Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/14/1995369 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING March 14, 1995 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL: Present: Feibusch, Rahman, Stompe, Thompson *, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld, Wick STAFF: Warren Salmons, Assistant City Manager Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Principal Planner Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner Hans Grunt, Assistant Planner * Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 28, 1995 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from staff regarding modifications to recommended conditions for Adobe House project; Petaluma Business Park and Industrial Development Survey booklets; Letter from Tim Heck regarding Adobe Creek; Letter from Matt Hudson regarding Adobe Creek; Letter from William White regarding Wastewater Project. APPEAL STATEMENT: (Was read.) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS I. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION BY THE CITIZEN'S WASTEWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 1 370 1 DISCUSSION: 2 3 Matt Maguire - Committee Members present to answer questions from the Planning 4 Commission; referred to letter from Bill. White (member of Committee); indicated 5 his support of Planning Commission's process on Treatment Plan DEIR to date; 6 EIR .must look at "broader scope 7 Ralph Sartori - Citizens Advisory Committee; City -wide concern -look at ,project - 8 treatment plant is now tied together with string; on notice from RWQCB to do 9 something; behind anticipated schedule; will always have concerns around any 10 proposed site; alternate methods - open to consideration; biggest endeavor for City: 11 Dan Libarle - Citizens Advisory Committee - background, worked hard for 2 1/2 12 years; open process; recommendations to City Council will be good; don't need to 13 nit -pick each point; concerns with costs, consultants, etc.-, we all know Petaluma 14 needs 'a new sewer plant for additional capacity; unanimous recommendation from 15 Committee; no hidden agendas, looking out for entire citizens of Petaluma; tertiary 16 treatment was not discussed, is not a necessity at this time,. extra; money not 17 necessary now; does not take this project lightly; old plant has been around 18 50 +years, expect new plant to last as long. 19 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - questions; focus on adequacy of environmental 20 process, not focusing on details; questions on adequacy of process; participation by 21 Dr. Tchobanoglous. 22 Matt Maguire - Input by Dr. Tchobanoglous was very good, explained issues, terms 23 very well; toured St. Helena sewer plant, very pleased with their system; very 24 effective form of digestion, uses much less energy. 25 Commissioner Thompson - what types of technology were investigated? 26 Matt Maguire - technologies have not come in yet; will be compared when 27 proposed. 28 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - when looking through 21 points, when did multiple 29 treatment methods and sites become an issue? 30 Dan Libarle - nothing has been cast in concrete; committee has not made any 31 decisions; had to have parameters for bidding purposes; asking for new, but proven 32 technology. 33 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - to start EIR process, parameters had to be set, how 34 were site proposals made. 35 Dan Libarle makes sense to place ponds where they are now; should go where 36 facilities are already in place. 37 Ralph Sartori - wastewater that we have in Petaluma was used for siting purposes; 38 Consultants worked with staff for siting alternatives. 39 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - in SOQ process - requested vendors be required to 40 provide background on construction costs, etc. to qualify vendor. 41 Dan -Libarle - vendors narrowed down. to 5, felt these were qualified after 42 background checks, experience, etc.; information on parameters /requirements was 43 to help qualify potential venders. 44 Ralph Sartori - very detailed information up front to make potential vendors aware 45 that they would be responsible and be partners with City for years to come. 46 Commissioner Libarle - venders will have to deal with mitigations in future._; 47 disclosure to venders very important. 48 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - privatization questions? 49 Matt Maguire - most resistant to privatization at first; part of how it will work_ is 50 obligation for vendor to be here for 30 years to make project work; argued strongly 51 for Appendix O - criminal backgrounds of all involved; difficulttot predict savinls, on. 52 financing, etc.; capital cost write -offs, etc.; privatization does look like best way to 53 make money; was a tough decision, but now thinks it will work and save money. 2 371 1 Commissioner Torliatt - where do you think Planning Commission is not doing a 2 good job? 3 Commissioner Libarle - reason we are here tonight is to give Planning Commission 4 comfort that Committee has done a good, thorough job; here to save time, answer 5 questions, move project along as quickly and smoothly as possible; you have to ask 6 questions; PC has to deal with land use questions; suggestions should come back to 7 Committee; believes PC will be pleased with RFP documents. 8 Commissioner Torliatt - Planning Commission needs to make recommendations on 9 environmental documents; tertiary treatment not discussed in these documents; 10 tertiary not looked at because of financial implications, does not know if that is still 11 true when all factors including reservoir are addressed; hesitant to approve EIR that 12 does not explore tertiary in some way, needs to be looked at as an alternative; how 13 are we doing with Infiltration and Inundation (I &I)? we are supposed to be 14 addressing those issues at this time before plant is built. 15 Thomas S. Hargis - Director of Engineering - Petaluma participating in an agency - 16 wide water conservation program; I &I Program trying to identify in advance of a 17 new plant, how City can make inroads into input of sewer into plant; studying worst 18 areas now, developing computer program to identify areas in need of repair, areas 19 of high inflow; looking at alternative types of technology; new sewer project to be 20 designed to handle types of flows handled now; if pumping can be reduced, facilities 21 can `last longer. 22 Commissioner Torliatt - Can treatment plant we are looking at allow expansion to 23 tertiary treatment? 24 Dan Libarle - Yes, plant will be designed modular for expansion to tertiary 25 treatment in future if standards change, etc.; rates are much higher for tertiary. 26 Matt Maguire - in a complete EIR we would be looking at tertiary; costs of tertiary 27 treatments are going down. 28 Commissioner Torliatt - concerns that EIR is not looking at all options including 29 30 tertiary. Matt Ma wire - many processes work, we want to choose process that works best; 31 wants to leave door open for vendors to propose new, efficient treatments. 32 Dan' Libarle - If Planning Commission says tertiary needs to be looked at, all 33 documents need to be redone to ask for tertiary to be looked at; Committee was not 34 asked to look at tertiary (except if needed with an expansion), much work would 35 have to be redone. 36 37 Ralph Sartori - always a possibility that a vendor will come in with a tertiary plant that will make the numbers work. 38 proposal Commissioner Torliatt - concerns with reservoirs in the future; visited both 39 proposed sites for reservoirs; not sure if either site is right, will shut down lots of 40 agriculture uses. 41 Matt Maw - tertiary is not a clearly defined term. 42 Commissioner Wick - very impressed with diligence of Committee's work; provided 43 good technical advice to City Council; Planning Commission role is to insure 44 adequacy of EIR; question to Ralph Sartori - re: not having mandatory measures to 45 conserve water, were you thinking of (financial) incentives? 46 Ralph Sartori - Yes. 47 Commissioner Rahman - also a graduate of Sewer School - does not want to take 48 more time for unnecessary efforts; does not want to let speed or money cause us to 49 make wrong decisions for future; vendors should be encouraged to bid with 50 secondary treatment as an option, would like to be able to compare costs, etc. . 51 Commissioner Feibusch - did not attend sewer school - has a concern regarding 52 capacity - wants to make sure capacity will be adequate in the future (build -out of 53 General Plan). 54 Dan Libarle - looked at capacity for 30 -60 years in future. K 372 1 Tom Hargis - sizing for projected population that fits into near future; can be 2 expanded with modules for future expansion; plenty of capacity into piping under 3 ground. 4 Commissioner Stompe - thanks. to Committee - concerns with latitude of options, 5 too many options; difficult to select a vendor with so many options. 6 Commissioner Wick will be. doing a full analysis - cost of energy, etc:, don't know 7 what type of technologies will be proposed; wants to look at competitive process to 8 encourage creative solutions., 9 Warren Salmons - City Council has adopted methodology for evaluating .documents 10 coming back - all aspects will need to be analyzed; RFP lists very specific evaluation 11 criteria; City Council makes final 1decision. 12 Commissioner Stompe i - what. specific financial analysis was done? 13 Warren Salmons - financial - consultant did :several financial scenarios; assessment of 14 economies that can be achieved; financial report will be an appendix to 15 procurement documents in a month or so. 16 Commissioner_ Thompson - should have had this meeting at very beginning - thanks 17 to Committee members. 18 19 20 NEW BUSINESS 21 PUBLIC HEARINGS 22 23 I1. ADOBE CREEK, UNIT 2, PHASE II; PUD: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 24 AMENDMENT; REMAINING 159 UNBUILT LOTS TO BE LOCATED 25. AROUND THE GOLF COURSE ON AN EXTENSION OF FALCON 26 RIDGE DRIVE (PRIVATE ROAD) ACCESSED FROM ELY BLVD. 27 SOUTH VIA ADOBE CREEK DRIVE. 28 29 Discussion of the draft Initial Study, recommended mitigation measures and 30 the proposed amendment to the PUD Development Plan. and Development 31 Agreement., Upon receipt of testimony, the hearing will be continued to a 32 future meeting for adoption. of a recommendation to the City Council. 33 34 Assistant Planner Hans Grunt presented the staff report including background 35 -information on project; corrections to fee requirements and timing of Final Map 36 improvements; comments /complaints regarding play 'reversal of golf course; play 37 will, be reversed to original play up to this point City has not been 'involved in 38 issues regarding golf course play. 39 40 The public hearing was opened. 4.1 42 SPEAKERS: 43 44 Commissioner Wick - requested graphic showing location of proposed community 45 park. 46 Tim Heck J.G. Orbis - Operations Manager - discussed his March letter in 47 response to neighborhood concerns; re: golf course operation - reversed :play 48 because of slow play, reversal, was done in March of 1994; fees, lowered ;allowance. 49 of walking players, twilight play (significant increase) will return. , to : original play 50 order; undertaking landscaping changes /additions to lessen impact with stray balls 51 in yards; concerns with J.G. Orbis controlling Homeowner's Association concerns 52 with Phase I of homes constructed - curbing (difficulty in entering driveways) T:G. 53 Oibis will reconstruct curbing this spring (weather depending), will repair 0 373 1 deteriorated roadway areas after all construction is completed (unless roadways 2 become a safety concern sooner); sidewalk exit from Adobe Creek out to Ely was 3 not provided - issue has just been raised - will work with Homeowner's Association 4 on this issue; J.G. Orbis will be working more closely in future with homeowners on 5 issues relating to golf course. 6 Rich .Goldstein - 1883 Adobe Creek Drive - Does not want reversal of play; several 7 requests - speed bumps should be installed, development has changed dramatically 8 (many more children); concerns with safety of children in street; golfers, not 9 residents speed; recent security problems. 10 Jesse. Rhodes - J.G. Orbis has cooperated with home owners recently; security will 11 possibly be provided paid for equally between Homeowner's Association /J.G. 12 Orbis /Christopherson Homes; commends J.G. Orbis for cooperation; 13 security /safety concerns; Petaluma understaffed by Police; more crime everywhere; 14 read statement from another homeowner, John Houston, indicating approval of 15 proposal. 16 Clyde Nels - Adobe Creek Phase I homeowner - who will pay for problems to be 17 corrected? sidewalk should be paid for by developer; discussion of proposed park - 18 should not be any golf cart pathway through the park; concerns with proposed golf 19 cart path through cul -de -sac - precludes walkway being used as sidewalk to park; 20 park'is afterthought, originally designated as a lake; no on- street parking throughout 21 subdivision - where will people park when visiting park? park should be rethought. 22 Casey Ackley - 1864 Adobe Creek - would like sidewalk connecting Adobe Creek 23 Drive to Ely Road South - now necessary because of greater number of children; 24 should be paid for by developer; homeowners left out of design of park - no access 25 other than by golf cart path; golf cart traffic in cul -de -sac should not be allowed 26 without sidewalks; homeowners need to be allowed to help in design of park plan. 27 Paul Young - 18 Birnam Wood Court - discussed Adobe Creek restoration plan - 28 creekbed has changed course over the past several years - willows have now located 29 themselves on islands; significant erosion, distributed photos showing creek erosion, 30 "pancaking" effect; willows should be removed and creek revegetated; bank eroding 31 at an alarming rate. 32 Lynn Young - 18 Birnam Wood Court - water level in Adobe Creek up to bottom of 33 Ely bridge - sandbagged Adobe Creek last week to prevent further erosion; has 34 removed lots of logs, etc.; homeowners misled about nature of proposed park (was 35 told that it was to be a children's park); golf cart pathway should not be allowed 36 thro :ugh park area; Orbis needs to make changes to park plans to meet needs of 37 children and families. 38 Marlin Nelson - 1838 Adobe Creek Drive - plays lots of golf; volunteered to help as 39 course Marshal; some curbs (especially on Falcon) really need to be redone. 40 Tom Koenitzer - golf course designed as a link course (with few trees); more trees 41 being planted, will block views, wants to work with developer for tree planting; J.G. 42 Orbis very cooperative just recently. 43 Tim Heck - clarifies that design and mix of homes has not changed. - has not been 44 downgraded; trees being planted in accordance with original. Robert Trent Jones 45 design; curbs on Falcon Creek Drive have been corrected; comment that park is an 46 afterthough is correct - park development elected to be constructed at expense of 47 developer - walkway not intended to be a golf cart drive - no golf carts will be 48 allowed within the park area; proposing opening up end of cul -de -sac to allow access 49 to golf course and clubhouse. 50 51 The ;public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 52 1995. 53 5 374 1 2 3 4 6 7 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 53 III. ADOBE HOUSE; 715 WOOD SORREL DRIVE; COWAN AND ASSOCIATES; AP NO. 137- 061 -025; FILE NO. 0055 (cup /spc 1 -95). Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the construction of an 80 -bed residential care facility for the elderly afflicted with Alzheimers Disease. The project presents a .master plan for the future development of a professional office building on adjacent land within the same 2.5 acre site. Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Feibusch - Questions regarding the security system. Commissioner Stompe - What is maximum number of employees on one shift? (answer 15). Dave Colombo - project architect - worked closely with Teryl Phillips, she has done very good and thorough job; concerns have been addressed with amended conditions; site issues - relocation of parking /landscaping in sewer /water easements - discussed with staff relocation of Phase 2 facility towards north property line; regarding security system - discussed three level security system; parking ratios .- 1;7 ratio should be sufficient; architectural issues - tentative arrangements to discuss with staff specific design issues. Commissioner Torliatt how will deliveries occur? Dave Colombo discussed trash pickup /delivery of supplies. Tom. Hargis - Sebastopol resident (speaking as a private individual) - are there any costs (for occupancy) available yet? Greg Rice : developer - looking for non =medical type of environment; not a skilled medical facility costs in lower range in. State of California ($2,200 - $2,500 /month). Commissioner vonRaesfeld - direction to SPARC - design upgrades. Commissioner Rahman - Adobe might connote southwestern look not particularly reflected in proposed design. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and Rahman to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration consistency, and approve a Conditional Use Permit subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER ; STOMPE: Yes COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes COMMISSIONER RAN-MAN: Yes CHAIRPERSON TI-IOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes Findings for Negative Declaration: seconded by Commissioner a finding of General :Plan based on the findings and no 37,E 1 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance 2 with CEQA and local guidelines. 3 4 2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could 5 be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures 6 attached as conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the 7 project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. 8 9 3. A monitoring program has, been included to ensure compliance with the 10 adopted mitigation measures. 11 12 4. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in 13 the Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively and is exempt 14 from Fish and Game filing fees because the site consists of an infill lot with 15 no significant vegetation, and no wildlife species are known to inhabit the 16 site. The soils have previously been disturbed and graded during 17 development of the Royal Oaks Mobile Home Park. 18 19 5. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List 20 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. 21 22 f. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigation Measures 23 recommended for adoption with the Negative Declaration and considered 24 the comments received before making a decision on the project. 25 26 g. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for 27 public review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 28 English Street, Petaluma, California. 29 30 Mitigation Measures 31 32 1. The following construction practices shall be observed, in order to minimize 33 short-term noise, circulation, and drainage impacts: 34 35 a. Noise - generating construction activity shall be limited to the hours 36 between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday; no noise 37 generating work may occur on Saturday or Sunday or on holidays 38 recognized by the City of Petaluma. 39 40 b. A plan for rerouting of traffic shall be submitted to the City 41 Engineering Department for approval, prior to commencement of any 42 work that may disrupt traffic flows along McDowell Blvd. 43 44 C. The site shall be sprinklered during dust - generating activities, as 45 frequently as necessary to prevent dust from blowing into the traffic 46 lanes along McDowell Blvd. and the adjacent minor public streets. 47 48 d. A storm water management /erosion control plan shall be submitted 49 for City approval as required by City Ordinance. The plan shall 50 include provisions to prevent soil, debris and chemicals utilized during 51 construction from entering the City storm drain system through runoff 52 from the site. 53 7 376 1 e. All stationary noise- generating equipment (eg., air compressors) shall 2 be located as far as practical from existing residences and the Bank of 3 Petaluma site. Construction equipment powered by internal 4 combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. 5 6 2. The project shall be subject. to payment of all applicable Special' 7 Development fees, including Water and Sewer 'Connection fees; Community 8 Facilities Development fees, Storm Drainage Impact fees, and Traffic 9 Mitigation Fees. For purposes of determining fee applicability and 10 calculation, the project shall be considered non- residential. Fees shall be 11 payable as specified by Resolution of the City Council. 12 13 3. Prior to issuance of a development permit, grading. and drainage plans shall 14 be submitted for staff approval. Plans :shall be designed to conform to the 15 requirements of the Sonoma County Water Agency Master .Drainage Plan 16 for the Petaluma River Watershed Area. 17 18 4. Prior to application for a building permit, an acoustical study shall. be 19 conducted to determine noise attenuation measures 'required to reduce 20 interior and exterior (courtyard)' noise levels to generally acceptable 21 standards as specified under the. General Plan (45 dBA CNEL - interior; 60 22 dBA CNEL - exterior). Construction plans shall be reviewed and certified by 23 an acoustical engineer a_ s compliant with these standards, before approval of 24 the building permit by staff. Costs of the consultant study to be borne by the 25 applicants, with selection of the consultant subject to staff concurrence. 26 Construction shall be inspected by City Building staff for compliance with the 27 approved building plans and the identified noise attenuation measures. 28 29 5. Plans submitted for SPARC review shall include specifications and design 30 details for proposed parking :lot and exterior wall lights. The site plan shall 31 also reflect the proposed location of light fixtures and standards. Lighting 32 shall be designed to prevent glare to nearby residential properties. 33 34 6. The proposed site /parking plan shall be re- evaluated by staff at time of 35 formal SPARC application for the future office building, to determine if 36 proposed off - street: parking will adequately meet the requirements of all 37 proposed uses. Overall parking requirements may be adjusted at that time 38 upon the approval of the Director of Engineering. The site layout of the 39 undeveloped portion of the lot, and the size /configuration of Building 2 may 40 be subject to modification, if necessary to comply with minimum parking 41 requirements as specified by the Director of Engineering. The following 42 minimum parking shall be maintained on -site for the Residential Care 43 Facility: 1 stall per 5 beds (based upon, an X80 -bed maximum capacity) plus 1 44 stall per employee on the maximum shift (estimated at 15). 45 46 7. The following requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be met: 47 48 a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance 49 with approved plans and. will be required for occupancy. 50 51 b. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured. 52 53 C. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design 54 foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). 3�7a7 1 2 d. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 5 of the 1991 3 UBC must be followed. 4 5 e. Show site drainage and grading topography. 6 7 f. Responsible party to sign plans. 8 g. Submit soils report to verify foundation design. 9 10 h. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage 11 indicate allowable area under Chapter 5 of the 1991 Uniform Building 12 Code. 13 14 i. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 15 NEC. Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy 16 Code. 17 18 j. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items. 19 20 8. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met: 21 22 a. Required fire flow for the complex shall be not less than 1500 GPM. 23 24 b. Occupancy shall be defined as an R2.1 as long as it remains a 25 residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE). Any changes in who T 26 licenses the occupancy and /or significant changes in medical services 27 provided may require a change in use to an "I" or Institutional 28 occupancy. 29 30 C. Provide fire extinguishers 2A rated ABC dry chemical type as 31 required by the Fire Marshal. 32 33 d. Provide a KNOX box for key control with located on the building as 34 required by the Fire Marshal. 35 36 e. Building shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system 37 as required by Section 10.507B of the 1991 edition of the Uniform 38 Fire Code. 39 40 f. Provide to the Fire Marshal's Office a minimum of two (2) sets of fire 41 sprinkler plans and calculations for approval. An installation permit is 42 required prior to installing system. 43 44 g. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four .(4) inch 45 letters. 46 47 h. Provide alarm system for sprinkler. Alarm system is to be monitored 48 by an approved central receiving station. 49 50 i. All curtains, drapes, hangings and other decorative material shall be 51 of flame retardant or treated with an approved fire retardant 52 chemical, by a licensed State Fire Marshal applicator. 53 E 378 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 53 j. A permit is required from the Fire Marshal's Office for the underground fire service main, with two (2) sets of plans to be submitted prior to issuance of the permit. k. Provide an electrical conduit from post. indicator valve to alarm panel location for tamper switch as underground is being installed, 1. Check valve in fire department connection to be installed above grade. m. Two inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and riser at foundation and floor slab. n. Provide exit lights over or near all required exits. o. All emergency lighting and exit lights shall have two (2) separate sources of power as required by the Building Code. P. If doors are to be held open, a magnetic hold open door device is required. q. Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking equipment. r. A permit is required from the Fire Marshal's Office for - fixed fire extinguishing systems: Two (2) sets of plans are required to be submitted prior to issuance of a permit. S. This plan has been reviewed with the information provided, revised plans submitted for review may be subject or will be subject to additional requirements. 9. This project shall be subject to SPARC review, with special. emphasis placed on the following issues: a. Project architecture shall be amended to incorporate additional interest, particularly on those elevations (north, south, west) visible from McDowell Blvd., through the addition or strengthening of vertical elements, variation in wall planes and setbacks, changes in roof design, etc.. Consideration shall also be given to incorporating periodic changes in window treatments (varied shapes, sizes, groupings, trim treatments) or other means of punctuating the uniformity of the exterior elevations, to add warmth and human emphasis to the building design. b. The site and landscape plans shall be amended to incorporate Engineering and Public Works requirements for relocation of landscape trees and driveway improvements away from utility structures, and to reflect the transition of site improvements to existing landscape :improvements on the adjacent City property. Plans shall further reflect incorporation of a combined pedestrian /bicycle path along the McDowell Blvd. frontage. 10. 37Q 1 C. The location and screening of all utility panels, above -round 2 transformers, meters, and roof -top equipment shall be subject to 3 review and approval by SPARC. Plans submitted for SPARC review 4 shall reflect the proposed locations, dimensions and exposed views of 5 such appurtenances. 6 7 Findings for the Conditional Use Permit 8 9 1. The proposed Residential Care Facility for elders afflicted with Alzheimer's 10 Disease, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the 11 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and the Royal Oaks PUD Development District 12 Regulations, as a use conditionally permitted in the CO Zoning District. The 13 project setbacks height and parking conforms to minimum standards 14 specified under the zoning. 15 16 2. The proposed. Residential Care Facility for elders afflicted with Alzheimer's 17 Disease, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, 18 and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, in that it will offer senior housing 19 accommodations with intermediate care services that are not readily 20 available in the community. The project further offers a future 21 professional /medical office component that could serve the needs of the 22 resident population, and other nearby residential development. 23 24 3. The proposed Residential Care Facility for elders afflicted with Alzheimer's 25 Disease will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare 26 of the community. The facility will be equipped with an alarm system 27 designed for the protection and safety of its residents. The operational 28 characteristics of the facility are primarily residential in nature, and are 29 compatible with the surrounding office and residential development. 30 31 Project Conditions 32 33 1. This Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall authorize the use of the 23,000 34 square foot building as an assisted living facility for the elderly afflicted with 35 Alzheimer's Disease. Any change in use such as to a general assisted living 36 facility, shall require an .amendment to this CUP and shall require a re- 37 evaluation of parking requirements and conditions of approval. 38 39 2. The project proponents shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted 40 with approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and incorporated 41 herein as conditions of this Use Permit. 42 43 3. Plans shall be amended for SPARC review and approval to incorporate an 44 outdoor seating area for use by employees of the Residential Care Facility. 45 In determining the placement of the seating area, consideration shall be 46 given to permitting shared use by employees of the future office building. 47 48 --------- A- plan-€ o�- a11- �r© pesed- p�ej�et- �de�tifie�tien- sigma;ir�e ©wigs; a�cl - ©r� 49 site - d�reetio,al - ��gns. shall- �e-- x�paed --€e� - review -- and-- appFeal - -by- -tom 50 P1axg -Dente -pF - ta- thy- tss�raee -off a -tlig perms.- - -�la -shall 51 }ltd t $isl ©,- 1oea€ian- adei�ge tsiopesed 52 53 4.5 The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the 54 City or any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from 11 1 any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, 2 agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval. 3 of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period 4 provided for in applicable State and /or local statutes. The City shall 5 promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or 6 proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in 7 this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in. a defense of any 8 claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, 9 and the City defends the action in good faith. 10 11 5.6-. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at 12 any time due to complaints :regarding lack of compliance with conditions of 13 approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating 14 characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or 15 add /modify conditions of approval. 16 17 67: All requirements of the California Department of Social Services, 18 Community Care Licensing Division shall be met in the timeframes specified 19 by that agency. 20 21 78, Proposed project identification signs shall be subject to SPARC review in 22 conjunction with site :and building plans. Consideration shall be given to 23 locating a project identification sign (facility name) along the McDowell 24 Blvd. frontage, and an address sign (street number and name) on the Wood 25 Sorrel Drive frontage, for optimal visibility by visitors and emergency service 26 personnel. Signs shall .conform to standards established for the CO Zoning 27 District. All signs shall be subject to staff approval of sign permits pricer to 28 erection. 29 30 8.9, All parking stalls and aisle dimensions shall conform to City of Petaluma 31 SPARC standards. 32 33 9.4.0-. The following requirements of the City Engineer shall be met: 34 35 a. Show existing frontage improvements and utilities. along South. Point 36 Boulevard including landscaping. 37 b. No trees shall be planted., within the.existing sanitary sewer easement 38 or water line easement across this property. 39 C. An excavation permit shall be required for any work within the public 40 right -of -way. 41 d. Any broken sidewalk shall be identified on the plans and. replaced. 42. e. The driveway to the middle parking lot shall be relocated to avoid the 43 existing catch basin. 44 45 46 47 DEPARTMENT REPORTS 48 49 IV, PROJECT STATUS: 50 51 - Petaluma Queen - Fairly consistent violations regarding bridge 52 openings at noon. 12 38' 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Taco Bell - operators responding to signage, lighting (lowered), security (very excellent responses) Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk and Saloon - Working with business owner /neighborhood representative. 334 1/2 Bodega Avenue (Heffner) - working with City Attorney on enforcement of Conditional Use Permit revocation. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 PM. min314 / plan58 13