Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/20/1986t City of Petaluma i' Planning, Commission Public Hearings On the 1986- 20:0 Draft General Plan and EIR MEETING SUMMARY Meeting of August 20, 1986 t (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: Michael Davis., Fred Tarr, Patti Hilligoss, Ross Parkerson, Chairperson Nancy Read i Ab'sent': Dan Libarle, Glenn Head i; Staff /,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 :08. p.m. The continued public hearing on the - draft General Plan and .EIR was opened. 73) Dennis Milliken - expressed opposition to the Mixed Use designation in the area bounded by "D" ,Street, M'cNear Hill, Petaluma Boulevard and the Petaluma River; wanted to know where the idea came from; felt that peoples would not live downtown in that area. ,r Response, The idea for Mixed Use resulted from discussion in the Comma ty Character Sub - Committee and General Plan Coordinating Committee. A the concept of mixed use was7 briefly discussed on a general level by the Growth Management Sub- Committee. For the rationale behind the designation of the area see the responses to SPEA.KE:R .NO'. S '(page 5, Meeting Summary of ,August 5) and SPEAKER N'0. 49 (page 22, Meeting Summary of August 7-9). I; 74) . Paul Zell - questioned the impact of Mixed Use designation on his property on Petaluma ,Boulevard North that is now part commercial and part industrial; also concerned about property on Bodega Avenue, in the County, that is designated Rural Residential. ' Response If adopted, the Mixed Use designation would accommodate certain commercial, office or, residential uses but not industrial. Therefore, the industrial portion of this Petaluma Boulevard North would be affected. As to the property on Bode Avenue a property ff P p y 9.. the Commission wM look at the 'West Petaluma (County) Specific Plan to see whether a change in the City's proposed land use map is warranted. 75) Bob. Carpenter - concerned about the extension of City services as a precursor to future development; dangerous principle to run sewer and water into agricultural areas; objected to including Scott and Lawrence properties within Urban Limit Line.. Response The. City has historically limited the extension of utz7ities as means of controlling its growth, and the new General Plan supports that policy.. That, plus the importance of holding to the Urban .Limit Line as determined through the sub:- co.mmittee process *Un= probably keep. the Commission from :recommending any modifications to the line as it now - stands. 76) Greg Freitas - had several comments about the text of the plan.: page 52, questioned whether a statement conce.rriing the conversion, of older homes in and around downtown to apartments is proposed as policy;, commended City on its noise section, but suggested ' the inclusion of CNEL (Community Noise 'Equivalent Level, a twenty -four hour measure of various noises in an area used for comparative purposes) maps to show present and future levels of noise along highways, major streets and other noise generators,;, no apparent analysis of traffic impacts of the various land uses in. the plan; an existing land use map should have been developed,; what has ahappened to past City general plan policies. � Res o The statement on_ page 52 of the plan refers to one of the original of the City's growth management system (the Residential _ Development Control System) . developed in Z97Z. It is not intended ,as a policy or program of the proposed General Plan, but is .mentioned in, :the text as part of a section analyzing the impacts of the growth management system,. CNEL -maps,, will be incZuded as part of the Technical Appendix of the final adopted plan (the Technical Appendix wil,Z contain all of the background data and related information not - included in the text of the plan). A graphic of projected traffic volumes .based on build -out of the proposed general plan land use's has been prepared since the draft plan text was distributed back in July. The graphic is avac7.able from the Plann Department. An existing ,land .use. ,map was prepared in Zate .2985 for use in the various sub- committee and General Plan' Coordinating Committee meetings. It has also been on display at most public meetings about the General PZan and can be viewed at the' Planning Department., Finalty, past General Plan policies: neither staff, 31 TIIMI�I_ consultants nor the sub-committees Zooked - through aZZ, - past plans in a system'atic way for the purpose of disposing of some poZicies and keeping others:' There are many new policies and programs in the proposed General PZan, : b ut many of the most important (the Urban Separator, growth management, park standards, protection of downtown, etc. ) are carried over from past plans but appear in a different form than before. i The Commission, -having heard from, all persons - wishing to speak at the time, $'egan discu " ssion of'some of the issues raised so far by the hearings. Commissioner Hilligoss began by asking about the Mixed Use designation and wi ll what will happen regarding - zoning. Warren Salmons replied that the City has h0 a mixed use designation since 1983, but has yet to fully implement it in zoning. A new zoning ordinance is scheduled to be prepared following the General Plan and will accommodate the new land use designations. Commissioner Parkerson asked Mr,. Salmons for a clarification of what the mixed iuse would entail. He stated that as, proposed in the new general plan it_would involve commercial and residential uses; but the Commission I I will have to look carefully at the varieties of mixed use and whether there is a rieed for.. an industrial/ commercial mixture. Basically, the intent of mixed i'iise involves offering a wider range of development opportunities. Coffimi6sioner Hill-igoss expressed her concern. that the Commission look very carefully at each area where the Mixed Use designation is applied, I' especially the industrial areas. Commissioner Tarr said he had no opposition to mixing industrial and residential; it wouldn't have to be high density but perhaps something like artists lofts. Nancy Alexander added that the Commission needs to remember that this is a twenty-year plan and withinj,�hat time frame incompatibilities could be ameliorated by conditions on develop ment. Commissioner Davis responded that residential in an industi-lal area could be a blight - similar to residential near agricultural land. Suggested that since the plan will be -reviewed in five-year increments, that something could be added later if the timing is better. Commissioner Davis then asked about the Urban Separator and the possibility of somehow . adjusting densities on the developable portion of the propei to offset the loss due to the separator,. I Commissioner Parkerson asked about the extension of Rainier Avenue to Petalum"a Boulevard and whether the Commission will be deciding which alternative connection. Warren Salmons stated that the connection of Rainier with Petaluma Boulevard i ' s not something the Commission will debate;.. Which of the two alternative connections, however, will be discuss , �i , �d at a later date when the plan line study is brought to the Commission. Commissioner Hinigoss stated that the Commission will have to discus's' the proposal to connect Rainier with Adobe Road. Commil'sioner Tarr raised the issue about a park in the area near Oak Creek 1, apartments where the area is proposed for higher residential densities; he supported the idea of the park near the river since none are nearby . Commissioner Parkerson also supported the idea of a park in the area and stated his desire to keep the bikeway along the river. He asked if there might be some way of iliustrating how such a path might look as a way of ' supporting the concept. Mike Moore replied that the final plan will 32 V,0 - 0 0D have many illustrations -- either photographs or line drawings - - show 'how certain .ideas might look when completed. Chairperson Read, noting that several people had. arrived during, the Commission discussion, asked :if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Commission. 77) Don Marquard representing PG &E, had comments regarding PG &E properties shown on General flan: requested that Lakeville substation at Frates and Old Adobe not be given a city land use designation since it is outside the Urban Limit Line; said the substation at I'D" Street and First Street may be phased out and ,should be shown as Community Commercial; asked why Corona Road property is shown as Retail Center and not Public and 'Institutional; asked about designation of tower site on "1)" Street east of the river. Response Comments noted; .the Commission will look at the land use questions raised and respond' in its recommendations to the City Council. 'ne tower site on the east. side of the river is designated. Floodway. its) Art. ,Hagopian - owns property on Petaluma Boulevard b'outk near "K" Street; now deep does Mixed - Use go on property woula lisce ah o,- property to ,be M=ed Use. Response - Mixed. Use designation goes back approximately Z00 feet from etaluma Boulevard wnich is the same distance the Service Commercial designation covers on. the existing' plan. Since the Mixed. use could involve residential' it. might be possible: to carry the designation ah the ,way to the rear of the property. 'Lhe .Commission will have to decide whether 'or - not tn`e Mixed Use would be compatible that tar back into a residential area. There being no other speakers, the chairperson continued the: pub 7ze nearing untz2 'Wednesday, September 3 at 7:00 p. m. and then adjourned the meeting. R i 33 I.