Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/20/1975I. *' ' PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ,CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY :HALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG . .A G 'E 'N D A ROLL CALL: Comm.'Balshaw Bond Waters 111'111gos MAY 20., 1975 7:30 P.M. PETALU,MA,.CALIFORNIA Horciza . Mattei Popp STAFF: Frank.B. Gray, Director of :Community Development Dennis Bbe,hlj Senior Planner APPROVAL OF!MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE SONOMAGOUNTY REFERRAL,:, Albert J. & Virginia Schleth Use Permit application for a proposed textile plant for pillows and bedspreads to he located at.210 Spratter Road, Petaluma,. 'PROFESSIONAL 06ri's-Ideratipti of phasing, schedule for: the proposed Washington • WASHINGTON PARK PHASING G Professional Park to be located at-the southeast corner of ' 1 .SCHEDULE: East Washington Street and: Ely Blvdi South f MICHAEL HUD S EIQ! and site design review consideration for a proposed cold DISTRIBUTORS' - EIQ storage - warehouse to be-located at 120 Dynamic Street, Lot 7 EVALUATION AND SITE of the North San Francisco, Industrial Park Unit One. DESIGN REVIEW: JOHN K. & MARY H. John K. Mary H. Taylor -Planned Unit Development: TAYLOR - EIQ! EVALUATION/PUD 1) Public-Hearing,for EIQ evaluation of proposed PUD develop- REZONING/SIT men't-Ilocated on the northwest corner, of Sixth and "I DESIGN -REVIEW: Streets (old ho site 2) Public He6riing to consider -the rezoning application for above site from R=.0 to PTfD District. 3 Site design review for proposed'Planned Unit Development. PET,AtUMA,BLVD. NORTH 1.) Presentation by the.Sonoma County Public,'Heal"th Service 'GENERAL LAND USE with regard to•_the•�sznitary in*spec.tion.in the Petaluma STUDY: Blvd. Northarea. : 2) Revi the Petaluma Blvd,. North General Land, Use :Study f or the - purpose of recommending to the City Council an appropriate course of action. Pet'aluna City Planning Commission Agenda., May 20, 1975 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Consideration of LAFCO's City - Council Planning Policy EVALUATION': Committee recommendations f:or.the proposed new standards;fpr the evaluation of spheres of influence. ADJOURNMENT -2- JTr ' APPROVAL OF MINUTE'S: The minutes of May 6;`1975, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE:; The Commission was advised that:the Mayors' and Councilmen's 9 TALUMA.CITY Association of Sonoma County had forwarded a letter to the Mayor and City Council stating that'the� meet ng with the Sonoma County PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1975 'REGULAR MEETING ." .. :: 7:30 P.m. .CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER& CITY HALL PETALUMA:," CALIFORNIA "to 12:'00 p: m:;, and 'a 'question •and answer period will be held from 1 00 - to 1 ;00 p:m',. All the-Commissioners were encouraged to PRESENT: '' Comm. Balshaw', Bond, Hilli.gos "s, Horci`za, 'Matteis,. Popp, 'Waters ABSENT: % _ _ s posed text'ihe plant for ' llows to be located at h , . 210 Sprauer. --Road: • , . - ,.. None STAFF: Frank_B."Gray; : of. Comunity - .Development' Director m - dustrial or commercial uses are appropriate for the area, and Dennis Boehlj'e, Senior Plarne.r " APPROVAL OF MINUTE'S: The minutes of May 6;`1975, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE:; The Commission was advised that:the Mayors' and Councilmen's Association of Sonoma County had forwarded a letter to the Mayor and City Council stating that'the� meet ng with the Sonoma County Board,- of Supervisors -'and other' 'cit.ies'_ relating• to the Sonoma " . County General 'Plan :had been rescheduled for Saturday, June 7, 1975,, at the Santa -Rosa Community Center :located at 415 Steele Lane in Sanfa 'Rosa.- ..The proseritation , is to be given at 10:00 a. m. "to 12:'00 p: m:;, and 'a 'question •and answer period will be held from 1 00 - to 1 ;00 p:m',. All the-Commissioners were encouraged to attend. SONOMA °'•COUNTY - Albert. J "`& -Vlr#i iU( S'chleth . - 'Use' Permit application for a pro- , _.._ . - REFERRALi _ _ s posed text'ihe plant for ' llows to be located at h , . 210 Sprauer. --Road: • , . - ,.. ­The staff report 'was . dad.. ,.It: was ' noted that the staff opposed the granting of,the ,_Use. Permit., since they did not feel that in- - dustrial or commercial uses are appropriate for the area, and might. -set a' precedent for future like uses. Comm: Mattei. stated that the proposed :proj,dct" was quite far out of the City limits Mr. Gray clarified that it was within the-City's Generate 'Plan , area': - "He, a -Iso •advised that there is no direct re- lation to any agr cultural`use,•and the proposed operation is �- fairly' large:.. Comm. Balshaw made a motion to: accept the staff; recommendation to oppose the .proposed Use Permit. -and `to forward a letter' to the t Sonoma W fity Board -.of 'Zoning• Adjustments so sta The motion i was seconded • by`Comm. ' AYES 5 NOES 2 ABSENT . '0 ('Comm. Hlligoss; and Bond voted in the negative.) Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 20, 1975 WAS The phasing schedule for the "proposed'�Washington 'Professional Park PHASING 1.1 1EDU A LE " andbElloBoulevardthe southeast corner of -East Washi ng :ton Street : Ely South'was presented'to the Commission. Mr. Gray. reminded the - Commission ,-that ._there ,are two: separate, ownerships • involved. The, ro osed 'phasing schedule calls for the two bui_l'd: P_ P ings on each- side of the - extension, of Garfield Drive, ,and. the two,,. buildings buildings on: the front side:, of the other parcel 'along East Wash ington Street, .;to be constructed, in, the 19;75--76 construction year. 'Subsequent buildings would, be built in relation,. to, the floor- area. . Comm. - Balshaw spoke in opposition to not developing , Lhe,.entire project at one time, and.suggested that the remainder of the parcel be grade'd.°and g_rass''planted. Mr: Gray:read`:the conditions'. of site design review pertaining to and public im . prove . ments. _ Dick. Lieb,, representing the applicants, in- formed Commission that the conditions of',site design review would be met. He also stated that he - felt. clean -up of; the .site, pha's'ing, a perimeter landscaping,, would be. sufficient .control -for the City. Mr. Gray advised, _the Commission that all ,public improvements must be accomplished when the first building is constructed and that building permits would not be finaled until the public improve- :, ments were completed. A memo to the Community Development; De- was read to the Commission.• ' This par.tment from Mr. Leb. memo stated "that .the. delay,'iii constructing ,the project was due. in .part to. :the_uncertainty.of the "future hospital site," the-current med cal.professon.:problems, and the fact that, ,economic condit'ions.'are changing so 'rapidly. The Commission, with the exception of 'Comm. Balshaw, felt the. phasing schedule was acceptable:. MICHAEL HUDSON EIQ and site design review considerations . a` proposed cold DISTRIBUTORS - EIQ - storage warehouse to`be at 1297 Dynamic•S,treet, Lot 7 of EVALUATION AND,, SITE the-- Nor.th., San Francisco .Park Unit One,: DESIGN REVIEW'; Mr„ Gray.explaine&:the proposal. which consisted of an office "and .. wareho:use. facility and,allowed for future expansion. The Commission was advised that no negati=ve comments had been received and the staff recommended the preparation of a Negative Declara- tion;. - ,Comm. •, Balsh,aw= made a . to direct the Director of Community Development to prepare {_and pbst.,a Negative,•Declaration for the project. Comm.. :Horc za'seconded the motion. J. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 . . . -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 20; 1 75 The design; architectural appearance, ;,park'ing ", and landscaping 'were briefly reviewed,. Mr'- Gray- c1arified,that a view- obscuring fence nest less than 30 inches, rior'more than 42 inches,, is re- quired to scredd off lights'of parking cars; Comm. ' Bond inade''a" motion to ,approv'd design review with condition' - s of approval,as xecommended'by Architectural and Site Design,•Review Committee and the staff: The motion was secon- ded' by Comm. Popp. AYES `7 NOES' 0; ABSENT 0 JOHN `K. &'MARY "H. 1 Mr Gray advised tYie Commission that they. were to consider. three TAYLOR -' EIQ aspects °"of 'the .dev6iop 'ent. (1)'' EIQ evaluation for the proposed EVALUATION /PUD ,' PUD"'develop e:nt' to be located on` the northwest corner of Sixth and REZONING /S'ITE "'I" Streets; (2) Consideration of the rezoning application for DESIGN REVIEW:: the site from R -C to Planned Unit. District; and (3) Site design review.` for `the. Planned Unit. Development. Mr. Gray advi sed. that the, s-ite is that of . 'the old Petaluma General .Hospital; which is presentiy "zoned" as an' R =C 'District and has been since the late, 1950';5: He further'ex'!'Lined..that an R -C District would, allow l "3 units and- the•Planned Unit' Development proposed was for 14. i4pjits; consisting of 2 four = plexes and 3 duplexes. The nt elopment to.afford an applica` had requested the'Planned'Un' Dev innovative concept and .provide center open. Space, not to increase i the density.,.,. < . The environmental ' aspects were reviewed. '- was noted that no adverse coiIu[lents had been ,received, from revlewing .agencies . f A letter in oppos'it'ion to;the de "ve`lopment -'from Joan Silva, 700 'Fifth Street, was read•., - 'Mr°. ' Gray pointed` out that there was some } apparent confus 'ion•r'egarding of. the site, In " that letters opposing the projee`t refer -to rezoning from single - family "units to `inulti-.family unit's, and that. the actual rezoning. r ' request is frofr R--C- Dist (multi- :family) to Planned Unit Dis- 'trict (multi - family). i' A'lette,r opposing the`pro�ect from Otto•'Rudolph, 617 Fifth Street, also;' re`ad., . - Mr: Gray: •advised tl%at ; Mrs . Guy Mairiwaring, 701 was _ -Fifth . Street, - "and' Gertrude Mastr apy '-6'2'2 Fi'fth Street, had been in I; the" Of f1Ce and expres,sod do- nce"rll'; regarding the. traffic at Sixth 'and "I" Str-eets and F ifth and "I" Streets. #. An uns %fined' letter opposin'g'_the•.pro"ject from'a resident at 415 Street.was Comm_ Waters stated that he did not feel an } un si p letter should enter into consideration. . . . -3- n Petaluma City Planning'Commission;Minutes; May 20•, 1975 A, rendering of : the. Planned Unit;Deve;lopment. was: shown to' the Com- mission and the .audience.. _ ,The location .,of the one ; arid two story .. . units in relation to, . "I," Street .and Sixth ,Street was explained. The location ,of the.comm= area and park ng'was also indicated. Recreational vehicle paikin:g° was briefly discussed, -.and Mr. Gray stated that -the staff.had.recommerided that_ recreational vehicles be parked elsewhere than on the si.te... , It was also noted that the. 1. hedge. would -,be• .retain ed •and. trimmed. . The staff report was briefly reviewed and the recommended condi- tions of approval, of the, Arcfiitectural. and; Site Design Review Committee and the staff were read. Mr. Gray suggested adding an addi -t oil - condition •that: n& boat or recreatioi a'l' 'veh`icle sha11 b'e permitted on. the !site and,..the Commission _concurred. Commissioners, . . Balshaw and. Waters., both in favor of the project, stated that they were impressed with the open space provided and "the :style of r design. Mr. Gray advised that the.Traffic Committee had met that afternoon and had'received petition of 150 signatures requesting that : a.4 - way st d place at Sixth and "I ".Streets.. The Traffic Com- mittee thought, t, was. a worthwhile suggestion and were investi- gating-- traffic counts and accidents for the intersection'. Mr. Gray explained.the criteria of.the.State' Californ,:a for place- ment.of stop signs He further advised that the matter would.be back, before the Traffic at their next.meeting. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr,..Edward,_DeCarli of Raymond Hts. asked if the development would.be an owner/manager The applicant, Mr. Taylor., replied that,. was the,, intention. Mr— mccourt expressed concern over the drainage .of the water. Mr. Gray advised •that <the.grading of the site had to meet the.condi- tions, +of'the Sonoma,, County Water Agency and the City of :Petaluma, and. that drainage would., only be. permitted. to,. the: rear of the property if it would-be piped to the street,.- Mr. McCourt asked what would happen if. he .w .shed to take down the existing hedge. Mr: : Gray- responded that he have.to discuss putting up a joint fence with his neighbor.,_ Mr ,:Webb questioned if.the,,development would be built according to the' render ng., . Mr. 'Beck, Architect for the. project, .replied the landscaping• would b_e..provided as indicated, but'it would naturally .take a_few years for_. the plants.., to 'mature.. .Mr: Gray advised that the .Blue. Spruce and other •trees, would be. retained. P � q. � - . , .. The rental; rice was uestioned,, and Mr..Bec k replied that it would.• roughly $250 per month, which be in.: medium price range., The Public.Hear-ing was closed. -4- ii • Petaluma Cty.Plannir Commis's'ion M'inutes,. May 20.;; 1975. 'Chairman Hilligoss and Comm., Horciza,.advised the audience that �.- they had been on• -the ;; Residential Deyelopment..Evaluation Board which-:had .•evaluated this project.,; 'and' -,were in favor of the de- .,� p,_:eiit. The problem, raised b a member of •velo m Y the audierice. and the . Commission., was .advised that one of the stop signs''could,no:t be seen.properly because of.-tree branches. She ! was informed, the ;matter ,would ;be ;attended to.. { ' Comm. .Bond made,,a motion to direct the Director of Community. " Development to:prepare.and•post ; a Ne a•tive! Declaration for the i project.. _:Comm. Horciza .seconded the motion,._ AYES 7 . .• ,0 ABSENT 0 The' spe'cific'.•findings:.which must• be found to act favorably on the • ;.� PUD rezoning were, read-.- Comm. Balshaw made,. a motion to recommend "h to the. City .Council, that. the,. PUD rezoning be approved with the P'lannedi.Unit��Development plan; subject to .:conditions of approval as stated.::•, .,The, motion was seconded. Comm,, - _ Waters. i AYES - 7 NOES 0• -ABSENT 0 Comm.' Waters, made a. motion to approve the. site design review with • •- •.• � _. • = conditions of a royal- as recommended by the: Architectural and - • • Site Design, ;Review,- :Committee • and • the. added - ; condition relating to i :recreat onal,vehicle parking,., The motion. -was seconded by Comm. i Popp, AYES ,. 7 ' , NOES.. .0 - • ABSENT Q. A rec'e5s was called at, 9:10 p.m., and ..the meeting resumed at { '9::20 p:m:.. PETALUMA BLVD'. NORTH .'° Mr: Gra reminded the Commission that. the Petaluma .Boulevard North GENERAL LAND USE General Land =- Saudy had been reviewed a't'.the prior meeting, •and' STUDY 'that Mr. Doolkftle of the'Sonoma County.:Health Service was present this evening to make .the •presentation regarding the sanitary survey. "le M'r Doolitt - read "a letter addressed. to,. the Sonoma. County . Board of p P ' stated. the r- esults of the' 2 Mr. l Gray l indch recent r y. icated'on a map the area that had been •studied -under this sanitary survey, and also indicated the ' the re ort, which con - study .area used -by the staff in, preparing - p listed of - the entire drainage basih.. He. asked .Mr.. -Doo -ittle . how • • ^ •. •the area -for the sa.nitar_y' survey :.had been" determined.. Mr. Doolittle. t r .: epli:ed that it was chosen because it- was, felt the area to be'most ".critical,, .but -•;the study could- be• enlarged to include - the, drainage area if the City preferred. i Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 20•,. 19`75.1. a to.what was being done re- Comm: Bond questioned Mr. .Doolittle s g gardirig the ten that were directly, releasing sewage into the Petalirra'Creek, Mr. Doolittle•.responded,it was, difficult.to know' where to•• begin, ' since if 'you issue a, legal notice to one ;resident, you would have-to issue them to almost every.house. Mr. Gray asked if, legal notices' had been issued. to .violations inside of 'the City of Petaluma:. Mr'. Doolittle 'responded that he issued legal notices to those residents who could be serviced by sewers and to the most 'flagrant violations. Comm. Bond asked if;th'at meant the ten cases cited were not .flagrant., to which -Mr. _Dool•ittle, replied that they were all flag - rant.; but if the sewage was actually coming out .onto the .sidewalk and - s.treet, it is.considered to be more flagrant than if it is draining to 'the rear of. the property Comm. Bond asked Mr'. :Doolittle if , lie : could. prevent people from living- in the houses. Mr. Doolittle;.responded' that 'he would have to go to the, City Attorney. or the County.'Attorney . to get.a legal notice, He also informed the' Commission that two cases had been... taken to court and took four years'and'many tax dollars to accom- plish. He added that an existing violation has been tied up in court for three years at the present timer. Mr. Gray" asked if' Mr. Dool :ttle',s department could• : ,not request ' the Regional Water Quality Control Board' to issue a cease and desist order immediately.. Mr. Doolittle :repD ed 'that the' first. cease .and .• desist order that he knew of was,.for, the Penngrove area,' and the survey area would probably, be the second.. Mr. David Hillendahl• asked Mr'_.Dbolittle what was being done about the,flagrant violations,. Mr. 'Doolittle replied' that.'when you have 5, 000' to'20,•000 violations to and these are just 'ten specific ones:; which one 601 you determine to do first. He also referred to ' downtown ,businesses'in Petaluma that were dumping raw -sewage into the river at the pre "sen_t" time, and stated that 'las't' . year.one such .problem'had been corrected. Mr•�Doolittl a3Vised that 'he could.wr.i'te: legal notices,' but that unless .he could ,get the City Attorney or the County, District Attorney to make a court case out. of . it,, there .was . nothing f-urthe'Fk he could 'do, and that the -courts were already overburdened:: Comm. Balshaw asked if he would anticipate°, a single owner taking' four years to settle and going' through Superior Court, to which'Mr.. Doolittle replied that a current single owner case ,had already taken :three years: and 'was 'not yet settled. ,;Comm,. Balshaw stated that he felt the violations of the businesses within the. City, .limits .should be, plablic izdd., -Mr. Gray advised that the: City Manager.had' informe :d °him that Mr. Doo -. little had, 'in fact;, ;found businesses disehargang into the river, but the problem had -been, corrected immediately, Mr. • Doolittle advised.. that. in, 19.58 :he had come to the City `with a, 'similar report and had brought subject: up, . continuously. each : -6- Petaluma City !Planning Commission Minutes,, May 20,, 197:5 year for the ;last•18 years,, but-this was the first time that he had appeared before "this Commission.. Comm... 'Mattei stated he felt it as ap t c6unty' problem and'•giestioned why, the County did not have to h, regulations -when the City of Petaluma had to. Mr. Doolittle replied th'at•enforcement• procedures had increased greatly during the fast: so'.. �In r•ephy to a query, Mr. Doolittle stated, that the ten most' flagrant; cases,..could not be identified on the area map;; Sam Navar -r -a, a- bu's'inessman on - Petaluma. Boulevard North,, addressed the "Commis'sidn.,and_ stated. that' he had. noticed on his tax bill he was p a, •i.n f e , s y' g or ~ Overage service, in. that area. He stated his desire to rconnect td> 'the• sewer system,, and felt that he was entitled to do so He also did not feel that those who wish to connect to the sewer'system should be penalized of,those who do not wish to do so. Mr Arrata 'stated that •if would.tell the people what was -wrong with their a lot of them could be corrected. Another member in tie audience. °spoke in 'favor of having some or- derly growth in the.`area. It was his; contention that a portion of the area was ,already slum ,properties and could only get worse. He 'felt that se'wer'-s should° be extended to the areas that needed it mo`st., - and also reminded the Commission 'that if. a clear problem does 'exist., the `Government- is- willing to fund 87% of the cost 'for the ProJeCt` Mr., Copeland- informed the Commission, ,that he felt the alleged terrible•danger was' totally out of perspective. 'He stated that it .was di,•fficul't to find the septic tanks: and ,l-each lines, and felt that evidence of water on-the ground was ndt comprehensive, es- pecially during the, time of year, the . "siur-.vey.•:was conducted. He also questioned `the actual hazard' present from the coloform bacteria. Mr.'Cope'1- -and did not feel that the sewer :system should be forced on -.those who did not want it,, and he also felt that the extension of the 'sewer•system would: encourage development in the area, to which fie opposed: MCI -. Gray briefly -.reviewed - the Petaluma Boulevard,North General Land Use Study,'Repor•t, and the recommendation from the staff., He advised that '8;00 acres in, the draia -ge basin would be opened up for poten- tial development df the sewer., system: was put in; and -that ap, - orox- imaeely:, 30o units existed in this area at the pr.eserit time.. 'A member of the-audien e asked-If the City, wa •in'a,position to put a:morator:ium on developmen•;t on County, property., Mr. Gray replied (hat- the•C -ity Council could request that the Board of Supervisors of., Sonoma County do so, especially with regard, to lot splitting. He also , clarified that none of the land in the sanitary survey...pres'ently `.belon'gs to the. City'. The- same„ individual from the -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May "20, 1975 audience, stated that .she ,- had noted three -of the owners who had.. acreage'd20 acres or moire,Yiad•bought forw development purposes, and she felt the exploitation -of '.those, cites would impale the 'entire surrounding area.. Mr., Gray, replied that was,, the reason the staff. sugg.ested -the . residents of the area together with the City Council,,. the Planning ;Commission ,,. and the• County, develop a plan for ,development .of.:that area. and that• plan.,should reflect the desires of 'the residents. She replied_ that .wds.not what she had been led to believe and that many of her. neighbors were also shocked about the situation. She went onto speak _about a meeting called by ,Mrs;.' Robinson, .at.,which they were told the Board, of Supervisors was involved,, -,but had note been ; informed; it was ;a. sub- ject for the Planning,Commission Mr. Gray. replied that the Planning Commission. also "hot informed of the meeting. She. also spoke :of a meeting of ,the.la-rge owners- who, Mrs,.. Robinson stated she represented, but to which none of the other property owners were asked to attend -: She , also refer"•red to a newspaper article.which. gave. an account : of the subject before "the .City Council on May 5th,, and stated she felt 'the' foregoing procedures; were, rather +strange.;.,. Mr. Gray replied that the : had no sanction:from.either the County or he.'City >of Petaluma,. to which she, e"sponded that they were not in that °.ambience -tall since :they'wer.e very author- tative, quite professional, and representatives of the;County had been brought Jim - to speak.•,.Mr. Gray informed: 'the Commission and the audience that, the concern of the City, is .thai, if "water and sewer. are extended into, the area without land us;e,cohtrol "s, uncontrolled haphazard development will take place;: He revealed that the only way that control ,of -some "k'nd of planned development can take place ris :for a .plan to be developed for.,.4 the area " the citizens of the area Involved. Mr. Doolittle ad'd'ed that no,_one should feel that they•would not be heard,, ,and cited as evidence'',the Penngrove;sltu_ at'icn.where many cit zen presently being held. Mrs. " :Robinson informed the Commission that the. City Council had been- .asked to attend the first;meetin -g she had, conducted.°and.they had not responded,;.and City, Hall- had,also been noticed.by telephone of the second meeting_. She also- started that the matter was now up to the City, sinee County had 'stated"in a.letter from Super- visor Hinkle that the;•requested sanitary survey had been conducted, but, the Board: of Supervisors, would. take no: further' action un.t : -i_1 requested by.the City.of Petaluma..; Mrs'. .,Robinson stated she was , .not trying to push. any partt cular, development and that the .whole concern was that a, . did exist.. She added she had no object on, to land planning br• to going along with the Planning Commission -, . but 'that it had ;been.. almost,, two. year- s and no sugges- tions. had been •made from the City. • Mr.'Gray replied, that, the City did not attend these meetings be- ,, cause the matter was before this Planning, Commission and this Commission was wasting T.cr.a result of. the sanitary survey. He further stated that the"next official action or public meeting ®' would be here before the Planning Commission, and therefore, the City' Manager' or- ' did not want to become part of any unno- ticed private, meetings at Sonoma Joes. Petaluma .'City P Commission'Minutes, -May 20, 1975 David- Hillendahl,..Gossagp Avenue';, thanked h=im for the explanation. H& stated.that,i.t was the explanation that made any sense, and that he..realIzed,.there a need for sewers in the area, but that; the, objection was to.; the - way Mrs. Robinson had pressed the matter -;and the ;slap- hazard'.way..that Albritton and Jensen had laid the system out Mr.' H- illendahl stat - ed that the method of pushing the project on. the ,people, had the whole area up in arms and they ' had decided they didn't .want it. He also; said he could not argue with the fact that Petaluma Boulevard North needs a sewer system, but did.question the need for water along with it,. Mr. Hillendahl said he.was glad the,property owners,involved would have a chance to.vo'ce their opinions and felt.that there would be no problem if the people were approached in the right manner and notified by mail of.the meetings. Mr.,-John Perry stated it was his experience that the City Council is,there to, answer the needs of ,the,. people:. He stated the need for cooperatioh and.the necessity of the citizens to work with the City.. Mn suggested that. planned meetings be held to study the availability and 'feasibility of requesting Federal aid for the project, and the process en:taile'd in connecting to the sewer sys- tem. He felt the commercial businesses should be allowed to connect to the .City if they so wished. Comm. .Bond. ; asked how the people present felt regarding annexation. Mrs.' Pacheco, said they were :happy living in-the County and wanted to stay out of the City. - -She also, stated that Mrs. Robinson's interests were. not with the people,;n.the',area, but with the real estate commission, :she would receive;. , T.wo more individuals voiced their, desire to stay out of the City limits. Comm. Bond suggested a_ meeting of citizens and •property owners in the area and Mr. Gray advised that, it would have -to .be a.,joint meeting with the County. Mr.. Carlson from the audience urged' the .Commission to do a study in the, -form of a questionnaire- to get the true feeling' of all the property owners involved. ' Comm .,Balshaw .stated that .he .wished : to know the options, such as self - contained, household sanitary systems that are available. Mr. Do,olittle,stated that,none had been approved.to date, because.there was no evidence- that.any .of worked. . Comm. Balshaw stated that�since,the hospital cannot in. without the sewer zystem being extended, problems of_ development would still exist, because of tli s extension, even- if. all, the present violations are corrected by the owners.., He asked why a study would be necessary if .the people, in, the urea did not want to be annexed. Mr. Gray replied that the :study was- necessary for two reasons. If preplanning- is done for 'the area and' a plan developed by the resi- dents, in the 'area with the 'City, of Petaluma and the. •County of Sonoma,, and' accomplished, that would leave a Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 20 ° , 107 the oppbrtuni.ty for segmehts of the area to -be served with water and sewer as the 'publi'c health necessitated 'without requiring the: entire area to be' annexed: — The second fact that must be faced is that Mr. Doolittle�ha's forwarded`a copy 'of -his report to the Re gional Water Quality ° Control - Board, a.nd'more than. likely they will pepor t'as they-have done in the Penngrove.area. Mr. Gray went lace a cease and ' d'es st order in the area'on the basis of that on to say t'at, since ' 'h area is part of Master Sewerage Plan for the Petaluma Valdey,"the'City: will have - some obligation °to 'provide - the - sewer for ";tAis area, andt that one of the prerequisites can be proper land'use planning , and annexation to - the City. He added he'' felt it would° b'e .unwise to proceed"in serving sewer to an are_.a which is part of'the urban. fabric,'in''which the City would , have no control over the land uses that'would be developed. In response to.a question' °by Comm. Bond;''Mr,.Gray clarified that the 'future hospital: site could`b' 'served:by the sewer system, but that the proposed off -ice bu'ild'ings andc . 'buildings have not paid the same assessment.'-The City would also have to be asked to provide'water 'service `to the site. on the map how extending the sewer,.lines' for' the h'bspi.t l' -site could also open up sewerage "fines. `for 'others along that trek; `line. Mr. Gray re- iterated tha -t this is ,precisely why the report °was prepared, since the City Council had requested :the Planning.Department, and now the Commission, ''to explore - what'they , ishouid be: aware of as a City as to what `would• happen "to the development 'of 'the area if the Troudy Lane hospital* site • wer6 supported. Mr. Gray advised that his department, a ess 's' a prof,''ion'ai. planning staff', was recommending that because g ill cal development ;such as' lot splits' i =s'' now taking place . in the ,area proper circulation and no master.p that ;future water "or sewer line 'extensions !should' riot be-, approved without an adopted land use plan., He reiterated the -need for -the citizens of the -study area together with ~the Planning. Commission, the City Council, the , Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the..Sonoma County Planning Commission; to adopt a master land use plan for the area, and that the City adopt proper prezoning:- He advised that with this, procedure -'ah"yone` 'desiring 'to' hook up to the sewer system could `be annexed to th'p City -of Petaluma,. Mr. Gray recommended that., this procedure take' place" if, the, hospital, locates on - Troudy Lane. Discussion'followed'regard'ing "•whether a decision should be made at this time,, or wait until all the people in the area had been consdlt'ed: Chairman H lligo "ss asked' tYi'e pegpl'e why they did not "want to. annex to the. City: Comments in general- were"that: the individuals liked diving, in the County, '•were ;in "favor` bf country living, and felt their tax` - structure would 1 'suff er. . A,membe.r of the, audience, _questioned the boundary lines drawn on the study area,map., Mr..Gray advised that this : area had been studied rd because it was the entire drainage basin,.and'they were not sug= Besting it as an annexation boundary.' He ; further advised, that once -10- l `P.etaluma City ePlanning° •Cominission Minutes. May 20, 1975 planning for •the,area was accomplished, annexation would probably only,.be, done by. request. He further advised that it would take six to twelve months to do the recommended.study;: considering the public .input necessary and desired. Mr. Gray added that once the study had been prenared.the speed of annexation is up to the..in- dividual'property owners'. A member'of; the audience stated that almost all the land owners on both sides of the road from Corona Road „,both north and'south, are i willing to. 'put in their own trunk, line to get to the sewer system. He. added that rattier - than ;have their properties_ condemed they r would pay for it themselves. Another member of the audience stated he was considering tapping into trunk -line on the other"sid'e of the creek towards H 'hw,ay wondered what the feasibility of that would be, -a.nd .i'f it would be possible in the near future without have to wait two or three years. Mr. Gray replied that his recommendation was that connection to the "sewage - system would' only be possible, when there: is °a plan for the area, and that .she i could not condone providing- sewer and encourage haphazard :develop- ment to take 'p'lace after the sewer, is provided. A short discussion followed regarding what recommen'dat ion Vould ±be made to the, City•Council. Comm Bal:shaw made a motion 'to ufake a three -fold. recommendation to the .City Council. (1) Di'rect the Director-' of Community Development "to outline `to the Council "what is _necessary to ,develop a land use plan cooperatively. - with the County:Rand the public and such a plan. be prepared. 1 (2) - Regiie'st the Council to "forward'to the County a resolution requesting. that no.future. lot splits or development take place until the 1 "and use plan, been adopted. (3') No water- or . sewer line extensions shall be approved without annexation. Comm., Bond seconded the motion., AYES' '7 'NOES D ABSENT 0 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Mr. Gray advised, .that LAFCO' s City-Council Plann=ing Policy, _'Com- EVALUATION: mittee recommendations for the proposed new standards. for 'the evaluation. of.spheres of influences were the. same as the`criter>a the C t" has been !developing for its sphere ,of' influence a ter natives. Comm: Popp :made a motion t''o accept LAFCO's standards 'for the evaluation of the spheres of influence: Th'e mot =ion Vas s'econd'ed by Comm.. Waters. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0' ADJOURNMENT. I There being no further business e.meeting adjourned at P.m. Chalrmdn /