HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 7.A-Attch06 06/21/2004Planning Commissibn.Minutes - April 22;2003
0 . 1
L tr City of Petaluma, California
City Coundi[Chanibers
!.� City Ha11,11 ;English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/7784301. / Eaz; 707/778 -4498
E - Mail t�lannnt (u,ci.penaL�i►iia taus
Web - Page http '`�� �� a.c�ip�tadcinla ca,'us
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
• 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
i ' 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
April 22, 2 — 7:00 PM
Commissioners: .Present: A_sselmei'er, Barrett *, Dargie, Healy, Imm, McAllister
Absent`. von Raesfeld .
* Chair
Staff, Mike Moore Community' Devel'op'ment Director.
George, Wh' nity Development
g tte Asststarit�Diree orCommu
Tiffany Robbe,.Associate Planner
Anne Windsor; Secretary
Public hearing began: @
OLD BUSINESS':
1. PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
jN
AP No( ® 007 & .03,5;.007-401-043,,'& R
0 044a Blvd. Seath North
and O
48- 080 -033, 038 &
039
File No(s) REZ020:01
Planner .�,etsi,Lewitter
Review and recommendation to City : Council of the,
he Petaluma Village
Marketplace °Finial Subsequent, equent Environmental Impact .Report (FSEIR). (Note:
P 1.
comment period for the Draft SE'EZ ended on February 3,'2003 The
g
Plannin Comrritsson will onl y review the FSEIR and ,forward a recommendation
-to the City Council).
Betsi Lewitter presented ..the staff report.
Commissioner Asselrneier'. .Asked for a summary of 'the statement of overriding
considerations would `be.
AT"TACHl%AENT' 6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22,,2003
2' Betsi Lewitter: Do not know yet.
3
4 Cha ir Barrett: Pg., R -10 referred to groundwater modification as sulplemental source
5 for water supply.. What is. major.supply? '
7 Befty Andrews: Ground water is ;rro;i main supply — is,now Russian River:,
8 _-
9 Public comment opened:
10
11 David. Keller, I Street: Suggested. the TSEIR was inadequate —was nof'iesponsi�e to all,
12 the comm'O ts, 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 ,
1 :5 be included --didn't respond to flooding issues, Questioned General Plan consistency,
°16
17 Ei'leen Moms, 421 17/2 —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 Peta 'l'Uma. Look, at the cost to the c for social services, etc. i addition to •the.
2o. °revenue that it wilj g enerate: Passed out a "Low 1ncome Housing' for Everyone" report to
21 the Commission: To survive in Petaluma, you need to make S21 /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
2 S:
26 Public comment. closed:
27"
28 'Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked John Courtney Io 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 oEthe development on downtown.
31.
32' John Courtney, Lamphier & Gregory Focus of ihe,.FSEIR was not physical impact of
33 downtown. Do not know what the retail mix will he at the „proposed outlet — would be
34 too.,apeculative. Referred' to letter, J in the 'EIR.
35
36 Betty Andrews: Flood, elevations: are shown :i_ , the FSEIR. Developed new :estimates of a.
37 1100-year flood elevation 'through entire project site. '
38
39 Comm issioner Asselmeier° Would mitigations, ;reduce 'impact to the existing'
4o development?
41
42 Betty Andrews: W- as.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 Commi,ssi.on Minutes - April 22 2003'
• I Council Member 'Healy Referred to'Page 9 of'the staff report: regarding, the type of retail
2 proposed for the.'project. .Downtown retail space, `s" 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.
tl '
12 Council Member- Healy Living- responded to, however is -a serious issue - how
13 does commission deal with the housing issue?
14
15 Mike Moore: Living wage Jiffcultto deal with from•a CEQA;s"tandpoint— is speculation
16 because tenants are not known.
17
18 Council Mernber.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: _In 100 -year flood, would the bridge to "the existing development
33 be under water?
34
35 Betty Andrews: Do not` know - *did not look at for this FSEIR.
36
37 Commissioner Dargie: Will, there be a flooding impact, even if minor.
38
39 Betty Andrews;; Yes
40
41 Commissioner. Dargi ':,.Was the.mitigation imposed storage in'the parking lot?
42
43 Betty Andrews: Yes- -� zero net fill to make surer adequate storage of water;, based on
44 modeling results = 'very - small' change in net effort.
45
4,6 Commissioner Dargie: Re: ingress and egress — how was. it ,detennined that 2 access
47 points were sufficient — how much study was done regarding emergency vehicle access?
3
Planning Commission Minutes -, Apri 22,2003
2 Steve L einberger. Was determined.
tw__o access points would be enough — regarding peak
31 traffic., , Emergency WQUId depend on, the des'gij ofthe bridge,
4
5 Chair-Barrett:� Did, EIR addres&,ernergency ap- pSS
c on the bridgeS
6"
'7 Steve Weinberger` Only addressed traP5c
8
�9 Betst Lewitter There is an eme•gency access, from Corona Road, at the rear, of the
to ;property.
1,2 Ma 1 14. lly"
Corona was built at;.a,higher elevation .and the, bridge was designed' for
13 traffic to;
Pull off on the shoulder.
14
15, Commissioner �Dargie. Did EIR, impacts regarding_ reasonable foreseeable
16 protects.
17
18 Mike Moore: At the time of the I)EIR
fot, - CPSP.was only :1n,adrdft form;: no
1.9 application. for the Johnson D _Cr for - a prelim
property*, per eFek-has only to rn&
Mi. _ry
20 SPARC review. From :a CE a . , _0A st . ridgo" in. , comparing t h is project and the CPSP = too,
,
.21 speculafiye,atthis.poia. CunndatiVe analysis lo . ks at build out potenti'al.,of general pl at
an
22 -land use designations.
23
24 Commissioner McAflister. Cumulative "i - pact— is that regarding flooding and traf
25
- 261. Mike Moore: Yes".
2,7
28' Commissioner McAllister: Re: flooding on the bridges, pg. R — what I& elevation?
29
30 Betty Andrews-: Do npf-have information.
31,
32 Com.mission.e McAllister: R-5 — if bTid.gp 'i's not designed does 4t delay he
33 'p.r.i'v.ironment I al'� teview the bridge? y
34
35 Beisi'l-ewitter:. Other age w - 6se, rn - ._,ould'imp ' I ion, measures.
36
37 Com'missionerMcAllister: Re: general ,plan consistency sounds like conformance is. a,
38 matter of opinion. Eow, does: it - enhance Petaluma and the 4owntown —there is a, range bf
39 opinion — howdoes this re la te is re atelo a A approval.
40
44 Betsi Le. iter: This .Js up to the dec i
ision makers i's, a, modificat"on "'to an already
42 approved project.
.,:43
44 Chair Barrett' Appiovat of Parcel A was
contingent on Parcels B
45 with , the General Plan.
46
, 4.
Planning Commission Minutes- April 22, 2003
i 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 dealt , •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?
1 , 0
11 Mike Moore: If impacts are significant and unavoidable would require statement of
12 ovemding consideration:"
13
14 Commissioner McAllister: Pg. R'17 what is revision on mitigation?
15
16 Betty Andrews: Only a.,s ngl.e detention basin.
17
18 Commissioner' Asselmeier:' Wlere , does the project stand regarding °unfunded mitigation,
19 measures — where the " on_ . funding the'necessary traff c :improvements.
20
21 Mike Moore: In , determining adequacy of the j E 1 IR it `is: up to the commission to
22 determine if°- impacts are significant" and unavoidable if, they are: not!'funded. Can discuss
• p ' p p jects.
24 contnbutio'ris for ca ital im rovement' ro
23 or recommend fair share ,
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', unspeeifi'ed crosstown 'connector on the
29 Capital Improvement. Plan.,
30
31 Commissioner Asselmeier: 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
Y p p P higher. are what n` federal standards'a
34 Mike Moore: it '';s flood lain, develo merit re applies — these are
35 base oil � �hi her. No:net fill requirements address this
36 issue.
38 Commissioner Irnm: Reviewed all of the material. What are parameters of traffic
39 model?
40
41 Steve Weinberger`. ' Standard methodology — b'ased on square footage of use `or acres of
42 site or number of units i;f residential. Range varies by size of the center — is usually an
43 average number "range is plus or minus 10 %0.
44
45 Comm 1ssioner:Imni: "Could there be just one large store?
1 046
47 Mike Moore: Yes theo'reti'cally.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 2003
2 Commissioner Imnt Referred 'to letters 'from Fish and, Game
3
4 John, Courtney 7 Responded to all comments.
5
, 6 Chair Barrett: No mitigation for removal of 'a 1.6' - Via . meter old oak to build the br idge.
7
8 John Courtney Was not idenfified as a - significant impact
9
10 Commissioner Asselm6ier: No ad d itional mi ons,a a `ti' ti d after the comments
tl
ga j T1
12 John Courtney- There Were some niodi ts� or
modifications,
11 mitigations. ver, there. wemIn-o�new,irftpac
14
15 Commissio Asselmeier: If welm
ove forward — are we approving 5 structures 18 that
1'6 subject to - revision later.
17
Mike Moore— Commission ,has di'scrOtion to condi - tion the pro ject. Could b e; possible
0J.
through, SPARC process, tomod'ify. . ffit was a significant change affiticti 1h g'the K-0, may
20 have to ,come back t6 Planning Commission or Counc
unci
,21
22 Commissioner Ass,61meier: Want 'to know if traffic study was based on,
maximum
deilsiti'es so if there ,are changes at alater date we have considere i ssues.
24
25 Mike: Moore: If there Are I ant changes' it; could and would be btought
- I c
26 & p eh on the changes.
27
,28 Break, @ 9.:
20
30 Resumed '@ 0.25,
31
32' Council, N,4 Healy- Issues, raised, — such :as setbacks that "be, a
setbacks COhdiffoh7 of
33 Approval or mitigation in the EiR.
34
35 Mike Moore Wo"Uldbe Condition of Approval f6r:tffe project.
36
37 Council Member Healy Believe SBIR is, adequate and recommend Ce rtiticatioh by the
38 Council.
39
4 Commissioner Dargie Quest'
1i Commissioner I ions have been answered agreje document is compl&te and
4,1 recommend certification.
42
43 Commissioner McAllister Not satisfied With some oif"the'respopses and mitigAti'Offs. Dp;
44 not know s
where mitigations leave off "and conditions of approval lake up.
I
45
46 Chair Barrett: What about EIR questions - that are knot project related lack of
47 responsiveness to low cost housing and the impact of the project on h6dsi I ng'°in,P&tafuma.
0 1
6
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1'0
12.
I 3'
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3;1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Plannin Commissi'on,Minutes -April 22, 2003'
9 -
:Mike Moore. EIR is an in orrnational document ment not int`eid`ed' to address all of the
' issues raised.. Ifdocumenti8 determined adequate,, you` can +forward'a recommendation to
the Council to adopt a Fiving wage.
Comm ere uestions answered ed and enough information given is this
what we are recommending if we recommend certification?
Commissioner McAllister: If SEIR is adequate and the project changes, what happens to
the EfR?
Mike Moore: If you, addtess.impacts, hopefully you will not make the impacts worse.
Commissioner Asse - Meier: Not 100. %6 comfortable what the project is so SEIR is not
100% on point. Do not want to end up with on`e massive retail tenant. Do not want to
undermine the 1CPSP in approving this project. Also, have traffic concerns. Do not know
if this is adequate.
Chair Barrett: FSEIR very' disappointing = took ,a miniinal'ist view. Cannot pick and
choose discussion of economic basis.
r.
Council Member Healy: Indicated that the "Council appreciated the Planning
Commission's, the Commission wouldn '=t input hoped' that!" '=t preempt themselves from
commentin on , ue and
th ect I as they _had on recent projects _by not recommending
g p J. ; � .
certification of the.FSEIR
Commissioner Asselrneier
Asked ,ifthe Planning Commission would review the project
if they did not recommend certification.
George White: Not, unless the City Council sent the project back to the Planning
Commission.
M/S Healy /Dargie to forward a. recommendation to the Counci'I to certify the
5 -1
Council Member Healy:
Commissioner Dargie.
Commissioner McAllister:
Chair Barrett:
Commissioner von Raesfeld:
Commissioner Assel'mei`er:'
Commissioner Imin:
,.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Absent
Yes
Yes
• 45 NEW BUSINESS;
46 PUBLIC HEARING:
47
7
ia' I
� I
I
I
Plonnin9 Commission Minutes - April Z2, 2003,
1. II': MO OAKS'' / PIETALUMA FACTORY .OUTLET •
DIFhCATION OF RIVER
2 VILLAGE MASTER, PLAN :FO'R EXPANS'I®N (PETALUIVLA VILLAGE,
3 MARKETPLACE),',2200 Petaluma Blvd. SoWhNorth
4 AT No(s): 007'= 391 -0:09 & 035 and '048- 080 -033, 038 &
5 039,'
6 File No(s) RE Z02001
7 Planner.: Betsi'-Lewitter
8
9 The applicant is requesting approval to: amend : the previously app "roved Planned
10, Cornmumt-y District f PCD) Master' Plan Program to expand the existing Petalum a
r1 Village Marketplace on to adjoining parcels to the north and. south of :existing
1 center.
13 .
14 Betsi' Lewitterpresented the staff report.
16 Brad Stipe, Chelsea Property Group; Gave a hsfgry of the project a"nd� presented the
17 proposed modifications to the project.
18
19 Darrell Hebenstreit, Architects Orange: Presented the site :plan 'and el'euat ions of the
20 project.
21
22 Phil vander-Toolan, Landscape Architect: Presented the.;landscape plan for the project.
24 Council ,Member Healy.: Do the, plans include comnaerits from SPARC in flu u
g `st 2002
25 'arid are you asking; approval for;r`etaiI space on Parcel C.
26
27 Brad Stipe: Some changes were made as a result of SPARC. Asking approval fo r
'
28 everything. ,
,29
30 Commissioner McAllister Suggest'visual smul'ation_of. "the drive by uiew
31
32 ' /S D'argie /Asselm'eier to continue to May'27, 2003, 6 -.Q
33
`34
35 Adjo.urrirnent: 1'0;52
36 -
37 S \PC; Planning CommisSion\ Minutes \PCMinutcs03 \042203.doc
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
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
0 34
35
city of Petaluma, California
City - CouncirChambers
Q City Hall, 11 English Street
c . Petaluma, CA 94952
y=.
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/7784498
E =Mail t�lanniu�Cu .ci:petaluti�a:ca:us
1$5$ Web Page httt�s'r.i��ti;«:ci talumlca
Minutes EXC
Phnneng Comlrnesi6 ®n, . `.
®ecembdr 9, 2663 - 70 06 PM .
Commissioners: Present'.' Asselmeier; Dargie, -Healy; !M'cAltister; von Raesfeld.
Absent:; Barrett
* Chair ll„
Staff:. Mike Berman, City Manager
George White, Assistant Director, Community Development'
Bets] Lewitter, Project Planner
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
OLD BUSI'NESS�:
II: PET,
ALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE, 2200Petaluma Blvd. North
AP No '00,7 - 3,91=009, 048 - 080 -038
File: REZ02001
Planner: Betsi Lewitter
Request for a recommendation to the. City Council to, approve the Planned
Community= .Dis' ( D) amendment for proposed; modification of River
trict PC
'Factor g ch will apply to
Oaks /Petaluma Factor Outte't Village Master Plan,'
improve ments on Parcels.,Bland'C.
This item ]s continued from 'July 22, 2003,' August 26, 2003, September 23, 2003,
and October'28, 2003.
M/S Heal y /Asselmeier to reopen.public comment. 6 -0, Barrett absent.
Brad Sti P e
Property Group: Presented changes to the project since the
28, 2003 meetin'g.,
Planning Commissipp M'inuf'es - December 9,2003.
,
i • Parking Made 3'0% of the parking compact, which reduced impervious
•
2 surface. Transferred 40 spaces 'to Parcel C — the difference 'between 4.75/1.000
3 and 5 /100`0. Parking was removed from the view corridor. p
4 Conform to ' :River ,Enhancement Plan, setbacks. Referred to the River
5 Enhancement Plan no maximum'setback`listed. Kept 150° `setbacLand reduced
the more sensitive areas-to, 1,10',. ,Have met `the. City's gu`deliiies' for setbacks in
7 the River: Plan:
8 Parcel B alternatives. Thi is difficult to do since it need`s to be based.,on tenant
9 criteria. Have shown one ,configurati "on for 130,000 sq. ft. of 'retai'l.
1.0' Configuration can change based ' n ffier tenant.
11 a Parcel C :configuration. Also 1 of many different combinations -- do not know
1'2 users:
13 Improving circulation. Makes sense to use the current conf guration. Enhanced
14 Village Drive view corridor to provide connection to east -west connection.
15 • H_ardscape._ Was reduced by 64,000 sq. It by re d ucingg parking and. use' of
16 compact spaces ^:
17 ® Consider vegetated Swales o Parcel C — have already done.t1 i ° s.
18, ® Pro Y . average setback analysis,— have provided and are in compliance the
with
. 19 ,River Enhancement Plan for river and creeks.,
20 Descnbe;effect of tak rig,fill from; Parcel B to :C. Civil Engineef V "ll address'this.,
21 • Stake 100' and 150' river setbacks. on Parcel B: Have done this and hope the
22 Commissioners, have, gone out to see.
23_
24 Brad, Stipe Feel we have made adjusfinents in the last two rev'i'sions and the City
25 Manager supports these changes.
26
27 Commissioner von Raesfeld: What is. 2' flexible way?
28
29 -Brad Stipe:_ We Ieft unlabeled, the width„ and. location "s tenant driven. - intended' for
,Is
30 the trolley.
3t ti
32 Commissioner Asselmeier: Describe plaza area and east west comnection:
33
34 Brad Sti A e:, Will be addressed durin g SPARC 'for design details, we envasion 'a large
35 lazy area. Parkin g hasa�b-een removed on the east west connector and we ;enhanced the
36' connection by reducing Bard scape and increasing; landscapeng, North/South connection_
37 to look like a r6ad' and -not.a service road.
.38
3 9 Commissioner Asselmeier. Will.the trail' cross' Deer Creek at the end of "dedicated
40 parcel "?
' 41
42 "rad $tipe: 'Trail - will follow the railroad tracks south of'Deer Creek to most southern,
43 p o rt io n- ,,of Parcel B. } _ -
44
45 ' ' Commissioner What:are. sensitivities and will you put in a crossing at Deer,
4�6 Creek?
1
.2
3
4
'5
6
7
8
9
10
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
1 046
47
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
Brad Stipe: That portion of trail, has very dense growth so 'cutting a. bridge would be 1. difficult since most commentsz were to respect the sensitivities of the site and there is
already a permanent crossing at', the northern end of Parcel B.
Commissioner Asselmeier: What are the greatest changes on Parcel' C?
Brad Sti P e: Tenants for Parcel C are more than likely under 65,000 sq. ft. We are talking
to people in the 25,,000, sq ft. range.
Rose.
to Parcel C what' the effect would ibe for, movin
piece on Parcel B g fill" from the triangular
Wayne Leach: Approximately, 1700 yard's will betaken from triangular parcel and used
to raise pads on Parcel C. About 7/16 of an acre`will be.g - raded. This will be outside of
vegetated areas. about 30,000 sq. ft above top of'b'ank and outside the drip line. The
deepest cut is 2', which is: a small portion.
Commissioner Rose: This:is approximately 30,000 sq. ft.
Wayne Leach`. Correct
Commissioner Asselmeer:, Is all the earth movement outside the 200' setback on the
triangular piece of,Parcel B?
Wayne Leach: ,Preliminarily it is at least outside of the'] 5V setback. Grading is allowed
within the setbacks.
Commissioner Rose; Approximately the size of one of the buildings on Parcel C.
Wayne Leach: Cuts.are, fairly minimal.
Commissioner ,Asselmeer: What restoration is donee once the fill is moved?
yn , Leach: - Hydro seeding to restore to what is out-'there now. Will be part of
footpr nt of wetland 'restoration.
Commissioner
become weAssel ei "er: Will this be under the Army Corps permit — that some areas
Wayne Leach. Yes"
Commissioner von Raesfeld Do yo.0 anticipate striping and replacing topsoil?
Wayne Leach: Yes:
3
Planning Comm, fission Minutes - December 9,2003
1.
2
3'
4,
,5
7
8
9
10
11
1.2.
13,
14
,15
16
17
18
119
:20"
21
22
23
24
.25
26
,27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3.6
37
38
39
40
41
4-2
43
44
'45
46
47
Corriffilssibner. You put Lip 2, exhibits which are different than 'What is in the
packet . ,Could you p ass these.out? Lam confused' the parking calculations do not
..
think that was in the packet:
Brad S`tipe: . Clarified the exhibits in the p ack _ et and provided a copy of the alternative
plan for Parcel C.
Commissioner"McAlbster: Also,,Iwant to .understand the intent of 'the frontage road, , —
does it go beyond the bridge or end at Deer Creek?
BrAdSti
D eer - It is the connection thc� ou(let center. g u l ar In the General Plan, - it-, extends
beyond Deer Creek to the,southwe. siem corner Of the � tri an p i ece;
Cbffimissioner. Me-Allister: 'I did -not think road were intended'
C Member Healy:: Can, the existing, bridge over Deer Creek dccbffi,rhodate+ the
trolley?
Bmd,Stipe.7 Cannot answer at' this time; due to, structural ramifications:
Counci - Member- Healy: Could Capri''Oreek-structure. accommodate the trolleyT
Brad- S,t'l,pe: Would try to accommodate that.
lCouncil Member Heal Migh be
I I with an access road'. Walked the
I , !
progerty and 'understand the point, about the
O in the Iocdtl'bifi.. of beer C reek'
*here PBAC wanted :a crossing.
Commi,ss ioner'Asse I Mel er: Can you give assurance that the east West , portion wil-l'
remain
a,cor width to: be "a view corridor. Can thisreally"be a.-plazdznd mainta in a part I icular
w idth`? see this in PCD developm'en
,I � Did not s tijzdidefines.
Brad-Sti0q: Can dictate and;preserve that there will not be parkin in -the , p 'I a rea.
Also, would na have a problem with, a minimum w idth.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Want staff 'to weigh In o the minimum width. Can this
happen on Parcel. C.also?.
Brad S Suggested'looking at Page 20rof41 in Development Agreement.
Commissioner Asselmeler: You will agfee-t& a minimum. Width and nog parking along
side it?
]Brad Stipe: Yes..
Commissioner Asselmeler; Can we extend this ,to Parcel E. Can you,'hic a visibility
corridor and maintain a. in inim.urn width
ki
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
2 Brad Stipe;, Can : maintain a minimum width. This is a longer lease' tenant and we have
3 no tenants -in line et. Parcel C is. much more
y variable.: There can be a separation
4 between two buildings, vannot say what that is nght now.
5
6 Commissioner Asselmeien Since you are not sure "wh will go din on -Parcel C - do you
7 know what the public amenities be,on 'this portion of the site.
8
9 Brad p Since: it will not''be a theater, we have not had discussion with other possible
10 'tenants. May be retail or a ;re'staurant. Will ,need to , be elevated 5-6 feet, will be a
11 specialized' tenant and wif have; to `have some amenities.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
r 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 Asselmerer; Wou "I'd make strong recommendation to SPARC to make
sure there are similar public arpenities as.on Parcel. B.
g - have removed statement that it should look like
Brad Stipe: Regardm ; archi'tcctur`,e
outlet stores. Feel,',this will be up to SPARC -we are asking, for a'`voie tonight.
Public comment opened:_
David Keller, I Street: Retail leakage study showed `this as .the °fast site for retail. No
substantiation that it will bring .in needed sales tax to the City.. There is no accounting for
taking away local business. Need 'Ito ask for a' fiscal impact .report. Bridge over Deer
g Y ,
,Creek was done by Chelsea:and` is not wide enough for the trolley - need to make it
wider for the trolley and pedestrians. Freeway frontage' road to Corona was taken out.
Not a good site for; accessibility. Circulation from Parcel B to C is really obscure. Will
be an extra burden to Petaluma Boulevard North. Army Corps has not received a
response to the 404: permit; no water budget for the wetlands; runoff from the triangular
piece will.not be enough. for wetlands. On layout of'road's there is an adopted plan line
for Rainier - it goes through the restoration portion so this would mean' deleting the plan
line. On comments regarding vegetated swales, referred'tolhap on pg. 26. Goes directly -
into the creek - no vegetated ,wale. Text 5.3.4 also needs to be adjusted. Have never
responded to the, concerns' about new,flood:elevations. 'Entrance and pads on Parcel A are
not under. the new 100 =year flood elevations. There was .noth'ing in print as to how this
will be addressed - -who; will -accept; this .liability, the ,tenants or -the City. Elevations
jeopardize the City's liability insurance. No compensation for the Boss of parking
downtown - need a condition of approval, 'to provide ,parking downtown. Want
information on wetlands. Page 3 of staff report, no improvements to Petaluma Boulevard
North..,How °do people who don't have cars get there? 'There is not even a bus stop. We
need new retail b.ut `not here. Recommend denying the PCD modification
John Cheney, '55 Rocca Drive: Needs to stay a hay :fell., We have spent 41 million
dollars on flood fix. Will not have another FE-MA map until the flood fix is completed.
Do not want something :approved that °'will flood downstream neighbors. This is the
wrong place for. this development.
Planning Commiss'ion Minutes -. December 9
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8-
1 -9.
20
zi
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,
29
30
31,
32
33
'34
15
16
37.
38
39
. 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Stan Gold': Corniiiissibn is being asked to accept a situation that, cannot be mitigated.
There wil be.a, cumulative ;traffic z. 't that is not mitigatable-. Applicant , says-we can
only go th'i's far and the Nanning Commission pushes further. If applicant 'com
cannot
p
with,:the General Plan and the River Enhancement Plan,, the -pr j e�ct!shouj d not 'be done.
0 1
Is not up to the City to find a way and ,means to do this project. - Need to ' be consistent'
with the General Plan .and the, River.Efthantemefftflan.
Matt Connelly: This s i& a good project for the I
City of Pe.talurna. Project is in the
redevelopment area. Chelsea, _'is, a good company and can attract `tourism! 'dollars.
A'pp is trying � to; allow for.flaxibi.lity; the y are only asking- a for modification to
their exi§tinz There are a; small mber of people.oposed . . The r-na'aorily,of
citizens would, be "in favor. Request that the commission approv&'tfiis,prqject: 7arid move
it- on to the City Coun,61.
Maxine Durney, 1.08 Ely Road: Am here 'on behalf of the Valley Oaks. They :are
disappearing all, over, Cah fornia, On this pro perty there -are oaks ;that are regenerating
149
'Do . not want to remove these trees in favor of. Chelsea. Want to Fga to the site with
Chelsed to, point out these Vall.eyOAks. Mitigation of wetlands almost noneolhat are
arti reprodu6e'& are successful.
Pub'l'ic comment closed:
.Break @ $
Resumed @ 9:60.
Comihission, Questioif§:,
Commissjo I have t0ficetris traffic; mitigations., The: C ity, does hot
seem to ba-vez plan ° in, place. What improvements will this: applicant have to do other-
than ,a traffic 'light?
Bets I Lewitter: Che'lse.a,proppr.tyzdpe,s actually front , bnPdtalum North:
Com-mis'sion Do we have a.mechanism for requiring-Improveimerits?
The impact is On Petaluma . Boulevard North and we do, 'not a way of tequi'
7- - . - iring this:
development to share , in -improverri Wi I'llhere 'be traffic, mitigation fees?
George. Yes
1
Commi.sSioner Asselmeict-.-, Asked for restrictions on.-the parcel south of Parcel R What
can , and cannot 'happen in the; area south ; Qf beer Creek?
George White: The 'comi make a-r-ecomindriclation to the City Council
Commissioner Asselmelef- I would like that property maintained as an amenity.
1 • .
•
:6
Planning Commission Minutes,- December 9,2003
1 `Council Member Healy If th_ ere was';a fi`ontage road to r'd
be"eveloped, will it extend
2 beyond Deer Creek?
3
4 Geor, e White.: There i`s s :ecif c,, plan for
g p p' °�th'at. .
5
6 Commissioner. McAllister e. restrictions t y Mike Bierman — can
that were outlined b
7 those be incorporated into conditions?
8: -
9 George. White:. Yes
10
11 Commissioner McAllister As,�a 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.
16 Commissioner McAllister: What kind of chap es
g ' l4ou�ld firing it ;back to the Planning
17 Commission?
1
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; i would not need to come
26 back'to the Commission.
27
28 Commissioner Asselmeier: The Conditions of Approval, regarding energy — how does
29 thi's 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.
3 . 3
34 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Re ff (erred to page 1 of the sta report .regarding parking on
35 P''arcel_B —;is° not.r*Aected in the development code.
36
37 Commission Discussion:
38
39 Commissioner Rose: I have concerns regarding removing f ll from Parcel ,B to Parcel C
40 and the creation of ,Zero net fill is not my only concem': The effect on Parcel
41 B will still be substantial: I am not certain that the, idea - creatin a n o pen' space on t
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.
J
Planning, Commission Min0fes.- December °9.,2003
y give p din and
2 compl►Ian e ember Healy:, We can ive direction, to staff'to come u with wording g
3
4
5 George White: .. Are you suggesting 'something above and beyond what is in the
6 rni'ti'gati`on, monitoring?
7 .
8 Commissioner Asselme
ier: What flappers' if it does. riot turn out the way a %e suggest?
9
10 George White: Work with agencies to ensure it happens. If'there is a can come
1';1 back to the Planning Commission:.
1.2
13 Commissioner Asselmeier: Where will the water come from to make thi's a viable
14. wetland? ;
.15
16 'Comrnissioner 'Mc"A'llister I share Commissioner Rose "s concern. May not necessariiy
IT produce •the., results we want it to.. Do nqt know how to deal with this issue., "Co'uld there
1,8 be a requirement for an independent group to desgn•this.
19
20 George. White , That. is why we have a mitigation ' "monitoring program ='it would be an
21 independent consultant.
22
23' Commissioner° McAllister Do not think mitigation "s from. Parcel A. ,entirely
24 successful.
2S
26 George Whiter We:can learn, from experience. IVl tigat'on works best when it isAone.:by
27 an irnd'ependerit consulfant.hired b y the City:
28
29 Commissioner Rose Council Member Healy made a good suggestion - Tthirik creafing
30 a ,performance.'standard is a good idea 'Proper guidance and surveillance that" we; put
3:1 together would provide more promise that we have now.
32
33 George Wh`.i "te: Is it your direction 'to, craftsomething prior to City Council.
34
35 CouncitMeniber Healy: Yes
36
37 ` Commissioner von Raesfeld Do, not want the wetland - 9. 1to look dike an engineering
38 solution.
39
40 lss'Ues.Identified for discussions
41
42 Parking calculations:
43
44 Commissioner' McAllister: I am still confused''about bhe parking and what Js 'in ihis
45 proposal. Attachment C states. 4.35/100Q, however„ the development 'standards are,
46 different. What i_s. the actual count ?'
47
8
I
Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2003
y � u
®; 1 Council IVlem s ber Healy. Parking� driven b creek" and n ver setbacks. The most
,
2' important aspects -6 site are protected, b.y setbacks. Need to talk �,abo.ut Creek and River
3 Setback i'ss'ues first. I have no roblem with- the Arkin rovid-
p P g�. ed.,'
4
5 Commissioner ,McA. (lister: 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 "Pl'anning "Commission issue or a
110 SPARC issue?
1]
1.2 George White: You are creating a zoning regulation which is the maximum parking
13 allowed.
1.4
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= establi "sh a maximum ratio.
• 23
24 Commissioner Asselm
eien .I suppbrt establishing a maximum, ratio. Would like to give
25 SPARC some flezibilUt and would1lke something" conducive to people moving through
26 large parking lots.
27
28 Commissioner Rose: 'Do think ;this pl'ari is' an improvement. Walking the site to see what
29 100 and 150 ' stbacks look 'like, I do think we have
' e_ come' Borne 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 =a I think 'it. is best defined in
35 with tli'isI "if we stipulate the park. g ratio. Totals ratio what Iw recot. Am comfortable
34 Attachment F is c
mmend to Council.
36 4.75/1000 is still "hig h , would re'comm'end 4.5/1:000 for both pare „els'B� C.
37
38 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to develop .a consensus that° there 'will not be par -king'
39 up against the plaza area and recommend other_ public amenities to .SPARC —giving life
40 to visibility corridor:
41
42 Commissioner. D,argie: l also want a minimum. 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 parkxrg or a larger .width that
46 would include parking.
47
9
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,20 . 03
I 'CoMmissionerDargie:. I want to.gq back to, the parking ratio.
2
3 Commissioner von, Raesfel& Want the I a
mum p ratio defined.,
4
5 Cbrnmfssioner MtAllister: W ould support a reduction .-in the maximum ratio, Applicant
6 i s, req uesting 5/.1 overal support a reduction in tha t number.,
7
8 Cornmis.sion6r Raesfeld: I& not want, to , concede to higher `pafking,ratjo! for just, the
9 1 weeks prior- tathri stmas that i t may be full.- Suggest we come up. wi th something , to
10 recommend to council.
12
It was the consensus , of the committee for z, parking ratio of 4.5/1 for Ram` I B and C.
13 Forty spaces moved from parcel'B to'C
14
15 Commissioner Da:rgje,: Is everyone A with setbacks.
16
17' Commissioner. McAllister: L still ,have .a p toblef with Village Drive, -hoWeve I r, that, I i s hot-
18 'relevant to this issue,.
19
20 is I
Corrim s von Raesfeld: -Want to
make. dtainagq from the-parkin I
gJot into
the river.
22
23 George White: -Other agencies will weigh in on this.
24
25 Corriniissioner Agselmeiet: If,patking 'is removed along Petaluma Bou"IeVatd
26 sho�ild that. action be mitigated by this applica If 1his applicati , 'on impacts :other
27 ;,business I s es�shouldn�t this. applicant bear some of the responsibilfty.
m
,28
29 George White. You have already ehdorsedthfs tig ti
rm a ion measure in the EIR-,
31 Council Member Healy! I am at a lbss on how to deal with this.
32
33 Comnliss Raesf61d: Is a mitigation measure u that may not; be possible. Possi,h)y
34 create, A.,Parki'n'g structure downtown.
35
36 Commissioner Asselmelbr The goal is to, put back pqTking spaces that are.,
T removed IS
37 therea feet charged tol the 'applicant that can - accomplish this?
38
39 Council Member Healy; Js in the . r.eddv pment area. — Would be a contribution to,
40 redevelopment.
41
42 Commissioner Asselmeier'. Do not think thete is a reP4ence to the number' Of spaces in
43 the,EIR. If requiring - a corithbufi6n of in lieu fees can take care ,of this
r I'Arn in favor.
, 44
45 George White:,, Would : need 1o, be an additi6hal'condition.
0
46
to
•
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
1'8
19
20
21
22
• 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Planning Commission Minutes - December 9,2003
wn merchants to give up
ark s aces.
parking _g P. ., �
Commissioner von a
es e eems uiu easona e to ask do wnt
Commissioner Rose. Is also;,..related to circulation to the north and a connection to
i g ,temn , tive means of a ccess.
Corona Road. Some mite anon of traffic'�rs also relative to -al '
Are there other conditions that"woul'd- be appropriate ' a co
not if we co, . nnector�t "o Corona Road. Do
for
]d recommend' this:
George White: The ot are refe , rring to is in the County."
e land �
Commissioner McAllister Would pP Wo nsanon,to t
. su - ort .coin P e ` he downtown merchant's for
loss of parking.
Council Member Healy; There should be some way to replace the parking in the vicinity.
George White: We can craft language that -would, establish a funding mechanism to
compensate for parking that ,would be removed. Could he similar, to in - lieu parking fee
fo.r Central Petaluma Specific Plan,
Council Member Healy: Maybe; a fair share approach. or anal',ysi's that would require a
contribution at the appropriate time.
Commissioner Asselrneier: I am troubled 'when, there' ;is an 'impact to the downtown
merchants that is dealt with years later. In terms of timing there is :a disconnect.
Council Member 'Healy` I share the frustration of the need to replace parking. Think the
fair share is the best approach.
David Keller: Can'be made to lease a parking lot downtown'temporaril-
Inclusion of the City Manager's restrictions.
Committee Member Asselmei'er: I suggest we adopt all of the requirements in the
October 28, •2003 memo and subsequent.amendments
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Regarding cleaning up the PCD. Preliminary' landscape
master plan need&to be removed.
George White; Plans need to. updated and consistent with one another.
Commissioner A"sselme'i'er Referred' to the exclusion of Walmarton Parcel C - should
that be on Parcel B? '
Council Member Healy. Need: more descriptive language.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: My',understanding was that it, could. not ^happen on Parcel
C.
Planning Commission Minutes' _, Dec -ember 9,200.3
1
2 Commissioner Asselmeier: W'hat'about on.Parcel B? Is that what our expectation is?
3
5, agreed to with the City M'anagerr excludes, sctountrde pro i artmentdstore Parcel', B. Language
City g p s .
7 Corhmissioner Do we a further , description of what a: discount retail is?
' 8 •
9' George White;, Can descriptives language,
10
1.1. Commissioner Asselmeier: Can we :expand on it some?
12
13 Council Member Healy. The City Manager's memo covers this.
14
15 :Conservation 'Eas.ement,on S,outhermoSf point of Parcel. B.
p6 -
i7
Corni issioner. Asselmeier: Want- some restrictions and think' .there should be an
118 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.
22 Council N ember .Healy: Applicant •, will continue to own this piece: Will have
23 maintenance: requirements.
24
25 George White; It needs to be clear that the applicant is responsible for.this piece.
26
27 Corrimi "ssioner Asselmeier: The City would be required to monitor this?
28,
29 George White will be compensated for work done for the Mitigation Monitoring.
30 Program. I arb more interested_ in language talking about the restrictions.
31. '
32 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to see something that.'the City signs.
33
34 George White: There would be execution of easement - prior to buildiingpermi`t:
35
.36 -Commissioner Asselrne.ier: Can. that come back to this body?
37
38 George White You can° make that recommendation.
1 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 Ianguiage returning ao
44 the Commission ?'
45
46 C0rr1missioner'Dargi;e: How can this; come-back?
47
0
12
13
Planning Commission Minutes - December 92003
• 1
George Whiter 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 Comrrission to review the ]'angu "age regarding the easement
7
on the southern most point of Parcel, B as well any restrictions prior to the final
8
entitlements.
9
To
Establish view corridorrrrinimum.
].1
.12 .
Do we want to do this on Parcel C?
13
14
Commissioner von Raesfeld: As Tong 'as there is language saying there will be a
15
pedestrian view corridor "since we dbnot know what going to,happen on this Parcel.
16
.
17
Brad Stipe: Will. ,lock ,in on, a mm>mu m on,Parcel.''B — ri eed '- flex =ibility�ion Parcel C. Can
18
.
have lan ua e fora ubl�c ameni'ta
g g p . y . t, SPARC review,:
19
20
George White: Can fold ;language ,into the guidelines.
21
22
Commissioner. Rose: Want u maximum view corridor instead ofd ust a rn>nfmum.
23
24
4 . c
Commissioner Asselmeier Refer °S_�PARC to have as m uch onnectivity as possible,
� 1
26
e srnah er ad
Commissioner Rose. 6Th p footprints more compatible with
foot° rints o n Parcel C.
27
Parcel A. �1
28
29
Commissioner von 'Raesfeld If people do get in their . cars -to go °from one parcel to
11
3o
another, we have failed. Want' some direction to SPARC' on 11 'signs or x way''to move from
31
parcel to parcel.
32
33
Commissioner McAllister: Chang es should not be limitjed to Parcel B. Need to alter
34
_
access to Parcel A.
35
36
Council Member Healy: Ts a 1 "egiti'mate issue, want staff 't& make''some suggestions to
37
SPARC.
38
39
Want roadway to transition i
Commissioner McAllister: y tion 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 br:"idge:
44
45
Council Member Healy: 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'
Commissioner Asselmei'er: Was looking for both con nections — to Deer-,Creek and,. t he •
z Petaluma River.. How can the public access a_nd enjoy this area. Want to make a
3 recommendation for apotential crossi g,,at the southern end ' f triangular. piece..
6 Council 'Member .Healy: Do riot think this can `be done without removing several .trees.
61 Maywaht;Ib condition that t} e City camprovide access at later, date. Was not included
7' in'the environmental review: Do not:think.this is appropriate atthis -time.
8
9 Pursuant to. Co rnin ission er von Raesfeld�'s suggestion, 'the':coIlsensus of the "Comrni'sion
10 was that `the trail should go up the north ,side of Deer'Creek, down the south side of Deer
] f Creek; and then: along the Petaluma river to the southern prop erty'bound'ary. -.
13 Ind'emnity
14 v
15' What are the legal , implicatioris if hydrology data, i;s wrong?
16 t
17 Commissioner von Raesfeld Do not want "the City to be sued on this i ssue,
i s
19 George White: We can explore before go,rig to Council.
20
.21 Council Member Healy; :Need to consult'the City °attc►mey. There is a project in progress
22, where, there is not a condition imposed — needs, to be addressed on a. Cityw de.;po'liey.
23
24 Commissioner Asselrrieier: Want some kind of f_rianc'al . backing „to . offset any; amages:
�
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.
27
28 Council Member Healy What is the basis for s'ingl'ing out this project instead of having: a
29 policy.
30 .
31 Commissioner Asselmeier: Need' -:to protect the tenants and the Citizens Want so
32 chunk of: money:
33
34 Comm issioner:Asselmeier; This is already a problem:onTar.'cel "A.
35
36 Brad Stipe: ,'The original outlet center was designed .to standards at that time..
37
38 Coun Member Healy :, What are opportunities :for tenants to obtain, flood insurance?
39
40 Brad S;tipe: As far as •I know it,is available.
41
42 Council.Me'mber Healy: Do notahink we�.can condition on this J
P ro ect. -Can ask,s�aff.and'
43 Cty'Aftorney to suggest a: °poh'cy.
4'4
45 Commissioner Asselm _ Want assurance and insurance that we: can 'hold someone
46 responsible-., _ •
47
14
Planning Commission Minutes - ,December 9,2003
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
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
0 45
46
George White: If there is consensus on this idea, we can consult the Attorney and
make a recommendation to council. It would ultimately be up to the Council.
It was the consensus of Commission. for staff to "explore" with the City Attorney
prior to review. „
Commissioner` von. Raesfeld: C. ,,ondition #7 — do not think this .is.,a fair trade for replacing
the - valley oaks. Possibly twice what is proposed. Would_ prefer ,a higher number of trees
and smaller °plants:
It was the consensus of the commission to' provide 15, .15- gallon trees with monitoring to
ensure survival.
Council Member Healy: Would like staff to sit down with the trolley folks before the
Council meeting. Is appropriate to ask, staff to weigh, in on the :implications of this
project in light of'the retail study. . Would like to know :major tenants by the time of
council meeting.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Do we: want to say more about energy efficiency or the
LEED program.
George White: Right now the only energy efficiency stand'ard's are in Title 24 of the
Building Code.
Commissioner von 'Raesfeld 'Santa Rosa suggests 'that applicants; show some green
building standards.
Commissioner Rose: ,Am not confident that we can draft something now for a LEED
sensitive design. .
George White: You would be asking 'for a ; standard 'that has not been established yet.
Council Member Healy: Do We jump start this with this project?
Commissioner Rose-i As a commission, we can idiscuss where `we want to go and discuss
with ,staff.- Something to raise awareness is good, however, cannot impose this on this
applicant.,
Commissioner Asselmeier; Would be in favor of a self assessment.
M/S Healy /Rose to. Tforward a recommendation to Council to approve the PCD
amendment ;per. the amended conditions. 3 to 3. Healy, Rose, von Raesfeld in favor.
Asselmeier, Dargie.and McAllister opposed.
The commission discussed a revote. .
15
Planning Commission Minutes.- December 9
1 Commissioner McAllister — cannot support this: extensive of a development at - this .`
2 aocation.
3
4 Commissioner' Asselmeier: .1 have problems •wi'th the unfunded traffic nii'tigatons and'
5 impacts that are not mliti'gated, particularly no improvements to Petaluma .Boulevard
6 North. 'Thee project has been improved and I want conditions to go to the .City Council —
7 will not,happen,without a revised Motion.
9 M/S Healy /Asselmeie'r to approve the 'PCD amendment per the amended, conditions.
10 Healy; Asselmeier, Rose, von Raesfeld i_n:favor. Mrgie McAllister opposed.
11 ,
12
13
14
15 Adjournrn'ent 1'1:05
16
.17
lg
19 .
:20 ,
-21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28.
29
30
39.
.32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
16