HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 9.A 06/21/2004CITY "OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Jane 21, 2
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department,, ll English Street, Petaluma GA 94952
(707)°778 =4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail: cdd &Lpetalumaxa.us
DATE: June 21, 2004
TO: Petaluma City Council
FROM: Irene T. B'oba, Senior Planner -
SUBJECT: Paula Lane Subdivision - Subdivision of two contiguous parcels totaling 11.22 -
acres into '21 residential units with approximately 3 -acres of the site being set
aside as open space., General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Tentative Parcel Map,
and Annexation, at 431 Paula. Lane, APN 0.19 - 080 -009 & 010
The City Council heard this agenda item. at the May 17, 2004 Council meeting. At that meeting,
the applicant presented the project proposal and the Council took public testimony. The Public
Hearing was closed and the Council began the initial stages of their- discussion and questions.
Due' to the late hour, Council continued the project proposal to June .21st. Attached, are minute
excerpts from the May 17, 2004 City Council meeting (see Attachment 2).
Numerous issues have been raised,throughout the public hearingzprocess however the main issue
continues to be the proposed density of the project. This issue ultimately led the Planning
Commission to unanimously recommend denying the General Plan Amendment (and, by
extension, the .other requested entitlements) that would allow'the increased density.
The subject property currently has a. General Plan designation of '.Rural, (0.0 -0.5 du/ac). Under the
current General Plan land use designation, the applicant would be potentially allowed to_ build a
total of five. (5) single - family, residences'. The applicant is requesting a - General Plan Amendment
from Rural Residential �(0.0 -03 du/ac) to ,Suburban (0.6 -2` 0 du/ac): The Suburban land use
designation would ;potentially allow tle, development of twenty -two (22) single- family residences
(the proposal is for .2`1 single-family dwellings). Under the current County zoning, (AR- B6 -2),
which has a two -acre density, staff was informed that that the subject property has the potential
to be .developed with'' "5 single family units and 5 secondary dwelling units (secondary dwelling
units are not counted as density).
If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission recomrnendatiorixegarding the General Plan
Amendment all',other,issues requested entitlements become moot. Staff has provided the
Council d draft - Resolution of )dnial (Attachment 1) if this 'is 'the desired - action.
Conversely, if there is support for the General Plan Amendment as proposed (21units), the
Council would. need to assess the draft review environmental document (Initial Study /Mitigated
Negative Declaration) for adequacy and evaluate the proposed project' on its merits. Council
should then continue the item in order for staff to prepare the appropriate approval legislation.
If the Council is' supportive of a project on this site with reduced density, direction should be
provided -to the applicant as to ah.acceptable total number of housing units. Please remember that
any increase of the number of housing units over the five currently allowed by the General Plan
still requires the Council to approve a General Plan Amendment and to make the required
findings to support such an amendment; If Council chooses to take this option, the applicant and,
staff should be directed' to revise the * Oct recirculate a.modified- environmental document and
return to the Council on a date to be determined. The Council should also consider whether or
not it would'be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the revised,-project before it
comes back. to Council. Also, if the Council chooses to take this option, 'it, potentially may
require the requested prezoning application to change. The applicant is currently seeking to
prezone to RI 10,000.
At the Council meeting of May 17, 2004, Council requested additional information on several
specific some issues and or questions. Responses to'these issues follow:
® Development fees-to be gained. by this project
Staff calculated an estimate of the Development Impact fees for the proposed project.
Since the exact size of the homes is unknown at this time, an average home size was
used. The estimated total impact fees per home, using an average, home size of 3,150
square feet, would be $31,844.00. With 21 homes, the estimated total 'would be
$668,724.00.
In addition to Development Impact Fees,, there would be Final Subdivision Map fees
($2,55,0:00), Public. Improvernent/Public Construction & Inspection, fees ( <= $ SOOO,OOOc 6
% of engineers estimate or $1,890; whichever is greater + staff time and' > materials; or,
>$5000,000 but <= $1,000,000: 4 % of engineers estimate + staff time and materials; or,
$1,000,000: 2 % of engineers estimate+ staff time and materials) See Attachment 4 for
the Development Impact and Community Development Department fee sheet.
m. Traffic .
Please refer to Attachment 6, a letter from Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties
dated June 4 .2004. Ms. Buxton's letter includes . additional information', from Allan
Tilton of W- Trans, the project traffic engineer:
® Badger Habitat.
Attached are two.letters `from the:Department of Fish and Game (DFG), (dated March 1.1,
2002 and May 10, 2004). The first letter from the Department of Fish and Game° "states
that the project, as proposed, will impact on -site badger dens and that because of the
impacted habitat loss,. DFG recommends mitigation utilizing the remaining undeveloped
portions of the project for long -term badger habitat ;and protection as a conservation
easement. DFG also recommended that footing walls be used adjacent to badger habitat
which extend some,epth into ,the soil to prevent badger, access to the, lots under fences
and walls. DFG recommended that any trail designed be with minimal impact and that
the use of porous material such,as blue shale be utilized.
The May 10, 2004 letter from DFG notes a meeting on -site by city staff, the developer
and DFG on March 25, 2004. The purpose of the meeting was to reach. agreement on the
biological resource issues 'associated with the proposed project: This letter notes that the
applicant, has retained Dr' Tom Kuceral to perform a badger burrow exclusion study:.
DFG' notes previous works of Dr. Kucera ';and` several discussions regarding the project
2
site., Dr. Kucera intends to exclude all badgers from the impact area well after any
juveniles have .dispersed following breeding season. This action is being proposed to
reduce impact to any on -site badgers. DFG requested that Dr. Kucera's work be
p g xcluson project
summarized in a report to review and comment before bad er e
• commences. Attachment' .5 is the report prepared by Dr. Kucera. With regards to the
open space easement, DFG is aware ' that there will be' an emergency vehicle access
(EVA), pedestrian path and tree planting as well as the detention pond. Given that the
applicant is proposing'that the'future Homeowner's Association would maintain the open
space, .DFG will work with the applicant and the City to finalize the Homeowner's open
space easement agreement
Department of Fish ,and Game is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and' is responsible for. the conservation, protection
and management of the State's biological resources. Staff and the applicant will be
required to work with DFG'to appropriately address the , -issue. of badgers.
In, a letter from Marti Buxton of Mission 'Valley Properties dated .June 4, 2004
(Attachment 6), Ms: Buxton also responds to the Councils, questions /concerns badgers and
their habitat.
® Drainage/Hydrology
In a letter, from 'Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties dated June 4, 2004
(Attachment 6), Ms. Buxtoii responds to the Councils questions /concerns regarding
Buxton, and finds �t�to be fable,, Attached � is an eemail a 'informati'on from Ms.
drainage Y gY Y g
regarding comments1 that ''were made by the public during the from Steven process with
hearing process with
regards to. drainage (Attachment 6). Mr. LaFranchi's e-mail states that it was implied that
he had reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by , SW 'Stuber- Stroeh and was in
disagreement with their findings. Mt.'LaFranchi warited to clarify that to this date he has
not been asked to review any Work related to this project.
.® Potential of purchase. of the property for open,,space..
A letter from the'; Open Space District is attached ,(see Attachment •9): QSD has stated
that they have beeri, non- committal with the memb,ers,of P.L.A.N. regarding the subject
property. OSD: stated'' lidt they explamed the process to P.L-.AX, and informed P.L.A.N.
'that funding sources for the purchase of open space is limited and that there were other
properties that had a,higherlpriority that OSD- Was pursuing.
Attachments:
I. "Draft" Resolution ofDenial.
2. City Council Minute Excerpts of May 17,'2004..
3. Development Impact Fee Calculations and Community Development Fee Sheet.
4. Letters dated Mar_ ch 11, 2002 and May 10, 2004 from the Department of Fish and
Game.,.
5. Report from Dr. 'Kucera dated May 5, 2004.
6. Letter from, Marti ,Buxton of Mission Valley Properties dated June 4, 2004, including
information from Allan Tilton of W- Trans.
7. E- mail.from Steven. T: LaFranchi dated May 29, 2004.
8. Letter from.Margo N. Bradish of Cox, Castle, Nicholson dated June 11, 2004.
9. Letter from Maria Cipriani of the Open Space District dated June 10, 2004.
10. Letter from JRP Historical Consultants dated 11, 2004.
SACC -City Council\Memos \paula lane subdivision 6 -21 -04 34th draft'by'18'.'doc
0
I *
4