HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04/09/2002Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
A L Lr City of Petaluma, California
�j City Council Chambers
Q City Hall, 11 English Street
l
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
8 5 $ E -Mail planning(c)ci.Vetaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ei.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planhing Commission Minutes
3 April 9, 20 02 - 7 :00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Glass, Monteschio, O'Brien, von Raesfeld, Vouri
6 Absent: Dargie
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff George White, Planning Manager
10 Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner
11 Jan Tolbert, Administrative Secretary
12
13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 26, 2002 were reviewed but requested
14 return to the next meeting with corrections.
15
16 PUBLIC COMMENT: Patricia Tuttle Brown — Entire Magnolia Place site should be
17 park with bicycle path through to cemetery.
18
19 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: George White — Status update of Development Impact Fee
20 Study indicated that the study was being conducted, however, would not be available
21 before Fall 2002.
22
23 COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Barrett — Invited all to attend film
24 this Friday at Petaluma Coffee Company — "Back from the Brink "; Commissioner Vouri
25 — Received traffic model from General Plan Administrator — It is complete and includes
26 Frates Road and Adobe Road traffic counts — most state of the art tool available for use;
27 Add this as a discussion item regarding using this traffic model on all future development
28 proposals George White — Cumulative results not available now. They are not adequate
29 for evaluating development projects for CEQA purposes. Commissioner O'Brien —
30 Traffic model accurate for today but land use not accurate for today — inaccurate model
31 for future planning — Council is waiting for census data. Chair Glass — Would like to
32 have model to review. Commissioner O'Brien — Census data will not be ready by July.
33 Vote to add to agenda — Motion /Commissioner Vouri — Second /Commissioner Barrett
34 (add as last item on agenda). Commissioner Glass — April 23, Petaluma Village
35 Marketplace project (EIR) will be 2 nd item on agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
CORRESPONDENCE: 29 letters /postcards regarding Magnolia Place Subdivision.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS;
PUBLIC HEARING:
I. MAGNOLIA PLACE SUBDIVISION, 1120 Magnolia Avenue /1111 Gossage
Avenue.
AP Nos: 048 -141 -012; 048 - 132 -027
File Nos: ANX00001; TSM00002; PRE00011; PUD00006
Project Planner: Betsi Lewitter
Applicant is requesting approval for 47 residential lots on 2 contiguous parcels
outside City limits totaling 24.42 acres. Development to occur on 16+ acres; 8.28
acres to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma for parkland. Requires amendments
to General Plan Map, prezoning to Planned Unit Development, approval of
Planned Unit Development Plan, approval of Tentative Subdivision Map and
Annexation.
Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report.
Chair Glass — (To Jim Carr, Parks and Recreation Director) Would the proposed annuity
amount be sufficient for maintenance?
Jim Carr — First five years maintenance amount would be minimal — $5,000 to $6,000
per year since park will be passive use.
Chair Glass — Would like to see financial analysis to make sure this annuity would be
adequate with future inflation; will the City be able to take over if annuity is inadequate?
Jim Carr — This annuity will give us a buffer during this fiscal problem time — then
general funds will take over.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld — Will City design the park?
Jim Carr — The community will have opportunity for design input.
Commissioner Barrettt — Will this park be similar to any other park in City?
Jim Carr — McNear open space - does not have wetlands that this site has.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1
2 Commissioner Barrett — Does City have information regarding park maintenance
3 expenses for each park?
4
5 Jim Carr — Because of nature of the park — no turf, minimal irrigation — expenses would
6 be half of park with amenities; for first 5 years, developer would have to maintain; City
7 would have weed abatement, tree pruning, vandalism.
8
9 Commissioner Monteschio — How much would it cost to maintain park if entire site
10 were a park?
11
12 Jim Carr — Probably 4 -5 times the amount.
13
14 Commissioner Monteschio — where does park money come from?
15
16 Jim Carr — Development impact fees — can only be used for acquisition of park lands —
17 not maintenance.
18
19 Commissioner O'Brien — Can we afford to buy this property as a park?
20
21- Jim Carr — We would have to defer other projects /parks already promised in other areas.
22
23 Commissioner Barrett — (to Ms. Lewitter) — The applicant would be replanting with
24 native trees — would that be in the park area and within the residential project site?
25
26 Betsi Lewitter — Native trees in park — combination of native and non - native trees in
27 residential areas.
28
29 Commissioner vonRaesfeld — Sidewalk from bridge heading west only? Sidewalk is not
30 shown along entire frontage to cemetery property as required by conditions.
31
32 Betsi Lewitter — Conditions would change plans — plans haven't been updated.
33
34 Commissioner Monteschio — Ground water is contaminated — any tests done?
35
36 Betsi Lewitter — Wells have been tested, some were contaminated, don't know what is
37 being done about this.
38
39 Commissioner Barrett — The cul -de -sac bulbs as shown on drawings are smaller than
40 conditions dictate — will that be revised?
41
42 Betsi Lewitter — Yes.
43
44 Commissioner Barrett — Regarding tree removal — how many trees slated to be removed
45 are greater than 6 inches?
46
3
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1 Betsi Lewitter— Need to refer you to arborists report.
2
3 Dan Aguilar — Applicant, Mission Valley Properties — Lives in Novato — Has developed
4 some relationships with people living in area has vested interest in how this area is
5 developed; has tried working with the neighborhood — thinks this proposal is a win/win
6 solution; asked members of audience in support to stand up (15 -20 persons).
7
8 Steve Arago — Applicant Planning/Engineering Firm (CSW Stuber- Stroeh) — Was a
9 member of Tree Advisory Committee and Parks and Recreation Committee — offered
10 brief history of past proposals, eucalyptus tree removal by previous owner; Parks
11 Committee looked at possible purchase of property with help from Open Space District
12 funds — monies slated to be spent on Lucchesi soccer field could have been used ($1.4
13 Million) but City decided against doing that; a sub - committee was formed to look at
14 development of a partial portion of the site — natural, passive park was preferred; high
15 point of knoll offers good views of area — drainage/boggy area can be enhanced and also
16 used as a detention pond area; preliminary plans submitted in summer of 1999 — City
17 Council did give project one housing allocation; City can obtain a substantial portion of
18 this project free of charge to be dedicated as a park with this proposal; 2.21 acres should
19 be held as open space with detention basins; private open space areas proposed for
20 maintenance reasons; feels private maintenance will probably be of better quality than
21 what the City could provide; there won't be any soils removed or added to site; SPARC
22 review required several split -level units, units staggered back and forth on curvilinear
23 streets, retaining walls reduced to only 3 small (3') walls, setbacks pulled back from
24 existing homes, wider connection between proposed park site and units by clustering 30
25 units to minimize grading (20 -30 trees were saved by doing this).
26
27 Betsi Lewitter — Clarifies vehicle access off Gossage for two homes and emergency
28 vehicles.
29
30 Commissioner Barrett — (to Steve Arago) — Conditions state some grading needs to be
31 eliminated, but plans do not show this.
32
33 Steve Arago — Some conditions not yet reflected on plans.
34
35 Commissioner Monteschio — How are you proposing to keep private open spaces
36 private?
37
38 Steve Arago — Landscaping, etc.
39
40 Commissioner Monteschio — You are calling these areas private as far as ownership, not
41 who could enter property?
42
43 Steve Arago — Yes, ownership would be private but allow public access.
44
45 Chair Glass — Would developer be willing to design and develop this park as a
46 condition?
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9;2002
1
2 Steve Arago — Mr. Aguilar should respond; but must be done in conjunction with
3 neighbors.
4
5 Dan Aguilar — Has stayed away from designing anything on this site, but would consider
6 installing an all - weather trail along with cleaning up the site and planting trees, would
7 also be required to pay $180,000 in Park Fees.
8
9 John Patoski — Architect - Petaluma is a pedestrian oriented town, sense of place;
10 incredible architectural heritage in Petaluma — pleased to see so much public
11 participation; took designs of homes from heritage homes in Petaluma (mix of styles,
12 garages staggered and taken to back in some cases); sleeping porches and sun porches
13 included; low maintenance xeriscape landscaping materials; "sunslate" roofing that
14 generates solar energy, other energy units.
15
16 Steve vonRaesfeld — Can all units be stepped up or down depending on lot?
17
18 John Patoski — Yes.
19
20 Darlene Whitlock (Traffic Engineer) — Level of service standard "C" in this fairly rural
21 area; looked at impacts from 48 new homes; all intersections would continue to operate at
22 levels of service A or B during peak hours; added impacts less than significant; stopping
23 site distance looked at — round -about is proposed — would introduce a calming movement
24 — speeding is an issue now, unsafe speeds for conditions exist now; character of roadway
25 will be changed — speeds will be reduced; students will be able to walk to Cherry Valley
26 Elementary.
27
28 Christine Pillsbury — CSW Stuber - Strough — Discussed watershed areas of project;
29 several watersheds identified on site — proposed storm drain system and detention ponds
30 described; no net increase in peak flows will result.
31
32 Commissioner Glass — What data was used?
33
34 Christine Pillsbury - Data from Sonoma County Water Agency.
35
36 Commissioner Glass — FEMA information is different from studies of 1986; what storm
37 data was used?
38
39 Christine Pillsbury — SCWA — defined "C" factors based on slope and type of surface;
40 modeled on 10 year and 100 year storms — intensities of storm based on SCWA charts.
41
42 Commissioner O'Brien — Did you say there would be no net runoff increase?
43
44 Christine Pillsbury — No net runoff with proposed detention design.
45
46
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1
2 The public hearing was opened.
3
4 SPEAKERS:
5
6 Letter from Patricia Graham — in support of project.
7
8 Bill Phillips — 824 Blossom Court — Representing Committee for Magnolia Park — large
9 number of supporters identified in audience (over 50); displayed proposed park "the last
10 best park chance "; only two parks (other than Shollenberger) are large parks, others are
11 small neighborhood parks — fairly flat; proposes a "nature park" for this whole site;
12 Urban Growth areas are primarily in west part of City; Urban Growth area for planned
13 growth will create another part of City as large as existing west side of City; presented
14 petition with over 1,000 signatures in support of park; Advisory Board of Senior Center
15 unanimously signed original petition; from experience with parks around the City, almost
16 100% of adjacent neighbors want this to be a park; presented projected parkland required
17 to year 2020 — current park deficit 103.6 acres — will grow up to 162.1 by year 2020;
18 educational nature park — nature garden, maintenance of oak trees, live on -going
19 experiences with nature and habitat for schools in area; this should be a community park
20 to bring parkland into adopted minimum standards; General Plan Workshop participants
21 want Magnolia Park as a preservation area; showed slides of hydrology with "full park
22 plan" and with housing and park as proposed by applicant; described proposed "full
23 park" showing a water storage tank, on -site parking (proposal does not have adequate
24 parking); area along border with cemetery not suitable for housing; proposed funding for
25 "full park" — 1) zone 1 water storage tank; 2) public /private partnership similar to Santa
26 Rosa's "A Place to Play' Field Trust; 3) evaluate and pursue funds from just approved
27 Proposition 40; 4) Sponsorship of trail building and construction projects by community
28 organizations, businesses, City and County and individuals; what is proposed: Deny
29 application; City of Petaluma work with Magnolia Park non - profit corporation to develop
30 community park; seek additional funding or grants from: Sonoma Land Trust, Sonoma
31 Community Foundation, Trust for Public Land, Coastal Conservancy, Bay Institute of
32 San Francisco, San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy. Need time to create this great.
33 park; granting agencies might be interested since we are now a "poor city ".
34
35 Jim Becker — 953 Gossage Ave. - Adjacent to Gossage part of proposal; supports project
36 because it would eliminate chicken ranch — concerns regarding nitrates and odor; quality
37 of life has been diminished — odor on warm days horrible; very impressed with quality of
38 proposed project; Mr. Aguilar is a quality developer — working on a win/win situation;
39 developer agreed to supply (City) water to properties adjacent (with contaminated wells);
40 wants to see small passive park, maybe dog park.
41
42 Ray Petersen — 636 Gossage Ave. — The area between Gossage/Magnolia/Petaluma
43 Blvd. South should be subject to a Specific Plan; City policy in water and flood control
44 would be changed if this project is approved as proposed; Jesse Lane Creek has a
45 tremendous amount of water flow; opines that since General Plan designation for this
46 property is public park, allowing this development would be giving public lands to
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1 developer; a replacement area needs to be found if this is given away; Gossage is narrow
2 country street, speeding is prevalent now — traffic is so bad that it is part of "Call CHP" to
3 report speeders license plate numbers; putting City Limits in center of public street is
4 really not a good idea.
5
6 John' Fitzgerald — 1010 Lakeville Street — Past Parks and Recreation Commissioner —
7 developer has done a very good job answering early Parks and Recreation Commission
8 questions. Supports proposal.
9
10 Rick Ramstead — 955 Gossage — General Plan calls for diminished density as
11 development goes toward Urban Growth Boundary - would be lost if this project goes
12 forward — density inappropriate; chicken ranch is part of country atmosphere.
13
14 Mark Atkinson — 757 Elm - Magnolia Park is County land, if annexed General Plan
15 states this should be parkland; greatest value is as a park, educational value to City;
16 traffic concerns; this land needs to be a park; City could generate revenue by citing
17 speeders in this area; Petaluma doesn't need more housing in this area — counter to what
18 Council has said.
19
20 John Mills — 1315 D Street — also owns house on Keokuk (3 blocks from this property) —
21 past Parks and Recreation Commissioner — park land proposed has grown and number of
22 houses has gotten smaller compared to previous proposals for this site; we do need more
23 parks but we need to look at reality; parks money is collected only through housing
24 development — we do not have money to purchase and develop now; look to other ways
25 to obtain parkland — developer is now willing to design, develop park and maintain it —
26 we need to use these public /private partnerships to get parklands that we need; slope is
27 too great to allow for a disabled path without much greater expense than Mr. Phillips is
28 projecting; Proposition 40 money is non - existent for City of Petaluma — too late to write
29 grants; Sonoma County Land Trust probably won't even fund McNear Island which is a
30 very viable project; realizes there are trade -offs — this developer is proposing a win/win
31 situation.
32
33 Dr. Guy Gillian — Involved in this since eucalyptus trees were cut four years ago; thanks
34 everyone for being so polite; proposed project is unacceptable; this is not a win/win
35 situation for anyone; Magnolia Park Committee should be given 2 years to come up with
36 the money; pedestrians, bicycles, are already in danger on these roads.
37
38 Judy Reynolds — 210 Paula Lane — Representing 60 families in the area - Paula Lane
39 Action Network — traffic concerns, more traffic would be generated onto Paula Lane —
40 very much against this project; (to Mike O'Brien) — regarding literature put out during
41 election — he stated he was in support of protecting neighborhood character and
42 supporting the General Plan.
43
44 Arisha Wenneson - 1189 Gossage — Housing shortage in Petaluma — this is in -fill
45 project within the Urban Growth Boundary — appropriate for housing; this should be built
46 for the greater good of the community.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1 Stan Gold = 615 King Road - Quality of life — whose quality of life is paramount — out of
2 town developers or existing citizens of Petaluma? Parks and Recreation Commission
3 voted 5 to 1 against this project; follow the General Plan designation and keep this as a
4 park for the future; City's financial state is not pertinent — they are not making land
5 anymore; only land already having a designation on General Plan — where will you
6 substitute?
7
8 Pat Sensency — 934 Samuel Drive — What is the compelling reason to include this in the
9 City Limits? Houses will be prohibitively expensive; views will be toward existing
10 houses; how much unimproved open space will there be?
11
12 Geoff Cartwright — 56 Rocca Drive — Attended Water Agency meeting — housing
13 developments in planning stages throughout Sonoma County will exceed water available
14 now — Water Agency is already asking for a 15% reduction in water usage; regarding
15 flooding problems already in Petaluma — submitted many documents regarding existing
16 flood conditions; present General Plan has not completed water element — cumulative
17 effects not yet known; proposed Factory Outlet expansion, Redwood Technology Center
18 both in flood areas; this project would be at a cost City cannot afford.
19
20 Meg Locati — 1351 Mountian View — Regarding City Limit line in middle of street —
21 insurance /liability problems.
22
23 John Briscoe — (Applicant's Attorney) - 111 Sutter Street, San Francisco — five items to
24 act on — tonight's discussion has gone far toward narrowing the issues; extensive
25 staff /peer review — well done; land use entitlements are the hard issues — question is
26 whether land classification should be changed (62% park) project approved.
27
28 Chair Glass — This is not about anyone's integrity, it is totally a land use issue; staff
29 report is most comprehensive that has been presented in last four years on Planning
30 Commission.
31
32 Public Hearing closed.
33
34 Commissioner Vouri — (to Jim Carr) - is City benefactor to any trusts, etc.?
35
36 Jim Carr — Yes, Prince Park ($3 Million).
37
38 Commission discussion regarding General Plan aspect of proposal.
39
40 Commissioner Monteschio — Applicant's proposal was very easy to follow, good
41 proposal, but still thinks a park is needed; doesn't have problem with Gossage side being
42 developed; amount of park land needs to be developed; Magnolia Committee not asking
43 for money, just time, should give them that.
44
45 Commissioner Vouri — Thanked Mr. Aguilar and project team, very professional
46 project; thanked community for their participation; as elected officials, take issue with
N
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1 annexing land already designated in General Plan as park; we would be giving a gift of
2 enabling developer to develop land — park area is of low value to developer; if we do not
3 annex any of this property, the open space undeveloped land is like a bank account — this
4 land needs to be kept "in the bank" to be able to develop at a later date — current deficit of
5 park land already exists; regarding statements that there is no money to purchase park
6 property is not accurate — this project would not ease our housing shortage ($500,000
7 homes!); chicken ranch was there before existing homes; developer does not have right to
8 extend City water and sewer to existing surrounding properties; the citizens of Petaluma
9 have spoken tonight — cannot consider annexing this land.
10
11 Commissioner O'Brien — There is only one elected official here tonight — Mr.. Vouri
12 misspoke.
13
14 Chair :Glass — Homes need to be on a different parcel; were there grave sites on this
15 property at some time? Is that why it appears as a park on current General Plan? report
16 states high possibility of finding human remains on this property; cannot make a General
17 Plan Amendment finding; in terms of financing — this is political — Petaluma is short on
18 receiving Open Space District money — with political pressure, we should be able to
19 come up with money to save this property — confident that community could point that
20 out to Supervisors if given time; General Plan promised that this area would be Open
21 Space; this property should be a park; (read from McCutchen Report) — this space must
22 be preserved — Petaluma needs a park.
23
24 Commissioner vonRaesfeld — This is a GP issue; Planning Commission is the keeper of
25 the General Plan; this parcel was designated as public park very clearly in General Plan —
26 no choice but to support the General Plan — cannot support this project.
27
28 Commissioner Barrett — Sat through two SPARC meetings, agrees applicant tried to
29 mitigate effect of development; does not believe this is the right place for this project,
30 does not support a General Plan Amendment; should look at a western area Specific Plan
31 (put on agenda for a future Planning Commission meeting) for cumulative effects
32 (drainage, traffic, etc.)
33
34 Commissioner O'Brien — Excellent project, reserves comments since project will be
35 going to City Council. Wants to check on some legal issues.
36
37 Discussion closed on General Plan Amendment.
38
39 .Motion Commissioner Vouri/Second Commissioner Barrett to recommend denial of
40 Mitigated Negative Declaration on the basis that the project is not supported by the
41 General Plan.
42
43 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
44 Commissioner Dargie: Absent
45 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
46 Commissioner O'Brien: Abstain
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 2002
1 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
2 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
3 Chair Glass: Yes
4
5 GP Amendment
6
7 Motion Commissioner Barrett /Second Commissioner Vouri to recommend denial of a
8 General Plan Amendment based on lack of consistency with General Plan — Bicycle
9 Committee and Parks Commission twice voted against; the General Plan identified this
10 parcel as special park — a "treasure" in the City, no compelling need for development,
11 possible to conserve this land.
12
13 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
14 Commissioner Dargie: Absent
15 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
16 Commissioner O'Brien: Abstain
17 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
18 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
19 Chair Glass: Yes
20
21 PUD Prezoning, PUD Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
22
23 Motion Commissioner Vouri/Second Commissioner Barrett to recommend denial of
24 the PUD Prezoning, PUD Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
25 based on the previous recommendation to deny a General Plan Amendment.
26
27 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
28 Commissioner Dargie: Absent
29 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
30 Commissioner O'Brien: Abstain
31 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
32 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
33 Chair Glass: Yes
34
35
36 III.. LIAISON REPORTS:
37
38 o SPARC — Basin Street — requested several changes to proposed downtown
39 project — SPARC requested more information from applicant/staff
40 to future meeting.
41 • Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee — no report
42 • Tree Advisory Committee — 3 rd year in a row Petaluma nominated to
43 Tree City USA
44
45
46
10