HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.B 01/09/2017DATE: January 9, 2017.
Agenda Item #58
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions and Introduce an Ordinance to Carry Out the Remaining
Terms of the Pre -Annexation Agreement Related to the Quarry Heights Project
and Pertaining to Certain Properties Adjacent to Petaluma Blvd South and
Generally East of McNear Avenue and West of US 101.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt:
a) A resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the Lomas Annexation Project
concerning certain properties adjacent to Petaluma Blvd South and generally east of
McNear Avenue and west of U.S. Highway 101;
b) A resolution adopting a resolution of application for reorganization of property located
along Petaluma Blvd South and generally east of McNear Avenue and west of U.S.
Highway 101; and
c) Introduce an ordinance pre -zoning APN 019-210-009,-013, -014, -021, -022,-025, -029,
-032, -033, -034, -035, -036 to Residential (R4) and APN 019-210-005, -006, -007, -008,
-010, -038 and -039 to Mixed Use 1A (MUTA) for the Lomas Annexation concerning
parcels adjacent to Petaluma Blvd South and generally east of McNear Avenue and west
of U.S. Highway 101.
BACKGROUND
This boundary change and zoning amendment request are the result of a condition imposed by
the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (Sonoma County LAFCO) on the
Quarry Heights development at the intersection of Petaluma Blvd South and Crystal Lane. After
orienting readers on the project's location, this background discussion will summarize the
relevant past actions that relate to the current request, provide an overview of public outreach
efforts, and conclude with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Project Location
The project area is situated on both the northern and southern sides of Petaluma Boulevard
Page 1
South, generally between MeNear Avenue and the Highway 101 overpass (Figure 1). This area
is located within the Petaluma Boulevard South subarea of the Petaluma General Plan which
serves as the southern gateway to the City as it is approached from Highway 101. This area
presents a working industrial face to the northeast, grassy fields dotted with oaks to the southeast
and distant vistas across the Petaluma River and the southeast quadrant of the community to the
Sonoma Hills.
Many of the existing parcels in this subarea consist of industrial parcels accommodating storage
and working yards and residential parcels typically developed with single-family homes. The
presence of street frontage improvements, or lack thereof, currently provides a visual indication
of properties which are located within the City from those that are within unincorporated areas of
the County. The project area is within the "Highway 101 to D Street" portion of the planning
subarea, which becomes more urban in character as one approaches downtown.
Figure 1— Project Vicinity
Tivo-Phase Annexation
The area now under review was not annexed with the Quarry Heights project because the portion
north of Petaluma Blvd South and east of Crystal Lane was a former surface mine that, at the
time of prior approvals (2005-2006), was not yet reclaimed in accordance with the Sonoma
County Surface Mining Ordinance and California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA). The City of Petaluma has no surface mines subject to SMARA and, as a result, the
Page 2
City Council imposed a condition on the Quarry Height subdivision map preventing annexation
until reclamation was complete under the jurisdiction of the County of Sonoma and California
Office of Mine Reclamation. Table 1 summarizes the past actions leading to the current request.
DATE ACTION
2005-06.06 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. supporting an
application to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038, and -
039 and 019-220-012 and -027 for a project known as the Lomas Residential
Development and pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. (Attachment 4)
2006-06.19 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S. authorizing the City
Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the County of
Sonoma regarding jurisdiction over compliance with the Petaluma Quarry
Revised Reclamation Plan and also an agreement with South Petaluma
Partners LLC regarding a two-part annexation of various unincorporated
properties along the vicinity of Petaluma Boulevard South. (Attachment 5)
2006-08.08 A Pre -Annexation Agreement Regarding Two -Park Annexation and
Restrictive Covenants was entered into between the City of Petaluma and
South Petaluma Partners LLC and recorded as Document No. 2006097772.
(Attachment 6)
2006-10.04 Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 2518 approving the
annexation supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. but
with Condition No. 3(a) which reads in full, "Not later than 30 days after the
City receives notice from the County of Sonoma of the completion of
reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City
and/or the Applicant shall initiate proceedings with the Commission for the
annexation of APNs 019-210-005, 019-210-006, 019-210-007, 019-210-008,
019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-
210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-210-035, and 019-
210-036 to the City." (Attachment 7)
2015-12.02 County of Sonoma provided notice to the California Office of Mine
Reclamation, pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975, that the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 91-49-
0012) was fully reclaimed as specified by the adopted reclamation plan.
2016-01.20 California Office of Mine Reclamation responded to the County of Sonoma's
December 2, 2015 notice and concurred the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id#
91-49-0012) had been substantially reclaimed in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan and, therefore, the County has fulfilled the requirements of
California Code of Regulations §3805.05.
Page 3
General Plan
The Petaluma General Plan includes a Land Use Map which establishes categories of land use
and development density and intensity. The project area includes properties designated Mixed
Use and Medium Density Residential.
Public Outreach
Notice of the Planning Commission meeting and CEQA document was published on October 6,
2016 (i.e., 31 days before Planning Commission meeting) and disseminated in the Argus Courier
and via first class mail to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the annexation area.
All property owners located within the annexation area were, in addition to the public hearing
notice, also mailed a copy of the CEQA document (discussed below) and a Frequently Asked
Questions handout explaining the process underway (Attachment 8). In response to the notice
provided, staff has received one email (Attachment 9) expressing support of the proposed
annexation.
Planning Commission
On November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the requests now before the City
Council at a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission approved (4-0) all resolutions
presented at that meeting and which reflected the staff recommendation in support of the
annexation and pre -zone actions. No specific concerns were raised by the Planning Commission.
Two public speakers offered comment — one in support; one in opposition. The speaker in
support strongly desired the provision of Petaluma public safety services (police, fire) for his
property and also an interest in greater sidewalk connectivity. The speaker in opposition did not
want city regulations to apply to her property and also expressed a concern about costs for
connecting to city water and sewer. Under City Council Resolution No. 8955 adopted by the City
Council in 1980, all existing dwellings in the area must connect to the sanitary sewer system
within 10 years of annexation. The Planning Commission's resolutions, staff report and meeting
minutes are included as Attachment 10.
DISCUSSION
The nature of this request is largely housekeeping as it relates to compliance with an already -
imposed condition of approval and fulfillment of the terms of an existing agreement between the
City and applicant. Only one aspect — the specific mixed use pre -zone designation — required
specific analysis and discretion on the part of the Planning Commission and staff in relation to
the recommendation.
Project Description
The project includes the proposed annexation of nineteen (19) parcels, shown at Figure 1, from
the County of Sonoma into the City of Petaluma, as required by Sonoma County LAFCO
Resolution No. 2518. Attachment 11 includes a brief profile of existing conditions at each
property proposed for annexation and pre -zoning.
Annexation
Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518 identifies the affected territory as being within the
sphere of influence and voter -approved Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the City, as well as
Page 4
within the "urban services area" boundary of Petaluma as defined in the Sonoma County General
Plan. When reviewing and acting upon the Quarry Heights project, the Sonoma County LAFCO
observed that land associated with the project north across Petaluma Blvd South (i.e., subject to
the current annexation action) would result in the creation of an unincorporated island. In
response, Sonoma County LAFCO approved the annexation but with Condition No. 3(a) which
requires the action now up for review.
The project would result in the annexation of seven (7) parcels with a mix of uses and twelve
(12) parcels with residential uses. The mixed-use parcels are presently used for outdoor storage,
maintenance/repair service, and auto vehicle sales and rentals, and with some
vacant/undeveloped parcels. The residential parcels primarily consist of single-family residences.
A few vacant/undeveloped parcels also occur within the project area. No development is
proposed as part of this action. Existing public infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, roads) would
remain in their current state.
Pre -Zoning
Consistent with the requirements under the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act (Gov't Code §5600 et
al), all parcels proposed for annexation must have a proposed "pre -zone" designation. Pre -zoning
essentially refers to the preliminary assignment of a future City zoning designation for each
parcel that would go into effect in the event annexation is approved by the Sonoma County
LAFCO. Proposed pre -zone designations for the annexation area are shown at Figure 3 and
include two zones: Mixed Use I (MU TA) and Residential 4 (R4).
The zoning designations at Figure 3 were chosen since Table 2-1 of the City of Petaluma
Implementing Zoning Ordinance considers them to be designations compatible with existing,
underlying General Plan Land Use designations. By assigning a zoning designation to each
parcel, a set of allowable uses and development standards would guide all future development
and changes within the annexation area. Some existing uses within the project area would be
permitted under proposed pre -zone designations while others are prohibited and would be
rendered legal non -conforming after annexation meaning they would be grandfathered under
existing city regulations until such time as changes are made to uses and/or structures at those
properties. Attachment 11 identifies which parcels would be considered to have non -conforming
uses after annexation and pre -zoning.
For the pre -zone aspect of this project, the Planning Commission recommends the MUTA zone.
The Commission agreed with the staff analysis indicating the MU1A zone reflected a range of
uses and building height generally compatible with adjacent residential zones. The zones of
MU1B and MUlC are intended for different situations and locations (i.e., large shopping centers;
isolated, small parcels in west Petaluma). The MU2 zone was not recommended since it
generally reflects the intent for a taller, mixed use pattern. For example, the MU2 zone only
permits multi -family dwellings in mixed use buildings (above ground floor) and the MUTA
requires a conditional use permit for standalone multi -family projects.
Page 5
Figure 3: Proposed Pre -zone Designations
Environmental Review
In accordance with the CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared by staff to address the project's
potential effects on the environment (Attachment 12). The Initial Study does not identify any
potentially significant environmental effects. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared
rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Initial Study and Negative Declaration
were circulated for a thirty (30) public review period between October 6, 2016 and November 7,
2016. As of the writing of this staff report, no public comments were received on these
documents.
There are no financial impacts to the City of Petaluma. Under the Pre -Annexation Agreement
(Attachment 6), the applicant was required to make a deposit of $250,000 for the processing of
this annexation proposal. As of October 2016, a positive balance of $182,038.37 remains.
I . Draft Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration
2. Draft Resolution Supporting Annexation
3. Draft Ordinance Pre -Zoning Cei tain Property
4. City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
5. City Council Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S.
6. Pre -Annexation Agreement
7. Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518
8. Property Profiles of Annexation Area
9. November 1, 2016 Email from Jason Osborne
10. November 8, 2016 Planning Commission Resolutions, Staff Report & Minutes
11. Lomas Annexation: Frequently Asked Questions
12. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LOMAS ANNEXATION PROJECT
CONCERNING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO PETALUMA BLVD
SOUTH AND GENERALLY EAST OF MCNEAR AVENUE AND WEST OF US
HIGHWAY 101
File No.: 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, South Petaluma Partners, L.C.C. submitted an application to Pre -Zone a
and Annex a total of nineteen parcels totaling approximately 17.20 acres outside of the City
limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Designation, being referred to locally as the Lomas project area ("Project Area"), as
required by Condition No. 3(a) of Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
("Sonoma County LAFCO") Resolution No. 2518; and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the
City on May 19, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the
Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply, and traffic, the
City relied on the Program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 20205, certified on April
7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) with the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., which is
incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures and the City also adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for significant impacts that could not be avoided; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with
CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163 and determined that a Negative Declaration was required
in order to analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the
Project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR; and,
WHEREAS, on or before October 6, 2016, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a 30 -day public comment period
commencing October 6, 2016 and ending November 7, 2016 and a Notice of Public Hearing to
be held on November 8, 2016 before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission, was published
and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well as all
persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project, the Negative Declaration,
the supporting Initial Study, the staff report dated November 8, 2016 analyzing the Negative
Declaration and the Project, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on
environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
H
Page 1 of 3
2016-22 and, in doing so, forwarded a recommendation that the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Project, the Negative Declaration, the
supporting Initial Study, the staff report dated January 9, 2017 analyzing the Negative
Declaration and the Project, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on
environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, prior to acting on the Negative Declaration, a Notice of Public Hearing to
be held on January 9, 2017 before the Petaluma City Council, was published and mailed to all
residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well as all persons having
requested special notice of said proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, the Initial Study applies the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
(BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act - Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012,
including the BAAQMD thresholds of significance adopted in June 2010. As lead agency under
CEQA, the City of Petaluma has the discretion to rely upon the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
and thresholds of significance since they include the best available scientific data and most
conservative thresholds available for comparison of the Project's emissions. Comparison of the
Project's emissions against these thresholds provides a conservative assessment as the basis for a
determination of significance; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to further analysis in the Initial Study, including evaluation using
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, the Project does not make a
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality or greenhouse gas emissions
impact found to be significant and unavoidable in the General Plan 2025 EIR, because the
Project's emissions are below significance thresholds identified; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration, Initial Study and related Project and
environmental documents, including the General Plan 2025 EIR and all documents incorporated
herein by reference, are available for review in the Community Development Department at
Petaluma City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other
materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the proposed project is the City of
Petaluma Community Development Department, 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study identifies no significant environmental effects to the
environment would result from the Project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Based on its review of the entire record herein, the City Council makes the following
findings:
Page 2 of 3
1. The annexation is, for the reasons discussed in the November 8, 2016 Planning
Commission staff report and January 9, 2017 City Council staff report, consistent
with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1-P-1 (Development
Within UGB); Policy 1-P-2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1-P-12
(Underutilized Sites); Goal 1-G3 (Land Use: Well -Defined Boundary); Policy 1-P-29
(Development Within Urban Growth Boundary); Policy 1-P-30 (Services Within
Urban Growth Boundary); and Policy 1-P-35 (Growth Within Urban Growth
Boundary).
2. Pursuant to the analysis in the Initial Study, the Project does not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative air, noise
and/or traffic impacts identified in the General Plan 2025 EIR.
C. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the Negative Declaration, the
Initial Study, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and all comments
received, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment, that the Negative Declaration reflects the
City's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Negative Declaration, Initial
Study and supporting documents provide an adequate description of the impacts of the
Project and comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma
Environmental Guidelines.
M
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION FOR REORGANIZATION OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH
GENERALLY EAST OF MCNEAR AVENUE AND WEST OF U.S.
HIGHWAY 101
File No: 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
supporting an application to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038, and -039 and 019-220-
012 and -027 for a project known as the Lomas Residential Development and pursuant to the
Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-119
N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the
County of Sonoma regarding jurisdiction over compliance with the Petaluma Quarry Revised
Reclamation Plan and also an agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC regarding a two-part
annexation of various unincorporated properties along the vicinity of Petaluma Boulevard South;
and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2006, a Pre -Annexation Agreement Regarding Two -Part
Annexation and Restrictive Covenants was entered into between the City of Petaluma and South
Petaluma Partners LLC and recorded as Document No. 2006097772; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, the Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution No.
2518 approving the annexation supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. but
with Condition No. 3(a) which reads in full,
"Not later than 30 days after the City receives notice from the County of Sonoma of the
completion of reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City
and/or the Applicant shall initiate proceedings with the Commission for the annexation of APNs
019-210-005, 019-210-006, 019-210-007, 019-210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-
014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-
210-035, and 019-210-036 to the City"; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2015, the County of Sonoma provided notice to the
California Office of Mine Reclamation, pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975, that the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 91-49-0012) was fully
reclaimed as specified by the adopted reclamation plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016, the California Office of Mine Reclamation responded
to the County of Sonoma's December 2, 2015 notice and concurred the Petaluma Quarry (State
Mine Id# 91-49-0012) had been substantially reclaimed in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan and, therefore, the County has fulfilled the requirements of California Code of
Regulations §3805.05; and
a_ I
Page 1
WHEREAS, upon receiving notice that reclamation of the aforementioned parcels is
now complete, the Planning Commission now recommends the City Council act in compliance
with Condition No. 3(a) of Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518 by initiating remaining
annexation proceedings; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 56375(a)(7) of the Cortese/Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act of 1985 and the policies of the Sonoma County LAFCO, the
City Council is recommended to pre -zone the property proposed for annexation to the City of
Petaluma; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the proposed
annexation, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning
Commission considered the staff report analyzing the application, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning
Commission considered and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration prepared pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the proposed annexation, at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. A resolution of application to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
for reorganization of the territory depicted in Exhibit A is in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council has
by separate resolution adopted a Negative Declaration which includes annexation within
the project description, as well as the adoption of CEQA Findings, as described in
Resolution No. 2016 -XXX N.C.S.
C. The subject property is within the adopted Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth
Boundary of the City of Petaluma General Plan.
D. The annexation is, for the reasons discussed in the November 8, 2016 Planning
Commission staff report and January 9, 2017 City Council staff report, consistent with
the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1-P-1 (Development Within UGB);
Policy 1-P-2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1-P-12 (Underutilized Sites); Goal 1-
G-3 (Land Use: Well -Defined Boundary); Policy 1-P-29 (Development Within Urban
Growth Boundary); Policy 1-P-30 (Services Within Urban Growth Boundary); and Policy
1-P-35 (Growth Within Urban Growth Boundary).
2-a
Page 2
E. This annexation will enable several provisions of the General Plan to be achieved
including: orderly improvement of City infrastructure, preservation of the city's Urban
Limit Line, and preservation of County land uses, including residential and agricultural
uses.
F. The City Council has, by Ordinance, pre -zoned the property subject to the annexation
action as follows:
1. The properties located north of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to annexation are
designated Mixed Use by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of those
parcels to Mixed Use IA (MUTA) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance
Table 2-1, considered consistent with the General Plan designation of Mixed Use; and
2. The properties located south of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to annexation are
designated Medium Density Residential by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -
zoning of those parcels to Residential 4 (R4) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning
Ordinance Table 2-1, considered consistent with the General Plan designation of
Medium Density Residential.
G. The reorganization of territory identified at Exhibit A constitutes an island adhering to
all requirements at Government Code §56375.3.(b), as follows:
1. The territory is less than 150 acres in area, and the territory constitutes the entire
island;
2. The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of
the City of Petaluma;
3. The territory is substantially surrounded by the City of Petaluma in all directions as
demonstrated by an approximate 50 foot wide sole shared boundary with
unincorporated territory adjacent to Petaluma Boulevard South and immediately west
of U.S. Interstate 101;
4. The territory is substantially developed as evidenced by: (i) the presence of public
utilities services, including but not limited to, water, sewer, stormwater, roadways at
and within Petaluma Boulevard South, McNear Avenue, Nadine Lane, Lena Lane,
Rovina Lane, Jacquelyn Lane, and Crystal Lane;
5. The territory is not primate agricultural land, as defined by Government Code
§56064; and
6. The territory will benefit from the change in organization through the provision of
public safety services (e.g., police, fire).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby adopt the findings hereinabove and adopt a Resolution of Application to the Sonoma
County Local Agency Formation Commission for Reorganization of Territory located along
Petaluma Boulevard South generally between McNear Avenue and U.S. Interstate 101.
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL PRE -ZONING
ASSESSORS PARCELS NOS. APN 019-210-009, -013, -014, -021, -022, -025, -029, -
032,-033,-034,-035,-036 TO RESIDENTIAL (R4) AND ASSESSORS PARCEL
NOS. 019-210-005,-006,-007,-008,-010,-038 AND -039 TO MIXED USE IA
(MUTA) FOR THE LOMAS ANNEXATION CONCERNING PARCELS
ADJACENT TO PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH AND GENERALLY EAST OF
MCNEAR AVENUE AND WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 101
APNs 019-210-010, -038, -039, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, -013, -014, -021, -
022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035 and -036
PROJECT FILE No: 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
supporting an application to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038, and -039 and 019-220-
012 and -027 for a project known as the Lomas Residential Development and pursuant to the
Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-119
N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the
County of Sonoma regarding jurisdiction over compliance with the Petaluma Quarry Revised
Reclamation Plan and also an agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC regarding a two-part
annexation of various unincorporated properties along the vicinity of Petaluma Boulevard South;
and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2006, a Pre -Annexation Agreement Regarding Two -Park
Annexation and Restrictive Covenants was entered into between the City of Petaluma and South
Petaluma Partners LLC and recorded as Document No. 2006097772; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, the Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution No.
2518 approving the annexation supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. but
with Condition No. 3(a) which reads in full,
"Not later than 30 days after the City receives notice from the County of Sonoma of the
completion of reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City
and/or the Applicant shall initiate proceedings with the Commission for the annexation of APNs
019-210-005, 019-210-006, 019-210-007, 019-210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-
014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-
210-035, and 019-210-036 to the City"; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2015, the County of Sonoma provided notice to the
California Office of Mine Reclamation, pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975, that the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 91-49-0012) was fully
reclaimed as specified by the adopted reclamation plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016, the California Office of Mine Reclamation responded
Page 1
to the County of Sonoma's December 2, 2015 notice and concurred the Petaluma Quarry (State
Mine Id# 91-49-0012) had been substantially reclaimed in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan and, therefore, the County has fulfilled the requirements of California Code of
Regulations §3805.05; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has by separate resolution initiated annexation
proceedings as required by Condition No. 3(a) of Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution
No. 2518; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 56375(a)(7) of the Cortese/Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985, all territory proposed for annexation into a city shall be based on the
General Plan and pre -zoned; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission: Policies,
Procedures and Guidelines (Revised June 2013), it is the policy of the Sonoma County LAFCO
that, "The Executive Officer shall not accept proposals involving annexation to a city for filing
unless accompanied by an ordinance or other proof that the city council of the affected city pre-
zoned the affected territory pursuant to Government Code §56375"; and
WHEREAS, the properties located north of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to
annexation are designated Mixed Use by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of those
parcels to Mixed Use lA (MUTA) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1,
considered consistent with the General Plan designation of Mixed Use; and
WHEREAS, the properties located south of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to
annexation are designated Medium Density Residential by the Petaluma General Plan and the
pre -zoning of those parcels to Residential 4 (R4) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance
Table 2-1, considered consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density
Residential; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the proposed pre -
zoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning
Commission considered staff report analyzing the application, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning
Commission considered and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration prepared pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the proposed pre -zoning, at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF
PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
Page 2
Section 1: Findings. The City Council approves the pre -zone proposal based on the
findings made below:
1. The proposed Zoning Map amendment is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning
Ordinance Table 2-1, consistent with the Petaluma General Plan.
2. The project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general
welfare in that it enables the future consideration of development in a manner consistent with the
Petaluma General Plan.
Section 2: Zoning Map. The Zoning Map codified at Chapter 2 of the Implementing
Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended, as follows:
1. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -038 AND -039,
located north of Petaluma Blvd South, are assigned a Mixed Use IA (MUTA) designation; and
2. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-009, -013, -014, -021, -022, -025, -029, -032,
-033, -034, -035, -036, located south of Petaluma Blvd South, are assigned a Residential 4 (R4)
designation.
Section 3: Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are
severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held
unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council.
Section 5. Posting/Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post
and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the
City Charter.
INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this day of , 2016.
ADOPTED this day of , 2016 by the following vote:
3----S
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA
SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO
THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
FOR ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
APN 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038 & -039 AND 019-220-012 & -027;
FILE No. 03 -GPA -0560, COMPRISING A 46.8 -ACRE PROJECT AREA KNOWN AS
THE LOMAS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED AT 1500-1600 PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH,
PURSUANT TO THE
CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985
WHEREAS, after public review and input, the City Council of the City of Petaluma
adopted under Resolution No.2005-025 N.C.S., the Negative Declaration for the Lomas
Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, in order to implement the project it necessary to annex properties known
as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038 & -039 and 019-220-012 &
027.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the Municipal Organization
Act (Government Code 35000 et. Seq.) the Petaluma City Council hereby supports application to
the Local Agency Formation Commission of Sonoma County for a proposed reorganization as
follows:
An annexation of an approximately 46.8 acres located at 1500-1600 Petaluma Boulevard
South, known as assessor's parcel numbers 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038 & -039 and 019-220-
0 12
19-220-012 & -027, to the corporate boundaries of the City of Petaluma;
Said territory is comprised of several separate parcels that have been used for quarry and
industrial uses, known as the Dutra Quarry or the Petaluma Quarry.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for the requested organization are:
1. The property is contiguous to the City and is within the adopted Sphere of Influence
and General Plan Urban Limit Line of the City of Petaluma.
2. The City has completed an environmental review process for the area, which
culminated in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3. The authorized agent of the owners of said property has initiated said annexation.
4. By Ordinance No. 2211 N.C.S., the City of Petaluma has pre -zoned the affected 46.8 -
acres to PUD- Planned Unit District and adopted a unit development plan and
development standards for the project.
Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
5. The annexation is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan, as
documented in the Ordinance to pre -zone the property and the Resolution approving
the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Lomas Subdivision.
6. This annexation will enable several provisions of the General Plan to be achieved
including: orderly improvement of City infrastructure, preservation of the city's
Urban Limit Line, and preservation of County land use including residential and
agricultural uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines have been satisfied and thoroughly addressed in the
Negative Declaration adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2005-025 N.C.S., on February 15,
2005, and herein incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall conduct an analysis of a larger
annexation area as deemed necessary to address concerns regarding the creation of a "county
island" - that is, unincorporated territory surrounded by the City - that would result from
annexation of the subject property. All costs associated with analysis of a larger annexation area,
including conducting a sentiment survey of expanded annexation area, shall. be the responsibility
of the project sponsor.
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the Executive Officer of the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission.
REFERENCE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting orrn
onthe .........6.`h............ day of .....:..Tune ....................................... 20.D5., by the
following vote: ••••^• ^
Ci Attorney
Canevaro, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau
Mayor Glass, Torliatt
N/one,
c..C.�C !
ABSTAINED: O'Brien
�.,�..... ..... r�. *.. .............. ....
.........................................
City Clerk
Mayor
Council File ...................................
Res. No. ....... 2005.087........MCS,
[-1
ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE, UPON THE PRIOR
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION BY THE COUNTY OF SONOMA, A MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COUNTY OF SONOMA REGARDING
JURISDICTION OVER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PETALUMA QUARRY REVISED
RECLAMATION PLAN, AND THEREAFTER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTH PETALUMA PARTNERS LLC REGARDING A TWO-PART ANNEXATION
OF VARIOUS UNINCORPORATED PROPERTIES ALONG AND IN THE VICINITY
OF PETALUMA BLVD. SOUTH (APN'S 019-210-010, 019-210-011, 019-220-012 AND
019-220-027,019-210-038 AND 019-210-039, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "LOMAS
PROPERTIES" AND APN'S 019-210-005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 013, 014, 021, 022, 025, 029,
032, 033, 034, 035, AND 036, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES")
WHEREAS, the City Council, in June 2005 approved a General Plan Amendment
Prezoning and Vesting Tentative Map for the Lomas residential development project on the
former site of the Dutra Quarry; and,
WHEREAS, the former Dutra Quarry site is subject to a reclamation plan pursuant to the
State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and that the reclamation of the site is under the
jurisdiction of the County of Sonoma; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition #64 of the Vesting Tentative Map, the annexation of
the affected Lomas properties cannot occur until the reclamation process is complete, unless the
City Manager, at his discretion, determines that the annexation may occur before those
requirements are satisfied; and,
WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Petaluma
and the County of Sonoma has been drafted to allow the annexation of the affected Lomas
properties to occur at the discretion of the City Manager prior to the completion of the
reclamation process while leaving jurisdiction for compliance with SMARA and the reclamation
plan with the County of Sonoma; and,
WHEREAS, annexation of the affected Lomas properties would create an
unincorporated island of properties; and,
WHEREAS, an Agreement has been drafted between the City of Petaluma and South
Petaluma Partners LLC to allow annexation of the affected Lomas properties (APN's 019-210-
011, 019-220-012 AND 019-220-027) to proceed upon execution of said Agreement as stage one
of a two stage annexation process, and that the second stage, following approval by the Sonoma
County Local Agency Formation Commission and completion of all required steps for the
annexation of the affected Lomas properties, would include the other unincorporated parcels in
the vicinity of the affected Lomas properties and known as the "contiguous properties" (APN'S
019-210-005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 013, 014, 021, 022, 025, 029, 032, 033, 034, 035, AND 036);
and,
57-)
Resolution No. 200&119 N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, based on evidence in the record, the City Council has determined that it is
in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to enter into said MOU with the
County of Sonoma and to enter into said Agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC for a two
stage annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Petaluma hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute, upon the prior approval and execution
by the County of Sonoma, a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Sonoma
Regarding Jurisdiction Over Compliance with the Petaluma Quarry Revised Reclamation Plan,
and, thereafter, to Execute an Agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC Regarding a Two -
Part Annexation of Various Unincorporated Properties Along and in the Vicinity of Petaluma
Blvd. South (APN's 019-210-010, 019-210-011, 019-220-012 and 019-220-027, 019-210-038
and 019-210-039, also known as the "Lomas Properties" and APN's 019-210-005, 006, 007, 008,
009, 013, 014, 021, 022, 025, 029, 032, 033, 034, 035, and 036, also known as the "Contiguous
Properties").
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council. by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the roved as
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 19`x' day of June, 2006, form:
by the following vote:
City Attorney
AYES: Vice Mayor Canevaro, Harris, Healy, Nau
NOES:
Torliatt
ABSENT:
Mayor Glass
ABSTAIN:
O'Brienb
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ice ayoi•
Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S. Page 2
RECORDING AEQUE`, '.D BY:
and when recorded mail tcs.
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952-2610
Attn: City Clerk
Exempt from Recording Fees:
Gov't Code §§6103, 27838
ATTACHMENT 6
GOVT AGENCY
08/08/2006 08:06 AGM
RECORDING FEE: 0.00
PAID
2006097772
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
SONOMA COUNTY
EEVE T. LEWXS
PRE -ANNEXATION AGREEMENT REGARDING TWO-PART ANNEXATION AND
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
1500 AND 1600 Petaluma Boulevard South, APNs 019-210-011, 019-220-012,019-2,2,0-027,
019-210-010,019-210-038,109-210-039
This Agreement is entered into by and between South Petaluma Partners LLC (hereinafter
"Developer") and the City of Petaluma (hereinafter "City") on ZjtA 1 2006
RECITALS:
1. Developer is the owner of that certain property located at 1500 and 1600.1'etaluma
Boulevard South, Petaluma, CA (hereinafter "Property"). The Property currently consists of several
distinct parcels (APNs 019-210-011, 019-220-012, 019-220-027, 019-210010, 019-210-03 8, 109-
210-039) and is located in the unincorporated area of Sonoma County (hereafter "County").
2. The Propertyis the subject of a development proposal ("Development Proposal") by
Developer involving a multi -unit subdivision which will require annexation to City. The City
approved a tentative map for the Development Proposal on rune 6, 2005.
3. The Property is the site of an operational rock quarry and is subject to a,Reclamation
Plan previously approved by the County. The County is designated the Lead Agency concerning the
Reclamation Plan pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Public Resources
Code Section 2110.
4. The County has procedures in place pursuant to *its SMARA. ordinance for the
supervision and .administration of the Reclamation Plan for the Property. City is not presently
required to, and does not have such procedures in place pursuant to State law. City, County and
Developer have agreed to enter into aMemorandum of Understanding ("MOU") which would retain
County supervision of the Reclamation Plan to completion and closure in the event of annexation of
portion of the Property into the City. A true and correct copy of the MOU is Waehed'hereto as
Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein.
5. County's consent to the MOU and County's jurisdiction under Public Resources
Code Section 2771 to continue to act as Lead Agency over the Reclamation Plan require that a
portion of the Property remain as County territory until closure pursuant to -the Reclamation Plan.
Therefore,Developer is J. posing annexation of a portion of the ( perty to the City, APN 019-
210-011, 019-220-012 and 019-220-027 (collectively, the "Southern Parcel", as shown on Exhibit
B hereto),
6. Condition No. 64 of City Resolution No. 2005-086 NCS provides in part, "The,
City Manager has discretion regarding the timing of annexation relative to reclamation of site
being completed. .
7. , City Resolution No. 2005-087 NCS authorizes City -Ito support annexation of the
Property, and therefore of the Southern Parcel;
9. The City Manager has determined, in his sound discretion, that adequate legal and
financial assurances are contained in the MOU to ensure Developer's completion of the Reclamation
Plan; adequate legal assurances are contained in this Agreement to'ensure Developer's obligation to
apply for annexation of the -remainder of the Property (APN 019-210-010, 019-210-03 8 and 019-210-
039, collectively "the Northern Parcel) together with any other parcels deemed appropriate by City
for inclusion in the second phase of annexation upon the closure of the Reclamation Plan; and
proceeding with a two-part phased annexation will mare expeditiously, and without additional cost to
City, implement the benefit to City of the development proposals approved by City in its Resolutions
2005-086, 2005-097 and other discretionary actions taken on June 6, 2005; .
NOW; THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that:
1. Annexation bv Citv, Developer will apply to the Local Area Formation Commission
('LAFCO") to process the first phase of the annexation of the Property to City [AP Nos. 019-210-
011,
19-210-
011, 019-220-012 and 019-220-027], (the "Southern Parcel" as per Exhibit B attached hereto). As
between City and Developer, the terms and conditions of such. annexation and the land use
designations for the annexed parcel shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of City.
2.' Aizreementto Co=lete Annexation. Within thirty (30) days ofthe date onwbich.City
receives notice of completion and closure of the Reclamation Plan by the County, Developer agrees
to initiate processing of the annexation of such portions of the remaining parcels. of the Property
[APN 019-210-010, 019-210-039 and 019-21.0-03 8], and/or any one or more additional contiguous
properties determined by City to be appropriate for inclusion in the second phase of this annexation as
City may d'esignate. For example, without limiting the foregoing, the City may direct that the second
phase of annexation include any one or more contiguous properties and exclude part or all of the
Northern Parcel. For purpose of this agreement, "contiguous properties" shall consist of the
following properties: APN 019-210-005) 006, 007, 008, 009, 013, 014, 021, 022, 025, 029,032,
033, 034, 035, and 036.
3. Pavment of Costs. Developer will pay all fees, costs and charges for the processing of
'both phases of the annexation -contemplated herein, including the Southern Parcel, the Northern
Parcel and 'any contiguous parcels deerried by City to be appropriate for inclusion in the annexation,
including but not, limited to environmental review and stafftirrie as requiried by City procedure and/or
State law at the time of annexation.
As security for payment of these costs, Developer shall deposit with City cash in the
M
amount of $250,000.00. ` ....could the balance in said account at any vine prior to conclusion of
proceedings for both phases of the annexation contemplated herein be reduced to $25,000 or less,
Developer agrees within ten days of written notification by City to increase said deposit of funds
by an amount sufficient to raise the -balance held by City a minimum of $100,000.00. Any unused
portion of said deposit shall be refunded to Developer within thirty (3 0) days after completion of
the annexation of the entire property:
4.' MOU a Condition Precedent. Execution of the MOU attached as Exhibit Aby City,
County and Developer is a condition precedent to this Agreement taking effect.
5. LAPCO Al)Droval. Developer acknowledges that it has satisfied itself regarding the
legal requirements .for annexation of the Property, including those relating to the formation of un -
annexed "islands" of unincorporated property. Should LAFCO fail to approve the annexation of
the Southern Parcel proposed herein for any reason; City retains all rights to give, withhold or
condition, as appropriate in its sound discretion, City's consent to any future application(s) for
annexation of the Property, or any portion of it.
6. Indemnification. Developer agrees to defend, indemnify, hold harmless, reimburse
and release City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from and
against any and all actions, claims, damages, disabilities, liabilities, and expense, including but not
limited to attorneys' fees and the cost of litigation incurred in the defense of claims, whether
arising from personal injury, property damage or economic loss of any type, that may be asserted
by any person or entity, including Developer, arising out of, related to, or in anyway connected
with this Agreement and/or the annexations contemplated herein.
Developer's obligations hereunder include the obligation to defend, indemnify,
hold harmless, reimburse and release the City, its agents, officers; attorneys, employees, boards
and commissions from and against any and all claims or actions challenging the Developer's
Development Proposal and any claims -or actions challenging any action or decision by the City in
reviewing or approving the Developer's Development Proposal.
Developer's obligations hereunder shall be applicable and enforceable, whether or not
there. is concurrent negligence on the part of the City, but, to the extent required by law, excluding
liability due to the sole or active negligence or due to the willful misconduct of City. If there is a
possible obligation to indemnify, Developer's duty to defend exists regardless of whether it is
ultimately determined that there is not a duty to indemnify. City shall have the right to select its own
legal counsel at the expense of the Developer,' subject to Developer's approval, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any
limitation on the amount or type of damages.
7. Obligations Restrictive Covenants, The terms of this Agreement benefit the Property
in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1462: Developer agrees that in any transfer of
ownership of part or all of the Property, the Developer will ensure that each obligation of the
Developer pursuant to this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law is made a
restrictive covenant for the benefit of the Property runningwith the Property and binding successive
owners of any portion of the Property in accordance with California' Civil Code Section 1468.
8, - .Binding on Successors and Assigns. This agreement shall be binding upon, and shall
inure to the benefit of the parties -and their successors and assigns.
-3-
9. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this agreement, whether expressed or
implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this agreement on any
persons other than the parties to it and their respective successors and assigns, nor is anything in this
agreement intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any third persons to any party
to this agreement.
10.- Amendments or Modification of Agreement. This agreement maybe amended onlyby
a written instrument executed by all parties hereto.
11. Waiver. The -failure of any party to insist on strict compliance v�ith any of the terms,
covenants, or conditions of this agreement by another party hereto shall not be deemed a waiver of
that term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any right or power at any
one time or times be deemed a'waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for all or any other
times.
12. Execution of Documents. Each party agrees to execute and deliver such additional
documents and instruments and to perform such additional acts as. may be necessary or appropriate to
effectuate, carry out and perform all of the terms, provisions, and conditions ofthis agreement and the
transactions contemplated hereby.
13. Authority to Sign. Each person executing this agreement on behalf of an entity
represents that s/he has full power and authority to execute this document.
14. Recorded Release of Agreement. Upon completion of the annexation of the entire
Property and expiration of all appeal.periods related -thereto, and satisfaction byDeveloperof all other
terms of this agreement, City shall execute and record in the Sonoma County Records a
Memorandum of Satisfaction of Pre -Annexation Agreement.
SOUTH PETALUMA. PARTNERS LLC APPROVED AS TO -FORM:
By: Tames D. Levine �-
tle: )Ianag
CJ.YY OF PET_ALUMA.
- . t J� • V J � �J
Y.
Title:
#816146v4
By: rLS`t
Attorney or -South Petaluma rtners LLC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric W. Dan
Y
City Attorney,* City of Petaluma
6_4
16�-��
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ,
REGARDING JURISDICTION OVER COMPLLkNCE WITH
THE PETALUMA REVISED RECLAMATION PLAN
* This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into thi4l day of June, -2006, by and
between SOUTH PETALUMA PARTNERS, LLC (hereinafter "Developer"), the CITY OF
PETALUMA (hereinafter "City") and the COUNTY OF SONOMA (hereinafter "Couiity").
RECITALS:
1, Developer is the owner of a rock quarry located at 1500 and 1600 Petaluma
Boulevard South, Petaluma, California (APN's 019-210-010,-011,-038, -039; 019-220-012,
-027) (hereinafter"Propetty") which is located in the unincorporated area of the County. The
rook quarry site is approximately 46.78 acres.
2. The Property is the subject of a development proposal ("Development Proposal")
involving a multi -unit subdivision which will require annexation to the City. The City approved
a tentative map for the project on June 6, 2005..
3. Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Public Resources
Code §2710 et seq.), the Couilty has adopted the Sonoma' County Surface. Mining and -
Reolamation'Ordinance (hereinafter "the Mining. Ordinance") which sets forth procedures for
reviewing, approving and/or permitting surface mining operations, reclamation plans, and
financial assurances in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. (Sonoma County Code,
Chapter 26A) - , I
-4. On or about May -7, 1981, pursuant to the County Nfining Ordinance, the County
provided the Developer with a vested rights determination in regard to its quarry operations-.
Records indicate that the rock quarry has been operating as far back as 1925.
.5. , On or aboift June 19, 1986, a Use Permit and Reclamation Plan were approved by
the County to expand the -quarry to adjacent parcels. Quarry operations on the Property ceased
in 1993. Certain other related operations continued to operate ;within the quarry' site, including an
-aspb4�.Wph.plant, a crushing plant that recycled concrete for base rock ,,and a sand receiving
area that provides material to the asphalt -plant.
6. - As soon as reasonably practical after execution of this Memorandum of
Understanding, Developer shall file an application with the Local Agency'Fortnation
Commission for Sonoma County for atmexation of a portion of its Prqp&rty to the City [AP Nos.
019-2-10-011; 019-220-0-12,-072], (the "SoutheinPatcePas per Exhibit attached hereto). The
Southern Parcel is approximately 43.3- acres. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was proparbd in
October 2004 and it was certified by the City on or'about February 15, 2005.
Exhibit A
to the Pre-Annexqtion Agreement
7. In June 2004, Developer submitted an application to the County for approval of a
Revised Reclamation Plan. On or about April 7, 2005, the Sonoma County Planning
Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was previously certified by
the City, and approved the Revised Reclamation Plan. (A true and correct copy. of the Revised
Reclamation Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference).
8. The City has not adopted a mining ordinance pursuant to SMARA. As a . .
consequence, the Southern Parcel.may not be annexed into the City until such time as the City
adopts a mining ordinance and has its muting ordinance approved by the California Department
of Conservation or unless an agreement is reached whereby the County would continue to retain
jurisdiction over compliance with the Revised Reclamation Plan after annexation.
9. The parties desire to provide a mechanism whereby the City would annex the
Southern Parcel prior to completion of reclamation pursuant to the Revised Reclamation Plan
and the County would continue. to retain jurisdiction over compliance with the Revised
Reclamation Plan.
10. Condition No. 64 of City Resolution No. 2.005-086 NCS adopted June 6, 2005
approving a vested tentative map for the Property, provides in part, "The City Manager has
discretion regarding the timing of annexation relative to reclamation of site being completed;"
11. . City Resolution No. 2005-087 NCS, adopted June 6, 2005, authorizes City to
support annexation of the Property, and therefore of the Southern -Parcel;
12. Proceeding with a two-part phased annexation as outlined in that certain
Agreement Regarding Two -Part Annexation - Lomas Subdivision, entered into between
Developer and City concurrently with and in reliance on this MOU, will more expeditiously, and
without additional cost to City, implement the benefit to City of the development proposals
approved by City in its Resolutions 2005-086, 2005-087 and other discretionary actions taken on
June 6,2005.-
.13.
,2005;
.13. ' SMARA permits the County to retain jurisdiction over compliance with the
Revised Reclamation Plan after the annexation of the Southern Parcel.. (Public Resources Code
Section 2771).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED'that:
1. APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF SOUTHERN PARCEL A CONDITION
PRECEDENT. Approval of the annexation of the Southern Parcel of the Property by 611
appropriate governmental authorities prior to completion of reclamation pursuant to the Revised
Reclamation Plan is a condition precedent.to this Agreement taking effect:
2. CONTINUING ADMINISTRATION BY COUNTY. Developer, the City and the
County agree that the County will retain jurisdiction over compliance with the Revised
Reclamation Plan for the Property through completion of the reclamation in accordance with
California -Public Resources Code Section 2771. Developer shall be subject to the County's
-2-
continued jurisdiction and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the approved Revised
Reclamation Plan in addition to all provisions contained in the County's Mining Ordinance.
3. AUTHORITY VESTED IN CITY. Once the Southern Parcel is annexed into the
City, any development plans for the annexed property will be within the jurisdiction of the City
and subject to its review and Approval. The County will have no jurisdiction over the
Development Proposals, nor shall the County have any responsibility or liability regarding the
processing of the Development Proposals.
4. RESPONSIBILITY OF DEVELOPER. Developer shall remain financially
responsible for all costs and fees incurred by the County and/or City in regard to this MOU,
including without limitation all fees imposed pursuant to the County's Mining Ordinance.
5. SURETY BOND. Developer has posted (and shall continue in fall force .and
effect) a bond from a surety satisfactory to the County to ensure faitbful performance of all
obligations of the Developer under the Revised Reclamation Plan. The surety bond shall be
released by the County once (1) reclamation of the entire Property has been completed to the
satisfaction of the County in accordance with all applicable SMARA requirements, (2) the
Countyhas determined to its satisfaction that there exist no health or safety hazards. on any
portion, of the entire Property, and (3) the California Department of Conservation has inspected
the site and has authorized removal of the mine identification number for the entire Property.
6. INDEMNIFICATION OF COUNTY. Developer agrees to defend, indemnify,
hold harmless, reimburse and release the County, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees,
boards and commissions from and against any and all actions, claims, damages, disabilities,
liabilities, and expense, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and the cost of litigation
incurred in the defense of claims, whether arising from personal injury, property damage or
economic loss of any type, that maybe asserted by any person or entity, including Developer,
arising out of, related to, or in anyway connected with this Memorandum of Understanding.
Developer's obligations hereunder include the obligation to defend, indemnify, hold
harmless, reimburse and release the County, -its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and
commissions from and against any and all claims or actions challenging the Developer's
Development Proposal and any claims or actions challenging any action or decision by the City
in reviewing or approving the Developer's Development Proposal.
Developer's obligations hereunder'shall be applicable and enforceable, whether or not
there is concurrent negligence on the part of the County, but, to the extent required by law,
excluding liability due to the sole or active negligence or due to the willful misconduct of
County. If there is a possible obligation to indemnify, Developer's duty to defend exists
regardless of whether it is ultimately determined that there is not a duty to indemnify. County
shall have the right to select its own legal counsel at the expense of the Developer, subject to
Developer's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably. withheld. This indemnification
obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages.
7. INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY. Developer agrees to defend, indemnify, hold
harmless, reimburse and release City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and
commissions from and against any and all.actions, claims, damages, disabilities, liabilities, and
-3-
D 2S_17�
-expense, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and the cost of litigation_ incurred in the
defense of claims, whether arising from personal injury, property damage or economic loss of
any type, that may be asserted by any person or entity, including Developer, arising out of,
related to, or in anyway connected with this Agreement and/or the annexations contemplated
herein.
Developer's obligations hereunder include the obligation to defend, indemnify, hold
harmless, reimburse and release the City, .its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and
commissions from and against any and all claims or actions challenging the Developer's
Development Proposal and any claims or actions challenging any action or decision by the City
in reviewing or approving the Developer's Development Proposal.
Developer's obligations hereunder shall be applicable and enforceable, whether or not there
is concurrent negligence on the part of the City, but, to the extent required by law, excluding liability
due to the sole or active negligence or due to the willful misconduct of City. If there is a possible
obligation to indemnify, Developer's duty to defend exists regardless of whether it is ultimately
determined that there is not a duty to indemnify. City shall have the right to select its own legal
counsel at the expense of the Developer, subject to Developer's approval, which approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any
limitation on the amount or type of damages.
8. NO ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL. Neither party
to this .Agreement may assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement
without the prior written approval of the other party. Such approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
.9. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be binding
upon, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns.
10. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Nothing in this agreement, whether
expressed or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies -ander or by reason of this
agreement on any persons other than the parties to it and their respective successors and assigns,
nor is anything in this agreement intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any
third persons to any party to this agreement.
11. AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT. This agreement may
be amended only by •a written instrument executed by all parties hereto.
12. WAIVER. The failure of any party to insist on strict compliance with any of the
terms, covenants, or conditions of this agreement by another party hereto shall not be deemed a
waiver of that term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any right or
power at any one time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for
all or any other times.
13. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS. Each party agrees to execute and deliver such
additional documents and instruments and to perform such additional acts as may be necessary or
appropriate to effectuate, carry out and perform all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of
this agreement and the -transactions contemplated hereby.
-4-
9 2,5-%7j,
14. AUTHORITY TO SIGN. Each person executing this agreement on behalf of an
entity represents that he has fall power and authority to so execute this document.
SOUTH PETALUMA PARTNERS, LLC
4
y:
Jahes D. Levine
Titl . • Manger
CITY OF PETALUMA.
By: Michael Bierman
Title: City Manager
COUNTY OF SONOMA
By:
Title Ch•k 00" of swo
-5-
.APPROVED AS. TO FORM:
4�8 e. r�yE, s
'Attorney for South Petaluma Partners, LLC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric LDanly
City Attorney, City of Petaluma
APPROVED AS TO FORM
L
Gregory T. ion
Deputy Couniy Counsel, County of
S onoma
^,eo-q1-k
ATTACHMENT 7
Resolution No. 2518
575 Administration Drive, Room 104A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
October 4, 2006
RESOLUTION OP THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS, CERTIFYING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION Or THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND
APPROVING A REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS; PETALUMA
REORGANIZATION NO, 2006.01 (SOUTH PETALUMA PARTNERS LLC)
INVOLVING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA AND DETACHMENT
FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 40 (FIRE SERVICES) AND COUNTY SERVICE
AREA NO. 41 (MULTI -SERVICES), AND WAIVING PROTEST PROCEEDINGS
RESOLVED, that the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of
Sonoma ("the Commission") hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. Proposal and Procedural History
1.1 South Petaluma Partners ("the Applicant") filed Application No. 06-06 ("the
Application") with the Executive Officer of the Commission ("the Executive Officer")
requesting a reorganization consisting of annexation of the territory designated as
Petaluma Reorganization No. 2006-01 (South Petaluma Partners LLC) ("the affected
territory") to the City of Petaluma ("the City") and detachment from County Service Area
No. 40 (Fire Services) and County Service Area No. 41 (Multi -Services) ("the
Proposal"). As part of Application No. 06-06, the Applicant included a plan for providing
services ('Plan for Services") within the affected territory. The Application and Plan for
Services were submitted to the Executive Officer pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3 (commencing with
Section 56000) Title 5 of the Government Code ("the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act").
1.2 Acting as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental
Quality -Act ("CEQA"), the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the
environmental document for the Proposal. Based on the City's action, the Executive
Officer determined the Commission would comply with CEQA by acting as a
responsible agency for the Proposal.
1.3 The Executive Officer reviewed the Proposal and prepared a report on the
Proposal, including his recommendation thereon ("the Executive Officer's Report").
Upon completion, the Executive Officer furnished copies of the Executive Officer's
Report to all persons entitled to copies under the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act,
1.4 The Commission considered the Proposal, the information contained in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Executive Officer's Report at its meeting on
October 4, 2006. The Commission heard and received all relevant oral and written
0
testimony and evidence presented or filed regarding the Proposal and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. -All-interested persons were given the opportunity to hear and be
heard, The Commission discussed the Proposal and voted to certify review and
consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve the Proposal, as set
forth herein.
1.5 The Commission has reviewed and considered this resolution and hereby
finds that it accurately sets forth the Intentions of the Commission with respect to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Proposal.
2. CEQA Compliance
2.1 The Commission concurs with the City and the Executive Officer and finds
that the City is the lead agency and that the Commission is a responsible agency forthe
Proposal for the purposes of CEQA.
2.2 The Commission has reviewed and considered the Information contained
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and has considered the environmental effects of
the Proposal, as shown in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 'prior to reaching its
decision on the Proposal, The Commission finds that in doing so, It has fully discharged
its responslbll Wes under CEQA for the Proposal.
3. Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act Compliance
1
3.1 The Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to'reaching Its decision on the Proposal, The
Commission has also reviewed and considered the following resolutions, ordinances,
and agreements of the City prior to reaching its decision on the Proposal:
a. Resolution No. 2005-026 N.C.S., dated February 15, 2005
b. Ordinance No. 2211 N.C.S., dated June 6, 2005
C. Resolution No, 2005-086 N.C.S., dated June 6, 2006
d. Resolution No. 2005-086 N.C.S., dated June 6, 2005
e. Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S., dated June 6, 2005
f. Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S. dated June 19, 2006
9. Memorandum of Understanding, dated June 27, 2006
h. Pre -Annexation Agreement, dated July 14, 2006
3,2 The affected territory is within the sphere of influence and voter -approved
Urban Growth Boundary for the City and within the "urban services area" boundary for
the City in the Sonoma County General Plan.
Rm No. Vage 2 of 4 October 4, 2006
q..- '?�_
3.3 The affected territory is contiguous to City boundaries and is consistent
with the land -use designation policies of the City's General Plan. The City has
determined that it has capacity within its systems to provide needed services.
3.4 The purpose of the Proposal is to allow future development in accordance
with densities permitted by the City's General Plan and access to City services.
3.5 The Commission finds that the affected territory is uninhabited.
3.6 The Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the intent of the
Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act and the purpose of the Commission, as expressed in
Government Code sections 56001 and 56301. The Commission further finds, therefore,
that it is appropriate to approve the Proposal.
'NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing findings and determinations and the
record of these proceedings, the Commission hereby declares and orders as follows:
1. The foregoing findings and determinations are true and correct, are
supported by substantial evidence in the record, and are adopted as hereinabove set
forth.
2. The Commission certifies that It has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Executive Officer Is
directed to file a notice of determination in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines,
3. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, the Proposal is
approved:
a. Not later than 30 days after the City receives notice from the
County of Sonoma of the completion of reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, 019-210-
038, and 019-210-039, the City and/or the Applicant shall initiate proceedings with the
Commission for annexation of APNs 019-210-005, 019-210-006, 019-210-007, 019-
210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-
210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-032, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-210-035, and
019-210-036 to the City.
4. The Proposal is assigned the following short -form designation: "Petaluma
Reorganization No. 2006-01 (South Petaluma Partners)."
5. The boundaries of the affected territory shall be as set forth in the
Proposal and as shown in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
6. The regular county assessment roll shall be utilized for the Proposal.
7. The affected territory shall not be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness
or contractual obligations.
Re:.. Mo. Page 3 of 4 October.4, 2006
a
8. The property tax transfer to the City shall be in accordance with the
"Master Tax Exchange Agreement" as described in Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors Resolution No. 900270.
9, Since the owners of the affected territory initiated the request for and
consent to the reorganization, the Commission shall waive protest proceedings in
accordance with provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act.
10, The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified
copies of this resolution in the manner provided by law.
11. The Clerk of the Commission is designated as the custodian of the
documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which
the Commission's decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the
office of the Clerk of the Commission, 575 Administration Drive, Room 104A, Santa
Rosa, CA 95403.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Commission on the 4t' day of October 2006 and ordered adopted by the following vote:
COMMISSIONERS:
Allen: Aye Schaffner: Aye Kepolchok: No Kerns Aye Brunton: Aye
Bramfitt: Aye Kelley: Aye
Ayes: 6 Noes: 1 Abstain: 0 -Absent: 0
WHEREUPON, the Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted and
SO ORDERED.
ATTEST:
BY: &A_4� �,-
Steven. J. Sharpe, Executive Officer
The within in/,strument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office,
ATTEST: �l
V
Clerk
Nes. No. Poge ; of,)_ O.•tober 4, 2006
_4
ATTACHMENT 8
Proposed Pre -Zoning and Resulting Land Use Non -Conformities
Site
Parcel (APN)
General Plan Land
Proposed Pre -
Existing Use
Number
and Address
Use Designation 1
Zoning
Storage,
1
019-210-005
Mixed Use
MU1A
Outdoor
1473 Petaluma Blvd S
Storage Yard
Maintenance/
2
019-210-006
Mixed Use
MU1A
Repair
1475 Petaluma Blvd S
Service—Client
Site Services
Auto Vehicle
3
019-210-007
Mixed Use
MU1A
Sales and
1501 Petaluma Blvd S
Rentals
Storage,
4
019-210-008
Mixed Use
MU1A
Outdoor
1525 Petaluma Blvd S
Storage Yard
5
019-210-010
Mixed Use
MU1A
Vacant/
1601 Petaluma Blvd S
Undeveloped
6
019-210-038
Mixed Use
MU1A
Vacant/
1601 Petaluma Blvd S
Undeveloped
7
019-210-039
Mixed Use
MU1A
Vacant/
1601 Petaluma Blvd S
Undeveloped
Dwelling,
8
019-210-009
Medium Density
R4
Single
2 Rovina Lane
Residential
Household
9
019-210-036
Medium Density
R4
Dwelling,
llin ,
Single
3 Rovina Lane
Residential
Household
Dwelling,
10
019-210-035
Medium Density
R4
Single
1450 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Household
it
019-210-013
Medium Density
R4
Dwelling,
llin ,
Single
1430 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Household
12
019-210-014
Medium Density
R4
Dwelling,
Single
1420 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Household
Dwelling,
13
019-210-022
Medium Density
R4
Single
1410 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Household
Dwelling,
14
019-210-021
Medium Density
R4
Single
1400 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Household
Existing Use
Permitted? 2
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
15 019-210-033
Medium Density
R4 Dwelling,
No
149 McNear Avenue
Residential
Group
019-210-029
16
Medium Density
Dwelling,
R4 Single
Yes
1280 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Household
17 019-210-034
Medium Density
R4 Vacant/
N/A
0 McNear Avenue
Residential
Undeveloped
019-210-025
18
Medium Density
Dwelling,
R4 Single
Yes
55 McNear Avenue
Residential
Household
19 019-210-032
Medium Density
R4 Vacant/
N/A
1340 Petaluma Blvd S
Residential
Undeveloped
1. City of Petaluma General Plan 2025.
2. If existing use is not permitted under
new zoning regulations, the
use will acquire a legal non -conforming status which
will remain in effect until any future change in use or physical development occurs. Non -conforming situations
which may
result do not concern environmental effects and are referenced for informational purposes only.
�t�
Address 11473 Petaluma Boulevard South
AP N 1019-210-005
Lot Size 12.59 acres
Existing Use I Commercial (Heritage Salvage)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
Existing General Plan Land Use
Address 11475 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-006
Lot Size 11 acre
• Use I Commercial (Bruce Enterprises)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
NI3
Address 11501 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-007
Lot Size 11.55 acres
Existing Use I Commercial (Truck Max USA)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
Street View (from Petaluma Boulevard South)
Address 11525 Redwood South Highway
APN 1019-210-008
Lot Size 11 acre
Existing Use I Commercial (State of California, Caltrans)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
... .. .... ....
E
Street View (from Petaluma Boulevard So : uth)
6"0
Address 11601 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-010
Lot Size 11.44 acres
Existing Use I Vacant/Undeveloped
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A MU1A)
Address 11601 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-038
Lot Size 10.28 acres
Existing Use I Vacant/Undeveloped
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
Street View Petaluma Boulevard South
Address 11601 Petaluma Boulevard South
AN 1019-210-039
Lot Size 11.82 acres
Existing Use I Vacant/Undeveloped
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Mixed Use (MU)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
Street VlqyiftmWPePetaluma Boulevard South)
,
Address 12 Rovina Lane
APN 1019-210-009
Lot Size 11 acre
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Existinq General Plan Land Use
Street View (from Rovino Lone)
<4 -(c
Address 13 Rovina Lane
APN 1019-210-036
Lot Size 11 acre
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Existing General Plan Land Use
Street View (from Rovina Lane)
10
Address 11450 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-035
Lot Size 10.86 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Existina General Plan Land Use
Street View (from private lone)
I
I
Address 11430 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-013
Lot Size 10.17 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
General Plan Land Use
77,
Street View (from Petaluma Boulevard
Address 11420 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-014
Lot Size 10.19 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Street View (from Petaluma Boulevard South)
W11
Address 11410 Petaluma Boulevard South
AN 1019-210-022
Lot Size 10.18 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Street View (from Petaluma Boulevard South)
mwl�
Address 11400 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-021
Lot Size 10.11 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Address 1149 McNear Avenue
APN 1019-210-033
Lot Size 11.80 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Address 11280 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-029
Lot Size 10.23 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Existin General Plan Land Use
'A? '*#UN*
Address 10 McNear Avenue
APN 1019-210-034
Lot Size 10.09 acres
Existing Use I Vacant/Undeveloped
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
on U18
Address 155 McNear Avenue
APN 1019-210-025
Lot Size 10.18 acres
Existing Use I Residential
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
IW7
Address 11340 Petaluma Boulevard South
APN 1019-210-032
Lot Size 11.71 acres
Existing Use I Vacant/Undeveloped
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation I Medium Density Residential (RM)
Proposed Zoning Designation I Residential 4 (R4)
Existing General Plan Land Use
Street View (from Petaluma Boulevard South)
' ►1\_11 '.
Colin, Kevin
From: Jason Osborne <josborne@osbornepm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: Colin, Kevin
Cc: Jason Osborne
Subject: Lomas Annexation: Osborne Letter to the Planning Commission - November 8th
Hearing
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Kevin,
I am the owner of parcels: 019-210-036, and 019-210-035.
My family and I purchased these properties in 2009, and 2012 respectively.
I wanted to convey we are 100% in support of the annexation, for one major reason. Public Safety/Response times.
Since we have lived here there have been a few instances wherein we needed to contact the Police Department (relating to
vandalism at two parcels (019-210-009 / Radio Tower Property), and my property (019-210-035 / 1450 Petaluma Blvd. S) ,
wherein the Sheriff's department had to respond. Obviously, I was thankful they came, but as they are located all over the
County I can only imagine it puts a hardship on them to respond to calls in the Southern most area of Sonoma County. As I
have a family, with (3) children, a response time of over 23 minutes is far too long considering we are located in the "middle"
of City Limits. In addition to this, there was a fire at the aforementioned fire this summer (019-210-009 / Radio Tower), and
although I appreciate all the support from Cal Fire and Marin County Fire, it was not until homes in "City" limits were
threatened was the Petaluma Fire Dept able to respond (again, response times in the neighborhood of 20 minutes is far too
long, at no fault of the departments, they should not be responsible for this area of the "City").
My point is, I am located directly in the middle of City Limits, with children who attend the same schools as my neighbors, I
would request the same response times from both the City Fire Department and City Police Department.
The other item I would like to raise is the recent increase in speed limit on Petaluma Blvd, just south of McNear Ave., wherein
the speed limit was raised from 35mph, to 40mph, which only seems to speed folks up until they hit the 15 mph roundabout.
Petaluma City officers have been nice enough to park in my driveway and issue tickets to those abusing the speed limit, which
I appreciate, but now, the speeding is worse, and given the number of driveways along the the boulevard, I would appreciate
the speed limit be reduced from a public safety standpoint.
I am also hoping the fees from the Quarry Heights project covers proper sidewalks on the South side of the road, from McNear
to the new development. I presume because this is County, there has not been funding to improve the road or sidewalks
however I am hoping this area can be improved. Also important to mention, this is the gateway to the west side of Petaluma,
where thousands of motorists travel on each day. Ultimately. I would like to see the City improve the pedestrian paths
North/South to and from town.
Once again, thanks for your consideration and I look forward to being part of this City officially.
Thank you,
Jason & Kate Osborne
q—(
Osborne & Associates
3 Rovina Lane
Petaluma, Ca 94952
[—)-
ATTACHMENT 10
RESOLUTION 2016-22
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
LOMAS ANNEXATION PROJECT
CONCERNING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH AND
GENERALLY EAST OF MCNEAR AVENUE AND WEST OF US HIGHWAY 101
FILE NO; 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, South Petaluma Partners, L.C.C.. submitted an application to Pre -Zone a and Annex a
total of nineteen parcels totaling approximately 17.20 acres outside of the City limits but within the
Urban Growth Boundary, in a manner consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation, being
referred to locally as the Lomas project area ("Project Area"), as required by Condition No. 3(a) of
Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission ("Sonoma County LAFCO") Resolution No. 2518;
and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the City on May
19, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Initial Study,
including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply, and traffic, the City relied on the
Program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 20205, certified on April 7, 2008 (General Plan EIR)
with the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., which is incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures and the City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
significant impacts that could not be avoided; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Negative Declaration was required in order to
analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the Project beyond
those identified in the General Plan EIR; and,
WHEREAS, on or before October 6, 2016, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a 30 -day public comment period commencing
October 6, 2016 and ending November 7, 2016 and a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on November
8, 2016 before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission, was published and mailed to all residents and
property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well as all persons having requested special notice of
said proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project, the Negative Declaration, the
supporting Initial Study, the staff report dated November 8, 2016 analyzing the Negative Declaration
and the Project, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on environmental
effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-_ and,
in doing so, forwarded a recommendation that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study applies the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD)
California Environmental Quality Act - Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012, including the BAAQMD
thresholds of significance adopted in June 2010. As lead agency under CEQA, the City of Petaluma has
the discretion to rely upon the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance since they
include the best available scientific data and most conservative thresholds available for comparison of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-22 Page 1
to t
the Project's emissions. Comparison of the Project's emissions against these thresholds provides a
conservative assessment as the basis for a determination of significance; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to further analysis in the Inifial Study, including evaluation using the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, the Project does not make a considerable contribution
to a significant cumulative air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impact found to be significant and
unavoidable in the General Plan 2025 EIR, .because the Project's emissions are below significance
thresholds identified; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of
the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration, Initial Study and related Project and environmental
documents, including the General Plan 2025 EIR and all documents incorporated herein by reference,
are available for review in the Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during
normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record
of proceedings for the proposed project is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department,
1 I English St. Petaluma, CA 94952; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study identifies no significant environmental effects to the environment
would result from the Project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Based on its review of the entire record herein, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
The annexation is, for the reasons discussed in the November 8, 2016 Planning Commission
staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1-P-1
(Development Within UGB); Policy 1-P-2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1-P-12
(Underutilized Sites); Goal 1-G3 (Land Use: Well -Defined Boundary); Policy 1-P-29
(Development Within Urban Growth Boundary); Policy 1-P-30 (Services Within Urban Growth
Boundary); and Policy 1-P-35 (Growth Within Urban Growth Boundary).
2. Pursuant to the analysis in the Initial Study, the Project does not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative air, noise and/or
traffic impacts identified in the General Plan 2025 EIR.
C. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the Negative Declaration, the Initial
Study, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and all comments received, the
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a
significant effect on the environment, that the Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis, and that the Negative Declaration, Initial Study and
supporting documents provide an adequate description of the impacts of the Project and
comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Environmental
Guidelines.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-22 Page 2
to -'2_
ADOPTED this 81h day of November, 2016, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye
Councilmember King
X
Benedetti- Petnic
X
Chair Gomez
Lin
Vice Chair Marzo
X
Pierre
X
Wolpert
ATTEST:
H d Cher Hines, C `mission Secretary
No Absent
X
X
FN
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
{ 7
Eric Danly, City Attorney
1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-22
Abstain
Page 3
��
RESOLUTION 2016-23
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER WORK WITH
SOUTH PETALUMA PARTNERS LLC TO CARRY OUT THE REMAINING TERMS OF THE
PRE -ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAID PARTIES AS ENUMERATED IN
DOCUMENT NO. 200609772 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SONOMA COUNTY
FILE NO: 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. supporting
an application to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 019-210-010,-011,-026,-038, and -039 and 019-220-012 and -027 for a project known as
the Lomas Residential Development and .pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S. authorizing
the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the County of Sonoma regarding
jurisdiction over compliance with the. Petaluma Quarry Revised Reclamation Plan and also an
agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC regarding a two-part annexation of various
unincorporated properties along the vicinity of Petaluma Boulevard South; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2006, a Pre -Annexation Agreement Regarding Two -Part Annexation and
Restrictive Covenants was entered into between the City of Petaluma and South Petaluma Partners LLC
and recorded as Document No. 2006097772; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, the Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 2518
approving the annexation supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. but with Condition
No. 3(a) which reads in full,
"Not later than 30 days after the City receives notice from the County of Sonoma of the
completion of reclamation of APNs 019-210-010; 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City and/or the
Applicant shall initiate proceedings with the Commission for the annexation of APNs 019-210-005, 019-
210-006, 019-210-007, 019-210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-
210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-210-035, and 019-210-036 to the City"; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2015, the County of Sonoma provided notice to the California Office
of Mine Reclamation, pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975,
that the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 91-49-0012) was fully reclaimed as specified by the adopted
reclamation plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016, the California Office of Mine Reclamation responded to the
County of Sonoma's December 2, 2015 notice and concurred the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine ld# 91-
49-0012) had been substantially reclaimed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan and,
therefore, the County has fulfilled the requirements of California Code of Regulations §3805.05; and
WHEREAS, upon receiving notice that reclamation of the aforementioned parcels is now
complete, the Planning Commission now recommends the City Council act in compliance with
Condition No. 3(a) of Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518 by initiating remaining annexation
proceedings; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-23 Page 1
10 —4
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 56375(a)(7) of the Cortese/Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985 and the policies of the Sonoma County LAFCO, the City Council is
recommended to pre -zone the property proposed for annexation to the City of Petaluma; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing,
pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the proposed annexation, at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning Commission
considered the staff report analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) determination therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning Commission
considered and recommended approval of .a Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
A. It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to work with South Petaluma
Partners LLC to carry out the remaining terms of the Pre -Annexation Agreement between said
parties as enumerated in Document No. 200609772 in the Official Records of Sonoma County.
B. The subject property is within the adopted Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary of
the City of Petaluma General Plan.
C. The annexation is, for the reasons discussed in the November 8, 2016 Planning Commission staff
report, consistent with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1-P-1 (Development
Within UGB); Policy 1-P-2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1-P-12 (Underutilized Sites); Goal 1-G-3
(Land Use: Well -Defined Boundary); Policy 1-P-29 (Development Within Urban Growth Boundary);
Policy 1-P-30 (Services Within Urban Growth Boundary); and Policy 1-P-35 (Growth Within Urban
Growth Boundary),
D. This annexation will enable several provisions of the General Plan to be achieved including:
orderly improvement of City infrastructure, preservation of the city's Urban Limit Line, and
preservation of County land uses, including residential and agricultural uses.
E. The Planning Commission recommends. that, by Ordinance, the City Council pre -zone the
following property as follows:
1. The properties located north of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to annexation are
designated Mixed Use by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of those parcels to
Mixed Use 1 A (MU 1 A) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1, considered
consistent with the General Plan designation of Mixed Use; and
2. The properties located south of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to annexation are
designated Medium Density Residential by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of
those parcels to Residential 4 (R4) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1,
considered consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential.
(0-15
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-23 Page 2
ADOPTED this 8fh day of November, 2016, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye
Councilmember King
x
Benedetti- Petnic
x
Chair Gomez
Lin
Vice Chair Matzo
x
Pierre
x
Wolpert
ATTEST:
H they *Hines, Com OssionSecretary
M
Absent
X
X
X
Vice Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric Danly, City'Attorney
Abstain
10-(0
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-23 Page 3
RESOLUTION 2016-24
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP OF
THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDIANCE TO PREZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO
PETLAUMA BLVD SOUTH AND GENERALLY'EAST OF MCNEAR AVENUE AND WEST OF US 101
FILE NO: 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, South Petaluma Partners, L.C.C. submitted an application to Pre -Zone and Annex a
total of nineteen parcels totaling approximately .17.20 acres outside of the City limits but within the
Urban Growth Boundary, in a manner consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation, being
referred to locally as the Lomas project area ("Project Area"), as required by Condition No. 3(a) of
Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission ("Sonoma County LAFCO") Resolution No. 2518;
WHEREAS, the properties located north of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to annexation are
designated Mixed Use by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of those parcels to Mixed Use
1 A (MU 1 A) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1, considered consistent with the
General Plan designation of Mixed Use; and
WHEREAS, the properties located south of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to annexation are
designated Medium Density Residential by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of those
parcels to Residential 4 (R4) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1, considered
consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing,
pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the pre -zone proposal, at which time
all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Planning Commission
considered staff report analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) determination therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to,acting on this request, the Planning Commission
considered and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the.Planning Commission as follows:
A. The proposed pre -zone is, for the reasons discussed in the November 8, 2016 Planning
Commission staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1-P-
1 (Development Within UGB); Policy 1-P-2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1-P-12 (Underutilized
Sites); Goal 1-G3 (Land Use: Well -Defined Boundary); Policy 1-P-29 (Development Within Urban
Growth Boundary); Policy 1-P-30 (Services Within Urban Growth Boundary); and Policy 1-P-35
(Growth Within Urban Growth Boundary).
Planning Commission Resoluiion No. 2016-24 Page 1
B. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, attached hereto as
Exhibit Lbased on the following findings:
1. The proposed Zoning Map amendment is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table
2-1, consistent with the Petaluma General Plan.
2. The project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that
it enables the future consideration of development in a manner consistent with the
Petaluma General Plan.
ADOPTED this 8th day of November, 2016, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye No Absent
Councilmember King
x
Benedetti- Petnic
x
Chair Gomez
x
Lin
x
Vice Chair Matzo I
x
Pierre I
x
Wolpert f
x
ATTEST:
H ether Hines, Co mission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric Danly, City Attorney
Abstain
M.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-24 Page 2
Exhibit 1
PRE -ZONING ASSESSORS PARCELS NOS. APN 019-210-009,-013,-014,-021, -
022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035, -036 TO RESIDENTIAL (R4) AND
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 019-210-005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -038 AND -039 TO
MIXED USE 1A (MUTA) FOR THE LOMAS ANNEXATION CONCERNING
PARCELS ADJACENT TO PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH BETWEEN MCNEAR
AVENUE AND CRYSTAL LANE
APNs 019-210-010, -038, -039, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, -013, -014, -021, -
022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035 and -036
PROJECT FILE No: 07-ANX-0623
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
supporting an application to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038, and -039 and 019-220-
012 and -027 for a project known as the Lomas Residential Development and pursuant to the
Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No, 2006-119
N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the
County of Sonoma regarding jurisdiction over compliance with the Petaluma Quarry Revised
Reclamation Plan and also an agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC regarding a two-part
annexation of various unincorporated properties along the vicinity of Petaluma Boulevard South;
and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2006, a Pre -Annexation Agreement Regarding Two -Park
Annexation and Restrictive Covenants was entered into between the City of Petaluma and South
Petaluma Partners LLC and recorded as Document No. 2006097772; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, the Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution No.
2518 approving the annexation supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. but
with Condition No. 3(a) which reads in fall,
"Not later than 30 days after the City receives notice from the County of Sonoma of the
completion of reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City
and/or the Applicant shall initiate proceedings with the Commission for the annexation of APNs
019-210-005, 019-210-006, 019-210-007, 019-210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-
014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-
210-035, and 019-210-036 to the City"; and .
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2015, the County of Sonoma provided notice to the
California Office of Mine Reclamation, pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975, that the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 91-49-0012) was fully
reclaimed as specified by the adopted reclamation plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016, the California Office of Mine Reclamation responded
to the County of Sonoma's December 2, 2015 notice and concurred the Petaluma Quarry (State
to _11
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-24 Page 3
Mine Id# 91-49-0012) had been substantially reclaimed in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan and, therefore, the County has fulfilled the requirements of California Code of
Regulations §3805.05; and
WHEREAS, the City Council -has by separate resolution initiated annexation
proceedings as required by Condition No. 3(a) of Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution
No. 2518; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 56375(a)(7) of the Cortese/Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985, all territory proposed for annexation into a city shall be based on the
General Plan and pre -zoned; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission: Policies,
Procedures and Guidelines (Revised June 2013), it is the policy of the Sonoma County LAFCO
that, "The Executive Officer shall not accept proposals involving annexation to a city for filing
unless accompanied by an ordinance or other proof that the city council of the affected city pre-
zoned the affected territory pursuant to Government Code §56375"; and
WHEREAS, the properties located north of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to
annexation are designated Mixed Use by the Petaluma General Plan and the pre -zoning of those
parcels to Mixed Use I (MU TA) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1,
considered consistent with the General Plan designation of Mixed Use; and
WHEREAS, the properties located south of Petaluma Blvd South and subject to
annexation are designated Medium Density Residential by the Petaluma General Plan and the
pre -zoning of those parcels to Residential 4 (R4) is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance
Table 2-1, considered consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density
Residential; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, thQ Planning Connlmission held a duly noticed public
hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050, to consider the proposed pre -
zoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Plamning
Commission considered staff report analyzing the application, including the California
Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 and prior to acting on this request, the Plarining
Commission considered and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration prepared pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF
PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Findings. The City Council approves the pre -zone proposal based on the
findings made below:
1. The proposed Zoning Map amendment is, pursuant to Implementing Zoning
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-24 Page 4
10-1c)
Ordinance Table 2-1, consistent with the Petaluma General Plan.
2. The project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general
welfare in that it enables the future consideration of development in a manner consistent with the
Petaluma General Plan.
Section 2: Zoning Map, The Zoning Map codified at Chapter 2 of the Implementing
Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended, as follows;
1. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -038 AND -039,
located north of Petaluma Blvd South, are assigned a Mixed Use I (MUTA) designation; and
2. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-009, -013, -014, -021, -022, -025, -029, -032,
-033, -034, -035, -036, located south of Petaluma Blvd South, are assigned a Residential 4 (R4)
designation.
Section 3: Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in frill 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 please hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or pleases be held
unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council.
Section 5. Posting/Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post
and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the
City Charter.
INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this _ day of , 2016.
ADOPTED this day of , 2016 by the following vote;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-24 Page 5
DATE: November 8, 2016 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: LOMAS ANNEXATION PROJECT
Various Parcels Adjacent to Petaluma Blvd South between McNear
Avenue and Crystal Lane
File #07-ANX-0623
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
• Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Negative Declaration
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment A);
Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council support annexation of APNs 019-
210-010, -038, -039, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, -013, -014, -021, -022, -025, -029, -
032, -033, -034, -035 and -036 into the City of Petaluma as well as that portion of
Petaluma Blvd South located south of APN 019-210-005 and not within the City Limits
(Attachment B); and
• Adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the official
zoning map of the City of Petaluma by pre -zoning APN 019-210-009, -013, -014, -021, -
022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035, -036 to Residential (R4) and APN 019-210-005, -
006, -007, -008, -010, -038 and -039 to Mixed Use lA (MU1A) (Attachment C).
BACKGROUND
This boundary change and zoning amendment request are the result of a condition imposed by
the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (Sonoma County LAFCO) on the
Quarry Heights development at the intersection of Petaluma Blvd South and Crystal Lane. After
orienting readers on the project's location this background discussion will summarize the
relevant past actions that relate to the current request as well as pertinent General Plan policies.
Proiect Location
The project area is situated on both the northern and southern sides of Petaluma Boulevard
South, generally between McNear Avenue and the Highway 101 overpass (Figure 1). This area
is located within the Petaluma Boulevard South subarea of the Petaluma General Plan which
Page 1
to - I2
serves as the southern gateway to the City as it is approached from Highway 101. This area
presents a working industrial face to the northeast, grassy fields dotted with oaks to the southeast
and distant vistas across the Petaluma River and the southeast quadrant of the community to the
Sonoma Hills.
Many of the existing parcels in this subarea consist of industrial parcels accommodating storage
and working yards and residential parcels typically developed with single-family homes. The
presence of street frontage improvements, or lack thereof, currently provides a visual indication
of properties which are located within the City from those that are within unincorporated areas of
the County. The project area is within the "Highway 101 to D Street" portion of the planning
subarea, which becomes more urban in character as one approaches downtown.
Figure 1— Project Vicinity
Two -Phase Annexation
The area now under review was not annexed with the Quarry Heights project because the portion
south of Petalm-na Blvd South and east of Crystal Lane was a former surface mine that, at the
time of prior approvals (2005-2006), was not yet reclaimed in accordance with the Sonoma
County Surface Mining Ordinance and California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA). The City of Petaluma has no surface mines subject to SMARA and, as a result, the
City Council imposed a condition on the Quarry Height subdivision map preventing annexation
under reclamation was complete under the jurisdiction of the County of Sonoma and California
Office of Mine Reclamation. Table 1 summarizes the past actions leading to the current request.
Page 2
Io -t3
TABLE 1— SUMMARY OF PAST ACTIONS RELATED TO ANNEXATION
DATE ACTION
2005-06.06 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. supporting an application
to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-210-010, -011, -026, -038, and -039 and 019-220-
012 and -027 for a project known as the Lomas Residential Development and
pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985.
(Attachment D)
2006-06.19 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S. authorizing the City
Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the County of Sonoma
regarding jurisdiction over compliance with the Petaluma Quarry Revised
Reclamation Plan and also an agreement with South Petaluma Partners LLC
regarding a two-part annexation of various unincorporated properties along the
vicinity of Petaluma Boulevard South. (Attachment E)
2006-08.08 A Pre -Annexation Agreement Regarding Two -Park Annexation and Restrictive
Covenants was entered into between the City of Petaluma and South Petaluma
Partners LLC and recorded as Document No. 2006097772. (Attachment F)
2006-10.04 Sonoma County LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 2518 approving the annexation
supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S. but with Condition
No. 3(a) which reads in full, "Not later than 30 days after the City receives notice
from the County of Sonoma of the completion of reclamation of APNs 019-210-
010, 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City and/or the Applicant shall initiate
proceedings with the Commission for the annexation of APNs 019-210-005, 019-
210-006, 019-210-007, 019-210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-014,
019-210-021, 019-210-022, 019-210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-033, 019-210-
034, 019-210-035, and 019-210-036 to the City." (Attachment G)
2015-12.02 County of Sonoma provided notice to the California Office of Mine Reclamation,
pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975,
that the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 9149-0012) was fully reclaimed as
specified by the adopted reclamation plan.
2016-01.20 California Office of Mine Reclamation responded to the County of Sonoma's
December 2, 2015 notice and concurred the Petaluma Quarry (State Mine Id# 91-
49-0012) had been substantially reclaimed in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan and, therefore, the County has fulfilled the requirements of
California Code of Regulations §3805.05.
General Plan
The Petaluma General Plan includes a Land Use Map which establishes categories of land use
and development density and intensity. As shown at Figure 2 below, the project area includes
properties designated Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential.
Page 3
10-1`
PROPOSED LOMAS ANNEXATION I EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE (CITY)
Figure 2: General Plan Land Use Map at Project Area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the proposed annexation of nineteen (19) parcels from the Coimty of
Sonoma into the City of Petaluma, as required by Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518.
A list of these parcels and their associated Assessor's Parcel N-Lunber {APRT), address, and lot
size are listed in Table I below. Attachment H includes a brief profile of existing conditions at
each property proposed for annexation and pre -zoning.
Annexation
LAFCO Resolution No. 2518 identifies the affected territory as being within the sphere of
influence and voter -approved Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the City, as well as within the
"urban services area" boundary of Petal -Luna as defined in the Sonoma County General Plan.
The project would result in the annexation of seven (7) parcels with a mix of uses and twelve
(12) parcels with residential uses. The mixed-use parcels are presently used for outdoor storage,
maintenance/repair service, and auto vehicle sales and rentals, and with some
vacant/undeveloped parcels. The residential parcels primarily consist of single-family residences.
A few vacant/undeveloped parcels also occur within the project area. No development is
proposed as part of the project. Existing public infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, roads) would
remain in their current state.
Page 4
eau164dRo V
PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH
Z
Mixed Use (MU)
Public/Semi-Public (P/SP)
NADINE IN
Z
Park
Open Space (OS)
-:--.Low
Density Residential (RQ
Z
Z
Med iurn Density Residential (RM)
MISSION DR
L- sc.
Dive rse Low Density Residential (R DIV LOW)
A
Figure 2: General Plan Land Use Map at Project Area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the proposed annexation of nineteen (19) parcels from the Coimty of
Sonoma into the City of Petaluma, as required by Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518.
A list of these parcels and their associated Assessor's Parcel N-Lunber {APRT), address, and lot
size are listed in Table I below. Attachment H includes a brief profile of existing conditions at
each property proposed for annexation and pre -zoning.
Annexation
LAFCO Resolution No. 2518 identifies the affected territory as being within the sphere of
influence and voter -approved Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the City, as well as within the
"urban services area" boundary of Petal -Luna as defined in the Sonoma County General Plan.
The project would result in the annexation of seven (7) parcels with a mix of uses and twelve
(12) parcels with residential uses. The mixed-use parcels are presently used for outdoor storage,
maintenance/repair service, and auto vehicle sales and rentals, and with some
vacant/undeveloped parcels. The residential parcels primarily consist of single-family residences.
A few vacant/undeveloped parcels also occur within the project area. No development is
proposed as part of the project. Existing public infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, roads) would
remain in their current state.
Page 4
TABLE 2: LOMAS ANNEXATION AREA PARCELS
SITE #
PARCEL (APN)
ADDRESS
LOT SIZE (ACREAGE
1
019-210-005
1473 Petaluma Boulevard South
2.59
2
019-210-006
1475 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.00
3
019-210-007
1501 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.55
4
019-210-008
1525 Redwood South Highway
1.00
5
019-210-010
1601 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.44
6
019-210-038
1601 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.28
7
019-210-039
1601 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.82
8
019-210-009
2 Rovina Lane
1.00
9
019-210-036
3 Rovina Lane
1.00
10
019-210-035
1450 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.86
11
019-210-013
1430 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.17
12
019-210-014
1420 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.19
13
019-210-022
1410 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.18
14
019-210-021
1400 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.11
15
019-210-033
149 McNear Avenue
1.80
16
019-210-029
1280 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.23
17
019-210-034
0 McNear Avenue
0.09
18
019-210-025
55 McNear Avenue
0.18
19
019-210-032
1340 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.71
TOTAL ACREAGE 17.20
Pre-Zonmv
Consistent with the requirements under the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act (Gov't Code §5600 et
al), all parcels proposed for annexation must have a proposed "pre -zone" designation. Pre -zoning
essentially refers to the preliminary assignment of a future City zoning designation for each
parcel that would go into effect in the event annexation is approved by the Sonoma County
LAFCO. Proposed pre -zone designations for the annexation area are shown at Figure 4 below
and include two zones: Mixed Use IA (MUTA) and Residential 4 (R4).
The zoning designations at Figure 3 were chosen since Table 2-1 of the City of Petaluma
Implementing Zoning Ordinance considers them to be designations compatible with existing,
underlying General Plan Land Use designations. By assigning a zoning designation to each
parcel, a set of allowable uses and development standards would guide all future development
and changes within the annexation area. Some existing uses within the project area would be
permitted under proposed pre -zone designations while others are prohibited and would be
rendered legal non -conforming after annexation. Attachment H identifies which parcels would
be considered to have non -conforming uses after annexation and pre -zoning.
Page 5
Figure 3: Proposed Pre -zone Designations
The nature of this request is largely housingkeeping as it relates to compliance with an already -
imposed condition of approval and fulfillment of the terms of an existing agreement between the
City and applicant. Only one aspect — the specific mixed use pre -zone designation — required
specific analysis and discretion on the part of staff in relation to the recommendation. Before
addressing the rationale for choosing the NWIA designation, this section will discuss the policy
basis upon which the annexation requirement is based and supported by the Petaluma General
Plan.
Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act (Gov't Code 0600 et al)
Local agency formation commissions were created by state law in 1963 to encourage the orderly
formation of local government agencies, to preserve agricultural and open space land, and to
discourage urban sprawl. Sonoma LAFCO has jurisdiction over changes in local government
organization occurring within Sonoma County.
Proceedings for changes of organization of special districts or cities are subject to LAFCO
review, pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
(Government Code Section 56000, et seq.). With respect to this request, a change in organization
includes annexation to the City of Petaluma.
Amongst the many policies of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, those relating to orderly growth
Page 6
10-T17
PUD
MY1A
PUD
",a,14V 50
V,1140
PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH
CF
P4
CF
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
NADINE LN
R2
PUD
PUD
1111k-11
PUD PUD
MISSION DR
PUD
0 125 2,0
Feet
0
Figure 3: Proposed Pre -zone Designations
The nature of this request is largely housingkeeping as it relates to compliance with an already -
imposed condition of approval and fulfillment of the terms of an existing agreement between the
City and applicant. Only one aspect — the specific mixed use pre -zone designation — required
specific analysis and discretion on the part of staff in relation to the recommendation. Before
addressing the rationale for choosing the NWIA designation, this section will discuss the policy
basis upon which the annexation requirement is based and supported by the Petaluma General
Plan.
Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act (Gov't Code 0600 et al)
Local agency formation commissions were created by state law in 1963 to encourage the orderly
formation of local government agencies, to preserve agricultural and open space land, and to
discourage urban sprawl. Sonoma LAFCO has jurisdiction over changes in local government
organization occurring within Sonoma County.
Proceedings for changes of organization of special districts or cities are subject to LAFCO
review, pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
(Government Code Section 56000, et seq.). With respect to this request, a change in organization
includes annexation to the City of Petaluma.
Amongst the many policies of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, those relating to orderly growth
Page 6
10-T17
are relevant to the current request. More specifically, those pertaining to unincorporated islands
are the focus of review and state, with respect to this request, that the creation of islands of
unincorporated territory via annexation is prohibited.
When reviewing and acting upon the Quarry Heights project, the Sonoma County LAFCO
observed that land associated with the project north across Petaluma Blvd South would result in
the creation of an unincorporated island. In response, Sonoma County. LAFCO adopted
Resolution No. 2518 approving the annexation supported by City Council Resolution No. 2005-
087 N.C.S. but with Condition No. 3(a) which requires the action now up for review.
General Plan
The area subject to the current annexation and pre -zone request is located within the General
Plan's Urban Growth Boundary and provided land use designations, as illustrated at Figure 2
above and described in Table 3.
TABLE 3; GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN PROJECT AREA
LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION
Medium Density Residential This classification provides for a variety of dwelling
types, including single-family and multi -family housing.
(8.1 to 18.0 units per acre) Under a discretionary review process opportunities to
blend live -work or limited commercial/office uses
within a residential development may be permitted when
abutting an arterial roadway.
Mixed Use This classification requires a robust combination of uses,
(2.5 maximum FAR) including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or
offices. Development is oriented toward the pedestrian,
(30 units per acre) with parking provided, to the extent possible, in larger
common areas or garages. Maximum FAR including
both residential and non-residential uses is 2.5, and
maximum residential density is 30 d.u./acre.
The following General Plan policies below apply to and support the current request.
Policy 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the
community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Policy 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher
density and intensity than surrounding uses.
Policy 1-P-12 Encourage reuse of under-utilized sites along East Washington Street and
Petaluma Boulevard as multi -use residential/commercial corridors, allowing
ground -floor retail and residential and/or commercial/office uses on upper
floors.
Page 7
Goal 1-G-3 Encourage innovative site and building design to address parking solutions
such as shared, structured, and/or underground facilities.
Policyl-P-29 It is the policy of the City to build within the agreed upon Urban Growth
Boundary. No urban development shall be permitted beyond the Urban
Growth Boundary. "Urban development" shall mean development requiring
one or more basic municipal services including, but not limited to, water
service, sewer, improved storm drainage facilities, fire hydrants and other
physical public facilities and services; but shall not mean providing municipal
or public services to open space uses, public or quasi -public uses such as
schools or public safety facilities. Said municipal or public services or
facilities can be developed beyond the UGB to provide services within the
UGB.
Policy 1-P-30 No urban development beyond the Urban Growth Boundary shall be served
by City services except for (1) extensions to residential dwellings in existence
or approved for construction on parcels created on or before December 5,
1983; (2) extensions required pursuant to the terms of a service contract in
effect as of July 20, 1998; (3) extensions to remedy a clear health hazard to
residential dwellings in existence or approved for construction on parcels
created on or before July 20, 1998 where there is no reasonable alternative
means to remedy that health hazard; (4) extensions to open space and park
uses; (5) expansion of service to public and quasi -public uses existing as of
July 20, 1998; and (6) extraordinary circumstances pursuant to applicable
General Plan policies. (In relevant part)
Policy 1-P-35 Growth shall be contained within the boundaries of the Urban Growth
Boundary. The necessary infrastructure for growth will be provided within the
Urban Growth Boundary.
Implementing Zoning Ordinance
Table 2-1 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance provides a list of established zones and
identifies which are considered compatible with particular General Plan designations. For the
General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, the only compatible zoning is
Residential 4 (R4). For the General Plan designation of Mixed Use, however, four variations of
the Mixed Use zone (i.e., MUlA, MU1B, MU1C, and MU2) are potentially compatible. A
description of each mixed use zoning district is provided at Table 4 below.
For each MU1 subcategory (i.e., A, B, C), IZO Table 4.3 provides a different range of pennitted
land uses with the same development standards (e.g., building height, setbacks, etc.) applying to
all. Attachment I consist of IZO Table 4.3 (Allowed Uses and Pen -nit Requirements for Mixed
Use Zones) and Table 4.10 (MUl and MU2 Zone Development Standards). Many of the
differences in permitted use types are nuanced and best reviewed at Attachment I where they
are identified. Also, while many of the MUl and MU2 development standards are the same, one
key difference is the increased height permitted in the MU2 district (i.e., 45 feet compared to 30
feet in MU I).
Page 8
TABLE 4: POTENTIAL M XED-USE ZONES
ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
Mixed Use 1 The MU1 zone is applied to areas intended for pedestrian -oriented, mixed-
use development with ground -floor retail or office uses adjacent to the
Downtown Core, and in other areas of the city where existing auto -oriented
commercial areas are intended for improvement into pedestrian -oriented
mixed use development. The MUl zone is consistent with and implements
the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes
a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential
uses within the classification, and a maximum density of 30 units per acre
for residential.
• Mixed Use IA zone. This zone is applied to parcels located along
corridors such as East Washington Street, Petaluma Boulevard North,
Bodega Avenue and Lakeville Street. The parcels in these zones vary in
size and are typically located adjacent to residential zones.
• Mixed Use 1B zone. This zone is applied to larger parcels located
primarily along major arterial roadways. The larger parcel size should
allow for a mix of uses on the site.
• Mixed Use 1C zone. This zone is applied to smaller parcels located in
West Petaluma. Most of these parcels are located in residential areas and
the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is limited.
Mixed Use 2 The MU2 zone is applied to the Petaluma Downtown and adjacent areas
that are intended to evolve into the same physical form and character of
development as that in the historic downtown area. The MU2 zone is
consistent with and implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the
General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both
residential and non-residential uses within the classification, and a
maximum density of 30 units per acre for residential.
For the pre -zone aspect of this project, staff recommends the MUlA zone since, as mentioned in
its description, it reflects a range of uses and building height generally compatible with adjacent
residential zones. The zones of MU1B and MU1C are intended for different situations and
locations (i.e., large shopping centers; isolated, small parcels in west Petaluma). The MU2 zone
is not recommended since it generally reflects the intent for a taller, mixed use pattern. For
example, the MU2 zone only permits multi -family dwellings in mixed use buildings (above
ground floor) and the MUlA requires a conditional use permit for standalone multi -family
projects.
Next Steps
Following the City Council's consideration of the proposed annexation, the applicant, in
collaboration with the City will submit an application to The Sonoma County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO). Ultimate approval of the proposed annexation is at the
Page 9
W-2-0
discretion of LAFCO. Based on discussions with LAFCO staff, they are strongly supportive of
the City complying with the previously imposed condition requiring annexation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier on October 6, 2016 and notices
were mailed to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. All
property owners located within the annexation area were, in addition to the public hearing notice,
also mailed a copy of the CEQA document (discussed below) and a Frequently Asked Questions
handout explaining the process underway (see Attachment J). As of the writing of this staff
report, staff has received phone call inquiries but no written public comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared by staff to address the project's
potential effects on the environment (Attachment K). The Initial Study does not identify any
potentially significant environmental effects. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared
rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Initial Study and Negative Declaration
were circulated for a thirty (30) public review period between October 6, 2016 and November 7,
2016. As of the writing of this staff report, no public comments were received on these
documents.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Resolution Recommending Adoption of Negative Declaration
B. Draft Resolution Recommending Annexation
C. Draft Resolution Recommending Pre -Zoning
D. City Council Resolution No. 2005-087 N.C.S.
E. City Council Resolution No. 2006-119 N.C.S.
F. Pre -Annexation Agreement
G. Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518
H. Property Profiles of Annexation Area
L Mixed Use Zones: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
J. Lomas Annexation: Frequently Asked Questions
K. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Page 10
1 tn--D-L
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016
City of Petaluma, CA
City Council Chambers
y City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778-4301 / Fax 707/778-4498
E -Mail cdd@ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, November 8, 2016 – 07:00 PM
Regular Meeting
FINAL MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER (7:OOPM)
Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm.
Vice Chair Marzo
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Benedetti-Petnic, Pierre, Marzo, King, and Perlis.
ABSENT: Gomez, Wolpert, Lin, and Schlich.
Page 1
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Commission will hear public comments only on matters over which it has jurisdiction.
There will be no Committee/Commission discussion or action. The Chair will allot no more than
three minutes to any individual. If more than three persons wish to speak, their time will be
allotted so that the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be 15 minutes.
4. COMMITTEE COMMENT
A. Council Liaison – Dave King
Council Member King reported that on November 14th, there will be a workshop on ground
water and water rates where no action will be taken but direction will be given to City staff. At
the November 7th meeting, Council heard the Lakeville PCD project and decided to allow the
fitness use solely for lots 20 and 21 and not allow a zoning change for the entire district.
B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee – Richard Marzo
Vice Chair Marzo had nothing to report since the Committee has not met.
I c) - 2'—)
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 2
C. Tree Advisory Committee — Gina Benedetti-Petnic
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic had nothing to report since the Committee has not met.
D. Other Committee Comment
S. STAFF COMMENT
A. Planning Manager's Report
Planning Manager, Heather Hines, noted that the Lakeville PCD proposal that was heard by City
Council was for fitness facilities as a minor use permit in the entire PCD. The applicant and
property owner signed a letter asking to allow the use only for lots 20 and 21 which the Council
approved. Ms. Hines reminded the Commission that the second meeting in November has been
changed from November 20th to the 29th due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
Vice Chair Marzo
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes of joint Planning Commission/HCPC Meeting of Tuesday, October 25,
2016.
Vice Chair Marzo
Ms. Hines
The October 25, 2016 minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR (HCPC)
A. Burdell Mixed Use Project— Review final building elevations for compliance with Condition of
Approval #24 of HCPC Resolution #2016-02 approving Historical Site Plan and Architectural
Review for the Burdell Mixed Use Project. Project Location: File Number: PLMA-15-0006 Staff:
Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager
Staff Report - Burdell Mixed Use
Attachment A - Original and Revised Project Plans
Attachment B - HCPC Resolution No. 2016-02
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Motion: Approve final building elevations for compliance with Condition of Approval #24
of HCPC Resolution #2016-02 approving Historical Site Plan and Architectural
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 3
Review for the Burdell Mixed Use Project made by Gina Benedetti-Petnic,
seconded by Jennifer Pierre.
Vote: The motion carried 5 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, Council Member King
and Perlis.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, Kit Schlich and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
HCPC meeting was adjourned.
8. PC OLD BUSINESS
A. Brody Ranch Residential Project — Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the 15.92- acre
property from R-4 and R-5 to Planned Unit Development and approval of a unit development
plan and PUD standards. Vesting Tentative Subdivision map to subdivide the site into 59
single-family lots, one duplex and two multi -family lots for the development of 138 multi -family
units in nine three story buildings. The associated Initial study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration will also be reviewed for approval. Project Location: 360 Corona Road File Number:
PLMA-15-0007 Staff: Emmanuel Ursu, Principal Planner
Staff Report - Brody Ranch
Attachment A - Draft MND Resolution
Attachment A, Exhibit 1
Attachment B - Draft Zoning Amendment Resolution
Attachment C - Draft TSM Resolution
Attachment D - MOU between DeNova Homes and Land Trust of Sonoma County
Attachment F - Initial Study and MND
Attachment E - Public Correspondence
Attachment G - Cal Trans Comment Letter
Attachment H - SPAR Landscape Plans (SPAR 1-5)
Attachment H - Architectural Plans
Attachment I - Subdivision Landscape Plans (1-1-1-3)
Attachment I - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Plans
Vice Chair Marzo
Emmanuel Ursu, Principal Planner
Council member King
Mr. Ursu
Council member King
Mr. Ursu
Council member King
j(D_,2y
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 4
Mr. Ursu
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Curt Bates, City Engineer
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Mr. Bates
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Bates
Vice Chair Marzo
Council member King
Mr. Ursu
Council member King
Mr. Ursu
Council member King
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Ursu
)0-_aS
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 5
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Trent Sanson, Denova Homes, Inc.
Deb Goetschius, Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
Mr. Sanson
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Sanson
Council member King
Vice Chair Marzo
Council member King
Steve Lafranchi, Project Engineer
Council member King
Mr. Lafranchi
Council member King
Mr. Bates
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Lafranchi
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Lafranchi
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Lafranchi
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Lafranchi
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Jeff Monk, Monk Associates
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Monk
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Sanson
Mr. Lafranchi
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Lafranchi
Mr. Sanson
Commissioner Pierre
10- D�4
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November S, 2016 Page 6
Mr. Lafranchi
Mr. Sanson
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Sanson
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Sanson
Mr. Lafranchi
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Sanson
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Lafranchi
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Lafranchi
Robert Lee, Architect
Vice Chair Marzo
Gary Schindler, Petaluma resident, is not opposed to the project, but opposed to the high
density and the traffic it generates. He is concerned with safety of children who live in the
adjacent neighborhoods. A possible solution would be to make the street wider. He feels that
the tandem parking is also an issue because people tend to park in the streets. He would also
like to see more single homes.
Djorn Greipenburg, Bicycle Advisory Committee member, stated that a key goal for Corona
Road Station and Petaluma TOD master plan is improved connectivity. He stated that in the
proposal there is no connection to SMART and feels that a private/public partnership would
benefit all parties involved and that a more direct crossing should be pursued.
Mr. Ursu
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. Ursu
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Lafranchi
Andrea Chapman, Landscape Architect, Lafranchi Associates
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Chapman
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Chapman
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 7
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Chapman
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Ms. Chapman
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Council member King
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Council member King
Ms. Hines
Council member King
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Sanson
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Council member King
Mr. Ursu
Vice Chair Marzo
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 8
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ursu
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Motion: Approve resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Mitigate Negative
Declaration for Brody Ranch Residential Project located at 360 Corona Road
made by Jennifer Pierre, seconded by Gina Benedetti-Petnic.
Vote: The motion carried 4 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, and Council Member
King.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
Ms. Hines
to -),I
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 9
Motion: Approve resolution with modifications recommending that the City Council
approve a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the 15.92- acre property from R-4
and R-5 to Planned Unit Development and approval of a unit development plan
and PUD standards for the Brody Ranch Residential Project located at 360
Corona Road made by Gina Benedetti-Petnic, seconded by Jennifer Pierre.
Vote: The motion carried 4 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, and Council Member
King.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
Ms. Hines
Motion: Approve resolution with modifications recommending City Council approval of a
Tentative Subdivision Map for the Brody Ranch Residential Project located at 360
Corona Road made by Gina Benedetti-Petnic, seconded by Jennifer Pierre.
Vote: The motion carried 4 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, and Council Member
King.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
Vice Chair Marzo
9. PC NEW BUSINESS
A. Lomas Annexation Project - As required by Condition No. 3(a) of Sonoma County Local
Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 2518, consideration of: (a) Annexation of 19
parcels of land and adjacent public rights or way from the County of Sonoma to City of
Petaluma; (b) pre -zoning of the aforementioned 19 parcels of land; and (c) Negative Declaration
prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act. Project Locations: Land located
along Petaluma Blvd South between McNear Avenue south of Crystal Lane File Number: 07-
ANX-0623 Staff: Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager
Staff Report - Lomas Annexation
Attachment A - Draft Resolution Negative Declaration
Attachment B - Draft Resolution Recommending Annexation
Attachment C - Draft Resolution Recommending Prezoning
Attachment D - City Council Resolution 2005-087 N.C.S.
10 -3o
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 10
Attachment E - City Council Resolution 2006-119 N.C.S.
Attachment F - Pre -Annexation Agreement
Attachment G - Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518
Attachment H - Property Profiles of Annexation Area
Attachment I - Mixed use Zones: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Attachment J - Lomas Annexation: Frequently Asked Questions
Attachment K - Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Vice Chair Marzo
Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Colin
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Colin
Ms. Hines
Mr. Colin
Vice Chair Marzo
Council member King
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Colin
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Colin
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Paula Butterworth, owner of 5 parcels within the annexation proposal, is resentful about being
forced into this annexation. Her properties have been in her family for over 80 years and the
costs that will be incurred which will be a huge expense.
Jason Osborne, property owner within the proposal, stated that his family is excited about
getting City services. He noted that it would nice to someday see sidewalks on the south side of
Quarry Heights to allow additional traffic calming since there was a recent change to raise the
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 11
speed limit. He had a question regarding the condition of hooking up to sewer within 10 years
and if there was an abatement to the costs.
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Colin
Vice Chair Marzo
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Marzo
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Ms. Hines
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Benedetti-Petnic
Mr. Colin
Vice Chair Marzo
Motion: Approve resolution recommendation that City Council approve the Negative
Declaration for the Lomas Annexation Project made by Jennifer Pierre, seconded
by Richard Marzo.
Vote: The motion carried 4 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, and Council Member
King.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
Motion: Approve resolution recommending the City Council direct City Manager work
with South Petaluma Partners to carry out the remaining terms of the pre-
annexation agreement for the Lomas Annexation Project made by Gina
Benedetti-Petnic, seconded by Jennifer Pierre.
Joint HCPC and Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2016 Page 12
Vote: The motion carried 4 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, and Council Member
King.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
Motion: Approve resolution recommending the City Council approve amendment to the
zoning map of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to prezone certain properties
adjacent to Petaluma Blvd east of McNear and west of Highway 101 for the
Lomas Annexation Project made by Gina Benedetti-Petnic, seconded by Richard
Marzo.
Vote: The motion carried 4 - 0.
Yes: Gina Benedetti-Petnic, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, and Council Member
King.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Bill Wolpert, and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
Vice Chair Marzo
10. ADJOURN
Next Special Meeting of the HCPC/Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, November 29,
2016. The meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM.
16.33
DATE: September 27, 2016
TO: Property Owner
FROM: City of Petaluma Planning Division
SUBJECT: Lomas Annexation 2016, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why am I receiving this?
The Lomas Annexation is follow-up to the Quarry Heights residential development currently under
construction and located south of the roundabout at Petaluma Boulevard South/Crystal Lane. As a
condition of annexing Quarry Heights into the City of Petaluma in 2006, the Sonoma County Local
Agency Formation Commission (Sonoma County LAFCO) required parcels to the north and west to be
annexed at a future date. The prerequisites for that future annexation were recently met and the time for
the City of Petaluma to comply with the Sonoma County LAFCO condition is now.
What is an annexation?
An annexation is a change in governmental jurisdiction over properties, often from a county to a city.
Annexations are governed by the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of
2000 (California Government Code sections 56000, et. seq.) (Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act). The Cortese -
Knox Hertzberg Act has two main purposes: to discourage sprawl and encourage orderly government.
What is the purpose of an annexation?
Annexations occur for several reasons including, but not limited to, providing for orderly growth and the
efficient provision of public services (e.g., water, sewer, fire, police).
What is involved in annexing to the City?
In this case, the annexation proposal is the second and final stage of a larger annexation effort begun by
South Petaluma Partners LLC in 2004 and approved by Sonoma County LAFCO in October 2006. In
approving the annexation of the Quarry Heights residential development, the Sonoma County LAFCO
adopted Resolution No. 2518 including Condition 3(a) which reads,
"Not later than 30 days after the City received notice from the County of Sonoma of the completion
of reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, 019-210-038, and 019-210-039, the City and/or the Applicant
shall initiate proceedings with the Commission for annexation of APNs 019-210-005, 019-210-006,
019-210-007, 019-210-008, 019-210-009, 019-210-013, 019-210-014, 019-210-021, 019-210-022,
019-210-025, 019-210-029, 019-210-032, 019-210-033, 019-210-034, 019-210-035, and 019-210-036
to the City." (See Attachment A for map of annexation area)
On January 20, 2016, the California Office of Mine Reclamation notified the County of Sonoma that
mine reclamation activities were successfully completed. Therefore, the city and applicant are initiating
proceedings to above -referenced parcels. During the Fall of 2016, the Petaluma Planning Commission
will consider the annexation and make a recommendation to the City Council.
After City Council approval of the annexation, the final step would be consideration of an application to
the Sonoma County LAFCO who will have final decision-making authority.
What is Pre -zoning?
Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act §56375 mandates that the City of Petaluma "pre -zone" properties to be
annexed to zoning districts that are consistent with the land use designation identified in the City's
General Plan. The Petaluma General Plan designates properties on the north side of Petaluma Blvd South
as Mixed -Use and those on the south side as Medium Density Residential (8.1-18.0 housing units/acre).
(See Attachment B for General Plan Land Use Map)
Pre -zoning for the Lomas Annexation will be established through public hearings at the Petaluma
Planning Commission and City Council. Recommended "pre -zoning" for properties on the north side of
Petaluma Blvd South is Mixed Use (1A) (MUTA) and Residential 4 (R4) on the south side of Petaluma
Blvd South. Those pre -zone designations are directed by Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 2-1
which correlates Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map designations. (See Attachment C for Pre -
Zone Designations)
What if I do not want my property annexed?
If you do not support the annexation proposal you may request that your property be removed from the
annexation boundary by either writing a letter to the project planner or Sonoma County LAFCO or
appearing at the Planning Commission and City Council pre -zoning hearing and/or the LAFCO
annexation proceeding. Please note, however, that LAFCO discourages annexation of territory to a city if
that annexation splits an island of unincorporated territory, creating additional islands. Therefore, if your
property is surrounded by other properties that support the annexation or if the exclusion of your property
would create an illogical boundary for the provision of public services, it is unlikely that your property
will be excluded.
How long is the annexation process?
Generally, annexation takes eight months to one year to complete.
Who will pay for these annexation costs?
The developer of the Quarry Heights residential development (South Petaluma Partners), in a pre-
annexation agreement with the City, deposited funds to pay for the annexation.
Will my property taxes increase?
No, as a result of State Proposition 13, annexation will not result in any changes to your property taxes.
Will my property be reassessed?
No, annexation will not cause your property to be reassessed. Your property would only be reassessed
when it is sold or if you make major improvements.
How will annexation affect my property value?
Generally, most real estate professionals would agree that being annexed to the City would add to the
M
value of your property due to the increase in services that would be available.
Will the cost of my home insurance change?
Your fire insurance may decrease. Theft and casualty insurance may also be slightly less. Please consult
your insurance agent regarding your specific situation.
Will I be serviced by a different fire department?
Yes. All properties within the city limits are serviced by the Petaluma Fire Department.
Will I be serviced by a different police department?
Yes. All properties within the city limits are serviced by the Petaluma Police Department.
What other services will change?
In addition to police and fire services, public works, housing, and planning services currently provided by
the County would be replaced with services provided by the City of Petaluma.
Will my children change school districts?
No. They will attend the same schools they now attend.
Will my address or zip code change?
No.
Can I connect to water and sewer services?
Yes. As a city resident you can connect to City water service. The cost for a single family residential
water connection is approximately $3,488 plus about $150 for the cost of a water meter. Sewer
connection fees are approximately $7,166. Additional information on monthly charges is available at the
city's website: http://cityofpetaluma.net/wrcd/waterrates.html
Do I have to connect to sewer and water after annexation?
If you have a health hazard relating to your well or septic system and a sewer or water line exists within
300 feet of your property, you must connect to the service (as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code).
Otherwise, all existing units within the annexation area may keep the existing well and/or septic system if
it currently meets county standards. However, City Resolution No. 8955 N.C.S. states that after ten years,
each property must connect to the city sewer service. For some properties in the annexation area, South
Petaluma Partners installed a main line with stubs to adjacent properties.
Must I install curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights?
Not unless you are pursuing a development project.
Do all violations have to be straightened out before annexation?
No. The City of Petaluma will work with the County to enforce pending violations, or the City will
assume the responsibility for enforcement of violations.
)l-3
What if I have questions?
Please call, email or write to:
Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager
(707) 778-4314
kcolin@ci.petaluma.ca.us
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94530
ATTACHMENTS
A. Annexation Area
B. General Plan Land Use Map
C. Pre -Zone Designations
t l—q
`-PROP OSMLOM AS -ANNE XATION I ANNEX.ATl0N-B0UNcMY--',,
CauffieldROW
Ivi
r
I T-
+Y�- � I I ISE
AD!
PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH
�c
NADINE LN
ca
MISSION DR
A 0 \12�, *0 500 0
�eet
PRO-POSEP LAMAS AUN EXATIO N I EXISTING GENERAL -RL -AN --LAND LfSE,(CITY)
M
Caulfield ROW
11 �A
T
SO
-4v
"
PETALUMA BLVD
SOUTH
Ca
?I
— ---------------
<
z
De ST
Mixed Use (MU)
2
Public/Semi-Public (P/SP)
NADINE LN
Park
<
z
Open Space (OS)
Low Density Residential
�
'01
z
t;Medium
DentyResidenal (RM)
tiZST
- ------ t j
MISSION
DR
0
M
Diverse Low Density Residential (R DIV LOW)
0 125\ AO
600
—Feet
01
Q:
M
M
PROPOSED LOMAS ANNEXATION EXISTING AN --P-ROP-OSED ZONINGF-(CITY)
-j-
CaulfiefdROW
ltl
L
110
----------
PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH
Z
u 91_1141_1i,_C_11�
71
Civic Facility (CF)
NADINE LN
Mixed Use 1A (MU1A)
Z
z
Open Space -Park (OSP)
Residential 2 (R2)
1
Z*
Residential 4 (R4)
L-4 -
MISSION DR
z
1
Ji
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
0 -2,0
500 I
Feet
-1,5,
M
ATTACHMENT 12
--- - NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A- L U AND
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
ANNEXATION AND PRE -ZONING FOR NINETEEN PARCELS OF
LAND AND ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
z $ 5 a LOMAS ANNEXATION PROJECT
FILE NO.07-ANX-0623
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 019-210-010, -038, -039, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, -013, -014, -021,
-022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035 and -036
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines §15072, to
responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups and the general public that the City of Petaluma proposes to adopt a
Negative Declaration for the Lomas Annexation Project. The Initial Study prepared for the project identifies no potentially
significant environmental effects. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is available for review at the Planning
Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 or at www.cityofpetaluma.net/edd/major-projects.htinl.
NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN, in conformance with Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050(A) and
Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act §56755, to all interested persons that the Planning
Commission will consider the IS/ND and proposals to: (a) annex fi•om the County of Sonoma to the City of Petaluma
nineteen (19) parcels of land and adjacent public rights of way; and (b) initiate pre -zoning of those parcels of land.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the annexation of nineteen (19) parcels and adjoining right-of-way
from the County of Sonoma into the City of Petaluma, and pre -zoning of all parcels consistent with the City's General
Plan Land Use designations. Parcels on the north side of Petaluma Boulevard South would have a pre -zone designation of
Mixed Use IA (MUTA). Parcels on the south side of Petaluma Boulevard South would have a pre -zone designation of
Residential 4 (R4). No physical development is proposed. The annexation of these parcels is required by Condition No.
3 (a) of Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 2518.
PROJECT LOCATION: The project includes land located along Petaluma Boulevard South between McNear Avenue
and just south of Crystal Lane (but west of US 101); see enclosed map.
CEQA DOCUMENT REVIEW PERIOD: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073, the IS/ND public review period
during which written comments will be accepted extends from October 6, 2016 through November 8, 2016,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE/TIME: Tuesday, November 8, 2016, at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The Planning Commission will consider the requested
actions and, after taking public testimony, make a recommendation to the City Council.
IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Planning Division, City of Petaluma, 11 English Street,
Petaluma California, 94952. You can also hand deliver letters prior to the meeting or e-mail comments. All Planning
Commission and City Council meetings are televised on the Petaluma Community Access Cable Channel 28.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: You may contact Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager, at (707) 778-4314 or
kcolin@ci.petaluma.ca.us. You can also come to the Planning Division to review the project file. The office is open
Monday through Thursdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. City Hall is closed Fridays.
Efforts will be made to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City Manager's office must be notified at (707) 778-4345 within 5
days from date of publication of this notice if you need special accommodations.
For accessible meeting information:
Please call (707) 778-4360 or R
TDD (707) 778-4480
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
the City Clerk's Office at (707) 778-4360 (voice) or (707) 778-4480 (TDD). Translators, American Sign Language interpreters, and/or
assistive listening devices for individuals with hearing disabilities will be available upon request. A minimum of 48 hours is needed to
ensure the availability of translation services. In consideration of those with chemical sensitivities or other environmental illness, it is
requested that you refrain from wearing scented products.
12--1
�� Y
WE
�Z �
INITIAL STUDY ,OVERVIEW =AND BACKGROUND, _,- _
Project Title: Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma
Lead Agency: 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Kevin Colin, Deputy Planning Manager
Contact person and phone number: kcolin@ci.petaluma.ca.us
(707) 778-4314
Towards the southeastern city limits, west of U.S. Highway
101 south of the Petaluma River, including properties on
Project Location: both sides of Petaluma Boulevard South. APNs: 019-210-
010, -038, -039, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, -013, -014, -
021, -022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035 and -036
South Petaluma Partners, LLC
Contact: Tom A. Grabiel
Project Sponsor: 305 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 303
Fullerton, CA 92832
(714) 738-8374
Property Owners: Various
Citv of Petaluma General Plan: (Various) Mixed Use and
General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential
Countv of Sonoma General Plan: (Various) General
Industrial, Urban Residential, and Rural Residential
City of Petaluma Zonino.: N/A
Zoning: Countv of Sonoma Zoning: (Various) Heavy Industrial -B8
District, R1 Low Density Residential -B8 District, and Rural
Residential -B8 District.
Annexation of 19 parcels from the County of Sonoma into
Description of project•' the City of Petaluma, and pre -zoning of all parcels
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
designations. No physical development proposed.
The project is surrounded on two sides, to the south and
west, by residential development within the City's
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: boundaries. The Petaluma River is located directly to the
north, and Highway 101 and Petaluma Boulevard South to
the east.
Other Public Agency Approvals: County of Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission
September 2016 Page 1
t`2.-- 10
LOMAS ANNEXATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE #
1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................................................2
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................•.............................................................2
1.3
SONOMA COUNTY LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 2618 ............................................................................... 6
1.4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................... 6
1.5
APPROVALS FROM OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES........................................................................8
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................................................... 9
3. DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY).............................................................
9
4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...........................................................................................
9
4.1
AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................................................................10
4.2
AGRICULTURALAND FORESTRY RESOURCES..............................................................................................................12
4.3
AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................................13
4.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................................16
4.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................................19
4.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS...................................................................................................................................................
22
4.7
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS....................................................................................................................................26
4.8
HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS............................................................................................................................28
4.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................................................................................30
4.10
LAND USE AND PLANNING.....................................................................................................................................33
4.11
MINERAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................................36
4.12
NOISE......................................................................................................................................................................37
4.13
POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................................................................39
4.14
PUBLIC SERVICES....................................................................................................................................................41
4.15
RECREATION...........................................................................................................................................................43
4.16
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION...................................................................................................................44
4.17
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...........................................................................................................................46
4.18
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §15065)..............................................................50
5. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS............................................................................................................................ 52
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure1 — Project Vicinity....................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure2 — Project Area............................................................................................................................................3
Figure 3 — General Plan Land Use Map at Project Area....................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 — Proposed Pre -zone Designations........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 5 — Existing Public Utilities.......................................................................................................................47
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Lomas Annexation Area Parcels........................................................................................................... 6
Table2 — Proposed Pre-Zoning............................................................................................................................ 34
Table 3 — Sites Identified in Housing Element for Residential Development .................................................. 40
ATTACHMENTS
A. PROPERTY PROFILES
September 2016 Page 1
c sl:�
Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma
The City of Petaluma is located approximately 35 miles northwest of San Francisco, in southwestern Sonoma
County, along the Highway 1O1corridor (Figure 1\The proposed annexation nfnineteen (1g)parcels analyzed
herein ("project area) are located near the southern edge of Petaluma, in close proximity to Highway 101 and
the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)Corridor.
The project area is situated on both the northern and southern sides of Petaluma Boulevard South, generally
between McNearAvenue and the Highway 01overpass (Figure 2).The individual parcels range |nsize from
0.09 acres to 2.59 acres and feature varying existing development conditions, as discussed further in the Project
Description below.
LoMm�AmmEXA/
--_ '
~
�
~~~
-~~
� .
^..//
"0 0,375 0.75
Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the US 101 corridor approximately 15 miles south of
Santa Rosa and 20 miles north of San Rafael. It is situated at the northernmost navigable end of the Petaluma
River, a tidal estuary that meanders southward to San Pablo Bay. The city originated along the banks of the
Petaluma River, spreading outward over the floor of the Petaluma River Valley as it developed. The valley itself is
defined by Sonoma Mountain on the northeast and by the hills extending northward from Burdell Mountain on the
west. To the south are the Petaluma Marshlands and the San Pablo Bay beyond.
The City of Petaluma bcharacterized asapredominantly urban environment with vacant/undeveloped of
land within its Urban Growth Boundary. The city is comprised of a variety of zoning districts including commercial,
residential, industrial, parks/open space, civic facilities, agricultural, mixed use, business park, and planned
unit/community districts. The city exhibits an assortment o[historic resources consisting of properties, buildings,
and/or monuments.
Page September 2016
City of Petaluma
NX
NN
PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH
ST
NADINE LNMISSION DR
The project site is located within the Petaluma Boulevard South subarea of the Petaluma General Plan which
serves eothe southern gateway tothe City as it is approached from Highway 101. This area presents working
industrial face to the northeast, grassy fields dotted with oaks to the southeast and distant vistas across the
Petaluma River and the southeast quadrant of the community to the Sonoma Hills. Many of the existing parcels in
this subarea consist of industrial parcels accommodating storage and working yards and residential parcels
typically developed with single-family homes. The pn*oenms ofstreet frontage improvements, or lack thereof,
currently provides o visual indication of properties vvh|oh are located within the City from those that are within
unincorporated areas of the County. The project area is within the "Highway 101 to D Street" portion of the
planning subarea, which becomes more urban in character as one approaches downtown.
Proiect Area & Vicinitv
Circulation in the project vicinity primarily occurs along Petaluma Boulevard South which serves as o major
arterial within the City. McNear Avenue bounds the western edge of the annexation area and serves as a local
collector street, An existing traffic circle at Petaluma Boulevard South and Crystal Lane is planned to extend north
via a new river crossing to connect with Caulfield LnOm in the future, as envisioned by the GmDmna| Man. The
existing attributes (oddness, APN, size, existing use, Mabo|uma General Plan designation) of each parcel proposed
for annexation and pre -zoning under the project isincluded at Attachment A.
OUbymKPetaluma General Plan
The Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted in 2008serves the following purposes:
September 2016 Page 3
Lomas Annexation
City ofPetaluma
* Reflects o commitment on the part ofthe City CoUmj| and their appointed representatives and staff to
carry out the Plan;
° Outlines a vision for Pehw|uma's long-range physical and economic development and neuuunza
conservation; enhances the quality oflife for all residents and visitors; recognizes that human activity
takes place within the limits of the natural environment; and reflects the aspirations of the community;
° Provides stnnhagimn and specific implementing poUdaa and programs that will allow this vision to be
accomplished;
= Establishes n basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in
harmony with Plan policies and standards;
* Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will
enhance the character mfthe communihy� preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and
minimize impacts and hazards; and
* Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs,
such as Development Codes, the Capital Improvement Program (ClP), facilities and Master Plans,
redevelopment projects, andthaUrbanGrowthBoundary/UGB\.
Land Use Mat)
The Petaluma General Plan includes aLand Use Map which establishes categories of land use and development
density and intensity. Asshown at Figure 3 below, the project area includes properties designated Mixed Use
and Medium Density Residential.
ITD
SO
14 I'll, V
INV
Mixed Use (MU)
NADINELN
Park
Open Space (05)
Lc)w Density Residential (RL)
2 Medium Density Residential (RM)
MISSIONDR Diverse Low Density Residential (R DIV LOM
Page September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma General Plan Environmental Impact Report
Because CEQA discourages "repetitive discussions of the same issues" (CEQA Guidelines section 15152b) and
allows limiting discussion of a later project that is consistent with a prior plan to impacts which were not
examined as significant effects in a prior EIR or to significant effects which could be reduced by revisions in the
later project (CEQA Guidelines section 15152d), no additional benefit to the environment or public purpose would
be served by preparing an EIR merely to restate the analysis and the significant and unavoidable effects found to
remain after adoption of all General Plan policies/mitigation measures. All General Plan policies adopted as
mitigation apply to the subject Project.
The General Plan EIR reviewed all potentially significant environmental impacts and developed measures and
policies to mitigate impacts. Nonetheless, significant and unavoidable impacts were determined to occur under
the General Plan. Therefore, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which balance the merits
of approving the project despite the potential environmental impacts. The impacts identified as significant and
unavoidable in the General Plan EIR are:
• Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six
intersections covered in the Master Plan: McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road, Lakeville
Street/Caulfield Lane, Lakeville Street/East D Street, Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street, Sonoma Mt.
Parkway/Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street, and McDowell Boulevard North/Rainier Avenue.
• Traffic related noise at General Plan build -out, which would result in a substantial increase in existing
exterior noise levels that are currently above City standards.
• Cumulative noise from proposed resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible
resumption of intra -city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts.
• Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan build -out to population levels that could conflict with the
Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean
Air Plan, which is further discussed in Sections 3.3 Air Quality and 3.7 Greenhouse Gases.)
• A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution greenhouse gas emissions from
development under the General Plan.
Because CEQA discourages "repetitive discussions of the same issues," this environmental document tiers off of
the General Plan EIR (SCH NO.: 2004082065), which was certified on April 7, 2008, to examine site-specific
impacts of the proposed project, as described below. A copy of the City of Petaluma's General Plan and EIR are
available at the Community Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California 94952, during
normal business hours and online at http://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/plan-general-plan,html.
While this Initial Study addresses the potential site-specific environmental effects of the project, the scope of
review is particular to its boundary and zoning changes which exclude physical changes to the environment.
Because of the absence of direct physical changes, the focus of review is primarily on potential indirect
environmental effects that may result from the project. CEQA Guidelines §15064 (d) addresses this situation as
follows:
"In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct
physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project."
CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)(3) goes on to state, "An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that
change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or
unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable." As this Initial Study documents, many of the project's indirect
physical changes (e.g., urban residential and mixed-use development within the project area) are addressed by
the programmatic analyses of the General Plan EIR but not reasonably foreseeable with regard to their location,
l'2._-IZ
September 2016 Page 5
Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma
type, nature, extent. Therefore, in order to prevent speculation, this Initial Study briefly identifies when this
situation arises and ends discussion on the matter. When and if future direct physical changes are proposed
within the project area and subject to review under CEQA, the City of Petaluma would prepare a separate
analysis of potential environmental effects.
1.3 SONOMA COUNTY LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 2518
On October 4, 2006, the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (Sonoma County LAFCO) adopted
Resolution No. 2518, subject to conditions. That resolution approved the annexation of land, generally referred to
as the Quarry Heights project on the south side of Petaluma Boulevard South, into the City of Petaluma.
Condition No. 3(a) of that resolution requires that, within thirty (30) days of the City receiving notice that surface
mine reclamation of APNs 019-210-010, -038, and -039 has been completed, the area under review in this CEQA
document shall be subject to annexation proceedings. Those properties were identified as APNs 019-210-005, -
006, -007, -008, -009, -013, -014, -021, -022, -025, -029, -032, -033, -034, -035 and -036. On January 20, 2016,
the California Office of Mine Reclamation notified the County of Sonoma that surface mine reclamation was
completed.
1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the proposed annexation of nineteen (19) parcels from the County of Sonoma into the City
of Petaluma, as required by Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution No. 2518. A list of these parcels and their
associated Assessor's Parcel Number (APN), address, and lot size are listed in Table 1 below. The proposed area
is contiguous to the current City of Petaluma incorporated boundary and would serve to remove the "peninsula"
of unincorporated land that currently exists.
Annexation
LAFCO Resolution No. 2518 identifies the affected territory as being within the sphere of influence and voter -
approved Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the City, as well as within the "urban services area" boundary of
Petaluma as defined in the Sonoma County General Plan.
The project would result in the annexation of seven (7) parcels with a mix of uses and twelve (12) parcels with
residential uses. The mixed-use parcels are presently used for outdoor storage, maintenance/repair service, and
auto vehicle sales and rentals, and with some vacant/undeveloped parcels. The residential parcels primarily
consist of single-family residences. A few vacant/undeveloped parcels also occur within the project area. No
development is proposed as part of the project. Existing public infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, roads) would
remain in their current state.
Site Number
Parcel (APN)
Address
Lot Size (Acreage)
1
019-210-005
1473 Petaluma Boulevard South
2.59
2
019-210-006
1475 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.00
3
019-210-007
1501 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.55
4
019-210-008
1525 Redwood South Highway
1.00
5
019-210-010
1601 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.44
6
019-210-038
1601 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.28
7
019-210-039
1601 Petaluma Boulevard South
1.82
8
019-210-009
2 Rovina Lane
1.00
9
019-210-036
3 Rovina Lane
1.00
10
019-210-035
1450 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.86
11
019-210-013
1430 Petaluma Boulevard South
0.17
i.2- i ^�
Page 6 September 2016
City ofPetaluma
Lomas Annexation
12
019-210'014
1420 Petaluma Boulevard South
0,19
13
019'210-022
141OPetaluma Boulevard South
0.18
14
019-210-021
14OOPetaluma Boulevard South
0.11
15
019'210'033
149MmNearAvenue
1.80
16
019'210-029
128OPetaluma Boulevard South
0.23
17
019'210-034
OMcNeorAvenue
0.09
18
019-210-025
SSMcNearAvenue
0.18
19
019-210'032
134OPetaluma Boulevard South
1.71
Total Acreage
j
PUD
17^20
Consistent with the requirements underthe Act (Govt Code §5600etal), all parcels
proposed for annexation have a proposed "pre -zone" designation. Pre -zoning essentially refers to the preliminary
assignment oya future City zoning designation for each parcel that would gointo effect iOthe event annexation b
approved by the Sonoma County LAFCO. Proposed pre -zone designations for the annexation area are shown at
Figure 4below and include two zones: Mixed Use 1A(MU1A) and Residential 4(R4).
'_PROF!OSED LOMAS ANNEXATION EXISTING -AND -PROPOSED -ZONING
`
`
`
PUD`
rETA^vu^BLVD SOUTH
NADINE LN
�,
���
�� ��
~-'------H�—
`- � ��
� ~^
/ \ `�~ �
' ( ` '
'/// / PUD
j
PUD
`
`
`
PUD`
NADINE LN
VC`
PUD
PUD
MISSION DR
Pt JJ
Feot
The zoning designations at Figure were chosen since Table 2-1ofthe City of Petaluma Implementing Doning
Ordinance considers them to be designations compatible with existing, underlying General Plan Land Use
designations. By assigning a zoning designation to each parcel, a set of aUmwobka uses and development
standards would guide all future development and changes within the annexation area. Some existing uses within
September 2016 Page
Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma
the project area would be permitted under proposed pre -zone designations while others are prohibited and would
be rendered legal non -conforming after annexation. This issue is discussed further at Section 4.10 (Land Use and
Planning).
1,5 APPROVALS FROM OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES
The proposed project requires approval from the County of Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission
("Sonoma County LAFCO"). No other regulatory agency approvals have been identified.
12- r5
Page 8 September 2016
City of Petaluma
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Lomas Annexation
None of the following environmental categories would be potentially affected by this project as indicated
by the following environmental analysis.
Aesthetics
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Agricultural & Forestry Resources
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Population/Housing
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Public Services
❑
Geology / Soils
❑
Recreation
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Transportation
❑
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑
Utilities/Service Systems
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Mandatory Findings
❑
3. DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A X
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
t earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
/imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Lead Agency:
in Colin, Deputy Planning Manager Date
4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
Explanations are provided for each item. For each topic listed below, reference documents were used to complete
the Environmental Checklist and are listed in Section 5 of this document.
September 2016
1 -)_--4 (0
Page 9
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
4.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Less Than
Less Less than No
Would the project: Significant
with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑
❑
❑
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a ❑ El ❑
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ® ❑
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ ❑
nighttime views in the area?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO)
Setting
The natural features that characterize Petaluma and its surroundings provide for a visually rich setting. The City
of Petaluma is located in the Petaluma River Valley, which is a northwest -southeast trending valley between
Sonoma Mountain and Mount Burdell. The City is flanked by the foothills and peaks associated with these
mountain ranges which provide for views of rolling hills and agricultural landscapes. The Petaluma River and
tributaries traversing Petaluma further contribute to the aesthetic quality of the city. A long established urban
form within city limits contrasts with the surrounding open space and agricultural land uses and provides for a
distinct visual character.
Although the annexation area is not located within City boundaries, it is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
and was considered for future build -out under the General Plan EIR. The proposed project does not include any
view shed points, as shown in General Plan EIR Figure 3.11-1 (View shed Analysis). The existing aesthetic setting
within the project includes intermittent views of the Sonoma Mountains and Petaluma River, as well as
surrounding hills to the South.
Impact Discussion
4.1 (a) (Scenic Vista) No Impact: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas.
The project excludes physical changes to the environment (e.g., new building) that would result in a change to
the existing aesthetic setting. Regardless, the project excludes and is not visible from important public view sheds
identified at General Plan EIR Figure 3.11-1. For these reasons, the project would have no impact with regard to
scenic vistas.
Miticiation Measures: None Required
4.1 (b) (Scenic Resources) No Impact: No designated state scenic highways occur within the City of Petaluma.
The project site includes trees, though none are proposed for removal. The project site excludes rock
outcroppings, historic buildings and lacks other scenic resources. Therefore, the project would result in no
impacts to scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway,
C2-(-7
Page 10 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
Lomas Annexation
4.1 (c) (Visual Character and Oualitv) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would not have a significant
impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, as no physical change to the
environment is proposed. Although the project could lead to future development proposals, similar physical
changes could occur now under the jurisdiction of the County of Sonoma.
The City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) provides development standards and design criteria
in order to reinforce the desired building forms and character of the community. A future development proposal
within the City's jurisdiction would be reviewed for consistency with such standards and undergo a Site Plan and
Architectural Review process. Therefore, impacts to the visual character and quality of the site and surrounding
areas would be less than significant.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
4.1 (d) (Licht and Glare) No Impact: No new sources of light or glare are proposed as part of the project. Any
future development proposed in the City's jurisdiction would be subject to design review requirements, including
standards that control light sources to prevent substantial light or glare. Thus, the project would have no impact
under this criterion.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
September 2016 Page 11
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Significant Less than No
Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Sources: CA Department of Conversation, Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program.
Impact Discussion
4.2 (a -e) (Farmland Conversion. Williamson Act, Forestland, Timberland) No Imoact: The California Department
of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the project site as "Urban and Built -Up
Land." No property in the project area has an agricultural zoning designation or Williamson Act contract. The
project also excludes forestland and timberland. Based on the above, the project will have no impact under this
environmental topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
12---11
Page 17 September 2016
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
❑
❑ ❑
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
❑
❑ ❑
Williamson Act contract?
c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
❑
❑ ❑
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d)
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
❑
❑ ❑
land to non -forest use?
e)
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
❑
❑ ❑
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Sources: CA Department of Conversation, Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program.
Impact Discussion
4.2 (a -e) (Farmland Conversion. Williamson Act, Forestland, Timberland) No Imoact: The California Department
of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the project site as "Urban and Built -Up
Land." No property in the project area has an agricultural zoning designation or Williamson Act contract. The
project also excludes forestland and timberland. Based on the above, the project will have no impact under this
environmental topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
12---11
Page 17 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Lomas Annexation
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Potentially Less Than Less than
Would the project: Significant Significant Significant No Impact
Impact with
Mitigation Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing ❑ ❑ ❑
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a.substantial
number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma Housing Element 2015 — 2023, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan
Setting
The City of Petaluma is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Air quality within the Bay Area Air Basin is affected by natural
geographical and meteorological conditions as well as human activities such as construction and development,
operation of vehicles, industry and manufacturing, and other anthropogenic emission sources. The Federal Clean
Air Act and the California Clean Air Act establish national and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD is
responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin
including the City of Petaluma.
The BAAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations, whereas the closest station to the City of Petaluma
is located in eastern Sebastopol, approximately 16 miles northwest. The Sebastopol station records pollutant
concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter
(PM2.5).
The Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non -attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state ozone
standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Bay Area Air Basin is also in non -
attainment for the PMlo and PM2.5 state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than
20 pg/m3 for PMlo and less than 12 lag/m3 for PM2,5. In addition, the Basin is designated as non -attainment for
the national 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard and will be required to prepare a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2,5. All other national ambient air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin
are in attainment.
This Initial Study applies the BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act — Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012,
including the BAAQMD thresholds of significance adopted in .lune 2010. In March 2012, the Alameda County
LZ -20
September 2016 Page 13
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
Superior Court ordered BAAQMD to set aside use of the significance thresholds within the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines until they complete an assessment of the environmental effects of the thresholds in accordance with
CEQA. The Court found that the thresholds, themselves, constitute a "project" for which environmental review is
required.
Lead agencies may continue to rely on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "for assistance in calculating air pollution
emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential
mitigation measures." The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include the best available scientific data and most
conservative thresholds available for comparison of the project's emissions against these thresholds provides a
conservative assessment as the basis for a determination of significance. In the absence of other applicable
thresholds, the City of Petaluma, as lead agency, has chosen to utilize the June 2010 BAAQMD thresholds and
May 2011 Guidelines as a means to conservatively assess the project's potential environmental effects.
Impact Discussion
4.3 (a) (Air Oualitv Plan Conflict) Less than Sianificant Impact: The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air
Plan (CAP) in September 2010 to comply with state air quality planning requirements set forth in the California
Health & Safety Code. The 2010 CAP serves to update the 2005 Ozone Strategy and provides control strategies to
address air quality pollutants including ozone (03), Particulate Matter (PM), toxic air contaminants (TACs), and
greenhouse gases (GHGs). A total of 55 control strategies have been developed as part of the CAP for land use,
energy and climate, stationary sources, transportation, and mobile sources. Control strategies are designed to
reduce emissions of ozone precursors, PM, air toxics, greenhouse gases, and work towards attainment of state
ozone standards, reduce transport of ozone to neighboring basins, and to protect public health and the climate.
Build -out within Petaluma's UGB has already been anticipated under the General Plan EIR and potential conflicts
associated with that growth was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. The project would not alter
any of the assumptions (e.g., higher development intensity) leading to that prior impact determination. As such,
the project has no potential for new or more severe impacts above that previously identified by the Petaluma
General Plan EIR. However, future development within the project area would be subject to the CAP and
implement control strategies, including measures such as enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access, energy
efficiency, and others.
Based on the above, the project would have a less than significant impact under this criterion.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
4.3 (b -c) (Air Oualitv Standards and Criteria Pollutants) No Impact: Since the project would not authorize any
new emissions sources, there would be no violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an
existing or projected air quality violation. For the same reasons, the project would not directly result in any
emission contribution towards a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in "non -attainment" under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.
With regard to indirect changes resulting from the project vis-a-vis future urban redevelopment, it is speculative
and not reasonably foreseeable to determine whether air quality standards would be violated. When and if the
City of Petaluma were to be in receipt of a development application within the project area at a future date, it
would be subject to its own project -level environmental review under CEQA where individual site characteristics,
including emission sources, would be analyzed. Therefore, the project would result in no impact under these
criteria.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.3 (d -e) (Sensitive Receptors and Odors) No Impact: Sensitive receptors may include population groups (i.e.
children, senior citizens, acutely or chronically ill people) and/or facilities where these groups more susceptible to
air pollutants tend to reside or spend time (i.e. schools, retirement homes, hospitals). The project site excludes
any sources of objectionable odors (e.g., landfill) and, since it excludes new sources of air emissions, there is no
C Z -z(
Page 14 September 2016
City of Petaluma
potential for direct impacts to sensitive receptors.
Lomas Annexation
With regard to indirect changes resulting from the project vis-a-vis future urban redevelopment, it is speculative
and not reasonably foreseeable to determine whether new emissions sources would have an adverse effect on
sensitive receptors. When and if the City of Petaluma were to be in receipt of a development application within
the project area at a future date, it would be subject to its own project -level environmental review under CEQA
where individual site characteristics, including emission types and locations, would be analyzed. Therefore, the
project would result in no impact under these criteria.
Mitigation Measures: None required
12--22-
September
2—z2
September 2016 Page 15
Lomas Annexation
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
City of Petaluma
Potential) less Than less than
Significant Significant Significant No Impact
Impact with
Mitigation Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Formerly Fish and Game)
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game)
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ❑ ❑ ® ❑
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ® ❑
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning
Ordinance (IZO)
Setting
Biological resources evaluated under this section are protected by statutes such as the Federal Endangered
Species Act (FESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) affords protection to migratory bird species including birds of prey. These
regulations provide the legal protection for plant and animal species of concern and their habitat.
The General Plan EIR identifies that several plant and animal species with special -status have been recorded or
are suspected to occur within Petaluma's UGB. The city also contains species that are identified in the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to rarity and threats, and are considered sensitive resources. This
2--2-'2
Page 16 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
analysis considers information retrieved for the project area from the CNDDB database.
Within the UGB, biological resources are largely limited to the Petaluma River and its tributaries which contain
aquatic and riparian resources as well as wetlands. The National Wetland Inventory identifies fresh emergent
wetlands in the southern portion of the Petaluma River and Northern coastal salt marsh wetland and brackish
marsh wetland in the lower reaches of the Petaluma River.
Imuact Discussion
4.4 (a -d) (Special Status Species, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands and Miaration) Less Than Significant Impact:
According to a search of the CNDDB database, the following is a list of special -status species that have been
recorded in or near the project area:
• California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense);
• Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata);
• San Pablo Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis);
• Sonoma Spineflower (Chorizanthe valida);
• Franciscan Onion (Allium peninsulare var, franciscanum);
• Pitkin Marsh Lily (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense);
• Round -leaved Filaree (california macrophylla);
• Fragrant Fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea);
• Point Reyes Checkerbloom (Sidalcea calycosa ssp. rhizomata);
• Alkali Milk -Vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener);
• Townsend's Big -Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii); and
• Petaluma Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys mollis var. vestitus).
The above list includes some federally/state listed threatened and endangered species, however the CNDDB
Indicates that all instances were recorded over 135 years ago and have not been recorded since. The USFWS's
National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies a riverine wetland within the project. However, because the project
excludes physical changes to the environment, it would not have a direct environmental effect upon the species
noted above (or others which have yet to be identified); including riparian habitat or wetlands
With regard to indirect changes resulting from the project vis-a-vis future urban redevelopment, it is speculative
and not reasonably foreseeable to determine whether such development would have an adverse effect on
biological resources. When and if the City of Petaluma were to be in receipt of a development application within
the project area at a future date, it would be subject to its own project -level environmental review under CEQA
where individual site characteristics, including presence or absence of biological resources and relationship to
development, would be analyzed. Therefore, the project would result in no impact under these criteria.
Mitigation Measures. None Required
4.4 (e) (Tree Preservation) No Impact: Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Chapter 17 addresses
tree preservation requirements within the context of development project review. Trees which are considered
`protected' are subject to avoidance and/or mitigation criteria. Because the project excludes physical changes to
the environment, it would not have a direct environmental effect related to tree removal and the provisions of
IZO Chapter 17. With regard to indirect changes resulting from the project vis-a-vis future urban redevelopment,
it is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable to determine whether such development would have an adverse
effect related to tree removal. When and if the City of Petaluma were to be in receipt of a development
application within the project area at a future date and which includes proposed tree removal, it would be subject
[,2-- D -Li
September 2016 Page 17
Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma
to its own project -level environmental review under CEQA IZO Chapter 17. Therefore, the project would result in
no impact under this criterion.
Miti4ation Measures: None Required
4.4 (f) (Habitat Conservation Plan) No Impact: There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other regional or State habitat conservation plan that pertains to Petaluma. The project
would also not conflict with any adopted conservation plan. Therefore, the project will have no impact under this
topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
12 - 25 -
Page 18 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Lomas Annexation
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Significant Less than No
Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ® ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource ❑ ❑ ❑
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ ❑
of formal cemeteries?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR; California Historical Resources Information System, Lomas
Annexation Project/Multiple Parcels/City of Petaluma (File No.: 15-1617), May 6, 2016; Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria, email from Buffy McQuillen, Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer, June 23, 2016.
Setting
Historic resources are central to Petaluma culture and contribute greatly to the aesthetic quality and character of
the City. During prehistoric times, drawn by the fertile soils and abundant wildlife, the Coast Miwok Indians
settled in the Petaluma River Valley. European settlement began in the 1800s and increased after the discovery of
gold. The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) identifies a number of Native American
archaeological resource sites and historic era cultural resources within the City's UGB. Petaluma has three Historic
Districts (Oakhill -Brewster, Downtown, and A -Street Historic Districts) which are located in and around the
downtown area. Undisturbed lands within the UGB, particularly lands in the vicinity of ridgetops, mid -slope
terraces, alluvial flats, ecotones, and sources of water, have a greater possibility of encountering a prehistoric
archaeological and tribal cultural resources.
Impact Discussion
4.5 (a) (Historical Resource) (No Impact): The project does not involve properties located within Petaluma's
designated historic districts and does not include any building or feature that is designated as an individual
historic resource under local, State or Federal standards. As the project consists of a boundary change and pre -
zoning without physical changes to the environment, no significant effect would occur with regard to any
potentially eligible historic resources not listed in government databases. Therefore, the project would have no
impact relative to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.5 (b) (Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources) (No Impact): Potentially significant archaeological and
tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, the following: concentrations of artifacts or culturally
modified soil deposits, modified stone, shell, bone, or other cultural materials such as charcoal, ash, and burned
rock indicative of food procurement or processing activities, or prehistoric domestic features including hearths,
fire pits, or house floor depressions or other such prehistoric artifacts.
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource as no physical development is proposed. Just as development of the project site may occur now
l-~2(
September 2016 Page 19
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
(without the project) under the Sonoma County General Plan, the project's annexation and pre -zoning aspect
could also lead to future development involving earthwork that may raise the question of potential impacts to
archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources. With regard to the City of Petaluma's jurisdiction and current
project, the General Plan EIR states,
"A complete records search revealed that 21 recorded Native American and historic cultural resources are
currently located within the UGB. According to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University,
there is a high possibility of uncovering and identifying additional historic -period archaeological deposits on
undeveloped land within the UGB. New development that occurs within these likely archaeological deposit
sites may adversely affect those archaeological resources either during construction or once inhabited.
While project -specific studies will be necessary to determine the actual potential for significant impacts on
archaeological resources resulting from the implementation of the proposed General Plan, some general
impacts can be identified based on the probable locations of new development in the UGB and known
geographic features near which prehistoric resources are most likely to be located. Projects in the vicinity of
ridgetops, midslope terraces, alluvial flats, ecotones, and sources of water have the greatest possibility of
encountering a prehistoric archaeological resource."
The project site is not located nearby a ridgetop, midslope terrace, alluvial flat, or ecotone but does include land
abutting the Petaluma River (i.e., source of water). A records search of the California Historical Resources
Information System indicates that the project may include or is adjacent to archaeological site "P-49-001044 (CA -
SON -001117H." Should the project lead to a future development proposal to be reviewed by the City of Petaluma,
the provisions of General Plan Policy 3-P-7 apply and which state, in relevant part,
"Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any
development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically sensitive for Native American and/or
historic remains.
In accordance with CEQA and the State Public Resources Code, require the preparation of a resource
mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological remains
are discovered."
Also, as a part of preparing this Initial Study and consistent with the requirements of Public Resources Code
§21083.3.1(d), the City of Petaluma provided notice to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria on March 29,
2016. In response, on April 15, 2016, the Graton Rancheria requested consultation with the City of Petaluma to
discuss potential environmental effects to Tribal Cultural Resources. That consultation concluded, consistent with
the requirements Public Resources Code §21080.3.2(b), on June 23, 2016 when the Graton Rancheria concluded
the project would have no adverse effect on Tribal Cultural Resources.
Because the project excludes physical changes to the environment, it is speculative and not reasonably
foreseeable to determine whether its indirect changes would result in a substantial adverse change to any
archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources. When and if the City of Petaluma were to be in receipt
of a development application within the project area at a future date, it would be subject to its own project -level
environmental review under CEQA where individual site characteristics would be analyzed. Therefore, the project
would have no impact concerning a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource or tribal cultural
resource.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.5 (c) (Unique Paleontoloaical Resource/Site) (No Impact): The City's UGB, including the 19 parcels proposed for
annexation, is not known to contain any paleontological resources. This is reflected in the General Plan EIR's
conclusion that no potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources and/or geologic sites would result from
future growth or development within the UGB. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
paleontological resource or geologic site. No impact would result under this criterion.
12-- �1_-J
Page 20 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
Lomas Annexation
4.5 (d) (Human Remains) (No Impact): The project area is not known to contain any human remains, including
those interred outside of a cemetery. As the project consists of a boundary change and pre -zoning without
physical changes to the environment, it would not disturb any known or unknown burial of human remains.
Therefore, the project will result in no impact under this criterion.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
j2-�Lq'
September 2016 Page 21
Lomas Annexation
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Petaluma
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, Natural Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey
(United States Department of Agriculture), Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42 (Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in
California) effective January 2010
Setting
The City of Petaluma lies within a seismically active region classified by the California Building Code (CBC) as
Seismic Zone 4 where the most stringent CBC standards apply. Geologic hazards within the City of Petaluma are
largely related to seismic ground shaking and associated effects such as liquefaction, ground failure, and
seismically induced landslides. Principal faults in the vicinity of Petaluma are capable of generating large
earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking.
The Rodgers Creek Fault is located less than five miles to the northeast. Although branches of the Rodgers Creek
closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), they do show evidence of activity during
the last 11,000 years, which is a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity. Expansive soils and soil erosion
are also of general concern within the City of Petaluma.
IZ_ �Lj
Page 22 September 2016
Potentially
Less ThanLess
Significant
than No
Would theroject:
p
Significant
with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
❑
❑
❑
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Publication 42.
ii. Strong Seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
® ❑
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑
❑
® ❑
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
❑
❑
❑
potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
❑
❑
❑
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
❑
❑
❑
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, Natural Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey
(United States Department of Agriculture), Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42 (Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in
California) effective January 2010
Setting
The City of Petaluma lies within a seismically active region classified by the California Building Code (CBC) as
Seismic Zone 4 where the most stringent CBC standards apply. Geologic hazards within the City of Petaluma are
largely related to seismic ground shaking and associated effects such as liquefaction, ground failure, and
seismically induced landslides. Principal faults in the vicinity of Petaluma are capable of generating large
earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking.
The Rodgers Creek Fault is located less than five miles to the northeast. Although branches of the Rodgers Creek
closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), they do show evidence of activity during
the last 11,000 years, which is a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity. Expansive soils and soil erosion
are also of general concern within the City of Petaluma.
IZ_ �Lj
Page 22 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
Expansive soil materials occur in the substrate of the clays and clayey loams in the City and represent a potential
geologic hazard. Without proper geotechnical considerations, buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by
expansive soils due to the gradual cracking, settling, and weakening of older buildings. These effects create
safety concerns and risk of financial loss. To reduce the risks associated with expansive soils, the City's Building
Code (Municipal Code Chapter 18) requires that each construction site intended for human occupancy that is
suspected of containing expansive soils be investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the hazard.
Specifically within the project area, soils are of the Yolo soil series (yolo clay loam soil) which occur on nearly
level to moderately sloping alluvial fans with soils formed in fine -loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary
formations. Project site soils are identified with slopes ranging from zero to five percent, according the Natural
Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey.
Impact Discussion
4.6 (a.i) (Faults) No Impact: Pursuant to the Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42 (Fault -Rupture Hazard
Zones in California) effective January 2010, the California Department of Conservation (CDC) California Geological
Survey identifies no Earthquake Fault Zones within the City's UGB. Therefore, the project would have no impact
due to fault -related ground rupture.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
4.6(a.ii) (Ground Shakina) Less than Sianificant Impact: As is the case throughout the City's UGB, development
has the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground
shaking. In the event of a magnitude 7.1 earthquake, the project area and the City of Petaluma could experience
severe ground shaking that could damage buildings, structures, infrastructure and result in the risk of loss of life
or property.
The project does not propose any change in the physical environment; however future development would be
subject to such a risk. Any future development proposal would be subject to environmental review and
mandatory conformance with the city's building code. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant
impact concerning seismic shaking.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.6 (a.lii) (Ground Failure/Liquefaction) Less than Significant Impact: Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of
saturated, loosely packed, fine-grained sediment to a fluid like state as a result of ground shaking. Potential for
liquefaction is most pronounced when the groundwater table is shallow (typically less than 50 feet below the
surface) and the liquefaction potential becomes increasingly heightened as the water table becomes shallower.
The Petaluma water table is generally found 10-20 feet below the surface. Much of the UGB falls within a
"Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Level" with the area abutting the Petaluma River exhibiting a "High to Very High
Liquefaction Hazard Level". The project does not propose any development and the General Plan EIR identified
this potential impact at a less than significant level, as potentially unstable soils discovered during excavation are
required by provisions of the building code to be removed and replaced or otherwise treated to provide adequate
foundation support. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact associated with
liquefaction.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.6 (a.iv) (Landslides) No Impact: The potential for a risk of landslide is dictated by several factors including
precipitation conditions, soil types, steepness of slope, vegetation, seismic conditions, and level of human
disturbance. Landslides often occur as a result of earthquake ground shaking and the presence of liquefied
subsurface materials. Landslides have been known to occur in Sonoma County, but are typically limited to slopes
12-_�O
September 2016 Page 23
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
steeper than 15 percent and confined to areas underlain by geologic units that have demonstrated stability
problems in the past. However, the project site exhibits slopes less than five percent and would not alter existing
conditions through the introduction of new structures or other types of construction. Therefore, there will be no
impacts related to landslides from the project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.6 (b) (Erosion) No Imoact: Soil erosion is a naturally occurring process. The agents of soil erosion are water
and wind, each contributing to a significant amount of soil loss. The effects of erosion are intensified with an
increase in slope (as water moves faster, it gains momentum to carry more debris), the narrowing of runoff
channels (which increases the velocity of water), and by the removal of groundcover (which leaves the soil
exposed to erosive forces). The potential for soil erosion can be accelerated and increased by cut -and -fill
activities, such as may be needed for future development. When completed, surface improvements, such as
buildings and paved roads, decrease the potential for erosion onsite, but can increase the rate and volume of
runoff, potentially causing off-site erosion. If unmitigated, eroding soil can clog drainages, cause flooding, slope
instability, and additional erosion by diverting water flow.
The project would have no impact associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil since it excludes physical
changes to the environment. Similarly, future development would be subject to mandatory water quality
standards implemented through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements; including
those related to erosion from stormwater. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact relative to both
direct and indirect impact for this environmental topic.
Mitioation Measures: None Required
4.6 (c) (Unstable Geolooical Units) No Imoact: Subsidence is the sudden (over a period of seconds to days)
sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion. In the Bay Area, subsidence is caused primarily by excessive
groundwater or natural gas withdrawal. Natural gas withdrawal is not conducted within the UGB and therefore is
not of major concern in Petaluma. However, groundwater extraction may have begun to create some land
subsidence in the far northwestern portion of the Planning Area. The proposed project is not located at the
northwestern portion neither of Petaluma nor within a mapped geologic hazard area. Further, the project does
not propose nor would it be anticipated to result in the future extraction of groundwater within the project area.
Therefore, the project would have no impact associated with unstable geologic units. '
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.6 (d) (Expansive Soils) No Imoact: Expansive soils (clay -rich soils that swell each winter and shrink each
summer depending upon the amount of seasonal rainfall) are naturally 'occurring materials found in low-lying
regions and valley flood plains. Expansive soils tend to swell as they absorb water and shrink as water is drawn
away. Expansive materials occur in the substrate of the clays and clayey loams in Petaluma.
Buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by expansive soils and the gradual cracking, settling, and
weakening of older buildings in the Petaluma has created significant safety concerns and financial loss. Soils with
high clay content occur in many valley areas throughout the city. To reduce the risks associated with expansive
soils, Petaluma's Building Code requires that each construction site suspected of containing expansive soils be
investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the hazard. Therefore, the project would result in no impact
under this topic.
4.6 (e) (Septic Tank) No Imoact: Some properties within the project area currently utilize septic tanks for
wastewater disposal. Upon annexation into the City of Petaluma, no new septic tanks would be permitted. Rather,
new development requiring wastewater disposal would be required to connect to the city's municipal sewer
L2 -3j
Page 24 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Lomas Annexation
system. Similarly, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8955 N.C.S, all properties would be required to connect
to the city's municipal sewer system within ten years of annexation. Therefore, the project would have no impact
concerning the adequacy of septic systems since no new systems would be permitted and because all existing
septic systems would be required to be decommissioned.
Mitioation Measures: None Required
1'2
September 2016 Page 25
Lomas Annexation
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
City of Petaluma
Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the atmosphere which results in elevated surface temperatures of the
Earth. This effect contributes to changes in climate conditions, referred to as climate change or global warming.
GHGs are generated both from natural geological and biological processes and through human activities including
the combustion of fossil fuels, industry, and agricultural. Other than water vapor, the GHGs contributing to global
climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NZO), methane (CHA chlorofluorocarbons,
hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions account for about 85
percent of the GHG emissions.
To address GHGs at the State level, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which requires
that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been adopted, which
seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl. In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) adopted revised CEQA Guidelines, which included thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas
emissions. The Guidelines were subsequently updated in May 2011. The guidelines identified 1,100 metric tons
(MT) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per year (COZe/yr) or 4.6 MT/year per service population
(residents/employees) as a numeric emissions level, below which a project's contribution to global climate change
would be considered less than significant.
In 2007, the City prepared a revised Air Quality section for the General Plan EIR to address greenhouse gas
emissions. Appendix A of the 2007 Revised EIR includes all of the applicable policies from the General Plan that
reduce GHG emissions. The General Plan policies are not considered a "qualified" GHG reduction strategy by the
BAAQMD. As such, BAAQMD's screening threshold of 1,100 MT of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (CO2e/yr)
is used to evaluate project level significance. However, as the case with this project, no development is proposed
and therefore no screening thresholds were considered.
Impact Discussion
4.7 (a) (GHG Emissions) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would not result in additional GHG emissions
above existing conditions since it consists solely of a boundary change and pre -zoning. Future development
within the project area would be subject to subsequent environmental review including a review for compliance
with BAAQMD significance criteria for GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact on the environment as a result of direct and indirect GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.7 (b) (GHG Plan Conflict) No Imoact: The applicable plan' for this environmental topic concerns Policies 4-P-23
12--33
Page 26 September 2016
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Less than
Would the project:
Significant
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
❑
❑
®
❑
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
❑
❑
❑
greenhouse gases?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines 2010
Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the atmosphere which results in elevated surface temperatures of the
Earth. This effect contributes to changes in climate conditions, referred to as climate change or global warming.
GHGs are generated both from natural geological and biological processes and through human activities including
the combustion of fossil fuels, industry, and agricultural. Other than water vapor, the GHGs contributing to global
climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NZO), methane (CHA chlorofluorocarbons,
hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions account for about 85
percent of the GHG emissions.
To address GHGs at the State level, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which requires
that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been adopted, which
seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl. In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) adopted revised CEQA Guidelines, which included thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas
emissions. The Guidelines were subsequently updated in May 2011. The guidelines identified 1,100 metric tons
(MT) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per year (COZe/yr) or 4.6 MT/year per service population
(residents/employees) as a numeric emissions level, below which a project's contribution to global climate change
would be considered less than significant.
In 2007, the City prepared a revised Air Quality section for the General Plan EIR to address greenhouse gas
emissions. Appendix A of the 2007 Revised EIR includes all of the applicable policies from the General Plan that
reduce GHG emissions. The General Plan policies are not considered a "qualified" GHG reduction strategy by the
BAAQMD. As such, BAAQMD's screening threshold of 1,100 MT of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (CO2e/yr)
is used to evaluate project level significance. However, as the case with this project, no development is proposed
and therefore no screening thresholds were considered.
Impact Discussion
4.7 (a) (GHG Emissions) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would not result in additional GHG emissions
above existing conditions since it consists solely of a boundary change and pre -zoning. Future development
within the project area would be subject to subsequent environmental review including a review for compliance
with BAAQMD significance criteria for GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact on the environment as a result of direct and indirect GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.7 (b) (GHG Plan Conflict) No Imoact: The applicable plan' for this environmental topic concerns Policies 4-P-23
12--33
Page 26 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Lomas Annexation
through 4-P-33 of the Petaluma General Plan. Those policies pertain to issues such as funding, education, and
future legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project would not conflict with any of those policies.
Therefore, the project would have no impact under this topic.
Mitiqation Measures: None Required
12- 3'4
September 2016 Page 27
Lomas Annexation
4.8 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
,noamm/»/
Significant
����
Significant
Less than
Significant No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
n)Create msiQn�onDthazard tothe puNk:ovthe
environment
env|nznruentthrough the routine transport, use, or
��
Fl
d�posn)nfhazardous mateho|a?
��
�� ��
b) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release ofhazardous
El
Fl
materials into the environment?
--
o\ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile ofanexisting orproposed
F]
school?
--
d\Belocated onasite that |sIncluded onalist of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5and, asnresult,
�l
�7
�� �l
would create msignificant hazard tothe public orthe
��
��
=" ��
envinonment7
e)For oproject located within onairport land use plan
or, where such oplan has not been adopted, within two
miles ofopublic airport ofpublic use airport, would the F� Fl Fl
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or �� �� �^
working inthe project area?
MFor aproject within the vicinity ofaprivate airstrip,
would the project result |nasafety hazard for people �l
�m/dingorworking /nthe pnjectarea?
' ��
g) Impair Implementation of or physically interfere with
aDadopted emergency response plan oremergency � �
evacuation plan? �� ��
h\Expose people orstructures hoasignificant risk of
loss, injury ordeath invo|vingwi|d/and fires, including
where wild/ands are acUaoentto urbanized areas or
.
where residences are intermixed with wiN�l|ands7 �� �� �� ��
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, Regional Water Quality Control Board's GeoTracker database (March
2016) Department of Toxic Substances Control's EnviroStor database (March 2016); CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones,
Sonoma County, November 7, 2007.
Setting
A number of properties may cause a substance to be considered hazardous, including toxicity, ign�abU��
mn��� or reactivity. A substance b defined as hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous'materials
prepared byafederal, State, or local regulatory agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such
/3—�5_
Page 28 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
agency. Examples of existing hazardous materials and/or waste within Petaluma include underground storage
tanks, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, herbicides, and pesticides. There are approximately 60 open
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites dispersed throughout the City, and no identified "brownfield"
properties.
Hazardous waste management in Petaluma is administered by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency
(SCWMA) through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). As required by State law, the
General Plan includes the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE), Non -Disposal Facility Element (NDFE), as well as the Siting Element. State law requires that
communities form a Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (CUPA) to manage the acquisition, maintenance, and
control of hazardous waste by industrial and commercial business. In Petaluma, the Fire Marshall's Office
administers the CUPA programs.
The project area includes three properties with prior incidents of hazardous material release, as identified through
a search of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) GeoTracker database and DTSC's EnviroStor
database. The sites include two LUST cleanup sites (both cases closed) and one Permitted Underground Storage
Tank Facility at 1485 Petaluma Blvd South.
Impact Discussion
4.8 (a -d) (Routine Transport, Unset and Accident Release. Emit within 1/4 -mile of School. Hazardous Materials
Site) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project involves the annexation of land from Sonoma County into the City
of Petaluma and assignment of zoning designations. No new, concurrent development is proposed. Therefore, the
project will not result in any significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials. No impact would result under this environmental topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.8 (e -a) (Public/Private Airport Land Use Plan, Emeraencv Response Plan) No Impact: The only airport within
two miles of the project area is the Petaluma Municipal Airport. The Petaluma Municipal Airport's adopted Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan does not prescribe safety criteria to the project area. The project would not impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan, nor would it alter any emergency response or evacuation routes. Therefore, no impacts related to an airport
land use plan, a safety hazard near a private airstrip, and/or an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan
would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.8 (h) (Wildland Fires) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project area does not involve the introduction of people
or structures to a wildland fire hazard area. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of
project implementation.
Mitioation Measures: None Required
12_-5(1"
September 2016 Page 29
Lomas Annexation
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
City of Petaluma
Potentially Less Than Less than
Significant SigWhp
ant Significant Im act
Impact itImpact
Mitigation
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map
Community Panel Number 06097CI00IG (dated October 2, 2015).
Se, ttin9
The Petaluma River is the primary watercourse within the City of Petaluma and drains the Petaluma watershed
(an area of approximately 46 square miles). The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast
direction into San Pablo Bay. The Petaluma River is used for recreational boating and water sports as well as
long-standing river -dependent industrial operations.
12-3%
Page 30 September 2016
City ofPetaluma Lomas Annexation
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Locally,
this is
implemented through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Gunes| Permit. Requirements
apply to construction activities (a.g, grading, grubbing, and other site disturbance). Construction activities on
more than one acre are subject to NPDES permitting requirements including, the preparation of a Sturm VVahar
Pollution Prevention Plan (SVVPPP).Tho SVVPPPNenLifieo atormwotercoUection and discharge points, drainage
patterns across the site, and best management practices that dischargers will use to reduce the pollutants in
stunnvnaberrunoff.
Substantial flooding has historically occurred in Petaluma when aseries of' ' stormsmove
the watershed,n�
h�dmaintaining saturated soils and prolonged high flows In the tributary creeks. Impacts associated
with a 100'yeerutomn event were evaluated against build -out within the UGB as part of the General Plan E3R.
The City is located within the Petaluma Valley groundwater basin, where rivers and stream corridors typically
recharge groundwater in addition to areas with impervious surfaces. The City ofPetaluma uses groundwater for
drinking water supply aaanemergency supply and for meeting peak demands.
The project area is located dked1v south of the Petaluma River,however it does not exhibit any hydrologic or
water features (e.g., creek, pond). I
Imoact Discussion
�(a.f) (WaterOualitv/Waste Dischanae) No ImDact:lhe project would not violate any water quality standards
or vvasha discharge requirements, nor would it otherwise substantially degrade water quality since no
development is proposed. Future development onthese parcels will be subject to environmental review where
site and project specific conditions would be ana|yzed. Similarly, future development would be subject to
mandatory water quality standards implemented through NPDES permit requirements. Therefore, the proposed
project will have no impact to water quality standards, *msha discharge requirements, and/or general water
MitlontionMeosU,em: None Required
4.9 [b) Suoolvond NoDnoact As mentioned above. the City ofPetaluma relies on
groundwater only in emergency situations. The project would have no effect on groundwater recharge since it
excludes}changes (e.g., impervious surface) to the environment. Future deve'�mentdoes have the
potential to create more impervious surfaces within the project area. However, future changes to the built
environment would require any particular project hoassess this potential impact in relation totha'd use or
inhenaKYnfuse and ex�Unggroundwater. Therefon�noimpact vvou|doccur togroundwater supk/'ndnacharga
asaresult ofthe pnject. ' '
Mitloation Measures: None Required
4.9 (ce) Pattern, Runoff Water) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project does not propose any
ohvoka| changes to the envhnnment(e.g, after the existing drainage pattern or contribute additional runoff
water). Therefore, it would have no direct impact on the environment. Because the project excludes phva�a|
changes hothe environment, ��speco|at�eand not reasonably foreseeable tndetermine whether ds indirect
changes would result in a substantial adverse change to any drainage pattern, contribute increased stormwater to
inadequate conveyance systems and/or otherwise degrade water quality. When and If the City of Petaluma were
to be in receipt of development application within the project area at n future dote, it would be subject to Its
own project -level environmental review under CEQA where individual site characteristics would be analyzed.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact relative to altering the existing drainagepattern
result a way that would �u|t in substantial erosion, siltation, and/or flooding nn- or off-site, as well as runoff mmbcr
that would exceed shonn*mierdrainage system capacity.
MiticiabonMeoounes: None Required
4.9 (o -U (Flood Hazard, Levee orDam FeUun»` Geiche/Taunami/K8udOovv No Inlpnd: According to the current
September 2016 Page 31
Lomas Annexation
City of Petaluma
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) dated October 2, 2015, Community Panel Number 06097C1001G, the project
site is located outside a mapped flood hazard area (i.e., 100 -year flood zone). The project area is also not subject
to potential inundation by dam failure, seiche, tsunami and/or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts are expected
under the above criteria.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
/2-37
Page 32 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
4,10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Lessthan
No
Would thero ect: Significant
p
with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
El
❑
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ® ❑
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, City of Petaluma
Housing Element 2015-2023, City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO).
Setting
Citv of Petaluma
The project is located within the City of Petaluma UGB and within the General Plan's Petaluma Blvd. South
Planning Subarea. This subarea consists of mix of residential, commercial and industrial land uses.
As shown at Figure 4 above, the Petaluma General Plan's Land Use Map designates the project area Mixed Use
and Medium Density Residential. The Mixed Use (MU) designation allows for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of 2.5 (including both residential and non-residential uses) and a maximum residential density of 30 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac). The Medium Density Residential (RM) designations allows for a variety of dwelling types
with densities ranging from 8.1 to 18.0 du/ac.
The City of Petaluma Housing Element also identifies several parcels within the annexation area as
vacant/underutilized sites with potential for residential development and accommodation of low- and moderate -
income housing. A more detailed discussion of these sites is provided in Section 4.13 (Population and Housing).
Countv of Sonoma
The Sonoma County General Plan's Land Use map provides three land use designations to the project area,
including: 1) General Industrial (GI) which allows all industrial uses but is restricted to Urban Service Areas (of
which this area is), 2) Urban Residential which applies to residential areas within an Urban Service Area and
allows for density of one du/ac, and 3) Rural Residential which provides for very low density residential
development on lands with few urban services but have access to County maintained roads, and allows for a
maximum density of 1.5 du/ac.
Existing Sonoma County zoning designations for the project area include Heavy Industrial -68 District (M2 B8), R1
Low Density Residential -B8 District (R1 B8), and Rural Residential -B8 District (RR 68). The purpose of these
zoning designations is as follows: 1) Heavy Industrial, B8 District (M2 B8) which is intended to provide areas
within Urban Service Areas to permit a wide range of industrial uses, 2). R1 Low Density Residential, B8 District,
planned to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the district, and promote and encourage a
suitable environment for family life, and 3) Rural Residential, B8 District intended to preserve the rural character
and amenities of those lands best utilized for low density residential development.
I2®Ltcs
September 2016 Page 33
Lomas Annexation
Impact Discussion
City of Petaluma
4.10 (a) (Divide an Established Communitv) No Impact: The project excludes physical changes to the environment
that have the potential to divide an established community (e.g., roadways). Therefore, the project would not
have a direct adverse impact under this topic. With regard to potential indirect impacts, the project area is
already developed with arterial and local roadways and is coterminous with existing urban development.
Therefore, there are no reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts due to the division of an established community.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.10 (b) (Land Use Plan. Policv, Reaulation Conflict) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project includes the pre -
zoning of 19 parcels for City zoning designations consistent with each parcel's General Plan land use designation.
The project area can be described in two unofficial subareas: the parcels north of Petaluma Boulevard South and
the parcels south of Petaluma Boulevard South.
The parcels north of the Boulevard currently exhibit a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU), and
the proposed pre -zoning for these properties is Mixed Use 1A (MU1A). The parcels south of the Boulevard are
designated with the Medium Density Residential (RM) general plan designation, and are pre -zoned for the
Residential 4 (R4) zoning district.
Site
Parcel (APN)
General Plan Land
Proposed Pre-
Existing Use
Existing Use
2
Number
and Address
Use Designation 1
Zoning
permitted?
1:.
Mixed Use
MU1A
:Storage,
Outdoor
No.:,,
.1473. Petaluma_ Blvd :S
.
Storage Yard
Maintenance/
2
019-210-006
Mixed Use
MU1A
Repair
No
1475 Petaluma Blvd S
Service—Client
Site Services
Auto Vehicle
3
019-210-007
Mixed Use
MU1A
..sales and
No .
1501 Petaluma Blvd S
Rentals
4
019-210-008
Mixed Use
MU1A
Storage,
Outdoor
No
1525 Petaluma Blvd S
Storage Yard
5
019-210-010
Mixed Use
MU1A
Vacant/
N/A
1601 Petaluma Blvd S
Undeveloped
6
019-210-038
Mixed Use
MU1A
Vacant/
N/A
1601 Petaluma Blvd S
Undeveloped
7
01.9,-210-039
Mixed Use
MU1A
Vacant/ ::..: ...
:.
.
N/A .
..:..:
1601 Petaluma,Blvd.S
Undeveloped
8
019-210-009
Medium Density
R4
Dwelling,
Single
Yes
2 Rovina Lane
Residential
Household
Page 34 September 2016
City of Petaluma
9 019-2107036 Medium Density
3 Rovina Lane Residential
10 019-210-035 Medium Density
1450 Petaluma Blvd S Residential
019-210.-0i3 Medium Density
11 1430 Petaluma Blvd S Residential
12
13
14
019-210-014 Medium Density
1420 Petaluma Blvd S Residential
0197210-022. Medium Density
141.0, Petaluma. Blvd S Residential
019-210-021 Medium Density
1400 Petaluma Blvd S Residential
019-210-033 Medium Density
15 149 McNear-.Avenue Residential
16 019-210-029 , Medium Density
1280 Petaluma Blvd S Residential
019=210;034
Medium Density
17
0 McNear Avenue
Residential
019-210-025
Medium Density
18
55 McNear Avenue
Residential
Lomas Annexation
Dwelling,
R4 Single . Yes
Household
Dwelling,
R4 Single Yes
Household
Dwelling,
R4 Single . Yes
Household
Dwelling,
R4 Single Yes
Household
Dwelling,
R4 Single -Yes
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
Yes
01972107032 Medium Density . Vacant/
19 1340 Petaluma .Blvd S Residential R4 Undeveloped N/A
1. City of Petaluma General Plan 2025.
2. If existing use is not permitted under new zoning regulations, the use will acquire a legal non -conforming status which
will remain in effect until any future change in use or physical development occurs. Non -conforming situations which may
result do not concern environmental effects and are referenced for informational purposes only.
These proposed pre -zone designations, as shown in Table 2 above, carry out the direction for this area set forth
in the General Plan and are consistent with their land uses in that: 1) the MU classification intends to exhibit a
mix of uses along the Petaluma Boulevard corridor as set forth in the General Plan, of which the MU1A zoning
district carries out, and 2) the Medium Density Residential (RM) general plan designation provides for a variety of
dwelling types with opportunities to blend live -work or limited commercial/office uses within a residential
development when abutting an arterial, of which the R4 district achieves. Therefore, by pre -zoning these parcels,
there is no conflict with the General Plan and no impact would result under this criterion.
4.10 (c) (Habitat Conservation Plan) No Impact: The project area is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a
natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans that apply within Petaluma's UGB.
Therefore, the project will have no impact to any conservation plan or natural community plan.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
f2 -A,2 -
September 2016 Page 35
Household
Dwelling,
R4
Single
Household
R4
Dwelling,
Group
Dwelling,
R4
Single
Household
R4
Vacant/
Undeveloped
Dwelling,
R4
Single
Household
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
Yes
01972107032 Medium Density . Vacant/
19 1340 Petaluma .Blvd S Residential R4 Undeveloped N/A
1. City of Petaluma General Plan 2025.
2. If existing use is not permitted under new zoning regulations, the use will acquire a legal non -conforming status which
will remain in effect until any future change in use or physical development occurs. Non -conforming situations which may
result do not concern environmental effects and are referenced for informational purposes only.
These proposed pre -zone designations, as shown in Table 2 above, carry out the direction for this area set forth
in the General Plan and are consistent with their land uses in that: 1) the MU classification intends to exhibit a
mix of uses along the Petaluma Boulevard corridor as set forth in the General Plan, of which the MU1A zoning
district carries out, and 2) the Medium Density Residential (RM) general plan designation provides for a variety of
dwelling types with opportunities to blend live -work or limited commercial/office uses within a residential
development when abutting an arterial, of which the R4 district achieves. Therefore, by pre -zoning these parcels,
there is no conflict with the General Plan and no impact would result under this criterion.
4.10 (c) (Habitat Conservation Plan) No Impact: The project area is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a
natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans that apply within Petaluma's UGB.
Therefore, the project will have no impact to any conservation plan or natural community plan.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
f2 -A,2 -
September 2016 Page 35
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Less than
Would the project: Significant Significant Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR
Impact Discussion
4.11 (a -b) (Mineral Resources or Plan) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources within the City of
Petaluma's UGB nor in the project area. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of known
mineral resources, including those designated as `locally important". Therefore, the project will have no impact
under this topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
12-4 3
Page 36 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
4.12 NOISE
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ❑ ❑ ❑
the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ❑ ❑ F1
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑
area to excessive noise levels?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Pian 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO).
Setting
Existing noise sources within the City's UGB include vehicular traffic along roadways and Highway 101, trains, and
industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma
is currently irregular, and thus does not constitute a significant noise source. In the future, the addition of SMART
commuter rail service will contribute to noise levels within the UGB.
Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §21.040(A)(3)(a) limits noise generating construction activities
to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.
For daily operational noise, both the General Plan and IZO provides guidelines and standards for acceptable
levels. IZO §21.040(4)(A) establishes an hourly average level of 60 dBA as the maximum that may be generated
on one land use that would be affecting another land use. Allowable levels are adjusted to account for existing
ambient noise levels, though the maximum allowed noise level may not exceed 75 dBA after adjustments are
made.
Impact Discussion
4.12 (a -b) (Noise Standards, Groundbourne Vibration) No Impact: The project does not propose any construction
activities or change in use/intensity of use which could affect the exposure of persons to or generate noise levels
in excess of standards established in the General Plan, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. Therefore, there is no impact under this category.
September 2016 Page 37
Potentially
Less Than Significant
Less than
No
Would the project result in:
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
❑
❑
❑
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ❑ ❑ ❑
the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ❑ ❑ F1
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑
area to excessive noise levels?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Pian 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO).
Setting
Existing noise sources within the City's UGB include vehicular traffic along roadways and Highway 101, trains, and
industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma
is currently irregular, and thus does not constitute a significant noise source. In the future, the addition of SMART
commuter rail service will contribute to noise levels within the UGB.
Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §21.040(A)(3)(a) limits noise generating construction activities
to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.
For daily operational noise, both the General Plan and IZO provides guidelines and standards for acceptable
levels. IZO §21.040(4)(A) establishes an hourly average level of 60 dBA as the maximum that may be generated
on one land use that would be affecting another land use. Allowable levels are adjusted to account for existing
ambient noise levels, though the maximum allowed noise level may not exceed 75 dBA after adjustments are
made.
Impact Discussion
4.12 (a -b) (Noise Standards, Groundbourne Vibration) No Impact: The project does not propose any construction
activities or change in use/intensity of use which could affect the exposure of persons to or generate noise levels
in excess of standards established in the General Plan, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. Therefore, there is no impact under this category.
September 2016 Page 37
Lomas Annexation
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
City of Petaluma
4.12 (c -d) (Ambient Noise Levels. Temporary/Periodic Noise Increase) No Impact: Since the project would not
result in any temporary or permanent changes in ambient noise levels and does not propose any construction, no
impacts would result. Therefore, the project would result in no impact relative to ambient noise levels above
existing levels or within the project vicinity.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.12 (e -f) (Airport Noise) No Impact: The project area is not located within the vicinity of a private or public
airport. Therefore, the project would have no impact under these criteria.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
Page 38 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma Housing Element 2015-2023
Setting
The City of Petaluma is currently home to approximately 59,000 residents, and comprised of a wide variety of
housing stock. The 2025 General Plan proposes development of approximately 6,000 additional residential units
and a build -out population of approximately 72,700. This represents an annual growth rate of nearly 1.2% per
year. This General Plan build -out includes all areas identified as being located within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB).
The annexation area is comprised of 19 parcels, including three businesses, one State of California facility, and
eleven single-family homes (approximations). The project would introduce new population, housing, and
businesses. However, the project area is located within the UGB and has been anticipated to be annexed into the
City for purposes of General Plan build -out under the General Plan EIR. Through annexation of these properties,
existing housing stock would transfer from the County to the City.
The City's Housing Element identifies several sites within the annexation area as being vacant/undeveloped with
the potential to accommodate additional housing within the City, as shown in Table 3 below. More specifically,
the Housing Element outlines more detailed information for Sites 37, 38, and 39 regarding affordable housing
development incentives and requirements. The Housing Element also states the sites designated Mixed Use under
the General Plan represent the greatest potential for development of affordable housing to very low -and low-
income housing.
M
September 2016 Page 39
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Lessthan
No
Would theroject:
P J
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
❑
❑
®
❑
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
❑
❑
❑
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
❑
❑
❑
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, City of Petaluma Housing Element 2015-2023
Setting
The City of Petaluma is currently home to approximately 59,000 residents, and comprised of a wide variety of
housing stock. The 2025 General Plan proposes development of approximately 6,000 additional residential units
and a build -out population of approximately 72,700. This represents an annual growth rate of nearly 1.2% per
year. This General Plan build -out includes all areas identified as being located within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB).
The annexation area is comprised of 19 parcels, including three businesses, one State of California facility, and
eleven single-family homes (approximations). The project would introduce new population, housing, and
businesses. However, the project area is located within the UGB and has been anticipated to be annexed into the
City for purposes of General Plan build -out under the General Plan EIR. Through annexation of these properties,
existing housing stock would transfer from the County to the City.
The City's Housing Element identifies several sites within the annexation area as being vacant/undeveloped with
the potential to accommodate additional housing within the City, as shown in Table 3 below. More specifically,
the Housing Element outlines more detailed information for Sites 37, 38, and 39 regarding affordable housing
development incentives and requirements. The Housing Element also states the sites designated Mixed Use under
the General Plan represent the greatest potential for development of affordable housing to very low -and low-
income housing.
M
September 2016 Page 39
Lomas Annexation
Housing
Element Parcel (APN) Owner Name and Address
Site #
City of Petaluma
General Plan Estimated
Land Use Density Housing
Classification Potential
36 019-210-010
South Petaluma Partners
Mixed Use 0.0 to 30.0 50
019-210-039
1601 Petaluma Blvd S
hu/ac
- - _ Wind Rover Partners
37 019 210 005
0 0 to 30 0 -
Mixed Use � 40
-
1473 Petaluma Blvd S _
_ _; - hu/ac
38 019-210-006
Royal Petroleum
Mixed Use 0.0 to 30.0 35
019-210-007
1475 & 1501 Petaluma Blvd S
hu/ac
Tota/ Estimated Housing Units 171
1. Excerpted from the Petaluma Housing Element 2015-2023: Residential Land Use Inventory (2014) and Residential Land Inventory
Opportunity Sites Map (Attachment 2).
Imbact Discussion
4.13 (a) (_Substantial Growth) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would not create any changes in
population or housing conditions outside of those already considered in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the
project would not result in the extension of any feature (e.g., roadway, utility) with the potential to induce
growth. The potential impacts of growth within the project area were analyzed at a programmatic level in the
General Plan EIR. As the project includes no physical development, there are no new or different potential
Impacts under the project relative to what has already been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, a less
than significant impact would result under this topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.13 (b -c) (DisDlacement) No Impact: The project would not result in the displacement of any people, existing
housing, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No development or physical changes
would occur as a result of the project. Housing and the number of people would remain, and only jurisdictional
boundaries would change in line with what has already been anticipated under the General Plan, since the subject
project area is located within the UGB. Therefore, no impacts would occur due to the displacement of people or
housing.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
12--47
Page 40 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially Less Than Less than
Would the Project: Significant Significant Significant No Impact
Impact with
Mitigation Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
El
c) Schools?
❑
❑
®
❑
d) Parks?
❑
❑
®
❑
e) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
®
❑
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR
Setting
The project site is located outside of City limits, but within the UGB, and is served by a mix of public agencies and
utilities; primarily by the County of Sonoma and Petaluma City School District. Under the project, the provision of
many public services (e.g.; police, fire) to the nineteen parcels and approximate 17.20 acres would transfer to the
City of Petaluma.
In order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City services to accommodate the demand generated by
new urban development, the City charges one-time impact fees on new private development. Development
impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public service improvements and to pay for new
development's fair share of the costs necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service related to fire and police
protection services, open space, parkland and other such public services.
Fire Protection
The Petaluma Fire Department (PFD) provides fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to people within the
city limits as well as to a 160 -square -mile area of Sonoma County surrounding the City. The PFD responds to
structural and wild fires, emergency medical service, and hazardous/toxic spills in the City of Petaluma.
Police Protection
The Petaluma Police Department (PPD) provides police services to the City of Petaluma and is composed of 95
full-time employees, according to the General Plan EIR. The PPD has one main police station, whereas the
possibility of expansion or relocation of the department is being investigated.
12 — 4 -
September 2016 Page 41
Lomas Annexation
Schools
City of Petaluma
The City of Petaluma contains public and private elementary, junior high, and high school facilities to serve local
residents, as well as the Petaluma campus of the Santa Rosa Junior College and the Petaluma campus of the
University of Northern California. The City is served by four elementary school districts and one secondary school
district serving populations both within and outside of city limits.
The project area is located within the Petaluma City Elementary School District (PCESD) and Petaluma Joint Union
High School District (PJUHSD). PJUHSD and PCESD operate under one umbrella agency called Petaluma City
Schools (PCS). Petaluma is also home to two private elementary schools and one private high school, including
St. Vincent de Paul Elementary and High Schools, Petaluma Christian Academy, and Petaluma Valley Day School.
Charter schools include the Live Oak Charter School (K-3) and the Petaluma Charter School (K-8).
Parks
As discussed in Section 4.15 (Recreation), there are approximately 1,300 acres of parks and open spaces within
the UGB to accommodate a wide range of uses and activities that include both active and passive recreation.
Imoact Discussion
4.14 (a -c. e) (Eire and Police Protection. Parks. Other) Less than Sianificant Imnact: The project would not result
in the provision of new public services (e.g., fire, police, parks, other) nor alter any existing services physically.
Based on the Petaluma General Plan EIR, existing and future development within the project area would not
necessitate the provision of new or altered public services. Therefore, the project would have a less . than
significant impact under these environmental topics.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.14 (d) (Schools) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would have no direct effect on schools as existing
students residing within the project area would already attend existing schools. However, the project has the
potential for indirect effects through the generation of additional students through, for example, future urban
development. Population growth expected under the Petaluma General Plan would include a small increase in
enrollment within Petaluma City Schools District. The General Plan EIR concluded that, while the increased
enrollment would exceed existing capacity within that district, this would not result in the need for new school
facilities because enrollment projections for the other elementary school districts within Petaluma's UGB would
decline, and elementary students could be redistributed to alleviate enrollment limitations. The General Plan EIR
identifies that enrollment projections for secondary school system, the Petaluma Joint Unified High School
District, are expected to decline substantially during the years covered by the General Plan. Therefore, given the
above, the project would have a less than significant impact under this topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Page 42 September 2016
City of Petaluma
4.15 RECREATION
Lomas Annexation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
LessThan
Significant
Lessthan
Significant No
Impact
�wu»mn
Impact Impact
a)Would the project increase the use ofexisting
neighborhood and regional parks orother
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
El
FJ
--
deterioration ofthe facility would occur orbo
^
accelerated?
b)
NDoesthe project include recreational facilities or
require the construction orexpansion of
recreational facilities which might have onadverse Fl Fl F7 �3
physical effect on the environment? --
Sources: City Cityn[Petaluma General Plan 202Sand EIR
Setting
The City of Petaluma offers awide variety of recreational opportunities, such as parks and open spaces, trails,
water access points for all types of boating, and other recreational facilities and resources. The City contains
approximately 1/3OUacres ofparks and open spaces, which represents appnuimahek/1896ofthe acreage w�hin
accommodate
awide range ofuses and
activities that include both active and passive recreation. There are no vacoaabone| amenities located within the
project area. However, McNear Landing Park and River View Park are located in walking distance from the project
Imomct Discussion
4.15 (a -b) (Park Use and Recreational Facilities) No Imt)act: The project would not result inadirect impact
related to the increased use of parks since it excludes ohvoka| changes to the environment. With regard to
potential future development (i.e., indirect impacts) the Petaluma General Plan does not identify proposed park
land within the project area orvic|nity. The Project would not introduce new recreational facilities orrequire the
construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities, as no physical change is proposed to the environment
aspart nfthis project.
By annexing the subject parcels into the City, these properties may or may not already be using surrounding
recreational facilities and therefore nochange in use isanticipated. Additionallythe General Plan BRhas already
analyzed potential impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities since the project area is within the
City's Urban Growth Boundary. The nvni/mbi|UY/ maintenance, and management ofpark and naorcnUon fod|Ujeo
are nuffitksnL to accommodate build out of the General Plan, therefore the project would result in no impacts to
recreational facilities.
MitigntionMeasures: None Required
/7-;'O
September 2016 Page 43
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less than
Significant ith Significant Significant Impact
act
P
Impact
Mitigation Impact
a) Confict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -motorized
❑
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
❑ ❑ ❑
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
❑ ❑ ❑
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
❑ ❑ ❑
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
❑ ❑ ❑
facilities?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR
Setting
The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco and Marin
and Sonoma Counties. U.S. 101 accommodates over 92,000 vehicles per day within Petaluma. The circulation
system within the City of Petaluma consists of approximately 140 miles of streets including, arterials, collectors,
connectors, and local streets.
The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are based on industry standards and indicate that a traffic study is
warranted if a project is anticipated to create either 500 trips per day or 50 trips per peak hour. If a project falls
within 10% of these thresholds the City may exercise discretion in whether or not to require a project specific
traffic study. As an annexation that does not propose any development, the project would not generate any
additional vehicle trips. Accordingly, a traffic impact analysis was not conducted,
Within the project area, Petaluma Boulevard South serves as a major arterial and McNear Avenue bounds the
western edge of the project area and serves as a local collector street. Just outside of the project area, at
Petaluma Boulevard South and Crystal Lane, a traffic circle was installed recently which will extend north via a
new river crossing to connect with Caulfield Lane in the future. Additionally, a bus stop is located on Petaluma
12- 51
Page 44 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
Boulevard South in front of the Quarry Heights development, which serves the surrounding neighborhood and the
proposed annexation area. Petaluma General Plan Figure 5-2 shows a planned Class I -Off Street bike lane along
the northern edge of the project area (along the river) as well as planned Class II -On Street (striped) bike lanes
to be constructed on both the future Caulfield Lane river crossing and Petaluma Boulevard South.
Impact Discussion
4.16 (a-b,f) (Policies/Plans/Programs, Conaestion Management Plan) No Impact: The Lomas Annexation project
would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, conflict with an applicable congestion management program, or conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. There will be no
change to the level of service at intersections, nor will the project result in substantial delays or detours. There
will be no changes to transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities as a result of the annexation project. However, as
facility upgrades may be required for specific development projects in the future. Sonoma County opted out of
performing Congestion Management Plans in 1997. Thus, the proposed project would not exceed, either
individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways. Based on the above, the project would have no impact due to a conflict with
any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy related to the circulation system.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
4.16 (c) (Air Traffic Patterns) No Impact: The project would not affect air traffic patterns or result in a substantial
safety risk related to airplanes. Therefore, no impact would result.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.16 (d -e) (Design Feature Hazard. Emeraencv Access) No Impact: The proposed annexation would not introduce
hazardous designs or incompatible uses related to transportation/circulation, or result in inadequate emergency
access. The project does not propose any physical development or design features and therefore would not
include any elements that would adversely impact site distances. Based on the above, the project would have no
impact due to a site design hazards or emergency access.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
)2- 52 -
September 2016 Page 45
Lomas Annexation
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
City of Petaluma
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, UWMP
Setting
Wastewater Treatment
The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and the
unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. The water recycling facility produces tertiary recycled
water in compliance with the California Department of Health Services Title 22 requirements for unrestricted use.
Treatment capacity is at approximately 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow) with actual
treatment at approximately 5 million gallons per day. The project area currently does not connect to the City's
wastewater system, as properties dispose of waste water through septic systems. The project area does have one
sewer line and associated pump station that runs through it north of Petaluma Boulevard South. Main sewer lines
are located within major roads surrounding the project area and would be able to serve annexed properties.
Storm Drains
Within the City of Petaluma, storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and
buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This water is
often untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents, oils, fuels and
k2--5-!�
Page 46 September 2016
Potentially
Less Than Less than
SignificantWith
Would the project:
Significant
Significant No Impact
Impact
Mitigation Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
❑
❑ ® ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
❑
❑ ® ❑
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
❑
❑ ® ❑
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
❑
❑ ® ❑
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
❑
❑ ® ❑
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
❑
❑ ® ❑
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
❑
❑ ® ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
Sources: City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR, UWMP
Setting
Wastewater Treatment
The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and the
unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. The water recycling facility produces tertiary recycled
water in compliance with the California Department of Health Services Title 22 requirements for unrestricted use.
Treatment capacity is at approximately 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow) with actual
treatment at approximately 5 million gallons per day. The project area currently does not connect to the City's
wastewater system, as properties dispose of waste water through septic systems. The project area does have one
sewer line and associated pump station that runs through it north of Petaluma Boulevard South. Main sewer lines
are located within major roads surrounding the project area and would be able to serve annexed properties.
Storm Drains
Within the City of Petaluma, storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and
buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This water is
often untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents, oils, fuels and
k2--5-!�
Page 46 September 2016
City of Petaluma Lomas Annexation
sediment. The City hos implemented o storm drain labeling program to provide m visual reminder that storm
drains are for rainwater only. The City's 5tormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance, set forth in
Chapter 15.80 of the City's Municipal {ode establishes the standard requirements and controls on the storm
drain system, All activities must adhere tmthe City's SbormwaherManagement and Pollution Control Ordinance, as
well as the policies set forth in the General Plan. Some portions of the project area convey atonnweterto the
City's conveyance system (e.g, Petaluma Boulevard South, MoNcarAxonue, and Nadine Lane).
Water Service Svstem
The City of Petaluma Water and Conservation Division of the Public Works Department is the water purveyor
within the city limits and, inlimited situations, also serves adjacent unincorporated properties, The City purchases
potable water wholesale from the Sonoma County Water Agency whose primary source of water is
supplied by the Russian River and supplemented with groundwater from the Santa Rosa Plain via the Petaluma
Aqueduct. The City ofPetaluma also ne|kas on groundwater although only for an emergency water supply in the
event that S[%NAwater deliveries one curtailed and to offset peak demands. Water mains are located within
Petaluma Boulevard South, McNssr/kenue, Nadine Lane/ Lena Lane, and Jacquelyn Lane, all surrounding the
project area (but not within the annexation enaa).
As shown at Figure 5below, city utilities (water, sewer, storm drain) currently exist underneath major mads
surrounding the project area.
PROPOSED LOMAS ANNEXATION _J -1JTILIT4ES-(C-1TYY---
ell
So
�
Sewer
Water
Stoffn Drain
N 11
4.17 (a, e) Treatment Less than Sianificant Imoact: The project would have
September 2016
-b
12-
Page 47 �
{
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
no direct impact on the treatment of wastewater since it is presently served by individual septic systems. As
mentioned above, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8955 N.C.S, all properties would be required to connect
to the city's municipal sewer system within ten years of annexation. This future (or perhaps sooner through
individual development projects), indirect impact on the ability to treat wastewater from the project would result
in a less than significant impact. The General Plan EIR identifies that, with the completion of the Ellis Creek
Recycling Facility (already constructed), the City will be able to serve all wastewater treatment needs of the entire
UGB (which includes the project area) and that no significant impacts related to wastewater treatment would
occur. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts due to insufficient wastewater capacity.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.17 (b -c) (Water/Wastewater/Stormwater Facilities) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would have no
direct impact under these criteria since it neither proposes nor would it require at this time the construction or
expansion of water, wastewater, or new stormwater drainage facilities. With regard to potential indirect impacts,
future development within the project area will require the construction of minor extensions to the City's existing
water, wastewater and stormwater facilities in the vicinity of the project area. However, it is speculative and not
reasonably foreseeable to determine whether such connections would result in significant environmental effects.
When and if the City of Petaluma were to be in receipt of a development application within the project area at a
future date, it would be subject to its own project -level environmental review under CEQA where individual site
characteristics would be analyzed. Therefore, the project would result in no impact under these criteria.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
4.17 (d) (Water Suoolies) Less than Sianificant Impact: The project would have no direct impact concerning
water supply since it would not, through annexation and prezoning, create new demand. However, the project
has the potential for indirect effects through the creation of new demand vis-a-vis future urban redevelopment.
In evaluating the sufficiency of water supplies to meet existing water demands in addition to water demand
generated by the project, the City has compared General Plan 2025 projected water demand to actual use
through December 2012. The results of that comparison find that potable water demand is well within the
available SCWA supply, both for this project, and for cumulative demand through 2035 as set forth in the 2010
Urban Water Management Plan.
The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan updated the General Plan 2025 water analysis and further refined a
water supply program that relies upon water from SCWA, recycled water (potable offset), and conservation. As
noted in General Plan 2025 Policies 8 -P -5-C and 8-P-19, the City also anticipated continuing use of groundwater
to meet emergency needs and to offset peak demands. Per Policy 8-P-4 of the Petaluma General Plan 2025, City
staff is required to monitor actual demand for potable water in comparison to the supply and demand projections
in the 2006 Water Supply and Demand Analysis Report.
In April 2015, staff compared actual demand for potable water to an annual SCWA supply limit for Petaluma of
4,366 million gallons per year (13,400 acre-feet) and a peak supply limit of 21.8 million gallons per day. In both
instances, potable demand is well within available SCWA supply capacity. For the Year 2015, the projected
demand is less than 10,000 acre-feet. Tiered water rates, conservation efforts, and the conversion of Rooster Run
Golf Course to recycled water have in recent years kept annual and peak demands within the available SCWA
supply. These conservation efforts will be enhanced through the implementation of mandatory measures imposed
through the Stage 2 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
The existing water supplies, facilities and infrastructure are sufficient to meet the demands of the project without
the need for a substantial expansion or new construction. A standard condition of approval from the Petaluma
Department of Water Resources and Conservation requires that the project comply with the City's Water
Conservation Ordinance for interior and exterior water usage. Water demand onsite would be limited through
efficient irrigation of the landscaping and water efficient fixtures and appliances indoors, consistent with
requirements established by the CalGreen Building Code. Therefore, the project impacts to water supplies and
infrastructure would be less than significant.
/2-- -�'5
Page 48 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Mitiaation Measures; None Required
Lomas Annexation
4.17 (f -al (Landfill Capacity and Solid Waste Disoosal) Less than Significant Impact: The amount of solid waste
expected to be generated by the project is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the Petaluma General
Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The City's franchise solid waste hauling agreement also requires the
franchise hauler as part of its contractual obligations to select properly permitted Approved Disposal Location(s)
with adequate capacity to serve city service needs. The project area currently and upon annexation would
continue to contribute to the generation of solid waste within the UGB. Solid waste disposal facilities are owned
and operated by the Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works. The project's level of
contribution is minimal and considered as part of the General Plan EIR impact analysis. Therefore, the project will
have a less than significant impact to the disposal of solid waste.
Mitiaation Measures: None Required
September 2016 Page 49
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §15065)
A focused or full environmental impact report for a project may be required where the project has a significant
effect on the environment in any of the following conditions:
Potentially Less ThanLess than
Would the] ro ect: Significant Significant Significant No
p with Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ❑ ❑
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑
directly or indirectly?
Imaact Discussion
4.18 (a) (Dearade Environment, Reduce Habitat or Population) Less Than Significant Imoact: The project site is
located within the City of Petaluma UGB and is considered as part of the development and activities anticipated by
the City's General Plan and associated EIR. The proposed pre -zoning as part of annexation is consistent with
General Plan land use, goals, policies, and programs. Any future development would be subject to CEQA on an
individual project basis and would be analyzed for potential impacts to the quality of the environment, habitat of fish
and wildlife species or populations, plant or animal communities, rare or endangered plants or animals, or examples
of major periods of California history/prehistory. And if necessary, a biological and/or cultural report would be
prepared for future projects to analyze such effects. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts
to the environmental criteria described herein.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.18 (b) (Cumulatively Considerable Impacts) No Impact: The project is consistent with the City's General Plan in
that the area proposed for annexation is within the UGB and has already been anticipated under the General Plan
EIR. Similarly, the potential cumulative impacts of future development projects within the project area have also
already been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The impacts of all anticipated development have been disclosed,
analyzed, and mitigated to the extent feasible in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would result in no
impacts that are individual limited but cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
4.18 (c) (Environmental Effects on Human Beinos) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would not on its own
(2 - 5-7
Page 50 September 2016
City of Petaluma
Lomas Annexation
directly affect the environment or human beings. The development potential indicated by the General Plan and
Housing Element is consistent with the environmental impacts previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. There
are no new impacts that would result from their implementation relative to what has already been analyzed, and
future development would be subject to CEQA and be analyzed for impacts to all environmental categories.
Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to human beings.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
September 2016
Page 51
Lomas Annexation City of Petaluma
S. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010 Clean Air Plan
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, May 2010
City of Petaluma, General Plan 2025
City of Petaluma, General Plan 2025 EIR
City of Petaluma, Housing Element 2015-2023
City of Petaluma, Implementing Zoning Ordinance
City of Petaluma, River Access and Enhancement Plan
Division of Mines and Geology, Publication 42 (Fault -Rupture Hazard)
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostar Database, accessed March 2016
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number
06097C1001G, October 2, 2015
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Geotracker Database, accessed March 2016
United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, accessed
March 2016
City of Petaluma, Urban Water Management Plan
Technical Appendices: None Prepared.
Page 52
12 - .Sq
September 2016