HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/12/1996City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
• qto'i N%''
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
MARCH 12, 1996
7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Rahman*, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld, Wick; Absent:
Feibusch, Read
Staff Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner
ctairnm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 13 and February 27, 1996 were
approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Introduction of Vincent Smith, new Senior Planner;
Clarification of Colombard item.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Wick - Indicated he had reviewed all
tapes /minutes regarding Westview Estates; Commissioner Torliatt - Requested Economic
Plan be agendized (Planning Director Tuft indicated it would be discussed at Planning
Commission meeting of April 9 or meeting in the near future); Chairman Rahman - will be
attending League of California Cities Conference next week.
CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from staff regarding West View Estates; letter from Ed
Haworth regarding Gatti General Plan Amendment; memo from staff regarding Ellwood
Opportunity Center; 2 letters regarding West View Estates; letter from Edward Nessinger
and letter from staff regarding Nessco Landscaping.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
CONTINUED COMMISSION BUSINESS
L APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO LUCCHESI
PARK MASTER PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE.
Since these meetings are scheduled for 8:30 AM (Commissioners unable to attend)
- staff will attend and report back to Commission; a Commissioner can possibly
attend as needed.
7.20 PM
OLD BUSINESS /CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
IL GATTI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; RICHARD GATTI; 701
SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY; AP NO. 137-070-058 acm).
Continued consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a request by
Richard Gatti to amend the land use designations on the 65± acre property to
rearrange existing land uses and to establish an alternate alignment for the new
collector road through the site.
Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 27, 1996.
(Public Hearing was closed at the Planning Commission meeting of February 27.)
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Wick - Requested clarification of the available density flexibility in General
Plan and proposed by applicant; Urban High density calculation clarification.
Commissioner Torliatt - Question on location of Open Space General Plan designation in
relationship to Park designation?
Public hearing was reopened (to allow new information.)
Ed Haworth - Applicant's representative - This amendment is not the property owner's
idea, it is a City Council request; discussed acreage calculations; some acreages not exact,
some flexibility; intent is not to increase number of units on site; agrees with 7 acres on
Urban High Density site; when Open Space corridor is adjacent to park, the corridor
serves similar purpose as park; anxious to begin this project.
Mike Morgenlaender - 1731 Zinfandel - Thanked applicant for consideration and process;
cause and effect - not everything is,_ focused; suggested no recommendation to City
Council until Colombard is reopened to Maria; Colombard traffic problem should not be
separated from this issue.
Planning Director Tuft - Clarification necessary for the discussion of Colombard/Maria
Drive - extensive notice (to neighborhood and school officials) is necessary before
discussion occurs; recognized cause and effect, but traffic studies have indicated that the
proposed General Plan amendment will have no adverse impact to Zinfandel Drive area.
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
Chairman Rahman A public forum needs to be (legally) opened to have a fully rounded
discussion of the Colombard circulation issue.
Mike Morgenlaender - Cause and effect - the Colombard circulation issues are not
separate from this project, need to look at whole issue.
Chairman Rahman - Colombard issue is on agenda as another issue tonight.
Planning Director Tuft - ( to Mr. Morgenlaender) - if you have comments regarding effects
of traffic from this project on Colombard or Zinfandel, then testimony to that effect could
be given now.
Mike Momenlaender - Cumulative effects of all projects makes this area already over-
burdened; staff/Planning Commission all agree that a problem exists; City is stalling - open
Colombard to Maria Drive.
Ed Haworth - Traffic Study shows that by realigning Reisling, traffic will be lessened;
most people will continue on Sonoma Mountain Parkway; will be more impact on Gatti
property, less on neighbors to west.
Public hearing closed.
Principal Planner McCann - Traffic Study focused on effects in area; on page 15 of the
Traffic Study there is discussion of the area -wide traffic /circulation effects of future build -
out of Gatti property - specifically Zinfandel and Meadow School; no significant increase
or adverse effect to the circulation conditions on those roads by, virtue of the proposed
amendment; fewer weekly trips will be generated with the proposed configuration of land
uses.
A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Clark to
recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Land Use Map of the
General Plan to reconfigure the land use designations on the Gatti property as reflected on
the exhibit and to establish an alternate alignment for the new collector road through the
site based on the findings and subject to the mitigation measures and conditions listed
below with the addition of up to 1.4 acres of commercial /retail be blended with Urban
High designated properties at the option of the developer.
Commissioner Wick - Explained his recommendation regarding the ability to add area to
the retail site if it contains a mixed -use (residential and commercial) scheme (this would
return the Retail site closer to original project 9.4 acres).
Commissioner Torliatt - Voiced a few concerns with proposed retail site - uses need to be
integrated.
Planning Director Tuft - The specific site proposal for the Retail site will be before
Planning Commission for PUD Amendment.
Commissioner Torliatt - Reiterated the need for a pedestrian friendly site; per SPARC
(Committee Member Parkerson) should not be a routine development; preliminary plan for
the Retail center needs to be substantially redesigned.
Planning Director Tuft Project has been completely redesigned; clarified park site and
creek corridor - should not be blended - (Commission agreed).
,CTmfMy vonRaesfeld - Questions regarding hydrology of Capri Creek.
Commissioner Thompson - Agreed with motion as stated, possibility of more commercial;
City can get excellent park space.
Commissioner Read: Absent
Commissioner Feibusch: Absent
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
Commissioner Wick: Yes
Chairman Rahman: Yes
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration:
1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
CEQA and local guidelines.
2. Based upon the Initial Study and any continents received, there is no substantial
evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.
3. A monitoring program has been included to ensure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures, if any.
4. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the
Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
5. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
6. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and
considered the comments before making a decision on the project.
7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
Petaluma, California.
Findin s for the General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
2. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest
of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have
been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Mitigation Measures
1. The project proponent shall signalize the intersection of the new
"Collector" road and Sonoma Mountain Parkway. Timing for the
signalization and other associated improvements shall be established in
conjunction with the subdivision and /or development of the property.
2. The project proponent shall improve project frontages along the
"Collector" road in accordance with City requirements for collector roads.
4
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
Said improvement shall occur in conjunction with the subdivision and/or
development of the property.
3. The project proponent shall provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities along
project frontages and internal to the project consistent with the City's
General Plan.
4. The final geometrics of the intersection of the extension of the "Collector"
road with Sonoma Mountain Parkway shall be designed and located to
facilitate traffic safety, particularly with regard to sight distance; to the
satisfaction of the City's traffic engineer..
5. Pedestrian controls in the form of barricades, or something similar and
acceptable to the City, shall be provided at the intersection of Sonoma
Mountain Parkway and the extension of Riesling Road through the
Glenbrook area to prevent pedestrians from attempting to cross Sonoma
Mountain Parkway at that location to reach the proposed retail or park
areas. Signs shall be provided directing pedestrian traffic to cross Sonoma
Mountain Parkway at the signalized intersection of the new "Collector"
road through the project site or at the Santa Rosa Junior College
intersection.
6. Driveway access to the new "Collector" road shall be limited to the extent
possible to promote use as a collector roadway.
7. The alignment of the new "Collector" road at the northeast corner of the
retail - commercial area shall be modified to provide a smooth transition
(curve) with a knuckle, roundabout, or other type improvements; versus
the perpendicular corner to the collector roadway indicated in Figure 2.
This should be carefully coordinated with access to the Urban Standard
area to the east and Urban High density area to the south.
The proposed local roadway on the southerly side of the retail area
adjacent to the park site shall be deleted and substituted with a driveway
from Sonoma Mountain Parkway to a parking area for the park only and /or
secondary access to the retail area. Public road access to the park site shall
be provided from the new "collector" road (cul -de -sac or stub) at the
direction of the City Engineer in conjunction with the subdivision and/or
development of the property.
9. Direct driveway access to Sonoma Mountain Parkway shall be limited
consistent with the roadway's arterial status.
10. The retail commercial site plan shall be modified to facilitate truck access
to the pads or deliveries shall be scheduled to occur before businesses open
or during off -peak hours.
11. Up to 1.4 additional acres of commercial /retail may be blended with
Urban High designated properties, if the resulting development is of a
mixed use nature at the option of the developer.
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
III. WEST VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION; NORTHBAY CONSTRUCTION;
BODEGA AVENUE BETWEEN NORTH WEBSTER STREET AND RUTH
COURT; AP NO'S 006 - 470 -010, 006 -480 -003, 005, 011, 012, 016, AND 031.
Consideration of a revised proposal for a 43 -lot detached single - family home
development on 21.63 acres of hillside property in west Petaluma. The project
includes requests for approval of 1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) Rezoning
of the site to PUD; 3) Tentative Subdivision Map to create 42 parcels and future
development potential of one additional lot.
Continued from December 5, 1995 and Special Planning Commission meeting
(field trip) of February 27, 1996.
Associate Planner Phillips - presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened:
SPEAKERS:
Bonnie Diefendorf - Project Engineer - much effort has been made to address the various
concerns raided to date; has responded to staff comments, public comments; this is a good
plan layout; the development will be an asset to community; few differences with staff -
TM condition (page 14, item IA) - regarding development reimbursement agreement -
frontage improvements; regarding undergrounding of utilities - will be asking City for
relief of this requirement, very expensive - will participate in a future undergrounding
project; disagrees with alternate plan proposed by staff- would create a very steep private
street, concerned with adding more street lights; will leave more hillside open through the
previously recommended non - development easement; suggested planting more trees in
this easement area; does not want public access; concerns with liability problems to
adjacent lots: concerned with loss of lot in upper area; additional circulation through
Larch will help to disperse traffic in area; project in line with what has been done in this
area.
Chairman Rahman - Requested clarification of Exhibit A (staff's alternative) layout.
Terry Reagan - 525 Amber Way - Follow -up of issues from last meeting - Initial Study,
page 6, 3A (water) - existing standards are not adequate in this area now; look at existing
City- accepted storm drainage standards - they are not good enough; concerned about
development of a PUD (why a need for a PUD - suggests that a PUD is inferior to other
zoning designations and used to permit greater density); concerns with proposed CC &R's;
concerns with work hours (allowing work until 7PM is a concern, also allowing work on
Saturday); concerns with aesthetics (garages) - what will this look like from Bodega; what
is a building envelope ?; referenced article in newspaper - 59.3% of Petaluma residents
think growth is too fast - only area faster is Windsor, Commission needs to consider this.
Debra Green - Reagan - 525 Amber Way - Moved from southern California because already
established neighborhoods were being ruined with more growth; applicant has done much
for the City, but don't let this neighborhood be affected.
Susan Sanford - 524 Joelle Heights - Thanked staff/applicant on redesign of project; some
questions still unanswered; premature to take action proposed by staff tonight; needs EIR
because of cumulative impacts - many issues have not been adequately addressed; concern
about future of Petaluma - what is demonstrated need for more housing in Petaluma: EIR
is necessary; volunteers to work with applicant /staff.
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
David Polin - 511 Bodega - Agrees that an EIR is needed; California Supreme Court - 6
Cal 4th 1112 (quoted Laurel Heights case) - EIR necessary - legitimate possibility that
an adverse affect on environment - only asking for an EIR
Tom Goth - 528 Joelle Heights - EIR should be required; questions regarding private
sewer laterals.
Kathleen Miller - 756 Bodega Ave. - Most Commissioners have been up to site; very sad
to see that this whole site will be developed; moved here a few years ago from northern
California; has well below project site - concerns with private sewer laterals running above
well; hates to think that this site will be gone forever; EIR should be required.
Bill McGunuQle - 516 Joelle Heights - Had a sewer line problem - neighbor would not
allow repairs over his property - there should be easements for maintenance; applauds
redesign - however, only 20 units should be allowed - not 40; in long -run, homes would be
higher in value if lots were larger /fewer homes - everyone would come out a winner; EIR
should; be required.
Kevin Bushnell - 515 Bodega Avenue - Public /Commission did not have time to review
staff report/Initial Study - should not take action without a full Commission; not enough
work/design on drainage; new 36 inch storm drain discussed by City Engineer - does not
appear in Initial Study; many changes in new Initial Study - many items have been
downgraded in importance; concerns with traffic (already overloaded street); aesthetics -
before /after pictures.
Charlotte Nelson - 503 Larch Drive - Why must these three residences on Larch be
impacted by this development; concerns about loss of wildlife, loss of privacy, loss of open
land; loss of views of hillside; applicant would benefit financially with larger /fewer homes;
wants in record - husband and she object to plan; if quaint /riverfront quality of town is
lost, Petaluma will lose much; needs an EIR; project should be rejected; objects to
connecting to Bodega.
Steven McMillian - 526 Joelle Heights - Larch will connect through to Bodega - instead of
that plan, maybe two cul -de -sacs should be proposed - no through - traffic to Larch; EIR is
necessary for this project.
Elaine Garber- Maikousken - 12 Fowler Court - This packet of material only available on
Friday afternoon - definitely not enough time to read; why isn't an EIR required?
developer should be required to pay for an EIR; traffic report is inaccurate - there have
been accidents; issue of bias for record - City is in business of collecting fees for each unit
built; concerns with traffic /drainage - how do we know that these concerns will be taken
care of without an EIR; noise hasn't been discussed at all; What is a PUD? EIR would
substantiate appropriate use of this hillside and would avoid a lawsuit; this is next to a
view corridor (Bodega Avenue); this project relates to Cross Creek project; concerns with
driveway access on Rebecca; Initial Study - subsurface drainage problems, air quality
concerns (more automobiles).
Bob Garber - Maikousken - 12 Fowler Court - Two other projects not completed in area -
Benson Estates, Victoria wait for more projects to be completed before approving more
lots; look at existing approved developments not built yet; this will be a slow process,
there will be work going on for many years; lack of parks in this area - only park available
is Oak Park; concerns regarding proposed reduced street standards; recommend park
space, ormal size streets; should be cul -de -sacs, not through- street; setbacks too close to
streets; concerns with building heights - consider single -story homes only; Lots 11 and 12
do not meet minimum sizes for hillside development; EIR necessary - not enough planning
has gone into this; traffic study flawed - needs more work on traffic study; geotechnical
information based on John Daly report - only some concerns addressed - review that
report - more research necessary on wells in area; concerns with lot -to -lot drainage - not
enough swales designed (in Fowler Subdivision); increased water will dump into existing
area.
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
Cathy Wall -Polin - 511 Bodega - Concerns regarding rampant growth of Petaluma; many
new homes in area are vacant - do we need more new homes; need EK opposed to this
project.
Steve Dorenfeld - 3 English - Owns part of this hillside; in 1960 City requested that
chicken coops be removed; this has not been a working farm since before 1943; property
has never been a working dairy - cattle were used to reduce fire hazard, but neighbors
have objected to cattle on this property because of smell; has talked about developing this
land for several years; for a good project - must involve all adjacent properties to correctly
plan as we have; Sonoma Mountain Parkway area very good project developed by John
Barella - he does a good job.
John Barella - 496 Jasmine Lane - one of project developers - Born in Petaluma; trying to
work with all neighbors on concerns; purchased Jacobsen property; many different designs
for project; could have proposed many smaller projects in pieces for this hillside; wants to
remain in this neighborhood; addressing traffic, drainage issues; 10 lots not enough;
hydrology study will be undertaken; would like to work with neighborhood to alleviate
concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Thompson - Question to staff regarding need for EIR.
Planniniz Director Tuft - Would like to respond in writing - too many issues.
Commissioner Torliatt - Why haven't we required an EIR?
Principal Planner McCann - Explained the determination of appropriateness of
environmental review - staff determined that, based on evidence we had - all
environmental effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; many valid concerns
raised tonight; substantial evidence, however, must be presented to conclude that the
preparation of an EIR is necessary; responsibility of Commission to make environmental
recommendations to Council; series of mitigation measures proposed - if Commission
believes potential impacts cannot be mitigated, then Commission must require preparation
of EIR.
Commissioner Torliatt - Was there an EIR for Country Club Estates?
Planning Director Tuft - Yes, EIRs were prepared for Country Club Estates Unit 3 and
Victoria.
Commissioner Torliatt - What is minimum and maximum density for this site?
Principal Planner McCann - 12 -43 units min. /max.
Planning, Director Tuft - Will respond in writing to all environmental comments raised
tonight; will expand upon PUD issues.
Chairman Rahman - Wants to be sure that all concerns are answered.
Planning Director Tuft - Recommends continuance to allow response by staff.
Commissioner Torliatt - Wants staff to respond to traffic circulation - suggested cul -de-
sacs; history of previous proposals on this site.
Chairman Rahman - Message very clear - public comment period not necessary to be held
over.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Direction to staff - noted that there had been repeated
request for EIR; most concerns center around drainage, traffic, park space, aesthetics -
these should be addressed.
Commissioner Wick - Concurs with Commissioner vonRaesfeld.
This item was continued to Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1996 (first old
business item).
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
Bob Garber - Maikousken - 12 Fowler - Questions regarding procedure on public hearing
process.
Commissioner Torliatt - Requests information one week to 10 days prior to meeting.
Chairman Rahman - If there are new items - can public hearing be reopened?
Planning Director Tuft - Can renotice if deemed necessary by Planning Commission,
continuance to date specific does not require renotice.
CONS'EN'T' AGENDA
NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC REARING
IV. SONOMA COUNT' TRANSIT; RAINIER AVENUE.
Recommendation to the City Council of an exemption from CEQA and a
Certificate of Public Convenience to authorize six additional bus stops on Rainier
Avenue between N. McDowell and Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
This item was heard as Item No. 1.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Wick to
find this request exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act and to recommend to the City Council granting of a bus certificate to Sonoma County
Transit to allow six (6) new stops based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed
below:
Commissioner Read: Absent
Commissioner Feibusch: Absent
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
Commissioner Wick: Yes
Chairman Rahman: Yes
Findings:
1. The six proposed new bus stops subject to the following conditions, will conform
to the intent of the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The six proposed new bus stops, subject to the following conditions, will not
constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
Conditions
9
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
No additional stops shall be created on Rainier Avenue without further application
and review; stops are limited at this time to those shown on Exhibit A, with the
exception that the eastbound stop between North McDowell Boulevard and Prince
Albert Street shall be re- located to the east side of Prince Albert Street.
2. No buses /routes shall be added without further application or review; Sonoma
County Transit shall be limited to the requested six (6) buses for the northbound
route, and eight (8) for the southbound route.
3. To reduce the noise and emissions, dwell time (idling time) shall be limited to a
maximum of 3 minutes per stop, except as necessary to accommodate handicapped
riders.
4. Sonoma County Transit shall provide bus stop signs and poles at all six (6)
proposed transit stops, which shall be compatible with City of Petaluma Transit
Standards in the event that Petaluma Transit establishes service on this street at a
future date.
5. Any future plans for bus shelters, turnouts, etc., shall be subject to review and
approval by SPARC.
6. Sonoma County Transit shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Petaluma
Municipal Code Title 14, Transportation and Utilities.
NEW BUSINESS / DEPARTMENT REPORTS
V. CITY OF PETALUMA; DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO
CITY COUNCIL REGARDING POSSIBLE .EXTENSION OF
COLOMBARD DRIVE TO MARIA DRIVE.
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
DISCUSSION
Gordon Kirkland - President, Waugh School Board - Wants to make sure safety concerns
are met; redesigned school site plan because of closing of street; eliminated bus zone;
mostly safety issue; distance from amphitheater to street - very close - no safety barrier.
Chairman Rahman - Staff will pursue this - hopes School Board /staff and neighbors all
remain open- minded.
Gordon Kirkland - Main concern is safety.
Chairman Rahman - Make sure that this issue is moved along.
Commissioner Torliatt - If this comes back from City Council, would like some graphics.
Jeff Butcher - 1707 Zinfandel Drive Has been moving, have been studies done; School
District is open to hearing any information; this will be a big public issue; would like to see
a meeting at Lucchessi - don't wait, keep going in fast speed; will work with staff, etc.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
10
City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 3/12/96
VL JOINT MEETING WITH SPARC.
Discussion of potential dates for the joint Commission/SPARC meeting (April 11
or April 25).
April 11 - 5PM - Staff will prepare an agenda.
VII.. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Community Propane CUP (Appeal) - City Council denied appeal.
2. South Blvd. Specific Plan - moving forward - Draft EIR will be released to
public late spring/early summer.
Chairman Rahman - Will Lafferty still come to Planning Commission?
Planning Director Tuft - Still waiting for information from Open Space District.
Commissioner Torliatt - How are we responding to Mr. Nessinger?
Commissioner. Thompson - Mr. Nessinger did not indicate a time frame for compliance.
Principal Planner McCann - Staff will follow -up on the Nessco CUP issues.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 PM.
min0312 / plan66
11