HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/25/19941 ®1
1
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3
4
5 REGULAR MEETING January 25, 1994
6 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
7 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
8
9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
10
11 ROLL CALL: Present. Bennett *, Parkerson, Rahman, Shea, Thompson, Torliatt,
vonRaesfeld
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Jim McCann, Principal Planner
Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
20
21 MINUTES OF January 11, 1994 were approved with corrections.
22
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
5
6 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
7
28 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Chairman Bennett - Would like the Planning
29 Commission to make a statement of interest to the City Council Goal Setting Committee
30 regarding the Economic Element.
31
32 CORRESPONDENCE: League of California Cities brochure.
33
34 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
35
36 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
37
38
39 NEW BUSINESS
40 PUBLIC HEARING:
41
42 I. COL. J.B. MOREHEAD; MOREHEAD INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FLOODWAY
43 PROJECT; INDUSTRIAL AVENUE AT PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH; AP NO'S
44 007- 412 -038 & 039; FILE NO. 93001, 1.690.
45
46 Request for Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit to allow grading in
47 the Floodway of Petaluma River. The site is located on Industrial Avenue at
48 Petaluma Blvd. North. The following actions are requested:
9
0 1. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading in the floodway of the
1-
2 Petaluma River.
102
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Assistant Planner Dede Dolan presented the staff report.
Jeff Peters - Questa Engineering (City's consulting engineer) - presented the Initial Study;
described proposed grading, channel enlargement, defined FEMA model' used for analysis;
stated that project (per model analysis) should not impact up or down -steam flooding or
bank stability; proposed building site is less than required 2 feet above 100 -year flood level;
suggested mitigation measures to bring building pad into conformance; area biologically
degraded, but provides some habitat value (travel corridors for small animals); parcel has
great potential to add enhanced riparian vegetation; minimum 30 foot top -of -bank setback
for building needs to be incorporated into plan; summarized that project as conditioned
will not have an adverse affect on the environment.
Commissioner Shea - How far downstream did hydrologic report look to analyze flooding
concerns?
Jeff Peters - Analyzed to the Factory Outlet site.
Commissioner Parkerson - Questions regarding relationship of improvements in
conjunction with Factory Outlet improvements.
Planning Director Tuft - Col.. Morehead's proposal includes stream bank modifications
where the Factory Outlet did not.
Commissioner Torliatt - What is relationship to property to the south?
Jeff Peters - Cut /grading will work with a similar channel to the south in the future (5 or 6
parcels); several owners are thinking of doing the same type of contouring.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Will this creekbed become so uniform that it will become like
a roadway?
Jeff Peters - Area will be grassy and provide a riparian resemblance which will need to be
maintained.
Commissioner Torliatt Will contoured area be dry most of the year?
Charles Phillips 34 Branching Way (applicant's colleague) - All flooding will be contained
within this new channel; problems with requirement of temporary (plywood) fence while
grading, large trees required at bottom of bank, surplus of fill.
Planning Director Tuft - Temporary fence issue has been deleted; trees required in river
channel will most likely be a requirement of Fish and Game; equivalent silt fence
alternatives are agreeable to staff; trees are the only remaining issue.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow
grading within the Flood Plain and Floodway of the Petaluma River based on the findings
and subject to the mitigations and conditions listed below:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
1
i
7
1 ®3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1994
1 Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings
2
3 1. The proposed project with mitigation measures is compatible with existing
4 surrounding land uses, The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the channel
5 improvement, habitat enhancement and public access plans currently being
6 discussed for the Petaluma River.
7
8 2. The known or potentially significant impacts of the proposed project on vegetation,
9 wetlands, threatened and endangered animal species and their habitats, water
10 quality, soil erosion and sedimentation will be reduced to a level of non - significance
after implementing mitigation measures.
3. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse affects on
archaeological resources, historic properties, visual quality, noise levels, local
topography, air quality, seismic exposure, use of energy or natural resources or
agricultural lands.
4. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse effects on population
growth, housing public services and utilities, schools, solid waste, recreation,
20 parkland or open space resources.
21
22 5. The proposed project would result in beneficial effects on storm drainage patterns
23 business /industry, employment, local /regional economy.
24
25 6. Impacts: An impact relating to soils has been identified in the Initial Study prepared
6 for the project as follows:
7
8 a. Construction activities will remove vegetation and disturb soils which could
29 accelerate erosion on the site.
30
31 M[itigatTns: The above impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
32 follows:
33
34 a. Site grading shall be restricted to the dry season (April 15th through October
35 31). (Mitigates Impact 6a) Funding n /a. Timing. ongoing throughout
36 construction. Responsibility: Developer (implementation) City Building Division
37 (monitoring site to insure grading does not occur during rainy season).
38
39 b. A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be prepared. This plan shall
40 comply with all City and County Ordinances (ie Petaluma Municipal Code -
41 Chapter 17.31) and standards. Special attention shall be given to prevent any
42 increased discharge of sediment into the Petaluma River. (Mitigates Impact
43 6a) Timing. Plan must be submitted with grading permit application and
44 reviewed and approved prior to grading permit issuance. Erosion control
45 measures must be in place throughout construction. Funding. Developer.
46 Responsibility: Developer (Preparation and implementation of Plan) City
47 Engineering Department (review an approval of plan) Public Works Inspector,
48 Building Inspector (site inspection throughout construction to insure that erosion
49 control measures are adhered to).
0
1 7. Impacts. An impact relating to air quality has been identified in the Initial Study
2 prepared for the project as follows:
1. Additional erosion control mitigation measures are presented in the hydrology section.
3
1 XI
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994
a. The project will result in short term localized increases in air emissions from
excavation equipment exhaust, and from dust generated during grading.
Mitigations. The above impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
follows:
a. Standard dust control measures will be required, including maintenance of
moist soil.conditions, particularly on windy days. (Mitigates Impact 7a)Timing.
Dust control ,measures must be included submitted with erosion control plan and
reviewed and approved prior to grading permit issuance... Dust control measures
must be in place throughout construction.. Funding. Developer. Responsibility:
Developer (Preparation and implementation of Plan) City Engineering
Department (review an approval of plan) Public Works Inspector, Building
Inspector (site inspection throughout construction to insure that dust control
measures are adhered to).
8. Impacts. Impacts relating to hydrology have been identified in the Initial Study
prepared for the project as follows:
a. Under existing conditions, the channel improvements on the Morehead
property will only slightly reduce flood elevations across the site for the 100
year flood and a buildable pad two (2) feet above the 100 -year flood
elevation will not be created.
b. Under future conditions, the Morehead channel improvements may not
contain the 100 -year ultimate buildout flow even with accompanying
upstream and downstream improvements.
c. The combination of the Morehead channel and the downstream Denman
Reach modifications will increase velocity through the Petaluma Boulevard
North Bridge.
d. During construction, all vegetation will be removed and soil will be exposed
to potential erosion. This could potentially cause significant impacts to the
water quality of the Petaluma River. Increased deposits of nitrogen,
phosphorous and other nutrients can result in algal blooms that reduce water
clarity, deplete oxygen and create odors.
e. Because the site will still be subject to flooding during the 100 -year storm
under existing and future conditions, the project could result in the exposure
of people or property to flood related hazards.
Mitigations. The above impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
follows:
a. The grading plan shall be modified with a balanced cut and fill approach to
provide buildable portions of the site two feet above the 100 year flood plain.
(Mitigates impacts 9a, 9b, 9e) Funding. Applicant /developer (preparation of
revised plan and funding for peer review by City's consultant).. Timing. Revised
grading plans which comply with the above mitigation must be submitted for
peer review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Responsibility;
Applicant /developer (preparation of plans and submittal to :City) Planning
Department (coordination of peer review of revised plan by City's consultant)
City Engineering Department (review and approval of revised grading plan) City
Public Works and Building Division inspectors (site inspection to insure that
grading is completed according to plan).
4
1 ®5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1994
1 (Please note: that this mitigation does not require the containment of the
2 100 -year flood plain within the banks of the Petaluma River and does not
3 require parking and landscaping areas to remain free of flooding during the
4 100 -year storm under existing and future conditions. The applicant could
5 choose to redesign the grading plan to confine the 100 -year flood within the
6 banks of the Petaluma River utilizing the "optional mitigations" listed on
7 page 26 of the Initial Study, provided that the City's "no net fill' requirement
8 is maintained.)
9
10 b. When the Denman Reach channel modifications are completed, the
_>
transition to the Morehead channel and /or the Petaluma Boulevard North
C�
bridge structure will have to be stabilized. This may include armoring and
CO
widening the channel or replacing the bridge. Improvements to the bridge
j
will mandate regardin& only the upstream end of this Morehead Channel to
create a smooth transition between bridge and natural channel. (Mitigates
impacts 9c) Funding. To be determined during the review and approval process
for the City's Denman Reach Flood Control Plan. Timing. This mitigation
should be completed during construction of the Denman Reach improvements.
Responsibility: City Engineering and Planning Departments (insuring that this
20
mitigation is incorporated into the City's Denman reach project).
21
22
C. The erosion control plan required above shall include measures such as (a)
23
restricting grading to the dry season, protecting all finished graded slopes
24
from erosion using such techniques as hillslope benching, erosion control
25
matting, and restoration planting; (c) protecting downstream storm drainage
inlets from sedimentation; and (d) use of slit fencing as shown in Figure 10 of
7
1 6
the Initial Study (or an equivalent alternative) to retain sediment on the
8
project site and prevent discharge into the Petaluma River. This silt fencing
29
shall be maintained and left in place until the new channel is vegetated and
30
unstable site conditions no longer pose a significant threat. It is important to
31
note that the erosion control plan should be designed to retain, to the main
32
extent possible, existing biotic resources of the site. (Mitigates Impact 9d)
33
Funding. Applicant /developer. Timing. Erosion control plan must be
34
incorporated into the Improvement Plans and submitted with the grading plans
35
for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Erosion control
36
measures must be in place prior to and throughout construction. Responsibility:
37
Applicant /developer (preparation of plans and submittal to City) City
38
Engineering Department (review and approval of erosion control plan) City
39
Public Works Inspector, Building Inspector (inspect site throughout construction
40
to insure that erosion control measures are adhered to).
41
42
d. After construction is completed, all drainage culverts shall be inspected for
43
accumulated sediment. (Mitigates Impact 9d) Funding. Applicant /developer.
44
Timing. after completion of construction, prior to Final Inspection of the grading
45
plan. Responsibility: Applicant /developer (inspection and cleaning of debris
46
and sediment) City Public Works Inspector or Building Inspector (Final
47
inspection_ of drainage culverts).
48
49
e. In order to aide in reducing non -point pollutant discharge into the Petaluma
0
River, the project channel design shall incorporate a seasonal wetland on the
1
flood terrace to receive runoff from existing and future riverfront parking
2
areas as shown in Figure 6 of the Initial Study (or an equivalent alternative).
:)3
Mitigates impacts 9d) Funding. Applicant /developer (preparation of revised
54
plan, construction of plan). Timing: Revised grading and re- vegetation plans
5
106
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1994
which comply with the above mitigation must be submitted for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Responsibility.
Applicant /developer (preparation of plans and submittal to City, construction of
plan) City Planning, Engineering Departments (review and approval of revised
grading plan) City Public Works and Building Division inspectors (site inspection
,to insure that grading is completed according to plan).
Q
f. Flood warning signs shall be posted on site and gates shall be installed to
control public access along the maintenance road during forecast flood
events. (Mitigates Impact 9e) Funding. Applicant /project developer. Timing.
Improvement Plan submitted with grading permit application shall include
warning signs and gates. Plans will be subject to review and approval by City
Engineering Staff prior to issuance of Building permits, signs and gate shall be
installed after completion of grading. Responsibility: Applicant
Developer /future building owners (revising improvement plans, submitting plans
for City review, installation of signs and gate, maintaining improvements) City
Planning (site inspection to insure that signs and gate have been installed per
plan).
Impacts. Impacts relating to plant life have been identified in the Initial Study
prepared for the project as follows:
a. The landscape plan for the project site is far more suited to the landscaping
of an urban commercial area than to the restoration of a former natural
riparian community in Sonoma County and is inconsistent with the
objectives, policies and programs of Chapter 6 of the General Plan.
b. The proposed plan would introduce a number of non - native and
inappropriate plants into the riparian landscape. One of these, weeping
Willow, is a potentially aggressive invasive species that could escape
upstream or downstream, displacing or hybridizing with native willow.
Mitigations. The above impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
follows:
a. A Biological Restoration Plan shall be prepared for. the project site by a firm
experienced in ecological restoration. The restoration plan shall include
planting of a 20 -foot zone above the low flow channel at the edge of he
terrace, as well as planting at top of bank buffer zone of at least 30 feet in
width consistent with Figure 9 in the Initial Study. Use of plants native to the
Petaluma River Valley and propagated from seed and woody plant cuttings
collected in the project vicinity is strongly recommended. Planting density
shall be the equivalent of at least 70 trees and 400 shrubs per acre planted.
The .Planting Plan shall include project success criteria and have a minimum
five -year monitoring period duriq which the effectiveness of the plan with
respect to enhancing and expanding the habitats for local wildlife species
shall be assayed. At least a 70 percent survival rate of the plants shall be
achieved after five years. Mitigates Impact IOa, 10b) Funding:
Applicant /developer (plan preparation, installation and monitoring fees).
Timing. Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Staff prior
, to issuance of the grading permit. Planting shall be installed immediately upon
completion of bank grading Monitoring shall continue for a period of five years
after installation. Responsibility: Applicant /developer (preparation of plan,
submittal to City, installation of plan, certification by landscape architect or
C�
1 ®7
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1994
1. other qualified professional that planting has been installed per approved plan)
2 Property owner: (maintenance of River frontage after five year maintenance
3 period unless other funding mechanism is established through the River Access
4 and Enhancement Plan) City Planning Department (administration of five-year
5 monitoring contract with ecological restoration firm).
6
7 10. Impacts. Impacts relating to animal life have been identified in the Initial Study
8 prepared for the project as follows:
9
10 a. The extensive grading work will be completed during the summer dry period.
Soil stabilization with the planting of cover plants (rye, clover, brome, and
alfalfa) may not be effective as these are all winter germinating species
requiring at least a year to develop enough root capacity to anchor the soil.
Thus, it is likely that even with erosion control measures in place, it is likely
that siltation will occur within the greater Petaluma Creek channel resulting
in a deterioration to existing fish and wildlife habitat.
b. A standing policy of the CDFG is that permanent creeks be afforded a 100
foot buffer area measured from the top of bank. The proposal has a
20 maximum buffer area of 80 feet including the grassed terrace and the 15'
21 parking setback. The River Access and Enhancement Plan calls for a
22 minimum buffer of 30' from the top of bank. The lack of an adequate buffer
23 zone is considered a potentially significant impact.
24
25 Mitigations. The above impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
6 follows:
7
8 a. Parking and building setbacks shall be increased to a minimum distance of
29 30' from the top of bank. Mitigates Impacts I1 a, 11 b) Funding:
30 Applicant /developer. Timing: Grading and landscaping plan shall be revised
31 and submitted with the grading permit application to show increased setback.
32 Responsibility: Applicant /developer (preparation and submittal of revised plans)
33 Planning Department (review and approval of revised plans, monitoring to
34 insure that future construction complies with setback standard)
35
36 11. Impacts. An impact relating to noise has been identified in the Initial Study
37 prepared for the project as follows:
38
39 a. The project will temporarily increase noise levels on the site during
40 construction.
41
42 Mitigations. The above impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
43 follows:
44
45 a. Construction related activities shall be subject to the noise performance
46 standards listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
47
48 12. Impacts. An impact relating to the risk of upset has been identified in the Initial
49 Study prepared for the project as follows:
0
1 a. The use of heavy equipment very near the Petaluma River increases the risk
2 of accidental spill into the river of petroleum products during refueling, or
3 vehicle servicing.
54
7
M, •.
Planning Commission Minutes
13
14.
January 25, 1994
Mitigations. The above impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
follows:
a. All fueling and maintenance of heavy equipment shall be conducted at least
100 feet away from the Petaluma River. Mitigates Impact 12a) Funding. • n/a
Timing. On -going during construction; Responsibility: Developer /contractor
b. All provisions for the use of heavy equipment dictated by the applicant's
CDFG's streambed alteration permit must be strictly adhered to. (Mitigates
Impact 12a) Funding: n/a Timing. On -going during construction;
Responsibility: Developer /contractor
C. Construction site activities will be 'subject to preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan for submittal to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. (Mitigates Impact 12a) Funding. Applicant /Developer Timing.
Applicant must obtain clearance from Regional Water Quality Control Board
prior to commencement of grading; Responsibility: Developer /contractor
(preparation of plan, submittal to RWQCB, verification of RWQCB clearance
with City Planning Department) Planning Department (monitoring to insure that
RWQCB clearance is received prior to commencing construction).
Impacts. An impact relating to storm water drainage has been identified in the
Initial Study prepared for the project as follows:
a. The project grading will modify site drainage so the small open ditch on site
will need to be modified and the existing discharge point of the 12 inch cmp
draining the nearby parking lot will have to be relocated.
Mitigations. The above impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
follows:
a. To insure that utilities are constructed according to City guidelines, all plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Sonoma County Water Agency
and City of Petaluma Engineering Department for plan check approval. The
12 inch cmp shall be routed to discharge into a grassed swale on the in
stream terrace. (Mitigates Impact 14a) Funding. Developer. Timing. Prior to
issuance of City grading permits. Responsibility: Developer (preparation and
submittal of plans) SCWA and City Engineering Department (review and
approval of plans). Public Works Inspector (site inspection to insure proper
construction of improvements according to approved plans).
Impacts. An impact relating to public recreation and General Plan consistency has
been identified in the Initial Study prepared for the project as follows:
a. The project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives stated in General
Plan Chapter 5 in that no dedicated public access along the Petaluma River
is shown on the plan submitted.
Mitigations. The above impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as
follows:
a. The applicant shall dedicate a public access easement along the proposed
maintenance road. The easement shall include the entire buffer area
provided at the top of bank. Improvements to the easement consistent with
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1994 1 09
1
the future River Access and Enhancement Plan can be deferred and linked
2
to future building activity at the site. (Mitigates Impact I5a) Funding:
3
Developer. Timing: easement shall be submitted to the City for review and
4
approval and recorded prior to issuance of grading permits. Responsibility:
5
Developer (preparation and submittal of easement) Planning and Engineering
6
Departments, City Attorney (review and approval of easement) City Clerk
7
(recordation of easement)
8
9
Use
Permit Findings:
10
11
1.
The proposed „grading plan, as conditioned to require " 0 net fill' within the
CD
Ftoodway and Flood Plain, will conform to the requirements and intent of the
(Y�
Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
2.
The proposed grading plan, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and
intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan and will help to implement
the goals of providing improved flood control, improved habitat, and public access
to and along the Petaluma River.
20
3.
The proposed grading plan as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be
21
detrimental to the public welfare of the community but will reduce flooding hazards
22
it this area of the Petaluma River.
23
24
4.
An Expanded Initial Study of potential environmental impacts has been prepared in
25
compliance with the„ requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
6
(CEQA) and the Planning Commission has adopted a Mitigated Negative
7
Declaration based on the finding that the potential impacts could be reduces or
8
avoided to a level of insignificance with mitigation measures adopted as conditions
29
of project approval.
30
31
Use
Permit Conditions:
32
33
1.
The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
34
any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action
35
or, proceeding a &ainst the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees
36
tQ attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim or
37
38
action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and /or
local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such
39
claim, action, or proceeding. 'The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing
40
contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of
41
any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs,
42
and the City defends the action in good faith.
43
44
2.
The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study prepared for the project shall
45
be considered conditions of project approval.
46
47
3.
Tle applicant shall enter into a Stream Bed Alteration Agreement with the
48
Department of Fish and Game and shall gain approval from the Army Corps of
49
Engineers prior to issuance of City grading permits.
0
1
4.
If the City has not secured a LOMR for the entire Denman Reach by the time the
2
applicant is ready to develop, the applicant shall obtain approval of a LOMR from
3
FEMA prior to issuance of building permits on the Morehead parcels.
54
0
110
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1994
5. If the City has not processed a Rezoning and General Plan Amendment to change
the Floodway and Flood Plain boundaries to be consistent with the revised FEMA
map, the applicant shall apply for and obtain these approvals prior to issuance of
building permits on the Morehead parcels.
6. The following conditions of the Engineering Department shall be considered
conditions of Use Permit approval:
1. The grading plan shall be revised in accordance with the mitigation measures
outlined in the referenced study. These revisions shall include modification
of the grading plan to show areas of fill for proposed 'building pad(s) at
elevations to two feet above 100 -year flood plain with balanced cut and fill in
compliance with the City Petaluma's "O net fill policy. The grading plan
along with appropriate calculations and cross- sections shall be submitted to
Sonoma County Water Agency and the City for review and approval.
2. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, hydrology map and appropriate cross -
sections shall be prepared for the revised grading plan to insure no adverse
impacts to properties up or down stream of this project.. The calculations,
etc., shall be reviewed and approved by SCWA and the Engineering
Department.
3. The design of the channel transition to the upstream and downstream of the
channel improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City and SCWA.
.Permission from the adjacent property owners may be required if these
channel transitions are located on private property.
4. All grading and erosion control shall comply with City Ordinance 15.76.
5. An easement for hydraulic maintenance for the Petaluma River and the
maintenance road improvements, designed in conformance with SCWA, shall
be dedicated to the City along the Petaluma River frontages:
6. All grading, specifically fill, shall be coordinated with the adjacent lands of
Sartone to ensure this property will not be adversely impacted.
II. BRADDO.CK AND LOGAN MCNEAR'S LANDING; PETALUMA BOULEVARD
SOUTH AT MCNEAR AVENUE; AP NO. 008- 530 -040; FILE NO'S GPA93005,
REZ93007, TSM93005.
Request to subdivide a 17+ acre property into 156 residential lots to allow the
construction of 107 detached and 49 :attached single family residences. A public
open space area of 1.47 acres will be, established adjacent to the Petaluma River as
well as pedestrian pathways along the project's river frontage. The following actions
are requested:
1. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Recommend that the City Council approve the General. Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation on a 1.47 acre portion of the site from Urban
High to Open Space or Park.
3. Recommend that the City Council approve the Rezoning.
4. Recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the PUD Plan.
10
Planning. Commission Minutes January 25, 1994
1 5. Recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Tentative Map.
2
3 The public hearing was opened.
4
5 SPEAKERS:
6
7 Assistant, Planner Dede Dolan presented the staff report; main issues are width of streets
8 (private to public standards); the need for substantial site plan and unit redesign; project's
9 inadequate river orientation; extent of grading proposed; 'garage door' architecture; noise
10 levels and the need for sound walls and the level of consistency with numerous General
Plan policies.
Commission Discussion
Concerns with zoning .of adjacent properties (Commercial /Highway); questions regarding
traffic signalization; clarification of lot sizes; questions regarding configuration of existing
approved project; sound wall heights excessive.
Jeff Lawrence - Applicant - General Plan requires 10.1 units per acre; project has been
20 reviewed, at two separate SPARC (Preliminary) meetings; this project will enhance the
21 river.
22 Herb Sihner - Project architect - property is marginal /difficult because of surrounding uses
23 (river /street, etc.); original plan (existing approved plan) is not very attractive; no market
24 for condominiums; no lenders; project sterile; would prefer to build single - family homes;
25 new requirement of City Standard streets will cause havoc with the lots; needs help with
6 design from Planning Commission; houses are oriented to river; style of houses reminiscent
7 of Petaluma /Napa river areas; townhouse groupings are oriented toward river; other
8 projects in City have 29' street widths; wants a project City and developer will be proud of;
29 wall needed between use to the south (tanks) and project; can't understand why this area of
30 Petaluma Blvd. needs to be widened; did not anticipate change in City's philosophy
31 regarding street width.
32 Planning', Director Tuft - General Plan does drive the City's planning (density); very serious
33 about density of 10.1 du /acre; apartments were originally proposed for this site; project
34 components such as a 7' retaining wall adjacent to river path is unacceptable; houses not
35 designed to fit hillside but appear to be. flat pad units; design needs to be creative to
36 respect the topography and river to use them as assets.
37 Commissioner Parkerson - ( SPARC Representative) This project would not function well
38 on this site; major SPARC concern was access to river; staff concerns are very legitimate
39 and have not been addressed in this proposal.
40
41 Commission Discussion How can a high density be achieved with single - family dwellings
42 on this site? Soundwalls too extensive; grading too extensive; less garage door architecture;
43 entire Commission favors redesign.
44 Commissioner Bennett - (To Mr. Lawrence) Would you prefer to redesign or a vote to
45 deny?
46 Jeff Lawrence - Cannot get required density without redesign; existing streets are already
47 built; does not wish to redesign, it can't be done in a marketable way.
48
49 The public hearing was closed.
0
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
2 to find this project statutorily exempt from CEQA and local environmental review and to
3 deny the project without prejudice, based on the following findings:
54
111
11
112
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: - Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD:. 'Yes
Findings
11
1.
The project, as proposed, does not conform to the General Plan policies regarding
12
density, relationship to river.
13
14
2.
The project, as proposed does not respond to the environmentally sensitive nature
15
(topography and river frontage) of the site.
16
17
18
IV.
PROJECT STATUS:
19
20
1.
Americana - Tentative Map will be discussed at City Council February 7.
21
2.
Western Charter Tours - New site at end of Casa Grande, new Use Permit approval.
22
3.
Petaluma Tire Source - Site has been cleaned up.
23
4.
Taco Bell - Project has been appealed.
24
5.
Rainier FEIR - Will return to Planning Commission on March 22.
25
26
27
V.
LIAISON REPORTS:
28
29
River Committee - (Next meeting tomorrow night) Meeting on weekly basis to
30
wrap -up.
31
Tree Committee - PG &E representative spoke on tree pruning /coordination with
32
City; will hold tree workshops /public education.
33
34
35
ADJOURNMENT
9:20 PM.
36
37
38
min0125
/ pcjt
12