HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06/10/2002June 10, 2002
Vol. 38, Page 15
a~ ~. ~ City of Petaluma, Galifo~rxci~a
Cit Council Meetin
I85$
~ -
1.
2 City Council 'Meeting Minutes
3 Monday.June 10; 2002 -7:00 p. m.
4 Special iVleeting
5
6 ~ PRESENT: C`ader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
7 O'' Brien, Torliatt
8 ~ ~ ABSfiVT: `Mayor Thompson
9
10
11 PLEDGE_OF'ALLEGIANCE
12
13 Bill Donahue led fhe Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 PUBLIC COMAAfNT
16
17 Bill .Donahue; Petaluma, representing tenants of Sandalwood Mobile Home Park.
18 Arbitration held on May 9, 2002 -residents of park prevailed. Space rent increase
19 authorized by '.Petaluma City Ordinance 1949 N..C.S. is 6%, based on .CPI;
20 average of a $15 increase. On behalf of residents or Sandalwood and other
21 mobile home parks in community, thanked former anal presen CounciL.Members:
22 and communify for `th'eir foresight in adopting the ordinance to protect `the
23 residents of the mobile home park.
24
25 Edna Mae Campanile, Petaluma, "We:'ve got smiles on ovr faces!" Took lots of
26' courage fior mobile home residents to organize; start a .legal fund; ask for
27 donations, find an ditorney, and go to arbitration. "The. little people against the
28 big guns." Thinks Council was poorly advised by staff on this `issue. Asked them to
'29 have courage to defend Ordinance 1949 NCS in'th'e future.
30
3'1 John Cheney, Petaluma, displayed candy purchased. from ice cream truck. He
32 had seen. the same candy identified as a choking hazard on a TV news report a
33 few days earlier. City sent letter to ice cream vendors. Police don't have time to
34 chase down ice cream vendors,. Came to Council hoping news media would
35 follow up on this.. "`If we .can save one kid' by what we`re doing here tonight,
36 that's worth more than anything else: we'll ever do here."
37
38 Geoff Cartwright,' Petaluma,. brought executive summary of the Sonoma County
39 Water Agency's (SCWA's) Urban Water Management Plan. Pointed out
Vol. 38, .Page 16 June 10, 2002
1 numerous assurpp.tions agency made in plan., Plan disrespects the public's
2' interests, this region. Driven by the passion of a dozen General Plans, and_ 'with n'o
3 responsibility.
4
5 Terence Garvey, Petaluma, submitted letter -to Council regarding D-Day an~cJ
6 "Ju,neteenth"' -almost 140 years ago between June 13 and June 1'9 - word
7 spread across Texas that slaves were officially free. Spoke of a number of
8 individuals who contrib"uted to cause offreed,om, especially African Americans: '
9
~.: ,..
10 Stan Gold, Petdlu-ma asked. severgl, weeks ago for:,; a monffly status re,port..on #h'e.
11 sewer plant/wetlands project Petaluma Wetlands;.,Par.k A_Iliance will-have nexf
12 monfhly meeting on Friday, June 14. If fhey could. have: status report by then.,
13. would 'be grateful..
Diane Reilly-Torres, Petaluma, wondered how the: ;Police D.epartrnenf could
effectively enforce the law with fewer staff` while many, projects .are being
approved. by Council that will ad'd fo the area and population. Police are
expected fo protect. Also wondered how the City planned to provide water'for
these projects and deal with increased .wear on City streets from additional cars.
Feeling in community is that Council is not representing, their ~consti:fwuents.
Referred to Cost of Services Study and called for increasing fees to reflect costs
of services. Asked Councit if citizens had any input into budget; did' Council,.care
what they had to say?
Vice .Mayor Healy -We've had two public hearings specifically to go -through
that document.
Ms.'ReiRy=Torres - Just wants public to know- that the reason the City has. n;o
money is explained in 'the G:ost of Services S#udy.,
COUNCIL CO'M'M'ENT
• Council M'emberMaguire:
Council has given direction' to staff to incr,.ease a.lar,.ge riurriber of fees on
services so that theywill pay for themselves. Council agreed 'nof to
charge~full cosf of service on some.
- Regarding 'approving projects; Council Members d~h't have.. legal leeway
'to tell so,m.eo:ne, "'No, you can't do something with. your property."
- Appreciates. Mr. Garvey's recognition of African Qm,ericans. -
- Hopes. local newspaper paying attention to John Cheney`s concern.
about'the candy with poten~fial choking risk.
•;• Co;uncil.AAember Moynihan;
- 'Participated in',GrantSch'ool's6fth Grade Recital.
Atfended Leadership Petalumaf graduation on Friday, June 7. A great
program kind of like do "adult civics class." Opens participants' eyes to.
what'`s hdpperiirig ih the community a'nd provides opportunity to mee#
interesting a"nd diverse group of people-. They are faking sign-ups.
June 10, 2002
Vol. 38, Page 17
1 - Attended Kiwans Fishing Derby at Lucchesi Park on Saturday, June 8;
2 Thanks to Jim Carr and Parks and Recreation Department for keeping lake
3 stocked, etc.
4
5 ~2 Council Member Caller-Thompson:
6 - Also atfended Leadership Petaluma graduation and recommends it as
7 excellentway to laarn more about community.
8 - Pleased about Sandalwood arbitration victory - a fair rate of return
9 doesn't mean you ,over-pay for a piece of .property and then you "stick it
10 to the senior citizens." Regrets that park residents had to put so much
11 money .into process. fmpressed with fhe way they conducted themselves.
12 Kudos to attorneys representing residents. In near #uture, Council should
13 review Ordinance 1949 N.C.S. -can it be strengthened so this doesn't
14 hap-pen again?
15 - Regcirding lvlr: Gold's comments on status report -she would appreciate.
16 receiving that as well and status of property negotiations - have
17 appraisals come back?
18 - Thanked paramedics for service they provide community -she was with
19 someone recently who starfed choking, and thanks to dispatchers' and
20 paramedics' excellent service, all was well. ,
21
22 • Coun'cil Member O'Brien:
23 - Thanked M'r. Donahue for tenacity .and was pleased to know that "'the
24 system works."
25 - Thanked Mr. Cheney for calling dangerous. candies to public's attention.
26 Hopes newspapers will give it:good ,press.
27 - Thanked Mr. Garvey for information on 'many African American citizens
28 who have contributed to the cause of freedom. -
29 - Asked to adjourn meeting in memory of Frances DeCarli> who passed
30 away last week.
31
32 • Council M'emb'er Torliatt:
33 - Let's no.t forget those African American women who. have given so much
34 for fheir country.
35 - Thanked Council Member Corder-Thompson -current President of the
36 .Northbay League of California Cities -organized an event held 'in
37 Petaluma last Thursday, June 6 for all cities in the four Northbay counties.
38 Excellent event attended by six Counci( Members. Lobbying effort in
39 Sacramento to secure funding for local .government. Pushing legislative
40 agenda. Given some draft letters Council should ask Mayor to send in
41 City's name to reinforce lobbying.
42 - Congratulations to Sandalwood residents on their victory... Seconded Mr.
43 Donahue's thanking of previous Councils in 1994-95 who put this legislation
44 in place. City government often reactive instead of proactive. Need to
45 proactively educate mobile home owners about fhe rent stabilization
46 ordinance, what it can and cannot do, and how they can "be
47 prepared." She asked that Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler and City
48 staff organize workshops to do this.
Vol. 38, Page 18 June 10, 2002
1 0
2
3 PUBLLC HEARING
4
5 Redwood Technology Center. Discussion and Possible Acfion Regarding a
6 .Recommendation firom thePlanning Commission to Approve:
7
8 A. Resolution Certifying fhe Final EnvironmentaLlrnpac,t Report.
9 B. Resolution Adopting a Statement of .Overriding. Considerations a.nd
10 Approving the Mifigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
11 C. Resolution Amending the General Plan. Land Use :Map from "Sp.ecial
12 Commercial`' to "S.pecial Industrial/Office Park".
13 D.:Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning Properfy from Highway Commercial (CH)
1.4 on Parcel_A and Light Industrial (ML) on Parcel B to.Planned Unit District (PUD;)..
15 E. Resolution Adopting a Unit Development Flan for Redwood Technology
16 Center
17
18 Project is proposed fora 14.4 acre site at fhe Southwest Corner of OId Redwood
19 Highway and North McDowell Boulevard; A~PN '007-41 1-7, 9, 1 1, 18 and 1.9.
20
21 Communify ,Developrne:nt Director Mike Moore introduced Jayni Allsep; .P.rojecf.
22 Planner, who presented the project descri:pti'on; site history; anci
23 recommendations. from the Planning .Commission and City staff.
24
25 Council Member Maguire - ~Re.quested a single-page: ,geaphie showing fhe
,26 current Parcel; C proposal as; well as the Parcel A. & B proposals.
Ms. Allsep:indieated she wound check and s,ee what is available ;for Council. Sh'e
continued with the description the layout, contents, and conclusions of the EIR:.
Council Member Cader.-Thompson. -Asked if a proposal for ,Parcel C has. been.
sent and if the Planning Department would have it.
Ms. Allsep in_di:cated there was .something included 'in the EIR, bu.t it is on fwo
separate exhibits and Council Member Maguire's request was 'for one exhibit
thatshowed all three parcels: ,
38 Council Member Maguire referred.: t.o page 31 in the. EIR that refers to parcel C.
39
4.0 Ms. Allsep explained. fhat since these are two separate development
41 applications they don`t have that but will refer back to it.
42
43 Ms. Allsep explained that Volume I of the .EIR contains the same components as
4.4 the draft E1R with .changes in text highlighted; Volume. II contains
45 correspondence from the public and. governmental agencies obtained; during
46 the public: rev„iew period. Included in. Volume II is supplemental information
47 relating' spe.cifieally to Parcel C concerning traffic, .circulation and. groundwater:
June 10; 2002 Vol: 38, Pager 19
1 She stated that the FindC EIR concluded that the i,m~ple'mentation of Redwood
2 Technology Center, including ;the development planned for Parcel C, has fhe
3 potential to genera .e environmental. impacts in the following areas:
4
5 Public policies
6 Traffic and .circulation
7 • Infrastructure .and community services
8 Biology
9 Hydrology
10 Drainage
11 • Water quality
12 Noise
13 Air quality
14
15 She indicated. fhat all but one of these impacts are avoidable and would be
16 reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures recommended in
17 the report. The one impact that cannot be fully mitigated is traffic. She explained
18 that traffic. on Old Redwood Highway overpass would deteriorate to
19 unacceptable service levels given that the mitigation measure to widen the
20 overpass would not occur prior to the completion of this project. She cited the
21 Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and Stafe CEQA guidelines that
22 require d decision making. body, such as the Council, to balance the economic,.
23 legal, social and technological benefits against the unavoidable environmental
24 risk in determining whether fo approve a project. She explained that the Council
25 would have to state in the Overriding Considerations the specific reasons to
26 support the approval action based on the final EIR and any other information of
27 record. She indicated that in Attachment 10 of the Staff Report there is draft
28 language grid a placeholder for findings with -Basin Street's suggestions for
29 Language fhat could be included.
30
31 As far as Parcel C, she indicated that in previous discussions it was decid`ed' "that
32 Parcels A, B 8~ C didn't need to be master-planned. The development plan for
33 Parcel C as analyzed for the Final EIR is based on the application filed by
34 Robertson Properties Group in December 2001. This application proposes
35 demolition of the theater building; development of a retail center with a _
36 freestanding discount store and garden center; about 34,000 square feet of
37 additional retail; and .two restaurants, one of which would be a fast food with a
38 drive through window. She indicated any discussion of Parcel C is limited to how
39 it is analyzed in the Final EIR_ Its parcel merits are not ,before Council for
40 consideration this evening, as this parcel will have a .separate environmental
41 review, Planning Commission, public hearing process, and City Council
42 discussion. She indicated that it would use. much of the information included in
43 the Redwood. Technology's Final EIR. as was appropriate and relevant to that
44 project. She explained the process that bead fo the Planning Commission's
,.
45 recommendation to Council to certify the Final ,EIR with a stipulation that d fie d
46 check be conducted to confirm the presence of a culvert that came into
47 question and to make the changes, if necessary, to the EIR's conclusions.
48
Vol. 38, Page 20
June 10, 2002
1 Philip `Williams: and" Associates (PWA), the hydrology consultant, confirmed. the
;2 presence 'of the ;culvert'. They- reviewed. the EIR's hydrodynamic model and
3 found the change to'be extremely modest when looking at the resulfs o:f a 100-
4 Year~s,torrn event;. the results". are summarized in :Afaachment 3.
5
6 Council; Member Cader=Thompson ,aske`d where does the 84-inch pipe, go anal
7 where does if end.
Ms. Allsep re.ques~ted f'hat: specific questions on. 'the pipe be referred to Betty
Andrews of PWA formore detail
She continued. explaining that the Planning Commission moved to adopt fhe
General Plan Amendment from Special Commercial to the Special, Industrial
/Office Park. designation, anal to also approve the rezoning to a Planned Unit
Developi-nent (PUD),. qs part of their recommendations on the project,. the
Planning Commission made several. specific requests.
18 l . The site ;plan generated for the pedestrian-friendly alternative (Alf. 'p'j should
19 be seriously considered along; with any resuCting hydrology impact.
20 2. O,n-site dgyc,are should.be a manddfe.d use in:the proiect itself.
21 3. Water going into the Petaluma River be filtered and manitared..
22 4: Development standards limiting Neigh"t fo 55 feet to be consistent with nearby
23 buildings. _
24 5. Eliminate jail facilities as one of the;:conditionally permitted uses,
25 6. Funding .sources. and bonding capabilities need to be, considered to widen
26 the. Old Redwood Highway overpass.
27
28 Council Member Maguire asked if the 55 feet is as opposed to fhe proposed 50
29 feet.
30
31 Ms. Allsep stated that fhe building .designs themselves; are .,proposed to be .50
32 feet. There are PU,D regula_ Lions fihat are more general 'that specif"y a 55=foot
33 height limit.
Council Member MagUir<e asked that to be rnpre specific, that 55 feet would b_e
the maximum height..
Ms. Allsep_stated ths.was correct.
Council Member Maguire asked: ,her to expla- in how Fair Share is defined and
calculated in terms of fhe proj'ect' applicant''s responsibility for improvements and
roads; and to restate that Fair Share is in addition to the traffic mitiga ian fees,.
Ms". Allsep explained the Fair Share contribution that is identified for traffic
mitigation is based on the percentage. of traffic attributed to the project
compared. to the: projected traffic tha"f is proposed "in different areas where 'the"
improvements are proposed.. She stated that Fair Share is in addition° to the traffiic
June 10, 2002
Vol: 38; "Page 2
1 rriitigation fees. She referred. to Steve Weinberger the traffic consultant vvho
2 developed fhe Fair Share computation.
3
4: Council Member Moynihan asked if physical improvements at the intersection of
5 Redwood Way and North McDowell are the applicant"s responsibility.
6
7 Ms. Allsep explained that there .are .physical. impravements that are required for
8 some of the mitigation and others require Fair Share..
9
10 Council Member Moynihan asked abou the three types of fees being paid, Fair
11 Share, traffic mitigation and the construction for fhe interchange and other
12 physical improvements.
13
14 Ms. Allsep explained. that there are certain improvements that the applicant will
15 be responsible for. She stated, some will be Fair Share, and as part of this Fair
16 Share condition, there would be a mechanism for reimbursement based on what
17 improvements need to be made in conjunction with the actual project.
18
19 Council M-ember Moynihan asked if reimbursement would come from the future
20 developers of the adjoining parcel.
21
22 Ms. Allsep explained that reimbursement would come from any other
23 development that may occur in the future that would benefit from -these
24 improvements.
25
26 CounciP Member Maguire asked, if an indemnification is being considered if the.
27 City adopts the ..project.. The City will have th:e. indemnification by the. applicant
28 against any flood issues that arise- after the project is built. He asked -for
29 clarification from counsel.
30
31 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky explained. that the indemnification provisio-n h,e
32 noted was regarding the. requirement that the developer indemnify, defend and
33 hold harmless the City in the evenf any approval of the project is challenged.
34
35 Council Member Maguire. stated that in the past the City had agreements with
36 G&W regarding flood impacts.
37
38 Mr. Rudnansky stated that was true and that when the public improvements are
39 put `in, there are public improvement agreements that include that language.
40
4.1 Council Member, Maguire asked Ms. Allsep if the: City had discussed this yet, and
42 she said that the City had not. He asked for .more details since the City is asked
43 to make significant changes in the General Plan.
44
45 Vin Smith, Basin Street Properties, indicated that these are available.
46
Vol. 38, Page 22 June 10, 2002
1 Council Member Caller-Thompson :asked about .Old Redwood. Highway
2 oyercrossing funding sources since it is not part of the widening, plan for- Highway
3 T01; and what is fhe proj'ected;.cost.
4
5 Ms. Allsep agreed that complete #unding for this irnp,rovement is' uncertain at ti-iis
6 time.,. and that is:whyi't is consideredsign~ficant and unavoidable in the EIR. Some
7 funding has been contributed, for this ove:rcrossing improvemenf as part of the
develo,pme,nt, in the area, bu# it is not e.ompie`fe, secured funding. She would
9 have to check on an updafed cost projection.
11 Council: Member'Torlidtt wanted to know what the: most recent prgjeete'd cost
12 was since it would .indicate how rnueh money the City would bey receiving from
13 the. developer if the project moved forward, She wanted' to know how the. Cify
14 expected to °#und those improvements; why _it wasn't included 'in the highway=
1'5 widening plan; aril wanted to ,know staff's: alternative. to recommend approvdl.
1,6
17 Ms. Allsep indicated it would be for all the rnitgations identified in the EIR that'
18 can be implemented except ~ the Ofd Redwood Highway overcrossing
19 improvement mitigation, .
20
21 Council ;Member, Torliatt had questions' regarding -the, F'fanning Commission's
22 recommendations. regarding. the pedestrian friendly alternative-. She asked why
23 with a 3-2 vote supporting this proposal, staff did not support the pedestrian
24 plan..
Ms. Allsep clarified that this w.as, one .of the pedes#rian friendly mitigated.:
alternatives looked of in ,the Final EIR. These alternatives do .not require as
detailed a review as the project being proposed. One of the problems' with the
pedestrian plan was the way the site Hall `been planned and e,ngine:ered to
allow for adequate hydrology facilities on the -sine. Pedestrian friendly possibilities
were discussed anal will be incorporate into fhe recommended plan. "B'" by
reorganizing some of the buildings: and parking areas to fhe extent possible.
34 Council Member Torlatf questioned the conclusion in the staff report that the
35 Planning Commission recommended approval of the project and certification of
36 the final EIR, and "their finding' that fhe proposed 'General Plan Amendmenf and
37 rezoning to PU,D was consistent{with the: General Plan a_i?d zoning ordinances...,
38 She wa"nted cla"rificdtion of where the pedestrian alternative was. as far as
39 recommending tq Council.
40
41 Ms. Allse_p explained :that staff is asking Council to recommend the plan. and
42 -keep in, mind the:.hydrology impacts of 'the pedestrian centered alternative, This
43 needs to b:e taken into consideration and if Councii directs incorporating
4.4. pedestrian aspects. into the plan, tfley could be included in the approved plan.
Council Member Moynihan wanted, tosupport Torliatf's concerns. He cif,ed.
Attachment 8, Draft Conditions of Approval, requires bicycle amenities be
included in accordgnce with the City's Bicycle Plan; and is subject to the Site.
June 10, 2002
Vol. 38, Page 23
1 Plan and ,Architectural Review (SPARC) ,process. He. feat -that some of the design
2 issues would be taken care of at SPARC.
3
4 Council Member- Torliatt reiterated that she. was concerned about where the
5 bu'ildings5would 'be locafed" dnd th'e types of land. use that affect how people
6 live and work. She ,questioned why the staff report stated .housing wouldn''t b~e
7 appropriate on this site because it is in a flood plain.
8
9 Council Member Maguire pointed to the prose and cons in the EIR about the
1.0 housing component and Ms. Allsep indicated it is also included in the minutes of
11 the Planning Commission.
12
13 Council Member ~Torliatt continued by citing a letter from the applicant that the
14 analysis o,f a mixed-use alternative would not be potentially feasible because it
15 would place housing in a flood plain and directly controvert City policies. She
16 wanted clarification of these policies as part of a PUD.
17
1`8 Council. Member Maguire asked about the childcare center as one of the
19 mitigations that was taken from the pedestrian oriented. version.
20
21 Ms. Allsep explained that the Planning Commission recommended that
22 childcare be included but the application submitted. did not specifically identify
23 childcare as a proposed use.
24
25 Council Member Maguire. indicated he would support this as one of the
26 mitigating measures.
27
28 Council Member Maguire had a technical questions on mitigations listed. He
29 noted that' they are :exactly the same qs, the rnitigafion program in the back of
30 the Final EIR.
31
32 Ms. Allsep said yes.
33
34 Council Member Maguire questioned if there is any criteria or restriction on
35 demolition of the existing theater building on Parcel C.
36
37 Ms. Allsep didn't believe there would be, it would be subject to whatever the
38 Building :Department would require normally.
39
4`0 Council. Member Torlia 't asked if the applicant is required to pay housing fees,. or
41 in lieu fees as part of this development; or no housing mitigation fees
42 whatsoever. ~..
43
44 =.Ms. Allsep stated no. Since there is no proposed housing component, they would
45 not be required.
46
47 Council Member Torligtt agreed with Council Member Maguire and requested
48 •, be.fter views of what the proposed development would potentially be.
Vol. 38, Page 24 June 10, 20Q2
1
2 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
3
4 Bill White, Basin Street Properties - Introduced the team: Vin Smith, Basin; Street
5 Properties; Martin Parasni with, Brian, Kangas~ Faulk and Stu:ber-Stroeh •civil
6 engineers; Ray Walton, West Consultants, hydrolo'gis'ts; Rick Strauss, "Basin Sareet
7 Properfies architec?. ~ '
8
9 He clarified 'the, pedestrian friendly aspect as a term for bringing, the buildings to
10 the street with a recessed road. This site. would require that the sidewalks be
11 seven feet below the building pad.. ~ _ '
12 -
13 He ,gave. d background of the Redwood Business Park design across Old
14 Redwood as good for its. time.. They recognized that the Redwood Technology
15 Cenfer required upgraded architecture, xeriscaped laridscapingr, .:energy
1.6 conservation, open space for floodwater storage;,, and structured parking •would
1`7 be needed-. He stated 'that this project'is an infill design with the property zoned.
18 Highway Commercial on Parcel.A and Light Industrial for P~~rcel B.
19
20 The: proposal calls for rezoning parcels A & :B to PUD allowing commercial and.
21 office `space or do E use for the 'telecom industry.. In 1998 his company began its
22 acquisition of properties A 8~. B when :they realized due to flood conditions,
23 wetland's, traffic, and dccess; the parcels- had to work together and be master-
24 planned so they optioned Parcel C. The 'main issues of development were traffic
25 and hydraulics. After additional hydrology work was completed,, fhey
26 completed,. tale Draft EIR and now presenting, fihe Final EIR for approval of the
27 General :Plan Amehdment and' rezoning to PUD for the site.
Mr. Smith stated. that the setting is an 'infilf site <surrounde:d by light :industrial, sub-
manufacturing buildings; light commercial, professional office, shopping ,c;enter
and some research and development:. He listed fhe roadways near the property
that would supply access,, He wanted to emphasize fhat the site is surrounded by
development and is the last vacant piece of land in that part of the City.
The site is identified: in th;e General :Plan and PCDC fior development -since. if has
the necessary infrastructure ,n place.. with the incorporated ~ design
improvements, the storm drain, design is s_uffcient to serve the project and the
facilities. haver been designed to rnee:t General Plan densities. In placing the
buildings, detention, retention and. zero-.net fill requiremeri'ts, and th'e view from
Old Redwood Highway and Highway lOlproviding ari,architeetural' gateway
appearance were allowed for. '
They didn't view the site as appropriate for residential developrnent'becquse of
flooding and the strain this placed on emergency servicES for residences: They
have, added 15% capacity above minimum zero. net ,fill: requirements. The:.
landscape. plan allows for storm flows with a .:grassy Swale to filter the runoff
before it reaches Holrn Road.. There' 'is also a pedestrian; walkway between a
double row of trees. He showed how the .predominant flow affects the~site and .
June'1~0, .2002
Vol. 38, Page'2S
1' how the :p,lan. accommodates, fhis wifh filtering, ,grassy swdles in two places that
2 hook up with the detention basins. The detention basins will serve as enhanced .
~-
3 wetl_a"nds and then be metered to 'the Holm. Road ditch in lower rainfall events.
4
5 Vice Mayor Hepy asked if 'this is something different than was described in fhe
6 final EIR. He questioned, that the project complies with zero net increase in run-off
7 as the final EIR doesn'f say this.
8
9 Mr. Smith indicated that the Final EIR concludes that there is no significant
10 impact. , '
11
12 Vice Mayor Healy referred to `tables on page 20.0 in Volume 1 that indicate
13 significant increased r'unoff`fior 1~0-Year and 100-Year storm events on parcels A, B
14 8~ C.
15
16 Mr. Smith referred this `issue to Betty Andrews, He continued with his presentation,
17 referring to table, 13 on page 207. He listed the traffic components of the plan
18 with payment of the standard traffic mitigation fee; construction of traffic
19 improvements including signalization of Redwood Way and North McDowell
20 Blvd; payment of their fair share of other traffic improvements, primarily for the
21 overpass.. He stated their fair share would be above and beyond what the
22 standard traffic mitigation fee is. He stated Parcel A & B would generate
23 approximately $800,000 in traffic mitigation fees.. H;e reiterated. that Basin Street
24 has continued, to offer payment of their fair share of the ultimate solution of
25 solving traffic problems in :the Penngrove community.
26
27 Council Member Torliatt questioned where the gas station-was.
28
29 Mr. Smith .explained it is on parcel C. She questioned the statement in the report
30 that the gas station would be in the northeast corner of the. site on page 272°.
31 He indicated this is inaccurate.
32
33 Vice Mayor Healy questioned if Redwood Technology's parking requirermenfs for
34 their buildings were on parcels A & B, or is C included'.
35 ~ -,
36 Mr. Smith said yes, on A 8~ B with a two level parking structure.
37
38 Council. Member'xCader-Thompson: asked if discussions. with property owners of
39 parcel C concerning.. shared parking space had occurred. Vin Smith replied that
40 there: have been conversations .about this in the past, but the owners were not
41 definitive in their development plan -but there may be some opportunity in the
42 future.
43 "
44 Council Member T'orli'att had concerns about parking structures and shared
45 parking as well. She had questions about through-travel on Old Redwood and if
4'6 it connected with Stub Road or if 'there is an easement. She wanted clarification
47 of access without Parse! C being developed.
48
Vol. 38, Page 26 June 10, 2002
1 Mr.. Smith stated that yes, Stub Road conre_cts t:o the property .and there is egal
2 access from Stub Road to Parcel C. He offered. that 'fhe entry points are invifiing
3 for vehicles, ,pedestrians' and.. bicyc-lists with a network ,of sidewalks throughout
4 the property.
5 -
6 Council Member Torliatt noted that the projecf was• not rnplemenfing all ,of th.e
7 Bicycle Plan guidelines and wanted clarification why staff' feels the project is not
8 in complianee~with the..Bicycle Plan.
9 •
10 Mr. Smith indicated that they fully intend to comply`wifh all of the Bicycle PJan's
11 requirements and they will be included; in: :the. project: '-He talked about
12 alternative energy for'the, -site and they have::budget;e.d~ one million dollars to.
13 install a 100 KW sys'fe.m'tha,t could meet the needs of one building,
He described fhe architecture and materials that gall be used such as
manufactured stone, punch windows, textured panes, non-reflective glass.> and
slate... He clarified thaf the colors will, be neutral with stone colors of tan with buff
and green. The buildings and elevations. will consist' of angles and offset
facades,. On Parcel, B there vial, be a curvilinear are design facing Highway 101.
He stated that where the doorways go depends on whaf tenant needs are., but
will more than likely be within the courtyard to establish a sense of entry. He
talked about landscaping as a unifying factor. 'He explaired that a water audit
'had been done to meet the; 'City's irrigation guidelines and the goal for this' site
will be to use 40~ .less water than Redwood 'Business Parke.
He referred to tw.o letters: The May 30t" :uses language: provided. by City staf_.f and
adds Ian u,a e to t
• g g` h'e Resolution for the EIR, and talks about fa_ it share
eonfributions.for mitigation. Thee June T" letter adds `language to: the Statement
of Overriding Considerations-that was written as a follow-up to the staff,re.port. It
also .discusses the: air. quality mi~tiga;tion measure and' quotes some of the
language that the City and Basin S;tree,t have worked out. He talked. about`th:e
fair sh-are contrib,ufio.n and how; it is' calculafed, He stated that the EIR has been.
over calcula.te.d and' that based` on what is in the letter, it provides a way #o
calculate their traffic contribution to the overall=traffic.. problem,
Council Member Torliatf °questioned how mdny wetland acres are on the. site:,
and what is'Basin Streef proposing for r,eplace~ment.
39 M'r. Smith referred to page 170 of the Final EIR where the wetlands are ,discussed
40 and gives the total acreages vfor each of the parcels.. He explained that they are.
4`1 proposing a combination of on-site avoidance, on-sine enhancerne;nt' and.
42 detention areas that will all be- opportunities for wetlands, and also off-site
43 mitigation.
44 _
45 Council Ivtember Torliatt' asked if this is quantified ds to `what ~~is restoration or
4.6 addition. ~ ~ ~ '
47 ~ '' ~ `
June 10, 2002
;Vol. 38, Page 27
1 Mr: Smith cited page 173 of Volume l of the EIR under, Impact, where a
.,
2 breakdown is provided on how the seasonal wetlands would be .provided. Some
3 are eliminated,, otheracreag,e is preserved., and some is mitigated off-site...
4
5 Council Member'Torliatt requested a chart to show thin and she-was concerned
6 about the monitoring program in which. it talks about replacement at the same.
7 amount. She wondered about City policy that talks about a ratio of
8 replacement.
9
10 Mr. Smith explained (page 175) the proposed mifigation would amount to l'/z;`l
11 for 7.71 acres of on and offsite replacement wetlands. This is consistent with
12 regulatory agencies requirements for wetland. mitigation.
13
14 Council Member Torliatt felt that it was -not clear in the mitigation measures what
15 the replacement ratio is and she would like to have that clarified.
16
17 Vice Mayor Healy asked if there was any further clarification of the footprint of
18 land needed for Old Redwood Highway when it is widened to 4 lanes.
19
20 Mr. Smith explained that there is no design plan on the books for this project.
21 Based on infor.nation the applicant provided to CalTrans, they computed that
22 no additional' project land' would be required for the right-of-way. They do have
23 to verify that the existing structure meets most of the design standards and this
24 includes sighflines..
25
26 Vice Mayor Healy said that the previous engineer indicated that the. sightlines
27 were inadequate.
28
29 Mr. Smith explained. that based on today's standards, it appears adequate:. He
30 indicated that if the structure has to be removed, it does not require additional'
31 right-of-way from the project.
32
33 Discussion continued regarding future plans for the 101 corridor. ~ Vice Mayor
34 Healy suggested reviewing CalTrans' RSP and contemplate purchasing a parcel
35 for a new north bound on-,ramp with Garvey bond funding. 'He clarified that
36 there is no funding for improving the Old Redwood Highway overpass at this time
37 and the freeway widening for the Novato Narrows project does not require
38 improvements at that overcrossing. He indicated that they are considering an
39 interchange at Railroad Avenue.
40
41 Council Member Torliatt stafed that SCTA traffic modeling has been based on
42 Old Redwood Highway with four lanes and three lanes on Highway TO1; Council
43 Member Healy disagreed.
44
4.5 Mr. Smith continued that a childcare center on Parcel A or B could be
46 incorporated in the Condition. of Approval to satisfy the .Planning Commission
47 request. He addre"ssed the issue of the pedestrian centered alternative.
48 Because of flooding concerns, a line has been imposed through the site for flood,
Vol. 38,. Page 28 June 10, 2002
1 conveyance. For .,grading purposes. the .roadway will dip between the- building
2 and Highway `101'to prevent :backwater and d'ownstre;am .impacts at Mcpowell
3 ands Holm Road that would occur'w,ith the ;buildings: located as they appear .i'n
4 the Final EIR. Because of fhe elevation change from the street, to the' door of
5 approximately eight feet, to meet code req,uire;ments would require 1°00 feet: to
$ reach the en ranee; all in all these constraints do not make a pedestrian friendly
7 environment.
Council Member Caller-Thompson asked if topography maps and si e plans are
...available.
Mr. Smith, said a cross section that shows the buildings: relationship to th:e street,
and a tablefrom the hydrologist shows th.e~ diffierences.
Council Member Caller-Thompson asked if there was an. allowance for wager to
flow beneath the buildings, "
Mr. Smith explained that this was determined not to work.
Council Member Maguire asked if in .dny of the traffic information was 'there
consideration. for a SMART rail project and the proximity to this project.
Mr. Smith stated no, because of -the complexity ofi where the station is> ridership,
etc.
25 Council Member Maguire asked about mixed-us,e residence in a flood plain on
26 the 3~a floor.
27 ~ ~~
28 Mr. Smith answered that the effects of flooding on residents is substantial
29 compared to workers easily being able' to deav.e their offices. From an
30 operational,, emergency services,. and management standpoints this .was nb't the
31 direction they wanted to go.
32
33 Council Member. Torlia.tt cited the Eden housing project with the same. issue: She
~34 supports additional floors on. each. of the :buildings to adc~ about 70;000'square
3'S' =feet and possibly 70 units with in-lieu. housing fees.
36
.37 PUBLIC' COMMENT
John Cheney; Petaluma, Opposed. Stated project shouldn'f be built, wrong.
location. Wanted' assurance that 'the developer would be rrmonitored on the
mitigation measures and to include Patcel G in the EIR.
Pat. McShane; Payran%McKinleyNeighborhood. Associator~, Petaluma,. Opposed.
Concerned about the air pollution effect, flooding, mold, traffic; seniors' special
needs,. and th_e cost to t_he City to buy :homes that will be flooded due to this
project. She suggested a deposit `by the' developer to _ cover the costs of
monitoring mitigation measures beyond the, final approval.
June 10, 2002
Vol. 38, Page.29
1 Rick,,Savel, Penngrove Cornrnit#ee, Penngrove, Neutral. His concern was not only
2 the added volume of this project, but others, coming and that `fhe,y all. assume .
3 less fhan gnificant impacts. He cited. Vice Mayor Healy's January 8',2002 memo
4 to Council that development is based on 1990 Census and Highway 101 being
5 widened. He suggested using fhe new General Plan .information and to establish
6 study distric#s anal to consider That the Counfy is considering circulation changes:
7 which will alter trip distribu'fion measurements..
8
9 Council Member Tocliatt asked for clarificafio,n of fhe Lnterim Study District: Mr.
10 Savel .said this is a mechanism to be used. while projects are studied with the
11 projects. on hold .until' the study is completed. He stated that the General Plan
12 traffic analysis is one component for the analysis provided.
13
14 A71ark Albertson, ,Petaluma, Opposed. He feels the documents appear
15 inadequate in addressing flooding, traffic, air pollufion and the jobs/housing
16 balancer He said the City should abide by the General Plan on level of .service
17 for streets and establish levels of sen%ice for intersections as well. 'He feels that the
18 project as described does not provide an overriding benefit to the community.
19
20 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Pedestrian/Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair, Petaluma,
21 She doesn't support a project that results in even slight flooding. Air quality levels
22 will 'be reduced to unacceptable levels. Wants to see an analysis for alternative
23 transportation, and for mixed-use.
24
25 Geoff Cartwright, Peta_lumg, Concerns regarding, protecting the community from
26 flooding; the 84;-inch pipe must be included, 'in the EIR.;, cumulative impacts of
27 other projects': and the water supply. Feels thaf the new General Plan`s G'IS
28 information and a traffic study will be needed to get a better picture.
29
30 Richard Brawn, Petaluma, Neutral - Feels the EIR Igcks measurable standards and
31 definitions. The problems are not .identified adequately. It needs to state the
32 source of the 'standard', Jist the assumptions, source of studies and provide
33 analysis and conclusions.
34
35 Stan Gold, Petaluma - Summed up the issue as cumulative effects of each
36 project and the lack of taking fhe big picture by judging each project
37 individually. Wants this project put into an interim study until'-similar projects in the
38 .same corridor can be reviewed.
39
40 'Scott Vovri, .Planning Commissioner, Petaluma, Opposed. Stated he voted
41 against the project and .listed his concernswith traffic, water availa'bili'ty, housing,
42 flooding, no economic analysis, pedestrian access, Fair Share for traffic. impacts,
43 alternative transportation and mitigation for a transit station at Corona and
44 McDowell. He was shocked that the applicant provided wording for the
45 Overriding Consideration and Findings document.
46 COUNCIL COMMENT
47
48 Vice Mayor Healy recommended basing the discussion on the EIR document.
Vol. 38, Page 30 June 10, 2002.
1
2 Council Member Torli.att stated that ba"sed on public input, and that she has not
3; ~ had.. enough, :time to thoroughly .review the complete :EIR, she did not feel
4. prepdred 'fo move forward on this project
5
6 Council Member Gade.r-Thompson agreed: with Council .Member T..orliata. She
7 indicafed that there is no way to judge the effects without knowing: what the
8 developer is planning for Parcel C; she warns to look- at the larger picture. She
9 would like; more information, more time :and wanted to continue this. She is not
10 in .favor of th°e gas station or fast food restaurd_nt. She had,: concerns about the
11 Factory Outlet expansion,. traffic, CIP, redevelopment, improvements on OId
12 Redwood Highway, and using redevelopment money for th;e project..
Council Member Torliatt wanted. additional infor,matio.n.: especially on traffic
impacts; , an economic assessment regarding additional revenu:e or liability;:
wants a ,m'ixed-.use development with job/.housing', considerations; recredti'ondl
opportunities need to be considered; and funded mitigation monitoring
programs need to be develop:e~d on this as well as other projects.
20 She wanted. Council andstaff` to ..review. how the. Factory Outlet had complied
21 with their mitig,atio'ns and. how to mdke sure that these. starddrds are uphe_Id, She
22_ cited ,page: 275, Transportation ,Demand 'Management policies concerning
23 monitoring timing :and frequency;. if it is on a' one time basis, seems inadequate.
24 On page. 26'5, regarding mitigation best management policies for implementing
25 in=line oil, grease and sedimen'.t traps; etc.., she f elt these should, be required. and
.;
26' provided.:Sf;e questioned information on page 286 on mitigations for storm water
27 runoff and flood- elevations as they relate to either a 100'Year flood or what type
2$ of storm event, anal. how,s fhis';being gauged?
She questioned if the replacement of the railroad bridges that would provide .full
capacity from the flood control project .h:ad been ,used' in estimating flooding;
she felt 'the EIR hou,ld refilect current conditions. Qn page 290,. wanted
clarification of mitigation measures to reduce automobile. trips, 'and what is. the
monitoring timing, or frequency of monitoring. for Community- pevelopment'`s.
review:. She wanted an enforceab e plan. for trip reductions, She wanted. more
information on Parcel C to judge if-it should be dealt with now,.
Council Member Maguire would have liked Parcel C' included in the EIR analysis
to provide a more. comprehensive aoo.k, but there is no project proposed yet fior
this parcel. He do;esn't ;like a ,gas station o,r big ;box tore. He ,loo had not been
able to fully digest the. EIR; but understands, this EIR considered the greafes'f
impacts possible. He wants to consider questions that have arisen as'to the level
of service sf'anddrds for streets but none. for intersections; this needs to be
clarified,,
He cited paged' 107 on the Revised Trip Generation Summary fhat showed the
pass-by allowance for th'e shopping center jumped from 1 ~5~ to 40~, and that'fhis
needs to be analyzed'. He understood that this is considered an in'fill project,
June 10, 2002
Vol. 38, Page: 3'1
1 surrounded by development with existing infrastructure. He is concerned with
2 the assumptions the Water Agency has made regarding the water supply but
`3 sees ih the currehit General Plan this development was part of the over-all
4 consideration for water demands; he wanted more information on this. He stated
5 that he is concerned about the cumulative effects of upcoming projects.
6
7 This cite will be developed and it does provide space for major companies that
8 provide head-of-.household' jobs that are important to the community. He saw
9 the irony in _maintaining a C level of service that encourages automobile
10 dependence. He felt that a moratorium might have to be looked at some time
11 in the future considering water and traffic issues. He felt that if there isn't a
12 housing component, a condition of approval should require ajob/housing fee
13 like the county is considering. He appreciated the developer's willingness to
14 consider all solutions for this project.
15
16 Vice Mayor Mike Healy asked for a quick recess, as the Interim City Clerk
17 appeared to be ill. The qudiotape was apparently shut off at this time and' not
18 restarted; the wideotgpe ends well before this point.
19
20 ADJOURN
21
22 The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1 1:30 p.m.
23
25 ~ ~ `u
26 Mike Healy, Vice Mayor
27 ATTEST:
28
29 j ~u~~C.Q,
30
31 Paulette Lyon, Inter City Clerk
32
33 ******