HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.B 07/06/2015 Part 29 .1
Page 51, Attachment 4
00V
CITY OF ,PF T A LUMA
T'OST OPFIC1.13 fit tit
PEA'AC,1INTA, CA 94953-0001
n>,vrrr
Mayor Febrnary 18, 2015
a .
Chrla Aiherlsatr Ernmanuol Akognon
Cercanianrrclt lleory
nTl1r� 1011 Allen Street
rnnaWcnrncy Petaluma, CA 9495el
nnVC Tiing
UnthyMIll ,
" ' ' "" " Cnrioe`tlirionibets° RE; ColnditloInnl Use Permit for Village 13aptiSt Church --
38:35 Cypress Drive
PLUP -14 -0001
connnrutlly Development
Department
!! a'}Iglhrh Strae!
Paraihav, N 94952
Photro (707) 7734301
Far (707) 778.4498
B1111dhrg Utrldon
Pl anc (747) 77,4.4301
I'nx (707) 7734498
?daft;
cddC27.pafalnura,cn.us
To Sahadtde ASM1lons
phanu (701) 778 -4479
Ptavrting DIPlrtnrr
Phone (747) 778.4410
pax (107) 778.4498
r•a1nf1:
1) a fall NapJctnrirr8 a
Ctj�atalrnuacn,frr
tvlr, rlkgnon,
Tho City of Petaluma has reviewed your application for all Adnninistrativc
Conditional Use Permit to allow Village Baptist Church to operate in the existing
building located at 3835 Cypress Drive Suites 107 and 108, within the'Busihess Park
(BP) zone. TZO Section 3,030,5 allows the Director to determine that a proposed use
is similar to and con�paGbla with fI listed use and may bo allowed, pursuant. to
Section 3.030,D, after detailed review, the Director has determined that a Conditional
Use Pernnit is not required for the proposed use of a religious facility to locate in the
desired location because, it is similar to the use of a club, lodge, private meeting hall,
which is a permitted use in the Business Park 2'oningr District, The determination is
abused on the folloNving findings:
1, The TZO def+ulcs a club, lodge, private meeting hall as ponuanent,
headquarters -type and mceting facilities for organizations operating on a
rneannborshll> basis for the prnrnotion of "tile intcrcsts of the moltrtbors, including
facilities for, business associations, civic, social, and i;ratcrtnal organizations
labor unions and similar organzations political organizations, professional
membership organizations, and other membership organizations. '
2, 'lire TZO defiincs a religious facility Its It Penn =uaellt faacility operated by a
religious organizzition exclusively for worship, or the prolraotion of religious
activities, including accessory uses on the sanle site, Examples of these types
of facilities include churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples.
31 The lcey distinction between religious facility and a club, lorige, private
meeting hall as defined in the 170 is that the rcllgioars facility definition
applies to organizations exercising religion while the club definition applies to
organizations that gather for non - religious purposes.
4. '1116 ch<lractcritttics of and activities associated with a religious facility fare
similar to a club, lodge, or mating hall in that both uses are conllliu'ablc I'll the
type and 'intensity of use. Club, lodge ar private mceting halls and rcligiotls
EXHIBIT A
Page 52, Attachment 4
I
i
t
facilities both gather groups of members together facilitate common interests.
Purthenmore, the type of uae, hours of operation and parking are comparable to that of a
club, lodge or private meeting hall:
The Business Park zoning district is intended for business and professional office,
technology park clusters, research and development, light industrial operations, and
visitor service establishments. Additionally, club, Iodge, or meeting hall is a permitted
use In the BP zoning district and as outlined above, there is little distinction between the
operational characteristic of a religious facility and a club, lodge, or meeting hall. The
proposed religious facility Is consistent with the general purpose of the BP zone and Is
not anticipated to detract that Intent,
6. The property at 3835 Cypress has a land use designation of Business Park. There is no
applicable specific plan that applies to the property. Similar to the associated BP zoning,
the Business Park land use designation provides for professional offices, technology park
clusters, and research and development, Therefore, the proposed religious facility is
consistent with the applicable General Plan designation,
7. The religious facility is compatible with other uses permtted In the BP zoning district
such as office, medical services, and multiple recreation, eduoation and public assembly
uses because there is no distinction between the impacts of a club, lode, private meeting
hall and a religious facility In this zoning district. '
8, A club, lodge, or meeting hall is a permitted use in many of the city'b zoning district;
however, a religious facility is not a permitted use in any of the city's zoning districts,
After conducting a review of the IZO, there is no stated compelling government interest
that necessitates different treatment of the two types of organizations.
A determination of compatible use made by the Director may be appealed to the Planning
Commission in compliance with Section IZO 24,070.' A letter of appeal by the applicant or
any other Interested party must be filed within fourteen calendar days following the date of
the Director's determination. If no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final.
An appeal shall be addressed to the Planning Commission in writing and shall be filed with the
City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by
the appellant. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution
2010 -206 N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council,
if you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me at' DT- 778.4472 or
ehilt@oj.patalurna.oa.us,
Sincerely,
Bllen Tdill j
Assistant Planner I
Page 53, Attachment 4 r, ;.,
1 EXHIBIT--'B
Page 54, Attachment 4
Loudness Standards for Churches — How Loud is Loud Enough?
poslod by: pin rn r 'n
Tlwro Is n great donl n( coniroyorny thoso days rapnrding t o nccoptnblo loudnoas IOV610 of muade In
modern worshlp nnrvteus, The question that bolls to he nnswnt id Is this: 'Just how laud ho loud
enough ?" Thin doculeo III will axphdn pro Really aecoptnblA laud nose lovols (or houses of worship and
other venues, and will provide sound lochs and workers with the necessary farts to defend their
doelrions about loudness levels.
You can rest nnsurad that the anfaty, of your audlonco, bolli present and In the future, is one of Ole
hlghost priorities taken Into consideration In the development of their) standards. Any nod all
questions nboul lira antoty of Ilstoning levels must be taken with the utmost soriousnoap, It Is impodnnl
to convoy to anyone quostloning the loudness oryour music that their concerns will be considered and
that your primary pout In to continually Improve your snrvieo to the lord and the worship experience for
nvoryono in atU +ndnnco,
Standards of Safety
The U.S, Government has alresdydone much resenrch in the area of hearing safety. The
govornmani's OctupnUnnai Sillily end Health Administration (OSHA) has rosonichod and published
Its rocommondad sound pressure lovols (SPL s). Their findings ere readily avallablo an the wasb
nt:1 nyry,hsftr r >
Applying OSHA Safety Standards
In adharonco to OSHA unfoly standards whin your facility, the uno of a eoond prosnurn level (SPL)
motor nhould be utilized to monnuro the loudnaso level of every service or avant, This rnnlor should be
located at tho Sound Control Booth and condolontly monitored to ensure that sound levels do not
exceed nccoptnblo loudness standnrds (which fall within OSHA guidelines),
A pound Iovol of 00 dO 10 07 dB ohouhi he ndoplod nn the standard for nil events o(lhss Ilmn 3 houra
duration par OSHA, as Indicniod In Inbbr C -10 holow:
OSHA Table G -16: Duration Hrs, SPL dBA slow response
0 lire F, tin dBA
0 hm 4, 02 dBA
4 hrs b 05 dBA
3 hrs == 07 dBA
2 hrs ` 100 dBA
i lire 100 dBA
only occoalonally should sound levels uxcoud OSHA standards, and even then, It should only bo
during momontary musical peaks. Moroovar, sound tochs must comptolofy understand that church
sorvlcon nro not cnnrorts at which the nudionco sings along with the performers on stage, Rnthor, the
musicians ovary ono of UTon1, including pro nInorim —•aro merely accompanists to the worahip and
symphony of prnlso trroutht forth by iho ronosogatton, Thu praiso hand and stoners should he mixed
ntcording)y, only loud onough to do their jobs of lending and supporting the congropnlional worship
Five Common Pitfalls
of DIY Installations
Cntor your Inlonnatlon Below To Wirolvo
The Fivn Common PII(ulla of MY
Insinlintlonnl
(' Cnmll l
Fuel Nama
Required Field
�`u�klrult qL
(5EI
Topics
— > Audio Visual Equipment
> AVV✓idnq
> churches
> Projector Roniol
> Rocordoblo Modin
> Rocoiding Studios
> Sound System
> 'llpli
> wirolona inlefophano
Popular Tags
Recent'Articles
EMBIT B
Page 55, Attachment 4
and praise experience.
Loudness Standards for Houses of Worship
Praise Bend and Congregation n 08 dB
Worship Songs (a cepollo) - 03 d8
Spoken Word, Proeching, etc. 0 00 dB
It Is Important to note that the sound level cannot be parfecay distributed throughout an entire
auditorium or room. White the sound designer mayhovo Bono to great lengths to ensure ovon sound
distribution at every seated position throughout the auditorium, the sound system will always produce
htghortoudnoestoveienoorthospookom. For this reason, It Isr000mmondod that soo8ngpositions
era caredritychoeen with We In Had.
Safety, Comfort, and Personal Preferences
Ono must acknowledge that oven within the range of safe sound levels, Me rent people will still have
difforonl Ilstontng prororoncos, Scion(Ittoresearch and white papers like this one will not make It easier
for people to enjoy sound levels that era higher than their own personal comfort levels,
The sound tech Is tochnlcatly responsible for ensuring (tot sound levels do not exceed OSHA
guidelines, However, every sound tech should also be aware that some people have special hearing
needs and may experience a level of dasoomfortduo to certain sound frequencies, the overall loudness
level, or both, in this circumstance, It Is advisable to assure anyone experiencing discomfort that steps
will be taken to hotp dtom gnd a comfodablo solution, They should be Infonnod that their discomfort Is
not an Indicator ofhooring damage, and sound aaenua8ng ear plugs should be offered at no charge for
thalydlecrotionary use and relief,
In Conclusion
Bound levels In churches and other venues have crept up over the years, In fact thoy have now
become a concern, and dghtiy so, because the SPIe In some vomme approach unbearable levels,
Poop Is enjoy loud music generally opookinoi however, It Is the distortion that kmallmas accompanies -
loud music that makes It unpleasant.
Eliminating or reducing distortion can be accomplished with hlohquallycommerolal sound systems
combined with properknowtodgo and the acquired skills, Those factors alone, however, are not
enough to avert discomfort for all Individuals, Other measures ouWned above are often necessary to
malre the experience a poslavo one for all attendees. Itle crucial that sound tacho equip themselves
with the proper toots, knowtodgo, and oxpodanco to sumeeelUOy manage sound levels to everyone's
oontent.
Me article has addressed many of the typical concerns and questions surrounding this Issue. Please
contact me directly If I can be of additional osslatonoo with these or any outer questions that may arise
In the Mire,
t aHARE THIS
Related Posts
> No related posts round
A Oategorlost Churches Sound System.jjgb
> Use Quality Sound Equipment For
Your Porly
> The Various Uses And Benefits Of
AudloMdeo Equipment
> Use Profosolonal Audio VI0001
Equipment i McMinnville TN
) Part - Understanding Oupaco8on vs
Replicallon
) Part 3- Avoiding Problems with Me
Page 56, Attachment 4 1
" J/
Mott
AudloVlsuol TN la a C1100huh AV compnny npeclollzing In church nudlo and vidoo instolhill000, Our vast rnacurcas Include Mato
then 500 product liner with over 200,000 !toms, WO flrmly boilovo (hat what the ore doing (or churchoo throuphoul thin prom Motu In
our minletry,
The Bible tonchos that how we serve others is how we servo Christ himself, (M1 2G40) We take
(hose wordo norlously, We realize that we nro serving Christ by using our God•givon hdonis to servo
the church, As such, we dedicato oursoivos to excellence H everything we do. We use only the
(most equipment and compononts, and we complete every Installation exnclly as It It worn our vary
own, We koop coals down whatever possible so that wo can bettor opproprfnin On avallablo funding
toward highorquaifty oqulpmont and optimal Installation procticos, We understand that tho quallty of
our work represents the quality o(work we hove done for Christ himself,
Our goal Is to tomovo the technical burden from your shouidors entirely and provide you with the
vory t)ant In onginooring, cronsmnnship, and stowardshlp of rfhurclh fAmda, ivory insfaliolion
becomes a showcase of our dodication to excellence in both design and purfotmanco. Wo want to
complete your AV projocls for you, not so much bocauso of the benefits tint it brings to our
nrgnnizrdinn, but more importantly because of the benefits thniItwill bring to yours,
Five Common
Pitfalls of DIY
Installations
Entor Your Information Below
To Rocolve The FIVO Common
Pitfoifn o(OIY Inataliotional
F-maii
' F(rst (Jame _
= Roquirecl Field
Submit
We not only care nboul tho quality of our work, butwo nlso care very much about ministry and ovongellom, We know that superior
Inslallo0ons urn much boiler than tto Interior ones that nro oBnn Ure product of low bidders and AV companias whose only mlWon In
one of prontoblllty, Wn nino know that Ihn suporior porfomhonca of our systems can make worshipping more olfodlvo and morn
onjoyablo for everyone In ollondanco, This can toad to church growth and future expansion, both o(which will ulllmuloly bonoM t ho
ant re body of Chtisl In a posltivo way, And thol Is whatwe as a Christlan organization care about most of all, v Topics
It humhlnn os when wn fire soluc(od to bid on a church AV projoct, We would be pleased and hoporod to visit your incilily to oiler n )Audio Visual Equipment
no cost evaluation of your next prnjocl. Plonno contact un today, 616.006-6556 (0 AM -. 0 PIA, M-F) or fiUit2tlStw-4 k j ) AV Wiring
[.o11lYS 4A (StD1.t0if ll
Churches
> Projector Rental
> Rorordnbto Modin
> Ruaarding Studios
) Sound System
> Tips
> wireless microphone
Popular Tags
Page 57, Attachment 4
Nil 3
0
Page 58, Attachment 4
From: Chadboum Hawley (mallto;chowley (Mcomprinox,comj
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:34 AM
To: Hill, Ellen
Subject: Conditional use permit - Valley Baptist Church at 3835 Cypress Drive
Dear Ms HIII
Please accept this omall In lieu of a letter as I am out of town on business and understand any objections to
the conditions[ use permit for Valley Baptist Church at 3835 Cypress Drive must be submitted by today.
As an owner of a business condo In the building (Unit #207), I em ver concerned about the possible
degradation of the property and the potential for theft and vandalism,
The church proposes to operate on weekends when the normal tenants (the rest of1116-tWIlding
owner /occupants) are not there. They propose to hold meetings for 100+ people , They make no mention
of security. From past experience of having a church operate In the building on weekends we know that the
doors are left open and there Is no monitoring of who goes in or out of the building,
The building had suffered from theft and vandalism in the past , We have gone to some lengths to ensure
that the doors are securely looked on weekends and evenings, which are preolaeiy_the (Imes the church
proposes to operate.
In addition, the size of the congregation will put pressure on the Infrastructure (bathrooms, rugs) which
already have significant pressure from existing clients,
I don't think I am alone In this concern, but fear other ownerloccuplem will not have time to express their
re servations/concems,
Regards
Chadbourn Hawley
Owner - Unit # 207
Sent from my (Phone
EXHIBIT C
Page 59, Attachment 4 �'
From: Kim Stephens (msillo:Kim@sml -Ila coml
To: Petaluma Planning Commission
RE: village Baptist Church, 3835 Cypress Drive Minor Conditional Use Permit, Pile No,
PLUP -1 4.0007
Stephens, McCarthy, Lancaster LLC (owner and occupant of 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 206)
strangly obieots to the Conditional Use Permit under consideration for 3835 Cypress Drive,
Suites 107 and 108, as we believe that the expanded usage has the potential to have significant
negative operating and economic impacts on our business. We are concerned with the negative
effect on our daily operations which would be impacted by security concerns, noise, parking,
accessibility, liability and common area wear and tear that would come with-tine dramatic
Increase in the number of persons allowed under the CUP under consideration. We are also
oxtremely concerned that the negative effects on our daily operations have the potential to
adversely affect the long term economic investment that we have made in this space, by
potentially to decreasing its value to any future purchaser. In addition, we along with most of the
others owner occupants of the building have now become very concerned with the impact of the
original CPU which allowed increased usage beyond the norms for the buildtng and encouraged
the marketing of these units for a usage even more inconsistent and inappropriate for the
butlding.
Our specific concerns are:
Security: Our building is open 7:00 AM -» 7:00 FM Monday through Friday, We limit access Into the
building during the off hours and weekends for security reasons, both to the physical space and to any
occupants working in those off hours, There are many ownerloccupants of this building who work in the off
hours, either seasonally or because they are small business owners whose work requirements are not tied
to the clock. We are on the second floor and would be particularly susceptible anyone peeling off of a group
In the building after hours, Events on evenings and weekends which would expose our office to new
security risks, would require a re- assessment of the building's entire security provisions and could potentially
Involve modificatlons to second floor access to Include new locking fire doors at the side entrances, design
modification to the open staircase from the main lobby to the second floor, and perhaps actual security
personnel, Any and all security enhancements should be paid by the entity requeslinalihe CUP,
Noise: The increased noise that could potentially come from the as needed usage during regular business
hours (funerals were mentioned as an example) is complg�j}( Inappropriate for the existing business and
medical usage In the building, We are sitting doing offlce work that requires focus and concepirstion and
can only assume that an even higher level of focus and concentration is required for the medical and dental
procedures being performed In the building) -�-
Page 60, Attachment 4
-.7'
Parking: It appears that the church plans to hold some services during the week which could our ability to
find parking. We have a deeded assignment of four parking spaces. These four parking spaces are
available to our office suite seven days a week, twenty -four hours a day as also noted In our CC &R's. Each
suite has a specific maximum number of allocated parking spaces for their use. TFPdquasted usage in the
CPU would signIflontly exceed their parking space allotment for the two suites in question. A couple of our
employees have specific hours and typically park their care early and leave them in spots. The remainder
are outside salesmen who come into the office as needed during regular and off hours and count on being
able to find a place to park when they have a limited amount of time to achieve whatever task for which they
have come Into the office. I can only Imagine that the medical and dental offices would like their patients to
be able to find parking in a timely manner. Our parking lot Is not particularly large, but certainly adequate for
the existing usage without having to resort to designated, assigned parking - could you even imagine the
owners meeting where we argue over who gets what spot on a permanent basis? Parking on the busy
street should not have to be an option for building occupants with deeded spots, especially as we are across
the street from UPS and very near FED -EX and many other large, busy facilities.
Accessibility: Out building CCRs state you cannot extend Into the common area. The Common area Is
only for Ingress and egress (section 2.3 A). There can be no conducting of a business in the halls or waiting
area. In the case of the large functions (Le. Increased numbers of people) that this CRU-Is being asked to
accommodate, have you ever seen people disburse rapidly after one of these types of events? Other
people wanting to enter the building, either during regular business hours during funerals or during the off
hours, will potentially to brave the parking and then the crowd to make It Into the building to conduct their
business.
Liability: The increased usage requested in the CPU would seem to bring the potential of increased
liability with the number of persons on site. A completely different allocation of Insurance coverage and
costs would need to be determined that would not take Into account pure square footage as currently done,
but comparable usage. In addition, we assume that the Vlllege Baptist Church will have children at their
services. Our building has a steep set of stairs, any permit granted to the Village Baptist Church should
require adult supervision of all Children while they are In the common areas.
Common Area inadequacy, and Wear and Tear: We are very concerned that the infrastructure In
our building Is Inadequate for the vastly Increased usage requested In the CPU. The aniall Spaces Intended
to accommodate the usage does not appear to be adequate for 86 plus people, What happens when more
people Show up than anticipated? The previous tenant grew in attendance and exceeded the allowed
number per their CPU, If this CPU is granted over the objections of the majority of the current owners — will
we end up in the really awful position of standing outside and counting the number of people attending a
wadding or funeral in order to file a complaint? How would the oily compliance officer be able to come out
and determine the extent of the misuse? We have two small bathrooms, one on each floor that would not
be able to handle a large crowd, especially if securlty considerations make the second floor off limits. Will
the existing sprinkler system In the building meet the requirements for this type use? Any upgrades would
need to be paid for by the requester of the CPU, The Increased usage requested in the CPU would Boom to
bring the potential of vastly increased wear and tear on the common areas. A completely different allocation
of operating, maintenance, and capital Improvement costs would need to beAetarmined that would not take
Into account pure square footage as currently done, but comparable usage.
We at Stephens, McCarthy, Lancaster LLC appreciate your earefid consideration of the concerns
that we have expressed as well the ones expressed by the owners of the other office
Page 61, Attachment 4
condominiums at 3835 Cypress Drive. All of the owners were quite aback by this recent request,
initially by its Increased scope, but also upon the realization that the granting of the previous
CPU had opened the door to this kind of usage request. I believe that I speak for many of the
owners who were not happy about the prior CPU granted to a tenant, but did not object strongly
for several reasons. At the time, we commiserated with the Owner (who is now die Seller) of the
units in question because the cconomle conditions In the county, and tho county as a whole,
made the units very hard to sell and renting at least provided some incpme on the units. We also
now see that the duration of the prior CPU was mischaractorized. It seemed that many of us
were okay with off hours and Increased use because we were told the tenant was temporary and
that they had purchased property to build a permanent site. Now we see the permit was open
ended, and its granting has encouraged marketing and it sale for a use that for exceeds the
numbers appropriate for this building. In our ignorance of, the planning process, permitting, etc,
we allowed something to occur that we find was decidedly not in our interest, and t believe that
we will be working in die Nture to see what remedies are available to revoke the existing CPU,
Stephens, McCarthy Lancaster LLC 4
Chris Stephens
Kevin McCarthy
Glenn Lancaster'
# tt# rt# wwtr#•* 4wrtt*# w# tww## twrtw4wt4wr4rrwwr+ tw# r*# # *tww # #wwwwwww #wwwrttw #wrwrt +tw
wwrwwwrwttwwtwtwt 4rww# wwwwr4wwwt# twrr4w4# wwrrttt### ttwwt * #w #wwrtrwwr #w#tw4wtt *rtt *4
r* wtwwr# wrr4#+ �w## }w+tMw #w+Ywt44#4w4 #4wri+It4wttt #two # «4 #r
Page 62, Attachment 4 ;•
, 1 1
From: <mhaaa @haasopa,com>
Date: January 22, 2015 at 7:22:05 PM PST
To: <ehlll @cl.petaluma,ca,us>
Subject: Objection to CUP amendment of village baptist church
January 22, 2015
To Whom it May Concern:
X strongly object to the proposed CUP amendment of village baptist church at 3835 cypress
drive.
1 am one of the owners at 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 204, Petaluma, CA.1 put chased my suite In
2005 and have been operating there since as a CPA firm We use our office and the common area
mainly Monday through Friday -all hours of the day and night. Several months of the year we, use
our office and the common area on weekends, -
As an owner of suite 204,1 have a deeded assignment of 6 parking spaces. These 6 parking
spaces are available to me -7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Bach suite has a specific maximum
number of allocated parking spaces for their use. When these suites were purchased, the City of
Petaluma required a certain number of spaces per business. This was dependent upon the type
and scope of the business. We all had to conform to this, The use of my 6 parldng spaces can not
be changed,
We received the notice for the amendment for the CUP for The Village Baptist Church, which
will be occupying suites 107 and 108. For the Planning Department we were told the Village
Baptist Church would like to operate as follows:
Sundays
8.10 :15 am - children's group (no size noted)
Page 63, Attachment 4
`J
11 -1 worship- size to be increased to 125 people - current membership is 85
5 x's per year from 3 -7 pm they would like to have additional largo gatherings = up
to 125 people
Wednesdays
6 :30.9 pm Bible Study (no size noted)
9:15 -10 :15 pm Choir (no size noted)
Fridays
7 -9:30- Youth Group (no size noted)
Saturdays
10 -12 Men's Group- (no size noted)
1 time per month a large conference -up to 125 people
As Needed -
large group gatherings up to 125 -for weddings, funerals, etc.,.
M -T -W from 8 -4 there will be Church Staff in the offices - V
We have the following Issues regarding the proposed usage of the space as outlined
above:
1, The CCRs do not allow a business of this size. Any business occupying these suites must conduct
their business (2417), using only their allocated parking spaces. In the case of Suile6'107 and 108 they only
have 11 allocated parking spaces,This Is deeded to the suites and runs with the property. Per the
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for 3835 Cypress Drive Business Center, A Condominium
Project„ Section 22 D reads:
"In no event shall an Owner or other occupant of a unit Ariake use of more than the allocated
Parking Spaces per Unit as Specified on Exhibit A, Parking Allocations"
Page 64, Attachment 4
i
Each suite In the building has a deeded right to use their parking allocation 24/7 per the MRS,
The OCRs state that no business can use more than their allocation. This holds true for any
business in the building, If they operate using more than their allocation this is a violation of the
Culls. This restriction is effective 7 days a week, 24 hours it day, All the owners purchased the
right to their allocation when they purchased their suites, Our CCRs do not allow one suite to
give their allocation to another or waive their right to their spaces on certain days of the week,
The proposed business plan of the Village Baptist Church operates beyond this restriction, They
currently have a congregation of over 85. They also are currently advertising a 100 person
Saturday seminar in February. If this business, or any other with this usage, is allowed to operate
in our building it will be in violation of other owner's rights and the OCRs- urrent owners or
future owners require 24/7 access to their allocated spots, In the case of the church the
maximum occupancy per the City and our CCRs is 44, The proposed 125 far exceeds this
limit, The City does not have to right to give away every owners allocation of parking spaces on
Sundays (or any other day), Just because the current situation appears to leave parking
spaces open on Sundays, doesn't mean that in the future (several suites are for solo) it will
stay that way. Business models change and It is the deeded right of each owner to have
access to all their spaces ou any given day at any Eimc.
2, The usage of the space, as proposed, oxeceds the maximum accupnucy as determined by
the Fire ]Department.
The congregation space is 1274 sq ft, and depending upon the structures (stages) in the room,
ilia usable space can be less, Depending upon whether the congregation is seated or all are
standing the sq fl /person can vary from 7 sq fl (standing) to J6 sq fl,(seated). -`So the possible
maximum capacity rims from 180 to less than 80... all depending upon stnictures in the room
and provislon jar seating.
I can not Imagine that the entire congregation of 85 -125 will be standing for the 2 hour worship
service nor will the 100 plus people attending the planned conference be standing all day. Nor
will attendees of funerals and weddings be standing. T assume there will be furniture etc, taking
up space and tlrrther reducing the allowed attendee space.
Therefore, this busljcess would be operating over allowed capacity, which wottld cause
potential safety Issues and hazards to Ilia entire building.
Page 65, Attachment 4 ,
3. We object to Arnerals and weddings taldng place in the facility. The church has
proposedt
large group gatherings up to 125 for weddings, funerals, etc.
Any day of the week? Aity tltne of the day or night? They do not state how often these
events will occur or what days of the week or what time they will be ...Potentially they
could be any day and up to 125 people In attendance...
We oppose this nit so inany levels.
1. Parking is an Issue. They will be In violation of the CCRs if attendance and staff are In excess of
44 persons, A business In those suites can only utilize their 11 spaces. Currently the parking tot Is
close to capacity especially on weekdays. In no way can we accommodate this.
2. How can you limit the size of a funeral? Will someone be counting people as they enter? The
CCRs state you can not extend Into the common area, The Common area Is;Wlly`for Ingress and
egress (section 2.3 A). There can be no conducting of a business In the halls or waiting area.
3. is a casket going to be wheeled through the entry hall? to and out? Where will the hearse be
parked? Blocking the pedestrian entrance? It Is completely Inappropriate for an office building.
a. Where will any receptions be hold? No food service Is allowed In the building (section 7.1 A10-
No food Servloe or food preparation may be permitted within a Unit)
S. Nolse- Per CCRs Section 7.1A1•
"No facility shall produce noise at such levels as will be offensive to owners or occupants of
adjoining unths or portions of the Common Area of the property or to any owner of a unit or
portion of that property"
Noise must be at the level of normal "office " occupancy use.
The sound of 128 people entering and exiling a building at one time is over thl_s -tkval.
According to Facility Planning and Management Notes, published by the Department of Design and
Environmental Analysis College of Human Ecology at Comell University-
The average nolse In a business office is between 48 and 58 Decibels„ ~�
According to "iyor;shipLeaders" Worship Decibel Level Study-
Page 66, Attachment 4 (� 7
The average worship noise for a group of 90 people Is between 7888 decibels and the
average worship noise with music for this size group Is greater than 100 decibels
THATISNEARLYDOUBLE THENOISELEVEL OFA NORMAL "OrTICE"
Please consider these objections when reviewing the CUP amendment for this business in our
building, Our building is not suitable for a business of this size and scope, It would not be fair for
The Village Baptist Church to move In here and subsequently realize the limitations of the
space. Nor would it be fair to the rights of all the other owners,
1 feel the original CUP was issued in violation of our CCRs and should never have been
approved. The proposed' Village Baptist Church amendment should NOT be approved and I feel
the original CUP should be revoked.
Stncercly,
Michael A. Haas C.P.A.
Haas & Reaney LLP
3835 Cypress Drive Suite 204
Petaluma, Ca 94954
phone 4J5,382,1040
fax 707.76.x, 3411 - a
fffi=ua, coin
Page 67, Attachment 4
9
1 J
Sent from my (Phone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Hill, Ellen" <EHILLQcl,petaluma,ca,us>
bate: February 18, 2015 at 18;26:44 PST
To; 'MB' <m1b7171 ®yahooxom>
Subject; RE; 3836 Cypress Dr.
From: Hill, Ellen
Sent; Wednesday, February 18, 2016 4:26 PM
TO :'MB' v
Subject; RE: 3836 Cypress Dr,
III Michael-
Attached Is the letter of determinotlon for the church use at 383S Cypress Drive, It has been
determined that there Is not a need for a Conditional Use Permit and tlidt'the church will be
allowed as a permitted use.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Best,
Ellen Hill
Assistant Planner
From; MB [maltto:m1b717i @yahoo,com)
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 201512 :23 PM
To; Hill, Ellen; MB Bozuk; Angela Haas; Hens% Comoost
Subject: 3835 Cypress Dr.
HI Ellen
Page 68, Attachment 4 /
we had a short discussion this morning about the notice that I received on 1/18/15 In
regard to the conditional use permit for a church to locate at 3835 Cypress Dr.
I own a surgical suite in the building and have a surgery center as part of my office
space. I purchased the space In 2006 as medical office space. We see patients In
clinic daily at the office and have some special clinics saturday am,* few times per year.
I am understanding that a baptist church Is requesting a use permit In the building. I
am objecting on multiple levels to that type of use of both the space and the building,
The building was originally marketed by the builder as medical and professional space.
That's why I made the Investment in the office. I was under the impression that the
building was going to continue to keep their professional /medical space standards.
Currently without the church the building is starting to experience a strain on the
parking spaces. I would estimate the parking lot to be g0% full during work hours, with
handicap parking at a premium. My elderly patients often have to walk from the distant
part of the parking lot, and I actually have 17 spaces deeded to my suite, A church
would certainly overwhelm the parking situation. As much as I was told that there
would be limited use during the week, I very much doubt that the church will limit their
worshipers to some kind of set weekend hours, f=urther there is no contingency for the
situation when the parking lot becomes full and postoperative ( often wheelchair
bound) patients are not able to get parking close to the building,
Most of the suites in the building are running on two first and two second floor
bathrooms. Only the medical suites have Internal bathrooms. Thei'raftic and the wear
on the bathrooms has be high, and toward the week the building often smells. It has
always been amazing to see all the different suites, their employees and visitors to use
one lobby bathroom, I don't believe that a church congregation will benefit the
bathroom situation,
Due to my noise sensitive work, the expected traffic will make It difficult, If not
Impossible. We had a situation that dogs were brought In to other suites, and the
animais were heard in my surgery center, The owners have agreed to a no pet policy
to address this Issue. 1 am fairly sure that a baptist congregation, with weddings and
funerals and the traffic associated with it, will likely strain the building and the noise
levels will go way up, i have noticed that you are not planning a separate entry for the
church, meaning the main entry will be used. Every time the door open and close at
the entry i can hear the thump In my suite. I think that placing a high traffic business
such as a church is not a good Idea for the building.
Page 69, Attachment 4
-7D
, e
We have had multiple break -Ins Into the offices over weekends and_rgsolved the Issue
by locking the building after hours and on weekends. That has substantlally Improved
the security condition in the building, Certainly anybody after hours or on weekends
has to be an owner or owners designs, By opening the building for the weekend we
will encourage crime In the building. Since I have medical gases, anesthesia
medications, and narcotics stored In my center, this makes my suite a target for
break-Ins.
As you noted I am not in favor of a church moving to the building. F=eel free to contact
me directly to discuss If needed.
thank you
Michael Bozuk MD
surgeon
Bozuk and Associates surgical
Attachments area
Preview attachment 3836 Cypress Compatible Use Determinetlon,pdf
3038 Cypress Compatible Use Doterminatlon.pO
11v.
Page 70, Attachment 4
Petaluma Planning Commission
Re: Village Baptist Church occupying sultes 1071108 at 3835 Cypress Drive, Petaluma
California 94954
Conditional Use Permit, File #: PLUP -14 -0007
To The Petaluma Planning Commission:
We strongly object to the proposed CUP amendment proposed by Village Baptist
Church,
We are 2 of the owner /occupants at 3835 Cypress Dr, Suites 209, 210, Petaluma, CA,
94954, We purchased the suite with my business partner, Dr, Martin Steigner and his
wife, Mrs. Dea Steigner in 2005, We use our suite mainly Monday - Friday, but in 2015,
we plan to expand our hours to serve our patients on Saturdays. We are pediatric
dentists and plan to offer Saturday hours which are often easier for aTttidren as they
don't have to miss school, We are also present in the building fdr any dental emergency
which can arise at any hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We strongly object to the proposed CUP amendment proposed by Village Baptist
Church for the following reasons:
1. Parking: (From the letter of Mike Haas, CPA): In the case of Suites 107 and 108 they
only have 77 allocated parking spaces. This is deeded to the suites and runs with the
property. Per the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for $836 Cypress Drive
Business Center, A Condominium Project., Sectlon 2,2 D reads:
"in no event shall an Owner or other occupant of a unit make use of
more than the allocated Parking Spaces per Unit as Speclfled on
Exhibit A, Parking Allocations"
Each suite In the building has a deeded right to use their parking allocation W per the
CCRs, The CCRs state that no business can use more than their allocation. This holds
true for any business In the building. If they operate using more than their allocation this
Is a violation of the CCRs, This restriction Is effective 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. All
the owners purchased the right to their allocation when they purchased their suites. Our
CCRs do not allow one suite to give their allocation to another or waive their right to
their spaces on certain days of the week.
Furthermore, our concerns include: The dedicated parking ailotment4or these suites Is
11 parking spaces, All of the existing businesses have parking allotments in this range.
The CUP amendment request by Village Baptist Church request an occupancy of 125
people. With only 11 allotted parking spots, where will VBC visitors park? Who will
monitor that VBC visitors do not park in non -VBC spots (so that cllents /patlents of
existing businesses continue to have access to parking)? Is it safe to have this amount
of cars parking on the streets around Cypress Dr. and Pine View Way when there Is
already limited street parking? Would this many cars on the street create a traffic
hazard? Would it effect other local business? The CUP amendment request lists
weddings, funerals, seminars, services, etc. These type of special events usually
Include outside vendors who arrive with trucks, Where will these trucks be parked?
There are not enough handicap parking spots for this additional burden. Our
Page 71, Attachment 4
professional office provides services to children. This meanp that a parent must drive
them to the appointment and often brings the younger siblings with in their arms or In
strollers. We do not feel that it Is safe to put our patients at risk to have to park and
walk from some other location than our dedicated parking spots.
2. The requested occupancy of 125 surpasses the occupancy allowed by the CCR's and
the Fire Code. From the letter from Mike Haas, CPA based on the parking alottment:
In the case of the church the maximum occupancy per the City and our CCR's is 44.
The proposed 125 far exceeds this limit. The congregation space Is 1274 sq ft, and
depending upon the structures (stages) In the room, the usable space can be less.
Depending upon whether the congregation Is seated or all are standing the sq ft/
person can vary from 7 sq ft (standing) to 16 sq ft (seated). So the possible
maximum capacity runs from 180 to less than 80... all depending uppn structures in
the room and provision for seating, Upon viewing the photo - gallery from the VBC's
website, it appears that members are seated during service, This would allow for less
than 80 occupants. In addition, lecterns, stages, etc., would further decrease that
number.
3. Noise: Suites 107 /108 reside next to an accounting office, across from a general
dentist, below an orthodontist and pediatric dentist. All of these offices are quiet,
professional offices with less than 20 people on average In each space. At times,
even some sound can be heard between the offices. There Is a medical suite off of
the common area on the 2nd floor which could hear the sounds of the previous
church even though it is located down the hallway and on a different level. An
occupancy of 125 people would be very loud. Events such as seminars, weddings
and funerals would create considerable noise. Does the church play music, have
singing, etc, that would also contribute to the noise levels ?'There is a rap group listed
In articles about the church. Mike Haas, CPA also cited the differential between
normal office noise as 48 -50 decibels and the average worship noise for a group of
90 (much smaller than 125) as 78.88 decibels with worship music greater than 100
decibels, twice that of traditional office noise. (Please reference bflp;a
wwwy.vlllaggbaptiathoma.org /media Reaching God's Goal In 2015 at 35:15 as an
example of how the speaker becomes louder and louder. A decibel meter of a few
second sampling of this sermon rated at over 80 decibels). This level of noise would
easily be heard upstairs In our suite. It would be very distracting ro-the children who
are receiving their dental procedures and the team trying to °focus on their work, °
4,'Securlty: We completely agree with the comments from Stephens, McCarthy
Lancaster, LLC who stated In their letter: Our building Is open 7:00-AM L 7.00 PM
Monday through Friday. We llmft access Into the building durlhg the off hours and
weekends for security reasons, both to the physical space and to any occupants
working In those off hours, ''here are many owner /occupants of thle bullding who
work in the off hours, either seasonally or because they are small business owners
whose work requirements are not tied to the clock. We are on the second floor and
would be particularly susceptible anyone peeling off of a group In the building after
hours. Events on evenings and weekends which would expose our office to new
security risks, would require a reassessment of the building's entire security
Page 72, Attachment 4
provisions and could potentially Involve modifications to second floor access to
Include new locking fire doors at the side entrances, design modlficatlon to the open
staircase from the main lobby to the second floor, and perhaps actual security
personnel. Any and all security enhancements should be paid by the entity
requesting the CUP. Furthermore, our concerns also include that: Our suite is also
located on (he secorid floor which exposes it to further risks from visitors away from
the church. We are also present In the office at any given moment for emergency
dental procedures in additional to our regular business hours. Unfortunately, when the
last church occupied the building, there was damage to common areas, damage to
the keycard security locking system, common area Items stolen, and Items stolen
from offices, This medical - professlonal building is a high security risk due to many
computers, technology, medical devices, medications, medical gases, patient charls,
and more.
5. Accessibility: We also agree with Stephens, McCarthy Lancaster, LLC who stated In
their letter: Our building CCRs state you cannot extend Into the common area, The
Common area Is only for Ingress and egress (section 2,3 A), There can be no
conducting of a business In the halls or waiting area, Furthermore, our concerns
Include: Historically, people tend to social after church services, meetings, weddings,
funerals, seminars, etc. There are specific children's services for children 12 and
under held during Sunday services. Where will these children go? R,ow -can VCB
ensure that the children are not In the common area and don't pose a liability risk to
the current owners? Suites 106/107 do NOT have a private entrance. There Is no
way to access these suites without going THROUGH the common areas that are
shared with the medical and professional offices. The owners of the existing suites
purchased the suites In a medical- professlonal building. We did not anticipate that
funerals would be In this building, It Is unacceptable to have large groups of people,
processions and caskets In the common areas of the building where our pediatric
patients are coming for their dental visits.
6. Existing CUP allowing a church in the space: When the previous church requested a
CUP to occupy the space, the existing owners were told that It was a temporary
usage while the - church built a new location, The majority of the owners did not fight
the CUP because It was a temporary situation, We were not informed that the CUP
would remain with the suite and could become a permanent usage for the suites. The
previous church requested Sunday usage for approximately 80 people for 2 hours
and evenings approximately 3 days a week for up to 15 people. This is a dramatic
difference to a permanent location for Village Baptist which is requesting an
occupancy of up to 125 people with usage every day of the week.. church, or any
business of this size, is incompatible with the CCR's of the tha building and existing
Fire Code for the City of Petaluma, (Please refer to the letter from Mike Haas, CPA for
further details).
7, Wear and tear: With weekly meetings, events, seminars, weddings`; funerals, and
services almost every day of the week in addition to regular business hours, VCB will
generate a significantly greater amount of wear and tear on the building than the
other owners. How does VBC plan to compensate for this wear and tear? We also
agree with Stephens, McCarthy Lancaster, LLC who stated in their letter: We are very
Page 73, Attachment 4
concerned that the infrastructure In our building Is Inadequate for the vastly Increased
usage requested in the CUP, The small spaces Intended to accommodate the usage
does not appear to be adequate for - 86.125 -plus people, What happens when more
people show up than anticipated? (How can the church turn away mourners at a
funeral ?) The previous tenant grew In attendance and exceeded the allowed number
per their CUP. (And as owners, we suffered damages to the common areas, doors,
security, and theft). if this CUP Is granted over the objectlons of the majority of the
current owners — will we end up In the really awful position of standing outside and
counting the number of people attending a wadding or funeral In order to file a
complaint? How would the city compliance officer be able to come out and determine
the extent of the misuse? We have two small bathrooms, one on each floor that
would not be able to handle a large crowd, especially if security considerations make
the second floor off limits. Will the existing sprinkler system In the building meet the
requirements for this type use? Any upgrades would need to be paid for by the
requester of the CUP, The Increased usage requested In the CUP would seem to
bring the potential of vastly Increased wear and tear on the common areas, A
completely different allocation of operating, maintenance, and-capltal Improvement
costs would need to be determined that would not take Into account pure square
footage as currently done, but comparable usage,
8. We also agree with Stephens, McCarthy Lancaster, LLC who stated in their letter;
Liability; The Increased usage requested In the CUP would seem to bring the
potential of Increased liability with the number of persons on site. A completely
different allocation of Insurance coverage and costs would need-tabe determined that
would not take Into account pure square footage as currently done, but comparable
usage, Furthermore, with the types of events that the church is requesting, outside
vendors will also bring Increased liability to the building.
9. Per the Planning Department we were told the Village Baptist Church would like to
operate as follows:
Sundays: 8.10,15 am - children's group (no size noted), 11.1 worship- size to be
increased to 125 people- current membership Is 65 , 5 x'a per year frorr>-3_ -7 pm they
would like to have additional large gatherings- up to 125 people
Wednesdays: 0930 -9 pm Bible Study (no size noted), 9,1.5.1015 1m Choir (no
size noted)
Fridays: 7.9 :90- Youth Group (no size noted)
Saturdays: 10.12 Men's Group- (no size noted),1 time per month a large
conference -up to 125 people, As Needed- large group gatherings up to 125 -for
weddings, funerals, etc,..
M -T W from 8 -4 there will be Church Staff In the offices
However, In researching the Village Baptist Church activities at their current Marin City
location on their website, Facebook page, and published artioies, the church holds the
following functions: What are the exact details (time, duration, frequency) and numbers
of visitors attending these events for the following? Will all of these programs be
implemented through the Petaluma location? If yes, they Increase the above risks to
existing owners and our businesses.
Page 74, Attachment 4
"r .
A. Sunday worship, Sunday school- children, Sunday school - adul4 20 /20 .group, Cell
group, Men's Group, Corporate Prayer, Gathering Hungry, Seminars, Weddings,
Funerals, special events with vendors, etc.
B, A food pantry for the needy, a Headstart program, tutoring program, and South Marin
Bible Institute for Theological Studies,
10.Funerals/Weddings: The original church CUP did not mention furitrals-or weddings.
It is not appropriate to have funeralstweddings in a medical /professional building.
How can VBC guarantee that less than 125 mourners/attendees will attend services?
Will the deceased/caskets be brought Into the building? When will funerais/weddings
be held? Are receptions held In the church after services? Where will outside vendors
park? How will they access the suite? What type of processional would be expected?
11,The VCB Facebook page lists a Women's Seminar In the Cypress location 2/21/16
from 8.6pm for 100 people (not allowed under the current CUP guidelines or Fire
Code ), What type of activities will occur at this seminar? How often are seminars
held? What type of seminars and what type of activities? -
12.The article also states that VCB hosts gatherings, celebrations, and has a kitchen.
What gatherings and celebrations are planned for Petaluma? Are wedding and
funeral receptions held In the church? Do they plan on having a kitchen? (Our
extating OCR: section 7, / Af 0- No food Service or food preparatlon may be permitted
within a Un1t, )
13. The VCB website and Facebook page refers to evangelism as a key component to
spreading the word of the bible and growing the church, What will prevent VCB from
practicing evangelism on our patients and clients In the common area? VCB appears
to have a growing membership as cited in the articles, especially In younger adults
who will marry and expand their families and thus the church membership. In
addition, they have very successful evangelism programs and are growing, VCB Is
already seeking to expand the CUP from 80 to 126 persons. What is the plan for
growth beyond 125 persons?
1 4.Will the be keeping their Marin City location? Is this an additional location or a
replacement location?
It Is unfortunate that the seller had allowed this to go to escrow without releasing a copy
of the OCR's to the Village Baptist Church. The existing owners do not see a church and
medical - professional as a good neighbor partnership. The existing owners purchased
their spaces knowing that this Is a medical - professional building and to be with other like
businesses. The businesses are all quiet businesses with a steady stream of Just a few
patients or clients per hour. Many of the businesses are medical facilities which provide
medical and dental care to adults and children. Patients receive sedation and require a
quiet environment with ease of parking for their caregiver. Several of the businesses
work late or weekend hours as needed. The medical providers may need to be present
for emergency care for their patients. We did not purchase these suites to be next to
funerals, weddings, seminars, events, church services, etc, The current owners adhere
to the existing CCR's of the building which protect the existing owners-from damage to
the building or common areas, theft, misuse of parking spaces, noise violations, fire
Page 75, Attachment 4
711.1
code /maximum capacity violations, etc, The request by VBC violates the OCR's
repeatedly, We kindly agreed to the previous church on a temporary basis to help the
church grow within the community as they built their new building. We would not have
agreed to a permanent situation. That church did not host weddings, funerals, seminars,
etc. They mainly met on Sunday for 2 hours with an occasional meeting during the
week. As owners, we experienced damage, parking difficulties, theft and noise, Their
CUP allowed for 80 people, VBC Is requesting an additional 46, How will the City of
Petaluma Insure that the Fire Code, parking allotments, maximum occupancy, CCR's,
safe street parking, safe traffic patterns, etc, occur if this CUP is granted?
For all of the above questions and concerns, we believe that allowing the CUP as
requested will have a significant negative Impact on our business botFprofesslonaily
and economically. We believe that parents will be unhappy with the parking and crowd
situation and will choose to take their children to a different dentist. We believe that
having a business of this size and structure in the building with devalue the existing real
estate values of the suites.
We are vehemently opposed to the CUP amendment and respectfully request that the
City of Petaluma deny Village Baptist Church's request.
Sincerely,
Dr, Raymond A. Ramos and Dr. Cheryl L. Willett -Ramos
Pediatric Dentists
3835 Cypress Dr, Suites 209/210 (DBA 210)
Petaluma, CA 94954
707- 763 -1548
CLWR@me.com o
1 • rl► � 114 / .!11 1' •�}
all
! Ia1� ►i 'r. :���• •111 :!-� =! I .I 1
1 � ►,1► , a ! e .: • - 1.11: • !
Page 76, Attachment 4 '7,7
� z
MARTIN R. STEIGNER, DDS lti
C1ipLOPEgiATRtC DENT Rp OF
ISTRY
PFEDiA RiC DENTISTRY
RAYMOND A. RAMOS, DDS
Clpt OPT ATRIC DENTISTRY
City OF
City of Petaluma V
Community Development Department
Planning Division
.„ 11 Engiish St, _
Petaluma, CA 94952 ,. ,,, ..... .... , .. „
" RE: Village Baptist Church, Rile No,�PLUP -14- 0007„
-Door Planning Division, „
.S:r..........`L, � • •..:�� ::' ..� a::2ai �.ri'�w•�: 1."11:Sr".4"v{J' "'J'.°v+ •.._..". ••�711'r�a'riv^'•, ..... ... • r
= I write this note to discourage approval of Village Baptist Church for a Conditional Use Permit at the
address 3835 Cypress Drive. Church use in the building zoned for various professional uses Including
accounting, medicine, dentistry, etc, is Inappropriate, The number of people using the church alone Is
"• -- - •••• -••• not in the best Interest of.the owner s,who,uiexhe faG1I1tV•.
With Sunday services, weddings, funerals, and activities during the week the owners will need to deal
with Increased wear and tear on the building, and parking inadequacy!. our parking Is beaming a
problem presently without the church presen� also concerned occurred dutring the presence of the
security, in the past we hat! a rash of theft a
previous church tenants, I understand the violations of our bullding may have nothing to do with the
previous church tenants; however It was more than once owners came across Individuals wondering
upstairs and In areas not involving the church on weekends and evenings.
Please allow the Baptist Church to pursue a more appropriate facility than our buildl�g at 3695 Cypress,
Again, i ask you to avoid approving the village Baptlst•Church for a Conditional Use Permit at this
address,
Sincerely yours,
cl,
Martin R. Stelgner, DDS
0
3835 CYPRESS DRIVE, SUITE 210 a PETALUMA, CA 94954 o 707-76,-4-1548 a FAX 707 - 762.6042
Page 77, Attachment 4
J
I
Rick R. lbtketson, CPA
(i' `I� ,�l✓t .'�C �+' loth A. Enochs, CPA,
01 G. Wal, CPA
Wd H, storum, CPA
44 F
Cwnm Punic A=UNTAtM
January 26, 2015
...... Assistant Planner ... • ........... ...• . ..... . .
•' '+ ° �' "
.,Via email: ohl1l @o1,peta1u1ua,oa,us
. « i.tb t:•PA a r. _I. '.._.....— _.r......:Y. •. ... .... .. ... ... �_.. »....�... ... y. .hr y.......or v...•...... `. . .
. :., r. ..i. ». mil• �•.r�.• .�. .•. . ..
RB-, Use permit for the Village Baptist Church Pile APDUP -14 -0007
To ThePetaluma Planning Commission: `
I am writing to express my protest to the issuance of a use permit for the
Village Baptist Church. We are a CPA firm occupying Suites 109 & 110 and
be.the immediate, next.door neighbors to the church. Our hours now are
gam -5pm Monday through Saturday, although we and our employees ft-equently
work on Sunday's as well depending on file work load,
I know you havo objections fxom my fellow owners of these suites acid I
will try to be brief and not unnecessarily redundant,
My objections are on many levels, but my primary objectives ate parking
Issues, bathroom Issues, noise levels, and safety and security to the building,
Patridng: Parking bas been allocated by square footage of theapaco
owned. Their suites 107 and 1081tave I 1 spaces allocated. Myinformatiai fYom
the building manager (Angola Haas) indicates that the Valley Baptist wants to
change the permit for gatherings 4 days a week for up to 125 people, It seems
pretty obvious to me that 11 parking spaces won't put a dent in the 50 vehicles —
uot counting their staff vehicles that would requi!•e parking, I can't fathom how
this would not encroach on all the other owners of this building location,
Bathrooms: Downstairs we have one men's and one women'- abathmom,
Each widt d toilets. With over 200 people permitted downstairs, the congestion In
the bathrooms (not to mention the mess) is unimaginable to me — particularly with
the proposed 'youth groups'.
3835 C),prCSS Drive, SUlte 110 Petaluma, California 94954.6966
707.795.2691 FaX 707.795.2799
Pagd 78, Attachment 4
2
Noise Levels: I have to hope and believe the typical Sunday sermons would
not be objectionable, but Choir groups ?, Youth groups ?, Weddings? Gathering
hungry?, `special events with vendors'? A school that ire longer occupies this
building had many youths and we experienced excessive noise, garbage, running
around the front of the building and general activity not conducive for the
profossiot:.al building that we have all invested in.
Safety; The aasetnbly hall we are dlseussing is 1,640 square feet per our
building manager, Is It possible to cram 125 people in this small a space?
Certainly not sitting with aisles for orderly leaving the building •- and in a growing
congregation, wo all know this number will be stretohed,
„ Seeurlty,- The last occupant in tbat space was also a small c�mroh and
when they wore hero, there was damage to the security locking system, oonuno :l
area items wore 'missing' over the weekends, more thou one office was broken
h1to including iny own. Wo were all happy to see the church (a rental tenant)
leavo the building.
What is the permit process for if not to protect the rights of those around
the applicant? You should have nearly unanimous' NOY' from all of us In the
building.
1leaf you ha v a anyq uestlons,pso don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Rick R, Torkolson
Torkolson & Associates, LLP
Certitled Public Accountants
Page 79, Attachment 4 %:
Hill, Silen
From, mjroperdds@aoi.com— ; • . ' • . •' ..I
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 201510:14 PM
To: Hill, Ellen .. ...........» ..,
Subject*,
To Whom It May Concern,
I write regarding the proposed church at'3836 Cypress Drive, Suttee 107 and 108. t am concerned about the hours of
operation, the proposed number of people attending services and events and the number of parking spaces required by
the proposed facility. -The building Is now occupied by professional oflloos and light medlcai dental/dental as well as
school for children with Cerebral Palsy, • All of these businesses operate on a similar work schedule and hours. The
.proposed church will hold services on the weekend and wprk0ops In the evenings and weekends when the building Is
currently closed, This will Increase security concerns for the existing owners as well as Increasing wear and tear on the
building culslde,Qf Its,pormal scope of use. , , , �„ „ „ „ _ „„ „ • ,_•,,
In addition; ON therware no reserved parking spaces, there are deeded apacoe for each unit to comply with the current
parking regulations of the City of Petaluma, t have already negotiated and paid for deeded- speces.and will not cede any
rights to them, The current owner of the units has agreed in writing In my sales agreement not to do anything that
Interferes with the operations of my business which specifically Includes use that jeoperdlzes the amount of parking
spaces required by law for my business to operate. I am also concerned that after some time has passed the the church
will begin to operate outside of their proposed hours of operation and participants and have a severe and negative Impact
on the existing offices
Whlle I respect the work they are involved In I believe they would be better suited to a free standing building pr a building
with tenants operating similar- hours with similar Interests,
Sincerely,
Mark J Roper
3836 Cypress Drive Suite 203
Petaluma CA 94964
1
Page 80, Attachment 4 C�7 r
Hilt, Ellen
From: Blair Kirk <baklrk®outlook.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 10:10 PM
Yo; Hill, Ellen
Subject; CUP amendment proposal
I am writing to express my opposition to the CUP amendment proposal being brought by the Village Baptist
Church, which plans to occupy space at 3835 Cypress Dr.; Suites 107 & 108;
My name Is Blair Kirk and I am the owner of Suite 208 In the same building. Based on the information
provided by the Village Baptist Chotch;'attendance at their services will number approximately 125
persons. This will certainly exceed tho allocated number of parking spaces assigned to suites 107 and 108,
which currently stands at 11, and unfairly Infringe upon the parking aveliablilty of the other Suite owners In
the building.:..... :..'.. .... .. ...........
In addition, the maximum occupancy of these suites is designated as 44 persons. Again, having a membership
of 125 persons will exceed the occupancy restrictions as per the City of Petaluma,
_.. Finaljy, the owners of the other suites have no guarantee that the membership of the Village Baptist Church
will not increase In number over time, potentially placing the organization In violation of the amendments
they are seeking now,
For these reasons I ask that you do not approve the amendment to the existing CUP,
Sincerely, "
Blair A. Kirk, DDS, MS
Page 81, Attachment 4
VA
Itaw 4 5 11119,042
Page 82, Attachment 4 , , /
April 21, 2010
Catherine Stewart- Chairnan
1180 Stage Gulch Road ,
Petaluma, CA 94954
RE: Application for a Conditional Use Pennit for a Religious Facility to be
Located at 3835 Cypress Drive, Suites 107 & 108, APN 005 -300 -007 and
005. 300 -008
Dear Ms. Stewart- Chatman:
Your application for a minor Conditional Use Permit for •a Religious Facility as
an ancillary use to a 01 ally permitted medical use to be located at 3835
Cypress Drive, Suite based on he following Findings 005-300-008
and subject to the
approved. This approval is b e
following conditions: v
Condi� Honpl Use Pomit Fludinot
1, The proposed project, as conditioned, Is exempt Om- the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act. (CBQA) pursuant to Section
15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities. The project proposal is for a religious
facility In an existing building, the proposal meets the parking
requirements, and the use is considered t6 be,gegli ible slid ancillary to
the principal permitted use which alto s for ihinor medicalal su�es� The
Coimrtunity for Spiritual Living takes a 10 is c approaa o p sical,
mental and spiritual well being. The 'Well -Being Center uses include
chiropractic, acupuncture, Nutrition, massage, Reiki and counseling -to
achieve this goal. The subject property is In the BNBusiness Park zoning
district, The BP zoning district allows for minor medical use as a
permitted use. The Community for Spiritual Living (an ancillary use)
offers 'Sunday spiritual services, evening classes and eveninglwcekend
workshops and events. Th.o religious / spirituul use portion of the business
requires a Conditional Us rm1t.
EXHIBIT D .�
�1
Page 83, Attachment 4
.V-4
• 2. The proposed religious facility, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and
intent of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, specifically, -the .project
provides a suitable location for a religious facility in proximity to arterial street traffic
and will serve the needs of the community.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Business Park zoning designation, whioh
allows for Religious ]~aeilityuses as a conditional use.
4. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to
the public welfare of the community in that the project Is required to comply with the
Califordia Building Code and Implementing. Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards,
except as modified by these conditions of approval.
51 The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions for a conditional
use permit pursuant to Section 4.030 of the Zoning Ordinance in that the conditional use
permit was published in the Argus Courier and notices were sent to property owners
within •500' of the subject property. The following concerns were raised- regarding tlies
proposed use permit:
• security issues with night time and weekend use of the facility,
y' • adequacy of parking and traffic, ,
• operating outside of normal weekday hours of operation,
+ maintenance rind upkeep of building,
• concerns of the mix of uses within one building,
• noise,
• smells associated with the use of acupuncture,
• potential for expansion of the religious facility with other uses that may occur
with the religious facility such as a soup kitchen, iitndraisers, choir practice,
book clubs, chanting and meditation classes, etc,, -
e the operational characteristics of the proposed use, ,
• utility usage
Upon the ending of the public comment period ended staff icquested that the applicant
hold a neighborhood meeting with those that had concerns abd °other tenants / owners
within the building to, see if some of the concerns could *ba'addressed. The applicant
held a meeting on Wednesday March 31 ".
The conditional use permit as proposed and as conditioned adequately addresses the
concerns that have been raised. The subject • structure was approved as a business
condominium by the City of Petaluma, therefore potentially allowing for a mix of uses
within one building. The proposed religious facility Is ancillary to the principally
�. permitted use and therefore requires the conditional use permit as allowed- per the
Implementing Zoning Ordinance. With appropriate conditions of approval .the proposed
conditional use permit is appropriate for the site and the mix of uses.
Page 84, Attachment 4 J
7. Electrical or other necessary permits shall be obtained through the building division,
8, At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards speclfied in the
California Building Code, Section 21,010' of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning
Ordinance, and the 2025 City of Petaluma General Plan,
9. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and bold 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
attggk, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project,wMt 16h claim or action is
brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes, The
City shalt promptly notify the applicants/developers 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.
Fire Marshal;
10, Prior to issuance of development. permits (tenant improvements), the applicant shall
n1 provide verification (copy) of the 5 year cortiheation for the fire, sprinkler,system plus
copy of the annual fire alarm certification/condition of use; both must be current with no
efficiencies.
Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date bf a decision of the Planning Division,
the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant or by any other
Interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final, An appeal
shall be addressed to the Planning Commission in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk.
The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought, by the
appellant. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 92 -251
N,C,S. as adopted by the City Council,
In any case whore a conditionai'use ppermit has not been used witliin bue (1) year after die date
of granting thereof, the permit shall be revoked unless thirty (30) days prior to the one �1� ye ar expiration date, renewal of the permit for an additional eriod of riot more than one 1 year
shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator (Director). If after the one (I) year extension
period has expired, a conditional use permit has not been used, then without further action the
permit shall be revoked and be null and void,
Page 85, Attachment 4 `�
Conditions of A n-yrovalt
From Plannnine,
1. Approval is granted for a. Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility (The
Community for Spiritual Liying) to be located within the existing building located at
3835 Cypress Drive, in SuitCs 107 & 108, APN OOS- 300.•007 and 008. The religious
facility shall be ancillary to the permitted principal medical use. The p o ed
Cottdt or ' ' mill allow for,the following: •
• Sunday spiritual sendoes will be allowed from 9;00 am.-to 1.2:00 p.m., (this:.
Includes time for set -up and clean up)
• e.axWge number of people in attendance at the - services shall not exceec�60-
`70 peopl .
• Vfia total portion of space to be occupied for the proposed use shall not exceed.
8, tea' of the entire building,
• The Conditional Use Pen-nit will allow for evening and weekend
classes /workshops and events (i.e., weddings/fteralg and fundraisers). The
classes/workshops are. to be held in the evenings from 6:30 p.m, to 9:30 p.m, and ;
shall not exceed three times per week
o The average number of people in attendance at the classes/workshops shall not.
exceed 15 people;
Modifications to the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review and approval of
the Planning Division,
2. This approval does not include any signs, Signs require a sign permit application
through the Building Division and approval of the planning Division prior to
installation,
3. No exterior modifications to the building or site are includes as part of this approval.
4. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage, and debris. No outdoor storage
shall be permitted prior to approval of the Planning Division,
S, All new outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, for main and all rooftop
equipment shall be Billy visually screened upon installation, subject to approval of the
Planning Division. Screening devices shall be shown on the construction plans,
6. All work within the public right -of -way requires an excavation permit.
U "*/*
Page 86, Attachment 4 � I
If you have any questions, please fe61 free to contact me at (707) 778 -4315 or by e-mail at
iborbaQa l.petaluma.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Irene T. Borba
Senior Planner
co: File 10•CIJP -0025
Feide Faintly Limited Partnership, 3875 Cypress Drive, Petaluma, CA 94954
Jeff Traynor, 2455 Betuiett Valley Road, C•200, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Mike Haas, Haas & Associates, 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 204, Petaluma CA, 94954
Angela Haas, Haas & Associates, 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 204, Petaluma CA, 94954
Chad Hawley, 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 207, Petaluma CA, 94954:
Mark Roper, 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 203, Petaluma CA; 94954
Marty Steigner, 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 210, Petaluma. CA, 94954
Raymond Ramos, 3835 Cypress Drive, Suite 210, Petaluma CA, 94954'
sAplanningVcitersleup approvalwW cypress weNess centeroop
Page 87, Attachment 4
to
C14
o
}} � /
) j G
$_ //
CrIl
)�\
" ' \
0
( �
V
/P
RO
I!- I
o
ir
Ir
Lo
0
10
ru
~ (
(o in
O® o
M 0
IM
4
I
Page 88, Attachment 4
N
in
0
O
�
� |
Q
to
C14
o
}} � /
) j G
$_ //
CrIl
)�\
" ' \
0
( �
V
/P
RO
I!- I
o
ir
Ir
Lo
0
10
ru
~ (
(o in
O® o
M 0
IM
4
I
Page 88, Attachment 4
1
i
V °a'.._ {rB�eTi
r'1\ 'T" .. a. ,. ,. .,.. .<i. V i.. ..•.... .... •Q.
1,
Page I or 1
c @ V Y
pA t N n114.R h`AI �_�t Ab o.rf: f7uwt4
K +w41•r i 1 tVC7, -,{f
f
t
knvtf Stlu
4t t.♦PfIJI ° e /1)i >IIIYtYY f141f
141111 CJfwt ltd
-y
Mit hF mlat Nut+
� ' I
1. tut "" tI21t ! Ili��lf!�i f l� lf�E�i�l�' lIIIlf fl!
..,
a
UN•lo (Y)111111a1/ _�� Fil3l1L[X
r.Jl
RJI 15.1)17 't
Claha Cooper, Cily Cloth 1 a �
CY+ne
0 ty of PclalulM roa
i t Vnpllch q, o¢il
,r
PfiRlUttq, CA P4151
TUC • 03 MAR 10 :30A
PRIORITY OVERNIGHT
—SS 17 1733 3030 8224
j
1
fil
J �J4952
'
p� �'
`� ta'F!A NO TA A OAK
m
,
UI t T IKl•Y{I I f X0'1 ,�,�
p. ,
tr 1r t WrNPKa 1 J
S i11«IF.IN1/d r41M,Kn1 �<< ��g
r• 9n 1., -N l.f In rrW tvl t
'
W d 3, U,t eJ 'l31 affil rW !t ^,' 4 NI (ti�:�J M.y ,ef it ib.+tt iA�14r F }Iiltfth iO4 rm. 11
V� - Lyll�ufft, LLa'•j rah 4fN tt»:f'llw fY
if 1W
# yf „ ffl>` art #hav<li s41+f .trt rJ#dE Esnfc 04, ,rrfla5ie aah etfsrl (r:f_+ 7Wl tar T'..04 Ix NY UrN. In#Kula U$loop.,
p 11 MAal1Y 4n #tt1lN NMft,l ,-I.at n 1- jrfvkyjrf'1l�eflef`(,b mJllf i'Yrti.aryif a /)ai deS/are atfprirt vile, paf 6n ld•{tiH,J lTarq #, Q>pynfnt}NVrUWI bta Et,j lk
f114Y144T11a'�ivv110W141 YK C1YIa iN�X $aMf1 CtMI
11511k�
#r yl•Ydf,ty114i teCOYt!iNT i'ldl.Y IN i, 1Y bla,4Ki'tnp$1t 4Nlf tiVe(f 11M p![}:dp0, Init fffJ0 /. 4Y[tna F,tlf IL I,Wki4Y✓tYa�l
( Yto1lf, MdOtMf,teml Of JRaniO#K1tp{iN aWK(ht11tM11•tXn fal PnfKi.9111+KJYIILmymiMpn gnYU0,1400 1.7T #vr�M wi Oa( I .f.Jeahf#iia(Vt!>)'t ?M19C1#If0ad K1Y.�A>VrntMM
Ma /IiK4 Xe Nkeml U�Wq adyagry Yeiv(P$t,l!V.ap 1.44'Xlirta
jMefy N#rhN mei 1.wpo.rldt ht4nr •rml tole br <nnY llt.lh KXS Y#7ted•4.a fn Ua'ml,..eN....4
4 't ,. #.ter- mllMiiv7 Mca tit /M.
�
3
I
Page 89, Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT S
From: aEsanon@comcast.net [mailto•akoanon(alcomcast netl
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 8 :55 PM
To: akognon, freda; Akognon, Maude; Akognon, zabadoo3; Bradley, Erin; Carpenter, Mickele; Carpenter,
Orin; Deacon, Hamilton; Derrick; Douglas, Juanita; Doumate, Gina; Hairston, Reginald; Hunt, Atonla;
Jonathan, Matthews; Lagomarsino, Mary Ellen; Manager, Village; Morgan, Roy; Santini, Jackie; shiatay17;
Woods, Margaret
Cc: Egide, Nick; Knudsen, Steve; 0., John; Prescott, Glenn
Subject: UPDATE ON 3835 CYPRESS BUILDING
Hello All,
This is a short update on our church and our struggles with 'some of the owners at 3835
Cypress Drive.
Deacon Jonathan Matthews and I had a 90 minute meeting today with Mike Haas
(Chairman of the Board of Directors) and Chad ( a Board member and one of the
owners at Cypress). At the outset of the meeting they made it clear that they were
representing the other owners at Cypress and wanted to know what could be worked
out following the denial of their appeal at the Planning Commission,
I introduced myself again and also introduced Jonathan Matthews and I indicated that
he was not at the meeting as our attorney but as a deacon from our church.
We thought the meeting went well. In fact, during the whole one hour and 30 minutes
they never once brought up the issue of parking. The discussion was very good until
the last two minutes of the meeting when they both thanked us for the meeting and also
indicated that the meeting cleared a few things for them. They encouraged us to finish
our units and also ask the fire department to clear us for the few remaining required fire
Marshall requests (The emergency lighting and the panic door). BUT
UNFORTUNATELY they also indicated that they "ARE PROBABLY GOING TO FILE
ANOTHER APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ", At that time, I felt the whole meeting
was a shamlll
So, people of God, BE READY FOR ROUND THREEIII If they do file an appeal, we are
not obligated in any way to follow through with our negotiation with them. An appeal is
a message that they are ready to fight. An appeal, if defeated, gives us more power to
follow the approval given by the Planning department and the planning
commission. We don't have to negotiate with them again.
I have already communicated to Shola to finish what we need to do to make the units
ready for the final inspection by the Fire Department. Let's move on and do what we
need to do and give glory to God by scheduling our first service date in Petaluma. "No
more Mr. Nice Guyslll"
We have done all we need to do. Let us march on to VICTORY in the name of
JESUSIII
Thank you for your support and please continue to pray that God be glorified in
everything.
Shaloml
Pastor Emmanuel Akognon
Page 1, Attachment 5
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 1 of 10
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
City Hall Council Chambers
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
MINUTES
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT :Teresa Barrett, Jennifer Pierre, Richard Marzo, Gina Benedetti -
Petnic, Bill Wolpert, and Diana Gomez.
ABSENT: Jocelyn Yeh Lin.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Committee will hear public comments only on matters over which it
has jurisdiction. There will be no Committee /Commission discussion or
action. The Chair will allot no more than three minutes to-iny individual. If
more than three persons wish to speak, their time will be allotted so that
the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be 15 minutes.
Vice Chair Benedetti -Petn le
4. PRESENTATION
A. N/A
S. COMMISSION COMMENT
A. Council Liaison - Teresa Barrett
Page 1, Attachment 6
http:// petaluma .granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php ?view id =31 &clip ^id = 1906 &doc_id= 41b... 6/4/2015
Page 2 of 10
Council member Teresa Barrett reported that the City Council
had a workshop on April 27th regarding how the City of
Petaluma will address the State's water reduction mandate
including a 16% reduction the July 2013 residential use. New
measures will be put into place on June 1 to-he in compliance
with the State mandate and July 1 for, measures requiring
Council resolutions and votes. Discussions will continue at the
June 1st Council meeting. Barrett also stated that the Corona
Creek Subdivision project was supposed to be heard at the April
20th meeting and has been postponed to a date uncertain.
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee - Jocelyn Lin
There was not report due to absent committee member.
C. Tree Advisory Committee - Gina Benedetti- PetniF.e_s -
Vice Chair Gina Benedetti - Petnic reported that the Tree
Committee had an event on April 18th in celebration of Arbor
Day where they planted a replacement redwood tree at Center
Park. She stated that the event was a lot of fun and there was a
good community turnout.
D. Other Committee Comment
6. STAFF COMMENT
A. Planning Manager's Report
Planning Manager, Heather Hines reported that staff will be
reviewing the application process, conditions of approval
and requirements to incorporate more water reduction into the
development review process. She stated that there will be an
increase in the discussion of water reduction with regards
to new development and landscaping and staff will be
developing a package of updates for Planning
Commission approval before being forwarded to Council.
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Council Member Barrett
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Council Member Barrett
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '
A, Approval of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
Tuesday, April 14, 2015.
Page 2, Attachment 6
http:// Petaluma .granicus.com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id =31 &clip id= 1906 &doc id= 41b... 6/4/2015
Page 3 of 10
The minutes were approved without changes.
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. N/A
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Village Baptist Church Appeal - Appeal of Administrative Decision to
allow a religious facility in the existing multi - tenant building located at
3835 Cypress Drive. Project Location: 3835 Cypress Drive File
Number: PLAP -15 -0001 Staff: Ellen Hill, Assistant Planner Andrea
Visveshwara, Assistant City Attorney
Cypress Church Appeal Staff Report
Attachment A - Application '
Attachment B - Comment Letters `�
Attachment C - Director's Determination `:�
Attachment D - Appeal "`z,
Attachment E - Resolution
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Gomez
Ellen Hill, Assistant Planner
Andrea Visveshwara, Assistant City Attorney
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Visveshwara
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Council member Barrett
Ms. Hines
Council member Barrett
Ms. Hines
Council member Barrett y
Ms. Hines
Page 3, Attachment 6
http: // petaluma .granicus.com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id= 31 &clip_id= 1906 &doc_id= 41b... 6/4/2015
Council member Barrett - v
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms, Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre 4
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Marzo
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Marzo
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Marzo
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Page 4 of 10
Page 4, Attachment 6
http:// petaluma. granicus. com IMinutesViewer.php ?view_id =31 &clip_id= 1906 &doc_id =41 b... 6/4/2015
Page 5 of 10
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez ,
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ms, Visveshwara
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Hines
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Angela Haas, Representative of Appellant
Emmanuel Akognon, Pastor, Village Baptist Church
Jonathan Matthew, Attorney
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Kim Stephens, tenant at 3835 Cypress. She noted that the
previous CUP was a wellness center with a ancillary use as a
church which was approved for a much lower capacity. Although
many people objected to the use of the wellness center, the CUP
was approved. She stated that her group was very upset but
didn't fight it due to the temporary nature. Ms. Stephens stated
that after the Village Baptist Church CUP ndt"ifrcation, her group
found out that the CUP went with the unit and they objected due
to the increase in capacity,
Chad Hawley, owner of unit at 3835 Cypress. He stated that he
has no objection to Village Baptist Church but to a large
gathering of people. He feels that the intensity of use is not
appropriate for this business building.
Cecilia Meyers, Petaluma resident and works at 3835 Cypress
Drive, She stated her concerns about safety and security of the
office building. She feels that this office complex is not made for
any business with such a large group of people, Her office is
upstairs and sometimes works in the evenings and on
weekends. She stated that the outside dotes _ are set to
lock/unlock at certain times and are locked on the weekends.
When the wellness center was there, doors were propped open
and she felt unsafe, Her office was broken into during that
Page 5, Attachment 6
http: / /petaluma. granicus. com /MinutesViewer.php ?view_id =31 &clip ^id= T906&doc_id =41 b... 6/4/2015
Page 6 of 10
time. She is concerned with large groups of unfamiliar faces in
the building after regular business hours.
Erin Dunnigan, Petaluma resident and member of Village Baptist
Church. She feels that the church has had a positive presence in
Petaluma for the past decade and believes that many fears
expressed are unwarrented. She believes that part of the
problem is relational and could be resolved with communication,
Michael Bozuk, Sr., architect for Suite #202 i0836 Cypress. He
stated that he designed the offices for use as medical offices. He
feels that the appeal is not about religion or the church, but
about implementing the Zoning Ordinance. The Village Baptist
Church is an active church and will bring all of these activities
into the complex. He stated that parking is also an issue and
should be handled differently.
Gary Zimmer, architect, Thousand Oaks, redponsible for design
of surgery center at Suite #202, 3835 Cypress Drive. He feels `
that the application for Village Baptist Church religious assembly
accupancy with no CUP, should have been
considered incompatible due to the number of proposed
occupants, inadequate restroom facility, lack of required
parking, and safety issues. He feels that any of these items
would be reason to deny the application without further
discussion. He stated that Suite 202 is a medical /admin office as
well as a surgery center facility that must be quiet to properly
function and that the use of Village Baptist Church is not
compatible with the existing professional offices at this complex.
Gina Doumate', member of Village Baptist Church and 14 -year
Petaluma resident. She stated that she As- active in the
community as well as a client to a dentist' in the 3835 Cypress
Drive building. She stated that the Village Baptist Church is
multi- ethnic and the members are Christians and teaches
Integrity, wants their members to live honest lives, believes in
service to community, and has the desire to be good neighbors.
She believes that the church use works for_ after hours and is
asking the City to deny the appeal. . , ,.
Dave Weidlich, pastor of The Vine Church and 11 year Petaluma
resident. He feels that the spiritual community makes Petaluma a
great place to live and finds that all churches in the Petaluma
community are different, with different leadership, yet work
together. He feels that the Village Baptist Church is a very active
church that does good work and because of Village Baptist we
are a better community. He finds that it is difficult because
Petaluma has no church zone and that new churches require
special approval. He feels that problems can be worked out and
knows that Village Baptist Church will be a good neighbor,
Kimberly Weidlich, daughter of Vine Church Pastor. She stated
that churches are out there for the greater good and is not
different than a dentist with many clients.
Page 6, Attachment 6
http;// petaluma .granicus.com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id =31 &clip id= 1906 &doc_id =41 b.,. 6/4/2015
Page 7 of I.O.
Steve Knudsen, minister and friend of Pastor Akognon. He feels
that Pastor Akognon is in the business of changing lives and
dispensing hope that grows.
Tanya Ortelle, 26 year Petaluma resident. She is in agreement
with points in the staff report and is in favor of seeing buildings
filled with occupied businesses.
Nick Egide, sold last four units at 3835 Cypress and stated that
he was familiar with the CC &Rs. He said that one of the
conditions of closing for Village Baptist was to acquire the use
permit first. He also noted that the parking `1s-unreserved and
unassigned and if there are empty spots; there is a right for
another occupant to use those spots. Cypress School was first
occupant in building with 300 guests per week and dentists have
30 - 40 guests per day and he believes that the church has a
similar intensity of bathroom and parking lot use that some of
the other tenants have.
Reginald Hairston, member of Village Baptist -church. He stated
he lives in Oakland and has been a member of the church
for over 20 years. He stated that he would like to commend the
Commission on their work and hopes that they approve the
permit.
Barbara Dana, Petaluma resident. She stated that she grew up in
Wisconsin and attended a church with a white steeple. She does
not feel that a single church building is possible for a new
church in Petaluma and therefore churches have to find homes
in business parks.
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Gomez
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Marzo
Commissioner Pierre
Council member Barrett
Vice Chair Boned etti - Petnic
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Wolpert
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Gomez
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Motion to Approve Upholding the Planning Director's Determination
that a Religious Facility is a Permitted Use at 3835 Cypress Drive,
Suite 107 & 108 made by Diana Gomez, seconded by Jennifer Pierre.
Vote: Motion carried 4 - 2.
Yes: Teresa Barrett, Jennifer Pierre, Gina Benedetti - Petnic, and
Diana Gomez,
No: Richard Marzo, and Bill Wolpert.
v Page 7, Attachment 6 <
http:// pctaluma. granicus. com/ MinutesViewer .php ?view_id= 31 &clipjd= 1906 &doc_id= 4lb.,, 6/4/2015
Page 8 of 10
Absent: Jocelyn Yeh Lin,
Ms. Visveshwara
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
B. Adobe Animal Hospital - Site Plan and Architectural Review for the
construction of a new single -story commercial building and
associated site improvements at 408 Madison Street East. Project
Location: 408 Madison Street File Number: PLSR -14 -0021 Staff:
Ellen Hill, Assistant Planner
Adobe Animal Hospital Staff Report �a
Attachment A - Resolution for SPAR
Attachment B - Photographs of Project Site Vicinity 'Z�
Attachment C- Plans `
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Ellen Hill, Assistant Planner
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Hill
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hill
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Marzo
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Marzo
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms, Hines
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Pierre
Ms. Visveshwara
Commissioner Gomez
Page 8, Attachment 6
http:// petaluma. granicus. com/ MinutesViewer .php ?view_id =31 &clip_id =1906 &doc_id= 41b..• 6/4/2015
ATTACHMENT 7
From: Hines, Heather
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:10 PM
To: Hill, Ellen
Subject: FW: FW: 3835 cypress drive appeal with Village Baptist church decision
Public comment on the appeal that went directly to the PC,
Can you please print and add to the appeal f(le.
Thanks.
Heather
From: Chris Albertson [ councilman,albertson @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:59 PM
To: Hines, Heather
Subject: Fwd: FW: 3835 cypress drive appeal with Village Baptist church decision
F Y I
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Mike Haas <mike haascpa.com>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:49 PM
Subject: FW: 3835 cypress drive appeal with Village Baptist church decision
To: "councilman.albertsonngmail.com" < councilman .albertsonna.email.com >,
"teresa4petalumancomcast.net" <teresa4petaluma(@comcast.net>,
"mayordavidulassngmail.com" <mayordavidglass(a)gmail.com >, "mthealYnu.sbcglobal.net"
<mthealyQsbcglobal.net>, "councilmemberkearney(@me.com"
<councilmemberkeameynme.com >, "davekinoccngmail.com" <davekinanccnumail.com >,
" kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com" <kathieencmilleroffice cr,gr`nail.com>
Dear Council members,
I am writing this email to request that the city council require a CUP
for Village Baptist church to utilize this small office building for its
functions.
I'm sure you will read the legal arguments we have vided in the
- iro
appeal as well as the information we provided the planning
commission. I don't wish to repeat that background information here.
First, our issue has nothing to do with discrimination and is entirely
about incompatibility of uses. If you review the planning commission
meeting you will note that the entire group of commissioners
acknowledged that a church is an incompatible use in this particular
situation. A meeting hall would also be an incompatible use. These
kinds of entities entering the business park in an unrestricted fashion
will eventually lead to problems with the businesses that operate here
and pay their taxes. If it's the City's goal to attract businesses to
Petaluma then I believe the city needs to provide business parks with
Page 1, Attachment 7
proper zoning. Then, any business that decides to move here will
understand the vision for how the park will operate now and in the
future. If the city council allows unrestricted access to the business
park, business owners will be reticent to move here and take a chance
on who their neighbors might be.
Under current zoning, a veterinary off ice is a permitted use in the
business park. In theory, it can exist in 3835 cypress. From a
practical standpoint, that would be an incompatible use in this
particular building as there are physicians and dentists performing
surgeries and other health care services within the some walls. If
allowed unrestricted use in this building, I foresee a veterinary
customer pulling a trailer into our parking lot and bringing a horse in
through our front doors. Clearly, that isn't appropriate and I am asking
you to fix these zoning issues immediately before`it gets even worse
here. I believe, if my example came to pass, that some of the current
owners of the suites in 3835 cypress would be forced out of business
or forced to move and lose their investment. All of that through no
fault of their own. That would be unfair and is preventable.
One of the city planning commissioners at the appeal hearing brought
up the fact that there is already a school here in our
building. presumably, her position was that we should be able to deal
with an incompatible use of a church since we are handling a school
already. That is so simplistic, convenient to say, and utterly
misleading. UCP occupies the f loor beneath my off ice. ' It is clearly an
incompatible use in this building. I protested it to the city planning
department as such before they moved in. Let me reigte a story that
happened just a week ago. I am looking out my .upstairs window at our
parking lot. I see a youngster riding a bike in circles around the
parking lot and this goes on for quite awhile. Cars are coming in and
pulling out and he just continues to ride as no supervisor is telling him
to stop. That is a very dangerous situation and he could have easily
been hit by a car or hit a parked car himself. I did notify the
school. But this is precisely why we have different zoning for
schools. If someone gets hurt in our parking lot on a bike and I get
sued as an owner, it is not my fault. But I could very well be held
accountable! as for as I am concerned, it is not my fault at all as I
Page 2, Attachment 7
protested right from the beginning. it isn't the child'svfault, he's doing
what kids do. It might be partly UCP 's fault as. they should have seen
this facility wasn't appropriate. But it is 100% the city of Petalumas
fault because it is responsible for proper zoning and the issue of
incompatibility was clearly pointed out prior to UCP occupying this
building.
I would welcome a meeting here in our building with any number of
members of the City Council to see our-building and discuss these
issues. I am out of the country through May but am available anytime
after that. If necessary, some of the other owners would meet with
you instead. The appeal with VBC goes far beyond just their use of
this facility. I believe the city of Petaluma needs to recognize that
some buildings (condos in particular) are not suited to every use. I
believe a Pandora's box of issues could be opening up for the City if it
doesn't tighten up zoning. I am hopef ul that we can ta11f Work together
to solve these problems so Petaluma continues to thrive and attract
business. I truly believe proper zoning is in the best interest of
churches and schools too. We want them to be successful too.
thank you,
Mike
Michael A. Haas C.P.A.
Haas & Reaney LLP
3835 Cypress Drive Sulte 204
Petaluma, Ca 94954
phone 415.382.1040
fax 707.7155.4411 =' v
www.Haascpa.com
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message
Page 3, Attachment 7