HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/14/1998Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
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
47
48
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING JULY 14, 1998
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 :00 PM
CITY HALL, PETALUMA, CA
Commissioners Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch, Healy, Thompson *, Torliatt, Vieler
Staff Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
Vincent Smith, Principal Planner
Bonne Gaebler, Housing Administrator
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
* Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
MINUTES OF June 23, 1998, and June 30, 1998, were approved with corrections.
PUBILIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Erma Kinney regarding 240 Douglas Street
(Hagstrom property), letters regarding UGB from Nancy Chien - Eriksen, Mike Gallagher
(McB'ail Company), Tom Scott, Andrew Berliner (Science of the Soul); Notes from July
11 UGB Workshop; memo from staff regarding Portuguese Market.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONSENT ITEMS: -
(THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE ORIGINALLY LISTED ON THE AGENDA
AS ITEMS 3 AND 4, BUT WERE HEARD AS CONSENT ITEMS 1 AND 2):
I. PASSPORT WINE CLUB; 715 M Southpoint Blvd., APN 007 - 391 -011 akt).
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and a determination that Public
1
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 Convenience or Necessity would be served by the issuance of an ABC License for
2 a retail wine club and shop in an existing building in Southpoint Business Park.
3
4 The public hearing was opened.
5
6 SPEAKERS: None.
7
8 The public hearing was closed.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
11 find that Public Convenience or Necessity will be served by the issuance of a Type 20
12 (beer and wine) Alcoholic Beverage Control License to the Passport Wine Club, based on
13 the findings and conditions listed below.
14
15
Commissioner Bennett:
Yes
16
Commissioner Broad:
Yes
17
Commissioner Feibusch:
Yes
18
Commissioner Healy:
Yes
19
Commissioner Torliatt:
Yes
20
Chairperson Thompson:
Yes
21
Commissioner Vieler:
Yes
22
23 Findings for the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity:
24
25 The proposed use is within a census tract which, pursuant to State Assembly Bill 2897
26 which amended Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code, is considered to
27 have an undue concentration of retail liquor licenses. The Planning Commission finds
28 that, pursuant to Section 23958.4(b)(2), this license should be issued to Passport Wine
29 Club because:
30
31 a. The sale of wine by mail order will provide a convenience to the general public and
32 especially to people unable to personally visit the retail shop.
33
34 b. The sale of wine to patrons by mail in addition to walk in sales makes the business
35 economically viable.
36
37 c. Although The Passport Wine Club is located within a census tract which
38 experiences an undue concentration of retail liquor licenses, the sale of alcohol
39 will not create a nuisance or be detrimental to the public health or welfare as the
40 main nature of the use is direct shipping to private homes and businesses and not
41 on site sales/consumption. In addition, the hours of the retail operation are limited
42 to 9AM to 5PM Monday through Friday which will limit the potential for
43 nuisances.
44
45 CEQA Findings
46
47 The Passport Wine Club is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
48 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), as the building and
49 similar office /retail uses are existing.
50
51
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
Conditional Use Permit Findings
3
1.
The proposed use will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma
4
Zoning Ordinance and the Southpoint Business Park Planned Unit Development
5
Standards which allow wholesale shipping and warehousing, and retail sales of
6
alcohol with a Conditional Use Permit.
7
8
2.
The proposed use will conform to the requirements, intent, goals and policies of
9
the Petaluma General Plan, as this use is primarily an office and wholesale
10
warehouse use in an area designated industrial on the land use map.
11
12
Conditions
13
14
1.
The proposed Passport Wine Club, which includes an office, warehouse, shipping
15
and receiving dock, and a retail shop with limited hours of operation shall be the
16
limit of the activities permitted through this Conditional Use Permit. Any activity
17
not specifically named in the above shall be prohibited without amendment to this
18
CUP.
19
20
2.
Hours of operation for the office may be 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
21
Hours of operation for the warehouse, and the shipping and receiving dock, shall
22
be limited to 8:00AM to 6:30PM Monday through Friday. The retail shop, shall
23
be limited to 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM Monday through Friday. An expansion of hours
24
for either the shipping and receiving dock and/or retail shop shall require an
25
amendment to this CUP.
26
27
3.
To reduce the potential for a noise impact to the surrounding residences, all trucks
28
arriving between 6:30PM and 8:OOAM shall be required to turn off their engines,
29
and if so equipped, the refrigeration compressor.
30
31
4.
No on -site tastings to consumers shall be permitted at any time. Consumer tastings
32
shall require an amendment to this CUP to allow the operation of an Alcoholic
33
Beverage Establishment.
34
35
5.
All employees shall comply with the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws and
36
regulations. Suspension of the business owners license by the ABC may be basis
37
for revocation of this CUP.
38
39
6.
All trash shall be either contained inside the building, or in the trash area provided
40
by the property owner.
41
42
7.
This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review and
43
approval at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with
44
conditions of approval, noise generation, or other adverse operating
45
characteristics.
46
47
8.
The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
48
any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
49
action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
50
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
51
such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
52
State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
2 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
3 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
4 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
5 faith.
6
7
8 II. THE PORTUGUESE MARKET; 186 Keller Street, APN 006 - 363 -001 akt).
9
10 Consideration of a determination that Public Convenience or Necessity would be
11 served by the issuance of an ABC 'License authorizing a grocery store to sell
12 Portuguese beer and wine.
13
14 The public hearing was opened.
15
16 SPEAKERS: None.
17
18 The public hearing was closed.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
21 find that Public Convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of an Alcoholic
22 Beverage License to The Portuguese Market based on the findings and amended
23 conditions listed below.
24
25 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
26 Commissioner Broad: Yes
27 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
28 Commissioner Healy: Yes
29 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
30 Chairperson Thompson: Yes
31 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
32
33 Findings:
34
35 1. The sale of Portuguese wine and beer will provide a convenience to the general
36 public and especially to people patronizing the market, which sells Portuguese
37 foods exclusively.
38
39 2. The sale of Portuguese wine and beer to patrons makes the market economically
40 viable;
41
42 3. Although The Portuguese Market is located within a census tract which
43 experiences an undue concentration of retail liquor licenses, the sales of alcohol
44 will not create a nuisance or be detrimental to the public health or welfare as the
45 liquor sales will be subordinate to the overall sales, and the hours of operation are
46 limited to 10am to 6pm.
47
48 Conditions
49
50 1. The grocery store, Portuguese Market, with an Alcoholic Beverage Control
51 License Type 20, shall be the limit of the activities permitted through 'this
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 approval.. Sales of distilled spirits shall require review and approval by the
2 Planning Director.
3
4 2. Days and hours of operation for the grocery store with alcohol sales shall be
5 approved as proposed; Monday Tuesda through Saturday, 6:00 AM 18 90AN11
6 through 6:OOPM. Any expansion of hours shall require prior approval by the
7 Planning Director.
8
9 3. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
to any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
11 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
12 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
13 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
14 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
15 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
16 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
17 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
18 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
19 faith.
20
21
22 NEW BUSINESS:
23 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
24
25 Ill. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (pt).
26
27 Consideration of and recommendation to City Council on proposed Urban
28 Growth Boundary location and ballot measure text.
29
30 Pamela Tuft, Planning Director presented the staff report.
31
32 The public hearing was opened.
33
34 SPEAKERS:
35
36 Pamela 'Tuft - Update of workshops to date; displayed maps; asked Commission to
37 receive additional public input and discuss draft ballot measure.
38
39 John Chaney — 55 Rocca — UGB should go to an election; development is going
40 where it wants to; flooding concerns; more - building will cause more flooding; town is a
41 bowl — cannot add more water into it, it will overflow; should be on ballot, citizens need
42 to be able to speak.
43 Kay Russo — Representative of Sonoma County Tax Payers Association — Against
44 voter mandated UGB; there are many levels of review already in place; elected officials are
45 abdicating their responsibility by placing this on a ballot; economic analysis and GP update
46 should be done first before this is put on ballot; irresponsible to put this on ballot before
47 economic analysis and GP update are done.
48 Marne Coggin — Thanks staff — especially Pamela Tuft and her staff, process has been
5
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
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
very open and public, supports UGB happening now; goals — live within physical
resources (water, sewer); social resources (schools, etc.); maintain character of rural/small
city; development planned along river — good; UGB will help us achieve those goals;
follow natural boundaries (ridge lines, etc.), but adjust to follow property lines; unbridled
residential growth needs to be slowed; believes that vote of citizens should be heard;
people should be able to make those decisions; example — Hillside Village proposal —
project in area (edge of City) should be feathered — this project required change to GP —
this is the type of project that citizens should be able to vote on; citizens should be
involved in making decisions; Varnhagen parcel should be excluded from UGB.
Tony Varnhagen — Family has owned property for many years; property has been in the
Urban Limit Line for many years; is reworking plans for this property; Helen Putnam
Regional Park was a part of their property; experiencing trespassing, water scarce, soil not
acceptable for agricultural use (used for grazing); do not change the Urban Limit Line;
UGB to voters too fast.
Richard Braun - 141 Grevillia (Westridge Knolls); Does not want Petaluma to grow too
large; local government needs to remain accountable; UGB is turning back to people the
power to limit growth; City has experienced urban sprawl; Petaluma has so much
potential, don't spoil it; economic benefits, preserves quality of life; sprawl caused by
political processes; economic growth is needed; need to contain sprawl documented;
compares San Francisco to .Oakland sprawl — developed differently because of UGB;
urban sprawl is an addiction.
David Glass — 41 Oxford Court (Victoria) — In favor of UGB; builder impact fees
supply money to City, but cause long term disability; Councilmembers Torliatt, Maguire,
Hamilton have put this issue on the line; if this idea is a bad one, it will be voted down,
points out positive items in UGB handbook — yes, we have enough information to make
a decision; in -fill development will occur; infrastructure will improve — .development will
occur inwardly; thanks for being a Plannini
g Department — in Los Angeles they have a
Building Department; looking forward to seeing this on the ballot.
Don Weisenfluh - 1092 Wren Drive (Village East) — Petaluma has never had an
Economic Plan; why have builders now asked for an Economic Plan; concern now being
expressed about economic slowing; this process should not be slowed, should be put on
ballot; City can pursue UGB even after it has been voted in; do not deny public right to
vote on this issue.
John Barella - 495 Jasmine Has not had enough time for gathering information;
Pamela Tuft should be commended; attended UGB workshop, many comments indicate
that we are moving too fast, more research; why are we moving so fast on a 20 year
commitment?
Jerry Price — 411 D Street — In favor of voter - mandated UGB; feels concerned about
pressures brought on to members of City Council; believes in property rights, but public
has seen too many cases where pressures are placed by developers; many people are here
tonight because of Cross Creek project — many unacceptable mitigations in that project;
look at motivations; this should be on ballot.
Janice Cader - Thompson — Make sure that we have enough industrial area in City
limits; redevelopment should occur, we do not need urban sprawl for this to occur; look
into future — Fairgrounds is perfect area for redevelopment; some business parks could
6
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
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
be expanded — do not need to go up Frates Road past Ely Road; economic development
plan should be in place; go ahead with ballot measure; there needs to be some
compromise; thanks staff for all their work.
Steve Geney — 22 Benjamin — Just a few months to decide the next 20 years? That is
unbelievable; overwhelming concern at workshops that this process is moving too fast —
why so fast? More research needs to be done; financial impact will be tremendous; Santa
Rosa took over a year to develop a UGB, take time and do this right; encourage City
Council to take their time, look at all aspects.
Doug Dailey - 320 Pleasant Street — Attended both workshops, very well done and
informative; many people are very interested in UGB concept; UGB's are catching
imagination of people, they have a vision of taking control of their destiny — voters are
voting against the process, not against staff and elected officials personally; many people
have environmental concerns; compares auto manufacturing to UGB (competition);
economics is the bottom -line on current building; culture of mediocrity; trying to place
constraints to obtain better quality projects; not against growth, but wants quality growth;
can work within proposed constraints; redevelopment is 91 priority; this will be a
challenge, this will force us to be more creative; there need to be some exceptions to make
this viable; majority of people want to see a UGB.
Bryant Moynihan - 102 Dawn Place — Read letter from Chamber of Commerce
presented to City Council last night; prior to adopting a ballot measure, demonstrate that
the economic impacts are fully thought -out; concerns with speed of this decision; impacts
on quality of life needs to be fully investigated; this document is incomplete; corrupting the
General Plan, modifying Land Use Map; violating Land Use Chapter of General Plan
without modifying the other chapters of the General Plan; Urban Limit Line has only been
modified one time; is GP being corrupted? Not enough information to make an educated
decision.
J.T. Wick —112 5th Street — Attended second UGB workshop — found that this was
moving too fast; in contrast, GP was worked on for two years; respect the planning
process — suggests a compromise decision — adopt a UGB for the balance of the life of
the existing General Plan.
Bill White — 1318 Redwood Way — Office/Industrial Developer — no problem with
UGB but do not be short- sighted in creating it; most of business growth in Sonoma
County has been in Petaluma in high -tech industry in recent past; concern that these
businesses cannot continue growing; attended workshops — questioned land availability
information provided by staff— commercial property is shopping center land — industrial
acreage figures not accurate in that not every site identified is really developable for
employment/R &D use; in -fill and redevelopment is not all that is needed in Petaluma;
businesses need to be able to continue to grow — must allow expanding job growth.
Steve Buckley — 501 E. Washington — Secretary, Petaluma Golf and Country Club —
make, sure that there is enough space for affordable housing, requests that Petaluma Golf
and Country Club be kept where it is (within Urban Limit Line).
Ray Petersen - 636 Gossage; hopes to stay outside of City Limits; growth in south
county needs to be identified and contained in City limits; County needs to place an Urban
Growth Boundary around City limits; do not use a road to determine UGB — look at
Police/Fire response times; Traffic Circulation plan needs to be looked at with County; do
7
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 economic plan on development.
2 Mike Gallagher — 825 Marble — McBail Company — owns property that he would
3 like included in UGB; has built homes in Petaluma for 30 years; if City continues to
4 prosper, boundaries must expand; evolving General Plan should guide development; south
5 boundary should be move out to Ellis Creek area; sufficient land in that area for many uses
6 over next 20 years; stay with General Plan process.
7 Steve Kortum - 180 Ely Road — Petaluma is famous for Growth Plan; UGB should be
8 established before 2005; adopt UGB now, this is what citizens want; this process is not
9 being rushed — Santa Rosa took much longer but they are much larger, growing without
10 much of a plan; if Sonoma County residents pass transportation initiative — it will have
11 much impact on growth in Petaluma; transit oriented pedestrian habitat needs to be
12 developed; Scott property could be a rail station for transit oriented development included
13 in this area.
14
15 The Commission took a short break. Chairperson Thompson continued the St.
16 Vincent's item (Item #2) to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1998.
17
18 Bruce Bower — 645 D Street — Trees — new development always removes trees —
19 causes more flooding; agrees with UGB, economic impact of flooding was not studied;
20 development should stop.
21 Jay Walsh — 4412 Kastania Road — A 20 year moratorium should not be considered,
22 stick with the GP.
23 Linda Buffo — 841 Schuman — Regarding second UGB workshop — proponent of
24 UGB; many questions were asked — many unanswered questions; more time should be
25 spent to answer these questions; how will it be determined where line will go ?; important
26 that you know why lines were drawn where they were ?; do not rush this issue to ballot;
27 continue with more workshops on this topic.
28 Charlie Carsen — 608 Jonas Lane — Homebuilder's Association — Several years ago,
29 issued position paper; Homebuilder's Association supports UGB in concept; concerns
30 with voter initiative of UGB; limits flexibility; in other communities, there were citizen
31 committees, they did not fast -track like Petaluma's; economic impacts have not been
32 addressed; concerns with commercial property tax revenues; very little residential
33 development can occur except in southeast area; take more time for these discussions.
34 Tom Baker 1 Morning Sun Drive — Not opposed to UGB if it. meets our needs;
35 served on GP Committee; endorses J.T. Wick's idea (propose UGB for life of General
36 Plan, then redo or readopt); would like to see plan drawn by as many people as possible;
37 join with Council to draw lines; Character of Petaluma may be changed detrimentally -by
38 inward growth; where will our children live and work ?; as agricultural support businesses
39 are redeveloped, where will they go?
40 Christa Shaw — Northbay Field Representative - Greenbelt Alliance — Key
41 proponent for UGB concept; Healdsburg choose to live within its boundaries, very
42 creative ideas have occurred; UGB's create an incentive for creativity; a UGB can be
43 changed by a vote of the citizens; emotional issue — maximizes City investments in
44 redevelopment; protects quality of life; voters are most broad -based committee available;
45 recommend to City Council adoption of 20 -year UGB, placed near existing Urban Limit
8
Planning Commission Minutes - July 1.1, 1998
1 Line.
2 Tom Scott — 289 Corona Road — Would like to be included within UGB; property
3 already has City water and sewer nearby; vacant land for development — property could
4 support public transit station.
5 John Barella — Any maps missing from those displayed? More people involved the
6 better.
7 Pamela Tuft — Two tabletop exercise maps not posted becauae they didn't have any
8 suggested UGB lines drawn.
9 Chairman Thompson — Would like to hear from Mr. Taylor regarding time -line.
10 Richard Taylor — Time -line in terms of legal requirements — there are no particular
11 time - lines; Commission will make a recommendation tonight to Council.
12 Pamela Tuft — Discussed timing with Council last night — they would like to see this on
13 July 20; County needs this for ballot measure by August 7.
14 Chairman Thompson — How does Commission wish to proceed?
15 Commissioner Broad — What if Council did not meet the August 7 deadline?
16 Richard Taylor — A special election could be held; or a City Municipal election.
17 Commissioner Broad — So, costs would be the factor for special elections.
18 Chairman Thompson — Would it be feasible to state that current Urban Limit Line be
I
19 kept for one year, and then a new boundary and time line would be determined?
20 Commissioner Healy — Is hearing that residential growth level is unacceptable;
21 economic vitality of community needs to be protected; there has not been enough time to
22 fully discuss; concerns with proposal of 20 year UGB is inconsistent with current GP;
23 three proposals — should be for a 20 year term or the first general election after the
24 adoption of a revised GP (preferred option); this must be a very inclusive process —
25 protecting quality of life and economics; UGB should be very close to existing Urban
26 Limit Line with exception that areas near sewer ponds and area adjacent to business park
27 at north end of town be made available for industrial development once remaining
28 inventory of such land drops below level specified in the General Plan. Page 5 of Draft
29 Ordinance — change 'transit- oriented' to 'within 1,500 feet; valid issues raised with
30 specific properties tonight; Varnhagen property — when Williamson Act expires — a new
31 proposal should be made that would not require a GP change.
32 Commissioner Broad — Would like to see a UGB around City; consensus tonight that
33 there should be a boundary; does not want to be rushed into this; does not feel committed
34 by November ballot to reach a decision tonight; should be brought back to voters in April
35 or November of next year; all issues should be fully addressed; look at legislation in effect
36 in Sonoma County (Measure D); give more thought to exceptions suggested in draft; not
37 prepared to draw a line, would like more specific parcel information; if Council feels that
38 they can proceed, would defer; does not feel ready to move on this tonight.
39 Commissioner Vieler — Agrees with Commissioner Broad — not ready to draw a line
40 tonight, suggests going forward with UGB that would be tied to current General Plan;
41 place initiative on ballot, but require development of an Economic Development Plan to
42 return to November year 2000 ballot; adopt current Urban Limit Line as UGB for study
43 and review for year 2000; forward to Council as document tied to current GP; Page 5 —
44 4 /5ths (how does that equal 6 /7ths ?); Page 10, line 25 — explanation?
45 Richard Taylor — Insurance language to insure that City could not be construed as
9
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 violation of State Law.
2 Commissioner Vieler — One reason to advocate getting an initiative (revised) on
3 November ballot, response required because of what is going on now — do research.
4 Commissioner Feibusch — Agrees with Commissioner Broad's statements — Has
5 received input from many sides; some good and some bad aspects — too many "ifs "; time
6 frame too tight — do not rush into this, do it right the first time — too many unanswered
7 questions tonight.
8
9 Commissioner Bennett — Sees three main questions around issues:
10 1. First question: UGBs, Should we have one? Obviously we should, City's had an
11 ULL, it would be insane planning not to have one.
12 2. Next question: Should it be voter - mandated? Had some reservations. But if that is
13 the direction the community is going in, has no problem with it.
14 3. Third question: Is the content of the current proposal and the timing of it
15 appropriate? Has an awful lot of problems with it. If this thing is rushed onto the
16 November ballot, would send it out to a divided community. Regarding discussion tonight
17 about Santa Rosa and Healdsburg UGB, and heard in both instances that a community got
18 together with a general consensus that this was what they wanted. Doesn't hear that
19 consensus here, from the responses from the workshop, or from any level of this —that
20 when it is put out to a vote, the community is ready to move on this. Agreed with
21 Commissioner Healy's earlier statement that there was a concern with residential
22 development. There are still questions that have not yet been dealt with. is mueh tee se en
23 Commission only had 90 days to come up with an answer of how to deal with the next 20
24 years because it is driven by a ballot measure. Heard a tremendous amount of input this
25 evening on why a UGB is needed, which is on point. Has not heard one word to convince
26 him that we have to do it in November; that if we wait 6 months, everything is going down
27 the tubes. Agreed with Doug Daily's comments earlier- "quality vs. quantity" and "getting
28 cheap isn't the way to go because we don't have to pay for an election in November". It is
29 not the answer for planning for this community for the next 20 years. It has to be done
30 right. Has been involved in planning and this commission for 10 years, Commission has
31 won award after award, with outstanding staff, it is one of the most highly regarded
32 planning departments in the state. This is not anything that would make someone say "Boy
33 this looks like they are getting a good deal." Jumping in without knowing the ramifications
34 of what we are proposing. Disagreed with Mr. Weisenfluh's comments regarding the
35 Planning Commission never coming out in favor of economic strategic planning. In 1991
36 or 92 at the last review of the General Plan, this commission on unanimous vote asked the
37 Council to embark on economic strategic planning. That proposal is still sitting on the
38 Council's desk, it has not been acted on. Commission anticipated the last time going
39 through the General Plan that it would be a critical thing to know to ask questions. The
40 point of economic strategic planning is not to do a favor for the developers. Cares about
41 the needs of this community for jobs, housing, fiscal needs of this community to pay
42 government, police, fire and parks down the road. They are all questions that come into
43 play with economic strategic planning because the purpose of planning is not to see how
44 many houses and business parks can be built, it is to determine what this community needs
45 and what the community has to do to get it. It's a collaborative process. That has not been
10
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 done and not happy that it's been sitting on the Council's desk for 7 years, and it's never
2 been acted on. This plan is being rushed through, just when we are on the verge of being
3 70% -in the right direction. With appropriate community participation and proper planning,
4 (Commission and Staff) could come down with a plan, that when it went to the voters,
5 would get that 70% we talked about. There is too much opposition, too many people who
6 haven't got their questions answered, too many issues that haven't even come up. Agreed
7 with :Commissioner Feibusch that when the line is drawn, "put the belt around the waist ",
8 the waist is going to get squeezed. This Commission is talking about density every
9 meeting where there is an infill project. People realize that the empty lot next door is going
10 to have a Granny Unit or another house- everybody goes nuts. Apartment houses, and
11 high density infill are the future projects. This is not a no- growth measure, there is nothing
12 in this document at any level 'that says the community is not going to build more houses
13 once we hit the Urban Limit Line. What happens is building will start going up to protect
14 the character of the town. This measure does not have any provisions whatsoever to keep
15 from impacting the central area of the City. Feathering - one of the things in this document
16 is jumping the lines to do low- income housing. Low - income housing is not one -acre lots,
17 it's high density. The one provision in there for moving across this line is to go high
18 density at the perimeter. Another problem is Item A, page 4; "The City Council may
19 amend the Growth Line" as long as they shrink it. If the City Council of the future cannot
20 be trusted - that's why it's going on the ballot, because the next line of City Council
21 members can not be trusted. If the Community does not trust their judgement for
22 increasing it, do not have a provision in here to trust them to shrink it. Would support a
23 compromise position, as JT Wick said, something on the ballot to freeze it, for 7 years at
24 the current ULL, if the whole point is not trusting our government to do it's job. It's time
25 to go back and do it right. Also supports waiting, if the Commission decides, 6 months to
26 work it out. Does not support drawing a line this evening. There are so many unanswered
27 questions, so much community confusion, so many people at the workshops that say,
28 community does not have enough information. Rushing this through, where this City has
29 always had a remarkable record of quality planning.
30 Commissioner Vieler - Questioned Commissioner Bennett on agreement with J.T.
31 Wick's suggestion regarding 7 year UGB, clarified that Wick had suggested a 7 year UGB
32 that coincided with the ULL that would run with the current General Plan. Agrees with
33 Commissioner Bennett in supporting a 7 year UGB at the ULL.
34 Commissioner Torliatt — Willing to make a decision at July 20 Council meeting.
35 Thanked Commissioners and speakers for their input and recognized importance of the
36 input. Commented this issue is emotional, economic, and there are a variety of things the
37 Commission and Community still need to know. Councilmember Hamilton brought up
38 last night two relevant issues. There are a couple ways of planning. By creating an
39 economic plan and creating an area where your economic plan can work, that means could
40 go outside an ULL, add property to make the economic plan work. What the community
41 is looking at (another type of planning), with the current existing ULL, is drawing a line
42 and planning your community by geography. And saying "we don't want to go all the way
43 to Adobe Road, and we don't want to go over the hill and through the woods ", past
44 Windsor Avenue @ Western Avenue. Considered this point relevant because when
45 viewing the City from other areas in the community that are higher up- the City is in a
11
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 pocket, in a basin. It's a beautiful area, and if growth continues to grow outside of current
2 Urban Limit Line to a large extent, there will be some degradation in the quality of life. In
3 1987, a lot of the building hadn't gone on the east side of Petaluma, the hayfields out
4 there, all of the agricultural land that the City has already taken up is forgotten. Another
5 issue that Council Member Hamilton brought up was that when she was elected to the
6 City Council the first time around, 6 years ago, she had brought up the idea of an Urban
7 Growth Boundary and she had fought to get that issue on the Council agenda.
8 Councilmember Hamilton really had to push that issue and she said there was about a 10-
9 minute discussion; there was no interest in an Urban Growth Boundary. At this point in
10 time the City Council has a Council that is receptive to an UGB and it is an important
11 issue because that a majority of citizens will support an UGB. There may be a Council in
12 the future that doesn't want to listen to an UGB and the majority of the citizens. If this is
13 put on the ballot, if the citizens don't want an Urban Growth Boundary, they are not going
14 to vote for it. The Commission and Council are not making the decision for them, they're
15 making the decision themselves. Liked Commissioner Healy's idea of adding provision in
16 measure indicating after General Plan amendment is done that UGB will be looked at
17 again. Would like to look at the legal ramifications of the offer, and see whether there
18 could be that type of provision in the measure. After a General Plan is adopted then an
19 UGB will be looked at to coincide with a new General Plan. Will have further comments
20 on Monday night at the next City Council meeting.
21 Commissioner Thompson — Stated felt approval on the Commission in favor of an
22 UGB. Doesn't think public is yet in consensus on the length of time a UGB would be
23 effective; public process would be long as the public is concerned with it, thinks it is
24 important, and wants to be involved in it. Questioned Planning Director on status of
25 General Plan update.
26 Pamela Tuft — Midterm review was approved by the City Council late last year; started
27 vacant land inventory work. With the questions that came up on the Rainier project most
28 recently by the Council, Council directed staff, rather than undertake a minor remodeling
29 or midterm review of the General Plan, to prepare a work schedule/ tentative budget for
30 undertaking a whole new General Plan. City Manager has formed a GP Executive Team
31 that consists of 8 department heads and is beginning to meet every other week. Has
32 organized a list of projects and prepared a matrix and timeframe, ranging from the Fire
33 Master Plan, the Rainier project to the Wastewater, to the UGB; has a 7 page matrix
34 showing the status report of all 35 efforts. Starting to pull those in to get a handle on all
35 the long -range efforts being worked on by the departments. Will be working on a schedule
36 this summer to bring back to the Council.
37 Chairman Thompson — Suggested the City Council talk to staff about implementing a
38 UGB line in the new General Plan, whenever that would be. Would like to speed that
39 process up. To take care of anyone's problem with worrying if the ULL would be
40 expanded, would put UGB on the ballot and have it for the shortest time possible till the
41 new GP and a permanent UGB can be put in. Does not want this issue to become another
42 problem; pitting the environmentalists against the developers. At the election time there
43 would be some campaigning problems, spending a lot of money unnecessarily on a
44 campaign both for and against. The Council should be concerned about that, trying to
45 bring the community together. Trying to say we're going to put a 20 year boundary on
12
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 here right now, and worry about it afterwards, is not the way to approach it. Public
2 process needs to be completed. Regarding the draft, cannot begin to even talk about
3 exceptions, doesn't know what's available on the inside portion of the Boundary; where
4 we'll go with housing, commercial businesses, and that needs to be worked through. It
5 seems the Council wants to work very fast with this; hope that they could work fast on a
6 permanent UGB where everyone is involved.
7 Commissioner Broad — Agrees with Chairman Thompson; would support UGB with
8 short time frame (shorter than 20 years) if the exception clause would be written more
9 tightly.
10 Commissioner Healy — Questioned staff regarding the importance of County Measure D
11 to the current issue.
12 Pamela Tuft — Preservation of Community Separators in Petaluma is conservative —
13 would like to see alignment of Urban Limit Line with County Community Separator to
14 avoid County approved land uses in the area between the urbanized City and the County
.15 community separators.
16 Commissioner Torliatt — Asked staff about gaps between the County Community
17 Separator and the City Urban Limit Line, and the County procedure to allow parcels
18 outside of the Urban Limit Line and inside the County Separator to join with the County
19 Separator lands.
20 Commissioner Vieler — Recounted the recent request of the Scott property to become
21 part of the County Separator area and subsequent rejection because they did not meet the
22 criteria.
23 Commissioner Bennett — Dissention may be due to terminology — Suggested
24 "moratorium on development and annexation" meaning no urban development beyond
25 the existing ULL until the General Plan update.
26 Commissioner Healy — County could consider moratorium on development outside of
27 Urban Limit Line until a new General Plan is in place.
28 Commissioner Broad — Dissension is over whether to place the ballot measure on the
29 November ballot or not. Does not want to rush to the November vote with the UGB issue.
30 Commissioner Bennett — There is a lack of consensus now on the timing and duration
31 of the UGB.
32 Chairman Thompson — There is substantial opposition in the community now to a 20
33 year UGB and does not want to put it on the November ballot but would like to continue
34 to work on it for a 1999 ballot.
35 Pamela Tuft — Recapped the issues on which the Commission seemed to have a
36 consensus — Commission has a consensus on wanting an Urban Growth Boundary, but is
37 divided on when it should be voted on and how long it should remain in effect. Three ideas
38 for how to structure the measure — as a 7 year UGB at the ULL on the ballot in 1999; a
39 shorter term measure in November with tighter restrictions to be in place until the General
40 Plan update; and a measure with tighter exceptions to remain in effect for 20 years until a
41 new Urban Growth Boundary takes its place.
42
43
44
45
13
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
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
47
IV. ST. VINCENT HIGH SCHOOL; 849 Keokuk Street, APN 006 -021 -026 (dh).
Consideration of approval for a variance to allow a reduction of the required off -
street parking (155 spaces instead of 213 spaces) in order to preserve riparian
habitat and mature oaks on Magnolia Avenue site.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 28, 1998.
V. PEP SENIOR APARTMENTS; 167 Edith Street; APN 007 - 057 -033.
Consideration of and recommendation to City Council regarding Mitigated
Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation
from Urban Standard to Urban high, and.Rezone from R1 - 6,500 to PUD to allow
development of 23 low- income senior apartments.
Vincent Smith, Principal Planner presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Marilee Blonski - 148 Edith Lived in this neighborhood for many years; flooding
concerns; this year flooding was very bad, still has standing water in back yard; not
opposed to providing low income senior housing, just concerns in this neighborhood.
Julie English - 149 Edith — Flooding concerns; this winter was particularly bad; density
of proposed project is very high; lot has.a definite habitat — vegetation soaking up a lot of
water; there will be a lot of run -off with large parking lot; will change cultural -scale on
street; lower density.
Jeff Washer - 155 Edith — Flooding concerns — 8 -10 inches of standing water on
property this winter; sump pumps operate continuously; main concerns are drainage —
don't believe anyone can guarantee drainage can be adequately addressed; high impact for
this neighborhood; basically single- family dwellings now.
Tony Malgeri — 150 Edith — This is an established neighborhood; structure imposing;
will affect overall charm of neighborhood; more study regarding drainage, flooding; scale
down structure, more consistent with residential design.
Kirby Overcash - 110 Edith — Not opposed to project; concerns with flooding — needs
to be addressed, more information needed; natural drainage will be taken away; zoning
concerns, precedence; community confidence important — believes PEP being sincere —
needs to know that what is being presented can be trusted; dumpsters next to this project
are have been there over two years — confidence level with City going down; would like to
see this project go forward, but do not compromise this neighborhood;
John Fitzgerald — Project Engineer — Discussed flooding and outlined solution to on-
site and area flooding. The site is above the 100 year flood delineated area; ran prelim
figures on runoff on site as is, and post development to identify impacts associated with 25
year storm - the project will create approximately 400 gallons_ per minute in street.
Solution is to allow runoff to run over open land (landscaping) to slow off -site flow
14
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 volumes and allow percolation into soil; also provides on -site retention through pipes
2 under site, then storage would be pumped out after peak storm event; also on -site ponds
3 designed; also off -site street drainage improvements to be constructed by development to
4 improve existing on- street flow characteristics.
5 Commissioner Healy — Page 7 of Initial Study, would like to see calculations for flow
6 volumes after curb improvements.
7 John: Fitzgerald — Inlets designed along northerly side of project to address existing
8 obvious ponding of storm water on adjacent sites.
9 Commissioner Healy — Base storm flows, when would it jump the curb?
10 Commissioner Feibusch — If required to meet storm flow needs, will the development be
11 under the requirement to install the underground storm drainage system?
12 John Fitzgerald — When Washington Street was improved, the City opted to allow storm
13 drainage from East Washington Street to continue to flow on- street toward the river.
14 Commissioner Torliatt — No storm system under East Washington? Under Madison?
15 Westward, where is it?
16 John Fitzgerald — Explained existing physical improvements in area. Lakeville at "D"
17 and Lakeville at Washington have improved systems — the rest of the area was designed to
18 flow within the street toward the river.
19 Commissioner Torliatt — Designed on -site capacity at 2000 gallons? Is there a large
20 price differential to increase pipe size?
21 John'Fitzgerald — Looked at maximum possible to storm on -site; still looking at options.
22 Might use larger pipes, still looking at needs. Could increase, but that might not be the
23 desired solution.
24 Commissioner Thompson — Has this site flooded during the past flood events?
25 John Fitzgerald — No.
26 Bonne Gaebler — Solution may be to write into conditions of approval — if on -site storage
27 does not design to adequate standards (Engineering Dept.), then the project could
28 improve the off -site drainage improvements.
29 Commission Agreed with suggested solution.
30 Commissioner Thompson — SPARC review yet? (answer: no). Needs to provide
31 additional screening, architectural quality.
32 Commissioner Broad — Drainage issue needs to be addressed by Engineering Dept.
33 before Council consideration. SPARC review should include looking at overall site layout
34 and architectural to insure integration of project into neighborhood, particularly the
35 western edge abutting residential uses — further break up the massing of the structure.
36 SPARC should look at the cupola element for appropriateness.
37 Commissioner Healy — Spoke to Jim Webb, Heritage Homes, regarding looking at the
38 old house. Jim Webb feels that the house may date back to 1850 — 1860s; could be a real
39 pioneer house. There may be opportunities to relocate and restore — perhaps to public
40 property to allow access by the public. Please add language to facilitate this option.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Bennett
43 to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on
44 the findings below.
45
46
15
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1 (Discussion) - Commissioner Feibusch - clarify drainage calculations - if OK then keep as
2 is, if not, then the development would improve the piping. Bonne Gaebler - this can be
3 solved in- house.
4
5 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
6 Commissioner Broad: Yes
7 Commissioner Healy: Yes
8 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
9 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
10 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
11 Chairman Thompson: Yes
12
13 Findings for Neizative Declaration
14
15 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
16 CEQA and local guidelines.
17
18 2. Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, potential impacts could
19 be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached
20 as conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as
21 conditioned would have a significant effect on the environment.
22
23 3. A monitoring program has been included to ensure compliance with the adopted
24 mitigation measures.
25
26 4. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in
27 the Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from
28 the Fish and Game filing fees because the project is not located near any of the
29 resources and is proposed on an infill site surrounded by urban development, with
30 none of the resources existing on the site.
31
32 5. The project is not located on a site listed on any hazardous Waste Site List
33 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
34
35 6. The City Council reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and considered
36 the comments before making a decision on the project.
37
38 7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
39 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
40 Petaluma, CA
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Vieler to
43 recommend to the City Council approval of a General Plan Land Use Amendment from
44 Urban Standard to Urban High (including density bonus), a rezone from. R -1 6,500 to
45 Planned Unit Development, and approval of the proposed PUD Development Plan based
46 on the findings and subject to the Mitigation Measures and conditions listed below.
47
48 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
49 Commissioner Broad: Yes
50 Commissioner Healy: Yes
16
Planning Conunission Minutes - Jul} 14, 1998
1. Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
2 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
3 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
4 Chairman Thompson: Yes
5
6 Findings for General Plan Land Use Amendment
7
8 1. The proposed amendment and density bonus to a threshold of 30 dwelling units
9 per acre are deemed to be in the public interest, because the project will provide
10 safe, affordable housing for low - income seniors; will address current drainage
11 problems on site; and the new construction and site improvements will add to the
12 character of the existing neighborhood.
13
14 2. The proposed General Plan amendment and density bonus are consistent,
15 compatible with, and implement several goals and policies of the Petaluma General
16 Plan with regard to affordable low and very-low income senior housing.
17
18 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment and density bonus have been
19 assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health,
20 safety or welfare based on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
21 prepared 6/23/98.
22
23 4. The proposed amendment and density bonus have been processed in accordance
24 with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the
25 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
26
27 5. The granting of the density bonus to a maximum threshold of 30 dwelling units per
28 acre is given to the benefit of providing affordable housing to senior citizens; there
29 is an Addendum to the Grant Deed to provide that the proposed use on this
30 property shall remain in perpetuity.
31
32 Findings for Rezone
33
34 1. Said plan clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical
35 environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
36 combination of zoning districts.
37
38 2. The PUD district is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one
39 or more thoroughfares (Edith and East Washington Streets); and said
40 thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the
41 development.
42
43 3. The natural and scenic qualities of this urban site are protected, with adequate
44 available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan.
45
46 4. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant,
47 will not be detrimental to the public welfare; will be in the best interests of the
48 City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning
49 regulations of the City of Petaluma and with the Petaluma General Plan because
50 the project provides housing consistent with the City's housing objectives and
51 goals, and the project will be located on a site near services and a bus route.
17
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
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
47
48
49
50
51
52
5. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed,by the applicant
and conditionally approved, shall continue to provide affordable housing for low
and very Street low- income elderly, as required by the Addendum to the Grant
Deed.
PUD Development Plan
Planning Commission Additional Conditions of Approval:
1.
2.
Mitigation. Measures:
1. Grading, drainage and improvement plans shall include measures to mitigate soil
erosion as established in Title 17 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
2. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
3. Watering of the site to reduce airborne dust levels shall be implemented if dust
generated during the grading process threatens to travel off -site due to wind
currents.
4. All motor - powered equipment shall be properly equipped with .systems to reduce
emissions and shall be shut down if not in use. Haul trucks carrying dirt on or off -
site shall be covered with tarps.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide curb water
calculations based on Sonoma County Water Agency criteria to the City's
Engineering Department. If the calculations show that the flow rate in the curb
exceeds the Sonoma County Water Agency criteria, then the public storm drain
will need to be extended from the intersection of Madison and Edith 'Streets to the
project site.
6. If applicable, Fossil Filters, or the equivalent, shall be installed at all storm drain
inlets in parking and circulation areas. Filters shall be maintained per
manufacturer's instructions. Confirmation of filter maintenance and replacement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department on - an annual basis. As an
alternative, street runoff should be conveyed through vegetated swales or retained
in small detention basin or swales which serve to filter and absorb sediment and
chemical constituents in urban runoff prior to entering a storm drain.
7. If applicable, permanent signs shall be installed at all drop inlets to the public storm
drain system which prohibit the deposit of hazardous materials into the system and
notify the public that the drain flows to the river. Said signs shall be installed prior
18
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
1
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2
3
8.
Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
4
through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday; none on Sunday and holidays
5
recognized by the City of Petaluma.
6
7
9.
The vehicles and/or equipment used for the project shall be required to comply
8
with all vehicle codes and City Performance Standards pertaining to noise, as
9
applicable, including the use of mufflers to reduce the noise from the construction
10
equipment. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
11
12
10.
The site plan, landscape plan and building elevations are subject to the review and
13
approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) prior to
14
issuance of a building permit. The plans, once approved by SPARC, shall become
15
the PUD development plan for the project site.
16
17
11.
The project shall be subject to the City's Special Development Fees as specified for
18
traffic mitigation.
19
20
12.
i The project shall be subject to the City's Special Development Fees for public
21
services as specified in adopted legislation.
22
23
13.
The project developer shall be required to pay for water and sewer connections as
24
established in the City's Special Development Fee handout.
25
26
14.
In the event that archaeological/historical remains are encountered during grading,
27
work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to
28
evaluate the artifacts and to recommend further action. The identified Native
29
American community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any
30
archaeological remains are identified. If human remains are found, the County
31
Coroner shall be notified immediately.
32
33
15.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project sponsor shall publicly notice
34
the availability of materials for salvage by any interested parties.
35
36 Conditions of Approval:
37
38 From the Planning Department:
39
40 1. The project sponsor shall execute a binding agreement with the City of Petaluma
41 insuring that the occupancy of the 23 units shall be held in perpetuity for low and
42 very-low income persons 62 years of age or older prior to issuance of a building
43 permit.
44
45 2. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water
46 Agency's Design Criteria.
47
48 3. Within five (5) days of the date of City Council approval of the General Plan
49 amendment and rezone, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a
50 check in the amount of $35.00 made out to the Sonoma County Clerk for the
51 Notice of Determination filing fee.
19
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
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
47
48
49
50
From the Engineering Department:
4. At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide a detailed
grading plan, dimensioned site plan and utility plan completed by a civil engineer to
the Engineering Department.
5. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter across parcel frontage and install city
standard sidewalk along parcel frontage.
From the Building Division: .
6. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved
plans and will be required for occupancy.
7. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured.
8. Soils with expansion index greater than. 20 requires special design foundation per
Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
9. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UBC must be
followed.
10. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
11. Show site drainage and grading topography.
12. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
13. Responsible party to sign plans.
14. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
15. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
16. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1993 NEC. Plans
must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation and/or
Disabled Access Requirements.
17. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
18. Demolition permit required to remove any structure.
From the Fire Marshal:
19. Provide one fire extinguisher, 2Al0BC type, for each 3,000 square feet of floor
space, and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
20. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum of four (4) inch letters on
contrasting background.
20
Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1998
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
47
21. Address locator required to be posted at or near the driveway entrance.
Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. Location and design to be approved by the
Fire Marshal's office.
22. Provide KNOX box for Fire Department access on the building. Application for
the box can be obtained from the Fire Marshal's office. Box location shall be
approved by the Fire Marshal.
23. The buildings shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
24. Provide to the Fire Marshal's office, a minimum of two (2) sets of fire sprinkler
plans and calculations for approval and issuance of permit prior to installation of
system.
25. Provide a fire alarm system for all residential buildings 3 or more stories in height
or containing 16 or more dwelling units in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code.
26. Provide smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms and common hallways. Detectors
shall be provided hardwired with battery backup. Electrical circuits supplying
detectors shall be separate dedicated lines with no other devices on the circuits.
27. Permit required from the Fire Marshal's office for alarm system alteration prior to
commencement of work on the system; two sets of plans are required to be
submitted for review and approval.
28. Provide electrical conduit from post indicator valve to alarm panel location for
tamper switch as underground improvements are being installed.
29. Contractor shall provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement of
work.
30. A two -inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and riser at
foundation and floor slab.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
VI. HOLMBERG UPDATE.
This item was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting to allow public input.
VII. LIAISON REPORTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 AM
jt\c`minutesVnin07146.doc
21
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
47
48
49
50
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 1998
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
CITY HALL, PETALUMA, CA
Commissioners Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch, Healy, Thompson *, Torliatt, Vieler
Staff: Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
: Cha;rpersoc,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
MINUTES OF July 14, 1998, were reviewed and changes were noted.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Welcomed re- appointees: Commissioners Broad and
Feibusch.
COMNIISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt also welcomed re- appointees.
City Council agenda: Update on School District property.
Status report on Putnam Plaza.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter with exhibits and binder of pictures (350 ±) submitted by
Peter Pfendler.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT` Was noted on the agenda.
CONTINUED COMMISSION BUSINESS
I. HOLMBERG UPDATE
(Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 1998.)
DISCUSSION: -
John Chaney / 55 Rocca Drive -- Showed a tape from a 1993 Planning Commission
meeting which relayed past flooding events, lack of response and non - compliance to
condition of approval by Alan Holmberg. Flooding in February was completely different;
415 cubic yards of fill was placed on site. Philip Wadsworth with SWCA could not define
a HEC -2 analysis to him. Holmberg has not fully complied with the CUP conditions of
approval. Stated Joe Kagan had permits for four years without taking action on requiring
installation of the check valve. The lack of this check valve may have contributed to the
Planning Commission Minutes - July 28, 1998 1
1 extent of flooding this past winter. Stated that Jane Thomson of the Planning staf
2 informed him that it appeared that everything would be OK and Alan Holmberg would be
3 able to keep his Conditional Use Permit valid since he has now met his conditions of
4 approval.
5 Craig Spaulding -- Presented update from 1994 plan reviewed by SCWA.
6 John Chaney -- Another 40 yard dump truck was brought in recently. Area had a 30 -50
7 year 'event in February. Answer to his concerns is inadequate. Doesn't care about 10 year
8 storm; the river was down but flooding occurred due to lack of a check valve; the City
9 didn'it re- inspect the work.
to Mark Bernardi — Holmberg — Indicated his recent participation in the Holmberg
11 business; relayed the activity completed to date to clean up the site, complete the
12 landscaping and grade, and improve the surface drainage patterns on the Holmberg
13 property.
14 Commissioner Healy — (Question to Craig Spaulding) Could the check valve be
15 accelerated as part of the Army Corps of Engineers project?
16 Craig Spaulding -- Has not reviewed the topo between Holmberg and Chaney. In his
17 opinion, if the check valve is in you will still have flooding.
18 Chairman Thompson — Asked if the check valve could be investigated.
19 Commissioner Torliatt — Questioned Building Permit status. Asked whether a check
20 vale was included on plans. (Answer: No.)
21 John Chaney -- Back yards were being flooded in peak storms.
n check valve potential and timing.
22 Chairman Thompson — Would like an answer o
23 Commissioner Torliatt — Questioned timing of the Army Corps of Engineers project.
24 Craig Spaulding -- Will check with Tom Hargis on timing and whether check valve could
25 be provided now.
26 Commissioner Bennett — Not the least bit happy with lack of compliance; time to push
27 back; wants full compliance to the letter of the law and zero tolerance.
28
29 Issue carried over to the August 11, 1998, agenda.
30
31
32 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
33
34 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ENTAL REPORT,, MANAGEMENT AND RELATED GENERAL
35 ENVIRO
36 PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS
37
38 Continued consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report, Draft Park
39 Management Plan, and related General Plan Text Amendments.
40
41 Pamela Tuft, Planning Director summarized the process to date.
42
43 DISCUSSION:
44 Chairman Thompson — Called for each Commissioner to state their positions.
45 Commissioner Healy — Would like to see written staff comments. Commented on
46 following four issues:
47 1) Law Violations Extent to which EIR showed consideration of law violations (illegal
48 parking, smoking, bootleg trails, poaching fish and turtles, dogs, arson, and
49 trespassing). Questioned to what extent do the Commission needs to address
50 potential law violations and whether they would be incorporated in the body of the
51 proposal, or as a side issue.
Planning Commission Minutes - July 28, 1998
1 2) Fire Issues (CDF Fire Battalion Chief Sprague letter) Changed inputs into computer
2 program got different results. Concerned with statement that when results of the
3 program contradict with seasoned professional intuition, should go with intuition.
4 3) Additional Fire Mitigation Measures Suggested interior mowing just beyond
5 perimeter and fire breaks within the property.
6 4) Noise Ordinance (Saemon letter) Would like to use County and City standards to
7 evaluate noise impacts.
8
9 Commissioner Torliatt — Agreed with comments raised at the joint meeting with Parks
10 and Recreation. EIR is well written due to the Lafferty Access Committee taking many
11 hours to make sure all issues were addressed in a thorough manner.
12 Commissioner Bennett — Road conditions are a public safety issue. Discussion got off
13 track onto standards rather than public safety. Would like to see additional mitigations for
14 the road. Was concerned with first EIR and incomplete fire information. Pleased to see the
15 additional fire comments, feels more comfortable with it now.
16 Commissioner Thompson — Suggests taking a harder look at the fire issue this time.
17 Unclear with response time to parking lot — with winds blowing from the west, where the
18 fire would be when response arrived? Are 4 -wheel drive vehicles available when needed to
19 fight fire in that location? A good comprehensive management plan is needed to manage
20 fuels. ( "Do we disc, graze, burn ? ") Would like more information on Steelhead issue, and
21 to respond to turtle issue. Average slope seemed steeper than 10 %. Road is public safety
22 issue that needs to be addressed.
23 Commissioner Feibusch — Draft EIR was pretty complete, but asked for input from Fire
24 agencies. Commissioners are lay people not experts in fire suppression - should listen to
25 the professionals, and not take a chance on public safety.
26 Commissioner Vieler Contacted Wes Sprague (CDF); he is available to speak to the
27 Planning Commission on CDF input and fire issues. Suggested Sprague should participate
28 at the Planning Commission review of FEIR.
29 Commissioner Broad — Public comments were interesting. Some comments were right
30 on point and very sincere while some are obviously from someone with an ax to grind. All
31 will be addressed.
32 Commissioner Vieler - Concern with 90 feet at the northern boundary, where signage is
33 to be placed. Is this the same property which is in dispute?
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch
36 to forward the Draft EIR and Management Plan to the City Council for review and
37 completion of responses to the comments received prior to review of a final EIR by the
38 Planning Commission.
39
40 Commissioner Bennett: Aye
41 Commissioner Broad: Aye
42 Commissioner Feibusch: Aye
43 Commissioner Healy: Aye
44 Chairman Thompson: - Aye
45 Commissioner Torliatt: Aye
46 Commissioner Vieler Aye
47
48
49 III. ST. VINCENT HIGH SCHOOL; 849 Keokuk Street, APN 006 - 021 -026 (dh).
50
Planning Commission Minutes - July 28, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Consideration of a variance to allow a reduction of the required off - street parking
(155 spaces instead of 213 spaces) in order to preserve riparian habitat and mature
oaks on Magnolia Avenue site.
Continued to the August 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
IV. LIAISON REPORTS
Bike. Committee meeting 6 PM Wednesday to review the Administrative Draft of the
Bike'Plan.
Commissioner Healy- CPSP — Advisory Committee has agreed to put away illustrative
plan and focus on Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Torliatt — Would like on next agenda: Goals and Liaison appointments
to Committees (SPARC, Bike Committee, CPSP, CRSP, SPBSP, Tree Committee;
SCWA)
ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 PM
Planning Commission Minutes - July 28, 1998
s:\p0minutesVnin0728.aoc
4