PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1666 N. MAIN STREET, WALNUT CREEK

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1666 N. MAIN STREET, WALNUT CREEK 1. WELCOME Roll Call COMMISSIONERS: JON MALKOVICH, CHAIR MATT FRANCOIS, VICE CHAIR NEIL GERSTNER ROBERT JORGENSEN KRISTINA LAWSON ALLAN MOORE DAVID POWELL A majority of the Commission was present. Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Powell were absent. Staff Present: Victoria Walker, Interim Planning Manager; Bryan Wenter, Assistant City Attorney; and Deborah Han, Staff Planner. 2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION There were no speakers present. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approve minutes of January 29, 2009 Motion by Gerstner, second by Jorgensen, carried unanimously, to APPROVE the minutes of January 29, 2009 with minor changes. YEAS: Gerstner, Jorgensen, Francois, Lawson, Malkovich, 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. BROADWAY PLAZA RETAIL PROJECT (Y09-001) PUBLIC HEARING on an application by The Macerich Company for a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio on a portion of the Broadway Plaza shopping center; a Zoning Map amendment to reduce the height limit on the southern portion of the project site from 50 feet to 35 feet; Conditional Use Permit for a parking program; and a Development Agreement. ZONING: Pedestrian Retail. The Planning Commission previously conducted hearings on the project on February 26 and March 12, This hearing is intended as the final Planning Commission review of the project. Interim Planning Manager, Victoria Walker, gave a brief staff report on the item and outlined a

2 Walnut Creek Planning Commission 2 few minor modifications to the draft resolutions. Representing the applicant, Mr. Chuck Davis, Vice President of Development for The Macerich Company, gave a brief report on the history of the project, outlined the various improvements made to the application and thanked the Commission for their continued input. The Commission asked questions of Mr. Davis and he responded. Chair Malkovich opened the Public Hearing: Mr. Ed Dimmick, resident of Shepard Court and one of the litigants opposing the projected outlined his three original concerns with the project: the question of the legality of the adoption of the EIR and parking proposal, concerns regarding the possible valet program and the height limit increase. Mr. Dimmick acknowledged that the last two points has been answered in the application s revision, but still maintained that the EIR had not been lawfully adopted. Mr. Dimmick noted that he had devoted a lot of time to help the City and did not care about the cost of the litigation. With regards to the parking proposal, Mr. Dimmick was concerned that the lift system proposed would not be effective and might cause further traffic problems. Mr. Ken Hambrick, a Walnut Creek resident, voiced some of the same concerns regarding the parking lift system. He suggested that before the Condition Use Permit was approved, a proviso stating that the Macerich Company would have to find alternative parking solutions should the lift system fail, and that a measure of success or failure for the parking program should be devised. Mr. Ed Skoog, a Walnut Creek resident, stated that he had been active in working with the City for 40 years and represented Citizens for a Better Walnut Creek. Mr. Skoog stated that his sentiments were in line with Mr. Dimmick s comments. He also voiced concern over the General Plan amendment, and asked that it be denied. Mr. Davis responded to public comments stating that concerns about the EIR had been answered at previous hearings. Mr. Davis reiterated that applicant had halted progress and revised the project substantially to address public concerns. Chair Malkovich closed the public hearing. The Commission made the following comments: Commissioner Francois: Macerich has taken a good project and made it even better; applicant listened to the community and revised their project; applicant has been very responsive which was validated by Mr. Dimmick s comments; previous concerns such as building height has been answered; complimented the applicant on the preliminary design concept; with regards to parking, liked the valet system, but will also support the new parking program; not sure the community benefits listed for the development agreement were substantial enough; the matching funds would only be useful if the City has the money to match; would like provisions for employee parking to remain free of charge to be written in; the parking site at Pringle Avenue

3 Walnut Creek Planning Commission 3 would work with the trolley service, but without it the employees would be stranded; would like the Pringle Avenue parking site linked to the trolley service so the applicant would have to provide an alternative solution should the trolley go out of service; stated that the City was very professional and complied with the law with regards to the EIR and the Commission was not rushing to a decision; noted that there had been eight previous public hearings on this subject and many open houses hosted by the applicant; the viability of the lift system was a valid concern but the applicant would have a monetary incentive to make the program work; the General Plan is not set in stone and stated that the General Plan amendment was appropriate. Commissioner Gerstner: agreed with comments made by Commissioner Francois; not as concerned with the community benefits being substantial enough; the General Plan is not a Holy Grail and the process to amend it was created for this purpose; by increasing the FAR Macerich s property would be in keeping with surrounding properties; stated that the parking lift system may have initial bugs to work out but Macerich has an incentive to keep their customers happy; the project will create public benefits especially in regards to local parking issues; stated that the benefits of the project outweighed any of the possible detriments; supportive. Commissioner Jorgensen: stated that he had a general interest in building bridges between the old downtown area and Broadway Plaza including with employee parking issues; by increasing the FAR the City would be leveling the playing field for Broadway Plaza in relation to surrounding developments like Broadway Point; would like Macerich to develop a third anchor tenant and daylight part of the creek; stated that renewal and refreshing Broadway Plaza would be critical to their future success; very supportive of the 2-story building rather than the original 3-story design; sympathetic to Commissioner Francois concerns and was not sure there were enough public benefits; having an anchor store at the historic corners does not seem as pedestrian-friendly as the other corners like Tiffany; interested in the trolley expansion in general and stated that in order to be truly useful it would need to be more frequently run so the applicant s contribution was valuable but not enough to really make an impact; liked the computerized counters being installed at the garage; hoped that the contribution to the parking management program would lead to more action on parking issues; pleased with the addition of bicycle racks to the project which was compatible with the pending Bicycle Master Plan; suggested other contributions such as a downtown plaza, scramble intersection installations and other downtown improvements; okay with parking lift system; encouraged the applicant to be creative in finding ways to incentivize employees to use alternative transportation; encouraged the applicant to find more satellite parking lots; supportive. Commissioner Lawson: commended Macerich for their outreach efforts and the clarity of their communication about their open houses; concurred with fellow commissioners on the parking program; with regards to the development agreement also believed that there are more possible public benefits that could be added; found that the application met the requirements for granting a General Plan amendment as the project was consistent with the vision cited in the General Plan; also felt the FAR increase was consistent with the General Plan vision; appreciated that the project would be set back at the corner so there would be better pedestrian traffic flow; supportive.

4 Walnut Creek Planning Commission 4 Chair Malkovich: pleased with the public outreach; couldn t comment on the legality of the EIR adoption so deferred to the City Attorney s assessment; supportive of the General Plan amendment and zoning map; had less trouble with the development agreement and not sure if more benefits needed to be added to the application; supportive of the parking lift system and approves the various parking mitigation scenarios to support the Conditional Use Permit; understand that the parking system will require some adjusting but was confident the applicant would improve it until it works; supportive. The Commission discussed various motions for the two resolutions being brought forth. Motion by Francois, second by Jorgensen, carried unanimously, to RECOMMEND to City Council the approval of application Y by The Macerich Company for a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio on a portion of the Broadway Plaza shopping center; a Zoning Map amendment to reduce the height limit on the southern portion of the site from 50 feet to 35 feet; and a Development Agreement, and to also recommend City Council consider additional or different community benefits as needed. YEAS: Francois, Jorgensen, Gerstner, Lawson, Malkovich Motion by Gerstner, second by Jorgensen, carried unanimously, to RECOMMEND to City Council the approval of application Y by the Macerich Company for a Conditional Use Permit for a parking program. YEAS: Gerstner, Jorgensen, Francois, Lawson, Malkovich b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. Y09-010, AT&T ANTENNAS. A public hearing to install six panel antennas on an existing 111-foot tall PG&E lattice tower and associated ground-mounted equipment cabinets within a fenced enclosure at 395 Walnut Avenue (APN ). ZONING: R-10, Single Family Residential. Staff Planner, Deborah Han, presented the staff report. The Commission asked questions of Ms. Han and she responded Chair Malkovich opened the item for public comment: There were no public speakers present. The Commission had no further comments on the item. Motion by Francois, second by Jorgensen, carried unanimously, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit & Design Review Application No. Y for the installation of AT&T antennas at 395 Walnut Avenue. YEAS: Francois, Jorgensen, Gerstner, Lawson, Malkovich

5 Walnut Creek Planning Commission 5 The Commission took a 5-minute recess and resumed the meeting at 8:56PM. 5. COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS a. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Public Hearing and Study Session. ZONING: Citywide. Housing Program Manager, Laura Simpson, gave a detailed report on the Draft Housing Element in which she outlined the components of the element covering housing needs assessment, evaluation of constraints, indication of opportunity sites for housing development, and program strategy. Ms. Walker continued the staff report giving an overview of each of the opportunity sites for housing development. The Commission asked questions of Ms. Simpson and Ms. Walker and they responded. Chair Malkovich opened the item for public comment: Mr. Primo Facchini inquired as to why the projection for housing developments had gotten lower since the last reporting. The Commission made the following comments: Commissioner Jorgensen: thanked Ms. Simpson for her work; report will satisfy the State and the opportunity sites are viable; the City must report on all types of housing; the fact that Walnut Creek housing is only 15% family occupied is why parcel tax increases are not passing in elections; need a strategy for allowing seniors to age in place possibly through encouraging accessory units; like to see a housing element that goes beyond affordability requirements; suggested providing loans to people for greening accessory units; due to the gap in housing prices single family homes will be occupied by only the wealthiest after senior citizens move out of them. Commissioner Francois: noted that many seniors were happy living in single family homes; appreciate comments on trying to balance demographics; stated that the report prejudged the BART project approval and suggested that staff make changes to tone that down. Commissioner Lawson: well done report; testament to Walnut Creek that there was no one present to oppose the report; and would like to see examples of developments with the same dwelling units per acre as the opportunity sites suggest to get a sense of their size and what types of units would fit within those specifications. Chair Malkovich: thanked staff; echoed comments made by Commissioner Jorgensen on global housing needs; like to see more outreach to make housing programs more visible; by increasing the programs

6 Walnut Creek Planning Commission 6 6. CORRESPONDENCE None. 7. STAFF S BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS OR BRIEF REPORTS ON HIS OR HER ACTIVITIES Ms. Walker reported that the Planners Institute conference attended by Commissioners Powell and Francois had been very successful. Ms. Walker also announced that the Planning Commission would have a study session with the Police Department on April 23 covering the regulations of full alcohol service establishments in Walnut Creek. 8. COMMISSIONERS BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS OR BRIEF REPORTS ON HIS OR HER ACTIVITIES Commission Jorgensen asked Ms. Walker if she could arrange Walnut Creek Police ridealongs for the Commissioners. Ms. Walker confirmed that she would make arrangements. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chair Malkovich adjourned the meeting at 9:58 PM. Next Meetings: April 23 and May 14, /s/ VICTORIA WALKER, Secretary Walnut Creek Planning Commission Approved 5/14/09