Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/24/1976I 4 k G E �N D A PETALUMA CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 1976 ADJOURNED MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COU14CIL CHAMBERS,' CITY HALL Petaluma, California _ I The.iPlanning CbMmission encourages applicants or their represen- tatives to be available at the 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: I �� Comm nd I IIe d �Harbe son /� Horciza Popp /- a,t WersW ght I STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: i I. Y _ ,CORRESPONDENCE: SONOMA COUNTY REFLRRALS�: PETALUMA.FARMS - Draft L.I.R. regarding application for a change in zoning from the existing F -1 (primary agricultural) and A -2 (secondary agriculture) d trict zones to a PC (Planned Community) District or any other district zone which will allow mixed residential, commercial, and limited industrial development on approximately 1,'0:$0 j acres, to be located on the east-'and west sides of U.S. 1,01 about 1 mile south of Railroad Avenue. i ADJOURNMENT: i I MIN UT E'S t ALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JOU RNED MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Harberson; Hoxciza, Popp, i ABSENT: Comm. Head i STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director AUGUST 24, 1976 7:30 PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Waters, Wright CORRESPONDENCE' Mr. Hall requested that a ,clarification of the August 3, 1976 minutes be made regarding the J. W-. Combs Site Design Review for a proposed mini to be located' at 1100 Petroleum Avenue. On Page 3, paragraph 1, of the minutes the words State and County should after government agencies and the minutes,"read: - Mr Hall indicated _that an easement for access will be granted by these government agencies (State and County) if the proposed is approved by the City. Comm. Po moved that e 3 paragraph l of the August 3 1976 • I PP g � - �. g Planning Commission Minutes be clarified and the words (State and County) • inserted after government agencies. The motion was seconded by Comm. Harberson. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 PETALUMA FARMS Planning Director, Ronald F. Hall, explained that the Planning SONOMA COUNTY j Commission was directed by City Resolution No. 7493 E.I.R. REFERRAL:: N.C.S. to make specific findings'in regard to the inadequacy of I the Sonoma County E.I,R, referral concerning the rezoning application - for the proposed Petaluma Farms Development. He re- quested the Commission furnish testimony and provide the staff I` with their recommendations to the Petaluma Farms Draft Environ- mental Impact so their comments could be sent to the .: Sonoma County - Planning Department for the public hearing to be held on September 2, 1976, A discussion was held regarding the Draft EIR Report submitted by the Sonoma County Planning Department on the Petaluma Farms Development and. the statements were made by the r. Planning Commissioners: Comm. Harberson - The Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development was for the following reasons: 1. Constrain'ts'chart shown after Page ll shows a freeway dividing the property; access to the propert.y.from the freeway is limited to one northbound off -ramp, other than the d=istant Denman Interchange. It is inadequate to limit the report strictly to this bland type statement. They show a�rating 1/2 circle. The actual traffic impact for a development of this magnitude is not mentioned in the table. I. Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August 24:, 1976' The Denman Flat Interchange and the - freeway on and off ramps at Pepper Road.and Railroad Avenue would be in -.. sufficient to handle the estimated 12,00'0 trip's per. day generated by this development. _ 2, Report states't_hat the water supply to this. development would be.supplied wells'. streams or by an extension to the Petaluma Water System, and, further, that 520,000 gallons of water per would'be required f.or the project. 'There is no indication in the E.I.R.. that there is sufficient ground water to supply' this amount - of water to the- develop- ment, and -the °City Council, is` opposed .to. the project connecting to the Petaluma Water System. 3, The mag . shows a 100' -year flood plain- period', but the E.I.R. prepared by the - same` consultant firm f "or the Petaluma Hospital District shows, this .flood . paain`'to be ,larger than -as shown in;the Petaluma. Farms E I.R,. If. this is the case, . _ the flood :areas as: shown are - inadequate ,,and should be considered., 4. Page 14 states that-an 200 students .would be added to the elementary school system,.. This is an arbitrary ... ; figure:, Statement needs additional information on how they arrived at this figure. 5. Modification Chart shown after Page '14 states this .develop- ment will :probably require additional police protection.,, As .this; development will generate more people and traffic to the area., additional police personnel will be required. This woul& be a beneficial and an adverse situation. 6. Modification shows the increased-water-.demand may lower the-water table. If the development is planning on using a 1/2 MGD this will very definitely lower the . water table: - The 1/2 circle indicated on the chart is inadequate:. 7, Modification Chart gives a 1/2 circle to 'the access and circulation system and' shows it will .not have an. adverse effect.on the system, With the estimated 12,000 trips a day generated by this exit. would be ne`ces'sary, A cloverleaf pattern should. be considered. 8. Page 18 states that Petaluma Farms'is not expected to be growth inducing from the stand - point of . in- troducing new services and utilities into the area. This statement is inadequate as 1,000 homes will have a tremendous effect on the area. 9.. Page 18 states that the on -site sewage treatment plant will ' be of a size and capability that is "acceptable to the Regional Water Quality Board, -This statement is inadequate as no one.is 'qualified to predict the requirements of the Water Quality 'Control Board -in the coming -2- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1976 i year or years. The report should state the capacity of sewerage to be generated and will it be a secondary or tertiary treatment plant. 10. The report- states the dairy farm operation will be in operation•.f,'or perpetuity. This is an inadequate statement, - perpetuty's a long time - how do they plan to do this - is the operation going to be deeded to the County, State or some open space agency. 11. Page= 3'2 -34 mentions some of the soils will be taken out of production;­ The report does not-state-what will happen to this land it is taken out:of production and what will I then happen to the area. 12. ' The report states that Mecham- Hill will - remain as open space. ­How can they guarantee that Mecham Hill will remain as open space,. The statement is inadequate. Mecham Hill has had one landslide and the site would be a difficult place to build on, : 13. Page 70 of the report regarding the location of the sewage treatment plant. The report is Inadequate as it does riot show it to be located in the flood plain zone and the description is inadequate as to what mitigating measures 'Would be used to guarantee that during a 100- year,,flood the City of Petaluma would not be the receiving body for sewerage-from this development., 14. 'Page 74 -C Modifications states tha -t of the estimated 12,000 �. trips per day, half will be from the north and half from the south. This is an arbitrary decision and an inadequate I statement - . Comm. Harberson stated that the general tone of the E.I.R. appears to be an advocate for the instead of a real critical - survey of-the - The - tone' is• carried forward in the above .inadequate statements and in - the inadequate planning of utilities for the project - and in ` rion- conformance with the Petaluma Environmental And General Plan. Comm, waters the report there is a combination pedestrian /cattle walkway through'the grazing land of the develop - ment. As..any one knows who has been on a cattle ranch, a cattle trail -and pedestrian walkway do not work together, unless you have hip boot's on.- The plans do not show the Petaluma River, and no contour lines are indicated on the map to show the location of the treatment plant. --3- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August .24, - 1976 Comm. Wriglit 1 Page 14, Modifications 3,44 states `that due to strict regulation,s the Water Quality Control Board the only impact from the,pacica,ge plant would be the distribution of the effluent. Several requirements are specified.by the RWQCB and one requirement would'.relate to sewer odors. This is an inadequate statement and indicates a lack of in -depth study of the area. The report. - does not indicate definitely where the sewer plant would be located.. 21. Page . 25 states there would-be no alteration. in the `air quality, This statement is not adequate.and should be elaborated on. 3 Page 26,, S tat ement:1.on Transportation,, encourages car-'.pooling. .and the use,of public transportation:' The report -does no ,t indicate what , % means of travel will be used by the residents or what ~type of- transportation.-will he' .•availab.le. This would require additional Golden Gate buses for the area. 4.. Page H regarding water 'run-off and rechar;ge.of ground water: Report is inadequate and does no,t indicate location of.ponding areas;.:. Comm.. Bond - Comm, Bond emphasized.that the main.issue here is that this plan is not in.conformance with the Environmental Design Plan and General Plan of the City of Petaluma: The report does not indicate clearly how the trails and greenway' will be developed and maintained; 1. Page 10 'lists five potentially critical constraints con - cerning water supply, sewage disposal:, -rural open space and archaeological resources,- There is no documentation showing the validity of, supplying 5'20,0'QQ`.gallons of water a ;day. 2. Schools there is no documentation fromsthe.Liberty School District showing how they. plan to.hand'1e the alleged 200 elementary school children. Liberty,School' is not prepared. to handle these• additional' stud'ents •• The stated 200 students is an arbitrary figure,.' a. I. Page '19 states • the two primary. problems of .the dairy would be flies and odor which could'be kep' at a minimum.. There should be documentation on how this problem could be kept under control'. 4. Map does not-clearly indicate a road circulation pat -tern within the subdivis =ion:.. The present roads are in poor condition and.report does.not indicate that these road conditions will be improved or new,roads installed. ` -4- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1976 5. Transportation there-is no in report on what type of public transportation the residents of the develop - ment: will use, if Golden'Gate Transit is considered under public transportation, more buses will have to be put on for. this project. 6, Page 28,states the seepage of' water along the slopes of Unit C will "require extensive investigation in order to establish ,the significance of this condition. What system of purification is planned for the run -off into the Petaluma River ? Comm, Bond stated this is a separator area and Mecham Hill would not be enough of a green belt separator to break up the visual density for the - area.' .0 7. Page 6l.states that the establishment of a security system with a'pr.vate patrol would reduce the impact on the Sheriff' Department. This statement is inadequate as it does not indicate how the patrol system would be maintained. 8, Page 62 states the Pen.ngrove- F.ire,Department has jurisdiction over. structural fires within the Petaluma Farms area. There is no documentation of water availability for'the development and the Penngrove Fire Department is concerned about the availability of water for fire protection services. 9. Page 68, Political Climate - The political climate in Petaluma changes every two months which is an indication there is no guarantee these facilities will be furnished by the City of Petaluma at the present time or in the future. 10. Page 72 states an assessment could be levied on each home, the monies going toward the purchase and construction of additional school facilities. The report is inadequate_as it does not indicate a location where the proposed school will be built. 11. Traffic and Circulation - the report indicates that access roads to the development are not in.good condition. There is�no­documentation on improving these roads, or con - structing new roads:.into the project." I V -,Comm. Rapp - Comm..Popp stated that the impact of this project would be overwhelming and the growth inducing factor would be tremendous, Additional.flood problems will be created due to runoff water from this development, and if the Petaluma Farms is approved as a project, the'City could run into similar problems in the future from other developers. � Comm. Horciz:a 1 Page 32 - states some of the soils are subject to erosion on steeper slopes which will effect the treatment plant, There will be problems with seepage along the slopes. The -5- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August 24 1976 . statement is inadequate as it does not show how these soils problems can.be' resolved, 2. Comm. Horciza stated that 100 -acres of Petaluma Farms lies within the recharge area which makes it adverse to the Petaluma General Plaa:, 3. Comm. Horciza expressed : concern for safety with relation to the 100 /1000 year flood, 4. The only open space -shown is on top of Mecham Hill. 5, An outline is 'needed to show the development of present and future roads. Comm: Horciza opened the--Public Hearing `Oscar Carter a rancher from Rainsville Road, st_ated'he would like' to, see more documentation on'their water table. What happens when the sewer plant>:overflows? What happens if their Y: wells go dry? The dairies would be the first to go.wi'thout water. -Mr. Orella of Ely Road stated ''that the water table in the...area is dropping rapidly and water table would drop more with the proposed development. He stated his school tax had tripled. in'the past few years and questioned what this development .r would do to his'tax bill. Mr. Harry Stewart of Jewett Road stated that this is the first year this area has not flooded!; at certain times the area is under four to five feet of water. The school district has no room for future expansion as the present school fss in the cemetery district:, Barbara Gordon stated this.is the.first'winter Stony Point Road has not flooded. The existing Rainsville'Road is not -wide enough to carry the proposed additional traff'ic.. Mrs. Gordon was concerned that more taxes would be-'levied against the present property `owners,, and they be includedf -in the pro- posed. district for.'the development. A representative from the Liberty School .D strict:toard of Trustees stated that - a development of this-.magnitude would have a definite impact on Liberty School District. Robert Tellander from the audience stated that it is obvious this EIR was a trial balloon; but in essence this proposal could be a good idea, Future development of the City would be blocked as -far as growth is concerned.: Business in'Petaluma would increase and the extra money spent by residents of the develop- ment would circulated in the City and school.system. It is not a good idea to have cluster - type housing.in an open space area. -6- 4 Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1976 This development would increase-traffic and vandalism in town. He questioned if perhaps the developers wanted to test the waters in the area. Joan 'Buchholtz -, a property owner on Petaluma Blvd N., stated that the-traffic Petaluma�Blvd.N_ is dangerous now and this project would generate more traffic onto Petaluma Blvd N. Mrs Buchhohtz stated that developer feels they have the, from the Board of,Supervisors since the recent recall election. Mr. -Hall read a letter,. dated August 18, 1976 from David A. Dorfman, Executive Officer; Sonoma LAFCO, to Mike Morrison, Sonoma Planning Department,•and another letter, dated July 21, 1976, from-David Dorfman .to Robert E. Nicholson, Planning Director; both letters to the P.ataluma.Farms.:Environmental Impact Report. Mr. stated 'that the General Plan:was adopted by Sonoma County and'is therefore an obligation of the County of Sonoma. The Public-Hearing was closed. Comm. Bond moved that the letters, dated August 18, 1976, and July 21,, 1976, from Sonoma be accepted and made a part of this recommendation. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 After the Public Hearing the Commissioners made the following statements: Comm.. Waters .expressed concern on the impact this development would have.in rela ion to increased traffic on Petaluma Blvd N. and US 101 Freeway, the school system, and the present flooding of the area and suggested a more careful study should be made of this EIR Report. Comm. Horciza stated the EIR should be more specific as to where the new treatment plant would be located. He further stated that this development would not effect the Petaluma allotment system as the area in question is in the County fringe area. He added that relative to statements from residents of the area, the - water table this year had dropped approximately seven -feet and proposed that a better study of.the water table be made. Comm. Popp °stated the greater part of this development is in low lands' which flood on three sides, and if this is the ease what . will happen to property - 'owners in this dreg, Comm, Bond stated no mention had been made for the provisions of health and emergency services to the development and therefore the City of Petaluma would be subject to furnishing these services. He added that there is not substantial evidence in the EIR to show there will be enough water to supply this development. -7- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1976 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: Comm. Bond stated a document submitted from CALTRANS on the use of US 101 Freeway'a's a main access to the-property. There would be a great traffic demand on the .Denman Inter change as.CALTRANS does not,have the funds to construct an interchange into the proposed property. More accessible , should be made available to the development than Ra- ilroad Avenue and Pepper Road. - Comm..-Bond further stated the EIR does not. sufficiently cover the.additional requirements of ",police pro- tection, and health and emergency services-for the.developmen.t. Comm, Harberson expressed concern that-the project will u.se. more water and lower the present water table further..for people of the area.. He added that this'development will not h'el'p business in . the Petaluma downtown area , 'but. is possibly aimed at -the proposed Codd ngtown'Shoppini Center in Cotati.. Comm, Harberson moved that the proceedings rega -rding the EIR for the Petaluma Farms Development be submitted to each Sonoma County - Planning Commissioner and the Petaluma Planni•na: Director to'be present "to address'•the Public Hearing relating to, the''subject"on September '2;• 197'6, and that a member. from the Petaluma. Planning Commission also be. "present : -it -the Hearing. The motion was seconded by Comma Bond. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABS ENT, J. 1. Mr. Hall read a letter daated August 24, 1976 requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider a modificat "ion.to a parcel map subdivision located a -t Halsey Avenue and Olive Street, submitted by Dr. Lawrence Jonas, Comm. Harberson stated this item was not on the agenda and would have to be considered at another `time.. There being no further business, the meeting 'adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Chairman Attest: