Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/23/19931 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ?6 8 .9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING March 23, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Read, Parkerson*, Rahman (arrived at 7:10), Tarr, Thompson, Torliatt STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Jennifer Barrett, Associate Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner Chairman MINUTES OF March 9, 1993 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson thanked Council for opportunity to attend League of California Cities in Monterey, conference was very enlightening; Appointed a sub- committee consisting of Commissioners Rahman, Bennett and Parkerson to meet with the Planning Director to discuss ways to use the department's limited resources to best advantage. CORRESPONDENCE: 2 letters regarding New Life Youth Home; memo from staff and letter from Sonoma County Water Agency regarding Twin Creeks; letter from City of San Rafael regarding Land Use Competition Exhibit. APPEAUSTATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. NOTE: Italics = addition Overstrike = deletion NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS I. LAWRENCE RAU, CAPTAIN LARRY'S ELECTRIC FERRY, PETALUMA TURNING BASIN, FILE NO. CUP92004(tp). Review of Conditional Use Permit for extension of approval, and possible modification of conditions allowing operation of a commercial ferry within the Petaluma Turning Basin. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Commissioner Read - if this company is sold, does the ferry service continue under the same use permit? Planning Director Tuft - Yes, the use could continue under the same ' Use Permit conditions. Commissioner Read - What will happen with the docks when the river is more crowded? Planning Director. Tuft - This portion of the dock is. posted for passenger unloading and loading only, this ferry service would have to snare with other passenger loading /unloading activities. Captain Rau - Read postcards in support of his ferry service - requested a permanent Use Permit. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to grant permanent approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Captain Larry's. Electric Ferry for non - exclusive use of the Turning Basin docks with all original conditions (March 10, 1992 Planning Commission meeting) to remain in effect. COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes y COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes J COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Conditions (from March 10, 1992 PC Meeting): 49 1. Passengers shall not be permitted to congregate for ferry boarding on the` public 50 docks. A separate waiting area shall be established and signed prfqr- to-within' 90 51 days of commencement of use. Required encroachment permits (for public 52 property) sign permits, and property owner consent shall be obtained.. 53 Loading unloading area to be reviewed and approved by City Council prior to initiation 54 of use. G 391 2 2. This project shall be subject to SPARC review prior to commencement of use, with 3 emphasis on the following: 4 5 a. Appropriate location of passenger waiting areas to ensure reasonable 6 visibility and proximity to loading areas, provision of adequate lighting in 7 evening hours, trash receptacles and seating if feasible, and unobstructed 8 circulation and compatibility with surrounding uses, activities and 9 development. 10 b. Appropriate design and location of proposed signing for waiting areas, including- compliance with Zoning Ordinance Standards. 3. The project proponent shall meet all US Coast Guard vessel safety, operations and equipment requirements. 4. Applicant shall meet insurance requirements as determined by the City Risk Manager prior to commencement of the business. 5 This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time 20 due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic 21 congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such 22 time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add/modify conditions of 23 approval. 24 25 6._. Any proposed expansion of the use shall be subject to application for and approval M26 of amendment to this use permit." 8 29 11. LUDWIGSON/REYNOLDS, 315 HOWARD STREET, AP NO. 006-242-24, FILE 30 NO. APL93001 akt). 31 32 Consideration of an appeal of Director's determination regarding on-site parking 33 requirements at 315 Howard Street. 34 35 The public hearing was opened. 36 37 SPEAKERS: 38 39 Jim McC ann presented the staff report. 40 Commissioner Read - What alternative design ideas were presented to applican't? 41 Jim McCann - Tandem parking or additional parking at the rear of the lot. 42 Lisa Ludwigso - Does not believe 3 tandem spaces are practical or needed for her use; 43 needs more space for children to play; showed slides of existing parking/driveway; other 44 houses in area only have 2 parking spaces; what is variance process? 45 Planning Director Tuft - Explained findings necessary for a Variance. 46 Commissioner Torliatt - (to Ms. Ludwigson) Do you park on, the street? 47 Ms. Ludwigson - Yes, one car is parked on street, other in driveway. 48 Planting .Director Tuft - Staff could not support findings for a Variance. 49 Commissioner Parkerson - Zoning Ordinance requires three parking spaces - we cannot 1 0 change the Code; Variance can be applied for, but I don't know if we could support the 1 - findings., 2 Commissioner Read - Agrees with staff - glad that this question was brought to Planning 3 Commission at this stage. 54 tr 3 392 The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to uphold the Planning Director's determination that the proposed construction would create a condition in violation of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and that the Building Permit .may not be approved unless approval of a Variance is granted to authorize parking less than that required by the Zoning Ordinance. COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON`. Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes III. NVIARK GRANDY, NEW LIFE GROUP HOME, 520 GALLAND STREET, AP NO. 006- 143 -23, FILE NO. CUP93010 (hg). Consideration of a request for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow an expansion of an existing Large `Family Residential Care Facility to permit two additional students, an increase from 8 to 10 students. a. Find the project exempt from CEQA review. b. Approve an amendment to the current Conditional Use. Permit with conditions. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Commissioner Rahman - questions regarding new conditions., Mark Grandy - 520 Galland Street; concerns regarding neighbors' complaints; answered questions. Commissioner Parkerson Is there always a staff member present when kids are present? Mark Grandy - Yes, always; the State requires it. Commissioner Read - Rev. Tharpe (at the last hearing) said he would not ask for , any additional students; the house needs paint and yardwork. Mark. Grandy Paint and landscape work are already - planned (there has been too =much rain); State would very much like to _see two more students be allowed. Bill Lindsay - 247 Keokuk - Commission needs to do their part to help the kids; NIMBY attitude is not a viable consideration; Commission should not be concerned with paint and landscaping. Commissioner Torliatt - Hopes paint and landscaping will be taken care of. Commissioner Parkerson - Wants to make sure 2 staff members are present and no more than 10 residents are at the facility. Charlie Baase - New Life Group Home Board Member - the State requires that if there are more than 8 residents present there must be 2 staff members present. Commissioner Read - Has State License been applied for? Mark .Grandy - No, the State requested that Use Permit be obtained first. The public hearing was closed. 4 393 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt to find 3 this pro exempt from CEQA based on the finding listed in the staff report and to grant 4 a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a Large Residential Care Facility at 520 5 Galland' for up to ten residents, based on the existing (November 12, 1991) and new 6 findings and subject to all existing and new conditions as follows: 7 8 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes 9 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes 10 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 11 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes (D COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes CEOA Finding 1. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 which exempts minor 92 alterations to existing structures or uses. 20 21 FindinLs from November 12. 1991 Planning Commission Meeting: 22 23 1. The proposed Large Residential Care Facility, as conditioned, will conform to the 24 requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 25 k?6 2. The proposed Large Residential Care Facility, as conditioned, will conform to the an 7 requirements d intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma Ge'fiekal'Plan. _8 9 3. The proposed Large Residential Care Facility will not constitute a nuisance or be 30 detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 31 32 Current Findings: 33 34 1. The proposed expansion to the existing Large Residential Care Facility, as 35 conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning 36 Ordinance. 37 38 2. The proposed expansion to the existing Large Residential Care Facility, as. 39 conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of "the 40 Petaluma General Plan. 41 42 3. The proposed expansion to the existing Large Residential Cate Facility will not 43 constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 44 45 Conditions from November 12. 1991 Planning Commission Meeting: 46 47 1.- All - safety and structural/mechanical problems listed per the building survey 48 conducted on March 10, 1989 by the Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal, if 49 not already resolved, shall be corrected within 60 days following approval of this use 111 permit, subject to staff review and approval. The following is a list of the safety and 1 structural/mechanical problems that need to be corrected: 2 3 a. Old dumb-Waiter (now a closet) should be closed at ceiling line. 54 5 394 b. Kitchen exhaust fan to be rewired. C. Exit from second floor to outside stair must open over platform (only 24" platform now exists). d. Basement: Abandon all unused electrical wires. Test all plumbing lines (not used for one year). Test all heating units and ducts (not used for one year). Water heater to have proper pressure relief valve and be piped to ground. Water heater to be vented properly. Provide escape for water collecting in basement. e. Upper porch rail needs to be closed at bottom (not used for one year). L Fix all broken windows. g. Fix separated leaders to gutters. 2. A schedule for. visiting hours shall be submitted to staff for review and approval within 20 days following approval of this use permit. 3. Ate -least two (2) care facility staff members shall be at the home when resident boys are present. 4. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack. of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation or other adverse operating characteristics. . At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. S. Residential care - givers shall park on Central Street adjacent to property. Current Conditions 1. All requirements of the Police Department shall be met, including: a. The client base of resident boys shall not change. 2. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including: a. A current fire inspection is required and must be requested by the licensing agency (the Department of Social Services) prior to the occupancy of two additional (10 total) resident boys. 3. All previous conditions of the Conditional Use Permit granted November 12, 1991 '(File CUP91031) shall remain in force. 2 395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CD ce C� 21 22 23 24 25 26 8 9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 IV. TWIN CREEKS SUBDIVISION, 2 AND 8 ELLIS STREET, AP NO.'s 007 - 221 -19, 136- 100 -21, 26 29, 31, 32, 33 AND A PORTION OF 34; FILES TSM93001 AND REZ93001 (dd). Commissioner Torliatt abstained due to a conflict of interest. Request for approval of an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development Plan and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a forty -four lot subdivision proposed to be built on a 9.07 acre parcel located at the confluence of Lynch and Washington Creeks and the Petaluma River. a. Recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for those aspects of the revised project not addressed in the original EIR and Supplemental EIR previously certified for the project. b. Recommend approval of an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development Plan. C. Recommend approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dede Dolan presented the.staff report - described proposed changes. Commissioner Read - Asked for on new Vesting Tentative - Map - . ^` Commissioner Parkerson - Will bridge be built in the first phase? Dede Dolan - Yes. Commissioner Bennett - Why is this plan better than the first? Dede Dolan - Lots are higher, home models are better /more attractive, no cul -de -sac. Commissioner Tarr - Would like some homes with detached garages. George; Vetter - 833 Madison - the area where street /bridge is to be located - will some of (my) property be required for sidewalks, etc.? house will then be uninhabitable; traffic concerns'; access to creek is used by kids on way to McKinnley School; main concern. is who will pay, for sidewalks, etc.? Planning Director Tuft - Sidewalk and all public improvements will be paid for by the developer; none of Mr. Vetter's property will be needed for road improvements. Michael Hitchcock - Applicant's planner - Answered questions regarding public improvements; road is now designed to be above 100 .year flood level; this project will save the City °about $300,000 on flood improvements associated with Corps project; outlined the project phasing; described some of the different design aspects (angled footprints, etc.). Judith Elluel - 644 Korman Lane - How close will homes be from the creek? Planning Director Tuft - No lots will back on to the river across from Jess Avenue. Michael :Hitchcock - Correct, no homes are planned for this area. Commissioner Read - Are there any side -entry garages? Any tandem garages? Dede Dolan - Yes, about 30% side -entry. Commissioner Read - Will price range really be $150,000 - $190,000? Michael Hitchcock - Yes, hoping to keep costs to the above figures by down - sizing square footagelof the homes. Commissioner Bennett - What are lot sizes? Michael Hitchcock - Lots will be standard size. VA 396 Commissioner Parkerson - Would like to see fewer four - bedroom homes, more two and three- bedroom models. Commissioner Thompson - Can the walnut trees be saved? Michael Hitchcock - Since the entire project site will be filled or graded, most trees will be removed, palm trees will be relocated. Commissioner Read - Staff should be very careful to insure consistency with Army Corps of Engineers plans. Charlie Traboulsi -: Project Engineer - will be working very closely with Army Corps; cost of soil to- be removed will be borne by the developer; no flood wall will be required in the project vicinity, this will save the City about $300,000. Commissioner Thompson - Will you be able to go ahead before Army Corps begins? Charlie Traboulsi - Army Corps..has indicated compatibility with their plans. Dede Dolan Verifies compatibility with plans, cannot verify dollar savings. Commissioner Thompson Clarify proposed (new_ )'top of bank where you will be removing earth; will the walnut trees be saved then ? - Wa Salmons - Assistant City Manager - Convinced that Army Corps plan is far enough along to allow this project to begin and to implement some of these floodway /river channel improvements; Army Corps project will require 'substantial wetland /habitat mitigation; City should gain in vegetation. Dave Duibanv - 26 Payran Street - Traffic concerns; flood control concerns; could be all for project if flood mitigations /park creation would 'occur; traffic on Payran is already really bad; deny the project because of additional traffic, traffic is the major problem.. Commissioner Tarr - This plan is superior to the original; should have more side - entry/detached garages; this developer can build iwo- bedroom units successfully and the last several developers cannot? C Parkerson Pleased with the plans; would like another model; recommends ? two- bedroom units :instead of 5; overall flood improvements will benefit City; existing residences on Wilmington have been-properly addressed. Commissioner Bennett - This project has improved; glad to see two - bedroom units; doesn't agree with Commission Parkerson regarding more two- bedroom units; would like to see some detached garages. Commissioner Rahman - Is the gentleman on Ellis satisfied? (Yes). Commissioner Parkerson - Exhibit C - Is this where we would add units /detached garages? Planning Director Tuft - Second PUD motion would be the place to add amendments. Commissioner Rahman - We can't overburden the developer. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed plan to allow the amendment to the approved PUD plan and the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create 44 single - family lots based on the'findings and subject to the amended mitigations listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Abstain COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 397 1 Findings 2 3 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with 4 CEQA and local guidelines. 5 6 2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be 7 avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as 8 conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as 9 conditioned, 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. Fish and Game Filing Fees have been paid with the Filin& of the Supplemental EIR. Although the project does have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and Game code and was not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees, the changes proposed will have no impacts on wildlife resources and actually incorporate improvements to the riparian mitigation plan recommended by the 19 Department of Fish and Game. 20 . 21 ' Mitigations: 22 23 1. The applicant shall incorporate seismic design parameters in construction, including 24 foundations and structures, graded slopes, and retaining walls. 5 6 2. The potential for slope instability shall be mitigated through engineering design and 7 construction. 28 29 3. The use of expansive soils for use in structural fill must be evaluated in geotechnical 30 investigations. 31 32 4. Construction - related impacts shall be mitigated by limiting the grading to the dry 33 season (May- October) when flows and run -off potential are lowest. Erosion control 34 shall be provided in conformance with the City's erosion control standards. 35 36 5. The fill proposed at the project site shall be balanced with an equal volume of 37 excavation in the over -bank areas of the Petaluma River as shown on the proposed 38 grading plans. 39 40 6. The project storm drain system shall conform to the criteria established by SCWA 41 and the City of Petaluma. The storm drain shall be sized to accommodate runoff " t, 42 from existing homes to the north of the site. The discharge point shall be designed 43 so as not to obstruct flow in the river or the creek. 44 45 7. The storm drain run -off from the site shall be retained in a detention system subject 46 to approval by the City Engineering Department until completion of the Army 47 Corps of Engineers Flood Control Project. 8 8.. The applicant must attempt to reduce the amount of runoff from paved areas to help reduce the off -site transport of urban pollutants. 1 9. Erosion control :shall be.. provided., in ..conformance with the City's erosion control 53 standards. 54 0 •. . I 10., Lots 1 through 4 (adjacent to Lynch Creek and the Petaluma River) may interfere with the mitigation requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers project and development of these lots shall be deferred until the completion of the Army Corps flood control project for the Payran Reach. The applicant shall delay filing the Final Map for this area until finalization of the Army Corps plans. 11. The applicant shall post a sign visible from the public right -of -way and shall give written notice to all prospective homebuyers (until the area is developed or converted to a mitigation area for the Army Corps project) that the area in the vicinity of Lots 1-4 may be developed with up to four homes. 12. The improvement plans for the bridge crossing shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Sonoma County Water Agency. pFev le-�- recomme -Rded- imtHn- €reeboaF44 13. Excavation at the project site shall be of a volume no less than that analyzed in applicant's hydraulic study; location of excavation should be no further away from nver than that analyzed in the hydraulic study. This will comply with the City's Ordinance requiring "zero net fill and a minim 2 -foot freeboard." Any alterations will be subject to further hydraulic study. 14. The applicant shall be required to maintain "zero net fill" throughout the construction process on areas of the site within the floodplain. 15. In keeping with SCWA policy, the slope of the north bank of Washington Creek . shaL be hydro- seeded with a mixture of annual grasses. 16. The landscape plan shall. provide an average 20 -foot landscaped buffer along Washington Creek. At no point shall the buffer be less than 15 feet.. 17. Construction operations shall be limited between 5:00 pm and 8 am and on weekends (quiet, non - mechanical operations only after S: 00 PM and before 8.00 AM). 18. All construction and grading equipment shall be properly muffled. 19. The developer shall provide temporary shielding between the noise source and the . receiver. 20. The developer shall reduce the level of backup beepers on heavy equipment. 21. A minimum setback- of 25' shall be maintained in the rear yards of the homes along Wilmington Drive. The Planned Unit Development guidelines shall be amended to include regulations governing the height of detached accessory structures in the required 25' rear yards. 22. The applicant shall be required to pay low and moderate income housing in -lieu fees of an amount to be determined according to the schedule established by City Council Resolution No. 84 -199 N.C.S., or :make alternative arrangements to meet low and moderate income housing provision requirements of the Petaluma General Plan 23. The .applicant shall provide stop sign at new Ellis Street approach to Ellis /Madison intersection. 10 WY&TOI R&&A 2 24.. - Tlie final Landscaping Plan shall be designed to avoid landscaping which could 3 - block motorists line-of-site when entering Holly Lane. 4 5 25. The applicant shall be responsible for installation of warming signs consistent with 6 State of California Department of Transportation Guidelines for school area 7 pedestrian safety prior to the issuance of building permits for the new homes. 8 9 Appropriate signing includes a fixed (non-flashing) yellow warning pedestrian sign and school sip located mid-block adjacent to McKinley Elementary School on Ellis 10 and Madison Streets. 11 26. The applicant shall contact McKinley School and assist the school in establishing a crossing guard program for the school in the vicinity of Madison and Ellis Streets C44 subject to approval by the Administrators of the Petaluma School District. The applicant shall offer up-front program funding to the School District for a minimum 97 - of 5 years. 1 9 4 8 27. The developer shall be responsible for installing a fence along the property lines of those three parcels along the new portion of Ellis Street subject to approval of the 20 individual property owners. 21 22 28. The developer shall install curb cuts and driveway.aprons, for those owners who will 23 lose existing driveways as shown on the proposed plans, subject to approval by the 24 individual property owners. 25 26 29. The developer shall - be responsible to pay impact- fees to,-fundi!,necessary 27 128 - capital improvements. - 29 30. The developer shalt information to the residents about recycling - services in 30 the project area and suggest that residents recycle glass metal, paper, cardboard 31 and other materials to the maximum extent possible. 32 33 31. Insulation and other products made of recycled products shall be considered for use 34 in construction of -the subdivision. Design of residential units shall consider the 35 inclusion of recycle storage areas. 36 37 32. The developer shall suggest to residents, through the distribution of literature or 38 some other method, that they use recycled materials to the extent possible. 39 40 33. The project will be subject to Park and Recreation Land Improvement Fees. 42 34. An architectural historian shall be retained to assess the historic value of the 43 structures on the site, particularly to turn of the century Buchanan home prior to 44 approval of the Final Map. If it is found that the houses are of historic value, they 45 shall not be demolished and either retained on the site or moved to another site. If 46 the home is moved to Lot 1 it shall not be occupied until the Army Corps of 47 'Engineers project has been completed. If the Army Corps plan requires that 48 -proposed Ut 1 remain undevel6ped for mitigation requirements, the applicant shall 49 -move the home to an alternate site within the development subject to approval by 50 City Staff. 51 52 '35. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall 53 be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation 54 of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian community shall 11 I, ,. also be notified and consulted in the event . any archaeological remains are uncovered. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment, to the PUD based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATP: -Abstain COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. By provdin& the secondary access to Ellis Street, the Twin Creeks PUD district creates a suitable relationship to adjacent thoroughfares; and Traffic analysis of the area has .indicated that said thoroughfare is adequate to carry the additional traffic generated by the development. 2. The proposed development plan as redesigned to: reduce the number of homes parallel to the Wilmington Avenue homes; increase the number of single story homes parallel to the Wilmington Avenue homes; increase rear yard setbacks to these homes; and providing a landscaped screen; will present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties. 3. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, through the development of the single loaded street with -the twenty foot buffer, the open space area between the site and the Petaluma River, and the open space area at the confluence of Lynch Creek and the Petaluma River to provide adequate available public and private spaces. 4. The development of the property as proposed by the applicant,as mitigated through the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and as conditioned below will not i be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirt of the Zoning regulation of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General, Plan, by improving access to the River and providing a secondary access for the residents of Holly Lane. Conditions: 1. - All aspects of the revised Planned Unit Development Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to submittal of the Final Map applications including the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Grading Plan, the landscaping plan, the architectural plans and written PUD standards. 12 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 21 22 23 24 25 ' 6 [ 5 28 7 9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 153 54 2. _ Review by SPARC shall concentrate on the following: a. simplification of house design; b. neighborhood entry treatments; C. design of the bridge; d. floor plans and elevations of homes proposed on corner lots shall be reviewed to insure an attractive streetscape; e, floor plans and elevations of homes adjacent to the river shall be reviewed to insure orientation to the creek river; L addition of street trees along Ellis Street; g. consistent use of materials and details on all sides of the units;. h.. interface and compatibility of the Twin Creeks Landscaping plan with the . mitigation plan for the Army Corps of Engineers Project; is increasing the architectural diversity between units 2 and 4; jo avoiding dominance of any single model type ;. _. ,.k. pedestrian circulation. _ .._ ....__. . L_ distribution and inclusion of a substantial portion of side -entry garages. 3. The written PUD Development Standards shall be revised as follows and submitted for approval by SPARC prior to approval of the Final Maps: a. Provisions which prohibit accessory structures taller than one story within the required 25' setback of those lots . adjacent. to homes fronting on Wilmington Drive shall be added to the written standards. b. . Addition of 3 detached garage units. 4. All mitigations identified through the environmental review process as listed in Resolution 93- adopting the a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the - proposed amended Planned Unit Development Plan shall be considered conditions of project approval for the Planned Unit Development Plan. 5. If a retaining wall is necessary between the neighborhoods it shall be constructed of masonry to avoid future. maintenance problems. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend. to -the City Council approval of the Vesting. Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the development of 44 detached single- family dwellings. based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 13 ,I e CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Abstain COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMSSIONER TARR: Yes Findings: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent,with the General Plan policies pertaining to improving views and access of the Petaluma River. 2. The site as conditioned to reduce impacts from flooding is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 3. The density is comparable to the surrounding neighborhoods and the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map provides reasonable public access on a public road to the�proposed lots by providing two access points. 5. The proposed map, subject to the following conditions, complies with the requirements of the 14unicipal Code, Chapter'20.20 and the Subdivision Map Act. 6. As demonstrated in the 1990 EIR and the 1992 SEIR and 1993 Initial Study, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements as, mitigated. and conditioned will not, cause substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 7. The design of the subdivision by raising the roadway and other improvements out of the Floodway and Floodplain, will not cause public health problems. 8. An EIR and Supplemental EIR, and Initial Study have been prepared to address potential impacts and the - project has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Section 15315, and the 'City Council has adopted a mitigated Negative. Declaration for the revised project. Conditions The applicant must comply with the following conditions of the City Engineering Department: 1. The bridge, across Washington Creek, shall be 36' to 37' wide subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer and shall have the minimum freeboard, as required by Sonoma County Water Agency during the 100 -year discharge. Design constraints shall include balancing cut and fill according to the City of Petaluma. Zero Net Fill requirements and avoiding any increase in the water surface elevation in a 100 -year event before and' after bridge configurations. 2. No construction of buildings or net increase of fill shall occur within the flood -way. If.stabilization and /or protection work is required, work shall be subject to review and approval of all appropriate regulatory and advisory agencies. 14 4 ®3 1 3. Grading plans shall comply with the City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance 2 1576 N.C.S. and include provisions to avoid silt entering the Petaluma River and 3 4 Washington Creek from graded areas during construction periods, subject to review and approval of City staff. Grading plans shall also include an erosion control plan, 5 subject to review and approval of City staff. The erosion control plan shall specify 6 measures to reduce both short and long -term erosion problems. The plan shall 7 address the following: 8 9 a. Location of all areas where soil and vegetation are to be removed 10 b. Location of fill 11 P. Method of stabilizing the areas (02 d. Areas to be re- vegetated, method, types of vegetation and time for re- 3 vegetation. 4 e. Methods to reduce run -off from graded. 5 f. Grading shall not be allowed from October 1 through April 15, the rainy 6 7 season. 8 4. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the soils 9 report for this project. 20 21 5. in order to m aximiz e compliance with the proposed Army Corps of Engineers Flood 22 Control Project and avoid any re- contouring of land in the future, the location of the 23 excavated area shall start at the existing top of bank, within the proposed channel 24 portion of the Corps plan (not the bench area) as shown in the SEIR, Figure 8. 25 Actual quantity of soil to be removed shall be no less than that amount necessary to comply with the City's Zero Net Fill policy. 1 26 27 28 6. In accordance with PMC Section 17.30.020 Storm Drainage Impact Fees; payment 29 of fees is required for all residential developments- which cause an increase in run - 30 off less than two acre feet. Because of the sensitive nature of this area, The 31 applicant shall install a storm water detention basin. The storm drainage impact fee 32 be reduced in accordance with PMC Section 17.30.040 Reduction of Fees. 33 34 Design and construction of this basin shall comply with the City's Zero Net Fill 35 Policy, Ordinance 1782 and reduce loss of riparian habitat, the development of the 36 site shall be designed to insure no net increase in flood elevations either upstream 37 or downstream of the project site. To avoid increases in peak flows downstream 38 from this development, all flows in excess of existing storm -water flows shall be 39 detained on -site for up to 100 -year recurrence interval storm. Outflow from the' 40 storm -water detention facilities shall be regulated by a weir. The configuration of 41 the device shall be based upon the 100-year recurrence interval storms. 42 43 A mechanism for perpetual maintenance of the detention pond in functional and 44 aesthetically pleasing form shall be required for as long as detention pond is 45 46 necessary. 47 7. Parcel A and B shall be dedicated to the City and transferred at such time as the 48 agency responsible for maintenance is determined. 49 8. All sidewalks /meandering paths within this project shall be a minimum of 5' wide. 51 1 50 52 9. All drainage improvements including Petaluma River excavation, Zero Net Fill 53 compliance and detention pond adequacy shall be to the satisfaction of the City 54 Engineer and Sonoma County Water Agency. 15 404 10. A 4 -way stop shall be provided at the intersection of Ellis and Madison Streets. 11. All sanitary sewer manholes shall have watertight lids. 12. If positive lot drainage cannot be obtained then all backyard drainage control shall be within an underground pipe system with surface catchment swales, and inlets. Common side yard drainage swales as shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are not allowed per City standards. If common side yard drainage swales are o proposed they shall be contained: in a private storm drain easement and maintained intly by the affected lots. The terms of maintenance shall be as specific in condition 13 below. 13. A private storm drain maintenance agreement between Lots served by this system shall be submitted in a recordable .form. This agreement shall also specify timing of maintenance and be in a form acceptable to the City staff, and recorded concurrent with the final map. 14. All public storm drains shall be installed in a public street. A single outlet pipe into the River may be installed within the landscape open space, if contained within a 10 foot exclusive easement dedicated to the City. 15. All street li ghts within this development shall have standard metal fixtures dedicated to the City for ownership and:maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating system. 16. Signing and striping shall conform to City Standards. 17. Waterpressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service. (This item shall be verified concurrent with improvement plan review). 18. The storm drainage outfall shall be designed in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency. 19. A 10' PUE shall be dedicated adjacent to the public right -of -way as required by the utility companies. 20. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's Major Traffic facilities fee. 21. All overhead utilities fronting or traversing the site, 15KV or less, shall be underground. 22. Sidewalk shall continue along the northerly lot frontages of Twin Creeks Circle. 23. Height and extent of vegetation shall be to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer to provide adequate site distance. The applicant must comply with the following. conditions of the City Fire Marshall: 24. The architectural plans shall be designed to provide fire suppression systems at normal sources of ignition. These area are specifically at cloths dryers, kitchen 16 17 405 1 stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces and in attic areas at vents and chimneys 2 ' 3 for these appliances and equipment. 4 5 25. The appplicant shall be required to provide fire hydrants as required by the Fire Marshals Office. seven (7) hydrants will be required for this project. The applicant 6 shall contact the Fire Marshals office prior to submittal of the improvement plans to 7 establish the locations of the fire hydrants. 8 9 26. The applicant shall be responsible for providing and installing equipment and 10 computer monitoring hardware at the Washington Creek Bridge on Ellis Street and at Fire Department Headquarters. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the Planning Department: 27. The applicant shall satisfy all standards and design criteria of the Sonoma County Water Agency. 28. The tentative .map and related improvements shall be subject to approval by 19 SPARC prior to recording the final map. 20 . 21 29. The applicant shall be responsible for the formation of a landscape assessment 22 district to establish and, maintain all landscaping within the public right of way and 23 on mitigation areas to be dedicated to the City. 24 5 30. The applicant shall obtain an estimate on the cost .of -replanting the anew adjacent to 6 the project site which is within the 220' wide Army Corps` project. The `applicant 7 shall provide the City with a Certificate of Deposit prior to Final Map approval to 8 cover the .cost.of this re- planting job to be used, to replant the area after completion 29 of the Army Corps Project. 30 31 31. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall include street trees in planter strips along the 32 Ellis Street extension. 33 34 32. The mitigation measures listed in Resolution No. 93- adopting a Mitigated 35 Negative Declaration for the project shall be considered conditions of approval for 36 the Tentative Map. 37 38 33. If there are any changes . to the Army Corps project prior to approval of the final 39 improvement plans, the applicant shall modify plans to comply. If there are any 40 changes to the Army Corps project prior to installation of the landscaping on Parcels A 41 & B, the applicant shall modify plans to comply. 42 43 The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the City Public Works and 44 Water Departments: 45 46 34.3.3: The existing 8" ACP water main that extends through the 10 -foot utility easement 47 form . Wihnui on Drive shall.be tied into the new proposed Holly Lane water main 48 in the immediate vicinity of the intersection of the existing 10 -foot utility easement. 9 0 1 03 3534: The new proposed Holly Lane water main shall tie into the exiting 8" ACP water main on the side of Washington Creek determined by City Water and as the 2 Department. 17 M 3635-. The new proposed Holly Lane water main shall cross Washington. Creek by being attached to the downstream side of the proposed bridge structure as determined by the City Water Department. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Police Department: 37.E All addresses shall be illuminated to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 38.3- The applicant shall install one inch deadbolts on all front doors. PLANNING MATTERS V. CITY OF PETALUMA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES (jb). Reconsideration and recommendation to the City Council of updated Environmental Review Guidelines ' establishing procedures, objectives and criteria for implementation of the California.Environm6ntal Quality Act (CEQA). DISCUSSION: Jennifer Barrett presented the staff report. David Keller Revisions are appreciated; gave an overview of requested changes; pleased with direction of revisions, staff ' very responsive; access to information is a main issue /concern; CEQA is not a great planning tool; changes that we have requested may be cost saving in the long run. Tim, Haddad ­615 N. Fair St. - Staff has done a great job to address concerns; major policy issues remain; wants greater opportunity for public participation and noticing;' benefits of greater public- participation are many; concerns of public need to be on record early; need early access to information on proposed projects. Commissioner Rahman - (to Mr. Haddad) - you stated that Waste Water project. is an example of the problems we are experiencing - the City held a series of public workshops that were very open with much participation, suggest we should look forward, not backwards with that project. Tim Haddad - Waste Water project only went the way it did because of public outcry; we only received staff report for CEQA revisions on Friday; not enough time for people to Director Tuft - Commission P Planning n received staff report at the same time (Friday). Tim Haddad - Discussed sections that he disagreed with staff recommendations; requested that he receive the Planning Department "project log" by direct mail as well as other environmental documents. Jennifer Barrett - "project log" is a log kept by staff to track project activity; it is available upon request; City staff will mail materials if requested, but does not need to be required in Guidelines. Commissioner Rahman - Agrees with Mr. Keller that'everyone can't get to City Hall during office hours; maybe the Community Center could be utilized for posting notices. Tim Haddad - Resolution of the referral process issue should go further than staff recommends; the "project log" should be' supplied; Mitigated Negative Declaration section could be worded more clearly - project sponsor. must incorporate changes into project; Notice of Intent section should require any 2 methods of noticing - not just legal publishing; documents should be sent directly to; interested parties - save time. Warren: Salmons - City already complies and even exceeds existing CEQA requirements; point is one of policy and politics and not one of CEQA requirements; sewer workshop was IN 1 111 0JI 1 not a question of CEQA - it was political; City has a record of good decision- making 2 regarding environmental questions; this is not a good time to increase workloads. 3 Plannin Director Tuft - Created the "project log" for use within the department as an 4 administrative tool; we can mail this lo& if requested to anyone (who supplies envelopes 5 and postage); concerns with rising administrative costs. 6 Commissioner Rahman - Understands financial burden that could be created. 7 Commissioner Parkerson - CEQA process in Petaluma is very complete - inclined to accept 8 staff's recommendations. 9 Jennifer Barrett - Discussed and clarified options regarding Item No. 13 - Public Hearings. 10 11 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman CQ to recommend to the City Council adoption of the updated Environmental Review ce Guidelines as revised and incorporating the changes recommended in the staff report dated March 23, 1993 and recommending public hearings on draft EIRs be held at both Planning Commi'ssion and City Council using language proposed in second option of No. 13. COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT Yes (Does the City need to have greater access? Council should make a policy decision.) 20 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 21 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes 22 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 24 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 25 26 27 RE COMMENDATIONS 8 29 1. 6.2.0 Determination of Exemption a• PRC requests that staff be required to 30 notify interested parties of all exemption determinations. 31 32 Recommendation: In order to address the intent of the PRC to be notified of 33 exemption determinations,, it is recommended that Section 6.2.0 be amended to 34 reflect the posting of exemption notices by adding the following language: 35 36 'Exemption determinations should also be noted on the project log and posted at the 37 Planning Department available for public review. " 38 39 2. 7.4.0 Categorical Exemptions - The PRC has recommended changing the words 40 "other special" to "unusual" in Section 7.4.0 (c) General Exception Rule on page 8 41 line 11. 42 43 Recommendation: Staff concurs with the PRC recommendation to change the 44 language to minor the State Guidelines. 45 46 3. 7.5.0 Amendments to Exemption Provisions - The PRC is requesting public and /or 47 Planning Commission review of any; changes to the list of statutorily and 48 categorically exempt actions provided in Appendix B. 49 0 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the. Planning. Director be able to update 1 the list of exemptions to, reflect changes in State law without a public hearing, 2 Planning Commission reviewand /or Council action. No change necessary. 3 - 19 M 82.0 Referral Process - The PRC is that interested parties be added to our referral procedures for consultation with public agencies. . Recommendation: In .order to clarify the available opportunities the following changes are recommended: Add to Section 8.2.0 Referral Process page 9, line 38 'The Director should maintain a project log, available for public review, of all pending applications, including the status of environmental review. " Change /add to Section..8:3.0.Agency Referral List, page 9,.line 50 to read as follows (changes shown as underlined): 4. "The Director shall establish and maintain a master referral list identifying the names and mailing addresses of those loca4 state, and federal agencies, and private or�an� which may have jurisdiction, claim special expertise, or other interests with respect to various specific types of projects and resources in Petaluma. The ° master Referral list shall be updated periodically by the Director (without legislative approval). The master Referral list is included in Appendix C" ' The Director shall develop an 5. 9.1.0 Mitigated. Negative Declaration - The comment by PRC appears to misinterpret the language of the City's Guidelines and of CEQA by requesting that revisions to a project be agreed to by the project sponsor "be ore circulation for review ... not as attached conditions after review ". Recommendation: Clarification of language in 9.1.0 Mitigated Negative Declaration as follows (changes are shown in overstrike and underline): 'If potential impacts are identified and Initial Studv. these recommendations - determine if the project sponsor agree potential impacts and /or incorporate 0 measures are ac- eeptable agreed to by the Declaration shall be proposed- and - ci rc mitigation measures are recommended in an shall be referred to the project sponsor to to modify the project to xnitigwe avoid the to mitigation, measures. If the recommended applicant a Mitigated Negative mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of approval for the project. " 6. 9.2.0 .Notice of Intent - Regarding the: method of public notice, the PRC is recommending that the' Guidelines require both publishing in a newspaper and direct mailing to property owners. Recommendation: Staff recommends no change to the Guidelines in response to this comment. This would leave the language flexible in the adopted Guidelines. Staff will continue the practice of both methods of notification and posting of notices in appropriate situations.. Interested parties can always review the notices in the local newspaper or check the notices on file at the Planning Department. 7. 93.0 Circulation of a Negative Declaration - The PRC wants "interested parties" to be added to the circulation, list for Negative Declarations. 20 409 --a 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 � y 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 1 i r Recommendation: No changes to the Guidelines in response to this comment are recommended. The revised Guidelines already include provisions for notice to interested parties in accordance with State law and interested parties can obtain environmental documents upon request. 8. 9.7.0 Approval of a Negative Declaration - The PRC is recommending the be added to the list of findings " (ff) All mitigation measures listed should b __ __-a. ._-- _r V­_ 1___. For a Mitigated Negative Declaration under Section 9.7.0 on page 14 beginning at line 39 the following finding appears to meet the intent implied in PRC's request: 'Based upon the Initial - Study and comments' received, potential impacts could be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned would have a significant effect on the environment. " Recommendation: No changes to the Guidelines in response to this comment are recommended. 9. 9.9.0 Appeals - Regarding appeals of environmental determinations, the PRC is requesting "Full disclosure of changes shall be given to all interested parties, with provision for notice and review." Recommendation: Additional language to clarify that interested parties will receive notice of appeal is recommended to be added to Section -9.9.0 as follows: - 10. 12.1.0 Notice of Preparation - The PRC requests that " (fl Other interested parties who have en prior request " be added to the', circulation list for Notice of Preparations. Recommendation: Clarify the procedures for interested parties to receive a Notice of Preparation and limit the City's administrative costs. Staff recommends the changes in Section 12. 1.0 Paragraph b and addition. of Paragraph f. (b) other local, federal and State agencies, individua& -o -o. ganization&.+vhich may have an interest or special expertise with respect to the project (e.g. City Departments, Caltranr, - etc.). KA 11. 12.3.0 Administrative Draft EIR -_ The PRC is stating an objection to a "City policy" which is not included in the, updated Guidelines. The PRC objects to a project sponsor's review of an administrative draft � EIR because in their opinion, the sponsor may; request revisions and interested parties should have the same opportunity to "shape" the document. 21 410 Recommendation: Add clarification to Section 12.3.0 Administrative Draft EIR as follows: 'The Director may refer the administrative draft EIR to the project sponsor to review matters of fact relating to the project description, prior to approving the draft EIR for circulation and review. Staff may also refer sections of the administrative draft EIR to responsible agencies to comment on matters relating to their permitting authority. The purpose of this administrative review is to ensure that the project and responsible agency policies crud authorities are accurately represented and adequately addressed prior to circulating the document for public review. " 12. 12.6.0 Circulation. _and Review of Draft EIR - The PRC is requesting "that interested parties be included in the circulation list'for a draft EIR. Recommendation: No chap &es to the Guidelines in response to this comment are recommended. Provisions in the Guidelines require staff to provide notice of availability to interested' patties .and copies of environmental documents can be obtained at the Planning Department or ublic Library. 13. 12.7.1 Public Hearings - The PRC is requesting that public hearings be required on all EIR documents. Recommendation: Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission and City Council on whether a hearing should be required on a, draft EIR and written into the local. Guidelines or whether more flexibility in local procedures is preferred. Two alternatives are provided below: s- opto�r�e��4 'I=- RE��E�a- h�r�b�cla�}fies -that- tal Fev�er��1 "- 1•ie.- ��E�ii =f E}F=�i�C- 13�19�i- �$�- �22$F }Hg-f �L }�F��4F- ��22- �3FE}�CE� EbaH&g -th, &-grew ss- 4Seetiofl&472: -7:I- 7.-f oIle;A s: Set ion -1 :7:� bl ear gs Page �3 begin4iingline- 35- (propesed -elanges shewH- in-doderlirtL-,&P A- oveFstF I �:7. - -�- dab &e- �Iearirtgs:- ��bl- ie:�er�r�g� are- not- required�����Q��r loc- al - - - - -- I# a �tbl {e- �egis- �el��t- t�ie� f a)- the -hea- intsheu,W-be'-seheduled EAR � ©- p�o�ide- �lte =dec- lion -rH numdaW- J9UWi6 --r�ifWati projed- :skitlied- 4n- -the -�F,I1 se-hedbded- se&siorF -90- -L e hesrirtg- orr €he - �� eft{,ied in aeeordanee- wi M OR EIS =- gody�- eorrjurx- tic�r�- with- othes - - - -- '=i�c-e-errvtrorrrw�ental-re�r��s W64ng4he fi2 9-19 --- following provisicents :shall- apply: - -- :nrsllic_rmsiaw •• fcvatlio_driaft_ -- wedures- for --a-p ie-4ieaFkg.for= -tire- 4ype- � - - - -- - be --c-a4ed -out b the- DiFecior-prior- .to- lhe - - - - -- blie- heaFing- be- -�i$V4� i3 -`$�fI �I� A .. 22 I 1 Plnaiag-- E ©ss ©�r- -and�o - 4-= �o�ri�'�- eFenc� - -z� -- €all ©wing 2 ehaage&f language- is -r- ec-o ie-fl dl d: 3 4 Section 12.7.1 Public Hearings, page 23, beginning line 35 (changes shown in 5 underline and overstrike) 6 7 12.7.1 Public Hearings P- ublic-- hearkgs�ase- net- regv4tred -undeF -E¢&4-.or- keel - -- 8 Guide & nes - 49weveF -a An opportunity for public hearing on the draft EIR may 9 shall be conducted provided by the (Planning Commission and / decision 10 making body) in conjunction with other proceedings related to the project, prior 11 to preparing the final EIR 12 (D If apublie- hearing -is- held -em-the pr-ojee-t; -The following provisions shall apply: CO (a) the hearing should' be scheduled to provide the decision- making body and ( public with adequate time to review the draft EIR and4he• e&r ents -reeei ed,• and (b) all applicable City- mandated public notification procedures for a public hearing for the type of project studied in the EIR shall be carried out by the Director prior to the scheduled session • and, (c all relevant comments received during the public review period on environmental issues shall be addressed in the Final EIR certified in accordance with Section 13.3.0, prior to taking action on 21 the project 22 23 14. 13.3.0 Certification of EIR: - The PRC is requesting two things: (1) a public hearing. 24 prior to certification; and, (2) circulation of the Final EIR to interested parties at 25 least 10 days prior to certification. 26 27 Recommendation: No change is recommended in response to PRO's suggestion. 28 Staff recommends additional language regarding ten -day response to responsible 29 agencies for clarification: 30 31 'At least 10 -days prior to cerli ping a Final EIR the Director shall provide to public 32 agencies a proposed response on comments made b that hat ageng. " 33 34 15. 13.4.0 Disposition of Final EIR - The. PRC is; requesting that the City "require the 35 applicant to provide a certified Final EIR to- interested parties with prior request." 36 The Final EIR is maintained on file at the Planning Department available for public 37 review. Interested parties may obtain a loan copy or have copies made at their 38 expense. 39 40 Recommendation: No changes to the Guidelines in response to this comment are 41 recommended. 42 43 16. 15.1.1 Use of Data Prepared by the Project Sponsor - The PRC requests provision 44 for "independent review and. analysis, including possible peer review" be added to 45 this section. 46 47 Recommendation: Change Section 15.1.1 to clarify that all data submitted by any 48 person, including the applicant, must be considered, subject to the agency's own 49 review and analysis. The following changes in language is recommended: 50 51 "15.1.1 Use of Data Prepared -by Another Person, including the Project Sponsor 52 53 'At- tie- di-gefetien- ef- the-D eetor -Data or studies prepared by another person. including 54 the project sponsor, may be considered in preparation of an Initial Study or an EI& 411 23 412 subject to review and analysis by the City. The City shall be responsible for the adequacy and' objectivity of environmental documents At - the discretion of the Director independent review by qualified persons of such data or studies submitted by others max be required Environmental documents' released for public review shall reflect the independent iud ent of the City. APPENDIX B - LIST OF EXEMPTIONS 17, I. General Rule /Growth Management goals The PRC is requesting deletion of "setting growth management goals" as an exempt action. Recommendation: Change Appendix B under Section I to clarify as follows: 1. 8 Adopting annual residential development objectives establishing criteria for making allocations under the residential g rowth management go& s mtem. 18. I_I. Not a Project \Payback agreements - The PRC is suggesting that payback - agreements should not be exempt. Recommendation: No changes in response to this item are recommended. 19. Ministerial Actions /Operating ' Agreements - 'The PRC is requesting that aircraft operating agreements be deleted as an exemption under the statutory provisions. Recommendation: No changes to the Guidelines are recommended in response to this comment. ` - 20. A. Existing Facilities - The PRC is requesting that_ we add a definition of the term "minor" in regards to the reference of "minor alterations to existing - facilities" classification. Recommendation: Add the .following language to ensure the users of the City's Guidelines will refer to the criteria in the State Guidelines before making determinations: " Refer to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for criteria and examples under this classification. 21. B. Replacement or Reconstruction The PRC requests that any expansion of utility districts not be exempt. . The Guidelines actually refers only to formation: of - underground utility districts Within existing service areas. Recommendation: Clarify to be consistent State Guidelines as follows: "Formation of underground utility districts riot involving s*hr 7ean�- negli3Oible or no expansion of service area'. 22. G. Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources /Pre- treatment Requirements - The- PRC is requesting that adoption of pre- treatment requirements be deleted as an exemption suggesting that downstream impacts should be evaluated. Recommendation: Clarify as follows: 24 413 1 2 1 1. Adoption or amendment of pre - treatment requirements for discharge into the 3 sewer system, involving no relaxation of standards 4 5 23. J. Accessory Structures /On- Premise Signs - The PRC is requesting that 6 exemptions not apply to signs within a PCD or PUD to "help ensure 7 compliance with General Plan". 8 9 'Recommendation: No changes to the Guidelines in response to this comment are 10 recommended. C VI. .CITY OF PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS REGARDING CARDROOM OPERATIONS ;Consideration of draft language for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance establishing new regulations regarding cardroom operations. 19 DISCUSSION: 20 21 Jim McCann presented the staff report. 22 Commissioner Torliatt - Are Conditional Use'Permts required for cardrooms? (Answer, 23 yes.) 24 Planning Director Tuft - Flours of operation can be- regulated by Use Permit process. 1 25 Co mmissioner Benne - What is rationale for distance requirement? 26 Police Chief DeWitt - Spoke to police chiefs in other jurisdictions; Palo Alto will not be 27 allowing cardrooms after June-'other businesses are attracted to general areas where 28 cardrooms are located (other businesses include massage parlor, bars, adult entertainment, 29 etc.); cardroom owners feel there are about 150 people in Petaluma who patronize 30 cardrooms - most problems occur with others who come to the cardrooms from outside the 31 area. 32 Commissioner Read - Do operators understand that if the Non- Smoking Ordinance goes 33 into effect they would have to comply? 34 Planning Director Tuft - This is a Preliminary Draft Ordinance - public hearing on the 35 Draft Ordinance will be held on April 13. 36 Iry Piotrowski - (representing Tom and Patty Gaier)' - have obtained a Use.Permit for 12 37 cardroom tables at Sonoma Joes; many games involve more than 8 players; prohibition of 38 money - lending needs to be clarified; common practice to have house players paid to play 39 (they must be clearly identified per State ; regulations); in general, very good Ordinance; can 40 work with Police Chief and staff on minor matters. 41 Mike Burgess - Concerned citizen -' totally against proposed 1,200 ft. separation 42 requirement; if there can only be 4 cardrooms, then why would there be distance 43 requirements; Ferrari's Restaurant would be, discriminated against; the State does not have 44 restrictions on distance, either do the cities contacted 'by Planning staff. 45 Carol Ferrari - owner of Ferrari's Restaurant - restrictions on distance is unfair to Ferrari's 46 since Sonoma Joe's already has Use Permit. 47 John Burgess - Manager of Ferrari's - Distance restrictions unfair. 48 Patrick Coil - (Attorney representing Cathy Sonheim who has a pending lease agreement 9 with Ferrari's); distance limitation is discriminatory; distance restrictions are arbitrary and _0 unfair. Commissioner Bennett - (to interested applicants) please present (at the April 13 Public 2 1 Hearing) Ordinances from other jurisdictions which do not contain distance restrictions. 53 Commissioner Torliatt - (to Jim McCann) - Which cities did you talk to? (Answer - 54 Received Ordinances from Napa, San Bruno, Santa Rosa, Benicia, Palo Alto, etc.). 25 an 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 )6 .a: 7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Commissioners Bennett and Parkerson - What type of direction are you looking for? I think staff is on the right track. Commissioner Tarr - Bring information from cities who do not allow cardrooms. DISCUSSION CONTINUED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13. VII. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW. Discussion of special meetings to conduct fifth -year review of General Plan. Prop6sed Tentative Schedule Tuesday Evening, May 18th LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Also includes: Growth Management Housing Economy Thursday Evening, Tune 17th PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Also includes: Police and Fire Services Tra. asportatlon ` .. Conservation and Energy Saturday Morning, July 17th RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Also includes: Parks River Plan Schools Child Care DISCUSSION: The proposed schedule looks good -. Kurt Yeiter will finalize the Saturday meeting (either July 17 or July 24). The Public Survey forms will be sent in the next Parks and Recreation brochure mailed to residents. I a F. a9D1a ] 6 1410 1. SPARC - No report.. 2. Tree Committee - Committee progress to. date has been discussed with Parks and Recreation Director-. 3. River Enhancement Committee -, Preliminary assessment of entire river complete; will meet in late April for synopsis /update /economics. 26 415 2 3 PROJECT STATUS: 4 5 1. Delta Battery - This business has closed their Petaluma Blvd. location. 6 7 8 ADJOURNMENT: 11:12 PM. 9 10 min323 perhin-8 C C Y ) z I 27