HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 08/10/1999&_ L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
8 5 $ E -Mail planning @ci.petaluma ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 August 10, 1999, 7:00 P
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett* Broad, Feibusch, Glass
6 Absent: Healy, Vieler
7 * Chairperson
8
9 Staff: Vincent C. Smith mcr, Interim Planning Director
10 Pamela A Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration
1l Elizabeth Dunn .atcr, Assistant Planner
12 Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
13
14
15 Roll Call
16
17 Pledge of Allegiance
18
19 Approval Of Minutes: Minutes of July 27, 1999 were approved with no changes.
20 (Commissioner Broad abstaining)
21
22 Public Comment:
23 Geoff Cartwright /55 Rocca: Would like to bring attention to item being discussed at the
24 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee meeting on Thursday, August 12, 1999,
25 regarding the Redwood'Crossroads Corporate Campus. This property is on the flood map
26 and it seems we are looking at the same old problem with development of floodplain and
27 runoff.
28
29 John Fitzgerald /114 Suncrest: There is an issue of undergrounding on Sunnyslope and
30 improvements happening — suggested to please look at the 9 new poles replacing 7 poles.
31
32 Director ° s Report: None.
33
34 Commissioners' Report: None.
1
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Correspondence:
Sunnyslope Second Unit Determination Correspondence
1) Barbara Haushalter & Steven Brooks, 251 Sunnyslope Road, Petaluma, CA
94952
2) Peg Heath, 289 Sunnyslope Road, Petaluma, CA 94952
3) Joseph C. Tinney / Lounibos, Lounibos & Tinney, 10 Fourth Street, Petaluma, CA
94953 -0589
4) Michael & Linda Gonzales, 118 Suncrest Hill Drive, Petaluma, CA 94952
Appeal Statement: Was read.
Legal Recourse Statement: Was noted on the agenda.
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
PUBLIC FEARING:
17 1.
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
45
SPRINT PCS; 611 Payran Street, APN 005 - 020 -035; File No.
CUP99011; (ed)
Determination that Privately Owned Telecommunication Facilities are Consistent with
the "Public and Institutional" General Plan land use designation at 611 Payran Street.
If the Planning Commission determines that consistency exists:
a) Approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow Sprint PCS to locate six (6) new panel
antennas at the top of an existing 94 -foot tall lattice tower at the CalTrans
corporation yard.
If the Planning Commission determines that an inconsistency exists:
b) Deny a Conditional Use Permit to allow Sprint PCS to locate six (6) new panel
antennas at the top of an existing 94 -foot tall lattice tower at the CalTrans
corporation yard.
(Continued from the July 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.)
Elizabeth Dunn presented the staff report.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
SPEAKERS:
Evelyn Conroy /Applicant, 3875 Hopyard, Pleasanton: Has been looking for over 1 year
for a site; staff was helpful in finding a site and was recommended to find a commercial
site and avoid residential; property is zoned commercial highway; was not aware of the
2
of Petalum Planning Commission. Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 inconsistency, feels there is minimal impact to existing tower, and is not exceeding the
2 height of the tower; property is also a jurisdiction preferred and is using a state -owned
3 property. Staff contacted me on a question from neighbors regarding on how a state
4 agency can lease for profit? (Answer): State promotes opening up their facilities and
5 entering into agreements with wireless carriers; site is in compliance with the FCC.
6
7 Questions from Commissioners to Applicant
8
9 What kind of coverage will this give you on Highway 101? How far south?
10
ii (Answer): Site is heading off from Hotel Petaluma and connects up to the outlets and will
12 cover Highway 101 as capacity site and will give additional coverage on the east side to
13 the residential and commercial areas, is approximately a three -mile radius.
14
15 Is this the last site that is needed in the jurisdiction of Petaluma?
16
17 (Answer): Yes, that I am aware of
18
19 Will there be room for other carriers to cluster on that pole?
20
21 (Answer): Yes. Depending on carriers need and would also need structural analysis.
22
23 John Fitzgerald, 1010 Lakeville Street: Questioned if the state is in competition with
24 private parties. Suggested the state donate this money to the City Parks and Recreation
25 Department.
26
27
28 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSET)
29
30 Commissioners Broad, Barrett, Feibusch, Glass and Chairperson Bennett:
31
32 e Seems like the least impact for the most benefit.
33 ® Does not have problem with determination that this project would be consistent with
34 the General Plan public designation.
35 ® Feels tower needs more screening and suggested to have a landscaping requirement to
36 plant trees at the base of tower within ground irrigation.
37 e Suggested a blanket condition to apply to all of this type of use by placing a specific
38 timeframe (5 years) in regards to the City's technological services needed /provided.
39 ® Is encouraged by the attempt of using another entity instead of putting up another
40 tower.
41
42 Actions To Be Taken
43
44 Conditions of Approval to be added are:
45 1) Applicant is to work with Planning Department staff to provide additional
46 landscape screening at the base of the tower.
3
of Petaluma Planning Commis Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 2) Conditional Use permit is to run for five years and for every five years thereafter
2 administratively, being approved by the Planning Director.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Glass to
5 find that privately owned telecommunication facilities are consistent with the "Public and
6 Institutional" General Plan land use designation and to adopt a Negative Declaration and
7 approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow Sprint PCS to locate six (6) new panel
8 antennas at the top of an existing 94 foot tall lattice tower and an unmanned equipment
9 shelter at 611 Payran Street based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in
10 the staff report.
11
12 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
13 Commissioner Broad: Yes
14 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
15 Commissioner Glass: Yes
16 Commissioner Healy: Absent
17 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
18 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
19
20 Negative Declaration:
21
22 Pursuant to the requirements of Article 6, Negative Declaration Process, of the California
23 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study of potential
24 environmental impacts was prepared. The Initial Study demonstrated that, because the
25 project does not involve a change in the General Plan designation, Rezoning, or
26 Subdivision Map, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
27 effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Negative Declaration be
28 adopted.
29
30 Negative Declaration
31
32 1. That based upon the Initial Study prepared for the project, there is no substantial
33 evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.
34
35 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
36 in the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt
37 from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an existing developed
38 site surrounded by urban development with none of the resources as defined in the
39 Code.
40
41 3. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
42 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
43 Code,
44
45 4. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public
46 comments before approving the project.
4
of Petaluma Pla nning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 5. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for
2 public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
3 Street, Petaluma, California.
4
5 6. That Sprint PCS provided its background on site selection. This information
6 indicates that no other technically feasible location exists without constructing a
7 monopole of approximately 100 feet in height.
s
9 7. That any visual impacts to drivers on adjacent local roads and on Highway 101
10 will be minimal as the antennas are to be painted to blend in with the color of the
11 antennas.
12
13 JFindin2s for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
14
15 1. That the project, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements and the intent of
16 the General Plan.
17
18 The General Plan designation at this site is Public and Institutional. The Planing
19 Commission has determined that a new telecommunication facility that is to be
20 co- located with an existing 94 -foot tall lattice tower is an appropriate use on land
21 with a "Public and Institutional" land use designation. Other private service
22 providers having the "Public and Institutional" land use designation are PG &E
23 and private and parochial schools. The public receives a benefit from these private
24 service providers: transmission of natural gas and electricity to residential and
25 commercial users within the public right -of -way from PG &E, and educational
26 services to children and adults when well- educated children and a better educated
27 workforce occurs from private and parochial schools. Allowing a
28 telecommunication facility to locate on land with a "Public and Institutional"
29 General Plan land use designation promotes uses that benefit the community.
30
31 The proposal incorporates the following General Plan goals, objectives or policies
32 with Chapter 3, Community Character, Open Feeling and Rural Backdrop section:
33
34 Policy 2: Within the context that growth will occur, every effort shall be
35 made to preserve and enhance the views of surrounding lands, hills
36 and ridges.
37
c
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
45
The proposed location of the six (6) new panel antennas will be
unnoticeable from Highway 101 as the panels are to be painted to
blend to match the color of the existing 94 -foot tall lattice tower.
Highway 101 is identified in the Telecommunication Ordinance as
an area that requires specific attention to significant visual impacts.
Painting the panels minimizes any significant visual impacts that
may result from a co- located telecommunication facility.
Policy 6: Well- designed developments that will be harmonious with their
setting and /or enhance the city's image shall be encouraged.
The proposed location of six (6) new panel antennas on top of an
existing 94 -foot tall lattice tower will be harmonious with their
setting. They will not detract from the skyline of Petaluma as the
panels are to be painted to match color of the existing 94 -foot tall
lattice tower. For this reason, the proposed six (6) new antennas
will enhance the city's image and shall be encouraged.
2. That the use, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the
public welfare of the community.
Chapter 14, Telecommunication Ordinance of the Petaluma Municipal Code
(PMC), does not allow telecommunication facilities that are readily visible from
Highway 101 unless they blend in with the natural or man -made environment and
a finding can be made which indicates that there is no other technically feasible
location where the telecommunication facility can be established. The panels are
to be painted to match the background of the existing 94 -foot tall lattice tower.
Additionally, the applicant has provided documentation that indicates that no
other suitable locations exist for the telecommunication facility. Therefore, the
proposal adheres to the location requirements of Section 14.44.190, of the
Telecommunication Ordinance.
Conditions of Approval for File CLT99011:
1. All requirements from the Planning Department shall be met and included on
plans that are submitted for building permit issuance, including:
a. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the existing lattice
tower. This shall be indicated on plans that are submitted for review and
approval of the Planning Department for building permit issuance.
b. Within five (5) days, the applicant shall submit a check to the Planning
Department for $35.00, made payable to the County of Sonoma Clerk, for
posting the Notice of Determination fee.
0
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - August 10, 1999
1 C. The hours of construction to place the antennas on the tower and establish
2 the concrete pad for the unmanned equipment shall be limited to 7:OOam
3 to 6:OOpm. This shall appear as a note on the construction plans.
4
5 d. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards
6 specified in Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 14
7 of the Telecommunication Ordinance of the Petaluma Municipal Code,
8 and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan.
9
to e. Within 30 days of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit or prior to
11 the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant
12 shall provide evidence that it has registered with the City of Petaluma as a
13 telecommunication carrier /provider. This agreement shall be signed and
14 approved by all appropriate City departments prior to the issuance of a
15 building permit.
16
17 f. Within 30 days of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit or prior to
18 the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant
19 shall file a maintenance /facility removal agreement. This agreement shall
20 be signed and approved by all appropriate City departments prior to the
21 issuance of a building permit.
22
23 g. Within 30 days prior to the installation of the antennas and equipment,
24 Sprint PCS shall perform an NIER exposure study so that an accurate
25 indication of any occupational exposure limits will be known. This testing
26 shall include the area adjacent to the ground level equipment and at the
27 base of the existing tower. Should such exposure limits be determined as a
28 result of the installation of the antennas and ground level equipment,
29 Sprint PCS shall paint stripes, of a bold paint color, on the ground at the
30 base of the tower and adjacent to the ground level equipment. The
31 Planning Department shall receive a copy of the NIER exposure study
32 prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should ground level
33 demarcation be necessary as a result of the NIER study, the markings shall
34 be established
35
36 h. Every five (5) years, Sprint PCS shall submit an NIER report to the
37 Planning Director which lists each transmitter and antenna present at the
38 facility and the effective radiated power. The testing shall include the area
39 adjacent to the ground level equipment and at the base of the existing
40 tower. If either the equipment of effective radiated power has changed,
41 calculations specifying NIER levels in the inhabited areas where aid levels
42 are project to be the highest shall be prepared. NIER calculations shall
43 also be prepared every time the adopted NIER standard changes. If
44 calculated levels in either these cases exceeds 80% of the standard
45 established by Section 14.44.290 of the Petaluma Telecommunication
46 Ordinance, the operator of the facility shall hire a qualified electrical
47 engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual NIER
7
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 levels produced. A report of these calculations, required measurements, if
2 any, and the author's /engineer's findings with respect to compliance with
3 the current NIER standards shall be submitted to the Planning Director
4 within five (5) years of facility approval and every five years thereafter. In
5 the case of a change in the standard, the required report shall be submitted
6 within ninety (90) days of the dated said change becomes effective.
7
8 i. Within 30 days of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Sprint PCS
9 shall submit a security plan which details how access to the site will be
10 limited so that only authorized work crews are allowed to the site. This
11 plan shall also incorporate sufficient measures to reduce the potential for
12 trespass and injury. This report shall be submitted to the Planning
13 Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
14
15 j. The material and paint colors used shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny
16 or reflective and shall blend with the surroundings to the greatest extent
17 possible. Proposed paint samples shall be submitted to the. Planning
18 Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
19 permit.
20
21 k. The applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any
22 of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any
23 claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions,
24 agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
25 approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the
26 time period provided for in applicable State and /or local statutes. The City
27 shall promptly notify the applicants of any such claim, action, or
28 proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in
29 this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any
30 claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and
31 costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
32
33 1. A landscape plan shall be included with plans that are submitted for
34 building permit issuance. The landscape plan shall screen trees around
35 the around the base of the tower along the Caulfield Lane elevation and
36 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to
37 issuance of a building permit. An in- ground irrigation system shall be
38 illustrated on the landscape plans. Installation of the landscaping depends
39 upon the coordination of the applicant with CalTrans, the property owner.
8
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
45
M. This Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is valid for a period of five (S) years.
The applicant shall re -apply (at least three months prior to the expiration
of the CUP) to continue the CUP at this location. Should there be no
change in the technology and the proposal adheres to the requirements of
the Telecommunication Ordinance, the application can be reviewed by the
Planning Department. However, should there be a change in the
technology and the proposal adheres to the requirements of the
Telecommunication Ordinance, the application shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
2. All requirements from the Building Division shall be met and included on plans
that are submitted for building permit issuance, including:
a. The applicant should contact the Building Division for plans and submittal
requirements.
NOTICE OF ESTIMATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS
As the proposal is to located six antennas on an existing tower and establish a 150 square
foot slab for the telecommunication equipment, no Special Development Fees are
required.
II. CELLULAR ONE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE; 'I CASA GRANDE ROAD; AP NO. 005 °050 °029;
FILE NO. CUP99032, VAR99002 Ukt)o
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize construction of a 100 -foot
monopole with 12 antennae and a 135 sq. ft. equipment building; and a Variance
to allow the monopole to exceed the 40 foot height limitation.
(Continued from the June 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.)
Jane Thomson presented the staff report..
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
SPEAKERS:
Questions from Commission to Staff
On the second set of Conditions of Approval, #1, you are not opposed to future co-
locators?
9
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
3.9
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(Answer): Yes.
Does permit go with the applicant?
(Answer): Yes.
Questions from Commission to Applicant & Engineer
Is the mockup an accurate representation of width and height?
(Answer - Joanne Gundermann /Applicant): Yes.
Why is the height 75 ft. and other carriers 65 ft. and 55 ft.?
(Answer -Greg Seff/RF Engineer): This is the height that would work - would need more
than one site for lower height.
Did you consider Adobe and Frates Road, east of the golf course?
(Answer -Greg Seff): If located two miles out, it is too far out from the area to be served,
and the signal will not travel because of the hill.
What is the cost to construct this facility?
(Answer - Joanne Gundermann): $65,000.
Is the tower moveable? Is tower constructed at the site?
(Answer- Joanne Gundermann): Yes, to both questions.
Greg Seff: Objective for the site is to provide more capacity for the area. Assimilation's
were used and other areas would not work.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Commissioners Broad, Barrett, Feibusch, and Chairperson Bennett:
• Encouraged with mockup and changed design of antennas.
• Suggested to include requirement that use permit be valid for three to five years (or
shorter time period) and Planning Director could administratively approve it for
subsequent five year periods as long as it continued to remain consistent with the
City's telecommunication ordinance.
• Is glad it is located away from residential areas.
• Need to make accommodations to technology needed with minimal visual impact on
our City.
10
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 Commissioner Glass:
2 ® Appreciates lower height and taking out t -bar.
3 ® Need to protect the visual character of the City from the potential adverse effects of
4 telecommunication facility development and antenna installation.
5 ® Is not satisfied that there are no other sites available.
6
7 Actions To Be Taken
8
9 Added Conditions of Approval are:
10 1) Three -year review of use permit.
11 2) If site is abandoned, pole is to be dismantled by the constructor.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
14 find that the proposed monopole cannot be placed elsewhere based on the technical
15 analysis provided by Cellular One, that the monopole could be designed so as to be
16 rendered unnoticeable, and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a
17 Conditional Use Permit to authorize the construction of a 75 ft. monopole, a 135 sq. ft.
18 unmanned equipment shelter and associated fencing and landscaping at 1 Casa Grande
19 Road based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
20
21 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
22 Commissioner Broad: Yes
23 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
24 Commissioner Glass: No
25 Commissioner Healy: Absent
26 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
27 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
28
29 Finding -s for Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
30
31 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance
32 with CEQA and local guidelines.
33
34 2. That although the 75 ft. monopole is proposed to be constructed at a location
35 readily visible from Highway 101, it shall be painted to blend with the
36 surrounding existing natural and man -made environment in such a manner as to
37 be unnoticeable as possible.
38
39 3. That reducing the height of the monopole to 75 ft. reduces the potential impact to
40 less than significant and will. not result in any potentially significant effects on the
41 environment; in addition, the pole shall be painted to blend in with the
42 surrounding environment; therefore, in accordance with Section 15074.1(b)(2) of
43 the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measure #8(1) of the Initial Study may be
44 deleted.
45
11
of Petaluma Planning Comm ission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 4. That based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, potential impacts
2 could be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures
3 attached as conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the
4 project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
5. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
in the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt
from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an existing developed
site surrounded by urban development with none of the resources as defined in the
Code.
C�
13
14
15
16
17 7
18
19
20
That although this site is listed on the Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the
State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code, in
November 1998 Skoff Trucking removed their underground tanks. The 1200
sq.ft. area of the parcel needed for this project is not contaminated.
That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for
public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
Street, Petaluma, California.
21 Findings for the ADProval of Conditional Use Permit #98032:
22
23 1. That the proposed monopole is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 14.44,
24 Telecommunications Facilities of the Petaluma Municipal Code. That, based upon
25 documentation submitted by the applicant, although there are alternate sites
26 inside the City of Petaluma where a telecommunications facility could be placed,
27 they are either inadequate based on their ability to provide the increased coverage
28 sought by Cellular One, or it is technically infeasible to add the equipment
29 necessary for the system to operate.
30
31 2. That the proposed monopole and 135 sq. ft. unmanned telecommunications
32 equipment building, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent
33 of the Light Industrial (M -L) Zoning District of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance
34 where such equipment is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, and is consistent
35 with development standards for the district, including setbacks from property
36 lines, easements, and design.
37
38 3. That the proposed monopole and 135 sq. ft. unmanned telecommunications
39 equipment building, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent,
40 goals and policies of the Industrial land use designation of the Petaluma General
41 Plan by requiring SPARC review to ensure visual compatibility of the project
42 with the surrounding area.
43
12
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 4. That the proposed monopole and 135 sq. ft. unmanned telecommunications
2 equipment building will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
3 welfare of the community, inasmuch as conditions have been imposed regulating
4 access, use and maintenance of the site.
5
6 5. That the proposal, at 75 ft., is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 24 -105,
7 which exempts telecommunication facilities from height restrictions.
8
9 Conditions of Approval:
10
11 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be issued exclusively to Cellular One for the
12 construction and installation of a 75 ft. monopole and 135 sq.ft. unmanned
13 telecommunications equipment building. Future co- locators shall be responsible
14 for procuring approval from the City of Petaluma prior to their use of the
15 monopole.
16
17 2. The location of the facilities shall be as shown on the site plan approved by the
18
Planning Commission, as conditioned or modified. The 30 ft. by 30 ft. area to be
19
used by Cellular One shall be located a minimum of 25 ft. from the north property
20
line and 20 ft. (and out of the easement) from the side property line. All setbacks
21
shall be measured from the base of the tower or structure closest to the applicable
22
property line or structure. Access to this area shall be exclusively through the
23
Skoff Trucking yard. Proof of access shall be provided in writing to the Planning
24
Department by Cellular One from Skoff Trucking with the building permit
25
submittal.
26
27
3.
The monopole shall be reviewed by the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review
28
Committee. SPARC review shall include the color, materials and height of the
29
monopole, the equipment storage building, landscaping and fencing.
30
31
4.
A building permit shall be required from the Building Division prior to
32
commencement of construction.
33
34
5.
For security purposes, an 8 ft. tall chain link fencing with access gates for Cellular
35
One employees shall be installed around the 1200 sq.ft. site. Application for
36
building permit for the monopole and equipment building shall include the fence,
37
which shall be completely installed prior to final inspection.
38
39
6.
No vehicles or equipment shall be stored on this site at any time.
40
41
7.
Outdoor noise producing construction activities shall only take place on weekdays
42
(Monday through Friday, non - holiday) between the hours of 7:30am and 5:30pm.
43
Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
44
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
45
13
City of Petaluma Plannin Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 8. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified
2 in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301, of the Petaluma Zoning
3 Ordinance, and the 1987 General Plan.
4
5 9. The telecommunication facility and antennae shall comply at all times with all
6 FCC rules, regulations, and standards.
7
8 10. This Conditional Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for
9 review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with the
to mitigation measures and /or conditions of approval. At such time the Commission
11 may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit or add /modify
12 conditions of approval.
13
14 11. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures (with the exception of
15 #8(1) which has been deleted) as identified in the June 2, 1999 Initial Study and
16 adopted by the Planning Commission.
17
18 12. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
19 any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
20 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or
21 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
22 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
23 State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
24 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
25 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
26 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
27 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
28 faith.
29
30 13. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for three (3) years only; at which time
31 the use shall be reviewed by the Planning Director, and the use extended for an
32 additional 3 years if appropriate.
33
34 14. At such time as Cellular One ceases to use the site, the monopole shall be
35 dismantled and the site cleared of all poles and panels within 90 days.
36
37
38 NEW BUSINESS:
39 PUBLIC HEARING:
40
41 III. HOFFMAN; 8 00 LINDBERG LANE; AP N®. 005- 020- 035; FILE
42 N®. SPC99 037 (ed).
43
44 Consideration of final site, architectural and landscape plans for a building of
45 36,000 sq.ft. for retail and warehouse uses.
14
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1
2 Elizabeth Dunn presented the staff report.
3
4
5 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
6
7 SPEAKERS:
8
9 Ray Hoffman /Applicant: All changes have been incorporated that were suggested by the
10 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
11
12 Questions from Commission to Apflicant
13
14 How many parking spaces were added?
15
16 (Answer): From 84 to 99.
17
18
19 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSET)
20
21 Commissioners Broad, Barrett, Feibusch, Glass and Chairperson Bennett:
22
23 ® Suggested more landscaping, but is in favor of what has been done.
24 ® Feels it will be an improvement to the area.
25 e Thank you for working so patiently with the Site Plan and Architectural Review
26 Committee.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Barrett
29 to approve final site, architecture and landscape plans for a retail and warehouse building
3o at 800 Lindberg Lane based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the
31 staff report.
32
33 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
34 Commissioner Broad: Yes
35 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
36 Commissioner Glass:Yes
37 Commissioner Healy: Absent
38 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
39 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
40
41 Findings
42
43 1. That the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) reviewed the
44 project on July 8, 1999 and recommended that the Planning Commission approve
45 the site, architectural, and landscape plans as conditioned.
46
15
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
45
46
2. That the project incorporates the appropriate use of quality materials and
enhances the harmony and proportion of the overall design.
3. That the architectural style is appropriate for the project in question, and
compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood.
4. That the siting of the structure on the property will compliment the siting of other
structures in the immediate neighborhood.
5. That the bulk, height, and color of the proposed structure compares to the bulk,
height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
6. That the proposed landscaping complies with City standards and is in keeping
with the character or design of the site.
7. That ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off - street parking facilities and
pedestrian ways have been designed to promote safety and convenience, and
conform to approved City standards.
NOTICE OF ESTIMATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS
Pursuant to Section 66020 Of the California Government Code, the applicant /developer
has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation
requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval, and listed as follows
(calculations based on office and warehouse use):
Community Facilities fees in the estimated amount of $26,134.38
Storm Drainage Impact fees in the estimated amount of $ 17,350.00
❖ Traffic Mitigation fees in the estimated amount of $45,470.00
:• Water Connection Fee of $12,423 for a 2" meter in Zone 1
❖ School District fee must be paid directly to the School District. Contact the School
District at 778 -4621.
Conditions of Approval for File CUP98030/SPC99037:
1. The following requirements of the Building Division shall be met:
a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
b. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured.
c. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 require special design
foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
d. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
16
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
45
46
47
e. Show site drainage and grading topography.
f. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
g. Responsible party to sign plans.
h. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
Indicate group occupancy, type of construction square footage.
j. Plans must show compliance to 1997 LBC, LTC, UMC, and 1996 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation
and /or Disabled Access Requirements.
k. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
1. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1997 UBC
must be followed.
m. Certify finished floor elevation before occupancy.
2. The following requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met and shall
be reflected on plans that are submitted for building permit issuance:
a. Sonoma County Water Agency approval must be provided for all drainage
improvements.
b. A detailed grading plan must be provided for improvements within the
right of way and on -site including street improvements, utilities,
earthwork, drainage, landscaping and all transitions at property lines.
These improvements shall also include half - street improvements across
the entire frontage of the subject parcel for Lindberg Lane and Payran
Street or as designated by the City Engineer.
C. All existing and proposed easements associated with the subject parcel
must be included on the plans.
d. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan as a portion of the improvement
plans including distances from property lines to buildings and parking.
This site plan shall also provide accurate metes and bounds of all property
lines, radii of all curves, and central angles.
e. Frontage improvements are required along Lindberg Lane and Payran
Street including City of Petaluma standard curb, gutter, sidewalk,
streetlights, fire hydrants, storm drain, catch basins, etc.
17
of Petaluma Pla nning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1
f.
Locations, directions of flow and names, if available, of both natural and
2
artificial watercourses and ponding areas, or areas of periodic inundation
3
on the parcel and on adjacent properties which might affect the design of
4
the applicant's proposal must be indicated on the plans.
5
6
g.
All existing overhead utility lines and poles on -site and on peripheral
7
streets shall be identified and shown as being placed underground.
8
9
h.
All existing water services serving the subject parcel and not utilized with
to
the proposed development must be abandoned per current City standards.
11
12
i.
Identify the location and size of existin and proposed sanitary sewer, fire
13
hydrants, water mains, and storm drains on the plan. The slopes and
14
elevations of proposed sewers and storm drains shall be indicated.
15
16
j.
Provide the location of proposed building setback lines on the site plan.
17
18
k.
An erosion control plan must be submitted as a part of the improvement
19
plans for the project.
20
21
1.
Provide a current Report and Guarantee of Clear Title (less than six
22
months old) by duly authorized title company naming persons whose
23
consent is necessary for the preparation of such plans and showing all
24
interest in the property, existing easements, etc. Said title report shall
25
include a clear and concise metes and bounds description of the property.
26
27
m.
A final detailed geotechnical investigation shall be required and prepared
28
concurrently with the grading and erosion control plans prepared by the
29
developer's engineer. These grading and erosion control plans shall be
30
reviewed and signed by a registered soils engineer.
31
32
n.
Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development
33
verifying the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic services.
34
35
0.
All work in the public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
36
Director of Public Works.
37
38
p.
A separate water meter shall be required for landscape irrigation systems
39
or as required by staff.
40
41
q.
The City Traffic Engineer shall approve driveway access to Lindberg
42
Lane.
43
44
r.
Verify with the use of templates that delivery truck turning movements
45
can be achieved along the access drive and loading areas of the site plan.
46
18
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - August 10, 1999
1 S. An extension of the 48" storm drain, as shown on the Sonoma County
2 Water Agency Master Drainage Plan, must be installed from the existing
3 48" system located at the intersection of Payran Street and Lindberg Lane
4 to the easternmost corner of the subject parcel.
5
6 t. Surface drainage from the site shall not cross over sidewalks.
7
8 U. A pre - construction meeting must be scheduled prior to issuance of a
9 grading, foundation, or building permit. This meeting must include the
10 developer, contractor, engineer, City project engineer, and Public Works
11 inspector.
12
13 3. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met:
14
15 a. The building/s shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as
16 required by the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central
17 station alarm monitoring, which will notify the fire department in the
18 event of water flow. In addition, a local alarm shall be provided on the
19 exterior and interior of the building.
20
21 b. Fire sprinkler systems installed in buildings of undetermined
22 occupancy /use shall be designed and installed to provide a density of .33
23 gallons per minute per square foot, over a minimum design area of 3,000
24 square feet.
25
26 C. Fire hydrant /s shall be provided. Hydrants shall be located so that no
27 portion of the building is more than 150' from a fire hydrant.
28
29 d. The minimum fire flow for this project is 2500 GPM at 20 pounds per sq.
30 in. Proof that required fire flow is available shall be supplied to the Fire
31 Marshal prior to construction.
32
33 4. The following requirements of the Planning Department shall be met. Plans shall
34 conform to those approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
35 (SPARC) on July 8, 1999 as conditioned or revised, as illustrated on plans dated
36 July 21, 1999 that were submitted to the Planning Department:
37
38 a. At least one additional pop -out shall be added to the north elevation of the
39 building. This shall be illustrated on plans that are submitted for building
40 permit issuance.
41
42 b. The trash enclosure at the northeast corner of the property shall be
43 relocated to be a minimum of four (4) feet from the northern property line.
44 This revised location shall be reflected on plans that are submitted for
45 building permit issuance.
46
19
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - August 10, 1999
1 C. All trash enclosures shall have roofs. This shall be illustrated on plans that
2 are submitted for building permit issuance.
3
4 d. Both trash enclosures shall be relocated to be at least 50 feet from the
5 employee area. This relocation of trash enclosures shall be illustrated on
6 plans that are submitted for building permit issuance.
7 e. The building shall be relocated to the north by 5 feet. An additional 5 feet
8 of landscaping shall be added to the Payran Street elevation. The lawn
9 area, as illustrated on the proposed plans, shall be reduced by 30 %. This
10 shall be illustrated on landscape plans that are submitted for building
11 permit issuance.
12 f. Landscaping shall be added along the northern elevation of the building.
13 This shall be illustrated on plans that are submitted for building permit
14 issuance.
15 g. The southern most driveway along Lindberg Lane shall be relocated so the
16 driver is not facing into windows. The relocation of the driveway shall be
17 illustrated on plans that are submitted for building permit issuance.
18 h. A lighter color shall be used on the roll -up doors. A color sample shall be
19 submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the
20 issuance of a building permit.
21
22 i. The outdoor employee area shall remain at its location in the northeast
23 corner of the property.
24 j. Upon SPARC approval, this project shall return the Planning Commission
25 for their review and approval of the design concepts.
26
27 k. The applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any
28 of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any
29 claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions,
30 agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
31 approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the
32 time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City
33 shall promptly notify the applicants of any such claim, action, or
34 proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in
35 this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any
36 claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and
37 costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
38
20
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 Standard SPARC Conditions:
2
3 5. All trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon or specimen size and double staked; all
4 shrubs shall be five gallon size. All landscaped areas not improved with lawn
5 shall be protected with a three -inch deep bark mulch as a temporary measure until
6 the ground cover is established.
7
8 6. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
9 irrigation system.
10
11 7. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance
12 shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris
13 and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be
14 replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with
15 applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully
16 maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and
17 replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas,
18 and health and vitality of landscape materials.
19
20 8. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near streets or walkways as
21 needed, subject to staff review and approval.
22
23 9. All tree stakes shall be removed within one year following installation or as soon
24 as trees are able to stand erect without support. Training/Nursery stakes shall be
25 removed at time of planting.
26
27 10. Any future color schemes that vary from those approved shall be subject to staff
28 review.
29
30 11. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop
31 equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation subject to the
32 approval of the Planning Department. Screening devices shall be shown on
33 construction and /or landscape plans.
34
35 12. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials or equipment unless screened from
36 view to staff satisfaction.
37
38 13. 'Signs shown on plan are not approved as part of this project. Sign permits must be
39 obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform with the
40 Zoning Ordinance to staff satisfaction.
41
42
43 IV. SUNNYSLOPE SECOND UNIT DETERMINATION (6b).
44
45 Discussion and direction regarding the development of accessory
46 dwellings /second units in the Sunnyslope Assessment and Annexation District.
11
City of Petaluma. Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
Vincent C. Smith presented the staff report.
Chairperson Bennett: What specific action are you looking for?
(Answer Vincent Smith): To get a policy determination from this body — either treat the
Sunnyslope Assessment District Area as the R -1 20,000 regulations would allow, or the
numbers that are contained in the Sunnyslope Assessment District Area are fixed for all
units regardless of size and definition under the Zoning Ordinance.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
SPEAKERS:
Richard Brawn, 141 Gravillia Drive: Puts burden on neighborhood with parking issues;
please involve people in the neighborhood, not just people in the immediate vacinity.
John Mills, 1315 D Street: Is concerned with imposing conditions on very specific areas;
does not want different policies in different sections of the City; should be able to build
accessory dwellings within the criteria that is set forward in the General Plan for
accessory dwellings; wants amnesty program for existing illegal units; i.e., no fees or
reduced fees.
John Fitzgerald, 114 Suncrest Hill Drive: Believes there are flaws in the EIR and in the
process and did not address this issue of accessory dwellings; has question regarding staff
report — the EIR does not define a dwelling unit, nor does it discuss accessory dwellings,
therefore, staff concludes that where the FEIR is silent the standards revert to the Zoning
Ordinance - Is this legal or staff opinion ?; Regarding Item D, it says maximum building
footprint coverage will not exceed 45,000 sq. ft. — wants clarification on if accessory
dwelling units are allowed within those new subdivisions and where building envelope is
defined on the map and accessory to be built within the designated building envelope.
Vincent Smith: Regarding clarification of the EIR, Resolution 91 -152 N.C.S that was
passed by City Council for development standards for this area, states minimum lot and
parcel size to revert back to the R -1 20,000 Residential Zoning District if there were no
specific development standards approved by the Planning Commission and City Council;
this is staffs direct interpretation of the Council Resolution. Regarding development
within the building envelope, will need to look at a case -by -case basis - many new PUD's
do not allow building outside the building envelope.
Carol Fullerton, 250 Sunnyslope Road: has accessory dwelling and is in great need for
providing housing for family members.
22
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
1 Barbara Haushalter, 251 Sunnyslope Road: Believes it is an issue of policy; feels
2 decision today will set precedent for remaining 127 homes; EIR needs to be revised;
3 believes there is an economic issue and it is not fair the people coming in are paying the
4 same amount — suggestions are: revising EIR, refund, preclude building of accessory
5 units.
6
7 David Strand, 288 Sunnyslope Road: Believes projected impact of FEIR has been
8 ignored; each additional unit has impact to surroundings; believes an accessory dwelling
9 is a dwelling unit; if allowed, developers pay specific fees based on one unit, if another
10 unit is allowed, fees should be added; if accessory units are allowed, it impacts schools.
11
12 Peg Heath, 289 Sunnyslope Road: Is concerned with a possible "blanket" policy
13 allowing accessory dwellings in the Sunnyslope Assessment District; is concerned with
14 style of development, flooding, traffic, safety, water pressure, quality of life; does not
15 believe City can handle density, especially when infrastructure is not in place;
16 regarding underground utilities, why in Stoneridge are utilities are put above the ground —
17 is waiting for an answer from the Engineering Department; believes there should be a
18 subdivision -by- subdivision review; is dealing with people building houses and houses
19 with accessory units at the same time; believes Planning Department should not have
20 total control over accessory dwelling building, would like more discussion before blanket
21 policy is to be passed.
22
23 Bonnie Bard, 126 Sunnyhill Drive: Illegal units need to be looked at individually; some
24 homes do not meet regulations; feels it is City's responsibility to protect neighbors; staff
25 needs to make sure requirements and codes are met.
26
27 Steve Brooks, 251 Sunnyslope Road: Believes it should be taken in account in how
28 much people have already paid and refunds made; Sunnyslope area is all about density
29 that was requested.
30
31 Larry Jonas, 515 Hayes Avenue: Stated that assessments are not always shared
32 equally — builders usually pay more, accessory units are affordable and can provide
33 housing for our parents and children, believes each one should be looked at on its own
34 merit.
35
36 Ed Fullerton, 112 Ravenswood Court: Also agrees fees paid are not always divided
37 equally - underground utilities were paid for by developers and neighbors across the
38 street benefit from this and they did not pay fees; is concerned with flooding; has small
39 barn that has been converted into accessory dwelling and has been occupied
40 intermittently by family members — if corrections need to be made is willing to amend;
41 believes that his accessory dwelling has not impacted neighbors; believes should have
42 right to build as others do.
43
44 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive: Finds it interesting that developer is building granny
45 units - believes it is solely for profit; is concerned with drainage issue.
46
23
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
3.3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Vincent Smith: Two clarifications: 1) A statement from speakers was made tonight that
this action is intended to forego any future analysis on Conditional Use Permits and this
is not the intention - it is to request a policy determination that would allow future
property owners to proceed for applications for accessory dwellings units; and 2)
Program 23 is not a part of the growth management program and it is a direct program
out of the General Plan.
Questions from Commissioners to Staff
What percentage of lots have legal second units and how many second units have
received use permits in the Sunnyslope Assessment District?
(Answer): Very few, probably less than 5% legal second units. There have been 2 or 3
accessory dwelling unit permits issued to the Sunnyslope area.
Can you describe the makeup of the Assessment District, is it a 1915 act bond or
properties liened?
(Answer): It is assigned for a certain number of lots and that is how dollar amount is
reached.
Regarding public input on accessory development, will there be no change from the
normal procedure to process Conditional Use Permits?
(Answer): Yes. There would be public notice, public input, environmental review and full
analysis by staff. The decision to be made tonight is strictly a policy determination.
Commissioners Broad, Barrett, Feibusch, Glass and Chairperson Bennett:
• Should not be treated as a special district and treated as such through the entire City.
• There is a definite need for this kind of housing.
• Agrees with staff report as stated.
• Is sensitive to concerns with additional dwellings.
• This area should not be exempt from the rest of the City.
• Has problem with illegal units.
• Not in favor of amnesty.
• Feels Sunnyslope Assessment District should allow for second units based on the
general development potential.
• Believes there is low impact to the area, as there is a small percentage of accessory
dwellings in the Sunnyslope area.
• The General Plan encourages accessory units.
• Agrees with property right issues.
• Empathizes with people that have been paying assessments.
• There needs to be accessory dwellings supplements availability for low -cost housing.
24
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - August 10, 1999
1 ® Encouraged people to attend public hearings on policies. Policies are made by the
2 City Council.
3 ® Has problem exempting policies in one neighborhood that apply to rest of the City;
4 policies set down need to be applied to the whole City.
5 o Suggests staff to address amnesty issue.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
8 concur with staff's determination that accessory dwellings /second units are not counted
9 in the density calculations for the Sunnyslope Assessment and Annexation District.
10
11 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
12 Commissioner Broad: Yes
13 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
14 Commissioner Glass: Yes
15 Commissioner Healy: Absent
16 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
17 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
18
19
20 V. PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN 2000 — 2020.
21
22 Discussion and comments on the Draft Workplan for the preparation of the General Plan.
23
24 Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration presented the staff report.
25
26
27 THE PUBLIC FEARING WAS OPENED
28
29 SPEAKERS:
30
31 Geoff Cartwright: Feels Alternative #3 is the best approach for the General Plan 2000-
32 2020 Workplan - feels price is high. How does the public get on the list to get
33 information?
34
35 (Answer - Pamela Tuft):
36 o If you attended past UGB Workshops or the recent Walkable Communities
37 Workshop, you, via sign -up sheets /petitions collected, received a letter informing you
38 of a new list. If interested in receiving future information or attending public forums
39 regarding the General Plan, please contact the City of Petaluma via:
40 — City Manager's office (Madeline Costa or Pamela Tuft) at 707 - 778 -4345; or
41 — you can e -mail me directly at: generalplan @ci.petaluma.ca.us
42
43 Richard Brawn, 141 Gravillia Drive: Believes there is a task of creating public interest;.
44 recommended to have a theme or central point in the General Plan Workplan, i.e., quality
45 of life; need to express in language /terms that is understood by the public; recommended
46 to urge Council to provide funding regarding sending information out to the public, i.e.,
47 website for people to read comments and to consider a foldout in the newspaper.
25
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
45
46
Pamela 'Tuft: A web site will be developed for adding to the City web page and the
Manager's office will be working on a newsletter (is planning to publish newsletter
quarterly).
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Questions from Commissioners to Pamela Tuft
Why was Alternative 91 Crossed off?
(Answer): There was very little interest from the Council in this Alternative; Council
gave direction to expand Alternative #2 in certain areas and to utilize the text of the
current General Plan to all extent possible, rather than duplicating efforts.
What is the timeline for the Request for Proposal?
(Answer):
• Pre- Proposal Conference - Early September
• Proposals Due - Early or Mid October
• Review by Staff with Referral to Council /Commission - November
• Interviews - Early December
• Contract Negotiations - December
• Authorization by Council - 2 nd of January with notice to proceed the day after
When will they come back for the first draft?
(Answer): In 2 '/z years. It is a creation process and a building of components.
Will each section come back to Council /Commission? for the public comment?
(Answer): Yes, there will also be numerous workshops for the public.
Are you considering using any of the 2000 census data?
(Answer): The information that comes out early, Yes. There is a census workshop this
Friday and may be provided with information on timelines for data availability.
Commissioners Broad, Barrett, Feibusch, Glass and Chairperson Bennett:
Comments &Suggestions to General Plan 2000 -2020
• Suggested to combine Alternatives Nos. 2 & 3.
• Recommended to focus on Water Resources.
• Need to address traffic problems and come up with the right answers.
26
of Petaluma Planning Co mmission Minutes — August 10, 1999
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
• Do not duplicate other sections if not needed to be redone - reuse whatever we can
and encourage to expend funds to get a General Plan that can well serve us.
• Concentration needs to be on housing because of a major increase in population.
• Feels budget for fire and police is too low.
• Would like to see awareness program for disaster preparedness for the entire City, not
just flooding.
• Regarding funding, take a look at what other communities have done - some have a
fee on new construction and have been able to get additional revenue.
• Natural Environment and Land Use numbers are low for Alternatives 92 and #3.
• Need to have additional policies for infill - need more standards, procedures and
guidelines.
• Is concerned with development of the more sensitive lands.
• Need to have strong policies to protect environment.
• Pleased to see the sustainability element in the General Plan.
• Need economic strategic planning as an element within the General Plan.
• Need to decide what kind of community do, we want to become, i.e., self - sufficient
community or residential community - need to make that determination.
Pamela Tuft: Agrees that the housing workplan is on the light side because HCD has not
provided their information on criteria to be contained on the new housing elements -
expansion of scope will be made when HCD provides standards. The Fire Department
has given me their cost projection, based on the extensive work undertaken for the Fire
Master Plan (completed earlier this year); the Police Department is currently working on
their five year strategic plan update - both departments serve on the executive team. Will
look into expanding disaster preparedness in the Safety section. Regarding infill policies,
research is being started now for infill strategies and will be discussed by Commission
and Council before the General Plan is completed, but will fold the topic and substance of
infill strategies into the visioning effort of the General Plan.
VI. LIAISON REPORTS.
City Council (MH): None
SPARC (DG): Proposal to develop property in the area of the Petaluma
cinemas.
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV): None
Tree Advisory Committee (TB): None
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30pm s \pc- plan\minutes \0810
'J
27