Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/09/2007 � U • City of Petaluma, CA • `tT City yCouncil Chambers • •:'tt k ' City Hall, 11 English Street I. p ,rE` Petaluma,CA 94952 SJ' $,� Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E-Mail planning @ci.petaluma.ca.us• Web Page 'http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us • Planning Commission Minutes • January 9, 2007 - 07:00 Present: Terry Kosewic, John'Mills,Karen Nau,Kathy Miller,Christopher Arras Absent: Will Dargie,Tanya Sullivan APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 28; 2006 and December 12;2006(07:01 PM) Motion: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 28,2006 and December 12, 2006 Moved by Kathy Miller, seconded by Christopher Arras. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. Yes: Terry Kosewic;John Mills;Karen.Nau;Kathy Miller;Christopher Arras Absent: Will;Dargie;Tanya Sullivan PUBLIC COMMENT:None(07:01.PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT:George White noted there was information at places on the Planner's Institute;he encouraged commissioners to amend. (07:02 PM) Commissioner Mills COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None(07:03 PM) • CORRESPONDENCE: None(07:03 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen(14)calendar days following the date of a'decision of the Planning Commission,the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time,the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in wirtingand.shall be filed,with the,City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002-114-N.C.S.as adopted by the City Council. The,appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. (07:04 PM) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or.in writing are advised to raise all pertinent 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 by the,City of Petaluma in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the conclusion of the public review process. (07:04 PM) OLD BUSINESS: (07:04 PM) PUBLIC HEARING: (07:04 PM) • I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025:-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR) Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott Duiven(07:04 PM) General Plan Memo dated January 9,2007 Pamela'Tuft,.Director of the General Plan Administration, introduced the Mobility Element and consultant, Matthew Ridgeway from Fehr&Peers. Matthew Ridgeway,Fehr&Peers—Talked about'the Circulation and Mobility Element and explained how it applies to Petaluma and how it was driven by community input. He said Petaluma won't experience a great amount of new roadway construction. He explained the new roadway alignments to the Commission and the new road class of Boulevard to make Petaluma, Boulevard a true boulevard with other improvements as well. - COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Dargie asked to see the video of Level of Service(LOS).Matthew explained these were based on the peak 15'minutes,:of the day with the,allowance for 20,years worth of growth. Commissioner'Kosewic asked to see videos illustrating the LOS with short blocks and long queues. Matthew said the more constrained the environment with short spacing affects the operation of adjacent intersections and will need to be looked for more analysis. Commissioner Miller asked if the LOS is based on peak hours the GP mentions'peak,period and what the difference was Matthew said the difference is the average delay over a period of time and Mitigations are based on the longer period of time. He said mitigationsare developed to maintaim operations based on a two hour period instead of 15 minutes. He said peak period observations may need'.to.be changed. Commissioner Arras asked what'impact, if any, would "there be in adopting 'a certain LOS' and how compliance^^with funding from outside sources would be affected. Matthew said,most'of the roadways,are within the City's purview except for roadways monitored by the Congestion Management Agency(CMA) and their standards. Commissioner Arras asked if adopting a LOS in the GP could affect the relationship with the CMA standards. Matthew said it would only affect regionallysignificant roadways, such as Highway 101 and wouldn't be a big issue for the City of Petaluma. Commissioner:'Arras asked what the funding and regional affect would be. Matthew said ii'shouldn't affect funding but it make Petaluma eligible for other funding and most GP improvements are self-funded. Commissioner Arras asked when the GP says LOS is"D" instead of"C", how does it affect the City when projects come through. Matthew said every development project has traffic impact studies and in the future,the study will show if LOS is"C"or"D"—would not propose bringing LOS'changes. He said most jurisdictions have level"D"and some"E",and some have abolished using this measurement-completely. Commissioner Arras asked how the'LOS is measured and if it only applied to motor vehicles rather than bike and pedestrian movement. Matthew said the idea of multi=module has not been completely delineated as vehicle LOS has,been He added the LOS'will be evolving and mitigations are for the.automobile and that transit looks at a different streefpreference. Commissioner, Arras clarified that road rdiets are not mandated by the GP at certain locations, but encouraged and if a,policy to consider them at certain locations at the project level'and then decide at that point. Matthew said this was correct that.the GP identified the possibilities for this. Commissioner Arras mentioned the transit corridors at Petaluma Boulevard South and the proposed Copeland Street station and if-these should be considered to bring a transit corridor to Lakeville for southbound traffic, especially-considering'the plans for the Southern,Crossing being planned. He asked if there was an alternative for the bulk of transit needs. Matthew answered.that this is why they didn't • publish a map in the GP, only the,-goals and objectives. He said when transit service plan is formulated, it will be addressed later by the Transit Manager. Commissioner Arras asked if anything-in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan calls for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Matthew-said this is addressed in the Street and Cireulation'Standards. Commissioner Miller expressed'.her concerns about Road Diets and the specific roads identified in the GP.• She didn't want to see this;$pecificity and wanted language for general rules for road diets instead. Matthew answered that these could be-removed if a majority'bf the Commission agrees. He,said these were based on 20 years of growth but language in the GP could be.tightened td say'.what analysis would be required to recommend a Road Diet. He said the intent was to identify opportunities where these could be used. Commissioner Mills asked about LOS for roads that experience different amounts of traffic in each direction, and these can be significant differences. Matthew explained the analysis is,based,on the average delay of movement. He was asked for a•breakdown of intersections with a LOS of or below currently; he listed the following: Petaluma Boulevard North at Corona, East Washington.at McDowell, and Lakeville at East"D"Street;:and the eight intersections at build-out at 2025 as Lakeville @ Caulfield, Lakeville at Lindberg Lakeville at East "D" Street, Petaluma Boulevard South at"D" Street, Petaluma Boulevard North at Payran,Petaluma Boulevard North at Corona, East Washington at Sonoma Mt. Parkway,and two on McDowell. Pamela stressed that during the Public Hearing, any topic could be brought forward by the public at any meeting,regardless of the evening's scheduled items. PUBLIC COMMENT Patricia Tuttle Brown explained.her thoughts on Road Diets and how she-felt'the GP should more clearly, spell out the need for Road Diets since this comes from the Central Petaluma Specific Plan that has been adopted. • PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED Conunissioner Mills commented on road diets, said he would like to tighten language with a clear definition for roads that might provide an opportunity for a road diet but allow flexibility for the governing body when the project is reviewed. Commissioner Arras said he wanted to be sure the new GP is,consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific ' Plan(CPSP)to include roads that are mentioned in that document in the new GP. Commissioner Mills stated he saw the CPSP as part of the GP and this didn't limit the CPSP. Pamela said the CPSP is a specific document for anare •and,the GP is meant to be general in its language. She said she would look for any implication of weakening the CPSP. She said the CPSP was adopted before the GP and again referenced in the GP. It is not necessary to repeat the'specificity level of the CPSP. Commissioner=Arras said he wanted to use'tliis as an opportunity to mention the relationship again;Pamela said she would look at this. Senior Planner Scott Duiven presented the Draft•Bicycleand Pedestrian Plan,stating it-was included as an appendix to the.OP and answered.Commissioners' questions. - , Commissioners thankedthe Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle AdvisoryCommittee,for their efforts,as•a job well done. Commissioner Arras wanted to emphasize pedestrian and bicycle facilities in projects. Council Member Nau said the Council has to-fmd funds to pay.for these projects. Commissioner Mills said that money is available for pedestrian and bicycle safety efforts and having.the OP'include the Plan would help with funding:,He also wanted to coordinate with Sonoma County to see if joint funding opportunities would be available: Motion: Continue to January 23,2007 Moved byriohn Mills, no second required. H. LIAISON REPORTS: (0837 PM) a. City Council(08:37 PM) • • Council Member Nau Commissioner Mills • b. SPARC: None (08:41 PM) c.Petaluma Bicycle,Advisory Committee(08:41 PM) Commissioner Arras d..Tree;Advisory Committee: None(08:42 PM) Adjournment: (08:42 PM) • • • • • •