Re: Keeping Special Area D North of Jensen Lane In the Town Of Windsor s Urban Growth Boundary

Attachment 2a

April 15, 2016 Town of Windsor Community Development Department Linda Kelly, Town Manager Toni Bertolero, Interim Community Development Director Town Council Members 9291 Old Redwood Highway Windsor, CA 95492 Re: Keeping Special Area D North of Jensen Lane In the Town Of Windsor s Urban Growth Boundary Linda, Toni, Town Council Members, We have lived at 595 Jensen Lane for 10 years now. Prior to buying our house, we reviewed in detail the Town of Windsor s current General Plan s future Zoning map for the 60 plus acres to the East of our home, which is currently in the Urban Growth Boundary for our Town. We also reviewed the Circulation map that is in our Town s Current General Plan for future Roads in this area (Page 4-37). After reviewing this information and physically seeing the roads and infrastructure that had already been built to connect to this area, it was clear to us that someday the plan is for the Town of Windsor to connect roads in this area, and build residential housing on these 60 plus acres. So we were very confused as to why Option E was presented for the update to the General plan, which if selected would take this area out of the Urban Growth Boundary and make it open space. The following are practical reasons this area should not be taken out of the Urban Growth Boundary for the Town of Windsor: New Roads, Utilities and storm drains have already been built to Connect to this area before and since the last General Plan was adopted in 1996. (See attached existing Infrastructure Photos) Jensen Lane, which is the only access for several Town of Windsor homes this area, currently goes from 40 wide to 14 wide Travel Lanes for cars only. 14 wide for (2) travel lanes is 8 under the Town of Windsor s current standards for just (2) travel lanes. From our experience of living there for 10 years, Jensen Lane is not safe for cars, bikes or pedestrians and should someday be widened to the 40 wide section that is already built for it to connect to (see attached photo). This would allow for Jensen Lane

to have appropriate and safe travel lanes, bike paths, and a side walk to the existing homes that are in the Town of Windsor and are currently served only by Jensen Lane. Safe Streets for Cars, Bikes and Pedestrians is and should continue to be a priority for the Town of Windsor. The Town of Windsor s Future Circulation Plan for the Roads in the current General Plan for this area, should be completed per the existing plan. Having Jensen Lane Connect to Vinecrest and eventually Pleasant, per the Town s existing future circulation plan, will help with the lack of North to South connectivity in this area, which is clearly needed on the East side of Windsor. It will also provide an EVA (Emergency Vehicle Access) to the homes on Jensen Lane and the homes at the top of Vinecrest. (Please see attached Circulation Plan Map from our General Plan, Page 4-37 figure 4-5, that has more comments). The Storm Drain infrastructure in this area has been started and needs to be completed in the future to help with water management and safety issues. (See attached pictures). Public Utilities and sidewalks have been built in this area to be connected to and should be completed (See attached infrastructure photos). This area is currently surrounded on 3 sides by Single Family Dwellings that are in the town of Windsor. New Residential homes have been the plan for this area and if done correctly will fit in nicely to the neighborhood. The Vineyards in this area are currently in the County of Sonoma and are not in the Town of Windsor, so they are not an asset to the Town. The lack of safe infrastructure in this area is a liability to public safety. Safe Streets for cars, bikes and pedestrians should be more of a priority for the Town of Windsor than open space. If the area is taken out of the Urban Growth Boundary and always remains in the county, then our Town will not be able to control what is done in this area. This would likely mean that the infrastructure that has already been built to connect to it, will remain incomplete and Jensen lane will continue to be an unsafe street per our Town s Standards. The remainder Lot on Prince George Way in the Vintage Hills Subdivision, will also be left unbuilt and unkempt as it is today.

We are hoping the Town of Windsor will not be taking this area out of the Urban Growth Boundary for our Town, and instead consider the following Land Use Zoning for Special Area D North of Jensen Lane: Rezoning this area to match the existing neighborhoods that surround it on 3 sides, which is a combination of Surrounding Residential 3-6 Units per Acre, and Estate Residential 2-3 Units per Acre. Eliminating the Neighborhood Center/Mixed Use that is called out in this specific area in the current general plan. Keep the requirement for a neighborhood park that is currently in the General Plan for this area. Chapter 9 of our Existing General Plan: Make no little plans: they have no magic to stir our blood and probably will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remember, that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with evergrowing insistency. Remember that our children are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon be beauty The Town of Windsor s watchword should remain order and the existing plan for this area might need to be modified to fit in with the existing neighborhoods, but it should not be removed from the Urban Growth Boundary. This would negatively affect the order and plan that has already been established and begun for this area. We feel strongly it should remain in the Urban Growth Boundary, and in the future when it is built out as residential homes, we should all work hard to make sure it is developed to be a beacon of beauty for our Town of Windsor and our amazing community. Sincerely, Ross & Ursula Albertson 595 Jensen Lane Windsor CA 95492

Jensen Lane Road Infrastructure Photos Looking East on Jensen Lane from Hembree When the Foothill Meadows Subdivision was built in the late 90 s, the road section of Jensen Lane on the South Side of this subdivision was widened by 26. You can see the pavement line of the new section of road. A side walk section for pedestrians and planting strip was added as well to the South of this subdivision when it was built. There is no eyes on street at this section of Jensen Lane. Looking East on Jensen lane where Road Section for travel lanes goes from 40 to 14 wide Cars wait at this section of Jensen Lane when a car is coming West, because there are no turn outs on Jensen Lane going East from this point and there is not enough room to pass going a normal speed.

Jensen Lane Road Infrastructure Photos (continued) Jensen Lane looking East, after the Road section for travel Lanes goes from 40 to 14 wide This pictures shows the lack of safe available space for Cars, Pedestrians and bikes to share this section of Jensen Lane which is over a ½ mile long with no turnouts. Jensen Lane Looking East prior to turning to the North toward Vinecrest This section of Road is only 14 wide and the surface is in bad shape. There is also a 3 vertical drop on the South Side of the road in this section, to an open storm drain ditch that is only protected visually by ¼ white plastic half round reflectors. The reflectors would not prevent a car or a bike going into this 3 ditch. The Engineering Staff told us that this is not built to the current town standards.

Buckeye Drive Infrastructure Photos This photo was taken at the end of Buckeye Drive Looking East In the late 90 s when the Foothill Meadows Subdivision was built, Buckeye Drive was built to be connected to going East in the future per this picture. The sign in the picture was put up at this location on the fence per the requirements of the Town of Windsor, to let people in the Foothill Meadows Subdivision know a street would be built at this location in the future when they were purchasing their homes. Sidewalks on both sides of Buckeye Drive have also been built to connect to, as has the Storm Drain, Sewer and Water Systems per the improvement plans for the Foothill Meadows Subdivision. This photo was taken at the end of Buckeye Drive Looking East The sign clearly reads that there will be an extended street here in the future and more traffic.

Prince George Way Infrastructure Photos This Photo is taken looking East on Prince George Way When the Vintage Hills Subdivision was built in the 90 s off of Vinecrest, Prince George was built so it could be connected to Jensen Lane in this area. This photo is taken Looking South/West on Prince George Way Due to the 200 agricultural buffer zone from the Vineyard on the property to the South of Prince George Way, which is in the Urban Growth Boundary, there currently is a Remainder Lot that is zoned Estate Residential (2 to 3 Units per acre) on Prince George. The Road, Curb and Gutter was installed per the improvement plans for Vintage Hills Subdivision when it was built. It is our understanding that Prince George Way was designed, so that houses could be built on them per the existing zoning, once the property to the South of it was brought into the town, and there was no longer an agricultural buffer zone preventing the construction of homes.

Attachment 2b Prince George Way Infrastructure Photos (Continued) This Photo is taken looking South from the West End of Prince George Way The sidewalk, planter Strip and Temporary Barricade in this picture was built with the Vintage Hills Subdivision. The sidewalk ends with a Temporary Barricade at the Remainder lot that was left due to the Agricultural Buffer Zone. It is our understanding that it was left with a Temporary Barricade, so the Town can connect this sidewalk and planter strip along Prince George Way as you head east from this location (along the South Side of Prince George Way). This will match the existing conditions of Vintage Hills subdivision. This remainder lot as you can see from the photo is unkempt and not maintained.

Storm Drain Infrastructure Photos Jensen Lane This picture was taken close to the end of Jensen Lane prior to the road turning North This open 3 deep storm drain and grate is not built per the current Town of Windsor s standards per our conversation with a Town of Windsor Engineer Staff. We feel it should someday be modified per the Town s standards for how it functions and to make it safe for the public. This Picture is the same storm Drain as the picture above looking West on Jensen Lane The road is only 14 wide next to this storm drain and it drops 3 vertically and only has ¼ white plastic reflectors which would not prevent a car from driving into it. There is a temporary barricade built out of wood that also would not stop a car from driving in to it.

Attachment 2b Storm Drain Infrastructure Photos Jensen Lane (Continued) This picture is taken on our property at 595 Jensen Lane looking North This storm drain was put in when the Foothill Meadows Subdivision in the late 90 s was built, and connects to the storm drain system that was built for the Foothill Meadows Subdivision. The Inlet/ Box connects to a 48 diameter storm drain because of the amount of water that runs through it. This storm drain currently is not per the Town of Windsor s Standards and does not work due to the design. It completely failed 3 years ago and was temporarily fixed by the town of Windsor, and needs to be rebuilt in the future per our conversations with the Public works and Engineering Departments. If this area is developed it would allow for the Town to ensure that it is rebuilt to the Town s standards.

Attachment 2c From: The Alvarez Family [mailto:alvarezgang@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:44 AM To: Ken MacNab <kmacnab@townofwindsor.com> Subject: Zoning-Jensen Lane Dear Ken Macnab, Our names are Ramon and Jennifer Alvarez and we are homeowners at 892 Jensen Lane, Windsor, CA 95492. 3.2 acres. Parcel #162-020-028 We've been following the General Plan Update, and we've given feedback and attended some land use meetings. In speaking with our neighbors, it has come to our attention that our properties are being downzoned. The following is our feedback to the Town of Windsor regarding this proposal: 1. We weren't notified by U.S. mail or in any other written or electronic format that our property might be downzoned. 2. We paid a premium for our land when we bought it because it was zoned for 8-12 homes per acre and downzoning it also devalues it. 3. The Town of Windsor required us to build our home 25 feet from the road because of our property's current zoning and the current General Plan, forcing us to sacrifice a more scenic placement for our home. 4. This eastern edge that you want to rezone and that encompasses our property is located within town limits, and 5 acre lots don't make sense within the town limits. 5. Most of the properties in our area are less than 5 acres to begin with, so zoning 1 house per 5 acres doesn't make sense. Our property is not, and cannot be, compliant with that zoning. 6. Again, downzoning devalues the investment we made when we purchased this land. 7. Our preference is for zoning that allows 1-3 homes per acre or, at minimum, 1 home per acre. We will attend the next meeting on October 27, 2016. Please confirm receipt of this email and thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Ramon and Jennifer Alvarez 707-292-0271 (Ramon)

Attachment 2d From: xwam1@aol.com [mailto:xwam1@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:49 AM To: Ken MacNab <kmacnab@townofwindsor.com> Subject: Zoning changes to eastern boundry To; Ken Macnab, community Development In regards to possible changed in the area formally known as Area D on the eastern side of Windsor between Pleasant and Jensen Ln. I have become aware of possible zoning changes and as an owner of the property at 890 Jensen Lane, assessment #162-020-043-000, I would like to voice my opinion. I would like to see lots in this area not to be less than 2 acres for each home up to 5 acres for each home. I feel that one acre lots would be too small for the size of homes in this area currently. I do support the idea of feathering the edges of particular zoning areas so that there are not high density areas next to more estate type areas. Please feel free to contact me for any reason William Mackie 707-239-1334

Attachment 2e