HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 26 11/16/1998CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL NOV 161998 - 2
Agenda Subject Title: An Amendment to the Petaluma Marina Planned Meeting Date:
District Development Program to Allow an Additional 30 Hotel Rooms for a November 16, 1998
Total of 184 Rooms for the Sheraton Marina Hotel. I—)
c��
Department:
Director:
Planning Pamela j
n.
Cost of Proposal: $ 0.00
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
Contact Person: Phon707)e Num
778-ber:
Mabel Bialik, Asso, ( (4301
Planner �J1�1
Amount Budgeted: $ 0.00
A. Location Map
B. Planning Commission Staff Report, October 13,1998
C. SPARC Minutes, July 23, 1998
D. Draft Minutes, Planning Commission, October 13, 1998
E Letter from Mr. Chechanover
Account Number: N/A
F. Draft Resolution to Amend the Petaluma Marina Planned Community District (PCD) Development Program
Full -Sized Plans
Summary Statement:
This project involves an amendment to the Planned Community District (PCD) Development Program standards
for the Petaluma Marina. The Program currently allows for the development of a 154 room hotel with associated
amenities. The applicant is proposing to construct a Sheraton Hotel and is requesting an amendment to the
standards to increase the number of hotel rooms previously approved for the Marina site from 154 to 184 rooms,
for an addition of 30 rooms. The hotel would be located at 745 Baywood Drive within the Marina Office
Business Park. The existing standards, originally approved in 1988 by Resolution No. 88-25 and amended in
1991, allow for a hotel of approximately 110,000 to 135,000 sq. ft. The hotel, with the proposed amendment,
would consist of approximately 135,500 sq. ft., and would include a multi -function room, smaller meeting rooms,
restaurant, bar and lounge, and health facility and pool.
Recommended City Council Action:
Find that no subsequent FIR or negative declaration need be prepared, and adopt the Resolution to amend the
PCD Program to allow 30 additional hotel rooms for a total of 184 rooms at the Sheraton Marina Hotel.
Submitted/to Finance Director: Subt o rney: Sub end to�Ci�ty Nlana er:
Today's Date: File Code:
October 23, 1998 REZ98008
s:\planning\c c\agenda\shrton cc
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 16,1998
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
SHERATON HOTEL AT THE PETALUMA MARINA
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This project involves a rezoning to amend the Planned Community District (PCD)
Development Program standards for the Petaluma Marina. The Program currently allows
for the development of a 154 room hotel with associated amenities. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to the standards to increase the number of hotel rooms
previously approved from 154 rooms to 184 rooms, for an addition of 30 rooms. The
hotel would be located at 745 Baywood Drive within the Marina Office Business Park.
The existing standards, originally approved in 1988 by Resolution No. 88-25 and
amended in 1991, allow for a hotel of approximately 110,000 to 135,000 sq. ft. The
hotel, with the proposed amendment, would consist of approximately 135,500 sq. ft., and
would include a multi -function room, smaller meeting rooms, restaurant, bar and lounge,
and health facility and pool.
The project site consists of approximately 2.06 acres located within the existing 30.5 acre
Petaluma Marina and Office Park complex at Baywood Drive and Lakeville Highway
(see Location Map, Attachment A). Access to the site is from Baywood Drive. To the
north of the Marina is Lakeville Highway, which is developed with mixed
use/commercial uses. Highway 101 is approximately 500 feet to the west and elevated
over the Petaluma River, where the project site is clearly visible from above to
northbound traffic. To the east of the Marina is a substantial wetlands area and drainage
area, which are preserved as permanent natural habitat.
The hotel site is vacant and is covered with weeds and grasses. From Baywood Drive the
driveway extends across the site and leads to additional Marina parking. A 190 slip
Marina, a boat launch ramp facility, and two office/retail buildings (Buildings A & B)
and related parking and site improvements have been constructed. A third office building
(Building C), which was part of the original project description for the Marina, has just
completed building permit review and will be located between Building B and the new
hotel.
Rezoning: The project is considered a rezoning because the PCD district standards are
proposed to be amended; however, the existing zoning is not proposed to be changed.
The PCD zoning designation and existing and proposed uses are consistent with the
General Plan land use designation of "Mixed Use." No change is proposed to the General
Plan designation. Amendments to a PCD development program/regulations that do not
change the base PCD Zoning Classification are acted upon by Resolution.
-2 -
PCD Amendment: With the exception of the number of the hotel rooms and the height of
the building cupola, the hotel is consistent with the rest of the PCD development
standards. The design review approval was conditioned by SPARC to reduce the height
of the cupola by 2 ft. to be consistent with the existing standards, which allow for a
maximum height of 91 ft.
The PCD standards allow a hotel of approximately 110,000 to 135,000 sq. ft. As
proposed, the hotel would consist of approximately 135,500 sq. ft., with 184 standard
rooms. Of these, 16 rooms would be loft suites. The hotel footprint for the 184 room
hotel is generally the same as the footprint for the 125 room hotel reviewed by the
original EIR, with a slight reduction at the south end of the building. The original
concept for the hotel was to provide suites only. The change to standard rooms accounts
for the slight reduction in the building footprint. The building footprint is generally the
same as that approved with the original project description in 1988. Therefore, no
substantial changes to the original site plan or to the layout or operations of the Marina
would result from the 30 additional hotel rooms.
Environmental Review: An Environmental Impact Report (the Petaluma Marina, Office,
and Hotel Project EIR, ENV86001) was certified by Resolution 86-294 on October 27,
1986 for the whole of the Marina project. The EIR analysis included a 125 room hotel,
commercial and office space, and related site improvements. The Marina and two
buildings (Building A & B), and site improvements were completed in 1990, 1992, and
1994, respectively. A third office building (Building C) has been approved for
construction. The hotel and related parking make up the remainder of the original Marina
proj ect.
In 1991 the PCD standards were amended to add 4 acres to the project site, to allow an
additional 63,000 sq. ft. of project area, which included increasing by 29 the number of
hotel rooms allowed, and to increase parking. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
adopted by Resolution 91-353 on December 16, 1991 which addressed the potential
impacts of this expansion. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to less
than significant.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
Guidelines), when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration has been adopted
for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration need be prepared if certain
findings are made. Further discussion of CEQA applicability is contained in the Planning
Commission staff report (see Attachment B).
2. BACKGROUND:
In 1988 the Planned Community District Development Program was adopted which
outlined the development standards for the Marina Office Park. The PCD included
provisions for a 125 room hotel with accessory support facilities and other related
businesses and services normally associated with hotel uses.
In 1990, a sign program was adopted for the PCD, and in 1991, the PCD program was
amended to allow for an additional 63,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, and hotel space
(allowing another 29 rooms to the hotel for a total of 154 rooms), additional Marina
berths, and related parking throughout the Marina complex. The PCD Program was
amended administratively in 1994 to permit flexibility in the location of restaurant uses
within the Marina office park.
On July 23" of this year, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)
reviewed and approved design plans for a 121,161 sq. ft., 154 room hotel with the
condition that this approval would be extended to an approximately 135,500 sq. ft., 184
room hotel, if the City Council approved a PCD amendment for the additional 30 rooms.
At the end of the meeting, SPARC members voted 3-0 to approve the building design,
parking, site improvements, building height, signage, and conceptual landscaping, with
the stipulation that final landscaping plans shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Planning Department. (Minutes of the SPARC meeting are attached to this report and
labeled Attachment Q.
On October I I", the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the project (a
copy of the Planning Commission staff report with all maps, correspondence, reduced
plans, and the Initial Study are attached to this report as Attachment B). No one from the
public commented on the project. The Commission's comments focused on whether a
shared parking agreement was in place for the use of the parking lots; on the scale of the
building cupola in proportion to the building; on signage and flags; and on ensuring that
public access easements to the Marina were not disrupted. The Commission also asked if
the future hotel site identified in the Petaluma Central Specific Plan (PCSP) for the
downtown area would be affected by the development of the Sheraton Hotel. The
following responses to these comments were provided:
a. A shared parking agreement currently is in place. The applicant anticipates that
during evening and weekend activities at the hotel, the existing office parking will
be available, and that most of the daytime activities will be attended by guests of
the hotel. However, the existing agreement will be supplemented by an additional
recorded agreement whereby the hotel will provide valet or off-site parking if
hotel activities will adversely impact office parking.
b. The building cupola and signage are subject to the existing Program standards, the
Marina Sign Plan, and the Sign Ordinance, and will be reviewed by staff for
consistency with these standards. The Commission also conditioned the project to
ensure that public access around the hotel site to the Marina is distinctly signed
and apparent to the public.
C. Regarding the Commission's comment on the Petaluma Central Specific Plan, the
PCSP assumes a hotel at the Marina, which does not preclude the feasibility of a
future hotel site in the downtown area.
-4 -
The Commission was in favor of the project. At the end of the meeting, the Commission
voted 5-0 to forward a recommendation to the City Council to find that no subsequent
EIR or negative declaration need be prepared, and to adopt the rezoning/PCD amendment
to allow the additional 30 hotel rooms. (Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission
hearing are attached to this report as Attachment D.)
Public Comments: A letter was received from Mr. Victor Chechanover (see Attachment
E) in response to the notice of the July SPARC review expressing concern about the
project's reliance on an environmental analysis conducted in 1986 for the whole of the
Marina complex. The validity of using this environmental document, and a subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in 1991, are discussed in the Planning
Commission staff report under "Environmental Review." Mr. Chechanover requested in
his letter that his concerns be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and
the City Council.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
a. The City Council may accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission
and approve the requested amendment to the Marina PCD Development Program
to authorize the development of a 184 room hotel:
The applicants believe this size hotel is necessary for the project to be
economically successful. As stated in the attached Planning Commission staff
report, there are no significant environmental impacts created by this proposal,
and the development of a larger hotel than originally planned is consistent with
the General Plan and the goals of the Marina Office Park.
b. The City Council may approve the proposed amendment with modifications to the
conditions of approval or to the development proposal itself:
Changes to the physical development proposal would have to be discussed and
analyzed at the meeting or possibly as a follow-up through an additional Site Plan
and Architectural Review process. The applicant believes that the proposed
design is consistent with the overall development concept and architectural theme
of the Marina. SPARC has agreed with the proposed architectural approach and
has approved the design for the hotel.
C. The City Council may deny the request to amend the PCD Development Program
to allow for an expanded hotel:
Denial of the request for an expanded hotel would not eliminate the original hotel
approval for the Marina (154 rooms); however, the applicant believes that 184
hotel rooms is necessary for a successful project.
-5-
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
This is a private development project subject to the City's Special Development Fees,
building permit fees, plan check fees, and other applicable standard processing fees. No
negative financial impacts to the City would result from approval of this project. The
project will generate additional Transient Occupancy Tax derived from the hotel and
minor sales tax revenue from concessions.
5. CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission found that the proposed amendment to the Marina PCD to
allow for a 30 room expansion of the hotel complex would not create any new significant
environmental impacts and that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
and with the development objective of the Marina PCD to provide a quality hotel within
the Marina Office Park.
Following City Council project approval, the developer will have authorization to
proceed with the building permit process and, once permits are issued, construction of the
184 room hotel may commence.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
a. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council determine that no
subsequent FIR or negative declaration need be prepared, based upon the
following findings:
1. That the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental
Impact Report (Resolution 86-294), and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted by Resolution 91-365, adequately evaluated the
environmental impacts of the overall Marina and hotel project and
mitigation measures were adopted to reduce potentially significant impacts
to less than significant.
2. That, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate
the proposed change in the previously approved project to add 30 hotel
rooms.
3. That based on the Initial Study, the change in the project is not a
substantial change which would result in new significant environmental
impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts, and
therefore, a subsequent EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration need not be
prepared.
9 Me
b. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution
amending the PCD Program to allow a U5,500 sq. ft., 184 room hotel subject to
the Conditions of Approved included in the Planning Commission staff report,
dated October 13, 1998, as modified or revised, and based on the following
findings:
Attachments:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is in general conformity with the
General Plan, and the additional 30 hotel rooms will not adversely impact
the previously approved parking and circulation plan.
2. That the additional 30 hotel rooms would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
3. That the proposed project to allow 30 additional rooms is consistent with
the intent of the PCD standards to provide a quality hotel within the
Petaluma Marina Office Park.
Attachment A, Location Map
Attachment B, Planning Commission Staff Report, October U, 1998
Attachment C, SPARC Minutes, July 23, 1998
Attachment D, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, October 13, 1998
Attachment E, Letter from Mr. Chechanover
Attachment F, Draft Resolution
Full -Sized Plans
toomevi
-7�,'-" 1", 7
10 092'=B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Attachment B
To: Planning Commission AGENDA ITEM # I
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: October 13, 1998
Action: 1. Recommendation to the City Council that no Further Environmental
Review is Necessary
2. Recommendation to the City Council for an Amendment to the Manna
Planned Community District (PCD) Development Program to Allow an
Additional 30 Hotel Rooms
Project: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
745 Baywood Drive, APN 005-060-056
Project Summary
Project Planner: Mabel Bialik, Associate Planner
Project Applicant: Kirkman L. Lok, Lok Associates Development Company
Property Owner: Lok Marina Properties, Inc.
Nearest cross streets to project site: Lakeville Highway
Property size: 2.06 acres
Site Characteristics: The site is vacant, relatively flat, and covered with weeds and
grasses. The site is part of the Petaluma Manna complex and is directly adjacent to the
marina.
Existing Use: Vacant but part of the Marina complex.
Proposed Use: Sheraton Hotel with associated amenities and site improvements.
Current Zoning: PCD (Planned Community District)
Proposed Zoning: No change.
Current G.P. Land Use: Mixed Use
Proposed G.P. Land Use: No change.
Subsequent actions if project is approved: City Council consideration of the rezoning
and PCD amendment and environmental assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Recommendations
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Council for the proposed rezoning, REZ98008, and
amendment to the PCD standards to allow 30 additional hotel rooms at the
Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina; and to recommend that previous
environmental review adequately evaluated the environmental impacts of the
marina and hotel project and that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration need
be prepared.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project involves a rezoning to amend the Planned Community District (PCD)
Development Program standards for the Petaluma Marina. The Program currently allows
for the development of a 154 room hotel with associated amenities. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to the standards to increase the number of hotel rooms
previously approved from 154 rooms to 184 rooms, for an addition of 30 rooms. The hotel
would be located at 745 Baywood Drive within the Marina Office Business Park. The
existing standards, originally approved in 1988 by Resolution No. 88-25 and amended in
1991, allow for a hotel of approximately 110,000 to 135,000 sq. ft. The hotel, with the
proposed amendment, would consist of approximately 135,500 sq. ft., and would include a
multi -function room, smaller meeting rooms, restaurant, bar and lounge, and health facility
and pool.
SETTING
The project site consists of approximately 2.06 acres located within the existing 30.5 acre
Petaluma Marina and Office Park complex at Baywood Drive and Lakeville Highway (see
attached Location Map). Access to the site is from Baywood Drive. To the north of the
marina is Lakeville Highway, which is developed with mixed use/commercial uses.
Highway 101 is approximately 500 feet to the west and elevated over the Petaluma River,
where the project site is clearly visible from above to northbound traffic. To the east of the
marina is a substantial wetlands area and drainage area, which are preserved as permanent
natural habitat.
The hotel site is vacant and is covered with weeds and grasses. From Baywood Drive the
driveway extends across the site and leads to additional marina parking. A 190 slip
marina, a boat launch ramp facility, and two office/retail buildings (Buildings A & B) and
related parking and site improvements have been constructed. A third office building
(Building C), which was part of the original project description for the marina, has just
completed building permit review and will be located between Building B and the new
hotel.
BACKGROUND
The Petaluma Marina, Office. and Hotel Project Environmental Impact Report was
certified by the City Council in 1986. The project description included a 125 room hotel,
designed to cater to travelers, tourists, and guests of local businesses and residents. In
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1988 the Planned Community District Development Program was adopted which outlined
the development standards for the marina office park. The PCD included provisions for a
125 room hotel with accessory support facilities and other related businesses and services
normally associated with hotel uses.
In 1990, a sign program was adopted for the PCD, and in 1991, the PCD program was
amended to allow for an additional 63,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, and hotel space (allowing
another 29 rooms to the hotel for a total of 154 rooms), additional marina berths, and
related parking throughout the marina complex. The PCD Program was amended
administratively in 1994 to permit flexibility in the location of restaurant uses within the
marina office park.
In July of this year, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) reviewed
and approved design plans for a 121,161 sq. ft., 154 room hotel, with the condition that this
approval would be extended to an approximately 135,500 sq. ft., 184 room hotel, if the
City Coimcil approved a PCD amendment for the additional 30 rooms. The SPARC
review included building design, parking, site improvements, building height, signage, and
landscaping.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Rezoning: The project is considered a rezoning because the PCD district standards are
proposed to be amended; however, the existing zoning is not proposed to be changed. The
PCD zoning designation and existing and proposed uses are consistent with the General
Plan land use designation of "Mixed Use." No change is proposed to the General Plan
designation.
PCD Amendment: With the exception of the number of the hotel rooms and the height of
the building cupola, the hotel is consistent with the rest of the PCD development standards.
The design review approval was conditioned by SPARC to reduce the height of the cupola
to be consistent with the existing standards.
The PCD standards allow a hotel of approximately 110,000 to 135,000 sq. ft. As
proposed, the hotel would consist of approximately 135,500 sq. ft., with 184 standard
rooms. Of these, 16 rooms would be loft suites. The hotel footprint for the 184 room hotel
is generally the same as the footprint for the 125 room hotel reviewed by the original EIR,
with a slight reduction at the south end of the building. The original concept for the hotel
was to provide suites only. The change to standard rooms accounts for the slight reduction
in the building footprint.
Amenities would include a 4,500 square foot multi -function room, as well as smaller
meeting rooms, a 100 seat restaurant, a bar and lounge, and a health facility. In addition, a
pool, spa, and sun deck would be located adjacent to the boat marina in an outdoor plaza
area.
The hotel design conforms to the original design concept adopted for the marina complex.
The exterior of the mostly four story structure is proposed to be horizontal siding similar to
the office complex, although the siding material may be other than wood in order to
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
conform to fire code standards. The windows and doors will be metal with mullions. The
design of the hotel is consistent with the marina complex and includes major elements of
the design concept for the overall marina buildings, such as a pitched standing seam metal
roof, covered walkways, dormers, awnings, and planters.
The building footprint is generally the same as that approved with the original project
description in 1988. Therefore, no substantial changes to the original site plan or to the
layout or operations of the marina would result from the 30 additional hotel rooms.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A letter was received from Victor Chechanover (see copy attached), in response to the
notice of the July SPARC review expressing concern about the project's reliance on an
environmental analysis conducted in 1986 for the whole of the marina complex. The
validity of using this environmental document, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted in 1991, are discussed below under `Environmental Review." Mr.
Chechanover requested in his letter that his concerns be brought to the attention of the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project EIR,
ENV86001) was certified by Resolution 86-294 on October 27, 1986 for the whole of the
marina project. The EIR analysis included a 125 room hotel, commercial and office space,
and related site improvements. The marina and two buildings (Building A & B), and site
improvements were completed in 1990, 1992, and 1994, respectively. A third office
building (Building C) has been approved for construction. The hotel and related panting
make-up the remainder of the original marina project.
In 1991 the PCD standards were amended to add 4 acres to the project site, to allow an
additional 63,000 sq. ft. of project area, which included increasing by 29 the number of
hotel rooms allowed, and to increase parking. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
adopted by Resolution 91-353 on December 16, 1991 which addressed the potential
impacts of this expansion. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to less
than significant.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
Guidelines), when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration has been adopted for
a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration need be prepared unless the lead
agency determines one or more of the following applies:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
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
43
44
45
46
47
48
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous
EIR was certified or negative declaration was adopted, identifies new or
substantially increased significant effects or new feasible mitigation measures
which would reduce significant effects.
Based on the 1986 project (125 rooms) and the 1991 amendment (154 rooms), the project
changed by adding 29 rooms beyond that originally approved for this site. The 30
additional rooms, for a total of 184 rooms, would not involve new significant
environmental effects or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Previous EIR and negative declaration analyses and adopted mitigation
measures are still relevant to this PCD amendment. The previous EIR and mitigated
negative declaration included, but were not limited to, mitigation measures which
addressed geotechnical, wetlands, and traffic related impacts. For instance, improvements
in the area, such as the widening of Lakeville Highway from a two lane arterial to a four
lane arterial, with left turn lanes, have mitigated potential traffic related impacts. In
addition, parking, as proposed, would be adequate to accommodate the additional 30
rooms. Therefore, no major revision to the previous EIR or negative declaration is
required.
In addition, Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the lead agency should
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR or adopted negative declaration if some
changes or additions have occurred to the project but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162, as noted above, have occurred. In accordance with the provisions of this
section, an Initial Study may serve as the addendum and no additional public circulation is
required. An Initial Study was prepared and is attached to this staff report. Notice of
preparation of the Initial Study was given concurrent with the project's notice of the
Planning Commission hearing.
Traffic impacts of the 1991 PCD amendment were addressed in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. At this time, a traffic study was prepared which indicated that with the planned
future widening of Lakeville Highway, levels of service at the Lakeville/Baywood Drive
intersection would be LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak
hour. (LOS C is described in the General Plan as stable flow or operation with acceptable
delay). Based on calculations by the City Traffic Engineering Division, the addition of 30
rooms would add approximately 19 vehicle trips to the p.m. peak hour, which is not a
significant increase and a new traffic study or mitigation measures are not required.
In 1991, parking requirements were also amended to accommodate the additional square
footage of the marina project. The plans show a total of 184 parking spaces to serve the
hotel. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space per hotel room. If the PCD amendment is
approved, the parking requirement would be met. Although there are other uses within the
hotel (multi -function room, restaurant, etc.), the City Traffic Engineer determined prior to
the recent SPARC approval of the hotel, that a shared parking agreement between the hotel
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
and the marina would be appropriate and could accommodate any additional fluctuating
parking needs due to varying periods of demand for hotel events.
A shared parking agreement is in negotiation, and will be required as a condition of project
approval, between the hotel owners and the Marina Office Park Association (MOPA) to
ensure that any additional parking demand that may be generated from day events at the
hotel would be handled through valet or off-site parking at the hotel's expense to ensure
office parking is not adversely affected.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Environmental Review: Recommend that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation to the City Council that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration need
be prepared, based on the following findings:
1. That the Petalruna Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact Report
(Resolution 86-294), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by
Resolution 91-365, adequately evaluated the environmental impacts of the overall
marina and hotel project and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce
potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
2. That, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the proposed
change in the previously approved project to add 30 hotel rooms.
3. That based on the Initial Study, the change in the project is not a substantial change
which would result in new significant environmental impacts or increase the
severity of previously identified impacts, and therefore, a subsequent EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration need not be prepared.
Rezoning/PCD Amendment: Recommend that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation to the City Council to adopt the rezoning/PCD Amendment, based upon
the following findings and conditions of approval:
Findings:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is in general conformity with the General
Plan, and the additional 30 hotel rooms will not adversely impact the previously
approved parking and circulation plan.
2. That the additional 30 hotel rooms would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare.
3. That the proposed project to allow 30 additional rooms is consistent with the intent
of the PCD standards to provide a quality hotel within the Petaluma Marina Office
Park.
N
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
Conditions of Approval: The various City departments which reviewed this project did
not find that the addition of 30 hotel rooms would affect the conditions originally applied
with the SPARC approval. Therefore, with some minor revisions, the following conditions
reiterate those conditions:
From the Planning Department:
1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of an approximately 135,500 sq. ft.,
184 room hotel at the Petaluma Marina and Office Park. The design of the hotel
shall be substantially as shown on the plans approved by the Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee on July 23, 1998, and plans submitted to the
Planning Department on August 6, 1998, except as modified by these conditions:
2. The plans submitted for building permits shall be fully dimensioned and shall show
a reduction in the height of the cupola to 91 ft.
3. Prior to issuance for a building permit, the applicant shall apply for, be granted, and
record a lot line adjustment to accommodate the location of the Porte Cochere (a
covered driveway at the entrance to the hotel).
4. Plans submitted for a building permits shall show the revised lot lines between lots
3 and 4 and at the front of the building (Porte Cochere).
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final
landscape plan for the hotel portion of the parking lot to the Planning Department
for review and approval.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide to the Planning
Department a copy of a recorded parking agreement between the hotel owners and
the Marina Office Park Associates (MOPA) verifying that the hotel will mitigate
the impact of any daytime event at the hotel which might potentially impact office
parking.
7. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code, the applicant
shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at time of building permit
application, including, but not limited to, the following: sewer connection, water
connection, community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school
facilities, and traffic mitigation fees. The following fees are estimates and are
based upon the entire hotel project:
a. Sewer Connection:
b. Water Connection:
c. Community Facilities
Development:
$28,244.00
$24,717.00 (based on 3" meter, Zone 1)
$24,198.00 (based on 2.06 acres)
7
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
d. Storm Drain: $ 6,840.00 (based upon a total project site
of 2.06 acres, which includes a parking lot
of approximately 1.85 acres))
e. School Facilities Fee:
f Traffic Mitigation Fee
Standard SPARC Conditions:
To be determined by applicable school
district. Please contact school district at
778-4621 for information regarding this
fee.
$157,872.00 ($858/room x 184 rooms)
1. All trees shall be a minimum 35 gallon size (i.e., trunk diameter of at least 3/4 inch
measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g., 24 -inch box
or specimen size) and double staked. All shrubs shall be five gallon size. All
landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a three-inch deep
bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. The
training/nursery stake for all plant materials shall be removed at the time of
planting.
2. All plant materials shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
irrigation system. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition.
Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding,
cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing, and regular watering. Whenever necessary,
planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to ensure continued
compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems
shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically
cleaned and replaced when missing to ensure continued regular watering of
landscape areas and health and vitality of landscape materials.
3. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near streets or walkways as
needed, subject to staff review and approval.
4. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as
required by staff.
5. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main, and all rooftop
equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation, subject to the approval
of the Planning Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction
and/or landscape plans.
6. Driveway and parking surface areas shall be improved with a City -approved
surface of asphaltic -concrete or concrete pavement. All parking surface areas shall
be bordered with concrete curbing which is designed to meet at least the minimum
specifications of the City Parking Design Standards.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
7. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.)
8. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light
against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no
direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 ft. height, etc.) and shall compliment building
architecture.
9. The applicant/developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any
of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such
claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State
and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant/developer of any
such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees
and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
From the Fire Marshal:
1. Provide a Class I standpipe system in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Uniform
Building Code.
2. Stair enclosures are to be 2 hour fire rated in accordance with Chapter 10 of the
UBC.
3. Provide one fire extinguisher, a 2AlOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of floor
space, and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
4. Provide one 40BC rated dry chemical type extinguisher in kitchen area.
5. Every guest room available in a hotel, motel or lodging house shall have clearly
visible emergency procedures information printed on a floor plan representative of
the floor level.
6. Buildings four or more stories in height shall have a storeroom on every third floor
for the storage of emergency equipment to be accessible for exclusive use bb the
Fire Department. Building owner shall provide and maintain at owner's expense,
within the storeroom, the type and amount of emergency equipment as required and
specified by the Fire Chief.
7. The storeroom shall not be used for other purposes and shall be located as required
by the Fire Chief, consideration to be given to location of enclosed stairwells.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
8. Provide to the Fire Marshal's office, a minimum of two (2) sets of fire sprinkler
plans and calculations for approval and issuance of permit prior to installation of
system.
9. Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking
equipment.
10. Permit required from the Fire Marshal's office for fixed fire extinguishing systems;
two sets of plans are required to be submitted for review and approval.
11. Provide an exit sign over all required exit doors.
12. Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as designated by
the Fire Marshal's office.
13. All emergency lighting and exit sign lights shall have two separate sources of
power as required in the Building Code.
14. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated by
painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall
be installed.
15. Provide an approved fire alarm system.
16. Contractor shall provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement of
work.
From the Building Division:
1. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved
plans and will be required for occupancy.
2. Certify finished floor elevation before occupancy.
3. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per
Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
4. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UC must be
followed.
5. All roofing shall be `B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
6. Show site drainage and grading topography.
7. Indicate all utilities on site plans.
8. Responsible parry to sign plans.
10
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
33
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
9. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
10. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
11. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC and 1993 NEC. Plans must
also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation and/or Disabled
Access requirements.
12. Provide structural calculations for all non -conventional design items.
From the Engineering Department: (The following is required prior to issuance of a
building permit.)
1. A detailed grading plan for improvements on site including street improvements,
utilities, earthwork, drainage, and all transitions at property lines shall be provided.
2. All existing and proposed easements associated with the subject parcel are to be
included on the plans.
3. Drainage into existing waterways shall be approved by the City of Petaluma.
4. A fully -dimensioned site plan shall be provided as a portion of improvement plans
including distances from property lines to buildings and parking.
5. Accurate metes and bounds of all existing and proposed lots, radii of all curves and
central angles shall be provided. This shall include post lot line adjustment parcel
configurations.
6. Locations, direction of flow and names, if available, of both natural and artificial
water courses and ponding area, or areas of periodic inundation on the subject
parcel and on adjacent properties which might affect the design of the applicant's
proposal shall be shown on the grading plan including provisions for proposed
drainage and flood control measures.
7. All existing overhead utility lines and poles on-site and on peripheral streets shall
be identified on the plans. All existing overhead utilities shall be placed
underground.
8 The location and size of existing sewer, fire hydrants and fire protection systems,
sanitary sewers, water mains and storm drains must be shown on the plans.
9. The location and size ofrp oposed fire hydrants and fire protection systems, sanitary
sewers, water mains and storm drains. Slopes and elevations of proposed sewers
and storm drains shall be indicated.
10. A conceptual plan for erosion control must be developed as part of the submittal for
review.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ld
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11. Required easements for this development must be illustrated in an exhibit A or in
the form of grant deeds for review.
12. The paved connection shown for vehicular access at the northern corner of the
subject property shall be detailed. Final design as secondary access of emergency
vehicle access shall be per City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer.
From the Sonoma County Water District:
1. For site-specific improvements, the drainage design for the project shall be in
compliance with the Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria."
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Project Description
Letter from T\/Ir. Chechanover
Reduced Plans
Initial Study
Full Size Plans
12
l<
LOCATION
kAP
NpgthESESTE
RN
SHERATON HOTEL AT THE `-MARINA
745 BAYWOOD DRIVE
MB 092498 005-060-056
rr•I I. fl f!'i .I ,r f!.��i'i ,I i�I i'i'f'i". ::� ����r
r r•r (f f r!ff�r/Jl"i
•r;r�rfff.rf.r'f�i'J i,lf f; r,f,i'r,((rlrlr; r,JJf 'ai\I
;rf. rrrr/r;�
rail 11 r'�' I�I'��I r'r I'r'r'r'r'rrrrrrrrrrr
(f...
17. I r4'.liar filaJfririafrrlfrr'r'r'r,11
I ff�ff Ll'i\ ii.
1'�'r.
II 'rrr'r rrr rrr
ffU ff
U f,(J �.\ n \ \'r 1'r rlff
0
5Z� a 4 o jl aN
a
ui vnU a a l ma
IN
r
O1'z�
ca � w � � m H a
1 z
y ww a�
II
I I
I I J
Z
\ I I O
I ] j
� a C
6.p�.1 Z m Z 6
\ W Q w U; J N
N z U w U
❑ i w tai m a ¢ W
\ a
\\\ I �m NO ¢o ¢ O
00cz
I \\
J
U
¢ Q
w
�\ U 6 W
Q F
a Z O
O U U w
W j
Z ¢ U J
< E 02 u w K
OF U a
2 O r
¢ U il i
mm
02
13 0❑
IV I a }
eioi�a i {� I n Q o
Z ¢ LL-
/
V
I• � \\y . OZ v m v m y N c a I=
Z Jn ¢N ¢ Z? zo Z�
m In ���� / III I •,\y I ❑ ¢� m� mo mo ma m�
N
ifLL^\�\\
I I/ Q
\\
+
SHERATON HOTEL AT THE MARINA
EXIS'T'ING ZONING
P
PREZONED
PCD
PLANNED COMM. DIST.
• "w ■
FLOODWAY
A
AGRICULTURAL
CO
ADMIN. & PRO. OFFICE
ET7
FLOODPLAIN COMBIN.
R7
ONE FAMILY RES.
CN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.
S
STUDY AREA
RC
COMPACT RES.
CC
CENTRAL COMM.
HISTORIC COMBIN.
RMG
GARDEN APT. RES.
CH
HIGHWAY COMM.
RW
RIVERFRONT WAREHOUSE
RMH
HIGH RISE RES.
ML
LIGHT INDUS.
-__-
CITY LIMITS
PUD
PLANNED UNIT DEV.
MG
GENERAL INDUS.
P�'r
0
zso
Soo 1000 !P
RECEWE 1
SEP 2 91998
Project Description PLANNINGDEi
The Sheraton Marina Hotel will have 135,000 SF and 184 rooms. The rooms will be a single
room of approximately 380 SF. Some rooms will be slightly larger where they extend beyond the
exterior walls. There are some balconies and 16 rooms will have loft suites. The facilities
includes a 4,300 sf multi -function room, two story atrium lobby, 100 occupant restaurant, bar &
lounge, health facility, pool with spa, and three elevators in addition to all the normal hotel
spaces such as laundry, administration, front desk, small meeting rooms, etc. It has been
designed similar to the established architectural style of the existing buildings currently at the
site. There will be some variation because of the different nature of a hotel. The major elements
such as the metal roof, covered walkways, dormers, awnings and planters will all be provided on
the hotel. We propose to use a horizontal siding similar in size and shape to the office complex,
although it may have to be a different material to conform to fire codes. The windows and doors
would be metal with mullions as shown in the drawings.
The hotel will be located adjacent to the office buildings at the marina. The two existing
buildings at the site are buildings A & B. Building "C" is planned as the next office building
immediately adjacent to the two existing buildings. Building "C" is currently in plan check and
it is assumed that it will be either under construction or completed when ground breaking occurs
for the Marina Hotel. The hotel will be the next building in line after building "C". It will be a
four story, type H structure, either 1 -hour or fire resistant construction, with fully automatic fire
sprinklers. We anticipate the structure to be non-combustible. The hotel is referred to as
buildings D & E.
The parking lot serves all of the office buildings as well as the hotel and was designed and
approved in concept, including landscaping, in the previous PCD. It is owned by an association
of the marina businesses, the hotel and the City of Petaluma. There are loading areas which serve
the hotel at two locations on the site . The first is adjacent to building "C" and serves the
restaurant and kitchen. The other is located south-east of the Porte Cochere and serves the hotel
laundry, house -keeping, etc. These areas have been provided with trellises and screening walls to
help integrate them into the design. It is anticipated that refuse enclosures, electrical equipment
and possibly some mechanical equipment will also be incorporated into the parking lot design.
The Porte Cochere is currently shown extending beyond our property line into the parking area.
We are proposing a lot line adjustment to allow this construction. The adjustment would include
an easement which would allow parking lot traffic to pass beneath it.
There are a number of access easements which must provide the public with access to the marina
and its surrounding area. The easements which most effect the hotel are located at the north-west
end of the building and through the middle of the south-east wing of the hotel. The north-west
easement is shown on the site plan between building "C" and the hotel and connects to the
existing dock ramp on the site. We are proposing to relocate the other (south-east) easement
from cutting through the middle of the south-east wing to instead pass around the interior of the
hotel wing via the covered walkway. This easement would essentially follow the covered
walkway which runs continuously along the water side of the hotel and connects to the other
walkways (existing & future) provided at the office buildings.
We are currently considering the possibility of using individual HVAC units located below the
windows of each rooms. The lobby, multi -function, restaurant, bar, health facility
administration, etc. will be provided with appropriate heating, cooling and ventilation to
produce a comfortable environment.
2301 Marylyn Circle
Petaluma 94954
778-7302
July 23, 1998
Pamela A. Tuft, Planning Director
City of Petaluma ,RECEVEI,
11 English Street JUL 2 3 1998
Petaluma CA 94952
PLANNING / EUI ,DING
Dear Ms. Tuft:
This concerns planned construction of a hotel at the Marina
Office Business Park scheduled for a SPARC hearing today. I
have no objection to the construction per se. My objection
is based on the proposed reliance on an EIR that is now 12 years
old without findings with respect to the environmental effects
of changes that have taken place in the surrounding area since.
Among these are construction that has since taken place, as
well as construction already approved but not completed, in
the area immediately south of the marina (South McDowell);
increased traffic along Lakeville Highway that may be greater
than predicted in 1988;the effect, if any, of the proposed
widening of 101. An example of why consideration has to be given
to the traffic component is the statement on page 9 of the EIR
that predicted near or at capacity between Baywood and the 101
northbound ramp considering general plan buildout and the
proposed Marina Business Park project.
The proposed project called for a 125 room hotel which
would create a u -shaped area along with two proposed office
buildings and a 25,000 sq.ft. public plaza (pp.30-31 1988 EIR).
According to the published announcement the hotel now proposed
calls for 154 rooms plus a 4,500 sq.ft. addition and a 100 seat
restaurant/bar. Has the plan for the plaza been abandoned? What
provision is made for additional parking created by an increase
of more than 20% in the number of rooms and the multi -function
room? At the minimum a revised parking plan has to be submitted.
Any proposed changes in the configuration of the marina itself
may have a significant effect on the parking requirements. At
a meeting of boat owners who are using the marina it was evident
that there are existing parking/traffic problem. In view of
changes within the City as relates to fire and police protection
is it not necessary to reexamine fiscal impacts?
I reserve the right to make further objections at any stage
of the process and request that this letter be brought to the
attention of the SPARC, Planning Commission and Council members.
Very truly yours,
jig Ch&ha�nover
tag
/
�
/
p �I
3 I ,Jy eulJery uoleJaug 1 Nt/�d 311S
Q� �24a i e 13 a
ti
3 a—
papa a p
pp 551R{
I
uuu¢¢¢YYYa��A���1
d
I
4
F i ` Z
> w
�q ,S,/
°` jia �` ! / Luco
Y
tib; Y/ ). .'� /�.• ..��-�--' LaJ EG !.1
ICI
UJLLJJL
LLL
I
aJJJULIl
Vtl
91
41
7-19
i
NVId 311S '-
v�7�j � # T
(1Ll V J3DUVIN3 x a a a a
j�
i
co
1
>..
rn
f�
O
Lid
L7
G
9 1 qNs
Mi_
7 ; r
-L.ILI
-41 u, ,v uo c ayg NVId N011V, .IQOYY 311S
NOV
J
H
z
O
LU
u
n
I4
C
SNOIIVA3',_ 801831X3
W
P
d
S
GC
d
O
m
LL
w
}
SFwld 8001:1
allo:._ S T 1SHIA
r ZiQ� sN+rla aooia A i 3 N
� -,j eU,.,�� uo,� ays Nla� '8 aaiHl x 1 , a
=E
i
it
4l0Ili31X3 i 3�h�a
pwu�,Iq um-x4S .OIJ.aA3'13
1
c
M
r
L L cm
J
C� o
Q
Z
z
Q
GN01103S
ONIUllne
C co
LL: C7)
> m
Uj ca
U �
3
i
i
ut"
w r{Rix��
35Yee@3°
cep®Q 9
k5yja
1 4 S
&
s
G � Z
0 µ
ta
N
i
i
ut"
w r{Rix��
35Yee@3°
cep®Q 9
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008 Page 1
Initial Study
of Environmental Significance
■ Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein
includes: the project application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals,
staff report, General Plan, ElR and Technical Appendices, and other applicable planning documents (i.e., Petaluma River
Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, Specific Plans, etc.) on file at the City of
Petaluma Planning Department.
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina File No: REZ98008
Site Address: 745 Baywood Drive, Petaluma, CA 94954 APN: 005-060-056
Posting Date: NIA Comments Due: N/A
Lead Agency Contact: Mabel Bialik, Project Planner Phone: (707) 778-4301
Applicant: Kirkman L. Lok, Kirk Lok Associates Development Company
5050 Petaluma Hill Rd., Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (707) 584-8280
Property Owner: Lok Marina Properties, Inc.
5050 Petaluma Hill Rd., Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (707) 584-8280
Project Description: Project involves a rezoning to amend the Planned Community District (PCD) Development Program
(standards) for the Petaluma Marina. The Program currently allows for the development of a 154 room hotel. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to the standards to increase the number of hotel rooms previously approved from 154 rooms to 184
rooms, for an addition of 30 rooms. The hotel would be located at 745 Baywood Drive (APN 005-060-056) within the Marina
Office Business Park. The existing standards, originally approved in 1988 by Resolution No. 88-25 and amended in 1991,
allow for a hotel of approximately 110,000 to 135,000 square feet. The hotel, with the proposed amendment, would consist of
approximately 135,500 square feet, and would include a multi -function room, smaller meeting rooms, restaurant, bar and
lounge, and health facility and pool
An Environmental Impact Report (the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project EIR, ENV86001) was certified by
Resolution 86-294 on October 27, 1986 for the whole of the Marina project. The EIR analysis included a 125 room hotel, and
commercial and office space and related site improvements. The marina and two buildings (Building A & B), and site
improvements have been constructed. A third office building (Building C) has been approved for construction. The hotel and
related parking make up the remainder of the original Marina project.
In 1991 the PCD standards were amended to add 4 acres to the project site, to allow an additional 63,000 square feet of project
area, which included increasing the number of hotel rooms allowed, and to increase parking. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration was adopted by Resolution 91-353 on December 16, 1991 which addressed the potential impacts of this expansion.
Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Environmental Setting: The hotel site encompasses approximately 2.06 acres within the Marina development complex. A
marina, offices, retail uses, and related parking have been developed. The hotel site is adjacent to the existing office complex.
The site is vacant, and is covered with weeds and grasses and an existing driveway which leads to additional marina parking.
Responsible/Trustee Agencies: (Discuss other permits, financing or participation required): N/A
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
Page 2
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. not applicable
Land Use & Planning
Population, Employment & Housing
Earth
Air
Hydrology & Water Quality
Jurisdictional Setting
Biological Resources
Noise
Visual Quality & Aesthetics
Hazards
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services/Recreation
Utilities
Energy/Natural Resources
Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Yes No N/A
a. City General Plan Land Use: X
b. Circulation & Constraints Maps: X
C. Applicable General Plan goals, objectives, programs & policies: X
d. Specific Plan: X
C. City Zoning: X
I Regional Plans: X
g. Other Plans: X
Item e. The project with the additional hotel rooms is not consistent with the hotel size limitations in the current PCD
standards. The amendment, if approved, would make the proposed hotel and the PCD standards consistent.
Determination
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration
should be approved.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because mitigation measures to reduce all impacts to a level of insignificance or to
avoid such impacts have been identified and agreed to by the applicant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration should
therefore be prepared with the attached mitigation measures as conditions of approval.
I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report
or Expanded Initial Study should be required.
A previously -certified Environmental Impact Report and a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
X fully address the impacts of the project, supplemented as necessary by this Initial Study evaluation. No further
evaluation is required.
A Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is appropriate for the project
Project Name Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Ma,7n2
File No. REZ98008 Page 3
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Qualin Act (CEQA Guidelines), when an EIR has been certified or
a negative declaration has been adopted for a project. no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared unless the
lead agency determines one or more of the follow ina:
Substantial chanties are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative
declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects:
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or negative declaration was adopted.
The original project has changed by adding 30 rooms beyond that previously approved for this site. But the addition of 30
rooms would not involve new significant environmental effecs or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Parking. as proposed, will be adequate to accommodare dte additional 30 rooms. Previous EIR and negative
declaration analyses and adopted mitigation measures are sill relevant to this PCD amendment. The previous EIR and
negative declaration included, but were not limited to. mirigation measures to address geotechnical, wetlands. and traffic
related impacts. For instance, planned improvement/ in the area. such as the recently completed widening of Lakeville
Highway from a two lane arterial to a four lane arterial. with left tum lanes, have mitigated potential traffic related impacts.
Therefore. no major revision to the previous EIR or negative dec!aration is required.
In addition. pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR or adopted negative declaration if some changes or additions have occurred to the project but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred_ In accordance with the provisions of this section, this Initial Study may
serve as the addendum and no additional public circulation is required.
Prepared by:
Mabel Bialk Associate Planner
For: Pamela A Tuft Planning Director
Date
4/1-b19 � *
■ Environmental Analysis: The following analysis is based on the proposal to add 30 hotel rooms beyond that
originalh approved for the hotel, and whether adding 30 rooms significanth or substantially changes the effects analyzed in the
oriainal Petaluma Marina. Office, and Hotel Project Env ironment l Impact Report (August 1986), and in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted in 1991.
* October 27, 1998: Minor revisions to Item 5 and Item 11. Discussion.
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
Land Use and Planning.
a. Does the project conflict with adopted land use plans or
policies that are applicable to the project site or to the
project vicinity? (Note that on a project -specific basis,
such applicable land use plans and policies may include
those imposed by local agencies, by local or regional
agencies and by statewide land use agencies.)
b. Would the project conflict with open space, low-income
housing, or other adopted land use goals that are
applicable to the project location?
C. Would the project conflict with established recreational,
educational, religious, or scientific uses at the project
location?
d. Would the project require cancellation of Williamson
Act agricultural contracts, or convert agricultural land to
a non-agricultural use within an area designated as
Important Farmland by the Department of Conservation,
or an area designated as Prime Farmland by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service of the federal
Department of Agriculture?
e. Would the project cause a nuisance to existing or
planned land uses? Would existing or planned land uses
cause a nuisance to the residents or users of the project?
Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
Page 4
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Signi&cant
Impact
Impact,
Impact,
Impact
Unmitigated
Mitigated
ro
X
M
X
X
X
Discussion: The project is consistent with the existing zoning of PCD, Planned Community District, and the existing General
Plan designation of Mired Use. No change to the zoning or General Plan land use designations is proposed.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
2. Population, Employment and Housing.
a. Does the project conflict with population, employment, X
or housing policies or projections established by
government agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
b. Will the project directly or indirectly cause substantial X
growth or concentration in the population beyond
current levels?
C. Will the project directly or indirectly cause a net loss in X
the number ofjobs in the community or cause
substantial job or income losses by changing the
employment opportunities in a community?
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008 Page 5
Potentially
Potentially
Less"
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact,
Impact,
Impact
Unmitigated
Mitigated
d. Does the project displace existing residences or X
otherwise create or exacerbate a housing shortage?
e. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, X
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
f Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a X
demand for additional housing?
Discussion: The project site is vacant and within a marina/office complex. No existing or future housing is affected.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
3. Earth. Will the proposal result in
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic X
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering X
of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? I X
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique X
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on X
or off site?
f Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or X
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such X
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or
similar hazards?
Discussion: Impacts to earth conditions, erosion, and affects on river channels were discussed and evaluated in the Petaluma
Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact Report, Ch. F, Geotechnical Factors, and mitigation measures were
identified. The EIR evaluated soil conditions, topography, shoreline slope stability, and seismic conditions. The marina, Building
A and Building B, consisting of approximately 65,000 square feet of office and retail space, and related site improvements have
been developed. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in 1991 to address expansion of the total square
footage of the project, including increasing the square footage of the hotel. The addition of 30 rooms does not constitute a
substantial change to the project description which would require major revisions to the previous FIR or negative declaration due
to the identification of new significant environmental effects or due to a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. The building footprint of the proposed hotel with the 30 additional rooms is generally the same as that
described in the EIR. Therefore, no new impact to the marina or soil conditions would result.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: As certified in the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact
Report.
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
X
Page 6
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
and amount of surface water run off?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
d.
Impact,
Impact,
Impact
body?
Unmitigated
Mitigated
X
4. Air. Will the proposal result in:
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
Alterations to the direction or rate of flow of ground
X
X
waters?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
X
X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
X
any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
X
public water supplies?
Discussion: N/A
Mitigation Measures: N/A
5. Hydrology and Water Quality. Will the proposal result in
a.
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
X
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
X
and amount of surface water run off?
C.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
X
d.
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
X
body?
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
X
surface water quality including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f
Alterations to the direction or rate of flow of ground
X
waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
X
public water supplies?
L
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
X
such as flooding or tidal waves?
Discussion: Impacts to hydrology, drainage, and water bodies were discussed and evaluated and mitigation measures identified in
the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact Report and the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration.
No substantial changes have occurred to the project description which would require major revisions to the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or due to a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects.
5.b. The footprint of the proposed building is slightly smaller than that described in the previous Ea Minimal change to
previously assessed absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate or amount of surface runoff would result from additional
paving and landscaping in lieu of the additional building foundation/structure. Additional landscaping would create more pervious
surface area to absorb runoff.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: As certified in the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact
Report.
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Impact,
Impact.
Unmitigated
Mitigated
6. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
C. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
d. Changes in the diversity of species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
e. Loss of locally designate species (e.g., heritage trees) or
locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
woodland etc.)?
f Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of
animals?
g. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Discussion: N/A
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
7. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Discussion: N/A
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: NA
8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics.
a. Will the proposal produce new light and glare?
b. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
C. Would the project conflict with the applicable vista
protection standards, scenic resource protection
requirements and design criteria of federal, state, and
local agencies?
d. Does the project alter or obstruct existing public view
sheds from or across the project site, including scenic
features associated with designated scenic highways.?
Page 7
Less ThanI No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G1
X
X
X
X
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
Does the project change the existing visual quality and
character at the project site in a manner that is
inconsistent with other uses that currently exist or have
been approved for the area? Are such changes
attributable to project size, massing, density, landscaping,
regrading, or other changes to the physical environment?
f. Does the project increase light and glare in the project
vicinity so as to cause a hazard or nuisance condition?
g. Does the project significantly reduce sunlight or
introduce shadows in public areas? Would loss of
sunlight or increase in shadows adversely affect sensitive
species or habitats?
Page 8
PotentiallyI
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact,
Impact.
Impact
(
I
Unmitigated
Mitigated
X
G1
X
Discussion: The addition of 30 rooms does not substantially change the original project such that significant new environmental
impacts related to visual quality or aesthetics would result. The hotel design was approved by the Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee in July, 1998. The design is consistent with the previously approved PCD standards and with the design of the
existing marina and office complex.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
9. Hazards. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
smoky chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency evacuation X
plan?
C. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard X
(i.e., electromagnetic radiation)?
d. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass, or trees?
Discussion: N/A
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
10. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement or traffic X
congestion?
b. Effects on existing parking or insufficient parking X
capacity on-site or off-site?
C. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X
movement of people and/or goods?
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
it. Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic?
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
f Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
g. Conflicts with alternate transportation modes (e.g., buses,
bicycle areas, pedestrian walks)?
h. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections, inadequate sight distances) or
incompatible uses (e.g., trucks)?
Page 9
PotentiallyI
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact,
Impact,
Impact
(
I
Unmitigated
Mitigated
X
X
X
X
X
Discussion: Traffic impacts of the 1991 PCD amendment were addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time a
traffic study was prepared which indicated that with the planned widening of Lakeville Highway, levels of service at the
LakevilleBaywood Drive intersection would be LOS B during the a.m, peak and LOS C during the p.m. peak. (LOS C is
described in the General Plan as stable flow or operation with acceptable delay). Based on calculations by the City Traffic
Engineering Division, the addition of 30 rooms would add approximately 19 vehicle trips to the p.m. peak hour, which is not a
significant increase and new traffic studies or mitigation measures are not warranted.
The 1991 PCD amendment also revised the parking requirements to accommodate the additional square footage of the marina
project. A shared parking agreement is in negotiation and will be required as a condition of project approval between the hotel
owners and the Marina Office Park Association (MOPA), property owners and operators of the marina, to ensure that any
additional parking demand that may be generated from day events at the hotel would be handled through valet or off-site parking
at the hotel's expense to ensure office/marina parking is not adversely affected.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
It. Public Services/Recreation. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
C. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
f Other governmental services? X
Discussion: The addition of 30 hotel rooms would have a negligible affect on fire and police protection services. Impact to
protective services would be partially determined by the size of the structure, and the structure itself is slightly smaller than that
originally proposed due to a reduction in room sizes. All rooms would be sprinklered and equipped with fire alarms; therefore, the
additional 30 rooms would not significantly increase fire hazards.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
13. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities?
a. Power or natural gas? I X
b. Communications systems? ( X
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact,
Unmitigated
Mitigated
C. Local or regional water supplies treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer collection treatment, disposal systems or septic
tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
E Solid waste and disposal?
Discussion: The addition of 30 hotel rooms would have a negligible affect on utility systems and services.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
13. Energy/Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of
energy?
C. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
d. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural
resource?
Discussion: The addition of 30 hotel rooms would have a negligible affect on energy and natural resources.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
14. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological
resource?
b. Will the project result in the alteration of, or the
destruction of, a potentially historic building, structure or
object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
e. Will the proposed project result in adverse physical or
aesthetic affects to a prehistoric or historic archaeological
resource and/or a potentially significant historic, building
structure or object?
Page 10
Less ThanI No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Discussion: The addition of 30 hotel rooms would not have a significant affect on cultural resources. Standard City conditions of
approval apply to construction activities whereby should any artifacts, cultural remains, or potential resources be encountered
Project Name: Sheraton Hotel at the Petaluma Marina
File No. REZ98008 Page 11
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact,
Impact,
Impact
Unmitigated
Mitigated
during construction activities, work in the area of the find shall immediately cease and the Director of Planning shall be notified.
The City would then consult with a qualified cultural resource specialist to evaluate the find, and appropriate mitigation measures,
if applicable, would be incorporated into the project.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
15. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Yes No
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail X
the diversity in the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long X
term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well
into the future.)
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively X
considerable? (A project may impact two or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small but where the effect of the total of those impacts on
the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The addition of 30 rooms to the originally approved hotel would not substantially change the project or result in
major revisions to the previously certified EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. No significant new environmental
effects would result from the PCD amendment and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects would result from the addition of 30 hotel rooms.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: N/A
hAShemton\lnitial Smdy
LOCATION
MAP
SHERATON HOTEL AT THE MARINA
745
BAYWOOD DRIVE
6IB 092*90 005-060-056
3
a
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
Attachment C
Minutes
a LIU City of Petaluma, CA
O Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and
,esa Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee
1
REGULAR MEETING July 23, 1998
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM 3:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their representatives to be
available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to
a lack of pertinent information.
Roll Call: I3read, Bu ge , Leff, Parkerson*, Rinehart, Hopkins, Montoya
Staff: Vin Smith, Principal Planner
Elizabeth Dunn, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
Minutes of July 9, 1998 were approved with changes.
Planning Staff Comments: None.
Committee Members' Report: Committee members Montoya and Rinehart requested staff
investigate improvements at Salvation Army and Guadalajara Bar; stated that whatever
improvements removed should be put back.
Correspondence: Letter from Thomas and Kathy Brandal (Petaluma Schools); Letter from Victor
Chechanover (Sheraton Marina Hotel).
Legal Recourse Statement: Was read.
Public Comment: None.
Appeal Statement: Was read.
3:1 Spm:
Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee:
NEW BUSINESS:
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 14
Vlll. SHERATON MARINA HOTEL; Rick Brereton, ADR, 745 BAYWOOD DRIVE;
APN 005-060-056 (bl).
Consideration of site and elevation plans for a 154 room hotel for compatibility with
Petaluma Marina and Office Complex Planned Community District (PCD).
Vin Smith, Principal Planner presented the staff report.
SPEAKERS: Church Hildreth, Rick Brereton, ADR; Kirk Lok, Kirk Lok Associates
DISCUSSION:
Committee Member Rinehart- Embellish original parking lot design to provide pedestrian
access.
Chairman Parkerson- It is a benefit to occupant of the space to provide pedestrian access.
Delineate pedestrian area in parking lot to provide safe area and slow traffic.
Committee Member Rinehart- Suggested connecting islands with alternate pavement.
Committee Member Leff- Bring alternate landscape out through the area of the parking lot near
the ADA parking.
A motion was made by Committee Member Leff and seconded by Committee Member Rinehart
to approve the site, architectural, and landscape plans for the Sheraton Marina Hotel, 745
Bay -wood Drive, subject to the following conditions:
Committee Member Broad:
Absent.
Committee Member Burger:
Absent.
Committee Member Leff:
Yes.
Chairman Parkerson:
Yes.
Committee Member Rinehart:
Yes.
Conditions of Approval
From the Planning Department:
1. Approval is granted to allow construction of a 121,161 square foot, 154 room hotel at the
Petaluma Marina and Office Park. The design of the hotel shall be substantially as shown
on the plans received in the Petaluma Planning Department on June 16, 1998, except as
modified by these conditions.
2. Upon approval of a PCD amendment by the City Council, Planning Department staff may
administratively approve plans for a 135,508 square foot, 184 room hotel which shall be
similar to the plans received in the Petaluma Planning Department on June 16, 1998,
except as modified by these conditions.
3. The plans submitted for building permit shall be fully dimensioned and show a reduction
in the height of the cupola to 91 feet.
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 15
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall apply for, be granted and
record a lot line adjustment to accommodate the location of the Porte Cochere.
5. Plans submitted for building permit shall show the revised lot lines between lots 3 and 4
and at the front of the building (Porte Cochere).
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for
the hotel portion of the parking lot to the Planning Department for review and approval.
Standard SPARC Conditions:
7. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen gallon size (i.e. trunk diameter of at least 3/4 inch
measured one foot above the ground), unless otherwise specified (e.g. 24" box or
specimen size) and double staked; all shrubs shall be five gallon size. All landscaped
areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a two-inch deep bark mulch as a
temporary measure until the ground cover is established. The training/nursery stake for
all plant materials shall be removed at the time of planting.
8. All plant materials shall be served by a City -approved automatic underground irrigation
system.
9. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall
include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash,
fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with
other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping
requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating
condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued
regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials.
10. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near streets or walkways as needed,
subject to staff review and approval.
11. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as required
by staff.
12. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment
shall be fully visually screened upon installation subject to the approval of the Planning
Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or landscape plans.
13. Driveway and parking surface areas shall be improved with a City -approved surface of
asphaltic -concrete or concrete pavement. All parking surface areas shall be bordered with
concrete curbing which is designed to meet at least the minimum specifications of the
City Parking Design Standards.
14. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal
Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 16
1 15. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and approval.
2 All lights attached to the building shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall.
3 All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g. no direct glare, no poles in
4 excess of 20 feet in height, etc.) and shall compliment building architecture.
5
6 16. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of
7 its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
8 proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees to
9 attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim or action is
10 brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The
11 City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or
12 proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition
13 shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding
14 if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
15 faith.
16
17 From the Fire Marshal:
18
19 17. Provide a Class I standpipe system in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building
20 Code.
21
22 18. Stair enclosures are to be 2 hour fire rated in accordance with Chapter 10 of the UBC.
23
24 19. Provide one fire extinguisher, a 2AIOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of floor space,
25 and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
26
27 20. Provide one 40BC rated dry chemical type extinguisher in kitchen area.
28
29 21. Every guest room available in a hotel, motel or lodging house shall have clearly visible
30 emergency procedures information printed on a floor plan representative of the floor
31 level.
32
33 22. Buildings four or more stories in height shall have a storeroom on every third floor for
34 the storage of emergency equipment to be accessible for exclusive use bb the Fire
35 Department. Building owner shall provide and maintain at owner's expense, within the
36 storeroom, the type and amount of emergency equipment as required and specified by the
37 Fire Chief.
38
39 The storeroom shall not be used for other purposes and shall be located as required by the
40 Fire Chief, consideration to be given to location of enclosed stairwells.
41
42 23. Provide to the Fire Marshal's office, a minimum of two (2) sets of fire sprinkler plans and
43 calculations for approval and issuance of permit prior to installation of system.
44
45 24. Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking
46 equipment.
47
48 25. Permit required from the Fire Marshal's office for fixed fire extinguishing systems; two
49 sets of plans are required to be submitted for review and approval.
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 17
1
2 26. Provide an exit sign over all required exit doors.
3
4 27. Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as designated by the
5 Fire Marshal's office.
6
7 28. All emergency lighting and exit sign lights shall have two separate sources of power as
8 required in the Building Code.
29. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated by painting
curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be installed.
30. Provide an approved fire alarm system.
31. Contractor shall provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement of work.
18
From the Building Division:
19
32.
Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved plans
20
and will be required for occupancy.
21
22
33.
Certify finished floor elevation before occupancy.
23
24
34.
Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per
25
Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
26
27
35.
Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UC must be followed.
28
29
36.
All roofing shall be `B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
30
31
37.
Show site drainage and grading topography.
32
33
38.
Indicate all utilities on site plans.
34
35
39.
Responsible party to sign plans.
36
37
40.
Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
38
39
41.
Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
40
41
42.
Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC and 1993 NEC. Plans must also
42
show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation and/or Disabled Access
43
requirements.
44
45
43.
Provide structural calculations for all non -conventional design items.
46
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 18
1 From the Engineering Department: (The following is required prior to issuance of a building
2 permit.)
3 44. A detailed grading plan for improvements on site including street improvements, utilities,
4 earthwork, drainage, and all transitions at property lines shall be provided.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
45. All existing and proposed easements associated with the subject parcel are to be included
on the plans.
46. Drainage into existing waterways shall be approved by the City of Petaluma.
47. A fully -dimensioned site plan shall be provided as a portion of improvement plans
including distances from property lines to buildings and parking.
48. Accurate metes and bounds of all existing and proposed lots, radii of all curves and
central angles shall be provided. This shall include post lot line adjustment parcel
configurations.
49. Locations, direction of flow and names, if available, of both natural and artificial water
courses and ponding area, or areas of periodic inundation on the subject parcel and on
adjacent properties which might affect the design of the applicant's proposal shall be
shown on the grading plan including provisions for proposed drainage and flood control
measures.
50. All existing overhead utility lines and poles on-site and on peripheral streets shall be
identified on the plans. All existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground.
51. The location and size of existing sewer, fire hydrants and fire protection systems, sanitary
sewers, water mains and storm drains must be shown on the plans.
52. The location and size ofrp oposed fire hydrants and fire protection systems, sanitary
sewers, water mains and storm drains. Slopes and elevations of proposed sewers and
storm drains shall be indicated.
53. A conceptual plan for erosion control must be developed as part of the submittal for
review.
54. Required easements for this development must be illustrated in an exhibit A or in the
form of grant deeds for review.
55. The paved connection shown for vehicular access at the northern comer of the subject
property shall be detailed. Final design as secondary access of emergency vehicle access
shall be per City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer.
LIAISON REPORTS: None.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Attachment D
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
Tuesday, October 13, 1998
7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Broad, Feibusch, Healy, Thompson*, V'ieler
Absent: Bennett, Torliatt
* Chairperson
Staff: Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
Vincent C. Smith, Principal Planner
Mabel Bialik, Associate Planner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
114EWTES of September 23, 1998 were approved with corrections to discussion on page
5.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Geoff Cartwright - 56 Rocca Drive - Petaluma Flood Victims
Association - Concerns regarding proposed new development, Old Elm Village - located
within the Floodplain; no net fill policy is not applicable to the site, but it should be.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Tuft introduced new Associate Planner
Mabel Bialik
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Feibusch - Thanked staff for
providing public notices in timely manner; Commissioner Healy - Flood discussion on
upcoming City Council agenda.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
I. SHERATON MARINA; 745 Baywood Drive; APN# 005-060-056 (mb)
Consideration of, and a recommendation to the City Council of a rezoning to
amend the Planned Community District (PCD) Development Program Standards
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
for the Petaluma Marina. The program currently allows for the development of a
154 room hotel. The proposed amendment would allow a 184 room hotel - an
increase of 30 rooms.
Associate Planner Bialik presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened:
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Vieler - How much does cupola need to be lowered to be consistent with
PCD Standards? (Answer - 2 feet).
Commissioner Healy - Any discussion regarding hotel in downtown area - any demand?
Planning Director Tuft - Central Petaluma Specific Plan assumes this (Marina Hotel)
project.
Chairman Thompson - Will the restaurant in the hotel be a part of the restaurant square
footage allowed for the Marina site?
Associate Planner Bialik - No, this restaurant is ancillary to the hotel - not part of the
total site allowance. PCD Standards still allow for a maximum of 25,000 sq.ft. of
restaurant space at the Marina, including a fast food restaurant.
Chairman Thompson - Concerns regarding parking adequacy.
Commissioner Vieler - Is there an agreement in place allowing hotel access to parking on
entire site?
Commissioner Broad - Questions regarding shared parking agreement.
Associate Planner Bialik - Agreement required under Condition 6 of staff report.
Planning Director Tuft - Planning Commission can require negotiation of a shared
parking agreement - would like Mr. Lok (Applicant) to respond.
Commissioner Broad - Condition 6 is vague and not definitive; questions regarding the
following: what is exterior material proposed?, what type of public access easement is
proposed/existing?
Dennis MacDonneil - Applicant - 1991 PCD Amendment was adopted with 300 spaces
identified as "reserved" parking spaces; existing spaces are 50% available during the day
now.
Kirk Lok - Applicant - This type of use (sharing parking with offices) is a good match,
compatible with hoteUmeeting center use; some of the hotel functions will be at night or
weekends when office parking will not be utilized; daytime functions will likely involve
people who are already guests at the hotel; regarding a downtown hotel - there is currently
a great deal of employment growth and much more demand for hotel rooms than 10-12
years ago, the demand is here for more hotel rooms.
Rick Brereton - Applicant - ADR Architects - Regarding public access easements -
propose combining the two existing easements and circling hotel, connecting boardwalk
on entire site - appears that easements can be relocated.
Commissioner Broad - How will public know that there is public access to the dock
area?
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
1 Rick Brereton - Easement will be made ADA accessible, there will be a break in
2 landscaping, signage; even though number of rooms has been increased, the overall
3 footprint square footage has been decreased (smaller room types); described
4 project/restaurant; screening for kitchen/housekeeping uses.
5 Commissioner Vieler - Will the fitness center be for the hotel guests only? (Answer -
6 yes.)
7 Commissioner Broad - What type of material used for exterior?
8 Rick Brereton - "Hardy Plank" (like existing materials) - designed to look like lap siding,
9 material necessary to meet Fire Code requirements.
10
it The public hearing was closed.
12
13 COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
14
15 Commissioner Vieler - Regarding storm drain requirements - who is picking up
16 responsibility on the four acres added in 1991?
17 Planning Director Tuft - MOPA owns that portion, will pick up responsibility.
18 Commissioner Broad - Good project; nice enhancement to community; final approval
19 should make sure access easement is easy for public to locate; cupola seems slightly too
20 large scale; what is intent of flag pole/flag? Will flag have an "S" (advertisement?).
21 Planning Director Tuft - We can add a condition requiring that public access be clearly
22 identified; if flag includes an "S", it will be regarded as a sign and counted in total signage
23 square footage; staff will check overall height.
24 Rick Brereton - Cupola is about the correct scale when lowered to meet PCD Standards.
25 Commissioner Feibusch - Congratulations regarding design - good project.
26 Commissioner Healy - Will this go back to SPARC with these unresolved design issues?
27 Planning Director Tuft - SPARC review has been completed; this will go through staff
28 prior to building permit issuance.
29 Commissioner Healy - Comfortable with staff review; wonderful addition to community;
30 staff should discuss with ROMA the effect on downtown (hotel) plans.
31 Chairman Thompson - This is a good project, much needed.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
34 forward a recommendation to the City Council that no subsequent EIR or Negative
35 Declaration need be prepared and to adopt the Rezoning/PCD Amendment based on the
36 findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below:
37
38
Commissioner Bennett:
Absent
39
Commissioner Broad:
Yes
40
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
41
Commissioner Healy:
Yes
42
Commissioner Torliatt:
Absent
43
Commissioner Vieler:
Yes
44
Chairman Thompson:
Yes
45
46
7
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
1
2 Environmental Review Findines:
3
4 1. That the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact Report
5 (Resolution 86-294), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by
6 Resolution 91-365, adequately evaluated the environmental impacts of the overall
7 marina and hotel project and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce
8 potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
9
to 2. That, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
11 Act (CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the proposed
12 change in the previously approved project to add 30 hotel rooms.
13
14 3. That based on the Initial Study, the change in the project is not a substantial
15 change which would result in new significant environmental impacts or increase
16 the severity of previously identified impacts, and therefore, a subsequent EIR or
17 Mitigated Negative Declaration need not be prepared.
18
19 Rezonine_ /PCD Findines:
20
21 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is in general conformity with the General
22 Plan, and the additional 30 hotel rooms will not adversely impact the previously
23 approved parking and circulation plan.
24
25 2. That the additional 30 hotel rooms would not be detrimental to the public health,
26 safety, or welfare.
27
28 3. That the proposed project to allow 30 additional rooms is consistent with the
29 intent of the PCD standards to provide a quality hotel within the Petaluma Marina
30 Office Park.
31
32 Rezonine_ /PCD Amendment Conditions:
33
34 From the Plannine Deoartment:
35
36 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of an approximately 135,500 sq. ft.,
37 184 room hotel at the Petaluma Marina and Office Park. The design of the hotel
38 shall be substantially as shown on the plans approved by the Site Plan and
39 Architectural Review Committee on July 23, 1998, and plans submitted to the
40 Planning Department on August 6, 1998, except as modified by these conditions:
41
42 2. The plans submitted for building permits shall be fully dimensioned and shall show
43 a reduction in the height of the cupola to 91 ft.
44
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
43
44
45
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
3. Prior to issuance for a building permit, the applicant shall apply for, be granted,
and record a lot line adjustment to accommodate the location of the Porte Cochere
(a covered driveway at the entrance to the hotel).
4. Plans submitted for a building permits shall show the revised lot lines between lots
3 and 4 and at the front of the building (Porte Cochere).
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final
landscape plan for the hotel portion of the parking lot to the Planning Department
for review and approval.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide to the Planning
Department a copy of a recorded parking agreement between the hotel owners and
the Marina Office Park Associates (MOPA) verifying that the hotel will mitigate
the impact of any daytime event at the hotel which might potentially impact office
parking.
7. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code, the applicant
shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at time of building permit
application, including, but not limited to, the following: sewer connection, water
connection, community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school
facilities, and traffic mitigation fees. The following fees are estimates and are
based upon the entire hotel project:
a. Sewer Connection: $28,244
b. Water Connection: $24,717 (based on 3" meter, Zone 1)
C. Community Facilities: $24,717 (based on 2.06 acres)
d. Storm Drain: $6,840 (based on a total project site of 2.06
acres, which includes a parking lot of
approximately 1.85 acres)
e. School Facilities: Determined by applicable school district -
contact district at 778-4621 for information.
f. Traffic Mitigation: $157,872 ($858/room x 184 rooms)
8. Public access to the Marina shall be clearly identifiable through the use of
signage, changes.'openings in landscaping, etc., subject to Planning staff review
and approval.
9. Scale and design: of cupola shall be subject to Planning staff review and
approval.
10. Signage, flag pole and flags, and lighting shall be subject to the Petaluma
Marina Master Sign Program and the Zoning Ordinance, as applicable, and shall
be subject to Planning staff review and approval.
RI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
Standard SPARC Conditions:
1. All trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size (i.e., trunk diameter of at least 1/4 inch
measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g., 24 -inch box
or specimen size) and double staked. All shrubs shall be five gallon size. All
landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a three-inch deep
bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. The
training/nursery stake for all plant materials shall be removed at the time of
planting.
2. All plant materials shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
irrigation system. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition.
Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding,
cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing, and regular watering. Whenever necessary,
planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to ensure continued
compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems
shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically
cleaned and replaced when missing to ensure continued regular watering of
landscape areas and health and vitality of landscape materials.
3. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near streets or walkways as
needed, subject to staff review and approval.
4. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as
required by staff.
5. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main, and all rooftop
equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation, subject to the approval
of the Planning Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction
and/or landscape plans.
6. Driveway and parking surface areas shall be improved with a City -approved
surface of asphaltic -concrete or concrete pavement. All parking surface areas shall
be bordered with concrete curbing which is designed to meet at least the minimum
specifications of the City Parking Design Standards.
7. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.)
8. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light
against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no
direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 ft. height, etc.) and shall compliment building
architecture.
9. The applicant/developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when
such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant/developer
of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees
and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
From the Fire Marshal:
1. Provide a Class I standpipe system in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Uniform
Building Code.
2. Stair enclosures are to be 2 hour fire rated in accordance with Chapter 10 0£ the
UBC.
3. Provide one fire extinguisher, a 2AlOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of floor
space, and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
4. Provide one 40BC rated dry chemical type extinguisher in kitchen area.
5. Every guest room available in a hotel, motel or lodging house shall have clearly
visible emergency procedures information printed on a floor plan representative of
the floor level.
6. Buildings four or more stories in height shall have a storeroom on every third floor
for the storage of emergency equipment to be accessible for exclusive use by the
Fire Department. Building owner shall provide and maintain at owner's expense,
within the storeroom, the type and amount of emergency equipment as required
and specified by the Fire Chief.
7. The storeroom shall not be used for other purposes and shall be located as
required by the Fire Chief, consideration to be given to location of enclosed
stairwells.
8. Provide to the Fire Marshal's office, a minimum of two (2) sets of fire sprinkler
plans and calculations for approval and issuance of permit prior to installation of
system.
9. Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking
equipment.
`1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
10. Permit required from the Fire Marshal's office for fixed fire extinguishing systems;
two sets of plans are required to be submitted for review and approval.
11. Provide an exit sign over all required exit doors.
12. Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as designated by
the Fire Marshal's office.
13. All emergency lighting and exit sign lights shall have two separate sources of
power as required in the Building Code.
14. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated by
painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall
be installed.
15. Provide an approved fire alarm system.
16. Contractor shall provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement of
work.
From the Building Division:
1. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved
plans and will be required for occupancy.
2. Certify finished floor elevation before occupancy.
3. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per
Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
4. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UC must be
followed.
5. All roofing shall be `B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
6. Show site drainage and grading topography.
7. Indicate all utilities on site plans.
8. Responsible party to sign plans.
9. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
10. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Planning Conu i«on Minutes - October 13, 1998
11. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC and 1993 NEC. Plans
must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation and/or
Disabled Access requirements.
12. Provide structural calculations for all non -conventional design items.
From the Engineering Den_ artment: (The following is required prior to issuance of a
building permit.)
1. A detailed grading plan for improvements on site including street improvements,
utilities, earthwork, drainage, and all transitions at property fines shall be provided.
2. All existing and proposed easements associated with the subject parcel are to be
included on the plans.
3. Drainage into existing waterways shall be approved by the City of Petaluma.
4. A fully -dimensioned site plan shall be provided as a portion of improvement plans
including distances from property lines to buildings and parking.
5. Accurate metes and bounds of all existing and proposed lots, radii of all curves and
central angles shall be provided. This shall include post lot line adjustment parcel
configurations.
6. Locations, direction of flow and names, if available, of both natural and artificial
water courses and ponding area, or areas of periodic inundation on the subject
parcel and on adjacent properties which might affect the design of the applicant's
proposal shall be shown on the grading plan including provisions for proposed
drainage and flood control measures.
7. All existing overhead utility lines and poles on-site and on peripheral streets shall
be identified on the plans. All existing overhead utilities shall be placed
underground.
8 The location and size of existing sewer, fire hydrants and fire protection systems,
sanitary sewers, water mains and storm drains must be shown on the plans.
9. The location and size of proposed fire hydrants and fire protection systems,
sanitary sewers, water mains and storm drains. Slopes and elevations of proposed
sewers and storm drains shall be indicated.
10. A conceptual plan for erosion control must be developed as part of the submittal
for review.
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Planning Commission Minutes - October 13, 1998
11. Required easements for this development must be illustrated in an exhibit A or in
the form of grant deeds for review.
12. The paved connection shown for vehicular access at the northern comer of the
subject property shall be detailed. Final design as secondary access of emergency
vehicle access shall be per City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer.
From the Sonoma Countv Water District:
1. For site-specific improvements, the drainage design for the project shall be in
compliance with the Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria."
II. LIAISON REPORTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 PM
Ito]
s/pc-plan/agmda/1013
Attachment E
2301 Marylyn Circle
Petaluma 94954
778-7302
July 23, 1998
Pamela A. Tuft, Planning Director nn ��33
City of Petaluma ��L+L�V�!
11 English Street
JUL 2 3 1998
Petaluma CA 94952
PLANNING / E!'!_DING
Dear Ms. Tuft:
This concerns planned construction of a hotel at the Marina
Office Business Park scheduled for a SPARC hearing today. I
have no objection to the construction per se. My objection
is based on the proposed reliance on an EIR that is now 12 years
old without findings with respect to the environmental effects
of changes that have taken place in the surrounding area since.
Among these are construction that has since taken place, as
well as construction already approved but not completed, in
the area immediately south of the marina (South McDowell);
increased traffic along Lakeville Highway that may be greater
than predicted in 1988;the effect, if any, of the proposed
widening of 101. An example of why consideration has to be given
to the traffic component is the statement on page 9 of the EIR
that predicted near or at capacity between Baywood and the 101
northbound ramp considering general plan buildout and the
proposed Marina Business Park project.
The proposed project called for a 125 room hotel which
would create a u -shaped area along with two proposed office
buildings and a 25,000 sq.ft. public plaza (pp.30-31 1988 EIR).
According to the published announcement the hotel now proposed
calls for 154 rooms plus a 4,500 sq.ft. addition and a 100 seat
restaurant/bar. Has the plan for the plaza been abandoned? What
provision is made for additional parking created by an increase
of more than 20% in the number of rooms and the multi -function
room? At the minimum a revised parking plan has to be submitted.
Any proposed changes in the configuration of the marina itself
may have a significant effect on the parking requirements. At
a meeting of boat owners who are using the marina it was evident
that there are existing parking/traffic problem. In view of
changes within the City as relates to fire and police protection
is it not necessary to reexamine fiscal impacts?
I reserve the right to make further objections at any stage
of the process and request that this letter be brought to the
attention of the SPARC, Planning Commission and Council members.
vey truly / yours,
YLOChaecha�nover
Attachment F
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PETALUMA MARINA AND OFFICE
COMPLEX PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD) DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 30 HOTEL ROOMS FOR A TOTAL
OF 184 ROOMS AT THE PROPOSED SHERATON HOTEL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on
October 13, 1998, after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the
form required by Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended; and
WHEREAS, at the end of the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend
that the City Council find that no further environmental review is required and to recommend
approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on November
16, 1998, after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the form
required by Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study, and pursuant
to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration need be
prepared, based on the following findings:
1. That the Petaluma Marina, Office, and Hotel Project Environmental Impact Report
(Resolution 86-294), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by Resolution 91-
365, adequately evaluated the environmental impacts of the overall Marina and hotel
project and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce potentially significant impacts to
less than significant.
3. That, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the proposed change in the
previously approved project to add 30 hotel rooms.
3. That based on the Initial Study, the change in the project is not a substantial change
which would result in new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified impacts, and therefore, a subsequent EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration need not be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the PCD amendment to allow a 135,500 sq. ft., 184
room hotel, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, finds that:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is in general conformity with the General Plan, and
the additional 30 hotel rooms will not adversely impact the previously approved parking
and circulation plan.
2. That the additional 30 hotel rooms would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare.
3. That the proposed project to allow 30 additional rooms is consistent with the intent of the
PCD standards to provide a quality hotel within the Petaluma Marina Office Park; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Petaluma does
hereby amend the Petaluma Marina and Office Complex Planned Community District (PCD)
Development Program to allow an additional 30 hotel rooms for a total of 184 rooms at the
proposed Sheraton Hotel, subject to the following Conditions of Approval::
From the Planning Department:
1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of an approximately 135,500 sq. ft., 184
room hotel at the Petaluma Marina and Office Park. The design of the hotel shall be
substantially as shown on the plans approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review
Committee on July 23, 1998, and plans submitted to the Planning Department on August
6, 1998, except as modified by these conditions:
2. The plans submitted for building permits shall be fully dimensioned and shall show a
reduction in the height of the cupola to 91 ft.
3. Prior to issuance for a building permit, the applicant shall apply for, be granted, and
record a lot line adjustment to accommodate the location of the Porte Cochere (a covered
driveway at the entrance to the hotel).
4. Plans submitted for a building permits shall show the revised lot lines between lots 3 and
4 and at the front of the building (Porte Cochere).
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final landscape
plan for the hotel portion of the parking lot to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide to the Planning
Department a copy of a recorded parking agreement between the hotel owners and the
Marina Office Park Associates (MOPA) verifying that the hotel will mitigate the impact
of any daytime event at the hotel which might potentially impact office parking.
7. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code, the applicant shall
pay applicable City Special Development Fees at time of building permit application,
including, but not limited to, the following: sewer connection, water connection,
community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school facilities, and traffic
mitigation fees. The following fees are estimates and are based upon the entire hotel
proj ect:
-4-
5. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main, and all rooftop equipment
shall be fully visually screened upon installation, subject to the approval of the Planning
Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or landscape plans.
10. Driveway and parking surface areas shall be improved with a City -approved surface of
asphaltic -concrete or concrete pavement. All parking surface areas shall be bordered with
concrete curbing which is designed to meet at least the minimum specifications of the
City Parking Design Standards.
7. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal
Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.)
8. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and approval.
All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall. All
lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no direct glare, no poles in
excess of 20 ft. height, etc.) and shall compliment building architecture.
9. The applicant/developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim or action is
brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The
City shall promptly notify the applicant/developer of any such claim, action, or
proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this
condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or
proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the
action in good faith.
From the Fire Marshal:
1. Provide a Class I standpipe system in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building
Code.
2. Stair enclosures are to be 2 hour fire rated in accordance with Chapter 10 of the UBC.
3. Provide one fire extinguisher, a 2AIOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of floor space,
and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
4. Provide one 40BC rated dry chemical type extinguisher in kitchen area.
5. Every guest room available in a hotel, motel or lodging house shall have clearly visible
emergency procedures information printed on a floor plan representative of the floor
level.
a. Sewer Connection:
b. Water Connection:
c. Community Facilities
d. Storm Drain:
e. School Facilities Fee:
f. Traffic Mitigation Fee
-3-
$28,244.00
$24,717.00 (based on 3" meter, Zone 1)
$24,198.00 (based on 2.06 acres)
$ 6,840.00 (based upon a total project site
of 2.06 acres, which includes a parking lot
of approximately 1.85 acres)
To be determined by applicable school
district. Please contact the school district at
778-4621 for information regarding this
fee.
$157,872.00 ($858/room x 184 rooms)
7. Public access to the Marina shall be clearly identifiable through the use of signage,
changes/openings in landscaping, etc., subject to Planning staff review and approval.
8. Scale and design of cupola shall be subject to Planning staff review and approval.
9. Signage, flag pole and flags, and lighting shall be subject to the Petaluma Marina Master
Sign Program and the Zoning Ordinance, as applicable, and shall be subject to Planning
staff review and approval.
Standard SPARC Conditions:
1. All trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size (i.e., trunk diameter of at least 3/4 inch
measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g., 24 -inch box or
specimen size) and double staked. All shrubs shall be five gallon size. All landscaped
areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a three-inch deep bark mulch as a
temporary measure until the ground cover is established. The training/nursery stake for
all plant materials shall be removed at the time of planting.
2. All plant materials shall be served by a City approved automatic underground irrigation
system. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance
shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash,
fertilizing, and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with
other plant materials to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping
requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating
condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to ensure continued
regular watering of landscape areas and health and vitality of landscape materials.
3. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near streets or walkways as needed,
subject to staff review and approval.
4. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as required
by staff.
-5-
6. Buildings four or more stories in height shall have a storeroom on every third floor for
the storage of emergency equipment to be accessible for exclusive use by the Fire
Department. Building owner shall provide and maintain at owner's expense, within the
storeroom, the type and amount of emergency equipment as required and specified by the
Fire Chief.
7. The storeroom shall not be used for other purposes and shall be located as required by the
Fire Chief, consideration to be given to location of enclosed stairwells.
8. Provide to the Fire Marshal's office, a minimum of two (2) sets of fire sprinkler plans and
calculations for approval and issuance of permit prior to installation of system.
9. Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking
equipment.
10. Permit required from the Fire Marshal's office for fixed fire extinguishing systems; two
sets of plans are required to be submitted for review and approval.
11. Provide an exit sign over all required exit doors.
12. Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as designated by the
Fire Marshal's office.
13. All emergency lighting and exit sign lights shall have two separate sources of power as
required in the Building Code.
14. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated by painting
curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be installed.
15. Provide an approved fire alarm system.
16. Contractor shall provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement of work.
From the Building Division:
1. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved plans
and will be required for occupancy.
2. Certify finished floor elevation before occupancy.
3. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per
Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
4. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UC must be followed.
5. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
WE
6. Show site drainage and grading topography.
7. Indicate all utilities on site plans.
8. Responsible party to sign plans.
9. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
10. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
11. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC and 1993 NEC. Plans must also
show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation and/or Disabled Access
requirements.
12. Provide structural calculations for all non -conventional design items.
From the Engineering Department: (The following is required prior to issuance of a building
permit.)
1. A detailed grading plan for improvements on site including street improvements, utilities,
earthwork, drainage, and all transitions at property lines shall be provided.
2. All existing and proposed easements associated with the subject parcel are to be included
on the plans.
3. Drainage into existing waterways shall be approved by the City of Petaluma.
4. A fully -dimensioned site plan shall be provided as a portion of improvement plans
including distances from property lines to buildings and parking.
5. Accurate metes and bounds of all existing and proposed lots, radii of all curves and
central angles shall be provided. This shall include post lot line adjustment parcel
configurations.
6. Locations, direction of flow and names, if available, of both natural and artificial water
courses and ponding area, or areas of periodic inundation on the subject parcel and on
adjacent properties which might affect the design of the applicant's proposal shall be
shown on the grading plan including provisions for proposed drainage and flood control
measures.
7. All existing overhead utility lines and poles on-site and on peripheral streets shall be
identified on the plans. All existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground.
8 The location and size of existing sewer, fire hydrants and fire protection systems, sanitary
sewers, water mains and storm drains must be shown on the plans.
-7-
9. The location and size ofrp oposed fire hydrants and fire protection systems, sanitary
sewers, water mains and storm drains. Slopes and elevations of proposed sewers and
storm drains shall be indicated.
10. A conceptual plan for erosion control must be developed as part of the submittal for
review.
11. Required easements for this development must be illustrated in an exhibit A or in the
form of grant deeds for review.
12. The paved connection shown for vehicular access at the northern corner of the subject
property shall be detailed. Final design as secondary access of emergency vehicle access
shall be per City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer.
From the Sonoma County Water District:
1. For site-specific improvements, the drainage design for the project shall be in compliance
with the Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria."