HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch06 04/19/2004Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
0
p,.. -L .0 : City of Petaluma, California
w, Cit=y,Council Chambers
City Fall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 70'1/778 -4301. / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail plannine(a ci'.petaiuma.ca.us
Web Page http./ wwN .cT.j?etaluma.ca.us
0
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Planning, Commission Minutes
April 229 2003 7 :00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Healy, Imm, McAllister
Absent; von Raesfeld
* Chair
Staff: Mike Moore Community.Development. Director
George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
Public hearing began: @. 7 - :05'
OLD BUSINESS:
I. PET,ALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 2200 Petaluma Blvd. Send North
AP No(s): 007 -39.1 -009 & 035; 007 - 401 -043 & 044; and 048- 080 -033, 038 &
039
File No(s); REZ02001
Planner: ; Betsi Lewitter
Review and recommendation to City Council of the Petaluma Village
Marketplace Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( FSEIR). (Note:
the public comment period for the Draft SEIR ended on February 3, 2003. The
Planning Commission will only review the FSEIR and forward a recommendation
to the City Council).
Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for a summary of the statement of overriding
considerations would be.
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
2 Bets] Lewitter: 'Do not know yet.
3
4 Chair Barrett: Pg.. R -1.0 — referred to groundwater modification as supplemental source
5 for water supply. What is,major supply?
6
7 Betty Andrews`: Ground water is not main supply — is now Russian River:.
8
9 Public comment opened:
10
11 David Keller, I Street: Suggested the FSEIR was inadequate — was not responsive to all
12 the comments, such as the economic and physical impacts to downtown. Additionally,
13 no .response to the need for low income housing. No discussion of the cumulative. impact
14 of this project :and other foreseeable projects. Flood information being prepared should
15 be included — didn't respond to flooding issues; Questioned General Plan consistency.
16
17 Eileen Morris,, 421 _1//2 —8 Street: Response to Living Wage Coalition opinion
18 inadequate: Was traffic considered for employees who work here:and cannot afford to
19 live in Petaluma? Look at the cost to the city `for social services, etc. in addition to the
20 revenue that it will generate. Passed out a "Low Income Housing for Everyone report to
- 21 the Commission. To survive in Petaluma you: need to make $21 /hr.
22
23 Hank Flum: Concerns with flooding of the north property, Parcel C. Does the FSEIR
24 deal with mitigations of flooding — does not show proof. •
25
26 Public comment closed.
27
28 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked John Courtney to respond to public comments
29 regarding flooding of existing structures on Parcel A and additional trips .generated by
30 employees of the mall, physical effects of the development on downtown.
31
32 John Courtney, Lamphier & Gregory: Focus of "the FSEIR was not physical impact of
33 downtown. Do not know .what the retail mik Will be at the proposed outlet — would be
34 too speculative. Referred to letter J in the EIR.
35
36 Betty Andrews: Flood elevations are shown in the FSEIR. Developed new estimates of a
37 100 -year flood elevation through entire project site.
38
39 Commissioner Asselmeier: Would mitigations reduce impact to the existing
4o development?
41
42 Betty Andrews: Was not focus of the FSEIR to reduce flooding on Parcel A.
43
44 Steve `Weinberger, W- Trans: Industry standard methodology used — includes trips by
45 customers, deliveries and workers.
46
2
Planning Commission; ;Minutes - April 22, 2003
1 Council Member Healy: Referred to Page 9 of the staff report regarding the type of retail
2 proposed for the project. Downtown retail space is generally smaller. If there any
3 information on potential tenants for the outlet?
4
5 Brad Stipe, Chelsea Property Group: Cannot be specific on the tenants because the
6 project has not yet been approved. Looking for tenants with a larger space needs than
7 downtown.
8
9 Thomas Laugero, Keegan &. Coppin: Discussed retail tenants for the outlet versus a
10 downtown retail tenant.
11
12 Council Member Healy: Living wage responded to, however is a serious issue - how
13 does commission deal with the housing issue?
14
15 Mike Moore: Living wage difficult to deal with from a :CEQA standpoint- is speculation
16 because tenants are not known.
17
18 Council Member Healy: Is an issue for the community, however, since applicant is not
19 asking for redevelopment funds is difficult. Page 5 -12, Table shows FEMA flood
20 elevations, page 326 —refers to zero net fill. Which flood elevations referred to in the
21 FSEIR?
22
23 Betty Andrews: City's no net "fill looks at FEMA flood elevations.
24
25 Wayne Leach, CSW Stueber- Stroeh: Zero net fill calculations are based on a higher
26 flood level.
27
28 Gary Imm: How much:higher are floor elevations of the new buildings?
29
30 Wayne Leach: 2 ft. above '1'00- year°water surface elevation.
31
32 Commissioner Dargie: Iri 100 -year flood, would the bridge to the existing development
33 be underwater?
34
35 Betty Andrews: Do not "know - did not look at for this FSEIR.
36
37 Commissioner Dargie-. Wi'll'there be a flooding impact, even if minor..
38
39 Betty Andrews: Yes
40
41 Commissioner Dargie:' Was the mitigation imposed storage in the parking lot?
42
43 Betty Andrews: Yes — zero net fill to make sure adequate storage of water, based on
44 . modeling results very small change in" net effort. ' - ' '
® 45
46 Commissioner Dargie: Re: ingress and egress —how was it determined that 2 access
47 points were sufficient; — how much study was done regarding emergency vehicle access?
3
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1
2
Steve Weinberger: Was determined two access points would be enough — regarding peak
3
traffic. Emergency access would depend on the, design of the bridge.
4
5
Chair Barrett: Did EIR address emergency access on the bridges?
6
7
Steve Weinberger: Only addressed traffic impacts.
8
9
Betsi Lewitter: There is an emergency access from Corona Road at the rear of the
10
property.
11
12
Matt Connolly: Corona. was built at a higher elevation and the bridge was designed for
13
traffic'to pull off on the shoulder.
14
15
Commissioner Da_rgie; Did EIR include traffic .impacts regarding reasonable foreseeable
16
projects.
17
18
Mike Moore: At the time of the DEIR for Chelsea - CPSP was only in a draft form; no
1.9
application for the Johnson property;, Deer `Creek has only come for a preliminary
20
SPARC review. From a CEQA standpoint comparing this project and the CPSP — too
21
speculativ e at this point.. Cumulative analysis looks at build out potential of general plan
22
land use d esgnations.
23
24
Commissioner McAllister: Cumulative impact — is `that regarding flooding and traffic -.
25
26
Mike Moore-, Yes.
27
28
Commissioner McAllister: Re: flooding on the bridges, pg. R13 — what is elevation?
29
30
Betty Andrews: Do not have information:
31
32
Commissioner-. McAllister: R -5 — if bridge is not designed — does �it delay the
33
environmental review of °the bridge?
34
35
Betsi Lewitter: Other agencies would impose mitigation measures.
36
37
Commissioner McAllister: Re: general plan consistency - sounds like conformance ;is a
38
matter of opinion. How does it enhance Petaluma and the downtown — there is a, range of -
39 .
opinion — how does this relate to a CEQA approval.
40
41
Betsi Lewitter: This is up to the decision makers — is a modification to an ,already
42
approved project.
43
44
Chair Barrett: Approval of Parcel A was contingent on Parcels B & C being consistent
45
46
with the General Plan.
•
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1 Commissioner McAllister: Wanted a more balanced presentation on General Plan
2 consistency. Is this in conformance with the River. Enhancement Plan?
3
4 Betsi Lewitter:; .A few deviations, however, could be de_ alt with conditionally when you
5 are reviewing the project.
6
7 Commissioner McAllister. Disturbed that 'the document says the project is in
8 conformance with the River 'Enhancement Plan. Would a statement of overriding
9 consideration be necessary regarding traffic?
10
11 Mike Moore: If impacts, are significant and unavoidable, would require statement of
12 overriding consideration.
13
14 Commissioner McAllister: Pg. R17 —what is revision on mitigation?
15
16 Betty Andrews: Only a single detention basin.
17
18 Commissioner Asselmeier: Where does the project stand regarding unfunded mitigation
19 measures — where is the City on funding the necessary traffic improvements.
20
21 Mike Moore: In determining, •adequacy of the EIR — it is up to the commission to
22 determine if impacts are significant and unavoidable if they are not funded. Can discuss
23 or recommend fair share contributions for capital'improvement projects.
24
25 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked the status of capital improvements for a cross -town
26 connector.
27
28 Mike Moore: The City Council has placed an unspecified crosstown connector 'on the
29 Capital Improvement Plan.
30
31 Commissioner Asselmeer: What if mitigations don't prove out for flooding — what can
32 the City do to protect tenants =and customers? Is mitigation open for reassessment?
33
34 Mike Moore: City's floodplain development : regulations are what applies — these are
35 base on federal standards and we take a step higher. No net fill requirements address this
36 issue.
37
38 Commissioner Imm Reviewed all of the material. What are parameters of traffic
39 model?
40
41 Steve Weinberger: Standard methodology — based on square footage of use or'acres of
42 site or number of units if residential. Range varies by size of the center — is usually an
43 average number — ,range i& plus or minus 10 %.
44
Ig 45 Commissioner Imm: Could`there be just one large store?
46
47 Mike Moore: Yes, theoretically.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1
2
Commissioner Imm: Referred'to letters from Fish and Game
3
4
.John ,Courtney:. Responded to all comments.
5
6
Chair Barrett: No mitigation for removal of a, 16" diameter old oak to buil&the bridge.
7
8
John Courtney: Was not identified as a significant impact.
9
10
Commissioner Asselmeier: No additional' mitigations added after the comments.
1]
12
John. Courtney: There were some modifications, however, there were no new impacts or
13
mitigations.
14
15
Commissioner Asselmeier: If we move forward — are we approving 5 structures — is that
16
subject to revision later.
17
18
Mike Moore: Commission has discretion to condition the project. Could be possible
19
through SPARC process to modify. if it. was a ,significant change affecting the PCD, .may
20
have to come back to Planning Commission or Council.
21
22
Commissioner Asselmeier: Wan_ t to know if :traffic study was based 'on. maximum
23
densities so if there are changes at a later date, we have considered all the issues.; -
24
25
Mike Moore: If there are significant changes, it could and would be brought back
26
dependent on the changes.
27
28
Break @ 9 :10
29
30
.Resumed @ 9 :25
31
32
Council Member Healy: Issues raised — such as setbacks — would that be a Condition of
33
Approval or mitigation in the EIR.
34
35
Mike Moore: Would be a Condition of Approval for the project.
36
37
Council Member Healy: Believe SEIR is adequate and recommend certification by the
38
Council.
39
4.0
Commissioner .Dargie: Questions have been answered — agree document is complete and
4:1
recommend certification.
42
43
Commissioner McAllister: Not satisfied with some of'the responses and mitigations. Do
44
not know where mitigations leave offand conditions of approval take up:
45
46
Chair Barrett: What about EIR questions that are not project related - lack of
47
responsiveness to low cost housing and the impact of the project on housing in Petaluma..
6
Planning Commissioh ftnutes - April 22, 2003
i
2 Mike Moore: EIR is an informational document — not intended to address all of the
3 issues raised..If.documerit is determined adequate, you can forward 'a recommendation to
4 the-Council to adopt a living wage.
5
6 Commissioner Imm: Were questions answered and enough information given - is this
7 what we are recommending if we recommend certification?
8
9 Commissioner McAllister: If SEIR is adequate and the project changes, what happens to
10 the EIR?
11
12 Mike Moore: If you address impacts, hopefully you will not make the impacts worse.
13
14 Commissioner Asselmeier: Not 100% comfortable what the project is so SEIR is not
15 100% on point. Do not want to end up with one massive retail tenant. Do not want to
16 undermine the CPSP 'in approving this project. Also, have traffic concerns. Do not know
17 if this is adequate.
18
19 Chair Barrett FSEIR very disappointing — took a minimalist view. Cannot pick and
20 choose discussion of economic basis.
21
22 Council Member Healy, Indicated that the Council appreciated the Planning
23
Commission's input and hoped that the Commission wouldn't preempt themselves from
24
commenting on the project, as they
had on recent :projects, by not recommending
25
certification of the FSEIR.
26
27
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if the
Planning Commission would review the project
28
if they did not recommend certification.
29
30
George White: Not unless the City
Council sent the project back to the Planning
31
Commission.
32
33
M/S Healy /Dargie to forward a recommendation
to the Council to certify the FSEIR,
34
5 -1.
35
36
Council Member Healy:
Yes
37
Commissioner Dargie:
Yes
38
Commissioner McAllister:
Yes
39
Chair Barrett`:
No
40
Commissioner von Raesfeld:
Absent
41
Commissioner Asselmeier:
Yes
42
Commissioner Imm:
Yes
43
44
45 NEW BUSINESS:
46 PUBLIC HEARING
47
7
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
1 II. MODIFICATION OF RIVER OAKS /PETALUMA FACTORY OUTLET •
2 VILLAGE MASTER: PLAN FOR EXPANSION (PETALUIVIA VI`LLAGE
3 MARKETPLACE), 2200, Petaluma Blvd. Seuth North
4 AP No(s)`: 007 - 391 -009 & 035; 007 -401 -043 & 044 ; and 048 =080- .033, 038 &
5 039
6 File No(s): REZ02001
7 Planner: Betsi Lewitter
8
9 The applicant is requesting approval to amend the previously 'approved Planned
10 Community District (PCD) Master.Plan Program to expand'ihe existing Petaluma
11 Village Marketplace on to adjoining parcels to the north and south of the existing
12 center.
13
14 Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report.
15
16 Brad Stipe, Chelsea Property Group: Gave a history of the project and presented the
17 proposed rnodif cations to the project.
18
19 Darrell Hebenstreit; Architects Orange: Presented the site plan and elevations of 'the.
20 project.
21
22 Phil vanderToolan, Landscape Architect: Presented the landscape plan'for the project.
23
24 Council Member Healy: Do the plans include comments from SPARC in August, 2002 �.
25 and are you asking approval for retail space on Parcel C.
26
27 Brad Stipe: Some changes were made as a result of SPARC., Asking approval for
28 everything.
29
30 Commissioner McAllister: Suggest visual simulation of the drive by view.
31
32 M/S Dargie /Asselmeier to continue. to May 27, 2003, 6 -0.
33
34
35 Adjournment: '10:52
36
37 SVC= Planning - Commission \Minutes \PCMinutes03 \042203.doc
•
8
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
C7
•
0
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English, Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 - 4301 % Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planninL
Web Page htt /'«wNv:c'i.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes EXCERPT
3 December 9, 2003 - 7-000 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Dargie, Healy, McAllister, Rose, von Raesfeld
6 Absent: Barrett
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff. Mike Berman, City Manager
10 George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
11 Betsi Lewitter,`Project Planner
12 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
13
14
15
16 OLD BUSINESS:
17
18 I1. PETALUMA. VILLAGE MARKETPLACE, 2200 Petaluma Blvd. North
19 AP No.: 007 -391- 009,,048 - 080 -038
20 File: REZ02001
21 Planner: Betsi'Lewitter
22
23 Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Planned
24 Community District' (PCD) amendment for proposed modification of' River
25 Oaks /Petaluma Factory 'Outlet Village Master Plan which 'will apply to
26 improvements on Parcels B and C.
27
28 This item is continued from July 22, 2003, August 26, 2003 September 23, 2003,
29 and October 28, 2003.
30
31 M/S Healy /Assel'meier to reopen public comment. 6 -0, Barrett absent:
32
33 Brad Stipe,Chelsea Property Group: Presented changes to the project since the October
34 28, 2003 meeting.
35
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 ® Parking reduction. Made 30% of ,the parking compact, which reduced impery ious
2 surface Transferred 40 spaces to Parcel C — the difference between 4.75/1000
3 and 5/1000: Parking was removed from the,v ew corridor.
4 e Conform. 'to River Enhancement Plan setbacks. Referred to the River
5 Enhancement Plan, no maximum. setback listed. Kept 150' setback and reduced
6 the more sensitive areas to 1.10'. Have met the City's guidelines for setbacks in
7 the River Enhancement Plan.
8 • - Parcel B alternatives. This is difficult to do since it needs to be based on tenant
9 criteria. Have shown one configuration for 130,000 sq. ft. of retail.
10 Configuration can change based on the tenant.
L1 • Parcel C configuration. Also 1 of many different combinations — do not know
12 users.
13 ® Improving circulation. Makes sense to use the current configuration. Enhanced
14 Village Drive view 'corridor toprovide connection to east - west - connection.
15 e - Hardscape. Was reduced. by 64,000 sq. ft. by reducing parking and use of
16 compact spaces.
17 ® Consider vegetated swales on Parcel C — have already done this.
1s 0 Provide average setback analysis — have provided and are in comp_ liance with the
19 River Enhancement Plan for river and creeks.
20 . Describe effect of taking fill from Parcel B; to C. Civil Engineer will address this.
21 o Stake. 100' and 150' river s' etbacks on Parcel B: Have done this and hope the
22 Commissioners have gone out to see.
24 Brad Stipe: Feel we have made adjustments in the last two revisions and the e City
25 Manager supports these changes.
26
27 Commissioner von Raesfeld: What is 12' flexible access way?
28
29 Brad Stipe' We left unlabeled, the width and location is tenant driven. Is intended ;for
30 the trolley.
31
32 Commissioner Asselmeier: Describe plaza area and east west connection.
33
34 Brad Stipe: Will be addressed during SPARC for design details, we envision a large
35 plaza area. Parking has been removed on the east, west connector and we enhanced the
36 connection by reducing hard scape and increasing landscaping. North/South connection
37 to look like a road and not a service road.
38
39 Commissioner Asselmeier: Will the trail cross Deer Creek at the end of "dedicated'
40 parcel "?
41
42 Brad , Stipe: Trail will follow the railroad tracks south of Deer Creek to most. southern
43 portion of Parcel B.
44
45 Commissioner Asselmeien What are -sensitivities and will you put in a crossing at Deer
46 Creek?
2
Planning Con mission.Minutes - December 9,2003
. 1
2 Brad Stipe That. portion of trail has very dense growth, so cutting a bridge would be
3 difficult since most- comments were to respect.the sensitivities of the site and there is
4 already apermanent crossing.at the northern end of,Parcel_B.
5
6 Commissioner Asselmeier: What are the greatest changes on Parcel C?
7
8 Brad Stipe: Tenants for Parcel C are more than likely under 65,000 sq. ft. We are talking
9 to people in the 25,000 sq. ft. range.
10
11 Commissioner Rose: Asked what the effect would be for moving fill from the triangular
12 piece on Parcel B to Parcel C.
13
14 Wayne Leach: Approximately 1700 yards will be taken from triangular parcel and used
15 to raise pads on Parcel C. About 7 /10` of an acre will be graded.. This will be outside of
16 vegetated areas. about 30,000 sq. ft above top of bank and outside the drip line. The
17 deepest cut is 2', which is a small portion.
18
19 Commissioner Rose: This is approximately 30,000 sq.: ft:
20
21 Wayne Leach: Correct.
22
23 Commissioner Asselmeier: Is all the earth movement outside the 200' setback on the
24 triangular piece of Parcel. B?
25
26
27 Wayne Leach: Preliminarily it is at.least outside of the 15.0' setback. Grading.is..allowed- -
28 within the setbacks.
29
30 Commissioner Rose: Approximately the size of one of the buildings on Parcel C.
31
32 Wayne Leach: Cuts are fairly minimal.
33
34 Commissioner Asselmeier: 'What.restoration is done once the fill is moved?
35
36 Wayne Leach: Hydro Seeding to restore to what is out there now. Will be part of
37 footprint of wetland restoration.
38
3.9 Commissioner Asselmeier` Will this be under the Army Corps permit that some areas
40 will become wetlands.
41
42 Wayne Leach: Yes
43
44 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do you anticipate striping and replacing topsoil?
45
46 Wayne Leach: Yes.
47
3
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1
2
Commissioner McAllister: You put up 2 exhibits which are different than what is in the
packet. Could you pass these out? I am confused about the parking calculations —do not
3
think that was in the packet.
4
5
Brad Stipe: Clarified the exhibits in the packet and provided a copy of the alternative
6
plan for Parcel C.
7
8
Commissioner .McAllister: Also, I want. to understand the intent of the frontage road —
9
does it go beyond the bridge or end at.Deer Creek?
10
11
Brad Stipe: It is the connection up to the outlet center. In the General' Plan it extends
12
beyond Deer Creek to the southwestern corner of the triangular piece.
13
14
Commissioner McAllister: I did not think roads were intended there.
15
16
Council Member Healy: Can the existing bridge over Deer Creek accommodate the
17
trolley?
18
19
Brad Stipe: Cannot answer at this time due to structural ramifications,
20
21
Council Member Healy: Could Capri Creek structure, accommodate the trolley?
22
23
Brad,S.tipe:. Would try to accommodate that.
24
25
Council Member Healy: Might be in competition with an access road. Walked the
26
property and understand the point about - the vegetation in the location of Deer Creek
27
where PBAC wanted a crossing.
28
29
Commissioner Asselmeier: Can you gie;assurance that the east west portion will remain
30
a certain width to be a view corridor:, Can this really be. a plaza and maintain a particular
31
width? Did not see this in PCD development guidelines.
32
33
Brad Stipe: Can dictate and preserve that there will not be parking in the plaza area_
34
.
Also, would not have a problem with a minimum width.
35
36
Commissioner Asselmeier:; Want staff to weigh in on the minimum width. Can this
37
happen on Parcel C also?
38
39
Brad Stipe: Suggested looking at Page 20 of 41 in Development Agreement.
40
41
Commissioner Asselmeier: You will agree to a minimum width and no parking. along
42
side it?
43
44
Brad Stipe: Yes.
45
46
Commissioner Asselmeier; Can we extend this to Parcel C. Can you include: a visibility
47
corridor and maintain a minimum width?
4
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1
2 Brad Stipe: Can maintain a minimum width. This is a longer lease tenant and we have
3 no tenants in lin. e yet. Parcel C is much more variable. There can be a separation
4 between. two`buildings,, cannot say what that is right now.
5
6 Commissioner Asselmeier: Since you aret not sure what will go in on Parcel C — do you
7 know what the public amemtiesbe on this portion of the site.
8
9 Brad Stipe: Since it will not be ,a theater, we have not had discussion with other possible
10 tenants. May be retail or a restaurant. Will need to be elevated 5 -6 feet, will be a
11 specialized tenant` and will have to have some amenities.
12
13 Commissioner A'sselmeier Would make strong 'recommendation to SPARC to make
14 sure there are similar public amenities as on Parcel B.
15
16 Brad Stipe: Regarding architecture — have removed statement that it should look like
17 outlet stores. Feel this will be up to SPARC — we are asking for a vote tonight.
18
19 Public comment opened:
20
21 David Keller, I Street: Retail leakage study showed this as the .last site for retail. No
22 substantiation that it will bring in needed sales tax to the City. There is no accounting for
23 taking away local business. Need to ask for a fiscal impact report. Bridge over Deer
24 Creek was done by Chelsea and is not wide enough for the trolley - need to make it
25 wider for the trolley and pedestrians. Freeway frontage road to Corona was taken out.
26 Not a good site for accessibility. Circulation from Parcel B to C is really obscure. Will
27 be an extra burden to Petaluma Boulevard North:, Army Corps has not received a
28 response to the 404 perrnit `no water budget for the wetlands; runoff from the triangular
29 piece will not be enough for wetlands. On'layout of roads — there is an adopted plan line
30 for Rainier — it goes through the restoration portion so this would mean deleting the plan
31 line. On comments, regarding vegetated swales, referred to map on pg. 26. Goes directly
32 into the creek — no vegetated swale. Text 5.3.4 also needs', be adjusted. Have never
33 responded to the concerns aboutnew flood elevations'. Entrance and pads on Parcel A are
34 not under the new .100 -year, flood elevations. There was nothing in print as to how this
35 will. be addressed — who will accept this liability, the 'tenants or the City. Elevations
36 jeopardize the City's liability insurance. No compensation for the loss of parking
37 downtown need a condition of approval to provide parking downtown. Want
38 information on wetlands. Page-3 of staff report, no improvements to Petaluma Boulevard
39 North. How do people. who don't have cars get there? There is not even a bus stop. We
40 need new retail but not here. Recommend denying the PCD modification
41
42 John Cheney, 5`5 Rocca Drive: Needs to stay a hay field. We have spent 4.1 million
43 dollars on flood fix. Will not have another FEMA map until the flood fix is completed.
44 Do not want .something approved that will flood downstream neighbors. This is the
.10 45 wrong place for this development.
46
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 Stan. Gold: Commission is. being :asked to accept a situation that cannot be mitigated.
2 There will be a. cumulative, traffic impact that is not mtgatable. Applicant says we .can •
3 only go this far and the Planning Commission pushes further. If applicant cannot comply
4 with the General, Plan and the River Enhancement Plan,. the project should not be done..
5 Is not up to the City to find a way and means to do this project. Need to be consistent
6 with the General Plan and the River Enhancement Plan.
7
8 Matt Connelly: This is a good project for the City of Petaluma. Project is in the
9 redevelopment area. Chelsea. is a good company and can attract tourism dollars.
1.0 Applicant is trying, to allow for flexibility; they are only asking for° �a modification to
11 their existing entitlement. There are a small number of people opposed. The majority of
.12 citizens would, be in favor. Request that the commission approve this project and move
13 it on to the City Council.
14
15 Maxine Durney, 198 Ely Road: Am. here on "behalf of the Valley Oaks. . They are
16 disappearing all Over California. On this property there are oaks that are egenerating.
17 Do not want to remove these trees in favor of Chelsea. Want to go to the site with
18 Chelsea to point out these Valley Oaks. Mitigation of wetlands — almost none that are
19 artificially reproduced are successful.
20
21 Public comment closed:
22
23 Break @ 8:50.
24
25 Resumed @ 9 :00.
26
27 Commission QueStions:
28
29 Commissioner Asselmeier: I have concerns about traffic mitigations. The. City does not
30 seem to have a plan in place. What improvements will this applicant have to do other
31 than a traffic light?
32
33 Betsi. Lewitter: Chelsea. property does not actually front on Petaluma Boulevard North.
34
35 Commissioner Asselmeier: Do we have a mechanism for requiring improvements?
36 The impact is on :Petaluma Boulevard North and we do not have a way of requiring this
37 development to share in improvements. Will there be traffic mitigation fees?
38
39 George White: Yes.
40
41 Commissioner Asselmeier. Asked for restrictions on the parcel south of Parcel B. What
42 can and. cannot happen in the area south of Deer Creek?
43
44 George White: The commission, can make a recommendation to the City Council.
45
46 Commissioner Asselmeier: I would like that property'maintained as an amenity.
47
6
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 Council Member Healy: If there was a frontage road to be developed, will it extend
2 beyond Deer Creek?
3
4 George White: There, is no specific plan for that.
5
6 Commissioner McAllister: The restrictions that were outlined by Mike Bierman — can
7 those be incorporated into conditions?
8
9 George White: Yes:
10
11 Commissioner McAllister; Asa result of comments from outside agencies, the project
12 could change.
13
14 Betsi Lewitter: The project would not go forward if there were substantial changes.
15
16 Commissioner McAllister: What kind of changes would bring it back to the Planning
17 Commission?
18
19 George White: It's hard to speculate — usually able to resolve issues in the entitlement
20 process.
21
22 Commissioner McAllister' What if there was a comment that made it prohibitive to
23 develop as proposed?
24
25 George White: If the project is smaller and .less intensive, it would not need to come
26 back to the Commission. .
27
28 Commissioner Asselmeier: The Cond'i'tions of Approval regarding energy — how does
29 this apply to LEED?
30
31 George White: Is not that extensive — would be at the direction of SPARC. We are
32 trying to develop a green'building program.
33
34 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Referred to page 1 of the staff report regarding parking on
35 Parcel B — is not reflected in the development code.
36
37 Commission Discussion:
38
39 Commissioner Rose: I have concerns regarding removing fill from Parcel B to Parcel C
40 and the creation of wetlands. Zero net fill is not my only concern. The effect on Parcel
41 B will still be substantial. I am not certain that the idea of creating an open space on the
42 triangular portion of Parcel B is a concept that we could qualify. That amount of 30,000
43 sq. ft. of surface area not probable it will be recreated in a recognizable form.
44 . . .
45 Council Member Healy: Can we create a performance standard for wetlands?
46
47 George White: Yes.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 '
2 Council Member Healy: We can give direction to staff to come up with wording and
3 compliance.
4
5 George White: Are you suggesting something above and beyond' what is in the
6 mitigation monitoring?
7
8 Commissioner Asselmeier: What happens if it does .not turn out the way we suggest?
9
10 George White: Work with agencies to ensure it happens. If there is a problem., can come
11 back to the Planning Commission.
12
13 Commissioner Asselmeer: Where will the water come from to make .this 'a viable
14 wetland?
15
16 Commissioner ,McAllister: I share .Commissioner Rose's concern., May not .necessarily
17 produce "the results; we want it to. Do not know how to deal with this issue:. Could there
18 be a- :requirement for an independent group to design: this.
19
20 George White: That is why we have a mitigation monitoring program — it would be an
2:1 independea consultant.
22
23 Commissioner McAllister: Do not think mitigations from Parcel A. 'were entirely
24 successful.
25
26 George White: We can learn from experience. Mitigation works best when, it is done by
27 an independent; consultant hired by the City.
28
29 Commissioner: Rose: Council Member Healy made a good suggestion - .1. think creating
30 a performance standard is a good idea. Proper guidance and surveillance that we put
31 together would provide more promise ihat•we have now.
32
33 George White: Is it your direction to craft something prior to City Council.
34
35 Council Member Healy: Yes
36
37 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do not want the wetlands to look like an engineering
38 solution.
39
40 Issues Identified for. discussion:
41
42 Parking. calculations:
43
44 Commissioner McAllister.:. I am still confused about the parking and what .is. `in this
45 proposal. Attachment C states 4.35/1000, how_ ever, the development standards are
46 different. What is the actual count?
47
g
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
I Council Member Healy: Parking is driven by creek and river setbacks. The most
2 important aspects ,of site are protected by setbacks. Need to talk about Creek and River
3 Setback issues first.. I have no problem with the parking provided.
4
5 Commissioner McAllister: There is very little clearance between Village Drive and
6 parking. There is .an extensive amount of paving around Deer Creek. If you accept the
7 setbacks there are some interior issues to be addressed.
8
9 Council Member Healy: To what extent is this a Planning Commission issue or a
10 SPARC issue?
11 '
12 George White: You' are creating a zoning regulation which is the maximum parking
13 allowed.
14
15 Council Member Healy: Do they still need to have SPARC's approval?
16
17 George White: Can have conditions of approval that provide direction to SPARC.
18
19 Commissioner McAllister; There are some issues with the way the site is being graded.
20 Would not support language that Parcel B and C be the same.
21
22 George White: Need to establish a maximum ratio.
23
24 Commissioner Asselmeier: I support establishing a maximum ratio. Would like to give
25 SPARC some flexibility and would like something conducive to people moving through
26 large parking lots.
27
28 Commissioner Rose: Do think this plan is an improvement. - Walking `the site to see what
29 100' and 150' setbacks .look like, I do think we have come some distance. The most
30 telling piece of evidence was the aerial view. I am ok with SPARC dealing with the
31 details.
32
33 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Regarding setbacks — I think it is best defined in
34 Attachment F — is consistent with what we were asking of the applicant: Am comfortable
35 with this if we stipulate the parking ratio. Total ratio..is what we recommend to Council.
36 4.75/1000 is stillhigh, would recommend 4.5/1000 for both parcels B and C.
37
38 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to develop a consensus that there will not be parking
39 up against the plaza area and recommend other public amenities to SPARC — giving life
40 to visibility corridor;
41
42 Commissioner Dargie: I also want aminimum width established.
43
44 Council Member Healy: 'We are combining issues — want a minimum width determined
45 that does not have parking — prefer at least 125' without parking or a larger width that
46 would include parking..
47
9
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 Commissioner Dargie: I want to go back to the parking. ratio.
2
3 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Want the maximum parking ratio defined.
4
5 Commissioner McAllister: Would support.a reduction in the maximum ratio Applicant
6 is requesting 5/1000 overall. I support a reduction in that number.
7
8 Commissioner von Raesfeld: I do not want to concede to higher parking ratio for just the
9 3 weeks prior to Christmas that it may be :full. Suggest we come up with something to
10 recommend to council.
11
12 It was the consensus of the committee for a parking ratio of 4.5 /1000 for Parcel B and C.
13 Forty spaces to be moved from parcel B to C.
14
15 Commissioner Dargie: Is everyone ok with setbacks.
16
17 Commissioner McAllister: I still have a problem with Village Drive, however, that is not
18 relevant to this issue. ,
19
20 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Want 'to. make sure drainage from the parking lot is'not'into
21 the
22
23 George White: Other agencies will weigh in on this.
24
25 Commissioner Asselmeier: If parking,. s removed. along Petaluma Boulevard. North —
26 should that, action be mitigated by this applicant. If this application impacts other
27 businesses shouldn''t this applicant bear some of the responsibility.
28
29 Georg_ e White:. You have already endorsed this mitigation measure in the EIR.
30
31 Council Member Healy: I am at a loss on how to deal with this.
32
33 Commissioner von: Raesfeld- Is a mitigation measure that may not be possible. Possibly
34 create a parking structure downtown.
35
36 Commissioner Asselmeier: The goal 2is to put back parking spaces that are removed — is
37 there a fee charged to the applicant that can accomplish this?
38
39 Council Member Healy: Is in the redevelopment area would be a contribution to
40 redevelopment.
41
42 Commissioner Asselmeier: Do ;not think there is a reference to the number of spaces in
43 the EIR. If requiring a contribution,of in lieu fees can take care of this, I am in favor.
44 =
45 George White: Would. need to be an additional'condition..
46
•
•
10
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9.
F Commissioner von Raesfeld: Seems unreasonable to ask downtown merchants to give up
Z parking spaces.
3
4 Commissioner Rose: Is also related to circulation to the north and a connection to
5 Corona Road. Some mitigation of traffic is also relative to alternative means of access.
6 Are there other conditions that would be appropriate for a connector to Corona Road. Do
7 not know if we could recommend this.
8
9 George White: The land you are referring to is in the County.
10
1 I Commissioner McAllister: Would support compensation to the downtown merchants for
12 loss of parking.
13
14 Council Member Healy: There should be some way to replace the parking in the vicinity.
15
16 George White: We can; craft language that would establish a funding mechanism to
17 compensate for parking that would be removed. Could be similar to in -lieu parking fee
18 for Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
19
20 Council Member Healy: Maybe a fair share approach or analysis that would require a
21 contribution at the appropriate -time.
22
23 Commissioner Asselmeier: I am troubled when there is an impact to the downtown
24 merchants that is dealt with years later. In terms of timing there is a disconnect.
25
26 Council Member Healy: `I- share the frustration of the need to replace parking. Think the
27 fair share is the best approach.
28
29 David Keller: Can be' made to.lease a parking lot downtown temporarily.
30
31 Inclusion of the City Manager's restrictions.
32
33 Committee Member Asselmeier: I suggest we adopt all of the requirements in the
34 October 28, 2003 memo and subsequent amendments.
35
36 Commissioner von Raesfeld. Regarding cleaning up the PCD. Preliminary landscape
37 master plan needs to be removed.
38
39 George White: Plans need to updated and consistent with one another.
40
41 Commissioner Asselmeier: Referred to the exclusion of Wal'mart on Parcel C — should
42 that be on. Parcel B?
43
44 Council Member Healy: Need more descriptive language.
® 45
46 Commissioner von Raesfeld': My understanding was that it could not happen on Parcel
47 C.
11
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1
2
Commissioner Asselmeier: What about on Parcel B? Is that what our expectation. is?
3
4
Brad Stipp- From a square footage standpoint, it is prohibited on Parcel B. Language
5
agreed. to with the City Manager. excludes "discount department stores ".
6
7
Commissioner Asselmeier: Do we need a further description of what a discount retail is?
8
9
George White: Can have more descriptive language.
10
.11
Commissioner Asselmeier: Can'we expand on it some?
12
13
Council Member Healy:' The City Manager's memo covers this.
14
1'5
Conservation Easement on Southermost point of Parcel B.
16
17
Commissioner Asselmeier: Want some _restrictions and think there should be an
18
endowment. Should not be used to mitigate' anything else. Need to be specific on what
19
can be done here including extension of frontage road — prohibition versus permission. of
20
extending the frontage road.
21
22
Council Member Healy: Applicant will continue to own this piece. Will have
23
24
maintenance requirements.
•
25
George White: It needs to be clear that the applicant is responsible for this piece:
26
27
Commissioner. Asselmeier: The City would. be, required to monitor this ?'
28
29
George White-I City will be compensated for work done for the Mitigation .Monitoring
30
Program. I am more interested in language talking about the restrictions.
31
32
Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to see something that the City signs.
33
34
George White: Therewould be execution of easement.prior to building permit.
35
36
Commissioner Asselmeier:.Can that come back tolhis body?
37
38
George White: You can,make that °recommendation.
39
40
Council Member Healy: Do not want it so restrictive that we cannot put a -trolley line
41
through there.
42
43
George White Does the Commission want to weigh in on the final language returning to
44
the Commission?
45
46
Commissioner. Dargie: How can this come back?
47
12
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 George White: The draft language will come back before the final entitlements.
2
3 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to see the language and have an opportunity to make
4 comments.
5
6 It was the consensus of the Commission to review the language regarding the, easement
7 on the southern most point of Parcel B as well any restrictions prior to the final
8 entitlements.
9
10 Establish view corridor minimum.
11
12 Do we want to do this on Parcel C?
13
14 Commissioner von. Raesfeld: As long as there is language saying there will be a
15 pedestrian view corridor' since we do not know what is going to happen on this Parcel.
16
17 Brad Stipe: Will lock in on a- minimum on Parcel B =need flexibility on Parcel C. Can
18 have language for a public amenity at SPARC review.
- 19
20 George White: Can fold language into the guidelines.
21
22 Commissioner Rose: Want a maximum view corridor instead of just a minimum.
23
24 Commissioner Asselmeer` Refer to SPARC to have as much connectivity as possible.
25
26 Commissioner Rose: The smaller pad footprints on Parcel C are more compatible with
27 Parcel A.
28
29 Commissioner von. Raesfeld: If people do get in their cars to go from one parcel to
30 another, we have failed. Want some direction to SPARC on isigns or a way to move from
31 parcel to parcel.
32
33 Commissioner McAllister: Changes should not be limited to Parcel B. Need to alter
34 access to Parcel A.
35
36 Council Member Healy: Is a legitimate issue, want staff to make some suggestions to
37 SPARC.
38
39 Commissioner McAllister: Want roadway to transition to Parcel A in a better way.
40
41 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Fire Department would probably agree with you on that.
42
43 Deer Creek bridge:
44
45 Council Member He What is being proposed makes more sense than having a
46 crossing at the southern end of Deer Creek.
47
13
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1
2
Commissioner Asselmeier: Was 'looking for both connections – to Deer Creek and the
Petaluma River. How can the public access and enjoy this area. Want to make a
3
recommendation for a potential crossing at the southern end of triangular pi'ece.,
4
5
Council Member Healy: Do not think this can be done without removing, several trees.
6
May want ,to condition that the City .can provide access at a later date. Was not, included
7
in the -environmental review. Do not think this is appropriate at this time.
8
9
Pursuant to Commissioner von Raesfeld's suggestion, the consensus of the Commission
10
was that the trail should go up the north side of Deer Creek, down the south side .df Deer
I 1
Creek and then along the Petalumariver to, the southern property boundary.
12
13
Indemnity:
14
15
What, are the:.legal implications if hydrology data is wrong?
16
17
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do not want the City to be sued on this issue.
18
19
George White: We, can explore before going to Council.
20
21
Council Member Healy: Need to consult the City attorney. There is a project in progress
22
where there is not,a condition imposed —needs to be addressed on a Citywide policy:
23
24
Commissioner Asselmeier: Want some kind of financial backing to offset any damages.
25
If this is approved and there is flooding that would put the City in a bad position. Need
26
to do whatever we can do make sure this does not happen.
2.7
28
Council Member Healy: What is the basis for singling out this project instead of having a
29
policy.
30
3.1
Commissioner Asselmeier: Need to protect the tenants and the citizens. Want some
32
chunk ;of money.
33
34
Commissioner Asselmeier: This is already a problem, on Parcel A.
35
36,
Brad Stipe:, The.original outlet center was designed to standards at that time.
37
38
Council Member Healy: What are opportunities for tenants to obtain flood insurance?
39
40
Brad Stipe: As far as I know it is available.
41
42
Council Member Healy: Do not think we can condition on this project. Can ask staff and
43
City Attorney to suggest a policy.
44
45
46
Commissioner Asselmeier: Want assurance and insurance that we can hold someone
responsible..
47
14
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 George White: If there is consensus on this idea, we can consult the City Attorney and
2 make a recommendation to council. It would ultimately be up to the Council.
3
4 It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to "explore" with the City Attorney
5 prior to review.
6
7 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Condition #7 — do not think this is a fair trade for replacing
8 the valley oaks. Possibly twice what is proposed. -Would prefer a higher number of trees
9 and smaller plants.
10
11 It was the consensus of the commission to.provide 15, 15- gallon trees with monitoring to
12 ensure survival.
13
14 Council Member Healy: Would like staff to sit down with the trolley folks before the
15 Council meeting. Is appropriate to ask staff to weigh in on the implications of this
16 project in light of the retail study. Would like to know major tenants by the time of
17 council meeting.
18
19 Commissioner Asselmeier: Do we want to say more about energy efficiency or the
20 LEED program.
21
22 George White: Right now the only energy efficiency standards are in Title 24 of the
23 Building Code.
24
25 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Santa Rosa suggests that applicants show some green
26 building standards.
27
28 Commissioner Rose: Am not confident that we can draft something now for a LEED
29 sensitive design.
30
31 George White: You would be asking for a standard that has not been established yet.
32
33 Council Member Healy: Do we jump start this with this project?
34
35' Commissioner Rose: As a commission, we can discuss where we want to go and discuss
36 with staff. Something to raise awareness is good, however, cannot impose this on this
37 applicant.
38
39 CommissionerAsselmeier: Would be in favor of a self assessment.
40
41 M/S Healy /Rose to forward a recommendation to Council to approve the PCD
42 amendment per the amended conditions. 3 to 3. Healy, Rose, von Raesfeld in favor.
43 Asselmeier, Dargie and McAllister opposed.
44
® 45 The commission discussed a revote.
46
15
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
1 Commissioner :McAllister cannot support this extensive of a development ;at this
2 location.
3
5 impacts, that s n t mitigated, a parti ubarly no d traffic
to P talumagBoulev d
r
oulevard
6 North. The project has been improved and I want conditions to go to the: City Council —
7 will not happen without,a revised motion.
8
9 M/S Healy /Assel'meier to approve the PCD amendment per the amended conditions.
10 Healy, Asselmeier, Rose, von Raesfeld in favor. Dargie, McAllister opposed.
11 .
12
13
14
15 Adjournment: 11:05
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
•
16