" and showing their tail feathers, strutting in between Kelly Creek and the Red Barn. These birds and their habitat are just one example of a wildlife corridor and shared habitat from Helen Putnam Park to the Davidon Homes project. These habitats are contiguous, with wildlife corridors that run through both parcels. The draft EIR fails, or is silent to the impact of reducing wildlife corridors and habitat to Helen Putnam and the surrounding areas. There are many issues which I could further address, but will choose only one more. The draft EIR also fails to strengthen the requirement per the Fish and Game Code, 1601 -1603. A permit must be obtained prior.to degrading, or harming in any way a creek area: In short ......16o2. (a) An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement... ". The draft EIR does not address whether a permit has been obtained, and if California Department of Fish and Wildlife has evaluated the project. This can, unless proper permits obtained be a criminal offense. In summary, -there is a lot more to this project, and I hope that the citizens of Petaluma, and the City Council listen to our voices. a,a � 0 "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR" Marion Matthews Let's remember that we, and the biodiversity around us, need open space and habitat. We, as well as our City can hopefully look back and say "we helped to let those birds still soar, and the animals, even a little red frog... live next to and in our great City of Petaluma." .....And as for Helen Putnam Park; let's hope that the people who walk by this oak tree and look through its eyes in both the trunk and branches will always see open green expansive vistas, undeveloped as they crest the hill and leave the park. Respectfully submitted, Marion Matthews Resident of Petaluma California S 30, April 2017 Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner Petaluma City Council and Planning Commission Members City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Comments on Davidon Homes Proposed Development. Dear Petaluma City Council and Planning Commission, My name is Della Quinlan, I am a business owner, I moved to Petaluma for the beauty, natural preservation and Petaluma values. I love Petaluma's open spaces. I'm writing about the proposed Davidon Development to build 63 two story homes near D Street: I live on Windsor Drive and love seeing the stunning rural beauty of the red barn, wild turkeys, and cows. This scenic view and wildlife is precious and irreplaceable. This unique beauty is the primary reason I bought my home on Windsor Drive. Petaluma "Our River Town" is known for its natural beauty. My concern with this project is that Petaluma becomes just one more of the overbuilt, congested neighborhoods that are all over the Bay Area. Rather than improving property values this proposed project is likely to depress neighborhood home values. We have this incredible place to live with the Helen Putnam Park open space because of insightful and visionary leaders such as Helen Putnam former Petaluma Mayor and distinguished Civic Leader for 38 years for whom the adjacent Helen Putnam Park and Putnam Plaza are named. I believe we have the opportunity here to reaffirm the vision and commitmentto Petaluma ideals. I ask you to vote in alignment with Petaluma values of preserving this historic property and protecting the nature and environment it provides. Thankyou. Sincerely, Della Quinlan 286 Windsor Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 � -,a 9 � April 30th, 2017 To: Alicia Guidice, Planning Division, City of Petaluma; agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us Cc: Petaluma City council members: David Glass; Teresa Barrett; Chris Albertson; Dave King; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearny; Kathy Miller Re: Comments on Davidon Homes /Scott Ranch Draft EIR I have lived in Petaluma for 18 years, and prior to that in San Anslemo. I have driven out D Street, past the red barns for years enjoying the most scenic pastoral gateway to the City of Petaluma. The Scott Ranch is an identifying feature and one of the iconic vistas on the drive to Marin County. Its location adjacent to Helen Putnam Regional Park provides an important environmental and visual extension. Cutting down trees, relocating or removing the barns and building a subdivision would be an aesthetic and environmental ruin. Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR identifies a 28 -Lot Development Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. I would support this alternative with the conditions that the areas Significant Impacts be vetted thoroughly, including: 1. Give all government environmental agencies including US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife opportunities to make recommendations 2. Clarify why there is "no feasible way" to design the trailhead parking lot to be outside the 50- foot buffer of the D Street Tributary and require further studies on parking lot variations (sect 5.3.3) 3. Review lots 32 & 36 to ensure views of the Kelly Creek corridor are not obscured LU 2 (page 5.0 -29) 4. Require traffic studies that are current and include projections of the urban infill that will happen near the Lakeville Train station as well as the impact of commuter traffic to /from the SMART train CUM TRANS 1 ( sect 5.3.12) Tammara Norman 501 Feller Street Petaluma, CA 94952 City of Petaluma Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 re: Davidon/Scott Ranch Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 2017) Dear Ms. Giudice and Planners: Can a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) be called disingenuous? Maybe not, but I believe it would be a polite way to indicate the inadequacy of the current DEIR for the Davidon/ Scott Ranch property. Rather than cataloguing more specific descriptors, I will discuss and cite three categories the report itself: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Transportation & Traffic. 4.1 AESTHETICS and scenic views People entering Petaluma on our D Street gateway, designated a Sonoma County scenic corridor (p. 4.1 -15) would no longer see the Red Barn set in an open valley rising up to Helen Putnam Regional Park. With the removal of 120 mature trees, significant grading of the project, and the establishment of up to 66 large, not -so- affordable private houses, we would now see a development of luxury homes enriching their backyard with our public park (Impact AES -2, p. 4.1 -15). The DEIR states that the visual impact of the development would not substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the project area (p. 4.1 -16); granted that mitigations are offered for the construction phase, post - construction we are left with a development, plain and simple — not a scenic splendor at our gateway. Mitigations offered for Impact AES -4, the avoidance of "new sources of substantial light or glare" cannot truly be expected to be the promised "less than significant" with the imposition of 66 luxury homes (p. 4.1 -35). Surely they will indeed require lighting at night — in a scenic environment now pastorally dark. The report itself states that "The proximity of new residences would create new light and glare across portions of the Urban Separator..." (p. 4.3 -37). 4,3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES and the California Red- Legged Frog (CRLF) According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service the entire site is habitat for the now- endangered frog made famous by Mark Twain (Smallwood, Davidon EIR Comments, p. 5, http:// bit.ly /2qu8mlg). As cited on page 4.3 -80, the report relies on five studies prepared for Davidon Homes from 2009 through 2016 by Zentner and Zentner, a company previously rejected by the City of Petaluma as an acceptable biological consultant because Zentner and Zentner principal John Zentner was criminally convicted for illegally removing red- legged frogs from a proposed project in Concord (http: //bit.ly /2gmCEak). This goes beyond Davidon's dubious choice of consultant to cast doubt on the confidence and trust needed to ensure that the many mitigations proposed will be executed and sustained. The numerous mitigations are considerable, extending beyond the life of the project itself. The habitat needed for the red - legged frog and other special - status species (as well as "non- special" species) will not end in 10 or 20 or even 100 years. Does the City have the resources for enforcement and maintenance of these essential mitigations? Bio -1b and Bio -lc (pp. 4.3- 40 -44) list 19 mitigations. These include the extensive and ongoing need, in- perpetuity, to hire credentialed experts, conduct educational programs, install and maintain permanent fencing or barriers, apply special construction practices, erect signage, and provide specialized training and monitoring for all construction personnel. What is the assurance that this array of activities will be conducted and sustained? I would find more sincerity in the proposal if the DEIR had not failed to include in any way the detailed, expert 42- page commentary on the Davidon DEIR by ecology expert K. Smallwood, Ph.D, of Consulting in the Public Interest, submitted to the City Planning Department in April 2013 (http: / /bit.ly/ 2giLI2P). 4.12 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Traffic Uh oh. I have lived on Sixth Street with D Street at the next corner since this intersection was a four -way stop and really easy to cross on foot, bike or car. Even with a dog and a child. I know that residents in the area must now routinely avoid using D Street during several weekday periods. Since this is typically in the 3:00 o'clock hour after school, the DEIR was able to produce a grade of B for this intersection during the 4 -6 pm afternoon peak. I do not challenge their numbers, but I fear they are unduly optimistic and misleading. How many more cars added to D Street by this project will it take to deteriorate the intersections along D Street all the way from Windsor to the Lakeville intersection, which does not have the blessing of a B rating? What about the fact of the SMART train causing yet additional traffic, including traffic from the Davidon project? SMART was passed over in a cursory footnote (p. 4.12 -59). One thing I do feel confident of is that Petalumans are not looking for ways to impact our grand D Street boulevard with more traffic. I shudder to think of adding the new side street onto D Street as it heads out of town above Windsor, creating new "intersection C" (4.12 -48). And a left -turn lane as D Street roars uphill for work with over 1000 "vehicle trips per hour (vph)" at peak (p. 4.12 -48)? No comment. Transit Google Maps shows the distance from the project corner of Windsor Drive and D Street to the nearest transit stop as 0.3 miles (http: /fbit.ly /2gmEvvy). The DEIR conveniently identifies it as "approximately one quarter mile from the project site" and therefore just barely within the legally - stipulated walking distance (p. 4.12 -4)! However this transit stop is at El Rose and D Street on Petaluma Transit Route 5 (not Route IT as stated) (http: //bit.ly /2gmPG7E); the project does not actually propose any residences at D and Windsor. Most of the homes will be out of transit distance and would require walking along a thoroughfare with a rate of speed and usage (over 1000 vph at peak) that make it arduous and unwelcoming, even with the proposed sidewalk, for pedestrians and especially for children who may need transit for school. Route 5 is available only during or near peak traffic hours. If travel is by car, this will of course burden D Street at one of the most highly- impacted times of day. And yes, I have walked, biked and run along this section of D Street many times. While I'm still here to testify, I recommend that those who hope to consider it as good transit access for families go check it out in person — and then reflect on our General Plan Guiding Principle #6: "Provide a range of attractive and viable transportation alternatives, such as bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit" (p. 4.12 -48). CONCLUSION No, I did not start out as an unbiased testifier and make no pretense. Based on the facts and descriptions stated in the DEIR I have articulated both objective analysis and my subjective comments on how I as one Petaluman foresee the Davidon project impacting on me, my family and our community — mitigations and all. I love, invest in and work for the character of our community. I want to share it and pass it on. For our health, wellbeing, sustainability, economic success and vitality, we can do better! This project will unnecessarily degrade our beauty and our sense of place in the world. The infrastructure demands alone will drain us long after Davidon has moved on in pursuit of other green pastures that may remain "unimproved." —Barry Albert Bussewitz, 315 Sixth Street, Petaluma � -'),q S- From: Petalumans for Responsible Planning [PetRP @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 3:41 PM To: councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc(aOgmail.com; mthealy sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com Cc: Giudice, Alicia Subject: CA Fish & Wildlife Letter April 2013 - Davidon Development Dear Council Members, The attached letter from CA Fish & Wildlife April 2013 was acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. The reference section of the 2017 Davidon DEIR in Biological Resources 4.3, p. 4.3 -79- 81 does not mention the letter as a reference. Susan Jaderstrom Petalumans for Responsible Planning PetRP@comcast.net limp State of California — The Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G BROWN JR., Govemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTONH. BONHAM, Dlrecfor Bay Delta Region 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94553 (707) 944 -5500 MW.wildlife.ca.gov April 15, 2013 An,q .5 200 Ms. Alicia Giudice City of Petaluma _ . _ .! Community ©evelopmant Depar#men# 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94932 Dear Nis. Giudice: Subject: Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report; SCH #2004672137, City of -Petaluma-, Sonoma County The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project (Project) in the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County. The draft EIR was received at our office February 15, 2093. The Project includes subdivision and rezoning of two parpeis on each side of Windsor Drive at the intersection of D Street in the City of Petaluma. The Project site totals approximately 58.7 acres. The Project would create 93 single - family homes on approximately 35 acres. The remaining 23 acres would become open space, including: an approximately 20 -acre public open space.to the north and south of Kelly Creek; an approximately 100-foot wide public open space area along the southern project boundary; an approximately 300 -foot wide open space area at the southwest portion of the site; and an approximately 2.35 -acre private open space around the stock pond. Within the Kelly Creek open space, an approximately 200 -foot wide corridor would include a meandering public pedestrian /bike path that would connect to Helen Putnam Regional Park. The Department is-.identified -as a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) § 15386. As a trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code § 1802. In this capacity, the Department administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act, the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program and other provisions of the Fish .and Game Code that afford protection to the State's fish and wildlife trust resources. Pursuant to our jurisdiction, the Department has the following concerns, comments, and recommendations regarding the Project. Conseming CaOw forma s Wiftfi fe Since 1870 Giudice, Alicia Ms. Giudice, Please see the attached letter. Original to follow. Thank you, R,eanna Tatin Habitat Conservation Secreteary Bay Delta Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7329 Sllverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 Phone: (707) 944 -5566 Ms. Alicia Giudice April 15, 2013 Page 2 • Habitat Assessment A Biological Resources report (Report) by Zander Associates, dated August 25, 2003 (draft E1R: Appendix 1,) was initially prepared for the draft EIR. The Report presents the results of special- status plant and wildlife surveys conducted within the proposed Project area during 2003. As more than a decade has passed since the Report was prepared, the Department recommends that the draft EiR be revised to provide an updated habitat assessment and ...._survey results for special- status plant and wildlife species located within the proposed Project area and surrounding lands. Since no detail into the scope and depth of data of during additional reconnaissance-Ievel surveys performed since 2003 is given in the draft El R, the Department does .not consider the additional surveys, to be sufficient to accurately assess projectfmpacts in the draft EIR. Botanical surveys should be conducted throughout the blooming period for all sensitive plant species potentially occurring within the proposed Project area, please refer to Department protocols�•for. surveying-and- evaluating impacts- to rare-plants available at http : / /www.df(3.ca.gov /habcon/�lant/'. The assessment should Include endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive,habitats. Rare; threatened'and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (see CEQA Guidelines, section 15380). The potential for sensitive plant species, including those listed by the California Native Plant Society should be evaluated. ..Prior to- the -assessment, -a scoping -process-- using- information- gathered since, 2003`should __ __..__.._:_._.__..__.._....._.. occur and include various methods of assessing suitability of habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species, including aerial imagery, historical and recent survey data, field reconnaissance, scientific literature and reports, as well as "positive occurrence" databases such as California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Tha CNDDB contains only . records of species and natural communities which have been observed and documented. Absence of data in such sources does not confirm that the species is absent from the proposed Project area. Sources used in the assessment'should be predictive in nature, and discuss occurrence based on habitat type and geographic area. Special- Status Species. American Badger and Burrowing Owl The American badger (Taxidea taxes; hereafter badger) and burrowing owl (Athene cunrcu /ad6,.hereafter burrowing owl), are both listed, by the State of California to be a Species of Special Concern, defined as a species with declining population levels, limited ranges, and /or continuing threats which make them vulnerable to extinction (ht!p:Llwww.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nonaame/Sso/index,htmi). Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the greatest threats to badgers and burrowing owls in California. The State's long history of urbanization in coastal counties has already resulted in either extirpation or drastic reduction in badger.and burrowing owl populations in Sonoma County. Further, loss of agricultural and other open lands (such as grazed landscapes) also negatively affect badger and burrowing owl populations. Because of their need for open habitat with tow vegetation, badger and bu* rrowing owls are unlikely to persist in agricultural lands dominated by vineyards and orchards or urbanized lands. Ms. Alicia Gludice April 15,2013' Page 3 Subsequent to the biological surveys conducted for the draft EIR in 2003, Department staff have observed and documented occurrences of the badger within two miles of the Project site along the City of Petaluma's western edge in habitat very similar to that which occurs on the Project site. Also, fossorial mammal burrows, including badger, are important'habitat to burrowing owl, especially in southern Sonoma County, where the Department 'has noted a high correlation between badger burrows and the presence of burrowing owl. The taacigeris -a grassland specialist �nrltFi`a urge home "rang : -Tfiey are a "medlum -sized _...._._ carnivore with a distinctively flattened body shape due to its broad shoulders and short legs. Badgers are uniquely adapted to maintaining an underground lifestyle. The chance of observing the badger's distinctive burrow is far more likely than sighting the animal itself. Badger burrow entrances are typically slightly wider than they are tall, and measure an average of 20 to 25 centimeters across. There is usually a large mound of soil tailings in front of the- entrance. Burrows are often found. amongst other badger digs (hunting holes) of varying. depths, but occasionally are found alone: -The burrowing owl is a small, long - legged, ground - dwelling bird species, well- adapted to open, relatively flat expanses. In California, preferred habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography and well- drained soils. Grassland, shrub steppe, and desert are naturally occurring habitat types used by the species. In addition, burrowing owls may occur in some agricultural areas, ruderal grassy -- - ells;vacant-lots- and - pastures "ifthe" vegetation -structure-is- -suitable- and- there-are" useable -.. -.. _._......._.....__..._. burrows and foraging habitat in proximity. Unique among American raptors, the burrowing owl requires underground burrows or other cavities for nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year- round. Burrows used by the owls are usually dug. by other species. In California, California ground squirrel and round - tailed ground squirrel burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls but they may use dens or holes dug by other fossorial species including badger, coyote, and fox: Burrowing owls have been documented in Sonoma County using artificial burrows for nesting and cover. The Department recommends that systematic surveys for badger, burrowing owl and fossorial mammal burrows, which may indicate the presence of potential. habitat for these species, be conducted on the Project site and the draft EIR be updated with the survey results. in order to accurately assess. impacts to these species. Burrowing owl surveys should follow the methodology described in the Department's Stag Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation Appendix D: Breeding and Non - breeding Season Surveys (avallable at http:l /dfcgca.gov/ wildlife/ nongameldo6s /BUOWStaffReport.pdf). The Department recommends that a minimum of four survey visits be conducted during the owl breeding season which is typically between February 1 and August 31. A minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, should be conducted during the peak nesting period which is between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15. Pre - construction surveys should be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction work with a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. Ms. Alicia Giudide April 16, 2013 Page 4 If burrowing owls are observed within the Project area during surveys, the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site should be delineated by a qualified ornithologist. Any impacts to burrowing awls and occupied burrows during the breeding season must be avoided. The Department recommends that any burrows occupied during the non - breeding season by migratory or non - migratory resident burrowing owls also be avoided. Special-Status Species; Mitigation Measure 1310 -1b and BIO -1c Within Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, the draft ElR discusses California red - legged frog (CRLF) mitigation in Mitigation Measure 1310 -1b, on page 4.4-28: "The proposed project shall be substantially revised to provide additional avoidance of essential habitat for CRLF around the stock pond, and improve oppartunities for .movement and dispersal between the pond and Kelly Creek, Helen Putman Regional Park and the main tributary drainage along D Street. These project revisions are required to provide minimum habitat avoidance of essential habitat for CRLF necessary to mitigate potential impacts under CEQA. Additional mitigation would be more fully defined as part of'the CRLF Mitigation Plan called for below in Mitigation Measure 817 -1c, which would serve to prevent inadvertent take of individual CRLF and refine mitigation details of habitat replacement and enhancement as part of permit authorization from the USFWS and CDFG." CEQA -Guidelines- [Section 15126'.4- (a)(1)(B)j stipulate that it is not appropriate to'defer. feasible mitigation measures to a future date. Also, the Court of Apnpeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4t 646 struck down mitigation measures that required formulating management plans developed in consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies after project approval. - As stated above, the draft EIR currently defers development of such measures for CRLF to consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) after the Project has been approved. The draft EIR should determine and quantify what the impacts are to CRLF, and then present biological mitigation measures, such as avoidance, minimization and potential habitat mitigation, to conclude that the impacts have been mitigated to less-than-significant levels.. Without review of the "California Red - Legged Frog Mitigation Plan" proposed in Mitigation Measure 810 -1c, it is unknown whether or not mitigation measures for CRLF are sufficient to mitigate the Project impacts to less- than - significant. The Mitigation Plan should address both permanent and temporary site impacts. It. should also clearly outline feasible mitigation. The Department is concerned that mitigating for the proposed alterative at a 3;1 off site mitigation ratio would result in needing over 100 acres'of suitable CRLF habitat. It is unclear if this quantity of habitat exists nearby or is available for purchase. The CRLF Mitigation Plan may also require activities that in and of themselves have impacts that must be analyzed within the draft EIR. For example, creation or enhancement of a CRLF �_3p Ms. Alicia G €udice April 15, 2013 Page 5 breeding pond may convert emergent wetland habitat to open water habitat or vice versa; in which case, impacts to species that use these habitats should be addressed in the draft EiR. A CRLF Mitigation Plan may also require an invasive Species Management Plan which would impact additional species not analyzed in the draft EIR. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The Department concurs with the draft EIR's finding, which was made pursuant to CEQA Gu €delines Section 15126.6(e), that Alternative D (28 Single- Family Lots) would be the environmentally superior alternative among the proposed project alternatives. This alternative proposes the fewest homes and no development to the south of Kelly Creek, which would minimize €nipacts to CRLF and other species. Alternative C (47 Single- Family Lots) also minimizes impacts to CRLF and species occurring south of Kelly Creek. In early 2069, the Project proponent coordinated with the Department and the USFWS on developing the site plan identified as Alternative B (66 Single - Family Lots). While this site plan has greater permanent and temporary biological impacts than either Alternatives C or D, it does protect the CRLF breeding pond, maintains an uninterrupted overland connection to Kelly Creek, and provides additional upland dispersal habitat towards Heleri Putnam Regional Park. If a thorough CRLF Mitigation. Plan is developed, as noted above under Mitigation Measure 1310-1c, Alternative B may maintain the integrity of the CRLF population on the site.. Howover,'a§'hoted in previous si?drlb' Tof this Batter, the -CRLF Mitigation Plan should be developed and reviewed within the context of the draft EiR in order to fully understand the Projects mitigation requirements as they relate to 'each project alternative. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) is needed pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. for the proposed Project - related activities within Kelly Creek, and any other 1500- jurisdictional waters within the proposed Project area. Notification is required for any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural floi* , change the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources, use material from the stream /channel bed, 'or substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. Issuance of an LSAA is subject to CEQA. The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider-the CEQA document for the Project. The-Department may not execute the Final LSAA until it has complied with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seg.) as the Responsible Agency, The Department considers ripananlwetland habitat as a sensitive plant community that is valuable for a diversity of wildlife species. Riparian zones maintain shade, protect against windthrow, produce litterfall, provide important migratory routes for wildlife; and serve to recruit instream woody debris which provides habitats, food and shelter for invertebrates and fish. Riparian vegetation also acts as a filter strip for sedimentation from erosion sources. Any tree, shrub or wetland removed with the bed, bank, or channel of a stream is therefore considered a permanent impact, and should be adequately mitigated. 2-3®`- Ms. Alicia Ciudice April -15, 2013 Page 6 The draft E1R should include a more detailed description of the physical and hydrologic characteristics of the streams, wetlands and riparian habitat to be affected by the proposed Project. All potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project activities on stream /wetland hydrology should be fully identified. impacts to the stream and riparian area resulting from the construction of public areas, fencing, pedestrian paths and bridges should be analyzed. Adequate and effective avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments should be provided for completion of the LSAA. Any impacts to the bed-and banks,-of the"'str`eams'front falling trees "Ond...ether Project activities shouitt b� described: Banks of streams affected by Project activities should be revegetated with native plant species. A detailed Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be included in the LSAA notification package. To obtain information about the LSAA notifation process, please access our website at htti): / /www.df .ca.gov /habcoti /16001; or to request a notification package, contact the lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (707) 944 - 5520. The Department appreciates the.opportunity to ..comment.on the - Project. Department staff is available to meet with you to further clarify our comments and provide technical assistance on any changes necessary to protect resources. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Adam McKannay, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 944 -5534; or Ms. Karen Weiss, Senior Environmental Scientist, at (707) 944 -5525. Sincerely, Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Say Delta Region cc: State Clearinghouse --------- - sl,xlrakai. Boards Water Boards NO (i. BHDWN Jrt. aA -NOR � MtirniEy+Renrtlams auntrner .Nn,�Mek San Francisco Bay regional Water Quality Control Board March 29, 2018 CiWQS Place ID 792712 Sent via electronic mail: No hard copy to follow. Alicia Guldice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma APR 1 2013 3 Community Development Department PLU'AUNG 11 English Street DA11 ;�1'`�i1, �d Petaluma, CA 94952 -2610 .�; r Email: aauidice@ci.oetaluma.ca.us Subject: Comment on Draft EnvironnenW_ impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Davidon domes T -OntatiVe Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, SCSI No. 2004072137 Dear Ms. Guidice San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board staff (Regional Water Board) have reviewed the DEI R for the proposed Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project (Project) located southwest of the intersection of Windsor Drive and D Street in the City of Petaluma. The Project involves the following major components: grading to construct 93 single family lots; constructing housing related Infrastructure and a pedestrian bridge over Melly Greek (Creek). The Creek bisects the Project site with one main tributary and two smaller drainage .gullies flowing to it (total of 828 linear feet), There is an additional drainage that drains to the stock pond that is located south of the Creek. There are also a total of 11 seasonal wetlands (approximately 0.24 acres) scattered on the southern portion of the Project site. Based on the Information provided in the DEIR, we offer the following comments. These comments are to advise the City of Petaluma Planning Department and the Project sponsor of our regulatory requirements and concems, so they may be incorporated into the planning and design process at an early date. Any calculations noted in this letter are the best estimates that could be calculated based on the submitted materials. Altemathres Analysis The DEIR proposes four alternatives. Alternative B would Involve the construction of 88 single family lots, which meets the City of Petaluma's housing density requirements and reduces impacts to waters of the State. Of the four alternatives evaluated, Alternative B appears to be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative because.it avoids the following: 9 of the 11 wetlands, three of the four drainages, and 3/ of the length of the fourth drainage (which is the main tributary). Alternative B would result in filling 0.014 acres of Wetlands and 200 linear feet of the main tributary. In contrast the JOHN MULLER, CHAIR , BRUCE N. WOLFE, WCUTIVE OFFICER 75f5 C}nY SL, 9Uita 7�J6O, OOkllxld, CA 84672 (www.wc larboards .ae- pevlannfrnnciscdhay _ . RJ AEVOLNU PAPER May 1, 2017 Mayor David Glass Petaluma City Council City of Petaluma 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Mayor Glass, MAYOR Not only are my husband and I registered voters but we vote in every election. We are extremely dedicated to maintaining the special elements of this lovely town and its surroundings — even to the . point of running for council in the future (especially if this vote goes the wrong direction). We understand that there is a necessary balance that must be achieved, progress and preservation. It isn't easy and you are never going to please everyone. So we'll come'at this practically. We love the scenery and the red barn. We hate the idea of losing the frog forever. But way beyond that, this development does not do a single good thing for Petaluma. I read Commissioner Gina Benedetti - Petnic's comment in the paper that she thinks that a development in the Dovidon location may be "appropriate" and I was extremely surprised. As every single Petaluman will attest the main problems are lower cost housing, traffic and safety, and road conditions. We've drone the math on the property tax.that the city will assume from the Davidon development and it doesWt create any sort of boon that would solve any of these significant problems facing our city. All it does is create more traffic, noise, loss of beauty and habitat, and frustration. In our mind, that makes the Council's decision an easy one as an elected body: NO to the Davidon development. Not a smaller development,' not with mitigation, a simple and total NO. Your constituents have spoken. The Council heard from a very large body of constituents on the last meeting. You heard very specific problems that this development only exacerbates — real problems for real people, real voters. We thank you for the careful considerations you have put to this, but now we urge- you for action. Any sort of development is going to be a black eye to this community. Please put this to bed for good. 4Th To U, Pepper Fernandez & Paul Scharfe 849 D St. Petaluma April 29, 2017 sE,-, E MAY 01 '2017; Cl-W CLERK Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As stewards of the land where we live, and the beautiful quality of life we enjoy in Petaluma, I urge you to re- evaluate the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) proposed by Davidson Homes to construct 63 or more homes at Windsor Drive and D Streets, First, the DEIR is flawed in its reporting of old data, and there is some question as to the integrity of its findings. Second, traffic studies are outdated and incomplete by not taking into account exit changes on Highway 101 causing increased traffic on D Street, as well as not including impacts from the Smart Train. This project would destroy the beauty of the creek and hillsides, and the habitat for the Red - legged Frog, forever. I want the Arnold Scott Ranch to be preserved. You maybe aware that in a recent poll in the Argus Courier 90.2% of the respondents are not in favor of the Davidson Homes luxury housing project (507 responding "No," 55 responding "Yes "). I would ask, is this the way to address a shortage of housing, by allowing the building of homes to be sold for $1 to $2 million dollars'each? What about affordable housing for those who want to live and work in Petaluma? What about infill as a city planning guideline? Thank you for your serious consideration. Kind rega ds, Tiffany Mitchell 431 Stadler Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 --,? -304 From: Chris Albertson [councilman.albertson @gmai1.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:03 AM To: aaron edmondson Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidon project Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final report. I am sure that your comments are heart felt and shared by many community members. However, you should keep in mind that back in the late 1980's when the Victoria Track was being developed, including Oxford Court, many of the then pre - existing neighbors had the same comments about that development. -- Chris Albertson On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:13 PM, aaron edmondson <adepas @comcast. net <mailto:adepas @comcast.net>> wrote: I wish to register my opposition to the Davidon proposal to build more houses on the slopes of Windsor Dr. and D Street. We moved here about 10 years ago and the view as we drove into the Victoria area was enough to make us want to live here. We live on Oxford Ct. and I drive by the red barn and Kelly Creek every day and it makes me so glad to live here. I do not feel that the Draft EIR does an adequate job of describing the environmental degradation that the project will cause. The beauty that will be destroyed by the project will be lost forever. The cows in the pasture, the deer under the trees, the turkeys crossing the road and the spectacular view will be lost and can never be replaced. Can the red barns be replaced, can the slopes stand the excavation, can the water run off be controlled? It will be very sad to lose all of this. Aaron Edmondson 33 Oxford Ct. Petaluma -2-7ol From: Chris Albertson [ councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:12 AM To: james page Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: davidon Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final report. Originally, this project was brought forward with a proposal for 93+ homes. More recently, this number was reduced to 66 homes. During a recent public meeting of the Planning Commission, there was an unanimous vote to recommend no development south of Kelly Creek, lowering the total potential number of homes to 48 + -. On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:46 PM, james page <jimmymio@ yahoo .corn <mailto :jimmymio @yahoo.com>> wrote: Among the many reasons to oppose the Davidon project, the one that would have the greatest impact on my family and myself would be traffic along D St. For 21 years I have lived on Laurel Ave. near D St. and, during that time, I have watched the traffic go from minimal to oppressive. Its already at the point where cars leave D St. to use B St. or C St. as alternative routes. I can't even conceive of it being any worse than it already is. If you have any intention of preserving the Petaluma lifestyle, you will do everything in your power to halt, or at least scale back the greed of the developer. Please, James Page i Chris Albertson [ councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:01 AM To: Susan Thompson Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: More Green Not Less Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final report. -- Chris Albertson On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Susan Thompson <thompsonsusan @att. net <mailto:thompsonsusan @att.net>> wrote: Dear Council Member Albertson, Where do we go when we want some elbow room? Yes, there are public pedestrian and bike paths that traverse our city as well as playgrounds and parks, but for getting away from traffic and noise Helen Putnam and Shollenberger Parks are Petaluma's best and closest bets. These venues have grown significantly in popularity as anyone who frequents them will confirm. Enough has aready been said about the environmental impacts and traffic congestion that will result from the Davidon development. However, the fact remains that once the green space goes away it will not come back. The City Council has an opportunity to keep the land green by saying "no" to the developers and instead supporting the expansion of Helen Putnam Park, .a far greater and lasting public good than million dollar homes. Sincerely, Susan Thompson Susan Thompson 11 Hinman St. Petaluma, CA 94952 "Ice has no agenda - -it just melts!" - climate scientist placard, American Geophysical Union Conference, SF, Dec. 13, 2016 From: Chris Albertson [councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 7:27 AM To: Lyn Van Tighem Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final record. -- Chris Albertson On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Lyn Van Tighem <l. van. tighem@ gmai1. com <mai Ito: l.van.tighem @gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Petaluma City Council, As a resident of east Petaluma whose family has enjoyed the natural amenities of Helen Putnam Regional Park for many years, I urge you to re- evaluate the Draft EIR proposed by Davidon to develop 60+ homes at D Street and Windsor. The project would create a new trail along Kelly Creek that would run behind and between the back fences of the new houses. This would surely result in a degraded park experience for hikers. The EIR should mitigate this by clearly separating the private and public areas and by building on only one side of the creek, if at all. Also, the photographs in the Draft EIR are taken from a perspective that downplays the stunning natural beauty of the project site and surrounding area. It doesn't seem like a fair representation of the scenic views that will be lost. Davidon should be required to give more specifics as to the exact positioning of the homes and the impact to the various viewpoints. Thank you for your consideration, Lyn Van Tighem 1729 Clairmont Ct. Petaluma, CA ,2-° � / O From: Cooper, Claire Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 7:10 AM To: Crump, Katie; Hines, Heather Subject: FW: Davidson Red Barn development - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ellen Spring [mailto:fauxfilled @att.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 4:11 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: Davidson Red Barn development I wish to add my voice to the hundreds or thousands of Petaluma residents opposing outside developer raping the the land forever to benefit the pocketbooks of a few. Stop the madness! We may need more housing somewhere... but no one NEEDS another McMansion! ! ! Ellen Bellen 163 Grant Avenue (Renter -- because I can't afford to buy here!) Hello, "It is harder to imagine a civilization that wildness can endure, yet this is just what we must try to do. Wildness is not just the "preservation of the world," it is the world." — Gary Snyder, The Etiquette of Freedom My name is Taj Hittenberger, I live on Cochrane Way, off of Mountain View Avenue, here in on the west side of Petaluma. I am the fifth generation of my family to call this place home. My ancestors emigrated here from Switzerland and worked as dairy ranchers in Chileno Valley and Nicasio. We are very much people of this place. For the last seven months, I have been frequenting a patch of Helen Putnam Regional Park, to sit, walk, write, and care for the land in the small ways I can. Four to five times a week, I explore this area. I listen to the birds as they feed, mate, and migrate. I watch the way grasses and leaves turn with the seasons, the way the creek swells and brings the frogs back to life, and I look for the ways the land is being protected, allowed to express its wildness. This is a deepening; a familiarizing myself with my home, the place my family has lived for the last 150 years. My love for this place warrants more than just watching it. This letter is a declaration that I, as a citizen of Petaluma, stand firmly in opposition to the proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch housing development, and have major objections to the development's EIR. The patch I explore is a coyote brush and oak dotted hillside rolling down to Kelly Creek. It meets the west edge of the Scott Ranch. There are 4 lunging buckeyes there, a lone surviving willow, the beat of hummingbirds, flying turkeys, acorn woodpeckers, great - horned owls, flickers, kites, red - tailed hawks, teams of dark- headed juncos, and floods of sparrows that all sing up the sun each morning as the fog down in the valley begins to recede. There are coyotes, jackrabbits, foxes, families of deer, and a few ancient coast live oaks that were tended for millennia by those who lived on this ground, and loved this place long before we got here. The knowledge, care, and understanding of interdependence that the Coast Miwok carried with them throughout these hills and valleys still directly benefits us in 2017. Those trees that hold our soil in place, the ones that clean and filter our water, and feed our wildlife, the ones that bloom in spring and turn gold in fall, the ones that define this place, and our lives in it, they signify to me that we, citizens of this place, have a duty to live and work with the same reverence for the natural world, and sense of responsibility to future generations. From my vantage on the hillside, this wilderness extends down into the Scott Ranch, mingling and coexisting with the cattle that graze those pastures. It is the wild that cultivates this love, and it is these open views that inspire a sense of hope in these very uncertain times — not housing developments. I have read through the revised EIR for the Davidon /Scott Ranch development, and have a few specific objections. Most if not all of the resource area evaluations (Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, etc.) state that the development would render "less than significant impacts" or "no significant and unavoidable effects." That is to say, the EIR states that the development project either has little to no effects in and of itself, or its effects are limited by mitigation efforts. I sincerely disagree that mitigation efforts can limit the effects on biological resources, aesthetics, cultural resources, and geology & soil to the point of the effects being "less than significant." 2 -312- First, I will speak to my concerns about the evaluation of the property's Biological Resources. In my experience, one of the greatest hindrances to the biological resources in that area, specifically wildlife, is the existence of fences. They cut across creeks, making those natural passageways impenetrable. The ones that deer and coyotes can navigate are made completely of barbed wire, and shows signs of catching the animal's fur and flesh. This development will construct new fences, wire fences that will maintain views of the creels, but will continue to hinder the movement and health of wildlife. This movement is absolutely necessary for all animals to acquire food, water, and shelter, as well as to mate. In the Land Use section, the EIR states that the proposed plans have a "less than significant" effect on physical division of an established community, but the definition of community here seems far too narrow. Perhaps a human community might not be divided, but our larger communities of other beings, which include the plants and animals I listed above — the ones that we must begin to consider of equal, or at least of near -equal value to humans — are going to be divided. In biology and ecology, community refers to "all the populations of living organisms interacting in a particular area." The community is the whole. This definition is important because it recognizes that in order to assess the health of an area, it is insufficient to merely look at individual animals, or individual species. The whole community — all animals and plants — must be researched and evaluated. This EIR shows no signs of such investigation. It has not assessed the value of the creek as a wildlife corridor, the value to everyone living downstream of the trees that keep soil from washing into Kelly Creek, and finally, because it has not done this work, it has not, and cannot show any evidence that the biological and ecological damage likely caused by the development will be outweighed by other factors, be they economic or otherwise. In considering community, and wholeness, it is worth harkening back to Gary Snyder's essay The Etiquette of Freedom. "To speak of wilderness is to speak of wholeness. Human beings came out of that wholeness, and to consider the possibility of reactivating membership in the Assembly of All Beings is in no way regressive." I also have major objections to new development in red - legged frog habitat, and believe the assessment of the effects on this federally listed threatened and endemic species has shown to be insufficient. Now on to the assessment of aesthetics. The EIR states several times that the Scott Ranch property is "surrounded by single- family subdivisions," but this is simply not true. As I have stated above, its western boundary abuts Helen Putnam Regional Park — a note only briefly made in the Land Use section. To imply that the area is already "developed" undermines the presence and value of open space in west Petaluma. ,From Helen Putnam, and from D Street, this development would smear the view of the pastured hillsides. It is these hills of gold and green grass, and the sprawling oaks and bay laurels that characterize west Sonoma County. There is no way to mitigate the aesthetic shift from an open pasture to a 50+ parcel housing development. There is no hiding that permanent scar on the land, and on our perception of what our home is. When the assessment reads, "The project's impacts on visual character and quality, and light and glare were identified to be less than significant," I really struggle to understand how the visual aspects of such a large Housing development could be so disregarded. What is actually being considered in this evaluation of aesthetics? Who is making the evaluation? Citizens of Petaluma who are familiar with our open hillsides, or outside entities who don't understand with the emotional and communal significance of our open, unfettered views here in Sonoma County? 2 - ,� 13 The section on Cultural Resources also seems to suffer from a narrow definition, this time of "cultural resources." They are not merely archeological sites and human remains. They are the products of the living people in that place, the proof of their work and lives —the words, the songs, the seeds, the produce, the animals, the buildings, the furniture, and most importantly, the stories. The barn on the property stands with great cultural significance. The history of farming and ranching in Petaluma is rich - dairy farming, chicken farming, cattle ranching, and much more. Barns like this one are symbols of that work, the work that brought people hare over 150 years ago, and have sustained us ever since. The EIR's statement that there is "no significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts" is a failure to see this structure as a symbol of our culture, our place -based culture, and shows that it yet again hasn't considered the needs and wants of this living community. As I see it, the barn is both a point of aesthetic and cultural significance, but even if the barn were not moved, as is proposed in Option B, the development would still sever that structure from the stories it holds. The land it helped shape would be forever lost to the desires of profit, and we, lost to the memories of our home. The development of Scott Ranch is of great cultural significance, and the EIR has not reflected that. I would again raise the question of who is assessing the value and prevalence of cultural resources? People who call this place home? If not, why? Are we not the ones who should be dictating the future of the lands and stories that will be passed down to our children? Lastly, in reference to the analysis of Geology & Soil, there is no indication as to whether this analysis was done during the dry season or wet season. When it reads, yet again, that there will be "no significant and avoidable impacts," how can this be trusted? Were these calculations and judgments made in reference to our typical dry year, or does it take into consideration the frequency and severity of storms and floods we experienced this winter? Climate is becoming more and more unpredictable, and thus our planning for the future must consider and adapt to a wide range.of potential weather patterns. It would be a grave mistake to shed this land of its life - giving soil due to a lack or preparation and good judgment. As a student of Conservation & Resources Studies at UC Berkeley, with a focus in Community -Based Land Restoration, I would like to finally, and humbly, suggest a different use for the Scott Ranch property. We have moved on from the time of rapid residential and commercial development in Sonoma County, at least those of us who are considering the long -term health of this land and its people. We don't need to be claiming undeveloped land anymore, and irrevocably turning it into houses. Even if the proposed .plan includes minimum 100' setbacks from Kelly Creek, preservation of habitat areas and trees, a 3 -acre park, and trailhead facilities that connect to Helen Putnam Regional Park — all of which are well intentioned ideas - this EIR fails in its scope to consider the long -term effects of losing a landscape that quite simply cannot be replaced. Nothing can "mitigate" the loss of our, to use Wallace Stegner's words, "geography of hope." It seems to me this is a rare moment for the City of Petaluma to ally itself with Sonoma County Regional Parks and many other conservation organizations and agencies in Sonoma County that understand the biological, cultural, environmental, economic, and health benefits of maintaining areas of lush and thriving open space in this region. 2 - ?l/i Given the property's geographical relation to Helen Putnam Regional Park, it's value as a riparian corridor, and it's cultural and historical significance as a Petaluma cattle ranch, I suggest including the property into Helen Putnam Regional Park. I am by no means an expert on the subject of land acquisition and protection, but I know that Sonoma Land Trust and Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has been doing invaluable work in recent decades to provide funding for conservation acquisitions and easements. I would suggest seeking funding from these groups and others, creating a conservation plan to protect the natural and cultural resources, and acquiring a conservation casement on the property that outlines its future land use. This easement would ensure that the property would never be subdivided or developed, no matter the owner. After such a plan is put in place, transfer the property to Sonoma County Regional Parks, who can include the 58 acres into the Helen Putnam property. With their new Natural Resource Management division, under the auspices of Melanie Parker, the property will be managed with biodiversity conservation and public access in mind. Similar to the grazing programs going on at Taylor Mountain Regional Park and Tolay Lake Regional Park, the properly can have a herd of cattle, which, without a fire regime, serve as our only means of grasslands management. This grazing operation can also serve an educational function to the community, helping us all understand how agriculture and conservation can, and really must work hand -in -hand. The barn would also serve as a useful hub for Helen Putnam Regional Park, and could be used as the park's educational headquarters with interpretive material on both conservation and the rich agricultural history of Petaluma. From here, classes and workshops could also venture out and explore the property's wonders. All of this, less than a five- minute drive from downtown. This is what Petaluma needs, and what we are capable of. Thank you so much for your time and consideration in reading my thoughts, arguments, and objections with the EIR for the Davidon /Scott Ranch housing development. Sincerely, Taj Hittenberger P.S. I am also attaching a copy of this letter in the email for easy printing and distribution. � -"CIS From: Byron Schneider [byronschneider @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:49 PM To: ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert@sonic.net; Hines, Heather Cc: mayordavidglass @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; councihnan.albertson @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal. net ;.councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;'jan reddick' Subject: Davidon DEIR Comment Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to comment on the draft Environment Impact Report for the proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch development, presented at the Petaluma Planning Commission on.April 4, 2017. After attending the Planning Commission meeting and visiting the site of the proposed development, I support at most a compromise in which Davidon is allowed to build a maximum of 28 new homes, all located on the parcel of land north of Windsor Drive. Any development on the south side of Windsor Drive would severely affect the watershed feeding Kelly Creek and the environment it supports, including the habitat and migratory path of the endangered Red - Legged Frog. It would also obviously affect the historic qualities of the Red Barn and the two preservation -worthy structures that accompany it. hl brief, Davidon should be allowed to build a maximum of 28 new homes north of Windsor Drive. The remainder of the land should be left undeveloped. Any shortfall to Davidon's reasonable profits for this project could be bridged by the purchase of the land south of Windsor Drive by the Sonoma Land Trust or other similar organization. Sincerely, Byron Schneider Petalu na, CA x'3/6 From: Beverly Schor [beverlyschor @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:00 AM To: Kathleen Miller; Chris Albertson; Mike Healy; Teresa. Barrett; Gabe Kearney; Dave King; David Glass Cc: Jocelyn Lin; Gina Benedetti- Petnic; Richard Marzo; Jennifer Pierre; Diane Gomez; William Wolpert; Hines, Heather Subject: Davidon Proposal Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, The Davidon Project is bad for Petaluma. From a community point of view, it does not provide much needed affordable housing, it does not provide jobs, it does not provide adequate property taxes to offset the Environmental Impact and it threatens the larger unwritten issue of our community heritage and character. The gateway to Petaluma's South Sidedhe so called Red Barn siteds the last remaining unspoiled gateway that the city possesses. Once th is gateway is destroyed with 43 or 67 luxury homes, it will never again provide our local residents and fixture residents with the much needed natural buffer it provides. This gateway should be preserved, not destroyed. The Davidon Proposal is like selling Manhattan for a string of glass beads. Davidon will reap the rewards of this valuable piece of land and Petaluma will be left with a string of empty 'rewards'. By accepting this project, Petaluma is signing up for increased long -term impact on our crumbling infrastructure, increased congestion and increased environmental erosion. Without sufficient rewards to offset the community impact, the Davidon Project stands to cripple our town for decades to come. I urge the council to take the long view and to work with local citizen groups to acquire the Davidon land for public, not private, benefit. The town is ready to respond to this challenge; the council can become part of the solution, saving its approval for development that has much broader community merit. Thank you, Beverly Schor Petaluma Resident From: Chris Albertson [ councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 6:30 AM To: drfill @earthlink.net Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidson /Scott Ranch Thank you for your comments. they will be added to the final report. -- Chris Albertson On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 5:34 AM, <drfill @earthlink. net <mailto:drfill @earthlink.net>> wrote: This is exactly the type of development we were trying to escape 5 years ago when we moved to Petaluma. Please don't allow this to happen the existing infrastructure can not as you know support it and modest increase in the city's tax base will not offset the increase in traffic mitigation and utilities most specifically the increased water usage. We are still in the middle of the worst drought the state California has experienced and the city counselors answer is to build 70 more unaffordable water guzzling homes? This is bad for Petaluma, bad for the residents, bad for all of us! -2--3 /9 From: David Powers [powers.davidf @gmaiI.com] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 1:30 PM To: Kathleen Miller; Chris Albertson; Mike Healy; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney; Dave King; David Glass Cc: Jocelyn Lin; Gina Benedetti - Petnic; Richard Marzo; Jennifer Pierre; Diane Gomez; William Wolpert; Hines, Heather Subject: Davidon proposal Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, Many in public office would agree that the complex requirements of the California CEQA statute are both frustrating and confining. However, from a community point of view, they are all that stand, in many cases, between a developer's bad idea and formal entitlement. Aside from the extremely significant issue of Environmental Impact, however, there is the larger unwritten issue of community heritage and character. Many European cities of Petaluma's size and character appreciate this intangible benefit. These cities have often chosen to honor the patrimony of their ancestors by preserving it for future generations —a balancing act that is frequently cast aside in our own haste to build, grow, and consume. The Davidon proposal brings this dilemma into sharp focus. The gateway to Petaluma's South Side —the so called Red Barn site —is the last remaining unspoiled gateway that the city possesses. This is an asset that can never be recreated or duplicated. It should be preserved, not violated. This is a radical position in our current governmental economic crisis, I know. But accepting fees to offset environmental and community impact will prove to be extremely short- sighted —it's a one -time cash payout that cannot possibly cover the long term expenses the Davidon project brings with it. I urge the council to take the long view in this matter, and to work with local citizen groups to acquire the Davidon land for public, not private, benefit. The town is ready to respond to this challenge; the council can become part of the solution, saving its approval for developments that have much broader community merit. Thank you, David Powers Petaluma Resident �Z- � (q From: Don Frances [dfrances @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:59 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: mayordavidglass @ gmail.com; councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberlcearney @me.com; katllleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; Hines, Heather Subject: comment on Davidon DEIR, and on the proposal itself Dear Petaluma City Council Members and City Staff, As a career journalist, I've spent many years studying and writing about EIRs, covering planning meetings, and generally watching the planning process as development proposals make their way from conception to approval. And after all that time, it only now occurs to me that no part of the public -input process includes a mechanism for the most important power of all: the ability of a city to reject a proposal outright. Usually it's only the city council that holds this power, and rarely do they use it. But it should be used more often, especially for proposals like Davidon Homes' proposal for Arnold Scott Ranch. The reasons for rejecting this proposal are straightforward: low- density housing, located far from the center of town, is harmful environmentally, socially and even fiscally. This last point is often ignored, but we now know that the costs of infrastructure for maintaining far -flung sprawl -- costs the city would be on the hook for -- is higher than the tax revenues those houses generate. In short, the Davidon project would be a drag on city coffers forever. That is why, rather than comment on the particular shortcomings of the DEIR, I wish to comment on the project itself: it should be rejected in its entirety by Council members -- 60 homes or 20 homes, barn or no barn -- and the land added to Helen Putnam Regional Park (or held as adjacent city park), in perpetuity. Attached please find an op -ed piece that is scheduled to appear in next week's Argus- Courier. The piece expands on my comments here, explaining to the public why I believe this project should be rejected once and for all, and why it is every Council members' duty to make this ruling for the betterment of our town. Thank you all for your careful consideration of this matter, and for your work in making Petaluma a great place to live. Sincerely, Don Frances Nob Hill Terrace 2--32-0 Davidon housing proposal is bad for Petaluma By Don Frances There are many good reasons —first and best being financial — for City Council members to reject a proposal for dozens of huge new luxury homes on the western edge of town. The proposal, by developer Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek, would pulverize 58 acres of Arnold Scott Ranch at D Street and Windsor Drive to make way for 63 to 66 single - family homes. Those numbers may get scaled down — they usually are — but not by enough. Anyone heading west on D Street has seen this rolling grassland, with its cows and red barn and creek running through it. And everyone already knows what the houses would look like, because we've all seen them on similar cul -de -sacs in towns across America. These houses are more of that. The smallest would be 3,500 square feet, the largest 4,500 square feet. The price per home? Not cheap. "The main arterial street that provides access from the freeway to the project area is D Street," notes a draft environmental impact report that came before the Planning Commission earlier this month. That means construction crews and equipment would be using D Street as well —for years. The report, with public comments, may come before our City Council as early as next month, and sooner or later the fate of Arnold Scott Ranch will be decided by these seven elected leaders. How will they rule? In general, Council members should weigh development proposals with one thing in mind: the wellbeing of Petaluma and its residents, now and in the future. And by this standard, they should reject outright the Davidon proposal as bad for the city financially and in other ways. 2- -2- t Why financially? Sprawling low- density developments like this one are always a net loss for cities, which collect one -time fees during the development process but then pay out forever in infrastructure costs — sewer, water, roads, schools, police and fire, and so on. If our city is concerned about fixing potholes, it should reject low- density development at the edge of town in favor of high- density, transit - friendly projects in the center of town, which generate more in tax revenue than they cost to maintain. But don't we need more housing to increase supply and meet demand? This common argument ignores how housing markets work, especially in desirable places like Petaluma — places which remain desirable specifically because they are not covered in endless housing developments. At any rate, the Davidon project's million - dollar homes would do nothing to meet our market -rate housing needs. The costs of this project are not just financial. In terms of public safety, the prospect of heavy trucks and equipment rumbling up and down D Street for an estimated 39 months has west side residents on edge. Then there's the loss of yet more beautiful open space, critical habitat — including for the endangered red - legged frog— and the storied Arnold Scott Ranch itself. (Side note: Petalumans should not become too focused on the red barn; saving the barn is not saving the ranch.) Some locals believe Petaluma's legacy is not worth trading for any number of luxury homes. Let's remember that City Council members are under no obligation to approve proposals just because a developer submitted them. To the contrary, their obligation is to Petaluma's health and wellbeing, nothing more. That's why the Davidon proposal — expensive, destructive and backward - looking — should be thrown out once and for all. You can tell the city your thoughts on the Davidon proposal by sending emails directly to Council members or to Alicia Giudice, senior planner, at agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us. Don Frances is a Petaluma writer and journalist. From: Diane elise Gentile <dianegentile @gmail. com <mailto:dianegentile @gmail.com>> Date: April 27, 2017 at 2:50:24 PM PDT To: diana gomez <dianaegomez @gmail. com <mailto:dianaegomez @gmail.com>> Subject: Comments on the Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Commissioner Gomez, I have been reviewing the DEIR for the proposed development of the Scott Ranch and have alarming concerns over the safety, suitability and impact this will have on our city and our community at large. And while I understand our need for revenue and housing, this project undoubtedly puts at risk the safety of residents, the security of our infrastructure and the quality of life that Petalumans hold in such high esteem. Upon my review of the DEIR, it is glaringly obvious, even as a lay person, that this document does not adequately convey the true impact of this development on the habitat, scenery and community. As Jennifer Pierre pointed out in her comments at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, `there is a fundamental flaw of the baseline used in determining which impacts are significant and which are insignificant.' According to this DEIR, almost all the potential impacts reviewed can be deemed `insignificant' after the proposed mitigation. Further, some of the most obvious impacts have been deemed `Less than Significant' without any mitigation whatsoever. This is basically saying that the difference between a natural valley and a housing development is "insignificant." It is saying that the loss of this pastoral valley with its' native wildlife and habitat is `less than significant' to our community. It claims that adding numerous homes, vehicles and infrastructure makes a `less than significant' impact to the already severe traffic, air quality and safety of the neighboring community. Therefore, since it is clearly impossible to justify these claims, I can understand why the baseline had to be moved and also why there was need of such a lengthy list of mitigations The following are just a few of the copious examples of the questionable baseline used in this document. I would like to ask whether you agree that the end result is indeed `insignificant' in each of these examples: • Impact AES -1 Development of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Potentially Significant Result— Less than. Significant • Cumulative Impact AES -1 The proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch project and the park trail project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development would not result in a significant cumulative impact with regard to scenic vistas, visual character, or scenic resources. Result: Less than Significant No mitigation is required e Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO -2, BIO — 3, BIO — 4, BIO -5 The proposed project would conflict with a local policy for protecting biological resources... Result: Less than Significant No mitigation is required • Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD -1 The proposed project would result in the discharge of stormwater that could violate water quality standards, degrade water quality, and cause hydromodification. Result: Less than Significant • Cumulative Impact GHG -1 The proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch project and the park trail project would not result in a significant cumulative greenhouse gas impact. Result: Less than Significant No mitigation is required In regards to the traffic, noise pollution and greenhouse gas impact, while being `less than significant,' this DEIR was based on information from traffic studies completed in September 2014 (p. 4.12 -7). This is a major shortcoming in that; the frontage road opened on 101 in October 2014 and GPS began redirecting traffic onto San Antonio Road to D Street. Residents can attest to the increase of traffic at this time. In light of this, there should be a new and comprehensive traffic study done before any further development in this immediate area. Will the city be requiring such a study? In regards to the means by which this development claims to be able to avoid making a `significant impact' to this property and our community, the bulk of this DEIR describes page after page of elaborate and highly detailed mitigation that must be followed down to minute details. There is the need of contracting experts from "service- approved biologists" to "conducting surveys on species and grasses" to meticulous procedures that must be maintained in order to ensure the end result achieves `minimal impact.' I would like to know who is responsible for overseeing these multitudes of mitigations that will continue for years. Who contracts the surveys? Who oversees the contractor? Who hires the experts? How are they certified? Who checks all the permits that are being required? Who supervises each and every step of these mitigations to be sure they are indeed accomplished? Does the city have the staff and funding to oversee that this is all accomplished according to this DEIR? According to the "Guiding Principles of the General Plan" (particularly those that relate to this project), it is my understanding that this project should be evaluated according to these guidelines: • Maintain a close -knit, neighborly, and family- friendly city. • Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character, preserve and enhance Petaluma's natural environment and distinct setting in the region - -a community with a discrete edge surrounded by open space. • Foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities. • Continue efforts to achieve a jobs /housing balance emphasizing opportunities for residents to work locally. • Foster a sustainable community in which today's needs do not compromise the ability of the conununity to meet its future needs. • Ensure infrastructure is strengthened and maintained. • Maintain standards ... to ensure that growth does not exceed carrying capacity. In which areas do you feel that this project adheres to these guiding principles and how? While the City of Petaluma has the option to approve this DEIR and hence, the development of this property, the overwhelming majority of residents polled by the Argus Courier (Apr. 13, 2017) reveals that 90.2% of respondents polled are NOT in favor of this development. We cherish the peace and quiet in our communities. However, this DEIR does not evaluate how the increase in traffic or noise from construction will affect the livability, health and safety of our community. This DEIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. How will this not also affect everyone who lives in the nearby area? What about the elderly? What about people with breathing issues or sensitivities to carbon monoxide? The DEIR again claims that this impact can be "mitigated" but it is not a reasonable conclusion. How will the city of Petaluma ensure the health and well -being of nearby residents? If this is impossible, are we overruling the health of current residents in hopes of gaining revenue and benefits to newcomers? How will these houses contribute to the water shortages that have prevailed in previous years? Will there be graywater systems installed? Are they energy - efficient with solar -ready roofs or shouldn't solar and graywater systems be part of the requirements for all new development projects? Also, the DEIR claims that erosion, storm water runoff and flooding can all be mitigated. How is the city verifying this information? Who will be responsible should our infrastructure not be able to withstand the change in topography and the additional burden? What will happen if the developer of the Davidon site goes bankrupt or decides to abandon the project for some reason? Who will be responsible for repair and restoration? Like so many before me, I chose to make my home in Petaluma because of its' beautiful setting and charming neighborhoods where walk - ability, quiet, safety and a semblance of country living remains. I lived on D Street, a few houses up the hill from the Sunny Slope & D St. intersection from 2011- 2015. When I arrived, it was peaceful, quiet and surrounded by wildlife —deer, foxes, raccoons, turkeys, possums, skunks, owls, bats and frogs. But as the years passed, all of this changed significantly. It became harder and harder to endure the increasing traffic. The constant noise and smell of exhaust seeped through the cottage windows and at rush hours I would often have to be away from the house. I began to walk up or down D Street less and less because of the constant traffic, noise and smell. Dead animals killed on upper D Street became a common sight and the activity of wildlife decreased. Still, the traffic got worse and the smell of carbon monoxide became unbearable during peak hours which lasted for hours. Neighbors spent less and less time outside in their front yards and I began to notice the growing isolation and loss of community. In only six years, it has become evident that the livability of Petaluma has decreased dramatically due to traffic, lack of affordable housing, poor infrastructure and overcrowding. In short, we are losing the livability of our town. And while there are numerous worthwhile proposals on the table for new development, this proposed development on the Scott Ranch property only serves to further threaten our community, jeopardize our mental and physical wellbeing and endanger our infrastructure and natural resources. In spite of the claims made in this DEIR, any development, particularly South of Windsor Drive, will unquestionably and irrevocably alter this landscape, impacting the habitat and surrounding community forever. No matter what mitigation is taken, this development will absolutely increase our already overburdened roads, water resources and pollute the air further. I therefore strongly urge the City Council to disallow the development of the acreage South of Windsor Drive and offer a compromise to permit the building of homes along the North side of Windsor that are low profile, and leave a discrete border at our urban boundary to abide by the vision set out in Petaluma's General Plan. Thank you for your time and for your service to Petaluma. I sincerely hope you will consider this project with the utmost concern for the residents of Petaluma, our surrounding environment and future generations. Sincerely, Diane E. Gentile 411 Broadway St. ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: elizabeth mori <eemori1118 @gmail. com <mai Ito: eemoriI118 @gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:43 PM Subject: Comments on the proposed Davidon project To: Dave Glass <daveglass @comcast. net <mailto:daveglass @comcast.net >>, Dave King <davekingpcc @gmail. com <mai Ito: davekingpcc @gmail.com >>, Michael Healy <mthealy @sbcglobal. net <mailto:mthealy @sbcglobal.net >>, Chris Albertson <councilman.albertson @gmail.com< mailto:councilman.albertson @gmail.com >>, Teresa Barrett <teresa4petaluma @comcast.net< mailto :teresa4petaluma @comcast.net>>, Kathleen Miller < kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com< mailto: kathleencmilleroffice @gmai1.com >>, counci hnemberkearney @ne.coin <maiIto: councilmemberkearney @me.com> Dear Petaluma City Council Members, Below please find my comments on the Davidon development proposal, which is scheduled for City Council review in May. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this letter. Davidon project comments You should not approve the current development proposal for the Davidon property. This development plan is in opposition to our City's character and documented goals. Its detailed justifications are flawed, that is to say, the justifications misrepresent the many undesirable impacts. Here are three reasons to reject this proposal: 1. Destruction of essential scenic and natural resource (ref: General Plan Goal 1 -G -2, Goal 1 -G -3). Also, note Policy 2 -P -61 which states the intention to: Protect existing agricultural uses, wildlife, historic and cultural resources, and natural vegetation. This project will destroy the open ridge lines and hillsides that "help define the unique character of Petaluma" (Goal I -G -2). The proposal to use cut- and- fill in order to fit in their desired number of homes is in absolute 2 -�2-(® opposition to the intention and recommendations of the the Hillside Ordinance. (I was a member of the Hillside Ordinance Committee. I know first hand the intention and detailed analysis that created this Ordinance.) (Other citizens have eloquently stated the importance of natural open space preservation ( e.g., connectivity to Helen Putnam Park) as a vital part of our health and well being, and especially the health and well being of future generations. ) 2. Traffic impacts I will add my voice to the chorus of criticisms of this intensive development. D. Street (and environs) traffic is already excessive. This development will exacerbate an already recognized problem. The DEIR has no possible mitigation to lessen the traffic impact. The traffic studies are old (2014) and do not reflect 2017. 3. Destruction of a cultural and social asset. Conversation about the red barn and its setting has focused on "historic value ". This land, and this barn, is more than a scenic gateway to Petaluma, and is more than a natural extension of Helen Putnam Park. This land and the red barn are our cultural treasure. It is our heritage. The many postcards and calendar photographs of these western hills aren't simply pretty pictures. They document our City's essence. Remember, we have Butter and Eggs Days (and other events) to celebrate our heritage and to celebrate our unique connection to the land. Our civic decisions must line up with our values of preservation and sustainability. Authorizing the development of this western hills landscape (aka Davidon property). authorizes the destruction of our heritage. Don't do it. Elizabeth Emery Mori Phone: 707 - 789- 0369te1: 707%20789 -0369 2-3a- From: Kara Sherrill [karaslirrll @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:23 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon Development Dear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible_ piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Kara Sherrill x®393 From: John Crowley [mailto iohn@)aqus.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:55 PM To: Chris Albertson Cc: Giudice, Alicia; Susan Jaderstro; - City Clerk Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Chris, The DEIR produced for the proposed Davidon project at Lynch Creek has been declared "as having a questionable baseline on which it's conclusions have been drawn" by one of the planning commissioners. This was backed up by other professionals in the comment period and residents in the community. Upon reviewing the impacts - aesthetics, biological, hydrology and water quality and particular cumulative impacts I believe that this development and any development South of Windsor Drive will unquestionably have a devastating and irreversible impact on the landscape, wildlife, neighboring community, and overall health of nearby residents. Although there is a housing need in Petaluma, this kind of housing should not be permitted in that it does nothing to relieve the "housing crisis" and instead puts at risk the health and well -being of our community. Especially a development that creates such an environmentally devastating impact. The traffic, especially on and around the "D" street corridor is already at an atrocious level. Adding this many housing units would render "D" street a veritable highway with respect to carbon monoxide from gas and nitrogen oxides from diesel. Apparently the traffic study that were included in this DEIR are outdated and should be redone. Can you please let me know the details about how and why this traffic study was included as part of this DEIR? a -3,�9 As I'm sure you will be receiving other letters I have listed only a few of the many glaring deficiencies of this DEIR. As one of our council members recently pointed out, developers are knocking on Petaluma's door to develop in our city. I would like to see our council demand a higher and more relevant standard for projects with our city. This is not a fine example of what we should be developing for our residents and our residents' children. Thank you for taking the time to review these items and I look forward to a response. Yours John Crowley 2-336 i . ......... .. .. .. ........ .. . ... ....... .... diy Lj ..... . .... ..... Aq to g% fa3 if r ti si -v z ... ...... ... ..... ef Ir rv-1 AP tp 1-4 � P A u v, ... ............ .. ....... . E.Jil C,% 4 . ....... ..... t9 . . ....... . ..... a. Ve 4? C, --------- - - .......... . ....... 4p ... ..... .... cv . ..... ........... .. ........... .. . . ...... .......... . .... ... ... ...... .. ..... .. . ...... .... 2-331 March 28, 2017 �v ". •. T•,. is `,y, il.a Tt3iv M AY 0 12 0 11, To; Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Chris Albertson, Dave Kings ,MikeJ)F Labe Kearney, Kathy Miller, and Senior Planner Alicia Giudice) 00ftQAAJ- Dear Elected Officials, As a recent transplant to the city of Petaluma (we reside on C St. and 10th), I am deeply concerned about the Davidon (D street and Windsor drive) development for several reasons, There are several issues that the DEIR was unclear on, I am hoping to get answers to these questions: 1. The draft EIR does not say whether the testing for soil and hydrology was done during our recent wet months. We have been in a drought for far too long. We now have finally had a very wet season, Even while in a drought, the amount of water that pours into our property (both our backyard and through the street into the front of our property) from behind us (coming from D street) is overwhelming. It is often impossible to park in front of our house as one can't avoid the deep standing water. 2.1 would like to know the plan in case Davidon goes bankrupt (at any point, be it during tree removal, grading or while building); is there an adequate bond etc to cover any long -term impact on the city; and what plan is in place if this occurs when the site is graded and the trees have been cut? And 3, The DEIR stated emissions for construction will cause a "significant" increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. Where do I begin with this? How is this ever possible to be mitigated? How can a heightened risk of cancer to local families be considered acceptable? Clearly I could write a dissertation of a letter about how unacceptable I find the possibility of this bucolic land turning into homes. The issue of expensive homes versus affordable housing is food for another letter. This is not the space for either. The intrinsic value of this land is far more valuable than any increase to Petaluma's possible revenue. We have been looking in Petaluma for 24 years and finally bought our property six years ago. We have been enjoying the drive to and from the coast along D St. for years, the feeling that we get passing that barn with the trees and creek is not something we can attach a dollar sign to. We chose to buy a house in close proximity to this location so that we could continue to use and enjoy it, and so that our children could enjoy this natural area as we have and love. My son has written his own letter to you. The amount of wildlife we have seen is quite stunning this close to downtown (we have seen several birds of pray including owls and hawks, we have seen the usual opossums, skunks, raccoons, and dear, as well as the necessary beautiful bats at sunset). My children have found the elusive tiger salamanders. Where It stands, the barn (and the surrounding trees /creek /wildlife) are an invaluable resource both culturally and environmentally. The tributary of Kelly Creek is critical. It is not something that we just appreciate, it is something that we need. The fact thatthe Red Legged frog is in this area and is on the threatened species list should be enough to stop any and all development along that S8 acre "parcel," how is something without a voice able to protect itself? The public outcry and opinion of not wanting this should also be enough. We have been hiking this area (Helen Putnam Park) for over 20 years, when we came to town we also ate, shopped and supported the local economy. Leaving this -2-33 treasure as is (as part of Helen Putnam park) will continue to bring money into the city of Petaluma. We are now happy to pay property taxes for the lifestyle that we thought we were buying into. Had I known this was already part of the city plan we may have thought otherwise about investing in homeownership here. i0s.not too late to keep this natural area as it stands, even though the city has it earmarked for homes; I am deeply concerned about the amount of traffic and how that will negatively affect our lives as well as the rest of the community. My children are not ,allowed to approach D street because-of the amount of traffic. The amount of time it takes to turn onto D Street is atrocious not to mention the increase in traffic coming from San Antonio. Rd. In order to take my children to school and pick them up I must turn onto D Street. The traffic in the last few years has increased exponentially. Furthermore frustrated cars turn onto our corner street (which is 10th) and fly down the block to avoid the traffic. Our street butts up to the parking lot of a church and we often have people flying down our street & whipping U -turns (when they realize it does not go through). The increased amount of road rage in our gem of a neighbor is disheartening and frightening. For so many reasons the alteration of the existing land /addition of homes 15 a bad idea. The negative and lasting effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated (eliminating /altering the fragile ecosystem of the wetlands and the trees that,provide the necessary habitat for these plants and animals to thrive), the loss of open space, the increase in traffic, the aggravation of years of construction, increase in water use that inevitably comes from new housing, etc is a bad idea. What we are honing to see is the area ieftas it is, leave the red barn where it stands without housing around it, leave the important habitats and nesting trees, find an area that will do the least amount of harm and put in a reasonably sized parking lot to serve Helen Putnam Park instead. Please consider the option and alternative of preserving the 58 acre parcel, of creating a corridor, to the rest of Helen Putnam Park. It is my hope that the. city council members will listen to the input they have received from so many people; that you will take into very serious consideration, what it is that your constituents want. Thank you in advance for your reply. Respectfully, M gin Cecilia Hallinan } JA( From: Chris Albertson [councilman. albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:03 AM To: aaron edmondson Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidon project Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the fmal report. I am sure that your cornnients are heart felt and shared by many community members. However, you should keep in mind that back in the late 1980's when the Victoria Track was being developed, including Oxford Court, many of the then pre - existing neighbors had the same comments about that development. -- Chris Albertson On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:13 PM, aaron edmondson <adepas @comeast. net <mailto:adepas @comcast.net>> wrote: I wish to register my opposition to the Davidon proposal to build more houses on the slopes of Windsor Dr. and D Street. We moved here about 10 years ago and the view as we drove into the Victoria area was enough to make us want to live here. We live on Oxford Ct. and I drive by the red barn and Kelly Creek every day and it makes me so glad to live here. I do not feel that the Draft E1R does an adequate job of describing the environmental degradation that the project will cause. The beauty that will be destroyed by the project will be lost forever. The cows in the pasture, the deer under the trees, the turkeys crossing the road and the spectacular view will be lost and can never be replaced. Can the red barns be replaced, can the slopes stand the excavation, can the water run off be controlled? It will be very sad to lose all of this. Aaron Edmondson 33 Oxford Ct. Petaluma 2 -33`1 From: Chris Albertson [councihnan.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:12 AM To: james page Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: davidon Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final report. Originally, this project was brought forward with a proposal for 93+ homes. More recently, this number was reduced to 66 homes. During a recent public meeting of the Planning Commission, there was an unanimous vote to recommend no development south of Kelly Creek, lowering the total potential number of homes to 48 + -. On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:46 PM, james page <jimmymio@ yahoo .com <mailto :jimmymio @yahoo.com>> wrote: Among the many reasons to oppose the Davidon project, the one that would have the greatest impact on my family and myself would be traffic along D St. For 21 years I have lived on Laurel Ave. near D'St. and, during that time, I have watched the traffic go from minimal to oppressive. Its already at the point where cars leave D St. to use B St. or C St. as alternative routes. I can't even conceive of it being any worse than it already is. If you have any intention of preserving the Petaluma lifestyle, you will do everything in your power to halt, or at least scale back the greed of the developer. Please, James Page Chris Albertson [councihnan.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:01 AM To: Susan Thompson Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: More Green Not Less Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final report. -- Chris Albertson On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Susan Thompson <thompsonsusan @att. net <mailto:thompsonsusan @att.net>> wrote: Dear Council Member Albertson, Where do we go when we want some elbow room? Yes, there are public pedestrian and bike paths that traverse our city as well as playgrounds and parks, but for getting away from traffic and noise Helen Putnam and Shollenberger Parks are Petaluma's best and closest bets. These venues have grown significantly in popularity as anyone who frequents them will confirm. Enough has aready been said about the environmental impacts and traffic congestion that will result from the Davidon development. However, the fact remains that once the green space goes away it will not come back. The City Council has an opportunity to keep the land green by saying "no" to the developers and instead supporting the expansion of Helen Putnam Park, a far greater and lasting public good than million dollar homes. Sincerely, Susan Thompson Susan Thompson 11 Hinman St. Petaluma, CA 94952 "Ice has no agenda - -it just melts!" - climate scientist placard, American Geophysical Union Conference, SF, Dec. 13, 2016 �111 From: Chris Albertson [councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 7:27 AM To: Lyn Van Tighem Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Thank you for your comments. They will become part of the final record. -- Chris Albertson On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Lyn Van Tighem <l. van. tghem@ gmail. com <mailto:l.van.tighem @gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Petaluma City Council, As a resident of east Petaluma whose family has enjoyed the natural amenities of Helen Putnam Regional Park for many years, I urge you to re- evaluate the Draft EIR proposed by Davidon to develop 60+ homes at D Street and Windsor. The project would create a new trail along Kelly Creek that would run behind and between the back fences of the new houses. This would surely result in a degraded park experience for hikers. The EIR should mitigate this by clearly separating the private and public areas and by building on only one side of the creek, if at all. Also, the photographs in the Draft EIR are taken from a perspective that downplays the stunning natural beauty of the project site and surrounding area. It doesn't seem like a fair representation of the scenic views that will be lost. Davidon should be required to give more specifics as to the exact positioning of the homes and the impact to the various viewpoints. Thank you for your consideration, Lyn Van Tighem 1729 Clairmont Ct. Petaluma, CA From: Cooper, Claire Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 7:10 AM To: Crump, Katie; Hines, Heather Subject: FW: Davidson Red Barn development - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ellen Spring [mailto:fauxfilled @att.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 4:11 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: Davidson Red Barn development I wish to add my voice to the hundreds or thousands of Petaluma residents opposing outside developer raping the the land forever to benefit the pocketbooks of a few. Stop the madness! We may need more housing somewhere... but no one NEEDS another McMansion! 1! Ellen Bellen 163 Grant Avenue (Renter -- because I can't afford to buy here!) Hello, "It is harder to imagine a civilization that wildness can endure, yet this is just what we must try to do. Wildness is not just the "preservation of the world," it is the world." — Gary Snyder, The Etiquette of Freedom My name is Taj Hittenberger, I live on Cochrane Way; off of Mountain View Avenue, here in on the west side of Petaluma. I am the fifth generation of my family to call this place home. My ancestors emigrated here from Switzerland and worked as dairy ranchers in Chileno Valley and Nicasio. We are very much people of this place. For the last seven months, I have been frequenting a patch of Helen Putnam Regional Park, to sit, walk, write, and care for the land in the small ways I can. Four to five times a week, I explore this area. I listen to the birds as they feed, mate, and migrate. I watch the way grasses and leaves turn with the seasons, the way the creek swells and brings the frogs back to life, and I look for the ways the land is being protected, allowed to express its wildness. This is a deepening; a familiarizing myself with my home, the place my family has lived for the last 150 years. My love for this place warrants more than just watching it. This letter is a declaration that I, as a citizen of Petaluma, stand firmly in opposition to the proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch housing development, and have major objections to the development's EIR. The patch I explore is a coyote brush and oak dotted hillside rolling down to Kelly Creek. It meets the west edge of the Scott Ranch. There are 4 lunging buckeyes there, a lone surviving willow, the beat of hummingbirds, flying turkeys, acorn woodpeckers, great- horned owls, flickers, kites, red - tailed hawks, teams of dark - headed juncos, and floods of sparrows that all sing up the sun each morning as the fog down in the valley begins to recede. There are coyotes, jackrabbits, foxes, families of deer, and a few ancient coast live oaks that were tended for millennia by those who lived on this ground, and loved this place long before we got here. The knowledge, care, and understanding of interdependence that the Coast Miwok carried with them throughout these hills and valleys still directly benefits us in 2017. Those trees that hold our soil in place, the ones that clean and filter our water, and feed our wildlife, the ones that bloom in spring and turn gold in fall, the ones that 'define this place, and our lives in it, they signify to me that we, citizens of this place, have a duty to live and work with the same reverence for the natural world, and sense of responsibility to future generations. From my vantage on the hillside, this wilderness extends down into the Scott Ranch, mingling and coexisting with the cattle that graze those pastures. It is the wild that cultivates this love, and it is these open views that inspire a sense of hope in these very uncertain times — not housing developments. I have read through the revised EIR for the Davidon/Scott Ranch development, and have a few specific objections. Most if not all of the resource area evaluations (Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, etc.) state that the development would render "less than significant impacts" or "no significant and unavoidable effects." That is to say, the EIR states that the development project.either has little to no effects in and of itself, or its effects are limited by mitigation efforts. I sincerely disagree that mitigation efforts can limit the effects on biological resources, aesthetics, cultural resources, and geology & soil to the point of the effects being "less than significant." First, I will speak to my concerns about the evaluation of the property's Biological Resources. In my experience, one of the greatest hindrances to the biological resources in that area, specifically wildlife, is the existence of fences. They cut across creeks, malting those natural passageways impenetrable. The ones that deer and coyotes can navigate are made completely of barbed wire, and shows signs of catching the animal's fur and flesh. This development will construct new fences, wire fences that will maintain views of the creek, but will continue to hinder the movement and health of wildlife. This movement is absolutely necessary for all animals to acquire food, water, and shelter, as well as to mate. In the Land Use section, the EIR states that the proposed plans have a "less than significant" effect on physical division of an established community, but the definition of community here seems far too narrow. Perhaps a human community might not be divided, but our larger communities of other beings, which include the plants and animals I listed above — the ones that we must begin to consider of equal, or at least of near -equal value to humans — are going to be divided. In biology and ecology, community refers to "all the populations of living organisms interacting in a particular area." The community is the whole. This definition is important because it recognizes that in order to assess the health of an area, it is insufficient to merely look at individual animals, or individual species. The whole community — all animals and plants — must be researched and evaluated. This EIR shows no signs of such investigation. It has not assessed the value of the creek as a wildlife corridor, the value to everyone living downstream of the trees that keep soil from washing into Kelly Creek, and finally, because it has not done this work, it has not, and cannot show any evidence that the biological and ecological damage likely caused by the development will be outweighed by other factors, be they economic or otherwise. In considering community, and wholeness, it is worth harkening back to Gary Snyder's essay The Etiquette of Freedom. "To speak of wilderness is to speak of wholeness. Human beings came out of that wholeness, and to consider the possibility of reactivating membership in the Assembly of All Beings is in no way regressive." I also have major objections to new development in red- legged frog habitat, and believe the assessment of the effects on this federally listed threatened and endemic species has shown to be insufficient. Now on to the assessment of aesthetics. The EIR states several times that the Scott Ranch property is "surrounded by single - family subdivisions," but this is simply not true. As I have -stated above, its western boundary abuts Helen Putnam Regional Park — a note only briefly made in the Land Use section. To imply that the area is already "developed" undermines the presence and value of open space in west Petaluma. From Helen Putnam, and from D Street, this development would smear the view of the pastured hillsides. It is these hills of gold and green grass, and the sprawling oaks and bay laurels that characterize west Sonoma County. There is no way to mitigate the aesthetic shift from an open pasture to a 50+ parcel housing development. There is no hiding that permanent scar on the land, and on our perception of what our home is. When the assessment reads, "The project's impacts on visual character and quality, and light and glare were identified to be less than significant," I really struggle to understand how the visual aspects of such a large housing development could be so disregarded. What is actually being considered in this evaluation of aesthetics? Who is malting the evaluation? Citizens of Petaluma who are familiar with our open hillsides, or outside entities who don't understand with the emotional and communal significance of our open, unfettered views here in Sonoma County? The section on Cultural Resources also seems to suffer from a narrow definition, this time of "cultural resources." They are not merely archeological sites and human remains. They are the products of the living people in that place, the proof of their work and lives — the words, the songs, the seeds, the produce, the animals, the buildings, the furniture, and most importantly, the stories. The barn on the property stands with great cultural significance. The history of farming and ranching in Petaluma is rich - dairy fan'ming, chicken farming, cattle ranching, and much more. Barns like this one are symbols of that work, the work that brought people hare over 150 years ago, and have sustained us ever since. The EIR's statement that there is "no significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts" is a failure to see this structure as a symbol of our culture, our place -based culture, and shows that it yet again hasn't considered the needs and wants of this living community. As I see it, the barn is both a point of aesthetic and cultural significance, but even if the barn were not moved, as is proposed in Option B, the development would still sever that structure from the stories it holds. The land it helped shape would be forever lost to the desires of profit, and we, lost to the memories of our home. The development of Scott Ranch is of great cultural significance, and the EIR has not reflected that. I would again raise the question of who is assessing the value and prevalence of cultural resources? People who call this place home? If not, why? Are we not the ones who should be dictating the future of the lands and stories that will be passed down to our children? Lastly, in reference to the analysis of Geology & Soil, there is no indication as to whether.this analysis was done during the dry season or wet season. When it reads, yet again, that there will be "no significant and avoidable impacts," how can this be trusted? Were these calculations and judgments made in reference to our typical dry year, or does it take into consideration the frequency and severity of storms and floods we experienced this winter? Climate is becoming more and more unpredictable, and thus our planning for the future must consider and adapt to a wide range of potential weather patterns. It would be a grave mistake to shed this land of its life - giving soil due to a lack or preparation and good judgment. As a student of Conservation & Resources Studies at UC Berkeley, with a focus in Community -Based Land Restoration, I would like to finally, and humbly, suggest a different use for the Scott Ranch property. We have moved on from the time of rapid residential and commercial development in Sonoma County, at least those of us who are considering the long -term health of this land and its people. We don't need to be claiming undeveloped land anymore, and irrevocably turning it into houses. Even if the proposed plan includes minimum 100' setbacks from Kelly Creek, preservation of habitat areas and trees, a 3 -acre park, and trailhead facilities that connect to Helen Putnam Regional Park — all of which are well intentioned ideas - this EIR fails in its scope to consider the long -term effects of losing a landscape that quite simply cannot be replaced. Nothing can "mitigate" the loss -of our, to use Wallace Stegner's words, "geography of hope." It seems to me this is a rare moment for the City of Petaluma to ally itself with Sonoma County Regional Parks and many other conservation organizations and agencies in Sonoma County that understand the biological, cultural, environmental, economic, and health benefits of maintaining areas of lush and thriving open space in this region. 2 --- I I Given the property's geographical relation to Helen Putnam Regional Park, it's value as a riparian corridor, and it's cultural and historical significance as a Petaluma cattle ranch, I suggest including the property into Helen Putnam Regional Park. I am by no means an expert on the subject of land acquisition and protection, but I know that Sonoma Land Trust and Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has been doing invaluable work in recent decades to provide funding for conservation acquisitions and easements. I would suggest seeking funding from these groups and others, creating a conservation plan to protect the natural and cultural resources, and acquiring a conservation easement on the property that .outlines its future land use. This easement would ensure that the property would never be subdivided or developed, no matter the owner. After such a plan is put in place, transfer the property to Sonoma County Regional Parks, who can include the S 8 acres into the Helen Putnam property. With their new Natural Resource Management division, under the auspices of Melanie Parker, the property will be managed with biodiversity conservation and public access in mind. Similar to the grazing programs going on at Taylor Mountain Regional Park and Tolay Lake Regional Park, the property can have a herd of cattle, which, without •a fire regime, serve as our only means of grasslands management. This grazing operation can also serve an educational function to the community, helping us all understand how agriculture and conservation can, and really must work hand -in -hand. The barn would also serve as a useful hub for Helen Putnam Regional Park, and could be used as the park's educational headquarters with interpretive material on both conservation and the rich agricultural history of Petaluma. From here, classes and workshops could also venture out and explore the property's wonders. All of this, less than a five- minute drive from downtown. This is what Petaluma needs, and what we are capable of. Thank you so much for your time and consideration in reading my thoughts, arguments, and objections with the EIR for the Davidon/Scott Ranch housing development. Sincerely, Taj Hittenberger P.S. I am also attaching a copy of this letter in the email for easy printing and distribution. — 4f From: Byron Schneider [ byronschneider@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:49 PM To: ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert@sonic.net, Hines, Heather Cc: mayordavidglass @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcas't.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; jan reddick' Subject: Davidon DEIR Comment Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to comment on the draft Environment Impact Report for the proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch development, presented at the Petaluma Planning Commission on April 4, 2017. After attending the Planning Commission meeting and visiting the site of the proposed development, I support at most a compromise in which Davidon is allowed to build a maximum of 28 new homes, all located on the parcel of land north of Windsor Drive. Any development on the south side of Windsor Drive would severely -affect the watershed feeding Kelly Creek and the environment it supports, including the habitat and migratory path of the endangered Red- Legged Frog. It would.also obviously affect the historic qualities of the Red Barn and the two preservation - worthy structures that accompany it. In brief, Davidon should be allowed to build a maximum of 28 new homes north of Windsor Drive. The remainder of the land should be left undeveloped. Any shortfall to Davidon's reasonable profits for this project could be bridged by the purchase of the land south of Windsor Drive by the Sonoma Land Trust or other similar organization. Sincerely, Byron Schneider Petaluma, CA 2 --3'i � From: Beverly Schor [beverlyschor @gmail.coin] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:00 AM To: Kathleen Miller; Chris Albertson; Mike Healy; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney; Dave King; David Glass Cc: Jocelyn Lin; Gina Benedetti- Petnic; Richard Marzo; Jennifer Pierre; Diane Gomez; William Wolpert; Hines, Heather Subject: Davidon Proposal Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, The Davidon Project is bad for Petaluma. From a community point of view, it does not provide much needed affordable housing, it does not provide jobs, it does not provide adequate property taxes to offset the Environmental Impact and it threatens the larger unwritten issue of our community heritage and character. The gateway to Petaluma's South Side<the so called Red Barn site<is the last remaining unspoiled gateway that the city possesses. Once this gateway is destroyed with 43 or 67 luxury homes, it will never again provide our local residents and future residents with the much needed natural buffer it provides. This gateway should be preserved, not destroyed. The Davidon Proposal is like selling Manhattan for a string of glass beads. Davidon will reap the rewards of this valuable piece of land and Petaluma will be left with a string of empty 3 reward s2. By accepting this project, Petaluma is signing up for increased long -term impact on our crumbling infrastructure, increased congestion and increased environmental erosion. Without sufficient rewards to offset the community impact, the Davidon Project stands to cripple our town for decades to come. I urge the council to take the long view and to work with local citizen groups to acquire the Davidon land for public, not private, benefit. The town is ready to respond to this challenge; the council can become part of the solution, saving its approval for development that has much broader community merit. Thank you, Beverly Schor Petaluma Resident .1w -39� From: Chris Albertson [councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 6:30 AM To: drfill @earthlinlc.net Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidson/Scott Ranch Thank you for your comments. they will be added to the final report. -- Chris Albertson On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 5:34 AM, <drfill @earthlink. net <mailto:drfill @earthlink.net>> wrote: This is exactly the type of development we were trying to escape 5 years ago when we moved to Petaluma. Please don't allow this to happen the existing infrastructure can not as you know support it and modest increase in the city's tax base will not offset the increase in traffic mitigation and utilities most specifically the increased water usage. We are still in the middle of the worst drought the state California has experienced and the city counselors answer is to build 70 more unaffordable water guzzling homes? This is bad for Petaluma, bad for the residents, bad for all of us! From: David Powers [powers.davidf @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 1:30 PM To: Kathleen Miller, Chris Albertson; Mike Healy; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney; Dave King; David Glass Cc: Jocelyn Lin; Gina Benedetti- Petaic; Richard Marzo; Jennifer Pierre; Diane Gomez; William Wolpert; Hines, Heather Subject: Davidon proposal Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, Many in public office would agree that the complex requirements of the California CEQA statute are both frustrating and confining. However, from a community point of view, they are all that stand, in many cases, between a developer's bad idea and formal entitlement. Aside from the extremely significant issue of Environmental Impact, however, there is the larger unwritten issue of community heritage and character. Many European cities of Petaluma's size and character appreciate this intangible benefit. These cities have often chosen to honor the patrimony of their ancestors by preserving it for future generations —a balancing act that is frequently cast aside in our own haste to build, grow, and consume. The Davidon proposal brings this dilemma into sharp focus. The gateway to Petaluma's South Side —the so called Red Barn site is the last remaining unspoiled gateway that the city possesses. This is an asset that can never be recreated or duplicated. It should be preserved, not violated. This is a radical position in our current governmental economic crisis, I know. But accepting fees to offset environmental and community impact will prove to be extremely short - sighted —it's a one -time cash payout that cannot possibly cover the long term expenses the Davidon project brings with it. I urge the council to take the long view in this matter, and to work with local citizen groups to acquire the Davidon land for public, not private, benefit. The town is ready to respond to this challenge; the council can become part of the solution, "saving its approval for developments that have much broader community merit. Thank you, David Powers Petaluma Resident 1 °--3�,4 Greg Tyler [tyler.greg @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:04 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Petalumans for Responsible Planning [petrp @comcast.net] Attachments:Davidon- DEIR2- Comments- 04- 1.docx (23 KB) Alicia, Please find an MS Word document attached with comments, within the 60 -day public comment period, on the Revised DEIR submitted by Davidon. And, please note one Petaluma resident's disbelief and dismay, after attending the April 4 Planning Commission meeting and listening to the well- thought out comments by so many professionals in the community, that the Planning Commission, with barely half of the public comment period elapsed, proceeded to vote unanimously in favor of the DEIR and forward it to the City Council. This action was very unprofessional and careless on the part of the PC. I am looking forward to the next local City election season. Please forward my comments on to the City Council. And, please contact me if you have any problems with the attachment -- it is long, but I can paste it into the body of an email if necessary, or I can deliver a hard copy to your office. Thank you for you help in this regard. Greg Tyler 23 Pinnacle Drive, Petaluma 707 - 337 -6038 After attending the Planning Commission meeting on April 4 and subsequently reviewing the Revised DEIR, primarily the Summary of Impacts, Table 2.0 -1, in the Executive Summary, I hereby submit below comments on the DEIR within the 60 -day period of public comment required by CEQA. Briefly, my work background involved the estimating, contract negotiation and management of large - scale, industrial construction projects throughout the US and around the world in above - ground steel storage tanks and piping, specialty airport construction, vacuum chambers for satellite testing for the aerospace industry and consulting for dispute resolution and change order management, prior to and during litigation (I am not an attorney), in public and private construction projects. My last consulting project involved 14 months of change order negotiations in which there were 5 teams of biologists enforcing the CDFW (then CDFG) regulations for species protection on the project work sites. To the point, at the recent PC meeting, I noticed that there was no discussion regarding any of the specific language or phraseology used in Revised DEIR. I have spent a lot of my career reading, writing and negotiating the implications of language in contracts for construction. I just spent 6 months as Chair of the Editorial Committee for the SCGJ doing the same — the "serial comma" was discussed many times. The United States Court of Appeals for the 1St Circuit recently handed down a 29 -page decision in which the lack of a serial, or Oxford, comma may cost the defendant $10M. Although I am not an attorney, my experience tells me that words matter in contracts and specifications. And the use of indeterminate, subjective or translucent (my terminology) words — words open to interpretation — can lead to problems in contracts. It appears to me that the acceptance of the DEIR, as written, makes it part of the contract between the City of Petaluma and Davidon Homes for the proposed development. The wording used in the DEIR includes vague wording, open to interpretation, that could end up negating or limiting the mitigations proposed, at the expense of the City and the citizens of Petaluma. Were I signing a contract with this DEIR attached, I would question /change /delete the following words and phrases to avoid confusion or conflicts going forward (definitions of the words in bold at the end): 1. Impact GEO -2, Mitigation Measure GEO -2, page 2.0 -41 (paragraphs 1 & 2): "adequate" deep- rooted vegetation -- There is no reference to the authority or standard by which it will be determined whether or not the mitigation measure is "adequate." 2. Impact BIO -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1c, page 2.1 -16 (paragraph 2 after bullets) where "appropriate "; Impact BIO -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1c, page 2.0 -17 (first bullet on page) "Appropriate" signage — There is no reference to the authority or standard by which it will be determined whether or not the mitigation measure is "appropriate." 3. Impact AIR -1, Mitigation Measure AIR -1, page 2.0 -9 (5th bullet) shall be completed "as soon as possible" — There is no reference to the authority or standard by which it will be determined if the mitigation measure is completed "as soon as possible." 4. Impact AIR -1, Impact, page 2.0 -9 (2nd & 3`d Line):... would not result in a cumulatively "considerable" net increase —the definition of "considerable" is vague and subjective and the net increase alluded to should be quantified instead ('net increase of 60%' ?). Is one grain of sand at the beach a considerable increase or does it need to be 1,000 grains? 5. Impact AIR -1, Impact, page 2.0 -9 (Line 9):... fugitive dust "could" exceed — To say that there is only a possibility ( "could ") of dust from a project of this size is highly unlikely — the Level of Significance should be raised to Significant and the descriptor should be "probable." 1 2- - � 9 6. Impact AIR -2, Impact, page 2.0 -10 (Line 5 -7): fugitive dust ... "could " potentially result — following "could" with "potentially" implies even less possibility of occurrence, when there is in fact a high probability of occurrence —the Level of Significance should be raised to Significant, change "could" to "would." 7. Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure Bio -1c, page 2.0 -13 (2nd bullet, line 5); Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1d, page 2.0 -18 (1st paragraph, line 8); Impact BIO -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1d, page 2.0 -19 (paragraph d, line 1); Impact PT BIO -1, Mitigation Measure PT BIO -1c, page 2.0 -31 (1st paragraph, line 8); PT Impact BIO -1, Mitigation Measure PT BIO -1c, page 2.0 -32 (paragraph d, line 1); PT Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure PT BIO -1d, page 2.0 -33 (1st paragraph, line 8); PT Impact 1310 -2, Mitigation Measure PT BIO -2, page 2.0 -34 (paragraph a, line 4); Impact HYD -4, Mitigation Measure HYD -4a, page 2.0 -47 (line 2); Impact LU -2, Mitigation Measure LU -2, page 2.0 -49 (2nd paragraph, line 1); Impact NOISE -1, Mitigation Measure NOISE -1, page 2.0 -50 (4th bullet, line 1); Cumulative Impact TRANS -1, No Mitigation Measure, page 2.0 -57 (line 1) : All of these citations contain the word "feasible." CEQA has its own definition for the term "feasible" requiring many considerations be "taken into account" that are not required by Miriam Webster. In effect, the term "feasible" is used to make it such that a delineated Mitigation Measure not need to be followed if it is determined to be not "feasible." There is no reference as to the authority or standard by which it will be determined whether or not any of these mitigation measures are or are not "feasible." In my construction experience, "feasible" always refers to the cost of a requirement. There is next to nothing in the sort of construction considered that is not "feasible" if sufficiently funded. 8. Impact BIO -2, Mitigation Measure BIO -2d, page 2.0 -23 (paragraph a, line 2): shall "generally" be consistent... The term "generally" indicates that this should be done "usually" or "in most cases," not all of the time, in mitigation of the impact. There is no reference as to the authority or standard by which it will be determined when the mitigation measure will be required and when it will not be required. The term "generally" should be deleted. 9. Impact 810 -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1a, page 2.0 -12 (line 5); Impact BIO -1, Mitigation Measure 1310 -1b, page 2.0 -12 (line 7); Impact BIO -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1b, page 2.0 -15 (1st bullet, line 1); Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure 1310 -1c, page 2.0 -16 (2nd paragraph, 1st bullet, line 3); Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure BIO -1c, page 2.0 -17 (Habitat Avoidance, P bullet, line 1); Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure Bio -1d, page 2.0 -19 (paragraph d, line 2); Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure 13I0-1e, page 2.0 -20 (paragraph b, line 6); PT Impact 1310 -3, Mitigation Measure PT BIO -3, page 2.0 -36 (line 6); Impact NOISE -1, Mitigation Measure NOISE -1, page 2.0 -51 (3`d bullet, line 1): All of these citations contain the word "minimize." The word is defined as "reduce to the smallest possible amount or degree." The word "reduce" in the definition is indeterminate. The word "possible" is entirely subjective. The phrase "smallest possible degree" in the definition is indeterminant & subjective. And, there is no reference as to the authority or standard by which it will be determined whether or not any of these mitigation measures are or are not "minimized," or "reduced to the smallest possible amount or degree." An empirical value or percentage of reduction of the impact should be used. 10. Impact AES -3, page 2.0 -8 (line 2); Impact AES -4, page 2.0 -8 (line 3); Cumulative Impact AES -1, page 2.0 -8 (line 6); Cumulative Impact AES -2, page 2.0 -8 (line 5); Impact AIR -4, page 2.0 -10 (line 4); Impact AIR -3, Mitigation Measure AIR -3, page 2.0 -10 (last line); PT Impact AIR -1, page 2.0 -11 (line 8); Impact BIO -1, page 2.0 -12 (line 3); Impact TRANS -4, page 2.0 -55 (line 4): Disregarding the use of the categories of "Significance," and the degrees of "Significant" inherent in any EIR, the above citations include the use of both "significant," "substantial' and "substantially" in the narratives of the levels of impact and /or the suggested mitigations of impact. The problem, even in the CEQA definitions, is that the terms are defined in terms of each other — the definitions are circular, and as such, without concrete meaning. If something is described as "significant" to support its inclusion in the category of "level of significance," it becomes meaningless. And, even if there were references to authorities or standards by which it could be 2 2 -5� determined whether or not any of the impacts or mitigation measures were or were not "substantial' or "significant," any such determination would be circular and subjective. In my experience, contractual language of this nature often leads to disputes down the road. 11. Impact 1310 -1, Mitigation Measure 1310 -1d, page 2.0 -18 (paragraph b, line 4): This is just an observation regarding the "pre- construction nest survey" called for within 15 days of initiation of grading. My experience with biologists for the CDFG tell me that the House Finch, protected under the MBTA, can construct a nest in one hour. Once the nest is 25% complete, the provisions of protection against disturbance apply. A survey even a day prior to construction could easily miss a nest event. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am not an attorney and 1 do not pretend to offer any advice of a legal nature in any way to the City of Petaluma. The above opinions and observations are offered, based on my personal experience in the construction industry, after a minimal review of the of the Summary of Impacts, Table 2.0 -1, in the Executive Summary of the Revised DEIR of March 2017 presented to the City of Petaluma. The observations are offered by a private citizen of the City of Petaluma only in the interest of adding to the discussion of the Revised DEIR during the 60 -day public comment period. DEFINITIONS OF "INDETERMINANT /SUBJECTIVE" WORDS & SUBSTITUTES 1. ADEQUATE: satisfactory or acceptable in quality or quantity 2. APPROPRIATE: suitable orfitting for a particular purpose or circumstance 3. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE: at the earliest possible moment 4. CAREFULLY: meticulously, showing close attention to detail 5. CONSIDERABLE: notably large in size, amount or extent 6. COULD: used to indicate something is possible 7. FEASIBLE: capable of being done or accomplished; (CEQA): capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors 8. GENERALLY: inmost cases; usually 9. LIMIT: a point beyond which it is not possible to go; restriction on size or amount 10. MAXIMUM: the greatest quantity or value attainable; as great, high or intense as possible 11. MAY: expressing possibility or permission 12. MINIMIZE: reduce to the smallest possible amount or degree 13. NECESSARY: absolutely needed; required to be done 14. POSSIBLE: able to be done within the capacity of someone or something 15. REASONABLY: in a fair and sensible way; to a moderate or acceptable degree 16. SHALL: used to signify that something is expected or required; synonymous with "will" 17. SHOULD: used to indicate what ought to be done; indicates what would be proper or reasonable 18. SIGNIFICANT: having meaning; noteworthy; substantial 19. SUBSTANTIALLY: to a great or significant extent 20. WILL: expressing inevitable events 3 <2-_;5 -0 Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Nancy Schwartz [nancyschwartz247 @gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:50 PM To: Giudice, Alicia My husband and I have lived on Eighth Street between B and D since 1987. Walking from our home to Helen Putnam park for some peace and quiet has always been a stress reliever for us, that we are so grateful for. Seeing the red barn on the hillside is one of the many high points of the hike. Building large homes and cutting down the trees necessary to create the home sites will ruin the bucolic feel and views, not to mention the "natural" stress reliever that so may of us older Petalumans depend on. The EIR does not do justice in terms of the destruction that the development and tree removal will do to one of the last gems that all can enjoy in Petaluma..... for free! Nancy Schwartz and Joop Delahaye ,2 °r� S2— Comments on Davidon proposed development proje0 julia@juliacortrecruiting.com Sent:Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:37 PM To: councilmemberkearney @me.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; jenpierrepetaluma @ yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; councilman. albertson @gmail.com; petrp @comcast.net Hello representatives of Petaluma residents. Please remember we voted for each of you to represent us- The citizens and residents of Petaluma. We are living here, now and hopefully in the future. Per the DEIR meeting I have some concerns and comments. Julia Cort 830 D Street Petaluma According to the DEIR: Development of the proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch project would conflict with applicable policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the local roadway system and regional freeway system under cumulative conditions. This impact was designated as Significant! No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the significant cumulative impact of traffic at D Street and Lakeville StreetHH! This as been labeled by DEIR as not only Significant but also Unavoidable. What are the residents who are subject to the potential impacts of this project expected to do? As it is- kids can't cross the streets on their way to and from area schools without fear from their parents of the excessive and aggressive traffic on D Street. My mother is 89 and walks every day on D Street. No one cares to wait for her to cross the street. And what if she crosses too slowly? Cars pass other cars on D Street in their rush to get to their destination. I fear for her safety when she leaves for a walk in the neighborhood due to the traffic. I recommend that we open up B street and give needed access to Windsor for traffic to get to Victoria and the proposed Davidon Development. Why is that not an option now? We need alternative avenues for overflow from HWY 101 That is obvious and needed - without argument. The traffic is bumper to bumper on D from 8th street to El Rose every weekday after 2 PM. And the population of residents driving to and from their Petaluma homes to access the freeway continues to grow. Please recognize this already over- stressed traffic condition. Every intersection all the way up D street from Lakeville to El Rose and beyond is equally impacted!! As addressing the EIR please note that Regarding the endangered species: Almost all birds, including their nests and eggs native to the United States are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Protection is not limited to only individual birds or species that migrate. These birds and their habit around Helen Putnam Park is potentially in danger. We have offered a bird and animal sanctuary over the years and its critical to recognize the impact of deleting this habitat forever. I have yet to see comments from Fish and Game or Wildlife Organizations regarding this proposed project. Please note these comments with serious concern as an elected representative from -2- -353 our town. Thank you Julia Cort Julia Cort Recruiting uIia@juliacortrecruitina.com 707 - 775 -3624 Davidon project julia @juliacortrecruiting.com Sent:Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:28 PM To: councilmemberkearney @me.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net, jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; petrp @comcast.net Hello City elected officials. I am writing today to express my concerns about the Davidon development project currently in consideration. Specifically I am writing about the excessive run off water already that comes down to D Street and floods my yard and the neighborhood yards during the winter. months. We regularly run 8 pumps in our yard as well as a sump pump in our basement during the winter months. Our pumps must keep running day and night during storm season to move the water away from the house. We have had moisture barriers installed and we have installed extra pumps around the house to prevent flooding and keep water from coming into the house. We cannot leave town during a storm since our pumps need to be watched and kept running or else our house will flood. If the power goes out we must run them off a generator. Should the houses at Davidon be developed there will be less earth to hold the rain water and increased run off causing flooding would result on D Street as the water moves downhill into the storm drains. Should houses be built in these hills, what would the plans be for this development project to collect or contain the excessive run off water? Thank you for your time. Julia Cort 830 D Street Julia Cort Recruiting Julia .juliacortrecruiting.com 707 - 775 -3624 2 -� Davidon/Scott Ranch Residential SubDivision on D Street Rachel Kaplan [rachelkap @fullcup.info] SenbSunday, April 23, 2017 4:46 PM 7o: Gludice, Alicia Dear Ms. Guidice I am writing to you regarding the proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch Development on D Street in Petaluma. I would like to register my concern about the proposed development. From the DEIR it is clear that this development will add more of what Petaluma doesn't need — over - priced, over -sized mcMansions which destroy the beauty of the landscape and deplete land and water resources, while taking away what Petaluma does need — ecological integrity, neighborhood coherence, protection of native species and waterways, as well as increased public land use, and the preservation of cultural resources. This development will harm the waterways in the location where it is planned, threaten the habitat of endangered species, destroy the cultural landmark of the site, build ugly over - priced homes which will have over- sized impacts on landfill, water and air quality, increase noise and traffic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and impact our beloved Helen Putnam Park. We want a development that privileges the rights of nature, the rights of beauty and the rights of human beings to live peacefully in place. This development aggrandizes the wealth interests of the developer at the expense of every other living thing in sight. We've had it with this kind of short- sighted "development" in Petaluma which is, year by year, becoming uglier, denser, noisier and more and more unaffordable to normal human beings. This site should become an extension of Helen Putnam Park and a place where life and history and culture is preserved, not destroyed. At this gateway point of our town, we would to see buildings of •, . beauty, • = of Sonoma • :.. and access to the park which enhances .: of for • ne in the regio Thank you for considering my comments Sincerely, Rachel Kaplan, MFT 1480 Mountain View Petaluma CA 94952 415 - 269 -2721 -2-351 M NMI M e Sharon Risedorph [sharonrisedorph @gmail.com] Sent:Monday, April 24, 2017 4:01 PM To: Petalumans for Responsible Planning [PetRP @comcast.net]; Jennifer Pierre Denpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com]; Bill Wolpert [wolpert @sonic.net]; Jocelyn Lin Oocelynyeh @yahoo.com]; Richard Marzo [rchard @lacehouselinen.com]; Diana Gomez [dianaegomez @gmail.com]; Gina Benedetti - Petnic [ginamarie.bp @gmail.com]; Chris Albertson [councilman.albertson @gmail.com]; Alicia Giudice [agiudice @m- group. us]; Giudice, Alicia; Teresa Barrett [teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net]; Dave King [davekingpcc @gmail.com]; Mike Healy [mthealy @sbcglobal.net]; Gabe Kearney [councilmemberkearney @me.com]; Kathy Miller [KathleencmillerofFice @gmail.com]; David Rabbitt [david.rabbitt @sonoma- county.org]; Hines, Heather Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR April 24, 2017 Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council Hello! I attended the planning commission meeting Tuesday April 4th, 2017. One impact that was not addressed at the meeting or in the EIR is a very important one. There was no impact study done comparing the money that the development would bring into the city compared to what it would cost the city. There would be costs in police services, fire services, infrastructure, maintenance, residents leaving because of 4 to 5 years of living in a constructuion zone and ending up with the beauty of the rolling hills, trees, wildlife replaced with McMansions that would only benefit a Walnut Creek developer. There's also the loss in revenue from visitors especially that come to Helen Putnam Park. And the loss of the well being of all Petalumans and visitors that will not be able to have a nice quiet walk or ride in our bucolic Helen Putnam Park and will never again be able to feel the wonder of our beautiful environment. Please preserve this historic area! Please remember these Guiding Principals of the Petaluma General Plan 2025: Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's natural environment and distinct setting in the region - a community with a discreet edge surrounded by open space. Maintain a close -knit, neighborly, and family friendly city. Thank you very much for NOT allowing this development to happen ! ! ! SAVE THE BEAUTY AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL PETALUMANS ! ! ! Sharon Risedorph 1258 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 sharon@ sharonrisedorph.com www.sharonrisedorph.com - X5 0 P 707 658 2341 C 415 672 9003 Davidon Home Development Karin Beddow [karinbeddow @comcast.net] Sent.Tuesday, April 25, 2017 7:09 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Ms. Agiudice, I am writing to express my opposition to the Davidon Development on the Arnold Scott Ranch that abuts Helen Putnam Park. In my humble opinion, this is irresponsible planning. I have lived on B Street for 27 years and am quite familiar with D Street traffic, especially on weekends. This development would add to this traffic. Furthermore, and more importantly, a development such as this would destroy the beauty of Helen Putnam park and threaten the frog habitat. Why not expand the Park and save the barn? I love this park and this community. The last thing we need are large -scale houses that will be unaffordable to most average Petalumans. I hope you reconsider approving this development. Sincerely, Karin Beddow 1018 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 707- 591 -5881 N re r„ Joanna Daly [joanna.e.daly @gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:14 PM To: Giudice, Alicia To: City of Petaluma Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner I moved to Petaluma in 2013 and I reside on Payran Street. My partner and I are regular weekly visitors to Helen Putnam Regional Park and regard it as one of the main assets of Petaluma, including the unique red barn which a cultural resource. We enjoy the natural beauty, vistas and clean air that is found in this area and surroundings and that are now threatened by the proposed Davidon project, not just for us but for future generations. In the four years that we have lived on Payran Street, our route to Helen Putnam is via D Street - and the increase in traffic on that road is significant. It is a concern that the housing development proposed will further increase traffic on D Street to an unacceptable level especially during rush hours. The traffic in Petaluma is a major problem, and our roads are not maintained adequately already without adding over a possible hundred more local vehicles from this development as well as the pollution this would bring. My other concern about the Davidon proposaj, and the main reason for writing is the environmental impact on sensitive habitats and species in the area. Having read the DEIR, I am particularly concerned that the development would result in substantial adverse effects on special - status species, including California redlegged frog, nesting birds, and roosting bats. I particularly refer to the following paragraph in the DEIR: "Where development of essential habitat and movement corridors cannot be completely avoided and on -site mitigation is considered insufficient by the CDFW and USFWS, the loss shall be mitigated by permanently preserving similar quality habitat known to support CRLF at off -site locations preferably in the Petaluma vicinity of Sonoma County, as negotiated with the regulatory agencies. It is possible that the mitigation location, whether on -site or possibly offsite as well, could be used to achieve mitigation for other biological and wetland impacts, depending on its habitat characteristics, provisions for habitat creation and /or enhancement defined as part of the Final FMP, and negotiations with the CDFW and USFWS. " There is no guarantee that this development will not wipe out the endangered frogs and other species and the mitigation will be no compensation for this loss but is merely lip service to environmental concerns.Moving endangered species is not a solution and Kelly Creek and surrounding wetlands are a unique natural resource for these creatures. I implore the Petaluma Planning Commission to hear the objections of so many local residents who are very worried about the degradation of our precious natural resources through ill considered development. Thank you for considering my comments, Jo Daly www.iodaly.com Laurie Landau [mclandau @comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 8:48 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Petaluma is rapidly losing sites that are quintessential Petaluma. If we lose the idilic pastoral view at a major entrance to town and replace it with a housing project (Davidon Homes), we are devaluing our community. The Draft EIR does not adequately address how the increase in traffic will affect the livability of our community. It needs to include analysis of the impact to Cleveland Lane and its occupants. The impact of Victoria and Westhaven on traffic and road conditions on Cleveland Lane has been extreme due to commuters using it as a shortcut to Bodega Ave. Our road was never intended to support the amount of traffic it gets now and with 60 more households using it as a cross town shortcut the noise and road wear will be unacceptable. A requirement to creating yet more housing tracts needs to include the construction of a thoroughfare that follows the urban growth boundary from Western to Bodega. As an owner of property on the county side of this boundary I would rather sacrifice the back edge of my property to a thoroughfare than endure the impact of traffic jams a few feet from my house. Please... no more huge, luxurious homes. Let's make housing our working class in a creative and less impactful way a priority. I hope we don't have to say goodbye to "Unique Petaluma" by creating a community that is "anywhere USA ". 7--3612- Comments i n Homes Draft Greg Beddow [greg @gbeddow.com] Senffuesday, April 18, 2017 7:22 AM To: Giudice, Alicia To: City of Petaluma Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 Dear Alicia Giudice, I'm writing in objection to the development on the beautiful 58 -acre parcel on Windsor & D Street with rolling hills and Kelly Creek running through it - and its red barns, grazing cattle, deer, and threatened red - legged frog habitat. The current Environment Impact Report has a number of oversights and other problems including: • The barn is an invaluable cultural resource. Its loss or relocation would destroy the cultural integrity of the area. The EIR should disclose the cost to move it vs. leaving it as is. The Draft EIR should include a project alternative that repurposes the barn as a museum, displaying the old dairying methods. As part of this museum, the cows could be kept there with a weekend milking demo for kids. • We cherish the peace and quiet in our communities. The Draft EIR does not evaluate how the increase in traffic or noise from construction will affect the livability of our community. • Kelly Creek and its tributaries are critical natural resources, yet the project proposes dense development adjacent to these waterways. The project tries to downplay the existence of the large D Street tributary, running it through a culvert so that houses can be built on top of it with no setback. The project also proposes excessive density at the edge of the City's urban growth boundary. The EIR should include an alternative that clusters houses on the less - sensitive parts of the site, away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries, and away from the urban growth boundary. Also, if there is a plan to continue grazing cattle on parts of the land, what will be done to exclude them from the creek so they don't continue (as they do now) to affect the water quality? • The project would build a new trail along Kelly Creek that would run behind and between the project houses' back fences, on both sides. This design would result in a degraded park experience for walkers. The EIR should mitigate this recreational impact by clearly separating the private and public areas here and by building on only one side of the creek, if at all. Regards, Greg Beddow 1018 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 707 -799 -2049 2 -3�3 Residential Subdivision project (File Amir Abolfathi [abolfathi50 @gmaii.com] Sent :Monday, April 17, 2017 4:07 PM %: Giudice, Alicia Dear Ms. Alicia Giudice, I am writing this letter in response to the Notice of Completion /Availability for the Davidson /Scott Ranch, Residential Subdivision project (File #03 -TSM -039; SCH #2004072137). I am a resident of Petaluma County and my property, 2200 D Street Extension, shares a fence line with the Scott Ranch on the North -West side of the ranch. The fence line also happens to be the exact city limits (Urban Growth Boundary) of Petaluma. My family and I moved to Petaluma from Bay Area seven years ago. We picked Petaluma, after several years of research, mainly because we wanted to live in an environment that is less crowded, environmentally balanced and has a great sense of community. Undoubtedly, Petaluma has one of the best reputations in the Northern California for its great spirit and sense of community. We all experience this during the Holiday season, Halloween and our summer events. It is one of the rare cities in California, for a variety of community activities such as butter and egg festival, vintage car and antique shows and many more. I have noticed that in the recent years, the traffic on D Street, especially during the early morning and late afternoon, and weekends, is getting very heavy. Since D Street is one of the main access points from South Petaluma to downtown, there are no alternative route and we don't have the option of expanding D- Street. Sometimes it takes out 5 to 10 minutes to turn left onto D Street from our driveway. I have grave concerns that if we allow the Davidson project to build a large number of residential housing, this will further exasperate this problem. We specifically picked and bought our property for its natural beauty, openness, and its wildlife. I love the fact that we often see red hawk, frog, quail, wild turkey, deer, duck, owl, rabbit, and many other wildlife living on our land and surrounding lands, including the Scott Ranch. It would be a shame to disturb their natural habitat and risk migration of these animals. Furthermore, one of the main charms of Petaluma is its random beauty of seeing domestic animals still living within close proximity to the residential area. I know that I am not alone to say that it is wonderful to see the cow grazing all around us, on the Scott Ranch. That is why we love Petaluma. After all, we are known for our dairy product, eggs, chicken, organic meat and produce. It is part of the identity of Petaluma. It would be a shame to lose that, especially in West Petaluma where it has such rich and historic history. Truly, this special place has achieved, relatively undisturbed, a symbiotic relationship between the flora and fauna of a natural setting with compatible elements of human agricultural history, supporting both this aesthetic and biological assets. With respect to Davidson project, I believe Mr. Davidson as an owner of the land has rights and these rights should also be respected. Having said that, it is the city representative's responsibilities as our elected officials, to make sure that we struck the right balance between Mr. Davidson rights, surrounding community's interest, entire city interest and the impact on the wildlife. I have reviewed the proposed plans, and from my perspective, the proposed plan is not a balanced plan, considering all the cumulative community and wildlife interest. As a neighboring resident, knowing the surrounding area very well, this area can't handle the additional traffic of forty plus new housing. Perhaps if this is limited to twenty or below, it can be managed, but even then, it should at `�_-36If least be studied for its negative impacts that could not be mitigated. Also, I would recommend limiting the development to areas adjacent to existing houses on the North and West side of the ranch. This way, Petaluma can preserve the natural beauty of the Scott Ranch, for the entire community to enjoy and limit the impact on the existing wildlife. Lastly, I have noticed several natural creeks /water drainages that are the main water drainage from the hillside into the Davidson property during Fall and Winter. This should be carefully looked at since building in this area could be dangerous and will require a significant amount of construction grading and disturbance of the geology and hydrology beneath my property. I am concerned that this could potentially threaten the stability of my land. There are at least two areas on the fence line between my property and Davidson property that I have observed land erosion due to water drainage. I appreciate your consideration regarding my comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My contact information is listed on my signature page below. Thanks UIT17 M Amir Abolfathi Vafa Milani 2200 D street Ext Petaluma, Ca 94952 650 -804 -1397 Cell 65 Jennifer Pierre Denbenthehen @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:44 PM To: Hines, Heather; Giudice, Alicia Attachments:Davidon_2017.docx (27 KB) Hi Heather and Alicia, Attached are y written comments on the Davidon EIR. I retained all of my comments from 2013, and unless explicitly noted, they still stand. This EIR was an improvement over the last one, but as I mentioned during our meeting, the proposed project doesn't fit this site. Development south of Kelly Creek is an affront to our General Plan. Jenny - 36C 1 Jennifer Pierre comments on the Davidon Draft EIR March 2013, updated based on March 2017 Draft 2 EIR 3 The following comments are my comments from March 2013 with updated comments based on the 4 2017 Draft EIR. Unless explicitly stated as resolved or inapplicable to the current EIR, the comments 5 submitted in 2013 are hereby resubmitted for the 2017 draft with updates as noted. These updates are 6 followed by new comments on the 2017 Draft EIR. 7 8 General comments 9 Alternative 2 is the most responsive alternative to our General Plan. The following effects would likely 10 be avoided or substantially reduced: 11 • Aesthetic impacts related to tree removal and development. 12 • Biological impacts related to Kelly Creek, and in particular the CRLF habitat and pond. 13 • Traffic impacts related to D Street ingress and egress on E Street. 14 • Substantial tree removal. 15 0 Inconsistency with several General Plan policies including 2 -P -8, 4 -P -1, 4 -P -2, and 4 -P -3 and 16 those related to feathering and gateway protection. 17 • Landslides risks. 18 • Risk of erosion and contamination of Kelly Creek. 19 Overall, nearly every single impact identified in the DEIR could be addressed if development was 20 restricted to the area north of the creek. 21 Lack of clear analysis of final mitigated project. The City has analyzed the proposal from 2004, but 22 because it is so terribly flawed in its assumptions regarding the impacts to biological resources, 23 aesthetics, and geology, the proposed project is essentially a different project when the mitigation is 24 applied. It is impossible for a reader to truly understand what the project is, and its associated impacts, 25 in the way the EIR is currently written. While it's clear that many of the effects would be avoided, what 26 is not clear is how the mitigation affects the other resources (i.e., how does the reduction in homes 27 affect the need for drainage facilities, new sewer, etc.) and if the mitigation proposed doesn't cause 28 significant environmental impacts (i.e., changes in cut and fill). While the City is responding to the 29 applicants proposed project, the City is clearly proposing a different project that is essentially the 30 mitigated applicant proposed project. The EIR should be re- written to more accurately reflect the 31 constraints on the project. 32 2017 update: Less mitigation seems to be required that fundamentally changes the project and 33 as such, this is not as severe an issue as it was in 2013. However, there is still mitigation that 34 eliminates homes and based on the analysis presented, additional homes should be removed 35 from the plans to actually mitigate the effects described in the EIR pertaining to aesthetics and 36 biological resources. Namely, NO homes should be constructed south of Kelly Creek. Alternative 1 2 would substantially address aesthetic, biological, and geological effects without reliance on 2 the vague and uncertain mitigation included in the EIR. 3 Due to applicant workshops in which the 66 -home alternative has been alluded to as the proposal, there 4 is substantial confusion as to what is actually being proposed. The City is officially writing an EIR 5 reflecting the official proposal of the applicant, but the applicant has been referring to or alluding to the 6 66 -home Alternative (Alternative B) as preferred, including during the Planning Commission meeting on 7 March 12, 2013. This is very confusing and has served many to question the intent of Davidon Homes. If 8 the intent is to build 66 homes, then the application should have been revised with specific detail about 9 what was actually being proposed, so that it is not only an alternative evaluated with limited detail in a 10 few pages at the end of the EIR. Alternative B and the mitigated proposed project do not appear to be 11 synonymous and while many impacts of each of these can be inferred, there is not enough evaluation of 12 either one to fully understand the environmental implications of the mitigated proposed project or any 13 of the alternatives, especially as it relates to biological and geological impacts. EIR's are public 14 information documents and provide the foundation for decision - making bodies to decide if a project 15 should move forward or not. We should be fully evaluating the effects of the proposed project, 16 including traffic, geological, noise, and cumulative impacts based on the actual proposal. As written, it is 17 unclear what the magnitude of effects will be other than 'less than the proposed project' which is 18 insufficient information for making a recommendation for a project. 19 2017 update: The updated DEIR is improved in being clearer about what is proposed and this 20 does not appear to be an issue in the 2017 Draft EIR. 21 The cumulative impact assessment, especially for water quality, likelv underestimates effects and does 22 not consider existing conditions (past proiect) for manv of the resources evaluated. The cumulative 23 impact assessment omits several developments near the proposed project, including Pinnacle and 24 Victoria Developments. Failure to include these other related projects has led to substantially 25 underestimated cumulative effects analyses for water quality and some other resources. As described 26 in greater detail below, the project -level water quality effects are likely not sufficiently mitigated, and 27 because there is an acute issue with Kelly Creek water quality and drainage, any additional adverse 28 impact is likely to result in a significant cumulative impact, requiring mitigation. This is not identified in 29 the Draft EIR. 30 It is unclear if the proiect is consistent with the IZO requirement to avoid development on slopes izreater 31 than 30 %. Throughout the document, there is reference to tremendous cut and fill and nowhere is it 32 described if the project complies with this applicable requirement. Additionally, the EIR should state 33 and show specifically the area that is being constructed on slopes greater than 15 %, as the IZO strongly 34 discourages development on slopes greater than 15 %. 35 2017 update: The requested information was not included in the DEIR. This is especially 36 important given the landslide risks. Page 4.5 -19 of the EIR describes cut and fill slopes to be 37 constructed at 2H:1V, but does not specify the final slope. Selection of Alternative 2 would 38 substantially minimize the risk described in Impact GEO -3. Additionally, much of the area is O 1 shown in the figure to be between 15 and 30% slopes. The gradient should be articulated so it is 2 clear to what extent lands proposed for development are closer to 15% or 30 %. 3 4 (Resource- Specific Comments 5 Aesthetics 6 1. Mitigation Measure AES -1b states that moving the red barn is an option yet there is no 7 indication about whether or not this is feasible from a structural or cultural resources 8 perspective. The barn is described as needing a new foundation. 9 10 2017 update: it remains unclear as to the feasibility of moving the main barn structure. 11 12 Biological Resources 13 1. The record of communication with either the USFWS or the Army Corps of Engineers is 14 incomplete as provided and it is unclear how and when the communications regarding the 15 California red - legged frog and the necessary avoidance measures were provided to the applicant 16 or the City. This is important relative to the timing of the application and when it was deemed 17 complete and how that relates to the general plan by which the project is reviewed, as well as 18 the confusion created by analyzing an infeasible proposed project (as described above). Please 19 provide complete record of correspondence on this topic with USFWS, Davidon, and Army 20 Corps. This will also help the public, Commission, and Council understand and confirm that the 21 conditions put forth in this correspondence are accurately reflected in the revised project 22 and /or mitigation measures. 23 2017 update: The DEIR does not specify if the proposed mitigation is based on any input from 24 any resource agencies and therefore it is unclear if the mitigation presented in the DEIR is 25 feasible and /or meets the species and habitat needs in a way that will not require substantial 26 modification to the project that should be considered as part of the City's decision on the EIR 27 and the project. 28 2. Mitigation measures for biological resources should be clear on when construction activities 29 would not occur. For example, it is well- documented that California red - legged frog is present 30 on the site. The EIR should include measures that commit to avoiding construction during 31 periods of breeding and /or provide specific protections for construction periods. As currently 32 written, the mitigation is more focused on permanent land use changes than the period of 33 construction, which is estimated to take approximately 39 months, lasting over at least 3 34 breeding seasons. �92� 1 2017 update: The DEIR incorporates construction - related mitigation appropriate for CEQA 2 review. 3 4 3. Mitigation measure BIO -1b refers to potential impacts to some `scattered seasonal wetlands 5 and channels' but no description of mitigation for these actions is provided. Any disturbance to 6 wetland is considered an impact and must be mitigated, if not per CEQA then per the Clean 7 Water Act. The EIR should clarify if the wetland mitigation accounts for this impact or increase 8 mitigation to do so. Further confounding this issue is the fact that the original proposed project 9 is substantially revised via mitigation AND the applicant has alluded to the 66 -home alternative 10 as the proposal, which are not synonymous. Understanding the specific effects of the project is 11 very difficult. 12 2017 update: The DEIR includes onsite mitigation of the wetland impacts at ratios not yet 13 approved by the Corps, but that are sufficient for CEQA review. 14 4. Mitigation plans, permits, etc. are NOT mitigation. Mitigation is something that specifically 15 reduces, avoids, or off -sets an impact. Writing a plan does none of these. These plans should 16 either be built into the proposed project or the mitigation measure should specifically explain 17 how the plan or permit will mitigate the effect. 18 19 2017 update: The DEIR has improved in adding detail and actions to the mitigation measures to 20 demonstrate how the mitigation would reduce the impacts described. However, throughout the 21 DEIR, there are still unjustified conclusions of less than significant impacts especially pertaining 22 to CLRF and tree removal that can only be mitigated by removing development south of Kelly 23 Creek. 24 25 5. It is unclear what trees are proposed for removal. Additionally, the purpose of removal (location 26 vs. health) is not described. Please provide a map of which trees would be removed. Further 27 confounding this issue is the fact that the original proposed project is substantially revised via 28 mitigation AND the applicant has alluded to the 66 -home alternative as the proposal, which are 29 not synonymous. Understanding the specific effects of the project is very difficult. 30 31 2017 update: I appreciate that the DEIR shows the location and type of trees to be removed. 32 However, the vast majority of oaks and other native trees to be removed occur in the area south 33 of Kelly Creek; this is yet another reason development of this portion of the project site should 34 not occur. 35 36 6. Mitigation measure BIO -2d should include a commitment for the City of Petaluma Tree 37 Committee to review draft plans. 38 1 2017 update: The DEIR notes that the TAC will review final plans for street trees. However, as 2 noted above, the removal of so many native oaks in a sensitive habitat area is not justified by 3 the development benefits in this section of the project site. 4 5 7. Mitigation measures BIO -3b says that there would be grading up to 10 feet from the top of bank 6 of Kelly Creek. Our current General Plan (Policy 4 -P -1) is clear that 50 feet is the minimum 7 setback from waterways and the 1987 General Plan clearly has similar intentions with Policies 8 20 and 21 requiring minimization of effects on natural resources, in addition to policies that 9 require minimal disturbances to trees and waterways. Although grading may not be considered 10 permanent, it can be a major effect related to erosion, loss of vegetation and habitat, reduced 11 soil stability, and encouragement of invasive vegetation. 12 13 2017 update: The mitigation requires some houses to be removed from the plans, leaving only 14 the very bare minimum of buffer for this sensitive habitat area. No development should be 15 implemented south of Kelly Creek. Additionally, the EIR evaluates the project based on the 16 applicant- proposed changes to the General Plan text relevant to creek setbacks. The setbacks 17 should not be changed and the EIR should evaluate the proposed project in light of existing 18 General Plan policies. 19 Geology and Soils 20 1. The fact that there are so many geology mitigation measures leaves little confidence that the 21 project as proposed is safe and sustainable from an engineering perspective. With known 22 landslides, steep slopes, and substantial drainage issues, it is very concerning that a detailed 23 geotechnical report on the actual proposal (i.e., the mitigated project) has not been done or 24 provided. 25 2017 update: Additional detail was added to this section, which is helpful, but hardly written in a 26 way a non - geologist can understand. There remains landslide and geologic hazards that are 27 mitigated through standard construction and cut /fill practices, but 28 2. Mitigation needs to be added to avoid cut and fill on slopes greater than 15 %. This is justified 29 because this area is shown to be unstable in many areas and there is a high potential to affect 30 adjacent properties, especially in the area north of Windsor Drive. This is consistent with the 31 IZO that discourages development on slopes greater than 15% and these slopes are known to be 32 unstable. 33 2017 update: Understanding the specific slopes proposed for development is is absolutely 34 imperative to understand both the risk of development to future occupants but also to 35 understanding consistency with our General Plan and IZO. The map provided shows as one 36 color /layer slopes between 15% and 30 %. Given the importance of these 2 slopes to our IZO and 37 General Plan, more detail should be provided to better evaluate the consistency with our 38 adopted zoning and development regulations. z -31( 1 3. Impact GEO -3 does not adequately identify the locations of the unstable soils where landslides 2 have occurred and it is difficult to understand if the BIO and AES mitigation measures have 3 avoided this issue. 4 2017 update: The DEIR provides this information, although the narrative is so technical it is very 5 difficult to understand the impacts and mitigation. 6 4. Under Mitigation Measure GEO -3b it is unclear if this mitigation is still applicable given that it 7 references homes that would not be built if BIO and AES mitigation measures are implemented. 8 2017 update: Mitigation has been revised to be applicable to the entire project. 9 5. Mitigation Measure GEO -8a states that there will be no fill slopes greater than 2:1. This is 10 greater than 30% and is therefore not consistent with the IZO and should be revised to no fill 11 slopes greater than 15 %. 12 2017 update: The DEIR makes this statement without reconciliation with the hillside or slope 13 ordinance issues described above. 14 Hydrology and Water Quality 15 1. The analysis of downstream impacts is based on a 2003 study that assumes only as high as 10- 16 year storm. This is insufficient from both a flooding perspective and under the assumption that 17 climate change will likely increase storm intensity. 18 2017 update: I appreciate that the 2 -year, 24 hour storm is mentioned, but no studies were 19 done, nor designs included, to address this intensive event that we continue to see more and 20 more of in Petaluma. 21 22 2. The status of the D Street storm drain project should be described. A commitment for its 23 completion should be made prior to any grading of the project site. As described above under 24 cumulative impacts, more investigation as to the cumulative status of Kelly Creek water quality 25 and flows in Kelly Creek is needed with potential for mitigation for the project's contribution to 26 cumulative effects. 27 2017 update: There is no description of this projector how it relates to the analysis presented in 28 the DEIR. 29 3. The flooding analysis is insufficient and fails to demonstrate that the duration or severity of 30 downstream flooding would not be affected. Impact HYDRO -1 dismisses this impact as a result 31 of the detention basins, but Impact HYDRO -2 (which addresses only the Petaluma River) states 32 that even with the detention basins on the property, it could affect peak flows on the Petaluma 33 River. This same phenomenon is also applicable to Kelly Creek. There is no explanation or 34 demonstration that the detention basins will work. And because the proposed project is 35 substantially changed by the mitigation, which identifies areas that cannot be developed, the 36 specific areas of detention ponds needs to be identified. 1 2017 update: The DEIR is revised to clearly describe how downstream flooding can be avoided 2 through a menu of design options. 3 4. Impact HYDRO -4 states that 'the RWQCB generally discourages [gross pollutant traps] because 4 they require regular maintenance and because evidence of their effectiveness remains 5 inconclusive.' (Page 4.7 -29) It goes on to say this is the most feasible option for runoff control, 6 but doesn't describe any other alternatives considered. It also states that additional traps 7 beyond those identified in the proposed project would likely be needed, but the area for these 8 traps is not identified, making it impossible to understand if these additional traps would have 9 the potential to cause other impacts, including those related to biological resources or require 10 changes in the configuration of the lots. It finds this impact less than significant without any 11 demonstration that these are feasible or effective. 12 13 2017 update: The DEIR is revised to clearly describe how downstream flooding can be avoided 14 through a menu of design options. 15 16 5. The cumulative impacts discussion only addresses future conditions and does not incorporate 17 past projects or ongoing issues with Kelly Creek downstream of the project. Additional 18 mitigation for the cumulative effect may be warranted given the current status of drainage. 19 Land Use and Planning 20 1. No discussion of whether all lots are at least 20,000 sf, as required by R1 zone. Further 21 expansion of the benefits to the City of allowing a PUD are needed. 22 2017 update: The PUD requests lot sizes of 10,000 which is substantially less than the R1 zoning, 23 thus violating the feathering approach that is a cornerstone of the General Plan and vision for 24 city development. 25 2. No discussion of the portion or specific areas that are greater than 15% slope and therefore it is 26 not clear that this project is consistent with the hillside development component of the IZO. 27 There should also be a clear discussion of the areas greater than 15% that would be graded. 28 Grading areas are difficult to discern. 29 2017 update: The DEIR does not provide the detail necessary to evaluate consistency with the 30 General Plan and IZO. Specific slopes of areas proposed for development and related EIR 31 analysis is necessary. 32 3. The 1987 General Plan allows for 35.22 to 117.4 homes on this 58.7 acre site, but when slopes 33 greater than 30% are subtracted out, what is the number of homes that can be built here 34 according to the 1987 General Plan? 35 2017 update: The DEIR still does not provide this information. �-_3-`:5 1 4. The 1987 General Plan says that 1.2 acres of public park is necessary for this project. Open 2 space does not qualify as public park and therefore, the proposed project must also include a 3 public park, similar to what is proposed in Alternatives B and C. 4 5 2017 update: The construction of a trail and parking appears to address this concern. 6 7 5. General Plan /IZO requires feathering of homes at the outskirts of urban growth boundary. 8 Proposed project and Alternative B do not appear to include this concept. 9 2017 update: The PUD requests lot sizes of 10,000 which is substantially less than the R1 zoning, 10 thus violating the feathering approach that is a cornerstone of the General Plan and vision for 11 city development. 12 6. Policy 3.14.2 of 1987 General Plan says that the project shall provide pedestrian circulation 13 through the site and the EIR states that the project as proposed is consistent with this. 14 However, forcing pedestrians to travel through a round -about across D Street in this area is not 15 pedestrian friendly. Sidewalks on the west side of D Street should be incorporated into the 16 project at a minimum from Windsor to southern end of the existing sidewalk on D Street. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 2017 update: The project no longer includes a roundabout, but retains a new sidewalk on the east side of D Street, This does not eliminate the safety hazard entirely but is improved over the previous proposal. 7. Policy 3.18 of 1987 General Plan states that every effort shall be made to preserve landmark and major groves. Policy 1 -P -49 of the 2025 General Plan is similar. Removal of 98 trees and replacement of saplings with 5 years of watering is NOT mitigation for this impact. Removal of 98 trees is completely inconsistent with the intent of this General Plan policy. The biological mitigation is not sufficient to address this. The only mitigation for this significant inconsistency with the 1987 General Plan is to avoid or minimize this effect. 2017 update: The majority of the protected trees that are proposed for removal would not need to be removed if Alternative 2 is selected. If these trees are removed, a NEW mitigation measure is needed to ensure replacement near the corridor from which these trees are removed. Additionally, removing trees from one area and planting mitigation in another does not address the aesthetic issue created by the tree removal. 8. Policy 7.2 of the 1987 General Plan says that new public parks should be acquired at a rate consistent with development. As noted above, 1.2 acres of public park are required to be consistent with this, and no public park is proposed as part of the proposed project. Open space is not public park. 2017 update: The construction of a trail and parking appears to address this concern. 7 --�-1 t� 1 9. Policy 11.39 of the 1987 General Plan requires a hydrologic analysis of runoff and drainage. The 2 mitigated proposed project is so fundamentally different than the proposed project that a 3 hydrologic analysis must be done prior to the final EIR to demonstrate the potential effects of 4 what would actually be approved. 5 2017 update: The DEIR addresses this comment by more clearly describing and analyzing what 6 has been proposed, with appropriate options for further detailed mitigation as the project 7 designs are finalized. 8 Noise 9 1. Mitigation Measure Noise -1 must state the level at which noise cannot be exceeded at a 10 sensitive receptor. As written, several minimization measures are included, but there is a lack of 11 commitment to avoid unacceptable noise levels. There is no indication of when these measures 12 would be triggered and it needs to explicitly state maximum noise at sensitive receptors. 13 2. Impact NOISE -2 should be completely avoided by avoiding construction between 6 and 7 AM per 14 current IZO standards in residential areas. A new mitigation measure should be added to 15 explicitly limit construction per the IZO. 16 Transportation and Traffic 17 1. Impact TRANS -3 states that there is no justification for a left turn lane from northbound D Street 18 for intersection C. The minimum stopping sight distance is stated to be met, but it is not clear 19 what the AASHTO minimum distance is. It is difficult to imagine that it is safe to not have a left 20 turn lane. More evidence should be provided to justify this finding and to demonstrate the 21 efficacy of a roundabout. 22 2017 update: a new left turn lane is included in the proposed project. 23 2. It is not clear how or if Mitigation Measure TRANS -7 actually mitigates for Impact TRANS -7. How 24 does the mitigation address the Class II requirement? How does it address the west -side of D 25 Street issues or the need for better pedestrian facilities? As proposed in the mitigation, a 26 pedestrian from the project walking towards downtown would have to maneuver through the 27 round -about to the gravel walkway on the east side of D Street. A new sidewalk should be 28 constructed on the west -side of D Street to mitigate this project and should extend to the 29 southern end of the property line. 30 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 31 1. The mitigation for Impact GHG -2 should be renamed to 'Mitigation Measure GHG -2 Operational 32 Emissions' and it should specifically state the extent to which the components of the mitigation 33 measure are expected to reduce GHGs. There should also be a substantial exploration of why 34 other measures such as solar panels, tankless water heaters, and high- efficiency appliances are 35 not specifically mandated or why the project is not required to contribute to efforts to reduce 1 reliance on cars. Overall, a much more compelling argument must be made as to why the City 2 should allow this significant and unavoidable impact. 3 2017 update: The requirements of Title 24 and the City's Green Building code reduce GHGs, but 4 neither solar panels nor tankless water heaters are listed as proposed features of the 5 development. These features should be included in the proposed project. 6 Evaluation of Alternatives 7 2017 update: Alternative 2 is clearly the best development option for addressing the MANY issues 8 described for development of this site. 9 1. Many of the resource topics are easy to follow and the logic applied (that the effect of the 10 alternative would be smaller because of a reduced number of homes) makes sense and is 11 reasonable. However, for biological and geological resources, it is very unclear what the impacts 12 are of each alternative. The alternatives evaluation should specifically describe the trees that 13 would be removed, the total area that would be developed, etc. In many instances, more 14 narrative is provided that summarizes the proposed project effects instead of the alternatives'. 15 However, I think the summary is helpful to the reader and well- written. More detail about each 16 alternative is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. 17 1 Table 6 -1 shows that Alternative D would develop at a density of about .5 units /acre. R1 is 18 zoned for .6 to 2 units per acre and as such, Alternative D appears to be inconsistent with the 19 current or potential future zoning. 20 3. For Alternative C, page 6 -36 states that it is inconsistent with the project objectives, but there is 21 no justification for this statement. Further, under the discussion of the environmentally 22 superior alternative, Alternative D (with 28 homes) is identified as generally meeting the project 23 objectives. The description of Alternative C should be revised to state that it is consistent with 24 the objectives. 25 4. The greenhouse gas emission analysis for Alternative B states that a reduction to 61 homes 26 would mitigate this significant impact. As such, why does the proposed project or Alternative B 27 show a 'significant and unavoidable' effect? The mitigation is quite clear- reduce the number of 28 homes to 61 or fewer. There is no reason provided why this mitigation would be infeasible. 29 S. The map provided for Alternative C shows a total of 48 homes, not 47. Which is correct? 30 6. Why does Alternative C include a 1.25 acre park in the corner of Windsor and D that doesn't 31 include the red barn, while Alternative B includes a 3 acre park with the red barn, which has to 32 be moved to accommodate it? 33 7. The geological impacts of the alternatives, and the proposed project for that matter, are very 34 difficult to discern, primarily because the maps provided in the geological section are hard to 35 read and do not identify the landslides and shear zones (Landslide A, etc.) in the same way the 36 text does. The tradeoffs for alternatives relative to the geological hazards are unclear. 37 8. The drainage impacts and required mitigation is unclear. The Draft EIR says that all of the 38 drainage mitigation measures would apply to the Alternatives, but some of these mitigation 2-316 1 measures are for areas proposed to be developed (under the proposed project) in the area 2 south of Kelly Creek. 3 9. The discussion of biological resources under Alternative B does not translate what it means that 4 it is not consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO 1b. Does this mean that Alternative B would 5 have to be further refined if adopted? What would this mean for the project and non - biological 6 impacts? 7 10. Alternative B does not maintain a 300 foot setback from the stock pond and aquatic habitat. 8 Just because fewer homes than the proposed project would be located in this setback does not 9 mean this is acceptable. No homes should be within the 300 foot setback area to be consistent 10 with the 1987 General Plan. 11 12 Additional new comments on the March 2017 DEIR 13 1. Mitigation Measure AES -1a should also mandate that lots 8 -16 (located along Windsor) and lots 14 60 -66 (located along southern part of the proposed project area, if selected for the approved 15 project, should be single story. 16 2. The majority of the protected trees that are proposed for removal would not need to be 17 removed if Alternative 2 is selected. If these trees are removed, a NEW mitigation measure is 18 needed to ensure replacement near the corridor from which these trees are removed. They 19 serve a biological function beyond just being 'trees.' Additionally, removing trees from one area 20 and planting mitigation in another does not address the aesthetic issue created by the tree 21 removal. Impact AES -2 should be revised. On page 4.3 -51, the EIR calls into question the ability 22 to mitigate for this tree loss stating, 'while these estimates appear to fulfill the minimum 23 requirements in the City's ordinance, the applicant has not demonstrated this number of 24 replacement plantings could actually be accommodated on the project site.' Further, it states 25 that, 'there does not appear to be sufficient land area on the project site to accommodate 26 replacement tree plantings: 27 3. Impact AES -3 states that 'the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing 28 visual character and quality of the project site and its surroundings.' Based on the information 29 presented in the DEIR as well as application of a 'straight -face' test, this statement is false. The 30 proposed project would clearly result in significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts on the visual 31 character of the site and the DEIR should be revised to be clear about that tradeoff. 32 4. Impact HYD -3 describes that a number of new storm drain outfalls would be constructed at Kelly 33 Creek. This is entirely unacceptable from an erosion and water quality perspective. This Creek is 34 an otherwise natural habitat that should not be modified. 35 5. The PUD requests lot sizes of 10,000 which is substantially less than the R1 zoning, thus violating 36 the feathering approach that is a cornerstone of the General Plan and vision for city 37 development. 38 6. It remains unclear what the slopes of the site are as it relates to the proposed development and 39 the resultant cut and fill. Our IZO strongly discourages development on slopes greater than 15% 2-3-7? 1 and precludes them on slopes greater than 30 %. We need to understand slopes on this site to 2 assess the consistency of this project with our IZO. 3 7. The project is inconsistent with Policy 2-P -8 which requires single - loaded streets along urban 4 separator and creeks. Proposed mitigation does not reduce this impact to less than significant. 5 Alternative 2 would. 6 8. The project is inconsistent with Policy 4 -P -2 and 4-P-3. Our General Plan puts emphasis on 7 preserving natural'habitats, first through avoidance. The development proposed south of Kelly 8 Creek is an affront to this policy. 9 .9. How are du /ac calculated at 1.12 if minimum lot size is 10,000 sf? Potential inconsistency with 2- 10 P -60. i Comments n Davidson development project i n street Margaret Boeger [margaretboeger @hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:40 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Hello, Thank you very much for the amazing job that you do every day to make Petaluma a fantastic place to live. The work that you've done the last few years has been well - balanced between business growth and preservation of our beautiful natural spaces. It's come to my attention that the Windsor housing development is under consideration once again, and that up to 65 luxury homes could be built on the corner of Windsor and D Streets. I know that there are a few different versions of what could be built there, with different options (leave the red barn and only develop the east side, develop both sides, etc.). Here are my concerns: Proposed EIR: As a wildlife biologist, I have specialized in habitat monitoring and endangered /threatened species for much of my career. Once a tributary, such as Kelly creek, is disturbed, the increased sediment takes many years to return to normal. This would happen if /when the grading for the housing is finished, with a huge increase in siltation to the creek. This would affect all of the trophic levels within the stream, starting with the plankton and small invertebrates, and ultimately affecting their predators (salamanders, frogs, toads, newts, songbirds, shorebirds, raptors) and the top trophic levels (coyote, fox, badger, etc.). There is always a huge impact when an ecosystem is disturbed at any level, and the grading and construction that is necessary for this project would be irreversible. There are also many other animals that frequent the area regularly - turkey, deer, black-tailed jack rabbits, little brown bats (myotis), as well as the endangered red - legged frog. I would not be surprised if other threatened and /or endangered animals were found in the creek with more sampling. I would request that a more comprehensive EIR is completed before you consider this development. Beauty: My mom just moved here from San Luis Obispo because she fell in love with the Westridge views and neighborhood, and the tranquil setting that the red barn and Helen Putnam Regional Park provide. She's been here 6 months, and is very cautious about driving on D street now, let alone with additional traffic. I would imagine that many other the residents in that area are also in their 70's and 80's and feel the same way. Do we want to alienate and frustrate these homeowners that have decided to retire in peaceful Petaluma (or raise their families there with safe trails devoid of traffic)? Safety: As a 12 -year resident of Petaluma, and a mother of two children who attend McNear elementary and walk to school daily, I'm concerned about the safety that the increased construction traffic will have on the commute of McNear school children, as well as PHS kids (there are also many who walk on our block and cross D Street). The proposed new sewer line will cause sections of D street with bulldozers, etc. to be present in this area for the next 3 years! This will certainly impact the already - terrible traffic on D street, as well as endangering our kids when they cross the street. I implore you to seriously consider the negative ramifications that the D street /Windsor housing development will have on this community, and to vote NO on this proposal at your May council meeting. Warmly, Margaret Boeger '2 -3 -7 � • • ! • •; •; 111111111111 17P. F, W W ME Hines, Heather Senffuesday, April 11, 2017 9 :41 AM To: Alicia Giudice (AGiudice @m- group.us); Giudice, Alicia Here's another public comment on Davidon DER From: Sharon Risedorph [mailto :sharonrisedorph @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:47 PM To: Hines, Heather Subject: Fwd: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Begin forwarded message: From: Sharon Risedorph <sharonrisedorph @gmail.com> Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Date: April 10, 2017 at 3:06:10 PM PDT To: "To: Petalumans for Responsible Planning" <PetRP@comcast.net>, Jennifer Pierre <janpierrepetaluma @vahoo.com >, Bill Wolpert <w I ert @ sonic. net>, Jocelyn Lin <jocelvn eh @vahoo.com >, Richard Marzo <richard @lacehouselinen.com >, Diana Gomez <dianaegomez @gmail.com >, Gina Benedetti- Petnic <ginamarie.bp @gmail.com >, Chris Albertson < councilman .albertson @gmail.com >, Alicia Giudice <agiudice @m- group.us >, Alicia Giudice <agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us >, Teresa Barrett <teresa4�petaluma @comcast.net>, Dave King <davekingpcc @gmail.com >, Mike Healy <mthealy @sbcglobal.net>, Gabe Kearney <counciimemberkearnev @me.com >, Kathy Miller < Kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com >, David Rabbitt < david .rabbitt@sonoma- county.org >, David Glass <mavordavidg Lass @gmail.com> April 10, 2017 Hello! I attended the planning commission meeting Tuesday April 4th, 2017. A very important impact that stood out to me that was not studied or addressed either at the meeting or in the EIR is: That there was no impact study done about the people that are living in the area now, some for decades, that pay thousands of dollars in taxes yearly. There was no mention of studies done about how residents feel about living in a construction zone for 4 to 5 years instead of in PARADISE. No impact study done about the residents that-will be leaving the area because of the construction and destruction of the beauty of Scott Ranch. No impact study done on how the residents feel about the environmental impact on their health - young, old, pets, butterflies, birds..... No impact study done on the people that will NOT be visiting Helen Putnam Park because of the noise, pollution and destruction of the beauty next to it. Please for the health and well being of all Petalumans and visitors vote against this development!! Thank you so much! �_3`gca Sharon Sharon Risedorph 1258 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 sharon v,sharonrisedorph.com www.sharonrisedgrph.com P 707 658 2341 C 415 672 9003 . Sharon Risedorph 1258 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 sharonrisedorph @gmail.corn www.sharonrisedorph.com P 707 658 2341 C 415 672 9003 City of Petaluma records, including emails, are subject to the California Public Records Act. Unless exemptions apply, this email, any attachments and any replies are subject to disclosure on request, and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. '? --�19 1 Loretta Mateik [Imateik @comcast.net] Sent.Saturday, April 8, 2017 2:18 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; Jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @ gmail.com Dear Madam /Sir, I attended the planning commission meeting and listened with interest as both sides spoke .... but did not make my comments at that time. 1 would like to make them now. I was struck by the following rhetoric, over and over. The Davidon experts, in trying to defend the DEIR spoke about each and every'issue' in the report...... and said, not once, but OVER and OVER again: But this can be 'mitigated' and reduced to an NI .... or negligible impact. If most of the points /issues in the DEIR require 'mitigation' as their experts testified ...... then this in itself suggests the project is flawed from the beginning! You also cannot ignore the fact that the cumulative effect of all of these points requiring mitigation is MUCH greater than if they were each to be taken individually ..... which they cannot .... but their experts would like you to believe. But not once did I hear 'what' these mitigations entailed..... HOW would they mitigate each issue and just WHO is deciding that the issues have indeed been mitigated? The issues are mitigated to 'whose' standards? Rather like the fox watching the hen house. All of Davidon's experts are quick to reduce EVERY issue in the DEIR to 'numbers', that they say can be 'mitigated' and therefore reduced to Nis! Seriously ?? As one example, HOW can you in good conscience reduce the potential destruction of an animal species to NUMBERS ?? While I realize some of you are thinking, it's just a frog ........ I beg to add by way of a paraphrase: A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" These frogs cannot speak for themselves. They are truly at'our mercy'. HOW can Davidon's experts (or anyone for that matter), reduce to numbers, the IMPACT the 3+ years of construction this project will take, will have on them ..... even if they only build adjacent to their current biological corridor ?? My husband and I live on D Street ... and have for almost 20 years .... and as a species somewhat more enlightened than the frog, I KNOW for a fact that I will NOT deal well with the 3+ years of construction this project will take. As it is, traffic on D Street is laughable. Apparently, none of you live around here, or you would already know it's ridiculous. And you want to ADD to this problem, MORE homes being built PLUS the noise, aggravation, and frustration construction alone from this project will create? How do Davidon's 'experts', (while defending the DEIR),....... plan to migitate THAT issue? The inconvenience to ALL of the current residents along D Street and the surrounding areas that will be impacted by the mere project itself? Did ANY of them give one thought to THAT issue? Are you? If not, then none of you must live in the areas that will be affected. I am here to tell you that THAT issue cannot be quantified nor can they offer ANY mitigation that will reduce this issue to an NI. Or have all of the current residents of Petaluma.... those of US that already live here and ESPECIALLY those of us that will be DIRECTLY impacted by this project ... also been reduced to a'number ........ having NI, as they are so fond of saying...... Negative Impact ?? Or even more importantly, is the 'target' market of Davidon..... those lucky 28 -66 families that can afford the $1 -2 MILLION dollar price tag for the'luxury homes' they are planning..... been quantified to a NUMBER and given greater importance ?? THAT'number', having been given such greater'weight...... that this precious and beautiful corridor will be FOREVER changed for ALL of the rest of us PeWumans and SOLD to the few that can afford their price tag ?? It will change that entrance to our beautiful city.... FOREVER! Do none of you truly grasp that ONCE this project is undertaken, this land /area can NEVER be reclaimed. There are NO DO OVERS. NOTHING their'experts' say about the mitigation of ANY of the issues in this project, can foretell with certainly what WILL happen. They do NOT have a crystal ball. They cannot reduce to 'numbers' what the long range outcomes will be. NONE of them can. They can ONLY 'guess'. And this is even MORE important an issue for the red legged frog. THEY cannot possibly know, or begin to estimate, so therefore, not possibly mitigate, now or EVER...... how the sheer magnitude of the 3+ years of construction 'close to and adjacent to' their current biosphere will effect the long term survival /viability of that little species. And that too ........ can NEVER be undone. Those YEARS of disruption to and around their habitat during the construction WILL have an impact ..... and that cannot be quantified, or reduced to a number insignificant enough through some kind of mitigation to become an'NI'. TRAFFIC ISSUES: D St. traffic is NOT isolated to the couple intersections suggested by the DEIR .... but too often, down the entire length of D St. and is significantly worse from 10th to Lakeville during afternoon commute times. Drivers in that very long, slow moving line of traffic, are always frustrated. Too frequently, out of this frustration and simply being tired of the long wait to drive the length of D St., cars are cutting out of line, trying to get to side streets to avoid this situation. This means, for 2 -5 car lengths, these drivers are driving on the WRONG side of the street, trying to get to the side streets to get out of this traffic mess. THIS is creating hazardous conditions NOW. Adding MORE homes will only make these issues worse and there is only ONE way to mitigate this and that is to NOT build MORE homes. This horrendous D St. traffic is along a number of school corridors and frustrated drivers do not NOW yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. It's like a game of chicken to get across the street. The answer is NOT to add more stop signs or traffic lights, that will only make matters worse. The issue is to REDUCE the amount of traffic and more certainly to NOT add to it by building yet more homes. We live in an old house ... built in 1906. We do not have double pane windows or a great deal of insulation. As it is ...... our house and windows rattle and shake when trucks drive down the street .... and that can start as early as 4 AM. We hear more noise than I would like now. How much more will occur for a VERY long protracted period of time, due to this project? It is quite nerve racking now and how much worse will it be with heavy equipment going up and down D ST. for the 3+ years of construction this project will take? My husband and I go to every open house along D St. and the surrounding area ..... as curious neighbors. I have now lost count of the number of times I have heard potential interested 'buyers' comment on how anyone in their right mind would buy on D St., with all of the noise and traffic. Perhaps at ONE time they might have loved living here, but now, the traffic and noise alone would stop them from buying. To me, this suggests this area is now KNOWN for it's ugly traffic and noise issues. Adding more homes is only going to make this worse. In the almost 20 years that we have lived here, there is a real and significant increase in not only traffic but � �3 9.5 the resultant noise too. This is not the once delightful, beautiful city we moved to .... in the hopes of getting away from San Francisco and all the ills and noise there .... but is becoming the very essence of what we had hoped to escape. There are also many issues that did NOT appear in this current DEIR report that were in the last report ..... and were therefore not addressed, but merely ignored? Davidon and their'experts', don't live here. Once this project is over ..... they are gone .... on to their next project. They do not give a damn about any potential long term effects .... or any 'issues' that may not be mitigated 'well' because they do not have to live and deal with them. We do.......... All of these points need to be truly understood and felt deeply by both the planning commission and city government. You all need to STOP allowing the endless sprawling of homes and safeguard our community and the unique character it has. A character that is being eroded with every project you approve. Does the quest for money and profits give Davidon (and others) MORE rights to forever change our landscape and this particular parcel of land for the benefit of so few families who can afford it and therefore supersede the rights of everyone else that will be negatively affected by this project forever? Please, I beg you to think long and hard about your decision for this project and others that may be in the 'pipeline'. Petaluma is changing and I'm sorry to say, NOT for the better. Sincerely..... Loretta Mateik 700 D St. Loretta Mateik [Imateik @comcast.net] Sent .-Saturday, April 8, 2017 2:23 PM To: councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @ gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Dear Madam /Sir, I attended the planning commission meeting and listened with interest as both sides spoke .... but did not make my comments at that time. I would like to make them now. I was struck by the following rhetoric, over and over. The Davidon experts, in trying to defend the DEIR spoke about each and every 'issue' in the report...... and said, not once, but OVER and OVER again: But this can be 'mitigated' and reduced to an NI .... or negligible impact. If most of the points /issues in the DEIR require 'mitigation' as their experts testified ...... then this in itself suggests the project .is flawed from the beginning! You also cannot ignore the fact that the cumulative effect of all of these points requiring mitigation is MUCH greater than if they were each to be taken individually ..... which they cannot .... but their experts would like you to believe. But not once did I hear 'what'these mitigations entailed..... HOW would they mitigate each issue and just WHO is deciding that the issues have indeed been mitigated? The issues are mitigated to 'whose' standards? Rather like the fox watching the hen house. All of Davidon's experts are quick to reduce EVERY issue in the DEIR to 'numbers', that they say can be 'mitigated' and therefore reduced to Nis! Seriously ?? As one example, HOW can you in good conscience reduce the potential destruction of an animal species to NUMBERS ?? While I realize some of you are thinking, it's just.a frog ........ I beg to add by way of a paraphrase: A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" These frogs cannot speak for themselves. They are truly at'our mercy'. HOW can Davidon's experts (or anyone for that matter), reduce to numbers, the IMPACT the 3+ years of construction this project will take, will have on them.....even if they only build adjacent to their current biological corridor ?? My husband and I live on D Street ... and have for almost 20 years .... and as a species somewhat more enlightened than the frog, I KNOW for a fact that I will NOT deal well with the 3+ years of construction this project will take. As it is, traffic on D Street is laughable. Apparently, none of you live around here, or you would already know it's ridiculous. And you want to ADD to this problem, MORE homes being built PLUS the noise, aggravation, and frustration construction alone from this project will create? How do Davidon's 'experts', (while defending the DEIR),....... plan to migitate THAT issue? The inconvenience to ALL of the current residents along D Street and the surrounding areas that will be impacted by the mere project itself? Did ANY of them give one thought to THAT issue? Are you? If not, then none of you must live in the areas that will be affected. I am here to tell you that THAT issue cannot be quantified nor can they offer ANY mitigation that will reduce this issue to an NI. Or have all of the current residents of Petaluma.... those of US that already live here and ESPECIALLY those of us that will be DIRECTLY impacted by this project ... also been reduced to a'number ........ having NI, as they are so fond of saying...... Negative Impact ?? Or even more importantly, is the 'target' market of Davidon..... those lucky 28 -66 families that can afford the —S SS $1 -2 MILLION dollar price tag for the'luxury homes' they are planning..... been quantified to a NUMBER and given greater importance ?? THAT'number', having been given such greater'weight...... that this precious and beautiful corridor will be FOREVER changed for ALL of the rest of us Petalumans and SOLD to the few that can afford their price tag ?? It will change that entrance to our beautiful city.... FOREVER! Do none of you truly grasp that ONCE this project is undertaken, this land /area can NEVER be reclaimed. There are NO DO OVERS. NOTHING their 'experts' say about the mitigation of ANY of the issues in this project, can foretell with certainly what WILL happen. They do NOT have a crystal ball. They cannot reduce to'numbers' what the long range outcomes will be. NONE of them can. They can ONLY'guess'. And this is even MORE important an issue for the red legged frog. THEY cannot possibly know, or begin to estimate, so therefore, not possibly mitigate, now or EVER...... how the sheer magnitude of the 3+ years of construction 'close to and adjacent to' their current biosphere will effect the long term survival/viability of that little species. And that too ........ can NEVER be undone. Those YEARS of disruption to and around their habitat during the construction WILL have an impact ..... and that cannot be quantified, or reduced to a number insignificant enough through some kind of mitigation to become an'NI'. TRAFFIC ISSUES: D St. traffic is NOT isolated to the couple intersections suggested by the DEIR .... but too often, down the entire length of D St. and is significantly worse from 10th to Lakeville during afternoon commute times. Drivers in that very long, slow moving line of traffic, are always frustrated. Too frequently, out of this frustration and simply being tired of the long wait to drive the length of D St., cars are cutting out of line, trying to get to side streets to avoid this situation. This means, for 2 -5 car lengths, these drivers are driving on the WRONG side of the street, trying to get to the side streets to get out of this traffic mess. THIS is creating hazardous conditions NOW. Adding MORE homes will only make these issues worse and there is only ONE way to mitigate this and that is to NOT build MORE homes. This horrendous D St. traffic is along a number of school corridors and frustrated drivers do not NOW yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. It's like a game of chicken to get across the street. The answer is NOT to add more stop signs or traffic lights, that will only make matters worse. The issue is to REDUCE the amount of traffic and more certainly to NOT add to it by building yet more homes. We live in an old house ... built in 1906. We do not have double pane windows or a great deal of insulation. As it is ...... our house and windows rattle and shake when trucks drive down the street .... and that can start as early as 4 AM. We hear more noise than I would like now. How much more will occur for a VERY long protracted period of time, due to this project? It is quite nerve racking now and how much worse will it be with heavy equipment going up and down D ST. for the 3+ years of construction this project will take? My husband and I go to every open house along D St. and the surrounding area ..... as curious neighbors. I have now lost count of the number of times I have heard potential interested 'buyers' comment on how anyone in their right mind would buy on D St., with all of the noise and traffic. Perhaps at ONE time they might have loved living here, but now, the traffic and noise alone would stop them from buying. To me, this suggests this area is now KNOWN for it's ugly traffic and noise issues. Adding more homes is only going to make this worse. In the almost 20 years that we have lived here, there is a real and significant increase in not only traffic but the resultant noise too. This is not the once delightful, beautiful city we moved to .... in the hopes of getting away from San Francisco and all the ills and noise there .... but is becoming the very essence of what we had hoped to escape. There are also many issues that did NOT appear in this current DEIR report that were in the last report ..... and were therefore not addressed, but merely ignored? Davidon and their 'experts', don't live here. Once this project is over ..... they are gone .... on to their next project. They do not give a damn about any potential long term effects .... or any 'issues' that may not be mitigated 'well' because they do not have to live and deal with them. We do.......... All of these points need to be truly understood and felt deeply by both the planning commission and city government. You all need to STOP allowing the endless sprawling of homes and safeguard our community and the unique character it has. A character that is being eroded with every project you approve. Does the quest for money and profits give Davidon (and others) MORE rights to forever change our landscape and this particular parcel of land for the benefit of so few families who can afford it and therefore supersede the rights of everyone else that will be negatively affected by this project forever? Please, I beg you to think long and hard about your decision for this project and others that may be in the 'pipeline'. Petaluma is changing and I'm sorry to say, NOT for the better. Sincerely..... Loretta Mateik 700 D St. Open Space at D and in Mark Robinett [mrobi @sonic.net] SentNonday, April 10, 2017 7:03 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Alicia, I am writing to encourage you to do everything you can to save this land. Please do not give in to this developer. I believe that if you and your fellow city council members call on the whole community to support you in saying no to this development, we will support you - and we will do whatever it takes to stop it, including finding the $ to buy the land. I suspect one of the most important things for you to do now is to stall this project and then work with the community here to do whatever you need us to do - if its raising $, let us know. Whatever it is we will do it. I understand we now have $1,000,000. How much more would we need? What else do we need to do? Here is the comment I left on the petition: Yes, lets save this land! It is the perfect and natural addition to Helen Putnam Park. A home development there is the worst thing we could have there. We need to save this land for generations to come as the need for outdoor recreation and beauty is of the utmost importance. Our children, and all the generations to come will thank us for this in doing the right thing. I insist that the city council of Petaluma do everything they can do to save this land from development. This is on your shoulders - I believe yours and our souls are on the line here - this is so incredibly important to save this land and keep its beauty and healing energy for the whole of our community - it will reap benefits for us for many many years to come. Say no to this development - please do whatever it takes to save the land. Call on the whole community if you need any help or support to do this - we will support you 100 %. Do not feel or believe you have to allow it. You do not and should not. $ does not rule. We people who live here RULE! We are your community. Thanks and Good Luck! Mark Robinett 633 F Street Petaluma, CA 94952 2--322 Hines, Heather Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 9:31 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Ellis, Evelyn Here's a public comment on the Davidon DEIR for the record. Heather From: Chris Albertson [ mailto: councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 8:10 AM To: Jean Grant - Sutton; Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidon development Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the final report. -- Chris Albertson On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Jean Grant -Sutton <bodyworksyoga@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear City Council Member, I drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creels and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic viewshed, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. Jean Grant - Sutton Yoga Program Coordinator P.O.S.T. - Wellness by Design 224A Weller St. Petaluma Ca. 94952 City of Petaluma records, including emails, are subject to the California Public Records Act. Unless exemptions apply, this email, any attachments and any replies are subject to disclosure on request, and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. �11 REFC- APP 2dii? �� ..�a?s�a � r d v Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR � AFR by Ms Michaell Allen, PO Box 1004, Petaluma, OA 94953 Many others will talk about the red legged frog, wild life corridors and environmental impacts, which are all `incredibly' important, but I want to discuss quality of life and our community. I have lived in Petaluma for 10 years and virtually all of the reasons I chose this town have been eroded away, except for the climate. I am forced to start looking elsewhere, as studies are showing 40% of Bay area residents are doing. Put simply: If I had wanted to move to a city like San Jose I would have. 1, and my family, frequent our county, state and regional parks, and having such a treasure as Helen Putnam Park in close enough proximity that a long drive is not necessary is a boon to a healthy, thriving community. Petaluma needs this open space close and easily accessible, far more than it"needs' McMansions adding to the insane `D' St traffic congestion which did not exist until a few years ago. A problem we see more and more in 'the news, that seems to crop up wherever the affluent situate themselves next to open space is their disrespect for the pre - existing natural habitat and the wildlife it brings and they start complaining about the wildlife from the park coming into their neighborhood, and taking measures to eradicate it. - Our local .government is running amok with its blinders on to the needs of Petaluma's infrastructure and its citizens, in a mad dash to invite the `nearly' affluent who are being pushed out of the immediate Bay area by the `more' affluent, and maintain their jobs elsewhere, not caring about our local politics or community, to the detriment of those of us who consider it our `home' and not just a property investment where we commute in a rush home to sleep, and then rush off again to our distant job, in the morning. I feel that Davidon targets that lifestyle and is only about $$$$ and not community in the least. Affluence does not equate with quality of life, nor with community. So- called `bedroom communities'. should be relegated to areas near the Highway; and riot -where they must, destroy the most pristine natural beauty of our existing community. Is there another parcel of land that could be traded, so that this one could be used for the expansion of Helen Putnam Park? I hope this is a possi ility. �° C�0 RE ivrr-, APR o 6 ; r, Planning Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA, 94952 Subject; Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Petaluma should require Davidon to abide by all of the current environmental policies in the City's 2025 General Plan. What if Ford Motor Company had a plan in the 1950s for a car and decided not to build it until 2017? Laws exist that would not allow a new car to be built without seat belts —even though the plan was actually developed much earlier. A car in 2017 would be built in accordance with the current and most up -to -date information and safety features. Petalumans spend years creating the General Plan 2025. The plan represents Petaluma's land use and constitution. The plan represents our current awareness of the environmental impact and the best way to build with sustainability in mind for Petaluma. As a Petaluman, I request that Davidon be required to follow General Plan 2025. I am opposed to development of this land. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 —73 9 t Hines, Heather Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 9:31 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Ellis, Evelyn Here's a public comment on the Davidon DEIR for the record. Heather From: Chris Albertson [ mailto: councilman.albertson @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 8:10 AM To: Jean Grant-Sutton; Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidon development Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the final report. -- Chris Albertson On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Jean Grant -Sutton <boorksyoga@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear City Council Member, I drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creels and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic viewshed, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. Jean Grant - Sutton Yoga Program Coordinator P.O.S.T. - Wellness by Design 224A Weller St. Petaluma Ca. 94952 City of Petaluma records, including emails, are subject to the California Public Records Act. Unless exemptions apply, this email, any attachments and any replies are subject to disclosure on request, and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. Q 115 1 davidon project Tina Anders [t quantums @hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:13 PM To. Giudice, Alicia Hello, Please see below for my comments regarding the Davidon project. I Would like to see it STOP before it starts. Thank you, kindly, ® The Draft EIR does not indicate whether the hillside soil and hydrology testing was conducted during recent wet months. It also does not disclose the assumptions and methodology that were used for this hydrological testing. The barn is an invaluable cultural resource. Its loss or relocation would destroy the cultural integrity of the area. The EIR should disclose the cost to move it vs. leaving it as is. The Draft EIR should include a project alternative that repurposes the barn as a museum, displaying the old dairying methods. As part of this museum, the cows could be kept there with a weekend milking demo for kids. • I drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. • The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. • In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic viewshed, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. • We cherish the peace and quiet in our communities. The Draft EIR does not evaluate how the increase in traffic or noise from construction will affect the livability of our community. • The Draft EIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. The Draft EIR tries to explain that this impact can be "mitigated." I don't believe it. There are several babies in the nearby community. A heightened risk of cancer is simply unacceptable. • The Draft EIR does not indicate whether there are any underground tanks left over from the ranch operation on this site. If you have any indication that there may be tanks on the project site, please state this and explain your reasoning. • The project will increase recreational demand but we can find no analysis of this issue in the Draft EIR. Where is the nearest open field for recreational play? There's no place in this neighborhood to throw a frisbee, play catch, touch football, volleyball. The City should study the recreational needs on the west side. • Will the project's houses have solar -ready roofs? What is the carbon footprint of this .? -3T�> s != ® The Victoria homebuilder went bankrupt and did not fix defects in construction and site preparation. The City should require that Davidon post an adequate bond, guaranty, or trust fund to cover the long -term possibilities of adverse impacts on the homeowners and the City. ® What will happen if the developer of the Davidon site goes bankrupt after all of the trees are cut down and the site is graded? The City must require that the developer grade only that portion of the site where development is imminent. ® Kelly Creek and its tributaries are critical natural resources, yet the project proposes dense development adjacent to these waterways. The project tries to downplay the existence of the large D Street tributary, running it through a culvert so that houses can be built on top of it with no setback. The project also proposes excessive density at the edge of the City's urban growth boundary. The EIR should include an alternative that clusters houses on the less - sensitive parts of the site, away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries, and away from the urban growth boundary. Also, if there is a plan to continue grazing cattle on parts of the land, what will be done to exclude them from the creek so they don't continue (as they do now) to affect the water quality? The project would build a new trail along Kelly Creek that would run behind and between the project houses' back fences, on both sides. This design would result in a degraded park experience for walkers. The EIR should mitigate this recreational impact by clearly separating the private and public areas here and by building on only one side of the creek, if at all. ,2_3 9 `_f Comments n Davidon Homes Draft Jim Stoutenberg [jimstoutenberg @comcast.net] Sent - Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10 :10 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Ms. Alicia Giudice Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 Dear Alicia Giudice: Concerning the environmental impact of the Davidon Homes application by non - Petaluma commercial interests, the plan by local residents to help the city acquire the Arnold Scott Ranch property to expand the Helen Putnam Regional Park is a plan with absolutely no environmental impact whatsoever. The Davidon project doesn't come close. If the Helen Putnam Regional Park, named for a former mayor of Petaluma, was a good idea then, why not now? Sincerely, James Stoutenberg Registered Sonoma County Voter 537 Rosewood Circle Petaluma, CA 94954 (707) 559 -3150 P_?J9'�_ Please ni r this development Anna Simson [anna_simson66 @yahoo.com] Senffuesday, April 4, 2017 3:08 PM To: Gludice, Alicia Dear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Furthermore, if turned into parkland, it will provide significant mental health benefits from all the people who will be able to walk and play there. I can use Shollenberger Natural Preserve as an example. Every single day, the parking lot is full, and probably 100 people per day (or more) use the park to exercise, unwind, and reconnect to nature. This is a huge and significant part of the health of our community. Even though we live in beautiful surroundings, most open space within easy driving distance for Petalumans is private land. Each piece of public land is a precious resource, far exceeding in value what can be gained in a short -term development to benefit a tiny group of people, further stratifying our already unequal society. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Anna Simson 2_5% D'havidon Development Kara Sherrill [karashrrll @yahoo.com] 5ent.Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:23 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Kara Sherrill Sent from my iPhone a - ;�7- e Adam Klein [aklein @gmaii.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:03 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Alicia, Thank you for the work you do for our city. I am writing with regard to the DEIR for David Development by Windsor and D Street. My family lives on 10th Street just down from D Street. One of our main concerns with the project is the traffic implications. In the draft El one of the non - signaled intersections that was overlooked is D Street & 10th Street. Many drivers use 10 Street as a cut over to access B Street or other alternate streets to access downtown Petaluma. In the 2.5 years we've lived we have noticed a marked increase in traffic on D Street as well as cutover traffic down 10th Street. Just yesterday at approximately 8 :20am I was taking our daughter to school which has us go down D Street toward downtown (a left turn off of 10th Street). We had to wait 5 minutes for a break in traffic so we could make the turn. This has become the new normal getting onto D Street. As I sit here (8pm) writing this not a minute goes by where a car doesn't go speed down 10th Street to cutover to access Petaluma. This is a major concern as they are children in the neighborhood, including our daughter. When spring and summer arrives is gets only worse as visitors use the road. Adding more housing on this already saturated road will cause noise and exacerbate existing traffic issues. The other significant issue is the aesthetics of the projects. As indicated on page 4.1 -14: activel still.com I @daibew • � . / / 1 Adam Klein [aklein @gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8 :10 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: petrp @comcast.net; councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; daveldngpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com Dear Alicia, Thank you for the work you do for our city. I am writing with regard to the DEIR for David Development by Windsor and D Street. My family lives on 10th Street just down from D Street. One of our main concerns with the project is the traffic implications. In the draft EIR one of the non - signaled intersections that was overlooked is D Street & 10th Street. Many drivers use 10 Street as a cut over to access B Street or other alternate streets to access downtown Petaluma. In the 2.5 years we've lived we have noticed a marked increase in traffic on D Street as well as cutover traffic down 10th Street. Just yesterday at approximately 8:20am I was taking our daughter to school which has us go down D Street toward downtown (a left turn off of 10th Street). We had to wait 5 minutes for a break in traffic so we could make the turn. This has become the new normal getting onto D Street. As I sit here (8pm) writing this not a minute goes by where a car doesn't go speed down 10th Street to cutover to access Petaluma. This is a major concern as they are children in the neighborhood, including our daughter. When spring and summer arrives is gets only worse as visitors use the road. Adding more housing on this already saturated road will cause noise and exacerbate existing traffic issues. The other significant issue is the aesthetics of the projects. As indicated on page 4.1 -14: However, the proposed project would be highly visible from the vantage point on D ,Street, and would result in a potentially significant impact on scenic views from this roadway. Additionally it would significantly impact the view from Windsor Street and Helen Putnam Park. Any development will have significant issues on the hillside view and the feel of the area. The proposed mitigation efforts would have very minimal effect on the aesthetics of the site. As I review the EIR further I will provide more comments. Sincerely, Adam Klein activel still.com I @ daibew -f ;q9 Helen un Nina Caputo [nina.caputo9 @gmaii.com] Sent .-Tuesday, April 4, 2017 10:44 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Alicia Giudice, I am writing in advance of the review of the Environmental Impact Report for the Davidon development near D St. and Windsor at the Planning Commission, to ask that you please consider the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. As a resident and homeowner in Petaluma, and 30 year resident of Sonoma County, I have watched the open space that inspired me to settle in this area dwindle. I was so lucky to have a childhood of open fields to lay back and watch the clouds form, or tall hills to climb and look at views of the beauty and vastness of nature. Once it is gone, we can never get it back. With all the population increase and subsequent development in Petaluma, it is more important than ever to preserve the space we have, and to honor the beautiful Helen Putnam park by keeping its surrounding land open and accessible. Not just for me and you and our generations, but for the children of today and tomorrow, who deserve the opportunity to explore and appreciate open space and connect with nature. And for them to learn that what is valuable in life is not always monetary. Thank you for your consideration, Nina Caputo Petaluma resident since 2006 Proposal for Windsor & D Street Alan Cooper [alan @cooper.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:48 PM To: mayordavidglass @gmaii.com; Giudice, Alicia; dianaegomez @gmaii.com David, Alice, Diana, My name is Alan Cooper. I live on a ranch about 5 miles outside of Petaluma on the D Street extension. I drive by the property at Windsor and D Street every day. Please do not allow this property to be developed. It is part of the agricultural heritage of this area. The East side of Petaluma was overbuilt and we should not do this to the West side. Urban infill such as the excellent Theatre District and Old Mill downtown is the way to add needed housing. thanx, Alan cooper / design & strategy for a digital World + Alan Cooper Software Alchemist www.cooper.com @MrAlanCooper medium.com/ mralancooper "It is not enough to do your best. You must know what to do and then do your best. " —W. Edwards Deming M julia@juliacortrecruiting.com Sent:Thursday, April 6, 2017 1:02 PM To: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; William Wolpert [wolpert @sonic.net]; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia To the planning commission: From Petaluma Resident. Julia Cort. 830 D Street. 707 - 480 -4449 I was unable to speak so I'm sending you my comments by email. Thank you for reading. Based on the comments from DEIR at Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting, there seems to be a significant cumulative mitigation factor to the DEIR for the Davidon Development project. It was noted in most impact points by the DEIR last night that mitigation would be necessary to attain satisfactory acceptance levels by the study. These mitigations add up to the point that this project should be rejected with no houses built. This part of Petaluma is unique and beautiful. D Street is historically unique and beautiful and may just be the most beautiful street in Petaluma. Points noted below will destroy that charm forever. Please note what a special area the Arnold Scott Ranch is - and don't let the Davidon development project take it away. Once it's built on you can't get it back. The open space is gone forever. 1. Traffic congestion on D Street at all points not limited to Windsor and Lakeville cross streets. Specifically D at El Rose /Sunnyslope and D at Petaluma Blvd. are very congested areas. D Steet traffic congestion is at an all time high as is and cannot withstand more traffic due to construction -phase heavy duty equipment and post - construction absorption of traffic generated by 66 new homes. 2. Speeding on D Street is causing safety concerns. Speed limits need to be lowered on D Street to protect all individuals. Over the past 10 years I am personally aware that two cars have crashed into 2 homes on D Street between 8th and 4 Streets, cats and deer have been killed on the the section of D Street between 8th Street and Sunnyslope. 3. Air quality decline from more vehicles both during and post construction. Number of cars driving D Street during commute time to be noted. It is already difficult to even get out of our driveway during commute times. 4. Flooding exists now and storm drains are overflowing. Consider the elevated water table of the D Street corridor and study how the run -off of new home construction will impact the water drainage. Our basements flood as do yards and streets. How will additional use of HOA landscape chemicals to service new medians, public space parks, and 66 homes further impact water quality of Kelly Creek? 5. Numerous pedestrians take walks daily on sidewalks of D Street enjoy its lovely charm. What happens to them during the construction phase? Will they no longer be able to walk the sidewalks during the 3+ year construction period? 6. Cyclists on D Street. This is an established route for many area cyclists both for leisure and for bicycle races and fundraising events. Will they be considered? How will they safely negotiate the construction with trucks and additional traffic? g_L�o2_ 7. The safety of our children on this school corridor is in danger. EIR should study school foot traffic in morning and afternoon and propose a plan for ensuring safety during heavy truck and equipment movement times. Note that D & Sunnyslope is a busy school travel corridor as well as D and 8th streets and D and 10th 8. Truck and equipment movement noise will impact residents of entire D St. corridor in addition to Windsor residents as outlined in EIR. 39 months of early morning haul trucks will be felt by those living in older homes along D Street with oftentimes less that 50 feet proximity to street. EIR should address all of proposed impacted D St. trucking route. Our house shakes and the windows vibrate when trucks pass by as it is now. 9. What are the EIR "mitigations available" that were mentioned tonight? What degree of impact will they have? Nearly every item required mitigation per the EIR. What is the mitigation plan for endangered red - legged frog population? And presently are there findings as to that plan's proven success in similar situations? What is the mitigation plan for each of the issues we address above and what are the proven successes of such plans in similar applications? In summary: These mitigations are cumulative and to the point that the project should be rejected altogether! Regards, Julia Cort Julia Cort Recruiting julia@juliacortrecruitino.com 707 - 775 -3624 `)-q0'3 Comments u i e avi J c Ranch r nvir I Impact Report gaffneylegal @gmail.com on behalf of Brian Gaffney [brian @gaffneylegal.com] Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:56 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: mayordavidglass @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @ gmail.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; Susan Jaderstrom Baderstrom @comcast.net]; Tamara S. Galanter [Galanter @smwlaw.com]; Gregory L. Colvin [colvin @adlercolvin.com] Attachments:Comments on Draft EIR 4.7. -1.pdf (263 KB) Dear Ms. Guidice, Mr. Mayor, Honorable City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members, This office represents Petalumans for Responsible Planning, a local organization concerned about proper environmental planning in the City of Petaluma, in regards to the proposed proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch Residential Development project and the revised Davidon/Scott Ranch Draft EIR (2017 EIR). Attached hereto please find detailed comments about the 2017 EIR. Thank you for your careful attention to this matter. Brian Gaffney LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC 446 Old County Road, Suite 100 -310 Pacifica, CA 94044 650 219 3 187 office www. ag ffneylegal.com brian@ gaffneylegal .com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This and any accompanying pages contain information from LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC which may be confidential and /or legally privileged. The information is intended to be for the sole use of the individual or entity named above. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 -2521. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication a -yon LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY, A Professional Corporation 446 Old County Road, Suite 100 -310 Pacifica, California 94044 (650 ) 219 3187 Phone brian@gaffneylegai.com April 7, 2017 City of Petaluma Community Development Department Attn: Alicia Giudice 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 -2610 agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us RE: Davidon/Scott Ranch 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Guidice, Mr. Mayor, Honorable City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members, This office represents Petalumans for Responsible Planning, a local organization concerned about proper environmental planning in the City of Petaluma, in regards to the proposed proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch Residential Development project (Project) and the revised Davidon/Scott Ranch Draft EIR (2017 EIR). Attached hereto please find detailed comments about the 2017 EIR. Because the 2017 EIR is fundamentally and basically inadequate, meaningful public review has been precluded. If the 2017 EIR is revised to address the errors detailed herein, it must be recirculated for further public review and comment. Thank you for your careful attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Brian Gaffney cc: mayordavid lass ,grnail.com, councilman .albertson(p mail.com, teresa4petalumagcomcast.net, davekingpceg mail.com, mthealy @sbcglobal.net, councilmemberkearneyQme.com, kathleencmilleroff ce a,gmail.com, jenpierrepetaluma a,yahoo.com, wolpertAsonic.net, jocg1)=eh(,yahoo.com, richardglacehouselinen.com, dianaegomez(a7gmail.com, ginamarie.bl2ggmail.com, councilman.albertsonga gmail.com, iaderstrom@comcastmet. Galanter @smwlaw.com 1 I. The 2017 EIR Fails To Properly Describe the Proposed Project. An EIR must include sufficient detail about the proposed project for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. CEQA Guideline 15124. An accurate, stable project description is required for an "informative and legally sufficient EIR." San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced [San Joaquin Raptor II] (2007) 149 Ca1.AppAth 645, 655 quoting County ofInyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199. Even where an EIR is adequate in all other respects, a "truncated project concept" violates CEQA. San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. Cnty. of Stanislaus [San Joaquin Raptor l] (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713,730. A. The Project Description is Inaccurate in Regards to Maintenance of the Urban Separator. The EIR Project Description at section 2.3 asserts that a 300 -foot Urban Separator would be "maintained" between the proposed development and the southern boundary of the project site. 2017 EIR p. 2.0 -2. Also, the 2017 EIR claims that the only change to this Urban Separator is "an additional public access pathway along the Urban Growth Boundary" will not be included. In fact, the proposed Project will not maintain a 300 -foot Urban Separator, and the loss of the public access pathway is not the only change proposed for the Urban Separator. A 40 -space parking lot is proposed to be constructed within the urban separator. 2017 EIR p. 3.0 -18. In addition, substantial grading (with 8 -foot high benches), retaining walls and drainage facilities are proposed to be built within the Urban Separator. The Project proposes to create "a cut slope that would extend up to 120 feet into the proposed Urban Separator along the southern edge of the site." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -35. Along this cut slope, concrete ditches will extend "almost 1,000 feet at the top of the slope through the Urban Separator." Id. B. The Actual Number of Residential Lots and the Limits of Development Are Uncertain. The Project Description states that Option A would develop 66 single - family residential lots and Option B would develop 63 single - family residential lots. 2017 EIR p. 2.0 -2. The Project Description fails to disclose that the actual number of proposed residential lots proposed is substantially smaller. Petaluma General Plan Policy 2 -P -68, which "specifically applies to the project site," requires that development on the project site "maintain a minimum of a 100 [foot] setback along Kelly Creels and its tributaries, and preserve and maintain habitat areas and trees." The proposed Project does not intend to comply with this General Plan policy. Instead, the Project proposes to revise this policy such that the minimum 100 foot setback will be a "100 [foot] residence and fence setback" not along Kelly Creek, but measured from the centerline of Kelly Creek. Z{ At p. 4.3 -66, the 2017 EIR first reveals that "under Option A," there will be 56 residential lots: lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31 are eliminated under the Project's proposed Policy 2 -P -68, and lots 51 and 66 are eliminated for non- compliance with General Plan policy 4 -P -1. At p. 43-66, the 2017 EIR first reveals that "under Option B," there will be also be 56 residential lots: lots 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31 are eliminated under the Project's proposed Policy 2 -P -68, and lots 51 and 66 are eliminated for non - compliance with General Plan policy 4 -P -1. Further, at EIR p. 4.3 -40 to -42, the EIR. first discloses that the actual Project will (1) restrict lots "northeast of the stock pond;" (2) restrict residential lots and paved roadways a minimum of 100 feet from the east side of the realigned drainage; (3) restrict residential lots a minimum of 300 feet east of the stock pond; (4) eliminate (or relocate) lots 59, 60 and 61; (5) remove lots as part of a "larger undisturbed upland corridor between the stock pond and D Street tributary along the southern edge of the site;" (6) eliminate residential lots that extend over the D Street tributary. However, the EIR fails to disclose the limits of grading or the number of residential lots that the proposed Project will entail with these restrictions and modifications. For these reasons, the 2017 EIR's project description is not stable or accurate, and therefore the EIR is not legally sufficient. H. The 2017 EIR Fans To Properly Analvze Land Use Impacts. Under Impact LU -2, the 2017 EIR erroneously claims that the project would be consistent with Policy 1 -P -18 and Policy 1- P- 20.2017 EIR p. 4.3 -13. Policy 1 -P -18 requires the City to maintain a permanent open space around the City of Petaluma by the continuation of the Urban Separator and the use of an Urban Separator Pathway. Policy 1 -P -20 requires the City to maintain a standard width for the urban separator at a minimum of 300 feet except in those areas where it may be variable due to topography, physical or ownership constraints, or is already established at more or less than 300 feet. In fact, the proposed Project will be inconsistent with Policy 1:P -18 and Policy 1- P-20. A 40 -space parking lot is proposed to be constructed within the urban separator as part of Option A (66 lots), Option B (63 lots), Alternative 2 (47 lots), and Alternative 3 (28 lots). See 2017 EIR pp. 1.0 -2; 2.0 -2; 2.0 -5, 3.0 -18. The proposed Project will also be inconsistent with Policy 1 -P -18 and Policy 1 -P- 20 because substantial grading (with 8 -foot high benches), retaining walls and drainage facilities are proposed to be built within the Urban Separator. The Project proposes to create "a cut slope that would extend up to 120 feet into the proposed Urban Separator along the southern edge of the site." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -35. In addition, along this cut slope P-qz�ll "drainage improvements" consisting of concrete ditches will extend "almost 1,000 feet at the top of the slope through the Urban Separator." Id. Further, the 2017 EIR fails to disclose or consider the 40 -space parking lot in the Urban Separator in considering consistency with Policy 2- P- 68.2017 EIR p. 4.8 -16 to - 17. The 2017 EIR's discussion of consistency with Policy 4 -P -6 fails to consider (1) destruction of trees resulting from tree root damage during construction discussed in biological resources (2017 EIR p. 4.3 -48), or (2) foreseeable loss of trees from periodic inundation during storm events (2017 EIR p. 4.3 -61) or (3) that the project site does not have sufficient land area to accommodate the tree replacement plantings required under the City's ordinance. EIR p. 4.3 -66. The failure to honestly evaluate these impacts undermines the EIR's conclusion that the "project would not conflict with the General Plan land use designations for the project site, and this impact would be less than significant." 2017 EIR. p. 4.8 -7. Further, the EIR has failed to discuss mitigations for the conflicts discussed above. And, the failure to honestly evaluate the conflicts with the General Plan undermines the land use cumulative impact analysis. III. The 2017 EIR Fails To Properly Analyze Hazards And Hazardous Materials Impacts. The 2017 EIR concludes that hazards and hazardous materials impacts are less than significant, and therefore does not analyze these potential impacts further. 2017 EIR pp. 4.0 -10 to -13. This conclusion is contradicted by expert comments and by the EIR itself. Matt Hagemann, a professional geologist and certified hydrogeologist, in commenting on the 2013 Draft EIR provided substantial evidence of hazards from a bombing target site, as well as from a private residence cleanup site directly adjacent to the proposed Project. These Hagemann comments are being resubmitted as comment on the 2017 EIR. This substantial evidence creates a fair argument that hazardous conditions — which may pose hazards to workers and future residents — exist on the Project site, but were not disclosed in the 2017 EIR. The EIR must include analysis of these potentially significant impacts. The CEQA Checklist for Hazards considers whether "the project create[s] a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment ?" (See http: // resources. ca. gov /cega/gaidelines /Appendix— G.html.) The 2017 EIR does not evaluate the project under this standard. However, the evidence submitted by Mr. Hagemann regarding hazards from a bombing target site and private residence cleanup directly adjacent to the proposed Project necessitates that a revised EIR consider the Project impacts under this CEQA standard. Further, the bombing target 4 site and private residence cleanup site are both listed at the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website. In addition, the 2013 EIR. acknowledged that that "construction activities would introduce the potential for fuel or hazardous material spills on the project site. The potential degradation of surface or groundwater quality through ...through fuel/hazardous material spills during project construction would represent a significant impact. 2013 DEIR, p. 4.7 -25. This admission supports Mr. Hagemarm's conclusions that there are potentially significant hazards / hazardous material Project impacts. A revised EIR should also analyze the potentially cumulative impacts of the Project in conjunction with impacts from past projects, including the Bomb Target Site Sonoma and the adjacent private residence cleanup site. IV. The 2017 EIR Fails To Properly Analyze Geologic Impacts And Mitigation Measures. A. The Impact GEO -1 Analysis is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR states that the project would likely experience strong ground shaking which "could affect the proposed residential structures and result in seismically - induced landslides in areas of moderate to steep slopes underlain by thick soils, weak or fractured rock (i.e., much of the Franciscan melange bedrock), or loose fill. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to hazards from seismic activity. The impact would be potentially significant." 2017 EIR p. 4.5 -15, emphasis added. However, the 2017 EIR fails to disclose which of the 18 landslides on the project site are the "moderate to steep slopes" underlain by the susceptible soil or fill which could expose people and structures to seismically- induced landslides. Moderately steep bedrock slopes occur on the north and south portions of the project site. Under CEQA, the public should be informed which of the 18 landslides have the potential to expose people and houses to seismically - induced landslides. B. GEO Mitigations Reliant on the 2015 Design -Level Geotechnical Report Are Inadequate. The 2017 EIR states that the "proposed project shall implement all required recommendations contained in the 2015 Design -Level Geotechnical Report, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to site preparation, excavation, fill placement and compaction; foundations; pavement design; lateral earth pressures and resistance; and surface drainage control." However, the EIR does not disclose what those measures are. It is impossible for the public to evaluate what is proposed as mitigation. Mitigations for Impacts GEO -1, GEO -3, GEO -4 - which all vaguely rely on the 2015 Design -Level Geotechnical Report — impermissibly fail to specify what the mitigation measures are, and thus the EIR is adequate. 5 )-qOJ C. The Impact GEO -2 Analysis Fails to Adequately Analyze Loss of Topsoil. The 2017 EIR discloses that the proposed project would result in soil erosion AND loss of topsoil on the project site. 2017 EIR p. 4.5 -16. The impact related to erosion is considered potentially significant and mitigations are identified to address the erosion impact. However, the 2017 EIR does not disclose if the substantial loss of topsoil is significant or insignificant. The failure to analyze the significance of loss of topsoil is particularly troubling as "loss of topsoil" is identified by the 2017 EIR as a standard of significance. D. The Analysis of Mitigation Measure GEO -2 is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR does not disclose mitigation measures for the substantial loss of topsoil. The 2017 EIR proposes that surface runoff shall be controlled to direct flows away from potentially unstable site slopes, but does not disclose which of the 18 landslides on site this flow direction measure applies to. Details about irrigation system location(s) and discharge(s) are impermissibly deferred until after EIR certification. This mapping and subdrain location disclosure. should occur prior to EIR certification in order that the impacts are disclosed to the public and decision makers, and not improperly deferred. The 2017 EIR concludes that "implementation of the project- specific SWPPP and Mitigation Measure GEO -2 would reduce long -term soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level." 2017 EIR p. 4.5 -17. However, this conclusion is contradicted by the EIR's admission that because "the details of the project- specific SWPPP are not available at this time, the [SWPPP] plan cannot be evaluated to determine whether it includes the appropriate permanent erosion control measures that would minimize erosion once the project is constructed." 2017 EIR p. 4.5 -16. E. Mitigation Measure GEO -3 Does Not Consider Excavation Impacts on Other Resources. Neither the 2017 EIR geology section nor the biological resources section considers the impact of the proposed excavation mitigations on biological resources including, inter alia, California red legged frog, wetlands and streams. F. The EIR Fails to Disclose Which Lots Will Be Affected by Significant Impact GEO -4. The 2017 EIR states that "structures and foundations constructed across the transition line between out and fill could experience significant differential expansion and/or settlement on the project site. Cracked or damaged foundations could pose a r ,� ^Lt In danger to the structures or future occupants on the project site, resulting in a potentially significant impact." 2017 EIR p. 4.5 -20. Yet, the 2017 EIR fails to identify which of the Project's 66 lots are located across this transition line and thus will be exposed to this significant impact. This disclosure of impacts is necessary for the public and decision makers to evaluate Options A, B, and the proposed alternatives. The 2017 EIR states that "Groundwater seepage is expected to occur in swales, at the bases of slopes and in isolated pockets in the lower portions of the project site, which could adversely affect the homes constructed in those areas. The impact would be potentially significant." 2017 EIR p. 4.5 -20. The 2017 EIR fails to identify which of the Project's 66 homes will be exposed to this significant impact. This disclosure of impacts is likewise necessary for the public and decision makers to evaluate Options A, B, and the proposed alternatives. V. The 2017 EIR Fails To Properly Analyze Aesthetic Impacts And Mitigation Measures. A. The EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Impact AES- 1(Scenic Vistas). The 2017 EIR fails to adequately analyze impacts to scenic vistas. When siting and designing the project, "consideration should be given to the potential visual impact of the project on community views of hillsides and ridgelines." IZO 16.050.D. In implementing the Zoning Ordinance, the City is to "ensure the compatibility of the proposed project with its site, surrounding properties, and the community." IZO 1.303.B.2. To ensure that development is in compliance with the goals, policies, and implementing strategies of Petaluma's General Plan, the City is to maintain the consistent visual character of Petaluma's hillside backdrop. IZO 16.020.F. The purpose of the visual analysis is to simulate the impact of the proposed project within the context of its surroundings. IZO 16.050.D. Likewise the Davidon 2013 EIR stated that scenic vistas "refer to a setting that is important on a communitywide basis and helps define the community." 2013 Davidon Draft EIR, p.4.2 -28. The 2017 EIR fails to analyze whether the project will have a substantial adverse impacts on the scenic vistas from Helen Putnam Regional Park, while acknowledging that "views of the project site are available from Helen Putnam Regional Park." 2017 EIR p.4.2 -13. "Views of the project site are available from the Ridge Trail located to the west of the project site on Helen Putnam Regional Park. From this vantage point, the project site consists of rolling hillside covered with grasses and the tree -lined Kelly Creek corridor." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -2. By omitting consideration of scenic vistas from this park, the 2017 EIR fails to adequately analyze Project impacts to scenic vistas. 7 P -4m B. The EIR Fails to Analyze Impact AES -2 (Scenic Resources) in Regards to Option B. 1. Option B Impacts. The EIR fails to properly analyze the Option B impacts of substantially damaging scenic resources. Under Option B, at least 119 trees would be removed, 88 of which qualify as protected trees under the City of Petaluma Tree Protection Ordinance. 2017 EIR pp. 4.1 -15 to -16. "Scenic resources are interpreted to include numerous large trees, including oaks." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -15. The EIR concludes that Option B "would directly affect project site scenic resources that are visible to persons traveling along Windsor Drive and D Street." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -16. However, the EIR fails to analyze whether this Option B adverse scenic resource impact would be significant. Instead, the EIR impermissibly discusses mitigation — in the form of replacement of removed trees — before considering whether the impact would be significant. `By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA." Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 -56. "Absent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts ...it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required, or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered." Id. at 656. 2. Urban Separator Impacts. In analyzing scenic resource impacts, the 2017 EIR states that "a 300 -foot Urban Separator along the southern boundary of the project site would be maintained." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -34. This is not true. As discussed above, a 40 -space parking lot is to be constructed within the urban separator. Also, substantial grading with 8 -foot high benches, retaining walls and drainage facilities are proposed to be built within the Urban Separator. The "graded cut slope itself would greatly alter the natural topography and existing vegetative cover through this area." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -36. Thus, the 2017 EIR's conclusion of no significant scenic resource impact is not supported by substantial evidence. C. The Analysis of Impact AES -3 is Flawed. The EIR reasons that the construction phase visual effects would be less than significant because (1) construction would be short term and (2) changes at the project site would be similar to those commonly observed on construction sites in urban areas. 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -17. This discussion in flawed in two ways. First, direct and indirect impacts must be analyzed, both in the short term and the long term. CEQA Guideline 15126.2. There is nothing in CEQA that directs that an impact that is "short term" is per se insignificant. For example, the 119 or 120 trees (Option B versus Option A) will all be lost during the construction phase. Second, the EIR violates CEQA by comparing impacts to "construction sites in urban areas" rather to the existing environmental setting — as CEQA requires. Here, the E:3 existing environmental setting consists of "large areas of grassy hillsides," Kelly Creek surrounded by oak and bay trees, oak trees and rock outcroppings. 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -1. It is this baseline that the EIR must consider in determining whether the project would substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the project area. Under Project Completion and Occupancy, the EIR fails to determine if the adverse visual character and visual quality impacts will be significant without mitigation. Instead, the EIR states only that "with mitigation the impact on visual character and quality of the site would be reduced to less than significant levels." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -34. "Absent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts ...it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required, or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered." Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 -56. D. The Discussion of Mitigation Measure AES -3 is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR. fails to explain how construction staging within project boundaries and use of appropriate screening will reduce 43 months of construction to less than significant where the significant aesthetic impacts identified by the EIR are not limited to the "equipment staging areas." The Project construction will include site preparation, demolition, grading and asphalt paving. During project construction, dump trucks and other trucks hauling demolition or grading materials will be required to use local roadways. The Project site is surrounded by existing single - family homes, Helen Putnam Regional Park, and a County designated scenic route. The 2017 EIR does not explain how opaque fencing will mitigate these impacts from the rolling hills and roadways surrounding the site. E. The Analysis of Impact AES -4 is Flawed. The EIR fails to properly analyze whether the new light would be significant. The EIR acknowledges that the Project will "add multiple new visible light sources that could detract from the natural scenic vista of the southern hills." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -35. Yet, instead of determining if this will be a significant impact under the stated significance criteria, the EIR impermissibly immediately discusses Section 21 -040 Article D of the IZO mitigation. "Absent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts ...it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required, or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered." Lotus at 656. F. The EIR's Analysis of Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts is Inadequate.. 1. The Cumulative Aesthetic Discussion Avoids Consideration of Past Projects. The 2017 EIR states that the geographic area for the evaluation of potential cumulative visual impacts is the immediate vicinity (0.5 miles) of the Davidon/Scott 0 a-913 Ranch project site and park trail project. Yet, the EIR impermissibly excludes past projects within this vicinity. For example, there is no consideration of (1) the directly adjacent Victoria Subdivsion located approximately 50 feet from the project site, (2) the Summit above Petaluma subdivision to the north, or (3) the Pinnacle Heights Subdivision located across D Street approximately 300 feet east of the site. The 2017 EIR impermissibly only considers "one project, Sunnyslope II," which is not even included in the references section for aesthetic impacts. The analysis of cumulative aesthetic AES -1 improperly excludes consideration of past projects. The EIR states that "visual impacts of the proposed project would not combine with other existing and future development to result in a significant cumulative impact with regard to scenic vistas or visual character." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -38. The analysis of cumulative aesthetic AES -2 likewise improperly excludes consideration of past projects, focusing solely on existing and future development. "`Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2), italics added. As the California Supreme Court reaffirmed, the "statutory injunction to assess `the incremental effects of an individual project ... in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects' .... signifies an obligation to consider the present project in the context of a realistic historical account of relevant prior activities that have had significant environmental impacts." Envtl. Prot. Info. Ur. v. California Dept of Forestry & Fire Prot., 44 Cal, 4th 459, 524 (2008). 2. Cumulative Impact AES -1 is Internally Inconsistent. The 2017 EIR is internally inconsistent regarding significant cumulative aesthetic impacts. The EIR states that "[ fjuture development in the City of Petaluma detailed in Table 4.0 -1, including the proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch project and the nearby Sunnyslope 1I project, along with past and present development, may result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to vistas and visual character." 2017 EIR p. 4.1 -38. Yet, the 2017 EIR concludes that the proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch project and the park trail project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact with regard to scenic vistas, visual character, or scenic resources. Both statements can't be true. The EIR. acknowledges that "implementation of Option A would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on scenic resources from the removal of the barn complex," but concludes there would be no cumulative scenic resource impact as "this impact would not combine with a similar impact due to the Sunnyslope II project." There is no information in the 2017 EIR or the EIR references to support this conclusion. Further, this analysis of cumulative scenic resource impacts again improperly ignores past proj ects. 10 2 -9,1� 2. The EIR Improperly Relies on a Project Specific Mitigation for Cumulative Impact AES -2. The EIR acknowledges that "Future development [alone] in the City of Petaluma detailed in Table 4.0 -1, including the nearby Sunnyslope 11 project, may result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to light and glare." A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact." CEQA Guideline 15130, subd. (a)(3). Here, however, the 2017 EIR uses the project - specific mitigation to conclude there will be no cumulative lighting impacts — even though "the nearby Sunnyslope 11 project may result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to light and glare." VI. The 2017 EIR Fails To Properly Analyze Cumulative Air Impacts. The EIR states that the "geographical cumulative context for the evaluation of cumulative air quality impacts is the SFBAAB," the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Yet, the analysis of Cumulative Impact AIR-1 appears to be improperly limited to other projects "within 1,000 feet of the project site." P. 4.2 -36. The cumulative air impacts analysis does not consider fugitive dust emissions. VIII. The 2017 EIR Fails To Properly Analyze Biological Resource Impacts And Mitigation Measures. A. The Biological Environmental Setting Avoids Discussion of Sensitive Species. 1. California tiger salamander As Dr. Shawn Smallwood commented, the survey for California tiger salamander conducted in 2005, and described in the 2013 DEIR for the project, was not an effective means of tiger salamander survey. 2. Western pond turtle There is no disclosure of western pond turtle in the EIR despite that Figure. 4.3 -5 shows nearby occurences of this species from the CNDDB, 3. California red -leg eg_d frog [CRLF] The EIR concludes that is "unlikely" that Kelly Creek pools are used for CRLF breeding "because of a lack of emergent vegetation on which to lay egg masses. Smallwood, based on this experience, contests the absence of emergent vegetation as a proper basis to conclude CRLF are not breeding. 11 '9-If/ O B. The EIR Inadequately Analyzes Impact BIO- 1(Substantial Adverse Effects On Special- Status Species). Impacts to White - Tailed Kite Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon. The 2017 EIR fails to analyze whether the Project will affect white - tailed kite, golden eagle or peregrine falcon, despite acknowledging that the Project provides kite "foraging opportunities," and that golden eagle and peregrine falcon may forage in the area. Dr. Shawn Smallwood has opined that the habitat is ideal for kites, and that golden eagles use environments like the proposed Project site. There is substantial evidence that the California tiger salamander does occur on the site, and that the survey methods used by the EIR consultant did not comply with the required protocol. The EIR failed to analyze Project impacts to this species. 2. Impacts to Western Pond Turtle and California Tiger Salamander. The 2017 EIR fails to analyze impacts to the western pond turtle despite that Figure. 4.3 -5 shows nearby occurences of this species. 3. Impacts to California Red Legged Frog. Dr. Shawn Smallwood has opined that "the fact that the [CRLF] species occurs on the site suggests that it is successfully breeding, either in the stock pond or in the stream pools, or in both." Therefore, the EIR conclusion that "no loss of breeding habitat for CRLF would occur as a result of project implementation" is not supported by substantial evidence. For CRLF, the 2017 EIR discusses various impacts — mortality during construction in aquatic habitat and uplands, loss of CRLF foraging and estivation habitat, creating barriers to CRLF dispersal, increased CRLF predation, increased harassment — but fails to disclose if these impacts will be significant ! Further, the EIR fails to disclose if the Project, even after mitigation, will result in "take" in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Instead, the EIR impermissibly discusses Zentner's proposed Wetland Mitigation Program before disclosing which frog impacts would be significant and the severity of those impacts. `By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA." (Lotus at 655 -56.) C. The EIR Impermissibly Defers Formulation of Mitigation Measure 1310- Ia. Mitigation Measure 13I0-1a impermissibly defers mitigation formulation until after EIR certification. If, as the EIR asserts, the applicant will implement mitigation 12 9- 4i � measures to avoid, minimize, or offset impacts to species, the EIR should disclose to the public now what those measures are. D. Mitigation Measure BIO -1b is Vague and Constitutes Impermissible Deferral of Mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO -lb is flawed both because it is impermissibly vague, and constitutes deferral of mitigation without performance standards. The EIR does not explain: (1) which proposed lots will be restricted or modified "northeast of the stock pond," (2) which residential lots and paved roadways will be restricted a minimum of 100 feet from the "east side of the realigned drainage," (3) which residential development lots will be restricted "a minimum of 300 feet east of the stock pond," (4) where lots 59, 60 and 61 will be relocated to, (5) which lots will be removed as part of the proposed "larger undisturbed upland corridor between the stock pond and D Street tributary along the southern edge of the site," (6) which proposed residential development "that extends over D Street tributary" will be eliminated or where these lots will be "relocated," and (7) which lots will be eliminated by relocation south of the biotreatment basin and multi- use trail segment near the D Street tributary confluence. Further, specifying that "at least" certain lots will be restricted, eliminated or relocated, only begs the question of which other lots the EIR is referring to but refuses to disclose to the public and decision makers. The EIR acknowledges that "project revisions are required to provide minimum habitat avoidance of essential habitat for CRLF necessary to mitigate potential impacts under CEQA." However, absent a determination regarding the significance of these CRLF impacts it is impossible for the public or decision makers to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered. Lotus at 656. E. Mitigation Measure BIO -le is Flawed. This mitigation promises a "Final California Red- Legged Frog Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared. Given that this project has been under consideration since 2004 and was the subject of a Draft EIR in 2013, at this point the EIR should include at least a "draft" frog mitigation plan. However, the EIR does not provide this plan, instead it is deferred until after EIR certification. The 2017 EIR does not disclose how much CRLF habitat will be lost as a result of the Project or how much off -site CRLF is proposed to be preserved. The 2017 OR does not define where the "similar quality" California red - legged frog off -site habitat is located. 13 ,�- q I-/ F. The EIR's Analysis of Impact 11I0-2 is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR states that Project "grading" alone would affect 3.4 acres of native grasslands, 1.51 acres of oak woodlands and 0.89 acres of riparian scrub and woodland, and 0.14 acres of seasonal wetlands, but fails to estimate the acreage from all phases of the Project. Further, the 2017 EIR does not disclose the location of the "affected" 3.4 acres of native grasslands, 0.89 acres of riparian scrub and woodland, and 0.14 acres of seasonal wetlands . The Figures in EIR section 4.3 do not superimpose the proposed Project roads, detention basin and retaining walls on the maps of these sensitive communities The 2017 EIR's analysis of the number and acreage of trees destroyed by the Project, including trees supposed to be protected under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, does not consider the trees which will be "inadvertently damaged or adversely affected" during construction and as a result of long -term changes to drainage. 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -38. Further, in considering impacts to oak woodlands, the EIR fails to consider the loss of mature valley oaks and the scattered stands of emergent wetland vegetation along the D Street tributary from "prolonged inundation during storm events." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -61. The 2017 EIR acknowledges that "wounding of trunks and major roots during construction is a common problem" and that "root loss, and a reduction in potential rooting area, often contributes to long -term tree decline." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -48. However, the EIR fails to disclose which trees are at risk and whether this is a significant impact. In a recent NEPA challenge involving the effects of a proposed project on tree roots, the federal court ordered Caltrans to "number each ancient redwood, clearly identify it in the map, identify its root zone, and set forth the environmental issues to each one." Bair v. California State Dept of Transp., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2012). So here, this EIR should disclose which trees are at risk because of root loss and whether this constitutes a significant impact. The 2017 EIR's tree loss estimates "assume that trees located on the edge of proposed grading would be preserved through adjustments in the limits of grading and implementation of preservation guidelines." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -38. However, the EIR does not disclose what and where these adjustments will be, nor which preservation guidelines it refers to. Thus, the number of trees destroyed by the Project is undetermined by the 2017 EIR. This EIR violates CEQA because it has failed to disclose the severity of this significant impact. The EIR does not define the "adjustment and refinement of proposed project plans" that "would be necessary to avoid additional protected trees and protect the riparian habitat along Kelly Creek and the D Street tributary." EIR p. 4.3 -47. The EIR does not disclose how much freshwater seeps, seasonal wetlands, and riparian scrub would be removed as a result of the proposed Project, or where the 14 � - rf I removed waterways will be located. Figure 4.3 -1 does not disclose the location of freshwater seeps or freshwater marsh vegetation. The EIR fails to explain why the proposed replacement ratio for seasonal wetlands impacts is 1.2:1 or why the proposed replacement ratio for drainage channel impacts is 1.4:1, or why the two ratios are different. The 2017 EIR does not disclose which sensitive natural communities and other important biological resources, including tree root zones and trunks, areas of seasonal wetlands and other jurisdictional waters, and stands of native grasslands will be "indirectly" affected. EIR P. 4.3 -53. The 2017 EIR does not explain where or how much "further damage to grassland and other vegetative cover" will result from the unauthorized off -road vehicle activity. The 2017 EIR does not explain where or how much "disturbance to sensitive wildlife features" will result from the unauthorized off -road vehicle activity The 2017 EIR does not explain where or how much "erosion of hillside areas and sedimentation in creeks and drainages" will result from the unauthorized off -road vehicle activity. Disclosing where, and how much. damage is expected from disturbance and erosion is necessary to evaluate appropriate mitigation measures. G. Mitigation Measure BIO -2b is Improper. Reliance on Mitigation Measure BIO -lb is improper as that measure is impermissibly vague, and constitutes deferral of mitigation without performance standards. The 2017 EIR does not explain which proposed lots will be restricted or modified. Reference to Mitigation Measure BIO -1b is misleading as that section does not include avoidance of oak woodland and riparian habitat on site. The "project site does not appear to have sufficient land area to accommodate the tree replacement plantings which would be required under the City's ordinance." EIR p. 4.3 -66. H. Mitigation Measure BIO -2c is Flawed. Reliance on Mitigation Measure BIO -lb is improper as it constitutes deferral of mitigation without performance standards. Reference to Mitigation Measure BIO -lb is misleading as that section does not include "refinement of tree removal and preservation estimates." 15 The 2017 EIR should disclose "the mapped location of tree trunks, including those which will be preserved, removed or transplanted, show the recommended tree protection zones, and identify locations of construction - restriction fencing." Deferral of project impact analysis is not proper mitigation. See Bair v. California State Dept of Transp., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2012). I. Mitigation Measure 11I0-2d is Inadequate. The EIR fails to disclose which oak woodlands and native trees will be removed. The 2017 EIR acknowledges that additional trees will be impacted by project construction but doesn't reveal which specific trees. The 2017 EIR fails to explain how the "Tree Replacement Program shall provide for replacement of impacted woodlands and individual native trees consistent with Petaluma Municipal Code Section 20.32.320 and Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 17.065" (EIR p. 4.3 -56) given that the "project site does not appear to have sufficient land area to accommodate the tree replacement plantings which would be required under the City's ordinance." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -66. The 2017 EIR does not explain how payment of a fee to the City will mitigate these significant impacts. J. Mitigation Measure 11I0-2f is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR fails to disclose the proposed modified "limits of grading" which will result in avoidance areas of native grassland on the site. Thus, the mitigation is vague and constitutes impermissible deferral of mitigation formulation without performance standards. 1:1. The EIR fails to explain why the proposed replacement ratio for lost grasslands is K. The EIR's Discussion of Impact BI0-3 is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR states that "indirect changes that could result include the increased potential for erosion and water quality degradation from increased urban runoff volumes associated with proposed development." 2017 EIR 4.3 -60. Yet, the EIR fails to disclose how much increased erosion and increased runoff from the proposed Project will occur, or where such erosion and runoff will occur. The 2017 EIR does not attempt to describe the water quality degradation severity that is expected to result from the Project. The 2017 EIR does not disclose how often the "periodic inundation from the proposed on -site detention basin" is expected to occur, or where such periodic inundation will occur. The 2017 EIR states that there will be "changes to the existing scattered wetlands and conditions of the D Street tributary as a result" of inundation from the on -site IU01 ,�F -I P-D detention basin, but doesn't reveal what those changes will be or if they will be significant. The 2017 EIR states that there will be "increased sediment loads" during construction, but does not disclose the volume or location of the increased sediment loads resulting from the Project. The 2017 ElW s analysis of grading impacts to jurisdictional waters is incomplete. The EIR states that "the proposed residential units would not intrude into jurisdictional waters," but doesn't state if, or how or where grading will intrude into jurisdictional waters. The EIR vaguely states that "aspects of the project would directly affect jurisdictional waters on the site." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -61. The EIR does not indicate which Figure portrays the limits of grading in respect to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. Thus, the EIR fails to disclose the total wetlands and other jurisdictional areas which will be affected by the project. L. Mitigation Measure BIO -3a is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR improperly defers disclosure of wetlands and jurisdictional waters until after EIR certification. It is only in the "Final Wetland Replacement and Enhancement Program" that the total wetlands and other jurisdictional areas affected by the project will be identified. 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -62. The 2017 EIR does not identify the proposed locations of wetland mitigation sites on -site or off -site. Thus, the EIR has failed to consider the feasibility of the proposed mitigation. The 2017 EIR does not explain why the proposed wetlands replacement ratio is 2:1. Mitigation Measure BI0-3a constitutes improper deferral of mitigation without performance standards. In fact, the EIR states that specific performance criteria will only be provided after EIR certification in the "Final Wetland Replacement and Enhancement Program." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -62. The 2017 EIR does not explain how it reached the conclusion that implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-3a and -3b would reduce significant impacts to federally protected wetlands to a less than significant level. Failure to explain the reasons why an impact is insignificant violates CEQA and thwarts judicial review. Protect The Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 1099,1111-12. M. Mitigation Measures BIO -4a is Improper. Mitigation Measures BI0-4a is vague and constitutes improper deferral of mitigation. The EIR does not specify how the "approach to grading" shall be revised to 17 1� `1 X1 provide for improved wildlife movement. The EIR does not specify how development shall be revised to provide for improved wildlife movement. The EIR does not explain how Mitigation Measure 1310- lb provisions will mitigation the impacts to wildlife movement. The 2017 EIR does not explain how it reached the conclusion that implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -4a through -3d would reduce significant wildlife movement impacts to a less than significant level. N. Impact BIO -5 is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR states that "the potential impacts of the project on the occurrence of CRLF on the project site, and the removal of native oaks, native grasslands, and wetlands would conflict" with Petaluma General Plan Policy 4 -P -2 and Policy 4 -P -3. 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -65. However, the EIR fails to disclose whether this conflict would be significant in the absence of mitigation. Instead, the EIR impermissibly discusses mitigation — vague "mitigation included in this Draft EIR and as part of the consultation process with the USACE, USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB — before considering whether the impact would be significant. `By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA." (Lotus V. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 -56.) "Absent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts ...it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required, or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered." (Id. at 656.) Speculating that mitigation "as part of the consultation process with the USACE, USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB" will come up with mitigation answers — after the EIR is certified constitutes improper deferral of mitigation. The discussion of removal of an estimated 88 trees lost from the project does not consider the trees which will be "inadvertently damaged or adversely affected" during construction (EIR p. 4.3 -38), nor the loss of mature valley oaks and the scattered stands from "prolonged inundation during storm events." EIR p. 4.3 -61. The 2017 EIR does not explain how compliance with vague "mitigation recommended above, including Mitigation Measure BIO -2d" would ensure conformance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, particularly given that "project site does not appear to have sufficient land area to accommodate the tree replacement plantings which would be required under the City's ordinance." The EIR fails to disclose which residential lots, grading, detention basins and retaining walls would conflict with General Plan Policy 2 -P -68 which requires that development on the project site "Maintain a minimum of a 100' setback along Kelly Creek and its tributaries. Preserve and maintain habitat areas and trees." Instead, the EIR improperly limits its discussion of which parcels would conflict with the revised General Plan policy proposed by the project applicant. 18.3 O. Mitigation Measure BIO -5 is Inadequate. The 2017 EIR impermissibly fails to consider any mitigation for impacts from the 40 -space parking lot. The EIR concludes, without any explanation, that "mitigation for the trailhead parking lot is not feasible." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -66. The EIR can not avoid the duty to consider mitigations by summarily concluding that all mitigations are infeasible. P. The EIR's Discussion of Cumulative Impact BIO -1 is Improper. The 2017 EIR fails to properly consider biological cumulative impacts. The EIR considers 5 biological resource impacts, yet the cumulative analysis only considers one. The 2017 EIR claims that the "project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts is also identified." 2017 EIR p. 4.3 -33. This is not true. At a minimum, the EIR considers Impact BIO -5 significant and unavoidable. The 40 -space trailhead parking lot would also be located within 50 -foot buffer along the D Street tributary under both Options A and B in conflict with Policy 2 -P -68 and Policy 4 -P -1. As a policy matter, performance bonds should be required to ensure project mitigation performance standards and success criteria are met. This is particularly important in regards to biological resources because all too often project proponents damage the land and the resources and then walk away from their commitments. IX. The 2017 EIR Does Not Include an MMRP for the Public To Review. For a project based on an EIR, the MMRP must be adopted at the time of final project approval. (§ 21081.6, subd (a); Guideline 15091, subd. (d); Guideline 15097, subd (a).) There is no MMRP for this project. CEQA requires that "measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" (§ 21081.6, subd. (b); Guideline 15091, subd. (d).) The 2017 EIR has not released a proposed MMRP for review by the public or responsible agencies. X. The City May Disapprove a Project to Avoid Significant Environmental Impacts. CEQA Guideline 15042 provides that the City may disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved as proposed. The 2017 EIR already acknowledges that the Project will result in four significant and unavoidable effects. 19 e� —�2—'� Impact AES -2 - Development of the project site would have a significant effect on scenic resources from the removal and relocation of the barn complex and No mitigation is available to mitigate this impact. Impact BIO -5 and Impact LU -2 - The 40 -space trailhead parking lot would be located within 50 -foot buffer along the D Street tributary under both Options A & B . This would conflict with General Plan Policy 2 -P -68 and Policy 4 -P -1, policies for the protection of the biological values along creeks. The EIR identifies this as as a significant impact and the EIR identifies not feasible mitigation. Cumulative Impact TRANS -1 - The proposed project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact at intersections D Street/Windsor Drive (during the PM peak hour) and D Street/Lakeville Street (during the AM and PM peak hours) would continue to operate at nacceptable LOS F. Further, the 2013 EIR disclosed two additional significant unavoidable impacts: (1) Green House Gas Operational Emissions and (2) Constructed Related Groundborne Vibration. Impact GHQ -2 - Green House Gas Operational Emissions - Development of the project would result in long -term, operational green house gas (GHG) emissions that would be "significant and unavoidable" even after implementation of proposed mitigation. Also, the proposed project would also result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. See 2013 EIR p. 4.14 -29 to -31. Impact NOISE -2 - Constructed Related Groundborne Vibration - The construction phase of the project would result in "significant and unavoidable" impacts from construction noise and construction related vibration, even after implementation of proposed mitigations. See 2013 EIR p. 4.9 -13 to -20. Construction of the project would "generate both temporary steady state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the project site" from jackhammers, heavy equipment, pneumatic impact and other equipment. The construction phase of the project is anticipated to occur over a 30 -month period, although there is no commitment to complete construction within this time frame. Installation of infrastructure and grading is expected to occur over a 9 -month period. "The nearest and most notable sensitive receptors to the project site would be the residents located approximately 50 feet to the north and west of the project site." Construction noise levels could exceed an 80 dBA Leq eight -hour daytime threshold of significance when construction activities occur within 100 feet of the nearest existing residences. In addition, the construction phase will exceed the Federal Transit Administration's residential vibration exposure (human annoyance) threshold. This will occur when heavy construction equipment operates within about 75 feet of an occupied residential unit when people are trying to sleep. Therefore, the impact of heavy construction equipment operating within 75 feet of an occupied residence during the weekday will be significant. 20 Notably, the 2017 EIR does not explain how it reached different conclusions regarding these two significant impacts. Therefore, these impacts also serve as a proper basis for disapproval of the Project. 21 - - � �0� Giudice, Alicia Resending as my service provider said message not sent. I apologize if this is a duplicate. From: Kerrin [ mailto: kerrin @therealestatedetective.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 4:13 PM To: 'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.'; ' mayordavidgllassi @i co gmlmommthealy @man.albe neon @coun il.com'; erkearney @me.com'; 'teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net'; 'davekingp @g 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com' Cc: 'PetRP @comcast.net' Subject: My comment on the Davidon DEIR . To Alicia and other members of the council, ment against the What in the world.has occur and that have a momer govern time (one in which people most folks would ventagree to pay a tax on to keep as t exists who drives through our n today) to use our head and not our wallets for OUTCRY TO SAVE The benefit LAND FROM DEVELOPMENT. What planet t side with the do you people Twake p on every day if you EXPRESSED SUCH A TREMENDUO you are liars as the citizens see and hear this surge from the community? Exactly with whom are you working? If you dare say the City of Petaluma, y who don't want the developmeht ARE the city of Petaluma. NOT I will not bore you with more project h we all ow dare you move forward ignoring this protest?" Theupeolpletsay NO a d far more than a simple yet you feel empowered to l shove us all CONDONE this f development, p J the land will be changed forever and ALL OF YOU WILL BE TO BLAME. Is it any wonder aside in favor of development. If you ram this deal through, the citizens of our country Shame on you. If you do th sey u will local as itlwill be a scar on your person faces forever and and wepowerful he people will not forget'. the voice of the people, Sh Y Kerrin Shettle Neighbor on Spring Hill From: Petalumans for Responsible Planning [mailto :PetRP= comcast .net @mail94.at1161.mcsv.net] On Behalf Of Petalumans for Responsible Planning Sent: Thursday., April 27, 2017 11:02 AM To: kerrin @therealestatedetective.com Subject: Comment NOW on the Davidon DEIR PetRP @comcast.net X! examples of how to write your comments. You can write multiple letters, each one on a separate topic. Please send a copy to: PetRP @comcast.net You may also deliver your written comments to City Hall by close of business on Monday, May 1. Form letters Available! What if you look at the Tip Sheet and still don't know what to write? We have some solutions for youl Look for our wonderful volunteers wear!ng frog t- shirts during the Butter & Egg Day parade, at Helen Putnam Park, or at the Antique Fair. Our volunteers will be carrying the form letters with them for you! or, download a form letter, print it out, sign your name, and take it to the Planning Division, 11 English Street. You can either sign the long letter or the short letter. Form Letter Volunteers Needed Do you want to spread the word to others? Let us know! We have many ways for you to help. We have new flyers arriving today that need to be delivered! If you are willing to help, please send an email, and we will put you to work! Use the subject line: Volunteer PetRP @comcast.net Come to the Aqus'Cafe on Sunday, April 30, 2 -4 p.m. Maybe you know what you want to say but don't know where to find the information In the DEIR. Email us at PetRP@comcast.net Or, better yet, meet us at the Aqus Cafe (189 H St., corner of 2nd and H Street) on Sunday, April 30, from 2 -4 p.m. You can drop off your form letter, or we can help you write a letter. We will turn in your letter to the Planning Division for you! How about those yard signs? 3 ® q �- Seifert Forward to a friend Our mailing address is: 307 Sunnyslope Avenue Petaluma, CA 94952 http• /lwwY_PetRP ° —r —o petRP @comcast.net Email not displaying correctly? View It inyoour b =wser- unsubscdb update subscdnUon Prefenences This email was sent to kenin thergalestatedetective.com by did t oet this? unsubscdbe from this list update subscdptlon Preferences Sunnyslope Avenue • Petaluma, CA 94952 petaiumans for Responsible Planning • 307 •USA 1= 5 a RM A61 1vKFA From: Carol Casselman -jargentine @comcast.net> Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:41 PM Sent. Giudice, Alicia To: FW: Davidon Subject: From: Carol Casselman fmailto •iargPntine(@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:38 PM To:'agiudice @ci.petaluma.cs.us' <a iudice@ci petaluma.cs.us> Subject: Davidon Dear Alice, I want to express my opinion on the proposed Davidon development s at the op of the B StDreet bike path and twinds along years, my sister -in -law and I have walked a 7 mile loop that s Helen Putnam Windsor, out Western Ave., up Chileno Valley Rd. and back over the top d e and beautiful walk. We see so many animals and love rthe peaceful dand pastor al to D Street. This is a very seren settin So many people, young and old use this stretch of land for recreation and relaxation. Having 63 houses will just g destroy this part of Petaluma. While not wild about the smaller able to confine t to the south side of Windsor, alternative. The traffic would not be as bad and you might alread backs to homes on B Street. Please do not approve this plan. It would be just tragic to lose this beautiful Y entrance to our city. Carol Casselman a -Li �'� Giudice, Alicia David Airey <davidairey0l @gmail.com> From: April 27, 2017 12:28 PM Sent: � Thursday, SGiudice, Alicia Comment on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Subject: . To: City of Petaluma Attn: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner Dear Ms. Giudice; I attended the recent public planing committee hearing about the Davidon Draft EIR, and didn't know o lau h or cry as the drafting consultant described the long list at they ways could almost all be project whether t g does not meet environmental require explanation as tohhow, and no reference as to who would be 'remediated. There was no real o carrying out that remediation, and under what conditions remediation understand remthat ai s an open committed t ry her job, but I'm making the point that the means on prod projects m nin Petaluma does not give much question, and the history of such cause for hope!) damage to the land and landscape right next to oHel an Putnam ecoverable losds to us all, The irrecoverable opinion be a great y, endangered fauna that live there would in my p rime against future generations of Petalumans. And to ffi it lllgenerate, or to tax prevent the and e c g to accommodate all the new these luxury homes going to pay pollution of the creek? Are we going to drive or walk past these homes ur cofmmunity'� say'('m so glad we approved these lovely houses. They're such a great addition Speaking for myself I find that very hard to imagine. ore the commission to reject this DEIR and to at the very ediae least, if alnd Ito at create goes I implore p ahead, to obtain formal commitments from the developer for enforcement regime.. Thank you for your attention. Best Regards, David'Airey 9 Payran St. Petaluma -� r x" 3 0 Giudice, Alicia From: Nicole Camarda <ncamarda28 @gmail.com> Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:08 PM Sent: Giudice, Alicia To: Subject: NO DAVTDON To Alicia Giudice and the Planning Division, ' 'n for our support to oppose to the Davi.don development d at D hi h Windsor. me residents are I am writing Y and that Property taxes g that Petaluma needs to build more housing, P P appealing to the city and the council. I also know the devastating effects that development can have appe g near environmentally sensitive areas. ast iteration of the several planning and council meetings and listened to the I have come to el stated, nearly every iteDm had t is thorough, and it seems that due diligence ra s could be put in place to meet the standards to go ahead significant impacts but "mitigation"' mitigate p mitigating rocesses, and none of the with the project. The public was not inaoa eam o downhill wet dis c sled either. I was also effects of the projects that will end up avidon to delete the use of the name "Kelly Creek" and Kelly tree z concerned by the request by D tributary. k, but we -know that Davidon We can voice our legitimate concern for the red tree frogs and the e concerns The biggest problem is can dangle an expensive carrot that will make us forget about public ark in Petaluma is that the most accessible, most diverse, me s develo remote, This beautiful unnecessary and an inequity. going to be encroached upon by big money P o HOMES. Petaluma needs affordable housing. Petaluma Petaluma DOES NOT NEED $2,000,00 needs accessibility to SMART. Petaluma needs to honor it's citizens and historical agricultural community and families . sider the future of Petaluma and it's parks, and consider the real needs of our community Please con rather than the money this development may p rovide. Respectfully, Nicole L. Camarda 2 Rain Tree Court Petaluma, CA 94952 415.250.5107 Giudice, Alicia From: Angela Bellante <angelabellante @icloud.com> Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:05 PM Sent. To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon development Dear A Giudice At the moment I am traveling out of the U S, but I am concerned about Petaluma allowing such a monstrosity to be built. Just think about it. We will not see those beautiful green slopes. We will not see cattle making their way on the slopes. We will see huge houses with two or three cars per house. We will see traffic glut, noise pollution and gas pollution. Why can't this property be annexed to Helen Putnam as open space ? I like many Petalumans will be angered and sad to see this happen. Sincerely Angela Bellante Sent from my iPad a o• ciludice, AwLi a From: kathleen kestelyn <kkestelyn @gmail.com> Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:00 PM Sent: To: Giudice, Alicia Davidon Project /Development Subject: Dear City Council, I am unable to attend any meeting at this due to surgery, but I wish to ask to reconsider the need for open space and environmental concerns of this development near Helen Putnam Parl <. We need places to go out in Nature and enjoy our town. Housing is increasing ending. New apt complex in every place in Petaluma. The River Front A ptsisstilllpnear the Petaluma Library near Copeland St as coming, several apts on W gt is also in the works, including something on Corona. and near Safeway on the East Side but i s drive around Petaluma, you will see major traffi c We need more housing, c problems. f y s axe flooding the Petaluma Blvd and Washington. You are fixing potholes but car our town needs to reconsider what this Davidon Project will do to the community. Sincerely Kathleen Kestelyn 338 Keller St Apt A Petaluma, CA 94952 2 -Lt3'�) Dear Ms. Giudice, should Attached is a comment letter on the Draft EIR for the Davidon /Scott Ranch project in Petaluma. A hard copy arrive in the mail shortly. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to email or call me. Sincerely, Chad Chad White, PhD Planning and Climate Protection Bay Area Air Quality Management District (B 375 375 Beale Street ° S ®cw %9 415.749.8619 h t CA 94105 o @baagmd.gov 1 Giudice, Alicia Dear Planning Commissioners, First, I would like to thank you for your tireless work in planning for our future Petaluma. As a local citizen that is highly concerned about the Davidon/Scott Ranch project, I am writing to you regarding the environmental impact this project it is hard t upon imag imagine people, would be in views, sensitive habitats and species of our city. Y favor of this project, other than the out of town developer. The poll recently taken by the Argus Courier had over 90% of the citizens polled, saying they were against the development. If only Helen Putnam were here now, to defend this beautiful deer and it's other wild animals surroundings. Whenever I walk in Helen Putnam and birds, and wonder about the adverse effects this project will have upon them. Five days a week, there is bumper to bumper traffic, stop and 90, for at the end of theirw length Of D Street. Drivers, very frustrated with the situation, g day, dash across the side streets in a mad rush to exit the traffic. If you are unlucky enough to Street in the direction of live on one of these side streets, it is virtually m impossib�o�es will Dat the very'mininum add 63 downtown late afternoon. The proposed 63 luxury cars to the existing traffic mess, and more realistically, two or more cars per family. There are no existing sidewalks in that vicinity, and so it is truly doubtful that the residents will wall{ to work, school, and any local businesses. It has been brought to my attention that 119+ trees will have to be removed. urhinr ans by Davidon to plant at least that many m return? -And, if Davidon goes bankrupt g the process, who will pay for restoring the grading and natural tree habitat? Hopefully some of you remember that this did happen during the Victoria subdivision. The construction activity alone in building these homes will have a serious impact on the west side of Petaluma. We are currently out of the water crisis, but for how long? of town developerouldpnt 63 luxury asked to cut back 25% our water use dust a year ago, and why? So that an out homes here, most of which will have multiple bathrooms, landscape irrigations, and perhaps swimming pools? The view coming into town from the west ss�urr� Butter bucolic. Isn't feel for luxury homes and any of us m the first place? Will we sell out that more congested traffic? r a - ' ,35 Giudice, Alicia -- Original Message - - -- -- From: "Kathy Meagher" <kkmeagher@amail.com> To: ac,iudice @ci petaluma.ca.us Sent: 4/26/2017 12:21:38 PM Subject: Davidon Members of Petaluma City Council, The small -town charm of Petaluma is in jeopardy, don't let it disappear completely visual be compr o iced of the greedy out -of- towners. Davidon hasn't the vision or the interest nature's jewels, will have on this area. They can pack up and leave us in their dust! If you drive or walk by this unique and picturesque are it's impossible not to be moved by the be of the green hills, trees, cows grazing, deer, turkeys, and other wild life. Our beautiful open spaces are disappearing and THIS IS ALL RIGHT HERE, not miles away. It borders Helen Putnam Park - it should be part of it! There are many other detrimental issues to be considered as ell cdi.ngready cot limited to, streets. years of then construction traffic and noise (including weekends and holidays) on our the aftermath - the additional traffic that multiple vehicles, from 66 households, would generate. Don't let this happen here! We implore you, Our City Council, to vote in favor of the TREASURE, not the travestyffl Respectfully, Kathy Meagher i March 28, 2017 MAY 0 -12017, To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Chris Albertson, Dave KtgJ,(1/I ke,Iy;SG��be Kearney, Kathy Miller, and Senior Planner Alicia Giudice) Dear Elected Officials, As a recent transplant to the city of Petaluma (we reside on C St. and 10th), I am deeply concerned about the Davidon (D street and Windsor drive) development for several reasons, There are several issues that the DEIR was unclear on, I am hoping to get answers to these questions: 1. The draft EIR does not say whether the testing for soil and hydrology was done during our recent wet months. We have been in a drought for far too long. We now have finally had a very wet season. Even while in a drought, the amount of water that pours into our property (both our backyard and through the street into the front of our property) from behind us (coming from D street) is overwhelming. it is often impossible to park in front of our house as one can't avoid the deep standing water. 2.1 would like to know the plan in case Davidon goes bankrupt (at any point, be it during tree removal, grading or while building); is there an adequate bond etc to cover any long -term impact on the city; and what plan is in place if this occurs when the site is graded and the trees have been cut? And 3. The DEIR stated emissions for construction will cause a "significant" increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. Where do I begin with this? How is this ever possible to,be mitigated? How,can a heightened risk of cancer to local families be considered acceptable? Clearly I could write a dissertation of a letter about how unacceptable I find the possibility of this bucolic land turning into homes. The issue of expensive homes versus affordable housing is food for another letter. This is not the space for either. The intrinsic value of this land is far more valuable than any increase to Petaluma's possible revenue. We have been looking in Petaluma for 24 years and finally bought our property six years ago, We have been enjoying the drive to and from the coast along D St. for years, the feeling thatwe get passing that barn with the trees and creek is not something we can attach a dollar sign to. We chose to buy a house in close proximity to this location so that we could continue to use and enjoy it, and so that our children could enjoy this natural area as we have and love. My son has written his own letter to you. The amount of wildlife we have seen is quite stunning this close to downtown (we have seen several birds of pray including owls and hawks, we have seen the usual opossums, skunks, raccoons, and dear, as well as the necessary beautiful bats at sunset). My children have found the elusive tiger salamanders. Where it stands, the barn (and the surrounding trees /creek / wildlife) are an invaluable resource both culturally and environmentally. The tributary of Kelly Creek is critical. It is not something that we just appreciate, it is something that we need. The fact that the Red Legged frog is in this area and is on the threatened species list should be enough to stop any and all development along that 58 acre "parcel," how is something without a voice able to protect itself? The public outcry and opinion of not wanting this should also be enough. We have been hiking this area (Helen Putnam Park) for over 20 years, when we came to town we also ate, shopped and supported the local economy. Leaving this �- 9 37 treasure as is (as part of Helen Putnam park) will continue to bring money into the city of Petaluma. We are now happy to pay property taxes for the lifestyle that we thought we were buying into. Had I known this was already part of the city plan we may have thought otherwise about investing in homeownership here, It_is.not too late to keep this natural area as it stands, even though the city has it earmarked for homes: I andeeply concerned about the amount of traffic and how that will negatively affect our lives as well as the rest of the community. My children are not allowed to approach D street because of the amount of traffic. The amount of time it takes to turn onto D Street is atrocious not to mention the increase in traffic coming from San Antonio Rd. In order to take my children to school and pick them up I must turn onto D Street. The traffic in the last few years has increased exponentially. Furthermore frustrated cars turn onto our corner street (which is 10th) and fly down the block to avoid the traffic. Our street butts up to the parking lot of a church and we often have people flying down our street & whipping U -turns (when they realize it does not go through). The increased amount of road rage in our gem of a neighbor is disheartening and frightening. For so many reasons the alteration of the existing land /addition of homes is a bad idea. The negative and lasting effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated (eliminating /altering the fragile ecosystem of the wetlands and the trees that provide the necessary habitat for these plants and animals to thrive), the loss of open space, the increase in traffic, the aggravation of years of construction, increase in water use that inevitably comes from new housing, etc is a bad idea. What we are hoping to see is the area left as it is, leave the red barn where it stands without housing around it, leave the important habitats and nesting trees, find an area that will do the least amount of harm and put in a reasonably sized parking lot to serve Helen Putnam Park instead. Please consider the option and alternative of preserving the 58 acre parcel, of creating a corridor, to the rest of Helen Putnam Park. It is my hope that the city council members will listen to the input they have received from so many people; that you will take into very serious consideration, what it is that your constituents want. Thank you in advance for your reply. Respectfully, M gin Cecilia Hailinan 0- `)- q33 Giudice, Alicia From: Fasih Hameed <fasihh @phealthcenter.org> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10 :35 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; wolpert @sonic.net Cc: PetRP @comcast.net Subject: Comments on Davidon Development/Windsor /D st Hello, I am writing as a concerned citizen of Petaluma urging you to stop the proposed Davidon development on D st and Windsor. I am a family physician and live on Sunnyslope Rd. I cover obstetrics at PVH and on many weekends I must take call starting at 5pm. I have had situations where I was called at 5pm to rush to the hospital for an emergency and made the mistake of taking my usual route down eastbound D street only to encounter the weekend rush hour gridlock that occurs with predictable regularity at this time. This has frequently delayed my arrival at the hospital. At one point I recall getting as far as 6th street before realizing that 1 was never going to make it to the hospital in time for the emergency. On this occasion, I had to call another doctor to cover for me and explain I was stuck in cross town traffic. This is unacceptable in a town of 59,0001 1 can't imagine what 45 or 60 new homes just West of me on D street will mean for this rush hour traffic, which comes in from the countryside bypass of the also impacted northbound hwy 101. The environmental impact report cannot possibly understand how the traffic on D can swell and contract --at times so serene and at others like Bombay on a bad day. Morning school drop is another peak time when D traffic will be severely negatively influenced by this proposed development. The westside surface streets and the limited river crossings really limit the ability for this town to sustain further Far -West developments. I urge you to Please vote no on this and future proposals to the Western countryside of Petaluma. There are numerous other reasons to vote no on the development - -it doesn't fix any of our low- income or senior housing issues; it will destroy the habitat of the red legged frog; it will pollute the beautiful bucolic scenery of the red barn and grazing fields; we already don't have enough preschools to take care of the boom of young families we are currently.faced with — but for me I think the potential for an even worse response time for doctors on the west side to get to PVH and the possibility of compromised medical care that may ensue is one I can speak to directly and I urge you to consider my warning and vote'No' on the proposed development. Thank you. Sincerely, Fasih Hameed NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e -mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents, if you have received this e -mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e -mail and permanently delete this e -mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. If this transmission contains patient information, this information has been disclosed to you from records whose confidentiality is protected by state and federal law. Federal regulations (42 CFR Part 2) prohibits you from making any further disclosure of this information without the specific written authorization of the person to whom it pertains or as otherwise permitted by such regulations. The Federal rules restrict any use of the information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient. (42 CFR § 2.32) )_q39 From: Don Frances [dfrances @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:59 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: mayordavidglass @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comeast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbeglobal.net; councilmemberlcearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; Hines, Heather Subject: comment on Davidon DEIR, and on the proposal itself Dear Petaluma City Council Members and City Staff, As a career journalist, I've spent many years studying and writing about EIRs, covering planning meetings, and generally watching the planning process as development proposals make their way from conception to approval. And after all that time, it only now occurs to me that no part of the public -input process includes a mechanism for the most important power of all: the ability of a city to reject a proposal outright. Usually it's only the city council that holds this power, and rarely do they use it. But it should be used more often, especially for proposals like Davidon Homes' proposal for Arnold Scott Ranch. The reasons for rejecting this proposal are straightforward: low- density housing, located far from the center of town, is harmful environmentally, socially and even fiscally. This last point is often ignored, but we now know that the costs of infrastructure for maintaining far -flung sprawl -- costs the city would be on the hook for -- is higher than the tax revenues those houses generate. In short, the Davidon project would be a drag on city coffers forever. That is why, rather than comment on the particular shortcomings of the DEIR, I wish to comment on the project itself. it should be rejected in its entirety by Council members -- 60 homes or 20 homes, barn or no barn -- and the land added to Helen Putnam Regional Park (or held as adjacent city park) in perpetuity. Attached please find an op -ed piece that is scheduled to appear in next week's Argus- Courier: The piece expands on my comments here, explaining to the public why I believe this project should be rejected once and for all, and why it is every Council members' duty to make this ruling for the betterment of our town. Thank you all for your careful consideration of this matter, and for your work in making Petaluma a great place to live. Sincerely, Don Frances Nob Hill Terrace - qqO Davidon housing proposal is bad for Petaluma By Don Frances There are many good reasons —first and best being financial —for City Council members to reject a proposal for dozens of huge new luxury homes on the western edge of town. The proposal, by developer Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek, would pulverize 58 acres of Arnold Scott Ranch at D Street and Windsor Drive to make way for 63 to 66 single- family homes. Those numbers may get scaled down —they usually are — but not by enough. Anyone heading west-on D Street has seen this rolling grassland, with its cows and red barn and creek running through it. And everyone already knows what the houses would look like, because we've all seen them on similar cul -de -sacs in towns across America. These houses are more of that. The smallest would be 3,500 square feet, the largest 4,500 square feet. The price per home? Not cheap. "The main arterial street that provides access from the freeway to the project area is D Street," notes a draft environmental impact report that came before the Planning Commission earlier this month. That means construction crews and equipment would be using D Street as well —for years. The report, with public comments, may come before our City Council as early as next month, and sooner or later the fate of Arnold Scott Ranch will be decided by these seven elected leaders. How will they rule? In general, Council members should weigh development proposals with one thing in mind: the wellbeing of Petaluma and its residents, now and in the future. And by this standard, they should reject outright the Davidon proposal as bad for the city financially and in other ways. �_ -L4 141 Why financially? Sprawling low- density developments like this one are always a net loss for cities, which collect one -time fees during the development process but then pay out forever in infrastructure costs — sewer, water, roads, schools, police and fire, and so on. If our city is concerned about fixing potholes, it should reject low- density development at the edge of town in favor of high- density, transit- friendly projects in the center of town, which generate more in tax revenue than they cost to maintain. But don't we need more housing to increase supply and meet demand? This common argument ignores how housing markets work, especially in desirable places like Petaluma — places which remain desirable specifically because they are not covered in endless housing developments. At any rate, the Davidon project's million - dollar homes would do nothing to meet our market -rate housing needs. The costs of this project are not just financial. In terms of public safety, the prospect of heavy trucks and equipment rumbling up and down D Street for an estimated 39 months has west side residents on edge. Then there's the loss of yet more beautiful open space, critical habitat — including for the endangered red - legged frog — and the storied Arnold Scott Ranch itself. (Side note: Petalumans should not become too focused on the red barn; saving the barn is not saving the ranch.) Some locals believe Petaluma's legacy is not worth trading for any number of luxury homes. Let's remember that.City Council members are under no obligation to approve proposals just because a developer submitted them. To the contrary, their obligation is to Petaluma's health and wellbeing, nothing more. That's why the Davidon proposal — expensive, destructive and backward - looking — should be thrown out once and for all. You can tell the city your thoughts on the Davidon proposal by sending emails directly to Council members or to Alicia Giudice, senior planner, at agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us. Don Frances is a Petaluma writer and journalist. �-4i� From: Diane elise Gentile <dianegentile @gmail. com <mailto:dianegentile @gmail.com>> Date: April 27, 2017 at 2:50:24 PM PDT To: diana gomez <dianaegomez @gmail. com <mailto:dianaegomez @gmail.com>> Subject: Comments on the Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Commissioner Gomez, I have been reviewing the DEIR for the proposed development of the Scott Ranch and have alarming concerns over the safety, suitability and impact this will have on our city and our community at large. And while I understand our need for revenue and housing, this project undoubtedly puts atrisk the safety of residents, the security of our infrastructure and the quality of life that Petalumans hold in such high esteem. Upon my review of the DEIR,'it is glaringly obvious, even as a lay person, that this document does not adequately convey the true impact of this development on the habitat, scenery and community. As Jennifer Pierre pointed out in her comments at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, `there is a fundamental flaw of the baseline used in determining which impacts are significant and which are insignificant.' According to this DEIR, almost all the potential impacts reviewed can be deemed `insignificant' after the proposed mitigation. Further, some of the most obvious impacts have been deemed `Less than Significant' without any mitigation whatsoever. This is basically saying that the difference between a natural valley and a housing development is "insignificant." It is saying that the loss of this pastoral valley with its' native wildlife and habitat is `less than significant' to our community. It claims that adding numerous homes, vehicles and infrastructure makes a `less than significant' impact to the already severe traffic, air quality and safety of the neighboring community. Therefore, since it is clearly impossible to justify these claims, I can understand why the baseline had to be moved and also why there was need of such a lengthy list of mitigations The following are just a few of the copious examples of the questionable baseline used in this document. I would like to ask whether you agree that the end result is indeed `insignificant' in each of these examples: • Impact AES -1 Development of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Potentially Significant Result —Less than Significant • Cumulative Impact AES -1 The proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch project and the park trail project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development would not result in a significant cumulative impact with regard to scenic vistas, visual character, or scenic resources. Result: Less than Significant No mitigation is required • Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO -2, BIO — 3, BIO — 4, BIO -5 The proposed project would conflict with a local policy for protecting biological resources... Result: Less than Significant No mitigation is required • Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD -1 The proposed project would result in the discharge of stormwater that could violate water quality standards, degrade water quality, and -cause hydromodification. Result: Less than Significant • Cumulative Impact GHG -1 The proposed Davidon/Scott Ranch project and the park trail project would not result in a significant cumulative greenhouse gas impact. Result: Less than Significant No mitigation is required g — �14 1� In regards to the traffic, noise pollution and greenhouse gas impact, while being `less than significant,' this DEIR was based on information from traffic studies completed in September 2014 (p. 4.12 -7). This is a major shortcoming in that; the frontage road opened on 101 in October 2014 and GP began redirecting traffic onto San Antonio Road to D Street. Residents can attest to the increase of traffic at this time. In light of this, there should be a new and comprehensive traffic study done before any further development in this immediate area. Will the city be requiring such a study? In regards to the means by which this development claims to be able to avoid making a `significant impact' to this property and our community, the bulk of this DEIR describes page after page of elaborate and highly detailed mitigation that must be followed down to minute details. There is the need of contracting experts from "service- approved biologists" to "conducting surveys on species and grasses" to meticulous procedures that must be maintained in order to ensure the end result achieves `minimal impact.' I would like to know who is responsible for overseeing these multitudes of mitigations that will continue for years. Who contracts the surveys? Who oversees the contractor? Who hires the experts? How are they certified? Who checks all the permits that are being required? Who supervises each and every step of these mitigations to be sure they are indeed accomplished? Does the city have the staff and funding to oversee that this is all accomplished according to this DEIR? According to the "Guiding Principles of the General Plan" (particularly those that relate to this project), it is my understanding that this project should be evaluated according to these guidelines: • Maintain a close -knit, neighborly, and family- friendly city. • Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character, preserve and enhance Petaluma's natural environment and distinct setting in the region - -a community with a discrete edge surrounded by open space. • Foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities. • Continue efforts to achieve a jobs/housing balance emphasizing opportunities for residents to work locally. • Foster a sustainable community in which today's needs do not compromise the ability of the community to meet its future needs. • Ensure infrastructure is strengthened and maintained. • Maintain standards ... to ensure that growth does not exceed carrying capacity. In which areas do you feel that this project adheres to these guiding principles and how? While the City of Petaluma has the option to approve this DEIR and hence, the development of this property, the overwhelming majority of residents polled by the Argus Courier (Apr. 13, 2017) reveals that 90.2% of respondents polled are NOT in favor of this development. We cherish the peace and quiet in our communities. However, this DEIR does not evaluate how the increase in traffic or noise from construction will affect the livability, health and safety of our community. This DEIR explains that the emissions from construction of the project will cause a significant increased risk of cancer for nearby infants. How will this not also affect everyone who lives in the nearby area? What about the elderly? What about people with breathing issues or sensitivities to carbon monoxide? The DEIR again claims that this impact can be "mitigated" but it is not a reasonable conclusion. How will the city of Petaluma ensure the health and well -being of nearby residents? If this is impossible, are we overruling the health of current residents in hopes of gaining revenue and benefits to newcomers? g-qq How will these houses contribute to the water shortages that have prevailed in previous years? Will there be graywater systems installed? Are they energy - efficient with solar -ready roofs or shouldn't solar and graywater systems be part of the requirements for all new development projects? Also, the DEIR claims that erosion, storm water runoff and flooding can all be mitigated. How is the city verifying this information? Who will be responsible should our infi•astructure not be able to withstand the change in topography and the additional burden? What will happen if the developer of the Davidon site goes bankrupt or decides to abandon the project for some reason? Who will be responsible for repair and restoration? Like so many before me. I chose to make my home in Petaluma because of its' beautiful setting and charming neighborhoods where walk - ability, quiet, safety and a semblance of country living remains. I lived on D Street, a few houses up the hill from the Sunny Slope & D St. intersection from 2011- 2015. When I arrived, it was peaceful, quiet and surrounded by wildlife - -deer, foxes, raccoons, turkeys, possums, skunks, owls, bats and frogs. But as the years passed, all of this changed significantly. It became harder and harder to endure the increasing traffic. The constant noise and smell of exhaust seeped through the cottage windows and at rush hours I would often have to be away from the house. I began to walk up or down D Street less and less because of the constant traffic, noise and smell. Dead animals killed on upper D Street became a common sight and the activity of wildlife decreased. Still, the traffic got worse and the smell of carbon monoxide became unbearable during peak hours which lasted for hours. Neighbors spent less and less time outside in their front yards and I began to notice the growing isolation and loss of community. In only six years, it has become evident that the livability of Petaluma has decreased dramatically due to traffic, lack of affordable housing, poor infrastructure and overcrowding. In short, we are losing the livability of our town. And while there are numerous worthwhile proposals on the table for new development, this proposed development on the Scott Ranch property only serves to further threaten our community, jeopardize our mental and physical wellbeing and endanger our infrastructure and natural resources. In spite of the claims made in this DEIR, any development, particularly South of Windsor Drive, will unquestionably and irrevocably alter this landscape, impacting the habitat and surrounding community forever. No matter what mitigation is taken, this development will absolutely increase our already overburdened roads, water resources and pollute the air further. I therefore strongly urge the City Council to disallow the development of the acreage South of Windsor Drive and offer a compromise to permit the building of homes along the North side of Windsor that are low profile, and leave a discrete border at our urban boundary to abide by the vision set out in Petaluma's General Plan. Thank you for your time and for your service to Petaluma. I sincerely hope you will consider this project with the utmost concern for the residents of Petaluma, our surrounding environment and future generations. Sincerely, Diane E. Gentile 411 Broadway St. a -L(C ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: elizabeth mori <eemoril 118 @gmail. com <mailto:eemoril118 @gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:43 PM Subject: Comments on the proposed Davidon project To: Dave Glass <daveglass @comcast. net <mailto:daveglass @comcast.net >>, Dave King <davekingpcc @gmail. com <mailto:davekingpcc @gmail.com >>, Michael Healy <mthealy @sbeglobal. net <mailto:mthealy @sbcglobal.net>>, Chris Albertson <councihnan.albertson @gmail.com< mailto:councilman.albertson @gmail.com >>, Teresa Barrett <teresa4petaluma @comcast.net< mailto :teresa4petaluma @comcast.net>>, Kathleen Miller <kathleencmilleroffice @gmail. com< mailto :kathleencmilleroffice @gmail. com >>, councihnemberkearney @me.com <mailto: councihnemberkeamey @me.com> Dear Petaluma City Council Members, Below please find my comments on the Davidon development proposal, which is scheduled for City Council review in May. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this letter. Davidon project comments You should not approve the current development proposal for the Davidon property. This development plan is in opposition to our City's character and documented goals. Its detailed justifications are flawed, that is to say, the justifications misrepresent the many undesirable impacts. Here are three reasons to reject this proposal: 1. Destruction of essential scenic and natural resource (ref: General Plan Goal 1 -G -2, Goal 1 -G -3). Also, note Policy 2 -P -61 which states the intention to: Protect existing agricultural uses, wildlife, historic and cultural resources, and natural vegetation. This project will destroy the open ridge lines and hillsides that "help define the unique character of Petaluma" (Goal1 -G -2). The proposal to use cut- and - fill in order to fit in their desired number of homes is in absolute. ,? -,�q6 opposition to the intention and recommendations of the the Hillside Ordinance. (I was a member of the Hillside Ordinance Committee. I know first hand the intention and detailed analysis that created this Ordinance.) (Other citizens have eloquently stated the importance of natural open space preservation ( e.g., connectivity to Helen Putnam Park) as a vital part of our health and well being, and especially the health and well being of future generations. ) 2. Traffic impacts I will add my voice to the chorus of criticisms of this intensive development. D. Street (and environs) traffic is already. excessive. This development will exacerbate an already recognized problem. The DEIR has no possible mitigation to lessen the traffic impact. The traffic studies are old (2014) and do not reflect 2017. 3. Destruction of a cultural and social asset. Conversation about the red barn and its setting has focused on "historic value ". This land, and this barn, is more than a scenic gateway to Petaluma, and is more than a natural extension of Helen Putnam Park. This land and the red barn are our cultural treasure: It is our heritage. The many postcards and calendar photographs of these western hills aren't simply pretty pictures. They document our City's essence. Remember, we have Butter and Eggs Days (and other events) to celebrate our heritage and to celebrate our unique connection to the land. Our civic decisions must line up with our values of preservation and sustainability. Authorizing the development of this western hills landscape (aka Davidon property) authorizes the destruction of our heritage. Don't do it. Elizabeth Emery Mori Phone: 707 - 789 -03 69tel: (707) %20789 -03 69 -Lt 41 From: Kara Sherrill [karashrrll @yahoo.coin] Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:23 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon Development Dear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Kara Sherrill From: John Crowley (mailtoJohn aqus.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:55 PM To: Chris Albertson Cc: Giudice, Alicia; Susan Jaderstro; - City Clerk Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Dear Chris, The DEIR produced for the proposed Davidon project at Lynch Creek has been declared "as having a questionable baseline on which it's conclusions have been drawn" by one of the planning commissioners. This was backed up by other professionals in the comment period and residents in the community. Upon reviewing the impacts - aesthetics, biological, hydrology and water quality and particular cumulative impacts I believe that this development and any development South of Windsor Drive will unquestionably have a devastating and irreversible impact on the landscape, wildlife, neighboring community, and overall health of nearby residents. Although there is a housing need in Petaluma, this kind of housing should not be permitted in that it does nothing to relieve the "housing crisis" and instead puts at risk the-health and well -being of our community. Especially a development that creates such an environmentally devastating impact. The traffic, especially on and around the "D" street corridor is already at an atrocious level. Adding this many housing units would render "D" street a veritable highway with respect to carbon monoxide from gas and nitrogen oxides from diesel. Apparently the traffic study that were included in this DEIR are outdated and should be redone. Can you please let me know the details about how and why this traffic study was included as part of this DEIR? ,� -4� As I'm sure you will be receiving other letters I have listed only a few of the many glaring deficiencies of this DEIR. As one of our council members recently pointed out, developers are knocking on Petaluma's door to develop in our city. I would like to see our council demand a higher and more relevant standard for projects with our city. This is not a fine example of what we should be developing for our residents and our residents' children. Thank you for taking the time to review these items and I look forward to a response. Yours John Crowley Mayor David Glass Members of the.Petaluma City Council City of Petaluma c/o City Clerk; Claire Cooper, CMC 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 April 28, 2017 RE: Davidon/Scott Ranch Residential Development Project RDEIR, SCH # 2004072137 Dear Mayor Glass and Members of the Petaluma City Council: Since 1991, members of the Petaluma River Council have worked to protect, restore and support the enjoyment and use of the Petaluma River, her tributaries and watershed lands. The following are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed development ("Project ") by Davidon Homes on the old Scott Ranch property currently under consideration for the west side of Petaluma. We strongly share the concerns of Petalumans for Responsible Planning and the Kelly Creek Protection Project of Earth Island Institute for the environment and quality of the lives of all our residents and for future generations. Your action on the RDEiR can both avoid a crisis and provide an opportunity for our community to take a giant step forward. The Council's and City's ability to be creative and clear at this point can instead prove to be a huge benefit for our community, our parks *and our River. This property is of particular historic, cultural, and environmental significance for all of Petaluma and Sonoma County. It is home to an iconic red barn at the Western entrance to Petaluma via D Street Extension/Point Reyes - Petaluma Road, Kelly Creek (a significant tributary to Thompson Creek and then to the Petaluma River), rolling hills with grazing cows, and abundant wildlife, including the threatened California red - legged frog. The proposal by Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek to build 63 luxury homes on this land must be rejected. As described in extensive public testimony, the Project would impose many significant and unmitigated impacts, from worsening local traffic to destroying federally - declared critical habitat for the red - legged frog. Rather than giving way to yet another development of over - sized, $1 million -plus homes, the City and County should look for a way to preserve this land as an extension of Helen Putnam County Regional Park. This park is heavily used as the only 9 -qs-( Regional Park directly available to the west side of Petaluma, with frequent periods of overcrowding, heavy trail use and overpacked streets at the trail access point in Victoria. We have identified several glaring deficiencies in this project's DEIR. We believe that it falls short of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. As you review the potential merits and drawbacks of this project, we ask you to consider the concerns outlined below. The Visual Study Does Not Show the Severity and Extent of the Project's Visual Impacts The DE1R incorrectly states that there would be no visual impacts to this property under Option B because the barn complex would remain in place. This claim is simply untrue. The site would be graded, trees and vegetation would be removed, and residences would be built around the barns; all of this would fundamentally alter the visual integrity of the setting. The "before" and "after" graphics are also deceptive in that they show the project from vantage points that make it hard for the public to understand the degree to which the site would lose its character and rolling hills. The DEIR also illegally defers mitigation as it proposes to address certain impacts during the architectural review process, which would not happen until after the project is approved. The Project is Inconsistent with Petaluma's General Plan This project is completely inconsistent with Policy 2-P-68 and others in the Petaluma General Plan, many of which are intended to protect the historic qualities of old Scott Ranch. Davidon proposes changing some of the relevant policies and simply ignores other provisions altogether. Instead of honoring the 100 -foot setback from top -of -bank at Kelly Creek and its tributaries, the project plan would change the policy to require a 100 -foot setback from the centerline of the- creek and would eliminate setbacks from its tributaries. This will produce an inevitable abuse, paving, erosion and intrusion of development and construction activities into the riparian zone, which would otherwise be better protected for the restoration of watershed and habitat values and functions. The development would also remove 120 mature trees. These changes to and conflicts with core policies in the General Plan are unacceptable, and are unmitigatable significant negative impacts of the proposed Project. Protections for California Red - Legged Frog are Inadequate Davidon's halfhearted attempt to address the severe impacts this project would have on California red - legged frog habitat is unacceptable. It is bad enough that the DEIR relies on outdated surveys of the frog population, but these surveys were prepared by Zentner and Zentner. John Zentner was criminally convicted in 2001 of illegally moving red - legged frogs off a Concord property with the goal of underestimating the impacts of a development. During the City's hearings for the Adobe Creek subdivision, Zentner and Zentner was explicitly rejected by the City as an unacceptable biological consultant for this very reason. The City should continue to deny this firm the privilege of practicing for any project in Petaluma. The project will destroy critical habitat essential to the protection of the red legged frog and provides insufficient mitigation. - Ll S" - Water Quality, Flooding, Drainage, and Unstable Slope Issues are Downplayed The old Scott Ranch site and adjacent neighborhoods are known to have issues with drainage, flooding, and unstable hillsides. The DER admits the project could- expose people and structures to substantial adverse effects from landslide and unstable slopes, but it does not adequately analyze or mitigate these serious impacts on existing and future homes. It also fails to address how changes to the site — including 314,000 cubic yards of cut and fill — might affect water quality in Kelly Creek, Thompson Creek and the Petaluma River. Given that the Petaluma River is categorized as a Water Quality Limited Segment by the SFBay RWQCB, and given the sediment accumulation in the Turning Basin impeding water traffic, the city is required to be working to reduce existing polluted urban runoff (including lawn and landscaping chemicals, roadway pollution, and sedimentlerosion runoff). The Project's concentration of construction adjacent to these creeks and on steeper slopes is an invitation to significant impacts and unmitigated increases in pollutants and pollution to the Petaluma River. Regional Traffic Impacts are Underestimated Davidon's traffic analysis conveniently ignores several local intersections and freeway ramps that the increased traffic generated by the project will likely impact. The public safety implications of traffic speeding by a new residential and recreational area are virtually ignored. The development also fails to meet Petaluma's requirement for access to transit. With heavy traffic already plaguing D Street, particularly during commutes and seasonal tourism - driven visits to Point Reyes National Seashore, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Samuel Taylor State Park and other coastal attractions, the City of Petaluma should insist on understanding all the impacts before approving the Project. Alternatives Must be Considered We urge the City of Petaluma to delay any approval of this Project as proposed and analyzed in the RDEIR until the many serious deficiencies in the RDEIR are fully addressed. The RDEIR acknowledges that a 28 -home alternative would be environmentally superior to Davidon's preferred 63 -home alternative for this iconic property.. We urge the City to weigh the tremendous community value this property provides the region and to consider an alternative for the site that would minimize these multiple impacts. Petaluma River Council urges that NO development occur on this sensitive and problematic site. The Sonoma Land Trust currently holds $1 million for the purpose of extending Helen Putnam County Regional Park.to preserve as parkland the wonderful, environmental character of this property. With your firm resolve and creativity as government officials and the generosity of our community, we could turn a potential disaster of a development into a great resource for all. Keller :)r, Petaluma River Councir 9 -4 53 Giudice, Alicia 'Tom: Shelley Roden <srodenfoley @yahoo.com> jent: Monday, April 03, 201710:31 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon /Scott Ranch proposed project near D St. and Windsor Dear Alicia Giudice, As a west side resident of Petaluma and commuter who drives Petaluma/Point Reyes Road every day, I savor the scenic beauty of the open space gateway corridor at the intersection at D Street and Windsor, and I am concerned about the Davidon/Scott Ranch proposed project. According to the Draft EIR, "The City of Petaluma has developed primary objectives for the proposed project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124 (b)." It seems that the proposed Davidon project does not meet the following objectives that were developed by the City of Petaluma: "1 "develop the project site in a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of the site ": According to the Draft EIR, the 100' fence setback will not preserve the uniqueness and gateway value of the site. Instead of entering Petaluma and being greeted by rolling green hills with cattle grazing, flocks of wild turkeys and deer, commuters and other travelers will be confronted by visually unappealing evidence of suburban sprawl. The scenic value will be undermined by the removal of protected oak trees and the erection of faux craftsmen -style homes mimicking the true heritage of Petaluma. 2) "permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas ofthe site as protected open space ": How will the deer, wild turkeys, and frogs of Kelly Creek be protected? This is not clearly outlined in the draft EIR. How will these biological areas be preserved? 3) "preserve Kelly Creek in its natural state ": Preserving Kelly Creek in its natural state seems impossible, considering the construction site storm runoff that will ultimately flow into Kelly Creek. It Elie proposed project is approved, it will have a significant impact on the natural habitat. Please consider alternatives such as building fewer homes that are not visible from the road. It would help preserve the open -trace gateway that-I have come to cherish every day I come home from work and arrive in my beloved home ,wn. •--q S-9 Dear Ms. Giudice and Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing because I am concerned about the numerous negative impacts of the proposed Davidson development. I believe the DEIR paints an overly optimistic assessment of the effects the project will have on our community. When my family moved to Petaluma, we did so because we loved the smaller town charm of Petaluma. We felt that Petaluma had an ideal mix of rural beauty with a sense of community, along with the comforts' of a city. We have appreciated that Petaluma has so much to offer without the congestion of the East Bay, where we had lived prior to coming here. As a homeowner in Victoria, I appreciate that my children are able to pass cows, turkey, deer, and all sorts of birds on way to their home; I feel a sense of happiness looking out our upstairs windows at the peaceful green rolling hills, characteristic to Sonoma County. To think that this beautiful area could be replaced with luxury homes following a long stint of construction is very upsetting. I worry about the air quality for my children, along with everyone else in the area, as we would be living next to major construction zone slated to last multiple years. I also worry about their safety since our street, - Windsor Drive, is already used as a thoroughfare. The addition of 63 homes would only increase the number of speeding cars passing through. Plus, the proposed development would'increase traffic on D Street all the way to downtown, which is already congested. It is troubling to think that our one access road in case of emergency would be even more congested. . I am truly concerned about the effect that the proposed Davidson development would have on my family's quality of life, along with many others. I very much appreciate your taking the time to read this, and consider my concerns. Sincerely, Sasha Zeldin _LSD Giudice, Alicia a Yorn. Sharon Risedorph <sharonrisedorph @gmail.co.m> gent: Monday, April 03, 2017 4:58 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Fwd: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Begin forwarded message: From: Sharon Risedorph <sharon(@,sharonrisedorph.com> Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Date: April. 3, 2017 at 4 :36:50 PM PDT To: Petalumans for Responsible Planning <PetRP comcast.net >, Jennifer Pierre <jenpierrepetaluma@yahoo.com >, Bill Wolpert <wolpert sonic.net >, Jocelyn Lin <jocelvnVeh(a�yahoo.com >, Richard Marzo <richardC alacehouselinen.com >, Diana Gomez <dianaegomez(dgmail.com >, Gina Benedetti- Petnic <ginamarie bp(a�gmail.com >, Chris Albertson < councilman. albertson(ap_gmail.com >, Alicia Giudice <agiudice(cDm- group.us >, Alicia Giudice <gg ice(a)-ci pertaluma.ca.us >, Teresa Barrett < teresa4petaluma(a-comcast.net >, Dave King <dayekingpcc(a)gmaiLcom >, Mike Healy <mthealy(aD-sbsg lob al. net >, Gabe Kearney < councitmemberkearney(ame.com >, Kathy Miller <Kathleencmilleroffice@_ mail.com> "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR". April 3, 2017 Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council Hello! In the Opinion section of the March 3 0, 2017 publication of the Argus Courier, Sherri Fabre - Marcia and Lyn Vantigherri wrote a very informative article about problems related to the Davidon proposed development of luxury homes on one of the most beautiful remaining properties in Petaluma. The problems include the destruction of the fantastic views of the gateway into and out of Petaluma, the endangered red legged frog, traffic, air duality, water issues (lack of water, flooding, drainage, landslides), removal of more than 119 trees, rise pollution and 4 years (including weekends and holidays) of construction disturbances for the nearby residents and the thousands of people that enjoy the area and Helen Putnam Park. ') -Lisp "The proposed development eliminates open space and further stresses natural resources. All California communities share in the. responsibility of limiting growth -9nd standing up to developers whose primary motive is profit. Petaluma is an authentic and unique city, and the replacement of even a portion of its beautiful greenery with single- family houses is a move in- the wrong direction." Mark Kessler, Associate Professor of Design at the University of California, Davis and recipient 'of a Masters Degree in Architecture from Harvard School of 'Design. The only alternative in the DEIR that is acceptable is Alternative 1: NO PROJECT / NO DEVELOPMENT. Since the photos in the DEIR do not adequately show the beauty of the area, I will send in a separate email some of the photos that I have taken. Please oppose the development!! Save the beauty and quality of life for all Petalumans! ! Thank you so much! - Sharon Sharon Risedorph Photography 125 8 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 sharonL sharonrisedorph.com www sharonrisedorph.com P 707.658 2341 C 415 672 9003 Sharon Risedorph 3 -LA 'S I Gpudiice, Alicia -rom: Petalumans for Responsible Planning <PetRP @comcast.net> Monday, April 03, 2017 3:50 PM Sent: be Giudice, Alicia Subject Public Petition for Davidon Project Subject: March 17 2017.docx; Petition signatures April 3 2017.docx Attachments: Alicia, Please provide the Planning Commissioners with the attached petition and accompanying signatures before the Planning .Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 4. If this information needs to be in printed format, please let me know. Thank you. Susan Jaderstrom Petalumans for Responsible Planning 707 -762 -5166 P et R P (cry corn cast. net www.PetRP.org � -Lf 5% S-av e-.,Ihe land. dn Windsor& D Str6el! Dr,H, harm �ffd r6ll.jij.Zj hills jr na -50 P p*"�O dtallumq,'*,�P. aTo PO 4ea tura $#0 tk,,v. should not.comaunder�tha-bu[,Jdozer -wt onvitonmentally sert#ftive tI t 'I zirraij, with ifs r,-,U. h arn; Kelty Cravk$. dlJ -OR of -those Owes- and 6undantwil IfY,js .r -6--pFoponA by.-DWdofi Hom HOW!, befQ]'O-OW-d. ge.. �npqft-ypii E�r-a ndw rbAP%vI'* ghould. T6609hiz-q, thei'e 00 ff-16 to dest�unco Us i 0 Vapt our �gged' Mpracts -from worse"Inq OLIF-ti n Na Ww-aevem.l . I avid 00 to D 0 r' - - 4 y saylkig fji�, Ow 11ab [tat, that �j jt�-efff A-1 I wp*�dpifkupoh,-You to flad a wqyto O.Feservo P:d kJ ha p tf!6- �,Ibtii?o �IijoyTfijo t. -LdfidXrUt'f&t-hd OW06s-e bf th$ pa�k n:�av! had bv,3 WOM M -'IfidiAhOl rhillio frl ens qnflWPsj Y DOW gmat resource for yqLg -,Of cur oo mmunjjy,waqan iurn a p6ten-Cfet P &n Petalumans for Responsible Planning — www.PetRP.org PetRP@comcast.net Dear Ms Giudice and the Petaluma Planning Commission, I write this letter in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted for the Davidson /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision. After reading the document, I have several concerns that I'd like to address. For context, I live near the proposed development on Windsor Drive, and though it may seem hypocritical to oppose housing that resembles the Victoria subdivision, Victoria was approved decades ago when horizontal stratification of housing into scenic, rural zones was a normal practice. Today, due to its location, scenic value and topography, Victoria would be equally scrutinized. The biological and cultural resources of the Davidson /Scott Ranch property are vast. Urban sprawl into areas of enduring quality and memorable character, such as the Davidson /Scott Ranch, will permanently mar the D Street gateway to Petaluma and deprive greater Sonoma of gorgeous rolling green hills that give our region its iconic look and appeal to tourists and residents alike. "The project applicant's key objectives for the proposed project are to: • promote and maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth boundary thereby discouraging urban sprawl;" Let's be clear, this development is the very definition of urban sprawl. And one cannot argue that it's located inside of the Urban Growth Boundary when you're simultaneously saying scores of other General Plan provisions shouldn't apply. You can't pick and choose the rules you want to follow. By all objective measures, this property is rural and thus this development should be considered sprawl and own -up to the negative implications that comes with that moniker. Specific to the substance of the DEIR findings, here are a few key areas that I think fail to capture an accurate depiction of the situation that will occur if this development comes to pass. 4.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section of the DEIR concludes that almost all service system buildout has a "Less than significant impact." Impact UTL -2: Development of the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. (Less than Significant) Impact UTL -3: Development of the proposed project would require the construction' of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems. The construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems would result in significant environmental effects. (Potentially Significant, Less than Significant with Mitigation) D - q6v It'll certainly require new infrastructure, massive reshaping of the hillsides and drainage networks while adding cost to everyone who lives in Petaluma. In fact, just this week, the City of Petaluma issued a letter to its citizens informing them of the need to increase rates for water and sewer services for the next FIVE years. On top of that increase, we'll need to subsidize this development? No thank you. It's ridiculous to assume this project will cover the costs needed to invest in appropriate water delivery and wastewater systems as the DEIR seems to suggest. It'll be paid for by all of us in perpetuity and we're already being asked to spend more and more money in fees for the next five years. TRANSPORTATION I agree with the report in its conclusion that impact on traffic throughout the region would be Significant and Unavoidable. However, I feel that it does not adequately explore the negative impact this development would have on downtown Petaluma. The Petaluma River presents significant difficulties to any proposed housing development, particularly on the west side of Petaluma. The river creates choke points that result in massive back -up and gridlock at heavy commute times as well as on weekends. The huge influx of vehicles significantly degrades the quality of life for all residents of Petaluma, by reducing the charm that makes the town so special. D Street has become a thoroughfare in its own right. And this development simply adds more people and more cars without streamlining or mitigating the significant problems we're facing with our cross -town transportation > corridors. The DEIR aptly describes Windsor Drive as, "a "cut -thru" street for non - residential traffic attempting to bypass congested arterial streets." This project will contribute more traffic to Windsor drive, which is attempting to be a walkable community in its own right. The steady stream of speeding cars, heavy trucks, and more residents will result in a degradation of that community in terms of quality of life. PUBLIC SERVICES One of the main reasons for not supporting this project as articulated in the DEIR is how blatantly it fails to help any situation our town is in. Take the entire "Public Services" section, for instance. The DEIR states that Fire, Police, Schools, etc... literally every service listed, is not impacted by this development. Which is exactly why it isn't worth pursuing. This project is going to destroy an entire scenic area, raise utility fees for all the people of Petaluma to support expanded infrastructure, cause massive disruption to the transportation grid, and sequester the area in loud, diruptive construction for years to come. And for what? For a Walnut Creek developer to make money and an extremely small handful of people to buy a luxury home. People who could afford to live in this proposed development could just as easily afford any other house listed on the market today. The DEIR notes the population pressures coming to Petaluma in the coming years and this development is a drop in the pond to addressing those issues, yet building on this property deprives citizens of so much lasting beauty and scenic /wildlife resources. 9_4W "Based on the General Plan and the number of housing units in 2016, the City of Petaluma is expected to add 5,366 new housing units by 2025. The project would add 63 to 66 homes to the housing stock of the City, and would account for 4.2 percent of the City' expected increase in housing. This is a beneficial impact as it would assist the City in meeting its RHNA goals. " This section from Impact Sciences has a bias connotation. We need 5,366 new homes and they're selling this project like the 66 additional units are actually helping the situation. We could put seven times the number of houses in a fraction of the land in the middle of town without contributing to sprawl and damaging the iconic look and feel of Sonoma County. HELEN PUTNAM REGIONAL PARK Finally, nothing in this DEIR assesses the negative impact on the Helen Putnam Park itself. It's referenced only marginally. Let's be clear. We have ONE regional park in our area. Only One. There isn't any mitigation that can be had here. We can't ruin the viewshed, create noise pollution and degrade drainage here, knowing that there are still five other open space areas you can recreate in, because there aren't. This is it It's all the people of Petaluma have. Let's not make it an island in a sea of development, but rather surround the park with lightly populated, large lot housing consistent with our General Plan. Areas surrounding the park should gradually transition into more densely populated Urban areas, not be surrounded by walls of housing. In the end, I'm not a scientist, but I am highly suspicious of any document that pretty much reads "Less than Significant Impact" across the board. That simply isn't realistic, especially when the land in question is a scenic riparian zone with diverse topography filled with wildlife. Thus all findings should be questioned. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best, - Dustin Clark Petaluma, CA Planning Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR/ Hillside Slides I have lived on the West side of Petaluma for the past 24 years. From my house, I have seen the hillside below the water tanks collapse. I have seen the backyards of five houses on Oxford Court slide. During the time of getting these problems fixed, the owners could not sell or finance their properties. The developer who originally built the homes did not take the necessary care in shoring up the steep hillside cuts. This oversight could have happened because the developer was running out of money or because the City did not incorporate protection for homeowners into the General Plan. Today the General Plan 2025 covers development of hillside property, and the current General Plan may not allow the proposed homes to be built on lots 1 -7 and 38 to 45. This plan was put into place for the protection of City The geology in the entire local area is notoriously unstable and weak. Professionally the geology is known as the "Bay Area Melange." This unconsolidated junk is the remains of ancient island chains that have scraped off Pacific plate (like so many food leftovers) as it sank below our plate and was crashed. in the process of Plate Tectonics over the last few hundred million years. That's why we have steep hills and beautiful topography. However, erosion is rapid. We know our ground is made up of sandy clay. How can the existing neighbors be protected from land creep, slides, foundation damage and other possible oversights that were not properly taken care of during construction? What happens if the developer goes bankrupt or the bond is not as large as may be needed or in place long enough? I personally am opposed to development of this land. If the development is approved, I request a bond for at least 15 years to protect homeowners from the kind of damage that has already occurred in the Victoria. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 Q -4 i }i. Planning Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA, 94952 Subject; Comments on Davidon Homes Draft E1W Environmental Impact and Mitigation Impact CULT-3 Paleontological Resources The geologic units on the project site include the Franciscan Formation, which is the oldest of fossil bearing marine sediments. Although no known paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, it is possible that these geologic units could contain undiscovered paleontological resources, 1 am opposed to development of this land. If this land is developed,, Z request that the city appoint a person to oversee the palaeontology on this site. Without the insurance of a qualified paleontologist, resources could be damaged or destroyed Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA, 94952 7 t �-J-qV Davidson v I en Jessica Umphress [jessica_umphress @hotmail.com] sent-Monday, April 3, 2017 12:18 PM To. Gludice, Alicia Dear Alicia Giudice, I understand that the Planning Commission is meeting tomorrow to discuss the EIR for the Davidson Development in Petaluma. As a Petaluma resident (address 125 Glacier Court, 94954), 1 would like to express some concerns about the EIR and this project. The EIR covers a lot of territory for the development plan on Kelly Creek, but for me it raises many more questions that make me think that more studies need to be done and that, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved rather than developed for housing. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This parcel in question is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. if it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. What Petaluma does not need is another high -end housing development sprawling into the west county, eating into the open spaces there, further degrading those natural communities, and creating more privilege for a few but less access for the many. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, assica Umphress �_H( s Please re erve Petaluma Rebecca Vasile [rebeccavasile @gmail.com1 Sent:Monday, April 3, 2017 12:33 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Rebecca Rebecca Vasile Founder www.TheE odyl.00m .cam 707 -306 -0460 Scott Ranch vi Petaluma Project steveafinley@comcast.net Sent :Monday, April 3, 2017 10:59 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Alicia Giudice I wanted to add my name to the list of people asking you to notify the chain of command of my disapproval for this project. I am a bit more informed about the Scott Ranch Property than most as I live in the Pinnacle Heights Development RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the Scott Ranch. There is no way this area can handle the traffic from 63 additional houses. I don't care what the Environmental Impact Reports tell you or the city. D street is a 2 lane road already impacted and falling apart due to overuse. If you think I am uninformed come sit on my lawn any morning or Friday afternoon. The land on that hill is unstable and floods. The Victoria Development has continuous flood problems. I suggest you check with there HOA if you think I am, again, uninformed. Petaluma is known for responsible growth. This is simply a way for a development company to make a profit, leaving a town worse off than when it started. Thank you for your time. Steve Finley 2 Tilden Lane Petaluma �- qo Davidon development near D St. and Windsor Sandra Rozmarin [ss.rozmarin @gmail.com] Senii.Monday, April 3, 2017 7:54 AM To: Gludice, Alicia Dear Alicia Giudic Do we really have enough information about the development plan on Kelly Creek? I don't think so and recommend that more studies should be done. The land in question can be enjoyed by so many people in the future if it is preserved for education, wildlife and recreation. Our green spaces are already limited, we should not be further limiting same. This land should be park land. Let's take the long view here. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Sandy Rozmarin 40 Augusta Cir. ss.rozmarin ftmail.com (707) 774 -6128 e�_u (6 (9 Development on D Street judymacer @gmail.com Sernt:Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:50 PM To: Giudice, Alicia 17c: Saunders Steve [Steve.Saunders46 @gmail.com] Hello Ms. Giudice, We're writing to express our concern and consternation about the proposed housing development at the west end of D St. We believe this development would be truly detrimental to the historic value and attraction of Petaluma. our town is becoming a "destination" exactly because of it's friendly, small -town atmosphere, it's many beautiful historic homes, and the gorgeous surrounding countryside, including the beautiful red barn on the property in question. Wildlife on the property would be displaced forever, and, as you must know, this development would greatly exacerbate traffic on D St. which is already far too congested for a residential area. Petaluma is a lovely place to live, to raise children and to grow old. Let's not ruin the historic part of the town.which gives Petaluma it's reputation. Please, please, please, use your influence to help block the development of the west end of D St. Sincerely Judith Macer & Steve Saunders 1 Highland Rd. Petaluma �znt from my iPad i EIR for the Davidon Development Erin Chmielewski [ebot363 @gmail.com] Sent:Sunday, April 2, 2017 8:42 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Oear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Erin Chmielewski J 1 ° l-I "LO Elaine Daly, MFT 1300 Sunset Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 832 - 535 -9485 Elaine mh daly@gmail.com Re. EIR on Davidon Project April 2, 2017 Dear Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner, My name is Elaine Daly and I received my Bachelor's Degree in California Natural History and Wildlife Conservation in 1997. Since then I have studied migratory birds, native plant restoration, wetland mitigation and spent many years teaching environmental education and nature awareness. The EIR covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the -' land. Petaluma has'very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Elaine DaCy, g4T'T' Elaine Daly, MFT q lA Elaine Daly, MFT 1300 Sunset Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 832 - 535 -9485 Elaine mh daly)gmail.com Re. EIR on Davidon Project April 2, 2017 Dear Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner, My name is Elaine Daly and I received my Bachelor's Degree in California Natural History and Wildlife Conservation in 1997. Since then I have studied migratory birds, native plant restoration, wetland mitigation and spent many years teaching environmental education and nature awareness. The EIR covers many important components 'of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. To begin, Native grassland habitat,,a sensitive natural community by the California ` Department of Fish and Wildlife, has been destroyed in most of coastal California. To restore a non - native grassland to it would take 50 years to establish native clumping grasses. An already established Native grassland is important for the integrity of the land, as it prevents erosion, allows for other native plants to succeed and creates habitat. Disturbing those grasslands would have long term, negative impacts on the integrity of that landscape and its inhabitants. Eucalyptus trees, although not considered forest land by CEQA standards are known to be habitat for many migrating songbirds, resident birds and seasonally for monarch butterflies. Many studies show they are critical habitat for many species. Petaluma has such little wooded environments that this stand of trees is important to protect. The wildlife in Petaluma has highly restricted movement as due housing developments and private pasture land that is fenced off. Most of the larger mammals in our area are very limited in their movement, including deer and coyote. Both of these animals are important animals for the balance of the ecosystems. The natural food web has gotten disturbed due to fences and developments that block wildlife corridors. It says in the DEIR that larger mammals take advantage of the extended space of the Kelly Creek watershed. Petaluma wildlife already has restricted movement and minimal habitat, so it is important to preserve this habitat. 0 In addition, if larger mammals don't have big enough areas, or corridors to travel on the genetic biodiversity goes down and the animal lose their genetic diverisity. Additionally, although the EIR shows that the Red Legged Frog is unlikely to breed in Kelly Creek, we need to do ongoing studies to ensure that this is 100% true. If they are even likely to breed there, the land should be protected and under monitoring during mating season. Since, there is a presence of Red Legged Frog on the property, the conversation need to be about restoration and creation of habitat to ensure that this indicator /endangered species continues to survive. Please consider halting the development and making a plan based on a long term vision both for animals, plants and people. Sincerely, ECaine rDaCy, MTrj -' Elaine Daly, MFT � -'13 Planning Department City of Petaluma. 11 English Street Petaluma, CA: 94952. Subject: Comments m Davidon Hones Draft EM/ Environmental Impact. and Mitigation Impact GEO -4 Bedrock Shear Zone The project site contains two potential bedrock shear zones that would intersect the proposed development area. Characteristics of shear zones card = shear: plans shear -plane is undef ormed ,5egn in pr4.ofilo, the ellipse rof0es towards shear plane with increasing strain. Ellipticity incoegles with increasinq strain, �; Cf�il�'ti1U� ��xc io ii iro Reap sFrdin eilJ,ps y -- When the shear zones are moved, even with overexcavated and recompacted areas, what is the guarantee this movement will not cause major damage 10 months or 10 years down the road of adjacent .properties? I am opposed to development of'this property because of all ofthe potential geological issues. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 rJ - 'Lq '4 john sheehy [sheehy @vbbn.com] SentSaturday, April 1, 2017 6:44 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Dear Ms. Aguidice, I am a lifelong Petaluma, who as a boy spent time on the Old Scott Ranch. I believe that the ranch should be preserved to retain some of Petaluma's historical heritage at the western of D Street, and ultimately purchased to be folded into the Helen Putnam Regional Park. It should not be developed into a housing tract. best, John Sheehy John Sheehy 7045 Toma Lane Penngrove, CA 94951 Desk 707 664 9993 I Mobile 7'073381742 sheehy_Cawbbn.com 6a- L-f1 � Davidon Xmpact on Surrounding Area twojoynts [twojoynts @comcast.net] Sent - Friday, March 31, 2017 10:14 AM To: Giudice, Alicia o: Gludic yn Alicia l.com; MarciaJoynt [twojoynts @comcast.net]; PetRP @comcast.net Dear Petaluma Senior Planner Alicia Giudice, My husband and I bought our home on Kelly Creek over 30 years ago and have worked to clean the creek in back of our place of brush, garbage and trash from the old city dumping. We founds remnants of cobblestones, pieces of City Hall, other large stones etc that must have been hauled here years ago to the edge of town at Grossland Way. The city has grown and D Street, which is the egress for our small development of homes on Grossland /12th St, has become busier and busier these last few years.' More people drive their children to school, more high school aged children have their own cars, more cars and drivers in general have made the street very busy at certain hours of each day. Now the off ramp from 101 at San Antonio has made traffic denser, especially at evening commute times when D St Extension is used as a way to skirt the slow down of traffic on the freeway. There are times where we cannot make a left hand -turn out of our corner and wait to exit making ;right turn as traffic on D backs up at the Eighth St stop sign. There are times in the morning and afternoon that I watch children have to make a run for it to cross D to get to the high school. There is a crosswalk at 8th and at Sunnyslope but many blocks in between which kids don't want to walk to cross. The creek behind our house is now classified as a "PRIVATE" creek, and we all do our best to keep it clean without any sort of partnership status, homeowners agreements etc. We cleaned it out and let our children play in it when they could gather tadpoles, look and listen to frogs and muck around as young children should do, with supervision. We keep it trimmed back, free from debris, and don't pour chemicals into our creek. We don't know when the city decided it was a "private" creek, but it is. When Victoria was built, we watched chemicals in our creek come down on Friday nights after 5. Many of us called the fire department who said things were being poured into the creek or storm drains. We noticed the creek changed from a winter spring creek to an all year creek. The City did mitigating work to stem flooding and rerouted most of the water, but water still flows `ownhill down D Street to our corner at Grossland and turns and flows into the drain in front of our house, under our driveway, and back under our garage in a pipeline and into the creek. The City replaced their pipe a couple of years ago, but water still pools where Grossland turns and goes to 12th St. Records from the Water department will nacK was up. ® Water flows down hill. It flows into our private creek. With Davidon homes, MORE water will flow. Much MORE water. Storm water runoff flows downhill to D St and flows along the streets and into the gutters or storm drains. Two storm drains on our street carry water under our garage to the creek. We chose to live on a creek, not a DITCH. We cleaned it up, keep it clean. Now we will have MORE runoff water from Davidon Homes. ® Traffic must move down D to downtown. With Davidon homes, MORE traffic will move. Much MORE traffic. I've read the EIR and the mitigations. I'm not sure they address the concerns of those of us downhill from the development, below Sunnyslope. Sprinkler water, runoff, and ground springs are not mitigated. Our private creek will be impacted without any oversight from the city. . , he traffic moving down D will stop at Sunnyslope. Will stop at Eighth. Will stop at Sixth. Will back up at the BLVD. Will stop at the drawbridge. Will stop for the Train. Will have more cars. The water from anywhere from 23 to 66 homes will flow supposedly away from the creek and flow into the storm drains that already spill out and run down our street. There are natural springs that will open up as they did during construction of Victoria. But, THE MOST IMPORTANT fact of all is that Petaluma will lose the land immediately next to Putnam Park that will never be able to be replaced. The crown of our city will be gone but for the few fortunate enough to be able to purchase their piece of treasure. Let's not do this. As two former educators in town, we implore the City to work to keep as much as possible of this land for public use. Marcia and Tom Joynt LwQj2ynts@comeast.net 5 Grossland Way p-taluma, CA 94952 7637453 ro the Petaluma Planning Commission: ate In the event that 1 cannot attend the Planning Commission Meeting on April 4th, ect indthe attached your attention to a particular concern I have (among others) on the Davidon prod letter. It was previously mailed to Alicia Giudice, but I am copying her again here. Thank you. Peggy Alfrey 266 Cambridge Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 707 - 781 -7199 home 707- 338 -3030 cell ®4 -1 00 March 17, 2017 City of Petaluma Planning Division ATTN: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner cc: Planning Commission Members 11 English St. Petaluma, CA. 94952 RE: Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision Draft Environmental impact Report April 4, 2017 Public Hearing In the event that I cannot attend the public hearing I would like to submit my thoughts on the negative impact of transportation & traffic; noise; and air quality to Windsor Drive and surrounding residences that will result from this project. Windsor Drive is one of the last thoroughfares and connectors between Western Ave. and D Street on the west side of Petaluma. During peak hours Windsor currently accommodates cars, domestic trucks, and 16- wheelers - over 200 vehicles east & westbound using the street (if I am interpreting the data correctly from the report). Other than stop signs there are no limits on the speed or type of vehicles. As a resident whose home borders Windsor Drive I can attest to the current noise and amount of traffic in its current state. With a minimum of 63 homes proposed by Davidon x 2 /cars - per -home the impact to Windsor Drive would be another 126 vehicles using Windsor Drive each day. This would severely increase the noise, air quality, and character of the existing Victoria and West Haven neighborhoods. At the very least, an additional round about should be created at Windsor & Cambridge Lane to slow down, and perhaps deter traffic on this thoroughfare. Without any mitigation by Davidon to address these impacts I cannot support this project or the current DEIR. Thank you, Margaret L. Alfrey 266 Cambridge Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 �L Mr. & Mrs. RA. Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 K.Billings @comeast.not Alicia Giudice Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 agludice@ci.petaluma.ca.us Subject: DEIR March 2017 D & Windsor Proposed Development Story Pole and Netting Request Dear Alicia, We are very concerned with proposed lots 37 to 47., We feel the lots are too close to the existing houses. Prior to the development approval we request story poles and netting for all of the lots and especially for the lots mentioned above. The story poles and netting will help illustrate the proposed building locations and heights. The community needs to be alerted of pending development and to enhance understanding of the proposed project. When it is determined that story poles and netting are required, the applicant engineer, architect or building designer should be required to prepare a Story Pole and Netting Plan that should be approved by the project planner prior to the placement of the poles on the site. Once a and the applicant should inform the project planner when placement of story p complete submit photographs showing installation. A licensed surveyor or civil engineer should submit written verification that the height and position of the poles and netting accurately represents the height and location of the proposed structures. The community should have a chance to review and approve, request exceptions or changes. it seems that the proposed project will be encroaching views and privacy, as well as adding noise, traffic and the loss of wild life. if this project is approved It will be a terrible loss of open space, and plant life for the entire community. Thank you, Kathleen & Bob Billings a� } a - � %'o Against the proposed development at D and i s r Nate Seltenrich [nate.selt @gmail.com, sent.monday, March 20, 2017 9:09 AM To: Giudice, Alicia councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; k councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmillerofifice @gmail.com; jenpierrepetaluma@yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh@yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @gmail.com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com Hello, I am writing to ask your support in protecting the valuable parcel of land at D and Windsor for native species and the people of Petaluma forever instead of building more luxury housing on the edge of town. Helen Putnam Regional Park is a local and regional treasure, and a great to contributor to my quality of life (even though I must travel 15 minutes to get there) and to that of many Petalumans and Sonoma County residents. Instead of being hemmed in by yet another luxury development, the park should be expanded to include this adjacent tract that is so important to endangered California red- legged frogs and other plants and animals we so treasure and yet have already severely impacted up and down the state. Here is a chance to make the right decision, to secure land for the public and for native species forever instead of the short- sighted alternative, bulldozing the land for temporary gain but destroying its natural character. Beyond harm to native species and to a critical wildlife corridor, beyond the loss of potential public parkland accessible off D Street, development would also mean negative impacts in terms of views, noise, traffic, and air pollution along this already impacted corridor at what is arguably Petaluma's gateway to the west. Let's keep the land open and natural and talk instead about annexing it to the park. To that end I've also made a donation to Sonoma County Regional Parks. Thanks for your careful attention to this important matter. Nathan Seltenrich 221 Parrington Road ataluma, CA 94952 --L4%1 Comment r e: Davidon development _auren Fuhry [IaJuhry@gmail.com] ;ent.Tuesday, March 21, 2017 11:20 AM ro: Giudice, Alicia Uood morning, I am writing to address the proposed Davidon development and express hope that this project will not be approved. Petaluma's rent is increasing out of control, and the last thing we need is more high cost development that further makes Petaluma a wealthy suburban enclave of San Francisco. I work in Petaluma for World Centric, a small company that employs about 30 in the Foundry Wharf. Many employees live in Petaluma, but increasingly our younger staff (myself included) are having to move to Santa Rosa or Rohnert Park and commute to work because rent in Petaluma is already so exorbitant. I recently moved away from Petaluma after paying $1400 /mo for a 375 sq ft apartment. A new high cost development will only further drive up rental rates as landlords that have zero rent control requirements realize people are willing to pay a pretty penny to live in Petaluma. Any new development should be focused on affordability and maintaining Petaluma's green and open spaces. Without residents of diverse incomes, Petaluma cannot hope to continue on as the vibrant, creative and one -of -a -kind destination that it is Please consider whether this development project upholds the ideals of social and environmental justice. Do the people of Petaluma want a diverse, open community? Or do we just care about fattening our tax coffers? I hope you will think about the large crowds that attended the city council meeting where the "It won't happen here" resolution about keeping Petaluma an inclusive community was adopted. More than words, we need 'fordable housing to be an inclusive place. Luxury homes contribute nothing to our community. Thank you, Lauren Fuhry Former Petaluma resident (2014 -2016) Save the Land at Windsor and DI - my submission for public comment kati jackson [katijacks @hotmaiIxom] Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:11 PM To: Giudice, Alicia cc mail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; PetRP @comcast.net; councilman.albertson@gmail,com; teresa4petaluma @comcast,net; davekingp @9 J' councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @ gmail.com; jenpierrepetaluma @ yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; dianaegomez @g mail .com; ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @ gmail.com Good Afternoon Petaluma City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, wanted to drop a quick note to show my support for protecting the land at Windsor and D street from development. I had dreamed of living in Petaluma for the last 8 years and finally made the move. I have lived and worked in Petaluma for almost 3 years now, and love everything about it. But most of all I love the rolling hills, bright green in the winter, and golden in the summer. I love seeing flocks of turkeys, deer, cattle and soaring birds. I became a member of the Regional Parks specifically so that I could hike Helen Putnam Park at least twice a week. I love seeing Petaluma from a top the hill, as it's cradled on all sides by the most beautiful sprawling hills. The drive out Chileno Valley Road or D Street to Pt. Reyes are two of the best drives in northern California... I think we can all agree on that. We are so lucky to live in this place, and so we must protect it. So, I hope you folks consider denying the plan to turn this land into another McMansion development, that would scar those beautiful hills, and endanger our wildlife. These large developments don't fit well into the small farm -town feel, the big red barns, and the aging chicken barns. I know housing is short, but the majority of people that need housing can't afford these places anyway.. there has to be a better way. (hank you for your consideration, Kati Jackson Eucalyptus/ Middle 2 Rock resident View from Helen Putnam: V ri ra — Lts,3 ' y } k �- `�q Davidson/Scott each Ediko [ediko @att.net] Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 10:11 PM To: Giudice, Alicia I am a nurse, a grandmother, and I live at 633 F St in Petaluma. Walking at Helen Putnam Park is a regular part of my life. I want to see the Davidson /Scott land added to the park. This would add to the beauty and character of our community. open space is such an important treasure to preserve for us, and future generations. Allowing houses to be built on this land would threaten wild life, add traffic, and detract from the beauty of this area. I don't see any positive impact of adding expensive homes to this land. Please do all in your power to stop the housing development on the Davidson /Scott Ranch land. Sincerely, Elizabeth Holman a ej -4 �S� Davidon Devepment Doug and Lori [dudeyman @comcast.net] sent:Monday, March 6, 2017 12:38 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Ms. Giudice, We strongly oppose the proposed development of Davidon /Scott. West Petaluma is already too crowded, and this will only make it worse. This area should become part of the park, not more houses. We should not become San Jose north. Our area is becoming way over populated. We should look at our neighbors to the south in Mann as an example. Petaluma does not need to approve every development. The quality of life for those of us already here should count for more. Thank you, Douglas and Lori Lund 715 Vanessa Way Petaluma, CA 94952 707 - 762 -0908 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com t March 13, 2017 City of Petaluma Planning Division ATTN: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report April 4, 2017 Public Hearing Dear Ms. Giudice; In the event that I cannot attend the public hearing I would like to submit my thoughts on the negative impact of transportation & traffic; noise; and air quality to Windsor Drive and surrounding residences that will result from this project. Windsor Drive is one of the last thoroughfares and connectors between Western Ave. and D Street on the west side of Petaluma. During peak hours Windsor currently accommodates cars, domestic trucks, and 16- wheelers - over 200 vehicles east & we'stbound using the street (if I am interpreting the data correctly from the report). Other than stop signs there are no limits on the speed or type of vehicles. As a resident whose home borders Windsor Drive I can attest to the current noise and amount of traffic in its current state. With a minimum of 63 homes proposed by Davidon x 2 /cars -per -home the impact to Windsor Drive would be another 126 vehicles using Windsor Drive each day. This would severely increase the noise, air quality, and character of the existing Victoria and West Haven neighborhoods. Without any mitigation by Davidon to address these impacts I cannot support this project or the current DEIR. Thank you, 1''m v� Y a Margaret. Alfr e y 266 Cambridge Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 rJ -Y�I McDowell, Ellen Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:41 PM To: Giudice, Alicia g Ellen McDowell Development Services Coordinator, City of Petaluma Community Development - Planning Division 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone: (707) 778 -4472 Hours: Monday - Thursday 8am -5pm, closed Fridays � %eiP rt OPERCOUP FOREWO ZONING * PERMITS 61 OOT a From: Javiera Pierattini [mailto: Javiera .Pierattini @cushwake.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 20171:41 PM To: petalumaplanning Subject: Davidon Homes Hsi There, what is the status regarding Davidon Homes planning on D street? Thank you, Javiera Pierattini The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the above named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way using any information contained within this communication. If you have received this communication in error please contact the sender by telephone or by response via mail. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. City of Petaluma records, including emails, are subject to the California Public Records Act. Unless exemptions apply, this email, any attachments and any replies are subject to disclosure on request, and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. l aeridon atrocity Lori Ayre [loriayre @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:22 AM To: Jennifer Pierre Denpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com]; Bill Wolpert [wolpert @sonic.net]; Jocelyn Lin Docelynyeh @yahoo.com]; Richard Marzo [rchard @lacehouselinen.com]; Diana Gomez [dianaegomez @gmail.com]; Gina Benedetti - Petnic [ginamarie.bp @gmail.com]; Chris Albertson [ councilman.abertson @gmail.com]; Giudice, Alicia Attachments:Chapman and Western.JPG (188 KB) Dear Planning Commission Members, I've lived in Petaluma since 1999. I live off Chapman Lane and often travel through the horrible Windsor development. When I first moved here, there was a lovely stand of euclalyptus with cows peering at me through a fence everytime I drove up Chapman to Western. I've attached a piece that my friend, Lisa Krieshok made of this very view. It was lovely. Now that's gone. Now when I turn, its a big driveway to nowhere. No cows. No trees. if I have to go through Windsor, I can barely stand it, its so Stepford_Wives. It feels completely devoid of life. Ugly, soul -less homes. No people out and about. Just boxes plopped in the middle of a sweet crook in the arms of Petaluma. Thankfully, after you get through that development, you are comforted again by the open space, the beautiful red barn and the rolling hills. Thank goodness for that property and for Helen Putnam Park to take away the sting of Windsor. Why on Earth would someone consider this area for development? It is travesty enough to have Windsor there. We can't change that. But hstead of building more monstrous, soul- less,homes with their manicured lawns, we should be finding ways to creating more public spaces and working hard to protect our few remaining vistas. We should be expanding Helen Putnam instead of expanding the Windsor Development. Please protect this area from development and instead preserve its natural beauty while we still can. It is a treasure that all of us enjoy every time we pass through Windsor, drive down D or look down from atop Helen Putnam. And for me that is a path I take frequently. I love our little Helen Putnam Park - one of the very few public spaces available to us in Petaluma. Further encroaching on that is just the wrong thing to do entirely. Apart from my citizen perspective, the EIR makes a strong case for other reasons to prevent this development including the threat to habitats key to the red - legged frog and other bird and bat species. And the loss of not just trees and damage to the creek is heartbreaking. And even worse is what they plan to do to the beautiful rolling hills. Instead of that comforting view of nature, we get a mutilated version in the form of the retaining wall that would be necessary. Don't let this happen. Protect Petaluma's natural beauty. Keep this development away from Helen Putnam and away from Kelly Creek and the -d barn. The frogs and bats will thank you and I will thank you ,very single time I pass through Windsor or walk in Helen Putnam Park. Lori Ayre Street Windsor Aseem Das [aseem @woridcentric.org] Sent:Sunday, March 12, 2017 4:22 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Oear Ms. Giudice Am writing to express my opposition to the planned development at D Street and Windsor. As a city planner, you have to look at the need for housing against more traffic /congestion and paving over of natural vistas and landscape. Petaluma is a charming small town and one reason it is so, is due to not being crowded /congested, walkable and with great natural beauty. There are alternative models (such as tiny homes, restricting cars, integrated with natural surroundings, using natural building techniques etc) which may provide for housing density vs the standard 2500 -4000 sq ft tract housing development, which already exists between D and Western. Urge you to look at alternatives vs standard housing development projects and not approve this specific project at Windsor & D St. Aseem Das CEO & Founder 101 H Street, Suite K Petaluma, CA 94952 T. 707-241-91911 F: 866 - 850 -9732 www.worldcentric.org WORW P q'(0 Draft EIR ®avid ®n Julie elias Uce87 @hotmai1.com] Sent:Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:45 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; kathleencmilleroffice@gmail.com; davekingpcc @gmail.com; councilmemberkearney @me.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; mayordavidglass @gmaii.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; councilman.albertson @gmail.com Dear Alicia Giudice and City Council Members: please let me know how the unacceptable levels of service stated in Draft EIR for Davidon project will be mitigated. Traffic and flow of vehicles on D St. from Sunnyslope /El Rose all the way to Lakeville St. and to McDowell Blvd. is a challenging mess to navigate. R,,garding the Davidon development, the Draft El R, Volume 11 4.12 Transportation and 'traffic states the project will add unacceptable levels of traffic. I urge you to read and understand this Draft EIR. This project will in Petaluma. Currently, travel is extremely create terrible repercussions difficult from west side to east sid WmoDe cCars. Them surrounding on on D St. as D Street cannot accommodate environment cannot accommodate this project. Please do not allow this project and more importantly please understand verything researched and stated in the Draft EIR. The quality of life in - etaluma will be greatly impacted for many reasons with this development. I have copied /pasted a portion of Draft EIR - -- Section 4.1 please let me know how these unacceptable levels of service in traffic will be mitigated.. U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps and Lakeville Highway Signal AM 19 B 19 B PM 27 C 27 C 6. U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps and Lakeville Highway Signal AM 51 D 51 D PM 40 D 40 D 7. D Street and Lakeville RoadStreet SSSSignal 14 >80 F >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 8. D Street and San ntonio B PM 49 (WB) E 49 (WB) E Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. Notes: Intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F are shown in bold, and project impacts are shaded. 1 SSS = side street stop - controlled. 2 AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. 3 Average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. For worst -case movement at side street stop - controlled intersections, delay presented with worst -case movement in parenthesis. Average control delay calculated using Synchro 8 analysis software. 4 LOS = Level of Service based on average control delay calculations. AS . �.._, -9 a A 9 0_1 R i°hcm following three a-10 � %-: %JLLL .L L;i-ons a I- street /Windsor Drive ( FIB eak hour) D Street /Lakeville Street (AM and PM peak hours) ® D Street /San tonio Road (RM eak hour) All other study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the study intersection D Street /San .Antonio Street would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E durincr the PM peak hour. The proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact at this location, because based on the City's impact criterion a significant intersection impact would occur where trips generated by a proposed project cause intersection operations to worsen from LOS E to LOS F. The study intersections D Street /Windsor Drive (during the PM peak hour) and D Street /Lakeville Street (during the AM and PM peak hours) would continue to _0 Grate at unacceptable LOS F under Cumulative 4.12 Transportation and Traffic Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.12 -59 Davidon /Scott Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTM Revised Draft EIR March 2017 Plus Project conditions. The proposed project would add approximately 45 trips (6% of total trips) during.the AM peak hour and 64 trips (5% of total trips) during the PM peak hour at D Street /Windsor Drive. The proposed project would add approximately 28 trips (just under 1.0% of total trips) during the AM peak hour and 38 trips (1.10 of total trips) during the PM peak hour at D Street /Lakeville Street. Therefore, because the proposed project would add trips at two study intersections operating at LOS F under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the proposed project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact at the two study intersections. Option B would generate three fewer AM peak hour and PM peak hour net new trips. This small difference in peak hour trips would not be enough to alter the results reported above. Therefore, the 63- unit residential subdivision under Option B would also make a cumulativel impact on the two study intersections Sincerely, ppose the proposed Davidon Project (aye Chandler [kayechandlerli @gmaii.com] 5ent:Wednesday, March 8, 2017 2:03 PM fo: Giudice, Alicia Cc: PetRP @comcast.net Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Attention Ms. Giudice, Notice to disapprove of the proposed Davidon Development on the Scott Ranch property. 1. The negative impact on Kelly Creek 2. , Negative impact on the residents of Victorian 3. Developer is noted for designing over- sized, over priced houses on tiny lots 4. Negative impact on our infrastructure 5. D Street cannot handle anymore traffic 6. Police and Fire departments are already stretched to the mat 7. Over crowding of our schools 8. Creates a very ugly gateway to Petaluma. 9. We need to protect our open space not destroy it. - is.proposed development is an environmental nightmare. Developer Davidon's reputation as a contract is at best deplorable. Here's one homeowners experience and comments: Davidson built 72 homes in Santa Cruz between 2004 and 2006. Of these, at least 30 homeowners have sued Davidson for various defects, I am now in litigation with Davidson. Here are the issues I have dealt with: I. Leak through attic within l month of o« ership. Repaired, but no mold was lone. 2. A/C leak, due to faulty installation of A/C condensation pan. Repaired, no mold report. 3. Leak in kitchen pipes, under sink. Repaired, no mold report. kitchen, one bedroom and hall. Very shoddy 4. Leak near 'OD sets of french doors. These leaks were in the living room, dining room, a a j e airs and Davidson claims that the work was "good enough, as the repairs, Molding and travertine flooring was damaged during = p home was still functional." One of the leaks '(in the, living room) has recurred and Davidson has been unresponsive. Mold report promised, but never completed. er closed. 5. Leak in roof, clue to the fact that during construction a hole was made for an air vent, but the hole was forgotten and nev This leak caused major damage to the master closet and bath. Repairs were shoddy. Mold inspection was completed, but report was never received. pealing within the first week. It was retouched b3' Davidson many times over the first year', and then they 6. Cabinet facing started. refused to fix it as it was "out of warranty ". 7. Some of the windows, including �vindovvs in the french doors, are not sealed properly, and are foggy. Davidson gave home owners faulty information regarding window and door manufacturers, and subcontractors, corrected this information numerous idson hired a new company to replace the defective Ibes, but has not provided accurate information. With some windows, Dav windows. But this has not happened with all windows. Right now, I still have two french doors, and one vvindo «= that are de €ective.After many years, and much help from independent handymen, I have been able to find out who the manufacturers -- > --. - ivin ---u tt,nt tucy iuc unaer warranty. But Davidson has not helped me to prove that the doors were pui chased from them. I can show that I purchased the house from Davidson, but without Davidson's help, I cannot show that Davidson purchased the doors from Therma -Till or the Windows from Milgard. Both manufacturers l-fuse to honor the warranty without proof that the windows were properly purchased from them. They both state that the windows could have been purchased used or illegally: Without Davidson's assistance, I cannot proceed with my warranty claim. 8. Many, many other, issues.. The residents of Petaluma do not want this development to be approved. Regards, Kaye Chandler 301 Dana Street Petaluma, CA 94952 707- 280 -0291 ,avidnl c®tt Ranch Residential subdivision DEIR documents -aurel L. Impett [Impett @smwlaw.com] s'enffriday, March 10, 2017 12:32 PM ro: Giudice, Alicia Vs. Giudice, On behalf of Greg Colvin and the community, our firm is reviewing the DEIR for the Davidon /Scott Ranch project. I believe you spoke with my colleague Tamara Galanter last week about the project. The DEIR (pgs. 4.3 -2 through 4.3-4) references several studies in connection with the analysis of the Project's potential, biological resources impacts. These studies are important ould appreciate re sate re eiivn g the electronic or paper impact analysis but were, unfortunately, not included in the DEIR pp of the following documents: Biological Resources, Existing Conditions by Zander Associates (200.3). habit er report specs biological and wetland resources on the site, including plant communities and wildlife special-status wetlands. This includes the results of detailed surveys for special-status plant species ncdoU deudcteed on March nd June 2, April 18, 2003 by Kelley Associates, protocol surveys for California re gg g 2003 by wildlife Research Associates, and the findings of a preliminary wetland delineation, ® oast for Jurisdictional Determination by Zander Associates (2003). This letter report requests verified the by Request the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of the draft wetland delineation of the site. The USACE wetland delineation in their letter of November 13, 2003 (USACE File Number 28163N). ,',,California Red - legged Frog Protocol Surveys by wildlife Research nia oed t�eg(g d frog, also addresses the --che results of a habitat assessment and protocol surveys for Ca _ potential for occurrence of California tiger salamander on the site. of the four day-time survey required 30, 2003 California and one red legged frog, only two were conducted. The surveys consisted of one night survey on June 2, 2003. Additional surveys were considered unnecessary because California red - legged frogs were encountered during the first night survey. ® Focused Special-Status Plant Survey by Zander Associates (2004c). This letter report presents the results of supplemental survey for special - status plant species conducted on May 25, 2004. Pre- Construction Notification by Zander Associates (2004x). This report was States that would occur to as a gyres It of as the t of a Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) for fills in waters of the United S a previous 93 single - family home development proposal. The PCN included: map ropoposedpl o act and limits lu of jurisdictional waters, cross - sections of stream crossings, map g n of p wetlands, summary of proposed approach to creating replacement dry nd nmitigation e California Red - legged le of proposed created wetlands; the Biological Resources, Existing Co report; Frog Protocol Surveys report. m Additional Information for PCN by Zander Associates (2004b)• This letter � seasonal wetlands requegted by the modification to the success criteria and monitoring for the proposed USACE. Bat Habitat Assessment and Results of Bat Habitat Assessment and Surveys by wildlife Research Associates (2004, 2014). These letter reports summarize information on bat ecology, regulatory n batspecies gon the�property sasea result of discussion. Recommendations were made to avoid possible impacts o ^� o California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment by Wildlife Research Associates (2005b). This letter report provides an expanded assessment addressing the potential for occurrence of California tiger salamander. A supplemental field survey was conducted on January 11, 2005, which entailed walking the perimeter of the stock pond to look fo any egg sacs on floating debris and emergent vegetation: A map was prepared showing the closest known occurrences of California tiger salamander in relation to the site, located over five miles to the northwest. The report concluded that California tiger salamander does not occur on the site in the professional opinion of the consultant because of a number of factors, including distance to closest reported occurrence, substantial barriers it the intervening area, absence of any egg sacks in the stock pond, and fact that the site is outside of the known range of this species as mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003). ,, Kelly Creek and Tributary— California Red - legged Frog Habitat Evaluation by Wildlife Research Associates (2005a). This letter report provides a further assessment of the potential suitability of Kelly Creek and D Street tributary drainage as possible breeding habitat for California red - legged frog, A supplemental site visit was conducted on January 29, 2005, and aquatic habitat was evaluated for its likelihood to support egg sacs and whether it provides suitable refugia for California red - legged frog larvae. Letter to the USACE from Zentner and Zentner (2008) requesting an extension of the jurisdictional delineation, approved by the USACE by email reply on June 8, 2009. ® Biological Assessment for the UOP Petaluma Residential Subdivision by Zander Associates (20.09). This report was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the consultation process with the USACE. It focuses on the potential impacts of the previous 77 single - family residence proposal on California red - legged frog and concludes that California tiger salamander do not occur on the site. ® Scott Ranch Wetland Mitigation Program, including California Red - Legged Frog Mitigation prepared by Zentner and Zentner (2009). This report provides a mitigation plan submitted to the USACE to address potential impacts of the residential project on wetlands and habitat for California red - legged frog. ® Burrowing Owl, Badger and Fossorial Mammal Survey Results by Zentner and Zentner (2013). This report summarizes the results of site surveys conducted on May 1, May 23, June 14 and August 19, 2013, focusing on burrowing owl but evaluating the potential for presence of badger and other fossorial mammals as well. Special Status Plant Species Assessment by Zentner and Zentner (2013). This report summarizes the results of supplemental surveys for special - status plants, where surveys were conducted because of the length of time since the original surveys were conducted in 2003 and 2004. Systematic surveys were conducted on March 13, May 23, and August 19, 2013. e Tree Preservation Plan, Option A by Arborwell (2013x). This report provides an inventory of surveyed trees greater than four inches on the site, assesses the potential impacts to tree resources under Option A, the 66 single - family home development plan for the project, provides a tree valuation, and a tree protection plan for those trees to be retained. . a Tree Preservation Plan, Option B by Arborwell (2013b). This report provides a similar assessment, valuation, and tree protection plan under Option B, the 63 single - family home development plan for the project. Tree Preservation Plan, Option A by Arborwell (2016a). This report provides an update on the tree preservation plan based on additional tree avoidance, together with an appraisal of the inventoried trees and recommended tree replacement requirements under Option A. o Tree Preservation Plan, Option B by Arborwell (2016b). This report provides an update on the tree preservation plan based on additional tree avoidance, together with an appraisal of the inventoried trees and recommended tree replacement requirements under Option B. )Scott Ranch dative Grassland Survey by Zentner and Zentner (2016x). This report provides information on native grasslands on the site based on field mapping conducted on April 21 and 30, 2015. ® Helen Putnam Park Native Grassland Survey by Zentner and Zentner (2016b). This report provides information on native grasslands on the adjacent Helen Putman Regional Park found along the proposed trail alignment that would extend from the site along the Kelly Creek corridor. In addition, I would appreciate receiving copies of the field reconnaissance surveys of the site that were prepared by the EIR biologist in 2004, 2009, 2011, and 2015. These surveys are referenced on DEIR page 4.3 -4, 5. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best; Laurel Laurel L. Impett, AICP, Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 -4421 v, 415/552 -7272 X4151552 -5816 _ ;,Nw.smwlaw.com �•1 Please consider the envirOnraent before printing this e-mail Or attachments. i -119'1 PETER GRAHAM COHN, M.S.W., J.D. ATTORNEY AT LAW 315 KEOKUK STREET PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 94952 TEL, (707) 778 -6945 FAX (707) 778 -7145 April 4, 2017 Ms. Diana Gomez, Chair Mr. Richard Marzo, Vice -Chair Petaluma Planning Commission PPC Commissioners and Staff 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE:Petaluma Planning Commission - April 4, 2017 Dear Chair Gomez, Vice -Chair Marzo, Members and Staff of the Commission, I am Peter Cohn and I live at 315 Keokuk Street here in Petaluma where I have resided for some 30 years. I am a social worker and lawyer by profession; and, my appearance here is on behalf of the Kelly Creek Projection Project Advisory Committee. I came this evening to comment on the DEIR and add my voice to those of counsel, Petalumans for Responsible Planning and my fellow Petalumans generally who are committed to seeing that the old Scott Ranch property at Windsor and D Street with its 58 acres on Kelly Creek with its red barn buildings, rolling hills, California red - legged frogs, nesting birds and other compelling wild life be preserved as an integral gateway and part of the Helen Putnam County Regional Park. I oppose the proposal by Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek to build 66 or 63 luxury homes on-this land and effectively destroy this beautiful and scenic area of our community. It will have a profound and adverse aesthetic and environmental impact. One need only view the existing 58 acres in all of its Spring beauty or review any visual photograph rPark overview rathe� than to be see that it simply belongs more to Helen am displaced and erased by luxury homes. Please see the aerial overview photo which is appended as Attachment "A" to this letter. The compelling message of the photo simply underscores that the scenic contours of this acreage belongs to Helen Putnam Park and not to development. ve great With a background in civil rights and po blic interest law tak ng,theleadership in admiration for those who have been fighting the Davidon proposal for some 13 years. It takes courage, vision and tenacity 'to carry forth any fight in the public interest. And they have it. I believe the Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council should partner with the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District ( SCAPOSD) to protect and preserve the Scott ranch property on Kelly Creek. When all is said and done, each of you - as public entity representatives - share the public interest vision and views of Petalumans for Responsible Planning and the Kelly Creek Protection Project. I envision that you could work together to make the old Scott Ranch property a part of the Vital Lands Initiative" of the SCAPOSD. The property meets all of the SCAPOSD stated goals: 1) to maintain the county's rich rural character and the unique qualities of each city; 2) to preserve the agricultural heritage and diversity of the county; 3) to protect ridgetops, bluffs, and waterways that create the rks and natural natural areas througho pt the e connections between urban areas, pa county for both people and wildlife; 5) to preserve natural areas that provide habitat for wildlife; 6) to protect waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply; and 7) partner with local agencies and organizations to leverage funding for land protection, and provide opportunities for recreational and educational experiences. The Scott ranch parcel is a great example of a century -old dairy ranch with water and wildlife. The preservation of the iconic f redd Creek with its tial to showcasing the agricultural history of Petaluma. tributaries on the property effect the water quality in Petaluma and down stream. The portion of the land south of the creek is an upland watershed with year round stock ponds and natural springs which is quite delicate and prone to flooding and sliding. I was walking along D Street recently ars observing elly Creek a da cutting proposal called for placing some 17 hom es South o a new E Street road off of D Street into the Ranch. was pal oundll onto an concerned about the danger this creates to add an already known blind curve.. I felt uncomfortable walking along this same proposed intersection area as the r where the new road oad wouldebe cut on D Attachment B to this letter showing Street to accommodate these luxury homes. pmrrtissionl raise another C'ty. The major traffic /public safety concern for your tnam clearly better course for this property is to ds reprive and with Helen with a proper and safe trail head along for the city and county residents and other visitors. This would withalso in a have the added advantage of permitting the tot lot to b y placed protected area buffered by the trail head and not on a busy street corner. Q -- Lfq I S on this The best solution is to have no residential construction property asna part ofa scenic land and to preserve the Davidon/ co Helen Putnam Park. Alternatively, the collaborative entities should approve no more than the 28 minimum number of housing units that 'environmentally superior Environmental Impact Report found to be th e alternative." Any such units should noaefi intrude ite) on tay wildlife away from Kelly Creek pastures in and around the barns and Y and its tributaries. You have willing partners here in Petaluma a Trust prepared already ding with you to make this a reality. The Sonoma La or public $1,000,000 to convert this site to parkland. borbcharitable /s 28 lots at funds can be added to that amount and thereby buy out Davidon fair market value. Through your good offices, you can be active partners in helping to raise additional funds to help Sonoma County Regional Parks ound and construct the trails and trail es for'the red barns,apdywildlife. other preservation and pro Looking- forward to the partnership, Peter Graham Cohn cc: Petaluma Planning Commissioners and Staff Com. Jennifer Pierre Com. Bill Wolpert" Com. Jocelyn Lin Com, Gina Benedetti - Petnic Com. and Councilman Chris Albertson Ms. Alicia Giudice - Senior Planner P N' ti> • r t I � .+e' FY E� 6 �Y � L • f �- ` x FF . Fir � �- — `� l� �. ! � :..- 3 yJ 4 la •3� PP � T '� �—ti � '�} k' —Fit, C? �• Bp— r.5 IL VM d ' e t .;} r`�,'� �. i a s 3 d 7� _ y . Y 1. Oil k! R'i WEST PETALUMA HILLS WILDLIFE CORRIDOR COALITION (WPH -WCC) We live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Surrounded by Sonoma Mountain to the East and the Petaluma Hills to the West, our open spaces are a visual delight that make our town of Petaluma an inspiring place to live. These spaces are home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna -- old oaks, open grassland, hundreds of songbirds, raptors and owls, California Red - Legged frogs, Bobcats, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Foxes, and even American Badgers. We have the privilege to sometimes see wildlife in their habitat areas and share this natural phenomena with our children. Many of our wild species are rapidly losing ground to encroaching human development and these open spaces represent a critical refuge. The West Petaluma Hills comprise a wildlife corridor — important for wildlife movement, foraging and survival'. These woodland and grassland habitats with their abundance of wildlife can only be maintained if we are good stewards. This includes preservation - protection from development causing habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Presently, some parcels in the heart of the West Petaluma Hills are for sale or planned for development. These lands are essential natural open spaces, part of the wildlife corridor for animals and migratory birds, and also help connect two other essential wildlife corridors to the Marin and Sonoma coasts. One property on Paula Lane in the north area of the West Petaluma Hills Wildlife Corridor has been conserved for permanent open space. Conserving additional lands will help protect P_ —Y-0 3 this important wildlife corridor in perpetuity. Where is this wildlife corridor? Lands visible from Windsor Lane between Western Avenue and D Street /Extension are central in the West Hills Wildlife Corridor. Familiar land names are La Cresta Ridge and Ravine and the Kelly Creek property. Helen Putnam Regional Park borders the wildlife corridor. North of Western Avenue, Bodega Avenue and Paula Lane toward Penngrove and Cotati is a critically important habitat and movement area. And westward, open land along Bodega Highway to the Sonoma coast, both habitat and movement areas. South of Windsor Lane, the D Street Extension west to the Novato Hills in Marin County, to Nicasio, Pt. Reyes and the Marin coast. Without preserving the remaining open lands in the West Petaluma Hills, this important connecting wildlife corridor will be lost. .�1�L7►�il���[�1� To protect this open space in perpetuity by supporting the conservation of properties in the West Petaluma Hills, to maintain connectivity. THE COLLECTIVE VISION - Designate properties as permanent conserved open space with appropriate, managed public access and trails, so the community can enjoy our special natural resources and our flora and fauna can thrive. -Be a model for the balance of community enjoyment of nature and protection of flora and fauna. - Maintain and enhance habitat and the wildlife corridor. - Preserve scenic vistas of the Petaluma West Hills and Valley. - Increase fire protection with downhill fuel reduction - Increase water conservation and groundwater recharge areas. - Develop conservation education for youth to strengthen appreciation of these special natural resources. How You Can Help A donation of $20 to become a supporting member of WPH -WCC, but any amount will gladly be accepted WPH - WCCWPH -WCC is fiscally sponsored by the Paula Lane Action Network (RL.A.N.), a 501c3 nonprofit conservation organization, based in West Petaluma. RL.A.N.'s tax ID: 73- 170246. To donate: Please mail your check to RL.A.N., PO Box 2903, Petaluma, CA 94953 or go to www.westpetalumahills.com to pay via PayPal. Designate your donation for "wildlife corridors." Donations are tax deductible. For more information, please contact: Lydia Schindler, MD, ABFM, Certified California Naturalist, Certified Cybertracker, Animal Track & Sign lydiaschindler3 @gmail.com, 707 364 -4300, www.westpetalumahills.com April 3, 2017 For- Members of the City of Petaluma Planning Commission ChtisAlbortson,,t: ity.COuncRi:�iai�son.toPla g.!� a�7sslon Subject.. DavidonlScott Ranch EIR Review, April 4, 2017 File lumber: 03 -'TSM -0396 Dear Members. of theTlanning Comthission mid. Councilmember.Albertson.,.' I am writing to offer an initial comment on the Biological Resources component of the above ®. referenee& project' and El& , I zeserve Eti e right to• provide, -a supplem. zlt�l..co Ont at a f aluure date.... . In reviewing the Biological Itesources,isdentifed: impacts ,:and;proposed -m t gations,.I recommend Commissioners adopt a broad view of devastating and destructive impacts to habitat as well as to wildlife on tlreKeily.Cteok property .aod environs... My ,gpalifications iit.lude,boing a-laturalist, with 17 years: of experien0e; focusing specifically on American Badger (Taxidea taxus), Concein- .sitace4987., American Badger;is a keystone species for grassland habitat and its behaviors anl.{life activities• are,benehieial for multiple other species, including California Red - Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and California.'Tiger,Sal'amander (4mbysio na,californiense),:observed to utilize abandoned badger burrows,. The B -iaYTowing ; ,Owl.( ti`tenoiouraic,,ularia) and, other species also benefit from the, activities of the industrious badger, a special status mammal I describe as the best natural Builder for all other wildlife species. Habitat management and California Red - Legged Frog recovery plans, - approved,by the .-CIS: Fish- and : Wildlife Service, .often mention the, relationship, between the California I a&Legged Frog and-its search,for suitable habitat. Just -one example is:cootai red in the SFPLJC Alameda Watershed TIabitat Conservation Plan: "During dry .p ods,. Qalifgrnia, red- leggipd;.fr9gs' pro ppldpm fo nd far fram wptpr. However, - , - during wet weather, indiyidaaals may mAke overland oxcurslons through upland habitats over distances up to two Miles. These dispOsal movem6hfs gbnerally. follow straight -line, point -to- point migrations rather than specific h6bitil' cdrridara. bispeksdl distanc& are believed to , depend on the availability of suitable habitat and prevailing environmental conditions though very little is.,known about how, aiifiprpi red_] ggOdJrogp use uplapd ,habitOp- gluring;dispers�l., . ®uripg,sumrpei .,,O,alifbmla red- legged,firogs often disperse,from their breeding habitbt to forage and.seek summer (aestivation) habitafif water is not available (ll.S. Aisl1 grid iliiildlifd gervic6 2002). Th s'habitat mAy include shelter, under boulders, `r65eki,1®:gs, industrial debr-i §, agdoultural• drathb, Watoritlg trdugl s, -Abandoned,sheds', or ht y- risks:- T,,hey will al §o rase SMAII- .Mamrnal- iaU rrows; ihcised:stream Phsnnels., or apeas with rg9tot leaf litter ;(4eppipgs�an- Hayes 1 94; U:.S. Fish, and. Vi/ildlife Service 9,996, 2002). , : This summer movement b0avior,-,howeyer, hos•not h -ben obseived in all bolifornia. red - legged frog poplalations Studied. p: 3, I�ibldcdyll�abitat. -5�oS7 April 3, 2017 — Comment to Petaluma Planning Commission/File 03 -TSM -0396 Page 2 The West Petaluma area is a'longstanding habitat area for American Badger. This habitat area is documented in the CNDDB as well as broadly recognized in the San Francisco Bay Area and in California. Please be advised there have been documented sightings of American Badger in the area of the D Street extension within the last year and two years — in the vicinity of the wildlife corridor of which the Kelly Creek property and other- properties along Windsor Drive, between the D Street extension and Bodega Avenue are significant, connected components. North of the Kelly-Creek property and Helen PutnantRegional Park; less than 1 mile-away, is the conserved Paula Lane open space property, an over 100 - year -old documented American Badger habitat. American Badger has been documented to occur on Cleveland Lane and Chapman Lane in the- immediate vicinity just north of the Windsor Drive area. This documentation of sightings and habitat is important because Ihe wildlife .eorridor is utilized by multiple species for movement and foraging. Any interruption of this corridor's lands could result in -a serious, irreversible, permane- anpgative impact. The lands remaining in this wildlife, corridor should be. conserved, not - developed. The evolution`of the complex ecosystem has 'taken over 100 years to reach its, current natural state., As a point of fact, the biologieal resources in the Windsor Drive area, including the, Kelly. Creek property, are complex and exceptional. The Paula Lane open space property is.also centrally located iii = this. wildlife corridor. In reviewing the environmental documentation before,you and considering the highest and =best use of the property, I -encourage you, - again, to consider the ,devastating impact to natural , resources, the biological resources, the proposed development.project would cause. Mitigation measures described on paper do not translate into reality when such a longstanding natural area is negatively impacted aiid, in short,,-destroyed. There shoiild be rfo question that de-struetion= of habitat, displacement _of wildlife species, and a significant negative impact to the longstanding wildlife corridor would occur with'apy development on this property, . The American Badger traverses through the wildlife corridor-for foraging and - movement to help - susta n-b odivers ty: It.dops not 4ppeart4e i*aets to Americari: adger have been adequately identified. Tho relationsliip .between. Ampric ai Badger acid California; lied- Legged Frog in this long established habitat and movompnt area merit closor,exaa nation and offpx an opp.mtunity for research on and education about both species. "This may be one'of-the few'areas in California wherp the -interrelationship of species -such as American Bad x and alif rnia Tied -td; ged�Frog; observed over time, could be highly'beneficial iii better understanding both species, the habitat needs and activities. O April 3, 2Ol'7i— Comment to P'etalurna Planning Co . 'ssion/FYlo 03�TSM -0396 Page 3 As you may be aware, the now named Westhaven Development on Windsor Drive was a project that resulted in destfuction of significant CalifoMia 13 &&Legged Frog. habitat and, a surrounding open space portion of that property is now permanently conserved for what remains, per the US Fish and Wildlife Service's involvement several years ago, requiring this of the developer and the City of Petaluma. The opportunity for conservation along with education exists for the Kelly Creek property, and conservation as permanent protected open space is the highest and best use of the .property. Working with conservation organizations and regulatory agencies, a plan to ensure the wildlife corridor lands in the Windsor Drive area are conserved, connected, and appreciated Is both possible and highly desirable. I would encourage you to consider such a recommendation as you review what can only be described as an environmental documegt that. contains sus% a significant level of impact to biological resources, with some of those impacts still not adequately identified or discussed, it is almost unbelievable. The wildlife corridor in the Windsor Drive area is also a connecting corridor for two additional wildlife corridors, one to the Marin County coast, and one to the Sonoma County coast. 'This makes conservation of the lands and preservation of the wildlife corridor in the West Petaluma Dills even more significant. Regarding the expansion of Helen Putnam Regional Park, an entrance to Helen Putnam Regional Park for humans to access the park from the Windsor Drive area could be appropriate. An extension of Helen Putnam Regional Park, however, to encompass the Kelly creek property with a level of public access that aright not be appropriate, should be avoided, unless there is careful coordination related to protection of natural areas and conservation education, combined with appropriate, managed public access in the wildlife corridor area. The Sonoma County Regional Parks staff is experienced and aware of the importance of wildlife corridors and protecting natural resources, so there is a possibility of the park's extension, with careful planning and coordination within the recommended context. On the other hand, conservation of the wildlife corridor lands, including the Kelly Creek property, with several conservation organizations collaborating to achieve acquisition, conservation easement(s), and a donservation education program would be optimal. Apark entrance could certainly be accommodated with:such a plan. These lands in the wildlife corridor are extremely significant for wildlife — and for wildlife movement. Maintaining the balance with open land of the Kelly Creek property is critically important — to support the balance between the high use by humans of Helen Putnam Regional Dark and the ability for wildlife to access habitat and the movement area of the Kelly Creek and other Windsor Drive properties. This is an existing delicate balance today. — 5 c9 —] I would be pleased to provide input and work with conservation groups to plan for and seek fenders to help conserve the Kelly Creek property and other properties in the Windsor Drive area. My hope is you will view this proposal and the environmental document as the justification to.make a-tecomrirnendation to permanently preserve this property and support conservation of the wildlife corridor. April 3, 2017 —Comment to Petaluma Planning Commissionfflle; 03 -TSM -0396 Page 4 Sincerely, . °u�"1�11 ��.iu'es.� Susan Kirks, Naturalist ewun ur ksnsbeglobal.net 707 -241 -5548 cc: Melanie Parker, Sonoma County Regional PArks` - �-O I D -5(a Ve Al _ ys v t _ _ � U � Ve Al W o v L � U � a� Ve Al �.r a) ;s ta.. L a.r a L ME E a M y Q u n W u 2 U ❑. m 2 c �r 'z � L 5J 0 4-1 .j DL U) mmi :3 >; CD 0 BF ji O FU 8 VINHOJIIVa `VYYnIVi3d o 3ANO HOSQNIM QNV 13mis ,U, �! N H:)NVN J10:)S ; u o d5 E -4-a cu C, i� ■ ■ C r� O T cu 0 ■ 0 �}--- ®� y a, �, ��. � � � __ � t r 3 S U ® ��' ® 4 .rte �� �� � �: �� . � ,- 4a. � �� �� -- a �� � .- � � a �: '�r� - �, x- � �. s. �_ �. � - r 3 S U ��-� .rte �� �� � �: �� . � ,- � �� �� -- a �� � .- � � a x- � �. �_ 2 4 ® mod» sy ? 3= � w • I FOY • r r r" > 1 TA 3 2 s� ® mod» sy ? 3= � w 2 w . 0 . CO V U) -a 3 O C6 CL w -f-' (� O W 3 Q 0 w 0 a) n tTS N C to 4- N N p to ,a. , c X '+- a) o fn Cy) � 0 C)) — U � (� p Q � Vj 0 � ' (N E a) cn ,}, . M .'U) 0 E wN cl M 0 C n E m' ' co cu O � t w w UO p L- -0 ='= P a `s- c -C v0 O 0 co — CD ), to 1 � N 1 ` t 3� N (D w . 0 . CO V U) -a 3 O C6 CL w -f-' (� O W 3 Q 0 w 0 a) n tTS N C to 4- N N p to ,a. , c X '+- a) o fn Cy) � 0 C)) — U � (� p Q � Vj 0 � ' (N E a) cn ,}, . M .'U) 0 E wN cl M 0 C n E m' ' co cu O � t w w UO p L- -0 ='= P a `s- c -C v0 O 0 co — CD ), to C: � N C: t 3� N (D N w - O E Q. X . C W � U a) `r-- (u ®i O �- LL - 0 L1 M w ®! 9" n ^�, c� ®' ,' OWN 10 Jt V 1 -r a a c� ®' ,' OWN 10 Jt V 1 I k 7 J - i �}i J F-� "✓ °- ti t r� g /YM�y� ^ Many others will talk about the red legged frog, wild life corridors and environmental impacts, which are all `incredibly' important, but I want to .discuss quality of life and our community. I have lived in Petaluma for 10 years and virtually all of the reasons I chose this town have been eroded away, except for the climate. I am forced to start looking elsewhere, as studies are showing 40% of Bay area residents are doing. Put simply: If I had wanted to move to a city like San Jose I would have. I, and my family, frequent our county, state and regional parks, and having such a treasure as Helen Putnam Park in close enough proximity that a long drive is not necessary is a boon to a healthy, thriving community. Petaluma needs this open space close and easily accessible, far more than it needs McMansions adding to the insane `D' St traffic congestion which did not exist until a few years ago. A problem we see more and more in the news, that seems to crop up wherever the affluent situate themselves next to open space is their disrespect for the pre- existing natural habitat and the wildlife it brings and they start complaining about the wildlife from the park coming into their neighborhood, and taking measures to eradicate it. Our local .government is running amok with its blinders on to the needs of Petaluma's infrastructure and its citizens, in a mad dash to invite the `nearly' affluent who are being pushed out of the immediate Bay area by the 'more' affluent, and maintain their jobs elsewhere, not caring about our local politics or community, to the detriment of those of us who consider it our `home' and not just a property investment where we commute in a rush home to sleep, and then rush off again to our distant job, in the morning. I feel that Davidon targets that lifestyle and is only about $$$$ and not community in the least. Affluence does not equate with quality of life, nor with community. So- called `bedroom communities' should be relegated to areas near the Highway, and not-where they must'dostroy the most pristine natural beauty of our existing community. Is there another parcel of land that could be traded, so that this one could be used for the expansion of Helen Putnam Park? I hope this is a possibility. :� -5 ?_ D_ THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DAVIDON EIR: The GHG analysis in the Draft EIR is inadequate. This is a luxury project that can and should be made sustainable. This includes achieving net zero emissions. After the California Supreme Court reversed the Newhall project that project became "Net Zero Newhall." http: / /www.netzeronewhall.com. Ultimately, this was great news for California. Now, why can't this project reach net zero? What's the excuse? The EIR needs to answer that question. This is a luxury, greenfield, sprawl project on sensitive habitat that is nowhere near public transportation. The EIR uses a BAAQMD AB 32 based threshold, which is a 2020 threshold. The fact that this is a 2020 threshold is not disclosed in the EIR. The fact that the State has moved on from AB 32 and beyond 2020 is not disclosed. The Supreme Court said in the Newhall decision that you cannot use a 2020 threshold forever. It's almost 2020. This project will not be built by 2020. But the project is using the old BAAQMD 2020 threshold (not currently advocated for or adopted by BAAQMD). Why? How can it contribute to reaching 2030 goals, 2040 goals, 2050 goals, or beyond? What about SB 32? What about the world our children will inherit? The developer cannot afford to do the right thing? Why does this luxury greenfield project not require ANY mitigation? What is the explanation? If this is the type of project that Petaluma is considering approving, there is a 0-5-2-13 complete lack of disclosure regarding how future goals will be met — unless Petaluma is affirmatively repudiating its role with respect to statutory goals? The EIR's use of the BAAQMD threshold hides the impacts of the project. CEQA allows agencies to analyze GHG impacts in different ways. Nothing in CEQA allows an agency to use an outdated quantitative threshold in a misleading manner. The project shouid use an efficiency metric for each home based on SB 32, and that should be a net zero analysis. California's goal is to meet net zero in all new residential housing by 2020. http : / /www.californiaznehomes.com/ Failing to use ANY home - specific energy metric is leaving out crucial information that the public needs to know to evaluate the project. • Please explain how not finding the emissions significant or potentially significant is compatible with long term emissions reductions goals in Petaluma? Where are those emissions reductions going to come from? Or is Petaluma repudiating State goals? Is it just assuming it can keep relying on its outdated general plan goals? • Please provide analysis regarding the passive solar designs benefits of each proposed home. Have these considerations been incorporated into the design? If not, why not? https: / /energy.govlenergysaver /passive- solar- home - design • Please provide a net zero alternative to the current project that incorporates on -site generation. It is quite possible to build cutting edge, net zero homes in Petaluma given the benefits of the Petaluma climate. Existing homes have been converted to be zero energy in Petaluma in the immediate vicinity of the project. Can these types of measures be implemented for the a_s-Itf project? https: / /www.slideshare .net /e semedia /george- beeler -zero- energy -homes ® What conditions can be imposed to incentivize occupants to actually utilize electric cars in the future? One would normally assume that a feed in tariff and on- site generation would incentivize the use of electric vehicles. What else? Please <tp xplain: how the project advances publ -ic transportation in the region. Please provide an off -site alternative that looks at the relative benefits of locating new housing near transportation (as contemplated by recent CEQA amendments). It is completely inappropriate to propose general plan amendments without considering off -site alternatives. There is already access to Helen Putnam Park, and a luxury subdivision in sensitive habitat answers no public need whatsoever. What is the reduction in regional VMT that is anticipated from this project? • ' Zero carbon electricity is available in Sonoma County from both PG &E and Sonoma Clean Power. Why would conditions not be imposed that required new luxury landowners to use zero- carbon electricity? • Please explain all the assumptions that were used in the VMT modelling and why they are realistic for Petaluma given that Petaluma is a desirable exurb on its way to becoming a suburb. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this Draft EIR. Full disclosure should precede approval. Sincerely, Sylvia Manaster ;? -5-P Planning Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Petaluma should require Davidon to abide by all of the current environmental policies in the City's 2025 General Plan. What if Ford Motor Company had a plan in the 1950s for a car and decided not to build it until 2017? Laws exist that would not allow a new car to be built without seat belts —even though the plan was actually developed much earlier. A car in 2017 would be built in accordance with the current and most up -to -date information and safety features. Petalumans spend.years creating the General Plan 2025. The plan represents Petaluma's land use and constitution. The plan represents our current awareness of the environmental impact and the best way to build with sustainability in mind for Petaluma. As a Petaluman, I request that Davidon be required to follow General Plan 2025. I am opposed to development of this land. Thank you, Kathleen Billings,�� 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 21 Steven Drive Chris Albertson Petaluma, California 94952 (707) 775 -3450 chrisalbertson @comcast.net April 12, 2017 To: The City of Petaluma RE: Comments directed to EIR for Davidon /Scott Ranch Development • Red Barn -- there is only ONE red barn. In addition, there is a wood garage painted red and a storage building also painted red. There is also a single wide residential trailer located on the property. Painting the trailer red will not add to its historical relevance. I agree with preserving the RED BARN. The two secondary red structures and the trailer can be eliminated. • Relocating the Red Barn — one of two things needs to occur: 1) The red barn needs to be moved back from the edge of the `D' Street Creek; or 2) The creek banks of the `D' Street Creek in close proximity to the barn, will need to be reinforced and the barn's foundation stabilized. • Landslides / Cuts -- the hillside south of Kelly Creek has unstable soil. Grading for homes need to take this fact into consideration to prevent slippage to the home sites. This issue may be resolved if the development follows the Planning Commission's recommendation that no development/construction take place south of Kelly Creek. • Stock Pond Drainage -- there is a stock pond on the hillside south of Kelly Creek. There is a drainage leading down from the pond toward Kelly Creek. Looking at the plot plan (Fig. 3.0 -6), this drainage appears to go through lots # 60, 59, 58, & 57. How does this work? This issue may be eliminated if there is no development south of Kelly Creek. • Single Story Homes -- there will be homes built along Windsor Drive. Lots # 44 to 50 and Lots # 8 to 16 sit on hills /elevations above road level. If these homes are two stories tall in height above the existing hill elevations, Windsor Drive will become a canyon. Lot sizes could be expanded along these two sections and the homes constructed on these elevated lots should be single story. • Exacerbate Potential Flooding on `B' Street -- Will homes built on Lots # 1 -7 exacerbate the existing flooding issues in back yards of residences below 1 -7? a -9;�� • Windsor Drive / `D' Street Traffic Circle -- if indeed there is going to be a traffic circle at this intersection, then it should be shown in all of the site drawings. The diameter of the circle should be adequate to accommodate emergency vehicles, commercial vehicles with trailers and farm trailers moving livestock. • Park Pathway, Parking Lots, Tot Lot, and Wildland Maintenance South of Kelly Creels — Who pays for the on -going maintenance of these items after the project is built? Can a HOA be established to address these on -going expenses? City taxpayers should not be responsible to maintain these private views /vistas. (INCO Chris Albertson 'On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Robyn Klein <robynrklein cr,,!Znlai.l.com> wrote: Dear Petaluma City Council member, Thank you for all you do to make Petaluma a wonderful place for my family to live. I am a Petaluma resident residing on 10th at D St. greatly concerned about the proposed Davidon construction project for several reasons. First and foremost, the huge and tragic impact this development will have on the wildlife in and around Helen Putnam Park. The existing wildlife is an absolute treasure to this town. Daily I see deer, hawks and other animals as I hike around Helen Putnam and it's surrounding area. Let's also consider the possible loss of the already threatened red legged frog! *Where will the wildlife go? One of my favorite activities is walking to Helen Putnam Park and gazing out at the gorgeous scenery. Picture Perfect. I am grateful each and every hike to be living in such a breathtaking place full of history. I look out over rolling green hills, Kelly Creek, and the historic red barns at Kelly Creels. I literally shudder to think of this view disappearing and being replaced with homes.... Construction noise echoing through the sanctuary also known as Helen Putnam Park! *What about the loss of historical buildings and gorgeous views? What about the construction noise echoing through the park? The traffic on D Street is already congested. I sit for long periods simply to turn left onto D in order to drop off and pick up my daughter at pre - school. I then sit in bumper to bumper traffic the entire way and I am on 10th Street. Please let me know the traffic plan for this historical street. We already have cars speeding down 10th to B Street in order to avoid the D Street back up. This will only get much worse. No doubt side streets as well as B will also become a congested nightmare by adding 63 plus homes with at least 1 -2 cars each. The gorgeous "back road" drive via San Antonio Rd. or heading out to Olema/Point Reyes will be frustrating with first construction, then traffic. Not to mention, idyllic rolling hills replaced by luxury housing. *What are your traffic plans for more cars and only a 2 lane road for access to freeway and downtown?, Which brings me to my next question. If the reason for this development is to help the housing shortage, why is the plan to build million dollar luxury homes? Petaluma has become a tourist destination over the years. Many of our visitors take San Antonio Rd. or drive from Olema/Point Reyes area to first experience the beauty and to see historical homes on D St. before arriving in our beautifully preserved downtown. The Davidon development could greatly affect tourism. The Argus Courier ran a poll to see how many citizens were for and against this project. Over 90% are against it. Is this being taken into consideration? I am bewildered as to why the city would be considering a project that would change all that citizens and visitors love about this town. I am fighting to keep the charm of Petaluma. The Butter and Eggs capital of the world. All the wonderful reasons our family and others moved' here. I hope to hear back from you regarding the questions I raised in this letter. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Robyn Klein robynrkleinC�-b -mail. com 2 —S -(D From: jan reddick [mailto:janmreddick@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 11:47 AM To: ginamarie.bp(a?gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com: dianaegomez @gmail.com, jocelynyeh @yahoo.com; richard @ lace houselinen.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; wolpert @sonic.net; Hines, Heather Cc: Byron Schneider Subject: Davidon Development Dear Petaluma Commissioners, My husband and I attended the last Planning Commission Meeting, where the DEIR for the Davidon Development was discussed. Although we were pleased to hear nearly all of the comments expressed by each commissioner, we remain disappointed to hear that any houses, even a much smaller number, may be considered to be built at this site, which is currently a beautiful entryway to Petaluma. The expansive beauty of Helen Putnam Park and the surrounding rolling hills, oak groves and the old red barn needs to be preserved as it is. This is a picturesque and environmentally sensitive area that would be profoundly changed forever by ANY of the housing development plans proposed by Davidon. The proximity of this unique setting to the town of Petaluma provides the community and those visiting Petaluma a strong visual reminder of its heritage. To build ANY homes here would be a travesty. I urge you all to make a decision that you can each be proud of and not regret years from now. Please act to not allow any of Davidon's development of this cherished Petaluma area. Thank you. Sincerely, Jan Reddick Petaluma Resident On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1 :00 PM, Jean Grant - Sutton <bodyworksyoga{ ),sbc *globaI.net> wrote: Dear City Council Member, I drive by the red barn every day. The barn, together with the creek and meadow, are a scenic treasure. Cutting down the trees will ruin this view. Moving the red barn will ruin this view. Even if the barn remains, building a subdivision around the barn will ruin this view. The photographs in the Draft EIR do not do justice to the beauty of the project site. The photos are taken from a perspective that appear to deliberately downplay the stunning setting of the project site. In order to allow the public to understand how this project will impact this scenic viewshed, the City should require Davidon to erect story poles showing where it would put these houses. ,1ear4 Gr��r��- �'t�iEOf1 Yoga Plrogr&rei Coordina�,oi - Veeiiness by Design 22ziA we(Iia�r S� ! - -tp., .�ma Ca. 8=!.352 '? -5 ?SD_ Greenbelt Alliance's comments on Davidon DEIR for the record From: Teri Shore [mailto:tshore @greenbelt.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4 :33 PM To: - City Clerk; Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; David Glass; Michael Healy; Gabe Kearney; davekingpcc @gmail.com; Kathleen Miller; Hines, Heather Cc: ginamarie.bp @gmail.com; richard @lacehouselinen.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; William Wolpert Subject: Scott Ranch - Davidon DEIR comments - Greenbelt Alliance Dear Petaluma City Council, Planning Commissioners and Planning staff, Please find attached a comment letter from Greenbelt Alliance on the DEIR for the proposed Scott Ranch - Davidon subdivision. I have also attached relevant At Risk lands fact sheets from our 2017 report. The entire report may be downloaded here http: / /tivww.greenbelt.org/at- risk -2017/ or I can email anyone a PDF who may be interested. Thank you for your consideration. Teri Shore Greenbelt Alliance 5''�5 Fifth "fi± r is Suiat-: JnO f, I Sante, Rc;w,, CA 95401 '707) 575 -3661 olffi :, 11 1707) 934 -7081 cell I tshore (CDgreenbelt.org creonbyIt.orct I Facebook I Twitter ter - ""/ grec;slht�l3 Ir�n�fi are art risk ql b<rin�� %ost to s/ >rm�r/ denclt�pfru>»1 (nit 1he &cts here. ) -933 SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SANTA ROSA WALNUT CREEK GREENBELT ALLIANC)✓ Santa Rosa Office 555 Fifth Stmot, Suite 300 B Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 575 -3661 April 11, 2017 Members of the Petaluma City Council Planning Staff City of Petaluma c/o City Clerk, Claire Cooper, CMC 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision - Draft Environmental Impact Report To the Honorable Members of the Petaluma City Council and Planning Staff Greenbelt Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the residential subdivision development proposed by Davidon Homes on the old Scott Ranch property currently under consideration for the west side of Petaluma. Greenbelt Alliance's primary concern is that this low- density development is occurring on undeveloped greenbelt lands on the urban edge instead of close to services, schools, and transportation. We have also identified the Scott Ranch as among the most at -risk greenbelt lands in Sonoma County and the Bay Area in our 2017 At Risk report. Read more below and see attached. Greenbelt Alliance's mission is to fully protect the Bay Area's 3.6 million -acre greenbelt of natural and agricultural lands; direct all new development into already urbanized areas; and support urban development that benefits.residents across the socio- economic spectrum, Greenbelt Alliance generally shares the concerns of Petalumans for Responsible Planning and the Kelly Creels Protection Project of Earth Island Institute on the DEIR. Based on our initial review of the DEIR, written comments and testimonywe heard at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 4, Greenbelt Alliance is concerned that the document may fall short of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. In particular, at the public hearing an attorney representing a community group questioned the adequacy of the DEIR's project description and of the biological surveys for endangered species that were conducted at the project site more than a decade ago. 312 Sutler Street. Suite 510 San, Francisco, CA 94108 to greel7belt.ot'g 9, _5�3% SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SANTA ROSA WALNUT CREEK GREENBELT ALLIANCE Greenbelt Alliance urges the city and planning staff to address and resolve the issues raised by the community over the DEIR and the proposed subdivision before malting any final decisions. Lands At Risk Please note that the Scott Ranch lands are identified in the Greenbelt Alliance 2017 At Risk report as among the greenbelt lands at highest risk of urban -type development in Sonoma County and the San Francisco Bay Area. It is also interesting to find that a similar luxury home project proposed by Davidon Homes on greenbelt lands in Napa was also featured in our 2017 At Risk report as among the greenbelt lands at highest risk of urban -type development in. the San Francisco Bay Area. See attached fact sheets. In At Risk, Greenbelt Alliance also recognizes Sonoma and Napa counties as leaders in protection of greenbelts, including open space and agricultural lands. These counties, along with Marin County, have reduced the threats to greenbelt lands more than anywhere in the Bay Area. The city of Petaluma has long been a leader in smart growth policies, adopting the first Urban Growth Boundary. In Petaluma and around the Bay Area, most of the greenbelt lands that remain at high risk of development are on the edge of existing development and within the Urban Growth Boundaries of cities and towns. Instead of developing these vulnerable and important lands on the urban edge, Greenbelt Alliances urges decision makers and communities to support city- centered growth near downtowns, transportation and services. In our view, any development on remaining greenbelt lands should be avoided until infill opportunities are maximized. Any development on greenbelts at the urban edge must adhere to the highest environmental standards, be as efficient as possible, maintain rural character and protect the natural resources and ecosystem services that they provide. In response to the community's strong concerns about developing the Scott Ranch with expensive, low- density, single family homes, Greenbelt Alliance urges the city and the developers to find a way to preserve the lands, add them to Helen Putnam Regional Park, and instead develop housing for a range of income levels in the city core. It seems that there are tools available for removing or transferring development rights to achieve a positive outcome. We understand that the Sonoma Land Trust currently holds $1 million for the purpose of preserving the Scott Ranch property as parkland and extending Helen Putnam County Regional Park. Thank you so much for considering our views. Sincerely yours, Teri Shore, Regional Director Cc: Petaluma Planning Commission -;trennbelt.orcg Page 2 of 2 2 _5 y SONOMA COUNTY RESULTS 2017 s. M lo'k, I L! AT RISK: THE BAY AREA GREENBELT is the definitive research on the Bay Area's farms, ranches, and natural areas at risk of being lost forever to sprawl development. It brings to light —out of the depths of planning documents --what the region's future could look like if we don't speak up. Sonoma County Highlights • Sonoma County, the Bay Area's largest county, has made the region's largest strides in land protection. Today, the county has 58,400 acres of total land at risk of development. Land at high risk has dropped by 70 percent since 2012 to 4,100 acres. • One important area that is at risk is the Sonoma Developmental Cen- ter. The Center cares for people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. It sits amid an idyllic 900 -acre expanse of redwood for- ests, grasslands, and oak woodlands along Sonoma Creek— provid- ing an irreplaceable refuge for patients. The state is planning to close the 120 - year -old facility, which means the land, and the rare healing resources it offers, are at risk of being lost to development. • Sonoma County is also grappling with large event centers on rural lands, putting additional pressure on land and groundwater. • A growing challenge for Sonoma County is that more than half of Its water —both for drinking and irrigation —comes from groundwater. The lands that collect this water are at risk —in fact, 28 percent of all the region's at risk groundwater basins are in Sonoma County. GET THE FULL REPORT DOWNLOAD CONTACT Get the report, maps, and-detailed methodology. Teri Shore greenhelt.org /at =risk 2097 707- 575 -3661 Get county -by- county results including a region -wide map at greenbeltorg /at -rlsk 2017. tshore @greenbelt.org GREENBELT ALLIANCE a-5-34 SONIOMA COUNTY RESULTS 2017 AT RISK-,.,, THE BAY AREA GREENBELT .4 NAPA COUNTY RESULTS 20117 1101 1 AT RISK: THE BAY AREA GREENBELT is the definitive research on the Bay Area's farms, ranches, and natural areas at risk of being lost forever to sprawl development. It brings to light —out of the depths of planning documents —what the region's future could look like if we don't speak up. Napa County Highlights • Today, 10,100 acres of land in papa County are at risk of develop- ment; with only 750 at high risk. since 2012, the county's total land at risk has increased by 55 percent. • In recent years, one longstanding threat In particular has grown acute: the construction of large -scale event centers and resorts on farmland, especially vineyards. • A giant "new town center" called Watson Ranch in American Canyon proposes 1,250 housing units, a luxury hotel, a school, and commer- cial development, paving over farmland north of the city. • The county's most alarming threat is to a park south of the city of Napa; where land now considered permanently protected could be sold for development. Skyline Wilderness Park's 850 acres of land is leased to the county by the state, and the state has attempted to remove the land's designation as a park, to allow its sale at a higher price-for development— possibly even for gravel mining. • A full 90 percent of Napa's land at risk is in groundwater basins, vital for collecting the rainwater that fills underground aquifers. GET THE FULL REPORT Get county -by- county results including a region -wide map at greenbelt.orgMt -rlsk 2077. NPAPA COUNITY RESULTS 2017 AT RISK: THE BAY AREA GREENBELT BAY AREA RESULTS 2011 AT RISK: THE BAYAREA GREENBELT is the definitive research on the Bay Area's farms, ranches, and natural areas at risk of being lost forever to sprawl development. It brings to light —out of the depths of planning documents —what the region's future could look like if we don't speak up. . Bay Area Highlights • Today, almost 300,000 acres are at risk: 293,100 acres of farms, ranches, and natural lands are at risk of development in the next 30 years. This is an area of 458 square miles, almost 10 times the size of San Francisco, that could be paved over in a generation. • Of that land, 63,500 acres are at high risk, meaning they face devel- opment within the next 10 years. • These areas are under extreme market pressure; the bright red areas on the At Risk Map reflect dozens of proposals that threaten the Bay Area's ranchland, farms, wildlife habitat, and wetlands. • Less land is at risk today. Since 2012, the amount of total land at risk has dropped by almost 30,000 acres, thanks in large part to land protection policies adopted around the region. • For almost 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has worked with Bay Area residents to pass policies like urban growth boundaries, and hillside and agricultural protections to protect land and encourage develop- ment in existing cities and towns. GET THE FULL REPORT DOWNLOAD Get the report, maps, and detailed methodology. greenbelt,org/ai- risk -20 17 Get county -by- county results including a . region -wide map at green.beft.org/at-risk-2017 .Jeremy Madsen 415 -543 -6771 jmadsen @greenbelt.org — 5 -/C) BAY AREA RESULTS 2017 been;growing wine grapes for 46years, in a long love affair with Napa, and with farming. For almost as long, they've been leading', the — - fight against development on the hill, just north of their vineyard, that -'. - - - -- separates the city of Napa from the surrounding countryside. r Neighbors have joined Jo Ann and her family against the latest threat. The developers of the "Napa Oaks 11" project —which would cut down 570 oak trees -seek to change the, zoning to allow 53 homes on the hillside. The current "resource area" zoning is supposed to protect the land's views, natural springs, and wildlife, and also protect people: The 6.1 earthquake that shook Napa in, 2014 ran along a fault ,Iustbefowthe hill, making it a dangerous place to build. i... ,• `±'� �. Zr "You need to be vi ilant about our communit ," says \ � � v r 9 Y Y y T Jo Ann's daughter -in -law Suzanne Truchartl; -who ft s also 7ohwulhefight. A land use attorney, Suzanne scrutinized "What was real y` disconcertin g Vas,their tone," she says; "Like it's all a done- deal." i s Bqt it s -not (hanks to, the Truchardsand their neighbors, As neighbor salt! "They're,speculofors. They want to cash irk: made a�bef —and they're going to lose.' k!�, ; e %t, y _ �_ ` �R _ _ �•� � ' La � ._ _ . 16✓ �= 'S1"'1�P� Yµi�1 5' t rF. Y •' t L m Planning Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR/ Environmental Impact and Mitigation Impact CULT-3 Paleontological Resources The geologic units on the project site include the Franciscan Formation, which is the oldest of fossil bearing marine sediments. Although no known paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, it is possible that these geologic units could contain undiscovered paleontological resources. I am opposed to development of this land. If this land is developed, I request that the city appoint a person to oversee the palaeontology on this site. Without the insurance of a qualified paleontologist, resources could be damaged or destroyed. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 2 5 DEIR comments Loretta Mateik [Imateik @comcast.net] Sent:Saturday, April 8, 2017 2:23 PM To: councilman.albertson @ gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; davekingpcc @gmail.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberlcearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Dear Madam /Sir, I attended the planning commission meeting and listened with interest as both sides spoke .... but did not make my comments at that time. I would like to make them now. I was struck by the following rhetoric, over and over. The Davidon experts, in trying to defend the DEIR spoke about each and every'issue' in the report...... and said, not once, but OVER and OVER again: But this can be 'mitigated" and reduced to an NI.—or negligible impact. If most of the points /issues in the DEIR require mitigation' as their experts testified ...... then this in itself suggests the project is flawed from the beginning! You also cannot ignore the fact that the cumulative effect of all of these points requiring mitigation is MUCH greater than if they were each to be taken individually ..... which they cannot .... but their experts would like you to believe. But not once did I hear'what'these mitigations entailed..... HOW would they mitigate each issue and just WHO is deciding that the - issues have indeed been mitigated? The issues are mitigated to 'whose' standards? Rather like the fox watching the hen house. All of Davidon's experts are quick to reduce EVERY issue in the DEIR to 'numbers', that they say can be 'mitigated' and therefore reduced to Nls! Seriously ?? As one example, HOW can you in good conscience reduce the potential destruction of an animal species to NUMBERS ?? While l realize some of you are thinking, it's just a frog ........ I beg to add by way of a paraphrase: A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" These frogs cannot speak for themselves. They are truly at our mercy'. HOW can Davidon's experts (or anyone for that matter), reduce to numbers, the IMPACT the 3+ years of construction this project will take, will have on them ..... even if they only build adjacent to their current biological corridor ?? My husband and I live on D Street ... and have for almost 20 years .... and as a species somewhat more enlightened than the frog, I KNOW for a fact that I will NOT deal well with the 3+ years of construction this project will take. As it is, traffic on D Street is laughable. Apparently, none of you live around here, or you would already know it's ridiculous. And you want to ADD to this problem, MORE homes being built PLUS the noise, aggravation, and frustration construction alone from this project will create? How do Davidon's 'experts', (while defending the DEIR),....... plan to migitate THAT issue? The inconvenience to ALL of the current residents along D Street and the surrounding areas that will be impacted byAhe mere project itself? Did ANY of them give one thought to THAT issue? Are you? If not, then none of you must live in the areas that will be affected. I am here to tell you that THAT issue cannot be quantified nor can they offer ANY mitigation that will reduce this issue to an NI. Or have all of the current residents of Petaluma.... those of US that already live here and ESPECIALLY those of us that will be DIRECTLY impacted by this project ... also been reduced to a'number ........ having NI, as they are so fond of saying...... Negative Impact ?? Or even. more importantly, is the 'target' market of Davidon..... those lucky 28 -66 families that can afford the 9 -51-1y $1 -2 MILLION dollar price tag for the'luxury homes' they are planning:.... been quantified to a NUMBER and given greater importance ?? THAT'number', having been given such greater'weight'..... that this precious and beautiful corridor will be FOREVER changed for ALL of the rest of us Petalumans and SOLD to the few that can afford their price tag ?? It will change that entrance to our beautiful city.... FOREVER! Do none of you truly grasp that ONCE this project is undertaken, this land /area can NEVER be reclaimed. There are NO DO OVERS. NOTHING their'experts' say about the mitigation of-ANY of the issues in this project, can foretell with certainly what WILL happen. They do NOT have a crystal ball. They cannot reduce to'numbers' what the long range outcomes will be. NONE of them can. They can ONLY'guess'. And this is even MORE important an issue for the red legged frog. THEY cannot possibly know, or begin to estimate, so therefore, not possibly mitigate, now or EVER...... how the sheer magnitude of the 3+ years of construction 'close to and adjacent to' their current biosphere will effect the long term survival /viability of that little species. And that too ........ can NEVER be undone. Those YEARS of disruption to and. around their habitat during the construction WILL have an impact.....and that cannot be quantified, or reduced to a number insignificant enough through some kind of mitigation to become an 'NI'. TRAFFIC ISSUES: D St. traffic is NOT isolated to the couple intersections suggested by the DEIR .... but too often, down the entire length of D St. and is significantly worse from 10th to Lakeville during afternoon commute times. Drivers in that very long, slow moving line of traffic, are always frustrated. Too frequently, out of this frustration and simply being tired of the long wait to drive the length of D St., cars are cutting out of line, trying to get to side streets to avoid this situation. This means, for 2 -5 car lengths, these drivers are driving on the WRONG side of the street, trying to get to the side streets to get out of this traffic mess. THIS is creating hazardous conditions NOW. Adding MORE homes will only make these issues worse and there is only ONE way to mitigate this and that is to NOT build MORE homes. This horrendous D St. traffic is along a number of school corridors and frustrated drivers do not NOW yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. It's like a game of chicken to get across the street. The answer is NOT to add more stop signs or traffic lights, that will only make matters worse. The issue is to REDUCE the amount of traffic and more certainly to NOT add to it by building yet more homes. We live in an old house ... built in 1906. We do not have double pane windows or a great deal of insulation.. As it is ...... our house and windows rattle and shake when trucks drive down the street .... and that can start as early as 4 AM. We hear more noise than I would like now. How much more will occur for a VERY long protracted period of time, due to this project? It is quite nerve - racking now and how much worse will it be with heavy equipment going up and down D ST. for the 3+ years of construction this project will take? My husband and I go to every open house along D St. and the surrounding area ..... as curious neighbors. I have now lost count of the number of times I have heard potential interested'buyers' comment on how anyone in their right mind would buy on D St., with all of the noise and traffic. Perhaps at ONE time they might have loved living here, but now, the traffic and noise alone would stop them from, buying. To me, this suggests this area is now KNOWN for it's ugly traffic and noise issues. Adding more homes is only going to make this worse. In the almost 20 years that we have lived here, there is a real and significant increase in not only traffic but the resultant noise too. This is not the once delightful, beautiful city we moved to .... in the hopes of getting away from San Francisco and all the ills and noise there .... but is becoming the very essence of what we had hoped to escape. There are also many issues that did NOT appear in this current DEIR report that were in the last report ..... and were therefore not addressed, but merely ignored? Davidon and their 'experts', don't live here. Once this project is over ..... they are gone .... on to their next project. They do not give a damn about any potential long term effects .... or any 'issues' that may not be mitigated 'well' because they do not have to live and deal with them. We do.......... All of these points need to be truly understood and felt deeply by both the planning commission and city government. You all need to STOP allowing the endless sprawling of homes and safeguard our community and the unique character it has.. A character that is being eroded with every project you approve. Does the quest for money and profits give Davidon (and others) MORE rights to forever change our landscape and this particular parcel of land for the benefit of so few families who can afford it and therefore supersede the rights of everyone else that will be negatively affected by this project forever? Please, I beg you to think long and hard about your decision for this project and others that may be in the 'pipeline'. Petaluma is changing and I'm sorry to say, NOT for the better. Sincerely..... Loretta Mateik 700 D St. 7� - SI-/ 6 Eberle Ewing 330 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 eberlel6@comcast.net April 13, 2017 City of Petaluma Alicia Giudice Senior Planner 11 English St. Petaluma CA 94952 Dear Ms. Giudice, I am writing in response to the Davidson Project EIR. Having lived in Petaluma for 30 years, I have hiked and biked Putnam Park and D street hundreds of times, and have never failed to appreciate the green fields and trees along Kelly Creek. What a shame that this area is to be developed, but given that apparent inevitability, I very much hope that it can be done in a way that enhances Petaluma's west entrance. Specifically, I find the proposal with any more than 26 homes could not possibly preserve the area's aesthetic value. The proposed walk /bikeway to Putnam Park bordered on both sides with homes /back yard fences would in no way be "park like ". Please ensure that at least the south side of Kelly Creek remains in its natural state. Like many others, I increasingly use D Street to avoid the traffic on 101. During peak hours traffic is backed up for over a block at the 8th street stop sign and the traffic light at Sunnyslope. Since these are to be expensive homes, there will be a minimum of 2 active drivers per home. D Street was designed as a residential avenue, not the main thoroughfare it has become. This must be considered when determining the number of homes to be permitted. Thanks for your careful consideration of public input in to this proposal. Sincerely yours, Eberlo Ewing '? 4S-9.7 RECEIVED AFB 3 o ZQ;� PLANNING J ,�, Planning Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIRI Environmental Impact and Mitigation Impact GEO -4 Bedrock Shear Zone The project site contains two potential bedrock shear zones-that would intersect the proposed development area. Characteristics of shear zones card = shear plane ,40,„. Nam- shear plane is - _ •. undeformed '• 5eeh in profile., the ellipse rotates towards shear plane with increasing strain, ellipticity increases with increasing strain, hack to intro [,., frecap strain ellipse When the shear zones are moved, even with overexcavated and recompacted areas, what is the guarantee this movement will not cause major damage 10 months or 10 years down the road of adjacent properties? I am opposed to development of this property because of all of the potential geological issues. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 51-( g Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR/ Hillside Slides I have lived on the West side of Petaluma for the past 24 years. From my house, I have seen the hillside below the water tanks collapse. I have seen the backyards of five houses on Oxford Court slide. During the time of getting these problems fixed, the owners could not sell or finance their properties. The developer who originally built the homes did not take the necessary care in shoring up the steep hillside cuts. This oversight could have happened because the developer was running out of money or because the City did not incorporate protection for homeowners into the General Plan. Today the General Plan 2025 covers development of hillside property, and the current General Plan may not allow the proposed homes to be built on lots 1 -7 and 38 to 45. This plan was put into place for the protection of City. The geology in the entire local area is notoriously unstable and weak. Professionally the geology is known as the "Bay Area Melange." This unconsolidated junk is the remains of ancient island chains that have scraped off Pacific plate (like so many food leftovers) as it sank below our plate and was crushed. in the process of Plate Tectonics over the last few hundred million years. That's why we have steep hills and beautiful topography. However, erosion is rapid. We know our ground is made up of sandy clay. How can the existing neighbors be protected from land creep, slides, foundation damage and other possible oversights that were not properly taken care of during construction? What happens if the developer goes bankrupt or the bond is not as large as may be needed or in place long enough? I personally am opposed to development of this land. If the development is approved, I request a bond for at least 15 years to protect homeowners from the kind of damage that has already occurred in the Victoria. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 --- -11 � Protect the West Petaluma Hills WEST PETALUMA HILLS WILDLIFE CORRIDOR COALITION (WPH -WCC) We live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Surrounded by Sonoma Mountain to the East and the Petaluma Hills to the West, our open spaces are a visual delight that make our town of Petaluma an inspiring place to live. These spaces are home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna -- old oaks, open grassland, hundreds of songbirds, raptors and owls, California Red - Legged frogs, Bobcats, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Foxes, and even American Badgers. We have the privilege to sometimes see wildlife in their habitat areas and share this natural phenomena with our children. Many of our wild species are rapidly losing ground to encroaching human development and these open spaces represent a critical refuge. The West Petaluma Hills comprise a wildlife corridor - important for wildlife movement, foraging and survival. These woodland and grassland habitats with their abundance of wildlife can only be maintained if we are good stewards. This includes preservation - protection from development causing habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Presently, some parcels in the heart of the West Petaluma Hills are for sale or planned for development. These lands are essential natural open spaces, part of the wildlife corridor for animals and migratory birds, and also help connect two other essential wildlife corridors to the Marin and Sonoma coasts. One property on Paula Lane in the north area of the West Petaluma Hills Wildlife Corridor has been conserved for permanent open space. Conserving additional lands will help protect this important wildlife corridor in perpetuity. Where is this wildlife corridor? Lands visible from Windsor Lane between Western Avenue and D Street /Extension are central in the West Hills Wildlife Corridor. Familiar land names are La Cresta Ridge and Ravine and the Kelly Creek property. Helen Putnam Regional Park borders the wildlife corridor. North of Western Avenue, Bodega Avenue and Paula Lane toward Penngrove and Cotati is a critically important habitat and movement area. And westward, open land along Bodega Highway to the Sonoma coast, both habitat and movement areas. South of Windsor Lane, the D Street Extension west to the Novato Hills in Marin County, to Nicasio, Pt. Reyes and the Marin coast. Without preserving the remaining open lands in the West Petaluma Hills, this important connecting wildlife corridor will be lost. OUR MISSION To protect this open space in perpetuity by supporting the conservation of properties in the West Petaluma Hills, to maintain connectivity. THE COLLECTIVE VISION - Designate properties as permanent conserved open space with appropriate, managed public access and trails, so the community can enjoy our special natural resources and our flora and fauna can thrive. -Be a model for the balance of community enjoyment of nature and protection of flora and fauna. - Maintain and enhance habitat and the wildlife corridor. - Preserve scenic vistas of the Petaluma West Hills and Valley. - Increase fire protection with downhill fuel reduction - Increase water conservation and groundwater recharge areas. - Develop conservation education for youth to strengthen appreciation of these special natural resources. How You Can Help A donation of $20 to become a supporting member of WPH -WCC, but any amount will gladly be accepted WPH - WCCWPH -WCC is fiscally sponsored by the Paula Lane Action Network (P.L.A.N.), a 501c3 nonprofit conservation organization, based in West Petaluma. RL.A.N.'s tax ID: 73- 170246. To donate: Please mail your check to RL.A.N., PO Box 2903, Petaluma, CA 94953 or go to www.westpetalumahills.com to pay via PayPal. Designate your donation for "wildlife corridors." Donations are tax deductible. For more information, please contact: Lydia Schindler, MD, ABFM, Certified California Naturalist, Certified Cybertracker, Animal Track & Sign lydiaschindler3 @gmail.com, 707 364 -4300, www.westpetalumahills.com g PETER GRAHAM COHN, M.S.W., J.D. ATTORNEY AT LAW 315 KEOKUK STREET PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 94952 TEL. (707) 778 -6945 FAX (707) 778 -7145 April 4, 2017 Ms. Diana Gomez, Chair Mr. Richard Marzo, Vice -Chair Petaluma Planning Commission PPC Commissioners and Staff 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE:Petaluma Planning Commission - April 4, 2017 Dear Chair Gomez, Vice -Chair Marzo, Members and Staff of the Commission, I am Peter Cohn and I live at 315 Keokuk Street here in Petaluma where I have resided for some 30 years. I am a social worker and lawyer by profession; and, my appearance here is on behalf of the Kelly Creek Protection Project Advisory Committee. I came this evening to comment on the DEIR and add my voice to those of counsel, Petalumans for Responsible Planning and my fellow Petalumans generally who are committed to seeing that the old Scott Ranch property at Windsor and D Street with its 58 acres on Kelly Creek with its red barn buildings, rolling hills, California red - legged frogs, nesting birds and other compelling wild life be preserved as an integral gateway and part of the Helen Putnam County Regional Park. I oppose the proposal by Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek to build 66 or 63 luxury homes on this land and effectively destroy this beautiful and scenic area of our community. It will have a profound and adverse aesthetic and environmental impact. One need only view the existing 58 acres in all of its Spring beauty or review any visual photograph or overview of the area to see that it simply belongs more to Helen Putnam Park rather than to be displaced and erased by luxury homes. Please see the aerial overview photo which is appended as Attachment "A" to this letter. The compelling message of the photo simply underscores that the scenic contours of this acreage belongs to Helen Putnam Park and not to development. With a background in civil rights and public interest law, I have great admiration for those who have been consistently taking the leadership in fighting the Davidon proposal for some 13 years. It takes courage, vision and tenacity to carry forth any fight in the public interest. And they have it. I believe the Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council should partner with the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District ( SCAPOSD) to protect and preserve the Scott ranch property on Kelly Creek. When all is said and done, each of you - as public entity representatives - share the public interest vision and views of Petalumans for Responsible Planning and the Kelly Creek Protection Project. I envision that you could work together to make the old Scott Ranch property a part of the "Vital Lands Initiative" of the SCAPOSD. The property meets all of the SCAPOSD stated goals: 1) to maintain the county's rich rural character and the unique qualities of each city; 2) to preserve the agricultural heritage and diversity of the county; 3) to protect ridgetops, bluffs, and waterways that create the county's natural beauty; 4) to provide connections between urban areas, parks and natural areas throughout the county for both people and wildlife; 5) to preserve natural areas that provide habitat for wildlife; 6) to protect waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply; and 7) partner with local agencies and organizations to leverage funding for land protection, and provide opportunities for recreational and educational experiences. The Scott ranch parcel is a great example of a century -old dairy ranch with water and wildlife. The preservation of the iconic old red barns is essential to showcasing the agricultural history of Petaluma. Kelly Creek with its tributaries on the property effect the water quality in Petaluma and down stream. The portion of the land south of the creek is an upland watershed with year round stock ponds and natural springs which is quite delicate and prone to flooding and sliding. I was walking along D Street recently and observing where the Davidon proposal called for placing some 17 homes South of Kelly Creek and cutting a new E Street road off of D Street into the Ranch. I was profoundly concerned about the danger this creates to add an additional street onto an already known blind curve. I felt uncomfortable walking along this same proposed intersection area as the cars came speeding by me. See Attachment B to this letter showing where the new road would be cut bn D Street to accommodate these luxury homes. This should raise another major traffic /public safety concern for your Commission and the City. The clearly better course for this property is to make it a part of Helen Putnam with a proper and safe trail head along Windsor Drive and with easy access for the city and county residents and other visitors. This would also have the added advantage of permitting the tot lot to be safely placed within a protected area buffered by the trail head and not on a busy street corner. The best solution is to have no residential construction on this sensitive and scenic land and to preserve the Davidon /Scott Ranch property as a part of Helen Putnam Park. Alternatively, the collaborative entities should approve no more than the 28 minimum number of housing units that the Davidon Environmental Impact Report found to be the "environmentally superior alternative." Any such units should not intrude on wildlife habitats, the pastures in and around the barns and definitely stay away from Kelly Creek and its tributaries. You have willing partners here in Petaluma who are prepared to work with you to make this a reality. The Sonoma Land Trust is already holding $1,000,000 to convert this site to parkland. More charitable and /or public funds can be added to that amount and thereby buy out Davidon's 28 lots at fair market value. Through your good offices, you can be active partners in helping to raise additional funds to help Sonoma County Regional Parks to construct the trails and trail head, public parking, restrooms, playground and other preservation and protection services for the red barns and wildlife. Looking forward to the partnership, Peter Graham Cohn cc: Petaluma Planning Commissioners and Staff Com, Jennifer Pierre Com, Bill Wolpert Com. Jocelyn Lin Com, Gina Benedetti- Petnic Com. and Councilman Chris Albertson Ms. Alicia Giudice - Senior Planner �2-59( � \ / �\ / � /{ A 2 \ ) Zm .. f \» \ } ����. \ \\\ �§ 1� %»\\ § ., / / / ( � k { \ \\ � \; ) 7 § £ ) /j § /: :§�� g i /' / \ k/ \: \ \ \ � .�77: \ . 2 \\ \ \ CSR Giudice, Alicia From: Anna Simson <anna_simson66 @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:09 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Please reconsider this development Dear Alicia Giudice, The EIR for the Davidon Development covers many important components of the development plan on Kelly Creek which lend me to believe that more studies need to be done and, ultimately, that this piece of land should be preserved. Additionally, something that is difficult to measure scientifically is the quality of life of people. Since the beginning of time, people have lived in close relationship to the land. Petaluma has very limited open spaces for people to walk and connect to the natural world. This is an incredible piece of land that is already connected to Helen Putnam and would be a gift for thousands of people for generations to come. Developing this land is a short term gain for a just a few people. If it is turned into park land it can offer more land for education, wildlife conservation, enjoyable sunsets and hearing birdsongs. Furthermore, if turned into parkland, it will provide significant mental health benefits from all the people who will be able to walk and play there. I can use Shollenberger Natural Preserve as an example. Every single day, the parking lot is full, and probably 100 people per day (or more) use the park to exercise, unwind, and reconnect to nature. This is a huge and significant part of the health of our community. Even though we live in beautiful surroundings, most open space within easy driving distance for Petalumans is private land. Each piece of public land is a precious resource, far exceeding in value what can be gained in a short -term development to benefit a tiny group of people, further stratifying our already unequal - society. Please consider the significance and the importance of saving this piece of land and making it available to the public. Sincerely, Anna Simson :2 - SS`s April 3, 2017 For: Members of the City of Petaluma Planning Commission Chris Albertson, City Council Liaison to Planning Commission Subject: Davidon /Scott Ranch EIR Review, April 4, 2017 File Number: 03 -TSM -0396 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Councilmember Albertson, I am writing to offer an initial comment on the Biological Resources component of the above - referenced project and EIR. I reserve the right to provide a supplemental comment at a future date. In reviewing the Biological Resources identified impacts and proposed mitigations, I recommend Commissioners adopt a broad view of devastating and destructive impacts to habitat as well as to wildlife on the Kelly Creek property and environs. My qualifications include being a Naturalist with 17 years of experience, focusing specifically on American Badger (Taxidea taxus), a CA Species of Concern since 1987. American Badger is a keystone species for grassland habitat and its behaviors and life, activities are beneficial for multiple other species, including California Red - Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), observed to utilize abandoned badger burrows. The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) and other species also. benefit from the activities of the industrious badger, a special status mammal I describe as the best natural builder for all other wildlife species. Habitat management and California Red - Legged Frog recovery plans, approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, often mention the relationship between the California Red - Legged Frog and its search for suitable habitat, Just one example is contained in the SFPUC Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan: "During dry periods, California red - legged frogs are seldom found far from water. However, during wet weather, individuals may make overland excursions through upland habitats -over distances up to two miles. These dispersal movements generally follow straight -line, point -to- point migrations rather than specific habitat corridors. Dispersal distances are believed to depend on the availability of suitable habitat and - prevailing environmental conditions though very little is known about how California red- legged frogs use upland habitats during dispersal. During summer, California red - legged frogs often disperse from their breeding habitat to forage and seek-summer (aestivation) habitat if water is not available (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). This habitat may include shelter under boulders, rocks,, logs, industrial debris, agricultural drains, watering troughs, abandoned sheds, or hay- ricks. They will also use small mammal burrows, incised stream channels, or areas with moist leaf litter (Jennings and Hayes 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, 2002). . This summer movement behavior, however, has not been observed in. all California red - legged frog populations studied..." p. 3, Biology /Habitat. April 3, 2017 -Comment to Petaluma Planning Commission /File 03 -TSM -0396 Page 2 The West Petaluma area is a longstanding habitat area for American Badger. This habitat area is documented in the CNDDB as well as broadly recognized in the San Francisco Bay Area and in California. Please be advised there have been documented sightings of American Badger in the area of the D Street extension within the last year and two years - in the vicinity of the wildlife corridor of which the Kelly Creek property and other properties along Windsor Drive between the D Street extension and Bodega Avenue are significant, connected components. North of the Kelly Creek property and Helen Putnam Regional Park, less than 1 mile away, is the conserved Paula Lane open space property, an over 100- year -old documented American Badger habitat. American Badger has been documented to occur on Cleveland Lane and Chapman Lane in the immediate vicinity just north of the Windsor Drive area. This documentation of sightings and habitat is important because the wildlife corridor is utilized by multiple species for movement and foraging. Any interruption of this corridor's lands could result in a serious, irreversible, permanent negative impact. The lands remaining in this wildlife corridor should be conserved, not developed. The evolution of the complex ecosystem has taken over 100 years to reach its current natural state. As a point of fact, the biological resources in the Windsor Drive area, including the Kelly Creek property, are complex and exceptional. The Paula Lane open space property is also centrally located in this wildlife corridor. In reviewing the environmental documentation before you and considering the highest and best use of the property, I encourage you, again, to consider the devastating impact to natural resources, the biological resources, the proposed development project would cause. Mitigation measures described on paper do not translate into reality when such a longstanding natural area is negatively impacted and, in short, destroyed. There should be. no question that destruction of habitat, displacement of wildlife species, and a significant negative impact to the longstanding wildlife corridor would occur with any development on this property. The American Badger traverses through the wildlife corridor for foraging and movement to help sustain biodiversity. It does not appear the impacts-to American Badger have been adequately identified. The relationship between American Badger and California Red - Legged Frog in this long established habitat and movement area merit closer examination and offer an opportunity for research on and education about both species. This may be one of the few areas in California where the interrelationship of species such as American Badger and California Red - Legged Frog, observed over time, could be highly beneficial in better understanding both species, the habitat needs and activities. April 3, 2017 - Comment to Petaluma Planning Commission /File 03 -TSM -0396 Page 3 As you may be aware, the now named Westhaven Development on Windsor Drive was a project that resulted in destruction of significant California Red - Legged Frog habitat and a surrounding open space portion of that property is now permanently conserved for what remains, per the US Fish and Wildlife Service's involvement several years ago, requiring this of the developer and the City of Petaluma. The opportunity for conservation along with education exists for the Kelly Creek property, and conservation as permanent protected open space is the highest and best use of the property. Working with conservation organizations and regulatory agencies, a plan to ensure the wildlife corridor lands in the Windsor Drive area are conserved, connected, and appreciated is both possible and highly desirable. I would encourage you to consider such a recommendation as you review what can only be described as an environmental document that contains such a significant level of impact to biological resources, with some of those impacts still not adequately identified or discussed, it is almost unbelievable. The wildlife corridor in the Windsor Drive area is also a connecting corridor for two additional wildlife corridors, one to the Marin County coast, and one to the Sonoma County coast. This makes conservation of the lands and preservation of the wildlife corridor in the West Petaluma Hills even more significant. Regarding the expansion of Helen Putnam Regional Park, an entrance to Helen Putnam Regional Park for humans to access the park from the Windsor Drive area could be appropriate. An extension of Helen Putnam Regional Park, however, to encompass the Kelly creek property with a level of public access that might not be appropriate, should be avoided, unless there is careful coordination related to protection of natural areas and conservation education, combined with appropriate managed public access in the wildlife corridor area. The Sonoma County Regional Parks staff is experienced and aware of the importance of wildlife corridors and protecting natural resources, so there is a possibility of the park's extension, with careful planning and coordination within the recommended context. On the other hand, conservation of the wildlife corridor lands, including the Kelly Creek property, with several conservation organizations collaborating to achieve acquisition, conservation easement(s), and a conservation education program would be optimal. A park entrance could certainly be accommodated with such a plan. These lands in the wildlife corridor are extremely significant for wildlife - and for wildlife movement. Maintaining the balance with open land of the Kelly Creek property is critically important - to support the balance between the high use by humans of Helen Putnam Regional Park and the ability for wildlife to access habitat and the movement area of the Kelly Creek and other Windsor Drive properties. This is an existing delicate balance today. I would be pleased to provide input and work with conservation groups to plan for and seek funders to help conserve the Kelly Creek property and other properties in the Windsor Drive area. My hope is you will view this proposal and the environmental document as the justification to make a recommendation to permanently preserve this property and support conservation of the wildlife corridor. ar April 3, 2017 - Comment to Petaluma Planning Commission /File 03 -TSM -0396 Page 4 Sincerely, susav+. I'drks Susan Kirks, Naturalist susankirks @sbcglobal.net 707 - 241 -SS48 cc: Melanie Parker, Sonoma County Regional Parks Giudice, Alicia From: Shelley Roden <srodenfoley @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 10:31 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon /Scott Ranch proposed project near D St. and Windsor Dear Alicia Giudice, As a west side resident of Petaluma and commuter who drives Petaluma/Point Reyes Road every day, I savor the scenic beauty of the open space gateway corridor at the intersection at D Street and Windsor, and I am concerned about the Davidon/Scott Ranch proposed project. According to the Draft EIR, "The City of Petaluma has developed primary objectives for the proposed project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124 (b)." It seems that the proposed Davidon project does not meet the following objectives that were developed by the City of Petaluma: 1) "develop the project site in a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of the site ": According to the Draft EIR, the 100' fence setback will not preserve the uniqueness and gateway value of the site. Instead of entering Petaluma and being greeted by rolling green hills with cattle grazing, flocks of wild turkeys and deer, commuters and.other travelers will be confronted by visually unappealing evidence of suburban sprawl. The scenic value will be undermined by the removal of protected oak trees and the erection of faux craftsmen -style homes mimicking the true heritage of Petaluma. 2) "permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected open space ": How will the deer, wild turkeys, and frogs of Kelly Creek be protected? This is not clearly outlined in the draft EIR. How will these biological areas be preserved? 3) "preserve Kelly Creek in its natural state ": Preserving Kelly Creek in its natural state seems impossible, considering the construction site storm runoff that will ultimately flow into Kelly Creek. It the proposed prof cot is approved, it will have a significant impact on the natural habitat. Please consider alternatives such as building fewer homes that are not visible from the road. It would help preserve the open space gateway that I have come to cherish every day I come home from work and arrive in my beloved home town. Dear Ms. Giudice and Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing because I am concerned about the numerous negative impacts of the proposed Davidson development. I believe the DEIR paints an overly optimistic assessment of the effects the project will have on our community. When my family moved to Petaluma, we did so because we loved the smaller town charm of Petaluma. We felt that Petaluma had an ideal mix of rural beauty with a sense of community, along with the comforts of a city. We have appreciated that Petaluma has so much to offer without the congestion of the East Bay, where we had lived prior to coming here. As a homeowner in Victoria, I appreciate that my children are able to pass cows, turkey, deer, and all sorts of birds on way to their home. I feel a sense of happiness looking out our upstairs windows at the peaceful green rolling hills, characteristic to Sonoma County. To think that this beautiful area could be replaced with luxury homes following a long stint of construction is very upsetting. I worry about the air quality for my children, along with everyone else in the area, as we would be living next to major construction zone slated to last multiple years. I also worry about their safety since our street, Windsor Drive, is already used as a thoroughfare. The addition of 63 homes would only increase the number of speeding cars passing . through. Plus, the proposed development would'increase traffic on D Street all the way to downtown, which is already congested. It is troubling to think that our one access road in case of emergency would be even more congested. , I am truly concerned about the effect that the proposed Davidson development would have on my family's quality of life, along with many others. I very much appreciat&your taking the time to read this, and consider my concerns. Sincerely, Sasha Zeldin Giudice, Alicia From: Sharon Risedorph <sharonrisedorph @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 4:58 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Fwd: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Begin forwarded message: From: Sharon Risedorph <sharon@sharonrisedorph.com> Subject: Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR Date: April 3, 2017 at 4:36 :50 PM PDT To: Petalumans for Responsible Planning <PetRP(d)-com cast. net >, Jennifer Pierre < jenpierrepetaluma(crwahoo.com >, Bill Wolpert <wolpert(a)sonic.net >, Jocelyn Lin <jocelynVeh ahoo.com >, Richard Marzo <rich ard Ca)_Iaceh o uselinen.. corn>, Diana Gomez <dianaegomez @gmail.com >, Gina Benedetti- Petnic <ginamarie.bp(u),gmail.com >, Chris Albertson < councilman. albertson(a)_gmail. com >, Alicia Giudice <aaiudice(a.m- group.us >, Alicia Giudice <agiudice @ci.pertaluma.ca.us >, Teresa Barrett <teresa4petalumaa- com cast. net >, Dave King <davekingpcc(aD-g mail. corn >, Mike Healy <mthealy@sbsglobal.net >, Gabe Kearney <councilmemberkearneya- me.com >, Kathy Miller < Kathleencmilleroffice (a).g mail. com> "Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR". April 3, 2017 Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council Hello! In the Opinion section of the March 30, 2017 publication of the Argus Courier, Sherri Fabre - Marcia and Lyn Vantighem wrote a very informative article about problems related to the Davidon proposed development of luxury homes on one of the most beautiful remaining properties in Petaluma. The problems include the destruction of the fantastic views of the gateway into and out of Petaluma, the endangered red legged frog, traffic, air quality, water issues (lack of water, flooding, drainage, landslides), removal of more than 119 trees, noise pollution and 4 years (including weekends and holidays) of construction disturbances for the nearby. residents and the thousands of people that enjoy the area and Helen Putnam Park. The Petaluma General Plan 2025 has Guiding Principals many of which should eliminate this development from even being, considered. To name a few.... Maintain a close -knit, neighborly, and family - friendly city. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's natural environment and distinct setting in the region — a community with a discreet edge surrounded by open space. Continue efforts to achieve a jobs/housing balance emphasizing opportunities for residents to work locally. Standards for ... streets, parks, storm drainage, and fire /safety are established to ensure that growth does not exceed carrying capacity. I moved to Petaluma in 2015 from San Francisco. After looking at several communities throughout the Bay Area - I knew that Petaluma was the place for me — PARADISE! I was very fortunate to find the home that I live in now. In my search for a home I found that there is a shortage of affordable housing in Petaluma. So why approve a development for the very wealthy? Makes no sense at all! We need affordable housing! ! My home is at the top of the hill on B Street next to the playground. The rolling hills across Windsor Drive with the beautiful old trees, cows, deer, birds and other wildlife were extremely important and appealing factors in my decision to move here: This area is one of the most appreciated views along Windsor Drive. I have seen hundreds of people - hikers, joggers, bikers, dog walkers, people pushing baby strollers and students pass through the area every day. It would be wonderful to have a school program that would incorporate the Red Barn, turkeys, cows, birds, deer, trees and native plants into students' curriculum. Why can't we do that instead of letting a developer from Walnut Creek become wealthier while ruining our wonderful Petaluma? I worry for the safety of all the people that walk, run, ride and bike along Windsor Drive with all the traffic and speeding cars, and it will only get worse with the construction and more homes. Accidents waiting to happen! The roads in Petaluma are bad enough already without adding construction vehicles and more residents' vehicles. I also worry about the wildlife that comes down the corridor from La Cresta Ridge close to my back fence and crosses Windsor to Scott Ranch. I have seen as many as 12 deer, even a magnificent buck, going back and forth. Recently my friend, Mark Kessler, visited me and after learning about the proposed development he wrote: "The proposed development eliminates open space and further stresses natural resources. All California communities share in the responsibility of limiting growth and standing up to developers whose primary motive is profit. Petaluma is an authentic and unique city, and the-replacement of even a portion of its beautiful greenery with single- family houses is a move in the wrong direction." Mark Kessler, Associate Professor of Design at the University of California, Davis and recipient of a Masters Degree in Architecture from Harvard School of Design. The only alternative in the DEIR that is acceptable is Alternative 1: NO PROJECT / NO DEVELOPMENT. Since the photos in the DEIR do not adequately show the beauty of the area, I will send in a separate email some of the photos that I have taken. Please oppose the development!! Save the beauty and quality of life for all Petalumans! ! Thank you so much! Sharon Sharon Risedorph Photography 1258 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 sharon@sharonrisedorph. com www.shaxonrisedgr ph.com F707 658 2341 C 415 672 9003 Sharon Risedorph 3 ®�101� 1258 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 sharon(a)-sharonrisedorph.com www.sharonrisedorph.com P 707 658 2341 C 415 672 9003 ®S67 Giudice, Alicia From: Petalumans for Responsible Planning <PetRP @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 3:50 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Public Petition for Davidon Project Attachments: Petition March 17 2017.docx; Petition signatures April 3 2017.docx Alicia, Please provide the Planning Commissioners with the attached petition and accompanying signatures before the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 4. If this information needs to be in printed format, please let me know. Thank you. Susan Jaderstrom Petalumans for Responsible Planning 707- 762 -5166 PetRP(a).comcast. net www.PetRP.org Save-the I a n.d.6nWnd-sor'& D Stre-0*1! .Rack Barn Od rolllri'q hills.. The' 6ta uma t At,atd . 00 ura lstqte'ridkio envitonmentally-sen-ifilve that they,-should not coma underthe-bulId.ozer. The old 'Sc aft: F a ndh -aiD_ Street and .Windsor o n the weE& dde;, w A - its red' barnj K6 Ify Creek, �cilliqg,-hflls,with qra2ing, �oo;si and"a6undantwildl.ife, is vne of.thage places. ,T e-propmral byhoWdoO to- build 63 Jukuryhom-es=ofitkfiland T -nuni- t y ias een fi igIi-I n T� h- s- Projecr or. b.may b*tjjd*.f#qJ stpqe�, e� 1 fd I '-pact 0 pqrtyotj are jidw re iewind §hou[d recognlz tI. gre are ' rr�agy:severe iiripaatsJrom worsen - ing ourlra'ffi ta, forri I a TelF legged` c to destruction of our f habitat a. ]4sfl y- sayipgwo to Davidciri. that I W.P_,cqlj upon 'Y6*u"tbfij-_kd awq�to un pu id s efljoyrnq4 an. for ut Urd dratjohs>- cot P fk, ).� fr �-t�adr�h6� W iS66fth6p-6ek iirisjqn is a, -g9p. 4tqft W'W 6*f Trjnje) ffic 61 d y gr1orrin reso v!e:a it �0 i. san ity 3afu,ur.co-mmun[fy,we can tarn a.pbtetittal disaster into. a.g.reatre-aiaurr-,efor-all bf.us-. ma -and.' norna�66uhty Rogturth'I Pariks. T-i Pwd�40,n Mff b'O'A'O' rivere� �a t1he City of eta u Petalumans for Responsible Planning — www.PetRP.org — PetRP@comcast.net 2-5�9 From: "Gregory L. Colvin" <colvin @adlercolvin.com> Date: June 9, 2017 at 9:41:58 PM PDT To: "'mayordavidglass @gmail.com "' <mayordavidglass @gmail.com >, "'Chris Albertson "' < councilman .albertson @gmail.com >,' Teresa Barrett' <teresa4petaluma @comcast.net >, "'mthealy @sbcglobal.net` <mthealy @sbcglobal. net >, " 'councilmemberl<earney @me.com "' <councilmemberkearney @me.com >, `davekingpcc @gmaiI.com "' < davekingpcc @gmail.com >,'Kathleen Miller' <I< athleencmilleroffice @gmail.com >, "'Dave King (dave @davekinglaw.com) "' <dave @davekinglaw.com> Cc: `citymgr @ci.petaluma.ca.us "' <citymgr @ci. petal uma.ca.us >, "'Brown, John "' <JBROWN@ci.petaluma.ca.us >, "' Giudice, Alicia "' <AGIUDICE @ci.petaluma.ca.us >, "Hines, Heather" <HHINES @ci.petaluma.ca.us >, " Danly, Eric" <edanly @ci. petal uma.ca.us> Subject: Scott Ranch /Davidon DEIR: CEQA requirement for inter - agency cooperation, based on Banning decision To: Mayor David Glass, Petaluma City Councilmembers Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett, Mike Healy, Gabe Kearney, Dave King, and Kathy Miller CC: John Brown, City Manager, City of Petaluma Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner, City of Petaluma Heather Hines, Planning Manager, City of Petaluma Eric Danly, Petaluma City Attorney From: Kelly Creek Protection Project (KCPP) Date: June 10, 2017 1 wanted to share with you the suggestions I received from our attorney on how the City might comply with the Banning decision on concurrent, collaborative EIR processes. below: In light of the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Banning Ranch v. City of Santa Barbara and in order to comply with CEQA's requirements, the City should 1. Conduct current surveys consistent with established protocol for CRLF, Western Pond Turtle, and special- status plants that can be used by USFWS and CDFW. 2. Consult and coordinate with CDFW and USFWS regarding these surveys, the impacts of the project on all protected species and plants, and mitigation to minimize the project's impact on protected plants and species. 3. Conduct a current delineation of jurisdictional wetlands that can be used by the USACOE, CDFW, and RWQCB. 4. Consult with ACOE, CDFW and RWQCB regarding the identified jurisdiction wetlands, the impact of the project on these wetlands, and mitigation to minimize these impacts, including restoration and replacement of wetlands. 5. In addition to meeting with USFWS, CDFW, ACOE and RWQCB, meet with all other agencies that have jurisdiction over the project to coordinate the City and these agencies' review of the project and its environmental impacts and needed mitigation. These other agencies should include CalTrans, BAAQMD, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Sonoma County Regional Parks, all of which the DEIR identified as agencies that may have jurisdiction over the project. DEIR 3.0 -29. In addition, the City should coordinate and consult with SPAR. This coordination needs to occur now, before the release of a revised DEIR. -Slo 6. Incorporate the other agencies' concerns, analysis, and mitigation into the revised DEIR. If the City disagrees with other agencies' analysis or mitigation, it should explain the disagreements in the DEIR. 7. Ensure the DER does not defer analysis of impacts or development of mitigation until when these agencies consider the project. That analysis and development of mitigation must occur now. Tamara Tamara Galanter Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 -4421 v: 415/552 -7272 x239 f: 415/552 -5816 www.smwlaw.com Please regard this as a public comment on the Davidon DEIR. Gregory L. Colvin Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415- 421 -7555 x.211 Fax: 415- 421 -0712 email: colvin(d),adlercolvin.coin ww�v.adlercolvin.coin Attached is an example of the form letter signed by citizens opposed to the Davidon Development, received at the City Manager's Office by the following citizens: Received April 27, 2017 through June 7, 2017: Staci Hyatt 613 B Street, Petaluma John Chavigny 613 B Street, Petaluma Robert Scerri 827 B Street, Petaluma Tiffany Scerri 827 B Street, Petaluma Lisa Modica 837 B Street, Petaluma Jesse Modica 837 B Street, Petaluma Cecilia Hallinan 905 C Street, Petaluma Megan Hallinan 905 C Street, Petaluma Richard Persons 907 C Street, Petaluma Barbara Stanberry 907 C Street, Petaluma Lauren Berger 645 D St., Petaluma Joan Aurien 707 D Street, Petaluma undecipherable 827 D Street, Petaluma Pauline Andres 830 D Street, Petaluma Hudson Graham 853 D Street, Petaluma Robert Bailey 915 D Street, Petaluma Jon Dole 1310 D Street, Petaluma Camille Bossenberry 1310 D Street, Petaluma Wind McAlister 511 East D Street, Petaluma Sherry Knagxxx 638 E Street, Petaluma Janet Muther 640 E Street, Petaluma Scott Goldberg 625 F Street, #4, Petaluma Yuri Hauswald 806 F Street, Petaluma Brian and Judy Pasdach 808 F Street, Petaluma Annie Taylor 215 G Street, Petaluma Kevin Tayler 815 G Street, Petaluma Ken Sanders 1007 G Street, Petaluma Mary Sanders 1007 G Street, Petaluma Karin Weber 417 I Street, Petaluma Leah Martinez 418 1 Street, Petaluma Pat O'Brien t69--2 St., Petaluma Jeffrey Norman 832 5t' St., Petaluma Amber Mareshek 15 6t' Street, Petaluma Liz Maroshek 15 6t' St., Petaluma Melissa Daniels 119 6th Street, Petaluma Bryan Moore 119 6t' St., Petaluma Matt Richman 214 6t Street, Petaluma Lisa Sedrenizk 720 6t' St., Petaluma Joan Brandt 101 7t' Street, Petaluma Anna (undecipherable) 109 7t' St., Petaluma Beverly Schor 112 7t' Street, Petaluma David Powers 112 7`' Street, Petaluma Thomas Stanton 302 7t' Street, Petaluma Mary Amt Nelson 302j"' Street, Petaluma - -,;1 -a Murray Rockowitz 418 8t' St., Petaluma Mina xxxx 21 101 St., Petaluma undecipherable 100 10"' St., Petaluma Julie Elias 222 12t' St., Petaluma Catherine Loustaunau 309 12t' Street, Petaluma Brenda Cahn 5 Acorn Circle, Petaluma Dan Cader 5 Acorn Circle, Petaluma A. Lankston 11 Acorn Circle, Petaluma N. Lankston 11 Acorn Circle, Petaluma Katie Miller 1677 Andover Way, Petaluma Susie Taylor 1685 Baywood Dr., Petaluma Sara Heitmeyer 760 Bodega Ave, Petaluma Evelyn Nitzberg 4460 Bodega Ave., Petaluma Jeremy Bolan 5023 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma Miechacla Bolan 5023 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma Kristi xxx 734 Bordeaux Drive, Petaluma Aideen Gaidmore 24 Branching Way, Petaluma Amanda Baker 405 Broadway St., Petaluma Tom S. 405 Broadway St:, Petaluma undecipherable 250 Cambridge Lane, Petaluma Emma Christopher 267 Cambridge Lane, Petaluma K. M (undecipherable) 1843 Cameros Circle, Petaluma Bryan Burnett 770 Casa De Arroyo, Petaluma undecipherable 763 Chapman Lane, Petaluma undecipherable 6 Cochrane Way, Petaluma undecipherable 846 Corona Road, Petaluma Jason Clymer 1020 Country Club Drive, Petaluma Justin Herrell 1120 Daniel Dr., Petaluma Conor Bihn 8 Douglas Street, Petaluma Judith Spencer 210 Douglas #209, Petaluma Shane McGee 431 Douglas St., Petaluma Heather Luttrell 3091 Eastman Lane, Petaluma Kelly xxxxx 725 Elm Dr., Petaluma Amy Evans -Reber 1729 Elm Dr., Petaluma undecipherable 301 English St., Petaluma Pat Riley 12 Fair Street, Petaluma Michelle Rudeler 1929 Fallbrook Lane, Petaluma undecipherable 13 Freedom Lane S., Petaluma undecipherable 1018 Gailinda Ct., Petaluma Dean Antonio 108 Grant Ave, Petaluma undecipherable 15 Harris Street, Petaluma Rory Crowley 122 Hill Blvd, Petaluma Timothy Crowley 122 Hill Blvd., Petaluma Sheralife Burnett 1221 -1/2 Hill Blvd., Petaluma Sonya Tafejian 94 Jessie Lane, Petaluma Jackie Baumsteiger 123 Jessie Lane, Petaluma Jennifer Friesen 515 Keller St., Petaluma Wayne Munchiardo 517 Keokuk St., Petaluma Martha Johnson 518 Keokuk St., Petaluma 2 -573, Richard Reynolds 805 Keokuk St., Petaluma Cassie Jacob 524 Kent St., Petaluma Suzanne Monay 422 Kentucky St., Petaluma Louis Evdokimoff 1425 Lauren Dr., Petaluma Siena Lambert 11 Lavender Terrace, Petaluma Kim Baumann 11 Lavender Terrace, Petaluma Betty Li 615 Liberty St., Petaluma Dana Mellon 1861 Linnet Lane, Petaluma Stephanie Gonzalez 1165 Lombardi Ave., Petaluma undecipherable 953 -B Magnolia Ave, Petaluma Tamisha Smith 2217 Mari Lane, Petaluma undecipherable 136 McNear Circle, Petaluma L. DeSantis 3215 Middle Two Rock Rd., Petaluma D.L. Catt 390 Monte Vista Lane, Petaluma Gary Danskin 603 Mtn. View Ave, Petaluma Suzanne Gray 860 Mtn. View Avenue, Petaluma Jaimee Modica 1 Nob Hill, Petaluma undecipherable 121 Olive St., Petaluma Carlin Finke 708 Olive St., Petaluma Robert, J.R., and Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Ct., Petaluma Abbey Levine 21 -B Park Ave., Petaluma Julia Carlisle 720 Petaluma Blvd. S., Petaluma Nancy Osman 27 Pinnacle Dr., Petaluma undecipherable 101 -A Post St., Petaluma Jude D. 319 Post St., Petaluma undecipherable 320 Post St., Petaluma Karl Hutchinson 1732 Putnam Way, Petaluma Alison Hutchinson 1732 Putnam Way, Petaluma Tiffanie Bxxxx 155 Rainsville Road, Petaluma Kate H. 117 Ravenswood Ct., Petaluma Derek B. 220 Ridgeview Dr., Petaluma Courtney Wolfe 121 Rocca Dr, Petaluma Rodriguez 1636 San Marino Dr., Petaluma undecipherable 1707 Spring Hill Road, Petaluma David K. 1993 Spring Hill Rd., Petaluma Ashley Barnett 1993 Spring Hill Rd., Petaluma Tiffany Mitchell 431 Stadler Lane, Petaluma Katy Byrnes 300 Stony Point RD #403, Petaluma Tim Thompson 111 Sunny Hill Dr., Petaluma Jodie Moore 309 Sunnyslope Ave, Petaluma Bruce Elliott 393 Sunnyslope Road, Petaluma Penelope Gillis 464 Sunnyslope Ave., Petaluma undecipherable 614 Sunnyslope Ave, Petaluma Donald Mxxxx 924 Sunnyslope Rd., Petaluma Deborah xxxx 1030 Thompson Lane, Petaluma Danielle Bolla 1030 Thompson Lane, Petaluma Natal Modica 200 Upland Drive, Petaluma Lilliann Anelle 1836 Village East Dr., Petaluma Simone Rohe 2001 Vista Lane, Petaluma Keith Wallace 2001 Vista Lane, Petaluma M. Hohle 128 Vista View Place, Petaluma Christina Tetreault 10 Wallace Ct., Petaluma Carol Treacy 13 Wallace Ct., Petaluma Kim Osborn 13 Wallace Ct., Petaluma Susan, Goerge Bono 21 Wallace Ct., Petaluma April Howell 315 Walnut St., Petaluma Julie Petersen 23 Warrick Ct., Petaluma Troy Petersen 23 Warrick Court, Petaluma Dana Wade 22 Wambold Lane, Petaluma Christine Machado 9 Webster St., Petaluma Adrienne Argyle 109 Webster Street, Petaluma undecipherable 529 Webster Street, Petaluma Gail Smith 1205 West St., Petaluma Abigail Smyth 500 Western Ave., Petaluma A. Hirshen 500 Western Ave., Petaluma Kathy James 840 Western Avenue, Petaluma Maureen McGiugan 904 Western Avenue, Petaluma David Grover 176 Westridge Dr., Petaluma Renee S. 176 Westridge Dr, Petaluma Cynthia Garner 327 Wilson St., Petaluma Harnsa Bauman 480 Wilson Hill, Petaluma J.C.Jones 162 Windsor Dr., Petaluma Judith Shimmer 10 Windsor Lane, Petaluma Darien Gold POB 2714, Petaluma Elizabeth McKooblen 445 Eucalyptus Avenue, Cotati Julie Belett 298 E. Cotati Ave #7, Cotati Mohaninzed Khan 8564 Cypress Ave, Apt 6, Cotati Dennis Hyde 1199 Roplee Terrace, Fulton Liz Mxxxxx 1451 University Ave, Healdsburg Heather M. 50 Corte Madera Ave #1, Mill Valley Andreiv Charne 2065 Euclis Avenue, Napa Richard Alpert 1377 Westgate Lane, Penngrove Paul Matheson 230 Nila Mae Way, Penngrove Christina Berry POB 853, Penngrove undecipherable 127 Fiesta Lane, Rohnert Park Colin Mclarney 1316 Jasmine Circle, Rohnert Park Joel Rose 7834 Montero Drive, Rohnert Park undecipherable 1522 n Avenue, San Francisco Nick Sykora 2150 Meadowbrook Ct. 97, Santa Rosa Michelle Har 100 Fountain Grove P"y, Santa Rosa Eric Lundy 4941 Yaeger Dr., Santa Rosa Julie M. 1016 Bush St., Santa Rosa undecipherable 4340 -112 Walker Ave, Santa Rosa Jill Bottomley 316 Benton Street, Santa Rosa L. WoIst 12995 Bodega Hwy, Sebastopol Alan Charne POB 751, Woodacre Andreas Morris not given (9 years old) 2�5�5 Received June 8, 2017 Molly Best 1423 A Street, Petaluma Tyler Crisafulli 1013 B Street, Petaluma Ashley Bradford 1013 B Street, Petaluma Jessica Rummonds 814 D Street, Petaluma Arif Virji 670 D Street, Petaluma Emmanuel Gonzalez 1200 D St. #14, Petaluma Kimberly Bailey 410 F Street, Petaluma Noah Miska 1105 G Street, Petaluma Deborah Garber 1105 G Street, Petaluma Maria Sutherland 712 G Street, Petaluma Gail Oden 713 1 Street, Petaluma Kim Becker 5&-2 Street, Petaluma M. Morshead 427 4t' Street, Petaluma Jean Logan 315 4t' Street, Petaluma Barbara Jean Stowe 400 4t' St., Petaluma Eric Scher 400 4t' St., Petaluma Jared Rivera fl-7-4—"r-St., Petaluma Kara Pervas 220 7t' St., Petaluma Catherine Sky 307 12t' St., Petaluma Eric Monti 307 12t' St., Petaluma Beet Williams 2217 Aaron Ct., Petaluma Wendy Dunn 554 Acadia Dr., Petaluma Sharon Garrett 505 Acadia Dr., Petaluma Liz Ibarra 505 Acadia Dr., Petaluma James Wilson, Jr. 1570 Anna Way, Petaluma Nancy Rogers 3 Azalea Ct., Petaluma Patrick Boyd 15 Bernice Ct., Petaluma Andrew Kurtek 2211 Bodega, Petaluma Holly Schaefer 227 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma Elizabeth Cole 884 Bodega Avenue, Suite 1, Petaluma Matt Goelz 884 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma Christine Shockey 341 Bond Avenue, Petaluma Patricia Wilder 1917 Bristol St., Petaluma Michele Thomas 516 Bryce Canyon Ct., Petaluma Dorothy Guajardo 133 Burlington Dr., Petaluma Justin Holmes 140 Burlington Dr., Petaluma Michael Anthony 1607 Calle Ranchero, Petaluma Bruce Bochte 80 Century Lane, Petaluma Pamela Bochte 80 Century Lane, Petaluma Kim Scot 30 Cherry St., Petaluma Lisa Jenkins 415 Chaco Canyon Ct., Petaluma Vanessa Vertigan 845 Chapman Lane, Petaluma Donna Neuman - Fields 716 Cindy Lane, Petaluma Christina Nelson 473 Cleveland Lane, Petaluma Suzette Morshead 1608 Caulfield Lane, Petaluma Merideth Simpson 312 Dana St., Petaluma Adriana Sanchez 280 Douglas St. #I, Petaluma :2' S`? Katie Sellmann 1413 East Madison St., Petaluma Lisle Lee 120 Eastside Circle, Petaluma Karen Lyons 49 Eastside Circle, Petaluma Kate Pooley 192 Eckmann Place, Petaluma Danny Lino 329 Edith Street, Petaluma Eric Haslet 513 Ely Blvd. S., Petaluma Ellen Beeler 100 Fair Street, Petaluma Susan & Ed Adams 7 Fullerton Lane, Petaluma Vicki Trabold 581 Gossage Avenue, Petaluma Annette Vedolla- Olivarez 625 Greenbriar Circle, Petaluma Daniel Dobowis 106 Hansen Way, Petaluma Brindl Markle 33 Huntington Way, Petaluma Kathleen Williams 26 Iverson Way, Petaluma Daniele Bugbee 34 Iverson Way, Petaluma Cindy Garcia 706 Jefferson St., Petaluma Marilyn Luaghlin 610 Kentucky, Petaluma Rosario Garcia 122 Kentucky Street, Petaluma Linda Cordova 51 La Cresta Dr., Petaluma Theresa Gonzales 635 Lakeville Circle, Petaluma Kathy Howard 357 Lakeville Circle, Petaluma Diocela Cruz 1821 Lakeville Hwy #29, Petaluma Steve Ewing 911 Lakeville St., Petaluma Garret James 911 Lakeville St #119, Petaluma Hanle LaFranchi 322 Lakeville St., Petaluma Becky DeLa Rosa 301 Liberty St., Petaluma Cynelle McDonald 8 Liberty St. #2, Petaluma Christy Meievan 627 Marshall Ave., Petaluma Barbara Rossi 15 Meadowglen Dr., Petaluma Teresa Lyons 500 Melvin St., Petaluma Alicia Lugo 600 Middle Two Rock Rd., Petaluma Adam Wolf 244 Mission Dr., Petaluma Abbey Acher 319 Mountain View Ave., Petaluma Scott Dusterhoff 1375 Mountain View Avenue, Petaluma Brianna Schaefer 1375 Mountain View Avenue, Petaluma Katrina Miller 614 N. Fair St., Petaluma Robbie Brown 614 N. Fair St., Petaluma Alan Young 1390 N. McDowell Blvd. #G, Petaluma Brian Goodman 1612 Northstar Dr., Petaluma Carl Blomgken 206 Oak St., Petaluma George Watson 17 Oakwood Dr., Petaluma Meagan Horeczko 880 Olive St., Petaluma Jennifer Eaton 29 Oxford Ct., Petaluma Adam Lehman 1254 Pacific Avenue, Petaluma Helen J. 41 Pamela Dr., Petaluma Carol Mastick 153 Park Place Dr., Petaluma Steve Mastick 153 Park Place Dr., Petaluma Ceann Terguoon 342 Park Place Dr., Petaluma Paula Swanson 17 -1/2 Pearce St, Petaluma Wendy Davy 720 Petaluma Blvd. South #47, Petaluma 9--5-11 Jarret Dennis 600 Petaluma Blvd. South, Petaluma James Jones 1780 Pine Avenue, Petaluma Thea Kingsley 1267 Ponderosa Dr, Petaluma Nate Sawicky 1267 Ponderosa Dr., Petaluma Burjor Dastur 1292 Ponderosa Dr., Petaluma Sarah Walls 119 Post St., Petaluma John Rathkey 27 Post St., Petaluma Jocelyn Setterrich 271 Purrington Rd., Petaluma Dhel Camp 1613 Rainier Ave., Petaluma Mokyoshi Chuengane 1344 Ramona Lane, Petaluma Gary Stedman 396 Raven Way, Petaluma Ellen Bicheler 70 Raymond Heights, Petaluma David Hahe 5231 Red Hill Road, Petaluma Penny Bayless 5231 Red Hill Road, Petaluma Margaret Kawaoka 706 Riesling Ct., Petaluma Rebecca Thompson 91 Rocca Dr., Petaluma Courtney Brooks 27 Sapporo Ct., Petaluma Allessia Young 1814 Skillman Lane, Petaluma Rebecca Fell 1410 Skillman Lane, Petaluma Alexandra Jelliffe 1813 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Petaluma B. Camhi 505 Sonoma Dr., Petaluma Charles Berton Jr. 839 South McDowell Blvd., Petaluma Cecilia Bertoni 839 South McDowell Blvd., Petaluma Oliver Ramirez 2198 St. Augstine Circle,.Petaluma Jennifer Zuniga 932 St. Frances Dr., Petaluma Tiffany Mitchell 431 Stadler Lane, Petaluma Neil Shah 621 Sunnyslope Ave, Petaluma J. Lussison 1400 Technology Lane, #521, Petaluma Kelli Cox 508 Teton Ct., Petaluma Lauren Ornelas 963 Transport Way, Suite 1, Petaluma Gina Charbonneau 21 Twin Creeks Circle, Petaluma Amy Turko 221 Vallejo St. #B, Petaluma Heidi Jones 579 Vallejo St., #202, Petaluma Soma Sundaram 579 Vallejo St., Petaluma Ann Hobrecht 2030 Weatherby Way, Petaluma Lisa van Wambeck 21 West St., Petaluma Neil Coletta 21 West St., Petaluma Sarah Rainey 1850 Western Ave., Petaluma Charise Diamond 855 Wood Sorrel Drive #213, Petaluma Kathleen McTeigue 855 Wood Sorrel Dr. #108, Petaluma Jonatha Foli -Fui 149 Wyndham Way #121, Petaluma David Davies 1716 Wynoochee Way, Petaluma Joshua Copus P.O. Box 435, Petaluma Nancy Gray P.O. Box 2693, Petaluma Rosa Colin Petaluma Astrid Garcia Munoz Petaluma Bob Prince not given Daiya Amador Hernandez not given Aubrey Thinnanzan P.O. Box 745, Bolinas, CA 2-5--79 Frank Friedman. 77 E, Knox Rd., Mill Valley Stacy Friedman Mill Valley Tim Bush P.O. Box 263, Penngrove Michele Davalos 920 Goodwin Ave., Penngrove Melissa Makita 100 Denman Rd #8, Penngrove Mary Haring P.O. Box 263, Penngrove Michael Krauss P.O Box 1303, Rohnert Park Carlo Melchiorre 944 San Francisco Way, Rohnert Park - Michael Birdsall 555 Lydia Ct., Rohnert Park Chelsey Kolbek 1660 Country Club Dr., Rohnert Park Antonieta Albinana 300 Enterprise Dr. #261, Rohnert Park Diane Brinkman 7740 Monter Dr., Rohnert Park Anna Haniel 8035 Briar Ridge Lane, Rohnert Park Jesse S. 1196 Santa Cruz Way, Rohnert Park undecipherable 1700 Mission St. #6, S. Pasadena Nancy Main 98 Berkeley Ave, San Anselmo Stella Garza 98 Berkeley Ave, San Anselmo Rebecca Rose 1300 LudwigAvenue, Santa Rosa Joshua Kennemer- Washeb 544 Kirkwood Ct., Santa Rosa Corrie Leisin 3150 Wikiup Bridge Way, Santa Rosa Jill Johnson 36 Crescent Dr., Woodacre Greg Raddue 36 Crescent Dr., Woodacre Julia Raddue 36 Crescent Dr., Woodacre -J-� -79 Date: To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As a registered Petaluma voter: 1. I oppose the Davidon development of 63+ new houses at Windsor & D St. 2. 1 support fully preserving the land, the historic red barns and the wildlife corridor of Kelly Creek. 3. I support adding to the open space of Helen Putnam Park. The Davidon development is not the right housing project for Petaluma. Please consider my voice in deciding whether to approve this proposal for development. Respectfully, Signature Address Date: To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 ti Dear Elected Officials, As a registered Petaluma voter: 1. I oppose the Davidon development of 63+ new houses at Windsor & D St. 2. I support fully preserving the land, the historic red barns and the wildlife corridor of Kelly Creek. 3. I support adding to the open space of Helen Putnam Park. e avi on eve opment is not t e rig t ousmg project or eta uma. ease const er my voice m deci ing whet er to approve this proposal for development. Respectfully, Signature Address � ,'s'o Date Name: ! To: Petaluma City Council (Mayor David Glass, Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett, Council Member Chris Albertson, Council Member Dave King, Council Member Mike Healy, Council Member Gabe Kearney, Council Member Kathy Miller) Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of Petaluma I 1 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Elected Officials, As a registered voter f urge you to re- evaluate the DEIR proposed by Davidon to construct 63-1 homes at Windsor and D Street. This is not die kind of growth Petalumans want or need. Specifically, I object to the following issues as outlined in the DEIR: 1. The biology studied reflects data sampled in 2003. Clearly this is not an accurate representation of the Kelly Creek ecology as it currently exists. The Red- Legged Frog population and its companions in the local food web create an organic, changing ecological balance [bat demands a current study to determine best practices to impose upon it for sustained health and longevity. Additionally, the data needs to be collected by experts that can be relied upon to present credible and unbiased interpretations of their findings. 2. The traffic studies are inconclusive and obsolete as they are based on a 2014 traffic study. The significant and unavoidable hnpact this study has found does not factor into account Smart Train presence or [lie increased vehicle load presently carried on D Street due to the new 101 exit at ICastania and San Antonio Rd. Both of these improvements will increase or have already increased traffic numbers and should be accounted for in a new DEIR. As a Petaluma local t do not support: • Highly compromised or complete loss of habitat for the threatened California Red - Legged Frog and the ensuing negative deleterious effect on the entire local food web and wildlife corridor The alteration, removal or relocation of the historic Red Barns at Kelly Creek • Permanent contamination and pollution to the already over -taxed Kelly Creek- 3 1/2 years of D Street traffic impeduuent due to sewer main retrofitting and construction traffic Tlio increasod permanent vehiclo load that another 63+ homes along Windsor will filter onto D Street A dangerous "tot lot" at Windsor and D St. and a badly - designed trailhead to access Helen Putnam Park Increased flooding and mudslide potential due to building on extreme slopes Pennanent alteration and loss of scenic vista at our gateway to southwest Sonoma and Mruin $1 -2M bomes that most Petalumans can't afford I do support: Preserving the beautiful S8 -acre parcel on Windsor & D St. as it currently stands • Keeping [lie historic Red Barns at Kelly Creek intact Preserving our sensitive established wildlife corridor at Kelly Creek for generations to come Expanding our southwest scenic gateway to our town • Smart growth that Petaluma families can afford The Davidon development is not the right project for Petaluma. Pheasc seriously and gcuttincly consider the demands of your voter constituency. Respectfully, Signature Address , Pct.d m;ns tar Rc: pontiible l'L:unin; G:r.h >~ "� I':att l'ai'zomcsrur, r:v; w.l'tQt P.r_:r,• ATTACHMENT 3 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 PURPOSE This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides an assessment of the potentially significant environmental effects from implementation of. the proposed Davidon /Scott Ranch Residential Development project ( "Davidon /Scott Ranch project" or "proposed project "), This EIR also presents an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of a related project - the Helen Putnam Regional Park Trail project ("regional park trail "), a regional trail segment proposed by Sonoma County Regional Parks in collaboration with the project applicant on parkland to the west of the Davidon/Scott Ranch project. This Executive Summary is intended to provide the decision makers, responsible agencies, and the public with a clear, simple, and concise description of the proposed project and the potential significant environmental impacts that could result from its implementation. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123) require that a summary be included in an EIR that identifies all major conclusions, identifies each significant effect, recommended mitigation measure(s), and altematives that would minimize or avoid potential significant impacts of the proposed project. The summary is also required to identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public and issues to be resolved. These issues can include the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. All of these requirements of an EIR summary are addressed in the sections below. This summary focuses on the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed project and utilizes non - technical language to promote understanding. The City of Petaluma City Council is the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 58.66 -acre project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City at the corner of the intersection of Windsor Drive and D Street. It is accessible by US 101 Highway (US 101) to the east, a major freeway in the Bay Area and Highway 116 to the north. The main arterial street that provides access from the freeway to the project site is D Street. Direct access to the site is provided by Windsor Drive and D Street. The site is currently an undeveloped property with a barn complex (comprising a large barn and two smaller structures) and a mobile home present in the northeastern portion of the site. There are single - family homes developed to the north, northwest (Victoria Subdivision), and east (Pinnacle Heights Subdivision) of the project site. Helen Putnam Regional Park, maintained by the Sonoma County Regional Parks, is located to the west of the project site. Agricultural uses or rural Impact Sciences, Luc, 2.0 -1 DavldonlScott Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTM Revised Draft EIR March 2017 2.0 Executive Summary residences on large parcels in private ownership are located to the south and southwest in unincorporated Sonoma County. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant, Davidon Homes, has put forth two development options: Option A would develop the site with 66 single- family residential lots and relocate the large barn to another portion of the project site where it would be renovated. The two smaller structures and mobile home would be removed. Option B would develop 63 single - family residential lots and would retain and rehabilitate the barn complex at its current location. Both options would construct a public park with a tot lot, a pedestrian and bicycle trail (multi-use trail), and trailhead parking lots. The multi-use trail would be constructed along the southern side of Kelly Creek and would cross the creek via a pedestrian bridge near the project's western boundary, and then would continue west up to the Regional Park boundary where it would connect with a future park trail within Helen Putnam Regional Park (described in more detail below). Another trail section would be constructed along D Street to connect the multi-use trail to the future Petaluma Ring Trail. Other infrastructure improvements (i.e., sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities, including detention basins) needed to serve the proposed project would also be constructed. Access to the proposed single- family homes would be provided from Windsor Drive via three new cul- de-sac streets (proposed A, B, and C Streets) and from D Street via a new cul -de -sac street (proposed E Street). Sidewalks would be constructed along the project frontage on Windsor Drive and D Street. A traffic roundabout would be installed at the intersection of Windsor Drive, A Street, and B Street. A 300 - foot Urban Separator would be maintained between the proposed development and the southern boundary of the project site. See Section 3.0, Project Description, for further information about the project characteristics. The project applicant has applied to the City for the approval of five entitlements: Two General Plan Amendments (GPA), Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Plan and Guidelines, and Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). A sixth approval, Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), has not been requested at this time by the project applicant but this review will be required before the proposed homes are constructed on the site. 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City of Petaluma has developed the following primary objectives for the proposed project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124 (b). The City's objectives are to: Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -2 DavldmdScolt Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTM Ra lsed Draft EIR March 2017 2.0 Executive Sutnniary • provide development consistent with the City's long -term development goals, especially as related to the provision of additional housing; • develop the project site in a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of the site; • implement General Plan policies related to establishment of an Urban Separator and the Petaluma ring trail system; and • provide improved recreational access to the Helen Putnam Regional Park. The project applicant's key objectives for the proposed project are to: • promote and maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth boundary thereby discourage urban sprawl; • develop a high quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma, compatible with existing residential subdivisions in the neighborhood and with rural and park areas to the south and west of the site, • permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected open space; • preserve Kelly Creek in its natural state; • preserve the large red barn; and • provide a public pedestrian/bicycle trail connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES Consistent with CEQA requirements, a reasonable range of alternatives was evaluated that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the basic objectives of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in detail in this Draft E1R are presented below. 2.5.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development The State CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a No Project Alternative (Section 15125.6(e)). This analysis must discuss existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved, based on current plans, site zoning, and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision - makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The project site is currently zoned Residential 1(R1) on the City's Zoning Map and designated Very Low Density Residential (0.6 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre) in the City's General Plan. Given the project site Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -3 Daatdon/Scott Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTMReolsed Dtnft EIR March 2017 2.0 Executive Sumtuaq zoning and General Plan designation, if the proposed project were not to be approved, the site could still be developed with 26 -110 single - family homesl without requiring a General Plan amendment or rezoning. Such a No Project Alternative could be the same as the proposed project in terms of the number of housing units and is therefore not evaluated in this Draft EIR. Instead, the No Project Alternative analyzed in this Draft Ella. is the No Development Alternative, under which no alterations would be made to the project site, the existing barn complex and mobile home would remain in place, and the site would continue to be used as grazing land. The analysis of the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the continuation of existing conditions on the project site, as well as development of the cumulative projects listed in Table 4.0 -1 in Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR. The potential environmental impacts associated with the No Project/No Development Alternative are described below and are compared to the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. 2.5.2 Alternative 2; 47 -Lot Development The 47 -Lot Development Alternative would reduce the size of the proposed 'residential development to 47 single - family homes and associated on -site roadways and landscaping, as shown in Figure 5.0 -1, 47- Lot Development Alternative Site Plan in Section 5.0, Alternatives. As with the proposed project, the residential lots would be located along three cul de sac streets (Streets A, B and C) off Windsor Drive, but the new E Street off D Street would not be constructed as no residential development would be built south of Kelly Creek under this alternative. All of the lots along the proposed A Street would be developed similar the lots under the proposed project (both Options A and B), except that one lot (lot 8 tinder the proposed project) near the D Street and Windsor Drive intersection would not be included in this alternative. The number of lots along the proposed B Street would be the same as the proposed project (both Options A and B). The number of lots along the proposed C Street would be the same as Option A, and would result in the removal of some of the barn complex buildings but the large barn would remain in place. Similar to the proposed project (both Options A and B), a multi-use trail would be located along the south side of Kelly Creek to provide a future connection to the Helen Putnam Regional Park trail system at the western edge of the project site, a Class I pedestrian and bicycle trail along D Street would begin at the southeastern corner of the site connecting the proposed Petaluma Ring Trail and the Kelly Creek trail, 1 The net acreage of the site is 44.23 acres (excludes public or private rights -of -way, public open space and floodways, but does not exclude the Urban Separator per Policy 1- P -19). As such, the number of units allowed to be developed on the project site ranges between 26 -110 dwelling units. Inipactsciences, Inc. 2.0 -4 Dantdou/ScottRmich CPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTM Revised Drat! EIR March 2017 2.0 Executive Suininary and a parking lot would be constructed along D Street to provide access to the multi -use trail. A 1.25 -acre public park and tot lot would be constructed at the southwestern corner of the intersection of D Street and Windsor Drive. All of the other project characteristics, such as lighting, landscaping, stormwater detention facilities, and utility connections, would be similar to those of the proposed project (both Options A and B), but the culverting of D Street tributary or other storm water improvements south of Kelly Creek would not be required. The potential environmental impacts associated with this alternative are described below and are compared to the environmental impacts of the proposed project to determine to what extent this alternative would reduce or avoid the proposed project's significant impacts. 2.5.3 Alternative 3:28-Lot Development The 28 -Lot Development Alternative would reduce the proposed residential development to 28 single - family homes and associated on -site roadways and landscaping. As shown in Figure 5.0 -2, 28 -Lot Development Alternative Site Plan in Section 5.0, the 28 residential lots would be located along two cul de sac streets (Streets A and B) off Windsor Drive in the northwestern portion of the project site. Twelve lots along the proposed A Street would be developed in a layout similar to the proposed project (Options A and B), but four easterly lots (lots 8 to 11 under the proposed project) would not be included. The lots along the proposed B Street would be similar in layout to the proposed project (Options A and B) except that seven southerly lots (lots 28 to 31, and 37 to 39) would not be included. No other residential development would occur on the rest of the project site. Similar to the proposed project (Options A and B), a multi -use trail would be located along the south side of Kelly Creek and a parking lot would be constructed along D Street to provide access to the multi-use trail. A 1.25 -acre public park and tot lot would be constructed in the southwestern corner of the intersection of D Street and Windsor Drive. All of the other project characteristics, such as lighting, landscaping, and utility connections, would be similar to those of the proposed project. As no residential development is proposed in the area of the barn buildings or in the area south of Kelly Creek under this alternative, the barn buildings would remain in place and D Street tributary would not be culverted. The potential environmental impacts associated with this alternative are described below and are compared to the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. 2.6 REGIONAL PARK TRAIL The Helen Putnam Regional Park Trail project ( "regional park trail ") is an approximately 0.5 -mile long trail segment proposed by Sonoma County Regional Parks (SCRP) in collaboration with the project applicant on parkland to the west of the Davidon /Scott Ranch project. The regional park trail is analyzed as a related project in this Draft EIR. Construction of the proposed multi -use trail on the Davidon /Scott Ranch project site would essentially create conditions that could lead to the construction of the regional Impact Setences, [tic. 2.0 -5 DavidondSrott Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTM Revised Dmfl EIR March 2017 M 2.0 Exectitive. Sumnary park trail on the Helen Putnam Regional Park property. While there is no guarantee that the regional park trail would be constructed, however, with the access provided by the project site multi -use trail between D Street and the eastern boundary of the regional park, the probability that the regional park trail would be constructed would increase.,Therefore, conservatively, this Draft EIR analyses the regional park trail as a related project and presents the environmental consequences that could result from its construction and operation. This EIR may be used by the SCRP if and when it decides to construct the regional park trail. 2.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In 2004, the project applicant, Davidon Homes, began processing a complete application for a 934ot residential development project to be located on the same site as the currently proposed project. A NOP was issued for the EIR for the 93 -lot project, and the Draft EIR was completed in February 2013 and circulated for 60 days. Based on the scoping comments received on the NOP and the comments received on the 2013 Draft 'EIR, the City notes that the issues to be resolved and areas of controversy for the currently proposed project relate to project impacts on traffic, air quality, biological resources, trees, stormwater, geology, and the removal of the large barn. All of these issues were considered in the preparation of this Revised Draft EIR. 2.8 IMPACT SUMMARY A detailed discussion regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project is provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. A summary of the impacts of the proposed project is provided in Table 2.0 -1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Also provided in Table 2.0 -1 are mitigation measures, which are proposed to avoid or reduce significant project and cumulative impacts. The table indicates whether implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level, Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -6 DaaidonlScottRanch CPA, Rezoning, and 1222.001 VTM Revised Draft EIR March 2017 W m O end O F � w 0 m 90 •(4 > w N 19, ego bo bo O>Q b0 O `r+7 w ;O On.'d to O bb N Ci :p gb 0 a 3� v� •H w 'ti V iU > N a� a C4 y o A Al- KIM P 0 hl b w 0 sa^ a a a5' o N eo °0 a '� bo o _ 0, a � a fig°° 96 90 z.�� z z z fig A w cu v 3vw dab 5 �.� g,a v wv ou p'b PvO 'dG i3� v o N o s "� aF N o o ob RWw3 I N L"' �• U V P4 w w up p a� A U ys • P W O N m a a ro N 60 W N y a abo �DGyO°E. buy G'p�pu v� y �Fu ° jov ° ? oro v ro O r�0'.'. v •C' '.'O '�i �+y •� N �' N p u N O y O 'J•. O O +-� y•a a ro �¢ •ai 01.� ` v v ��'' *3 � ,�' p„ roo "o 7 3 ro :p P. ° { p . v yubo a�a a` ° n � u m u p, S w C! qWq r7 A rn 3 H o Y± o w 4r7 � bo m a a ro N 60 W N y a abo �DGyO°E. buy G'p�pu v� y �Fu ° jov ° ? oro v ro O r�0'.'. v •C' '.'O '�i �+y •� N �' N p u N O y O 'J•. O O +-� y•a a ro �¢ •ai 01.� ` v v ��'' *3 � ,�' p„ roo "o 7 3 ro :p P. ° { p . v yubo a�a a` ° n � u m u p, S w C! qWq r7 A rn 3 H o Y± o P tV D W'b N w0�'��arodP1 5o a .{{CJ Avi o O •a�!! ai CwC id j�fjj 106# NN�S •,Otl � � TJ � Q� , J p" ❑U � �'y' Gl o o ? m P. UgU a„ d taH '� u li ° do u 04 O rr 0 g L•i (�o(� o, a a O 1�CC1 Sd O; H � V N M �0 spy' ro ro pro A A 0 H O cV Nr O A cy •� °O � � O N +•.� Div^ ❑l�A'� '+ ���i N iNd _ v O w A y N 17 r O 00 o"w g 8 ran a, one sou °DU Nj a k� ,+ o a $ �b phi P4 w t� G � ° 3 o C ° jai v mow, o q gbh' P, bbop. o. jj w m1% lil 01 T; H N o N o w •� °O � � O N +•.� Div^ ❑l�A'� '+ ���i N iNd _ v O w A y N 17 r O 00 o"w g 8 ran a, one sou °DU Nj a k� ,+ o a $ �b phi P4 w t� G � ° 3 o C ° jai v mow, o q gbh' P, bbop. o. jj N w m1% lil 01 T; H N o N id u m1% lil 01 T; H N o 'di H i. N o w O A j H ttl N r H 1 a1 i�+ .p ° QA1 ."' " j�-(; C ( �[�Q�• wx x' id u T; a p s A 0 o �---t I cn W 0 N cf bO v ° N N ,� p w tj O 1! 4 .,j tn °D w :d b b to y tti A 6b id 3/ s "7, v q °ro W p 48 wa R a 3 by eo 40 Pol as aa� 3 d6 °A ov m �� o �" 0 P�'d H ;d Od x w G ••va �,? �ytU N H 3 53 .?� t•�A •�'p, V ti. ° •p. w w�1 0 �j �Ui %d too N h ad •cs � ,� ,°q n H pC1 •d a E d a ocJ ctea �i.gd�`aoY3d o 2'SU'o- 0 0- `r w w� c� 0 cn r.� N H O R. ti Vj H N 342— 2— rz P ,r 0 aA N b wi+ •L" '-d wi ' o ' a'C'.i ° N r=. +7 .L�i i� •"a o H f+"' H ,�y y"� •� N .d in o b t7 O ro O ho 0 °An °�;y�' 007i�� R nvbiAdi °vQ °r+roo 0 ~O • NU •NC i11 N ."- .1.J H a 0� g 4 eog o 00,H °d r°v o �{°y j tc''+ • � • ' �" p . a� vm a' wwe � ' •'�{6�d b o o pi o •oo°ao; o b $j k��$"yy" , o y 9 - - 7 H N be p,L toll- '2 G ro 2 A ° go "D v Y r ro U o Ll -0 Ai 45 t It -� �R -S 2 o Eli c ro 5 o r� o Y PA �a w.. tttttt H 0 � N C4 .� A M H a CV U ti o -3-4-3 3 P W 0 cV '+O�'I bl OH ° W t)O.n C �" C m ro m N of v" ,$ R7 bo v bO - H O id pp A 9 Qi o v °� O y 5 5 �y q ryY C ❑ ,O � 'LS �y ro O 00 O 6A'�.' .f�i 5 Qi yC N C� bl +�J-3 H Lf 'I bo o . 5 'd 0 m ro •bl y op. N O ro A N 3 � � ��'000 To > d ° qpq d +riay HHo °�� doves �'°� go°41 lYya ��� of ",t a CU o b0a a� c+ ti �' o boo' 7 0 o aroi Jppw7 t°��' a Q^ u p v yb y� m O �C �.-. `ppF' a+ N '��i+ p� •O '� .Ou HC ' p IJ 0� � ,'Gb_y N � ❑ f?� }tl O N �� 00 D O R. G 0 g� lu a1 r� O s 0,0 O U id W. r .: i7 R� D O O O 041 A •p q� Q d� r1 O cV J ti �s H -3` -( "C 4 P k W 0 A� a w c� m A J H � o —( P W N 00 H �+t v 0 ,p .o a� �u rop�ay o vrtt tv� V1 N, �i �q� .4 °° 3 w k o ❑y y bo 0'CY�� �.S 1. ° ° O �• m H D w .L �'' sv+ aid '� P, 0,0 ,, o �J i OO m M' �p �yP o ono( m zS a d� N uy� S7 2Cj HO O O .A + yv, �, .� 'O �P.' �p O to u •� A id a7 Sb to o v a o o od�9cndO�c7oSeooU aaiw ' .0 ,=. °g ..°ago Q vpv �,� 2 pp V `^ id D v Pi' ..°p ;� `d n �- NaaE�' ' :y F u 0 O 0 o p O0 4 mo .a °o w� m w m a iv ¢ 0 � �@ v 1 �:p po � a o c'7 ,,�wHy • • • '7x •rte- +�•.a,, •� 'iN1 'CC1 ;p • I m a R,Q� a c. �O .-t O CA A s �a° iL rn P 'ii •° '� 'Yi v v v w Ry m w q a, ai 'd H y ro 3 ocn 5 v. s s n d,Zy°.� a" C Orr��Orow w jai y ° ro ao ro R1 O N gyp, .tl tf is G '" p p w� P d tl .� ro N b v 'iri O rO' 0 o o ° bro o ,a ot 04 b'o rA op� roou''d��t"� Eu "v d P, 0° -a r ,0 t 41 ° �¢¢ r �A L4 °w 5 0?3 F3w� rob a�.� fin' N sO V Q U a� N CV y o o E ti �3-4-1 cn ,P 0 N d d v .uC .o 18 .� W 0 N � tSi .r�J ('jj ,'.p�fy.{j `^~ yO � O •�j'N j� aH Pr p a co KV g .O O _ ° . >,•o 0 r O {°�0v�o OR, Fa '� N pp O O 'n '+rl •� �J •p •P ry G •� .', •�J N Ri M N LH �+' �. u fop a� eo o° f! o Q 5S 3 u N o $ S P, a F N n w n cf `d n a 0 � v w ,d M � ° r te 'upps w ° ' ° �° v � a g ig -.8 ° O °`� �G$pyw•� avv,�o �o'gpo.0r °'d 3y �,r obG NO c� .D T7 "g O 0 qq r� N p O, 60 •i,7 C .L1 A p +'C p, .19 S i°, 'CS N >, O p 5 N .Q cj O H O .S S O v°gg oo ao� gs °' �bi ep� tiro > °' pSi Dap 3 �p• .Ei bb • .n • • PO � u � � 6b'+1 � w toi 0 q 00 rl O a s 4 U U O N mf A r� 0 o o� 3� out Gp° CG W d bo a " m `a w ra'°•1SSoN�uQ�N •'Q�v vom' 3•'pa3�i�ro�a CC rod G 0+ �A .a emur! y y b �f �r! V7 'dC rt-1 id N 'a W G . 1N +'� v X1 o 'O N u od o R v p ° 80 t. ° a � w G •� � w '� .�'i3 ob •� � to ' W 'A. d3 v 4 g°/o b aA•G .pG b v (4� O 0 H 0 o °r+ 4) O ° OO rf+ Cl H •a o � v bov' m • v o P�1 'i7 w w Q a ••fig q OA N a C4 u n �o a Al- Cn P 0 �j9 7 ao b" a o ma y° to j 3 tl o�o� d a� o O iG° M .� Lbo bb ty pU 'd Id db m w o w 3 a G c°rrpj,�b�o(rg�U��o ° ej �paprya{••1� ° 17i r� ;p , O In u A .,d 0 N �O ' A s �❑'' N � {" A ° O N 'p 1034 A � W .O � .O � ttflUU_'.Jr' � C1 � N 'd N A u ; o 0010 18 8 N ao0 a0 > y A, >ai to f0D � °u p P, ° H 0— 0 13 � owO_ N N R'RRiii v W C7 A d O N cV S ti o � o V) P k 0 N Ni ti° o 0 0 p o aaa�2 03vo�b�°' IOU b o g0 0- ,C° O O Droi c id u W y w O° d N�' � m I. d o ro d o w p �i R y";� bb o N w T H F ° ° r, R-4 O - .-�• C •tl Cl 7U aQ,+ ,° 6b�°o19 m N• ��,9 w y 0 a ° ro ° N r7w o P OR CIS A G pA spy, o iy di O' �" ^W •� G G H ro �V m w 8-0 fi3 G et gbs� T4 8 v 0 gb �.� o� Al, N A 00• y 'd •� " '-�f � �'i •��y, F 'd o dpypi, � V '� �_ o O 00 t!� N N •� o a M WWW N u N O cV M o '2,"-a l A W a tv W N ax7 '+ /i i ''�.i t� °N 1� 00�?0 V au,Cko� n. N ° a aDi a1 a`� .� ° Q. O 8H N � �, � � ci. �"• � �f .� � fin' .o w �, � ,� S 'p o' � .� o da 0E°.a .. �b �io 43 o00 0 V G, 'd g 'd '� 'd ro 'd u a°+ by u v ro 9 H N N 9 9 (d 6 'd � ', ts 1 a0 d $o bO . •0 7-� C 0b0000 hhI1 ❑8 MAO o y Fi H� N ti y 'd P? S vu S cii s to p11 �� b u wbo. G ,d gg zm N ~ 0 o o �� of Gi N V Q N N J �3 o ti� }P W a hl g yu w �3 C° P, H o w as crt�° � auk tr y "j .t1 pp a"1 mW ¢°1' q .a 'wH o yo n pa w p N •� oo v of b }oC Cd Foy <p CY o o °o d rs o r� o p�jW �.5 P'. �• a pg 5d C `� �C o o °" �. '„ V aoob o o o ° •�'d� �,# u p�a� .o❑ SRS o °'�� a'ba,�� � o � � � w � � " � O ° � w � 'd N id v � .O G Ih id �'" •� 7"n aNi ° E-� v C' •g o :d X3 o ¢, :s H' aa'a m o 0 0 o >, •� a v a. og8d ogo ` ob„ v�3gQ��6��io w� b a P. o o ei ao jQ o ��"a., , H 8 to api 0.- .b' 0 3 'c1°' q >, O s '�!? v 'd ii V1 A w a� i p ° O' u • "' a`�i w 4i chi PW m ti N :L.y7 N N ii . y W N ° '.� Q! V 4f +� H �C Q 'i1 Gi N R' Ul O t E �. LL W t dj V N ,ate m C cn a, i 4 g w 2+ E r. R. P. N. SRI 9 k I,� (H N � � N U ;fi;gg A d Ci Al A b� �fl �0. O a OO�S�. v 8 M b o had ° fir¢ `� m v u '00 g 3 v a, u q N <;;, K' N N LL n . •5 p,'af •17 "8 g �, o ) oa�kia�ro'�ja ���8°N � � 'o .a> G b��j�ii x w.A.gia �iA bo ai ,a " v.vn . .?4 u b�t�,YJn� 8a°'ada�� R y iN+ •O ' . fl 1 ° pay, n" WC� W A N d tV �I o u ��ryy P F� 0 cy q O cV it �s 3 -,;t- � A: P 0 tV v v ro d roro u ro ro v vro u mr; N p1 ro �j � .O � •� J-' 'Cy v o'�A�b�i�3oavY��3• �o' P, q 57 pH�y� y� CC 6L�op�p Q� +� d ;9 0. N fi H 0 ., D°a o' eon ,J 00 a a H �A• eo v p., O > v id P. CC Q P. r� N cQi d Ti v � N .ari NN a~% � H NtlN •y7 ro 'y G I ,a � o Q C1 ro Qt eo � ° p •p '6b (� w N is bn axwl �o eo N W Cy N O �i ti G h o � o N r 1 A 0 ev t "oo �2tvd,,g81AZ -S Oil .gip, Pr VD� �d gb 15 rA �'� vti ro ti UU o o w o' �v� w yU q� v°�' o�oo g A v prCo °ate o �� 24 � N .8 05 d 3 ro ab o 1114 cs C, bo w� w c� cp 19 p o di � VIC o 1 , �Q di N w w .'l- .� p U b y m � ro o A A a o� y 0 C1, mom§-o�o ao a go`� ) a M O M b 114s A C 0 tV S O H -a / E Pcli �O a H � c, �y w 'yry� 't�Cdy � � 'O C O ai '{]• ul p O O orl 214 " � g g Ya �„ r� � H KbWw C .199 a 0 8 w v a A u a ;�� •� ��gry�yyi � w t� �. Xi �• o � o .� p c'7 .gp � �Oa .v � •� `�^ � > �' .� o '�J ,� A g' � �' p o '09 E� H p o�o�v� � � �• A 3 °� � �� w3 0�� �� a o 4 po 0600 yN 'p H ;� �Qj ,N� Q�+� �i 'II � q C3.^ is C4• «{ � (� N N t�•I W N O t'� � P..ri � � .p � .a G/ :t 0 W q m pWp t%7 �u N odD ; 0 t.i Q N 0 cV ti �s P O hl ��� 0 N .� Q A ti �t o �� �� P 0 N N N � � N fi ^y •h a A a A O hl ��y � � c� .UA � ,+'���++1 � ti bqqo ro � +-� bD � 60 0 o a� •� � v d w v .� v .�' .�i D, aj o ro N ' O � ' O pp,, •�i iJ C C �� � v v o � eo ro O W ° N N j A 4 ad N. 'U ro Ei � i I X i —W ° b � �, ro �a VNj o ol 01 6 "A t EIk0� � 8���� a� 0 I N M O tV o P cli 7A N w COC M*' ° id v �¢ '.°U ro wb M' D, °' akbro„�n °3�o�°° bo Pj�57 Q�y o 96 . ma y n N .'C 3 iU r� ro S uo. o�b moll0 U mo tg A. v a u N o R op Q � a > " 90 ro o o a mo 8 $ �a ro b ° 4J aroobId ° o E 34 ���'' o ro N w bi " N o w tn V w 2 0 .-0 00ro ° ro o f Ei o� s E o °P�i pg v• g w A a m m 2 C4 A o H� C7 — 7 P W 0 cV � `�1 � � . j � p o� ai � Vo �. .F• 'vd� 'd '4' "-' e� P, � P. a� a� cw � Er to 0 '1 g a a w ti d_o �u7 u w v o m�^oG w m oo oo ° o tia+• ° o `°' °� � � � � � A v :d 'd > •N O U r�. N ?c��� Q+ •� +C�C' w0 C p tlgy� �' +' •�+ OP. id P, t�2 c� w0 O �p it I O �a ° o a� o �l 8 5k > oDG w aQi 'y O :p '� w rl p � Es' aS +[��, id •� '_" � ���yj ' � G�yl � b 'V G $' b0 �nO � � 'b Rt 5i b G �.. u p +��� -j {�� p vi � A� ? �,,�y�p. �� & e°5Q°� � � � o o wu cod ��.�" � �.� �•�� �yw tad v er .� �' m ���ijj W w a.� � t� o to C1 .•O-• q � '� 5 "+y � � '� w a.-i � � '� >o' I'�n .d CJ by" � bu H y^ d z a tV n u 0 a N 0 GC pN rFF7� P•� tO .1d o � 0 � a M to � e-i A W 0 U O v CO 00 N W t'z� a A '43 d 1 'N PA N � N W 0Oj(d� i0 ° w N = T w H tCi b b r+ 3 N 0 cz M O sc 0 cn 0 a T O W 'G �a ° p .t7 N :C1 O 'R � r� ld R (y ol w N 00� O A � P. dId3 . ww3 8 I N H W N Q w a cJ �o A 0 hl N w� 3 W c� cV J ti 0 W 0 b oho 9 o via. �o E���a, w °aoco o N d � ° 0 p J a �y ° � � b ,4 � w H� �' P+u�y;�•�.�,�wy°� v o G b ° 2i o 'i, +xi �, n .� '�i 'C, A r� •� .� V c� o 'p Z to y m w o N u w a bD�, 0 5 ov u 14c� or° . 5 N v Z d d G ,'�aJ- w y •v .Q! •.gyp W c°�, o o o °bi iY •,o° o a •. 0. 0 t °acv w !� U . 't/j •~ •� O V � N q .G w i+• 4 +` ii %)- .L1 N .� R '•% N •l�lS ° *[� 1y �! V }� �j •� . N H {=a y ty A l0 ° } °{• GjQ 1tl '4'' �C.' N a•� �✓ H ¢ y U � ii di � � � � ;+ CC °11 , 'g' � 'q c�' � ''fld `€+ � '°^ C � w� � � � .d .�y •a' � �1 � NR.•� or Tip F a off' W % °`tom g01 v o � .O w �•�y0 , .�1-i + N •� •poo" ',°C1 a+ O LLi ti •'�� pN � p •ivy �7C�y5� v o H � � FI 'Ary O V ww o N N+ 4 +NTi 1 '11,�y 1 bSb 3� a v U106 .� 0 0 LO o� a� V Q C4 �o Ap- fl P k� W O cV C � H tl O Q 0 M M a 0 ti� 01", P O N V) R o ar v <N u D, a) v v ar v A N 31 tU id ��yy id is `vex � yy id o0 O " v 0/ q� v° d}y •.°ti a b0� b p� 'd ccpw�y �''+ w •�° 'W ,��,y •� ,�, WU ,� N v Z o� z S ti •� p 'd �J' •a 'S � 3 .�j 8 'cf v Ki K, w 'a-' w� o a' ' ro C v, •,�� b0'•[�a A �37+ .pup aG, •+cr1 v al •2 0 �+ p, 'J rt O S `�'� 'G 6 6u • ^j O U N `•` Xl XJ '' d Q 'a WY +' 1 P. N N O 9 to r O O , NCO,, 'oC u ,� A Ri + A, ;I u o v o v; '�" .. Rp7 ar L0 4�1 j a✓i w aHi dip p° y �v2u ts O ?�G R *� O '+1 �. C q ° N,L+� _Q , cNa �j .. W +�'J 'a C) C, '� N al al •4i O jF°��'' �+ 0 ,u dj v Cy/ ?r y af"� r-c) Off„ y br30 O 8 A as 8 a a.4 — 3 n+. v�C [.. a A v �w o g1 9 0 w A b0 O N a ,d v � 0 W a S, 4` ro �a N U' s o cli � 0 � a c� Q I CV d o � o �O Jl �po�a 20 2 °' M ' 0 ° c.1 2 P. p mt ts �py�+ � N d O +.7 'b '> O Ci may,, N O N y .O N °°�'�v h �.b s °s.2 o 8 8 m" ,q° 8 E N °� v by , N bO -0 (U .0 a �O w C7 O M Y ,p N •ft11// --//1 b4 o Y rYi o v �g�g�aa vO C� :C1 •5 ai 'a �b o� 0 p � ° ro O Iwo ro v5 d M W N �w A w c� A q 0 CV tS o 3-If I w�w d vro o o O C d N d M W N �w A w c� A q 0 CV tS o 3-If I P u� cV dl Ci O 'L1 W N b N N��' W O •�j N O O Q YS (u 46 pp � 8 o 1 R � .� � wd• �; b 2 8 01 N �° ° m a'd'd o �+ u G4 '7c 'i OH P. -' S qpa yO 'd N 'NV ° .d V 5b+ ,tea d _f� •Zy •� ° C � 42 •`� a�t O g 2YJ O 8 O��4l, ry W,d �d O Cl 'd al U O pvp O Ny tV �pi, Gi .O 4pr .� 5o 3i ° a �aw�• �yp,r�~ao o u m +vl 6p V '�ti, m •'�� w �S". q T� tW7 c°~.� A. 0 a � s o � N H � o � d 60 � ul 0 It b 0 cV J o —L-f 4 P aY I m s a `4 GF Q t cV ci o ti k.3 —q.3 .3 A 0 d v v v z <z z z z W w a, H w a a, � � a `•� N ;p R+ .�s H O � .� obi S � ai � O '� 5 :.� O •� y 0 14 tb �� aiaC O gOA -Fj 84 to .n .� '� � � � ' � � Qty C � � cbCd 'G' o El r: o H a ld ° a _ ° 'O , 'GR ° .p ti 'dFJ a' G i •�' 587 .,77 J °' o �� �,� � � �� �v D '��ab 6a � ° a,d ° o ��•�d °a,�v'� �w C C rid '?•s? �-7 N '-I d v v v z <z z z z W w a, H w a a, � � a `•� N ;p R+ .�s H O � .� obi S � ai � O '� 5 :.� O •� y 0 14 tb �� aiaC O gOA -Fj 84 to .n .� '� � � � ' � � Qty C � � cbCd 'G' o El r: o H a ld ° a _ ° 'O , 'GR ° .p ti 'dFJ a' G i •�' 587 .,77 J °' o �� �,� � � �� �v D '��ab 6a � ° a,d ° o ��•�d °a,�v'� Cx7 C�7 ro '.'d `` �� R+ U a Q 1 CV �s 3—CA q �w C C a Q 1 CV �s 3—CA q P N '+ 13 to bo O v ' O C d� ,$ F! !'-� ro v p,n, v� a, a p o u r� O O° P� N Xy� y N A ° O Dn GI t. id FI N Sy p p ro s v +. o' a p w° �+ o 0 ° d 'do a O �d sg�, R4 kl iii P' .Cf O v O O G .b w ." �P- �., ' ❑"❑ '�i V O •6 1, �'+' y N 'dp, O Ta) .� p., roC u (+ o O 'd p ro G O w0 N` V v N O N C�i p U V O �a O W 'a b O to o maoO'5a`�3� w CIA N FJ U W ' W :! O :p 19 O N P. G H � O •F�i �+ N p., Li w W o Ix p O E OGGGG .0 •ly m r�p ,i9 .r.� i-1 3 �i V] O y H �' ;t! ° P'•�+FSna, �, � �x'CC-' � (��� y � P. p,ryq .?p .�6 � .4 � �+ � � ai u o 'Yn in W A N Pa to cn i4 w �R:'C S °u "�' o m °v g� 0 W 3 v .o c ,d o aro�� a °rob � N N 0 cV O —q :�— P 0 N N y V WW A 1 O C4 ..S H N P W �O b O a Ej 04 P4 mu wam w y d '� oNob �b o P,g.0 ° �6518 OHJ '+� .jY g� �bi'EG n NU'P J ° 7tA ., o o °'� q'g v 5 6°bo v row or4 � O a�� N o. �� oA t -d r-r o •� ,�; �f P-i p a`� ,�; b ' ,r+ .G U q C O O g ° '2 H° p�1 O R 4 ° O b y .G � '� � .a .H .`a o v �.w C FJ 'O � �i � G° id � a •d v � ° o" � � °i � ,°� 3 " to x 0 fy w cu �a ) 0Oy O H �y la. Id P+ 0 q 2 0 CV J �g (to N� TY � -q -I a P ?14 W 0 hl I m " 4 Q I ti H o '3 L4% s 0 0 I 0 cV J o ,�w41 P W 0 t3 in O O cV M E0. Q N H °3- -SCE W 0 N a c� Q ti cV c� P �}� W O N p� � � _y V Wa �� �g 6 A N N 0 CV li H �i U ryaO H 3 cn P f� O tV IN N f Q °u A M C4 J M O 0 tt W O y N pay w� A a tV u H L 3 -5,4 P O C4 I W � N N V 0 vi N O cV Q M 18 ryaO 3— t/ V P O CV 10� w� A a cV o l P hl Woo xJ°,ot 4°° K 10 �v _r! P. OH % G w 5 olio a ro p O .IS7� %rni O A ?4 `� O °1 G u oC a fp. m P+ ° W N O ° a 'at WO t uy� y P o ar N •�$y :�qj � �Gy �� � a :Cq � � � :cpf�Q v oo a! "' 00 U1 H O G7 Ui C1 • G v i+ ro AO .0 gnao`"0 a wH W o a•.��ro � w z z•� •�o N H N A W3 o O W N HUN o aj a. jpy, .R O O N aF av3.�.�.& m a W i� O 0 O O �S8eo�Na U 10� t t- � A� q a tV YS �s P 0 A W 19 O tV ti �s P 0 I m s f A a x c� A rn 0 N u C �s 3 'S I 2.0 Executive Sulninary Table 2.0 -2, Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives, presents the environmental impacts of each alternative to allow the decision makers, agencies, and the public to compare and contrast these alternatives and weigh their relative merits and demerits. Table 2.0 -2 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives AES-1 Development of the project would have a substantial PS/LTS NE PS/LTS PS -/LTS adverse effect on a scenic vista. AES-2 Development of the project site would not have a S /SU NE S =/LTS S=/LTS substantial effect on scenic resources within a state scenic highway, but would under Option A, remove the barn complex. that may be considered a scenic resource in the City of Petaluma. AIR -1 Operation of the proposed project would not result in a PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard, but construction phase emissions of fugitive dust could exceed applicable thresholds. AIR -2 Project operation would not violate any air quality PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation although fugitive dust emissions during construction could potentially result in a violation of an air quality standard. AIR-3 Project operations would not expose existing sensitive S/LTS NE S -/LTS S/LTS receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, although project construction activities would have the potential to expose nearby residents to substantial pollutant concentrations. BIO-1 The proposed project would not affect special- status PS /LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS plant species but would result in substantial adverse effects on special- status species, including Califon-la red - legged frog, nesting birds, and roosting bats. 13I0-2 The proposed project would affect sensitive natural PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS communities, including riparian habitat, native grasslands, and regulated seasonal wetlands. 13I0-3 The proposed project would have a substantial adverse PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS/LTS effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 4004 of the Clean Water Act (Including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. BI0-4 The proposed project would interfere substantially with PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impact Selences Inc. 1222.001 2.0 -60 DaWdonlScott Rands CPA, Rezoning, and VTM Reidsed Draft EIR Moreli 2017 Lnpact Sciences, Inc. 1222.001 2.0 -61 Davidon /Scott Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and VTM Revised Drap HIR March 2017 '3-�) Proposed No ProleeE (Befo*e '. Project/Np :` 47 L 28 k of and Development Development Development ;Pro ect'lm acE After:Miti ation) . Alterrtahve .. Alternative Aifernative BIO-5 The proposed project would conflict with a local policy S /SU NE S- /SU S- /SU for protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. CUL -2 The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. CUL43 The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy PS/LTS NE PS /LTS PS -/LTS a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologicalfeature. CULA The proposed project could disturb any human remains, PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS-/LTS Including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. GEO -1 The proposed project would not expose people and PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS-/LTS structures to substantial'adverse effects related to fault rupture but would expose them to seismic ground shaking and /or seismic - related ground failure. GEO -2 The proposed project would result in substantial soil PS/LTS NE PS-/LTS PS-/LIB erosion or the loss of topsoil. GEO-3 The proposed project would expose people and PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS structures to substantial adverse effects from landslides and unstable slopes. GEO-4 The proposed project would be located on a geologic PS/LTS NE PS-/LTS PS -/LTS unit could become unstable as a result of the project, and on expansive soils. HYD -1 The proposed project would result in the discharge of PS/LTS NE PS =/LTS PS--/M stormwater that could violate water quality standards, degrade water quality, and cause hydromodification. HYD-3 The proposed project would substantially alter the PSAXS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. HYD-4 The proposed project would substantially alter the PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off -site. LU -2 The proposed project would conflict with an applicable S /SU NE S- /SU S /SU land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. NOISE -1 Noise generated by construction activities on the project PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS site would result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels at residential uses in the vicinity of the project site. NOISE -2 The construction of the proposed project would expose PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS persons to excessive groundbome vibration. TRANS -1 Development of the proposed project would conflict S/LTS NE S -/LTS SILTS with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the traffic circulation system, TRANS -5 Development of the proposed project would conflict PS /LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS with policies, programs or plans for alternate transportation, Lnpact Sciences, Inc. 1222.001 2.0 -61 Davidon /Scott Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and VTM Revised Drap HIR March 2017 '3-�) TRANS -7 The proposed project would cause temporary disruption PS/LTS NE PS -/LTS PS -/LTS to the transportation network due to construction. cum Development of the proposed project would conflict S /SU NE S- /SU S - /SU TRANS -1 with applicable policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the local roadway system and regional freeway system under cumulative conditions. UTL -3 Development of the proposed project would require the PS/LTS NE PS-/LTS PS-/LTS construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems. The constriction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems would result in significant environmental effects. Notes. This table lists only the significnntorpotentially signtficmtt itupacts of the proposed project and not the less than signtOcant iatpacts. Key: SU Significnntand unavoidable PS Potentially significant Impact LTS Less than signtOcant impact NE No Effect Impact similar to proposed project impact less than proposed project + impact greater than proposed project Lnpact Sciences, Lic. 1222.001 2.0 -62 DavidmdScot t Ranch GPA, Rezoning, and VTMReoleed Draft EIR March 2017 —3— (z