HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/10/2001Planning Commission Minutes - April 10; 2001
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail plan ningnci.petaluma.cams
Web Page h=: /Ayww.ci.petaluma.ca.us
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 April 10, 2001 — 7e00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, O'Brien, Vouri
6 Absent: Vieler
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: George White, Planning Manager
10 Irene Borba, Senior Planner
11 Craig Spaulding, Engineer
12 Anne Windsor, Secretary
13
14
15 ROLL CALL:
16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no minutes for approval.
17 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
18 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Salvation Army appeal received on 4/9/01. Tentatively
19 scheduled for Council on 5/21/01. Copy of appeal to Commissioner Barrett.
20 Reminder of the Council Agenda Item for 4/16/01 - Relationship of SPARC to Planning
21 Commission.
22 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None
23 CORRESPONDENCE: None
24 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
25 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
26
27
28 CONSENT CALENDAR
29
30 I. SALVATION ARMY — 721 S. McDOWELL — RESOLUTION APPROVING
-31 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (March 27, 2001 meeting).
32
33 Commission Comments:
34 Add: Enhance chapel appearance.
35 Findings look standard in nature — suggested staff tailor approval and
36 findings to project.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
■ Condition 3: Add electric leaf blowers only.
■ Condition 5: Add to publish in the phone book.
■ Condition 12: Change wording that Salvation Army indicated they would
agree to the following items.
■ Condition 14: Clarify what building permits are for.
A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner
Barrett to adopt a resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Salvation Army at 721 South McDowell
Boulevard subject to the findings and amended conditions listed below.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Chair Broad: Yes
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Vieler: Absent
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
Note: Addition = italics
Deletion = str-ikeeut
Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
1. That based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project
have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by
the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts
to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports
a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, would have a
significant effect on the environment.
2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is
exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an existing
developed site surrounded by urban development with none of the resources as
defined in the Code.
3. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
Code.
4. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public
comments before making a recommendation on the project.
5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance
with the adopted mitigation measures.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
6.
That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for
3
public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English
4
Street, Petaluma, California.
5
6
Findings
for a Conditional Use Permit
7
8
1.
That the project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and the intent
9
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Specifically, the proposal
10
implements General Plan Chapter 7, Goal 6 and Chapter 3, Objectives (i) and (o),
11
Chapter 7, Objective (u) and Chapter 9, Objectives (d) and (g). Zoning Ordinance
12
Sections 6 -401 and 6 -409 conditionally permit public and quasi - public buildings
13
and uses of an educational, religious, or public service nature and day care in the
14
R -1 -6,500 zoning district. The standards for conditional uses under Zoning
15
Ordinance Section 21 -300 were considered in the review of this project.
16
17
2.
That the use, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the
18
public welfare of the community. Traffic, noise and lighting studies assert that the
19
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The
20
architectural and landscaping plans will be subject to the review and approval by
21
the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to ensure that the project will
22
be aesthetically pleasing.
23
24
3.
The project implements the priorities of the Consolidated Plan 11, 2000 -2005,
25
adopted by the City Council on May 15, 2000.
26
27
Conditions of Approval:
28
29
From the Planning Department
30
31
1.
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is granted to allow construction of a 5,951
32
square foot, 150 -seat chapel; a 5,070 square foot social services and supplies
33
building; a 5,153 square foot childcare center and associated parking and site
34
improvements which shall be substantially as shown on the revised plans dated
35
11/20/00. The operation of the uses shall be as stated in the Applicant's Project
36
Statement revised 11/20/00. Prior to any change in the operation of the uses, the
37
applicant shall apply for and be granted a Conditional Use Permit modification
38
from the City of Petaluma.
39
4o
2.
Within five days of an approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall
41
submit a check in the amount of $35.00 payable to the Sonoma County Clerk for
42
the Notice of Determination filing fee.
43
44
3.
The use of ground maintenance equipment shall be restricted to 10:00 a.m. to
45
4:00 p.m. to reduce any potential annoyance. In addition, only electric leaf
46
blowers are permitted.
47
3
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 4. The Salvation Army Petaluma Center Advisory Board shall include two people
2 from the South McDowell neighborhood who may attend monthly meetings during
3 which any concerns shall be addressed. Documentation of the appointments shall
4 be received by the City prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
5
6 5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, evidence shall be provided to the
7 City that the phone number of the on -call administrative assistant has been
8 provided to adjacent neighbors and published in the phone book for their use in
9 reporting operating problems.
10
11 6. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of
12 any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees from any claim,
13 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers or
14 employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of the project when such
15 claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State
16 and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/ developers of
17 any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
18 Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
19 defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's
20 fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
21
22 7. The operating hours of the childcare center shall be reduced to 7: 00 a. m. to 10: 00
23 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
24
25 8. An 8-foot tall fence /wall shall be installed on the north and east sides of the site to
26 mitigate sound and light as required. The design of the fence /wall shall be
27 subject to SPARC review and approval.
28
29 9. The project shall use lighting Option No. 2 as developed by Winzler and Kelly in
30 the Illuminance Study and Photometric Report dated October 20, 2000.
31
32 10. An accurate Master Schedule of Operations shall be submitted to the City prior to
33 or at the time of SPARC submittal.
34
35 11. The Salvation Army shall give priority to neighborhood children for up to 25% of
36 the openings in the childcare center.
37
38 12. The Salvation Army has agreed to provide to the following prior to issuance of
39 building permit:
40
41 a. Plans to upgrade existing Chapel subject to review and approval of
42 SPARC.
43 b. A letter to the City verifying they will not seek legal remedies under the
44 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
45 c. A letter agreeing to abide by all conditions and mitigation measures.
46 d. An agreement in writing to install the fences /walls necessary to attenuate
47 sound and light.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 e. A phone number with 24 -hour access to address immediate concerns of
2 the neighbors.
3 f. Documentation that Salvation Army personnel will occupy the single -
4 family dwelling on the site (after the current lease expires).
5 g. Documentation that if the Commanding Officer at the Petaluma Center
6 changes, the Salvation Army will not make changes to or add any social
7 services which are not listed in the Project Description or on the Master
8 Schedule of Operations
9
to 13. The applicants shall submit an alternative site plan whereby the childcare center
11 shall be relocated to the general area of the proposed social services building and
12 the social services building shall be moved to the rear of the site. The applicants
13 shall also consider parking alternatives to increase the number of parking spaces
14 on site. The alternative design shall be considered by the Planning Commission
15 prior to SPARC submittal.
16
17 14. The sound/light mitigating fence /wall and the perimeter landscaping shall be
18 installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction of the main
19 buildings.
20
21 Mitigation Measures
22
23 15. All earthwork, grading, trenching, back - filling and compaction operation shall be
24 conducted in accordance with the City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance
25 (Title 7, Chapter 17.3 1, of the Municipal Code
26
27 16. All public and/or private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff
28 for compliance with the approved Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance.
29
30 17. The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a
31 registered professional engineer an as integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion
32 and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City
33 Engineer and Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Plan
34 shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during grading
35 operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the
36 drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the
37 following measures as applicable.
38
39 a. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures
40 shall be on —site by October 1 All grading activity shall be completed by
41 October 15"', prior to the onset of the rainy season, with all disturbed areas
42 stabilized, and, if applicable, revegetated by October 31 Upon approval by
43 the Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short-term grading may be
44 allowed. Special erosion control measures may be required by the City
45 Engineer in conjunction with any specially permitted rainy season grading.
46
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 18. All construction activities shall comply with the Uniform Building Code
2 regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and /or load bearing
3 walls, bracing parapets, etc.).
4
5 The applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the
6 construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the
7 specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into
8 the required erosion and sediment plan to limit dust and exhaust emissions during
9 construction.
10
11 19. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be
12 properly muffled and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be
13 turned off when not in use.
14
15 20. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of
16 twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15
17 mph. Only purchased City water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose. _
18 Watering shall also occur on weekends and holidays when work is not in progress.
19
20 21. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area
21 consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to
22 clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public
23 roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and -
24 cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles.
25
26 22. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or
27 other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions.
28
29 23. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to
30 monitor the dust and erosion control program. The name and phone number shall
31 be provided to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of building permits.
32
33 24. This development shall be subject to the City's storm drainage impact fees to cover
34 the incremental impact/increase it will have on the City's storm drainage system.
35
36 25. All grading activity shall be completed prior to the onset of the rainy season. All
37 new drainage facilities shall be in place and in operation at that time. Grading and
38 excavation activities shall not be permitted during the rainy season. Extensions for
39 grading and drainage facilities work may be allowed in consultation with the
40 Petaluma City Engineer, based on the sensitivity of the specific project area to
41 erosion, sedimentation, and the effectiveness of temporary (rainy season) erosion
42 measures to be implemented by the applicant.
43
44 26. Plans submitted at time of application for building permit shall include provisions r
45 for storm water runoff management. The submittal shall reflect installation of
46 permanent signs at drop inlets, if any, to 'the public storm drain system, which
47 prohibit the deposit of hazardous materials into the system.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2 27. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the
3 sediment and/or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain
4 system or ground water. The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions
5 into the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the Planning
6 Department, prior to issuance of grading or building permits:
7
8 a) The applicant shall designate on the improvement plans construction
9 staging areas and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e.,
10 motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction
11 staging areas shall be located away from any stream and adjacent drainage
12 areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the
13 drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall
14 include proper containment features to prevent contamination from entering
15 drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak.
16
17 b) No debris, soil, sand, cement, concrete, or washings thereof, or other
18 construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other
19 organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system.
20 All discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be
21 removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The applicant shall
22 designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction
23 plans or in the specifications.
24
25 28. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and
26 approval by the City Engineer and Planning Department prior to approval of any
27 improvement plans or the issuance of a grading permit. Project grading and all
28 site drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance
29 with the City of Petaluma Engineering Department's "Standard Specifications,"
30 and with the Sonoma County Water Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria," if
31 applicable. Drainage plans shall include supporting calculations of storm drain
32 and culvert size using acceptable engineering methods. No lot -to -lot drainage
33 shall be permitted. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot
34 and then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system. All hydrologic,
35 hydraulic, and storm drain system design, if applicable, shall be subject to review
36 and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and the City
37 Engineer.
38
39 29. All construction and operation activities shall comply with applicable
40 Performance Standards in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
41
42 30. All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
43 through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be
44 prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless
45 a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional
46 hours. There will be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m.,
47 Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:45
2 p.m., Monday through Friday.
3
4 31. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion equipment shall be
5 properly muffled and maintained to minimize noise. Equipment shall be turned
6 off when not in use.
7
8 32. Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment
9 shall avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable.
10 Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, mixers, etc., shall be
11 placed away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding.
12 Quiet construction equipment shall be used when possible.
13
14 33. The applicant shall designate a Project Manager with authority to implement the
15 mitigation measures who will be responsible for responding to any complaints from
16 the neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building /grading permit. The Project
17 Manager shall determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early,
18 faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem.
19
20 34. Optimize the site plan to minimize adverse effects on the adjacent neighbors. Play
21 areas for preschoolers should be located as far away from the property line as
22 feasible and the use of elevated play structures should be minimized.
23
24 35. If windows are proposed on the rear of the building adjacent to the residences, these
25 windows should be kept closed during noisy indoor play periods. If complaints are
26 received, windows could be fixed closed.
27
28 36. If noise complaints due to outdoor play activity are received from neighbors once
29 the center is in operation, a secondary solid wood or masonry block wall shall be
30 built either around the play areas or parallel to the existing property line fences on
31 the Salvation Army side of the property line to attenuate noise. These walls should
32 be built to a height, which will block the line of sight from the children in the play
33 areas to the rear yards or outdoor use areas of the residences.
34
35 37. All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and
36 shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties. Plans
37 submitted for project review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which
38 reflect the location and design of all exterior lighting proposed. In no case shall the
39 maximum illumination at ground level exceed 3 foot - candle.
40
41 38. Shade trees shall be incorporated along public streets and within parking areas in
42 conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Guidelines to
43 reduce glare and provide shade and screening.
44
45 39. Architectural detail, lighting plans, landscaping plans, specifications on parking lot
46 layout and detailed site plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Site
47 Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits.
48
8
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 40. Fixtures providing security lighting shall be controlled by integral photocells, set to
2 turn the fixture on from dusk to dawn or when the light level falls below the preset
3 threshold. All other fixtures shall be controlled by a universal 7- day time clock that
4 can be programmed for time of day operation. The lights shall be set to turn off at
5 close of business.
6
7 41. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation
8 Fees. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at the time of issuance of a
9 building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of
10 a Certificate of Occupancy.
11
12 42. During non - working hours, open trenches and construction hazards within the
13 public right -of -way shall be provided with signage, flashers, and barricades
14 approved by the Street Superintendent to warn oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and
15 pedestrians of potential safety hazards.
16
17 43. All road surfaces shall be restored to pre - project conditions after completion of any
18 project - related utility installation activities. All trench pavement restoration within
19 existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal.
20
21 44. Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with the city's Street
22 Standards to provide for safe access to and from the site. Curb cuts, signing, and
23 striping, if applicable, shall be incorporated into the design as required by the
24 City's traffic Engineer. Improvement or construction plans shall be subject to
25 review and approval of the Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or
26 building permit. All street frontage improvements shall be constructed to City
27 standards and inspected by City Inspectors prior to final inspections or acceptance
28 of improvements.
29
30 45. Appropriate signs shall be installed at the southerly driveway to prohibit outbound
31 left-turn movements onto McDowell Boulevard South.
32
33 46. The project shall be subject to the payment of established City Special
34 Development Fees as applicable, including: Park and Recreation Land
35 Improvements, Sewer and Water connection, and Traffic Mitigation as specified by
36 City Resolution.
37
38 47. In order to ensure public safety and provide for police surveillance, all non-
39 residential buildings and public use areas shall have security alarms and provide
40 motion or heat sensitive security lighting to parking areas, pedestrian pathways and
41 areas of concealment around the perimeter of each building. All parking areas and
42 pedestrian pathways shall provide visual access to the extent practicable from
43 public streets and may require mirrors placed on an angle to be seen from the street
44 or public right -of -way to provide visual access to areas of potential concealment.
45
46 48. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide and
47 maintain current emergency contact information on file at the Police Department.
48
9
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 49. The project sponsor shall be required to pay for additional water and sewer
2 connections as established in the City's Special Development Fee handout.
3
4 50. Trenching for utilities and irrigation shall be kept to as shallow a depth as practical,
5 to avoid disturbing potential subsurface resources.
6
7 51. For all construction activities, potential to uncover unknown archaeological
8 resources exist. Should any artifacts, cultural remains, or potential resources be
9 encountered during construction activities, work in the area of the find shall cease
10 and the construction contractor shall notify the Director of Planning.
11 Archaeological features include artifacts of stone, shell, bone, or other natural
12 materials. Association with artifacts includes hearths, house floors, and dumps.
13 Historic artifacts potentially include all by- products of human land use greater than
14 .50 years of age. Human burials, if encountered, require the notification of the
15 County Coroner in addition to the monitoring archaeologist. The City shall consult
16 with qualified cultural resource specialist to evaluate the find. If the suspected
17 remains are determined to be potentially significant, all work in the vicinity shall be
18. halted until mitigation measures are incorporated into the design, or the removal of
19 the resource has been accomplished in accordance with recommendations by the
20 archaeologist. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation recommendations of
21 the archaeologist prior to commencing work in the vicinity of the archaeological
22 find. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with consulting a
23 cultural resource specialist and with implementation of mitigation measures.
24
25 52. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible
26 agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading
27 or building permits or approval of improvement plans.
28
29 53. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required
30 mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and
31 specifications for the project.
32
33 54. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the
34 project implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the
35 project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. Applicant
36 shall notify all assigns and transfers of the same.
37
38 55. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all
39 mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and
40 phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by
41 the contractor responsible for construction.
42
43 56. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on
44 the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for
45 construction.
46
47 From the Bicycle Advisory Committee
48
10
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 57. A total of five covered bicycle - parking places shall be provided throughout the
2
development.
3
4
58.
One shower and five clothes lockers shall be provided for employees' use.
5
6
59.
Exterior seating at benches /tables for a minimum of 10 persons shall be provided
7
(calculated at twice the amount of required bicycle parking). This seating shall also
8
serve as an outdoor eating space for employees.
9
10
60.
The owners/lessees shall provide a simple one -page document to the City naming a
11
designated "transportation coordinator" and describing specific incentives for
12
employees and customers to walk/bicycle to the facility thereby encouraging
13
alternatives to driving cars to this facility. Examples include lending bicycles for
14
short errands, monetary or other rewards for not driving, etc. This documentation
15
shall be received by the City prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
16
17
61.
The development shall have on -site facilities for food storage, preparation and
18
eating accessible to all employees of all buildings.
19
20
62.
Under no circumstances should any pesticide/herbicide be applied in areas used by
21
pedestrians/bicyclists anywhere in this project or the surrounding area without
22
appropriate signage.
23
24
63.
This project shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide
25
use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection
26
of bicyclists and pedestrians
27
28
From the Engineering � _Department
29
30
64.
A'10-foot wide right -of -way dedication to the City of Petaluma is required for the
31
100 -foot long portion of parcel street frontage.
32
33
65.
An executed private storm drain easement grant deed shall be obtained from the
34
adjacent existing Petaluma Ecumenical Project (PEP) development (APN 007 -570-
35
029) located southeasterly of the proposed project. Note: A letter of intent dated
36
12/21/00 to enter offer the above - mentioned easement from PEP to the Salvation
37
Army is on file with the City of Petaluma Community Development Department.
38
39
66.
Hydrology calculations for the proposed and existing storm drain system shall be
40
submitted to the Engineering Section for review. Additionally, the calculations
41
should indicate that the existing storm drain facilities located on the PEP project are
42
hydraulically capable of handling the increase in peak storm water runoff based on
43
the proposed site development. Sonoma County Water Agency standards should be
44
used to perform the analysis.
45
46
67.
All portions of broken cracked or otherwise damaged sidewalk or driveway
47
approaches located along the entire parcel frontage shall be replaced.
11
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
68. An excavation permit is required for all work within the public right -of -way
including sidewalks, driveway approaches, water supply and sewerage installations,
etc.
69. All existing subsurface wastewater disposal systems and septic tanks, if any, shall
be removed per County of Sonoma Department of Environmental Health. standards.
70. All work within the public right -of -way shall conform to the City of Petaluma latest
standards, codes, policies, etc.
71. Lot to lot surface drainage and concentrated drainage of public sidewalks shall not
occur.
From the Water Department
72. The contractor shall submit GPM requirements needed for water connections. The
project will require a minimum of 1" service for domestic and minimum 1" service
for irrigation.
From the Fire Marshal (To avoid requests for subsequent submittals, please show or note
all Fire Department requirements on plans submitted for building permit.)
CHILDCARE BUILDING:
73. The building shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by
the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central station alarm monitoring,
which will notify the Fire Department in the event of water flow. In addition, a
local alarm shall be provided on the exterior and interior of the building.
74. Fire alarm system shall be connected to a central station monitor that will notify the
fire department in the event of an alarm.
75. This facility requires an annual Fire Department permit for a commercial childcare
facility. The permit fee is $60.00 per year and is due prior to occupancy approval
and/or operation.
76. This facility shall meet the requirements in the 1998 California Uniform Fire Code
Article 10 and in FPA 72.
NEW CHAPEL AND EXISTING CHURCH: j
77. Provide a KNOX BOX for Fire Department access. KNOX BOX shall contain keys
or access codes to buildings.
12
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 78. All curtains, drapes, hangings or other decorative material shall be flame retardant
2 or treated with an approved fire retardant chemical by a licensed State Fire Marshal
3 Applicator.
4
5 79. This business requires an annual Fire Department permit for Places of Assembly of
6 less than 300. The permit fee of $60.00 is due prior to occupancy approval and/or
7 operation.
8
9 80. The buildings shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required
10 by the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central station alarm
11 monitoring, which will notify the Fie Department in the event of water flow. In
12 addition, a local alarm shall be provided on the exterior and interior of the building.
13
14 81. A permit is required from the Fire marshal for the installation or alteration of a fire
15 sprinkler system prior to the commencement of work. A minimum of two sets of
16 plans with calculations is required to be submitted for review and approval.
17
18
82.
Contractors installing underground fire sprinkler mains shall obtain a permit and
19
submit two sets of plans for approval prior to commencing work. A hydrostatic test
20
of 200 psi for two hours is required prior to backfill. All joints shall be visible at
21
time of inspection. Underground installations shall be flushed to Fire Department
22
satisfaction prior to connection to overhead. NOTE: Civil utility plans and/or other
23
plans approved, or not, will not be accepted in lieu of the above requirement.
24
25
83.
Contractors shall obtain Petaluma City Water Department approval prior to
26
charging onsite underground water mains.
27
28
84.
All contracts shall have a City business license and a workers' compensation
29
certificate on file with the Fire Marshal's office.
30
31
85.
Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking
32
equipment.
33
34
86.
Fixed fire extinguishing systems shall be installed by a licensed contractor.
35
Contractor shall obtain the required permit from, and submit two sets of plans for
36
review by, the Fire Marshal. Systems are subject to testing and inspection by the
37
Fire Marshal's office prior to acceptance.
38.
39
87.
Fire alarm system shall be connected to a central station monitor, which will notify
40
the Fire Department in the event of an alarm.
41
42
88.
All required fire lanes, in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated by
43
painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall
44
be installed.
45
13
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
89. No combustible construction above the foundation is allowed unless an approved
asphalt surfaced road is provided to within 150 feet of the furthest point of a
structure and the fire hydrants have been tested, flushed, and are in service.
90. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure or Fire Department sprinkler
connection shall be in excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant.
SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING:
91. The building shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required
by the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central station alarm
monitoring, which will notify the Fire Department in the event of water flow. In
addition, a local alarm shall be provided on the exterior and interior of the
building.
92. Contractors installing underground fire sprinkler mains shall obtain a permit and
submit two sets of plans for approval prior to commencing work. A hydrostatic test
of 200 psi for two hours is required prior to backfill. All joints shall be visible at
time of inspection. Underground installations shall be flushed to Fire Department
satisfaction prior to connection to overhead. NOTE: Civil utility plans and/or other
plans approved, or not, will not be accepted in lieu of the above requirement.
93. Contractors shall obtain Petaluma City Water Department approval prior to
charging onsite underground water mains.
94. All contracts shall have a City business license and a workers' compensation
certificate on file with the Fire Marshal's office.
95. Fire alarm system shall be connected to a central station monitor that will notify
the Fire Department in the event of an alarm.
96. This plan has been reviewed with the information supplied; subsequent plan
submittal for review may be subject to additional requirements as plans are
revised.
From the Transit Coordinator
97. A transit stop sign (provided by the City), pole and bench per the attached
specifications shall be installed at the existing bus stop.
NEW B USINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
I. PARK CENTRAL - General Plan Amendment (GPA00005); Rezoning
(REZ00004); Tentative Parcel Map (TMP00007); Zoning Ordinance Amendment
14
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 (ZOA00002), and Site Plan & Architectural Review (SPC00090), located at the
2 corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway, APN: 005- 040 -049.
3
4 Irene Borba presented the staff report.
5
6 Jeff Jones, Eagle Lakeville Partners, Property Owner; J.T. Wick, CSW Stuber- Stroeh;
7 Charles Stewart, Architect for office buildings; Tom Richman, Tom Richman &
8 Associates, Landscape Architect; Jay Craig and John Wayland, Trammel -Crow
9 Residential and David Maul, Rutledge Maul Architects, architects for the multi - family
to residential presented the proposed mixed use project to include 22,205 square feet of
11 commercial space along Lakeville Highway; 233,499 square feet of office space in the
12 center of the site; and 240 apartments at the southern end of the property.
13
14 Comments /Questions from Commissioners:
15
16 Commissioner O'Brien: Asked about possible toxics from Tallow Plant - have studies
17 been conducted?
18
19 Appreciated concern for Petaluma Poultry Processors and agreeing to put their operations
20 in CC &Rs. Will you be doing that for the other business uses?
21
22 Jeff Jones: Studies conducted before and after purchase of the property. Found no toxics.
23 Have put other businesses in CC &Rs. Want to be good neighbors - all tenants notified in
24 advance.
25
26 Commissioner Glass: Is residential all rental property?
27
28 Jeff Jones: Yes, all rentals at this time since there is a great need for market -rate rentals.
29
30 Commissioner Barrett: Any possibility Tallow Plant will start-up again on that site.
31
32 Read about amphitheater and see it, however, did not hear it mentioned this evening.
33 What is idea there?
34
35 Jeff Jones: Tallow Plant has been closed for 10 years. Think it is under contract to owner
36 of Marina development. When state water quality testing is completed, property may be
37 sold.
38
39 Wanted a central public green for employees and neighborhood to use during the day or
40 evening hours. Probably seating for 30 people. Has not been designed in detail yet. A
41 landscape element that is a series of concentric rings with small risers to be used as steps
42 with central gathering area.
43
44 Commissioner Vouri: Commended team for the design; incorporation of residential and
45 office as well as attention to detail with regard to landscaping, streets, and sidewalks.
46
15
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Large amount of street parking creating what is not as aesthetically pleasing - did you
look at making garage bigger and perhaps providing more open space for residents?
What considerations led to this?
Jeff Jones: Some is practical - people generally do not like to walk long distances from
their cars. Tried to disperse parking throughout project so all buildings had parking
relatively close. Tried to incorporate landscaping throughout also to minimize parking.
This is the number of spaces you need for a project this size even though there is some
shared parking between retail and office. Have the ability to add levels to parking
structure - felt that one level was in keeping with scale of project since office buildings
are only two levels.
Commissioner Vouri: Original engineer who performed traffic study recommended that
the Commission consider lowering parking requirements, which I support. Do you have
any recommendations on parking? -
Jeff Jones: Some companies using between 4 & 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in the greater
Bay Area. Traditionally in Petaluma with telecom companies most use 3 -4 per 1,000 for
office space. Would not feel comfortable lowering number of parking spaces.
Commissioner Vouri: Do you expect any residents to work in the office complex.
Jeff Jones: Yes. In Trammel- Crow's experience - believe as much as 50% of residents
will be working within a mile of project. Some companies may also be interested in
master leasing a number of apartments for employees.
Commissioner Monteschio: Is there any live -work space in the residential?
J.T. Wick: Intention here is home occupation. If spaces were live work would require
different definition in Zoning Ordinance in application proposal. Changed the
development standards to use space as home occupation as it is specified in Petaluma's
Municipal Code.
Commissioner Monteschio: Under Municipal Code two employees are allowed. Where
will they park?
J.T. Wick: Parking is tight - project complies with Municipal Code parking requirements
for apartments at the minimum level.
Jeff Jones: If employees were to park near residential it would be a time of day when half
of residents did not have cars there. Employees could park on apartment property.
Commissioner Monteschio: Are there going to be designated spaces for each unit?
Jay Craig: Typically do assign parking for residents. There will be guest parking
associated with each unit - will also be street parking.
16
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 Commissioner Monteschio: How are you going to convince people not to park on
2 Technology Lane and keep parking available for residents?
3
4 Jeff Jones: Access will not be as easy.
5
6 Commissioner Glass: Attachment 5 mentions soil grade being raised between 2 -5 feet to
7 mitigate potential for flooding and develop proper surface drainage? Implying you are in
8 the flood plain? Correct?
9
10 Jeff 'Jones: No - not in flood plain.
11
12 J.T. Wick: River is to south of site plan. Elevation for perimeter of flood plain is
13 Elevation 7. Lowest point on this site is 11 feet.
14
15 Commissioner Glass: What is the need for the fill?
16
17 J.T. Wick: Very flat site - less than 2% cross slope over entire breadth of site - barely
18 enough to get water to flow. Road was built 2 -3 feet higher than the existing grade. Built
19 originally for a tilt -up building and typically roads are built high. This was originally 4
20 lots so each lot has one drain. Anticipation was each lot would develop separately so
21 grading accommodates one site being developed at a time. Each site has to fill in order to
22 get positive drainage to storm drains.
23
24 Chair Broad: How many cubic yards of fill are you talking about bringing to the site?
25
26 J.T. Wick: Probably 80,000.
27
28 Chair Broad: Would this be 8,000 plus or minus truckloads?
29
30 J.T. Wick: Far fewer - would be using trucks the size of Mr. Skoffs.
31
32 Chair Broad: How big are trucks - how many cubic yards can they hold?
33
34 J.T. Wick: 2 -4 times larger than trucks you might see in Ross. Dispel that we will be
35 filling the entire site. Raising the building pads, keeping parking as low as possible.
36
37 Commissioner Vouri: How much additional runoff will be created by development?
38
39 J.T. Wick: Relatively low - building on adobe, which is not very permeable to begin with.
40 Infrastructure is already there - sized to take complete flows from site if built for
41 industrial development. Also incorporating as much as possible into drainage system
42 biofiltering techniques and landscaping adjacent to parking garage, around green near
43 office buildings so we can treat runoff before it gets to public storm drain.
44
45 Chair Broad: Regarding the 3 -5 feet of fill required. Aside from the mention of that in
46 Attachment 5 - Geotechnical Report. Is that somewhere else in project documents?
47
17
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
J.T. Wick: No.
Commissioner Barrett: Is fiber optic cable already in place for this site? Would it be for
residential as well?
City of Petaluma might benefit from having a conduit dedicated when this is being put in
place so that if there is a need, the infrastructure will already be there. Would like that to
be added.
Jeff Jones: Not in place, however, we will install it? Yes, for residential.
J.T. Wick: Can verify that - think capacity for additional conduit placed in the joint
trench for the business park when infrastructure was developed. Have not actually pulled
wire through conduit yet. Pipes through which conduit is pulled is in place.
Commissioner Barrett: Entrance to retail area off Lakeville - seems that is very close to
Petaluma Poultry entrance /exit. Will that have a negative affect on traffic?
J.T. Wick: That is meant and shown now as an entrance only. Provided a deceleration
lane and based on traffic engineer's recommendation meets all Cal Trans standards.
Telecom Lane connects Petaluma Poultry with Technology Lane so that a lot of truck
traffic which historically has been a problem going in and out of Petaluma Poultry off of
Lakeville will now use this road as primary means of ingress and egress.
Commissioner Barrett: Technology Lane?
J.T. Wick: Telecom Lane, Technology Lane and Casa Grande so there is a fully
controlled intersection at Casa Grande and Lakeville as opposed to free turning that
happens now.
Commissioner Barrett: Asked where Technology and Telecom Lanes hook up? So the
trucks will come right through this development? What schools are impacted by this
development?
J.T. Wick: Children will attend Old Adobe, Kenilworth and Casa Grande.
J.T. Wick: Requested some slight modifications to Conditions of Approval -
correspondence is in packet.
Condition #2: Asking for separate locked storage for bicycles. Many of the apartments
have full tandem 2 -car garage so we did not see the need for a separate locked facility.
Asking for this to be eliminated for this type of residential unit.
Condition #3: Asking for clarification that there be 2 shower stalls in building #4 which
is office building farthest to the west and that clothes lockers be corrected to read 87
which would be consistent with the Municipal Code.
18
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001 ,
1 Condition #6: Requested that subject to final SPARC approval, be allowed to include
2 some of our non -table and bench outdoor seating. When we took technical requirement
3 from the Municipal Code and applied it to site it looked silly. Hoping that amphitheater
4 and green could be counted. Did not want complete relief from condition, however,
5 wanted other elements from site plan to be counted toward seating.
6
7 Condition #18: Traffic calming measures for parking aisles. This is a recommendation
8 from our Traffic Engineer. Wanted to clarify that it be applied to the parking aisles only.
9
10 Chair Broad: Can staff clarify if the modifications were amenable to staff, including the
11 request that the fees from the previous owner be credited toward this project.
12
13 Irene Borba: Staff does not have any problems with the above changes /requests.
14
15 Craig Spaulding: Previous owner paid development impact fees and they would need to
16 come back to the City for a refund. It is clear that with the impact that this project will
17 have, they need to pay impact fees.
18
19 Chair Broad: If developer feels there is something in violation of laws in asking for
20 development fees, they can provide correspondence _in that regard.
21
22 Craig Spaulding: Absolutely.
23
24 Chair Broad: Can you comment on the 80,000 cubic yards of fill.
25
26 Chair Broad: Have heard some municipalities charge $3 /cubic yard of fill to compensate
27 for wear and tear to roads. Perhaps City Council can adopt an ordinance — something to
28 consider for future projects of this magnitude.
29
30 Craig Spaulding: Is a lot. In this subdivsion when roads were designed, due to hydraulic
31 concerns when a channel was installed, requirements from Water Agency that roads need
32 to be a certain height and that is where the elevation of roads came from. All that
33 analysis approved by water agency and subsequent developments will need to take the
34 hydraulic grade line where it comes to property and make sure that habitable spaces are
35 above that elevation created by the system which has already been installed.
36
37 Chair Broad: Is there an alternative approach to providing the finish floor at the necessary
38 level?
39
40 Craig Spaulding: Habitable floor has to be above the hydraulic grade line - that's the
41 criteria.
42
43 Regarding drainage, since it's along the watercourse, there is no additional impact in
44 terms of drainage from that amount of fill?
45.
46 Craig Spaulding: Correct. When storm drain system was designed for the previous
47 development it was based on a full build out.
19
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
2 Commissioner Barrett: Lot of projects going in off of Lakeville. When traffic studies are
3 done, are the all the marginal increases to traffic being factored in to predictions?
4
5 Walter Laabs, City Traffic Consultant: Had additional traffic analysis performed that took
6 into account all projects along Lakeville Highway that are in the pipeline including the
7 Sheraton Hotel that has been approved - everything that was in the Assessment District.
8 Additional analysis was completed in March, 2001.
9
10 Commissioner Barrett: On the study done in February, 2001 on page 17 - am unclear
11 about reading this. Box #6 for future traffic volume and future plus project traffic
12 volume - does #6 refer to the corner of Casa Grande and Lakeville and the 00 point on
13 that graph is that intersection?
14
15 Walter Laabs: Box #5 is Casa Grande. On the future traffic volumes - this is why the
16 additional work was done because future traffic is based on the traffic model and in some
17 cases the model was predicting less traffic in the future than there is out there today. That
18 was rejected and additional information was requested and that is the March, 2001 study.
19
20 Commissioner Glass: Fees are woefully inadequate going forward - have a $99 million
21 liability for our streets and have the worst streets in the Bay Area and no way to pay for
22 it. In the Draft EIR for the Petaluma Central Business District Redevelopment Plan, page
23 6 -17 shows that by the year 2015 our traffic has deteriorated and that is with the Rainer
24 (or some cross town connector) and with Caulfield connected all the way to the
25 Boulevard. Even. with mitigations, we have an increased traffic problem. Even if this
26 project doesn't increase the traffic problems, however, when we repeat the pattern over
27 and over it can't be sustained.
28
29 Walter Laabs: When the traffic model that is being worked on now is completed
30 (probably by the end of the year), it will give you a better feel. The traffic model being
31 used now is inadequate. This was the best we could do with the information we have.
32
33 Commissioner Vouri: Second study shows that with existing traffic plus traffic
34 contributed by the project as well as other projects planned for the Assessment District
35 shows that Casa Grande will go from a level of service C to a D and Lakeville Highway,
36 Frates Road, Cader Lane will go from level of service C to E. If Southgate is added to
37 the mix level of service on Casa Grade at Lakeville goes to E, Lakeville Highway and
38 McDowell go to E and Lakeville Highway at Frates goes to F. Seems that the
39 recommendation in the report is that D is not so bad for this plus future, excluding
40 Southgate, and when Southgate comes along we will make them deal with it. Lakeville is
41 a major artery into and out of the City right now. This project by virtue of being built is
42 going to dramatically, temporarily affect the traffic. It would seem that if we were going
43 to cause traffic delays due to construction of this project that we should be addressing all
44 future traffic mitigations now. If we are tearing up the road, let's fix Casa Grande -
45 Lakeville. The only recommendation I saw was to put a right turn arrow at Frates. Can
46 anything be done, specifically on Casa Grande, to not reducing the level of service for the
47 through traffic on Lakeville?
20
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
2 Walter Laabs: Could make it so there is more delay on the side streets. When you have a
3 coordinate system, you increase the delay on the side streets giving preference to a major
4 corridor.
5
6 Commissioner Vouri: Your recommendation wouldn't address Lakeville- McDowell
7 which is also projected to go level of service D with the project plus assessment district
8 and level of service E if we add Southgate.
9
10 Walter Laabs: Is difficult if we add Southgate. Again additional delays would be to the
11 side street traffic. Would not recommend building Southgate with those levels of service.
12 Would expect they would come in with some sort of mitigation that would not allow it to
13 go to F.
14
15 Commissioner Vouri: What would the mitigation be?
16
17 Walter Laabs: Could not come up with one on a quick turn around basis. They have a
18 traffic- engineering firm on retainer John Dowden from Dowling Associates and I have
19 been working with him so that he can come up with a study and mitigations. They have
20 not completed that study yet.
21
22 Commissioner Glass: Agree with Commissioner Vouri. we need to mitigate up front and
23 do a quality traffic study in our General Plan.
24
25 Walter Laabs: If a General Plan is very detailed and looks at each intersection and come
26 up with recommendations for future lanes and as development comes in they are then
27 required to put in future lanes. This is what you would want in your General Plan update.
28 When you have the results of your traffic study you look at each intersection in quite a bit
29 of detail to come up with mitigations that can be built and preserve right of way so that
30 when someone comes in the right of way is dedicated for those improvements.
31
32 Commissioner O'Brien: Lakeville is a State Route and I don't know how much control we
33 have over getting Cal Trans to mitigate problems ahead of time.
34
35 Walter Laabs: Cal Trans will not build in advance, however, you want to have a game
36 plan so that when a project comes in they know what they are going to have to do.
37
38 Chair Broad: Does our General Plan have some sort of policy in terms of how low level
39 of service should fall at any given intersection?
40
41 Walter Laabs: No, General Plan only refers to corridors. According to my conversation
42 with Mr. Tilton, when he was here as Traffic Engineer, about 1990 he went to the
43 Council and it was agreed that no intersection should go below level of service D. That is
44 not in the General Plan though. It was suggested to the Council to look at intersections
45 because it was not in the General Plan.
46
21
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Broad: Is this City policy though that intersections should not go below level of
service D?
George White: Could not find that any policy was ever adopted by the City Council? The
General Plan only deals with corridors and is silent on the level of service in
intersections.
Comissioner Vouri: What is the level of service for corridors? Lakeville is a corridor?
Walter Laabs: C -yes would apply to Lakeville.
Chair Broad: When we say it applies to the corridor that means it only applies to
Lakeville rather than for the side streets or does it apply at both.
Walter Laabs: It applies to arterials and collectors when we are talking about corridors.
We do not have a policy on residential streets for level of service. There are other
policies on residential streets, which talk about the traffic load.
Chair Broad: In terms of the chart that you have prepared, do all of these comply with the
requirement that level of service not fall below D.
Walter Laabs: I did not prepare the chart. Unfortunately the analysis did not include the
corridor level of service, however, my experience at Lakeville is that since it's been
reconstructed it is a very good level of service, probably in the B to C range.
Commissioner Barrett: Is the corridor C level an average over all hours of the day and
night?
Walter Laabs: No, it is during the peak hours - in this case probably the pm peak although
we would look at the am peak. Usually the pm peak is when you have the heaviest
volume of traffic on almost any street.
Commissioner Barrett: Is the peak hour a relative term by whenever it is the heaviest _
volume of traffic that becomes the peak?
Walter Laabs: When we do traffic counts we typically count in 15 minute increments and
so it is the 4, 15 minutes that are the highest - usually around here it is from 4:45 to 5:45.
Chair Broad: Question for Mr. Stewart - appreciated in the presentation, going through in
detail the sustainability provisions of the building - great to have those included and
pointed out. Walls of the building - modified polymer plastic?
Charles Stewart: Plaster. It is essentially stucco.
Chair Broad: Was the density of the project a function of your design or was that
determined by other factors or a combination of factors.
22
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 Charles Stewart: Determined by a_ combination of the uses.
2
3 Chair Broad: Do you have a figure of what you calculate the density to be for the
4 residential component of the project? Have you done that density elsewhere?
5
6 Charles Stewart: 240 units.
7
8 Jay Craig: Density is about 28 units per acre and we have done that density elsewhere as
9 well as higher and lower.
10
11 Public Hearing was open:
12
13 Jerry Skoff, 1 Casa Grande Road: Against the residential portion of the project because of
14 the time of hours, which my business runs - basically 24 hours a day. I have a fuel
15 system, which is operated around the clock, 7 days a week. Our standard day in the
16 summer months is to start at 5:00 a.m. There are trucks moving in and out of there. We
17 do a lot of night work. The upcoming 101 will be paved between 11:00 p.m. and 4:00
18 a.m. so trucks will be leaving between 10:30 -11:00 p.m. and returning at 4:00 a.m. We
19 do a lot of double shift - 2 drivers to they change trailers approximately 5:30 a.m. People
20 who came and opposed the Salvation Army did not want people coming before 6:00 a.m.
21 And, now you want to put people living less than 150 feet away from where the trucks
22 will be banging at 5:00 a.m. We are required to use back up alarms on all dump
23 equipment with a dBA of a low of 97 to 107. Every time the truck backs up it rings. If
24 you take the alarms off you get a ticket. We have been in operation since 1973. There is
25 not a resident on that side of Lakeville Highway, actually two. One at Royal Tallow and
26 one at the mini storage. I have no problem with any other part of the development except
27 the residential.
28
29 Chair Broad: How many trucks would you typically have operating during the evening
30 period? Is there a way to quantify the number?
31
32 Jerry Skoff: Equipment starts coming in any time from 4:00 p.m. till 6:30 and then all the
33 maintenance is done at that point - fueling, rehooking of trailers. When we double team
34 drivers, trucks will come in at 4:00 a.m. and unhook and rehook for different projects and
35 leave within a hour to an hour and a half.
36
37 Commissioner O'Brien: Would you have any objection to the residential if the CC &Rs
38 grand fathered your business use in?
39
40 Jerry Skoff: As I mentioned you couldn't even get people to live along side of the
41 Salvation Army which is pretty quality - they will not put up with me. They will keep me
42 there until I built it for them and then they would want me gone because they don't need
43 me anymore.
44
45 Commissioner O'Brien: Looking at two different things. First, you are already there.
46
23
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 Jerry Skoff: Are you saying you are going to bond me? If anyone forces me out they are
2 going to pay me for it?
3
4 Commissioner O'Brien: I'm not saying that. Mr. Jones, would your CC &Rs protect his
5 existing business?
6
7 Chair Broad: Also, could you indicate if you were aware in advance of tonight of Mr.
8 Skoff's issues with the project?
9
10 J.T. Wick: We became aware of Mr. Skoff s concerns with the project and when we
11 commissioned our noise study one of the microphones was placed on one of the poles
12 right outside his trucking facility so we made sure that we caught not only the Petaluma
13 Poultry trucks coming through their new route, but also the trucks going in and out of
14 Skoff Trucking. If you review the study you will see that it is consistent with the hours F:
15 that he is mentioning and the truck volume is mentioned by Mr. Skoff and by Mr. Frates
16 at Petaluma Poultry. We did anticipate that this would be a concern. We have
17 incorporated into both our General Development Plan which is essentially our master
18 plan that the City requires, development standards that preclude any resident or owner of
19 lots or improvements within our project site from complaining about any commercial use
20 as long as those uses are complying with their permits and regulations from regulatory
21 agencies. Sited examples in other subdivisions of Petaluma, McNear Landing,
22 subdivisions near the Airport. Submitted to staff in our draft CC &Rs before the Final
23 Map stage.
24
25 Chair Broad: Under the CC &Rs any tenants or owners of the space, would, in advance,
26 have acknowledged that they understand the neighborhood and the associated potential
27 land use impacts from the neighborhood and that they acknowledge they do not have a
28 right to object to those uses.
29 J.T. Wick: Correct, our attorney, Robert Oliker, recommended that we not make it just
30 specific to Mr. Skoff's trucking facility or Mr. Frates' processing plant, but to all uses
31 surrounding the project - for example, Michael Paul's construction storage immediately
32 south of Mr. Skoff, whatever might happen on the Tallow Plant in the future. That
33 restriction is specific and it applies to all those uses, of course, considering that they
34 abide by their permit restrictions and regulations from other local, state and federal
35 agencies. We have no knowledge that our neighbors are violating any of those.
36
37 Chair Broad: In Mr. Oliker's opinion, is this something you can do to bind future owners
38 and tenants?
39
40 J.T. Wick: Yes.
41
42 Commissioner Vouri: Mr. Skoff mentioned the dBA on his back up alarms are 97 -107
43 and the noise study measured a maximum of 80 dBA and is recommending noise
44 insulation on the residences that can mitigate 35 dBA.
45
46 J.T. Wick: Down to 35 dBA.
47
24
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Vouri: We are trying to go down to 45 dBA internally, that is what City
staff requested in their mitigation, however, the way the report reads is that it should have
a reduction of 35 is what the engineer wrote.
J.T. Wick: Under the building code in the state, we have to get it down to that level. That
35 can be attained by improved building methods - those building methods can also
address the additional dBA levels just as they have to do at airports, etc. where the dBA
exceeds 80. There are construction methods (and we have to) to comply with law and get
our building permit, demonstrate that we can have those levels reduced to 45.
Commissioner Barrett: I think it's a good point to bring up the Salvation Army neighbors
because I am a neighbor of the creamery and as a neighbor you do have to learn to be
adaptable. I also remember the development across from G &G Market. All those people
who came before us to protest that market said at no time did they know that they had
signed away their privacy of their little street to all the traffic coming to G &G market.
Concerned that these things be highlighted so that tenants or owners are aware of the
neighbors.
J.T. Wick: Can remember this issue when Corona -Ely was being implemented and we
required on some of the later subdivisions that the plan be delivered to each owner of a
lot. Do not have an objection to that type of requirement being imposed on this project.
Would like to address a couple of points brought up on traffic - putting this project in the
context of area wide improvement. There was a great deal of debate when the Lakeville
Assessment District was going through - not just among the commercial users and
property owners that were going to be taxed for it (including this property), but among
the residents as well. This site is located within the Assessment District and has been
paying assessments, which is not the case with Southgate. That distinction is drawn in
the traffic study. It was specifically excluded from the Assessment District because
people were not sure what kind of use would occur there. While we have to evaluate our
project in tandem with it, I think it is important to acknowledge that we have been
shouldering part of the load for a number of years while Southgate has not.
We do not get credit because the regulatory regime does not acknowledge mixed use yet.
Do not get credit for creating residences (and potentially a high number) where tenants
can walk to work. Project has a double effect by displacing real estate which could be
developed with office space and put it into residential - high density residential.
Eliminates the exacerbation of bringing more office workers into town and it also
supplies more housing opportunities than a typical residential subdivision. Do no get
credit that through the purchase of the property they have paid for a significant portion of
area intersection improvements at Casa Grande and Lakeville.
Michael Paul, owner of lot at very south end of Casa Grande: Although this is a nice
looking project, you have some 3 -story residences that are overlooking a construction
yard and a trucking company. You have 3 -story office buildings that are going to be able
to see over that wall that our tax money put up on Lakeville Highway. You are asked to
make a zoning change here and I believe if this property were used for what it was
25
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 designed for you would not have the traffic problem that you claim you might have. I see
2 a nice looking project that's in the wrong part of town.
3
4 Commissioner Barrett: Are you objecting to the housing or the office?
5
6 Michael Paul: Objecting to both. If you get into rezoning it changes our property values -
7 I could not sell my property for the same permitted use that I have if you change the
8 zoning. Am afraid that if people start complaining about dust, noise, etc. and the Council
9 listens to those people. I had to put in $50,000 of landscaping at the City's request, have
to contributed to the wall across the street and Lakeville Highway with my tax money. I
11 believe this will be a heavy burden on traffic. This will persist when you have projects
12 going into areas that are no zoned for them.
13
14 Andrew Levis: Built a 10'x 12' building in this neighborhood for a bathroom and we had
15 to bring in 70 yards of fill material.
16
17 A comment on the bike lockers - I am riot officially on the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
18 As some units are particularly suited for home occupation, they may have two employees
19 who would enjoy safe bike parking. Considering the percentage of garages in Petaluma
20 that have no room for a car in the garage, I think it would be nice to have the bike
21 storage. As a development on the forefront of creating a less car dependent community,
22 bike garages seem like inexpensive potential traffic mitigation.
23
24 Can public assume in these beautiful park areas that are open that the public will be safe
25 from dogs off leash, unfenced and that the owners or managers of the property will not
26 allow dogs to run unleashed adjacent to or in the public area.
27
28 Regarding the architecture, I appreciate very much the passive cooling design ideas for
29 the design of the office buildings and is there any intent to include any other green or eco
30 friendly design elements in the commercial parking or residential for passive solar.
31
32 I do here the contractors concerns that the Commissioners and Council members would
33 have a hard time ignoring a room full of 240 families that lived in that development
34 complaining about noise. I do think there are sound proofing techniques that could help.
35 Maybe they can switch some of the houses to be further from the noise.
36
37 John Mills, D Street: Would like to commend staff and the developer in working together
38 on this project to make what looks like a win, win, situation for everyone other than the
39 contractors who are here tonight and maybe there is another win situation for them as
40 well. Commend staff for a marvelous job that was thrown in their laps, the developer for
41 changing to this type of use and I think it's a great project which can set an example for
42 the rest of the infill project in Petaluma.
43
44 My concerns are with the business owners. Where we continue to do more projects
45 where we have mixed use, retail, residential, and commercial this may be the perfect
46 opportunity for the City or the Planning commission to draft Right to Work ordinance for
47 the companies like the contractors in this particular area - Pomeroy, Jerico Drilling and
26
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 places like that who over the next several years will be impacted by residential, work/live
2 and mixed use developments. This type of ordinance could start to be drafted, using this
3 as an example of a place where these businesses would be granted a right to work
4 ordinance saying that they have a right to run their businesses for as long as their business
5 are there and to sell their businesses to like individuals to run them for a certain amount
6 of time.
7
8 As we do this type of infill development where we are going into mixed use and what I
9 see with this particular project is that we have completely ignored recreation. As you
10 know we have a dearth of recreational fields. With projects of this magnitude, especially
11 with mixed use and we're adding residential, there is no room for the kids to play. I see
12 some grass but no tennis courts, basketball courts, and soccer fields. When you bring this
13 type of project with this many residential units you are not really addressing the
14 recreational problems. When I first saw this and saw the huge green space in between
15 two office buildings where no one will be on weekends, I saw the perfect opportunity to
16 put a small soccer field, a par course lawn, tennis or those types of things. Maybe this is
17 addressed in the landscape plan, which I did not see. No recreational facilities in this part
18 of town other than Casa Grande High School and those uses are limited. You have
19 parallel parking on both sides of a one -lane road. Take one section of parallel parking
20 away and widen the green from 40 -60' and you would have room for a mini soccer field.
21
22 There is a lot of landscaping with green turf, which require tremendous amounts of water.
23 We now have and will continue to have a water problem. Do the architects and
24 landscape architects have this project ready to be adapted to purple pipe when it becomes
25 available and will it be an easy transition to immediately take all of the landscaping into
26 recycled water? If those provisions could be made when purple pipe and recycled water
27 becomes available, it only be a matter of flipping a switch or changing a pipe to get back
28 over to using that recycled water. Possibly having the landscape architect look at the
29 tremendous amounts of turf area in this particular project and maybe change some of that
30 turf area - to eliminate some turf and change to drought resistant type green areas in
31 ground cover rather than grass. Green makes a pretty project, but it creates water
32 problems down the road.
33
34 Public hearing was closed.
35
36 Commissioner Comments:
37
38 Commissioner Vouri:
39
40 . Recommend soil testing or opening tanks on Royal Tallow site to determine what is
41 in tanks.
42 ® Noise mitigation applies to entire project and takes in surrounding uses and future
43 uses.
44 ® Concerned about level of service on Casa Grande going to D and at McDowell.
45 ® Shared parking between residential and office use to reduce parking spaces to lower
46 than 829. Greener, open space to look less like a parking lot.
27
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
• Concerned about small children crossing Lakeville Highway to go to bus stop - is it
possible for the project to have it's own bus stop.
Commissioner Barrett:
• CC &Rs to be clear and to protect current business owners.
• Traffic is still a concern - need to address traffic in the long term.
Commissioner O'Brien:
• Like mixed use
• Think State is testing at Royal Tallow
• Address noise concerns in CC &Rs - buildings will be built with best noise
suppression standards possible.
• Would not want to see parking reduced - if developer is not comfortable reducing
parking - he's more familiar with the #'s use.
• There is an existing bus stop on southeast corner of Casa Grande & Lakeville -
eliminates concern re: bus stop.
Commissioner Monteschio:
• Like mixed use - concerned about traffic.
• Would also like to see a post - occupancy study on shared parking to make judgments
from. Willing to give up some parking for a playing field.
• Noise mitigation applies to entire project.
• Sustainability included within the residential component.
Commissioner Glass:
• Like mixed use - will cut down on traffic, residents will have opportunity to walk to
work.
• Would like some units (possibly townhouses) offered for individual ownership.
• Concerned about traffic - feel in some ways it's going to be self - mitigating -
Petaluma, however, needs a complete and thorough Traffic Analysis.
• Parking concerns because often garages become storage space instead of parking
space - possibly land banking concept where it is easy to convert.
• Point out other neighboring businesses in rental agreement that is signed by tenant.
• Recommend that our Council Member take the recommendation for drafting an
Ordinance to protect the right to work.
Commissioner O'Brien: In response to request for Council to draft a Right to Work
Ordinance - have sent a Right to Work the River Ordinance to staff for review so we can
protect the businesses on the River. Think it can be very easily modified as we go
through the changing mixed -use developments. Would be happy to put that forward.
28
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 Chair Broad:
2 • Need specific Right to Work language regarding the surrounding uses preceding this
3 development continuing their business and the right to sell to a like business to
4 continue the same type of use or comparable.
5 • Agree that rental agreement should include explicit language about the nature of
6 surrounding uses.
7 ® Strongly encourage approval for rental units only - PUD to have an amendment if
8 units changed from rental to owner- occupied.
9 ® Don't want to second guess parking requirements. In units with tandem parking,
10 residents will probably use some space for storage and will use on street parking.
11 • Appropriate to include the amount of fill in the Initial Study under "Earth" Section
12 and /or in the "Transportation Section" because of the number of truckloads required.
13 • Feasibility of impact fees related to construction or projects requiring heavy burden
14 on our roadways to begin reducing our deferred maintenance costs.
15 Y Factor mixed use into the impact on intersections and look at other ideas for
16 addressing intersections, which experience most severe reduction in service.
17 ® Include language for SPARC to look at amount of turf versus lower water requiring
18 surface as well as the amount of on -site recreation opportunities on their final review.
19 ® Agree noise mitigation should apply to entire project.
20 ® SPARC to look at the whole development on the design of the edges and the way it
21 relates to the surrounding land uses to make sure the design minimizes conflicts with
22 surrounding uses due to noise, visibility or whatever impact.
23 ® Have City Attorney look at CC &Rs before they are finalized, specifically for
24 language related to protection of surrounding land uses.
25 • SPARC to look at having sustainability in the residential component - open terms.
26
27 General question for staff regarding a General Plan Amendment. Do we have a
28 methodology on a General Plan Amendment for looking at the amount of land in one
29 designation and the proposed change to figure out if we are making a change that is going
30 to lower our inventory on one type of land designated for a specific General Plan use to a
31 level that is below the amount that we should have reserved for that use. Would probably
32 involve some type of modeling.
33
34 George White: Don't know if there is a methodology that we can use with this General
35 Plan. Think there is an opportunity, assuming that the General Plan update happens, to
36 use such a methodology. Can suggest to Pamela Tuft.
37 Chair Broad: Would like the City to have a better global approach to how we process
38 General Plan Amendments.
39
40 Commissioner Vouri: Do we have specific Conditions of Approval, such as having
41 CC &Rs regarding Petaluma Poultry and the Trucking firm signed as a separate document
42 and any of the other concerns that the Commissioners have expressed.
43
44 Commissioner Barrett: Would not want to restrict it to Poultry Processing and the
45 Trucking company - do not want to miss anything - want everyone protected. In terms of
29
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
specific conditions would like to ask that a school bus stop be moved from Casa Grande
to Technology.
Chair Broad: Do not know if we can establish specific location of a school bus stop.
School district decides.
Commissioner O'Brien: The Highway Patrol sets location for bus stops. School District
can say where they want the stop and Highway Patrol will go out and either approve or
disapprove. The way school bus stop are selected is for the safety of the children.
George White: Did not hear a consensus on all items. If commission could clarify.
• Language of CC &Rs regarding the Right to Work and protection of surrounding
property owners. Specific language presented to the Council to review so the
surrounding property owners can see how the language has been crafted. Separate
form for tenants to sign as part of rental agreement.
• Ask the developer to petition school district/Highway Patrol for a new bus stop on
Casa Grande @ Technology Lane.
• Traffic Engineer to look at the mixed use aspect of project and see if it affected the
level of service figures and to look at intersections which were declining to Level of
Service D or lower to see if there were mitigation measures that might be feasible.
• Post occupancy evaluation of project 1 -year out. Are sustainable elements working,
can we reduce parking, etc.
• SPARC look, at relationship of project to the edges in more detail - amount of turf
area versus less water - needing planting areas and amount of recreational activities.
• Amphitheater and public green shall count toward public seating.
• Noise protection includes all residential units.
• PUD approval is for rental property - cannot become owner- occupied at the
developer's discretion. Would require a PUD amendment to make that change.
• Modification to Initial Study to reference potential for the amount of fill to be
deposited on site. Explain in the narrative and why it was not a significant impact.
A motion was made by Commissioner Monteschio and seconded by Commissioner Vouri
to forward the project as amended, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration, on to
the City Council for approval.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Chair Broad: Yes
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
30
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
2 DECLARATION
4 Park Central
5 Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway
6 APN 005 - 040 -049
7 Project File No(s). GPA00005; REZ00004; SPC00090; TPM00007, and ZOA00002
Lml'
to Mitigated Negative Declaration
11
12 1. That based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project
13 have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by
14 the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts
15 to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports
16 a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, would have a
17 significant effect on the environment.
18
19 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
20 in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively; and is
21 exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on existing
22 undeveloped site surrounded by urban development.
23
24 3. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
25 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
26 Code.
27
28 4. That the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Initial Study and
29 considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project.
30
31 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance
32 with the adopted mitigation measures.
33
34 6. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for
35 public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English
36 Street, Petaluma, California.
37
38 Mitigation Measures
39
4o All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Park Central proposal,
41 are herein incorporated (see Attachment 4, Initial Study).
42
43
44 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
45
46 Park Central
47 Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway
31
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 APN 005- 040 -049
2 Project File No(s). GPA00005; REZ00004; SPC00090; TPM00007, and ZOA00002
4 1. That the proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest to provide for
5 orderly development of appropriate commercial, office, and residential uses. The
6 Mixed -Use designation allows a broader range of uses to be developed at this site.
7 The Mixed -Use designation at this location will not create a nuisance to existing
8 surrounding uses.
9
l0 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the
11 rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
12
13 The Mixed -Use designation at this site incorporates the policies to develop
14 underutilized properties of the General Plan. The Park Central proposal will help
15 the City further the objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. The
16 project as proposed supports a number of Policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
17
18 3. That the potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and
19 have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
20
21 An Initial Study was prepared for the General Plan Amendment of the site from
22 Industrial to Mixed -Use. Based upon the Initial Study, a determination was made
23 that there were no significant environmental effects.
24
25 4. That the proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the
26 applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California
27 Environmental Quality Act.
28
29 The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
30 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
31 Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts
32 generated by the proposed Park Central Planned Community District.
33
34 5. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
35 an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from ML -Light
36 Industrial to Planned Community District. Based upon the Initial Study, a
37 determination was made that no significant environmental effects would result. A
38 copy of this notice was published in the Argus Courier and provided to residents
39 and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA
40 requirements.
41
42 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR REZONING FROM ML -LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO
43 PCD- PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
44
45 Park Central
46 Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway
47 AM 005- 040 -049
32
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 Project File No(s). GPA00005; REZ00004; SPC00090; TPM00007, and ZOA00002
2
3 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
4 rezone the subject parcel from ML - Light Industrial to PCD - Planned
5 Community District will result in a more desirable use of land and a better
6 physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
7 combination of zoning districts.
8
9 The proposed uses comply with the Mixed Use General Plan designation, which
10 allows for a combination of residential, commercial or retail uses on one parcel.
1l Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of the PCD -
12 Planned Community District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance.
13
14 2. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be
15 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
16 rezoning the Park Central site to Planned Community District.
17
18 The Planned Community District Guidelines/Development Standards describe
19 permitted and conditional uses as well as those, which would not otherwise be
20 allowed to be established at this location. This specific list of uses prevents the
21 creation of any nuisance to the existing surrounding uses.
22
23 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
24 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated
25 Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential
26 impacts generated by the proposed Park Central Planned Community District.
27
28 4. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
29 an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from ML -Light
30 Industrial to Planned Community District. Based upon the Initial Study, a
31 determination was made that no significant environmental effects would result. A
32 copy of this notice was published in the Argus Courier and provided to residents
33 and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA
34 requirements.
35
36 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PCD - PLANNED COMMUNITY
37 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
38
39 Park Central
40 Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway
41 APN 005- 040 -049
42 Project File No(s). GPA00005; REZ00004; SPC00090; TPM00007, and ZOA00002
43
44 1. That the PUD Development Standards allow for the continued operation of the
45 existing uses, and will result in more appropriate and compatible uses in the
46 district.
47
33
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The proposed PCD will allow for a mix of uses commercial, office and residential
that is compatible with the existing surroundings uses. Design
guidelines /development standards have been prepared to ensure that the proposed
uses and structures are compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposal
results in a more desirable use of the land than would be possible under any single
zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The PCD would provide a
group of commercial, office and residential uses to supply the day -to -day needs of
the surrounding area.
2. That the plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized
arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent or nearby properties, and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is
included to ensure compatibility. Conditions have been incorporated requiring
design and development standards that are compatible with neighboring ..
developments.
3. That the proposed project has complied with the requirements of CEQA through
the preparation and adoption of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for this project, which addresses the potential environmental
impacts associated with its development, and no further environmental analysis is
necessary.
In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from ML - Light
Industrial to PCD - Planned Community District. Based upon the Initial Study, a
determination was made that no significant environmental effects would result.
4. Adequate available public and private spaces are designated on the Planned
Community District Development Plan. Through mitigation measures and project
conditions, adequate building setbacks and other project amenities are provided.
The Planned Community District provides for specific design criteria and
development standards, which regulate the proposed development of the site.
5. The development of the subject property project in the manner proposed by the
applicant, and as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be
in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and
spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, and with the Petaluma
General Plan.
The project, as conditioned, complies with the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code and the General Plan. Both the Fire Marshal and the Engineering
Section have prepared conditions of approval to address fire safety issues, and
design criteria for the construction of the buildings.
6. The Park Central proposal will help the City further the objectives, policies and
programs of the Petaluma General Plan.
34
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2 The project as proposed supports a number of Policies of the Petaluma General
3 Plan such as:
4
5 Community Character Element.
6
7 Policy 27. The City shall require the provisions of privately owned open space in
8 residential developments of more than 15 units were made necessary by project
9 density or design, or lack or proximity to public parks and open space. The
10 proposed Park Central project will benefit from public and private open space
11 within the project site and within proximity to public parks. The green forms the
12 focal point of the commercial/office portion of the site, with public access to its
13 park setting, amphitheater, and kiosk. The residential potion of the neighborhood
14 offers substantial private open space and a recreation center to the residents. The
15 subject property is in close proximity to Rocky Dog Park, Adobe creek and
16 Shollenberger Park. The project will provide bike lanes along both sides of Casa
17 Grande Road from Lakeville Highway to the old tallow plant and along both sides
18 of Technology Lane.
19
20 Land Use and Growth Management Element.
21
22 Policy 23. Convenience shopping in proximity to residential shall be encouraged.
23 The project will provide neighborhood- oriented shopping in approximately 22,205
24 square feet of commercial space adjacent to the office buildings and about one
25 block from the residential area.
26
27 Policy 28. The City shall support residential development only in those areas
28 where adequate City facilities are available or will be provided with development.
29 Park central will rely on new site infrastructure just constructed to .serve a
30 previously approved business park. All roads and utilities have adequate capacity
31 to serve the proposed development.
32
33 Open Space, Conservation, and Energy Element.
34
35 Policy 25. Developers shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control during
36 construction. The developer will be required to conform to City and State
37 regulations by providing an erosion control and storm water pollution prevention
38 plan, which shall be adhered throughout the project construction.
39
40 Park and Recreation Element.
41
42 Policy 5. The city should provide park sites to respond to the needs of a diverse
43 population. The needs include creek side systems; trail ways for pedestrians,
44 joggers, and bicyclists, and non - traditional types of recreation such as habitat
45 restoration projects, community gardens, and skateboarding. The proposed
46 project will provide private and public open spaces within the project. The
35
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
proposed project includes the installation of bikeways and is in close proximity to
Rocky Dog Park, Adobe Creek and Shollenberger Park.
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Park Central
Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway
APN 005 - 040 -049
Project File No(s). GPA00005; REZ00004; SPC00090; TPM00007, and ZOA00002
1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision
Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act.
2. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare.
Adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including sidewalks, water,
sewer, storm drains and other infrastructure.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development
proposed.
4. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will
occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
5. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there would be no significant
environmental impacts.
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Park Central
Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway
APN 005- 040 -049
Project File No(s). GPA00005; REZ00004; SPC00090; TPM00007, and ZOA00002
From the Planning Division:
1. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 87 bicycle - parking stalls. Plans
submitted at time of final SPARC approval shall include a minimum of 35
covered exterior bicycle parking stalls throughout the project site with some
located at building entrances for the office /commercial areas for review by the
SPARC Committee. At time of submittal for tenant improvements, the applicant
shall provide 52 interior secure bicycle parking spaces to be located throughout
each of the buildings for review and approval by the Planning Division. Prior to
36
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
final Certificate of Occupancy, planning staff shall ensure that the required
number of bicycle parking spaces has been installed.
2. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 50 bicycle - parking stalls for the
residential units. Plans submitted at time of final SPARC approval shall include a
minimum of 20 covered exterior bicycle - parking stalls throughout the residential
potion of the project site. At time of submittal for building permit for the
residential units, the applicant shall provide a minimum of 30 interior secure
bicycle parking spaces. Portions of the covered exterior bicycle parking stalls
shall be provided closer than the visitor parking area and each of the townhouses
shall provide interior bicycle parking available at ground level (e.g., locked
storage rooms on the first floor for each unit and/or garages). Prior to final
Certificate of Occupancy, planning staff shall ensure that the required number of
bicycle parking spaces has been installed.
3. Plans submitted for building permit for tenant improvements shall provide a
minimum of four (4) showers in each of the three 60,000 square foot buildings
and two (2) shower stalls in the 29,000 square foot building for review and
approval by the Planning Division. The applicant shall also be required at time of
submittal of plans for tenant improvements to provide 87 clothes lockers, which
shall be divided evenly among the shower areas. Prior to final Certificate of
Occupancy, planning staff shall ensure that the required number of shower stalls
and clothes lockers have been installed.
4. Plans submitted for final SPARC approval shall include a photometric plan for all
exterior lighting, including the building, parking lot, landscape and pedestrian
lighting. Said plan shall include a detail of the types of fixtures to be installed for
review and approval by the planning staff. The lighting plan shall be reviewed in
regards to the Site Plan and Architectural Review standards for lighting as well as
the lighting standards outlined in the Bike Plan (Objective O; Policy 39, 40 and
41).
5. Plans submitted for final SPARC review shall include one water fountain along
Technology Lane. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Planning shall
ensure that the required water fountain has been installed.
6. Plans submitted for final SPARC review shall provide enough outdoor seating
(benches and /or tables, the public green and/or amphitheater areas may be
counted as required outdoor seating) to accommodate a total of 160 persons
around the office /commercial areas. The applicant shall be required to place
benches and/or tables along the central promenade street area on both sides to
enhance the pedestrian quality. The applicant shall also be required to install
benches and /or tables along other public areas. Outdoor seating shall be installed
and reviewed by the Planning Division prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each individual tenant, the
applicant shall provide documentation, which shall be given to the tenants, which
37
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
encourages "Incentive for Employees /Customers to Walk/Bike to Work" for
review by the planning staff.
8. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding
pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management
techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be
required when pesticide/herbicide use occurs that appropriate signed be installed
warning pedestrians.
9. Plans submitted for building permit for tenant improvements shall include on -site
facilities for food storage, preparation and eating and shall be reviewed by
planning staff.
10. The owner shall participate with Steelhead in providing and maintaining a sign
board/kiosk with map(s) (comparable in size to the entry sign at Shollenberger) at
the end of the cul -de -sac at Technology Lane, fully informing
bicyclists /pedestrians of the routes to and any other pertinent information
regarding all the public facilities ahead, including the Adobe Creek Path,
Shollenberger Park, the future Marina Trail, and its proximity to the Petaluma
River, the bird sanctuary, and Rocky Dog Park.
11. The owner shall provide a sign on Casa Grande facing the Tallow property corner
and a sign facing incoming traffic from Lakeville, directing bicyclists /pedestrians
to Technology Lane as the bicycle route to the Adobe Creek Trail. Said sign shall
be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Planning
Department review.
12. The owner shall provide a sign on Lakeville directing bicyclists /pedestrians to
Casa Grande as a route to the Adobe Creek Trail and Shollenberger. Said signs
shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Planning
Department review.
13. The owner shall clearly sign all Class 11 lanes. Said signs shall be installed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Planning Department review.
14. The owner shall provide appropriate curb cuts from Lakeville to access the
commercial area and the interior roads to this project. Said curb cuts shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Planning Division review.
15. The owner shall provide unimpeded access and a curb cut at the end of the
parking area as it joins Technology Lane's cul -de -sac. Said curb cuts shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Planning Division review.
16. This project shall not fence itself off from the surrounding parcels /roads in such a
manner as impedes free through- travel in all directions.
38
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
2 17. Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to illustrate that the northerly
3 driveway on Casa Grande Road is located further away from the intersection of
4 Lakeville Highway and shall be subject to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic
5 Engineer.
6
7 18. Plans submitted for building permit shall include traffic calming measures such as
8 undulations or diversions to reduce the length of uninterrupted segments of
9 parking lot aisles. Said traffic calming measures shall be subject to the
10 satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer and shall be installed prior to issuance
11 of a Certificate of Occupancy.
12
13 19. Any work or traffic control proposed within State right -of -way will require an
14 encroachment permit. The applicant shall be required prior to issuance of
15 building permits to obtain any necessary permit from Caltrans.
16
17 20. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the of the Mitigated
18 Negative Declaration (Resolution N.C.S.) for the Park Central project
19 are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval.
20
21 21. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of
22 Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to
23 the County Clerks. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the
24 County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval.
25
26 22. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a plan sheet, which shall contain
27 all conditions of approval/mitigation measures for review by the Planning
28 Division.
29
30 23. The developer shall be required, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
31 to provide written documentation that they have sent a petition/letter to the Old
32 Adobe School District requesting a school bus stop be provided on Casa Grande
33 Road @ Technology Lane to be reviewed by the Planning Division.
34
35 24. The applicant shall be required to revise the PCD- Planned Community District
36 Development Standards for review by the Planning Division prior to the issuance
37 of a Certificate of Occupancy, requiring that the residential portion of the project
38 remain rental units unless a PCD Amendment is approved.
39
40 25. The developer and the planning staff shall provide written documentation of a
41 one-year and five-year post project survey regarding the mixed use concept of
42 shared parking, live- work/home occupancy, etc. for review by the Planning
43 Commission as an Agenda discussion item.
44
45 26. All of the residential units shall be constructed using appropriate construction
46 techniques and materials to achieve compliance with the noise standards for
47 interior living area (45 dBA maximum noise level) and the General Plan standard
39
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 for exterior yards (60 dBA). Placement of buildings to shield roadway noise from
2 exterior yards and /or installation of a sound wall shall be required to meet
3 General Plan Noise Standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
4 developer shall provide an acoustical report prepared by a qualified acoustical
5 engineer, which demonstrates that the building construction will meet both
6 interior and exterior noise standards. The report shall stipulate the noise control
7 treatments included in the design and that the buildings, as designed, comply with
8 the State Building Code related to environmental noise.
9
10 27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Site Plan and Architectural Review -
11 Committee (SPARC) shall review the entire landscaping plan, and in doing so
12 look at reducing the amount of turf area, reviewing the adequacy of the types and
13 amount of recreational amenities. SPARC to also review the design of the edges
14 of the project to minimize land use conflicts, such as noise impacts.
15
16 28. The developer shall submit to the City Planning Division additional language to
17 be contained in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) regarding
18 the right of existing uses in the project vicinity to continue to operate. The
19 language shall include such information as the acknowledgement of existing uses,
20 the characteristic of their operations, the potential impacts of these operations on
21 the project site, hours of operation, anticipated noise levels as well as types of
22 noise and the possibility that these uses may continue indefinitely into the future
23 or be replaced by similar uses. This language shall be reviewed and approved by
24 the City Attorney prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
25
26 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
27
28 1. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon size, unless otherwise specified
29 smaller (5 gallon) may be considered in areas not subject to high pedestrian
30 access or based on site specific and design purposes and larger (24" box sized)
31 and installed to City planting and staking standards; trees may be required in
32 highly visible areas; all shrubs shall be five gallon size. All planted areas not
33 improved with lawn or other groundcover material shall be protected with a two -
34 inch deep organic mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is
35 established.
36 2. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
37 irrigation system.
38 3. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance
39 shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris
40 and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be
41 replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with
42 applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully
43 maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and
44 replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas,
45 and health and vitality of landscape materials.
40
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 4. A master landscape plan of the street frontage areas shall be provided, to staff
2 approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan shall include
3 street trees with planting design and species to staff approval. Landscape shall be
4 installed to City standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
5 5. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets or
6 walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval.
7 6. All street trees and other plant materials within the public right -of -way shall be
8 subject to inspection by the project landscape architect or designer prior to
9 installation and by City staff prior to acceptance by the City, for conformance
10 with the approved quality specifications.
11 7. All tree stakes and ties shall be removed within one year following installation or
12 as soon as trees are able to stand erect without support.
13 8. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water
14 Agency's Design Criteria.
15 9. Public utility access and easement locations and widths shall be subject to
16 approval by PG &E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service
17 companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans.
18 10. Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed
19 under paving or as close as possible to private driveways, to avoid conflict with
20 street tree planting locations within the street right -of -way. Transformer vaults,
21 fire hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows
22 reasonable implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project
23 without compromising public safety.
24 11. All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
25 Department of Public Works.
26 12. a. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance
27 and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
28 b. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards
29 specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma
30 Zoning Ordinance and the 1987 General Plan.
31 13. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as
32 required by staff.
i
33 14. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work
34 shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for
35 evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian
36 community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological
37 remains are uncovered.
41
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1 15. The colors and exterior materials of construction of the new building /addition and
2 the existing building shall match.
3 16. The roof materials and pitch of the proposed building roof shall match the
4 existing building.
5 17. Any future color schemes that vary from those approved shall be subject to staff
6 or SPARC review.
7 18. External downspouts shall be painted to match background building colors.
8 Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable
9 staining of walls (overflow scuppers are excepted).
10 19. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
11 approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light
12 against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no
13 direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet height, etc.) and shall compliment
14 building architecture.
15 20. Foundations and floor plans shall be stepped so as to keep buildings close to
16 (within 2 feet) and natural grade.
17 21. All aboveground meters and transformers shall be shown on plans and screened
18 with landscaping materials subject to approval of the Planning Department. Any
19 combination of earth berms, retaining walls and landscaping may be used to
20 accomplish said screening.
21 22. Temporary protective fencing shall be erected 5' outside the drip line of all trees
22 to be preserved/protected and all trees (on neighboring property) in proximity to
23 construction activities. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5' in height and shall
24 be secured with in- ground posts subject to staff inspection prior to grading permit
25 issuance and any grading /construction activity.
26 23. A reproducible copy of the finalize PUD Development Plan and written PUD
27 Standards incorporating all project conditions of approval, shall be submitted to
28 the Planning Department prior to issuance of development permits /Final Map
29 recordation.
3o 24. A reproducible copy of the Tentative Subdivision Map, reflecting all adopted
31 conditions of approval, shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30
32 days of SPARC approval of the project/prior to Final Map application.
33 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
34 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
35 proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
36 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
37 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
38 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants of any
42
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's
fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
From the Engineering Section:
1. Frontage improvements along Lakeville Highway shall include curb, gutter,
sidewalk, streetlights, drainage improvements, etc. The access to the property
from Lakeville Highway shall be a right turn in only with no exit. Public storm
drain systems on Lakeville Hwy. shall directly connect to the existing public
storm drain system and shall be approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency.
2. Sidewalks shall be required along all streets adjacent to the subdivision including
Lakeville Hwy., Casa Grande Rd., Technology Lane and Telecom Lane.
3. The existing public street configuration shall not change.
4. Streetlights shall be installed along Telecom Lane and Lakeville Hwy.
5. No excavation shall be allowed in the newly constructed streets (Lakeville, Casa
Grande, Technology and Telecom).
6. The entrance to the commercial site from Casa Grande Rd. shall be at least 200
feet from the intersection of Lakeville Highway.
7. Parking shall be allowed on Casa Grande Rd. from the end to Technology Lane
and on the south side of Technology Lane from Casa Grande Rd. to the cul -de-
sac. No parking signs shall be posted in all other locations.
8. Site grading shall conform to the soils investigation report. Erosion control plans
shall be required as part of the improvement plans.
9. Existing or proposed public water, sanitary sewer or storm drain systems shall be
contained within easements. The easements and /or access to the easements shall
be paved with an all weather surface.
10. Provide a maintenance declaration for Parcel A (common area).
11. Pedestrian crossing facilities shall be installed across Lakeville Highway and shall
be included in the subdivision improvement plans.
12. The improvement plans and final map shall be prepared per the latest City
policies, ordinances, resolutions, codes and standards.
From the Fire Marshal:
43
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Listed below are fire protection requirements for the above - mentioned project:
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
1. To avoid requests for subsequent submittals, please show or note all Fire Department
requirements on plans submitted for building permit.
2. Post address numbers on or near main entry door. Numbers to be a minimum of four
inches high with contrasting background. Must be legible and visible from street.
3. Provide one 2AIOBC rated fire extinguisher for each 3000 square feet. There shall be
no more than 75 feet travel distance from any location to a fire extinguisher.
4. Provide a KNOX BOX for fire department access. KNOX BOX shall contain keys or
access codes to each building.
5. The building/s shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by
the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central station alarm monitoring,
which will notify the fire department in the event of water flow. In addition, a local
alarm shall be provided on the exterior and interior of the building.
6. A permit is required from the Fire Marshal for the installation or alteration of a fire
sprinkler system prior to the commencement of work. A minimum of two sets of
plans with calculations is required to be submitted for review and approval.
7. Fire sprinkler systems installed in buildings of undetermined occupancy /use shall be
designed and installed to provide a density of .33 gallons per minute per square foot,
over a minimum design area of 3,000 square feet.
8. Contractors installing underground fire sprinkler mains shall obtain a permit and
submit 2 sets of plans for approval prior to commencing work. A hydrostatic test of
200 psi for two hours is required prior to backfill. All joints shall be visible at time of
inspection. Underground installations shall be flushed to fire department satisfaction
prior to connection to overhead. NOTE: Civil utility plans and /or other plans
approved, or not, will not be accepted in lieu of the above requirement.
9. Contractors shall obtain Petaluma City Water Department approval prior to charging
onsite underground water mains.
10. All contractors shall have a city business license and a workers compensation
certificate on file with the Fire Marshal's office.
11. See notes in red on site plan indicating no parking /fire lane.
12. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed shall be designated by painting
curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be
installed.
44
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2 13. No combustible construction above the foundation is allowed unless an approved
3 asphalt surfaced road is provided to within 150 feet of the furthest point of a structure
4 and the fire hydrants have been tested, flushed, and are in service.
5
6 14. Provide approved illuminated exit signs at all required exits.
7
8 15. Provide emergency lighting as required by the Fire Marshal.
9
1 o 16. All emergency lighting and illuminated exit signs shall have two separate sources of
11 power as required by the UBC.
12
13 17. Provide panic hardware on required exit doors. No additional locks are allowed on
14 these doors unless they are interconnected with the panic hardware and approved by
15 the Fire Marshal.
16
17 18. A permit is required for fire alarm system installations and alterations. Submit two
18 sets of plans to Fire Marshal for approval prior to commencing work.
19
20 19. Businesses intending to store, use, handle, or dispense hazardous materials shall
21 submit to the Fire Marshal the enclosed hazardous material declaration form. If no
22 hazardous materials will be used, stored, handled, or dispensed so state on the form.
23. This declaration form must be submitted prior to approval of plans.
24
25 20. Any building or portion of a building used for "High Piled Combustible Storage"
26 shall conform to the requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code. A permit
27 from the Fire Marshal is required for such storage.
28
29 21. Fire alarm system shall be connected to a central station monitor, which will notify
30 the fire department in the event of an alarm.
31
32 22. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure or fire department sprinkler
33 connection shall be in excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant.
34
35 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
36
37 1. The building /s shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by
38 the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central station alarm monitoring,
39 which will notify the fire department in the event of water flow. In addition, a local
40 alarm shall be provided on the exterior and interior of the building.
41
42 2. Sprinkler plans are required for each residential model or additional structure within a
43 subdivision. Permits and fees are required for each installation of the subdivision
44 building.
45
46 3. A permit is required for fire alarm system installations and alterations. Submit two
47 sets of plans to Fire Marshal for approval prior to commencing work.
45
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4. Fire alarm system shall be connected to a central station monitor, which will notify
the fire department in the event of an alarm.
5. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure or fire department sprinkler
connection shall be in excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant.
6. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed shall be designated by painting
curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be
installed.
7. Any building constructed in excess of 150 feet from a public way, where an approved
20 -foot driveway cannot be provided, shall be protected with a fire sprinkler system
in accordance with NFPA -13.
8. All access shall meet City of Petaluma street turn radius standards.
9. Alarm systems shall meet 1998 California Uniform Fire and Building Codes, 1999
NFPA -72.
10. This plan has been reviewed with the information supplied; subsequent plan submittal
for review may be subject to additional requirements as plans are revised.
11. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please feel free to contact
this office at 707 - 778 -4389.
From the Building Division:
1. The applicant shall provide handicapped parking for each non - residential building
and for all multi - family dwelling building.
2. Building Division will have other comments during building plan check.
From the Police Department:
1. The parking garage shall display the clearance height at the entrance to the
garage. Said sign shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for review by the Police Department.
2. The applicant shall install prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a private
property sign in accordance with 22658 (a) CVC and 22651 (a) (1) CVC.
3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the
Police Department property management information for emergency contact
purposes should a problem occur.
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
4. Lighting throughout the garage and the business park shall be vandal proof and
shall not be pressure sodium vapor type lighting due to color distortion.
From Water Resources and Conservation:
1. No construction in Sewer Forced main easement without prior approval from the
Director of Water Resources.
2. All utilities in the commercial section will be privately maintained. Install new
sewer manhole at the junction of Technology Lane and Telecom Lane on 10"
sewer.
3. Water lines in residential section will be master metered under compliance of all
City Standards, or at developers request all of the residential units shall be
individually metered in compliance with all City Standards. No private sub -
metering or re -sale of water will be considered by the City of Petaluma.
4. All City of Petaluma water and sewer utility easements will have an all
weathered -paved surface over them and no obstructions over them such as
building overhangs or trees.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised set of utility plans to Manager of Water
Resources for approval before any construction.
OTHER NEW BUSINESS
II. FISHER DRIVE RIGHT -OF -WAY ABANDONMENT (BETWEEN
CADER LANE AND SOUTH McDOWELL BLVD.)
File ABN00001)
Project Engineer: Craig Spaulding
Craig Spaulding presented the staff report. Report is required to be sent to all
departments and utility companies. Any conditions of the abandonment will be taken
care of at the Council level. Staff recommends that the Commission find the
abandonment in conformance with our General Plan.
Commissioner Barrett: Asked the entrance onto the property with the proposed
reconfiguration?
Gordon Briggs, Project Manager for RNM. Properties: Showed the entrances to the site.
This application was initiated as the result of a SPARC meeting in 1998 when we
evaluating a development for the site. Instead of having several small lots bordering the
creek, we would utilize it to a much better degree.
A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri made and seconded by Commissioner
Barrett to approve the abandonment of Fisher Drive.
47
Planning Commission Minutes - April 10, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Yes
Commissioner Monteschio: yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Chair Broad: Yes
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
COMMISSION BUSINESS
IV. Discussion and possible action relating to the Zoning Administrator's
authority in interpreting City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
(Continued from March 27, 2001 meeting.)
Discussion regarding the remainder of the Agenda- - should items be moved to the next
meeting
George White: No new business scheduled on the next agenda. No public hearing items.
The only thing on the agenda will be the remaining items from tonight's agenda.
Commissioner Vouri: Suggested handling Agenda Item IV this evening because of the
timeliness of the situation.
The remainder of the Agenda was continued to the April 24, 2001 meeting
V. Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding the
applicability to future projects of the "illustrative concept plan" in the Draft
Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
(Continued from March 27, 2001 meeting).
IV. LIAISON REPORTS: None.
Adjournment: 11:02 PM
SAPC- Planning Commission \Minutes \pcminutes4 -10- Ol.doc
48