Sonoma LAFCO Sentiment Survey Speers/Benjamins Roads (July 2015)

Transcription

1 ATTACHMENT 1 For accessibility assistance with any of the following documents, please contact Sonoma LAFCO at (707) or us at cynthia.olson@sonoma-county.org. Sonoma LAFCO Sentiment Survey Speers/Benjamins Roads (July 2015) Response Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address City and State Owner Zip Coonections to City Services Annexation Covenants Notes PRMD Permits No ARCHER LEAH D & MICHELE L 673 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA vacant land no w/s permits No MACY LEONARD S & MARY I 733 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer yes no w/s permits No STEELE RICHARD & DEBRA BETH 706 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer no 2001 new well DINNIENE DAMON & KIMBERLY S 660 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer no previous APN no w/s permits No STEELE RICHARD & DEBRA BETH 706 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer yes Situs Address 700 Benjamins no w/s permits ARREDONDO CONRAD R & KERRY 668 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer no has covenant but it does No WOLD PETER N & STEWART ROBERTA711 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA yes previous APN no CORCORAN WILLIAM R II 695 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer yes previous APN no CERVELLI SHARON D 687 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA no w/s permits No JANSEN TYLER C & CAROLYN J 679 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA No ARCHER LEAH D & MICHELE L 673 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA no w/s permits No ST DENIS DONALD J & LORI L 696 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer yes previous APN no w/s permits 036 no BALOGH ELEK & LEENI 690 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA no w/s permits No AXTON PATRICIA ANN TR 682 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA new well Maybe KLEIN IRVIN N & VIVIAN N 676 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA Interested in annexing but no w/s permits Yes 2005 repair septic tank canceled no w/s permits RD WOOD JOHN M & LYNETTE A 654 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA new septic tank no SPIERINGS GERARD A TR ET AL 513 TUNNEY PL SANTA ROSA CA Situs Address 650 Speers Road No DEHNERT MICHAEL D & DANA 640 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA no WILLIAMS SUSAN S 628 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA pre perc permit No SCUDERO JOHN & MICHELE 610 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA septic class II repair No GILES JAY P 623 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA previous APN no w/s permits No HAMANN JOHN & ROBIN PO BOX 5377 SANTA ROSA CA Sewer no Situs Address 562 SPEERS No RALLS RENEE C TR 611 BENJAMINS RD SANTA ROSA CA no w/s permits Yes ZEEB WILLIAM W TR 661 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA new well No ALLEN DAVID R & LINDA S 670 MIDDLE RINCON RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer Water no no w/s permits PROHOROFF STEVE & TANYA 656 MIDDLE RINCON RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer Water no drilled new well 2003 Maybe ERLENDSON DOUGLAS & MEGAN 657 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA septic repair no SICHEL RAY R & SUNDIE M 649 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA no w/s permits No BASSIGNANI ERNEST & CECELIA 645 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA no w/s permits

2 COLTER EARNELL & ELLISEE L 634 MIDDLE RINCON RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer Water no house burned down no mail service; yes ROWE DIANE LYDIA TR PO BOX SAN FRANCISCO CA Sewer Water no Situs Address 626 Middle No SARGENT THOMAS R 617 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA wants "guaranteed not to TOBES JEFFREY & LINDA A 605 SPEERS RD SANTA ROSA CA septic repair Yes PCL PROPERTIES 1 LP 3550 ROUND BARN BLVD STE 104 SANTA ROSA CA Applicant Site Address: 547 Speers repair attempted 2014 Maybe ANAYA JOSE A 562 MIDDLE RINCON RD SANTA ROSA CA Sewer no has second unit Total Properties Surveyed 35 Total Reponses Received 30 86% Total Yes or Maybe Responses 7 23% Total No Responses 23 77%

3 ATTACHMENT 2 Factors for Consideration (California Government Code 56668) Factor Review Comments (a) Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. The subject territory, totaling approximately 1.92 acres, is part of a larger unincorporated island located within and adjacent to the City of Santa Rosa boundary. The territory is generally flat with a variety of shrubs and trees scattered throughout. A portion of Ducker Creek passes approximately 100 feet north of the subject territory. The territory consists of two parcels, one of which is largely developed with a single-family dwelling and a second dwelling unit. The second parcel has a partially demolished dwelling. Fewer than 6 people reside in the affected territory. The area is bordered on three sides by the City. The parcel to the south is developed with a school currently used as a center for at-risk youth; the other surrounding properties are developed with similar residential uses and zoned RR20 and RR40 (Very Low Density Residential) At this time, there is no additional development proposed for either of the parcels. All territory is within the City of Santa Rosa s sphere of influence and Urban Growth Boundary. (b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of Annexation to the City is proposed so as to provide both parcels with access to City water and sanitary sewer services. The area is prone to the failure of older septic systems that may not be repairable or replaceable under current County regulations. The wells may also be at

4 services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. "Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not the services are services that would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services. threat due to the failure of these systems. The connection to City services will allow for existing and proposed development at densities permitted by the City s General Plan. The zoning is RR-20 (Rural Residential) with the permitted zoning proposed as Single Family Residential. The City indicates that it can serve the subject territory. Any future development proposals would be required to comply with the development standards set forth by the City and may be subject to conditions of approval in order to effectuate the provision of services. (c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. The affected territory is located within the City s Sphere of Influence, voterapproved Urban Growth Boundary, and urban service area boundary for the City in the Sonoma County General Plan. The affected territory is adjacent to City boundary on three sides. The surrounding area is developed with residential uses and is RR20 (Rural Residential). (d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section (Note: Section encourages preservation of agricultural and open-space lands.) The proposal is consistent with Commission policies. The affected territory is within the City s Sphere of Influence and contiguous to the City boundary; its annexation is a logical extension of City boundaries. The proposed zoning is consistent with the land-use designations in the City s General Plan. (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Section The affected territory is contiguous to City boundaries, within the City s Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary, and, as such, has been planned for annexation and urban uses. The territory Item 3.3 Attachment 2 2 November 2, 2016

5 is not zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. (f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. The parcels that comprise the subject territory have specific boundary lines that are certain and identifiable. The affected territory is part of a larger unincorporated island surrounded by City limits and annexation would decrease the size of the unincorporated island. No new islands will be created. (g) A regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Section Annexation of the subject parcel would not affect or be affected by Plan Bay Area, the Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, in that the Plan focuses growth in Priority Development Areas (PDA). The affected territory is not within a PDA. (h) The proposal s consistency with city or county general and specific plans. The City states that the proposal is consistent with its General Plan. The County states that the affected territory is within the City s urban service area boundary for the City in the Sonoma County General Plan, thus the proposal is consistent with the County General Plan. (i) The sphere of influence of any local agency that may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. The affected territory is located within the City of Santa Rosa s sphere of influence and is not located within the sphere of influence of any other agency. (j) The comments of any affected local agency or other public agency. The Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department found the proposal to be consistent with the County General Plan; the County indicated its support for the annexation. (k) The ability of the newly formed or receiving The City of Santa Rosa states that it can Item 3.3 Attachment 2 3 November 2, 2016

6 entity to provide the services which are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change. serve the affected territory upon annexation. Should development proposals be submitted to the City, the City could condition its approval on those improvements that would assure the provision of necessary services. (l) Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Section As the subject territory is within the City s Urban Growth Boundary and General Plan, the City has anticipated potential development and indicates that it can serve the affected territory. Should development be proposed, the City may condition its approval on improvements that would assure provision of necessary services. The applicant indicates that a water main is available in the street fronting the parcel. (m) The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7. The subject application proposes only annexation to the City of Santa Rosa. In itself, the proposal does not affect achievement of regional housing needs for the City or the County. (n) Any information or comments from the landowner or owners, voters, or residents of the affected territory. In July 2015, LAFCO staff mailed two surveys to the landowners of the parcels within the larger unincorporated island to determine the sentiment of the owners to annexation. LAFCO received 25 responses, 20 of which were opposed to annexation of their parcels. No statements of opposition to the annexation application weres received. (o) Any information relating to existing land use designations. The land-use designation in the City s General Plan for the subject territory is Very Low Density Residential. This assumes development of single family Item 3.3 Attachment 2 4 November 2, 2016

7 residences, which would be consistent with surrounding parcels within City boundaries. (p)the extent to which the proposal will promote environmental justice. As used in the law, environmental justice means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services. The proposal makes no representations or exclusions of people of any race, culture and/or income with respect to location of public facilities and public services. Item 3.3 Attachment 2 5 November 2, 2016

8 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA PREZONING THE REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 547 SPEERS ROAD (ASSESSOR S PARCEL NO ) AND 562 MIDDLE RINCON ROAD (ASSESSOR S PARCEL NO ), TO THE RR-20 (RURAL ) ZONING DISTRICT; FILE NO. ANX THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Council finds, based on the evidence and records presented, that the RR-20 (Rural Residential) Zoning District is appropriate for Assessor s Parcel Numbers (547 Speers Road) and (562 Middle Rincon Road). The Council further finds and determines that: A. The proposed Prezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the City s General Plan in that the proposed Prezoning to the RR-20 (Rural Residential) zoning district is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential ( dwelling units per acre); and B. The proposed Prezoning would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that no physical changes are proposed as part of this project and permissible future uses under the proposed RR-20 (Rural Residential) Prezoning are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and C. The site is physically suitable including absence of physical constraints, access and compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities for the proposed Prezoning to the RR-20 (Rural Residential) zoning district. Section 2. All conditions required by law have been satisfied and all findings with relation thereto have been made. Title 20 of the Santa Rosa Code is amended by amending the Zoning Map of the City of Santa Rosa, as described in Section , so as to change the classification of Assessor s Parcel Nos (547 Speers Road) and (562 Middle Rincon Road). Section 3. In addition to any other conditions that are deemed appropriate or necessary, any development approval for this property shall be expressly conditioned to require the applicant to fulfill the following condition: Sewer connections for this development, or any part thereof, will be allowed only in accordance with the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, in effect at the time that the building permit(s) for this development, or any part thereof, are issued. Section 4. Environmental Determination. The proposed Prezoning amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Very Low Density Residential ( units per acre) which designation was reviewed as part of the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environment Impact Report (EIR), adopted by City Council Resolution No , dated November 3, The proposed Prezoning to the RR-20 (Rural Residential) zoning district is consistent with the Ord. No Page 1 of 2

9 Very Low Density land use designation and, therefore, was encompassed within scope of the EIR. There have been no substantial changes in the project and no substantial changes in circumstances that would require any major revision of the EIR, nor is there any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. Thus no further environmental review is required. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following its adoption. This ordinance was introduced by the Council of the City of Santa Rosa on May 24, IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED this 31st day of May, AYES: (6) Mayor Sawyer, Vice Mayor Schwedhelm, Council Members Carlstrom, Coursey, Olivares, Wysocky NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Council Member Combs ABSTAIN: (0) Ord. No Page 2 of 2

10 COUNTY LINE DUPLEX DUPLEX COUNTY LINE DUPLEX EE DUPLEX RS DUPLEX MID AD INC RO ER DL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL SP ON LANDS OF PCL PROPERTIES 1 LP PROPERTY ADDRESS 547 SPEERS ROAD APN RO DUPLEX AD LANDS OF JOSE ANAYA PROPERTY ADDRESS 562 MIDDLE RINCON ROAD APN DUPLEX COUNTY LINE PROPOSED PARCELS TO BE ANNEXED COUNTY LINE DUCKER CREEK TRIPLEX SPEER S ROAD AD INS N BE DUPLEX N RI RO M JA 547 SPEERS ROAD SANTA ROSA CALIFORNIA SCHOOL Submittal / Revision: NA CO DA D VE RI S MIN NJA BE ANE RE L U LEIS R D OA MIDDLE RINCON ROA D GRANADA DRIVE 1

11 ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. 575 Administration Drive, Room 104A Santa Rosa, CA November 2, 2016 Resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Making Findings and Determinations, Determining Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and Approving a Reorganization of Territory Designated as: Northeast Santa Rosa Reorganization No (PCL Properties 1LP), Involving Annexation to the City Of Santa Rosa and Detachment from Rincon Valley Fire Protection District and County Service Area No. 41 (Multi- Services), and Waiving Protest Proceedings for the Proposal RESOLVED, that the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Sonoma ( the Commission ) hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. Proposal and Procedural History 1.1 PCL Properties 1 LP (the Applicant) filed Application No (the Application) with the Executive Officer of the Commission (the Executive Officer) pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code section et seq. (the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act), proposing a reorganization consisting of annexation to the City of Santa Rosa (City) and detachment from Rincon Valley Fire Protection District and County Service Area No. 41 (Multi- Services) of approximately 1.92 acres and consisting of two parcels (APNs and ) (the Proposal). The subject territory is generally located north of Benjamins Road, south of Montecito Blvd. between Middle Rincon Road and Speers Road, in northeast Santa Rosa (the Affected Territory). As part of the Application, the Applicant included a plan for providing services within the Affected Territory (Plan for Services). The Application and the Plan for Services were submitted to the Executive Officer pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The Executive Officer accepted the Application for filing and issued a certificate of filing on September 19, Following issuance of the certificate of filing, the Executive Officer set the Proposal for consideration by the Commission and provided notice thereof as provided in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. 1.2 The City determined that the proposal was consistent with the environmental impact report (the EIR) for the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and that no further environmental review was required. 1.3 Based on the City s action, the Executive Officer determined that the Proposal is exempt from further CEQA review.

12 1.4 The Executive Officer reviewed the Proposal and written comments received thereon and prepared a report analyzing the Proposal and recommending its approval (the Executive Officer s Report). Upon completion, the Executive Officer furnished copies of the Executive Officer s Report to all persons entitled to copies under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. 1.5 The Commission considered the Executive Officer s Report and the Proposal at its meeting of November 2, At the meeting, the Commission allowed for hearing and receipt of all relevant oral and written testimony and evidence presented or filed and considered the Executive Officer s Report and the Proposal. All interested persons were given the opportunity to hear and be heard. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Commission voted to approve the Proposal, as set forth herein. 1.6 The Commission has reviewed and considered this resolution and hereby finds that it accurately sets forth the intentions of the Commission with respect to the Proposal. 2. CEQA Compliance 2.1 The Commission concurs with the City and the Executive Officer and finds that no further CEQA review is required for the Proposal. 2.2 The Commission finds that the City certified an EIR for the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 in November 2009 and that the City s pre-zoning of the Affected Territory in Ordinance 4065 (the Ordinance) in May 2016 is consistent with the Very Low Density land use designation and consistent with the scope of the EIR. The Commission further finds that, in the Ordinance, the City found that no substantial changes and no substantial changes in circumstances that would require any major revision of the EIR exist in relation to the Affected Territory, and there was no new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. These findings support the City s conclusion that no further CEQA review is required or permitted pursuant to Public Resources Code section and State CEQA Guidelines section The Commission concurs with the City s findings and determinations pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.4 The Commission further finds and determines that the Proposal is exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code section (e) and State CEQA Guidelines section (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning). The facts and circumstances supporting the Commission s conclusion are as follows: (a) Public Resources Code section (e) and State CEQA Guidelines section exempt from additional environmental review projects that are consistent with the development density established by a general plan for Item 3.2 Attachment 4. 2 November 2, 2016

13 which an EIR was certified, except to the extent necessary to examine project-specific impacts that are peculiar to the project or its site. (b) The Proposal is consistent with the Santa Rosa General Plan (c) There are no impacts peculiar to the Proposal or the Affected Territory that were not previously considered in the EIR. 3. Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act Compliance 3.1 The Commission finds that the Affected Territory is within the City s Sphere of Influence and the urban service area boundary for the City in the Sonoma County General Plan. The Commission therefore determines that the Proposal is consistent with the City s Sphere of Influence and the Sonoma County General Plan. 3.2 The Commission finds that the Affected Territory is within the City s Urban Growth Boundary, is contiguous to, and a logical extension of, the City s boundary, and is consistent with the land-use designations in the City s General Plan. The Commission further finds that the Affected Territory has been pre-zoned by the City. 3.3 The Commission finds that the purpose of the Proposal is to allow access to City services and development in accordance with densities permitted by the City s General Plan. 3.4 The Commission finds that the Affected Territory is uninhabited and the owners of the subject parcels have provided their written consent to the Proposal. 3.5 Based on the foregoing findings and determinations and the record of these proceedings, the Commission finds and determines that the Proposal is consistent with the intent of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act and the purposes of the Commission, as expressed in Government Code and and that approval of the Proposal is appropriate. 4. Evidence in the Record 4.1 The findings and determinations set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of this resolution are based upon the entire record before the Commission. References to specific reports or documents in a finding or determination are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive bases for the finding or determination. Headings are inserted for convenience only, and the location of a finding or determination under a specific heading is not intended to limit the role of that finding or determination to that particular heading. Item 3.2 Attachment 4. 3 November 2, 2016

14 NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing findings and determinations and the record of these proceedings, and pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the Commission hereby declares and orders as follows: 1. The foregoing findings and determinations are true and correct, are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and are adopted as hereinabove set forth. 2. The Proposal is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code section (e) and State CEQA Guidelines section The Executive Officer is directed to file a notice of exemption in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Proposal is approved. 4. Since the owners of the Affected Territory have provided their written consent to the Proposal, the Commission shall waive protest proceedings for the Proposal. 5. The boundaries of the Affected Territory shall be as shown and described in Exhibit A to this resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Proposal is assigned the following short-form designation: Northeast Santa Rosa Reorganization No (PCL Properties 1 LLP). 7. The regular county assessment roll shall be utilized for the Proposal. 8. The Affected Territory shall not be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness and contractual obligations and shall be subject to prevailing utility connection and use charges upon connection. 9. The property tax transfer to the City shall be in accordance with the master property tax exchange agreement adopted by the County of Sonoma and the cities in Sonoma County, as described in Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Resolution No The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner provided by law. 11. If a certificate of completion for the Proposal has not been filed within one year after the adoption of this resolution, the Proposal shall be deemed abandoned unless, prior to expiration of the one-year time period, the Commission authorizes an extension of time for completion of the Proposal. Item 3.2 Attachment 4. 4 November 2, 2016

15 ATTACHMENT The Clerk of the Commission is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the Commission s decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the Clerk of the Commission, 575 Administration Drive, Room 104A, Santa Rosa, CA, THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced at a regular meeting of the Commission on the 2 nd day of November 2016 and ordered adopted by the following vote: COMMISSIONERS: Ayes Noes Abstain WHEREUPON, the Chair declared the foregoing resolution adopted and so ordered. Mark Bramfitt, Executive Officer The within instrument is a true and correct copy of the original on file in this office. ATTEST: BY: Clerk

16 ATTACHMENT 5