Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/30/19860 Im "PETALUIVCA 'GENE'R�AL' - N ; CITY OF PETALUMA Planning Commission Public Hearings On The 1986 -2005 Draft General Plan EIR MEETING SUMMARY Meeting of September 30, 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: Mic Davis, Glenn Head, Fred Tarr, Patti Hilligoss, Chairperson Nancy Read. Absent: Staff /consul #ants Present: Dan Libarle, Ross Parkerson Warren Salmons„ Planning, Director; Michael Moore, Principal Planner.; Naphtali Knox, Knox and Associates (General Plan Consultant) Chairperson 'Read called the. continued meeting of Planning Commission on the draft General Plan and EIR. to order at 7:00 p.m. Planning Director Warren_ Salmons reviewed the actions taken by the City Council at its hearing on the General Plan on ,Monday, September 29. Commissioner Davis pointed out that there has been very little input from sub - committee members since the hearings have begun and there seems to be a tendency to forget. the lengthy process the City went through to arrive at the draft plan. Principal Planner Mike. b'loore reviewed the items to be considered by the Commission this evening, beginning with the Old Adobe School District property. I,] 00,003 _ 8 Work r . Sheet page 26 - Old Adobe School Caulfield [Crinella Mr. Moore related the conversation he had had with regarding the property in question and the State Code by the district. The City ''Attorney supported staffs designate the property as: Public and Institutional. Commission - then took an action on this item. i District Property: the City Attorney citations submitted recommendation to Hearing that, the REQUEST Change Neighborhood Park designation on Old Adobe School District property at the southeast corner of Caulfield and Crinella (A.P. No. d67- 050 -09). ALTSANATIVES a. Change the designation to Public and Institutional to coincide with the rest of the school district 'property. b. Change the designation to Urban Standard which is consistent with the exstin?e General Plan, designation for the property and would be compatible with the proposed plan for the immediate ' vicinity. c. Leave the designation as recommended by the General Plan Coordinating Committee. Motion by: Tarr I . Seconded by: Davis V. Favor: 5 Davis Read Head Hilligoss Tarr STAFF' RECOMMENDATION Alternative A COMMISSION ACTION Alternative Recommended: A Oppose: 0 Abstain: None Absent: Libarle Parkerson Discu'''sion then moved on to the two letters submitted by the Chamber of Commerce with its comments on the draft General Plan, Commissioner Davis was quite concerned about the Urban Limit Line being under review as part of the proposed five -year updates of the plan. He stated that this particular issue, had been discussed at great length throughout the process, and tfiat the implication of the decision, on the Urban Limit Line was that it should; be a twenty -year line. Mr. Knox responded that 'everything should be reviewed every five years; . the. City already entertains applications for General Plan amendments four times a year; and that for the urban limit line to remain in its present location., the Commission and City Council must be vigilant. Commissioner Davis replied that a five -year review negates the 81 intended effect of the urban. limit line.. Mr. Salmons remarked that the continuity of the line is totally dependent on the resolve of the decision - makers. Commissioner Davis stated that strong language was needed in the. plan. to prevent intermediate changes without very good reasons, Mr. :Knox, reviewed the objective, policy and program statements. pertaining to the urban. 'limit. line. Commissioner 'Tarr moved that a .note be put on. the map indicating the: twenty -year nature of the urban limit line. Chairperson Read asked for Commission action on this; which occurred as follows: Motion by Commissioner Tarr Second by: Commissioner Davis Vote: Favor 5 Oppose Head Davis Tarr Hi'iligoss Read Absent:: Parkerson,° Libarle The Commission was in general agreement with staff's responses to the Chamber's -comm_ ents and directed staff to amend Policy 11,; page 153 of_ the draft ,plan as suggested in the response, to item 'P of the Chamber letter. The Commission also agreed with staff's responses on the Chambers second letter dated, September 16 but took: the following action to delete. the; last . sentence on page 69 of the draft plan which states: " It is the 'intent of this program (i:e., to zone - for convenience shopping in .proximity to residential areas) that such uses not compete with the types' of retail 'uses permitted downtown and in the Plaza, Plaza North and Washington Square shopping centers." Motion by: Commissioner Davis Second by: Commissioner Tarr Vote: Favor 5 Oppose 0 Absent;: P'arkerson, Libarle Hilligoss Head Davis Tarr Read Traffic and noise concerns expressed by Dr. Cynthia Bowman were considered along with staff''s response. The :commission. was satisfied with the response and by consensus made no amendments to the plan: Airport. Land Use policies were addressed next. There was no discussion on this, item after it was ,explained that the language proposed had already been adopted by the city back in. ,1983. Mr. Knox stated that the State Department. of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics had asked that the underlined language be added to the following policy: 82 7 IC "iSelected development applications for projects within the, horizontal and conical zones, and. development applications for all projects in the area designated as the Primary Referral Area Boundary shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission, the City's I Airport Advisory Committee and the California Department of Transportation,, Division of Aeronautics for review and comment. The Commission relating to the Motion] :by: I', Second by: then moved 'to accept all of'the language and' map proposals airport. - Commissioner Davis Commissioner Tarr Vote: j: Favor 5 Oppose Hilligoss Head Davis Tarr 0 Absent': Parkerson, Libarle Read The Commission then considered the letter from Thomas Hansen regarding the Noise section of' Chapter 11 of the plan. Mr. Moore stated that Nancy Alexander of Knox & Associates and Earthmetrics, the City's environmental consulttant on the General Plan :had responded to Mr. Hansen's comments by re- drafting pages 258 to 262 - of. the draft plan. Those pages were preseri;ted to the Commission for its consideration. The Commission acted to acceptl;the revised pages as presented without further discussion. Motion„ by: Commissioner Head Second' by: Commissioner Tarr Vote: i; Favor 5 Oppose 0 Absent: Parkerson, Libarle Hilligoss Head Davis Tarr Read The - next item on the agenda concerned editing of the General Plan narrative; that is,,. everything that is not a goal, objective, policy or program. Mr. Salmons, Mr. Knox and Mr. Moore all presented background on this item and reviewed the guidelines suggested to apply to future revisions of the plan. Commissioner Hilligoss was quite concerned about the subjectivity of some of the comments in the plan and stated her desire to have such comments removed.. Mr. Knox replied that that :there will be a significant amount of editing for the final document, including removal of obviously subjective statements. The Commission agreed to accept the guidelines as presented: l 'i 83 :z:O flUQ`71� 1.) While subjectivity in, the text is, of course, a. subjective criticism, staff and consultants'. will minimize "editorializing".- 2.) Graphic illustrations, amps ,(except -the official, General Plan maps), and figures in, the text, unless otherwise. specified in the text,. are illustrative and are riot intended as statements o_ :f policy. 3.) Statements following policies and programs that clarify intent or provide additional details or specifications shall be clearly highlighted as. such through a different format or typeface and shall have the force or obligation of General Plan policy (this includes the Glossary) . 4.) Where examples are given to clarify a policy or program they will be. labelled as such and shall not have the force or obligation of General Plan policy unless otherwise noted. 5.) Any text not set apart as :described in B -3 or B -4 above shall not have the force or obligation of General Plan policy unless otherwise noted.. 6 The Introduction. and Executive Summary chapters of the General Plan shall not b,e considered as General Plan policy except when reflecting ,goal,, objective,, policy and program, statements elsewhere . in the plan, sections of state law, or unless otherwise noted. Motion by: Commissioner Davis Second by: Commissioner Tarr Vote: Favor 5 Oppose 0 Absent: Parkerson, :Libarle Hilligoss Head Davis Tarr Read A letter from Coun cilmemb er . Woolsey. on suggested revisions to the Hazardous Materials section of the plan was. reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Knox suggested that the underlined portions of Ms. Woolsey'ss proposals be added to the General Plan, text in t he ,ap.propriate places!,. Commissioner Hilligoss was concerned that some of. the provisions may adversely affect the hospital and. other 'health services using radioactivity. Mr. Salmoris replied that the policy proposals do not imply that these materials cannot be. used but that they be stored and handled appropriately. There being no further discussion the Commission acted on the motion to add the underlined portions of Councilmember. Woolsey's proposals on hazardous materials. E:V! '17 Motion, by: Commissioner Tarr Second" by: Commissioner ione r Davis Vote: Favor 5 Oppose 0 Absent: Parkerson, Libarle Hilligoss Head Davis f, Tarr I I Read The Commission began discussing the letter from Coombs Development concerning the proposed marina project. Most of the discussion involved determining the appropriate land use designation for the marina since it appear,'ed that Special Commercial would not apply because of the significant amount of office space included in- the proposal. Mr. Knox suggested Mixed Use with some modifications to the definition. Because of the lateness of the hour, the Commission, decided to bring this and several other items back at a meeting on Tuesday, October 21. The Chairperson then continued the meeting on the draft General Plan and EIR to Tuesday, October 21 at 7:00 p.m. 85