HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/30/1982Page 1 of 3
�.....:.._.. _ - _ 125
M I N U T E S
PETALUMAI'PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1982
CONTINUED MEETING FROM'NOVEMBER 23, 1982 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,,'CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT' Commissioner Head, Hilligoss, Lavin,.Popp, Shearer, and Tencer
ABSENT: Commissioner Bond
STAFF: Gregory C. Freitas, Community Development and Planning Director
Warren Salmons, Principal Planner
Cynthia Beeken, Associate Planner
GENERALIPLAN /ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PLAN -- LAND:USE,MAP AND TEXT,AMENDMENTS
Q 8.7;5/11,711 Penn Phillips
8.77/11.725 'Wise
8.7;8/11.726 Conrow
8.8 ' McCabe
8.81/11.732 General
;I
Staff presented the proposed amendments in groups due to the large number of
amendments in a staff report dated 11/24/82.
I
The Commission reviewed the following - items:
Group!rA: 3. 4, 9, 10, 14, 17, 20, and 27i
i
Group`B: 1, 5 -8, 15, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27a -c
The Commission reviewed the type of environmental clearance: that previously
prepared!'•environmental documentation is adequate for the proposed amendments
listed in Group A and that the City Council direct "staff to issue a negative
declaration for the amendments listed in Group B based on the following findings:
I.
1,. Detailed environmental analysis will be conducted in conjunction
'Wi review -of any specific development project implemented pursuant
to the proposed amendments.
Z. Remaining potential environmental impacts associated with the
amendments rare not significant.
The Comm the following discussion items:
Group; „D: '31
Group's �F:. 2'8'
Page'..2 of 3 "
' 126 PETALUMA PLANNING ,COMMIS.SION MINUTES NOVEMBER 30, 1982
.The Commission reviewed the following types.of environmental clearance: that
previously prepared environmental documentation is adequate for the proposed
amendments listed in Group C and that the City Council direct staff to issue
a negative ,declaration for the amendments listed in Groups D, E., and •F based
on the following findings:
1. Detailed environmental analysis will be conducted in conjuction
with review of any specific development project implemented pursuant-
to the proposed amendments.
2. Remaining potential environmental impacts associated with the
amendments are not significant.
There was a great deal of discussion regarding Items 28 and 31:
ITEM #28 PENN. PHILLIPS - Amend designation from Industrial to Planned Residential .
(7.0 u /ac) - North McDowell Blvd, between U.S. 101 and N,W.P.R.R crossing,
AP#'s 7- 401 -12 and 7- 391 -11, and add a neighborhood park site within- subject area.
The public hearing was opened:
Speakers:. Michael Davis, 522 Sonoma Dr.; Petaluma, President of Golden State
Mobile League
Andy Anderson, 512 V.ina Rose; Petaluma
Ronald Hinkson, 127 Napa. Drive, Petaluma
Gordon Leask, 243 Petaluma Way
Sam Spencer,.201 Petaluma Way,.President of Home Owners Assoc.
Lou representing applicant
Shirley Selberg., 26 E. Napa ' Dr.'
Marge Schubauer, °92 E. Napa,br.
Phil Scolla, Director.of Development Projects, 123 No:. Lake Ave.
Pasadena, CA
Mi'chae'l Spang, 11 Rocca Dr., representative of IN.O.A.H.
Earl'Soldate, 120 Napa Dr.
Steve Buckley, representing Lucy Webb Realty
Emil.Mogel, representing applicant
It was the consensus of the commission to request individual commissioners to
indicate to the audience his or her position regarding each -item, and that a
final vote regarding all amendments would be cast after all items had been
reviewed.
Consensus, on . Itei4..128 - . Penri Phillips,
To approve Item #28 with the provision that there will be a separate access'
to the boulevard; and a neighborhood park to be`Drovided.to.the City on.the Penn
Phillips property.
AYES: 6 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Bond)
� 4Y
- t
P ETALUMA,,- PLANN I
OMMISSION MINUTE
Page 3 of 3 c
NOVEMBER 30
27
ITEM 431_ ALMA COURT - Amend designation from Urban Low Residential (4.5 du /ac)
' to Urban High Residential (20 du /ac), AP #'s 7- 022 -12, 13,
21, 25 7 28, 34, 39, 41, and 48.
The public hearing was opened.
i
Speakers: - Stuart Curtis, 21 Alma:Court
! Ernie Curtis, 1277 Ely Road
Les Matthias, 22 Alma Court
Doug McCabe, representing applicant, 725 E. Washington
j. Ken Roberts, applicant, 5575 Lakeville Highway
Joan Curtis, 21 Alma Court
0) Comm. Tencer recommended and a consensus was received for reconsideration of this
Ln item due;to lack of a voting majority as indicated by individual commissioners"
comments. Three commission members leaning towards support of Urban
Low Density for all parcels on Alma Court.
co
_ In addition to Items 28 and 31,, all items in Group A and Items 1 through 27c
in Group -B were presented by staff. Several questions were addressed to staff
regarding these proposed amendments. Staff was directed to recontact school districts
affectedi'by proposed school site redesignation.
'E
Due to the late hour, the public hearings were continued to the next meeting.
ITEMS REMAINING TO BE REVIEWED ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Group A: None
j.' Group B: 27e, 27g -h, 27j -r
Group C: 2, 16, 18, and 21
Group D: 12, 22, 27d,, 27f, '29 and 30
Group E: 13
Group F: None.
AND ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Group A: 9 (Cinnabar School site)
17 (Wilmar School site)
Group B: 6 (Waugh School site)
27a (Waugh School site) .
Group C: 31 (Alma Court)
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on December 28, 1982.
ATTEST
Gregory/C. Freitas
Community Development
and Planning Director