HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/09/19961
2 City Of Petaluma
3
4 Planning Commission Minutes
5
6 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 1996
7 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
8 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
9
to PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
12 ROLL CALL: Present: Feibusch, Rahman*, Torliatt, Wick; Absent: Barlas, Thompson,
13 vonRaesfeld
14
15 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
16 James McCann, Principal Planner
17
18 * !Chairman
19
20
21 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 5 were continued to Planning
22 Commission meeting of January 23; Minutes of December 12, 1995 were approved as
23 submitted.
24
' 25 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
26
27 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Presented Planning Dep Mission Statement; advised
28 Planning Commission of pending Joint Use Agreements between City of Petaluma and
29 Waugh and Old Adobe Union School Districts to allow joint use of facilities to be
30 developed within City's Urban Separator per the C„t�ona/Ely Specific Plan policies.
31 Brought the Planning Commission up -to -date on the telecommunication facilities
32 regulations; discussed possible Corona Reach/River Plan field trip - tentatively scheduled
33 for January 30th at 3:30 PM.
34
35 COMMSSIONER'S REPORT: Chairman Rahman requested Director Tuft to speak to
36 City Attorney regarding potential conflict of interest on telecommunication regulations;
37 Commissioner Torliatt indicated Novato has undertaken work on the subject
38 (telecommunications); Chairman Rahman inquired of the status of the Petaluma Blvd. S.
39 Specific Plan and whether the Plan will taken an active role in incorporating transit
40 improvements into the planned public improvements. Planning Director Tuft responded.
41
42 CORRESPONDENCE: Corrected Draft Minutes of December 5, 1995.
43
44 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
45
46 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
47
48
49
50
51
1
2 OLD BUSINESS
3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
4
5 L CROSS CREEK; ELY ROAD AT CA
SA GRANDE; AP N ®• 017 - 050 -001;
6 (SPC0068 /tp).
7
8 Continued consideration of a proposed 225 -unit detached single - family subdivision
9 on 96 acres, and request for comments on the Draft Initial Study. The project
10 includes applications for: 1) annexation of 96 acres; 2) General Plan Amendment
11 to expand the Urban Limit Line eastward to incorporate 46 additional acres; an 3
12 General Plan Amendment to designate 46 acres of annexed property as
13 Separator and redesignate 11.4 acres from Urban Separator to Urban Standard; 4)
14 Prezoning of 50 acres to PUD and 48.5 acres to Urban Separator; 5) approval of a
15 Pretentative Subdivision Map to create 225 detached single -family lots on 47.5
16 acres and one Urban Separator parcel comprising 48.5 acres.
17
18 Continued from November 28, 1995. Applicant requests continuance to February
19 13, 1996.
20
21 Commission agreed to continue this public hearing to February 13, 1996 at 7:00
22 PK
23
24
25 NEW BUSINESS
26
27 IL Criteria for determinations per Business and Professions Code Section
28 23958.4; City of Petaluma; File WRK95021 /jcm.
29
30 Discussion and recommendation to the City Council of criteria to be utilized in
31 determining "public convenience or necessity" for new licenses in areas identified
32 by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as having an "undue
33 concentration" of licensed facilities.
34
35 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
36
37 The public hearing was opened.
38
39 DISCUSSION:
40
41 Chairman Rahman - Would Petaluma be the first city in California to adopt this type of
42 criteria ?; observation - opportunity for a win/win situation - could the two sides come to a
43 consensus on the remaining points given a little more time?
44 Police Chief DeWitt - Staff presentation excellent; noted that an ABC license is a privilege
45 granted by State, strongly supports "areas of agreement" in the staff report 3:a through g;
2
v
fl
n
Police would rather identify and work out problems in advance - turn- around could be 7-
10 days through Police Department; criteria need to create a balance to community, fair
and objective.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 offere
8 Santa
9
10
11
12
1 Naudon - ABC District Administrator - Petaluma is not the first city in this
to develop criteria - cities of Sonoma and Santa Rosa are completely "on- board ";
L legislation is two- pronged - high crime and/or public convenience and necessity;
to be a resource to Planning Commission and staff; described procedure in place in
:osa and Sonoma.
an Rahman - Sounds like Santa Rosa and Sonoma have "procedures" rather than
C; procedures are different than what is being discussed here.
ssioner Feibusch - Requested clarification of procedures in Santa Rosa and
13 Michael Naudon - Police Departments make recommendations and pass information to
14 ABC; intent of the Caldera legislation is to allow communities to have more say in
15 establishment of these types of establishments.
16 Commissioner Torliatt - (to Mr. Naudon) - If the City of Petaluma stated that they did not
17 approve of an application, what would ABC do?
18 Michael Naudon - ABC would deny the application.
19 Michael Sparks - 37 Eastside Circle - Representing TAPP - Regarding
20 disagreement/agreement between groups - there have been a lot of areas of compromise -
21 some areas have not been agreed on; don't know if any more agreement could be reached;
22 there will be a meeting in Sacramento next month to put together set of criteria for
23 procedures to run through League of California Cities; most areas of State do not have a
24 group .like TAPP; work done here will be part of the effort in Sacramento; 3 key areas of
25 concert to TAPP in regard to determinations of public convenience or necessity - 1) Who
26 should I make determinations - TAPP feels it should be City Council (at least in the
27 beginning), then Planning Commission after the process is worked out; 2) Establishment
28 of specific process - problem is function of number of outlets, density is factor
29 contributing to crime; 3) Process should be well - defined - clear detailed standards - 1,300'
3o distance requirement between establishments (not including restaurants); Police should
31 review ,businesses; TAPP not against all proposals - only those in specific areas where
32 there are documented problems (downtown area).
33 Bryant (Moynihan - 111 Post Street - More agreements than disagreements in last meeting;
34 few disagreements with staff report; recommended revised criteria (presented a .graphic);
35 many people who are interested in this topic were unable to attend; six or seven census
36 tracts areas in Petaluma have an undue concentration under current definition; process
37 should ,1not be too complicated; there is already a CUP process; shouldn't be a series of
3s hurdles, should be able to be handled administratively by staff with appeal process; Police
"39 should comment on all proposals; disagrees with proximity requirements as proposed by
40 TAPP; .density itself shouldn't be a question; believes TAPP and "non -TAPP" groups
41 could agree on staff recommendations.
42 Commissioner Torliatt - (to Mr. Moynihan) Do you agree with points of agreement in
43 staff report?
44 Bryant Moynihan - Disagree with 3.a,c.d, in staff report - these items were not agreed
45 upon.
3
1 Mike Healy - 304 Kentucky - Would like guidance from Planning Commission on how
2 specific criteria should be; does not like word "criteria" - should be "guidelines";
3 demographics is very important in this issue.
4 Jeff Harriman - Petaluma Downtown Association - many people have worked hard to
5 establish successful downtown; problems with 3.a.; doesn't believe that fiu talks with
6 TAPP would be productive at this time.
7
8 The public hearing was closed.
9
to Chairman Rahman - If the City adopts criteria before meetings in Sacramento - can we
11 subsequently revisit this?
12 Planning Director Tuft - Yes.
13 Commissioner Torliatt - Many good points brought up tonight - 1300' issue needs to be
14 addressed; wants to see Chief DeWitt involved; downtown needs to remain economically
15 viable; where does City overlap with ABC - will ABC be able to use some of our
16 information?
17 Commissioner Rahman - Need to consider the determination of public convenience or
18 necessity and the CUP at same time.
19 Commissioner Wick - Suggestions - these items should be looked at as guidelines instead
20 of criteria (as Mr. Healy suggested); identified a number of suggestions for staff to
21 develop.
22 Commissioner Feibusch - Guidelines should be kept as general as possible; wants to see
23 Santa Rosa/Sonoma criteria before further input; hasn't had enough time to look at this;
24 should look into possible Caldera legislation revisions.
25 Principal Planner McCann - Spoke with Assemblyman Caldera's office - no additional
26 information is available at this time, they will send any information on changes..
27 Commissioner Rahman - Won't matter if we make a decision tonight or wait until after
28 more information is received.
29 Commissioner Rahman - Requested staff to contact Santa Rosa and Sonoma and provide
30 any information that they have regarding criteria/procedures.
31
32 This item was continued to January 23, 1996.
33
34
35 M. COFFEE KIOSKS; City of Petaluma; File WRK95037 /jcm.
36
37 Discussion of recent interest/proposals to establish coffee kiosks at several
38 locations in town.
39
40 Principal Planner McCann presented the_ staff report.
41
42 There were no speakers.
43
44
45
4
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
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Feibusch - When authorizing an Administrative CUP, is there a definition of
food allowed to be served?
Principal Planner McCann - Yes, type/extent of food served is specified through
Administrative CUP.
Consensus that problems that might be associated with this type of CUP are of a minor
nature and staff should continue to authorize these uses administratively with emphasis
placed on areas identified in the staff report.
IV. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Kodiak Jack's (appeal) - Appeal resolved with some amendments to the
Conditional Use Permit conditions.
2. McNear Landing - Continued to January 16 City Council meeting (will
return to Planning Commission prior to SPARC).
3. Ellwood Opportunity Center - Appealed to January 16 City Council
meeting.
4. Cleaver Zoning Ordinance Exception - Appealed to January 16 City
Council meeting.
ADJOURN TO THE CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM FOR:
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
STUDY SESSION':
V. A brainstorming discussion of Commission and staff roles and a general
discussion of operational processes and practices.
This discussion was rescheduled to a date uncertain, but possibly January 30 (after River
Tour/Field Trip) to allow a full Commission to be present.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 PM.
min0109 / plan65
E