HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/13/2007 APL City of Petaluma, CA
City Couhcil`Chambers
4 wi t City Hall, 11 English Street
A Y4 Petaluma,CA'94952
859 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 •
March 13, 2007 - 07:00
Present: Will Dargie,John Mills,Christopher Arras,Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic,Kathy Miller,Tanya Sullivan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 27,2007(07:03 PM)
Chairman Dargie
PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN(07:04 PM)
PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED(07:04 PM).
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: George White(07:04 PM)
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:.None(07:04 PM)
CORRESPONDENCE: George White(07:04 PM)
APPEAL STATEMENT: Within iourieen(14)caletid'ardays following the date of a decision of the
Planning Commission,the decision'may be;appealed to theCity 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 writing and shall be filed'with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002-174-N.C.S.•asadopted by the City Council.The appeal
shall state specifically,the grounds for the appeal the relief sought by.the appellant (07:05 PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE.STATEMENT: Perons;coinmenting orall •or m writing are advised to raise all
pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutioiis 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 ttte'public review process, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:05 PM)
OLD BUSINESS: (07:05 PM)
PUBLIC HEARING: (07:05 PM)
I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott Duiven(07:05 PM)
I. Lands of Johnson,et al, 1478 Petaluma Boulevard North:
Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration, explained the process; presented "correspondence,
and reviewed the ten parcels and their locations to be discussed.
Council ,Member Barrett asked about the staff recommendation that two lots were appropriate for
residential development,and if everyone had agreed to this.
Director Tuft answered saying..she had contacted the proposed residential owners to deterniineif'they
preferred this designation'but she did not hear from them,so she recommended they remain as business.
Council Member Barrett said then they would remain Industrial.
Commissioner Mills said he was concerned about future flexibility and property owner's concerns about
the change!from Industrial to Mixed Use He asked if,the properties were;designated Mixed Use, and the
nearby residents/tenants'complain about the industrial use, could this force the businesses to leave. He
asked Pamela to explain how the City protects •businesses from being forced to leave because of
complaints.
Director Tuft said the City has stood by businesses such as the Creamery,Clover Stornetta,Jericho,Rancho
Veal,!etc..She expressed concern about the Johnson proposal with the drawings,showing,residential uses
within 10 feet of Cal West Rentals' operations, She said eventually pressure builds to monitor businesses
and industrial uses. She favored Industrial to 'afford.a second layer of protection' since it is hard for
businesses to relocate and they are too valuable to the community to jeopardize.
George White, Assistant Director, Community Development—.Agreed with Pamela, stating there was a
dearth of industrial-designated land in the Cityand;ihere would be nowhere for these businesses,to relocate.,
Chair Dargieclarified if the request had been withdrawn.
Director Tuft:saidthe:owners had not withdrawn-the request,the Johnson's and their representative were
unable to attend but she would schedule,a meeting with-them before the Council meeting on Monday.
Commissioner Arras asked about the surrounding areas'to the north and east that were designated Medium
Density and to the South as Mixed Use, and why-they-were designated as such.
r.
Director Tuft explained'the topography and pointed to various buildings and businesses in the area. She
showed hovi Mized;Use'and Industrial could bedeveloped. -
•
Commissioner Mills asked if the Lands-of Johnson were separated from_the other'parcels and allowed as
Mixed Use in the future. He asked if, as development occurs, the Planning Commission or Council'could
place,conditions stating the Industrial users have the.righfto continue this user
•
George White said conditions requiring disclosure could.be arranged for nearby uses and this has been
done:in the past. . •
Commissioner Mills fluffier that if all the area Was to be designated Mixed Use from Industrial,
that none of the businesses would be forced&out'of business.
Director Tuft replied yes,they would be grandfathered in.
PUBLIC COMMENT •
Gary Brodie, Lands of Brodie — (Speaking for!the property/business owners) said property owners were
concerned about protection,for their,existing businesses as development occurs and protection of property
values:.He explained that protecting their right to carry on their businesses was most important They felt
the Industrial designation provided more protection than the Multi-Use designation. He also mentioned
future zoning changes property owners'may want to request.
•
•
Commissioner Mills asked if any Of the'businesses were in violation of city ordinances or City rules of
operation.
Gary Brodie said they weren't. He said he was aware of other businesses receiving complaints where
Mixed-Use has occurred and he did not want this situation to'arise. He asked about requesting zoning
changes in the future if the property owners chose to do this:
Commissioner Arras said cost and time was involved to request a General Plan(GP)amendment.
Bridget Doherty—Owner of Cal-West Rentals—Supported the Industrial designation..Her business would
be the closest to the proposed Mixed Use area and therefore:the most affected.
Bill Ryder — Owner Jay & Bill's'Tne —Supported Industrial and said he understood that if the owners
wanted to change this designation in the future they could request an amendment.
Commissioner Arras said changing.only the Johnson property to Mixed Use would not make sense since it
would create an island of Mixed Use in'an Industrial area.
Director Tuft agreed. She said this,could result in"Spot Zoning"that is precluded by state law.
PUBLIC COMMENT—closed.
•
COMMISSION COMMENT
Council Member Barrett said she was sensitive to protecting industrial property and did not want to create a
conflict with Multi-Use and ;Industrial; and it offered no advantage to the City — she supported the
Industrial designation.
Commissioner Mills said he was less concerned with the Mixed Use/Industrial conflict and he listed
examples throughout the'City of these uses existing together. He'saw only one property owner wanting this
change so he supported keeping the Industrial designation.
Commissioner Arras-Supported theIndustrial designation..His concern was if Mixed-Use was'designated,
the existing industrial users were protected but if a new business wanted to establish itself it wouldn't be
possible. He also mentioned that only one of the owners wanted this designation..
•
Chair Dargie—Agreed with the Industrial designation.
II.
COMPILATION of COMMENTS and RECOMMENDED:EDITS REPORT
Council Member,Barrett asked about.the reinstatement of the policy-to prohibit new drive 'through
restaurants:tha •was supported by staff.
Chair Dargie polled the Commission and itwas unanimous for reinstating this policy.
III. ECONOMIC HEALTH& SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
Director Tu8`explained:the Final'2025'General Plan document, with all the policies and programs will•
includercomnients and.responsesto incorporatethe,mitigations fromnthe,EIR,thatwill be incorporated into
the GP. •
Council Member Barret asked about revenue from retail sales,TOT and Use Taxes as methods to improve
the City's revenue. She asked if ahotel was included for the downtown area.
Director Tuft replied that the CPSP included a..provision fofthis'amenity and the GP will defer to the CPSP
for this.
Commissioner Arras asked if. there would be a policy statement to encourage underground parking or
structured parking garages.
Director Tuft replied-that no specific language for underground parking was provided and"m,some cases,
the water table would make this impossible.
Commissioner.Barrett,asked if-there was support for the-use.of local contractors for construction projects,
especially in the redevelopment area, as this could be a boon to the local economy.
Director Tuft said this was not included.
Commissioner Mills said he disagreed and this could set a.precedent that could result in possible claims of
favoritism,and fairness issues being raised, as well as legal problems with the process of competitive
bidding..
Council Member Barrett said if the language was carefully crafted,the legal issue could be remedied.
Commissioner Arras thought this was an admirable idea and would be best stated as a goal.as:it would be
difficult to enforce.
• IV. HEALTH&SAFETY ELEMENT • •
Tanya Sullivan joined She meeting at 8:06 p.m.
Commissioner Arras asked if,this could include language to.encourage under-grounding of utilities since •
they pose a hazard if utility poles or lines fall.
Director Tuft said this could be addressed in the portion referencing Utility TitlE20 funding.
Motion:to close comment on the DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025
•
Moved by Teresa.Barreit, seconded by John Mills.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0. •
Yes: Will Dargie;John Mills; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic;Kathy Miller .t
V. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
INTRODUCTION
r
No Commission Comment.'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Chair Dargie asked about,the.statementi that a•sepatate River Element was>not included.:He asked if the.
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan is incorporated.
Director Tuft said.she would add this to page,lr5. •
VI. TRANSPORTATION
Council Member Barrett asked about the seven intersections identified with unmitigated Levels of Service
"E",but number 7 was dropped because its LOS exists on a feeder.street,Lindberg Lane.
Director Tuft said this was mitigated through signal improvements and she would check on this.
Council Member Barrett asked about the assumption that the GP's LOS is based on the construction of the
cross town connector and other improvements, and she was skeptical where the funding would come from
during the GP's period.
Chair Dargie said a seriesof planned roadway improvements appeared to assume mitigations to improve
traffic and he questionedhow achievable This was and the need to qualify the mitigations to make it work.
Director Tuft said the Council in office at that time asked for traffic runs without the crosstown connector
and without other improvement, and the results showed more than;seven'intersections did not meet an
acceptable LOS. They recognized that bike and transit improvements would(be needed. She said if these
improvements cannot be built;policy decisions would have to be made-by the Council.
Chair Dargie said it was not because of a lack of will, but the cost, environmental concerns, and lack of
•community,support for these projects. He"wondered if these improvements weren't done, what the affect
would be,andif the EIR would be complete without This knowledge.
Director Tuft said she would ask the attorney if this should be done.
Council Member Barrett mentioned projects that have funding and others that did not, and asked how
development planned around all of these improvements beingin place could move.ahead.
Commissioner Mills said this could be said about any of the policy/goals of the GP. He pointed to the
money for the sewer plant as an example of funding a large project. He asked whether a project can be
built that supersedes the GP and whether.the EIR should address this.
•
Director Tuft explained the Capital Improvement Plan process and the proportionate fair share that
developers pay in addition ao Traffic Impact fees. She mentioned the Copeland Street Extension as an
example of funding,traffic improvements needed because of development..She said the GP would be used
to move implementation along. She said additional traffic impacts will occur until the necessary
infrastructure is built, but these needs must be identified to find the funding. She-said the community was
clear in not wanting to build their way out of Level of Service problems.
Chair Dargie said he would like to include.a statement that the ability to complete all of the projects in the
GP may not be attainable.
Commissioner Arras asked if the Commissioner's comments would be included and how these would be
used.
Director Tuft explained that comments would be included in summary notes with some possibly being
person.specificfrom the Council and Commission members: She recommended that any significant change
should be done by the Commission as a whole.
Chair Dargie asked about groundwater recharge and how this is quantified and how reliable would these
figures be to judge how much pumping could take place at a sustainable rate.
Director Tuft said she would bring the Water Resources team back in to address concerns in the FEIR. She
said that monitoring of the City's wells and surrounding wells is being done and is very important. She
added that the opportunity for recharge was based on soils and every existing creekwas an opportunity for
recharge. She said there were no proposal to increase historic-draws from the groundwater tables and she
expected an improvement in recharge as the GP goes forward.
•
Council Member Barrett asked if Zone 2A committee members had seen this information as she was
planning to share the information with them.
Director Tuft said she would have to check with Engineering Manager,Dean Eckerson.
Council Member Barrett asked about using the 100-year flood event as the basis for measurement and if a
300-year flood event would be better.
•
Director Tuft explained that.FEMA and the Corps of Engineers use the 100-year-flood information-to set
the flood insurance rates and discounts. She said Council could'change policies°and various jurisdictions
can have;different storm drainage requirements. She said the majority.of,the City was not upto,a 100-year
flood event containment level,but localized flooding could,be.reduced. She added that at.build-outof the
GP, the-results would be the same as the existing conditions. She said terracing was called for in the
Petaluma River Access and Improvement Plan wherever feasible. -
Chair Dargie asked about the River Plan from 198&and'the XP-SWMM Model from 2006 and how'this
model validated terracing and if this could be stated more strongly in the GP.
Director Tuft explained there was no direct link between the River Plan and the XP-SWMM•Model,but the
model did validate terracing with all the=data in the model; but once again, the River would in most cases
not contain a 100-year storm event. She said detention as mentioned in the River Plan with regional
detention ponds showed promise to reduce localized flooding.
Council Member Barrett asked about the mitigation measure in the'Denman Reach area;to increase berm
heights and if this might;cause more serious problems because of more water increasing the pressure
behind the berms. She wanted the GP to spell out that berms needed to be higher and stronger.
•
Director Tuft said she would have to defer to the engineers.
Commissioner Sullivan said the berms would only come into play during flood events.
Council Member'Barrett mentioned new development may result in overloading existing storm drains and
require additional drains.tomeet the'Zero NetFill mitigation. She wanted to include'a-double permitting
process to indicate where excavated soil would be disposed of to prevent it being dumped in possible
detention areas. She felt this would protect the City from any liability resulting from disposalof soil. She
asked about the statement to relocate housing and suggested' it, state to move, demolish or relocate
structures. Regarding seismic related shaking, she wanted.additional language stating development would
be subject to any hillside ordinance that,the City may adopt.
Director Tuft agreed to these additions.
•
Council Member Barrett mentioned under the Public Utilities.and Energy portion that astatement regarding
when property,is sold, certain energy saving devices must be installed to.bring the property up to current
City standards`before the sale could be finalized. As far as Solid Waste, she wanted ton include language
stating the waste contractor would be required provide a resource recovery area at the actual dumpsite to
further recycling. She also mentioned a requirement to the phase out dumping at the Redwood Landfill or
any other environmentally sensitive sites;.she said.this would help mitigate,problems such as air quality as
well.
•
Commissioner Mills asked about the Water Conservation statement that new development may require the
expansion of the wastewater facility. He wondered if this meant what]was-released in the form of tertiary
water rather than creating•more tertiary water from additional wastewater.
Director Tuft said this was regarding increasing the amount of tertiary water and the plant was designed to
add components to meet this demand.
•
•
Council Member Barrett asked about raising the tertiary'water standards to remove pharmaceutical and
other by-products.
Chair Dargie said he understood the Ellis Creek treatment of secondary and tertiary water was a way to
mitigate the water supply issue regarding using potable water'for irrigation,etc. He wondered if the cost of
building the"purple"pipe would be the developer's responsibility.
Director Tuft said water connection fees would be implemented and would include costs of the "purple"
pipe system with some being project specific to extend the pipe.
Chair Dargie said this seemed a circular system requiring the builder to install-the pipes to mitigate the cost
for water and if there were no money to install the"purple"pipe,then the City couldn't reuse the water.
Director Tuft answered that without the "purple" pipe, potable water couldn't be used and therefore the
development would lose its entitlement. She said parcel-specific water demand analysis showed there
wasn't enough water for new development without implementing this system.
Chair Dargie said he would like the financial connectivity explained further to clearly define how the
connection fee relates to the installation of"purple"pipe to offset the use of potable water.
Director Tuft said this would be clarified but the additional tertiary treatment was already built into the
Ellis Creek facility.
Motion: to continue the comments on the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)until
next meeting March 27,2007.
Moved by John Mills, seconded by Christopher Arras.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Will Dargie;John Mills; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic;Kathy Miller
•
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 27,2007(09:26 PM)
Motion:to approve minutes from February 27,2007 meeting.
Moved by John Mills,seconded by Christopher Arras.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Will Dargie;John Mills; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic;Kathy Miller
Q. LIAISON REPORTS: (09:26 PM)
a. City Council-Teresa Barrett(09:26 PM)
b. SPARC-John,Mills(09:28 PM)
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee-Christopher Arras(09:29 PM)
d.Tree Advisory Committee-Tanya Sullivan(09:30 PM)
Adjournment: (09:30 PM)
Ct•
it,� of Petaluma, 'GA
• City Council Chambers
A ';(jam {City Hall,11 English:Street '
Petaluma,CA 94952
Ig Telephone 707/778-4301"/•Fax 707/778-4498 '
E-Mail"plagnmg @ciipetaluma:ca.us
•
Web Page littp://www.ci.petaluma.ca:us
Planning:.Commission Minutes
March 27, 2007 06:59 ' •
Present Terry Kosewic,John Mills,:Christopher Arras, Teresa Barrett
Absent: Will Dargie,Kathy Miller„Tanya Sullivan
PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN"(07:01 PM)
PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED (07:01 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:slialltbe final. An appeal shall be
addressed to the Council in writing andshall'be filed;with the City Clerk, Said appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee asi 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.
(07:01 PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE;STATEMENT: Persons'commenting orallyorin writing"are advised to raise all
pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may implemented or adopted at the
earliest opportunity, If you'challenge.the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court,you may limited
to raising only those issues you'orsomeone 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. (07:02 PM)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: (07:02 PM)
COMMISSIONERS'REPORT/(07:021PM), •
•
Chair Mills
CORRESPONDENCE:(07:03PM)
OLD BUSINESS: (07:03 PM)
PUBLIC HEARING:(07:03 PM)
I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott'Duiven(07:03 PM)
General Plan
Pamela Tuft, Director of General,Plan Administration, explained the Draft General Plan 2025 (GP) Review
had concluded and the Commission would continue with the Draft Environmental Impact Review.
Council Member Barrett asked how•the casino.impacts would-be:addressed. Director Tuft-explained it had
been independently addressed for the Rohnert Park proposal but there was nothing for the proposed
Petaluma site. She said the4information from'Rohnert Park DEIR would be:incorporated with an,impact
analysis — primarily traffic;;she would work with the City s Traffic Engineer,and'include a statement
regarding the related-impacts. As;fans the,likelihood of the Petaluma site being developed;;the state has
indicated.itis unlikely it would be approved.
Council Member,Barrett asked4about County standards;forb 'crcros"s culverts that differ from the'City's.
She said it didn't raise red flags and red:flags:afick.the Zone 2A cofnmitteedidn'.t indicate 4; Standards‘s wereSless'or
more, or just different. She asked'if the City+.was aware of this andif there`would':be standards. Diiector
Tuft-said she wouldtalk to Dean Eckerson,Water Engineering Manager; regarding this She clarified this
was a,percentage of flow rate (occliaion)tefore clearance occurred...She said sherwasn'.tLaware'•
different standards existed. Council'1vlembeI Barrett's aid it was, and it was,a,concem.
t
Director Tuft said a possible'response could include,putting minimumt.flow°rates on certain areas where
XP-SWMM.shows excessive occlusion:.
Council;Member Barrett asked if the.cominents froth the Sonoma,County Water Agency (SCWA) and
•response,to the Draft
'.Environmental Impact(DEIR) would',be addressed. Director Tuftsaid they Would be
during preparation of the responses to ceinni eats fortheFinal EIR...
Council MemberBarrett asked about the letter:fro-in:the representatives of the Plaza NorthShopping Center
owners,about their concern , traffic when the'DSL land. use designation is*changed:, Director Tuft
answered that any change in landnse will be analyzed-analyzed again in the FEW.
Council Member. Barrett asked about financing.mechanisms for the mitigations and if';these would be
• addressed.Director Tuft said yes. '
•
Council Member;Barrett asked about,the:Sonoma County Permit and ResourcelManagement`Department's
(SCPRMD) issues regarding traffic and the regional traffic;and the regional affects and how the coordination.of..these'issues would
be handled.. Director,Tuft replied tnatthey have met with the County and the Modeling assumptions had
been`synclied,responses to their comments will be included in the,
Council Member Barrett brought up the SCPRMD memo:regarding bicycle circulation whemthe BikerPlan
is updatedand,the need to have county wide coordination and appointingtcountywide liaisons Director
Tuft saidshecthought Misr had done already within the'Draft Bike.Plan and Me.liaison would require,
Council approval.
y suggested:handling this,'language
Council Member Barrett mentioned the-Friends of Lafferty Park',and su 'sled fiand
differently'than Tolay.to indicate it was a,City-owned park,located'outside the limits:. 'DirectoreTuft'csaid
she was looking into this Supervisor_Kems wanted to concentrate on Tolay and invest m it. She,saidshe`
would corrections to the map to illustrate the existence of Lafferty Ranch:
Council MemberBarrett asked-if the legalities of greywater were-addressed and`about capturing rainwater.
Director.Tuft said she.had met with the interested citizen's group anththey are making changes. She
explained;the process and.the Commission_s,role in the finalization of the'General Plan:.and FEW'and the
ceitifrcatiomancladoption process for those documents.
•
I. GEOLOGY,:SEISMICICIT,Y AND SOILS
Commissioner Arras asked if during the course of:looking; at land use; citizens' .comments ton soil
conditions on certain parcels would be included and how these,comments would responded to Director
Tufbsaid she was going through notes;and=if stabilization was>mentioned,,this would be addressed'in'the
hillside ordinance showing sensitive areas. She said if the issue was slope steepness, this would not be
addressed in the EIR but again within the Hill"side regulations(Development Code).
ll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Director Tuft explained this was an additional report undertaken within the River Corridor area. .
Vice Chair Mills asked if the Ellis Creek facility will be specifically'addressed regarding biology. Director
Tuft said all impacts Were addressed during the Ellis Creek project's;EIR and will not be readdressed as
part of the General Plan's EIR.
III. NOISE
No comments.
IV. AIR QUALITY
Council Member;Barrett asked:if there would be some measures to ban gas-powered landscaping tools and
promotion of the use of electric-powered tools.
Vice Chair Mills mentioned Regency's EIR.and if standards-would changed as emissions from motor
vehicles decrease. He said this could have an impact on when the project would take-place. Director Tuft
said the GP did not look at,the potential'impacts of possibly reducing regulatory standards.
V. VISUAL RESOURCES
•
No Comments.
VI. CULTURAL.RESOURCES
Director Tuft said the team would be preparingaesponses to comments and mill bring the GP &FEW back
to the Commission for consideration and recommendations to the City Council. Council Member Barrett
said she would send comments received from architects and local preservationists for. Director Tuft to
incorporate.
Vice Chair Mills mentioned the Senate Bill regarding cultural resources and notification of Native
American Tribes. Director Tuft said this did not apply because the GP was',initiated prior to this; but the
City was already in compliance with Tribal Council notification requirements.
VII. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No comments.
VIII. IMPACT OVERVIEW
Director Tuft explained that regarding water consumption_und recycled water, and energy,sources would be
the same. She added that even if-implemented it would have a net gain in resource use She said the
Jobs/Housing needs had been addressed:
IX. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Director Tuft mentioned the Land Use andMobrlity`Elements' two alternatives used within the.DEIR. She
explained the "No Project"alternative means no new GP-and'the 1987 GP would remain the standard for
development. She discussed the impacts, analysis, and implementations of the new EIR indicating the
adoption of the Draft GP would be environmentally superior.
•
PUBLIC COMMENTS: OPEN
No comments. -
PUBLIC COMMENTS: CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFTFIR WAS CLOSED
Commission recessed
Commissioners Miller and Sullivan Arrived
• Vice-Chairman'Mills;RE-OPENED PUBLIC COMMENT
Diane Riley Tones, distributed Section. 11:90 of the Petaluma.Municipal.Code that included the Trip
Reduction Ordinance. She asked how, with voluntary paiticipation,.this was reflected m,the Em to-reduce
the impactsi'of increased motor vehicle traffic. She also mentioned Zero Net Run Off, the Rainier
improvement gnd, the SCWA policy statement, evaluating.public funding of Zone2A EIR improvements,
benefit assessment districts, and energy as concern's=that needed to be addressed. +.She;asked'if public
opinion had been corisidered for these'irripacts•and if•rnitigation measures were•feasible:
PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARING ON THE DEIR WAS CLOSED
COMMISSION COMMENTS •
Council Member.Barrett:,asked about comments regarding,the financial ability-<to'imitigate;impacts and
efforts to resolve conflicts between the City and County regarding flood control and;Zero-Net;Run-Off. -
Director Tuft said these issues would be addressed and responded to She said she would include the fax as
part of the record.
Motion: Recommend'.that-the City Council prepare the Final EIR and Final General Plan documents
Moved'.by.Sin Mills, seconded by Kathy Miller.
Vote:-Motion carried 6-0.
Yes: Terry,Kosewic;John Mills;Kathy Miller; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett
Absent: Will Dargie
•
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 13,2007'(07:50'PM)
Motion: Approve APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 13,2007
Moved by ChristopherArras,seconded by Tanya Sullivan.
Vote: Motion carried,5-0. - •
Yes. Terry Kosewic John Mills Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett
Abstain: Kathy Miller
Absent: Will Dargie •
H. LIAISON REPORTS: (07:51 PM) •
a:City Council--Teresa Barrett(07:51 PM),
b.SPARC--John Mills-(07:53.PM)
•
c: Petaluma Bicycle Advisory.Committee-ChristophertArras(07:54 PM) '
d.Tree Advisbry Committee--Tanya Stillivan'(07:55 PM)
Vice Chair Mills.
Adjournment:•(07:56`:PM)
•