HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/24/2001Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 2001
p , L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
!� City Mall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA. 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail plan ningnci.netaluma.ca.us
Web Page h=: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 April 24, 2001 - 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, Vouri
6 Absent: O'Brien, Vieler
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: Mike Moore, Community Development Director
to George White, Planning Manager
11
12
13 ROLL CALL
14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 27, 2001 were scheduled to return with
15 corrections (after listening to tape); Minutes of April 10, 2001 were approved with
16 corrections.
17 PUBLIC COMMENT: Geoff Cartright — Sonoma County Transit Authority public
18 process — cross town connector cost; repair roads. Beth Merideth — Urged public
19 comment on cross town connector; flood plain access road.
20 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Park Central project to be heard by City Council on May 21;
21 Salvation Army project to be heard by City Council on June 18, 2001.
22 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
23 CORRESPONDENCE: None.
24 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
25 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
26
27
28 COMMISSION BUSINESS
29
30 I. Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council on Draft 2001
31 Sonoma County Transportation Plan.
32
33 Janice Cader - Thompson — Concerns with not receiving enough information regarding
34 Novato Narrows: public not getting information on transportation projects in southern
35 area — project from 116 to Old Redwood Highway; specific language regarding Rainier
36 was in error — will be taken out of project list; took Caltrans on a tour of Rainier area —
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 2001
1 clarified that Petaluma citizens did not vote to approve Rainier project; thanked
2 Commission Vouri for comments regarding public input.
3 Commissioner Glass — Doesn't seem that any money will be spent in Petaluma — will be
4 bypassed for the next decade.
5 Janice Cader- Thompson — Lots of inconsistencies — Dollar numbers were from 1998;
6 no south county public forum.
7 Diane Rielly Torres — Three projects — cannot get any answers to her questions.
8 Geoff Cartright — Attended last SCTA meeting — $33 Million is allocated to southern
9 overcrossing; $100 Million needed in road repairs; Rainier is less than required distance,
10 does not qualify for Caltrans money.
11 Beth Merideth — Rainier no longer a project of City — have scheduled traffic and
12 circulation study through General Plan update; Rainier is a "flood - plain" access road;
13 goal would be to develop part of flood plain; Corps of Engineers and FEMA committed
14 to "living river" project.
15 Rick Skladzien — Made distinction that Petaluma is included in the Narrows project.
16 Commissioner Vouri — Three project for Petaluma listed as priority items — 1) Old
17 Redwood Highway interchange, 2) Cross Town Connector, 3) Southern Crossing of
18 Petaluma River (Caulfield Extension) — disregarding a new 101 interchange — isn't Phase
19 2 of Washington intersection our highest priority? Why isn't it on the list at all.
20 Rick Skladzien — What Phase 2 are you referring to?
21 Commissioner Vouri — Northbound on -ramp.
22 Rick Skladzien — It is listed on the more detailed /larger list; part of larger project.
23 Commissioner Vouri — Mr. Skladzien, can you discuss prioritizing of projects? 1 -4
24 most important projects?
25 Rick Skladzien — Can't give you a list now — haven't ranked projects, will be part of
26 General Plan, need traffic model.
27 Commissioner Vouri — Will model be ready by end of year? Cannot recommend list
28 until new model is ready; will you be recommending best allocation of funds?
29 Rick Skladzien — Yes, look at regional overview /model; very early in process.
30 Commissioner Vouri — Confused — thought discussions were being made now.
31 Rick Skladzien — Projects are not specific now — subject to change; cross town connector
32 location unknown at this time.
33 Commissioner Vouri — List needs to be clarified.
34 Commissioner Glass — Mr. Skladzien, you're doing a great job — you inherited
35 $100Million in poor street maintenance, can we get money to repair existing streets?
36 Rick Skladzien — County funds do not include arterial /collector street repair.
37 Commissioner Glass — These new streets will then go unrepaired, where is public input?
38 Rick Skladzien — This is a good forum; public input very important; street repair needs
39 can be brought to Planning Commission and public attention; 15 intersections were
40 optimized with red light timing.
41 Commissioner Glass — How much would traffic relief through signalization cost?
42 Aren't we looking at parcel tax to repair streets?
43 Rick Skladzien — Looking at contractors /developers to guarantee improvements for
44 10/15/20 years; some options out there; there may be a combination of funding
45 mechanisms.
F1
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 2001
1 Commissioner Barrett — Do you need information from new or old General Plan? Are
2 you getting information from General Plan coordinator since work has been halted?
3 When do you need that information to put it into your model?
4 Commissioner Monteschio — Thanks for the stop at D and 8 regarding Petaluma
5 Transit only $600,000 allocated — isn't that inadequate?
6 Jim Ryan - $600,000 over 25 years just for bus pull -outs, etc.
7 Commissioner Monteschio — Transit important to keep traffic down, road repairs lesser;
8 no bus service to McNear Park?
9 Jim Ryan — Received an 11% increase this year; try to be consistent; funding for transit
10 is $1.3 Million this year — we use most of it.
11 Commissioner Monteschio — Is this being looked at in the Traffic Model?
12 Jim Ryan — Doesn't have an answer.
13 Rick Skladzien — Can look at this in the new model.
14 Vin Smith — Basin Street Properties — Clarify — we're discussing transportation projects
15 — not new construction projects — that can't be adequately reviewed?
16 Janice Cader- Thompson — Corona overcrossing is not in this document.
17 Commissioner Vouri — City of Petaluma needs an official priority list; will help at
18 County level; at lease 5 projects should be on the list; believes in mass transit — ridership
19 has tripled in last three years; SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit) should be
20 implemented ASAP; already upgrading rail line for freight use; commuter rail needs
21 operating funds; need to identify revenue sources for operating costs; passenger rail
22 service not in this regional plan — MTC and SCTA are not recognizing commuter rail as
23 absolutely necessary service; SMART should be added to the Plan.
24 Commissioner Barrett — How did the four projects get in the plan?
25 Jim Ryan — They were submitted by City — no public input.
26 Commissioner Barrett — Official priority list needs to be general enough.
27 Commissioner Vouri Could recommend to City Council that there is a list
28 (unprioritized) or say that we agree with Traffic Department's existing list.
29 Commissioner Barrett — Would like to add Corona to list — have an official list to
30 recommend to City Council.
31 Commissioner Glass — Recommends Grand Jury look into this — very disappointed; we
32 could be left out —not good political representation; other cities are able to ask for
33 maintenance funds — why not Petaluma? Because modeling not ready? We're going in
34 the wrong direction — why hasn't there been any public input? Offended by this process.
35 Commissioner Monteschio — Petaluma Transit should be added so we can make
36 decisions.
37 Chair Broad — Commissioner Glass's concerns are on point — analysis we were given is
38 not'very complete; how can we look at more creative solutions?
39
4o A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri to recommend to the City Council that an
41 official list be established with top five transportation projects — demand commuter rail
42 be included by SCTA and MTC in transportation plan and urge the City Council to
43 reinforce policy of not prioritizing projects before results of traffic modeling analysis are
44 complete. Commissioner Monteschio seconded this motion.
45
46 Commissioner Glass indicated he would be voting no because he was not ready to vote
47 yes on anything regarding this at this time.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 2001
1 Chair Broad — Are Commissioners open to amend to reflect discussion regarding
2 Planning Commission's overriding concerns with the whole process?
3 Commissioner Vouri — Would rather register that in a second motion so as not to
4 prejudice Council. Would Planning Commission be ready to recommend five projects"
5 Commissioner Monteschio — Don't know which five to recommend now.
6 Commissioner Vouri — Old Redwood/101 Interchange; new cross -town connector; E.
7 Washington Northbound onramp; Caulfield; Corona retrofit /upgrade.
8 Commissioner Monteschio — Supports the list.
9
10 The motion was amended to add the suggested list of projects - Old Redwood/101
11 Interchange; new cross -town connector; E. Washington Northbound onramp; Caulfield;
12 Corona retrofit/upgrade.
13
14 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
15 Commissioner Glass: No
16 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
17 Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
18 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
19 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
20 Chair Broad: Yes
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner Barrett
23 to make City Council aware of strong concerns about process and inability to address
24 road maintenance issues; lack of findings of fact, leverage of debt, lack of public input;
25 urged City Council to emphasize public input.
26
27 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
28 Commissioner Glass: No
29 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
30 Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
31 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
32 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
33 Chair Broad: Yes
34
35
36 II. Discussion and possible action relating to the Zoning Administrator's
37 authority in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the Basin
38 Street Project (File No. SPC00047).
39 (Continued from March 27, 2001 meeting.)
40
41 Mike Moore — Preference to discuss in context of some of larger issues related to Specific
42 Plan; here to answer questions, distinctions relative to Zoning Ordinance and this specific
43 proposal.
44 Chair Broad — Read e -mail message from Commissioner Vieler regarding current
45 proposal by Basin Street; supports Basin Street project be brought to Planning
46 Commission for full review, suspend SPARC review until that review is completed.
47 Commissioner Vouri — Given understaffing of Community Development, number of
48 project, etc., believes Mr. Moore and Mr. White are doing a good job. The only tools
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 2001
1 available (Zoning Ordinance) are inconsistent — with lack of policy from Planning
2 Commission and Council and no final Central Petaluma Specific Plan, believes
3 Community Development Director has done a good job. We need to set policy — provide
4 to Community Development Department. Three motions: 1) regarding recommendation
5 of off - street parking — role is to preserve public space (including public parking) — should
6 not be counted toward parking for this project (spaces are already full).
7 Chair Broad — Does not feel that (per agenda) a motion could not be made — we are able
8 to discuss Zoning Administrator's authority in interpreting Zoning Ordinance.
9 Commissioner Vouri — My motion is related to the Zoning Administrator's authority in
10 . interpreting the Zoning Ordinance relating to the Basin Street project.
11 Chair Broad — Will defer to rest of Commission — has concerns.
12 Commissioner Vouri — Will rephrase motion — requests that motion be presented on a
13 future agenda — new motion — Requested that Planning Department not count off street
14 parking toward Basin Street Project parking requirement.
15 Commissioner Glass — My only problem is the project has come and gone; believes Basin
16 Street project is a terrific project; add this to a future agenda.
17 Commissioner Barrett — Regarding different roles of Planning Commission, SPARC,
18 staff — it would be helpful to have a joint workshop soon to discuss procedures, clarity of
19 roles — schedule this first.
20 Mike Moore — Has not been scheduled yet, was planning to discuss that at end of
21 meeting. Many issues causing concern with this project really are larger issues — traffic,
22 etc., there are limitations in policies available to us, all struggling with this; suggests time
23 would be better spend discussing broader issues of concern; clarify for subsequent
24 projects.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio
27 to direct staff to not recommend on- street parking be allowed for this project.
28
29 Commissioner Barrett — Yes
30 Commissioner Glass — Yes
31 Commissioner Monteschio — Yes
32 Commissioner O'Brien — Absent
33 Commissioner Vieler — Absent
34 Commissioner Vouri - Yes
35 Chair Broad — No
36
37 Commissioner Vouri — Concerns with traffic /safety issues in allowing a parking garage
38 for this project.
39 Commissioner Monteschio — Agrees with Commissioner Vouri, traffic /safety concerns.
40 Commissioner Barrett — Were comments received from Fire Department?
41 George White — Comments were received from Fire Marshal and are included in SPARC
42 packet, SPARC has ability to look at all aspects of this project.
43 Commissioner Barrett — So SPARC will be able to look at fire /safety aspects?
44 George White — Absolutely.
45 Mike Moore — A word of caution relative to your discussion — my only caution is not
46 getting too much into the details regarding Basin Street. Traffic and parking impacts is
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 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
an environmental issue — an Initial Study has been prepared and will be reviewed by
SPARC as part of their decision relative to the project.
Commissioner Monteschio — My problem is what impacts will the environment have on
the project.
Mike Moore — That goes back to the same problem of not having an approved Specific
Plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio
to require Basin Street project come before Planning Commission for review relative to
parking and traffic impacts.
Vin Smith — Basin Street Properties — Very confused about what is happening; is there a
concern about the Initial Study? The SPARC meeting is my understanding where this
aspect will be reviewed. Tonight's meeting was not agendized for a public hearing on
what is now being discussed. Action you are discussing taking is arbitrary, not convinced
that this is the most appropriate way to discuss this.
Chair Broad — In terms of how this was listed on the agenda, I understand perspective of
Commissioner Vouri, I cannot agree with the motion; if it is felt that SPARC cannot
adequately review the environmental aspects of this, then the issue should be appealed to
City Council.
Commissioner Glass — The first motion was easier because it was a statement; looked at
traffic, no major concerns; not willing to vote for this motion, this project will benefit the
City, don't want to slow it down; concerns about agenda wording.
Commissioner Barrett — There has been history of Planning Commission interest in this
project; we can discuss this, but not take any action; agrees that appeal is the correct
avenue; likes Basin Street project, respects Mr. White for trying to get as much public
impact as possible; is concerned with traffic impacts; thinks this motion might not be
legal, but will be voting on it.
Mike Moore — Maybe this could be passed on to SPARC as a recommendation for further
action.
Commissioner Vouri — Understands hesitancy of some of the Commissioners; does not
care what the technical letter of the law is, wants the CPSP implemented correctly.
Vin Smith — For me to understand what the Planning Commission is overriding, can we
cite a specific section of the Zoning Ordinance where there is a concern? Traffic /safety
issues are addressed in the Initial Study; I need some more information.
Commissioner Vouri — I am questioning the Zoning Administrators interpretation
regarding traffic /safety.
A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio
to direct staff to bring Basin Street project to Planning Commission to look at traffic and
parking issues.
Commissioner Barrett — Yes
Commissioner Glass — No
Commissioner Monteschio — Yes
Commissioner O'Brien — Absent
Commissioner Vieler — Absent
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 2001
1 Commissioner Vouri - Yes
2 Chair Broad — No
3
4
5 (Chair Broad left the meeting — Commissioner Glass assumed Chair.)
6
7 III. Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding the
8 applicability to future projects of the "illustrative concept plan" in the Draft
9 Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
10 (Continued from March 27, 2001 meeting.)
11
12 Mike Moore presented an overview of "illustrative concept plan". Consensus needs to be
13 reached regarding illustrative plan until Specific Plan is adopted.
14
15 Commissioner Barrett — Can you recap direction from City Council on important items?
16 Mike Moore — No discussion about specifics of plan as it stands now; Citizens Advisory
17 Committee will be brought back together to look at proposed scope of work to complete
18 plan and to discuss using Committee - in "preliminary review" process. No specific
19 discussion of illustrative concept plan as yet.
20 Commissioner Barrett — Maybe we should make our recommendations to the CPSP.
21 Commissioner Vouri — The joint meeting should include a detailed master plan (would
22 not specify a use); illustrative concept plan is too difficult to enforce because it is "use"
23 based; we should not ignore the plan, but any new work product probably won't be done
24 for a year; concept plan is basically unenforceable; options are: 1) to do nothing, have
25 projects muddle through one -by -one, have projects go through CPSP Committee; 2) there
26 are some rules that are only present in the drawing, and are therefore unenforceable.
27 Commissioner Monteschio — Would like to see original group review any projects being
28 proposed; would like to see committee recommendations.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett and seconded by Commissioner
31 Monteschio to appoint a Planning Commission member liaison to the CPSP Committee.
32
33 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
34 Commissioner Glass: Yes
35 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
36 Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
37 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
38 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
39 Chair Broad: Absent
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett / Vouri and continue to act as though the
42 CPSP has been adopted and continue to treat projects in that area in that way,
43
44 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
45 Commissioner Glass: Yes
46 Commissioner Monteschio: No
47 Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
7
Planning Commission Minutes - April 24, 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
Commissioner Vieler: Absent
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
Chair Broad: Absent
A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett and seconded by Commissioner
Monteschio to recommend to the City Council that any project requiring construction /
causing traffic generation / parking impacts within the boundaries of the CPSP require
review by Planning Commission (as well as CPSP Committee) until the CPSP is adopted.
Commissioner Vouri — Believes motion requiring Planning Commission review come to
Planning Commission is beyond scope of agendized item.
Mike Moore — Council has directed CPSP members to act as review body for preliminary
review until CPSP is adopted. This will be put on next agenda for further discussion.
IV. Discussion and possible recommendation on the Draft Scope of Work for the
Completion of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
Continued to May 8, 2001 meeting.
V. Discussion and possible action relating to potential revisions and /or
modifications to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
(Continued from March 27, 2001 meetings.)
Continued to May 8, 2001 meeting.
VI. ONGOING COMMISSION /STAFF DISCUSSION.
VII. LIAISON REPORTS:
• City Council
• SPARC
• Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Tree Advisory Committee
VIII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Adjournment: 11:00 PM
8