Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/26/1977• I. I ADJOURNED MEETING JULY X2'6,: 19 77 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:.,OO'P.`M CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission en'courages'appl cants ';or their representative to be avalabl!'e at the meetings to answer questions, so'th'at no agenda items need be. deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE-`FLAG ROLL CALL Council Rep Head Hor:ciza Lavin . Shearer Waite Wright STAFF: Ronald F., Hall, Planning:'Director Fred E. Tar"r, Associate Planner.,' PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Public Hearing to consider the adequac of the draft SUBDIVISIONS =EAST OF E.I.-R,.,prepared by Del Davis:Associates for the ELY,BL'VD S -DRAFT p=roposed residential prezoriing','of 233 acres located E.I.R EVALUATION east of Ely Bhvd' South. CONTINUED: ADJOURNMENT: M I N U T E S PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISS,ION, JULY .26, 1977 ADJOURNED MEETING 4 OO*P.M. �CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY ,HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT,: Comm. Ho•tiza., :Shearer,...Wai.te, Wright ABSENT: Comm. A, 4r berson, Head, Lavin ,STAFF: Fred E. Tarr, Associate Planner PLANNED !RES,IDENTIAL' 'The Public Hearing to consider the Draft E. I.R. pre" ' ; SUBDIVISIONS-EAST OF' pared by D'el­Davis concerning the proposed prezoning of ELY BLVD,. SOUTH-.DRAFT' 233 acres from County Agricul Lure Zoning to; City Resi- E,I�R. EVALUATION: dLntial2oning for 'lands located along the east side of 'Ely Blvd. South, and also ;f ora 44Acre parcel of land which lies between the prp-ject Area an&,Xasa Grande Road was �:reopened:. Mr. Tarr explained that t4e h6ar"T.Az had been, concluded with input on the impact that the residential development would have on'the,airport and what impact the airport would have on the development, and the -hearin ' g was continued with the e issue and two- other issues to, be discussed name amely, traff is impact for the area and the Imp r­ act on the ground water level created 'if, the water for the resid.ent.ial uses Would be pumped- from wells, Mr. Band:, - ,12 Haven Drive,an aviation p ilot, was disturbed about the recent newspap_L�r article which indicated' that statements -had . nents-had been made-at,the previous, hearing that, the airpbr:U - was : uns af e He 'asked if there ' were - plans ' I' or the airport in the future;. Mi' -. Tarr. explained 'that the Environmental, Design Task Force Committee and City Planning Commission had recommended that the new Environmental Design Plan include a statement, that 'the. airport, should remain: but that not be,enlarged.' Comm. Wright indicated.that he would be extremely disheartened if; the airport were to close,. Mr-,'Del Davis Del Davis, -& Associates, st ated that the: piroject sponsors pro-� posed to develop . threel subdivisions.- Concern was. raised reg4r#rfg the develop- ment of 'these subdivisions ecause of the close proximity of the airport, due' to the take off and landing•of'..aircraft. Testimony was furnished by FAA and their -primary concern - was the p rotection o f,,, the air space of the- airplane. Comm. Horciza stated , that inth& -FAA -letter one of the. problems .mentioned was noise and also on_Rage 62 and 66 of the EIR that the analysis was incorrect -in that the number of flig s hown , in the analysis are t bo low. He questioned 4 ,if the " analysis was incorrect; or were- the numbers of . ,fh&, inter - pretations themselves-? Mr. Davels this was:.a matter of the FAA not having all of the, inforTriatiori available to. them that, -the consultants had in the preparation, of the be! Davis stated that . 14t. Pack's earlier noise analysis: at the nonth ofathe airport was supplemented 'with 'other infokma.t,i-qn and then conclusion was -reached that- the -* noise - levels at the south end. would be; lower than - What occurred at the north end;; and,. it -was found that . the noise the north­ end would below that, which would violate 'any state-.' or ",federal standards. Based • on the previously -'preparpd material the consultant felt reasonably - safe that the noise level would-not reach a, level, that would be: harmful.' • t• Petaluma City 'Planning Commission 'Minutes, July 26 1.97.7 Comm.., Horcizd;' asked if the FAA was, conc'erne'd with the monitoring ;points and wh.y had they indicated the ,study was incorrect? Mr, Davis 'stated'- the IAA did no.t� provide them with the substantiation that was utili.zed :in methodology and the consultants, in an 'effort to minimize costs =,and eliminate, any unnecessary detailed stud =ies, t­-tied to put -the information -into as simple•a form as pos- sible' for pr'ese'ntat=ion. to a ; lay bo.dy:. As, a resu ,t., they did not present - the material. in the p'art.icu.lar format .and- style, nor was it ca'lcula'ted as' FAA .. requested. Comm. Horciza _asked if the noise, level; -was actually monitored, along the 'ru_nway- Mr. Davis stated that FAA. has a `wex.ghted ,criteria called _CNEL which is a methodology which takes in ,t number :of fly ovens,, the "types of. air,cr.afty, and the distribution, throughout, a. _24 -lour .pet.°iod,, and these- are. placed. into 'a, mathematical calcuat:on which is called- the • CNEL (Commun- ity Noise. Equivalent Level) o These are plotted .on the ground as _noise contours; and, by using the principles of decay of ;s.ound the, noise contours are calculated going out ,whi:bb- then establisb ,a level of. CNEL's which they_ feel are the maxiinum leve::ls tolerable'.•tor different ~types of Iandk uses. Mr,., Davis, indicated that: the'EIR did '- t•show the calculations.o'f the CNEL''s.. Comm. Horciza- Commented - _ . . that the graphs. shown 'in Appendix "E" are very hard to interpret and an ideas- tif:icat .on of the peaks and- lows kshoul:d be included in the• final. EIR'.. -Mr. Davis stated 'the.supp'lemental study would 'be incorporated in the. final. EIR Edward Pack,, P-,resident .of' Edwa -rd 'Pack Assoc - ation, state'd' tti'at two s'tudie's'' had been made independent of the .EI:R. One involved a .:detailed , noi:se assessment on. the three parc.eas 'c- 'oncerne.d and, the'oaher was an'-evaluation made of safety-, concentrating;on meeting. FAA requirements -for clear space ai -r, navigation safety6 There is - s:ome.'corr.e.latfon between intern:avigataon afet;y and the safety of peopie on the ground.. Mr. Pack stated that the FAA and Cali.f,orni :a Departmen_ t of ; Aer6rautic:s responses were no,t based' on any criteria standards. Their letters Indic d�ted. that the. _individuals' ,ignored. any s.tandards• set by the S "tate:,, : and the FAA response , wa m.o:t based on any standard 'since the 'FAA does not ,have. standards for land 'use.. The California Department of %Aeron_auti.cs is,' mos:fl.y concerned with reducing n:o.ise from aircrafa: At the present ime't.he California Department of Aeronautics considers an area -to be 'impacted ':if the. , commun.i.'ty � nois,e • equivalent level or t;he CN.EL level. exceeds* 70. Their onge.r. range .&)al for January of 1986 - wi.11 reduce the CNEL to 65: :'Base.d-on a 45,;0001 annual aircraft 'operation at • the Petaluma Sky .Ranch Airport:, 'the CNEL' 65 wouad fall, somewhere oii,thel runwa "y. A fa_ir1y comprehensive noise -assessment study was made off the south end o.:f the , tunway using a, computerized instrumentation' so= a unit caill:ed'the equivalent energy lev61 could be me'asured., Mr. Pack indicated that a ;copy of the. noise :study, includ -ing the Calif orna Department of . Aeronatucs', '.Standards -anal the FAA Standards h°ad. been given. to the •Planning Department.m'. Comm Hor - za that ;some 'of the comments .f.rom state and federai agencies relevant eto safety: 'condi`ti'ons at the . airport were rather negative -, as, far as. resider i:al developanen,t being located so near an ;�airpor�t. One of. -the problems indicated was. the height - of- •air,craft flying. over -houses', a .suff.iel .'east safety zone, Mr.: Pack stated their measurements as far asl nois;e,' is' concerned `were exactly as' measured;, calculations were mdse ,t:o 'the. o formulas established and noise -was, reported' as it exi`s4fs,m... In the - ,case bf „ saf'e'ty, this was es,tabl shed by Part 77 Of the Federal Regulati;ons pertaining, to navigable ai.t. 'spare. The unsaf& condition quoted by ''Mr Banda concerns, a `200 -foot extension of -the runway. East Washington Street is approximately 60 to ;80 feet from the end, Of the runway where 200 feet of, clear, sgace is required off the end of -.the runway' v �r Petaluma City Planning, Commission .Minutes, July 26, 1977 And there should be no obstacles in that spa:ee. The. minimum requirement for navigation safety is - that .there be no obstacles or buildings within the "Red" area . asl shown, on the map which Mr. Pack bad prepared. Comm. Horc:iza stated that.at•t.he present time the airport is `not considered safe for multiple engine aircraft. If. the runway were extended to accommodate twin engine places, would this not contribute considerably , to the -noise level and the,safety factor of th clear zon.e? Mr. , Pack indicated that at the present! time there are- multi:- -engine places at ,the field using the existing runways' The noise .expos,u.re fo.rec'as'e unit used by FHA cons; '.ders • any land area under NEF 30 to be not nois'e.'impact:ed, ci.early acceptable; X30 to 40 a cautionary range, ' , 4 and over, ann applicant in. Order to get FHA in.sufanc.e has to show, throughjstudi.es, how he will mi.t�igate. t h en oise. over 30 NEF. Mr. Pack que.s- tioned ; .f the City of Petaluma had a no .ste; • elemerit.o -Mt. Tarr stated 'the City has a noise ordinance as part, of the Zoning Ordinance. State, Title 25 ,Report establishes an exterior-'eriter-ia level of. 60 CNEL on 'the outside to determine if a noise analysi. s - is required, and the, level of 45 CNEL is the limit for the int;erior., John -. Balshaw, Councilman, s,tated.. t.hat:' if -aircraft. is; allowed to ..fly over the houses,;,t.he City could., setting themselves up for a fall.• This could•be a hazardous situation, parti.cul'arly, to the • airport and. to the people- .living under the flight pattern,. The airport should have pr:e:c:edence�sin.ce. it is already there, and one accident could' be., all. she wrote. " Comm Shearer questioned who is responsible: for "the airport and what is t.he- future :p,lans for the, air°port.?' What. would .•t ie City do if the land was sold? Would t:he City cons.i.der buying- the property and' renting it out? Mr. Tarr pxplain that the Planning ,Commission has made: -a recommendation under the revised EDP that the airport s1i* Id remain ­at that :location, but should not be expande'.d. The County Airport Land Use Commission. has`be'en "given the responsi.- bility t.o review proposed dee- velopments near'.any airport. operated for the, benefit-of the public t ' compatibility of Land uses:. The City has referred_ the Environmental, Impact. Report to the:: County Airport Land. Use Com mission: who will. meet on. August 4•, 1977% Me. wi.11 have to wait for their recommendation before vakang'.an "y ;action on cert-i_fication o the EIR. Comm, Wright stated that the project has homes that would be located right . under the winter time take. off pattern of the Airport. He asked, if the, noise measures are an avefage for an area. that isine:xt to 'Ely Road or an area that is right under the' take off - l.i:ne?" Mr,, Pack stated it is rather .an, averaging process. In order to get the, equivalent energy-level an averaging out of gall the ai.r,cr:af t noise • levels is made. Whatever' level of sound that is Linea :sured has no 'meaning" unless it is associated "with ,some distance or separation from the equipment, So .what is really needed is the- noise contours because they show on •a scale. map - the d :std.nce. ve.rs!us, 1„evel,- Gary Burkett,, a pilot stated.a.house loca'te.d.at. the end of the runway- -would be more of a hazard then a car passing by.. There 1s one °multi- engine aircraft based at this airport,°. It was' bought because it can operate out: of a sho runway, y such, As' If the. ,airport is expanded., large'pl:anes could cause more of a hazard "to the nearby homes m Comm. Horciza quest oned if it were practical for' plan "es to take dff:at� a,,9 0. degree turn, away from the potential houses. .Petaluma City Fjapninz Commiasion July 2,6, 1977 'Mr. `Burkett stated ,the. lowest an aircraft can fly is 500 feet; except in take off; or 1.4n.d.ing,. - If large, planes are permitted,i their take of Is slower and they would be f. iyi ng low - �7 eleation directly over ,, the houses,. Comm. at, a Shearer questioned if the runway 'was extended t&a'ccept twin e 'g`ne,p_ _I.anes how many feet of runway, would be xequired Mr. Burkett stated this would depend on.. pilot techniquea and ,safety factors. Twin engines - need 2 to 2 feet; an added 5.00 feet, to the - p resent runway. John Cunningham,. 108 Sun c-re st 'Otive . was concerned about pd living in the --- --- flight, path Cbmmon has to 'be used. in dealing . ­peopl&w,. After. ',a certain amount, of time with continuing. aircraft flying over., people. begin to worry about. safety,, Donald. Smith,; 24 Raymond Heightsi stated there is a need f or an airport and now i,s the time to protect "this airport-_ The safety fa ctor of 'f 1�'in y .9 tdvef houses is not there, • 'W& _should, greserve-the airport f O't the. present and - future Peta:- lama. Jim Higg=Lfts stated we have a right to h ave an airport as much as we need. hous-. es Robert Dowy-, a pilot:, stated. it is very unsafe to allow for" houses to Ve built• so close to the flight approaches.' The wind. varle's on diff ereht :days � and �d , an accident 'cou 'dost the lives, of- man people. D I ic.k Hodge, 1.3 . Haven Drive:, . _ a pilot., stated that safety is of.. utmost importance. The economics of the, airport should. 'be' discussed in the E. I.-R. If re'sidential development' is allowed the airport could be 'dissolved.. Jim Smith, i728- Annette :Drive, , .st = udent s=tated it- wa s inconceiv"le 'to consider z 'resldential • when safety and noise factors - involved.. Mr. Pack . re�ferxed to the report on accidents entitled " - i.n the Vicinity of Air- ports; dated '1972". :, -The r.eport, was based on. civil- ad:rport -uses only'. Mt,, Tarr,' stated that ihe cont-roversy on the nbis,&r and saf ety f8:ctor's were extreme He suggested that zhe heat- g,'be eon e ont knu u to,, A guat 4 16, 1917, and - indicated that; Mr, -Davis would meet with -the '.C-ity' Engineer :in two,weeks to discuss! hi's traffic recommendati Comm. Horciza stated' that pos the groundwater' would, 15e, .considered unpotablb7' two _ wells •have a high quality m 'h tbla. would not of wa-,rer and one is pd1luted from- far matdrial and 'perhaps` be Infer in th-i s waster`. B. M. James, a pilo ina,tructor from San Jose,. qtated -that when' San Jo,se'inipiated the ii p,re'seAt aarij : brt they, had similar problems and pe rhaps the Sa n -Jose Plan-- i n g 'Department should 46 contacte for' a comparison. Don Smith,, . pilot,, stated that, the people-at the pres.ent,�'time are attempting to close the airport at carmicfiae-L, Mr. Tarr- asked that the public. hear.ing,.on the. ETR be-, when more input Will b avallable.�from the .C ounty Airport: -Land Use .,Commission;. The 'cpntin- uati on would also allow Mr., D vis. a Chance, to. m t with the City. Engineer. t o �a, discuss hi&'concernss. ADJOURNMENT: Me, ppibl i c hearing was; ad 0), u r ed I .to 'Tues:da August 16, 1977; 6; 7.:30 R Att'6sit:-