HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/13/2007 •
City of Petaluma,. CA
etfr W 4 City Council Chambers
A '.:uj City Hall, 1L English Street
•.t5";arc` Petaluma,CA 94952
I l86 . Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498
E-Mail "planning @ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 2007 - 06:58
Present: Will'Dargie;John•Mil1s;,Kathy.Miller,Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan,Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic , •
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 23,2007(06:59 PM)
Motion: Approve minutes of January 23,2007 e • _
Moved byJohn,Mills,secohded by Tanya..Sullivan. .
Vote: Motion carried 5-0. •. •
Yes:. Will Dargie;John Mills; Kathy.`Miller; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan
Abstain: Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic • .
' .DIRECTOR'S REPORT: George White(07:00 PM)
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Teresa Barrett(07:01 PM)
CORRESPONDENCE: George White(07:03 PM)
APPEAL STATEMENT: Within-fourteen(14)calendar days following the date of a decision of the
Planning Commission,the decision maybe appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other
interested party. If no appeal-is made.within that time the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be
addressed to the Council i •writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002.1 14-N.C:S. as adopted bythe'City Council.The appeal
. shall state specifically the grounds for the,appeal and the relief sought bythe appellant. (07:03 PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all
pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may implemented or adopted at the
earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court;you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the.public review process,or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:03 PM)
PUBLIC COMMENT: Open(07:03 PM)
Ira Bennett
Public Comment: Closed(07:04 PM)
OLD BUSINESS: (07:04 PM)
PUBLIC HEARING: (07:04 PM).
1. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott•Duiven(07:04 PM)
General Plan MEMO
•
DRAFT'General Plan 2025
Pamela Tuft, Director of the.General Plan,Administration, brought.back'.the comments from the various
advisory committees and commissions and suggested moving onto the Compilation Report for the
Commission's review. She presented the Cobblestone Home°redesignation request for the Bennett/Birch
property'off Petaluma Boulevard North:
Commissioner Mills said he recalled.asking for a written history from the Planning Department that
blending•was'encouraged at this site but he•saw only one'piece of paper regarding this.
Director Tuft replied there was a long history from"tlie 2004 Land Use and-Mobility that offered a higher
designation:m the Petaluma;Boulevard North area., She said the•Planning'Departnrenlrand Council said
they were not supporting a higher:density in this area. She said Mr.Bennett was acquiring properties based
on this Land Use and Mobility Report, but as it evolved; blending became inc'on'sistent as the density was
reduced. She added';that originally blending was supported by City staff. She said Mr. Bennett's current
proposal needs the blending of Very Low and Rural to make the project feasible.
Commissioner.Mills said he was concerned with Mr. Bennett's_letter regarding delayingjhis.application
until,after the General'Plan (GP) was adopted but the Planning Commission and GP indicted that density
could be blended and was consistent with the land use-plan as supported by Community Development '
Department(CDD)Director Mike Moore. He asked if this statement was accurate as Mr. Bennett indicated
he was cooperating and CDD staff supported this and it seemed it changed at-the last minute. He said the
City needs to l"hold'to what we say" and askedif the City had mislead him,.and if so;ahearing was{needed
to find out what was true.
Director Tuftsaidshe could not speak for Director Moore but'she rememberedblending was discussed and
his original.plan was supported by City staff.;She said she deferred•to CDD opinion and was in support of
their decision. She remembered in December of 2006-the Planning Commission considered blending on a
very mill percentage-of.the Rural designationlbut she took this:to'mean there'wasno,support-for blending,.
and no:straw,poll was';taken.
Commissioner Mills isaid was discussed after the ispecific land use and when the decision was
made to supportttheRural versus Very:Low Density, Mr: Bennett understood at that time that the-idea of
blending was included. He felt this did not offer Mr. Bennett proper hearing.
Director Tuft said thus.was correct and,wa •ihe reason this needed to be resolved. •
Commissioner Sullivan asked about,the Means and Bounds map Mr. Bennett's letter indicated would be
provided.
Director Tuft explained t his would show the boundaries and explained the exhibits.
Commissioner Sullivan said this would still not resolve the topography problem.
Director Tuft said Mr. Bennett was offering a plan to respect tree lines and ridgelines and the Planning
Commission Wasasked to give direction regarding an amendment for these properties.
Commissioner Mills asked, while not looking at project specific issues, if the designation remained`the
same,how difficult would it to have a'GP amendment.
• Director Tuft said this would be unusual, and most jurisdictions have an unwritten policy to not entertain
amendments fora year or two after adoption.
•
Char Dargie said a decision would have to be made whether to reconsider and then notice.
Ira Bennett asked the Commission,to affirm what was deliberated. He distributed minutes from a 2004
Planning Commission meeting where Commissioner McAllister asked if the site plan in the EIR was
consistent with the draft land use designation,and it was stated that it was. He asked that this be reaffirmed
as there was no deliberation that the entire property should be designated Rural. He said he felt density
blending was implicit, not explicit, but he recognized a blending policy would be difficult and he had
abandoned this idea. He said the survey would show an area as Rural, especially in the upper areas. He
said below the tree line this property was the same as adjacent property that was designated as Low
Density. He said rather than a straight line following the parcel boundary,this plan would create a line that
conformed to the topography. He asked the Commission members to be fair and use their discretion to
determine the proposal to be consistent and he thought he could bring a consistent design for their
affirmation. He said he didn't want to be punished for having faith in staff and relying on a process that he
thought was fair.
Commissioner Mills asked if any nearby parcels were given a bifurcated designation.
Director Tuft said yes, giving•the Sovel property, located to the north of Bennett's property, as an example
based on topography and existing land uses.
Commissioner Arras said there were two ways-to go about the discussion. 1) Discuss issues of density
blending that could help other projects;2)"Re-Notice and bring this back to the next meeting. He said even
though they would discuss two parcels _it didn't mean both had to be redesignated; he mentioned the
property nearest the Boulevard as the most likely to be redesignated.
Commissioner Sullivan said they could discuss the red-line version and defer to similar parcels.
Commissioner Miller said'she didn't want to delay,but was concerned about.representations made and she
was okay for the next meeting.
Commissioner Mills agreed with the others. He felt the density blending was unenforceable. He favored
bringing this back,noting other'properties had split designations.
•
Council Member Barrett said-she hadn't taken part in this discussion process but didn't see a problem with
re-noticing. She asked what happens when the next person wants a reconsideration and where to draw the
line.
Chair Dargie commented that there was a.certain risk in the process. He said whether staff represented or
guided, decisions can change during the public'process. He asked what could open up looking at the whole
region.
Director Tuft said there was uniqueness to this property, but this could open an additional three properties
for reconsideration: She said Council had said to leave the rural areas adjacent to the west hills and
northwest section of the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) undisturbed. She mentioned another request was
submitted from property owners of 1400 Petaluma Boulevard North but she didn't support considering this
request.-She said she would notice and craft a position paper.
Commissioner Mills commented that the Commission should send.a clear recommendation to Council. He
added that this project has been ongoing for a period of time and he strongly supported having this item
brought back.
Commissioner Arras agreed that reconsideration was warranted for the Bennett property but not necessarily
for any of the others such as 1400 Petaluma Boulevard North.
•
•
•
Commissioner Sullivan asked for a definition to be crafted to preclude other property owners from
requesting consideration.
Director Tuft said she would bring 1400 Petaluma Boulevard North to Council for consideration.
Commissioner Miller agreed to hear.
Director Tuft said she would re-notice.
Commissioner Mills, regarding the setting of precedents, the rule was that one case wouldn't set a
precedent,each is an individual case.
I. EXTENSION OF COPELAND STREET
Director Tuft explained the process of amending the CPSP through the General Plan process. She
explained this would:extend Copeland across the River to meet with Water Street North near Oak Street.
She added that no Plan Line had been created as of yet.
Mr: McCarthy, representing the Silva Family Trust,'said.he had concerns about the potential "take" to
allow for right-aways that create a city-wide benefit and affect. the development potential of their
properties. He asked for consideration of an exception and submitted draft text regarding'density intensity
and building height exemption.
Director Tuft cautioned about creating exceptions in,the.GP.:She said this be addressed in the Plan
Line and development agreement stage during the entitlement process. She added that more than a
driveway was required and the extension would'be a city-wide benefit.
Mr.McCarthyrecapped the issue for the:Commission and explained the uniqueness of the property that is
the largest undeveloped area between Washington-and Lakeville Streets. He said the three roads would
take 1.3 acres, leaving only 3.8 with 2.4 net usable. He said when he asked for density'.recovery,;a majority
of the Commission had agreed to this.'He said they had waited for the feasibility studies for.their plan for
full mixed use with retail, commercial, residential, and senior housing. He said the roads only allow 80%
of the property for development and he was:asking'for'consideration for the Riverside parcel'to allowiwo
more levels to recover the density lost to the roads. He said the six stories would not be visible except from.
one street.
Commissioner Mills asked if the Silva family owned the property before it was designated"T5".
Mr.McCarthy replied all of 402 and a portion of 36Wwereowned before this designation.
Commissioner Mills asked if Mr. McCarthy would still realize a tremendous profit resulting from this
change in zoning„and Mr. McCarthy-agreedhe would. Commissioner Mills addressed the:fairness,issue
stating even with the applicant-only getting 80% with the T5 zoning, it was 20% more profit compared to
previous designation.
Mr.McCarthy said this was true,but asked if this wasn't his right to have the maximum profit.
Commissioner Mills,asked Assistant Community Development Director George White if it was okay to
recover 80%to compensate for the taking and try to work out an agreement with the City without having to
use legal means.
Assistant Director White said he did not know and it was hard'to assess without having an actual project.
He added that McCarthy was suggesting changing standards in the CPSP and Smart Code be done by
exception. He said he hadn't seen the feasibility study but thought.it-was-premature to approve before
seeing the project.
Commissioner Mills asked AssistantiDirectOI White if the Planning Commission.had the authority to
override the CPSP.
AD. White answered that if the Commission agreed with the speaker to approve an amendment to the
CPSP Sinart Code it could be done.
Commissioner Mills asked how this would fit into the GP or if it would be considered after adoption.
Director Tuft recommended.deferring specifics such as height and density-loss because this was not
appropriate for the General Plan and no Plan Line had been established. She;stated that Water Street North
was adopted in the 87 GP; Oak Street was in the CPSP; and the planned Copeland Street extension to
Water Street North would be;a part,of the new GP, and therefore,appropriate to discuss but not to justify an
exception. She said if the,Commission wanted to develop a,policy to give importance to linking Copeland,
it could be extended elsewhere. She suggested deferring to a specific project and Plan Line when they are
brought forward.
•
Council Member Barrett asked if the Planning Commission had taken a position on this property.
Director Tuft answered they had only addressed the extension of Copeland and their position on this.
Council Member Barrett asked if this had been proposed to bebroughtback to the Planning Commission as
she thought it best to come before the Council since the Commission had already provided its input.
Director Tuft agreed that deferring to Council.regarding Copeland:Street Extension was;best.
Commissioner Mills asked if the Commission had already provided recommendations regarding the density
loss if it could provide compensation for density loss when the extension is approved.
Director Tuft said no specific policy was included in the GP, it was only to be discussed in the future and
this was not necessarily part of the GP process.
Commissioner Sullivan said no decision could be reached with the information presented and favored
Director Tuft's suggestion.
Commissioner Miller stated she did not like including an exception in the GP and was uncomfortable with
the draft language.
Mr. McCarthy explained regarding compensation, that the City designated the properties T5 to provide the
highest density possible downtown. He said there was no project proposal because of the problem with the
three 60 foot right-aways for.the.roads. He stated he did not want an exception, but with each additional
road, he now had lost 70.residential units resulting in a loss of$5 - $7,million..He said he did,not want to
change the CPSP but wanted flexibility because what is planned devalued his property. He said he needed
to see what this looked like with the roads and parking to determine what to build.
Commissioner Arras stated the Copeland Street Extension was inthe'1987 GP and:the CPSP resulted in
good policies that limited the number of stones. He felt crafting an exception to the CPSP was not
appropriate at-the OP level. He felt the City Council should review the Land Use Designation and policies
and this could be looked at during project review to craft an exception to,the.Smart Code with the Council's
assistance.
Mr. McCarthy said there was agreement on recovering density but the building height was in question.
Director Tuft explained that last fall the Commission was interested in looking at specific project with
density recoverybut could not agree onhow this would be;accomplished without changes to the CPSP.
•
•
Mr. McCarthy said he understood the Commission agreed to move forward with the Plan Lines for the
streets•and''the associated recovery of density. He'said from the engineer's plans he coirimissioned, only
80%was recoverable.
Council Member Barrett said she thought this was premature and the•Commission was not the correct
forum to resolve this issue. She suggested'bringing forth the proposal to SPARC after the GP•was adopted.
AD White explained the process of bring the development back to the Commission.
Council,Member Barrett said there were no density guarantees, only a range of density. She added the
Commission did not have authority over monetary matters, only land use.
Mr. McCarthy stated he understood this, but the issue was Copeland Street that was being reviewed for
land use and mobility.issues.
Council Member Barrett stated`the Commission had given its-recommendations on land use.lastfall but it
couldn't provide guarantees.
Mr.,McCarthy'said he-was looking for text,copy, and direction to bring a project before SPARC. He said
if the three roads going through.the parcel are the only•things shown, there will be a lawsuit because.this
would result in,a taking.He said it was his right to recover density by giving access to.three•roads.
Commissioner Mills said he agreed with Council,Member. Barrett that the.GP was not the appropriate
venue for this discussion as this would`'come before Council and the City Manager to determine.the issue of
taking and the recovery of density. He said an exception in the GP wouldn't work and they;couldn't
recomrriend six stories in light of the height restrictions from the•CPSP.
Mr. McCarthy said he understood from last fall'S.meeting the City would establish Plan Lines for the roads.
and determine.how.much less area there was and then address recovery.
Commissioner Mills stated the Commission recommends,but their decisions were not final.
Director Tuft explained the Plan Line process and that policies were done through the City Council—She
said text had been approved adding a Plan Line for Copeland as adequate and will be brought before •
Council.
Commissioners all agreed
PUBLIC COMMENT
•
Eddiejohnson — Owner of 1478, 1480 and 1482 Petaluma Boulevard North — Said-he was against the
zoning•change and he was marketing liis property as Mixed Use.
•
Bruce.Bartleson—Real Estate agent representing'Mr.Johnson's property—He rexplainedd the topography of
the property and plans for development that included residential. He said the Industrial zoning would.make
'/3 of the property unusable.He left the'architect's drawings.
Director Tuft explained the location of,the properties_and clarified that Mixed Use was never designated for
these properties. She said it was currently Community and Highway Commercial with a, new GP
designation as Industrial. She said the area was recognized as an enclave of heavy/light industrial uses and.
their preservation was important. She also mentioned creating'Multi=Use on•these•properties would result
in spot zoning and this is not allowed.
Tamara Norman-501 Keller Street:- She read from her letter.noting;that protection for City trees needed
to be incorporated throughout departments,not just Parks and Recreation. She•mentioned Chapter 2,Land
Use and Chapter 3, Community Design & Character,as'additional'areas where policies,could be included.
•
She gave examples of trees being removed or endangered by property'owners di development. She
suggested tree protection be.part of the goals,policies and programs tb.provide maintenance,protection and
funding. .
•
•
Commissioner Sullivan asked if her wording would strengthen the Tree Committee's input since details
were included but not goals.
Ms. Norman said the Committee's comments were included but not stated as goals and therefore their
importance was lost.
Commissioner Mills agreed with Ms. Norman's suggestions and recommended staff review and rewrite to
strengthen. He said he would like a tree ordinance developed as a priority in the Development Code.
•
Commissioner Arras agreed with Commissioner Mills. He said it was appropriate to be an actual goal to
deal with trees and their value and should be included in the GP.
Commissioner Sullivan said it was very important to have these protections by strengthening the language
in the GP. She felt the development community would welcomeknowing what to expect before submitting
their plans.
Council Member Barrett agreed it was appropriate to include as a goal to provide strength to the ordinance.
Chair Dargie agreed.
•
Director Tuft stated she would work on this.
Susan Kirks — Paula Lane. Action Network — Mentioned the experience of past commissioners and her
hopes that the new commissioners would attend training in CEQA(California Environmental Quality Act),
and other planning training. She explained about the protections needed for the rural environment in the
western hills and recommended establishing a strong policy statement to provide protection. She offered
information and asked the Commission to pay attention to public testimony.
II. COMPILATION
• Urban Growth Boundary Date beyond the ballot measure's date because of assumption this
measure will continue.
• Historic Preservation as a separate element.
• Blending—not supported and must be clearly stated and stand alone,without designation of land
use.
• Parcel lines to allow preservation of attributes and allow flexibility—bring back.
• Rural designation may mean clustering of homes with maximum open space.
• Correct Gross to Net figures.
• Create a map of sensitive ridgeline areas.
• Growth Management Policy to indicate length of term with no specific number of units.
• Separate goal for tree preservation,maintenance, etc.(under Number 3).
• Historic Preservation- it was concurred to develop a separate element to follow"Community
Design". Additional background needed;Cultural Resource Inventory—how funded,time-frame,
update needed;.structures of 45 years or older-add CEQAand-Natural Registrar criteria;•Historic .
• Preservation Planner—"funding for this, could staff be trained;Demolition by-Neglect-no
enforcement,.use CDD's new Code Enforcement language;;Annual recognition awards for
individuals—suggested to combine.with bi-annual Heritage Homes event.
• CPSP—Reflect interpretation of access to River for pedestrian and water-related activities.
• East Washington—Consolidation of lots when possible as part of development/redevelopment
• projects.
• Lakeville Highway/McKinley/Payran—Extend street grid, add this to the Mobility:Element.
• Hand-launched water craft to be included in•Parks section.
• Fairgrounds—language to leverage-underutilized turf areas for.youth sports and community
recreation through a joint use agreement—add to the Parks element with policy and programs in
both.
• • Washington Street—improve cross-town pedestrian access—add to Mobility.element.
• "D"Street bicycle.path to extend through new development at old Kenilworth site to connect to
Highway 101-pedestrian overcrossing.
•. Southeast—modification to parcel-specific land use—narrative will be included to'reflect Council .
direction(Arroyo Park project)
• West—Green Building—maintain voluntary program and craft policies to evaluate the success,of
the program.
• Chapter 4—reference global climate change.
• Policies and Programs regarding Solid Waste—use term"re-use'in addition to recycle:
• 12 of 12,bullet"B"—insert"sufficient'between incorporate. . .attractive.
' Motion: to continue.to next meeting on February 27, 2007 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 -DRAFT
.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Moved by Kathy Miller, seconded by.John Mills.
Vote:Motion carried 6-0.
Yes:. Will Dargie;John Mills;Kathy Miller;Christopher Arras; Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett
Absent: Terry Kosewic.
II. LIAISON REPORTS: (09:49 PM)
•
a. City Council: Teresa Barrett(09:49 PM)
b. SPARC: John Mills(09:50 PM)
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: ChristopherArras(09:51:PM)
d.Tree Advisory Committee: Tanya Sullivan(09:51 PM) .
Adjournment: (09:52 PM)