HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/20/1977, The. Planning Commission encourages applicants, or their representatives to be
available at the meetin'g's to answer questions, so that' no ;ag -erida items need
be deferred - to a later date due to .a. lack: of pertinent' information'.
PLEDGE,ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL: Comm. Balshaw ` Head - Hor.ciza Lavin
Shearer Waite Wright
STAFF:!] Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ":
CORRESPONDENCE:
CONSENT.' CALENDAR
i
Items appearing,on' the Consent'CAlendar will be considered to be routine by
the Planning .Commission and
will be.6hacted one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items. If'discussion is,desir,ed., that item (or
items) Vill be removed from
the Consent Calendar..
M.. Maselli & Sons
1. E.I.Q. Evaluation and Site Design.Review for
a proposed expansion of the building located
at 519 Lakeville `5 reef.
JAY JACK- E.I.Q.
1,. Public Hearing to 'evaluate the Environmental
EVALUATION /USE PERMIT.
,. ,
Impact Questionnaire for a p'ropo.sed Motorcycle
REQUEST:
Repair and Pa =rts Sales Sho,p�,.and a Carpentry
Shop located at 320 Second Street.
2. Public Hearing to co a'Use Permit request
for the proposed project -.
RA 2`30 ELECTRIC
PGandE presentation of, - t t igat -ion measures for
T N LINE:
TRANSMISSION
subject transmission line.
WESTRIDGE SUBDIVISION
Public Hearing to consider the adequacy of the Draft
UNIT A= DRAFT' EIR EIR. prepared by Walt !Smith _& Associates for amend -
EVALUATION: ment to the Environmental Design Plan to permit
average R -1- 6,500 zoning for 221 future residential
lots on approximately 75 acres of the Lavio property
located near'Westridge Drive and I Street Extension.
ADJOURNMENT;
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMTSSON
, :° SEPTEM8ER',.20., 1977_
AGENDA',
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Pub1=%tc .Heax,;ng to consider. the adequacy of the
SUBDIVTSTONS�EAST OF
= '.'Draft <``,ET.R.'preparedr,by: Dell. Dav3_'s..Associates for,
ELY 9L1D..SOUTHTORAE,T
the proposed resident'al.prezoning of -
EIR EVALUATION:
located east of Ely Blvd, South..
(continued).
.GEORGE °GOULART --
L. Public Hearing to evaluate the - Environmental
EVALUATION,/
•Impact Quest " "onnare, to ..allow .f;or :five
REZONIN�' .FROM R -
duplexes located northwest• of Caulfield -'Lane
TO PUD; /S °ITE DESIGN.
. between South Mcpo*orelL and `Park-. Lane..
' REVIEW:
2. Public Hearing to consider an application to
rezone approximately ly acres from R- 1.6,500
to Planned IInit Development;.
3 Site 'Design, Review of- the '- proposed prod eat. -
FRIEDMAN BROS-
1. Public' Hearing to consider the Envir•ornnent:al
E.T4 EVALUATION
Impact of a proposal to prezo' approximately
PREZQNTNG REQUEST:'
1`1.2,8 acres from County Light` •Iiidustrijal:. to
City C-H, - Highway Commercial and ,appr_oximately.
10.68 - acres from County Light:,Industrial,to
City MIL,. Light :Industrial- for'prope_tty- -located .
'on Old' R'edTrood H'gh�ray, north of NorfIz McDoirell'®
Blvd. ..
2. Public.`Hearing : to consider.prezoning .request;
ADJOURNMENT;
M I N U T E . S'
P.ETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1977
REG.ULAR.MEETING` 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ':CITY - ,HALL- PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Present: Comm. Balshaw *, Head., Hor'cza, 'Lavin, Shearer, Waite
(. *Excused at 10 :30 p.. m.)
- Abseiti:' Cowin. 'Wright
Staff: Ronald F. H'all,'Planning Director -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the meeting of September 7, 1977, were
approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE' Letter from Herold Mahoney, President, Petaluma Inn
Motel, dated 'Se pt ember'5, 197`7, expressing disapproval
of a proposed 7 -11 Store to be located on'East"Washington and McDowell due to a
potential increase of-traffic and a high crime 'rate for that particular type of
business. A letter directed to Comm. Wright from Mr: Johnson of the Sonoma
County'Board •of Supervisors ,regarding a program• concerning the integration of
physical planni_ng.'with social"planning.
CONSENT CALENDAR The motion was made by Comm. Head,,-seconded by Comm.
• Shearer' to approve Item'l. Motion was carried unani-
mously.
Agenda Item l M.— Maselli &,Sons„ Negative Declaration and Site Design
Res. 5.493 approving an-expansion of the building lo-
cated:at -519 Lakeville Street.
JAY JACK - E.I.Q. Mr.:. Hall.:exglained1 the ;reques:t 'by- :Jay'Jack for a motor -
EVALUATION /USE cycle repair and parts shop and a cabinet shop in the
PERMIV REQUEST: existing, building - located:. ,at 320' 'Second Street.. The
site is developed with commercial and industrial build -
ings and covers an area of 19.,420 ,square . feet.. The property needs clean -up and
upkeep to create an appropriate appearance.
Comm. Shearer questioned-1f the building would be leased, to which the appli-
cant replied in the
The..Pub;lic Hearing.to consider tte.,Environmental Impact Questionnaire was
Opened.,,. No;,.comments were offered:from the audience and -the'Public Hearing was
closed,... Comm. Head moved ; to -direct, the Planning Director to prepare and post a
Negativ ;4e- . Declaration for the,.profect. The .mo:tion was ".seconded by Comm. Shearer.
I .
AYES 6 NOES 0. ABSENT. 1
The Public,'Hearing consider the Use Permit was opened.. No comments 'were
of -fered from the 'audience and the, Public . Hear. ing was closed.
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 20, 1977
Comm. Head moved to ,grant thei Use Permit to allow for a motorcycle - repair
parts and a..cabinet shop: The motion. was ,seconded by Comm. Waite.
AYES. . 6- NOES 0 . ! ABSENT . 1
Mr. 'Hall explained that the, traffic. report had not _been completed °f or- the Plan-
ned Residential :Subdivisions east , of Ely Blvd,. South and :requested the item be
removed from the Agenda and continued to _the meeting of October 4, 1977.
P.:G._& E :230 kV . Mr., Hall explained that the major :conce.rn,.was the
ELECTRIC TRANS- visual impact ,from Old Adobe (General Vallej.o's
MISSION LINE': Adobe) of the proposed P.G.,& E, transmission line,. The
line would parallel the existing transmission lines
from the Geysers south to the -Old Adobe.. Mr. Lindahl, of P 'G':.& E., .stated the
California State Recreation, - Department was in-agreement with the proposal to
plant trees -and shrubs around the Lakeville Substation. It.would take from 10
to 20 years for the trees to mature. _.Neil 'Smith, P.;G.& E. electrical 'engineer,
explained the proposal was to. construe another —tower line down into the -Lake
vil.le Substation, area at this time and to relocate the line coming from thee.
Fulton Substation The new line .would be 'on the opposite side of the exi's_tng
tower lime „and it was 'proposed to move the tower from the Old Adobe by 1/2
mile. Mr. Smith.indicated there would b,e ;two tall towers and two :relatively
low towers fora total of four towers. Plan 1 would have ten on- -site towers
and Plan :t would have the-two tall towers and two low - towers -. He 'stated the
towers could be painted a dark -color to minimize visual impact.
Comm. Balshaw favored, alternate Plan .2' in 'that ° there would not be .six more
towers located close to the Old Adobe. Fred Schram, Chamber.o'f.Commerce,
stated the State of California is proposing to buy 10 acres of land as a, buffer
zone for the Old.Adobe and using the existing road on.the easterly side-of Casa
Grande as .a paved parking +area. Comm. Lavin indicated the. andscaping should
be extended to'protect the view from the Old Adobe. _
'Comm. Head moved to r'ecommend approval of the alternate Plan 2 for °the instal-
lation of. -a'230 K.V transmission line to the City•Council. 'The motion was
seconded by Comm. Balshaw.
AYES 3 NOES 2 ABSENT 1 ABSTAIN 1
WESTRIDGE SUBDIVI:S -IQN, Mr 'Hal explained,th was a hearing 'to consider- the
UNIT #4 -DRAFT EIR adequacy of the Draft EIR prepared' by Walt Smith and
EVALUATION: Associates for an amendment to 'the Environmental`. Design
Plan to permit R =1 -6, 5.00 .zoning for. 221 residential
lots on approximately .75+ "acres `of the Lavio"pro,perty located' near Westrdge
Drive and " I " Street- Extension. This ,report emph asizes ;certaln?-COnce;rns Ed
t' ve to the impact on• schools, the. generation of students, 'and "traffic from a
subdivision of this magnitude, The City Engineer responded to the traf "fic'
r eport prepared 'by Renato Martinez s`t`ating; changes sh6ud 'be made f Appendix C
relating to the,-traffic impact on Sunnys'lope Road „' ands the iriter"section- of
Petaluma Blvd. North -at "I” Street warranting 'the, ins'�tallation of a +traffic
signal. - Mr.. Hall. s,tated.the-City Engineer`s, letter -,, dated September .20', 1977,
should. be made ,a part of the r.,ecord and added to the EIR, together with the
documentation provided by Mr. Martinez.
-2
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes ;September -20•, 1977
Comm. ?'Balshaw commented that a• developer. •shoul'd not be required to install
traffic signals or widen Petaluma.-Blvd. He would like t'o get more information
from the City Engineer on. whether or not the streets could handle the proposed
subdivision. Comm.. Horciz'a` stated that the .responses:received from the Depart -
m'ent, of Fish and' .Game 'might not be -in =agreement with_ the Sonoma County Water
Agency}, and this c.ontrovers:y could, be a problem. The :report °recommends 'putting
in berms where ponds-could-be created. He ques,tioned•howmatt'ers should be
handled when the variousi agencies are;in conflict. Comm.'Horciza . that
any obstruction in a stream such as a berm could be a flood hazard.
Comm: Shearer stated the` parks mitigating measures.are not adequate in'terms of
what the EDP calls for. The ;area -is in need of landscaping 'and the treatment
af'par:ks should-be expanded upon.
Mr Hall stated ,.the,ke.. issue.: s the ultimate density. -Comm. Lavin commented
..the EIR -could be certified for .3 units per acre, but tit As .not applicable for
:higher densi'•ties. .Mr. .Hall stated that .'in order to certify an EIR. there has to
be enough information ,tA forth the impact based on a density range. Comm.
Lavinistated the - dWirected at. a - specific .prop :os;al,i and what would happen
in the future when a,:s•pecfic proposal is.submitted. Comm. Balshaw stated that
when an annexation is proposed`it is known what 'is ito:be accomplished with a
project.. If Debra• Homes lknows what they intend to do, ;they _ should ,put it into
detail. Mr. Hall stated this EIR requires a change in -the EDP before any
design; plan can be submitted.
The Public Hearing was opened t'a consider the Draft EIR.
is
Walt Smith, author of EIR, commented what the , bologist:feit the channel was in
poor condition and proposed bringing 'the area back into Its natural habitat.
He indicated that the 'EIR is specific and that the Plan, Page 90 was .used as
a basis for impacts. The report could be certified to cover 3 units per acre,
and parks could be expanded
Comm. Horc.iza stated the original intent of - the;EIR was the change in the EDP.
He felt the traffic statement was totally inadequate as.. "I" Street could not
handle. the increase of traffic. Comm: .Horci•za .ques;tioned the-statement on
water,in that it was too general... There is an, exisrt' ng well on the property
and the statement is vague as. to its quality and quantity. The statement
relati:ize, to schools-.is ,unclear. It is unreasonable to ,bus children to other
schools
Sandra Way stated that increased, subdividing wa,s'unr:easonible. She was opposed
to.:thejcramming of houses.in this lovely valley.. Lar ±y:Jonas, did not feel that
:;R -1 6; was right for ;this area. He asked - if the EI'R took into : consideration
other 'projects .previously submitted and stated .this project could be leap
frogging. He questioned if this project would have an impact on the Eckman
property'.in the f:uturee D. Q'Connor, xes dent:of'Westridge, 7stated .the-schools
could root handle:, the projected children and asked If :future property owners
would be, ti'nfo:rmed. their children would have to. .be bused to other schools .-
Mary Neilsen, resident of Westridge Subdivision,, stated a•lower density., 2
houses per acre, should The considered so that the schools and streets .could
• .accommodate.. Donna Lindberg indicated this - is a rerun of the.'development of
several year.s ago and ', _a't - that time it was" said .there would' not. be any impact on
-3-
Petaluma City Planning.Commissioh Minutes, September 20, 1977
the area. The developer is leap fr ogging.. lea p �, f If we have to - ke amending the EDP,
'why do we.have,,it?. Ms.: Lindberg asked if the county had made any 'specific
requirements for this project?, The. response as in the ri'e ativ,
g. 6-
Comm. S Petaluma should know their 'ultimate- population. and not•.
discuss,density beyond ,point - The City does want-to ' ea land' tablish a
trans itibnal - zo e and �carr establish a periffidter for their -. 4. � , , growth. Mt. Hall
explained.-th&-General Plan calls•for a-4f.;5 unit per. acre,density.` Marian
Hodgeij a resident,-, stated "I" Street is a.dastreet ous, busy street and the
potential tra:ffic problems were over - in the . hI R
Walt" Smith.stated� an EIR is meant to - be. used as, a basia.for review and cannot,
cover everything Mr. Smith made the,followi I ;following comments on.
9. the EIR - Report.
There, is record of a well being located on the= site, The ?scho 'Sit, , uat-ion
is vague. There is a. school site plan shown on, the property district
has -no. of .1 p,"Ur l s : uing -it. The valley was this develop development
because - -of the availability of utilities from.the previous subdivision, LAFCO
will not look at - the until the EDP is' amended. They need, an- indication
of - what will happ"en... The PUbl1c.'Heat-ing was closed .Mr.. Hall explained that
the change . to the Environmental ;Design , Plan would; be considered - a:t -a -f utur.'e.
.Public,Hearing.
Comm., Shearer- moved .to recommend certification .of , the , ..EIR to the - Cit'y Council
with following specific findings:,
1) Addi.tional-i-n-fo be provided on parks and their proj,ection.
2) Additional information be. on schoola-and-their p.rojpcti+on.
3) An additional traffic study be , made, and the City Enginee = comments be,
.made,part of the EIRi.
4) Pro s�
' vide description of the visual effects.-of 6,500 square foot lots',, and
homes l on -the hillside.
The motion was, seconded by Comm,. Lavin.
AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT 1,
Comm. B.alshaw stated that before -further action is, taken on, -the pxoj;ect,, 'the
prop,osal•before the allotment the developer•should•.,be iooked�at as-far
as units are, concerned..
It was the consensus that _the be continued past - the hour. of 101:30 p.jft.
GEORGE G'OULART-- Mr.. Hall, 'explained the request by George Goulart to
E.1.Q, EVALUATION /' rezone6 approximately 1.3' ack-e& from R71-6,,500 to Planned
RE-ZONING: FROM Unit Development; -and to consider locating five duplexes
R-1-6,50`0 TO PUD/ on the 'northwest side of tane'between,!Soun
SITE DESIGN' REVIEW:, McDowell -Blvd and Park Lane..
,A with,. . 82 sigqa was . filed in opposition. n to..the . project_
•
Parkinson', aatorney,, r eq uested. dropped 'fr_6 '.he age
quested the item m t
nd a ., • and c on
tinue oh.October 18 �so the neighbors could be contacted -and I be informed ormdd on the
-4-
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 20, 1977
mattera Comm. Head moved - that the Geotge Goulart item be rescheduled and
�. placed first on the October.l8, 1.977 agenda: The motion was seconded by Comm.
Lavin.'
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
FRIEDMAN BROS.- Mr. Hall explained , the request % by Friedman Bros. to
E,. ,Q. EVALUATION/' prezone 11.28 acres from County light industrial to
PREZONING REQUEST: City':C -H, highway commercial, and the rear 10.63 acres
from County light industrial to. -City M -L, light indus-
trial, located on the eas -side of Old Redwood Highway approximately 500 feet
north of'North McDowell Blvd,. 'A portion of the.area.wll be used by Friedman
Bros. for a new home,supply business and the other portion for industrial uses
that would be compatible with the existing industrial uses in the area. Mr.
Hall stated that a p'rezoning dictates ,what the land will be used for and pre-
cedes an annexation.
The Public Hearing was opened to consider the Environmental Impact Question -
naire. ",No comments were offered from ,the audience and the Public: Hearing was
closed.i. Comma Head moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare and post a
Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was.seconded by Comm. Waite.
AYES 5 - NOES 0 ABSENT 2
The Public Hearing was opened to consider the proposed- prezoning: No comments
were offered from the audience and the-Public Hearing was closed.
Comm. Head moved to recommend approval of -the requested prezoning.of 11.28
acres to City C -H, Highway Commercial and 10.63 acres-to City M -L, Light In-
dustrial to the City Council, The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
Comm. Head moved to recommend that the City Council consider the prezoning of
the Wickes Lumber property from County M -L to City C -.H, Highway Commercial.
The motion was seconded by Comm, Lavin.
AYES 5 NOES 0 1 ABSENT . 2
ADJOURMENT.; The was adjourned. at - 11:15 p.m.
F11
Attest:
4
-5-