Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 9.A-Attch02 06/21/2004I, +. Excerpt from Petaluma City Council Meeting Minutes of May 17; 2004 6 B. Paula Lane. Subdivision: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding a Recommenddtion from the Planning Commission. to Deny a Request for General Plan :Amendment, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, and (Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 2:1- 'Unit' Residential Subdivision 'Located at 431 Paula Lane, at the .Comer.of Paula !Lane and'Sunset Drive;; APN 019 -080 -009 & 010, Project Files ANXOI002, GPA0.1002 PRZO1003`, SPC01 TSMOI003 (Moore /Borba) Vice Mayor Moynihan recused himself from this matter as the party related to the applicant_ has been a source of income to his firm, Nexus Realty Group and indicated he be stepping down 'on this matter. Council Member Torliatt reported that she did trade phone calls with the developer but was never able to contact him. So she has not met with the developer, but she did meet with the neighborhood group. Mayor Glass noted he had meat with the - neighborhood and added he did have a lengthy conversation with the applicant. Council Members Harris .and Healy indicatedtheyhad done the same. Council Member Thompson indicated he had spoken briefly with the developer. Chris Hawke and Marti. Buxton Mission Valley Properties, gave an overall presentation of thel proposed development, They read' into the record a letter from Alice Vesterfelt, property owner,, urging the., Council: to give. favorable review and approval to their proposed development... Mayor Glass. opened the Public Hearing. Public Input Bill Edwards, Petaluma, addressed the City Council - in support of the applicant. He read'his letter, dated May 17,.2004 into the "record: He, noted he and his wife own 245 Paul Lane, six acres contiguous to and on the southern line of Alice Vesterfelt's "1 1.22 -acne parcel. He indicated they purchased the property 30 years ago and it 'is currently`rented to Susan Kirks. He urged Council to approve the proposed development. Dr: Stephen Carle Petaluma, addressed the City Council urging the Council to oppose the project and stated concerns with groundwater that he believes is inadequate for municipal supplies. Bill. Bennett, Petaluma, addressed the City; Council in opposition to the proposed development citing °water 'drainage' issues, traffic' concerns, and ;indicating the impact from Rockpointe Ridge is yet to be felt in their neighborhood. Norma ,Billing, Petaluma, addressed 'the City Council in opposition to the r proposed development; urging the Council to leave this beautiful, pristine land alone. ATTACHMENT 2 Council took a recess from 8:38 p.m. to 8:43 p.m. Julian Podbereski and Susan Kirks, PLAN, Petaluma, :addressed the City Council and gave a presentation in opposition to the development.. Th °ey supported the .,property owner's right to sell the property; -but cited , concerns with bird habitat, traffic, , badger'habitaf, deer habitat, and sewage disposal, They commented on the opportunity fora mcitching 'grants application for open space and noted that would generate. revenue for Petaluma. They stressed the need of the owner and developer to work with the City and County on the best use for this property.. . Sherby Sanborn, Consulting Arborist for PLAN, addressed. the City Council in opposition to the development and reported that the 'trees; as they exist on the site at this time, offer a better wildlife habitat as they exist rather than trying to replace them with newer trees. Carrissa Bishop -Sage, Petaluma, addressed' the City Council in opposition to the proposed development and stressed Petaluma is cherished for its heritage. Kim ;Fitts, 'Mammal Biologist for PLAN, addressed the City'Council `in opposition to the proposed development and provided a report on the badger 'habitat that exists on the property. Rollin ,Bruce, 'Petaluma, addressed' the City Council indicating,,he is not opposed to .developing the sight at fhe current AR -2 zoning, He further cited negative impacts regarding the current proposal, which included additional Water runoff, and sewer pumping station, issues. He added..he is opposed to this development because his property is most affected by the proposed water runoff. Charles Carle, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed developmenf and urged the - Council to deny-the application. Paige 'Schwartley, Braudt- Hawley Law Group, addressed the City Council urging them to accept the 'Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project. She went on to cite the significant environmental: impacts and stressed' if the Council did not deny the project, they must require an EIR. Art Melling, Petaluma,, addressed the City Council in opposition to.the proposed development and indicating with the way things are going people will just build and build until they get to the ocean. Betsy Ginkel, Petaluma, :addressed the City Council' in opposition to the proposed development and cited concerns with the effect on habitat, Steve Rubardt, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to- the proposed development. He cited negative traffic conditions on Paul lane, water runoff issues, as well as water pressure concerns. He concluded by stating the zoning.change is not in the best interests of the City. Ken Miller, Petaluma,,, addressed the City Council stating his. opposition to the proposed project and stressed there is no way to quantify the importance of the beauty of the area. 0 2 Hannah Jern Miller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in' opposition to the proposed development citing traffic, noise, sewage, and wildlife as concerns. She` °cautioned tf ;e City Council that if' 'they approve this there would be irreparable damage to the spirit of the neighborhood. Tom Pfaff Petaluma addressed the City Council noting the urban growth boundary should be adhered to. He indicated he lives in the .County and does not have a say, ihl this vote, but urged the Council to denythe'project. Dirk Atkinson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed development. Caroline McCall, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed development. ' f Joyce 'Williams; Petaluma, addressed the- Cify Council in opposition to the proposed development, citing quality of life issues. Patrick Schdfer,. Petaluma, addressed th_e City C_ ouncil in opposition to the ,proposed development,. Katie O'Connor, Petaluma, addressed the ,City Council in opposition to the .proposed development stating annexation, rezoning,, density, open space, water runoff, and water pressure as concern's. She indicated this development would be out-of-character with the ,surrounding neighborhood and perhaps the open space coud be used as an - educational tool for teaching about habitat and ecology for students. . Steve 'Kay, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed development and "noted the number of people who had signed petitions in opposition that have come to the meeting this evening -. Melissa Wilson, Petaluma, addressed the ,City Council in opposition to the proposed development and in support of open space and preserving the wildlife habitat. Geoff Petaluma, etaluma, addressed the''City Council regarding concerns with _ water runoff, water re- charge concerns and in opposition to the proposed development. .,Dru est Petaluma, addressed the City ,Council and 'noted, although not a residents of Petaluma, she is familiar'with Paula Lane. He noted PLAN had done a great job in researching the issues and stated concerns with traffic on the west side of -t'own. She 'indicated development here: would only increase the traffic and congestion. She urged denial of the. project. Hearing °'no further requests to speak; the Mayor Glass closed the Public Hearing. Council recessed' at' 10.-15,p.m:.fo 10:20 p.m. Marti Buxton Developer, attempted to address some of the issues expressed. 3 Ellie: Robbins, Stuber- Stroh, responded to the issues and concerns raised relating s to water°and indicated there is adequate flow for fire pressure and cited a report using th'e ,City's water'model that, says the water pressure is fine. She further noted that is enough water supply for the projec and cited the Zone 2 Water System, which `would be 'used. She indicated` there are no supply or capacity problems existing. Al Cornwell, .addressed concerns raised regarding the recharge: area, peak ,flows - which would be less than what exists today, and the location of the sewer pump station which would be similar to the one on Sunset Lane. Meda Bunzie, addressed the issues stated with the historic resources of the property, She noted the property has been referred to as an historic rural landscape, but the integrity has not been maintained. Marti. Buxton, readdressed the County zoning of the property, commented 'on feathering, indicated the sight was not suitable for a park, and indicated the proposed homes were preliminarily reviewed by SPARC. Margo Bradish, Attorney,. commented on the CEQA issue and indicated a ,negative declaration will be prepared, She noted there are is no substantial evidence "that the development impacts would have a, significant impact on the area and concluded by stating the disputing opinions are unsubstantiated lay opinions. It, was noted, lastly, that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the General Plan. Amendment. Council Member Harris noted he would like more information on 'the traffic concerns, badger habitat and would like to know the exact development fees to be gained by this project. Council Member Healy commented he would. like more clarifiCation on whether an EIR would be required or not, questioned' what the implications would be or what.would' happen if the project were denied, and requested staff' to get a clear answer from the County regarding the potential of purchase of this site for openspace. Council Member 'Thompson indicated he is satisfied with the: response given regarding the water pressure, acknowledged there may be badgers on the site and indicated the proposed project is too dense. Council. Member Torliatt noted a General Plan Policy discussion needed to take place before she would be able to make a decision regarding the proposal. 'Council,MemberO'Brien indicated his questions had been answered. Given the lateness of the hour, the City Council indicated no action would be taken this evening and the item would be continued to their June 21, 2004 Regular City Council Meeting for Council discussion and action. 4