Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/12/2006 City of Fetaluaaa, CA • City Council Chambers 41 alt[ , 9 City-hall, 1i English Street SFr Petaluma,CA 94952 !85` Telephone 707/7784301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E-Mail planning @ci.petaluma.caps Web Page http://www.ci.petalutna.ca.us Planning Commission.Minutes • December 12, 2006 - 06:59 Present: Will Dargie,Terry Kosewic„John Mills,Karen Nau,Kathy Miller,.Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Due,to technical difficulties,the Granicus Minute Taker was out of service during the November 28th•Planning'Commission Meeting. Also, as the meeting ran over five hours, the videotape of the proceedingsliad.tobe'.sentto Granicus for posting on the City website. As•of:today,the November 28th'meetingthas yet to:beposted„so there will be no minutes available for approval at this meetirig. (07:01 PM) PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN;(0702;PM) PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED'(07:02 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT:(07:02 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (07 02•PM) 1 ,CORRESPONDENCE: 'Letter from Petaluma Build,It.Green regarding the General Plan dated November 16,2006. (07:02 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT:Within fourteen(14)calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission,the decision maybe appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal's made within that time,the decision.,shall be final:An appeal shall be addressed to the Council inwriting and shall filed with the'City Clerk.iSaid•appeal,shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as,specified'by Resolution 2002-114-N:C.S.as adopted by City Council.The appeal shall state specifically the grounds'forthe appeal and the relief sought by the appellant.(07i02'PM) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT:Persdns'cominenting orally or'in writingare advised to raise all pertinent issues at this'state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented,or adopted at the earliest opportunity.:If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in'court,you may be limited . to raising only-those;issues you'pr'someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:03 PM) NEW BUSINESS: (07:03 PM) I. Review and Comment on Draft`Regional'Housing Needs Allocation Methodologyforthe State- Mandated2009r2014'Update ofthe City's Housing Element.. Director: Mike Moore(07:03'PM) Memo regarding Regional'Housing Needs Allocation Methodology • Michael`Moore Commissioner,Sullivan Michael Moore Commissioner Sullivan Michael Moore • Commissioner Sullivan Michael-Moore• • OLD BUSINESS: (07:24•PM) PUBLIC HEARING: Public Comment:(07:24:PM) Ii DRAFT•GENERAL PLAN 2025'-DRAFT;ENVIRONMENTALIMPACLREPORT(DER) Planners: Pamela Tuftand'Scott Duiven(0725yPM) General Plan Pamela"Tuft, Director of the General Plan Admrmstration said•she received correspondence regarding'the Hummel and Adobe;House properties She'asked the Commissioners to consider the=Adobe Houselrequest to have its designation changed:from.residential back'to Business`Park`as it is consistent-with suironnding properties: The Commission8greed unanirinotiisly:, • Pamela introduced'the Water Resources Elementbeginung with_Surface Water Topics. Mike,Ban,Director:Water Resources and.Censervation,-presentedj°this eleiriedtto`the Corrunission:. Chair Dargie aksed-if:the;acre;feet usage.was based on Population growth. Mike answered.it correlated,to land use;and the,percent increase was actually lower:'tfian the projected • population.growth over theperiod,of time He said`by�2008 the City could exceed peak demand and by 2011 could exceed,annual demand He explained how the City could mitigate this and the feast cost to. solve the„demand larehleinc would:.be to use:recycled water for parks schools, 'golf'courses etc. He said with water conservation expanded"ant byl implementing::the seven new'Best'Managelbent practices, with ,groundwater AO augment, the demand could be'inet for-the GP period and also Meet:peak;Water”demand as well. Pamela presented,the,Goals,Policies and Programs for,the Water Supply Element. Commissioner Mills asked'if the water,supply witlnn the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)`included'.the proper ties in the County that receive City,water and.if:there was a.policy to include-these. Pamela-explained.the Sphere or Influence and the water service boundary,limit has been,established through water agreements: Shesaid this included'a small amount of land and little growth was.expected"in these areas. She added-that outside water,connections at.presentamounted.to.300 users. Commissioner Mills;said that_those;properties outside:the,Sphere'of Influence should be encouraged to use .wells and asked if the City will haye a policy for_domestic well development withinthe City limits: Pamela answered the County General Plan doesn't propose.aubstantial-development?in the south county and d any development would be;monitored by the appropriate County departments. Commissioner Kosewic asked if by the evaporation and irrigation to reuse-waste:water this would reduce the demand. Pamela said this was true. She said..with the higher quality of treated water produced by the Ellis Creek facility the bulk of wastewater will be reused. Chair Dargie asked if the facilites currently using recycled water would be transferred to this tertiary water supply? Mike answered saying the. City-currently was prohibited.from releasing wastewater into the river six months out the year butthe facilities within City limits using recycled water would be supplied with the tertiary treated water for.irrigation. Commissioner Sullivan asked.if there would be a cost benefit to using artificial turf instead of irrigation from recycled water. Pamela said this was looked at; but the Plan looks at an 80-year:life,cycle and the artificial turf has a lifespan of 20—25 years,thereby requiring replacement two to three times withinthe life-cycle period. Commissioner Sullivan asked if with the new technology at Ellis Creek, would 100% of contaminants be removed from the wastewater. Pamela answered that residual elements such as hormones,antibiotics, etc. are not addressed in the GP but she would find more information regarding this concern. Commissioner Sullivan said she was concerned about using recycled water where children play and the public health safety aspect of wastewater usage. Pamela said the Town of Windsor is monitoring for these!contaminants,and other cities are looking at recycled water safety. All use of recycled water is done under strict state standards and regulations. Chair Dargie asked about expanding recycled water to usage on ball fields, etc., and how was this funded. Pamela explained a proposal was presented to Council to fold this cost.into connection fees. Chair Dargie asked.Pamela-to explain the effect'on the aquifier in response to the concerns of Penngrove residents and the water table.. Pamela explained information regarding this was available in the technical appendices - Volume 4. She said this area has a wide variety of soils and recharge areas'will haveto be reviewed: Chair Dargie noted that groundwater will be available in case of emergencies. Pamela agreed but said that the City cannot regulate draw-down of areas.outside-of its city limits. She said a regional solution is being worked on but the usage, even at build-out, will not increase significantly from historic usages. Commissioner Sullivan mentioned;the letterfrom the "OWL Foundation" and how staff is addressing their questions and their concerns seemed to contradict the DEIR and GP. ' Pamela said additional comments will be submitted and distributed as received,`In'the Final EIR and GP these will be-compiled into.a document with;comments and responses to consider beforeithe certification of • the EIR and adoption'of the Plan; and additional policies;progfams'or mitigations may be needed. • Commissioner4Kosewic asked if residential,fire sprinklers were part of the buildingscodejorraddressed in the General Plan. Pamela answered that Fire Suppression was addressectin theTublic Safety portion of the-GP and she would have to research this question. Commissioner Kosewic asked if larger,homes were accommodated with larger water, pipes to assure adequate•pressureduring a fire;and if this-would.be in the GP. Pamela said yes this.wass included:in the^`_`Pipes and Pumps"portion of the GPeanalysis'to:make sure public water lines are-adequate to meet the needs of different sized buildings and development potential build- out. PUBLIC COMMENT Bill'-Kortum—commented that Petaluma-was on track.to,capture wateneffectively through its conservation programs:,He;felt a drought emergency plan was:needed•and-didn't want the present population burdened to meet new development needs. Mike ,Ban explained that funding for such a, program would be totally the responsibility of new development. Pamela`said many of Mr.Korturn's,suggestions'had been incorporated in the GP.. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED ' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Dean Eckerson„Engineering;Manager, explained.the comprehensive and proactive surface Water approach ' and'how.the watershed functions..He said'the'XP-SWMM model analysis has been used-for the GP/DEIR and will be helpfulin the future as.well. • Commissioner.Sullivan asked about Global Warming and sea levels rising and how-this would factor into the analysis. Dean answered that no,analysis was available_for;global:climate change butte is researching,data:He said flooding?conditions will continue'whether"the build-out of the GP occurs or not and the,regional flooding influence.He talked'about key implementation points that.wbuld occur after the adoption of,the Plan. Commissioner Sullivanaskedabout th&XP-SWMM Model: 1) The degree of channel clearing and competing need for habitat preservation,affects control The Model's-results. 2) -About.Land,Use density:assumptions.. 3) Zero-Net run-off assumptions. Dean,answered l) That vegetation hadbeen considered in providing data to the.Model (called Roughness 'Coefficient):. He,said build-out:assumes a reasonable level of,maintenance and!SCWAtis working on the limitations of how much vegetation should be removed.•2) A full range of land,use types;were400ked at and for each developed area the percent of impervious soil and,other:factors were'considered to accurately describe the land use plan and, if changes occur, the model can be adjusted. 3) He said regarding-Zero Net run-off had no assumptions that certain development would.reach zero net run-off, the Model is based on very conservative assumptions. Chair Dargie asked'lithe Model accounted for the type of soil and development Dean answered, yes, Soil typetis.taken into account. Chair Dargie asked about terracing and.comments received and he did not support this method. Pamela said expert analysis;supports terracing to reduce'the depth of localized flooding and to address weirs and culverts ability to control water flow;Staff is reviewing andresearclvng terracing further. Commissioner Sullivan asked, if this was similar to the solution of using dams in the past but the implementation of flood terracing actually slows the water. • Pamela said dams were not being proposed. She said upstream and downstream water flows were recognized and flood terracing reduced flooding at Denman — she said terracing will be limited and wouldn't fully address a 100-Year,flood situation. Chair Dargie asked about the decision to work on,a particular.creek,and';if this was coming from the,XP- SWMM information. Pamela said that the'Petaluma..River'.•Corridor:(PRC)rareas that are prone,torflooding are being looked at. She said public comments'have:mentioned.that--new developmenf::bas caused'increased flooding. She said the Model allows prioritization of certain areas and can look at a more regional solution to address flooding. She explained'policies that•.would be added to the GP through the Final EIR. Chair Dargie asked if mitigatiOns will be included in the GP as well as policies and Pamela said they would. • Commissioner Millet.asked how long until it was finished. . • Pamela said the 2D model would be done in 2007 and:the remap would take 2—4 years depending on the Corps of Engineer's workload'and'theCitycompleting its analysis and gathering of data Chair Dargie said he agrees with mitigation with terracing, swails,gates, etc., and wants to maintain the Zero Net Fill and wanted theseincorporated in the GP, and Pamela said these,would. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Sullivan'asked about concerns about the Zero Net Fill assumption'that soil was coming from on-site if soil cannot be brought in from elsewhere for grading purposes. • Pamela said this was an incorrect assumption and explained the base flood elevation and Zero Net Fill • apply to elevationsabelow this level,.and once balanced and above'•this base flood level, additional fill and buildingcan occur., Mike Moore, Community Development Director, explained it was easier to think"of>-Zero Net Fill as+Zero Net Water Displacement. He said fill can be brought in to elevate a,building, but it has to provide displacement for run-off. Commissioner Sullivan'asked if to build a'pad, would a deeper area have,to be excavated to off-set the area filled? • Mike Mooresaid yes.,He-said there are other options and displacement has-n6 thing to do with removal or bringing in soil.He added that the Zero Net ordinance is enforced. Council Member Nau asked for an example of Zero Net Fill Pamela mentioned Denman as an example and explained terracing, clearing creeks without affecting habitat to open channelcapacity. Council Member Nau;asked about any changed conditions since the-New Year's Flood:'since Industrial. Roadistill`flooded: Pamela said nothing was changed., She explained the zone of benefit for the flood,terrace was.for thearea, immediately around that particular site, that terracing was site specific, and that no increase to flood elevations upstream ordownstrearnbf the site were'expeoted: Chair,Dargie;asked about detention. • Pamela-said this was amiinplementation tooLfor a regioiial "solution with local and regional';benefit and was not included in the GP., She referred to a SCWA report that-identified sites for-detention ponds and theft benefits for„offsetting peak flow. She mentioned the "Pumpkin`Patch; HnmmeLproperty andltoiincrease the,detention pond capacity.at Redwood Business Park. ChairDargie:asked.if:the XP=SWMM Model could,measure their impacts. Dean Eckerson said•detentionbasins can reduce peak flow and'enhance.:groundwater'discharge. He said tracking the timing:,of releases from detention ponds could be done by-the Model. • Commissioner;Mills'asked who'monitors the detention basins;to;see if the design works. Dean said the XP'SWMM Model could,be used but any new development has to maintainnts own detention ponds,andthe City's';function'is to oversee this. • Commissioner;Sullivan said that certain groups did not agree with detention ponds for each development. Dean said-the ponds would not solve'the big existing flooding problems He said there:was not'.just one solution but a combination of solutions to help resolve this'problem Commissioner Sullivan asked about cisteins tojcapture rainwater m the winter for summer-use. • Dean said'that in this area the.rain falls-in the'wrong”time of the ear'to effectively use;cisterris;and`that groundwater recharge would be preferable touse the water,when it was needed. 'Commissioner Mills said that through a-program he•"attended, the cisterns were better used to flush toilets rather than watering lawns,_ -PUBLIC'COMMENT David.Bradley, Ryder Homes --representmg 360 Corona Road development — Said his company was concerned about theflood map model that affects this;property. He said the assumption`was for a(peak flow of 600'_cfps (cubic feet per second) with;some flooding.'He,said with the channelization of the,creek, and the three 7 c culverts,the creek could handle'468 to 580 cfps. He is working with staff and SCWA sand collecting data toshow the original assumptions'were incorrect. 'Bill Bennett—Commented on Westhaven and how that detention pond was funneling water to'Mann Creek like a"storrndrain..He,said•developmenttin the western hills is creating'flooding problems on Ins property He said regulations prevent terracing and removal of vegetation and would be ,even harder in the unincorporated areas of the County:.He'was concerried:aboutillegal fill and hadproposed an,ordinanceto address,this""problem.. PUBLICCOMMENT—Closed. • Pamela introduced the Hummel property, near Willow Brook:adjoining,Redwood Business Park, Phase 2. She explained the property;had been designated',Agricultural intthe past GP and was designated.Business Park in an earlier draft of the new GP. She said an overlay to protect historic flow capacity areas was considered but met with considerable opposition. She said that with the'•flooding of December 30, 2005, the Council directed staff to retain the existing Agricultural designation. She said with regional solutions and funding, the possibility of the Business Park designation in the future might be possible, but she recommended extreme caution within this General Plan. Chair Dargie asked if no matter how the land was designated, it would be in,conflict with the new policy of no development until the modeling-was done-Pamela agreed. Commissioner Kosewic asked about the Hummers statements that they had paid an Business Park assessment and, if this was the case, seemed to mean the'property was'already designated as such and returning to Agricultural would be a downzoning. Pamela said this would not be'downzoning,because it was only listed,as a Business Park-on the draft map and hadn't been changed from.Agricultural as shown on the 1987 GRniap. She did not know why the Hummels were paying an assessmeritabut there was an easement for potential expansion of a road — she would have to investigate further. Commissioner Miller said the letter..stated the Hummels agreed to pay for sewer and the Corona/N. McDowell Assessment District as welt as for a landscaping easement. Pamela said that she would have to research to see if this was part-of the service are for the sewer pump station for the Penngrove area. Commissioner Kosewic said that the'Hummels paid into something under this assumption they were for a future Business Park they should_have that designation and if it was Agricultural,assessments, it should be Agricultural. Commissioner Mills said it seemed to be„leading to a. change with a Business Park designation in the map and the Hummels planned based on'this, but the storm event changed everything. He added this was not technicallya downzzoriing but there:may be a legal case for downzoning: He asked if the City was supportive of aBusiness,Park'designation. Pamela said that she still saw long-term development potential should regional flood reduction system be put in place and included the Business ;Park designation in the Administrative Draft GP with the incorporation of detention ponds downstream„She said if the PC was-interested,they could recommend the extension of the Business'Park and Urban Separator designation. Commissioner Kosewic asked if the detention ponds at Willowbrook work. Pamela said they were full durmg storm events and became part of Willowbrook and the east side of the freeway: She'explained;that when the detention ponds are fullthey no longer help contain'peak flows and a mechanism would be needed to chain them after each storm. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the regional solution would have neighboring county property used as detention/retentions ponds for the Hummel property. Pamela said this would not work, the property is too high and downstream from the outflow of Willowbrook to reduce out of bank flows into the City. Commissioner Miller asked if a dual designation could be done and why an overlay was not acceptable. • • Pamela said that a split designation could be done with a business park and an overlay for-historic flow storage';capacity. She explained.the original conceptlofan.overlay':was looked,att as:being;a."Taking" by the owner arid their realtor: She would'have to review die; correspondence but the,overlay-was not supported when discussed'in.the;past. Commissioner.Arras,asked,about.a third land use in'between surface water managementfor business,park. as compared to agricultural. Pamela,said.that<Mixed•Use had been-looked at.but•with.the aack'of services, its isolation, andprozimity to the freeway,the business,park.designation-worked:the:best. Commissioner Arras said all other factors,,other than the surface water problems, the designation would point to:business park. He asked if with the business park designation, if the project proposal could include ;additional detention ponds and other surface water:diainage management. Pamela said this would be correct and would be decided based on new GP policies. She:pointed to the culverts that cross under the freeway and how water flow changes cause water to flow onto H theuniinel property from the west side of Highway'101: PUBLIC COMMENT •Bill Sachs — Developer with an,option on'the I-funmrel,p operty said he hasn't been able&to determine:the highest and best use for the property but he sees the property as a;resource for the Cityto':provide jobs or housing.'He_asked staff to identify alternative`uses'with policies-to recognize,historic surface-water flows with an overlay. He said he can';tbegin until AlternatWe "B"'is worked'into the,GP with protections built in that state development wouldn'toccur Until!surface water problems solved,possibly in-2 to 4'years. He wanted to rise developnientpotential to work-to'.solve the regional flooding problems. Patricia.Hummel —,'Property;owners= Said she and"athe ,developers is working.toward'a,solution to'.the flooding•problem. Regarding:the Assessment;District:she said this came about during:a discussion'with property Lucy Webb, and that staff should check.,one this. In response'to Commissioner Mills' questions sheimentioned working-with-Bill White in City meetings where discussions of Phase;IV.ofthe Redwood Business Park were:held. She said Bill White,talked about various detention pond scenarios. She mentioned her letter of.December 2005 from Pamela'Tuft ;about amending the',GP to change the designation to•Business'Park from Agricultural with,a possible surface water overlay She"said;this would allow a reasonable amount of future development or Agricultural as a detention site. She saidshe:thought they were following::City requests-for access, bike,paths and landscaping requirements for development. She said her 65 easement is a deeded right-of-way..She didn't'feel that they^should be responsible--for flooding;that occurs from.Willow.Brook or the water coniingr;from-under therfreeway: She said.it:made sense,to:use this last=large.parcel:to be developed with-mitigations built intothe agreement. She felt-this area would allow;a jobs/housing,balance. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Mills wanted Pamela'to;bring back a possible overlay even'though.the City Council did not support•this option. Council Member Nau said,the Council is very concerned about surface water and her position hadn't changed and she didn't think the new Council would•feel:any differently: Chair Dargie supported-.Nau's statements: • • Commissioner Mills said this would be'decided by Council. no matter' what recommendation the Commission makes.He-said hewas concerned about,historical data and possible litigation: • Chair Dargie said he didn't feel-they hadrenough information to niake a decision. ;He added that in the past the Commission has disappointed applicants against staff recommendations and Council overrode their decision. He said if the XP-S WMM says;development was possible and the land use was amended it would be okay for their proposal. Commissioner Sullivan agreed. She said that removing water from the property would require a development-specific review and favored leaving the property.as?itwas. Commissioner Kosewic said the Land Use determines all the traffic, pollution, etc., that have to be mitigated and doesn't.change adie Land Use,it changes the mitigations. Chair Dargie said but the general expectations of the property owner has to be considered and cannot go back and should leave the designation as it is. • Commissioner Arras said thatthe focus should be on the land use, not the mitigations,and its location best • fit use as a business park. He felt that basing a decision on one,,flood event was not valid. He said environmental impacts Would be,dealt with at development review-using-new GP policies to protect the community with a moratonum`used until the XP-SWMM Model was finished. He supported the Business Park designation. 'Pamela said the Cominiasion,vias,splif with four for the Agricultural designation and three for the Business Park designation so'the recommendation would be to remain Agricultural The hearing/meeting was continued to January 9,2007 to`discuss the-'mobility"element. III. LIAISON REPORTS: (10:17 PM) a. City Council b. SPARC • c.Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee d.Tree Advisory Committee Adjournment: (10:17 PM) • •