HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/11/19811.'7
k, SS J:.. C OM " �MIS
ra ?
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
AUGUST 11,1981
7:30 P.M.
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 ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL: Comm. Harberson Head Lavin Popp
Shearer Tencer Waite
STAFF: Gregory Freitas, Community Development & Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of July 28, 1981
CORRESPONDENCE:
DIRECTOR''S REPORT:
COMMISSIONERS REPORTS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. REDWOOD EMPIRE GYMNASTICS
(STEVEN KLOTZ)
1317D ROSS STREET
(USE PERMIT- .1.332)
10. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
.MODIFICATION
(HOWARD' 3UNCE)
(6.497)
Public hearing to consider a Use Permit
application for a Gymnastics School to be-
located at 1317D Ross Street.
.Request to reduce the.req.uired right -of -way
for a reduced public street from 32 feet to
25 feet at '812 Schuman Lane.
11. OLD ADOBE /FRATES RANCH
G &W MANAGEMENT &.WKM,INC,
LAKEVILLE AND FRATES ROAD
DRAFT EIR ON GENERAL PLAN/
EDP AMENDMENT /,PCD PREZONING/
ANNEXATION /TENTATIVE MAP
(.11.619/8.,61/3.252)
(Public Hearings
Qpened /Cont'd)
1. Public hearing to consider the Draft
Environmental Impact Report prepared by
Wagstaff and Brady_, consultants, for the
Old Adobe /Frates Ranch Project.
2, Public hearing to consider the proposed
General Plan /EDP amendments from Planned
Residential and Agricultural /:Open Space
to Planned Residential, Industrial and
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
OLD ADOBE/FRATES RANCH
LAKEVILLE AND FRATES ROAD
DRAFT EIR CONTINUED
(11.619/8.61/3.252)
ADJOURNMENT:
00
e'.
N
AUGUST 1981
Agricultural/Open Space. Amendments to major
roadways and the urban separator will also
be considered,
2
175
176
NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY
THE PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION.
M I N U T E S
PETALUMA.PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1981
REGULAR MEETING PETALUMA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALIFORNIA
Present: Comm. Harberson, Head, Lavin, Popp, Tencer, Waite
Absent: Comm. Shearer
Staff: Gregory Freitas, Community Development & Planning Director
Warren Salmons, Principal Planner
MINUTES: Minutes of July 2.8, 1981 were approved as
submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE Retirement- Birthday Dinner
An invitation-was presented to the Commission to
attend the Retirement- Birthday:Dinner on
September 16, 1981 in Herzog Hall, honoring
Robert H., Meyer, City Manager.
REDWOOD EMPIRE GYMNASTICS - 131.71) ROSS STREET - USE PERMIT
(Tape 10 -25)
Item 1.332 - to consider a use permit application for a gymnastics school
to be located at 1317D.Ross Street in the Petaluma Industrial Park. The
public hearing was opened and closed.
..Motion introduced by Comm. Head; by Comm. Waite to grant the use
permit subject to the recommended condition.
AYES: 6 ABSENT: Comm. Shearer
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE MODIFICATION (HOWARD'BUNCE) 812.SCHUMAN LANE,
Item.6.497 - the application'to reduce the,..required right -of -way for a
reduced public street from 32 feet to 25 feet. at 812 Schuman Lane was
withdrawn from the agenda as the.applicant had not filed a parcel map
application concurrently with the Subdivision Ordinance Modification.
This item will be scheduled as soon as the parcel map has been filed.
OLD ADOBE /ERATES RANCH PROJECT.- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(Tape :34-,end/Side 1 /Side 2)
Item 11.619 - to consider the.Draft EIR prepared by Wagstaff and Brady,
consultants, for the Old Adobe /Frates Ranch Project, The public hearing,
continued from July 14,, 1981, was reopened and closed,
John Wagstaff,, of Wagstaff and Brady, explained the purpose of a Final
EIR, and the approach utilized in the Old Adobe /Frates Ranch Final EIR
preparation.
1'7'7
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1981
OLD ADOBE/FRATES RANCH PROJECT DEIR CONT'D
The procedures for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act,
CEQA,. are set forth in the State Guidelines. The DEIR and Final EIR for
this project have been prepared according to the precise procedures set
forth! in its CEQA guidelines. After completion of the Draft EIR, the City
is required to prepare a Final'EIR which must include comments and
recommendations received on the draft and also include responses of the
lead agency, which in this case is the City.
Mr. Wagstaff requested the Commission keep in mind the following basic
co points when considering the- adequacy of the Draft EIR and Final EIR:
1. An evaluation of the environmental.effects of the project need not and
cannot be exhaustive,
2. The sufficiency of an EIR is -to be judged in light of what level of
assessment is reasonably feasible.
3. D'isagreement.amon& experts does not make an EIR inadequate.
4.; G'enerally,in looking at the adequacy of an EIR_, the courts look for
completeness, and mainly a good -faith effort by the City at full
disclosure.
Comm.;Waite asked where the responses are shown to the'County Public Health
Dept.-comments on wastewater disposal, and the technical aspects of micro organisms?
l Response - All questions and comments to wastewater sprinkling were referred
to the EIR process on that project. This EIR was specifically designed not
to address that impact and not to overlap with the EIR on wastewater
application, prepared by.Brown and Caldwell.
Comm: Harberson . asked the . source of information on agricultural production ?_
Response - The information was gathered from a number of sources, but primarily
from related studies done.by McDonald and.Associates for other clients in the
region with regards to_ agricultural land values and transfer of development-rights.
Comm. Harberson requested these agricultural sources of information be attached
to report
Comm. Harberson - [,There did' the suggestion on Page.1�16, paragraph 4 "In,the
long Perm,' it would be prudent for the City to develop an agricultural land
compensation program wherein all developers on the urban, fringe would make
"fair - share" contributions to protection of agricultural productivity in the
area" comes >from?
Response This came largely from comments made by the people at
the July 14th.Commission meeting. It was an expansion upon a suggestion that
came-'from -_,the heague.of Women Voters. This approach has been made in other
regions"
-2-
178
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES AUGUST. 11, 1981
SPEAKERS
Larry Jonas, Petaluma - commented he had no'problem with the golf course,
it is a good idea. The EDP should not be so rigid that it will not bend.
The ;growth control limits housing to 1O0 units per year, but there are no
growth controls on industry. In this project, the developer shows a 10 to
20 year build out, but there 'is no guarantee or guidelines for this build
out. There is nothing,in this document to stop large industries, Hewlett -
Packard or IBM from coming in and taking up the whole industrial park; and
build out in one or two-years.
There should be a schedule and it should-be addressed.The ever- meandering or
. disappearing green belt - the EDP map shows the green belt coming down to
Lakeville suggesting a southernmost. boundary to the City and an urban
separator between the City to agricultural land. This has been omitted from
the plan proposed by Mr.. Murphy and.Mr. White. It has now been replaced
with a future-business: park 'that goes beyond what we had as a greenbelt and
further down Lakeville towards Highway 37, with the greenbelt being completely
omitted. The golf course is excellent; it provides a great and the most ideal
separator there is:. Mr. Jonas would like to see the greenbelt, urban separator
put back in its place where the EDP had..it.designated, extending down to
Lakeville.
Comm. Waite = Why is it.undesirable to the City if more jobs were created
faster than housing?
Mr. Jonas responded - Ther.e.has to be a balance in growth,; a balance in_
services. If industrial growth occurs too rapidly, police and fire services...
cannot be provided for. that industrial growth. If we go any direction in
a rapid fashion, we have ignored that part of the EDP that says we should
preserve the quality of life in Petaluma. The size and magnitude of this
project,can be overwhelming.
Robert McHale, Sonoma-County-Board of Realtors,.465 Tescon Circle, 'Santa
Rose reviewed the project.EIR for consistency with City and County planning
goals, in particular to - the demend for the business park components and the
and project's impact on housing: Mr. McHale submitted tables on his findings.
Iva Warner, Sonoma County Tomorrow:, 1416 Parker Drive, Santa Rosa - The con-
servationists - have been critized for trying to save open space in th_e name__,
of agriculture, but here the tables have';tieen turned and we.have a golf
course in.the name of agriculture. Has the EIR taken, 'into consideration
the loss of this agricultural land as apart of the .cumulative' loss of food
producing 'land in the County as a whole? The real need for this particular
.land for industrial use,in Tight of other industrial land already, has not
been adequately addressed in the EIR.
The cumulative effects of this project, in conjunction with the Hewlett -
Packard project, and the .Fountain Grove project, need to be considered. We
need a-careful.look at the three projects together, and the cumulative
effects so the people Sonoma County can decide what they want their future
to be = a continued small City, rural'county, or another San Jose /Santa Clara
complex.
-3-
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 1981
Mul
IMIJ
Lynn Woolsey, 923 B Street - concerned about the balance of industry and
agriculture, particularly in Petaluma. A trade=off of agricultural land for
a golf course is totally unacceptable. The EIR does not answer the question
which is needed most, agricultural land -or a golf course. Ms Woolsey raised
questions about housing and job issues - 1) jobs are needed. but Petaluma does
not need more than the approximate 20,000 jobs that other available vacant
industrial acreage can provide;'2) smaller employers are more supportive of
hiringlyouth than the larger corporations;3) discrepancy in annual salaries -
the Draft EIR reports the average annual income of the Prates labor force to
be approximately $14,000 and the developer expects the annual income to be
between $20,000 and.$40,00.0;.4) we need affordable housing; housing for those
that will be employed in the'industrial park, for those who earn less than
N $36,0 a year which is required to purchase a $110,000 home.
There will be more than enough .jobs available with the development of the
currently available industrial land. The average worker will not be able
to afford the average house in Petaluma. The golf course must be able to stand
on its own to justify the use of 581 acres of farm land for the purpose of
recreation for a few.
Jim Sullivan, P 0 Box 92, Bodega - We are not on an urgent basis, this project
will occur over the next 20 years. Things should be slowed down so that an
average person can get involved and participate in the decision. The EIR
has a drastic negative impact on agriculture. The cumulative impact of this
project and other projects in.the county could be a fatal blow to Sonoma. County.
The unemployment sate will not drop; it will be around 7 %. The total impact on
jobs will be more unemployed people. The Frates Ranch project is not the way
of the;Petaluma growth plan; he suggested staying with the original plan.
Bill Banchini, 616 Sunnyslope Ave.- The hay grower cannot.make it economically
on the�Frates Ranch property. The hay produced on this property is not vital
to the local dairy industry.. This is not'prime agricultural land, when it has
a profit of $30.00 per acre per year. People need houses and jobs and it
makes `sense to plan well in advance for them.
Suzanna Sakanoff, 222 Keller Street We now have hazardous industries that are
not adequately regulated for the safety of our population. There is no reason
to go 'on repeating and multiplying the same mistake.. Contested statement that
it can:be expected that all levels of regulatory agencies in the area will be
better prepared to deal with hazardous materials as.a result of a program being
developed by ABAG by the time of ,project buildout,. 'Mitigating measures re-
commended in the DEIR are not mitigating measures at all. The factthat we have
not dealt safety or adequately with hazardous industries in the past is not a
reason,to repeatedly .lay the ground work for future disaster.
Comm — Tencer concern the-city-may be sitting on a.time bomb despite
federal and ^:..s,tat'e regulations, He was also concerned that Ms Sakanoff
suggested local agencies take upon themselves.concerns that have a greater
signif- icance then their.,local isolated community, where county, federal and
.41
state,people are'.�involved. He questioned what would be wrong with deciding
the Uniform Construction Codes does not matter, and we should.enact our own
possib'j_y more severe requirements for any type of building. He requested
the name of the state person.'Ms.Sakanoff had contacted. Ms.Sakanoff
responded — Norman Grazeta.
o�
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1981 ,
Will Johnson, 1707 Pauline - President,,Old Adobe Union School
District - The most likely area where impact will occur based on the
current school oper:ations' would be in transportation. The district may
need to purchase a new - school bus. Should this become necessary,, assist-
ance would be - requested from The developer. The school board has taken
no position on this project.
Michael Davis, 522 Sonoma Drive - Housing is needed in the future, but
it should be affordable housing. What are the present economic policies;
what is the outlook if the interest rate goes down and what are the trends
for the economy?
Ed Gr-ossi, 1205 Eric Court, Rohner-t Park - Sonoma County Farm Bureau r
Last year the number of dairy farms increased. 35 to 4.0-percent of the
forage used locally is produced here. There is a market for hay. growers.
John Gillman.; 230'Thomas Drive, Santa Rosa - The consultants do not say the
project is inconsistent with the Sonoma County General Plan's .recommendation
'for the eastern boundary of Petaluma. If it is so.the EIR should' so state.
David 723 Cindy Late ^ Farin land has a.given value, this: cannot be
changed. The rental value is substantially lower in comparison to the overall
value - of - the - property.` -:3t. vro - not be feasible to buy the °property at the
current land values -and farm it.
Joe Rapoport,.887 Olive Street - We.cannot ignore that'`productive land
is shrinking, -We have to keep .in mind the future, the question of: saving
the productive land. Will people working in industry at Frates Ranch be
able to afford a home there? Petaluma does not have a for Senior
Citizens where they can live and rest in Petaluma in a manner in which they
deserve. The process should be slower for dealing with a'decision of this
importance.
CONSULTANT COMMENTS
John Wagstaff, consultant 1) The Hewlett- Packard project represented an
immediate employer of'12.,000 people, rather than the slow absorption rate
proposed by the Old Adobe - Frates Ranch Project. 21 Demand for industrial
park.in Petaluma and the use of regional park demand figures to translate
those figures into local demand. 3') The impact of the project in conjunction
with other -large projects.
5
CONSULTANT COMMENTS -
John Wagstaff consultant commented that the Hewlett- Packard project re-
presented an immediate employer of 12.;000 people, rather than the slow
absorption rate proposed by the Old Adobe - Frates Ranch project. He added
the Hewlett- Packard project is planned for an absorption over a 15 year
period'.
He explained the demand for an industrial park in Petaluma, and the use of
regional park demand figures, and to translate those figures into local demand,
bay regional wide figures can be massaged anyway one wants to argue for a
particular locality. Mr. Wagstaff commented that in making a judgment with
regards to the marketability of this project to other projects in the region,
their approach was to contact bankers who financed this type of project, and
get their regional.prospective.
Mr. Wagstaff explained the impact of the project in conjunction with other
large ±projects. The EIR is not a tool to be used to address these region wide
problems. There is an important need to revise the County General Plan to
reflect these changing conditions.
Mr. Wagstaff commented on the down zoning of lands to off set surplus
industrial land. In the.mitigating measures, the recommendation was
generated by the land owners themselves of some of these lands.
He exp?lained the $14:,000 salary figure discussed in the..EIR. The figures of
$13,00,0 and $18,000 brought up at the meeting confirms the $14,000 figure and
the addendum explains how that figure, was derived.
Mr. Wagstaff remarked on the statement about the golf course made to stand on
its There are other golf courses, which have viable operations , through-
out the state where water is more expensive than in this region.
He explained the hazardous material questions can be debated. It is a concern
that should be considered by the Commission in a relative context, that they
understand a business park lends itself administratively more to whatever
levels'of control can be obtained then would individual developments.
Relat%ve to a need for a.school bus., Mr.. Wagstaff explained the EIR makes it
clear there will be a need for a school bus, perhaps.two school buses. Afford -
ability and fuel use of bus is covered in the EIR.
Mr. Wagstaff noted the comments made by the active farmers in the region confirm
the agricultural figures. He indicated the comments were very noteworthy with
regard to agricultural viability of the project.
It has been noted that the boundary of the project is inconsistent with the local
and County General Plan. Mr. Wagstaff explained the reason why there is a
problem with the degree of .overlap with the planned designated boundary and the
project, is the commentor is referring to a February, 1978 p1an._ - , He�added since
that plan was published, revisions were made to change that configuration, and
it fs ;those revisions that were responded to.
Mr. Wagstaff "stated,the EIR has cited.there is a housing affordability problem,
and ad1ded th'e.- senior citizens should be included within that housing afford-
ability pr -oblem ;
-6-
182
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1981
CONSULTANT.COMMENTS CONT'D
Mr. Wagstaff explained the time constraints for the process of the EIR is
mandated by law, and.they are required to rule and make decisions on this
project over a certain amount of time. It is the law that is imposing this
time constraint.
Motiori introduced by Comm. Head; seconded by Comm. Waite to recommend the
City Council certify'the adequacy of the Final Old Adobe /Frates Ranch Final
E.I.R.,.including comments presented at this meeting.
AYES: 6 ABSENT: Comm. Shearer
OLD AB'OUE /FRATES RANCH - .GENERAL PLAN /EDP AMENDMENT
Item 8.61 - to consider the proposed -- General Plan /EDP amendments from Planned
Residential and Agricultural /Open Space to Planned Residentia Industrial
Agricultural /Open Space. The public hearing continued from August 4, 1981
was reopened and closed.
Motion introduced by Comm. Head; seconded by Comm. Tencer to recommend
to the City Council the General Plan /EDP be amended for the Old Adobe /Frates
Ranch Project and the following recommendations of staff be taken into
consideration.
A. That Commission recommend to the City Council that staff be directed
to prepare a report suggesting areas which might appropriately be
reclassified from industrial to alternative uses.
B. That Commission recommend to the City Council that staff be directed
to' prepare alternatives-for monitoring and maintaining,job- housing
balance in Petaluma. These alternatives should be included as part of
an overall housing element update.
C. That.Commission recommend to'the Council that staff be directed to
prepare a suggesting undeveloped, residential areas which might
appropriately be reclassified for higher densities, especially in areas
near concentrations.of job development activity. -This report,, too,
should be part of an overall housing element update.
D. That,'given the above measures, the'.Commission recommend to the City
Council.that the proposed General Plan amendments, as shown on Exhibit
Be, be approved.
E. Commission recommend to Council that the existing Stony Point (Denman
area) golf course site be redesignated as agriculture /open space on the
General Plan /'EDP (.see attached maps), and that a school /park site be
designated for dedication within.th'e Frates Ranch residential area.
AYES: 6 ABSENT: Comm. Shearer
STAFF COMMENTS
Gregory Freitas', Community Development and Planning Director, explained he had
been asked about staff's viewpoints °on the General Plan, and issues of the
County Plan, and f,or comments on a letter from Williams and Mocine, consultants
of that plan, and how the City policies relate to the plan.
_7_
183
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1981
STAFF.COMMENTS CONT'D
Mr. Freitas, explained the staff report attempted to provide an analysis of the
General Plan and Environmental Design Plan and of the goals and policies
in that plan. The policies change over a period of time, so do the physical
^ ' areas,!in fact, the city has changed.
` v Mr. Freitas commented when the EDP was updated - in.1978, there were many people
00 who believed the City of Petaluma was setting a systemic area of growth in which
to live.. The policy at that time spoke about the growth areas, about areas
being held for future growth, but in essence the seven - year plan fills up seven
years'of the ultimate'General Plan growth area, as shown on the plan. The policy
relating to residential is very clear. There was not much indepth.thinking about
applying those policies to commercial.or industrial land, however.
In addition, there were people then, and there are people now, he explained, who
would like the plan to take a position'that the city.should grow to the planned
seven year limit, then the' "whole city be reevaluated prior to another several
years,worth of land.being taken.for additional growth.
Mr. Freitas concluded that the City Council, at the time the plan was adopted,
intended the.plan to remain static in an industrial sense. He stated these
facts were supported by Williams. and Mocine, who were asked to comment on whether
or not the Environmental Design Plan should be pushed out, or if the General Plan
shoul& be modified. This was taboo at that time, and should be taboo at this
time. He added that obviously if there is a better plan, or a better proposal,
which,provides a better plan for the overall community, we should not be afraid
to amend the plan - this is where the judgment issue comes in.
Comm.'$ead - supported the ;feasibility and viability of the project.
Comm. Lavin - There are four main details the Commission is responsible
to the community for: 1) provide jobs for the citizens; 2) housing for
them to reside in; 3) recreation for their children and.themselves; and
4) pleasant environment and .public services': This project does that,
and he supported.the project.
Comm. Waite - If the housing growth rate that is allowed in the EDP, and the
allotment system is - followed throughout, year by year, he failed to see how
the.ptoposal violates the EDP, 11r. Waite supported the project, saying it is
well balanced,, and any project that offers the balance that it offers, particular-
ly -with the,wastewater.disposal,for the golf course, .is worthy of support. It
i8 basically an over-all good project for the city.
-8-
•
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
COMMISSION COMMENTS CONT'D
AUGUST 11, 1981
Comm. Harberson - Expressed concern about the agricultural trade =off.
At some point we have to stop "and say when.is this land more important
for agriculture then it is for any other use. This is the prime question.
He had concern for the increase of traffic on streets, namely Ely, Casa
Grande and Crinella, through existing residential areas, from a develop-
ment of this size. He questioned if we can ever tell society we have to
stop population growth. There are a lot of :people in this town who would
like to work in this town' we cannot .overlook the employment benefits of
this project. Employment can be considered a quality of life . He
indicated he would vote for the change in the plans,for the acceptance
of this project,'and asked to.hold the right to change his vote at the
Council level.
Comm. Tencer = stated he felt the.overall benefit of 'the project over-
shadows, 'the changes 'that are taking place, some of which would in time would
have occurred anyway. If the matter were put to a'vote, he believes there
would be little or no problem.
Chairman,Popp - this project w.ill'be an addition the city will be proud
of and it will be. controlled.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Attest:
Co unity Dev_1 pme'nt
and�Planing Director
„ C\j
00
I
REDWOOD EMPIRE GYMNASTICS - 131-71) ROSS STREET USE PERMIT
1.332= Condition
1. The use permit shall be reviewed after one year to verify that it
continues to operate compatibly with the facility and other uses
in the area.
-a =-
s 1