Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch04 05/17/2004102 CITY OF " PETAI UlVIA CALIF ORNIA 3 MEMORANDUM 4 5 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 6 (707) 7 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E- mail: planning@ci petalum'axa.us 7 8 DATE: November 12, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. I 9 10 TO: Planning Commission 11 ' 12 FROM: Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner 13 14 SUBJECT: Paula Lane Subdivision 15 Proposal for 2Y residential units on two contiguous parcels outside City limits but 16 within the Urban Growth.Boundaries (UGB)''totaling 11.22 - acres. The proposal 17 requires a General' Plan Amendment, Pre - zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and 18 Annexation 19 .431 Paula. Lane (corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive) 20 APN 019= 080 =009 & 00 0 23 24 t �� } Vkka ,m 1 g l �p ' y�p p _ W�W I �p {p�p ®�pA ®■ p p�p 5k s y7iv 25 26 Action: 1. Forward a Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a Mitigated 27 Negative Declaration for the project-. 28 ' 29 2. Forward a Recommendation to the City Council regarding: 30 A. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map to re- designate the 31 11.22 -acre -from Rural. (0.0 -0.5' du/ac) to Suburban (0.6 du /ac) 32 B. Pre -.zone the subject parcels to the R -1 10,000 zoning designation 33 C. A Tentative Subdivision Map 34 D. Annexation_ of Subject Parcels 35 36 Should the P to forward a positive recommendation to the City 37 Council "draft "' findings and conditions of approval. have been.attached (see Attachments A, B, 38 C, D, E & F). 39 ECVSUMMARW 41 Project Planner 1tene T. Borba, Senior Planner Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 . 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Project Applicant :. Marti Buxton,. Mission Valley properties Property Owner: Dianna Corralejo and Alice Vesterfelt, c/o Melinda Garcia, Castleman Law Firm Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: Sunset Drive Property Size: 11:22 -acres Site Characteristics: The 11.22 acre site is situated at the corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive. Currently, there are two existing single- family homes_ surrounded by trees and plants. The majority of the parcel consists of native grasses. The subject property is bounded by other residential uses. Existing User Residential -there are two existing single- family dwellings. Proposed Use: The' developer proposes to subdivide the property and build 2= single- family residences on the subject property. Approximately 3 -acres of the subject property would be contiguous open space, for the development. Current Zoning: The subject parcels are currently within County jurisdiction and are zoned Rural Residential. Proposed Zoning The applicant is requesting pre - zoning the subject parcels to the R -1 10,000 zoning :designation: Current. General Plan Land Use: Rural (0.0 -0.5 du/ac) Proposed General 'Plan Land Use: Suburban (0.6 -2.0 du /ac), (see Attachment G, General Plan Land Use Map) Subsequent. Actions: • City Council Review and Approval • Approval of Annexation by LAFCO • SPARC Review and Approval • Improvements Plans/Final Map • Building Permits APPROVAL REQUESTED The proposed project entails the development of a total of 11.22 -acres located at the corner_ of Paula Lane and 'Sunset Drive. The subject property is• not within the city limits of Petaluma but Page 2 1' l 1. is within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB). The "proposal `includes the subdivision (Tentative `Subdivision Map) of , the subject property for the development of '21 single- family 0 residences on lots ran g_ in from 1"0 , q . o 000 s quare feet , to 30- 000 �s q ue feet in area. The homes .g _ . . _q ar 4 sizes would range. from 2,800 lo 3,5.00 square feet with a maximum height of 25'. 5 Approximately, 3 acres of the subject property would be contiguous open space for the 6 development. 8 Given that the subject property is not within the city limits., the subject- property will be required 9 to be annexed to the city' The proposal requires a General Plan Amendment. The applicant is 10 requesting that the General _Plan designation be changed from Rural (0.0 -0.5 du/ac) to 'Suburban 11 (0.6 -2.0 .du/ac). The request`includes pre - zoning the subject property to the standard R -1 10,000 12 square,feet zoning designation. 13 14 - SETTING 15 16 The 11.22 =acre site is situated at the corner of Paula.Lane•and'Sunset Drive. Currently, there are 17 two existing single - family homes surrounded by trees and. plants. The majority of the parcel 18 consists of native grasses. The subject property is bounded' by other residential uses (see 19 Attachment G, Location Map) , 20 21 BACKGROUND 22 On November 14, 2002, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) preliminarily reviewed' the;proposal (see Attachment J SPARC. Minute Excerpts). 25 26 STAFF ANALYSIS 27 28 - General.Plan Consist'ency 29 3o The subject property currently has a General Plan designation of Rural (0.0 -0.5 du/ac). The 31 applicant is requesting a 'General ;Plan Amendment frorri Rural Residential (0.0 -0.5 du/ac) to 32 Suburban (0.5 -2:0 du/ac). The existing Rural General Plan - land' use designation is intended to 33 allow for ve low intensity residential development that may not need ry y p ed all urban services, such as 34 city water services. , Under, the current General Plan land use designation, the applicant would be 35 allowed to..build, a .total of ;five (5) single- family residences. The proposed. Suburban (06 -2:5 36 du/ac) land use designation is. applied to west side lands away from the urban, core and toward the 37 urban separator: With the Suburban land use: designation, the applicant. could potentially develop a 38 total of twenty two,(22) single family residence's' (the proposal is for 21,single dwellings). 39 Lot sizes will depend on topography Nand surrounding land uses. The project as presented meets 40 the Suburban Residential General Plan Land Use designation. The proposal includes a Tentative 41 Subdivision Map to subdivide the property into 21 single - family residences. This General Plan 42 land use, designation of.`Suburban is consistent with the land to the east of the project site and all of 43 the properties to the north :along the Urban Limit Line with the exception of 'the parcels across 44 Sunset; Dnve which are designated and adopted at `the higher , density standard of Urban Standard 0 (2.1 to 5':0 du/ac), (see Attachment G General Plan Land Use Map). Page 3 I The subject property, is currently not within -the city limits but is within the Urban Growth 2 Boundaries (UGB) of the city. As part of'this proposal, the applicant is requesting the property be • 3 zoned.,to the standard zoning of R -1 10,000., The properties along Sunset Drive are currently zoned 4 R -1 10,00.0. The purpose of this zoning designation is to provide areas within Petaluma "where 5 existing single - family dwellings may-, be protected_ and to encourage the development of ` new 6 neighborhood's ;of single - family dwellings. The R -1 District is intended to accommodate groups of 7 single- family homes together with the schools, ;parks, open spaces, and other public services 8 required for satisfactory family environment. , The range. of density classes indicated for the R4 9 district is intended to permit the implementation of the density recommendations of the General permit Plan, and to pet harmonious development of residential districts 'with different density 11 characteristics.. The project as submitted meets the standards of the R -1 10,000 zoning: 12 13. There, following policies, objectives and programs relate to this proposal: 14 15 Policies in Chapter 4, Land: Use and Growth Management, require growth to; be contained within 16 the Urban Limit Line (Urban Growth Boundary) and only in areas where adequate City facilities. 17 are available or will be provided with the development. 18 • The subject properties meet this requirement. 19 20 Housing Element. 21 January -1, 1.990 through June 30, 2006 Housing, Element addresses housing needs. It 22 encourages a range /mix of - housing types, including higher -value homes (Policy 2.1). It also 23 allows for flexibility within the City's standards and regulations to encourage a variety of 24- housing types (Policy 2. Policy 4.2 ,states that residential projects of five or more units shall 25 contribute to the provision of below - market rate. housing. The project, developer will, be required 26 to contribute to the in -lieu housin g _ per er the General Plan Housin g Element (, gr_ Pro am 4.4 c. ) 27 • The proposed will add ( a new range /mix of housing types. The proposal- includes the 28 subdivision o f`the subject .parcels for the development of 221 single - family residences in 29 lots ranging from 10 square feet to 30,000 square feet in area with homes ranging 30 from 2 to 3,000 square feet. The developer will be require to contribute'to the in -lieu 31 housing,f ind. for the project.. 32 33 Community Character Element. 34 Policy 16;: New single- family detached residential developments of 16 or more units, excluding 35 affordable housing, shall be designed 'such that 10% of the total units are significantly different 36 from the remaining units ,in architecture style and detail and' are interspersed throughout the 37 project. The intent, of this policy is to promote architectural, diversity in new neighborhoods. In 38 general, the city seeks to avoid monotony and, sameness and to promote architectural diversity' in 39 the design of new developments. 40 Program ,(22.1) Clearly define architectural diversity in. development of ;new. single - family 41. detached homes through standards established in City. design guidelines, the- growth management 42' systems. or the zoning ordinance. 43 © Upon approval by the City Council, the proposal will he, required to obtain' Site Plan and 44 Architectural Review . (SPARC) approval and the 10.% ratio for difference in architectural 45 style would be required. Page 4 J, Program 9• Require planter strips and'street trees in all new developrrient„ p y p p p which includes street trees. The ® A relimmar- landsca e pla ,,has been rovided r landscaping lan would bt required to be reviewed and a roved b the; Site Plan an p g p q ., pP y d 4 Architectural.Review "Committee (SPARC). 6 Objective (h): - Create distinct, identifiable neighborhoods. 7 Objective (i): Upgradethe quality of public, residential, commercial and industrial development 8 throughout the city. 9 10. Program (21): Create neighborhoods with visible and functional centers (i.e., parks). 11 Objective (p Presezve nieamngful ainourits of usable.open'space in and between developments. 12 Policy. 27 The City shall, require provisions of privately owned open space in residential 13 developments; of 'more than 15 units where made by project density or design, or lack of 14 proximityto public parks,or open space. 15 ® The project proposal includes approximately 1 -acres of open space for the development. 16 This open space will allow for :an existing badger habitat to remain in the area. 17 18 Land Use: and Growth Md,nagement. 19 Policy 28` The City .shall "support residential development only :in those areas where adequate 20 City facilities are available orwill, beprovided with development. 21 ® All utilities and roads :have adequate capacity to serve: the proposed °development. 22 Parks, Recreation, Schools and Child Care:. Policy 14: The City shall . promote private .open space and recreation facilities in .large -scale 25 residential developments in order to meet a portion of the open ,space" and recreation needs that 26 will be generated by the development. 27 . Program (14): Use the development review process to provide open space and "recreation 28 facilities in residential developments of 15 or more units. 29 ®. The project proposal''includes 3 -acres of open space area for the development. The area 30 of open space is also a habitat for :badgers. The proposed, open space will include a 31 pedestrian/bicycle path. 32 33 Zoning Distri&t Consistency ' 34 35 The applicant requests "that the City pre -zone the development site to R -1 1.0 The purpose 36 of the'R -1 zoring ;designation is to provide areas within Petaluma where existing single - family s ma y be rotected, and to encourage 'the dev 37 dwellings - g p elopment of new neighborhoods of single - 38 family dwellings. The R -1 district is intended to accommodate groups, of single -family .homes 39 together with schools, parks; open spaces, and other .public ;services required for a satisfactory 40 family environment. The range of density classes indicated 'for' R-1 District is intended to 41 permit the implementation of the density recommendations "of the General Plan and to permit 42 harmonious development of residential districts with different characteristics. The R -1 10,00 43 zoning designation has a maximum height limit of twenty -five feet for the principal building and 44 a maximum height'limit of "fifteen feet for accessory 'structures. Minimum lot width is 75 feet and minimum lot depth 100 feet in the R -1 10,00 zoning designation. Setbacks are as follows: front 25 feet, rear 25 feet, one side 8 feet with an aggregate for both sides of 20 feet. With the Page ,5 t � s J, Program 9• Require planter strips and'street trees in all new developrrient„ p y p p p which includes street trees. The ® A relimmar- landsca e pla ,,has been rovided r landscaping lan would bt required to be reviewed and a roved b the; Site Plan an p g p q ., pP y d 4 Architectural.Review "Committee (SPARC). 6 Objective (h): - Create distinct, identifiable neighborhoods. 7 Objective (i): Upgradethe quality of public, residential, commercial and industrial development 8 throughout the city. 9 10. Program (21): Create neighborhoods with visible and functional centers (i.e., parks). 11 Objective (p Presezve nieamngful ainourits of usable.open'space in and between developments. 12 Policy. 27 The City shall, require provisions of privately owned open space in residential 13 developments; of 'more than 15 units where made by project density or design, or lack of 14 proximityto public parks,or open space. 15 ® The project proposal includes approximately 1 -acres of open space for the development. 16 This open space will allow for :an existing badger habitat to remain in the area. 17 18 Land Use: and Growth Md,nagement. 19 Policy 28` The City .shall "support residential development only :in those areas where adequate 20 City facilities are available orwill, beprovided with development. 21 ® All utilities and roads :have adequate capacity to serve: the proposed °development. 22 Parks, Recreation, Schools and Child Care:. Policy 14: The City shall . promote private .open space and recreation facilities in .large -scale 25 residential developments in order to meet a portion of the open ,space" and recreation needs that 26 will be generated by the development. 27 . Program (14): Use the development review process to provide open space and "recreation 28 facilities in residential developments of 15 or more units. 29 ®. The project proposal''includes 3 -acres of open space area for the development. The area 30 of open space is also a habitat for :badgers. The proposed, open space will include a 31 pedestrian/bicycle path. 32 33 Zoning Distri&t Consistency ' 34 35 The applicant requests "that the City pre -zone the development site to R -1 1.0 The purpose 36 of the'R -1 zoring ;designation is to provide areas within Petaluma where existing single - family s ma y be rotected, and to encourage 'the dev 37 dwellings - g p elopment of new neighborhoods of single - 38 family dwellings. The R -1 district is intended to accommodate groups, of single -family .homes 39 together with schools, parks; open spaces, and other .public ;services required for a satisfactory 40 family environment. The range of density classes indicated 'for' R-1 District is intended to 41 permit the implementation of the density recommendations "of the General Plan and to permit 42 harmonious development of residential districts with different characteristics. The R -1 10,00 43 zoning designation has a maximum height limit of twenty -five feet for the principal building and 44 a maximum height'limit of "fifteen feet for accessory 'structures. Minimum lot width is 75 feet and minimum lot depth 100 feet in the R -1 10,00 zoning designation. Setbacks are as follows: front 25 feet, rear 25 feet, one side 8 feet with an aggregate for both sides of 20 feet. With the Page ,5 a= I exception of the pump house location, on Lot 1, 'the project as proposed appears to meet this 2 zoning designation. The project will have to be modified so the pump house~ meets the zoning =. 3 requirements. Existing parcels across Sunset ,Drive are currently zoned R -1 10 (see 4 Attachment G, Zoning'Map). 5 6 0.ther; Public A2encyReviews: 7 Fish, and, Game: 8 The proposal was reviewed by the Department offish and Game (see Attachment. L, Letter from 9 Robert Floerke of the Department offish and Game dated March 11, 20:02)., The Department of 10 Fish and Game reviewed the proposal due to concerns had been raised by neighboring property 11 owners ,regarding potential impacts to the existing badger habitat on the site: Although badgers 12 are not considered to be an endangered species;. Fish and Game recommended mitigation 13 utilizing the remaining undeveloped portions of the project for long -term 'badger habitat: and 14 protection as , a conservation easement. Also, Fish and Gagne recommended that footing walls be 15 used adjacent to the badger habitat which would extend some depth info., soil to prevent 16 badger access to the lots under fences and walls. Fish and Game also supports the proposed 17 planting scheme and recommended there be 'a,majority of valley oak and black oak and less 18 California bay or coast 'live oak, which would be a better representation of he :local forest 19 ,composition Fish and Game also recommended: any trail design with minimal imp -act and the 20 use of porous material 'such as blue shale will provide a firm surface while allowing for 'both. 21 grassy cover and: water percolation and:help with erosion. Comments from Fish and Game were 22 discussed in the lnitial Study (see, Attachment K). 23 24 In addition, Jane Valerius Environment Consultant and Anne Flannery, of Ibis Environmental 25 Services conducted assessments of the site for the presence of threatened.and endangered species 26 and concluded that the site does not have the habitat potential. to support. the threatened and 27 endangered plant and animal species known.to'v(ist..in the area. Further - hi6lo gical discussion;is 28 discussed later in the: report as well as in the attached °initial study. 29 30 Army Corps.,of`Engineers 31 The proposal was reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers (see, Attachment :L, Letter from 32 Calvin Fong of the Army Corp of Engineers, .dated. June 4, 2002). The letter .notes that a 33 Department of the- Army authorization will not be .required since the proposal does not involve 34 the discharge of' dredged fill material into a water of the United States, including adjacent 36 required is based upon an -sitte i the Clean ection o he ro'ect by i at a permi our staff on t 2 not - p p 1 y ary 31, 2002 and. 37 our review of the project needs. The site lacked the evidence of :hydrophytic: plant communities 38 although a .relatively"high. water tab_ le was evident. The lack of wetland characteristics on this 39 site is related to the coarse soil material, slope, lack of relative depressions, and lack .of 40 restrictive horizons high upon in the soil profile. Comments from the Army,Corp of Engineers 41 were discussed in the Initial Study (see, Attachment K); 42 43 California Historical ;Resources„ Information System: 44- The project was also referred to the California Historical Resources Information System. -A 45 letter was ;received from .Leigh Jordan dated. December r.7, 2002 stating that the. proj ect area did 4:6 not: identify historical resources and therefore . recommended no further studies were needed .('see,, • .Page 6 0 1 Attachment, L): Cultural resources pare further discussed later in the report and in the Initial Study (see, AftachmentX, Initial Study). 3 4 Primary Issues 6 Land Use Compatibility.- 7 As previously stated, the projects within the 'Urban Limit Line (UGB) and Sphere of Jnfluence. 8 The General Plan designated the properties these properties for residential development (Rural 9 0.0 — 0.5 du/ac). This designation would. potential allow' for development of 5 dwellings units. 10 The proposal requests' ' a General Plan Amendment to 'Suburban (0.6 — 2.5 du/ac), which 11 potentially could allow for 22 dwelling units. The developer is requesting approval of 21 sngle- 12 family dwellings. As stated earlier, this land use designation of Suburban is consistent with the 13 land to the east of the project: site and all of the properties to the north along the Urban Limit n 14 Line with the exceptio of the parcels across Sunset Drive which, are developed and designated 15 at a higher standard of Urban Standard. 16 17 Due to the slope of the property, the 'requirements of the Hillside Residential development 18 Combining District apply. to. , the project: Based upon the calculations. supplied by the engineer, 19 the minimum allowable Tot size, if 9888 square feet. The proposal provide a minimum of 10,000 20 square foot lots. 21 22 Geology and Soils: Treadwell & Rollo Environmental. and Geotechnical Consultants prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Paula Lane Subdivision dated' ,August 9, 2001. The scope of 25 services consisted of perform g.a preliminary evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site by 26 advancing five test borings and ' performing engineering analyses to provide preliminary 27 conclusions and recommendations regarding: 28 a Soil and groundwater conditions at the site 29 0 Appropriate foundation type(s) for the proposed residences, including preliminary design 30 criteria 31 0 Estimated settlement of 'new foundations 32 a Site grading and excavation, including fill compaction requirements and criteria for 33 imported fill 34 a Site. seismicity hazards, including potential for liquefaction 35 a 1993 Uniform, Building Code (UBC) soil profile and near-source, factors 36 37 The site ;has a large drainage swale that runs in an east -west direction and crosses the central 38 portion of the site. The ground, surface across the site generally slopes down toward the swale 39 except along Paula Lane where the ground surface is relatively level: .Ground surface elevations 40 across the site range from approximately 234 feet in the southeast portion of the site to roughly 155 41 feet at the base of the swale' .in the northwest portion of the site. The inclination. of the sloping 42 ground at the site is general'ly;less than 4:1, with the slopes being somewhat. steeper in the southern 43 half of the site. 44 Page 7 1 In general, the soil underlying the site has high strength and low plasticity. The potential for future. 2 slope instability on the site is low. In addition, the potential for debris flows on these slopes will ~� 3 be low. 4 5 Subsequently, Richard Yahn P.E. Geotechnical Engineer of Kleinfelder conducted a peer review 6 of the Geotechnical Evaluation dated March 23, 2003. Mr. Yahn stated that the geotechnical 7 investigation :is preliminary and a final ;geotechnical investigation should be performed prior to 8 final design and construction of the ,proposed development. He also stated that the final. :report 9 should be; part of the basis for approval of subsequent ' project construction documents and that the 10 final report ;should conform to the ,general requirements of both Article 7, Soils Report, of the State 11 of California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Petaluma Building Ordinance. 12 13 Hydrology and Water Quality: 14 A Preliminary Drainage Study dated May 2002 was prepared by CSW /Stuber- Stroeh Engineering 15 Group" to assess the °.impacts of .the proposed .development. The purpose of the report was to 16 provide : a preliminary comparison of the existing and proposed - drainage conditions for the 17 proposed subdivision. Information :for the project drinage plan was based,. on the Precise 18 Development and Master Plans prepared by CSW /Stuber- Stroeh• Engineering:. Group dated 19 No 2001. Information for the existing conditions of the site were derived from the 20 Petaluma'River Watershed Master'Drainage.Plan. The topography of the area was obtained from 21. the Sonoma County Water Agency the hydrology calculations are, based on Sonoma'County 22 Water Agency Flood. Control Design Criteria. 23 24 Paula Lane is at the uppermost reaches of the watershed contributing to Marin' Creek Tributary 25 No.5 along.the Cherry- Magnolia*ainage, system in Petaluma. Approximately six acres of area on 26 the northerly side of Sunset Drive contribute to the watershed, which flows through the project: 27' An additional 2:4 acres northerly of Sunset Drive drain to the property to the west !anl •enter the 28 Mann Creek N63., Drainage System just ;downstream of the project boundaries. 29 30 As stated. in the all of the homes with the exception. of Lot 21 and potions. of Lots,TO and 20 3.1 will drain through the main Watershed "A ". The storrn drain system which will drain Area.A will 32 pick up storm water at the upper reaches of the project through a series of catch basins and 33 discharge it into a, grassy swale above a small detention basin at the; westerly edge of the property. 34 The detention basin serves two functions. First, to mitigate increases in runoff due to, the.increase 35 of the impervious surface, and secondly-to, provide nominal cleansing benefits to the overall storm 36 water system. There are three (3) pipe systems withinthe proposed project. The main storm drain 37 system "A ", which collects the bulk of the runoff and discharges into the grassy soil..between Lots 38 5 and 14. The second system collects Water .at the end of the street `B" and discharges it directly 39 into the lowest detention pond. The third system collects water from the street area north of the 40 project, thewidened Sunset Drive and delivers it to the detention basin. 41 42 The results of the hydrology study show that the proposed development of Paula Lane will have 43 virtually no impact on drainage .systems downstream from the site. The proposed detention pond 44 at the westerly end of the ;property mitigates increases in flow due to impervious surfaces. 45 Watershed B6. has no impacts fr o; the Paula Lane project: However, t here will be a slight increase 46 in flow (0.06cfs) from Watershed D, into the ditch along Paula Lane. The existing ditch is more 47 than adequate' to handle this minor increase. The out flow from the detention. pond, Watershed A, • • Page 8 1 B, C, E, is. a significant reduction (16 %) of the peak flow from the existing condition at the. 0 3 westerly portion of the property. . 4 Subsequently; Gale Paddock, P.E. of Kleinfelder conducted a peer review of the preliminary 5 drainage ;study., Kleinfelder completed :a review of the Paula Lane Subdivision Drainage Study 6 dated May 2002 by CS W /Stuber- Stroeh. Engineeri ng Group. The review process consisted of 7- reviewing the referenced report, .calculations and supporting documents for conformance with 8 industry standard and to form an-,.o pinion as to the conclusions presented in the report. It is 9 Kleinfelder's professional opinion that the Drainage Study was performed in accordance with 10 industry standards and followed the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design 11 Criteria. It was Kleinfelder's opinion that the conclusions presented in the Drainage; •Study are 12 supported by the drainage calculations. Kleinfelder recommends that the City accept the report 13 and implement the recommendations :cited in the study. 14 15 In addition, a letter dated. 9/22/03 was ,submitted by the project applicant from Craig Shields, 16 Geotechnical Engineer of Treadwell & Rollo regarding the groundwater conditions beneath the 17 proposed residential development site. The letter was written in response to concerns that were 18 raised from the public. regarding :a- potential aquifer below the, site. The letter states that the site is 19 underlain at shallow depths by'native sand, silty sand and clayey sand of the Merced Formation. It 20 also states that, according to the publication titled Geology and Groundwater in Santa Rosa and 21 Petaluma Valley' Areas Sonoma County, California (1958); the Merced formation is estimated to 22 vary from less than 300 feet to as much as 1,500 feet. The Merced formation is typically a fine -to 46 very- fine - grained soft 'sandstone, which is clayey or silty locally. Because of its extent, high porosity, and moderate transmissibility, the Merced formation is considered to be probably the 25 most important water - bearing formation or aquifer in the area. Mr. Shields goes on to state that he 26 believes the proposed development will not adversely affect the Werced formation aquifer because: 27 28 ® The formation is ubi qu tors throughout `the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley and is up to 29 1,500 feet thick. The proposed development site is minute compared to the aquifer 30 recharge area. 31 ® Water supplied to the ;proposed development will be domestic water from off -site sources. 32 Therefore, no groundwater will .be drawn from below the site. 33 ® The proposed development includes a detention. basin that will allow surface runoff from 34 the development to infiltrate. into the aquifer. 35 ® Irrigation water for landscaping associated with the new homes will infiltrate into the 36 ground and also recharge the aquifer. 37 38 Biological: 39 Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting reviewed'. the biological resources of the subject 40 properties. Ms. Val'erius prepared a letter dated July 20, 2001 to the Army Corp of Engineers and 41 reports dated. October 22, 2001 and May 14, 2002. 42 The letter dated July 20, 2001, (letter to the U.S. Army'Corp of Engineers) states that a delineation 43 of areas potentially subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction was conducted on the 44 project site. The sites were walked and observations were made on the plants species and possible indicators of wetland conditions. Page 9 1 The project area there .does not appear to be habitat for any special status animals. There are no 2 vernal pools on the site, or any ponded water; and there are no creeks or drainages or riparian 3 vegetation. The proj ect. site is surrounding existing development and resents limited habitat g Y g P p b tat 4 for animals,, and.specifically special status animals. The letter also states that the swale that occurs 5 in the - center of the property was examined to determine if it meets the criteria. asap_ otential , g y y tland' species; 6 wetland area. Veg within the swale is dominated b mostly facul "tative we 7 specifically y velvet grass and annual rye grass. Other species present include brome• grasses, 8 geranium and vetch, all non - wetland species. Soils within the swale were moist to saturated:and 9 oxidized root channels were also present,, There was very little evidence of ,surface hydrology, 10 except for downed vegetation in the lower. portion of the swale. Thee letter from Ms. Valerius to the 11 Army Corp of Engineers requested a formal jurisdiction determination from the Corps to confirm 12 the wetland areas. 13 14 City staff was provided a letter dated June 4, 2002 from the Department of the Army Corp (see 15 Attachment L). The .letter states that it has been determined that :a Departrrient of the Army 16 authorization will.not berequired above activity will' not "involve the discharge of dredged 17 or fill material into• a water of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to Section 18 404 of the Clean Water Act. The determination that. a pern it is not required, is based on an ion -site 19 inspection and a,. review of the project needs. The site .lacked the evidence of hydrophytic •plant 20 communities although a relatively high water table was evident. The _lack. of wetland 21 characteristics �on this site is related to the coarse soil material, slope, lack of relative depressions, 22 and lack of restrictive horizons high up on the soil. 23 24 Kleiifelder conducted a peer review of .these documents and their conclusions relative to `the 25 standards of care, and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under 26 similar condied to hgegeographic i s t at t e regulatory e the services were performed. The work 27 also comp the requirements a pp guidance documents such as the 28 California Environmental Quality Act, state and federal endangered species' acts, Section 404 of 29 the Federal Clean Water Act, and the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual. • Kleinfelder also 30 checked to confirm that representatives of relevant regulatory agencies were invited to review the 31 work, and provided with the opportunity to comment and make suggestions., 32 33 Jane Valerius Environmental Consultants, and Anne Flannery of Ibis Environmental Services 34 conducted assessments of the site for the potential presence of threatened and .endangered species 35 with the significant involvement of the California Department of -Fish and ;Game. This work 36 concluded that the site; did not have the habitat potential to support the threatened and endangered 37 plant and animal species known to exist. in the area. This conclusion was based on review of the 38 California Natural Diversity Data Base and the California Native Plant Society's 2001 electronic 39 inventory an d on three - surveys of 'the site conducted at times when special status species are most 40 identifiable. Anne Flannery notes, that - the.Amencan badger.likely inhabits the site and though no 4 . special protection is required for this species measures are proposed to.mitigate potential impacts. 42 This proposed additional mitigation measures to minimize project- related impacts to nesting birds. 43 These recommendations reflect the comments and suggestions received. from California 44 Department of Fish and. Game. during the course of the assessment. In conclusion, it is. 45 Kleinfelder's opinion that these assessments have been conducted - appropriately- and were 4.6 sufficient to identify the presence of wetlands or special status species were they present. Page 10 1 Kieinfelder recommends that the. City accept the reports .and ,implement any mitigation measures recommended by the: authors. 4 As stated earlier in the report,. City .staff received a letter dated March 11, 2002 from the 5 Department of Fish .arid Game,. The: 'letter: recommends mitigation utilizing the remaining 6 undeveloped portions of the proj ect for long- term badger habitat and. ,protection as a. conservation 7 easement. Department of Fish and t Game also recommends footing walls be used adjacent to -the 8 badger habitat; which extend some depth ;into the soil to' prevent badger access to the lots under 9 fences and walls. Fish and Garnet also supports the planting scheme and recommends there be a 10 majority.of Valley Oak- and Black :Oak and less California Bay or .Coast Live Oak. Department of 11 Fish and Game also recommends any trail design, with, minunal impact with the use of a porous 12 material such as blue shale.. The project would incorporate the footing as recommended by Fish 13 and Game and' 3 -acres of the site will be open.space as well as serve as an area for the badger 14 habitat. 15 16 Cultural Resources: 17 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the subject property to identify and evaluate cultural resources 18 in the project area was conducted in. August 2001 by Archaeological Resource Services. Sally 19 Evans of Archeological-,Resource Service concluded and recommended the following. While a 20 few pieces of historic debris and 'an older foundation ,were :encountered, no prehistoric artifacts or 21 cultural soils were observed. Furthermore; this property - lacks resources such as springs, vegetation 22 or rock outcrops that would _have been attractive to Native Americans. The older structure-•on the property does not appear to be of historic importance, and the' few fragments of historic debris were not .in ,an y type e of concentration to warrant consideration as an historic site. The proposed. 25 project is not seen to have the potential for adversely affecting :local cultural resources. 26 Archaeological monitoring is not warranted at this time. 'The report statesi that there is however, 27 always the potential for buried historical deposits associated with the older house or isolated 28 prehistoric artifacts that may have been obscured by vegetation. In the event that archaeological 29 features, such as concentrations. of artifacts or ,culturalty modified soil deposits including trash pits 30 older than fifty. years of age, are discovered at Any time during grading; scraping or excavation 31 within the property, all work ;s_houl_d be `halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified 32 archaeologist should be contacted mmediatelyto.. make an evaluation. 33 34 JRP Historical prepared t a historical architectural inventory and evaluation in April 2002: The 35 historic architectural inventory and evaluation. prepared for the subject property by 7RP Historical 36 Consulting Services (dated April 18 ;2002) of the subject properties, is presented on a California 37 Department of Parks and recreation 523 form (DPR523). The form 'includes a description; 38 historical context, and evaluation of the property as required by the City of Petaluma's guidance 39 for evaluation of- historic' resources and Zoning Ordinance, as well as meeting CEQA standards and 40 guidelines; for evaluation for historic resources. The conclusion :of this: evaluation is that the 41 historic era buildings (the main house and secondary residence). d0, no t'Appear to meet the criteria 42 for listing on either the California, Register of Historic places. The non- historic era buildings (the 43 secondary residence and garage) are not considered resources under CEQA, or the City of 44 Petaluma's zoning ordinance; nor do they appear to meet the .exacting standards necessary for properties less than fifty ,years old, to be considered historic resources in spite of their age. None of the .four buildings; therefore, appear . to be historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. Page 11 i Furthermore, the evaluation notes that none of the buildings appear to ..meet the criteria for listing ' p ,. 2 on the National Re properties were evaluated in accordance, wi th Register of Historic Places. The ro 3 Section 15064.5 (a)(2) -(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.) of 4 the California Public Resources Code and. does not appear to meet the. significance criteria as 5 outlined .in these guidelines. In order, for the property to 'be considered a historic resource; it must 6 be go beyond.s reply being more than fifty years old, it must have historic importance. It does.not 7 appear'that the subject property meets this requirement: The report stated that they had identified 8 theµsuccession.of owners for the parcels from the 1870's, before any of the existing buildings were 9 constructed, through the present. It appears that after the Paula (or' Pauli) fam'ily's ownership: t o (about 11888 tal918) , there was a series of different, owners who each held the :property for a few 11 years at a tune. During this period, the former farm, c'oinplex was altered through the addition and 12 removal of buildings and, the original Paula tract was subdivided and reduced" size. Therefore, in 13' addition to the fact that °the property does not appear to have important association with agriciiltural 14 developments in the Petaluma area, the farm complex does not retain integrity to the period in 15 which it was operated as a small farm. None of the buildings appear to have individual 16 architectural importance, nor does the property appear to have the potential 'to yield information 17 important to the history of the area. 18 19 The City contracted with Carey and Company `to conduct peer review of °thee ,above :noted 20 documents. Ina letter dated March -4, 2003 from Sarah Dreller of Carey and ';Company she states 2.1 that the information appears to be well researched and well documented. Ms. Dreller, also states 22 that her review did riot uncover any significant information on the original property owner, John 2 Paula (or. the Pauli .family). Carey and company also agreed that the property does not appear to 24 have any ; associations. with people ,other' than its owners and the research, did not :identify` any 25 si ficant contributions that'he.may have made. 'Carey and Company agreed with4he JRP report ' 26 thatllthe ex sting buildings do not qualify °for -the CRHR — California Register of Historical 27 Resources ;and - that the• buildings do not appear lo. have importance: as artifacts in" and of 28 themselves. Carey and Company concludes that , the : JRP Report generally provides sufficient 29 descriptive and historical information to create;a. basis for its evaluation and that the 'JRP report's 30 evaluation of the property's historic sigriifi'cance is,sourid. 31 32 Noise: 33 Temporary increase in noise levels would occur during: construction due, to the use of heavy 34 construction equipment. However, this, noise, would be short -term and temporary. An increase' in 35 periodic ambient noise will ,result from the development of the subject property would be 36 attributable to typical noises generated,froin vehicles and activities with any residential type use. 37 38 Fred Svinth of I_llingworth & Rodkin, Inc. prepared a. noise, analysis (dated 1VIay, 28,; 2002) .(see 39 Attachment K initial 'Study) to address potential noise problems that may be associated with the 40 project. The purpose of the assessment was, to evaluate the compatibility of the development with 4 - respect, to the, environmental noise levels at the project site and evaluate noise impacts upon 42 sensitivewreceptors in the area. The'report-states that the project site is characterized by 'a relatively 43 quiet environment punctuated by occasional 'loud sounds, typically resulting from passing -autos 44 and trucks on area roadways,, particularly �alohg. Paula L and Sunset Drive. Background noise 45 levels without these events or other typical . .residents "a1.noise'are low, with; noise` from distant "traffic 46 on `Bo Avenue: and other area roadways occasionally audible. The report concludes that with Page 12 1 implementation of specific measures; that would. limit the overall noise levels and duration of 0 construction.activities, while giving anypersons disturbed by „occasionalaoud noises an identifiable method of recourse the proposal would be considered less than significant: Given the sensitivit Y y of 4 the surrounding neighbors staff included specific hours for construction more stringent than 5 normally permitted. 7 Subsequently, Richard Bohrer, Kleinfelder reviewed the noise study and their conclusions relative 8 to the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing 9 under similar conditions in the. ,geographic vicinity at the time the servies were performed. 10 Kleinfelder found that that 'the Illingworth •and Rodkin Environmental Noise Assessment of the 11 Paula Lane site is conducted. in general accordance with •the Petaluma General Plan and Zoning 12 Ordinance. It is Kleinfelder'I's opinion. that, this assessment: had been conducted appropriately and 13 was sufficient to identify the presence of potential elevated environniental noise levels. Kleinfelder 14 concurs with the ,opinion that construction activities would, result in short-term noise impact at 15 nearby residences. However, some of the restrictions in ;construction activities suggested by 16 lllingworth and Rodkin,, especially the additional restrictions on construction and maintenance 17 hours, may result in- significant, cost increases to the developer and should be closely reviewed by 18 the City of Petaluma ,prior to incorporating them, the contract documents. Kleinfelder 19 recommended that the City accept the Environmental Noise Assessment and implement 20 appropriate mitigation measures; cited in the report. 21 22 Visual Quality and Aesthetics: 4 Environmental Vision prepared a light and glare environmental assessment .(date stamped June 4, 2002 by the City of Petaluma). The report states that the project;'would introduce nighttime light 25 sources related to the proposed residential development ;including street lighting and lighting 26 associated with 21 single-family residences. There are no existing g street lights situated on the 27 site. Sources of nighttime lighting in the project vicinity include the ;existing single- family 28 residences located north along Sunset Drive and east along Paula Lane' as well as the existing 29 residences located to the west and southeast. Existing "Cobra'' style streetlights, mounted on 30 wood utility poles, are located along the north side of Sunset Drive adjacent to the site. Similar 31 lighting is also found to the northeast, along residential, streets such as West Street and Elm 32 Drive. Proposed street lighting is found on the utility plan for the proposed project. All of the 33 new streetlights would, be installed per the City of Petaluma Street Light Design and 34 Construction Standards.. The report' states that during, nighttime hours, lighting from the 35 proposed development would be visible from some locations in the project vicinity. As street 36 trees and residential landscaping at the site mature, the degree of visible nighttime lighting at the 37 development will;lessen. The lighting at the site would generally be similar in type and intensity 38 to nighttime lighting, which presently occurs in the neighboring residential areas. The 39 introduction of nighttime ;lighting at the .project site would generally constitute an incremental 40 change as seen from °the ,surrounding community. It is anticipated that the project would not 41 substantially alter the. nighttime visual character currently experienced in the project area. In 42 order to minimize nighttime lighting effects associated with the project the report recommended 43 specific measures be. implemented. 44 46 Subsequently, peerr review was conducted on the above noted document by Bradley Erskine, Environmental Division Manager of Kleinfelder (letter dated April 16, 2003). Kleinfelder Page 13 . 1 reviewed the Light ;and Glare ; Evaluation, which evaluated the impact -to neighboring 2 communities from street, lighting installed of the proposed Paula Lane development. Kleinfelder 3 concurs with the conclusions presented in the,report. . 4 5 Environmental Vision prepared a visual simulation for the proposed project. Visual simulations 6 of the proposed project were prepared to illustrate the project the project as seen from two 7 locations: • 1) Paula Lane near the intersection of West Street and 2) Sunset Drive near the 8 northwest: edge of the site. Environmental Visions employed computer modeling and rendering 9 techniques to produce'.the visual. simulation images.- The assumptions that were used were based 10 on existing, and. proposed topographic data supplied by Mission Valley Properties (CSW%Stuber- 11 Stroeh, November 20.01.) in addition to site and landscape plans (CSW /Stuber- Stroeh) and 12 architectural- drawings (Packowski Heinritz Associates; September 2001). Digital visual- 13 simulation images were produced based on computer, renderings of the 3 -D model combined 14 with digital versions of the four selected site photographs.. 15 16 Subsequently, the visual simulation was reviewed by Bradley Erskine of Kleinfelder and 17 Associates. Kleinfelder concluded that in their opinion that the visual simulation prepared by 18 Environmental Vision is a, reasonably accurate - representation. of the scale and character of the 19 Paula Lane subdivision project. The conclusion was based on the following observations: 20 21 • The residential units are correctly placed on each lot relative: to their position 'on 22 grading plans. 23 • The spacing of units relative to each other appears to be accurately represented.. 24 • The size height, and scale of the units relative to each other and existing 25 'improvements and vegetation areL accurately represented. 26 • Elevations are represented correctly. 27 ® Landscaping is similar. in'height and maturity to landscaping observed at other 28 young housing developments. 29 • The methodologies used in the analysis are not highly subject to human bias., 30 Kleinfelder recommends that the: City rely on the "visual 'simulations as a reasonably accurate 31 representation of the Paula Lane project as presented from the two viewpoints. 32 33 Staff did not require the applicant to erect story poles 'at this time given that visual. simulations 34 were provided,as a means of depicting the views of the project. Staff also felt story poles may 35 not accurately reflect the final height, and siting of the structures given that final architectural 36 plans have not been fully developed. Staff will require that story poles be erected prior to ;Site 37 Plan and Architectural 'Review after formal architectural plans have been developed. 38 39 PUBLIC COMMENTS 40 4.1 A Notice of 'Intent to -Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and .Notice of Public Hearing was 42 published in the Arg"us Courier on October 22, 2003 and sent all residents an&propertyowners 43 within 1,000' feet of the project site. The usual 500 -foot notice was expanded due to the public 44 interest. 45 . Page 14 1 I In addition, although a permit is not required of the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game; given that they were involved with the review of this project, the, - 3 Notice and Mitigated`Negative Declaration were sent to them as well as the State Clearinghouse 4 for informational purposes. The thirty -day comment period began October 22, 2003. 6 Numerous communications, letters and/or phone calls to .staff and /or council members and 7 planning coma issioners have been received in :opposition to the proposed development. The 8 letters and phone calls speak in opposition to the size and- density of the project and the negative 9 impact the proposal would have with regards' to drainage, traffic, water pressure, the 10 environment, including wildlife and trees as well, the potential loss of the existing residence, 11 noise, as well as other:concerns'(see Attachment T, for list of correspondence received) 12 13 Staff believes that the concerns /issues, raised in these letters /messages have been adequately 14 addressed in the environmental _review of the project proposal and discussed in the Initial Study 15 and it's supporting documents as well as this staff report (see, Attachment K, Initial Study). 16 17 IMPACT` FEES' 18 19 The project will be subject to the following development :fees:, sewer and water connection, 20 community facilities development, storm drainage impact, park and recreation land 21 improvement, school facilities, in -lieu housing and traffic mitigation. 22- q a 9 xrtY },fix 'y x „. m`E�.p��7 !°?` I��p' -- pp►�y, ■p.yP�� ®"`."s ' _Wp� PS�stpM " +s "wa . »_'^� « ' 1 " r` h,s e , - 'r {w y �^.s �Y' ` 3 "'Saa•Ti4'S"'w' �xn i �C�` �YVII��OS ® ®W9V ■�tl\dl�B'1tl�� . S qY;�'�P? S ,} f �Y S +S`^' At �e 4 25 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial 26 Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared. The , potential for the following 27 significant impacts were identified: geology and soils, air, hydrology and water, noise, visual 28 quality and aesthetics, biological resources and cultural resources. Mitigation measures have 29 ' been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than 30 significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the 31 project, as mitigated, would have a ,significant :effect on the, environment. It is therefore 32 recommended that a Mitigated :Negative Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring 33 Report has also been prepared. (Initial. Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report attached as 34 Attachment K:) 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ATTACHMENTS' Attachment A: Draft findings for Adoption of ,a Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment B: Draft Findings for a General Plan Amendment Attachment C:: Draft Findings of Approval to Pre.zone ,the, subject parcels to R -1 10,000 Attachment D: Draft,Fin'dings for Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. Attachment E: Draf findings for Annexation Attachment F: Draft. Conditions. of Approval Page 15 I Attachment G: Location Map 2 General„Plan Map 3 Zoning Map 4 5 Attachment H: Project Narrative /Environmental 'impact Questionnaire 6 7 Attachment I:- Correspondence Received 8 Letter dated January 17, 2001 from Susan Kirks. 9 Letter dated February 14, 2001 from Susan Kirks. 10 Voice mail message from Janet-, Reimer dated March 18, 2001 11 Letter dated October 22, 2001 from P.L:AN. 12 Letter dated December 1, 2001 from Susan kirks 13 Letter'dated December 20, 2001 from Susan Kirks 14 Letter dated January 4, 2002 from the Law Office of David Blat_ to 15 Letter dated'March 25,, 2002 from S'usan.Kirks 16 Letter, dated May 21, 2002 from 'Susan;Kirks 17 Letter dated, April 16, 2002 from Susan kirks 18. Letter dated June 26, 2002 from Susan Kirks 19 Letter dated July 23, 2002 from R.L.A.N. 20 Letter dated September 23, 2002 from Susan Kirks 21 Letter dated October, 6; 2002 from P.L.A.N. 22 Letter dated March 16, 20,03 from P.L.A.N. 23 Letter, dated March 1:8 2003 from Susan Kirks 24 Letter dated March 18, 2003 from Susan'Kirks'(revised) 25 Letter dated March 18, 2.003 from Susan -Kirks to Steve Arago 26 .Letter dated March 29, 2003 from P.L.A.N. 27 E -mail dated April 1:1, 2003 from Susan Kirks to Jack Rrittenhouse, SPARC 28 Chair. 29 E- mail dated.Apri1.17, 2003 from Susan Kirks to Jack Rrittenhouse, SPARC 30 Chair., 31 E -mail dated,April 17, 2003 from Susan Kirks to Jack Rrittenhouse, , SPARC 32 Chair: 33 E -mail dated April 18, 2003 from P- .L:A.N. 34 E -mail dated Apri123, 2003 from Susan Kirks 35 E -mail dated May 2, 20.03 from. Susan Kirks 36 E -mail dated May 2, 2003 from Susan Kirks 37 E -mail dated May 2, 2003 from Susan Kirks 38 Letter dated May 6, 2003 from P.L-.A.N. 39 E -mail dated May 15, 2003 from Susan Kirks 40 E -mail dated May 20, *2003 from Susan Kirks 41 E -mail dated ;Tune 2, 2003 frorn'Susan Iirks 42 E -snail dated June 4, 2003 .from Susan kirks: 43 Letter dated 25, 2003 from P.L.A.N. 44 E -mail dated July.22„ 2003 from Susan Kirks 45 Letter dated July'22, 2003 from P.L.A.N. 46 Letter dated August 1, 2003 from P.L.AN, • Page 1 ;. 4�_k ' t ,5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 40 , Attachment J 26 27 Attachment K: 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 r Letter dated August..24, 2003 from P.L.A.N E -mail dated, September 10, 2003 from Cheryl Jern Letter tdated September k0, 20.03 from Thomas Poff E, =inail dated September 11 2003,from Janet Reimer Phone=messagedated. Sepie mber.l 1, 2003 from Caroline McCall Letter dated September 12, 2003 from Patrick Schafer - Letter dater September- l2, -2003 from Mr and Mrs Billing E -mail dated September .12, 2003. from Judy Reynolds' E -mail dated` September 12 20`03 fr Letter dated September 12, 2003 from Gloria Gilardi Letter dated September 16, 2Q03 from Charles Carte Letter dated September 17, 2003 from P.L.A.N, E -mail dated September 24, 2003 from Judy Reynolds E -mail dated. September 24, 2003 ,from Caroline','McCall E -mail 'dated $ eptember 24, 2003 from Bruce Osterlye E -mail dated September 24, 2003 from Joyce William Letter dated October 14, ,2003 from P.L.A.N. to, Mike Kerns Letter dated October 23, 2003 from P.L.A.N. Letter dated October 27, 2003 from P.L.A.-N. to Mike Bermean. Letter dated'. October 28, 2003 from P.L.A.N. Letter dated October 28, 2003 from P.L.A.N;,;(reyised) E -mail dated`Nov6mber 2, 2003 from Linda Postenrider and Donna Hinshaw Photographs Site.Plan Architectural Review meeting minutes from,November 14, 2002. Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring, Plan Letter from Treadwell & Rolloi dated September.22, 2003 Preliminary G'eotechnical Investigation prepared by Treadwell & Rollo Environmental, and. Geotechnical Cohsultants dated August 9, 2 00 1. Letter dated March 23, 2003 from. Richard Yahn, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer of Kl "einfelder and,Associates. Preliminary, Drainage Study dated. May'22, 2002 `prepared by CSW /Stuber Stroeh Engineering Group Letter from Gale Paddock P.E. of Kleinfelder and Assocaites dated April 18, 2003' Letter from 'Jane Valerius dated July 20 2001 to the Army Corp of Engineers and,reports dated October 22 200.1 and May 14, 2002. Letter from the Department of the Army Corps dated June 4 2002. Report4rom Ibis Environmental. Services dated May 16; 2002. Tree Evaluation and Preservation report prepared by VlacNair & Assocaites dated May 28, 2002: .Letter from Robert Floerke of the department of Fish ;and Game dated March 1.1,, 2002 Letter from Ibis Environmental, Inc. dated August 4, 2003 and May 16, 2002. Page 17 1 Letter .;from Peter Dellavalle of Kleinfelder and Associates dated March 23, 2 2003 (Z letters, .oiie on. Tree Evaluation and other on biological) 3 Report from Fred Svmth of Illwort h & Rodkin, Inc dated May 2,8; 2,002 4 Letter from Richard Bohrer of Kleinfelder and.Associates. dated April 9, 2003 5 'Vision. date stamped June. 4, 2002 by the City of Study f a (visual simulations). a 7 Letter from Bradley Erskine, Environmental Division - Manager, of Klenfelder 8 and Associates. dated April 16, 2003 (visual simulation peer review).. 9 Light and; Glare Study'from Environmental Vision date stamped by the City of 10 Petaluma.June 4, 2002., 11 Letter from Bradley Erskine of Kleinfelder and Associates; dated April 16, 12 2003 (light and glare evaluation). 13 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report prepared'by ENGEO Incorporated 14 dated June 1, 2001. 15 Letter from Peter Dellavalle of .Kleinfelder and Associates dated March 23 16 2003 (Phase I , peer review) 17 Traffic study prepared by Whitlock and. Weinberger Transportation, ,Inc (W- 18 Trans dated November 2001 and May 2002. 19 Letter of'peer review from DKS and Associates dated April 21, 2003, and 20 Kleinfelder and Associates dated Apri122, 2003. 21 Letter dated' May 21 2003 from W =Trans. 22 Cultural, Resources Evaluation prepared.by Archaeological 'Resource Services 23 24 dated August 6, 2001. Historical architectural inventory and evaluation prepared by JRP Historical 25 Consulting Services dated,April 1.8, 2002. 26 Letter from Sarah Drell er of Carey and Company dated March 4 2003;: 27 Sanitary sewer pump system dated April 22, 2002 and revised May 1'6, 2002. 28 Fire Flow Calculations dated November 1.2, 2001. and revised May 24 2001. 29 Memorandum dated August 19 2003 from Edie Robbins of CSW' Stuber - 30 Stroeh. 31 Memorandum dated August- 26; 2002 from Edie Robbins of' CSW' Stuber- 32 Stroeh. 33 Field data from Edie Robbins. of CSW Stuber- Stroeh date stamped by the City 34 of Petaluma August 26 2002. 35 Letter from Edie Robbins CSW Stuber - Stroeh dated' February 5, 2003., 36 Letter from Al Cornwell, of CSW ,Stub`er- Stroeh dated October 28,, 2002. 37 Letter from Craig Shields; Geotechnical Engineer of Treadwell & Rollo dated 38 September 22, 2003. 39 40 41 Attachment L. Letter from City Engineer; Craig Spaulding dated October' 20, 2001 . 42 Comments from the Petaluma - Pedestrian sand Bicycle Advisory Committee 43 dated January 9, and September 25, 2002 44 Letter from California Historical` Resources Information System dated 45 December 17, 2001 46 Letter from the Department of Fish and Game dated March 1;1 • 18 1 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • Letter from the Army Corps of Engineers dated ,June .4, 2002. Attachment M: Hillside Ordinance; Calculations Attachment N: Design of badger habitat fencing Attachment O: "Draft" Articles .of 'Incorporation of Paula Lane HO_ A "Draft " "CC & R's Attachment P: Plans Tentative Subdivision Map (Full size and reduced) Preliminary Landscape Plan (Full :size and reduced) Preliminary architectural drawings Full size and reduced) s: \planning \pc\reports \paula lane subdivision Page 19 I I ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS. FOR APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION. 5 431 Paula lane (Corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive) 6 APN 0.19 - 080 -009 &01.0 7 ANX01002, GPA01,002, PRZ01003, SPC01048 & TSM01003 8 9 10 1. An Initial Study was: prepared for the Paula Lane .project and proper notice provided in 11 accordance with CEQA and local guidelines. 12 13 2. That based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts, resulting from the project have been 14 identified. Mitigation.measures have been .proposed and agreed to by the applicant as a 15 condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 16 In addition, there, is no sub "stantial evidence that sup .ports fair argument that the project, 17 as conditioned and mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. 18 19 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the 20 State Fish and Game Code; either individually or cumulatively; and is exempt from Fish 21 and Game filing fees. 22 3 3. That the project is not located.on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section. 65962.5 of the California. Government Code. 5 26 4. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public 27 .comments before making a recommendation'on the project. 28 29 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the 30 adopted mitigation. measures. 31 32 6. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public 33 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, 34 California. • Page 20 -- ATTACHMENT A. 0 4 ATTACHMENT R DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5 PAULA t.ANE SUBDIVISION 6 431 PaulaJane (Corner, -of Paula.Lane,and Sunset,Drive) 7 APN 019-08 8 ANX01002 GPA01002, PRZ01003;.SPC01048 & T'SM01003 9 10 1. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 05 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 �J That the proposed anieiidment,is deemed to'be in the public interest. The Amendment to the General Plan map will provide additional open space as well as provide needed additional housing, The land proposed for development is within the City's Urban Limit Line and Sphere of Influence, therefore, is slated for development. The proposed drainage system will handle not only increased drainage from,. proposed development, but will handle a portion. of the current drainage and'storrn water flows during peak flows as well. Improvers Brits to P.aula;Lane will 'increase safety for pedestrians. 2. That the proposed Generale Plan amendment is consistent and :compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any :implementation programs, that' may be affected. The General Plan amendment furthers a, number of objectives,, - policies and goals of the General Plan, as outlined in this report 'The development will be within the Urban Limit Line and Sphere of Influence, 'be harmonious with its setting and 'enhance the City's image, the proposed development and ,increased density has' a suitable relationship with surrounding density and, the type of development ,proposed; ; improve the appearance, function and safety of Paula Lane;, provide additional open space to help the City meet its adopted minimum open space standards; assist in providing a range of'- housing types, including higher -value housing; and improve drainage in the area. 3. That the potential _impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental, to the public health, safety, or welfare. An Initial Study of Environmental. Significance was completed and it was determined that the project, with the incorporation of mitigation measures; will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, the. provision of a new neighborhood park, street and drainage improvements will be beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. That, the " oposed amendment has been processed in ,accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California "Environmental Quality Act. The. applicant provided an Environmental Impact Questi m onnaire and nuerous environmental studies with the application. An Initial Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared and referred to all responsible agencies and agencies with jurisdiction. over natural resource& affected by Ilib project held in trust by the State. A Notice 'of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which delineated the review period, was published in a newspaper of general circulation, as well as sent to all residents and property owners within 1,000 feet .of the proposed development. The potential forthe significant impacts to geology.and soils, air, hydrology and water, noise, visual quality and aesthetics, biological resources .and cultural resources were identified. Page 21 ATTACHMENT B l 1 Mitigation measures were proposed and agreed to by the applicant that; will reduce 2 potential impacts to less than significant. 3 • Page 22 1 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL PRE ZONING .TO R -1 10.000 4 5 PAULA.LANE SUBDIVISION 6 431 Paula lane (Corner of Paula Lane and, Sunset Drive) 7 APN 019 -080 -0,09 &010 8 ANX01002, GPA01.002, PRZ01003, SPC01048 & TSM01003 9 10 11 1. The purpose of the R -1 zoning designation is to provide areas within Petaluma where 12 existing single - family dwellings niay be protected and to encourage the development of 13 new neighborhoods of single- family dwellings. The R=1 district is intended to 14 accommodate groups of single- family homes together with schools, parks, open spaces, 15 and other public services required -for a satisfactory family environment. The range of 16 density classes indicated for the R -1 District is intended to permit the implementation of 17 the density recommendations of the General Plan and to permit harmonious development 18 of residential districts with different characteristics. The projectiproposal meets the 19 requirements of the R -1 10,00 zoning designation. 20 21 2. That the proposed rezoning to R -1 10,00 is consistent with the.requirements of this 22 zoning designation with regards to lot size, width, depth, setback and height. 23 4 05 3. a d said thorou e p p. ed subdivision, has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares, gh es ate adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the 26 development. Traffc studies were completed for the project to analyze the potential 27 traffic impacts. It concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed project is expected 28 to have only a min or act 'on traffic operation in the area. 29 30 4. That the proposed project; as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, 31 will be in the best interests of the City, and will be.:in:keeping with the general intent and 32 spirit of the zoning regulations of the City and with the General Plan as amended by the 33 proposal. The project, will occur within the Citys Sphere of Influence and Urban Limit 34 Line on property slated for The infrastructure improvements will contribute 35 to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 23 ATTACHMENT C i ATTACHMENT D DRAFT FINDINGS,FOR APPROVAL: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 4 PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION 5 431 Paula lane (Corner' of Paula Lane ,and Sunset Drive) 6 APN .019- 080 -009 &01,0 7 ANX01D.02 GPA01 1 002, PRZ01003, SPC0104`8 ;& TS1VI01003 8 9 10 1. That the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of 11 Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State 12 Subdivision Map Act. 13 14 2. That pursuant to Section 20.16.420 of the Subdivision Ordinance, a written report of 15 recommendations on the tentative map in relation to the public improvement 16 requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions, of the California Map Act 17 has been submitted by the City Engineer. 18 19 3. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, 20 is consistent with the General Plan and is suitable with_ the surrounding area, and will not 21 be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. A General Plan Amendment was 22 granted to change the designations to :allow for the proposed development. Adequate 23 public facilities will be installed, including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains and other infrastructure, which will be beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare. 26 4. That the site is °physically suitable .for -the density and the type of development proposed. 27 The project is compatible with surrounding uses., Homes on the project site have been 28 clustered to avoid the steeper slopes and to maximize the amount of open space for the 29 development. 30 31 5. That reasonable public access on public roads is provided for the proposed lots. Paula 32 Lane and Sunset Drive are ;public streets, which, in conjunction with the development, 33 will be improved to,. `provide additional vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety with 34 sidewalks, curb and gutter'. 35 36 6. That, the design of the subdivision and the ' " proposed improvements will not cause 37 substantial environmental damage, .and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur 38 to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there 39 would be -no significant, un- mitigatable environmental impacts. J Page 24 ATTACHMENT ENT D 1 ATTACHMENT E DRAFT FINDINGS FOR ANNEXATION 4 5 PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION 6 431 Paula lane (Corner of Paula :Lane and Sunset Drive) 7 APN 019 -080 -009 &010 8 ANX01002; GPA01,002, PRZO1003 SPC01048 &'TSM01003 9 10 11 1. The property is contiguous to the City and is'within the.adopted Sphere of Influence and 12 General Plan urban Lin fit Line of the City of Petaluma. 13 14 2. The City has completed an environmental review process or the area, culminated in the 15 form of a Mitigated negative Declaration. 16 17 3. The owner of said properties has initiated said annexation. 18 19 4. By Ordinance No._ NCS, the City of Petaluma has prezoned the affected 11.22 acres 20 to R -1 10 21 22 5. The annexation is consistent; ith.the objectives, policies and programs of the General 7 3 Plan, as documented' ih1he Ordinance to prezone the property,and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Paula Lane. 26 6. This annexation will enable-,several provisions of the General Plan to be achieved 27 including: orderly improvement of City infrastructure, preservation of County land use 28 including residential - and. agricultural uses. 29 • Page 25 ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F 4 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 6 PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION 7 431 Paula lane (Corner of Paula.Lane and Sunset Drive) 8 APN 019= 080 -009 &01,0 9 ANX01002; GPA01002, PRZ01003, SPCO1048 & TST401003 10 11 12 From Planning: 13 14 1. Approval is granted for 'a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 11.2 acres 15 (APN 019- 080 -009 & O10) into 21 residential lots ranging in size from 10,000 to 30,000 16 square feet which shall be�substantially as shown on sheet C2 of the plans received in the 17 Petaluma Community Development Department on October 17, 2003, except as modified 18 by these conditions 19 20 2. LAFCO shall approve annexation of the property to the City of Petaluma within one year 21 of the Vesting Tentative Map or such approval shall be null and void. 22 23 3. Within five day of the City—Council. approval, the applicant shall submit the $35.00 filing fee for the Notice of Determination to the Community Development Department. The check shall be made out to the Sonoma County Clerks office. 26 27. 4. Plans submitted for development permit' shall illustrate that the pump house on Lot 1 28 conforms to the required setbacks of the R -1 10,000 zoning designation. 29 30 5. Prior to issuance of development permits, Site Plan and Architectural Review approval 31 shall be required to review site design, building and accessory structure design, colors, 32 materials, landscaping, and. lighting. 'The plans shall also illustrate that the subdivision is 33 designed such that 1'0% of the total units are significantly different from the remaining 34 units in architecture style and detail and are interspersed throughout the project, provide 35 an exterior lighting plan including a detail of .the types of all fixtures to be installed for 36 review and .approval. All .l'ightirig shall be hooded and project downward, providing a 37 "soft wash" of light. No lighting on the site shall create a direct glare into 38 cyclist, /.pedestrians eyes.. In addition, , the ,applicant shall be required to erect story poles 39 at least ten days prior to a scheduled public hearing pursuant to the adopted story pole 40 policy. 41 42 6. All work within a public right -of -way requires an encroachment permit from the 43 Community Development Department. 44 45 7. A reproducible copy of "the Tentative Subdivision Map, reflecting all adopted conditions of approval, shall be submitted to the Community Development department prior to Final Map recordation. Page 26 ATTACHMENT F 1 8. Plans submitted for development permit review shall be in substantial compliance with 2 the plans dated October 17, 2003 and the Tentative Map dated October 17, 2003. 3 4 9. All mitigation in easures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative.Declaration 5 for the. Paula Lane Subdivision pre j are .herein incorporated 'by reference as conditions 6 of project approval. 7 8 10. Plans submitted for development permit shall include a plan sheet to list all conditions of 9 approval and mitigation measures for review 'by-the planning department. 10 1 l 11. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding 12 pesticide/herbicide use and. fully commit "to Integrated Pest Management techniques for 13 the protection of pedestrian/cyclists. The applicant shall be required to post 'signs when 14 pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and cyclists. 15 16 12. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered- during grading, work shall be 17 halted. temporarily and a qualified archaeologist 'shall be consulted' for evaluation of the 18 artifacts and' to recommend future action. 'The. local Native American community :shall 19 also be notified andconsulted in,the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. 20 21 13. All construction activities shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 5 :30 p.m. Monday through 22 Friday: Construction shall be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays and, all holidays 23 recognized by City of Petaluma. There will be no start up of machine's nor equipment 24 prior to 7 :30. a.m.,, Monday through "Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior S 25 to ,7:30 a.m: nor past 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines "nor � 26 equipment past' 6:00 p.m.. "Monday through. Friday; and" no servicing of equipment - past 27 530* p:m., Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall, be made 28 available for noise complaints. A sign(s) shall be posted on the site regarding: the 29 allowable hours of construction. 30 31 14. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion equipment hall be properly 32 muffled and maintained to minimize; noise. Equipment shall be turned off when not in 33 use. 34 35 15 Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment shall 36 avoid when possible proximity -to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable. 37 Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors,. mixers, etc., shall be placed 38 away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction 39 equipment shall be used when possible. 40 41 16. Construction and. demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible in 42 order to minimize impacts 'on the landfills. 43 44 17. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval by the C 45 Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. At least one lane 46 Hof traffic in each direction shall be maintained at all times through the construction • Page 27 1 period, unless a. temporary detour plan is submitted ,and approved by the City's Engineering Division. During non- working hours, open trenches an construction hazards shall be provided twith signage, flashers and barricades ;approved by the Street 4 Superintendent to warn oncomingmotorists bicyclists and pedestrians of potential safety 5 1 hazards. 6 7 18. All road surfaces shall be "restored to pre- project conditions after completion of any 8 project- related utility installation activity. All trench pavement restoration within 9 existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal Otherwise, Half the street shall receive to a slurry seal. 11 12 19. The applicant be responsible for the payment of City 'Traffic Mitigation fees, Community 13 Facilities fees, Park and. Recreation fees, Sewer /Water fees, and School Facilities fees 14 which are calculated at the time of issuance of building permits and shall be due and 15 payable before: final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 16 17 20. The applicant shall'be subject;.to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact fee. 18 Drainage Impact fees shall be calculated at the time of ;Final Map approval and a fair 19 share portion shall be ,paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection or issuance of 20 a certificate of occupancy. 21 22 21. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall be required to submit 23 CC &R's to the city Attorney. for review and approval. 26 From. Engineering: 27 28 22. Frontage Improvements 29 30 A. Paula Lane 31 32 Frontage improvernents'shall include but not limited to half street reconstruction to center 33 line, overlay the remaining travel lane, sidewalk curb, gutter, storm drains, sanitary sewers, 34 water mains street lights, striping, traffic signs, fire hydrants and landscaping. Street width 35 and r/w dedication shall be as indicated on the tentative map. 36 37 B. Sunset Drive 38 39 Frontage improvernents shall include all items listed for Paula Lane with the following 40 exceptions; overlay street width as shown on the tentative map and street width 41 may be reduced to 32 -feet. 42 43 C. Overhead utilities -along the , project frontage shall be placed under ground. 44 45 Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36' 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47' 23. Gradin A. Grading shall conform to the soils investigation report for this subdivision. The geotechnical engineer shall 'make recommendations as to construction and'protection of graded swales and slopes. B. Prepare an submit an erosion. control plan, storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and a notice of intent (N.O.I.). C. Any existing structures above or below ground shall be removed or abandoned if not .a part of the new subdivision.. Structures shall include, but are not limited to, fences, retaining wall, pipe, septic systems, wells, debris; etc. 24. Streets A. Subdivision streets A & B shall be 32 -feet with parking allowed on both sides. ,Red curbs and "`no.parking" signs, shall be placed at the end of streets,. B. Sidewalks shall be required on both. sides and along the entire length of the'new °streets. C. Stop signs,, stop legends and crosswalks' shall be place on Sunset Dr. and `B" at Paula Lane intersections. • D. Centerline striping and necessary traffic signs shall be installed on Paula Lane. All signing and striping shall conform to city standards. E. The transition on Paula Lane at lot 21 shall be designed to provide safe vehicular movement back onto the existing road. F. Minimum pavement thickness on streets A &_B shall be 4- inches and 5- inches on Paula Lane. G. Pedestrian ramps are required at all intersections. 25. Site Drainage and Storm Drains A. The detention pond and street storm drain system shall be designed` to prevent. any increase in the peak discharge of a 1.00 -year storm from the project site. The detention pond shall be privately owned and maintained. The detention pond' outfall shall match the. quantity and nature of the pre- development flow lot -to -lot surface drainage shall not be allowed. B. There shall be no additional runoff directed to the existing roadside ditch along Paula Lane. C. Provide 100 -year overflow containment channels where storm drains cross private • property. Storm drain easements are required on private property and common areas. Page 29 1 03 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 r � 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. U Provide details and design for surface drainage on two tiered Pots and lots that drain to the back of:the property. g. D. Provide details and design for all surface draina e in the common areas. E. The maximum gutter flow shall, not exceed 500 ft. F. Under sidewalk drains through the curb face shall be !requied' on all lots directing surface drainage to the public street. G. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system, design shall' be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. 26. Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems A. The proposed, gravity sanitary sewer in Paula Lane. to Bodega Avenue shall be an 8- inch , diameter pipe:. B. The sanitary sewer system in Sunset Dr., Street A, Street B, 4 -inch force main and the sewer pump station shall'be privately owned and maintained. C. The proposed water main system shall'be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as designated' by the, fire: marshal's office. D. All houses shall require the installation of an air -gap pressure system to provide adequate domestic pressure and fire sprinkler function. 27. Final May A. Clearly and accurately show the boundary and dedications on the final map. B. Show all existing and proposed easements within the boundary of the, subdivision. C. Provide the :necessary easements for public of private water lines, sanitary sewers, storm drains, driveways, access and. maintenance. 28. Miscellaneous A. Provide complete ,and accurate topographic information for the entire .site including both sides of`Paul'a Lane and Sunset Drive along the project frontage and'Paula.Lane to West Street. B. The improvement plans and final map shall be'prepared per the latest city policies, codes, ordinances resolutions and standards. C. Improvement'plan datum shall be NGVD 1929. Page 30 1 2 D. Pre ary for recordation the necessary maintenance "agreements ; for common areas P y • 3 roadway, sewer systems storm drain systems, etc. 4 5 E. A final snap review fee of $2500.00 is due at final map application. 6 7 F. Proposed retaining walls shall be constructed outside the public right of way and shall 8 be privately maintained. 0 Page 3 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1' 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 • 35 36 Planning,'Commission Minutes - 'November 12, 2003 City of Petaluma, California City Council :Chambers City Fall, .11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 70:7/11843.01. / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail pianniiie�iuci.petaluma.ca.us ' Web Page http://wWw.ei. Planning Comm ssi®n.;Minutes EXCERPT' Hove nberl• 12, - :00 PM Commissioners: Present: Asselrneier, Barrett, Dargie, Healy, McAllister, Rose, von Raesfeld * Chair Staff: George White, Assistant. Director, Community Development Irene Borba, SeniorPlanner Public hearing began: @ 7:00 NEW BUSINESS; PUBLIC'.IIEARING: PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION, 431 Paula .Lane (corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive) AP No.: 019 - 080409 and 019- 080 -010 File: ANX01002 GPA01002, PRZ01003, SPC01048 and TSM01003' Planner: Irene T. Borba Applicant is requesting for a recommendation to the - City Council of a proposal f6r.21 residential units on two contiguous parcels outside 'City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) totaling 11.22- acres. The proposal;requires a General Plan Amendment, Pre- zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map,, Annexation, and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Irene Borba: Presented the staff report. Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties: Presented the project and introduced the team. She noted reasons why the General Plan Amendment is warranted and , showed slides with General Plan Land Use designations. Mission Valley is asking for R- 1/10,000 zoning and feel it is compatible with surroundings. ATTACHME 4 Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 20U 1 Allan Tilton, W- Trans: Went through a series of slides of the adjacent and nearby streets 2 and addressed the neighborhood traffic concerns. The proposal meets the City standards. 3 4 Commissioner McAllister: Asked what traffic volumes were based on. 5 6 Allan Tilton: Did a test under the new General Plan Traffic model and "the proposal 7 maintained the City's level of service or better. 8 9 Council Member Healy: This seems to similar to the Sunnyslope annexation. 10 11 Allan Tilton: Yes. 12 13 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Does street meet minimum City Standards? 14 15 Allan Tilton: In general it has a clean track record, however does not meet minimum 16 standards. 17 18 Commissioner von,'Raesfeld: What is standard-'width size. 19 20 Allan Tilton/Craig Spaulding: 32'. 21 22 Commissioner Dargie: Is it a City street? 23 24 Allan Tilton: Portions of it. 25 '26 Commissioner McAllister: What does project build -out include? 27 Allan Looking llPTari build out within. the urban growth boundaries. 29 We used the- model with the land uses urrently envisioned as the General Plan changes, 30 those numbers would.change. 31 32 Chair Barrett: 'Street frontage on Paula Lane is .currently culverts? 33 34 Allan Tilton There are a series of culverts and driveways. Would go to City standard 35 with curb /gutter and sidewalk and a class III bike lane typical for a collector. 36 37 Chair'.Barrett: Asked for examples of collectors with Class III bike lanes. 38 39 Allan Tilton: Mission. Street, McNear and Mountain View. 40 41 Al Cornwell, CSW Stuber- Stroeh: Showed locationsi of street lights, stated lights will be 42 to minimum City standards and could be shielded if necessary. The sewer system will be 43 a gravity , system from houses, to lower part of `the property to the pump station on Sunset. 44 and eventually will end up in the sewer lines; of Bodega. It will be a standard pump 45.. station. Regarding: draining — will collect water on site, collecting ;street, runoff: from. 46 homes. and streets to a culvert into a proposed detention pond which has a rock filter. 47 Peak flows will be slightly reduced from existing conditions. 2. • • • Y' Planning Commission Minutes _ L� 2 Commissioner Dargie: How deep is detention pond and what is diameter? 3 4 Al Cornwell: Eight feet deep, 150 x 190 in diameter. 5 6 Commissioner Dargie: Who is responsible for pump station? 7 8 Marti Buxton: That has not been determined, however, the Home Owner's Association 9 will pay for it. 10 11 Chair Barrett: Will - you be paying the City to maintain — is there an emergency back - up 12 generator. Who maintains that? 13 14 Marti Buxton: CC &R's will be refined and will'address all of the requirements. 15 16 Commissioner Dargie: :Regarding sewer — will a pipe go down to Bodega? 17 18 Al Cornwell: Yes. 19 20 Commissioner McAllister: Drainage goes to the adjacent property even with this project? 21 That surprises' me. 22 23 Al Cornwell: Drainage historically flows from one to the next. You are to maintain the 24 character and flow of the drainage. It is not unusual to do it this way not 'increasing the 25 flow. 26 27 Commissioner Asselmeier: You mentioned drainage won't increase but decrease. 28 29 Al, Cornwell:. We have intercepted the flow. We created a detention pond so peak flows 30 can be regulated for flow. 31 32 Commissioner Asselmeier: How much water will be there? 33 34 Al Cornwell• It should be emptied in a;matter of hours. 35 36 Commissioner,Assehneier: Typically there is no standing water? 37 38 Al Cornwell:; Correct. 39 40 Commissioner-,,Rose: Asked about drainage onto adjacent properties. 41 42 -Al Cornwell: Detention basin will function through the pipe. We don't cut off the 43 drainage that goes; to the next property. This appears to be a dam. It ,spreads water out 44 over the swale. Peaks will be less. 45 46 Chair Barrett: Is this aproven technology? 49 3 Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003 1 Al Cornwell: Yes. 2 r 3 Chair Barrett: If this were to fail, it would go to adjacent property? 4 5 Al Cornwell:. The primary overflow is the pipe with rock filter, then it goes through. rock 6 swale. Water will only stand for several hours. 7 8 Edie Robbins, CSW Stuber Stroeh: We used the City's fire flow calculation for Zone 2 9 and did a fire flow test to check out the computerized water model. The test was done at 10 the corner of West and Paula and we were able to achieve a decent :flow. - The 11 calculations for- water flow and fire pressure meets the City standards. Showed slides of 12 location of new hydrants. The modeling showed that :the project fire flow meets 13 requirements. City standards require air gaps. The City required calculation that if in an 14 emergency the air gaps will fill — it meets. the City- standard. .Regarding water pressure 15 system, a study' was prepared using the City water model. We were not :able to find an 16 impact with the: proposed development. Static pressure was 18 lbs per' sq. inch. This is 17 not a perceptible impact to the area with the proposed 21 homes. 18 19 Council Member Healy: Taking into account the existing condition, will the new 20 make a difference? 21 22 Edie. Robbins: :My understanding pis if something happened to one tank, ` an additional 23 24 tank would be available: �. 25 Commissioner Dargie: Tanks provide residential water; what about water for fire? 26 27 Commissioner. McAllister: Why is existing pressure in the area so low? 28 29 Edie Robbins: I cannot explain fully why the existing homes have low pressure. May 30 not be operating 'with the air gap system: For the proposed development we will have a 31 500 gallon tank on site. If water service level of Paula Lane tank were higher, it could 32 benefit pressure. 33 34 Craig Shields, Trea & Rollo :. Outlined the types of soils found. From a 35 geotechnical standpoint, the soil is excellent. Loose soil can simply be taken out and 36 compacted. Houses will be a standard foundation. We found no geotechnical issues with; 37 . the property. 38 39 Commissioner Rose: Lots 14, 15 & 16 — on, the large, slopes are you suggesting !post 40 tension slabs? 41 42 Craig' Shields: Post tension slabs are what:we would like to use on the steeper slopes. 43 44 Commissioner Asselmeier: Can you give us; an explanation of the proposed grading 45 46 scheme. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003 1 Al Cornwell: .In general lots 17 A, 1.9 and '20 are the higher part of the site and will 2 have some cuts, other areas will have: fill. 0 3 4 Chair Barrett: Fill will be put behind lots 1 through 6? 5 6 Al Cornwell: Yes — all lots have some cut and fill.. 7 8 Commissioner Dargie The soil is considered competent there, will be no piers? 9 10 Craig Shields: Yes. 11 12 Chair•Barrett: When will the final geotechnical report be done? 13 14 Craig Shields: For final gradingplans. 15 16 Chair Barrett: Does this interfere with the badger community? 17 18 Craig Shields: This would be'better addressed by an environmentalist. 19 20 Rick,Smith Illingworth/Rodkin: , The noise levels: are within standards. The noise during 21 construction were outlined in, mitigation measures. After 'build out there would be no 22 noise impacts. 23 24 Meta Bunce, JRP Consultant:, : Performed a historical evaluation. Explained what merits 25 a historical. resource.' There are 4 buildings on the site and the evaluation addressed all 26 the buildings. The building do not meet the criteria of a historical resource. 27 28 Jane Valerius, Wetland Specialist: Conducted wetland and - biological evaluation of the 29 site. Walked the propertywwith the Army Corps of Engineers and noted the topographical 30 features, the swales and reviewed the data points. Also looked at the soil, water and 31 plants on the site. There were.3 categories of plants that. the Corps reviews — did not find 32 any rare plants and it was determined that the site did not meet wetland criteria. 33 34 Anne Flannery, Wildlife biologist, There is a great deal of concern about wildlife from 35 the neighbors. The site does, provide habitat for the animals. on the site and_ they will be 36 displaced.: Some of the animals are on a special status; however, no regulatory 37 protections apply. Reviewed the regulatory protections which do not extend to habitat. 38' Fish and Game visited ,the site and found.no federally protected animals on the site. 39 40 Commissioner Asselme'er: How did the applicant decide to dedicate the 3 acres of open 41 space? 42 43 Marti Buxton: When we walked the site we outlined where the badgers habitat was and 44 Department" of Fish and Game felt that 3 acres would be adequate. • 45 46 Commissioner Asselrneier: Did the Department of Fish and Game comment on how 47 much habitat badgers need? . 5 Planning Commission Minutes- November 12, 2003 2 Anne Flannery: The homes are away from the badgers, however, some of.the habitat will 3 be destroyed bydevelopment. Fish and Game was satisfied by the 3 acres of open.space. 4 5 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked about conservation easement. 6 7 Marti Buxton; It is an agreement which we will come to as part of the approval. — it is not 8 a classic conservation easement. 9 10 Cornmissione_r Asselmeier; Are there restrictions placed on the area. 11 12 Marti Buxton: Yes. 13 14 Commissioner Asselmeier: I am pleased by Mr. Robert Floercke's comments that a 15 pedestrian trail through the badger habitat is acceptable. 16 17 Marti Buxton: We show a pedestrian path in this area and anything beyond will have to 18 be reviewed by the Department of -Fish and Game:' 19 20 Commissioner Asselmeier: Am interested in 'hearing more about possible .,additional 21 pedestrian trails that the applicant is agreeing to provide. 22 23 Commissioner McAllister: Asked for clarification of current situation on regulatory 24 environment. • 25 26 Anne Flannery: Said there is no precedent to stop a'project, but design modification may 27 be necessary. 28 29 James MacNair, McNair Associates: Discussed existing trees on the site. Of the 38 30 trees,, 26 are proposed to be removed. We reviewed the impact of the project on suddein 31 oak syndrome. The reality is it is a forest . disease: Studies seem to point toward bay 32 trees, which spread the disease. 33 34 Chair Barrett: You mentioned, 38 trees, however, materials it shows 32. 35 36 Jaynes MacNair: 32 is correct. 37 38 Chair Barrett: Seven trees are listed as good to - marginal — not keeping many ,trees. All 39 the good trees you are removing — is that because it interferes with development. 40 41 James McNair: Being removed because of grading. 42 43 Marti Buxton: The live oaks are mitigated at a 4:1 ratio. 44 45 46 Break at 9:10 p.m. 47 Resumed at 9:20 p.m. 6 Planning Comtr ission Minutes­ November 12, 2003 1 2 Public comment opened:, 3 4 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked about hillside calculations. What 'is the formula — 5. the source and purpose was not clear. 6 7 George White: Explained that the formula comes from the Zoning Ordinance and that we 8 can have that information, clarified. 10 Commissioner Asselmeier: Would like an explanation of what it means. 11 12 George White: We can supply`the section of the. Zoning. Ordinance. 13 14 Steven Carl, Penngrove. Spoke on the water resource issues. Wells in Penngrove are 15 going dry — water is coming out of the same aquifer., Showed a map of extensive 16 exchange areas. Rohnert Park is going to cover up its ownwater'supply. The Paula Lane 17 project is right in the wedge of xecharge areas which is note a good idea. Expect a water 18 supply through 2020, after that. it will not be there. Your decision will affect Petaluma 19 and Penngrove. 20 21 Don 1Vlarguardt 1202 West Street: Am not here to take a position on the development. 22 Most houses built .prior to 97:1. do not have a pressure system. Lived. with a condition 23 which is low pressure. The pressure of water at the mains, 'and houses 'came up today. • 24 Provided copies of maps and existing hydrants. Checked water pressure of existing 25 homes in area. Developer is talking about 500 gallons tanks, on properties being installed. 26 Saw city employee checking fire hydrant pressure and it was stated that the pressure was 27 at 18. On page 27 of Initial Study developer shall he required to develop to Fire 28 Marshal's standards., Went to Fire Marshall and it was stated pressure was 20 at 500 psi. 29 Found out tonight it is a different standard- for the' project. This is conflicting 3.0 information, Believe this' controversy is a red flag: In, view of the discrepancies in the 31 environmental document; City should sit down and do a study of existing and future 32 development. Can you guarantee pressure will not be impacted? 33 34 - Julian Podbereski, 11 °00 Schuman Lane: Read a, letter from Paul Miller on 'how' the 35 project Will destroy the environment such as wildlife and. views. 36 37 Paul 'Selinger 141"1 Sunset Drive: The .character fof the neighborhood is rural, I am the 38 Chair of RL:AN and we have 70 members ; in. our organization. We differ with the 39 developer in man y ways. We_ are dismayed about the annexation. 40 41 Bill Bennett 2902 Bodega Avenue:. Want to speak 'about drainage.,— detention ponds 42 don't work. 'The nature :of the water flow has been changed. The water agency has no 43 jurisdication on, the tributaries and Marin Creek: The property owners have to deal with 44 it on their own.. W6 are working with the Water Agency to conduct a study. Zone 2A 0 45 was 'set tip, to relieve some of these conditions. Believe the density should remain at 2 46 acres minimum Ahe4ownstream neighbors get the runoff. 47 Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003 1 Joanna McClure, San Francisco: The area is country — want the quality to be retained_ — 2 particularly the birds,, deer and the views: 3 4 Susan Kirks Paula Lane: Member of P.L A.N. Showed a tour of the neighborhood — 5 presented a handout. 6 7 Ken Miller, 600 West: P.L.A.N. member-: An approval would add to the traffic situation 8 on Paula Lane and alter Paula Lane forever. The traffic report based `it's study on City 9 data and not county. The study included Bantam Way which is not,part of the area. 10 What is the methodology used? It :should be evaluated by the County road standards. 11 The .neighborhood conducted their own traffic study. Paula Lane is a narrow .street and 12 students walk this road every day to school. Because: it is county, . vehicles tend to drive 13 fast — to add more traffic would be disastrous. 1.4 15 Caroline McCall, 1302 Sunset Drive. Regarding noise and lighting issues: The 16 magnitude of noise will significantly ,impact the neighborhood and wildlife — noise 17 generated would be significant. It is: a- rural area ,and there is no noise on the site now. 18 There wilt be an increase, in, noise during construction and after development it would be 19 a permanent impact. Currently there are no lights or streetlights — the;impact of nighttime. 20 lighting will impact the 'area and the' wildlife: Noted previous letters submitted. The 21 development would destroy ecosystem that has:b.een in effect for years. The; °proposal has. 22 lots 13, 18, which overlaythe badger habitats. The 3 -acre proposed open space is the 23 area for fire protection mowing. Need 'further research for badger habitats. Have both 24 fire ;safety and water concerns for both the City and - the County. Referenced a June 25, 25 2003 letter submitted —fire -flow barely meets the minimum. My water pressure. is at 17. , 26 Our pressure has not been resolved and this will only add to it. 27 28 Rollin = ; Bruce, 1400 Sunset Drive: I have a serious problem with the drainage issue — 29 have, watched water ,flow testing previously. The water is going through a large. pipe, 30 which will exit. onto my property. There is .no water flow in July. I bear 10:0 %0: of this 31 runoff including the pollutants. You would essentially be putting a leach field into my 32 well. Widening. Sunset Drive is an ;issue — my utilities are there — are you. going to pave 33 over my utilities? The sewer station is right at the property line, at my driveway. 34 1 ill have to listen to the pumping station if it breaks down it 'will' come onto my 35 property. The bad ers leave holes and when this development happens, the badgers will 36 be on my property: Leave -the density the way it is 5 houses. 37' 38 Charles Carle„ 250 Paula Lane: Concerned with the footprint of the houses and the 39 runoff.' There is a new home right ;behind my house and I watched the grading of the 40 home.. They put in pipe to collect - the. water and ran. _it down to the culvert to Bodega 41 Avenue —this exacerbates: the flow-to the Petaluma River. It is tune to deal with, some of 42 these measures now, not in 50 years from 'now. Suggest making the site a, park — it 43 belongs in the public domain. 44 45 Lawrence Jordan, 20 Paula Lane: This development will cause serious dissention. in or 46 community and is not appropriate.. 41 Planning Commission Minutes - November 12,, 2003 1 2 r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 E Joe: Molinoli, 669 Paula, Lane: Sold_ the tank site to the city —.I have no pressure. This should stay .2 acres per house. Traffic concerns — street is too narrow — need light at Bodega and 'Paula Lane Steve Rubart: Read letter from Judy Reynolds. This development will destroy our neighborhood. The traffic and alteration of a historical landscape, etc. will be destroyed. If the developer has their way there will be no more country living, deer, birds, etc. You have a chance to save a piece iof this community.. Steve Rubardt: Would like to know about the water pressure- who will be responsible if our pressure drops? Don't;feela lot of assurance from the experts. Amanda Kualheim, 680;Paula Lane My home is located at the crest of a hill. The issues of increased traffic and the narrow street are concerns. There is no sidewalk and no room to widen the road. Patrick Schaffer, 594 Paula: Lane Purchased home six months ago — was a dream home for me and my partner. It is a quality of life issue. I am disgusted. with this project and that I have to fight for what I have. I love the neighborhood, the neighbors and the animals — a park would be better. M/S von Raesfeld/Darg e to continue to January 13, 2004. 7 -0. Adjournment: 11:00 SAK- Planning Commission \MinutesTCMinutesO3 \111203.doc 9 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA. 2 MEMORANDUM 4 Community Development.Department, Planning Division, 11 English. Street, Petaluma CA 94952 5 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707)' 778 -4498 E-niail.,#Iahiiing@ct.petalumiLca.us 6 7 DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. I 9 TO: Planning. Commission 10 11 FROM: Irene T.'Borba, Senior Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: Paula' Lane Subdivision 14 Proposal for. 2.1 residential units on two contiguous parcels outside 'City limits but 15 within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) totaling 11.22- acres. The proposal 16 requires: a General. Plan Amendment, Pre - zoning, Tentative Subdivision .Map and 17 Annexation 18 431 Paula Lane (corner of.Paula lane and Sunset Drive) 19 APN 019 -080 -009 & 010 20 (Continued from November 12, 2003) 21 0 BACKGROUND 24 25 At the November 12th, -2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented the 26 proposed Paula Lane project and the public hearing was opened: .'However; due to the late hour 27 and the amount of public comments still to be heard, the public hearing:was continued to January 28 13, 2004. Attached, are the ' Excerpts from .the November 12 th , 2003 Planning 29 Commission meeting (see Attachment; A). Packet information from the November 12 meeting 30 will not beL redistributed to the, Commissioners. If information. is required from that packet, 31 Commissioners are asked to please. contact the Community Development:Department. 32 33 Following the November 12 Planning Commission meeting, staff received a memorandum. 34 from Commissioner Mike Healy,. dated November 14, 2,003 (see Attachment.B). Commissioner 35 Healy's.,memorandum poses a number of questions. At the specific request of Commissioner 36 Healy, staff has ; provided the following responses: 37 38 Question 1 Could you :provide a map that shows the County zoning in the general 39 vicinity .(at least from Bodega to Schuman for areas. outside the UGB- 40 specifically showing minimum lot sizes —in addition -to current zoning or 41 General Plan land uses for areas inside the UGB? This would be helpful in 42 considering appropriate treatment of the feathering issue. 405 Response: Sonorna County does not a Zoning or General Plan map equivalent to Petaluma's. The County writes the zoning on each individual assessors Page 1 ATTACHMENT 5 I parcel reap and does not have it summarized on. one map. The attached • 2 maps provided by the applicant are an attempt to provide the requested 3 information (Attachment F). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2'4` 25 26 27 28 29 30 3`1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 .39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Question,2: Are there any know constraints (e.-g- j wells, septic) that; could prevent this parcel from being developed in the County with 2 -acre lots, in. the event the City declines to annex it? Response: On November 24, 2003 staff called the County offices and was told that there are no known constraints and that the site appears "to 'be appropriate to meet the 2 -acre minimum. The applicant has stated. 'that should the City decide not to annex this property, there are no known physical constraints to .develop'ing the, property in the. County and that the current,homes on the subject property: are ;:served water and iystems. This would be the ,case should the project y y be developed in the County. Question 3: -I understand that: the neighbors approached the Open Space District regarding possible purchase of the site? Setting aside the question of whether'there is a willing seller, has the O,CD given,a definitive answer as to whether or not it is interested in this site? Response,• Staff called and :left a message on November 24, 2003 with the Open Space District, ,regarding the subject property. No one form the Open Space District responded to the call. Information from Susan Kirks, a member of the Paula" Lane Action Network, (RL.A:N.) stated ,that they hope to meet with the OSD staff at the end of:December for continued, discussions on this matter. She also states that a senior staff member and appraiser visited the site in, May 2002, on thee same day as Supervisor Mike Kerns! Ms. Kirk's states that they will , provide updated information on the discussions that have occurred with the Open Space,District. The applicant believes that the site does not meet the requirements of the type of land, that the Open Space District purchases. Additionally, it, is typical.'for OSD to require the City to pay for half of any park/open :sp'ace acquisition within city limits. Question 4: Has the Police Department reviewed: the proposed path, and;.its relation to the proposed: lots ?` There have been two or three recent east -side subdivisions: where the Police strongly - encouraged paths with "eyes on them, meaning thaf "they not. abut' only back yards and not be shielded from view of nearby streets. • Response: Staff referred the proposed project to the Police Department for review and • comment as part of the standard development review process:, The Police Page 2 1 Department commented that: signs should be placed advising that certain 0 2 areas are off :limits and that the. pedestrian trail should only be used during 3 daytime hours: 4 5 Question 5: In connection. with the Sunny Slope Road annexation many years ago, the 6 City required all the property owners with development potential along the 7 street, to form an assessment, district and improve the entire length of the 8 street before any building was allowed This- avoided the situation where 9 some 'segments of a street are widened but provide little functionality 10 because; other segments are not widened. (Cherry and Magnolia are prime 11 examples of the approach being recommended here). Was the Sunny Slope 12 approach considered by staff, and why is it: recommended? 13 14 Response: With the :$uimyslope annexation, 60% of the land owners in the area 15 requested the assistance of the S_ onoma,County Public Works Department in 16 establishing the assessment. district .in order to fund the specific 17 infrastructure improvements necessary to bring the area into compliance 18 with Petaluma urban standards prior to annexation. These landowners also 19 petitioned the City of Petaluma to annex their neighborhood in order to 20 benefit from city - provided municipal services such as sewer and water, 21 storm drainage, and police and fire protection. 22 Page 3 Question. 6: other lesson, from Sunnyslope Road is that'the street was over= designed, to,, con40 ditions where motorists feel they can safely go 40mph or 25 more: With that experience in mind, what street width would be appropriate 26 for ,a potential improvement of Paula Lane down to Bodega (and up to 27 Schuman) ? - Is -it less than the width of the short segment near Sunset that is 28 already inside the City? 29 30 Response: The applicant- with the help of the project traffic engineer, Allan Tilton 31 provided the following response: "P,aula. Lane is designated as a Collector 32 street with two 12' travel lanes, 8' parking, 6' planters, and 5'. sidewalks on 33 both :sides of eth street. The City traffic Model outputs were reviewed to 34 determine the projected future traffic volume on Paula lane at General Plan 35 build out (Year 2020). Using the ratio of base year model volumes to 36 General.plan build out volumes multiplied by current volumes, the average 37 daily traffc (ADT) volume projected on Paula Lane is 1,440 vehicle trips 38 . per day. This projected traffic , volume is well below the City's range of 39 2,000 to 6,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) .for collector streets.. Collector 40 streets are .designed for 35 miles per hour. Residential streets have 1.0' 41 travel lanes and the same parking, planter and sidewalk widths as collectors 42 but they are designed for 25mph, and have ADT volumes of less than 2,000. 43 We are willing to improve our frontage 'for either collector (as currently 44 planned) or residential. The very short segment Paula Lane in the City limits appears to be closer to the residential' street standards." Page 3 I ".Sunnyslope is designated a collector street and - its current volume ranges 2 from 30;0 ADT. at the north end (projected to be 000 at build ,out) and • 3 1,500 ADT at the south. end. Paula Lane is not a regional street. It primarily 4 provides local access to the immediate neighborhood." 5 6 Question 7: Could you get Steve Simmons to provide an overview of Zone 2 ,and water 7 pressure issues? Is requiring pressure boosting devices on individual houses 8 appropriate where experience shows that many homeowners choose to 9 disconnect ;them and dive with low water pressure? IsAhe.re a. fix that could to address, this problem for all of the houses in the upper elevations of Zone 2? 11 12 Response: The applicants, civil; engineer, Edie Robbins with CSW= Stu6er /Stroeh 13 provided the following "response: "Zone 2 is a single hydraulic zone. which 14 spans Petaluma and which serves_el'evations above 50 feet. Zone 2 is divided 15 into westside and :eastside looped .sections that are connected by a 10" main 16 in Webster St. near Western Ave. The wesiside 'Zone 2 (west of Western 17 Ave:) is closer to Paula Lane`T,ank and. Magnolia, Booster P_ urnp Station. The 1'8 eastside Zone .2 ,is closer to Mountain View Tank and McNear Booster 19 Pump Station: According to the Water Field Office (Steve Simmons) there 20 is no Zone 2 supply problems or storage: capacity shortages." There are no 21 other known options that exist. at this time that would be endorsed by Water 22, Resources and Conservation Department. 23 Staff also received correspondence from Rollin Bruce dated November 18,, 2003, (see 24 Attachment C). 25 26 The applicant provided staff with a written response to Commissioner Healy and Mr. „Bruce's 27 questions, which are attached (see Attachment ,G). These responses are thevews /opinions of the 28.: applicant :and are not endorsed by city staff. 29 30 Also, at the,'Novernber 1.2th, 2.003 Commission meeting, issues /questions were raised. regarding 31 fire flow calculations for the subdivision. The Fire Marshal, Michael Ginn, has provided the 32 commission with a response to the issues questions that were raised that evening (see 33 Attachment D). 34 35 Also attached E). is 'a letter from City Engineer Craig Spaulding dated October 2, 36 2003 and regards to the Paula Lane Tentative 'Map conditions. An incorrect; version of this 37 letter /conditions was included in the last packet when this item was heard, so this letter replaces 38' that letter /conditions.. 39 40 ATTAcHM9ENTS 41 42, Attachment A: Minutes. Excerpts from the November 12, 2003 Planning -Commission 43 meeting. 44 45 Attachment B: Memorandum: from Commissioner Mike Healy to George White dated 46 November 14, 2003. 0 Page 4 1' • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • • Attachment C:. E =mail from Rollin Bruce dated November 18, 2003 to Irene Borba. Attachment D: Memorandumfrom Fire Marshal, Michael Ginn to Irene Borba dated December 29, 2003. Attachment E: Letter from Craig Spaulding dated October 20, 2003. Attachment F: Letters dated December 18 and 3`l, 20,03 from.Marti Buxton of Mission Valley. Properties. s: \planning \pc\reports \paula lane jan 13 Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - January 13, 2004 City of Petaluma, California CityCouncll Cha.mbers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498, E-Mail -pl'anni ne0ki.petalurna.caus Web Page hqp://wwW: 6.beta1urna.cq.us 2 Planning Commiss.10 Mihut I es EXCERPT 3 January 13, 2004f— 7:00 PM 4 5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie, Harris, McAllister, Rose, von 6 Raesf6ld 7 8 Chair 9 10 Staff. George White, Assistant Director, Community Development 11 Irene Borba, Senior' , Planner 12 Anne Windsor; Administrative Secretary 13 14 Public hearing began: @ 7:00 15 16 PUBLIC HEARING: 17 OLD BUSINESS: 18 19 20 I. PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION, 431 Paula =Lane (corner of Paula Lane and 21 Sunset Drive) 22 AP No.: 019-08 ,and 019-080-010 23 File: ANX01062 GP PRZ01003, SPCO1048 and TSM01003 24 Planner: Irene T. Rorb 25 26 Applicant is requesting for a recommendation to the City Council of a proposal for 27 21 residential units on 'two contiguous parcels outside City . limits but within the , 28 Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB)iotaliiig 11.22-acres. The proposal requires a 29 General 'Plan -Amendment, Pre-zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation, 30 and.Adoption of a.Mitigated Negative Declaration. 31 3 ' 2 Continued from November 12, 2003. 33 34 Public hearing, opened: 0 35 36 Katie. O'Connor, 594 Paul'a'Lane: Member of PLAN. Support the preservation of this ATTACHMENT 5 Planning Commission Minutes - January 13, 2004 1 property. Asked to stop the development, want to preserve the open space including 2 wildlife habitat. • 3 4 Dirk Atkinson, 1213 West Street: Background in. Environmental Engineering — have a 5 long, history of construction experience. Came to Petaluma to be in a' City and.st 11 have a 6 rural atmosphere. There are: ways, of developing the property to keep 'the General Plan 7 density, however, we do not. need to develop every inch of the property. Traffic will 8 increase, water pressure `is still an - issue, and quality of life issue. Asked the 9 to vote against the project. 10 i i Betsy Genkel, West Street: Like the open space, wild life, and ,peacefulness of this 12 property. The proposal for 2.1 homes. is out of character with the .existing; neighborhood. 13 Traffic, drainage, and water pressure are problems with the neighborhood. The City and 14 the neighborhood will be left with the problems.. Please deny the project. 15 16 Joyce Williams 13,08 Sunset Drive: Opposed' to the project due to the ,impact it` - would 17 have on the neighborhood. Traffic and noise will increase: Our quality of `life will be 18 diminished. Asked to deny the proj ect. 19 20 Paul North, 651 Paula Lane: Project will have huge impacts on the; neighborhood — 21 traffic will increase as will the speed of cars. Wildlife will be impacted. Asked the 22 Commission to take a look at the property. 23 24 Norma Billing, 240 Paula Lane: Showed three pictures, Bodega and Walnut "Victorian 25 home, is,now a blank space and a Heritage Home is gone forever.. Presented a picture of 26 open land at Sunset & Paula Lane. Gave a history of the property and the homeowners 27 in 195,1. Do not think this development is feasible for this area. Do not want more traffic 28 on Paula Lane. .29 30 Sherby Sanborn, Arborist: Hired by the PLAN organization to evaluate trees on the 3i property at this time. Trees on the property are in a natural state, in of trees and 32 conditions are part of what creates stratification of the habitat for the wildlife. 'Mix of 33 native and' non - native trees, some oaks directly on Paula Lane. Some coast live oaks are 34 probably over 200 years old. 35 36 Kim Fitts, Derek :Marshall, .Biocotisultant; Hired by PLAN to assess the badger habitat 37 site. Provided a report to the Commission. Amen - can badger status — is on the 1998' 38 species of concern . and special animal' list. AlI impacts -are to be considered under CEOA. 39 Counted 25 dens throughout the sight. Noted badger activity on neighboring property. 40 Badgers are using '9 acres of the 11.2 acre site. Nine acres would be removed to, develop. 41 Fish & Game sent a letter regarding mitigation of the badger habitat. Would not be 42 suitable .for badger habitat if used as open space.: Potential significant should be checked 43 on the'Initial. Study. 'There would' be impact during the construction phase. Development 44 of site would impede movement of badgers throughout the site. This is the only 45 documented badger site in all of Western Sonoma county. Project_may,have an, effect that 46 cannot be mitigated to less than significant. 47 • Plane ing-Commission Minutes - Janugry 13, 2004 1 Sam Vieri a= Potter, 20. Paula. Lane: Bought the: property to have small animals and some • 2 land. Neighborhood is'Very cohesive. Traffic is a consideration - .Paula. -Lane is a very 3 narrow road, children are. forced into a ditch when walking . Twenty -one homes would 4 severely impact the neighborhood. Peel as though the: neighborhood. was - not represented.. 5 Will the City be there when there are traffic. and water., problems? Development is way 6 too dense. Would'like the property to °stayrural residential. 7 8 Cheryl Tern, Paula Lane: Mitigate means to make mild or gentle: 'There, is nothing mild 9 or gentle about ,this development Some identified issues are traffic, water pressure, 10 sewage, and drainage. However, how do you mitigate, damage to neighborhood spirit? 11 We have over 1,000 signatures opposing the7 project. Once th'eproperty is, , gone it is gone 12 forever. City shoul&be responsible for this. 13 14 Julian Podberesk, 1100 Shuman. Lane: Counselor at, Petaluma Junior High, walk .or bike 5 P arka Lane frequently. The rural atmosphere invites visitors; setting is ,different than a 1 p a Creating high-density u_ rban. development would %disrupt, the urban separator. 17 Current zoning is in the. county: 18 19 Susan Kirks Paula Lane:- Will complete the neighborhood's presentation. Reports 20 presented this evening: 21 • Wildlife Biologist report 22 ® Consulting arborist report . • 23 e Review of bird species report 24 o Historic resources .evaluation from Diane Painter 25 © Botanist report from Ms. on - shows a definitive wetlands delineation. 26 27 Peer 'review - most of the studies were conducted by Kleinfelder & Associates. 28 Kleinfelder had 3 active projects with Mission Valley. Properties at the time - believe this 29 is a conflict of interest. 30 31 Traffic - general plan ,discusses truck traffic, frequent truck traffic on Paula Lane. Traffic 32 consultant .,evaluated Paula Lane as a collector- street, went to other streets called 33 collector. Traffic would be more appropriate using metholodology as a county road. 34 35 Memorandum from Mission .Valley Property - it is unclear: exactly what is referred to. as 36 the southern end Of `the property. Developer's density maybe inaccurate: Zoned for AR- 37 2. Average density would be 5 homes on the 1 '%2 parcels. County land with City water is 38 a total of 5 ,houses. Property is zoned in the county for'2 -acre parcel, 1 unit per 2' acres. 39 Environmental constraints need to be considered. 40 41 Sewage,- installation. of the &inch sewage main, however, only 200 feet of Paula.Lane is 42 City property. Property owners own the easement to the middle of the road - would not 43 grant an easement to - the, City. County encroachment states it must have permission from 44 homeowners. 45 46 Hydrology, drainage and runoff oppose the plan for the detention pond - will flood 47 onto Mr. Bruce's property, Do not want to replace a swell that has wetland Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2004 1 characteristics. Army Corps of Engineers visited the property and evaluated.. Met some 2 criteria and not others. Allowing :a detention pond would destroy area and allow 3 drainage into the. ground water, which would be tragic. 4 5 Mitigated. Negative Declaration Biological Resources is absent from the ,Mitigated.. 6 Negative Declaration. In April 2003 we requested an EIR — believe there will be 7 significant environmental impacts; hydrology, historic resources, :traffic. Asked the 8. Commission to list;reasons for denial if that is the case. 10 1 have been watching the badger patterns, believe adult females, are living on the 1.1 property: Males are living on the Paula Lane corridor: Would require further study to 12 verify this is happening. Believe every living creature would be starved if the property 13 were developed. 14 15 Want to preserve history of the project. Disagree there is no historical significance. 1`6 Believe Ms., Painter's report submitted this evening.. Context of the: report by the 17 developer was not- done properly. The Lane was named for the Paula family — is the 18 centerpiece for chicken and dairy farms in th I is neighborhood. Believe the property has 19 maintained, its. integrity — is a centerpiece of Paula Lane corridor. Is very important to 20 preserve thi's property. 21 22 Rollin Bruce, Sunset Lane: Distributed documents from CSW ;Stuber= Stroeh claiming 23 Sunset Lane as a City Street. Subdivision needs a: ham merhead turn around.. Referred to 24 pg. 28 of City of Petaluma memo dated November 12, 2003. Letter ,from Stuber - Stroeh • 25 regarding Sunset Drive — 7 properties have right -of -'way easement. Stuber Stroeh 26, referred back to a 40 -ft street width. 27 28 Presented a power point presentation regarding: drainage of the proposed development 29 `site onto his property as well as the runoff from properties on Sunset. Drive., 30 31 The ,proposal is to double the size of Sunset Drive. There will be heavy water flow on 32 my property and Petersen Lane as well. Need to pump the water back up the hill and into 33 the City's storm drain: 34 35 Steve Rubardt, 1204 West Streets Want to know how this proposal will benefit the City 36 of Petaluma: Traffic on West Street has already increased. 37 38 Chris .Schmidt 1205 West Street: If the City wants to develop rural properties such as 39 ours - put into the General Plan and solve the water and sewer problems or say no to 40 development. Should be done right:, Need to have a right -of -way to B "odega.. and be. 41 thinking further down the road. What is the long term costs to the City, itself Does this 42 fit for how Petaluma wants to grow? Incorporate into the General Plan in a 'way that 43 works for the City. 44 45 Scott Brawn, Western Avenue: Have concerns about traffic on Paula Lane and the p safety,. like a -more proactive lannin • 46 impacts on safet planning process., Do not 'want to :go 47 after 'tax dollars and create animosity: Hope that as Petaluma grows, we can incorporate Planning Commission Minutes - January 13, 2004 1 the best that we can.do — want to keep what we love about Petaluma:as it grows. 2 3 Amanda Kvalheim: Presented additional comments from PLAN: additional runoff on 4 Paula Lane, Sonoma- County Water Agencies evaluation of property, recommendations 5 from'SPAR'C which have not been incorporated into the proposal. 6 7 Public hearing closed; . 8 9 Break at 9:15 10 1.1 Resumed at 9:30 12 13 Marti Buxton: Note on page 2 of response to Healy's memo. Change to suburban. 14 We recognize the emotional tenor of the neighborhood. .Do not believe the project is 15 inconsistent with .the neighborhood. General Plan designations rural residential, all of 16 properties to West on Paula-,Lane is suburban. New alternatives of the General Plan have 17 designation of hillside rural, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. Is consistent with the 18 direction of the General Plan. We stand behind all of our consultants. The emotion of 19 the neighborhood does ;not make our studies incorrect. Fish & .Game is supportive of the 20 project. Army Corps! of Engineers determined that it not a. wetland. 21 22 Al Cornwell, CSW Stueber Stroeh: Detention basin will maintain the peak flows — 23 detention basin is not built into the ground — will 'be a dam. The small piece that drains 24 from 'down Paula Lane and has been addressed. • 25 26 Marti Buxton: City water will ,serve 'the, site. Am asking for straight :zoning. When and 27 if we are approved for zoning then we Will go to SPARC for design approval. When I 28 started with this project, the nei g hbors made it clear that they wanted no development. 29 Our consulting Arborist could not be here this evening: There are "no large oaks that we 30 will cut down, replacing oaks 4 to '1 in the open space. Believethe project is appropriate 31 for the neighborhood. Will meet the needs of the City in their growth. 32 33 Craig Spaulding, City Engineer: It is not unusual. to have streets: on the — will 34 make an effort to get a determination. I believe we do maintain the street. If the 35 subdivision goes through the atreet °will be widened and will be maintained by the City. 36 37 Commissioner Asselmeier If. Sunset Drive is owned by homeowners, how does this 38 affect the development? 39 40 Craig Spaulding: Acceptance by the City gives the City rights to use of the land. 41 42 Commissioner Assehneier: Sunset Drive is a right -of -way? 43 44 Craig Spaulding. Feel, comfortable that the public can use Sunset Drive - the Annexation 45 map showed it. • 46 47 Commissioner Asselmeien 'Would appreciate the City Engineer looking into this. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - January 13, 2004 2 Commissioner'von.Raesfeld: Paula Lane south of the project — was the water°main put in t 3 as a'City project? 4 5 Craig Spaulding: Is joint with the county. 6 7 Commissioner Dargie: Drains on Sunset for surface water, where does it go? 8 9 Craig Spaulding: Proposal.is to collect the water and take it to the detention:pond. 10 11 Chair Barrett: How that would affect the junction box on Mr. Bruce's property? 12 13 Craig Spaulding: If we need this moved or modified PG &E will do that as part of 14 improvement plans. PG &E will do what is best for Mr. Bruce. 15 16 Commissioner. Dargie: The bioconsultant stated that the Badger is a. special species — the 17 Initial Study.says otherwise. 18 19 Anne. Flannery: Special °animals is a list of every animal ,in the State includes.'auimals, 20 that are being watched. Badger is not currently listed — badger is rare buf not of special 21 concern. 22 23 Commissioner Assehmeier: Every January and July there is a new list — the list of , July 24 does not show that the bad er is being g watched. In addition Fish &Game does not treat 25 badger as a special concern? 26 27 Anne 'Flannery:. Mitigation is established by Fish & Game. Fish &: Game decides what 28 species can be mitigated. Fish && Game agreed to 3 acres of mitigation. 29 30 Commissioner Asselmeier: Would the Initial Study be different if badger was species of 31 special concern? 32 33' Anne Flannery: At the outset Fish & Game set:. what was required. 34 35 Commissioner Asselmeier: Having :difficultly reconciling' two different opinions 'of 36 biologist. 37 38 Chair Barrett: Asked who was on board at the time the sight was surveyed by Allan 39 Buckman from Fish & Game? 40 41 George White: If there is confusion by the commission regarding consultant review, give 42 staff direction to clarify confusion. 43 44 Marti- Buxton: Clarified Allan Buckman°s assessment of the site and the badgers. . 45 46 Chair'Barrett: Asked that staff weigh in on this. 47 6 Planning Commission Minutes - January 13, 2004 a. Commissioner .McAllister It appears that badger activity is a lot more extensive than 2 what was previouslypresented. ' 3 4 Marti Buxton: Fish & Game does' not care about the badger will not slut down the 5 whole site. 6 7 Anne Flannery: Fish & Game has weighed in — there are lots of -dens however, there 8 may not be a lot of badgers on the site. 9 10 Commissioner McAllister: Have concerns that Fish. & Game madetheir recommendation 11 on a fairly cursory review of the site: Wonder if they would act differently if they had all 12 'the information that we have. 13 14 Commissioner Asselmeien . Wound like staff to analyze the information and clarify 15 regarding badger. 16 17 Chair Barrett: 'The neighbors perhaps may not know the correct procedures; however, it 18 does not negate the information presented. 19 20 Commissioner McAllister: Would like staff to review of all the additional information 21 Wildlife Impact Statement, 2" a ,opinion on historic resources by Diana Painter. 22 23 Chair Barrett: Would like clarification regarding the detention pond. Mr. Bruce seems to 24 think it will. sheath 'across his property. Mr. Cornwall noted.it will not be dug. There was 25 a lot of water for a, little bit of .rain. How will a dam above grade, keep all the water 26 back? 27 28 Chair Barrett: How will .a dam above grade keep all the water back? 29 30 Al Cornwall: Detention basin will take care of the difference in.runoff once the property 31 is developed. Can keep the peak flow where it is today. 32 33 Chair Barrett: How does. the'detention pond not increase the runoff., 34 35 Al Cornwall: Detention, basin holds the difference of water so that peak runoff does not 36 increase. 37 38 Commissioner Dargie: -This mitigation would moderate peak flow but will the overall 39 amount of water increase? 40 41 Al Cornwall: Total volume of runoff of a developed site will increase. Overall amount' 42 of runoff is increased peak is not,increased. 43 44 Commissioner Asselmeier; Can this damage Mr. Bruce's property? .45 46 Al Cornwall: Typically, peak :is what will make a difference. Mr. Bruce's pictures 47 showed that:most.of the runoff came off of Sunset Drive. s 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3`1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 46 Planning Commission Minutes — January 13, 2004 Commissioner Asselmeier: Will the development collect the runoff from Sunset Drive. Al Cornwall: Will go into a catch basin and then into the detention pond. Chair Barrett: Suggested to the Commission identifying issues for discussion: • Density of development 9 . Urban Growth Boundary • General 'Pl"a.n- issues • Infrastructure impacts, waterpressure, sewer • Traffic, pedestrian safety • Hydrology, runoff issues • Bio trees and wildlife • Flooding •; Neighborhood issues `View shed • Traffic at the end of Sunset Drive ® Historic resources as an aspect of the rural landscape Commissioner von Raesfeld: Need to have, the. larger issues discussion first — General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary. Commissioner Asselmeier: What is the City's position on the open space designation? Chair Barrett:: Was not presented tonight as part of the public record George White: All new 'information received this evening, staff will review, analyze and compare to original reports. M/S Rose/Dargie to continue to February 2, 2004. 6 -0. Adjournment: 10:55 SAK- Planning Commission\Minutes\PC Minutes 04 \011304.doc • • 8 'CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM 4 Comm unityDgyelopmeA( p4rhnent Planning. Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma", CA 94952 5 (707) 7784301 Fax;(707) 778 -4498; E- mail planning@dpetalumaxa.us 6 DATE: February 24 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. I 9 TO: Planning Commission 10 11 FROM:` Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: Paula Lane Subdivision 14 Proposal for 2-4 residential units on two contiguous parcels. outside City limits but 15 within- the Urban Growth. Boundaries '(UGB) totaling 11.22-acres,.' _ The proposal 16 requires, a General Plan Amendment, Pre - zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and . 17 Annexation 18 431 Paula Laie (corner of Paula Lane and •S'unset Drive) 19 APN 019- 080 -009 & 040 20 (Continued from February 10, 2004) .21 24 BAdkGROUND 25 26 At the November 12th, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented the 27 proposed Paula Lane project.and the public hear was opened... `However, due to the late hour 28 and the amount of public comments still to be heard, the public hearing was continued to January 29 13, 2004. Attached, are the Minute Excerpts from the November 12t 2003 Planning 30 Commission meeting (see Attachment A). 31 32 The Planning •Commission continued to hear, this item at "the January 13 2004 Commission 33 meeting (see Minute Excerpts, Attachment A). At that meeting the Planning Commission took 34 public testimony regarding the project proposal and the public hearing was closed. The 35 Commission began the initial stages of their discussion and questions but once again the 36 Commission continued the •item to, the meeting of February 10 2004 to allow time for staff - to. 37 review reports' pertaining to trees, wildlife and historical resources which were 'submitted by the 38 Paula Lane Action Network° (PLAN) neighborhood organization. These report& not been 39 provided, to staff prior to " the meeting; and therefore, staff was unablei to comment on their 40 contents. Staff was; unable to review all the information and prepare a staff report in a timely 41 fashion for the February 10th Planning Commission and therefore requested that the item be 42 continued to February 20, 2004. Page 1 ATTACHMENT 6 .21 STAFF ANALYSIS ?® 4 Historical Resources: 5 A letter was prepared by Diana Painter dated January .12 2004 to Susan Kirks (see Attachment, 6 B) the letter provided discussion on the Paula Lane property evaluation prepared by JRP 7 Historical Consulting Services (dated April 18, 2002), and the subsequent peer review - by Carey & 8 Co.. dated March 4 2003. Ms. Painters `letter also provides detailed recommendation for the 9 potntial further evaluation of this property. 10 11 Staff enlisted Carey and Company to conduct the peer review on the, historic .resources 12 evaluation prepared by Diana Painter, Attached is the letter of peer review from Ms. Dreller of 13 Carey and Company dated February 3, 2004. (see Attachment C). Carey & Co. states that the 14 Painter letter issues an opinion that the two previous historic resource evaluations; inadequately 15 satisfy CE.QA, because they do not evaluate the Paula Lane property as a Historic Rural. 1.6 Landscape Ms_. Painter also asserts that, the context for the determinat on. should 17 b_ e .expand'ed to 'include Petalurria's small -scale farming and ranching -history, as well as that of 18 local ethnic groups. On integrity, Ms. Painter also presents two arguments: farm structures in 19 juxtaposition to modern development can - provide. pertinent information on- previous farming 20 uses, and farms should;be evaluated asp evo'lvii landscapes with a different standard �of integrity. 21 Ms. Painters letter also offers three recommendations for the project, Carey & Co. responded, in 22 their review to each of the recommendations by Ms. Painter. 24 Care & Co. concluded that in their professional opinion that while the property at 431 -43`5 25 Pula Lane, could be evaluated as a. rural historic .landscape this is not the best approach. They 26 also state 'that re ardn g the historic y believe that the: JRP .report adequately Y ntext that the 27 addresses landsca a issues and finall the alterations that have occurred since the property 28 stopped operating as a farm have permanently comprised its, integrity to the point that it does not 29 qualify for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources .1 (CRHR), See Attachment C m to review, the, full discussion of the peer'review`report from Carey and Co. 31 32 Tree Report: 33 34 The purpose of Mr. Sanborns' tree report (Attachment D), was to document a tree ;health 35 inspection site assessment conducted at the subject property at the request of the Paula :Lane 36 Action Network (P.L.A.N.) at'the proposed: project site: 37 38 Mr. Sanborns' .report concludes that the majority of the trees on -site are non- native and in some 39 form of poor health. 'The report °recommends. preserving any native oaks that .are in good health. 40 The report also presents a - brief discussion on the wildlife value of decaying trees and makes, a 41 general statement on the, need to preserve healthy native oaks due to the presence of'S.udden Oak 42 Death (SOD) inL the Marin/Sonoma region. 43 44 Staff enlisted Kleinfelder and .Associates to conduct peer review Lof the report, prepared by Mr. 45 Sher by (see Attachment F), Klenfelder and Associates concluded that in their professional. 46 opinion that the report prepared by Mr. Sanborn is in general factually accurate. and makes Page 2 M ,1 observations and conclusions . consistent with the professional standards° used 'by certified professional arbonsts. Kleinfelder and Associates states that Mr. Sanborris' report has minor 3 differences in some .of its tree, health evaluations as compared with the 1VIacNair Associates Tree 4 Evaluation and Preservation Plan report prepared in May 2002. Kleinfelder visited the site on 5 January 29, 2004 and visually ,inspected all the trees on the property and within -the footprint of 6 the proposed development. In principal, Kleinfelder supports the practice of retaining healthy, 7 - native trees on -site where practicable. Healthy trees are both aesthetically- pleasing and can serve 8 valuable biological functions: The developer also supports this concept; and is mitigating for the 9 loss of on -site trees with native trees at a 4 :1 ratio. 10 11 Avian Wildlife: 12 13 Heather Howitt an Avian Biologist submitted a, 'statement of professional opinion on avian 14 wildlife impact 'of the proposed Paula Lane housing; development dated January 8, 2004 (see 15 Attachment, E). The purpose of the avian study was to investigate potential impacts to resident 16 bird populations from the proposed subdivision development. The report concludes that the 17 proposed development of Paula,Lane and the subsequent removal of on -site trees would result in 18 a significant loss of breeding. habitat and would jeopardize the. survivorship of avian species 19 presently utilizing the site, as well as impacting potentially present,, breeding special- status bird 20 species. 21 .22 Kleinfelder and Associates conducted, peer review of the - professional opinion prepared by Ms. Howitt (see Attachment G). It is Kleinfelder's professional opinion that the Avian Impact Study is incomplete and makes assertions that are unsupported. Kleinfelder states than the study does 25 not represent the best available scientific information on project - associated adverse impacts. to 26 avian species and appears flawed. in its analysis. The reporLincorrectly mentions that all trees on- 27 site would be removed; in fact.three oak trees are being _retained at the site, which will provide 28 some high quality passerine nesting. habitat. The _report presumes that` survivorship of birds 29 currently utilizing the site would be jeopardized (actually this is a technical term that is misused 30 throughout the report correctly used, refers to birth vs. death rates). The loss of approximately 31 26 trees either within or adjacent to the site and the surface grading of the approximately 11.22- 32 acre property may temporarily displace individual birds which may. or may riot use the site to 33 forage, roost or breed.. However due to the relative abundance of similar, equally suitable habitat 34 in the general vicinity the impact' to resident bird ;populations: would be temporary in nature and 35 would not be of ,a permanent consequence and in. Kleinfelder's opinion, would not be 36 significant, In, addition, all trees scheduled for removal will be mitigated with native species at a 37 4: 1 ratio. The 6 L bird species listed-as occurring at the site compiled, by local bird watchers 38 included the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a California• Special ,Concern species (Special 39 Animals List, CDFG, January 2004), as possibly breeding at the site.. Kleinfelder conducted a 40 site visit. on January 29, 2004 and while there was some evidence of past ground squirrel activity 41 (burrowing owl occurrence is, frequently :associated with the presence of ground squirrel 42 colonies) in the form of vacant burrows at the site, there were no sign or other indications that 43 burrowing owl were present, nor would the site likely be considered ,as breeding habitat for this 44 species due to the ,presence, of tall vegetation on -site (non - native annual, grasses that are 2 -3 in 0 feet in height throughout the site), the presence of dogs and cats nearby and the High human presence :in the immediate area: A search of the California Natural` Diversity Database for the Page 3 I project site and' the surrounding area, yielded no occurrence of burrowing owl in the project 2 vicinity or on. adjacent properties (nearest locale,is near Sonoma State University, over `14 miles 3 away) and therefore; they are - presumed to be currently absent from the site. Kleinfelder 4 recommends that if tree removal and/or ground disturbance of the site is scheduled to occur 5 between ' February 1 and August 3.1, then a breeding bird survey should be preformed 48 -hours 6 prior to 'site disturbance in order- to comply with the Migratory Bird 'Treaty Act, which protects 7 nesting. migratory birds during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31): By scheduling 8 ground disturbance to ,occur outside of this period, there would be no regulatory requirement to 9 perform this survey. 10. 11 If raptors were .found to be nesting in proximity to the site between. February t and August, 31, 12 then it would be recommended to establish a disturbance avoidance buffer within 250 -feet .from 13 any active .raptor nests (located either on or off - site) and have the. nest monitored by a , qualified 14 biologist until juvenile .birds have. fledged. Raptor nests are considered a conserved resource ,and 15 are protected under CDFG and USFWS regulations: 16 17 Badger Status: 18 19 Kim Fitts of BioConsultant submitted a .report on behalf of the Paula Lane Action Network 20 PLAN dated, ( ) 7, 2004 on the American Badger (Attachment H): The purpose of the 21 comment letter document was to provide an account. of resident American badger populations. 22 and to evaluate potential impacts to the species and their habitat from the proposed subdivision 23 development: The report concludes that the proposed development of Paula Lane and the 24 subsequent grading and ground disturbance would result "in.a significant'`loss of badger habitat 25 and would eliminate individual badgers; presently utilizing the site; as well as., adversely 26 impacting a special - status mammal species (badgers). 27 .28 Kleinfelder. and Associates conducted peer review of the' 'report prepared 'by -Ms: Fitts (see 29 Attachment I): Kleinfelder completed a,review of the American Badger , comment.letter for the 30 Paula Lane Subdivision prepared by BioConsultant LLC, dated January 7, 2004. It is 3 T Kleinfelder's professional opinion that the comment letter is inaccurate in several areas and 32 snakes certain assertions 'that are unsupported by field observations. 33 34 Kleinfelder states that the comment letter from Ms. Fitts does not accurately portray the current 35 status -of the American badger in California. Referencing the California Department of Fish. and 36 2004E � the C alifornia Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Special Animals 'List ( � 37 (January, badger is not .listed as a California Special 'Concern species (CSC), as 38 'indicated in the report prepared by Ms. Fitts. Kleinfelder reports that the Special Animals List 39 refers to the badgers status as "WS4. (page44), which means that species is considered 40 globally "demonstrably secure; commonly found throughout its historic range " and "apparently 41 secure; some 'factors exist to cause some concern such as ; narrow habitat or continuing threats" 42 on a state -wide level. A call by Bill Goggin of Kleinfelder. and Associates to the. CDFG field 43 office in Monterey, California confirmed that the badger_ has no formal protection status in 44 California. 46 A site visit conducted'by Kleinfelder on January 29, 20,04 indicates that while there is evidence 47 of fossorial mammal use (likely past gopher- and ground squirrel activity) at - the: site, there 'is no Page 4 O: 1 evidence that badgers' are: currently ,active within. the property boundaries. The property contained approximately ;20 -25 ribbon tape markers on approximately apparently delineating the 3 hypothetical badger dens that BioConsultan t LLC mapped on the subject property. Kleinfelder 4 examined the flagged "Potential badger dens" during the field visit and observed only a single 5 burrow that may have been use&by badgers in the- past as evidenced by the presence of (old) 6 claw marks on the side of the burrow entrance. However, evidence for current badger use (tracks 7 or scat) was not observed within the property boundaries. Kleinfelder notes that most, if not all 8 of the ` dens" as defined in the BioConsultant LLC report. are likely to be collapsed 9 gopher holes that were burrowed in the soft and collapsible soil found at the site. There is no 10 indication that the site is an active badger activity center as asserted by Ms. Fitts in her January 11 7, 2004 report. 12 13 According to Kleinfelder, it is highly unlikely that American badgers are utilizing the site for the 14 following reasons: 15 e Tall, dense non- native annual grasses 2 -3 in feet in Height occur throughout the site, 16 which is not a preferred habitat for badgers, which prefer open areas such as pasture lands 17 with sparse cover and few trees (Lindzey, 1.982). 18 ® High human activityincluding the presence of domesticated dogs and cats are present in 19 the vicinity. 20 e Absence of tell -tale :badger signs (elliptically shaped entrance dens, badger activity trails, 21 scat, tracks).. 22 46 Kleinfelder states that- search of the CDFG's CNDDB for the project site and the surrounding area yielded no reported occurrence: of badgers in the project vicinity or on adjacent properties. 25 Although conclusive evidence for badger.habitat use the site is lacking, Kleinfelder supports 26 setting aside three acres of open space for American badger as proposed by the developer. 27 CDFG determines appropriate mitigation and has accepted. this proposed mitigation in' a letter 28 dated March 11., 2002. Efforts should.be made to place educational signage in the area in order to 29 educate people about badgers, that may occur within the vicinity and to restrict pet use in the 30 area. While. not a formal .requirement, it may be ,advisable to conduct. a pre_ disturbance survey 31 for fossorial mammals within_ the property prior to grading at the site. 32 33 As noted in the May 16 2002 report from Anne Flannery, it was proposed that, "A mitigation 34 plan should be developed to,,protect existing wildlife resources during grading and construction. 35 For badgers the. plan would ensure that, individual badgers would not be harmed or destroyed at 36 the time of groundbreaking and ,grading:" The applicant is supportive of a condition of approval 37 of this nature. 38 39 In addition to the report. noted. above from Ms. Fitts of BibConsultants, staff received a letter 40 from Ms: 'Fitts dated_ January 29, 2004: addressed to Commissioner' Barrett which included a 41 letter from Darlene MuGriff Senior Biologist of the California Natural Diversity Database .42 Division of the California Department of Fish and Game. Along with this information was 43 another report prepared by,Ms. Fitts dated January 2004 (received 1/23/04), (see ,Attachment J). 44 Staff forwarded these documents, to Kleinfelder and Associates for informational purposes but A & due to the late submittal by'PLAN there was not adequate lead-lime for a formal review. Page 5 r` I Staff received.a' voice-mail 'message from Mr. Buckman of DFG on February 17, 2004. The 2 following is a verbatim transcript of that message ('see Attachment P): 3 4 "If we keep playing phone tag, be a little more specific about °what kind of things 5 have come up and why you're - asking the question. 6 7 For :clarification the species is on the species of special, concern list. However, 8 it's, something like a 4Cor 4D. Which means it is widely distributed and its status 9 is unknown. 10 11 Basically we . badgers. all across the Santa Rosa plains. There's some fairly 12 large ;populations. There's very little information about of how much habitat area 13 theyneed. There's almost;no literature from this part of the country. A lot of the 14 examples that are: given are Utah and other states. There's,nothing good :here. A 15 lot of it depends on how good- the prey population base is as to what there 16 densities area So I think a population could exist there on that 3 Acres.,' It may not 17 be a huge one, ,but -.they could exist there. The question was whether you develop 18 the whole parcel and basically we said no, we didn't want: the whole thing 19 developed because we thought a, : reserve should be there.. So hopefully that 20 clarifies your question. I'm still -I'm -in and out of the Sebastopol area and I'm 21 on and.off line, so I'm notable, necessarily, to answer. But, again, ,if you wanted 22 more clarification, leave some information on my phone so .that when I' am in 23 range I can listen to that and s,ee what your question is so, anyway" hopefully'ihat 24 answered them. And again we'll talk with you soon. Bye bye:." • 25 26 That same afternoon, staff made an additional phone call to Mr. Buckman of DFG - and was able 27 to speak directly to him. Mr. Buckman explained that the Badger is on the Species of ,Special 28 Concern list but the data associated with, it was left off.. He -explained that it is ;on- the list but its 29 rating is general. Mr. Buckman confirmed for me that the DFG is concerned with loss of badger 30 habitat: He also -said that more of an issue is being made of this than necessary. He said that 3- 31 acres could support a badger seta He confirmed that DGF will not write another 'letter and that 32 they stand by the 2002 letter that endorses'the mitigation area in the current plan. 33 34 Staff also visited the ,California Department of Fish and Game web site to review' the Special 35 Animal's ,List. - The Department of Fish and Game produces four lists. The Special Plant and. 36 Special. Animal lists are updated in January and July of each year. The Threatened and 37 Endangered Animal List and Threatened, Endangered and .Rare Plant List are updated in 38' January, April, July, and October of each year. The California Natural Diversity Database 39 (CN DDB) is a continually refined and .updated, computerized inventory of location information 40 on the most, rare; animals, plants,, An&natural communities: in California. 41 42 "Special Animals" is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in 43 tracking, regardless of their legal or :protection status. These taxa generally fall :into one or more 44 of the following categories: 45 0 Page 6 n Officially li "sted or proposed for listing under the State" ,and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts.. ® State or Federal candidate fat-possible listing. 4 ® Taxa which meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as 5 described in Section 15380 of CEOA. 6 ®. Taxa considered by the Department to be a:Species! of Special Concern (CSC) 7 © Taxa that' are biologically rare, ver_.y restricted in distribution, declining throughtout their 8 range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that monitoring. 9 ® Populations in California that may be on the periphey of a taxon's range, but are 10 threatened with extirpation in California. 12 ® Tax c losely: : associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate parian, .old growth forests, desert aquafc systems, native grasslands, 13 vernal pools,, etc). 14 ® Taxa designated as: a'special status, sensitive, or declining species by their state or federal 15 agencies, non - governmental organization 16 17 In reviewing the latest Special Animal List (dated January 2004) the Taxidea taxus (American 18 Badger) appears on page 44. The CNDDB ranks this animal as a G5S4 which, as noted in the 19 Kleinfelder letter of peer review, means that the species is considered globally "demonstrably 20 secure; commonly found throughout its historic range ". and "apparently !secure; some factors 21 exist to cause some noncom such ids narrow habitat or continuing threats" on a state -wide level. 22 Iii addition,, staff reviewed the official published 1986 Mammal Species of Special Concern List. This document written in 1986 and is in the process of being updated. hi .reviewing this 25 document, it states that the native species of land mammals of "California which currently do not 26 have state of federal Threatened .of Endangered Species status were investigated in order to 27 identify those potentially threatened with extinction. Investigations concentrated on determining 28 historic and current distributions, habitat associations, population status and 'the :nature and 29 proximity of threats of .extinction. Information was developed primarily from the literature, 30 museum records, and field notes, and from contacts with biologists with knowledge of current 31 development in the field. Detailed studies were conducted in some areas, but only cursory 32 fieldwork'was undertaken in, other areas of concern. Populations of 36 gspecies and subspecies 33 were considered to be potentially jeopardized. These are placed in three (3) priority categories. 34 The .13 Taxa in the :Highest priority face a high probability of extinction if current trends 35 continue; the 1.1 taxa in the Second. priority are definitely declining in population size and 36 appear j eopardized, but there threats are less immediate; the 12 taxa. in the Third Priority appear 37 not to, face extinction' but "their populations are declining seriously or they are otherwise highly 38 vulnerable to human developments. Information on distribution, population status habitat, and 39 taxonomy, and recommendations'. for management actions are presented for each species on the 40 List of Concern. This ;document lists the American badger and it .is placed on the Third Priority 41 species of special concern. Further review of this document indicates that the major cause for 42 concern*is the loss of habi'tat: "Also, as noted in the letter from-Kim Fitts of BioConsultants dated 43 January 2:9, 2004, citing her discussions with Mr. Steele of the .Department of Fish and Game in 44 Sacramento, it is the intent of DFG�to;protect badger habitat. Therefore, the determination by the Department of Fish and Game 'in its March 11, 2002 letter appears to be consistent with the Page 7 1 concern of habitat loss and `that maintaining three acres of the project site for badger habitat; was 2 consistent. 3 4 Other.Issues: 5 - & At the Planning Commission Meeting, of January 13, 2004, the Planning Commissioners, asked T staff to review and report back to them regarding certain issues. While some issues are addressed 8 in the previous staff and consultant reports, the following responses are offered. as a response to 9 the Planning ComIni`ssion. 10 11 a Engineering= Turnaround/Drainage, . (see .Attachment M, Memorandum from Craig 12 Spaulding dated February 11, 2004). 13 1,4 1. Turnaround at. the end of Sunset Drive. 15 16 A turnaround in the 'form of a reduced cul -de -sac could be constructed' , at the end of 1'7 Sunset Drive for passenger vehicles and small delivery vehicles. The cul -de -sac would 18 allow vehicles, to turn around without' entering private property: 19 20 1 Street surface draiinag "e at thev end of Sunset Drive. 21 22 In the existing condition, a catch'basin at the end of Sunset Drive collects approximately 23 24 - -acres of surface runoff and is directed through a pipe to the; p roperty at the end of { 24 Sunset Drive., Initiall - staff 'thought that the new storm drain system 'in Sunset Drive 25 would relieve the runoff collected'by this catch basin. However, most of the, runoff comes 26 from a private driveway and is not collected by the new system. It is recommended; 27 particularly if a cul -de -sac were constructed, that the existing catch basin at the end of 28 Sunset Drive be connected to the 'new drain system, thereby directing that runoff to 29 'the detention pond. 30 31 The existing catch basin and storm drain on'SunsetDrive across from the proposed lot I 32 should be inspected and upgraded if necessary prior to constructing and paving the street. 33 34 3'. Maintenance of Sunset Drive 35 36 Although it has been unclear about the past maintenance. of Sunset Drive, Public 37 Facilities and Services has agreed that after the new street dedication construction and 38 overlay', the City would maintain. the entire street. 39 40 ® Army_ Corp. of Engineers Determination 41 42 As discussed in the original staff report; of November 12, .20:03 and the initial study, City staff was 43 provided a letter dated June 4, 2002 from the Department of the Army Corp. The letter states that 44 it has' been determined that a Department of the Army authorization will not be required since the 45 above activity will not involve the discharge of dredged or fill, material into .a water of the United 46 States, including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: The 47 determination that a permit is, not required iSl, based on an on -site inspection and a review of the Page 8 i project needs. The site 'lacked the evidence of hydrophytic plant communities :although a relatively high water table was evident. The lack of wetland characteristics on this site is related to the coarse soil material, slope, lack of relative depressions and lack of restrictive horizons high up on 4 the soil. 6 Staff spoke with Elizabeth Dyer of the Army Corp of.Engineers on January 22, 2004 to confirm 7 the determination by the Army Corp of Engineers. Ms. Dryer stated that they looked at the site 8 and parameters and found that due to ,soil conditions that this was not a wetland. Staff also spoke 9 with Dan Martel of the Army Corp of Engineers. Staff was informed that this is the final agency 10 decision unless new or better information is found that it should be reviewed again. It was also 11 stated that they are not obligated to 'change. decisions even. if new information is submitted. 12 13 ® Density/UGB 14 15 In earlier reports it was stated that the project is within the Urban Limit' Line (UGB) and Sphere 16 of Influence. The Genera. Plan designates these properties for residential development (Rural 17 0.0 — 0.5 du/ac). This designation would ,potential allow for development of 5 dwellings units. 18 The proposal requests a' General Plan Amendment to Suburban (0:6 — 2.5 du/ac), which 19 potentially could allow for 22 dwelling units. The proposed Suburban (0.6 -2.5 du/ac) land use 20 designation is applied to west side lands away from the'urban core and toward the urban separator. 21 The proposal is for 21 units. As .stated earlier, this land use designation of Suburban is consistent 22 with the land to the east of the project site and all of the properties to the north along the Urban 4 0 Limit Line with the exception of the parcels across Sunset .Drive which are developed and designated at a higher.standard of Urban'Standard (21 to 5.0 du/ac). As part of this proposal, the 5 applicant is requesting the properky'be zoned to the standard zoning of R -1 10,000. The properties 26 along Sunset Drive are currently R- 1.10,000. The purpose of this zoning designation is to 27 provide areas within Petaluma where existing single - family dwellings may be protected and to 28 encourage the development of'new neighborhoods of single- family dwellings. 'The R -1 District is 29 . intended to accommodate .groups, of single - family homes together with the schools, parks, open 30 spaces, and other public services required for a satisfactory family environment. The range of 31 density classes indicated for the�R -;l district is intended to permit the implementation of the density 32 recommendations of the, General Plan, and to permit harmonious development of residential 33 districts with different density characteristics. 34 35 e Urban Separator 36 37 The Urban separatoris a visible band of open space that marks the edge of allowable urban 38 development. It is continuous on the east Side, intermittent on the West -Side, and runs adjacent 39 to the urban limit line,- for most of its length. The urban separator provides an.edge that buffers 40 farmland from urban lnd -.:It can serve as a recreation area and a key component of the City's 41 open space system.. 'The subject properties do not have an Urban Separator designation 42 associated with them nor isl there in this vicinity of the subject property. 43 44 Page 9 h 1 Trespassing 2 3 The property owner of the subject property, Ms. Alice Vesterfelt, called staff. Staff was 4 informed- that permission for PLAN or their consultants to access the property was not given by 5 her as the property owner. 6 7 ® Brown Act Violation 8 9 Following the January 13 2004 commission. meeting, staff had concerns regarding potential 10 violation, of the .Brown Act with regards to. information that was'provided Commissioners but;not 11 to staff. Staff, posed the question to the City Attorney; Rich Rudnansky. Mr. Rudnansky stated 12 that under'the.Brown Act that documents provided to the majority of a legislative bodyinvolving 13 a matter that is before them or will ;come before them is considered a public record and is subject 14 to disclosure to the public including staff and the applicant. He referred staff., to .Section 54957.5 15 of the Government Code (See Attachment L). Staff has repeatedly requested that a11. information 16 submitted to the Commissioners be provided to staff for review and insertion into the public 17 record. 18. 19 • Open Space District 20 21 Discussions have been raised regarding -the potential of the subject property being acquired' by 22 the Sonoma County Open Space District.. Staff placed a .call on January 22, 20:04 to the Sonoma 23 County Open Space District`. Staff was informed that, OSD has no application on f la and that the 24 landowner must submit an application in order' for OSD to take . a. position on possible • 25 acquisition. Staff was told that someone would get back to me regarding whether or riot OSD 26 would even be :interested in acquiring• the subject property as open space. As this writing, no 27 one. from OSD responded to this inquiry. Staff phoned again on February 3, 2004 with the same 28 requested information and to date, there has been no response. 29 30 Jim Carr, the.Parks and Recreation Director, provided staff with an e -mail regardingJhe 31 potential for a. park' at this. site (see Attachment Q). Mr. Carr e -mail states that he has met on a,number.of 32 occasions with Susan Kirks of the Paula Lane .Action Network regarding. the Paula Lane 33 Subdivision project. Mr. Carr states that in their discussions he has assisted Ms. Kirks in her 34 efforts to try to create an outdoor classroom by working with local schools. But in regards to the 35' site being designated as a: future park, he has been very clear; he has not proposed designating 36 the Paula .Lane site or any other site in the area as a future park. Mr. Carr states that he has 37 indicated to Ms Kirks and other committee members ;as late as Wednesday, February 11th that 38 any park that would be proposed in the area would have to be for active play (soccer, youth 39 softball, Little .League, etc.) as 'identified in the Park Master Plan that is currently being 40 developed. The Paula Lane properties does not allow for that type of use. Additionally, with the 41 shortfall of General. Fund monies; maintenance concerns for any future parks are of critical 42 concern. For this reason, active parks - will receive - priority in the near future to meet the 43 expressed concerns of city residents. 44 45 46 Correspondence 47 • Attached is a letter from Marti Buxton. dated February 17, 2004 (see Attachment N). Page 10 1 ® Susan Kirks of PLAN sent.an,e -mail to ,staff dated.February 3, 20,04 (see Attachment O). Ms. Kirks osed three question to staff p q _. 4 5 1. "Is it possible this development proposal would be appropriate for some other area of the 6 city environs? Is this "something your department could explore and report to the 7 planning ,commissions. 9 The Community Development Department received an application for this particular 10 parcel and is obligated to process the proposed application and, not identify alternative 11 locations. It i the responsibility of the. Planning Commission and ultimately the City 12 Council to make the determination as to whether or,not approval of this application 13 should be granted.: 14 15 2. "If we provide information about the Open Space District. acquisition, what are 16 your plans in terms of reviewing it? Once this' information is placed in the public record, 17 we would expect attempt to manipulate the situation her favor by the developer, as 18 evidenced by the comments made. about Parks & Recreatioh;Departn ent Chair Jim Carr's 19 statements (undocumented. and unverified by .your department) = regarding the property as' 20 a designated Park in ..the revised General Plan under consideration. 'Thi's concerns us 21 greatly ". 22 This information has already been provided to the Planning Commission and therefore, by the City Attorney's opinion, is part of'the public r.ecord.r This document; however, has 4 05 not yet been provided to staff. Without knowing the contents of such a letter it is. 26 impossible to say what staff s response wouldbe. 27 28 3. "When a development proposal does not move forward for "whatever reason, what is the 29 planning department's role in. Sonoma Co. Ag. Preservation &a Open: Space District 30 acquisitions and • matching grant programs in which the city participates in with. the 31 county? If the planning department and community development department as a whole 32 do or do not paiticipate, this would be important:information for us to know." 33 34 Again w.ithout'knowng the content of the document or the intentions of the OSD it is 35 impossible to say what .staff's. involvement in a possible future acquisition would lie. 36 3.7 In addition to the questions•Ms. Kirk notes that PLAN is developing an alternative plan for sale 38 of the °property that better suits preservation of open space, .neighborhood. character, critical 39 wildlife habitat and wildlife ,species, and provides potential :educational opportunities for our 40 youth, while at the same time being a self sustaining piece of land and ,generating revenues for 41 the City of Petaluma for designated programs, while most importantly, providing an avenue for 42 the owners to sell their land in a timely manner -this alternative land use is a win -win for 43 everyone involved. As of the writing of this staff report, no alternative plan has been provided to 44 staff. Page 11 ATTACHMENTS P 3 Attachment A: Minutes Excerpts from the November 12, 2003, Planning, Commission 4 meeting. 5 Minute Excerpts from the January 13 ;; 2004, Planning Commission. meeting. 4 8 .10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment B Attachment , C: Attachment D:, Attachment E: Report from Diana Painter dated January 12, 2004 to Susan Kirks. Letter from Sarah Dreller of Carey and Company dated February 3, 2004. Tree Report`prepared by Sherby Sanborn'dated January 9, 2004 Statement of professional opinion on avian wildlife, impact of the proposed Paula Lane housing. develo ment g p prepared by Heather Howitt, Avian' • Biolog si.dated January 8, 20.04. Peer review letter. on trees from William Goggin of Kleinfelder and Associates dated February 11, 2:004. Peer- review letter on, avian wildlife from William Goggin of Kleiinfelder and - Associates dated February 11, 2004. Report prepared by Kim Fitts of BioConsultant dated January 7, :2004 on the American Badger Peer review letter on badgers from William Goggin of ,Kleinfelder and Associates dated February 11,, 2004. Letter from Kim Fitts of BioConsultants to Commissioner Barrett dated January 29, 2004. Letter from the Darlene McGriff of the California Department of Fish .and' Game dated January 20.04 Report dated January 200.4 from Kim Fitts of BioConsultants. Letter from the Department of Fish and' Game dated -March 11, 2002. Section 54957.5 of the. Government Code Memorandum from Craig Spaulding dated February 11, 2004 Letter from Marti. Buxton dated February 17, 2004 E -mail from Susan Kirks dated February 3,, 2004. Verbatim transcript of message from Allan Buckman of 'Department of Fish and Game dated February 17;. 2004. ,Memorandum from Jim Carr dated February IS, 2004. Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment 1: Attachment J: 26 Attachment Ks 27 Attachment L: 28 Attachment M- 29 Attachment N- :30 Attachment O: 31 Attachment, P: 32 33 34 35 Attachment Q: sc\ planning \pc\reportS \paUIa , Ianefeb 24 •. • Page 12 1. • City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 7074778 -4301 /.Fax 707/,778 -4498 E -Mail plannin2Cdiei netaluma.ca.us Web littps / /WWW.Ci:De6luina.0a.us 2 3 Planning Commisse ®n Minutes EXCEItPT 4 February 24, 200 — 7:00 5 6 Commissioners: Present:: Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie *, McAllister, Rose,.. von Raesfeld 7 Absent: Harris 8 * Chair 9 10 Staff: George'White, Assistant Director, Community Development. 11 Irene Borba, Senior Planner 12 Anne Windsor, Administrative,Secretary • 13 14 Public hearing began: @ 700 15 1'6 17 PUBLIC HEARING: 1s OLD BUSINESS: 19 20 PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION, 431 Paula Lane (corner of Paula Lane and 21 Sunset Drive) 22 AP No:: 019 - 080 =009 and 019 -080 -010 23 File: ANX01'002, GPA01°002,, PRZ01003, SPCO1048 and TSM01003 24 Planner: Irene T. Borba 25 26 Applicant is ;`requesting =for a recommendation to the City Council of a proposal for 27 21 residential units on 'two contiguou& parcels outside City limits but within the 28 Urban ;Growth Boundaries (UGB) totaling 11.22- acres. The proposal requires a 29 General Plan Amendment, Pre- zoning Tentative, Subdivision Map, Annexation, 30 and Adoption,bf a Mitigated Negative Declaration, 31 32 ;Cont_inued'from. February 10, 2004. 33 34 Irene Borba presented the staff report. 0 35 36 Steve Ryder,' Miss' on Valley Properties: Requested that the Commission take action this Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2004 ATTACHMENT 6 i. r� Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 2004 i evening. 2 3 Chair Dargie; Accept staff's point; of view, believe the Commission needs to consider the 4 General Plan Amendment first. A , 6 Commissioner Rose: References to Sunset Drive are not relevant. here. Believe this 7 project is too dense — the rural designation is better suited for this project. Information 8 that 'has been submitted is not the proper direction — nothing to resemble an Urban 9 Separator. Aside from the other issues this is a policy issue land not appropriate with this 10 part of Petaluma. 11 12 Commissioner Asselmeier: I share similar concerns th are directly related to the 13 density of this. prej ect .and, directly related to a policy issue. I am not inclined to approve 14 this project. Do not believe there is a public benefit— want to see the feathering.concept 15 applied at this particular location. This much density should be downtown and infill r6 projects. 17 18 Commissioner von Raesfeld: The project 'is, parcel specific rewriting the General Plan 19 and the Zoning Ordinance so I cannot.support °the densityand the Annexation. 20 21 Commissioner Barrett: 'Concur with the other Commissioners and share the concerns of 22, piecemeal develolpment. Project is too dense. Many new projects on the West side 23 impact and defeat the purpose of the General Plan. 24 If this parcel is; going to be looked at for annexation ittneeds'to keep "the current density. 25 26 Commissioner 1 ccAllister: Sunset Drive should not be considered a precedent for this 27 .proj,ect If the project is developed in this way it is a piecemeal approach -which is not 28 appropriate ­ to be looked at more globally tregarding infrastructure, traffic and 29 drainage issues. 30 31 Chair ,Dargie: On the General Plan map property to east is a suburban designation and 32 the property in question is a rural designation: Read. from the General -.Plan regarding the 33 urban limit line. Based on this quote I believe a rural designation is appropriate. 34 35 Commissioner McAllister: Wildlife could be a global issue to this area of Petaluma. The 36 badger issuermay not be limited to just °this site. 37 38 Commissioner Barrett Do not believe: it is out of line to give a laundry list of issues. 39 40 Commissioner Asselmeier.: Want to see if we can discuss some of the issues - believe it 41 would'be helpful to the Council. 42 43 Commissioner Barrett: Issues such as traffic wildlife corridor, and drainage are. impacts. 44 as a result , of'the piecemealing o£some of the. newt the west side.developments. 45 46 M/S Barrett/ Mc /Allister to recommend to the City Council denial of the General Plan 47 Amendment and, by extension, the Pre- zoning, Tentative Subdivision - Map and r, ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • r Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2004 Annexation requests due to the proposed increase in 2density, inconsistency with the feathering /urban separator polices in the existing General Plan, coordination with the General Plan update and impacts and issues related to increased traffic, insufficient infrastructure, drainage, and potential impacts to an existing wildlife corridor. 6-0, Harris absent. Adjournment: 7:50 3