HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch08 05/17/2004�i
k
01 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@ci.petalumaca.us
6
7 DATE: January 13,, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning Commission
1 0
11 - FROM: Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner
12 _ - - --
13 SUBJECT: Paula Lane Subdivision
14 Proposal for 21 residential units on two contiguous parcels outside City limits but
15 within the Urban ,Growth Boundaries (UGB) totaling 11.22- acres. The proposal
16 requires a General Plan Amendment, Pre- zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and
17 Annexation
18 431 Paula Lane (corner of Paula lane and Sunset Drive)
19 APN 019 - 080 -009 & 010
20 (Continued from November 12, 2003)
4 1 2
23 BACKGROUND
24
25 At the November 12th, 2003; Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented the
26 proposed Paula Lane project, and the public hearing was opened. However, due to the late hour
27 and the amount of public comments. still to be heard, the public hearing was continued to January
28 13, 2004. Attached, are the Minute .Excerpts from the November 12` 2003 Planning
29 Commission meeting (see Attachment, A). Packet information from the November 12` meeting
30 will not be redistributed to the Commissioners. If information is required from that packet,
31 Commissioners are asked to please contact the Community Development Department.
32
33 Following the November 12th Planning Commission meeting, staff received a memorandum —
34 from Commissioner Mike Healy, dated November 14 2003 (see, Attachment B). Commissioner
35 Healy's memorandum poses a number of questions. At specific request of Commissioner
36 Healy, staff has provided the following responses:
37
38 Question 1: Could you provide a map that shows the County zoning in the general
39 vicinity (at least from Bodega to Schuman for areas outside the UGB-
40 specifically showing minimum lot sizes —in addition to current zoning or
41 General Plan land uses for areas inside the UGB? This would be helpful in
42 considering appropriate treatment of the feathering issue.
'`�4 Response: Sonoma County does not have a Zoning or General Plan map equivalent to
45 Peialuma's. The County writes the zoning on each individual assessors
Paoe 7
A
. 1
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35,
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
'43
44
45
46
parcel map and does not have it summarized on one map. The attached
maps provided by the applicant are an attempt to provide the requested
information (Attachment F).
Question 2: Are there any know constraints (e.g., wells, septic) that could prevent this
parcel from being developed in the County with 2 =acre lots, in the event the
City declines to annex it?
Response: On November 24, 2003 staff called the County offices and was told that
there are no known constraints and that the site appears.to b�e appropriate to
meet. the 2 -acre minimum.
The applicant has stated- that should the City decide not to annex this
property, there are no known physical constraints to developing the property
in the County and that the current homes on the subject property are served
by City water and septic systems. This would be the case. should. the project
be developed in the County.
Question 3: I understand that the neighbors approached the. Open Space District
regarding possible purchase of the site? Setting aside the question of
whether there is a willing seller, has the OCD given a definitive answer as to
whether or not it is interested in this "site?
Response: Staff called and left a message on November 24, 2003 with the Open Space
District regarding the subject property. No one form the Open Space
D.i 'strict responded to the call. Information from Susan Kirks a member of
the Paula Lane Action Network (P.L.A.N.) stated' that they hope to meet
with'the - OSD staff at the end' of December for continued discussions on this
matter.. She also states that a senior staff member and., appraiser visited the
site , in May 2002, on the. same day 'as Supervisor Mike Kerns: Ms Kirk's
states that they will provide updated 'information on the discussions that
have occurred with the Open Space District.
The applicant believes that the site does not meet the requirements of the
type of land that the Open Space District purchases. Additionally„ it is
typical for OSD to require the City to pay for half of any park/open space
acquisition within city limits.
Question 4: Has the Police'Department reviewed the proposed path _and its relation to the
proposed lots? There have been two or three recent east -side subdivisions
where the Police strongly encouraged. paths with "eyes" on them, meaning
that they not!abut only back yards and; not be shielded from view of nearby
streets.
Response: Staff referred the proposed. project to the Police Department for review and
comment as part of the standard development review process... The Police
•
Page 2'
mented' that signs should be placed advising that certain
• 1 Department com
2 areas. are off limits and that the pedestrian trail should only be used during
3 daytime hours.
4
5 Question 5: In connection. with the Sunny Slope Road annexation many years ago, the
6 City required .all the property owners with., development potential along the
7 street to form an assessment district and improve the entire length of the
8 street ;before any building was allowed. This avoided the situation where
9 some segments.., of a street are widened. but provide little functionality
10 because other = segments are not widened. (Cherry and Magnolia are prime
11 examples of the approach being recommended here). Was the Sunny Slope
12 approach considered by- staff, and why is it not recommended? .
13
14 Response: With the Sunnyslope annexation, 60% of the land owners in the area
15 requested the; assistance of the Sonoma County Public Works Department in
16 establishing the assessment district in order to fund the specific
17 infrastructure 'improvements necessary to bring the area into compliance
18 with .Petaldrha urban standards prior to annexation. 'These landowners also
19 petitioned the City of Petaluma to :annex their neighborhood in order to
20 benefit from city - provided municipal ,services such as sewer and water,
21 storm drainage, and police and fire protection..
Pap-e 3
4V Question
6: Another lesson from Sunnyslope Road is thatAhe street was over - designed,
24
leading 'to conditions where motorists feel they can safely go 40mph or
25
more. With tha. t experience in mind, what street: width would be appropriate
26
for a potential `improvement of Paula Lane down to Bodega (and up to
27
Schuman)? Is it less than the width of the short segment near Sunset that is
28
already inside the City?
29
30
Response: The applicant with the help of the project traffic engineer, Allan Tilton
31
provided the fallowing response: "Paula- Lane is designated as a Collector
32
street with two 12' travel lanes, 8' parking, 6' planters, and 5' sidewalks on
33
both sides of eth street. The City traffic ,Model outputs were. reviewed to
34
determine the projected future traffic volume on Paula lane at General Plan
35
- build, out (Year 2020). Using the ratio of base year model volumes to
36
General, plan build :out volumes multiplied. by current volumes; the average
37
daily traffic (ADT) volume projected on Paula Lane is 1,440 vehicle trips
38
per. day. This projected traffic volume is well below the City's range of
39
1,0004o 6,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for collector streets. Collector
40
streets ' are designed 'for 35 miles per hour. Residential streets have 10'
41
travel. lanes and the same parking, ;planter and sidewalk widths as collectors
42
but they;are.:designed for 25mph and have ADT volumes of less than 2,000.
43
'We are willing improve our frontage for either collector (as currently
4
planned) or residential. The very short segment of Paula Lane in the City
limits appears'to be.closer to the residential street standards."
46
Pap-e 3
s
1 "Sunnyslope is designated a collector street. and its current volume. ranges •
2 from 3 „000 ADT at the north end (projected to be 4,00,0 at build out) and
3 1,500 ADT at the south end. Paula Lane is not a regional .street. It primarily
4 provides local access to the immediate neighborhood.
5
6 Question 7: Could you ,get. Steve Simmons to provide an overview of Zone 2 and water
7 pressure issues? Is requiring, pressure boosting devices on individual houses
8 appropriate where experience shows that many homeowners choose to
9 disconnect them and- live with low water pressure? Is. there a fix that could
10 address this problem for all of the houses in the upper elevations of Zone 2?
11
12 Response: The applicants, civil engineer; Edie Robbins - -with C•SW- Stuber /Stroeh
13 provided the following response: "Zone 2 is a single hydraulic zone which
14 spans Petaluma and which serves elevations above 60 feet. -Zone 2 is divided
15 into westside and eastside looped. sections that are connected �by a 1,0” main
16 in Webster St. near Western Ave. The westside Zone 2 (west of Western
17 Ave.) is closer to Paula. Lane, Tank and Magnolia Booster Pump Station. The
18 east Zone 2 is closer to Mountain View Tank and McNear. Booster
19 Pump Station. According to "the. Water Field Office (Steve, Simmons) there
20 is no Zone 2 supply problems or storage capacity shortages." There are no
21 other known options? that exist af this: time that would be endorsed by Water
22 Resources and Conservation`Department.
23 Staff also received correspondence from Rollin Bruce dated November 18, 2003, (see
24 Attachment C).
25
26 The, applicant provided staff with a written response to Commissioner Healy and Mr. Bruce's
27 questions;'which are attached (see Attachment G): These; responses are:the views /opinions, f
28 applicant and are not :endorsed by city staff.
29
30 Also, at ',fhe November 12th 20,013 Commission meeting, issues /questions were :raised regarding
31 fire flow calculations for the subdivision. The Fire Marshal, Michael Ginn, has provided the
32 commission with a response to `the issues /questions that were raised that evening (see,
33 Attachment D).
—34
35
36.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Also attached (Attachment E) is a letter from City Engineer Craig Spaulding dated October 2,
2003 and regards to the Paula Lane Tentative Map conditions. An incorrect version of this
letter /conditions was 'included in the last packet when this. item was heard, so this letter replaces
'that letter /conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment.A
45 Attachment .B:
46
Minutes Excerpts from the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission
meeting.
Memorandum from Commissioner Mke.Healyto George'Whte dated.
November. 14, 2003.
•
•
Page 4
I#, ,
2 Attachment C: E -mail from Rollm.Bruce dated November 18, 20.03 , to Irene Borba.
3
4 Attachment D: Memorandum from Fire Marshal, Michael Ginn to Irene Borba dated
5 December 29, 2003.
6
7 Attachment E: Letter from Craig Spaulding dated October 20, 2003.
8
9 Attachment F: Letters dated December 1'8 and. 3'1, 2003 from Marti Buxton of Mission
10 Valley'Propert'es.
11
12
13 s:\ p lanning \pc\reports \paulalanejan 13
Page 5
A
Planning Commission Minufes = November 12, 2003
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707 /178 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail p lannint<(ii.ei.petaiurima.ca.us
Web Page litter-' i �� ��.ci.heta`luma.ca.us
•
1 -
2 _Planning Commissi ®n .Minutes EXCERPT
3 N 12 2003 - 7.-DO PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselrneier, Barrett, Dargie, Healy, McAllister, Rose, von
6 Raesfeld
7
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
11 Irene Borba, Senior Planner
12
13
14 Public hearing began: @ 7:00
15
16 NEW BUSINESS;
17 PUBLIC HEARING:
18
19 I. PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION, 4311 Paula Lane (corner of Paula Lane and
20 Sunset Drive)
21 AP No.: 019 080'= 009,and 019 - 080 -.010
22 File: ANXOI "002; GPA01002,_PRZ01003, SPC01'048 and TSM01003
23 Planner: Irene T. Borba
24 —
25 Applicant i& °requesting for a recommendation to the City Council of a proposal
26 for 21 residential units on two contiguous parcels outside City limits but within
27 the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) totaling 11.22-acres. The proposal requires
28 a General Plan Amendment, Pre - zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation,
29 and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
30
31 Irene Borba: Presented the staff report.
32
33 Marti Buxton Mission Valley Properties: Presented the project and introduced the team.
34 - She noted reasons why the General Plan Amendment is warranted and showed slides
35 with General Plan. Land. Use designations. Mission Valley is asking for R- 1/10,000
36 zoning and feel it is compatible with surroundings.
ATTAr.H- M'F=NT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21"
22
23'
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003
Allan Tilton, W- Trans: Went through a series of slides of the adjacent and.nearby streets
and addressed the neighborhood traffic concerns. The proposal meets the City,standards.
Commissioner McAllister: Asked what traffic volumes were based on.
Allan Tilton: Did a test under the new General Plan Traffic m`od'el ,and the proposal
maintained the City's level of service or better.
Council Member- Healy: This seems to be similar to the Sunnyslope annexation.
Allan Tilton Yes.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Does street meet minimum City Standards?
Allan Tilton: In general it has a clean track record however does 'not meet minimum
standards.
Commissioner von. Raesfeld: What is standard width size.
Allan Ti ^ltori/Craig Spaulding: 32'.
Commissioner Dargie: Is it a City street?
Allan Tilton: Portions of it.
Commissioner McAllister: What does project build out include?
Allan Tilton: -Looking' at full General Plan build out within the urban growth boundaries..
We used. the, model with the land uses currently envisioned as the General Plan changes,
those numbers would change.
Chair Barrett: Street.frontage on Paula Lane is currently culverts?
Allarr Tilton: There .are a series of culverts and driveways. Would go to City standard
with curb /gutter and sidewalk and a class III bike lane typical for a collector.
ChairrB'arrett: Asked for examples of collectors with Class III bike lanes.
Allan Tilton: Mission Street, McNear and Mountain View.
Al Cornwell,, CSW S tuber- Stroeh: Showed locations of street lights, stated lights Will: be
to minimum City standards and could be shielded if necessary. The sewer system will be
a gravity system from houses to lower part of'the property to the pump station on Sunset
and eventually will end 'up in the sewer lines on Bodega. It will be a standard' pump
station. 'Regarding draining — will collect water on site, 'collecting street runoff from*
U
2
dl +-.
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003
homes and streets to a culvert into a. proposed detention pond' which has a rock filter.
Peak 'flows will be slightly reduced from existing conditions.
Commissioner Dargie: How deep i's detention pond and what is, diameter?
Al Cornwell: Eight feet deep, 150 x 19.0 in diameter.
Commissioner Dargie: Who is responsible for pump station?
Marti Buxton: That has not been determined, however, the Home Owner's Association
will pay for it.
Chair Barrett: Will you be -paying - the City to maintain — is there an emergency back -up
generator. Who maintains that?
Marti Buxton: CC &R's be:refined and will address all of the requirements.
Commissioner Dargie: Regarding sewer will a pipe go down to Bodega?
Al Cornwell: Yes.
Commissioner McAllister: Drainage goes to the adjacent property even with this project?
That surprises me.
Al Cornwell: Drainage historically flows from one to the next. You are. to maintain the
character "and flow of the drainage. It is not unusual to, do it this way — not increasing the
flow.
Commissioner Asselmeier: You mentioned drainage won't increase but decrease.
Al Cornwell: We have intercepted the flow. We created a detention pond so peak flows
can be regulated for flow.
Commissioner Asselmeier: How much water will be there?
Al Cornwell: `It should be emptied in a matter of hours.
Commissioner. Asselmeier: Typically there is no standing water?
Al Cornwell: Correct.
Commissioner Rose: Asked about drainage onto adjacent properties.
Al Cornwell: Detention basin will function through the pipe. We don't cut off the
drainage that goes to the next property. This appears to be a dank. It spreads water out
over the swale. Peaks -11 be less.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2,003
cl�.
1
Chair Barrett: Is ,this a proven technology?
2
3
Al' Cornwell: Yes.
4
5
Chair Barrett: If this were to fail, it would go to: adjacent property?
6
7
Al' Cornwell: The primary overflow is the -pipe with rock filter, then it goes through rock
8
swale. Water will only stand for several hours..
9
to
Edie 'Robbins, CS'W Stuber Stroeh: We used the City's fire flow, calculation for -. Zone 2
11
and did a fire flow test to check out the computerized water model. The. test was done at.
L2_
the corner of West and Paula and we were, able to achieve a decent flow. The.
13
calculations for water .flow and fire,,pressure meets the City standards. --Showed, slides of
14
location of new hydrants. The 'modeling showed that the project fire flow meets
15
requirements. City standards require air gaps. The, City required calculation that if'" an
16
emergency the air gaps will fill — it meets the City standard. Regarding water pressure
17
system„ a study was prepared using the City water model. We were not ,able to find an
I&
impact with the proposed development. Static pressure was 18 lbs per sq. inch. This is
19
not a perceptible impact to the area with the *'pr6posed.21 homes.
20
21
Council Member Healy: Taking into account the existing condition, will the new tank
22
23
make a difference?
24
Edie Robbins: My `understanding is if 'something happened to one tank, an additional
25
tank would' be available.
26
27 ` Co mmissioner Dargie: Tanks provide residential water; what about water fora. fire?
28
29 Commissioner McAllister: Why is existing pressure in the: area so low?
30
31 Edie Robbins: I cannot explain fully why the existing homes have low pressure. May
32 not be operating; with the- air gap system For the proposed development we W111—have a
33 500 gallon tank on site.. If'water service level of Paula Lane tank were .higher, it could
34 'benefit pressure.
.35
36 Craig Shields, Treadwell & Rol'lo; Outlined the types of soils found. ,;From a
37 geotechnical standpoint, the soil 1'S excellent. Loose soil can. simply be taken out and
38 .compacted. Houses will be a standard foundation. We found na geotechnical issues with
39 thez property.
40
41 Commissioner Rose: Lots 14, 15 & 16 -- on the large slopes are, you suggesting post
42 tension slabs?
43
44 Craig ':Shiel'ds: Post tension slabs are what we would like to use on the steeper slopes.
45
46 Commissioner Asselmeier: Can you give us an explanation of the proposed grading
47 scheme.
4.
Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003
2 Al Cornwell: In general lots -17, 18, 19 and 20 are the higher part of the site and will
3 have some cuts, other areas will have fill.
4
5 Chair Barrett: Fill will be put behind lots 1 through 6?
6
7 Al Cornwell: Yes — all lots have some cut and fill.
8
9 Commissioner Dargie:. The soil is considered competent — there will be no piers?
10
11 Craig Shields: Yes.
12
13 Chair Barrett: - -When will thefnal geotechnical report be done?
14
15 Craig Shields: For final grading plans.
16
17 Chair Barrett: Does this interfere with the badger community?
18
19 Craig Shields: This would be better addressed by an environmentalist.
20
21 Rick Smith, Illingworth/Rodkin: The noise levels are within standards. The noise during
22 construction were outlined in mitigation measures. After build out there would be no
23 noise impacts.
24
25 Meta Bunce, JRP Consultant: Performed a historical evaluation. Explained what merits
26 a historical resource. There are 4 buildings on the site and the evaluation addressed all
27 the buildings. The building do not meet the criteria of a'historical resource.
28
- 29 Jane Valerius, Wetland Specialist: Conducted wetland and biological evaluation of the
30 site, Walked the property, with the Army Corps of Engineers and noted the topographical
31 features, the swales and' reviewed the data points. Also' looked at the soil, water and
32 plants, on the site. There were 3 categories of plants that the Corps reviews — did not find*
33 any rare plants and it was determined that the site did not 'meet wetland criteria.
34
35 Anne Flannery, Wildlife biologist: There is a great deal of concern about wildlife from
36 the neighbors. The site does provide habitat for the animals on the site and they will be
37 displaced. Some of the animals are on a special status, however, no regulatory
38 protections apply. Reviewed the ,regulatory protections which do not extend to habitat.
39 Fish and Game visited the site and found no federally protected animals on the site.
40
41 Commissioner Asselmeer How did the applicant decide to dedicate the 3 acres of open
42 space?
43
44 Marti Buxton: When' wewalked the site we outlined where the badgers habitat was and
45 Department of Fish and Game felt that 3 acres would be adequate.
46
Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 2003 .
1 Commissioner Asselmeier: Did the Department of Fish and Game comment on how
2 much habitat badgers need?
3
4 Anne Flannery; The homes are away from the badgers, however, some of the habitat will
5 be destroyed by development. Fish and Game was satisfied by the 3 acres of open space.
6
7 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked about. conservation easement.
8
9 Marti Buxton: It is an agreement which we will come •t0 as part of the approval — it, is not
to a classic conservation easement.
1.1
12 Commissioner Asselmeier' there restrictions placed on the area.
-- 13
14 Marti Buxton: Yes.
15
16 Commissioner Asselmeier: I am pleased by Mr. Robert Floercke's comments that a
17 pedestrian trail through the. badger habitat is acceptable.
18
19 Marti Buxton: We show a pedestrian path in. this area :and anything beyond `will have to
20 be reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game..
21
22 Commissioner Asselmeier: Am interested in hearing more about ,possible additional
23 pedestrian trails that the applicant is agreeing to provide.
24
25 Commissioner - McAllister: Asked for clarification of current situation, , on regulatory
26 environment:
27 -
28 Anne Flannery: Said there is no precedent to stop a project, but design modification may
29 be necessary:
30 -
31 James MacNair, McNair Associates: Discussed existing trees on the site. Of the 38.
32 trees, 26 are proposed to be removed. We reviewed the impact of the project on sudden
33 oak syn4rome. The reality is it is a forest disease. Studies -seem to point toward bay
34 trees, which may spread the disease..
35
36 Chair Barrett: You mentioned 38 trees, however, materials it shows 32.
37
38' James.MacNair: 32' is correct.
39
40 Chair Barrett' trees are, listed as good to marginal —,not keeping many trees. All
41 the good trees you are removing — is that because .it interferes with .development.
42
43 James McNair: Being removed because of grading.
44
45 Marti Buxton: The live oaks are mitigated at a 4: -1 ratio.
46
47 Break at 9:10 p.m.
•
•
L
6
mss, L
Planning Commission Minutes = November 12, 2003
1
2 Resumed at 9:20 p.m.
3
4 Public comment opened
5
6 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked about hillside calculations. What is the formula —
7 the source and purpose was not clear.
8
9 George White: Explained that the formula comes from.the Zoning Ordinance and that we
10 can have that infornriation clarified.
11
12 Commissioner Asselmeier: Would likf--an explanation of what it means.
13
14 George White: We can supply the section of the Zoning Ordinance.
15
16 Steven Carl, Penngrove: Spoke on the water resource issues. Wells in Penngrove are
17 going dry — water is coming out of the same aquifer. Showed a reap of extensive
18 exchange areas. Rohnert" Park is .going to cover up its own water. supply. The Paula Lane
19 project is right in the wedge of recharge areas which is not a good idea. Expect a water
20 supply through 2020, after that it will not be there. Your , decision will affect Petaluma
21 and Penngrove.
• 22
23 Don Marguardt, 1202 West Street; Am not here to take a position on the development.
24 Most houses built prior to 1971 do not have a pressure system. Lived with a condition
25 which is low pressure. The pressure of water at the mains and houses came up today.
26 Provided copies of maps and existing hydrants. Checked water pressure of existing
27 homes in area. Developer is talking about 500 gallons tanks on properties being installed.
28 Saw city employee checking fire hydrant pressure and it was stated that the pressure was
29 at 18. On page 27 of Initial Study developer shall be' required to develop to Fire
30 Marshal's standards. Went to Fire Marshall and it was stated pressure was 20 at 500 psi.
31 Found out tonight it is; a different standard for the project. This is conflicting
32 information. Believe this controversy is a red flag. In view of the discrepancies in the
33 environmental document,, City should sit down and do a study of existing and future
34 development. Can you guarantee pressure will not be impacted?
35
36 Julian Podbereski, 1100' Schuman Lane: Read a letter" from Paul Miller on how the
37 project will destroy the environment such as wildlife and views.
38
39 Paul S'elinger, 1411 Sunset Drive: The character of the neighborhood is rural.. I am the
40 Chair of P.L.A.N and we have 70 members in our organization. We differ with the
41 developer in many ways. We are dismayed about the annexation.
42
43 Bill Bennett, 2902 B'odega Avenue: Want to speak about drainage — detention ponds
44 don''t work. The nature of the water flow has been changed. The water agency has no
45 jurisdication on the tributaries And Marin Creek. The property owners have to deal with
46 it on their own. We are working with the Water Agency to conduct a study. Zone 2A
7
Planning Commission Minutes: - November 12,.2003
1 was set up to relieve some of these conditions. Believe the density should remain at 2
2 acres minimum — the downstream neighbors get the runoff.
3
4 Joanna ,McClure; San Francisco - The area is country — want the quality to be retained —
5 particularly the birds, deer and the views.
6
7 Susan Kirks, Paula Lane: Member of P.L.A.N. Showed a tour of the neighborhood —
8 presented :a .handout.
9
10 Ken Miller, 6,00 West: P.L.A.N. niemb'er. An approval would add to the traffic situation
11 on Paula Lane and alter Paula Lane'. forever. The traffic report based it's study on City
12 data and not county. The study included Bantam Way which is not part of the area.
13 What is the'Methodology used? It should be evaluated by the County.road standards.
14 The neighborhood conducted their, own traffic study. Paula Lane .is .a narrow street and
15 students walk this road every day to school. Because it is county, vehicles tend to :drive
16 fast — to add more traffie-would be disastrous.
17
18 `Caroline McCall, 1302 -Sunset ;Drive, Regarding noise and lighting issues: The
19 magnitude of -noise will significantly impact the neighborhood and wildlife — noise
20. generated, would be significant. It is a rural., area and there is no noise: on, the. site now.
21 There will be an. increase in noise during construction and after development, it would' be
22 a permanent impact. Currently there are lights or streetlights — the.impact ofnighttime
23 lighting will impact the area and the wildlife. Noted. previous letters submitted. The.
24 development would destroy ecosystem that has been in effect for years. The proposal has
25 lots .13, IS 2,1. which overlay the badger habitats. The 3 -acre proposed open `space is the
26 area for fire protection mowing. Need further research for badger habitats. Have both
27 fire safety and water 'concerns for both the City and the County. Referenced a. June. 25.,
28 2003 letter submitted — fire flow barely meets the minimum. My water pressure is at 17..
29 Our pressure has not been resolved and this will only add to it.
30
31 Rollin Bruce, 1400 Sunset _Drive:. I have a serious problem with the drainage issue —
32 have watched water flow testing previously. The water is going through a large pipe,
33 which will exit onto my property: There. is no water flow in July. I bear 100 % of this
34 runoff including the pollutants. You would essentially be putting, a 'leach field into my
35 well. Widening Sunset Drive .is an issue — my utilities are there are you going to pave
36 over my utilities The sewer pumping station is right at the property line at;mydriveway.
37 I will have to listen to the pumping station if it breaks down it will come onto my
38 property. The badgers leave holes and when this development happens, the badgers will
39 be on my property. Leave the density the way it is — 5 houses.
40
411 Charles Carle, 250 Paula Lane: Concerned with the footprint of the houses and the
42 runoff. There is a new .borne right behind my house and I watched the grading of the
43 home. They put in pipe to collect the water and ran it down to the culvert to .,Bodega
44 Avenue — this exacerbates the flow to the Petaluma River. It is time "to deal with some of
45' - these :measures now, not in. '50 years from now. Suggest making the site a park. — it •
46 belongs in the public domain:
47
x
•
C]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Planning Commission Minutes i- :November 12, 2003
Lawrence Jordan, 20 Paula Lane: This development- will cause serious dissention in or
community and is not appropriate.
Joe Molinoli, 669. Paula Lane: Sold the tank site to the city — I have no pressure. This
should stay 2 acres per house. Traffic concerns — street is too narrow — need light at
Bodega and Paula Lane
Steve Rubart: Read letter from Judy Reynolds. This development. will_ destroy our
neighborhood. The traffic. and alteration of a historical landscape, etc. will be destroyed.
If the developer has their way`there will be no more country living, deer, birds, etc. You
have a chance to save a piece of this community.
Steve Rubardt: Would like t& know about the water pressure — who will be responsible if
our pressure drops? Don't 'feel a lot of assurance from the experts.
Amanda Kualheim 680 Paula Lane: My home is' located at the crest of a hill. The issues
of increased traffic and the narrow street are concerns. There is no sidewalk and no room
to widen the road.
Patrick Schaffer, 594 Paula Lane:_ Purchased home six months ago - was a dream home
for me and my partner. It is a quality, of life issue. I,am disgusted with this project and
that I have to fight for what I have. I love the neighborhood, te neighbors and the
animals — a park would be better.
M/S von Raesfeld/Dargie to continue to January 1.3, 200.4. 7-0.
Adjournment: 11 :00
SAK- Planning : Commission \Mihutes \?CMinutes03 \1 1 1203.doe
9
t
•'s'
MEMORANDUM
To George White
From: Mike Healy
Dater November 14, 2003
Re: Paula Lane Subdivision
Following this week's Planning Commission meeting, .I had some questions that I
would appreciate having addressed before this application comes back to the Commission.
E Could you provide a map that shows the County zoning tin the general vicinity (at least
from Bodega to Schuman) for areas outside. the UGB == specifically rshowing minimum lot
sizes -- in addition to ;current zoning or General Plan.land,uses for areas inside the UGB?
This would be helpful °in considering appropriate treatment of'the feathering issue.
2. Are there any known constraints (e.g., wells, septic) that could prevent this parcel from
being developed in the County with 2 acre lots, in the event the City declines to annex it?
3. I understand the neighbors approached.the Open Space DistricVregarding possible
purchase of this site. Setting aside the question of whether there is a willing seller, has the
OSD given a definitive answer as.to. whether or not it is interested in this site?
•
4. Has. the Police Department reviewed'the proposed' path and its relation to the proposed
lots? There have been two or three recent east -side subdivisions where the Police strongly
encouraged paths with "eyes" on them, meaning that they not abut only back yards and not
be shielded from view from nearby streets.
5. In connection with the Sunny Slope Road annexation many years ago, the City required
all the property owners with` development potential along the street to form an assessment
district and improve the entire length of the street. before any building was allowed. This
avoided the situation where some segments of a street are Widened but provide little
functionality because other segments are not ,widened. (Cherry and Magnolia are prime
examples of the approach being recommended here.) Was the 'Sunny 'Slope approach
considered by staff, 'and why is it not recommended?
6. Another lesson from `Sunny Slope Road is that the street was overdes'gned leading to
conditions- where motorists feel they can safely go 4.0 mph or more. With that experience in
mind, what street width,would be appropriate for a potential improvement of Paula Lane
down to Bodega; (and up to Schuman)? Is it less than the width of the short segment near
Sunset that is already inside'the City?
7. Could you get Steve Simmons tot provide an overview of Zone,2 and water pressure
•. issues? l's requiring pressum boosting.. devices on individual houses appropriate where
experiences shows that - , many homeowners choose to disconnect them and live with low water
pressure is there a fix that could address this problem for all of the houses in the upper
elevations of Zone 2?
ATTACHMENT B