HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/10/1998Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
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
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MLNZ7TES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
Tuesday, November 10, 1998
7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch, Healy, Thompson *, Torliatt, Vieler
Absent: None
# Chairperson
Staff: Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
Vincent C. Smith, Principal Planner
Mabel Bialik, Associate Planner
Craig Spaulding, Civil Engineer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Minutes of October 27 were approved with corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Geoff Cartwright - Representing Petaluma Flood Victims -
Displayed flood maps/Corps of Engineers has predicted downtown Petaluma will flood by
the year 2005, just like the Payran area does now.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: No second Planning Commission meeting in November; staff
congratulates Commissioner Healy and Chairman Thompson on their election victories.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt - Congratulated new Council
Member and Mayor; as Council Member Keller's alternate, attended the Sonoma County
Transportation Authority meeting - discussion regarding sales tax measure; gave run-
down on next Council meeting topics. Commissioner Bennett - Attended
Telecommunication Conference along with Commissioner /Council Member Torliatt.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letters regarding Old Elm Village from Tom Richmond
Associates, Larry Torliatt, Henry Pacciorini, Roz Pacciorini, and Robert Hunt.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
1 CONTINUED BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARING:
2
3 I. OLD ELM; 359 West Payran Street; AP No. 006 - 051 -480, 050 -053
4 (mb).
5
5 Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a rezoning for a
7 recommendation to the City Council for an 88 -unit affordable rental housing
8 project.
9
10 Continued from October 27, 1998.
11
12 Associate Planner Bialik presented an overview of the project; discussed traffic count
13 estimates; impacts to School Districts.
14
15 The public hearing was opened.
16
17 Robert McGaughey, 590 Ely Road - Speaking on behalf of Ely Road neighbors; good
18 project, but concerned with the number of units on the site; concerned with parking; will
19 Petaluma Blvd. be right turn only? how will 2 story buildings look against single -story;
20 wants masonry wall against commercial; traffic — Payran is a major crosstown connector;
21 what wifl be impacts of additional traffic; area currently floods; make sure flood problems
22 are mitigated before development goes in.
- Why put this in a commercial area; looks like a good
23 Richard Brawn, 141 Grevillia
24 project but takes away 4.5 acres of commercial land, loss of potential jobs and businesses;
25 mixed use should be like in SF (commercial on bottom, residential on top); this is not a
26 mixed use project, retail space too small; creates restrictions on existing commercial uses —
27 noise, safety; puts children in an inappropriate area, heavy trucks; degrades potential use
28 of surrounding land; will not result in improving economic vitality of the surrounding area;
29 should use different professions/disciplines to calculate benefit/costs of converting lands.
30 Whitney Hall, 805 Kingfsh - Concerned about loss of more industrial lands; same thing
31 was done with Roundwalk site; thinks it's a good project but hopes this isn't a pattern of
32 converting land uses.
33 Kathleen Giobala, 1724 Pauline Way - Single mom, resident of Petaluma for 6 years;
34 had to move recently, couldn't find affordable housing; always lots of people before her
35 when she went to look at a rental; now paying $1400 /month for a rental in bad condition;
36 this project is needed.
37 John Morgan, Burbank Housing - Gave information on Burbank Housing; gave history
38 of finding the right site, worked on a creative design; reviewed project, design, parking,
39 circulation, amenities, railroad; regarding parking: no problems at Roundwalk, did
40 another windshield survey on Nov. 9, 10:00 pm; parking was available, approx. 1.3 cars
41 per unit which was similar to results of last survey; 30 units at Old Elm are studio or 1
42 bedroom; people who are eligible for these units don't make enough money to afford a car;
43 don't need a car because of proximity to shopping, downtown, bus lines; noise along
44 live /work units property lines; standard construction for soundproofing; also setback
45 distance between existing auto uses and residences on other parts of the site; fencing —
2
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
1 Burbank maintains fences; will have own on -site maintenance employee; showed
2 elevations as seen from Petaluma Blvd. and W. Payran; flooding — reviewed mitigation
3 plan; understood from Tom Hargis that after the Corps project is done, none of the site
4 will be in the floodplain; can't do 2 ft. elevation in some areas as required under zero net
5 fill policy because of stairs - don't have room for the additional rise; drainage — will
6 intercept drainage from other properties; discussed Tom Richmond's "Start at the Source"
7 — submitted letter from Richmond; willing to put check valve on drain near John Cheney's
8 property as off -site mitigation; discussed off -site detention ponds — solution to regional
9 flooding problem; willing to contribute to such a solution; discussed conditions of
to approval — condition 8, page 14, regarding undergrounding of utilities, request only be
11 required on panhandle section; condition 6 regarding needing easement agreement before
12 going onto SPARC, can this be tied to grading permit instead? sound wall along railroad —
13 can they do redwood fence until after SCWA does their work and then put in cement
14 wall?
15 Commissioner Healy — Asked where the existing easements are - (answer — existing
16 aqueduct is under the proposed backyards; the new aqueduct would be between the
17 existing aqueduct and the fence); would SCWA only need access for maintenance?
18 John Morgan — Yes, but not often; have few maintenance problems with existing line.
19 Commissioner Healy — Why doesn't Burbank Housing put in the pipe themselves now
20 and get it over with?
21 John Morgan — Expense and SCWA doesn't want the line in before they're ready to use
22 it.
23 Commissioner Healy - Asked to be walked through the circulation patterns of the site
24 plan.
25 Commissioner Torliatt — Corps project timing?
26 Planning Director Tuft — Construction starting in 1999; with 2 year construction period.
27 Commissioner Torliatt — Not sure how the project will prevent flooding; aren't they
28 taking on additional capacity ? long term problem; would like to see cost figures for doing
29 on -site measures (maybe off -site too); should be clear to future residents that existing
30 businesses have right to continue operations; some have 24 hour operations, want to see
31 something on the Title; what's the construction schedule?
32 John Morgan — Depends on getting tax increment financing; hope to start construction in
33 June 1999 and finish by Fall 2000; should be completed about same time as Corps project
34 is done; there would be one winter (winter 1999) when construction is underway and river
35 problems not fixed.
36 Commissioner Torliatt — Since the one unit closest to Petaluma Blvd. is being removed,
37 can't the unit at the other end be moved up so it's not against Peterson's property?
38 John Morgan — Clarified the one unit is being removed because the outdoor space
39 couldn't meet noise standards.
40 Commissioner Torliatt — Asked about the salaries of the people who would be living
41 here (Bonne Gaebler reviewed affordability tables); also wanted to see cross sections to
42 see difference in pad elevations.
43 John Morgan — Building pad elevations at 15 ft.; yards will be lower; will be similar to
44 existing commercial elevations.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
1 Commissioner Torliatt — To Director Tuft — would like information on the economic
2 impacts of the project along the lines of Mr. Brawn's comments on loss of jobs and
3 revenue; and commercial land inventory.
4 Commissioner Bennett — Agrees, need language in rental agreements notifying tenants of
5 existing businesses.
6 Chairman Thompson — Live/work units; anything like this in other affordable housing
7 projects; if low income, what types of businesses might operate here?
8 John Morgan — These will be home occupation type businesses; probably office type,
9 typing, correspondence; for people who cannot afford to rent office space.
10 Chairman Thompson — If commercial property is sold and new owner comes in, need to
11 protect commercial uses; need to have something in lease so tenants don't come out and
12 protest a new business going in.
13 John Morgan — Will incorporate into lease agreements.
14 Chairman Thompson — What's the length of the lease; concern about people staying long
15 term, kids growing up, getting more cars.
16 John Morgan — Don't have any experience with that right now.
17 Geoff Cartwright — Regarding narrowing Payran Street - hazardous to bicycles now;
18 when it floods, it's the only route out of Linda Del Mar; lots of traffic when it floods;
19 heard all the same information from engineers for years regarding the 84 inch pipe and
20 flooding; shouldn't put this project in the flood plain.
21 Phil Mineart - Woodward Clyde Consultants (hydrologist); Discussed flooding
22 impacts; less than 1/8 inch increase in flood waters in River at point of drainage would
23 result from this project.
24 Commissioner Vieler — Asked for clarification of some of Mr. Muieart's statements.'
25 Commissioner Healy — Asked for information in writing so it's part of the record and the
26 City can analyze.
27 Commissioner Torliatt — Concerned about incremental increases from different projects;
28 one inch doesn't sound like much but an inch in the Payran neighborhood could mean the
29 difference for a homeowner between flooding or not being flooded.
30 Commissioner Feibusch — Asked (Engineer Spaulding) to explain what the check valve
31 does.
32 Civil Engineer Spaulding — Explained this project will drain to 84" pipe; check valve
33 offered as an off -site mitigation for Mr. Cheney's property; not related directly to Old Elm;
34 check valve would be near the river; water would stop at that point where water runs off
35 Holmberg property; water in 84" pipe would continue to drain.
36 John Strong, 620 Petaluma Blvd. — Doesn't think the Corps project and Old Elm Will
37 finish at the same time; should wait until Corps project is done; wants to see where
38 floodplain will be after Corps project is done; also need to improve ditch along railroad
39 tracks; drainage problems there now; still don't like narrow roads, any breakdowns will
40 create gridlock; need visitor parking.
41 Joe Scanga, Calthorpe — Attempted to address numerous design issues; showed samples
42 of other projects with narrow streets (Mt.View, Piedmont); but shouldn't design project
43 for isolated incidents that may occur infrequently.
44 Commissioner Torliatt — How will garbage collection occur?
4
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
1 John Morgan — Like traditional streets, pick up will be on street; also will have
2 dumpsters in certain spots.
3 Commissioner Vieler — Asked for clarification on roadway widths.
4 Commissioner Torliatt — Would like to see what part of project site would be in the
5 floodplain after Corps project is finished.
6 Bill Empy, Design Center — Doesn't think the five/work units will work; too crowded
7 there; should be parking area for deliveries; also utility poles are in the back of his
8 property; site plan shows trees; trees will grow into the lines; Old Elm should be required
9 to underground; the lines through his back yard are already undergrounded; should have a
10 concrete wall behind the commercial properties, not wood; move commercial five/work
11 units to other end of project; 88 units too many; need to address maintenance of right -of-
12 way ditch; full of debris.
13 John Butler, 816 Petaluma Blvd. — Leases property from Peterson adjacent to Eve/work
14 units; most homes on Petaluma Blvd have been torn down or converted; shouldn't be
15 adding more homes here; doesn't make sense on the Boulevard; right now site turns into a
16 lake during the winter; does anyone know for a fact that the Corps project will solve flood
17 problems in the Payran area?
18 Geoff Cartwright — Corps project will offer certain level of protection but as more
19 projects get development and the City heads toward buildout, reduces level of protection,
20 where will the water go? solve problem in one area, it just moves to another area; i.e., in
21 year 2005, the downtown is predicted to flood; shouldn't sacrifice welfare of Payran
22 neighborhood for this project.
23 John Morgan — Flooding needs a regional fix; trying to balance needs of Payran
24 residents, needs of commercial neighbors, needs of residents who need affordable housing,
25 (handed out sheet of list of occupations of people who live at Roundwalk).
26 Commissioner Torliatt — What would be costs to the project to wait until Corps project
27 is done?
28 John Morgan — Burbank owns the land so just paying property taxes right now; but
29 $380,000 loan approval at risk if project is put on hold; competition for tax credits gets
30 harder each year; more projects out there than credits available; a year delay makes it that
31 much harder to get the financing; construction costs getting higher due to improved
32 market.
33 Chairman Thompson — Other than $380,000 loan, anything else?
34 John Morgan — Already a year behind in getting the loan due to need to work out
35 easements.
36 Chairman Thompson - Asked for clarification on hydrologist study regarding less than
37 1/8 inch increase.
38 Phil Mineart — Looked at worse case which would be with no detention at all; came up
39 with less than 1/8 inch.
40 Chairman Thompson - Can you get it to zero impact?
41 Phil Mineart — Yes, that could be calculated.
42 Elise Wilson, 19 Betty Court — Why should low income live near noisy railroad tracks?
43 should ensure existing residents are safe first; doesn't think future residents would want
44 the project built if they knew the surrounding area was going to be flooded.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
1 Commissioner Broad — Questions for traffic engineer regarding adequate left turns on
2 Payran and Petaluma Blvd.
3 Steve Weinberger — Involved in street design and review; adequate capacity and gaps on
4 Payran to serve traffic coming out of the site; Petaluma Blvd. has an existing turn left to
5 hold traffic going in and out of the site; existing two -way left turn lane serves as refuge for
,5 traffic going in and out.
7 Commissioner Broad — Any experience with narrow streets like Old Elm?
8 Steve Weinberger — Have been involved in projects with narrow two -way streets, not
9 one way (i.e., 32 ft. section, six feet on both sides for parking and two 10 ft. travel lanes);
10 thinks street section as proposed is appropriate to serve traffic flow.
11 Commissioner Broad - Access/egress seem adequate?
12 Steve Weinberger — Yes, narrow streets will slow traffic.
13 Commissioner Thompson — How will moving vans work? will streets be blocked?
14 John Morgan — Should be available on- street parking spaces so vans can pull in.
15 Commissioner Torliatt — Asked questions of Steve Weinberger regarding Cherry Street.
16 Steve Weinberger — Not familiar with; can't respond.
17
18 The public hearing was closed.
19
'20 Commission Discussion:
21
22 Commissioner Feibusch — Flooding is main concern; no matter how you look at it, the
23 project will be adding water into the 84 inch pipe; ditch along right -of -way is already filled
24 with water; needs to be fixed; area is noisy; walked the site; guard dog barking,
-25 compressor, other equipment; agree low income should be entitled to a better
'26 environment; regarding undergrounding utilities: City always requires undergrounding,
27 this project should be no different; until the flood work is done and is proved to be
28 working, cannot approve the project.
29 Commissioner Torliatt — Would like more information on the economic impacts of land
30 conversion; sees benefits of the project, even along the right -of -way tracks; someday there
31 may be light rail; should be close to resident for access; need to emphasize right of existing
32 businesses to continue; include provision in title and conditions of approval; also should
33 look into affects of postponing the project until the flood fix is done; want to see future
34 access to railroad guaranteed; good that all rentals will be managed by Burbank; Burbank
35 does a commendable job in providing housing and managing projects.
36 Commissioner Healy — Will right -of -way on West Payran in front of site match up with
7 right -of -way on other side of railroad tracks?
A Civil Engineer Spaulding — Traffic Engineer has reviewed plans; yes, will match.
39 Commissioner Healy — Why the difference in elevation required for zero net fill versus
40 floodplain; will 2 ft. provide more protection ?
41 Principal Planner Smith — Zero net fill is in area subject to more intense flooding.
42 Commissioner Healy — Were Factory Stores subject to this policy? last year they flooded.
43 Civil Engineer Spaulding — Believes the flooding problem was because of a drain
44 problem, not river flooding.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
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
Commissioner Healy — Condition in Initial Study requiring a hydraulic analysis — Does
this mean applicant has to show no impact or zero?
Planning Director Tuft — Yes, believes that is the correct interpretation.
Commissioner Healy — Should encourage as much on -site mitigation as possible and then
try the regional fix; developers could buy into City -wide detention ponds as mitigation
measure; neighbors should see hydraulic analysis before sign off by City; agrees with Mr.
Richmond's comments that the project is a model for what should be done; maybe have a
workshop on the big picture issues and have Mr. Richmond attend; glad applicant has
offered check valve for Mr. Cheney's property; sympathetic to the inventory question of
commercial lands but doesn't think this site is attractive to commercial uses; this project is
needed, not prepared to support a moratorium on new projects that will drain into that 84
inch pipe; as far as project design, sees the panhandle as a problem; however, satisfied
with parking analysis; applicant should demonstrate zero impact and also contribute to off -
site detention pond.
Commissioner Bennett — Agrees with Commissioner Healy; must look at how best to
use infill sites in the City especially in view of latest election (e.g., urban growth
boundary); thinks it's well designed; agrees with idea of detention ponds at edge of City;
have to give credence to engineering study; housing near railroad tracks — would be nice
to put it in a great neighborhood, but that's not realistic; project offers housing
opportunities, people will move on; need to address housing especially with urban growth
boundary; agrees with need for language requiring protecting pre - existing businesses; also
sees problems with panhandle use /design; not concerned with parking; doesn't see families
staying long term and number of cars increasing.
Commissioner Vieler — Applicant needs to underground utilities; ok with him to change
condition to allow SPARC review prior to grading permit rather than easement
agreement; wood wall ok but need to put a cap (7 years) on time period; after that, they
put in the cement wall; noise ordinance doesn't consider intermittent noise to be significant
but sound wall is needed regardless; flooding is a bigger issue regardless of what happens
with this project; off -site detention ponds make sense; should be tied to this project; need
to set up a process; will not support the project unless this provision is included;
commercial inventory: talked about this issue with the UGB workshops; what percent of
site is for commercial use — if it's only 5 %, not really mixed use; should be higher; if we're
losing commercial land, maybe find a way to swap it back somewhere else.
Planning Director Tuft — City has approved mixed use projects that have been all
residential or all commercial; General Plan doesn't have a percent requirement; at Planning
Commission's discretion to recommend an amount; no policy in place.
Commissioner Vieler — Not sure about live /work units; sees better use as parking area;
should add condition to provide drainage system while Corps project is underway; during
construction, should put in the drainage mitigation measures; agrees commercial
businesses need to be protected; also agrees access to railroad important for future light
rail; would agree if rest of Commission wanted to put the project on one year hold; has
sympathy for rest of Payran neighborhood, but project is doing everything it can to
mitigate flooding; when hydraulic engineer says less than 1/8" increase to river will result,
have to look for a regional answer.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - November 10, 1998
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
Commissioner Broad — Speaker raised good points with mixed use concerns, the
inventory, and loss of commercial lands; reviewed General Plan mixed use definition and
findings; last finding says no detrimental effects on commercial lands; would like to see
numbers on loss of commercial lands; would like to see hydrologists study /findings in
writing so City can analyze before approving project; consultant stated less than 1/8 inch
increase in river which is different from increase in flooding; what modifications are
necessary to the project to meet zero increase as stated in mitigation measure; if analysis
can be shown, would feel better about approving the project before the Corps project is
finished; agrees with Commissioner Vieler's comments regarding revising conditions of
approval; agrees drainage improvements should be in place early on; also concerned about
panhandle; location of residences so close to Boulevard; would like to see an alternative to
this; also would like to see a more attractive entry to site on Petaluma Blvd.
Chairman Thompson — Commissioner Broad has summarized reasons why the project
should be brought back for further discussion; also concerned with protecting existing
businesses.
Commissioner Torliatt — Also would like applicant to look at number of phone lines for
the project; think about computer needs, business needs, etc.; also want to see details of
bike path on Payran; want a more pedestrian conducive area on Petaluma Blvd.
Chairman Thompson — Everyone agrees with the undergrounding of utilities.
Commissioner Vieler — Also parking, loading/unloading; put in condition that managers
inform other residents when someone is moving so that the area stays clear and have City
enforce (police can ticket).
Commissioner Broad — Look into a mitigation fee for the off -site detention? would need
to get Council going on this.
Commissioner Healy — Doesn't want the City to own or manage the detention ponds so
developers would not pay fees to the City; private developer finds and makes own
arrangements with property owner so City is not managing; land inventory during UGB
analysis showed 125 acres of commercial land available; don't think 4.5 acre loss is
significant.
Commissioner Vieler — Doesn't think a private developer can arrange for a detention
pond off -site if the purpose is to satisfy all development throughout the City of Petaluma.
The public hearing was closed.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Nfeeting of December 8, 1998.
II. LIAISON REPORTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:35 PM.
s\pc -p I an\minut es\ 1110
8