Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/28/1988126 PETALUMA PLANNING QOMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL June 28, 1988 Tuesday, 7 :00 p.m.. PETALUMA,, CALIF. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG n r1T T P` A T T COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bennett, Doyle, Libarle *, Parke.rson, Tarr COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Read., 'Sobel STAFF: Warren. Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Mike Moore, Principal Planner Teryl Lister, Assistant Planner *Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES _Minutes June 14, 1988 were approved as printed. PU`B'LIC COMMENT None. COMMISSIONER COMMENT None. CORRESPONDENCE None. D`IRECTOR'S REPORT Congratulations to Chairman. Libarle on his reappointment. Budget schedule before Council on 6/29, 3:00 PM'. COMMISSIONER's REPORT None. READING OF APPEAL RIGHTS 1 OLD BUSINESS,- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: I. WESTRIDGE, UNITS 4 and 5, "I" STREET, AP No: 019- 240 -04 and 'PORTION of 019 - 401 =02, (Files 11.864 - , • 3.373 and 6..868) R 1. Consideration of Final. EIR. (public, hearing was closed) 2'. Consideration of PUD Prezone and Tentative Map for 177 single- family lots. �i Staff :;offered an. update on the preparation of the Final. EIR. document, and the timing of the continued public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett < to continue this item to the meeting of July 12:, 1988. COMMISSIONER B'ENNETT Yes COMM "ISSI' NER DOYLE - Yes - COMN ISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMh- ISSIONER READ. Absent COMhf-ISSIONER SOBEL - Abs "ent COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE Yes NEW ,BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS f II. VALLEY ORCHARDS, S.E. CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ELY ROAD AND E. WASHINGTON STREET, AP NO..007- 510 -44, (File No. ,1.589) . 1. Consideration of EIQ. ,2. Consideration of, Conditional. Use Permit for 76 unit expansion . of senior residential care facility. The public hearing was opened SPEAKERS: John ;Levinshon - Corte. Madera, partner in Valley Gardens (proposed) and -- Valley, (existing) , problem with lot line adjustment requirement; a few rooms will be reserved for SSI patients. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to issue a mitigated negative declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMNh- SSIONER DOYLE Yes 2 /,�y COMMISSZON• R' .- PARKERSON.. Yes COMMISSIONER 'READ - Absent COMMISSIONER SOBEL Absent - COMMISSIONER TARR - Y'es 'CHAIRMAN LIBARLE - Yes 1 Z. . 4, 5 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 habitat of 7.a fish or wildlife species, c ause: 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 o prehistory. The project., as conditionally approved,,. do_ es: not have the, potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long- term,, environmental goals.. The proj'ect., as conditionally approved, does not - have. impacts which are in limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project, as conditionally' approved, does not ha,lve, environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with and_ further promotes the .objectives, goals., and policies of the General Plan.' A- m otio n -was made by Commissioner Doyle and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to_ approve the Conditional Use _Permit for 7:'6 room group care expansion. of the senior residential. care facility based_ on the following -amended findings and conditions: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSI.ONE,R . DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARK'ERSON - Yes COMMISS'ION.ER READ - Absent COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE' - Yes ' Findings '. 1. The.. proposed use will conform to the requirements and intent of' the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 2. The .:use will riot constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 3., Floiava * - ear.e This 'project is deemed- to be ;a Group._- <Quarte,rs 3, "•dwellin s" are and is . therefore not, subject to General Plan policies on densit ' or ow and Moderate income r,e, uirements. Conditions: 1, Application for lot line adjustment (or in er) allowing a minimum 20' building- setback along the interior property line separating. the two Valley Orchards. sites or revision of site plan or some me , thod to insure compliance bo Cit_y codes, shall be made and approved issue p rior t of development .permits. 2, ;Owners of the two Valley Or properties shall enter into a ,recorded agreement providing. for- mutual driveway access between the Jots for the purpose of entry and exit by residents, service vehicles, staff and the public. 3, Occupancy of the proposed facility shall be limited to qualifying senior citizens as defined by State Civil Code Section. 51.3. A deed restriction to this effect- shall be prepared and recorded by the project proponent prior to issuance - Of development permits, and shall be ;subject to approval of the City Attorney. - 4, All applicable requirements of the Chief Building Inspector and Engineering Department shall be met prior to issuance of development permits. 5. . ! The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall b e met prior to occupancy : A. Provide two fire hydrants on Ely Blvd. South, located: 1. Driveway to service area. 2. ' Ely Blvd. South and East Washington Street curb return . ' B. Building shall be protected by an approved automatic fire extinguishing system as required b y Section 10.308 -A of the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code;. 6. The following recommendations, of the City Transit Coordinator shall be incorporated into plans for this project and carried out prior to occupancy A. Add and maintain a second transportation vehicle which is wheel chair accessible. B. Include bus stop pad and shelter at. Ely and Washington (NE corner). 7. This project shall be subject to review and approval by the Airport Land Use Commission. 8, , Z Mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to 'issuance of building 1 permits if necessary to effectively reduce noise levels to L for building interiors. 4 /3v 9. On =site 'drainage and grading plans shall be submitted for review by staff prior to issuance of building permits'. 10. Architectural elevations, landscaping and other design. elements shall be subject to review and "approval by $ PARC. 11.. This project shall be sub.j'ect. imposition of all applicable development fees, including water and sewer connection fees, storm drainage-Impact fees, Community Facilities Fees' and' school. facilities' fees'.. This project shall be considered non - residential for the purpose- of calculating Community Facilities ;Fees only. 12. The "project sponsor . shall enter "into a binding agreement.. which ;shall stipulate that, prior to occupancy, the developer shall. pay $150.00 to the_ City per daily trip end" estimated to be generated by each - residential unit. Calculations for traffic generation shall reflect the senior citizen occupancy of the project. If the City establishes a. Major ;Facilities Traffic Mitigation Fee prior to 'issuance of building . permits, the fee for said units in this project shall be either $1-50.;00 per trip end or the Major Facilities 'Traffic Mitigation Fee., whichever is less on a per unit basis. III. - SOUSA S`UBDIVI'SION, B'ETWEEN MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND SCHUMAN LANE, (File'1.38:1) . 1. Consideration of EIQ. , 2.. Consideration. of PUD amendment to allow changes in fen c_ a location and driveway slope restrictions.- The public hearing, was opened: SPEAKERS: Merle Avila Avila Enterprises, architect for most. homes within subdivision purpose of requesting amendment. The. public hearing was :closed A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Par,.kerson to recommend, approval of• the issuance of a., mitigated riegatiwe declaration based on the following findings:; COMMISSIONER BENNETT Yes;" COMMISSIONER DOYLE -- Yes COMv1ISSIO:NER PARKERSON Yes COMM,ISS.IONER READ = _Absent _ COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent' COMMISSIONER TARR = Yes - CHAIRMAN WBARLE - 'Yes 5 i.` Findings.: 1. The PUD Amendment, as conditionally approved, doe's not have the p.'otential 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 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 PUD Amendment, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short - term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. I3/ 3. The PUD Amendment,. as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which are individually limited,, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The PUD Amendment, 'as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings:, either directly or indirectly. . 5 The PUD Amendment is consistent with and further promotes the Objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan.. i A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to recommend to the City Council amendments to the PUD Unit Development Plan for the S:o.usa Subdivision based on the 'following findings and aubject to the. conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - No (.prefer continuance) COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER 'PARKER SON Yes COMMISSIONER READ = Absent COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes CHAIRIiAN LIBARLE Yes Findings: . 1. Said amendment to the plan clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under the original development plan. 2. „ The PUD District, as originally. developed, has a, suitable relationship to one '(1) or more thoroughfares. No' additional traffic impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed amendment. 3. The play_ amendment continues to present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings. and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent properties. M . 4. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate availab °le public and private spaces designated on the original unit `development plan. 5.. The development; of the subject property, in the. manner - :as. _proposed to be amended 'by the. applicant„ will :not be detrimental to the, :public welfare, will be - in, the best 'interests of the City and will be in keeping. with the general ''intent and ,spirit of° the zoning :regulations. of the City of Petaluma, and ,the `Petaluma General Plan. Conditions: 1. All applicable original conditions, as determined by staff, of the existing PUD Unit Development Plan Resolution 85-63` Shall remain in full :effec "t. 2. A fence exhibit shall be submitted for staff review and approval. Said exhibit shall include but not be limited to: a. Fencing must comply with ;Zoning 'Ordinance .Requirements (Section '24- 500.) regarding maximum height in front and street' side setback° areas,. Airrended' S:b ecific - .fence location and height limitations shall be worked. out between applicant and staff ' b. Height limit's in: view corridors . - the creative layout- of the ,.lots is such that `6 foot high fencing may not be appropriate. in certain locations even though (a) would allow it. - c. Fence design, shall be subject to ' SPARC review as 'part of the submittal for the individual house. For existing houses,, fence design shall be subject to staff review. An optional open fence design, may be developed "3:. All requirements of the Chief' Buildimg .Official shall be complied ,with.: a ; . Retaining walls provided on the sides of the driveway shall be engineered to hold. back. the soil. 4:. Minor modifications to the PUD Development Standards may bel allowed, - sudlect to z)ratcu review anct approval; PLANNING MATTERS , .: TV. DRAFT ZONING, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: VIEWS': FROM 'MAJOR THOROUGHFARES Discussion was held on possible Zoning Ordinance . text amendment ' Jo. establish protection for identified view corridors,. Commissioner Parkerson:` Add some residential 'streets such as Webster Street; principle is sound. C "ommissioner Tarn . Does this include the quarry area off of :S., Petaluma, Blvd.,? remove barrier' on Western .Avemie at the river in response to this ordinance? Commissioner Bennett_: Concerns on Washington Street, development (1 1U potential of vacant land (i.e., railroad yard) would this preclude development? Chairman Libarle: Wording must be cautious so interpretation cannot be liberally used in a very restrictive manner Director Salmons: Define corridor (i.e. width, overlay district could apply to a portion of a lot, not preclude development, could address concerns in intent statement) .. V. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL 88 -89 GOALS. Placed on agenda at request of Commissioner Read. Informational item only. (� Discussed Planning Department goals; Council goals for 88 -89 (including 10 M General Plan goals) . IE Commissioner Parkerson: .Need to include protection of trees on private IE property. Commissioner Bennett: Planning Commission might want to discuss Commission goals. If Commissioner Read would like, it will be placed on a future agenda. Commission requested addition of "Commission Goals" onto next light agenda. VI. DISCUSSION - SONOMA COUNTY DRAFT GENERAL PLAN; 'TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Director Salmons summarized plan and possible inconsistencies with City plans will reschedule for detailed discussion in early August. VII. :DISCUSSION TOPICS• - PLANNING COMMISSION /COUNCIL JOINT .MEETING. (No priority indicated on list) . Discusssion on Commission ' prioritizing each vote and staff tally indicated following: 1. Treatment, improvement of creeks 2. 'Tree Ordinance 3. 'Streetscape 4. Historic Districts 5. ;Traffic Mitigations Fees 6. ;View Corridors 7. Fences 8. Conflict of Interest 9. Child Care ADJOURNMENT 9 :10 PM E:3 134 PETALUMA ,PLANNING CO.MMISSTON July 12, 1988 REGULAR. MEETING Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIF. . PLEDGE OF : ALLEGIANCE TO _THE'' FLAG ROLL CALL COMMIS "SION:ERS PRESENT: Bennett, Cavanagh, Doyle, Libarle *, Parkerson, Read, Tarr COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner *Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 28, 1988' were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT r None. COMMISSIONER ;COMMENT Councilman] Commissioner Cavanagh welcomed. CORRESPONDENCE Distributed correspondence received. late on tonight's agenda items. - DIRECTO;R',S REPORT: Disbributed letter regarding public noticing requirements for redevelopment to Senate and. Assembly.. COMMISSIO`NER's REPORT Commissioner Read - appreciated, Council goals on last agenda; wants field trip scheduled soon. Chairman Libarle - possible deadline on receiving written material for packet. - avoid last. minute. READING OF APPEAL RIGHTS Read by staff... 1 f 3s OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING I. WESTRIDGE, UNITS 4 and 5, "I" STREET, AP NO. 019 - 240 -04 and PORTION OF 019 - 401 -02 (Files 11.864, 3.373 and 6.868) . 1. Consideration of Final EIR (public hearing closed) . 2. Consideration of PUD, prezone and tentative map for 177 single - family lots. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to recommend to the City Council certification and approval of the Final EIR with the completion of an errata sheet to address staff comments and /or corrections, based on the findings in the staff report: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN LIB BENNETT - AYE CAVANAGH - ABSTAIN DOYLE - AYE PARKERSON - AYE READ - AYE TARR - AYE ARLE - AYE A. Potential impacts to land use characteristics were identified as follows: 1. Loss of open space and rural character. Impact will be substantially lessened by the following measures to be incorporated into the project: 1. Requirement , to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication of all non - development area. This will insure availability to permit access -should connection to public access pathways prove workable in the future, in conformance with General Plan policies. 2. Requirement to reconfigure Lots 163 and 164 to provide 100' depth of urban separator thereby providing a continuous non - development area on the south and west perimeters of the project. 3. Requirement to redesign on -site drainage improvements to retain a more natural appearing stream ­and habitat along portions of Thompson Creek in conformance with Department of Fish and Game recommendations. This modification will also insure conformance to General Plan policies and programs relating to waterway restoration and enhancement. 4. Provision of fencing along project's outer property lines when either private property and /or urban separator /non - development area abuts adjacent properties to permit continued use of adjacent properties for agricultural/ grazing purposes. 2 I31� 13� B. Potential impacts to Traffic /Transportation/ were identified as follows: 1. Increased traffic volumes both in the general vicinity and on adjacent roadway systems (refer to specific street identification in Section IV of FEIR) . 2. Level of service at intersections (refer to Table 7 - page 75 of FEIR) . 3. Cumulative impacts associated with #1 and #2 above. 4. Emergency access to various portions of the project site. 5. Internal circulation system. 6. Pedestrian /bike access. 7. Transit needs. 8. Nearby residential living environments. The above impacts will be substantially lessened by the following measures which will be incorporated into the project: 1. Project participation in or responsibility for the following specific off -site public roadway improvements a. Construction of roadway improvements to "I" Street. b. Payment of a proportionate fair share to the cost of the repaving of D Street between Petaluma Boulevard to Sunny Slope Avenue. C. Payment of a proportionate fair share to Sunny Slope Assessment District planned roadway improvements. If the Sunny Slope Assessment District does not complete improvements prior to construction of Westridge Units 4 and 5 public improvements: project developer shall complete. - reconstruction of Sunny Slope Road from Smith Drive to Sunny Slope Avenue in accordance with previous Council requirements and approval to provide improvements designed by County. Payback agreement may be created for improvements beyond those associated with construction of two travel lanes. 2 and 3. Project participation in or responsibility for the following intersection improvements: a. Payment of a proportionate fair share to the cost of signalization modifications to D Street at Petaluma Boulevard South. 3 ]37 b. Payment of the cost of signalization of Petaluma Boulevard South /I Street. C. Payment of a proportionate fair share of improvements to upgrade D Street /Sunny Slope Avenue -El Rose intersection signalization. d. Payment of a proportionate fair share of the cost of signalization of Petaluma Boulevard South /Mountain View. e. Payment of a proportionate fair share of the cost of signalization and intersection improvements of D /6th Streets. 4. Provision of a permanent access easement from Lavio Drive to Rockrose Drive and from Lavio to Photinia Place to insure emergency access. Easement shall be of adequate width to accommodate city and county emergency vehicles. 5. Completion of on -site circulation system improvements: a. Realignment of proposed intersection of Grevillia / Rockrose Drives to form a standard four -leg intersection to reduce traffic delays and increase safety. 1 b. Provision of stop signs for Grevillia Drive at I Street, Lavio Drive at Westridge Drive and other minor on -site intersections deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 6. Completion of on and off -site pedestrian /bike system improvements: a. Provision of bike lane along west side of "I" Street and internally to connect to existing Thompson Creek frontage bike lane, in conformance with the adopted Bike Plan. b. Provision of. a sidewalk along the east side of I Street south of Grant Avenue to the I Street /Sunnyslope Road intersection. 7. Off -site roadway improvements outlined in #s 1,2 3 and 6 above. C. Potential impacts to Slope Stabilization /Erosion /Soils were identified as follows: 1. Site grading would alter site topography and expose soils to risk of erosion. 2. Degree of cut and grading. 3. Volume changes in expansive soils could result in uplifting of structures. 4. Grading could alter slope stability, thereby increase landslide potential. 4 139 5. Building damage could result from groundshaking characteristics of the soil during an earthquake. The above impacts will be substantially lessened by incorporation of the following measures into the project: 1 and 2. Reduction of project density, revision of lot- pattern to reduce cut and fill requirement, particularly in the area of Photinia Place. 3. Completion of a geotechnical investigation to define scope of engineering methods for site improvements such as soil treatment, over- excavation and replacement of expansive soils with non- expansive materials, use of supported floors and use of foundations on drilled piers, etc. 4. As stated for #s 1 and 2 above, reduction of project density, and revision of lot pattern can reduce grading and relocate residential building envelopes within the development away from landslide potential areas. Incorporation of additional methods of construction such as reconstruction of slopes and creek banks to create stable inclines (while enhancing natural habitat) ; collection/ control of surface runoff in lined drainage ditches; and interception of subsurface seepage through use of subdrains. 5. Incorporation of seismic design parameters into the design and construction of project foundations and structures, grading slopes and retaining walls. D. Potential impacts to Drainage and Water Quality were identified as follows: 1. Existing off -site storm drainage system flow characteristics. 2. Increase of downsystem storm flow volumes, of particular impact during high intensity storms. 3. Placement of additional sedimentation in the improved surface channel. 4. Temporary increase of sedimentation rates and drainage patterns during construction periods. 5. Upstream dam failure implications. 6. Bank stability due to loss of vegetation. 7. Conflict between the need to reduce local flooding and natural waterway preservation/ enhancement objectives. The above impacts will be substantially lessened by incorporation of the following measures into the project: . 2 . 1. Improvements to existing inadequacies of the Sunnyslope Road /Thompson Creek culvert (per FEIR, page 128). 2. On -site storm drainage improvements shall be designed so as to retain development stormwater flows to levels at or below predevelopment levels. Storm drainage improvements shall retain the habitat viability and natural waterway characteristics, along a portion of Thompson Creek within the project site, in conformance with adopted General Plan policies and California Department of Fish and Game regulations. 3. Long -term maintenance provisions to ensure that the design shape and flow characteristics of, the project's open drainage system are well maintained in perpetuity through regular removal of stormwater sediment and debris. In particular, silt and gravel will not be allowed to accumulate behind the proposed flow restrictors . 4. Preparation of an erosion control plan, by the applicant, to include such measures as construction scheduling plus mechanical and vegetative measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation and appropriate seasonal maintenance. 5. Completion of expanded engineering investigation to include adequate evaluation of upstream dam breach potentials and provide adequate measures to protect against property damage due to a dam breach. The measures shall include the use of additional berms constructed to protect the development area from dam- breached flood waters. The height of the berms shall be sufficient to impound the total capacity of the three earthen dams (about 30 acre -feet) during a high intensity storm. Berms shall include flow restrictors to reduce flows through the project storm drain system to below design flow rates. 6. Completion of a planting plan to provide revegetation to coincide with slope grading (see #4 above) and to provide tree cluster planting to compliment the natural contours of the site. 7. Along with on and off -site drainage improvements, revision of design to place more emphasis on retaining and restoring natural creek elements. Provision of a landscaping plan to retain the existing oak tree between lots 35 and 174 and reintroduction of native riparian species along the channel. E. The following impacts relative to Visual Factors were identified: 1. Loss of views from adjacent residences and extension of suburban development into foreground of other homes located on hillsides to the northeast, north and northwest. 2. Reduction of views from travel routes (I Street and Westridge Drive) . M 140 The visual impacts will be lessened by incorporation of the following measures into the project: 1 and 2. a. Design of landscaping plan to introduce large canopy trees and tree clusters to soften the impact of the project on surrounding elevated viewpoints. b. Prohibition of driveways, structures and heavy landscaping above the 225 foot contour line. As stated in earlier impact and mitigation identification section, this will require some reconfiguration of the lot layout. Reconfiguration may also allow the provision of slightly deeper lots backing onto existing Westridge Drive residences. C. A non - development easement shall be created between the 225 foot contour and the proposed non - development easement (urban separator) line to allow the lands to remain in private ownership but prohibit development of structures or significant landscaping that would modify the more visually prominent and sensitive hillside areas. F. The following potential adverse impacts relative to Municipal Services were identified: 1. Water pressure availability. 2. Downsystem sewer capacities. 3. Cumulative impact on school facilities (Grant Elementary, Petaluma Junior High and Petaluma High Schools) over time as schools reach design capacities. 4. Cumulative impact to police services, responding to traffic, domestic and criminal violations and complaints. 5. Cumulative impact to fire protection services, responding for fire (structure and brush) suppression, medical emergencies, traffic accidents, and natural disasters. The proposed project site is just beyond current parameters of a four minute response time. 6. Cumulative impacts to parks and recreational facilities including neighborhood and community park needs, General Plan policies relating to Urban Separator development, parkland dedication or fee payment, wildlife and habitat preservation and enhancement, and promotion of trails and bike paths. The above listed impacts will be substantially lessened by incorporation of the following measures into the. project: 1. Extension of water mains as required to provide domestic and fire flow services. Consideration of individual booster pump systems, as required. Restriction of house placement to elevations serviceable by existing systems and /or booster systems. 1 7 /Z�J Provision of residential structure sprinkler systems. Payment of standard water connection fee. 2. Extension of sewer mains as required from existing lines. Evaluation of downsystem carrying capabilities, incorporation of upgrading, if required. Payment of standard sewer connection fee. 3. Payment of school facilities impact fees. 4. Incorporation of residential security measures set forth by police standards. 5. Incorporation or consideration of the following Fire Department recommended mitigation measures: a. All structures shall be protected by approved residential fire sprinkler systems. b. All roofs shall have approved fire retardant roof covering materials (no wood shakes). C. Emergency vehicle access into the project site shall be provided through Lavio Drive. G. The following impacts relative to Noise Generation were identified: 1. Compatibility of the proposed residential use of the site with the anticipated onsite noise environment. Potential for project- generated traffic noise impacts on existing residential areas. 2. Potential impact of activity noise from the new residential neighborhood on adjacent residences. 3. Potential for noise impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods during construction phases. The above identified impacts will be substantially lessened by incorporation of the following measures into the project: 1. Provision of noise barrier along project's I Street frontage. 2. Reconfiguration of lot layout to provide increased rear yard depths to proposed lots ( #'s 9., 10, and 11) backing onto existing Westridge Drive homes. 3. Implementation of General Plan noise reduction programs, including limiting construction activity to 8 AM to 5 PM, weekdays (non- holiday) , construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines to be properly muffled and maintained; stationary noise - generating construction equipment should be located as far as practical from existing residences and r� I �d_l acoustically shielded, use of quiet construction equipment whenever possible and designation and identification of a "disturbance coordinator" or project manager by the developer to respond to complaints about construction noise. H. The following potential Air Quality impacts were identified: 1. Intermittent pollutants from construction activity. The above mentioned impact can be addressed by incorporation of the following- measure into construction practices: 1. Sprinkle all exposed portions of the site completely twice daily; schedule major dust - generating activities for the early morning when wind velocities are low; and cover storage piles (fill, refuse, etc.) . I. The following potential adverse impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife were identified: 1. Reduction of open space land. 2. Elimination or substantial alteration to existing biological habitats. 3. Elimination of approximately three - fourths of the onsite disturbed riparian woodland habitat through reconstruction of Thompson Creek. 4. Reduction of the acreage of onsite biological wildlife communities. The above listed impacts will be substantially lessened by the incorporation of the following measures into the project: 1. Dedication of proposed non- development area as urban separator. Creation of non - development area between urban separator and 225 foot contour line. City shall consider restriction of use of urban separator to hiking and pedestrian/ equestrian trail activity; or as an alternative: Alternative: Allow the retention of the urban separator in private ownership but provide specific restrictions on non - development and limitation on use. 2, 3 and 4. Redesign of proposed channel improvements to enhance the aesthetic and natural qualities and potential of the creek, retaining a portion of the natural configuration of the existing creekbed. Consideration of feasibility for retention of existing stand of eucalyptus trees along Thompson Creek. Preservation of trees by fencing during the construction phase of channel improvements. Planting of landscaping along the Thompson Creek channel for sediment filtration, bank stability and wildlife habitat protection purposes. Incorporate use of fencing where necessary to protect 9 / 4 ,3 potential wildlife habitats and to control access to potentially sensitive or easily damaged areas along the stream courses. Submission of stream channel alterations and mitigation measures to California Department of Fish and Game for review, resulting I in an amiable agreement between the applicant, the City and CDFG for the preservation and enhancement of Thompson Creek. J. The following potential impact relative to Archaeological Resources was identified: 1. Damage, disruption or destruction of existing identified site. The above impact will be substantially insured against occurrence by incorporation of the following measures into the project: 1. Protection during all phases of construction by means acceptable to a qualified archaeologist. Work in the immediate vicinity shall be halted if any archaeological deposits are encountered during any phase of construction. Preservation of the site through installation of capping and turfing in cooperation with appropriate agencies; or, as an alternative, the developer may contract with a qualified archaeologist to conduct a partial excavation and, if warranted, a full excavation. Subsequent to conclusion of excavation activities the site shall be immediately improved for urban park development. Excavation and subsequent fill to be completed in cooperation and coordination with all appropriate agencies. K. Review and discussion on project alternatives has lead to the following finding: I 1. That development of the site with fewer units is appropriate in response to the site's topographic, physical/ geological and biological constraints, and to increase and reinforce a sense of openness at the urban fringe. The public hearing (for PUD prezone and pre- tentative map) was opened. SPEAKERS: John Stuber, Stuber /Stroh Engineers, Project Engineers; Concerns regarding loss of units near Thompson Creek; reduction of overall lots; bridge has been eliminated; reconfiguration of Lot 105; lot depths for lots 8 - 11; described drainage; number of lots may be reduced to around 166. Chuck Linthicum, Condiotti Enterprises, applicant - answered questions; distributed list of points at issue with staff report. Charles Gilardi, 1004 I Street - Westridge 4 &5 will result in more flooding; Westridge 1 -2 -3 have caused flooding already. David Keller, 1387 I Street - Future processing ?; concerns regarding Final EIR - extraordinarily altered from draft EIR; EIR 10 i4H should have been a supplemental, not final EIR; not sufficient time for comment period; inadequate document. Steve Nagle, 945 Sunnyslope Road - Concerns regarding flooding; GP flood control policies - this project will contribute to flooding; additional sedimentation already in Thompson Creek; overgrowth of vegetation. Thom Knudsen, 410 Sunnyslope Avenue - (letter challenging adequacy of EIR) ; EIR should not be certified; public hearing should not have been closed; failure to renotice on Final EIR was illegal; signalization may not be adequate; independent hydrologist should not have to be brought in - there should not be any flooding for a hydrologist to study; new flood information was presented tonight by applicant's engineer that was not in Final EIR; density questions - max. densities in General Plan are being exceeded; maximum should be 100 units. Beverly DeLoach, 909 "D" Street - Too much traffic on residential streets presently. David Keller (second time) _ - EIR missing some key drainage issues. The public hearing was closed. On motion of Commissioner Doyle and seconded by Commissioner Read, this matter was continued to the meeting of August 23, 1988 to allow staff to consider comments received. COMMISSIONER BENNETT - AYE COMMISSIONER CAVANAGH - ABSTAIN (hadn't participated in earlier hearings) COMMISSIONER DOYLE - AYE COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - AYE COMMISSIONER READ - AYE COMMISSIONER TARR - AYE CHAIRMAN LIBARLE - AYE NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS: II. BAY BRIDGE GARAGE, #1 "C" STREET, AP NO. 008 - 069 -02 (File No. 1.603). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for towing service and body shop. The public hearing was opened. Speakers: Patti Armsinger, applicant; Jeff Fieburg, property owner. 11 I5`5- The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Cavanagh and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to approve a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN LIB BENNETT- CAVANAGH- DOYLE- PARKERSON- READ- TARR- ARLE- Aye Aye Aye Aye No (use inappropriate to site) Aye Aye Findings 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. The project will not constitute a nuisance nor be detrimental to the 5. 'This use permit may shall be recalled to the Planning Commission for ,review at -anq -time in one year. This use permit may also be recalled to the Planning Commission at anytime due to complaints regarding 'traffic congestion, noise generation or other objectionable operating 12 I ublic welfare of the community due to the conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: 1. ?As no building is to be constructed, the following site improvements shall be subject to administrative SPARC review: a. The existing building shall be repainted. b. All existing outdoor debris, equipment, etc. shall be removed, stored inside or screened from view. ;c. Existing overgrown landscaped areas shall be weeded and replaced with healthy landscaping. id. The existing chain link fence w /redwood slats shall be repaired or replaced as deemed necessary. e. Items a through d shall be completed within 60 days of use permit approval. 2. Paving shall be patched and sealed as deemed necessary by staff. 3. "No signs may be erected on the site without the issuance of a sign permit. 4. All visually damaged vehicles, machinery, equipment, parts etc., shall ,be stored indoors. No repair work, Adismantling, or storage shall take place outdoors or in the public right -of -way. Vehicles which are not visually damaged and tow trucks may be parked in the outdoor yard !area is screened from view to staff approval. 5. 'This use permit may shall be recalled to the Planning Commission for ,review at -anq -time in one year. This use permit may also be recalled to the Planning Commission at anytime due to complaints regarding 'traffic congestion, noise generation or other objectionable operating 12 14� characteristics. At such time the Commission may repeal the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. 6. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic drip irrigation system. 7. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 8. All premises, structures a nd operating equipment shall be inspected b Building Ins, ector, Fire Marshal and EOS with particular attention paid to any potentially hazardous materials. Any corrections deemed necessary shall be completed prior to occupancy. 9. Conditional Use Permit shall be in place for five (5) years .after which time it shall become null and void. An extension of the time limit may be pursued at that time through re- application for a conditional use p ermit. III. DALBEC - 8081 KEOKUK STREET, AP NO. 006 - 031 -28 (File No. 1.582). 1. Consideration of variance and Conditional Use Permit for accessory dwelling. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Ron Dalbec, 8081 Keokuk Street, applicant, indicated he has no problems with conditions. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to grant a conditional use permit to legalize an existing accessory dwelling based upon the findings and subject to the conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER BENNETT- Aye COMMISSIONER CAVANAGH- Aye COMMISSIONER DOYLE- Aye COMMISIONER PARKERSON- Aye COMMISSIONER READ- Aye COMMISSIONER TARR- No CHAIRMAN LIBARLE- Aye Findings , 13 1. The existing accessory dwelling use, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The existing accessory dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. / `f 7 3. The existing accessory dwelling, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 4. It is recognized that the height, size, shape, architecture, use, and location of the building are existing factors, and that legalization will, in no way, cause increased potential for adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. Conditions: 1. The total floor area of the existing downstairs dwelling unit shall be reduced to 640 sq. ft. or less of habitable floor space. 2. The proposed accessory dwelling shall conform with all requirements of the Chief Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. 3. The existing wood- framed structure located near the north side of the building shall be removed prior to issuance of building permits. 4. One off - street parking space improved with a dust free surface shall b e provided for the accessory dwelling. The parking area shall be permanently designated through use of landscaping, curbing, fencing or other materials designed to prevent vehicle encroachment into open -space areas. Use of asphalt or concrete paving is discouraged. 5. A screened yard area determined at the rate of 400 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom unit and 500 sq. feet per 2 bedroom unit shall be provided for the residents of both units. Design and location of screening materials shall be subject to Planning staff approval. 6. Any structural alterations to the exterior of the building shall be subject to administrative SPARC review. 7. Separate gas, electric, and water meters shall be installed for each dwelling unit to the specifications of City staff and P.G. & E. 8. This project shall be subject to imposition of dwelling construction fees as specified under Section 17.12.010 of the Petaluma Municipal Code, payable at the time of application for building permits. 9. All conditions of approval for the proposed project shall be met within 90 days of the date of approval; otherwise the use permit shall expire and zoning enforcement proceedings shall be initiated. IV. 'GENERAL DISCUSSION (If time allows) 14 NY 1. Treatment, improvement of creeks 2. Tree Ordinance 3. Streetscape 4. Historic Districts 5. Traffic Mitigation Fees 6. View Corridors 7. Fences 8. Conflict of Interest 9. Child Care Schedule Field Trip of new projects - Saturday AM or 3 or 4 PM on weekday, staff to suggest dates. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 PM minutes.7 /12 15