Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/12/19864 , O ap Not Official Until Approved By The Planning Commission MINUTES (Minutes are "Action Minutes'" and represent a summary of full taped records of Planning Commission hearings.) Petaluma Planning Commission August 12, 1986 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Petaluma, California PRESENT: Commissioners Head, Hilligoss, Libarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr ABSENT: Davis STAFF; Warren Salmons, Planning Director Mike Moore, Principal Planner APPROVAL OF M-- INUTES Minutes of August 5, 1986 were approved as submitted and several corrections were suggested for the General Plan Meeting Summary. CORRESPONDENCE None other than pertaining to Item I below. DIRECTOR''S REPORT Council discussion of timing and hearing process for General Plan hearings. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT Discuss Council discussion of timing and hearing process for General Plan hearings. NOTE: - - -- = deletion addition CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS I. CITY OF PETALUMA, DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND EIR 1. Continued consideration of Draft General Plan. (Public Hearings on the Draft General Plan Land Use Map, Draft General Plan text, and Draft EIR will continue at subsequent meetings on August 19 and, if necessary, August 20) . The continued public hearing was opened. Staff stated that a summary would be done on each of the hearings on the General Plan and that the summary would be completed and available to the MIM public and the Commission prior to the next hearing /meeting and shall constitute the minutes and official record of the meeting. ADJOUiNMENT: 10:45 PM. ATTEST;: Warren Salmons, Planning Director G 2 000029 „ . 'PETALUM'AGENE City of Petaluma Planning Commission Public Hearings On The 1986 -2005 Draft General Plan and EIR MEETING SUMMARY Meeting of August 12, 1986 (NOTE: Meeting Summary pages and speakers are numbered beginning with page 1 and speaker no. 1 of the August 5 summary and continuing . consecutively from there. Future summaries will pick -up from where the last page and speaker of the previous summary left off) . Commission Members Present: Dan Libarle, Glenn Head, Fred Tarr, Patti Hilligos,s, Ross Parkerson, Chairperson Nancy Read Absent: Michael Davis Staff /Consultants Present: Warren Salmons, Planning Director; Michael Moore, Principal Planner; Naphtali Knox, Knox and Associates (General Plan Consultant) The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. After dispensing with routine business., Chairperson Read asked Warren Salmons to review the discussion held by the City Council the previous evening regarding its timetable for General Plan hearings. Mr. Salmons stated that by consensus, the Council wanted at least a portion of the recommendations of. the Commission (perhaps recommendations on the land use map) by mid- September so they might begin their discussions. Other material would follow by the first week of October. Commissioner Parkerson, who had been in attendance at the Council session added that the Council would like to see the Commission respond to questions on the night they are raised so the Commission would not lose sight of the issue. Commissioner Hilligoss suggested that the Commission might need !to meet on both Tuesdays and Wednesdays and that if this were done there would need to be further noticing. At this point Mr. Salmons suggested Tuesday, September 3 as a possible additional hearing date for the General Plan. 14 � Y t Commissioners Head and Libarle expressed their concerns about going too fast with the proceedings and the need for as much time as necessary to do a thorough review. Commissioner Libarle also asked whether the recommendations made by the Commission must go back to public hearing. Mr. Salmons responded that the process, in essence, was similar to a typical Commission proceeding wherein a hearing is held, it is then closed, the Commission then makes its recommendations which go on to the City Council: for hearing. The Commission then discussed trying to cover specific subject areas on specific' nights, but based on comments from Mr. Salmons and Mr. Knox determined that the present approach of hearing all comers was working well enough. Commissioner Hilligoss concluded the discussion by asking those persons with in -depth comments on text to submit them in: writing to permit adequate time for response. Michael ;Moore reviewed the packet material for tonight's meeting; reviewed the meeting summary and recommended that the Commission may wish to hear from the sizeable number of Denman Area residents present as a group and then proceed to hear others. Comments from the Commission on the Meetingi, Summary of August 5 were noted (see Meeting Summary Addendum for comments and responses) . The Commission agreed to hear Denman area comments first and with that, Chairperson Read opened the continued public hearing on the Draft General Plan and EIR and reminded the audience of additional hearings on August 19 and '.20. 26) Bob Carpenter - clarified statements attributed to him in the August 5 Meeting Summary (see Meeting Summary Addendum, Item C, p. 12) regarding the proposed flood mitigation measures shown on the draft General Plan Land Use Map; asked that the City consider the three reach proposals (Willow Brook, Denman and Payran) in the Water Agency Study since they are within the City and not commit to the measures shown on the map. Response Comment noted; no response necessary. 27) Remo Rebizzo - asked again that the DMV property land use designation be changed from Public and Institutional to Commercial. Response Warren Salmons responded to Mr. Rebizzo at the meeting stating that the Zand use map now being reviewed has not been changed to avoid confusion; the Commission heard Mr. Rebizzo's request and w7Z make its recommendation to the City Council at the close of its deliberations on the GeneraZ Plan. (Commissioner Head's comments regarding this property are contained in the August 5 Meeting Summary Addendum, Item B, p. 11). 28) Rebecca Martin - had questions concerning whether the Commission votes on each issue separately or on all recommendations at once; do th`e recommendations go to the City Council' ?; requests that the Willow Brook Diversion and Denman Detention Basin be removed from the map. 15 Q 0i3O 0`t2 3C Response The Planning Commission will act on each request or issue separately in making its recommendation to the City Council. The Council wiZZ then hold its own hearings before taking a final action on each item. 29) Mrs. R.M. McCulloch - concerns about the proposals affecting Ellis Creek and how part of her property would be taken to handle the water. Response A portion of Ellis Creek is included as part of the Petaluma By-Pass system discussed in the Sonoma County Water Agency Master Drainage Study. Like the Willow Brook Diversion and Denman Detention Basin, they are part of numerous flood control measures mentioned in the study. Before any of the measures could be constructed much additional analysis and pubZic review would be required. 30) Al Bolomi - Petaluma's building east of the freeway is causing increased flooding in the Denman area; the proposed dam and Willow Brook diversion would flood land beyond the area shown on the map; no figures on how much more property would be flooded. Response Mr. Bonomi's comments Mustrate just one of the many issues that would have to be studied before any final decision on the feasibility of these projects could be made. 31) Antoinette Brooks - The 3 reach proposals as described in the Water Agency: Study could handle water; reach projects are more feasible and acceptable to families affected by present proposal; asked for clarification on staff response to Payran Reach question raised at August 5 meeting ( see p. 2 of 8/5 Meeting Summary and Meeting Summary Addendum, Item G, .p. 13) ; asked for clarification on what the effect is of showing or not showing the flood mitigation proposals on the ,land use map. Response The purpose of the General Plan is to bring forth a variety' of ideas and proposals on many subjects that could influence and guide the City's development over time. It is up to the .Planning Commission and City Council to decide which of those remain on the map or in the text. Anything shown on the map does not automatically make it happen but it does at the very least leave the issue open for further study and discussion as time goes on. By the same token, something not on the map does not prevent it from ever happening (Commissioner Tarr noted at the meeting that there should be some discussion by the Commission of including other alternatives.) . 32) Ray Emerson - Spoke with Bill Stillman of the Sonoma County Water Agency about concerns in the Denman area; he reported that Mr. Stillman had said that 1) the Water Agency does not know as yet . what will be' done with silt in the Denman area after flooding; 2) that to make Rainsville Road an all- weather road will require either raising all the bridges or making it a causeway; an all- weather road would result in serious traffic problems during flooding; 3) water flows into the Denman area from two directions and the dam and detention basin will 16 result in more water than there is now; 4) if water exceeded boundaries shown in the Study, dikes would be needed; a majority of the homes would not be affected but diking would be done if needed; 5); rental of land for length of time necessary to hold water is a possibility; rental would be based on an appraisal of cost of use for the time needed. Response Comments noted; no response necessary. 33) Reuben Goldstein - why aren't other alternatives shown; Denman Detention Basin is not best alternative; should show other alternatives. Response Comment noted; no response necessary. 34) Patricia Engstrom - concerned about the affect of the Detention Basin on ''Marin Creek area and Bodega Avenue. G Response: This is another issue raised which would require further stu' y before any proposal could ever be approved and built. 35) Bonnie Holybee - concerned about flooding contributing to loss of Eucalyptus trees and effect on septic systems. Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 34. 36) Bill Bennett - proposal to dam water in the Denman Detention Basin will flood Marin Creek and Bodega Avenue. Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 34. 37) Jack Bennett - presented for the record and for distribution to the Commission past minutes and materials from the Community Flood Prevention Task Force. Response The information submitted by Mr. Bennett wiZZ be distributed to the Planning Commission before its next meeting. 38) Iola Bengtsson - asked about viewing videotapes of the general plan sub - committees; asked for a copy of the material sent to Senator Pete Wi'l'son by the Community Flood Control Task Force. Response Videotapes of a7Z of the meetings - sub - commit e, General Plan Coordinating Committee, Town Meeting, etc. - are avaz7able to be viewed at the Planning Department. At this] point in the meeting, there was an exchange between staff and the Commission about the Community 'Flood Control Task Force. Chairperson Read asked what the Task Force was . Mike Moore explained that it was a group 'of , landowners, developers, business people and other interested persons looking into developing the financing necessary to construct the flood mitigation measures recommended by the Water Agency Master Drainage Study particularly at Eastside By- Pass, the Willow Brook Diversion and the Denman Detention Basin.. Warren Salmons stated that the Task Force is one of `;several efforts underway to resolve the flooding problems in and 17 around Petaluma. Commissioner Head asked who had appointed Task Force members and given them the authority to contact Senator Wilson. Warren Salmons replied that it is not Council appointed.; it is a ,committee of interested citizens; Mike Moore attends meetings as an observer, to keep abreast of what the committee is doing; but it is not a City- sponsored committee, staffed by the Planning Department. 39) .Nancy Papenhausen - several questions about the Urban Separator: whose idea was it; why weren't property owners notified when originally proposed; why does the separator stop at Putnam .Park; why does the separator stop at Western Avenue; wants the Urban Separator designation on the west side (from Western Avenue to the Petaluma River) removed. Response" The Urban Separator, originally called a greenbelt has been In City plans since 1972 (.the. first Environmental Design Plan). There is no way of knowing whether or not property 'owners affected by the original designation were notified at the time. On ' the first draft of the 1986 -2005 General Plan Land Use Map, the Urban Separator was shown as stopping on the east side of Putnam Park and resuming on the north side. The rationale behind that was that Putnam Park, as open space., served essentially the same function as Urban Separator and was therefore to be considered as part of the separator. In a subsequent draft of the land use map, the one on which the public hearings are being held, the separator was extended around the entire northern boundary in order to reinforce the notion of a continuous separator designation. As explained at the meeting by Naphtali Knox, the citizen's sub- committees recommended that the Urban Separator encompass as much of the City as possible. However, in discussions on the separator, those involved recognized that lands north of Western Avenue were "fractured" into many small parcels that were already developed, and the City could not acquire urban separator through additional development since the potential for additional development was minimal. Furthermore, the rural residential development in the area already provides a buffer between urban development and nearby agricultural properties. Warren .Salmons reminded the Commission and audience that it will be the responsibility of the Commission and the City Council to determine how the Urban Separator wal affect the properties which it crosses - how wide wM be be; should it be discontinuous, how it is to be used and so forth. 40) Vytas Barauskas - wished to clarify comments made by Chris Barauskas at the August 5 meeting. Response See Meeting Summary Addendum, Item D, p. 12. 41) Leo Lavio - what is the purpose of the Urban Separator; who will be using it; who is liable when the separator is in use; opposed to Urban Separator. Response As noted in the Meeting Summary of August 5, the purpose of the separator is to buffer urban uses from surrounding agricultural 18 U0`U2d� land and vice versa. It is also part of the City's open space system. Specific uses within the separator will be determined by the City Council. Until, the Urban Separator is acquired by the City through wh'a'tever means appropriate, on a case -by -case basis - it remains a line on a map as .private property, and is not accessible to the public. Therefore, whatever liability there is is that of the property owner's. Once it comes under City ownership, any liabi7ity then becomes the City's. 42) Bill' Bullard - participated in discussions regarding the Urban Separator back in 1983; received assurance then that separator would bel.placed at the back of the lots and would be of indeterminate width; wants City to uphold its decision of 1983 and continue to maintain a sepzarator of indeterminate width. Response: The lack of a standard width for the Urban Separator has created decision making problems for developers and the City when it has come time to acquire separator property through development. A policy. in the draft plan calls for a standard width of 300 feet. Staff and consultants recognize that this may work a hardship on some smaller properties and, as shown on the land use. map, have reduced thei °ue width in spots. It will be up to the Commission to resolve the iss s involved with the placement of the separator and its width; houiever, to avoid the problems of the past, whatever the Commission's recommendation to the City Council, it must specifically define_ the characteristics of the separator whereever possible. 43) Denise Flagg - Concerned about the Urban Separator adjacent to her property; does not want it moved on to her property. Response Ms. Flagg's property is presently outside of the Urban Limit Line and not affected by the Urban Separator designation. It is not likely that the separator would be moved on to her property. 44) John Catenacci - requested that his property north of East Washington and east of Ely Blvd., above the Alderwood Subdivision, be designated Urban Standard instead of Open Space. Re_s;ponse Warren Salmons stated at the meeting that this property has a long history and that Mr. Catenacci would be providing additional information to the Staff. The property is presently designated as Urban Separator. 45) Dave Roe - wants his property to remain outside the Urban Limit Line where it now is; opposes suggestion to move the separator over small properties in the vicinity of where it now runs; questions the use of th separator as park when terrain on the west side is difficult. Re's;ponse If the City Counc -a decides to allow access to the Urban Separator in the area in question it wiZZ be for relatively low intensity type uses such as hiking, or equestrian trials and bicycles. The term park suggests many other kinds of activities that would not be suitable on possible in the area of the west side proposed for Urban Separator. 19 40Q,` 46) Gene Hash - clarified. comments from last meeting; asked that .the Urban Separator be eliminated. Response See Meeting Summary Addendum to meeting of August 5 (Item E, p. 12) for cZarification . 47) Linda Drafton - owns small parcel affected by Urban Separator; received no direct notice; should receive better notice than the insert in the Buy Lines and Argus Courier opposes Urban Separator. Response: Direct mail notice was sent only to those property owners where t, e General .Plan ' proposed a significant change over what exists now. Ms. Drafton's property on the existing General Plan Land .Use Map (1978- 1985 GP /EDP Land Use and Circulation Map) has the Urban Separator designation on it and in the same location as shown on the proposed Land Use Map. Therefore, no notice was sent. 48) Van Logan - questioned the extension of Rainier Avenue all the way to Adobe Road,; why are range of densities shown instead of.. the upper .limit; variety of East side is because of higher densities allowed under existing plan proposed designations will stifle creativity and foster repetition of the present pattern of development. Response The question of the extension of Rainier does raise the issue of growth inducing impacts and does, in effect, run counter to the recommendations of the sub- committees and the General Plan Coordinating Committee regarding growth limits on the Eastside. The pros and cons of the proposal wVZ have to be discussed carefully before a recommendation is made. A range of densities was proposed to minimize the number of land use categories on the General Plan Land Use Map in order to avoid consistency problems with the zoning ordinance (i.e., when zoning categories do not cover all Zand use categories) . Zoning will be used to set the maximum density in each area. More importantly, the range gives the City the flexibility to protect the community when a particular density may not be appropriate. The McNear Hill project is an example where project was approved at 11 du /ac but existing land use categories either allowed 10 du /ac (too low) or 15 du /ac (too high) . A range would allow 'satisfactory resolution of such situations. The Commission continued public testimony at this point to the meeting of August 19. The Commission remained in session to discuss future meeting dates. It decided that the meeting of August 19 would be devoted to map questions or comments other than those regarding flood mitigation. If there was time remaining comments would begin on the draft text and EIR: This portion of the hearing would be carried over to Wednesday, August 20. The Commission added meetings on September 3 and September 16. On the 3rd the Commission will finalize discussion /recommendation on the map and begin its deliberations /recommendations on text and on September 16 'it will try to conclude its recommendations. 20