Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/19/1986w,o0Z9 F j UNAR ► City of Petaluma Planning Commission Public Hearings On the 1986 -200.5 Draft General Plan and EIR MEETING SUMMARY Meeting of August 19, 1986 i (NOT ±E: Meeting Summary pages and speakers are numbered, beginning with page Fl. and speaker no. 1 of the August. 5 . summary and continuing conse`cutiveiy from there. . Future summaries will pick -up trom where the last page and speaker of the previous summary .left off.) t. Commission Members Present: Dan Libarle,, Michael Davis, Fred 'Parr, Patti j Hilligoss, Ross Parkerson, Chairperson Nancy ' Read Absent: Glenn Head 5tatt[Consultants- Present: Warren Salmons, Planning Director; Michael Moore, Principal Planner; Nancy Alexander, Knox and Associates (General Plan Consultant) The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. Michael Moore reviewed the material presented to the Planning Commission in its packet and additional letters of comment on the General Plan received by the Planning Department sincef;August 18. Mr. Moore then reminded the Commission . and the audience that the Sonoma County Water Agency informational meeting on the proposed flood 1;mitigation measures in the Petaluma area' would be at the Penngrove Firehouse and not Liberty School as originall stated. The meeting date and time August 28 at 7:30 p.m. -- remain unchanged. Mr, i Salmons recommended that the Commission not hear any further testimony on the proposed Denman Detention ,B'asin or the other flood mitigation :measures shown on the ' map because of the lack of information available to respond adequately to questions. He stated that the meeting of August 28 should serve that purpose; and of course based on testimony alreadv received, the Commission will have to make, a recommendation to the City iCouncil on this issue, and then the Council will have their own hearings before taking tinal action. Chairperson head then told the 21 ri 0Oro 91 0000,�� audience that the Commission would not hear any more testimony on the Denman area. The, public hearing on the draft General Plan and. EIR was opened.. the Petaluma River whose owners are opposed to the: Fran Bengtsson, Armand Stalter and 'Duane C1ift., all from the Denman area asked the Commission to continue to -accept input- on the proposed flood mitigation. measures. Ms. Bengtsson submitted copies of maps from the Water, Agency study. Chairperson Read reiterated the Commission's intent to hear testimony on issues affecting properties within the City limits and left open the possibility to hear 'testimony from Denman area residents after everyone else is heard. 49) Bob. Stimson - submitted a map showing the properties in the area bounded by "D''! Street, "'M cNear Hill., Petaluma. Boulevard South. and the Petaluma River whose owners are opposed to the: Mixed Use designation; also submitted petition signed by those owners; reiterated objections to bike path along river and suggested moving it to McNear Peninsula. Response SEE' RESPONSE TO SPEAKER: NO. 5 (Meeting Summary of August 5) for -rationale behind the City's designation of these properties. It is also important 'to re- emphasize the Zon.g -term, evolutionary nature of this proposal and that it wf6Z :offer la nd owners in the area a broader ,range of development opportunities that could, over time, make, their property more valuable. However., initial opposition to this designation, as well as: the location of the bicycle path, will be a factor in any discussion /decision by the Commission and Council. 50) Andy Kvalheim - also spoke against the mixed use designation; submitted letter into the record expressing his concerns about the potential land use incompatibilities and the security problems with the bike path. Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 49. '51) Harold Mahoney - spoke in support of the comments of Mr. Stimson and Mr. Kvalheim. Also stated his opposition to Mixed Use proposed for Petaluma. Boulevard North ,.here .he. also owns property. Response SEE RESPONSE - TO SPEAKER NO. 49. The same rationale applied to the designation along the. river. and Petaluma Boulevard South applies here as well. and, perhaps, represents a* greater potentiaZ for success because much of the area is already commercial and the incompatibi7iiies suggested with industrial are not as, evident in this area. 52) Henry Reynaud - - read. his letter, previously submitted. to the Commission; requesting that, the lower portion of his property between English -and liana Streets be given .the Urban Standard designation the same as the surrounding . area and that the upper part remain Suburban., 22 A Response: The present designation is a carryover from the existing Generca Plan which also shows this parcel as Suburban Low Residential (bdulac). Topography is probably the single most important factor in determining this designation'., and even though surrounding densities may be higher, it may not be possible to accommodate anything higher tYan two dwelling units per acre (the high end of the proposed suburban designation) under present development standards for such things as drainage and access. 53) van Logan - once again spoke against density ranges in the General Plan; stated that other cities he had worked 'in - (Novato, Martinez) use ranges and what ultimately happens is they settle on the middle of the range as the maximum; requests that Petaluma set forth in the plan. how it will set specific densities. Response: As stated in response to Mr. Logan's first comments at the meeting' of August 12 (Speaker 48, page 20,, Meeting Summary of August 12), the: intent of the ranges is to provide flexibi7ity for the Cz6 -in determining density and to better insure consistency between zoning and the General Plan. Specific densities wi7l be set through tli' zoning ordinance - will be revised following - adoption of the GOneral Plan. However_,, Mr., Logan's concern: about the un certainty of addressed; ranges needs to be add and staff-, in, preparing the material ; - 9 J which the Commission can use in its deliberations. More specific policy direction on this item* is certainly one of the alternatives the Cbmmission should consider on this issue. 54) Barry Lawrence wanted to comment on the text of the plan specifically expressed support for program calling for referrals of project to the local resource 'conservation district 'for comments on potential soil and/or water resource impacts- that Petaluma airport currently had 127 aircraft locally based not 70 as stated in the plan; was confused by where the "Hayfields" area is. 4 Response: Comments noted; corrections and clarifications to the text and map will be made following the hearings on the plan. 55) Chris Barauskas - read her letter into the record; portion. of the property at the end of Graylawn near proposed Rainier overpass and river should .be designated as park; no parkin the area 'will need one jffi the higher density housing goes in. - Respanse - Development is - now prohibited in the FZoodw area that now covers a portion of the site suggested 'by Ms. Barauskas and., the� it would remain as open space. The City, in fact, has P' blic access easements to a 'portion of the flood:way. Additional park 1 u ar e a may be needed to provide sufficient open space for people in high density areas and to take advantage of natural features that now exist: This will be one of the alternatives suggested to the Commission' for its consideration. 56) Derek Simmons - objects to Public and Institutional designation on t property at the northeast corner of Ellis and East Washington; fo'U'nd no indication of money set aside for City to purchase the 23 property;; commented that there was no. lack of public land in area and that the proposed gateway site effectively removes the existing Neighborhood Commercial designation from client's (Conrow) property. Res onse: 'The. Community Character p sub - committee and, later the Genera Plan Coordinating Committee su the concept .of ,gatew,ays as one .means of enhancing the image of Petaluma as one enters the City by way of its major thoroughfares. A gateway :as_ discussed by the various committees could be either a formal stoppZng.� place where people could become oriented to the city: and gather information on where to go or what to. see,. or it could be an area featuring special landscaping and signs marking the entry to the city. The city recognizes that any Zand designated for a public -use, whether it be for a gateway or a park, or whatever, would have to be purchased if no other means of acquiring the property were - ,avaz7able. Furthermore, the gateway concept :does, not necessarily involve acquiring the 'land on- which it stands, but may be accomplished through site development policies calZing for certain distinctive development standards as a condition of approval of a ,project on the site.. One alternative the Commission will have to consider is to remove; the Public, and Institutional designation on the site and restore a commercial designation, but Zeave the gateway ,location to be worked into the future development of the property. Other alternatives that w7= also be presented to the Commission include.. (f) a site . specific designation on public 'property (across from the proposed site)'; (2) no gateway; (3) gateway policies only in text of ' the plan; (4) leave designation as is but clarify definition and intent of City. 57) Bill Conrow - reiterated objections to the Public and :Institutional designation on his property at Ellis and East Washington. Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO,. 56, 58) Robert Conrow. - also objected to the Public and Institutional designation on the property at Ellis and East Washington. Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 56. 59) Kate Bolton - supported the comments of Chris Barauskas. for a park near the river in the vicinity of Oak Creek Apartments; need open space 'in the city`; it becomes more valuable as development continues and, open areas fill up; supports street tree programs in the plan. . Response SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER' NO. 55. The draft General Plan recognizes - the importance of urban open space as well as the open lands around the City. One focus of the plan is the proposal to create a system of open space that wia allow people to travel through open space areas in and around the City to get from place to place. The' Urban Separator, the Petaluma River, the major creeks are all to be part of the system. 6U). Gary Filippini - responded to the response in the meeting summary of August 5 (Speaker No. L, page L); had the GPCC seen the park designation at the west end of Casa Grande High School as shown on z4 rl it the existing General Plan - map; restated his desire to have his mother's property remain at 7 du/ac,. as designated on the existing General Plan map. Res onse: The General Plan :Coordinating Committee (GPCC) did know i! P, that the existing General Plan map showed a neighborhood park adjacent to Casa Grande, High School. In developing the proposed Ge'reraY, Plan map, however., staff and consultants recommended to the GPCC that the property to the north of the high school be shown as a Community Park because of the City's interest in working out a joint us'e agreement to develop athletic fields. The Community Park (which serves a different function than a neighborhood park) replaced the neighborhood park on that site. The GPCC recommended a neighborhood park on the Fi ippini property, although the two decisions were separate and not an eitherlor situation. As to the density question, the Commission will consider Mr. Filzppini!s request as one of th6 alternatives presented for the property as part of its deliberation process. 61) Aia�n Dunham read letter for the record asking that a greater portion of the property at the north corner of Petaluma Boulevard I South and IIK: Street be designated Mixed, Use. Response: The Mixed Use designation coincides with the Service Commercial land use now on the property. To move the demarcation .t Zin,.e between the Mixed. Use and the residential Urban Standard d' e's ig nation will require looking at the surrounding land i ubes--particularZy nearby residentiaZ--to see what impacts such a move might have. 62) B.arry - Lawrence - owns six .acre property bounded by Old Redwood Highway, Goodwin Avenue and Denman Road; winery located there plus historic house that could be a bed and breakfast inn; presently oiftside the Penngrove Specific Plan, Penngrove Sewer District and the City's Urban Limit Line; wants to develop as a tourist spot but also maintain agricultural uses on the site (grapes); wants to. be within Urban Limit Lind to eventually get City service. ffes 0 e. The location of the Urban Limit Line, particularly on the East �Ze of Petaluma, was an issue of considerable discussion. Ev entually the boundary was adjusted s2ightly to take in areas which had been set aside as Urban Reserve in the 2978 Environmental Design P&zn (EPP) and to recognize the relocation of the airport. Based on this plus the County's desire to maintain a separator between Petaluma a Penn,grove., staff is, not. likely to recommend that the Commission a u st. the line , to, take in other property. Furthermore, if the Commissio considered taking in the property in question, it would also have to consider taking the properties on the. south side of Old Redwood Highway up to Ely Road to maintain consistency in its ac tions. 63) Bill Vartnon - owns property in county on Petaluma Boulevard South; County designation is commercial, City shows as residential; 25 wants to sell the property_ but doesn't know what to tell the prospective buyer. Response: Until the property comes into the City through annexation, the Count ,y land use designation and zoning apply. Since the City does not aggressively annex surrounding Zan,ds.; but rather waits for the proper owners to petition for annexation, it may be quite sometime before the .property might become part of the City. State law permits a city to place ;land use designations on properties outside its Zimits if, over time, it is likely that those properties will become part ,of the city'. T,he residential designation- was placed on the property and others , the vicinity to prevent the continuation of strip commercial long Petaluma Boulevard South.. 64) Elmer ,Scott - requested that his property in the vicinity of Corona .Road (north s ide) and the NWPRR tracks (,east side) be included within the Urban Limit Line and the Corona /Ely Specific Plan area. A Response Mr. Scott's property along with others along the north side of Corona Road had originally been proposed as part of the Specific Plan area. However, 'the outcry of nearby residents of Penngrove, Corona Road and Ely Road against tthe City crossing Corona Road caused a :realignm.ent of the boundary to stay to the south side. Corona Road and the railroad' do provide logical boundaries on .which to base the Urban. Limit Line .and- specific plan boundaries.. Perhaps the proposed expanded boundaries represent the next 1.6'g1 al step in urban growth which might be considered in future updates of the General Plan. 65) Harold Mahoney - requested that his property at the southwest I orner of Bodega Avenue and Cleveland Lane be changed from Rural Residential to Thoroughfare Commercial. R:es.ponse A change: to Thoroughfqre Commercial would be consistent uiith the, County's designation in the West Petaluma Specific Plan of Commercial and County zoning of C -3, General Commercial. 66) Rick Long - owns property in "hayfields" area; what is" potential for annexation; how did it come to be Special Industrial. Response . T he potential for . -annexation of this area is very good although .the timing is unkno,w.n. The.. "hayftelds" were an area much . discussed during the sub- committee phase of general. plan update because of their unique location between the river- and freeway. Some felt this area should remain :open and unde.veZoped to prevent the 'Wicon Valley" appearance of continuous industrial buildings lining the freeway. Others saw this as ;potentiaZty valuable industriaZ once problems of flooding and access are solved. Special ,industrial is a compromise of sorts that will permit industrial development, but of a scale and sensitivity that wilZ stall preserve the natural attributes of the area and avoid the congested, chockabZock appearance that many were concerned about. 26 is 67`) Ral h Pelton, just completed a parcel ma for his ro ert off of :P J. P' P p P. P Y "I + " Street; in the County but City has reviewed the map and he had never heard about the Urban Separator before; concerned the separator will prevent him from building his house on the site he has chosen. Response PZanning Director Warren. Salmons offered Mr. Pelton the opportunity to meet with him and review the information and correspondence that has been generated over the past year between the City, the County and Mr. PeZton's representat iv-es regarding his parcel map in the hope that it would resolve some of his concerns. 68) Nita Miller - requested that the Urban 'Separator designation now on her ±90 acre property at the northeast corner of Casa Grande and Ely Boulevard be placed along the 'rear of the property and the Agricultural designation (that portion of the property east of the Urban Limit Line) be removed. Response That 'portion, of M's. MVZer's property now designated Urban Separator and' AgricuZtural on the -proposed General Plan Land Use Map zsj ,,entirely within the Inner Approach Zone of the Petaluma Municipal Airport. Any - type of land use that would introduce people or buzddings . into this area is severeLy Zim ted because of the need to protect people and property from incoming or outgoing aircraft. Even ifi the Commission and Gounca approved shifting the Urban Limit Line and Urban Separator across -the back of the property, the Zand use in the intervening area would not permit any more intensive use of the Za.nd because of the regulations governing approach zones as set forth by the County's Airport Land Use Commission (whose responsibility it is; to regulate Zand uses in and around airports) . According to Airport Land' Use Commission Safety Compatibility Criteria - -also adopted by the City as part of its airport *land use poZicy- -inner approach land uses that are conditionally acceptable include: (a) residenttat at Z dwelling unit /3 acres.- (b) other uses in structures with occupancy of no greater that 25 persons /acre at any one time; a' d maximum structural coverage of 25 %; and (c) other uses not in structures with occupancy of '50 'persons/acre, at any one time. Additional. conditions would depend on the nature of the proposed land use. Followig a short break, the' Commission began a discussion of the Denman Detention Basin and related flood matters. Commissioner Davis stated that he felt -all the flood mitigation proposals should be removed from the map; and that the Zone 2'A Advisory Board, of which Commissioner Hilligoss was a member, should consider holding one or -more informational meetings, with Water I Agency representation, to gather more input on the various proposals. Commissioner Parkerson responded that there is a need to evaluate how the detention basin would affect flood mitigation through the General' process, and that the Commission shouldn't be so hasty to remove > the measures from the map without further examination. Warren Salmons agreed that the plan must address flood mitigation; however, it can be done through policy (0.g. adopting the Water Agency Study, with . all of the various alternatives, by reference) Whether or not any of the measures are on the map does not preclude further study; the map can be 27 changed at a later date ; more ,information is available; to remove them does not Prevent them rom happening. Uommissioner Hill'igoss stated that either alt mayor alternatives be shown (the three already shown,, plus the three reach ro ects), or t orie should be shown. . Commissioner i,ibarle P j .•• expressed his concern at the lack'. of information and the inability to provide satisfactory Tanswers in response to public questions. it was his opinion that. the measures !shown, on the General clan Land Use Map be removed until more information is forthcoming. Commissioner Warr .asxed that the Commission put off any . decision on whether or not to :remove the flood mitigation measures until, ,after the water Agency informational meeting on August. 18. The Commission then agreed to here from people in the llenman area for the remainder of the meeting time. o9) xebecca Martin asked that the Commission. read the Master lirainage Study and become beater informed about the issues; read a letter from the Uorps of Engineers regarding the reconnaisance study for the Vayran Reach project. .mesponse , As already mentioned �in the Meeting. Summary Addendum. to the Meeting .Summary of August 5 Ute "m G,, page 13), the Corps of Engineers' Pa"yran Reach project is not. the same _as the Water. Agency's proposal of -the same name:. The Corps' project is of smaUer. scale and a lesser level of flood protection. '10), Armand Stalter - asked several questions about the Willow Brook Diversion regarding dimensions and impacts on leach fields and orchards. Response Information . on the dimensions of the Diversion channel may be: available at the Water A',ge.ncy informational meeting on, August 28. Other impacts are unknown at "this point and'. would have to : be studied and "resolved before any construction could occur. 7.1) Manual. Azevedo - why is building allowed in the Industrial "Avenue area in the floodplain.; stated opposition to. Denman Detention Basin. Response Petaluma,. allows ;b.ui7ding in the floodplain u -nder specific conditions that protect against, the 100 -year flood. 72.) Antoinette Brooks - referred to Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs in plan. regarding the .Petaluma Planning Referral Area (of which the Denman area is a part`) and the need . to protect resources and wa 'also commented on flood. ,mitigation policies that . put the problem on residents 'in Denman area.; City should put ,other measures in the text and on the map. Response It is the intent of the City to protect and preserve resources in the Petaluma Planning Referral Area as stated in the plan; and in keeping with that, it not the intent of the. City to solve the problems of flooding in, the City by flooding the Denman Area. As stated many times at the meetings and' in the Meeting Summaries, there is extensive additional study that must be done before any decision on what measures to implement can be made. Furthermore, it would seem, based on the earlier discussion by the -� 28 I CIP ION 29 1 C!ommission, that all alternatives will somehow be included in' the plan either on the map or in the text. This portion of the hearing was closed at 1000 p.m. to be continued on pi Wednesday, August 20 at 7:00 p,m. 29