HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01/23/1996I City Of Petaluma
2
3 Planning Commissi ®n Minutes
4
5 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996
6 CITY ',COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
7 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
8
9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
10
i l ROLL CALL: Present: Feibusch, Rahman*, Read, Thompson, Torliatt,
12 vonRaesfeld, Wick
13
14 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
15 James McCann, Principal Planner
16 Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner
17 Hans Grunt, Assistant Planner
18
19 * Chairman
20
21
22 Welcome to Commissioner (Council Representative) Read.
23
24 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 5, 1995 and January 9, 1996 were
25 approved as corrected.
26
27 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
28
29 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Tuft - Mobile coffee kiosk (trailer)
30 approved for one month only at Boulevard Bowl site (formal CUP may be requested if
31 business proves successful); Planning Commission river field trip scheduled for January
32 30 at J:30PM.
33
34 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Chairman Rahman distributed information from APA
35 Conference regarding City of Ventura.
36
37 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter and photos from Victor Nagel regarding Community
38 Propane; January 1996 Residential Development Map.
39
40 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
41
42 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
43
44
45 OLD BUSINESS
46 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
47
48 I. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATIONS PER BUSINESS AND
49 PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 23958.4; CITY OF PETALUMA; FILE
50 WRK95021 /acm).
51
1
I Continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council of
2 criteria/guidelines to be utilized in determining "public convenience or necessity"
3 for new licenses in areas identified by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
4 Control as having an "undue concentration" of licensed facilities.
5
6 - Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 1996.
7
8 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
9
10 (Commissioner's Thompson and vonRaesfeld were not in attendance on January 9th and
11 did not review the tape and abstained from taking action on this item.)
12
13 Continued Public Hearing:
14
15 Bryant Moynihan - Pleased with agLeement; happy with most of the criteria as proposed;
16 comments on Items 3 and 5.
17
18 The public hearing was closed.
19
20 Discussion:
21
22 Commissioner Torliatt - Guidelines are general and appropriate for our needs; in favor of
23 allowing the determinations to be approved at an administrative level (by the Planning
24 Director); some clean -up legislation will be coming along through the State, but doesn't
25 want to wait.
26 Commissioner Wick - Agrees that part of our recommendation to Council should be that
27 the determinations should be made administratively.
28 Commissioner Feibusch - If there will be clean -up legislation, maybe we should wait - or
29 at least be sure we can make modifications if necessary.
30 Commissioner Read - It is likely that clean -up legislation will occur this year; we can
31 always revise it this issue if the clean -up legislation warrants it.
32 Principal Planner McCann - Clarified item 3 - per Council direction.
33 Commissioner Torliatt - Should item 5 really be in our perview? Does this relate to a land
34 use issue? Are there really reasons for keeping this in?
35 Principal Planner McCann - Yes, extent that alcohol sales are relied -upon can be an
36 indicated of the nature of the use and resulting intensity of activity; this information has
37 bearing on the determination of public convenience /necessity (more bar - like ?).
38 Commissioner Torliatt - Definition of type of business, i.e., "bar" is already in place.
39 Chairman Rahman - Believes item 5 is appropriate.
40 Planning Director Tuft - Item 5 clear intent is to interweave undue concentration issues
41 with type of business.
42 Commissioner Feibusch - Item 5 is needed.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
45 recommend to the City Council adoption of the guidelines with the additional
46 recommendation that the determination may be acted upon administratively by the
47 Planning Director.
48
49 Commissioner Read: Yes
50 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
51 Commissioner Thompson: Abstain
I Commissioner Torhatt: No - item 5 should not be included.
2 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Abstain
3 Commissioner Wick: Yes
4 Chairman Rahman: Yes
5
6 Determinations of public convenience or necessity shall be made with the
7 !following guidelines taken into consideration:
8
9 1. Determinations may shall be made administratively by the Planning
10 Director
Y, 11 heafing. Actions on determination requests may be appealed to the
. 12 Planning Commission, and thereafter to the City Council.
13
.14 2. Input and recommendation from the Police and Fire Departments should be
15 obtained. This input should cover the activity in the area for a period
16 determined by the Police Chief, to be adequate to show history, or lack
17 thereof, of problems in the neighborhood. The Police Chief should also
18 offer a projection regarding the increased burden for Police services which
19 might be created by the issuance of an additional license,
20
21 3. Evidence and/or arguments provided b, the he applicant addressing the public
22 convenience or necessity that would be served by the additional license;
23
24 4. The nature of the.proposed use;
25
26 5. The extent to which alcohol sales are related to the function of the
27 proposed use and the possibility of the use operating in a viable fashion
28 without alcohol sales;
29
30 i6. The proximity of the proposed licensed premise to sensitive land uses such
31 as residences, schools, churches, parks, etc. and the effect that existing
32 (and the proposed) licensed premises (may) have on such sensitive land
33 uses;
34
35 '7. The compatibility or suitability of the proposed use with the uses and/or
'36 character of the surrounding area;
37
38 18. The effect that the proposed use may have on the welfare of the area
39 residents;
40
41 9. The public convenience or necessity which would be served to the
42 community (both immediate and the broader Petaluma area) by the
43 issuance of an additional license;
h
44
45 H. CITY OF PETALUMA• PETALUMA RIVER ACCESS AND
46 ENHANCEMENT PLAN; FILE WRK91034 /(pt).
47
48 Conclude public hearing and commence Commission consideration of the Draft
49 River Access and Enhancement Plan (continued from November 14, 1995).
50
c
I Planning Director Tuft introduced Melanie Denninger - California Coastal
2 Conservancy (provider of funds for the project), and Sarah Demsler - Department
3 of Water Resources.
5 Public hearing:
6
7 Melanie Denninger - Project Analyst - Coastal Conservancy - congratulated staff,
8 Commission, Council, River Enhancement Committeemembers; planning process
9 overall went very well; Citizens Committee did excellent job - balancing act -
10 natural resource values, immediate economic concerns/constraints; natural
11 resources, public access, development balanced; implementable plan has emerged;
12 Coastal Conservancy hopes to continue to work with City to implement; budget
13 restraints.
14 Sarah Demsler - State of California Environmental Specialist, Department of
15 Water Resources - discussed study regarding economic benefits of urban stream
16 restoration project; consumptive resource measurement; residential and
17 commercial property values both increase with stream restoration; costs can be
18 recovered in higher tax base.
19 Matt Connolly - Chelsea GCA - Petaluma Village Factory Outlets - interested in
20 expanding Factory Outlet project to recently acquired property; River Plan as
�1 written substantially reduces developable project area for Factory Outlet
22 expansion; impacts can be mitigated; commitment to this area and to the concepts
23 of the Enhancement Plan; requested that additional "flexibility" be built into the
24 plan in regard to setbacks affecting Chelsea property.
25 Commissioner Rahman - Is this the right forum to discuss this? Please keep this
26 limited to our business tonight.
27 Michael Joslyn - Wetlands Research Assoc. (Chelsea consultant) - Purpose of
28 setback should be to protect existing native riparian vegetation; minimize impacts
29 to wetlands; provide visual and physical barrier to human intrusion into river;
30 encourage vegetation to control bank erosion; allow for habitat mitigation within
31 greenway; presented slide show of analysis area - Petaluma River - existing
32 topography; lack of native vegetation in areas of parcels B and C; potential for
33 bank erosion in this reach; impact on water quality - need for enhancement; most
34 of property used for agriculture; wetland mitigation area in parcel C protected by
35 fences; findings from this analysis - 30 -100 feet from top of bank will protect
36 vegetation; topographic features at existing enhancement area can be continued to
37 eventually provide buffer; revegetation has occurred; bank stabilization has
38 withstood floods, some areas have been recently repaired.
39 John Meserve - Horticultural Associates (Chelsea consultant) - Parcels B and C -
40 maps cannot adequately show conditions in field; slides of site conditions - area
41 along creek affected by agricultural operations for many years - disked and
42 plowed; scattered areas of native oaks (some mature); Himalayan blackberries,
43 large areas of native rose; small area of lombardi poplars, many small oaks
44 attempting to regenerate themselves; site plan prepared by ZAC shows native oaks
45 on parcels B and C; this section of river is affected by soils in area; some alluvial
46 soils; some areas devoid of woody vegetation because of sandy soils; above
47 creekbank some heavy clay soils; standard setbacks don't apply to what vegetation
48 is doing; look at what Mother Nature can support.
49 Sandy Reed - ZAC Landscape .Architects - River impact mitigation area - runs
50 from 30 feet measured from top of bank - large portion of parcel is under
51 wetlands; some areas have no existing vegetation; illustrated several sections of
52 river with existing vegetation.
4
I Matt Connolly - Based on existing condition analysis - recommended setbacks
2 exceed necessary requirements; proposes allowing a more flexible approach; draft
3 river plan has some conflicting goals - page 5 - restrictive to economic rights of
4 property owners; flexibility needs to be provided; Chelsea supports riverplan;
5 requests that river plan become guidelines with flexibility; will work in partnership
6 with Corona Reach project.
7 Commissioner Torliatt - Have you assessed whether there are any wetland areas?
8 , Michael Joslyn - Yes - approximately less than an acre.
9 Bryant Moynihan - Area north of Corona Road - setback requirement is pretty
10 steep - inconsistent with industrial use; pedestrian access behind some businesses
11 may not be feasible: river enhancement plan will encourage fix - large "taking" of
12 land for some properties; industrial properties have vandalism problems; public
13 access problems.
14 Commissioner Read - Perplexed that developer can come in and comment on a site
15 specific issue - why can this be allowed asking for exceptions; gives a bad feeling
16 that applicant is being given special privilege for specific project.
17 Planniniz Director Tuft - Believes developer is asking for greater flexibility (pages
18 62 - 63); these issues have been brought up by property owner at River Committee
19 level; up to Planning Commission while this document is under review to
20 determine if this is appropriate to make any changes.
21 Commissioner Torliatt - All property owners have same right to give us input;
22 would rather know this is an issue now; very appropriate to hear this public
23 comment.
24 John Fitzgerald - Suncrest Terrace - Very happy to be on River Committee; overall
25 view of whole picture; committeemembers studied cross - sections of river; tempers
26 'flared; this area of river had 100 -foot setbacks placed early -on; 1992 Fish and
27 Wildlife report recommended open space from river to freeway (they wanted
28 whole area); many agencies wanted various setbacks; much time spent on this one
29 reach - would not change recommendation in draft study.
30 Jane Hamilton - River Committee - Would like to hear comments from public;
31 inappropriate for Planning Commission to change recommendations because of
32 one property; concern with field trip - hope all Commissioners can attend; 100 foot
33 setback for habitat; everything in River Plan was voted on; would like to make
34 sure all Planning Commissioners will be on field trip - will be there to answer
35 specific questions; wouldn't change recommendations.
36 Bob Abbott - Other property owners have concerns with 100 foot setbacks, not
37 just Chelsea.
38 Lynn Schmitt - Owns property between Corona Road and River - hopes this will
39 not affect property values, expansion potential.
40 Matt Connolly - Chelsea - Committed to implementation of river plan - asking for
41 flexibility in plan - 150 feet average may not be economically feasible.
42 Commissioner Wick - You say minimum requirements are 50 -70 feet?
43 Matt Connelly - Asking for flexibility - will sub_ mit text amendment information,
44 will work with staff.
45 Commissioner Wick - Plan not looking at specific sites, unless there is new data
46 submitted, would be hard - pressed to make changes.
47 Matt Connolly - Just asking for flexibility in implementing plan.
48 Commissioner Wick - Plan now states average buffer of 150'.
49 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - What flexibility are you asking for?
50 Matt Connolly - Asking for flexibility /guidelines to allow working with staff.
51 Commissioner Thompson - Doesn't want to change the plan.
52
53 The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
4 Commissioner Rahman - Has not heard evidence to justify changing what is in plan.
5 Commissioner Torliatt - Recognized Kurt Yeiter, great amount of work done to date on
6 Draft Plan; no reason to change any setback requirements; anyone considering
7 development along river area - keep in mind City trying to create river as amenity,
8 proactively protect river /utilize; need to develop river first, than remainder of land.
9
10 Commission directed staff to move ahead with legislation to adopt River Plan as written.
11
12
13
14
This item was continued to February 13, 1996.
15 NOTE. Application by Santa Rosa Airporter for taxi certificate of public
16 convenience noticed for this meeting has been withdrmvn.
17
18 NEW BUSINESS
19 PUBLIC HEARINGS
20
21 M. COMMUNITY PROPANE; RICHARD .KING; 926 LAKEVILLE STREET;
22 AP NCO. 005 - 060 -030; FILE CUP0215 /(hg).
23
24 Appeal by Irene Nagel of an administrative approval of a Mitigated Negative
25 Declaration and a Conditional Use Permit to authorize a propane distribution
26 facility.
27
28 Assistant Planner Grunt presented the staff report.
29
30 Public hearing:
31
32 Commissioner Read - (to Fire Marshal Ginn) - Question regarding propane tank explosion
33 in Napa - how would your conditions preclude this from occurring?
34 Fire Marshal Ginn - Described the Yountville (Napa County) event: small container being
35 filled (for balloons) - non - trained person filled tank - caused fire inside building; tanks
36 need to be protected from explosion; different type of site - no retail filling allowed;
37 unlikely to occur in this situation.
38 Victor Nagel - (representing mother - Irene Nagel) - lives across from site; McPhail's did
39 not relocate to Lindberg Lane because of proximity to Kenilworth School; primary use of
40 this property is propane distribution - nearby propane uses are not mainly propane
41 distribution - this is; one mistake can be fatal to many; this facility is requesting 3 tanks, all
42 other facilities only have 1; welding takes place less than 50 feet from property line; too
43 close to shopping center; zoning improper for primary use of this type; proposal of retail
44 use for front of this property may not be feasible - no place for safe public parking; Food -
45 4 -Less denied (one reason) because of large delivery trucks; limited size, limited activity
46 site; safety of_ valves/tanks - McPhail's upgraded to flexible hoses; this site will be
47 unattended much of the time; no alarms - fire, burglar required where will trucks park?
48 will have to park on Lakeville; should be full SPARC review if this is approved - not just
49 administrative; concerns with safety, parking/turns on Lakeville.
50 Ed Nagel - (Victor's brother - Irene's son) Ed's RV Center - across street from site - How
51 could this be put in without turn -in lanes being required there will be accidents with
52 propane trucks, property too small for large trucks; concern'
oncerns with human error; concerns
6
i
I with River Walkway adjacent to this business - people strolling along smoking cigarettes ?;
2 this propane business will be the same as others - tanks will be repainted, emptied.
3 Victor Nagel - Once this type of facility is in, it won't leave; other cities discourage this
4 type of,use near shopping centers.
5 Principal Planner McCann - both Mr. Nagels' concerns valid; staff believes mitigations are
6 adequate; safety paramount; many mitigation measures relating to public safety have been
7 developed; zoning is appropriate for this type of use; regarding fire safety - requested Fire
8 Marshal to respond; potential for expansion - condition 2 clearly limits nature of use;
9 regarding operations on site - requested applicant describe; site will be fenced;
10 access/ circulation - potential traffic generation very different than Food -4 -Less; traffic
11 volume; limited;. Riverwalk accessway is not located at or near this site - easement
12 proposed to run along eastern property line - would allow for shared driveway - doesn't
13 go all the way to river; valid point for full SPARC review; this proposal went through
14 same process as any other similar proposal.
15 Commissioner Rahman - Number of tanks on property compared with other businesses of
16 this type in county - unusually dense?
17 Fire Marshal Ginn - Proposed use meets regulations; can not address other sites.
18 Commissioner Feibusch - Should there be a time restriction for deliveries (to coincide with
19 low traffic times).
20 Commissioner Torliatt - (to Allan Tilton) When looking at this site for Food -4 -Less, there
21 was a large discussion of a traffic signal at this location.
22 Traffic! Engineer Tilton - This use would not be as intensive (deliveries) as Food -4 -Less;
23 site identified as potentially needing a signal light if there were a very intensive use.
24 Commissioner Torliatt - Questions regarding driveway /access to this site.
25 Traffic !Engineer Tilton - Driveway as proposed appeared to be inadequate - condition to
26 that affect; turn lane should be designed to allow safe and appropriate turn
27 (encroachment); corner of driveway will have to be significantly redesigned - will have an
28 impact on site development and proposed building location.
29 Commissioner Torliatt - Are utilities above - ground?
30 Principal Planner McCann - Projects have been required to participate in future
31 undergrounding.
32 Richard King - Applicant - Compared other facilities in town; McPhail's and DeCarli's has
33 more storage capacity if trucks are counted; transport arrives approximately once every 10
34 days; all propane deliveries come down Lakeville from south; driveway may need to
35 upgraded; any questions regarding existing facility on C Street ?; existing facility 8,000
36 sq.ft. - nothing operating outside of existing facility.
37 Commissioner Read - Questions regarding number of deliveries; how many deliveries per
38 day ?; questions regarding possible future building on front of lot.
39 Richara King - At most, one delivery per week.
40 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Comparing aesthetic issues on site plan - fencing
41 requirements need to be clarified; what is storage container height - too many variables.
42 Principal Planner McCann - Mitigation Measure 17 (fencing) can be modified.
43 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Sides of containers may be visible - colors/maintenance of
44 containers should be addressed in conditions.
45 Chairman Rahman - Delivery hours should be specified.
46 Commissioner Feibusch - Any restrictions to delivery hours to other companies?
47 Richard King - Currently no hour restrictions on other businesses.
48
49 The public hearing was closed.
50
51 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Thompson
52 to deny the appeal and approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Conditional Use
53 Permit'to authorize the operation of a commercial propane distribution facility located at
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
926 Lakeville Street based on the findings and subject to the amended mitigation measures
and conditions listed below:
Commissioner Read: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
Commissioner Wick: Yes
Chairman Rahman: Yes
Findings of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
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 comments received, potential impacts could be
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as
conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
3. A monitoring component has been included to ensure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures.
4. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the
Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
5. 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.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed propane storage and distribution operation, as conditioned, will
conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance by
providing for a wholesale establishment in proximity to arterial street and highway
traffic with adequate on -site circulation and parking.
2. The proposed propane storage and distribution operation, as conditioned, will
conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma
General Plan by: providing for a low traffic generating commercial operation on an
arterial street; providing an opportunity to limit the number of future driveways on
an arterial street by virtue of a joint access easement; and providing for a
commercial business within the City, for a commodity to be sold largely outside of
the City or immediate area.
3. The proposed propane storage and distribution operation, as conditioned to
respect the safety standards prescribed by the Fire Marshal, will not constitute a
nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
Mitigation Measures
8
1 Earth
2
3 1. Grading and improvement plans shall include measures to mitigate soil erosion as
4 established in Title 17 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
5
6 2. (Drainage /grading plans shall be submitted for Administrative SPARC review and
7 approval to ensure that development of the site will not encroach into or adversely
8 impact the wetland on the southeast portion of the project site.
9
to Earth Monitoring
. 11
12 Plans submitted for grading and/or site improvements hall include proper soil erosion
13 control' measures, prior to issuance of a grading permit. This development shall be
14 responsible to pay the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee based on its size as calculated at
15 time of building permit issuance and collected prior to issuance of a Certificate of
16 Occupancy.
17
18 Water
19
20 3. This development shall be responsible to pay the City's Storm Drain Impact Fee
21 pursuant to the Petaluma Municipal Code (Code 17.30), and as currently
22 calculated and charged pursuant to the City's current Special Development Fees
23 handout prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or commencement of
24 business.
25
26 4. Storm water drainage improvements for all areas of the site which divert water
27 into the existing swale along the south end of the site shall first lead into a filter
28 system (fossil filter or equivalent) to reduce impacts to water quality. A plan
29 identifying the filter location and providing details of the filter system shall be
30 submitted in conjunction with plans submitted for Administrative SPARC review
31 and approval and installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or
32 commencement of business.
33
34 5. A portion of the site is within a Flood Plain District (FP -C). This project shall be
35 subject to all applicable provisions of Article 16 of the Petaluma Zoning
36 Ordinance.
37
38 Water Monitorinyz
39
40 The project proponent shall be responsible to pay the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee
41 prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Filter location and design shall be
42 confirmed on plans submitted for building permits. The applicant shall be responsible for
43 the regular maintenance of the filter system.
44
45 Plant Life
46
47 6. All improvements and business activities shall not encroach into the wetland area
48 at the rear of the site.
49
50 7. The applicant shall be required to plant six (6), 15 gal. Coast Live Oak trees across
51 the rear of the site's proposed paving improvements (top -of -bank of existing
9
I swale) and removal of debris and planting of appropriate native plant material
2 within the wetland area on this site as delineated in the wetland survey prepared by
3 Mr. Charles Patterson and received by the City Planning Department on December
4 20, 1993, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or commencement of
5 business. Said plantings shall be included in landscaping plans submitted for
6 Administrative SPARC review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
7
8 Plant Life Monitoring
9
10 The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the six Live Oak trees and
11 wetland revegetation required along the rear of the site in perpetuity. Active maintenance
12 shall include regular watering, staking and pruning as necessary, and the replacement of
13 any damaged and/or dead plant material.
14
15 Noise
16
17 8. Construction hours for the establishment of the operation shall be limited to
18 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; none on
19 Sundays. The project applicant shall be required to comply with all vehicle codes
20 pertaining to noise. The project applicant shall be responsible to regulate noise
21 impacts and hours of construction.
22
23 Noise Monitoring
24
25 The project manager /contractor shall be responsible to regulate noise impacts and hours of
26 construction.
27
28 Light and Glare
29
30 9. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans submitted at time of building
31 permit. All exterior lights shall be shielded to provide a soft wash of light against
32 walls and/or tanks and all lights shall conform to City of Petaluma Performance
33 Standards (e.g. no direct off -site glare, no light poles in excess of 20 feet high,
34 etc.) subject to staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
35
36 Lijzht and Glare Monitoring
37
38 Plans submitted for Administrative SPARC and building permit approval shall reflect
39 lighting consistent with this mitigation measure.
40
41 Risk of Upset
42
43 10. All fire protection requirements of the Fire Marshal's office shall be met prior to
44 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or commencement of business,
45 including: (Note: as applicable, required improvements shall be included on or
46 with plans submitted at time of building permit application.)
47
48 a. Provide an approved fire hydrant on site at the entrance gate to the tanks.
49 b. Provide fire extinguisher, 20A -12OBC rated dry chemical type at the liquid
50 transfer location.
10
I ic. 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 d. Provide KNOX box for fire department access on the building.
5 Application for the box can be obtained from the Fire Marshal's office. Box
6 location shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
7 e. Barricades shall be provided to protect LPG tanks, piping and liquid
8 transfer connections from vehicular traffic impact.
9 f. The propane tank shall conform to Article 82 UFC and NFPA Standard 58
10 (1989 Edition) as required. The least of which shall include:
11
12 * Access
13 * Security
14 * Storage
15 * Nesting of storage tanks
16 * Storage of old/unused commercial containers
17 * Stationary tank support and corrosion protection
18 * Define method of transmitting an alarm in the event of an
19 emergency
20 * Electrical installation shall conform with the National
21 Electric Code
22 * Pressure relief and container appurtenances liquid transfer
23 fines
24
25 g. Road base shall conform to City Engineering Standards for compassion and
26 surface type.
27 h. No retail sales, dispensing or use of propane permitted on the site.
28 i. Provide an approved fire safety analysis plan for review by the Fire
29 Marshal.
30 j. Installation of existing tanks from previous site shall conform to standards
31 of the Department of Industrial relations.
32 k. Turning radius of large vehicles within the yard shall be approved by the
33 City Traffic Engineer.
34 1. LPG transfer connection shall be located a in of 15 feet from LPG
35 tanks. Provide redundant fail -safe product control methods and devices
36 (excess flow valves, remote shutoffs, check valves, etc.) at the liquid
37 transfer location and LPG piping as required by nationally recognized
38 standards of performance.
39 m. Any future structures and/or additions to the site shall conform to the
40 requirements of the Uniform Codes.
41 n. Obtain a permit for LPG installation from the Fire Department.
42
43 11. All requirements of the California Administrative Code Title 8, Unified Pressure
44 Vessel Safety Orders, shall be met in the development and operation of this facility,
45 subject to the approval of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency, if
46 applicable. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, OSHA approval of
47 construction drawings shall be obtained, if applicable.
48
49 Risk of Upset Monitoring
50
51 The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures as referenced above, and the
52 timing thereof subject to City staff review and approval.
11
Transportation/Circulation
4 12. The applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication of a public pedestrian
5 and vehicular easement along the easterly property line to accommodate future
6 joining circulation improvements with the adjacent property. Said offer shall be
7 provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a
8 Certificate of Occupancy and/or commencement of business.
9
10 13. This project shall be subject to payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee pursuant to
11 the Petaluma Municipal Code (Code 11.80), prior to issuance of a Certificate of
12 Occupancy and/or commencement of business.
13
14 14. The driveway location and width shall be designed to allow for supply tanker
15 trucks to make a right hand turn into and out of the site without encroaching into
16 the two -way left turn lane on Lakeville Street, subject to the City Traffic
17 Engineer's review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit and installed
18 prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or commencement of business.
19 Said driveway may need to be modified should the remainder of the site develop.
20
21 15. Pursuant to Section 2 -313 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, the applicant shall
22 design and construct a separated sidewalk, pursuant to current City Standards,
23 across the project's Lakeville Street frontage. The design/location of the sidewalk
24 shall be subject to staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit,
25 and installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or commencement of
26 business.
27
28 Transportation/Circulation Monitoring
29
3o The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures as reflected above including timing
31 thereof.
32
33 Public Service
34
35 16. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of the City's Community Facilities
36 Development fee pursuant to the Petaluma Municipal Code (Code 17.14) prior to
37 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
38
39 Public Service Monitoring
40
41 Staff shall collect appropriate impact fees pursuant to City Resolution.
42
43 Aesthetics
44
45 17. Fencing: A minimum six foot tall solid wood fence shall be installed along the site's
46 eastern and western borders between the front setback and the proposed gated
47 screen wall, which defines the front of the propane distribution yard. A minimum
48 six foot tall solid wood and /or chain -link fence with applied wooden slats for
49 screening shall be installed along the site's western boundary between the proposed
50 gated front screen wall and the southwesterly property corner. The existing chain
51 link fence located along the site's easterly boundary shall be repaired (straightening
12
I of fence posts, replacement of wire and wood slats etc.). The front fence /screen
2 and gate shall be constructed of a solid screen material (redwood and/or cement
3 ,planks) at a height sufficient to screen the storage buildings.
q . All fencing, proposed and/or required,
5 (shall be installed, subject to staff review and approval prior to issuance of a
6 Certificate of Occupancy or commencement of business.
7
8 18. The landscaping plan shall be augmented to incorporate street trees and ground
9 icover within the resulting planter strip to be created pursuant to mitigation
to ,measure #15; in addition, a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping shall be included
11 ,along the back of the sidewalk. All proposed and required landscaping shall be
12 designed and installed subject to Administrative SPARC review and approval prior
13 ito issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or commencement of business.
14
15 19. Any visible portion(s) of the storage containers above the front fence shall be
16 architecturally detailed (wood and/or metal cornice detail etc.), subject to
17 Administrative SPARC review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
18 The storage buildings shall be painted and adequately maintained in an attractive
19 manner.
20
21 20. The proposed site plan including all applicable mitigation measures and conditions
22 herein shall be subject to Administrative SPARC review and approval prior to
23 issuance of a building permit and/or fencing permit. Said review shall include but
24 not be limited to the design of light fixtures, fencing (including effective security),
25 and landscaping (plant types, plant locations, and plant quantity) to ensure their
26 aesthetic quality and effective screening value.
27
28 21. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen gallon size (i.e. trunk diameter of at least 3/4
29 inch measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g.: 24"
30 box or specimen size) and double staked; all shrubs shall be five gallon size. All
31 landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a two -inch deep
32 bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established.
33
34 22. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
35 irrigation system.
36
37 23. 'All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance
38 shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and
39 trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be
40 replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable
41 landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in
42 sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when
43 missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and
44 vitality of landscape materials.
45
46 24. No parking shall be permitted within the front one -third of the property or that
47 area comprising "Phase 2" as indicated on the Site Plan unless an amendment to
48 this Use Permit is obtained (See Condition 92.c.).
49
50 Aesthetics Monitoring
51
13
1 The applicant shall prepare plans for Administrative SPARC review and approval. Said
2 plans shall reflect the above mitigation measures and shall be reviewed by the Planning
3 Director.
4
5 ArchaeologicaVHistorical
6
7 25. The applicant and City Building Inspectors shall monitor construction activity for
8 the presence of archaeologically significant resources.
9
10
11 Archaeological/Historical Monitoring
12
13 In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be
14 halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the
15 artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian community shall also be
16 notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered.
17
18 Conditions of Use Permit
19
20 1. All conditions of the Engineering Department shall be met at the time of building
21 permit application or shown on improvement plans, including:
22
23 a. The driveway location and width for the proposed and future development
24 shall allow for the supply tanker trucks to make a right hand turn and not
25 encroach into the two -way left turn lane on Lakeville Street.
26 b. The Water Department shall be able to have 24 hour access to the water
27 main extending across the easterly side of the property.
28 C. The property owner shall enter into a "fair share payment agreement
29 towards cost and expenses of undergrounding" overhead utilities fronting
30 or traversing the site.
31
32 2. All conditions of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
33
34 a. This Use Permit shall allow a propane distribution facility. Project size and
35 operation shall substantially conform to the plans conditionally approved
36 herein.
37 b. No retail sales, dispensing or use of propane shall be permitted on the site.
38 C. The future building and site improvements (Phase 2 Site Plan Concept)
39 indicated on the site plan are not part of this Use Permit approval. Future
40 plans for development/use of the front portion of the site (Phase 2) shall be
41 subject to City review and approval prior to construction. Said review
42 shall include, but not be limited to: the adequacy, compatibility, and safety
43 of the driveway access and circulation needs of the propane distribution
44 facility approved herein; and the appropriateness of any future ' use as it
45 relates to on site traffic volumes, security and safety.
46 d. Only outdoor storage of propane tanks to be distributed to existing and/or
47 future customers shall be permitted within the facility. A designated
48 storage area(s) for said tanks shall be submitted for Administrative SPARC
49 review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit to insure that it
50 does not interfere with site circulation and is properly screened. No
51 outdoor storage of said tanks shall exceed 6 feet in height.
52
14
1 3. This project shall be responsible for the payment of special development fees, as
2 applicable, adopted by the City Council, including: sewer and water connection,
3 community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school facilities (paid
4 directly to the school district), and traffic mitigation.
5
6 4. This use permit may be recalled by the Planning Director for review at any time
7 ;due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic
8 ;congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such
9 time, the Planning Director may revoke the use permit or add/modify conditions of
10 'approval or reefer said action to the Planning Commission.
11
12 5. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
13 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
14, laction or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
15 ,employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
16 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
17 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
18 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
19 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
20 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
21 'bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
22 faith.
23
24
25 IV. LAKEVILLE BUSINESS PARK PCD AMENDMENT; JOHN McNULTY;
26 McDOWELL BLVD. SOUTH BETWEEN LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY AND
27 CADER LANE; AP NO'S 005- 280 -001 THROUGH 011, 015, 017 -022, 024 -
28 027 AND 029 -031; FILE REZ0034 /(tp).
29
30 Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amendment to the
31 Lakeville Business Park PCD Zoning Regulations, Development Plan and Design
32 Guidelines modifying the permitted uses, development standards and design
33 concepts.
34
35 Associate Planner Phillips presented the staff report.
36
37 Public hearing:
38
39 Princibal Planner McCann - Clarified landscape setbacks in existing business parks and
40 those proposed.
41 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Does applicant propose building setback changes?
42 Commissioner Feibusch - Questions regarding zoning.
43 Commissioner Torliatt - Who was responsible for creek monitoring?
44 Associate Planner Phillips - Previous property owner - not Mr. McNulty -there will be a
45 monitoring plan. in place with this project.
46 Commissioner Thompson - Questions regarding lot coverage.
47 Associate Planner Phillips - Staff wants to make sure that building/parking/landscaping
48 balance be consistent throughout the park, while permitting maximum flexibility for
49 specific lot development.
50 Comrrussioner Thompson - Would 80% lot coverage be consistent with other similar
51 developments?
15
i Associate Planner Phillips - Yes, this proposal is consistent with existing standards for the
2 business park and other Petaluma developments.
3 Commissioner Read - Some concerns with retail uses; should look at bigger picture of all
4 development in area.
5 Gordon Briggs - applicant representative - Original submission did include 10 foot setback
6 - believes developer can live with 25' setbacks on non - creekside lots; Lots 20 and 21 -
7 have developed preliminary building plans; concurs with staff recommendations.
8 Commissioner Thompson - Do not want to encourage retail in this area.
9 Principal Planner McCann - ML district would allow some retail uses.
10 Associate Planner Phillips - Examples of proposed and present commercial uses allowed -
11 barber/beauty shops, health club, delicatessen, etc., very limited retail uses.
12 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Is layout plan only conceptual?
13 Associate Planner Phillips - Only conceptual - however, two submittals received do
14 coincide with conceptual plans.
15 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Street frontage landscape setback changes should reflect
16 more gentle transition than shown on plans.
17
18 Public hearing was closed.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
21 recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
22 approval of the proposed Amendment to the PCD Zoning Regulations, PCD Development
23 Plan and Design Guidelines as amended by staff in memo dated 1/23/96, based upon the
24 findings and subject to the mitigations and conditions listed below:
25
26 Commissioner Read: Yes
27 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
28 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
29 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
30 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
31 Commissioner Wick: Yes
32 Chairman Rahman: Yes
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
2
'41
42
43
44 3
45
46
47 4
48
49
50 5
51
52
An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
CEQA and local guidelines.
Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as
conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
A monitoring program has been included to ensure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures, if any.
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.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered the comments
before making a decision on the project.
16
1
6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
2
review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
3
' Petaluma, California.
4
5
7. Potential new adverse impacts to the Lakeville Highway corridor resulting from
6
development of the business park as proposed will be adequately mitigated through
7
a fair share payment by the proponents of each lot development toward the cost of
8
implementation of highway improvements as identified under the Lakeville
?
9
Highway Assessment District #24 project.
10
11
Mitigation Measures
12
13
1. EARTH:
14
15
1. Prior to issuance of development permits for each lot, the master grading
..;_.
16
and drainage plan for the subdivision shall be modified to direct on -site
17
drainage away from Adobe Creek and into a City- approved storm drainage
18
system. Plans shall be subject to staff approval and shall include provisions
19
for removal of oils, dust and other debris from parking area runoff prior to
20
entry into the storm drain system.
21
22
2. Plans submitted for SPARC approval of individual lot proposals shall
23
reflect incorporation of permanently designated permeable landscape areas
24
comprising not less than 20% of the total project site area, including street
25
frontage landscaping situated within the public right -of -way. The PCD
=
26
Development Standards shall be amended to include this requirement under
27
lot coverage provisions.
28
29
3. All site grading and drainage improvements shall be designed and
30
constructed in conformance with the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood
31
Control Design Criteria and shall be subject to review and approval of the
32
Water Agency and the City Engineer prior to issuance of development
33
permits for each lot.
34
35
4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each lot development, an Erosion
36
Control Plan shall be submitted for staff approval, in accordance with
-
37
Ordinance 1576 N.C. S. of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
38
39
1 5. Private parking lots within the site shall be cleaned and swept weekly to
40
minimize the amount of contaminated runoff. Materials and /or debris
"
41
collected by cleaning activities shall be disposed of properly to City staff
42
approval.
43
44
Monitoring Planning and Engineering staff shall review plans submitted for
=`
45
approval of development permits for each lot, to determine compliance with the
-
46
approved master drainage plan and pretreatment of project runoff, as well as
47
minimum landscape coverage requirements.
48
49
2. AIR:
50
51
1. New uses with potential for generation of substantial air emissions shall be
52
reviewed in conjunction with design review of the building, or prior to
r
?�:
17
1 issuance of building permits for tenant improvements, and appropriate
2 environmental assessment conducted by staff, with costs borne by the
3 applicant. Plans shall incorporate provisions for elimination/reduction of
4 such emissions prior to application for development permit approval. All
5 such projects shall be subject to approval of the Bay Area Air Quality
6 Management District ( BAAQMD) prior to permit issuance.
7
8 2. All construction activities and uses shall comply with applicable Zoning
9 Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (dust, odor etc.).
10 At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards
11 specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma
12 Zoning Ordinance, and the 1987 General Plan.
13
14 3. Dust emissions during construction shall 'be reduced by watering of
15 exposed earth surfaces at least twice per day during excavation, grading
16 and construction activities. Open haul trucks shall be equipped with
17 tarpaulins or other effective covers during transport of materials to and
18 from the site, to contain debris and dust emissions. All motorized
19 construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled, and shall
20 be turned off when not in use.
21
22 Monitoring All projects with potential significant air emissions shall be subject to
23 City SPARC review or staff plan review of development permit applications, and
24 BAAQMD approval prior to permit issuance.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
3. WATER:
See mitigation under item 1 (Earth).
2. Development of individual lots shall be subject to imposition of all
applicable special development fees, to be calculated and paid in
accordance with adopted City Council Resolutions.
Monitoring See monitoring under item 1. Staff inspections will be conducted
during construction to verify compliance with required erosion control and storm
runoff management requirements.
4. PLANT LIFE:
40 1. As proposed by the project proponents, a 15' strip of land on all lots
41 adjacent to the south side of Adobe Creek shall be dedicated to the City for
42 purposes of creek restoration and levee reconstruction. A minimum
43 landscape setback of at least 5' shall be maintained from the proposed
44 Adobe Creek property line for site improvements on all lots abutting the
45 south side of the creek, to permit installation of a vegetative buffer between
46 the toe of the creek levee and private lot improvements. A 2' vehicular
47 overhang encroachment into the landscape setback may be permitted for
48 parked vehicles. Large- canopied trees, and shrubs/groundcovers
49 compatible with riparian vegetation shall be installed within the required 5'
50 setback area, concurrent with the development of each creekside lot.
51
18
1 2. The project proponents shall participate in the City creek restoration
2 project for Adobe Creek through a fair share payment contribution,
3 proportionate to the costs of plan preparation, implementation and
4 monitoring for revegetation of the south side of Adobe Creek, as required
5 under the previous Lakeville Business Park project approvals. Amount of
6 payment shall be calculated and paid prior to issuance of the first building
7 permit issued for development of a creekside lot, but shall not exceed
8 $27,000.00.
9
10 3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a creekside lot, or as
11 otherwise determined by staff at time of building permit issuance, the
12 project sponsor shall enter into an agreement with the City, providing for
13 short- and long -term maintenance of the restoration improvements installed
14 within the proposed and existing City right -of -way along the Adobe Creek
15 channel. The agreement shall establish standards for maintenance of all
16 right -of -way mitigation plantings, and shall include provisions for inclusion
17 of the levee improvements (excluding structural repairs), public access
18 path and all right -of -way creek mitigation plantings within a Landscape
19 Assessment District (LAD) for maintenance purposes. The project sponsor
20 may elect to contract for private maintenance of the right -of -way
21 improvements, until activation of the LAD is required by the City.
22
23 Monitoriniz Plans submitted for SPARC approval of individual lot development
24 shall reflect the proposed 15' dedication and required 5' minimum landscape
25 setback from Adobe Creek. Mitigation funds shall be collected by City staff, and
26 consent for formation of a Landscape Assessment District shall be submitted by the
27 project proponents prior to issuance of development permits. Following
28 completion of creek improvements, staff shall establish standards for maintenance
29 of all creek area mitigation plantings and provide them to the project proponents
30 or the maintenance contractor, together with any recommendations for
31 maintenance resulting from the City restoration project monitoring reports.
32
33 5. ANIMAL LIFE:
34
35 See mitigations under item 4 (Plant Life).
36
37 Monitoring See monitoring under item 4.
38
39 6. NOISE:
40
41 1. Construction equipment shall be properly mufllered and maintained, and
42 engines turned off when equipment is not in use.
43
44 2. New uses with potential for significant noise impacts shall be reviewed in
45 conjunction with design review of the building or prior to issuance of
46 building permits for tenant improvements, and appropriate noise
47 assessment conducted. 'Any required means of noise mitigation shall be
48 identified and reflected in construction plans submitted for building permit
49 issuance.
50
51 3. All construction activities and uses shall comply with applicable Zoning
52 Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor
19
I etc.). At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance
2 Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301 of the
3 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the 1987 General Plan.
4
5 4. Prior to issuance of building permits for each development, the project
6 proponents shall provide City staff with the name and phone number of an
7 on -site manager with authority to implement noise mitigation measures, in
8 the event complaints are received.
9
.10 Monitoring All new development proposals will be reviewed by staff at time of
11 application for SPARC and development permit approval, for compliance with the
12 adopted mitigation measures.
13
14 7. LIGHT AND GLARE:
15
16 1. All exterior lighting shall be designed to preclude direct glare toward
17 adjoining properties, public streets, Highway 101 and the Adobe Creek and
18 City marsh areas (Schollenberger Park and the City marsh restoration
19 project).
20
=1 Monitoring Each individual development proposal shall be subject to SPARC
22 review of lighting plans, and subsequent administrative approval of development
23 permits.
24
25 8. LAND USE:
26
27 Mitigations, if any None required.
28
29 Monitoring None required.
30
31 9. NATURAL RESOURCES:
32
33 Mitigations, if any None required.
34
35 Monitoring None required.
36
37 10. RISK OF UPSET:
38
39 1. All individual development proposals shall be subject to Site Plan and Architectural
40 Committee review, in accordance with current City requirements, and all proposals
41 for use or storage of certain specified hazardous materials shall be subject to Fire
42 Marshal approval of a Hazardous Materials Permit, as required.
43
44 Monitoring All proposals involving potentially hazardous substances shall be
45 subject to review by the Fire Marshal and Plan_ ning Department during use permit,
46 SPARC and plan check approved processes.
47
48 11. POPULATION:
49
50 Mitigations, if any None required
51
20
I Monitoring None required.
2
3 12. HOUSING:
4
5 Mitigations, if any None required.
6
7 Monitoring None required.
8
9 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
10
11 1. Sidewalks shall be installed along the frontage of all streets within the
12 business park, subject to design approval by SPARC.
13
14 2. Clearly identifiable pedestrian/bike connections shall be incorporated into
15 the PCD Development Plan submitted for SPARC approval, to permit
16 controlled access points linking the trail system proposed for
17 Schollenberger Park, the public pathway proposed along Adobe Creek, and
18 bike routes along So. McDowell Blvd. Specific lot development plans shall
19 respect and incorporate access treatment as approved by SPARC on the
20 master PCD Development Plan.
21
22 3. If on- street parking is proposed, Section 1.12.e. On Street Parkin shall
23 be modified to remove the employee -only permit restriction and signing
24 requirements for on- street parking on Fisher Drive and Corporate Circle, in
25 order to eliminate the need for parking enforcement by the City. On- street
26 parking may not be utilized in meeting the overall parking requirement for
27 specific uses. No on- street parking shall be permitted on So. McDowell
28 Blvd.
29
30 4. Concurrent with each building permit application for tenant improvements,
31 the building owner shall provide to the Planning Department a written
32 certification of the following:
33
34 a. Number of employees (by type of use) for the lease space in
35 question.
36 b. Number of square feet per type of use (office,
37 manufacturing, warehouse, etc.) for the lease space in
38 question.
39 C. Remaining lease space area available.
40 d. Cumulative total of a and b above for any previously
41 approved tenant improvements.
42
43 5. It is anticipated that the Lakeville Highway Assessment District #24 will
44 be implemented prior to development of lots within the business park
45 (except Lot 10 and Lots 13114). In the event the Assessment District does
46 not proceed as anticipated, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
== 47 the applicant /property owner shall pay to the City of Petaluma a fair share
48 allocation of the cost for the Lakeville Highway Improvements, e.g. road
49 widening, signalization, and landscape improvements. The cost of the
50 improvements have been allocated to each property within the proposed
51 Lakeville Highway Assessment District #24 based on methods and formula
52 contained in the Final Engineer's Report dated January 16, 1996 Oetebe r
21
1 16, 1995. This amount may be adjusted using formulas in the report to
2 reflect a different trip generation rate depending upon the actual land use
3 proposed. The total revised amount, less the actual levied assessment, if
4 any, shall constitute the fair 'share allocation for the Lakeville Highway
5 Improvements. In no event shall the fair share allocation be less than zero
6 (0) dollars.
7
8 6. All individual lot development shall be subject to imposition of Traffic
9 Mitigation fees, to be calculated and paid in accordance with adopted City
10 Council Resolution.
11
12 Monitorine The proposed PCD Amendment and all proposed lot - specific
13 development shall be subject to SPARC review for pedestrian/bike connections as
14 required, and parking adequacy, and individual tenants shall provide parking
15 calculations at time of building permit application. Fees shall be collected as
16 specified prior to commencement of each new use.
17
18 14. PUBLIC SERVICE:
19
20 1. The project shall be subject to payment of all applicable Special
21 Development Fees, including water and sewer connection fees, community
22 facilities development fees, storm drainage impact fees, traffic mitigation
23 fees and any other applicable development fees, in accordance with current
24 City regulations and the previously imposed project conditions of approval.
25
26 Monitoring Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
27 the individual lots developed
28
29 15. ENERGY:
30
31 Mitigations, if any None required.
32
33 Monitorin -9 : None required.
34
35 16. UTILITIES:
36
37 1. Each individual proposal for lot development shall be subject to payment of
38 special development fees, as required by City resolution.
39
40 2. All applications for SPARC review and development permit approval shall
41 reflect proposed utility service connections, and shall comply with
42 mitigations specified under item 1 (Earth) and 3 (Water) above.
43
44 Monitoring Plans submitted for development permit approval of each lot shall be
45 subject to staff approval of utility plans. Special development fees shall be paid
46 prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building.
47
48 17. HUMAN HEALTH:
49
50 Mitigations, if any None required.
51
22
1
Monitoring None required.
2
3
18.
AESTIIETICS:
4
5
1. All development within the project site shall be subject to SPARC review
6
of architectural, site, and landscaping plans. Emphasis shall be placed on
7
preservation of existing natural views, orientation of the project
8
development toward Adobe Creek and the Petaluma Marsh, and
9
enhancement of the site through sensitive landscape design, in keeping with
10
the natural amenities of the site.
11
12
Monitoring Prior to issuance of development permits, plans shall be submitted for
13
staff approval, and shall reflect conformance with all SPARC conditions of project
14
approval. Each lot development shall be subject to inspection prior to issuance of
15
a Certificate of Occupancy.
16
17
19.
RECREATION:
18
19
Mitigations, if any None required.
20
21
Monitoring None required.
22
23
20.
ARCRAEOLOGICAL/RISTORICAL:
24
'
25
1. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading,
26
work shall be halted temporarily and City staff shall be notified by the
27
project proponents. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for
28
evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local
29
Indian community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any
30
archaeological remains are uncovered.
31
32
Monitoring. Monitoring of the site for potential archaeological remains or artifacts
33
shall be conducted in conjunction with routine construction inspections performed
34
by City staff.
35
36
21.
POTENTIAL LONGTERM IMPACTS
37
38
1. As proposed by the project proponents, a minimum 5' setback from the
39
proposed new creek property line shall be maintained for establishment of a
40
vegetative buffer between public creek area improvements and private lot
41
development, including parking area pavement.
,.
42
43
Monitoring SPARC approval of the proposed Amendment to the PCD
>.
44
Regulations and Development Plan shall occur prior to approval of the first
45
building permit for a creekside lot, reflecting the required 5' setback, and property
46
line relocation. The proposed land dedication shall be recorded prior to issuance
47
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first lot developed.
48
49
Findings for PCD Amendment
50
51
1.
The proposed Amendment as conditioned, is in substantial harmony with and will
52
serve to implement the intent, goals and policies of the General Plan of the City of
23
I Petaluma, and is or can be coordinated with existing and planned development of
2 the surrounding areas. In particular, the project will result in the installation of
3 designated pedestrian and bicycle circulation routes within the business park, and
4 will further the implementation of drainage and riparian enhancement
5 improvements to the Adobe Creek waterway.
6
7 2. The streets and thoroughfares (McDowell Blvd. So., Corporate Circle, Fisher
8 Drive, Cader Lane) within the business park are suitable and adequate to serve the
9 proposed uses, including on- street parking as conditioned, and the anticipated
10 vehicular traffic which will be generated thereby, and public sidewalks and bicycle
11 lanes will be added to improve pedestrian/bicycle circulation and safety.
12
13 3. The facts submitted with the application and presented at the hearing establish that:
14
15 a. Development of the Lakeville Business Park PC District has been initiated
16 and will proceed within a reasonable time by submittal of applications for
17 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of individual lot
18 development plans.
19
20 b. The proposed Amendment, as conditioned, will result in industrial,
21 commercial, institutional, recreational, and other non - residential uses and
22 development patterns appropriate in area, location and overall planning to
23 the purpose intended under the PCD Zoning District; the design and
24 development standards are such as to create an industrial environment of
25 sustained desirability and stability; and proposed development will meet
26 Zoning Ordinance performance standards.
27
28 Conditions of PCD Amendment Approval
29
30 1. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of a Mitigated
31 Negative Declaration (Resolution No. N.C.S.) for the PCD
32 Amendment are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of project approval.
33
34 2. Prior to application for SPARC approval of the PCD Amendment, the proposed
35 language in the written PCD Zoning Regulations (Exhibit D) shall be modified to
36 reflect the following:
37
38 a. Section 1.La.j. Laundry, dry cleaning and nd dig establishments other than
39 retail shops shall be deleted as a principal use and added as a conditional use for all
40 lots except Lot 1.
41
42 b. Language under sectionl.l.a.k. (p.4) shall be modified to add the phrase
43 "and storage of hazardous materials is not required. "
44
45 C. Sectionl.2.k. Trucking operations shall be deleted and incorporated under
46 section 1.2.k.d.
47
48 d. Section 1.4.b (p.6) shall be deleted and the language "One residential unit
49 per lot for property management or security only" added as a conditionally
50 permitted use for Lot I under Section 1.3. b.
51
24
1
e. Section 1.5.a. shall be amended to reference section 1.2.h. only.
2
3
f. Sections 1.5.o. and 1.5.q. (p. 7) shall be deleted (addressed under section
4
1.2.d.).
5
6
g. Section 1.9 (p. 8) shall be amended to incorporate language specifying that
7
total lot coverage for structures and paving combined shall not exceed 80% of the
8
total site area for each development, and that at least 20% of the site shall be
9
retained for landscaping. Calculation of the required 20 1 /6 landscaped area may
10
include that portion of the public street right -of -way utilized for landscaping and
11
the public sidewalk, as well as designated outdoor seating areas located within the
12
project site..
13
14
h. Section 1.10.a. (p. 8) and Section 1.10.b. (p. 9) shall be amended to delete
15
Lots 11 and 12.
16
17
i. Section 1.10.b.(5) and (6) (p. 10) shall be modified to reflect a minimum
18
parking and circulation setback of 5' from interior side and creekside property
19
lines. A 2' vehicular overhang may be permitted for parked vehicles.
20
21
j. Section 1.10.c.(2) (p. 10) shall be modified to reflect a minimum 5' setback
22
for driveways and parking, and a 30' setback for structures (consistent with the
23
existing recorded public access easement) along the property line abutting Adobe
24
Creek on Lot 1.
25
26
k. Section 1.11e.(1). (p. 10) pertaining to installation of fencing, shall be
27
amended to add the phrase "other than public streets. "
28
29
1. If on- street parking is proposed, Section 1.12.e. (p. 11) shall be amended
30
to delete the permit restriction for on- street parking on Corporate Circle and
31
Fisher Drive, and to specify that on- street parking is prohibited on McDowell
32
Blvd. So.
33
34
M. Section 1.12.f.(4) (p. 12) shall be amended to permit parking and
35
driveways only within the required setback areas along a common interior side
36
property line between two lots. No encroachment of parking and circulation areas
37
shall be permitted within required front or rear yard setbacks.
38
39
n. Section 1.14.c. (p. 13) shall be modified to add language prohibiting
40
loading docks to be located along building walls directly facing a public street.
41
42
0. Section 1.15.b.(2) (p. 14) pertaining to freestanding business signs shall be
43
expanded to incorporate maximum height and area restrictions as well as lighting
44
specifications for regulating tenant directories.
45
46
p. Section 1.15.c.(2) and (3) (p. 15) shall be amended to clarify area, location
:47
and height limits for regulating tenant suite entrance signs in multi - tenant buildings.
48
49
q. Section 1.18. Landscape. (p. 16) shall be modified to add a reference to a
50
creek interface zone applicable to those lots abutting Adobe Creek, and the
51
appropriate exhibit shall be added to the PCD regulations.
25
1
2 r. Section 1.18.a.(4) (p. 16) pertaining to sidewalk installation, shall be
3 modified to delete the phrase " except that theme need not be installed on lots 9 and
4 10."
5
6 S. Section 1.18.b.(4) (p. 17) pertaining to landscaping yard requirements,
7 shall be modified to reflect consistency with adopted setbacks for parking.
8
9 t. Section 1.18.b.(4)(a). (p. 17) pertaining to landscaping yard requirements,
to shall be amended to delete Lots 11 and 12 (non- creekside lots).
11
12 U. Section 1.18.b.(5). (p. 17) shall be amended to permit alternative paving
13 materials and finish for walkways located on private property, which serve as
14 connections to public access - paths.
15
16 V. Section 1.18.d. (p. 17) shall be modified to permit use of plant materials in
17 addition to those specified, in order to create special landscape accents and focal
18 points within each private lot development.
19
20 W. The landscape materials list shall be reorganized to clarify which materials
21 are proposed to be used within the various landscape zones identified in the PCD
22 regulations (Streetscape Zone, Interior Zone, Creek Transition Zone, etc.).
23 Consideration shall be given to incorporating more unusual plant species, water -
24 conserving materials, and reduction of lawn areas. Use of plant materials
25 compatible with the adjacent Adobe Creek and Petaluma marsh habitat
26 environments is encouraged.
27
28 X. A provision shall be added to the regulations specifying that the minimum
29 developable lot size shall be .76 acres, (consistent with existing provisions
30 contained in the PCD Design Guidelines), to permit potential future subdivision of
31 Lot 22 as originally intended under the Rezoning and Tentative Map approvals for
32 the business park.
33
34 3. Prior to application for SPARC approval of the PCD Amendment, the PCD
35 Development Plan shall be amended to reflect the following, subject to SPARC
36 review and approval:
37
38 a. The proposed 15' dedication shall be accurately dimensioned on the plan,
39 and the proposed relocation of the creekside property line reflected. The proposed
40 lot areas and dimensions shall be shown for all lots, assuming the proposed 15'
41 creek dedication.
42
43 b. Building and parking setback lines shall be modified to reflect consistency
44 with the adopted conditions of approval, and appropriately labeled. Interior side
45 setbacks shall be shown for existing property lines. Minimum setbacks from
46 property lines shall be specified as follows, consistent with the amended PCD
47 Zoning Regulations:
48
49
50
51
26
I
Lot 1
2
3
Front/Street Rear /Creek Interior Side
4
Bldg.
50' (Lakeville) 30' not applicable
5
25' (McDowell)
6
Pkg.
50' (Lakeville) 5' (w /SCWA approval) not applicable
7
25' (McDowell)
8
9
10
Lots 5 -10, 11-15, 22
11
12
Front/Street Rear Interior Side
13
Bldg.
25' 25' 20'*
14
Pkg.
25' 5' 5'*
15
16
Lots 2 -4, 16 -21 (Creekside Lots)
17
18
Front /Street Rear Interior Side
19
Bldg.
25' 5' 15'*
20
Pkg.
10' 5' 5 1 *
21
22
*Setback may be waived with joint lot developments.
23
24
C.
The proposed conceptual design and location of the public sidewalk shall
25
be reflected along all public streets.
26
27
d.
The proposed location of street lights shall be shown for all public streets.
28
29
e.
The proposed location and conceptual design of all pedestrian/bike
30
connections to the Adobe Creek and Schollenberger Park trail systems shall
31
be reflected on the plan.
32
33
f.
Proposed on- street parking locations on Corporate Circle and Fisher Drive
_ 34
shall be identified, as well as the no parking zone on McDowell Blvd. So.
35
36
g.
The location of on- street bike lanes required for McDowell Blvd. So and
37
Cader Lane shall be reflected.
38
39 4.
Prior to application for SPARC approval of the PCD Amendment, the Design
40
Guidelines shall be modified to reflect the following, subject to SPARC review and
41
approval:
42
43
a.
All language redundant with the amended PCD Zoning Regulations shall be
44
deleted.
45
46
b.
The Guidelines shall be'expanded to incorporate more specific information
47
and detail defining the design concepts and intent for the business park, as
48
they relate to architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signs.
49
50
C.
Section III. Landscape Guidelines shall be expanded to reference the creek
51
transition zone, proposed treatment and the design intent (transition to
27
I natural riparian landscape environment; increase creek habitat value;
2 vegetative screen between proposed creek trail and industrial development;
3 tree planting to shade the south side of the creek; preclude
4 vehicular/pedestrian encroachment along exterior bank of levee, etc.), as
5 well as to encourage incorporation of useable outdoor seating/recreation
6 space for employees within businesses park developments.
7
8 d. Section III.C.2. Building Frontage rontage Setback Area shall be deleted.
9
10 e. Section III.D. Site Landscaping and Maintenance shall be expanded to
11 incorporate provisions for routine replacement of dead or damaged plant
12 materials consistent with the adopted landscape design concepts for the
13 business park and approved plans for specific lot development, as part of
14 the regular landscape maintenance schedule.
15
16 5. Dedication of the 15' strip of land adjacent to Adobe Creek shall be recorded prior
17 to issuance of development permits for the first creekside lot to be developed.
18
19 6. The following requirements of the City Engineer shall be met:
20
21 a. Current City policy for street lighting within Lakeville Business Park
22 development is that street lighting on arterials shall be installed by
23 developers and maintained by the City through an assessment district.
24 Street lighting for the minor streets in industrial parks would be the
25 responsibility of the developers. See June 1, 1981 City Council meeting
26 minutes.
27
28 Cader Lane is designated as having an on- street bike route on the general
29 Plan. Street lighting shall be installed to provide lighting for nighttime
30 bicycle riding. The street light locations shall be shown on the PCD
31 Amendment Master Plan and reviewed and approved with the Master Plan
32 SPARC application. Installation of the street lighting shall occur prior to
33 issuance of the first certificate of occupancy after the Amendment Master
34 Plan is approved.
35
36 b. Pavement markings and signing shall be installed within the entire
37 development as was intended with the Lakeville business Park
38 improvement plans. See note 26 on Sheet 1 of the plans on file with the
39 City (File No. 7 -173). Pavement markings and signing shall provide for
40 bike lanes, travel lanes, turn lanes, stop bars., etc. Plans shall be prepared
41 for these improvements and reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
42 Engineer. Installation of these improvements may be performed under the
43 City's "excavation permit" process if the developer chooses not to enter
44 into a Public Improvements Agreement. Installation and acceptance of
45 these improvements shall be performed prior to issuance of the first
46 certificate of occupancy after the Amendment Master Plan is approved.
47
48 C. Sidewalks shall be installed across all lot street frontages concurrent with
49 development of each individual lot pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
50 88 -41. Location of the sidewalks shall be shown on the PCD Amendment
51 Master Plan and installed concurrent with each development.
52
28
1 7. No parking signs shall be installed/retained along the McDowell Blvd. street
2
frontage, and removed from Corporate Circle and Fisher Drive prior to issuance of
3
the first Certificate of Occupancy following approval of the PCD Amendment, to
4
the specifications of the City Engineering Department staff.
5
6
8. Prior to occupancy of the first development constructed following approval of the
7
PCD Amendment, the subdivision CC &R's shall be amended to reflect consistency
8
with the revised Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines, and a copy submitted
9
for Planning staff approval.
10
11
9. Except as herein amended, all previously adopted conditions of approval for the
12
'Lakeville Business Park Tentative Subdivision Map and PCD zoning shall remain
13
in full force and effect.
14
15
10. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
16
any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
17
action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
18
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
19
such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
20
State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
21
applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
22
coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
23
City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
24
bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
25
faith.
26
27
28
V. STREET STANDARDS; CITY OF PETALUMA.
29
30
Consideration of and recommendation to City Council on proposed adoption of
31
revised Street Standards for use City -wide.
32
33
Principal Planner McCann and Traffic Engineer Tilton presented the staff report.
34
35
Public hearing:
36
-
37
John Fitzgerald - Fitzgerald and Associates, Civil Engineers - Advocate of alternative
'
38
hammerhead street configuration, wants to make sure flexibility is there to allow small
39
streets for in -fill projects especially on west side; would like to see word "temporary"
40
removed from Standards.
41
Dick Lieb - Lieb and Miller Architects/Planners - Supports these changes; Mr. Fitzgerald's
'fz
42
diagram (hammerhead design) should be included in these standards; encourages support;
43
Mr. Fitzgerald paid application fee to bring this to Planning Commission/City attention.
y
44
Planning Director Tuft will investigate payment of fee.
45
46
This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1996.
r } .
47
„
48
49
50
51
4,
29
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
VI. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Cleaver Exception (Appeal)
2. McNear Landing PUD and Tentative Map
3. Riverfront General Plan Amendment - Approved.
4. Ellwood Opportunity Center (Appeal) - Continued to February City
Council.
5. Corona Reach Specific Plan - pre - proposal meeting Thursday 1/25/96 at
10:30 AM.
League of California Cities meeting - information to Planning Commission - no money in
budget to allow additional conference attendance.
ADJOURN AT 11:00 PM TO RIVER TOUR/FIELD TRIP AND STUDY SESSION
- January 30, 1995 at 3:00 PM - leave from City Hall.
min0123 /plan65
30