Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/14/1981wl MAI REGULAR MEETING JULY .14, 1981 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 :30 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or-their representative to be available at the meetings to answer questions, so that no agenda items need be.deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information,.. PLEDGE PLEDGE,ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Harberson_ Head Lavin Popp Shearer Tender Waite STAFF': Gregory Freitas Community Development and Planning Director .APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 23, 1981 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS REPORTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS C CITY OF TETALUMA SENIOR CITIZEN RECREATION COMPLEX /LUCCHESI PARK (11.6.61/1.331) 3 OLD ADOBE /FRATES RANCH PROJECT -. G &W.MANAGEMENT & WKM INC. .LAKEVILLE AND FRATES.ROAD. DRAFT EIR ON GENERAL PLAN/ EDP. - AMENDMENT /PCD PREZONING/ ANNEXATON /TENTATIVE MAP (11.619,/8.61/3.25:2) PLANNING MATTERS ELECTION OF OFFICERS: 1 1. Public hearing to evaluate the.'Environmental Impact for the following,- 2. Public hearing to consider a .Use Permit application of a Senior Citizen Recreation Complex proposed:_,.to.be.located at'Lucchesi Park, Publ -ic hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact.Report prepared by Wagstaff and Brady, consultants.,.for the Old Adobe /Fra_tes Ranch . Project. Chairman Vice Chairman ffil I 81 I PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA COMMITTi,�,FREPRESENTATIVE: ADJOURNMENT: JULY 14, 1981 S.P.A.R.C. (Site Plan & Architectural Committee) Parks.: &: Recreation Commission (1) 2 W1 _NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION M I N U T E S PETALUMA.PLANN,ING COMMISSION JULY 14, 19,81 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA Present Comm. Harberson, Lavin, Popp, Shearer, Tencer, Waite Absent: Comm. Head Staff: Gregory Freitas, Community Development and Planning Director Warren Salmons, Principal Planner MINUTES: Minutes of June 23, 1981 were approved as corrected. Page 1 and 2, vote should read Abs -tain Comm. Shearer (not Excused). Page 3, 1st sentence.., AP No. should read 008- 194 -19 and 22 DIRECTOR'S.REPORT Special Meeting'- August 4, 1981 Mr.`Freitas asked the Commissioners to set aside Tuesday, August 4th for a Special Planning Commission Meeting. SENIOR CITIZEN RECREATION COMPLEX - LUCCHESI PARK - E.I.Q. EVALUATION (Tape 16 -49) Item 11.661 to evaluate the Environmental Impact Questionnaire for a Senior Citizen Recreation Complex. The public hearing was opened and closed. Motion ,introduced by Comm. Shearer; seconded by Comm. Lavin to direct staff to prepare a Negative Declaration, based on the recommended findings. AYES: 6 ABSENT: Comm. Head SENIOR CITIZEN RECREATION COMPLEX"- LUCCHESI PARK - USE PERMIT Item 1.331 - to consider a use permit application of a Senior Citizen Recreation Complex' °:.to be located at Lucchesi Park. The public hearing was opened and closed. Motion introduced by Comm. Shearer; seconded by Comm. Waite to grant a Use Permit for a Senior Citizen Recreation Complex at Lucchesi Park, based on the standard findings. AYES: 6 ABSENT: Comm. Head PETALUMAePLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i JULY 14, 1981 OLD ADOBE /FRATES RANCH PROJECT - DRAFT E.I.R. (Tape 1/50- 580 /Tape 2/00 -2'72) Item 11.6'19 - to consider the adequacy fo.the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Wagstaff and Brady for the Old' Adobe /Frates Ranch Project at Lakeville Highway and Frates Road. The public hearing was opened and continued to a special meeting on August 4, 1981. ` Mr. Freit +as indicated that all comments to the EIR would be incorporated into co the report before the special August '4th meeting, and that comments tonight should be directed only to the E,IR. Speakers: : - Warren Salmons, City of Petaluma, Principal Planner John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Brady, Consultants OLD ADOBE /FRATES RANCH E.,I.R'. Comments Mike Sweeny, 335 Primrose Avenue, Santa Rosa Mr. Sweeny indicated that the residential portion of the project lies completely within a'-, "referral area" for the Sonoma County Airport Land -Use Planning Commission. He notes that a recent ,study, by Hodges and Chute identify the entire referral area as a high noise impact area that is above 60dBA. Rob Carpenter, 5742 Dexter Circle, Rohnert Park Mr. Carpenter pointed out that the project was in direct conflict with the City centered and agriculture preservation goals of the Sonoma County General Plan and Sonoma County Mountain.Study. Robert Sharp, 12900 Fiord Lane, Sebastopol Mr. Sharp stated that the project will be in conflict with the Sonoma County. Land Use Plan. He critized the draft document as being .inadequate in its description of the loss of some 580 acres of primary agricultural land. The destabilization effects that the loss of this land would have in the local dairy industry and the direct and indirect pressure which' would be put on Petaluma'is agricultural areas as a.result of a development of this magnitude. Caroline;Rambexg, 1431A Town and Country Drive, Santa Rosa She spoke'.for League of Women Voters. She read a prepared statement dated July 14, '1981..:, . The critized the draft document as being inadequate in the foblowingo"rareas: Loss of prime agricultural land, withdrawl of 129 acres of l�and..ftom•'the Williamson Act Contract and suggested mitigation measures, as follows: Require'the developer to restore equivalent off site agriculture 2 151 152 land which is at risk or not currently in agricultural use and dedicate it permanently for agricultural /open space (such as provide funding for acquisition and start up costs of an equivalent agricultural parcel). These measures place the responsibility for agricultural land J oss_ on the project proponents. In her statements she suggested several measures which could be required of the developer to help offset the loss of this ag land. Under economics, she noted:.l) that the costs of creating an equivalent parcel of productive agricultural land should be shown including purchase -and start- up costs, and 2) the document was inadequate in that it did- not address the economic impacts on already developed industrial commercial lands,`nor on vacant land. which,is already designated for industrial /commercial development (approved but as yet unbuilt projects). She called for more information on the secondary employment which would be generated by the project, including more specific information on wages in both primary and - secondary employment by salary range. Under housing she noted the lack of specificity in the housing mitigation measures for provision of moderate and low cost housing. How is the City going to provide housing for two salary families of projected workers? How are social. services going, to be provided to a considerable increase in low income workers? Cost /benefit ratio of project not shown. Costs of mitigation measures not incorporated into EIR as project costs. What will be the short fall in housing due to the cumulative impact of Frates and other projects in the area? How many units (housing) by income range in various communities will be needed? She 'noted that the fiscal analysis was unclear, in its description of funding for major capital improvements,, particularly offsite roadway improvements, and the cost of providing public transportation to the site.. Her report noted that the draft document did not adequately address the cumulative- impacts of this project on the County in relation with other large scale proj;ect�s,, e.g. Hewlett - Packard in Rohnert Park, and Fountain Grove in Santa Rosa. Pa rticular critisms were: continued loss of agricultural land, and lack of specific mitigation measure for housing for low and moderate income families, e.g. 1) designate, an area of project for self help housing (owner built) with contractor supervision provided for .low income housing by type of family need, and 2) add .resale limits to below market rate units. In closing she suggested that little attention was given to.mechanisms for monitoring mitigation.measures which may be required. Joe Meyers, Business Manager of the Old Adobe. Union School District,_845 Crinella Drive, Petaluma Mr. Meyers noted that the student generation factors used in the draft EIR. were incorrect. However, he acknowledged that the..planning consultant was already working to correct those.projections. He- suggested that revenue calculations showing a net surplus of $312,000 accruing to the sclool,distrct and that in fact there would be a deficit of between $317,000 and $740,000. Lastly, he suggested that the EIR neglected to consider the long 'term' costs of providing classrooms for district students (beyond the first five years). - Rose Eiserich, 931 "D" Street, Petaluma Ms. Eiserich noted that the project was inconsistent with the adopted City EDP and .Sonoma Count General Plan and that the report did not adequately assess the implications of amending 'those plans, not of the loss of agricultural production from the project site. She noted that this project would,represent a c deviation from the growth management plan instituted some years ago. 3 r �v.�Sf i'➢bsT _i{��,":I. . �. C"k ,T.e�i Jim Sullivan, P.O. Box 92, Bodega, President of the Sonoma County Farmlands Groupl 53 Mr. Sullivan spoke from a prepared statement dated 7/14/81. He emphasized that the draft report.did not adequately address the agricultural issues, including: the loss of .productive agricultural land to the farming industry in Sonoma County, specifically the loss of hay growing land to the dairy industry, and the general demoralizing effect implementation of this project would have on farmers 'trying to maintain the viability of their industry in the face of urban development pressures. Dennis Millikan, 219 English Street, Petaluma Mr. Millikan. -spoke from a prepared statement dated July 1.4, 1.981. Mr. Millikan critized` the draft environmental impact report in that it did not adequately N estimate "the average daily vehicular trips. He also asked for more specific 00 informat on cost and probability of implementation of the various mitigation measures'4required. He was specifically interested in ,public costs for these mitigation measures. In addition, he asked for a statement of methodology for the traffic generation estimates and an assessment of the costs and ability of Q the Golden Gate Transit District to provide service to the proposed project. Warren Meyer, 338 English Street, Petaluma Mr. Meyer addressed the geology and soils drainage and water quality portions of the draft EIR. Mr.. Meyer noted that additional information was required on the location of the Olay Fault and soil conditions below the twelve foot level. He asked for more specific mitigation measures which would be applied to contend with likely seismic activity and clarification of the locations where special studies would, to be conducted. He contended that the map and text;on geology and soils were contridictory and requested an assessment of potential groundwater pollution by chemicals used in manufacturing processes. Barbara Meyn, 5210 Gates Road, Santa Rosa, Speaking for the Environmental Forum of 6onoma County Regarding the housing section of the draft EIR, she noted that the report suggested that Cotati and Novato were within commuting distance of Petaluma and had available housing. She noted, however, that the Hewlett- Packard proposal,'.in Cotati would effectively absorb any available housing in that area. She asked for expanded discussion of the agricultural- economic issues; including: an assessment of local businesses which directly and indirectly serve the,agricultural industry, the value of the crops currently grown on the project site, the value of the farm structures on the project site and the employment created directly and indirectly by the farming activities on the site. She noted that the EIR made no mention of impacts the proposed project may have.already had on the value of surrounding agricultural lands, and finally,?addiessing: the mitigation measures, she asked for additional information on the status of "the former golf course site in the Stony Point Road area, the real viability of- continued agricultural production on project lands that weren't needed.for immediate developmet, and the legality of conversion of Williamson Act to golf course and /or business park uses. 4 154 Barry Barnett, 8639 Old Redwood Highway, Cotati Mr. Barnett noted that the proposed project would. - involve possible shipment of potentially hazardous material would have a significant impact on community housing and traffic, would be in contradiction to the Sonoma,Coun'ty General Plan. His .major critism of the EIR was that it did not address the implied change in community character that would result from projects such as this one. Noting the conversion of the Redwood Empire from small towns to wall to wall cities Mr. Barnett spoke from a written statement. Lynn Woolsey, 923 "B" Street, Petaluma Ms. Woolsey noted that the cumulative effect of all industrial development in Petaluma ,has not-been taken into account, specifically, with regard -to the availability of labor with the required skills. She further inquired as to whether the proposed business and industrial jobs would pay the wages required to purchase housing in Petaluma. She also asked for review pf.the .regional employment.and housing picture given the proposed Hewlett- Packard and Fireman's Fund developments. She suggested an in depth survey of. the local labor pool to determine -the - availability and types of skills and the willingness of local residents who commute to accept local employment. Susanah Sackinof, 222 Keller Street, Petaluma She spokeft om a prepared statement focusing on transport, storage and use of hazardous- materials which may'be'associated with the industrial activities. She asked for more specific information on the types of materials which may be used in the industrial park and for considerably more detail as to mitigation measures which may be applied to protect the health and safety of the community. Ken Stocking, 3567 Greenhill Drive, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Tommorrow Mr. Stocking suggested that the EIR did not adequately address the variation of this project from the Sonoma County, Land Use Plan and Sonoma Mountain Study, the removal of lands under Williamson Act contract and the overall impact of this. project in conjunction with other major County pr,oj:ec:ts (Hewlett- Packard and Fountain Grove) on,housing, public services and transportation. Mr. Stocking also asked for information on the current use status of:,the lands indicated as industrial on pages 56 and 57 of the EIR. He suggested that the EIR did not spell out clearly whether or not a golf course was an,accptable use under the terms of the Williamson Act. His last point was to suggest that as mitigation measures for enhancement for,the Adobe and Ellis Creeks, native Oaks, alders, ash and willow trees should be emphasized. Bill Gay 3976 Gilman Lane, 'Petaluma Mr. Gay asked for additional information on the factors that make the project area prime agricultural land, including length.of .growing season, errosion, annual rainfall, etc. , - Mary Lou Had'dit.t, 427 4th Street, Petaluma She asked that the EIR include an.air quality analysis because of the heavy traffic levels which are predicted. 5 Keith Hayenga, 1582 Creekside Drive, Petaluma Mr. Hayenga noted that the Environmental Impact Report did not "address the question of the change in the character of the City of Petaluma brought about by this and other large development projects. Harvey Levy, 222 Keller Street, Petaluma Mr. Levy suggested that the EIR was inadequate in that it did not speficy the particular kinds of business and industrial activities which would occur on the site. William Jones, 111 Sunnyhill Drive, Petaluma, Member of Petaluma' Golf and N Country Club 00 Mr. Jonesl wanted to express his support for development of a "decent" golf course i6i Petaluma. Molly O'Day, 337 Cleveland Avenue, Petaluma Q Ms. O'Day suggested that the State will require the City to demonstrate a balance between jobs and housing. She asked that the EIR discuss the impacts of additional housing that would be required, including traffic and schools. Carol Bionida, 2152 Ad.obeRoad, Petaluma, Attorney Representing the Ronsheimer Property`at 585 Casa Grande Road, consisting of acres of prime ag land under a Williamson.Actcontract Ms. Bionda spoke'from a prepared statement, dated July 14, 1981. Her clients, the property owners, want to go on 'record as opposed to their property being included'in'the proposed annexation. 4 Mrs. MCCulloch 3606 South -Ely Road, -Petaluma Ms. MuCullah indicated that the proposed General Plan amendment included a 100 foot buffer zone around the project. She asked that that buffer zone be included entirely on the business park property and not on her property. Ed Grossi', 1205 Eric Court, Rohnert Park, Sonoma County Farm Bureau Mr. Gross. indicated that the Farm Bureau was in opposition to the proposed project, did not have any specific comments about the EIR, however indicated he was willing to work wth,City staff and the Consultants in any way he could. Jim Olmstead,, 111 Hill Blvd., Petaluma Mr. Olmstead asked that agricultural productivity on the site be expressed in terms of'dollar -s and under the mitigation measures for agriculture that a detailed.agr.icultural enhancement program be developed. Referring to the" alternative" section, -he asked that an alternative which would provide for increased'agricultu;ral productivity on the site be evaluated. 155 6 156 Bill Kortum, 180.E1y Road, Petaluma Mr. Kortum asked whether the golf course:project was viable without the use of treated wastewater and indicated he woulyd have additional comments on the wastewater portion of the project at the hearing on the 28th of July. Sheryl Mastic, 250 Petaluma Blvd. North, Petaluma Ms. Mastic was opposed to the changes in the character of the community that would be - brought about by this project. Susan Horner, 101 Bellview Avenue, Petaluma Ms. Horner read an excerpt from the Global 2000 report and suggested that removing land from agricultural production was contrary to the world need for increased food supplies. Dr. John Gilman, 2308 Thomas Drive, Santa Rosa Dr. Gilman spoke from a, prepared.statement dated June 24:, 1981. . :Dr.,. Gilman spoke about the incompatability of the plan with the Sonoma County General Plan and the ; Sonoma Mountain Specific Plan, noting that areas shown in the EIR as urban are not shown.in the Sonoma Mountain Study accordingly. He suggested that some ,of the City of Petaluma goals from the environmental design,plan have not been included in the EIK. -He also argues that the park and golf course uses are not compatible with ,the .Williamson Act contract as established by County policy. Finally, he notes that there are no adequate mitigation measures available unless all ielevent land use planning policies are changed. Elizabeth Bock, 1444 Dity Rd., Santa Rosa Ms. Bock asked for additional information on the statement that the project is consistent with the compact eastern boundary called for in the Sonoma County General Plan. She went on to state that information about housing was seriously deficient,, noting a number of relevant public documents, including the County General Plan, that were not cited in the environmental impact report.. Rita Cardoza, 5869 Lakeville Hwy., Petaluma Ms. Cardoza asked'that the direct and indirect population effects of this project be considered in light of other'projec'ts the City has recently approved. In essence, she asked whether this project, in conjunction with other approved . projects„ would be detrimental to our growth management program. Further, she asked for specific information about the impacts on nearby agricultural lands. . I 7 15'7 PETAL-UMA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1981 ELECTION OF OFFICERS The election of officers to the Planning Commission will be held at the first meeting after the City Council appoints Commissioners to their new terms of office on the Commission. The.terms of office will expire for Commissioners Lavin and Shearer on June 30, 1981. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Attest: o city Deve opment and lann'ng Director I i 0 158 SENIOR CITIZEN RECREATION COMPLEX - LUCCHESI PARK 11.661 - E.I.Q. Evaluation Findings 1. The project will provide a much.needed facility for Petaluma Senior Citizens. 2. The proposed surveillance.apartment..should help to reduce crime and vandalism in the park.. 3. Traffic generation should be scattered and minimal, 1.331 - Use Permit Findings The proposed use will conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Petaluma General or Environmental Des gn Plans, and such will not under the circumstances of the particular .case constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. a J