Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'm calling to order to order the meeting for tonight at uh 7:12 uh p.m. Uh Commissioner Blank, can you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Blind. Um uh next item is roll call. Uh our planning manager, Mr. Jorosco will lead us in that. Thank you. So, I'll take the roll call of the Architectural Heritage Landmark Commission first. Um, Commissioner Chicone present. Commissioner Riley here. Commissioner Hall present. Chair McDonald present. And Commissioner um Adams here. Um, Commissioner Commissioner Sodto absent. We have a quorum. Um the planning commission we have uh commissioner Manderos I'm here. Commissioner Blind

present. Commissioner White present. And vice chair Douglas present. We have commissioner Balabuena Taylor and BC Stanbury absent. And we have a quorum.

Uh thank you very much. Um because this is a special joint meeting of the planning commission and the architectural heritage landmark commission, we will not be having a general community forum this evening and we'll move right into the public hearing portion of the agenda. Our item number four, public hearing. Um the hold a joint special public hearing between the public uh the planning commission and the architectural heritage and landmark commission to consider adopting one a resolution by the architectural heritage and landmarks commission approving a certificate of appropriateness uh brackets COA23-005 and and two, a resolution by the planning commission approving a use permit uh brackets UP18-00002 development review and landscape review and uh PLN25-13 for an event center for the former federal building located at 823 Marin Street. APN number is 0056-161-040

through the chair. Yeah. Yes. Through the chair, please. Can you please give the commissions an extra five or 10 minutes so that we can read through the information that we just received from staff? Yes, I think so. Yes. In fact, yes. Thank you. So, let's take five minutes to do that. Is that enough? Okay.

Okay. If that's enough

I think we're going to proceed with the meeting at this point. Um there uh there's time for a presentation uh on the project and uh some detailed information about about the um the work that's been done in terms of analyzing um the project. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I would like to introduce Laura Solomon, our associate planner. She'll be presenting the item before the commissions tonight.

All right. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Laura Solomon, associate planner with the city of Vallejo, and tonight I will be presenting the proposed event center at 823 Marin Street.

The purpose of tonight's meeting is to hold a joint hearing, uh, review the proposed project. The architectural heritage and landmarks commission will take action on the certificate of appropriateness and planning commission will take action on the use permit development review and landscape review. This item is subject to the Lavine Act. City elected and appointed officials, including candidates for city- elected officers who have received a campaign contribution of more than $500 within 12 months prior from a party participant or their representatives involving this proceeding may do either of the following. One, disclose the contribution on the record and recuse themselves from this proceeding. or two, return the portion of the contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the elected official knew or should have known about the contribution and participate in the proceeding. The project site is located at 823 Marin Street between Carolina Street and Capitol Street and is within the Saint Vincent's Historical District. The site is surrounded by existing residential and commercial uses with Carolina Street to the north. Uh commercial and residential uses on the other side of Marin Street to the east with commercial and residential uses along Kessle Alley and commercial and residential uses to the south and residential uses to the west uh on the other side of the site's existing parking lot. State Route 29 is located approximately 0.1 miles to the east and State Route 37 is located approximately 1.6 miles to the north. Um each provides regional access to the site while Marin Street, Carolina Street, and Kistell Alley provide direct

access to the site. The site's general plan designation is neighborhood corridor and the zoning is neighborhood mixed use. The project is located within the Saint Vincent Historic District, which was formerly listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The district is generally bounded by Mar Island Way and But Street to the west, Marin Street, and properties adjacent to Sonoma Boulevard to the east, Quincy Alley to the north, and Florida Street, Carolina Street, and Kell Alley to the south. In September 1933, the existing building was constructed on the subject property to serve as the first Vallejo post office. In 1968, the building was remodeled and converted into federal building, which housed a variety of federal offices and services, including a local social security office, civil service commission, FBI, and RS offices. In March 2003, the city of Allejo Architectural Heritage and Landmark Commission designated the subject site as a landmark. In early 2011, the subject property was vacated and it has remained vacant since that time. The project proposes to convert the building into an event center and banquet facility defined as community assembly. As proposed, use of the facility would be allowed during the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. 7 days a week with an expected average event length of 6 hours per event. Events would be held on the 7,168 ft main floor that is accessible from Marin Street through a 1,231 ft lobby. The basement level of the

building would only be accessible by facility staff. The event space would be of sufficient size to accommodate approximately 175 people per event and on-site security would be required for each event to ensure appropriate safety. As described in the applicant's business plan, individual event hosts would be allowed to serve alcoholic beverages on site during events only if they obtain proper licensing from ABC and follow the procedures outlined in section 4 of the attached business plan, which includes serving procedures and enhanced on-site security requirements for each event. Facade improvements to the historic landmark building include the replacement of all exterior doors. The main entrance door along Marin Street is proposed to be replaced with a two-door aluminum panel door with a satin anodized finish. And the two adjacent windows would be replaced with single door aluminum panels with also with anodized finish in compliance with ADA. The basement door accessible from Kissell Alley would replaced with a new hollow metal door. Also, removal of the deteriorated federal building signage is also planned to restore the original United States Post signage. Site improvements will include parking lot enhancements, lighting, and a new sound wall along the western property line, a new trash enclosure and landscape rehabilitation throughout the site to accommodate future events. A new 135 square foot trash enclosure is proposed to be constructed um along the south property line facing Kissle Alley. Restriping and partial resurfacing of

the existing parking lot. Replacement of exterior stairs at the northwest corner of the building. Creation of one new ADA parking space within the parking lot. Installation of an ADA compliant lift in the rear loading dock. Construction of the sound wall between the rear parking and adjacent residential uses. Reconfiguration of existing perimeter fencing with new gates to accommodate the new parking layout and new stairs. Proposed onsite landscaping enhancements will include rehabilitation of 5,979 square ft of existing planting areas with new drought tolerant landscaping. The landscaping pallet will be made up of trees, shrubs, perennials, ground cover, and ornamental grasses. A t a total of nine new trees will be planted along Marin and Carolina Streets, and three would be installed along Kissal Alley. New light fixtures would also be installed at the entrance of the building, along pathways, on the entrance stairs, and within the parking lot. Let's see. The entitlement associated with this project that the Architectural Heritage and Landmarks Commission will consider for approval is the certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the entry doors as this is a facade alteration of a designated historic landmark. The entitlements associated with the project that the planning commission will consider for approval are the use permit for establishing an event center or community assembly use as defined by the Valo municipal code greater than 5,000 square feet and for the red and for the reduction of required off-

streetet parking spaces. development [clears throat] review for the stay for the proposed on-site improvements as well as landscape review for the proposed landscape. In addition and subsequent to these entitlements, the project would also be required to have building permits from the city of Vallejo to ensure the ex exterior modifications to the historic landmark are consistent with the secretary of the interior standards of the treatment of historic properties and no defining and no defining features would be altered. The city of Vallejo The city contracted with Cara Brunzelle from Prren Brunzelle Historical LLC to prepare a technical analysis which is exhibit B to the AHLC resolution in attachment one to ensure consistency. According to the analysis, previous documentation related to the site did not include a list of character-defining features, nor a formal period of significance. The official period of significance would have begun with the construction of the building in 1933 and ended in 1968 when it was abandoned as a post office. Thus, alterations to the building performed after 1968 would not qualify as character defining based on review of previous documentation along with a site visit and the preparers familiarity with the national registration of historic places for eligible post offices. The character defining features of the subject property include the following

components. Simple geometry of the building's symmetrical massing. Flat roof and nearly square plan. Primary and side facads divided into bays aligning with the stylus stone pileers. Wide main facade entrance stairs. Stone foundation and carved cornerstone. Cornice and freeze with zigzag and starburst motives formed of terracotta. Polychrome B brick cladding with in Flemish bond with decorative brick work in geometric motifs. Large terracotta panels bearing postal slogans below main facade windows. Tall window openings fitted with steel sash in a decorative multiple light pattern on east, west, and north facades. Original rear loading dock. decorative features carried around to all four sides of the building. Interior lobby decorative features including wood to ceiling, wood trim, mural, and the tall tables. Since the proposed project includes no changes to any of the historic defining features and only minimal facade modifications, including replacement of the non-functional entry doors and the two windows with three ADA compliant door systems to reestablish the historical function of the three entryways into the building. staff has concluded that the project will remain consistent with the historic district. The Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties provides guidelines for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. Adherence to these standards is accepted as a method of avoiding significant effects on historic buildings while allowing their continued

use. According to this analysis, rehabilitation standards number 1 through 10 apply to the project and have been analyzed in the provided staff report. The replacement of the non-functional entryway doors and two windows with three ADA compliant door systems would reestablish the historical function of three entryways into the building without altering any of the character defining features. The new use for the vacant building would allow local residents to regain access to a public building that has been vacant for many years. Utilization of the property as an event venue would also provide a financial incentive for its ongoing maintenance, repair, and restoration. The project therefore conforms with the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. The major use permit includes the community assembly use and reduction of on street parking or off- streetet parking. Primary access to the project site is provided off Marin Street, Carolina Street, and Kissell Alley. Vehicular traffic would be able to access the proposed off- streetet parking lot, including 20 standard parking spaces and four motorcycle spaces, a total of 21 equivalent spaces off Kissell Alley and Carolina Street. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be able to access the site off Marin Street, Carolina Street, and Kissle Alley with pedestrian access directly off Marin Street. Valo municipal code table 16.508B off- streetet parking requirements states community assembly of 2000 square ft or more without fixed seats requires one off- streetet parking space per 80

square ft of in indoor assembly area. Future events at the facility are proposed to be held in the main 7,198 square feet assembly room with no fixed seats. According to the zoning code, a minimum of 90 off- streetet parking spaces is required for this assembly room. Therefore, the proposed project is short 69 parking spaces. Section 16.50814B 50814B allows for the total number of required parking spaces to be reduced for the projects if findings can be made as outlined in the staff report and attached resolution. A request is being made to reduce the required off- streetet parking spaces from 90 to 21. In support of this requested parking reduction, the applicant hired a consultant to conduct a parking study, which was subsequently peer-reviewed by the city's traffic engineer, dated May 9th, uh, 2025. This code section indicates that a parking reduction can be supported if the parking study is conducted and finds that there are at least two times the number of spaces requested for reduction available within 500 ft or less of the use for at least two of the 4 hours of the use's peak parking demand. And those spaces are either on non-residential streets or within public parking lots. This means that in order to compensate for the shortage, twice this amount of available parking would be required. So 138 parking spaces would be required within 500 ft or less of the use for at least two of the 4 hours of the use's peak parking demand. And those spaces would either be on streets or within the public parking lots.

Utilizing these guidelines, the consultant conducted a parking study over five different days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:45 p.m. on a Tuesday and Thursday and then two different Saturdays and a Sunday. The study indicates that non-residential streets within 500 ft of the subject property, there were a total of 195 legal parking stalls available. But the average availability of these spaces during the use's peak parking demand would only be 69 spaces. Therefore, the street parking by itself would not support the project demand. But if those street spaces are combined with nearby public parking lot spaces within a/4 mile radius found within city lots D, F, and K seen in the figure on screen. then the needed capacity can be met. The existing city lots provide an additional total capacity of 274 spaces and during the use's peak demand period would be approximately 174 spaces. The combined average of both available parking types would equal 243 unoccupied or available spaces within the required 1/4 mile radius of the parking site. and during the use's peak demand period. In addition to the study work conducted, the study also recommended that the facility take measures to encourage use of the public parking lots over on street spaces by one providing shuttle or valley services for events. Two, encouraging the use of mobile app sharing services. Three, providing maps and directions for available parking lot locations to event patrons. And the city's public works staff has

reviewed the parking study and agreed with these recommendations. And as such, we've has been included all these recommendations as conditions of approval for the development review. Existing entry doors and windows are to be replaced with three ADA compliant door systems in a design to match the original doors. In addition, a new trash enclosure, upgraded stairs, and a 6-ft sound wall are proposed at the rear of the site with new exterior lighting on the building and within the parking lot. The proposed trash enclosure would be located adjacent to the rear of the existing building outside of any required parking, driveway, landscape, utility easements, or setback areas and more than 5 ft from parking and the abuing residential zoning district. Additionally, um, Valo Municipal Code Chapter 16.504 504 requires 20% of the site area to be landscaped which equates to 5,200 square ft. The project includes installation of 5,979 square ft of new drought tolerant landscaping proposed within existing planters along with new nine new street trees along Marin Street, Carolina Street, and Kistell Alley. The project site has a general plan use designation of neighborhood corridor or NC. The general plan provides the following description for the NC land use designation. It is intended to promote pedestrianoriented neighborhood main streets with an emphasis on shops and services catering to the daily needs of local residents,

particularly at mixeduse urban villages. Permitted uses in the NC designation include multifamily developments, retail, personal and automotive services, professional offices, community facilities, and other uses conducted primarily inside of buildings and compatible with an eclectic neighborhood oriented mixeduse environment. As outlined in the attached exhibit B as part of the planning commission resolution, the project is consistent with the NC land use designation and applicable general plan policies in that it will create a new community facility within an existing building and it will provide a new space for a variety of events that will not significantly modify the existing historic resource. The proposed project will support the city's continued economic growth by reusing a vacant historic city landmark and making the building accessible to the public again via event rentals following an extended 15-year vacancy. This slide gives an overview of some of the main development standards the project must be consistent with. As shown on the table, the project is consistent with the standards for community assembly, which provides standards relative to the lot area and required buffers. The proposed use of community assembly requires a buffer of at least 20 ft adjacent to any residential zoning district. This buffer area may be used for parking or landscaping, but not used for any structures or outside activities. where a buffer is used for parking. At least 4 feet of landscaping shall be provided along the length of the parking. This project has a buffer of 66 ft and 9 in um provided and the buffer is used

for parking and landscaping with 4 ft of landscaping provided along the length of the parking lot. In addition, a six-foot sound wall will be constructed between the year rear parking area and adjacent residential uses. A noise study was conducted by Gersbic Design Group which found that a sound pressure level of 98 dB in the center of the main room. uh sound levels at the property line do not exceed the allowed 65 dB with the assumption that most of the day the facility will be quiet and activities generating high sound pressure levels will be limited to a 4-hour period. The total community noise equivalent level is 57.1 dB for daytime events and 63.5 dB for evening events ending at 10 p.m. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act, uh, Public Resources Code 21000, and California Code of Regulations, Title 241500 0, pursuant to sections 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and section 15331, class 31, historic resource resource re restoration and rehabilitation. The project rehabilitates a historic resource consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, and reconstructing historic buildings. The class 3 exemption includes installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures and the addition new construction of accessory

structures on the site. The proposed project includes minor site improvements and construction of new minor facilities and structures, including minor parking lot improvement, construction of a soundwall, construction of the new freestanding trash enclosure, and landscape rehabilitation within existing planter areas. The class 3 exemption applies to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resources in a manner consistent with the secretary's standards. The project includes minor facade changes to an existing historic landmark. However, the changes proposed, including replacement of the two facade windows with new ADA compliant doors to match the existing or match the original have been analyzed under the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties and have been found to be in conformance therewith and the proposed project will not have any impact on the existing designated historic landmark on January 156 pursuant to Valo Municipal Code section 16.602.08 08. A 14 calendar day notice of the of this hearing was published in the Times Herald mailed to all active neighborhood groups and all property owners within 500 ft of the subject property and any other local agency expected to provide water wastewater treatment or other essential facilities to services to the project as well as to the members of the AHLC planning commission the applicant and property owner. Staff received three comments from the public. One via phone from a neighbor regarding concern for sound, building

permits, and parking, and two via email regarding parking noise, the possibility of limiting attendance, and earthquake retrofitting. As mentioned earlier, both a parking and noise study were conducted which provided guidelines that have been addressed or conditioned as part of this project. The a six-foot sound barrier wall will be installed at the rear property line adjacent to the residential zoning district and the recommendations from the conducted parking study have been added as conditions of approval in exhibit A of the planning commission resolution to encourage off- streetet parking at publics. Additionally, building permit BP191794 for seismic paraprint bracing was final in 2020 to address earthquake retrofitting which removed it from the unreinforced masonry building list. There are currently no URM concerns for the building based on original occupancy. However, since the occupancy is being changed from office to assembly use, we have added conditions requiring the applicant to prove that the existing structure meets code for the new assembly use, and if not, they will need to implement any required structural upgrades. Each of the requested entitlement approvals have their own unique set of findings that require that staff must be able to make for each one. In this project, staff believes that the project meets all of the required findings to support the proposed project which are discussed in further detail in the staff report and resolutions in the packet. The project meets these findings through consistency and compliance with the various adopted standards and state requirements for these types of projects. As mentioned previously, the project forwards several gen general plan

policies in that it provides a new space for a variety of events while not significantly modifying the existing historic resource. It will also support the city's continued economic growth by reusing a vacant historic city landmark and making the building accessible to the public again following its extended 15-year vacancy. The project was reviewed against the standards of title 16 for the applicable zoning standards of the NC zone district and the development standards for community assembly. The project has also been reviewed for compliance with SQUA and therefore staff finds the project consistent with the findings. Based on the analysis contained in the staff port report and attachments, staff recommends the following actions in the following order. The Architectural Heritage and Landmark Commission find the ex project exempt from SQUA pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 and section 15331 and approve a certificate of appropriateness COA23-00005 subject to the conditions of approval provided as exhibit A to the resolution and also that planning commission find the project exempt from SQUA pursuant to SQUA guidelines section 1615303 and section 15331 to approve a use permit development review and landscape review UP18-00002 and PLN25-03 subject to the conditions of approval provided as exhibit A to their resolution. Thank you. And I'm available for any

questions as well as uh Cara Brunzelle, the historic uh analysis um is here as well for questions. And uh Tony Chu, city engineer, is available via Zoom if there are questions about the parking study. Uh thank you for the staff presentation. Uh I will now open the public uh hearing and I invite the applan up to uh present and speak on on her project. Yes. Can we ask questions of staff and it's got to be red? Yeah, there you go.

Right here. Yeah, there you go. Okay. Um through the chair, um can we ask questions of staff prior to the applicant's presentation? T typically for HLC we do staff questions then we do the applicants presentation and then we do applicant questions. So I'm just not familiar with plannings through the through the chair. Yes, we can go ahead and move forward that way. And uh the commission any member from either the planning commission or the architectural heritage land commission is welcome to ask questions and then we can invite the applicant after. Okay. and also uh give a presentation if they have one and they can answer any questions that the commissions may have.

Well, with that said, let's proceed left to right. Um and each person will have an opportunity. Let's try to do three to three to five minutes each. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Um appreciate your presentation. Mine's doing it too. Sorry. [laughter] Couple questions that I have. It looks like we are for the AHLC is focused on the new doors. Is that correct? Or is it broader than that? And is SQA broader just than the new doors?

Um through through the chair. So at this time we any you can anyone from either the planning commission or the HLC can ask any questions no matter if it's regarding the doors, the use and the proposal. But what we're asking the commissions tonight or specifically the HLC is just to act on the certificate of appropriateness and the secret component as well.

Okay. So I have one other question then looking at 15303 it talks about a small structure or minor improvements and looking at um parking lot going from 90 to 25 doesn't feel minor to me. Um landscape I don't know what the current percentages of the landscape. Um, I think that landscape could definitely change uh property as well. So, I would like to know what the current percentage is because that doesn't feel minor either. And then a new wall doesn't feel minor as well.

Um, as far as the landscape, um, it's going to be rehabilitating the existing planters that are already there. Um, and the requirement of this zone is 20%. Um so they're providing 23% um landscape site area. Are they building out any additional landscape space than is already there? Uh no, it's all just within the existing planters that are okay currently not utilized.

And this may just sound ridiculous and I'm sorry if it does, but like putting ivy on a building and destroying the brick and facade, is that happening? Do we know? Okay. Uh through the chair. No. Um all the landscaping is within the existing planters, shrubs and grasses and things [clears throat] like that and then street trees as well.

Okay. And then I one just one last thing. I'm sorry but signage I think it was originally post office and then it was something else. What's happening with the signage on this building? Um so through the chair the original uh you United States Post Office signage will be shown and so it they'll just be removing the federal office signage that's half gone already. All right. Thank you. I would like to hold my questions until I have heard everybody including the public on this. Please.

Thank you. No questions at this time. Thank you, Commissioner BL.

I I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts as well. I I did have one question though about uh there's a wonderful historic mural in there and I I read uh in research doing some research that it is required to be able to be seen by the public and I don't and it hasn't been seen for years because place has been boarded up but

is there some provision included in this plan for I don't know how that would work for public access to see that mural uh but it is definitely a historic thing, but it's closed off by those doors. Um, I had a second question also, and that is on the parking. Uh, is there any possibility or any discussion of dealing with a almost always empty lot at the adjacent funeral home? I think that's Buck Campous. Uh, and it's a large lot. I don't think I've ever seen many cars in it at all. It would relieve the street parking for one thing. It also might avoid, you know, a further walk to those city lots

through the chair. Um, yes, the mural is within the lobby. Um, so I don't there's not any provision as part of the plan to just have it those be open to the public, but it would be available anyone attending the events. would be right there in the lobby um to the left as you walk in. Um and the second question um your second question.

Oh. Oh. Um yeah, with the um the lot across the street. I thought of that as well. Um but yeah, they would have to work out a a shared parking agreement um with with that property owner. Um so yeah, I don't know if that's a possibility, but yeah.

Um through the chair, um I would like to step in and I don't want to speak for the applicant, but and previous to this project originally started in 2018. Um of course with turnover staff, it has gone through multiple hands and multiple planners. Uh when I took it over, I think I was the third person on the project. They initially tried to have a conversation with the property owner across the street, but that property owner declined the request to have a shared parking agreement with this facility there. So that's why when after the project stalled out for a little bit during the pandemic, you know, the city adopted the new zoning code, now we created this process where if anyone wants to request to either reduce or wave the required off- streetet parking spaces, they have we have to contract with a traffic engineer to do a parking study to determine the availability of parking uh parking within a certain uh distance from the location. And as Laura mentioned, the recommendations from that parking study did say to take advantage and use the cityowned parking lots and also implement valet service, which is a condition of approval that public works has added to submit a valet um program to them. Um as well as encouraging people to do the ride share apps and also um either carpool or use any of the public transportation or bicycle usage to the facility. Okay.

Um, I'll withhold my questions for now. Yeah. Um, my only um question and concern was the parking too, but it seems as if it's been answered. Um, but I would like to ask one more thing. Um, as far as the tenants that have the parking lot across the street, is that going to be will that be revisited and would they be offered perhaps maybe some sort of, you know, something for actually using it or or asking to use it?

If um through the chair, if I can, if we can invite the applicant, I'm not sure if he has continued to have conversations with that property owner across the street since it is privately owned. Mhm. So, if I can, can I invite the applicant up to the the podium to answer that question? Well, I think we should do that. Yes.

I I have two questions before we move on to the applicant's presentation. One, um the text says that the doors will be replaced with a center double door. And I understand the design of the new doors and then the two side the two windows that flank that will be replaced with single doors. And there are double doors and single doors in in the you know detail elevations of the doors. I don't understand how the single door fits in a bay that is the same size as the central double door. Is there an elevation showing um like is there a side light or something that ends up next to the single panel door in the two flanking bays? Cuz because you've got three symmetrical bays and one double door and two a mama bear and a baby two baby bears. I don't understand how the baby bears fill the same bay as the sink the central double door. But if the applicant's architect is here um perhaps we can address that.

Yeah. Thinking we can wait for the we can

just a minute though. I'll just ask that question again if the applicant can better answer that question. So then the other question I have and again maybe the applicant will be able to answer this but my understanding from the sound report is that the sound report projects that for the sound inside at an evening event there will be approximately a 60 del audible noise at the perimeter of the site. So I actually have a degree in theater engineering. It's been a while since I had an acoustical engineering class, but this doesn't really change. So 60 dB every 10 dB is a doubling of the sound noise. So you take 2 to the 6th power, that is a 64 time increase in the perceived sound level. So, if you're really saying there's 60 dB that'll be produced by an evening event in addition to the ambient sounds that exist at the perimeter, you're talking about a 64% perceived increase in noise at the perimeter of the site. Some of which may be addressed on the one side by a sound attenuation wall, but wouldn't I don't know see how it would be addressed on the other parts of the property. Page 63 says um the proposed use and related project features will not create any nuisances arising from emission odor dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heater, glare exceeding ambient conditions. So, I'm not sure how you reconcile those two things that if you are during an evening event adding 60 dB of noise at the perimeter of the site, how can that not be how can that be consistent with the facts in support on page 63 that state um there will be no noise at any levels exceeding ambient conditions.

That's interesting. you'd have to have zero dB from the interior event at the perimeter to not have a change in the par mter noise condition which is not what's described on page 63 and I think the sound engineers report actually demonstrates that there would be a perceived 64 time increase in noise audible to persons on the sidewalk or any any condition around the building where there is additional attenuation.

Um through the chair, Manny, can you put up um a slide up to to answer your questions regarding the double doors and the single door? Um [snorts] [laughter] okay, thanks. If you go back, are you done though? Yeah, I Oh, I'm Yes, I'm done. Keep on one more.

Keep on going with the next one. there. So on page A4.1 um of the project plans that were part of the packet um they do show the elevation of the the three double doors that are will be accessed straight from Marin Street. Um there's a note that takes you to a different page with all the details of the doors. So, the three double doors that are facing Marin Street, which you see here, the historic picture here, all three of those will be replaced with double doors on the far right hand side. Um, it's pretty hard to tell on this image, but on the far right where there's um I'm going to butcher the car, but that older car that's there, right behind there where you see kind of like the shade or the there's a single door in that opening. So that's where the single door will be located. So all three double doors um that will gain access to the site will be replaced with these aluminum style that show and um show would be similar to what was historically there.

And then on sheet A5, the double glazed door that does not have the architectural aluminum detail. Is that an interior view of the double door or is that I can't So that one is going to be um if you look at sheet looks like it's detail BB.

Yeah. So if you look at sheet A4.1 which is the exterior and you'll see the exterior elevation south that would be for the door that access the basement to the building. So that would only be visible from the alley. My understanding is the door that accesses the basement is the hollow corridor. There's also it looks like there's also a hollow corridor with just a a small um sidelight or a small light, you know, just to check who's outside. And then it it looks like there's um I don't want to show the diagram cuz not everybody could see what I'm holding up, but there's a detail a a door a relationship to the elevations. There's a door BB and a door C D. And I it looks like CD is the hollow corridor that accesses the basement. Um, where do the two glass doors go? Yeah. So here. So, the glass doors, if you look on sheet A4.1 of the project plans,

okay, I see them. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you very much. Uh, thank you for your questions. I'll defer my questions till after uh the presentation. U

is this working? Can I address your question about the noise? Um the conditions of approval under planning, condition number six, unreasonable noises. So it says, "No person shall make or cause to suffer a permit to make permit to be made upon any public property, public rideway, or private property any excessive noise, annoying noise, amplified sound, or vibrations that are physically annoying to reasonable persons or of normal sensitivity, or that are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time, or place as to cause or contribute to the unnecessary and unreasonable discomfort of any person's of normal sensitivity located at the lot line of the property from which these noises emanate or that interfere with the peace and comfort of residents or their guests or the operators of or customers in places of business in the vicinity or that may detrimentally or adversely affect such residences or places of business. So I think as conditioned you could make the findings but as to the decibel level in the noise study if you wanted to you know tell them that they had to reduce the acceptable decibel level and also comply with I mean they always have to comply with six but there is no decibel level here and it is difficult to measure. No, but if but if the if the statement on page 63 number six backs in support which states that the project will produce no noise levels exceeding the ambient conditions that is different than the other statement which is qualitative. So the other statement is qualitative. Is the increase in noise disruptive? Is it bothersome? Is it

attraction? That's um a qualitative decision. The statement on page 63 is that there will be no noises exceeding the ambient conditions, which means the project itself can create no increase or the statement of fact on page 63 should be retracted. Does that make sense?

Well, you can't retract the statement on 63 because it's a finding in the code. Well, the finding, the facts and support is that the proposed use will be indoors. The new soundwall will be installed on the western property line where the parcel abuts the residential zoning district and the proposed use will not generate odors, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at any levels exceeding ambient conditions. Oh, well, it should have said as conditioned. Well, okay. But that's why I'm saying the statement it will not produce any noise at levels exceeding ambient conditions is inconsistent correct with the sound report. It should say as conditioned. Okay.

Agree. I agree. Okay. And then I guess the question is, is there anybody will there be anybody tonight who can comment on whether or not the 64 the perceived 64 times louder sound condition at the project boundary? Is how that um is that detrimental? Is that distracting? Is there anybody who can present represent the ambient noise condition and then reproduce the ambient noise plus 60 dB? Deferring to the staff. I don't know. Um before you go, I had a question. What code did you site?

Sorry. Yeah, before you go, what code was that that you were citing? Oh. Um, so this is in the packet, but it's citing code section 165029, capital C, but it's in your packet. It's page 70 of the PDF of the 146 page PDF. Sure. Number six.

Okay. So, I'm going to defer my questions until after the uh the presentation by the uh applicant. Um okay. So, with that said, I'd like to invite the applicant up to uh present um the project to uh the commissions. Uh I'm allowing uh 15 minutes for you to make the presentation. I think that'd be adequate. Is that Yeah. No. Okay. Thank you. And then after that, commissioners, we'll all have an opportunity to to to ask questions of the the applicant. So, with that,

uh, good evening, commissioners, uh, city staff, and, um, members of the public. Um, my name is Elen Delgado. I'm really excited, um, to see one less abandoned building in Valleo. Um, I I'm I'm really excited, I think, at the prospect of being uh, able to see more uh, traffic in this neighborhood. I think it's been vacant for a really long time. Um, and so we're really really thrilled to be able to spear be spearheading this project. Um, I think definitely um, you know, I can I can understand a lot of the co concerns that are, you know, coming up regarding parking. Yeah, can you hear me? Yeah. Regarding parking, um, you know, I think that's one of the biggest concerns that, you know, I I perceived was going to, you know, be brought up. Um, as was formerly described, we have and we would love nothing more than to be able to seamlessly integrate this project and this building into the community uh with minimal impact on the community. Um, but unfortunately a lot of those things are not, you know, on our decision. We would love more than anything to be able to utilize, as you guys, you know, mentioned, um, the funeral parking spot. We had had those conversations and we'd be more than happy to have them again. I think that would be the best uh best use and best case scenario not only for the attendees of the um of of the project of the building itself but I think um to kind of offload a lot of that impact for the community. So we are more than willing um to work in whatever capacity we can again to minimize that impact on the community but you know for the time being you know we're willing to oblige by any of the conditions you know staying within the legal means um and again you know introducing valet um introducing shuttles I think shuttles might be a little bit more efficient um because I think we we would be able to move a lot more people to and from the parking lots that are you know in the vicinity neighborhood so of preference I would go that route versus the that can be, you know, timeconuming. It can, you know, cause some of the attendees to,

you know, get frustrated and actually utilize those um off streetet parking spaces. Um so that's one of the conditions, but again, we're we're very open and receptive to being able to, you know, work, you know, with the neighborhood um to the best of our capacities in order to, you know, bring good use to this building. Um as it relates to the sound study, I know that that's another concern that usually is brought up as it relates to, you know, these kind of, you know, event centers and stuff. Um I know that the study was done um um a few years ago. Uh unfortunately at the time we did have broken windows. You know unfortunately the building has seen a few you know vandalism. We did have a few broken windows. It is our um I think our approach really to rehabilitate the building u by you know fixing up some of those broken windows for sure. Um I know that can have some impact on the sound decibels that are going to be out. um you know, including some new um you know, some new doors, um new curtains, anything to um to the best of our abilities again to mitigate a lot of those issues. Um so again, we are very very open and we thank you for your time and consideration for this project and um I just want to be sure that I am I'm I'm definitely in support of of being able to work with the community and and um and again revitalize this this building. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you very much. Um, so let's proceed from left to right and um and have an opportunity to ask the applicant questions that might be um relevant to this project

through the chair. Sorry. Yes. Um are we going to have public input on this project? I was so are we? I'm sorry. Yes. Through the chair. Yes. Um, Vice Chair Douglas, if you turn the script we provided you tonight. Um, if the commission wishes to hold off on questions to the applicant and open um and now take comments from the public, you can go ahead and move towards that way. Well, okay, then let's do that. Let's let's take um hold up on you and then we'll take some uh comments from the public.

With that said, we have to open the public hearing. I am opening the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Yes, we do have uh members of the public who have signed up. We currently have seven speakers in person. Uh starting with the first three, Mary Watts, followed by Barbara Leblanc and then Jennifer Bennett. Please approach the podium.

Thank you. Hi everyone. I'm Marie Watts and I've been a resident on Capitol Street for 10 years. So, I actually have experienced the events and what it sounds like and the parking issues and those sorts of things because events were held in 2019 that resulted in um police phone calls because of the noise um because of traffic. People were parked all up u all along Kissle, which is an alleyway blocking um firetruck access. There were children running up and down the street because it was a kiniera type parties. So we had a lot of teenagers that were not staying in the building and running all around. Um, so, uh, based on my experience and understanding of both the neighborhood and also what downtown Vallejo needs, this is not the right location for this kind of events to be held. We already have other buildings where these events are held. Um the issue with parking is that this neighborhood is impacted with neighborhood events already. That particular block has three churches that are active on Sunday within like a oneb block circle I guess. So parking is already bad on Sundays. Parking is bad on Saturdays because of the farmers market. We've got events at the Empress. Um, and now with the Main Street um, program hopefully getting better, we're going to have more events downtown. There are already locations on Georgia Street

where these kinds of events can be held. Um, and the issue with the parking lot that's across the street that was suggested, um, it's owned by Buck, so it's it's not friendly territory, so to speak. Um, let's see. I don't know if they if you have any questions for me regarding somebody who lives there. No, we we just everybody should get opportunity to speak and so yeah um if you're done then next. Okay. Okay. Next speaker, Barbara Leblanc.

Hi, I'm Barbara Leblanc. I uh live in a apartment right behind Kle Alley or right in front of Kistle Alley and um my bedroom bathroom here, everything that's going on. We had an event last summer there and it lasted well into the night and it was loud. Um, you know, I don't mind having music every so often, but if it's going to be on a multi-day during the week, it's really destructive to my sleep and to the peace of the neighborhood. Um, what Marie said also, you know, about having the Empress Theater a block and a half away already. Um, we we we need different we need different things in the downtown. I really want to see more businesses downtown, but I don't know that we need a nighttime venue already again less than a block away. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, next speaker, Jennifer Bennett.

Hi. Um I'm Jennifer Bennett. I am also a resident who is um sharing a window that faces onto this building that happens to be part of this project. Um, I've not lived here long, but in the short time that I have, I have noticed that there, you know, the noise of our windows. We do hear a lot of the noise, but one of my main concerns is that I am a dog owner. I walk my dog in this neighborhood very regularly, about twice a day. Um, as a lot of dog owners, our dogs are sometimes we have dogs that um, uh, are very food motivated. And I find that even without an event center sitting on this corner, the amount of garbage that and food that I find on the ground, my dog is I'm often fighting her to get away from this stuff. And I have met some residents who have said that they've come across finding garbage on the ground that is sometimes laced with marijuana, which is it doesn't kill your dog, but it can be very dangerous. It makes them very scared. It's another thing that we have to worry about. And my concern is that while this building would have some garbage control, you cannot control where everybody is putting their garbage, um you can't control people who are going to throw things on the ground because just as people, that's what we do. We're not always the cleanliest or, you know, tidiest people. Um and I worry about how much more of the garbage I'm going to have to um fight around making it very difficult for me to be able to just walk my dog in this neighborhood in the neighborhood that I live. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, next three speakers will be David Alman, Maline Rogers, followed by Michael Rogers.

Hello everyone. Uh, my name is David Alman. I've been a resident on Capitol Street for 22 years. I'm within 100 ft of this uh u federal building and uh mostly I have some questions that for uh everyone to think about. One is I'm curious about the nonresidential streets in the area and uh also what the plan for the revised exterior lighting is going to be. and also uh trash containment and trash trucks uh trash pickups if they're going to have these large dumpsters

that require the overhead uh trucks to come in because they make a lot of noise. They're usually early in the morning. And uh also I'm uh curious about the trees that they're going to plant along Kissle Alley

where they're going to have parking also. Uh I didn't see that outlined on the the little uh drawing that I received in the mail. And uh they're talking about having banquetss, which I'm guessing uh is going to involve food. I wonder how that's going to be handled. If there's going to be cooking on the premises inside or outside, uh that wasn't described.

And noise is a problem. There's been events there. This is in the historical area. Most of the properties are old. They're uninsulated. They don't have air conditioning. The people have their windows open in that area. Right. In the federal building, I'm uh curious about what kind of ventilation system it has. Do they plan on opening the windows in the summertime or do they have adequate heating and cooling? So, I don't think it's a good place for these kind of events. Not as far as I'm concerned. They're asking to sell alcohol from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. This is This is a residential area. Most people work around there. They have to sleep at night. They're only allowing a 6-hour window for peace and quiet. And uh parking is a problem. So, I just uh wanted to bring these items to attention.

Thank you. Your your time's up and we appreciate your comments. Okay. Next speaker, Mattaline Rogers.

Hi, I'm Maline Rogers and uh my husband and I have owned um 418 I was getting mixed up. 418 um Capitol Street where many of these fine people live. um since 2020. Um our building is exactly kitty cornered um on the alley side in Kinsel Alley to the parking lot of the um building that we're talking about. Whereas I really support historic preservation and I would love to see something vibrant in this beautiful old building and I really support the economic growth and health of Vallejo. Um, I'm really really concerned about the um well-being of our residents and about the parking. And I happened to have a text message. I found out about this meeting because uh the resident that lived in the apartment that um Jennifer Bennett now lives in, who just spoke to you, uh sent this note to me to let me know about this meeting. It says, "Hey guys, so this section in the paper is in regard to the federal building right next to your Capitol Street property. I guess they want to open it up to maybe a party place." Dave sent me this. That Dave, I don't know if you want to weigh in on how that type of place might impact your rental property. I remember when I lived there when they did events, there were a few times it was super loud and you couldn't even sleep or thank or anything. [snorts]

It was pretty terrible. This might affect your being able to keep tenants and such. Not sure if you were aware of this or not, but just figured I'd share it. I didn't solicit that. Um, so we're concerned about the noise. Um, my husband's going to speak a little bit more about that. And, um, we're concerned about the parking. If you look on the maps that and thank you very much for providing all the information you did on the website. It was very good to have all of that. Um, but if I was attending a nice event in my little high heels and so forth, I certainly wouldn't be passing up the parking that my residents use in front of my building to get to the public parking lots. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay, next speaker, Michael Rogers.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Let me start by thanking Chair McDonald for her insight into the uh how sound is measured. It's uh it's not linear. It's logarithmic. You're exactly right. Um let me I'm going to try and address uh sound and parking at the same time. The sound uh measurements were done with a uh 98 dibel sound generation at the center of the unit and then they measured them at the uh the perimeter of the property. Uh the average rock band runs at 110 to 120 dibels. So it would be probably better if they um met used a sound source which was more like what actually goes on in a in a band event. Um the other the other thing I'd like to suggest uh uh a possible solution to the problem of the sound. It would be nice if those in the area who are supposed to ex um have a uh you know 57 to 64 decibel sound limit. Maybe they should or we should have an investment in sound measurement devices so that if there are um you know if there violations of it then we have some evidence to go back and say hey this is not working guys you need to change what's going on. So the fact that there is a theoretical level that's going to happen, it would be very nice to have a practical way to measure it. Kind of like radar guns. I know we don't like those, but they are a practical way to enforce those kind of rules. So that that's all I want to say on the sound. Other people have covered it adequately. The parking um again there's various designations of the streets which are RMDs, HMDs, I mean I don't know what those are, but I'm presume they're relevant. Um most of our residents don't have a garage so they rely on the on street parking for uh you know when they come home from work and uh where they park their cars. Um a practical solution to that might be to

implement as they have in some cities a residential parking you know uh ticket an A or a C. So the tenement the tenants have the right to park in the areas where they are actually residents. And then rather than suggesting people use Uber or carpool, which we all know doesn't work that well, um that would then actually cause the people who are attending to actually go to the perimeter parking lots. Maybe use the nice one you have here, which is pretty empty uh at night. So my suggestion is to have some enforcement mechanisms or some recording mechanisms to ensure that what is claimed in the proposal is actually achieved in practice. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Okay, next two speakers, Jean Jole followed by Mario Cecedo. Good evening. Um, I'm sorry that you got the u the late packet this evening. I sent it to the city clerk this morning. It should have got gotten to you earlier than that.

Um, as you know, I was a professor of environmental engineering and if my student had issued uh in one of the class I taught was environmental impact reports and if somebody had provided me with a report as biased as today's presentation by staff, they would not have gotten more than a C. and but coming from professionals who have jobs that's not very good. Um I live the nightmare that these people fear. I live 200 ft from a venue. Sometimes I'm watching TV in my house with the the window closed and I hear the sound from that venue and the sound does not end when they close supposedly close at midnight because they often go over that time. Um then after midnight you have crowds gathering in the street making noise, people getting into those cars and you know this is Valleo people will have these subwoofers in their cars and sit there for 20 minutes before they decide to leave. So you have these extraneous impacts and when you need help you call the police maybe you call at 11 and if they show up they call you back at 2 in the morning or 3 in the morning to wake you up and say oh there's nothing happening. Yes, they're gone. But they wake you up in the middle of the night and in the next morning maybe uh and because I'm close to downtown, we have the street cleaner coming five times a week at 5 in the morning. There's no reason to do that. What I want to explain to you is that this city is not given any uh doesn't really mind about the u welfare of its citizens anymore and their health. And when we come when it comes

to sleeping, we know the state has passed laws to push back the time that school starts so that teenagers can sleep later in the morning because everybody needs sleep. We need eight hours of sleep. This depends. Some people seven, some people nine. But we don't get that. And these people are not going to get that. And this neighborhood, this idea of uh neighborhood village, well, this is not an activity that's comp uh compatible with a neighborhood village. You know, hair hairdresser, restaurants, uh little shops that operate during the day. That's okay. But these kind of events with 175 people, no. And also the their sound um report is is biased as well. They did not look at DBC. They only look at DBA. Um we need to look at the low frequency of sound. And as I explained before uh they cannot control everything. Uh so uh you have a situation with um the crowds after and before the event. Um and also the people will be um when they sell you don't

thank you very much. Uh last two inerson speakers Mario Cedo followed by Luis Delgado. [snorts]

[snorts]

Good afternoon and uh thank you for let me address you with this issue with this proposal. I my name is Mario Saledo. I am the president of the Solano Ace Coalition, a nonprofit organization that has been working uh providing services to Solano County, especially to Vallejo for the last 24 years. Uh I also do um cultural events. I do toy drives, blanket drives. I helping the homeless. I helping uh people that they are with drug addictions. I am in support of the opening of this building. And as we as we all hear uh the um owners of the building, they are working in address all the issues that can may um interfere with the neighborhood. Uh recently this year I create the Adelos Muertos Festival uh in um Marina Street and it was in that block. Um and it was beautiful. It was wonderful. Uh one of the things uh in the years that I live in this town uh Marina Street is always been very dark. That building is a beautiful building. Uh we have nothing. I mean we talking about a couple of buildings that they are not even uh up cold in u Georgia street and um we are um I mean if we open this building just imagine the people that we want to attract from other areas. I think that if we working together with the owners we can make this town I mean just imagine the economical grow and also the owners of the building they want to work with the community. I mean, I do one of the biggest toy drives in Solano County and we helping around 1500 kids. So, it's not only about kineras. It's about community. It's about being together and

um open a building that is a a jewel for this town. And I think that uh respecting the neighborhood also and if we addressing the parking all the parking issues and the sound uh I think that it will be beautiful to have a building like that because just imagine we will attract people uh we will attract people from out of this town. I've been here 24 years what I want to see is growing uh economical growing in the community. I also uh travel that areas and I see a lot parking lot. the majority of the day is a lot parking lot opening there. Also, we have um three parking lots in uh in downtown Vallejo. So, it will be no hard for people to walk uh to the venues that we have. We can have town halls, we can have uh community community um events, we can have so many different things happening in that building, not only kinseras. Thank you so much.

Uh thank you very much. Do we have anyone else? Yes. Uh, one more inerson speaker, Luis Delgado, please approach the podium.

Good evening everyone. Good evening.

Good evening everyone. My name is Luis Delgado. I am here to read a letter on behalf of uh from the desk of Miss Axani Sunday. She is the black indigenous and people of colors uh coordinator here for the city of Lao. It reads, "Blessings. My name is Axani Snald. I'm a 40-year resident of Lao and a Bipok event planner and coordinator with more than 30 years of professional experience serving this community. I respectfully submit this statement on behalf of the Delo family for your consideration. For over seven years, the Delgado have worked consistently in good faith to compete to complete a community- centered venue intended to serve Valo residents broadly. Their vision has remained focused on people first outcomes, specifically providing an affordable, accessible space for BIPO creatives and community- based events at rates that are often unavailable locally. I've personally observed the family's careful and intentional stewardship of the building through the process that they have demonstrated respect for its historical significance, preserving its character while making thoughtful improvements that honor its originally its original integrity. This project would also be meaningful as would be a meaningful asset to the Marin Street a corridor in need of thoughtful revitalization. It represents an opportunity to invest in areas of our city beyond downtown Georgia Street and to support balanced and community centered growth throughout Valleo. It is my sincere hope that this meeting supports a resolution of long of a long-standing delays and allows this project rooted in community

benefit historical care and neighborhood revitalization to move forward. I fully support the Delgado family and deeply appreciate their continued commitment to Valo. I look forward to the day this space is permitted to open and serve the community as intended. It is time. Signed respectfully, Miss Ascari Snowden. Thank you. Okay. Through the chair, that wraps up our speakers for this item. Okay. Thank you very much. Um I we proceed with the opportunity for the commissioners to to ask questions of the applicant or make statements as they

through the chair. Yes. Um number four on the script. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry about that. If so, if there are no more public comments uh or no more people online, then we will close the public hearing and ask the commissioners if they have any further questions. Um, in our del deliberations on the item,

I have some concerns about the sound. I don't think that the 6ft wall sound barrier is going to be sufficient myself. And I also have concerns now for the parking as well. Um, I really think that there should be other considerations for that building. I love the idea of rehabilitating it and restoring it, but I wondered if the applicant might have um thought of other types of venues such as maybe a dental office, a retail center, um an indoor mall, you know, there's a variety of things that they could use that venue for. even an art museum. It could be a dance. Uh, you know, maybe not dance because I again that could be a problem with sound, but it's so close to a residential area. I went over there and just across the street there's a house there. And I I just think there's so many other venues that are underutilized right in on Georgia Street that aren't near any um homes that um should be used instead of this particular building. Okay. So, I think uh as a point of order, we need to close the public hearing. Am I right? Is that right? Yes.

Through the chair, which you did already. Just Okay. Sorry. Anyway, let's Well, we can go ad hoc and people can let's just ask questions if you have them. So, just through through the chair. Are we doing questions first or are we um opening deliberations? Well, I think we if you have questions of the applicant um or any of the other Yeah. of the applicant, it's let's do that first. Let's do questions and then we'll then we'll close questions and do deliberations.

And do deliberations. Yes. Okay. Through the chair, I'll I'll get going here. Um try to stay to our planning commission lane here. Although I've got curiosities for what the Heritage Commission is interested in, I'll try to stay to my lane. Um um through the chair, you're more than welcome, Commissioner Bl. You're more than welcome to ask any question that you like.

I appreciate that. Um so, uh question for the applicant. We've got some ideas here about noise and you said you're very open um to working with the community. um what are your kind of responses to some of the concerns you've had and you know we've got some written ideas up here about uh automated sound limiters um ways to monitor your sound that would be recordable and quantitative that you know as we go forward with this you wind up um if this is a successful vote for you with uh conditions uh on your permit and those conditions if they're not met that can result in your your permit being revoked.

Um so um I'm interested to see what you are open to as far as conditions around sound.

Um well like previously mentioned um you know I'm I'm no sound engineer but definitely hire the professionals to do their jobs. So um you know and and to the best of our abilities you know try to comply with again what's what's in the purview of of law. Um it is our intent to stay reasonably within the law. um you know whether that that entails you know having staff or whether it's security on on premises again making sure that they can physically check the decibb ensuring that we are uh you know well within the limits of of the law is is one possible o uh option that we have. Um we do plan essentially again just to reduce ourselves below the thresholds that are limited by law um you know in local policies or not um to do you know sound mitigating um issues. Again, there's certain type of curtains, I think, that can help ease ease the sound. Um, and so again, we're looking for different options, but again, anything that's feasible so long as that we can, you know, stay compliant with, you know, local policies and and procedures for sure.

Okay. Maybe a follow-up question with uh city staff. Do we have any um businesses in town that we've had uh conditions on their um use permits? uh that put quantitative measures on sound emitted

um through the chair. So not any use permits but I can remember the administrative permit that we issued for what it valuing next to um Gracies. They applied for an administrative permit to allow outdoor events within the parking lot adjacent to Gracies and the brewery. Um, one of the conditions of approval that the applicant agreed to at the time was, uh, for any live music, um, they can only play live music for 45 minutes, take a 15-minute break and then continue. But no more than 4 hours of live music would be allowed to be played within that parking lot in order to give a break, you know, for any of respect the neighbors, giving them a break to from listening to live music and then also limiting the the number of hours of how how loud or I'm sorry, how long the live music can play for. That's interesting.

Uh, thank you very much. Yeah. I'm just curious if there's anything else that we could do around, you know, your um sound study has very specific parameters of the decibb you played indoors to then record what was happening outdoors. And if there's a way that we could uh make sure that that uh sound study is, you know, basically enforceable that we could say that's the sounds we want to maintain and exceeding those sounds would be a um you know, indication that you're not living up to your permit conditions. Yeah. Thanks. Someone else,

the um one of the speakers had had a comment about uh using uh having sound monitors that people could actually have access to. And which I think is a good idea because I don't think they cost that much. I think they're readily available, right? But and but more importantly, if they're calling somebody, what kind of commitment can the city make to respond to them in real time as opposed to four or five hours later? That's a really good question uh on on the sound. Uh and then I I had another question. I don't know what is there something in here about exterior lighting, new lighting on on the building?

Yeah. Yes.

Yes, there is. uh if and I I confess I haven't looked at that but I would uh the lighting can be as much a problem as sound if something is if if you make use of downward lighting as opposed to up lighting uh that doesn't light up the sky and everyone's windows nearby uh is light up the street where people are walking but not not the sky all around it that I is to me I' I've lived with that problem and businesses like this nearby, not here but elsewhere. U so I' I'd put that on an equal basis with the noise. I'll take a turn. So, uh thank you for your presentation, but we've got some issues.

Okay. I I you know, sorry. You want to go on? Oh, no. I said I I I there was one one concern that I did have um with one of the conditions of approval.

I don't know if now would be a great time to bring it up, but I just wanted to, you know, kind of um I guess highlight it and address it just, you know, in in interest of the public. Um I believe it's on page 20. There's a condition of approval uh submitted by the public works u where they're requesting um uh they're requesting as part of the project to um install a street light parking um street light parking and I think ADA um curbside improvements. Um part of that part of that concern that I I was having with that is that I think um you know I don't think that the neighborhood in and of itself should wait until you know this project gets approved. you know, in the event that the project doesn't get approved, um, you know, or or something happens or, you know, we run out of funds and we don't get it, I don't think that the public necessarily should have to wait, you know, contingent on the next, you know, um, developer coming in and and, you know, figuring out what whether what other use would be feasible for this property. I think um, you know, as as part of this project, I think the onus of of ensuring that the public rightways uh, for that neighborhood um, should be instituted and and in place regardless of the development that was happening. So duly um you know uh wanted to respectfully request I think the um consideration of items um I think it was uh seven seven and eight um and put those um as um as conditions of approval based on on um the director of planning uh public works sorry the director of public works um

seven and eight I don't know Okay. Um, Caesar, can you respond to that, please?

Yeah. Um, through the chair, just so just to confirm that the commission understands that the applicant is requesting to modify D um number six, which is frontage. Uh, project is required to implement frontage improvements on Carolina Street. This includes upgrading the existing driveway to current ADA standards. Um D7 which is also a frontage project is required to implement frontage improvements on Marin Street. This includes upgrading existing curb ramps at Carolina Street and at Kissle Alley to current 88 standards and number D8 street light which is install one street light on Carolina Street per city standards. Um what I heard from the applicant, he's requesting that those be to the discretion of the public works director um without consultation with the public works director or the public works division. At this time staff cannot support that request because um public works did review the project and these are the conditions of approval that they have added to the project.

Thank you sister. Um through the chair. Yes.

Okay. Um being we left off on the sound issue, I did my own study on um typical sound levels for a 7,000 square ft venue such as yours. Um just some some numbers here. Um DJ music 90 to 95, which you're it seems like you tested that one out. Um, if you have a small band in there, it's 95 to 110 and then a small rock band is 105 to 120 dB. So, I am not a sound engineer. It sounds like we have one down there. Um, I'm going to ask you if you have thought of installing any sound absorbing material, especially in the corner where the the stage or the band is going to be. Um yes, Commissioner Maderos. Um that would be essentially part of what I was uh suggesting earlier, which would be to do um you know, sound uh sound enhancements and sound modifications in order to try to reduce and again stay within within the limitations of of you know local ordinances um and um and again really if we can stay beneath that even better. But yeah, that would be part of part of the stuff that we're considering. Again, we'd be have to work with a with a sound engineer to see what the best strategy and approach would be in order to, you know, mitigate and reduce those sound levels from the interior of the building.

Yeah. Because you need to realize that you this building is in a residential zone. Okay. And I am concerned for the the residents that surround um your building. Um through the chair, I just want to provide a clarification that is not within the residential zoning district. It is adjacent to it. It is within the neighborhood neighborhood commercial zone. I realize that if we look at a map, we can see all the houses. So, it's it's a no-brainer. Um, are you going to have that facility uh uh temperature controlled in HVAC system? Yes.

Okay. Um, have you reached out to the neighbors?

We haven't. Um, again, we we initiated, I think, the process of trying to get this approval. Um, eight, seven, eight years ago. It's been it's been a lengthy time. I think it's a few points in time, you know, my family and I, we we're just kind of running um, you know, we're exhausting and kind of becoming a little bit disillusioned with the physibility that this would actually run um, you know, be a be a successful project to be honest. And I think at one point in time um we were just kind of like deferring to you know making sure that we would meet the the different um u requirements that were that were laid before us. U we we are definitely open to um you know ensuring again uh a seamless integration of this project into that community without disturbing you know any of u the existing you know um conditions of of the neighborhood uh as much as possible. But again, I think this this is a great opportunity, I think, to really hear those concerns and again ensure that we are, you know, diligently taking those into account as we proceed with with the project. So, uh, I appreciate this opportunity for sure.

Okay. A a question for staff. Um the major major use permit is that mainly because it's uh going to be alcohol sales. Uh the major use permit was for uh community assembly um larger than 5,000 square ft as well as um the reduction in parking. Um it would have been a minor use permit, but the director uh elevated it to planning commission as a major use permit.

Okay. Um and then the hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Um can we put some sort of um guard rails around the hours of the sale of alcohol? So just a question for staff.

Yeah. So through through the chair um we do have a condition of approval. I'm trying to find it um real quick that does limit the hours of operation. The applicant did request to commence have um events start from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Um we do have a condition of approval which is A 27. The events shall not commence earlier than 8:00 a.m. and no later than 12 a.m. Uh we do have about 1, two, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 different conditions of approval regarding on-site alcohol beverage services. uh for example that all at all events bartenders are trained are a bartender or trained server is required to monitor the distribution and consumption of alcohol.

Excuse me. Excuse me. I've I read all of those. What I did not see was the time the guard rails around the time where alcohol can be can be served. No. So there isn't a condition approval that limits that. But during the motion, the planning commission can add a condition of approval that does limit the hours when alcohol is served or if it um as once again when the hours of alcohol is served. Um, we also do have, just to remind the commission, we do have a condition of approval in there that alcohol has to stop, alcohol service has to stop at least 1 hour before the end of the read. So,

um, well, that's something that we can deliberate as a group. Can I I I like I have director Ple on the line. Um, can we I think she has something to offer. Okay. Can let's let's uh feed her into the meeting, please. Hi, good evening. I am having some difficulties with my video. It's not working on my laptop or my um camera for some reason. But um I I thank you for um call Oh, here it is. Maybe that's

Yeah, apologies. Um anyways, I apologize that I can't be there in person this evening, but I just wanted to chime in. And I was going to note that condition um 8 I'm sorry 19 um HJ KL that does um require alcohol sales to stop before the um 1 hour before the event ends. Um and I also just wanted to mention that there are not um additional guardrails provided on this because the applicant is not proposing to sell um alcohol themselves. they are making it available as an option for event hosts if they have their own permits through ABC. So that's kind of the nuance issue here. Um I also while I'm here just wanted to respond to one other earlier item that was brought up related to enforcement of noise. Um I wanted to mention um I am working with the code enforcement department every day and I can say that it is hard to enforce that. However, because there is a use permit associated with this project, if evidence is collected um to show violations of the noise conditions, um that evidence can be um applied towards u potential future revocation or modifications to the con to the use permit. So, um so that is probably how that would be addressed.

Thank you. Um on pa I don't know what page page six I guess of staff report um under VMC section 16508.14.b modification and reduction just under num number five um it's written the proposed development includes at least 20% affordable housing units. Is that just right out of the the uh the VMC? Cuz that doesn't make sense. How does this apply through the chair? That was an oversight and we did not catch that.

Okay. Um [sighs] moving right along. A lot of these are clarification questions. Um Oh, really? through through the chair. Um, I apologize. I would retract the comment that I made that we didn't catch that, but associate planner Solomon just clarified that that's the way the findings are written in the city of Alo Municipal. So, those are the exact findings that was, you know, approved and adopted by city council.

Yeah, I was just wanting clarification on that, making sure they're not going to build units. Um, on page 11 under number four, there are no changes to the property that have acquired historic significance. Can you please define acquired? So, uh, that language is taken from the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties and it is meant to allow for changes to a building that happened later on in, you know, after it was constructed, but um, are still part of the historic significance of the welding. It doesn't really apply here. It's just that's kind of the the boilerplate language of one of one of those standards. So, I I think that's why that that got included, but I don't believe there are really any significant changes to this particular building. So, it wouldn't really

Okay, thank you. Um, you might want to stay up there. I don't know if this is your question. Uh, and then just through the chair, I do want to introduce Cara Brrenzel from Brinszel Historical. She was the I'm sorry. Cara Brzel from Brinsel Historical. Okay. She was the in the party that was contracted through the city to conduct the historical assessment. Okay. So, I think you are the right person for this one. Um I'm curious why um it or the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties was used as opposed to the California's historical building code which is

federal property

much tighter than um the federal guidelines. The California Historic Building Code is meant to allow for flexibility. Um, when a qualified, eligible, or listed historic building needs to be altered, um, it allows for for things to be done a little more flexibly rather than bringing everything exactly to current code. That's the purpose of the the state historic building code. the secretary of the inter interior standards even though it's a federal standard it is e accepted as a way to avoid negative impacts to a historical resource under SQUA um and it's it's also I believe in the Vallejo municipal code uh adherence to the secretary standards is required for a con condition of approval for qualified historical buildings. So, it's just kind of a it sounds weird because it's a federal standard, but it's it's sort of universally used.

I I do realize that. Um, and where does the I mean, who who draws that line between state uh regulations and federal?

Well, it it's not a federal regulation. The Secretary of Interior standards is more of a set of guidelines that was developed by the National Park Service. But um it is you know as I mentioned it SQA recogni recognizes that adherence to this those standards typically allow alterations to a property to avoid adverse negative impacts that um you know that would take away historic integrity. and they do not then refer to the state historical building safety board information.

The state historic building code isn't used in that way. It's not used to determine whether a project would harm the historic status of a building or not. um in in absence of specific local regulations, which which I've actually never seen, and I've probably worked in at least 100 different municipalities within and outside California. Um the secretary standards are that that's the just the rubric for determining um you know whether something conforms to historic status and allows something to keep its uh its historic listing.

So the state historic building code it it's just not used in that particular way. it is relevant when you're pulling building permits. Mhm. That that's [clears throat] when you deploy that. So, okay. I hope that answers your question.

Yes, it does. Thank you very much. Um [sighs] Okay. Um, another big issue for me, um, and I know this is under the building division section of the of staff report is, and it doesn't mention anything before this, is the seismic retrofit of the building. Um, it talks about, and I know they haven't probably haven't pulled their building permits yet. I don't I don't know. Um, so at that point when they do that, um, I I just know from previous experience of previous owners of that building, um, when they when they pulled the permit and there was definitely, uh, seismic retrofit requirements by the city, um, they could not afford to do that. So, I don't know if the building the current building owners know that or not, but um sharing that with you right now that that could be a problem going forward with this project and that's for all my fellow uh commissioners up here as well too. So, that's that, you know, and we had the Napa earthquake. There was a lot of damage in that area of town. Um, I don't know if that building was damaged. I don't know. Um, I guess the building division can figure that one out. Um, on page, it's under fire prevention division. I notice there's no numbers under um the uh maximum occupants

through the chair. The condition of approval reads as post an occupant load sign in conspicuous place near the main exit from all rooms designated as assembly areas. The sign shall read as follows as a maximum occupants and then general and then dining. So those numbers get added after the architect has calculated the total capacity for those assembly areas. Okay. And I take it the fire marshall will be involved in that. Okay, I think that was it. Okay.

Oh, um the alarm system 4.2.3. Uh, [sighs] I don't know if the applicant knows this, but I think everybody else who lives here in Valo knows that the VPD does not respond. So, um, my question to the applicant is how will they respond? don't necessarily have a um a copy of of the conditions. Um would it be possible to get them up on the slide and I can review it or

can you speak into the mic when you Yeah. Okay. through the chair. May I ask Madero uh Commissioner Maderos to re repeat the question and the condition she's referring to? Yes. If there's an alarm that goes off, most people in this in this chamber knows that uh the VPD does not respond to alarms anymore. So my question is, how will the applicant respond when an alarm goes off? I [clears throat] is there any notification that you're going to get from your alarm company? And then what are you going to do?

Um well, currently, you know, I think the the the best case scenario, you know, for an alarm going off and an intruder being there is not necessarily for somebody that doesn't know the law to kind of confront somebody. But, you know, um I think during during the time that um that the the building has been vacant, we've been pretty v we've been trying to stay very vigilant through a security camera system and you know, there are countless of of phone calls that we've made to OPD informing them that we're on our way, you know, to kind of um assess the situation, open the building in order for them to be able to respond. So, you know, it is in her best I think it's it's really in the best interest to try to, you know, be there in order to facilitate access to any any uh any area on the premises. So, um but I think, you know, the best we I feel we can do is really just, you know, really respond and be, you know, there with the BPD, whether it's, you know, seeing an intruder walk out and letting them know exactly description where they are. But, yeah, there's there's, you know, in the time that the building has been vacant, there's various phone calls that we've made. um you know to 911 informing them of what's happening. Hey, what's the status? Who's coming? This is the individual. I'm seeing him out. He's here. He's moved to the street. So um you know, we're we're very reactive as it relates to you know um crime in in in any uh event happening on the building.

Well, and the reason I asked you is because I I believe it was you who noted that there were some [clears throat] broken windows. Yes. On the property. So, um that is a form of blight and um it just you know brings people into your building. It it has um you know one of the reasons why currently the building stands with boarded walls and boarded doors is um you know we've we've had several breakins um and you know as much as we were there trying to you know patch up and repair it so that the building was you know presentable and and it facade was you know um pretty for the neighborhood. Um unfortunately it was offering opportunities to keep breaking it. And like I said, we've we've been in the process of trying to get the approval of plans for the past eight years. And at one point in time, it's like we can't continue to repair uh without understanding what's happening. So that's when we opted for boarding up everything. And again, you break it, you break it. Eventually when we open the building, we will have to um come in and and do all of those repairs. But in, you know, I mean, you're talking about historic, you know, windows um replacing those was just really really difficult. So, you know, it is not the intent for the building to be as is. You know, I think one of the other concerns that was recently brought up by, you know, one of the community members was the garbage. Um, I can bring receipts and show you how many times we've done um, you know, garbage runs, you know, with our own, you know, truck, go on and pick up garbage, you know, piles of garbage and, you know, do a do a garbage run. um you know the the neighborhood unfortunately is currently I think the the the fact that the building is vacant right now really allows for a lot of you know vandalism and loitering and unfortunately you know in Valo we we know that's a big problem um and it's a big problem specifically when there's you know vacant buildings as this so um we there's um the current property owner

u adjacent to us um has brought this issue I have messages from him hey you know there's there's um there's another encampment in front of your property. Um you know, encampment is growing. Again, we've been very responsive and that's why you don't necessarily see the growth of you know, encampments in front of the building even though the building is vacant. And again, that's our that's a proactive measure to try to maintain the area clean. But again, um you know, there is a limitation that we can go on. You know, if if this project doesn't move forward, how much more money can we continue to invest? you know, we're not a deep pocketed corporation out there. We're a local, you know, Valo family. We've been here 23 years of our life. You know, we see this as like, hey, this is a great way to, you know, partake in the in the, you know, uh, rejuvenation of our of our communities. Um, but unfortunately, it's getting sad to, you know, see that deterioration. You know, I personally have witnessed that. So, um, again, I'm I am excited to see this this building, you know, open up and, you know, we're doing everything we possibly can. um you know to to do that seamless integration into the community. You know we have discussed the option of malls. Um to be honest and frank I don't necessarily think that a mall in that big space is about you know 7,000 ft inside. It's not feasible for a mall. A mall in and of itself is going to invite that traffic that we're really trying to avoid. A mall is going to attract that light that we're trying to that light pollution. A mall is going to attract that noise. It is going to attract those crowds outside. I it's like if you start to really break down what is the best use for this beautiful um open layout building, you know, we can't nobody's going to come in and do the the renovations to try to convert it into the hotel. You know, that's that's just not feasible. As you guys mentioned, the retrofit might in and of itself be such an expensive thing. So, you know, I think this is the fastest feasible

option that we have to put this vacant building into use um rather than continue to see it deteriorate year after year after year. So, thank you. Thank you. Um I have one more question for staff and um under notice and comments uh pretty much the beginning. Um you you state active neighborhood groups. I am just asking if you sent that to the Saint Vincent Hill Neighborhood Coalition

through the chair. Yes, it went to the St. Vincent's Hill Historic Coalition as well as the Heritage District, even though the Heritage District was just outside of it. Um, and the Washington Park uh neighborhood district. Um, okay. Good. All right. Thank you. That's that's all I have for now. Okay. Thank you. Um, next. Okay.

I'll try and be quick. Um the um I understand most of the lighting plan with regard to the four wall-mounted fixtures along Kissle and the handrail mounted lights. Um is there plans to restore the set light the set lighting? I just didn't catch if that is intended to be Yes. Yes, they lighting will be they are going to be going and will be shielded.

Yes. Yes. They're going to be restored to their um historic condition for sure. Okay. Which is not particularly shielded. I'm also a member of the illuminating engineering society. Which particularly with a frosted glass lens probably does not meet the legal definition of a shielded light fixture. So I just want to clarify that those will be restored to meet the definition of a shielded light fixture which is in the requirements. Um, and if it would be addressed if the original condition, which appears to have been frosted glass, does not meet the legal definition from a light trespass, light pollution standpoint of being shielded.

Okay. Um, the mural. Can anybody elaborate on the legal requirement for access to the mural? What entity? Does anybody know what entity? Or we could save it for deliberations or but well what I when what I uh found with reading that it was I think like it was a deed restriction when it left uh federal ownership and and it's and it was there was a requirement that that it be accessible.

I don't know if that that still exists anymore. sure about accessibility because the use is changing. Uh I think the maintenance of it is is the thing that is you know where there's laws around how it needs to be maintained and things like that that may be but if there's a requirement that it it be accessible I'd like to know if that requirement still exists. I'm not sure and I and I further I think it should be made in some manner because it's a treasure. It's a it's a quite a rare mural. I do agree numerous of these 1930s era murals in the Bay Area. It's a significant piece of history.

My last question concerns the exhibit that's on page 144, which is the table that the um sound consultant submitted regarding um community noise equivalent level. And they make a reference in their cover page to the threshold of 65 CNL. Um, if you look at the diagram they submitted, they circled that threshold of 65, but that's based my understanding from their cover letter on their sound level is a source of 98 dB, which we've learned this evening is roughly equivalent to a DJ. I don't see anything in the conditional permissions that limit this to a DJ. And as we've learned this evening, a rock band can easily be 120 dB. So if you add even five dBA to the CNL, this graph submitted here, you see the yellow circle at 65. If it moves up even to 70, even at 65, you're within the lower threshold of clearly unacceptable CNL with the statement in their own exhibit that new construction or development generally should not be undertaken as an auditorium, concert hall or amphitheater. So if any if the use is not limited to DJs and if it could include band performances, any increase in this over 70 puts the project outside the conditionally acceptable zone for CNL and into the clearly unacceptable zone. In which case, development as an auditorium, concert hall or amphitheater should not be considered by your own consultants report.

Um, I not too sure how to answer that. Um, again, I no sound engineer, but you know, I I I I would agree with you that, you know, having the sound levels of what would be, you know, a DJ at the perimeter of the building are definitely unacceptable. And again, that's something that I think we we, you know, can um can agree that should, you know, that that will not happen. So, um again, we're trying to really stay within the the the confines of of you know, what's um the local ordinances,

but the intermediate of your consultants report, which is not in that zone. So, that zone for this use jumps from conditionally acceptable to clearly unacceptable. And even the definition of conditionally acceptable in this report says that development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and the needed noise indication features included in the design. So, you know, if if your consultant wants to say that this is conditionally acceptable, your own consultant has said that development should only be considered after a detailed evaluation, which even though as a landmarks commissioner, I won't be able to vote on the planning part of this. I do want to draw the attention to everyone that this report would even say additional detailed study would have been required even as your consultant submitted this.

Other questions? I I just had one. [clears throat] I I missed out on when would the live music stop? Was it 10 o'clock or midnight? Jeez. Operational hours. Uh, operational hours. Yeah, we had set 6 6 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Um, and again, I I the 6 a.m. I I I think it's seven days a week. Huh? How many days a week?

We put seven days a week. Again, it's not, you know, within our consideration that we're really going to have, you know, that kind of success of operating from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. 7 days a week. But, you know, we do want to be open um to hosting different events. Again, we're not focused on specifically having kinseras or, you know, those kind of events. Um you know, recently we did part we did partner with the Salano Ace Coalition to open up the building. Uh they hosted an event on the exterior uh of of the property on uh Marin Street. It was a success. a lot of people came in and that was an opportunity for the community to, you know, go inside of the building um and look at the at the uh at the mural that's that's inside. Um but uh again, we we do want to be open. We we have part we have developed and and we're fostering partnerships with again different different communities. Um you know, recently there was a warming center um that the city was looking for and I was like this would have been a lovely idea for us to be able to open up. we have such a vacant a massive space um to have been able to host a warming space but unfortunately without permits we can't really do that. So again our our our um requests for hours of operation are really just to encompass a larger scope of activities that we can't have there.

We we we have to stand behind that, right? And so if you said 65 dB, then you've got to be able to stand up to that. And what you I'm suggesting might be to your advantage is to have some mechanism of some type to to manage yeah that sound. So right now you're depending on the architecture of the building and 65dB I you know 65dB is serious noise and it's going to penetrate Yeah. and get outside and it's going to drive the people that that have to go to bed and get up at 4:00.

Yeah. Crazy. So, with that said, I think couple of things that you can do. One is you really need to look at attenuation as as a way I don't know what is that curtains? Is it is it building some I mean there are ways Yeah. to accommodate Yeah. problem they cost money. I think I think one of the one of the you know you've got to make these suggestions because right now it sounds like one of one of the things that we were um considering but again it

it's definitely not until we're able to meet with a sound engineer that can you know um address and analyze it but we have again we were considering um enhancements to the interior of the property um you know whether it's installing I don't know and again I'm no sound engineer but I believe there are like um lowhanging walls um that you can install that kind of absor you know again um items that can absorb sound so that it it doesn't you know um so that the what's actually exiting the building is limited. We have considered the possibility of installing our own uh PA system and that way we have control over the sound that's being emitted. Um,

I think what I'm saying is I think I think you have to present those things to us as solutions if you want us to, you know, cuz right now we're talking about our citizens. Yeah. And their comfort, right? I mean, so Commissioner BL through through the chair, just I just want to remind the commission that although the applicant did re did request to operate or allow events start from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, uh staff did add a condition of approval of of doing events from 8:00 a.m. to midnight. So that's actually reducing the request because we believe you know events at 6 a.m.

Can you repeat that? So what would be the time frame? The condition of approval that we have is that events shall not commence earlier than 8:00 a.m. and no later than midnight. Well, Commissioner BL. Yeah.

Through the chair. Thanks. Um, the applicant has stated in their own business plan um that they will strictly enforce a maximum sound energy production level of 98 dBA for any event. Um, so I suggest we uh put that in as a condition. That is something you've already said you would do, which would limit the amount of noise being generated on the inside of the building. So that should be acceptable to you, right? Yes, of course. Of course. Yeah.

So I think we could add that as a condition that we add through a motion. Um I think we could also think about adding if we want to reduce hours more or total number of hours so that there is no more than six hours of 8 hours whatever we want to say per day that has to occur between 8:00 a.m. and midnight. You know these are the things that we can add on the planning commission side for the through a motion so that we can kind of get to some sort of resolution that we think we can vote on tonight.

Yeah. Um because we're going to keep on going around and around until we come up with what are some numbers that we can put to this. The community has numbers that they can measure and that are in the in the code of what you you are um what you should tolerate and what you should not tolerate. Um and is well within your means to then make complaints about those intolerances as they're surpassed. Um, we can put measures on the applicant here for what they can produce inside. And then to the extent that you're hearing stuff outside that's above the measures that the city says is tolerable, then you make a complaint, the applicant either remedies the situation through sound mitigation inside the building and then brings down the outside noise or figures out a way to further reduce their noise because those complaints will generate repercussions because then you're not living up to the conditions of your permit and your permit can be revoked. So that's how we kind of puzzle our way out of this situation. Um so that we can get to something okay uh that we can do.

I I That sounds good. So given that we're at that point um and a motion can only be made by the uh being architecture historic and landmark people. So would anybody on that I have been waiting to comment and ask questions. That's why my my microphone's been green. No, go ahead. Thank you. Um, I have a couple questions for you and then a couple follow-up questions for you and then I have a question for staff and attorney after that. They should be quick. Um, okay. Quickly, when did you buy the building? Did you get a deal on it? Um, how much was it? And then why did you buy it? First questions.

Um, I uh that was my first my parents acquired it. I as a son was kind of like leading the project of of kind of seeing it to fruition to fruition. I don't recall the exact numbers on that. Um, but I have a hard time here. Yeah. What was your question? Your when did you buy it? Did you get a deal on it and why did you buy it? 20 2017. I

I believe it must have been like Yeah, like eight years ago. Um, Yeah, I think it was I don't know if it was it must have been like somewhere like one like like 1.2 maybe. Okay, sounds like a deal for that size of building. Um, and why did you buy it? Do you uh always say good to be in an event space or

I we we did I I thought we were for us um because we have a we have a a bridal business um and so we were in the business of doing uh event event decorations. So um you know bridal and wedding we would be hired to go and decorate those kind of events. We kind of fell in love really with the idea of of you know being a part of people's celebrations. Um, so when we saw this space, um, we immediately fell in love with it. And so our idea was really to to open it up as an events venue, as a as a prime events venue here in the city of Al.

Okay. And I also wanted to start with saying I really appreciate you guys are changing Weston and all of that. I really do. I think it's wonderful. My follow-up question to that is how many event spaces are in this area and what's their success rate and do we need another one? Did we think about that when you thought about the use of this building? I think there are I might say there might be like permitted actually. I wouldn't know. I know there there's there's there's probably a few event centers in the area, but again, I'm not necessarily sure whether they're operating, you know, legally um with permits or not. Um and again, our our interest is really to kind of um you know, take lead in that and again do things right, do things permitted, be safe. Again, it's not some it's not just about revenue generation. And again, we do want to, you know, take those um mitigations against any potential liabilities. And again, what better way to do it than, you know, with your permits and making sure that everything's in right. So, you know, this is our effort not not to bypass, you know, the the laws that are in place, you know, meant to protect the community itself, but this is really, you know, an effort to um bring a viable, feasible, legal event space center to the area.

Great. Yeah, that's really my question. As an investor myself, I've looked at properties and thought this would be great and not really thought about all the implications for the neighborhood or anything before and but maybe not able to buy property because of that. So,

wanted to ask those questions. Thank you. The other question that I have is for staff and for maybe legal. I asked questions earlier why this doesn't squ or EIR apply um under 15303. And I kind of alluded to asking that earlier, but didn't get a response. So, it seems like from staff report it doesn't apply, but also from the email we got earlier, there's real concerns that they think that it should apply. So, you have to repeat your question. I'll say in the staff report that SQUA Oh, I'm really loud now. Sorry.

Okay. SQUA and EIR are not required in this tap report and also but in this email that we received earlier it says that they think they should. So I didn't get a response to that earlier. Why are they not required for this?

Because under SQA there are certain categories of projects that are exempt if you meet the requirements for the exemption. And so in this case there are very few alterations to the building physically. So it's already an existing building and the minor construction or conversion of construction of small structures and or conversion of small structures covers like the trash enclosure and the modifications to the front of the building and the there are some additions to the like the parking lot and stairs. I'm not exactly sure. There's some minor things. Yeah, I think that was my question.

And then the as the um historical consultant explained, if you comply with if all of the alterations comply with the uh Secretary of the Interior's standards, um then you are are you you show that you have not impacted a historic resource negatively like adversely. So you then therefore qualify for an exemption for rehabilitation of a historic resource. So there are two exemptions there under SQA that this project qualifies.

Yeah, I think that's my question cuz it says 15303 talks about minor changes and like I said earlier 90 to 25 parking spots doesn't feel minor to me. Um landscape doesn't feel minor to me. A new wall going up doesn't feel minor to me. So it's like what's the definition? Those are very minor. Oh, what's the definition of minor then? Well, like for example, um building a single family home is minor. That does that qualifies. So, if you built an entire single family home, that would If you built a commercial building that's less than 10,000 square feet, that would be minor. Um if you built an accessory structure, that would be minor.

You have those definitions somewhere for us to see.

Yeah, I can pull up my computer. Hold on. Um well through the chair reading directly from the California government code um it does say 15303 new construction or conversion of small structures. So class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new slash uh comma small facilities or structures, installation of small new equipment and facilities and small structures and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but not are not limited to one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception. A duplex or similar multif family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes, or similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. a store, motel, office, restaurant, or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances not exceeding 2500 ft in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square ft in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances. where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not envir environmentally sensitive. And then water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions including street improvements of reasonable length to serve such constructions. accessory structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences, or

an an accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste at a facility occupied by a medical waste generator, provided the unit is installed and operated in accordance with medical waste management act and accepts no off-site waste waste. Um, so just kind of referring back, these are all examples of this exemption, but they're not limited to. So,

so I think the next step would be for the vice chair to determine if we have completed questions and deliberations and if so, um, do we vote on the AHLC matter first or do we vote on the planning matter first? through through the chair. Um if you wanted to add conditions of approval before have you all agreed and deliber del deliberated on those because when you make your motions um my my my question all in addition

when you when you make your motions I want to make sure that you add the proper that you've all agreed upon the conditions of approval. Well, I my question is we have two votes obviously we have two panels even though we al and then I I'd like a clarification on what we AHLC are limited to because

we're we're voting only we're voting only we're we would vote only on the historic appropriateness of the modifications. So despite our ability to question the noise, the sound, the parking, those don't fall under our purview. we would vote only on the historic portions of the building. But in terms of just concluding any modifications we'd like to make, my recommendation would be that we consider continuing this item until our next AHLC meeting because of the lack of clarity regarding whether or not there is a deed restriction regarding public access to the mural. And if in fact a deed restriction does exist for access to that historic mir mural as a condition of the sale of the building, I think we as the AHLC should understand the existence or non-existence of that deed restriction and whether or not the that deed restriction is being met before we consider whether or not this is historically appropriate because what's proposed could deny that. So that's my that's and is our concluding our deliberation. That would be my recommendation on the motion from the AHLC through through the chair. Um the reason that we um had this joint meeting was to avoid staggered meetings because in case someone were to appeal because we have under our code it requires two different entitlements from from two different bodies and we don't want to have staggered appeals with separate entitlements expiring at different times. So so hold that thought. You can make it a condition of approval to see the title report and if there is a deed restriction to make it the applicant comply with the deed restriction

which but I mean that could mean 24-hour access to the mural. We don't even know what that Well, I don't think the post office was open 24 hours, but you could make him comply with the deed restriction, whatever it says. And I because it would be a deed restriction. So whatever it says you you could make them it's legal. I I think does that make sense? That makes sense to me. And also if we have a commitment from the owners to abide by that whatever restriction and then we can revoke their their use permit if they don't comply.

And then also before voting I would like to know exactly what we're voting on. I know it's doors whatever. I I don't know exactly what we're voting on. I believe our purview is the landscape improvements, um the exterior modifications, which would be the replacement of the signage returning to the post office signage and the modification of the doors and the addition of the accessible ADA ramps. lighting. Okay. So, the wall wouldn't be part of it. And I'm sorry. Lighting

and lighting attached to the building, I guess, but not and the detached wall, I assume, would also be in our scope because it is a landscape item. So is that clear that am I correct that the HLC scope includes the addition of the perimeter sound wall, the landscape plan, the lighting attached to the historic building, the additional ADA ramp, and the door modifications and the signage modification to return to the original post office signage. Are those six items what the AHLC is voting on

through through the chair? So, it's all of those items except for the sound wall and the landscaping. I know typically the HLC has acted on projects that require new single family residences and landscape review, but that was specific for that project. So, tonight the HLC would only be acting on the exterior modifications, the lighting, and the signage. So, the next through so through the chair, and I don't know if this is a question for the city staff or legal um for the planning commission. So, is our motion that we're voting on is contingent on uh the other commission?

So, there there's going to be two motions. One uh by the historical people and then one for the uh planning commission. Correct. But if they continue theirs, then that would would that mean ours needs to be continued as well? We're being asked not to continue.

Yeah. So, through through the chair, so yes and no to your question. If the consensus is to continue the item, our recommendation is that both commissions continue the item so that we can reschedule a joint meeting. And like assistant city attorney Zagarly mentioned, the reason we're having this joint meeting with two commissions that rarely have joint meetings is because there's one aspect that the planning commission votes on and the other aspect of the HLC. and to prevent any um staggered appeal period. So if anyone from the public including the applicant would like to appeal the project, the appeal the entitle project and not just the exterior modifications or the use. That makes sense.

So before we conclude deliberations, would the planning commission for any reason consider a continuation this evening? Yes. Yes. So, if both parties are amenable to a continuation, can I make a motion? Hang on a second. Um, Director Pollock, are you there? I guess not. I don't see. Yes. No, I'm here.

Oh, you're here. Okay. Are you hearing these questions? I'm sorry. About um continuation and and so on between the two uh groups. Um yeah, I I would agree that if there is going to be continuation, both should be continued as um planning manager Arosco mentioned. Um however, I also think that the city attorney had a very valid opinion that should be considered um if the concern is related to a potential um incompatibility with the deed restriction, that is something that would would trump this situation. So if you just require um compliance with the deed restriction um that should cover the issue. So

but if the I want to respect if the planning commission feels they may have their own reasons for wishing to continue the matter that they be allowed to make a motion for continuation if they feel or that they or they indicate that they're willing to make a motion to vote this evening through the chair. Um, my issue is with what was alluded to tonight by a sound expert who sits on this panel, which staff could not answer and the applicant could not answer. So then

and I don't know if anybody else up here can answer but the chair who is a sound expert um went through very meticulous explanation as far as it seeming like what was written in the staff report as well as the sound engineer report were conflicting. So okay that that is a sticking point with me

um through this chair. I think there are two things here. I think the comments that were made earlier on were related to the way the finding was worded. So um what I can suggest is that if there is a change in the wording and the findings related to this issue, you can definitely include that with the motion in order to make sure that it reads the way you're comfortable with and that it's consistent with the other documents. Um and then the other piece related to the noise, if you feel you need more information um from the noise expert, um you can definitely, you know, request a continuance and and bring them back in for that. Um however, I believe we did hear the applicant mention that they were willing to commit to um a specific noise level within the building. They also were willing to commit to additional um noise curtains inside as needed. and then also measuring the noise level on the um take taking that upon themselves. So um I think you have two options. I think you could you know suggest a continuence for more details or you could implement all of those conditions as part of a motion.

I have a an opinion on it. I think for sorry if I don't know if you can hear me but I have an opinion on it. I think the conditions that for AHLC would be the lighting, the the down lighting and the deed probably not a lot over here, but it sounds like from a planning standpoint, sound, parking, lighting, ABC parties, fire, like we could be here forever trying to figure out what conditions to implement and and and vote on tonight. The continuence just offer my opinion sounds like a better option for everybody to think about what all of that is. That's my opinion through the chair. Um, per the planning commission, this is our job. We we come up with the conditions in the meeting. Yes.

And we figure out what they are. We see if they're acceptable to both the applicant and to ourselves. We put them on and we take a vote. Okay. I say we do that. Yeah. Through through the chair, too. I thought we addressed the sound concern through a possible um addition uh that Commissioner Bine mentioned about keeping the noise level at I think it was 98. That we can add. Isn't that right? I think we can make that a condition. Can we? Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair.

Sorry, I just wanted to jump in. Apologies. Um that could be a condition. Um, but also I wanted to mention if you wanted to switch the order of voting, um, if you wanted to take the planning commission vote first because there are, um, you know, more more complex issues there, I I think that would be acceptable. Okay. So then I would make a motion that we uh, are we going to approve this Right. With conditions. Is that what we want to do? With conditions.

Okay. So, I make a I make a recommendation that uh we approve uh See, where's the writing? I don't have the verbiage. Okay. Approve the uh a resolution by the architect. I mean, let's see. probably hear the planning commission the the next sentence I don't I don't have the language can you you you do uh it's if you go back on the first page under 4 a right after this number two

so after number two okay I make a resolution that we Uh number two, uh a resolution by the planning commission approving a use uh permit uh UP180002 development review and landscape review PLN25-013 for EV for an event center in the former federal building located at 823 Min Street, APM. N 0056-161-040. I need a second there or did I get that?

We need to add some conditions to it. All right. And also um

and number two the planning commission find that the project exempt from find that the find the project exempt from SQA pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 class 3 new construction or conversion of small structures and section 15331 class 31 historic resource restoration/ Laz rehabilitation and approve a use permit development review and landscape review UP1800002 and PLN25-013 subject to the conditions of the approval provided as exhibit A at the resolution uh to the resolution I should say attachment two that Need a second.

I think we need to make some motions to through the chair. You need to say modified as follows and then add your new conditions. Okay. And modified as followed. What are the That's should we talk over some modifications? Definitely

talk over some modifications here. Um perhaps we can start with noise. I think we already have an agreement that the noise stipulation should be clarified between the two that are in contradiction. Um, and the one that talks about ambient noise is written in error and should conform to the other one. Um, that is a more direct citing of the code. Um, I think we have agreement from the applicant that interior noise should not be produced at in excess of 98 dB. Okay. So, with the I would like to add

um that the applicant um installs sound absorbing materials. Um I would like to go beyond the stage area. um at least halfway down the the um line of the both walls in the corner because it's set in the corner at least. Um and also to limit to either DJ music or acoustic bands, acoustic uh musical bands which don't have

I'm going to ask you I'm I'm going to read mod and including modifications to to the noise stipulations to not exceed 98 dB and then also the installation of found absorbent material material and and limited to DJ music and limited to DJ music and ACU acoustic music and acoustic music if

I would also Oh, go ahead. Um, just as a friendly amendment, I think it may be cleaner if we just set a decibel limit for interior production of noise regardless of the source. Okay. And then create an outdoor limit that the neighbors can use to measure what is tolerable for them.

Okay? and anything that violates that is reportable um to the planning and code enforcement. Um and um anything that the tenant, the applicant needs to do to reduce those noises is on the applicant. The more we put restrictions on it that it should be in this corner or that corner, it should use curtains, the more we're actually limiting what they may do successfully to bring down the noise. Okay, I'm all right with that. All right. So then that would be modification and also um management or oversight over uh a maximum DB level in for interior of how many dB.

We have agreement on 98 98 agreement what DJ music is on your studies. Can I through the chair? Do you remember the diagram in the noise study where depending on where you were on the perimeter it was different like 54 or you know 65 or what have you. Do you have a measurement that it needs to meet if you're at the perimeter because I think that's going to make a difference right because Yeah, it is.

And because if you're outside and you're trying to measure and then how are they going to measure? So all the neighbors, they're gonna have to get a device to measure. Correct. Or do you want the applicant to have a device that they can I mean I I don't know how how are we going to do this? Like does planning need to buy a does code enforcement need to buy a noise measuring device? I think they should have one already. But yes,

it's a standard thing for code enforcement. I said I I know part of part of our our uh process would be again to try to you know control these these things by having um you know a decibel meter a professional decibel meter sorry um in order to um ensure you know that those decibel limits are not being exceeded. Um, I think for sure, um, you know, stipulating it in terms of decibb might be might be more feasible than than, uh, trying to decipher what specific kind of band, you know, you're going to have. Is it going to be a one guitar, three guitars? Um, and I think, um, again, we're we're really really willing to work with um with with any of the stipulations that you guys put. Um, I believe that it might actually be a little bit easier to measure um or just at a specific limit that you guys can all agree upon at the perimeters or at a specific distance of the building rather than having to go back and and you know measure what DB needs to be inside in this specific corner of this building. Um, again, we're we're open to to trying to control it. Again, we don't want a a very noisy place that's really, you know, um going to have reverb and and sound bouncing all over the walls. It's going to make it uncomfortable for any for every guest. We really want to try to control and again, it's supposed to be a prime location, a prime destination, we wanted to have that prime sound, too. Um but I think if if in the best interest of you know how can this easily be measured whether it's law enforcement or a neighbor that wants to come in um and you know determine whether we're in the D you know whether the we are within the limits um you know stipulated I think it might just be more feasible to say hey at these corners if sound exceeds x amount of of dbs then you're violating it.

Got it. So, um, to that end, uh, let's look at your sound study, which has numbers in here. Uh, I think that's a good suggestion. The interior noise is at 98 dBA. I think we should put a limited interior production of noise at 98 dBA. The lowest number on the outside um is 54. I think we should put a 54 on the facility. And it's your job to get the higher numbers down through whatever sound mitigation you need that's below the 65 uh, dva. um you have in your study that you need to obtain a type two sound pressure level meter and field calibrator to monitor sound levels during the events. I think we can add that as part of our condition um to make sure that you are measuring those and that you are uh open to independent monitoring of this um by either code enforcement um or at the request of neighbors

and and add to add to that. Yes. uh code enforcement must get their own sound meter that's calibrated. So, all right. What through the chair? Can can I um possibly jump in? Yes, please.

Oh, thank you. Um I just I wanted to add um a suggestion related to the um enforcement of the noise item. Um, one thing you could consider doing is um, if they're willing to have a professional meter, you could request that they um, record um, and and monitor this and and basically have a record of it that would be available to staff at any time to um, verify. I think that could help us a lot. Um, we can, you know, code enforcement does not currently have any sound, uh, readers to do this work, and we don't typically work past 5:00 pm. Um, we can do investigations if if needed, if there's complaints, but it's not part of the day-to-day work. So, um, putting the onus on the applicant to, um, keep records of this information could be helpful.

Okay. Agreed. That that would be one of the stipulations that the applicant must keep a log of um results decibb during probably um any sort of function with noise with music. Okay. and and I and usually with a log you have to add entries every you know every hour every half an hour you know what what do we want to impose upon them that's my question to my board members

okay so what we're asking [clears throat] is for the owner or the operator I should say to um to add a a a sound measuring device that will give us uh readings uh of the sound level or sound pressure. And um that they should do that uh over the time of say they have an event say every hour uh over an event at least um for the first uh 10 events. Does that make sense? So or just as a matter of course are we just trying to get measurements uh over time. So if that's the case over for each event that they have where the sound uh exceeds 45 dB that you should have a chart that gives us an idea an exact reading that is not an idea but a reading of the decibel levels in the space and at the same time that is not to exceed 65 dB. Is that right? No, the in inside sound I believe that was proposed was 98 and then at the corners of the property 50.

So 54. Okay. So not to exceed the inside measurement of 98 dp and at the corners 54 decimal. Yes, we got Does that be correct? Are we in agreement with the the applicant on that requirement? You got that. Good. Okay. We have it in the in the motion section. That is part of the motion. Yeah. Okay. The next thing that I would like to focus on is hours of operation. Hours and days of operation. All right. You I am proposing

Yes. that Sundays through Thursdays that the hours be restricted to from 8:00 am to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. on on Saturdays on Fridays and Saturdays um till midnight from 8:00 a.m. till midnight. Okay. So, make a motion. That is my motion to add to Mhm. Now, if somebody wants to Are these two separate motions? Well, we have motions for us. I mean, for the planning commission and then

No, I get that. But there's both our both of our planning commissioners had motions. I'm asking, are these combined or This is to add two. There's two. These are all of the guard rails that we're putting. No, I get that. I get that. But you're adding to to Commissioner B. So, all we need is a second on the whole thing. Yeah. I think at this point, let's try to construct what we think is the best through deliberation, the best motion. If you got additions you'd like to see to this, I don't have an addition. I just don't agree with it. I agree with your motion and I don't agree with Commissioner Madero's motion. So, that's my question. If they're two separate motions, well, we're deliberating. So, so what are you proposing? What would you like?

What are you going to tell our residents? I propose that we stick to Commissioner Bine's motion is my proposal. There's only one. That's my proposal. Okay. Right. And how do we solve that? [clears throat] I think it um if I may through the chair, I think it would I'm in favor of some sort of limiting of these hours. We can do it in a variety of ways. Um we could either limit the amplification of music to a period of four hours. We could say there's no more than six, eight hours of event in any given day to make sure that the community understands there's not going to be a party in there from 8:00 a.m. to 12.

That's not feasible, I don't think, for your business either

that you're going to be putting on um you know 18 hour usually, you know, as part of you know our experience with this. Again, if everybody's um leaving at 12 11 is usually their their startup time they have to clean up. It is part of the their contractual obligations to clean up. So again, it's it's the hours that are set in motion, that 12:00 p.m. really does account for that time that these people do have to clean up. So, you know, if you reduce that hour to 10:00, it's not that the music stops at 10:00, the music stops at 9:00 because you need to account for that time that people need to they need to vacate the promise. They need to vacate. They need to be out of that property. So, I do ask for you guys to kind of take that into consideration um in the limitation of hours that it doesn't run with music blaring till 12 a.m. Now,

but we just need to have that recorded as a matter of function here. Yes, sir. So, we and I think 10:00 is maybe even 10:30 is a little bit more reasonable. Uh given that you do have residential neighbors around, right? Yeah. You know, I mean, give and take.

Yeah. Like I said, it would just it would just, you know, that that that cut off that you that that's established um for us, it would be a hard cut off. So, it does again, it does it it will not determine the time that the music stops that determines the time that people need to vacate the prom the premises. So, um you know, the the further back we continue to push it, it is just the further back that we continue to account for, everybody has to vacate the the the premises. So um you know I think to that condition I you know I I would encourage you guys to understand the viability of the kind of business that we're trying to operate here. Um you know it's a lot of it is standard practice. A lot of places say music stops at 11 you guys vacate the the place at 12. So you know there is that potential that specific limitations might hinder the progress of the success and you know um make it fail before it even takes off. So,

well, what if I propose an 11:00, which would mean that the music would stop at 10:00, and this is only for Sundays through Thursdays?

I I I think again, Sundays, I I we never expect uh in our experience, we've never seen any parties go beyond, you know, the 12:00 deadline or 11 o'clock deadline again. So, in a standard practice, everybody works on Sunday, so these parties are ending. You know, typically when you go out and you lease um you know, one of these events, you know, again, um for a wedding on Sundays, usually it is cheaper for that specific reason that it does stop at, you know, at 11. And again, for that contingency. So, uh I would be totally comfortable if if you guys were to say, you know, Sundays at 11:00. Um we're leaving it open. Um again, our our our time of operation was really open in order to accommodate various types of activities. Um I don't know how these hours of operations are really going to impact the different kind of activities as I had mentioned previously. Um you know when the Valo was looking for um warming centers you know during the winter uh this building would have been great for that opportunity. Um but if if these hours of operation are going to impact those particular kind of activities uh I would be saddened honestly to to not be able to you know um support the community uh with those specific you know charitable um activities. We could make an exception for that kind of thing, but for

Well, yeah, for any any event that includes, I guess, music because that's the noise that we're going to be dealing with. Okay. That the neighborhood would be dealing with, but anything else it, you know, if you're going to have a workshop or a, you know, a town hall meeting or something like that, that's that does not Okay. And so that would abide by the 8 to 12 hour. Again, I don't expect any of this stuff, but I think we are just putting it in there again for measures or understanding what is, you know, available within the scope of activities. So, for music events. Okay. Yeah. Just for a m So, are we going to 11? Yes. Well, that he said he would be okay with that. Is that okay?

Uh 11 on Sundays. Yeah. I mean, are you It's not going to make it fall in the hole, right? Uh again, I Saturdays, Fridays, and Saturdays are our biggest concern. Those are really No, this is only for Sundays. They're talking about Sunday. Yeah. Again, Sundays through Thursdays. That's all I'm proposing. Saturdays and Sundays can go till midnight and we can make accommodations for special events holidays that fall in those days or just want to be sure that we kind of get those things. Again, I'm just thinking about the working public. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah, for sure.

All right. So, so we have a modification to time for um let's see what did you say? [snorts] Me got I'm sorry. Okay. Sundays through Thursdays from 8:00 a.m. until 11 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays 8:00 a.m. until midnight. Fridays. Fridays. So, Fridays, Fridays and Saturdays, you have that in the motion then.

Okay, that's the motion then along with the other stuff. So, scissor, do you um I need a second? A second. All right, we got a second. Okay, so we're going to do a voice vote. Uh, Commissioner Maderos, can Cesar, can for the record, could you just actually read the motion that they're voting on? Try to anyway. Oh, boy. [laughter] It's a long luck.

Yeah. Let me read. The motion is that the planning commissions find the project exempt from SQA pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 and section 15331 and approve a use permit development review and landscape review UP18-00002 PLN25-03 subject to the conditions of approval provided as exhibit A to the resolution modified as follows. Interior noise should not exceed 98 dB and no more than 54 dBA at the corners of the property. The applicant must keep a log during any function and record the decibb for every hour throughout the event. Install sound absorbing materials or uh install sound absorbing materials to reduce sound produced by music. The applicant shall obtain a type 2 sound level meter to record these decibb and hours of operation from Sunday to Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. with a friendly um refinement of they will keep a log

right every hour for uh the sound recording. Yeah. Applicant must keep a log during any function um for every hour during the event. Yes. Recording. What do we say? Recording the Yeah. you they just record what whatever is measured you know and you record the date time because it should be every hour the event um question only for musical events.

Yes. And for clarification um because I I did hear from uh Vice Chair Douglas um are we doing this for a specific length of time or are we doing this indefinitely? No, inde the the log indefinitely, right? Definitely. Yeah. This is a part of the Yes. Because uh city staff should be able to come in anytime and look at that log, right? Or I should say the code code enforcement. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, okay. So, I'm I'm adding that as well. Be accessible and available to city staff, right? Or at the request of neighbors, I would add.

Yes. Can you repeat that last part? Or at the request of neighbors, it's just the log. Oh, yeah. So that if they if they think it was really loud one night, they can say, "Can we see the log?" And then you would say, "Yep, here it is." Okay.

Through the chair. Yes. Um, can I ask for clarification as well? Yes, please. Um I I just wanted to confirm um uh planning manager Rosco mentioned the uh sound absorbing materials inside but um I thought that um Commissioner Blind said that wasn't necessary because the decibel levels were going to be tracked. Yes. So I just want to confirm did did you intend to keep that included or remove that item? Commissioner Blind, do you want to to keep the sun on attenuation material? Um, in there or just the measure? I think it's the measure, don't you?

The the measure is important. I think there could be a phrase in there about and put in sound mitigation to affect the reduction of sound. Yeah. Um, but my point was I just don't want us to try to say it's going to be curtains, it's going to be in this corner, it's going to be on that roof because we don't have enough detail to actually make a sound. I understand. It's wonderful. Okay. Is that And then one other item that the first thing mentioned was the clarification of um the findings to ensure there's consistency. Yes. That's all I have written down. Thank you. So while I have you here, do we need two votes from uh one from each uh commission

or can we all vote together? So So through the chair. So, this motion um this motion right now would only be for the members of the planning commission. Okay. All right. So, let's let's do that. So, we're we'll be doing a v a voice vote. Um so, Commissioner Maderos, yes. Commissioner Blind, I. Commissioner White, [clears throat] yes. And Vice Chair Douglas, yes.

Okay, we have four eyes and the motion carries. So I'd like to ask a question regarding the motion we would make for the for the landmarks commission. So with regard to the deed restriction, if we're going to add that as a condition, who is qualified to present the legal research regarding the deed restriction? I mean, Commissioner Riley has found reference to it, but is not um so who legally rules on the existence and the validity of a deed restriction? The city attorney's office can do that.

Okay. So we can require a title report which should already be in the we we if we don't have one we can require a title report and check it for the deed restriction which should be on recorded against the property.

Okay. So, I think our motion would be something like um the Architectural Heritage and Landmarks Commission um approves this resolution for certificate of appropriateness COA23-5 with the modification that the city attorney will research the title and a possible deed restriction regarding access to the historic um mural and the owner an operator agree to let let's include that the applicant provide the title report. We'll start at the very basics. Okay. That the applicant shall provide.

Okay. So the city attorney the city with the title report.

Okay. Okay. So, the Architectural Heritage and Landmarks Commission approves this resolution um for certificate of appropriateness COA2305 with the modification that the applicant shall provide the city attorney with the title report and the city attorney will verify the existence um and validity of a potential deed restriction regarding the historic mural. And should the applicant have or any other party have an obligation to provide access to that mural, the applicant agrees to forfeit this use permit if the terms of that deed restriction are not accommodated. I mean, if if they don't accommodate

No, that's not how it would go. No, they they would um agree to comply with the deed restriction. But if they don't comply Well, that's true of any condition on the permit. So, if they don't comply comply with any of these conditions of approval, would that be enforced? Yes, they Yeah. So, if if there's an event and I go down and ask, you don't have to include that in every condition. like if this is not enforced, we can revoke. I mean, that's that's a that's a given.

Okay. can and will are two different things. But I mean, so we're the best we're going to get is that the AHLC approves a resolution to approve the certificate of appropriateness COA2305 with the modification that the applicant agrees to provide a title report and the city attorney will research the existence and validity of a deed restriction regarding the historic mural and the applicant agrees as a condition of approval to comply with the deed restriction. Correct. Well, that is the Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir.

I want to back up a little bit just to remind us all what the HLC is voting on or approving is the lighting, the ADA, the doors, the signage, and then this deed. Right. I think there were concerns about the lighting that I think are also conditions. I think you mentioned just the downward lighting. So, I think it's also a condition we need to talk about.

Yeah. I mean, I think those terms um similar to similar to the compliance with all the terms of this, I think there are actually, you know, there are currently codes in existence that limit upward lighting and light both light pollution and light trespass. So, I think it's already baked into this as a condition of approval that the light sources are shielded and pointed downwards. And I think that's also baked into title 20 and would be part of the permit approval that any required calculations compliant with title 20 or anything else for bug ratings of fixtures and things like that would be part of the permit review.

Okay. On the on the lighting uh to be it's a historic building. The lighting should also be uh the set lighting for example should be of a historic quality. It's easy to do. LED lighting is not historic. That's prison camp lighting as far as I'm concerned. And I think that's addressed under the requirement that the sources be shielded. So like even if they were an LED source, they'd have to be shielded within the recess. They can do warm lighting. Yeah, it's it's out there. Well, that's color temperature. Do we want to stipulate a color temperature for them?

If you do it, just say make it Well, you probably know how they do this historically in buildings. They can use modern stuff to make it look like old.

My thought is that this doesn't need to be specifically conditioned here, but it this is what would fall under state historic building code. So this really I think as Commissioner Riley is saying if they're restoring the sophet lighting specifically that is essentially a character definfining feature of the original facade [clears throat] of the building and it can be done you know flexibly to not impact the neighborhood unduly but yes it should not be LED lighting it should not be it should not have really current code requirements. ments on it. It It really should be restored as close as possible in kind to what was originally there. And I think that is understood when we're saying that, you know, we're we're restoring. I I would just caution us from saying that it cannot be LED lighting because there are LED sources that are energy efficient and just as well glare controlled as say the hallogen sources or even maybe better controlled than the hallogen sources that might have been there earlier. So I would I wouldn't stipulate that it cannot be LED lighting.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I don't think you need special stipulations. I think it should just be where, you know, the exterior except for adding ADA uh ramp and bike racks, the exterior is going to be restored to original condition. And then, um, you know, let the applicant work that out and get it as close to, you know, they're not going to get the light bulb from 1933, but they'll get it as close as they can. And that I believe is understood in

so there's like nothing in the plans that implies it's color changing LEDs or anything like that. That's not not that's not unmentioned. It's it's not mentioned what the source is, but it's a restoration of the sophet lighting which to me a restoration means and it's on the main facade. It's a you know the the plaque that identifies the building. That's a pretty big element of a post office. And you know, it it would have had lighting that was okay.

Not LED, [snorts] but I mean, you know, possibly you could have some kind of yellow filter on it or something to make it look less crazy bright and less crazy. Yeah. I mean, again, we're talking So, temperature, not LED. So,

Right. So could could staff just a um when you read that back could you add to the end and and I'm just asking if this is satisfactory everybody add to the end of it that the facade lighting shall you know shall replicate the characteristics of the historic facade lighting. Um I mean I think that excludes glare um that was not inherent to the original source. So, like if they were recess set lights and suddenly they become something that hangs down below the set, that's not recreating the historic. If they're color changing LEDs, that's something they certainly weren't historically. So, we'll just define it as recreating the the character of the historic facade lighting.

I like that. I have a question. So, so I get the historic aspects of the lighting and all that. Is that all the time? If they're going to have an event, then are they allowed to they could bring their own lights for their own events and do everything, but we're talking about the building and that. So, yeah, your events do your own thing, but for the building, no, the building needs to be what it was, right? Okay. Right. And I have one more thing. I don't know that we talked about the ADA ramp. Did we? I mean, I don't know if I saw it, but like I'm thinking about a big old metal ramp going up or are they blocking? It's under There's a ramp already, though.

Okay. So, we don't have any concern about that. Okay. And no more no more concerns for me. Okay. Yeah. Just through the chair, just to um make the commission aware and as well as the public. Um one of the conditions of approval that the planning commission acted on was regarding lighting. Uh that does state that lighting shall be designed, located and installed to be directed downward or towards structures and be shielded or fully shielded and shall be wellmaintained in order to prevent glare, light trespass and light pollution to the maximum extent feasible. Okay. Yeah. So that's all right.

So could staff do us a favor and read back our resolution to us and and then we can ask for a second. That'd be good.

Thank you very much. Okay. So staff recommends that architectural heritage and landmark commission find the project exempt from SQUA pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 and uh section 15331 and approve the certificate of appropriateness COA23-00005 subject to conditions of approval provided as exhibit A to the resolution as well as that the applicant shall provide a title report to the city so that the city attorney can confirm existence and validity of the deed restriction for public access to the mural. Um as well as that facade lighting will be historically characteristic to the building.

Are you there? Okay. Anybody want a second? I'll second. Okay. So, Commissioner Hall seconds. Do we do a voice vote? Yeah. So, uh, Commissioner Chone, I. Commissioner Riley Riley I Commissioner Hall I Chair McDonald I and Commissioner Adams no.

We have four eyes and one no. The motion carries. Okay. All right. Thank you, Scissor. I think we are at the end of it all. Thank you for the re robust conversation and uh input from all of you. Um with that we are part uh what

I don't know if you want to Well, but we have parking covered in the staff report and then that was spoken on actually. So yeah, so we are at a point where we have uh I think beat this issue up enough. So with that it's a journ. Thank you very much. like parking. Guess we've got some unhappy campers here.

So, at the end of the day, if they do the thing by the law, they'll be fine. And if they don't, well, the thing is, I mean, I want something to go in Well, the thing is the concern about the other parking lot that's not going to be covered because the other parking talk parking lot talking about his own bike but he's not going to he's not going to give that. Oh, you know bud do you [laughter] well look at the end of the day I know you had somebody Oh, thank you. That way I can just totally