Planning commission upholds approval for Wasatch Self Storage Phase 2 after neighbor objections

The Petaluma Planning Commission on a majority vote upheld the director's approval of an administrative site plan and architectural review for the Wasatch Self Storage Phase 2 conversion at 85 Corona Road and denied an appeal brought by a neighboring resident.

The project would convert a roughly 20,000-square-foot former athletic club into an interior, climate-controlled self-storage facility with about 170 units and add an outdoor RV storage area of 18 spaces. Planning staff told the commission the proposal includes façade upgrades, a covered loading area, an elevator shaft and security improvements, and that the project was found categorically exempt from further review under CEQA (categorical exemptions §15301 and §15303).

Planning Manager Andrew Bridal presented the staff recommendations and described revisions made in response to concerns raised by the appellant, including an eight-foot sound-attenuation privacy fence along the north boundary planted with shrubs and trees, extension of security fencing to secure an on-site utility easement, reconfiguration of parking, limits on exterior unit access, and conditions that would require a construction phasing and management plan.

The appellant, represented by attorney Edwin Bradley, said the primary outstanding concerns were security of the utility easement, hours and enforcement of construction activities, and the potential for ongoing noise and trespass. Bradley asked the commission to tighten permitted construction hours near the residential property and for clear, enforceable conditions to secure the easement. Resident Diane O'Brien, who lives next door, told commissioners she and other tenants had experienced trespassing, graffiti and late-night disturbances related to prior work at the site and asked commissioners to limit weekend and holiday construction and ensure the fence and lighting would secure the area.

Justin Barnes, representing Wasatch Storage Partners, told the commission the applicant has worked with staff and the appellant over more than a year and had agreed to multiple concessions, including installing the privacy fence as one of the first construction steps and working with the city to limit particularly noisy activities. Barnes described access control measures for customers: individual keypad codes that allow entry during set access hours, with business/office hours for staffing remaining during daytime.

Commissioners questioned staff and the applicant about differences between ongoing operations and customer-access hours (the applicant said store operations would follow the same 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. schedule as the adjacent StoreQuest facility while gate access for customers would be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.), enforcement of interior vs. exterior access, and whether the city had a nexus to require improvements to Old Corona Road if construction damaged it. Staff said a building permit for demolition had been issued but construction permits are withheld pending the appeal outcome; pre-construction meetings and a required construction phasing plan would be used to coordinate deliveries and noisy operations.

After a period of deliberation in which commissioners said most concerns were addressed through conditions and physical changes to the project, Council Member Barnickel moved, and Commissioner Racozen seconded, to uphold the director's decision and deny the appeal. Roll call showed Commissioner Abner absent and Commissioner Goldman abstaining; Commissioners Newell, Rakuten, Schilt, Council Member Barnickel and Chair Moses voted yes. The motion carried.

The commission record includes staff's suggested conditions of approval and a 14-day window to appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council per the city's implementing zoning code.

What's next: The project may proceed to construction permitting consistent with the conditions of approval; the appellant may appeal the commission's action to City Council within 14 days.