HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 91-369 12/16/1991~, .
<s' • _.:.
• ~'~~ ~ Resolution No. a ~-~~g N C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
1 ORDERING TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS
2 ANNEXATION NO.91-13 (NORTH PETALUMA REORGANIZATION #9)
3 (RIVER OAKS/PETALUMA OUTLET VILLAGE)
4 DETACHED FROM PENNGROVE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND
5 ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA
6 WHEREAS, after conducting a public hearing, the Local Agency Formation Commission
7 (LAFCO) of the County of Sonoma, State of California, adopted its Resolutions No.
s 2103, 2104 and 2105 on October 3, 1991, attached as Exhibit A and made a part by
9 this resolution reference, making findings, determinations and approving the
~.o proposed annexation to the City of Petaluma of territory whose legal description is
1t set forth in the Exhibit to Sonoma County LAFCO Resolution 2105; and,
i2 WHEREAS, the reasons for this annexation are to promote planned, orderly, and
7.3 efficient development of the area consistent with the General Plans of the City of
ta~ Petaluma and the County of Sonoma, to provide Retail Development opportunities
~5 not now available in the City and to generate additional property and sales tax
~.~ revenue to the City; to provide employment opportunities to meet the economic
_±.~ needs of the present and the projected population of the area; to provide for
~.s improvement of streets and utilities; to provide open space areas along the
1~ Petaluma River and to permit public access to said open space which is presently
20 inaccessible to the public; and to protect and enhance the riparian habitat on the
21 site; and,
22 WHEREAS, the Sonoma County LAFCO has reviewed the environmental impact report
23 and made specific findings which are incorporated in the above referenced
2a resolutions; and,
25 WHEREAS, the Sonoma County LAFCO has conditioned the annexation as noted below:
91-369
Ncs. No . .............................. N.C.S.
!~ ~ l'
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
2 OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
3 1. Amend Boundary Pursuant to the Sonoma County LAFCO action, the boundaries
4 shall also include Petaluma Boulevard North from the City Limits located southerly
5 of Jesse Lane to that point of Petaluma Boulevard North directly across from the
6 northernmost portion of the annexation area.
~ 2. "Islands" This annexation will create two "Islands" of unincorporated territory
s completely surrounded by the City of Petaluma. These "Islands" cannot reasonably
~ be annexed to any other City, nor can they be incorporated into a new city. The
io Council finds the application of restrictions of Government Code 56109 would be
li detrimental to the best interests of the City and the area involved and to the orderly
12 development of the community. The inclusion of Petaluma Boulevard North in this
13 proposal is necessary to provide the City with planning authority and control of that
14 portion of Petaluma Boulevard North.
15 3. Sentiment Survey of "Islands" That the City Council orders staff to undertake and
1~ complete a sentiment survey of both the landowners and the registered voters in the
17 following described two "Island" areas which will be created by this annexation:
1s A. An "Island" consisting of a narrow strip of five
19 (5) parcels, lying between the southern boundary of the
20 annexation area and Petaluma Boulevard North; and,
21 B. An "Island" consisting of nine (9) parcels, lying to
22 the south of the current Petaluma City Limits and north
23 of Petaluma Boulevard North.
2a The results of the sentiment survey for each island shall be transmitted in writing to
25 the LAFCO Executive Officer.
91-369
;~ _~
r
1 4. Initiate Proceedin sg_bv October 3, 1992 Should the results of the sentiment survey
2 establish that most of the landowners and registered voters favor annexation, the
3 City shall promptly (and in no event later than October 3, 1992) initiate proceedings
4 to annex such islands. Payment of all processing fees in connection shall be the
5 responsibility of the City. The City may recover such fees from the developers, real
G parties in interest, if the City elects to do so.
~ 5. Order Annexation and Detachment That the City Council orders the territory
8 described in Exhibit A annexed to the City of Petaluma and detached from the
9 Penngrove Fire Protection District, and directs the City Clerk to transmit a certified
1o copy of this resolution with applicable fees as required by Section 54902.5 of the
11 Government Code to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation
12 Commission of Sonoma County.
13
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter. of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) ( }~ meeting form
on the ....16 tYl._--.._..... day of ..._...DQ ce.mtger ............................... 19...51, by the --~
following vote: .......................... ..
City Attorney
AYES: Read, Davis, Nelson, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: None
~,1~~
:.~.
ABSENT: Cavana`~Y~; ota~' , Vice Mayor Woolsey
~,•.. .
-~
r
ATTEST: '`_.....:~= ...................:...~~.r...~.....~e::_:...........--•--........ L_i~~~...... G/~'/
City Clerk Mayor
Council Filz ...................................
CA 1085 ~ Res. No.....~..l.r..,~69........ N.C.S.
k.'__
~~ ~=~~~°~ ~, X2345:6>.
•1., r~ 1 d'
`~.~' ~EC199~ o
~:'.. ~.
.. N Y~V
CO V+~ b
~J
~, ~ .''~/
Resolution No. 2103
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, California
October 3, 1991
RESOLUTION OF TH£ LOCAL AGENCY FbRMATION COMMISSION
OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, `RIVER OAKS/PETALUMA
OUT-LET VILLAG£~~.MASTER PLAN, PETAhUMA~, CALIFORNIA
(Annexat;on No. 91-13, North Petaluma
Annexation No. 9, to the City of Petaluma)
RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission
of the County of Sonoma, State of California,. as follows:
A. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS.
1. The Local Agency Formation Commission of
Sonoma County has considered the Final Environmental Impact
Report, River Oaks/Petaluma Outlet Village Master Plan,
Petaluma, California, as prepared and certified by the City
of Petaluma on December 17, 1990, by Resolution of the
Petaluma City Council No. 90-4.20, including the infor-ma~tion,
findings and mitigation measures contained' in the FEIR and
the Statement of Overriding Consideration of the Petaluma
City Council issued by Resolution of the Petaluma City Coun-
cif No. 91-122 on May 6, 1991., and makes the findings speci-
fied in the General Findings and Special Findings contained
herein.
2. The Commission has also reviewed the following
resolutions of the Petaluma City Council and relies on the
81010101,:04
02/56/03
.~~~
~~ ~~ -. ~,
• information provided in~them in mak:nq the General and Spe-
cial Findings contained herein.
a) Resolution No. 91-123, dated May 6, 1991,
adopting a mitigation monitoring plan for the River Oaks/
Petaluma Factory Outlet Village project.
b) Resolution No. 91-124, dated May 6, 1991,
approving an amendment to the City of Petaluma General Plan
Land Use Map for the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Vil-
lage project.
c) Ordinance No. 1853 NCS, dated May 20,
1991, upholding an appeal of Planning Commission action and
amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 NCS by prezoning and re-
zoning certain land.
d) Resolution No. 91-136, dated May 20,
1991, approving the PCD Master Plan program for the River
Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village project.
B. DEFINITIONS.
1. The 01FEIR" means the Environmental Impact
Report prepared and certified by the City of Petaluma on
.December 17, 1990.
2. "River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village"
is the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan
of August 1989 described in Section II of the FEIR, commen-
cing on page 3, and as depicted in Figure II-3 (page 7) of
the FEIR.
-2- r
02/56/03
3. "LAF.CO" means the Sonoma County Local Agency
Formation Commission, and may be used interchangeably with
the term "Commission."
4. "Jurisdictional finding" means that pursuant
to Public Resources Code ~21081(b), changes. or alterations in
the project are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
a public agency other than LAFCO and such changes have been
adopted by such agency, or can and shouad be adopted by such
agency.
5. "City" means the City of Petaluma in Sonoma
County, California, and may be used interchangeably with the
term "City of Petaluma."
6. "SCWA" means the Sonoma County Water Agency,
and may be used interchangeably with the term "Sonoma :County
Water Agency."
7. "FEMA" means the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
C. GENERAL FINDINGS.
The Commission makes the following General Find-
ing"s, ,based upon substantial evidence in the record:
G.F.-l: The Commission finds that LAFCO is a re-
sponsible agency for the North Petaluma Annexation No. 9, the
City of Petaluma is the lead agency, and Petaluma Village As-
sociates and Leonard Jay Enterprises, the developers, are the
real parties. in interest. The Commission further finds that
atotolo,t.oc _3_ ~~~"
02/56/03
.
w
.( "
in considering the FEIR, LAFCO has discharged its responsi-
bilities as a responsible agency,n conformance with CEQA and
the CEQA .Guidelines.
G.F.-2: The River Oaks/~Petaluma Outlet Village
..Master Plan (sometimes referred to as the "project") is gen-
erally consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan ("Coun-
ty General Plan") and the General Plan of the City of Petalu-
ma ("City General Plan"'). In particular,. the project recog-
nizes and is consistent with the growth projections and em-
ployment development priorities expressed. The project is
within the present City General Plan Urban Limit Line for
Petaluma and within. the Sphere of Influence adopted by the
Commission. The open space and Riverwalk features of the
River Oaks/Petaluma Outlet Village Master Plan are consistent
with both the County and City General Plans.
G.F.-3: Both the County and City General Plans
project population growth in Sonoma County and commercial
development and populat°ion growth in the City of Petaluma.
If properly coordinated and controlled, such development and
growth will be more beneficial, on balance, than the resul-
' taut potential adverse environmental effects, provided. that
adequate mitigation measures are instituted. Development of
retail, commercial and office uses would contribute to local
employment and income.
G.F.-4: No other feasible alternative site which
could accommodate a project of the scope, size, design, or
aio~o~o~.o~c -4-
02/56/03
'~
,._
,i
continuity of the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village.
appears to be available within the Sphere of Influence of the
City or in the adjoining unincorporated area, as evidenced by
the information and. findings 'set forth in Resolution 91-122
and in the FEIR.
G.F.-5: .For the reasons stated throughout the
findings, no other feasible alternative 'project site appears
to be an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed
project, apart from the No-Project Alternative. The No-
Project Alternative is rejected for reasons set forth in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
G.F.-6: The FEIR (page 235) concluded that, in
addition to the unmitigatable loss of .agricultural lands,
five specified "potentially significant" adverse environmen-
tal impacts could remain after adoption of the mitigati-on
measures recommended. Those areas were stated as follows:
"1) seismic hazards due to onsite allu-
vium deposits;
2) degradation of water quality due to
high levels of urban contaminants;
3) flooding potential during~50-year
flood event;
4) change in water surface elevations
in Capri Creek due to development of
Parcel B; ,and
RI010101.06
ozisbio3 - 5 .. , :.. A. ~ ~~.,,..
:• ,
v
5) air quality impact's~at the intersec-
tion of Petaluma'Boul,euard North and West
Payran Street." FEIR, page 235.
The FEIR preparers stated, with regard to each of the five
listed impacts, that, while the proposed mitigations would
reduce the significance of those impacts, the potential for
adverse impacts could not be entirely reduced. The EIR pre-
pa~rers further stated that these impacts were not appropriate
subjects for a statement of overriding considerations and
recommended that the .impacts "be handled through the Mitiga-
tion Monitoring program for the project." FEIR, page 235.
The Commission finds that each of the five identified effects
will be substantially lessened by the mitigations recommended
in the FEIR and which were adopted by the City of Petaluma
as conditions to approval of the project in Resolution No.
91-136.
D. SPECIAh FINDING NO. 1: Land IIse and .Open Space
The Commission adopts the information, mitigation
measures, and findings contained in the FEIR at pages 210-
211, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, set
forth in Resolution No. 91-122, subject to the following
additional comments and findings:
1. The Commission reiterates General Findings
No. 2 and No. 3.
81010101.04
02/56/03
s EX~IY~3I'T A
~ ~.
~,
~~
2. The Commission makes a jurisdictional f.indinq
that pursuant to the~Government Code $§56375, 56376, 56376.5,
56377, .and 56844, there are certain limitations on LAFCO's
power and authority to directly regulate land use, property
development, and certain conditions of prezoning. However,
.-
LAFCO retains among its powers and authority the ability to
make findings on whether boundary changes are consistent with
the applicable City and County General Plans and with the
requirements of Government Code §56377 to guide development
away from open space and prime agricultural land unless such
actions would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient de-
velopment 'of an area.
3. The Commission finds that while River Oaks/.
Petaluma Outlet Village will impact the land use of approXi-
mately 65 acres of what has been land, in agricultural oat hay
production and open space, the project has been proposed and
has been approved by the City in accordance with the policy
of the City and Sonoma County to ,promote planned, orderly,
and efficient deve-lopment of the Petaluma area. Moreover,
as discussed in Special Finding No. 14, alternatives down-
scaling th'e project, or locating the' project on other sites
presently-.within the City of Petaluma' Sphere of Influence,.
or in the 'unincorporated area lying close to Petaluma's
:Sphere of Influence, are not, on balance, feasible J
alternatives.
AI010101.Oi
02%56/03
-' E~hdIi3~T t~
-A
,~~~
E. SPECIAL FINDIATG ATO. a : 7~'ransnortati on
The Commission adopts the information, mitigation
measures, and findings contained in the FEIR at pages 102-
159, and the Response~to Comments at pages 80-84, 109-17,
124-44, and 390-400, subject to the following. additional
comments and findings:
1. Although. traffic density will be increased
on various streets by the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet
Village, first by the construction of the outlet village and,
subsequently by development of parcels B and C,~those traffic
impacts will be reduced to an acceptable level through the
mitigation measures adopted by the City which will enhance
the quality and capacity of existing roads .and intersections.
The signalization and signing at busy intersections will
further reduce the potential for traffic accidents. The
Commission is seriously concerned about significant add-
tional traffic being added to U.S. 10,1, particularly during
peak periods. The studies discussed in the FEIR establish
that the additional traffic developed. by the project when
completed would be most severe during the PM peak on Highway
101. The traffic increase from the project to U.S. TO1
northbound and southbound is projected at 18.5 cars per hour.
2. The Commission makes a jurisdictional finding
that the City as lead agency in conjunction with the Califor-
nia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are the agencies
sto~otot.o4 -8- ~y I ~w
02/56!03
1
~:~' ,
~~ which should determine the standards of road quality and
maintenance, and traffic signalization.
F. SPECIAL FINDING NO. 3: Air 4uality Impacts
The Commission adopts the information, mitigation
measures, and findings contained in the FEIR at pages 191-210
and in the Response to Comments at pages 20-21, subject to
the following additional comments and findings.
1. The Commission makes a jurisdictional finding
that mitigation measures related to air pollution standards,
air quality, maintenance and control of air pollution and
road standards and maintenance are being or will be enforced
by other public agencies. To the extent the Commission may
make findings, the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR
will reduce the marginally significant adverse impacts to
an acceptable level and implementation of such measures will
not create any new significant impacts of the kind within the
jurisdiction of the Commission.
G. SPECIAL FINDING NO. 4.: Drainage and Water 4uality
The Commission adopts the information, mitigation
measures, and findings contained. in the FEIR at pages 56-80
(Flood Control, Drainage, and Water Quality), subject to the
following comments and findings:
1. The Commission makes a jurisdictional finding
that the design criteria, conformance of pending drainage
RI010101..04 - 9
OZ/56/03
i
~~
~;
,a
plans to such criteria, and the monitoring of the construc-
tion of the project in accordance with final plans and the
operation of the project in accordance with the mitigation
monitoring plan and the reconciliation of conflicting poli-
cies of allowing appropriate development in the floodplain
while at the 'same time prohibiting any activity which will
increase the potential for or the magnitude of flood damage
~ as noted in the FEIR fall within the jurisdiction of the
SCWA, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City.
2. The Commission finds that in adopting the
mitigation measures and the mitigation monitoring plan set
forth in Resolutions No. 91-123 and 91-136, the City has made
approval of the project contingent upon a design and specifi-
cally the design of the stormwater detention facilities in a
manner which will satisfy the standards of the agencies exer-
cising jurisdiction over the design and construction of the
project and the proposed drainage systems.
3. The City has adopted mitigation measures de-
signed to lessen waster quality impacts resulting from direct
increases in runoff from the expanded urban surfaces and po-
tential degradation of the water quality of such runoff by
reason of urban contaminants.
R1010101.Ob -10-
02/56/03
.. ,,.
.; ,~
H. SPECIAL FINDING NO. 5: Other environmental Impacts
The Commission adopts the information, mitigation
measures, and findings contained in the FEIR in the following
subject areas:
Commencing .at
FEIR Page No.
Biological Resources page 80
Visual Quality Aesthetics page 159
Public Services and Utilities page 168
Fiscal Economic and Market Analysis page 174
Noise page. 185
Energy page 206
Cultural Resources page 212
Riverfront Issues page 213
subject to the following jurisdictional finding:
1. The Commission makes a jurisdictional finding
that mitigation measures related to each and every one of the
subject areas listed in this Special Finding No. 5 are or
will be enforced by the City and/or other public agencies.
To the extent the Commission may make findings, the mtiga-
tion measures contained in the FEIR will reduce the~marginal-
ly significant adverse impacts to an acceptable level and
implementation of such measures will not create any new sig-
nificant impacts of the kind within the jurisdiction of the
Commission.
I. SPECIAL FINDING NO. 6: Alternatives to the Proposed
Project
The FEIR identified the following seven potential
onsite and offsite alternatives: to fhe Project:
81010101.06 -11-
_ 02/56/03
~ __
Onsite alternatives
1. No project
2. Higher Density (Regional.Shopping Center)
3. Reduced Density (Business Park)
4. Kortum/Waxman Concept Plan
offsite alternatives
5. W. Railroad Avenue/Stony Point Road site
6. McDowell Boulevard North
7. Willey Creek (Sonoma Wine Country Gateway)
The Commission adopts the information, mitigation
measures, and findings contained in the FEIR at pages
237-253, which information is supplemented by material
in the Responses to Comments at pages 48-60 and 353-364,
and the findings set forth in Resolution No. 91-122, subject
to the following additional comments and findings:
1. The No Project Alternative. Information con-
tained in the FEIR demonstrates that the project promotes the
planned, orderly, and efficient development of the area, con-
sistent with the general plans of Sonoma County and of the
City, and satisfies the public policies and needs to generate
additional property and sales tax revenue which will then
be available for infrastructure improvements and other uses
within the City. The "no project" alternative provides lit-
tle, if any, potential for increasing revenue generation for
the City of Petaluma from either sales tax or property tax.
Ri010101.06
02/56/03
~~- EXYiiBI1°
a,) Provision of employment opportunities to
meet the economic needs of the present and the projected pop-
ulation of the area is a necessary and beneficial goal. The
"no project" alter-native would impede accomplishment of that
goal., and would limit employment opportunities in the Petalu-
ma area and would not promote coordinated,. planned, orderly,
and efficient development in accordance with the City's gen-
eral plan of appropriate retail, office, and commercial uses
within Petaluma's Sph-ere of Influence. This alternative is
contrary to the Cfy General Plan's designation of this site
for urban development.
b) The project provides .for improvement of
several. streets and intersections. The "no project" alterna-
tive would make no provision for such improvements.
c.) The project would also improve recre-
ational uses in open space areas, particularly along the
Petaluma River, and provide public access to open spaces
presently inaccessible to the public.. It would also protect
the riparian habitat located on the site. The project would
provide a means of paying for the amenities`to be provided
-n the Rverwalk proposal, but the "no project" alternative
would make no such provision.
2. ~icther Density (Regional Shopping Center). It
is unlikely that this alternative. would 'be economically via-
ble in this location due to inadequate retail market demand
related to retail competition from the new Rowland Plaza in
~io~o~o~.os -13-
02/56/03 d~ ~
1~
~~:
Novato and existing retail centers in Santa Rosa and Corte
Madera.
3. Reduced Density (Business Park). Although
this alternative would not require amendment of the City's
general plan, nor rezoning, it would require annexation.
This alternative would not provide the City of Petaluma with
a significant amount of sales tax or property tax revenue
increase in contrast to the proposed project.
4. Kortum/Waxman Concept Plan (Comments and Re-
spouses, pages 353-364).. Some of the property included in
this alternative is not owned or controlled or otherwise
available to the project developers. Delaying the develop-
ment of the project until after the City completes the River
and open space plan, as proposed by the 'proponents of this
alternative, could jeopardize the financial feasibility of
the project. With an expanded river corridor and other de-
sign changes, this alternative could reduce the area allowed
for the outlet village ;project which could result in the
project being financially infeasible. The applicant states
ghat based on prior experience, 190,000 to 200,000 square
feet is necessary to finance and maintain a successful proj-
ect of this kind. Some vendors require being in a complex
of that size to even consider leasing. space. In addition,
the substantial up-front costs to build require the construc-
tion of a minimum amount. of store square footage to assure
prospective lenders that the completed project will generate
R 1010101.04 -14 - ~ ~~~-~, ~,~,~ ~,~
02/56/03
s
Y-
~.; ,_ ,
revenues sufficient to sustain the total project financing
costs. This alternative's placement of the outlet village
on Parcel C would require fill of wetlands on Parcel C that
the Draft EIR recommends for protection..
5. W. Railroad AvenueJStony Point~Road site.
This alternative site is not owned, controlled or otherwise
available to the project developers. This site is under Wil-
liamson Act (agricultural land) contract and the Sonoma Coun-
ty Land Trust holds a conservation easement over the site.
The site lies entirely outside of the City of Petaluma city
limits and outside of Petaluma's Sphere of Influence boun- .
dary. Accordingly, it would not require annexation. Use of
this site would not be consistent with the policies of the
Sonoma County General Plan for the following reasons. This
site is designated in the Sonoma County general plan as a
"Community Separator" to provide space between urban areas
and to retain Sonoma County's countryside atmosphere with
low-density rural uses, predominantly agriculture and open
space. Use of the site would entail loss of agricultural
land which is considered to have a "low" agricultural value
by the Sonoma County General Plan.
6. .:McDowell Boulevard North. This site is not
owned, controlled or otherwise available to the project de-
velopers, Theis site has adjacent land uses that are less
compatible and less aesthetically desirable than those of
the project site or project to be on the project site. This
ato~o~o~.04 - 1 5 -
02/56/03
i . ~
~:
.0 ~a _ i
site does not offer the opportunity for a riverwalk as part
of the project nor does it offer the appropriate setting for
a farm structure design theme. Development of this site re-
quires construction of the east/west overpass/interchange to
relieve congestion on Washington Street and McDowell Boule-
vard. Development of this site requires substantial up-front
costs to resolve access and transportation issues. Use of
this site would entail loss of prime agricultural land.
7. Willey Creek (Sonoma Wine Country Gatewayl.
This site is not owned, controlled or otherwise available
to the project developers. This site has several parcels
with multiple ownerships and multiple potential developers,
making the development more complicated. This site is only
21.7 acres and would not accommodate the outlet village and
other compatible uses anticipated in the overall River Oaks/
Petaluma Outlet Village project. Development of this site
would be constrained by onsite utility easements. The parcel
size and shape would not lend itself to the clustered, vil-
lage design proposed by the developers of the Petaluma Fac-
tory Outlet Village. While use of this site would entail
loss of agricultural land, this site is not classified as
"prime" agricultural land in the technical appendix to the
City's General Plan.
~ * ~ * ~
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regu-
lar meeting of the Local Agency Formation. Commission on the
-16-
sio~o~o~.oc
02/56/03
~,
~±~ 1 .
third day of October, 1991, by Commissioner Esposti
Who moved its adoption, s'eeonded by Commissioner Collins ,
and ordered adopted by the follobaing vote:
Commissioner Esposti Aye
COmmlSSloner Carpenter Absent
Commissioner Collins Aye
Commissioner Boyett Absent
Commissioner Hopkins Aye
Ayes: 3 Noes: ~ Absent or Not Voting: 2
WHEREUPON the Chairman declared the foregoing
Resolution adopted and
SO ORDERED.
ATTEST:
~~
~ ~~
Executive Officer
The within instrument is a correct copy of the original on
file in this office.
ATTEST NOV 2 ~ 1991
BY:
Cler>~J ~ ~-
Rd010101.04 - 1 7 - _
M~ ~~
02/56/03'
,• + „
~~ ~ 456
- ;~
~g~
L
r ` ~~ ~ DEC 1991
~ ~ ~
` ~; ~ ~
Resolution Ado. 2104
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, California
October 3, 1991
RESOLUTION OF THE•"LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE COUNTY OF~SONOMA ADOPTING A, STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT- REPORT, RIVER OAKS/PETALUMA
OUTLET VILI:AGE 'I~iASTER PLAN, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
(Annexation No. 91-13, North. Petaluma
Annexation No. 9, to the City of Petaluma)
RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission
of the County of Sonoma, State of California, as follows:
Pursuant to-Public Resources Code $21.081(c) and
CEQA Guidelines $15091 and 15093, the Local Agency Formation
Commission of the County of Sonoma, State of California,
makes the following statement of overriding considerations
and findings in support thereof.
A. Subject 'to the following additional findings,
listed below, the Commission adopts the Statement of Over-
riding Considerations approved by the City of Petaluma on
May 6, 1.991 through Resolution No. 91-122.
B. The final EIR was certified by the Petaluma
City Council on the recommendation of the Petaluma Planning
Commission following public hearings on December 17, 1990 by
Resolution Ato. 90-420.
C. The FEIR identified one unavoidable and irre-
versible adverse impact that cannot"be~significantly alle-
viated by the mitigation measures recommended in the report."
81010101.06 µ~
02/56/03
. ~ :,
~:.
~~
The City iden"t ifed"that "impact as the, permanent loss of
agricultural land; conversion to. non-agricultural uses will
have a small but .irreversible impact. on the City's and the
region's inventory of agricultural. land.
D. The Commission finds that the impact identi-
fied by the City., the permanent loss of agricultural land,
requires a statement of overriding considerations, and that
the five impacts listed at page 235 of the FEIR (see General
Finding No. 6 of Resolution No. 2103),m'ight be understood as
requiring such a statement. The Commission adds the follow-
ing evaluations. To the extent that it is determined that
'one or more of the five impacts identified a.t page 235 of
the FEIR require a statement of overriding considerations,
the Commission finds that impacts in the area of seismic
hazards, degradation of water quality, potential for flood-
ing., and change in water surface elevations in Capri Greek
are minimal environmental impacts which can be and, by the
mitigations adopted by the City, have been mitigated to an
acceptable level and meet, but do not exceed, the minimal
threshold requirement for filing a statement of overriding
considerations.
The potential impact to air quality at the Petaluma
Boulevard North and West Payran intersection may require more
stringent mitigation measures in the. future if mitigation
monitoring discloses significant air quality degradation.
rttototot.ob - 2 -
- 02/56/03
;
• ' .- ..
Y
I
Accordingly, this impact exceeds the. threshold requirement
for a statement of overriding cgnsderations.
The loss of agricultural land, is the impact which
is of the. greatest concern to the Commission; because of
its duty, pursuant to Government Code §56377, to guide de-
velopment away from existing prime agricultural land in open
space use, as designated by general plans applicable to the
area, unless that action would not promote the planned, or-
derly, and efficient development of the area. Neither the
County of Sonoma General Plan nor the City of Petaluma Gen-
eral Plan designates the subject territory for open space
use. Government. Code §56377 also encourages the Commission
to encourage development of vacant agrcultura'1 lands for
urban uses within the existing sphere of influence. The
subject territory is at present vacant agricultural land.
The subject territory is within the City of Petaluma sphere
of influence. Further, for the reasons stated in General
Findings and Special Findings of Resolution No. 2103, the
project is consistent with community and county goals of
weY,l-planned retail, commercial, and office development., and
the conditions imposed wil cause the other significant en-
vironmental impacts to be substantially mitigated. It is the
finding of the Commission that, in view o,f the ultimate de-
velopment of this area and of other of the areas within the
present general plan of the City of Petaluma, the benefits
of this project, and in particular its potential for revenue
e[ototot.o6 -3- ~~-~
- 02/56/03 '
,.
,. E:~a .
~ ,:,:
',
_ generated to the City, far outweigh the loss of agricultural
land and open space. Action by the Commission in guiding
development away from the subject territory would not pro-
mote the planned, orderly, and efficient development of the
area; on the contrary, such action would tend to defeat those
goals.
E. Despite significant continuing problems with
flooding in the area of the project, neither the FEZR nor
the City's statement of overriding considerations found
flooding to be an unavoidable environmental impact. The
Commission concurs with the findings of the City for reasons
stated .in Special Finding No. 4 of Resolution No. 2103.
The Commission is persuaded on substantial evidence that
the project, as proposed, will not aggravate existing flood-
control problems. Even if the flood-control system proposed
were not entirely successful under a worst-case scenario,
the Commission finds, based on substantial .evidence, that
the proposed system is designed to limit flood damages so
that such .damage will be no worse than what might occur,
were the project not constructed.
F. The Commission adopts the overriding consid-
erations found by the City in its statement of overriding
considerations.
G. The Commiss-ion finds that implementation of
the project would result in the following additional sub-
stant`ial public benefits.
EXHY~ST A
RI010101.06 -4-
02/56/03
;~y., ,,
a
,,
1. The project will provide economic benefits to
the county and region as a whole in terms of potential of in-
creased tax revenues and a viable location for retail, com-
mercial, and office development, and serve to generate em-
ployment opportunities for the City and the region.
2. The City is obligated under state law to as-
some and supervise its fair share of regional growth. The
project's proposed retail, commercial, and office uses ac-
commodate this obligation and, at the same time, the project
minimizes impacts by accommodating such growth with requisite
urban services.
3. The development anticipated by the project
will enlarge the City's and the County's tax base and enable
them, in conjunction with developer mitigation and other
funds, to provide other needed infrastructure.
4. The project is consistent with the City and
County policy regarding community-centered growth, and will
permit the orderly clustering of new development in suitable
areas.
H. Conclusion: The Commission has weighed the
above-listed benefits of the proposed Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks, and the adverse environmen-
tal effect identified in the record before the Commission and
the environmental impacts which are identified as potentially
significant after mitigation. The Commission hereby deter-
mines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse
Rd010101.06
02/56/03
.~~.~ .
-5-
r «~
,~~ ,..
':
effects and impacts, and, therefore, further determines that
these risks .and adverse environmental effects and impacts are
"acceptable." As to the significant environmental effects
and impacts identified which; are not mitigated or substan-
tially lessened,-the Commission finds that specific economic,
social, and other considerations-make infeasible full miti-
gation of those impacts and make project alternatives, in-
cluding a "no project" alternative, infeasible, for reasons
stated in the General and Special Findings.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a reg-
ular meeting of this Local Agency Formation Commission on the
third day of October, 1991 by Commissioner Esposti ,
who moved its adoption, seconded by Commissioner Collins ,
and ordered adopted by the following vote:
Commissioner Esposti Aye
Commissioner Carpenter Absent
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Ayes: 3 Noes: ~
WHEREUPON, the Chai:
resolution adopted, and
'Collins Aye
Boyet,t Absent
Hopkins Aye
Absent or not voting: 2
rman declared the foregoing
SO ORbERED '"
EXFiISST A
siototot.ob -5-
02/36/03
tip:
.. '~.~ ~,
ATTEST:
~~ ~~
Executive Officer
The within instrument is a correct copy of the original on
file in this office.
ATTEST: NOV 2 6 1991
BY:
Clerk
RI010101.06
02/56%03
~~`
~:
1
+K; .
~.~y T: '.. .1
it ~ f
,_~
~'~~~:•.
- ~~~
1991 ~ Resolution No. 2105
DEC ..~;
_~Q~, "' 575 Administration Drive
~~~`_ ~ Santa Rosa, California
0
`~~j,~,_,. _,,~~n"L~~ October 3 , 1991
RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY F,ORMATiON COMMISSION
OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA MAKING DETERMINATIONS
AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED REORGANLZATION,
INCLUDING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF PETALUMA AND THE DETACHMENT OF
TERRITORY :FROM THE PENNGROVE FZRE.PROTECTZON
DISTRICT, DESIGNATED AS: ANNEXA-TZON NO. 91-13
(NORTH PETALUMA REORGANIZATION NO. 9)
RESOLVED, bey the Local Agency Formation Commission
of the County of Sonoma, State of California, that:
WHEREAS, a resolution of application for the pro-
posed reorganizat-ion involving annexation of territory to the
City of Petaluma in the County of Sonoma, and detachment of
territory from the Penngrove Fire Protection District of the
County of Sonoma, was heretofore filed_by the City of Petalu-
ma and accepted for filing on July 8, 19.91 by the Executive
Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to
Title Five, Division Three, commencing with §§56001, et seq.,
of the Government Code; (sometimes hereafter referred to as.
"this proposal") and
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Gov-
ernment Code §5.6828, set August 1, 1.991 as the hearing date
on this proposal and gave the required notice of hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Govern-
went Code §56833, has reviewed this proposal and prepared a
Rd 01010,1'.07
OZ/56/Ot
'1~,•
~ _ a'
"~.
B
:report including recommendations thereon, and has furnished a
copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and
`WHEREAS, this Comm%ssion,ealled this proposal for
public hearing on August 1, 1991, and. continued the public
hearing to the meeting of September 12, 1.991, heard from the
interested parties, considered this proposal and the report
of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors deter-
mined by the Commission to be relevant to this proposal, but
not limited to, factors specified in~Government Code §5.6841;
and
WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and consid-
eyed the Environmental Impact Report.; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution Nos. 21.03 and 2104, dated
October 3, 1991, this Commission has made specific findings
as to environmental impact and conditions for this proposal.
as per City of Petaluma findings and resolutions incorporated
into .the above-stated resolutions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commis-
son of the County of Sonoma DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE,
and ORDER as follows:
Section 1
Section 2
scototot.oT
02%56%Ot
Each of the foregoing recitals is true and'
correct, and they are adopted and ratified
in their entirety ,by this Commission.
.Notice as required by law was given.
-_- EX'rld~IT A
~, ~ ~.
_~ ~ . ..
Section 3 All persons desiring to be heard regarding
this proposal, have been given the opportunity
to be heard and a'll persons requesting to
be heard have been heard.
Section 4 This Commission certifies that it has re-
viewed. and considered the Environmental Impact
Report.
Section 5 Subject to the terms and conditions herein-
after specified, this proposal is approved.
a. This Commission hereby incorporates and
attaches Resolution Nos. 2103 and 2104
herein.
Section 6 Approval of this proposal will have no effect
on maintaining the physical and economic
integrity of any agricultural preserve that
might be considered within the sphere of
influence of any agency included in this
proposal.
Section 7 The boundaries of the territory proposed
to be annexed to the .City of Petaluma, and
detached from the Penngrove Fire Protection
District, as set forth in this proposal and
as amended by the conditions imposed by this
Resolution are hereby approved as described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
aio;~olot.o7 -3- ~~
02/56/01.
~' i
. -'~:
e :f '
~ ..
Section 8
Section 9
RJ010101.OF
02/56/01'
hereof.. Said territory is found to be un-
inhabted.,•and said territory is assigned the
following distinctive short-form designation:
"Annexation No. 91-13 (River Oaks/Petaluma
Outlet Village) to City of Petaluma."
As a condition of approval of this application
for reorganization, the boundaries of the sub-
ject territory shall be modified to include
Petaluma 'Boulevard North from the southerly
city lim"its to that point of Petaluma Boule-
vard North directly across the northernmost
portion of the annexation area. The bounda-
ries, as so modified, are-shown in Exhibit A.
As a, condition of the approval of this pro-
posal, the City of Petaluma is hereby required
to promptly undertake .and complete a current
sent"invent survey of both the landowners
and the registered voters- in the following-
desc ibed two "island areas" which will
be created by approval of this application:
(1) an "island" consisting of a narrow strip
of four parcels, lying between the southern
boundary of the annexation area and. Petaluma
Boulevard North; and (2) an island area of
10 parcels Lying to. the south of the current
Petaluma city limits and north of Petaluma
~.°L ~+G": te'n' _ ~• •~~.~. ~ 713' _
r =9t' -rt ft.
~, ~` ..
~ ~
~, Boulevard North. The results of the sentiment
survey for each island shall be transmitted in
writing to the.LAFCO Executive Officer.
Section 10 Should the results of the current sentiment
survey, when comp eted, establish that most
of the landowners and registered voters favor
annexation, then, in that event, the City
shall promptly, and in no-event later than
one calendar year from the date of this reso-
lution, initiate proceedings to annex such
islands, and the City of Petaluma shall be
responsible for the payment of all processing
fees in connection with such annexation, and
the City may recover such fees from the devel-
opers, real parties in interest, in this pro-
ceeding, if 'the City elects to so do.
Section 11 Approval of this proposal will create two
"islands" of unincorporated territory com-
pletely surrounded by the City of Petaluma,
and each of those t1island" areas is so located.
that it cannot reasonably be annexed to any
other City, nor cari it be incorporated as a
new city. Nevertheless, the application of
the restrictions of Government Code §56109
would be detrimental to the best interests
of the City of Petaluma .and the area involved,
-5- ~~~
Rd070101OT
_ 02156%O1 ., ._ _ _
~;~.
y ^~ ,
..`k _ ~.
^ ,~
~,
and ,to the orderly development of the
community. The inclusion of Petaluma
Boulevard North in this proposal is
necessary to provide the City of Petaluma
with planning authority and control of that
portion of Petaluma 'Boulevard North which
is projected to be substantially affected
by the traffic which is projected to be
generated by the proposed development.
Section 12 The City of Petaluma is designated as the
'conducting authority, and the legislative
body thereof is hereby directed to initiate
reorg.aniz:ation proceedings without notice,
hearing, or election, pursuant to Section
57002 of the Government Code.
Section l3 The Executive Officer is hereby authorized
and directed to mail certified copies of
this resolution in the manner and as
provided in Section 56853 of the Government
Code. In addition, the Executive Officer
shall also mail. to said~c'onducting
authority a copy of each of the resolutions
adopted in connection with this proposal.
The foregoing was introduced at a regular meeting
of this Local Agency Formation Commission on the 3rd day of
October, 1,991, by Commissioner Esposti who moved
-6-
E~g>I13I"4' ~
.~,: `.
.4i
~ '
~;~~;
its adoption, seconded by Commissioner Collins
. ,
and ordered adopted by the following vote:
Commissioner ~ Esposti Aye
Commissioner Carpenter Absent
Commissioner Collins Aye
Commissloner Boyett Absent
Commissioner Hopkins Aye
Ayes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent or not voting: 2
WHEREUPON, the Chairman declared the foregoing
resolution adopted, and
SO ORDERED
ATTEST:
c--. ~
Executive Officer
The within instrument is a correct copy of the original on
file in this office.
ATTEST : (~p~C.P/n2,~i~.(~ ~ , ~ C/Cf
B Y : ~ Uin~u , `~2~~P~1~
c1~ k U
.~, ..
Ri010101.07 -7 :~;~~
02/56/01
,.~;
,.csfs ~z
EXHIBIT A
790 Delong Avenue, Novato, CA 94945
(415) 892-4763 FAX: (415) 892-4502
:Date: October- 8, 1991
File: 8-704.-032
PARCEL 1•
CSW/Stuber-S roeh Engineering Group, Inc.
DESCRIPTION I
.NORTH' PETALIIMA NOV ~ ~ ~g9~
REORGANIZATION 'NO. 9 ~rvumA _GV_unTY
Being a portion of those lands of Petaluma Boulevard Commercial
Development as said lands are described by deed recorded under
Document No. 8611068'-1, Sonoma County Records, more particularly
described as follows:
All that certain portion o_f Allotment No. 308 and 315 of the
"Petaluma Rancho" as per the subdivision survey thereof as made
by Rowe Esq., surveyor and a portion of that tract of the Rancho
Roblar de la Miseries, known and designated on a subdivision map
of said rancho made by.A.W. Thompson as the "Half League Square"
more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the southeaster y boundary of allotment
No. 308 of the "Peta-luma Rancho" where the same is intersected by
the southwesterly line of 'the right-of-way of the "Petaluma and
Santa Rosa Electric Railway" being also the. northeasterly corner
of those certain lands conveyed to the Sonoma County Water Agency
(S.C.W.A.) by deed recorded in Book 257'8, Page 808, official
records of Sonoma county, also said point :being marked by a 1/2"
iron pipe tagged R.C.E. 26312 as shown on record of survey filed
in the Office of the County Recorder, in Book 398 of Maps at Page
27, Sonoma County Records;
Thence along the southwesterly line of the Petaluma and Santa
Rosa. Electric Railway right-of-way and parallel with the right-
of-way o~f U. S . Highway 101, North 54 ° 55'_45" West, a distance of
908.82 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said point also
being on the. southerly line of the Denman Annexation No. 1-1960,
recorded October 19, 1960 in Bobk 85 of Maps, Pages 11 and 12,
Sonoma County Records;
Thence continuing along said railway right-of-way line and
southerly line of Denman' Annexation No. 1-1960, North 54°55'45"
West a distance of 1164..91 .feet;
Thence leaving said southerly line of Denman Annexation
No. 1-1.960, South 45°49'15" West a distance of 707.93 feet;
Thence North 64°39'45" West a distance of 118.83 feet;
_ Civil Engineers ~ Land Planners • Surveyor~ry
DESC\10-8=91:704 ,~
,; ~•:,
~ ~r„~a
.~,~
. •~ 2
.:'
Thence South 20°36'02" West a distance of 205.91 feet to a point
in the northeasterly line bf the right-of-way as conveyed to the
State of California by grant ..deed in Book 384 of Official
Records, Page 235, Sonoma County Records, Now known as Petaluma
Blvd. North, said point being North 64°27'00" West 5.22 feet from
Engineer's station 714+04.69;
Thence along said right of-way South 64°27'00" East a distance of
5.22 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence along the arc of a 1064.00 foot radius curve to the right
through a central angle of 9°21.'37" an arc distance of 173.82
feet (the long chord of which bears South 59°46'16" East a
distance of 173.63 feet);
Thence leaving said right-of-way North 16°42'32" East a distance
of 21.21 feet to the middle of Petaluma Creek;
Thence along the middle of said creek (the following courses
along the middle of the creek are for mathematical closure only)
South 74°26'28" East a distance of 316.80 feet;
Thence South 54°17'2.8" East a distance of 201.96 feet;
Thence South 75°04'05" East a distance of 216.86 feet;
Thence South 49°01'07" East a distance of 49.77 feet;
Thence leaving Petaluma Creek North 63°36'2'3" East a distance of
16.61 feet;
Thence South 42°10'45" East a distance of 75.50 feet;
Thence South 45°58'45" Bast a distance of 9.13 feet;
Thence South 77°29'04" West 31.52 feet;
Thence South 35°50'00" West 67.63 feet;
Thence South 38°20'23" East 195.27 feet;
Thence North 31°06'00" East
Thence South 38°20'00" East
Thence South 41°23'30" West
of Petaluma Blvd. North;
Thence along said northea~
South 48°36'30" East 241.89
42.70 feet;
309.17 feet;
133.28 feet to the northeasterly line
;terly line of Petaluma Blvd. North,
feet;
Thence leaving said northeasterly line of Petaluma Blvd. North,
North 40°42'00" East 95.00 feet;
- 2 - .~.
DESC\T0-8-91.704
,. 2
. ~; ~~
° Thence South 77°53'50" East 54.5'3 feet. to a point on t e
southerly line of afore mentioned Denman Annexation No. 1-1960;
Thence ahong said southerly line of Denman Annexation No. 1-1960
North 38°20'00" West 394..02 feet;
Thence North 25°00'00" East 68.40 feet;
Thence North 34°32'15" East 765..50 feet (766.26 per Denman
Annexation No. 1-1960) to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 24.298 acres.
PARCEL 2 (Petaluma ..Blvd. North):
Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of the right-of-
way now known as Petaluma :Blvd. North, as conveyed to the State
of California by grant deed in Book 384 of Offia.al Records, Page
235, Sonoma County Records, said point being North 64°27'00" West
5.22 feet from engineers station 714+04.69;
Thence along said northeasterly line of Petaluma Blvd. North,
South 64°27'00" East 5.22 feet;
Thence on a curve to the right, tangent. to the preceding course,
having a radius of 1,.064 feet, through a central angle of
15°50'30", a distance of 294.18 feet;
Thence South 48°36.'30" East 1,446.03 feet.;
Thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course,
having a radius of 1,064 feet, through a central angle of
9°58'00", a distance of 185.08 feet;
Thence South 38°38'30" East 1,370.70 feet` to the northwesterly
line of the Petaluma City limits, as shown on the map entitled
"Gray Annexation," recorded December 30, .1981, in Book 329 of
Maps, at Pages 31-32, Sonoma County Records;
Thence, leaving said northeasterly line of` Petaluma Blvd. North,
and along said northwesterly line of .Petaluma City limits, South
45°07'30" West 117.70 feet to the southwesterly line of Petaluma
Blvd. North;
Thence.- along said southwesterly line of Petaluma Blvd.. North,
North 38°38'30" West, 1,189.88 feet;
Thence. on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course,
having a radius of 470 feet, through a central angle of
15°21'30", a distance of 125.99 feet;
' E%Fa~I3IT A
OESCCI0-.8-91.704 -
..y
~.. ...
.. .. .. /_
_~~ ! ` '
1wO( •M
.,. ~, .- 2
- ..
Thence North 54°00'00" West 7'08.9.9 feet;
Thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the .preceding course,
having a radius of 1,630 feet, through a central angle of
12°30'00", a distance of 355.61 feet;
Thence North 41°30'00" West, 306.89 feet;
Thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course,
having a radius of 820 feet, through a central angle of
23°51'40", a distance of 341.49 feet;
Thence leaving said southwesterly line of Petaluma Blvd. North,
North 20°36'02" East, 140.71 feet to the `Point of Beginning.
Containing 9.937 acres.
~PPR~VE® Y
S~N~~A ~~4~~®
RES. N0. ~ 103 r_y~2 / GS
OATE......~C~~-~- 3
- 4 -
Fu Y~nd~IT A
DESC\TD=B-41:74