HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/13/2001Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
p , L tr City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
Q City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
18 5 E -Mail nlannin2na,ci.netaluma.ca.us
Web Page h=: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Cormnission Minutes
3 March 13, 2001 — 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, O'Brien, Vieler, Vouri
6
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: George White, Planning Manager
10 Irene Borba, Senior Planner
11 Anne Windsor, Secretary
12
13
14 ROLL CALL
15 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Revised Minutes of January 23, 2001 meeting approved
17 as amended. February 13, 2001 minutes were approved as amended.
18 PUBLIC COMMENT: Richard Braun, 141 Grevillia Drive.
19 Spoke of the need to integrate economy with land management. City is reaching peak of
20 livability. Economy grossly out of balance between jobs and housing — what role does
21 City Planning play? Future income will need to support housing costs. Who is economic
22 expert regarding Zoning changes? Where is economic plan to respect Urban Growth
23 Boundary? Should development be slowed or speeded up? To optimize land use must
24 have infrastructure. What is the City going to do to optimize value of land? Limited land
25 available. Must look at economic aspects of development.
26 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Informational workshop series conducted by Tom Jacobson
27 of Sonoma State. Next workshop, March 20, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at Community Center —
28 the topic is CEQA.
29 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT:
30 Commissioner Glass: Regarding Lafferty notice — was referred to as habitat reserve
31 instead of open space park. Planning Commission recommended that Lafferty be
32 referred to as an open space park.
33 Commissioner Broad: Confirmed with staff that notice was sent as above because
34 Planning Commission only recommended to Council to refer as "open space" park. Staff
35 concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
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 Vouri: Pamela Tuft will be forwarding comments from Council
regarding above. Planning has taken on an urgency — reached Urban Growth Boundary.
Must focus on in -fill development. Need new plans and tools to do this. Need long
range planning for development of Kennilworth site, Fair Grounds and connection to
downtown. Zoning Ordinance very outdated — does not conform to current General Plan
— written in 1985. Concerned because Council voted to halt work on General Plan — our
blueprint for development of City for next 20 years. Have put off updating Zoning
Ordinance until General Plan is complete — if stopped now there will not be an update of
Zoning Ordinance in the immediate future. Great concern to Planning Dept. to work
around an outdated Zoning Ordinance. At Planning Seminar on March 6, 2001 Professor
Jacobson stated that State law requires that all elements of General Plan must be
consistent with each other. Jobs - housing balance, economic feature and land use plan, all
spoken by Mr. Braun, are what goes into the development of the General Plan. I agree
with the Council that we must pinch pennies, however, I request that we implement but
constrict cost.
Commissioner Vieler: To commissioners re: City Attorney's memo — not confidential,
can be discussed. Spoke with City Attorney. Commissioner Vieler asked that City
Council decide if the City Attorney could be present at the Planning Commission
Meeting for discussion with Director Moore.
Planning Commission asked that Director Moore be at the March 27, 2001 meeting to
respond to Commission questions regarding the Land Use interpretation on Basin Street.
Discussion regarding enough time for Salvation Army, Park Central and Director Moore
at the March 27, 2001 meeting.
Commissioner Vieler requested that the above item be agendized for March 27
meeting — the Zoning Director's interpretation and that it be agendized in such a way that
it is an action item for more than just discussion.
Comissioner Vouri and Commissioner Monteschio both supported Commissioner Vieler.
Commissioner Broad suggested that Mr. Moore be agendized for March 27 meeting
along with Salvation Army and if time permits Park Central.
Discussion regarding the item being agendized as an action item.
Planning Commission has that right under the Zoning Ordinance. Would like to assess
accuracy of that interpretation.
Commissioner Broad asked to clarify if item is to be put on the agenda in such a way
that the Planning Commission could alter the Community Development Director's
interpretation on the land use issue.
Commissioner Vieler: Determination made by Planning Commission at that point is
then the legal interpretation of what land use should be. "We either uphold Zoning
Director's interpretation or deny in whatever form we choose."
Commissioner Broad suggested agendizing Salvation Army and Community
Development Director as first two items with Park Central as third item.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 NEW B USINESS
2 PUBLIC HEARING
3
4 I. PARK CENTRAL — General Plan Amendment (GPA00005); Rezoning
5 (REZ00004); Tentative Parcel Map (TMP00007); Zoning Ordinance
6 Amendment (ZOA00002); and Site Plan & Architectural Review
7 (SPC00090), located at the corner. of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville
8 Highway, APN: 005- 040 -049.
9 Project Planner: Irene Borba
10
11 Staff recommended that Park Central be continued to the March 27, 2001 Meeting. It
12 was the consensus of Planning Commission to continue Park Central to the March 27
13 meeting as the third agenda item.
14 Commissioner Vieler requested that Park Central be moved to April 10, 2001 meeting
15 and Director Moore be agendized for March 27 meeting.
16 George White thought that both Salvation Army and Park Central would be time
17 consuming as well as discussion with Director Moore. It is the expectation of Park
18 Central to be on the March 27 agenda.
19
20
21 DISCUSSION ITEMS:
22
23 II. Discussion of Basin Street Properties proposal to construct a commercial
24 structure on a property located within the "draft" Central Petaluma Specific
25 Plan area. The subject property for the new commercial structure is
26 bounded by 2 " d Street, "C" Street and the Petaluma River. APN: 008 -067-
27 001 & 008 -068 -001 & 002
28 Project Planner: Irene Borba.
29
30
31 Irene Borba gave a brief presentation of the project under review by the Site Plan and
32 Architectural Review Committee.
33
34 Bill White and Vin Smith of.Basin Street Properties, Rick Strauss, Architect, and Lois
35 Fisher, Landscape & Site Plan designer, presented the Basin Street Project as revised.
36
37 Commissioner Barrett: Asked about Mill parking and freeing up spaces — did they do a
38 poll? How many parking spaces on the property being developed? Have parking studies
39 been conducted to see when spaces are full? Thinks 24 -hour Fitness generates a lot of
40 parking. Intention of building parking structure behind Fire Station a condition of
41 building project?
42 Bill White: 104 spaces on property being developed. No studies conducted —
43 observations have been done — not consistent. Parking garage is not condition of project
44 — do not need for the project.
45 Commissioner Glass: Asked about the size of the hotel envisioned — number of rooms
46 and number of floors? Concern about layoffs and tech business taking a down turn —
47 viability for office space at this time.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Bill White: Hotel envisioned is 120 -140 rooms. Building will be 3 stories over parking.
2 Does have concerns regarding the economy. Have a handle on prospects to be in the
3 building — company is strong.
4 Commissioner Vouri: Impressed with what Basin Street has done over the weeks since
5 the SPARC meeting, especially being flexible and working with the Community. Would
6 like to go over parking. 110 spaces in lot where building will be? How many current on-
7 street parking spaces?
8 Bill White: 100. 'B Street to C Street — 62 spaces. New plan 101 spaces on- street. Extra
9 39 spaces.
10 Commissioner Vouri: Re: potential for additional spaces on hotel site — temporary
11 before the hotel is built?
12 Bill White: Yes — had to demonstrate that if hotel was not built that we could take care
13 of parking. Would still have the 110 spaces and would take 84 spaces on hotel site.
14 Commissioner Vouri: What is commitment, time wise, for providing interim spaces on
15 hotel site?
16 Bill White: Will provide 30 days notice. Intention is to build -out street and parking
17 before construction of building.
18 Commissioner Vouri: Wanted to clarify parking — 110 spaces in new temporary lot, 39
19 extra on street and another 84 on hotel site that will be there the day this project opens?
20 Bill White: Yes.
21. Commissioner Vouri: In addition, 40 on the barn site? Corrected by Bill White — 30
22 spaces. Will become available if you build hotel. If you built hotel it would remove the
23 84?
24 Bill White: Yes, however, once we build hotel, we remove the 84 and pick up the above
25 30 and pick up 50 because of shared parking in the daytime — 104 total with 50 shared
26 spaces during the day.
27 Commissioner O'Brien: Traffic report states it took Fire Station into consideration —
28 what will traffic congestion at 2 nd & D do to ability of Fire Station to exit when traffic is
29 at peak?
30 Vin Smith: Based on comments from Commissioner Monteschio — had traffic consultant
31 do new counts at all _intersections — B, C, D @ the Boulevard as well as 1" and 2 nd on D
32 Street. Also analyzed modification to B Street (back to two -way). That will redirect
33 some of the traffic flow. Analysis did show 2 nd and D as a problem intersection,
34 however, it was concluded that no improvement was necessary to intersection (based on
35 build -out of area and modification to B Street allowing for a better flow of traffic). Also
36 attributed to D Street bridge improvements and signal at D & Boulevard.
37 Regarding Fire Station — on -going need to pay attention to the Fire Station in that
38 location and trucks coming and going.
39 Commissioner O'Brien: Confused because stated that 2 nd & D problem intersection but
4o nothing will be done to rectify.
41 Vin Smith: Traffic reports agreed that in its cumulative as well as existing condition
42 with build -out of CPSP and or build out of General Plan (under current traffic model with
43 current traffic counts) with or without project is a problem intersection. Certain warrants
44 that traffic needs meet to justify a stop or signal controlled intersection — project does not
45 warrant.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Bill White: Discussed the issue of improvement district in all of downtown Central
2 Petaluma Specific area. Need improvement district to fix river banks, trestle, utilities
3 south of D Street — should be considered. Have expressed an interest in paying our share.
4 Commissioner Broad: SPARC conditions related to first review — some may change.
5 Recommend a condition that temporary parking would need to comply with SPARC
6 parking lot guidelines. Did you look at how many spaces would be lost out of parking lot
7 that did comply with SPARC?
8 Vin Smith: Discussed that condition of approval and tried to get an understanding of its
9 meaning. Our concern was putting in finger islands and all of the things you would
to expect in a final surface parking lot, which would then be taken out with construction of a
11 parking garage. Trying to come to an agreement that would put minimum improvement
12 on property to come up with spaces required with the understanding that the site would
13 evolve into a parking garage.
14 Commissioner Broad: What are variables that control when you would provide parking
15 garage?
16 Bill White: Going beyond the office and hotel would require a parking garage.
17 Commissioner Broad: If entire site was to develop, do you know what the size of the
18 parking garage would be — number of stories?
19 Bill White: Don't know because it depends on uses. Probably 5- stories, essentially as
20 tall as a 3 -story building. Presented a photo _of parking garage in Sacramento.
21 Commissioner Broad: You mentioned shared parking between proposed hotel and the
22 commercial building, is that something that the Planning Dept. has already determined
23 would be considered as acceptable shared spaces?
24 Vin Smith: Understanding based on conversations with previous project planner that the
25 intention of shared parking section is being met with original project called Basin Street
26 Landing which was 120 room hotel and a commercial building — 104 spaces on hotel site;
27 140 on site bounded by 2 na , 1 St , C and D and the sharing of those uses. Don't know if
28 there is a written determination from Planning Department.
29 Commissioner Broad: Is there a written determination that worked through the number
30 of spaces to say that if you have a hotel and a commercial building, this is how you
31 calculate the number of shared spaces? At this point in time is there still an actual
32 application pending for the hotel?
33 Vin Smith: Did not withdraw the application. Waiting for approval of this application
34 before going forward with the future design of the hotel.
35 Bill White: Have some great ideas for the total site; however, have decided to take it one
36 step at a time.
37 Commissioner Vieler: Can you give any ideas that you have for development of the
38 area, both the Rose property and the waterfront beside Bar Ale?
39 Bill White: Rather not discuss the former at this point. On the latter, did go in contract
40 to purchase the property beside Bar Ale on the river from McNab family. In the process
41 of coming in with a proposal for a combination of retail and residential on that site — 96
42 residential units and a certain amount of retail also. Hope to be putting in proposal this
43 summer.
44 Commissioner Vieler: In addition to Basin Street project will be discussing illustrative
45 portion of the CPSP and guidelines and the possibility of specific designations for use.
46 Extremely valuable to know ideas that you have for future and tying it to CPSP.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Bill White: Think it was clear that the text and map in CPSP was schematic and
2 conceptual. Imprudent to take the acreage that is in the CPSP and say what kind of
3 buildings will go on what lots.
4 Commissioner Vieler: Agrees but thinks there's specific criteria requested to be met
5 within the CPSP and an overall need to accomplish this, for example, designating
6 potential sites for a parking garage. Infrastructure is an integral part — to not discuss
7 potential uses with regard to infrastructure would be seriously remiss on our part.
8 Bill White: Remembers conversations about parking garages, however, never discussed
9 it being on a particular parcel. Does not make sense to cluster parking garages so close
10 together.
11 Commissioner Vieler: Asked about a variance. If Planning Commission had
12 opportunity to look at concept of shared parking — is integral to CPSP. Would get a
13 reasonable assessment from Planning Commission. Are you avoiding bringing issue to
14 Planning Commission and enable us to weigh in on it?
15 Bill White: Was not intention have been doing this for years. Have made no secret
16 about how parking is to be shared in discussions with staff and in meetings. Made no
17 secret about it when attending CPSP meetings. Would be happy to work with the
1 s Planning Commission — have a different urgency. Have people interested in being in the
19 building and I don't want them to go away. If they go away I may have to go away -
20 think we need a stabilizing influence as a first tenant in the building. We first submitted
21 to SPARC in July, 2000. Also presented to some public groups last July. We were not
22 listening to what people were telling us — that's why we now have this building rather
23 than the one we originally went to SPARC with a month ago. Thought we had a great
24 project for .downtown and that was not the case. Now we have the opportunity to do
25 some things I want to make sure I can do without getting into lengthy discussions on
26 smart growth, shared parking, etc. Would like to be involved in some long -term
27 downtown project with shared parking concepts and would offer my company's services.
28 Need to make some business decisions as to whether we move forward with a building
29 downtown.
30 Commissioner Vieler: Addressed the chair for guidance — have numerous questions for
31 Mr. White and project staff regarding various portions of CPSP, policies, etc. My
32 understanding of discussion is Planning Commission will be referencing suggestions,
33 recommendations in an unofficial context to SPARC regarding the project. How specific
34 suggestions from CPSP will be addressed. .
35 Commissioner Broad: Asked if specific things are on point in terms of how the project
36 is being reviewed?
37 Commissioner Vieler: Specific portions of the Plan that Mr. White referenced the fact
38 there was not a specific designation given to particular land use within the Plan, however,
39 there are sections of the Plan that suggest specific land use for certain areas. As a
40 Commissioner would be content to let decision that comes out of this be, however, it
41 would be remiss not to bring particular sections up and offer the applicant and SPARC a
42 chance to say how it has been dealt with.
43 Commissioner Broad: Suggested going to public comment and coming back to
44 Commissioner Vieler.
45
46
47
6
Pfannin9 Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Public Comment:
2
3 Jeff 'Harriman, 7 -4 Street. Long time member of community groups downtown for 25
4 years. Restored the McNear Building, own McNear's and Mystic Theatre. Have spent a
5 long time thinking about the downtown and proper uses. As a business owner, I am very
6 excited about the project Mr. White is bringing in — think the office, retail and hotel will
7 be invaluable to the restructure and economy of the downtown. Getting this right is
8 important since it will probably direct the way the downtown is developed in the future.
9 Important to put all the pieces in the proper place in order to get this right. As a tenant
10 downtown thinks the uses are great and one owner is a plus. As a property owner have
11 concerns about the parking. Met with City Manager and Mr. White to discuss parking —
12 talked about putting a shared parking lot on the Victory Chevrolet lot. 24 -Hour Fitness
13 has contributed to parking demand, which we are not meeting. Feels best place for a lot
14 is between C & B Streets for Mill tenants, D Street and downtown businesses. Need to
15 visually see the parking to use it — Keller Street garage does no good too far away and
16 not visually connected. Am in the hotel business also, think for the betterment of
17 Petaluma and downtown merchants, need to have leisure- oriented market for hotel.
18 Thinks when you look at sites need a hotel that will accommodate business traveler as
19 well as leisure traveler and needs to be on the water. Hotel that looks at office building
20 as opposed to looking at water, defeats the purpose of hotel.
21 Beth Meredith, 104 -5 Street. Complementing Mr. White and Mr. Strauss on design.
22 Concerns have gone to support for project. Part of design Charette — list of design
23 principals brought up was hit by Mr. White and Mr. Strauss.. Understood about the need
24 to create a building that evolved over time — concept that we have lost and need to come
25 back to. Greatest concern was public realm. Feels is a good pedestrian environment —
26 opening up river in a pleasant way. Happy that Mr. White engaged in the process
27 publicly for design guidelines.
28 John Mills, 1315 D Street. Tribute to Bill White for using a public forum to make things
29 work properly. Happy to see kick start — thinks project will be a catalyst to redesigning
30 downtown. Bill White is perfect person — has the means and know -how. Community has
31 sat on plans for years — especially River Plan. This will be a model for projects south of
32 D Street as well. Will set Petaluma apart from other cities. Agrees whole - heartedly with
33 project.
34 Commissioner Vieler: Experts told Mr. White that Victory Chevrolet site for garage
35 was too close to Keller. However, CPSP did recommend a downtown parking garage in
36 close proximity with a series of goals to satisfy. Mr. Harriman expressed what the
37 intention of that had been. Concerns he expressed are concerns that I also share
38 regarding how this project is structured — what is going on which site — would impact
39 downtown in a parking context. Can you explain your reasons?
40 Bill White: When looked at where parking structure that would handle McNear Bldg to
41 D Street — felt this was better location. Another issue that was important when we went
42 to the retail, hotel, office, and commercial and asked where do you want to be? Response
43 was on the Boulevard. Worst parcel from a market standpoint was near the Fire Station.
44 Have looked at all sites. Parking consultant felt Victory Chevrolet site was too close to
45 Keller Street garage.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Commissioner Vieler: CPSP and illustrative plan suggested there would be a hotel on
2 the riverfront at the current office site and a garage at the Victory Chevrolet site. It was
3 not written in stone, however, it was a visioning consensus in terms of ideas.
4 Mr. White: Remember discussions because we were owner of the property at the time;
5 however, do not remember it being said that's where it should go.
6 Vin Smith: There are discussions and suggestions of groups of uses in various
7 subsections of the CPSP, however, it was very clear in the specific language of the CPSP
8 that nowhere is there a legal position that says where something is going. The land use
9 designation for the area from B Street to D Street is mixed use and there are a whole host
10 of uses that are acceptable. The Illustrative Plan does show a lot of different style of
11 development and locations of garages — there is a garage shown in the Golden Eagle
12 Shopping Center where Dempsey's is today.
13 Commissioner Vieler: Clear in the summary to remove the language from the CPSP
14 that said that something particular had to happen at a particular spot and a specific set of
15 reasons we gave for that which had to do with allowing projects to grow up. Did not
16 want to encumber a better idea from coming along. There were, however, very strong
17 suggestions and guidance given.
18 Vin Smith: Definition of mixed use as described in the CPSP (in it's current draft) is
19 designation allowed for commercial offices, retail and high- density residential uses.
20 That's a short description — it does give a longer description.
21 Commissioner Vieler: Referred to page 36 of the December Plan in the Land Use
22 Chapter under Turning Basin West it specifically states Policy 3.5 provides for the
23 development of parking facilities to serve the downtown and new uses. A parking
24 structure could be developed in the area between B and D Street. The best location for a
25 parking garage would be along Petaluma Boulevard. It then makes reference to it again.
26 Statement on page 36 a new surface parking lot is currently posed on the block bounded
27 by 1 2" d , F and G Street to accommodate a new development at 1 St and G. Due to the
28 limitations they said that this plan encourages a new parking structure and the location of
29 new employment uses in the area near D Street. Could potentially utilize a larger facility
30 planned on the north side of D Street which was a reference to the D Street garage as
31 proposed at that time. Questioned George White re: proposed garage at 2nd Street
32 between F and G.
33 George White: Did not know, before his tenure with the City. Thought Vin Smith could
34 probably answer question.
35 Vin Smith: Surface parking lot was to serve Mr. Hakka's 3 -story office building that
36 was approved for the site on the corner of G and 1 Received SPARC approval and the
37 surface parking lot for 127 spaces across the street. It took up most of the land between
38 1" and 2 "d and F and G Streets.
39 Commissioner Vieler: What happened to that project?
40 Vin Smith: He did not move forward with construction plans for that project and has
41 since modified his approach for the site.
42 George White: Clarified that Mr. Hakka currently has a project in for adaptive reuse of
43 those warehouse buildings which includes the parking across the street on the lot referred
44 to.
45 Vin Smith: Referred to meetings held regarding parking — specifically about where
46 parking garages go and if that site or any site within the riverfront warehouse is an
47 appropriate location for a parking garage. Language in the CPSP that alludes to it — the
s
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 legal framework — goals, policies, objectives do not. That was on purpose. The
2 Illustrative Plan actually does not show where that parking garage could or could not go
3 on the riverfront warehouse because of the lack of agreement or ultimate belief from the
4 Committee's standpoint.
5 Commissioner Vieler: Asked Vin Smith if he remembered implementation conversation
6 that took place at the end of the CPSP when discussion was going on with regard to the
7 plan and how specific to get with the vision itself. The statement was made and agreed to
s that land use issues were something that the Planning Commission needed to deal with
9 and therefore they would stick with the visioning portion of it and send the plan on to the
10 Planning Commission to deal with the land use implementation discussion.
11 Vin .Smith: I think the Committee concluded that the implementation of the plan would
12 be handled by staff or the appropriate committee when the plan was approved.
13 Commissioner Vieler: I am specifically talking about guidelines. We as a commission
14 and I as an individual had conversations with staff banging our heads time and time again
15 over the fact that there are no implementation guidelines for the plan that specifically
16 delineate both design guidelines and land use guidelines so that a developer, such as Mr.
17 White, could have a clear set of criteria that he could look at. The visioning part of the
18 plan was done quite succinctly but the remainder of it was to have been attempted in the
19 Planning Commission process as the plan moved forward and then on to City Council for
20 final ratification — those portions are not there.
21 Vin Smith: Remember the discussion with regard to how do we handle the dredging
22 issue within the boundary of the specific plan. There was quite a bit of discussion around
23 the policy that says if you convert current heavy industrial use to use the river as a form
24 of transportation, which is a key to the kingdom of getting money from the Army Corps
25 of Engineers to dredge the river. If the land use was to change, the new property owner
26 or individual to change that land use would be levied a certain tax to accommodate the
27 ultimate dredging of the river.
28 Commissioner Vieler: Would like to run down some points. Questions with regard to
29 this project and the hotel portion of it — statement has been made that Hilton wants the
30 site. Now I have heard that several hotels are interested.
31 Mr. White: We are not dealing with Hilton at this time because they were totally
32 inflexible as to the design of their hotel. We are now dealing with another major hotel
33 chain that is a lot more flexible in terms of the architectural design than Hilton was. We
34 are interested in a tourist hotel. I also believe we need a hotel that business people will
35 stay in. Our high tech tenants out at the north end of town would absolutely love to stay
36 in a downtown hotel so I think it needs to be a combination of the two.
37 Commissioner Vieler: The passage I was referring to in the December draft is Chapter
38 4, Policy 3.2 on pages 35 and 36. Turning Basin West it says a hotel or inn in this area
® 39 could build on the amenity of the riverfront in the proximity of Petaluma's historic
40 downtown.
41 Bill White: I do not disagree with that.
42 Commissioner Vieler: There is a gray area where the process left off and where the
43 draft was to have been completed and part of that, in my mind, was a responsibility on
44 the part of the Planning Commission and the City Council to examine seriously the
45 decision - malting process on whether or nor they wanted to make site specific
46 designations for certain uses.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Vin Smith: Discussed what a specific plan does, gave an example of an East Bay City
2 that did not develop a piece of property because of a specific designation. Was
3 concluded by Committee that we did not intend the specific plan to be City policy instead
4 encourage certain kinds of uses in a specific area.
5 Commissioner Vieler: If the project comes before us as an action item the issues that we
6 really need to look at with regard to this project: — is the location being suggested for a
7 parking garage actually the optimal location with regard to the CPSP and with regard to
8 the total that were set forth in the CPSP, specifically it says that the garage shall be in
9 close proximity to the downtown so that there would be a shared benefit to the other
to businesses. Mr. White has stated that the Keller Street garage does not service the
11 downtown adequately. It is there to be used. As I have looked at this project time and
12 time again trying to ascertain where the best location is I cannot get away from the fact
13 that Victory Chevrolet would satisfy both this document and the visioning for it.would
14 assist the downtown in an optimal sense of the word and if the parking structure goes in
15 where it's suggested then we are going to have parking problems downtown. I foresee
16 that as a reality and the City may very well have to look at putting a second level on the
17 A- Street parking garage to deal with the downtown parking issue.
18 Under Chapter 5, Community Design — in the future all new design shall be oriented to
19 the river, connections should be emphasized not only along the river but to the river and
20 to adjacent districts, in particular the relationship to the downtown. as well as surrounding
21 neighborhoods should be enhanced with tree -lined sidewalks, bike paths and pedestrian
22 bridges. Page 48 — long spaces of single buildings should incorporate passageways for
23 pedestrians to allow movement between parking areas and adjacent streets.. Page 64 —
24 Mill Square. Those are the things I wanted you to take a look at because if.you look at
25 the illustrative plan it is a design concept, but if you look at the illustrative plan the way it
26 was mapped out — the parcel that you project is on was literally split in half with access
27 coming from the southwest comer moving toward the riverfront and providing a very
28 pedestrian friendly environment. Building monopolizes that entire corner — how. do
29 people, for example, move through that structure to the river to the front, etc.
30 Bill White: CPSP stated not longer than 250 feet to allow for public passage way, and
31 our building is less than that and what we tried to do at the design review meetings,
32 people said and Beth was one, that we want the ability every 30 to 50 feet or so to have
33 an entrance capability. That's what we tried to work into the project. The building that
34 we had originally had a pass - through lobby on the first floor.
35 Commissioner Vieler: Had asked about Mill Square — intersection between 2 °a and C
36 Street.
37 Bill White: Had a plan that was one of the early retail plans where Mill Square was in
38 there — had a little bigger one in there. One of the problems with that was that we were
39 loosing the natural bid patterns of the streets and one of the comments we got was that
40 the buildings got too far apart and from a smart growth and from urbanization standpoint,
41 it left a lot of space that was not going to get many people in it.
42 Commissioner Vieler: So much of the design is process driven on your part, in terms of
43 not being able to find retail uses and moving to an office structure which changes the
44 building design and changes Mill Square. I still think you could take Victory Chevrolet
45 and turn it into a parking structure with retail around the outside of it and be very
46 successful.
10
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
I The concept of shared parking and assigning public street parking — the actual proposal
2 that went to SPARC that you are now changing with your design. This is something that
3 was addressed very strongly in the CPSP committee and the idea of a catalyst
4 development project that would spur growth around it and so part of what is being denied
5 at this opportunity to really examine is how to create guidelines for that sort of use. That
6 would be a very animated discussion.
7 Bill White: Not designating parking — the fact that it's a downtown location and there is
8 street parking available gives you a lower per square foot requirement for parking. We
9 want this to work — for us and the City. When we come back to the City with other
to projects, we want to be well liked and respected for our projects. We are trying to create
ii an urban area and trying to do high density projects to match what's downtown —
12 something has to give because you can't have the same parking ratios or you would have
13 a 14 story parking garage with 4 floors not being used because of on -street parking. It
14 does' take some looking at by the Commission and the Council. There is a lot of
15 experience from other communities that we can draw on and make sure we have
16 something that makes sense. The objective on a project like this is to limit car use —
17 that's why you do bike paths. and make it pedestrian friendly and have residential uses.
18 Commissioner Vieler: While I respect your plans, I see serious problems with the place
19 that you have designated for a parking garage in terms of how it is going to serve the
20 downtown. I don't think it is going to satisfy the parking needs for downtown. Do not
21 think people going to Kentucky Street are going to park at a garage near the Fire Station.
22 Bill White: If you talk about Kentucky Street, let's talk about fixing the existing garage
23 on Keller Street and make it a safe and viable place to park. Merchants are tired of it.
24 Commissioner Vieler: Thanked the other Commissioners for time to discuss issues.
25 Commissioner Monteschio: Am still very concerned about the parking. Have visited
26 the site numerous times and do not know where people are going to park that are
27 currently parking on the site. Curb width between parking spaces is 26' — 28' is the
28 minimum called for. My other concern was the trolley and putting in the trolley stop.
29 Commissioner Glass: Thanked Mr. White and staff for coming to Planning Commission
30 voluntarily. The 175 jobs being created will be good. The reason I asked about height
31 earlier was because we need to build up and not out and top floor do not exacerbate
32 flooding. Tops floors are smart growth, sustainable. Your design is beautiful and will
33 enhance downtown. In terms of economic vitality of the community, the hotel is a large
34 part of that which would provide bed tax and this is inside the redevelopment agency and
35 would provide incremental tax revenues inside the city. I might try to add a 4 floor and
36 save some areas for parks. We've heard a lot about San Antonio - it can be dense and
37 still be beautiful and have economic vitality. Going forward with the CPSP one of my
38 concerns would be the environmental constraints to rectify whatever problems there are
39 from years of environmental neglect or soils that are contaminated. An additional story
40 of height might make it more economically viable for a developer and it may make it
41 more economically viable so the redevelopment agency would not need to make as many
42 costly concessions for infrastructure. Development community can realize their
43 investment back with additional height. People will fight height but this building comes
44 in 8' under the height of the CPSP. I think shared parking is something that needs to be
45 looked at in a positive manner. My understanding of the CPSP was that it was a general
46 document and would never look for parcel specific identifications of what would go
47 where. I do understand the parking crunch that currently exists. There are other
11
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 alternatives to solve it, one being to get the Kentuckv/Keller Street Garage up to safe
2 standards where people would be encouraged to use all floors at all hours. If the business
3 community is dictating that his land be laid out in a certain pattern I would not hold that
4 land hostage necessarily to a parking garage and sacrifice the kick start of the CPSP. I
5 welcome it and look forward to .it. I hope we can get it started. Would like to see
6 encouragement for parks as we start the build out of the CPSP.
7 Commissioner Barrett: Want to echo fellow commissioners in thanking Mr. White for
8 bring the project to them and allowing us to weigh in. Think it's a beautiful design, lots
9 of public space and openness to water. My one real concern is parking. I go to the 24-
10 Hour Fitness Club and see how busy it is and can't imagine what it is going to be like
11 when both the office building and the hotel are up and runnin Think that Kentucky
12 Street garage is not Basin Street's concern. Am not in favor of putting a parking garage
13 on Petaluma Blvd — think that is underutilization of a good street. Like the idea of a
14 parking structure near the Fire Station. Hope you will take into consideration when
15 building new parking structure the problems that have occurred on Keller Street. Again
16 what to thank you for bring project to Planning Commission.
17 Commissioner Vouri: Questions regarding the staff report. Traffic analysis basic
18 finding is that it does not exceed the projected traffic for the CPSP at build out. If the
19 CPSP was fully implemented, would there be traffic mitigation measures proposed or
20 recommended in the plan that are going to accommodate more traffic? Also, you
21 recommended a Conditional Use to SPARC for a paved bicycle path along the river — is
22 that in the site plan as it is here today?
23 Irene Borba: Just received additional information regarding traffic analysis that was
24 requested by Walter Laabs. Vin has had the opportunity to read it all and can comment.
25 Bike path was shown on the site plan.
26 Vin Smith: Are you asking at the complete build out of the CPSP, are there
27 improvements to the street network that would occur as a result of that? Yes, actually
28 one of those improvements has already been installed — a free right as you are going east
29 bound on D Street to turn south on Lakeville. There will be additional right -of -way
3o necessary to fully implement that improvement, however, it is one improvement that was
31 suggested as the overall traffic modeling for the CPSP. As far as this project directly, the
32 traffic analysis is not recommending any additional traffic improvements.
33 Commissioner Vouri: My concern is that since it is covered within the build out so we
34 are going forward with it, but if the build out is contingent on traffic improvements that
35 aren't done yet because this is the first project, are we going to see an increased load
36 that's not properly represented.
37 Vin Smith: We share the same concern regarding the Engineering Division's condition
38 of approval that suggest that we need to make infrastructure improvements that are not
39 necessary for this project. We're being asked to upsize water lines and upsize storm
40 drains line that is frankly going to be a summer project this year on C Street as well
41 upsizing sewer lines that are unnecessary for the service of this project but are necessary
42 for the ultimate implementation of the CPSP. I have expressed this concern to Craig
43 Spaulding and he has expressed that there is some common ground that we can reach.
44 We do want to pay our fair share for whatever contribution to whatever the traffic
45 situation ultimately is when the CPSP is built out. There are two areas that have really
46 bad infrastructure — one area is from B Street down into the River front warehouse area,
47 specifically with sewer lines and storm drain and also water lines. The other area is north
12
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 of Washington on the backside of Kodiak Jacks, etc. The infrastructure is just not there
2 to accommodate the kinds of development that this Plan envisions. There is a lot of
3 discussion about assessment districts or business improvement districts as other ways of
4 collecting money from State and Federal government to be able to do some of these
5 things that we want to encourage and participate in.
6 Bill White: What we are trying to do with this first project is — we understand the
7 mechanisms are not get up, but we think that with this project it will open people's eyes
8 to say hey there is some serious interest in downtown. We are serious about fixing the
9 trestle, the trolley, some other infrastructure, but right now we want to be able to go in
10 and pay our own way because we think it's the only way to go in and be the catalyst.
11 Commissioner Vouri: I would recommend to SPARC that they make the 84 interim
12 parking spaces on the hotel site a conditional use. Also since we are the Planning
13 Commission and tonight's conversations have certainly illustrated the need to plan for an
14 assessment district in this area, perhaps the Planning Commission could play a role in
15 getting that ball rolling.
16 Commissioner Broad: When you said conditional use do you mean Condition of
17 Approval.
18 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
19 Commissioner O'Brien: Thanked Bill White for bring the project before the Planning
20 Commission — the fact -that it was not required says a lot about your integrity and
21 concerns for the community. My two main concerns are traffic and parking. I think it's
22 an excellent project — for me it is reminiscent of the redevelopment project in Alexandria,
23 VA. called the Torpedo Factory on their waterfront. I think this will add a lot of
24 character to downtown, I think it will make downtown viable and I wish you luck with
25 the project.
26 Commissioner Vieler: Thank you for the opportunity. Has clarified some issues and
27 succinctly brought the parking concerns to the other Commissioners.
28 Mr. White: Addressing some issues brought up. Commissioner Barrett brought up
29 concerns about not making the same mistake that the other public garage made. This will
30 be privately owned, maintained and operated. We will have the ability to do a better job.
31 The other comment was from Commissioner Glass regarding a 4 floor — in the main
32 Charette we held the recommendation was to build 4 floors and one of the issues is that
33 we have a 60' height limitation which makes that difficult especially when you want
34 volume on the first floor for retail. The other issue was that it became too, big of a
35 building. I'm comfortable here — we were up to 90,000 square feet and I don't know how
36 1 would have answered parking problems with that kind of square footage.
37 Commissioner Broad: On the 5 stories for the parking garage, is that 5 stories
38 exclusively for the use of the development is being proposed.
39 Bill White: Don't know the answer to that yet. The discussions that we have had with
40 staff as we have designed these other projects and have a better idea of what we need,
41 then I will go the City and say we will pay for our needs and if the City wants to add a
42 floor or two for the general public that's fine. I can't be providing parking for the rest of
43 downtown.
44 Commissioner Broad: Was not suggesting that you provide parking beyond your use.
45 If the parking garage is built to accommodate parking for your parking needs, the more
46 discretion you should have to site it in an area appropriate to the other buildings you are
47 proposing rather than to be looked at as a City parking structure.
13
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
i Thanked Bill White for coming to the Planning Commission. The main two items that I
2 am concerned about are the same as the other commissioner — traffic and parking. I
3 know we have had this looked at by traffic engineers — in terms of the traffic itself I just
4 have to add that the intersection of D Street and 2 T ' 6 Street during peak travel periods is
5 already one dangerous intersection and the thought of intensifying the traffic at that
6 intersection is frightening. Would like to make sure that the traffic engineers have
7 closely looked at how many additional trips will be going through that intersection and
8 how many will be making left turn onto D Street.
9 In the Initial Study under Transportation and Traffic, Item F specifically is the checklist
10 for dete inadequate parking capacity and it seems like the means of responding to
11 this has traditionally been to look at whether the number of parking spaces is adequate
12 based on the Zoning Ordinance requirement for parking. My concern is given the
13 antiquated state. of the Zoning Ordinance and its standards for on -site parking; I am
14 personally not convinced that applying the Zoning parking standards is sufficient. Would
15 like a parking analysis to be included as part of the traffic analysis for large projects.
16 In terms of the specific proposal and the parking being proposed I am certainly more
17 comfortable with the temporary parking lot concept to meet the required number of
18 spaces than I was with the previous concept of giving credit for all the on -street parking
19 spaces. Would recommend that there be some sort of stronger language in terms of
20 conditions regarding temporary parking becoming permanent parking within a certain
21 time period.
22 If it is felt that by additional review there is enough parking by Mr. White giving up land
23 and creating 39 spaces that would not be there with a more conventional parallel parking
24 arrangement, I would like to see Mr. White given credit for those 39 spaces if it is felt
25 that is not contributing to a parking inadequacy in the area.
26 I think that the design is great, much better than the first proposal. I was the Planning
27 Commission representative on SPARC when Mr. Haka's project came through and I kept
28 waiting for that to get started and was disappointed that it never happened. So I am
29 certainly hopeful that we will have better luck with this project. I thought Mr. Haka's
30 project would be a shot in the arm for development along the river and I think this project
31 can certainly be the same kind of stimulus and will also be a real great model for other
32 projects to follow.
33 In terms of staffs recommendations in the last staff report that the river walk be allowed
34 as a condition prior to CO or building permit. I think the river walk is so important that it
35 should be part of a project that gets reviewed by SPARC and not something that comes in
36 subsequently as a condition of approval.
37 My final comment is that the initial study talks about the hotel is not considered in the
38 review of this project, although in the traffic section which is most significant, it does
39 include the review of the hotel. I have given my opinion that when we have applications
40 filed for multiple phases of a project it should be considered in the environmental review
41 that it should not be split up and given that there is a CEQA seminar next week I would
42 like staff to ask that question of the presenter so we can get this issue settled.
43 Commissioner Vieler: The 39 spaces that this project is creating that would not be there
44 otherwise and them being assigned. I would ask that this assignment does not get made
45 until after there is an actual practical use at that location and we find out whether those
46 spaces are, in fact, something that can be assigned.
14
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 Commissioner Board: Was not suggesting specifically assigning them, suggesting that
2 since there are more spaces being created in the area that if the area has adequate parking
3 then I wouldn't have an objection to their being some credit toward the project for
4 providing spaces on the street that anybody could use.
5 Commissioner Broad: We are deferring to the March 27, 2001 discussion with the
6 Community Development Director regarding land use interpretation.
7
8
9 M. Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding the
10 applicability to future projects of the "illustrative concept plan" in the Draft
11 Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
12
13 Commissioner Vieler: Referred to paperwork given to all the Commissioners with a
14 table of the analysis of the costs and funding of the CPSP. This was part of the process
15 and left out of the plan in terms of priorities, however, I included it so that you would
16 have a chance to look at it and the process itself and see, for example, a parking structure
17 in the Petaluma Mill area actually was given the highest, both monetarily and priority
18 assessment out of anything in the entire plan. There was a page. left out of Vin Smith's
19 memo and if you look at it briefly, Chapter 3 land use, Item 6 the actual final
20 determination on this was the assessment that there should be 3 parking garage structures
21 within the CPSP — a minimum of 3. As stated earlier with regard to the CPSP and its
22 implementation while there are concerns about not being site specific, it is still absolutely
23 critical that some of this language be adopted as part of any development project so that it
24 can be seen whether that project is in some way satisfying those requirements or negating
25 those requirements. If all the land was built out and only 1 additional garage was put in
26 then obviously that stated intention of the CPSP committee to have 3 parking structures
27 within that area would not be met. Do we need to do this tonight? I'm not suggesting
28 that, but I do think it is not something we can just dismiss. I think we should revisit this
29 at some point and simply look at particular guidelines that we want to see become part of
30 any development criteria within the CPSP in terms of specificity.
31 Commissioner Broad: We can roll this over to the next meeting. Can put this on the
32 next agenda — do not know if we can get to it
33 Commissioner Vieler: I do need to make a clarification before we sign off regarding the
34 Zoning Director's interpretation that is coming forward on the 27 That interpretation
35- has to do with both land use and parking and that interpretation was made as part of a
36 packet that went to SPARC on January 25, 2001. This set of plans before us tonight has
37 not been reviewed by the City and some of the issues regarding that interpretation go
38 away based on these plans. If we are going to examine that interpretation, it needs to be
39 done in the context of what the circumstances were when the interpretation was made —
40 not based on what the plans are now.
41 Commissioner Broad: It is a question of looking at the interpretation that was made at
42 the time it was made and if the commission feels that the whole issue is moot and not
43 worth pursuing we can do that or alternately as a general .item, the Commission can
44 continue to look at that interpretation even if it's simply for future reference.
45
46
47
15
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1
2 IV. Discussion of potential revisions and /or modifications to the Zoning
3 Ordinance and the General Plan.
4
5 Commissioner Broad: I put this on the Agenda and I would like to ask if staff could
6 redistribute to commission members the General Plan budget for the proposed general
7 plan — either the budget or the contract.
8 George White; Clarified what Commissioner Broad wanted and offered to provide a
9 copy to the Commissioners.
10 Commissioner Broad: The Commission was supportive of the Scope of Work of the
11 General Plan back in the Fall, 2000. In light of the fact that the Council has put the
12 General Plan on hold and is looking at cutting the Scope of Work I think it would be
13 appropriate for the Planning Commission to take another look at that Scope of Work and
14 see if we can make some suggestions to the Council in terms of how we might prioritize
15 either items that we would like to see retained or items that we'd like to suggest being
16 pared back as necessary. Alternatively, I would also like at that time to give some
17 discussion to financial means that the City might look at in terms of additional ways to
18 fund the cost of a General Plan and I will hopefully be prepared to bring some thoughts
19 before the Commission along those lines. While we.may not get to it in two weeks, I'd
20 like to suggest that we bring that back and also with the General Plan discussion I think
21 that would be a natural segue into the discussion we have started to have about the
22 Zoning Ordinance. We need to get clear on what we see as the difficulty in working with
23 the existing Zoning Ordinance so that we can also communicate to the Council how we
24 see the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance being all tied together and we need to
25 work on both of those to address the issues we deal with at this level.
26 Commissioner O'Brien: For clarification I think the way that it was characterized that
27 the Council wants to cut back the Scope of the General Plan. Mr. Vouri's comments
28 earlier tonight are .grossly unfair. There are 3 members of the Council that have
29 expressed an interest in cutting the scope of the General Plan back. There are 3 members
30 of the Council that have asked to keep the Scope of Work the same and there is 1 member
31 of the Council that is totally undecided. The reason I am undecided is that I don't know
32 if 4 million dollars is an appropriate amount to spend — there is no benchmark. I have
33 asked the City Manager to provide information on comparative Cities — what they have
34 spent, what their Scope of Work has been so that there is a benchmark. I heard that
35 Rohnert Park did their whole General Plan for $750,000. There has to be a level of what
36 is normal to be spent and my feelings the other night about putting it on hold was two
37 reasons: 1) In the matrix we were given there appeared to be a whole lot of duplication
38 of effort where we are paying people to look over people's shoulders 4 and 5 times; and
39 2) 1 don't know if we are getting value for the dollar and I applied the logic of going into
4o a store and if I don't think the product I'm buying is value for the dollar, my wallet goes
41 back into my pocket. To characterize it that the Council wants to cut the Scope of the
42 General Plan I think is a gross misrepresentation.
43 Commissioner Broad: It was not my intent to grossly misrepresent what the Council
44 wants to do. I did not actually see the Council meeting so I am relying on the account I
45 read in the newspaper and my understanding was that the Council wanted to look at
46 cutting the costs of the General Plan. I appreciate you pointing this out. From my read I
16
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
1 thought it was a 4 to 3 majority in support of that cut. I am quite pleased to hear you
2 characterize your position.
3 Commissioner O'Brien: It was 4 to 3 to stop paying D &B.
4 Commissioner Broad: Can I suggest then that this matrix that the Council was able to
5 look at also be provided to the Commission. It is not my intent to be doing anything that
6 is creating conflict with the council. It was my hope that given we are the Planning
7 Commission, we can look at the same sort of issues that you voiced earlier in terms of the
8 Scope of the General Plan. If you don't have objections to the Commission looking at
9 that I think it would be great to have you as part of our discussion on that given that you
10 are part of the Commission.
11 Commissioner O'Brien: Would welcome any input. I am undecided and any input
12 would be graciously welcome.
13 Commissioner Broad: Maybe staff could provide the Commission with the actual
14 minutes from the Council meeting.
15 Commissioner Vieler: Question for Council /Commissioner O'Brien - am I to
16 understand that your vote in that process was to suspend the process while you get more
17 educated on what it is that is involved so that you will then at some point in the future
1.8 perhaps take a more hard line approach on one side of the line or the other once you have
19 figured out where you want to go with it.
20 Commissioner O'Brien: I voted to stop paying the bills until I know 4 million is a value
21 for the dollar. It's no secret that the budget is not as flush as we'd like it to be. I think
22 we need to take a look at where we're spending our money. If 4 million dollars is
23 appropriate I don't have a problem with it. If I million is appropriate let's find out. I'm
24 the one that has to answer to the taxpayers where their money went
25 Commissioner Vieler: I have a question for you on your recommendation regarding the
26 General Plan and the process — knowing your position in your professional life, have you
27 had experience with a General Plan update?
28 Commissioner Broad: I was proposing that we put this over till another agenda. I have
29 not worked on a General Plan update. I feel like it is within reach of the Commission to
30 look at the Scope of the General Plan with the idea to see if it is feasible to bring the costs
31 down and look at it with more of a mindset to see where we're getting the most bang for
32 our buck and what items might be nice but not necessarily worth the additional
33 expenditures. .
34
35
36 V. CONTINUED COMMISSION /STAFF DISCUSSION
37
38 Discussion of procedure for placing items on Planning Commission Agendas
39 ( Vouri)
40
41 Commissioner Vouri: Right now the only official way we have of placing items on the
42 Planning Commission agenda is to bring them up during a Commission meeting for
43 Agendizing at a later date. Many agencies, committees, boards, committees, allow
44 members to place items on an agenda in the interim. That is what I would like to see our
45 Commission come up with for efficiency sake. I believe our own City Council has a
46 process for bringing items to the agenda. Because of the Brown Act, what that would
47 entail would be that less than a majority of Commissioners put something on the agenda.
17
Planning Commission Minu t es - March 13, 2001
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
For some Commissions, the Chair can put things on the agenda. For example, if you
want something on the agenda you call the Chair and if he agrees to it, it goes on the
agenda. Perhaps Council member O'Brien could clue us into what the City Council's
current procedure is.
Commissioner O'Brien: At our last workshop, we adopted the procedure that the
Mayor can set something for the agenda and three members of the Council can set
something for the agenda so we stay away from the Brown Act problem. That is not to
say that the City Manager can put things on the agenda either. The Chair and three
commissioners would probably apply to this group. I The Chairman or three
commissioners.
Commissioner Broad: What if you have two members and the third says no — are they
supposed to drop it rather than finding a 4 t '?
Commissioner O'Brien: I don't know — we didn't go that far.
Commissioner Broad: I have no objective to Commissioner Vouri's suggestion that
either 3 planning commissioners or the Chairman be able to add something to the agenda.
My only concern is to make sure that we don't violate. the Brown Act.
Commissioner Vieler: Suggested that as a regular feature of Planning Commission
meetings there would be an opportunity to see if there is a discussion of items that need
to be placed on the agenda.
A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio
to amend the. Planning Commission procedures to allow items to be added to future
meeting agendas in between meetings by a request of 3 Commissioners or the Chairman
of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner O "Brien:
Yes
Commissioner Monteschio:
Yes
Commissioner Glass:
Yes
Commissioner Barrett:
Yes
Commissioner Vouri:
Yes
Commissioner Vieler:
Yes
Chair Broad:
Yes
A motion was made by Commissioner .Vieler and seconded by Commissioner
Monteschio to include as part of the regular agenda an item that allows Commissioners to
add an Agenda item.
Commissioner O'Brien:
Yes
Commissioner Monteschio:
Yes
Commissioner Glass:
Yes
Commissioner Barrett:
Yes
Commissioner Vouri:
Yes
Commissioner Vieler:
Yes
Chair Broad:
Yes
W-3
61�
Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001
3 IV. LIAISON REPORTS: Deferred.
5 Adjournment: 11:25 PM
6
7
8 S:\PC= Planning Commission\Minutes \031301.doc
19