HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/18/1976Al G' Er' N, D,; A
t PETAL �� A ' M EETING PEANN-ING.:COMMISSION
R EETING -
CITY --COUNCI ! L CHAMBERS.,$. . Ity 'H'ALL PETALUMA CALIYORNIk.,
The Planning, !Cbmmissibn encouragO,s -applicants, '6r representatives to. be
available 7at' - the , meet-ings to answers- questions,,- %so thavn&-agend"a. items need` be
,
d'eferred* toy at.11ater- date ,due to. a. Ta:ck.,of: pertinent : i'-nf ta tion.,
PLEDGE 'ALLEGIANCE 'TO' THE FLAG.
ROLL, CALL: - Comm - . Bond' zHead, -,_Hilligoss _---,.Hbrc1za-- Popp.
Waters ,Wrightm
STATF: Frarikm B4.. Gtay Acting Planning ' Director. ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES-,
CORRESPONDENCE
SONOMA COUNTY Consideration of a request, lots
by G)7-.owley, . dba Crowley
��,
REFERRAL: Land', Company';. for, a mi'nor sub&iv1.§.fdn to
create four
f or , property located on ' S-,treet approximately
one-half: mile south of d the- Gftyr 1;i:m±'t:s line.,
STEPHEN CRESPI - Consideration of` a var±ance= request- to, allow. a. reduction,
VARIANCE V6-76: in-sideyard setback f-roTw the: - reqp&r-_ed- 15 f eet to 1 feet
for property- loca-ted at: 216; R± Drive', for the pur-
pose. of. constructing a-. s-ix- foot hl fence..
COMBS Environmental Impact questEorina1re evaTu&t site
E".1 EVALUATT=� & design rev dei,.a.,tion.. fon proposed-- project. con"
SITE DESIGN`1EVIEW: sisting, of'mini-warehouse arid. open storage: area f or
7
boats, recreation veh:UcYes1, etc to. be located at the°
NWPRR right-of -way and'.PbtroTeum: Lane�.
J&K BUILDERS' - Environmental Impact, Questionnaire, eva-luatiom and. site
E.,I,-.Q. EVALUATION,' design revie*,"Ifor' the construction of threei townhouse
& SITE - DESIGN' type units'-to be located' at 511 "W." Street in • an, R-C
REVIEW: District.
DEBRA HOMES INC. -
1) Public Hearing to consider the proposed Planned Community
PCD REZONING Z5 -76 &
Development District rezoning . for Westridge- Subdivision
�
TENTATIVE MAP 'FOR
Units #3 and #4, located of f iof ;Sunnyslope- Road.
WESTRIDGE SUBDIVISION
2) Considerat_Lon of -the Tentative Map for Westridge Sub -
UNITS #3 & t4:
division Unit's #3,and #4 for the construction `of 72
single - family units,.
PRELIMINARY
Consid' at on .of the preliminary Redevelopment Plan prepared
REDEVELOPMENT
for the redevelopment. project area to determine if it is in_
PLAN:
conformity wi1�h the Petaluma General Plan..
ADOPTION'OF
Public"Hearing to consider-the adoption of'the Seismic
SEISMIC. SAFETY &
Safety and Public :Safety, Elements of the General, Plan
PUBLIC SAFETY
prepared by'Envicom Cotpora'ton._
ELEMENTS' 'OF` THE'
GENERAL PLAN:
ADJOURNMENT
r�
MINUTE.S
j 1:1
MA. CITY PLANNING C PETAL_ IMISSIO N
'T"'PULAR MEETING:
`
COUNCIL QHAMBERS' CITY Jktl�
.*
orciza "W
PRESENT': Cbmiri ond,, H��aid R rig t
ABSENT,: Comm. Hilligoss,,,Popp
MAY 18,, 1976
T:30- P.M.
,PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
�B. Acting 'Plannang-birector"
.:STAFF: 'Frarik' Gray,' -A
Leb'P. Rachai
Ass`,ociate;t'Planner
APPROVAL, OF MINUTES: The minutes of "May 4, 1976, were.ap I
,prove , as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE;; informed the ' "that 1 , in regard to the
William Arms Mini_Warehouse 'project they had recently approved
; Park #1, 'some of the
in'the`,'Nofth� San - Fkancis , c - 6`. , BAy
p . about the colors
t6pdrty-owners in A:ted wdre�
c6sen. fothe: bdiidinp and had'Voiced their objections to the:
o . wner, memb,ers. of 'the City :,Counci 1j the City staff. He
1. %,_ i • lad --
AdVf§ed"iha today the ownef- therefore requested. that the
color :'b'6 - ied "to! blue., •Mr. Gray-then showed the Commis-
sion.- A sample of the 'color- proposed,- Advised that the
neighboring, property owners had IdIt-'this color was more in
keep- g the general development the area. The Com-
n,
missio- agt'e'-�e in color.
Mr. Gray infomed'�he Cbmmlssion,t h' at two other minor items
had bobn'considered by the. Aidhitdctural & Site Design Review.
r -! M - :
Committee at' thei meeting - on ay, 17', 1976:
a ep acement" of dil:apidat&d*. structures on the Petaluma
t' h' continuation of the existing
oult rocessror�,s si e wit 1 a
sttiaur& Lhe' same 'type of niai6iia which was reviewed-by
the Committee and-approval recommended.
- The applicants for the' Approved'.'keel Bear Delicatessen in
the' D
_e - 'mAn - F1ats� areA' - �eque��ted�a l change in roof design
n
and - materials' for' th&, conversion- , b'f; a service station building
into a 'deii'cA66's,s6n. The rea's n
- o. g , iven for the request was the
f A�!ft thatL - the -, typle '- Of ,- 'cor;str - iic , ti - ori'or-igin y
, alI �proposed was
ver expensive ns ive - aria`- f inan p roblems had- ha arisen. Mr. Dick
"Lieb, r. . 6,pres I en' I ting Bear 'Del
e evations of "the proposed mo : difitatiori-.to-theCommis and
als'&,�pre'sented - samples - of th6 - rock - , .* brick =tile%, Redwood
and trim ' t o be "ed.; Cfialrman Horciza stated that
alt hough.� thb Committ wou1 ayo preferred the, original'
iI� , had: "recommended �Ap',p`r of the mod1fication since
e a d if f eren'c'e in'allowing" t epr6j
it.'. 'd`f'f ect to be constructed.
Comm Bond questioned how the staff f elt - about. the situation.
Gra fi agreed - 'i4ith' l Chairman - Horciza. in-.that
he w preferred the ' "origina 1 design; however., although
would have p gina
"the` "'modfi cation was not as aesthetically pleasing. it was a-
nice treatment No objections were raised to -the proposed
modification.
Petaluma . City PIanAing Commission; Minutes., May 18`, 1976
3) �Mr;.. Gray requested the. Comm ssion..to tonsider the adoption of;.
„the Seismic. Safety and. Pub.l�i,'c- Safety Elemenfs of� ..... General' c
P1an . first on: the Agenda since the consultants had come from
L69. Angeles and ; to, catch, " A plane back before .midnight.
The Commission: was,,in- agreement with hearing this':. item first.
ADOPTION, 'OF SEISMIC G' Mr. Gluck 'Swift of Envcom Corporation- add'r�essed� the.: teclrica-l: '
SAFETY AND ,PUBLIC report- per-.ta -ining to- th'e Seismic •Saf,ety, and Public- Safety Ele-
SAFETY 'ELEMEN:TS. OF ments He: informed the Commission the''main.concerns•addressed-
THE GENERAL.'PLAY: were the. natura1 hazards. that :confront the City 6f Petaluma
namely.
1) Fire, hazards, which did, not• include, st- ructural fire hazard's'
' 'but onyly .those' of:• a natural nature:,. and - which. had been de-
termined .to be, of an•,actep 'table risk level: at- this time.
, _i
2.), Flooding.: hazards had: been addressed;: since . there is a flood.
hazard e p_roblgp in tfie City-assoclated..with,the . Petaluma River.
~ Mr, Swift stated . the 100 - year' flood plain ha'd' :been. delineated.
in-the technical report The conclusions (drawn: in this report
were that se) eral•b;ridges: along the river do constrict the
flow and, increase 'the• f'lo.od hazard'. He then: indicated the
four „areas an the where, flood _pr,oblems are. the most
Severe-
. ...: s
1)_ With regard to seismic; hazards,, Swift.. informed the Com-
mission that the City of Petaluma and much of the San Francisco;.,
Bay;: Area. is- considered; an area- of active seismicity. He
briefly• rel- ai - ed• information regarding past earthquakes in the,
area and: informed, the Commission- that in.,-addressing the "seismic
hazards- for a- city, some- levels of acceptable ; risk have to be
t es'tablished:. The Andreas Fault. and the Heald'sburg- Rodgers I.
Creek F•aul:t� ; taere,, briefly discussed, as well. as the probable.
recurrence rate of',formelr earthquakes;
Mr. Swift stted: that not too much in format=ion, was known-
;.. , regar,ding.. the To lay ;Fault: which runs through: the. -study area.
The recommendation, had -iheref been..made that a hazard
management zone consisting. of an eighth of a mile on both
sides of; the fault 1pe . that no critical fac-Uities
be development, .within ,,this: area' and that all other construe-
tion should:`be precede& by a, geological survey to determine-
where the actual fault `fine is ., He suggested, a community' -wide
_.
„. effort ,to .tre=nch the fault. to determine' where the special
study ? h_ne, should actually be, in•- - order that..:t, could be
defned,..narrower than the•: one eighth of a mle.zone indicated
_- in,..the,, report: As an, alternate method,, Mr. Swift
recommended situ -by site fault: study by therd'evelopers as
proposals are
sub m tted',topthe• City:
Mr Swift infpmed. the Commission that. the tech
r nical report
deli neared tine d� tiding of the City.. nto several zones that
would respond differently under earthquake situations,. He
•
— 2- !. ,
Petaluma City Planning Commission- M nutes:,,_May,18.,
also state& ..;tha't the ground; response for thes(i „different zones. had
been calculated These caiculations cou
ld 'be utilized by struc-
toral engineers, either in determning. how .to design a structure,
o;r in. community -wide of for „t by prow ding 'the s'tructural� engi-
neers themeans to revse..the. entire City Building Code Mr:
.-
Swift: stated the latter "method was "their f_irin''s recommendation.
':Mr. ;Swift advised the Commission secondary hazards also had
been analyzed; and briefly reviewed' 'them,,- namely::
1) Ground ,failure known as 'liquefaction,, wl i h would. take place
in: saturated soil such. as that found 1'
in, Petaluma River,
and involves a loss of .b aripg capacity`;
2')' The conditi.on .settlement which occurs on- soils
during ,.aria earthquake - ,.
3) The problem: of''landsliding; , _and
4.) The problems that might,..occur.associated. with .the Petaluma
Reservoir
Chairma Horc;iza questioned =how. practical ;the pr-:oposed. trenching 1.
opera.`tion. would; .be. Mr Swift" replied ,that'...the. .area to be trenched
would 'have -to; be :carefully chosen;, since i't', should. be on the
fringe areas where the aluvium is ;:thinner:and it was known where
the fault was: in `the 'bedrock-. H'eiri. &
.• firmed the .Commission- that the
• _.'
trenching cost would run in ale' :area of $6 „00'0 to $8,000 and. would.
'be _best' done as, °a community. effort, Mr.. Gray stated. that the
ground- wou,I only ':have to 'be. trenched `to- -the 50.,':000 year depth- to
determine if :`'the' fault -was.. cons dered° act ve. Mr. Swift stated
that trenching usually. is only 'done to, a depth of 10 to 15 feet, -
depend .ng upon the_ se' iment:ation`. rates ' He- "also. clarified that the
fault line coul& then t:e ; 'located if it had moved and if
it had cut through Ae alluvium.
Cl air an .Horciza, 'ques.tioned• . if- the City of . had a real
problem regarding liquefaction, and if: the 'Uniform Building, Code
s.hould changed accordingiy. Mr. Swift replied that there was.a
problem;'in the,,bottom lands based on -the general nature of the
materials' He briefly explained''the-1_ guefaction theory and
advised - that .the specif=ic problem areas had�been delineate'd,in. the
technical report:;. Mr. Gray informed the 'Gomm scion that the
purpose' of the pr:opos'ed new elements o'f' the :General Plan is to
'identify to what additional'r-equir.ements they must look
at. or what:. precaution.' they . should take' regardiig seismic activity,
public safety and f re'and f`lood conditions.. He added
that on
- ee these .elements are adopted .as 'pant •of the ,General Plan,
the UBC would be `modified if necessary to either more or
less stringent, depending upon the*types�of'soils, the requirement:
for soils reports! in areas�6f liquefac;ti.on,' -and the need for
en_'gineered foundations to meet. these conditions.
-3-
L
Petaluma. City Plannin ` - .Commission, Minutes May 18. "' 197
. ,.!Gray bat informed,_ the 'Commis that the 'po'l icy report - regarding
the Seismic Safety and`:Publ c Safefy Elements be the actual - .
document to 'be adopted and it had been ,based on the data
indicated i.n the technic al report_: He added that the Planning
Commission ,.an'd fi Ci.ty. Council: would,'have• for determine a level - of
accep tab le ''risk from ;the' standpoint' of economics and also public
safety.
Comm,- Waters 'stated "that of the bottom. land is black adobe,
And. questioned i.f;. it was subjAect. to liquefaction. He also. ques-
t'ioned f•'tl e soismie° concerns were more critical for housing, or
commercial s;tructu=res Mr: ;Swift replied' - that 'if. the adobe. soil
r -
had a high` cohesi.on• factor„ it would , ,probably not b'e- subject to
liquefaction; however °the layers deeper into• :the• bottom lands
conceivably could: He also 'stated` that :becau'se, of past experiences
with-earthquakes He
g6neral. area, 'the City should consider
seismic safety conditions for• housing, as well, as for commercial
structures ;.
Mr Ufck Lieb, a local 'arch tect ", questioned if the design in
Chapter 23 of the UBC would satisfy seismic - safety requirements.
Mr. Swift-, replied ,that, the 'Uniform Buldirig Code did not
satisfy the, maximum groud& a'ccele.ration that could take place,. and
although the T06 Code had made progress in:that direction,
statedl`thatll' somewhat sho "rt of the actual 'requirement. Mr. L eb
, . ,
he".'ie, - 'presently involved in- some ,proj ects in Sonoma
County`i,. one of which is'. a home 30 feet if rom the
Rodgers: Creek 'Fault. This project had' res:i in, an additional.
•.
cost of $8 0,00 iri' structural, requirements and $1,.0.00 for the soils-
engineer 's• analysis He SEa:ted 'the City Would.'have to get- someone -
to check the .soils engineer report- and asked' how much respons
bility the-faxpayers of the.. City of Petaluma incurred if• they
hired a geologist. to check these reports. Mr-. - -. Gray replied that
hiked
other end of the scale., - human. lives and• loss of structures
must be. considered. Mr,. Leb stated: 'he• agreed';, but felt there
should be 'a happy medium because-of the amount, of money- involved.
He_.also- stated that - if . 'the, City, declares certain ?areas as being -
geologically' hazardous,;,„ it `would be a. condemnat -ion of a 'lot of
land because, of the high cost of developmen,t''involved. Adis=
cu 'ssion_= followed degree - of construction to be
required and. a "determination' of am acceptable level of - risk.
Comm, .Bond questioned if there `would be :ari. absence; o'f buildings in
the one - eighth mile z'one''on,'e'ach..side of the Tolay Fault in accord -
ance with the hazard management 'n one'` concep;t.c Mr: ,Swift related.
>:.
the background 'regarding SBA 5 'the Special. Study° Zone Act, , which
would- 'make' the ;St:ate responsible 'for. making `knownr,all: active
faults- with in the, Stage on a prior- ity'basis>. He: advised that the
Tolay Fault riot 'been examined, as yet' since the State- had, been.
concentrating their efforts on: the "moue populated areas. Mr.
. y.,.,
Swift stated'`that any development, could occur, in• the Tolay
Fault Hazard`' Management Zone,; 'a developer °would„ have to hire a.
geological consultant, to trench. - the fault. to determine where the
fault traces were on. his site, and herfelt that .: t:: would, be more-
-4�
Petaluma City Planning_ Commission Minutes =, `-May cl8;. -1976
advantageous., for the zcommiinity tol this project as a whole and
` provide =: the 'State:- wi.th,, the iriforniation He :clarified that the
• •Hazard: Management. Zone- consisted' Hof one , eighth of a mile- on each
side -aof the fault l ne.,`as they could = -best. det at this time.
However, ,once the area: •was;, trenched, the Management Zone
could be refined' to-,allow construction: within , an offset of 50= feet
from the last :break in fault. as requir-.ed by State law.
Comm. ,Bond questioned if the•. in_ the .Hazard Management°
Zone have :to•"be• of•. specials constriuct on. Mr. ' wift replied
that" "at. this time ;there was nof- known- construction that would.
- resist . surface- displacement : '_Mr.: Gray. clar.if:ied that any de-
velopment within the: :Haz "ard'. Management..Zone: would: -have to define
exactly where the fault line' was, and the developer could- not" then
build within; 50.'feet of theAetermined'. fault line.
Mr:, Tom Trap Envicom Corpgration, spoke:regarding..the policy
report f or the °' Seismic . Safety and_ Pubylic. Safety Elements. He
informed the,,Commission that..the policy report -does not recommend
that certain types. of development- sfiould• not: occur in: the City of
- Petaluma because +'of seismic,.., f lood n&- or fire hazards, but rather
it` Eden tifies!.'the.,areas� of d'if•ferent levels of suitability in
terms of land use. planning :. -Mr. Trapp also: advised that the
policy "report does not: . specific engineering design. cri-
teriaa for building ; s.; 'but .•rather. it- p rovides.` geologic' criteria for
use by engine.ers:in °.determining what appropriate design
criteria for" bUtIdirigs will Ve"., He -went on. to say that the policy
report gives' °,general direction on: policies in. terms of
land 'us °e planning" and. othet steps to- reduce-.. hazards, and aids in.
the -. determination;: of:= what is. considered- a- .degree of - acceptable
risk. Mr.' Trapp stated. there are.- eight general policies and 32.
•specific implementations and recommendations;.. He then summarized
these: recommendations I in terms ofi what:.-it, means to future con -
strtict -ion in• •terms i of ':existing, .s.truct %ur:es in the City, and what
it 'means in- t In terms- of future
. a `" recommended 1.
- construeton�,� Mr, Trapp )' examination of - the Building
Re land ningfgenera,- upresen le . 2)
_ nsutable. and
suitable areas,iof the; City for•.:diff,erent:-types� of construction, 3)
Specialy's,tud'es to def ne "the scient'if'ic ;analysis made. in. the
p• y p ly the, location of 'the Tolay Fault and
olic. re port; prfiari
studies of the. areas that- were�pronel to landslides and liquefac-
tion.. In: terms.of�ex3strig Mr. Trapp stated that an
effort should: be made• to: identify structural hazards: Once the
Building Code = -Has -been• revised:,: if,: in fact it,: is necessary, it
would • be a good :.dea to examine; some -of , t e older buildings for
their potent -ial to withstand an: earthquake.. ..In-regardr' to the
emergency plan, hee e commen.dedt it. be examined. with regard to
prevention and= response - ,factors. - and also recommended- public
education to . a degree of self sufficiency.
, '`In res onse to a `'uestion..b Comm.;..,Bond„ Mr. Trapp clarified that
• the elements' undek consideration were-fairly -new that
"should' be 'included: in the General Plana, but would probably. -take .10
-5_
Petaluma City Planning. Commission. Minutes _
ydars- t4 , He,-added-that- the., report, sketche:d. the ideal •
iti.,pr6Viding -the- iiltimate*,iti:-�p-r-otectib for the acceptable, leveL
of; iskii .and theref ore_dld effect ,all the other elements of the
General Plan, pAtt, -tularlyr,t�be Usezand,,46tising Elements.
,-,-,; i
Coibift- ,'Head --:questioned � if -,these .,areas - should ..not: be pinpointed on
.
Cher
. General Plan�:firsti.-.since-he- felt ,a-coldr--co.ded-map should be
av 1 4 1 ilablet to the depicting the various, areas- Mr. Gray
replied that.-. all the such as existing
landstides: liquefaction data , had been, -prepared. by the
tonsujtAnts:-.Ion• the, City's computer grid base). . It could , therefore
be'-determined within ..3'0,(). foot , ..s.qu - a-res- exactly -,where the-different
conditions, occurr.ed, and individuadsi could. be g1ven.a profile of
_ , . the , potential conditions their site,. He• ,adde& that it was the.
; -1-1
;,pu,t,p,6se�of the-, aaoption of-these to prepare - a map-showing
all of these factors for-public information., Mr.. Gray then showed
p. �pibturesi. of - the ef fect - of ._the Petaluma for. the
general. information. of the•,Commission.
The public hearing- was openedi.-. Mr. - Dick,Lieb ,stated that the City
of� Santa -'Rosa: had �. changed: seVe,:r,,4;1 % areas* in. their,.Building Code due
to'; -the heavyf:Aama&" suf in~ the- last earthquake,. and he. felt
lt� - might -be . goo& -inf ormat ion f or e the City to,obtain this infor-
- --mation. No other 'comments werel the audiencej and the.
-public was- closed
Minor changes t�o,-the reports,; Were discussed. Mr. Swift
that : some changes -:had,- b.6en made to - ther technical report and
- submitted tol the staf f which. resulted in.; minor. changes: to - the
a
policy report'-'.- He dlso, state WouldL, be responding- tot twos
other: comments.of - a,- minor nature vith• regard t,p the , f lood hazard
situat ion.' 'and these.- would; be. furnished the staff as soon- as
possibte.' -Mr: Gray informed the . that they could. adopt
he, Seismic. -- Safety - , and Public,- Safety Elements as, presente&with-
t
-.stated: modifications: and- pass- them on to t the: City ; Council. f or
_action.: E . e%,ftirther that the -City Engineer had recommended
o n page 24; - of, . the, policy report-. that the xequirement f ora "quali-
fied. engineering , ge(ilog*st'!, be -changea-to a 11 1palif ied soils
engineer. „ ," - .'4 , ince he, felt that - geologist is. a fairly
n:ewt.f_ie1 "and - la engineer would.• prove-- to. -be more effective
and ?more= controlled,: A brief and it was •
agreed to change -the-- wording: - tq•'.'qpalif6d engineering geologist
�and/br qualified engineer.”
Mr..
-
Gray. read - the: , - , .proposed- ,, _tesolut-ibn-recomnii�tid-�ng, , approval. of the
...
�Seismit `Safety and Safety s
Element to, the City Council.
�
-
Comm;- Wnight, adop to this resolution,j and the motion was
-seconded by- Comm-! ,Head c,
AYES .5 NODES 0 ABSkgt '2 n.
An idtetmi6slon. was - called at 8:55• p.-m. , and the meeting- resumed,
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes May l8
S
O FERRAL:
'Mr'. the' ! "C-n l mm'i's's' 'on, 'that -'an May 27,' 19.76, the
Sonoma ounty... Eng - Ad viso - -y -ommi ee would consider the
appi i ion o ca t Denni s , row ey -a-- minor subdivision to create
approximatel 1/2 mile south of
T our .1 t o
ts"or'� D - �S t t&
6 City � Am"
I' its "He also adVi`§�•ed` the' Commission that the City
Cbuncrl sewer and water connections
b 'previous y approve
a 1w nn
,of th�ii`'ptbpeft
� 'provid,ed' t t thi a:t6t , connection date, be
D6cembe'r*r " 1:, 1977 the date, 6he- is available to the
ki-4er _- 't"n Project. He
pointed' ou t w
that it U " - b'"e-
w ould difficult 'ta " 'p " rovde sewer and water
Lots 1-and'12 because of the slope of the land. Mr. Gray fur-
thet'e that' the slo",�`of' 'the it difficult to
P. m
P rovi de`'`wa ter - 'and , 'sewer t .• - 6ts - 1 - ,'and I through the rear of the
- prop riy "Ther ore, these - gerVi'ceg" W'w6uld- • have to - be obtained
f'r`6 ' m _ thb "Ji" Streei " which would -require the applicant
to' ex'tend-,"th I es line . s up . pr , oxim9fe.1`Y mile -and might prove to be
*, im p t4 t ical,
Mr. Dennis Crowley advised the,Commis'_sion that there was an
e isti�g ', 'on- Lbt�'l
' w th 'its Own septic 'system. He further
x' ' h use, -
advised that the house. on Lot-• 2:� x4ould• not be- located below the
hill, bVt would be on the 'knbll, .and `therefore could, be serviced
through the rear, of the site.. Mr. .Crowley contended
that there was' no - reason to obtain- sewer and water facilities from
D' S treet extension. A-§hort discussioii Mr. Crowley
stat "that.he'- could pla6e a holding tank on'Lot and pump
- sewerage over the hill if it be-came-fiecess'a-ry" at a later date. He
`also 'dvi'e�' t -� and a - s - d' �hat there were isterns*and springs on Lot 1,
azid if ti6ces'sar'y.the water. r'. _ c ou ld ,, also be' boos ted to the top of the
. 1 __ ..
hill. Mr Gray , stated - '1 th e ap - that 1 p ican t was s atisfied he
coiild.'get servlce�- f ro'm the Vack'c;f th&'propetty it was sufficient,
I but realize that he, 'may I h v
ae 1. to . I pump the water and put
tanks -" on the . top of the hill. He also - st`� ated-that in. serving the
t s - f , o - k sewerage, " it coixld,*�,o't, pumped:'over the hill. However,
f I '. - "
1, the a liad'a method 'of - servicing these lots without
pumping,,' there 'would be no, bbjJ'e.c.eion' from the staff.
'Comm. Head mov - to f orward letterr to' the , '-Sonoma County Engi-
s 'inol'' the pro-
opposition to -
neering Adv1 ory-'Committee indi.ca rng, -
posed lot spli't''.. The motion. . was se&onded by ; Comm. Wright.
AYES_ 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
STEPHEN CRESPI- Mr.* Rgthal, explained to the Commission. that.'Mr. and Mrs. Crespi
VARIANCE V6 =76:; 1�aa' requested a varian,ce: - to - red required side yard f rom 15
'.Teet, to f eet f or a" -f oot high f tance to enclose the - rear and
side_ yards 'f or'prd ertyjocated, .. at".2A''Ridgeview Drive- He b riefly
y
r iew"e'd" th' aff re'port ati& s td the staf recommendation
6 " e s t
was that the vari not" cong'-titute "a valid request. Three
rom jo�f her '1"80
1etters, f Ec Ann Place; Robert and Helen
.;'Sp . a'g i a Edkindrin , Place;' and Mt. EdNahigian, 224 Rldgeview
Drive. were. read,' which, indicated opposition to the proposed
variance - on the , 'grounds ' the h 6 fgh t of - the'fence -from an.aesthe-
tic-and safety viewpoint:
-7-
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes- May.18:, 1916
In.response allegation that the..fence proposed would�.not.be
aesthetically pleasing, Mr',. Crespi showed•a sample.of the type of
structure proposed. He-also discussedo property
and contend' ed - there - was- `ad'equate, f:or' backing out of
garage,,And driveway. Mr. Crespi.stated. that one.of:.the reasons
they. had•purchased the 'home was-because,..the- salesman, Mr. Boggs,,
had informed him the fence could, be extended intro the side yard;.
Mr.. Cres pi. s.ubmitted a;stat;ement signed by A homeowners who were
in agreement wi.th,the varance ::and•did...not.feel it_would- downgrade
their homes. or. ruin. th aesthet= c value. of,: -the area.
Comm.-Head questioned Mr. Crespi-if he had• h'ad, vandalism on his -
property. Mr.'C_respi ;replied that approximately siX weeks ago the
electrical meter, on the,.side.of the house. had, been - broken into
and damaged, and the telephone wires tampered - with. He stated
that there were., no windows: on that side 6f the 'yard except for a
high, narrow bathroom window,. and the,. placement- of: a 3 -1/2 -foot
fence would- allow people-to see-into his master-'bedroom
Mr.. Gray� questioned , if-a.6, -fo.ot high,. fence wou Id, actually , make. a-
difference in:detering vandalism, to, :Mr;. Crespi replied it
would • make a differ- ,pnce^ if he had his dog in the side- yard
Mr.: Spagnola,,. the adjacent - neighbor, informed. the, Commission. of,.
the: locat_ ion of the existing f ence,j and presented -pictures °..to , the ..
Commission. H'e explained that as his property- 'has verysmallt
frontage,. if;. the variance;. was - allowed, there , would- actually- b&'2
feet from the Zen_ce' to his: driveway Mr. Spagnola also stated. he
L
felt a :high :fexice would
be a complete, deterrent- from the aesthetics
of the';front of his ptoper'ty, and he felt that•setbacks had a
purpose and t should' be complied, with. He also. a& sed 'that Mr
Pian zzI wished, to be. 'included• in. the° obiections raised. Mrs.
Cresp.i.explained that the p.r :oposed 'fence - •would :no;t - be.
constructed; on - the i slanted prop_ erty ,line, but would ;follow a
straight, line. which would give Mr: Spagnola more property-. She
also - contended, that Mr. Anderson's investigation had revealed
ther,e..,was hazard in backing.out of.,- the adj; ^acent Mr..
Spagnola stated he.disagreed - and -felt there was�.,a definite safety
hazard,. Conversation followed regarding the visibility from the -
drueway, -and Mr. Gray explained the rat ionale-behi:nd,the setbacks
established.-by the:Planning Commission for corner lots.
Mr;. Ed. Nihig an spoke, in agreement :safety hazard.- concern
raised by-Mr. ;S He- also.: staged. that if.Mr.. :Crespi was
concerned` about. the aesthetics of his 'property �he would not . have
planted; a vegetable - garden on.• the° side,- of- his house, before he had
obiaiaed' the .variance. .He- stated, he-had ' not seen= any similar
treatment; of property' in the- Westridge. Subdivision and contended -
that -the signatures of the neighbors who were not opposed- to -the
marianceo were not located.in- c'los:e range of the subject property.
Mr,: Crespi _asked , Nahig -ian irf`. it - was n ot true that h e and -Mr.
Spagnola were-in f'act',close friends- and'.busi:,ness associates: Mr.
Nahigan stated he did no;t feel; this; had anything. to do with the
matter Chairman . HOT ciza ruled the d iis cus out of order.
r
Petaluma C Planning Commission. Minutes, ~ <Ma - ' 18.,::197-6
-Mr. -Gray clar -if ied tthAv s75r notices had'bden out to - , adjacent
property iowners;• and :Mr,sr.: Crespi:-7stated .she. -AU feel that three
comphaints `- 75:. notices=:.. -{.,
WAnoth'er •uni`deimtifzed neighbor sta ; ted..'that he;. in opposition to
tke ;proposed,'fer'ce zf." there was =any' safety:. +hazard involved. Mr.
Spagriola stated , -that 'he -. f:elt= the- yard -could. - b closed in and
adequately- p-r et'ected •w ithin, 'the,.r;egulati'gns: tof: the City without -
causing`a safety = problem. - Comm. - -Head. stated•:.that the staff report
had not safety hazard. Mrt. Gray advised that Mr.
Anderson had'-visited the;.site and'- existed from. "the driveway with
"the assumption there was a. fence - and he could see the
' in't'ersectldrf �phys'.ically; Although it' might' cut down the distance
an` ind'ividua'l could see. -into th'e inters'ec�tion ;, it would_ not be
- signif- icant ''"Comm Wright stated. _he= :felt.,the. Zoning. Ordinance
served a purpo w e +shoo d••be °upheld -. ' He<also felt the adjacent
neighbor would ;e a• closed -in _effect , to.his' , yard - if the 6 -foot
fence var ara:ce.r was granted
'Mi, Gr'ay- then-. read the that the. Commission,
must find in.. order to grant. a •-uariance. -Comm. Head moved for
denial-6f the variance; since'theL :findings as read could not be
made. Comm.'Vatets `seconded- e. motion.;
:AYES • 5 = - NOES 0 ABSENT. •2
Both." Comm Bond and Comm. Wright.: informed the applicants that,
although they were. in sympathy to,.-what they,.proposed, the Com-
�mission'..had to stay `within tYfe• legal: boundaries of the zoning
regulations. The applicants•wererinf.ormed. could - appeal the
decision.^of Plant ing Commission t'o - the City Council within. 10
days:
COMBS MINI- WAREHOUSE Comm: Wright informed the Commission that in.reviewing the mini-
= E.I.Q. EVALUATION' warelio&se proposal, the Architectural-:& Site. Design Review Com-
SITE DESIGN REVIEW: mittee had••cohsidere.d . i,.t important that the construction of the
building be.. of Redwood:' instead of'; metal-,. - Mr. Gray suggested to
the-Commission-that they consider the environmental impact this
evening, but defer' the site design He -explained the reason. for
this regc±est •wa's. ;because of the fact that access• to the proposed
mini- warehou.se :project was via a private -road owned,in part by the
State'Lands Commission, who have stated: that they will decide
,r- toJ -grant access `'across the. property when.. they - have re--
viewed; the environmental determinat -ion °of.,,the Commission.... Mr.
Gray advised that in further research•.dorie•today he also learned -
that no :on'ly does` the road' - belong to: the Lands Commission,
but iv also' extends- across • County propet.ty• and - permission. has not~
been: gianted fog 'ingress •a'nd - ss'.r' Additionally, Mr. Gray -
irifo'rme& tb°e Commi:ssion'. that the* .City. of - Petaluma is a lessee in
'real' i:nte-re'st - 'to the State property `and .tWe City has also: note
grahtedl. the- right' 'access. He went: on- to - explain that if the
right of access is not granted, the site design.would•need to be
ged
chan to - allow another means of., access to the property. He
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutest, May ,18,, 1976
-10-
therefore 'sug�ges:ted that the 'Commission look at the environmental
impacts 'this:evenng•and consider,the. site design when they are in
~
possession of • a grant -- .of, ,easement° from the State, County, and
City. Mr. Gray also suggested that comments be requested from the
consultant doing the harbor feaskibi]:'.ity the. Commission
could: also• consider his comments: Mr. Gray indicated- on an, area
-
map where the proposed access was, _and also!- indicated the alter-
nate, possibility of access ;f room Casa Grand_e..Road. He then indi-
cated where the proposed' marina would be located.,
Mr;.;Gray briefly reviewed the staff report for. the proposed mini-
warehouse building& and open storage to be, located at the NWPRR
.;right -of -way At Petroleum, Lane,. The site. was briefly discussed.
Mr. Combs :advised the Commission..that= the. Corps of Engineers had
_ . "y, filled the:.:site by pumping dredgings from the river. He
informed the Commission that. he thought the project would., -i mprove
the area, and that he ;would. willing to install a- water- line
which could-also be utilized by the City later -'in development of
the Slid lenberger Park marina. Mr. Combs also ;stated that if -
allow.ed • tocomp'le.t:e this project, he could -give the City a liberal
allowance towards the price of the remaining land.. He- then ques-
tioned_if the City streets•were not•owned'by the City. Mr. Gray
explained that. tte property - in question-for access .right -of -way
was from the railroad track down onto•the•site•only•, and
clarified that Petroleum Avenue was already a. public, rigfft -of -way.
Comm.'Bond questioned if, the selection of the, site was in. anti-
cpaton of the proposed marina or b:ecause.of..the location of the,
:. b,oat.,ramp:. Mr. Combs 'replied that it „was it•relation to•the -boat
ramp; but had been proposed long before the marina was ant
ted... He also advised that apartment houses were in.this area, and
they are biggest users” Of the mini - warehouse -type of service.
Mr. Combs informed the Commission he -had already applied for a
permit with the Corps. of Engineers.
Comm. • Wright.. made • a. motion to direct the Planning Director- to
- prepare and post a. -ion 'for'the project., The
.''Motion was - :seconded by Comm. Bond.
AYES . 5 ' NOES 0 ABSENT' 2
J &K BUILDERS =
Mr.. Gray briefly, xequest t construct three town-
E. I,. Q. EMPATION'
house -type units to be located at: 517 East "D'.' Street - in. -an R -C
& SITE DESIGN
District.
REVIEW,:..
Comm.. Head, moved to;. direct the Planning Director to prepare and
Post, •a• Negative 'Declaration for the project. Thee motion was
?se'corided by Comm. , Wright. Chairman Horciza stated that the
project was of ;an• inf,ill- type nature and the,Architectural :& Site
-Design Review. Committee . had felt the project was acceptable and
that circulation and parking was proposed.
_,AYES. 5, NOES -0., ABSENT 2
-10-
R
yPetaluma City Planning Commission: Minutes; - ''May _1976.; •;•, ; .
Gray" adv ed that the Archztee:tu -al. & S ,te,;Design •Review
a•
Gom��tt;ee� had reviewed_ the prod ecit. and ;discussed .the building and
c - rport Their rec'o'mmendation had. been for approval of
the , propoosed sa t'e• design, sbbJ ecv.ao - the - conditions recommended in
trite staff report
Ghat rman Ho' ci a: asked. f anyone , ;in th'e audience wished to comment:
:.
oa r: the ..p' oj ° ec,t o,.. ,The ap;plicanta, J;ohn:.Hasso7d,. atated. he was aware
of all` - the; 'requirements:: andrwas _in ,"agreement with. them. Comm.
Bond- questioned if th'ere was a •joint easement with the adjacent
pr=.operty. Mho Hss�old° replied'he the additional, pro-
per;,ty ;, _Comm ;. Wrc'ght,moved�,to approve the'-'.site design: with con -.
d� F a ®n�,. ^;ca£ :ap.proval'• as stated in ,the - .staff-. report . The was -
seconded' by' Comm. Bond,
AYES:.` 5 NOES'- 0 :. ABSENT: 2
DEBRA `HOMES INC,. -
Mr'. Gray`Anformed the -Commiss•ion: that, the. applicant was requesting
PCD MODIFICATION Z5-:
''a. modification to -..the approved' Planned. ,Community District, which
TENTATI-VE'MAP -FOR
basic s the same procedures `as for: a ,rezoning. He explained
WESTRIDGE SUBDIVISI'ON.:
-tha:t the applicant. wished -to develop. Phases III and IV of the
UNITS #3:& A:
Wes Subdi;vi's ion :ins single" family residential development,
instead' aof- the.-.;previously approved patio and :townhouse - type units.
This r►�mdifica,t•ion . would . result- ins a- reduction . in the number of
unitsY for the �sub'dlvisi'`on. and: a, corresponding reduction in the
overa °ll� density f or the. area,: ;
Mr•. Trowbridge, Vice - President; of Debra..Homes; Inc., advised
the Commission 'when' the' PCD was' originally proposed a. variety
however;. it .was now felt that the
of~ houses; had b`ee.n. talked• a.b:out .
sirigl.e- family - development= proposed what the community
wante.d'.at this time. Comm, `Bond. que'stioned.if it was a matter of
economics. Mr., Trowbrid e re °lied.tliat it basically econo-
g p y
mie:s; since their capability to produce housing at this.time was-
limit:ed to ° si ngle _f.amxl'y - development,, : , He :also. advised that
rs:idents ;the _Westridge Subdivision and the City
contact -5 vi-th e.
ind .ea:ted concern f about additional � t•r•affic. Mr. Trowbridge
advised that he.'had:not made.'-,a market - study of present rental.
con'dition's .in...Petaluma.- The. area was:•fe-lt. to be a• quality loca-
t on, for a rental projec but they were °not in position to
buildimulti- :family units at this time nor did-.they wish - to hold
the ••land o,
'The public - hearing. regarding..°the . proposed.Rlanned.Community Dis-
trict•General Development Plan Modification was - opened. No
comments were -- off.e.red• from the audience.and the public hearing was
clo=ee.d.
Mr'a. ' Gray : : read t:he' proposed resolution : grantng /denying the modi-
ficatimn . a the. General. Developme rt.; Plan, including 'the specific
f.idarigs' that• the' Commission r- _mus`t':make•relating to'a Planned
Community"Distritt•. -Comm. - Bond •moved to,; recommend approval of the
-11-
Petaluma City Planning .Commission Minutes, May 18, 1976
proposed -modifications to the General Development Plan for the
Westridge Subdivision Units -#3 and #4 Planned, Community District
to the Council. The motion was.seconded.by Comm. Waters.
AYES 5 NOES, 0 "SENT 2
Mr. Gray recommended that.`the tentative map; be conditional to the
Planned 'Community District modification by the City Counc
Since the Chairman •of.the Recreation, Music and Commission
was present; .the discus.sion. was - continued.
Mr.•Dan..Longaker of the Recreation, Music Commission:
stated that.the area ind�icated.by the not desirable
for-park purposes,; since it was sloping land. He also stated
that "I" Street will -be heavily travelled In the. future, and he
therefore did not.. consider it 'a proper area for a° park. Mr.
Longaker stated - that the Commission felt�.the park should = be
centrally - located .for..utilization.throughout the subdivision. He
stated,-that:in::some the.:park -along the creek'was only -l0
feet wid'e', and his Commission did not - thi "s,was for
the.needs the °community in the. area. He then the
five lots that the Commission: recommended to be utilized for ,a
park :and the , Alternate :five lots' :they'.had chosen. Mr. Longaker
expressed, concern about. roposed.wal-kways• ng mainte-
nance problems. arid- owners-of adjacent homes-complaining about the
traffic through•the walkways. He advised that, the ;proposed
elimination 'Of lots would -also eliminate.tw.o•:of,'the walkways:;, an
the Commission,:reeommended that the third' walkway be- eliminated
also: Mr. Gray, stated. that the Police Chief does; not - like'these
walkways encourage' and vandalism, and
stated" that .`the- type, of park access off of Eekmann. Place was
considered-the ideal situation. Comm. -Bond, questioned, if there
was walkway off of Westr.idge`Place. Mr. Gray stated.there was,
And. that it:recently,had be blacktopped because: there was a
problem -with• rock. throwing.
Mr. Longaker also expressed concern of children:p:laying near the
creek area 'duririg the Winter season, and s tat ed.the Commission had
not- recommended the area near the- creek. b.ed, for a park when they
originally considered- the.project. Mr. Gray stated that the flood
control channel had to be °treated.in aesthetically pleasing
way, and that in.addition o-the,'flood control project, the City
must•considet their adopted policies -for linear parks to be
retained in:their natural state ,and for inclusion of,- bicycle
paths. Mr. Gray advised that a concept is .provision.of
adequate neighborhood parks; separate -br attached to the-1 near`
parkways
Comm. Head questioned =how much.:land a developer was requi -red to
provide par.ks:and. recreation purposes♦: Mr. Gray replied that -
the Sub divis.on,0rdinance- states that a subdivider shall provide - a
minimum of 1 -112 acres per 100 units :_and develop, it,: pay an in:
lieu. fee in-that. amount.; or b'oth,.and this determination is =made-
by. the 2 Planning, CCommission and City Council. He went' to-say
-12-
'Petaluma• City Planning s ion Minut 6 _May18;Sa976
that althou h. the..develo er, + - su gists
j ; g s. p gg where he would. pref the
park area,•the,Recreat ®n, Music `and Parks .Commission recommend
from, .their, par .t•xcu- lar.�- &xperaise..,what,i is desired, and the .Planning
Commission -midst take, this ".reco'mmend'ation• .consideration when
making their.;re ommendati�ons for ithe•,tentatve; map. Comm. Head.
s- tated. - tha -t:", the requ.ireaneni :'`by the Recreation,: Music and Parks
Commission effect b'e choice , lot s for a park and
would : :result.an. a•:.considerable:: financial_ foss ao the. developer:
He ques`.tioned. if..the.<.Cty could •legally. ,require them to do so..
Mr: Gray replied;- that ;the Planning . Commissi.ori was~ required to look
-out for'• :.th'e' geneual °.public. health:, . safety.,and, welfare, and, must
make :an conditions ".aiecessar toy
' y . y, .
Mr Phil Trowbridge 'informed the:; Commission: that the original PCD
Plan' proposed a, linear.' par•kway: :,based =•on; the _original density. He
further.'::advised that the proposed :modifcation_to the PCD Plan was
in- `conformanc'e;; with , the .General=_Rlan- , >and: Environmental Design-
Plan;,.`-since:-neither . of : °.these documents: And neighborhood
park, in the ar'ea-. Mu. Trowbridge informed -. the -: Commission . that the
original plan. was- for.:an opens space - linear- parkway, and that it.
was -..never intended'io,:serve,•,anything other than passive recrea
tional- , --�He stated :. - that;, thee.slope.�In: the area proposed.
"':does w o,t � :eXceed • :1 to.. `1.3.,petcent�,-•: and- he; felt the treatment of
Street? was' a_, beautiful; accompli4hment: and provided an appropriate
ent'ran'ce to, the •subdivi_sion.: Mr. :.. ; stated he did not =
- feel ; ad`dit oiial park. ,ar=ea ; sh ®uld :ibe re, quire&,, and "advised that if .
'the +homeowner's' would be ' forced to: absorb the cost in, the -
price of their domes
Mr: Gray questioned why the area - at. :the corner of "I.' Street :and
SunnyslO ;Road l ad. been..left. -as park - land in the - modification to
the <;General : -Development_P,lan :,• •if."it.. fact developable. Mr.
:Trowbridge ,, ';replied that the modf was. only intended for
Units �k'3 and 14•• insofar< as . the density -was ,concerned; and not : for
the configuration . of, --the' : original• '1-inear parkways. Mr. Gray'
contended that"s nce the :`parkways; actually• - extended through Units.
#3- :and ;, #4 ; . tha•t this- area- should :also be.. considered in any modi-
fication ,actions,:. •Mr,.r.> Gray reminded- , .Mr.'- Trowbridge of the origi-
nal proposal where the cul- de= sacs.,opened up , onto• the - parkway,
there . were.no -alleyways, amd two-or three lots were set aside to
be developed as.a :park..;• Mr.. Trowbridge - stated. that this was true,
but with w.the 'original - plan- : t=here.•: - was .,more density to. allow
for that. *type'of: treatment: Mr.,_Tr.ow,bridge- also objected to the
deletion :of � the ld•t 1 in •Unit'.. #4; tating...that most of the people
back'd : onto the linear.parkway a►d had direct access.
He;,:stated tl s;was also. a: quest%on of.- economics, and he felt that
the pr. uacy`sYand aec'ess. of those- - people in, Unit #4 was' appropriate
without: :the 'deleti®n. o : f the,,aots.„
Mr i` stated het_ agreed with - the - requirement of the City
Engineer, for;;a, 2.0 -a. :.foot wadtl, ped : estrian way. He also stated, they
:would,;lie 'I'l .rig_ to.'put yinS, an,Ii4sph4lt,;path .and some thorny bushes,
:= and would includeAIencing along' linear - parkway.
7.
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 18,
M
Head questioned much the incluslon,-of-the p Comm rop6se. * park
"would.. - add' to th,e.. cost - of the homes,; Mr. Trowbridge replied it
would be whatever the deletion of' the f ive - lots costed out to He
-,
, also advised ' the Commission-he-would :be p.aying $60,600 for park
fees-, and would therefore - like them to consider the modification
as
Mr-.',trowbridge- stated he would - Like Condition, #4 the Planning
De' p ar.tmen,t which,.required the deletion
o oii ' e lot in Unit . #4 and. two `lots in Unit.. #3:. to provide addi-
-t-iona:l:access; the . parkway. 'He - also , stated, he -wished Condition
#22 - to be removed -which - related,. to. the, -improvements - of the linear
parkway. His contention was that the determination on: the ori
. was that City funds:would available after a parkway
plam'hadbeen submitted by-them. Mr. Trowbridge also ..questioned
if the guard;rails to be installed 'along "I" Street adja-
cefit.•to the proposed open space- area. .Mr. Gra -Y replied that they
would, abs"'olutely.,,have to'be required in -thdtarea..- for safety
reasons,..
Mr. Gray stated, that at the time the original -PCD: Plan was- ap-
.' the townhouses and patio;home&i a designation was
iddicated.on the EDPor Genera'].•Plan for am6ighbokhood park in
the Area. However, since, that time the Recreation,., 'Music- and
Parks - Commis si6rl.i', has. seen: the - need - generated in,--the
Subd- a neighborhood park. Accordingly�, the Enviro-n-
'ment the-General Plan, . ha•been modified to
include a neighborhood park in this area and requiring the park
would therefore only be carrying out the —adopted .of these
dd`cuments.
Mr. Longaker stated. traffic at - the- corn of "I" Street And
Sunnyslope Road was- rather .fast at-5:.00 p. and the, guard . rail
would a definite necessity. . He stated that park
area, neatest - to the subdivision . would be Grant ' which was a
miIer,away and . had minimal provisions,. Although. did not Le,el
his COnitission -vo I uld:holdfirm on the specific: lots recommended,
1-hey fe lt that a neighborhood park was a necessity f or the 250
children•estimated. that subdivision,.
Mr. Trowbridge stated 'he was not,aware -of the.change-to the General
Plan and.- the Environmental, Design. Plan f or this exact area:. Mr.
Gray t6 n
, plied that: the need is ot:-shown for a specific site,, bat,
i's-sho f or the area -of Sunnyplope Avenue and - "I" 'Street.
Comm. Wright stated, -he -f elt that the area. was isolated . f rom. the
test the City and-- ' theref-ore'f I elt a :park was rnecessary. He also
questioned 4 the rI easibility of a park. area next to d swift running
creek and,ztated,he felt a-parkshould be located.on a relatively
level place and hot,on'the edge of -a busy street - or on.,a sloping
"area. - 'Mr. Trowbridge advised that the chann'ei. improvements were
in accordance with Sonoma Co'unty Agency-specifications and.
would .< provide -:the- proper , dtaina . ge -- so - 'th.ere would not be-any-backup
-14-
~ 'Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 18,! 1976
of water. He also reiterated.that he had never termed the area as
a : park, and had.teld prospective buyers that the area was to be
i only an. open space linear parkway.
Comm. Bond stated he agreed with the Recreation, Music and Parks
Commission-that 250'child'ren.warranted the need for a park some
wheres in-the center of the development. He also stated he felt
the fart that the developer was requesting a modification from
garden apartments to single- fami:ly'units•would strengthen the need
for a park rather than to -decrease• the need, He therefore felt it
was quite,logical to request a modification in the park plan as.
well' based, on the modifications requested..
Comm. Bond questioned -if the consideration of-the tentative map
could :be' continued. Mr.. Trowbridge stated he would also request
it be continued -to allow.him time to clear up the issue of the
park and if necessary, meet--again-with the Recreation, Music and
*Parks Commission.
Mr. Dan.Gilmore, a Westridge resident, stated!he was not . so -
cerned about::the,availability of a park;, although.he it
was important,- .,.but was very concerned about the location of.the
park as-indicated on the map sine he -felt it was a very
location for children to be playing.
Comm;-Bond moved.-to place the tentative map on.the agenda for June
2nd. The motion was seconded by Comm.'Waters.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT. 2
REDEVELOPMENT Mr. Gray informed the.Commission,they had considered the Prelimi-
PLAN YOR THE nary Redevelopment-Plar,.for the. Project Area in
PETALUMA CBDr joint- ses'si.ons previously, and at: this time they were asked to
react as to.whether the Redevelopment Plan was in-conformance with
the.General Plan and Environmental Design Plan. He advised the
Commission that'.if this was their opinion, the document should,
then. -be tfansm :teed back to the,Community Development Commission.
and on,: to - the � City Council for action o
Janie Warman,.Rroject Manager, stated,. revisions had been
recently-received from the' Special Counsel in Sacramento; but were
of a cosmeticlor technical nature only. Mr. Gray stated that if
the Commission wished they could take more-time to review
revisions and continue the item on June 2nd, at which time they
would,also.'be requested to act- on.the: draft Environmental Impact
Report. The COmmission.determined to place these items on the
June 2nd-agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,, the meeting adjourned at 11:30
p'.m.
Chairman
Oe -
-15-