HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 15.A 02/03/2003F E B
CITY OF .PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2
MEMORANDUM
3
4 Community. Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E- mail. planning@dpetaluma.ca.us
6 -
7 DATE: February 3, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.
8
9 TO: City Council
10
4 ''
11 FROM: Betsi Lewitte - r Pro Planner
12 '
13 SUBJECT: MAGNOLIA ,PLACE SUBDIVISION
14 General Plan Map Amendment, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map,
15 Prezoning and Annexation
16 1 Magnolia,Avenue;.I 11,1 Gossage Avenue
17 APN 048 -141 -012; 048 -131 -027
18
19
20
21 This item was original scheduled for review by the City Council on August 5 2002. The item
22 was removed from that agenda at the 'request of the applicant. Prior to the removal request, the
23 Council received a .staff report and numerous attachments, 'including a binder of the studies
24 completed by the applicant's consultants as well as the peer °reviews commissioned by City staff.
25
26 Due to the volume of materials previously supplied to the Council, new packets are only being
27 sent to the recently elected Mayor and Council members.
28
29 Attached to this memo are two additional communications sent to the Community Development
30 Department after the original packet was sent to the Council one in opposition to the project
31 and one in favor, of it. Also attached is a draft resolution, for the Council's approval regarding the
32 proposed annexation that was inadvertently left out of the previous packet.
33
34 Please contact the Community Development Department at 778 -4301 if you have any questions
35 or need additional materials.
Rev. 02/23/00 Page 1 sAtemplate \PC
.. j
i
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
As a resident of Petaluma, I encourage you to vote in favor of the
.Magnolia Place project. L support the project because I want a park,
especially ---one. ihat'comes' at' no"cosf to PIi'e "taxpayer. ` '62% of the
Magnolia site will be preserved as park and open space. The limited
development is a good trade -off for the public benefit of the park and the
street and sidewalk improvements: Think about the good of the whole
community and after two decades of waiting, give us the paz'k at
Magnolia Place.
(Additional comments):
Dear Mayor and City Council tubers:
As a resident of Petaluma, I encourage you' tb vote in favor of the
Magnolia Place project: I support the project because I
want a park,
especially one that comes; at no cost to the taxpayer. 62% of the
! Magnolia site will be preserved as park and open ;space. The limited
' <�i�elop meat is a good t rage -off for the public benefit of the park, and the
street and sidewalk improvements. Think about the good of the whole
community and after two decades of waiting, give us the park at
Magnolia Place.
(Additional comnzen .
L A �
Sign ed. 1 r
Y\
... V-
1;
hJ
i ,
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'PETALUMA
3 MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
4 (LAFCO) TO INITIATE PROCEEIDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION OF TWO
5 PARCELS. TOTALING 24.42 + /- ACRES KNOWN AS MAGNOLIA PLACE TO BE
6 LOCATED AT MAGNOLIA AND GOSSAGE AVENUES,
7 APNs 048- 1.41 -012 &'048-132-027.
�. .. 8-------`--
u, _. ._, ....... -- PURSUANT °TO T-`HE CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT —....... --- -- ._.- ..- - -. _ ,
9 REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985
10
11
12 WHEREAS, after public review and 'input, the City Council of the City of Petaluma adopted
13 under Resolution No. ....N.C.S., the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Magnolia Place
14 subdivision; and
15
16 WHEREAS, in order to implement the project it is necessary to annex property known as
17 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0487 141 -012 & 048 -132 -027;
18
19 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act
20 (Government Code 35000 et. Seq.) the Petaluma City Council hereby supports application to the
21 Local Agency Formation Commission of Sonoma County for a proposed reorganization as
22 follows:
23
24 An annexation of an approximately 17.05' acre parcel located at 1 °1`20 Magnolia Avenue, known
25 as Assessor's Parcel Number 048 - 141 -012 and an approximately 7.37 acre parcel located at 1111
26 Gossage Avenue, known as Assessor's Parcel Number 048 -132 7 027, to the corporate boundaries
27 of the City of Petaluma;
28
29 Said territory at 1120 Magnolia Avenue 'is developed with a single residence and associated
30 outbuildings, and is comprised of approximately 17.05 acres; said territory at 1111 Gossage
31 Avenue is developed with four chicken houses, two mobile homes and an accessory structure, as
32 is comprised of approximately 737 acres, as described on the Magnolia Place Tentative Map.
33
34 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for the requested reorganization are:
35
36 1. The property is contiguous to the City and is within the adopted Sphere of Influence and
37 General Plan Urban Limit Line of the City of Petaluma.
38 2. The City has completed an environmental review process for the area, which culminated
39 in the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4o 3. The owner of said property has initiated said annexation.
41 4. By Ordinance .No. NCS, the City of Petaluma has prezoned the affected 24.42 -acre
42 property to Planned Unit, Development.
43 5. The annexation is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan, as
44 documented in the ordinance to prezone the property and the Resolution approving the
45 pre- Tentative Parcel Map for the Magnolia Place subdivision.
46 6. This annexation will enable several provisions of the General Plan to be achieved,
.47 including: orderly improvement of City infrastructure, preservation of the city's Urban
F-
w
1 Limit Line, and preservation of County land use including residential and agricultural
2 uses'.
3
4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
5 Act (CEQA) and its 'Guidelines have been satisfied -and thoroughly addressed in the: Mitigated
6 Negative Declaration adopted by City Council Resolution No. N.C.S., dri February 3, 2003, and
7 incorporated herein by-reference.
9 The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with
10 the Executive Officer of the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 S: \CC- CityCouncil\ resolutions \magnoliaplaceannexation.doc
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL
Menda. Title Magnolia Place Subdivision. Discussion and Meeting Date: August 5, 2002
possible action regarding; A) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Magnolia Place Subdivision (APN 048 - 141 -0i2
and 045 -132 -027) to be located on. two parcels totaling 24.42 acres
on Magnolia and Gossage Avenues west of Cypress Hills
Cemetery; B) Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use Designations for an 8.76 acre portion of the
Magnolia Avenue site from . "Proposed Public Park" to "Urban
from Suburban Re sidential - to "Urban' _ tandard C? Introd site
Standard" and to redesignate the 7 acre Gossage A „� l
"Suburban. , „ ) uction
of an Ordinance approving prezoning to Planned Unit Development
District (PUD); D) Resolution approving Planned Unit
Development Plan; E) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map to divide the 24.42 acres .into 47 residential lots,
leaving 8.28 acres to be dedicated to the City for a neighborhood
public park.
1120 Magnolia Avenue /1111 Gossage Avenue
Project File Nos. ANX00001, TSM00002,.'PRE00011, PUD00006
Department Director Contact Person Phone Number
Community Michael .M , Betsi Lewitte� 778 -4301
Development
Cost of Proposal N/A
Amount Budeeted N/A
Account Number N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
A. April 9, 2002, Planning Commission Staff Report with the following attachments:
1. Draft Findings for Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Draft Findings for Approval of General Plan Amendment
3. Draft Findings for Approval of Prezoning to Planned Unit Development District (PUD)
4. Draft Findings for Approval';of,Adoption of Planned Unit Development Standards
5. Draft Findings for Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
6. Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval
7. Context Maps
8. General Plan Map
9. Reduced Plans (Attached separately to City Council Staff Report as Attachment H)
10. Study Binder (Attached separately to City Council Staff Report as Attachment I)
11. Kleinfelder Peer Review of Biological Resources Report, (Amphibian Site Assessment) dated
December 14, 2001, and California Department of Fish and Game review of Amphibian Site
Assessment dated November 21, 2002.
12. Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
13. Correspondence Received (includes correspondence submitted after Planning Commission
meeting)
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item, continued
14. SPARC Preliminary Review Staff Report and Minutes
15. Magnolia Place Custom Lots Design Guidelines and Planned Unit Development Standards
B. April 9, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes
C. Draft City Council Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. Draft City Council Resolution Approving the General Plan. Land Use Map Amendment,
.-E—Draft City.Council Ordinance Prezoning the project, area -to- Planned Unit- D'evelopment -,- -° -
F. Draft, City Council Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Plan
G. Draft City Council Resolution Approving the Vested Tentative Map
H. Reduced Plans
I. Study Binder
J. Public Notice and 500 foot notification list
Summary Statement
The application was submitted in July of 2000. Following peer 'reviews of studies `submitted with to
application; preliminary review by the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission and the Site Plan and
itt and
Architectural Review Commee ;. te Initial Study comment period, the Planning Commission held a.
public hearing on the project on April 9, 2002. After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission
forwarded a recommendation for denial of the project.
Council Priority THIS.AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TQ BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR
MORE OF THE 2001 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY'COUNCIL ON JULY 21, 2001.
Priority(s): N/A
Recommended City Council Action /Sub ested Motion
The Planning .Commission has recommended to the City Council that the applications be denied; however,
Community Development's original recommendation to the Planning Commission and to the City Council
is:
1. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Approval of an Amendment to the General,Plan,Land Use Map to redesignate the approximately
6.55 acre development area and the 2:21 acres of private open space, on the Magnolia Avenue site
from "Proposed Public Park" to "Urban. Standard" and to redesignate the 7.37 acre Gossage
Avenue site from "Suburban Residential" to "Urban:Standard ".
3. Approval of prezoning of parcels to'Planned Unit Development District.
4. Approval of Planned Unit Development Plan,
5: Approval of Vesting Tentative Map.
Reviewed by Finance Director:
Reviewed by City Attorney
Date.:
Approved by City Manager
Date:
Date:
Today's Date :,
Revision# and Date Revised:
File'Code:
#
July 1, 2002
} CITY OF .PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
a AUGUST 5, 2002
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
Nagnolia Place Subdivision
Proposal for 47 residential lots on 2 contiguous parcel's outside City limits totaling 24.42' acres. Development to
occur on 1.6+ acres; 8.28 acres to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma for parkland. Requires amendments to
General Plan Map, prezoning to Planned Unit Development, approval of Planned Unit Development Plan,
_..approval. of Tentative.S ubdivision. Map and annexation.
1120 Magnolia Avenue /1111 Gossage Avenue
APN 048 - 141 - 012/048- 132;027
Project File Nos. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011, PUD00006
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mission Valley Properties has submitted an application for 1) Approval of a General Plan Land Use
Map Amendment to redesignate 8.76 acres of a 17 acre parcel on Magnolia Avenue from "Proposed
Public Park" to "Urban Standard" and to redesignate an entire 7.37 acre parcel on Gossage Avenue from
"Suburban Residential" to "Urban Standard "; 2) Approval of prezoning to Planned Unit Development
District; 3) Approval'of a Planned Unit Development Plan; and 4) Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.
The project area consists of two separate rectangular- shaped parcels totaling 24.42 acres. The applicant
desires to subdivide and build'30 homes on a 6.55 acre portion of a 17.05 acre site located on.Magnolia
Avenue west of the Cypress Hill Cemetery; 2.21 acres would be retained as private open space and 8.28
acres would be dedicated to "the City for a neighborhood park. The other 7.37 -acre site, located on
Gossage Avenue, would be subdivided into "17 custom residential lots with .27 acres retained as private
open space. Private open space areas would allow pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed
adjacent park. Both properties are aocated outside the City limits, but are within the Urban Growth
Boundary (Urban Limit. Line). The` properties are currently under County * jurisdiction and are zoned
Rural Residential. Approval of annexation by the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) would be required prior to development.
The remaining 8.28 acres on the Magnolia parcel would be dedicated to the City for parkland after the
applicant cleans up the property and reforests it with native trees. The applicant would also give the City
an annuity of S 100,000 for maintenance of the park. In addition, the developer would also be required to
pay Park and Recreation fees. The' City would develop plans for the park site after entitlements are
obtained and the site is annexed into the City.
In order to assist staff in the'preparation of the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts for this project,
the applicant submitted reports that studied the geotechnical, drainage, traffic, biological resources, tree,
cultural resources, air impacts and noise impacts of the proposed development. In order to ensure
completeness and accuracy of the reports, the City- arranged for peer review of the more complicated
studies. All the reports and peer reviews are in the study binder (attached to the City Council staff report
as Attachment I). `Based on the information in the studies, mitigation measures were developed to reduce
the impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the mitigation
measures into the project; therefore, staff recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan are included as Attachment 12 of the Planning
Commission staff report.
For more detailed information please see the attached Planning, Commission staff report.
2. BACKGROUND
I
The Magnolia Avenue site is shown on the General Plan Land: Use Map as "Proposed Public Park ", The
General Plan text.refers to the former eucalyptus grove on the site as a scenic resource and states that the
City should acquire a scenic easement or purchase it for a .park. However, -the property is not within the
City's - jurisdiction, and the owner logged the eucalyptus trees in 1998, leaving a great deal of debris
remaining on the, site. Because the property is privately owned, it would have to be purchased by the
City in order to develop the entire site as a park. According ° to Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr,
the City's budget does not now, nor will it in the foreseeable future, have sufficient funds to purchase
the site..
The project.was preliminarily reviewed by SPARC on two separate occasions. The Committee discussed
the amount of grading and need for retaining walls, the relationship of the proposed new development to
the existing neighborhood, redistribution of the lots, architectural styles and access to the park. After
both SPARC meetings, the applicant revised the plAnsl in response to comments, including elimination of
one custom lot to-provide a view corridor and additional access to the park.
The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission also reviewed the project twice. In August of 2001 the
Commission recommended:
1) . That the development proposal be rejected. The Commission's preference is for the entire. site to
become a park with the City finding a source of funding.
2) That the City encourage the Open Space District and County Supervisor Mike Kerns to develop
funding in order to acquire the site.
3) Defer further discussion until the General Plan process has an opportunity to receive fall
community
The Commission reiterated their recommendation .after taking testimony from neighbors at a meeting
held February 20, 2002. The Director of Parks and Recreation forwarded a memo (included in
Attachment 13 of the Planning Commission staff report), with the . Commission's recommendation..
However, Mr. Carr also included his own recommendation for approval of the project since it would
provide an opportunity for the City to acquire a park in the northwestern quadrant of Petaluma at no cost
to the City.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the project at two meetings. Their
memo is also included in Attachment 13 of the Planning Commission staff report. They noted that the
Magnolia property is designated for'parkland in the General Plan and stated that theydo not support and
would not evaluate plans for low- density residential housing on the site: However, they did outline
several conditions to be imposed if the project were approved (see Recommended Conditions of
Approval 27 through 31 in Planning Commission staff report Attachment 6 and Conditions. of Approval
57 through 60 in Draft Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Map — City Council staff report
Attachment G).
The Planning Commission held a public :hearing on;the project on April. 9, 2002. Speakers in support of
the project opined that allowing some needed housing in exchange for a City park free of cost was a
win/win situation. Some; ispeakers also preferred the proposed houses to the existing chicken ranch 'on
Gossage, Avenue. Speakers in opposition' to the project cited the lack of additional lands available for
parks in the northwest quadrant, the City's deficit in parkland per General Plan policies and support for
the existing_ General Plan designation. A representative of a neighborhood group, Citizens for Magnolia
Park, asked,for time to allow them to obtain financing to purchase the entire Magnolia Avenue property
for a park. The. Planning Commissioners ultimately concurred with the opponents of the project that the
existing General Plan designation should be supported. The majority agreed that the ,General Plan
r
promised that the Magnolia property would be a park and that the property should be preserved until
r Rinds are found to purchase it for a park. Five members of the Commission voted to recommend denial
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the basis that the project is'not supported by the General Plan,
-to recommend denial of the General Plan.Amendment based on the lack of consistency with the General
Plan, and to recommend denial of the PUD prezoning, PU-D .Development Plan and Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map based on their recommendation to deny the General Plan Amendments (one
Commissioner was , absent and the other abstained. from voting). Please see attached Planning
Commission minutes for detailed information.
3.. - -.- -- ALTERNATIVES
L Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment, prezoning.to Planned Unit Development, the Planned Unit Development Plan and
the Vesting Tentative Map, which would allow the applicant to apply to LAFCO for annexation.
2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment, prezoning to Planned Unit Development the Planned Unit Development Plan and
the Vesting Tentative Map, without prejudice,, which would allow the applicant to redesign the
project and submit another application.
Deny all aspects of the project with prejudice.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a private development project subject to any applicable City Special Development Fees. The
Magnolia Avenue site is under - private ownership. In order to develop it .as parkland, it would have to be
purchased either by the City or some other entity, such as the Open Space District. The Open Space
District has previously advised that acquiring this property is` a low priority. The City's Parks and
Recreation Director has stated there currently are no City -funds available for purchasing the property. If
the project were approved, the developer would cleanup, reforest and dedicate 8.28 acres to the City. A
$100,000 annuity would be-' en to the City for park maintenance.
The City has entered into a cost recovery. contract with the developer to pay for the services of a contract
planner to process the application.. To `date, the applicant has deposited $24,211 of which $17,151 has
been used.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the project based on the fact that the Magnolia
Avenue property' is shown on the General Plan as "Proposed Public Park ", and their commitment as the
"keepers of the General Plan ". However, General Plans are guidelines for development over a to 20
year period. Because of unforeseen circumstances during the period of time for which a General Plan
guides development state law allows the General Plan to be changed up to four times a year. The project
is supported by numerous other goals, policies and objectives in the General Plan. (Please see page 5 of
the Initial Study — attached to the Planning Commission staff report as attachment 12.) Therefore, staff
continues to recommend approval of the application.
6. OUTCOMES' OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTs THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION:
N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the project stating that the General Plan
designation of the Proposed Public Park site should be retained. Staff is recommending that the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the findings outlined in the draft resolution,
and approve the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, the prezoning fo PUS, the PUD
Development Plan and the Vesting Tentative Map for the Magnolia Place Subdivision subjecfi to the
conditions of approval included in the Vesting Tentative Map resolution.
SACC -City. Council\Repbrts\map olia place agenda billrevised.doc
I
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2 MEMORANDUM
4 Commun ity Development Department, Planning. Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) 778 -4301 Fax.(707) 778 -4498 E- mail planning@ei.petaluma.ca.us
6
7 DATE: April 9, 2002 _.__r_... . __. _ AGENDA ITEM NO. I
w.. _ 8
9 TO: Planning Commission
10
11 FROM: Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: Magnolia Place' Subdivision
14 Proposal for 47 residential lots on 2 contiguous parcels outside City limits totaling
15 24.42 acres. Development to occur on 16 +;acres ; 8.28 acres to be dedicated to the
16 City of Petaluma for parkland. Requires amendments to General Plan Map,
17 prezoning to Planned Unit'. Development, approval.. of Planned Unit Development
18 Plan, approval of Tentative Subdivision Map and annexation.
19 1120 Magnolia Avenue /.1111 Gossage Avenue
20 APN 048 - 141. - 012/04'8- 132 -027
21 Project File No(s): ANX0000I, TSM00002, PRE000'11, PUD00006
22
23
24 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
25
26 1. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative
27 Declaration for the project.
28
29 2. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve:
30 a. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate the approximately
31 6.55 acre development area and the 2.21 acres of private open space on the Magnolia
32 Avenue site from Public Park to Urban Standard and to redesignate the 7.37 acre
33 Gossage Avenue site from.Suburban Residential to Urban Standard;
34 b. Prezoning to Planned Unit Development District (PUD);
35 c. A Planned Unit;DevelopmentP.lan; and
36 d. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision.Map
37
38
"FRO EC-t
40
41 Project Planner: Betsi Lewitter
42
43 Project Applicant: Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properties
44 -
Page 1
a.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Property Owner: Magnolia site: Lucretia McNear Thomas Trust,.c /o Robert Thomas
Gossage site: Allen and Marcia Shainsky, c/o Lakeville Growers
Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: Samuel Drive
Property Size:
Magnolia Avenue site: 17.05 acres Gossage Avenue.site: '7.37 acres
8 Site Characteristics
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
__ 17
18
19
20-
21
22
23
24
25
26
. 27
28
29
30
31
^2
34
35
36
37
ro
The project t ;area consists of two separate rectangular - shaped. parcels -- .
totaling 24.42 acres. The larger' Magnolia Avenue parcel. is a grass -
covered hillside with areas of trees and. dense. brush. Hillside slopes range
from 6 to 25 percent, with the steepest slopes on the hillside bordering the
western edge. The property owner harvested most of the eucalyptus trees
on the site in 1998; some of the eucalyptus trees :have since sprouted. The
majority of the remaining trees on the site are coast live oaks. The second;
smaller parcel has slopes, of less than 5 percent, and is mainly .grass
covered with areas of bare earth. Drainage swales and- culverts carry
runoff to a roadside ditch along Gossage Avenue.
Existing'Use: The Magnolia Avenue site contains a single- family residence, concrete
water tank and dirt roads. The Gossage Avenue site is- improved with four
rectangular chicken coops of 12,000 to 20,000 square feet each, a trailer, a
domestic well, an aboveground tank and a partially buried concrete vault.
Proposed Use: The developer proposes to subdivide and build 30 homes on a 6.55 =acre
portion of the 17.05 -acre Magnolia site. Approximately 2.21 of the site
would be private open space and the remaining 8.28 acres would be
dedicated to the City, for a 'neighborhood park. The Gossage site is
proposed to be subdivided. into 17 custom residential lots; another .27
acres would be retained as private open space and would allow access to
the park area.
Current Zoning; Roth properties are currently within County jurisdiction and are zoned
Rural Residential
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting Planned Unit Development District (PUD)
prezoning.
38 Current General Plan Land Use: The Magnolia Avenue site is currently designated. Proposed
39 Public Park; the Gossage Avenue site is currently
41 .
41 designated:Suburban Residential (0.6 to 2.0 du/acre).
42 .Proposed General Plan Land Use: Magnolia. Avenue site: Urban Standard (2.1 to 5.0 du/acre)
43 and Public Park. Gossage Avenue site: Urban Standard.
44
45
46
Page 2
I
„41 1 ,Subsequent Actions if Project &,Approved:
2
3 e City Council Review and Approval
4 e Approval of Annexation byLAFCO
5 e Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Review and Approval
6 a Improvements Plans/Final Map.
7 e Building Permits
8
9 �'RO�DE ®S�RIP°PBO�
10
11 APPROVAL REQUESTED
12
13 The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into 47 single - family residential lots. Thirty
14 of the lots; ranging in size from 5,1 to 11,545 square feet, would be located on a 6.55 -acre
15 portion of the .17.05 -acre Magnolia, Avenue site. The upper 8.28 acres is proposed to be
16 dedicated to the City of Petalurria.for a neighborhood park and the remaining 2.21 acres along
17 Magnolia Avenue would be retained as private open space, resulting in approximately 61.5
18 percent of this site preserved as public and private open space. A Homeowners Association will
19 maintain the private open space; however, public access to the park through the private open
20 space will be provided. A rock-clad bridge, with pedestrian walkways on both sides of the
21 structure, will span the drainage swale along Magnolia Avenue to provide access to the 30
22 houses and the public park.
23
24 The 7.37 -acre Gossage Avenue site would'be divided into 17 custom residential lots ranging in
25 size from 8,686, to 25,248 square feet. Another 11,665 square feet would be retained as private
26 open space, which would also allow public access and a view corridor to the park. The main
27 access to the custom homes will be via Samuel Drive. Lots 39 and 40 are to be accessed via an
28 access easement off Gossage Avenue. Lots 37, 38, 41 and 42 would be accessed from a private
29 driveway off the extension of Samuel Drive into the subdivision.
30
31 Four storm drain systems, five; detainment systems (three detention :basins and two underground
32 detention systems) are proposed to address water runoff caused by an increase in the amount of
33 impervious surfaces. A condition of approval requires that the Homeowners Association be
34 responsible for the maintenance of the storm drain and detention systems within the public right -
35 of -way and parcels A (public park); B (private open space), C (emergericy vehicle access) and D
36 (private open space).
37
38 The two sites are to be graded and improved at the .same time. The developer expects the
39 infrastructure improvements to take approximately 6 months; construction of the production
40 homes is to occur over: 22 months with 10 units being completed per phase. The custom homes
41 will be owner designed and constructed; it is anticipated the homes will be, built over a 30 -month
42 period. The preliminary grading calculations for the entire project site are estimated at 28,800
43 cubic yards of cut and 26,400 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 22 percent of'the grading will
44 be for roadways, approximately 72 percent will be for building pads and approximately 5 percent
Page 3
I will be for detention ponds. The proponents anticipate that as the project becomes, more refined,
2 all excess material will be used on site. No off hauling or on hauling of material is anticipated.
3
4 SETTING
6 The project site consists of two separate, rectangular- shaped parcels totaling 24.42 acres located
7 outside the western. City limits (see context snap, Attachment 7). Both parcels are within the
8 City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Limit Line (Urban Growth Boundary).
10 The largest parcel, consisting of 17.05 acres, is located on the north side of Magnolia. Avenue
11 east of the Kazen Residential Subdivision Unit Three and west of the Cypress Hill Cemetery.
12 Rural residential uses occur to the north. The parcel is a grass- covered hillside with, areas of `trees
13 and dense brush. Hillside slopes range from 6 to 25 percent, with the steepest slopes on the
14 hillside bordering the western edge of the property. The site contains a. drainage Swale and a-
15 roadside drainage channel along Magnolia Avenue that are subject to Army Corps of
16 Engineering regulation. Total jurisdictional area on the site equals 0.55 acres; consisting of.0.45
17 acres_ of wetlands and 0.10 acres of other waters of the United States. An east to west -ridge
18 bisects the property and forces runoff to a small drainage ditch flowing parallel to Magnolia
19 Avenue. The site is currently improved with a residence, concrete water tank and dirt roads.
20
21 The smaller parcel is approximately 7.37 acres and is .located north of the Kazen Residential
22 Subdivision Unit Three and east of Gossage Road. Rural residential uses occur along Gossage
23 Road. Slopes on the property are less.than 5 percent. The ground is mainly grass .covered with
24 areas of bare earth. Drainage swaies and culverts carry`runoff to a roadside ditch along Gossage
25 Avenue. Existing development on the 'site. consists of four rectangular chicken coops of 12,000 to
26 20,000 square feet each, a trailer, a domestic well, an aboveground tank and a partially buried
27 concrete vault.
28
29 BACKGROUND
30
31 The Magnolia Avenue site is shown on the General Plan map as "Proposed Public Park ".
32 Chapter 7 .(page 5'8) of the General Plan states, "West of the river, the eucalyptus grove west of
33 Cypress Hills Cemetery °should be preserved in open space. It is one of the: few prominent groves
34 of trees in and around the city, and is a scenic resource. The City should acquire a scenic
35 easement or purchase it for park. However, the property is not within the City's jurisdiction, and
36 in 1998 the property owner harvested the eucalyptus trees leaving a great deal of debris
37 remaining on the site. Since that time, many of the blue gum eucalyptus stumps have ;sprouted.
38 Although the eucalyptus trees were considered a scenic resource, they are non - native, and
39 besides being ,a fire hazard, they are known to crowd out indigenous trees. Because the parcel is
40 privately owned, it would have to be purchased by the .City in order to develop it completely as
41 parkland. According to Parks and - Recreation Director Jim Carr, the City's budget does not have
42 sufficient funds either now or in the foreseeable future to purchase the. property. The 'Sonoma
43 County Open Space District has also informed the City that acquiring the proposed site is a very
44 Iow priority for the District in fight of their other priorities.
45
46 Other developers have shown interest in the subject property over the last several years. .In 1997,
47 an application for a preliminary review was received that proposed 47 single - family lots on a
Page 4
f° 1 12.4 acre portion of the property (density of 3.79 dwelling units per acne); the remaining 4.7
2 acres was to be dedicated to the' City for a ,park. However, no ,1998 housing allocations were
3 granted by the City Council ;for this project based upon the inconsistency of the development
4 proposal with the General Plan "Public Park" designation for the site.
5
6 1 In September of 1999, the Council granted one housing allocation reservation for 2001 to allow
7 the current developer to submit an application to the City for consideration. The application was
8 submitted . in July of 2000. Included with the application were geotechnical, drainage, traffic,
9 biological resources, tree and cultural resource studies. The City arranged for"peer reviews of the
10 more complicated reports to ensure accuracy. The reports were subsequently revised in response
11 to staff and peer review comments and were used to substantiate the findings in the Initial Study.
12
13 The proposal was preliminarily reviewed by SPARC on July 26 and October 25, 2001. At the
14 first meeting, the Committee discussed the amount of grading and need for retaining walls, the
15 relationship of the proposed new development to the existing neighborhood, redistribution of the
16 proposed lots, architectural styles, and access to the park: In response to comments, the plans
17 were revised and again reviewed by the Committee. In the revised plans, three lots were shifted
18 to the top of the development which resulted in the saving of an additional 20 oak trees. The
19 redistribution also reduced the amount of grading and the need for some of the retaining walls.
20 The number of custom home lots; on the, Gossage parcel was reduced from 18 to 17 to provide a
21 view corridor /access into the park. However, the Committee still voiced concerns regarding the
22 grading of flat pads on a hillside. The, Committee also reviewed two proposals for a connection
23 to Gossage: one provided only an access easement while the alternative showed a through street.
24 Although divided, the majority of the Committee preferred limiting access to Gossage. The staff
25 reports and minutes from the 'preliminary SPARC reviews are, attached- as Attachment 14.
26
27 The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission discussed the current project in August of 2001.
28 Following comments from neighbors, the Commission:recommended:
29
30 1. That the development proposal be rejected. The Commission's preference is for the entire
31 site to become a park, with the City finding a source of funding.
32 2. That the City encourage the Open Space District and County Supervisor Mike Kerns to
33 develop funding in order to acquire the site.
34 3. Defer further discussion until the General Plan process has an opportunity to receive full
35 community input.
36
37 Thel Commission reviewed the proposal again at their meeting of February 20, 2002. Staff
38 recommended the Commission recommend approval of the project as proposed since it would
39 provide an opportunity for- the City to acquire a park in the northwestern quadrant of Petaluma at
40 no cost to the City. The developer has also offered to clear the property of -"the: eucalyptus debris,
41 replant the site with native trees and give the City a maintenance annuity of $100,000 to care for
42 the park. However, after again taking testimony from neighbors, the Commission voted to
43 reiterate their recommendation of last year to reject the development proposal and for the City to
44 find a source of funding to - purchase the entire Magnolia Avenue property for a park. The
5 reiterates o Ck andsion r etion has forwarded a memo (included in Attachment 13) which
4
' commendation and outlines his own recommendation to approve
Page 5
I the project, The Director of Parks and Recreation has also advised staff that he believes the
2 $100,000 annuity will be sufficient to maintain the park.
3
4 STAFF ANALYSIS
6 General Plan Consistency
7 The project requires approval of a General Plan Map amendment to change .the designation of an
_ ... "Proposed
8 8 74- acre,portion of the Magnolia site from Public Park'
..to " Urban „;Standard" ;andAto- •.• -.• . -- •.. -•. - -.
9 change the designation of the Gossage site_ from "Suburban" residential to "Urban ^Standard".
to The remaining 8.28 acres of the Magnolia site would remain as " Public Park ". The "Ur'ban
11 Standard" designation permits a density of 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The project
12 proposes a density of 3.42 units per acre for the Magnolia Avenue site: (30 units on a
13 development area of .8.76 acres) and 2.31 units per acre for the Gossage Avenue site, with an
14 overall densityof2.91 dwelling units-per acre.
15
Th ee r d numerous General 1 Plan policies that relate to this proposal (Please see page -5 of Initial
17 y _ Attachment 12): The General Plan states an objective of supplying a..minimum
18 of
two acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000 population. The City currently has 87 acres of
19 neighborhood parkland. Assuming a population of approximately 54,500, this computes to
20 . approximately L16 acre, of neighborhood park per 1000 population.
21
22 Policies in Chapter 4, Land Use and Growth Management, require growth, to be contained within
23 the Urban .Limit Line (aka Urban Growth Boundary) and only in areas where ade City,
24 facilities are available or will be provided with the development. The Director of Water
25 Resources and Conservation has advised that the 'City is prepared to supply water and wastewater
26 services to this development.
27
.28 Pursuant to Policy 7 of Chapter 4, developments adjoining the Urban Limit Line, projects are to
29 be of limited density to cause a gradual and deliberate lessening of development intensity the.
30 urban edge and within the Urban Limit 'Line. The western edge of the Gossage 'site is adjacent to
31 the Urban Limit Line; the lots on this property increase.in size from approximately ..20 :acres to
32 .50 acres as they progress from the existing Samuel Drive subdivision to the western boundary
33 along Gossage.
34
35 General Plan Chapter 9, Housing, encourages a range, of housing types, including higher -value
36 homes. The Gossage Avenue site is already designated for residential development; the
37 requested General Plan Map amendment would redesignate 8.76 acres originally slated for
38 parkland into - housing. Under the current housing element timeframe, which ended. in 2001, .
39 Petaluma has met all. its fair share needs .for housing. Additional - housing needs for the 2001 to
40 2006 time period will be addressed in the new element. The developer will ' be required to
41 contribute, to the in -lieu housing fund per Policy' 10 of the General Plan Housing Element.
42
43 Zoning District Consistency
44 'The applicants are requesting that the City prezone the development site Planned Unit
45 Development District. Pursuant to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, a Unit
46 Development Plan (Sheet C3, Preliminary Site Plan) has been included which shows building
Page 6
envelo p es for the custom home lots, on the Gossage site and the production units planned for
m.. 1
2 each lot on the Magnolia site. The numbers on sheet C3 correspond to the elevations as follows:
3 plan 1 = plan 2400, shown on, sheet A2; plan 2 plan 2600, shown on sheet A3; plan 3 = plan
4 2800, shown on sheet A4, andplan 4 = -plan 2200, shown on sheet Al..
5
6 Development Standards for the 30 single- family detached homes on the Magnolia site have been
7 prepared. They include permitted and prohibited uses, maximum lot coverage, maximum
8 building heights, setbacks, fencing, etc. Design Guidelines for the custom homes on the Gossage
.._ ..._..___9__.. site -:have also been prepared and�require that each -of the custom-homes which are limited to no
10 more than 4,000 square feet. of living space, obtain SPA.RC approval. Staff has some concerns
11 regarding details in the Development Standards and Design Guidelines; these documents will be
12 subject to SPARC review. and approval. Specifically, the Development Standards for the
13 production homes prohibit all accessory structures for storage and contain other restrictions that
14 require clarification. The Design Guidelines for the custom homes do not address permitted uses
15 and also need definitions or other clarifications.
16
17 The development of the properties into a residential subdivision will address two existing
18 compatibility problems as identified b.y neighbors: 1) The redevelopment of the Gossage Avenue
19 site with residential units will eliminate the objectionable odors and noise produced by the
20 existing chicken ranch. The site is within the Urban Limit Line and designated for residential
21 development. 2) The development of the .Magnolia Avenue site will discourage homeless
22 individuals from camping on. the site. In addition, the dedication of the parkland to the City
23 would formalize the current use of the property by hikers. The proposed residential uses and
24 parkland will be compatible with the existing, surrounding development.
25
26 Other Public Agency Review
27 As previously stated, the wetlands on site are subject to Army Corps of Engineering regulation.
28 The construction of a detention.pond within the drainage ditch along Magnolia Avenue may also
29 require a Streambed Alteration,Permit from the Department of Fish and Game.
30
31 If the project is approved by the City of Petaluma, the applicant will be required to submit an
32 application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for a reorganization to allow
33 annexation.
34
35 Primary Issues
36 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
37 As previously stated, the project area is within the Urban Limit Line and Sphere of Influence.
38 One of the properties is designated for residential_ development; the other is designated as public
39 park. Some of the neighbors are consistent in their desire that this property be developed as a
40 park. However, the City currently has no funds to purchase and, improve the property and the
41 County Open Space District has stated that this . parcel is not a high priority. The developer
42 intends to dedicate 8.28 acres to the City, clean up the eucalyptus tree debris and plant
43 approximately 250 trees. (Also see page 5 of the Initial Study included as Attachment 12.)
44
45 Due to the slopes on the property the requirements of the Hillside Residential Development
46 Combining District (Zoning Ordinance Article 19.1) apply to the Magnolia Avenue portion of
47 the project. Based on the calculations supplied by the applicant's engineer for the developable
Page 7
I portion of the site only, the minimum allowable lot size would be 8,982_ square feet with a
2 maximum density of 36 units. The portion of the site to be dedicated to the City as parkland was
3 not included in the calculations per Section 19.1-200: C of the Zoning Ordinance which states
4 that the "average slope" of the "natural terrain of the area emcoinpassing the proposed
5 development" (emphasis added) should be used to determine the minimum parcel. size. The
6 proposed lot sizes are smaller than the 8 square feet. However, it has been determined that
wh « � e of resid u
, rninimum
8 parcel siz may be flexible o
as respond t to e sit conditions ns and the proposed,.;site plan.
However," of _yield shall remain as defined he_re m." The .City Attorney has confurned that, as
10 long as the density is not exceeded, the smaller lots meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
11
12 SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
13 The houses on the Magnolia site will be clustered on the southwester , portion of the site to avoid
14 the steeper slopes. Pursuant to the comments offered by SPARC during preliminary review; this
15 portion of the project was redesigned to reduce the amount of cut for building ;pads which in
16 turn, reduced the need for many of the previously proposed retaining. walls. The project
17 engineers estimate a total of 28,800 cubic yards of cut -.and 26,400 cubic yards of fi'1L As the
18 project becomes ;more it is expected that all materials will be used on site so that no
19 importation-or deportation of soil will be necessary.
20
21 CONTAMINATION
22 An environinental evaluation was conducted by Geomatrix" Consultants to assess potential
23 impacts to soil and groundwater on and immediately adjacent to the two properties based on
24 current and historical. site operations. A previous 1982 study by the California Department of
25 Water Resources found that numerous wells in the project vicinity had nitrate concentrations that
26 exceeded the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency'& maximum concentration limit. Operation
27 of the chicken ranch on the Gossage site was believed to ,have contributed to these, conditions;
28 however, the Department of Water Resources study also identified .other sources which were
29
likely contributors. The Geomatnx report was peenreviewed by Kleinfelder, and their comments
30 and questions were forwarded back to Geomatrix. Contaminants were not observed in any
of the
31 soil samples at concentrations that would represent a significant threat to human health. Residual
32 nitrates in the soil do not represent a signif cant risk to human health because houses will be
33 hooked up to the City's water system and subsurface water will not be used as a source of
34 drinking water. In addition, the groundwater was not observed in any of the geotechnical borings
35 (13 to 26 feet in depth), which suggested that people would not come in contact with.
36 groundwater. (Please see Tab 2 of the project study binder for the complete Environmental and
37 Geotechnical;Evaluations and peer review comments as well as the discussion on page 22 of the
38 Initial Study.)
39
40 TRAFFIC %CIRCULATION
41 The primary access to the,lVlagnolia project site will be via a bridge.across the drainage channel
42 along Magnolia Avenue. Eddie Way currently dead ends at the project site but appears to have
43 been designed as a through street. However, in response to neighbors' concerns regarding
44 additional traffic: in the Kazan ;Resdential Subdivision Unit Three, the connection between Eddie
45 Way and Magnolia Place is shown as an emergency vehicle access (EVA) only. Conditions of
46. approval require that the EVA also allow pedestrian and bicycle access.
47
s I Access to - the Gossage Avenue custom home sites will be via Samuel Way, which will end in a
2 cul -de -sac. Again, in response to, Gossage Avenue -neighbors' concerns access to Gossage will
3 be limited. Lots 36 and 43 wild gain access directly from the Samuel Drive extension cul -de -sac
4 (Street D) and lots 37, 38, 41 and 42 wily be accessed via a private driveway from the cul -de -sac.
5 Lots 39 and 40 are shown as accessing directly onto Gossage Avenue. However, pursuant to
6 discussions with the County Public Works Department who preferred one curb cut along
7 Gossage rather than three, the conditions of approval require these two lots be accessed via the
8 access easement from Gossage. Bollards will limit vehicle access to the cul -de -sac to emergency
9 vehicles only. Conditions of 'approval will require that the access easement from Gossage also
10 allow pedestrian and bicycle access.
11
12 Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc performed a. traffic analysis and found that the
13 project would not have a significant'impact due to the minor volume of traffic associated with
14 the project. A Level of Service (LOS) A would be maintained at the study intersections even
15 with future traffic growth. The consultant agreed that the roundabout proposed to be located at
16 the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Elm. Drive would reduce vehicular speeds and increase
17 pedestrian safety. The final design of the roundabout will be submitted with the improvement
18 drawings (see Engineering Condition I ) The conclusions were confirmed by a peer review
19 conducted by Walt Laabs of, T 'Vl Transportation Consultants. Mr. Laabs also opined that
20 circulation would be better if Eddie Way were a full access street connecting the project to
21 Samuel Drive and if the extension of Samuel Drive continued to Gossage Avenue as a public
22 street. (The complete traffic analysis is attached under Tab 4 of the: project study binder. Traffic
23 impacts are discussed on page 23 of the Initial Study.)
24
25 Per the project's Design Guidelines, a minimum of four on =site parking spaces are required for
26 custom lots 31 through 3.6 and 43 through 47, and at least five on -site parking spaces are required
27 for lots 37through 42. The . production homes will have either two or three car garages and
28 sufficient setbacks to allow parking in the driveways. Staff has proposed a condition of approval
29 to allow some "keyhole" parking in the cul -de -sacs (see Engineering Condition 31.) to provide
30 some parking for the park. However, the parking would not be restricted to park use and could be
31 used by'the residents for guest, parkin
32
33 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES /TREE PRESERVATION
34 A geological resources report Was prepared for the project that surveyed and analyzed biological
35 resources on the site (see Tab 6 of the study binder). The biological resources include native and
36 naturalized
plants and animals and habitat features such as wetlands and nest sites. The study
37 found that the impacts are expected to be minor because of avoidance measures incorporated into
38 the planning design, the maintenance of open space on. the property, and the replanting of open
39 space areas with native trees. The development plan also proposes to mitigate any wetland
40 habitat loss by revegetating ,the three detention basins with native riparian plants. and, grasses.
41
42 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has verified that approximately 0.55 acres
43 of the 'Magnolia 'Place project site is subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Two drainage
44 channels on the site are defined as wetland due to the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation.
45 Another drainage channel has 'been constructed along the southern Magnolia Avenue boundary
46 of the project site. This is considered by the U.SACE to be "other waters of the United States ".
47 Although man-made, the same drainage channel was considered a "creek" during the Magnolia
Page 9
I Terrace subdivision approval process. This subdivision is located to the east and across the street
2 from the project site. In order to bei consistent, the City is also treating the drainage channel as a
3 creek. Besides..being subject to USACE requirements, mitigation measures were included to
4 ensure that the channel modifications and bank stabilization improvements are designed to be in
5 conformance with the City's "Restoration Design and Guidelines (See Hydrology
6 and Water Quality discussion beginning on page 12 of the Initial Study.)
7
8 In addition to the biological resources report, a separate amphibian. site assessment was
9 conducted by LSA Associates (Tab 7 of the study binder) to assess the status of three amphibian
to species and potential habitats on site. The report concluded that based on habitat conditions on
11 and off site and surrounding land uses, it is extremely unlikely that the site provides suitable
12 habitat for the California tiger salamander, California red- legged frog or foothill yellow = legged
13 frog. This conclusion wa "s corroborated in a peer review conducted by Klei felder, Inc:. and in a
14 letter received from the California. Department of Fish and Game (Attachment 1.1).
15
16 LSA Associates and Ralph Osterling Consultants conducted tree assessment reports (tabs 8 and 9
17 of project study binder). Project grading, utilities and drainage improvements will remove a total
18 of 70 trees on the site. An additional 83 trees (within 1.0 feet of grading or trenching .activities)
19 will be impacted. Eucalyptus trees on the edges of the project site will be removed or impacted
20 due to installation of utilities and drainage facilities. Impacts to oaks would be caused by changes
21 in'grade from cuts, and fills. Of the 70 trees to be removed, 6 are considered heritage sized (24"
22 d.b.h,); 1 of the .6 is a native coast live oak. Of the 83 trees to be impacted, 40 are blue gum
23 eucalyptus (1 of which is heritage sized) and 32 area coast live oaks (2 are. considered heritage
24 sized). Eighty -four percent of the trees on the site are to be preserved, including 87 percent of the
25 native coast live oak trees. The arborist expects the impacted trees to survive with the
26 incorporation of mitigation measures. The Fire Department has expressed concern regarding the
27 proximity of eucalyptus trees to proposed. homes. They prefer that all existing eucalyptus trees
28 within 75' of any buildable lot be removed due to the possibility of excessive heat production
29 from vegetation fire. However, the removal would create additional aesthetic and biological
30 impacts.. The homes are required to be sprinklered, and the fire danger will be greatly reduced
31 once the eucalyptus debris on the Magnolia parcel is removed, infrastructure is constructed and
32 irrigated landscape is installed around the homes.
33
34 DRAINAGE
35 An east to west ridge bisecting the Magnolia Avenue property currently forces runoff to now
36 either to the north or to the south of the site. Flows to the south are transported through a small
37 drainage swale flowing parallel to Magnolia Avenue and are intercepted by a 42" x 42
38_ reinforced concrete box culvert at the southeastern corner of the site. Flows to the north are part
39 of the Jessie Lane Creek drainage system and are discharged through a brush- covered swale at
40 the northern boundary of the site. Drainage swales and culverts currently convey runoff from the
41 westerly portion of the Gossage. Avenue site to, a roadside ditch along Gossage Avenue. The
42 easterly portion of the property drains into the northern half of the Magnolia site through a
43 similar collection, of ditches and culverts.
44
45 The project includes the; construction of four storm drain systems, five detainment systems (three.
46 detention basins and two underground detention systems) and widening of- the drainage area
Page 10
ff
I along the Magnolia Avenue frontage to drain the site and mitigate increases in runoff due to
2 increases in impervious surfaces.
3
4 A preliminary drainage study was prepared by CSW /Stuber- Stroeh Engineering to assess the
5 impacts of the proposed development. Kleinfelder sub sequently'conducted a peer review. (See
6 Tab 3 of study binder.) After some revisions to the drainage study, Kleinfelder agreed with
7 CSW /Stuber- Stroeh that the drainage design should be sufficient to handle the runoff from the
8 post development 10 year and 100 year storm events.
9
10 A condition of approval requires that the Homeowners Association do the maintenance of the
11 storm drain and detention systems within the public right -of -way and parcels A (public park), B
12 (private open space), C (emergency vehicle access) and (private open space).
13
14 DEDICATIONS
15 Although the Magnolia Avenue site is currently under private ownership, hikers use the property
16 informally. The developer intends to clean up and reforest the site with native trees, then
17 dedicate 8.28 acres of the 17.05 -acre Magnolia site to the City for a public park. The developer
is will also be required to pay Park and Recreation fees. The City will prepare refined plans for the
19 park site after entitlements are obtained and the site is annexed into the City. No playing fields
20 are proposed; it is expected that the :park will continue to be used for hiking, biking and similar
21 activities. Public access to the park will be provided via the proposed streets, through the private
22 open space areas, over 'the access easement from Gossage Avenue and by means of the Eddie
23 Way emergency vehicle access.
24
25 The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the project on September 13,-
26 2000 and again on January 23, 2002. The ..PBAC noted that the: Magnolia Avenue parcel is
27 designated as a park in the Petaluma_ Bicycle Plan and in the General Plan, is located along
28 potential Urban Separator land, and stated that they do not support and will not evaluate plans for
29 Low Density Residential housing_ at this site. (The PBAC memo is included in Attachment 13.)
30 The PBAC supported the neighborhood residents who prefer - a park on the entirety of the site.
31 However, the memo did outline several conditions that the PBAC desired to see imposed on the
32 project if it should be approved.
33
34 The PBAC desires an additional bike /pede - strian access and/or connections through the adjacent
35 cemetery property.; However, the Police Department prefers a fence separating the park from the
36 cemetery, In addition, providing uncontrolled access to the adjacent private cemetery property
37 could create liability problems; therefore, staff did not include this as a condition of approval.
38
39 The PBAC also requires'the developer to build a "highly visible crosswalk" at the Magnolia/Elm
40 intersection. The 'traffic, study concluded that the roundabout proposed for Magnolia Avenue
41 would provide greater pedestrian safety because it would result in reduced vehicle speeds,
42 , reduced crossing distances and less exposure to vehicle traffic. Other recommendations of the
43 PBAC have been included as conditions of approval.
44
45 CULTURAL RESOURCES
46 LSA Associates conducted a cultural resources study in July of 2000 (Tab 10 of the study
47 binder). However, a member of the City's Historic SPARC disputed the qualifications of the
Page 11
.-
1 individuals who did the historic architectural inventory and evaluation. Therefore; in December
2 of 2001, the City contracted with JRP Historical Consulting :Services to do an evaluation of the
3 structures (house, welt house, shed and water tank) at 1120 Magnolia Avenue and the chicken
4 houses at 11.11 Gossage Avenue (Tab -1.1 of the study binder).
5
6 JRP found that the Gossage. site contained no historic era buildings or structures., The four large
7 chicken houses were built in the early 1960s; the smaller outbuildings on the parcel` were ..
8 constructed at various times between the early 1960s and 1990s. Therefore, they are less than 45
9 years old and are not considered historic resources per the City of Petaluma's Zoning Ordinance
10 or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11
12 JRP also found that the buildings on the Magnolia. Avenue site do not appear to meet the criteria
13 for listing on. either the C aliforni a. Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic
14 Places, and do not appearto be historic resources for the purposes of CEQA.
15
16 Mitigation measures (see page 27 and '28 of the Initial Study) address any artifacts 'or_ human
17 remains which :may he found on the development'site.
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENTS
20 A Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing was published in
21 the Argus Courier on February 27, 2002 and sent to all residents and property owners within 50.0
22 feet of the project site. The usual 300 -foot notice was expanded due to. the controversy
23 surrounding this .project:
24
25 In. addition, because the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and
26 Game are involved with the permitting for this project, CEQA required that the Notice, Negative
27 Declaration and •supporting documents be sent to the; California State Clearinghouse for
28 distribution. A 30 -day comment period began February 22, 2002.
29
30 Prior to the noticing of the public, hearing, two: written communications °were received in
31 opposition to the proposed development. One was a letter dated August .i3, 2000, from Cathy
32 and Joern Kroll, 906 Samuel Drive. The other was a letter to the City Council, dated August 8,
33 2000, which included a petition signed by residents in the vicinity of the project site.
34
35 After notification of the public hearing, the six written communications have been received from
36 the public regarding the project:
37
38 1. A letter, dated.March 2, 2002, from Bill Mattson, 957 Gossage Avenue, in support of the
39 project and elimination of the chicken ranch. Mr. Mattson requested 'that the park be
40 limited to passive uses and that the size of the proposed custom homes 'be .consistent with
41 the size and design of the existing neighboring.hoines.
42 2. A letter, dated March 13, 2002, was received. from Jim Becker, 953 Gossage Avenue, in
43 support of the project. Mr. Becker cites concerns regarding health hazards r_-elated to the
44 existing chicken ranch operation.
45 3. A letter from the Committee for Magnolia, Park, dated March 18, 2002 cited concerns
46 regarding traffic impacts from the project. (Photos to be displayed at the meeting.)
r.
Page 12
1 4. Copies of correspondence between Mr. William Phillips of the Committee for Magnolia
2 Park and St. Vincent de Paul High School dated March 12 and March 14, 2002.
3 5. A letter, dated March 25,, 2002, from Philip Woodward citing drainage concerns, asking
4 questions regarding the proposed park and noting errors on the tentative map. Staff
5 responded to Mr. Woodward's questions; the tentative map has been corrected.
6
7 All correspondence received in response to the notice, as well as memos from City departments
8 and the PBAC recommendations, are included in Attachment 13.
9
10 IMPACT FEES
11 The project will be subject to the :following development .fees: sewer and water connection,
12 community facilities development, storm drainage impact park and recreation land
13 improvement, school facilities, in -lieu housing and traffic mitigation.
14
15 �.: EWV� ®�IViEisEa�LEVIE
16
17 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
18 Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared. The potential for the following
19 significant impacts were identified: geology and soils, air, hydrology and water, noise, visual
20 quality and aesthetics, biological resources and cultural resources. Mitigation measures have
21 been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that, will reduce potential impacts to less than
22 significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the
23 project, as mitigated, would 'have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore
24 recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring
25 Report has also been prepared. (Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report attached as
26 Attachment 12.)
27
28
29
30
31
ATTACHMENTS
32
Attachment 1:
Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative.Declaration
33
Attachment 2:
Draft Findings for Approval.— General Plan Amendment
34
Attachment 3:
Draft Findings for Approval — Prezoning to Planned Unit District
35
Attachment 4:
Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District
36
Development Standards
37
Attachment 5:
Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map
38
Attachment 6:
Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval
39
Attachment 7:
Context Maps
40
Attachment 8:
General Plan Map
41
Attachment 9:
Reduced Plans
42
Attachment 10:
Study`B'inder
43
Attachment 11:
Kl'einfelder Peer Review of Biological Resources Report (Amphibian Site
44
Assessment) dated December 14, 2001.
45
California, Department of Fish and Game review of Amphibian site
46
Assessment dated November 21, 2001
Page 1
Wk.
1
Attachment 12:
Initial Study
2
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
3
Attachment 13:
Correspondence- Received
4
Attachment 14:
SPARC Preliminary Review Staff Reports and Minutes
5
Attachment 15;:
Magnolia Place Custorri'Lots Design Guidelines and Planned Unit
6
Development Standards
7
Attachment 16:
Full Size Plans
8
9
10
11
'
12
13
14
s:\ planning \pc\reports\magnoliaplace04O9O2
Page 14