Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/06/1976simil . A G i : E:N , ,.,D A'-' 1, PETIA -ANNING' 'CITY PI COMMISSION' -, JANUARY 6, 1976 REGULAR". ME ET ING '7.30 P'. M. I lit ITY' COUNC CHAMBERS, CITY - HALL� P ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 1h,11 T_ ALLEGIANCE` JO THE FLAG, ROLL -CALL: i Cqfnm. ond' Hea'd B. 'Hillig ss P Hdrciza, Popp aters Wright STAFF: Dennis Boehlj'e, Planning Director APPROVAL 6� CCRRESPONDEN�CE SONOMA COUNTY REFERRALS: 1. Broder & Agnes Petersen -.Proposed 4-lot parcel map for propert 16dated at'44 Sprauer Road. 2. : Gunnart Sally M. Kissmann - Prcposed 3-lot parcel' 'map for property located at 2011 Chapman Lane. STEPHEN A. PARONTO m l.TIFICATE� OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE WESTRIDGE SUBDIVISION UNIT #2 - PRIVATE STREET & FINALMAP. 1 TAYLOR PROPERTY REZONING ZI-76: :-!A,NTAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,- PREZONING Z2-76: Consideratio'n of'an 'application by Stephen A. Paronto for alcertificate of public.'convenience and necessity to authorize him to opetate-•the taxicab service formerly operated'by Myrel Moss of Petaluma Taxi in the city of Petaluma. 1. Consideration of a private 181 feet in length off of the C1earview cul dI6 sac to serve property 'Located to 'the rear. 2. 'Zonsideration of the Fina . 1. Map for Unit #2 of the Westr - idge Subdivis consisting of 75 single-family its located off of Sunnyslope Road. Public Hearing an application*submitted by Lieb &'Quaresma for rezoning of.the Taylor property located on the northeast corner of 6th and "I" Streets from:a Planned Unit to an R-C, .Compact Single- Family Residence District. �Public Bearing to consider an application submitted by Qantas Development Corporation for prezoning of approx- imately 107.acres on,-the,east of North McDowell Blvd.,.adjacent-,to Lucchesi.Park from a County Agricultural District to a Planned,Community District. Petaluma City Planning Commission Agenda, January 6, 1976 AMENDMENT TO RULES & Consideration of an amendment to the Rules & Regulations WEGULATIONS OF THE for Transaction of Business of the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION: which would require attendance at Planning Commission meetings by applicants T -hose items are to be.considered. SONOMA COUNTY Review and recommendation to the City Council regarding GENERAL PLAN: the Sonoma County General Plan. -2- M I N U T E S - `PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 1976 W # , j nAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Head, Hilligoss *, Horciza, Popp, Waters, Wright *Arrived at 7:50 p.m. ABSENT: None STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of December 16, 1975, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Boehlje advised the Commission that a letter had been re- ceived from the City Engineer with regard to the waste disposal system for the proposed. MCR, Inc. deboning plant. Mr. Boehlje reminded the Commission. that there had been some question re- garding the acceptability of the applicant's proposal to utilize their existing on -site private wastewater disposal system to treat and dispose of wastewater from the proposed deboning plant. The City Engineer's letter stated that in view of comments from the Sonoma County Public Health Department, the Bay Area Pol- lution Control District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, he had come to the conclusion that the wastewater treat- ment and disposal by connection to the City sewer system would . not be required. SONOMA COUNTY 1) Broder & Agnes Petersen - Proposed 4 -lot parcel map for REFERRALS: property located at 44 Sprauer Road: The staff report was briefly reviewed. Mr. Boehlje clarified that a minimum of .1.5 acres is required by the County for sites which have their own private wells and sewage disposal system, and advised that the proposed lots exceeded the County's minimum. Comm. Wright questioned why the paved road was necessary. Mr. Boehlje replied that it is a City requirement to pave roads within the City limits, and since this site was within the General Plan area and could possibly some day be annexed to the City and require City services, it. was felt the paved road should be required. He further clarified that the requirement for a paved road was only a recommendation to the County, and they could rule differently. Comm. Head ques- tioned if this requirement for a paved road had been directed . by the City Council, and if the Commission would be within their rights to require it. in the County. Mr. Boehlje re- plied that the requirement existed in the Subdivision Ordi- nance with regard to private streets within City Limits, and reiterated that the condition was only a recommendation to the County, not a requirement. Mr. Boehlje clarified that, ft Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, 1976 although the subject property was located approximately 1 -1/2 miles to the west of the City :limits .Line, it was w.thin. the General Plan area. Comm. Wright moved to direct the Planning Director to forward a letter to the County Planning Department stating that the Com- mission was not opposed to the proposed lot split, provided that the 25 -foot wide access easement. be improved with a 20 -foot wide access road that is constructed of two inches of asphalt. over six inches of gravel, and that appropriate road maintenance agree- ments are filed. The motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 2) Gunnart & Sully M. Kissmann - Proposed 3 -lot. parcel map for property located at 2011, . Chapman Lane: The staff report was briefly reviewed. Comm. Popp moved to direct the Planning Director to forward a letter to the Sonoma County Planning Department indicating no opposition to the proposed minor subdivision. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 STEPHEN A. PARONTO - Mr. Boehlje briefly reviewed the staff report regarding the CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC application by Stephen A. Paronto for a certificate of public CONVENIENCE: convenience and necessity to authorize him to operate the taxicab service formerly operated by Myrel Moss of Petaluma Taxi in the city of Petaluma. Mr. Paronto clarified that the taxicabs would be parked at 160 Keller Street, and that his residence at 21 Gilrix. Street: would only be used for storage of the taxis when not in use and would not be used for night. operation. Mr. Boehlje advised that in that case a home occupation would not be necessary, and he therefore would withdraw the recommendation for that requirement. Comm. Head moved to recommend approval of the proposed certifi- cate of public convenience for Stephen Paronto to the City Council, deleting the last paragraph of the staff recommendation. Comm. Wright questioned if the vehicles would be checked by the Police Department. Lt. Karl Kohl clarified that. they would be. Comm. Wright. then seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 (Robert H. Meyer, City Manager, later called it to Comm. Head's attention that the deletion of the entire last paragraph would not be appropriate, since it contained the entire staff. recommen- dation. Mr. Head verified that he meant only the Last sentence and the portion pertaining to the operation. of a dispatch office out of the residence at. 21 Gilr.ix Street during the evening was to be deleted.) -2- Comm. Bond questioned ifthe idea was basically good from a planning aspect. Mr. Boehlje replied that he did not see any problems., in .essence.the City would be obtaining open space by limiting development of the 30 -acre Crowley parcel to 4 lots. He then briefly explained the construction requirements of the public street. Comm. Wright moved to recommend to the City Council that the private street and private street agreement be approved. The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 2) Consideration of the Final Map for Unit #2 of the Westridge Subdivision consisting of 75 single- family units located off of Sunnyslope Road: . B Mfolehlje advised that the appropriate letters from the Mr. o ng Director and the City Engineer certifying that the Final Map conforms to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance and also meets the conditions of 1 ?'; n. -3- kt i i Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, 197;6 II WEST R IDGE SUBD 1. . private street 181 feet in length off of o, � a g - jN1T ��2 PRIV lerationof �hesCderati w Pla ce -de sac.to�s'er�ie:prope.rty located to STREET FINAL MAP: the rear,: Mr..Boehlje briefly'explaned the location of the private " street and reviewed the staff report. Comm. Wright ques- tioned why it was to be a private street rather than a dedicated City street. Mr. Boehlje replied that the slope was fairly steep, and there was'also no real reason to extend the City street because subdivision has not been proposed for the property beyond.. Maintenance of the private street was questioned. Mr. Bohlje clarified that the owners of Lots 64, and 65, as well as the Crowley's who own the property to the rear, would enter into a maintenance agreement. which would go with the ''title of the land'.. Mr. Jack'Lehrer, Debra Homes, Inc., informed the Commission that the agreement for sharing''maintenance had already been submitted to the City. Comm. Bond questioned if access would be obtained off of "D" Street if the Crowley property were to be subdivided. Mr. Boehlj replied that, although access, for one or two lots might be off of "D" Street because of the topography of the land, the private street would serve a maximum of four lots on the Crowley property. Comm. 'Waters and Bond referred to the grade of the private street and questioned if the City "'• Engineer'feit it was acceptable. Mr.:Boehlje replied that the City Engineer felt that removal of the potentially hazardous, earth dam from the Crowley property was important, and that the grade was within accepted standards. Mr. Boehlje clarified that the proposed Final Map showed the same amount of lots as the Tentative Map had proposed. Comm. Bond questioned ifthe idea was basically good from a planning aspect. Mr. Boehlje replied that he did not see any problems., in .essence.the City would be obtaining open space by limiting development of the 30 -acre Crowley parcel to 4 lots. He then briefly explained the construction requirements of the public street. Comm. Wright moved to recommend to the City Council that the private street and private street agreement be approved. The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 2) Consideration of the Final Map for Unit #2 of the Westridge Subdivision consisting of 75 single- family units located off of Sunnyslope Road: . B Mfolehlje advised that the appropriate letters from the Mr. o ng Director and the City Engineer certifying that the Final Map conforms to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance and also meets the conditions of 1 ?'; n. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, 1976 approval . of the Tentative. Map had been p.r:ovided: 'He advised ,that;,, the City Engineer's letter stated that,the 20 -foot PUE and access ._ easement at the west end of Clearview Place must be recorded"by the subdivider, and the recorda:tion, then placed upon the Fina.l.Map prior to apprbva.l of the Final Map by the City Council. Comm. Popp moved to recommend approval of the Final Map for Westridge Subdivision Unit * #2 to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Comm-Waters., AYES 7 . NOES 0 ABSENT 0 TAYLOR PROPERTY - Mr. Boehlje briefly reviewed staff report concerning ,an REZONING Z1 -76: application submitted by Lieb.and Quaresma for rezoning of the Taylor property located on, the northeast corner of Sixth and "I" Streets from a Planned ,Unit. District to an R -C District. He reminded the Commission that they had recently rezoned this property from an R -C District to a Planned Unit District, how- ever, the owner had not found it economically feasible to develop as proposed.. Mr. Boehlje further advised that since the ,proposal was to .split,the,property.and build only two duplexes initially, the project would not °fall under the Residential Development _Control System. Comm. Head questioned If 'the effect on the adjoining property owners had been considered in terms of changing the economic —, value of their property and the inconvenience of construction being performed over along period of.time. Mr. Boehlje replied that if a property in this zoning district meets the zoning requirements,and has had.envir.onmental review, all that is required is to obtain a building permit. He added he did not feel this site would present .any more adverse effects than any other undeveloped piece-of property. The public hearing was opened. Mr. McCourt o'f 605 Sixth Street addressed the Commission and questioned the siting of the du- plexes on the property., Mr. Boehlj;e,indicated where the two duplexes in the first phase would be built, and advised that although specific plans had not yet been presented, the 'duplexes would have to ma =intain 20 feet rear setbacks. He further advised that if the,property was rezoned it would be appropriate to build duplexes on the entire property and only '10 units . maximum could be built, whereas the prior Planned Unit Develop - ment had proposed 14. Mr. Boehlje further clarified that as long as duplexes would be built, they would have to go through site design review procedures. Mr. McCourt,questioned if the duplexes were to be,singl.e or double stories. Mr. Dick'Lieb, Lieb and Quaresma, replied that, there would be ,single- and double -story units. Comm. Wright. asked if he was concerned about having -an apartment type development rather than individual homes., Mr,. McCour,t replied that he would prefer to .see good .homes there,, not - .cheap ;ones . No ocher comments were offered from the audience and,the public hearing was closed. -4- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, - January !6, 1976• Comm. Hill'igoss'moved to recommend approval'of the proposed R -C zoning to the The motion was seconded by Comm. Bond. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 QANTAS DEVELOPMENT Mr. Boehlje - briefly reviewed .-the staff report concerning CORPORATION - an application - submitted by Qantas.Develo.pment Corporation PREZONING Z2 -76: for prezoning of approximately 107- acres located on the east side of North McDowell Blvd. adjacent -to Lucchesi Park from a County,Agricultural District to.a Community District. A viewfoil of the entire area was then shown. Mr. Boehlje advised that at this .point -a general indication of the relationship of uses., areas -; :.and road alignments was necessary. Mr. Boehlje expressed the concern of the City Engineer and himself that Maria Drive should be extended onto the property, since they both felt it important to provide access for Lucchesi Park and Bernard.Eldr:edge Elementary School and to provide an alternate route to shopping centers, as well as alleviate .traffic problems at the .intersection of McDowell Blvd. and East Washington. Mr. Boehljeiindicated on the area map the street alignment proposed., and advised that the area to the east is proposed for future residential development on the General Plan, but that Maria Drive should be extended as part of this project even if this was the only development in the area. Mr: Boehlje also advised that the'staff' felt it was necessary to realign the proposed single' family lots with rear yards facing onto Lynch Creek to avoid possible vandalism problems. He added that the street could be realigned to provide a buffer between the single - family units and Lynch Creek. Comm. Wright questioned why the City was considering a Planned Unit Development at the City lim.tsboundary, rather than ex- panding the lot sizes at this point. Mr. Boehlje advised that flat land is more suitable for higher density residential and the City has limited flat area to deal with. He.also indicated that, while the E.D.P. does call for 10,000 sq'. ft.. minimum lot sizes in some areas on the east side, this property was very centrally located and the larger lots' should be; farther from the central area. He further stated that the density proposed was within the City's guidelines, since the E.D.P.-and General Plan calls for a maximum of 6 units per acre for this area. Comm. Head remarked that the E.I.R. had stated that an earthquake fault was in the area of this site, and asked if this.would cause an adverse effect on the struc'ture's if residential development would be allowed in this area.. Mr. Boehlj replied that the earthquake fault line had not been positively located, and as pointed out in the E.I.R., a lot of development has to be placed - 5 - Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, "197'.6` . in the vicinity of earthquake faults,. He : ,.f.ur.ther advised that the structure ould have to be in.ac- cordance with U.B.C. seismic. safety standards, which had been pointed out in the E.I.R. as a mitigation ine.asure. Chairman Horciza .called upon Jon Joslyn, Qantas Development Corporation, to discuss the Maria Drive alignment. Mr. Joslyn informed the`Commission that'he would.be resigned to.whatever alignment was required, but was asking that the project be constructed as.present,ed.. He stated he . did not believe that the Maria Drive extension was necessary, :and felt that the traffic pattern proposed was.ade'quate for the entire property. Mr. Joslyn went on to explain the layout of the'-planned Community District. It was-his-contention that Maria Drive was not a logical extension., I since it was to.collector street stan- dards for a length of only 50 feet; andshe also did not feel additional traffic should be put past a school, and convalescent hospital. Mr. Joslyn felt that the existing :Maria Drive. .was inadequate for any additional traf`fic'load.,:'and that its ex- tension would not,relieve.the conges:tio,"n at�McDowell Blvd. and East Washington Street. He, * also stated-that the extension of Maria Drive would'ha:ve to dadend at the,mo :bile home park to the north if constructed on his property :,:and - voiced his objection to the suggestion, that.-Maria-Drive should 'b , instal''led with the first phase of development. Mr.-,.Joslyn advised , that he could comply with the fronting of the homes onto the. but pre- �• ferred to proceed with the plan as presented. Mr. Robert Meyer, City Manager, questioned how the multi - family area would have access and how the students would proceed to Bernard Eldredge. Mr. Joslyn. indicated on'the area map where the streets from the multi - family area led out onto the arterial and onto the two collector streets,, and. indicated the route the children could fo.11ow school.. Mr. Joslyn indicated the area of the fi -rs.t :phase of development; which. would be `ad -- jacent to the mobile home park, and expla to Mr. Meyer that this section was being bu:illt,if :irst because water and sewer were easily available,. He also informed Mr. Mey.er'that improvements on McDowell Blvd. would be accomplished-as the development progressed. Mr. Meyer v:oiced.,his concern about placing more traffic onto McDowell Blvd.,- which was already labeled by people as being unsafe. Mr. Meyer questioned:bow :many units-could be.placed on the site if the single- fami;.ly_ area was t'o R-1- 6,;5`.00 standards in combination with the multi - family. areas,., Mr. Boehlje replied that although a lower'density could result from R -1 -6,500 zoning of the single - family area, the plan as submitted met the density requirements of �tbe Genera -, Plane and. the Envirgnmental Design Plan. Mr. Meyer contended that. if the single - family portion of the development was devel.oped as R- 1- 6,5'00.•'and the multi- family portion developed by- la- ,sep;ara`te owner, the dennsity would be less, -� since the individual acreeage- - two :types of development u Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6,_'19;7;6 involved would have to•be- c'a•lcul'ated'in .figuring the density, rather than the combined overall density for the entire 107 acres. He went on to' say: that the' density •factor has been one of the criticisms of•the PUD and. PCD and has•raised doubt as to whether the City is rea.ly their own purpose with the PUD design. Mr.• Meyer•stat'ed it made clear that all the lots would not be 6,500 square feet in -the single - family area with the PCD concept.' Mr. Boehlj:e clarified that the 9 acres of proposed open space met the open `space requirements for the property. Comm. Hilligoss questioned if t_her.e was.any development proposed east of Maria Drive, and it was clarified that there was nothing proposed. Mr. Boeh.lje'went on to explain that the area. north of the mobile home park had received allotment for 105 single - family units, and development waas therefore probable. He further advised that the City Engineer and himself felt that the exten- sion of Maria Drive fit into the overall ultimate plan of devel- opment for Maria Drive to be extended to Corona Road to collector standards, and that the City would ' to deal with the ex- tension in the mobile home park area atia later date. Mr. Boehlje advised that the arterial street :would eventually extend to Ely Road and on through to 01d Adobe Road, and the collector street proposed in the development -would extend in a relatively straight line to Ely Road. Mr..Boehlje stated that the intent was to achieve a good circulation system throughout the City, and not just throughout the neighborhood'. -Be agreed that Maria Drive was not a street that could be travelled very fast because of the problems at the intersections, but stated he felt the City would have to face this problem. Mr. Boehlje advised that the phasing schedule had been received . and indicated the phasing on the area map. He further advised that a lot of the conditions to be determined would be done at the Tentative Map stage, and at this time it was not necessary to work out the phasing of the street construction. Mr. Josjlyn questioned Mr. Boeh.lje's statement that Maria Drive was a col- lector street, since it was only 60 feet wide for a length of 50 feet near East Washington Street. Mr.. - B'oehlje advised that it was proposed to serve as a collector street. Comm. Hilligoss questioned why .there were four driveways leading out onto the arterial street. Mr'.''Jos.lyn- replied that this matter had been discussed, and he considered the street as being built to arterial street standards with restricted access, rather than considering it as a full arterial street. He then indicated on the map which streets were proposed for the first phase of development. A discussion followed regarding the extension of Maria Drive. Mr. Boehlje advised that in making the findings for a Planned ® Community District it would have .to'be•'.determined that the cir- culation was adequate to serve a development, therefore, a -7- U J Petaluma City P.lanning.Commission.Minutes, January 6, 1976 determination had to be made regarding Maria Drive as part of this recommendation. Comm. Head stated he felt the developer had already spent enough money p d on the. ro'ect and ;the City should tell him now what is required so:that he could 'figure out his cost and housing prices. Mr. Boehlje informed,Comm. Head that a specific street layout could not, be approved at this stage. He added that the applicant had been aware for two years that the City wished Maria Dr =ive to be extended. Comm. Head insisted that in the recommended findings the staff had stated that the street and thoroughfares proposed were not suitable or adequate to serve the proposed uses and anticipated traffic, and the developer should therefore be ,told what to do. Mr replied that the City was not in the practice of designing streets for de- velopers, but could only give them direction as to what was desired and that the staff report had clearly d''one so,. He added that Mr. Joslyn had preferr.ed.to come before the Commission with a plan different from the staff had recommended. Mr. Meyer interjected that it was known that the City staff wished Maria Drive to be extended and the_Commission could either recommend that it be extended or .not He then went'..on to explain that he thought Maria Drive should be developed,,and tha,t;he wished to see a street layout for the area east of Maria Drive. The public hearing was opened and the and ence'was asked for comments.. Mr. Joslyn informed the Commission that Maria Drive was not indicated on the General Plan as being 'extended, and stated that he agreed with Mr. Meyer that plans for the entire area should have been outlined. Mr..Boehlje rreplied that the City did not know the precise location for the arterial street to extend the Sonoma Mountain Road, but did r.eali'ze that Maria Drive would have to be extended to Corona Road and ;the other collector street would have to extend to Ely Road.. He added that unless a specific plan is adopted, he felt a general indication of where the streets would be required should be,sufficent. Mr. Meyer stated he would 1ike,to see the overall relation of how much property existed on both sides of the.proposed Maria Drive ex- tension to see how the traffic .flow would: work -, and to determine whether Qantas should develop one -half of the street and the other half be left for future development. Comm. Bond referred to the E.I.R. which stated that the volume of traffic is approaching the critical lane capacity now for the East Washington Street /'McDowell intersection. He the did not feel the first phase of, development should' b.e constructed without any relief afforded onto Maria Drive. He also felt that the first' stage of development should afford a •safe pedestrian path for the children from the first stage -to Bernard Eldredge School. Comm. Wright stated he also was concerned about a project of this size and questioned if the extension of'Maria Drive would even afford much assistance in the.h`andling of traffic. He asked if .` the Corona Road over.cros;sing was planned.ia the near future. Mr. Boehlje advised that the Corona Road overcros'sing was planned by V) Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, .1976 the County in the near future,.and Mr._Meyer clarified that he ®� believed it would be constructed in the..1976 -77 construction year. Mr. Boehlje stated that although this overcros'sing could serve as a relief route to the north,. it would not help much for the east -west traffic flow in the City. Comm. Wright stated he did not agree with the high density in that area, and felt that development on McDowell Blvd. North would create a nightmare with only one street for access. Comm. Waters agreed that traffic was a major consideration in the area already, and he felt the extension of Maria Drive was important. He also stated that some relief must be found for the McDowell Blvd. /East Washington interchange. Comm. Head suggested that the whole hearing be held in - until the City can get together with the contractor and determine what was needed in terms of the streets. Comm. Horciza reminded Comm. Head that the public hearing was still in process. Mr. Bob Wells from the audience stated he recalled that several months ago residents of the mobile home park had made a plea for im- provements on North McDowell Blvd.., and although the County had planned to improve it, funds had later been withdrawn from the project. Mr. Meyer stated that the short term improvements were completed. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Joslyn stated that, in the event the road patterns were to be modified, he would prefer to proceed with.the Planned Community District and later come back in with a street system that the City desired. Mr. Boehlje informed the Commission that the findings would have to be made for the Planned Community Dis- trict and according to the plan as submitted the staff did not feel these findings could be made. He advised that it was possible to condition the approval of the Planned Community District, subject to realignment of Maria Drive onto the pro- perty. Comma Wright again voiced his concern about the additional traf- fic that would be generated, and Comm. Horciza questioned if that concern would be an E.I.R. or a prezoning consideration. Mr. Boehlje stated that although it was•a valid consideration, if the Planned Community District prezoning was turned down, it would have to be done in relation to not being able to make the re- quired findings. A short discussion followed regarding the previous plans for placement of a hospital on this site, and the fact that if this plan had been followed through, the traffic generated by the hospital would very possibly be more than that generated by residential development. Comm. Bond moved to recommend to the City Council that the PCD prezoning be approved with the findings as stated in the staff report, with the exception that Finding No. 2 be changed to read "That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to serve the proposed uses and anticipated traffic, Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January.6, 1.976 subject to the realignmentiof Maria.Driv.e onto. the subject � property and the realignment of the'local,.s,treet to separate -• single - family residences from Lynch Creek,." The,motion was seconded by Comm. Head. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 A recess was called at 9:43 p.m., and th& meeting resumed at. 9:50 p.m. . AMENDMENT TO RULES & Mr. Boehlje stated that the Commission,had requested him to REGULATIONS OF THE prepare an amendment to the Rules and Regulations.'f'or the Trans- PLANNING COMMISSION: action of Business of the Planing Commission which would require attendance at Planning,Commission meetings by "Applicants whose p items are to be considered. He then ex ressed phis feelings that the present methods are sufficient and the amendment is not necessary, and also expressed his concern -and tha of the City Attorney about any rules that would definitely say an. item would not be considered if the applicants were not present. I Comm. Head questioned °the Commissions right to, set,,a policy that would affect the citizens,lsince it was his understanding that the only body who could make rules regarding citizens was the elected officials. Mr. Boehlje advised that the Council had ^� given the Commission the authority to establish their own rules for the transaction of business:. Mr. Meyer -, City Manager, added that the Commission had the authority to adopt, its own Rules and Regulations, providing they were not in violation of the charter or in conflict with the laws of the S.tate,of'Californi.a. He went on to say that he did not feel the. Commission could turn down an application if any applicant were not ,present, but could hold it over until the applicant could be present if there were questions that could not be answered. Comm. Waters stated it was not the intent to turn down an application:if an. applicant was not present. Mr. Meyer stated] that although it was to an applicant's advantage to be present for favorable consideration,, there are times when an applicant cannot -be present and also has a time schedule to meet. Comm. Bond stated that thel amendment only sta'ted.that the Plan- ning Commission could defer action on an_ application, it did -not state it would turn it down. He expressed-his feelings that the applicant should be present to answer. any possible questions and stated he felt it was an insult to the�Commis'sion if the appli- cant was not present. Mr. Meyer stated that if the proper information was not available it was probably the City's fault, and the staff could eitherl get the answer.$ reg3 iced, or the applicant could furnish .them at the next.meeting. He added he did not feel it was an insult to the Commission if an applicant was not present, and that a good many actions .before the.City Council were resolved without the presence of the applicant. -10- s 4 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, 1976 Comm. Wright and Hilligoss agreed that it not be a spe- cific condition that the applicant be present; however, Comm, Hilligoss wished applicants to be t.old.that, as a matter of policy, they should be present when they have items for consi- deration. Comm. Bond stated he felt the staff should be given specific direction, to inform the applicants of the Commission's wishes. Mr. Boehlje replied that the staff would inform the applicants of the Commission's policy by either placing this comment in the staff report or adding it to the agenda. SONOMA COUNTY Mr. Boehlje informed the Commission that Mr. Toby Ross of the GENERAL PLAN: Sonoma. County Advanced.Planning Section was available to answer any questions. The staff report was then-briefly reviewed. Chairman Horciza referred to the list of recommendations con- tained in the Community Development Element. He asked what the time frame for implementation was and if the City staff could handle all the various activities planned. Mr. Boehlje replied that the plan was for the year 2000, and there is no specific time frame for implementation of recommendations. He added that he believed the County was willing to work with the City in implementing some of the goals. Mr. Boehlje further advised that some of the items may be dealt with in the City's proposed 5 -year plan. Comm. Wright referred to the notation regarding a new general aviation airport, and questioned if there were plans for moving the present airport. Mr. Boehlje replied that the current airport is a private airport and could therefore leave the city at any time. He added that the Transportation Element was only pointing out that this possiblity could happen, and there was no pressure to do away with the existing airport. Comm. Head questioned if it was normal to consider actions of this nature without a public hearing. Mr. Boehlje informed him that the County has had public hearings for the past months, and even years, and that there was no reason for a public hearing at this time, since the City was only being asked if they were in basic agreement to the goals and policies as presented. Comm. Head then questioned how the Council felt about the General Plan. Comm. Hilligoss replied that the_County was not asking the Council to hold public hearings, but was only asking for the City's input on the portion that pertained to the Petaluma Planning Area. Mr. Meyer, City Manager, stated. he would like additional in- formation regarding the airport. Mr. Toby Ross addressed the Commission, informing them that the County was not asking them to adopt anything at this time. He advised them that the General Plan would come back to the City for adoption after the County Board of Supervisors had adopted it, and would probably be in the ® form of an amendment to the City of Petaluma's General Plan. Mr. Ross stated that the information contained in the County's -1.1- rd Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, 1916 General Plan was consistent but not identical to the. material contained in. Petaluma's General °Plan and' therefore would provide an additional component. Mr. Ros's' informed Mr. Meyer that in the near future an amendment to the Transportation Element would`be prepared relating to the airport. Chairman Horciza stated that according to.the proposed General Plan, the Sonoma County Planners - were' anticipating that the industrial base for Petaluma would be increased to provide additional employment for Petaluma and Sonoma residents- This would in effect reduce traffic to Santa Rosa and increase traffic going to Petaluma. Chairman: Ho- rc'iza asked Mr.'Ross' 'for.an ex- planation of the County's infent. Mr. Ross replied that while they did not think that heavy industry would'expand, dramatically, they projected that there would be'a major - expansion in com- mercial and light industrial employment in Petaluma He further advised that it was not expected that a great deal more people would commute to Petaluma for employment. Mr.. Ross: explained that Petaluma has a small portion of the employment for the County, although it is a large proportion of the popuLatiom.: He advised that the County is only saying that factor will change in a relative sense. Mr. Ross advised that.although I this' concept might bring more traffic into Petaluma, it would probably be beneficial in terms of the tax base. He that if something is not done in Santa Rosa to slightly decentralize the employment base or compact growth, the traffic situation in Santa Rosa would., - become unmanageable. Chairman Horciza questioned why Santa Rosa was projecting such a tremendous increase in population. Mr. Ross; replied that Santa Rosa is currently surrounded by heavily developed areas, and the additional population would come partially from annexation. Comm. Head moved to recommend to the City Council "'that the.Cty of Petaluma endorse the County 'General Plan insofar as it deals with the Petaluma Planning Area. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. Comm. Hilligoss questioned if endorsing the plan would mean acceptance of the agricultural limitation on the east side of the City, since she felt it should be looked 'into:fur.ther. Mr.. Boehlje stated it would mean accepting the agricultural concept,. however, it was in conformance. with 'the. Cty',s EDP and General Plan. A brief discussion followed, during which Mr. Boehlje clarified that his recommendation stated he found no conflict with the County General Plan and adopted City policies relating to the Petaluma Planning Area.. The financial, impact of adopting a General Plan versus not adopting a plan was briefly discussed. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 ABSTAIN 1 Comm. Bond stated he wished to abstain since he'had not received or reviewed the Environmental 'Resources Element of the General -12- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 6, 1976 T Plan. Comm. Hilligoss stated she wished to clarify that, al- though she had voted in the affirmative, she was not totally in agreement with the agricultural limitations on the east side of ' Petaluma. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Horciza informed furnished with a copy of Program of Service at his had requested a quarterly that the Commission would future. the Commission that they had been the City of Petaluma's Budget and request. He also informed then that he report of items to be programmed, and be receiving this type of report in the Comm. Head requested that whenever a recommendation is made from the staff, he felt the negative side should be clarified so that the Commission could effectively evaluate the situation. Mr. Boehlje replied that any application was reviewed by the staff in accordance with adopted City plans, and the staff report re- flected this reasoning. Mr. Meyer stated that in some cases the staff report would contain policies of the City over which the Planning Commission would have no final decisions, but these policies would have to be included in order to make the applicant aware of them as soon as possible. He went on to say that the Planning Director does not have to make a recommendation, but only has to give the pros and cons for evaluation by the Com- mission. Mr. Meyer stated that if a recommendation is given, it is from his professional point of view. Comm. Bond questioned if funds were available to attend the Planning Commission Institute on February 4 -6, 1976. Mr. Boehlje replied that funds would be made available and requested any Commissioner who wished to attend to contact the Planning De- partment. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Attest: , -13- Chairman