Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/23/19913 r 9 �-3 co M O 0 Q I REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1991 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 :00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bennett, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr *, Thompson, Woolsey Absent: Libarle STAFF: Warren Salmons, Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Teryl Phillips, Assistant Planner * Chairman MINUTES' OF APRIL 9, 1991 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: (15 minutes maximum). No speakers. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Staff requests continuance to May 14 of Item #4 (Griffith); Invitation to Open House for 1500 Petaluma Blvd. (Petaluma Human Services Center) was distributed. COMMISS °IONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson requested an update on tree preservation work; Commissioner Bennett notified Commission that he will be abstaining from Sunnyslope discussions (Item #5) per recommendation of City Attorney's Office. CORRESPONDENCE: Items relating to this agenda were distributed including two letters regarding , Buffalo Billiards; a memo regarding Griffith continuation request; letter regarding Sierra Fence project. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 1 394 NOTE: Addition = italics . Deletion = s4r44eever OLD BUSINESS I. SIERRA FENCE COMPANY, 1075 L.kK_EVILLE STREET,- AP NO. 005 - 020 -27, FILE NO. CUP- 91006akt). 1. Continued consideration of EIQ. 2. Continued consideration of conditional use permit to allow the operation of a fence and lumber company. (This public hearing was closed at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1991.) The applicant, Fred Yokley asked for clarification regarding the City Engineer's memo discussing Lakeville Highway Improvements distributed prior to tonight's meeting - will the City accept a bond? A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to direct staff to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Yes COMMISSIONER.PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN 'PAR. R: Yes COMMISSIONER. LIBARLE Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings 1. The project, as .conditionally approved, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of .a :fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short - term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. 3. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5. Potential adverse impacts will be mitigated as relates to traffic circulation, vehicular access, air quality (dust). FJ 395 6. No� other significant environmental or land use impacts have been identified for this project. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded. by Commissioner Rahman to approve a use permit based on the findings and subject to the following amended conditions: COMMISSIONER WOOISEY. " Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes CO COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 0 Findings V 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the <C requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 2. This project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental. to the public welfare of the community due to the mitigation measures incorporated in the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. This project shall be subject to review and approval by SPARC within 45 days of Use Permit approval, with emphasis placed on: a. Design of parking, circulation and access. b. Landscaping, including screening from freeway and the adjacent business. C. Signs, fencing. d. Trash enclosure, refuse disposal. 2. No�'retail shall be permitted, operations to be limited to wholesale only, Monday through Saturday. In the event an alternate access to this site is developed, retail may be considered by the Planning Commission through a CUP amendment. 3. Applicant to post a $3,000 bond with the City within 7 days of Use Permit approval to ensure timely completion of site improvements. Site improvements (parking area, landscaping, fencing, trash enclosure) to be installed within 120 days of SPARC approval. 4. A total of 22 spaces shall be provided within 120 days of SPARC approval. All parking areas shall be improved with a dustless surface, and shall be located in the front half of the parcel. In the event that retail is proposed in the future, additional parking in conformance with the applicable zoning requirements shall be provided, subject to administrative SPARC subsequent to the obtaining of a CUP amendment. 5. All storage of materials to be located as per the approved site plan, with the lumber stacks limited to 15 ft. in height at the rear of the parcel, 6' high in the staging area, and 4' hi h at the entrance. There shall be no storage of materials in the employee7visitors parking area. 3 396 6. There shall be no parking of vehicles, storage of materials, or display of signs on the access road (located outside the fenced areas) presently utilized 'by both Sierra Fence and U -Haul. 7. This project shall be responsible for the payment of Storm Drainage ,Impact fees for any additional run -off created by this project, including the surfacing of the access road. 8. The. conversion ,of the storage building to office space requires obtaining a City of Petaluma building permit. 9. Construction activities shall comply with applicable zoning ordinance and municipal code .performance standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.) 10. The use of a trailer as an office shall, be permitted only while the building on site is being converted .(this conversion shall be completed within .120 days of SPARC approval) applicant to apply for a zoning permit for the trailer before building permit may be issued. In the event the applicants do not .convert the building on site, trailer must be made permanent, i.e. foundation etc. to Building, Division requirements within 120 days of SPARC approval, or removed immediately. 11. Any outdoor advertising signs , shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development. Department prior to installation. All signs; must conform to the Zoning Ordinance and be compatible with the buildings and surroundings. 12. This Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due .to complaints regarding potentially detrimental o 'perating characteristics. At such time the Commission may repeal the use permit or addmodify conditions of approval. 13. All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be complied with, including: a. Lakeville - Highway shall require frontage dedication improvements in conformance with the Lakeville Planline. This development shall contribute this construction cost rather than construct the actual improvements. This contribution shall be earmarked for overall widening, of ,Lakeville Highway. The project shall execute an appropriate agreement within 60 days of approval o f the Use Per g Permit to insure that monies p es are available when needed by the City. ' The.En neerin Department has determined the contribution to be $23,800. b. The Cary is presently considering -the extension of Payran Street southerly of Caulfield Lane. This action will permit controlled access to the triangular land area bound by US 101, Lakeville and Caulfield. The extension _will provide a. logical access for future developments of these lands. The consolidation of traffic at a primary, access together with signalization of Payran /Caulfield will improve area traffic control 'When a roadway extension has been completed, which allows direct access_ to AP No: 005 - 020 -27, the existing, driveway on lakeville Highway serving this property shall be closed and all access provided via Payran Street extension. 14. All requirement of the Traffic Engineer shall be complied with, including: A. Ingress and egress to be limited to right turn in and right turn out only. 4 397 b. All vehicular movement (i.e. loading and unloading. of trucks) to be accomplished on site. On -site circulation to be such that trucks can adequately maneuver; trucks shall not be permitted to back out onto Lakeville Street. Applicant encouraged. not t& receive deliveries during peak traffic hours, such as 7 A.M. to 9 A.M., and 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. 15. All. requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with, including: a. This project shall meet the requirements of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, Article 30: 1. Fire Department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all Co portions of the yard in accordance with Section 10.107 of the 1988 M edition of the Uniform Fire Code. 0 b. Lumber shall be piled with due regard to stability of piles and in no case higher than 20 feet.. Where lumber is piled next to a property line on which a () building has been erected, the distance from the pile to property line shall be Q no less than one half the height of the pile and in no case less than 5 feet. C. Driveways in and around lumber piles shall be at least 15 feet wide and maintained free from accumulation of rubbish, equipment or other articles or materials. Driveways shall be so spaced that a maximum grid system unit of 50 feet by 150 feet is produced. d. Provide "No Smoking" signs throughout. e. Site shall be kept clear of weeds and debris at all times. f. Proper housekeeping shall be maintained at all times. Sawdust chips and shorts shall be removed regularly. g. Provide fire extinguishers 2 A rated A B C dry chemical type as required by the Fire Marshal. h. Flammable liquid storage over 10 gallons shall meet the requirements of Article 79 -201.G of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. NEW'BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS II. JEFF LUENENBERG, 29 HUNTINGTON, AP NO.007- 222- 090kt /ws). 1. Consideration of appeal of administrative determination that an addition may not project into a rear yard setback. The public: hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jeff Luenenbere - Applicant - described history of project; requested variance. Commissioner Parkerson - requested a reading of four findings needed to grant a variance. 5 398 Director Salmons - read findings from Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Parkerson - Unable to make findings for variance. Commissioner Thompson - Would be willing to look at a variance request. Commissioner Parkerson - Appeal should be denied. The public hearing was closed A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to deny the appeal. COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: No COMMISSIONER:PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: No COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes It was determined by the Commission that this tie vote upheld the applicant's appeal, therefore allowing building permits to be issued to legalize additions which were built without building permits. I11. BUFFALO BILLIARDS, 1384 N. McDOWELL BLVD., PART OF AP NO. '137 -011 12, FILE NO. CUP- 91008(tp). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of conditional use permit to allow a billiard parlor within an existing retail center. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Police Set. Brian Perkins - Regarding private room - hours of operation (until 2AM) and policing are Police Departments concerns'. Robert B, rune_ - 18 10th Street - applicant (with 4 other owners)' author of many billiard /pool books; no gambling will be allowed; will be family atmosphere; VIP room will have large windows; only beer will be served; minors must be accompanied' by a parent; computer controlled billiard tables "bouncer" will not be necessay - not - the type of operation. where one would he required. Commissioner Woolsey One driveway should be eliminated. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Coninissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to direct staff to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Yes COMMISSIONER P..ARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETI7: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 6 399 CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings: 1. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the - environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop. below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short - 0 term to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. (� 3. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will, cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Woolsey and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to grant a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the following amended conditions: COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings 1. The proposed billiard parlor, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed billiard parlor, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed billiard parlor as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions 1. Plans for on -site circulation, parking and access from McDowell Blvd. shall be modified pfief -tom -SPAR -C- review- of.'tbe-- project -te and returned for final approval by the Planning Commission within 60 days of use permit approval. The revised plans 7 G0 shall conform with the following recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer (pursuant to traffic impact analysis conducted for Redwood Plaza Center): a. One access driveway along McDowell Blvd. shall be eliminated. b. Parking layout shall ,be. upgraded Fedesigne4- 4o-- -pF©vide---p $lvd: Parking lot upgrade plan to return to Commission for approval after plan is, prepared by City Traffic Engineer, property owner and proponent. This .approval is to occur within 60 days of issuance of this Use Permit. 2. This project, shall be subject to Administrative SPARC review with. special emphasis upon the following: a. Exterior modifications to the building shall be designed to reflect compatibility, of materials, color and detailing of the existing cons "truction., b. Landscaping shall be installed to staff satisfaction, along the f .ont face of the building to provide enhanced visual interest to the building and separation of pedestrian walks from the parking C. Landscaping along the McDowell Blvd. frontage and within the parking area serving- this use shall be upgraded or renovated to ensure adequate screening from view of the public street. 3. Plans submitted at time of building permit application shall be subject to review and approval by Police Department staff to address concerns relative. to restriction of access by minors, and monitoring of activity within the proposed V.LP. Room by the business management. 4. The following recommendations of the Chief Building Official shall be met prior to issuance of building permits: a. Must conform to group occupancy "A" as' in UBC Ch. 6. b. Need detailed and dimensioned plans submitted at time of building permit application. 5. The following, recommendations of the Fire Marshal shall be met prior to issuance of building permits: a. Provide fire extinguishers 2 A rated A B C dry chemical type as required by the Fire Marshal. b. Extend sprinkler system to protect all areas of tenant space alterations. C. Permit required from Fire: Marshal's office for sprinkler system alteration prior to work being started. Two sets of plans are required. d. Post address at or near main entry door -minimum two inch =letters. e. Provide signs over exit doors stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours ". Letters shall not be less than one inch high. £ Provide occupancy load sign (Occupancy 115). g. All compressed gas cylinders in service or in storage shall be adequately secured..to prevent falling or being knocked over (Section 74.107a, 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code). h. No extension cords. All equipment and appliances shall be direct plug in. i. Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans. j. Provide KNOX box for key control located on building as required by the Fire Marshal. k. Provide exit lights over or near all required exits. 1. Provide emergency lighting in all public areas and at or near all required exits. m. All emergency lighting, exit lights shall have two separate sources of power as required in the Building Code. n. Exiting: exit ways, exit doors shall conform to the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. o. Provide panic hardware on all required exit doors. 6. All , existing illegal and non- conforming signs shall be removed from the shopping center site and the public right -of -way prior to issuance of building permits for this use. In addition, a sign permit shall be obtained from Community Development Co Department prior to erection of any sign serving the business. M 7. This project shall be subject to imposition of all applicable development fees O including Traffic Mitigation, if deemed applicable. U 8. Should substantive complaints be received regarding the operation of the use, or a < substantial number of service calls required (as determined by Police Department staff), this use permit shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for modification of conditions of approval. 9. 2 " closing time is to be brought back to Commission for possible amendment if Police Department determines that police calls are to numerous. ® IV. GRIFFITH, 1457 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, AP NO. 048 - 134-06, FILE NO.'s REZ- 91002, VAR- 91002, TSM- 91002(pt). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of prezoning to R -1, 20,000. 3. Consideration of variance (pre- existing setbacks). 4. Consideration of pre - tentative map (four lots). 5. Consideration of proposed annexation. This item was opened and continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1991. V. CITY OF PETALUMA /SONOMA COUNTY, SUNNY SLOPE AREA PREZONING, FILE NO. REZ- 91004(ws). 1. Consideration of prezoning of the Sunny Slope area to R -1 6,500 and Planned Unit Development (PUD). (Commissioner Bennett abstained from this item.) The Public Hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Director Salmons - Described previous actions in area. Judith Lacey - 1309 D Street does not want to annex to City; already has water and sewer; does not want more traffic in the area. E 462 Bonnie Bard - 126 Sunnyhill Planning by assessment district is not right, - neighbors need to have some say in development; there has not been enough input so far; becoming too urbanized for topography. Jerry Coles - Woodfield Properties - Would like annexation to occur (properties he represents have a development potential of 14 units). Don O'Brian - 327 Sunnyslope Avenue - Areas 1 and 2 should be allowed in Assessment District to help defer some costs. Mr. Cordon 614 Sunnyslope Avenue - Would like to see annexation;. would like better police and fire protection. Susan Pushka - 10 Morningsun Drive - property is approx. 1.87 acres - potential . development limited to one existing unit - would like to be able to have potential for at least one, more unit at a later date; would like to be annexed to allow greater development potential: Commissioner Parkerson Questions regarding Sunnyslope Road improvements, sidewalk and bike lane design. Commissioner Tarr - Will there be.signalization at El. Rose and Sunnyslope? Commissioner Tarr to Mr. Wagstaff (City -hired EIR consultant) - What are safe speed limits, on Sunnyslope? When FEIR wwas done were benefits to the City discussed? Mr.. Wagstaff - ' Benefits to City were not discussed,. Director Salmons - Lower density residential. areas generally do not support the services they require. The Public Hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council the following: COMMISSIONER WOO LSEY: No one parcel one vote should have .applied. y. COMMISSIONER. PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Abstain COMMISSIONER RRAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER'LIBARLE: Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON Yes 1) Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed to address the effects of Prezoning and Annexation in compliance with CEQA and that the information contained therein has been reviewed and considered by the Commission prior to project approval. 2) Based orr the information contained in the FEIR, find. that significant adverse effects. may result from the project._ And, further that in accordance with Section 15091 of the State of California' Environmental Quality Act Guidelines certain mitigation measures which will be implemented to the degree feasible, will reduce the potential significant effects to acceptable levels. The adverse effects and mitigation measures are identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. 3) Find that the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant effects of the project that are unavoidable. They areas follows: a. Land Use and Open Space: Significant alteration of. rural character due to the replacement of approximately 90 acres of open space and potentially reproductive agricultural land with urban uses., 10 403 b. Population Housing: Significant increase in the population and housing growth, including development of approximately 130 new housing units in addition to incorporation of existing housing units into the City Limits. C. Transportation: Project related traffic increases would contribute to cumulative traffic increase and related operational and neighborhood quality impacts in southwest Petaluma. d. Visual: Views of rural undeveloped areas and the rural character of South D Street and Sunnyslope Road would be replaced by suburban type development. e. Municipal Service: There would be an increase for all municipal services, including water, sewer, police and fire protection, schools, community park facilities, solid waste disposal, and maintenance. M f. Noise: Construction and project related increases in traffic will O increase noise. g. Air Quality: Project generated traffic would contribute to significant U cumulative local and regional increases in the levels of air pollutants. 4) Find that overriding public interest warrant the approval of the project, though there are unavoidable adverse effects. In accordance with Section 15093 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the reasons for this decision are: 1) That the project will allow for the development of additional housin sites; 2) The ; project will improve the project area infrastructure; and 3� The 'rolect will make it possible for residents to receive a.higher level of municipal services. 5) Recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Prezoning for the Sunnyslope Avenue /Sunnyslope Road area in conformance with the recommendations in this report and the exhibit attached to this. staff report. The optional annexation area - #3 identified-in the Final EIR (the 7 parcels on D Street) will only be prezoned and annexed if the property owners petition for the annexation and pay appropriate City Annexation Fees. PLANNING MATTERS VI. CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION, 951 PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH, AP NO. 008-530-02 akt). 1. Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding review process for expansion of existing facilities. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Parkerson - agreed with staff. It is suggested that the applicants do the following: An expansion proposal could best be reviewed under the Conditional Use Permit process. This wouldi allow the whole of the property to be reviewed, and all uses taken into consideration at that time. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 PM min0423 /pcmin4 11 HE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL MAY 14, 1991. 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA,. CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle, Parkerson,.Rahman, Tarr *, Thompson ABSENT: Woolsey STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner * Chairman MINUTE'S OF APRIL 23, 1991 were approved as submitted. CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS FROM MARCH 12, 1991 MEETING for Conditional Use Permit for Convenience Market at 905 E. Washington (Kalam) in Petaluma Town Plaza, was approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Commissioner Bennett would like staff to respond to letter received by Commissioners regarding 902 -1/2 F Street. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 1 405 OLD: BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING I. GRIFFITH, 1457 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, AP NO. 048 - 134 -06, FILE NO.'s REZ91002, VAR91002, TSM91002(pt). 1. Continued consideration of EIQ. 2. Continued consideration of prezoning to R -1, 20,000. 3. Continued consideration of variance (pre- existing setbacks). 4. Continued consideration of pre - tentative map (four lots). 5. Continued consideration of proposed annexation. Public hearing continued from April 23, 1991. SPEAKERS: O Don Griffith 1457 Magnolia, owner - deferred comments to Greg Hurd. Greg Hurd Carlenzoli and Associates, 365 Tesconi Circle, Santa Rosa - wants to create C) hammerhead; recognizes lot needs improvements to City standards; not prepared at this Q time to acquire right -of -way; would be willing to bond for street frontage improvements; will agree to participate in an assessment district; client is prepared to extend water lines; sewer stub , extends to property line now; would like to proceed with project. DISCUSSION Commissioner Libarle - what is next step; possible timelines? Pamela Tuft - development of area; it. is worth an effort to -try, corresponding with property owners in the area and masterplan possible future development. Commissioner Parkerson - given the probability of. more development in future, feels it is worth considering masterplanning for improvements and long- range impacts on the area. Commissioner Bennett would like to see a regulator so project doesn't get tied up and forgotten. Pamela Tuft - normal first step for masterplanning would be to speak with Engineering and Community Development staff, to encourage a neighborhood meeting with interested property owners. Staff would then advise Commission of status update when informed of progress by'neighborhood group. Public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to deny the proposed rezoning, variance, pretentative map and annexation project at 1457 Magnolia Avenue, without prejudice, based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings 1. That coordination is needed among a number of property owners in the vicinity of . the project site to assure compliance with the Petaluma General Plan Objectives to "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of Petaluma and its surroundings" and "Plan long -range for needed roads and infrastructure ". 2 2. That the public necessity, convenience and general welfare allow for the denial, 406 without prejudice, of the proposed project at this time. 3. That the proposed project does not meet the annexation policies for developed residential areas as adopted by Resolution 8955. PLEASE NOTE: A denial without prejudice will allow the map to be reconsidered within the next year, when coordination and some degree of master planning of street and utility improvements is achieved between property owners in the neighborhood and the City. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner ,Parkerson that direction be given to staff to address encouraging masterplanning of the area by interested property owners in conjunction with public improvement needs, to be identified by staff, with update to be brought to the Comnusson within six months. COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COM'MISSIONER BENNETP: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON- Yes NEWBUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS II. CADER LANE, INDUSTRIAL PARK, CADER LANE AT SOUTH McDOWELL BOULEVARD, AP NO., 005-04041 AND 42, FILE. NO. TSM91003(hg). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2: Consideration of Tentative Map for an eight lot. Light Industrial (M -L) Subdivision of the 2034± acres situated between Oakmead Industrial Park to the east and Lakeville Business Park to the west. Public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Marty Goldsborough applicant's representative DISCUSSION Commissioner Tarr - question of groundwater contamination problems at 'Sola Optical - will it affect.this development? Marty Goldsboroug_h, m have had toxic tests with clean bill of health;, agrees with Engineering on Tentative Map. Pamela Tuft - staff will follow up on concern. Commissioner Thompson --asked if applicant could give letter of toxic test results and a copy of PG&E letter (regarding easement) to staff. (Applicant's representative: stated he would supply staff with copy of report). The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact based on the following findings: 3 COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings 1. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the. range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples CD of`ihe major periods of California history or prehistory. (J) 2. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short - 0 term to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. (, 3. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map, for the proposed eight -lot Cader industrial park based on the findings and subjecvto the following conditions: v COMMISSIONER WOOLSEY: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings 1. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The,site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 3. Th&parcel map provides reasonable public access on a public road to the proposed lots. 4. The' proposed map, subject to the following conditions, complies with the requirements of the Municipal Code, Chapter 20.20 and the Subdivision Map Act. 5. The . design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause public health problems. 4 407 4 ------- rZ y-At-jZ_ rot exempt- €FOni-- the - -Fec1 �Fe eF}t�- �f - -tl� psQz4�-�r�a F}t tfl- EEE�A�ee�lo� ��34 -�: Conditions 1. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met prior to issuance of development permits: a. The proposed fire hydrant at the south end of the property line for Lots 3 and 4 should be moved east to a point outside the 30' PG &E easement. b. The 8" fire service line proposed for Lot 1 should be redrafted to clearly indicate where it ties to the water main to ocated within the Cader Lane right of -way. 2. The following requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met prior to issuance of development permits: a. South McDowell structural street section shall be designed with a traffic index of 8. The typical street section widths shown on the tentative map for South McDowell Blvd. and Cader Lane are acceptable with the exception that any pavement raveling from the existing roadway shall be reconstructed with the proposed widening. b. The proposed storm .drain system shall be in conformance with City Standards and Sonoma County Water Agency's Master Drainage Plan. C. All utilities located within the existing PG &E gas line easements shall be field verified .(horizontally and vertically) every 100 feet. by the utility company prior to any construction in the area. d. A storm drainage system shall be installed in South McDowell. Boulevard to pick up all street runoff and directed toward the existing drainage ditch through a. single outlet pipe. This system shall require approval form the City's Engineering Department and Sonoma County Water Agency. e. The storm drainage pipe and easement along with the 16" HP gas: main and easement shall be contained within one lot rather than located on two lots. L All rear lot drainage control must be within an underground pipe system with surface catchment swales and inlets. g. The proposed drainage ditch shall not be located over or within the existing sanitary- sewer easement. h. All easements and. widths shall be clearly indicated. i. There is an existing right-of-way -agreement between PG &E and Sola Optical which is 120' wide and located along the easterly boundary of the Sola property. The applicant of this development shall verify this agreement does not extend southeasterly through proposed Lots 4 and 5. j. Prior to issuance of any building permits, lot pad elevation shall be certified by a registered civil engineer. k. All grading and erosion control measures shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Ordinance 1576 N.C.S. 5 Lrr' wa 1. This development shall be required to „contribute to the City's Major Traffic Facilities fee. The amount bf contribution shall be $1,291 for non-- residential 409 development per 1,000 square feet as calculated in the City's Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance 1837. m. A curb anchor or moisture barrier shall be installed adjacent to, the proposed curb in - Cader Lane and South McDowell. Design shall be in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer for this project. n. PG &E should be contacted regarding any special conditions they may have _. with respect to construction within their easement on Lots 3, 4 and 5. o. ” Signing and striping shall conform to the City of Petaluma Standards. p. Street lights within this subdivision shall have standard metal fixtures W designed to ity Standards and dedicated (including the underground t M conduit) to for ownership and maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating Q system. C U q. The developer. shall comply with the Petaluma Municipal Code Section 20.36.010 and 20.36.020 which requires the developer to pay storm drainage impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of the City of Petaluma. 3. This project (Lots 1 - 8) shall be incorporated into participation for the Lakeville Highway Improvement Benefit District pursuant to Chapter 13.34 of the Petaluma Municipal Code in order to provide needed future improvements to Lakeville Highway. 4. During the course of development, if archaeological. materials are found, all work in the vicinity of the find(s) shall be stopped and a�qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the materials and make recommendations for mitigation as deemed necessary. 5. The' boundary line dividing Lots 3 and 4 shall be reconfigured to include that portion of PG &E's 30 foot gas main easement which crosses the parcel in only one of the two lots, subject to staff review and approval. 6. For the 10 foot storm drainage easements proposed along the boundaries of Lots 5 and'7, a minimum setback of 6 feet from the property line to the center of the drairi line shall be maintained. Note: per Engineering condition (d), the storm drainage easement within Lot 6 shall be eliminated. 7. All, overhead utilities fronting on or traversing the site shall be converted to underground. 8. All :structures, remaining foundations, equipment and other materials presently found on the site shall be removed prior to approval of the final map. 9. A master landscape plan shall be submitted to SPARC for review and approval prior to final map approval. Said plan shall incorporate a sidewalk, berming and specific tree species and other plantings within the front setback area, similar to Oakmead - Northbay and Lakeville Industrial Parks. Note: staff encourages a transition within this landscape plan to more drought tolerant plant species and water saving irrigation systems. 10. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the owners /developers shall work with staff to develop overall design guidelines for Cader Lane Industrial Park, subject to SPARC review and approval. Such criteria shall include, but not be limited to, land uses, 6 landscaping, architectural standards, exterior building materials, screening and fencing, walkways (in a meandering /linear design which ties to the abutting improvements), parking and loading areas and sign programs. 11. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions drafted' for the industrial park, if any, shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney prior to Final Map approval. 12. The tentative map shall be revised so. as to reflect the changes which 'have resulted from the conditions of approval and the change in subdivided area (Condition 6). A fully revised tentative ,map shall be submitted to the Community Development: Department within 60 days of City Council approval. III. COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES,, PHASE 3, 1GMeNEAR AVENUE, AP NO.'s 008 - 472 -04 AND A PORTION OF 008- 472 -06, FILE NO. 11.879(pt). 1. Commencement of consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report for proposed rezoning of project site from R -1, 6500 to P.U.D. and tentative map for creation of 65 single- family dwelling lots. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Libarle - was everyone notified? Pamela Tuft - yes;. also, all letters received to date were in the Commissioner's packets. Commissioner Bennett - can people still submit letters to staff to be considered in the analysis? Pamela Tuft yes, it is anticipated that, staff recommendations will be presented to the Commission for , the June 25th meeting. Commissioner'Tarr had drainage concerns for Canyon. Drive - same as for Ria Lindo? John Wagstaff Wagstaff & Associates - prepared draft EIR; gave brief synopsis of EIR findings, including road preparation, grading, woodland, traffic impacts, soil conditions, slide repair and slope stabilization, erosion control and drainage, visual impacts, and runoff. A.J. (Jack) Weddle 1319 Canyon Drive - not against development; is a. retired licensed forester with previous Planning Commission experience in Ukiah; has had some soils drainage training; feels, soils in area are unstable; concerned with cost to :homeowners to repair damage caused by soil movement; EIR well done;, concerned with visual impacts, construction.noise; objects to not being able to raise new issues (referring to hearing notice); wants to keep open door on approach. Wayne Wilson 9 Canyon Court - finished construction of home one year ago; had to hire an arborist to ensure protection of five oaks on property; elected to keep all the oaks and reposition house feels same criteria should be applied to this development. to preserve as many native oaks as possible. Patricia Marshall 1675 Mt. View Avenue, has, observed land slippage on hillside; neighbors have experienced land slippage problems before drought years, water runoff was considerable; EIR well - written; .seeing short -term gains :superseding longterm usage of land; tremendous loss of approximately 35% of woodlands proposed. ' Bonnie Thomas 29 Steven Drive - collected, signatures for petitions last Fall; EIR says it all; has lived with noise and dust for 4 -1,%2 years six days /week; traffic for 65 additional units unimaginable; high visibility; hillsides important. Bob Oliker 320 Petaluma Blvd. Sou_ th, on behalf of Horace Henris at 1855 Mt. View Avenue - concerned with density of project; geology -reveals very unstable area; project inconsistent with General..Plan. Jack Conover 1330 Canyon Drive - has steepest sloped lot on block; projects needs to be looked at:very carefully- 7 +: J Paul Enold, 1326 Canyon Drive - also lives on steep slope with retaining wall;: will Council be visiting, site?; if project goes through, who does he sue when problems occur concerned with soil stability. Leonard Jay, Leonard Jay Enterprises, 1338 Ross - understands this is a sensitive site; removal of trees is a worst-case scenario; road widths requiring lots of grading, affecting stabilization and visual impacts, to be continued the same as with Unit 2's concept of parking bays; has already done extensive tree analysis; will try to integrate house placement around trees and have CC&R's address tree removal; hopes to allow continued cooperation between developer and staff by walking the project site to' minimize misunderstandings. Commissioner Rahman - concerned with soil issue; doesn't this site require more . than Unit 2 regarding slippage? Leonard Jay - yes, soil on Unit 3 has not been stabilized at this time. Commissioner Tarr - would recommend a walk-through by members of the Commission with staff to view the site. Commissioner D - would like Mr. Wagstaff to address soil stabilization (how its done, etc.) in EIR response to comments. 0 The public hearing was continued to the June 25, 1991 meeting to allow staff to incorporate C) public comments and concerns into the staff analysis and recommendations. PLANNING MATTERS: IV. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL MEETING TO REVIEW PETALUMA MARSH ENHANCEMENT PLAN. It was the; consensus of the Commission to schedule a meeting to review the Petaluma Marsh Enhancement Plan for June 4, 1991 at 7:00,PM. ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 PM rnin0514/pcom14 / pcmin-4 411