HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/22/2003Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1
p ,, L v City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
$ E -Mail plannin&( ci.petaluma.cams
Web Page hqp: / /www.ci.petatuma.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
April 22, 20033 - 7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Healy, Imm, McAllister
Absent: von Raesfeld
* Chair
Staff. Mike Moore, Community Development Director
George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 8, 2003 were approved as amended.
M/S Asselmeier /Dargie — 6 -0.
PUIBLIC COMMENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None
CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from City Manager, Memo from Pamela Tuft.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
Public hearing began: @ 7:05
OLD BUSINESS:
I. PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 2200 Petaluma Blvd. South North
AP No(s): 007 -391 -009 & 035; 007 -401 -043 & 044; and 048 - 080 -033, 038 &
039
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 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
File No(s): REZ02001
Planner: ) Betsi Lewitter
Review and recommendation to City Council of the Petaluma Village
Marketplace Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( FSEIR). (Note:
the public comment period for the Draft SEIR ended on February 3, 2003. The
Planning Commission will only review the FSEIR and forward a recommendation
to the City Council).
Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for a summary of the statement of overriding
considerations would be.
Betsi Lewitter: Do not know yet.
Chair Barrett: Pg. R -10 — referred to groundwater modification as supplemental source
for water supply. What is major supply?
Betty Andrews: Ground water is not main supply — is now Russian River..
Public comment opened:
David Keller, I Street: Suggested the FSEIR was inadequate — was not responsive to all
the comments, such as the economic and physical impacts to downtown. Additionally,
no response to the need for low income housing. No discussion of the cumulative impact
of this project and other foreseeable projects. Flood information being prepared should
be included — didn't respond to flooding issues. Questioned General Plan consistency.
Eileen Morris, 422 182 —8 Street: Response to Living Wage Coalition opinion
inadequate. Was traffic considered for employees who work here and cannot afford to
live in Petaluma? Look at the cost to the city for social services, etc. in addition to the
revenue that it will generate. Passed out a "Low Income Housing for Everyone" report to
the Commission. To survive in Petaluma you need to make $21/hr.
Hank Flum: Concerns with flooding of the north property, Parcel C. Does the FSEIR
deal with mitigations of flooding — does not show proof.
Public comment closed.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked John Courtney to respond to public comments
regarding flooding of existing structures on Parcel A and additional, trips generated by
employees of the mall, physical effects of the development on downtown.
John Courtney, Lamphier & Gregory: Focus of the FSEIR was not physical impact of
downtown. Do not know what the retail mix will be at the proposed outlet — would be
too speculative. Referred to letter J in the EIR.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1
2 Betty Andrews: Flood elevations are shown in the FSEIR. Developed new estimates of a
3 100 -year flood elevation through entire project site.
4
5 Commissioner Asselmeier: Would mitigations reduce impact to the existing
6 development?
7
8 Betty Andrews: Was not focus of the FSEIR to reduce flooding on Parcel A.
9
10 Steve Weinberger, W- Trans: Industry standard methodology used — includes trips by
11 customers, deliveries'and workers.
12
13 Council Member Healy: Referred to Page 9 of the staff report regarding the type of retail
14 proposed for the project. Downtown retail space is generally smaller. If there any
15 information on potential tenants for the outlet?
16
17 Brad Stipe, Chelsea Property Group: Cannot be specific on the tenants because the
18 project has not yet been approved. Looking for tenants with a larger space needs than
19 downtown.
20
21 Thomas Laugero, Keegan & Coppin: Discussed retail tenants for the outlet versus a
22 downtown retail tenant.
23
24 Council Member Healy: Living wage responded to, however is a serious issue - how
25 does commission deal with the housing issue?
26
27 Mike Moore: Living wage difficult to deal with from a CEQA standpoint— is speculation
28 because tenants are not known.
29
30 Council Member Healy: Is an issue for the community, however, since applicant is not
31 asking for redevelopment funds is difficult. Page 5 -12, Table shows FEMA. flood
32 elevations, page 326 — refers to zero net fill. Which 'flood elevations referred to in the
33 FSEIR?
34
35 Betty Andrews: City's no net fill looks at FEMA flood elevations.
36
37 Wayne Leach, CSW Stueber- Stroeh: Zero net fill calculations are based on a higher
38 flood level.
39
40 Gary Imm: How much higher are floor elevations of the new buildings?
41
42 Wayne Leach: 2 ft. above 100 -year water surface elevation.
43
44 Commissioner Dargie: In 100 -year flood, would the bridge to the existing development
45 be under water?
46
47 Betty Andrews: Do not know - did not look at for this FSEIR.
3
Planning Commission Minufes - April 22, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
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 Dargie: Will there be a flooding impact, even if minor.
Betty Andrews: Yes
Commissioner Dargie: Was the mitigation imposed storage in the parking lot?
Betty Andrews: Yes — zero net fill to make sure adequate storage of water, based on
modeling results — very small change in net effort.
Commissioner Dargie: Re: ingress and egress — how was it determined that 2 access
points were sufficient — how much study was done regarding emergency vehicle access?
Steve Weinberger: Was determined two access points would be enough — regarding peak
traffic. Emergency access would depend on the design of the bridge.
Chair Barrett: Did EIR address emergency access on the bridges?
Steve Weinberger: Only addressed traffic impacts.
Betsi Lewitter: There is an emergency access from Corona Road at the rear of the
property.
Matt Connolly: Corona was built at a higher elevation and the bridge was designed for
traffic to pull off on, the shoulder.
Commissioner Dargie: Did EIR include traffic impacts regarding reasonable foreseeable
projects.
Mike Moore: At the time of the DEIR for Chelsea - CPSP was only in a draft form; no
application for the Johnson property; Deer Creek has only come for a preliminary
SPARC review. From a CEQA standpoint comparing this project and the CPSP — too
speculative at this point. Cumulative analysis looks at build out potential of general plan
land use designations.
Commissioner McAllister: Cumulative impact — is that regarding flooding and traffic.
Mike Moore: Yes.
Commissioner McAllister: Re: flooding on the bridges, pg. R13 — what is elevation?
Betty Andrews: Do not have information.
Commissioner McAllister: R -5 — if bridge is not designed — does it delay the
environmental review of the bridge?
Betsi Lewitter: Other agencies would impose mitigation measures.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1
2 Commissioner McAllister: Re: general plan consistency — sounds like conformance is a
3 matter of opinion. How does it enhance Petaluma and the downtown — there is a range of
4 opinion — how does this relate to a CEQA approval.
5
6 Betsi Lewitter: This is up to the decision makers — is a modification to an already
7 approved project.
8
9 Chair Barrett: Approval of Parcel A was contingent on Parcels B & C being consistent
1 o with the General Plan.
11
12 Commissioner McAllister: Wanted a more balanced presentation on General Plan
13 consistency. Is this in conformance with the River Enhancement Plan?
14
15 Betsi Lewitter: A few deviations, however, could be dealt with conditionally when you
16 are reviewing the project.
17
18 Commissioner McAllister: Disturbed that the document says the project is in
19 conformance with the River Enhancement Plan. Would a statement of overriding
20 consideration be necessary regarding traffic?
21
22 Mike Moore: If impacts are significant and unavoidable, would require statement of
23 overriding consideration.
24
25 Commissioner McAllister: Pg. R17 — what is revision on mitigation?
26
27 Betty Andrews: Only a single detention basin.
28
29 Commissioner Asselmeier: Where does the project stand regarding unfunded mitigation
30 measures — where is the City on funding the necessary traffic improvements.
31
32 Mike Moore: In determining adequacy of the EIR — it is up to the commission to
33 determine if impacts are significant and unavoidable if they are not funded. Can discuss
34 or recommend fair share contributions for capital improvement projects.
35
36 Conunissioner Asselmeier: Asked the status of capital improvements for a cross -town
37 connector.
38
39 Mike Moore: The City Council has placed an unspecified crosstown connector on the
40 Capital Improvement Plan.
41
42 Commissioner Asselmeier: What if mitigations don't prove out for flooding — what can
43 the City do to protect tenants and customers? Is mitigation open for reassessment?
44
45 Mike Moore: City's floodplain development regulations are what applies — these are
46 base on federal standards and we take a step higher. No net fill requirements address this
47 issue.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 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
Commissioner Imm: Reviewed all of the material. What are parameters of traffic
model?
Steve Weinberger: Standard methodology — based on square footage of use or acres of
site or number of units if residential. Range varies by size of the center — is usually an
average number — range is plus or minus 10 %.
Commissioner Imm: Could there be just one large store?
Mike Moore: Yes, theoretically.
Commissioner I= Referred to letters from Fish and Game
John Courtney: Responded to all comments.
Chair Barrett: No mitigation for removal of a 16 "diameter old oak to build the bridge.
John Courtney: Was not identified as a significant impact.
Commissioner Asselmeier: No additional mitigations added after the comments.
John Courtney: There were some modifications, however, there were no new impacts or
mitigations.
Commissioner Asselmeier: If we move forward — are we approving 5 structures — is that
subject to revision later.
Mike Moore: Commission has discretion to condition the project. Could be possible
through SPARC process to modify. If it was a significant change affecting the PCD, may
have to come back to Planning Commission or Council.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to know if traffic study was based on maximum
densities so if there are changes at a later date, we have considered all the issues.
Mike Moore: If there are significant changes, it could and would be brought back
dependent on the changes.
Break @ 9:10
Resumed @ 9:25
Council Member Healy: Issues raised — such as setbacks — would that be a Condition of
Approval or mitigation in the EIR.
Mike Moore: Would be a Condition of Approval for the project.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 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
Council Member Healy: Believe SEIR is adequate and recommend certification by the
Council.
Commissioner Dargie: Questions have been answered — agree document is complete and
recommend certification.
Commissioner McAllister: Not satisfied with some of the responses and mitigations. Do
not know where mitigations leave off and conditions of approval take up.
Chair Barrett: What about EIR questions that are not project related — lack of
responsiveness to low cost housing and the impact of the project on housing in Petaluma.
Mike Moore: EIR is an informational document — not intended to address all of the
issues raised. If document is determined adequate, you can forward a recommendation to
the Council to adopt a living wage.
Commissioner ham: Were questions answered and enough information given - is this
what we are recommending if we recommend certification?
Commissioner McAllister: If SEIR is adequate and the project changes, what happens to
the EIR?
Mike Moore: If you address impacts, hopefully you will not make the impacts worse.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Not 100% comfortable what the project is so SEIR is not
100% on point. Do not want to end up with one massive retail tenant. Do not want to
undermine the CPSP in approving this project. Also, have traffic concerns. Do not know
if this is adequate.
Chair Barrett: FSEIR very disappointing — took a minimalist view. Cannot pick and
choose discussion of economic basis.
Council Member Healy: Indicated that the Council appreciated the Planning
Commission's input and hoped that the Commission wouldn't preempt themselves from
commenting on the project, as they had on recent projects, by not recommending
certification of the FSEIR.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if the Planning Commission would review the project
if they did not recommend certification.
.George White: Not unless the City Council sent the project back to the Planning
Commission.
1A
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
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
M/S Healy / Dargie to forward a recommendation to the Council to certify the FSEIR,
5 -1.
Council Member Healy:
Yes
Commissioner Dargie:
Yes
Commissioner McAllister:
Yes
Chair Barrett:
No
Commissioner von Raesfeld:
Absent
Commissioner Assehneier:
Yes
Commissioner Imm:
Yes
NEW BUSINESS;
PUBLIC HEARING:
II. MODIFICATION OF RIVER OAKS /PETALUMA FACTORY OUTLET
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN FOR EXPANSION (PETALUMA VILLAGE
MARKETPLACE), 2200 Petaluma Blvd. SouthNorth
AP No(s): 007 -391 -009 & 035; 007 -401 -043 & 044; and 048 - 080 -033, 038 &
039
File No(s): REZ02001
Planner: Betsi Lewitter
The applicant is requesting approval to amend the previously approved Planned
Community District (PCD) Master Plan Program to expand the existing Petaluma
Village Marketplace on to adjoining parcels to the north and south of the existing
center.
Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report.
Brad Stipe, Chelsea Property Group: Gave a history of the project and presented the
proposed modifications to the project.
Darrell Hebenstreit, Architects Orange: Presented the site plan and elevations of the
proj ect.
Phil vanderToolan, Landscape Architect: Presented the landscape plan for the project.
Council Member Healy: Do the plans include comments from SPARC in August, 2002
and are you asking approval for retail space on Parcel C.
Brad Stipe: Some changes were made as a result of SPARC. Asking approval for
everything.
Commissioner McAllister: Suggest visual simulation of the drive by view.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1 M/S Dargie /Asselmeier to continue to May 27, 2003, 6 -0.
2
3
4
5 III. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. None
6
7
8 IV. LIAISON REPORTS:
9
10 a. City Council: Approval for Mary Isaac Center. County -wide task force
11 on Work Force Housing.
12 b. SPARC: St. Vincent's playground; preliminary review of Basin Street
13 proposal for the downtown cinema.
14 c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Working on a flyer to improve
15 paths on Washington Creek; presentation by Bay Area Ridge Council.
16 d. Tree Advisory Committee: Approved maintenance guideline for oak
17 saplings at Baker Ranch subdivision.
18
19 Adjournment: 10:52
20
21
22
23 SAK- Planning Commission \A4inutes\PCMinutes03 \042203.doe
9