HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05/14/2002Planning Commission Minutes - May.14, 2002
1 1
2 Planing Commission Minutes
3 May 14, 2002 - 7 :00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Dargie, Glass, O'Brien, von Raesfeld, Vouri
6 Absent: von Raesfeld
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff. Michael Moore, Community Development Director
to Jane Thomson, Code Enforcement Officer
11 Jayni Allsep, Project Planner
12 Anne Windsor, Secretary
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31.
32
33
34
35
36
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 23, 2002 will be presented at the meeting of May
28, 2002.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ken Burman H Street. Re PUD Sonoma Glen. Met with
planner to use guidelines for the project. Recently had a project denied re: PUD
guidelines. Only a resolution for Final Map and no guidelines for 1 or 2 stories. Asked
to review PUD map, resolution and final map.
Mike Moore indicated that Mr. Berman could file a formal appeal of the Community
Development determination.
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive: Article 16 — read from the article regarding
development in the flood plain.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: CORRESPONDENCE:.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
1 I. NESSCO, INC., APPEAL, 110 Baylis Street.
2 AP No's 005- 122 -003 and 007 - 122 -004.
3 File No's CUP01011, APLO1002
4 Project Planner: Jane Thomson
5
6 Appeal by the applicant of four conditions of the Conditional Use Permit issued to
7 Nessco, Inc., on November 8, 2001 relating to duration of permit (5 years),
8 required installation of fencing and landscaping, required striping of a bike lane,
9 and required installation of a bench.
10
11 Continued from the Planning Commission meetings of January 22 and March 26,
12 2002.
13
14 Jane Thomson presented the staff report. Noted that the Commission at their March 26,
15 2002 meeting request staff research the property to ascertain whether Nessco was a
16 continuation of a pre- existing non - conforming use nor requiring a new conditional use
17 permit, and the speak the city attorney regarding same.
18
19 Commissioner Glass: Would like to see a condition on this CUP that the City can recoup
20 business license tax for a second address if they were operating from two locations.
21
22 Iry Piotrkowski, Have always had a business license and paid in full. Regarding
23 continuance — did not receive staff report until Thursday and did not have time to look at
24 it until Monday to respond and to research assertions made in the staff report. Explained
25 that they were asking for the continuance to a date after August 2, 2002, since Mrs.
26 Nessinger takes the bar exam that date, and will only have after that to do the research.
27 Therefore the continuance represents a considerable cost savings to the applicant.
28 Regarding the merits of the case — found nothing in Bike Plan requiring private property
29 dedication for public use. Stated that Section 59909 of the government code does not
30 allow cities require dedication of private property for public use. Cities cannot override
31 state law or the constitution. The striping of the road and the requirement to install a
32 bench constitutes a taking. Asked that the conditions be removed. Responded to
33 Commissioner O'Brien's question that the Nessinger's were lessees and not the owners
34 of the property.
35
36 Commissioner O'Brien: Asked that this go back to the City attorney re: the use permit
37 and vacating the property, private property rights.
38
39 Jane Thomson: Regarding the five -year condition — this condition with the suggested
40 amendment by staff requires vacation of the open storage area only, not the vacation of
41 the property by the business. The fencing and landscaping condition is one that is
42 required of every applicant. Regarding the bike lane, it is just striping on the street.
43
44 Commissioner O'Brien: Stated that the property owner may not agree to move the fence
45 and do the landscaping. Would like to see this item continued for the City Attorney's
46 opinion on the bench, fence and the possible liability.
47
2
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
1 Commissioner Barrett: Was continued to a date certain — do not know why the applicant
2 was not prepared. Feel applicant is trying to intimidate the process.
3
4 M/S Barrett/Vouri to uphold staff's decision. Vouri seconded for discussion.
5
6 Commissioner Vouri: In this case can we stipulate the public use of a bench on this
7 property?
8
9 Mike Moore: Commission has the discretion to decide if the conditions are appropriate.
10 In exchange for the Condition Use Permit, the commission is agreeing to the conditions
11 of approval. Clarified that the setback is for landscaping and beautification, not
12 dedication.
13
14 Commissioner Vouri: Can the public be allowed on the bench? It is in the best interest to
15 seek legal advice.
16
17 Commissioner O'Brien: This applicant is the tenant of the property and not the property
18 owner. The City Attorney should be asked if the tenants could assume liability.
19
20 Commissioner Dargie: We are looking for a legal opinion here so why not avoid doing
21 that twice and continue the item.
22
23 Commissioner Vouri: Recalled his motion.
24
25 Commissioner Barrett: Wanted to resolve the issue; asserted that the item would end up
26 at the city council regardless.
27
28 Commissioner O'Brien: Directed staff to obtain a written opinion from the City Attorney
29 that answered the following questions:
30 1. Does the Planning Commission have the right to impose conditions on an existing
31 business?
32 2. Does the Planning Commission have the right to specify that a business must vacate a
33 property in a specified amount of time?
34 3. What is the liability of opening up private property for public use? Is this a taking?
35 4. Can a tenant comply and not the landowner? What happens if the landowner refuses
36 to the tenant to comply?
37
38 M/S O'Brien/Dargie continue to May 28, 2002
39
40 All in favor:
41 Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
42 Commissioner Dargie: Yes
43 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Absent
44 Commissioner Glass: Yes
45 Commissioner Barrett: No
46 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
47
3
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
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
47
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
II. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA00001)
AND REZONING (REZ00001); LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY AND NORTH
MCDOWELL BOULEVARD;, AP NO'S 007-411-007,009, 011 AND 019.
Planning Commission recommendation to City Council regarding:
1. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
2. Request to amend the General plan land Use Designation from Special
Commercial to Special Industrial /Office Park
3. Request to rezone the subject property from highway Commercial (CH)
District and Light Industrial (ML) District to Planned Unit District (PUD)
including a Unit Development Plan.
Jayni Allsep presented the staff report.
Commissioner Dargie: Asked for clarification of Table 3 on pg. 94 of Volume 1.
Steve Weinberger: Clarified numbers for the Commission. The higher the speed,
the better the LOS.
Commissioner Glass: Asked what mitigation measures would be vulnerable?
Previously asked about financial information regarding the mitigations.
Jayni Allsep: Referred to Mitigation CIR -3 on pg. 121, volume 1 — Old Redwood
Highway is a regional facility so the ability to collect fees from this applicant is not
feasible. The other mitigations are primarily related to the specific projects on
each parcel.
Vin Smith: Referred to pg. 120, line 1, CIR -1 referring to Table 7 on pg. 125 and
CIR -2 on pg. 121, referring to Table 7, gives the breakdown of percentages.
Capital Improvements has #1 from table 7 on it. The overpass is the biggest ticket
item.
Commissioner Vouri: Asked how the cumulative impacts are affected for the
specific intersections at Penngrove, 101 and?
Steve Weinberger: Addressed each specific intersection and the mitigations.
Vin Smith: Complemented staff and Design, Community and Environment for
collating and analyzing all the information. Reiterated that Basin Street is
committed to working with Mr. Savel and his committee. Concern with language
4
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
1 in the EIR and the fair share contributions. Believe Table 7 overstates the
2 calculations of what our share should be — would like that to be reevaluated.
3 Support the recommendation from staff.
4
5 Public comment opened:
6
7 !Richard Braun, 141 Grevillia: Process is not producing results that I would like to
8 see as a citizen. There is a conflict of rights of property owners and rights of
9 ;neighbors. Looking for balance — there is a serious problem with a lack of
10 standards. No one is benefiting according to the 1984 General Plan. Where are
11 ;objective standards to knowing what is acceptable? Identify City policies and then
12 ..measure standards. Reported outright errors in the EIR, for example, Denman
13 Flats only being west of Hwy. 101. States that the project does not have
14 significant impact on the police and fire services. Mitigation is a series of
15 promises and no one is being held accountable. This way of doing business does
16 not serve either the developer or the citizens of Petaluma. Hope the commission
17 will not recommend the FEIR go forward and wait until the new General Plan and
18 there are standards.
IM
20 (Pat McShane, 34 Myrtle Court: Represent myself and those who live the in the
21 (flood plain area. I am fighting for the area in which I live and that we do not flood
22 ; again. Why are we building in the flood plain and where there are traffic
23 iproblems — presently there is a vacancy rate in Petaluma for this type of
24 !development — why do this now? Hope you will keep those of us in the Payran
25 area in mind.
26
27 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainer Avenue: Disappointed in the whole process. Wish
28 there was a public forum to discuss the project with Mr. White. This project will
29 iaffect all of us. Would like to know how this project is the publics' interest? Want
30 to know how the Community Development Department will be able to monitor the
31 proposed mitigations. Addressed the mixed -use issue.
32
33 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive: The question of flooding and traffic are ridiculous.
34 Passed out some pictures to the Commission regarding the pipe referred to by Mr.
35 Smith at Corona Road, which would handle the water from the project site.
36 Suggested stopping here.
37
38 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive: Parcel C has its own EIR — has conditions
39 which are not identified in the EIR. Penngrove traffic is being increased which is a
40 cumulative impact. Read earlier from Article 16 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
41 The applicant says they will flood their project — who else will they flood? Think
42 the EIR is inadequate. There are unfeasible mitigation proposals — referred to
43 Rockridge, Traditions, Petaluma Factory Outlet Expansion — these will all have
44 cumulative impacts. Read his letter passed out at places to the Commissioners.
45 Asked that the FEIR not be certified at this time.
46
5
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
1 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South: Bike committee made 5
2 comments and 4 were responded to. Intersections at Old Redwood Highway and
3 North McDowell. Continent not responded to concerning pedestrian friendliness —
4 the comment was on the merits of the ;project and not the FEIR so it was not
5 addressed. Would like to see mixed -use here to alleviate traffic and address some
6 housing needs.
7
8 Public comment closed.
9
10 Bill White, Basin Street Properties: Regarding mixed -use — we are in favor of this
11 type of development, however, this is not a viable option for this area since it is in
12 a flood plain area. We are proposing a two -story garage to mitigate some flooding
13 and flood storage. Regarding traffic — we will be making a fair share contribution
14 and approximately $750,000 in traffic mitigation fees. Have paid over 2 million in
15 traffic fees which was stated to be for the Old Redwood Highway overpass and
16 that not has happened.
17
18 Hydrology Issues:
19
20 Betty Andrews, PWA: Addressed some of the hydrology issues brought up during
21 the public comment. The 84 -inch pipe brought up by Mr. Cheney was factored
22 into the analysis. The 36 -inch pipe is at Industrial Boulevard. The assertion here
23 is that the 84 -inch culvert extends all the way to the river, and this is the first that 1
24 have heard of this. If there is an 84 -inch culvert that flows to the river, it would be
25 prudent to put this information into our modeling.
26
27 Commissioner O'Brien: Asked for clarification regarding the water flowing from
28 the site referred to on Pg. 3 and 4 of the staff report.
29
30 Betty Andrews: The project itself has very little runoff and is allowing existing
31 over bank flow conditions to exist.
32
33 Commissioner Barrett: Asked about the cumulative affect of other projects such as
34 Rockridge and Traditions, which was brought up during the public comments.
35
36 Bill White, Basin Street Project: At the point that water goes off the site there is a
37 backup at Corona road whether this is a 84 or a 36 inch pipe.
38
39 Betty Andrews: Do not believe these were factored into the model. Do not think a
40 project near Marin Creek would affect this project, however it was not looked at
41 for this EIR.
42
43 Commissioner Glass: Brought up the idea of telecommuting as part of a traffic
44 mitigation program.
45
46 Commissioner Barrett: Asked -how 1,300 daily trips would be reduced that is
47 proposed in the Mitigation Measure AIR -2c.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
1
2 Bill White: Trips would be reduced by telecommuting, 4 -day workweeks or
3 elimination of some square footage if that is necessary to reduce the trips to 1,300.
4
5 Jayni Allsep: Asked the Commission when they make their recommendation to
6 reexamine the 36 inch or 84 inch pipe.
7
8 Comments from the Commission:
9
to Commissioner O'Brien: Find it adequate at this time.
11
12 Commissioner Dargie: Find the document adequate — would like the hydrologist
13 to look at the culvert and the pipe identified. How can we as a Commission be
14 assured that these mitigation measures would be put into place.
15
16 Commissioner Barrett: Have some problems with traffic — CEQA requires that the
17 mitigations are carried out for specific purposes — do not think we can move
18 forward with this because it is irresponsible and against the public good. The EIR
19 is based on a General Plan amendment that would cost sales tax dollars that we
20 cannot afford at this time. Do not think this is in the interest of the city and the
21 public. Have problems with a private party being responsible for flood evacuation
22 — no monitoring of this affect. The responsible person will not be there 24- hours.'
23 Have difficulty with infrastructure and community issues. Hydro 3 -b — does this
24 only need to be done once. Do not think the monitoring is adequate for this EIR.
25 Air 2a — think it should be more aggressive than that to meet and beat the air
26 quality issues. Air 2c — do not think that is sufficient or the monitoring is
27 sufficient as well. Referred to pg. 137 regarding the impact of the water supply.
28
29 Commissioner Vouri: Regarding the adequacy of the EIR I have a few comments.
30 CIR -1 — the fair share impacts are large capital improvements are well beyond the
31 scope of a single applicant, however, CIR -lb and lc are pretty standard for any
32 project — do not know why they are only paying fair share — applicant should be
33 paying for both of these since they are adjacent to the project. CIR -la — can see
34 how other applicants would be involved in those. Table 6a on pg. 112 — this
35 mitigation is 100% on this project — I do not find CIR lb and c adequate. The
36 flood modeling needs to be redone on what is actually out there and why the
37 conflict. The housing chapter of this document says 'there may be need for 1,000
38 additional residences — do not agree that 500 houses permitted is adequate.
39 Alternative D in the EIR does begin to deliver on the changes that I think are
40 necessary and is the most environmentally friendly — happens to be the same page
41 that refers to mixed -use not being considered because parcels have different
42 owners. Believe that mixed -use is a viable option here, particularly on the third
43 floor where flooding would not be an issue.
44
45 Commissioner Glass: Questioning why the buildings had to be 7 feet above grade
46 for the pedestrian friendly scenario. Do not see how this is pedestrian friendly.
47
7
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 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
47
Josh , DC &E: Referred to page 258 — the buildings could be raised by having
parking underneath the buildings.
Commissioner Glass: Could find this adequate with some addendums. Want a
financial analysis for the fair share of traffic mitigation.
Jayni Allsep: Clarified how the mitigations and concerns of the Commission will
go forward as project conditions of approval rather than in the EIR.
Commissioner Glass: How do we made these mitigations happen up front?
Mike Moore: Clarified what the adequacy issue is regarding the EIR.
Commissioner Vouri: Asked if the Commission had authority to make mitigations
to the EIR or just as conditions of approval to the project.
Glass: Would like to entertain a motion that addressed the hydrology, childcare
services and traffic issues bought up by Mr. Vouri.
M/S Dargie /O'Brien to certify EIR with the stipulation that there will be a new
field study to determine the adequacy of the hydrology model.
All in favor:
O'Brien: Yes
Dargie:
Yes
Von Raesfled:
Absent
Glass:
Yes
Barrett:
No
Vouri:
No
General Plan Amendment
Commissioner Glass: Pg. 69 — am in favor of the General Plan amendment because it
would not compete with downtown.
Commissioner Vouri: No comment. Would be voting no on the General Plan
amendment.
Commissioner Barrett: Passed out an article from the Press Democrat on May 8, 2002 —
quoting the article do not believe commercial use should be considered here. Do not
think this amendment would be a benefit to the City.
Commissioner Dargie: No comment.
Commissioner O'Brien: No comment.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002
1 M/S O'Brien/Dargie to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation.
2
3 3/2 vote — Barrett /Vouri- no
4
5 Rezoning
6
7 Commissioner Barrett: Referred to page 6 of the staff report.
8
9 Commissioner Vouri: Mitigations — circulations lb and c at time of project
10 implementation. Pedestrian friendly alternative is used
11 j
12 Cons 1 nsus of committee to agree with CIR -lb and c with a reimbursement agreement.
13
14 Dargie and O'Brien do not agree with the pedestrian friendly alternative. Glass agreed
15 with pedestrian friendly alternative as did Commissioner Barrett.
16
17 3/2 vote majority for the pedestrian friendly alternative.
18
19 Commissioner Barrett: Wants on -site daycare. This was the consensus of the committee.
20 Want clear a condition of approval that water going into the Petaluma river is filtered and
21 that it be monitored.
22
23 Dargie: Fix maximum height of the buildings to be consistent with buildings nearby —
24 55'.
25
26 Commissioner Barrett: Eliminate jail facilities.
27
28 Consensus on 55'.
i
29
30 Commissioner Glass: Wanted to put on the record regarding funding sources and
31 bonding capabilities to widen the Old Redwood Highway overpass.
32
33 All commissioners support the above.
34
35 M/S Vouri/O'Brien to support the rezoning.
36 4/1 _ Barrett — no
37
38
39 V. LIAISON REPORTS:
40
41 ® City Council:
42 ® SPARC:
43 ® Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee
44 ® Tree Advisory Committee
45
46 Adjournment: 12:15 p.m.
47
W