HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/09/2001Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
p, L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
*� City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
185`
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planning(iki.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ei.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 October 9, 2001 — 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Dargie, Glass *, Monteschio, O'Brien, von Raesfeld, Vouri
6
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: George White, Planning Manager
10 Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner
11 Jaym Allsep, Project Planner
12 Laura Lafler, Project Planner
13 Anne Windsor, Secretary
14
15
16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of September 25, 2001 were approved as amended.
17 Commissioner Barrett submitted the audio transcript from September 25, 2001meeting.
18 PUBLIC COMMENT: Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive. Copy of Press Democrat dated
19 October 9' 2001 regarding City Council Member Moynihan accepting gifts. Suggested a recall.
20 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Passed out memo from Mike Moore regarding CPSP revised
21 schedule.
22 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
23 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
24 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the Agenda.
25
26
27 I. OLD BUSINESS
28
29 SALVATION ARMY, 721 South McDowell Boulevard. Review of Condition of
30 Approval for Salvation Army Conditional Use Permit, APN: 007 -570 -028
1
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
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
Planner: Betsi Lewitter
"The applicant shall submit an alternative site plan whereby the childcare center shall be
relocated to the general area of the proposed social services building and the social
services building shall be moved to the rear of the site. The applicants shall also consider
parking alternatives to increase the number of parking spaces on site. The alternative
design shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to SPARC submittal."
Commissioner's Dargie and von Raesfeld recused themselves, as they were not Commissioners
at the time the. CUP was approved by the Planning Commission.
Betsi Lewitter presented the Staff Report.
Public comment:
Susan Zanotti, Sarkesian Drive: Noticing done prior to September 11, 2001 meeting. No
noticing was done for continuance. Lights were referring to the proposed project and not
Salvation Army presently. Trailer, regardless of type, was supposed to be removed by end of
summer. Requested ruling by someone who does not have a conflict of interest. Asked appeal
to be reheard — urge Planning Commission to delay further action. Had not seen site plan before
tonight.
Betsi Lewitter: Lighting will be subject to SPARC approval and can be addressed as a condition
of approval at that time.
Commissioner Vouri: Asked Wayne Miller, project architect, to review alternate site plan.
Wayne Miller: Went over original site plan before reviewing alternate plan. Problems outweigh
benefits with new site plan.
Betsi Lewitter: Lighting can be looked at during SPARC approval — can be a condition of
approval. Police will want lighting — can be low level.
Carol Quan: Concern re: parking — feel there is a need for more parking. Intersection of South
McDowell and Caufield is too close to driveway. Council directed that this be changed. Have
pictures of :trailer — has been moved closer to fence line.
Public comment closed.
Commissioners agreed that original site plan was better than alternative plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to find
that Condition of Approval #14 has been fulfilled.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
2
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1 Commissioner Dargie: Abstained
2 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
3 Commissioner Glass: Yes
4 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
5 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
6 Commissioner van Raesfeld: Abstained
7
8
9 NEW BUSINESS;
10 PUBLIC NEARING:
11
12 IL SOUTHGATE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LAKEVILE
13 HIGHWAY AND FRATES ROAD, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
14 REZONING, APN: 017 - 030 -017 & 017- 150 -019
15 Planner: Jayni Allsep
16
17 Jaym Allsep presented the staff report.
18
19 Commissioner Barrett: Your second recommendation is to approve a request to amend the
20 General Plan land use designation from specific plan area to mixed use. Do we have a definition
21 for mixed use that we can use?
22
23 Jaym Allsep: It is the definition in the General Plan. The definition is not being amended. It is
24 just the land use designation itself.
25
26 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Paragraph in the General Plan, housing densities are discussed in
27 the range of 10 -30 and not the 32 here. Is that an accident? Don't know if it is in the staff
28 report or the proposal statement, but there is a discussion that residential densities of 32 units per
29 acre and the General Plan is specifically 10 -30. Had any discussion occurred to come to that
30 difference?
31
32 Jaym Allsep:` No. Certainly the densities mandated by the General Plan cannot be exceeded. So
33 if there is reference to a density that exceeds what is allowed by the General Plan we would want
34 to correct that.
35
36 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Page 3, line 4 of the staff report "multiple residential units with
37 densities up to 35 units per acre."
8
9 Jaym Allsep: I believe it is also referenced in the Development Plan submitted by the applicant,
0 however, we can address that.
1
42 Commissioner von Raesfeld: What is the thinking behind two -step zoning, Step 1 being PCD
43 and Step 2 being PUD. Much of the language is very similar in the Zoning Ordinance. I
44 presume there is a reason for this, however, it is not clear in the staff report. I know it is two
45 parcels, but there is no document here that let's you know where the parcelization is. Is it the old
46 Lakeville Road?
3
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 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
3.8
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Jayni Allsep: That is the border of the two parcels.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: In the portion of Ely Road that fronts this project, is that City or
County?
Jaym Allsep: The way the City boundary is shown on the map, it would include Ely Road. I
can't confirm if that's graphically the way it's shown or that is truly the location of the
boundaries.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: That's a big issue — County Road vs. a City Road.
Commissioner Vouri: Regarding the Urban separator — offered three alternatives, pg. 7 of staff
report. In the Mitigated Negative Declaration you indicated that the impact on the General Plan
land use designations would be less than significant with mitigation but you didn't specify
mitigation. You said that would be up to the policy planners of the City. Perhaps you could tell
us how these three alternatives meet the requirements of the General Plan and might mitigate the
impact on it?
Jayni Allsep: There is language in the General Plan that allows for some flexibility in the urban
separator and in terms of the actual width, although it has been practice, my understanding on the
East side of the City to require the 300' full width of the urban separator that is not a strict
requirement. It comes down to planning policy as opposed to conformance with the General
Plan in terms of the flexibility that is allowed and what the decision - makers consider is an
appropriate urban separator that would meet the intent of the guidelines. That is up for debate
and consideration.
The discussion in the Initial Study relates to conformance with General Plan policies that would
mitigate environmental impacts. That is the focus on the conformance with land use issues. In
that regard there is enough flexibility in the policies, which in my professional opinion do not
indicate that the project is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan policies because it is subject
to some flexibility and interpretation as to what meets the intent of the urban separator. Is it
required mitigation? That is not the way it was presented in the Initial Study and in the Staff
Report it is more of a land use policy decision where there might be some ways to make the
project more consistent with the way the City has interpreted the urban separator requirements of
the General Plan.
Commissioner Vouri: It does say, "does the project conflict with an applicable land use policy
or regulation of an agency ?" And, the option selected that the impact would be less than
significant with the mitigation incorporated. I find your proposals, if I'm reading correctly; I
don't believe that any of them actually mirror the current proposed project. Is it your
recommendation that at least one of these be implemented in lieu of the current proposal?
Jayni Allsep: It's really two -fold. The first issue is whether or not a 300' urban separator is
required in order to meet the policies of the General Plan. Clearly this proposal does not allow
for a 300' urban separator. If the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council decides
H
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1 that a 300' buffer is what is required to meet the intent of these policies, then clearly there would
2 need to be changes in the Development Plan that is before you this evening. The three bullet
3 items listed offer suggested ways that the 300' buffer could be provided. It would require
4 changes to the plan as proposed.
5
6 Commissioner Vouri: On transportation and circulation — it's a very intriguing idea to perform
7 so many traffic calming measures on Frates Road, at least one traffic circle plus a three way stop
8 close to the intersection of Frates and Lakeville. Project would turn Frates Road into a single
9 community designed to be residential — to calm traffic to the degree that Frates is no longer an
10 artery, but the long term plans for the City are to make Frates Road two lanes in each direction.
11 That doesn't seem to be congruent with this proposal. Let's say we do implement these traffic
12 calming measures, is the City committing to not widening this road?
13
14 Jaym Allsep: It is my understanding that the current traffic build -out traffic projections do not
15 warrant a 4 -lane road. We believe there is adequate right -of -way to provide for a 4 -lane arterial
16 in that segment of Frates if it is needed. Have asked the applicant to provide a right -of -way line
17 on their site plan.
18
19 Commissioner Vouri: You would never do a traffic circle on a 4 -lane road. In widening Frates
20 to 4 lanes would revert that section of town back to the way it is now, where the residential is
21 walled off from the agricultural so it would be splitting that community. It needs to be decided
22 now before the project is built. Is the project self - contained or are we. going to do this traffic
23 calming to make it a pedestrian friendly connection to the north side of Frates?
24 On the transit terminal — the staff report says that the Park and Ride designation for the corner of
25 Lakeville and Frates was removed from the General Plan land use map. Who made that decision
26 and when that was done? It is still on my copy.
27
28 Jaym Allsep: The designation still exists and the proposed General Plan Amendment would
29 remove the Transit designation from the General Plan. In addition to changing the overall land
30 use designation from specific plan area, it would remove the transit designation. You are correct
31 that the Transit designation still currently exists on the land use plan.
32
33 Commissioner Vouri: There is a sentence that says, "now we have received this funding for the
34 Transit Hub downtown ", page 12, line 11, the use of the Frates- Lakeville location as a Park and
35 Ride Facility as designed .on the General Plan land use map has since been revised ". Can you
36 tell me that that means?
37
8 Jayni Allsep: In discussions with the Transit Coordinator, the ultimate use of that Transit
9 designation has evolved and at this point it is not felt that it is the best location — it still exists on
0 the General Plan. Whatever was envisioned back when that designation was put on the land use
1 plan has since been revised.
1 42
43 Commissioner Vouri: So staff's opinion has changed?
44
45 Jayni Allsep: That's correct.
46
5
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 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
Commissioner Vouri: So that was not a council action?
Jaym Allsep: Not to my knowledge.
Commissioner Vouri: Regarding the Transit site — that site was chosen as part of a 1987 -2005
General Plan process based on some Transit site location studies. Are there new studies that
would indicate that this would no longer be a good location?
Jayni Allsep: I don't know that there are any studies that specifically address that. The
information provided in the Initial Study and in the Staff Report was based on my conversations
with the City's Transit Coordinator. I am not aware of any studies that support or refute that
recommendation.
Commissioner Vouri: In the Environmental Impact Report in the section air quality, the
mitigated negative declaration addresses the project impact but does not address a present, plus
project plus other projects cumulative impact. Is there a reason that this is not addressed? Do
we not need to do that?
Jayni Allsep: This site as you know currently is specific plan designation on the land use map of
the General Plan and when preparing the Initial Study that issue did come up in terms of what
assumptions had been made about traffic generation from that site and it was not provided as part
of the information that was provided to the City. It is something that if the Planning Commission
and the City Council feels is relevant to what is being proposed; we can provide the information
and include it.
Commissioner Vouri: Am not well versed in PCDs - what is relationship between Architectural
Review Committee proposed by the applicant and SPARC. What is SPARC's pervue over this
project as it is built and how does that conflict with the Architectural review Committee that is in
the design guidelines and Master Plan.
Jaym Allsep: The Architectural Review Committee referenced in the Development Plan text has
to do with an internal committee that would be part of the applicant's management group,
including homeowners or however they choose to construct that. The different phases of the
project, before any building could go forward, would require review and approval by the City's
Site Plan and Architectural Committee for each phase of the development.
Commissioner Vouri: As each phase is done, it goes back to SPARC?
Jaym Allsep: That is correct.
Commissioner Dargie: Pg. 3 of Staff Report says a non - residential can be as tall as 65 feet, how
many stories is that?
Jayni Allsep: Depends on the plate heights. Four to five stories.
Commissioner Dargie: Could the parking garage be that tall?
0
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1
2 Jayni Allsep: That is not the way we (staff) interpreted the height limit. It would only be for the
3 occupied buildings.
4
5 Commissioner Dargie: Is Traffic signal proposed at Frates &Laguna Mateo?
6
7 Jayni Allsep: Yes, it would be signalized.
8
9 Commissioner Vouri: That is not indicated in the staff report.
10
11 Jaym Allsep: Am not certain at this point, will verify that in terms of the mitigations that were
12 identified.in the traffic study.
13
14 Commissioner Monteschio: Looking at Attachment 9, one of the comments was about 6,000
15 cubic yards of dirt have been stored and much of the dirt is still there. Is that currently true?
16
17 Vin Smith: Yes
18
19 Commissioner O'Brien: For the record, want to state that I have met with applicant and had an
20 advance look at this project.
21
22 Vincent Smith, Basin Street Properties: Working on plan for over two years. Presented project
23 as it has evolved over the last two years. Following the 1999 City Council endorsement of the
24 business park plan, we started to refine that plan and came up with another business park plan.
25 Feedback from 1999 Council meeting was that we should look at a housing component or at a
26 minimum a retail or commercial component with the business park component.
27
28 Would like to go through what we are requesting, have Tom Richman do his presentation and
29 then come back and answer some questions and address some issues. Asking for the adoption of
30 a Planned Community District. Read out of Zoning Ordinance what a PCD is supposed to be.
31 Redwood Business Park, Lakeville Business Park and Oakmead - Northbay Business Park were
32 PCDs. Have provided you with a Master Plan that has policies, design guidelines, street cross
33 sections to provide specifity of how we are going to approach developing the property.
34
35 Tom Richman, Richman & Associates, Palo Alto: Presented the Master Plan for developing the
36 project. Reviewed goals for the project:
37
38 ® Emphasize mixed use development
39 ® Create transit friendly environment
40 ® Develop workability and integrate with surroundings
41 ® Utilize conservation design
42
43 Chair Glass: Asked to continue Item IV to the next meeting (October 23, 2001) due to a time
44 factor.
45
7
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 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
Paul Marangella: Asked to come before Commission before November 7, 2001 as a courtesy to
let Commission know what the plans are for Water Street enhancement plan.
Commissioner Vouri: Asked for explanation of transit friendly.
Tom Richman: Achieved in several ways. First, you can walk to work if you choose to live
there and are able to work there. Second, bus stops are integrated into the project as well as Park
and ride, shared parking.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Urban framework — in the massing study packet — Street system,
how do you differentiate between public vs. private streets?
Van Smith: At this time all streets would be private and constructed maintained by Basin Street
Properties or Management Companies that we establish for the project?
Commissioner von Raesfeld: There would be no public streets?
Vin Smith: At this point in time we are not proposing that there would be public streets.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: At ultimate build out, is there a conceivable parcelization that
allows multiple ownership or is it going to be single ownership for the conceivable future?
Vin Smith: For financing purposes we need to parcel out the 40 acres.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: At some point, individual residential units, for example, individual
office buildings? Like downtown Petaluma.
Vin Smith: Are not trying to rebuild the downtown — trying to build an integrated mixed use
project. Speaking specifically to parcelizing each office building, they are going to be grouped
on parcels for financing purposes as we phase the project through. Conceivably we could come
back in the future and parcel those off and sell them.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Am not visioning a parcelization before you build it. Trying to
figure out in the project's completion, is it still owned by Basin Street Properties?
Vin Smith:. We are examining the opportunities for "For Sale" residential units. The thought
right now is that South Ely Boulevard would be an appropriate location for "for sale units
because they relate to that street best from a design perspective. We don't intend initially though
to sell off lots and units. Our business plan is to own and operate the project.
Commissioner Glass: The CC &R's ultimately protects integrity of project?
Vin Smith: Yes.
Commissioner Glass: Are CC &R's subject to review by either Planning Commission, staff or
Council?
0 .9
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1
2 Vin Smith: Yes.
3
4 Commissioner Monteschio: Asked what energy efficient, sustainable systems are to be used?
5
6 Vin Smith: Statement was sustainable systems. The storm drain system is intended to use the
7 pond that is a dedicated open space area as a filtration location — would connect with a storm
8 drain system that would connect with Cader Lane and ultimately go out to the river. Specifically
9 with energy efficiency, all new title 24 requirements would be in place with double glaze and in
10 some cases triple glaze windows. For office buildings we are exploring operable windows, more
11 sophisticated heating and ventilation systems that allow operable windows to not override and
12 overly cool or heat parts of the building. We are looking at light shelves that allow natural light
13 to penetrate further into the office buildings which reduces lighting costs; cool roofs.
14
15 Commissioner Monteschio: Are we also talking about solar collectors, green materials.
16
17 Vin Smith: Solar collectors are exploring for one of our buildings for hot water heating
18 purposes. Are open to examining anything that would economically be able to be incorporated
19 into the development of the project.
20
21 Commissioner Monteschio: Had a section about how, Southgate is the gateway to Petaluma.
22 How is that going to be conveyed?
23
24 Vin Smith: In the sense of architecture?
25
26 Commissioner Monteschio: I don't know — am reading from your passage.
27
28 Vin Smith: Just in the location — as you come around the bend, it is one of the first things you
29 see — the open field. With new development there you will notice it before anything else. From
30 our commitment to good architecture and site planning — we'll convey the spirit of Petaluma.
31 We are committed to developing buildings that incorporate the traditional materials and forms
32 that you see in the downtown. The pond and Riparian area around it will also announce that as
33 you are coming from the South. The corner at Lakeville and Frates will have a landmark
34 building and also landmark landscaping that can serve that purpose.
35
36 Commissioner Monteschio: Councilman Healy asked for analysis of the jobs, housing balance
37 and an economic analysis of the optimum use of the parcel — has that been done?
38
14 9 Vin Smith: We have done that. It is an internal piece of work. We would not propose the
0 thresholds that we have proposed in the plans itself if we didn't think that achieving those was an
41 economically viable project. From a jobs/housing balance, the original plan that was endorsed
2 by the City Council in 1999 was an all industrial with some minor retail service use. The plan
43 before you now addresses that in a much more appropriate way. In addition, the Workforce
44 Housing Task Force identified this site as an appropriate site for additional housing units to try to
45 meet some demands of the community.
46
wJ
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 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
Commissioner Monteschio: In the back it said council would like to see the analysis and I also
would like to see some sort of analysis.
Commissioner Glass: Is pond going to create a zero net runoff project because you have the
pond to store water on site?
Vin Smith: We have not gotten into the level of civil engineering to prove that — the intent is that
that is the case. Primary intent is to improve water quality. Where this project would ultimately
drain its storm water would be into an area that is not affected by any of the flooding that occurs
during flooding events.
Commissioner Glass: At both Planning Commission and City Council meetings it was
mentioned that there would be an Environmental Impact Report — what are thoughts on that
now?
Vin Smith: EIR has very specific purposes — one of the things we have done with this project is
to address issues as they have come up by modifying the plan, specifically with traffic circles
and traffic lights.
Commissioner Glass: If you were to try and incorporate more vertical integration because this
was one of the staff comments. Would that make the project not as economically viable?
Vin Smith: It would depend on how far we would have to take that and what kind of
commitment would be asked of us. The urban framework plan shows that along the first main
entrance (both sides of the street) we have vertical mixed use. I don't think it's a project where
we can try to do it everywhere.
Commissioner Glass: Scheme B had the greater of the vertical integration — is that correct?
Tom Richman: The intention is to have as much vertical integration as possible — how much is
not known at this point. What we have illustrated in this plan is there will be retail on the ground
floor — this is the 100% position when it comes to retail.
Commissioner Glass: Did I understand correctly that there is not an anchor tenant? Does that
mean that the retail is not one big Home Depot or Wal Mart?
Tom Richman: It is not big enough for those types of tenants.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Potential to provide both single - family dwellings and apartments?
Tom Richman: I wouldn't say single family residential necessarily. Housing types are under
study — idea would be to provide a mixture of housing types — will look like and feel like SFD
but would actually be 3 -5 units.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Single family connotates a suburban model. Am talking about
actual units that are a residence rather than an apartment style. Is that the type of use intended?
10
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1
2 Tom Richman: Yes. A mixture of townhouses, live work are being considered.
3
4 Commissioner von Raesfield: Relationship between the exhibit that we are calling a Street
5 system and the exhibit called the urban framework which is what we are considering approval of
6
7 Tom Richman: The street system exhibit is a detail of one of the site plans — it shows in detail
8 each piece of the site plan apart, one shows streets, bike trails, plazas, etc. As the plan evolves
9 the street system might change. What we are committing to tonight is a grid system — streets that
10 have sidewalks, detached where there is a row of trees between the curb and the sidewalk and
11 certain build to lines where the buildings are right up against the sidewalk as opposed to behind a
12 double row of parking.
13
14 Commissioner von Raesfeld: In a sense it is the skeleton or the minimum, which is not to say
15 that should the market change, you might build more of those types of streets.
16
17 Tom Richman: Exactly. There will be other streets. Pointed out certain streets shown in the
18 framework drawing. Will evolve depending on what is built.
19
20 Commissioner von Raesfeld: In the design guidelines document there is a term mandatory open
21 space — mandatory by whom and what is the quantitative definition of that?
22
23 Tom Richman: The mandatory open space that we are proposing is the pond in the corner and
24 the village green, an area of 160 foot width, and the gateway feature.
25
26 Commissioner von Raesfeld: So it's mandatory as specific to this plan. Not mandatory by some
27 ordinance?
28
29 Tom Richman: It is my understanding it is as a planned zoning.
30
31 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Regarding the storm drain issue — some of it will have to leave the
32 property some day. Will go to the river?
33
34 Tom Richman: We are not going to be able to get zero net runoff on this site. What we can do is
35 mitigate the peak flows by creating the Riparian swale system. Ultimately water will flow off
36 the site' it,will be much cleaner than it would otherwise be in another storm drain system.
37
38 Commissioner von Raesfeld: So the water that flows off site will meet either City of Water
[ 40 9 Agency standards.
1 Vin Smith: Yes, storm water will be directed from the lake to a traditional storm drain system
2 that will go into the City system and out to the river.
43
44 Commissioner von Raesfeld: That is not clear from the Initial Study.
45
11
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
I
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
Commissioner von Raesfeld. Document entitled the Mixed Use Master Plan Design Guideline
culminates in Appendix A which starts to read like a Zoning Ordinance. When the City,
subsequent to this Commission, approves whatever and there is a question the baseline test,
would be Appendix A. Don't find a clear nexus of Appendix A to conditions of approval.
Vin Smith: Appendix A is a necessary evil as an edict of the Zoning Ordinance. One of those
things that you have to check off to say that you are complete for your PCD hearing. Appendix
A provides the broadest list of uses that are permitted on the property.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: How legal of a document do you see the Mixed Use Master Plan
since it's very generic.
Vin Smith: My opinion of the document when it is adopted is an Ordinance — it gets adopted by
Ordinance.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: How is this tied to the ultimate action when you get rezoning? If
you go to the staff report and look at the Conditions of Approval and the Attachments, it is not
abundantly clear that this is referenced black and white no questions.
George White: I think depending on what the recommendation is of the Planning Commission to
the City Council, if any, it would then be up to us to draft a resolution adopting an Ordinance
rezoning, etc. Also, the Master Plan that you are reviewing is subject to refinement through the
SPARC process. It may become a little more definable at that point. The Ordinance is really the
framework, the basics under which this property will be developed. The Master Plan ultimately
will indicate the intent of what is to be developed.
Commissioner Barrett: Is property under single ownership?
Vin Smith: Yes. The triangle piece is under separate ownership but we are under contract to
purchase it.
Vin Smith: The Southgate project (when it gets developed) will be under one ownership At this
time our plan is not to build and sell.
Bill White: As we build each building Basin Street will maintain an ownership in it, there may
be different legal entities that own it. We will have to parcelize so that the apartments, for
instance, will probably be under a different legal entity than the office buildings. Hope to sell off
50 -60 units. If you look at the title report in 10 years, Basin Street will be the Manager and
controlling interest.
Commissioner Barrett: Is this project in the Old Adobe the school district?
Vin Smith: Yes.
Commissioner Barrett: Is Old Adobe the actual school that students would be attending.
12
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1 Vin Smith: Yes.
2
3 Commissioner Barrett: I don't see any playgrounds or parks or playing fields for the children
4 that would be living in these apartments.
5
6 Tom Richman: Pointed out a number of recreational facilities in the plan.
7
8 Commissioner Barrett: Asked if any of the areas were large enough for a playing field?
9
10 Tom Richman: No — not a ball field or soccer field.
11
12 Commissioner Barrett: Think this is a serious omission. What is advantage of private vs. city
13 owned roads?
14
15 Vin Smith: A couple of advantages — one is development standards are more flexible for the
16 medians and landscape treatments that we are suggesting. Public Works and Parks department
17 does not have the funds to take care of — as private developer would be able to take better care
18 of streets.
19
20 Commissioner Barrett: Would people be restricted from coming in? How is that guaranteed?
21
22 Bill White: Wanted to comment on roads. As you know the City does not have the money to
23 maintain the roads — we have some roads in our projects that are 15 years old. We prefer to own
24 the roads to be able to maintain them.
25
26 Commissioner Barrett: What is the affect of that on public access to the urban separator, the
27 swale, etc
28
29 Vin Smith: It does not have any affect. It is not gated or posted as private property. The entire
30 thrust of the project is to create liveliness on the street and to deny access would be against that
31 philosophy to restrict its use.
32
33 Commissioner Barrett: What is the residential parking requirement?
34
35 Vin Smith: Examples shown are a covered space per unit and 1 additional space on the street.
36 Two spaces per unit.
37
38 Vin Smith: Wanted to address issues. Read definition of Transit terminal. Willing to provide a
1 9 park and ride facility. Regarding density calculation, we requested 35 — did not read closely the
0 mixed -use designation. Number of residential units is more important than what the actual
1 density is and how you calculate density is also an important way, of determining what the
42 ultimate density is. If it has to be dropped to 30 so be it. Also, installing the purple pipe for
43 reclaimed water — close to the new facility. Regarding the urban separator, have had many
44 discussions with staff as to how to approach this. The definition says up to 300' so there is room
45 for interpretation. Did not think it prudent to provide a swath of land next to Ely Blvd. South.
46 This is a unique site. The only site with the urban separator on a street — is usually farmland next
13
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 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
to City land. Having a street, open space and then development did not seem the most
appropriate and useable way of addressing the property. Moving to the interior of the site seems
to make more sense. Making a 300' separator on the South boundary would slice a third of the
property. What we have provided accomplishes all of the goals of the urban separator. An
additional note, north of Corona the urban separator is zero. My final point is that, as you know
we are a large part of the creation and success of telecom valley and obviously this would be a
site where those kinds of uses would be attracted. In working with those tenants to address their
growth needs, this is one of the types of development that they have been asking for.
Public comment opened:
Rick Savel, 499 Adobe Road, Penngrove: Want to be clear that I am not here particularly to
oppose the project, but for informational purposes. Since the County is doing a General Plan
and looking at some circulation alternatives as they may relate to this project that the City of
Petaluma has the benefit of the information of what some of the implications could be regarding
the decisions you make on this project. Showed an MTC map where traffic is bypassing Route
116 and heading further down Adobe. Want to have turning restrictions to get the highway
bypass traffic back on the 116 and onto the freeway. The county is considering removing homes
in certain vicinities on Petaluma Hill Road or cutting a bypass into the mountain if volume in not
reduced. Would like to unify a little more. Recommend that you look at my questions since this
is an important issue.
John King, 1055 Adobe Road, Penngrove: At the end of Adobe Road, by the fort, where it
intersects by the power plant about 4 -5 months ago, if you are coming in a westerly direction out
of Sonoma you make the bend and come up to the stop sign where you could turn right on Adobe
Road. The County changed the signage there where it was identified that you could turn right to
go to Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa. Have passed the 14,000 mark for ADT (Average Daily
Traffic). County assumed by 1990 the freeway would be six lanes, Old Redwood Highway
would be four lanes and Ely Road from Old Redwood Highway to Casa Grande would also be
four lanes.. County based its assumption on plans that never came to fruition. If you read
Rohnert Park's EIR brings 70,000 additional vehicles for 24 hour period. Wait in Penngrove at
Adobe Road will be 20 minutes which is calculated on the fact that the freeway will be at 6 lanes
and Old Redwood highway will be at 4 lanes — this does not exist. If you base it on today's
infrastructure it will not be 20 minutes, it will be double or triple. This proposal will add
Impacts on Adobe Road that we cannot take. Everyone contributes to that problem, however, we
do not get to vote in Petaluma. Are suing the City of Rohnert Park. Don't want any project
until we have a countywide traffic plan.
Linda Whitney, 1631 Calle Ranchero: When looking at the description of the road it is a little
deceptive. Calle Ranchero is the first left after you turn off of Lakeville. The entrance into
Southgate is just before Calle Ranchero on the opposite side of Lakeville. Calle Ranchero enters
into the Casa del Oro subdivision. People use Calle Ranchero to cut through to Case Grande and
the Mervyn's shopping center. Would like to propose that Calle Ranchero closed off to Frates
because of traffic concerns and safety.
14
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1 Liz Benson, Calle Ranchero: Would like to reiterate that we would like our street closed off to
2 Frates if Southgate goes forward. Project would mean a considerable amount of traffic. High
3 density does not work here. We have Lakeville Apartments already. Need parks for children.
4 Seasonal pond for runoff is ok, however, mosquitoes are a problem and in the summer when dry
5 is not very attractive.
6
7 Mark Albertson, 1676 Calle Ranchero: Oppose General Plan Amendment and Rezone. Drafted
8 a letter for your review. Had referenced four points to discuss: traffic congestion, urban context,
9 drainage, and deletion of public transit system. Reviewed five traffic reports prepared by W
10 Trans. Mixed -use project is more appropriate at Caulfield which has two freeway ramps.
11 Southgate Project applies pressure to the Urban Growth Boundary encouraging expansion.
12
13 Public Comment Closed.
14
15 Vin Smith: Addressed some traffic concerns brought up during public comment. Have done two
16 traffic studies for this project. Original traffic study done by City traffic engineer and was
17 reviewed by a contract traffic engineer retained by the City who did not agree with our methods.
18 Was then a collaborative effort to provide the traffic report that was done for this project?
19 Varying degrees of mitigation done, and in some instances mitigation has been done where it
20 was not necessary. Statement that "too much traffic has been distributed to Ely Boulevard ". Is
21 almost as many lanes as Lakeville — hardly a very residential street — is an arterial intended to
22 carry a lot of traffic. Intersections are analyzed because it is easiest to collect data and they
23 represent what the level of service on the roadway is. Agree it is important to have an integrated
24 transit system — don't think anyone disagrees with that. Should have a safe, lighted place to wait
25 for buses and that is the intent of our plan. Do think site is fitting for this kind of use.
26 Understand the need for more ball fields, don't know this is the best place, however, it is not out
27 of the realm of possibility.
28
29 Commission questions
30
31 Commissioner Barrett: Asked applicant if they would be willing to do story poles for this project
32 to give everyone an idea of what we're looking at to outline the buildings?
33
34 Vin Smith: Don't have an exact development plan yet.
35
36 Commissioner Barrett: Would give the neighbors an idea of what a 65' building would look
37 like.
38
1 9 Vin Smith: If the Commission felt that was useful information to act on the project then yes.
0
1 Commissioner Vouri: The General Plan land use map requires 16 acres of this parcel to be urban
42 separator, approximately 1/3 of your proposed development area.. In exchange for violating the
43 consistency of what the City has shown, what do you propose to give the city?
44
45 Vin Smith: As you see on the plan, we are providing the open space on the urban framework
46 diagram that is accessible to public.
15
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1
2 Commissioner Vouri: Open space, as defined in the General Plan, is an empty parcel of land, not
3 a 50' wide bicycle path. You have some unpaved areas, however, I would not call that open
4 space. What is in it for us, the City? We will get to the amenities for the people who live there,
5 but what's in it for the City to approve this project?
6
7 Vin Smith: I don't look at us giving up something - I think it's looking at the development
8 standard which is an up to number not a mandated number — it's more than 1/3, see that as an
9 inappropriate application of the development standard - unduly burdens project. Have been
10 modifying plan to incorporate mitigations that are -not necessary, developing more human street —
11 project is a direct benefit to City.
12
13 Commissioner Vouri: The project wants City and County to absorb 5,000 more cars per day.
14 Anything else the developer can provide to deal with traffic?
15
16 Vin Smith: As plan shows today, there are three different transit opportunities; two in the form
17 of bus stops next to retail uses and the third being a park and ride facility. Seems ironic since
18 this project provides housing and jobs at the same location.
19
20 Commissioner Vouri: Do you have plans to alleviate our affordable or work force level
21 housing?
22
23 Vin Smith: Will pay the affordable housing fees, which is the desired practice. As conceived it
24 is intended to be workforce housing.
25
26 Commissioner Vouri: So there will be units that cost less than $220,000?
27
28 Vin Smith: We have not done any projections on "for sale" housing?
29
30 Commissioner Vouri: Put up the urban design framework as your level of commitment — are you
31 saying that the site plan in the design guidelines, as well as plans presented tonight, are not
32 commitments.
33
34 Vin Smith: No. Developed with architects and designers and can make it happen. Either site
35 plan presented would work. Feedback after SPARC — you have a specific site plan and a
36 document that is flexible — which do you want? Document is what we are committed to.
37
38 Commissioner O'Brien: Concerned about figure 10,200 cars and Ely was mentioned. What is
39 the lane capacity on'Ely for cars per hour.
40
41 John Dowden, Dowling & Associates: Ely is a four -lane facility, probably has per lane capacity
42 of about 850 -900 per lane per hour. Would be around 1800 vehicles in each direction/hour for
43 the peak hours, transfer into 36- 45,000 trips /day. Use peak hours when looking at projects.
44
45 Commissioner O'Brien: What are peak counts on Ely right now — anywhere near capacity?
46
16
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1 John Dowden: No.
2
3 Commissioner Glass: Before Council right now is a request for General Plan Amendment to not
4 reconfigure Sonoma Mountain Parkway — are you aware of that?
5
6 John Dowden: No.
7
8 Commissioner O'Brien: Commissioner Vouri has asked about consistency and if we violated
9 that for the urban growth separator. Haven't' there already been exceptions — so we really don't
10 have consistency?
11
12 Vin Smith: Properties that are north of Corona Road do not satisfy - the 300' development
13 standard.
14
15 Commissioner O'Brien: The question of what you are willing to give City — disturbed me —
16 jotted a few things, Streets better maintained, recreation facilities, sales tax revenue for City?
17 Are we approving a concept not an actual project plan?
18
19 Vin Smith: Approving the zoning regulations for the property.
20
21 Commissioner O'Brien: Anything brought back needs to meets CEQA and SPARC guidelines?
22
23 Vin Smith: Yes
24
25 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Project is unique to City of Petaluma — treading new water.
26 Would you consider a modified process that expanded the traditional SPARC to get over the
27 vagueness of design standards? Reexamine the process — are you open to that?
28
29 Vin Smith: Open to the idea — proved by the downtown office building we had approved.
30 Legislating this type of thing is difficult to do. If there is a concern about the level of
31 sophistication or time commitment of staff or SPARC is not there, maybe there would be a
32 contract architect that is reviewing plans.
33
34 Tom Richman: Went to SPARC early and they told us to go to the Planning Commission.
35 Trying to .strike a balance, this diagram was generated after the Master Plan document. This
36 would document the intent and the framework.
37
38 Commissioner von Raesfeld: One of my struggles here in comparing this document to other new
39 urbanist type projects and ordinances, this document is lacking. A lot came out tonight — seems
40 there is another step that has to take place here.
41
42 Commissioner Barrett: Is the 300' urban separator flexible? Is there any project that has been
43 developed at the Urban Growth Boundary that has no separator?
44
17
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 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
George White: Do not know if there are any that do not have any separation. The urban
separator is not a consistent 300' feet throughout the City. It is different in different places. The
way it is talked about in the General Plan is flexible.
Vin Smith: Cross Creek project in City and County — County land used as urban separator.
Commissioner Vouri: You stated you would begin second office building when first is 50%
leased? Any idea of time frame for leasing 50% of first office building?
Bill White: Our intent would be to build the first building immediately, along the first apartment
building and that would probably take 12 months.
Commissioner Vouri: How long would it take to lease out 50% of the first building?
Bill White: By the summer of 2003. Need to be an optimist.
Commissioner Vouri: How much retail sales tax will this project provide?
Bill White: Do not know the answer to that. Would depend on the type of retail. Could estimate.
Commissioner Vouri: No retail in phase 1?
Bill White: Don't know that yet. Possibly some retail on 1 St floor of some of the office building.
Would want a restaurant from the very beginning.
A motion made to continue Southgate to November 13, 2001.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
Commissioner Dargie: Yes
Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
III. BAKER RANCH, 619 Ely Road, Annexation, Prezoning, SPARC and Tentative
Subdivision Map.
APN: 137 - 070 -009.
Planner: Laura Lal'ler
The Commission asked to continue Baker Ranch to November 13, 2001.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
Commissioner Dargie: ' Yes
Planning Commission Minutes — October 9, 2001
1 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
2 Commissioner Glass: Yes
3 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
4 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
5
6
7 COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
8 DISCUSSION
9
10 IV. Discussion with Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and
11 Redevelopment, regarding Petaluma River Enhancement Plan Redevelopment
12 Project.
13
14 Continued to October 23, 2001.
15
16
17 V. LIAISON REPORTS:
18
19 a City Council: None
20 ® SPARC:
21 m Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee:
22 ® Tree Advisory Committee:
23
24
25 VI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
26
27
28
29 Adjourned: 11:45
30
31 SAK- Planning Commission\ Minutes \100901PCminutesexpanded.doc
tut