[00:00:03]
UH, WE ARE GONNA GET THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT EXACTLY SIX O'CLOCK.
UM, VERY EXCITED FOR THE FIVE FOLKS WE HAVE IN ATTENDANCE WITH US TONIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO FIRST BEGIN BY ASKING OUR CLERK TO CALL US TO ROLL.
UH, NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS AND ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO UP TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.
DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
TIME WILL BE ALLOCATED IN EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES.
UM, OPENING GENERAL COMMENT AND ASKING IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME UP AND BRING A SPEAKER CARD TO THE CLERK.
I HAD A FEELING I JUST WANT TO ASK THE CLERK IF WE'VE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ONLINE PRIOR TO THE MEETING WE RECEIVED.
NO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS, UH, PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUE WITH OUR AGENDA.
WE HAVE NO PRESENTATIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING,
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
SO WE WILL MOVE NEXT TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.AND WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING NOVEMBER 28TH, 2023.
ARE THERE ANY, ANY OBJECTIONS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING? ALL RIGHT.
COULD WE PLEASE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE.
ABSENT VICE MAYOR KETER THOMPSON? YES.
NOW I'LL MOVE ON TO MEETING ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM OUR DECEMBER 12TH MEETING.
I KNOW THIS IS A THRILLING MOMENT IN THIS FOR EVERYBODY IN ATTENDANCE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE MINUTES? EXCELLENT.
MAY WE HAVE ANOTHER ROLL CALL? VOTE.
I MAY ABSTAIN 'CAUSE I WAS ABSENT.
UM, I BELIEVE I WAS ABSENT THAT MEETING.
VICE MAYOR CATER THOMPSON? YES.
WE HAVE ONE MORE BATCH OF MINUTES TO APPROVE TONIGHT.
MEETING ITEM THREE, APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OUR DECEMBER 19TH MEETING.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR AMENDMENTS FROM FOLKS? EXCELLENT.
IF WE CAN HAVE ONE MORE ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MCCARLEY.
ABSENT VICE MAYOR PETER THOMPSON.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION]
AND WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE THE SEGMENT OF THE AGENDA AND WE WILL MOVE INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.AND IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE ONE PRIMARY ITEM TONIGHT WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT, TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE TO PRE-ONE, A 12.9 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 5,400 OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY TO BUSINESS PARK OR BP, OPEN SPACE AND PARK, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS OSP AND FLOODPLAIN, COMBINING DISTRICT FP DASH C ZONING DISTRICTS PRIOR TO ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE SONOMA LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMMISSION OR SONOMA LAFCO.
AND TO PROVIDE A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION FOR REORGANIZATION OR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5,400 OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY.
AND I WILL SKIP THE A PN NUMBERS.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OR CQA PURSUANT TO CQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 1 5 3 1 9 ANNEXATIONS OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND LOTS OF EXEMPT FACILITIES.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS TO LOOK AT TONIGHT.
[00:05:01]
ONE, TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT PREZONING, THE PROPOSED ANNEX LAND AND THE OTHER TO LOOK AT RECOMMENDING THE ACTUAL ANNEXATION OF THAT LAND.AND WITH THAT, UH, I WILL CALL TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW INVITE STAFF TO PRESENT.
AND I BELIEVE WE ARE STARTING WITH, OH, THAT'S RIGHT.
I DO HAVE TO SAY WE ARE TECHNICALLY OPENING A PUBLIC HEARING.
I DID NOT MEAN TO SKIP PAST THAT PART.
AND WITH THAT, WE ARE INVI, WE ARE INVITING STAFF TO PRESENT.
AND FOR TONIGHT WE HAVE MIKE, OUR SENIOR PLANNER.
I'M SENIOR PLANNER AND CONSULTING PLANNER WITH THEM GROUP, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE 5,400 OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY PRE-ONE AND ANNEXATION.
THIS IS, UM, FILE NUMBERS PLZA 20 23 0 0 0 1, AND PLAN 20 24 0 0 1.
SO AN OVERVIEW OF MY PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.
I'LL GIVE A BACKGROUND AND LOCATIONAL INFORMATION.
I WILL GIVE A PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE TWO REQUESTS BEFORE YOU.
I'LL SUMMARIZE PUBLIC COMMENT, ANALYZE AGAINST THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, AND PROVIDE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 5,400 OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY.
UM, IT IS ACCESSED, UM, VIA A 26 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY, TWO-WAY DRIVEWAY.
UM, AND THE SITE IS TO THE, THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OF, OF, OF THE HIGHWAY.
THERE'S THE RECTANGULAR PARCEL, THE LARGER OF THE TWO, MORE OR LESS RECTANGULAR.
UM, AND THAT IS A 12.2 ACRE SITE.
AND THEN THE TRIANGULAR PIECE IS THE SECONDARY PARCEL, AND THAT IS 0.7 ACRES.
THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO WILLOWBROOK CREEK, WHICH IS A TRIBUTARY TO THE PETALUMA RIVER.
AND THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE IS ADJACENT TO CALTRANS RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
HERE'S A GOOGLE STREET VIEW OF, UH, THE SITE ENTRY AND THE FRONTAGE, UH, ALONG OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED, UM, WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, AS WELL AS THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.
AND AS SUCH, IT'S BEEN ANALYZED BY THE, THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 2025.
UM, HOWEVER, IT'S, IT'S NOT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND HENCE THE, UM, THE ANNEXATION REQUEST.
YOU CAN SEE IT, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE THINNER DASH LINE IS THE CITY LIMIT, AND IT, IT ABUTS THE CITY LIMIT.
UH, THE UGB IS THE BOULDER LINE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S WITHIN, UM, IT, IT IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
THERE ARE PLANNING SUB AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED.
AND, UH, THIS SITE IS IN THE NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD PLANNING SUB AREA, WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED BY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES.
UH, AND ALSO, UH, BUSINESS PARK COMPLEXES FEATURING OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.
UM, THE SUB AREA ALSO CALLS, UH, OUT OPPORTUNITY SITES OF, UH, CONSISTING OF VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LOTS.
AND THOSE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.
UM, A A BUDDING, UM, UH, A BUDDING THE SITE, ACTUALLY, I'LL, I'LL GET INTO THAT WITH THE ZONING.
THE GENERAL, UH, PLANNED LAND USE DESIGNATION IS BUSINESS PARK, AND THAT'S SHOWN IN, IN PINK.
UH, AND THEN A BUDDING TO THE WEST IS REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK TWO, A BUDDING TO THE SOUTH IS, UH, REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK.
UM, THE, UH, THE SITE ALSO HAS OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION.
UH, THE BUSINESS PARK DESIGNATION, ACCOMMODATES BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES TECHNOLOGY PARK CLUSTERS, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS AND VISITOR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
UM, THE BUSINESS PARK, UH, LAND USE ALLOWS FOR, UH, RETAIL AS SECONDARY USE ONLY.
UM, AND THEN AS I POINTED OUT, THE WESTERN NORTHERN, UH, PERIMETER OF THE SITE IS SHADED IN, IN GREEN.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO TELL BECAUSE IT, IT SORT OF, UM, BLENDS IN WITH THE PINK.
BUT THERE IS, AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE SOME OF THE OTHER GIS MAPPING, WE
[00:10:01]
HAVE, UM, THERE'S CLEARLY A DELINEATION FOR SOME OPEN SPACE ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AS WELL.UM, THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION INCLUDES UNIMPROVED SITES DEVOTED TO THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES, OUTDOOR RECREATION OR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
UM, THE PROJECT IS ALSO WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS A PART OF THE, THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, BY APPENDIX AND NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN POLICIES THAT RECOMMEND PUBLIC RIVER ACCESS, FLOOD MITIGATION, AND HABITAT PRESERVATION ENHANCEMENT.
THE PROJECT SITE IS, UM, AND IT'S NOT DEPICTED HERE, BUT IT'S, IT'S WITHIN THE COUNTY AND IT IS ZONE LIMITED COMMERCIAL WITHIN SONOMA COUNTY.
UM, IT ABUTS, UM, TWO PCDS THAT ARE, ARE BUSINESS PARKS, TWO PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS, REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK TWO AND REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK.
AND, UM, THERE'S ALSO, AGAIN, NOT DEPICTED HERE, BUT THERE IS, UM, LIMITED COMMERCIAL ALONG THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, UM, DIVERSE AGRICULTURAL COUNTY ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, TO THE NORTH AND EAST.
UM, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THERE'S, UH, BLUE HATCHING, WHICH DEPICTS THE, UH, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
AND ANY SITE IN THE CITY THAT IS, HAS A EITHER AN ENTIRETY OR A PORTION OF THE FEMA 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
THERE IS A, AN APPLICABLE COMBINING DISTRICT, THE FLOODPLAIN COMBINING DISTRICT, UM, WHICH, UH, IS APPLIED AS AN OVERLAY.
AND THEN ANY, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE IZO CHAPTER SIX, UH, FLOODWAY AND FLOODPLAIN, UH, REGULATIONS.
SO THE TWO REQUESTS BEFORE YOU ARE THE PRE-ONE, WHICH IS PROCEDURALLY A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.
THAT'S AN ATTACHMENT A, UM, SONOMA COUNTY LCO OR LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION.
THEY REQUIRE, UM, TWO STEPS FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO AN ANNEXATION PROPONENT FILING FOR ANNEXATION.
THE FIRST IS A PRE-ONE, AND THE OTHER, UM, ACTION IS A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION, UH, TO PROCEED WITH THE, THE ANNEXATION FILING.
UM, AND PER IEO 25 0 60 ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS SHALL BE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CITY COUNCIL.
SO THERE'S THE FULL SUITE OF RESOLUTIONS AND DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE FOR THE, UH, MAP AMENDMENT.
AND THEN A, A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR THE, UM, RESOLUTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS.
UM, GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UM, YOU, YOU CAN SEE THE SITE OUT, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
AND THEN YOU CAN, UM, ENVISION IN THE, UH, NEGATIVE SPACE WOULD BE THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, ANYWHERE THERE'S BLUE HATCHING FOR THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, THE, UM, FLOODPLAIN COMBINING DISTRICT OVERLAY WOULD APPLY.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE, UM, MORE OR LESS A 50 FOOT CREEK SETBACK AND A HUNDRED FOOT, UM, PERIMETER SETBACK.
AND THAT'S ALL OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION AND THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THOSE LOCATIONS WOULD BE, UM, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS ZONING.
UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE ANNEXATION WOULD BE FOR THE PROPERTY TO CONNECT TO CITY, UH, SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES.
THE APPLICANTS PROVIDED A UTILITY PLAN SHOWN ON, ON THE SLIDE.
UM, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO RETAIN ALL EXISTING USES AND BUILDINGS ON SITE.
UM, THE CITY UTILITY CONNECTIONS WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO LEASE, UM, SOME VACANT EXISTING TENANT SUITES.
THE SPECIFIC CONNECTIONS, THERE'S, UM, AN EXISTING, UM, WATER STUB IN OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY, SO THERE'D BE A LATERAL TO THE SITE EXTENDED.
SO THERE'S THE WATER AND BLUE.
AND THEN IN PINK THERE'S WOULD BE A 736 FOOT, UH, SANITARY SEWER SEWER LINE EXTENSION THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE TO THE NEAREST, UM, EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE IN REDWOOD WAY.
UM, STAFF WOULD ALSO LIKE TO, UM, READ INTO THE
[00:15:01]
RECORD THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL, UH, CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR, UM, THE APPLICANT.UM, AT THE TIME OF SEWER CONNECTION TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA SANITATION SYSTEM, THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE ALL EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SONOMA COUNTY WLS 0 0 2 SEPTIC TANK DESTRUCTION PERMITS.
UM, AS MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT WILL RETAIN ALL EXISTING USES AND BUILDINGS ON SITE.
UH, THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A ROUGHLY 26,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND TWO, UM, 80, 8400 SQUARE FOOT, UM, SHED LIKE STRUCTURES.
UM, THIS, THESE STRUCTURES CONTAIN A MIX OF ARTISAN CRAFT PRODUCTION, WHOLESALING AND DISTRIBUTION.
UM, A CAFE SERVING LUNCH AND ARTISAN SHOP, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND RETAIL USES.
UM, SPECIFICALLY THE RETAIL USES.
UM, AS I MENTIONED IN THE BUSINESS PARK, UM, ZONING DISTRICT IN PETALUMA, UH, RETAIL IS ALLOWED AS A SECONDARY USE ONLY.
AND SO ALL OF THE GENERAL RETAIL, WHILE IT WAS, UM, AN ALLOWED USE IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL COUNTY ZONING DISTRICT, IT WOULD NOT BE, UM, A PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE CITY ZONING DISTRICT.
AND SO, UM, WE'VE STAFF HAS VERIFIED WITH COUNTY PLANNING THAT THOSE USES WERE LEGAL, WERE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED.
AND SO THOSE, UM, EXISTING USES WOULD BECOME LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES.
AND UPON, UM, ANNEXATION OF THE CITY, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OUR IZO CHAPTER 22, UH, NON-CONFORMING USE, UH, CHAPTER AND THOSE REGULATIONS.
UM, AND ALSO SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING, UM, AS A 2015 LETTER FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HEALY AND, UH, FORMER VICE MAYOR MILLER.
AND THIS APPLIC, THIS LETTER STATES THE PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY FILLED, UH, MANY YEARS AGO, UM, WITH, UH, 11,400 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL.
THE LETTER STATES, UH, THE SITE, UM, THE POSITION OF THE CITY AT THAT TIME.
UM, THE LETTER STATES THAT THE SITE SHOULD NOT BE ANNEX OR CITY UTILITIES PROVIDED UNTIL THE FILL HAS BEEN REMOVED.
PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S ZERO NET FILL POLICY, UH, THE FILL REMAINS ON SITE.
HOWEVER, UM, THE SCOPE OF WORK HAS CHANGED SINCE, UH, THERE'S NO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.
UM, IN 2015, A PREVIOUS ANNEXATION APPLICATION, UM, HAD A PROPOSAL OF 200 HOUSING UNITS, UM, AND THEN STAFF, UM, ALSO, UH, REVIEWED THE ANNEXATION AND THE PRE-ONE APPLICATION.
AND BECAUSE NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED, THE ZERO NET FILL POLICY, UM, WHICH LIVES IN IEO CHAPTER SIX WOULD NOT APPLY TO A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST OR THE ANNEXATION REQUEST.
UM, PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, ONE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PUBLICATION.
UH, THE COMMENT WAS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF ANNEXATION, UH, AND IT WAS FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER WHO EXPRESSED INTEREST IN, UM, ALSO, UH, THE IDEA OF APPLYING, UM, BUSINESS PARK ZONING AND CHANGING FROM, UH, THEIR PCD ZONING.
COULD YOU TELL US WHAT, WHAT PROPERTY THAT IS? UM, IT WAS I BELIEVE 1310 REDWOOD, UH, REDWOOD WAY.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK, ONE OF THE REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST.
UM, SO STANDARDS OF REVIEW, UM, STAFF IS ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AS WELL AS THE, THE RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION.
UH, THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS ARE, ARE DETAILED PAGES EIGHT TO NINE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AND, UM, I WON'T GO INTO GREAT DETAIL.
SO I'VE TRIED TO INTEGRATE THE FINDINGS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
UM, BUT THE, UH, THE, UH, REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH, UH, THE AMENDMENT, UH, APPROVAL CRITERIA IN CHAPTER 25.
IN SUMMARY, UM, THE BP AND OSP ZONES IMPLEMENT THE BUSINESS PARK AND OPEN SPACE GENERAL PLAN LAND
[00:20:01]
USE DESIGNATIONS, AND ARE THEREFORE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.UH, THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EGB AND THE ZONE CHANGE WOULD NOT, UH, CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE SITE.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE IEO AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN.
UM, AND THE AMENDMENT AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES WILL ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE ADDITIONAL SPACE WITHIN THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WHICH SUPPORTS THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND GENERAL WELFARE OF CITY OF PETALUMA MERCHANTS.
AS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF RESOLUTION, UM, THE, UM, REQUIRED FINDING BY LCO IS THAT IT'S CONSISTENT, UM, WITH THE PET PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, UM, WHICH ARE, AGAIN, DETAILED ON PAGES EIGHT AND NINE IN THE STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
UH, THE EXISTING SITE COMPLIES, UM, AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, UM, A CLASS 19 EXEMPTION.
UH, THE THE PROJECT, UM, QUALIFIES FOR THAT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.
IT'S FOR, UM, EXISTING FACILITIES, ANNEXATIONS OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND LOTS FOR EXEMPT FACILITIES.
UM, IN, IN ORDER TO USE THAT, UM, THAT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, UM, IT THERE, THE REASONS ARE TWOFOLD.
ONE IS, UM, THE EXISTING SITE MUST COMPLY WITH ALL THE EXISTING COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS DENSITY, SETBACKS, AND HEIGHT AND LOT COVERAGE, UH, AS WELL AS THE FUTURE CITIES ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, WHICH IT DOES.
AND THEN THE SECOND, UH, JUSTIFICATION IS THAT CITY UTILITY SERVICES, UM, HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SERVE, UM, THE SITE, WHICH IT, IT DOES, UM, AS CONFIRMED BY UM, PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW.
UM, ALSO NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTION APPLY.
AND, UM, MOREOVER THE GENERAL PLAN EIR, UM, ANALYZED, UM, THIS SITE BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE UGB.
UM, AND WITH THAT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER RESOLUTION, UM, IN ATTACHMENT A, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE, UM, ZMA ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR 5,400 OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY PREZ ZONE AND ALSO CONSIDER RESOLUTION AND ATTACHMENT B RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS WITH LAFCO.
UH, THANK YOU AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND, UM, THE APPLICANT TEAM IS HERE.
UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION, BUT UM, THEY MAY WISH TO SPEAK, UM, TO THEIR REQUESTS AND THEY'RE CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I DID WANT TO ASK IF THE MEMBERS FROM THE APPLICANT TEAM HAD ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO SHARE WITH US BEFORE WE STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS? NO, NOT AT THIS POINT.
I HAD A FEELING IT WAS THE BOTH OF YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UH, TO KICK THINGS OFF, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA ASK A FEW QUALIFYING QUESTIONS AND THEN I WILL LOOK TO FOLKS TO RAISE THEIR HANDS IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM.
UH, ONE QUESTION I DID WANT TO KICK THINGS OFF WITH WAS SB SIX THAT PASSED IN 2022.
AND THE IDEA THERE WAS THAT WHILE IT DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY KIND OF MINISTERIAL PROCESS FOR HOUSING, IT DID MAKE IT EASIER FOR CITIES TO BUILD HOUSING IN PREVIOUSLY ZONED COMMERCIAL, BUT THERE'S THE LITTLE HICCUP OF NOT BEING ABLE TO BE ADJACENT TO OR ON ANY INDUSTRIAL SITE.
I RECOGNIZE THERE'S NO PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME, BUT I JUST WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT THERE ISN'T SOME KIND OF BACK DOOR INTO HOUSING FOR THE SITE THROUGH SSB SIX.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD THAT ANSWER OR ANDREW? UH, YES.
STAFF HAS RE REVIEWED SB SIX AND I'LL DEFER TO DYLAN BRADY FOR OUR ANALYSIS.
AND ANDREW, FEEL FREE, MIKE, JUMP IN TOO, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SSB SIX, YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE ANALYSIS THAT IT DOES ALLOW CERTAIN MINISTERIAL HOUSING FOR COMMERCIAL SITES, UH, OFFICE AND I BELIEVE BUSINESS PARK IF THEY'RE THE PERMITTED USE, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THE SITES TO NOT BE ON SENSITIVE HABITATS LIKE FLOODWAYS.
LIKE THIS IS, UH, ALSO I THINK WOULD PRECLUDE YOU MENTIONED CHAIR, THE INDUSTRIAL USES AND AS WELL THAT THE, UH, PARCEL SITE CANNOT BE, OR IT NEEDS TO BE SURROUNDED BY LESS THAN 75% URBAN.
UM, WHICH I DON'T THINK THIS SITE WOULD QUALIFY EITHER.
UM, AND JUST IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND ANDREW MIKE'S PROBABLY SB SIX, I DON'T KNOW TOO MANY CITIES, IF ANY, THAT
[00:25:01]
HAVE ACTUALLY HAD GONE THROUGH AN SSB SIX MINISTERIAL PROJECT.AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY COST PROHIBITIVE.
IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE AND IT REQUIRES PREVAILING WAGES FOR ALL OF THE CONTRACTORS.
UM, SO I THINK THE CHANCES ARE PRETTY SLIM THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN.
I ASSUME THIS WOULD NOT BE A SITE FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T ACCIDENTALLY OPENING OURSELVES UP TO UNITS AND FRANKLY, THE WRONG PART OF TOWN.
UM, PAST THAT, I DID WANT TO ASK, IN TERMS OF FINDINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPLY FOR BOTH PREZONING AND ALSO THE ANNEXATION, WE, I ASSUME AT THIS POINT WE SHOULD BE LIMITING OURSELVES TO ANYTHING DIRECTLY ENGAGED WITH THE CURRENT SITE USE AND NOT CONCERNS OVER POTENTIAL FUTURE USES, CORRECT? UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT, CHAIR.
WE WOULD LOOK AT THE, UH, THE PROPOSAL FOR ANNEXATION.
UH, WE HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE APPLICANT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT NO, UH, DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED.
THE GOAL IS TO ANNEX IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES FOR, UM, THE EXISTING LAND USES.
SO WE ARE NOT, WE ARE NOT SEEING THIS APPLICATION AS A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
AND THEN, UH, AND I'M JUST GONNA STICK TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AND THEN I'LL SAVE THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS FOR AFTER THE REST OF THE COMMISSION IS GONE.
'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA START THIS MEETING OFF HOGGING THE TIME.
UH, LAST POINT I WANTED TO CHECK, AND THIS BOTH FOR STAFF AND ALSO THE APPLICANT FOR THE BUSINESS PARK DESIGNATION AND ALSO THE, UM, FLOOD, UH, FLOODWAY FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION.
UH, WILL THAT CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR THE CURRENT MATRIX OF USES? THE SITE'S FAIRLY ACTIVE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T RUNNING INTO ANY PROBLEMS THERE.
AND PRIOR TO YOUR REMARKS, PETER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M A PRINCIPAL WITH ARCHEOLOGIC.
WE'RE PLANNING AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM WORKING AS CONSULTANTS TO CORNERSTONE AND PAULINE BLOCK IS HERE TOO WITH CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES.
THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION CHAIR IS, UM, NO, IT WOULDN'T, UM, THE FLOODPLAIN AREAS THAT IF YOU LOOKED AT THE FLOODPLAIN MAP, THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE OUT OF THAT.
AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT AT THIS POINT.
AND WITH A LITTLE BIT OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO START WITH QUESTIONS? DARREN, TAKE IT AWAY.
UH, THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR BEING HERE.
UH, SOME OF MY QUESTIONS ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
UH, SO I JUST WANNA FOCUS ON A FEW HERE.
UH, THE FIRST OF WHICH, ANY IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE IN COUNTY JURISDICTION, UH, BY ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY, DOES IT MAKE IT ANY MORE OR LESS DIFFICULT FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO WHAT THEY WANNA DO WITH THEIR PROPERTIES? NO, THE ANNEXATION AND, AND THE PREZONING AND EVENTUAL REGULATION OF THE PROPERTY, UH, UNDER CITY REGULATIONS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY.
SO OTHER COUNTY OWNERS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED.
AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH FLOOD AND SOME OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL GET INTO THAT, BUT IS THERE ANY LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY, ASSUMING THIS PROPERTY OR ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
AND THEN, UH, TWO OF MY BIGGEST QUESTIONS WERE, WERE THERE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION AND THEN WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE USAC FLOOD CONTROL PLAN FOR PETALUMA? AND I THINK THIS LETTER WE RECEIVED IS KIND OF A DIRECT ANSWER TO BOTH THOSE QUESTIONS.
IN READING THIS LETTER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ISSUE THAT COUNSEL HAD WAS WITH PUTTING UTILITIES TO THE SITE WITH RUNNING UTILITIES TO THE SITE.
UH, JUST WHEN I READ THE PARAGRAPH ON THE BACK PAGE, IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, WE ANTICIPATE WE TO INSIST THAT AT A MINIMUM THE FILL BE REMOVED BEFORE ANNEXATION OR PROVISION OF WATER OR SEWER SERVICE.
I JUST DIDN'T READ THAT AS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PROPOSED USE.
THEY MENTIONED THAT LATER ON, BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT THE, THE UTILITY PLAN WAS IN 2015 THAT HAD COUNSEL SAY, LOOK, REMOVE THE FILL.
UM, WE'RE NOT IMPLEMENTING YOUR UTILITY PLAN UNTIL YOU DO THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA IF IT WAS MORE ROBUST? I, I WOULD IMAGINE SO WITH 200 UNITS PLANNED, BUT MY MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE LETTER THAT, THAT WE RECEIVED TODAY IS THAT THE, THE LETTER WAS GENERATED BY CONSIDERATION OF THIS SITE OR THE CURRENT CORONA STATION SITE, WHICH SITE MIGHT BE SELECTED FOR THE FUTURE NORTH PETALUMA SMART
[00:30:01]
STATION.AND SO THE EVALUATION WAS BASED UPON, UM, DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, WHICH WOULD'VE INCLUDED THE SMART STATION AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATED HOUSING COMPONENT THAT WE SEE NOW WITH THE DANCO PROJECT AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE NORTH PETALUMA SMART STATION AT CORONA ROAD.
SO I, I BELIEVE THAT, WHILE I DO, I DO RECOGNIZE THE PARAGRAPH, UM, THAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO, I DO THINK THAT THAT WAS WRITTEN PERHAPS, AND I CAN'T CONFIRM, BUT PERHAPS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE, SHOULD THE SITE BE ANNEXED THEN IN, IN 2019, THERE WAS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, UM, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
IT WAS REFERRED TO AS THE BARN.
AND THAT PROJECT IS STILL ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
HOWEVER, THAT PROJECT INCLUDED THE ANNEXATION, THE PREZONING, AS WELL AS I BELIEVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR, UH, THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
THAT PROJECT WAS WITHDRAWN, UM, BECAUSE THE PROJECT WAS, UH, DETERMINED THAT IT, IT COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS, UM, SHOULD IT BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
SO, UH, WE DO HAVE A HISTORY OF, OF DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT BEING CONSIDERED AT THIS SITE, UM, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE.
AND SO IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE TO THINK ABOUT THOSE AND REFER TO THOSE.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE APPLICATION BEFORE US TODAY, WHICH DOESN'T PROPOSE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, UM, SIMPLY SEEKS TO ACQUIRE, UH, SEWER AND WATER SERVICES TO SERVICE THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE AND, AND LAND USES THE TENANTS OF THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGES.
AND THANK YOU FOR A LOT OF THAT CONTEXT.
I GUESS FOR ME IT'S THAT IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT RUNNING UTILITIES TO THE SITE WOULD CAUSE SOME IMPACT TO THIS AREA IN TERMS OF ITS ROLE IN THE US.
UH, U-S-A-C-E FLOOD CONTROL PLAN, UH, HAS, I BELIEVE IT'S GINA PENN PUTTICK, UH, HAS OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR LOOKED AT THAT AND MADE ANY DETERMINATION TO IMPACTS JUST OF DISTURBANCE RELATED TO RUNNING UTILITIES TO THE SITE.
UH, THE FLOOD PLAIN ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWED THE ANNEXATION AND PREZONING APPLICATIONS AND DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
UM, HOWEVER, I ASSUME THERE WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS IF THERE WAS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.
THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER SIX AND THEN THERE'D BE A SLEW OF, OF REGULATIONS TO READ THAT THE FLOOD PLAIN ADMINISTRATOR WOULD LOOK AT IN THAT, IN THAT CASE.
SO DESPITE HOW I'M, I'M READING THIS HERE, JUST RUNNING THE UTILITIES HAS BEEN DEEMED BY EXPERTS ON OUR STAFF THAT IT WOULD NOT IMPACT ITS CURRENT ROLE IN TERMS OF FLOOD CONTROL AT THE SITE.
UH, I, I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY TO TO FLOOD CONTROL, BUT THE, UM, PUBLIC WORKS HAS LOOKED AT THE UTILITY PLAN AND REVIEWED THE UTILITY PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERED IT TO, UM, THAT THE SITE IS SERVICEABLE, THERE'S CAPACITY TO SERVE THE SITE AND THAT THE PLAN WOULD BE, UM, FEASIBLE, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND THEN ANY IMPACTS? FINAL QUESTION.
UH, ANY IMPACTS ON THE RAIL LINE OR RAIL SERVICE, EITHER ON SITE OR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SITE? UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RAIL SPUR THAT LOG, ANITAS, I BELIEVE IS THE TENANT.
I DUNNO IF THEY'RE THE ONLY TENANT THAT USES IT.
BUT, UM, THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED AND THAT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A WHOLESALING AND DISTRIBUTION USE, UM, THAT WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT.
ANY QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER, I JUST WANT TO, AND FOR THE, FOR ALL OF THE COMMISSION, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THE CITY ENGINEER, KEITH CARUTHERS, IS WITH US THIS EVENING.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW UTILITIES ARE, ARE PROVIDED TO THIS SITE, WHAT, WHAT THAT CONSTRUCTION PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE AS WELL AS, UM, CHAPTER SIX OF THE ICO DOES REGULATE, UM, INSTALLATION OF NEW UTILITIES OR THE REINSTALLATION OF UTILITIES AT SITES.
UM, I, I WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON IF THE SITE IS DEVELOPED, THE FILL THAT HAS TO BE REMOVED.
AND REMEMBER VERY CLEARLY THE FILL THAT WAS PUT IN THERE, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS AROUND 13,000, BUT IT WAS 11,000.
UM, SO IN THIS AREA, I MEAN IT DOES FLOOD, IT'S DEFINITELY LOWER THAN ALL THE OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND SO WHAT TRIGGERS THE FILL BEING REMOVED? I, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND THE REASON I PAUSED WAS I WAS WONDERING IF PERHAPS WE MIGHT GO THROUGH
[00:35:01]
THE OTHER QUESTIONS AND THEN COME BACK TO THAT.BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE, THAT'S GOOD.
THE, THE PREDOMINANT QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
UM, I FEEL LIKE AT LEAST, AND, AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE LETTER THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED, UM, THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
SO I THINK IF WE COULD GET SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS OFF THE TABLE AND THEN COME BACK TO THAT.
UM, DO WE, DO, DOES THIS, IS IT NECESSARY TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY IN AND THEN GO THROUGH THE LKO PROCESS? CAN THAT BE ELIMINATED FROM THIS PROCESS? I'LL START.
SO IT'S NECESSARY TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CITY UTILITIES TO THAT SITE.
SO, UM, AND THEN LAFCO DOES REQUIRE, UM, THE CITY PRE-ONE THE SITE PRIOR TO, UM, A FILING TO THEM FOR THE ANNEXATION AS WELL AS, UM, A RELU WHAT'S CALLED A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION, WHICH IS SORT OF, UM, UH, A SHOW OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, THAT ANNEXATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS SITE FROM THE CITY'S SIDE.
AND, AND SO TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THE, THE LCO POLICY AS, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT FOLLOWING A DISCUSSION WITH LAFCO, IS THAT THE, THEY WOULD NOT APPROVE AN OUTSIDE SERVICE AREA AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE UTILITIES TO THE SITE.
THEY WOULD REQUIRE ANNEXATION SHOULD UTILITIES BE PROVIDED TO THE SITE.
THERE ARE, THERE ARE CASES WHERE THEY WOULD APPROVE, APPROVE AN OUTSIDE SERVICE AREA AGREEMENT, BUT THAT WOULD BE IF THERE'S A PUBLIC HEALTH, UM, ISSUE RELATED TO INADEQUATE SEPTIC SERVICE OR SOMETHING FOR, SAY, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, OR THERE WAS SOME SORT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION WHERE, AGAIN, WHERE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT MIGHT REQUIRE, UM, CITY WATER IN ORDER TO BE ALLEVIATED OF THE RISK OF, OF, UM, CONSUMING CONTAMINATED WATER.
SO WHEN WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE WE HAVE A PARCEL THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CITY BOUNDARY, IT IS, UM, WITHIN THE CITY'S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND IT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE GENERAL PLAN.
SO FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE CITY HAS DECLARED ITS INTENTION TO ALLOW THE ANNEXATION TO PROCEED, UM, SHOULD IT BE SOUGHT, WHETHER IT WOULD BE SOUGHT BY THE CITY OR BY ANOTHER PARTY.
AND SO IN THOSE INSTANCES THEN, UH, LAF COAST'S POLICY IS THAT YOU WOULD ANNEX THEN TO, TO RECEIVE CITY SERVICES.
SO, UH, BUT I THINK I WOULD ALSO, IF THE, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT TEAM COME UP AND EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE SERVICES AND WHY THEY ARE SEEKING, UM, TO HAVE CITY SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE SITE.
ALSO, I JUST WANNA KNOW IS SURE.
IS LIKE REED TRAILER, HAVE THEY INQUIRED GETTING CITY SERVICES ALSO? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
THE PROPERTY NEXT, IT'S IN THE, OKAY.
HI, PAULINE BLOCK WITH CORNERSTONE.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE, UM, REASON THAT WE'RE APPLYING FOR THE UTIL OR FOR THE ANNEXATION TO CONNECT INTO UTILITIES.
IT IS AN ACTIVE SITE, UM, AND WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE THOSE USES.
WE ARE ON SEPTIC AND WELL, UM, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT.
BUT, UM, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO, WE EVALUATED INSTALLING FIRE SUPPRESSION TO THE MAIN BUILDING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CAPACITY WITH OUR WELL TO DO THAT.
UM, WE HAD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COME OUT AND WE DID A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DO IT KIND OF OFF THE GRID ON OUR OWN.
UM, FIRE DEPARTMENT PREFERS THAT WE CONNECT INTO CITY UTIL UTILITIES AND IT'S ALSO ECONOMICALLY AND FEASIBLE TO DO AN OFF THE GRID AND HAVE A STORAGE TANK AND, UM, ALSO DOESN'T, ISN'T THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY TO CONTINUE CONTINUED ON THAT PATH.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE TWO OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT WE'D LIKE TO CONNECT.
AND BEING THAT WE'RE IN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE, UM, SEA OF INFLUENCE, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE NEXT STEP TO BE MORE INTEGRATED WITH THE CITY AND BE IN PETALUMA.
YEAH, I, I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE IF, IF THERE'S MORE TO SHARE, GIVEN THAT THE RATIONALE HERE SEEMS TO BE TO GET SERVICES TO POTENTIALLY LEASE MORE SPACE, BUT ACCORDING TO ATTACHMENT F THE EXISTING USES, THERE'S ONLY ONE VACANT STUDIO.
SO IF, IF YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY YOUR CURRENT SETUP IS INSUFFICIENT AND WHAT OPPORTUNITIES YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO PURSUE GIVEN THE CURRENT, UM, UTILITY SITUATION.
UM, I'LL TRY NOT TO GET TOO INTO THE WEEDS, BUT IF YOU WANT MORE, LET ME KNOW.
UM, SO FIRE SUPPRESSION IS ONE THAT WE CAN'T DO.
UM, AND TWO, SO WE HAVE RETROGRADE COFFEE, FOR INSTANCE, IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.
THEY ROAST COFFEE ON SITE AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A CAFE, WHICH IS, UM, A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING FOR PETALUMA.
[00:40:01]
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WILL NOT ALLOW THAT ON A WELL OR SEPTIC SYSTEM.IT HAS TO BE CONNECTED TO UTILITIES.
WE ALSO HAVE HARMONY FARMS, WHICH IS A, UM, IT'S THEIR SECOND LOCATION.
THEY HAVE A LOCATION IN SEBASTOPOL.
THEY ARE GARDEN AND SUPPLY STORE AND THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE LOTS OF PLANTS AND KIND OF THE WELL WATER BEING USED FOR POTABLE AND NON-POTABLE USES DOES PRESENT CHALLENGES.
SO SMALL INSTANCES LIKE THAT THAT JUST KIND OF BUILD UP FOR OUR CLIENTS.
UH, HEIDI, I DON'T HAVE TOO MANY QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, JUST I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THIS, UM, SITE IS BOTH, UM, HAS SOME AREAS THAT ARE IN THE FLOODWAY AND THE FLOODPLAIN, RIGHT? I KNOW BOTH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, BUT THEY'RE DIFFERENT.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE FLOODWAY IS, IS WITHIN THE CHANNEL.
UM, SO, UM, I I CAN, I CAN DOUBLE CHECK AND GET BACK TO YOU, BUT UM, I DON'T, IF THE CREEK RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY, THEN YES, BUT, UM, OTHERWISE IT WOULD JUST BE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND THERE'S ALSO, UM, THERE'S OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION CREEKSIDE, AND THERE WOULD BE, UM, OUR CREEKSIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
SO YOU COULDN'T DEVELOP WITHIN 50 FEET OF, UM, THE BANK.
YEAH, I WAS JUST THINKING OF THAT OTHER PARCEL, THE FLOODWAY LLC PARCEL AND JUST WANTING NOT TO HAVE SOMETHING REPEATED LIKE THAT.
SO THE, UM, THE, THE FLOODWAY DESIGNATION, ACTUAL FLOODWAY ZONING DISTRICT PROHIBITS GENERALLY PROHIBITS DEVELOPMENT OF ANY TYPE EXCEPT FOR, UH, TEMPORARY ACTIVITIES.
AND THEN THE FLOODPLAIN DOES ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE CHAPTER SIX REGULATIONS.
UH, MAJORITY OF THIS SITE IS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.
THERE, THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S WITHIN THE FLOODWAY.
THERE'S A SMALL PORTION OF IT, WHICH MAY WELL BE THE SITE WHERE THE FILL EXISTS.
UM, THAT IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
SO IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE FLOODPLAIN COMBINING DISTRICT.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION IS, UM, ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS TO THE CITY TO DOING THIS? I MEAN, I, YES.
THE TWO BENEFITS I THINK RIGHT OFF THE BAT ARE ONE THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE TAXES TO THE CITY AND OTHER TAX BASE, BOTH IN PROPERTY TAXES AS WELL AS IN THE SALES AND USE.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE UNDER OUR REGULATORY CONTROL, OUR LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY.
I KNOW MIKE, I ASKED HIM EARLIER TODAY IF OUR FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE WAS STRONGER THAN THE COUNTIES AND MIKE SAID IT WAS MM-HMM.
AND THEN I'LL JUST BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT THE FILL WHEN WE GO OVER THAT LATER.
UH, JUST, JUST SIMPLE QUESTION.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO HAVE CITY SERVICES THE MORE CONSISTENT, UM, AND YOU'RE GETTING ZONING SIMILAR TO THE BUSINESS PARK NORTH OF, UH, REDWOOD HIGHWAY, SIMILAR ZONING WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPING OR THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ZONING WOULD ESTABLISH IF YOU DID A PROJECT.
UM, DOES THIS IMPROVE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY? WELL BEING ON, CERTAINLY BEING ON CITY SERVICES IS GONNA IMPROVE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A DOWNSIDE TO THAT OTHER THAN BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR OWN GENERAL PLAN AND TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE ACTUALLY WITH YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AS WELL.
UM, ONE THING THAT WASN'T MENTIONED WAS BEING ABLE TO GET TO CITY SEWER MEANS THAT WE GET TO ABANDON, UM, SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND IN SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE NOT THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY WAY IN ORDER TO HANDLE SEPTIC.
THIS, THIS ALLOWS US TO SORT OF START BRINGING THIS UP TO, UM, MORE OF THE STANDARDS OF PETALUMA, WHICH AS DYLAN POINTED OUT AND MIKE POINTED OUT, ARE MUCH MORE STRINGENT THAN THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.
SO WILL IT INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY? IT MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING ABLE TO HAVE CITY SERVICES TO IT.
BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY ARE STILL ON THE OWNER.
BUT THERE'S NO INTENTION OF UPGRADING A PARKING LOT OR ANY OF THAT STUFF? WELL, NOT WITHOUT, WE HAVE UPGRADED THE PARKING LOT AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN ORDER TO GET INTO A DA COMPLIANCE FOR THE TENANTS THAT WE DO HAVE IN THERE.
AND RETROGRADE COFFEE, AS PAULINE HAD POINTED OUT, IS COMING IN AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO PERMIT THAT THROUGH, UM, THE CITY OF PETALUMA.
AND SO THE NEXUS FOR WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE, UM, IMPOSED BECAUSE OF THAT IS, UM, I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE.
MAYBE ONE OF THE PLANNERS COULD OR, OR DYLAN.
[00:45:01]
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEALING WITH THE, UH, CREEK REBUILT SETBACK IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING OR REVEGETATION OR ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT? I, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY REQUIREMENTS AT THIS POINT FOR THAT.SO THAT WOULD ALL HAPPEN IF YOU ENTERED A SECOND PHASE OF DOING SOMETHING MORE WITH THE PROPERTY.
ANYTHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THROUGH, UH, UM, A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO WITH THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF PAULINE CAN SPEAK MORE TO THE CREEK BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN, WE HAVE REVIEWED THAT AND ANALYZED THE CREEK BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY FOR FLOOD CONCERNS CAN ADDRESS THAT.
WE'VE, I MEAN WE'VE DONE SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS.
WE WORKED WITH, UM, OUR CINEMA RCD AND UM, UH, A LANDSCAPE, UH, DESIGNER TO DO SOME LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT TO TRY AND HELP.
UM, WE HAVE SOME PLANS FOR LIKE BIOSWALES ON PARTS OF THE PROPERTY, BUT NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE.
UM, BUT SOME PLANTING AT THE FRONT, BUT NONE OF THE BIOSWALES OR ADDITIONAL, UM, PARTS OF THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
BEFORE WE GET BACK TO PHIL, I JUST HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY SPECIFICALLY, AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP I THINK A FEW TIMES IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT GIVEN SOME OF THE TENOR OF THE QUESTIONS WE'VE HAD, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL BE PAYING FOR ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ADDITIONS THAT COME WITH SERVICE CONNECTION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THE APPLICANT WOULD, UM, PAY FOR THE, UH, UTILITIES.
AND THEN, UH, I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE THE, UH, CITY ENGINEER THAT WE HAVE TO COME UP AND DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT HOW THE UTILITY CONNECTION IS GONNA WORK, IF THAT WOULD BE, IF TIME PERMITS.
SO KENT CARUTHERS, PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITY CITY ENGINEER.
SO THE UTILITY EXTENSIONS, THE WATER IS EXTENDED UP TO THE FRONTAGE, SO IT ENTAIL, UM, STUBBING OUT FOR THE FIRE SERVICE WITH THE REQUIRED BACKFLOW PREVENTION AND THEN ALSO STUBBING OUT, UH, THE DOMESTIC METER WITH AN ADDITIONAL BACKFLOW.
SO IT BRINGS EVERYTHING UP TO, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH STATE RE UM, REGULATIONS.
THE SEWER IS THE BIGGER EXTENSION COMING OFF OF REDWOOD AND COMING OUT INTO, UM, REDWOOD BOULEVARD HAVING THE PROPER SLOPES TO COME UP TO, UM, THEN STUB OUT INTO THE, INTO THE SITE.
AND, UM, THOUGH WE'LL BE LOOKING, UM, SPECIFICALLY, UM, BKF THERE, THERE DESIGNERS LAID IT OUT.
UM, THERE MIGHT BE SOME CHANGES IN ALIGNMENT, BUT WE'LL, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT EVERYTHING WILL WORK AS FAR AS UM, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING IT OPEN TO ANY KIND OF LIKE FLOOD WATERS OR STORM DRAIN OR IT'S GONNA BE A CLOSED SEWER SYSTEM, UM, MEETING CITY STANDARDS AND, UM, ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON, UM, AND THEN FROM THERE, WE'LL WE'LL HAVE A STUB OUT AND THEN THEY'LL PROVIDE A PRIVATE LATERAL CONNECTING THEIR BUILDINGS THAT WILL COME IN AND CONNECT INTO WHAT WOULD BE THE PUBLIC MAINTAIN SYSTEM.
UM, SINCE THEY'LL BE MOVING AWAY FROM THE SEPTIC THAT THEY HAVE ON SITE.
WILL THERE, WHAT WOULD THE REMOVAL OF THAT LOOK LIKE? OR WILL IT JUST BE LEFT ON SITE? UM, TYPICALLY LIKE ALL THE CONNECTIONS FROM THE BUILDING GOING TO WHEREVER THE LEACH FIELD IS OR THE SEPTIC TANK, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COUNTY WILL BE TO REMOVE ANY LARGE THINGS LIKE THE SEPTIC TANK AND MAKE IT THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING OLD COULD LIKE FLOAT UP OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD DEMOLITION OF, OF THE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT IS, YOU KNOW, UM, ENVIRONMENTALLY, YOU KNOW MM-HMM.
AND ONE OF THE MAIN BENEFITS THAT THEY MENTIONED OF CONVERTING THIS, UM, SITE TO
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'D PREFER HAVING, YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATE WATER SOURCE IF IT'S MM-HMM.
SO, AND I ASSUME BECAUSE, AND SO WE'LL LOOK AT AT THAT AS THEY COME, IF THEY COME IN WITH A MORE, UH,
[00:50:01]
ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OF WHERE THE WELL IS AND USES, BUT EXCELLENT.AND I ASSUME BECAUSE THEY'LL BE BROUGHT INTO THE CITY BOUNDARY, ANY WATER USE, THEY'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY REGULATIONS THAT THE CITY APPLIES.
JUST WANTED TO HAVE THAT CLARIFIED ON RECORD.
UH, THAT, THAT ENDS MOST OF MY QUESTIONS, SO I THINK WE CAN GET BACK TO THE FILL ISSUE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
SO I THINK THAT THE, THE, UM, LETTER THAT'S PROVIDED AND, AND THE LETTER WILL BE PUBLISHED TO THIS, UH, MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
I SAY THAT RIGHT
SO, SO IT WILL BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, BUT I, I THINK IT DOES, IT MAKES IT CLEAR THE ONE, THE ONE THING THAT'S LACKING IS THE ATTACHMENT THAT SHOWS THE SITE PLAN TO SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT FILL IS LOCATED.
I THINK IT MAY BE THAT AREA, SORT OF TRIANGULAR AREA TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE SITE THAT IS, IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING.
SO THE, THE LETTER MAKES IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE CITY'S EXPECTATION IS.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER, UM, MAKING A ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATION OR BOTH OF THE RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTIONS SUBJECT TO THE CITY REACHING AGREEMENT AND DIRECTION ON REMOVAL OF THE FILL OR WHAT MIGHT TRIGGER REMOVAL OF THE FILL.
UM, IF THE CASE OF, OF SAY FOR INSTANCE, A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE FILL, BUT, UM, UH, UTILITIES COULD BE RUN TO THE SITE PROVIDED THAT NO OTHER DEVELOPMENT OCCURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SINCE WE'VE RECEIVED A LETTER AT THIS, UH, LATE POINT IN TIME, IT'S UNCLEAR, RIGHT? IT'S UNCLEAR IF WE CAN CONDITION THE ANNEXATION ITSELF.
SO, SO THE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS ARE UNILATERAL AND CONDUCTED BY LCO.
UH, WE CAN'T DIRECT THOSE AT ALL.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY WE WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS WITH LAFCO THE POTENTIAL FOR, UH, BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THE FILL ON SITE AND THE REMOVAL OF THE FILL.
UM, IF THE, IF THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO COUNSEL THIS EVENING AND DOES MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THAT RESOLUTION, THEN WE COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND WORK WITH COUNSEL BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN IT COMES BEFORE THE COUNCIL, THEN LATER IN MARCH I BELIEVE.
SO WE'VE GOT, I BELIEVE IT'S TENTATIVELY AGENDIZED FOR MARCH 18TH IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
UM, AND WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, WORK WITH, WITH THE APPLICANT TEAM WITH LCO AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
IF IT, IF THE, IF THE THEN PER CHANCE THAT LKO SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T ALLOW ANNEXATIONS TO BE CONDITIONED, THEN WE HAVE OUR ANSWER.
AND WE WOULD TAKE THAT TO COUNCIL THEN AND, AND UH, SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THEM WHEN THE, UM, ORDINANCE WOULD COME FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION AS FIRST READING.
DOES THE PRE PREZONING AS PART OF THE UNILATERAL ELEMENT OF, OF LAF COAT.
LIKE WE CAN'T CONDITION THE PREZONING BUT THEN LEAVE THE ACTUAL ANNEXATION ORDINANCE ALONE.
I, I THINK, LET ME ASK, UH, DYLAN, BECAUSE I THINK HE CHECKED IN TODAY ON IF WE CAN CONDITION THE PREZONING THAT IS CORRECT.
WE CAN'T CONDITIONALLY ZONE PARCELS TO SAY, HEY, PARCEL WHATEVER YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, OFFICE BUSINESS, DEPENDING IF YOU DO X, Y, AND Z, THAT'D KIND OF BE SPOT ZONING AND THERE'S PRETTY GOOD CASE LAW THAT ESTABLISHES THAT.
UM, SO WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ADD A CONDITION HERE ABOUT THE PREZONING.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE CAN DO IN THIS CASE, THEN WE CAN ADD AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WHILE MOVING FORWARD WITH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO ASK FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH LAFCO TO ASK FOR THIS TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY MOVES FORWARD WITH THIS FINALLY CORRECT.
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL ON BOTH THE PREZONING AND ON, UM, TO, UH, SUPPORT ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS.
SO I THINK THAT THROUGH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS THIS EVENING, UM, THE COMMISSION COULD COMMUNICATE TO COUNCIL THAT IT RECOGNIZES, UH, THE COUNCIL'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE FILL THAT WE'RE EXPRESSED IN THE 2015 LETTER AND THAT IT SUPPORTS, UM, EFFORTS OF THE CITY TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE PRIOR TO, UH, COUNCIL DECIDING ON THE PREZONING AND OR SUPPORT FOR THE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS.
AND THEN JUST LOOKING FOR OTHER OPTIONS IN CASE THIS DOES BECOME A STICKING POINT, ALTHOUGH I HAVE SOME
[00:55:01]
EXPERIENCE WITH LCO AND I CAN'T IMAGINE IT WOULD BE, THEY'RE NORMALLY PRETTY, UH, PRETTY FAVORABLE TO THE, THE LOCAL AGENCY AND THEIR CONCERNS.UH, BUT IF IT IS A STICKING POINT, WOULD WOULD THE CITY BE ABLE TO RETROACTIVELY ADDRESS THIS WITH THE UPDATED IZO SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE USE OF FILL BEING REMOVED AHEAD OF NEW PROJECTS? GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS, IS THERE A WORKAROUND IN OTHER POLICY SINCE IT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY TRIGGERS FOR FILL REMOVAL OTHERWISE? WELL, YES, THIS IS IS TRUE PLANNING'S, UM, EVALUATION OF THE FILL ISSUE AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONCURRENCE AS WELL IS THAT THE PREZONING REQUEST DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF HAVE NEXUS FOR US TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF THE FILL.
UM, TO REMEDIATE THE SITE A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, UM, COULD, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE NEXUS ON ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO REQUIRE THE REMEDI REMEDIATION OF THE SITE THROUGH THE REMOVAL OF THE FILL AND THEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
OH, SO WE WOULD'VE FULL, WE'D HAVE FULL AUTHORITY IN THAT CONDITION ANYWAY.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT THOUGH, THE, THE 2015 LETTER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ANNEXATION IS PREDICATED ON REMOVAL OF THE FILL.
AND I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE CAN'T ANSWER THIS EVENING, BUT THAT WE COULD, WE COULD HAVE AN ANSWER TO AND A RECOMMENDATION TO, UM, GIVEN THE TIME TO WORK ON IT BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN IT WOULD COME BEFORE COUNCIL FOR ITS, UH, FIRST READING, RIGHT.
SO WE CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CAVEAT AND THEN BETWEEN NOW AND THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO REALLY CLARIFY.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, UM, SO THERE'S NO, UM, PROJECT THAT YOU COULD FORESEE THAT WOULD BE MINISTERIAL APP APPRO MINISTERIALLY APPROVED, UM, ON THIS AREA WHERE THE FILL IS WITHOUT HAVING COMMISSIONER COUNCIL, UH, DISCRETION, RIGHT? NO, THE EVEN, UM, SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GIVES THE CITY BROAD DISCRETION ON WHEN IT'S APPLIED.
AND SO I, AND, AND THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, UM, SO EVEN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WOULD BE CONSIDERED SITE DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AT LEAST MINOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
SO, UM, I I BELIEVE DYLAN WANTS TO COMMENT ON THAT, BUT I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST REFLECTING ON IF THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENT THAT MIGHT TRIGGER ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, FOR INSTANCE, SOMETIMES THAT WILL HAPPEN, UH, WHEN YOU'RE DOING TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO, TO IMPROVE FOR ACCESSIBILITY PURPOSES TO BRING A PROJECT UP TO MINIMUM STANDARDS.
THAT I THINK IS ONE EXAMPLE WHERE, WHERE, WHERE SOME SITE IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITY COULD BE TRIGGERED THROUGH A MINISTERIAL BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, BUT THAT WOULD, UM, NOT BE THE SAME AS IF THERE WAS DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ANY SORT OF USE, WHETHER THAT WAS ACCESSORY STORAGE OR, UM, SOME SORT OF TENANT USE.
BECAUSE THE BEST WE KNOW THAT THERE'S NO, UM, STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW ON THE FILL CORRECT MATERIAL.
SO IF THEY WERE TO BE STRUCTURES, THEN IT WOULD BE REVIEWED.
IF, IF IF OUR ASSUMPTION THAT THE FILL AREA IS THAT TRIANGULAR AREA, THEN YES, AND I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT MOST MINISTERIAL REVIEWS EVEN GIVE THE SORT OF EXCEPTION TO THAT IF THERE ARE HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS.
SO DEPENDING IF YOU KNOW THERE IS A MINISTERIAL PROJECT ON THE FILL, WE COULD LIKELY TO AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO MAKE THOSE HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS.
ARE THERE ANY LAST MINUTE QUESTIONS FROM FOLKS? EXCELLENT.
WITH THAT WE WILL CLOSE, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
WE WILL OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ITEM.
PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.
IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND BRING IT TO THE CLERK UP FRONT.
AND I'M JUST GONNA ASK, HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE RECEIVED ONE PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
IT HAS BEEN POSTED ONLINE AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE BACK TO VIEW.
AND WITH THAT WE'RE GONNA START.
I HAVE, THE FIRST CARD I HAVE IS FROM DWAYNE.
DWAYNE? YES, DWAYNE BELLINGER HERE.
[01:00:01]
AGO THAT I WAS DRIVING PAST THIS PROPERTY WITH A, UH, RELATIVE OF MINE WHO WAS LIMITED ENGLISH, UH, FROM SOUTH OF THE BORDER.AND, AND HE, UM, LOOKS AT THE SIGN IT SAID ADOBE LUMBER.
HE SAID, WHAT ON EARTH COULD THE WORDS ADOBE LUMBER, MAINE? AND UH, THAT WAS AN INTERESTING, UH, UM, EXPLANATION.
UM, I'VE DRIVEN BY THIS PROPERTY ANOTHER TIME AND THE, UM, THE GRAIN CARS FOR LAGUNITAS WERE THERE AND I'M REALLY PLEASED THAT THERE ARE, THERE'S A SPUR AND THAT THERE'S GRAIN CARS, BUT THEY WERE USING A TRUCK TO PULL THE GRAIN CAR TO THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE SPUR TO, TO KEEP WATER OUT, OUT OF THE GRAIN.
AND IT'S JUST, UH, GIVES YOU SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE 5,400, UH, UH, LOCATION IS LIKE, UH, WHEN IT, UH, GETS RAINING.
UM, NOW THIS, THE CITY OF PETALUMA HAS EXTENDED THE SEPTIC SYSTEM INTO PEN GROVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING CARE OF, UH, A PROBLEM THAT WAS THERE.
AND, UM, I WOULD BE VERY PLEASED IF YOU ALSO EXTENDED A, A SEPTIC SYSTEM TO PROPERTY THAT GOES THIS MUCH UNDERWATER.
THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, VERY WISE OF, UH, CITY PETALUMA NOT TO, UM, HAVE, UH, ENOUGH SET.
I USED TO ENJOY BUYING LUMBER THERE, BUT I ENJOY THE, THE SEEDS AND THE PLANTS AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A NICE BUSINESS, UH, DURING MOST OF THE YEAR.
UM, WHAT, WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FLOODING OF FARMERS, OF COURSE FILL UP RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE STREAM IN ORDER TO HAVE LAND TO PLOW.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US MOVE LAND BACK AND, AND WIDEN THE STREAM AND WIDEN THE STREAM AREA HERE TO THE EQUAL AMOUNT AS THE WATER WAS, IS, IS HELD.
AND, AND INSTEAD OF BUILDING THIS COUPLE PLACES IN PETALUMA WHERE WE HAVE THESE CRATERS THAT LOOK LIKE THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WAS PRACTICING DEMOLITION, UM, I WOULD PREFER US TO WIDEN THE RIVERS AND I TRAVEL IN IRELAND.
YOU SEE LITTLE DAMS ALONG IT WHERE THE TROUT CAN JUMP UP THEM AND IT, IT KEEPS THE RIVER WIDE, IT KEEPS IT GOING INTO THE GROUND AND IT KEEPS THE TREES BACK AND THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE FOR, FOR FLOODING, TIME FOR WATER TO GO DOWN.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US WIDEN THE RIVER AT THIS POINT, USE THE DIRT TO, TO KEEP THE WATER FROM FLOWING INTO THE BUILDINGS HERE.
AND, UH, THAT WOULD SEEM LIKE A MORE REASONABLE THING.
ANYWAY, I WISH THE, UH, THE PEOPLE LUCK.
AS I SAID, I, I'VE, I ENJOY SHOPPING THERE AND, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH DWAYNE, OUR NEXT SPEAKER, AND I BELIEVE OUR LAST SPEAKER IS BRYANT.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AS HE THROWS THE MIC DOWN.
UM, MY NAME'S BRYANT MOYNIHAN.
I'M WITH NEXUS RELATED GROUP AND I REPRESENT A FAMILY NAMED HUMMEL AND THEY OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY AT THE NORTH, VERY, VERY NORTH END OF PETALUMA.
IT'S AP NUMBER 0 0 7 4 3 1 0 0 4.
UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT PARCEL AND THIS ONE IS IT'S INCORPORATED AND IT ALSO TEST, UH, CONTIGUOUS TO THE WILLOWBROOK.
UM, IT'S FURTHER DOWNSTREAM AND I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY THAT'S GONE ON WITH THESE SITES.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, DURING TIMES OF A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD EVENTS, THE INUNDATION IS SUCH THAT THERE'S LIKE THIR, AS I REMEMBER IT, 1300 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND COMES OVER THE WILLOWBROOK AND THROUGH THE SITE YOU GUYS ARE CONSIDERING.
AND THAT'S HYDROLOGY IS, YOU KNOW, IMPACTING THE WHOLE AREA.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD WAS DESIGNED TO RETAIN 50 YEAR FLOOD EVENTS.
UM, WHAT GOES THROUGH REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK IS IN EXCESS OF THAT DURING LARGER INUNDATIONS.
SO WHEN 20 YEARS AGO, OR NOT QUITE 20 YEARS AGO, I HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM PAMELA TUFT, WHO WAS THE GENERAL PLAN ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME, UH, DATED APRIL, 2005, UH, TO THE HUMMELS.
AND MR. HUMMEL PASSED, UNFORTUNATELY SIX MONTHS AGO.
MRS. HUMMEL'S STILL ALIVE AND THEY BASICALLY GOT THEIR PROPERTY DOWN ZONED, UM, TO AGRICULTURE DURING THE 2025 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, OR I'M SORRY, GENERAL PLAN PROCESS.
UH, THEY CAME OUT WITH A GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, TO GO FROM, WELL, THEY SUGGESTED AGRICULTURE.
THEN AFTER MEETING WITH 'EM AND WORKING WITH 'EM, THEY SUGGESTED TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN TO BE GOING FROM AGRICULTURE TO BUSINESS PARK.
[01:05:01]
NOW THIS IS NOT ONLY INCORPORATED, THERE'S AN EASEMENT TO NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD THROUGH THE REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK.THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE NEXT PHASE OF REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK AND YET IT WAS DOWN ZONE TO AGRICULTURE.
AND THE THINKING AT THE TIME WAS WHEN WE GET ALL THE SURFACE WATER CONCERNS AND OTHER THINGS DONE, THEN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WILL IMPROVE.
SO 2025 GENERAL PLAN IS ABOUT DONE AND THE 2045 SHOULD BE IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND MAYBE TO STAFF INDEED, IS WHERE DOES THIS WHOLE THING FIT IN TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND HOW ARE OTHER PARCELS IN THIS GENERAL AREA GONNA BE? SORRY, YOUR TIME IS UP.
COULD I HAVE A LITTLE LATITUDE ON THREE MINUTES BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE LAST SPEAKER AND IT'S SUBJECT
I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO GIVE YOU LATITUDE.
UM, I, I DON'T WANT TO ONE MORE MINUTE.
I, I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I DO SUPPORT THE, UH, APPLICATION HERE.
I'VE HAD GOOD EXPERIENCES, CORNERSTONE, AND I DO THINK GOING THROUGH LCO AND INCORPORATING THE PROPERTY SERVES COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO ALL THAT DOES MAKE SENSE.
I JUST LIKE TO KNOW FROM A GENERAL PLAN POINT OF VIEW, HOW WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THE COUNCIL IS GONNA BE HANDLING.
UH, BEFORE MOVING INTO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, UH, ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO FLAG I'LL AS AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE JUST TO THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION THAT WE'RE RESPONDING TO, SO THAT, WHILE I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND QUESTIONS AROUND HOW THIS FALLS IN LINE WITH THAT BROADER PROCESS, THAT IS DEFINITELY A WORTHWHILE QUESTION TO BRING UP AT THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHERE THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT NOW.
UH, WE CAN SPECULATE HERE, BUT THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN THAT PROCESS.
AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT, TO THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN BASED ON THE CURRENT IZO AND GENERAL PLAN THAT WE HAVE.
NOW, UH, MOVING INTO THIS COMMON PORTION, SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS BEFORE US.
UH, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD SUPPORT PREZONING AND NOT ANNEXATION.
SO I DON'T WANT FOLKS TO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I DO WANT TO SEPARATE THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT JUST SO WE CAN CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE PREZONING LOOKS GOOD, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT OR NOT, AND THEN MOVE TO THE ANNEXATION RESOLUTION.
UH, AND WITH THAT, I WILL START THINGS OFF WITH THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE PREZONING RESOLUTION.
SO WE'LL START WITH COMMENTS THERE FIRST, AND I AM GOING TO DO THIS ONE IN LINE.
UM, I DON'T THINK I HAVE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, ROGER.
YEAH, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE PREZONING MAKE, MAKES SENSE TO ME.
UH, I WOULD JUST SAY OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PREZONING BASED ON ONLY THE LCO PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, WHICH I DID WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE FLOWCHART.
I THINK THAT'S THE BEST LCO FLOW CHART I'VE SEEN, AND I'VE SEEN QUITE A FEW UGLY ONES OVER THE YEARS, SO THANK YOU.
UH, BUT ALSO JUST BECAUSE OF ZONING FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA AND HOW IT FALLS IN LINE, I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SITE USE, CREATING ANY KIND OF CONFLICT, AND IT'LL FALL WELL IN LINE WITH THE SITE THAT WE HAVE.
UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE CHOSEN PRE ZONES.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE, UM, PREZONING.
I FEEL LIKE ANYTIME WE CAN GET, UM, SEPTIC AWAY FROM, UM, FLOODING ISSUES IS A WIN.
SUPPORT THAT SUPPORTIVE OF THE PREZONING AS WELL.
AND I AM ALSO WITH THAT AS I, DO YOU WANT TO GET STAFF'S OPINION? WOULD IT BE BETTER TO VOTE INDIVIDUALLY NOW ON THE PRESENTING RESOLUTION OR WAIT UNTIL WE'VE HAD THE ANNEXATION DISCUSSION SINCE I'M ASSUMING PRESENTING DOESN'T REALLY MATTER AS MUCH IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANNEXATION.
I I THINK WE COULD GO, I THINK WE COULD GO EITHER WAY.
I THINK IT, IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO THE, THE, TO RECOMMEND ON THE PREZONING
[01:10:01]
WOULD COMMUNICATE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS RIGHT, TO RECOMMEND THE ZONING EFFECTIVELY THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.AND, AND SO I DO THINK THAT THE TWO, UM, RESOLUTIONS BEFORE YOU STAND SEPARATE BECAUSE, UM, EXACTLY WHAT THAT PREZONING RESOLUTION IS COMMUNICATING.
UM, AND BECAUSE WE DO HAVE FINDINGS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE ICO THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.
SO, UM, THEN I THINK FOR THE ANNEXATION, HOWEVER, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A PROCESS IN OUR ICO FOUR ANNEXATION.
THERE'S NOT SPECIFIC FINDINGS, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK WHEN WHAT YOU COMMUNICATE THROUGH THE ANNEXATION IS, IS A BIT DIFFERENT IN NATURE THAN WHAT YOU'RE COMMUNICATING THROUGH THE REZONING.
SO I, I AGREE CHAIR THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO TREAT THOSE SEPARATELY, BUT HOW YOU WANT TO ORGANIZE DISCUSSION.
UM, I THINK JUST WITH MY COMMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION NOW, HOPEFULLY THAT'S GUIDANCE FOR HOW THEY WOULD, WOULD, UH, CONSIDER THOSE RESOLUTIONS.
AND WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, I'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD A MOTION FOR THE PREZONING.
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
UH, WOULD A CLERK DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE.
THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO BRING FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF HAS PROVIDED FOR PREZONING ON THE SITE.
ABSENT VICE MAYOR CATER THOMPSON? YES.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL NOW PIVOT THE DISCUSSION TO THE MAIN ITEM, WHICH IS REALLY THE RESOLUTION AROUND ANNEXATION AND WHETHER OR NOT WE FEEL WE HAVE THE FINDINGS TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND WITH THAT, BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO PICK ON THE SAME PERSON TWICE.
'CAUSE THAT IS, I'VE BEEN TOLD NOT A KIND THING TO DO.
I'LL START ON THE OTHER SIDE WITH OUR VICE MAYOR.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE ANNEXATION, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING TWO OTHER QUESTIONS POPPED UP.
UM, I GUESS FIRSTLY, IF RAIL SERVICE PLAN TO BE IMPACTED IN THE FUTURE, UH, ARE THERE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE THAT WOULD TRIGGER SOME KIND OF REVIEW? WOULD THAT BE PART OF A REVIEW PROCESS FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? IS WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ANY IMPACTS ON RAIL SERVICE, WOULD THAT BE FLAGGED IN FUTURE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW? THAT'S, I, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, UH, UH, IN COMMISSION QUESTIONS PRIOR TO THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING.
CERTAINLY THE, UH, THE SMART LINE IS OWNED BY SMART AND SO THEY WOULD BE THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THAT.
THERE IS THE SPUR THAT'S LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
UM, I THINK WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IF DEVELOPMENT WAS PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE IS LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY EASEMENTS THAT WOULD, UM, EITHER RESTRICT WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THAT SPUR OR IF, IF THAT SPUR IS IN PLACE, YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY THE, THE CARS WOULD COME OFF OF THE MAIN TRACK AND THEN ONTO THE LUMBER YARD IN ORDER, YOU KNOW, TO BE UNLOADED AND SUCH.
SO IT COULD BE THAT, UM, THAT SMART WOULD NOT HAVE ANY, ANY RIGHTS TO THAT SPUR LINE, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE DIRECTED AND GUIDED BY AN EASEMENT IF THERE'S ONE.
AND I'LL JUST ADD TOO, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS IF IT WAS IN CITY PROPERTY OR IN UNINCORPORATED.
YEAH, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO PRESUPPOSING ANY FUTURE PROJECTS, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING I COME TO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FLOOD IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PLOT.
UH, THEIR PROPOSAL DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE THE CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ANY WORSE WHEN IT COMES TO FLOODING, UH, AND INSTEAD ALLOWS FOR WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, POTENTIALLY MORE CONTROLS COMPARED TO SONOMA COUNTY REGULATION WHEN IT COMES TO FLOODING.
YOU KNOW, THERE IS A STICKING POINT HERE.
THIS LETTER I THINK IS KIND OF A NEW, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA SAY SILVER BULLET, BUT IT'S KIND OF A NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY WITH HOW WE'RE MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS BASED ON THIS.
THE WAY I READ IT IS, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE DID AUTHORIZE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO THE SITE, WHICH I ASSUME WAS PART OF AN ANNEXATION PROCESS, NOT A PREZONING PROCESS.
SO I, THE WAY I'M READING THIS IS KIND OF A CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION OF ANNEXATION, UH, THAT THEY NEEDED THE FILL REMOVED BEFOREHAND.
UH, BUT THAT SAID, UM, I LIKE THE PLANNING MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE KIND OF KICK THAT DECISION TO COUNCIL.
UM, I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS DECISION KIND OF FALLS IN LINE WITH THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
[01:15:01]
MADE VERY WELL.AGAIN, WE'RE NOT MAKING CONDITIONS REGARDING FLOODING ANY WORSE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE.
UM, AND IN FACT GIVES THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE IT.
SO IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO CONDITION THIS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THIS THAT COUNCIL EVENTUALLY VOTES ON THE FINAL ANNEXATION PIECE THAT WOULD GO TO THE LAFCO HEARING, RIGHT? SO JUST THE STRONGEST LANGUAGE POSSIBLE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO SAY, YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT THIS FILL ISSUE, HOW THIS JIVES AGAINST OUR NO NET FILL POLICY.
UM, AND KIND OF KICKING THE DECISION TO THEM, I THINK IS A GREAT PATH FORWARD.
SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON ANNEXATION.
UM, MY THOUGHTS ON ANNEXATION ARE, UM, THAT, YEAH, I THINK I'D RATHER HAVE THIS PROPERTY UNDER, UM, CITY PURVIEW THAN COUNTY PURVIEW, JUST BECAUSE OUR POLICIES ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE REGARDING, UM, DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAINS AND, UM, AREAS WHERE THEY'RE ARE PRONE TO FLOODS.
SO, UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE THIS FROM THE COUNTY.
SO YEAH, I SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION.
UM, I AGREE LARGELY WITH WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID.
I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS FUTURE PROOFING THE SITE IN A LOT OF WAYS.
UH, COUNTY'S CURRENT EFFORTS AROUND ARENA NUMBERS HAVE LED TO SOME ALARMING ZONING IN AREAS I WOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO.
I THINK PROTECTING SITES LIKE THIS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN OUR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IS PRETTY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY A SITE LIKE THIS THAT HAS HAD AN IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT FOR OUR CITY.
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE TO SONOMA FEED A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO INTERACT WITH THAT SITE.
THE FACT THAT IT WILL EFFECTIVELY ALREADY FALL IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALREADY THERE FOR THE CITY JUST GIVES US MORE CONTROLS IN TERMS OF REGULATIONS, WHICH THE CURRENT OWNERS MAY NOT LOVE, BUT IT GIVES US UNIFORMITY.
WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, COUNTY MAKING A CONTRADICTORY DECISION ON US ONE DAY.
UH, ALSO IF WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, HAVING THE CONNECTION OF SERVICES IS THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT IT'S LOCATED IN THE DOWNSTREAM PORTION OF THE RIVER ACCESS ENHANCEMENT PLAN.
THAT ONLY MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE STRONGER PROTECTIONS THERE.
UH, AND NOT TO THINK TOO MUCH ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I DO HAVE THAT MUCH MORE HOPE ABOUT HOW THE SITE IS MAINTAINED, EVEN IF IT SHOULD CHANGE HANDS IF ONLY BECAUSE IT'LL BE SUBJECT TO NOT ONLY AN UPDATED GENERAL PLAN IN IZO, BUT A FULL CLIMATE MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE IN THE LAST GENERAL PLAN, BUT WILL HAVE IN THIS ONE, WHICH SHOULD ONLY HELP TO PROTECT.
UM, AND I DID JUST WANTED TO NOTE THERE REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY OTHER PROCESS TO GO THROUGH OTHER THAN LCO.
UM, IT WAS NOTED IN COMMENTS OR IN QUESTIONS EARLIER ABOUT, UH, THE RARE, UM, FAIRLY RARE EXCEPTIONS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES WITHOUT, WITHOUT ACTUALLY ANNEXING.
UH, SOME OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS BA RELATED TO THAT WOULD HAVE TO INVOLVE AN ACTUAL BARRIER OR ACTUAL MAJOR SUBSISTENCE ISSUE THAT WOULD PREVENT THE CITY FROM PROVIDING RESOURCES OR A LARGE ISLAND DISPUTE.
KIND OF LIKE WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN SANTA ROSA FOR 20 YEARS BETWEEN COUNTY AND CITY.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT ISSUE HERE.
SO IF WE WANT TO PROVIDE SERVICES, THERE'S GOING TO BE NO OTHER WAY OTHER THAN ANNEXATION.
AND FINALLY, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ZEN'S POINT ON HAVING THE STRONGEST LANGUAGE POSSIBLE WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING SURE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IS THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, BUT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH PRIORITY AROUND NOT ONLY REMOVING NET FILL, BUT ALSO PREVENTING ANY FURTHER NET FILL SHOULD THERE BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AND WITH THAT, ROGER? YEAH, I, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF, UH, ANNEXATION.
I THINK IT BRINGS THE PROPERTY WITHIN, WITHIN OUR GROWTH BOUNDARY OR EXPANDS OUR GROWTH BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THE SITE, WHICH I THINK IS POSITIVE.
UH, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH, UH, SURROUNDING ZONING.
UH, IT DOESN'T CHANGE EXISTING USES OR DEVELOPMENT.
UH, AND ANY CHANGE OR EXPANSION WOULD REQUIRE A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS IN PERMITTING.
UM, I ALSO THINK THE BARN IS A VERY INTERESTING STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF A NICE INGREDIENT OUT THERE AND I, AND I LOVE TO GO IN THERE AND JUST LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY HAVE OR DON'T HAVE.
BUT IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING, UM, URBAN ELEMENT.
UM, I AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID ALREADY, UM, AND WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE STAFF AS THIS HEADS TO CITY COUNCIL TO TRIPLE, QUADRUPLE CHECK THAT ALL OF THE CURRENT USES CAN CONTINUE.
UM, BECAUSE I WOULD HATE FOR ANY OF THOSE ARTISANS TO GET, UH, BOOTED.
[01:20:01]
DID YOU, VICE MAYOR, DID YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? OKAY, WELL, WITH THAT, I'M GONNA ASK IF WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION.I COULD JUST PUT IT FORWARD, BUT I'M REALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO.
UM, BUT THE LANGUAGE WOULD SAY, RECOGNIZE AND RESPOND TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE 2 20 15 LETTER.
UM, PERHAPS WE, WE'D BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT FROM THE CITY TO, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL FOR ADDRESSING EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT EXISTING FILL THAT WAS PLACED AND THEN IN QUOTATIONS AND DERIVING FROM THE, UH, LETTER MANY YEARS AGO.
SO I THINK THERE WE'RE MAKING A CONNECTION TO THE FILL, WE'RE RECOGNIZING THE 2015 LETTER, AND THEN YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO, UM, IDENTIFY SOME, SOME ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL.
SO I THINK IN THAT WAY, WE'RE NOT, I, I DON'T FEEL THAT WE'RE KICKING IT TO COUNCIL.
I FEEL THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO MORE WORK ON IT IN LIGHT OF, UH, WHAT COUNT COUNCIL'S INTENT WAS IN 2015.
AND THEN WE'RE NOT BOXING THEM IN IF LCO RIGHT COMES BACK.
AND I THINK THAT GIVES CHANCE FOR OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.
AND WE STILL HAVE SOME OF THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON COUNCIL TO CORRECT.
SO WITH THAT LANGUAGE IN MIND, I WILL MOVE THE ITEM.
AND WITH THAT, MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE.
ABSENT VICE MAYOR CATER THOMPSON? YES.
THE MOTION? YES, THE MOTION HAS PASSED.
I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, AT LEAST THAT I KNOW OF THAT WE'VE BEEN PART OF A LARGE ANNEXATION.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REALLY SAY WELCOME TO PETALUMA.
BUT YEAH, FIRST STEP, YOU, YOU, YOU MADE IT ONE THE FIRST STEP, BUT LIKE, WELCOME THOUGH,
WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE MEETING ITEM FOUR.
AND I, I PREDICT I'LL START TO HEAR PEOPLE RUSTLING OUT.
UH, AND WE WILL MOVE TO, UH, COMMISSION COMMENT.
I DID WANT TO NOTE WE HAVE A RELATIVELY FULL STAFF REPORT FROM, UH, PLANNING MANAGER TRIPLE.
SO IF WE COULD ABBREVIATE OUR COMMENTS A BIT, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
OH, AND CHAIR BEFORE, UH, WE DID RECEIVE THE LETTER.
I THINK ANDREW ALREADY SAID THAT HE'LL POST THIS ONLINE IN ANY COMMENTS OR ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSION RECEIVED REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THOSE WILL ALSO BE POSTED ONLINE, UH, JUST IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT.
AND YOU'RE, YOU'VE MADE ME REALIZE THAT I NEVER PAUSED TO ASK ABOUT THAT AFTER EACH ITEM, SO THANK YOU.
[COMMITTEE COMMENT]
INTO COMMISSION COMMENT, AND I'M JUST GONNA GO STRAIGHT DOWN THE LIST.JESSICA, UH, NO COMMENTS FROM ME.
ROGER, UH, JUST BRIEFLY, WE, UH, HAD A, UH, TRADE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW MEETING OF THE INPRO TREE ORDINANCE.
SO IT SEEMED LIKE IT'S MAKING PROGRESS AND EVERYBODY HAD THEIR INPUT, AND IT'S GONNA COME BACK TO US BEFORE IT GOES TOO MUCH FURTHER.
BUT IT'S, IT'S SEEMS, UH, IT'S GETTING DONE.
UH, I WILL JUST SAY BRIEFLY, IT'S LOOKING LIKE THE STATE BUDGET DEFICIT ISN'T AS SEVERE AS ORIGINALLY PREDICTED, BUT WE SHOULDN'T EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF HOUSING RELATED FUNDS OR TRANSIT FUNDS THIS COMING BUDGET CYCLE.
HEIDI
SO REALLY INTERESTING TO WATCH THAT DEVELOP.
AND THEN WE ALSO MADE COMMENTS AND PROVIDED FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT BLUEPRINT FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY, UH, WHICH WAS A LONG AND, AND REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION.
UM, LAST NIGHT AT THE CITY COUNCIL, WE, UM, LOOKED AT THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND WE EXCLUDED THREE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE POTENTIAL, UM, DEVELOPMENT, UH, BECAUSE
[01:25:01]
ONE WAS ON FREITAS ROAD, ONE WAS ON LAKEVILLE ACROSS THE STREET FROM BASICALLY KINDA THE WASTEWATER PLANT.AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS, BUT WHERE THE SMART, UM, HEADQUARTERS IS, IT'S KIND OF IN BACK OF THAT AREA.
AND WE JUST FELT AS THOUGH THAT, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION, GETTING PEOPLE THERE, IT WASN'T CONVENIENT.
IT WAS VMT AND THEN WHAT WE DID WITH THE CORONA STATION AND DID A CIRCLE AROUND THERE TO DO, UM, A SPECIFIC PLAN WITHIN LIKE A HALF A MILE, BUT ACTUALLY HAVE EXTENDED THAT, THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY BRING MORE PROPERTY IN.
AND SO IT'S ALL WITHIN A GOOD DISTANCE OF WALKING TO A RAIL STATION.
SO IT WAS VERY POSITIVE AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS ON THE COUNCIL, SO THAT WAS GREAT.
SO, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED MANY YEARS AGO, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU KIND OF REFLECT AND, AND SO IT WAS GOOD.
SO THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS AND UM, UNFORTUNATELY, I, AS I SAID, MY DOG GOT SKUNK TODAY, 5 37 THIS MORNING, AND I CAN STILL SMELL SKUNK ON ME.
[STAFF COMMENT]
I WILL CLOSE OUT.I'LL MOVE TO STAFF COMMENT AND WELCOME PLANNING MANAGER, ANDREW TRIPLE.
UM, I WANTED TO KICK OFF, UH, COMMENTS THIS EVENING BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE, THE COMMENTS FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING THAT EXISTING 17 ACRE PARCEL.
SO WE WILL, UH, REACH OUT TO HIM AND EN AND ENGAGE WITH, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WITH HIM, UH, TO BRING HIM INTO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, UM, WHICH YOU'LL BE LEARNING MORE ABOUT IN JUST A MOMENT.
AND I'M HOPING THAT, THAT THROUGH THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK STUDY SESSION AND SO FORTH, MORE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MIGHT HAVE AN INTEREST IN MORE CLOSELY EXAMINING THEIR LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS OF THEIR PARCELS WILL, WILL BECOME AWARE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION WITH, UH, WITH THE CITY.
SO, UH, TO KICK OFF MY COMMENTS, FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UH, MANY OF YOU KNOW MELISSA ABERCROMBIE.
SHE WAS A FORMER COMMISSIONER.
SHE'S BEEN ON A VARIETY OF OTHER, UH, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS.
UH, MOST RECENTLY SHE WAS SERVING AS CHAIR OF THE, UH, PETALUMA, UM, PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE.
SHE IS, UM, IS JOINING THE PLANNING TEAM AS THE PUBLIC ART SPECIALIST.
AND SO SHE WILL BE, UH, DAVID WARD WILL BE TRANSITIONING OUT OF THAT ROLE.
AND, UM, SHE WILL TRANSITION INTO THAT ROLE AS WELL AS, UH, SUPPORTING PLANNING, UH, COMMUNICATIONS.
AND SO WE'VE ALREADY CONNECTED HER WITH THE, THE COMMISSION'S AD HOC COMMITTEE AND, AND, UH, SO FORTH WITH THAT IN REGARD TO THAT.
WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE HER ON BOARD AND JUST THE WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THAT SHE BRINGS TO IT, UH, TO THE POSITION.
AND THEN THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE WILL BE ELECTING A NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR THEN THIS AT THIS THURSDAY'S MEETING, UM, IN RESPONSE TO THAT TRANSITION.
SO FROM THERE, I WANT TO GO INTO, I THOUGHT I WANTED TO DO IS A LEAD UP TO, UM, SORT OF WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO EXPECT IN 2024 IN TERMS OF COMMISSION ACTIVITY, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE A BUSY YEAR, BUT I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO, UM, JUST, JUST TAKE A STEP BACK AND SHARE SOME OF THE ACTIVITY THAT HAS HAPPENED IN 23, UM, AS, AS WE LEAD INTO 24 IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
SO WE'VE BEEN, UM, WE STARTED LAST YEAR CRUNCHING SOME NUMBERS ON THE OVERALL PERMIT ACTIVITY THAT, THAT, UH, PLANNING DIVISION ENGAGES IN, IN, IN, UM, ITS PROVISION OF SERVICES TO THIS CITY.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE OVER THE TOTAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE OUR MINISTERIAL PERMIT REVIEW AS WELL AS OUR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IS, UH, THE, THE TOTAL NUMBER ACROSS THE TOP FOR EACH OF THE YEARS SINCE 2019.
UM, AND YOU SEE THAT HIGH OF 402, AND THEN THAT DIP DOWN IN 2021, WHICH WE ALWAYS REMIND OURSELVES REFLECTS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE COVID EPIDEMIC EXPERIENCE AND, AND SO FORTH.
AND THEN WE SEE A, A CLIMB BACK UP IN 2022 COMING OUT OF THE PANDEMIC EXPERIENCE AND THEN A, A DROP AGAIN IN 2023, WHICH I WOULD, UH, LIKELY ATTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY AND TO, TO RISING INTEREST RATES THAT ARE AFFECTING NOT JUST, UH, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, THE, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS, BUT ALSO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES, BUSINESS EXPANSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, BUT NOT, NOT SO MUCH OF A, OF A DECREASE THOUGH, AS COMPARED TO, UM, ESPECIALLY 2020 AND 2021.
THEN WE, UH, WE JUST RAN SOME NUMBERS AND, AND I THINK IT'S ESPECIALLY USEFUL TO LOOK AT PERCENTAGES WHEN WE LOOK DOWN TO, UM, THE CA THE ACTIVITY CATEGORY, MINISTERIAL VERSUS MAJOR AND MINOR.
[01:30:01]
THERE YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT A MAJORITY OF THE WORK THAT, UH, THE D UH, DIVISION IS DOING IS IN THE AREA OF MINISTERIAL PERMITS.UM, SO REVIEWING, UM, YOU KNOW, FENCE PERMITS, UM, WHICH, WHICH ARE, ARE A LEVEL OF, OF MINISTERIAL PERMIT.
WE HAD TO CLASSIFY, WE HAD TO CLASSIFY SOME THAT EVEN THOUGH WE USE DISCRETION, WE STILL JUST TO MOVE THEM INTO THE MAJOR CATEGORIES.
BUT, UM, SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS, HOME OCCUPATIONS, AND SO FORTH, UH, WOULD FALL UNDER THE MINISTERIAL CATEGORY.
AND THEN MINOR PERMITS, MINOR USE PERMITS AND MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, AS WELL AS, UM, MINOR HISTORIC SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WHERE IT'S WARRANTED.
AND THEN THE MAJOR WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW THAT COME BEFORE YOU, AS WELL AS HISTORIC SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW THAT YOU MAY NOT SEE WHEN IT COMES BEFORE.
UM, UH, THE, UH, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, UM, AS WELL AS TENTATIVE MAPS, UM, REZONINGS AND SO FORTH.
SO JUST A, A QUICK SNAPSHOT OF, OF HOW, UM, PLANNING DIVISION SPENDS ITS TIME RELATED TO PERMIT REVIEW.
AND THEN OF COURSE, UH, WE HAVE AN EQUALLY, UH, LARGE WORK ACTIVITY IN THE AREA OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT GOING ON FROM THERE.
THEN, UM, I WANTED TO HIT IT JUST A FEW OF THE HIGHLIGHTS, AND THIS IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE, BUT IN, UM, 2023, THE HAMPTON INN HOTEL EXPANSION, ACTUALLY, THAT WAS APPROVED, I BELIEVE, IN THE LATTER PART OF 2022 AND 2023, THEY DID SUBMIT THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, AND WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, UH, TO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT READY FOR ISSUANCE ON THAT PROJECT SO THAT THEY CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION LAB CON.
NORTH AMERICA WAS A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2023.
UM, THAT, THAT PROJECT IS, UH, HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BUILDING PERMITS THAT IT DOES FACE A CHALLENGE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY.
THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT COSTS HAVE, HAVE RISEN SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND OF COURSE, THAT PROJECT WAS THE RECIPIENT OF, UM, FEDERAL FUNDING.
AND SO IT'S WORKING THROUGH THAT, UH, INTERESTING ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE INTO THE MARIN HEALTH PETALUMA, UM, CLINICAL HUB AT 3 35 SOUTH MCDOWELL IN FRONT OF, I BELIEVE THE SAFEWAY ON SOUTH MCDOWELL.
UM, THAT WAS A MINOR USE PERMIT, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW THAT, UH, DANIEL HARRISON REVIEWED THIS SUMMER AND WE APPROVED.
AND THEN SCOTT RANCH, THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UM, FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE RED BARN COMPLEX, UH, WAS APPROVED THEN, UH, INTERESTING PROJECT WHERE, UM, THE SQUA TEAM PROVIDED A REVIEW FOR THE CITY.
THE CITY WAS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ON THIS PROJECT AS OPPOSED TO LEAD AGENCY.
AND THEN COUNCIL APPROVED ORDINANCE GRANTING TEMPORARY EASEMENTS, UM, FOR THE GAS LINE REPLACEMENT, UH, IN SCHOENBERGER PARK.
UH, ANOTHER INTERESTING PROJECT, THE, THE CITY WAS APPROACHED, UM, WITH, UH, THE MARY FULLER MCCHESNEY ESTATE.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE ESTATE WAS DIRECTED TO GIVE THE CITY THE FIRST OPTION ON ACQUISITION OF PIECES FROM THE ESTATE.
AND, UH, SHE WAS A RENOWNED LOCAL, UH, FEMALE ARTIST.
AND SO THE, UM, THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE, UM, PROVIDED RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY FOR ACQUISITION OF 14 OF THOSE PIECES.
AND THEN THEY'RE, UH, RIGHT NOW WORKING THROUGH WHERE THOSE, THOSE UH, PIECES MIGHT BE INSTALLED, UM, AT LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, THEN ALSO IN 2023, THE ELLIS CREEK WATER FACILITY SOLAR ARRAY INSTALLATION WAS APPROVED.
UM, THAT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW THAT MIKE JANUS, UM, COMPLETED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH, UM, PUBLIC WORKS, UH, TEAM AS WELL.
AND THEN SOME OTHER HIGHLIGHTS, UH, SCOTT RANCH PROJECT RECEIVED, ITS, UH, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING, MAP AMENDMENT, TE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPROVALS, OYSTER COVE ALSO, UH, RECEIVED ITS APPROVALS.
AND AS YOU'LL SEE SHORTLY, OYSTER COVE WILL BE COMING TO YOU AT THE NEXT PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR A SPARSE STUDY SESSION.
SO, UH, I'LL HAVE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS ON THAT WHEN, UM, WHEN WE GET TO OUR 2024 OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVIEW.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE SENIOR MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY, YOU'LL RECALL THAT.
AND THEN MOST RECENTLY, THE, UH, FAIRGROUNDS OVERLAY.
THEN, UM, SOME PROJECTS THAT ARE STILL IN REVIEW, THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY, UH, AS WELL AS THE UK AND APPALACHIAN HOTEL.
UH, WE, THE CITY HAS COMMUNICATED THAT WE ARE REQUIRING
[01:35:01]
EIR BE PREPARED FOR THAT PROJECT.AND WE ARE CURRENTLY AWAITING RECEIPT OF THE RFP TO REVIEW, UM, FOR PREPARATION OF THE EIR.
IN THE INTERIM, UM, CITY STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE HOTEL DESIGN, RESPOND TO, UM, QUESTIONS COMING FROM THE EIR PREPARATION TEAM, AS WELL AS REQUEST FOR ANY ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL STUDIES OR REPORTS.
SO IT'S STILL VERY ACTIVE, EVEN THOUGH WE'LL BE MOVING INTO PERHAPS A LESS PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE AS THE EIR IS PREPARED.
UM, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, UH, WERE REVIEWED BY THE, THE COMMISSION IN DECEMBER, AND, UH, THEY'RE AGENDIZED FOR CITY COUNCIL FIRST READING ON FEBRUARY 5TH.
SO WE GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, YOUR SUPPORT OF THAT PROJECT AND, AND OUR ABILITY TO BRING IT TO FRUITION, AT LEAST, UH, FOR THIS FIRST ROUND OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE BLUEPRINT FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER KUSON, UM, MENTIONED, WE'LL SEE THAT THAT'S COMING UP FOR, I BELIEVE A STUDY SESSION IN PUBLIC HEARING THIS SPRING AS WELL.
SEA LEVEL RISE IN FLOOD MAPPING, UM, AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE LAND USE FRAMEWORK AND, AND WE'LL GET INTO MORE OF THAT.
UH, AND THEN CORY HEIGHTS IS IN ITS FINAL PHASE OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION.
SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, UM, BUILDING PERMITS FOR THAT FINAL PHASE.
THEN NEXT IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THE, UH, KRONO STATION SPECIFIC PLAN DID RECEIVE, UH, UH, FUNDING FROM THE, UH, MTC TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES, UH, FUNDING POOL.
AND SO I BELIEVE IN 2024, UH, WE'LL BE DEFINING THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR SUBMITTAL TO MTC.
THEY DO REVIEW THE SCOPE OF WORK ON THAT, UH, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE FUNDING AGENCY.
AND THEN FROM THERE, AN RFP OR RFQ WOULD BE DEVELOPED, UH, TO, TO BEGIN IDENTIFYING, UM, THE CONSULTING TEAM WHO WOULD DEVELOP THAT, THAT, UH, SPECIFIC PLAN AND PROCESS.
AND THEN ANOTHER, UH, VERY EXCITING, UM, PUBLIC ART OPPORTUNITY AS THE KENNELWORTH PARK AND PLAYGROUND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
THE GOAL OF THAT PROJECT IS TO, UM, DESIGN INTEGRATED, IMMERSIVE PUBLIC PLAYGROUND ARTWORK THAT CAN BE BOTH FUNCTIONAL, BUT THEN SERVE AS, AS, UM, PUBLIC ART.
AND, UH, IT'S A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY'S PARKS DIVISION TO, UM, HELP, UH, FUND AND, AND CONSTRUCT, UM, THE, THE, UH, I GUESS PLAY FACILITIES THAT WOULD ALSO DOUBLE AS PUBLIC ART OR THE PUBLIC ART THAT WOULD DOUBLE AS PLAY FACILITIES DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS SATURDAY FROM 10 UNTIL ONE, THEY'RE HOSTING A COMMUNITY, UM, INPUT MEETING.
AND IT'S NOT, IT'S, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S A SORT OF A FREE AGENDA.
YOU CAN STOP IN, YOU CAN RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AND, AND SUBMIT INPUT AND FEEDBACK INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS.
AND THAT WILL BE HELD AT THE, UH, AT THE KENNELWORTH LIBRARY.
KENNELWORTH DOESN'T REALLY HIT THIS COMMISSION, RIGHT? IT'S PARKS AND REC AND PUBLIC ART, JUST IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT WE CAN EXPECT TO BE ON OUR AGENDAS, CORRECT? RIGHT, RIGHT.
I, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE A QUESTION IF, IF, UM, EVENTUALLY BECAUSE EVEN PUBLIC PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO, TO HAVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
SO I THINK WE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DETERMINED YET WHAT LEVEL THAT WOULD BE, IF THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE OR IF THAT WOULD COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THROW IT OUT THERE THAT WE DO LOVE.
PARKS, PARKS ARE GREAT, AND THIS IS AN EXCITING PROJECT, SO, SO THAT WOULD BE A FUN THING TO DISCUSS.
MAYBE WE'LL FIND THAT NEEDS TO COME TO YOU.
SO THEN GOING ON TO, UH, JUST SOME, SOME REALLY, I, I THINK EXCITING HIGHLIGHTS, THE AMY'S KITCHEN DOWNTOWN CORPORATE OFFICE OPENED, UH, AND IS, IS FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST A REALLY EXCITING ADAPTIVE REUSE.
AND I THINK ANYTIME YOU CAN HAVE, UM, CORPORATE OFFICES LOCATE IN THE HEART OF YOUR DOWNTOWN IS, UH, IS A REALLY GREAT, UM, ACCOMPLISHMENT.
THEN, UH, THIS PAST SUMMER, UH, CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED ON FRIENDS OF THE PETALUMA.
THEY REPLACED THEIR STEAMER LANDING DOCK, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE DAVID ARDSLEY CENTER.
UH, PEP SENIOR HOUSING, UH, WAS, WAS CONSTRUCTION, WAS COMPLETED AND OCCUPIED AS WELL AS THE STUDIOS IN MONTERO, WHICH IS A PROJECT HOME KEY, UH, PROJECT 60 UNITS OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
AND THEN THE HOME TO SUITES HOTEL WAS GRANTED OCCUPANCY AS WAS NORTH RIVER APARTMENTS.
AND THEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT ON MCDOWELL BOULEVARD, YOU CAN CLEARLY NOTICE THAT, UH, THE DEER CREEK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF, UH, 134 UNITS AS WELL UNDERWAY.
UM, THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, UH, EITHER
[01:40:01]
HAS REVIEWED OR IS REVIEWING AT THIS THURSDAY'S MEETING THE PUBLIC ART INSTALLATION THAT WAS REQUIRED.I BELIEVE THERE'S FIVE ART PIECES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED, BUT IT WAS GOING TO BE A ROTATING EXHIBIT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE, LIKE, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, CHALLENGING TO IMPLEMENT.
AND SO I BELIEVE THE, THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE IS BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER A PERMANENT INSTALLATION AND TO FIND THAT THAT PERMANENT INSTALLATION WOULD BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PROJECT.
SO THEN GOING INTO 20, 24 HOUR TRENDING, UM, UH, PROJECTS, AS I MENTIONED, OYSTER COVE PHASE TWO, WHICH IS SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, UH, WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 13TH FOR A CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY SESSION.
THE GOAL IS TO, RATHER THAN TO, UM, WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THE SPAR SUBMITTAL, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY BE A, A DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LEVEL, UM, AND A LITTLE BIT TOO BAKED IS TO BRING IT FORWARD AT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAGE SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, PROVIDE INPUT ON WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE, UM, THE DESIGN LANGUAGE, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND SORT OF HOW, HOW YOU WILL THEN EVALUATE THE DESIGN THAT COMES BEFORE YOU IN PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I THINK, AGAIN, LISTENING TO THE GREAT FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED, ESPECIALLY FROM THE SCANNELL PROJECT OF WANTING TO SEE PROJECTS EARLIER AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT PROJECT IS ON A VERY AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE, UM, IN FOR, UH, CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
AND SO WE WOULD ANTICIPATE, UM, RESPONDING OR, OR THE APPLICANT ANTICIPATES RESPONDING WITH THE SPAR APPLICATION SOON AFTER FEBRUARY 13TH, UM, WITH A GOAL OF COMPLETING ITS, UH, SPAR PUBLIC HEARING BY JUNE.
THEN WE DO, UM, ONE OF OUR WORKSHOPS THAT WE HAVE PLANNED FOR 2024 IS A SECRET WORKSHOP, AGAIN, LISTENING TO SOME OF THE REQUESTS FROM LAST YEAR, ESPECIALLY AS WE DEALT WITH SOME, SOME REALLY, UM, COMPLEX, UH, CQA REVIEW, UM, ITEMS. AND SO, UH, OLIVIA AND CRYSTAL ARE PUTTING TOGETHER THAT WORKSHOP AND, UH, WE'RE EXCITED TO OFFER THAT ON FEBRUARY 27TH, UM, THE BLUEPRINT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE WILL COME BEFORE YOU FOR A STUDY SESSION IN FEBRUARY, I'M SORRY, BLUEPRINT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
PREVIOUSLY IT WAS A BLUEPRINT FOR CARBON REDUCTION OR CLIMATE, OR IS IT BLUEPRINT FOR CLIMATE ACTION CARBON NEUTRALITY.
UM, AND SO THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU IN FEBRUARY FOR A STUDY SESSION.
AND THEN I BELIEVE IN MARCH FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON ITS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, UM, TO RAVINA, WHICH IS SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF, UH, APPROXIMATELY 30 UNIT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IS AN SB THREE 30 PROJECT.
UM, WE ANTICIPATE COMING BEFORE, YOU KNOW, LATER THAN MARCH FOR ITS SPAR PUBLIC HEARING, AS WELL AS, UM, ONE 18 KIMBERLY, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL SPAR FOR, UM, HILLSIDE PROJECT, AS IS FIVE 60 HAYES.
UM, THOSE ARE ON TRACK TO COMPLETE PLANNING REVIEW AND COME BEFORE YOU, UM, BY THE, BY THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE YEAR.
UM, SCOTT RANCH RESIDENTIAL SPAR WILL BE SOON BEHIND THAT ASWELL SPIRIT LIVING LOT SIX.
UM, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR SPAR APPLICATION.
THEN WHAT, UM, THE, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE FRAMEWORK AND THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE BEST IS, IS TO BRING THE FRAMEWORK, UH, BEFORE YOU IN A STUDY SESSION.
WE'RE ANTICIPATING IN MARCH, BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO AGENDIZE, UM, MONTH, AT LEAST MONTHLY, A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, UM, RECOGNIZING THAT IT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO START TRACKING WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE ON IT, AND WHEN THESE VARIOUS, UH, COMPONENTS ARE COMING BEFORE YOU.
AS WELL AS THAT YOU'LL BE GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION SO THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AND, AND, UM, OFFER THEM RESOURCES.
AND, UM, THEN WE'LL GO INTO, WE HAVE TWO PACKAGES OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD.
UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REALLY RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE, THE FIRST PACKAGE IS, UH, LARGE FAMILY HOME CHILDCARE, UM, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT UPDATES AND VISITABILITY AMENDMENTS TO THE VISITABILITY ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2022.
UH, WE'LL BRING THOSE FORWARD TO YOU.
UM, SOME OF THOSE ARE DIRECTED BY STATE LAW.
UM, SO WE'LL BRING THOSE FOR YOU TO YOU STRAIGHT, UH, STRAIGHT INTO A PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN THE SECOND SET OF AMENDMENTS IS, UM, DEVELOPMENT OF AN SB NINE POLICY, UM, AS WELL AS DENSITY BONUS UPDATES, AND PERHAPS AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND MAYBE SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTED BY THE HOUSING
[01:45:01]
ELEMENT.WHERE WE WANTED TO DO THERE, UM, IS BRING THEM TO YOU IN A STUDY SESSION TO INTRODUCE THEM, AND THEN, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO, UM, TO DRAFT THEM AND BRING THEM BACK LATER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT I THINK WHEN WE GET INTO, IN PARTICULAR, UM, YOU KNOW, SB NINE AND, AND DENSITY IS WHERE WE REALLY START TO EXPERIENCE SOME IMPACTS OF STATE LEGISLATION ON LOCAL CONTROL.
AND SO WE FELT THAT A STUDY SESSION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXPLORE THAT AND HOW THAT THEN, UM, REFLECTS IN LOCAL POLICY AND SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE, WHICH WAS MENTIONED BY OUR, OUR, UM, TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS THIS EVENING, UM, WILL COME FORWARD.
I PUT THAT IN THE SECOND QUARTER, UH, FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
I BELIEVE THAT'S, UH, THAT'S THE GOAL, IS TO HAVE IT COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
UM, SO THEN SOME EXCITING NEWS.
IF YOU'VE, IF YOU'VE IN THE PAST BEEN TO THE SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S CONFERENCE, UH, IT'S, IT'S A REALLY, REALLY GREAT, UH, LOCAL REGIONAL CONFERENCE.
AND, UM, IT WILL BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 3RD FROM ONE TO 4:00 PM UM, AT SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY.
THE CONFERENCE THEMES, UH, THEY REVIEW STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY.
THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH OF IT THAT, THAT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, SIT WITH IT AGAIN.
UM, I FIND THAT I HAVE TO SIT WITH IT QUITE REGULARLY TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB IT ALL.
UM, AND THEN IMPLEMENTATION, NEW TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR CQA.
AND THEY ALWAYS DO SOME SESSIONS ON, ON JUST SORT OF, UM, HOW TO BE AN EFFECTIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO UNDERSTAND YOUR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY.
SO WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND, UH, YOU CAN REGISTER ONLINE.
I'LL BE CIRCULATING THE REGISTRATION LINK FOR YOU.
AND, UM, YOUR, UH, REGISTRATION FEE WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE CITY.
SO, AND I BELIEVE WITH THAT, THAT'S, UH, ALL I HAVE FOR YOU.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING US THE THOROUGH ROADMAP.
IT, IT HELPS US A LOT IN PREPARATION, BUT ALSO IT'S NICE TO SEE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME GOOD MEATY TOPICS TO DIVE INTO AND SEE A LOT OF PROGRESS IN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON.
CAN I ASK A, A QUESTION? OF COURSE.
ANDREW, A QUESTION ON, UH, YOUR STATISTICS OF THE AMOUNT OF MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROJECT.
IT LOOKED LIKE A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PROJECT.
HOW, HOW HAS THAT WORKED? I MEAN, IS IT WORKING OKAY? WELL, IT KEEPS US BUSY.
I'LL SAY THAT
AND THEN WE HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ACTIVITY, WHICH IS, IS WHAT WE LOOKED AT TONIGHT, AND THEN THE ADVANCE PLANNING OR THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
SO I THINK IN, IN ALL THREE OF THOSE AREAS WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE VERY FULL, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS EVOLVING AND WE'RE ALWAYS LEARNING.
AND SO IT'S, UH, IT KEEPS IT EXCITING FOR US.
THE CANNELL PROPERTY, THAT PRO THAT PROJECT, IS IT GOING THROUGH? BUT I THOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I MEANT TO, I MEANT TO, UM, HAVE THAT ON THE LIST.
SO, UM, THE, I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THAT THE, UH, PETALUMA RIVER PARK FOUNDATION HAS ACQUIRED THE CANNELL SITE AND, UH, WILL BE WORKING, PRESUMABLY BE WORKING THROUGH A DESIGN PROCESS, UM, THAT I'M SURE WILL BE VERY, VERY, UH, OPEN AND, AND, UH, COMMUNITY INVOLVED, AS HAS BEEN ALL OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE THERE.
SO YES, YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE, THE SCANNELL PROJECT IS NOT MOVING FORWARD.
HOWEVER, THEY'VE NOT YET WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATIONS.
SO THEY HAVE WHAT THEY'VE NOT YET WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATIONS.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT.
A QUESTION RELATED TO THAT, 'CAUSE A LOT OF OUR, FOR THE RIVER MASTER PLAN, A LOT OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS GONNA BE IN THAT CHUNK OF LAND.
UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS AND IT IS THEIR LAND NOW, BUT IS THERE AN OFFICIAL EFFORT FROM PLANNING TO TRY AND PRACTICALLY WORK WITH THEM ABOUT POSSIBLE HOUSING? OR DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE CANNELL PROJECT'S OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWN? NO, I THINK IT'S, IT'S JUST THEY ANNOUNCED WHAT, UH, MAYBE A WEEK AND A HALF AGO.
AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE GIVING THEM SPACE TO, YOU KNOW, GET COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH THEIR RECENT ACQUISITION AND YEAH.
SO I THINK, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS READY TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WHEN, WHEN THEY SIGNAL THAT THEY'RE READY.
OH, AND, AND ONE THING I DID JUST WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR, IF AT SOME POINT WE RUN INTO A SCHEDULING HOLE, SO TO SPEAK, AND
[01:50:01]
LOOKING AT THE ROADMAP, I DOUBT WE WILL, BUT IF WE DO, IT WOULD BE, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A REVIEW OF HOW THE RIVERFRONT MASTER PLANT THE PROCESS, LOOKING BACK, JUST TO GIVE US, 'CAUSE MANY OF US CAME TO IT AT DIFFERENT PARTS AND DIFFERENT PROJECTS THROUGHOUT.AND JUST TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT WORKED, WHAT DIDN'T WORK WELL, SINCE THIS MAY NOT BE THE LAST COMPLICATED MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE CITY HAS TO GO THROUGH WHERE IT'S MULTIPLE SITES, ONE PARENT DEVELOPER, JUST SO THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND PUT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAPER.
I'LL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT AND WE'LL BE SURE TO DO THAT BEFORE LOT SIX COMES FORWARD FOR REVIEW.
WE HAVE HAD ONE MEETING AND WE HAVE A SECOND MEETING SCHEDULED WITH PARKS, UM, TO DISCUSS, TO BUILD UPON SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE FOR LOT FIVE RELATED TO THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, THE, THE CENTRAL GREEN, UM, IMPROVEMENTS AND SO FORTH.
SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO REPORT ON THAT ALSO, BUT I'LL BE SURE THAT YOU GET THAT BEFORE LOT SIX.
AND WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 7:51 PM.