Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 15.A-Attch13 02/03/2003r ATTACHMENT 13 �lLJ� COMMITTEE FOR MAGNOLIA PARK 824 BLOSSOM COURT PETALUMA, CA/94952 Honorable E-. -Clark; Thompson, Mayor- City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, Ca. 94,952 Dear Mayor Thompson, 05/10/02 This letter addresses the letter from Mr. JohnBriscoe, Attorney for Mission Valley Properties which was reported, at the May 6th Council Meeting. His letter seems to be 'a. thinly veiled effort to iritimidate the Council to approve his client's .application for a 30 unit PUD on the Magnolia Tract plus 17 custom units .on an. adjacent tract. As you already know, on the Magnolia site, due to possible burial: and wetland drainage, a total of 8.28 acres is unsuitable, for building and is to be gifted to the City,as a Neighborhood Park. Mission Valley's application had not gained the support of S.P.A.R.C., the Bicycle Committee or the Park Commission when it arrived at the Planning. Commission. By this letter I urge you and Council Members to closely scrutinize the various misinterpretations of fact set forth by Mr. Briscoe as evaluated more fully below. First, Mr. Briscoe repeatedlymischaracterizes the presentation.,I made. at the April 9th Planning Commission Meeting ;as a "proposed project" in order °to argue that there was "no legal basis for its presentation ". This presentation was in .point of fact made during the public comment session.9f that meeting, and as such, constituted public comment as to potential future uses of the.land at issue, and not a "proposed; project" within the meaning of CEQA or the Brown Act. Mr. Briscoe's attempt to recast this presentation as unlawful is plainly antithetical to the kind of open government and First Amendment values upon which this country was founded and which this Council has in the,past: supported. .Mr. Briscoe is of course free to disagree with the'views presented by the Committee for Magnolia Park and the majority of Petalumans; however, he has no right to suppress those views with backdoorthreats of frivolous lawsuits against the City. Accordingly, we would, request that you reject Mr. Briscoe's efforts to stifle the public process to which citizens are entitled. Second, Mr. Briscoe attempts to sow the seeds of confusion as to exactly what the General Plan says and what was decided by Planning Commission on April 9th. Under Mr. Briscoe's somewhat tortured reading of CEQA, th e P lannin g Commission is free to adopt Mitigated Negative Declarations irrespective of whether they are wholly inconsistent with the General Plan: in other words, The Planning Commission should simply rubber -stamp ;his client's project and disregard their responsibilities as Planning Commissioners. Of course, this view makes a mockery of having a General Plan in the first place. Third, Mr. Briscoe'smischaracterization of the Planning Commission's extensive deliberations on this, issue as "confused" is both incorrect and disrespectful to the Planning Commissioners. He'seeks to create a legal issue where none exists. Although conceding that the revised 1996 Land Use Map of the General, Plan depicts the entire Magnolia parcel as 'a "Public Park Proposed' , Mr. Briscoe is forced to fabricate a legal issue by pointing'to a plainly erroneous designation, made some fifteen years ago, of the parcel as an existing park. No one - except Mr. Briscoe - is confused on this point: the parcel was at that time, and remains to this day, private property- and the Planning Commission was fully aware of this fast., Indeed, if the Commissioners actually thought the land in question was public land, they would have questioned why Mission Valley Properties would have a right to build'on public land. Fourth, Mr. Briscoe''s labors mightily to "dispel" the confusion he alone has created by resortingto an extremely narrow construction of the text found on page 58 of the General Plan, as clarifying the "contradictory" drawings set forth in the General'Plan. As discussed above there is "no contradiction in the drawings, but rather a prior error, which was corrected _in the 1996 drawings. To assert that the text cited was actuallyintended to mean that only a,grove of trees on a much larger parcel was actually intended by the General Plan,for Open Space is simply.absurd, and flies in the face of what is clearly laid out in the revised 1996 Land Use Map, which, even.Mr. Briscoe will concede, describes the entire parcel as a proposed Public Park. Again, only Mr. Briscoe is confused on this point. The Committee for Magnolia Park and our supporters trust that the Council will ignore Mr. Briscoe's efforts to scuttle the public process by employing this kind of behind -the scenes, lobbying with implications of litigation: We have steadfastly and consistently advocated the Magnolia Site be. a Community Park with its focus on Nature, Walking Trails, Inland Wetland Bird Watching and limited exercise. We look forward to presenting our ideas to the Council. and rely on the procedures which have always characterized Council deliberations. Respectfilly, Bill Phillips c: Council' Members Fred Stouder, City Manager Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney . STOEL RIVES A coinLblallnn %%qb Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy April 26, 2002 Mayor E., Claris Thompson and City Councilnlembers City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma California 94952 Re: Magnolia 'Place Subdivision Dear Mayor Thompson and Councilmembels: 111 5UIlCr Arccl. Wic 70( Sim I rancLcco, Callrornla ; r110nc 415.6I7.890o lax 41 S.G 76, 300(1 M W.$IUl'I.CO111 JOHN ERISCOE .Direct (415) 617 -8903• jbriscoe@st'oel.com stoel.com The Planning Comnuss he the Magnolia Place subdivision on April 9. As counsel to the applicant, I write to object to irregularities that occurred during that hearing, and during the Commission's deliberations following the hearing, and to ask that you assure that those irregularities are not repeated when the Council considers this project. The proposed project is a residential development of 47 units on two adjoining parcels of land totaling 24.4 acres. Thirty of the units are proposed fora 6.55 -acre portion of the 17 -acre Magnolia parcel. The remaining 2 % of that. g parcel .would be public and private open space for public use The 7.4 -acre Gossage parcel would be. developed for 17 custom home sites. A small portion of it, too,, would be set aside as private open space, also for public use. Both- parcels ;lie outside the City ,limits, but their inclusion within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the Sphere of Influence assumes future annexation. Our objections to the proceedings before the Planning Commission are these; 1. At the outset of the hearing, the chair announced that a Mr. Phillips would be allowed to make a - Power presentation of . a project different. from the one that was agend zed and before the 'Planning Commission for hearing. The chair was quite evidently aware of the substance of Mr. Phillips's proposed project. When Mr. Phillips was' called to the podium and began his presentation, he presented his project for the Planning Commission to consider instead of the Magnolia Place subdivision. Orcgua Washington SanFran- 121135.6 0092559 -00002 C a l t I o r O I a ulah Idalln %`�ay Clark Thompson and or ty Councilmembers City of Petaluma April 26, 42002 Page 2 Mr. Phillips's project is a public park on the entire Magnolia parcel, with lavish public amenities., Mr. Phillips spoke about abundant sources of money that could be tapped for the acquisition, development and maintenance of his proposed project. Putting aside the manifest infeasibility of Mr. 'Phillips's proposed project, a,,number of procedural irregularities attended his presentation of it. First, the Phillips proposed project had not been noticed-d or agendized, and so holding a. public hearing on it violated the Ralph M. Brown. Act. Second, no. attempt to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had been made. No application had been made to the City; no .initial study performed; no negative declaration or environmental impact report had been prepared. Nor was the Phillips proposed project an alternative project considered under CEQA for the Magnolia Place subdivision. There was .no legal basis for its presentation. 2. The deliberations of the Commissioners following the public hearing showed further fundamental misunderstandings. -The Commissioners were to make recommendations to the Council on five discrete matters: a. Whether to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project ". b. Whether to approve the. General Plan amendments relative'to the Magnolia and Gossage parcels; c. Whether to approve prezoning changes for the Magnolia parcel, and the Gossage parcel; d. Whether to approve a Planned Unit. Development plan for the two sites; e. Whether to approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the-two sites. So what action did the Commission take? According to the Draft Minutes of the meeting, the Planning Commission passed three recommendations: a. That the Council not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, on the ground that the Magnolia Place project "is not supported by the General Plan "; b. That the Council not approve the General Plan amendment based "on lack of consistency with the General Plan "; 121135 tR SanPran- 121135.6 0092559-00002 M %"Y ayor E. Clark Thompson and ty Councilmembers City of Petaluma ,April 26; 2002 Page 3 c. That the Council not approve the preIzoning, the PUD plan and the vesting tentative map based on the previous recommendation to deny a General Plan Amendment. As to the first recommendation, CEQA . requires an environmental document such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, be adequate as an information document; whether the project is liked by the body, or whether it requires a General Plan Amendment, has no bearing on the question of its adequacy. As Ito. the second recommendation, a General Plan amendment is by its very nature "inconsistent" with the existing General Plan. To deny an amendment to a general plan on the ground ofitsi inconsistency with that plan is, simply, nonsensical. Here, moreover, the recommendation not to adopt the amendment, was .based on misinformation about what the General Plan says' about the Magnolia property, as we explain. 3. The Commissioners were confused about 'the General Plan status of the Magnolia parcel, and their responsibilities with respect to that Plan. The chair, for:example, proclaimed that the General Plan had "promised" the residents of Petaluma the- 17 -acres site as a public park, and he would -see to .it that the City, kept its "promise." Thez Planning Commissioners stated they had taken oaths. to preserve and` protect the General Plan. Commissioner Vouri exclaimed that permitting the applicant , to'develop on even a portion of the 17 -acres would be "giving a gift of public property." What are the real facts? The General :Plan text, figures and revised Land Use Map are confusing, to say the least, .tii thG subject vi the 1'7' -acre Magnolia parcel. Th6 revised 1.996 Land Use Map of the General Plan. appears to depict the entire Magnolia parcel as a "Public, Park Proposed." To. the contrary,. in the 1987 General Plan, the map of existing City Parks (Figure 6 -1) - indicates that there .is an existing city park in the general area of the Magnolia parcel —not a "Public Park Proposed.` Figure 6 -1 of the General Plan is demonstrably wrong, as are the Commissioner's remarks about the site being "public property," because the parcel is and has always been privately owned. The City has been reminded repeatedly that the Magnolia parcel is in private ownership, and has been given the opportunity to acquire the parcel. The City has not availed itself of 121135 V1 SanFran- 121135.6 0092559 -00002 ayor E. Clark Thompson and i Councilmembers City of Petaluma April 26, 2002 Page 4 that opportunity, nor has the City made the acquisition of the Magnolia parcel one of its top priorities for acquisition of parkland: ® The confusion is dispelled only when one considers < the 'authoritative text,o f the General Plaza on page .58 "West of the river, the eucalyptus grove west of Cypress Hills Cemetery should be preserved in open space. it is one of the few prominent groves of trees in and around the City., and is a scenic resource. The City should acquire a °scenic easement 'or purchase° it for park. "' (Emphasis is added; "it" is the eucalyptus grove, not•the entirety of the parcel.) The courts have made -it clear such words trump, contradictory drawings in a General Plan. o The text of the General Plan :expresses the City's' interest in preserving .the eucalyptus grove portion of the Magnolia parcel: But the misinterpretation of that expression of interest. In both Figure 6 -1 and the 19 r. 96;. Land Use Map causes confusion. The Map: shows the proposed Public .Park over the entire Magnolia parcel, not just' the north central portion where the, grove had been. .(The grove was cut down by the property owner, not the developer, Mission Valley Properties.) Moreover, the Planning Commission.and others are confused by the confusions in the General Plan documents: the text states that the City wants 'the eucalyptus grove to. be acquired as a park or scenic easement; Figure 6 -1 shows the Magnolia area as an existing park; Elie Land. Use ivlap then leaps far beyond Ili& text of the General Plan to 'depict the entire Magnolia parcel, far in excess of the :eucalyptus grove, as the desired park site. The proposed Magnolia Place project provides the City with 10 -plus- acres of parkland . within the area it envisioned as desirable, at no cost to the City. The former eucalyptus grove =the only area designated 'by the Plan for acquisitions —was half this size. • Sever l of the Commissioners spoke about their duties to protect and uphold the General Plan. (The land use eleinent alone has been_ amended no fewer than 17 times, between 1988 to 1998.) If there is such a duty, it arises from 121135 V1 SanFran- 121135.6 0092559 -00002 %'Yay Clark Thompson and or ty Councilmembers City of Petaluma April 26, 2002 Page 5 this clear mandate from the General Plan: "The City should acquire a scenic easement !or purchase it [the eucalyptus grove, again, not the entire site] for park." The owiiers have asked the City on numerous occasions to carry out this directive, or to amend the General Plan. The City has ignored these requests until now. We submit it.is time the Council responds appropriately. It has the opportunity to obtain the land in question, the former eucalyptus grove area - and more -- at no cost to the City at all. I trust the proceedings before the City Council will be conducted in a regular manner, in accordance with law, that the Council will vote on what is actually before it, and not on other matters, and that the question of ;amending the General Plan will be taken up with the actual text of the General Plan in mind -- not some fanciful contortion of it. It was about three years ago when the City Council ,gave the applicant his allocation with the instructions to study the project's environmental impacts,. The applicant. has done. what was asked of him. Now he asks that you consider this proposal with reason, fairness, fiscal prudence and sound policy. Very truly yours, John.Briscoe cc: Richard Rudnansky, Esq., City Attorney, City of Petaluma (Via Fax). Dan Aguilar (Via Fax) tZLUS V1 SanFran- 121135.6 0092559 -00002 mari -Ann Gibbs Rivers 37 Liberty Lane Petaluma, CA, 94953'' 707 738 - 5743 April 9, 2002 . Re: - Proposed Magnolia`Place project Dear Planning Commissioners: APR 2 9 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DERARTM I am sorry that 'I cannot attend the meeting tonight. I want to express my support for the Magnolia Place project. I live in the neighborhood and want to have a park that is in walking dstance my home. It is apparent that. the City and the County wiil not be able; to purchase this property: as :parkland. It is better to have a good -sized park; 'than, have no park at all., If the City does not approve this development, the; developer will have no choice but to develop the entire parcel in the County and we will forever lose the opportunity for a park. I also appreciate the fifaffic= slowing roundabout. I have seen motorists drive far too quickly on Magnolia 'Avenue and the roundabout will improve the safety of this street. The smell from the chicken ranch is offensive and will. ,not be. missed in our neighborhood. -1 appreciate that the developer is solving several neighborhood problems including the shortage of parkland, traffic, safety, and air pollution. The development plan calls ,for a reasonable number of houses that will not increase traffic too much but will increase property values in the neighborhood. ' 7 Sincerely, Mari- n Rivers 37 Liberty Lane Petaluma, CA 949527 . 707 738 -5743' fi 0 U a O NZ r J � C r I f i i I.- F rir. i i ti v O a ZI N r m m O +. ti d 01 O p L ti _ q a o �Q y W �` zi o o ° � V ° QO) o blo 0 t2 U ���,a :.� Qon Q .4 Q p to p ��• �. V , � V U U : y U fi ti O d Q O U U � O a b O Ji � O O o g °`ti d Z -4 m U O ' i� i F F I 1 y ° V O ti oCi U O � p v N � o ti �. o o to O z V O M gi, p 0 R m t4 z 'z of '� Q � � ss. o .,. •^ fi 0 U a O NZ r J � C r I f i i I.- F rir. i i ti v O a ZI N r m m O +. ti d 01 O p L ti _ q a o �Q y W �` zi o o ° � V ° QO) o blo 0 t2 U ���,a :.� Qon Q .4 Q p to p ��• �. V , � V U U : y U fi ti O d Q O U U � O a b O Ji � O O o g °`ti d Z -4 m U O ' i� i F F I 1 y ° V O ti oCi U v N � O O ••D � O d G' b V O 0 R �, fi 0 U a O NZ r J � C r I f i i I.- F rir. i i ti v O a ZI N r m m O +. ti d 01 O p L ti _ q a o �Q y W �` zi o o ° � V ° QO) o blo 0 t2 U ���,a :.� Qon Q .4 Q p to p ��• �. V , � V U U : y U fi ti O d Q O U U � O a b O Ji � O O o g °`ti d Z -4 m U O ' i� i F F I 1 A o zo`��.� t U � ," y { C A S • m ° O U �o U O C N O Z ti C U U to o wo y d 402 t4) ti C O � G ° U O U O C t tl O C Gp ,,e ti "Ct 0 � ;t h � � �1 ti ZL A f I i i f v ,a0 I o zo`��.� t N N � ," y { C A S • m G FZ, �o U O C N O Z ti C U U to o wo y d 402 t4) ti C O � G ° U O � ti N O C t tl O C to O C b "Ct 0 � h � � • U •�• ,� '� � p per' U �+ � G 4� f I i i f v ,a0 I o zo`��.� t N N � ," y { C A S • m m O o �o U O C N O o wo y d 402 t4) ti C O � G ° U O � ti N O C t tl O C "Ct � y • U f I i i f v ,a0 I o zo`��.� t N N m O o U O C N O •� ti C O � G ° U O � ti N O C t tl O C y f I i i f v ,a0 I I bq C .) tz Zj rz z l a r, iz � .. - rz ZS QL i g ) b.0 O I n rl) rzi ;z Qo Q ezo "ZI �on ZZ ZI r4) �o QJ C I bq C .) tz Zj rz z l a r, iz � .. - rz ZS QL i g ) b.0 O I n rl) I bq C .) tz Zj rz z l a r, iz � .. - rz ZS QL it rzi ;z Qo Q ezo "ZI ZI �o it Y U U CU U tl q 0 CU G ,O U �o ti N q U 0 O o N c a v U FZ, ;t O O ti F N O i � v °i ', _ N • p C O �' ,,, O p : t ti C r O 0 Y 0 ti O�. � N V Xv U U O U oo C m q U O U U O CIO U d 4 izs; , tS Z R O U CIO N O C O � O by y U 0 O o N c a v U FZ, ;t O O ti F N O i � v °i ', _ N • p C O �' ,,, O p : t ti C r O 0 Y 0 ti O�. � N V Xv U U O U oo C m q U O U U O CIO U d 4 tz � � c U p y � •� ti O O Z h � MM N S � V bo U O v O , 1)7 I lk -n,\� izs; , tS Z R O U CIO � O y bo ; N tz � � c U p y � •� ti O O Z h � MM N S � V bo U O v O , 1)7 I lk -n,\� E, U U o U ti ti N IZLI o� Q v � � o v p h G , �+ o e o 0 o' cs o o Z.o o Q tn m. ti � R. O � •ti O n v � o h U U � �t O p c " •ti � � O � � Ci CS U y o FS U a, 0 ,� � E•ti � � N � N C p CLI ti R E, U U o U ti ti N IZLI o� Q v � � o v p h G , �+ o e o 0 o' cs o o Z.o o Q tn m. ti � R. O � •ti O n v � o h o U � �t O p c " •ti � � O � � Ci U a, 0 ,� � E•ti � � N � N CLI E, U U o U ti ti N IZLI o� Q v � � o v p h G , �+ o e o 0 o' cs o o Z.o o Q tn m. ti � R. O � •ti O m J J Q U = � F W cn Q m o w o co a. w �1 NO N a n v � o y o o c V �t c " m J J Q U = � F W cn Q m o w o co a. w �1 NO N a U O N ; r i I O O O � lU }� 4> U O tl O, L t S -Z D ~' o .a b y o U t o N o .., �n O N U O O U O MM •'�: 0 U 0 fio N o 0 'zi "Z3 CS., > o N ^- �y ti ^ � . O N ti •t3 �O ° O U tzt N .., pa ,CS: •R• h D to q Z., �3 •� i I V N� O O O � lU }� 4> U O tl O, D ~' o .a b y o o .., I E O U O MM •'�: 0 U y 2 Zs o o� N ^- �y (u to � N N G O N i V u N 4! " D O U .., pa ,CS: •R• h D to V N� t" ) O O � U 4> N D O o .a b y o O d U O U 2� b MM •'�: 0 U � 4 o 2 Zs o o� O Q� �y V N� Op 04 .2002 PQ P U � � EN) D P Rr 1 L e� J � i G✓ ' ��e ->-G� � y z G4' �Lr -,rJ 1 Apr 0,8 02 07:30a Com— k njty Development � Z:�� F 7,4 L �� Lll/V" A2 70777a4 4 p. 3 7, i 2 L/'�yL�m f ...+Tit/. 7 � ,,,. �C,��v i'�" [/ ��/ ny P A PP 12002 Community Development Department irv�;���r� a rc�uriVit�Vl OLi AR`ME Planning Division City of Petaluma 11 .English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Magnolia Woods AKA Place: Mr. Dan Aguilar, representing Mission Valley Properties has come into our neighborhood with a positive attitude about what he would like to do to improve this area. We have some people who have been mislead into believing_ that there is monies available to develop a piece of land into . park. Even though they have been told that the only source of revenue for a park is through home sales, they, tend to believe that they {have a source available to them. Therefore, these people have resisted Mr. Aguilar's advances not realizing that they are not going to get any park if the development that Mr. Aguilar is representing doesn'.t in. Mr. Aguilar is willing to donate some of this land for a regional park, provide support revenues for the park's continuance of maintenance- and also to re- plant with native planting. He is willing to do this providing that he is allowed to develop the land known formerly as Magnolia Forest AKA Woods. In addition he is going to rid us of a miserable health concern in that the, chicken ranch in back of some of our.homes now go. into residential development too. Gone will be the continuing fly problem, the continuing pollution of the land and water caused by the raising of poultry in this area. And finally, .gone will be the miserable odor caused by the changing of the birds every three months, which has prevented us., from using our backyards. Based upon information we wer. p re given 32 plus years ago w en we'bought our home, we have long awaited for this time to come when the chicken ranch is gone and the area is developed and improved bringing us a residual of an increase in value of our homes. It is our wishes, and our blessings, -to see this dream of Mr. Aguilar's come to fruition. It is our intentions to be present on April 9 to support Mr. Aguilar's project. Sincerely yours, J. Scott & Deanna J.. Waterman 1212 Kathileen Way Petaluma, CA. 94052 Philip J. Woodward 555 Magnolia Avenue Petaluma, CA 94 March 25, 2002 Community Development Department 'Plann -ng °Division, 'City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 To Whom it may concern: RECEIVED MAR 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELO`PMENj DEPARTMENT l,. Magnolia Place Subdivision plans call for street runoff From the southern portion of the project to drain directly into the creek Darallel to Magnolia Avenue. The creek passes through a square culvert and drains onto our property at 555 Magnolia Avenue. We request that street runoff from the subdivision be diverted to the large round storm .drain under Magno Zia Avenue , We already .receive street runoff from.. Antone Way; If the level of polution coming from. Antone Way is an indication of. what to expect from the Magnolia Place project, impact on the cr -eek by the proposed runoff system would be severely negative. 2. Magn©lia. Place Subdivision plans call for "parcel to be danat,ed to th.e city as a park. What. will - patrolling and maintenance of the donated acreage.co -st, and haw would be paid for? Where will park users park and how many parking spaces will - there be? . There are errors on the subdivision map copy given. to me at City Hall (Vesting- Tentative Subdivision Map., Sheet No. C2, rev. December 2001) : My first and last names are missp :ell,ed.. Location of properties across Magnolia Avenue from the subdi- vision. has been shifted 300 ya rds _west. Thank you for your consideration. S.inaer ely., CoI i IITTEE FOR MAGNOLIA PARK`' 824 BLOSSOM COURT PETALUMA, CA. 94952 03/18/02 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Gentlemen: Re: Magnolia Place Subdivision This communication is directed. at the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc., dated June 2000. Aside from the nuisance of the proposed roundabout, the study completely fails to assess the impact of the 459 daily trips. estimated. They will generate an additional serious hazard at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and North Petaluma Boulevard. This intersection is an accident waiting to 'happen as is shown by the photographs presented with this communication. It seems no evaluation of this critical traffic impact has been addressed. The presence of the telephone poles force pedestrians and bicyclists to enter . the traffic lanes with vehicles approaching from their rear. It is -not only an accident waiting to .happen but will happen sooner with the additional - traffic created by the Magnolia; Place Development. For the Committee: Jennay Edwards Dr. Guy Gullion Marie Johnson Bill Phillips MAR 18 2002 COMMUNITYOtVELUrNIL,i, COMMITTEE FOR MAGNOLIA, PARK 824 BLOSSOM COURT PETALUMA, CA. 94952 March 14, 2002 Mr. Paul E. Gagnon Director of Development P.O. Box 517 840 Keokuk Street Petaluma, Ca. 94 Dear Paul, 10R MAP 1 � ��1p � Thank you for your letter of March 12th. We will certainly remove your name and the school's name from any further correspondence. We have l a.d two main,reasons for keeping you informed. First, is the traffic' ssue: If we do not realize the park called for in the General Plan, there will be between 400 .and' 600 additional daily car movements back and forth on Magnolia Avenue. Second, if my memory is correct, your daily population of students and staff is close to 400; so as good neighbors we have wanted to keep you informed of the impact this additional traffic would have on your. commuters. I am sure you recall the pictures of the current danger to vehicles and pedestrians at. the intersection of Magnolia and North Petaluma Boulevard. We had loaned you these so you could caution your, students: Additional trac will exacerbate this hazard. Second your students will benefit from the Nature. Education Facilities as well as the Ten- Station Jogging and Exercise Trail that is planned for the Park. Rest assured that we will honor your request. I hope you will contact me at any time there are questions regarding this Committee's pursuit of a Community Park. rdially, W. Phillips For the Committee cc: Beisi Lewitter -' Community Development Department St.' Vi ncent de Paul High School March 12, 2002 Mr. William R. Phillips Committee for Magnolia Park 824 Blossom Court Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Mr. Phillips, RECEIV AR 1,3 COMU NI rYDEVcI�pE N T OEPARTU I am writing to ask that you remove both my name and the name of St. Vincent de Paul High School from your mailing list. This includes the use of the names as a CC: in your mailings. The connotation of having the names on your list is that we support your. committee, and as you know from our past conversations our position is neutral. We do not and will not take a position. on. either side. Sincerely, J Paul E. Gagnon Director of Development cc: Betsi Lewitter Community Development Dept. P.O. Box 517, 849' Keokuk_Street, Petaluma, California 94953 (707) 763 -1032 FAX (707) 763 -9448 March 13, 2002 Community Development Department LL Planning Division City, of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma,, CA 94'952 Re: Magnolia Place Subdivision Dear Planning Commission /City Council My property borders'the,proposed prcject'on 1111 Gossage Avenue and, I would like to state my support for the project and the developer Dan Aguilar. The project if approved would provide the removal of Petaluma Poultry chicken ;ranch that I believe is a health hazard to all adjoining residences. My water has always been contaminated with nitrates .caused from this chicken ranch. Chicken manure has washed down on my property in heavy rains_ My ranch animals have died mysteriously including a male llama valued at over $1000. The noise and smell 'from the chicken ranch is a constant reminder of the menace and embarassment to guest. The proposal as I understand removes the chicken. ranch with upscale homes. that would be feathered into our property at 'a lower density. Mr. Aguilar has also agreed. to provide city water services to our residences eliminating the health hazard in our drinking water. If the new development has proper blinding and set backs from our property, and eliminates the health hazard of the chicken ranch with drinkable water to my. property, I'.m in full support! with regards to the proposed park in the Magnolia portions of the proposal, I would prefer a more natural and open space with a confined park-like ,setting. This would work better in the rural and'tanchette livestock area on Gossage and Jess Lane. Finally, I can't say enough about the integrity of Dan Aguilar. I_'ve watched him in neighborhood groups with his positive intent t please all residents. He is the kind of developer who is opened to accomodating individuals on all sides of the fence. I hope that the City of Petaluma understands that they should take advantage.of quality developers such as Dan and his company Mission valley Properties. I plan on attending the public hearing on April 9 and supporting the project! Since Jim Becker 953 Gossage Ave ue. cc: Dan Aguilar, Mission valley Properties March 2, 2002 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Petaluma 11 English St. Petaluma, Ca. 94952 MAP 0 4 20 9 ( IYIiVIIIIy�IYUCY�� l�l IN I btPARi1 ENT. Re: Magnolia Place Subdivision Members of the Planning Division: My name is Bill Mattson and j reside at 957 Gossage Avenue, Petaluma, California. I am writing this letter in general support of the project known as the Magnolia Place Subdivision. While I have some specific concerns, in my mind the benefits of the project far outweigh the costs. My property, borders the 1.1.11 Gossage Avenue development, as well as the public park portion of the 1120 Magnolia Avenue development.. The removal'of the chicken ranch would represent a major improvement for me. Gone -will be the smell of chickens mid manure. Gone will be the noise associated with the whole commercial process. It do..esn't seem, appropriate, in any event, to have a commercial business that large in an area that is designated as part of the UGB. The other major benefit for me would be the abiiity to annex my- property into the city and obtain city water and sewer.. I have two specific concerns 'about the project. One relates to the public park. The other relates to the size of the homes designed for the Gossage project. In regards to the park, my main concern would be noise if it is decided to include playgrounds or athletic fields. I would propose that the park be designed as passive, i.e., consist of nature trails and picnic areas. In my mind that would be consistent: with the nature of the area as it exists today. One other concern about the °park would be the hours it is open. Most parks have a dawn to dusk policy to prevent unlawful camping and other activities. I would propose the same for this park. In regards to the custom 'homes on the north side of the Gossage project, -my main concern is that they are generally consistent with the size and of our homes. Specifically, that they be ranch style rather than two story, and that they be set back from our homes so that they are hardly visible to us. This can also be accomplished with the planting of required. vegetation. I plan to attend the public hearing -on April 9, 2002. If you have any questions for me I can be reached at 763 -0814. Sincerely, Bill Mattson cc: Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properties d nail '7 Wnnl 1 p7 LL /, (rVViI T��nr 'X�lnviaoiH.n /"`ns�»�Yaainsenrc L �rW/ l 4W7.7.764 /DG. VVfIW1Lt•J t7DV7:'i {..f l7, Wn "P7 7 - WP;H;"Cr 'fn llnn I, nl fWIICI n IIrn "Va 71Hnliln r r e wi v rr r 000a -!rb !.v y vw, a�.a:vw7n:uar ,rr a. w• v wlyw�r.a.. a.v wo�c,cdw y vrzr. tpril 9th meeting. We STRONG-T, Y OPPOSE the proposed Magnolia Place subdivision planned in our neighborhood Firstly, the General Plan calls for a pu lic park on this site If this is not possible, then at the very least the property should remain designated as suburban residential, NOT urban standard residential, Secondly, wheat is the point of having ; a General Plan if developers can pick it apart iwhenever the opportunity arise These kind of proiects should be liMited to inside the current limits., If the ci beeps a nnewing these very . special properties, the rural quality of West Petaluma will soon be history. Thirdly, has anyone considered traffic impact on our- neighborhood ?' agnolia is ; already a, BUSY, POORLY MAINTAINED, NA OW" ROAD. Plecase, Tot forget that our children must walk along this busy road to Cherry Valley School Its. tine for the City to say, "NO!" to this type of development. Infill inside the current city limit is the answer. Please help us preserve our neighborhood Sincerely, Douglas 14. and �,o,F-i L. Lund 715 Vanessa Way Petaluma, 9495 _VtLUNi�itiVl U�PA��F�ENi �OMMUNIII uk Dear Planning Commission and City Council: The Magnolia Pla project will be a welcome addition to. the City of Petaluma. It provides .a free park for the community. Po'r many years, I have. enjoyed holding my children's birthday parties in the parks, but have been concerned that. the parks are often overcrowded with others wanting to give their children a similar celebration. We need more parks, especially in the northwest part of town. Magnolia Place provides street improvements that will help protect the children i- ncluding sidewalks and a new crosswalk in the proposed roundabout._ 'The children will appreciate that added protection from carsrl I am pleased that the new families will be going to Cinnabar School, not Cherry Valley. Cinnabar has adequate capacity to add new stud'ent . I know that the Commissioners will respect the needs of the community and approve the Magnolia Place project that has so much to offer us. Thank you. Yours Truly, 5H, wV G2 � (9 - -- -. Glen Ghdotti 1656 Middle Two Rock Road Petaluma, CA 94952 April 2, 2002 Dear Planning Commissioners: APR 5 COMMUNITY UEftLU O I ULWTMEW As a taxpayer and resident of Petaluma, I cannot believe that this City would be so foolish as to turn down a free park. If you haven't noticed, the City of Petaluma is broke. We have no money to fix our streets let alone buy new parks. Here we have a developer willing to donate over half of. his land for a community park, plus plant new trees, plus put up money to provide park maintenance for years, to come., I thought someone was pulling my leg when I heard that the Parks and Rec Commission turned down this park dedication. It's no joke that. we need and deserve a park in the Magnolia area '1 understand that the City's General .Plan has called for- a park at this site since the 1970s. Now we have th - e opportunity to get a FREE park, FREE landscaping, and FREE maintenance. If it means having some, homes built to make the developer able to GIVE the City this park and open space land, then . we are getting the, better end of.the deal. Don't let people kid you with their talk of wanting the whole thing to be a park. How much of their own money are they willing to put up? 'We know that the City and the County's Open Space District don't have the park, site on their priority list and there is no funding available from either governmental agencies. I say :a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, Let's accept this Magnolia Place project and grab. the park while it is still bein g offered I don't want to rdri've by this property some day and shake, my head remembering when we had the .chance to .have a. free parkland see that the property is now filled up with monster homes and the public park is gone forever. �ECEIVILEL: APR 5 2002 COMMUN UtV'ttUNtN! Ui:ORTMENI Dear Planning Commission and City Council: I am a resident of Petaluma and support adding more parks to our City. As a parent, I am concerned that our town has sa few parks for the children to play. 'I am worried that, without appropriate, safe place's'to play, our children: will be forced to play in places that are inappropriate and unsafe. The world is a dangerous place -- , we should be doing all we can to make it better for our children. I support the Magnolia Place project because it provides a park for the people who live in the northwest section . of town. The city has wanted to have a park 'on this land for decades and now we have a.chance to. make that dream a reality. I, for one, find the donation of 10+ acres of park and open space land sufficiently close to the original size of the city designated park to warrant supporting the developer's building homes in the lower part of the property. I also like the fact that the developer is planting new trees to replace the ones cut down a few years ago. The site today is unattractive and 'a park with lots of trees would be. a good improvement. The trees would also be homes to birds and the other animals that lost their homes when the trees were cut. I hope that you vote in favor of the park and Magnolia Place. Petaluma needs more parks and those parks need to be better:geographically distributed. The northwest area has gotten less parks and more promises than other parts of Petaluma. Your vote will correct this problem. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, William Clemens 201 $unnyslope Ave. Petaluma, 'CA. 94'952 :8 APRk 5 200 t OMMUNii Y' Ut'ri,vUhV1Nl 1 1 r`'AflfPrlk!VT To: Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council Re: Magnolia Place Date April 3, 2002 I urge you to approve the proposed Magnolia.Place project when it comes before you on April 9. I have been tracking the Magnolia property over the last 10 years fearful of what was being proposed and'how the land =was being treated. But.now w. e have_Dan Aguilar of Mission Valley Properties bringing forward a project that complements the neighbor- hood and provides community benefits.. Previous proposalawere fora lot more.houses. I think there was one,for 75 or 80 houses, and another for 60 or sahomes on just the 17 acre Magnolia site. Magnolia Place is asking only for.30 units on.the Magnolia.site! And these 30 homes are clustered.in the lower portion so that Mission Valley can give the City over 10 acres of parkland and open space. `The previous owner of the Magnolia site had the eucalyptus trees cut down. It was shocking 'to see the property so bare looking. Mission Valley will replant native trees all over the property to restore the lost forest. Mission Valley will also setup a fund to provide longterm park maintenance. Traffic is always a concern, but the traffic studies show that Magnolia Place will increase traffic - insignificantly. On the other hand, the project will have significant safety improvements. First, there is the roundabout to be; put "in at the intersection- of Magnolia, and Elm. The roundabout will'force cars to ,slow down that long stretch of Magnolia Avenue where they tend to speed. Mission Valley is completing the sidewalk up to the cemetery. The sidewalk and the crosswalk at the roundabout will make pedestrians safer. I support the quality homes that will.be built in Magnolia.Place. These upscale homes will enhance the neighborhood and increase property values. The architecture looks like Petaluma.and will be attractive addition. Dan Aguilar is working to make the homes be very energy efficient and is trying incorporate things like; Low E windows, low energy heating and cooling. systems, and photovoltaic features. I appreciate the efforts of Mission Valley to create a project that is an asset to the community and has so many positive benefits. I hope that you will agree and give the project your support. Yours truly, — —1 u a APP 5 2002 C OMMUNDOLvtturmtivl uEf?A��MEN1 To Planning Commissioners, Mayor and City Council members: I would like you to vote for the Magnolia Place project. I support it because I think that in light of the events of September 11, we need more parks where the community can gather, where the community can be with nature, where people can appreciate a sunny day. Now is the time to go to .a park where you can enjoy your family and friends, gain solace from God's green earth, and take time to remember what is important in life. I know some people wish that they could have a park that. encompasses the whole Magnolia parcel. I would hope that you wouldn't be blinded by their desire to make this an all or nothing choice. ,It is a false choice to think that if you turn down this project that the money will come from heaven to buy this land. If it has not happened during the boom times, there is even Tess reason to believe it could happen when we are facing terrible budget cuts at local and state levels. I am more than happy to take the land, over 10 acres that is.being preserved from development, as a true gift to the community. Something is betterthan'nothina. Let us not be sorry that we passed. on ;this opportunity. Take the park and all that comes with it. It is good for the community. Sincerely, �� a�_J� RECEIVED APR 4 200? IMMUNITY OEVcWIPMO f DE PAIRTMENI, v PLa*UAi4Aq- c ovunas,�� ancl/ c U�v C CtWLC,&.. pLa,c,e yotv have/ ayv eav pro it ham mulc� v to- Xt the/ ' Y. Th& nu*Pa)-e,r 'Of hOUSek are few. . Thai ' y w a Lv. g vavt, a, The/ Maq4wlia/sai , ik a4 were cut dciv; a4L&tlL& dePVeloper thaw b.6 foi e/ It �- easy to -.say y ep' to- e4l the' StenCk- Of th& ChLC44111 vim, to- enCUn . g- the/ P oil "VV) Of thel n.4. ratek- {-o-qv the, ch6c", manure to wdzk L av� to endi+v they Hea� of p ar n kz,-�' the/ M aq+toUal "ea, of Ji& city. - yc-,,Lrs , rnczy, � �,7 a� wee - ���a� C �I S`95�/ 2 April, 2002. APP 4 2002 uUMMONi, i UC, CLvrmOi NEPARTMENT Community Development Dept., Planning Division City of Petaluma 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 Members of the Planning Commission and City Council: We support the proposed Magnolia Place subdivision. We are greenbelt advocates and do not want to see sprawl. While we would, personally, prefer not to have growth right next door, this is an appropriate development for the property as it is infill within the Petaluma urban growth boundary. The proposed housing density feathers to the UGB or matches existing density. The proposed home designs have character and interest and complement the design of older Petaluma. The proposed housing setbacks from Gossage and Magnolia are acceptable and are more than what exists on those streets now. Our 1.75 -acre property borders the south edge of the chicken farm portion of the proposed development. We are usually upwind of and are of higher elevation than the ranch and are not plagued by most of the problems of the ranch's downhill neighbors. While a subdivision next door would introduce more noise and less privacy for us, we :could, ,however, hope that human neighbors would draw fewer flies. The development would add the impact of six homes to Gossage Ave. traffic; however, Gossage is already a main connector between Petaluma Blvd. and Magnolia Ave. -- whether we like it or not. The proposed park and open space will be an asset to the neighborhood. As it is a local attraction, well within walking distance for those most likely to use it, the lack of parking does not seem a detriment. The park size and configuration are attractive from a bicyclist or walker's point of view, and we will certainly use it. The configuration does not seem suited to field sports due to the terrain. This area currently houses a semi - permanent camper population and is private property unavailable for hiking or biking. Perhaps the city could explore connecting the proposed hiking /biking paths to Jessie Lane. Overall we support the Magnolia Place development. housing in a manner consistent with the General Plan, inaccessible private space. We see the development as adding needed while providing access to currently SinFerely, Greg and Arisha Wenneson 1189 Gossage Avenue RECEI' EL A PP a ZJO? COMMUNIT YJEVti.UNt1VI ut PARTMENI ..,,. - -.- Dear Planning- Commissieners�and City Council 'members.: The Magnolia Place development is good for the City of Petaluma: I support the project and ask you to. vote in favor of this project. As a resident of Petaluma, am 'aware that the City is below the standard ratio of number of parks per resident. 10ur city parks are not equally .thro.ughout our community. In particular the northwest quadrant is bereft of parks, especially community parks.. The developers of Magnolia Place, Mission Valley Properties:, will give the City a large corhmunitypark and rprovide money,for maintenance and park improvements. Those are very beneficial things. Mission Valley is doing ,all' of this to gain favor with the community, To allow Mission Valley to be benevolent, it is necessary that they be able to build homes in the lower, less visible portion of the property which boosts the amount of land that will be not be developed. Just a little over a third of the Magnolia site'will be developed, while over 8 acres will be a park' and over 2 acres will be private open space. Just a little :over 6 acres will be developed with 30 homes, which is less than half of what was previously proposed by past developers. Magnolia Place;is a project that minimizes its negative impacts and maximizes its positive impacts'. Please vote for Magnolia Place. Thank you. Sincerely, -( Ski 0 APR 0 2002 1`iJ�'�`Sf�jFry�� * tlil j{S� �9 i�J3N 11 J .�J � d L qrry ® • • 01t•, V anessa P efalurna , Ca 949 Ph one (707) 762�1213 l andj dit o@aol.c o m 1 April 2002 OMMUNW( UtVLLUI MW )EPAUMENi RE: Support Magnoloa Place Subdivision City of Petaluma Planning .Commission and City Council: As a 30 year resident of the northwest neighborhood of Cherry Valley, I have been actively involved as a volunteer in many youth and school sponsored activities. My family and' d1 have enjoyed city parks, the Chery Valley multi use field, community open space and have used all of the recreational facilities available to us. As a mein- ber of an ad hoc Cherry Valley Park_ committee in 1976, my neighbors and I ,helped r determine the allocation of park funds for field and track imporvementsrat Cherry`Valley school. When the committee reviewed undeveloped sites in our neighborhood that were suitable for a future community park k, the property at 1.120 Magnolia Avenue was among our favorite locations. Unfortunately, the property was unavailable and City resources were for too slim. The advisory group has long since disbanded but 1. have watched with interest a recent proposal to develop the Magnolia site. As I understand the project, the developer is proposing,to develop 47 single family homes under strict design review guidelines. More importantly is the offer to dedicate over TO acres for park and open space purposes. In addition, Mission Valley Properties will pay all applicable park development fees and created park maintenance annuity that will be used to offset maintenance costs of this new public park area. While there may be some discussion about the appropriate level of annuity and other details, this seems like an offer'the City should not refuse. I support herecom mend atiions made by Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation in his report to the Parks and Recreation Commission. I also fully support the offer of the developer for residents to become involved in the design and improvements for the park. A neighborhood.park has long been needed to serve, the residents of the northwest neighborhoods of Petaluma. The City certainly does not have the funds to acquire and develop such a park, let alone maintain it once It is developed. This is . a tremendous opportunity. The position of the Open Space District is clear. This site is low on their priority list. But it should be high on the priority list for the City. Let's not let an opportunity go by for us to be creative and provide a much needed parkimprovement for residents, of Petaluma. The proposed project will be a great improvement to the neighborhood and clean up an area that is unsightly and misused. I urge you to supporf`the proposed improvements at Magnolia. Place and to direct your staff to agressively negotiate the details of public improvements therein. I am unable to attend the April Planning Commission meeting. Please enter my comments to the public record, in rely, La 7 to Cathy and Joern Kroll 906 Samuel Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 -1830 13 August 2000 Members of the Petaluma Planning Commission - 1Vlerrib`ers °of the Petaluma City Re: Proposed "Magnolia Park" Development J7-9�' .... 1•��lS�+1�11�1 We are voicing our opposition to the proposed "Magnolia Park"- development. In September 1997, we moved to Samuel Drive because we were attracted by the open space east of Samuel Drive and west of the cemeteries. We expected that the area now proposed for "Magnolia Park" would remain undeveloped land or become a park as designated in Petaluma General Plan, Land Use Map (adopted by City Council on March 30, 1987, Resolution No. 87- 74). The Petaluma General Plan ,states that open space areas "provide visual contrast or relief that often is taken for granted" (p. 14). The plan calls upon City officials to "Preserve the rural backdrop and maintain views of important natural features.,... " (Objective b, p. 15). The open space area proposed for development is specifically recognized in the General Plan (p. 15): "Other prominent open areas-on the West, Side are Petaluma High School, McNear Park, and the cemeteries north of Magnolia and. a huge grove of trees to their west." This open space parcel is a defining feature of our neighborhood, and once it is developed, it will be irrevocably lost. Like the overwhelming majority of residents living in the vicinity, we strongly urge you, as our elected representatives, to preserve this prominent open area as it is. Sincerely, CZi . Cathy Kroll ly�-3 I�L Joern Kroll Tel. (707) 765 -2234 August 8, 2.000 IRE 'f° �. Dear I -lain Torliatl, ,lane Hamilton, David Keller, and Members of Council: This letter pertains to the proposed Magnolia Park development. As several of y_cru are up. for re- electic�r we anticipate.,thatyou should.be.interested..i:n. the needs -and- -- wants of the large community this, development:would be affecting. As Council Members, your seat's are voted in as representation of the communities neighborhoods and individual's of Petaluma. Well; this particular, large Petaluman community does not tuel heard, respected, or in the least well - represented in City hall. The fact' - that many.of you are.still entertaining the possibility of this vast housi "ng devc1opincnt, when hundreds of usz continue to attend numerous meetings in complete opposition, is beyond our comprehension; and, we are angry. Petaluma is our town. The Westsi'de the only remaining character and rural nature indicative of'Petaluma's once rustic, country 'charm. Not only are you1hreatening this reality, but you are doing it outside city units, and in, an area specifically zoned for Open Space in prior plans voted on and approved by Council Members before you. 'T'hese two parcels of land are not available for development. One rtmaintains a very successful and much needed freer -ange chicken farm. It has been there for 50 years, thriving, and most definitely the last of its kind in.Petaluina (part of Petaluma H. story). The second is: a natural swampland with several underground springs. The developers think that by "offering" X amount open land,in their plan, those families, living' in the surrounding areas, some for 100 years or more, should jump for joy and sing, Hallelujahs. A little honesty might, at little, earn our,respect. This zoned area is offered because it's a natural swamp and therefore unfit for construction. Flooding is a huge-issue in our. community. Making Samuel Drive a thoroughfare. and the increasing numbers in trafLic are alarming. You are asking for our support and. input on a project that we have absolutely nothing to gain, except hazardous safety and flood issues, and a devastating reduction in our present, duality of living. We expect you to respond in our favor to our complete and total rejection of development of any kind in the above mentioned. This land was determined .to be Open Space and should remain as such, for the 'benefitof all members of our beloved Petaluma Town. We;, the undersigned, urge City Officials to vote AGAINST the proposed project known as "Magnolia Park.:" Hug'USI 5 2000 Lily (.:tAMA Meiabers Vel(*iJuilia City Members: re -a st the,progosed- rade,q -mapolia Park." This property was cle'signated UPEN S."fi"'CE on Ifte- City's Master Plan and should reinain s0. 1 utilier altern would Mminish the quality of i aw �'Otjglll- w4en w,e niot)ed to P081ulita. we CIO b D) A04. i I D see Ve"ualufna' dest ro 9-ed by Rousing t ract Tract replacing 'ourbeautiful rodn'tryside. are our ubje-tjumis and concertis. regarding t n is a e v e p m e n 1: * D e'S 1 9 ii a I ed UPLIN SPHCE 'sn,oula remain OPEN SPACE! * Caflfjori is in an energg crisis and adding anall H H IT H MHINTENfiNCE Housing i b -CH HF611"ENERUV, 1'6 H 0euelopment w:auld- only increase the need for ri :electrical, gadgetry which We are quite sure each of 1hese proposed houses will be fully equipped. fis responsible citizens, we must decrease the need for elerltrical. power. A, failed us in the past Our e;rlhi.sofing sewer qslein has fa and w0h increased usle of toilets and hauseiljold ivac.I-p e1imi.nal the system would he inadequate ant] cause Ma,- of us on the lowlands to be C 0 1 rrie d. ab'out Me repeal of that most dreadful i r e 'dqt the raing; season has' i . ncreased siivtce tUe addition o the Housing' -opment's in a c i d '4 :Ujjd iei M�agnoha area.. The Waler funs off Ine a n e in back of us - anid 'the one in frwit ot us dild pools in the Johnson, Kroll and U1111'slow prd H City wark some years ago cane M10 our yard's and declared Ihat he could not s:ee through the storin drain between Samuel and M Krall's airt road where the creek Co'n't'inues. This ateans that during the flo,oding on Ragan, the mater' rafts - an' -o,f -.our property- due sgslefn that is inadequaIe apA flaw.ed, this causes aloid an.0 uuide,w and fear of' flooding each and e n, ery raing sedson. * The 180 year old Eucalyptus trees (which no one ha's lak,en responsibility for cu doujil) sljo:ujd be replaceo tvith native trees, . and shrub's, not * Tile Iiouses 114al are planners are grossly upPet'aluma 11) sigie and (he amount of centent, pavei4etits, , Jreels ancl sidewalks, that are planned truly shoWs *h'C' di:s'ne:gaed for West PrelaldMa resi den1s. fl fligusing Deuielopm-ent such -as this 'is butter suiled to -East Petdim WN't1i has'alrea,dy been -denuded 'of any Old Petal'uma charm. *The p'lanned Round-11botut, on Magnolia and Elm would be an invasion of the simpli city :and countrg charm of this area. co'fhe corner of Samuel, and Magn is already a h-a-Lardous intersection due to Me . alignmen't of t , ne e;ii-s1ing. sidewalk and the corner ; of the Johnson property., F1 driver has to drive into oncoming Iraffif to see if the road is clear to turn left. T ic airborne t-od:dns Oead, arsenic and nitrates) clue to the encava[ii will be .4 hazard to small children tile, eitlerly sand anyone who lie , e ds tro b - re:a 111 e clean air. 1g) II UN Pre 'a, Blud Intersect on with Is 1W Kmes are fi - iad,equdle to haiidie existing traffic especially during the hours when Cinnat'ar'lTh is o or Ei nn,db ar St ho al or Mary E 0 111 n s S, h a I at Cherry.VaIle,y are'. ift session and 'parents are dra off. - of pickifig w their MildreP. With riew Housing rieuelbumOOs it can only bietome worse as will fill roads in Retzlufnal because of inadequate Iraffic., flow an. AV..ashJng.t_on.,._McDo'w , 4 e.11,._KenIu Water Street, Western five, PeIaluina Blvd, Magnolia, Skillman and Gossage, a The insensitiuffy to the possibility of a. - Potter's field in that area has been -dist'urbihg .'.. with 'their comment of they. would "seal th.ern up and pane there over" in reply to what they wouid it any bones were found. We, the undersigned, urge City Officials to vole flGHINST the prop6s"ed_pro known as I'Magndl la Park": We, the undersigned, urge,Eit,y:O,ffi'cials to vote RG I NST t i l e propos known as "Magnolia Park ": 4 17 S - 3 , f L 1 6.(0 We, the undersigned, Url.Qe City Officiats toluote.H.fiRINST the proposed project known as,"Magnalia Park' > 7- u / - 24% 4 A---- > 7- 'We, the undersi gned, urge City Offi M cials to Ifie proposad projeclknoWn a Fark": Zjl We, the un ae ts ig n ed, u rge C H.0 0 f I i c ial$ t o uo 1 e H GH IN ST the proposed project known as I'Magnoiia Park" Ok, 3- �z Hr H rs Lorn, roop - 77G-2-'71 yy� 77s /,3 04, - Rok 9 15 1208 PYI'vie, CO flGHINST the prop �ed project known as IIM� 'nolia Park ": HODRESS PHONE NUMBER /J l 778' 757 - e0 �: �►�_ 111 • !M -7 We, the *undersigned, urge city otnc.iais to vote HGH'INST the proposed project known as 66 Magnolia Park ": _- . - - NflME HDDRE PHONE NUMBER we, me unde'r-si:qned, urge city Official s IV liGHINST me propOSL,j project knoWn as "Magnio'davark": f MMM we, we unuersigneu, urge Lily Uffida Is W cote. HGfl,INST the proposed project known as ,m�a . gno. . lia Park": S —fflDN-E NU MOW ('Ja W�W. - :9 79 me., the unaersignea, urge LIty PlIlUdIS M UUle RGRINST the proPL-ed project known as IlMa.JoliaParkll: IA We, the undersigned, urge City Officizilsto uott fiG I NST the ie prop os'ed projekl known a's "Magnolia Park": al r �/9AA 2 7 4,,4A, r) Pn 33 1A, i"-, S77, iq 36 7 V 30 2 Z - 7 7 6 . ..... ..... .... ...... / ,P 1 "170 7 �.i J- • s.� ,� \ \ ® ffa Inv— a f • wo the undersigned, urge City officials to vote flGRINST tlie;proposed pro. kn a s "Ma "e flDDRESS PHONE NUMBER ' 3) (\K 5 4 c -- \3SI 6 6 3 1 4� Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisor Cominittee y � ., u..... Planner: Betsi Lewitter PBAC conditions of approval -- 1/23/2002 I. The 17 acre site The PBAC stands by its original recommendation of 9/13/00,. stating that "The 17 acre parcel .currently outside the city limits is designated a park in the Petaluma Bicycle Plan and in the General Plan ; as' well as being along potential Urban Separator land, and the PBAC does not support nor will it evaluate plans for Low Density Residential housing at this site." Explanation: The PBAC supports additional recreational areas which are bicycle /pedestrian friendly, particularly on land which.is designated as park area in the city General Plan. Neighborhood "residents have worked on a proposal to build a park on this property, and the PBAC supports the amenities laid out in their proposal. When and if this becomes a park, we expect it to be. returned to the PBAC for specific review. Here are our reasons for supporting a..park on this site: 1. Petaluma needs additional park land providing bike /pedestrian access and 'connections. There is currently a deficit of.park -land pursuant to criteria in the city General Plan. 2. The neighborhood is; negotiating additional cut - throughs which would connect Magnolia to Petaluma Blvd. North along Jesse Lane. 3. Neighborhood residents suggest building a water storage tank on the park property, which would serve the greater community: This would also allow the city to use Water Enterprise funds as `matching funds w/ the Open 'Space District to acquire the property. (The elevation is perfect for this). 4. Since the cemetery water tank facility lies on this park property, the city could negotiate, an additional path'through,the cemetery connecting Magnolia directly to the Rail Trail via Sycamore Lane. H. The 7.4 acre site The PBAC stands by its original recommendation of 9/13/00; stating that "PBAC has no problem evaluating the 7.4 acre site regarding bicycle /pedestrian issues." The updated conditions of approval are as follows: Through-Travel: L Any. "private" open space on this development. shall have a permanent publie easement on its entirety.. 2. Create additional bike /pedestrian access and /or connections through the , cemetery property. 3. The cut -de -sac shall remain open for public bike /pedestrian access. 4. There shall be a 10' wide public access easement between lots 42 and 43 in case of future development behind. Benches: There shall be 2 Benches on the proposed view corridor lot. Lighting No direct glare into cyclist /pedestrian eyes. Intersections and School/Park Links: The owner shall build a highly visible crosswalk from the 17 acre parcel across Magnolia to Elm to facilitate access to Cherry Valley School. Pesticide/Herbicide :Use: Under no circumstances should any pesticide /herbicide be applied in areas used:by pedestrians/bicyclists anywhere in this project or the surrounding areas without appropriate signs warning of the use of chemicals, a policy currently employed by°the Music, Recreation, and. Parks Department. This project shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticde/h'erbicide use and fully commit: to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of bicyclists and pedestrians. CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE Box 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953 =00'61 E. Clark Thompson Mayor March 15, 2002 Janice Ca4eim Thompson Michael Healy Matt Maguire ...Bryant Movnihag Petaluma Planning Commission _ . _... _. Mike O'Brien C/O Community,Development Department Pamela Torliatt Councilmembers Mike Moore, Community Development Director Subject: Magnolia Place Tentative Map Conditions Tentative Map Date Stamped January 11, 2002 APN 048 - 132 -027 and 048 - 1.41 -012 Dear Commissioners: Section 20.16.420 of the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the City Engineer shall prepare a written report of recommendations on the tentative map in relation to the public improvement requirerients of the Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions of the California Map Act. The following conditions of approval are required to be shown on and be part of the improvement plan and final map submittal. Community Development Department 1. Frontage Improvements I l English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 A. Magnolia;Avenue Plannin Division Frontage improvements shall include, but.not be limited to, half - street Phone (707) 778 -4301 reconstruction, curb, gutter, .sidewalk, storrn drains; sanitary sewer, Fax (707) 778 -4498 water'inains, street lights, pavement markers, traffic signs, fire E -Mail lanning@ci.petaluma.ca . us hydrants ;and, landscaping. The half-street width shall be 18 -feet (one 12 -foot travel lane and 6- footbike path). A half - street right-of-way Building Division width of 30 -feet shall be dedicated.. The . rmnimum pavement thickness Phone (707) 778 -4302 shall be: six :inches. Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -Mail building@ai.petaluina.ca.us B,. The proposed roundabout at street "A" -and Magnolia Avenue shall meet the latest industry guidelines and standards. Pedestrian crossing Housing Division on Magnoha.Ave. shall be incorporated in the roundabout with Phone (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -1498 adequate safety features for this location. The.f nal roundabout design E -`nail shall include a peerreview by a firm with' roundabout. design housing@ci. petaluma. ca. us- experience. C. There shall be no parking along Magnolia Avenue, EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY D. Place existing.overhead utilities underground that traverse this subdivision or exist along the frontage of Magnolia Avenue. E. Gossage Avenue Dedicate right -of -way and provide frontage improvements as required by the Sonoma County Publics Works Department. 2. Grading A. The Grading plan shall conform to the soils investigation, report prepared for this subdivision. Graded swal'es with a slope'greater than 5% shall be protected with a permanent method other than planting. E Any existing structures, above or below ground, that are to be abandoned or are not.necessary to the function of this subdivision, shall be removed. C. Grading cuts or-fills shall remain at least 5 -feet from the boundary of the existing subdivision. D. The developer shall prepare a storm water pollution, prevention . plan, submit an erosion control plan and file a notice of intent. 3. Streets A. All proposed streets zhall have a- minimum width of 32 -feet with parking allowed .on both. sides.asr shown on the vesting tentative map. The cul -de -sac bulb radius shall be a`minimum of 43` - feet. Curb ramps shall be located at all intersections. The.minimum pavement thickness shall be 4- inches. The face -of curb radius at intersections shall be.25- feet..for interior streets and 40 -feet at�street "A" and. Magnolia Avenue (or as specified by the roundabout design). B. Streets, signs, pavement markings and streetlights shall be constructed and installed per City Standards. C. The proposed emergency vehicle access roads at Eddie Way and the end of street "D" shall have an all- weather surface capable of supporting.emergency vehicles. A lockable vehicle barrier shall be installed at, each of.the -.access roads providing a. minimum 4 -foot wide passage for pedestrians and bikes. D. Velucle barriers shall be installed at the end. of street "A" & `B" with a gate and driveway approach for fire, equipment. E. Access to lots 39 & 40 shall be from the private drive, between the two properties, not directly from Gossage Avenue F. Parking islands shall be allowed cul -de -sacs upon review and approval by the Fire Marshal's office for fire trick taming radius. 4. Site Drainage and Storm Drain A. The, property owners: shall maintain the proposed storm drain and detention, systems within the public right -of -way and parcels A, B, C and D. A maintenance agreement shall be recorded for the storm drains and detention facilities. B. The storm drain outfall at lot 13 shall be directed through the south side of lot 13 in a public storm drain easement to street "A" and to the catch basin at the end of street "A ". An all- weather access road shall be provided over this easement. C. Street "C" shall slope to street "A" and eliminate the proposed catch basins and storm drains. D. Remove the first two catch basins in street "D" or direct the storm drains from those catch basins to the catch basin at lot 47. Eliminate the skewed storm drain crossing in street "D E. Lot to lot surface drainage in swales shall not be allowed. Storm drains and,inlets maybe provided to direct surface drainage across private property. 5. Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems A. The proposed water main system shall be capable of delivering a ` corifinuous fire flow as directed by the Fire Marshal; while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. B. The water and sanitary sewer services for lots 38, 39, and 41 shall be connected to the -proposed ,public water and sanitary sewer systems in street "D C.The public water and; sanitary sewer systems shall conform to City standards and the Water Resources and Conservation Department. 'D. The water meters shown on the tentative map adjacent to lots 42, 43, 46 and 47 shall not be allowed. E: All water services shall be 1 -inch in diameter and all water meters shall be located in the public right -of- "way or easement as reviewed by Water Resources and Conservation Department. F. Any existing wells shall be abandoned per Sonoma County requirements. G. Provide an 8 -inch diameter water main connection from,Eddie Way to street "A" through the proposed emergency vehicle access. H. Install a fire hydrant on Gossage Avenue at the emergency access vehicle road. 6. Offsite Iinprovements A. Any existing public. 6 -inch diameter, sanitary sewer pipe downstream from Samuel Drive shall be replaced with a.minimum 8- inch- diameter pipe. 7. Final Map A. Show all existing and proposed' easements that are within the subdivision boundary. B. The proposed emergency vehicle access locations shall also include public pedestrian and bicycle access. - C. Provide the necessary easements for public or private water, sanitary °sewer and storm drain facilities. D. Provide standard 1.0 -foot .wide public utility easements along both frontages and both sides of proposed right =of- -ways. 8. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain - system design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Sonoma County Water' Agency. 9. Public water, sanitary sewer and storm drain easements shall1ave paved surfaces capable or supporting maintenance vehicles. 10. The developer shall keep the existing public streets clean that are used for access to this site during construction. 11. The developer shall prepare the necessary private roadway, water line, sanitary. sewer and storm drain maintenance- agreements for the proposed shared facilities. Agreement documents shall be recorded with the final map. 12. The final map and improvement plans shall be prepared per the latest City policies, stand'ard's, codes, resolutions and ordinances. n" ely,. 1 Thomas S. Hargis, P.E. City Engineer Copy: file,,B..Lewtter SA Engineering DivisionTevelopment Processing FoiderTlanning Project Referrals\TSIv \Magnolia Place conditions.doc Cty of Petaluma, California MEMORANDUM Fire Marshal; 11 English Street Petaluma, CA (707)' 78 -4389, Fax (707) 778 -4498 DATE: March 7, 2002 TO: Betsi Lewitt er, Contract Pl FROM: Lonnie Armstrong, Plans Ex r REVISED SUBJECT: 1.120 Magnolia Avenue— ,' olia Listed below are fire'protection requirement code(s) for the above project. Standard Conditions PRIOR TO FINAL MAP Provisions for Annual Weed/Brush Abatement of the urban interface and the developed area shall be the responsibility of the developer /property owner. A plan that outlines the criteria for provisions of weed abatement. shall be developed. This plan shall be approved by the Fire Marshal's office prior to approval of final map of the project. This plan shall include conditions for fire safe landscaping, firebreaks and shall be in accordance with "Fire Safe Standards" developed by the State of California. The open space areas shall contain disked trails across the middle to discourage the rapid spread of fire. Such fire abatement practices shall be completed on an annual basis. A site plan outlining the firebreaks shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office for approval prior to approval of the final map development of.the property by1he property owner. " prior to PROIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING Provide documentation for entrance bridge with proof of a minimum 'of 61,500 lbs: Load capacity for fire apparatus. Provide drawing with dimensions of roundabout for fire apparatus access. The minimum fire flow for this project is 1,500 GPM at 20 pounds per sq. in. Proof t hat required fire flow is available shall. be supplied to the Fire Marshal prior to constructio PRIOR TO BUIL -DING PERMIT ISSUE Provide fire marshals Office with sprinkler plans for review and permit. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13 -D are required in residential structures including extension of sprinklers into the gar age;. bathroom over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or 3 feet deep, and other attached structures. stems shall be calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two he These UNDERGROUND AND 'SITE PREP The .Emergency Vehicle Access to Eddie Way, provide turn radius R =25' at street A. Provide pipe gates at each end of Emergency'Veh cle Access and at access to parcel, A and B Fire'hydrants are required to meet fire code requirements. Install - fire hydrants every 300 _ _• lineal feet. No structure or fire department sprinkler connection shall be' n excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant. Cul -de -sac radius on streets A & D shall be R =50 feet. All required fire lanes or Emergency Vehicle Access (Emergency Vehicle Access) in which no parkhig'.is allowed shall be designated by painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be installed. Pedestrian paths, bike paths and walking shall be constructed to comply with a weight load of 35,000 lbs to support Fire Department Ambulance. Provide Knox Lock on bollards gates on Emergency Access Vehicle Access (Emergency Vehicle • DURING>CONSTRUCTION Buildings shall, have noncombustible siding and be provided with a minimum of a class "A" roof covering. No combustible construction above the foundation is allowed unless an approved asphalt surfaced road is provided to within 150 feet of'the furthest point of a structure and the fire hydrants have been tested, flushed, and are mi service. Add one fire hydrant at Gossage and Emergency Vehicle Access. Relocate fire hydrant to North side of Eddie Way Emergency Vehicle Access [. EVA ] Incomplete Conditions None This plan;has been reviewed with the information supplied; subsequent plan, submittal for review may be subject to additional requirements as plans are revised. If you have any questions °regarding these requirements, please feel free to contact this office at 707 - 7784389. AAmsoffce4inword \Y120.magno1ia =ave fire5l cm 3/26/2002 S CITE' , OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Parks and Recreation Department, 320 No. McDowell Blvd, Petalunk k ' ' l q iyS , . (707) 778 -4380 Fax (707) 778 -4473 t 1 t "V a, 0h1i, DATE: March 14, 2002 TO: Betsi Lewitter, Community Development Dep me FROM: Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation r SUBJECT: Magnolia Place The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission discussed the proposed Magnolia Place subdivision at their meeting of February 20'', and a majority, of the Commission recommends the following: a. Reject the proposed Magnolia Place Development of 43 units. A majority of the Commission recommends that the original 17 acre site become a park, with the City to find a source of funding to purchase the property. b. The City to encourage the Open Space District and' County Supervisor Mike Kerns to develop a funding source in order, to acquire the site, Staff made the recommendation to approve the project as proposed, and continues to support that recommendation for the following reasons: a. Recreation Director .Garr has spoken to the Open Space District. In light of their other priority's, the Magnolia site is a very low priority. b. With the small amount of development within Petaluma, park development fees are on the decline. With existing priorities and obligations, there are no funds to purchase the property. c. The developer has, the option to develop 2 -acre "ranchettes" on,the property, and from all indications, they are willing to do so considering their .investment in developing the site to date. d. If the City is to obtain free parkland in this area of the City, the proposed project seems to be the -best opportunity to do so. Cc Fred Stouder, City Manager Mike Moore, Director of Community Development