HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/11/1983Page 1 of 4
Iwo
MINUTES
Petaluma Planning Commission
Special Con, tinued Meeting From 2/8/83
City Council Chambers
Not Official Until Approved
b The Planning Commission
February 11; 198
800 A.M.
Petaluma, California
PRESENT: Commissioner Bond, Head, Hilligoss Lavin, Popp, Shearer, and Tencer
STAFF: Gregory C. Freitas, Community Development and Planning Director
Warren Salmons, Principal Planner
GENERAL PLAN /EDP LAND USE MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS - continued
Tape: 406 Side I - 1470; Tape #2: Side I 00 to 518
Chairman Shearer reviewed items in order. Where there was not unanimous agree-
ment among the commissioners on a special item, a vote was taken.
Item 1 - Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 2 - Consensus vote: 4 - 3 against proposed. change.
AYES: Comm. Head, Hilligoss, :Popp and: Tencer
NOES: Comm. Bond, Lavin, and Shearer
Comm. Shearer stated there was not enough land left
with potential for city services, as well as water storage
area needed to support an industrial area. Comm. Bond
thought more water would be" put downtown. faster.
Comm. Popp does not want to limit industrial land.
Item 3 - Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 4 - Amend to show the urban separator at the inside
of the. rear ,property lines in the area with 2 units/
acre, .in the. I over portion, and the .density above,
the service line to the separator at 1 unit /acre.
Area to be shown as a Development Constraint
Area.
Also added a new policy: that the urban separator generally
follow the property lines and lie Within properties
having a city density assigned on the land use map,
except where good planning principles dictate its
1'ocation elsewhere.
Item 5 - The commission would like this put into Study - - "1"
Item 6 - Agreed with" staff recommendation,
Item 7 - Agreed with staff reoommendation
Item 8 - Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 9 - Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 1`0 _ - Agreed with staff recommendation
PETAL
MA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
i;
I
Page 2 of 4
FEBRUARY 11, 1983 157
Item 11 -
As proposed, except in area along Corona Road
which was recommended to be put into Study - - "1"
Item 12 -
Consensus against TDR; 6 -1 (Head in favor).
Comm. Bond afraid of selling aspect and wants
to discuss how it affects allotment issue in the
future.
I
Consensus of commission recommends this area
,I
and all others designated by staff as TDR at
1 unit per acre with new designation, DCA
'1
(Development Constraint Area).
AYES: ;6 (Bond, however, prefers keeping
open the acreage density issue;
Lavin, Shearer & Tencer prefer'
j
an agricultural designation).
NOES: 1 (Head)
Item 13 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 14 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 15 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 16 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 17 -
Unanimous to have school site remain on map,
and review in one year for possible different
location
Item 18 -
ii
Same vote as Item 12
Item 19 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 20 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 21 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 22 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 23 -
i
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 24 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 25 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 26 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 27a -c
. Agreed with staff recommendation
Item 27d
Redesignate Central Urban and Service Commercial
areas between Washington and Lakeville on Wilson
to Urban (10 du /ac) and northwest of Washington on Wilson
to Low Density Residential (5 du /ac)
, Item 27e -1
Agreed with staff recommendation
j Item 27m
Unanimous to put into Study - - "1"
Page 3 of 4
15g PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1983
Item
27n -r
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item
28 -
Agreed with staff recommendation (includes
neighborhood park site within subject area)
Item
29 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item
30 -
Agreed with staff recommendation
Item
31 -
"Consensus to support staff recommendation
AYES: 4 NOES: 3 (Bond, Popp, & Shearer)
Comm. Popp believes street will not support
additional units
VIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
GROUP A: Items 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 27
GROUP B: Items 1, 5 -8, 15, 19, 23 -26, 27a -27c, 27e, 27g, 27h, 27j -r
GROUP C: Items 2, 16, 18, & 21
GROUP D: Items 12, 22, 27d, 27f, 29 - 31
GROUP E: Item 13
GROUP F: Item 28
Motion introduced by Comm. Tencer, seconded by Comm. Bond, to recommend
the City Council find that previously prepared environmental documentation is
adequate for proposed amendments listed in Groups A & C, and to recommend that
the Council. direct staff to issue a negative declaration for the amendments listed
in Groups B, D, E, & F, based on recommended findings:
AYES: 7 NOES: 0 1
FINDINGS:
GROUP A and C
1. Previously prepared environmental documentation is adequate
for the proposed amendments as shown in the staff report.
GROUPS B, D, E, and F
1. Detailed environmental analysis will be conducted in conjunction
with review of any specific development project implemented pursuant
to the proposed amendments.
2. Remaining potential environmental impacts associated with the
amendments are not significant. -
The following findings are required for GROUP E:
I
PETALUMA PLANNING COM
ION MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
FEBRUARY 1.1. 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE - continued
i 1. Detailed environmental analysis of the potential impacts of
implementing one of these three connections shall be conducted
prior to the selection of any one of the three as the final alternative.
2. There will be no additional significant .adverse environmental
impacts associated specifically with the amendment.
Tfe following additional findings are required for GROUP F:
I .I
1. The recommendations of the noise analysis prepared by Fitzroy
LO and Dobbs (July 1982) and the traffic analysis by DKS and Associates
(August 1982) shall be considered in design and review of any specific
development project for this site. Major concerns regarding any
future residential development approvals will be to mitigate negative
co effects of additional traffic through the existing mobile home park .
and the excessive sound levels from the tracks and_the freeway.
2. Remaining environmental impacts associated with the General
Plan /EDP amendment will be of a less intensive nature than those
created by the existing. Industrial .designation.
i ,
Motion i t rtroduced by Comm. Head, seconded .by Comm. Tencer, to recommend
to the City Council that items 'listed as Groups A, B, C, D, E, and F as proposed,
and as amended by the Planning 'be adopted .as amendments to the
City's General Plan /EDP Land Use and Circulation Elements; and those items
to which split consent vote occurred are being recommended to the City Council
with the, split consent listed in the minutes:
I'
f ; AYES: 7 NOES: 0
Motion introduced by Comm. Tencer, 'seconded by. Comm. Head, to recommend
as a policy t o the City Council. that the urban separator generally follow property lines
and lie within properties -having, a city development density assigned on the Land
Use Map,{ except where good planning principles dictate its location elsewhere.
AYES: 7 NOES: 0
ADJOURNMENT: The, meeting was adjourned by Chairman Shearer at 12:30 p.m.
ATTEST'
I
re ` C Fr. itas
Com `unit Development
evelopment
and `Planning Director
1H