HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/25/2003Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
p,. L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
'City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
8 5 $ E -Mail plannin!l((
Web Page htt7i: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 March 25, 2003 - 7:00 Pull
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Irmn
6 Recused: Healy, McAllister, von Raesfeld
7
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: Mike Moore, Community Development Director
11 George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
12 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
13
14
15 ROLL CALL:
16 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 11, 2003 were approved as amended.
18 M /S Dargie /Asselmeier, 4 -0.
19 PUBLIC COMMENT: None
20 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
21 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Chair Barrett and Commissioner McAllister attended
22 the 2003 Planners Institute Conference.
23 CORRESPONDENCE: None
24 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
25 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
26
27
28 Public hearing began: @ 7:00
29
30 NEW BUSINESS;
31 PUBLIC HEARING:
32
33 1. DRAFT CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT
34 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR).
35 A. Review, comment and recommendation to City Council on DEIR.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
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
B. Review, comment and recommendation to City Council on Draft Central
Petaluma Specific Plan.
Mike Moore, Community Development Director: Asked the Commission to review,
comment and make recommendations on the DEIR and the Central Petaluma Specific
Plan.
John Wagstaff, Wagstaff & Associates: Presented the DEIR for the Central Petaluma
Specific Plan.
Chair Barrett: Have specific mitigations highlighted for Cultural Historical resources and
for Transportation'impacts which are considered significant and unavoidable, do not have
for air quality.
John Wagstaff: Highlighted the above because they are a specific concern. For air
quality we do identify significant local and regional impacts related mostly to traffic —
traffic mitigations would reduce air quality locally, however, regionally it will trigger
threshold of significance.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for explanation of development scenario related to the
proposed 25% cap and how it relates and why there is an additional column for
development potential.
John Wagstaff. Mixed use designations provides for maxmum future flexibility to
encourage mixed use, smart growth applications. If the entire envelope is built out, it
would exceed your objectives. So, as a result, a cap is formulated — 25% on residential.
and 25% on commercial. The EIR addresses the implications of those caps.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Did the 25% cap come from the Advisory committee?
Mike Moore: Yes.
Commissioner Asselmeier: If a historic building is. proposed to be demolished, would
additional EIR be done?
John Wagstaff. Any demolition of a historic resource, is a significant impact and
requires preparation of an EIR. The EIR may not prevent demolition, it will identify why
it is historic, what the value is and will suggest alternatives to demolition.
Commissioner Asselmeier: That would then apply to the 66 potential resources and
anything that is already deemed historically significant? What is the body of other
resources that remain and do not fit the definition of potentially historical.
John Wagstaff: It used to be quite substantial in downtown Petaluma. When the EIR
was done for the redevelopment plan, it was obvious that there were buildings that had
not been listed officially. As a result, the study was done by Carey & Co. and now you
2
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
1 have a thorough listing and a recommended extension of the historic district. That is the
2 principal basis.
3
4 Commissioner Dargie: If an EIR is tiered on this one regarding a historic building, why
5 would this EIR not suffice.
6
7 John Wagstaff: If a building is being demolished, this will not suffice because that
8 particular action is a significant impact under CEQA. If we knew now all of the specific
9 sites that might be demolished and identify them in this EIR and address the
10 environmental implications of that then this EIR would cover it. Described in Mitigation
11 7.2.
12
13 Conunissioner Asselmeier: Can you address how the role of SPARC might be changing
14 based on the adoption of the Specific Plan and the SMART code, and how it may or
15 won't change based on the new process we will be embarking on.
16
17 'Mike Moore: Would like the Commission to focus on the EIR first and then come back
18 to the plan.
19
20 Chair Barrett: Appreciate the thoroughness and the alternatives section. Concerns are
21 traffic, historical resources and air quality which seem to be unmitigatible areas. Role
22 of SPARC will be relied on to make sure mitigations are put in place. If SMART code
23 will limit SPARC's purview, need to look at this associated with the EIR.
24
25 Mike Moore: Section 7 of SMART code has a process for identifying historic properties
26 and also provisions for addressing modifications or demolition. The plan is intended to
27 update current zoning regulations. To that extent, SPARC's role will not change,
28 particularly historic SPARC compared to current regulations. If someone came forward
29 to establish a new district or expand an exsiting district that covered a portion of the
30 specific plan area, that would be reviewed by historic SPARC. If there was a proposal to
31 alter or demolish a historic building, that would be also be reviewed by SPARC.
32
33 Chair Barrett: When we talk abut potentially historic resources - who determines what is
34 historic?
35
36 Mike Moore: There are criteria. Part of our normal process now if we have an
37 application that affects a structure that is potentially historic, we do a historic analysis or
38 use a consultant to do the analysis.. If the application is processed administratively, staff
39 would make the determination or it requires review by historic SPARC then historic
40 SPARC would make that determination..
41
42 Chair Barrett: The procedures are already in place and will remain in place even with the
43 SMART code in place.
44
45 Mike Moore: Yes
46
47 Public hearing opened:
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
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
Katherine Rinehart: Have concenis regarding historic resources, particularly about
resources that were not considered historic. Presented inconsistencies in writing.
Jane Hamilton: Co -chair of CPSP Committee. Plan represents many hours of work and
thinking — was a very inclusive process. Concerned about how the Commission's
discussion takes place. Can the CPSP committee contribute to the discussion?
Chair Barrett: If the Commission cannot come to conclusion, will look to the Committee
for assistance.
Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue: Public utilities was not adequately covered, pg. 3-
21, 3.6.6. No cable services in portions of the CPSP — think this is important. Presented
a document re: PUC.
John Wagstaff. Regarding demolition and looking at mitigation language, a demolition
will reside in a statement of overriding consideration — could occur without an EIR.
Chair Barrett: Asked if a historic building could be demolished if there were statements
of overriding considerations.
John Wagstaff: Need to look into this.
Mike Healy, 304 Kentucky: Referred to Table 2 -1, is traffic analysis enforced for the
total specific plan area or each individual sub area?
Matthew Ridgeway: Assumed that mix of uses is consistent with downtown Petaluma
and spread them evenly. The totals are ok for the Specific Plan area, however, how it is
allocated within the specific plan and if the assumptions do not agree with what comes
forward in terms of development proposals, you may need to revisit on a site by site
basis.
Mike Healy: How would the city know if they need to be revisited?
Matthew Ridgeway: The assumptions are laid out clearly and are in the new traffic
model so when a proposal comes forward, we would check it against the assumption that
was made for that site and then make .a determination if the impact would be greater or
lesser.
Chair Barrett: Variations could be within the specific plan, but the implications for
traffic outside the specific plan would be same, and the variations would happen at
different spots within the plan.
Matthew Ridgeway: Yes
Mike Healy: Is a 25% cap proposed to be enforced within each sub area, or is it a 25%
cap overall.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
1
2 Mike Moore: Came up with something for the entire area, could be fluctuations in each
3- sub area.
4
5 Public comment closed:
6
7 Commission discussion:
8
9 Commissioner Imm: General question on mitigations, when and how they get triggered?
10 Who makes determination?
11
12 John Wagstaff: EIR does not specify thresholds of development increments when certain
13 mitigations should be in place. Have taken a cross section at 2020 and indicated what the
14 impact scenario would be then and the EIR describes what mitigations need to be in place
15 by 2020 — do not specify the phasing. Regarding traffic, to implement mitigations, there
16 willi be traffic fees that addresses development as it occurs.
17
18 Commissioner Imm: If in 19 years we are built out within 1% of the plan and still do not
19 have mitigations in place, is that ok?
20
21 John Wagstaff. For traffic there is a fair share mechanism in place.
22
23 Commissioner Imm: The plan would not be halted if the mitigations were not put in?
24
25 John Wagstaff. Have to prepare a mitigation implementation program that will be
26 included in the final EIR.
27
28 Commissioner Imm: So there will be a schedule?
29
30 John Wagstaff: Yes, however, not in the EIR. The schedule is inherent in capital
31 improvements programs.
32
33 Chair Barrett: Are road diets put in as a capital improvement program?
34
35 Mike Moore: Road diet proposal is part of the recommendations of the specific Plan and
36 the EIR traffic analysis looked at one of the scenarios that included the road diet so if
37 plan is adopted with the road diets included, it will be done through a capital
38 improvement program.
39
40 Commissioner Asselmeier: If demolition is not approved and you have lost an important
41 resource, can fines and penalties be enforced as a mitigation measure?
42
43 John Wagstaff: If the Planning Commission wanted to adopt an ordinance regarding
44 prohibiting demolishing historic resources, can be included as a question in the Final
45 EIR.
46
5
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
1 Commissioner Asselmeier: Regarding the Zoning map, section 2 -10 — maximum height
2 on Petaluma Boulevard South would be 3 stories — is this the only maximum heights.
3 Shouldn't we have some maximum heights on the western side of the Petaluma river
4 knowing that it is a goal to protect the view shed. Looking for reassurance — do we really
5 want four stories on the river and does that encourage public access.
6
7 John Wagstaff: EIR assumed potential for maximum build out under existing zoning
8 heights or the SMART code. Did not get into mitigation of building heights — defer to
9 design guidelines in SMART code and SPARC review.
10
11 Chair Barrett: If sentiment of the Commission to restrict height on the west, side of the
12 river, can do after the Final EIR, with the zoning map as it stands.
13
14 John Wagstaff: Yes
15
16 David Keller: Clarified height on Water Street and Poultry Streets.
17
18 Commissioner Asselmeier: Does not seem to be access easements on the western side of
19 the Petaluma_ river between D Street and McNear. Have small green areas designated as
20 civic space. Some mitigation for new building construction will be to allow public
21 access. Can we ask applicants for public access along the fronts of these buildings.
22
23 Mike Moore: Yes, the Specific Plan and River Enhancement plan specifically asks for
24 this.
25
26 Chair Barrett: When discussing architectural guidelines, are these from Wayne Miller.
27
28 Mike Moore: The reference is to provisions in the SMART code, however, as a comment
29 to the EIR we can made reference to the architectural guidelines in Chapter 4 which will
30 be included in the final Plan.
31
32 Commissioner Asselmeier: What happens when we have the new General Plan. Will
33 there be an opportunity to revisit the specific plan, will that come back for this body?
34
35 Mike Moore: You will have that opportunity when. you have the draft General Plan. If
36 _ the specific plan is adopted, the general plan land use map will reflect the land uses
37 adopted by the Specific Plan and will incorporate policies that need to be in that
38 document that are already in the specific plan and if something comes to light, you will
39 have the opportunity to look at that.
40
41 Commissioner Asselmeier: Pg. 1,1 -13, Mitigation I1 -2, some mitigations use shall, back
42 and forth between shall and should. Should they all be using "shall" in all cases unless
43 except unreasonable and infeasible language.
44
45 John Wagstaff If it is changed to shall, under CEQA you are required to do these things
46 and some will have significant financial impacts. Even if you use shall will still have
47 unavoidable air quality. Is intended to be discretionary.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
1
2
3
4 Coriimissioner Barrett: Mitigation 13 -4, concerns about 6 stories where there have been
5 no buildings previously. This is different soil in this area, suggest the language could
6 include, "but are not limited to ".
7
8 Commissioner Asselmeier: Pg. 12 -9, why would there be no increased threat of flooding
9 with significant development on the river?
10
11 John Wagstaff. Does not supercede ordinances in place regarding flooding. CPSP does
12 not permit development that is not compliant with these ordinances.
13
14 John Fitzgerald: Has been covered in great detail.
15
16 David Keller: No flooding impact downstream of the CPSP.
17
18 Commissioner Barrett:. Historic preservation — have concerns particularly regarding the
19 Northwest Information Center.
20
21 John Wagstaff: Want to assure you that they are in the loop.
22
23 Commissioner Barrett: Think there are more than 66 historic properties, would like to
24 point out to SPARC concerns regarding overriding considerations.
25
26 Mike Moore: Can bring this issue to SPARC.
27
28 Commissioner Barrett: Want SPARC to be aware of the discrepancies in the number of
29 historic properties.
30
31 Mike Moore: Will investigate the discrepancy of the numbers. There may be more
32 historic resources identified at some future time.
33
34 Commissioner Asselmeier, Pg. 8 -19: Noting last paragraph — 25 acres of park land that
35 can be developed — is on the eastern side of the river — can smaller areas be created on the
36 west side.
37
38 M/S. Asselmeier /Dargie to recommend final EIR be prepared and recommend that it be
39 certified by the City Council.
40
41 All in favor:
42
43 Commissioner Dargie: Yes
44 Chair Barrett: Yes
45 Commissioner Asselmeier: Yes
46 Commissioner Imm: Yes
47
7
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
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
Break @ 8:50 p.m.
Resumed @ 9:00 p.m.
Mike Moore: Presented the staff report.
Commissioner Dargie: Seems as though land use is mostly predetermined. Will most
projects be approved administratively? As I read this I did not anticipate a lot of projects
coming to the Planning Commission.
Mike Moore: That is probably true. Will probably see the same proportion of projects
that go through administration and what will go in front of either Planning Commission
or SPARC. That is the overall intent of the plan to streamline the process. Will probably
not see as many projects as in the past.
Commissioner Dargie: On the caps that have been discussed — can you discuss the intent.
Mike Moore: Main reason for the analysis was for the EIR — to look at traffic impacts.
Looked at primarily vacant and underutilized land and looked at development potential.
Twenty -five percent seemed to be more intense without going full - blown. Need to give
the plan some time to work and then relook at the cap.
Commissioner Dargie: If we want to revise, would it trigger another EIR or a revision of
the existing one.
Mike Moore: We can use the traffic model to reevaluate.
Chair Barrett: How will different developments in the CPSP be triggered?
Mike Moore: Typically a person comes in and identifies a piece of property and will ask
what can be done with it? We look at all the regulations and provide the information and
they come back with an application.
Chair Barrett: SMART code does not trump zoning regulations?
Mike Moore: It provides a specific level of land use regulation for the specific plan area
and in areas where SMART code or specific plan is silent there may be other policies or
regulations that will provide direction. This is the same process that exists now.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Is there discussion of what as a City would want to happen
first?
Moore: Implied in the plan the City wants' to see new development in this area.
Incentive programs not specifically identified in the plan. City needs to - implement the
plan by identifying areas. Capital Improvement projects to be priorities such as parking
garage and redeveloment assistance. Council will ultimately decide.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
1 Commissioner Barrett: Were civic buildings an oversight?
2
3 Mike Moore: Building standards table does not address standards for civic buildings and
4 that will be changed.
5
6 Commissioner h Asked about the article where ABAG came out with
7 recommendations for housing in the north and the 7% growth for Petaluma was the exact
8 number that came out of this.
9
10 Mike Moore: Gave background on the article regarding the ABAG projections.
11
12 Chair Barrett: Asked about Jerico's letter.
13
14 Mike Moore: Want the road that is on their property to be moved. Will address the issue
.15 in the final plan.
.16
17 Public comment opened:
18
19 John Fitzgerald, CPSP Committee: Spoke about the CPSP committee — emphasized the
20 history of the committee. Represented Petaluma and its diversity. Asked the
21 Commission to trust what the Committee has done.
22
23 Chris Stevik, Liberty Street: Presented a trolley economic and history study. Asked the
24 Commission to take the study into account.
25
26 Public comment closed:
27
28 Chair Barrett: Section 2.10, Zoning Map - asked for explanation of 50% section on 1"
29 Street between F and G.
30
31 Mike Moore: To address development proposals for two existing warehouse buildings
32 north of the foundry wharf. Will accommodate a break in the existing buildings. It's an
33 exception to the regulations that apply to the rest of the T5 area to accommodate what he
34 is doing on those sites.
35
36 Chair Barrett: Does this apply to whole block or just that frontage?
37
38 Mike Moore: Just the frontage.
39
40 Chair Barrett: Otherwise it remains at a T5 urban center footprint with a 50% minimum
41 required building frontage between arrows.
42
43 Mike Moore: Yes.
44
45 Chair Barrett: Why could this not be rezoned T4 for this block?
46
9
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
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
Mike Moore: Goes back to the issue of the type of development proposed in this area.
Recommendations are an attempt to address development of the site, except for the
frontage requirement. Committee wanted to support what Mr. Haake was doing.
Chair Barrett: Explain parking location — in riverfront warehouse where will people be
parking their cars?
Mike Moore: Referred to glossary on pg. 68, explaining how layered parking will work.
Also referred to pg. 43. This is an area where the committee felt strongly that structured
parking should not just go anywhere.. In order to deal with parking in this area, there was
a discussion of interim parking lots which makes exceptions to the layered parking lot.
Chair Barrett: T4 section in riverfront warehouse, homes that back to Petaluma
Boulevard South could only have 3 stories — parcels facing on 1 St St. can go to 6 stories?
Mike Moore: True.
Chair Barrett: Three stories maximums are in place in the lower reach area that faces the
green belt, however, same protection is not provided on the western side of the river.
Will be a barrier to the river in the riverfront warehouse district and the lower reach.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Can we make a recommendation suggesting additional height
limitations. Did the committee decide that some of these areas could take 4 stories.
Jane Hamilton: Committee did decide that if up to 5 -6 stories were allowed due to the
economic feasibility we would not see a wall of buildings.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Did you not feel a limitation of 2 -3 stories along the river
was. appropriate? Will feel imposing if there are 5 -6 stories — what is the thinking?
David Keller: Already have 2 and 3 stories. A trade off to developers is allowing more
density. Will not see six stories in a wall on the river in Petaluma. River Enhancement
Plan discusses view sheds.
.Commissioner Asselmeier: Even with 4 stories along the river — will a person be able to,
see Sonoma Mountain from 2' Street.
David Keller: Yes.
John Fitzgerald: As a committee, we walked the area to test the scenarios.
Chair Barrett: Concerned about a wall of shadow. Why would T4 not work there?
Jane Hamilton: T5 allows for the density that the Committee wanted.
Commissioner Asselmeier: On East side of river, closest to 101, how did that triangular
space come about, can it be connected to the other civic space adjacent to the river?
10
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
1
2 David Keller: Is arbitrary but conceptual. To develop neighborhoods with commons.
3
4 Commissioner Asselmeier: Access to the walkway on east side, will it be constructed?
5
6 David Keller: Yes.
7
8 Chair Barrett: Is zoning map conceptual or are we approving as drawn?
9
10 Mike Moore: Yes, however, if someone wants to divert from the zoning map, it would
11 come before the Planning Commission.
12
13 Commissioner Asselmeier: Provided written comments from PBAC.
14
15 Chair Barrett: Asked about comments from Diane Reilly Torres,
16
17 Mike Moore: Is addressed on Pg. 78.
18
19 Chair Barrett: Asked Mr. Stevick if there was specific language to be added.
20
21 Chair Stevick; Seems as though there is continual effort to leave out tracks in certain
22 plans .Lines on l Street are an integral part — want a way to turn the trolley around. Say
23 that the tracks are given every possible advantage to be maintained and used. Tracks
24 contribute to a historic resource.
25
26 Chair Barrett: Three areas of tracks in the specific plan: riverfront warehouse, turning
27 basin and upper reach.
28
29 Commissioner Asselmeier: On civic spaces — do we have ideas about where new civic
3o buildings will go?
31
32 Mike Moore: Was not a discussion about specific civic buildings. SMART code has a
33 broad definition. Did not look at parcel by parcel locations — does not preclude their
34 inclusion. Section 3 of land use table is an example.
35
36 Conunissioner Asselmeier: Libraries, churches can be built in the civic spaces.
37
38 Mike Moore: No just those designated as civic space.
39 -
40 Commissioner Asselmeier: What is the intention of the depot site?
41
42 Mike Moore: A civic center or city hall was not discussed, it is not precluded by not
43 appearing as civic space on the zoning map. Based on the use tables, it could go in any
44 of the locations if it were a priority of the city and the site would be built according to the
45 standards for that zone.
46
a
Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2003
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
Chair Barrett: Specific changes chapter 4, page 8 conflicts with pg. 106 of the CPSP.
Pg. 11, word century is left out. Look at the provisions, examples are not clear —
comfortable leaving that to SPARC. Want to see 1H deleted limiting SPARC's purview.
Will only help Petaluma if SPARC's purview is not limited. Want their role clarified.
Number of discrepancies in the Historic preservation section - need to be addressed.
Commissioner Asselmeir: Thanked the Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Dargie: Fully support the plan.
Commissioner Irnrn: Respect the Committee's discussions and their work.
Mike Moore: Bike committee was involved in the Committee's discussion. Intent is
already in the plan. Details are already code requirements for development applications.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Will leave it to Planning staff
M/S Asselmeier/ Dargie recommend approval of CPSP with PBAC comments included,
the issue related to Jerico Product's road is resolved, issues rated to the trolley are
resolved, Pg. 8 of new chapter 4 conflicts with pg. 106 in the plan, corrections to Chapter
7.
All in favor:
Commissioner Dargie: Yes
Chair Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Asselmeier: Yes
Commissioner Imm: Yes
II. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
• Look at an ordiance rgarding abolishing historic resources.
• Determine when election of officers will take place.
III. LIAISON REPORTS:
a. City Council: None
b. SPARC: Approved lighting and trees on Downtown Master Plan and
conceptual plan for Water Street with details to return to SPARC.
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Considered the CPSP and
made comments.
d. Tree Advisory Committee: Reviewed oak sapling planting plan for
Baker Ranch.
Adi ournm ent: 10:35
12