HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/03/1986�►
0 04
y
i e y,•
CITY OF PETALUMA
Planning Comm_ ission Public Hearings
On The 1.986 -2005 Draft General Plan and EIR
Meeting Summary
Meeting of September 3, 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: Michael Davis, Dan Libarle;, Glenn Head,
Fred Tarr Patti Hilligoss, Ross
Parkersom, Chairperson Nancy Read.
Absent: None.
Staff./ consultants Present: Warren Salmons, Planning Director;
Michael Moore, Principal Planner;
Naphtah Knox, Knox and Associates
(G'eneral Plan Consultant).
After reviewing correspondence received prior to the meeting, the
Chairperson opened the continued public hearing on the draft General Plan
and EIR.
79.). Barry Parkinson - representing the Gows, owners of property located
at the southeast corner of Corona Road and N.. McDowell; objected to
the Public and Insfitutional /Transit designation stating that ,it is based
on the premise that Corona will be an interchange and that the
designation represents a Potential "'taking" under the law.
Response. The designation on the Gout property is based more on the
potential for using the site as a transit stop, on the proposed regional
transitway aZon.g the northwestern Pacific Railroad right -of -way (which
runs ,aZong the. east side of the Gow property). The ra2road has been
considering selling a portr„on of its right-of-way and there is a
propoasl now in Congress to appropriate funds for its purchase. Even
though Corona Road is designated as a: future interchange in the
General PZon., and that should that occur the Gory property 'might :also
4 ^
I
00 n
s erve as a park ; and mde lot, the designation hinges more on the
shorter term possibility of using it in conjunction with the transitway
development. As for the question of "taking" is concerned, the law
does allow cities to plan for future- needs recognizing that at some
point, the "City would have to, fairly compensate the owner for property
or some other agreeable method will have to be arrived at in order to
acquire the property for a public purpose.
80.) Derek Simmons - representing the Conrows, owners of property at the
northeast corner of Ellis :and East Washington Streets; concerned that
the text of the plan will not clarify the policies and programs
regarding Gateways until after the public hearing was closed;
requested that the public 'hearing remain open until there is an
opportunity to respond.
onset The Commission did. decide to leave. the public hearing open
a mited time" at its meeting of September 16. Staff will be
acing recommendations on text - related issued in the meantime.
81.) Cynthia Bowman 7 had several questions about language in the text
regarding truck. traffic through neighborhoods and the possibility of :
minimizing impacts ` on those affected neighborhoods; the need to
I
reserve on- street parking on residential arterials; the possibility of
correcting existing noise sources., and including, consideration of a
west side ""ring road" should road funds from the state or federal
governments become available.
Response Staff call: prepare alternatives for Commission consideration
for amending 'that text as suggested by Dr. Bowman. The "ring road"
f-
w.as evaluated exten ively through the use of the traffic model and was
found not to have any impact on relieving congestion on major west
side streets.
82.) Robert Mackey - property owner on "I" Street.: concerns about Urban
Separator; if public access is. function, then Separator should follow
contours and not property lines; Urban Separator is not needed on
west side because. natural constraints to development provide adequate
separation; questioned the logic of recommendation to move the Urban
Limit Line back to its present location in the, "I" Street area, should
move it out to 'square it off; suggested that the City is '!'buying!' legal
I
roblems in seeking the Separator as a condition of development.
Response Public access is an important, but not the sole function of
the Urban Separator. Since its inception as a major component of City
P olicy in 1972 , it has existed to p rovide a definable e and
. 9 p. . nable ed 9
limit to the City of Petaluma. And while the' terrain does naturally
impose limits on development on he westside, the existence of the
Urban Separator on the General Plan map and in the text state clearly
the City's intentions regarding the extent of, future growth. Staff's
recommendation on the Urban Separator is based on objections to
trying to "square off" the Urban Limit Line in the "I" Street area.
Once again, regarding potential legal problems -, the City has already
acquired Urban Separator on the east and west side as a condition of
d evelopment approval and without legal challenge. Furthermore, it is
35
a well. -known fact of real estate that the inclusion of .undeveloped or
underdeveloped property within ` the City's Urban, Limit Line
automat caZZy adds potential value to. that property. In return for that
added value, the City can place conditions on development that benefit
the entire community as" Zong as the ,owner is not totally deprived of
any reasonable use of the property. If the latter is the case, then
the owner must of course be fairly compensated.
84.) Ed Robert - objects to the Urban, Separator along the golf courses;
concerned that it would ruin several of the ;holes that are within -the
Separator designation.
Response The Urban Separator designation will not affect the goZf
course as long as that use remains in existence. On the existing and
proposed General Plan ,maps, the. golf course is designated for
residential development and it. would be as part of that future
residential development that the Urban Separator would be. ;provided.
85.) Patrick Holland representing .Alan : Holmberg, the owner of property
near Lakeville and the river: supports staff recommendation on the
property as long as Mixed Use will allow proposed warehouse on the
site; would like to work 'with staff in determining where the" split 'in
designations "between Mixed.'Use and Park occurs.
Fes. onset Staff waZ review the site plans to :be .sure that the split
esig,nation is consistent with the existing- designation as well as the
area set aside for park.
86.) Jerry Sturm - concerned, about the possibility of residential near his'
printing business on 2nd Street and how it will affect his future plans
for new equipment and working two. shifts.
Response The Commission has not yet made its, recommendation on
the Mixed Use area between "D" Street and McNear HiZZ; but if it is to
recommend Mixed Use; as originally proposed it may be possible to
further regulate specific 'uses including resid v ntiaZ, through the
Zoning Ordirdr.ce. However, the IndustriaZ /Commercial Mixed Use to
,be considered by the Commission may" be more likely for 'this area. In
addition, any plans which the owner may have for adding potentially
.noisy equipment or more ;emp,Zoyees might require City review to
minimize ,possible noise, traffic' or parking problems that could result,
regardless of the surrounding uses..
87.) Don Little - representing 'the. Koll Company which has a purchase
agreement on - the Friedman property on N. MtD;owell,, north of the
office complex on Lynch Creek Way: requested' that" Office :designation
remain,; market survey indicates need for office uses; proximity to
food, shopping makes it logical location, project would complete Lynch
Creek Way loop; contends that project would add, to tax and
employment bases; Boll Company would like to control both properties
but concern over the tithing and potential loss of land prevents
pursuing both.
36
"M 7D
, .
Re sponse: -StcJf has recommended to the Commission that it the
S pecial Industrial designation because of the earlier recommendation of
the General Plan Coordinating Committee and the need to provide sites
for the "high-intensity" employment called for in the plan. If this and
the property to the north designated Sp Industrial were somehow
kept as a single site it :might be suffL-nent to offset the loss
dttribitable to the future Rainier interchange while holding the
potential for prime freeway and major arterial access.
88.) Charles Freeman opposed Urban Separator on west side; reiterated
p oint that natural terrain provides separator; Urban Separator
designation is a blight on small property owners.
Response: The recommendation of staff to the Planning Commission is
to remove the Urban Separator designation on smaller properties on the
Westside.
89.) Ray Nizibian - objects to Urban Separator; concerned about crime and
liability.
Response: Should the City Council permit public access along the
Urban Separator as a matter of policy it will also have to adequately
Provide for maintenance, protection of property and Iiability just as it
dbes now when it builds a street sidewalk, park or other public
facility. The purpose of the General Plan is to put. forward ideas
B,dsed on public input and professional -expertise. It sets a general
direction from which the City may proceed to more detailed analysis
when the time comes.. Staff, the Planning' Commission and City Council
recognize that resident's as well as the City's own concerns about
p ublic access along the Urban Separator must be satisfactoray'resoZved
1
before such access would be permitted.
90.) Carol Fullerton - opposes Urban Separator on Westside; expressed
concerns oncerns about maintenance and access.
Response: SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 89.
91.) Toe Nilzibian -- opposes •Urban Separator on Westside; concerned about
crime and liability.
Response: SEE RESPONSE TO SPEAKER NO. 89.
1,
92.) Bob Lipman - representing Chamber of Commerce: submitted letter with
co mments of the Chamber on the Land Use, Local Economy and Open
V
Space Chapters of the General Plan text.
Response.: Alternatives and a recommendation to the Commission will
lie pre pared by staff on these and other comments on the text for the
Commission meeting of September 16.
93.) Greg Freitas - representing Lucy Webb Realty and respective clients:
questioned why staff responded to some comments in letter of August
112 and not others; the Friedman/Grav properties on N. McDowell
should be designated as Office and Special Commercial, respectively;
37
City has too much industrial land now; Urban Limit Line is too
restrictive as presently drawn;. should be redrawn to take lands
between City and sewer ponds and should be. generally expanded to
take in a larger area, particularly on the Eastside and put it under
'City control to maintain options; concerned about East /West
connections> ",southern.' crossing proposed ' .seems ; logical but may not
be enough °; City should look at connection further south through
developing -industrial areas and the City- owned dredge spoils site;
asked why no .response on some definitions and why higher densities
were eliminated.
Response Staff responded on.Zy to the map - related issues in. the letter
of August 12 b.ecaus.e the. Commission had been dealing almost
excZusiveZy with the draft General Plan map.m Text- reZated: issues,
-z;ncZuding the definitions mentioned. by Mr. Freitas wiZl be 'addressed
for .the meeting of September 16. Regarding the Friedman/Gray
properties see the response to Speaker No. 87s also, the issue of
whether there is. too much industrial land was debated '.by the Local
Economy sub- committee and General Plan Coordinating Committee and it
was determined that the Special Industrial category JVZed a.:need for
Zarge` - Zot sites, for high intensity_ employers - something the City could
not now attract because of the relatively small parcels in its existing
industrial parks. The issue of where to place the Urban Limit Line
was also much discussed by the sub - committees and G�eneraZ Plan
Coordinating Committee including a proposal to expand it out to
Adobe Road based on the theme of control raised by. Mr. Freitas.
That proposal was . not accepted by the Growth Manag.em.ent
sub- committee, the other sub- committees when alZ met jointly back in
March or by the GPCC. As to an additional, east /west crossing .in. the
Prates /LaketnWe area, it is clear from the City's traffic model. that
such a crossing is not now warranted within the 20 -year time frame of
the plans but 'that sometime over that period, perhaps ,through a
future General Plan update, evidence supporting an ' additional crossing
such as a significant change in regional .traffic pa _ rns - might.
arise and could then be examined more closely. -
94.) Brian Isber.g - representing Keegan and Coppin and the ;Friedman
property on N McDowell: reiterated comments by earlier speakers
about need for office use on this site.
Response SEE RESPO NSE T 0 SPEA KER N 0. 8.7.
95.) Bob Stimson - representing property owners °between. "D" Street and
McNear Hill°: would prefer staff's alternative B as listed . on the
Recommendation Work Sheet. given to the Planning Commission; if
alternative C is recommended `by the Commission would like the line
redrawn to remove the block bounded by Ist, 2nd, "E" and "
Streets from the proposed Commercial /Residential Mixed Use and
include it in the proposed Industrial / Commercial Mixed Use for that
area..
Response, : The dividing Line proposed. by staff in alternative. C is
based ton designations on the existing General, Plan' map and includes
the block in question under the Service Commercial. category; probably
I.
38
ecause of the nature' of the uses. The Planning Commission can
consider other alternatives beyond those proposed; by staff; a graphic
z, z Z be prepared to highlight the various alternatives.
96.) Dennis Milliken - opposed inclusion of Varnhagen property in Urban
Limit Line; General 'Plan map should show all Williamson Act properties';
preferred staff alternative B,,
esponse see response to Speaker No. 15 (pp. 7 -8, Meeting Summary
P August 5, 1986); W Niamson Act Zands in and around Petaluma are
hown on p. 29 of the PubZic Facilities Background Report prepared as
art of the General Plan update. This material will be included in a
echnicaZ Appendix of supporting information that wzZZ be a
upplementary part of the General Plan.
97.) Remo Rebizzo - stated preference for a strictly commercial designation
because at this time the Mixed Use category is unclear about what
would be permitted.
l;
Response Staff will be looking at several of the land use categories,
Mixed Use included, to try and better .define the. characteristics of
each.
i'
98.) Fran Bengtsson - ' thanked staff and Planning Commissioners for
attending the information meeting on the Master Drainage. Study on
August 28; submitted a petition signed by Denman Area residents
Iegarding the flood mitigation measures.
Response The petition wzzZ be circulated to the Planning Commission
prior to its September 16 meeting.
99.) H'`arold Mahoney - expressed his preference for alternative B
(Thoroughfare Commercial) for his property at Bodega and Cleveland;
asked. what uses will be permitted in Mixed Use; reiterated opposition
fo Mixed Use on 'Petaluma Blvd. North and South.
R esponse : regarding uses permitted in Mixed Use see response to
Speaker No. 97. Also, the General Plan will provide a basic definition
Of the category; more specific definition wzzl be set - forth in the
upcoming .revision to the zoning ordinance.
100.) i Al Bonomi - concern about building along creeks in Petaluma;
City apparently is not concerned about flooding and traffic impacts;
Urban Separator is being. kept by the City until it is ready to use the
land.
I
R;espon.se_ Nearly every project involving construction in a flood plain
is sent to the Sonoma County Water Agency for its review and
recommendation. Depending on their scope, some are also sent to the
State Land Commission and the Department of Fish _ and Game. In many
cases a set back is required to allow for maintenance of the channel.
Other requirements are also imposed by either.. the Water Agency or the
City to minimize ,flooding impacts. Traffic analyses are also required
of most large developments and the City has, for some time, required
39
deveZopers to improve City streets and contribute to traffic
improvements, such as stop Zights, when needed. The Urban
Separator is. intended as open space and' may have, some recreational
uses: but it is not, and never has been intended to be b:uiLt upon.
101..) Chris Baranskas - questioned meaning of being able to use
Floodway land; stated. preference for alternative B; would like to be
kept informed about Rainier Avenue.
r
_R'es; onset The sfl -odway designation represents more than just the
"muddy bottom" of the river channel, but includes whatever Zand is
necessary beyond the channeZ to handle a particular IeveZ of'- flood
waters. In the area in question, this- amounts to as ' much as 200 feet
on each side of the centerline of the river (the width varies along that
stretch, of the river) which wouZd seem adequate for many ,recreational
pu- rpo'ses during most of :th year. Property owners and renters who
may b'e affected by the Rainier ouercrossng w121 be notifze'd when the
Planning 'Commission and .City CounciI hoZd hearings on the plan line
study now under development.
102.) Nancy Papenhausen opposed staff recommendation on . the Urban
Separator; what will happen if the City expands beyond the present
Urban Separator.
Response The staff recommendation. wouZd remove the Urban
Separator designation from the Papenhausen property on "I" Street.
The Urban Separator is, and has been, considered ' an edge beyond
which urban deveZopment would not occur.
103.) Jack Charleson - asked about the residential designation in the
Bond Park area: how did it get to be residential; wants it left as
Park.
R:espon,se The decision to divide up the Zarge open area in the Park
PZace subdivision into the uses shown came about after numerous
meetings with residents of the area. -The uses designated, for each
segment, including the residential, had been agreed to by the
residents working in cooperation with the City and the OZd Adobe
School District.
104.) John Fox - asked whether anyone had come forward to support
the Urban Separator; imposing the Urban Separator on small property
owners does not seem in the best interests of the City.
Response: The fact that the Urban Separator appears on the proposed
(as. .weZZ as previous) General Plan maps in testimony in support Of its
existence as expressed to staff, the PZanning Commission ' an d City
Council by man -y of the citizens who part, ,paced in making the
recommendations on this GeazeraZ Plan over the Zast year. If the
Planning .Commission were to recommend complete removal of the Urban
Separator, one would probably find many of those same people back
before the Commission calling for its reinstatement. Generally
speaking, the nature of p4bZic hearings is such that those 'people who
perceive that they are being wronged by or deprived of something
40
come to speak out at pvbZic ]zeaYings and try to change a proposal,
they do not agree with. Staff's recommendation to: the Planning
Commission would remove the Urban Separator from the smaller
p roperties it nor, crosses.
105.) 11 Al Bonomi - questioned the noticing procedure for the public
hearings; asked why residents around Bond Park were not notified,
n otification was not adequate -.
Resp onse: State law, which governs noticing procedure for public
liearzngs before the Planning Commission and City Council, requires
that for projects such as a General Plan, inhere more than 1, 000 people
aouZd be notified of a hearing by maiZ that: instead, a newspaper
display ad of at least one - eighth of a page in size be published in the
local paper. That is all the City is required to do. in, addition to
that, however, the City had 22 000 inserts published and czrc.0 to in
Argus - Courier and Buy -Lines and notified nearly 600 people
directly by mail 'where there was a significant change in the land use
designation. This is not to nention the perigdic articles in the local
papers regarding -the ,Gonerat Plan. 'The residents around Bond Park
did not receive special notice (that is, notice by marl) because through
their own meeting process, the affected residents, by consensus had
a greed to the designations now shown on `the draft GeneraZ Plan map.
At this point in the. meeting Commissioner 'Head asked about the notification
of property owners along the Urban Separator
I ,
Response Beyond the state required newspaper notice. and the
inserts, staff sent notices to property owners whose land use
designation was significantly changed when compared to the : existing
General Plan. Most of the property owners on- the west side and
affected by the Urban Separator were not notified because their
properties already shad the Urban Separator .designation on them from
the existing General, Plan. However, on those, properties where the
Urban Separator is newly applied, a mail notice was sent.
i�
106.) , ; John Strong asked whether a bike path is proposed to cross
behind his property at and along the railroad right -of -way a 620
L' akeville; wanted to know what the General. Plan hearing procedure
would be following this meeting.
Res onset A bike path is. not shown along the Northwestern Pacific
Railroa right -of -way that runs aZong the back of Mr. Strong's
1 9 p However, General, Plan. policy (Program 4,. page 96) could
lead to establishing a bike. route along the right -of -way and there has
Been discussion about including a bikeway as post of the proposed
Regional Transitway should the right -of way be acquired. The
procedure following the close of pubZic hearings before the Commission
is for the Commission to then decide what' its recommendations to .the
City Council will be. The City Council wM then hold its own hearings
and make its own decisions prior to formally adopting the plan.
107.) i' Patrick Holland - requested an Industrial /Residential mixed use
.designation on the Holmberg property.
41
OOU�4�
Response Staff has s,uagested that Ind' striaZ/Com;mercial and
Commercial /Re.sidentiaZ mixed use cateaories be created to - .resolve the
situation in the area between "D" Street and McNear HiZZ._ If the
Commission recommends that alternative, then the two, categories can
be applied in other areas 'noun proposed for mixed use. An
Industrial /ResidentiaZ category has not been suggested, and beyond
Mr. Holland's com -ment, would seem to .run counter to testimony heard
thus far regarding possible incompatibUities between; - residential and
industrial :uses. The CommerciaZ/ResidentiaZ would, if recommended,
seem to'satisfy Mr. HoUand,'s concerns.
108.) Dave Papenhausen asked how the sub - committees were formed.
Response Sub - Committee members were selected by the City Council
from .nearly 160 applications :submitted by interested citizens. Each
Counc-a member selected two .members to each sub - committee and other
members were selected from the City's various commissions.
109..) Bill Bullard - suggested fifth. ,alternative on- thel Westside Urban
Separator b that is removed entirely. from the map; separator idea
needs to be istudied more; concerned about .crime; should be town
;meetings on the separator `because the public is uninformed;. Urban
Separator might be accomplished by - lessening densities as one moves
toward, the frontage of th City.
Response, The Commission has the opportunity to consider removing
the separator from the west side in its deliberations on that issue.
The concept of the Urban Separator- as a general plan policy has been
around since the early 70's and, discussed frequentZy in the
intervening years - incZuding over the last year during the
preparation of the current draft. Concerns about crime, maintenance,
Ziab?7ity and the nature and degree of public use will Aay.e to be
discussed in depth when the Urban Separator is in place and not ,just
a line on a map,. Until, that `time the GeneraZ Plan can provide the
foundation for the means of acquisition and a definition of its function
and characteristics. Lessening densities on the frontages of the City
was a principal known as "feathering." in .earlier general plans but was
not ineludad in this plan because it . was determined to lead to
inef� iese of land and" could contribute to the pressure to expand
the City's Urban Limit Line sooner than , necessary.
There being no other speakers, the, Commission did not close the public
hearing but did begin discussions on how to proceed from this point.
Naphtali Knox prefaced the discussion with some remarks on the issue of
"taking". He stated' that in his opinion, nothing proposed on the draft
General Plan :map constitutes :a taking and that the City has a. right and
duty to :plan, for its future needs.. When development proposals come in,
then the City has to decide the means by which it acquires the properties
it has designated for public use,. 'He urged the Commission to be strong in
the face. o_ f apparent legal threats that had arisen in some of the testimony
heard at, this and other meetings.
Warren Salmons reviewed' the hearin process to date; the public
commentary; the responses provided through fleeting Summaries; the
42
i
, 1'' '��'
Recommendation Work Sheets on. the map and the upcoming, sheets on the
text. J He suggested that the Commission not close the public hearing but
begin deliberations on. the map work sheets and then take a straw vote.
By leaving the hearings open, people could still comment on text related
matters at the next meeting.
i l
Commissioner Libarle expressed his concern that no deliberations begin until
all testimony is heard; he also disagreed with :Mr. Knox's comments on the
taking� and the value of property. Mr. Knox clarified his comments
stating. that every decision the Commission makes affects the value of
property but that is separate from taking which leaves a property
valueless. In making, any decision, the Commission must weigh the benefits
and costs to the owner of property with the benefits and costs to the
community at large.
Commissioner Head was concerned about the Urban Separator and its affect
on property taxes. His feeling was that a property owner should not have
to payi taxes on property that must remain unused or might eventually be
put to;a public use.
Commissioner Parkerson stated that the Commission should establish when
the hearings will close and ,should not take straw votes until all testimony is
heard`
I
Chairperson Read said that this process should be no different than a
typical; public hearing where testimony is heard, the hearing is closed and
then the Commission discusses the issue among itselves.
Commis sioner Head expressed his preference not to deliberate at all until
the public hearing is closed.
i
Commissioner Parkerson clarified his earlier remarks saying that if the
Commission chooses to deliberate and decide on an 'issue than the public
hearin on the issue should be closed to avoid continued debate.
Warren Salmons suggested that the Commission close- the public hearing on
the ldt'h and then begin deliberations.
i
The Commission agreed with 'that suggestion with Commissioner Parkerson
adding; that all testimony should be limited to one =hour or one and one —half
hour alt the most so the Commission can move on.
The public hearing on the draft General Plan and EIR was then continued
to Tuesday, September 16th at 7:00 PM and the meeting was adjourned at
10:35 F PM.
I
1.
I
I
I
i
I
43