The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 5.A 12/01/2008 Part 5CORRESPONDENCE Rachel Kaplan 71 Purrington Road Petaluma, CA 94952 707-775-3258 rachelkap@a fullcup.info September 17, 2008 To: The Petaluma Planning Commission I attended a recent Planning Commission meeting where the ill-conceived Pinnacle Ridge Project for I Street was debated. I am writing to voice, again, my strong opposition to this project, and to detail the grounded reasons for my objections. I live on a road near where this proposed project is, so my concerns are not about my own property values, or possible drainage issues, or new houses in my backyard, as many of the people who attended the meeting expressed. My concerns are more for the general tone and feeling of the neighborhood where I live, for the quality of life in Petaluma in general, and as a voice for the conservation of Petaluma's natural, and stunning, beauty. I can see the hill where these monstrous buildings are planned from my kitchen table. It is beautiful and peaceful to see its expanse. It's one of the reasons we like living here. If it were gone, my life would certainly be impoverished. Literally hundreds of people walk on my road each day, from end to end. I am sure they love the rural quality of the street, as well as the stunning view of the hill from the top of the road. People walls on this road to exercise their bodies and their spirits. If the Pinnacle Ridge project is built, as planned, this experience would be destroyed for all of these citizens of Petaluma. Far more people benefit from the hill, as it stands, than would benefit from the proposed housing development. The Pinnacle Ridge project as planned is a series of oversized McMansions touted as "green buildings." While I appreciate that the developers have paid attention to passive and active solar energy issues in the placement of the houses, and are using materials which may have something "green" about them, houses of this square footage are in no way "green." And houses which bite into rural acreage without regard for the conservation of resources are not green either. There is nothing sustainable about this development. These houses represent, in fact, the developer's exploitation of the needfor green and sustainable building practices in our county. Rather than these monstrous, ill-conceived buildings, what would happen if the developer planned a truly "green" neighborhood - where car access was limited to a parking lot at the bottom of the hill, and all the houses were totally energy efficient and of a size that did not contribute to the further exploitation and waste of building and energy resources? That would be a project I could support. Small houses, clustered at the bottom of the hill, with most of the acreage left as is, would be a more interesting choice. It could be a model project of truly small, energy efficient housing which integrates into the hillside, rather than dominates and destroys it. The Pinnacle Ridge project, as planned, is business as usual: build it as big as possible, with as little regard for the environment and our human impact on it. This is totally unacceptable. We are at the beginning of a housing crisis, an economic crisis and an energy crisis. Business as usual isn't going to work anymore, and we better wake up to this reality before it's too late. This should be your job as the planning commission: you need to plan for the downturn of the economy and not plow ahead as if it were 1992. There are many, many houses presently being built in Petaluma which linger on the market for long periods of time with no buyers. Additionally, there are already built houses which linger on the market. No buyers. There are foreclosures every day in our town, as in every other town in our region. The economy is tanking, energy costs are rising, and gargantuan houses are out of vogue. Who can afford to heat a house like that? No one. Although the General Plan has approved a shocking excess of new housing, there is no need at present for a development of this size and ostentation. Certainly not on this hillside. I implore you to,think about how many people would benefit from this project: thQ(dtFer$\ /�® primarily, and the n wealthy families who get to live in them. And then I encourage o `C'o�'Lyyfn ( OCT 01 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT about who would lose: the adjacent neighbors; the larger neighborhood; anyone who can see the view of this hill (which is visible from many places in our town); and Petaluma in general, as one more beautiful hillside falls into the developer's hands and its natural beauty is lost forever. The balance sheet is clear: there will be more losers than winners if this project moves ahead as planned. once the hill is gone, it's gone for good. Please use caution, restraint and creativity when addressing this project, and enable the developer to create something that benefits Petaluma. To my mind, less is more: what's there is already of so much benefit, why notjust leave it alone? Sin01a Ran Borba, Irene From: Windsor, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:54 PM To: White, George; Borba, Irene Subject: FW: Pinnacle Homes Advertisement Anne F. Windsor Community Development Department awindsor@d.netaluma.ca.us (707)778-4301 From: Padovan, Deborah Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:54 PM To: Crump, Katie; Moore, Mike Cc: Windsor, Anne; Cooper, Claire Subject: FW: Pinnacle Homes Advertisement From: Shelley Campbell [mailto:sunsoup@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:52 PM To: - City Clerk Cc: 'Shelley Campbell'; Teutschel Design'; christine1120@yahoo.com; rejb@aol.com; msbarak@comcast.net; parsons nick@hotmail.com; tdsoup@comcast.net; bunipsychs@comcast.net; RCBand66@aol.com;'Irving &Went Schnirman'; REKB@aol.com; 'Christine Orlando'; ciscol217@comcast.net; RCBand66@aol.com; Ralph.Hooper@risksciencesgroup.com; msbarak@comcast.net; tdsoup@comcast.net; bunipsychs@comcast.net Subject: Pinnacle Homes Advertisement Please forward this link to the members of the Planning Commission, the City Council, pertinent employees of the Community Development Department and SPARC. This PUD will be coming before SPARC at some point, so it is pertinent for the members to be kept up to date on the history of the property (any and all correspondence from any persons regarding Pinnacle Home's plans for the property Pinnacle owns on I Street). Thank you, Shelley A.S. Campbell httD://WWW.Dinnacle-homes.com/lb.i)hv W.ninnacle-homes.com/lb.i)hv Barba, Irene From: Windsor, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:54 PM To: White, George; Barba, Irene Subject: FW: History of Hash Property Attachments: History of Hash Property.doc Anne F. VUmdsor Community Development Departinmt awin dsor(nld.netalumaxa.gs C707)778-4301 From: Padovan, Deborah Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:19 AM To: Crump, Katie; Moore, Mike Cc: Windsor, Anne; Cooper, Claire Subject: FW: History of Hash Property From: Shelley Campbell [maiito:sunsoup@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:17 AM To: - City Clerk; 'Shelley Campbell' Subject: FW: History of Hash Property I sent a copy of the following and the attachment out last night to a resident comment board in the neighborhood and to the city. Here is my request: please send this attachment on to all members of the planning commission, pertinent employees of the Community Development Deparhneni, the city council and all SPARC members. This plan in some form will be coming to SPARC at some point and is pertinent information for this committee. Thank you, Shelley Campbell ----------------------------------------------------------Note to residents on comment board: Everyone is busy. Please take a few minutes to read the attached "Backwards Timeline of the Hash/Pinnacle Property on I St." You decide if Pinnacle Homes and the Planning Commission are taking into account the affect of this project on Petaluma. and the county. Please cut and paste pertinent information to any city/county resident you may feel has an interest or concern. Persons who attended the meeting as the country club may find this information particularly intersting. Westridge Knolls is legally known as Westridge fV, V. The earlier developed propery kno)vn as Westridge is Westridge I, II, and III. Pinnacle presented their plan as though it is a done deal and, except for a few concerns expressed, many of the commission members appear to accept many of Pinnacle's proposals as satisfactory; many particularly are impressed with a fake barn being the Gateway going into and out of Petaluma along I St. (actually a huge pump house). This is a statement presented in writing to the Planning Commission and presented verbally to the City Council. Bold and italicized font is for emphasis while reading the statement to the council and city residents: ➢ The Hash Property is legally part of Westridge IVN and as such comes under the land use designation for said property as recorded in 1988. Concerned citizens need to have copies of the vesting map prepared by Pinnacle Homes and of Resolution No. 89-10. Everyone needs to understand: according to Resolution No. 89-10, the City Planning Commission has to amend this resolution for Pinnacle Homes to build on the property as they are trying to do. Shelley Campbell 133 Grevillia Dr. Hillside Protection WAN •^M ;1 s 16.010 — Purpose This chapter establishes the regulations for development and alteration of properties in hillside and ridgeline areas in order to preserve the essential scenic and natural resources that define the character of Petaluma, and to implement the following Generat Plan goals and policies: A. General Plan: Land Use, Growth Management and the Built Environment Element 1. Preserve the essential scenic and natural resources of the open ridgelines and hillsides that help define the character of Petaluma. Goal 2-G-2 2. Allow development in hillside areas that preserve ridgelines and are site sensitive. Policy 2-P-16 a. Protect unique natural features, including landforms, mature trees and their surrounding habitat, and ridgelines, by requiring location of structures away from these assets. b. Requiring architectural design that reflects the natural form of the hillside setting in order to minimize visual and environmental impacts. c. Prevent the significant alteration of hillside topography through grading and paving. d. Use visually unobtrusive building materials. 3. Retain ridgelines and prominent hillsides as open space through appropriate clustering and/or transfer of density to other parts of a development site. Policy 2-P-17 B. General Plan: Community Design, Character and Sustainable Building Element 1. Allow for clustering of residential units in the hills, permitting smaller lot sizes where clustering and common space is maintained and proposed development corresponds to stipulated density ranges. Policy 3-P-71 2. Reinforce the existing character of the hillside neighborhoods, preserving topography and ridgelines. Goal 3-G-12 3. Minimize grading, to all extent possible, stepping development into and with the natural topography. Policy 3-P-110 4. Preserve trees and enhance the natural woodland ecology of the South Hills subarea, Policy 3-P-61 C. General Plan: Health and Safety Element 1. On sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, require all development to be clustered outside of the 30 percent slope areas (and preferably on land less than 15 percent in slope) where possible. Policy 10-P-1 2. Ensure that new development on hillsides is constructed to reduce erosion and landslide hazards and in compliance with any hillside regulations, including but not limited to: Policy 10-P-2 a. Limit cut slopes to 3:1, except where an engineering geologist can establish that a steeper slope would perform satisfactorily over the long term. b. Encourage the use of retaining walls or rock -filled crib walls as an alternative to high cut slopes. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 107 c. Ensure revegelaton of cut -and -fill slopes to control erosion. Plant materials for revegetation should not be limited to hydro -seeding and mulching with annual grasses. Trees add structure to the soil and take up moisture while adding color and diversity. d. Ensure blending of cut -and -fill slopes within existing contours, and provision of horizontal variation, in order to mitigate the artificial appearance of engineered slopes. e. Ensure structural integrity of sites previously filled before approving redevelopment. 16.020 - Objectives The following objectives are intended to ensure that all hillside development is in compliance with the goals, policies, and implementing strategies of Petaluma's General Plan. A. Ensure high quality projects. B. Ensure that projects are designed to fit with and avoid site constraints. C. Minimize the potential for geologic failures, fires, and floods that result from or adversely impact new development. D. Maintain the natural, open space character of the hillsides. E. Promote public enjoyment of the hillsides, including the creation of hillside hiking/biking trails and open space. F. Maintain consistent visual character of Petaluma's hillside backdrop, for the community as a whole, by discouraging developments of excessive visual prominence. G. Ensure that development does not dominate, but rather visually blends and achieves harmony between the natural and built environment. H. Conserve the natural features of the site such as topography, natural drainage, vegetation (including native and significant trees), wildlife habitats, movement corridors, and other physical features. I. Promote sustainability. 16.030 — Applicability This chapter applies to properties zoned RR, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and P.U.D. that are covered by the provisions of this Chapter. Section 16.060(6) prescribes the applicability of this Chapter to property proposed for New Development, as defined by the Chapter. Section 16.070(B) prescribes the applicability of this Chapter to property proposed for subdivision. 16.040 — Definitions The following definitions apply to this chapter. Where there is a conflict between other definitions in this Ordinance and the definitions in this section, the definitions in this section shall apply to this Chapter. A. Contour. A line drawn on a plan which connects points of equal elevation. B. Cut. The mechanical removal of earth material. C. Cut and fill. The excavating of earth material in one place and the depositing of it as fill in an adjacent place. D. Demolition. The removal of 50% or more of the exterior walls of a building or structure. Demolition includes the relocation of a building from one parcel of land to another, and also includes the raising of an existing structure beyond what is required for a new foundation. E. Density. The number of dwelling units per net acre. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 108 F. Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. G. Grading. To bring an existing surface to a designed form by excavating, filling, or smoothing operations. H. Major Subdivision. The subdivision of a parcel into more than four (4) parcels. I. Minor Subdivision. The subdivision of a parcel of land into 4 or fewer parcels or 4 parcels and a remainder parcel. J. Natural Grade. The contour of the ground surface before grading. K. New Development Includes the development of a vacant parcel, new construction of a primary building on a developed parcel, and the construction of a primary building when the primary building on a parcel has been demolished. L Opportunities and Constraints Map. A graphic characterization of the parcel and the immediately adjacent properties that includes the physical and natural amenities and limitations of the site including, but not limited to, unique natural site features, landforms, woodlands, landslides, drainage patterns, creeks, mature trees and their surrounding habitat, ridgelines, areas with a slope of more than 30 %, roads or trails, structures, and property lines and a topographic description of the site using contours at 1', 2' or 5' intervals as appropriate. M. Ridgeline. A line connecting the highest points along a ridge separating drainage basins or small scale drainage systems from one another. N. Slope. An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of the vertical distance (rise), or change in elevation, to the horizontal distance (run). The percent of any given slope is determined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by one hundred. 0. Slope density formula. The size of lots allowed in a new subdivision based on a formula that increases the minimum lot size allowed as the slope of the site increases. P. South Hills. The South Hills is the area identified as the South Hills subarea on the General Plan Subareas Map (General Plan Figure 2-1, Planning Subareas). Q. View Platform. The following specific locations selected as vantage points from which field observations are made to assess the visual impact of development within the City: • B Street easternmost (nearest the Petaluma River) terminus • C Street easternmost (nearest Petaluma River) terminus • D Street at the Petaluma River Drawbridge • Lakeville Street at the Rail Depot • Caulfield Lane Overpass • Corona Road Overpass • Bodega Avenue from the City limit to the urban growth boundary • D Street in the vicinity of the City limidurban growth boundary • I Street from the City limit to the urban growth boundary • Penry Park • Schollenberger Park • Steamer Landing Park • Roof of the "C° Street parking garage • Terminated Vistas as identified in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (shown on SMART Code Thoroughfare Map) R. Visual Analysis. A visual representation of the proposed project that includes the modifications and improvements to the site that would result from the project. The visual analysis is prepared from the vantage point of an identified view platform. A visual analysis may be prepared using the following methods: Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 109 • Photographic exhibit • Computer simulation • Story poles • Street elevations or other means of graphic representation that takes into account enough of the neighboring structures or site characteristics to provide a sense of massing and scale. • Other methods may be approved by the decision making authority. S. West Hills. The West Hills is the area identified as the West Hills subarea on the General Plan Subareas Map (General Plan Figure 2-1, Planning Subareas). 16.050 - General Provisions A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide design direction for hillside projects in order to create development that is compatible with and appropriate for the hillside setting, and is consistent with the objectives of this chapter and the goals and policies of the General Plan. B. Applicability. Section 16.050 applies to new development as defined by this Chapter and the subdivision of property subject to the requirements of this Chapter. Section 16.060 provides specific requirements that apply to Single tot Development Section 16.070 provides specific requirements that apply to Hillside Subdivisions, C. Opportunities and Constraints Map. An Opportunities and Constraints Map should be prepared prior to siting any proposed improvements (structures, roads, driveways, utilities, fencing, etc.). An opportunity and constraints map includes, but is not limited to, the location of landslides, drainage patterns, creeks, trees with a trunk diameter of 4" or more and their surrounding habitat, ridgelines, existing roads and/or trails, structures, areas with a slope of more than 30 %, and property fines. The purpose of the Map is to assist in the following: • Identifying the site features that should be preserved and retained; • Determining the best location for the building(s); • Determining the location for the road and/or driveway; • Determining how best to site improvements to work with the natural topography and reduce grading; and • Determining the best use of retaining walls to reduce the amount of grading. D. Visual Analysis. The purpose of the visual analysis is to simulate the impact of the proposed project within the context of its surroundings. When siting and designing the improvements for the project, consideration should be given to the potential visual impact of the project on community views of hillsides and ridgelines. In order to evaluate the potentia( impact of a project on community views, specific view platforms have been identified. When selecting a view platform(s) for the visual analysis, priority should be given to those platforms that provide the greatest community view of the project. Depending on the location and visibility of the project, a visual analysis may need to be prepared from more than one view platform. A visual analysis includes site improvements (structures, roads, driveways, etc.) and site modifications (tree removal, grading, retaining walls, fences, etc.). E. Site Design. The following should be considered in order to minimize grading, reduce the potential visual impact, and to maintain the existing features of the site. 1. Site buildings and other improvements (i.e., roads and driveways) to conform to topography and take advantage of existing site features (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2). 2. Limit building pads to the area immediately beneath buildings or driveways, or as required by the geotechnical report or Building Code. 3. Reduce the visual prominence of development as viewed from identified community "viewing platforms." 4. Site buildings to allow adequate space for tree plantings or other screening. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 110 5. Avoid fence lines that daylight ridgelines, are highly visible from a distance, and/or separate development parcels from open space (see Figure 16.3). Fences should be transparent (wire mesh, deer fencing, etc.). If chain link or wire mesh finer than 4" is used, it should be finished with a dark colored coating material. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 111 Figure 16.1 Recommended Figure 16.2 Recommended Figure 16.3 Not Recommended Smaller roof components 3raphY Step the building foundation with the natural slope No. 2364 N.C.S. 112 F. Grading and Retaining Walls. The following should be considered in order to minimize grading and to preserve the natural topography of the site. 1. Design grading to conserve natural topographic features and appearances by minimizing the amount of cut and fill and by means of land forth grading to blend graded slopes and benches with the natural topography; straight graded cut and fill slopes are discouraged. 2. Design grading to retain major natural topographic features (i.e., canyons, knolls, ridgelines, and prominent landmarks rock outcroppings, and drainage ways). 3. Discourage building pads created on fill (see Figure 16.5). Cut pads are preferred (see Figure 16.3). 4. Utilize grading to help set structures and roads into the hillside, not to create elevated pads (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2). 5. The limited use of retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that their use will substantially reduce the amount of grading. 6. Retaining walls should not be used to create large, flat yard areas. 7. Retaining walls should blend with the natural topography, follow existing contours, and be curvilinear to the greatest extent possible. B. Retaining walls should not be higher than five feet Where an additional retained portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions (e.g., lot configuration, steep slope, or road design), the use of multiple - terraced, lower retaining structures is preferred. 9. Terraced retaining walls should be separated by at least a three foot planting pocket and should include appropriate landscaping. 10. Retaining walls that are visible from a public street should have a veneer of natural stone, stained concrete, or earth toned textured surface to help blend the wall with the natural hillside environment and to promote a rural character. G. Roads and Driveways 1. Roads should be designed to minimize excessive cutting. 2. Driveway lengths should be minimized and common driveways should be planned for in subdivision and single lot site planning. 3. Roads should be pedestrian -friendly where feasible, with trails to open spaces at ridgetops, so long as the sidewalk or improvement does not create excessive grading or conflict with Fire Department or Public Works requirements. H. Landscape Planting and Tree Preservation. 1. Compliance with Chapter 17 (Tree Preservation). 2. Submittal of an arborist's report and/or tree preservation and protection plan as required by Section 17.055 (Project Arborist Requirements). 3. Provide landscape planting adjacent to retaining walls. Such planting should include a combination of non-invasive trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the wall. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 113 4. Avoid the use of invasive species. 5. Utilize plant materials to screen structures, frame views, disguise building edges and understories, break up expansive walls, connect structures to the land and reduce the apparent bulk of structures. 6. Shade potentially reflective surfaces with tree canopies where appropriate, except when needed as solar access for rooftop solar panels 7. Revegetate cut and fill slopes. B. Encourage the planting of water conserving and erosion control plant materials, 16.060 - Single Lot Development A. Purpose. To ensure that the development of parcels subject to the requirements of this Chapter is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies related to hillside development, and is not visually prominent when viewed from a community "viewing platform". B. Applicability. Section 16.060 applies to New Development, as defined by this chapter, on any parcel located in the South Hills and West Hills, as defined by this Chapter. C. Site Plan and Architectural Review. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approval is required for new development in the South Hills and West Hills. D. Development Standards. Any parcel subject to this Chapter is also subject to the requirements of the zoning district in which the parcel is located. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning district conflict with the requirements of this chapter, the requirements of this Chapter shall control. 1. Building Height_ 30 vertical feet from grade to the uppermost point of the roof as calculated below (see Figures 16.3, 16.4 and 16.5). No point of any structure shall be more than 30' above the grade directly beneath that point Figure 16.3 Height Limit when Graded for Foundation Only Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 114 M rzy" l Figure 16.44 Figure 16.5 Height Limit when Graded HEIGHT LIMIT C""i 4 f r Cad a `` Height Limit for Flat Pad Nti Y, W; AFTER cur k`=y L �C 30 FILL en Adding Fill L�Rpo �curGRAoe µPtd 2. Setbacks. As prescribed by the underlying zoning district in Tables 4.6 through 4.9. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 114 M rzy" E. Exception to Required Setback. An exception to the setback required by the underlying zoning district may be provided for as follows: 1. Primary Structure. A primary structure may encroach into a required setback for a distance of not more than one-half of the required setback, subject to approval by SPARC, if it can be found that the decrease minimizes the impact of hillside development and grading and is consistent with the guidelines contained in this chapter. If such a reduction is granted, a compensating increase in setback is required in the opposing setback. For example, a five-foot (5) reduction in a front setback would increase the rear setback by five feet (51. 2. Required Covered Parking. Required covered parking may encroach into a required front and/or side yard setback if the decrease minimizes the impact of hillside development and grading and is consistent with the guidelines contained in this chapter. Findings Required. When SPARC approves a reduction in the required setback, findings to support the granting of the exception shall be provided. F. Additional Setback Required. In order to protect significant natural resources or to reduce visual prominence of a proposed development, SPARC may require building setback(s) that exceed(s) the required setback of the underlying zoning district G. Exception to Retaining Wall Height (Section 13.050). For projects subject to Section 16.060, a maximum exposed retaining wall height of 5 feet (5) may be permitted with SPARC approval. H. Site Design. The following site design guidelines shall betaken into consideration and incorporated into the design of a hillside lot whenever possible. Conformance with these guidelines will be determined by SPARC. 1. Development patterns that form visually protruding or steeply cut slopes for roads or lots should be avoided. 2. Building pads, including spaces leveled for foundations and the grading for driveways and yards, should be as small as possible. 3. Building construction and related site grading should not significantly disturb any ephemeral or perennial watercourse on the site. 4. Buildings should be located to take advantage of existing vegetation for screening. 1. Architectural Design. The following architectural design guidelines shall be taken into consideration and incorporated into the design of a hillside lot whenever possible. Conformance with these guidelines will be determined by SPARC as part of project review. 1. Design buildings to conform to the natural topography and hillside setting of the site; to follow the contours of the site; and to blend with the existing terrain in order to reduce bulk and mass. 2. Scale structures to fit the surroundings, and not visually dominate the landscape. The apparent size of exterior wall surfaces visible from off site may be minimized through the use of single story elements, split level foundations, varying setbacks and structure heights, and landscaping, all designed to break up massive forms. 3. Design buildings to minimize bulk, mass and volume. 4. Bulk and Mass. Bulk and mass should be minimized when developing a hillside parcel. The following methods may be used to minimize the bulk and mass of a building. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 115 a. Keep building forms simple (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2). b. Avoid architectural styles that are inherently viewed as massive and bulky. c. Utilize grading cuts, rather than fills, to create building pads. d. Excavate or use below -grade rooms to reduce effective bulk. The visual area of the building can be minimized through a combined use of grading and landscaping techniques. Earth sheltered buildings and "living roofs" are encouraged. e. Exposed understory stem walls should not exceed 5' and should be finished with visually recessive, earth -toned materials. f. Step the building foundation and roofs with the natural slope (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2). g. Use horizontal and vertical building components to reduce bulk. h. Avoid two story wall planes. i. Step back the second story so the difference in wall planes is visible from a distance. j. Vary elevations, such as stepping back second stories, to conform with topography. k. Avoid overhanging decks, large staircases, and patios formed by retaining walls that make buildings appear more massive (see Figure 16.3). 1. Avoid use of solid wall railings that add to the mass of the design. m, Create light and shadow by providing modest overhangs, projections, alcoves, and plane offsets, n. Use a combination of siding materials and articulate walls to reduce expansive continuous planes. o. Use vaulted ceilings rather than high walls and ceilings with attics above to achieve a feeling of volume. 5. Colors and Materials. The following methods may be used to reduce the visibility of hillside development a. Use subdued and unobtrusive exterior finish materials and colors for all structures. b. Minimize the use of reflective material. c. Earth tones and colors that occur naturally in the Petaluma hills are encouraged. d. Structures should not call undue attention to themselves when viewed from a public vantage point. 6. Roofs, a. Break roof forms and rooflines into smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of surrounding natural features (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2), 40 Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 116 F7, R b. Generally orient the slope of the main roof in the same direction as the natural slope of the terrain (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2). c. Avoid large gable ends on downhill elevations. d. Light colored and reflective roofing materials are discouraged. J. Process. As prescribed by Section 24.010(SPARC review) R. Findings. In addition to the considerations for review identified in Section 24.010(G) (Standards for Review of Applications), the following findings, where applicable, are also required: 1. The project meets or exceeds the objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Hillside Ordinance 2. The design, scale, massing, height and siting of development is compatible and complementary with the character and scale of the surrounding, developed neighborhood. 3. The design and site layout of the hillside project is respective of and protects the natural environment to the maximum extent feasible. 4. Site grading has been designed to be as minimal as possible to achieve sensitive hillside design, minimize tree removal and provide safe site access and required parking. L Submittal Documents. In addition to the submittal requirements identified on the Development Permit Application Submittal Requirements Matrix the following shall be provided as indicated: 1. Opportunities and Constraints Map/Site Analysis is required for all projects. 2. Visual Analysis as required at the discretion of Planning staff or the decision mak ng authority. 3. Arborist Report and/or Tree Preservation and Protection Plan as required by Section 17.055. 16.070 - Hillside Subdivisions A. Purpose. To create appropriately sized, located, and configured parcels that can be developed in a manner consistent with this chapter and the General Plan goals and policies related to hillsides and ridgelnes. B. Applicability. Section 16.070 applies to any subdivision of property proposed for a parcel or group of parcels located in the South Hills and West Hills, as defined by this Chapter, and any parcel of land located within the City that has an average slope of 10% or greater as determined using the Average Slope Formula contained in Section 16.070 (C1). C. Minimum Parcel Size. The minimum parcel size shall be determined by the underlying zoning district or as calculated by the slope density formula and/or table contained in Section 16.070(C2), whichever is greater. Ordnance No, 2300 N.C.S. 117 1. Average Slope Formula. The average slope of the parcel shall be computed on the natural slope of the site before grading, as calculated using the following formula: S = 0,0023 (1)(L) A 1. The contour interval measured in feet. L. The sum of the length of all contour lines contained within a subject parcel measured in scale feet. A. The area of the parcel in acres. S. The average cross slope of a specific parcel of land expressed in percent as determined by the "Average Slope" formula. 2. Slope Density Formula. The minimum parcel size shall be determined by the following formula, or the table below: Minimum Parcel Size = 11.433 -.417 (S) TABLE 16.1 1 SLOPE I MINIMUM LOT SIZE SLOPE MINIMUM LOT SIZE (SQ. FT.) (SQ. FT.) I 10% I 6,000 18% 11,092 { 11% 6,636 19% 12,410 I 12% 6,776 1 20% 14,083 I { 13% 7,246 I 21% 16,278 I 14% 7.786 22% 19,283 i 15% 8,413 ( 23% 23,648 I I 16% 9,149 24% 30,568 { I 17% 10,028 ( 25% 43,560 3. Above 25% slope, one additional acre or portion thereof per dwelling unit will be required for each additional 5% increase in slope. 4. Calculations of the average slope and the minimum parcel size shall be calculated by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor using the formulas provided in Section 16.070(C1 and C2). 5. Modifications to Minimum Parcel Size. In a residential Planned Unit District (PUD), the minimum parcel size may be flexible in order to respond to site conditions and to comply with General Plan goals and policies related to the clustering of development. The maximum number of dwelling units or lots shall remain as prescribed in Section 16.070(0). D. Density. The maximum number of dwelling units or lots is calculated by dividing the size of the lot to be subdivided by the minimum parcel size required by Section 16.070 (C2). No project is guaranteed the maximum density. The actual density yield shall be determined by the decision making authority. When calculating density, any fraction shall be rounded down to the next whole unit. The density shall be consistent with the General Plan density range for the site and the density as calculated by this section. E. Development Standards. Any parcel subject to this Chapter is also subject to the requirements of the zoning district in which the parcel is located. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning district conflict with the requirements of this chapter, the requirements of this chapter shall control. Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 11a 1. Exception to Retaining Wall Height (Section 13.050). For projects subject to Section 16.070, a maximum exposed retaining wall height of 5 feet (51 may be permitted with approval of the review authority. F. Process. The process for the subdivision of land shall be as prescribed in the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Municipal Code Title 20), G. Submittal Documents. In addition to the submittal requirements identified on the Development Permit Application Submittal Requirements Matrix the following are required as part of an application for a subdivision of land: 1. Topographic Survey 2. Opportunities and Constraints Map/Site Analysis 3. Slope Analysis: at a minimum delineating areas with slopes of 0-10%,10%-15%, 15%-30%, >30% 4. Soils Report 5. If Buildings are proposed with subdivision, include the following: a. Architectural drawings b. Visual analysis c. Landscape planting plans for common areas, tree mitigations, cut/fill slope revegetaGon, and typical front yards H. Appeal. As prescribed in the City Subdivision Ordinance (Municipal Code Title 20). Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. 119 FREE REPORT FROM HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES DATED 10/1/08 Consultants in Horticulture and Arboriculture SUPPLEMENTAL TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REPORT 2762 "1" STREET PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick Pinnacle Homes P.O. Box 14189 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 PREPARED BY: John C. Meserve Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture WCLSA #478 PINNACLE HOMES OCT 0 6 2008 October 1, 2008 $;. October 1, 2008 Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick Pinnacle Homes P.O. Box 14189 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Consultants in Horticulture and Arboriculture P.O Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 Re: Completed Supplemental Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report, 2762 "1" St., Petaluma Mike, Attached you will find our Supplemental Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report for the above noted project. A total of 12 additional trees were evaluated, based on their trunk diameter and location in relation to proposed construction. All of these trees are located in the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed widening occurs, and our recommendation is that their removal is required due to development impacts. Five other trees, present at the site, were evaluated in our original Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report from 2004. Each tree in this report was evaluated for size, health, and structural condition. These observations are presented in the section entitled Individual Tree Evaluations. The Tree Location Plan, shows the location and numbering sequence of all evaluated trees. This report is intended to be a basic inventory of trees present at this site, which includes a general review of tree health and structural condition. No in-depth evaluation has occurred, and assessment has included only external visual examination of each tree without probing, drilling, coring, root collar examination, root excavation, or dissecting any tree part. Failures, deficiencies, and problems may occur in these trees in the future, and this inventory in no way guarantees or provides a warranty for their condition. We would be glad to provide a detailed evaluation of any tree at your specific direction. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this report, or if further discussion about any tree issue is required. Sicer o C. Meserve Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture, WCISA #478 SpC1ETY OF 2P j�,�C.MFs��'pPnG w � - Voice 707-935-3911 Fax 707-935-7103 - INDIVIDUAL TREE EVALUATIONS Individual Tree Evaluations 2762 "1" Street J Petaluma, California October 1, 2008 Tree #6 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 4 Heieht in Feet t: 10 Number of Trunks: 1 Canonv Radius in Feet ±: 6 Observations: Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Develooment Imoacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. Tree #7 Eucalyphis globulus (blue gum) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 3+3+3+3+2 Heieht in Feet t: 15 Number of Trunks: 5 Canonv Radius in Feet ±: 8 Observations: Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Develonment Imoacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. 2762 T' Street Page 2 Tree k8 Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 4.5+4+5+3+4+3 Heieht in Feet ±: 16 Number of Trunks: 6 CanoDV Radius in Feet ±: 8 I Observations: Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. DevelODment Impacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. Tree 49 Quercus agrrfolia (coast live oak) Trunk Diameter in niches: 3+3+3 Heieht in Feet±: 10 Number of Trunks: 3 Canoov Radius in Feet ±: 5 Observations: Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears lobe sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Develooment Imbacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. 276211' Street Page 3 Tree #10 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 10+16 Number of Trunks: 2 Observations: Height in Feet t: 16 Canoov Radius in Feet t: 12 Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Development Imoacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. Tree #11 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 14 Height in Feet t: 16 Number of Trunks: 1 Canoov Radius in Feet +: 12 Observations: Tree vigor is fair, trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Development Imoacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. 2762 "I" Street Page 4 Tree #12 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 13 Number of Trunks: 1 Heieht in Feet ±: 16 Canoov Radius in Feet t: 12 Observations: Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Develooment Impacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. ,i i i Tree #13 Pimis radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 15 Heieht in Feet t: 16 Number of Trunks: 1 CanoDV Radius in Feet ±: 12 Observations: Tree vigor is fair, trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; bark beetles present. Develooment Impacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. 2762 "1" Street Page 5 Tree #14 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 12 Number of Trunks: 1 Heieht in Feet ±: 16 Canoov Radius in Feet ±: 12 Observations: Tree vigor is fair; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; bark beetles present. Develonment Imnacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I". Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. Tree #15 Pints radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 7+S+3 PT iQht in Feet ±: 15 Number of Trunks: 3 Canoov Radius in Feet±: 12 Observations: Tree vigor is fair; trunk condition anpears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally syrrunetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Develonment Impacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. 2762 "1" street Page 6 Tree #16 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 18 Heieht in Feet ±: 16 Number of Trunks: 1 CanoDV Radius in Feet±: 14 Observations: Tree vigor is fair; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; j canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; bark beetles present. Development Imoacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. Tree #17 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) Trunk Diameter in Inches: 14 Heieht in Feet ±: 16 Number of Trunks: 1 Canoov Radius in Feet ±: 14 Observations: Tree vigor is good; trunk condition appears to be sound; root crown appears to be sound; canopy structure is generally symmetrical; habit is dense; canopy is low branched; no significant pest present. Develooment Imoacts: A significant impact on long-term tree integrity can be expected as a result of location within the "I" Street right-of-way, after proposed street widening. Recommendations: Removal required due to significant development impacts. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ib' -1T ; az�� l -// l + �'_ �r�°• �� I�1� i�� ' '( „ ,-...-moi � -�� _ / .- TREE LOCATION & NUMBERING PLAN FOR 2762 "I" Street Petaluma, California THIS PLAN TO BE USED IN CONIU NCHON WITH SUPPLEMENTAL TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION REPORT DATED 10/1/08 JOHN C. MESERVE CONSULTING ARBORIST Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture, WCISA #478 HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1261 / GLEN ELLEN, CA 95442 707.935.3911 e " n WWZ S. lj k,Y , TREE LOCATION & NUMBERING PLAN FOR 2762 "I" Street Petaluma, California THIS PLAN TO BE USED IN CONIU NCHON WITH SUPPLEMENTAL TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION REPORT DATED 10/1/08 JOHN C. MESERVE CONSULTING ARBORIST Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture, WCISA #478 HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1261 / GLEN ELLEN, CA 95442 707.935.3911 e " n WWZ S. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The Sonoma Land Trust 1122 Sonoma Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95405 AP# 019-024-023 WESTRIDGE KNOLLS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT 1997 0874447 1 SONOMa COUN°v ,ate BERNICE A. PETERSON AT REQUEST OR 08/26/1997 776: $ 62.00 • 09:53:10 PGS: 17 pz%n The undersigned grantor(s) declares: Documentary Transfer Tax 9-O'o—d— tno consideration. R&T 11911.; Computed an full value of property _Computed on full value less liens remaining at time of sale. .City of jp,/. _Unincorporated. THIS GRANT DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT is made this day of Suly Z`j , 1997, by the City of Petaluma (" Grantor"), and the SONOMA LAND TRUST, a California nonprofit corporation ("Trust"), pursuant to Section 815 et seq. of the California Civil Code, which Conservation Easement shall exist in perpetuity over the Property, and be of the nature and character and extent as is hereinafter set forth ("Conservation Easement"). RECITALS: A. Grantor are the sole owners in fee simple of certain real property comprised of 74.458 acres, more or less, in the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (the "Property"). S. The Property is undeveloped and possesses natural, scenic and open space values (collectively, "Conservation Values") of great importance to Grantor, Grantee, the people of the City of Petaluma, and the people of the State of California. C. The Conservation Values of the Property are documented on maps and photographs on file with the Trust and incorporated by this reference ("Baseline Documentation"), which the parties agree provide an accurate representation of the Property at the time of this grant and which is intended to serve as an objective information baseline for monitoring compliance with the terms of this grant. D. Grantor intend that the Conservation Values of the Property be preserved and maintained by the continuation of land use patterns, which do not significantly impair or interfere with those Conservation Values. E. Grantor further intend, as owners of the Property, to convey to the Trust the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property in perpetuity. See the attached Resolution marked Exhibit B, which is incorporated by this reference. F. The Trust is a publicly supported, tax-exempt nonprofit organization, qualified under Section 501(c)(3) and 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose primary purpose is the preservation, protection, or enhancement of land in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, and/or open space condition. G. The Trust agrees by accepting this grant to honor the intentions of Grantor stated herein and to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Property for the benefit of this generation and generations to come. H. To effectuate the intention of the parties, Grantor intend to give to the Trust a perpetual and irrevocable Conservation Easement over the Property, to create certain restrictions on the Property for the benefit of the people of the State of California and Trust which will bind and run with the Property, and to extinguish irrevocably and perpetually the right to develop the Property, except as expressly permitted in this grant. AGREEMENT: 1. Grant of Conservation Easement. In consideration of the above and as well as the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein Grantor hereby voluntarily grants and conveys to the Trust a Conservation Easement, and pursuant Section 815, et seq. of the California Civil Code this Conservation Easement shall exist in perpetuity over the Property and be of the nature and character and extent as is hereinafter set forth ("Conservation Easement"). However, Grantor shall have the right one time right to develop one contiguous public park on up to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of the Property within that area designated on the attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by this reference. All improvements constituting the park facility and operation must be approved by Grantee in advance in writing. Any portion of the Property utilized as a park hereunder is nonetheless included in, and restricted by, this grant and shall, except for normal park usage, be otherwise covered by this easement. 2. Declaration of Restrictions. The Grantor hereby declares that the Property shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, given, leased, occupied, and used subject to all of the restrictions, covenants, easements, equitable servitudes, and affirmative obligations set forth in this Conservation Easement. 2 3. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Conservation Easement to assure that the Property will be retained forever predominantly in its.natural, scenic and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of the Property to such activities, as are consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. 4. Rights of the Trust. To accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement the following rights are expressly conveyed to the Tnist by Grantor: (a) To preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property; (b) To enter upon the Property at reasonable times in order to monitor Grantor' or their successors' compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, provided that such entry shall be upon prior reasonable notice to Grantor or owners in succession, and the Trust shall not unreasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the Property by Crantor' or owners in succession; (c) To enjoin any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use, pursuant to paragraph S. S. Prohibited Uses. Any activity on or use of the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited: (a) The legal or de facto subdivision of the Property for any purpose, or the placement or construction of any buildings or structures or other improvements of any kind other than those agreed to by the Trust as provided herein for habitat and access which is consistent herewith. (b; Any logging of the property, or any commercial or industrial use of or activity on the Property; (c) Any cutting and removal of firewood for commercial purposes, including removal of live or dead vegetation, and any cutting or removal of standing snags; (d) The placement or construction of roads, parking lots, buildings, structures, or other improvements of any kind, other than as provided in paragraph 6; (e) Any alteration to the general topography or natural drainage of the land, including, without limitation, the excavation or removal of soil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, or sod, except as may be required in the course of any activity permitted herein; 3 (f) Any use or activity that causes or is likely to cause significant soil degradation or erosion or significant pollution of any surface or subsurface waters; (g) The alteration or manipulation of any surface waters, or the creation of new water impoundments or water courses, for any purpose other than for wildlife habitat enhancement or hazard avoidance; (h) The planting or willful introduction of non-native plant or animal species; (i) The pruning, cutting down, or other destruction or removal of live native trees and other vegetation located on the Property, except as is approved by the Trust and required in the course of any activity permitted herein under paragraph 6; Q) The dumping or other disposal of wastes, refuse, and debris on the Property, including but not limited to hazardous or toxic material; (k) The placement of any signs or billboards on the Property, except signs whose placement, number, and design do not significantly diminish the character of the Property that: (1) that state the name and address of the Property, (2) that identify the Property as Conservation and/or one protected by the Sonoma Land Trust or any successor or assignee of the Trust, and (3) that control unauthorized entry or use; (1) The recreational use on the Property of motorcycles, all terrain vehicles or any other type of motorized or non -motorized onroad or off-road vehicle, with the exception of bicycles. (m) The planting of non-native species in any natural or forested area of the Property. (n) Any activity, action, or use which, in accordance with sound and generally accepted conservation practices, is detrimental or adverse to water conservation, water quality, soil conservation, or native plant communities and wildlife habitat; (o) Any residential uses whatsoever. It being specifically understood it is Grantor's responsibility to maintairr the natural clean and undisturbed character of the Property, including the obligation to prevent and repair any and all affects upon the Property of any use, public or private, which alter this natural clean and undisturbed character. Including but not limited to graffiti and vandalism prevention and repair and litter and garbage removal. M 6. Reserved Rights. Grantor reserve to themselves, and to their representatives, and assigns, all interests in the Property not transferred or conveyed by this instrument including the right to engage in all uses of the Property not affected nor prohibited by the Conservation Easement granted hereby. Without limiting the foregoing, the following rights are expressly reserved by Grantor: (a) To repair and replace with like -kind materials existing fences. (b) To lease or use grasslands for livestock grazing, provided such use is in accordance with sound and generally accepted agricultural practices which are not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Agreement. (c) To lease the Property for uses and activities consistent with those permitted herein; (d) To maintain existing water resources and to develop to the minimum extent necessary those water resources required for wildlife habitat enhancement, with the provision that such water development shall neither deplete nor degrade the water supply nor degrade native vegetation associated with the water source; (e) To prohibit entry upon the Property by unauthorized persons; (f) To maintain, construct and improve fences and gates; (g) To maintain, improve and construct replacements for fire lanes, foot trails and other accesses in such a manner that shall not contribute to erosion and for uses not inconsistent herewith. (h) To remove existing exotic plant and animal species; G) To restore and enhance native plant and wildlife habitat, consistent with sound and generally accepted conservation practices; (j) To out dead or dying trees, brush, underbrush, and,'or grasses for fire prevention and safety; (k) To continue the use of the Property for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement including the current level of authorized public access and use of the property but only in a manner consistent with the purpose and provisions of this Agreement. 5 7. Request by Grantor for Approval of the Trust. Prior to undertaking any action which requires the Trust's consent or has the potential to be inconsistent with the Conservation Easement granted herein, or which might have an adverse impact on the Conservation Values this Conservation Easement is intended to protect, Grantor shall solicit the written approval of the Trust to the action. Grantor shall submit a written description of the proposed action prior to its commencement portraying the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit the Trust to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Trust may initiate the process itself should it learn of actions taken or intended to be taken which may have an adverse impact on the Conservation Values this Conservation Easement is intended to protect. 7.1 Approval Criteria. The Trust's approval shall be based upon compliance with the provisions of this Conservation Easement, the capability of the proposed action to preserve and enhance the Conservation Values protected by this Conservation Easement, the manner in which the proposed action is to be carried out, the likely effect of the proposed action upon the Conservation Values of the Property, and on any other basis, including purely aesthetic conditions, which the Trust shall reasonably determine to be in furtherance of the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Approval or disapproval shall be within the sole discretion of the Trust and may be granted upon conditions which tend to further the purpose of this Conservation Easement. 7.2 Approval Process. The Trust shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within sixty (60) calendar days of the receipt of Grantor' written request, provided Grantor' request was submitted in a form acceptable to the Trust as provided in paragraph 7. Upon the completion of any such action on the Property, the Trust shall inspect the Property and, if the action was performed in accordance with the terms of this Conservation Easement and the approval issued by the Trust hereunder, issue a certificate to that effect, dated at the time of inspection. The Trust shall be fully reimbursed for all costs, including but not limited to reasonable professional fees of surveyors, attorneys, consultants and accountants, incurred in servicing Grantor' request. 7.3 ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES Any dispute concerning the consistency of any use or activity or proposed use or activity by or on behalf of grantor may, upon the demand of either party hereto, be settled by binding arbitration with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services liamslendisputel of Sonoma County and the award or decision rendered by the arbitrator will be binding and if necessary may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The arbitration shall occur in Sonoma County and the arbitrator(s) shall apply and rule pursuant to current California law. C The prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to all the relief provided for in this Agreement and by law, such other relief as may be granted, including a reasonable sum as and for all its costs and expenses related to such arbitration, including, without limitation, the fees and expenses of the arbitrator(s) and their attorneys' fees, which shall be determined by the arbitrator(s) and any court of competent jurisdiction that may be called upon to enforce or review the award. S. Compliance & Enforcement: If the Trust determines that Grantor or any third party is in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement or that a violation is threatened, the Trust shall give written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand corrective action sufficient to stop and cure the violation and, where the violation involves injury to the Property, resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, to restore the portion of the Property so injured. If Grantor fails to cure the violation within thirty (30) days after the receipt of notice thereof from the Trust, or under circumstances where the violation cannot reasonably be cured within the thirty (30) day period, fail to begin curing such violation within the thirty (30) day period and fail to continue diligently to cure such violation until finally cured, the Trust may institute Arbitration as provided herein above, or bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, to recover any damages to which it may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement or injury to any Conservation Values protected by this Conservation Easement, including damages for the loss of scenic, aesthetic, or environmental values, and to require the restoration by Grantor of the Property to the condition that existed prior to such injury. Without limiting Grantor' liability therefor, the Trust, in its sole discretion, may apply damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Property. If the Trust, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the Conservation Values of the Property, the Trust may pursue its remedies under this paragraph without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. The Trust will make reasonable effort to inform Grantor of such proposed action, if reasonably possible under the circumstances. The Trust's rights under this paragraph apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor and the Trust expressly agree that the Property, by virtue of its protected features, is unique and that the violation of this Conservation Easement and any ensuing harm or alteration of the Property will result in damages which are irremediable and not subject to quantification. Accordingly, Grantor agree that the Trust's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that the Trust shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this paragraph, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which the Trust may be entitled, 7 including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. The Trust's remedies described in this paragraph shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. 8.1 Costs of Enforcement. Any costs incurred by the Trust in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor, including, without limitation, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's violation of any terms of this Conservation Easement shall be borne by Grantor. 8.2 Discretion of the Trust. Enforcement of the terns of this Conservation Easement shall be at the discretion of the Truss, and any forbearance by the Trust to exercise its rights under this Conservation Easement 4'. the event of any breach of any term of this Conservation Easement by Grantor shall noi. be :^od or construed to be a waiver by the Trust of such term or of any subsequent breach of tits carne a: other term of this Conservation Easement or of any of the Trust's rights under this Conservation Easement. No delay or omission by the Trust in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by Grantor shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. 8.3 Acts beyond. Grantor' Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle the Trust to bring any action against Grantor for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor' control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Property resulting from such causes. 9. Public Access. No right of access by the general public to any portion of the Property is conveyed by this Conservation Easement. 10. Costs & Uabil"ities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Property, including the maintenance of adequate comprehensive general liability insurance coverage which coverage shall include the Trust as an additional named insured. 0 10.1 Hold Harmless. Grantor does hereby agree to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the Trust and its members, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and contractors and the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of each of them (collectively "Indemnified Parties") to the fullest extent of the law from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any way connected with: (1) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless due solely to the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties; (2) the obligations specified in paragraphs 10 (3) the existence or administration of this Conservation Easement, (4) the private or public use for any purpose by anyone of the Property. 11. Extinguishment. If circumstances arise in the future which render the purpose of this Conservation Easement impossible to accomplish, this Conservation Easement shall only be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the amount of the proceeds to which the Trust shall be entitled, after the satisfaction of prior claims, from any sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of all or any portion of the Property subsequent to such termination or extinguishment, shall be determined, unless otherwise provided by the laws of the State of California at the time, in accordance with paragraph 11.1. The Trust shall use all such proceeds in a manner consistent with the conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement. 11.1 Proceeds.. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest immediately vested in the Trust, which for purposes of paragraph 11, the parties stipulate to have a fair market value no less than that amount determined by multiplying the fair market value of the Property unencumbered by the Conservation Easement (minus any increase in value after the date of this grant attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value of the Conservation Easement at the time of this grant to the value of the Property, without deduction for the value of the Conservation Easement, at the time of this grant. 11.2 Condemnation. If the Conservation Easement is taken, in whole or in part, by exercise of the power of eminent domain, the Trust sha:l be entitled to compensation in an amount no less than that provided in paragraph 11.1. 12. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to or modification of this Conservation Easement would be appropriate, Grantor and the Trust, if they both freely agree, may jointly amend this Conservation Easement; provided that no amendment or modification shall be allowed that will adversely affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Trust under any applicable laws. - P, 13. Assignment. This Conservation Easement is transferable by the Trust with approval of Grantor, but the Trust may assign its rights and obligations under this Conservation Easement only to an organization that is a qualified organization at the time of transfer under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (or any successor provisions then applicable), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder, and authorized to acquire and hold Conservation Easements under California statute for any successor provision then applicable). As a condition of such transfer, the Trost shall require that the conservation purposes that this grant is intended to advance continue to be carried out. 14. Subsequent Transfers. Grantor agree to incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument by which they transfer or divest themselves of any interest in all or a portion of the Property, including, without limitation, a leasehold interest. Grantor further agree to give written notice to the Trust of the transfer of any such interest at least ten f i 01 days prior to the date of such transfer. The failure of Grantor to perform any act required by this paragraph shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability in any way. 15. Estoppel Certificates. Upon request by Grantor, the Trust shall within thirty (30) days execute and deliver to Grantor any document, including an estoppel certificate, which certifies Grantor` compliance with any obligation of Grantor contained in this Conservation Easement and otherwise evidences the status of this Conservation Easement as may be reasonably requested by Grantor. 16. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To Grantor: To the Trust: The Sonoma land Trust 1122 Sonoma Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95405 or to such other address as either party from time to time shall designate by written notice to the other. 17. Recordation. The parties shall record this instrument immediately upon its execution in the official records of Sonoma County, California and may re-record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights in this Conservation Easement. 10 1 S. General Provisions. (a) Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. (b) Liberal Construction. Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, this Conservation Easement shall be liberally construed in favor of the grant to effect the purpose of this Conservation Easement and the Act under which it is created. If any provision in this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. (c) Severability. If any provision of this Conservation Easement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation Easement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. (d) Entire Agreement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement, all of which are merged herein. No alteration or variation of this instrument shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment or modification that complies with paragraph 12, Amendment. (e) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor' title in any respect. (f) Joint Obligation. The obligations imposed by this Conservation Easement upon Grantor shall be joint and several. (g) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property. (h) Termination of Rights & Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this Conservation Easement terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Conservation Easement or the Property, except the liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer. 11 (i) Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. (j) Counterparts. The parties may execute this instrument in counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be signed by both counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument as against any signed it. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts recorded counterpart shall be controlling. Grantor: Dated: - 2 0(— 1997 Gene Beatty, City Manager THE TRUST:: Dated: O II 3I / '7 1997 r THE S OMA ND UST BY: ichael Pri d erg, its President Attachments: (1) Notary's Jurats (2) Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property (3) Exhibit B, Resolution by City (4) Exhibit C, Location of potential park land. 12 two or more parties; each party who has produced, the r M-. MM -.MM CC§1181 (g) STATE OF CALiFORNiA } ss COUNTY OF SONOMA )) On this 14 day o 1997, before me, Patricia E.13 ar, , City Clerk, City of Petaluma, personally appeared GENE BEATTY personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity as City Manager of the City of Petaluma, and that by his signature on the instrument the entity upon behalf of which he acted acted executed the instrument. atricia E. Bemard City Clerk City of Petaluma On v 3 , 1997,.before me, personally ppeared f 4—brop l 4-riar wMbPr , personally known to (or proved to me on the basis satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacityCes), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness man and official seal Signature T.C. ESCHER COMM. 01099535 eroraavFuauc-cauroMjA _ (Best) soNOMA cOUW !Ar rCMM. Etpires Jung Z 2" 13 I t '4•�Gtt:>'C 1-t1 C_:t{7.. Ei: 11P11'T" t:>FlE;."'2'CtS w�wr v{�xs i7FC F•ncf.?I]1•lAl_V _ WACCIpA1N1 16�01 �,3k? w' Tt'.IEtrW1 •ham Iy��II-1-�`aN }en %Sao oa 1K. w Mu rriwm+IV! xtelaza-...*vasa � CORW6R FC3w 14ilewlO ND'TOe a tMTtb RO{wIM1TYiinO .{T41R I I t ww. �^�. 4w4tla2 '{YII Ua 4b 1.y,.c -YG`ta 0.l • •• •11-1 w i 3 2 t SQ O '� to a RCl�:yrGaawe.m�, 'Yt3e 6rtim ai+�airi+ ® low 'n 4s u 'C7yMl G1't OF P4" = 2r ¢¢Q 12 •Ny t].a tilt �a5 040a Ile Ifaao lUl O w 20 pT' 1 lei 0 / 3t 8o t� is m uasoam artium nD 25 B 14 N h ♦ SG+�. 32 VI (8 24 t' nsw • . ® DS ao LC<' ;3 at 82 tl3 a4 LS E6 4 8 !( 161 y Y 34 71 o yppc. �d .� 39 5 15 3'7 i 'a1MGN _ tl w 7+ YSo�T 3j`♦®�' . ",Ye a•I 38 56 9 04 'te 18 '1^I 4ar '15 h4 '13 4 '93 35+1 b 157¢uY M� O it 63 V4 a� G4 4"I a! aD '20 �[t � 04®® 4t sZ� ORiV'2 ik�Z{ Itb it tg lt4 tt3 g� B`• t7 t54 tBiA(Rj8 E`•I4Y' R3 in s a •� a 1 {y' 131 124 ®� ID3 ]30 !b Sffi ® t: wpt•zIROD 3 "as 1$5 � N-.D,a'Df 9 ^• �3T 138 I+.la t40 141 ti1.'OT •+. • �. F'S� .... T {lsa'srco� a ix aa°elw —' jliRli�t �-, a t9_Rt,ara ts4rw�vw4s FOF bliNl 4!t 4wT 0 3 pr ti'r •� HiQ z..10.39 aa 143 it t46 S- 144 3 o i i d lli el k t n ag . is 4t��i Y nl G ' �! t1u vn'Yffc-9V'a •inn n• ppgn iQQl. TO -Ke CITY OP 71'-e'CA MA P it 0 • i ptY,1^ %Www WL00W -CC+D2NM 011 PauNoYZ'IR{M Fht.•i1:n17T_1.. : W*iC yp`titDN T9ffi t1��C,�!lkk4 k4'1$OA.9k8 Ira ncq Ilssa+ ff"+.C' IF�c ca - c uts4�>:n id7nbS4ft+"WR 0 EXHIBITA RESOLUTION NO. 97-116 N.C.S. RECEIVED of the City of Petaluma, California MAY 2 71997 PLANNING L)EpARTMEW_ I APPROVAL AuTHORizING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND RECORD OPEN 2 SPACE EASEMENT FOR PARCEL B, WESTRMGE KNOLLS 3 4 WHEREAS, the City Petaluma considered the request by the Westridge Knolls neighborhood to s establish an Open Space Easement on Open Space Parcel B of the Westridge Knolls Subdivision; 6 and, 7 a WHEREAS, the City Council of the Petaluma has determined that establishment of an Open 9 Space Easement on Parcel B of Westridge Knolls Subdivision is appropriate; 10 ii NOW '[HEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City 12 Manager to sign and record an Open Space Easement for Parcel 8 of the Westridge Knolls 13 Subdivision. 14 is 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 eJvc9Peib= 23 Under the power and anlhority conferred upon tbb C andl by tba Charter of said City. REFERENCE: x hezeby certify the foregoing Resolution wan intraiaad and adopted by the counca of the Cay of Petal,—, at a (Regular) voAw n nygmpusag =wetiug on aha 5th day of ---DW 29-, by the fenowing vote: AYES: KeUer. Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss NOES. None ` ABSENT: Rad. �@. ATTEST: ..l` �. • �� : r city caarl: Mayor r,'. G lnae acre Na ... 97.-1t 5...... YGS Approved as to from City Attorney WESTRIDGE ii KNOLLS GENERAL A` /USE C= RURAL 0.0 du/ac .i SUBURBAN 0.6 to 2.0 du/ac URBAN STANDARD 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac URBAN DIVERSIFIED 5.1 to 10.0 dulac URBAN HIGH 10.1 to 15.0 du/ac ? INDUSTRIAL MR:MINERAL RESOURCE ES SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE PARK PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AGRICULTURAL HIRED USE lI"f'1] M m COMMUNITY COMMER?:IAL TRANSIT TERMINAL MM MO THOROUGHFARE COMIERCIAL RETAIL URBAN LIMIT LINE CENTER -a &i URBAN SEPARATOR VIII SPECIAL COMMERCItmm OFFICE �Jft E� SPECPLAN AREA FLOODWAYIFIC - NO OPEN SPACE SCHOOL DISTRICT 'ANDS S EXISTING t, PROPC 3ED PUBLIC PARR Westridge Knolls Conservation Easement Boundaries are approximate only. N County of Sonoma Enterprise 0 125 250 500 Feet �—' GIS Database Oct. 05. 1 1 I $ONOAIA LAND TRUST AirPhoto USA 2004. SLT 5_06. F, • We _ prepared ai new photo simulations • As requested some have trees added as scrIt ening 11 Locations are as follows — I street and at the city limits (no development seen in this view)* — I street at lot 9 and the urban separator — I street north of Grevillia Dr •! " r Dr. east ofBlack Or. — In the urban separator ( behind the King Residence) highest point on ` facing the city 342 Purrington' d — 14 Wallenberg way (off Sunnyslope Rd) 11 Photo Location Map 12 I Street t the city limits* ar 13 I Street at the urban• • o M Streetthe urban separatorand 15 Street separator a I S 16 InmrOW4 I 17 Wool m ME 21 IN I'll liq Orl Men* 1 1 ll I I IM40 1111• mi Highest point on the site facing the city a • �. TiewsT, `=m -f 27 342 Purrington Rd pi:3 m 342 Purrington R4 9111 Yy. �w q, z et l } y� § N x. I' �vf1��'��x''�;' L' �i ,fig,✓! rtx� ..-y5 ery m F�%'�� -:rG� ,,,,.Ir x,lir-`' s/'. ✓� � �- �°��`� ,,.,..k_./, .a..,=, .'M�!ir a .��,,.^� ,£..�^: 2",�5,�,.,.. �.;..,...s""Jl..e'>,f'_:�7lra_-. �,,.+..�.✓YU.,�..., i >r' l �I! ow d_n y .-,-_. -*� x>✓,`�' f"� `� r`".rv..,:' � tae �� ; _ ��., ,�.� . ,_. Fr,,., erx.:"''�� Z,",,"�✓'lX':'.Y ��,��%'�� a..,:�." �� r�.. �I ��CY?': �4%r'=„'sz r fi��'"ix�='�"r r`�✓,,,�.f /.�.i !. 'u�'sr.,�.�.lz�.��a:ts-°'... :r. a.:��.� � \\?\\:? \ \ 2/\K � \� �\�\ /� \� \ %� ?� `� « t ? . 2<E» }�� .\<2°%«© : . ?«%2.: f\\�� MISCELLANEOUS To: City Council, Petaluma Cc: Planning Commission, Petaluma ATTACHMENT 5 October 28, 2008 From: Shelley A.S. Campbell First: whatever well thought out plans Pinnacle is required to develop for the old Hash property, it is imperative that Pinnacle be required to submit full landscape plans that require installment of landscaping must before occupancy by residents. Furthermore, conditions need to be set down by SPARC that not only address future additions, outbuildings, cement pads, etc., but conditions that must be adhered to as far as plantings and land usage. The allowed homes will be constructed in a very sensitive area in full view of many and as such should be required to meet high standards set down. To see -that any oversight is maintained over future changes, homes in these sensitive locations should be required to undergo not just ADN MSTRATIVE SPARC review, but full SPARC review when changes are proposed. In order to see that this takes place, a requirement of full SPARC review needs to be written into the ordinances. Developers and planning department personnel see such ordinances as a hindrance, but to not protect these types of sites can lead to the misinterpretation of SPARC requirements. Failure to implement the intent of SPARC requirements happened by the interpretation of those requirements by two city employees. This property abuts up to the same open space as the Pinnacle/I St. property. As we have seen, after construction and occupation, the city pulls out and local residents are left to take the brunt of hazards imposed by cutting of slopes, additions of possible non porous areas and the degradation of scenic areas. For those watching, please email or write the planning commission and the city council and ask that your concerns be forwarded to the committee that is overseeing the drafting of the future ordinances. Second, the plan Pinnacle has presented includes an open gutter type drainage system running at the back of properties, and above homes on Grevillia Dr. I have one of these drains up at the top of a slope in my backyard. These drains must be cleaned out at least yearly for them to function properly. Who from the city is going to see to it that the homeowners who purchase property maintain these open drains? Who is going to see to it that over watering does not occur? My home receives run off from both the slope Pinnacle is trying to destroy and the hill/mountain towering above the whole I St. area near the city limits. My house has a winter spring. Runoff from the hills behind us continues for months after the rains stop. We have had to put in French drains and plastic under our house. It this water affecting the streets in the neighborhood? A good question to ask Condiotti conducted its study of drainage during dry months. Pinnacle's paid consultants who produce the documents concerning run off need to take into account the amount of water that can run off during winters with heavy rainfall. This type of system is not acceptable at the location being discussed. My third point is in regards to Pinnacle's presentation by Mr. Dowd on September 9a'. Blatantly misleading is how I view the presentation given by the president of Pinnacle homes concerning the very tentative plans for Pinnacle's property on I St.- Mr. Dowd showed everyone present at the Planning Commission meeting a very long list of paid consultants. This list was supposed to represent the experts present at another meeting January 17, 2006. The 2006 meeting was held at the country club. I still have my invitation. Mike Fitzpatrick welcomed our attendance and feedback. I don't think that many of the paid consultants had a chance to speak. As each house was presented, a doggedly determined resident asked that the presenter give the lot size and the square footage of each home. That left time for other residents to react strongly and negatively to the whole project. ---Mr. Dowd also forgot to mention that the city and county residents present were appalled by the number of homes proposed to squeeze into what they presented as build able land on their 16.36 acres. We were shocked and dismayed at the number of homes, their bulls, location and the destruction of the ridge that would block the view of the highest point closest to the I Street city/county line. I believe that at the planning commission meeting this past September, Mr. Dowd only addressed those areas required that the city require he address. You have to listen really carefully to this pari of the commission meeting. I took notes—something about "concerns ive feel need to be ndtiEwted". How dare Mr. Dowd take this meeting and try to use it the way he did. Lam+ �Z Q s d b r y d C ' ° Ln G . 0 Ln d p o o ca z z u i�- a RECEIVED Mal M-11, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �Z Q rt✓„ 5", C a RECEIVED Mal M-11, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission,"{"- Tonight's meeting is to discuss the proposal for the development of the Hash property. My understanding is that this project was placed on hold pending the concern for adequate water for development. It is really not clear to me that available water has been identified, and I think that all water districts in Sonoma County, Petaluma included, would support this position. Over the last 2 years, at a minimum, we have all been asked to either voluntarily or by rationing, to reduce our water consumption. The City has sponsored, and still sponsors, low water flow devices available at little or no cost to consumers. My family has participated in a few water reviews to learn if we have any leaks, poor lawn sprinkle cycles, or misuse of water all sponsored or in conjunction with the City of Petaluma. I also believe that the KB Home project is on hold pending adequate water reserves. Petaluma even has an emergency water shortage usage policy (CHAPTER 15.18 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations). News reports throughout Sonoma County from West Marin (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080609/BUSINESSJOURNAL/443063552 ) to Windsor (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080704/NEWS/807040355) indicate the severity of the water crisis. It is not at all clear how additional development can move forward until adequate water resources are identified that will 1) provide for adequate water flow in the Ell and Russian Rivers; 2) provide adequate water for fire prevention and control; 3) provide adequate water supply for EXISTING water accounts; and 4) provide for adequate water resources for our agriculture based industries --mainstays in the Sonoma County economics. I am all about conserving our water resources and support measures that promote wise water usage. I am even open to mandatory water rationing, eliminating high water requiring vegetation and reducing waste. I am willing to participate in these plans to support the above indicated 4 major initiatives I reference above. I think it would be very irresponsible for any additional development to be considered until we take care of our current responsibilities. There are many pending policies being developed within Petaluma including the Hillside Ordinance development plan, the forward looking 2004-2025 General Plan which seeks to embody the community's vision of a Petaluma that will endure for the following generations as a great place to be, live, and/or work, and that our natural surroundings and quality of life are sustained as a defining aspect of our community. These policies are guidelines for the resourceful development of Petaluma with protection of the land for all to utilize and enjoy. RECEIVED OCT 2 8 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This brings me to the issue of the Hash property development. This property, 16+ acres, was initially indicated to have 2 homes developed on it. The current developer, Pinnacle Homes, is petitioning the City for 11 homes to be developed on the land. In fact the developer is already promoting that these homes will be available in 2010, assuming that the approval is a forgone conclusion. This is very presumptuous to expect the City Counsel will ignore the issues with this development and grant approval of this proposed development. There are many issues that the homeowners in the surrounding area have brought to the City attention. In addition to the water issue(s) that I mention in the this communication there are several other significant issues including but not limited to the poor draining that the residents of Westridge Knolls are dealing with, high fire danger (check with the Petaluma Fire department about our inability to have and discharge fireworks due to the fire danger), loss of privacy due to the proximity (close and elevated location) of the proposed homes, exiting land slippage and unstable land, violation of the intended protection of ridgelines in this area, additional traffic on I Street. This development is not well thought out and does not address the best utilization of this land and certainly does not address that the natural surroundings and quality of life are sustained. Deny the petition by this developer and send it back to the developer to work with all concerned to arrive at a plan that addresses all concerns of the Citizens of Petaluma, of which the City Counsel has been informed of by several issues of concern by the Citizens of Petaluma. Best regards, Todd Campbell Cell: 707-292-1281 Home office 707-766-9188; 408796-7489 SPYPE: Exlence October 28, 2008 Planning Commission City of Petaluma 20o English Street Petaluma, Ca 94952 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The proposed Pinnacle development directly impacts our property and that of many others in Westridge Knolls. By adding eleven "Executive level" homes to what should be a "protected" ridgeline, you are negatively impacting an entire neighborhood, especially the homes backing to the Wash Property on Grevillia Drive. This negative impact can already be seen in a devaluation of property as evidenced by the home at 121 Grevillia Drive. This beautifully maintained 5 bedroom home had been on the market for over a year and a half and received ZERO offers. Not because of the declining real estate market we are now experiencing, and not because the house is not in excellent condition, but after speaking with families who viewed the property, their concerns were the towering story poles directly behind the house, and in living underneath a proposed development that will wipe out any sense of privacy the prospective homeowners might have enjoyed. This house is now up for lease with no offers or current interest. Also, the story poles currently in place do not give neighbors an idea of the full visual impact of the development, and severely disrupt vistas from the 1 Street view platform. When we walked the property we could see that several of the story poles are down, including all of the poles framing house #6, the 5,301 sq ft foot house sitting at the highest point on the hillside. Impact on property and quality of life for existing homeowners on Grevillia will be devastating. The proposed "Executive Level" homes dwarf our homes in their shadow, steal morning sun from our solar panels, void our views, negate our privacy and have an impact on the quiet enjoyment of our homes and yards, judging from the story poles in place, they will be a towering wall of gargantuan homes, butting right up to the property lines, especially on the ridgeline which does not show placement of any trees to try and soften their presence. How can this proposal to build it monstrously large homes on a "protected" ridge that negatively impacts existing taxpayers of 15+ years take precedent over our property and our concerns? While we realize that everyone has the right to build on their property, we don't see how the Planning Commission can allow blatant disregard for our property and our investments for a very short-term financial gain. Land stability is a huge issue on hills and ridges in this area, and on this property, especially considering the fact that there are at least three known slide areas already existing on the Hash Property, without homes or soil amendments weighing upon them. There are also many slide areas visible on the surrounding open space. Having moved to Petaluma from Novato, we are very familiar with the Buck Center's negative impact on the stability and value of the homes in the Partridge Knolls subdivision directly downhill from the Center, and the damage these homes sustained. In addition, flooding, drainage and water volume issues are of concern. We intend to hold the City of Petaluma and the developer responsible and liable for any and all damages that occur as a result of the approval of this development including flooding, erosion, and land movement. Also, the issue of traffic has hardly been addressed concerning this project Traffic is hazardous at the intersection of 1 Street and Grevillia Drive, and needs to be studied and addressed before this project moves forward in any form. The transition from the under -maintained county road to City streets is abrupt and unsafe, especially at peak before -school and after -work hours. Adding a multi user driveway to this already dangerous mix will no doubt prove problematic without further study and improvements made to I Street At the last meeting on this project Richard Braun spoke and pointed out that by allowing this development to proceed as it's currently proposed, you are effectively transferring value from our side of the fence to theirs, for a short-sighted, short-term financial gain that impacts us directly. In closing, we strongly urge you to deny this PUD amendment and go back to the drawing board on this proposed development, lowering the elevations, pushing the homes off of the ridgeline and setting them further back on the property. Sincerely, Clyde & Christine Christobal 129 Grevillia Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 From: Shelley Campbell October 29, 2008 133 GrevilhaDr" To: The Planning Commission City Council Members Committee for the drafting of the ordinances for General Plan 2025 As stated at the meeting I had intended to write a letter to the planning commission and the city council as this type of issue should be handled internally first. I had not had time to do so and felt that broaching this issue at the planning commission meeting was important. The following was read at the Planning Commission meeting last night October 28, 2008. A handwritten copy was turned into the clerk before the end of the meeting. Conflict of Interest? You tell me. 1. In 1/4/06, Mike Fitzpatrick was the project manager for Pinnacle Ridge. Here is the letter he wrote inviting neighbors to a meeting regarding Pinnacle Ridge. (note: I confirmed with Mike Fitzpatrick who was present at the meeting that he is still the project manager for Pinnacle Ridge). 2. Mike Fitzpatrick has been regularly attending hillside and ridgeline development subcommittee meetings. Though not anofficial member he has been giving input as any regularly attending citizen may. 2. David Rabbitt is a member of the planning commission, a city council member who is on the hillside/ridgeline committee that is currently working on a draft of the ordinances. 3. David Rabbitt was the commission member who volunteered to go out with Mr. Dowd and Ms. Borba to select additional sites from which to make new "slides" to show at this planning commission meeting. I am not comfortable with this? Is this a conflict of interest? X. �, � vxe y � � RECEIVE® 4/ /111 ' 200 � t DEVELOPMENT DEPAFJ MEM WE �J f� � "t: Ira f 1 z 0 j�z�i� oi'e � �� .- �,, fro �;�"' �� xr From: Shelley Ann Switzer Campbell 133 Grevillia Dr. Petaluma, CA 94952 sunsouDO,comcast.net To: City Planning Commission Members Cc: City Council Members, Community Development Department, Irene Borba, Concerned Citizens Something is Wrong in River City And it is Not a Pool Hall The following is about the process the Planning Commission chose to follow when; hearing Pinnacle Home's "mitigations" to citizens' concerns, and listening to Pinnacle's presentation. ➢ Misleading: the letter received by citizens living within five hundred feet of the proposed project was misleading. The letter indicated that a public meeting was being held regarding Pinnacle Home's tentative map, request for a change in 89- 10 and Pinnacle's tentative plan regarding their property on I St. This meeting I will call Planning Commission meeting number one (PCM#l). It was held on September 9, 2008. ➢ Controlled: Though PCM#1 and other planning commission meetings are viewed by some residents as one of the forums in which to address their concerns regarding proposed projects, the rules set down by agendas and at meetings are meant to control what citizens are allowed to discuss. ➢ Deceiving: People believe that issues raised at public meetings will honestly be considered. They are being deceived. ➢ Naive and Controlling: The developer is given months/years to come up with their presentation. I naively believed that comments made at the PCM#1 would be seriously addressed. It is stated that we have to bring up all issues at the planning commission meeting in order for our concerns to be taken into account. Since the citizens do not know ahead how a developer will make their presentation, how are citizens supposed to be prepared to know exactly which concerns they should raise? The Planning Commission therefore comes across as controlling the actions of the citizens present. ➢ Developer Friendly: At PCM#1, Mr. Dowd was allowed to present evidence that Pinnacle had addressed all concerns raised by homeowners. He referenced a meeting held at the country club with numerous consultants present and invited concerned citizens. How were we to know that Mr. Dowd would misrepresent this meeting is a public manner at PCM#I? By the actions of all planning commission members who voted to restrict discussion at PCM#2, it became obvious that these meetings are developer friendly. A Right to Free Speech: Immediately before public comment, a motion was made and passed by the planning commission: public comment was to be limited only to those issues addressed at Planning Commission Meeting # 2 (PCM#2). I could not attend PCM#1, so it was not until I viewed PCM#1 did I realize that Mr. Dowd represented the meeting at the country club in the manner that he did. My right to free speech was obstructed by the actions taken at PCM#2. ➢ Unacceptable: I showed those present at PCM#2 that I had in my possession three items: the original letter from Mr. Dowd introducing the Pinnacle project to local residents, the invitation from Mike Fitzgerald regarding the country club meeting and an advertisement located on the Pinnacle website. I began my presentation by discussing how blatantly misleading Mr. Dowd's presentation at PCM#1 was. I was asked to not speak so close to the microphone— understandable. Then the planning commission chair started to inform me that I could not talk about how Mr. Dowd misrepresented the meeting at PCM#1. Unacceptable. Understandably, I was already annoyed at the attempt to limit my and my neighbor's right to free speech. I believe that I said enough to show that Mr. Dowd was blatantly misleading. A letter had already been sent in to the city council and the planning commission regarding this issue. My talk was handed into the clerk before the vote was taken. 1 Non Consistant, Hypocritical, Rude: At PCM#2, a Mr. Moynihan spoke for almost three minutes. The first half minute or so he talked about the Hash property and his concerns regarding the stability of the land and earthquakes (not applicable to the items being discussed at PCM#2). 'Then, the rest of his time was spent talking about measure K and his opposition to this measure. Not one commission member asked Mr. Moynihan to stick to the evening's topic. David Rabbitt made a joke about Mr. Moynihan using his time to push the agenda regarding measure K. Then Mr. Rabbit gave even more credence to Mr. Moynihan's "misuse" of time by spending time to present his views on measure K. Non consistent and hypocritical was the way the planning commission handled this matter. So, Mr. Moynihan's comments were accepted and some of mine were rudely interrupted. So, there is big trouble in our River City, but this problem is huge and much bigger than last night's planning commission meeting. I hope those who receive this letter will reflect on the part they played in this staged "performance" or on how citizens' concerns can more fairly be heard -not just listened to. Shelley A.S. Campbell Borba, Irene From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Irene, Windsor, Anne Monday, October 27, 2008 11:01 AM Borba, Irene FW: Pinnacle Homes Misrepresentation Doc7.doc I printed this out to make copies for tomorrow night —just wanted you to have it as well. Anne F. Windsor Commurvty Development Department aNvindsor0ri.netaluma.ca.us {707}778-4301 From: Padovan, Deborah Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:41 AM To: Crump, Katie; Windsor, Anne Cc: Cooper, Claire; Moore, Mike Subject: FW: Pinnacle Homes Misrepresentation From: Shelley Campbell [mailto:sunsoup@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:38 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: Pinnacle Homes Misrepresentation Please forward this message to all city council and planning commission members. Sincerely, Shelley Campbell Part of what was read at a city council meeting earlier in October by Shelley A.S. Campbell. 133 Grevillia Dr. I have two letters from Pinnacle homes: one is signed by Mr. Dowd and one is signed by Mr. Fitzpatrick. They were sent in the last half of 2005/early 2006. One is an invitation to the meeting at the country club. Blatantly misleading is how I view the presentation given by the president of Pinnacle Homes concerning the tentative plans for Pinnacle's property on I St. -Mr. Dowd showed everyone present at the planning commission meeting a very long list of names. This list was supposed to represent the expert consultants present at the meeting held for concerned neighbors on January 17, 2006.1 highly doubt if many of those paid consultants had a chance to speak. Mr. Dowd forgot to mention that the city and county residents were appalled by the number of home being proposed to squeeze into what they presented as buildable land on their 16.36 acres. The residents were shocked and dismayed by the number of homes, their bulk, location and the destruction of the ridge that would block the view of the highest point close to the I St. city/county line. Mr. Dowd only addressed those areas required by the city to be mitigated or as he said, "Concerns where they actually exist." What gives Mr. Dowd the right to mislead those attending the Planning Commission meeting and act like Pinnacle has done such a fine job "mitigating" our concerns? At the country club residents questioned why some of the other Iand owned by Pinnacle could not be built up to support a limited number of homes. At that meeting Pinnacle explained how expensive it would be to sbore up that land. It became even clearer when barraged with questions regarding the huge number of homes squeezed onto the buildable acres that Pinnacle was out to maximize their profits. How dare Mr. Dowd take this meeting and try to use it the way he did. I do ask that citizens of the city and county go to where the rural part of I St. begins, park at the driveway of Pinnacle's property, get out, look at the posted plans and the story poles. While looking at these poles keep in mind that the poles only have to represent the four corners and the highest peak of each house. Fill in the perimeter of each house with a bulky, huge two story monster home stuck into the land and you will feel the impact of the plans submitted by Pinnacle homes. October 5, 2008 Kathy -Halverson 117 Grevillia Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 City of Petaluma Community Development Department Planning Division 11 English Street, Room 11 Petaluma, GA 94952 Re: Pinnacle Ridge (Hash Property) Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Once again, I am writing to let all of you know that my family and I are strongly against the development of Hash property by Pinnacle Ridge. There is a hill in our backyard, which means that huge homes will have their foundations at the level of the second storyof our home. Therefore, we will have large two-story homes looming over us. In reality, it will seem as if there are three-story buildings behind us because of the hill. If we wanted skyscrapers in our backyard, we would have purchased a home in San Francisco. Instead, we purchased a home with an active farm behind and to the east of us. To the west there is open space. Now, the developers want to take away all of our views. Do you honestly think that this is just? If you approve of their plans, it will completely change the quality of our lives and the value of our homes. At a recent meeting, one of the council members stated that everything has a price. I hope that you do not concur. Hopefully, you will realize that we voted for you and count on you to represent us. To all of you who are working diligently to settle this matter in a fair and just way, I commend you. To the rest, I pray that you will have a change of heart, remember what being a leader is supposed to be, and arrive at decisions with great honesty and integrity. We truly love our home and enjoy seeing the rolling hills behind us, and the quietness that it affords. We cannot move our home to accommodate Pinnacle Ridge. Please place yourself in our position. If you lived in our home, what would be acceptable to you? We purchased our home and became active participants within our community, Now, we are placing our trust in your hands. Please do what is right. Please do not sell us out. We are asking you to act with integrity and allow us to continue to enjoy our home and neighborhood. The plans as they stand now seem to have the homes set close to our backyard property line. With the Pinnacle homes being so large and being built upon a hill, this will severely change our quality of life and the value of our home. RECEIVE[ OCT 21 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Our neighbors have had their home on the market for approximately 2 years. They have lowered their asking price considerably. We realize that the economy is not good, but we also know that it is difficult to sell a house with storey poles adjacent to your backyard. Please note, that we are not against this only because it is in our backyard. We against this project because it is unjust and wrong. Our property value and quality of life needs to increase in order for this to be a just and fair development. If not, then we lose and so does the City of Petaluma. We are concerned about the following: The fact that there is a website that states that "Pinnacle Ridge is a new project West Petaluma off "I" Street and continuous with the urban boundary. The project consists of 11 lots (many of the lots have fabulous views). The project is currently in the planning process. Homes will be available in 2010." httu:J/www.ninnacle-homes.com by 2008 Pinnacle Homes. The aforementioned has caused us a lot of stress along with seeing the story poles each and every day in our backyard, and the fact that a council member stated that everything has a price. It makes us think that this is a done deal. Selling us out to a developer for money is not the answer. It is tempting, but the money will not last long. There is a saying: is easy come, easy go. We need income, but not at the expense of others, Please not at our expense. We are suffering too. The economy is the worst that it has been in a generation. Unemployment has increased during the last six months. We are paying more at the gas pump and more at the grocery store, We have a son, who is in college and those expenses are rising too. Approving of the development as it stands will add to our stress. Devaluing our home and quality of life will add to the everyday stresses that we already have. The residents in Westridge Knolls and I street will not be living in their homes forever. One day, we will have to sell our homes. What will be the value of them? We need to continue to increase the value of our homes. We need to have a development; whereby everyone wins, not just a selective few. Keep our homes on the road that they are on now and approve of a development that will continue increasing our value, their value, and in turn, the value of our city. Approve of a plan wherein the city will receive decent taxes, citizens, and support by all concerned parties. Do not place everything in the new development at the cost of those who have been an asset to this city. Let all us work together and let all of us be successful in this venture. This can be a win-win situation. If our home value increases, taxes increase, if the new homes increase in value then the same. Otherwise our homes may decrease in value and there goes the taxes from our homes. Then the city is dependent on the taxes from the 11 new homes. Let us work together in order that everyone wins. Let no one become greedy, unjust, unfair, or placed in a position wherein they are tempted to sellout. Let those who visit our city say that we have an intelligent planning committee and enjoy the charm of it. We are not architects, or developers. We need you to represent us. That is why we voted for you. A person is in office to represent the people, not to sell himself, nor sell out the people that he/she represents. Would you like to live in our home and approve of the plans the way that they now stand? Honestly, take a moment and put yourself in our shoes. Would you honestly Iive in our house and allow this to happen? No, you would not. If you think that you would, please take another look at our backyard and then look at the storey poles and try to picture what life will be like once the homes are built. Picture large two storey homes on a hill, directly behind, to the right, and to the left of us. Please do not sell us out to a developer. Many people will be affected by your decisions and it will not just be our generation, but the next Once the homes are built that is it. We cannot move our house, but the developer can change his plans and make them amenable for all concerned parties. Our view of the "fabulous views" will be replaced by huge homes bearing over ours. The "fabulous views" that we have will be given to the owners of the 11 new homes and the Pinnacle Ridge developers and all of their employees will benefit from it We will have the "Horrible Views." We will view large ominous homes at 180 degrees. The view will cease to be "fabulous" for us, but rather for the new homeowners. Do you want to be accountable for this? We are also concerned about the following: Soil Erosion Earth Movement Land Slides Drainage Density of Homes Feathering Barrier between our Properties Country -like Setting between our Properties Not Seeing New Homes/Development Blending into Terrain Loss of Ridge Line Loss of Our "Fabulous Views" Noise Fountain Grove Appearance/View/Atmosphere Lack of Charm Change from Country to City Setting Height of the new Homes Size of the New Homes Proximity of the New Homes to our Property Aesthetics Water Pressure Water Shortage Cost of Water Quality of Life PropertyValue Privacy (due to the fact that part of Pinnacle's property cannot be built on - they want to build the same number of homes - congest them near our property line.) Urban Design: Lets have the property developed as if it belongs there. Let the houses be constructed with similar materials, similar height and mass as the current homes that surround it. Let it frame the unique views from the current residents in Westridge Knolls and I Street, rather than obstructing our view, replacing them with a view of huge homes, and giving our views to Pinnacle Ridge. Sensitive Urban design can affect the livability and quality of life for the current residences of Petaluma Quality of life and livability is an asset and can be an important economic development advantage. Quality Urban design and development increases property values and therefore tax revenues. Quality urban design and development encourages the private sector to reinvest in the city. As you can see, we are passionate"about our home, quality of life, and community. Be assured that we are truly grateful for all of the time and energy that you have spent on this project. We too, have spent many hours writing letters, taking pictures, listening to others, and trying to learn what the process is in this matter. Unfortunately, we have jobs and are not paid to attend meetings and are not educated in this particular subject matter. So, through our struggle, we most certainly understand that you have chosen you career in order to serve others and that you spend many hours trying to do what is just Please forgive us for our lack of knowledge in this matter and if we miss meetings, or do not often write about our concerns. We are greatly concerned, but sometimes we may not hear about meetings, or we are too tired to attend a meeting, or write letters because of work and other commitments within our lives. We truly need you, and we appreciate all that you have done for us, the Citizens of Petaluma. You are in our constant prayers, and we sincerely thank you for your fine work. Sincerely, To: The Petaluma City Planning Commission September 9, 2008 Cc: The Petaluma City Council From: Todd D. Campbell 133 Grevillia Dr. Petaluma, CA 94952 Following are my concerns regarding the proposal by Pinnacle Homes to build eleven residences at the Petaluma Gateway coming into Petaluma via I Street and leaving Petaluma via I Street (known as the flash property). Before any decisions are made to allow this development there are several specific issues that need to be resolved. Many homes in Westridge Knolls require booster systems to increase water pressure. This continues to be a very marginal solution to weak water pressure. Allowing additional homes that use the same water source to supply water to these new residences ignores the needs and concerns of current homeowners and taxpayers. Westridge Knolls residence have already been let down and disappointed by the City with respect to the landscaping responsibilities that the City assumed. Do not disappoint your taxpayers by continuing to ignore the issues with the water supply in this area and allow even more utilization of a critically low water source. Drainage in the Westridge Ridge area is marginal. Over the years that I have lived here, there has been a sinkhole in the area of Grevillia and Simon, that when open for review revealed a significant underground waterway. Significant work was required to repair this. On Elderberry near Black Oak there is a seasonal underground water leakage that is simply just patch over with new tar. There has been very little effort to adequately fix this draining issue. My lot contains a winter running spring that resulted from the relocation of the natural march above my lot cleared to allow for homes on Grevillia to be built. I have spent significant effort and expense to protect my property from water damage. I have had the builder out to try and have them take responsibility for the drainage only to have them simply ignore responsibility. While I expected some support and consideration, none was offered. In hindsight I guess I was self delusionary that any builder would take responsibility after the fact for their poor engineering. I am hoping that this letter will inspire the City to safeguard its citizens from irresponsible developers that take their profit and leave the long term issues to the City and its affected citizens and demand excellence in advance of any approvals to develop this property. There are many concerned citizens that are actively following the City s prosecution of the request to overly develop this property. Please consider that the concerned citizens have both an investment in their residences that significantly exceed the economic consideration proposed by Pinnacle. Secondly, we are taxpayers and residents of Petaluma, Your decisions regarding this controversial issue will tell us how the citizen's are respected when they approach the City with bonafied concerns. These decisions will affect our enjoyment and maintenance of our investments. Please do not take the position "if you don't like it, then just move" as presented by one committee representative.& nbsp; This is not an acceptable position. Please take the initiative to fully personally review the merits of what the Citizens are saying and spend time on the sites of these homeowners, your constituents. At the very least, invest the same time in this decision as each of you has invested obtaining your position with the City Council. Many of you spent time discussing issues with me and how you would support homeowners with issue near and dear to us. NOW it is your time to support the citizens that supported you when you were seeking our support Pinnacle .Ridge is not an acceptable development in its current plan. Respectfully, Todd D. Campbell Cell: 707-292-1281 Office voice/fax 707-766-9188 SkyPe:exlence E-mail: tdsoupi?a comcastnet DATE: September 9, 2008 FROM: David and Jana Wertzberger 125 Grevillia Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 TO: Community Development Department, Planning Division SUBJECT: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Proposal; City File Number: 05-ZOA-0029-CR We oppose the proposed 11 -unit subdivision located at 2762 I Street. We urge the Planning Commission to deny the project. Chapter 16 of the Petaluma General Plan addresses I-Ellside Protection and establishes the regulations for development and alterations of properties in hillside and ridgeline areas in order to preserve the essential scenic and natural resources that define the character of Petaluma- In etaluma In section 16.010 of the General Plan, Policy 2-P-17 states: "Retain ridgelines and prominent hillsides as open space through appropriate clustering and/or transfer of density to other parts of a development site." The Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment for the proposed Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision is in conflict with the General Plan, and we urge the Planning Commission to deny it. The density of the proposed eleven unit development exceeds current zoning, and the impact it would have on the scenic and natural character of this prominent ridgeline location would be extreme. Current zoning requirements are appropriate, and they were adopted for the benefit of the entire Petaluma community. Approval of this amendment would be a mistake that would forever undermine the essential scenic character of Petaluma's southern hills, and the Petaluma community would suffer. In closing, this project is in direct conflict with the General Plan and Policy 2-P-17. All hillsides and ridgeline areas subject to the Petaluma General Plan should be protected for the benefit of the community. We urge the Planning Commission to act in the interest of the community and to deny the PUD Amendment for the proposed Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision. Ja D. Wertzberger vDate David A. Wercb� -0 Date September 9, 2008 Planning Commission City of Petaluma 200 English Street Petaluma, Ca 94952 With regard to the proposed development of the Hash Property by the Pinnacle Group, we strongly feel that there has been inadequate dialogue on this matter and insufficient time to review the recently submitted plans dated August 21, 2008, While we are not against growth or development, we expect a more active process, and feel communication on this matter has been severely lacking. Our issue is this, the proposed development directly and negatively impacts the enjoyment of our property and that of many others in Westridge Knolls, specifically those living on Grevillia Drive. By adding eleven "Executive Level" homes to what should be a "protected" ridgeline, you are negatively impacting an entire neighborhood, but especially the 10+ homes that back to the hillside on Grevillia. The story poles currently in place do not give neighbors an idea of the full visual impact of the development, and severely disrupt vistas from the i Street view platform. This negative impact can already be seen in a devaluation of property as evidenced by the home for sale at 121 Grevillia Drive. This home has been on the market for over a year and a half and has received ZERO offers. Not because of the declining real estate market, not because the house is not in excellent condition, but after having spoken to families who have viewed the property, it's due to the towering story poles and a proposed development that wipes out any sense of privacy the homeowners might have enjoyed. In addition, land stability is a huge issue on hills and ridges in this area, and on this property, especially in consideration of the fact that there are at least three known slide areas already existing on the Hash Property, without homes or soil amendments weighing upon them. There are also many slide areas visible on the surrounding open space. We moved to Petaluma from Novato 7 years ago and are therefore very familiar with the Buck Center's impact on the stability and value of the homes in the Partridge Knolls subdivision. Impact on property and quality of life for existing homeowners will be devastating. The proposed "Executive Level" homes dwarf our homes in their shadow, negating privacy and the quiet enjoyment of our homes and yards, and will be seen as a towering wall of gargantuan homes, far too close to the property lines. How can the proposal to build 11 monstrously large homes on a "protected" ridge that negatively impacts existing taxpayers of 15+ years take precedent over our property and our concerns? We have written letters to the City addressing our issues and have yet to hear back on how these issues have been resolved. How is the water issue being addressed in the General Pian? According to the Water Department all new construction will require water boosters to the 12 inch main. Here in Westridge Knolls, water pressure is an issue for several homes, including those on higher elevations that require pumps to augment pressure. Can the City assure current homeowners that water needs will be met and not diminished by this development? In addition, flooding and water volume issues are of concern. Is the City liable if there is insufficient water or water pressure for firefighting? The Hash Ridge has burned since we've lived here. Flames raced up the slope from I Street and continued up the ridgeline as fire is apt to do. The fire was driven back by winds across I Street and up the hill before firefighters could get put it out. County neighbors reported insufficient water pressure on their properties to hose down their homes and property as the wind drove the fire up the hill. In closing, we intend to hold the City of Petaluma and the developer responsible and liable for any and all damages that occur as a result of the approval of this development including flooding, erosion, land movement and the devaluation of our property. We bought our homes here with good intent. We choose this area for the privacy, scenic vistas and the rural feel of the land. While we realize that everyone has the right to build on their property, we do not see how the City can allow this blatant disregard for our property and our investments. We strongly urge you to deny this PUD amendment. Sincerely, Clyde & Christine Christobal 129 Grevillia Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 0."Z r� = ) Part of what was read at a city council meeting earlier in October by Shelley A.S. Campbell. 133 Grevillia Dr. I have two letters from Pinnacle homes: one is signed by Mr. Dowd and one is signed by Mr. Fitzpatrick. They were sent in the last half of 2005/early 2006. One is an invitation to the meeting at the country club. Blatantly misleading is how I view the presentation given by the president of Pinnacle Homes concerning the tentative plans for Pinnacle's property on I St. -Mr. Dowd showed everyone present at the planning commission meeting a very long list of names. This list was supposed to represent the expert consultants present at the meeting held for concerned neighbors on January 17, 2006. I highly doubt if many of those paid consultants bad a chance to speak. Mr. Dowd forgot to mention that the city and county residents were appalled by the number of home being proposed to squeeze into what they presented as buildable land on their 16.36 acres. The residents were shocked and dismayed by the number of homes, their bulk, location and the destruction of the ridge that would block the view of the highest point close to the I St. city/county line. Mr. Dowd only addressed those areas required by the city to be mitigated or as he said, "Concerns where they actually exist." What gives Mr. Dowd the right to mislead those attending the Planning Commission meeting and act like Pinnacle has done such a fine job "mitigating" our concems7 At the country club residents questioned why some of the other land owned by Pinnacle could not be built up to support a limited number of homes. At that meeting Pinnacle explained how expensive it would be to shore up that land. It became even clearer when barraged with questions regarding the huge number of homes squeezed onto the buildable acres that Pinnacle was out to maximize their profits. How dare Mr. Dowd take this meeting and try to use it the way he did. ✓ I do ask that citizens of the city and county go to where the rural part of I St. begins, park at the driveway of Pinnacle's property, get out, look at the posted plans and the story poles. While looking at these poles keep in mind that the poles only have to represent the four comers and the highest peak of each house. Fill in the perimeter of each house with a bulky, huge two story monster home stuck into the land and you will feel the impact of the plans submitted by Pinnacle homes, Following is a bulleted list of our concerns. Other neighborhood residents are addressing these concerns in more detail. ➢ Residents of Petaluma need time at this forum to adequately address the concerns we have regarding the plans Pinnacle Homes has drafted for their use of the Hash at the end of I Street. As stated in the notice sent to residents residing within 500 feet of the Hash property, "'The Planning Commission will consider all public testimony...." ➢ The Hash Property is legally part of Westridge IVN and as such comes under the land use designation for said property as recorded in 1988. Concerned citizens need to have copies of the vesting map prepared by Pinnacle Homes and of Resolution No. 89-10. ➢ The project as presented by the company of Pinnacle homes should be denied. ➢ Other areas of concern include, but are not limited to all environmental factors potentially affected as listed on pages 2 and 3 of "DRAFT: Initial Study of Environmental Significance. (File No: 05-ZOA-0029-CRAPN: 019-401-019, Posting date: 8121108") The concerns as listed on pages 2 and 3 include the following: 1. Land Use and Planning 2. Population, Employment and Housing - C 3. Geology and Soils > 4. Air • 5. Hydrology and Water Quality 6. Biological Resources 7. Noise • 8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics 9. hazards and Hazardous Materials • 10. Transportationrfraflis • 11. Public Services • 12. Recreation 13. Utilities infrastructure 14. Mineral Resources • 15. Cultural Resources • 16. Agricultural Resources • 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ➢ Parcel C, located along I St., as shown in plans is supposed to have a very large air pump station building. Story poles must be erected not only for the proposed homes, but also for the air pump station. ➢ No changes should be made to the development/operating standards as set forth in the resolution adopted by the city of Petaluma in 1988 until the citizens of Petaluma have time to review this document. ➢ The visual quality and aesthetics would be greatly affected by the proposal made by Pinnacle Homes. Therefore, the company of Pinnacle Homes will revise its plans to meet the guidelines set down for Westridge IV and V including but not limited to: "The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant and conditions approved, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulation of the City of Petaluma and with the Petaluma General Plan adopted by the City." A The plans submitted by Pinnacle Homes, obliterates views of hillsides and natural areas as one enters and leaves Petaluma. ➢ Traffic hazards already exist, and the proposal of eleven homes is unacceptable. ➢ Water pressure is already dismal in this area of town. Fire fighting and current home needs cannot handle the additional use of water as proposed. ➢ The number of proposed homes is dangerous considering the nature of the geology and soil of the area. ➢ From 1 Street, it is obvious that the proposed plan is unacceptable as regards preservation of ridgelines and hillsides. ➢ The number of homes needs to follow the guidelines already in place. Recreation areas in keeping with the surrounding area need to be included in any submitted plans. ➢ Hydrology and water quality is an issue. Some residents have had significant drainage issues. Grevillia and other streets have already been impacted by undersurface water; the numerous cracks in the asphalt demonstrate this point. A Home values are threatened by this proposed development. Here are some pictures taken about a week ago. Since then, some story poles were taken down and some were put back up. Since the story poles have been changed very shortly before this meeting these are the pictures we have to present. Why did Pinnacle wait so long to begin adjusting the story poles? Picture one: Photo taken looking at the old Hash property now owned by Pinnacle. This gateway into Petaluma would be destroyed. Picture two: Photo taken across the street. A view of one of the county properties. Picture three: Photo taken further down I Street. We believe this is the location of the large building on the plans that is labeled, "Air pump station" on parcel C. Story poles need to be erected for this large building. Picture four: Photo taken looking between two homes on Grevillia. The true impact can only be understood by standing in the backyards of the homes adjacent to the proposed project. The members of the Planning Commission and a representative from the City Council need to come and look at the proposed project from these backyards and from the gateway coming into and going out of Petaluma. k� t R Borba, Irene From: Bates, Curtis Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:50 AM To: Borba, Irene Subject: FW: Pinnacle Ridge" I" Street related Conditions of Approval Irene -- Here is the e-mail for the revised conditions. Curt From: Steve Lafranchi [mailto:steve@sjla.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 PM To: Spaulding, Craig; Bates, Curtis Cc: 'Mike Fitzpatrick; 'Dick Dowd'; 'Craig Lawson'; 'Sarah Monize' Subject: Pinnacle Ridge "I" Street related Conditions of Approval Craig Curt Pursuant to our conversation and based on our site meeting along with my meeting with the PBAC, Public Works (Engineering) Condition Nos. 20 and 21 need to be modified to reflect the "I" Street construction that was agreed upon at said meetings. See below for language that describes the changes. Hopefully you can use this as a base for your formal modification. Revised Condition 20: Match the existing "I" Street improvements constructed with the adjacent Westridge Subdivision and extend the improvements southerly as follows: Curb, gutter and sidewalk and 12' travel lane to the southerly side of Parcel "C". A 6' Class 2 bike lane shall also be constructed but terminate at the entrance to Parcel "C" which is also the beginning of the 8' wide Class 1 bike/pedestrian lane. A "Share The Road" sign shall also be installed at this bike lane transition point. A northbound 12' travel lane shall also be constructed with "Share The Road" signs shall being installed in locations directed by the City Engineer. The minimum pavement section (or approved equivalent) shall be 5 -inches of asphalt concrete over 15 -inches of class 2 aggregate base. A mountable driveway approach (or approved equivalent) shall be constructed to access Parcel 'V. Revised Condition 21: South of Parcel "C" to the City Limits extend the improvements southerly as follows: A 12' travel lane, roadside ditch and an 8' wide Class 1 bike/pedestrian path up to the point where said Class 1 bike/pedestrian path transitions back to a 6' Class 2 bike lane. From this point to the City Limits a 12' travel lane, 6' Class 2 bike lane and roadside ditch shall be constructed. A northbound 12' travel lane shall also be constructed from the City limits to a point adjacent from the southerly side of Parcel "C". "Share The Road" signs shall also be installed along the northbound travel lane in locations directed by the City Engineer. The minimum pavement section (or approved equivalent) shall be 5 - inches of asphalt concrete over 15 -inches of class 2 aggregate base. The street shall be located relocated to the center of the existing 40' right of way. Construct an appropriate transition for the new improvements to the existing road at the City Limits to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Please review and let me know if you make any changes. As discussed, we would like the changes introduced at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday. I believe we are all in agreement that better to do it now. It will avoid any confusion down the road. Thanks for your attention to this matter and I appreciate your help in addressing this change Steve Steven Lafranchi, P.E., P.L.S. President Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. Borba, Irene From: Mike Fitzpatrick [Mike@pinnacle-homes.comj Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 1:33 PM To: Borba, Irene Cc: Richard Dowd; david@davidrabbitt.com; Craig Lawson Subject: RE: Pinnacle Ridge view platforms Irene: I met with commissioner Rabbitt today and we drove the photo locations that you and I had listed. David has eliminated some from the running (those with the strikethrougb) and as it stands now we will take photographs from the remaining location to see what the photograph reveals and if it is agreed that the photo is not applicable to the commissions request a full simulation from that location will not be done. I have the surveyor and photographer set for Tuesday the 1611, and I will forward you and David the photos later that day. Mike Fitzpatrick Project Manager Pinnacle Homes cell 291-2126 email mike0 ninnacle-homes.eom From: Borba, Irene[mailto:IBORBA@ci.petaluma.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:20 PM To: 'david@davidrabbitt.com' Cc: Richard Dowd; Mike Fitzpatrick Subject: Pinnacle Ridge view platforms David: I went out today with Mike Fitzpatrick of Pinnacle homes to consider some potential view platforms for the project. Here is the list that we came up with. Of course we need to go through the list to get the appropriate vantage points; I am not going to make then do pictures/visual simulations of all of these. Please review the list and see what you think would be best or you may have other suggestions. Wallenburg Way, across from 14 Wallenburg close to Larry Jonas house. vielnit+f-ot=4583� Before project site (north of Greviila Qd-de-sasofJereme Couft 2292 1 Street Q c ,�oQ t (there is a- Plit-secea�d v ew thef-4 End of Urban Separator of property through the site looking towards the main part of town. On "I" Street looking towards town Up behind King Residence looking towards project site cul-de-sac of Photinia Across from 188 Grevillia[MLF] address change 140 PurFington Read 342 Purrington Road [MLF] above the site looking from the urban separator (336' overlook) into town Please review the list and let me know what you think. From: Shelley Campbell [sunsoup@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:07 AM To: Borba, Irene Cc: 'Shelley Campbell' Subject: FW: City Fie Number:05-ZOA-0029-CR A few more questions: —Do citizens who wish to speak need to fill out a speaker card? --May citizens drop off their letters regarding this issue to the Community Development Department, and would they address this to you? I am assuming in this case the letters would need to be in by 5:00 on the 9tl' or turned in at the meeting at 7:00. Thank you again, Shelley Campbell -----Original Message ----- From: Shelley Campbell (mailto:sunsoup@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:28 AM To: 1borba@ci.petaluma.ca.us' Subject: City File Number:05-ZOA-0029-CR Dear Ms. Borba, Thank you for taking the time to review and agree to copies being made of certain pages from the Hash files (property development by Pinnacle). I have some questions that I hope you can answer for me 1. 1 have been told that a party would need to wait to appeal the decision reached on a particular project until the permit is issued. Also, that this project needs to go to the planning division, the city council and full SPARC before a permit is issued. However, on 05-ZOA-0029-CR it states: "Appeal Process: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date action is taken on the project by the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party...... I have the appropriate paperwork for an appeal, but I am confused. Is the appeal mentioned in Public Hearing notice a different form of appeal, or is it the formal appeal as applies to the paperwork given me by the Community Development Department? 2. 1 have spent many hours in the Community Development Department looking at the tentative (not approved) plans by the Pinnacle Company and also boxes that have references to any of the Westridge PUDs including Westridge IV and V. Even after all this, I do not feel that I have sufficient information to make a presentation or write an informed response to the Planning Commission regarding this matter. Could you please explain what a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" is? So that I can explain the concerns and proposed changes to my neighbors, could you list the specific areas of concerns with the proposed changes made to the tentative pian by the Pinnacle Company? Not all my neighbors will be able to go down to the city, go through the papers in the box holding the tentative plans and be able to pull the important points from the information provided. I appreciate your time spent in answering this question. Thank you, Shelley Campbell sunsoua(a)comcast.net 133 Grevillia Dr. Borba, Irene From: Shelley Campbell [sunsoup@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:28 AM To: Borba, Irene Subject: City File Number:05-ZOA-0029-CR Dear Ms. Borba, Thank you for taking the time to review and agree to copies being made of certain pages from the Hash files (property development by Pinnacle). I have some questions that I hope you can answer for me: 1. 1 have been told that a party would need to wait to appeal the decision reached on a particular project until the permit is issued. Also, that this project needs to go to the planning division, the city council and full SPARC before a permit is issued. However, on 05-ZOA-0029-CR it states: "Appeal Process: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date action is taken on the project by the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party...." I have the appropriate paperwork for an appeal, but I am confused. Is the appeal mentioned in Public Hearing notice a different form of appeal, or is it the formal appeal as applies to the paperwork given me by the Community Development Department? 2. 1 have spent many hours in the Community Development Department looking at the tentative (not approved) plans by the Pinnacle Company and also boxes that have references to any of the Westridge PUDs including Westridge IV and V. Even after all this, I do not feel that I have sufficient information to make a presentation or write an informed response to the Planning Commission regarding this matter. Could you please explain what a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" is? So that I can explain the concerns and proposed changes to my neighbors, could you list the specific areas of concerns with the proposed changes made to the tentative plan by the Pinnacle Company? Not all my neighbors will be able to go down to the city, go through the papers in the box holding the tentative plans and be able to pull the important points from the information provided. I appreciate your time spent in answering this question. Thank you, Shelley Campbell sunsouoa-comcast.net 133 Grevillia Dr. Borba, Irene From: REKB@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:41 PM To: Borba, Irene Subject: Pinnacle Ridge Application - Brawn Hi Irene, I am back from vacation and stopped in for 4 hours to look at the PR PUD amendment being requested. I left a phone message (slightly after 5 pm) but getting it to you may take all day (Wednesday). 1. Pinnacle Homes (PH) has opted to request LENIENT application of zoning and has come forward with a demand for the max density but provided no compelling reason for lenient treatment. Where can I find their compelling reason? 2. 1 saw the proposed findings prepared by PH... nice of them but does not replace the one prepared by City Staff. How can I obtain the findings the staff wants the Planning Commission to buy off on? 3. All of us need Resolution #89-10 that created WR #4 and made the Hash Property into a PUD. There were stipulated limitations. Where do I get this, from you or from the Clerk. 4. Has Counsel for the City given it legal clearance? 5. What exactly do you expect from the Planning Commission. Is this being presented as a complete project package so you want Commission Approval? OR, is it that PH has requested it directly to the Planning Commission. If so, what is your role? Just some FYIs. Hopefully you did not miss them.. no need to shoulder mistakes for the developer. The package proposes A GRANT OF PRIVATE OPENSPACE SCENIC EASEMENT (PUBLIC ACCESS PROHIBITED). The project is a land condominium requiring a home owner association. (fix private road, etc.). That is not in the package. Neither are proper CC&Rs. What is there is boiler plate filler. The plan calls for messy access easements over another's property, etc. Promises to provide later given in a number of important areas, etc. does not substitute for the requirement in 19A for a complete plan. Any word back on the requests in my letter. eg sufficient time to go over all the issues, etc. Sincerely, Richard Brawn (707) 763-5897 It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. . a5t 1 — i Subj_ Pinnacle Ridge Application - Brawn Date: 9/212008 5:41:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: To: boron dlci.pec3ium4.ca.0 Hi Irene, I am back from vacation and stopped in for 4 hours to look at the PR PUD amendment being requested. I left a phone message (slightly after 5 pm) but getting it to you may take all day (Wednesday). 1. Pinnacle Homes (PH) has opted to request LENIENT application of zoning and has come forward with a demand for the max density but provided no compelling reason for lenient treatment Where can I find their compelling reason? 2. 1 saw the proposed findings prepared by PH... nice of them but does not replace the one prepared by City Staff. How can I obtain the findings the,staff wants the Planning Commission to buy off on? 3. All of us need Resolution #89-10 that created WR #4 and made the Hash Property into a PUD. There were stipulated limitations. Where do I get this, from you or from the Clerk 4. Has Counsel for the City given it legal clearance? 5. What exactly do you expect from the Planning Commission. Is this being presented as a complete project package so you want Commission Approval? OR, is it that PH has requested it directly to the Planning Commission, if so, what ls,yourIle? %) Just some Fft. Hopefully you did not miss them.. no need to shoulder mistakes for the developer. The package proposes A GRANT OF PRIVATE OPENSPACE SCENIC EASEMENT (PUBLIC ACCESS PROHIBITED). The project is a land condominium requiring a home owner association. (fix private road, etc.). That is not in the package. Neither are proper CC&Rs. What is there is boiler plate filler. The plan calls for messy access easements over another's property, etc. Promises to provide later given in a number of important areas, etc. does not substitute for the requirement in 19A for a complete plan. Any word back on the requests in my letter. eg sufficient time to go over all the issues, etc Sincerely, Richard Brawn (707) 763-5897 Its only a deal if its where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. r 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tuesday, September 42, 2448 AOL: RSKB