HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06/11/2002Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 2002
P , L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
y `� City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail elanningna ci.petaluma.cams
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
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
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2002 - 7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Dargie, Glass, McAllister, von Raesfeld, Vouri,
Absent: O'Brien
* Chair
Staff: Mike Moore, Community Development Director
I Joan Lamphier, Project Planner
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 28, 2002 tabled until clarification of
language regarding the Nessco Appeal.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
DIRE'CTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None
CORRESPONDENCE:
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
I. ELECTION OF 2 " VICE CHAIR.
M/S Commissioner Vouri/Commissioner Barrett to nominate Commissioner
von Raesfeld as 2nd Vice Chair.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
Commissioner Dargie: Yes
Commissioner McAllister: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 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
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Abstain
OLD BUSINESS;
PUBLIC HEARING:
II. PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE EXPANSION (Factory Outlet
Center), 2200 Petaluma Boulevard North.
AP Nos: 007 - 391 -009; 048 - 080 -038
FILE No: PR.E02001
Project Planner: Joan Lamphier
Note: This item was continued from the April 23, 2002 meeting.
Joan Lamphier, Project Planner: Reviewed the memo to the Commission indicating the
applicant's intention to revise the project and that a new draft subsequent Environment
Impact Report would be prepared.
Commission Comments:
Commissioner Dargie: Planning Commission should not play a role in directing project;
applicant should be allowed to proceed with new document without Commission
guidance at this point.
Commissioner Barrett: Wants to make sure that there is additional information available
before new project is reviewed.
Commissioner Vouri: Each Commissioner had a list of issues on the previous EIR;
would be inefficient not to comment.
Commissioner Glass: Is a matter of personal preference to contribute; will leave it open
to comment.
Commissioner Vouri: Regarding the Notice of Preparation — scope will not be
reopened?
Joan Lamphier: Public can comment during 30 -day NOP circulation and comment
period.
Commissioner Barrett: Requested record of previous approval of the factory outlet
center to Planning Commission as soon as possible.
Commissioner Dargie: Will Commission get list of conditions of approval and status of
meeting those conditions?
2
Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 2002
1 Mike Moore: Commission will get copies of previous EIR, approved PCD Master Plan
2 and status of compliance with conditions, as well as other related information as soon as
3 possible.
4
5 Public Hearing opened:
6
7 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive: Evaluation of groundwater resources report — site is
8 in water recharge area; quoted from SCWA urban water management plan; concerned
9 about assumptions for water supply; expressed concerns about theatre in floodplain;
10 referred to Corps of Engineers flood study; quoted from City floodplain regulations;
11 referred to recent supreme court decision on Lake Tahoe.
12
13 Elaine Woodruff, 717 N. McDowell: Opposes outlet expansion; concerned about
14 impact to downtown; area should be a park.
15 I
16 Pat McShane, 37 Myrtle Court: Opposed to project; area will cause flooding; applicants
17 have; not complied with previous mitigations; no downtown shuttle; need verifiable
18 project mitigation.
19
20 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive: Theatre is smokescreen; cars would flood while people
21 are watching movies; flood control for general plan needs to be in place before project
22 should proceed; cumulative impacts on flooding need to be addressed.
23
24 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Blvd So: Comments on NOP — language needs to
25 change — "abandon fields" is prejudiced; new language should be substituted; disagrees
26 with recreation not covered ins SEIR; PBAC requests that "all park" alternative in SEIR;
27 how well have 1990 mitigations been successful — need that information; theatre is
28 smokescreen — news articles need to focus on entire project, not just theatre.
29
30 Bill Phillips, 1804 Blossom Court: Redwood Technology Center, Southgate and this
31 project will create flood of traffic on Petaluma Boulevard; Cobblestone project near.
32 Jesse Lane will also add to traffic.
33
34 David Keller, I Street: NOP — review checklist — it is wrong; new checklist has to be
35 sent out with NOR Issues: visual impacts; conversion of prime farmland to non-
36 agricultural use; Coho and steelhead in this reach of river; river plan; water supplies;
37 drainage — parking lot runoff not mitigated; conflict with habitat plan; no recreation
38 consideration; traffic; water supply. NOP doesn't meet legal standards for notification;
39 theatre is sop to the community; current theatre shouldn't be torn down; project will
40 impact downtown. Made reference to legal evidence and written materials presented.
41
42 Stan Gold, 615 King Road: Escaped Silicon Valley; same process is happening here —
43 do we want strong central core or "string" along freeway; City needs strong downtown
44 core.
45
46 Hank Flum: Parcel C was underwater in 1998; how do you mitigate flooding on parcel
47 that was underwater; lacks confidence that these issues can be mitigated.
Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 2002
1
2 Maxine Durney, 198 Ely Road: Make sure endangered plants are viewed during spring;
3 couldn't tell if species were there.
4
5 Public Comment closed @ 8:10:
6
7 Five minute recess.
8
9 Reconvened @ 8:15.
10
11 Commissioner Barrett: Have problem with NOP; no new initial study; determination of
12 significance based on previous EIR; need to reassess based on new project.
13
14 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Are we comfortable with de facto scoping session; not
15 sure I want to go line by line on initial study.
16
17 Commissioner Glass: Are we falling short on getting word out to public.
18
19 Mike Moore: Explained NOP process.
20
21 Commissioner von Raesfled: No action required tonight?
22
23 Mike Moore: No action is required; information only.
24
25 David Keller: Need to send new checklist; checking "maybe' is dishonest; outside
26 agencies need that information
27
28 Fred Etzel, Attorney for the Applicant: NOP was not dishonest; decision ws made to
29 prepare EIR; you will get 1991 EIR plus new DSEIR; whole purpose of Initial Study is
30 to determine whether EIR is necessary.
31
32 Commissioner Barrett: Wants mitigation monitoring reports from existing project;
33 wants to make sure that new projects are included in cumulative impacts.
34
35 Commissioner Vouri: Would recommend that new DSEIR include agriculture
36 resources, cultural resources, geology and sols, population and housing; need to look at
37 population and housing impacts; Sonoma County PRMD recommended housing
38 component; no maps of wetlands and detention ponds — needs to be in DSEIR.
39 Wetlands survey in June or July — should be done earlier in year; pictures contradict
40 conclusions of DSEIR re: wetlands; land use policies tend to be selected that support
41 project, nneed to be more broadly reviewed; concerned about road through oak
42 woodland; no modeling on feasibility of detention basin; consider water quality
43 concerns. Traffic: Corona/Adobe, Adob.e/Frates, Penngrove, Hwy 10.1 need to be
44 reviewed; incorporate comments from Caltrans; no mass transit considerations — trolley,
45 SMART; need to review frontage road (access to Corona); mitigation measure on air
46 quality needs to be reworked to consider travel to and from project; water supply issue
4
Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 2002
1 not addressed; traffic mitigations that are economically infeasible (Rainier) should not
2 be listed.
3
4 Commissioner Glass: Previous SEIR is not whole truth; need to build trust by having a
5 document of high quality and full disclosure; use category of "significant until
6 mitigated "; document should not refer to Rainier because it is not viable; mitigation
7 5.1.2 re: cross -town connector — no financing mechanism; DSEIR paints a different
8 picture in pieces than in conclusion; ludicrous that you could bring people into town and
9 not impact recreation; there is a housing impact; need to indicate that previous DSEIR
10 had problems — new NOP does not clearly indicate problems with previous DSEIR, does
11 this project degrade the Corps flood control project; what happens with theater in this
12 location verses downtown — economic analysis not suitable for CEQA.
13
14 Commissioner von Raesfeld: New checklist should be done, however, should attach old
15 checklist; agriculture resources should be looked at; should look at population and
16 housing and recreation; graphics should be better — more context; portion of channel is
17 zoned M -L; need to show property lines; aesthetic analysis needs to be more complete.
18
19 Commissioner McAllister: Cover as many categories as possible in new DSEIR;
20 graphics need to provide more context; need clear mapping of all trees and wetlands; can
21 new proposal be staked on site (e.g. story poles); would like to see more alternatives in
22 DSEIR — no project alternative needs to be considered in current context; wants
23 assessment of monitoring reports and current status of wetlands.
24
25 Commissioner Dargie: No comment.
26
27 Commissioner Barrett: A recreation alternative should be looked at; CPSP should be
28 addressed in new DSEIR if germain, also new traffic model.
29
30 Matt Connolly: Thanks the commission for comments — look forward to coming back.
31
32
33 III. LIAISON REPORTS:
34
35 ® City Council — Commissioner Vouri spoke re: council review of
36 Redwood Technology Center.
37 o SPARC
38 m Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee
39 ® Tree Advisory Committee
40
41
42 VI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. None
43
44 Adjournment: 9:33 p.m.
45
46 SAPC- Planning CommissionWinutes \061102.doc
47
5