HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/29/2002May 29, 2002
~ALU
a . ~ City of Petaluma, Calif®rnia
City Council Meeting
185$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
City Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 29, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
Special Meeting
Vol. 37, Page 463
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Healy, Councilmembers O'Brien,
Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson, Councilmember Torliatt
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -Geoffrey Cartwright.
MOMENT OFSILENCE -
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma -Stated that the cost to the community due
to flooding and flood projects is almost $80 million. If building continues in
the flood plain, more flooding will result. Referred to the Redwood
Technology Center as being unsustainable and undermining the
community's economics.
Mark Albertson, Petaluma -Along with friends and neighbors, has formed
the Del Oro Action Group fo provide a unified representation on issues
and concerns as they relate to the southeast edge of Petaluma. He
presented their concerns about the impact of development on municipal
services, child safety, parks and recreation, education, traffic, congestion,
air pollution, noise pollution and ground water recharge,
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilmember Maguire gave a recap of the Board of Supervisor's
hearing regarding the City's application to the Open Space District to
purchase the development rights to Lafferty Ranch. Open Space District
staff recommended against the application due to legal risk to the
Vol. 37, Page 464 May 29, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
County, and also because the City had not budgeted further monies to
complete the project. He was particularly disappointed in the City's
representative for not pursuing with the County's legal counsel that the
City would accept the funds with the stipulation that they would not be
used for legal or litigation purposes. He is committed to getting the south
county's fair share of Open Space monies and will take this up again with
Supervisor Mike Kerns.
Vice Mayor Healy stated he looked forward to pursuing the technical and
legal issues with Mr. Woodside as well.
Councilmember Cader-Thompson stated she was also very disappointed
in the City's representative on the Board of Supervisors. She feels that
Petaluma has been shorted its fair share of Open Space dollars.
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHGATE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPIViENT PROJECT
Community Development Director Mike Moore introduced Jayni Allsep,
Project Planner for this project.
Ms, Allsep gave a brief overview on the site location and the basics of the
Planning review of the proposal. She described the site's amenities as
mixed-use with office space, research and development space,
commercial retail, childcare, and multi-family dwelling units, Vehicular
access would be from Frates Road as well as residential access from Ely
Road, and commercial access from Lakeville Highway. This project
requires a General Plan Amendment to change the current land-use
designation from Specific Plan. Area and Transit designation to a Mixed-
Use designation.
The question of whether a specific plan was needed was considered. Due
to the infrastructure in place and single ownership of the property, it is not
needed. The Study Area designation will be replaced with Planned
Community District (PCD),
Affer approving the General Plan Amendment and rezoning, a site plan
and SPARC review and approval will be needed for each phase of the
project. The Planning Commission has reviewed the project and three
public hearings have been held, resulting in some changes to the plan to
add additional amenities. The Planning Commission recommended that
Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) subject to
some minor revisions, adopt the General Plan Amendment, and approve
May 29, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 465
1 the rezoning to PCD. The Planning Commission's changes were minor and
2 were noted in Attachment 10 as relating to air quality standards, and
3 clarifications of the actual neighborhood plan. Potential significant
4 impacts were identified concerning geology and soils as they relate to
5 construction impacts; air quality; hydrology and water quality; noise; visual
6 quality; aesthetics; and transportation and traffic. Mitigation .measures
7 have been identified and the applicant has taken measures to reduce
8 these to less than significant,
9
10 Councilmember Maguire asked why, considering the size of this project,
11 an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) wasn't required?
12
13 Ms. Allsep explained that the initial study met the California Environmental
14 Quality Act (CEQA) standards, and although potential environmental
15 impacts were identified, the planned mitigation measures to which the
16 applicant agreed and which would be part of project approval, reduced
17 the impacts to less than significant. Therefore, an EIR was not needed.
18
19 Councilmember Maguire asked if the size of a project is criteria for
20 requiring an EIR? If Council feels the initial study is inadequate, can an EIR
21 be requested?
22
23 Ms. Allsep explained that size does not mean an impact cannot be
24 mitigated and yes, the Council can request an EIR.
25
26 Councilmember Maguire requested clarification of what findings would
27 result in requiring an EIR.
28
29 Ms. Allsep explained that Council would need to specify what areas were
30 deficient and focus on what impacts have not been identified.
31
32 Councilmember Maguire expressed his concern with the water supply,
33 sewer capacity and highway impacts. How can the Water Agency's
34 assurance of adequate water supply be reconciled with this project?
35
36 Ms. Allsep explained that the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) is
37 the authoritative body and that an EIR would not provide new information
38 or change conclusions, She explained that conclusions are drawn from
39 information provided,
40
41 Councilmember Maguire asked what latitude the Council had to enforce
42 more than the minimum number of residential units.
43
Vol. 37, Page 466 May 29, 2002
1 Ms. Allsep explained the Urban Design Framework chart is important and
2 the key to the neighborhood working is to balance flexibility and
3 accountability. Council can have this framework revised, and depending
4 on how it affects the overall site, the project sponsor may or may not be
5 amenable.
6
7 Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked about correspondence with
8 Caltrans.
9
10 Ms. Allsep said that there has been very little. The project sponsor has had
11 some dialogue with Caltrans specifically related to the Lakeville Highway
12 access. Caltrans was sent the study documents to review and they have
13 not offered comments on traffic circulation., They would be involved in the
14 entitlements involving right-of-way on Lakeville.
15
16 Bill White, Basin Street Properties -Provided the background and overview
17 of the project and introduced the project team. The property was
18 purchased in the 1980's, annexed to Petaluma in 1985 as a study zone,
19 and has remained as such, He described previous proposals that have
20 been denied for 200 single-family residences (SFR); in 1993 a new SFR
21 proposal; a Wal-Mart proposal; and in 1997 a recreation and industrial
22 park proposal.
23
24 In April of 1998, Basin Street became involved, In November, the Urban
25 Growth Boundary (UGB) was adopted and the property was included in
26 the City limits. In September 1999, the Planning Commission and City
27 Council waived a specific plan requirement due to the single ownership
28 of the property. At that time Council asked for acampus-like business
29 park and to look at adding residential, mixed use and jobs,
30
31 The UGB study of available land for development identified the Southgate
32 property for industrial/office use for employment-based development, In
33 discussions with the neighborhood, issues were worked out such as
34 delivery noise in the .morning, jobs/housing, mixed-use, transit location and
35 the decision that the UGB could run through the property instead of
36 bordering it. The project as designed currently consists of multi-family
37 dwellings with townhouses for sale/rent, live/work units, mixed-use
38 commercial, office R&D, and retail and service retail to serve the greater
39 neighboring area. The plan is to reduce auto-dependency, and as a
40 priority provide for apedestrian-friendly community. This plan uses the
41 concepts of "New Urbanism" and "Smart Growth. "
42
43 Vin Smith, Basin Street Properties -Referred to and explained the goals
44 and objectives of the Southgate plan, including solar orientation,
May 29, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 467
1 detention ponds, green building techniques, and recycling. He explained
2 that the "Neighborhood Plan" would be the rules for developing the
3 property, including the "Urban Design Framework. " He explained the
4 difference between build-to and setbacks to create a pedestrian
5 corridor. Mandatory open space is included with gateway design to
6 remove parking at the access streets and further disperse traffic. The
7 needs of bicyclists are accommodated as well.
8
9 The general design and zoning conditions of the approval document will
10 include the actual ordinances and resolutions. Council and Planning
11 Commission recommendation s will be part of the document to make it a
12 regulatory document. He stated that the plan addresses the issues of
13 design, traffic, air quality and infrastructure.
14
15 Councilmember Maguire had questions regarding bus stops included in
16 the project.
17
18 Mr, Smith explained that there is an existing bus stop on Frates Road that
19 will probably be relocated depending on the access, but the proposal is
20 to have two on Frates Road and an internal bus stop within the project.
21
22 Tom Richmond, Catalyst Company -Presented details of the project, its
23 orientation and scale compared to the size of the buildings across
24 Lakeville. The design allows for density to decrease at it meets the UGB.
25 Walkability will be stressed. By calming traffic on Frates Road, people living
26 nearby can use the Southgate amenities as well. Using Kentucky Street in
27 downtown Petaluma as an example, they hope to emulate the
28 residential/retail mix, one/two story buildings, and tree-lined, walkable
29 streets.
30
31 Mr, Richmond talked about the Urban Design Framework consisting of grid
32 streets, and build-to lines. Seventy-five percent of the buildings would be
33 using this design to provide a pedestrian layout and prevent large parking
34 lots in front. He explained that the three-story buildings on Frates Road
35 would have a third story setback to reduce the feeling of mass of the
36 building. On Ely Road, the buildings will be no higher than two stories with
37 the southern side having a two- and three-story mix. The four-story
38 buildings will be in the central core.
39
40 Councilmember Maguire had questions about the examples in the book
41 and distances from the street,
42
43 Mr. Richmond explained that the property line is on the back of the
44 sidewalk. The 15-18 feet is where the build-to line is. The porch is allowed
Vol. 37, Page 468 May 29, 2002
1 to extend into the setback around 5' but must be built to at least 3 feet of
2 that build-to Line.
3
4 He explained the Land Use Plan and various concepts, including gateway
5 commercial design; two mixed-use areas consisting of residential on the
6 south and east; the central core, which will be office and mixed use; and
7 the required open space, which will include a lake and greens. The
8 apartment buildings will have pitched roofs with balconies and bay
9 windows. The streets are patterned on West Petaluma design with alleys
10 for vehicle access. On the southern side there is a 100' between the edge
11 of the property and the road and an ecological swale to handle storm
12 water run-off. Circulation will be "right-in, right-out" to connect with
13 commercial areas. across Lakeville. Three traffic circles are planned on
14 .Prates Road to calm the traffic on that heavily traveled, high-speed road.
15
16 Mr. Smith explained that there have been three traffic studies for this
17 project. They have used the most conservative numbers possible for the
1.8 traffic generated, both in total numbers and am/pm peaks. The. retail
19 component allows a 25% trip reduction in this analysis with all the rest of
20 the components added together.
21
22 Based on improvements to Lakeville Highway, there were no negative
23 impacts associated with the project. He explained that air quality issues
24 are analyzed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
25 (BAAQMD), based on vehicle trips. This analysis showed that the project
26 exceeded the threshold but by the use of credits for reduced trips, the
27 project overall was below the threshold, This model assumes that vehicle
28 emissions will improve over time, so the later the date the project is
29 completed, the higher number of trips will be negated, .Basin Street
30 Properties chose 2007 as a tentative completion date.
31
32 Public Comment
33
34 Susan Brandt-Hawley, Attorney for Del Oro Action Group -Opposed.. She
35 stated the project is in the wrong place, looks like a small city, and is too
36 dense. She feels the project needs an EIR and explained why and why
37 CEQA requirements must be considered..
38
39 IVlark Albertson, Petaluma -Opposed. Indicated that in 2000 there had
40 been correspondence with Caltrans. When he checked with Caltrans
41 they stated they had not received any information from the City of
42 Petaluma on this project or answers to their questions. He feels the traffic
43 report doesn't take into account other vehicles coming to the project as
May 29, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 469
1 a destination. Councilmember Cader-Thompson requested copies of
2 these letters, Mark will give copies to staff.
3
4 He presented in detail his five points of opposition to the General Plan
5 Amendment and rezoning; traffic, air quality, project incongruent with
6 land use policies, inadequate drainage, and does not qualify as a transit
7 terminal. He summarized from an October 9th Planning Commission
8 meeting that an economic analysis, EIR, and job-housing balance report
9 have not been provided.
10
11 John McGinnis, Petaluma, President of Adobe Creek HOA -Opposed, The
12 board of directors requested an EIR for the project, It violates the growth
13 boundary spirit.
14
15 Ken Roman, Petaluma -Opposed. Explained his experiences from living in
16 Pennsylvania and the effects of development and how gridlock occurred
17 in the town. Suggested downsizing the density, fund intersection
18 improvements throughout the City.
19
20 Rick Savel, Penngrove -Referred to Vice Mayor Healy's memo regarding
21 Highway 101. He spoke to traffic impacts that are based on 101 being
22 widened and that traffic impacts before 101 is widened are not being
23 analyzed. The County's concerns are for the need of an interim
24 evaluation and the future mitigations that are needed but not identified.
25 He mentioned County plans for changes in circulation in the area that are
26 not taken into account in this project's traffic plan.
27
28 John Sedlander, Petaluma - In favor. Has lived in the neighborhood since
29 it was built. He feels this project is better than some of the other
30 alternatives and the traffic calming is positive. He recognized Basin Street
31 Properties as a responsible developer.
32
33 Tina Milani, Petaluma -Opposed. Mentioned traffic, environment, and too
34 large and dense as reasons to oppose. Wants traffic terminal designation
35 kept as the General Plan indicated.
36
37 Jack Osman, Petaluma -Opposed. Wants the application denied and an
38 EIR required even for ascaled-down plan. The project is too dense, too
39 high and too large. Traffic congestion, air, and noise pollution problems
40 will occur even with mitigation.
41
42 Vice Mayor Healy requested that the applicant come forward and
43 provide traffic information.
44
Vol. 37, Page 470 May 29, 2002
1 Peter Swift, Swift and Associates -Explained the use of roundabouts to
2 calm traffic and provide for pedestrian safety. The Institute for Highway
3 Safety's study indicated that compared to a signalized intersection,
4 roundabouts result in a 39% reduction in accidents; 76% reduction in injury-
5 producing accidents; and 90% reduction in fatalities. The roundabout
6 would easily handle 2,800 vehicles per hour or 30,000 vehicles per day.
7 Emergency vehicle access is advantageous because drivers look to their
8 leff only. Large trucks use the "truck apron. " He advised that when speed
9 is decreased, the vehicle per lane capacity increases with this design. He
10 stated that Petaluma has adopted a "C" level for intersections as
11 acceptable. In this plan there are some "D" level intersections, He cited
12 SB1636 that will allow lower level of service at some intersections to help
13 reduce barriers to in-fill projects to allow for appropriate Smart Growth.
14
15 Mark Milani, Petaluma - Opposed. Referred to the General Plan
16 designation of Study District. Doesn't see that a timely study has been
17 done and the City hasn't followed its own ordinances. No one knows
18 what a traffic terminal is, and this plan only allows 25 parking places. This
19 plan does not meet the urban separator requirements of 300 feet or allow
20 for the 120-foot PG&E easement. He feels that "mixed-use" must be
21 defined before proceeding.
22
23 Art Brook, Petaluma -Opposed, The project is big, and an EIR is needed.
24 He cited the traffic increase of 5%-8%, level of service on roads, water and
25 sewer capacity. He suggested residential development that would match
26 the other side of Frates Road.
27
28 Merrill Louks, Petaluma -Opposed. Agrees with the previous statements of
29 opposition.
30
31 Larry Laino, Petaluma -Worried about property values being affected;
32 rezoning and its effects; and noise levels will increase.
33
34 Linda Frates, Petaluma -Opposed. Gave history of her property. Doesn't
35 like two large structures directly in front of her home. Feels this project
36 impacts the area too much.
37
38 Rosemarie Chase, Petaluma -Opposed. Concerned about property
39 values; Sartori will be affected by traffic circulation; and doesn't like
40 roundabouts.
41
42 Hal Chase, Petaluma -Opposed.. Project is too dense and too big to .not
43 have an EIR.
44
May 29, 2002
Vol, 37, Page 471
1 Teresa Shern, Petaluma -Opposed. Agrees with the previous speakers
2 who are opposed to the project. She knew the project passed with a 4-2
3 Planning Commission vote and wanted reasons for the commissioners'
4 opposition. Traffic, water, air pollution impacts must be addressed.
5
6 Christian Chase, Petaluma -Opposed. Concerned about property values,
7 Will make sure voting record of Council is made available to the public..
8
9 Lois Klein, Petaluma -Opposed. Concerned with the different type of
10 traffic. Concerned about drug trafficking and other criminal activity.
11
12 Suzanne Morrison, Petaluma - Opposed. Supports others in their
13 opposition and reasons. The roundabout will back up traffic on Lakeville,
14 Concerned about this large project in a rural area and Petaluma's
15 growth.
16
17 Carmen Herrera, Petaluma -Opposed. Stated that the developer and
18 Planning Department have never consulted with the property owners
19 affected by this development. Feels the density is not appropriate for the
20 area and that the project is inconsistent with the existing use.
21
22 Jeff Mitchell, Petaluma -Opposed, Questioned the pedestrian "utopia"
23 and felt that traffic will be increased. Feels an EIR needs to be done.
24
25 Mel Graves, Petaluma -Opposed. Cited the size of the development and
26 traffic and feels that an EIR is important.
27
28 Diane Reilly-Torres, Petaluma -Feels this is a controversial project and an
29 EIR is needed. She questioned the Rules and Procedures on calling a
30 special meeting and wanted an answer.. She also asked Councilmember
31 Moynihan to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest regarding
32 Redwood Technology Center and his association with David Early and
33 Associates. She also asked how costs would be recovered for this project.
34
35 Vice Mayor Healy - As far as he knew this special meeting was set by staff
36 and not at the Mayor's request.
37
38 Truman Menefee, Petaluma - In favor. Suggested that Council take action
39 based on the facts and not fears. Feels that Bill White and Basin Street
40 Properties are 100% professional and follow all the rules. Someone is going
41 to build something there and he trusts Bill White to build a quality project.
42
Vol, 37, Page 472 May 29, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Pat McShane, Petaluma, Payran McKinley Neighborhood Association -
Opposed. Wanted to address the traffic and pollution issue, Feels the
project needs a traffic model first.
Geoffrey Cartwright, Petaluma -Pointed out that according to studies,
there is a 20% vacancy in commercial space and atwo-year supply. Is
there a need for this project? Asked if there is enough water, and what
assumptions have been used to arrive at this adequacy projection over
the next 20 years, and does it take into account the 15% reduction from
the Eel River.
Paul McGavin, Petaluma, Petaluma Against Nuisance Traffic (PANTS) -
Neutral. Supports the need for an EIR. Mentioned air quality, need for a
regional traffic plan, and consistency of developmental guidelines.
Craig Wycall, Petaluma -Concerned about the impact on emergency
services to the area. He asked if there was an offer by the developer to
supplement the current emergency resources of the community.
Paul Tarzia, Petaluma -Opposed. Not the right project for the area..
Applicant's Response
Mr. White stated that he has contracted with an economist to analyze the
job/housing balance. He addressed the concerns regarding the seventy
foot-tall buildings on Frates Road by stating that they will be thirty-five feet
tall at the street with a third story setback, The apartment and housing will
be market rate units. He explained projections from ABAG and the 2000
Census that indicated there were 29,000 employed residents and total
jobs of 23,370 in Petaluma. That results in a job deficit of 5,663. Using the
consultant's number of 1,33 workers per household, the housing need in
2000 was 17,.000. With 20,000 housing units in Petaluma, there is a surplus of
2,700 units. Southgate will have a housing surplus of 3,.893, The significant
number is the 5,663 due to people who live in the community but don't
work here. He feels Southgate will give them an opportunity to work where
they live, and reduce the housing shortage,
Mr. Smith addressed the air quality analysis' completeness and accuracy
as well as the public's concerns. Basin Street is committed to providing a
transportation demand management program such as they have
successfully implemented in the past. This program will be administered by
the tenants and will not require the participation of City staff. He
explained that reports can be provided, and, if requested, can be
required by the City. He provided the definition of a transit terminal from
May 29, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 473
1 the General Plan terminology that included a Park and Ride facility as
2 meeting this definition. Basin Street will provide whatever the City requests
3 to be consistent with the General Plan. The Park and Ride size was
4 determined by the City's transportation manager but the developer can
5 provide more if necessary. He read the definition of "Mixed Use" from the
6 General Plan.. He indicated that he had spoken to Jim Ryan, Transit
7 Manager, about a pilot program that would run buses at greater
8 headways through Southgate neighborhoods to see if ridership would
9 increase, and this was agreed to. He had met with the Adobe Creek
10 Homeowners Association when they invited him to meet with the
11 neighborhood and there were Casa Del Oro residents in attendance, as
12 well as residents from the Lakeville Apartment complex. This should meet
13 the concerns that the neighborhood was not consulted for input on this
14 project.
15
16 Vice Mayor Healy asked that attorneys for both sides respond based on
17 the written record and the testimony provided as to whether an .EIR
18 document is appropriate; and if it were produced, what additional
19 information, if any would be provided.
20
21 Rollin Shippey, Counsel for Basin Street Properties -Explained the CEQA
22 requirements for issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). He
23 referred to Public Resources Code 21080, Subdivision, C-2 that describes
24 the two circumstances that require this, one being that the project may
25 have significant impacts and the second that there is an absence of
26 substantial evidence that the project as revised will result in significant
27 impacts. He indicated that in the context of this project, the Planning
28 Commission and City staff found there were impacts, but with certain
29 changes and mitigation measures those impacts would be reduced to a
30 less than significant level.
31
32 Councilmember Maguire asked if that limits the Council's discretion as
33 whether an EIR could be requested.
34
35 Mr. Shippey responded that the Council can't order an EIR if the initial
36 study is found inadequate or that there is a concern, can only request it
37 upon the determination that there is .substantial evidence, in light of the
38 whole record, that this project as revised will have a significant impact.
39 Substantial evidence is described in Subdivision E-2 of Section 21080 and
40 he read it for all to hear. He stated that it fits within the definition of
41 subdivision D-2.
42
43 He explained if an argument passes the Fair Argument Test and
44 substantial evidence supported an impact that would require an EIR,
Vol. 37, Page 474 May 29, 2002
1 there would have to be expert testimony. He explained why the testimony
2 from lay witnesses does not constitute substantial evidence of
3 environmental impact. He continued that there is no provision for the size
4 or complexity of a project in CEQA guidelines or case law that supports an
5 EIR for these conditions. Under Statute Section 21082,2, Subdivision B, it
6 provides that the existence of public controversy over environmental
7 effects of a project do not require the preparation of an EIR. Based on the
8 written record and public testimony, Basin Street Properties contends that
9 the use of a MND is both appropriate and required because there is an
10 absence of substantial evidence that the project as revised will have an
11 impact,
12
13 Susan Brandt-Hawley, Del Oro Homeowners Counsel -Described her
14 twenty-year experience with CEQA cases. She agreed that the sections
15 quoted for the adoption of a MND are in the code, but the implication
16 derived is not correct.
17
18 The problem is whether or not all of the impacts of this project have been
19 mitigated to insignificance depends on whether there is a Fair Argument
20 of record or not, and enough substantial evidence to support it. If there is
21 enough evidence from the Fair Argument, you cannot adopt a MND. She
22 explained that there is an abundance of evidence, not only from the
23 public, who are qualified to present evidence, but also from City staff and
24 the applicant.
25
26 The deterioration of traffic from an A-Level intersection to a D-Level is one
27 of the easiest pieces of evidence to support the Fair Argument. The
28 explanation that there may be legislation that will allow infill projects to fall
29 to a D-Level is not adequate mitigation and obviously a potentially
30 significant environmental impact. It is hard to call this an infill project
31 when the project expands the City boundary. It is not solely a housing
32 development but is a mixed-use development with significant commercial
33 components.
34
35 She explained that the testimony of neighbors and lay people could
36 provide adequate evidence based on three components: facts,
37 reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion. She offered an
38 example of the Orofino case in which the testimony of neighbors provided
39 evidence to support a Fair Argument because their testimony was within
40 their level of expertise as to their views, experiences with traffic, and
41 knowledge of the area, but they couldn't talk about air pollution
42 particulates and things that require expert opinion. She felt that expert
43 opinion was provided by Rick Savel based on his participation in
44 countywide traffic programs.
May 29, 2002
vol. 37, Page 475
1
2 She explained that the City cannot choose what evidence it wants to
3 decide between a MND and an EIR, and environmental protection is a
4 factor in considering which is supported, A court of law will look to see if
5 there is any evidence in the record to support a Fair Argument of a
6 possible environmental impact, If Council feels there is substantial
7 evidence to support the request for an EIR, that decision will stand, Once
8 the EIR is prepared, the Council may choose what it wants out of the EIR
9 and the evidence supports this action.
10
11 Vice Mayor Healy reiterated the second part of the question, "What
12 additional information would the Council get if an environmental
13 document was prepare?"
14
15 Ms, Brandt-Hawley listed information regarding traffic and the assumption
16 of the widening of Highway 101 and other traffic issues, such as the
17 cumulative effect of turning Frates Road from an arterial to a local road;
18 further disclosure of potential water supply issues and an explanation of
19 discrepancies would be required; and more information about air quality
20 issues since these air pollution levels are at the lowest threshold and it is
21 logical to assume that they .might increase, Amore balanced view would
22 be provided by receiving input from public agencies such as Caltrans, the
23 Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Open Space District on an EIR,
24 while they might not comment on a MND.
25
26 Mr. Shippey - In his view, the additional information available is practically
27 nothing, The three different traffic studies were subject to peer review and
28 there is always a possibility of a different assumption. He explained that
29 the project applicant has done everything to make sure this issue was fully
30 analyzed; the EIR would be a fourth analysis and is not reason to do it. As
31 far as lay testimony, the comments that they make and the area that they
32 attack are not substantial evidence, they fall into the unsubstantiated
33 facts category. He stated that by using City guidelines, losing i~wo levels of
34 service is not a significant impact. If the level went to an "E," that would
35 make it significant and this was addressed in the staff report, He asserted
36 that the MND is all that is required under the facts of this case.
37
38
39 Council Comment
40
41 Vice Mayor Healy asked Council to comment on whether an EIR is
42 necessary.
43
Vol. 37, Page 476 May 29, 2002
1 Councilmember Maguire asked if the City's counsel should provide the
2 City's view.
3
4 Clare Gibson, Assistant City Attorney, clarified the question. She explained
5 that the standard that would be presented in this regard is that an EIR is
6 required if a Fair Argument can be made that the project may have a
7 significant effect on the environment. As far as what constitutes
8 "substantial evidence, " to a great extent that is within the purview of the
9 Council's judgment and there are guidelines and laws of what constitutes
10 substantial evidence and what does not. She said that ultimately, it is
11 going to be a judgment call.
12
13 Councilmember Maguire felt the question of overall water supply is a
14 significant issue and that the views for the existing neighbors will be
15 significantly altered. He felt an EIR is necessary for this project.
16
17 Councilmember Cader-Thompson reminded the Council and the public
18 that the City is in the middle of a General Plan process and the traffic
19 analysis that is a part of this project does not use up-to-date information,
20 She questioned the cumulative impacts of projects that are coming
21 forward and their effects on future traffic. She felt the effects on Police
22 and Fire were not adequately addressed. She felt that an EIR was
23 appropriate.
24
25 Councilmember Moynihan felt that the Study Zone designation was
26 inaccurate and that this property should have been rezoned and
27 redesignated long ago, Most of these high-density projects are on transit
28 corridors, bus and train routes; the only corridor for this project is Highway
29 101. This project needs to be judged on the basis of the current General
30 Plan with feathering of densities at the outer edges of the City. The
31 density, height and scale create potentially significant environmental
32 impacts. He would go forward with a General Plan mixed-use designation
33 and rezoning but wasn't sure if this could be done without actually
34 approving the project.. He wasn`t comfortable with the project
35 considering the information provided.
36
37 Councilmember O'Brien thought this project has been given a lot of
38 forethought and was very visionary. He stated it does fit within the UGB
39 and he considers it infill. He would also support an EIR to answer
40 environmental impacts.
41
42 Vice Mayor Healy agreed that an EIR is appropriate based on the record.
43 The jobs created would amount to 9-14% of total jobs available in
44 Petaluma. Housing affordability is critical and he wanted to look at the
May 29, 2002
Vol, 37, Page 477
1 job/housing balance for the site and the region, He wanted to include the
2 analysis of-residential growth management based on the table showing
3 vacant, underutilized land by different zoning categories to make sure this
4 project serves the best long-term interest of the community, He was
5 concerned that the traffic analysis is based on Highway 101 already being
6 widened. He doesn't believe the analysis looked at traffic conditions on
7 state highway segments within Petaluma, He cited the minutes from
8 September 1999 that stated that.an environmental impact report by staff
9 and the developers would be done, With the consensus from the Council,
10 he asked for direction from counsel,
11
12 Ms, Gibson indicated that there did not seem to be support for approving
13 the revised MND. In regard to questions about an alternative motion, she
14 asked Council if they wanted to make a motion to require an EIR.
15
16 Motion that staff be given direction based on the evening's commentary
17 to prepare an EIR for the project, M/S Maguire/Cader-Thompson.
18
19 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire,
20 Moynihan, O'Brien
21 NOES: None
22 ABSENT: Torliatt, Mayor Thompson
23 ABSTAIN: None
24
25 Discussion continued on the details. The General Plan Land Use
26 amendment will be postponed until affer the EIR is completed.
27 Councilmember Moynihan asked for clarification on the property's status.
28 Mr. Moore explained that the General Plan amendment and
29 environmental analysis before Council are based on the specific project
30 application. He said if Council wanted to change the General Plan
31 designation from Study Area, it would require a CEQA process. He
32 recommended that staff prepare an EIR and deal with all of the issues at
33 one time.
34
35 City Manager Fred Stouder suggested a scoping session to offer as much
36 detail and guidance as possible for the EIR to assure its adequacy. Mr.
37 Moore suggested selecting a consultant who would be included in the
38 scoping of the EIR and public comment portion.
39
40
41 ADJOURN
42
43 The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
44
Vol. 37, Page 478 May 29, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r
Mike Healy, Vice Mayor
ATTEST:
~~~~~ d h~
Paulette Lyon, Interim City Clerk
*******