HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.B 03/20/2006CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Action on 2 Alternative
Urgency Interim Ordinances Respectively Proposed by
Councilmember Healy and Councilmember Torliatt Imposing a
Moratorium on the Issuance of Entitlements for Specified New
Development in the City of Petaluma in the Floodplain Depicted in
the 1989 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
no
March 20, 2006
Meeting Date: March 20, 2006
Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM
® 7:00 PM
Category (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ® New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: 778-4347
City Council Mike Healy
Pamela Torliatt
Cost of Pronosal: Unknown. Depending on the length of the Account Number:
moratorium and the affected entitlements, there could be a loss of
permit fee revenue while the interim ordinance is in effect. Name of Fund:
Amount Budgeted:
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1) Draft Urgency Interim Ordinance (Version 1 -Healy)
2) Draft Urgency Interim Ordinance (Version 2-Torliatt)
3) March 10, 2006 Memo from the City Manager to the Mayor and City Council on flood related
issues
4) Map of 100 -year Floodplain/New Years Flood Inundation Areas
Summary Statement: In response to City Council comments, the attached interim ordinances would
result in two possible outcomes:
Version 1 (Healy) would prohibit the issuance of building permits on any properties in the City of
Petaluma in the designated 100 -year floodplain upstream of the constriction weir of the Corps of Engineers
Payran Flood Control Project.
Version 2 (Torliatt) would prohibit the approval of any entitlements, including but not limited to zoning
approvals, Subdivision Map Act approvals, design review approvals (SPARC), or building permits on any
properties in the City of Petaluma in the designated 100 -year floodplain upstream of the constriction weir
of the Corps of Engineers Payran Flood Control Project.
Each ordinance includes an exception for projects with a significant component of multi -family housing in
accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65858(c). However, neither
ordinance as drafted provides for any other exceptions to the moratorium. The Council would need to
consider whether any exceptions are warranted and what they might be. The City Council, on a 4/5ths vote,
may adopt either of the attached interim ordinances as an urgency measure (meaning that it goes into effect
immediately upon adoption) for 45 -days. Pursuant to state law, the interim ordinance may be extended,
following appropriate public notice and hearing, for a period of 10 months and 15 days (which, when added
to the initial 45 -day period totals 1 year). A second 1 -year extension, if necessary, is also permitted by state
law. The adoption of either interim ordinance would affect applications currently in the development
review process. Both ordinances would affect new applications for building permits. One of the
ordinances would affect discretionary planning and zoning approvals, as well. The general purpose of
either ordinance is to prevent development from occurring in the FEMA FIRM 100 year floodplain north of
the constriction weir until the storm water modeling analysis being done as part of the General Plan 2025
process is complete.
Recommended Citv Council Action/Sueeested Motion:
The Council may adopt one of the proposed Interim Ordinances as an urgency item at the March 20
meeting by a 4/5 vote; or it may choose some other course of action. The Council may also adopt an
interim ordinance by simple majority after first providing appropriate public notice and hearing.
Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir: Reviewed_bv Citv Attornev: Annrove"v Citv Manaeer:
Date: Date: ,^/G�% Date:
Todav's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File Code:
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 20, 2006
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON 2 ALTERNATIVE URGENCY INTERIM
ORDINANCES RESPECTIVELY PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER HEALY AND
COUNCILMEMBER TORLIATT IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE
OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR SPECIFIED NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF
PETALUMA IN THE FLOODPLAIN DEPICTED IN THE 1989 FEMA FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In response to City Council comments, the attached interim ordinances would result in two
possible outcomes:
Version 1 (Healy) would prohibit the issuance of building permits for projects located on any
properties or parts of properties in the City of Petaluma located in the designated 100 -year
floodplain upstream of the constriction weir of the Corps of Engineers Payran Flood Control
Project.
Version 2 (Torliatt) would prohibit the approval of any entitlements, including but not limited
to zoning approvals, Subdivision Map Act approvals, design review approvals (SPARC), or
building permits for uses located on any properties or parts of properties in the City of Petaluma
located in the designated 100 -year floodplain upstream of the constriction weir of the Corps of
Engineers Payran Flood Control Project.
Each ordinance includes an exception for projects with a significant component of multi -family
housing in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65858(c).
However, neither ordinance provides for any other exceptions to the moratorium. The Council
would need to consider whether any exceptions are warranted and what they might be. The City
Council, on a 4/5ths vote, may adopt the attached interim ordinance as an urgency measure
(meaning that it goes into effect immediately upon adoption) for 45 -days. Pursuant to state law,
the interim ordinance may be extended, following appropriate public notice and hearing, for a
period of 10 months and 15 days (which, when added to the initial 45 -day period totals 1 year).
A second 1 -year extension, if necessary, is also permitted by state law. The adoption of either
interim ordinance would affect applications currently in the development review process. Both
ordinances would affect new applications for building permits. One of the ordinances would
also affect discretionary planning and zoning approvals, as well. The general purpose of either
ordinance is to prevent development from occurring in the FEMA FIRM 100 year floodplain
north of the constriction weir until the storm water modeling analysis being done as part of the
General Plan 2025 process is complete.
3
2. BACKGROUND:
In response to the requests filed by Councihnembers Healy and Canevaro, under the City
Council's Rules, Policies & Procedures, and, separately, by Councilmember Torliatt, the City
Attorney has drafted two distinct interim ordinances under California Government Code Section
65858 for Council consideration as an urgency item for the City Council meeting of March 20.
The draft interim ordinances, as proposed, would halt development in the area of the 100 -year
flood plain, as designated by the 1989 Flood Insurance Rate Maps, in areas "upstream of the
constriction weir" while the City continues to analyze the impacts of flooding in this area by
means of the XP-SWMM surface water model and address those findings, as directed by the
Council and community, through the General Plan and General Plan EIR. As mentioned
previously, the model is currently being re -calibrated to incorporate all of the data from the
December 30-31 flood. An exhibit illustrating the areas of inundation during the December 31,
2005 flood event as an overlay on the 100 -year regulatory Floodplain is attached.
The Council is familiar with the adoption of interim ordinances under Section 65858, but it is
important to remind the Council that an interim ordinance cannot halt the processing of
applications for permits (whether they are building or zoning related). Interim ordinances only
prohibit, during the moratorium period, approval of certain uses that may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan or zoning proposal, as specified in the ordinances. In
this case, the respective versions of the interim ordinance either prohibit just the approval of
building pen -nits for projects that would be located in the FEMA 100 year floodplain upstream of
the constriction weir; or the approval of any use (including, but not limited to zoning,
Subdivision Map Act, design review and building pen -nits) for projects that would be located in
the same area.
Another important effect of the proposed moratorium is the impact on the City's ability to
process new discretionary development applications for properties within the area covered by the
interim ordinance. Even though the ordinances would prohibit approving certain types of
entitlements (as specified in the two respective versions), because of the circumstances that have
lead to the adoption of the interim ordinance (the facts that are set forth in the recitals of the
ordinance), those same facts have to be considered when evaluating projects for completeness
and for compliance with CEQA. In other words, the same reasons for adopting a moratorium on
new building permits ( for example, the recent storms,) will probably result in the inability to
process new discretionary development applications for projects in the moratorium area, and
possibly some applications for projects outside the moratorium area, because the City does not
have adequate information on which to determine whether the project can comply with existing
floodplain development policies or with applicable provisions of CEQA. Therefore, the impact
of either moratorium could be significantly broader than originally intended.
The following is a list of major projects that may be affected by the adoption of either of the
interim ordinances:
Petaluma Village Marketplace (Chelsea) proposed expansion: They still need Council approval
of their PCD amendment which would allow development on parcel "B" and the proposed
development agreement that would transfer ownership of parcel "C" to the City.
I
Redwood Technology Center: they still need SPARC approval for sonic outstanding site design
issues and building permits for the proposed office buildings.
101 Casino: they arc proposing to demolish the existing building and constrict a new building.
Their application is currently incomplete and not ready to process.
Clover Stornetta: they have purchased the former Adobe Lumber site and have a pending
application to annex the property and use the existing office/warehouse building for their
warehouse and distribution center. Their application is currently incomplete and not ready to
process.
Meadowview Industrial Building: this is a proposal for a new 33,600 square foot commercial
office condominium with adjacent parking on a vacant property on Industrial Avenue. Their
application is currently incomplete and not ready to process.
Petaluma City School District Bus Facility: Regency has purchased a vacant property on
North McDowell, north of Corona Road to relocate the existing bus facility at the intersection of
Lindberg Lane and Kenilworth Drive as part of the East Washington Place project. The project
has SPARC approval.
Sid Commons (Johnson Property): They have an application to develop a portion orthe
property and it has been determined that an EIR is necessary. The Johnson's have provided the
funds to proceed with the EIR, so there has been no further processing of their application.
ALTERNATIVES:
A) Version 1 (Healy) of the Interim Ordinance;
B) Version 2 (Torliatt) of the Interim Ordinance
C) Continue to allow development in the floodplain under current policies
D) Council -identified alternative
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
There may be a loss of permit fee revenue to the General Fund depending on the duration of the
moratorium and its scope.
5. CONCLUSION:
Not Applicable
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THATWILL IDEN'T'IFY SUCCESS OR,
COMPLETION:
Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council will need to provide direction to staff on this matter.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM
ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
IN THE CITY OF PETALUMA
IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN DEPICTED IN THE
1989 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
AND UPSTREAM OF THE CONSTRICTION WEIR
OFTHE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF PETALUMA
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") issued in
1989 a Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FIRM") depicting a 100 Year Flood Plain in the City
of Petaluma ("City"); and
WHEREAS, 100 Year Flood Plain," as that term is used by the FEMA National
Flood Insurance Program, refers to the area subject to flooding with a 1 percent chance
of occurrence each year; and
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2005, a number of Sonoma County cities, and
communities, including the City, experienced flooding events; and
WHEREAS, the estimated total cost of public and private damage due to
flooding in Petaluma on December 31, 2005 has been estimated at approximately $55
million, as reflected in initial damages estimates submitted to the Sonoma County
Office of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, flooding such as occurred in the City on December 31, 2005
threatens the safety of residents and their real and personal property, commercial
property and inventory, continued operation of businesses, economic development,
employment of City workers, the availability of goods and services, tax revenue and
other public and private revenue generation and the City economy generally, public
facilities, infrastructure and services, including emergency services, safe transportation,
and other critical and necessary aspects of life and work in the City necessary to its
continued health, vitality and growth; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides that it
shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed there under may
make and enforce all ordinances and regulation in respect to municipal affairs subject
only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to
other matters they shall be subject to the general laws; and
WHEREAS, Section 54 of Article VIII of the Petaluma Charter provides that the
City, by and through its council and other officials shall have and may exercise all
09
powers necessary or appropriate to the municipal corporation and the general welfare
of its inhabitants, which are not prohibited by the constitution and which it would be
competent for the charter to set forth particularly or specifically, and the specification of
any particular powers shall not be held to be exclusive or any limitation on the general
grant of powers; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (a)
provides: that city legislative bodies may, to protect public safety, health and welfare,
adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in
conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the
legislative body is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time;
that adoption of such urgency measures requires a four-fifths vote of the legislative
body; that such measures shall be of no effect 45 days from the date of adoption, and
may be extended a maximum of two times and have a maximum total duration of 2
years; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c)
provides: that legislative bodies may not adopt or extend such interim ordinances
unless they contain findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional entitlements would result
in that threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHERAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c) further
provides that such interim ordinances that have the effect of denying approvals needed
for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing (as
defined in California Government Code Section 65858, subdivisions (g) and (h)) may
not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported
by substantial evidence on the record, that:
(1) the continued development of multifamily housing projects would have a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact on the public health or safety,
based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or
conditions as they existed on the date the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body;
(2) the interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid such impact; and
(3) there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid such
impact as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption
of the proposed interim ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15001 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following:
(1) This ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in
the environment, directly or ultimately.
FA
(2) This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15308
of the CEQA Guidelines as a regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police
power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 to assure maintenance
and protection of the environment pending the evaluation and adoption of contemplated
local legislation, regulation and policies.
(3) This ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the general rule that CEQA
applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. For the reasons set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2), above, it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this ordinance will have a significant
effect on the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Petaluma does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals Made Findinas. The above recitals are hereby declared to be
true and correct and findings of the City Council of the City of Petaluma.
Section 2. Moratorium Imposed. A moratorium is hereby imposed on certain
specified development in the City of Petaluma in the 1989 FEMA FIRM 100 Year
Floodplain in accordance with the City's powers under Article XI, Section 5 of the
California Constitution, Article VII, Section 54, of the City Charter, and California
Government Code Section 65858. as follows:
A. Scope
No application for the issuance of permits for the construction of a building or
structure located on a parcel or any part a parcel in the City of Petaluma located in the
floodplain as depicted in the 1989 FEMA FIRM 100 Year Floodplain Map and upstream
of the of the constriction weir of the Project ("Moratorium Area") shall be approved
during the moratorium period.
B. Statutory Findinas and Purpose.
This ordinance is declared to be an interim ordinance as defined under California
Government Code section 65858. This ordinance is deemed necessary for the following
reasons:
1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the public safety,
health, and welfare from a current and immediate threat posed by the issuance of
development entitlements that could result in development in the Moratorium Area that
may result in negative safety and economic impacts on or of such proposed new
development on other or existing development.
2. New development projects have been and/or may be proposed for
construction in the Moratorium Area, and unless a moratorium is imposed on the
issuance of permits for the design and/or construction of buildings or structures located
in the Moratorium Area, development in the Moratorium Area may result in negative
safety and economic impacts on or of such proposed new development on other or
existing development, thus increasing the potential damage to the public health, safety;
welfare of Petalumans from events such as the flooding event of December 31, 2005.
3. It is, therefore, necessary to impose a moratorium on issuance of
permits for the design and/or construction of a buildings or structures located in the
Moratorium Area to provide time to evaluate and adopt legislation, guidelines and/or
policies as required to avert negative safety and economic impacts on or of such
proposed new development on other or existing development.
C. Applicability.
This ordinance shall apply to all applications for the issuance of permits for the
design and/or construction of any building or structure located in the Moratorium Area
that have not received final approval as of the effective date of this ordinance.
D. Exceptions.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65858(c), this
ordinance shall not apply to development projects with a significant component of
multifamily housing as defined in California Government Code Section 65858,
subdivisions (g) and (h).
Section 3. Severability.
If any provision of the ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of
such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby
and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are
severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 4. Effective Date and Duration
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption
if passed and adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in
effect for 45 days there from unless extended by the City in accordance with
Government Code Section 65858.
B109264
E
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM
ON THE ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR USES
IN THE CITY OF PETALUMA
IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN DEPICTED IN THE
1989 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
AND UPSTREAM OF THE CONSTRICTION WEIR
OFTHE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF PETALUMA
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") issued in
1989 a Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FIRM") depicting a 100 Year Flood Plain in the City
of Petaluma ("City"); and
WHEREAS, "100 Year Flood Plain," as that term is used by the FEMA National
Flood Insurance Program, refers to the area subject to flooding with a 1 percent chance
of occurrence each year; and
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2005, a number of Sonoma County cities, and
communities, including the City, experienced flooding events; and
WHEREAS, the estimated total cost of public and private damage due to
flooding in Petaluma on December 31, 2005 has been estimated at approximately $55
million, as reflected in initial damages estimates submitted to the Sonoma County
Office of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, flooding such as occurred in the City on December 31, 2005
threatens the safety of residents and their real and personal property, commercial
property and inventory, continued operation of businesses, economic development,
employment of City workers, the availability of goods and services, tax revenue and
other public and private revenue generation and the City economy generally, public
facilities, infrastructure and services, including emergency services, safe transportation,
and other critical and necessary aspects of life and work in the City necessary to its
continued health, vitality and growth; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides that it
shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed there under may
make and enforce all ordinances and regulation in respect to municipal affairs subject
only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to
other matters they shall be subject to the general laws; and
WHEREAS, Section 54 of Article VIII of the Petaluma Charter provides that the
City, by and through its council and other officials shall have and may exercise all
powers necessary or appropriate to the municipal corporation and the general welfare
10
of its inhabitants, which are not prohibited by the constitution and which it would be
competent for the charter to set forth particularly or specifically, and the specification of
any particular powers shall not be held to be exclusive or any limitation on the general
grant of powers; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (a)
provides: that city legislative bodies may, to protect public safety, health and welfare,
adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in
conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the
legislative body is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time;
that adoption of such urgency measures requires a four-fifths vote of the legislative
body; that such measures shall be of no effect 45 days from the date of adoption, and
may be extended a maximum of two times and have a maximum total duration of 2
years; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c)
provides: that legislative bodies may not adopt or extend such interim ordinances
unless they contain findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional entitlements would result
in that threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHERAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c) further
provides that such interim ordinances that have the effect of denying approvals needed
for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing (as
defined in California Government Code Section 65858, subdivisions (g) and (h)) may
not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported
by substantial evidence on the record, that:
(1) the continued development of multifamily housing projects would have a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact on the public health or safety,
based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or
conditions as they existed on the date the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body;
(2) the interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid such impact; and
(3) there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid such
impact as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption
of the proposed interim ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15001 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following:
(1) This ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in
the environment, directly or ultimately.
(2) This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15308
of the CEQA Guidelines as a regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police
power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 to assure maintenance
and protection of the environment pending the evaluation and adoption of contemplated
local legislation, regulation and policies.
(3) This ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the general rule that CEQA
applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. For the reasons set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2), above, it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this ordinance will have a significant
effect on the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Petaluma does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals Made Findinqs. The above recitals are hereby declared to be
true and correct and findings of the City Council of the City of Petaluma.
Section 2. Moratorium Imposed. A moratorium is hereby imposed on certain
specified development in the City of Petaluma in the 1989 FEMA FIRM 100 Year
Floodplain in accordance with the City's powers under Article XI, Section 5 of the
California Constitution, Article VII, Section 54, of the City Charter, and California
Government Code Section 65858, as follows:
A. Scope
No application for entitlements, including, but not limited to, building permits,
general plan amendments, zoning approvals, approvals under the Subdivision Map Act
or the City's subdivision ordinance, or design review approvals (e.g., SPARC approvals)
for uses located on any parcel or part of a parcel in the City of Petaluma located in the
floodplain as depicted in the 1989 FEMA FIRM 100 Year Floodplain Map and upstream
of the of the constriction weir of the Project ("Moratorium Area") shall be approved
during the moratorium period.
B. Statutory Findinqs and Purpose.
This ordinance is declared to be an interim ordinance as defined under California
Government Code section 65858. This ordinance is deemed necessary for the following
reasons:
1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the public safety,
health, and welfare from a current and immediate threat posed by the issuance of
development entitlements that could result in development in the Moratorium Area that
may result in negative safety and economic impacts on or of such proposed new
development on other or existing development.
2. New development projects have been and/or may be proposed for
12
construction in the Moratorium Area, and unless a moratorium is imposed on the
issuance of permits for the design and/or construction of buildings or structures located
in the Moratorium Area, development in the Moratorium Area may result in negative
safety and economic impacts on or of such proposed new development on other or
existing development, thus increasing the potential damage to the public health, safety,
welfare of Petalumans from events such as the flooding event of December 31, 2005.
3. It is, therefore, necessary to impose a moratorium on issuance of
permits for the design and/or construction of a buildings or structures located in the
Moratorium Area to provide time to evaluate and adopt legislation, guidelines and/or
policies as required to avert negative safety and economic impacts on or of such
proposed new development on other or existing development.
C. Applicability.
This ordinance shall apply to all applications for the issuance of permits for the
design and/or construction of any building or structure located in the Moratorium Area
that have not received final approval as of the effective date of this ordinance.
D. Exceptions.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65858(c), this
ordinance shall not apply to development projects with a significant component of
multifamily housing as defined in California Government Code Section 65858,
subdivisions (g) and (h).
Section 3. Severabilitv.
If any provision of the ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of
such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby
and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are
severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 4. Effective Date and Duration
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption
if passed and adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in
effect for 45 days there from unless extended by the City in accordance with
Government Code Section 65858.
810926_3
13
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Manager
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4345. Fax (707) 778-4419 E-owil. citymgr&i.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: 10 March 2006
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Mike Bierman, City Manager 41
SUBJECT: Flood Protection Next Steps
The City Council has requested Council discussion on a number of topics relating to Flood
Protection. This issue has been addressed in a piecemeal fashion for several decades, with
funding and priority focused primarily on the Payran Reach Corps of Engineers project, which is
nearing completion. An extraordinary amount of evaluation and analytical work has been
underway for the last four years on the completion of the Water Master Plans (Water Supply,
Recycled Water and Surface Water Management) in conjunction with the preparation of the
General Plan 2025. The Water Resources Element is the last piece being completed for the
General Plan, partially due to recent events, including the December 31St flood and the
completion of parcel -specific water demand analysis. General Plan related work also related to
the following water topics:
Detention/Retention Feasibility
The concept of utilizing detention/retention facilities to assist in surface water management
during winter storms has existed since ' the 1970's. The first Master Drainage Plan for the
Petaluma River, prepared in the early 1980's, called for major surface water capital
improvements, including the East Side Bypass and Denman Dam. The City Zoning Ordinance
has, for several decades, required compliance to zero net fill and minimum floor elevations to
protect property from inundation in a 100 -year storm event. On specific projects the City has
required on-site detention ponds to capture peak flows and miniihizing off-site flow increases
from the development.
The concept of a regional network of retention/detention basins is a key component to the long-
term management and accommodation of storm water flows for the Petaluma Watershed.
Discussions have commenced with the Sonoma County Water Agency on the utilization of XP-
SWMM for assessing the viability of various locations. The recalibration of the XP-SWMM
model, now underway, to reflect the data obtained from the December 31, 2005 flood event and
the running of the model utilizing current data will allow the City to determine the area needed to
accommodate anticipated storm flows. The model runs will be analyzed using the both the
Corps of Engineers standard mean high tide elevation and the 100 -year high tide elevation.
Evaluating the results will allow the identification of a river corridor and capital improvements,
in conjunction with a regional approach to surface water management, to be incorporated into the
General Plan Land Use, Natural Environmental and Water Resources Elements.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Detailed Project Report for the Payran Reach Flood Control
Project identified the existing benefit of the storm water retention naturally occurring in the
14
,nuyU1 unu i ULML1111enwer5 IU March 2000
Re: Flood Protection Next Stens PaPe 2
Denman Flat area. In order to preserve the design conveyance capacity of the flood control
project, preservation of this storage capacity is crucial.
Subsequent to the certification of the General Plan EIR and adoption of the General Plan
2025, work will begin on regional watershed analysis and design feasibility to identify
workable locations for a network of detention/retention basins.
Sonoma County — Zero Net Fill
During early community meetings, held by the County Citizen's Advisory Committee, City staff
(Pamela Tuft and Dean Eckerson) provided testimony requesting the County General Plan 2020
include provisions for enforcing a zero -net fill policy within the Petaluma River Watershed. In
addition, letters have been written to the County requesting inclusion of similar policies and
regulations in the Plan and accompanying Development Codes (see attached letters dated August
2003 and September 2003). Emphasis was placed on the areas in proximity to Willowbrook,
Liberty, and Marin Creeks and areas subject to low flow inundation during peak stones.
According to the County Permit and Resource Management Department they have been utilizing
zero -net fill policies on projects requiring a discretionary entitlement process. The Sonoma
County Draft General Plan includes policies to address a cooperative approach with the City of
Petaluma and a regional solution (see attached excerpt). A letter will be prepared recognizing
and thanking the County for their cooperative approach, offering support for the draft
General Plan 2020 text, and indicating interest in researching and developing a regional
solution.
General Plan 2025 Land Use - Agricultural Designation
The three land use alternatives- included in the report released in January 2004 and discussed
during fourteen months of workshops through the Planning Commission and City Council
included the recommended amendment of land use designation for three parcels, located at the
northwest edge of the City, from Agriculture to Commercial, Business Park and Urban
Separator. The intent of that recommendation was to allow a proactive approach to
incorporating historic storm flows and retention with limited development potential. The water
depths on these parcels during the flood of December 31, 2005 have caused City staff to
reconsider that recommendation; the Draft General Plan 2025 will not include the
recommendation to amend the Ag designation of these three parcels. Premature amendment
may lead to the assumption of development potential unlikely given the historic flow patterns.
Through discussion within the General Plan text and policies, contained in several Elements,
opportunities will be identified for consideration of a future General Plan amendment in the
event a regional approach to surface water management is designed and implemented,_ which
allows for development to work in concert with storm retention needs.
XP-SWMM Model Runs — High Tide
The dynamic, computer-based surface water management model (XP-SWMM) created for the
General Plan 2025 work effort was created first to identify existing conditions and calibrate to
actual rainfall and stream gage data. Input data for the initial model run included topography,
creels and river cross sections, vegetation thickness, and occlusion of existing creekbeds and
culverts by sedimentation, debris and plant growth. The model run was very useful in that it
illustrated impacts associated with blocked culverts in numerous locations, resulting in a
narrowed floodplain downstream of the occluded culverts. This initial model run was an
effective tool for identifying maintenance needs. However, a maintenance standard to allow a
SATufi%ffiMO5Wk. BiCR .pWB m CC OaM issues 031006 dos 5
Mayor and C.'ouncdmembers
Re: Flood Protection Next Steos
I U March LUUb
Page 3
minimum flow capacity is necessary to adequately evaluate storm flow impacts along the entire
river corridor.
Following the December 31, 2005 flood event a decision was made to recalibrate the model
using the data and inundation mapping obtained during the flood. The Corps of Engineers, in
determining high tide elevations, measure the datum at the Golden Gate Bridge; with a local
reference point at the D Street bridge. According to the Army Corps of Engineers Detailed
Project Report for the Petaluma Flood Control Project, "It is concluded that tide action has little
effect on the ability of the proposed project to carry the design discharge." The report found that
after analyzing the full range of tides as measured at the Highway 101 bridge over the Petaluma
River, there is only a 4/10ths of a foot difference in the water surface elevation at the Payran
Street bridge. What is commonly used, industry wide for modeling, is the mean of the highest
two tides, called Mean Higher High Water (Ml1HW). However, at the request of Council,
upon completion of the recalibration effort, now underway, the model will be rerun using
both the Corps standard MHHW and the 100 -year high tide to ascertain the different
impacts associated with each tide elevation.
Industry Lead Railroad Track— Corps of Engineers
The remaining task in completing the Corps of Engineers Payran Reach flood control project is
the removal of the railroad spur line bridge downstream of the Lakeville Street river crossing. A
new railroad spur line serving Dairymen's Feed and Supply must be constructed from the
mainline railroad to allow removal of the trestle bridge. City staff continues to pursue the
additional Corps funding necessary to complete this work.
Stream Maintenance
Maintenance responsibility for the many miles of creeks and channels within Petaluma is divided
between the Sonoma County Water Agency, the City, and private ownership. Every year the
City identifies and informs the Water Agency of the priorities within the City's jurisdiction. In
addition we operate an on-going maintenance program for the creek and channel sections within
City responsibility.
Immediately after the December 2005 flood, staff met with the Water Agency and the
Department of Fish and Game to identify emergency work to restore proper storm flow function
for the remainder of this storm season. That meeting resulted in the identification of work to be
undertaken immediately by the Water Agency. A portion of the work has commenced,
dependent upon the ability to meet regulatory permitting requirements. The City has indicated to
the Water Agency our willingness to assist in obtaining permits for up to 15 sites in Petaluma.
This work will be undertaken by the Water Agency during the summer of 2006. City costs,
associated with obtaining regulatory permits, will be reimbursed by the Agency.
The XP-SWMM model will assist the City in identifying streambed flow needs. Continued
support of regional and local stream maintenance activities, through Zone 2A funding
allocations, should be emphasized by the Council through the Council liaison to the Zone
2A Committee.
Floodplain Development Moratorium
In response to requests by Councihnembers, under the City Council's Rules, Policies &
Procedures, the City Attorney is drafting an interim ordinance under California Government
Code Section 65858 for Council adoption as an urgency item for the City Council meeting of
SATufiV�MOS d to CC flood issues 031006&c 16
l U March 2UU6
Re: Flood Protection Next Stens Paee 4
April 3. The draft interim ordinance, as proposed, would halt the issuance of building permits in
the area of the 100 -year flood plain, as designated by the 1989 Flood Insurance Rate Maps, in
areas "upstream of the constriction weir" while the City continues to analyze the impacts of
flooding in this area by means of the XP-SWMM surface water model and address those
findings, as directed by the Council and community, through the General Plan and General Plan
EIR. As mentioned previously, the model is currently being re -calibrated to incorporate all of the
data from the December 30-31 flood. An exhibit illustrating the areas of inundation during the
December 31, 2005 flood event as an overlay on the 100 -year regulatory Floodplain is attached.
The Council is familiar with the adoption of interim ordinances under Section 65858, but it is
important to remind the Council that an interim ordinance cannot halt the processing of
applications for permits (whether they are building or zoning related); only a decision prohibiting
certain uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan or zoning
proposal. In this case, the Council's request is to prohibit building permits in the area upstream
of the constriction weir. The practical effect of that limitation through the interim ordinance is
that some projects that may not have entitlements, even after the interim ordinance was adopted,
would be allowed to continue through the development review process up to the point at which a
building permit application would be ready to issue. On the other hand, existing development in
the 100 -year flood plain upstream of the constriction weir, for example, the industrial buildings
along Industrial Drive or the area along North McDowell, north of Corona Road, would be
prohibited from getting a building permit for any work that they might want to do while the
interim ordinance is in effect. If the Council were to make the interpretation that all existing
development in the area subject to the interim ordinance was already entitled and, therefore,
exempt from the ordinance as proposed by Councilmembers, then the Council would need to
provide further direction to staff as to the types of "uses' that would be prohibited under the
proposed interim ordinance.
Another important effect of the proposed moratorium is the impact on the City's ,ability to
process new discretionary development applications for properties within the area covered by the
interim ordinance. Even though the ordinance would prohibit issuing building permits because
of the expressed circumstances that have lead to the adoption of the interim ordinance (the facts
that are set forth in the recitals of the ordinance), those same facts have to be considered by staff
when evaluating projects for completeness and for compliance with CEQA. In other words, the
same reasons for adopting a moratorium on new building permits (for example, the recent
storms, the need to complete further hydrological analysis, the effect that any new hydrological
analysis may have on land use recommendations in the new General Plan) will result in the
inability to process new discretionary development applications. This inability is created by the
lack of adequate information on which to determine whether the project can comply with
existing floodplain development policies or with applicable provisions of CEQA. The impact of
the moratorium may then be significantly broader than the Council may have intended.
Attachments: Storm inundation and 100 -year Floodplain exhibit ,
Correspondence to Sonoma County regarding zero net fill (2 letters)
3 MRWEMOSVMike BiesmnnUlif m CC Eood ismer W 1005.doc 17
7 August 2003
County of Sonoma
Permit and Resource Management Department
2550 Ventura Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 95403
Sonoma County General Plan Update 2020
Citizens' Advisory Committee
RE: Public Safety Element
Flood Hazards
Dear Planners and Citizens' Advisory Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment ,upon the work
undertaken for the preparation of the updated General Plan Public Safety
Element. The City of Petaluma respects, and appreciates, the effort that has
gone into addressing the flood hazards within the Petaluma Watershed. As both
the County and City are currently updating our respective General Plans, it is
timely and appropriate to synchronize our watershed.management approaches to
insure implementation is undertaken to adequately address the needs of the
existing channel corridors and anticipated increases in storm flows.
We have reviewed the June 19, 2003 memo prepared by PERMD, and offer the
following comments for your consideration:
1. (page 2) Petaluma River. Descriptions of the Petaluma River
main areas of significant flooding reference the "Payran Area
Floodplain". It is noteworthy to mention here that many of the
homes built in the 1960s in this neighborhood were actually built
in the regulatory Floodway (rather than Floodplain).
2. (page 8) Zero Net Fill Ordinance. We enthusiastically support
the reference to requiring "zero net.fill" to the floodplains of all
streams. The implementation of zero net fill is the minimum of
development standards that should be applied to development
that directly attributes to increasing downstream flows. The City
of Petaluma has, in the past, requested that zero net fill be applied
to all floodplain areas feeding into the Petaluma Watershed
within or upstream of the City.
10
Sonoma County PERMD
Citizens' Advisory Committee 8 August 2003
Re: General Plan 2020—Public Safetv Elenzent —Flood Hazards Pare 2
3. (page 12) Stormwater Runoff. The information on increases to
impervious surface area in the relatively rural County areas, and
the companion increased runoff volumes, appears to disconnect
completely from the fact that the increased runoff from even rural
or semi -rural development can cumulatively be significant when
received by an already constrained or impacted urban
environment, downstream. Runoff that is insignificant within an
individual sub -basin becomes very significant when combined
with other sub -basins and enters a major watercourse. For
example, the runoff that enters the City of Petaluma at the
northernmost corner is the combined .flows of sub -basins served
by Willowbrook, Lichau, Cold Springs and Davis Creeks (and
other minor creeks). The runoff conveyed from development
within each of these sub -basins into open channels and/or local
pipe systems generates flows toward the Petaluma River more
quickly, generally creaking higher peak flows than runoff
conveyed through natural streams or through vegetation.
The closing sentence reads "...the figures also show the need to
begin to address impervious surface areas in urban areas." This
is critically important when the County urban areas are in close
proximity to urban areas with significant history of flooding.
Consistent Watershed planning, watershed management, and
watershed mitigation implementation must be the approach
embraced by both the City and the County. This cohesive,
coordinated approach was referenced in the summary of verbal
and written comments received at your community outreach
workshops (page 4 of memo).
The mostly adversely affected area, within a specific watershed,
should be respected'in setting development standards and long-
term mitigation measures to address cumulative flooding impacts.
4. (page 12) Strategies for Reducing Stormwater Runoff - Low
Impact Development. We appreciate the inclusion of this
discussion and look forward to their inclusion in the new 2020
General Plan policies and programs for implementation. We
respectfully request that this include the analysis of changes to
the "timing" of increased or modified runoff. .Analysis of
cumulative impacts of flows, when combined with other sub -
basins, and the resultant change of peak flows in downstream
flood prone areas should be factored into the watershed
management approach.
in
Sonoma County PERMD
Citizens' Advisory Committee 8 August 2003
Re: General Plan 2020— Public SaretvElement —Flood Hazards Page
5. (page 13) New Clean Water Act Requirements. Although the
Petaluma Watershed does not fall into the same category as the
Santa Rosa Watershed under the Federal Clean Water Act and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
requirements, some reference to the standards applicable to this
watershed would be appropriate, and appreciated. The context in
which the County urbanized areas within the Petaluma Watershed
affects the City's ability to meet regulatory standards could be
discussed.
6. (page 14, second paragraph) Stormwater Runoff Detention
Ordinance. The City of Petaluma General Plan now being
prepared will be 2004 — 2025 (not 2000-2020 as referenced).
Please reference the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement
Plan within the context of this discussion. Adopted in 1986, this
Plan recognizes that while it does not serve as a flood control
plan, it does propose environmental enhancement and public
access and education improvements, which are coordinated with
the Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan. Proposed
improvements include realigning upper bank areas to create flood
terraces to increase channel capacity and reduce out -of -bank
flooding.
7. (page 14) Petaluma River Flood Control Activities. Please
recognize that "All of the repetitive loss properties in Petaluma
currently on FEMA's list are located in the Payran Area
Floodwav and Floodplain". The distinction between the two
regulatory designations is important. By far, the most severe
flooding has been suffered upon the homes within the Floodplain.
Petaluma contains a number of developed properties within the
Floodplain that have not sustained flooding, due to adopted City
development standards.
It is appropriate, at this point within the report, to discuss the
subject of watershed based flood mitigation solutions and a
reasonable proportionate fair -share approach to funding those
improvements. Cumulative storm flows, which have historically
flowed from the surrounding rural lands, differ in volume and
velocity from the flows now entering the City river system. This
cumulative increase in flows calls for cumulative solutions.
8. (page 17) Option Lb. Expansion of the term "coordination" to
define specific policies and development standards is warranted.
Although the Petaluma River does not compare to the Russian
20
Sonoma County PERMD
Citizens'Advisory Committee 8 August 2003
Re: General Plan 2020— PublicSafetvElement —Flood Hazards Pave
River in volume, term, intensity, repetitive loss, value of
damages, or number of people affected, the people and property
adversely affected by cumulative storm flow increases in
Petaluma feel just as devastated as those in the Russian River
watershed when evacuation occurs during a storm event. Real
solutions are needed, with timelines and prioritization, to insure
timely implementation.
9. (page 18) Options 3 and 4. The City supports these options,
particularly if Option 4 is directed toward areas that are located
within watershed already impacted by downstream flooding.
10. (page 18) Policy PS -2c. Please include the City Surface Water
Master Plan and the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement
Plan. These two documents, when combined with the Petaluma
River Floodplain Management Plan, can achieve long-term flood
reduction and enhancement of the River corridor as a south
county asset rather than a liability.
11. (page 19) Policy PS -2g. As worded, this policy does not address
downstream impacts, only those areas "subject to flooding". As
proposed, the issues have once again been disconnected from
downstream conditions. Development of a parcel may
significantly impact downstream conditions and increase
potential or actual flooding, but not specifically be "subject to
flooding" itself. Please consider rewording the policy to require
compliance to "zero net fill" for any floodplain property, which
drains to a sub -basin or watershed, which is subject to flooding.
12. (page 19) Policy PS -2i. We applaud the content of this policy,
and those who stand for the long-term benefits and
accomplishments that could be achieved through its
implementation.
However, we suggest that this be expanded to adopt an
Ordinance that would apply to all permits, not just discretionary
review projects, so that a truly cumulative solution can be shared
and implemented by all. Every parcel that develops within the
Petaluma Watershed contributes to downstream flows, unless on-
site retention is implemented; therefore, every developing parcel
can be a partner in implementing the long-term solution.
Applying a proportionate fair -share of the solution would not be
cumbersome or arbitrary, but based on fairness and
appropriateness.
21
Sonoma County PERMD
Citizens' Advisory Committee 8 August 2003
Re: General Plan 2020—Public Safety Element—Flood Hazards Paee5
13. (page 20) Policy PS -2n. This policy touches upon the
discussion above (Comment #12), but does not clearly include
off-site and downstream drainage system needs. This policy
should address cumulative down -stream impacts.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to participate in this process. We look
forward to the successful implementation of the projects we currently have on
the preliminary design table and to the projects yet to be designed and
implemented. Both the County and the City have substantially invested in
studies and plans, combining those Plans and our resources will achieve the
adopted goals of both agencies and will serve our citizens in protecting and
enhancing their quality of life.
Sincerely,
Pamela A Tuft, AicP
Director of General Plan Administration
c: Supervisor Mike Kems, Sonoma County
Mike Bierman, City Manager
Mike Ban, Interim Director, Dept. of Water Resources & Conservation
Lisa Posternak, PERMD
SoCo GP2020 work file
PT/rf
H:pdc=n\SoCo GP CAC flood hazards 080703.doc
22
4 September 2003
County of Sonoma
Permit and Resource Management Department
2550 Ventura Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 95403
Sonoma County General Plan Update 2020
Citizens' Advisory Committee
RE: Public Safety Element
Flood Hazards
Dear Planners and Citizens' Advisory Committee Members:
Thank you for your consideration at the last CAC meeting and your support for
addressing the upstream impacts within the Petaluma Watershed affecting the
flood hazards within the City of Petaluma. The City of Petaluma continues to
respect, and appreciate, the effort that has gone into addressing the flood hazards
within the Petaluma Watershed by the Permit and Resource Management
Department staff.
We have reviewed the September 4, 2003 memo prepared by PERMD, and offer
the following comments for your consideration:
• (page 8) Proposed "Policy PS -2c" The wording, as proposed, reads,
"Cooperate with the City of Petaluma on implementation of the Petaluma
River Floodplain Management Plan". While we appreciate the stated
intent to cooperate, the City respectfully requests that you include a
program to adopt an Ordinance to require compliance to "zero net. fill"
requirements for all development within the floodplains of all streams
feeding into the Petaluma Watershed. The implementation of zero net
fill is the minimum of development standards that should be applied to
development that directly attributes to increasing downstream flows.
23
Sonoma County PERM )
Citizens' Advisory Committee 4 September 2003
Re: General Plan 2020— Public SafetvEle»rent—Flood Hazarcb'' Paee2
As we stated in our previous communication to the CAC, the information
in the prior PERMD report on increases to impervious surface area in the
relatively rural south County areas, and the companion increased runoff
volumes, appears to disconnect from the fact that the increased runoff
from even rural or semi -rural development can cumulatively be
significant when received by an already constrained or impacted urban
environment downstream. Runoff that is insignificant within an
individual sub -basin becomes very significant when combined with other
sub -basins and enters a major watercourse. For example, the runoff that
enters the City of Petaluma at the northernmost comer is the combined
flows of sub -basins served by Willowbrook, Lichau, Cold Springs and
Davis Creeks (and other minor creeks). The runoff conveyed from
development within each of these sub -basins into open channels and/or
local pipe systems generates flows toward the Petaluma River more
quickly, generally creating higher peals flows than runoff conveyed
through natural streams or through vegetation. The mostly adversely
affected area, within a specific watershed, should be respected by setting
development standards and long-term mitigation measures to address
cumulative flooding impacts.
Request: Expansion of the term "cooperate" in the recommended
wording for Policy -PS-2c, to provide a specific policy to Adopt
Ordinance requiring zero net fill in all floodplain areas.
• Storm Drainage Impact Fee: It is appropriate to discuss the subject of
watershed based flood mitigation solutions and a reasonable
proportionate fair -share approach to funding those improvements.
Cumulative storm flows, which have historically flowed from the
surrounding rural lands, differ in volume and velocity from the flows
now entering the City river system. This cumulative increase in flows
calls for cumulative solutions.
The City of Petaluma has implemented a Storm Drainage Impact Fee for
all new development, regardless of location within a Floodplain. These
one-time fees are utilized to fund regional serving flood reduction
projects. The implementation of a storm drainage impact fee for the
unincorporated areas within the Petaluma Watershed would allow the
funds to be designated to specific projects throughout the watershed for
addressing the cumulative impacts of additional development.
FTA
Sonoma CountyPERMD
Citizens'Advisory Committee 4 September 2003
Re: General Plan 2020— Public Safetv Element —Flood Hazards Pave3
We recognize the existence of Zone 2A assessments, currently due to
sunset in a few years. The City Management team supports the
continuing need for this assessment, beyond the sunset period.
Request: Add Policy to provide for Adoption of a Storm Drainage
Impact Fee for all new development within the Petaluma Watershed.
• Policy PS -2e. Thank you for including the City Surface Water Master
Plan and the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan in this policy
statement. These two documents, when combined with the Petaluma
River Floodplain Management Plan, can achieve long-term flood
reduction and enhancement of the River corridor as a south county asset
rather than a liability.
• Policy PS -2g. The September 4 staff report does not readdress
amendments to this proposed Policy. As originally worded, this policy
did not address downstream impacts, only those areas "subject" to
flooding".
Request: If not amended, please consider rewording the policy to
require compliance to "zero net fill" for any floodplain property,
which drains to a sub -basin within the Petaluma Watershed
• As above, the September 4e report does not readdress Policy PS -2i. We
applauded the content of this policy, and those who stand for the long-
term benefits and accomplishments that could be achieved through its
implementation. Every parcel that develops within the Petaluma
Watershed contributes to downstream flows, unless on-site retention is
implemented; therefore, every developing parcel can be a partner in
implementing the long-term solution. Applying a proportionate fair -
share of the solution would not be cumbersome or arbitrary, but based on
fairness and appropriateness.
Request: We again suggest that this be expanded to adopt an
Ordinance that would apply to all permits, not just discretionary
review projects, so that a truly cumulative solution can be shared
and implemented by all.
To clarify a question from the CAC regarding the City zero net fill regulations:
The City currently requires any development within a floodplain combining
district property comply with the zero net fill requirements. Properties not
0
Sonoma County PERMD
Citizens' Advisory Committee 4 September 2003
Re: General Plan 2020— PublicSafetvElement —Flood Hazards Paee4,
encumbered by the floodplain -combining district are not subject to the zero not
fill requirements.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to participate in this process. We look
forward to the successful implementation of the flood reduction projects we
currently have on the preliminary design table and to the projects yet to be
designed and implemented, Both the County and the City have substantially
invested in studies and plans, combining those Plans and our resources will
achieve the adopted goals of both agencies and will serve our citizens in
protecting and enhancing their quality of life.
Sincerely,
Pamela A Tuft, Aicr
Director of General Plan Administration
c: Supervisor Mike Kerns, Sonoma County
Mike Bierman, City Manager
Mike Ban, Interim Director, Dept. of Water Resources & Conservation
Lisa Posternak, PERMD
SoCo GP2020 work file
PTlrf
H:ptic=es\SoCo GP CAC Hood hazards 040403.doe
M
WThis exhibit reflects Floodplain and
-3
loodway boundaries from the Sept
1989 it does not reflect any
subsequent changes from LOMRs or
lu
jt
-7—
Aa,
7
V
J
e
T",
N
LJtT—,Jj
-V,
Y
14,
-�
4t
Ml�P
J
Y".
,
7g
g ks
Legend
Flood Line
Flood Line (no photo) ... ..
Inundated Area
Floodplain 100yr
City Limitr.
MtNj
27