Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1A 06/14/2010`~ ~ L U~t a '~ j85$ ~l ~~m~r~ ItP,vw #l .~l DATE: June 14, 2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Appeal by the Petaluma Community Coalition of the Planning Commission Approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Plans for the East Washington Place Project, located at East Washington Street and Highway 101; APNs 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040 (File 10-APL-0162) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Denying the Appeal by the Petaluma Community Coalition and Affirming the Planning Commission Approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Plans for the East Washington Place Project, Assessor Parcel Numbers 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040. BACKGROUND The City Council considered the Final EIR and Vesting Tentative Map for the East Washington Place Project at noticed public hearings on January 4, 2010, January 25, 2010, and February 8, 2010. At its February 8, 2010 meeting, the Council adopted the following Resolutions concerning the project: Resolution No. 2010-021A: Certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the East Washington Place Project, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Resolution No. 2010-021B: Making Findings of Fact and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the East Washington Place Project, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Resolution No. 2010-021 C: Approving a Vesting Tentative Map for the East Washington Place Project, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007- 473-040 Agenda Review: Dept. Director_~~]~ City Attorney Finance Director City Mana Subsequent to adoption of these resolutions, the Council directed the Planning Commission to undertake Site Plan and Architectural Review for the project, consistent with all applicable provisions and guidelines as stated in Chapter 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the Council directed the Commission to focus on pedestrian-oriented features in the central project area between the Highway 101 pedestrian overcrossing and the Kenilworth Drive entry, review the design of proposed fencing, and incorporate the use of "super tree" species in project landscaping. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings for the project on February 23, 2010 and April 13, 2010. The Commission reviewed project plans, exhibits, and documents, received testimony from staff, the project applicant, and the general public, and deliberated. At the conclusion of its April 13, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, adopted Resolution 2010-04 approving the Site Plan and Architectural Plans for the project, subject to findings and conditions of approval. Additional conditions of approval, proposed by the Commission and agreed to by the applicant, were incorporated into the adopted Resolution. (Please see Attachment C) L)ISCUSSION The appeal grounds and associated points from the appellant are listed as follows, followed by staff analysis. Appeal Point #1 -General Plan Inconsistency Findings made in Planning Commission Resolution 2010-04 approving the Site Plan and Architectural Plans noted that the City Council determined in its February 8, 2010 adoption of Resolution No. 2010-021 C that the Project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission further found that neither the modifications made to the project in the course of Site Plan and Architectural Review nor its conditions of approval modified the project in any way which would create inconsistencies with the General Plan. These modifications included enhanced architectural features on many project buildings, additional landscaping, enhanced pedestrian connectors, and improvements to the internal circulation of trucks and delivery vehicles. In addition, conditions of approval were adopted, including those for added bicycle parking, pavement details, window treatments, and lighting standards. These modifications and added conditions were consistent with the provisions of Sec. 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan and Architectural Review, and did not change the mix of uses or conflict with the Vesting Tentative Map conditions approved by the City Council. Furthermore, they were consistent with applicable community design policies in the General Plan, including Policy 2-P-23 for "development patterns that provide an urban edge along East Washington Street, providing visual continuity and cohesiveness, and increased safety", and Policy 2-P-81 requiring the development "presents an urban/pedestrian face on Washington Street, with parking tucked behind the buildings", and "incorporates a plaza or other civic open space". 2 Appeal Point #2: The Current Approved Configuration of Johnson Drive as Illustrated on the Applicant's Plans is Detrimental to the Health and Safe Ilse of the Swim Center and Skateboard Park by Children and Adults Due to Increased Exposure to Air Pollutants and Toxic Particulate Matter Due to the Proximity and Amount of New Traffic Caused by the Project.. The configuration of Johnson Drive as the primary project access was approved by the City Council in the Option Agreement between the City and Regency Realty, Inc., with the adoption of Ordinance 2181 N.C.S. on May 17, 2004. That ordinance grants Regency an option for an easement over Johnson Drive in its proposed location, which can be exercised upon the satisfaction of numerous conditions, including receipt of all project entitlements. The City concurrently adopted a Negative Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), which did not identify any potentially significant environmental impacts from this proposed action. In addition, the East Washington Place EIR, certified by the City Council in Resolution 2010-021A, with findings and mitigation measures adopted in Resolution No. 2010-021B, found that all potentially significant environmental impacts on the Swim Center or Skate Park from Johnson Drive could be mitigated to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation measures identified in Resolution No. 2010-021B have been imposed on the project. Meanwhile, City and Parks and Recreation staff recommended conditions of approval related to the Swim Center and Skate Park that included landscaping and related design features designed to upgrade these facilities, as well as provide noise, aesthetic and safety buffers from projected project traffic. These conditions of approval were incorporated into Resolution 2010-021 C approving the Vesting Tentative Map for the project, adopted by the City Council on February 8, 2010. These features include landscape screening buffering the Swim Center and Skate Park as part of the project proposal, per Figure 4-26, added in FEIR, Chapter 3. Mitigation Measures TRA-3 and TRA-4 specify access infrastructure requirements to mitigate traffic safety impacts to both facilities. Vesting Tentative Map approval Condition #82(n) was modified to include "Landscape screening and buffers, including safety bollards where applicable, at all parking areas, street frontages, and vehicle access points." In addition, the applicant has filed a written request that the City enforce the state Vehicle Code on Johnson Drive. This will allow the City to restrict truck traffic on Johnson Drive. Therefore, it is anticipated that trucks will be using the southerly-most driveway to the south of Building M6 as the primary project ingress/egress for truck trips and deliveries. This will be facilitated by use of a continuous driveway connecting from this ingress/egress point behind the rear of Building M6 with the other anchor tenants per the request of the Planning Commission. A prohibition on truck traffic on Johnson Drive will further reduce noise and traffic impacts from both Johnson Drive and connecting roads within the project and along the project frontage for users of the Swim Center and Skate Park, pedestrians and bicyclists. Appeal Point #3: Lack of safe, pedestrian and bike access (Few large intersections that concentrate pedestrian and bike access are contrary to the General Plan). The project was considered by the City Council, Planning Commission, and Pedestrian and Bicycle. Advisory Committee, and issues related to pedestrian and bicycle access were a central component: of discussion and deliberation. Mitigation TRA-4 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. requires site plan and. intersection safety features addressing concerns for safe and unimpeded pedestrian and bicycle access to the project. In addition, the City Council adopted. Resolution 2010-021 C which includes numerous conditions of approval related to pedestrian and bicycle .access both to and .from the site as well as internal project access and circulation.. The conditions related to pedestrian and bicycle access include intersection improvements featuring in-pavement flashing lights and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors, maximum use of Class I and II pathways where feasible, and internal connections between project uses. Planning Commission Resolution 2010-04 acid the draft resolution for this staff report requires raised crosswalks with in-pavement` flashing lights triggered by motion. detectors along the .route of the bike-pedestrian, overpass near Buildings S9 and S 10 and in- ground pavement lighting with pole mounted flashers at the Kenilworth Drive pedestrian crossing at the southern end of the project. In addition, the project has been designed to incorporate the Highway 101 pedestrian overpass in a manner. that incorporates this cross-city connection into a central project gateway for maximum pedestrian and bicycle access visibility. Appeal Point #4: Lack of "Robust' 1llixed Uses Incorporated into tl:e Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2010-04 approving the Site Plan and Architectural Plans found that the City Council had determined in its February 8, 2010 adoption of.Resolution No. 2010- 021C, that the Project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan and that no modifications were made in the course of site design and architectural review which affected the p'roject's mixed use components. Tn its~determination, the City Council considered all applicable General Plan policies regarding the site, including but not limited to those regarding "mixed use" and Policy P-2-77 for the Washington Core subarea which commits the City to "capitalize on opportunities. to provide Regional and Community Commercial facilities at the old Kenilworth school site, while integrating new development with the intended scale and new character for E. Washington Street." (GP, p. 2-18.) The City "Council's decisions on February 8, 2010 are not. subject. to this appeal, although they hare, been challenged in a lawsuit filed by the Petaluma. Community Coalition. The only question relevant to the appeal is whether changes were made in the Planning Commission's Site Plan and Architectural Review that modified the project's mixed use components. As shown in the project site plan dated March 12, 2010, which was before the Commission at its April 13, 2010 (meeting, the mix of retail and office uses did not change. No residential uses were added. No condition of approval in Planning Commission Resolution 2010-04 requires modification of the mix. of uses. Therefore, the mixed use consistency analysis with General Plan policies made by the City Council on February 8, 2010, does not require modification, as the Commission specifically found in its Resolution 2010-04. 4 Appeal Point #S: Lack of an Integrated Design that Blends the Project with Surrounding Uses The Planning Commission found that the project employed a contemporary architectural style that is distinct from similar projects of scale and use. This includes layered wall massing between primary anchor stores to create more visually interesting facades, use of broad roof overhangs, foreground arcades and covered canopies. In addition, the consistent color palette unifies the project while the architectural treatments and use of stone and slate provide distinction and add to the overall visual character. The Commission found that this visual. character complemented the other retail, commercial, recreational, and seasonal uses in the immediate neighborhood. The bulk, massing and siting of structures in relationship to the surrounding uses is discussed in the Planning Commission staff reports, particularly the report for April 13, 2010, Attachment A to this report, at pages 10-13. As determined by the Planning Commission in paragraph 3 of its Resolution 2010-04, the buildings are proportioned compatibly with retail uses across East Washington Street, active and seasonal uses of the Fairgrounds property and other surrounding uses. Appeal Point #6: Lack of Buildings Being Situated along Kenilworth Drive The Planning Commission considered the location of all project buildings in Site Plan and Architectural Review and made findings in this regard in Resolution 2010-04 approving the Site Plan and Architectural Plans. The largest structures are located at the rear of the project, separated from the existing residential development across Highway 101 by Highway 101 freeway improvements which are also large in scale and by Project landscaping behind the Project structures. Landscape and street frontage improvements. along Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive provide buffering and a transition from the Swim Center and the Skate Park to the adjacent two-story project Buildings S1 - S4, using open space plaza areas. The Commission also found that additional landscape elements along Kenilworth Drive, including a denser mix of shrubs and trees, sufficiently addressed the appearance of the large parking area when viewed from Kenilworth Drive. Appeal Point #7: Lack of Designated Specific Locations for Solar Photovoltaic Arrays The eXact.l~ocation of solar facilities cannot always be determined on design-level project documents. The City Council addressed this issue in its adoption of Resolution 2010=021C which includes a condition of approval requiring project construction documents to include pre- wiring for solar and wind facilities for each structure, subject to staff review and approval. This ensures that the project buildings will be able to incorporate them. The exact location of solar facilities for the project buildings will then be included in the construction drawings per this condition. In addition, the appellant makes the following statements and requests the following changes to the project: a) Honor the. vision for this site as specified in the General Plan. b) Reconfigure Johnson Drive to move away from swim center/skate parka extend further south to "T" into an intersection of Fairgrounds Dr., which can connect to Kenilworth Dr. c) Place multistory mixed use buildings with active uses on ground floor with housing or office space on upper floors along Kenilworth Drive. d) Reduce the acreage of paved parking lots by mandating atwo=story Target building (AI) with structured parking underneath. e) More pedestrian gathering areas, plazas and pedestrian features on site. f) Better, .safer and more pedestrian and bike access points connecting to surrounding areas g) Make Kenilworth Drive between Johnson Drive and East Washington Street into a Pedestrian/Bike walkway only. i) Specify roof areas designated for solar PV rays (Note that HVAC equipment is easily situated almost anywhere on a typical roof, contrary to the applicant architect's specious claims that tenant HVAC equipment can only go in predetermined locations, which just happen to be unknown at this time). j) Provide traffic control and calming improvements to East D Street and Old East Side intersections. Items (a) through (c), (f) and (i) on the appellant's list of statements are included in the discussion and analysis of Appeal Points #1 - #7 above. As to item (d), the Planning Commission made findings concerning the bulk and massing of structures as part of its adoption of Resolution 2010-04 approving the .Site Plan and Architectural Plans and found that "the bulk and massing of the Project has been, appropriately scaled to the site and its surroundings". In addition, findings were made regarding off-street parking that stated that "vehicular parking has been provided per all applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance". No provisions or requirements .for.underground parking werelincluded, and any proposed underground parking would require substantial grading and excavation that would have to address potential water table and related hydrogeologcal and geotechnical concerns requiring further environmental analysis. As to item (g), the configuration, use, and traffic volumes of Kenilworth Drivewere already analyzed during the environmental review of the project, and traffic volumes and project ingress/egress included this street in the traffic modeling and analysis. The Final EIR "included traffic mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure TRA-3 for the Johnson Drive access, that were partially based on Kenilworth Drive traffic volumes as an alternate project ingress/egress. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRA-4 includes safety components, including raised intersections and in-pavement crosswalk lighting, for pedestrian and bicycle users along Kenilworth Drive. Furthermore, the Planning Commission made findings as part of Resolution 6 2010-04 that stated "the Project provides multiple ingress and egress locations for maximum vehicular traffic efficiency and circulation". As to item (j), the project EIR and related traffic studies concluded that project traffic would not affect the East D street neighborhood in a manner which would require traffic control andJor traffic calming improvements to East D Street as mitigation measures. The City Council has made CEQA findings and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan for the Project in its Resolution 2010-021 B, adopted February 8, 2010, without the requested East D Street improvements because of the EIR's conclusions. That decision is not part of this appeal. The Rlanning Commission's approval of the project's site and architectural. plans was entirely consistent with all applicable provisions and guidelines as stated in Chapter 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The Commission considered the direction provided by the City Council, public testimony, and recommendations from staff, before adopting its resolution. In addition, the Commission did not add to or modify the project in any way that changed the mix of uses or conflict with the Vesting Tentative Map conditions approved by the City Council. For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the project's site and architectural plans. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project. The applicant, Regency Petaluma, LLA has expended the amount of $446,591.26 on the application for this project, reflecting.Fiscal Years 04-OS through 09-10. In addition, the applicant is required to pay for the cost of processing the appeal, with the exception of the appeal fee of $208.10 which was paid by the appellant. The. deposit currently has a balance of $18,836.64 ATTACIIMENTS A. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Site Plari and Architectural Review B. Letter of Appeal, filed by the Petaluma Community Coalition C. Resolution by the Planning Commission Approving the Site Plan and Architectural Plans D. Staff Report for the April 13, 2010 Planning Meeting E. Staff Report for the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission Meefing F. Drawing Revision List, provided by Project Architect G. Project Theme and Architectural Approach, provided by Project Architect H. Project LEED Approach, provided by Project Architect I. Letter from the City to Regency Centers, dated February 25, 2010 J. Letter from Regency Centers to the City, dated March 4, 2010 K. Letter from Regency to the City Regarding Public Art, dated March 8, 2010 L. Letter from Regency to the City Regarding Second-Story Uses,. dated March 18, 201.0 M. Letter from Regency requesting City enforce Vehicle Code, dated April 5, 2010 N. Letter from Regency requesting City enforce Vehicle Code, dated April 5, 2010 O. Letter from Petaluma Neighborhood Association, dated April 7, 2010 P. Resolution from City Council Certifying the Final EIR Q. Resolution from City Council Making Findings and Approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 R. Resolution from City Council approving the Vesting Tentative Map S. Kenilworth Frontage Landscape Options T. Proposed. Bus-Transit Shelter U. Late Documents for April 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting ® Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office. V. Site Plan and Architectural Review Plan Set, full size set W. Site Plan and Architectural Review Plan Set, half-size set X. ~ Visual Simulation Presentation -half-size set Y. Visual Simulation Presentation - CD 8