HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/12/2006 •
City of Petal ui na; CA
• City Council Chambers
A st4 t f City Hall, 11 English Street •
' r,.. Petaluma,CA 94952
;a 7
4859 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498
ErMail ,plannirig @ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2006 - 06:57
Present: Will Dargie,John Mills,-Karen Nau,Kathy Miller, Christopher.Arras,Tanya Sullivan
• Absent: Terry Kosewic
•
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 22,2006 (06:57 PM)
Motion: Approve MINUTES:August 22,2006
Moved by John Mills, seconded by Kathy Miller.
Vote:Motion carried 6-0.
Yes: Will Dargie;.John Mills;Karen Nau;Kathy Miller;Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Terry Kosewic
PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN(06:58 PM) •
PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED'(06159 PM)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:None(06:58 PM) .
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:None(06:58 PM) •
CORRESPONDENCE: Pamela tuft(06:59 PM)
APPEAL STATEMENT. -Within fourteen,(14)calendar days following the date of a decision of the
Planning Commission,the decision maybe appealedto the City Council by the applicant or by any other
interested party. If no appeal is made within that time,the decision shall be fnall:An appeal shall be
addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said-appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002-F14-N.C.S. as adopted'.by the City Council.The appeal
shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief soughvby the appellant:
(06:59 PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orallyorin writing are advised to raise all
IIpertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the •
earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken bythe City of Petaluma in court,you may be limited
to raising only those•issues•youor someone else raised during the public,review process, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval and/or
recommendation'bythe Planning Commission with a single action. The Planning Commission may
remove items from the-Consent Calendar fordiscussioar If members of the public wish to comment.on
Consent Calendar items,they should do so during'PublicComment"•'(07:00 PM)
CONSENT CALENDAR: (07:00 PM)
I. RIVER CARDROOM, 5004 Petaluma Boulevard North _
APN:i007-412-015
•
File: 06=3CN-0217
Planner: .Phil.Boyle(07:00 PM)
River Card Room
Motion: Approve consent'calendar
Moved by John Mills; seconded by TanyaSullivan.
Vote:Motion carried'6 0.
Yes: Will Dargie;John Mills;Karen Nau;,Kathy„.Miller;.Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Terry Kosewic
NEW BUSINESS: (07:00 PM)
•
PUBLIC HEARING:
II.
DRAFT GENERAL 2025 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIk)
Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott Driven
Draft General Plan 2025-Draft'EIR
Pamela Tuft presents:Draft EIR.
Chairman Dargie: Asked if it commenced the45-day.review'period. Pamela,Tuft; said yes, it started today
with this first public hearing.
•
Pamela Tuft: Explained the purpose of the‘draft EIR for the-General Plan,2025; it'.is to,serve as,a public
information document to the advisory'body, community, and,the”City Council. She explained the various
required elements of the"Draft General Plan: Land Use Conservation, Circulation, Open;Space, Housing
(state certified) Safety,,and Noise`'and how these-were'met. ,Boundaries were described, inclnding,;the
Planning Referral Boundary, the Urban`Growth Boundary,the City Limits-and the County;boundaries. She
talked-about'the objectives as identified through numerous workshops, Planning Commission and City.
Council presentations; that set -priorities and focus. as Vision; Basis: for Judging,.,Strategies, ,for
Implementation providing the basis for setting cnteria,and objectives for prioritizing;ofiCity and private
projects: The key issues identified were Economic Health, Infill, Residential Growth'Projections, Water
Resources,Mobility,and Public Facilities and Parks.
She talked about the facts of the Draft General Plan'.2025°with the current population of roughly 57,000
plus:is expected at build-out to be 72,700; existing jobs cuirently,;at-33,000 to increase;to_46,000;jobs to
employed residents,is currently 1:1.2 and will be slightly reduced-to 1:1, still in balance.
Land use is important and is, substantially different.in presentation with titles changed and numbers
reflecting actuaLrimnbers;l the issue of densities will be discussed., She said that for purposes of analysis,
the City,was-dissected into 14"sub-areas: She stated-the:content of theiDEIR by-issues is defined by state
law and local ordinance: The only potential significant impact appeared to be to.farm land,with°mitigation
policies addressed.
The Mobility (Circulation) element includes .vehicles,.bicycles, pedestrians,,public transit, air, and water
• transportation. She said the "A" to "E" Level of Service of vehicular movement will be discussed She
explained that citizens made it clear"they'did not want to-build their way out of congestion to meet peak
demand. The preference was to accept a "D" level of'service on certain artenals,;as compared to the
.current "C" level ,.She said citizens wanted to expand alternative modes of transportation to meet a
reasonable Level of Service:She could have the trafficconsultant attendrthe October 10th meeting, if the
Commission is ready to move on to.Mobility: i o•
The Parks and Recreation element'focuswason how to obtain ownership of neighborhood and community
parks: The per capita'park ratiotgoal is'S acres/] 000 citizens with 1,500 existing acres;of parkland. Under
the Draft GP and DEIR, proposal adds 89 acres of park inventory. These,parks are neighborhood or
community parks and designatedas "Active" or "Passive". She said'the Parks Commission and staff are
working on a Parks Master-Plan that can address specifics of parks planning. The±comparison of the park
ratio is currently.5.2 and will,be at 5.3 imthe year 2025. Failure to achieve this could result in a park
shortage or the overuse of existing•parks, so more parks and,playing fields will be needed to meet the
citizens' needs.
She explained that Public, Services such as schools may need to be modified within specific School
Districts because sof;population trends,.but:noadditional school;facilitiesare anticipated to be needed. The
decision to not expand the,Urban.GrowthBoundary prevented further land-use expansion therefore, school
enrollment will be static. Asfar:as:Public Safety, an additional 16 Fire and 21 Police personnel will be
needed to maintain Department desired per capita ratios:
She addressed Public Utilities and will return torthe Water Supply&;Hydrology portions of the element
because of the impacts .and :serious mitigation measures needed. :She 'talked about the Water
Demand/Supply Analysis. Report and the need. for water'conservation measures, best management
practices, recycled water use to offset potable demand, and„limited.•groundwater use for emergency and
peak demand only She mentioned the Ellis Creek Water Treatment facility will be a part of the integral
part of the Water Element. Energy such as electrical, gas and othermeasures'will be addressed. She talked
about`the Water Hydrology portion of the analyses and how it affects water quality,possible:depletion of
ground water, drainage'patterns,(additional run-off will determine;where development'is built according to
the 100-year flood scenario: She proposed bringing,staff from West Consultants to explain the XPSWM
drainage model and its relationship to 100:year storm flows and the December 30,2005 storm. She said the
1989 FEMA Flood Plain Map will continue to be used according;to the National Flood Insurance Map
requirements: She explained,the antecedent conditions during:peak Storm season scenarios as it occurs
with adobe soil when the saturatiompoint is.reached in the Petaluma area and run off occurs as if the soil
was paved.
She said that one policy and five programs have been added to the General Plan as additional mitigation
based on the final August.Surface-Water report: She said until additional flood depth standards were
established, a proposed..mitigation will ensure no additional:habitable buildings will be developed within
the 100 year General Plan flood boundary as identified through.the,XP-SWMM work. The City needs to
work with the Sonoma,County Water Agency to update-information to create,a--regional flood solution;
water that flows from outside the-City adds',to the flooding within.the City (as,seen.by the:iout-of-bank
flows which occur in Willow:Brook Creek just north.of City limits). She added that the Zero Net Fill
policy needs to-be addressed,at the County level and this was.included:in the County's.Draft General Plan
2020. She added that remapping the flood,plain'upon the completion of the Corps of Engineers flood
control project in 2007;should bedone: Working with the SCWA, after;remapping, the City could pursue
state and federal funding to remove existing housing from the regulatory Floodway within the City limits
and the UGB. She,also.mentioned Geology and Seismicity and the possible movement from the several
earthquake:faults in the areaas'an issue.
•
She talked about the Noise element's definition and measurement from traffic railroad, and the airport and
the fact that this problem is not fully mitigated; any increase in development will result in an increase in
noise,particularly vehicle,noise.
•
She mentioned Air Quality:and the factthatithe'2005 ABAG Ozone,Strategy wrll'nofbe met becaus&it •
didn' ;:include a Current General`Plan,build-out;,expedted,population growth; or the:Central.Petaluma
Specific Plan completion'and'iimplementation.
She reviewed Visual:Resources such,as views„ridgeline, River, etc. and;mitigations that_include policies
and:programs to.be incorporatediinto theDevelopment'Code: Cultural”Resources„prehistoric:andliistorie,
have been identified and protection measures defined in the°DEIR.: Also, the creation'and',preservation of
Historic Districts in town,the Petaluma Adobe,'andthe addition of more lit iorical sites'willbe.identified.
•
Hazardous Materials were addressed in(the transporttoremissions of public hazards;la liStof sites with.'an
emergency response and evacuation Plans addressed.
•
She mentioned there were significant rand unavoidable noise and air,quality issues that'will occur'with
an increases in population that brings,more vehicles, more noise and.the City will need to work w th'ABAG
to improve:. .Also, the irreversible environmental changes that occur with the addition of housing and,
., ro
employment.resulting,'in an increased population and thud demand.fOr`resources such as water and housing”
thatwill need to:be'niitigated.
She described,energy sources'and`demand,•"even With Mitigations there will be increases in the use of non-
renewable resources::and building materials:
She explained the Draft General Plan would lessen,impacts compared to.pursuing the No Project"
approach.,She said the"No,Project" would result in more impactsrby staying'within'the current General,
Plan'(1987.),guidelines. -She.addedthat,thescompanson of alternatives in theinew'General;`Plan addresses:
affithe,issuesand isienvironmentally supenor;as it was written,with the intent of self-mitigation:;Sheitalked.
about using the two additional Alteratives reviewed'within the DEIR„'those being;the '!arterial in=fill'.
corridor!' to increases intensity and density along specific,arterials and the "river: oriented infill"' with
development along the Riveraareawithproper:setbacks. These two Altematives.weremore frilly defined'in
the=Land,Use and-Mobility Altematives'Report,'released'inFebruary 2004.
.Terry,Kosewic(7:46:p.m,joins meeting)
Chairman Dargie: Asked if other speakers and:consultants-would take part in tfie presentation;of the
General Plan:
Pamela-Tuft: Stated that during theihydrology; economic; mobility-and fiscal analysis she would ask
expert consultants to provide information.
Commissioner Stated he was surprised that the General Plan was preferredto thef"■o Project"
approach.
Pamela Tuft: Explained;that the General Plan takes today's technology, the.community's vision, looks
at land uses and orderly growth.patterns and.changesrwill be.made''that will improve.the'1987 General'ePlan
and meet the -needs of the., community: She said the new General •Plan has an 'fit in depth Water,
Resources/Supply'-element that the previous plan;did not @go into this`levet:of detail about thus and Maier
'important'components. .
Commissioner;Mills: Asked who wrote:the General,Plan and what-was the process involved with,the
consultants: -
Pamela Tuft; Answered that Dyett and Bfiatia was the primary+consultant except for the Water
portion`that was completed directly by,staff with significant input from the consultants who prepared the
Technical Appendices;documents,;;because;,the level Of detail-was far beyond;what the=state,required:, She
explained the,processaand that"she Draft General Plan'was, for the most part,' designed by City staff'to
create.a,document.thatwas easy to follow and implement-with goals,.policies,and programs. •She-said''the
DEIR'is a technicafandanalytical document requiring,expertiseinmany areas:
Commissioner Sullivan: Referred toi the six new.mitigations and hydrology and asked if there was any
other new content that Commissioner's should be aware-of.
Pamela Tuft: Explainedthat when impacts were identified during the General Plan process, mitigations
were identified and the-text andpolicies were fine tuned to reflect the change. The mitigations in the DEIR
were lifted from the General Plan.
Commissioner Sullivan: Asked for a breakdown of projected population at the end of the General Plan by
age and stratification. She felt this would help to better understand the number of retirement-aged citizens
as compared to students.
Pamela Tuft: Said she would contact a Census Analyst to have this done.
Commissioner Miller: Wanted further explanation of "No Project" having more impact that the new
General Plan and asked for specific examples.
Pamela Tuft: Explained:that"No Project"alternative is the continued,itnplementation of the 1987 General
Plan with its build-out projections. This did not take into account the Central Petaluma.Specific Plan and
the trends within the CPSP,.it could look like the same populationasthe Draft GP. She said the existing
plan provides for more strip commercial and vehicle oriented land.uses as compared to the neighborhood
commercial, centrally located mixed use plan the Draft Plan and DEIR describe. She added that the new
plan implements mobility policies and more multi-modal improvements. Also, she said, the water
resources policies in the existing 1987 Plan would result in dire consequences since water supply and
surface water are not addressed sufficiently.
Commissioner Arras:Asked where the public or commissioners would look regarding Alternative 2 or 3.
Pamela Tuft: She said the Land Use Alternative and Mobility section;'discussed in the DEIR could provide
useful information. She suggested providing the Land Use & Mobility Alternatives Report (February
2004) that the previous Planning Commission reviewed which provides extensive analysis to help the
current Commission understand'these alternatives better.
Commissioner Kosewic: Commented on the Ms. Tuft's succinct description of run-off on adobe soils
during storm events.
Chairman Dargie asked the Commission how they would like to proceed and after some discussion they
decidedto go through the document in the•order presented with emphasis on certain areas and bring in
other elements that connect The Commission decided to engage the General Plan and the DEIR together
and to start with the.Land Use element.
Public Comment: Open
Susan.Kirks: Wanted to provide input.on Commission discussion after attending all General Plan
workshops:, She wanted the Commission to.explore every element as it relates to legal issues such as
CEQA. She wanted the.Commission to look at the natural environment, wildlife Corridors, and species
protection. Her,neighborhood group is anon-profit and would like to assist in the Commission's efforts if
needed.
Public Comment: Continued.untilnextmeeting
Motion: to continue the public hearing until September26,2006.
Moved by JohnMills,seconded by Christopher Arras.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
•
Yes: Will'Dargie;,JohnMills;,Karen Nau;:Kathy;Miller;.Christopher:Arras;:Tanya Sullivan„Terry
Kosewic
M.LIAISON REPORTS
A. City Council-Commissioner Nau
B. SPARC-Commissioner Mills •
C. Petaluma. Bicycle Advisory Committee:Chairman Dargie appointed Commissioner Arras as
• new Planning Commission Liaison for Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee.
D. Tree Advisory Committee-Commissioner Sullivan
Adjournment •
•
•
•