Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/05/1986l fl 'i 11 1 11 1111q�== I � CITY OF PETALU,MA i PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE 1986 -2005 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND EIR i MEETING SUMMARY MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1986 ,i Commission Members Present: Michael Davis, Dan Libarle, Glenn Head, Fred Tarr, Patti Hilligoss, Ross Parkerson, Chairperson Nancy Read. Staff /Consultants Present: Warren Salmons, Planning Director; Michael Moore, Principal Planner; Naphtali Knox, i; Knox and Associates (General Plan Consultant) The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 PM; Chairperson Read reviewed future shearing dates (August 12, 19 and, if necessary, August 20) . Planning Director Warren Salmons was asked to read General Plan related correspondence into the record. Staff had received three 'letters prior to the August 5 meeting from the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, Lucy Webb Realty and MacKay and Somps. Civil Engineers. The letters, from the Chamber Board and Lucy Webb requested a 30 -day continuance of the General Plan hearings in order to have more time for review: The letter from MacKay and Somps contained specific comments on several policy statements in the plan (the letter is on file in the Planning Department). Warren Salmons then made several introductory remarks stressing the evolutionary nature of the planning process and the purpose of the public hearings. He also explained how the meeting summary of the hearings will be . used as a public record of the meetings and to respond to questions raised'. by the Commission and the public. Principal Planner . Michael Moore reviewed the process of getting to the point of public hearings including some statistics on the extensive public outreach carried on over the past year in which the draft General Plan had been developed. i ' 0000.22A Planning Consultant Naphtali Knox summarized the major changes in the proposed General. Plan Land Use Map (these changes were discussed on pp. 71 -76 of the draft plan) . Commissioners were given the opportunity to ask questions or comment on the opening remarks: Commissioner Davis asked why the Payran Reach project was not IT inc uded among the flood mitigation measures shown on the proposed General Plan Land U'se Map . - Response The map shows only that combination of projects which, if completed, would, according to the Sono_ ma County Water Agency Master Drainage Study, "reduce peak flood flow to a .rate which can be carried by the existing river channel without modification of the channel or the bridges and structures along the river. 11 Since the Payran Reach represents only a• partially effective measure in itself it was not shown. - However, since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .is. pursuing further studies of the Payran Reach project, the Commission may wish to consider showing the project on the map as a flood mitigation measure. Commissioner Tarr asked about the extension of Rainier Avenue east to Adobe Road. Response The. extension is shown on the draft Circulation Map and represents the logical route that Rainier Avenue would follow to the east. This rationale_ underlies the presumption that a segment of Rainier wi= be built from Ely Road to the eastern Urban Limit Line as part - of the development resulting from the Corona /EZy Specific Plan, and that a future Zink with Adobe Road may be considered after the connection of Rainier with 101 as a means of reducing traffic impacts on East Washington .Street. Of course, any consideration of extending Rainier to Adobe Road beyond the proposed urban Zimt Zine, would have to be reconciled with the growth inducing impacts that would probably result. - Commissioner Head expressed his concern that cluster housing through PUD zoning might negatively affect the Suburban and Rural Residential land use designations which were established to 'provide large -lot type development opportunities. - Response Following adoption of. the General_ Plan, the City wM be revising the Zoning Ordinance. Such a revision vi2l permit the City to bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformance• with the new General Plan. In addition, there are policies in the draft General Plan calling for increasing the ava Zabl7ity of "executive- housing" which connotes Zarge -Zot type development (Policy 2, p. 1 °86; Program 4, p. 187). Commissioner Davis asked why a bikeway on the NWPRR right -of -way was not shown on the Circulation Map. Response The designation on the map for the N WPRR right -of -way is "Regional Transitway" which could include a bikeway even though it is not shown. The text of the draft General Plan also contains programs c`allzng for this to occur (Programs 2 and 4, p. 96). At the conclusion of this segment, the Commission considered the two ` requests for a 30 -day continuance of the hearings. After some discussion, the Commission agreed unanimously to deny the request and proceed as scheduled. The public hearing was then opened. (NOTE: the following list of speakers are in 'the order which they appeared, questions or comments are paraphrased.) 1) Gary Filippini: . „Objected to the park designation on his mother's property at the corner of South McDowell Blvd. and Casa Grande; he stated that the site did not meet specific design standards in the draft General Plan text regarding distance to surrounding parks (less than mile standard) and development on an arterial; objected to Urban S tandard designation as being too low a density for the site. - Res This site ryas one of those discussed back in April when th General Plan Coordinating Committee (GPCC) began looking at the Zdnd use designations for particular 'properties around the City. It was the consensus of the GPCC to designate a portion of the site as a park (although the exact size was not set) not so much in deference to the standards in the plan, but based on the need to create additional open space in an area where little now exists. As to the density, the GIPCC wanted the area to be consistent the immediate surroundings - particularly to the north and east. The Urban Standard (2.1 to 5.0 du /ac) designation was placed on property. because it provides that consistency; a higher designation, to Urban Diversified (5.1 to 10.0 du /ac), would at the lower end of the range provide comparable densities to some of the surrounding developments, but could also open the site to the potential for higher densities that would not be compatible. 2) Bill Sovel - request to include all of his mother's property on Petaluma Blvd. North within the Urban Limit Line and the Blvd. North Specific Plan Area. Res��ons In , determining the Urban Limit Line and Specific Plan boundaries for the area on the west side of Petaluma Blvd. North, staff and consultants used the existing Environmental Design Plan .(EDP) boundary which was set based on water service and drainage Limitations and, modified it to follow property lines where possible. Some parcels, such as the SoveZ property, are quite deep and the majority of the , property is beyond the boundary line. The depth of the property and its topography may have an impact on its ability to develop according to City standards when the area comes into the City as anticipated by the draft plan. Once the specific plan for the area is completed and a thorough study of the factors affecting development and the provision of City services is addressed it may then be possible to shift the proposed boundaries and include some of the properties now split by the urban Zmit Zine. 3) Marie Silvera - how was the plan affecting her property near Horn Avenue and Magnolia. 3 Response. Mrs. SiZvera is; located quite a ways .beyond the Urban L7anZt Line and not affected by the proposed plan. 4) Jim Dibble - resident in the area affected by. the Denman Detention Basin; wanted to know what is going to happen to lands 'in and. around the Basin. Response The Denman Detention Basin is one. of many measures recommended by the Sonoma County Water Agency Master Drainage Study for the Petaluma River. Watershed. It, in combination with the Willow Brook Diversion and the Petaluma. By -Pass, could reduce flood hazards in the City as well as reduce siltation in the Petaluma River by 90% (p., 3 -18, SCWA Master Drainage Study). As it stands now, the proposals are recommendations, which to be implemented would require. further study, analysis and. public hearings. T he City is reflecting the Denman Detention .Basin as well as the Willow Brook Diversion and Petaluma By -Pass on its land use map because they represent the optimal solution to flooding hazards in and around the City, and may, over the twenty year anticipated life of the plan, be implemented. The adoption of the General Plan does not mean these projects are also approved and ready for construction. Specifically, the Master Drainage Study describes the Denman Detention Basin as follows (copies of the Study are available from the City Engineering Department and the Water Agency office in Santa Rosa) : "This project is located in the Denman Flat area; the : actual damsite is located immediately downstream of the confluence of Liberty and Marin Creeks. The damsite is located 500 to 1000 feet west of Stony Point Road between Rainsvzzle and Liberty Roads. Intercepted flows would include those from the Wiggins, Wilson and Marin Creek watersheds, as well as those in Petaluma River above the dam site.. The area inundated by the impounded flood waters would be the lands upstream of the dam lying below elevation 37 feet above mean sea Zevel (MSL). These lands under existing conditions are inundated to an elevation of 36 feet MSL during a 100 -year storm. The dam would be 2500 feet in Zength, 86 feet in width at the base and 14 feet wide at the top, with 3 :.1 side slopes and a height of 12 to 15 feet. It would be constructed of local material with an impervious core, and would have a principal spillway and an emergency spillway. The dam would be operated so that flows are impounded for a short time during peak flow conditions, creating a ; temporary take over an area of about 240 acres during a 100 -year frequency event. A lesser area would be inundated by impoundments during smaller storms of greater frequency. [1 4 V00022 otal right -of -ray required for the dam and reservoir would be 600 acres. The project cost is estimated to be Z.BZ m"lion dollars, with an annual operation cost of $10, 000 for the detention basin area. "(pp. 3 -16, 3 -M, SC WA Master Drainage Study). Staff has also learned that Supervisor Harberson and Water Agency personnel will be holding a meeting on Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 7:30 PM at Libert S_ chool to iscuss the Water A,genci Study, spec4fica�z�w brook Diversion and Denman Detention Basin. 5) Bob Stimson - Representing property owners from "D" Street to McNear Hill between Petaluma Blvd. and the Petaluma River who object to ;.the Mixed Use designation and the bikepath along their side of the river. Response This area and a corresponding area along Petaluma Blvd. north of East Washington Street were ' designated Mixed Use for two principal reasons: First, the strong desire expressed by several sub - committees to open up opportunities along the river for recreation - hence the bike path recommendation - and, somewhat related, opportunities to live and /or work along the river. The Mixed Use Designation would create development possib U*ies for commercial, residential and office projects that would focus on the river and enhance its potential as a resource for the City. Secondly, the designation reflects an intent to bring more workers and residents closer to Downtown to improve its chances f'o'r continued revitalization. Mixed Use is not intended to drive local businesses out; and s'u'bsequent revision of the Zoning Ordinance could help reduce Zncompatibility and ease the transition of this area. Realistically, the City's industrial base is no longer focused on the river but rather to the northern and southern fringes of the City. Staff and consultants, in making the recommendation for this area, were responding to the opinions expressed during the update process and anticipating eventual change in uses over the next twenty years. 6) Francis Bengtsson - expressed concerns about Denman Detention Basin and the particulars of its operation; also asked if any of the affected p operty owners were notified. Res onse SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 4. Property owners in tea were -not notified directly because the City was not changing their land use designation. Also, staff did not want to create the Misleading impression that the City was holding a public hearing on these flood mitigation proposals. 7) Jan Riebly - concerned about the affect of the Denman Detention Basin On Rainsville Road, Skillman Lane and Liberty Road; where can owners get information. 'Response: SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 4. 1 0000` 8) Antoinette Brooks = were property owners in the Detention Basin area contacted when initial proposals were made. Response: The Water Agency Study was prepared "at the request of the City of PetaZuma and recommendation of the Zone 2A Advisory Committee to identify 'the most significant areas of flooding and identify projects which might be implemented to alleviate such flooding." (Forward, SCWA Master Drainage Study) "The identification of a structural solution to a problem in the master plan -should not be construed as a recommendation that it be constructed." (,p. 1-4, SC WA Master Drainage Study). In other words, property owners were not notified because the report is intended only as a technical basis for future discussions of feasibility. At the point those discussions are held, property owners will no doubt be notified. 9) Richard Warner - questioned the need for the Urban 'Separator and expressed concern about maintenance and security problems that might arise from having the separator; also felt land along Petaluma Blvd. North should be given an urban land use designation instead of Rural Residential. Response The Urban Separator as defined on p. 82 of the plan is intended to provide a buffer between urban development and surrounding agricultural land and. be a part of the City's open space system. In principle, ' the separator has been an integral part. of City planning since the early 7.0's with the first EDP: it is slowly taking actual shape on the Eastside where portions of he separator have already been dedicated to the City. Maintenance and security are potential problems that must and will be recognized and addressed before these Zands can function as planned as part of the open space system. However, the plan reflects the recommendation of sub - committee members to maintain a system that buffers Petaluma development from surrounding open space. Land uses along Petaluma Blvd. North are consistent with County plans which now have jurisdiction over these areas. The City intends to maintain the rural residential designation untZ7 such time as a specific plan is done for the area and urban land uses will then be designated. It is the City's intention to maintain the area along the west side Petaluma Blvd. North as rural residential only until a •specific plan is completed, the area is annexed and City services are available. 10. Chris Barauskas - concerned about extension of Rainier Avenue behind residential property along Shasta Avenue and consequent 'increase in noise and traffic; asked why alignment is shown as is on Circulation Map. Response The Circulation map shows two possible connections of Rainier Avenue to Petaluma Blvd. North. At this point the decision has not been made on a preferred route and the Planning Commission and City Council will hold hearings when the plan Zine study is ready for such consideration. i 0 I. ov I' 11. Denise Martin - what will happen to houses in, the Denman Detention Denise Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 4. At this point there is no information as to what will happen to homes and property affected by this proposal. 12. I3ill Berger will' in corporation resulting from Corona /Ely Specific Plan b l ring Corona Road into the City? Widening .should include bike lanes. Response LAFCO (Local Agency Formation. Commission) which governs annexations requires that roads abutting annexed property must also b annexed. Bike lanes are proposed on Corona between Ely Road and P etaluma Blvd. • North. 13. Remo Rebizzo - owner of the DMV property; wants property designated commercial. ti Response The General Plan Land Use Map recommends that this property be designated Public and Institutional based on the assumption that the property was owned by the State of CaZifornia. Since the property is privately owned, the Commission may wish to consider the Mixed Use designation which would allow the existing use and the potential for other future commercial office or residential uses and is consistent with the designation of adjacent properties on Petaluma Blvd. North. 14. G 1 uy Warnock - Asked for clarification of Special Industrial designation of Frates and Lakeville; what about industrialtresidential separator to buffer noise, etc.? Res onse: The definition of Special Industrial is contained in the Draft .P n on page 80. Essentially it is for a large lot, singZe -user or high - intensity employer. Zoning will further define its characteristics. An industriaZ/residentiaZ separator was not considered during the plan revision because most new industrial sites are separate from residential areas, and the types of industries locating in Petaluma are not generaZty of a type that create conflict with residential areas. Once again, improved zoning regulations resulting from the General Plan (such as stricter noise standards and building design and landscaping requirements) will help mitigate any potential conflicts where residential and industrial are in proximity. 15. Dennis Milliken - requested that the Varnhagen property be removed from within the Urban Limit Line as it is not consistent with agricultural preservation under the Williamson Act; also commented that excessive, high - density, development is, causing flooding; a lower growth rate is needed; and the flood detention ponds are not working. i Response A portion of the Varnhagen property has been included within the urban Zmit Zine since the 1978 -1985 EDP. Inclusion of the property has not prompted the owners to abandon their WMiamson Act OZ,,gation to date; an in discussions with staff, the Varnhagens have no intent of changing the status of the property now that all of the property is within the Urban Limit Line. There is a property on the Eastside, at the northeast corner of Casa Grande and Ely, that is also i 7 under Wzlliamson Act contract and has also been within the urban limit Zine since at least 1978, and it too has continued to maintain its contract. ,16. Gene Hash - concerned about Urban Separator designation on his property; suggested it be moved west to properties adjacent to his. Response The present urban separator alignment as recommended on the proposed General Plan Land Use Map - particularly on the Westside - has attempted to alleviate the - problems of the existing alignment by:: 1) placing the designation on properties more likely to develop over the next twenty years rather than on agricultural properties with no potential for urban development, and therefore making the Separator more than just a line on a map; 2) removing it or reducing its width (to less than the standard of 3.00 feet) on smaller parcels to allow some development potential; and 3) making it follow property lines so that all or part of some properties formerly outside the urban Zimit line are now within the urban limit line and have development potential. Approximately 213 of Mr. Hash's property was outside the urban Zimit line on the existing plan. Under the proposed plan, his entire property is 'within the urban Zimit line (it runs- across the western boundary) with a portion designated as urban separator. 17. Alan Holmberg - requested clarification of designation on his property along Petaluma River near Lakeville Street. Res onse Mr. Holmberg's property presently has a small portion designated as Service Commercial and the remainder as Park. The proposed plan shows the entire site as a park; however, there was no specific action or conscious decision to designate the entire site for park. The property is adjacent to a Mixed Use designation and such a designation, if appZied to the same segment of the property now shown as Service CommerciaZ, would not be incompatible or inconsistent with the surrounding area. 18. Bob Lipman. - representing the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce; :asked the Commission when comments would be responded to and when the text would be discussed; reiterated his request on behalf of the Chamber for a continuance, and urged the Commission not to - hurry through the hearings. Response Technical information, matters of procedure and clarification of in are being responded to through the Meeting Summary; however the final recommendation on any comments or requests rests with the Planning Commission. The General Plan text wzzl be addressed following the hearing of all comments and questions on the proposed Land Use Map; additional meetings will be added at yet to be determined dates, if necessary, in order to allow adequate time for full consideration of all aspects of the draft Plan. 19. Dave Papenhausen questions about the Urban Separator, what is it;. what governs it; is it a park; how is the width determined; will it change? Opposes Urban Separator; should be moved to the agricultural parcels. Q�40!22X Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO 9 and SPEAKER NO. 16. 26. Ji Ricci - shouldn't have an ya, 1%i` -hF,density residential development in gi g Petaluma: don't need any, there is ; s fficient land in City. Response State law requires that localities provide a mix of housing types and higher density housing is one aspect of that mix. Higher densities also make more efficient use of land and reduce pressure for urban sprawl. The Draft General Plan has several poZicies that w2Zl encourage better design of higher density projects and better assure that they are compatible with surrounding areas. 21. L rry Modell - concerned about removing segment of Urban Separator L ' airport and Garfield Drive; would like to see provision for less density and more open space between Gar-.field and airport; what happened to feathering? Res onse: The segment of Urban Separator removed on the proposed Genera, Plan Land Use Map from the area between the airport and Garfield Drive is actually occupied by the existing airport and wiZZ continue to function as part of the new airport development. Recognizing that, the Separator designation was removed from that Zand. Densities in the area between Garfield and the airport are proposed to be reduced from 7.0 du /ac (Planned Residential on existing GP Map) to 2.1 to 5.0 du /ac (`Urban Standard) as shown on the draft land use map. Feathering was discussed by the Growth Management Sub- Committee and consensus seemed to be that it was an in use of land and without feathering there would be less pressure to move the Urban Limit Line further out. 22. B,ob Carpenter - Willow Brook diversion cuts through the property of p he represents; City is shifting _flood problems in City to land outside City; Diversion was created in order to build a business park; leave Will Brook in natural channel. Ri 6 spouse The WZZlow Brook Diversion is one of three flood mitigation measures reflected on the City's Draft General Plan. The Diversion is designed to "reduce peak flood flows and the amount of sedimentation zn�, the Petaluma River and the lower reach of WiZow Brook" (p. 3 -16, SCWA, Master Drainage Study). To be effective, it must operate in - tandem with the Denman Dam and Detention Basin. It is a recommendation from the Sonoma County Water Agency and has not been created in order to permit development of the proposed Redwood business Park 11. A draft EIR has been prepared for the Redwood Business Park project and will be reviewed by the Commission in the n ear future. 23. Greg .Freitas - representing clients of Lucy Webb Realty; supported request for continuance to allow more time to review plan and maps. Response No response necessary. 24. George Hoover - representing Old Adobe School District; several areas oil concern to school district: 1) increased development will mean increased traffic; City must make commitment to safe intersections; 2) 0 , Zr impact fees should cover permanent and temporary facilities: 3) any benefit /assessment district establisher - for park maintenance should include maintenance of school playfields; 4) the district supports policies calling for provision of after school activities for children but wants to make sure that the programs do not divert funds from education; 5) land at southeast corner of Caulfield and Crinella should remain in a residential designation rather than park because State law requires school :districts to offer surplus land to the City first before putting it on the market. Response Comments 1 through 4 s requ�ng specific City Council ac provides basic direction on these iss levels of commitment must be left for a case by case basis. As to the Zan GP'CC recommended this site for a par k to create additional open space in an designation would, if adopted, signij City's intent for the land should it be se to , be .areas of City policy tzon. The draft General Plan ues but details of programs and the City Council to determine on d at Crinella and CauZfield, the principally because of the ,need area now fully developed. This y to the Old Adobe district the declared surplus. 25. Ed Fullerton - concerns about Urban Separator; land has no development potential it is effectively condemned Westside terrain would create maintenance and security problems; Urban Limit Line provides an effective barrier. Resp SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 9; question of Te potential could be addressed through . Transfer of Development Rights program similar to that describd in, the Draft General Plan for agricultural lands outside of the Urban Limit Line. Such a program might make aquisition of the Separator more feasible for both the property owner and the City. The Sonoma Highlands project established a precedent for doing this that could be reflected in the General Plan. The Chairperson closed the meeting at 10:15 PM and continued the public hearing on the Draft General Plan and .EIR to Tuesday, August 12, 1986. meeting . . 8 / 5 gpl 10 ^rl -022K City of Petaluma Planning Commission Public Hearings On the 1986 -2005 Draft General Plan and EIR MEETING SUMMARY ADDENDUM MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1986 The purpose of this Addendum is to reflect corrections to or clarification of comments or responses made in the Meeting Summary of the date shown above :I Where possible, - the correction or clarification requested is stated verbatim to prevent any further confusion. A) Clarification of the comments of Commissioner Head (p. 2 of Meetin Summary of 8/5/86) who felt his statements had been misinterpreted: �I What has been our policy in the past on the General Plan has been the feathering of .lots into the rural area or our urban separator. What has been happening, and it has been happening quite frequently, is1 that these lots have been zoned for one or two units per acre, but What has been happening is that developers have been coming in on these large parcels and have asked for PUD's where we still give one or two units to the acre, but they are all crammed in together and this loses the effect of the original intent of feathering. My desire was to bring up and have considered that any of these parcels, if they are. zoned for one or two units per acre, that that is what they would have to remain as long as our land use map is in effect. They could not be rezoned for a PUD in order to get a maximum amount of housing clustered into one area. What I was looking for was a non -PUD designator for those lots that are zoned one or two units per acre that border 'our Urban Separator." Res Clarification .noted; the question of PUD designations is one rv,hich must be resolved by the Commission and Council as part of the policy deliberations on the draft plan. B) Comments from Commissioner Head regarding Speaker No. 13 (Remo Rebizzo, p. 7, Meeting Summary of 8/5/86): "This refers to the piece of property Mr. Rebizzo was talking about last week. We show this as Public and Institutional and it is also marked on the land use .map as such. I believe this was improperly marked in the first place, and I believe the proper designator should be put on our land plan which identifies this property as a privately owned piece of property with a commercial establishment on it. This is not a public property. It should be a straight correction." Response As stated in the initial response to Mr. Rebizzo, staff recognizes that Mr. Rebizzo's property may be incorrectly designated. However, since Mr. Rebizzo raised the issue of his property's land use designation at the public hearing, a recommendation to change the present designation will come from the Planning Commission, in its due course and following whatever additional deliberations the Commission makes on the matter. Changes will be made at Commission direction during the discussion /decision process. '1 11 0, 0 C) C'l'arification of the comments made by Bob Carpenter (Speaker No. 22, R .I. 9, Meeting Summary of 8/5/,86) regarding the proposed Willow Brook Diversion and Denman .Detention Basin Projects: l� "What I attempted to _say was that I didn "t like some of the words in this document (referring to the yellow tabloid insert distributed in the Buylines and Ar - us- Courier on 7/30/86) namely under the item entitled, "Pursue Mitigation of the 10.0 -Year Flood." Particularly these words, it commits the City to aggressively pursue the solutions recommended by the Sonoma County Water Agency - the Petaluma (Eastside) By -Pass, the Denman Dam and Detention Basin and the Willow Brook Diversion" . Now that's what I didn't' want this Commission to do - to commit itself to those items." R'es onse: Comments noted the statement which Mr. Carpenter refers 7 s contained in the Executive Summary of the draft General Plan b.ut s not a statement of policy. Program 7 on p. 24.9 of the draft plan would, if adopted, set the City's course on these matters. It says, "Adopt the most reasonable and effective measures of SC WA flood mitigation plan in order to mitigate the 1.00 -year flood. " D) Clarification of comments made b Chris Barauskas (Speaker No,. 10, p { 6, Meeting Summary of 8/'5/'86) regarding the proposed Rainier overcrossing connection with Petaluma Blvd. No.: A't issue was not the alignment of Rainier Avenue after it crosses the freeway, but the need. for Rainier Avenue to connect with Petaluma Blvd. North at all where there is nothing there except a cemetery, an itt, will only add to the congestion on Petaluma Blvd. North. Response The computerized traffic model used by the City to determine the need for additional east/west routes shows that the connection of Rainier Avenue to the freeway and to Petaluma BZvd. North wi= significantly reduce traffic volumes (number of cars in. a given period of time) on East Washington Street. This w2ZZ allow East Washington to function at an acceptable level of service without ne {e ding costly improvements, and create the additional road capacity to allow future development in the Corona /Ely Road area. E) Clarification of comments by Gene Hash (Speaker No. 16, p. 8, Meeting Summary of 8/51,86) regarding shifting of the Urban Separator from his property to properties to the west: !' It was not my intent to shift the separator on to the smaller properties near mine but shift it westward into the Dairy Belt (Sonoma County Specific Plan) area." Response Comments noted; no response necessary. F) Clarification of the location of the location of the meeting sponsored by Supervisor- Harberson and the Sonoma ,County Water Agency (p. 5, Meeting Summary of 8/5/86) The meeting will be held at 7 :30 PM on Thursday, August 28 at Penngrove Firehouse and not Liberty School as originally stated. 12 G) Clarification of Payran Reach project mentioned by Commissioner Davis (p. 2., Meeting Summary of 8/'.5/86) The Payran Reach project under study by the Corps of Engineers is a smaller scale project and, different from the, Payran Reach .project discussed in the SCWA Master Drainage Study. The two comprise different "ley :else of channel, modification and . provide different - levels of protection (protection 'in the sense of what level of storm frequency each -would handle) . meeting. summary. add. 8/ 5 gpl 13 Not Official Until Approved By The Planning Commission • Petal Spec City o i l , PREP MINUTES (Minutes are "Action Minutes" and represent a summary of full taped records of Planning Commission hearings.) i Planning Commission August 5, 1986 Meeting 6:00 p.m. uncil Chambers Petaluma, California T: Commissioners Davis, Head, Hilligoss, Libarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr ABSENT: None STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Mike Moore, Principal Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES.: Minutes of July 22, 1986 were approved as corrected as follows): Page 3 - add speakers to Lakeville Shopping Center: Tom Caulfield, property owner; Roberta - Mundie - EIR consultant; Steve Colman, traffic consultant (DKS') . Lakeville Shopping Center public hearing was not closed. Typographical correction: Zell (Anderson Auto Body Speaker) ; Page, 8 - Chevron - Add Condition: 15. Additional landscaping shall be p rovided along northern property line (Washington Creek frontage), subject to SPARC review_ and approval. i CORRESPONDENCE See individual items. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Main Street Project coordinator appointment; distribution of Redwood Business Park II DEIR and Meadow Park Subdivision focused environmental studies. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT None. NOTE: - - -- = deletion = addition 1 ,23 ME LIMI PUBLIC HEARINGS I. LAKEVILLE SHOPPING CENTER, LUCKY FOODS, INC., LAKEVILLE AT CAULFIELD, AP NO. 005- 020 -46, (Files 11.856, 1.489) , CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 22, 1986. 1. Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2. Consideration of Use Permit for shopping center. The public hearing was closed at the July 22nd meeting. Staff reintroduced the item by summarizing points of discussion, i.e. conditions, EIR mitigations from the July 22 meeting. Letters on Lakeville Shopping Center from the Chamber of Commerce, the Great Petaluma Mill, and owners of Tasha Arts and Apparel were read into the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Head to recommend to the City Council that the DEIR and Addendum for the proposed project is adequate as corrected and amended (per errata sheet and changes to page 5 #1, page 6 #2, and page 6 #5 as noted) and should be certified and approved. AYES: 6 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Davis *) *Absent from 7/22 meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to deny the use permit without prejudice based on the inability to make the necessary and appropriate findings. AYES: 2 (Tarr, Parkerson) NOES: 4 ABSTAIN: 1 (Davis) A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Hilligoss to grant a conditional use permit for the proposed project based on the findings and conditions listed in the staff report as amended. AYES: 4 NOES: 2 (Tarr, Parkerson) ABSTAIN: 1 (Davis) NOTE: Commissioner Tarr supported the recommended conditions but could not support a Use Permit without reviewing a revised plan showing two major tenants. Findings 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval conforms to the intent and requirements of the Zoning 'Ordinance, General Plan and the EDP. 2. This project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community due to the mitigation measures incorporated by the certification of the final EIR and in the conditions of approval for the Use Permit. Conditions: 1. That the granting of the Use Permit is contingent upon the certification of a Final EIR document by the City Council. 2 25 2. All structures shall be built at least to the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code for seismic safety. J. Site preparation and grading shall conform to the recommendations of a registered soils engineer in the State of California and subject to review and approval of City Engineer. Recommendations must be included for addressing the issues of expansive soils and settlement. 4. Site drainage work shall be subject to review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency and City staff in accordance with the P etaluma River Watershed Master- Drainage Plan. 00 1 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable flood mitigation requirements adopted by the City Council as contained in Zoning O Ordinance Article 16 and Municipal Code, Chapter 17.30 "Storm ® Drainage Impact Fee." All improvements and grading shall comply with -the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Criteria. 6. An effective sprinkling program to reduce dust emissions shall be implemented during construction. salnni-tted - -- -for -- staff- - -review- -and a.pprov-nl -- prier- to-- iasnarrc .�e--ofi�rp- Zlevelegmerrt- permit- anchdmglerrrented during - *_*rti en � : - - -Ah- ajar- �hrst-- geaerstirrg- aetierroes- a�ral�- bc- �reda�ed- -far- �.�ose -- periods wirezr �oe-�l- winrtls-ure- -loar. 8- --- Storage -- piles - -( dirt;--- coirstrtrction--rcfn -- ate- }-- aha�l - --b� -creel I dequa tel q- -with- pl a a tic- she e-t i ng- -&s -deem e d- necessary -by - s taf f 9---- �articltlate-- arrc�- �rydrecarborr- -emissions -- from-- ax�t+vi-izerl-- tomstructiea equi pmeirt - -- shall- - -b e--- minimizerb-- tlrrong�r-- propez�- �airrtertanze - -�rd 7. l9- I This property shall proportionately participate in any future benefit assessment district for Lakeville Highway corridor improvements. 8. 11.- If the City Engineer determines that existing and future signals on Lakeville at Caulfield and to the east shall be synchronized, the project shall participate in a pro -rata share in financing the cost of that improvement. 9. }2 - I The service entrance at Lindberg Lane shall be widened and improved on both sides of the project driveway to assure that the access /egress route can accommodate 6559 -foot vehicles adequately. If widening of Lindberg Lane is determined to be needed by the City Engineer, this project shall contribute an equitable share of right -of -way and improvements costs, subject to determination of City Engineer. 10.13...1 The site plan shall be revised to shift the eastern Lakeville driveway farther west to allow lengthening of the left turn pocket on Caulfield, subject to review and approval of City staff. 3 I 11.14.- Parking and movement patterns around Pads A and B shall be redesigned to reduce conflict between parking traffic and cross -aisle and drive - through traffic, subject to review and approval of City staff. 12.15: The site plan shall be revised to eliminate parking within two car lengths of any City street, to prevent conflict with vehicles entering or exiting the site, subject to review and approval of City staff. 13.167 The site plan shall provide four parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. 14.1. The Caulfield Driveway shall be eliminated redesigne+ -to- offer right - turn ; - entranze -only 15.19.- The project related public improvements shall include, but not be limited to, providing a water main (size and specifications to be approved by City Engineer per the Water Master Plan) along Lindberg Lane between Payran and Lakeville Streets connecting the two existing mains. 16.29.- The project shall pay a pro -rata share of the improvement costs associated with the new sanitary sewer line along Lakeville per the Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 21--- T4v, -- entire- pra�- -site ; - elcvatiioYr9 -, -- landscaping - end- -asso6-ateel site im provemen is - shall- -be -stz b� -to- - rev i ew -and- app T o v al- -by- the- -Site - P}an anc}-- i�rchitecttxral- lt�vierocr�orrxrrittee- {SgPrR� �. 17.22.- All refuse, recycle, pallet storage/ collection areas shall be internal and accessible to the loading areas, subject to SPARC review and approval. 18.237 All existing signs on the site shall be removed within ninety days of certification of the FEIR, with the exception of allowable "future home of" construction /lease signs as permitted in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 19. 24.- The project site, elevations landscaping and associated site improvements shall be subject to SPARC review and approval. SPARC shall particularly consider visual and aesthetic requirements for this sensitive site, including but not limited to the need to provide extraordinary landscaping along the Caulfield Lane and Lakeville frontages. 20. 25.- The applicant shall submit a litter control plan and a landscape maintenance plan as part of the SPARC review application. 21. 26.- Employees shall not be prohibited from parking on the project site. n L 0004 Q 0 02 7 22.27,. Any development occapaanrcy of the free - standing pads structures shall require review through the conditional use permit procedure. 23. 28: All overhead utilities fronting or traversing any portion of the 'project site shall be converted to underground facilities, subject to staff review and approval. 24. 29,: A' sign program for the entire center shall be developed and isubmitted as part of the SPARC application package. � A 25.3A't D 4iverp Truck circulation pattern serving the site shall be such as to prohibit truck traffic north on Payran beyond Lindberg and east ! Lindberg beyond Payran . shad --be- sab7ect - to- -review - arr& T eguiation il?q- tire- {7rt�r- £�rgi�teer�rtel- sira3i- became- a- tvrrtiitivtr -cf- the•- Lase- Pzrmit- 26. 'Small retail store area shall be reduced to provide a second major ' anchor tenant as originally indicated as an a ternative in the Applicant/ developer project description II. CITY OF PETALUMA, DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND EIR 1. Initial consideration of Draft General Plan Land Use Map. (Public Hearings on the Draft General Plan Land Use Map, Draft General Plan text, and Draft EIR will continue at subsequent meetings on August 12, 19 and, if necessary, August 20. ) I Three; letters were read into the record from Lucy Webb Realty, Chamber of Commerce and McKay and Somps, Engineers. The public hearing was opened. Staff � recommended and the Commission concurred, that a summary would be done ion each of the hearings on the General Plan and that the summary would be completed and available to the public and the Commission prior to the n ext hearing /meeting and shall constitute the minutes and official record of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: Warren Salmons, Planning Director 10:10 PM. 5