HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/16/1986.Do GOB Q
CITY OF PETALUMA
Planning Commission Public Hearings
i On The :1986 -20.05 Draft General (Plan and EIR
MEETING _SUMMARY
Meeting of September- 16, 1986
I;
I,
(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 Li'barle, Glenn Head,
' Fred Tarr., Patti Hilligoss, Ross
Parkerson, Chairperson Nancy Read.
Absent: None.
I�
Staff+ / Present: Warren Salmons, Planning Director;
Michael Moore., Principal Planner;
G; Naphtali Knox .Knox and Associates
(General Plan Consultant)
After reviewing the agenda, the Chairperson opened the continued public
hearing on the draft General Plan and EIR.
110) Derek. Simmons - representing the Conrow property at East Washington
.l and Ellis Streets; concerned about clarifying the City's intent for his
!clients' property; staff's ,proposed language is not clear; question of
intent is still not resolved.
; Response Mr. Knox has been working with Mr. Simmons to sat:sfy
'his and his clients' concerns regarding the text of the plan. Staff is
;in basic agreement with the proposals put forth by Mr. Simmons, and
we intend to recommend further text changes than those aZready
covered by Recommendation Work Sheet, page 39.
I..
111) Patrick Holland representing Alan Holmberg who owns property near
'Lakeville Street and the Petaluma River; requests an
; industrial /commercial mixed use designation for his property..
4.4
Response: The mixed use designation as presentZy defined could
permit commercial and /or residential, uses. The .nature of Mr.
Holmb'erg's business (roof g) and- his: intentions for the site may very
w'eMZ fit under the .mixed use category but it wiZI depend' on the
revision of the zoning ordinance.
112) Hugh Helm comments on text of plan; infrastructure discussion
inadequate; need more specifics in capital funding and capital .
improvement programs; plan should call out ; specific funding sources
an,d' not tie funds solely to development fees.; more discussion on
shortcomings of in'fr-astr-uctur.ee; City - should consider restricting all
growth, not 'just residential, when 'infrastructure is inadequate;
supports urban separator, but. too. artificial as drawn, should follow
contour lines;. City should be more involved in tourism.
Response: of the
contained in the Master Sewer and on n Water Study completed f faczZities y
r the City
in early 2985. Storm drainage projects . are discussed in detail in the
Master Drainage Study prepared b,y the Sonoma County .Water Agency.
Both reports are in .much more detail than can be included in the
General Plan; therefore, staff is recommending these reports be
adopted' by reference. As to funding of capital projects and capital
improvement programs,, the General, Plan consultants have prepared an
Implementation Manual that strongly ,encourages. the estabUsh -ment of a
CIP and explains how the General Plan can be tied to such a. program.
Furthermore, the manuaZ recommends pursuing various means of
funding through grants and similar programs in addition to more
traditionaZ methods.
The ; urban separator fblZaws property lines in most cases because when
the separator was last discussed in depth in 2983, the Council and
Commission decided that the separator should follow property. Zines to
prevent it from dividing properties where it foZZowed contour lines.
The present proposal adheres to that policy.
There are. several statements in the plan committing the City to
encourage tourism. The strongest . of these calls on the City to
prepare a tourism element for the General Plan (program "30,
page 157) . The plan does not leave tourism just to civic .and private
groups.
113) Juanita Miller - wanted to know reason for staff's .recommendation on
her property at Ely and Casa Grande Roads; what will happen to
Eastside By -Pass under recommendation; ag use is . unrealistic because
of proximity to urban development.
Response Staff's recommendation not to change the desi.d.nation on
thel agricultural portion of the Miller property is based on protecting
the Inner Approach Zone of the airport and the fact that the property
is in agricuZturaZ preserve. The Eastside. By =Pass, if approved, could
only be constructed once the City or the Water Agency acquired the
necessary land through dedication or condemnation.
45
46
r 0 -®®
r
b. Add the three Reach projects to the measures already shown. on
the draft Land Use Map.
C. Remove the measures shown on the draft Land Use Map; amend
the text of the draft General Plan to .refer to the Water Agency
study in its entirety; and amend the text to direct the City to
pursue the most feasible and sensitive measures to mitigate the
impacts of the 100 -year flood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative C
COMMISSION ; ACTION :
Alternative Recommended: C plus text changes on Recommendation
Work Sheet p. 33.
Motion by - Head
Seconded by - Tarr
Vote: Favor 7 Oppose 0 Abstain None Absent None
Davis Hi.11igoss
Head Parkerson
Libarle Read
Tarr
Subject Flood Mitigation Measures
Background Residents in the Denman area have requested that the
City amend its proposed General Plan policies and programs regarding
the flood :r_ measures described in the Sonor..a County Water
Agency Master Drainage Plan for the Petaluma River Watershed.
P'roposed'__Text Change
A, Amend Policy 9, p. 248 as follows:
Policy 9 : The City shall cooperate 'with the Sonoma. County :Water
Agency to establish a flood management plan and program for the
.Petaluma River Watershed anti- �rairr *ge °$a (approximately the
same as the Petaluma Planning Referral Area) using the most
current Sonoma County Water Agency Master Drainage: Plan for
the Petaluma River Watershed as the auid'e.
B. Amend Program 7, p. '249 as follows:
Program (7) Adopt the most reasonable _sensitive and effective
proposal s. of the Sonoma County Water Agency floc mitta�tiion
]inn Master Drainage Plan 'in order to mitigate the 100 -,year flood,.
G. Amend the statement below Program 7' as follows:
47
r
':,0 00 `0 f OE
M
i' The City slim ld will pursue funding for and" construction of -the
Denman --Dzm- . = -- t+re-- WH4o -Diim-rs on;- -.rrcl -the
petallzma-- pnpa�s -, =-its - slzrn+vYr -orr- tire-- Ean- =l-Jse --leap of the most
1 reasonable,,, sensitive and effective measures in the Master
Drainage Plan
D!: Amend the portion of the Executive 'Summary referring to the
i flood mitigation proposals accordingly.
Staff Response/ Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council the
amendments proposed above see vote p. above).
ti
Work Sheet page 2 - Urban 'Separator
Commissioner Parkerson expressed support for staff clarifying, the public
access aspect of the separator; Commissioner :Hillgoss was not in favor of
public ; access and felt that the Dairy .Belt plan - will protect the edge of the
City. Commissioner ;Head- moved to remove the urban separator from
Western Avenue to Petaluma Boulevard South (alternative E) . Commissioner
Libarle seconded the motion. Commissioner Parkerson stated that in concept
the urban separator is not any different than any other land use
designation -; the Commission has an obligation to act based on public
purpose and that he opposed Commissioner Head's' motion. Commissioner
Libarle responded that there can be no urban development in the area
anyway and a trail is .impossible because the land is -inaccessible. The
Commission then acted on Commissioner Head's motion.
COMMISSION ACTION
. Alternative. Recommended: E
il
Motion by Head
Seconded by Libarle
Vote: Favor 3 Oppose 4 Abstain None Absent None
Head Davis
'Hilligoss Read
Libarle Tarr
Parkerson
I'
Commissioner Davis felt
that references to
the
urban separator
in the plan
should: specify maximum
width of 300 feet
and
not minimum.; he
also favored
development credits for those areas covered by the s
replied that there are places where the separator 'is .g
Commissioner Libarle asked why the separator does
Mr. Salmons explained that Council policy from 198.3
-follow property lines to prevent. arbitrarily
..Commissioner Libarle then asked why the separator co
the time of development of a property. Mr. Salmons
would be no way to require it if it were not on 'the
Parkerson then asked about the breaks in separator a
48
eparator. Mr. Knox
reater than 300 feet.
not follow contours.
recommended that it
dividing properties.
Ad not be applied at
responded that there
map. Commissioner
s proposed by staff.
U4
Mr. Salmons replied that the 'proposed text changes will
smaller properties without 'taking 300 feet in order to
between segments of separator. The Commission, then
from Commissioner Parkerson as. amended to change
"maximum 300
provide access over
maintain the linkage
acted on a motion
!'min- imurri 300 to
REQUEST Remove the: Urban Separator from the westside of Petaluma from
Western Avenue to Petaluma B'oul'evard South.
ALTERNATIVES`:
a. Leave as proposed, on the draft General Plan Map.
b. Return the Urban Separator to itst location as set forth, on the
existing General Plan map.
C. Leave the Urban Separator as proposed and develop a policy to
sallow a transfer of development, rights on parcels less than . ten
acres to offset lost development potential in land designated as
Urban. Separator.,
d. Amend the Urban Separator designation and Urban Limit Line on
the proposed General Plan Map as follows:
(1) Retain the Urban Separator designation in its proposed
location. and at a minimum width of 300 feet from Western
_Avenue through the property immediately south of "D" Street
and from :Petaluma. Boulevard South at Highway 10:1 through.
the Pelton property.
(2) Move the Urban Separator, designation and Urban Limit Line
from its proposed location across the rear- port-ion. of the
Lavio property to the location shown on the existing. General
Plan Map and change the Rural 'Residential designation to
.Agricultural. Move the Urban Separator and Urban. Limit
Line on the Hash property to coincide with the shift on the
Lavio property..
(3') Remove the Urban Separator designation on all intervening
properties and move the Urban Limit Line to coincide with
the rear property lines of those properties.
(4) Amend the text of the draft General Plan to clearly state
that an intent of the Urban Separator is to provide an area
for public. access to traverse the western fringe. of 'the City
by foot, horseback or bicycle;. and that those, properties no
longer- - covered by the Urban. Separator designation .may, as
a condition of development app;roval,, be. required to, grant
public access across their property if no other means is
available so as to establish a complete link between segments
of Urban Separator from Western Avenue 'to' Petaluma
Boulevard : South and points` .in between.
49
e. (Recommended 'by Commissioner Head) . Remove Urban Separator
de.sianation from Land 'U'se Map from ":'D" Street to Petaluma Blvd.
r
STAFF; RECOMMENDATION Alternative D.
The changes proposed in D provide for Urban Separator on those
properties large enough `and with sufficient .development potential to
I
ff -set the Separator designation. It also avoids a very complex
alfternative of coming up with a transfer of development rights program
for smaller parcels of less than ten acres. The Urban Separator has
traditionally not carried any density and 'to 'suggest such now would
represent a major and perhaps detrimental ishi #t in policy. Alternative
D also makes it clear that public access is an important aspect of the
Separator but in order to be successful and well -used, it must go
somewhere. Therefore, those properties :no longer obliged to provide
Urban Separator may 'be asked to allow public access across their
property to assure the necessary links in the ,system.
r
Alternative Recommended: D plus. text changes on Recommendation
V ork Sheet p. 36.
M8tion by Parkerson
Seconded by Davis
i
Vote: Favor 5 Oppose 2 Abstain None Absent None
} Davis Head
Hilligoss Libarle
I Parkerson
? Read
Tarr
Subject Urban Separator
i
Proposed Text Changes
A,. Amend Objective (g), p. 65 as follows:
" Maintain the width of the urban separator at a minimum. maximum
of 30.0 feet."
B. Amend Objective (h) , p. 65 as follows:
7
"' Continue to extend the urban separator- in selected areas."
Cr;. Amend Policy 11, p. 65 to read as follows:
"Policy II: The urban separator shall continue to serve its
function !as; a more or less continuous chain of open space on the
j east side while being, intermittent on the west side
D %. Make Program 5, p,. 66, Policy 1`2 and amend to read:
I,
50
"Policy . y extend the length of the .urban
Folic 12 •, The City shall exte
separator" where feasible and irrcYease maintain its width at no less
than 300 feet."
E. Make Policy 12, p. 66 Program 5 and amend to read
"Program (5): Use all feasible measures for - tire-- aequisiion to
acquire, and protection protect of the urban separator•." sha }l--b-e
emplo - d Grp - the -Frity
4. Staff. Response /Recommendation Recommend, to the City Council the
changes stated above as modified by the Planning Commission. Staff
:and. consultants believe that the changes recommended above in concert
with the proposed map 'recommendations will resolve the most important
. .conceptual issues concerning the urban separator. Staff would also
recommend that the Commission consider adding language to the text
(in. the Open Space section pp. 93 =94) stating the . City's ;intent to
acquire public access easements "across properties on the west side in
order to complete the necessary links" in the - open space system
between segments of urban separator (see second vote above).
Work Sheet page 4 - Mixed Use: "D" Street to McNear Hill
Commissioner Davis opened the discussion by stating that the existing
industries In this area are viable and there is no reason to change;,. City ,is
; only creating incompatibility problems with" ' mixed use., Commissioner
Parkerson felt that property owners were more concerned about residential
rather the mix with commercial.
Commissioner `Dav ' is moved' to recommend Alternative B,. Mr. Knox stated
his concern that "B" might further a commercial strip along Petaluma
Boulevard South and limit river access ", while the s "ta "ff recommendation is a
compromise that responds to landowner's concerns and adds uses in the
area. The Commission then acted on Commissioner Davis' motion.
REQUEST Change the Mixed Use designation on properties from "D"
Street to 'McNear Hill between Petaluma Boulevard South (east ;side) and the
Petaluma River.
AL.TERN;ATIVES:
a. Leavet the Mixed Use designation as proposed.
b. Leave. the Mixed Use designation in those areas now designated. as
mixed use (the combining areas) on the existing plan; redesignate
the properties now designated as industrial on the existing plan
as in'dustr'ial;, .redesignate the ,properties now shoran. as Service
Commercial on the existing plan-to Thoroughfare Commercial..
c: Create an Industrial. /C Use category to apply to
properties "presently designated industrial on the existing plan.;
51
yl
" =� o� 0
crate a Commercial/Residential Mixed Use category to apply to all
1 other properties in the. area in question.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative C
Staff and consultants feel. that :Mixed. UUse is a viable category in this
area and will offer a broader range of development opportunities over
time. The creation of two different Mixed Use categories will provide
this flexibility while' remaining the . biggest concern of the industrial
landowners in the area: the introduction of residential into the midst
of their businesses:. The_ Commercial /Residential category will apply in
those areas where those uses now exist anyway.
I ,
COMMISSION ACTION
Alternative Recommended: B
Motion by
1
Davis
whether
Seconded
by Head
as
i
Vote:
Favor 4
Oppose 3
concept of
Davis
Parkerson
Head
Tarr
Hilligoss
Read
Libarle
Work Sheet page 5 - River Bike Path
Abstain None Absent None
i
Commissioner
Parkerson questioned
whether
rerouting
the bikepath
as
proposed by
staff will result in the .loss
of the,
concept of
a path along
the
river.. Commissioner Davis also stated that the sub- committees' came out
strongly for public access along the river and that rerouting the path may
keep the City from providing access. Commissioner Libarle then asked staff
why the route wasn't on the east side of the river along McNear Peninsula
and why staff had recommended Alternatives B and D. Mr. Salmons replied
that ":B" was recommended as an alternative to the bikeway along the river
without having to ride on Petaluma Boulevard; and "D" because properties
on the river are: subject to the regulations of various :agencies, and the
results of project review by these agencies could result in the creation of a
buffer. Commissioner Davis then asked Mr. Salmons whether there would
be enough continuity to establish a bike path. Mr, Salmons :responded that
the need to accommodate the bike route is one issue but that it is more
important to old the edge of the river and establish the buffer before
determining the use;. staff is suggesting that use *not be a factor until the
buffer is achieved,. There being no further discussion, the Commission
took action on this 'issue.
REQUEST : Remove, the proposed bicycle path along the west side of the
Petaluma River from north of RicNear Hill to "D" Street.
f -
52
OW T
ALTERNATIVES
a. Leave bike path as ,proposed on the General Plan Circulation Map.
b. Re -route the bike path from the west side of the river at McNear
Hill into the residential area west of Petaluma Boulevard and
return it to the river at ".D'" Street.
c. Run the bike path along the east side of the river to. include
McNear peninsula.
d. Clarify policy statements in the, draft text specifying that some
types of projects may result in the creation of a river .buffer area
as determined by the State Lands Commission, Department of Fish.
and Game, Sonoma County 'Water Agency and City policy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Alternatives B and D.
Staff and consultants recognize the concerns and difficulties. :involved
in securing a bike path in this area. However, over time, as
redevelopment, subdivision of land or other type of major project along
the river comes to the City for review,. a major part of that process
requires review by agencies such as the State Lands Commission,,
Department of ,Fish and Game, the Sonoma County Water Agency or
others that might be affected by development on or near- the river.
This may eventually result in some sort of an open space buffer along
the river that could then accommodate limited public access..
COMMISSION ACTION
Alternative Recommended: B and D
Motion by: Head.
Seconded by.: Libarle
Vote: Favor 4
Oppose ?
Head
Davis
H_illigoss
P:arkerson
Libarle
Tarr
Read.
Abstain None Absent None
Subject Establishment of a river buffer.
Back,g_roun In the Recommendation Work Sheet on the bikepath along
the Petaluma River (p . 5) , al•ternative D' recommends that policy
statements in the plan be clarified regarding the establishment of` a
river buffer.
Proposed Text Change
A. Add a policy to the Petaluma River chapter (in the appropriate
location and format) as follows:
1
53
- ; �;mr,n ar.y, ire`, �l�iit�;n•
I -
0 K .
I
The City shall, routinely request that the State Lands
Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, Sonoma County
Water Agency and any other :agencies having jurisdiction, over or
interest in development along the Petaluma River review major site
expansions, redevelopment projects or -subdivisions of land along
the river."
Staff Response/ Re.commendation: Recommend to the City Council the
text change stated above see vote above) .
I
t
Work Sheet page 6 - Density Ranges
Commissioner Parkerson .asked whether staff is abandoning the concept of
flexibility with a recommendation to replace the density ranges with a
maximum. Mr. Salmons responded that stating the maximum does not,
guarantee the maximum in all cases; therefore, flexibility is retained.
There was no further discussion.
I
REQUEST Clarify the residential density ranges on the map.
�a
ALTERNATIVES
a!: Leave ranges as proposed.
l .
b. Make the highest number in each range the maximum allowable
density in that designation and delete the lower number. (For
example, Urban_ Standard would go. from 2.0 to 5.0 du /ac to a
` maximum allowable . density 5.0 du / ac. Any density up to 5.0
du /ac would be :permitted under that designation.)
t
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative B.
This recommendation should satisfy concerns over uncertainty by
c learly establishing a maximum for each category. Densities will be
further clarified through the upcoming revision of the zoning
ordinance.
COMMISSION ACTION
Alternative Recommended: B
Motion by: Tarr
Seconded by: Libarle
Vote: Favor 4 Oppose 3 Abstain None Absent None
Hilligoss Davis
Libarle Head
Read. Parkerson
Tarr
54
JOJ0 Q. 601.
Work Sheet page 7 - Ilixed Use: East Washington to Payran
Commissioner HilligOss ex her concern that existing auto - related uses
may not be permitted under this designation. Mr.. Salmons stated that this
is a transitional area and the mixed u.se creates the potential for more uses
than are there now. It will be up to the new zoning, ordinance to define
specifically' what will be permitted or conditional uses, and the definition of
Mixed. Use in the General Plan attempts to clarify general guidelines in the
.meantime. The Commission then acted on this item.
REQUEST Change the Mixed Use
'North between East Washington
Commercial designations consistent
General Plan Map.
designation along Petaluma .Boulevard
Street and Payran to Industrial or
with the designations on the existing
ALTER_N.ATIVES
a. Leave the area as proposed on the draft Land Use Map. (Mixed
Use).
b. Remove the Mixed Use designation and replace it with Industrial
or Thoroughfare Commercial where applicable or consistent with
existing General Plan designations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative A.
Staff and consultants believe this area will benefit by the Mixed Use
designation for the reasons mentioned above. Also, the
recommendation for Mixed U along Petaluma Boulevard North Was
supported by the General Plan Coordinating Committee during
discussions on various land uses back in April.
COMMISSION ACTION
Alternative Recommended: A
Motion by: Parker.son
Seconded by: Davis
Vote: Favor: 4 Oppose: 3 Ab.stain,: None Absent: None
Davis Head
Parkerson Hilligoss
Read Libarle
Tarr
Work Sheet page 8 - Mahoney :property: Cleveland /Bode ga
Mr. .Salmons began by stating that this issue arose from moving the urban
limit line beyond Cleveland Lane to provide some additional development on
the west side and create a possible. 'link between °D" Street and Bodoga
Avenue through Victoria Drive and Cleveland Lane: The Commission could
move the line back to its location on the existing General Flan map.
55
}
i
Commissioner Hilligoss asked why the rural residential designation is applied
to the area. Mr. Salmons replied that the majority of the area is rural
residential and staff did not want to recognize every commercial area in the
County Commissioner Head stated that this was a reasonable request and
that businesses along Bodega do serve travellers through the area.
Commissioner Tarr responded that the plan was attempting to discourage
strip commercial. There being no further discussion, the Commission acted
on this' item.
f :
REQUEST Change the Rural Residential designation on property at the
southwest corner of Cleveland Lane and Bodega Avenue
(A.PXN0. 021 - 024 -16) to 'Thoroughfare Commercial.
ALTERNATIVES
i�
a. Leave the designation as proposed . (Rural Residential) .
b;. Change the designation to Thoroughfare Commercial.
C. Return the Urban Limit Line between Western and Magnolia
Avenues to the location "shown on the existing General Plan Map
(the 1978 -85 'EDP boundary) which would then leave the property
as Agricultural.
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative A.
j
City policy should not encourage a future commercial node in that
area. It is already permitted under County policy and could continue
I '
s a non - conforming use if the property ever came into the City.
i
COMM +ISSION ACTION
i.
Alternative Recommended: A
I lotion by: Parkerson
Seconded by: Davis
Vote: Favor 4 Oppose 3 Abstain None Absent None
Davis Head
Parkerson Hilligoss
I Read Libarle
Tarr
}
Work �Shee,t page 9 - Shainsky Property: Gossage near Magnolia
Several Commissioners had brief questions on consistency of the proposed
desig nation -,=pith the County's West Petaluma Plan, then an action was
taken!.;
REQUEST Change the designation on property on Gossage near (A.P.
No. 048 - 132 -27) from Suburban (0.6 to 2.0 du /ac) to Urban Standard (2.1
to 5.0 /ac).
56
ALTERNATIVES:
a. Leave property as proposed (Suburban).
b. Change 'to Urban Standard as requested. (This would likely
result 'in additional requests for 'increased density designations'
for Properties in the vicinity of Gossage and Magnolia.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative A.
This isl consistent with the existing plan and with the residential
designations along most of the western fringes of the City.
COMMISSION ACTION
Alter. - native Recommended: A
Motion by: Davis
Seconded by: Hilligoss
Vote; Favor: 6
Davis
Hilligoss
Lib arle
P.arkerson
Tarr
Read
Oppose: 1 Abstain: None Absents None
Head
Work
Sheet page- 10 -
Urban
Limit
Line near Oakmead- Northbay.
The
Commission acted
on this
item
without discussion.
REQUEST Move. the Urban Limit to ' take in the two properties between the
Oakmead- Northbay Industrial Park and the City sewer ponds.
ALTERNATIVES
a. Leave the Urban Limit Line as proposed.
b. Change - the Urban Limit Line to include the two properties
between its proposed location and the sewer ponds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative A
COMMISSION ACTION
Alternative Recommended: A
Motion .b Parkerson
Seconded by: Tarr
57
Vote: Favor: 7 Oppose: 0
Libarle
Parkerson
Read
Tarr
Davis
Head
Abstain: None Absent: None
Hilligoss
1
Mork ! Sheet page 11 - Friedman and Gray Properties:. North McDowell near
Rainier.
The focus of discussion on this item was the General Plan- land use
definitions for Special Industrial and Special Commercial. Commissioner
Head 'supported the request to change the designations based on the. office
proposal presented by the Koll Company at the meeting of September 3.
Mr. Salmons responded that the- revised land use definition for Special
Industrial would permit an office park. Commissioner Hilligoss asked
whether or not Special, Commercial could include, a regional shopping center.
Mr. Knox stated that this issue had been discussed by the General Plan
Coordinating Committee. Commissioner Libarle stated that the definition of
Special Industrial needs to clarify that office uses could be permitted.
Before acting, the Commission decided that it would decide on each
prope'r'ty separately, beginning with the Friedman property.
REQUEST Change the Special Industrial designation on two properties in
McDowell Boulevard near Rainier Avenue (A.,P. Nos. 008 - 041 -07, 007 - 380 -04)
to Special Commercial And Office Commercial, respectively.
ALTERNATIVES
a,. Leave the designation as proposed for both properties ( Special
Industrial).
I -
i '
Change the designation as requested (to Special Commercial and
i; Office Commercial, respectively).
e. Leave the designation, on the larger property as proposed; change
the designation on the smaller parcel to Office Commercial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Alternative A.
This is based on. the recommendation from the GPCC;, however,
whatever recommendation the Commission. makes should be based on the
need' for the City to use this site to really boost the City's job base
and tax base. Keeping the two properties under the same designation
Would maximize .this possibility. A high - 'intensity "special" use would
also contribute significantly to the development of Rainier Avenue
overcrossing .
COMM SSION ACTION
Alternative Recommended: A (For Friedman. Property) plus text
changes' on Recommendation Work Sheet p. 38 as amended.
58
:-: 0 GU 016_ P
Motion by: Head
Seconded by: Davis
Vote: Favor: 7 Oppose: 0
Davis
Libarle
Head
Tarr
Hilligoss
Parkerson
Read
1 Subject Land Use Definitions
Abstain: None Absent: None
2: Rackground Testimony received during the course of public hearings
has suggested that certain land use categories need to be more clearly
defined so as to provide better direction for affected property owners
as well as the City. Land Use Categories are defined " -on pages 77 -82a
of the draft General Plan.
3.' Proposed Text • Change
C. Amend the Special Commercial definition (p. 79) as follows:
Special- Commercial This designation is intended to complement
the" Cit:y''s existing "retail base and to produce sales tax revenue ;
nit- �o- -comPetc- with -it it= mglrt- '7n�ud�= cnixecl- -commercial -- -arses
snt� r i +. Special Commercial areas are created
to provide sites for creative., well- designed master - planned
commercial facilities that can -- holster the - �aea} = emvlevment =as�e:
ant'ly to: the City's tax
opportziritis - to--caphtrre local dollars now going elseV�here. Three
areas have received this designation: 1 East of Highway 1,01,
along both sides of 'Redwood Highway (2) West of Highway 101,
north of '.Redwood. Highway (;the former- drive -in movie site) (3 )
the marina (Schollenberger Park) which will have commercial that
supports the marina and some office development.
D. Amend the Special Industrial definition (p. 80) as follows:
Special Industrial. /Office Park This designation is intended for
'krt -,- sirigle- user; vr-- irig} empress well- designed,
master- planned, campus -type developments for emplovers which
will'' contribute significantly to the City's objective ,of increasi
g
employment densities Locations for special industrial office park
are shown south of .Rainier extended, between McDowell Boulevard
and Highway 101; between Highway 101 and the Petaluma River.,
south of Corona Road to the NWPRR; and south of Fr.ates Road..,
east of .Lakeville 'Highway.
4. Staff .Respons /Recommendation Recommend to the City Council the
amendments -proposed tas modified by the Commission.
5°
5. Commission Action:
Motion: Parkerson
Seconded by: Head
Vote: Favor: 5 Oppose: I Abstain: None Absent: Libarle
Davis Hilligoss
Head
Parkerson
Tarr
Read
Discus I sion on the Gray property began with Commissioner Hilligoss
expressing the need to reserve a regional shopping center site even though
market may not be here now'. Mr. Salmons reviewed earlier discussions by
the GPCC regarding a regional center; and. the Commission discussed the
pros and cons of that use for several minutes before taking action on the
Gray property.
Alternative Recommended: A (For Gray Property)
Motion by: Parkerson
S i econded by: Davis
Vote: Favor: 6 Oppose: I Abstain: None Absent: None
Davis Libarle
Head
Hilligoss
Parkerson
Read
Tarr
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p,.m.
60