HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/14/1995City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
City Of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1995
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 PM
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Present Feibusch, Rahman*, Barlas (left at 10:OOPM), Thompson,
Torliatt, vonRaesfeld; Absent: Wick
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
* Chairman
MINUTES of October 24, 1995 were approved as corrected.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Working on resolution of Petaluma Queen outstanding issues;
including floating commissary issue; brief discussion of upcoming agendas; 329 Walnut
Street - appealed - will go to Council in December.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt - when will we receive
Lafferty information? ( Planning Director Tuft - within 2 -3 weeks of meeting); Chairman
Rahman discussed upcoming agendas, length of meetings, importance of upcoming
projects - implications of number of meetings - hard on staff; Commissioners - requested
that public try to keep comments to the point.
CORRESPONDENCE: 10 letters regarding Blue Mountain Center of Meditation; Memo
from Fire Marshal regarding Blue Mountain project; 1 letter regarding Kodiak Jack's;
memo from staff regarding revised elevations for Westrim Products; letter from Van
Bebber Bros. regarding Westrim Products; letter from Ron Kincaid regarding Oakmont
project; 3 letters regarding West View Estates.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
1
2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
4
5 L KODIAK JACK'S HONKY TONK AND SALOON; WAYNE VIELER; 256
6 PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH; AP NO. 006 - 284 -036; FILE NO. CUP0159.
7
8 Continued (from Planning commission meeting of October 24) consideration of an
9 appeal by Wayne Vieler of the Planning Director's amendment to the existing
10 Conditional Use Permit to authorize an alternative parking standard and an
1.1 expansion of commercial recreation uses.
12
13 The public hearing was continued:
14
15 SPEAKERS:
16
17 Planning Director Tuft - stated no changes in staff recommendations from 10/24/95
18 Planning Commission meeting; requested that Planning Commission reopen the appeal
19 hearing with Mr. Vieler's continued testimony.
20 Wayne Vieler - Owner, Kodiak Jack's - presented 268 petition signatures in support of
21 appeal; discussed changes made to building to keep sound from leaving building; discussed
22 speaker size, placement; sound directed away from front of building; made many voluntary
23 changes not required in acoustic study; submitted photos of speaker placement; spent over
24 $17,000 for acoustic modifications; complaints from neighbors occur every time an
25 application is made to City for modifications; held "hostage" by neighbors in nearby
26 residential areas; Petaluma Police have only responded to one serious call - 8 calls in 1 1/2
27 years; less than 50% of Police calls of other similar clubs in Petaluma; discussed original
28 Use Permit conditions; after trial period, no further extension of trial period was necessary
29 as of May 12, 1995; Planning Department was directed by City Council to allow an
30 expansion of live entertainment use; Planning staff is requiring more conditions regarding a
31 new trial period, etc.; City Council did not direct Planning Department to require new trial
32 period or to reduce live entertainment during weekdays; IOPM limit will not work -
33 requests 11PM during week, live music until IAM; live music does not create more of a
34 sound disturbance than recorded music; complaints from neighbors state that if use is
35 expanded, there will be more problems outdoors; Petaluma Police have agreed to provide
36 a "presence" to ensure patrons leave in a quiet fashion at 1:30AM; has inherited reputation
37 from previous (Kicker's) business; has made reasonable requests; has reviewed parking
38 requirements with City Traffic Engineer - Staffs parking ratio does not include availability
39 of on- street, public parking spaces; 44.5% of patrons do not require parking spaces
40 provided by Kodiak Jack's - paying for parking spaces not being used by his patrons;
41 hardship created by parking required by City.
42 Leif Rhodes - 865 Brigham Ave., Santa Rosa - Acoustical Engineering Consultant -
43 Kodiak Jack's business is very different from Kicker's operation; found no difference
44 between live and recorded music levels, neither type of music exceeded City of Petaluma
45 noise levels; type of music (Country) does not have very much "low -end bass" which
46 travels most; City of Petaluma has very stringent noise level requirements; other
47 businesses in area are louder than Kodiak Jack's (fans on a nearby building were louder
48 than Kodiak Jack's); extensive work has been done in building; loudest levels recorded
49 was 66 dba (car driving by was 72 dba).
50 Mike Healy - 304 Kentucky - discussed procedural history - asked for repeal of two areas
51 already allowed in existing Conditional Use Permit - neighbors are dealing with parking
52 issue in good faith; supports increase to 600 feet for parking; not trying to create problems
I for Mr. Vieler; parking ratio change cannot be supported; Kodiak Jack's has more square
2 footage now than when they first opened; cannot use analogy to a dance hall - this
3 business is much more than a dance hall; Bank Shot Billiards will be opening soon and
4 substantially less public parking will be available; encourages City to maintain one space
5 for 2.5 patrons as a requirement; substantial improvements have been made regarding
6 noise generation (interior noise escaping) has improved - exterior noise has not improved;
7 regarding live music component - do not allow IOPM closing on weeknights to be
8 changed; regarding types of live entertainment - objects to male and female reviews -
9 generates very loud noises.
io Kim Goodson - Pepperwood Lane - supports Kodiak Jack's, management is very
11 considerate of neighbors, very safe, fun place.
12 Lawrence Long�enbaugh - 225 Kentucky Street - not personal attack on Mr. Vieler;
13 Kicker',, was definitely operated in a worse manner; park ing/noiselintensification of use are
14 issues; neighborhood waits 1 -2 years for any action at all; current owner has done a great
15 job, but use can be sold.
16 Nolan Henry - 210 Chapman Lane - complaints (tongue in cheek) about farms, cows,
17 grain mill; Kodiak Jack's needs to be allowed to expand business; Wayne Vieler has gone
18 far above what City has required; patron noise can be a problem with any business; billiard
19 parlor will bring more patron noise; neighborhood should be able to work with business
20 owner more closely.
21 Sam Seward - 1044 Copeland Creek, Rohnert Park - Sonoma State professor and patron
22 of Kodiak Jack's; noise /music levels much quieter than any other bar; visits many of the
23 eating/entertainment establishments in Petaluma - Petaluma downtown area is an
24 established "entertainment area ", parking is not critical, never had a problem parking for
25 Kodiak Jack's.
26
27 The public hearing was closed.
28
29 Commissioner Feibusch - Believes parking is not a problem; does not feel 11PM is
30 unreasonable.
31 Commissioner Torliatt - Issue has been Zoning all along; when Mr. Vieler bought this
32 business, he knew what he was getting into from previous business;
33 Commissioners Thompson and vonRaesfeld agree with Commissioner Torliatt.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Thompson
36 to deny the appeal and approve the amendment to the November 21, 1994 Conditional
37 Use Permit as issued by the Planning Director, based on the findings and subject to the
38 conditions listed below:
39
40 Commissioner Barlas: Yes
41 Commissioner Feibusch: No (felt that 11PM on the weekends would be acceptable)
42 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
43 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
44 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
45 Commissioner Wick: Absent
46 Chairman Rahman: No (agreed with Commissioner Feibusch)
47
48 F indings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
49
50 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
51 CEQA and local guidelines.
52
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
1 2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be
2 avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures (which
3 include limitations on operating characteristics, noise generation, and parking)
4 attached as conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the
5 project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
6
7 3. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in
8 the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively.
9
10 4. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
11 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
12
13 Findings for the Conditional Use Permit
14
15 Alternate Parking Standard
16
17 1. The proposed amendment of the November 21, 1994 Conditional Use Permit to
18 authorize Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk and Saloon to utilize an alternate parking
19 standard has been approved at the rate of one (1) parking space for every three (3)
20 potential occupants. This standard: (1) is consistent with the requirements of
21 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 20 -300 (which provides for 1 space for each
22 50 sq.ft. of dance floor area); (2) is based on and supported by research conducted
23 by the City Traffic Engineer; (3) is appropriate as the business operates as a
24 collection of uses rather than a specific individual use and the Zoning Ordinance
25 (Section 20 -300) allows the Zoning Administrator to assign the number of parking
26 spaces required for "unspecified uses of buildings "; and (4) implements the
27 Planning Commission's determination that this use qualifies for application of this
28 provision of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 20 -300).
29
3o Alternate Off -Site Parking Standard
31
32 2. The proposed use of an alternate standard for an increase in the distance allowed
33 for off -site parking spaces from 300' to a maximum of 1000' can not be permitted,
34 as: (1) no such ability to alter the provisions for off -site parking is available
35 through the Zoning Ordinance except through the variance provision (Section 26-
36 300); (2) a request for a.variance to allow a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance
37 standards (to increase the distance to up to 500' was considered and denied by the
38 Planning Commission; and (3) such a proposal to allow an alternate off -site
39 standard requires a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance..
40
41 Increased Live Entertainment
42
43 3. The proposed amendment of the November 21, 1994 Conditional Use Permit to
44 authorize expansion by Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk and Saloon of its Commercial
45 Recreation uses to authorize additional live entertainment as conditioned to
46 address operating characteristics with limitations imposed through conditions of
47 approval to reduce or avoid impacts on the neighborhood /community, will
48 conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, Article
49 13, which allows Commercial Recreation as a conditional use. The limitations
50 imposed regarding days and hours the live entertainment reflect the constraints
51 present at the site (i.e. proximity to sensitive land uses such as residences) and
52 address the history of noise disruption.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
4. The proposed amendment of the November 21, 1994 Use Permit to authorize
expansion by Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk and Saloon of its Commercial Recreation
uses to authorize additional live entertainment as conditioned will conform to the
requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, which
encourages strategies of historic preservation and economic viability for the
historic downtown.
Amendment to Commercial Recreation
5. The proposed amendment of the November 21, 1994 Conditional Use Permit to
authorize Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk and Saloon to expand its Commercial
Recreation uses to include "arcade" uses (by Zoning Ordinance definition - "the
operation of 4 or more coin, slug or token operated mechanical or video games by
a business at one location or address ") of up to but not exceeding twenty -five (25)
arcade -type games (video games, billiards, pinball, mechanical bull, darts, etc.), are
of limited intensity and therefore will not cause a nuisance as they are an ancillary
entertainment use to the primary use of an Alcoholic Beverage Establishment with
live entertainment, and will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma
Zoning Ordinance, Article 13.
Mitigation Measures
1. All mitigation measures of the November 21, 1994 Conditional Use Permit,
Resolution #94 -309, shall be a part of this Use Permit except as superseded by
these specific mitigation measures.
2. The applicant shall update the security plan currently on file with the City to
address the intensification of commercial recreation and live entertainment uses to
the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The plan shall include, but not be limited to,
the periods of time and staffing levels for security personnel, duties, responsibilities
and qualifications of security staff. The plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Chief of Police within 30 days of the approval of this amendment
to the Conditional Use Permit.
3. The Planning Director and Chief of Police shall be notified by the first day of each
month of the live entertainment calendar, so as to be aware of the nights live
entertainment is to be offered.
4. The applicant shall, for the first six (6) months after this amendment of the CUP,
attend a monthly meeting with a representative of the Planning Department, Chief
of Police, and a neighborhood representative, in order to identify and mitigate any
noise/parking problems and /or neighborhood concerns. The Planning Department
shall schedule and host these monthly meetings. The Planning Director may direct
the applicant to take certain actions and/or to make certain improvements to the
facility to address concerns /issues that are raised during these monthly meetings.
The applicant shall comply with the Planning Director's direction within the time
frame provided. Failure to comply with the direction from the Planning Director
may be cause for revocation of this amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.
5. The applicant shall complete all construction work currently in progress or
recommended with regard to the noise attenuating measures recommended by
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
1 Mullins Acoustics. Proof and inspection of said completion shall be provided to
2 the Planning Director prior to the commencement of any additional commercial
3 recreation uses and additional live entertainment.
4
5 Conditional Use Permit Conditions
6
7 1. All conditions of approval of the November 21, 1994 Use Permit, Resolution #94-
8 309, shall remain in full force (except as modified by the following conditions) and
9 shall be a part of this Use Permit.
10
11 2. The proposed commercial recreation activities, including: live music, comedy acts,
12 male and female revues, game hosts and "M.C's ", theatrical type productions, radio
13 and television promotions, fashion shows & costume games, weddings/banquets,
14 dance troupes and entertainers, and dance competitions in addition to those uses
15 authorized in Resolution 94 -309 shall be the limit of the live entertainment
16 permitted at this site. Any activity not specifically named in the above shall be
17 prohibited without amendment to this CUP. Intensification or expansion of the
18 use, such as provision of additional types of live entertainment, expansion of hours
19 shall require an amendment of this Conditional Use Permit. No "Adult
20 entertainment" activities , as defined in Section 21 -410 through 21- 410.48, shall be
21 permitted without amendment to this CUP.
22
23 3. The proposed arcade games shall not exceed twenty -five (25) in number.
24 Permitted games include video games, billiards, pinball, mechanical bull, darts, and
25 the like. Should question arise, the Planning Director shall determine whether or
26 not specific games are considered to be "arcade games ".
27
28 4. Hours of operation for office use may be seven (7) days per week, 24 hours per
29 day. Hours of operation for the commercial recreation/arcade uses shall be limited
30 to seven (7) days per week, Monday - Friday 56PM - 2AM; Saturday, Sunday
31 9AM - 2AM. Hours of operation for the live entertainment shall be limited to
32 seven (7) days per week as follows: Friday and Saturday 56PM to 2AM; Sunday
33 through Thursday (inclusive) 56PM to IOPM; and Holidays recognized by the City
34 of Petaluma or the day preceding the holiday at the operator's discretion, 56PM to
35 2AM.
36
37 5. Occupancy load shall at no time exceed 299 persons, and shall be based on the
38 ability of the owner /operator to provide parking either on -site or within 300 feet of
39 the property (or other distance as specified in the Zoning Ordinance), based on the
40 ratio of one (1) parking space for every three (3) potential occupants. The
41 owner /operator shall be responsible for maintaining on file with the Planning
42 Department agreements for 100 parking spaces. An increase in occupancy may
43 not occur without the approval of the Planning Director, Fire Marshal, and Chief
44 Building Official, and shall require an amendment to this CUP. Minor changes in
45 occupancy if not more than 5% (cumulatively) may be authorized by the Planning
46 Director without amendment to the CUP.
47
48 Standard Conditional Use Permit Conditions
49
50 6. This use permit amendment may be recalled to the Planning Commission for
51 review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions
a:
F.
I I of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating
2 characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit
3 amendment or add/modify conditions of approval.
4
5 7. The applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
6 boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
7 proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees
8 to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim or
9 action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or
10 local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim,
11 action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing
12 contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of
13 any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs,
14 and the City defends the action in good faith.
15
16
17
18 H. CITY OF PETALUMA; PETALUMA RIVER ACCESS AND
19 ENHANCEMENT PLAN (FILE WRK91034).
20
21 Continued consideration of the Draft River Access and Enhancement Plan
22 (continued from October 10, 1995); hear public testimony, offer Commission
23 comments; continue to November 21, 1995 to take action to recommend adoption.
24
25 The public hearing was opened.
26
27 SPEAKERS:
28
29 Jim Webb - 327 Howard Street - Railing work behind businesses (downtown segment) at
30 water's edge need to be enhanced; submitted drawings.
31 Tom Newton - 10 "G" Street; San Rafael - representing property owner fronting on
32 Industrial Avenue; general recognition that property along the corridor will be acquired;
33 objects to any potential development limitations; concerns regarding Dolan case - plan
34 does not adequately address that case - retained municipal law attorney (Mr. Jordan) to
35 advise property owner on legality of River Plan - submitted letter from attorney; transfer
36 of development potential seem in conflict.
37 Matt Connolly - Chelsea GCA - Factory Outlets - recently acquired property on both sides
38 of Outlets - goal is to feasibly develop all properties; looking forward to river
39 enhancement; planning on presenting plans to Commission at a December meeting;
40 acknowledged staff for work on River Plan.
41
42 The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 21,
43 1995.
44
45
46 NEW BUSINESS
47 PUBLIC HEARINGS
48
49
50 III. BLUE MOUNTAIN MEDITATION CENTER; 600 D STREET; AP NO.
51 008 - 102 -014; (FILE CUP95042) akt).
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
2 Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Conditional Use Permit
3 to allow operation of a religious, cultural center as a retreat facility within the
4 residence at 600 D Street.
6 Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report.
7
8 The public hearing was opened:
9
to SPEAKERS:
11
12 Sultana Harvey - Board of Directors/trustee for Blue Mountain Center of Meditation;
13 presented information on Blue Mountain Meditation teachings; retreats open to public;
14 requests 51 days per year of retreats; described type of client expected; does not plan a
15 for -profit center; when no retreats are being held, members will live in and occupy home;
16 requests some amendments to restrictions recommended for special events.
17 George Beeler - Architect - 4th and D Street, Petaluma; (member of Blue Mountain
18 Meditation Center and architect for project); displayed map of area indicating location of
19 churches; traffic increases will not be noticeable; very little parking demand along 5th and
20 "D" Streets; all parking can be maintained on -site; center willing to replace /repair rear
21 fencing for more privacy; noise will not be a problem; described large setbacks; no security
22 problems anticipated; not a commercial project.
23 Mark McNear - resident of Point Richmond - familiar with Blue Mountain Meditation
24 Center for 10 years; if any neighbors have concerns, they should speak with members,
25 neighbors of Tomales center; all members are very peaceful; asset to community; urges
26 approval of the Use Permit.
27 Terry Kosewic - 826 D Street - D Street is unique to Petaluma, part of historic nature of
28 Petaluma; does not object to members of center; objects to change of character of "D"
29 Street; in 1980, he requested development of second unit, was denied because the City did
30 not want to change character of "D" Street; precedent has already been set to keep "D"
31 Street as solely a single- family neighborhood; this use should not be allowed, it will
32 change character of "D" Street.
33 Ann Reed - 511 B Street - lives across street from Women's Center - different to live
34 across from gathering place instead of a single- family residence; help us save our
35 neighborhood - do not allow this to become anything other than a single - family
36 neighborhood - precedent will be set.
37 Todd Manning - 325 Post Street - concerns with precedent if this is allowed; these people
38 appear to be a very nice group, but maybe the next group won't be.
39 Peter Jarrett - 609 C Street - Blue Mountain group seems to be responsible and nice
40 people; this is not a concern with this group, but with nature of use, it will no longer be a
41 family home; people attending this retreat center will not be from the neighborhood (local
42 churches serve people in neighborhood); reject proposed conditional use permit.
43 Bob Oliker - Attorney retained by several homeowners in neighborhood; issue is not with
44 applicants; primary issue is with proposed use; use permit application is inconsistent with
45 Zoning Ordinance; ZO section 6 -100 - this proposed use cannot be found to be consistent
46 with the Zoning Ordinance; community use Section 21 -300, 21- 303, 21 -305 - use is
47 incompatible with R -1 use; churches in area are community uses; this is not a community
48 use, applicants state that this will be a quasi- public or public use; there is a very large hole
49 in the Zoning Ordinance - no definition of church/religious use; gives figures indicating
50 profits possible from retreats; look at use, not at user; use of this building will not be for
51 public convenience and necessity; there are 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms in this home -
52 where will up to 20 people sleep; if this was a bed and breakfast facility, much more
53 parking would be required (25 spaces would be required); adverse impacts on values to
1 surrounding properties - property values (per certified MAI appraiser) adverse financial
2 impacts would occur to the neighboring properties; cannot make findings for this use
3 permit.
4 John Sturgeon - 6th D - bought property in 1951 - there is already too much traffic in this
5 area now.
6 John Records - 35 TownView Lane - has attended both Blue Mountain retreats and a
7 party at the Sanderson house - retreats were much quieter.
8 Rob Turner - 320 6th St. - this corner is too noisy to meditate; meditation requires quiet -
9 this is not a quiet location.
10 Linda ;Hyland - Burris - pastor, United Church of Christ - you can meditate anywhere if
11 you know how; speaks in favor of this retreat center; a church is a part of the community;
12 not all church members come from immediate neighborhoods.
13 John Morgan - 308 10th St. - lives in neighborhood; previously a Planner for City of
14 Petaluma - familiar with Zoning Ordinance; member of Blue Mountain membership;
15 speaks in support of use; Mr. Oliker's letter contains some mistakes - is this a public or
16 quasi - public use? read definition of quasi- public use from County Zoning Ordinance; this
17 use would not be a detriment to the neighborhood; property values cannot be proven to be
18 lowered by this use; where this use will be different than a single - family use, the
19 caretakers /operators are very stable.
20 Kathleen Kelley - 520 Ely Blvd. South - this use would give us some control over what
21 will go on in this property - urges support.
22 Bruce Bower - 645 D Street - this use will start to destroy this neighborhood; many
23 neighbors have made much effort to keep neighborhood intact; kitchen is very small,
24 would have to be expanded; neighborhood should be able to vote on this use; vote against
25 this use.
26 Ron Boseman - 1040 D Street - Member Board of Directors, Petaluma Museum - visitors
27 in awe of neighborhoods, downtown; an example can be drawn with Mendocino Avenue
28 in Santa Rosa - it is a nightmare - do not allow this use, it would set a precedent -
29 "without you, it's history".
30 Kitt Rosefield - 211 D Street - Submitted letter; looks forward to attending a retreat at
31 this site, and is a neighbor.
32 Cynthia Stanton - 100 6th - heartsick that mediation center does not have a problem with
33 this use in a residential neighborhood; what is it going to take to have the applicant realize
34 that they are not wanted in the neighborhood?
35 Robert Nichols - lives at Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, Tomales - appreciates
36 respect that neighborhood has shown to members; legal argument is based on several
37 misunderstandings; this is not a commercial use - not motivated by profit - anyone can
38 attend even if they cannot pay (they can work at the retreat); will not be parking and noise
39 problems; it has been stated that denying this use permit will protect the neighborhood;
40 this building will be maintained; positive response to neighborhood.
41
42 The public hearing was closed.
43
44 Principal Planner McCann - addressed/corrected several comments made by Mr. Oliker's -
45 there ;is no requirement in Zoning Ordinance that use be found to serve the immediate
46 neighborhood; this use has been found to be a public or quasi - public use; this will be a
47 dormitory use; staff believes parking requirements to be adequate; there is no requirement
48 in the Zoning Ordinance that the use serve the public convenience or necessity; explained
49 the difference between "findings" and "considerations ".
50 Planning Director Tuft - this use permit would run with the land, and would carry all of
51 the same conditions /restrictions for any successive use.
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
Commission Discussion
4 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - concerns with land use issues; concerns with building code
5 requirements; believes will operate more like a hotel than a single family home; not
6 compatible with neighborhood; does not believe parking will be functional; does not
7 support.
8 Commissioner Thompson - Cannot make findings 2 and 3; does not support.
9 Commissioner Torliatt - cannot make findings 2 and 3; does not support.
10 Commissioner Feibusch - cannot support this use; would set a precedent.
11 Commissioner Barlas - has had to deal with many feelings - emotional and otherwise;
12 believes mediation can bring a holistic effect to a neighborhood; why would the center
13 want to locate where unwanted ?; essentially the neighborhood's call; cannot support
14 findings.
15 Chairman Rahman - also struggled with this use, believes meditation center is a wonderful
16 use, but cannot support use in this location; not one person said anything against the
17 operators; this has been a good debate.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner
20 vonRaesfeld to find this project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15270(a)
21 and to deny a Conditional Use Permit based on the findings for denial reflective of
22 discussions and public testimonies at this meeting.
23
24 Commissioner Barlas: Yes
25 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
26 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
27 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
28 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
29 Commissioner Wick: Absent
30 Chairman Rahman: Yes
31
32 Findings of Denial for the Conditional Use Permit:
33
34 1. The proposed retreat center will not conform to the requirements and /or intent of
35 the Petaluma General Plan in that the proposal would:
36
37 a. Result in an intensification of the current residential use in a manner which
38 would be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood,
39
40 b. Create additional circulation and traffic impacts on 6th and D Streets, two
41 significant travel corridors.
42
43 2. The proposed retreat center will not conform to the requirements and intent of the
44 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, inasmuch as evidence has been presented during the
45 public hearing that the special nature of this use (intensification of a residential use
46 by the addition of a retreat .center) makes it unsuitable at this location. The
47 evidence indicates that the proposed use at this site raises significant concern
48 regarding compliance with the provisions of Section 21 -300 of the Zoning
49 Ordinance (General Standards and Considerations Governing Conditional Uses),
50 specifically;
51
I
a. The number of retreatants proposed, and the 24 hour per day nature of the
2
retreats, far exceeds that normally found in a single family residence on a
3
day -to -day basis;
4
5
b. The introduction of additional persons/retreatants proposed to participate
6
in the retreats will create additional movement and noise on -site, and that
7
the proximity of the proposed intensification of use to other residences in
8
the area will create adverse impacts on the peace and quiet of these
9
residential uses;
.7
c.
10
11
C. The on -site parking available is inadequate because it has limited
12
ingress /egress, inadequate number of parking spaces, difficult circulation,
13
and adversely affects the privacy of the adjoining parcels.
14
15
d. The site is inadequate to accommodate the proposed retreat use as the
16
proposed outdoor use can not be adequately screened and will adversely
17
affect the privacy of the adjoining parcels.
18
19
3.
The proposed retreat center will constitute a nuisance and be detrimental to the
20
public welfare of the community inasmuch as operating characteristics (vehicle
21
circulation and parking, patron activities) of a 24 -hour per day nature will
22
adversely affect the neighborhood.
23
24
4.
The proposed retreat center will not conform to the requirements and intent of the
25
Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Article 6 (R -1 Single Family Residential Districts) as
26
the district is intended to "accommodate groups of single- family homes, schools,
27
parks, open spaces, and other public services required for a satisfactory family
28
environment". The retreat center, by offering services not specifically
29
family /neighborhood oriented, will change the characteristics of the neighborhood
30
with the introduction of non - residential oriented traffic, thereby making the center
31
unsuitable at this location.
32
33
5.
The addition of a retreat center into the predominantly historic, R -1 single family
34
residential district to the west of Sixth Street would set a precedent, not acceptable
35
to the neighborhood.
36
37
6.
The denial of the Conditional Use Permit to authorize The Blue Mountain Center
38
of Meditation for retreats is exempt from the requirements of the California
39
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of CEQA which
40
exempts from review projects which are disapproved.
41
42
43
IV.
WEST VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION; NORTHBAY CONSTRUCTION;
44
BODEGA AVENUE BETWEEN_ NORTH WEBSTER STREET AND RUTH
4
45
COURT; AP NO'S 006 - 470 -10, 006- 480 -003, 005, 011, 012, 016 AND 031;
4 .
46
FILE NO. REZ- TSM0082(tp).
47
48
Introduction to a proposal for a 55 -lot single - family home development on 21.6
49
acres of hillside property in west Petaluma and request for public and Commission
�o
comments on the Draft Initial Study.
a`
51
52
Associate Planner Teryl Phillips presented the staff report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
a9
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
Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Bill Mabry - applicant - agrees with all proposed conditions; offered to answer questions..
Commissioner Feibusch - questions regarding common driveway (shared with bank).
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner
vonRaesfeld to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Conditional Use
Permit for a 76 unit, two -story senior assisted care facility and associated site
improvements at 801 Wood Sorrel Drive based on the findings and subject to the
Mitigations and Conditions listed below:
Commissioner Barlas: Absent
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
Commissioner Wick: Absent
Chairman Rahman: Yes
Findings for Adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
CEQA and local guidelines.
2. Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial
evidence that the project as mitigated would have a significant effect on the
environment.
3. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the
Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
4. 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 Government Code.
5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
considered any and all comments before making a decision on the project.
6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
Petaluma, California.
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
a
x
1 circuits supplying detectors shall be separate dedicated lines with no other
2 devices on the circuits.
3 Z. Provide electrical conduit from post indicator valve to alarm panel location
4 for tamper switch as underground improvements are being installed.
5 aa. Provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
6 underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement
7 of work.
8 bb. Check valve in fire department connection shall be installed above ground
9 grade.
10 cc. A two inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and
11 riser at foundation and floor slab.
12 dd. All contractor's shall have a City business license and a worker's
13 compensation certificate on file in the Fire Marshal's office, listing the City
14 as certificate holder.
15
16 5. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
17 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
18 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
19 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
20 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
21 State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
22 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
23 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
24 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
25 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
26 faith.
27
28
29
30 VI. WESTRIM PRODUCTS, INC.; 417 EAST "D" STREET; AP NO. 007 -132-
31 015; FILE VAR/SPCO208(dh).
32
33 Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a request for two variances
34 to allow a 7,320 sq.ft. expansion to an exiting 2,400 sq.ft. building to encroach
35 into the required 20' sideyard setbacks.
36
37 Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report.
38
39 The public hearing was opened.
40 -
41 SPEAKERS:
42
43 Dick Lieb - Lieb and Miller, project architects - feels findings can be made for Variance
44 described existing parking; approximately 40% of lot will be covered after addition;
45 adjacent building (Lourdeaux) has 50% lot coverage; feels all of Mr. Lourdeaux's
46 concerns have been responded to.
47 Mr. Lourdeauk - property owner at 406 E. D Street; against allowing building in setback
48 area; building would be too close up to 5 feet of property line; parking can probably be
49 worked out; would like to see a 20 foot setback, could live with staffs recommendation of
50 14' setback.
51
I
d.
Address locator required to be posted at or near the driveway entrance .
2
Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. Location and design to be approved
3
by the Fire Marshal's office.
4
e.
Use of extension cords in lieu of permanent wiring is prohibited.
5
f.
Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans.
6
g.
Provide KNOX box for fire department access on the building.
7
Application for the box can be obtained from the Fire Marshal's office. Box
8
location shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
9
h.
All curtains, drapes, hangings and other decorative material shall be flame
10
retardant, or treated with an approved fire retardant chemical by a licensed
11
State Fire Marshal Applicator.
12
i.
The building(s) shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system
13
as required by the Uniform Fire Code.
14
j.
Provide to the Fire Marshal's office, a minimum of two (2) sets of fire
15
sprinkler plans and calculations for approval and issuance of permit prior to
16
installation of system.
17
k.
Provide electrical conduit from post indicator valve to alarm panel location
18
for tamper switch as underground improvements are installed.
19
1.
Two inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and riser
20
at foundation and floor slab.
21
M.
Provide an exit sign over all required exit doors.
22
n.
Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as
23
designated by the Fire Marshal's office.
24
0.
All emergency lighting, exit sign lights, shall have two separate sources of
25
power as required in the Building Code.
26
P.
Provide panic hardware on all required exit doors.
27
q.
Locking devices on exit doors shall conform to the Building Code. Only
28
one lock or latch requiring one motion/operation to open/unlock is
29
required. No double keyed dead -bolts are permitted on exit doors.
30
r.
Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all
31
cooking equipment.
32
S.
Permit required from the Fire Marshal's office for fixed fire extinguishing
33
systems; two sets of plans are required to be submitted for review and
34
approval.
35
t.
Minimum fire flow required for this project is 3,000 pounds per square inch
36
(psi).
37
U.
Fire hydrants shall be spaced at a maximum of 300 feet apart. Location and
38
type of fire hydrants are to be approved by the Fire Marshal's office.
39
V.
Add as a general note to plans:
40
41
No combustible construction is permitted above the foundation unless an
42
approved all weather hard surface road is provided to within one hundred -
43
fifty (150) of the farthest point of a building or structure.
44
45
All fire hydrants for the project must be tested, flushed, and in service prior
46
to the commencement of combustible construction on the site.
47
48
W.
Permit required for alarm system, prior to installation.
49
X.
Provide a fire alarm system for all residential buildings 3 or more stories in
50
height or containing 16 or more dwelling units in accordance with the
51
Uniform Fire Code.
52
Y.
Provide smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms and common hallways.
53
Detectors shall be provided hardwired with battery backup. Electrical
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
'10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
' 27
28
29
30
31
? 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
* rear property corner elevations
* slopes or retaining walls
* existing of new frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, fire
hydrant, street light, catch basins, etc.)
* driveway
* sewer lateral
* water meter
* property line dimensions
* building setback lines
* dimensions from property line to building
* existing or new easements
b. All construction excavation performed within a public right -of -way
requires an excavation permit from the Department of Public Works.
C. Documentation shall be provided with existing private driveway and storm
drain easements.
d. The northerly drive approach fronting Wood Sorrel Drive shall be removed
and replaced with standard curb and gutter prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
3. All requirements of the City Building Division shall be complied with, including:
a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
b. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured.
C. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design
foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
d. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
e. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
f. Responsible party to sign plans.
g. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
h. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
I. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC and 1990 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current title 24 Energy Code.
j. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
k. 28 parking spaces require 2 handicap parking spaces (CBC 3109A).
1. Plans submitted after January 1, 1996 must comply with the 1994 Uniform
Building Codes, UBC, UPC , UMC and 1993 NEC. Also California
Energy and Access Compliance.
4. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal's Office shall be complied with,
including:
a. Provide one fire extinguisher, 2AIOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of
floor space, and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
b. Provide one 4013C rated dry chemical type extinguisher in kitchen area.
C. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four (4) inch letters on
contrasting background
I other development characteristics conform to minimum standards specified under
2 the zoning district.
4 2. The proposed senior assisted care facility, as conditioned, will conform to the
5 intent of the Office Land Use Designation and further is consistent with the intent,
6 goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, in that it will offer 76 units for
7 senior housing with intermediate care services that are not readily available in the
8 community.
10 3. The proposed senior assisted care facility will not constitute a nuisance or be
11 detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The facility will maintain
12 staffing twenty -four hours a day to monitor and ensure the safety of the tenants.
13 The operational characteristics of the facility are of low intensity in nature, and are
14 determined to be compatible with surrounding office and residential development.
15
16 Conditions of Use Permit
17
18 1. All requirements of the City Planning Department shall be complied with,
19 including:
20
21 a. The project's site plan, landscape plan and building architecture shall be
22 reviewed and approved by SPARC prior to issuance of a building permit.
23 Complete site and .landscape plans, and building architecture (exterior)
24 must be submitted at time of building permit and shall incorporate any and
25 all conditions /changes required through Conditional Use Permit approval
26 and SPARC approval, subject to staff review and approval prior to
27 issuance of a building permit.
28
29 b. The existing sidewalk along the projects North McDowell Boulevard
30 frontage shall be replaced as necessary to provide a meandering sidewalk,
31 subject to SPARC review and approval.
32
33 C. Any missing and /or damaged street trees along the project's Wood Sorrel
34 frontage shall be replaced or re- staked by the applicant, prior to issuance of
35 a Certificate of Occupancy. Landscape plans submitted for SPARC review
36 shall indicated the locations of these street trees along Wood Sorrel Drive.
37
38 d. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at
39 any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of
40 approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating
41 characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit
42 or add /modify conditions of approval.
43
44 2. All requirements of the City Engineering Department shall be complied with,
45 including:
46
47 a. Building permit /improvement plans shall show all of the required site plan
48 information as listed below:
49
50 * pad elevation
51 * drainage pattern
52 * top of curb elevations at property corners
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
2
The public hearing was opened.
3
4
SPEAKERS:
5
6
Associate Planner Teryl Phillips stated for record that Bob Brewer, a property owner in
7
the area, is in opposition to this project - he has not been able to receive any information
8
to analyze yet.
9
10
Terry Reagan - 525 Amber Way - concerns with some points in Initial Study - concerns
11
with mudslides, flooding, significant increases to impervious surfaces; concerns with
12
allowing grading/work on weekends (7AM ?); traffic is already a major problem; hopefully
13
school district is prepared for additional students; Gilardi and Joelle Heights are too steep
14
(especially during icy /wet conditions); more impacts to Police and Fire services; whole
_
15
area will be opened to through -traffic (except cul -de -sac where developer lives).
16
Thoris Dadgy - 537 Amber Way - only flat place on Amber; stop sign has been removed
17
on Gilardi, very dangerous traffic situation now; should be another way out before more
18
houses are built; unsafe for children to walk to school; already too much surface water;
19
concerns with traffic.
20
John Barella - property owner - would like project engineer to present project.
21
Bonnie Diefendorf - Project Engineer - Larch Drive access can be designed; affordable
22
housing units are approximately 1,000 sq.ft., one -story units; maximum heights are 25' at
23
mid -point of roof; answered questions regarding drainage; each lot will have a system of
24
swales, pipes; Andrea Way and Joelle Heights will contain a complete storm drain system.
25
Kirby Bobo - owns property on N. Webster - submitted letter to Teryl regarding concerns;
26
should not be subjected to all this traffic.
27
Susan Sanford - 534 Joelle Heights - opposed to more than 44 units, submitted letter.
28
David Polin - 511 Bodega - not enough time to comment - just received notice 10 days
29
ago; drainage concerns; total destruction of scenic views/hillside.
30
Karen McGunnigal - 4444 Roblar Road - questions regarding zoning; drainage issues;
i
31
density bonus should not be allowed at this site; traffic concerns; turns on Joelle Heights
'
32
are blind; Amber Way is already in poor shape (sink holes, etc.); flooding/drainage
33
problems already; Larch Drive is a better connection; fewer units would be appropriate at
34
this site.
35
Bob Garber - 12 Fowler Court - Fowler Subdivision - several subdivisions in this area in
36
last several years; this area is a gateway into Petaluma; existing subdivisions have larger
37
lots; Fowler Court was never supposed to be a connection; flooding already occurs;
38
temporary access to Bodega - already too crowded; route traffic onto Western, not
39
Bodega; concerns regarding emergency access.
40
41
The public hearing was continued to the meeting of November 21, 1995 (first item).
42
43
44
45
V. OAKMONT RETIREMENT HOME; OAKMONT RETIREMENT
46
COMMUNITIES; 801 WOOD SORREL DRIVE; AP NO. 137 - 170 -032 AND
47
137 - 180 -058; FILE CUP0183(hg).
48
49
Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit for
50
the development and operation of a senior assisted care facility including 76 units
51
within a two -story building and appurtenant site improvements.
52
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
Site Specific Mitigation Measures
4 1. This project shall be subject to the City's Special Development fees including:
5 Sewer Connection, Water Connection, Community Facilities Impact, Storm
6 Drainage Impact, Traffic Mitigation, and School Facilities (paid directly to the
7 School District). Said fees shall be paid on the time and in the manner prescribed
8 in the City's current Special Development Fees handout. For purposes of
9 determining fee applicability and calculations, the project shall be considered to be
10 non - residential.
11
12 2. Prior to application for a building permit, an acoustical study shall be conducted to
13 determine noise attenuation measures required to reduce interior noise levels to
14 generally acceptable standards as specified under the General Plan (45 dBA CNEL
15 - interior). Construction plans shall be reviewed and certified by an acoustical
16 engineer as compliant with these standards, before approval of the building permit
17 by staff. Costs of the study are to be borne by the proponent/owner, with selection
18 of the consultant subject to staff concurrence. Construction shall be inspected by
19 City Building staff for compliance with the approved building plans and the
20 identified noise attenuation measures, if any.
21
22 3. All mechanical equipment (HVAC units and other) shall be located/oriented, to the
23 extent possible, away from Wood Sorrel Drive and neighboring homes, subject to
24 staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
25
26 4. Grading and improvement plans shall include measures to mitigate soil erosion as
27 established in Title 17 of the Petaluma Municipal Code prior to issuance of a
28 grading/building permit.
29
30 5. Construction hours shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
31 Monday through Friday; 8;00 a.m. to 5 ;00 p.m. on Saturday; none on Sundays
32 and/or holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. The project
33 manager /contractor shall be required to ensure that all vehicles and equipment
34 comply with all vehicle codes pertaining to noise.
35
36 6. All exterior fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to review and approval by the
37 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. All lights attached to buildings
38 shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall. All lights shall conform to
39 City Performance Standards (e.g., no direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet
40 height, etc.) and shall compliment building architecture.
41
42 7. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work
43 shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be . consulted for
44 evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian
45 community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological
46 remains are uncovered.
47
48 Findings for the Conditional Use Permit
49
50 1. The proposed senior assisted care facility, as conditioned, will conform to the
51 requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance as a conditionally
52 permitted use in the C -O district. The project setbacks, height and parking and
I Commissioner vonRaesfeld - questions regarding parking; agrees with staff s
2 recommendations.
3 Dick Lieb - keep setback as proposed (10'6 ") on residential side and reduce setback on
4 other side to 14'6" and pursue a reduction in parking at SPARC.
5
6 Staff direction to SPARC - look closely at design and parking needs.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by Commissioner
9 Feibusch to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Variance requests for
10 reduction of sideyard setbacks (14' and 10'6 ") in an M -L Zone based on the Findings and
11 subject to the Mitigation Measures and Conditions listed below:
12
13 Commissioner Barlas: Absent
14 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
15 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
16 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
17 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
18 Commissioner Wick: Absent
19 Chairman Rahman: Yes
20
21 Findings for ADproval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
22 a. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in
23 accordance with CEQA and local guidelines.
24 b. Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no
25 substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the
26 environment.
27 C. A monitoring program has been included to ensure compliance with the
28 adopted mitigation measures, if any.
29 d. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
30 in the Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
31 e. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
32 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
33 Code.
34 f. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study/Negative
35 Declaration and considered the comments before making a decision on the
36 project.
37 g. The record of proceeding of the decision on the project is available for
38 public review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11
39 English Street, Petaluma, California.
40 Mitigation Measures
41 1. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
42 approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light
43 against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards. No
'R
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
1 reflection or direct glare shall be permitted to the adjacent residential lots, no poles
2 in excess of 20 feet height shall be permitted and proposed light fixtures shall
3 compliment the building architecture.
4 2. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
5 Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.)
6 3. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified
7 in the Uniform Building code, Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance,
8 and the 1987 General Plan.
9 4. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work
10 shall be halted temporarily, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for
11 evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action.
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
5. This project shall be subject to the following development fees pursuant to the
relevant City Resolution:
a. Community Facilities Impact Fee
b. Storm Drainage Impact Fee
C. Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee
d. School Facilities Fee
6. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met, including the following items to
be shown on improvement plans at the time of building permit application:
a. The existing drive approach that is not in use shall be removed and
replaced with standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The new driveway
approach shall be per City standards. Any broken or displaced sidewalk
along the frontage shall be removed and replaced.
b. Indicate the drainage pattern for the entire site. There shall be no lot -to -lot
drainage. Surface drainage from the new parking lot shall not be directed
across the sidewalk. Provide enough topographic information to support
site drainage design.
C. Show any existing easement affecting this site.
d. The driveway approach shall be flared to accommodate the turning radius
of delivery trucks.
7. All requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be met, including:
a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
approved plans and will - be required for occupancy.
b. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured.
C. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design
foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
I
d.
All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
2
e.
Show site drainage and grading topography.
3
f.
Indicate all utilities on site plan.
4
g.
Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
5
h.
Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
6
I.
Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, an d1990 NEC.
7
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code.
8
j.
Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
9
k.
Demolition permit required to remove any structure.
10
1.
Permit application submitted after January 1, 1996 must have plans comply
11
with the 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC and 1993 NEC.
12 8.
All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including:
13
14
a.
Provide one fire extinguisher, 2AlOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of
15
floor space, and /or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
16
17
b.
Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four (4) inch letters on
18
contrasting background.
19
20
C.
Any building or portion of a building used for high piled combustible
21
storage shall conform to Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code. A permit is
22
required by the Fire Marshal's office.
23
24
d.
Provide KNOX box for fire department access on the building.
25
Application for the box can be obtained from the Fire Marshal's office. Box
26
location shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
27
28
e.
Buildings larger than 3,500 square feet in area or three stories or more in
29
height shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system as
30
required by the Uniform Fire Code.
31
32
f.
Provide an automatic fire extinguishing system in the paint booth as
33
required by the Uniform Fire Code.
34
35
g.
Provide an exit sign over all required exit doors.
36
37
h.
Locking devices on exit doors shall conform to the Building Code. Only
38
one lock or latch requiring one motion/operation to open/unlock is
39
required. No double keyed dead -bolts are permitted on exit doors.
40
41
i.
Provide electrical conduit from post indicator valve to alarm panel location
42
for tamper switch as underground improvements are being installed.
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/95
Provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of plans for the
underground fire service main for permit approval, prior to commencement
of work.
6 k.
Check valve in fire department connection shall be installed above ground
7
grade.
8
9 1.
A two inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and
10
riser at foundation and floor slab.
11
12 M.
All contractor's shall have a City business license and a worker's
13
compensation certificate on file in the Fire Marshal's office, listing the City
14
as certificate holder.
15
16 n.
Businesses storing hazardous materials require submittal of a Hazardous
17
Materials Management Plan to the Petaluma Fire Department. Before a
18
Certificate of Occupancy is approved, the following conditions must be
19
approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal:
20
21
a. Hazardous Material Management Plan is approved.
22
b. All storage and use of hazardous materials shall be in conformance
23
with the Uniform Fire Code.
24
C. A permit for Hazardous Materials Storage and use is issued prior to
25
occupancy.
26
27 Condition:
28 1. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
29 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
30 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
31 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul; the approval of the project when
32 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
33 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
34 applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
35 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
36 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
37 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
38 faith.
39
40
41 Commission discussion regarding future agendas; Regarding Lafferty issue - Commission
42 needs to focus on General Plan/Planning issues, not politics; would like Commission to
43 focus as a whole; should not be a podium to discuss non land -use issues; Government
44 Code does not require a public hearing; will not be noticed.
45
46 ADJOURNMENT 11:58 PM.
47 min 1114 / plan64
48
49
50
51