HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.C Part 8 07/14/2003JUL14M3 4 X
City of Petalum`a9 `Callforn a
M.emoran u
Economic Development, Redevelopment &.Housing, 27 Howard Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 7784581 Fax (70.7) 778 -4586 E- mails. paulm&i.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: July 11, 2003
TO: Mayor Glass and. Members of the Petaluma City Council
FROM: Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development & Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Additional 'Information Concerning Petaluma Theater District Project
Planning Commission Actions
On July 8, 2003 the City of Petaluma Planning Commission voted unanimously (5 -0) to
forward the following recommendations to the City Council regarding the Petaluma
Theater District Project:
® 1. Adopt a Mitigated, Negative Declaration for the Petaluma. Theater District
Development. Agreement
2. Enter Into a Development Agreement between the City of Petaluma, and Basin
Street.Properties for the Petaluma Theater District; and
3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance Establishing a Theater Combining District in the
City of Petaluma.
First Recommended Amendment to the Development Agreement
In response to a.request from Derek J. Simmons, attorney for Jerico Products, Inc. and at
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, additional wording to protect river -
dependent industries, as amended by Agency counsel, is provided below for inclusion in
the Development Agreement. Basin Street Properties has agreed to the proposed
amendment.
win
"For each parcel comprising, the property that is the subject of this Development
Agreement Developer shall record the following notice in the Official Records of
Sohotna "County, and',Developer shall include the following notice in all sale, lease or
rental agreements concerning any portion of such property:
"This docunzentshall serve as notification that you have purchased
property or you are leasing or renting premises in an area where
river - dependent industrial operations are located which may .. y cause
off -,site effects including without limitation, noise, dust,. fumes,
smoke, light, and odors, and which may operate at any time of night
or day. The nature and extent of such operations and their effects
may vary in response to fluctuations in economic circumstances,
business cycles, weather and tidal conditions and other conditions.
This statement is notifcation that these off -site effects are a'
component of'the industrial operations along the riverfront area of
the City of Petaluma, and you should be fully aware of this at the
time of purchase, lease or rental. "
Seeond Recommended Amendment to Development Agreement
At the 'request of the Planning Commission, Exhibit B -5 has been added to the
Development Agreement to clarify permitted uses and to attach a Master Plan. The
Second Amendment can be found in Attachment 1.
Third' `Recommended Amendment toi Development Agreement
At the suggestion of the Agency's attorney,, add to Section 5.3.4:
"Notwithstanding anythingto the contrary contained in this
Agreement or in the Exhibits:attached hereto. (i) the City shall have no
obligation to provide funding to Developer n connection with development of
the Property orWte public improvements required iiz connection therewidi,
and '(ii) pursuantto the OPA, the Petaluma Coininunity Development Commission
shall. fund certain public improvements in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the OPA.
Also at the suggestion of the Agency's attorney, add the following to the end of Section
5.2, as follows:
".._. the terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be
those set forth in this Agreement, Ihe.' Owner.Particip-'ation Agreement ..."
First Recommended Amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement
At the suggestion of the City Manager and Agency's attorney.. add to Section 2.4:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this .Agreement,
Agency, shall have no obligatio..n to fund the Public Improvements associated
with: Phase A'(as described in Exhibit F) until Developer has commenced
construction of the Curen:a."
Also at the suggestion of the Agency's attorney, amend Section 2.65, A and B, the
amount of the perform ance'bonds to '$7.55 million, as follows:
"A. A corporate surety bond to.secure performance and guarantee the work in the
amountof $7,550 which. amount has been estimated to one hundred percent
(100 %) of the cost of construction and installation of Public Improvements."
"B. A corporate surety bond in the amount of $7,550,000 to guarantee payment to
the contractor, subcontractors, and persons renting equipment or fiurnishing labor or
material to the contractor, subcontractors or Participant in connection with
construction and installation of the Public Improvements."
New Correspondence
Recent correspondence concerning the proposed project is included in Attachment 2.
Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 7/8/03
The draft minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 7/8/03 are contained in
Attachment 3. The minutes include some comments relevant to SPARC's further review
of the project.
•
��� 3
0
Attachment 1
Second recommended Amendment to the Development
Agreement regarding Permitted Uses & Master Plan
q
Second Recommended Amendment to the Development Agreement
. Regarding Permitted Uses & Master Plan
Exhibit B -5
Master Plan and Permitted Uses (5.2)
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The proposed project is, located within the downtown of the City of Petaluma. The
subject parcels of the proposal are also located within the boundaries of the Central
Petaluma Specific Plan, (CPSP). Portions of the subject parcels are also located within
the Downtown Historic District. The subject properties are either paved or contain
buildings that may be removed, moved or saved.
The subject property, which is the proposed location of the cinema site, is at Petaluma
Boulevard South, "C" and 2 " Streets. The parcel is currently developed with an existing
building and associated. paved parking. The property is the site of the former Victory
• Chevrolet. The existing building:is currently being renovated for commercial type uses.
A portion of the existing structure is proposed to serve as an addition to the proposed
theater. The subject parcel is surrounded by other commercial, uses and is adjacent (east)
to a new mixed -used (residential /commercial) building under construction.
The subject parcel for the proposed mixed -use (residential /commercial) building located
at Petaluma Boulevard South, "C ", "D" and 2 d Streets is currently developed with an
auto body shop, auto- detailing shop, and is the location for continuing education classes
for adults. The subject parcel is developed with associated parking for the current uses
and contains 5 buildings, all of which are to be demolished. The Petaluma Fire Station is
to the east of the subject parcel, a vacant parcel is to the south across "D ", and other
commercial uses are in the area.
The proposed part: - ing structure / commercial building to be located at "D ", 2 °d , 1'` and "C"
Streets is.currently developed with an existing livery stable (corner of "D" and l which
is to be relocated, the trucking scales and small scales building, which is to be
demolished._ The Petaluma Fire Station (corner "D" and 2 nd Street) is adjacent to the
proposed parking structure. There is currently under construction a mixed -use
(commercial /residential, Basin street Lofts) structure to the north of the subject parcel.
The proposed office building, to be located at l" and "D" Streets is the former Bar Ale
site, which burned down. This subject parcel is located adjacent to the Petaluma River
. (east), arid .north of the PG & E Substation. The parcel is nearby commercial /industrial
uses. Industrial. uses are east of the Petaluma River.
5
The proposed Mixed-use (residential /commercial) project on 1'" (between l and "F"
Street)'is located adjacent to the. Petaluma River, which is east of the subject parcel -: The
site Is located near- commercial /industrial type uses and is developed, with .old :metal
warehouses. With the exception of one of the metal warehouses, all are to be demolished
(see Attachment D, Location Map),
The proposed. project (referred to as the "Petaluma Theater District ") will be a mixed -use
project within existing Downtown Petaluma. The; subject parcels are generally between
"B ", "C", "D", 1'", 2nd, and "F" Streets, Petaluma Boulevard and the Petaluma River.
The subject parcels are within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma 'Specific 'Plan
(CPSP). Basin Street Properties (the project developer) is requesting approval of a
Development Agreement (DA) and an Owner Participation Agreement: (OPA) with
regard to the project. These agreements ,govern, among other things, the. timing' of the
development of the project, funding and other obligations with Basin Street Pr"ope"rties;
the City of Petaluma and the City of Petaluma Community Development Commission
(PCDC). The project proposal includes an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance
that would establish a designated area in the city where movie theaters are permitted. The
main focus of the mixed =use proposal will include a new 12- screen cinema and parking
structure, uses within the proposal would allow for: national and local retailers;
restaurants focusing on both daytime food service as ','well as evening fine dining; office
space; and uses in the form of'apartment and loft style housing. Below is a
specific, description of each of the blocks to be developed within the proposed project
boundaries:
Theater-
A new 12- screen, 1,400 seat theater building located on the south side of Basin. Street
Town Center- (formerly Victory Chevrolet) at the intersection of "C7 Street and
Petaluma-81v& The concessions and lobby for this new theater will be accessed
directly from. "C" Street.
Size: ;22,720.square feet, 1'2- screen, 1,400 seat
Height: 30 -feet, equivalent height of 2. -story bui'ld'ing
Garage
A new parking garage on, the site surrounding the .Fire Station consisting of 4
suspended evels of parking over 3:0,000 s.f. of ground floor commercial space.: The
ground floor space will face and provide commercial building frontage along 1", 2 pd
"C" and "D" Streets. The propo - sed development will require the removal of the
ex'istin k, scales and scales building to addition, the existing livery stable at the
corner of s " 'and "D" Street i's, proposed. to be. relocated from its present location to a
site that is approximately 1,000 feet away on the east side of the Petaluma River.
i s
•
Commercial � Space Ground Floor.: 30,000 square feet (office, retail or
commercial')
Heiglit; 4 suspended levels at 50 feet; equivalent height of 3 -story building
Total Parking S'paces:' 530
m 216 Free Public Parking Spaces
® 143 Reserved Residential Parking Spaces
® 171 Reserved Commercial Parking Spaces
530 Total
Basin Street Properties will operate the Parking Garage seven days per week from 6 :00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Basin Street Properties will ensure that the Parking Garage is at all
times maintained in good condition and perform all necessary`repairs and maintenance at
its sole expense.
Theater Square
A new mixed -use project on the corner of Petaluma Blvd. and "D" Street (former
Autoworld site) consisting of 46,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.
facing "C ", Petaluma Blvd.,' "D" and 2" Street and 76 residential units on the second
and third floors. The proposal includes the removal of all of the existing buildings on
the site.
Size: 46,000 square feet ground floor commercial space
76 residential units on 2" and 3" floors
Height: 38 to -40 feet, 3 -story buildings
Waterfront Building
A new 49,909 square foot 3 -story riverfront commercial building located on the
former Bar Ale building site at the corner of l and "D" Streets. The architectural
styling of this new building will be reminiscent of the former metal warehouse
building that was formerly located on this site.
Size: 49,909 square feet
Height: 53 feet, 3 -story building
Amenities: Riverfront path improvements with public connections to "D" Street
and along River
River Row Apartments
A new 111 -unit riverfront apartment complex on I" Street between "D" and "F
Streets. This new development will include the rehabilitation and adaptive re -use of
an existing warehouse (the one closest to "F Street.
Size. 111 dwelling units •..
9,000 s.f Rehabi'l`itated warehouse
Height; 3 -story buildings between D and E Streets; 4 -story buildings between E
and F Streets
Amenities: New public access to and along;the River in addition to a new public
open space area at the terminus of "E" Street adjacent to the,Ri`ver.
Master 'Plan
Attached.is the Master Plan for the Petaluma Theater District Project.
•
•
•
Recent Correspondence
i
Attachment 2
D
Wind'sot, Anne
From: CDD
#Uebject: nt: Friday, June 27, 20031;58- PM
White, George; V pdsor Anne
FW: Basin street,Proj'ect
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Janet Gracyk (mailto:janetgracyk @mac.com]
Sent:-Friday, June 27, .2003 1 :56 PM
To: CDD
Subject: Basin street Project
Dear Planning Commission Members;
Petaluma and Basin Street are poised to embark on an ambitious project
that will go a long way towards realizing the vision of the Central
Specific Plan and towards revitalizing downtown. Extraordinary efforts
have been made by the developer, the Council, SPARC, and by city staff
to bring the project forward quickly.
At this juncture it is critical that we all remember two things; one,
that SPARC did review the First Street Apartment project as though most
of the warehouses were removed, but we did make it clear that we in no
way support the complete destruction of all the warehouses. The design
of the apartments was found to be substanially acceptable, but our
approval hinges on findings that the warehouses cannot be adaptively
reused. We would rather have reviewed the project following the CEQA
0 ort. I am speaking, of course, from my recollection.cf our meetings,
the stand taken by SPARC was unanimous and clear and I wanted to
bring this to your attention.
I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to go forward from
this point in a timely manner but without undue haste. Even though the
developer and SPARC have had several preliminary reviews of the
project, it is still very complex and there are many details -that have
yet to be worked out. Should the project get pushed out by a matter of
a few weeks in order to achieve as strong a project as possible it
would be of no great matter. This project will stand as a testament to
everyone's efforts for many, many years and it deserves our best
efforts.
Yours truly,
Janet Gracyk
SPARC member
•
UED
Chair Barmtcand Planning Commissioners
City of Petaluma
RE: 'Bisil Street Downtown Development Proposal
Dear thaii Barrett and Commissioners:
I axn sorry to-say that Leannot attend the Jul 8 `h Planning Commission meeting., but I send this
I y y
letter to corrin! lui my Aill support' of the, proposed development.
As the developer of Foundry W.harf I am very familiar with and supportive o f adapt ive're-use of
older herva0pro
gs app I believe that the plan last submitted to' SPARC for the
warthobse.she at I " D Streets.'sirikes a good balance between:preserving histonk,:resources
and, ffilfilling the vision of the Central' Petaluma Sp Plan, and I - look , forward to seeing the
revised housing plan, which includes some adaptive reuse of the existing structtires.
I am thrilled with the develope Stab . o t 1, the c orner of
q's proposal to relocate Livery le I ca ed at h
l" and D. Strects theMcN I car Peninsula iisAhis;wIll allow for the,constructi6ti of the parking
structure,conternplated in the Central.Pe.talurna SMific. Plan while at the same, time preserving
and,making the Livery Stable more accessible to the :publiq.. Perhaps the Stable could be used as
a muscum.jedicated, to Petalun s agriciihural past.
1_,�d like to reiterate, my support � of Basin I S0&-t'sjd6i. Having - participated , in.the
CPSP'Adv,isory Committee meetings: from the stam I took forward to seeing the communit
hard work on the CPS P come to fruition.
Best, Regards,
V) 4 -4- f4 e-
Walter Haake
11
Telephone(7 762-5999 • Foodinde (707) 70-5085 • Wcb3de wn
ll
nog (,. -:).ni ini , r)M VIIr J i - uw - um 1 unkin I nj ii,;:i n7; -*r) -ini cMo' bn--mr,
July 8, 2003
To: City of Petaluma Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
From: The Board of Directors
Heritage Homes of Petaluma
P.O. Box 2152, Petaluma California 94953
C
•
Re: Comments on the Basin Street Properties Downtown Mixed Use Project. Please include
these comments as part of the official record that will result from the - public hearings held
on July 8 1h , 14' and 24"'.
It is our opinion that Petaluma's riverfront warehouses contribute greatly to the overall historic
character of our Victorian era town. If Basin Street Properties is given approval to tear down the
warehouses along the riverfront to replace them with new construction, an important part of
Petaluma's commerce history will forever be destroyed.
In addition, a potential income generator for our city will also be removed. If instead Basin Street
Properties planned to adaptively re -use the riverside warehouses, then a truly unique tourist
destination would be created....a vibrant, mixed -use "Petaluma Historic Warehouse District ".
Many of the most financially successful cities in the U.S. have planned for and required adaptive
re -use of their old warehouses so that instead of creating new non- tourist attracting residential
areas they have gained a new `tourist „attraction, a charming atmospheric area that houses an
eclectic mix of chic restaurants, night spots, live -work artist galleries and retail stores.
Examples of successful historic warehouse districts can now be found in places such as New
Orleans, LA, San Diego, CA, Savannah, GA and Cleveland, OH. These newly rejuvenated and
restored warehouse districts are now bringing in additional funds to the cities in which they are
located. If instead these cities, had. approved demolition and allowed their historic warehouse
districts to be replaced by new residential apartments, their potential revenue generating
destinations would have been lost forever.
These are the specific recommendations of our Board of Directors:
The city council - should not adopt the mitigated negative declaration Under CEOA
regulations, and the EIR for the Specific Plan an EIR must be done to consider alternatives
when an adverse effect as se rious. as demolition is nronnsed An ;„tprnrp ;x,P 4— r„+
ltl
10
® The city should require Basin Street Properties to adaptively re use the warehouses alone the
river and not have them demolished.
a Any developments proposed for the xvarehouse district should create a true mixed use
environment, one in which ground floor areas are reserved for restaurants galleries and retail
1 Z
stores facing both the riverfront and First Street to encourage foot traffic along First Street
and along the riverfront.
•
All proposed projects within the warehouse district should require fa full review ;by th
Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee before approval by the City Council.
We have been - surprised and disappointed to: learn that the Basin Street proposal for'this
downtown mixed use' project has not been adequately�r-eviewed by the Historical land Cultural
Preservation Committee, nor has there been any public noticing or an adequate environmental
assessment (CEQA) of the proposed project's possible effect on potential historic resources
located within, the project area.
Iri summary, if the City Council: approves the Basin Street project in its current form, °they will be
ultimately held responsible bythe citizens of Petaluma for the loss of many of Petaluma's most
significant historic, landmarks. Commercial buildings and warehouses that have, up; until'this
point; contributed to our unique architectural fabric and made our town stand out among other
urbanize d: towns within. Sonoma County and the _rest of Northern California. The City Council'
can eiiher�insist that a']1 new development.proposals respect these historic structures', or they °tan
ignore their significance to Petaluma:residents and visitors alike and allow them to he
demolished in, favor of new homogenized 2003, architectural style infill development. If the :City.
Council allows this ,to happen, then Petaluma will foreuer,los,e the opportunity to create yet
another reason for people to come and visit our town. Tfinstead the numerous vacant lots.located
within the warehouse.and' commercial districts are developed using the various architectural. •
styles found within these two historically significant areas, and our historic rverfront
warehouses are adaptively re -used, then our unique character will be preserved for future -
generations of`Petalumans to enjoy:
This ,is an historic time. for' Petaluma. Let's all work. together to make sure that we develop our
town to bring out i "ts•best aspects instead of turning our town into just another modern city..
We have , a " diamondr the - rough" 'let's, make sure that it'is not obliterated by insensitive
development. That, instead, it is enhanced and rejuvenated into the great place it could be.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors of Heritage Homes, Of.Peta
President, Chris Stevick
Vice President, Phyllis Rankin
Treasurer, Scott Shelley
Board members: Ann R'eed', Bob Bonet, Suson Bonet, Etta Mari e. Peterson, Tim Nelson
(Page two)
Comments by Heritage Homes of Petaluma July 8, 2003
1 , 3
•
July 7, 2003
To: City of Petaluma Planning Commission
From: Marianne Hurley
15 Howard St.
Petaluma, California
•
L -1
Re: Comments on the Basin Street Properties Downtown Mixed Use. Project
Al. This dem
osed involves the demolition of historical
lition i's an adverse effect and cannot be t
inseguently, amitizated neeativedeclara
ment needed'' under CEOA.
defined and
to
Our historic properties contribute to the unique and irreplaceable qualities of our
city... streetscapes that the: town actually markets in its promotional material, streetscapes that
reflect the city's diverse heritage. Older buildings enrich and complement the new; new
development upgrades the old. Ourgeneral plan, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and zoning
ordinance state the importance of incorporating historic properties into thoughtful development
proposals.
Within the Basin Street Mixed Use Project proposal, no. attention has been paid to the re -use of
existing buildings in order to retain our community's identity and link to the past.
Following are my specific recommendations:
® The develoner must :. do a " t)roi'ect specific" Env.ironmental :Impact. Report on the
demolition (or adverse effects) of the historic properties. (Mitigation 7 -2, Revisions to
the Draft EIR, Central "Petaluma Specific Plan, pages 7 =9). The historic resources in question
include the following: the warehouses on First St at 4209, 219 -and 301; Flying A Gas
Station at 101 Petaluma Blvd So.; Auto World at 115 Petaluma Blvd. So.; and Small's Scale
on C St. All of these buildings'have at one time or another been identified as potentially
historic and a good case can be made for each of them. These properties are historical
resources under CEQA and their demolition is not mitigated to a less than significant level
by an interpretive display on the new movie theater. An EIR requires looking at alternatives
to their demolition.
(Note: Carey & Co.'s evaluations are often inconsistent ... for example, the warehouses are
noted to be "5" since they are part of a potentially locally designated historic district, yet
Carey's reviewers discount them as potentially eligible for the California Register.
Nevertheless, they can be considered historical resources under CEQA, a fact that is not
clearly stated by them ;in their review. The other properties that were discounted by Carey
and Co. have been identified as historically significant by others. This discrepancy needs to
be looked at critically by peer review and oversight.)
Iy
® The proiect_ needs full - ( not _p_reliminary) review by the Historical,and, Cultural
mmittee , before ,being sent to the city coup
The Basin Street proposal for this downtown mixed ,use project has not been reviewed by
the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee within the context of a full `review.
Basin Street came to ihe committee for 5 prelirriinary.reviews that did not invo'I e public
noticing-or review, did not include information for the committee members fromAhe
historical or engineering consultants, nor did it include staffs environmental assessment
(CE'QA) of theproject's. effects on historic resources. The committee had little information
upon which to base its "unofficial" comments.
• The. evaluation was inconclusive and d'i'd not present A. compellinp tAse
against the- adaptivere -use ofthe buildings: In fact,; the developer has proposed the
adaptive re -use of one of the warehouses that had an identical evaluat on as the rest of the
properties. ,Most of these buildings would be allowed thet use of 'the state's historical building
code and would not be bound by new construction codes exclusively.
•
anchors seen from the bridge, and tangible reminders ofthe past.
In summary, the Basin Street project as it now:stands will result, in the loss ofmany, historic
properties in the= area'immediately adjacent to our downtown. The city can.either'insist the
developer` respect these buildings and use them within the development, or the city can assume
they are all disposable and dismiss them lightly, setting- areckless precedent, for future proposals
in the area.
I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to reject this "'mitigated .negative
deelaration" and, to 'insist that the proposal be re- designed to include , fhe,re -use of historic
properties.
Thank You.
Marianne Hurley
0.
•
•
t5
Telephone [9491940-0062'
Facsimile
Derek J Simmons
Attorney at Law
62 Avenida Cristal
San Clemente
California
92673
USA
email djs62 @cox.net
1- 949 -272 -4732
July 8, 2003
Mayor and City Council
City of Petaluma
City Hall
Band Delivered
SUBJECT: Development Agreement by and between The City of Petaluma
and
Basin Street Properties Request by JERICO PRODUCTS INC.
for certain amendments
Dear Mayor and City Council:
My name is Derek Simmons and on behalf of my client JERICO PRODUCTS
Inc, and the Linds, Barbara and Mitch. I request that the actions and
support for river - dependent industry you demonstrated during the
hearing to adopt the Central Specific Plan be.ref,lected in certain
language to be added to the subject Development Agreement before you
act to adopt it by ordinance.
At the request of my clients, you added certain language to the
Central Specific Plan.to protect river- dependent industry. For those
protections to be effectively implemented for the benefit and long-
term viability of river- dependent industry (including but not limited
to JERICO PRODUCTS INC) certain provisions you amended into the
Central Specific Plan should also be expressly included in The
Development by and b T h e Cit of Petaluma and Basin
Street Properties.
This is the language that JERICO and the Lind's request be expressly
included as part of this development agreement:
it
Law office of Derek J Simmons
"As conditions of approval of this 'De.ve'lopment Agreement and of the
development project to which it refers, s °aid development proj=ect
shall:
1) incorporate on -site protection for. all sensitive receptors it
creates or br ,ingS to such site ' Shall be from 1luisa!nce_ or
trespa °ss based upon the nature o'r extent of the externalities of
operations of existing river - dependent industrial uses or user
incl,ud'ing but rict lim_ite'd to JERICO PR'ODU,CTS, INC. Such
externalities include but are not limited to noise, dust:; fumes
smoke, light, odors, or hours of operation. The nature and extent
o s:uch externalities fluctuate an'd vary in response to cycles such
as but not .limited to business., economic, weather, and.t dal.
2) include as a minimum as part of said on -:site protecti'on`s the
re - cordation by the developer of the development pro,Ject,
a. ). notice of t - he ex13t "ence of such externalities; and
b.) requirements that as a condition of any initial and a.11
sub:seq,uent occupancy o'f all or any part of said development .
proj,ect, a. written acknowledgment with waiver of claims ba =sed
on such externalities against existing river - dependent
industry, including but not limited to JERICO PRODUCTS, ING'.,,
shall be executed by each. initial and every subsequent owner
and each initial and every subsequent tenant of all or. +any
portion of said development project. It shall be- th:e sole,
responsibility of the developer and its successors in
interest, and each of them, to maintain copies of. all: said
executed acknowledgments with Waive =r of claims- . cop'ie's
City quest and,
s,�hall be available to the of Petaluma' re
upon delivery to the City,, become public documents available
to any member of the public on the same basis as any other
public record."
Respectfully submitted,
Derek J Simmons
cc: Chairman, Planning Commission
C ity At to rney
Director Director Moore:
2 of 2
I�
Katherine .1. Rinehart, X1.1 — I l:isto)riart
9495.1 • (707) 751 - 7/41_' . k1 1In,:I, :,,;( d I.nrt
1 0 July 1, 2003
City of Petaluma Planning Commission
City of Petaluma Cornmunity'Development Commission
Historic and Cultural 'Preservati'on Committee
RE: Basin Street Properties, Downtown Mixed Use Project
Dear Commissioners & Committee Members:
The following is a short list of,con
cems ;relating to the. above referenced project and how it will
dramatically impact some ofPetaluma.'s character defining historic resources. Please include
these comments as part of the official record that will result from the public hearings held on
July 8', 14' and 24`
Basin Street's proposal is an exciting one, and if adopted will change the look and feel of
downtown Petaluma dramat'ically.'Like many in the community I am anxious to see the vision of
the Central Petaluma Specific Plan become a reality and this project appears to be in keeping
with that vision, with a few exceptions:
According to the Initial Study, "the proposed project requires that out of ten buildings located
within the project area, eight will be demolished, one will be relocated and one will be
rehabilitated for a new use.
Architectural historians from the f rm of Carey & Company evaluated all of the buildings
involved for their historic significance. I agree with their find'ings,.but have the following
concerns:
I believe the relocation,of the Livery Stable to McNear Island is a good idea; however
more details need to be provided as to how and when this will be accomplished and
where the funding will come from to assure the building is maintained until a new use is
found. I suggest specific language be included in the Development Agreement, the
Owner Participation Agreement, and the Conditions of Approval that will ensure that this
is completed in a:timely and successful manner.
® :The new' cinema will encroach on an existing historic building (Victory Chevrolet)
Currently being rehabilitated by Basin Street Properties. How will this affect the historic
egity of the existing building? I recommend that this "encroachment be: evaluated by
'= 4nffi fess>tonal architectural historian to determine its consistency with the Secretary of
_ � ..
's °for rehabilitation.
s Standard
N
-rat. 4P.
.w
,
19 .
o The current proposal 'threatens to demolish all but one of the warehouses on the east side
of First Street between D,and F Streets despite pite Carey & Company's finding, that the
buildings are contributors to a potential historic district. A district that has been described
as being widely recognized as a unique vestige of the citys past. It is the only surviving
area where Peta luma s, history is a "river-to I wrim c I an b e felt at 40--istri.0 scale. The,'
warehouses being considered for rn r deolition� are part. of what makes this,stattmeht, true
'
The authors of the CentraLPetaluma Specific Plan concur. In fact goal No. 6 of the
Central, Petaluma Spec'ifi Plan is to maintain visual landmarks. The document
Al e Feed Supply buildings the very buildings
specifically - mentions. the remaining- Bar Al e ry
being considered for demolition 'a being visual landmarks (pgs. 33 — 34).
The Spec-ifpc Plan, also-states that these same are "a very, unified industrial
complex, lending great :'interest and - vitality -- along with a, sense ofthe industrial activity
authentic to Petaluma — to both the; street and the river." (pg. 110).
Despite their structural . engineer"s - report which states'that rehabilitating the warehouses
is not economically viable, Basin. , Street Properties' has found a way to rehabilitate one of
the warehouses, why not the others?
I look. at what the owners of Foundry Wharf and River'Town Fee d have ,done with their
buildings. and I am encouraged that someth. ing similar could happen with the fdnTief Bar
know if they are demolished..
Me'Warehouses. We will never
This 't is the �f rst to be processed in - accordance with the goals and objectives of the Central
,proje i
PetalumaSpecifi an
t Plan. The Plan encourages the rehabilitation of existing buildings d As stated
above I
recognizes the importance of the former Bar Ale warehouses and, the neighborhood they
are located with - in. - That said, it wou I ld'be a travesty to allow for the demolition of these buildings.
They may not be, the architectural wonders w.e,.f ind on D Street and Western Avenue but they
are apar t of Petaluma's: history that cannot be replicated.
Thank:You for taking the time me to consider the irreversible implications ofthis proposal and h . ow
quality redevelopment can be accomplished without ,sacrificing so many valuable public
resources.
Sincerely,
ket.�Anv�Q S. � i r.�t�� �'
Katherine, J., Rinehart
'
Mike Moore Commuru ty Development
Department
i 19 rita e'Homes of Petaluma
o. '.
4 %07.
, 5
•
•
PAINTER PRESERVATION & PLANNING
Urban Design & His 0ric Preservation
July 8, 2003
Mr. Paul Marangella
City of Petaluma
Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment
27 Howard Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Mr. Marangella:
I am writing to comment on the Initial Study of Environmental Significance that has been
prepared for the Basin Street Properties project entitled "Petaluma Theater District."
A Mitigated Negative`Declaration is an inappropriate response to the demolition of six
historic properties and. the moving of one property (which affects its historic status). It is
not commensurate with the level of impact, does not allow for the examination of
alternatives, and is inconsi §tent with what I understand to be the policy and regulatory
basis of the recently adopted Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Further, the mitigation
proposed for the demolition of the historic structures - -placing a plaque on a building — is
not only inadequate; it is almost an insult to the people, businesses and initiatives that
have made Petaluma what it is today.
The recently adopted. Central Petaluma Specific Plan identified the riverfront warehouse
district as a potential historic district with local significance. The policy plan heralded
the existing mixed use character of the area, and its historic ambience. The warehouse
buildings themselves were identified as "4X — May become eligible for National Register
as contributors to a District that has not been documented." This early inventory did not
fully document the buildings.
Subsequently upon further study, the historic consultant found the warehouses that are
proposed for demolition in conjunction with this project as having an historic significance
of "5 Ineligible for the National Register but still of local interest." While it is curious
that the•stat is of ; the buildings went down once they were part of a development proposal,
what's even more troubling is the lack of consideration for potential re =use of the
structures.
The rivverfront warehouse district is at the heart of what made Petaluma. The repetitious,
serviceable and flexible structures housed generations of businesses and brought wealth
to the city. This area has the potential to be a vibrant, mixed use district that combines
industry; retail uses, entertainment, and residences in an authentic historic environment
268 .5.4 Pelohimn RAYd. A'Orth - Petalumo, C.1 94952 - (707) 658-0184 - d.pninterl 5 ii:atthi.com
Y0
that is something truly unique. 'Examples' of other cities have-reused their warehouse
districts to great effect are Portland, Vancouver, 'Seattle, and San Francisco. Examples of
cities that have demolished historic districtsinn order to add suburban style.projects that •
sever the fabric of their historic neighborhoods°include Philadelphia and .Santa Rosa. L.
am concerned' that the proposed project fall's into the latter category.
I am particularly concerned that views of the hills beyond the river and the open:feeling
that Petaluma enjoys even in its urban. areas Will be blocked by.a full- block' four story
parking garage and private residential., development! The river, views and historic
structures are,truly public resources. They should be protected.
Please take these comments to heart and encourage a broader study of the , design.
alternatives : available for this project; particularly alternatives to demolishing thehistoric
fabric of the city. The warehouses are the counterpart to the Victorian houses'and
commercial' buildings. They represent the economic engine that made these refined .
buildings possible, They are just as much a part of'Petaluma's history as any of the iron
front .buildings. downtown.
Under separate cover I am sending information and photographs of Vancouver ',s
Granville' Island to the Historic SPARC,, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
This is a large scale, mixed use development project that managed to preserve,it.s metal-
clad warehouse buildings and funky, lively character. Today the district sti l ,houses
industry, 'plus- artisans, a farmer's market, an art school -restaurants, several live, theaters,_
housing in lofts, and numerous shops sand, galleries. It also has a marina. It' covers35
Acres, and receives 105 million visitors a year, both :residents and tourists. I hope this
will offer some ideas for the city to consider before deciding to demo] ish.Petaluma's
irreplaceable heritage.
Sincerely,
WA /
Diana:Painter`PhD AICP
•
`685.1 Petaluma 136.d. )rlh - Petaluma, C.A I: 49:1- I707J i's' -F11, J - d:pn'inlc)1 5,u,!atrhr:crinr
AI
', Draft Planning. Commission Minutes - July 8 2003
• p, z U' City'' of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall,, I I English Street
M
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778- 4301 /Fax 707 /778 -4498
18 5I E -Mail planniupi'd)ci:petaluma.ca.us
Web Page ht_t Y� ww.ci h etalunia.ca.us
1
2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes
3 July 8, 200 - 7m00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Imm, McAllister
6 Absent: Healy, von Raesfeld
7
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: George White Assistant Director, Community Development
11 Paul Marangella, Director Economic Development & Redevelopment
12 Anne Windsor Administrative Secretary
13
14
15 ROLL CALL:
16 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
17 APPROVAL OF' MINUTES,: Minutes of June 10, 2003. were approved as amended.
18 M/S Imm abstained.
19 PUBLIC COMMENT: None
20 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
21 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None
22 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Janet Gracyk regarding the Basin Street project
23 was included in the packet.
24 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
25 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
26
27
28 Public hearing began: @ 7:00
29
30 Commissioner Dargie noted that he had met with the developer.
31
32
• 33
' 34
35
I3
Draft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
1
2
COMMITTEE. BUSINESS:
3
I. PETALUMA THEATER DISTRICT, Petaluma Blvd. South,; First, Street and
4
Second Street at. C and, D Streets:' 1
5
AP 'No(s): 008-065 -002 & 003; 008'- 068 =001,. 002 & 003; 008= 066 -002, 003,
6
006, 007 & 009 and 008 - 121 -001, 008 12,1 =007, 008, 009, 010 011 and 01 1.
7
-File: 03- PRE -'0129
8
9'
Request for a recommendation to the City Council for a proposed irnitigated
10
negative declaration, review of a development agreement, and a. Theater District
11
combining ordinance for the Petaluma Theater District Project..
12
13
Paul Marangella presented the staff report.
14
15
Matt White,,Basin Street Properties: Gave a history of the project.
16
17
Public hearing opened:
18
19
Skip Sommer, 814 "I" Street: Gave some history of the rehabilitation of historic
20
buildings in downtown Petaluma. Urged the commission to forward' a recommendation
21
to the council.
22
23
Mark Wolf 222 'Simon Drive: Support the project and the revitalization of downtown
24
Petaluma.
25
26
Barbara Lind, Jerico Products: ' :Expressed concerns about residential development
27
directly across the river from Jenco' _Products which is an industrial, river dependent
28
business. Requested that:specific language be included in the develop_ ment agreement`to
29
protect the river dependent industry.
30
31
Superb 7, , 832 -5 Street: Encouraged the ,com_mission to support the project.
32
33
Hans Grunt, 346 Wilson Street; Spoke in support of the project and the developer and
34
encouraged' the commission to forward' a recommendation to the City Council.
35
36
Wayne Miller, 1 Bodega; Spoke .'in, strong support of the project and revitalization of
37
downtown, — felt the developer has responded to the comments of SPARC and the
38
Citizens Advisory Committee thus far in the process. Also spoke in support of Jerico
39
Product's request. for protection of rri ver= dep end ent industry. Need',to balance preserving
40
Petaluma's architectural heritage and moving, .forward to develop contemporary uses.
41
Would like as much free public parking_ as possible in the parking garage; -
42
43
Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard. South; Spoke highly of the developer
44
supporting the public process. Asked the developer to consider working with the'Rialto
45
Theater. Wanted clarification regarding a 14 -ft. path along the river. Want path 'n front
46
of the bar ale building instead of going out to V` Stree Would like a path on Thompson
47
Creek. Asked the owner to contribute to restoring the trestle in front of the mill. To
2
Ly
Draft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
1
•
honor the working people and Jerico Products, can the residential portion of the project
2
be shielded from the noise of this river dependent 'industry? Support the road diet on
3
Petaluma Boulevard South.
4
5
David Glass, Mayor: Advocating for downtown Petaluma — economic vitality is the only
6
way to preserve our historical resources.
7
8
Pamela Torliatt: This is, agreat investment for the City of Petaluma.
9
10
Public hearing closed @ 8:15.
11
12
Meeting resumed @ 8:25
13
14
Matt White: Basin Street is in agreement with the language to protect Jerico Products,
15
The 14 -ft path referred to by Patricia Tuttle Brown is an on -bank path and the trestle is
16
being repaired at this time.
17
18
Commissioner Barrett: Asked Mr. White to address the issue of free public parking in
19
the garage brought up by Wayne Miller.
20
21
Matt White: Will be approximately 400 free spaces in the evening, approximately 225
22
during the day.
23
24
Commissioner Imm: What,is'the`chance that this will change in the future?
25
26
Matt White: The agreement is,,.for 20 -year period.
27
28
Commissioner McAllister: Will Basin Street be coordinating the parking with
29
Redevelopment.
30
31
Paul Marangella: There is a Task force of downtown merchants working on a solution
32
for the whole of downtown.
33
34
Commissioner Imm: Is there something that can .be.done design wise with the residential
35
piece on 1 t Street and shielding the noise from Jerico Products for the residents so that
36
Jerico Products can continue to have a thriving business?
37
38
Matt White: Basin Street is very aware of the issue and will be sensitive to the residents
39
and to Jerico Products — will setback the buildings and use landscaping — is not the ideal
40
situation.
41
42
Chair Barrett: Referred to the Park Central Project and the close proximity to a trucking
43
company.. 'The ' project was conditioned to be designed with a specific decibel level - this
44
would be appropriate in this instance as well.
® 45
46
Commissioner Asselmeier: Additional spaces will be available to the public once people
47
employed in the office building vacate the garage?
3
Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003
1
2 Matt White: Yes.
3
4 Commissioenr Asselmeir: If the theater's seat 1400 people, seems as though. the ,parking
5 is deficient.
6
7 Matt Whiter Have tracked the parking situation — do not need 1400 parking.spaces if you
8 have a 1400 seat theater.
9
10 Commissioner Asselmeier: Do you agree to ultimately continue the ° pedestrian path
11 under the bridge.
12
13 Matt White: Yes.
14
15 Commissioner Asselmeier: When will PBAC conditions apply.
16.
17 George White: Will happen at SPARC.
18
19 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked Matt White to point out all the public open space
20 areas.
21
22 ' Matt White: Pointed out all the major public areas.
23
24 ..Commissioner -- Asselmeier: Will open spaces be owned by the City?
25
26 Matt White: No, will be maintained- by Basin Street,, however, will be open to the public.
27
28 Commissioner Assehneier: What happens after 20 years — could there potentially be a
29 change?
30
34 Matt White: Correct.
32
33 Chair Barrett: Can a.movie be shown in another area if'the theater combining district
34 ordinance is adopted?
35
36 George White: As long as someone isrnot establishing a permanent theater.
37
38 Commissioner Asselmeier: What does th s.mean. for the Factory Outlet expansion.
39
40 Paul Marangella: Is a .clear policy that the theater will be in downtown,
41
42 Commissioner A§selmeier:_ Does it permit other theaters in.this area?
43
44 Paul Marangell'a: Yes. Outlet Mall :is .in `a second, position if the downtown theater is not
45 developed in a timely manner.
46
4
I(e
Ix.
•
11
Draft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
1 Chair Barrett: Asked about the boundaries of the theater district — what is the nexus of
2 the development on 1" Street.
3
4 Paul Marangella: Does not have. to have a nexus.
5
6 Chair Barrett: Who will be monitoring the moving of the livery stable — seems there will
7 be a time lapse.
8
9 Matt White: The City can establish whom they want to monitor, will not be a significant
10 time gap.
11
12 Mike Bierman, City Manager: Will be moved and rebuilt at the same time.
13
14 Commissioner McAllister: Is there a master plan for the M peninsula?
15
16 Mike Bierman: Park and Recreation has a plan.
17
18 Chair Barrett: Asked about "interpretive display" referred to in the Initial Study.
19
20 Vin Smith: Will be a glass case on a portion of the 2 nd Street elevation with photos and
21 artifacts.
22
23 Chair Barrett: How will this be maintained?
24
25 Vin Smith: Will work. with the museum and Heritage Homes and Basin Street will
26 maintain.
27
28 Chair Barrett: Concerned with language in the mitigation monitoring report — all
29 references to SPARC should all be changed to Historic SPARC.
30
31 Commission questions /comments on the Development Agreement:
32
33 Commissioner Asselmeier: How will the Owner Participation Agreement work?
34
35 Paul Marangella: Is the purview of the PCDC. This Agreement provides the details of
36 the financing and timeline for project completion.
37
38 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for clarification of who is doing construction for
39 public improvements.
40
41 Paul Marangella: City is doing all of the design — the developer will construct the
42 improvements under the City's direction.
43
44 Commissioner, Asselmeier: How were the figures established and what went into the
45 analysis.
46
5
).-T
Draft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
1 Paul Marangella: Hired the firm of Kaiser Marsten. to do an analysis on, each component
2 of the project. City felt the investment had a very good rate of return. •
3
4 Commissioner Assel- meier: 4.3 of the Development Agreementi Termination upon
5 issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Is: this appropriate and consistent with other long
6 term obligations that 'go 20 years out such as maintaining the parking structure: :and
7 providing: free public parking?
8
9 Paul Mararngell'a: Is why we have the Owner Participation Agreement. This addresses
1 0 the other issues such .as operating agreement on the garage -which will be attached to the
11 Owner Participation Agreement.
12
13 Commissioner A_sselmeier: 61 Is there anything that needs to be considered in 'the
14 Development Agreement for the-pending General Plan.
15
1.6 Paul Marangella: We.. are confident that the General Plan will not be in conflict with
17'
18 George White: Land use designation in the Specific Plan will be on the General, Plan.
19 land use map as well,
20
21 Commissioner Asse..slmeier: 7.4: Timing of Development: will language'be. .superseded
22 by the language in Exhibit B -2 which states that phase A happens first.
23
24 Paul Marangella: Stipulation on the theater is more urgent or the ordinance is tenninated. •
25
26 Commissioner Asselmeier.: The dates referred' to in Exhibit B' -2 `instead of being
27 estimated will say construction shall begin by a ,particular day.
28
29 Paul`Marangella: The dates. in ExhilSit B -2 can still be estirated, however, i-fthey do not
30 meet the; requirement of the theater district then the theater district o.rdinanc_e terminates.
31
32 Commissioner A,sselme er: If the construction of the theater.does not happen by the date
33 set in the revised ordinance then does, the balance of '.the project occur?
34
35 Paul Marangella: Am not sure if the development could continue without the theater.
36
37 Matt- White: Have no problem making the Theater and garage a fixed Phase .1.
38
39 Commi- ssioner Asselmeier: 9.3: Insubstantial Amendments: as I :read this it' says any
40 amendments do not require a public hearing? Would rather have it read "unless. it is
41 deemed insignificant" then there is not a- public hearing required as opposed to staffing
42 why you would have a public hearing. What 'if a change 'is proposed to a mitigation
43 measure?
44
45 George White: Is a separate process - this is only in reference to the Development
46 Agreement. If someone was suggesting a change to the mitigation measures, that is
6
Graft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
. ;9
1 environmental review and would need to .go through the same process it went through
2 before.
3
4 Commissioner Asselmeier 9.5: Cancellation: Parties can agree to mutually terminate —
5 what are provisions in Municipal. Code.
6
7 Paul Marangella: Cannot envision at the moment.
8
9 Commissioner Asselmeier: Is the city protecting itself? If something has been started
10 and then is discontinued, how are the loose ends dealt with?
11
12 Paul Marangella: The only thing I can imagine would be if the project gets going and a
13 toxic waste dump is exposed and would require so much expense to mitigate that the
14 project looses its feasibility.
15
16 Paul Andronico: Needs to be a mutual decision.
17
18 Commissioner Asselmeier: 17.1 Transfers of Assignments: Would like to add a
19 statement that the City would not be obligated to approve the transfer if the developer
20 was in default.
21
22 Paul Andronico: Not opposed to this, however, if the developer is in default the City
23 would probably want to transfer'to someone who is able to perform.
24
25 Chair Barrett: 5.1 Use of the Property - Right to Develop: It points to Exhibit B, however,
26 where is density and intensity of use.
27
28 Paul Andronico: This is anticipated to be in the master plan which would be a list of
29 plans approved by SPARC. Right now it is premature to attach this.
30
31 Chair Barrett: On Exhibit B -4 statement regarding fees and dedications - what properties
32 is this referring to?
33
34 Paul Marangella: Any property for which a building permit has not been pulled.
35
36 Chair Barrett: Is it referring to the properties are currently looking at or for some other
37 property yet undesignated within this district.
38
39 Paul Marangella' No —just these properties.
40
41 Chair Barrett Does this only apply to Basin Street?
42
43 Paul. Marangella: Correct.
44
45 Chair Barrett: You are not opposed to adding the language to protect the river dependent
46 industry, in. particular Jerico Products?
47
411
Draft Planning Commission. Minutes - July 8, 2003
1 Paul Marangella: No we are not opposed to this, however, we' would like to craft the •
2 language.
3
4 Chair- Barrett: I would hope that the 'Linds could be contacted, before anything is
5 finalized.
6
7 Commission. questions /comment's on •.th`e ;Mitigated Negative Declaration:
8
9 Comrriissioner lmm Would likerto say that growing up in Petaluma, just blocks from
10 this area, 'I feel it is time to do something to revitalize the area.
11
12 Commissioner McAllister. Most of the noise. control treatment will' needto be dealt with
13 architecturally and not with landscaping treatments landscaping is just a visual foil. It
14 can possibly help with reflective noise.
15
16 George White: We believe the noise will be mitigated as it was with Park Central. We
17 have a performance measure in our code that requires the interior dba to be at , 4'S or less
18 which will happen with standard construction techniques.
19
20 Chair Barrett: Will the sound level be mitigated -when Jerico has it's_ noisiest act vities?
21
22 - George White: That is the intent of this. performance measure I can't say that there
23 won't be any individual time where there will be a particularly loud noise.
24 •
25 Commissioner Imm: Ask the City Council to tdo a whereas clause that Jerico is Vitally
26 important to the survival of commerce , on the Petaluma River and vitally_ important to
27 other parts of Petaluma.
28
29 George White: We applied another condition to'the Park Central Project which might be
30 applicable here which was language that would need to be in each lease that
31 acknowledged the existence of;these existing, uses on -the river.
32
33 Commissioner .McAllister: Regarding signage — needs to be' coordinated with the
34 downtown graphics program.
35
36 George White: Can be passed on as a recommendation.
37
38 Paul Marangella: That will be included in the Scope of Work for the .si'gnage program.
39 Will,have a matrix. of what signs will "be used throughout the city.
40
41 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for an explanation of circulation of the project?
42
43 Vin Smith: Our studies have shown that the more alternatives you have the better the
44 traffic circulation w1'11 be. Showed, the circulation of the project.
45
46 Chair' Barrett: Regarding the historic b,ui'ld.ngs which are to, be dem_ olished, I
47 understand the thinking about taking. the buildings down,. however, I have concerns, that
g
3.0
Draft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
1 there may be -,public outcry because people have not been notified,since the project came
.10 2 to SPARC .preliminarily. This is the first large project and it does "not look like there is
3 too much attempt at rehabilitating these buildings. Would hate to see this set precedence
4 for future developers. I would have preferred a more in depth environmental review.
5 The mitigation " the interpretive display" seems paltry — needs to be done well. Want
6 input from historical society, the museum, heritage homes, local artists and historic
7 SPARC. Want to see a detailed monitoring plan or how this will be- developed and then
8 maintained — want it to be successful. The more community buy in the better for the
9 community.
10
11 Commissioner McAllister: Only area of concern for me is the demolition of the
12 warehouse buildings.. Trying to think of a meaningful way to preserve these properties.
13 Cannot support requiring adaptive reuse of all of these buildings. Possibly reserve a
14 skeleton or frame of a building closest to the street as a gateway to the residential
15 component and as part of the •open space. Am not sure the display'is meaningful. Want a
16 recommendation to go to the Council to continue to work with SPARC to have a remnant
17 of a warehouse. Would be more meaningful than the graphic display.
18
19 Chair Barrett: Are you suggesting this as in lieu of the "interpretive display."
20
21 Commissioner McAllister: 'Possibly in lieu of or in addition to.
22
® 23 Chair Barrett: Are you suggesting this as a recommendation to SPARC or an alternative
24. mitigation.
25
.26 George White: I think that it may be in the realm of an additional mitigation measure if
27 you have consensus.
28
29 Commissioner Imm: Would you be comfortable not making it a mitigation, and just
30 express your concern to SPARC in writing.
31
32 Commissioner McAllister: Want it to have some weight — want the applicant to work
33 with SPARC.
34
35 George White: . Mitigation measures follow the project. When it gets to SPARC
36 mitigation measures will be.. applied at that point. It may be best to make it a condition or
37 give direction to SPARC: from the Council that this be attempted to the extent possible.
38
39 Commissioner McAllister: Think it is possible, however, to what degree is the question.
40
41 Matt. White: The Specific Plan called for "E" Street to extend through, however, there is
42 a building which does not line up with "E" Street. I am more .than willing to explore
43 using the framework of a warehouse — will leave it up to SPARC's discretion.
44
45 Commissioner McAllister: I am more concerned about the ri,verfront area.
46
47
9 31
braft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
1
Commission questions /comments on the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
2
establishing, a Theater Cornbinirig District Ordinance:
3
4
Commissioner Imm: Do not know if this is the appropriate place for the_ "whereas"
5
language. I think it should be noted that the City recognizes that Jerico is a 24/7
6
operation and the.City_r<ecognizes.that they need to go in and out on the tides and the City
7
recognizes that now or any time in the future they cannot be restricted in. 'their timing.
8
This can be helpful 10-:15 years from now.
9
10
Chair Could staff weigh in on where this language would be acknowledging the
11
river dependent industry.
12
13
George White: You could suggest a finding , for the Development Agreement and add it
14
to the findings that are attached to the staff report. ;
15
'
16
Commissioner him: Could it just be a separate resolution by the Council?
17
18
George White: 'You could make the suggestion that they adopt such a resolution:
19
20
Chair Barrett: .Boundaries to include areas so other theaters can be included here. Will
21
there be independent, art and foreign films shown here? The language istates "may ".
22
23
Paul Marangella: My understanding is that at least 3 theaters will be showing
24
independent films.
25
26
M /S' Dargie /Irrin to forward a recommendation. to the City Council to adopt a mitigated
27.
negative declaration, for the Petaluma Theater. District with a change in language from
28
SPARC` to "Historic" SPARC. 5 -0.
29
30
M/S Dargie /Asselmeier to forward a recommendation to the City Council to enter into' a
34
Development Agreement between the City of Petaluma and Basin Street Properties for .
32
the Petaluma Theater District with the recommendation to add language in response to
33
the letter- from - Derek Simmons on behalf of the Linds and add a; 1 . statement under
34
Transfers of Assignments that the City would not be..obligated to approve. the transfer if
35
the developer was in default. 5 -0
36
37
M /S; Dargie /Imm to forward a °recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning
38
ordinance establishing a Theater Combining. District in the City of Petaluma. -5 -0.
39
40
M/S Barrett/imm to forward the following additional recommendations to the City
41
Council:
42
® Draft a separate .Resolution to support the commerce on the river (Jerico in
43
particular) in the Development Agreement
44
• Recommend further .study of the riverfront warehouses to "explore retaining Lor re-
45
building" of the warehouse framing as part of the new development as a gesture
•
46
for these historic structures, to remain on site. Possible inclusions are riverside
-
47
gables and. warehouse framing near he terminus of "E" Street.
10
3L
Draft Planning Commission Minutes - July 8, 2003
• 1 ® Include a lease agreement requirement for the River Row apartments requiring
2 disclosure language regarding noise on the,nver.
3 m Signage to be coordinated with, the downtown "way finding" program.
4
5
6 II. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
7
8
9 III. LIAISON REPORTS:
10
11 a. City Council. None
12 b. SPARC: St. Vincent's playground conditions of approval returned to
13 SPARC with details — is now under construction; Preliminary Review of
14 of Petaluma Town Center Center; King Office building was approved for
15 a remodel; Ridgeview Heights, lots 1 and 2 - #2 was approved, lot 1 will
16 return for Conditions of Approval; preliminary review of Boulevard
17 Apartments; Preliminary Review of Jay Palm Saddle Shop addition.
18 Discussion of the use of preliminary SPARC process.
19 c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: None
20 d. Tree Advisory Committee: Feels left out of the loop. Suggested that
21 Tree Advisory Committee be involved in projects dealing with trees.
22 Paula Lane Action Committee met with Committee — will be visiting the
• 23 site.
24
25
26 Adjournment: 10:10
27
28
29
30 SAPC- Planning Commission \Minutes \PCMinutes03 \070803.doc
31
32
33