HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.B-Attch09 09/13/2004•
•
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department, 11 English. Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) ,778-4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E inail: cdd,&' etalumaxa.us
DATE: April 6, 2004
TO: Planning Commission.
FROM: Irene'T. Barba, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Rivas Subdivision
Attached is an a -mail, from received Susan Kirks! dated April 5; 2004 , pertaining to the Rivas
Subdivision proposal. Ms: Kirks e -mail, raises concerns regarding the project proposal with
regards to feathering and;. environmental ,impacts.
In response to Ms. Kirks, the ,,sub* . is within the Uiban Growth Boundaries (UGB).
The property will be required to 'be Prezoned' and annexed .into the City of Petaluma. The
Petaluma General Plan.designates this land as Suburban, having'a density range of 0.6 to 2.0 units
,per acre; the project proposal meets this requirement: The proposal requests that the property be
Prezoned to R -1 20,000: The subject parcels are in conformance with the applicable R1 -20, 000
development standards.
With regards to Ms. Kirks.concems regarding the environmental :review'- process, staff conducted
an Initial Study "for theproject.proposal'.(aitached to the staff report). Staff is recommending that
the Commission forward.a recommendation to the City Council to adopt aNegative Declaration as
part of the project approval. Under Section 153 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project proposal
would be exempt from'the California Environmental' Quality Act, however, because the project site
includes an Annexation, an °Initial. Study was conducted to determine potential project impacts.
The Initial Study determined that.the project proposal impacts would -he less..than significant.
Attachment:
E -mail from, Susan Kirks dated April 5 2004
c: File- Rivas Subdivision
CSW Stub'er Stroeh -Edie Robbins
s /pc- planning cominilss "ion /memos /rivas'subdivision
ATTACHMENT 9
.'Borba, Irene
rom:; ) pasture @aol.com
ent "' Monday, April' 05, 2004 111:25 PM
7. , o; Borba,`Irene
Subject: Rivas S ubdivision
4/,5/04
Dear Irene,
Unfortunately, I do not have As much time or energy to devote to, considering
this development proposal as I would like. I had never heard of this prior to
receiving the planning commission not`i`ce; yet the property I is apparently
d'irect'ly east of the Paula Lane .area where I` live.
As I and my neighbors explained during the Paula Lune proposal'process,
Bantam Way is not part of the Pau -la Lane neighborhood, Arid the t=raffic study that
included.'Bantam Way traffic was not relevant- traffic pat terns . on the lane.
Nevertheless, because the Rivas land is apparently on the north side of
Bantam and at the far north end, it i)s 1 re'ctly across from mid Paula Lane between
Bodega and Sunset.
Because our' neighborhood is irnv in General 'P, an • ('nevi s'ion) 'workshops and
preparing for the city counci:1 review of, the Paul_a.;Lane issue many neighbors
do not even time to read the public notice they received.
I. believe the timing of scheduling this Riva's.Subd >ivision planning commission
hearing is inconvenient for many who,live in this area.
M j h ,spoke with my neighbors who .lives at .240 Paula -across the road on the east
e of the lane, almost abutting this Rivas property and they did not
_ceive a public notice.
Having said this, I wish to relate some comments and concerns. I would
appreciate my email being considered a letter for the'publie.record and would like
for the planning commissioners arid,'Counclmember Harris to receive a copy,
please.
I came to the planning department and. looked through the file as best as I
could today. Following are my comments and concerns:
1. Description: The 'description, omits the west and east slides`. of 'the
property. West is the Fenk /Miller hand., which 'is one of Paula Lane''s. early 1900 0Is
farm properties, still ,intact;., with,his'tori,cal integrity'. I =live across the
road from the Fenk,pr-operty on 6- ac Jewish chicken'farm, another farm
ko ert that° is intact; ,with his!tor"
p p y :ical integrity. East of. the Rivas property is
the Westview Estates. west end:.i That planned unit development was :developed
fully faith, I believe,, '40 feet, of, open space somewhere in the midst: of the PUD,
and the concept of 'feathering` to be larger lots with even larger
houses at the west end1 of. the ',PUD:
I would like to see the concept of feathering and approaehihq the urban
growth boundary con's'idered in this proposal.
In terms of land uses,; I-beli.eve a 2 acre lot, with one house and ai granny unit
is appropriate. I do not "believe dividing a.2 acre lot into 3 smaller lots
is congruent with the area where th'i's land is located. ,
the. same time, as I drove 'up Bantam Way, I could not determine ;exact -ly
re this is. If it is' the very north end of Bantam Way on. the west side of
antam Way, then we are talking about a hillside proposal..,
And;, in.this area are several very tall °mature trees that.a�re.Used as nesting
sites by raptors, including the" white - tailed kite And sharp- shinned hawk as
migratory birds, and red - shouldered and red- tailed hawks as resident birds.
This would be part of the discovery and documentation of an environmental
eview, which leads me to #2.
2. Environmental Review. •
I could not find one. I found an environmental questionnaire completed.by
the property owners. That was it.
The Fenk property has had ,American Badger activity on in the not too distant
past. We have not seen any in the last several months.:. We believe th >is is
due to the construction of an over - sized` house on a :small lot on, 'Bantam Way just.
east of the. Fenk property,. To create the foundation for that. house required
drilling J0 -foot
holes and pouring, cement to stab ,ldze the foundation. The'
noise, and diurnal vibration from this one house construction alone was
tremendous. Badger dens along the fenceline apparently disappeared at that time. I
confirmed a similar situation with a property owner on Haverf,ield Lane. NW of
Paula.Larfe,•where a similar foundation.was,,placed on •a 6 -acre piece of land that
had for years had'badger activity on it and now no. more. This
strengthened our resolve in•our neighborhood to ensure protection °and preservation of the
badger .habitat in. the Paula Lane corridor. The house on Bantam Way I. have.
described i so large, it was .appar'ently constructed too far back on the small
lot and I understand the owner cannot access the back yard or what little there
was to be considered a back ,yard -for lands'c'aping. This is hearsay, but I did
hear it from.a neighbor who had apparently spoken with the property owner who
built the house:
I do believe.an assessment of wildlife habitat and potential impact ,on
biological resources, .because of the location of this land, should be carried out.
The environmental :questionnaire for the Rivas, proposal has some answers. that
I would dispute- These include:
#23. Would this cause a change in. scenic vistas, views or from existing
residential areas,or public lands or roads ?" The owners felt "no." I' believe the
response would be "yes.."
#26. Would this cause :a change in dust,_ ash, smoke,, fumes or odors in the
vicinity ?" The owners, felt 'Ino,." I believe the answer could. well be "yes,"
given grading activities, hillside location„ and high winds in the area -. As I'
have rescued 'animals in the process of rehabilitation east of this property,- I
have concern -i <n this regard.
#:27. Would this, cause ; a change in ocean, bay lakes.,, stream or groundwater
quality or quantity or alteration of existing drainage patterns.? The owners
fe'l't "noc" I;bedieve the answer would be "yes There would be: an Increase in
drainage and there would be loss of groundwater recharge area.
#28. Would there, ;be a subst'arital change in existing noise or .vibration
levels in this vicinity ?" The owners felt "no." I would say, most definitely,
the answer is " to this question.
- The noise level from construction activities a!s well as diurnal
vibration levels would be Significant for the 'residents west of 'this property.
I did not •see a ; question about lighting impacts., I did read a statement that
said 'there was no information about street lights or lighting.
This is a significant" area of. environmental impact. C -y, If this is
the prbper:t"y I, am, thinking of, there is NO n'ightime lighting in that area.;. This
is a known area of high populations of nocturnal wildlife. There'may•be ;some
lighting toward the;,property from Westv:iew Estates,, as I. know this area of
Paula Lane is,negati'vely 'impacted by hillside lighting from that P.UD. This is
an area that should be very carefully considered. 'The area is contiguous to
the Paula,. Lane ne1,ghb6r1i6od. We have a highly sensitive environmental balance
with wildlife here ,currently, and we: want to maintain the quiet, dark -
atmosphere that- allows nocturnal wildlife that has been displaced here in high numbers
to survive. I -f any :pr-opos'al is approved ,f'or that area of Bantam Way, there
2
e:
should be, no ,str likghtng and strong consideration should be given to house
lighting,d:es gn to•minim ize environmental iimpa..ct BECAUSE of, the "area in which
this land exists.
stl_y, the area gf safety and 'water, pre - s.sure z eem�to be relevant, based
what I read. It appeared they fenally got .a reading of a 20.57 on afire
,hydrant, with :20. ps ,e as. we a1.;1_ know,_,being the' minimal acceptable °city;'
level of fire hydrant static press,ur.e.. I' noted that Ed'e Robbins who 'tested and
retested the pressures on P,au1a Lane for CSW%S tuber - S:troeh /,MisSion Valley ,.s
the same engineer 'who got the .pressure readings >,.to be 0: above the minimal
acceptable standard °`for the Rva's proposal.
In my opinion, the most appropriate land use for this, property, f it i the
north end of Bantam. Way, the hillside property -, would''be one lot of 2 acres
with one reasonably sized house and.a granny unit, with city water and with
septic, not city sewage.
I believe potential significant impacts 'exist regarding "quality of life of
mysel -f.and my neighbors, noise impact, lighting impact, afety and health of my
rescued animals from' dust an& ddr sruction activities
t and, ;certainly, the
safety and habitat of wildlife!, taking away more - foragi -#g area,. result in loss of
Op space on a hillside, and pos's�i- ly.other impacts.
At this.time, I respectfully , submit these comments about the "Rivas Minor
Subdivision proposal.
I wish to thank the planning and Councilmember.Harris for
considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Susan Kirks, 245 Paula Lane, ;Petaluma, 949'52
•
3