Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/19/1974A G E N D A 'PETALUMA CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION MARCH 19, 197 REGULAR MEETiNG 7:30 P.M.. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL,: Comm. Bals:haw Bellovich Hilligd..sz Mattei Popp, Water Bond STAFF: Frank B. Gray, bitector,off. Communi. .... ....... . APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 Dav D.. Y oun design for proposed Young- Situ e P"e.ia `Blird.' North. stowne Mo e erne P. uma .2) Larry Zi Warner - Site design'for construction of a duplex and single- family dwelling on the same site with ;an existing single-family dwelling at 518 6th.Street. 3) Pacific Telephone Site design for addition to principal structure at 6,30 Jefferson Street. CORRESPONDENCE MANUEL PACHECO - 1) Variance to allow a reduction.from 25 feet to VARIANCE'& SITE 6, feeE'ln rear setback. DES ICO : 2) Sipe design for �one studio apartment and two du lexe;s to be'built.in two phases on the same site with an existing single-family home at 709, 717, and 719 "G" Stredt in a.R-C District. STEVEN C. THOMPS014 Consideration of anzpplication for a certificate of CERTIFICATE OF public convenience and. necessity filed by Steven C. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Thompson to engage in the business of_. 'a & NECESSITY: jitney service in the City. TORE KVILAAS - Public Hearing to consider the,Us,e Permit application USE PERMIT U4"74: of Tore Kvilaas to allow a dwelling group consisting of a second "dwelling on the sine parcel 'with an existing dwelling at 80.2 6th Street. ONEITA H. PORRITT Public Hearing to consider the Use Permit application USE PERMIT of Oneita H.?orritt to allow the,expansion of the U3-74: existing Petaluma Children§'.Park operation with a capacity of 25 children to :include an additional 20 children in a second existing residential structure on the site. City of Petaluma Planning C6mm*sslon Agenda, March 19, 1.974 MODIFICATION TO Continuation of Public Hearing to consfi4er 'amending ZONING ORDNANCE Zoning, Ord No 1,072 N.C.Sj. to add Article 17 NO'. 1072 N.C-'S. entitled. Preservation of the Cultural and Hist6iic Env itohment. inducing' impact GROWTH'INbtiCINc' Pu)Aid ii 't g o consider the giowt,h ASPECTS.OFA of the Water C.6mniisi d'a-t ' slon s recommendation to t AEOUEST''FOR A Petaluma' City Council that the rd water . 17 - 'MGD DomrstIC: bntitle'irient from the Sonoma Count y WAter Agency be 'WATER ENTITLEMENT 'increased fr-.,om'.5.& million gallons of water per. FROM SONOMA COUNTY average summer day to 17 million gallons , of' water, pdf WATER AGENCY; average summer day. ADJOURNMENT -2- -- - -_ilk a M.I N U. T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING'COMMIS'SION 'REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY - HALL MARCH 19, 1974 7:30 P.M. PETALUIdIA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bellovi.ch, Hilligoss, Mattei, Waters, Bond ABSENT: ;Comm. Balshaw, Popp STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 5, 1974 were approved as submitted. CONSENT CALE.NDAR:: 1) David D. Young - Site design for proposed `You.ngstowne Mobilehome Park, Petaluma Blvd. North 2),'.'_ J. Warner - Site design for construction of a - duplex and single - family dwelling on the same site with an existing single- family dwelling 518 6th Street© 3), Pacific Telephone - Site design for addition to principal structure at 630.Jefferson Street. Comma Mattei requested that the David D. Young site design'.be removed from,the consent calendar as he had further questions'regarding the project. Lt was determined to`,place this item after the correspondence. Comm. Waters'made the motion to approve the site designs for Larry J. Warner and Pacific Telephone with, conditions as recommended by the Site D.esi,gn Review Committee. Comm. Hilligoss seconded the:, motion. AYES 5' NOES 0 ABSENT 2 CORRESPONDENCE:. 1) In answer to a request by the Commission as to advice on further action regarding Mr. ` Moxan's - noncompl'iance with the requirement to post a bond or place a cash deposit as required by the City Code in conjunction with the Use Permit granted to M & M Ice Vending Haehine.Company,`Mr Gray advised that Mr. Mo.ran'. had to this date still 'not complied. It was his recommendation to have,a Public Hearing on April 2, 1.974 to revoke the Use Permit. The Commission agreed with this line of action. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 19, 1974 2). The question h come up at'the last meeting re,ga'rding what action would be taken to pre- i" elude parking aliong McDowell° Blvd. South so that it would not. be in conflic't with the future. bicycle route Mr. Gray, advised that the proposed route called for separate bicycle lane in addition .to. a, parking lane in the area mentioned,. 3),' .T Comis 'sion° �' - had directed the staff to look he" into the possibility of reverti -ng an easement back the property owner if not, used • within a specific amount of year for a bicycle path Mr Gray advised t 'e_ - Commission that he d not feel a time limitation should be placed on the easement as the - 'hicycle. route was to be built in phases and timing was not pre:cis,e at this time® He informed 'the Commission. that if. ' property owner had an: easement that - was 'a hindrance to him he could req;rzest that the City abandon Sonoma it. Referrals: 1J a llow l an l eff` - site advertisingrsignc est to to be placed $50 feet from another outdoor advertising sign The. ,staff recommenidation was for oppo:sit3o.n . to. the variance," in .view of the absence- o;f' an apparent ha- rdsh:ip. 'Qiscuss pn followed re- gardi.ng 'the desire to avoid prolifera:tian° 'of signs after which Comm.. Bel lb.vich made a:motion to , forward a;letter to,the Sonoma. County Board. of Z`on.ng Adjustments opposing the requested variance. The motion was seconded by'COmm. Waters.. AYES 5 NOES. 0 ABSENT 2_ 2 . Stuart. & 'Alice Cooney Variance request for a . reduction ' in :minimum lot size from .3 ,acres to 2.48 acres to allow an.dd,ditibnal dwelling unit (mobile home) at `:19.4 Center Lane - The .staff -- r'epor`t was -read voicing opposition to the requested. variance :as. it would const tute further urbanization of the_. area and where was no apparent hardship Mr. Gray also added that mobile homes were only allowed in rural areas for agricultural workers and this would also -.be another point of oppositions Petaluma C''ty. Planning Commission Minutes, March 19, 1974. Comm. Bellovich made letter to 'the Sonoma • Adj opposing and Comm. Mattel sec. AYES 5 NOES 0 a motion to forward a County Board of Zoning the requested variance Dnded the motion. ABSENT 2 D. D. YOUNG - S`ITE Comm. Mattei referred to a letter from Mr. D. D. DES IGN''REVIEW: Young dated March 5, 19'74 and read it for the benefit of those present. The letter stated that the Youngstowne Mob.ilehome Park would be for "adults only" and Comma,Mattei questioned whether the letter was in fact 'a legal instrument and if it would apply to the land if it were sold in the future.. Mr. Gray' replied that the City Attorney could not be present because of a illness in his family, but he had discussed the matter with him and,Mr. Robert stated that as far as he was concerned the letter was sufficient. Mr. Gray added that he felt a condition should be added to effect that this requirement not only bind the undersigned but would also bind future owners of -the property, and Mr. D. D. Young agreed to this.additonal condition. Mr. D.o D". Young was called.upon.for further veri- fication and he informed the Commission that the park was: designed for only and did not contain the facilities necessary for children. In replying to the legality of the letter, Mr. :D. D. Young informed the Commission that according to his, attorney and the City Attorney the letter was considered a legal instrument. Mr.'Gray suggested adding "and this agreement shall be binding on future owners." to Condition #11 and the Commission agreed. Chairman; Bond informed the Commission and appli- cant that the Site Design Review Committee had "recommended 1)" that additional guest parking spaces be provided in the southwest corner of the site; 2,) that all trees be at least 5 gallon size.; and 3) to add a condition "General-standards shall be established for landscaping of ndivid- ual mobilehome spaces by tenants." The Commission and applicant voiced agreement with these changes. Mr. Gray informed the Commission that the next step in'the development would be the obtaining of a grading permit -at which time all of the conditions of the site design must be met. -3- Petaluma City Plann ComMisslon Min"Lit es, March 19, 1914 Chairman Bond asked -the current disposition of Condition #1 which restricted the; is s u ance issuance of Dep-mits or ,construction � until the City Council • had adopted a policy regarding deve, 't 1,opment. after receipt of the written deci'•,sio of the Court re- garding the City's 'P, esa d `ential, Control Sys tem.. Mr.. G-"-rdy advised that thi's written, decision wa expected withip the next two, week's COMM. HilligoS,g made a . °rfiotion to approve. the si deisign with condit.'ions "f ap 0 prova 1 as amended and. Comm. Waters seconded, the mot" ­ ion. AYES , 5 . - 0 ABSENT' '2 The foll6wllng clay if ication was made, on the voting. Comm. Watrs stated that he was . in opposItion to- the apparent line 61 mobilehome parks,• in the area but had- no opposition to the site design ;offered;. Comm. Mattel stated he had voiced Opposition in the past and sh would if it Was th locAti on. that was being questioned, but he: h ad no opposit ion to the sa ite d . esign plan. Chairman ' Bond stated that although he did not dare for the project, the applicant had done h1s best to develop it and he had no oppo.-sition,to the . site -, des ig'n. MANUEL PACHECO- Mr., Gray showed the lans for the I p , project to- VAR ' 1ANCE & SITE the Commission,, -He explained the proposal for DESIGN; -tm one studio apart t ent and two duplexes to,. be built on the same site �ith an existing single= W family dwelling; an'd that a variance had. keen requested to allow a reduction from 25 feet to .6 feet in .rear yard setback because of the location of Thompson Creek and the parking layout. Mr. Gray informed the Commission that a neighbpring property owners had called in opgosition.'to the Bond asked if this person wa present and Mr. Bill Carpen respond ed and addressed the Com►ission,. He inf'rmed the Commission that 0 he owned prppexty at the tear—of the proposed project,, , Mr. Carpenter did not feel adequate %notice of the project had. been given and advised. th another neighbor at the rear of the project 0 was on Vacation and thetefore c not voice: any objections he might have. Mr.,. 'CaxiDenter voiced" objection to granting Of the va-ri.an because the property owner knew 'Of the. requikemen for a 25 foot rear y4td setback at the time he -4- 3. P - ta1uma Ci `Kriftites"'," k4j7l J. V:J. D e ty Planrffng� Comm Commii�­.Iorf: 19 7 put,t=:h - ' - Re also felt it would iwf ra rihqb '-priva6y""'and the two story duplex ­c1 o .4 1 " Voulld- c,U.f f air and throw 5 f 66 t` oh his property. Mr. "2 30` ld cau traf -6ffis since there 'has lready an apartment c P ex" 'of :"a`pbp,r'dx 1 ate units across the o F-i _? -, , - e -t�'� s that the creek should be '.'—tre'Ot. �n�. .,,considered.. In cb.nclusidn, Mr—Carpenter asked b e eydyva b fVt h e project. Chairman - _J ''Bon - lid'P the requirements of the PSondm"_a County Waterger�`cy regarding the creek' wo ul d to be : 'met e issuance of a building per Ij-rs'dt�s's f6h" - T o ��e d du ng w frilt hich it was veri1i:6 d - Mr - . - , a R M:66r did not have buildings hb� to the e. h1b - bt aI all houses on "H" :e Street were located on th e. front of the parcels.. rl J " M r 3:ck` ­IA­' i6 J�htihg the applicant, He stated they felt �c Ye - 6 k tA w as, 'U J fi because of the location ro19 site He remarked that ' ' h" fo r developing the site - po si e to the­f iillast d'dfit i7 i bl ' and he was sur prised ar, opposition d to he to the plan. Mr. Lieb , " N to wait a few weeks ­s w U1 wr" Tng % • e a r property owners, but � mme he dil not dofibi'Mi�A-he two-story duplexes '-, a f acto ' si c le= ani'ly dwellings could also Z L V6 = sItOt r 'ray if there were windows facing '4' ­ re v ph and Mr. Lieb be designed to have 't" "ItbiY d te 6­ �un r s the .wln'doiWs ` 'dtc'& on the second stories. Comm Mattei questioned compromising on the 6-foot - 'Mr - ';`Lieb - replied that it Z_., d 1­1 s etback rear y a:ck and " wers� t--' - f ea s1b'be - br I ausa6f the position of the C a�rid­ the­` ` r I­K'q`Ta'you t . sacrifice their privacy when the ordinance called .1 ar' setback A. C"I� f yard ' -ro.p1`i "thA c 6 S ha d the idb J develope f `bb`­dd've1 E " ­ ` in a&. d' J 15 f Bondi �t- s cliar o tha .1 u t h ro p 1' 7 1 - .". 1 . t Car*&n --­-co ented that then the = propert 'should no b UdVeloped. Mr.. Larry Parks lo,cal addressed the .5-hiVV6166 h 1"6` T �`approval o ihe' 6 t�; shacks U �' rei�oV h i -e. -Ec,- the s" 't `v 'He-: st-Atbeaf id not agree with ito-rj- t 'at 616 mou be a traffic Mr i C a�tp e h h "t'h""'. t�ou ic J_ ­­pro b as 6 n 6 d d o e at the present time e id' not" Te ihis project an would pose a __ - .! ., M.... e C1 -_5':L­ 'Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 19,• 1974: Mr. Ken Davis:, Kentucky Street', questioned the slope of the site and his concern that it would drain onto adjacent parcels. Mr. Lieb informed him that it was illegal to divert water to anyone elses property and that the site slopes to the creek. He added that the Sonoma County Water Agency required that the water: be directed into the creek without .,it eroding the bank. Mr. Albini o -f: San Rafael, stated he was the owner of the trip.le-k acros . the street and informed the Commission that at the time he developed his site he had to comply with the - setback requi,re- ment even though it meant „putting in less units, and he was therefore in oppos'i.tion to the granting ,of this variance. 'Mr. Manuel Pacheco,, the applicant,, addressed the Commission and stated he felt the development ; would be an attractive addition to the ,community and that he was in feet under-developing' the site. He stated that the project was planned to fit in with theT environment:and to retain the trees rather than to develop the maximum 'density allowed. Discussion fo , l , lowed regarding the .advisability of waiting two weeks to get reactions of,..other property - or possible alteration of site Plans.- It was determined to 'hold the decision off unt'i-1 the next regular meeting of the Commission and in the intervening time a meeting between the applicant, architect, and surrounding property owners, would be arranged Mr.. Gray advised that in the future when Variances. were requested a letter, would be sent to all property ,owners ten days prior .to the scheduled meeting. STEVEN. :C.. T;HOMPSON - Mr. Gray advised the ,Commission that the Police CERRTIFICATE,OF,PUBLIC Chief had requested this item be. delayed until the CONVENIENCE' next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. NECESSITY; Comm. Waters made a motion to delay this item until A ri.l 2, 1974 'and Comm., Bell seconded the motion. The vote'was unanimous'. TORE KVILAAS Mr'.. Gray presented the plans to the. CbiimAssioriers USE PERMLT' 'U4' -74: for .review and gave: ,a brief .,presentation of the proposal to. ;allow a dwelling group .consisting of a second dwelling on the, same ,parcel with an existing dwelling at 802 6th- Street He added that site design review was a part of the Use Permit and that the Site Design> Review Committee -6 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 19, 1974 had reviewed the project and concurred with the staff's recommended conditions of approval. These conditions were then read and Mr. Gray commented that the Committee had also felt that the use of fruit trees'as requested by the applicant would provide adequate screening. Comma Waters questioned why the 25 -foot rear yard setback had not been maintained and he was in- Ibrmed the site was in a ;R -1 -6,500 'District and met the conditions of that district. The Public Hearing was opened. The applicant, Tore Kvilaas` stated he had no additional comments but - : would answer questions.<'No other response was given f:rom.the•audience and the Public Hearing was closed. ;Comm. Hilligoss made a motion to grant the Use Permit with conditions of approval as stated and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 ONEITA H.'PORRITT - Mr. Gray described the project to expand the • USE PERMIT U3 -74: existing,Pe.taluma Chi.ldren's Park at 137 Payran Street. 'He informed the'Commission that there have been no complaints regarding the existing - usage n , t'his neighborhood. The recommended conditions of approval were then read and Mr. Gray added that the Site,Design Review Committee had -concurred with these recommendations and had - decided that the screen fence along the front between the driveways and a.short screen fence approximately 1.2 feet long adjacent to the parking spaces would be adequate The Public Hearing was opened. Mrs. Oneita Po`rritt addressed the Commission and stated that she - had been operating the nursery school at this site for 4 -1/ °2' years and she was satisfied with the recommended conditions of approval stated. Mr..Ern,e Curtis, Alma Court, asked how far away from his property the nursery school was located. The site was indicated to him on the area map and he stated he 'had no objections. Mr. Rogers Hoffman stated that he was impressed with _the neighborhood and also the fact that the Commission realized that noisy children had to be accommodated, and he 'commended Mrs. Porri.tt on her success in affording this accommodation. The Public Hearing was closed. -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 19 - 1974 Comm,. Mattei made a motion to grant the requested Use ,Permit with conditions of ,approval as stated and Comm., llilligosz seconded the.'motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT '2: MODIFICATION TO Mr. Gray aavis the Commission that the previously ZONING ORDINANCE sijbMj_ tted- ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance NO. 1072,N to add a historic preservation section and, the resolution establishing the Historical Preservation Commission had been compiled ihitb one. ordinance and the"tommission" had been changed to a " in line With the Aaxpress'ed. feelings of the .Planning Commiasion. Mr; Gray also advised that the Nationai Trust for Histor'lc Preservation organization had recommended seven members for the Committee instead of five: and had also. recommended adding a paraqraph-to . advise the City .;Co,uncil, on all matters relating. to the historic and Cultural preservation of the 'City, in particular -state and federed desi gnations and registration of historical landmarks. These ch anges had been made in the text of: the revised ordinance d'ated'March 1.9, 1974. The make-up of the Committee and the-one-year term of office was ssed. The suggestion o staggered terms of office to eliminate a complete turn -over each year of ,members was suggested.and also a ,recommendation made to .allow Planning Commis,sio - ners other than tho the Site: :Design ,Review Committee to serve as members on t I hLa Committee. Mr. Gray stated these items could be changed if the-Commission desired. The Public Hearing ,was reopened., Barbara Lind, e* S.ecrt of the, �Mayor . S . elect Committee, on Hiztoric' Preservation, introduced . 'Mr. John Frisby from the National Trus.t for Historic Pres-ervation organization. Mr. Frisby informed the Commission that his orqantzation assisted in the historic preservation 'endeavors throughout the country and he cited examples of various historic districts that had been.created Mr. Frisby advised that historic had proved to be a stimilus for development had bene economic effects. The ozqani,zatipn also encouraged architecture fo new structures that. would be compatible' with neighboring structures. Mr. Frisby concluded by saying- that he hoped Petaluma would take proper action to maintain its many valuable histotic Structures. V Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 19, 1974 Mr. Fred Schramm, a member of the Mayor's Select Committee on Historic Preservation, thanked Mayor - Putnam ,for the Committee.to work on the project. He remarked that Sonoma County had recently passed its Historic District ordinance and 'he hoped that th'e ordinance proposed this evening would be favorably acted upon. Mr. Rogers Hoffman stated he.was in favor of the objectives of the ordinance and its expectations, but urged care 'and caution regarding Section 17 -3a.7 Standards for Revi®w, as there is northing that - sets forth the criteria on how an aesthetic decision can be made, - He added that he hoped the would work towards amending . the present building code to bring it in line with the objectives of' the proposed historic ordinance. Mr. Gray advised that certain sections of the building code could be modified and also: advised ._th;a't when a structure-or district is designated as being a Historic 'District, the designating ordinance will define the aesthetic conditions which make the structure or district unique. Mr,. Dennis Pooler, President of the Mayor's Select Committee on Histori,c�Preservation, read a memorandum to the Mayor, City Council and Planning • Comm s'SIon relating to the goals and purposes of the `Committee A property owner from the audience remarked that although he appreciated the fact his home might be worth more, he also would be offended by the methods of enforcement. Mr. Gray advised that if a structure was i a Historic District it would be the owner's duty to keep it in good repair. -He further explained that no one would be allowed to just walk up to the. door and go in, that the pert n must be properly identified, and that the same rulings would apply as, to that' - of a Building Inspector. Discussion fbllowed regarding the figure of 510 of the property owners required to request a Hi'storie District designation, a persons individual right to object to bei'n'g included in such a distr ; c,t, and the .purpose of inspections Mr. Gray stated that he doubted if the City Council ,,,or Planning, Commission •would create a Historic .'Distract if the property owners objected, and that people usually wished to take advantage of the tax break afforded. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 1974 Mr..Gray explained that a Histor c District could be ini..ti:ated, by three methods., 1) by petition of 51% 'of the people in a neighborhood, 2) by recommendation- of the Historic Committee and meetings with property owners to get their opinions., or :3) the Planning Commission or City Council could direct the Committee to study and recommend on the designation of.a structure or district if they felt it. might .have historical value. He also c_lar_if;i"ed that an individual could request a historic designation for his house, and-that the City Council could "remove the Historic District designation in the s =ame manner in which it was. originally put into such a district. A recess was called - at 9 '4,0 p.m, and the meeting resumed at 9 5.0 p..m:. Public comments were requested. The response was negative and the Public Hearing was closed. 'Discussion by the Commissioners followed and they agreed that they were in favor of such an ordinance but wished more time to study the document. It was determined that the Mayor's ,$e'lect Committee on: Historic 'Preservation would meet on March 26, 1974 a`t 8:00 p M. to discuss the. eveni -ng's input and to answer any additional input the Commissioner• might wish to submit;. Comm,, Mattei stated he wished more.,informaton on proposed plans for the commercial are °as . ' Chairman Bonq.asked the City what was me °ant by the phrase that a .large industrial water versely affect the time fram e and also.to review the water Engineer to explain in the staff report user would con of the project situation. -110- The Public Hearing was continued - until April 2, 1974: GROWTH INDUCING. Mr. Gray advised that. the 'Water Commission had ASPECTS C7F A REQUEST made a. determination that ;17 mgd was the proper FOR A 17 MGD DOMESThC figure the City Council should request for WATER ENTITLEMENT Petaluma Is entitlement from the Sonoma County FROM SONOMA COUNTY Water Agency, and that the Planning Commission WATER AGENCY: was to consider the growth-induc ng.as,pects of that recommeridation.. Be further advised that the staff report ;indicated how the.pr.oposed enttle- ment -was calculated and that the Water Commission felt that this entitlement should match the , capacity and General Plan population of 77,000 persons: Chairman Bonq.asked the City what was me °ant by the phrase that a .large industrial water versely affect the time fram e and also.to review the water Engineer to explain in the staff report user would con of the project situation. -110- Petaluma City Planning, Commission Minutes,-March,1 .1.974 Mr. David A. Young replied that it did not mean that.we a re or are not interested in large industries, merely that'if the industrial water use continues in the same proportion as presently consumed., the requested entitlement would be sufficient for approxmat'ley a ten year period. Mr. Young then ut,l =zed a.chart illustrating a growth ,curve to show at what point in. time a population of 77,000 was antidi:pated.in this area and further explained the population trend depicted with regard to the 'ABAG.Gro- North projection. ,'The chart indicated that-the proposed entitlement_. of. 17 mgd would permit f;lat.gr:owth rate of approximately 4,0 "00 persons.per year within the water service area. The_Water Commission felt it uneconomical to plan a water supply for les's than.a decade. Mr. Young further advised that the Wate k.Commission had recently been' °.advised that Santa Rosa was planning fora two decade.proj.ect And w ere requesting that the - amount requested by them.would.be held inviolate, which would.mean that' surplus water could no longer be utilized by other water users such as Petaluma had been doing in the past. The 4., 000: projected population.. figure was questioned. and Mr' Gray exp "that _meant . new customers, and not .necessarily new people to the area, and . would approximate to 1.,300 additional dwelling units.. Comm. Waters questioned the capacity flow of the Russian River and Mr. Young .replied that with the. Warm Springs Dam project it had been estimated to be; capable to supply Mawin Sonoma Counties past the year 2000; and with the Knights Valley Reservoir project it would be sufficient to provide for Marin, Sonoma .and "Napa :Counties beyond that time. The Publ Hearing was opened and comments requested from the audience; he °aring none the Public Hearing was ,c`losed. The proposed resolut °ion was reviewed and .it, was' determined to eliminate "through the year.1985" and add "or 'a population of 77,000., Comm. Hilligoss questioned how growth control could be maintained with'th proposed entitlement and Mr.. Young replied that as long as.the means ` exist to bring water to the people the City -11- Z;`. Petaluma City Planning Commission MlnutOs, March 19, 1974 is legally bound to bring the water to them, - and a re ce nt Marin County water suit was cited..., Comm. Wat mad,6,a motion to adopt. the resolion d as amended an-, forward it together with the staff tepoxt. on !to t,l-..e City Council. Comm. l seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 A)3SENT 2. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman,Bond asked what action had been taken regarding the recent petition by res ',of the Noi. - th 'Petaluma Blvd. area for sewer and water services. Mr. Gray advised that a letter had been written to the County San-itarian expressing the desires of the Commission that a sanitary survey be made and all Alternatives be presented to 'the Commis,sl'on for their consideration. Comm. j�ijjigosis,-sugge,sted to the City Engineer that a sign be ihztall6d.on "D" St ' ree ' t'' at. its intersection with Lakeville St.,at the southwest d l corner to indicate a no right turn on a r ® ight in conlunction with the recently appgbve Use Permit 'for Lawrence Beal.: 'Mr. Young replied that there was .too much traffic flow to the ri.qh't and he felt the matter of traffic : a-t that intersection would-l.vave to be considered further by the Traffic Committee . AWOURNMENT:. There: being np further business the 'meeting fadjpurned at, 1,005 p.m. �,l 2