Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.B 06/02/2014DATE: June 2, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Resolutions Denying a General Plan Amendment and Denying an Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of a Zoning Map Amendment for the Lynch Creels Plaza Project located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek Way and McDowell Boulevard RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution denying a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Business Park to Mixed Use for the Lynch Creek Plaza project; and • Resolution denying the appeal submitted by Brownian Development and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning from Business Park (BP) to MUl B for the Lynch Creek Plaza project. BACKGROUND After consideration of the Lynch Creek Plaza project on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2013-13 (Attaclmtent 3) and Resolution No. 2013-14 (Attachment 4) recommending the City Council deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and denying the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. The Planning Commission did not provide direction on the CEQA document nor did they provide detailed feedback on the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) application. On July 18, 2013 the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. On September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the General Plan Amendment and the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment. A majority of the Council expressed general support of the requested land use entitlements if modifications were made to the project design to eliminate the drive-thru component and refine architectural design to better complement the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council remanded the project to the Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manager� Planning Commission for reconsideration of the requested General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, and to solicit feedback on the environmental analysis and SPAR application. The City Council also directed the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru component and modify the project's architectural design to achieve greater compatibility with surrounding development. At the City Council meeting on January 2, 2014, the applicant spoke during public comment and requested the Council agendize Lynch Creek Plaza to reconsider the drive-thru component of the project. A majority of the City Council did not support reconsideration and the item was not agendized or discussed at a future meeting. On February 19, 2014, the applicant resubmitted project plans with minor design modifications to reduce building heights and add additional glazing to the two buildings. No modification to or elimination of the drive-thru was proposed as directed by the Council. On April 22, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's revised project and unanimously adopted Resolutions No. 2014-07 (Attachment 5) and 2014-08 (Attachment 6) recommending denial of the General Plan Amendment and denying the requested Zoning Map Amendment. As outlined in the adopted resolutions, the Commission's recommendation for denial of the General Plan Amendment and denial of the Zoning Map Amendment were largely based on the project's continued inclusion of a drive-thru and resulting inconsistency with the General Plan 2025. The Planning Commission provided minimal comments on the overall Site Plan and Architectural Review of the overall project due to the unanimous opposition to the project as presented with the drive-thru component. Similarly, the Planning Commission as a whole did not provide comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) given the recommendation for denial of the requested General Plan Amendment and denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment. Pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines, a project is exempt from CEQA when it is rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Although not part of the findings made by the commission as a whole, individual Commissioners provided the following comments for the City Council's consideration: • A majority of the Commissioners expressed general support for the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment had the applicant provided revised plans showing elimination of the drive-thru component of the project. • Other Commissioners indicated that they could not support the General Plan Amendment or the Zoning Map Amendments because the applicant had not demonstrated the requisite public convenience and necessity for such amendments. Additionally, there was concern expressed that the requested amendments would eliminate the ability for certain light industrial uses on the site. • At least one Commissioner indicated that the findings for denial as stated in the prior Planning Conunission Action on the project (Resolutions 2013-13 and 2013-14) were still applicable. M • At least one Commissioner clarified that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 10) circulated for this project would necessitate revision- and potential recirculation should the project be supported for approval with the drive-thru due to inclusion of mitigation measures (MAI:• GHG-1) requiring elimination of the drive-thru. • At least one Commissioner expressed concern the project did not represent a pedestrian oriented development reflective of the intent of the Mixed Use designation being requested. • At least one Commissioner expressed concern that the Mixed Use designation was not clearly defined which made it difficult for the Commission to determine whether this project reflected a robust mix of uses. • Some Conmlissioners indicated that General Plan Policy 4-P-12 needed to be reevaluated. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is largely unchanged since the City Council's previous consideration. The following discussion briefly recaps the main entitlements being requested and outlines changes proposed by the applicant where applicable. A more detailed project description is outlined in the staff reports from previous Planning Conmiission and City Council meetings (Attachments 7 and 8). General Plan Anaendnaent The project site is currently designated as Business Park in the General Plan 2025, which is intended for business and professional offices, technology park clusters, research and development, light industrial operations, and visitor service establishments. Retail uses are only allowed as a secondary use in the Business Park designation. The requested General Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation to Mixed Use, which is intended to provide a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices. Zoning A�tap Amendment The project site is currently zoned Business Park (BP), consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the property to MU1B consistent with the proposed land use designation of Mixed Use. Allowable uses in the MUIB zoning district include retail and office uses. Site Plan and Architectural Review The proposed development is made up of two single story commercial buildings including a 14,500 square foot retail building (Walgreens pharmacy) and a 7,500 square foot multi -tenant commercial building. Access is provided for on both North McDowell and Lynch Creek Way. In response to Council direction at the September 9, 2013 hearing, the applicant has made the following modifications to the project plans: 3 117algreens Building • The heights of roof towers have been reduced from 32 feet to approximately 28 feet • Additional brick cladding has been added to the east side of the building • Green screens (12 feet high by 4 feet wide) have been added to the west and south elevations (Attachment 13, sheet A3.OA) Multi -tenant Building • Green screens have been added to the west and south side of the building similar to the Walgreens building (Attachment 13, sheet A3.1C) • Additional glazing has been added to the west side of the building • Additional brackets and molding has been added to the west side of the building • Walls have been modified to create more variation in building height Site Design • Addition of a bus turnout on North McDowell as previously conditioned by Public Works The drive-thru remains unchanged from previous submittals. ,appeal On May 5, 2014, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 9) and is requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment after approving the proposed General Plan Amendment. The appeal asserts that there is adequate evidence that the proposed amendment would be beneficial to the community and consistent with the intent of the General Plan, reiterating the items outlined in a letter previously submitted on February 19, 2014 (Attachment 10). DISCUSSION Drive-Thru Although directed by the City Council to eliminate the drive-thru component of the project, the revised plans submitted for Planning Commission consideration continue to be designed around a drive-thru pharmacy at the rear of the Walgreens building. In agreement with Council direction to the applicant, the Planing Commission found the project inconsistent with General Plan policy 4-P-12 in that the project includes a new drive-thru service facility. General Plan Policy 4-P-12, explicitly prohibits new drive-thru facilities: 4-P-12 Prohibit nein drive-thru food and service facilities with the exception of vehicle serving businesses, such as car wash and oil/lube, mid limit expansion of the drive-thru components of existing facilities which increase idling vehicles. Because the drive-thm was not eliminated, the Commission could not support the requested amendments and approved Resolution No. 2014-07 recormnending denial of the General Plan Amendment and Resolution No. 2014-08 denying the Zoning Map Amendment. 14 Appeal On May 5, 2014, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment. The appeal contends that -there is adequate evidence that the proposed amendment would be beneficial to the community and consistent with the intent of the General Plan. The applicant reiterated the points previously outlined in their letter submitted on February 19, 2014 (Attachment 10). Below is a summary of those points with staffs response in italics: Appeal Grounds # 1: There is adequate evidence that the proposed amendment would be beneficial to the community. The applicant argues that the Lynch Creek Plaza project meets an unmet need in Petaluma in that it provides a service for residents with physical limitations, infectious diseases, or parents with sick children. Additionally, the applicant contends that the property tax and sales tax revenue that would be generated by the project would be beneficial to the community. The Planning Conznzission's denial of the requested Zoning Map Annendrnent is based on their finding that the proposed project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy 4-P-12 which prohibits new drive-thru.facilities. Policy 4-P-12 does not provide for exceptions Or thresholds for applicabilitl). Given the finding of inconsistency with the General Plan 2025 the Commission fournd that the requested annerndnnernt 147US not in the public interest and that there was no connpellirng reason to modify the General Plan land use designation for the project with this conflict. In addition, On September 9, 2013, the applicant presented the City Council imitla a list of connnunity benefits of the proposed project inclusive of the drive-thru. The Council determined that the drive-thru conflicts with General Policy 4-P-12 and directed the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru from the project. Appeal Grounds 92: There is adequate evidence that the proposed amendment would be consistent with the General Plan The applicant Inas provided an example fi•onn Live -77707•e in which the City found that the drive- thru linnitations in their adopted code did not apply to a pharmacy drive-thru in dowl7tow77 Livermore. The Planning Commission did not find this example relevant to the discussion in Petaluma because of differences in adopted code that specified that Livernno•e's code only limited fast food drive-thrus in their doiimtotann area. In their findirngs for denial, the Planning Commission concluded that the requested Zoning Map Amendment was not consistent with the current General Plan land use designation Of 13usi77ess Park. Given the CoimniSSian's recommendation for denial of the requested General Plan Annendnent based on inconsistency with General Plan Policy 4-P-12, the Planning Connnissioz determined that the requested Zoning Hap Amendment was inconsistent with General Plan. As noted above, at their September 9, 2014 meeting, the City Council determined that the drive- thru conflicts with General Policy 4-P-12 and directed the applicant to elinninate the drive-thru 6 fi•ona the project. On the January ?, 1014, City Council meeting the applicant requested the Council agendi-e Lynch Creek Playa at the City Council meeting to reconsider the drive-thru component of the project. A majority of the City Cozozcil did not support reconsideration and the item was not agendiaed or discussed at a fidure meeting. Public Comment A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier on April 10, 2014, and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. The City has received 2 comment letters/emails in opposition to the requested General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (Attachment 12) Environmental Review An Initial Study of potential environmental impacts and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the Lynch Creek Plaza project (Attachment 11). The Initial Study was circulated for a 20 -day public continent period. However, pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines, a project is exempt from CEQA when it is rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Therefore, no action on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary should the Council deny the requested Amendment. As proposed and circulated, the Initial Study finds the proposed project inconsistent with General Plan Policy 4-P-12 and presents mitigation to eliminate the drive-thm to mitigate this potential impact to a less than significant level. Should the Council wish to consider approval of the project with the drive-thru the environmental analysis would need to be revised to accurately reflect the project description and potential impacts. Such revisions may necessitate recirculation of the IS/MND. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project with all costs of processing the application paid by the applicant. The cost recovery account maintains a positive balance. ATTACEMENTS Attachment l: Draft Resolution: General Plan Amendment Attachment 2: Draft Resolution: Zoning Map Amendment Attachment 3: PC Resolution No. 2013-13 Attachment 4: PC Resolution No. 2013-14 Attachment 5: PC Resolution No. 2014-07 Attachment 6: PC Resolution No. 2014-08 Attachment 7: PC Staff Report, dated April 22, 2014 Attachment 8: CC Staff Report, dated September 9, 2013 Attachment 9: Applicant's Appeal Letter, dated May 5, 2014 Attachment 10: Applicant's letter dated February 19, 2014 Attachment 11: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 12: Public Comment Letters Attachment 13: Revised Project Plans no ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM BUSINESS PARK TO MIXED USE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12 -GPA -0236 WHEREAS, Brownian Development, Inc., submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creels Way (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013 the City's Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the requested General Plan amendment and recommended denial of the requested amendment; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the project and the Planning Commission's recommendation and remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with direction to the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru and make design modifications to improve compatibility with surronmding development; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested City Council reconsideration of the drive- thru during general public conmient at the Council's January 2, 2014 meeting; and WHEREAS, at their January 2, 2014 meeting the City Council did not agendize a reconsideration of the matter on a subsequent meeting agenda and reiterated the direction provided at the September 9, 2013 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2014, the applicant submitted revised drawings that included minor design modifications but retained the original drive-thru configuration, conflicting with direction from the City Council to eliminate the drive-thru; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the request for General Plan amendment on April 22, 2014 and recommended denial of the requested General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to considered the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the requested General Plan Amendment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies the requested General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the subject parcel (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use based on the following findings: The proposed project as shown on revised plans date stamped February 19, 2014 includes a pharmacy drive-thru and therefore conflicts with General Plan policy 4-P-12, which prohibits the establishment of new drive-thru food and service facilities. 2. The requested amendment is not in the public interest (Government Code Section 65358) given that the project as proposed and revised is in conflict with General Plan policy 4-P-12. 3. There is no compelling reason to modify the General Plan land use designation for the project with inherent conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12. 4. The inclusion, location, and orientation of the drive-thru element of the project is leading architecture and site design choices that limit the project's ability to implement pedestrian oriented development as called for in the General Plan's Mixed Use land use designation. 2 Z ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL BY BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMISSION'S DENIAL OF A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA PROJECT APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12 -GPA -0236 WHEREAS, Browman Development, Inc., submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Lynch Creels Plaza project located at the southwest corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way (APN 007-380-007); and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013 the City's Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the requested Zoning Map amendment and denied the requested amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013 Brownian Development Inc. submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the project, the Planning Commission's denial of the zoning map amendment, and the grounds for appeal as submitted by the applicant, and remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with direction to the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru and make design modifications to improve compatibility with surrounding development; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2014, the applicant submitted revised drawings that included minor design modifications but retained the original drive-thru configuration; and WHEREAS, the on April 22, 2014, City's Plamiing Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the requested Zoning Map Amendment and denied the request. WHEREAS, on May 5, 2014, Brownian Development Inc. submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014 the City Council held a duly notice public hearing to consider the appeal, and received and considered the staff report, all written and public oral comments submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing in accordance with the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's denial of a zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MUI B (Mixed Use) based on the findings below: 1. The proposed amendment to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MU1 B (Mixed Use) is not consistent with the current General Plan designation of Business Park. ATTACHMENT 2 2. The requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Mixed Use has been denied by the City Council based on findings outlined in Resolution 2014- 3. There is no evidence presented that modification of the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU IB (Mixed Use) on this property would better serve the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. 4. The proposed project is inconsistent with General Plan policy 4-P-12 which prohibits the establishment of new drive tliru food and service facilities in that the project includes a new drive-thru pharmacy. 5. The appellant has not submitted any additional documentation or new information adequate to compel the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Zoning Map Amendment. ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-13 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM BUSINESS PARK TO MIXED USE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA SITE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12 -GPA -0236 WHEREAS, Browman Development, Inc., submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use; and, WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed General Plan amendment on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013: A copy of the notice was published in the Argus -Courier, provided to residents and occupants within 500 feel of the site in compliance with state and local law, and routed to appropriate agencies listed under Government Code Section 65352; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the subject parcel (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use based on the following findings: 1. The current Business Park designation is consistent with designation and use of properties in the surrounding Lynch Creek Way neighborhood and compatible with the Petaluma Hospital on the east side of North McDowell Boulevard. Availability of land use designated Business Park is limited in Petaluma and this concentration of Business Park property provides a unique opportunity for medical office, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses. 2. The Planning Commission has not found compelling reason to modify the General Plan land use designation from Business Park. 3. The record does not provide adequate evidence that vacancy rates or economic conditions necessitate a change in general plan land use designation. 3-1 4. There is no evidence that a modification to Mixed Use would better serve the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare. ADOPTED this 9") day of July, 2013, by the following vote: ATTEST: Commission Member Aye -£ No` Absent Lin X Marzo X Councilmember Miller X Chair Pierre X Wick X Vice Chair Woipert I X Jenn er Pi e, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Hines, Com/nittee Secretary Eric Donly, City Attorney 3-Z RESOLUTION NO. 2013-14 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12 -GPA -0236 WHEREAS, Browman Development, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment. and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way ("the Project" or the "proposed Project"); and, WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Implementing Zoning Ordinance amendment on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby denies the zoning map amendment of the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) based on the findings below: 1. The proposed amendment to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) is not consistent with the current General Plan designation of Business Park. 2. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Mixed Use based on finding's outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-13. 3. There is no evidence presented that modification of the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU 1 B (Mixed Use) on this property would better serve the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare. ADOPTED this 9+h day of July, 2013, by the following vote: SCom'ftirssion�Member "'. Aye No Absent- ,rAb4#ain,. Lin X Marzo X Councilmember Miller X Chair Pierre X Wick X Vice Chair Wolpert X 4-1 ATTEST: Heather Hines, Committee Secretary (11 Terre, C APPROVED AS TO FORM: Eric Danly, City Attorney 4 r ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM BUSINESS PARK TO MIXED USE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA SITE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12 -GPA -0236 WHEREAS, Brownian Development, Inc., submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013 the City's Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the requested General Plan amendment and recommended denial of the requested amendment; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the project and the Planning Commission's recommendation and remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with direction to the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru and make design modifications to improve compatibility with surrounding development; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested City Council reconsideration of the drive- thru during general public comment at the Council's January 2, 2014, meeting; and WHEREAS, at their January 2, 2014, meeting the City Council did not agendize a reconsideration of the matter on a subsequent meeting agenda and reiterated the direction provided at the September 9, 2013, City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2014, the applicant submitted revised drawings that included minor design modifications but retained the original drive-thru configuration, conflicting with direction from the City Council to eliminate the drive-tlmr; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the proposed General Plan amendment on April 22, 2014; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the subject parcel (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use based on the following findings: The proposed project as shown on revised plans date stamped February 19, 2014 includes a pharmacy drive-thru and therefore conflicts with General Plan policy 4-P-12, which prohibits the establishment of new drive-thru food and service facilities. 2. The Planning Commission does not find the requested amendment to be in the public interest (Government Code Section 65358) given that the project as proposed and revised is in conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12. 3. The Planning Commission has not found compelling reason to modify the General Plan land use designation for the project with inherent conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12. 4. The inclusion, location, and orientation of the drive-thru element of the project is leading architecture and site design choices that limit the project's ability to implement pedestrian oriented development as called for in the General Plan's Mixed Use land use designation. 2 ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12 -GPA -0236 WHEREAS, Brownian Development, Inc., submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the land use designation and zoning of the project site located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way (APN 007-380-007) from Business Park to Mixed Use and the corresponding MU1B zoning district; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013 the City's Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the requested Zoning Map amendment and denied the requested amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013 Brownian Development Inc. submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment: and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the project, the Planning Commission's denial of the zoning map amendment, and the grounds for appeal as submitted by the applicant, and remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with direction to the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru and make design modifications to improve compatibility with surrounding development; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2014, the applicant submitted revised drawings that did included minor design modifications but retained the original drive-tluu configuration, conflicting with direction from the City Council to eliminate the drive-thru; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Connnission held a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the requested Zoning Map Amendment on April 22, 2014. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby denies the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MUIB (Mixed Use) based on the findings below: 1. The proposed amendment to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) is not consistent with the current General Plan designation of Business Park. 2. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council denial of the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Mixed Use based on findings outlined in Planning Commission resolution 2014 - There is no evidence presented that modification of the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) on this property would better serve the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. 4. The project as proposed includes a pharmacy drive-thru which is inconsistent with General Plan policy 4-P-12, which prohibits the creation of new drive-tluu food and service establishments. ATTACHMENT 7 DATE: April 22, 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment Public Utility Easement Abandonment, and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Lynch Creek Plaza (Walgreens) Project located at the corner of Lynch Creek Way and North McDowell Boulevard R)CC0NE%JENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions: Resolution recommending City Council denial of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site from Business Park to Mixed Use; Resolution denying a Zoning Map Amendment to Rezoning the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use Commercial); and Additionally, the Planning Commission may wish to provide feedback on Site Plan and Architectural Review and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to be forwarded to the City Council. After review and consideration of the Lynch Creek Plaza project on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013, the Planning Commission approved resolutions (Attachments G and H) recommending the City Council deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and denying the proposed Zoning Map Amendment (3-2). The Planning Commission's action was based on concerns that the rezone would eliminate unique opportunities for medical office, research and development facilities and light industrial uses. The Planning Commission did not provide direction or suggested modifications to the CEQA document nor did they provide detailed feedback on the SPAR application. On July 18, 2013 the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment On September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the General Plan Amendment and the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Zoning Map Amendment. After review and consideration, including receiving public testimony, the City Council remanded the project to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the requested General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and environmental analysis. The City Council also directed the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru component and modify the project's architectural design to achieve greater compatibility with surrounding development. At the City Council meeting on January 2, 2014, the applicant spoke during public comment and requested the Council agendize Lynch Creek Plaza to reconsider the drive-thru component of the project. A majority of the City Council did not support reconsideration and the item was not agendized or discussed at a future meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Entitlements The applicant has submitted revised plans and is requesting the Planning Commission's reconsideration of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment as directed by the City Council. Revised plans include minor design modification but retain the drive-thru component. The applicant is seeking reconsideration of the proposed project with retention of the drive-thru and seeks guidance from the Planning Commission for proceeding with Site Plan and Architectural Review. General Plan Amendment The project site is currently designated as Business Park in the General Plan 2025, which is intended for business and professional offices, technology park clusters, research and development, light industrial operations, and visitor service establishments with a variable maximum FAR of 1.5 to 3.0. Retail is only allowed as a secondary use in the Business Park designation. The requested General Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation to Mixed Use (2.5 maximum FAR), which would allow a combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices. Zoning Map Amendment The project site is currently zoned Business Park (BP), consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the property to MU1B consistent with the proposed land use designation of Mixed Use. Allowable uses in the MU IB zoning district include retail and office uses. Site Plan and Architectural Review The proposed development is made up of two single story commercial buildings including a 14,500 square foot retail building (Walgreens pharmacy) and a 7,500 square foot multi -tenant commercial building. The applicant has not removed the drive-thru component or modified the original site layout from the version previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The current site plan does include a bus turnout on North McDowell Boulevard as previously conditioned by the Department of Public Works. -Z The applicant has made some modification to the architectural design of the proposed buildings to respond to City Council direction including: Walgreens building • The heights of towers have been reduced from a height of approximately 32 feet to an approximate height of 28 feet. • Additional brick cladding has been added to the east side of the building. • Green screens (12 feet high x 4 feet wide) have been added to the west and south side of the Walgreens building (Attachment L, sheets A3.OA). Multi -tenant building • Green screens have been added to the west and south side of the building similar to the Walgreens building (Attachment L, sheets A3.1C). • Additional glazing has been added to the west side of the building. • Additional brackets and molding has been added to the west side of the building. • Walls have been modified to create more variation in building height. The proposed development is otherwise similar to what has previously been presented to both the Planning Commission and City Council in 2013. A complete project description is included in the attached staff reports from previous Planning Commission and Council meetings. DISCUSSION Drive-thru Although a majority vote of the City Council expressed general support of the requested General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for Lynch Creek Plaza, one of the directives that the City Council provided to the applicant at their September 9, 2013 meeting was to eliminate the drive-thru when it was brought back to the Planning Commission for discussion and consideration of the design and environmental analysis for the overall project. The majority of the City Council found the proposed drive-drive-thru to be in conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12, which explicitly prohibits new drive-thru facilities. General Plan Policy 4-P-12 reads as follows: 4-P-12 Prohibit new drive-thru food and service facilities with the exception of vehicle serving businesses, such as car wash and oilllube, and limit expansion of the drive -that components of existing facilities which increase idling vehicles. The revised plan submitted by the applicant continues to incorporate a drive-thru at the rear of the building and therefore has not responded to the direction given by the City Council. A letter submitted by the applicant and dated February 19, 2014 (Attachment C), requests further consideration of a drive-thru and argues the following points in support of their request. As outlined below in staff's response to each of the applicant's arguments (italics), the project remains in conflict with General Plan policy 4-P-12 as long as the drive-thru remains a proposed element of the project. -7-3 1. Greenhouse gases generated by the drive-thru are negligible and a drive-thru for a pharmacy would not generate the level of use that is generated by a fast food restaurant. As stated above, General Plan Policy 4-P-12 prohibits drive-thr-u facilities for both food and service uses. This policy is applicable citywide and is not applied on a case-by-case basis. While the impacts of one drive-thru pharmacy facility may not have the same greenhouse gas generation as a fast food restaurant, it is difficult to speculate on the cumulative impacts without conducting a more thorough greenhouse gas analysis that evaluates overall impacts of allowing this deviation citywide. This tITe of an evaluation is typically done with a request for a General Plan Amendment to modify the policy, which the applicant is not requesting at this tune. While the City Council was willing to support a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for the land use of the project site, the Council was not supportive of the drive-thru due to an inconsistency with General Plan policy and directed the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru component. The applicant has not satisfied the direction given by the City Council, is not consistent with GP Policy 4-P-12, and therefore staff is not recommending approval of the requested entitlements. 2. Because the project would incorporate energy efficient lighting and energy efficient HVAC units, the greenhouse gasses generated by the drive-thru would be offset. The City has adopted Calgreen Tier 1 which is applicable at building permit and which already requires the project to incorporate energy efficiency. Requirenrents.fo• energy efficient lighting and HVAC units for all new construction are already part of the Calgreen. Tier I standards. Furthermore, while the proposed drive-drive-thru component would only generate 7 Metric tons of greenhouse gases per year the project as a whole would generate a total of 419 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. 3. The project is different from other projects requesting drive-thnas because it fills an unmet need and it serves resident needs by providing a service for those with physical limitations, infectious diseases, or parents with sick children. The project would also generate property tax and sales tax revenue. General Plan Policy 4-P-12 does not provide for exceptions other than.for vehicle serving businesses such as car wash and oil or lube businesses. At the public hearing on September 9, 2013, the applicant presented the City Council with a list of community benefits of the proposed project inclusive of the drive-thr•u. Despite any potential public benefits of the Lynda Creek Plaza project, the Council determined that the drive-thru conflicts with General Policy 4-P-12 and directed the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru from the project. 4. The City of Livermore adopted regulation that prohibits fast food drive-thru facilities in their downtown. However, the city recently approved a pharmacy with a drive-thru in this area based on findings that the pharmacy drive-thru did not have the same impacts as a fast food drive-thru and therefore was not subject to the adopted prohibition. A copy of a letter fi•on the City of Livermore, dated Nlarch 21, 2014, is attached (Attachment D) and the applicant has presented this situation as an example of how another jurisdiction 7-4 found the phartnacy drive-thru to be different than other types of drive-thrus. However, the circumstance in Livermore is different than with the City of Petaluma in that the adopted prohibition in the City of Livermore only prohibits fast food drive-thrts in their Downtown Specific Plan Area. As noted in the letter, the Downtown Specific Plan "..is silent on other types of drive-thru uses. " In contrast, City of Petaluma General Plan. Policy 4-P-12 prohibits all drive-thrr food and service facilities. Tlie proposed Walgreeirs pharmacy drive- thru is considered a service facility. On September 9, 2013, the City Council considered the interpretation of GP Policy 4-P-12 and concluded that a drive-thru for a pharmacy use is prohibited by this policy. 5. The City Council encouraged the applicant to explore other options to replace the drive-thru component. The applicant has indicated that the other options that were mentioned at the hearing have been explored, including curbside delivery, are not viable options and therefore the necessity of the drive-thru cannot be replaced by an operation modification. The applicant indicates that curbside delivery will not work because it requires that the pharmacist leave the prescription counter which does not allow the pharmacist to remain available for immunizations or mandatory counseling in the pharmacy. Additionally, patients need to deliver paper copies of prescriptions, insurance, and billing information near a terminal and state law prohibits dispensing prescriptions outside of the proximity of the pharmacy. The Council's direction was to eliminate the drive-thru due to inconsistency with General Plan policy. The policy is a prohibition of all new drive-thrus and does not establish criteria ,for approval of new drive-thrus. Therefore, the viability or lack of viability of a curbside pick-up program does not provide justification for approving the establislunent of a new drive-thru pharmacy facility. Additionally, the City Council's direction to eliminate the drive-thru component did not include a caveat that it was acceptable if no other viable solution was, found. Compatibilitt7 with surrounding development When the City Council remanded the Lynch Creek Plaza project to the Planning Commission they provided direction that the applicant consider the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. In response to that direction, the applicant submitted modifications that reduce the proposed building height and incorporate green screens on both the Walgreens building and the pad building. Although these design modifications may improve compatibility between the proposed design and the surrounding neighborhood, staff does not believe that these minor design changes can override the larger issue that the drive-thru has not been eliminated and therefore the direction from the City Council has not been adequately addressed in the revised plan set. Additionally, as previously discussed in the July 9`s Planning Commission staff report (Attachment P, page 10), staff believes that the drive-thru component is dictating aspect of the design and site layout for the project and that elimination of the drive-thru would allow modifications to improve the project design along the Lynch Creek frontage. More specifically, elimination of the drive-thru -1-5 would allow back of house activities such as the loading area and trash collection to be relocated to the rear of the building and Lynch Creek Drive elevation to be enhanced with additional detailing and glazing. Additionally, the relocation of these items to the rear of the building would provide for a more pedestrian oriented frontage that is more in keeping with the requested Mixed Use designation. General Plan Amendment Although the majority of the City Council was generally supportive of the proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Business Park to Mixed Use, there was clear direction that the drive-thru component of the project was inconsistent with General Plan policy and therefore elimination of the drive-thru component was critical to support of the General Plan Amendment. Although Staff has discussed the issue of drive-thrus with the applicant on multiple occasions and the City Council provided direction to the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru, the applicant has not removed the drive-thru from revised plans. Based on inconsistency with General Plan policy 4-P-12 and direction provided by the City Council, staff recommends Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council deny the proposed General Plan Amendment. Zoning Map Amendment Based on the above recommendation related to the proposed change in General Plan land use designation, staff is also recommending denial of the proposed zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of from Business Park to MU1B. In determining whether to recommend approval of a Zoning Amendment the Planning Commission must make a finding that the requested amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. The MUIB Zoning District would not be in conformance with the existing Business Park General Plan land use designation and the larger project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy 4-P-12. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050, when the Planning Commission considers a zoning amendment and opposes the proposed amendment, the Planning Commission's becomes a decision malting body instead of a recommending body. Site Plena and Architectural Review In addition to the above mentioned entitlements, the applicant is seeking preliminary feedback on the Site Plan and Architectural Review. Because staff is recommending denial of the proposed land use entitlements necessary for approval of the project, staff has not provided a detailed SPAR analysis at this time. Staff believes that the proposed drive-thru is influencing the design of the project, including back of house activities along Lynch Creek Drive. In addition, the City Engineer has expressed concerns about potential conflicts between delivery trucks and the proposed drive-thru lane. Elimination of the drive-thru would provide opportunities for a redesign of the site plan, floor plan, and architectural elevations. Because final decision of the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment is at the discretion of the City Council, the Planning Commission may wish to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed design of the project, including continents on the proposed site plan and landscape plan, proposed mass, architectural design, and compatibility —7—(a with surrounding development. Any comments provided by the Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Public Utility Easement Abandonment The applicant is proposing abandonment of an existing 1 -foot non -access easement (NAE) along the property's North McDowell Boulevard frontage. The NAE was originally recorded on September 16, 1981 as part of the Petaluma Valley Medical Center Subdivision and amended by a certificate of correction recorded on September 23, 1981. At the time the City required the NAE to prevent future left tum ingress and egress to and from the project site to North McDowell Boulevard. The PUE abandonment is not necessarily separate from the project approval. Because staff is not supporting the base land use entitlements for the proposed Lynch Creek Plaza project, staff has not prepared a formal resolution for the PUE abandonment. However, staff does not have specific opposition to the PUE abandonment should the drive-thru be eliminated and other design issues be addressed. PUBLIC COMMENT A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier on April 10, 2014, and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. The City has received three comments letters/emails, two of which are opposed to the requested General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments and one which supports the project inclusive of drive-thru. Comments are included as Attachment K. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study of potential environmental impacts and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the Lynch Creek Plaza project (Attachment J). The Initial Study was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period. However, pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines, a project is exempt from CEQA when it is rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Therefore, no action on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary should the Commission recommend denial of the General Plan Amendment. Planning Commission feedback on the environmental analysis was a specific reason for the Council's remanding the project to the Planning Commission. Therefore, if the Commission would like to provide any comments on the environmental analysis it will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration during their final review of the project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Resolution: General Plan Amendment Attachment B: Draft Resolution: Zoning Map Amendment Attachment C: Applicant's Submittal Narrative Attachment D: Letter from City Livermore, dated March 21, 2014 7--7 Attachment E: PC Staff Report, dated May 28, 2013 Attachment F: PC Staff Report, dated July 9, 2013 Attachment G: PC Resolution No. 2013-13 Attachment H: PC Resolution No. 2013-14 Attachment I: CC Staff Report, dated September 9, 2013 Attachment J: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment K: Public Comment Letters Attachment L: Revised Project Plans, dated -7-5 DATE: September -9, 2013 ATTACHMENT 8 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager I100 SUBJECT: Resolutions Denying :a General Plan Amendment and Denying the Appeal submitted_ and.upholding the Planning.Conrrnission's denial of a Zoning Map Amendment for the Lynch Creek Plaza Project located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek Way and McDowell Boulevard RECOMMENDATION It is reconunended that the City Council consider the staff report, hear from the applicant, conduct the publichearingand adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution Denying a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Business Park to Mixed Use for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek Way and North McDowell Boulevard (Attachment 1); and • Resolution Denying the: appeal submitted by Browman Development and upholding the Planning Commission's denial .of a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning from Business Park (BP) to, MUM B� for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek Way and North McDowellBoulevard (Attachment 2). Should the Council decide to approve the General Plan Amendment and approve the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Zoning Map Amendment, the Council may direct staff to return with revised resolutions. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Review, and the associated environmental document for the Lynch Creek Plaza.project ata noticed public hearing on May 28, 2013 and at a continued public hearing on 7uly 9; 2QI3. At the May 28th hearing, the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding General Plan consistency for the Vacation of a Non -Access Easement alongthe project ;site's North McDowell frontti&..At the July 9a' hearing, the Commission.approved resolutions recommending the City Council deny the General Plan Agenda Review: City Anom(c� Finance Dir for CityManager1� Q,i Amendment (3-2-1 vote) and denying the Zoning Map Amendment (3-2-1 vote) for the project site. General Plan Amendnent As outlined in the Planning Commission resolution- (Attaclunent 4), the Commission's recommendation for denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the approximately 2.15 acre project site located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creels and North McDowell from Business Park to Mixed Use was based on the following findings: The existing Business Park designation is consistent with the designation and current use of properties in the surrounding Lynch Creek Way neighborhood and compatible with the Petaluma Hospital on the east side of North McDowell Boulevard. Availability of land designated Business Park is limited and this concentration of Business Park property provides a unique opportunity for medical office, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses; • There is not a compelling reason to modify the General Plan land use designation from Business Park; The record does not provide adequate evidence that vacancy rates or economic conditions necessitate a change in the general plan land use designation; and There is no assurance that overlapping Business Park uses such as medical office. research and development, or similar light industrial uses will be incorporated on the project site. Zoning Alap Anreiu6nent As outlined in the Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 5), the Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning ofthe project site from BP (Business Park) to NIU I B (Mixed Use similar to current zoning on the adjacent Deer Creek Village parcel to the west was based on the following findings: ® The proposed amendment to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MU I B (Mixed Use) is not consistent with the current General Plan designation of Business Park: The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Mixed Use based on findings outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-13; and • There is no evidence presented that modification of the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU 1 B (Mixed Use) would better serve the public necessity, convenience or -eneral welfare. Pursuant to Implementing 'Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050, when tine Planning Commission considers a zoning amendment their role changes based on whether the Commission is supporting or opposing the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission can either make a g -z recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendment or deny the zoning amendment. When the Commission's decision is in opposition to the proposed amendment their role chanes to that of a decision making body. Denial of an application shall in all cases. except an amendment initiated by the City Council, terminate the proceedings unless such decision is appealed to the City Council. On July 18, 2013 the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 6). Details of the appeal grounds are provided in the Discussion section of this staff report. Site Plan and Architectural Review Site Plan and Architectural Review plans and elevations were also presented to the Planning Commission to provide context for the land use entitlements being proposed and to allow the Planning Commission to provide initial design feedback to the applicant. Because the Planning Commission was not supportive of the proposed land use designation and zoning change they did not provide detailed comments on project design except in relation to the General Plan Amendment and 'Zoning Map Amendment. Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality .Act (CEQA), an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the Lynch Creek Plaza project. The Initial Study was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period. Mitigation measures to avoid, substantially reduce, or compensate for potential environmental impacts were identified in the following areas: Air Quality,. Biology, Cultural Resources, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation/Circulation. The Planning Commission did not take action on or spend considerable time discussing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the lack of support for the proposed land use entitlements necessary for the project. Pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines. a project is exempt from CEQA when it is rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Proposed mitigation identified in the Greenhouse Gas impact category would result in elimination of the proposed pharmacy drive-through and would likely have the most significant change to the project design. General Plan Policy 4-P-12 prohibits new drive-through food and service facilities as a measure intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because the drive- through component conflicts with General Plan policy 4-P-12 the Initial Study concludes that there was a potential environmental impact and proposes Mitigation Measure GHG-1 to reduce this impact to less than significant by eliminating the drive-through component from the project design. Mitigation ➢Measure GHG-1. Prior to Final Site Plan and Architectural Review by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan, architectural elevations and architectural renderings that reflect the elimination of the drive-through component of the pharmacy building. This mitigation measure also mitigates potentially significant Land Use and Planning impact 3.10b which concludes that a potential impact would result if the project were to "conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 6-3 (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." As previously stated, the Planning Commission did not spend significant time discussing the environmental document or proposed design elements of the overall project because of the lack of support of the fundamental land use entitlements. Therefore, the Planning Commission did not discuss the drive through in particular or include any recommendations specifically pertaining to the drive through component of the project. Vacation of Easement There is an existing I -foot nun -access easement (NAE) along the property's North McDowell Boulevard frontage. The NAE was originally recorded on September 16, 1981 as part of the Petaluma Valley Medical Center Subdivision, in book 327 of maps at pages 10-11 and amended by certificate of correction recorded September 23. 1981 per document number 81-54787. Sonoma County Records. The City required the NAE to prevent future left turn ingress and egress to and from the project site to North McDowell Boulevard. As part of public improvements being completed for the Deer Creek Village project, a center median will be installed on North McDowell Boulevard preventing left turn in and out movements and limiting the proposed driveway approach to right turn ingress and egress only. Therefore, the NAE is no longer needed to restrict lett turning movement. At their May 28°i meeting the. Planning Commission approved a resolution finding the proposed vacation consistent with General Plan Policy 5-P-1, which calls for development of an interconnected mobility system that allows travel on multiple routes by multiple modes (Attachment 3). Because of the Commission's subsequent recommendation to deny the necessary land use entitlements staff recommends that the vacation only be approved as part of an approved project. Should the Council decide to approve the General Plan Amendment and the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Zoning Map Amendment, staff would return with a resolution to approve the vacation as part of the larger project approval. DISCUSSION Project Description Project Entitlements The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Plan and Architectural Review to develop the property located at the corner of McDowell Boulevard and L.yneh Creel: Way as a retail commercial development. General Plan Ame7nlment The project site is currently designated as Business Park in the General Plan 2025, which is intended for business and professional offices, technology park clusters, research and development, light industrial operations, and visitor service establishments with a variable maximum FAR of 1.5 to 3.0. Retail is only allowed as a secondary use in the Business Park designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation to Mixed Use (2.5 maximum FAR), which would allow a combination of uses,, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices. Im Zoning flap Amendment The project site is currently zoned Business Park (BP), consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the property to MUIB consistent with the proposed land use designation of Mixed Use. Allowable uses in the MUIB zoning district primarily include retail and office, with some light manufacturing uses. _ Site Plait and Archiieclitral Review The proposed development is made up of two single story commercial buildings and associated parking and landscape improvements. The proposed development includes a 14,500 square foot retail building that would be a future Walgreens pharmacy and a 7.500 square foot commercial building for which tenants have not been identified. The size and layout of the 7,500 square foot pad building allows for flexibility in terms of the number and size of the tenants. "file 14,500 square foot building is designed as a rectangular stucco building that is oriented toward the center of the property facing the parking lot. The building is approximately 23.5 feet high with 32 feet high towers at the northwest and northeast corners ofthe building to create architectural interest at this prominent corner site. The towers are designed with a mix of materials including brick cladding at the lower 15 feet and dark beige (;Texas leather) stucco for the upper 14 feel. The towers are topped with about 2.5 feet of exposed beams supported by simple diagonal support brackets that would be painted brown (Plymouth brown). A combination of clear, tinted and spandrel glass is proposed for the lower portions of the building. A drive-through xvindow is proposed on the rear (south) elevation of the building with associated access and queuing interior to the lot. A mural is proposed on the east facing fa4ade to satisfy public art requirements for non-residential development. The loading berths and garbage facilities for this building are located on the east side of the building, screened with an approximately 14 -Foot high landscape screen. The 7,500 square foot building is a rectangular building with heights that vary from 23.5 to approximately 23 feet. The building is generally oriented toward the center ofthe lot facing the parking lot. The architectural treatments on the north side include the mix of materials that are proposed for the pharmacy building. The mix of stucco, brick cladding and glazing are similar to the proposed pharmacy building and are incorporated into the side oriented toward N. McDowell Boulevard. The cast facing side ofthe building is also similar to the pharmacy building, which includes the mix of stucco and brick cladding. The west facing side ofthe building includes some of the same design elements for the first 20 feet. Beyond that, this side of the building is designed as the rear of the building with less architectural features. Access acid Parking Access to the project site would be from driveways at N. McDowell Boulevard and at Lynch Creek Way. Eighty-three parking spaces are provided on site in a common parking lot between the two buildings and along the rear ofthe site. A l0 -foot wide paved sidewalk is proposed along N. McDowell Boulevard. This sidewalk would be separated from the roadway by a 6 -foot wide landscape strip. "fen bicycle parking spaces are proposed, including six within enclosed lockers. Six of these spaces are located near the proposed pharmacy and 4 are located near the multi -tenant building. Landscaping The project proposes site, parking lot, and perimeter landscaping that includes a mix of -.round cover, shrubs and trees. Within the parking lot, trees are proposed in landscape fingers approximately every five parking spaces. A 6 -foot wide landscape strip, which is directly 5-5 adjacent to McDowell Boulevard, incorporates street trees and groundcover. A 16 -foot wide landscape strip and detention basin is proposed along the rear (south) property boundary. Landscaping proposed within this strip includes a row of redwood trees as well as groundcover. Appeal On July 18, 2014, Brownian Development filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use). The appeal contends that there is adequate evidence that the proposed amendment and including the associated General Plan Amendment would better serve the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare. The appellant requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment after approving the proposed General Plan Amendment (appeal letter, Attachment 7). The following summarizes the appellant's argument with staff analysis in italics below each Item ` Appeal Ground 91 — Office Vacancy Rates The appellant states that there is evidence to support the proposed zoning amendment teased on current office vacancy rates and the following information: e Within approximately Y< mile of the proposed Lynch Creek Plaza. there are at least nine office vacancies that were former medical office spaces totaling over 15,000 square feet of floor area. There is over 100,000 square feet of vacant office space along North McDowell Ioulevard between Last Washin_ton Boulevard and just north of Old Redwood Highway. • There is a current proposal to demolish approximately 16,000 square feet of office space and replace it with multi -family housing at 35 Maria Drive. ® In 2009 the hospital received City approval for development of 40,000 square feet of office space in front of the hospital (Lynch Creek east of North McDowell). This office space was not constructed due to lack of market demand. ® The adjacent Deer Creek Village project could accommodate up to 12,800 square feet of medical and professional office. ® The existing office space located on Lynch Creek Way, which is currently single story. could be redeveloped with a higher PAR if there was sufficient market demand. Petaluma has 37% (55.96/40.82=137%) more office space per person than Santa Rosa and 33% (55.96/42.05=13') x) more office space per person than Rohnert Park. In their findnrgs for denial, the Planning Commission concluded that "the record does not provide adequate evidence that vacancy rates or economic conditions necessitate a change in general plan land use designation. " The Planning Commission discussed office vacancy rates, which have been at or above 25 percent since 2006 and considered the amount gf7and currently designated Business Park olonl; the dlcDouvell Boulevard corriclor. Tlue Plcrrnnirug Connrrissiorr determined that thi.v in formation 6— 11J ivas not compelling enoagh to justify a Zoning Alap amendment to nodi& the =onirng from BP (Business Park) to AUUB (Alixed Use) and that there was no compelling evidence that the proposed Zoning Arnendnnernt would better serve the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare. The Planning Conunissioners indicated that although nfce space exisled elsewhere, that this site was unique due to its proximity to the hospital. The Planning Connnissiorn also noted that Lynch Creek IVcty was developed as an office development and that other properties within this neighborhood have been developed as office. The Commission also discussed the annoat of retail space approved in the neighboring Deer Creek Village and therefore determined there was not a public need for an anendrnent for this site to allow additional retail development. Aluch of the additional it formation provided by the appellant in support ofthe appeal was not provided,for the Planning C0117177issiaa consideration. Stnfj*has cogfirmed that the information is generally accurate. The Maria Drive .4par7nent project referenced by the appellant includes a proposal to demolish approximately /6, 000 square_feet of office slrace. However, that project is not located on a nrojor- arterial which the applicant has indicated makes it unsuitable.for office, r•eicail, or mixed use cleveloprrtent. The Lynch Creek Plaza project is located along one of the cily's main arterials. Appeal Ground #2 -- Medical Office Allowable in MU1B The proposed Zoning Map Amendment to MUIB does not preclude medical office use of the site. The applicant states that any office could be modified to acconmiodate medical office if there was a market demand for such a use. In addition, the applicant states that the Deer Creek Village project is also zoned MUIB, Which Would allow them to easily accommodate medical office should the demand exist. The Planning Conunission discussed the uniqueness of the project site due to its proxindly to the hospital and its location within the medical office neighborhood on Lynch Creek ilYcry. The Planning Commission deternnined than although o fjice space could be acconnmodated on the project site Conder the AIUIB _oning designation, that the applicant did not indicate that once would be incorporated into the project and that the there is no way to require this. The Planning Commission concluded in it findings for recomnnendnng denial ofa General Plan Amendrnernt that "availability of land use designated Business Park is limited in Petaluma and this concentration of Business Parkproperty provides a nnnique oppa-tnnitv,for nnedicalonce, research and develolnnent facilities, and light industrial uses. " This recommnenndation for denial was also used as a basis for denial of the Zoning Hap Anaendnnent The Conunissioners stated that General Plan Amendments should be made to fnn-ther the public interest and should snot be used to cacconnnnodate chatigirrg market connditiorts. ThePlanning Commission fann7her found that compelling evidence was not presented that a Zoning Map Annenchnent modifying the project site front BP (Busirness Park-) to A/UIB (Mixed Use) on this properly would better serve the public necessity, convenience and general irelfare given the limited availability of BP _oning in the city and the properties close proxinniry to the hospital and other medical office uses. Appeal Ground 93 — The proposed project provides community benefits The appellant states that the project would provide a community benefit through the unique services and features that Walgreens Would bring to Petaluma (Attachment 7). r These services include: • Transitional Care Program ■ Bedside Delivery Service • Competitive Pricing ■ Immunizations • Medicare Part D • Specialty Phannacy ■ Fresh Foods A Walgreens representative was in attendance at the July 9`t' Planning Commission hearing and outlined the services that Walgreens offers. Camrnis.sion members referred to Government Code Section 65358, which allows General Plan amendments when it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so. The Planting Commission found that the II'algreens proposal did not represent all important public interest that wasn't alreachl offered or couldn't be offered on land already available for retail development in the City and therefore they did not support the General Plan Amendment or the crssociateci Zoning Mcrp Antendnrerrt. The Conmtission concluded that the proposed pharmacy services• could be provided in the area on property ah•eady Toned to accommodate retail uses and that there was no evidence that these services needed to be acconantodated on the project site. For these reasons the Commission did not support the General Plan Amendment and associated Zoning Map Amendment. Drive -Through The Planning Commission did not spend significant time discussing elements of the overall project because of the lack of support of the fundamental land use entitlements. Therefore, the Planning Commission did not discuss the proposed drive through component of the project or include any reconunendations specifically pertaining to the drive through. The applicant has submitted a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, dated September 6, 2012, that evaluated the potential for impacts to greenhouse gasses from the proposed development including impacts resulting from the proposed drive-through component of the Walgreens pharmacy. According to the report the project would have the potential to generate 419 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, which is below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons. Thus, the report concluded that the proposed project with the drive-through, would not result in a significant contribution to greenhouse ,,as emissions. In addition to requesting the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and reverse the Platming Commission denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, the applicant is hoping to receive City Council support for the proposed drive-through component of the project. While the proposed project, with drive through window, would not individually result in a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the drive-through window is in direct conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12, which prohibits drive-through facilities. Mitigation measure GI -IG -1, and the Draft SPAR conditions of approval which require that the drive-through window be eliminated were recommended to comply with this General Plan Policy. A FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project with all costs of processing the application paid by the applicant. The cost recovery account maintains a positive balance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution Denying the General Plan Amendment 2. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal 3. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-12 finding the NAE Vacation consistent with General Plan 2025 4. Planning Commission Resolution -2013-1 1 recommending denial of the General Plan Amendment 5. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-14 denying the requested Zoning Map Amendment 6. Letter of Appeal, dated July 18, 201 7. Appeal background documentation submitted by applicant 8. Public Comment letter received after PC meeting 9. Planning Commission meeting minutes, July 9, 2013 10. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, July 9, 2013 g- 1 BENZ P, ATTACHMENTI EIROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC: May 5,201:4 Development Leasing Men agemennI Alicia Giudice Senior Planner City of Petaluma Community Development- Planning Division 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Lynch Creek Plaza Rezone Request to_Appeal Planning Commission Decision Dear Alicia, This letter shall.serve as our request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on April 22, 2014, .regarding the rezone of the Lynch Creek Plaza property. Our, understanding Is that thel commissiori did. not approve the rezone because the project plans stlll.include a pharmaceutical pick-up window. We believe that rezone of the property from Business Park to MU19 and approval of our proposed project with pharmaceutical pick-up window is.appropriate and beneficial to the community and consistent with the intent.of the General Plan. We would like an opportunity to presentour findings that we outlined in our most recent planning submittal to the City Council. We would also like to present.the project plan revisions that we incorporated into our most recent submittal as follows: Plan Revisions o Reduced both building, heights to address neighbor concerns. Originally, Walgreens was 31' 7" at the tallest point, we reduced it to 28'. • Enhanced the north side of the shops building with additional spandrel or fritted glass to give the appearance of a 4 -sided building to address planning staff concerns about the appearance of a' rear of building" visible from N'..McDowell Slvd. o Added glass to the Walgreens building on the Lynch Creek Way side to make the building more attractive to neighbors across Lynch Creek Way. • Other minor exterior adjustments to both buildings to provide more consistency within the project per planning staff instruction. o Added a bus turnout lane and shelter on the N. McDowell frontage to comply with engineering staff and City Council comments. Thank you and please feel free to contact me with any questions. sincerely`,, Jim hew Directorof Development 1556 PARKSIDE DRIVE, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-3556 ^ (925) 588-2200 " FAX., (925) 588-2230 qrl C 4 ■�i4 - i[ATTACHMENT 0 BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. Development a Leasing a Management February 19, 2014 Alicia Giudice Senior Planner City of Petaluma Community Development - Planning Division 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Lynch Creek Plaza Resubmittal Dear Alicia, RECEWED FEB A 9 2014 PLANNINC-1 DIVISION Please find our resubmittal for the Lynch Creek Plaza. Per your request, below is a summary of the revisions we made to the plans and some additional information for consideration. Plan Revisions e Reduced both building heights to address neighbor concerns. Originally, Walgreens was 31' 7" at the tallest point, we reduced it to 28'. o Enhanced the north side of the shops building with additional spandrel or fritted glass to give the appearance of a 4 -sided building to address planning staff concerns about the appearance of a "rear of building" visible from N. McDowell Blvd. o Added glass to the Walgreens building on the Lynch Creek Way side to make the building more attractive to neighbors across Lynch Creek Way. e Other minor exterior adjustments to both buildings to provide more consistency within the project per planning staff instruction. e Added a bus turnout lane and shelter on the N McDowell frontage to comply with engineering staff and City Council comments. Additionally, there were some unanswered questions raised by the City Council that we would like to address. Literal Text vs Intent of the General Plan We believe that the Walgreens prescription pick up window is consistent with the intent of the GP because of the following: a The greenhouse gases generated by the window are negligible. o The use of the prescription pick up window is not as extensive as a traditional fast food drive through. Walgreens prescription pick up window will see approximately 40 cars per day while a McDonalds drive through will see hundreds of cars/day (approx 800 customers/day). \0-1 o Further, we are offsetting greenhouse gases (GHG's) generated by the prescription pick up window by making the building more energy efficient. The calculations of this are as follows GHG's Generated by Prescription Pick Up Window: 7 MT/Yr Install "No Idling Sign": Subtract 3.5 MT/Yr Install New Energy Efficient LED Lighting Package: Subtract 23 MT/Yr Install New Energv Efficent HVAC Units: Subtract 5 MT/Yr Total GHG's Generated By Rx Pick Up Window Less Offsets: -24.5 MT/Yr Since the end result is less than zero greenhouse gases caused by the prescription pick-up window, the use is consistent with the INTENT of the GP. It is the LITERAL TEXT that is problematic. Additionally, the project will keep more Petalumans shopping in Petaluma, thus reducing GHG's. The Petaluma Health Center estimates that they alone send an average of 570 prescriptions per month to Walgreens in neighboring cities for Petaluma residents. How is this project different from other projects requesting drive thrus in Petaluma? This project is unique because it is: o Medical/Health related and serves unmet community needs. o Primarily designed to serve those who are not feeling well, have an infectious disease, are physically limited, or have children in the car. o Incidental to Walgreens' business as a whole; but critical to Walgreens success and as a means to build customer loyalty and serve those mentioned above. o Has ONE pickup window; no menu board or pay window, thus reducing existence of a queue. o Has no well defined peak hours such as seen during breakfast, lunch, and dinner, thus eliminating or greatly reducing existence of a queue. Walgreens "peak hour", 5-6 PM consists of 12% of the prescription pick up window customers. Most of the other business hours consist of less than 10% of the store's prescription pick up window customers. o Approval of the project opening can be conditioned to have Walgreens provide additional services that the community needs such as: 1) Community Partner to improve health who invests back into the community 2) Initial extended pharmacy hours over what exists in town today 3) Medication Reconciliation 4) Compounding, a method where individual ingredients are mixed together in the exact strength and dosage form required by the patient. This allows the compounding pharmacists to work with the patient and the prescriberto customize a medication to meet the patient's specific needs. How has Walgreens responded to meet the specific needs of Petaluma in a way that is different from most other Walgreens in other communities? o The prescription pick up window will have "no idling" signage e The store will offer compounding o . The store will offer extended hours beyond the typical Walgreens store hours o Customers can walk/bike to the prescription pick up window ' E) — Curbside Delivery We researched the concept of a curbside delivery (and other concepts involving removing the prescription pick up window) with Walgreens and found that it was not a viable option for the following reasons: 1. The delivery of prescriptions is a complex process that utilizes highly trained employees in a controlled environment. Many prescriptions require a consultation by a pharmacist. It is not practical for a pharmacist to leave the pharmacy 40 times a day. Raley's curbside delivery does not require specially trained or licensed employees to deliver groceries to the car. a. This would make the pharmacist unavailable for other pharmacy patients who want to interact with this on site healthcare professional. b. The pharmacist would not be as accessible for clinical services like immunization and health screenings. c. State law prohibits new prescriptions being sold while the pharmacist is out of the immediate vicinity of the pharmacy within the store. All other patients picking up new prescriptions would need to wait for a pharmacist to return. d. A curbside delivery is not consistent with Walgreens "Good Faith Dispensing" of controlled substances which requires the following to occur: 1) check ID, and 2) mandatory counseling with a pharmacist present. 2. Patients needing to drop off paper copies of prescriptions, insurance and billing information would need to be given to pharmacy personnel in close connection to a data entry terminal. This cannot physically happen from a curbside set up. 3. The curbside delivery at Raley's is not a successful program. According to the Petaluma store manager, they are only seeing 25-30 customers per week, approximately 4 per day. What are the community benefits provided by a prescription pick up window? It is primarily designed to serve those who are not feeling well, have an infectious disease, are physically limited, or have children in the car. Therefore it provides increased access to medicine and a healthcare professional. Walgreens has heard of the need forthis service from these patients over and over again. It will keep Petalumans shopping locally rather than driving to neighboring cities like Cotati to utilize the prescription pick up window service. It reduces the spread of infectious disease. Will the Proiect Generate Revenue for the Citv? The property will generate property taxes since the PHCD will be leasing to a for profit business. The site currently generates zero property tax. o The project will also generate sales tax for the city. Does Walgreens cover TO — Care? If not, is that changing in the future? Walgreens does not cover TO Care because that is a contractual relationship and Walgreens does not have this contract. As with other plans, any pharmacy needs to have a contract in place with the entity to service its plan members. It does bring up an important point. Insurances change every year. Consider if next year, TO Care switched to pharmacies that are not located in Petaluma such as m-3 Walgreens. It is possible. Having multiple different pharmacies within a community provides choices for the lowest possible cost for residents. A Similar Situation in Livermore, CA (Downtown Livermore) Browman Development Company recently constructed a Walgreens store with prescription pick up window in downtown Livermore at the intersection of 1" and P Streets. Livermore's Downtown Specific Plan prohibits drive throughs. However, the Community Development Department viewed the Walgreens prescription pick up window as something that was very different from the typical drive through because of the following: o It is incidental to Walgreens' business as a whole. The majority of Walgreens sales occur within the store, whereas a typical fast food restaurant will complete 60-70% of their total sales through a drive through window. o The pick up window only dispenses pharmaceuticals. o The pick up window volumes are less than 1/10th of the volumes of a typical fast food restaurant. • Has ONE pickup window. No menu board or pay window which is typical of a fast food restaurant. o Has no well defined peak hours like lunch and dinner time. Walgreens "peak hour", 5-6 PM sees 12% of the prescription pick up window customers. Most of the other business hours consist of less than 10% of the store's prescription pick up window customers. A similar resolution could be adopted for this project to approve the prescription pick up window because it is not a typical drive through use for the above mentioned reasons. About the Petaluma Health Care District The Petaluma Health Care District is a public agency, owned and governed by the community, for the community. The Health Care District is a reflection of the community caring for itself, linking public health goals into business and land use decisions to improve health services for our citizens. Over the past 65 years the District has ensured local access to community-based health care services for residents in Southern Sonoma County. These services include, but are not limited to, a hospital and emergency room, a health center, education, and health and wellness services and programs. The District invests in our hospital facility and services. In addition, the District invests $125K - $150K annually in community health programs and funding to local non profits who provide health care services to improve the quality of life of local residents. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Planning Commission. if you require any other information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jim Stephens Director of Development 1 D ,q I,Rt1iRIWM. 1 Prepared By: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 May 9, 2013 ATTACHMENT 11 CITY OF PETALUMA LYNCH CREEK PLAZA CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title: Lynch Creek Plaza GPA, Rezone, Site Plan and Architectural Review Lead agency name and address: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Contact person and phone Alicia Giudice, 707 778-4401 number: Project Location: McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way Project sponsor's name and Browman Development address: Jim Stephens 1556 Parkside Drive Walnut Creek CA 94596 General plan designation: Business Professional Zoning: BP- Business Professional Description of project: (Describe The project sponsor is proposing a General Plan Amendment, the whole action involved, Rezone, and Site Plan and Architectural Review to develop the Including but not limited to later property located at the corner of McDowell Boulevard and Lynch phases of the project, and any Creek Way as a mixed used development. The project Includes a secondary, support, or off-site 14,500 square foot stand-alone retail building and a separate features necessary for its 7,500 square foot retail and office building. The 14,500 square Implementation.) foot stand along building proposes drive-through services with a drive-through window proposed along the rear (southwest) side of the building. Loading and garbage facilities are proposed at the southeasterly side of the building where it fronts onto Lynch Creek Way. Landscaping includes a perimeter landscaping as well as parking lot landscaping. A 10 -foot wide landscape strip is proposed along McDowell Boulevard directly adjacent to the roadway. A 16 -foot wide landscape strip is proposed along the rear (southwesterly) property boundary. Proposed landscaping within this strip includes a row of redwood trees as well as groundcover. This area is also proposed as a detention basin where all parking lot drainage will be directed and filtered prior to entering the City's storm drain. Surrounding land uses and The project site is surrounded by medical office/office uses to the setting; briefly describe the south and east, a hospital to the north and a vacant mixed use to project's surroundings: the west (currently approved as Deer Creek Village). Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation a reements): Page 2 of 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # 1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................4 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................5 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING..................................................................................................5 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...............................................................................................................7 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTAILLY AFFECTED.....................................................................8 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS......................................................................................9 3.1 AESTHETICS.......................................................................................................................................9 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................11 3.3 AIR QUALITY RESOURCES..............................................................................................................13 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................16 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................18 3.6 GEOLOGYANDSOILS......................................................................................................................20 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.....................................................................................................23 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.....................................................................................25 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..............................................................................................27 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING..............................................................................................................30 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................31 3.12 NOISE................................................................................................................................................32 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING..........................................................................................................34 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................................................35 3.15 RECREATION....................................................................................................................................36 3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.........................................................................................37 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS................................................................................................42 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNANCE (CAL. PuB. RES. CODE §15065) ........................................45 4. INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................46 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing GP Land Use Designations......... Figure 2: Site Aerial ................................................. Figure 3: Site Plan ................................................... LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Thresholds of Significance for Operation. Table 2: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection LOS Pane 3 of 46 PAGE# 5 5 6 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND General Plan: The Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted in 2008, serves the following purposes: • Reflects a commitment on the part of the City Council and their appointed representatives and staff to cavy out the Plan; • Outlines a vision for Petaluma's long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation; enhances the true quality of life for all residents and visitors; recognizes that all human activity takes place within the limits of the natural environment; and reflects the aspirations of the community; • Provides strategies and specific implementing policies and programs that will allow this vision to be accomplished; • Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; • Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize impacts and hazards; and • Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as Development Codes, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), facilities and Master Plans, redevelopment projects, and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). General Plan EIR: Because CEQA discourages "repetitive discussions of the same issues" (CEQA Guidelines section 15152(b)) and allows limiting discussion of a later project that is consistent with a prior plan to impacts which were not examined as significant effects in a prior EIR or significant effects which could be reduced by revisions in the later project. (CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d).) No additional benefit to the environment or public purpose would be served by preparing an EIR merely to restate the analysis and significant and unavoidable effects found to remain after adoption of all General Plan policies/mitigation measures. All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the subject Project. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan are: • Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six intersections covered in the Master Plan: o McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road, Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, Lakeville Street/East D Street, Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street, Sonoma Mt. Parkway/Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street, and McDowell Boulevard North/Rainier Avenue • Traffic related noise at General Plan buildout, which would result in a substantial increase in existing exterior noise levels that are currently above City standards. • Cumulative noise from proposed resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of intra -city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts. • Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan buildout to population levels that could conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan, discussed in the Initial Study Air Quality evaluation, Section 3.) • A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the significant impact of global climate change. The EIR reviewed all potentially significant environmental impacts and developed measures and policies to mitigate impacts. Nonetheless, significant and unavoidable impacts were determined to occur under the General Plan. Therefore, the City prepared and adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which provides the rationale on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the project despite the potential environmental impacts. This environmental document tiers off of the EIR and holds that all potentially significant environmental impacts identified under the GP EIR are "acceptable" and are hereby Incorporated by reference. Page 4 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project sponsor is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Plan and Architectural Review to develop the property located at the southwest corner of McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way as a mixed used development. The Lynch Creek Plaza Project proposes a 14,500 square foot stand-alone retail building and a separate 7,500 square foot retail and office building (Pad A), for a total onsite development of 22,000 square feet). The 14,500 square foot stand alone building is a Walgreen's pharmacy and proposes drive-through services with a drive-through prescription drop-off and pick-up window proposed along the rear (southwest) side of the building. Loading and garbage facilities are proposed at the southeasterly side of the building where it fronts onto Lynch Creek Way. Landscaping includes a perimeter landscaping as well as parking lot landscaping. A 10 -foot wide landscape strip is proposed along McDowell Boulevard directly adjacent to the roadway. A 16 -foot wide landscape strip is proposed along the rear (southwesterly) property boundary. Landscaping within this strip includes redwood trees and groundcover. This area is also proposed as a detention basin where all parking lot drainage will be directed and filtered prior to entering the City's storm drain. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation from Business Park to Mixed Use, to rezone the site from Business Park (BP) to Mixed Use 18 (MU1B), and requests Site Plan and Architectural Review for the proposed development and site layout. Figure 3 below, shows to the proposed Site Plan. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The project is located on Lynch Creek Way and N. McDowell Boulevard. The site occupies 2.15 acres on APN 007-380-007. Figures 1 and 2 below show that the property is surrounded by undeveloped mixed use to the west, and existing business park development to the south, east, and north. The mixed use lot, to the west of the site is currently undeveloped and has been approved for development of the Deer Creek Village Shopping Center. The surrounding business park land uses are occupied by medical offices adjacent to the project site and the Hospital, north of McDowell Boulevard. The proposed Pharmacy (Walgreens) would be a complimentary use to the existing businesses in the project area. Figure 1: Existing GP Land Use Designations Lynch Creek Plaza Project ®®®® Business Park N Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Mixed Use City Park Page 5 at 46 Lynch Creek Plaza VNO Project Site ®—®_ 11'5 ll� Pape 6 of 46 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the 101 corridor approximately 15 miles south of Santa Rosa and 20 miles north of San Rafael. It is situated at the northernmost navigable end of the Petaluma River, a tidal estuary that drains into San Pablo Bay. The City originated along the banks of the Petaluma River, spreading outward over the floor of the Petaluma River Valley as the City developed. The Valley itself is defined by Sonoma Mountain on the northeast and by the hills extending northward from Burdell Mountain on the west. To the south is the Petaluma Marshlands and beyond, the San Francisco Bay. Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines the limits within which urban development may occur and encompasses approximately 9,911 acres. The UGB was implemented in 1998 and extends through 2025. The General Plan and EIR evaluated potential impacts associated with existing and proposed development within the UGB. The proposed Lynch Creek Plaza Project is within the City's UGB and is part of the North McDowell Boulevard Planning Subarea as Identified in the City's 2025 General Plan. The project is a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment. The change from business park land use to the mixed use land use is consistent with the potential impacts evaluated under the 2025 General Plan, since the maximum FAR on business park is 3.0 and the maximum FAR on mixed use is 2.5. As such, the proposed amendments are largely in conformance with the land use impacts evaluated in the Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("General Plan") and its EIR, which was certified on April 7, 2008. The General Plan and its EIR are available for review at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, In the Community Development Department, and are also available online at http://cityofpetaluma.net/eddrindex.htmi. This Initial Study Incorporates the analysis of the General Plan EIR and adds information regarding any environmental effects that are different in kind or degree from those studied in the General Plan EIR. No activities associated with the Lynch Creek Plaza Project create new or more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the 2025 General Plan EIR. Pace 7 of 46 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTAILLY AFFECTED The environmental factors below are discussed in this document. 1. Aesthetics NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 7. Greenhouse Gas 13. Population / Housing made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Emissions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially 2. Agricultural & adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) 8. Hazards & Hazardous 14. Public Services only the effects that remain to be addressed. Forestry Resources because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR Materials or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or 3. Air Quality 9. Hydrology / Water 15. Recreation Quality 4. Biological Resources 10. Land Use / Planning 16. Transportation /Traffic 5. Cultural Resources 11. Mineral Resources 17. Utilities / Service Systems 6. Geology/ Soils 12. Noise 18. Mandatory Findings of 1 1 1 Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. A Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which consists of the Mitigated Declaration, the attacked Initial Study and all mitigation measures contained therein, will be prepared, distributed and posted for thgypOyl-comment period of May 9, 2013 through May 28, 2013. :9. h'P"u„ l7 r�u o t e�ya r pla4negr Page 8 of 46 S 7 / Date /3 Dat 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following section addresses the potential level of impact relating to each aspect of the environment. 3.1 AESTHETICS Aesthetics Setting: Aesthetic and visual resources in the UGB include views of the Sonoma Mountains, hills, and agricultural land, to the northeast. Natural elements include the Petaluma River, its creeks and tributaries as well as important landscaping features such as trees, rock outcropping, and landforms. Elements of the built environment that can have important aesthetic value include historic buildings and historic districts. The project site is currently vacant and has been previously cleared of vegetation. It is located within a developed urban area surrounded by a mix of uses including medical offices and retail. There are no aesthetic resources on the project site. Aesthetics Impact Discussion: 3.7(a). Scenic Vistas — No Impact The property is located at the corner of Lynch Creek Way and McDowell Boulevard and surrounded by medical office buildings to the south and east, a mix of office buildings directly south, Petaluma Valley Hospital to the north and a vacant Deer Creek Development parcel, currently proposed as a mixed use development, to the west. There are no scenic vistas visible from nearby properties that will be affected by the proposed development. No impact would occur. 3.1(b). Scenic Resources- No Impact The site is not located within a state scenic highway, scenic corridor, landscape unit or a community separator (City of Petaluma General Plan Update 2008). In addition, the site does not contain rock outcroppings or historic buildings or trees that would be removed as part of this development. The applicant proposes installation of primarily native and drought tolerant trees throughout the site. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a row of redwood trees along the southwesterly property boundary. Therefore, the project will have no impact to scenic resources within view of scenic highway or corridor. Pape 9 of 46 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (which could be caused by blocking panoramic views), views of significant X landscape features, or landforms as seen from public viewing areas? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Aesthetics Setting: Aesthetic and visual resources in the UGB include views of the Sonoma Mountains, hills, and agricultural land, to the northeast. Natural elements include the Petaluma River, its creeks and tributaries as well as important landscaping features such as trees, rock outcropping, and landforms. Elements of the built environment that can have important aesthetic value include historic buildings and historic districts. The project site is currently vacant and has been previously cleared of vegetation. It is located within a developed urban area surrounded by a mix of uses including medical offices and retail. There are no aesthetic resources on the project site. Aesthetics Impact Discussion: 3.7(a). Scenic Vistas — No Impact The property is located at the corner of Lynch Creek Way and McDowell Boulevard and surrounded by medical office buildings to the south and east, a mix of office buildings directly south, Petaluma Valley Hospital to the north and a vacant Deer Creek Development parcel, currently proposed as a mixed use development, to the west. There are no scenic vistas visible from nearby properties that will be affected by the proposed development. No impact would occur. 3.1(b). Scenic Resources- No Impact The site is not located within a state scenic highway, scenic corridor, landscape unit or a community separator (City of Petaluma General Plan Update 2008). In addition, the site does not contain rock outcroppings or historic buildings or trees that would be removed as part of this development. The applicant proposes installation of primarily native and drought tolerant trees throughout the site. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a row of redwood trees along the southwesterly property boundary. Therefore, the project will have no impact to scenic resources within view of scenic highway or corridor. Pape 9 of 46 3.1(c). Visual Character -Less than Significant Impact There are no structures, uses or landforms visible from off-site locations that define a particular visual character. However, the site is surrounded by mature landscaping associated with existing development on adjacent properties. This landscaping consists of a mix of trees including Redwoods that create a visual character. None of these existing trees will be removed as part of the subject undertaking. The project site is currently vacant and absent of vegetation including trees. Construction of 22,000 square feet of commercial/retail space will permanently change the site from a vacant to a developed site. The applicant is proposing to plant trees throughout to achieve screening of the proposed development. A row of redwoods is proposed within a 16 -foot wide landscape strip along the southwesterly property boundary. These improvements will provide continuity with the existing landscaping on adjacent parcels and retain the visual character of the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts to the visual character of the site will be less than significant. 3.1(d). Light and Glare- Less than Significant Proposed project materials for both buildings consist of a mix of stucco siding with wood trim pieces. Window glazing is proposed on at least tree sides of both units. The buildings would be painted in earth -tone colors with brick accents. Glazing is proposed on both buildings, typical of a commercial district. An exterior lighting plan is required as part of the standard condition of approval and will be reviewed to assure that light and glare complies with City standards. The City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance section 21.040.1) defines direct glare as: illumination visible at certain points of measurement caused by direct or specularly reflected rays from incandescent, fluorescent, or arc lighting, or from such high temperature processes as welding, or petroleum or metallurgical refining." Indirect glare is defined as: "illumination visible at the points of measurement specified in Section 21.020(8) caused by diffuse reflection from a surface such as a wall or roof of a structure." This section establishes standards for illumination and prohibits deliberately induced sky -reflected glare. The project is required to comply with these standards. Review and approval of the required exterior lighting plan will assure that impacts due to direct and indirect light and glare are less than significant. Therefore, potential impacts from light and glare associated with the proposed Lynch Creek Plaza project will be less than significant. -10 Page 10 of 46 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Agricultural Setting: Agricultural lands are limited within the UGB and there are no identified forest lands within the City of Petaluma. Agricultural resources are prevalent outside of City limits and within the County of Sonoma. An impetus to the establishment of the UGB was to preserve natural resources, agricultural lands, and other open spaces. The project site is within the urban developed portion of the City and is not used for agriculture. Agricultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.2 a), d) and e) Conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland -No Impact The site is not located in designated Farmland (City of Petaluma General Plan Update). The property is located within the BP (Business and Professional) zoning designation, which currently allows development of the property with professional and medical office uses. Surrounding properties to the south and east are developed with medical and professional offices. To the north is the Petaluma Valley Hospital and to the west is a vacant property approved for development with a mix of retail and office uses (Deer Creek). Neither the project site nor surrounding sites are used or zoned for agricultural uses. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact will result. 3.2 b) Conflict with Zoning or Williamson Act contracts - No Impact The site is not zoned for agriculture, nor is it covered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would result. 3.2 c) Conversion of Forest Land — No Impact The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by urban development. Neither the project site nor its surroundings contain forest lands or timberlands. Therefore, no impact will result. .—d Page i t of 46 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland X (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 511 04 ? d) Result in the loss of forest land or X conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, X to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Agricultural Setting: Agricultural lands are limited within the UGB and there are no identified forest lands within the City of Petaluma. Agricultural resources are prevalent outside of City limits and within the County of Sonoma. An impetus to the establishment of the UGB was to preserve natural resources, agricultural lands, and other open spaces. The project site is within the urban developed portion of the City and is not used for agriculture. Agricultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.2 a), d) and e) Conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland -No Impact The site is not located in designated Farmland (City of Petaluma General Plan Update). The property is located within the BP (Business and Professional) zoning designation, which currently allows development of the property with professional and medical office uses. Surrounding properties to the south and east are developed with medical and professional offices. To the north is the Petaluma Valley Hospital and to the west is a vacant property approved for development with a mix of retail and office uses (Deer Creek). Neither the project site nor surrounding sites are used or zoned for agricultural uses. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact will result. 3.2 b) Conflict with Zoning or Williamson Act contracts - No Impact The site is not zoned for agriculture, nor is it covered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would result. 3.2 c) Conversion of Forest Land — No Impact The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by urban development. Neither the project site nor its surroundings contain forest lands or timberlands. Therefore, no impact will result. .—d Page i t of 46 Mitigation Measures; None required. IIS Page 12 of 46 3.3 AIR QUALITY RESOURCES Air Quality Setting: The City of Petaluma is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act establish national and state ambient air quality standards respectively. The BAAQMD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing air quality standards within the Basin, including the City of Petaluma. The BAAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations, the closest to the project site is located in downtown Santa Rosa at 5th Street, approximately 15 miles north of Petaluma. The Santa Rosa monitoring station records pollutant concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5)• Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regional air quality in Petaluma is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) 2010 was prepared by the BAAQMD to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The ultimate goal of the CAP is to protect air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. When the CAP 2010 was developed, it utilized land use and growth projections from the City's General Plan as a guideline for future development in the City. One of the goals of CAP is to reduce vehicle emissions encouraging infill projects that provide opportunities for alternate modes of travel. Although the San Francisco Bay Area is considered one of the cleanest major metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality, the region as a whole does not comply with national and state ozone standards and national standards for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM 10), the air pollutants of greatest concern in Petaluma. As a result, the San Francisco Bay region is considered to be in non -attainment status for ground -level ozone and particulate matter at both the State and federal levels. The Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non - attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 of 46 ' 1.'I Less Than Where available, the significance criteria Significant Less established by the air quality management Potentially Impact with Than district may be relied upon to make the Significant Mitigation Significant No following determinations. Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations (emissions X from direct, indirect, mobile and stationary sources)? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4 Air Quality Setting: The City of Petaluma is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act establish national and state ambient air quality standards respectively. The BAAQMD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing air quality standards within the Basin, including the City of Petaluma. The BAAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations, the closest to the project site is located in downtown Santa Rosa at 5th Street, approximately 15 miles north of Petaluma. The Santa Rosa monitoring station records pollutant concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5)• Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regional air quality in Petaluma is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) 2010 was prepared by the BAAQMD to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The ultimate goal of the CAP is to protect air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. When the CAP 2010 was developed, it utilized land use and growth projections from the City's General Plan as a guideline for future development in the City. One of the goals of CAP is to reduce vehicle emissions encouraging infill projects that provide opportunities for alternate modes of travel. Although the San Francisco Bay Area is considered one of the cleanest major metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality, the region as a whole does not comply with national and state ozone standards and national standards for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM 10), the air pollutants of greatest concern in Petaluma. As a result, the San Francisco Bay region is considered to be in non -attainment status for ground -level ozone and particulate matter at both the State and federal levels. The Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non - attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 of 46 ' 1.'I ppm, respectively. The Bay Area is also in non -attainment for the PMta and PM2.5 state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than 20 Pg/M3 for PMio and less than 12 pg/m3 for PM2.5. In addition, the Bay Area Basin is designated as non -attainment for the national 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard and will be required to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5. The San Francisco Bay region is considered to be at attainment with all other criteria pollutants classified under State and Federal standards.' The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in September 2010 to comply with state air quality planning requirements set forth in the California Health & Safety Code. The 2010 CAP serves to update the 2005 Ozone Strategy and provides control strategies to address air quality pollutants including ozone (03), Particulate Matter (PM), toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Air quality within the Bay Area Air Basin is a combination of natural geographical and meteorological conditions as well as human activities such as construction and development, operation of vehicles, industry and manufacturing, and other anthropogenic emission sources. Air Quality Impact Discussion: 3.3(a). Conflict with Clean Air Plan - Less Than Significant The Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) was prepared by the BAAQMD to establish a plan to reduce emissions and the amount of harmful pollutants from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The ultimate goal of the CAP is to protect air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. When the CAP 2010 was developed, it utilized land use and growth projections consistent with those used in the City's General Plan. The project is an infill mixed use project that includes a retail pharmacy. Its location along a major transit corridor provides for public transit access via the existing route 2 along North McDowell Boulevard. The site plan proposes a bus stop with a bench and shelter at the project frontage along North McDowell Boulevard. Onsite improvements also provide for bicycle parking facilities along with employee showers. These improvements are consistent with the BAAQMD CAP because they create opportunities to utilize alternate modes of travel, and contribute to a reduction in vehicle emissions. Although the project requests a General Plan Amendment, the total area of building space proposed is consistent with what was anticipated in the General Plan. In addition, the proposed pharmacy will be located near medical offices and across the street from the Petaluma Valley Hospital. Standard conditions of project approval would require the project to implement the California Green Building Standards, which among other things, require that new buildings achieve energy efficiency beyond Title 24. As such, onsite development will be energy efficient and developed in a manner that is consistent with the air quality objectives of the regional air quality plan. Therefore, impacts on the Clean Air Plan will be less than significant. 3.3 (b - c) Violate Air Quality Standard or Cumulative Contribution in Criteria Pollutant. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: BAAQMD updated its CEQA Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance in June of 2010 and revised the Guidelines in May of 2011. These guidelines include thresholds that are used in this Initial Study for analyzing air quality impacts from criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gas. Thresholds of Significance for criteria pollutants are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1 Thresholds of Significance for Operation Pollutant/Precursor Maximum Annual Emissions Average Daily Emissions t Ib/da ROG 10 54 NOX 10 54 PM10 15 82 PM2.5 10 54 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines May 2010; http.7Awlw.baagmd.gov Notes: tpy = tons per year; lb/day =pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or ICOess; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic ' "2010 Clean Air Plan," prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2010. 1 l Page 14 of 46 resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; tpy = tons per year. Refer to A endix D of BAAQMD CEQA guidelines for support documentation. In March 2012, the Alameda Superior Court ordered BAAQMD to undergo further CEQA analysis of the adopted Guidelines. However, the court did not reach the question of whether the thresholds or any of the scientific evidence that provided a basis for them was invalid. Therefore, the City has elected to use the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, which are based on substantial evidence. The studies supporting the BAAQMD thresholds can be viewed at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- G U I DELI N ES/Updated-C EQA-Guidelines. aspx Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD Guidelines identify screening level for criteria air pollutants and precursors and greenhouse gasses. This section focuses solely on criteria air pollutants and precursors. An analysis of the projects impacts on greenhouse gasses is provided under Section 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. If a project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1(Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors and GHG Screening level Sizes), the project would not result in generation of operational -related criteria air pollutants and or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown on Table 1 and would be deemed to result in a less than significant impact. Given its mix of uses the project was categorized as a "strip mall" which has an operational screening size of 99,000 square feet and construction related screening size of 227,000 square feet. The proposed 22,000 square foot project is below these screening thresholds. The project does not involve the demolition of any existing buildings or structure and will be completed in one construction phase. In addition, the project would be required to implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures under Mitigation Measure ADA below. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a less -than -significant project and cumulative impact to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. 3.3(d). Expose Sensitive Receptors -Less Than Significant with Mitigation The Air Resources Board defines sensitive receptors as: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups Include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The proposed 22,000 square foot project is a mixed use commercial center that is below the screening level criteria for criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. In addition the project would be required to implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measure as part of Mitigation Measure AQ -1. Therefore, with implementation of AQ -1 the project would result in a less than significant air quality impact on sensitive receptors. 3.3(e). Objectionable Odors- No Impact The project is a mixed use commercial center. There are no objectionable odors associated with the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would result. Mitigation Measures: AQ -1. The applicant shall incorporate the Best Management Practices for construction into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. In addition an erosion control program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Petaluma prior to any construction activity. BMPs shall include but not be limited to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as modified below: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Construction equipment staging shall occur as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors. 9. The Developer shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor issuance of grading permits. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of designated person and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air Districts phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 16 or 46 I—Ib Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any X species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, X but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X reservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, Page 16 or 46 I—Ib regional or state habitat conservationplan? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR Figure 3.8-1: Habitat Areas and Special Status Species; Open Space Lands Map of the Petaluma General Plan: Figure 6-1. Biolooical Resources Settin Biological resources are protected by statute including the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) affords protection to migratory bird species including birds of prey. These regulations provide the legal protection for plant and animal species of concern and their habitat. As reported in the 2025 General Plan EIR several plant and animal species with special -status have been recorded or are suspected to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Petaluma. A majority of these species are associated with the Petaluma River and its tributaries. The City of Petaluma Planning Area also contains species that are identified in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to rarity and threats, and are considered sensitive resources. Within the Urban Growth Boundary, biological resources are largely limited to the Petaluma River and its tributaries, which contain aquatic and riparian resources as well as wetland. The National Wetland inventory identifies fresh emergent wetlands in the southern portion of the Petaluma River and Northern coastal salt marsh wetland and brackish marsh wetland in the lower reaches of the Petaluma River. The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, prepared in 1996, contains policies and guidelines to protect these important biological resources. The project site is not located adjacent to the Petaluma River or its tributaries. Petaluma's Municipal Code, Chapter 17, addresses Tree Preservation and requires the preservation of existing tree in all development proposals (17.050). However, there are no trees on the project site. The groundcover consists of ruderal grasses and weeds common on vacant lots within the UGB. Biological Resources Impact Discussion: 3.4(a•c). Effects on Sensitive or Special Status Species, Riparian Habitat or other Sensitive Natural Community, or Federally Protected Wetlands —No Impact A biological reconnaissance was conducted and written report submitted by WRA, environmental consultants, on August 24, 2012. This report evaluated the project's potential to impact a total of forty-seven (47) special status plant species and fifty-nine (59) special status wildlife species. In addition, three wetland sample points were recorded and evaluated to determine potential for existence of jurisdictional wetland. This report concluded that based on field observations and site sampling and due to the location, topography, and site vegetation that: • the project site does not contain jurisdictional wetlands or non -wetland waters, • the project site does not contain sensitive vegetation communities, and • special status plant and wildlife species were unlikely to occur on the project site. Development of the proposed Lynch Creek Plaza Project has a low probability of affecting any special status species as the project site is void of suitable habitat. Thus, the project would have no impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site does not contain wetland or riparian habitat, nor are there sensitive natural communities on the project site. Thus, the project would have no impact to the state or federally protected habitats. As mentioned above, there are no trees currently onsite. Thus, the project would have no impact to protected tree species. Therefore, the project would have no impact to biological resources due to project development. 3.4(d). Migratory Birds -Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by urban development. Although special status wildlife species do not have the potential to occupy the project site, the WRA report concluded that ground - nesting birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have the potential to nest within the project site. H1 This would result in potentially significant impacts during construction related activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1, below, would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. 3.4 (e -f) Conflict with Policies, Ordinances or Habitat Conservation Plan — No Impact The project site is a relatively flat lot void of any vegetation other than ruderal grasses as discussed in the WRA report. There are no existing on site trees that will require removal as part of this project. There are no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other regional, or state habitat conservation plan that exists for Petaluma, which would regulate the proposed development on this parcel. Therefore, there would be no impacts to protected land would occur. Mitigation Measures: BIO -1 Prior to any grading activity conducted between February 1" and August 315r, the applicant shall conduct pre -construction breeding bird surveys no more than 14 days prior to start of work. If active nests are found, exclusion zones of a distance appropriate for the species shall be established (usually 50 to 100 feet). No work shall occur within the exclusion zones until all young have become independent of the nest. If no vegetation or ground cover removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural Resources Setting: Historic resources are central to Petaluma culture and contribute greatly to the aesthetic quality and character of the City. During prehistoric times, drawn by the fertile soils and abundant wildlife, the Coast Miwok Indians settled in the Petaluma River Valley. European settlement began in the 1600s and increased after the discovery of gold. The California Historical Resources Information System identifies a number of Native American archaeological resources sites and historic era cultural resources within the UGB. Petaluma contains 3 Historic Districts (Oakhill -Brewster, Downtown, and A -Street Historic Districts) located in the southwest portion of the City's UBG. The Historic Preservation Chapter of the General Plan includes policies and programs to protect the City's historic and cultural resources throughout the City. The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area of the UGB. The project site is vacant but appears to be have been previously grubbed and graded. Cultural resources are not anticipated to be located on the project site. 5 Page 18 of 46 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined X in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of formai cemeteries? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 Chapter 3: Historic Preservation; and 2025 GP EIR. Cultural Resources Setting: Historic resources are central to Petaluma culture and contribute greatly to the aesthetic quality and character of the City. During prehistoric times, drawn by the fertile soils and abundant wildlife, the Coast Miwok Indians settled in the Petaluma River Valley. European settlement began in the 1600s and increased after the discovery of gold. The California Historical Resources Information System identifies a number of Native American archaeological resources sites and historic era cultural resources within the UGB. Petaluma contains 3 Historic Districts (Oakhill -Brewster, Downtown, and A -Street Historic Districts) located in the southwest portion of the City's UBG. The Historic Preservation Chapter of the General Plan includes policies and programs to protect the City's historic and cultural resources throughout the City. The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area of the UGB. The project site is vacant but appears to be have been previously grubbed and graded. Cultural resources are not anticipated to be located on the project site. 5 Page 18 of 46 Cultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.6(a and c). Affect Historical and Paleontological Resource — No Impact The project site consists of vacant land. Based on past cultural resource surveys prepared for other nearby projects the potential for historic or paleontological resources existing on the site is unlikely as there are no buildings onsite and the project is not located in an area suspected of containing paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact to historical or paleontological resources. 3.5 (b). Affect Historical and Paleontological Resource — Less Than Significant Impact The City of Petaluma has a rich archeological history due to the presence of the Coast Miwok Indians during prehistoric times. As such, undisturbed lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, particularly lands in the vicinity of ridgetops, midslope terraces, alluvial flats, ecotones, and sources of water have a greater possibility of encountering a prehistoric archaeological resource. Based on Cultural resources studies prepared for other nearby projects, it is unlikely that archeological/historical remains are located on the project site. Nonetheless, there is always the potential for discovery of archaeological artifacts during grading and excavating activities. In the event that covered cultural resources are unburied, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULA below, would assure that potential impacts to cultural resources are avoided. Therefore, there would be a less than significant to cultural resources. 3.5. (d). Disturb Human Remains -Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Based on Cultural resources studies prepared for other nearby projects, it is unlikely that human remains exist on the project site. Nonetheless, there is always the potential for discovery of human remains during grading and excavating activities, which could result in potentially significant impacts. in the event that human remains are discovered during excavation of the site or during any stage of construction, all requirements of state law shall be complied with, including requirements that the county Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains should they be determined to be Native American. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL - 2, which requires appropriate measures to be taken in the event of discovery, the project would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: CUL -1. In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended for a period to be determined by a City -approved archaeologist to allow for adequate inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate. CUL -2. In the event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended and the following measures shall be undertaken: a. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted. b. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. c. The project sponsor shall retain a City -approved qualified archaeologist to provide adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate. d. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American, and shall contact such descendant in accordance with state law. e. The project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that human remains and associated grave goods are reburied with appropriate dignity at a place and process suitable to the most likely descendent. Pane 19 of 46 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Geoloav and Soils Settinq The City of Petaluma lies within a seismically active region. It is in California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone 4, and as such new development is required to meet the most stringent CBC standards. Geologic hazards within the City of Petaluma are largely related to seismic ground shaking and associated effects such as liquefaction, ground failure, and seismically induced landslides. Principal faults in the vicinity of Petaluma are capable of generating large earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking. The Rodgers Creek Fault is located less than 5 miles to the northeast. Although branches of the Rodgers Creek closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), they do show evidence of activity during the last 11,000 years, which is a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity. Expansive soils and soil erosion are also of concern within the City of Petaluma. Expansive soil materials occur in the substrate of the clays and clayey loams in the City and represent a potential geologic hazard. Without proper geotechnical considerations, buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by expansive soils due to the gradual cracking, settling, and weakening of older buildings. These effects create safety concerns and risk of financial loss. To reduce the risks associated with expansive soils, the City's Building Code, Chapter 18, requires that each construction site, intended for human occupancy, that is suspected of l 1 ^Zo Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued X by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42 it. Strong Seismic ground shaking? X iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv. Landslides? X b) Result in substantial erosion or the loss of X topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a X result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils Incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025: Chapter 10.1 Natural Hazards, and Figures 3.7-2 (Local Geology), 3.7-4 Ground Shaking Intensity), 3.7-5 (Geological Hazards). Geoloav and Soils Settinq The City of Petaluma lies within a seismically active region. It is in California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone 4, and as such new development is required to meet the most stringent CBC standards. Geologic hazards within the City of Petaluma are largely related to seismic ground shaking and associated effects such as liquefaction, ground failure, and seismically induced landslides. Principal faults in the vicinity of Petaluma are capable of generating large earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking. The Rodgers Creek Fault is located less than 5 miles to the northeast. Although branches of the Rodgers Creek closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), they do show evidence of activity during the last 11,000 years, which is a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity. Expansive soils and soil erosion are also of concern within the City of Petaluma. Expansive soil materials occur in the substrate of the clays and clayey loams in the City and represent a potential geologic hazard. Without proper geotechnical considerations, buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by expansive soils due to the gradual cracking, settling, and weakening of older buildings. These effects create safety concerns and risk of financial loss. To reduce the risks associated with expansive soils, the City's Building Code, Chapter 18, requires that each construction site, intended for human occupancy, that is suspected of l 1 ^Zo containing expansive soils be investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the hazard Geoloav and Soils Impact Discussion: 3.6 (a. I.). Fault Rupture -No Impact The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 established restrictions on development within the Special Study Zone. The act further prohibits any structure intended for human occupancy to be constructed over an active fault. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. The nearest known active faults are the Rodgers Creek Fault located approximately 5 miles east of the site and the San Andreas Fault located approximately 15 miles to the west of the site. There are no known active faults that cross the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact from any known Alquist-Prlolo Earthquake Fault zones. 3.6 (a.li-iii). Seismic Shaking and Liquefaction -Less Than Significant As is the case throughout the City's UGB, development of the subject project has the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. The project site is located within zone IX -Violent of the Mercalt Intensity Shaking Severity Level. In the event of a magnitude 7.1 earthquake, the site and the City of Petaluma could experience severe groundshaking that could damage buildings, structures, infrastructure and result in the risk of loss of life or property. The Petaluma area is within the seismically active North Bay/North Coast region of California, and is subject to seismically induced ground shaking from nearby and distant faults. According to the USGS, the primary source of damage from earthquakes is structural damage resulting from ground shaking. Soil type can have an impact on intensity of ground -shaking. For this area of Petaluma, the USGS has classified soils as Type D, which has a tendency to amplify shaking. Conformance with standards set forth in the Building Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 (the California Building Code 3.7-20 Chapter 3: Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures [CBCj) and the California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8 (the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act) will assure that potential impacts from seismic shaking are less than significant levels. Based on review of the project site and Section 1613, "Earthquake Load," the CBC parameters for a Site Class D shall be utilized to assure that potential impacts are less than significant levels. Site D requirements include recommendations for foundation types, appropriate structural systems, and ground stabilization strategies. The geotechnical report prepared by Moore Twining Associates on September 10, 2012, found that special foundation types would not be necessary for this site and that potential for lateral spreading caused by liquefaction is considered low. However, due to the proximity of the site to active faults, the project could be exposed to potential secondary hazards related to ground shaking and liquefaction. The project will require building permit review and, through that process, implementation of design elements necessary to address design to accommodate seismic hazards will be incorporated. Such improvement will be specified in construction level geotechnical analysis are likely to include removal and/or re -compaction of foundation soils, dewatering of subsurface soils, and seismic design requirements for structures as specified in the CBC. As such, impacts due to seismic activity and liquefaction will be less than significant and no further mitigation is required. 3.6 (a.iv). Landslides- No Impact There is no evidence of historic landslides onsite or in the project vicinity. The potential for landslides on the project site is low because the site is flat. Therefore, the project will have no impacts to due to hazard associated with landslides and no mitigation is required. 3.6 (b). Soil Erosion -Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation The project site is a relatively level lot and void of slopes and hillsides. Soil erosion during ground disturbing activities has the potential to occur without construction control measures such as best management practices. Soil erosion can be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of erosion control measures. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEC -2, set forth below, require the applicant to submit an Erosion Control Plan that identifies erosion control measures to be implemented during construction and limits grading activity during the raining season. Implementation of these measures would reduce any effects from erosion and loss of topsoil to a less than significant level. 3.6 (c -d). Unstable or expansive soils- Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation According to the geotechnical report, soils on the property consist of Clear Lake clay soils, which are poorly drained. It is anticipated that these soils are near the surface and extend to depths ranging between 3 to 10 feet below grade. These near surface soils have a high to very high expansion potential, thereby resulting in potentially significant impacts to new foundations and structures. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-3 and GEO-4, set forth below, would assure that site preparation is conducted in manner consistent with the requirements necessary to accommodate the expansive potential of soils onsite. These measures will assure that potential impacts due to expansive soils are reduced to less than significant levels. 3.6 (e). Sewer and Wastewater Disposal -No Impact City sewer lines currently serve the area surrounding the project site and have sufficient capacity to serve the wastewater disposal needs of this project. Therefore, no impacts due to septic tanks or alternative sewer disposal systems would result. Mitigation Measures: GEO-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan along with grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. These plans shall detail erosion control measures such as site watering, sediment capture, equipment staging and laydown pad, and other erosion control measures to be implemented during construction activity on the project site. GEO-2. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). GEO-3 Prior To Submittal of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall submit an updated geotechnical report that identifies performance of supplemental exploration, defines the amount of expansive or week soils to be removed from the site, the amount and make up of engineered fill to be replaced, and specific recommendations for private and public improvements. GEO-4 As deemed appropriate by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official, all recommendations as outlined in the Moore Twining Associates on September 10, 2012 shall be required. Measures that address expansive soils include the following: 1. The soils report shall address site specific soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include final recommendations for site preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures in accordance with Chapter 18 of the City's Building Code. 2. Expansive soils shall be moisture conditioned for their full depth so as to cause pre -swelling prior to casting of slabs. 3. Foundation Design shall incorporate the following: • The use of deepened foundations continuous around the perimeter of the buildings to reduce the potential for water intrusion under slabs. • Native subgrade soils shall be moisture conditions to reduce the potential for future heave and to maintain moisture content in the clay subgrade soils below the imported soils. NZ 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Greenhouse Gas Setting: Greenhouse gas emissions are a cumulative issue in that project -level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions do not directly produce local or regional impacts, but may contribute cumulatively to an impact on global climate change. Individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of GHGs associated with construction activities and operation. GHG emissions are typically a result of the combustion of fossil fuels and/or Industrial and agricultural processes. To address GHG's at the State level, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been adopted, which seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled. The City of Petaluma has also taken steps to address GHG emissions within City limits. The City adopted Resolutions 2002-117 and 2005-118 (both incorporated herein by reference), which call for the City's participation in the Cities for Climate Project effort and established GHG emission reduction targets of 25% below 1990 level by 2015 for community emissions and 20% below 2000 levels by 2010 for municipal operations, respectively. in addition, the City of Petaluma is currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions. This effort will implement General Plan Policy 4-P- 27. General Plan Policy 2-P-90, which calls for the City to "work with regional and other agencies to create a new rail transit station near Corona Road with high-intensity, transit -oriented development..." is also being pursued. The light rail effort is estimated to take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming, by at least 124,000 pounds per day. In November 2010, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen). All new development within the City of Petaluma must comply with these standards. As such, new development is expected to be more energy efficient, use less resources and emit fewer GHGs. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Discussion: 3.7(a). Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions -Less than Significant In 2011, the BAAQMD established greenhouse gas thresholds for new land development projects. The thresholds are based on either compliance with qualified GHG reduction strategy or annual operational emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). Thresholds are defined in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents because it accounts for emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential. Z3 Page 23 of 46 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either X directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X the emissions of greenhousegases? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR; BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan; and GHG Emissions Report, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, September 6, 2012. Greenhouse Gas Setting: Greenhouse gas emissions are a cumulative issue in that project -level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions do not directly produce local or regional impacts, but may contribute cumulatively to an impact on global climate change. Individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of GHGs associated with construction activities and operation. GHG emissions are typically a result of the combustion of fossil fuels and/or Industrial and agricultural processes. To address GHG's at the State level, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been adopted, which seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled. The City of Petaluma has also taken steps to address GHG emissions within City limits. The City adopted Resolutions 2002-117 and 2005-118 (both incorporated herein by reference), which call for the City's participation in the Cities for Climate Project effort and established GHG emission reduction targets of 25% below 1990 level by 2015 for community emissions and 20% below 2000 levels by 2010 for municipal operations, respectively. in addition, the City of Petaluma is currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions. This effort will implement General Plan Policy 4-P- 27. General Plan Policy 2-P-90, which calls for the City to "work with regional and other agencies to create a new rail transit station near Corona Road with high-intensity, transit -oriented development..." is also being pursued. The light rail effort is estimated to take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming, by at least 124,000 pounds per day. In November 2010, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen). All new development within the City of Petaluma must comply with these standards. As such, new development is expected to be more energy efficient, use less resources and emit fewer GHGs. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Discussion: 3.7(a). Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions -Less than Significant In 2011, the BAAQMD established greenhouse gas thresholds for new land development projects. The thresholds are based on either compliance with qualified GHG reduction strategy or annual operational emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). Thresholds are defined in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents because it accounts for emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential. Z3 Page 23 of 46 In evaluating whether a project would have a potential for reaching or exceeding the thresholds the District established screening criteria based on development type. These criteria were derived using default assumptions as well as of modeling for indirect emissions (electric generation, solid waste, water use). Projects below the screening size were deemed to not reach or exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2e. Given its mix of uses, the proposed project was categorized as a strip mall for air quality modeling purposes, which has a screening size of 19,000 square feet. The size of the project, which has a combined total of 22,000 square feet, puts it above the screening thresholds and therefore project operational emissions of GHGs need to be quantified. On September 6, 2012, the project applicant submitted a greenhouse gas emissions report prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin. This report evaluated the potential for impacts to greenhouse gasses from the proposed development including impacts resulting from the proposed drive-through component of the Walgreens pharmacy. According to the report the project would have the potential to generate 419 metric tons of greenhouse gases. The report concluded that the proposed mixed-use project would not result in a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the report concluded that the proposed drive-through did not represent a significant impact to greenhouses gases because the drive-through facility would not generate enough traffic to pose a substantial increase in CO2e. Additionally, the applicant proposes to install a sign directing users not to idle and to turn off ignitions during pickups. Therefore, the proposed project, with drive through window, would not individually result in a potential increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a less than significant impact would result. However, as described below in discussion 3.7b, the drive-through window is in direct conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12. As such, mitigation measure GHG-1, set forth below, requires that the drive-through window be eliminated. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project are below the screening level threshold, thus impact will be less than significant. in addition to assuring that the proposed project does not conflict with the General Plan, GHG-1 will further minimize GHG emissions generated by idling on the project site. Thus, the project's contribution of GHG's emissions would be well below levels of significance. 3.7 (b) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation -Less Than Significant with Mitigation The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 incorporates policies that were intended to directly and indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the time of adoption the City relied on the General Plan EIR for guidance on policies that related to air quality and greenhouse gases. The EIR included Table A-1, which identifies a list of "Applicable Policies from the General Plan that Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Included in this list is General Plan Policy 4-P-12 (listed as 4-P-8 in the EIR) which prohibits new drive- through food and service facilities as a measure intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project is a mixed-use project that includes a multi -tenant building and a stand-alone pharmacy building with a proposed drive-through service. The drive-through component conflicts with General Plan policy 4-P-12 and would therefore result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, requiring the elimination of the drive-through component would reduce this impact to less than significant. With mitigation the project would result in a less than significant impact on policies adopted for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measure: GHG-1. Prior to Final Site Plan and Architectural Review by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan, architectural elevations and architectural renderings that reflect the elimination of the drive-through component of the pharmacy building. Page 24 of 46 3,8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous Material Setting: Regulations related to hazardous materials and waste are implemented by a number of governmental agencies that have established regulations regarding the proper transportation, handling, management, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials for specific operations and activities. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous -waste and substances sites list (Cortese List). There are no Cortese sites within the City of Petaluma, including the project site. Hazardous waste management in Petaluma is administered by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. / / 15 Page 25 of 46 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as X a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of X public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response X Ian or emergency evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR. Hazardous Material Setting: Regulations related to hazardous materials and waste are implemented by a number of governmental agencies that have established regulations regarding the proper transportation, handling, management, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials for specific operations and activities. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous -waste and substances sites list (Cortese List). There are no Cortese sites within the City of Petaluma, including the project site. Hazardous waste management in Petaluma is administered by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. / / 15 Page 25 of 46 Hazards/Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion: 3.8 (a -b). Routine Transport, Use, Disposal or Accidental Release - Less Than Significant The Sonoma County Department of Health Services manages the Medical Waste Program. This program created by the state of California establishes standards for safe handling, transport, and disposal of medical waste and pharmaceutical waste. The proposed pharmacy is regulated by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services and subject to permit requirements as deemed appropriate by the County. The permit requirements would include a medical waste management plan, compliance with the Medical Waste Management Act, and proper storage and signage, for example, consistent with state standards established within the Medical Waste Management Act of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 101, part 14, Chapters 1-11. As such any impacts related to disposal of hazardous materials will be less than significant. The Walgreens Pharmacy will be required to prepare and submit a Hazardous Material Business Plan pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code 6.95 when using or storing chemicals over the state threshold, which is 55 gallons of liquid, 22 cubic feet of gas, or 500 pound of a solid. Compliance with the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) will assure that potential impacts due to the storage of hazardous materials onsite are reduced to levels below significance. During construction, the applicant will be subject to existing standard Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances. Additionally, the applicant will be required to file for and receive a hazardous materials storage permits from the City of Petaluma Fire Marshal prior to any construction activities involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on-site. As a requirement of NPDES and pursuant to General Plan Policy 8-P-38, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to hazardous materials, such as inspections and controls to avoid spills and leaks from construction equipment using diesel fuels, antifreeze, gasoline and motor oils, will be implemented during construction. 3.8 (c). Emit Hazardous Emissions within One -Quarter Mile of School - No Impact The project is a mixed retail/commercial development. The project does not propose the release of hazardous emissions. Therefore, no impact would result. 3.8 (d). Development on a Hazardous Material Site - No Impact The site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. Therefore, no impact would result. 3.8 (e -f). Create Safety Hazards Near a Public or Private Airport - No Impact The project site is located within the Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan Study Area. Exhibit 4D of the report identifies traffic patterns are generally to the north of the airport and away and do not overlap the project site. The proposed project is located approximately 1.5 mile south of the airport. The project does not propose uses or structures that would interfere with the existing airport traffic patterns. Therefore, no Impact would result. 3.8 (g). Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan — Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is located within the 4 -minute response radii of Fire Station 1, 2, and 3 (see General Plan Figure 3.4-2) The proposed project will not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The Petaluma Fire Department and Police Department have reviewed the proposed plans and have determined that adequate access would be provided. Therefore, impacts due to emergency access would be less than significant. 3.9 (h). Expose People or Structures to Wildiand Fires — No Impact The site is located within an urbanized area and it is not in a high-risk area for wildland fires. Therefore, the project has limited hazards due to risk of wildland fires no impact would result from project development. Mitigation Measures: None required. �Z& Page 26 of 46 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Hydrology and Water Quality Setting: The Petaluma River is the primary watercourse within the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma watershed (an area of approximately 46 square miles). The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast direction into San Pablo Bay. The Petaluma River is used for recreational boating and water sports as well as long-standing river -dependent industrial operations. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Pane 27 of 46 11 -Z7 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, X in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood X Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ma ? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality Setting: The Petaluma River is the primary watercourse within the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma watershed (an area of approximately 46 square miles). The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast direction into San Pablo Bay. The Petaluma River is used for recreational boating and water sports as well as long-standing river -dependent industrial operations. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Pane 27 of 46 11 -Z7 dredges the river on a four-year cycle to maintain navigability for commercial shipping. In order to ensure continued dredging services from the USACE, there must be an "economically justifiable" tonnage of commercial products moved on the river, as determined by the USACE. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants to waters of the US. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Requirements apply to grading, grubbing, and other ground disturbance activities. Construction activities on more than one acre are subject to NPDES permitting requirements including, the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Low Impact Development (LID) requirements establish limitations on the storm water runoff emanating from development sites. New development is required to mimic pre -developed conditions, protect water quality, and retain runoff from impervious surfaces onsite. Achieving these conditions generally avoids the need for upsizing of storm drain systems. As further described below, the subject project proposed to retain all excess runoff onsite and Incorporates design measures to limit impervious sources and allow for filtration, thereby reducing runoff and pollutants. The City is under contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) for its water supply. Under the SCWA contract, the city Is entitled to 13,400 acre-feet per year. The City also operates local wells throughout the City to extract groundwater, which is occasionally used to supplement the City's water demand during peak demand and emergency needs. In addition, the City has completed construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility (WRF), which provides tertiary level recycled water that can be used for parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, golf courses, crops, and residential landscaping. The project would receive its water supply through the City of Petaluma via a combination of SCWA contracted water, ground water/well water, recycled water, and implementation of water conservation measures incorporated into the project. Existing onsite drainage for the immediate area is collected through an underground storm drain system and connects to the City's existing storm drain system at Lynch Creek Way and McDowell Boulevard. Hvdrolonv and Water Quality Impact Discussion: 3.9 (a and f). Violate Water Quality Standards — Less than Significant Impact A Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage analysis was prepared by RSC Engineering. This report along with the applicants proposed plans identify on-site runoff to be discharged into a 60 -foot long vegetated swale. The swale would be 1 foot deep with the capacity to handle 0.20 cubic feet per second (cfs), which is more than what is required for this site. In addition the applicant would be required to comply with Best Management Practices for erosion control during construction as standard conditions of approval. Per City of Petaluma Phase II storm water permit requirements, the project development will be required to prepare a Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWMP) that sets forth Best Management Practices (BMP) in order to reduce pollutants in storm water, preserve water quality standards, and adhere to waste discharge requirements. These source controls are designed to keep pollutants out of storm water and include minimizing impervious surfaces, signage at catch basins that the system drains to a creek, low water demanding landscaping palette, smart control irrigation that maximized water to root zone and avoids overwatering or excessive watering, and reducing sediment runoff by replanting with sufficient ground cover. In addition, the project will require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of grading permits. With these standard conditions and compliance with NPDES discharge requirements, the subject project will have less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. 3.9 (b) Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Recharge - Less than Significant Impact The City is under contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency to received potable water supplies. SCWA water can be supplemented with the City's existing groundwater wells. The project's water demands are consistent with water demands evaluated in the 2010 UWMP, which found sufficient water supplies are available to meet existing and planned future development within the UGB. Water supply and distribution is deemed to be adequate to accommodate the project without the need to use groundwater supply. In addition, the applicant would be required to comply with the City's water conservation ordinance as a standard condition of approval for the project. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies. Page 28 of 46 1� -Z,5 3.9 (c -e). Substantially alter Drainage or Exceed Existing Capacity - Less Than Significant The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Analysis, which concludes that an increase of 1 cis of stormwater runoff would result from construction of the proposed project. The applicant proposes to detain and regulate additional peak flows through a 24 -inch wide, 150 -foot long, drain pipe that would drain to a smaller 15 -inch pipe at the south corner of the site. These improvements are expected to be sufficient to accommodate peak flows onsite without exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities. Therefore drainage impacts would be less than significant. 3.9 (94). Expose people or structures to flooding - No Impact The site is not located in a designated flood zone per the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) dated December 2, 2008, Community Panel Number 06097C 0894E. Additionally, the site is not located in a designated flood zone on the draft FIRMS, which are currently being updated by the City of Petaluma and FEMA. The draft maps are currently scheduled to become effective in Fall of 2013. The project would not site people or structures within a designated 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, there would be no impact due to risk of damage or loss due to flooding. 3.9 (j). Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow - No Impact The site is not located near a large water body that would be a source of a seiche or tsunami, nor in an area subject to a mudflow. Therefore, no impact would result. Mitigation Measures: None required 1 k -2 � 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Land Use and Planning Setting: The City's land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space and public lands. Land Use and Planning impact Discussion: 3.10 (a). Physically Divide an Established Community - No Impact The project site is located along the McDowell Boulevard commercial corridor. Nearby uses are a mix of medical and professional office and retail uses. Across North McDowell Boulevard to the north, is the Petaluma Valley Hospital. To the west is a vacant lot that has received entitlement permits for a mix use retail and office development (Deer Creek Village). Other development in the project vicinity includes a mix of residential developments at various densities. The proposed request for General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment and Site Plan and Architectural Review would allow construction of a mixed-use project. As proposed the project is consistent with the existing and approved development in the project vicinity. The Lynch Creek Plaza Project would have no impacts due to dividing an established community. 3.10 (b). Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation In 2008 the City adopted the General Plan update —City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. Section 4.2 of the General Plan discusses air quality within the City identifies sensitive receptor and establishes a goal to "Improve air quality and meet all Federal and State ambient air quality standards and goals by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources." The General Plan also identifies 12 policies intended to implement this goal. Policy 4-P-12 states that the City will: "Prohibit new drive-thru food and service facilities with the exception of vehicle serving businesses, such as car wash and oil/lube, and limit expansion of the drive-thru components of existing facilities which increase idling vehicles." This policy is intended to reduce the overall contribution of fossil fuels by reducing vehicle idling within the City and address Greenhouse Gasses. The project as proposed includes a pharmacy building with a drive -up window. The proposed drive -up window conflicts with this land use policy, thereby resulting in a potentially significant Impact. Mitigation Measure GHGA, requiring the applicant to revise the proposed plans to eliminate the drive-through window would reduce this impact to less than significant. Page 30 of 46 I'r3o Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation Ian? Sources: 2025 General Plan Land Use and EIR. Figure 3.1-2 Planning Subareas. Land Use and Planning Setting: The City's land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space and public lands. Land Use and Planning impact Discussion: 3.10 (a). Physically Divide an Established Community - No Impact The project site is located along the McDowell Boulevard commercial corridor. Nearby uses are a mix of medical and professional office and retail uses. Across North McDowell Boulevard to the north, is the Petaluma Valley Hospital. To the west is a vacant lot that has received entitlement permits for a mix use retail and office development (Deer Creek Village). Other development in the project vicinity includes a mix of residential developments at various densities. The proposed request for General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment and Site Plan and Architectural Review would allow construction of a mixed-use project. As proposed the project is consistent with the existing and approved development in the project vicinity. The Lynch Creek Plaza Project would have no impacts due to dividing an established community. 3.10 (b). Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation In 2008 the City adopted the General Plan update —City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. Section 4.2 of the General Plan discusses air quality within the City identifies sensitive receptor and establishes a goal to "Improve air quality and meet all Federal and State ambient air quality standards and goals by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources." The General Plan also identifies 12 policies intended to implement this goal. Policy 4-P-12 states that the City will: "Prohibit new drive-thru food and service facilities with the exception of vehicle serving businesses, such as car wash and oil/lube, and limit expansion of the drive-thru components of existing facilities which increase idling vehicles." This policy is intended to reduce the overall contribution of fossil fuels by reducing vehicle idling within the City and address Greenhouse Gasses. The project as proposed includes a pharmacy building with a drive -up window. The proposed drive -up window conflicts with this land use policy, thereby resulting in a potentially significant Impact. Mitigation Measure GHGA, requiring the applicant to revise the proposed plans to eliminate the drive-through window would reduce this impact to less than significant. Page 30 of 46 I'r3o 3.10 (c). Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan — No Impact The project is not located within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no conservation plans that apply to the UBG. Therefore no impact would result Mitigation Measures: None required. 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Mineral Resources impact Discussion: 3.11(a -b). Result in loss of Mineral Resources — No Impact No mineral resources are known to exist at the project site, and no mining activities are known to have occurred in the past at this location. Therefore, there is no impact to mineral resources that will result from project development. Mitigation Measures: None required, Page 37 of 0 it-3� Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources: 2025 General Plan Land Use and EIR. Mineral Resources impact Discussion: 3.11(a -b). Result in loss of Mineral Resources — No Impact No mineral resources are known to exist at the project site, and no mining activities are known to have occurred in the past at this location. Therefore, there is no impact to mineral resources that will result from project development. Mitigation Measures: None required, Page 37 of 0 it-3� 3.12 NOISE Noise Setting: Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary include vehicular traffic, trains and industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma is currently irregular, and thus does not constitute a significant noise source. In the future, the addition of SMART service will contribute to noise levels within the UGB. The Department of Health guidelines indicate that residential land uses and other noise sensitive uses would generally be acceptable without special noise Insulation requirements in areas where exterior ambient noise levels do not exceed approximately 60 dBA (CNEL). Residential uses in areas with Ldn between 60 and 65 dBA would generally be acceptable with noise reduction measures or insulation. Per Section 21.040.A.3.a of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, noise generating construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. For daily operational noise, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (Section 21.040 4 A) generally establishes an hourly average level of 60 dBA as the maximum that may be generated on one land use that would be affecting another land use, and the allowable levels are adjusted to account for the ambient noise levels an d in no case shall the maximum allowed threshold exceed 75dB after adjustments are made. Pane 32 of 46 �t�3z Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established X in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X roundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X existing without theproject? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without theproject? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 and EIR. Noise Setting: Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary include vehicular traffic, trains and industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma is currently irregular, and thus does not constitute a significant noise source. In the future, the addition of SMART service will contribute to noise levels within the UGB. The Department of Health guidelines indicate that residential land uses and other noise sensitive uses would generally be acceptable without special noise Insulation requirements in areas where exterior ambient noise levels do not exceed approximately 60 dBA (CNEL). Residential uses in areas with Ldn between 60 and 65 dBA would generally be acceptable with noise reduction measures or insulation. Per Section 21.040.A.3.a of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, noise generating construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. For daily operational noise, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (Section 21.040 4 A) generally establishes an hourly average level of 60 dBA as the maximum that may be generated on one land use that would be affecting another land use, and the allowable levels are adjusted to account for the ambient noise levels an d in no case shall the maximum allowed threshold exceed 75dB after adjustments are made. Pane 32 of 46 �t�3z Noise Impact Discussion: 3.12(a). Exposure to Excessive Noise — Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 has identified McDowell Boulevard as one of the major arterials within the City with substantial noise levels that are generated by traffic along that arterial. Figure 10-1 of the General Plan demonstrates that portions of the project site are located within the 70 dbCNEL noise contour of the McDowell Boulevard. The applicant submitted a Noise Study, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin (September 17, 2012). The study finds noise levels to be 69 dBA within 50 feet of the roadway centerline. Because the proposed project is a mixed use retail project and not considered a more sensitive commercial use, exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA would be considered acceptable. The proposed project includes a proposed General Plan Land Use amendment as well as a Zoning amendment from Business Professional (BP) to Mixed Use (MU1B). These proposed amendments would allow a mix of office and retail uses on the project site, where only office is currently permitted. The proposed amendment would restrict the first 50 feet of tenant space to retail type of commercial uses, since retail uses tolerate higher noise exposures than office uses. This restriction has been incorporated as Mitigation Measure Noise -1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts from noise, to a less than significant level. 3.12 (b). Exposure of persons to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise — Less Than Significant The proposed project is a Mixed Use project that would not generate groundbome vibration or noise that would expose people to excessive noise levels. Construction activities would result in temporary noise disturbances, including groundborne vibration during site grading and development from the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery of construction material. Construction related noise impacts are typically temporarily intrusive and cease once construction is complete. The City's Noise Ordinance establishes standard regulations, including limits on time and days of the week when construction may occur, to reduce the temporary noise impacts associated with construction. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance will assure that noise impacts from excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels are less than significant. 3.12 (c). Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise — Less than Significant Impact The proposed project is a Mixed Use development that would allow both retail and office uses onsite, with no unusual characteristics that would cause unexpected noise. There would be no substantial increase in ambient noise levels associated with the project operations. Therefore the impact is less than significant. 3.12 (d). Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise — Less than Significant with Mitigation During construction activities there would be a temporary, short-term increase in noise levels due to site clearing, grading, roadway paving, building construction, and finishing work. The City of Petaluma establishes temporary construction noise standards through Section 21.040.A.3.a of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance. This section states that noise generating construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The City of Petaluma enforces this ordinance as a standard practice and through conditions of project approval. In addition, the Noise Study prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin recommends additional mitigation measures that would need to be Implemented to reduce construction related noise impacts to less than significant. These mitigation measures are included below as Mitigation Measures Noise -2 through Noise -7. Implementation of these measures would reduce potentially significant temporary noise impacts to less than significant levels. 3.12 (e -f). Projects Near a Public or Private Airport — No Impact The project site is located within the Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The site is located approximately one mile southwest of the Petaluma Municipal Airport and well outside of the noise contours generated by the Petaluma Airport. Therefore, noise from airport operation would have no impact to onsite development. Page 33 of 46 It -33 Mitigation Measures: Noise -1: In order to achieve indoor and outdoor noise standards for office uses, any office use onsite shall be prohibited within 50 feet of North McDowell Boulevard. Noise -2: Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of lam and 10pm Monday through Friday and 9am to 10 pm on weekends and holidays. Noise -3: All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Noise -4: Locate stationary noise -generating equipment and construction staging areas as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area. Noise -5: Limit Idling duration of internal combustion engines to fewer than 5 minutes. Noise -6: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING/GRADING PERMIT, the project sponsor shall designate a "Construction Liaison" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Liaison shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem. This designated person shall have his/her name and phone number conspicuously posted on the site prior to all site work activities. Noise -7: Prior to any construction activity, the applicant shall hold a preconstruction meeting with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices (including construction hours, construction schedule and noise coordinator) are completed. 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Population and Housing Setting The 2025 General Plan proposes development that would increase commercial/retail square footage by 2.87 million square feet and office by 2.68 million square feet relative to 2005 conditions. The proposed project consists of a 22,000 square foot project. Pape 34 of 46 <<-3q Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes X and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housin elsewhere? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element. Population and Housing Setting The 2025 General Plan proposes development that would increase commercial/retail square footage by 2.87 million square feet and office by 2.68 million square feet relative to 2005 conditions. The proposed project consists of a 22,000 square foot project. Pape 34 of 46 <<-3q Population and Housing Impact Discussion: 3.13(a), Induce Substantial Population Growth — No Impact The proposed project would include the development of 22,000 square feet of commercial space within the urban growth boundary. The project would utilize the existing city street network and would receive water and sewer from the City of Petaluma. Police and Fire service would also be provided by the City of Petaluma. The project site was identified as potential commercial development site in the 2025 General Plan. The proposed amendment would not change the maximum FAR expected for this site. The proposed development would generate new jobs, however, those jobs are expected to benefit existing residents of the City of Petaluma. Therefore, there would be no impacts due to substantial population growth resulting from the subject project. 3.13 (b -c). Displace People or Housing - No Impact The property is a vacant lot and consists of construction of 22,000 square feet of mixed use commercial. There are no existing people or housing currently occupying the project site. Therefore, no impacts would result that would displace people or housing. Mitigation Measures: None required. 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Public Services Setting: The City charges one-time Impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities. Impact fees are used to fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for open space, parkland, and others. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public facilities and service Improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the required public facilities and service improvements. Public Services Impact Discussion: 3.14 (a -b). Impacts to Fire and Police Protection - Less Than Significant Impact Fire and Police -35 Pace 35 of 46 Less Than Would the project result in substantial adverse Significant Less physical impacts associated with the provision Potentially Impact with Than of new or physically altered governmental Significant Mitigation Significant No facilities, need for new or physically altered Impact Incorporated Impact Impact governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a Fireprotection? X b Policeprotection? X c Schools? X d Parks or other recreational facilities? X e Other public facilities? X Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Public Services Setting: The City charges one-time Impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities. Impact fees are used to fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for open space, parkland, and others. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public facilities and service Improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the required public facilities and service improvements. Public Services Impact Discussion: 3.14 (a -b). Impacts to Fire and Police Protection - Less Than Significant Impact Fire and Police -35 Pace 35 of 46 Fire Protection is provided by the City of Petaluma Fire Department. The department employs 58 staff, which covers an area of 160 square miles (including areas of southern Sonoma County). The project would not result in the need for additional staff or fire protection facilities. The City of Petaluma Police Department is the agency responsible for providing police service to this site and to surrounding area. The department maintains a force of 94 police officers, which cover an area of about 14 square miles. The proposed project is not expected to significantly increase the need for police service. Standard conditions of project approval require the applicant to pay all development impact fees applicable to a commercial development project, including fire suppression facilities and law enforcement facilities impact fees. These funds will offset the impacts to fire and police protection services and assure that impacts are less than significant. 3.14 (c -d). Impacts to Schools and Parks — No Impact Schools There are approximately 7,400 students being served by the Petaluma School District. The school district uses a variety of funding sources to maintain school facilities and expand and/or construct new facilities when needed. One of those sources includes Development Fees charged for new residential and commercial construction. Although the project is not expected to impact school capacity, payment of school development fees will be required at the time of building permit submittal. Therefore, the project will have no impact schools. Parks There are currently approximately 1,400 acres of park space within the City of Petaluma, Including a mix of city owned parks, joint use parks, and open space lands. The proposed project is not expected to result in the need for additional park space. In addition, the payment of Development Impact Fees will assure that any increased use of parks are offset. Therefore, the project will have no impact to park facilities. 3.14 (e). Impacts to Other Public Services - Less Than Significant Overall, the cumulative and incremental impacts of this project on public facilities and services have been addressed by the General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance and incorporated into the long-range services and facilities plans. The project would not have any impact to other public services. Furthermore, the requirement for the payment of development impacts fees would offset any impacts to public services due to increased usage and demands. Therefore, with the payment of Development Impact Fees, the project would have a less than significant impact on other Public Services. Mitigation Measures: None required. 3.15 RECREATION Pane 36 of 46 ` 1 -3(/_ Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational X facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources: 2025 General Plan: Figure 6-1 Parks and Open Space; and EIR. Pane 36 of 46 ` 1 -3(/_ Recreation Setting: The public parks and recreational opportunities within the UGB accommodate a wide range of uses and encompass nearly 1,400 acres. Activities offered at parks and open spaces include both active and passive recreation. Park land development and open space acquisition impact fees are required and help to mitigate any potential impacts of the project on parks and open space. Recreation Impact Discussion: 3.15 (a -b). Increase Use of Existing Facilities or Generate the Need for New Facilities- No Impact The proposed commercial development is not expected to generate increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No new park facilities are being proposed or will be required as part of this development. Therefore, no impact to recreational parks and amenities will result from the subject project. Mitigation Measures: None required. 3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION I `-72-7 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel X and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to Intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change X in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in Inadequate emergent access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation X e.. bus turnouts, bicycle racks ? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. GP Figure 5-1. Traffic Study Prepared By GHD Inc. I `-72-7 Transportation and Circulation Setting: The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco and Marin and Sonoma Counties. U.S. 101 accommodates over 90,000 vehicles per day within Petaluma. The circulation system within the City of Petaluma consists of approximately 140 miles of streets including, arterials, collectors, connectors, and local streets. The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are based on industry standards and indicate that a traffic study is warranted if a project is anticipated to create either 500 trips per day or 50 trips per peak am, pm or midday hour. If a project falls within 10% of these thresholds or there are other traffic operations or safety considerations, the City may exercise discretion in whether or not to require a project specific traffic study. Generally a grocery/specially market development of 10,000 square feet or more is required to prepare a traffic impact analysis. Additionally, the proposed Lynch Creek Plaza is adjacent to the recently entitled Deer Creek Plaza Shopping Center as well as an existing hospital and other facilities on North McDowell Boulevard. As such, a project specific traffic study has been prepared to evaluate potential impact associated with development of the subject project. Transportation and Circulation Impact Discussion: 3.16(a -b). Substantial Increase in Traffic or Exceed a LOS - Less Than Significant with Mitigation This project consists of a General Plan Amendment to allow development of a mixed-use project, which includes a 14,500 square foot drive-through pharmacy and a 7,500 square foot building to be located at N. McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way. A traffic study was prepared in March 2013, to determine the project's contribution to traffic on project area intersections. The traffic study selected the following intersections due to the project's potential to impact those intersections from project -generated traffic: Old Redwood Highway/North McDowell Boulevard Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard Lynch Creek Way/North McDowell Boulevard East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard East Washington Street/US 101 Northbound Ramps East Washington Street/US 101 Southbound Ramps The traffic study concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant contribution to existing and future traffic delays as described below. The generally accepted threshold of significance for intersection LOS is D or above. However, the City Engineer has determined that LOS E and F are conditionally acceptable. Existing Plus Prolect As shown in Table 3 of the Traffic Study all study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels with the exception of the following intersection: Westbound approach of the currently unsignalized Professional Drive and North McDowell Boulevard intersection which currently operates at a Level of Service (LOS) F (average delay times of more than 50 seconds per vehicle) and will continue to operate at a LOS F (average delay times of more than 50 seconds per vehicle) with the proposes project As such, this intersection operates at unacceptable levels of service. The project will contribute to delays at this Intersection (average delay increase of 80.2 seconds). The project in and of itself would contribute approximately 47 trips to this intersection during the PM peak hour traffic. The project's level of contribution, approximately 1.95% of the total entering traffic, does not generate a traffic signal warrant at this location. However, as described below, the adjacent approved Deer Creek Shopping Center results in a traffic signal warrant at this location, which will improve LOS once operational. All other project area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service D or better. Paae 38 of 46 Existing plus Pipeline plus project conditions Existing plus Pipeline plus project conditions evaluates the potential traffic impacts that are expected to occur by adding traffic from the proposed project in addition to traffic from existing and approved but not yet developed projects in vicinity. Pipeline assumptions include the U.S. 101/East Washington Street Interchange Improvements Project and construction of the recently approved Deer Creek Village project and associated roadway improvements. Based on the analysis of "pipeline" projects, the signal warrants for the intersection of Professional Drive and North McDowell Boulevard would be met with the development of the Deer Creek Project, which proposed the use of the intersection as a primary entrance. The traffic study assumes the signalization will be in place under pipeline conditions. All intersections will operate at acceptable levels under pipeline plus project conditions, except the two intersections described below. Corona/N. McDowell Blvd, is expected to operate unacceptably at a LOS F. However, project generated trips (31 trips) at this Intersection result in an average delay increase of 1.4 seconds or 1.5 percent of the existing plus pipeline delay. The project's share of the total traffic entering the intersection is 0.657 percent Thus, the project contribution is minimal and impacts would be less than significant. E. Washington /N. McDowell Blvd. would operate at LOS E under existing plus pipeline and existing plus pipeline plus project. However, project related delays at this intersection contribute 38 trips, resulting in an average delay increase of 2.7 seconds or 3.89% of the existing plus pipeline delay. The project's share of the total traffic entering the intersection is 0.628 percent. Thus, the project's contribution is minimal and impacts would be less than significant. The above intersections were evaluated under the Deer Creek Village EIR and were determined to fall below acceptable levels under future conditions. The Deer Creek Village EIR was adopted with overriding considerations to approve operations at a lower LOS at these two intersections. In both cases, project's share of traffic at these intersections is less than 1 percent. Cumulative Plus Project Under the Cumulative Plus Project conditions all intersections are expected to operate the same as under cumulative conditions, see Table 11 below. All intersections operate at acceptable levels except the two shown below: Corona/N. McDowell Blvd. is expected to operate at a LOS E under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions, which has been determined by the City Engineer to be conditionally acceptable. Project generated trips at this intersection result in an average delay of less than 1 second. The project would contribute approximately 14 trips to this intersection during the PM peak hour traffic. This represents approximately 0.318 percent of the total traffic entering this intersection. Thus, the project's contribution would be minimal and impacts less than significant. Rainier Avenue/N. McDowell Blvd. is expected to operate at LOS F under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. As noted LOS F has been determined by the City Engineer to be conditionally acceptable. Project generated trips at this intersection would result in an average delay of 1.9 seconds or increase in delay by 1.02%. The project would contribute approximately 26 trips to this intersection during the PM peak hour traffic. This represents approximately 0.498 percent of the total traffic entering this intersection. Thus, the project's contribution to deteriorating LOS is minimal and impacts would be less than significant. The above intersections were evaluated under the General Plan 2025 EIR and were determined to fall below acceptable levels under future conditions. The GP 2025 EIR was adopted with overriding considerations to approve operations at LOS E and F for these two intersections. In both cases, the project's contribution to delays at these intersection are minimal and impacts would be less than significant. Paae 39 of 46 Table 2: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection LOS intersection Existing Existing Existing Existing Cumulative Cumulative Conditions plus Protect plus plus Conditions plus Conditions Pipeline Pipeline Project Conditions plus Project Conditions Conditions p.m. Peak p.m. Peak p.m. Peak p.m. Peak p.m. Peak p.m. Peak Approach DelayiLOS 0alaylL05 DolayILOS OalaylLOS DolaylLOS DolaylLOS 1. Old Redwood Highway/North McDowell Boulevard 36.4/0 36.7/0 49.7/0 60.0/D 45.010 48.0ID 2. Corona Road/Norlh McDowell Boulevard 42.9/0 42.610 >801F >801F 73.81E 73.81E 3. Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard 12.1/8 12.2/8 31.91c 31.61C >881F >B01F 4. Professional Ddve/North McDowell Boulevard WeslboundApproach >50.01F >50.OIF Southbound Loft -tum 11.7/13 12.118 S1gnalized 28.6/C 29.2/C 31.2/C 43.9/C 5. Lynch Croak Way/N McDowell Boulevard 8.91A 10.618 i1.Q/BJ 13.31BI 11,8181 15.5/13 6. East Washington StreeUNorth McDowell Boulevard 50.1/D 62.2/0 86.81E 69.51E 40.2/0 40.8/D 7. East Washington StreeUD.S. 101 NO Ramps 17.418 17.4/0 15.318 15.618 9.0/A 9.9/A B. East Washington SIreeUU.S. 101 SB Ramps 21.4/C 21.8/C 35.810 36.2/0 10.4/8 18.418 Ndost RaG - results for mina mavamenb at unslanabw nlmaaiians Bald = rasuik O>caW accoplahlo love) at cervico Resells am IMlrstad N Ddoy (averoeo aocaiMe per vohidWLOS (Level d SaMca) taaatxaaatawt 44 Ltaa,c,.okwars Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report, March 2013, GHD Onsite Parking A total of 83 parking spaces are proposed for this development where 73 spaces are required by Section 11.060 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). In addition, 10 bicycle parking are provided as required by Section 11.090 of the IZO. Therefore, sufficient parking Is proposed and the project would have no Impact due to inadequate parking capacity. Overall Traffic Impacts The project in and of itself does not warrant traffic signals nor contribute to substantial LOS delays. The project's contribution to traffic levels at intersections with LOS E and F are negligible and will not substantially exacerbate LOS delays. Therefore, project impacts to traffic and intersection operations will be less than significant. Pace 40 of 46 1 l -� V Traffic Impacts During Construction Temporary construction related impacts on traffic will occur during development of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Circ -1 below would reduce this temporary impact associated with construction traffic to less than significant levels. 3.16 (c) Impacts on Air Traffic — No Impact The project is not associated with an airport site and would not require new air traffic routes. Therefore, no impact would result. 3.16 (d). Increase Traffic Hazards - No Impact The project does not include design features that could be considered hazardous. Site access provides for sufficient line of sight and no project features are proposed that would obscure visibility. Project landscaping provides smaller sized shrubs and groundcover adjacent to site access in order to assure visibility. Therefore, no impact would result from increased traffic hazards. 3.16 (e). Emergency Access - No Impact The project proposes an access driveway at McDowell Boulevard and at Lynch Creek Way. The City of Petaluma Fire Department has reviewed proposed driveways and interior circulation and had determined that adequate turning radius is proposed for maneuvering of fire safety equipment. No other changes to project area roadways are proposed, and there would be no conflict with the existing emergency access in the project area. Therefore, no impact would result. 3.16 (g). Alternate Transportation - No Impact The application proposes a total of 10 bicycle parking spaces as required by the IZO. A 10 -foot wide sidewalk is proposed along N. McDowell Boulevard and would connect to the existing sidewalk along Lynch Creek Way. A class I bike lane is proposed along McDowell Boulevard at the property frontage. Petaluma Transit (PT) maintains 9 bus routes connecting to each other at different locations throughout the City. Bus service to the project site would be provided by PT Route 2. In addition, connections can be made with Sonoma County Transit Routes 44 and 48 and with Golden Gate Transit Routes 72, 80 and 101 (including the express bus service) at the project frontage. The project frontage is a common transit stop and connecter due to its proximity to Petaluma Valley Hospital. A new bus shelter is proposed along McDowell Boulevard. The proposed driveway at McDowell Boulevard would not Interfere with existing bus routes. The project will not result in a conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts would result. Mitigation Measures: Circ -1. Prior to any site work, the contractor shall provide a Traffic Control Plan that, at a minimum, addresses ingress and egress, haul route, flagging, and maintenance of the road and identifies a staging area. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief of Police and City Engineer prior to the start of any site work. IHl 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Utilities and Service Systems Settings: The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities to accommodate the project. Impact fees are used to help fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for open space, park land, traffic Impact, wastewater, water capacity, storm drain, public art, and others. As a project located within a developed area of the UGB, the subject site is well served by existing public utilities and will not require substantial infrastructure costs or enhancement to serve the proposed development. Water Service System The City's water supply is sourced from the Russian River Water System and supplemented with local groundwater. Water from the Russian River Water System is obtained via the Petaluma Aqueduct through a contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The City's Water Resource and Conservation Department (WR&C) provides municipal water service to approximately 60,000 customers and therefore must comply with the Urban Water Management Plan Act, which requires the preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years. The most recent UWMP prepared for the WR&C was completed for the 2010 cycle and was adopted on June 6, 2011. of 46 l [ r4 Z Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or X expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve X the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? Sources: 2025 GP and EIR; Water Resource and Conservation 2010 UWMP; and Sonoma County Water Agency 2010 UWMP. Utilities and Service Systems Settings: The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities to accommodate the project. Impact fees are used to help fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for open space, park land, traffic Impact, wastewater, water capacity, storm drain, public art, and others. As a project located within a developed area of the UGB, the subject site is well served by existing public utilities and will not require substantial infrastructure costs or enhancement to serve the proposed development. Water Service System The City's water supply is sourced from the Russian River Water System and supplemented with local groundwater. Water from the Russian River Water System is obtained via the Petaluma Aqueduct through a contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The City's Water Resource and Conservation Department (WR&C) provides municipal water service to approximately 60,000 customers and therefore must comply with the Urban Water Management Plan Act, which requires the preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years. The most recent UWMP prepared for the WR&C was completed for the 2010 cycle and was adopted on June 6, 2011. of 46 l [ r4 Z The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) updates information from General Plan 2025 background and environmental documents and extended the term of water demand analysis through 2035. The 2010 UWMP was determined to be consistent with the General Plan 2025. The UWMP includes a water supply/demand analysis based on population trends and land uses set forth in the 2025 General Plan, the City's existing water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water recycling and water conservation programs. SCWA adopted its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Brown & Caldwell June 2011) on June 21, 2011. The SCWA holds water right permits for the diversion of surface water from the Russian River with a limit of 75,000 acre-feet per year. Instream flow requirements have also been established to protect fish and wildlife species (Decisions 1610) and recreation. Based on regional water supply availability, the SCWA expects to able to increase annual water deliveries to Petaluma from approximately 7,200 acre-feet in 2010 to 11,400 acre-feet by 2035. SCWA Based on the evaluation of future Russian River supply including, minimum instream flow requirements, SCWA expects to obtain water rights approvals necessary to increase its total diversions above 75,000 ac- ft/yr by 2027 and to 80,000 ac-ftlyr by 2035. This assumption is based on the most likely outcome of decisions by regulatory agencies and implementation of the Restructured Agreement (Executed in 2006) and proposed improvements to the water delivery system. To assure that the City of Petaluma has sufficient water supplies to meet increased water demand, the General Plan requires routine monitoring of water supplies against actual use and evaluation for each new development project (GP Policy 8-P-4). Wastewater Treatment Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and unincorporated Sonoma County community of Pengrove. The collection system is comprised of more than 190 miles of underground piping and nine (9) pump stations. The Facility's treatment capacity is about 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow). The facility treats approximately 5 million gallons per day. As such there is sufficient capacity to treat additional wastewater. During the summer, recycled water is introduced to the City's recycled water system and is used for irrigation of 600 acres of agricultural lands, two golf courses, and a vineyard. In the winter, secondary treated wastewater is conveyed to the Petaluma River. Storm Drains Within the City of Petaluma storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This water is untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents, oils, fuels and sediment. The City has implemented a storm drain labeling program to provide a visual reminder that storm drains are for rain water only. The City's Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance, set forth in Chapter 15.8 of the City's Municipal Code, establishes the standard requirements and controls on the storm drain system. All existing and proposed development must adhere to the City's Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance. Utilities and Service Systems Impact Discussion: 3.17 (a and e). Wastewater - No Impact The project is served by the Ellis Creek Wastewater Recycling facility, which cleans wastewater and produces over 700 million gallons of tertiary treated water per year. The proposed mixed-use project would generate wastewater similar to that of the designated land use, Business Park, which was accounted for in the 2025 General Plan. The project will not require construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, not impacts to wastewater facilities will result from the proposed project. Page 43 of 46 �� 3.17 (b and d). Water Facilities — Less Than Significant Impact The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 water demand and supply analysis showed that sufficient water would be available for long range development through 2025, given the total estimated future population, land use, and estimated water demand, the City's existing water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water recycling and water conservation programs and moderate use of groundwater to meet increases in potable water demand. Additionally, a standard conditions of project approval require that the project comply with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance for interior and exterior water usage. Therefore, no impact to water facilities would occur from project development. 3.17 (c) Stormwater Drainage Facilities — Less Than Significant Impact The project proposes to direct stormwater to a 16 -foot wide landscape area. This area is also proposed as a detention basin where all parking lot drainage will be directed and filtered prior to entering the City's storm drain system. A Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Analysis was prepared by RSC Engineering on September 11, 2012. This analysis concluded that 10 -year peak flow runoff would increase from 1.8 to 2.8 cfs after development of the project site. Therefore, the project would have to detain a total of 1 cfs of to maintain existing peak flows. Detention would be through a 150 -foot 24 -inch wide pipe that will drain into a junction manhole. Peak flows would be regulated through an orifice and weir structure. The project will be required to provide these storm drainage improvements and connect to the City of Petaluma storm drain system. Therefore, the project will result in a less than significant impact. 3.17 (f -g) Solid Waste — Less Than Significant Impact The City is currently under contract with Petaluma Refuse and Recycling for solid waste disposal and recycling services. This company provides canisters for waste, green (plant waste) materials, and recycling. Solid waste is picked up and trucked to the Sonoma County landfill sites. The project would be supplied with the same solid waste and recycling opportunities through the County's existing waste management system via the City's solid waste service provider. Although the project would generate additional solid waste, it is not expected to exceed landfill capacity and is not expected to result in violations of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, a less then significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None required 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNANCE (CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §15065) Mandatory Findings Discussion: 3.18(a). Mandatory Findings - Less Than Significant The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat, or affect cultural resources. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant due to the degradation of the environment. 3.18(b). Mandatory Findings - Less Than Significant with Mitigation The project is located within the UGB and is largely conforming to the development potential that was considered as part of the General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. Although the project requires a Land Use Amendment, the project as mitigated is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and goals, policies and programs. The project will contribute to the cumulative impacts Identified in the City's GP EIR including LOS E and F, as well as emissions of Greenhouse Gases. However, the project contribution is limited and incorporates design features that minimize cumulative impacts and requires mitigation that reduces potential Impacts to levels below significance. Therefore, with Implementation of mitigation measure, the project's cumulative impacts will be less than significant. 3.18(c). Mandatory Findings - Less Than Significant with Mitigation With implementation of mitigation measures set forth herein, such as BMP for erosion control, and construction activities to limit temporary impact to air quality and noise, the project will have no substantial adverse impacts to environmental resources. There are no direct or indirect effects that would adversely impact human beings onsite or in the project vicinity with mitigation including those measures set forth in Sections 3.3, 3.6 and 3.12. Therefore, with mitigation as outlined above, the project will have less than significant impacts due to substantial adverse environmental effects. 1H5 Less Than Significant Less Potentially Impact with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife X population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or rehisto ? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (i.e., incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in X connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probe le future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either direct) or indirectly? Mandatory Findings Discussion: 3.18(a). Mandatory Findings - Less Than Significant The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat, or affect cultural resources. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant due to the degradation of the environment. 3.18(b). Mandatory Findings - Less Than Significant with Mitigation The project is located within the UGB and is largely conforming to the development potential that was considered as part of the General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. Although the project requires a Land Use Amendment, the project as mitigated is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and goals, policies and programs. The project will contribute to the cumulative impacts Identified in the City's GP EIR including LOS E and F, as well as emissions of Greenhouse Gases. However, the project contribution is limited and incorporates design features that minimize cumulative impacts and requires mitigation that reduces potential Impacts to levels below significance. Therefore, with Implementation of mitigation measure, the project's cumulative impacts will be less than significant. 3.18(c). Mandatory Findings - Less Than Significant with Mitigation With implementation of mitigation measures set forth herein, such as BMP for erosion control, and construction activities to limit temporary impact to air quality and noise, the project will have no substantial adverse impacts to environmental resources. There are no direct or indirect effects that would adversely impact human beings onsite or in the project vicinity with mitigation including those measures set forth in Sections 3.3, 3.6 and 3.12. Therefore, with mitigation as outlined above, the project will have less than significant impacts due to substantial adverse environmental effects. 1H5 4. INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES General Plan and Zoning Ordinance General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment General Plan Chapter 7. Community Facilities, Services & Education General Plan Chapter 2. Community Design, Character, &Green Building General Pian Chapter 8. Water Resources General Plan Chapter 3. Historic Preservation General Plan Chapter 9. Economic Health & Sustainability General Plan Chapter 4. The Natural Environment General Plan Chapter 10. Health & Safety General Plan Chapter 5. Mobility General Plan Chapter 11. Housing General Plan Chapter 6. Recreation, Music, Parks, & the Arts Implementing Zoning Ordinance/ Maps Other Sources of Information Petaluma UWMP Published geological maps SCWA UWMP General Plan 2025 EIR FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Technical Appendices: The following resources were prepared in order to further identify project specific parameters. Copies of these technical documents are incorporated herein by reference and available for review during normal business hours at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, in the Community Development Department. 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management, hn t .11www.haegm l.aov 2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011 3. Biological Reconnaissance, WRA Environmental Consultants, August 24, 2012 4. City Of Petaluma General Pian 2025 5. City Of Petaluma General Plan Draft EIR, 2025 6. City Of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance 7. Environmental Noise Assessment, Illingworth & Rodkin, September 17, 2012 8. FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel Number 06097c0894e 9. Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report, Moore Twining Associates, September 10, 2013 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, Illingworth and Rodkin, September 6, 2012 11. Preliminary Hydrology And Drainage Analysis, RSC Engineering, September 11, 2012 12, Project Plans, Prepared RSC Engineering, Dated January 15, 2013 13. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, GHD, Dated March 2013 1 l -4 Walgreens Katie [kcerini83@comcast.net] Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:42 PM To: Giudice, Alicia ATTACHMENT 12 I work on Lynch Creek Way and I'm opposed to retail on Lynch Creek. Sent from my iPhone Lynch creek Jackie Griffith Dackiegrfffh@yahoo.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:02 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Hi Alicia, I work on Lynch Creek and am opposed to retail on this road. Already, there is so much traffic in this area and CVS is right around the corner. Thank you for your time, Jackie Sent from my iPhone V / —b/ 7 , / diPP � ...._,AtIve„ , \,,,,,c,,,: roo 4-'4 - \. , A, . „ -7 i ipc:0.1) ..., ) eN . N \,./, _ N -N. \i / \ N\ � � `4 N 40 e; /.:''''N ._„, p 1 ''' ''' // 4,' `,..- ” Oji \ OW 44ISk. 14010 4,11 (WAN ' , /. • / Ari a1 ' . '' 'N\ ///' �� M ..+� a + , o � �' �I/ vi. WAN •:`- el 0 , \ I/� :/ lib, F \\ \ , Isi / , \,r \...��." Lam.' 3 3 1 \ • / i 6 / ve. ir -4 _,. / ,_ 4,••... - ,, t,,,,„01, irat: ..,/'•,,v-'// Ant t+ / IOW, N Ni„,4 ...., , / , ,,11"4y.. , _,... _________ ,40.4,444. " _.,.,, , ' w I --- 42 . ot . _ , . A,r . r0 N„, .K4 ,040„ ;:. „,-47, , 411// ......w: .,, A gb / - N 40,. , . ., ,- ., ......_ .....41, .0ga . , •-•„. ink VII Air* 4/ 4144/ Ir.. my.. . ` / .71,."41,.$4 . V r ///, 0(9 g !!, m ''� R8 _\ r ���; .oma 7 'TA .,. H E cti �. NN"--,„,) VI N.... .N.., If% vo ilN I m m y mITm i * - 0 U J`— s2.., ---:-.1 N A �� �' - I '''-- I U LI i n n 3 pp pp " �' Hz g r DC 1 i,al QQp N i m aS m M �z NF. fi m ' m o m D m A$Z ° ' U GI '6 'tpU 3L� yg ' N y £ U N k b mD m OOOm 41 3 1„ V 5 6 c C R O {] Z A 1, y "' F LL $ -q o' 6 74 1 4 b ° {' -` t'o � Ut% 9-( -S Q D C m S O Z A A i 1 1 D� i N D € E m t i § 8 N 5 ; ; x m 8 ryo° y V ma J K 6 P '. c Z D fl70 0 I a- nF. OD o �� I"Ill � o -0 is x.4 m N m r' a o T� < n -n MENNEME� i 6 70 -o Li, m o N) a Ep/T m !J; y h CD .� a1 1i: = n a W %29%2014 5 35-14 PM L.D. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.01 bA b2 ' f §°z 6A T a It 1/ ,�� D I. i lv."4'r. 4. d z , y 1 i 0 d Q 5 ;1 f ,t � .l .i „.ail = �. . 1 ingliffi LI # 1111.1111111 S•s' 44A11 III I . Ella 1 NJ,• +1 I PO lifil [ 1 I II - 0 IIII I • 1 r II _. r ,,, , ... rP 11.1 ® e � I ?i,, , Illior imi P 1 1 ® Ti s o ju tai i:1el <> Bill , Illi -0 I } a g)A,1. ii : i' I o . iii ® - 00 e ° I1! O , ■.,, ., i ... I F Milm 3 ___, Or" moi, • Ili, 4 MIN _ q , , 1 .....3 . gl , .. . 4, _ ,i,„ I � o © , f100 1® O © O O ' ' 1 'I I d d 0 • © ' P 1 0 0 -. 0 0 0 0 = = 0 = = = D l> GID I =� N q NLIAqql w 02 mNRR" � a RN> QU Ri 4mRPROqf j':: r R'N ® 0 0 ® ® 000 000000 0 0 00 'IT m IT -1W 7..m r > r G) V m ; N () N m V (A-1 L D D D ND D �3 83 a3 rm F3 °Illgill !i l o c !iimz .'�Z rZ DZ Z Z 18 0 S N r ,n' ;0 g c z az z z 03 pg g mg =b (n a m m �i is bac c c Z 2m -m nm Dm n0A = C Z G)i ;31 oy am G)m > Q T 0� H =a a -a . 7 .-D Ill cg z z o �o So 02 _k- 1 w ,? y mm O = Yn� Ar �r Gf (n G) 00 0 i 9 -, 1"P Q pp = p - u m - Z O C - - _I m O 55 oO z z m m 3 > . '' o �$ d z W E. ti Zz 0 r ':11—r,----7)L/ ° r n m < rz� �° �j r�Cn' n 0 z "Fu. (D O -�zi ✓ r D A y N S m �5 QE-= O * ¢1 rn= H v C7 41 M i i 0 0 o Z 3 a 0 Z -� 9 �� 1 > cZn � cn b � P � 1 1 • 1129/2014 5:35:27 PM -4�v a 0 u D 1- , 0 4 0 d u Gf tt, 40 y a HP O T—. , z rn I 6 A N -1 0. 011111111 <> LII o G7 NIIIIII D Aiiiiiiiirciliii*ilia r Fl lit i� a 14, . r':"11.:4H0.!:;`,:ti'Y'l! It ■ ■ ' 0e s.!- L ' . y • = 9. �8 0 0 0 o t+JGt 0 -',....,77—.... ... od © P a in ■ b 111 O A 73 73 m II rnA C C m , i , - A ° — .iii _ z I lir L1N - 1 ill k m Ir a Lfl 1110 . „ 3 . 0 0 1, ,„ ui . ,. .1 Z . o 4p 4© i : eo©o t3 d i I : 8I 8 o o g o o o o O O O - pm m m P m A P I A IA c �T C IO flUz 73 lw C G1�11U w1A mp q�� -N'-m •w� •0.O : � •o� 00Q �� �N qo omR4 hi of co q� R� © O g ® O 0U0 0 0 00 C�11 N Vl (/1 V <m pm OZ Fm mm A m A D D (O0 0 n Z D Z ,_ a Z 0 O m pD TD -ID M> >DD 71 X C < m p mD D m cK O5 Dg 3 rK n mD m T gc c m z Ti; -'7' �z nz Z ?I r n P K 3 �O A0A � m a (1j z v0i m c i Z A -<1.213 2l n A p.Zl C� p C O m m m D m O m I„I., r m A coO D v x° v �v �� z m AH n > uD xD (n o m z m w- §74 1 _zi ?z 0 G cn O w z (n 'O 0t u N • Z n 7 s A m O • O N O` _I Y€$ D1Eic iii Z rn s o r ��x g,.m A' mD M N N —1 0 ora a) o -. � mm Nao y �3a o �Z ¢ < x 2 Z z m a 4c�r" ig= > H a '� 3 (D CD ; '''�/ _g Z 0 bZ , ,. m• ..- , r— CD . ,, 4: %‘: • ...,*No*6. k: c a. co 0 . P' Vra•114--11' • • CD 0 n , -ti Cf") 14 , . . ..... .4-, 7) . n C) .. ....... > , f ' ....4.1 ' i4..• 'I • o . r,--.1 > . . .,, K '.,) ...• • . • ,.., cc, 0 F) ' mikci,,, _oco • ..: ''s* 4 ,. N (,-D, . . ,, ./ -4111" ' 'Pe•--• . ..,_ -13 D . ,.. • /3" Cu n 4 .. ;; —I- , - , 0 / —CJ 0 . , ,.:,. - 'V _ • . •i , -........ — ,..,, /.......4,/ litik„ . OF, • s . , if . \, ;'. -0 n• ilo \ ) • . .,.. 0 3000 '.4 i • \ i k. CD ' Ak. \ / ,,Ilis • ,, 6 , . . \ lat r Mb . \ -el., • - • 4, iyik A • i\,,7 -... se.p.... .,,,, . V :,. . N - „401• , N\„... . / "; • / N. , .,. / . , ,. .' \ le:. f. i4 \ - iti A!kp, 'I f....;:.. ' //:' _ .,. v...7 cbk / ..- . , . ,,\-' v• 7* ' \ (.. 't 1 , ./ • '' /1 i,; ,.., •L I . + • . \ i ltypoDig .,-. . e 4, \ . I 1 . 4 111 * ., 3:: . . ft •-• I li 1,. , I, ,,, . , -•- ‘ I/ 7."',.:1 ‘ .%' *. t ,i, i t , . . / 1 44/i'j . 4 1 i . \ 1/41'2'\ 40 . , , , r ..-, >> f-N 4 A , \ \\ - ... . . . _ . . \el . ., '' "3 ,,, .0., A' r ,, . 'i .., . ' i) , e • . \' • \ \ 4 . cn ;,„ ./ . , ir4,,,, -, i • . n (2.(D . ' , / . ,. \ \ i) . .... , 4 , -... a 0 0 I, zzi;,_ . \ \ \ . ,,,,* s., ,.--. r- Cl)CD c F) -94 \ . - , 'sI 44; t.,.6 \ \ \ • - :: \ \ \ C v) n , ,.,..„.. ,,.. (1 44 s eillit 4,4 k----'•• • . , ii - -, • 6. .' , 11 I ........ ,\ 4 0 a) .., .,,, ....,'. 1 t• ' NA 71 --.. Ak \\\ \\ s , ,•,. vi !, . . ..., 77 -,r \ . ' ''', V , .-.1)1'\\ \ \ \ \I . %.." . r • ,, , , 1 c D = r- 0 - • rr. --I- - , . -.- ! . P - co .....L. — i - - .- ,, • ly , \\,. : • / -.• Ifi •. -DO C t %, . , *0 *-- i , // 1..si: 4y.‘il 1 (../) 3 411. ,44 . • •,. • ., .. ,.... , _._ . ,....4 _. 0 • - .40 '\ . i'' - / % .. . . --+- 't, —0 0 < s., '4 0 OP Aillite* • % , , . i . 111 r , 0 it e. •. , ". - 0 'I / 1 4 h r 6 0 ' V ' ., A ., — /C):: 1 ' (1) *-< ' .• _ % - 4 ' J 1' An. , .. , . h .‘ „k• A :".. . , •• , ip,, t - - \ • * \ , . • 0,4., 47‘ 'i , , ,.. .- . ,. . . A • . V '' * 1 ,r,.,1.,„ 4,,', - ,. J., • 11 . • . , II i 4, • \ P •' I:2 j -..j., : 'N. ' •.) tlo IA i\ '.* Kii), 0. . - . • . •* • - # • , , • . ,) • 4,4; ,, -‘.,..i 0 , .. . . . • , , , .. , , .. 4 • .. . • . s.„. / -,/ / (i.1/4t, , ..,/ , , .. , or .:,• , . , n . • .., iii. „, . ,,,t. ., .. . 4 • .. 1 41. . .... .x. .• . - ..,., , (.0 i . -- . . , , . \fr.. , i ... . . 'f - -, „...,,..,,. , 1,14, ,..rit. , ii , . _. . ...„. . , ....... .. - - f Ai ' '.:. .. '._ -' 1 i ler - • . , . .. - -.4 • .''', tr AP ' •-• ' -' .1. • • '•. _ ' D.' --''”-'' • '' • . . , .. - ' ' I IS .7 , #4, . . A) 0 Ad. . . . . • . . . •. •-s ..—• illk . ,-; cor t • • > ,., . gi, , . .. .. . IIMP• $ : . ... ., . • 1 ir V :• . . . ..1 Fr .. ..-. ._ h _. :' iiit • i - . i • Aar- . r i.r. . O a, r>si . .-ia • 1 Y��Y 5 { ., ..r+ Al dJ , ' •. ': ..i„ I a r YJr Af y �' • r 3j;.;; 'A '' y#- - dr r r rs d��,wp r .14 i�P' . t. r „liiii . J.'' TM is' 7 �- 1 . y . • It. t r ux • ,., ill 1 ♦ . If if}°� k*, o4w .4 ,.,-,,,,..,.:!..,,....,,„..;.,,,,,, '—' 'Mk. I C y° r n a-- , \ . . i ( I I 1 .? 1 , . i • 1 •i. I . IMP- .. . .. . ,, r ; .,..- . ...-' 0 . 4 - •. ''1,....:-....:11..7:: .',.•" - '',1 . :.:1 [ - , .•: . • 1.1 1 i ITI •< • I'''''.:•4.1 1--_ . ...- . 1 .4...1 i . .•..•4 • . ---. ... • 7, 41 i i•,i, • i 1 Ili i .Z...e i--r: t.' •.2 •. '1 .0 iiik . i . • ., • . . • . • .,., msr: ..... . ....-A.:,..;'. • 1 - ' • -.1,-_..---- ‘,.. .. ,.:?. .'i''!.7.•-.1. , • rt.,•,,,t•''. ,:._•••-.; r. 7.:.A.,_.!•--:;:l • .. --_-2. -...:: .i.•;ty- -,. 4 ' . i ,... . •1 '-..-. . .....,_. , . D . . ' ''.. '•+:`• r t 74_ I . -1 .. ' . . . •,0 • :: ._ ..... L_ 4. • I . . -••.- ., •., ...- • ,, •. , r . • ..• . 1 II 11 P 1111 • L_ , ... . , -i- '1 - . , .- ' ,f - A• 4. • • . .• .._ _. .--..... ". ' r, ... , alla. 4 4,.....' ED . .:' . '• t-• . . . " . - 4 11 .,i e . • .....: ... • . • __ _.. . .. ... . . ._. ,.. .. r .:., . _.. .... ....____. . _._ II 1. I 11 AMP" r o Z i Z ,n, • yrn i ii • jilt 1 --Tisk { P i' IIi 11 1„ ifi 1 i . . ' i , r. > - is 1. !i i ' I ffi p Iii-' . L •� i • Sig' I i t. , ;i I E lr priiiii , ..., , . . .. .. . . . ....._........... ....... ..„.., AMMO �1_• I _ _ It :Ii I.zffi it • 1 • • i , . ,• !II 0 • Y fig: li I ,-.. .,..„. ......--...... ,i il 7 •j--.1....--,.,...1 „.401.,,,,., ...im." ... . , • I. iltk:4 1 II . . ._ ' 4 , • ili'vr--- .. .:.i...!. • -.z .?,-/: ‘. .. • . .41111 F 0 .• ... ''.,......,', . ! V. •,•'/ 1754,1^• • 15f,, ,.. Z i el •tio. " ,..,••• • , -•• ,f4fre.,, . 0,1111r.A. •,.s M / gi1. •:' '::.-... *.., -r‘G.• •.... ' ' ' "( '....X/ • ! • .1... •, .'-11•4:?.4.,::,,.• __-7- ...._ ,, I :. . . - . .s. N ,4 .2 .... ..,,,, .,., ,.. 4'. fAct* H . M •' H . C . •"" •A :1`- .,'--& 20 ' ' 4• '•ter.' 't 1.: ,'-0-' '*:' 7'7. ...-: rri ... .. 't , t . " I . '7' - tft eV :5' '-e- '' • '.."1‘ • 4 t- Le i • , . ' • . .. .- . .. t i • .:. ..:'• I . e 1 : 4 1 . t . . . ,.. r „ "..., • I , ,. , .:.,;: , , ii,.... , . . . • ,. .- • . . . . . . . . „ , t . . , , . Ili • — , E.....—.,-.... .•—•. . . ' i .• .11 , ....111111.M.1. . "• ,.-•-••-• : -"•"-- • • ,. • , . . , . /Ir._ ...._. , . . , ill r :. 1-1411W It •1 la . t , .•.. .' . 1 . z I7 i 1 mill . : . • .;IIIIIN _ ...-f....•01 _ . . . • . . .. . . . ..._....1.,,_.... „,...,., - . • . 'i.' 11 I •, _; ` ",, W.,. f:--_-;:.• '.1 l' 'f:71,... ',:. • .- :. litt.t#! • • ..." .'wflt : • •• :I,. r' • 't i . . • ':... r . ... .. ,„.., ... . . ,1,..1..i., ....r.I.`.. :74:::;,. . • .•"...) . . . Il . ' 1'sli -• • •,':..11 .• •••, .. , . . . I.,. _.:........ ' ..: ...'...:14:". '•!. '.••.::: .. •-•' :. •.'• ' '4!- 5 ,...• ' •''''F l' ' • l''', -. . • k . . ,;„ .. . , ...,..... . . ,, .. , . ,• c'. .. fr. . . ,... ... _." . :.•,„, . . i ,. . . i ..... fII 7 • 1 , , , ... r 11 I • --,g—t14—:---rf II: , n ... , >m w :-.- -..r I I , i • ,...-,:z ., .....,... 1 1 .„..„........„.....„ ...._._ .. __ .... ...„,..,.,,._ .... ,a•ms . . ,. _, ..... . _ ,..,.. mist ..... 11 ,; 1 i ......... 1l"L,,,-,1 . _ , . ,,,..,:........ i ___. , u--) ......._ _ z ,,, . ir• '.- . 1 ,..1, .... .., ....:,,,. .. - ' , L ,immigo , fir4,..., f., P...,..' .:.:.:..7:A 1, . 1 ill'''';`Giihi311floi: ..:;,,,,4. . 4 Ii: < A 111 i , I.:iv,".. ,., I fel 14 ,'(ii84? - . .. . , l I r ..... 9. ... ),, .. 1G" ,f . 1' tiT� ?' is A. • m - . r- 4g ♦ • - • • 'rte _F • , • ffirtcT r cs 1 :. . •` ;. . 1:' j ,�`.Vii: �. J. a•-.vet . Yi )1.. : 1 , • 11 .x.1.4,4 3. ••` { :, j =z �; ;t . 1 H6 i sON ,./c .... 2. ,1 m )i 04 iv z O TT n z z 000 pcc Z M P r C co a 2111111104. N 27 • �e n z3 !A 0t 0,0 r. .T al 11111 ms 3 to 8 rl 9 N OZ , °pwp 02 mo n ', z AZ m 7 m = P3 co UU�VV ] D$ m • y-0 H O O °-1 N ar I o ? 0 D - g T z ",1111Fliti„1U I i-lift>,, 588 N > D , ,' W Q, — V ID 50_, a i M+mad8 A o Im 3 �2 0 -o Z P. Q T m i Ts ig c 1 069 d d O m O Dr Q Z; m 1 F - ---- �— L.' n $OmNO r m6g0 7- y z 5D A>N= odFmm z alsmpT Km O0Zm3 6zD>D ' *mAN; n man Orn _ Nzos5 0 o 1. o fl m 0 a c< 80°°8 3 ` „ n J t� ii n Et2R8 `� A,. , s � 0 � 0 u, n z o m y . Q o Q d a- r, E. r.� c =• c6 .0 FN B " z. s R c 3 n c 3- a. x I= v m �0 Pc' Se.U , ,< �' "� O F < to m ZOx rt� I ' E } L pO t c_/11 O '3) Ial¶ co t^. E m o c al a. F. d z 3 .fl C O CE- 0 .11 3 F`D t8 A�St c ' 7 3 LA ci n cjfti su 3 }� uoro. re- \,,-�\�+wsM01 w.-7- X222 .ewe \w+..\S✓nr\lo �o a\In-mH.aq ny,u•R r22 W.I4�•- S ru r\ore-a e\nrnry\caegw\owie. •`-1mr = mm� pi 1117 0 3�RP r \ RD m i r f' / / Jr / ''-:i ''''' N IA kV i = D r loP:;! �9 rh --I: . / N- ' „y 1- ' 4 NQ n m, m � . v H *4 °y . . , .,t. 0 --S , , I� in 1/4", : f 4, .",..,, /•a„ - - 0 01 i. q m m a. , . , . / s / 4, IP Ni . N. / / ' , v �S, `\ / . / sity-... 7. Vis”// . .% , / �9'e / ' /7,, / */ '''.'-, ,./ ---N . 7 / , 404, 1 . , \ ,c A.4, ` _ • ./., rg go- — n5 ii. r / / •i AAS�RR yam\ . • O v •:\ r ($• i 0 s., :,•' ,' \ , pie\ ,Att i , /p> : ,, 10 / \ 11., / E� 11 � 111 il v \�. . \ 11 .p.- A 414--4*f'' - C7 cel a 6' � / � � iSPArNRe H o „,, • CP 41p <% . �i0v �)r m / ny am0 W **Aft. n S, . / (/ r� �•�• E 0 n �mAw _ mr • / ./: `y, / . N \ 0 . ' / \AI r r,!”1 J -/ „`. \ A m v \v �rry m ` A 2 11 N. g / A1 eU rtl Q1 r 94” �,N. "/" x 0 QR \ In oA oA 000 �. p :o t— > D CD An g X Nk ` ,, Urn r C n . Cfi 6N)/ < D C f,„ 9 b r rn ] i . . ts) "c--1 / / j, ,, {a n / / 4..., ' j „� Mil \ k iI CD �/ 0 I 4 W 1 U1is, N ,p1 N � ?W j , C . / cy , B rD 0 rD B 7 " Iwa o4 / 4 r; O.,44._ d.A 4 4 / / s1 / . N, ti ® OCTOBER 22, 2012 8 WALGREENS STORE # 15244 i i ! 1 *REG,s & MAY 28,2013 \ g _ II w m RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER R € kleHi`yf�n A PETALUMA HEALTH CARE CA rl r - p A o <=1 N BROWMAN DEVLOPMENT o o Z m NWC N.McDOWELL BLVD& ri il e ^9 �4 �$ A co., INC. R, LYNCH CREEK WAY m ; ; o RSC ENGINEERIN �, z3„� p o PETALUMA,CA ,o iO . a 2250 Douglas Blvd. Suite 150 *a3]N\� Roseville,CA 95661 rive, DESCRIPTION ,a0,,, n om Ph:916.788.2884 Fox:91fi.788.4408 CITY APPROVED i s O 0 z •• Z aa? 4 N A 52'CI V1:1 t 2 p- 7UGCLI rf CDt. I a r , g I ` I ilk 2 �--J. -- 1� z d■III - 1' i 0 ,tim 9,-ie ?",3'.9:-0' 1 Ilk f<li =,=C• EEc EQUIP a WALL 11 � - > :,■_ ■11■�■■� 41 MM. -I .Ora .', ..�.... s ®% te- SURER, •,�grt•,, RECEIVING H a , II /■ etc. ri `ice numilial_ �o■e■■■NO VI VIVIIM•varyn L.■ ■� .:-wry ®1 „e <, r` vQ� ® taeBKEL© �t��M_�1i 1♦■ ; II■1oU .- iM. t �-y /V� N� �1 4 CD I d :'I -- --El CM • '■■p • ■■ •,,....„ \\`\\.\\\\`.\\`.\\\\\,\\` •\\\\` ...Agit. c Ci■ ] •■ =■011ie\` '+MINI\\\\\\\\\\``\\`\\ , i 11.1IpOri c� 1 ii ii 1 1 ��..:., 111 . . .I .. i , miff ili ii ii 1 1� Q I . �:. II ; . IT o ili II ■■MM==�=r.I=M r - _ n� I • 1 R pili ii ii I 111 ■■��. om���.om � ® e ,l g l° l.� ill ii■ ■m eg,�` o z. . Q § ri ��,� ili ii is i11 I 1� �iiiiiii��� N A oku., �o ,_ �� n § [ Ili U ii i i I ' � _� .�■-.--.-J■--- p. i° I- ,_ Iiinii . 1 1 tIii■MM�wINiiinN _ c.1 ♦ 13 , ■ F '14-1-All ® ii R:u , I I 1 m ° I T-1 ! 11 1I '� ■ 5 rsI 11 ti e. ' 4 IiIi 1 1-1 II■MM.IM■■■ 1■1 iim■..mmmnir.msri 111 „rm4317 (I g ‘ Q X11 �i&M . 0 c ■ _ 1 . ' \■sM1•f�=ONIIMWi , MI■�y===11■■==1�_ • A�\��. Ts 11111/5 _• NE=NImMimmommENUW ` ■.. a NS.\\`�\`.\\\\\�\`\�.\\`.\`N` .._........---___41 EIRIMIVb : 1.. � 1 II II '1te doiimmm (F)--•,• g • I. NBIE303. J 11 o I ,Qr II 0 A s� .. ® a a 11 _ , u M�soO co _ �_ ��.���.' II I I �• II I II Eii� mm.�I...����u■I�1m1��m:'� *Do ICs ...... _rw. wrr. ^•� !118-0' -9'�l I x'-d'I I I I i I I , ,.-0.r_s�,I Ir-Ir n . 116•-11 L. ,..., 'w r I. 00 y J oe wCD P 1 o, n to !"F S r) 3 a. b A 'b 0 0 i o. � ,..▪ - 8 i CD »rte ro z • ! W"-43 e r' r---- V -t , 8 kr4 CD ., P i 8 N y I � 1 k It 'NI f \ I f___1 O 1 I .,o,0•.2..o,�. �,:::„, •4wa-o,.:.,.o.,..dr o,.om,., • nw,.<,n..,�,�.w.<wsvaao,�svnw. \' r \ l \ /// NJ ,• N \ N Of •� SN / / f^•n \ / No \ , 7-NN / �o / � v A \ ._/' N\NN ; 'k v NN / ,401, N... A......cx .. ,241' 444*.r.1.41,.„, //! t r � / 4f.,..s. !4 -..... / 4„. ., , / i /`'''N' / / 4,'' '' )e3/4, ' ir ..% , 4). r --: , , / . i � '®V/ . //' it..‘‘ • '1 ‘1' off. 4,8 ' , t '''': N' /„' ////. :/:i4/ /4411,1::,,, . \\ 1 ,- • / itil DO 't'J\ ., ` � Cilli i y �, / o 0 .-".. / / . — .-- . 11, '"\\ I 14 , / t // \ . '{ P H 0 44.4! tf ., \\ ,„- . ' '. 7 / e .0' , •` <NIit‘ 1. Ili \\ ?4 / tz.�/ 0� a -ft 0 / `�• \ / pRo. tiO / I / ^/ • c n 11 // W / rGm ki<4 4t. .., 0 ":60., ilk, � `�` :91 '/ N. /\ r0 / .\% `` '= f,1 z, • ,..i ..m N„ A � / Z; S II= ,, ,� C 9 \ N n�� iT- • •/\;°I- 'NN. ' '/ • / / � , mss° // ill ��/ / O N 71 N ' c'-'7 • // nt — 1 • i. /I/ j k a. - ro1 \ „:, m / n , 6 :7/IME8m......,Lir / io / N0. Q. ,. ir 44'n`,eC +,,k 4 / lb 4 ' s / (. h ® OCTOBER 22,2012 WALGREENS STORE # 15244 i 1 1 1 *RECIS7 p P � C m m RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER Mili ��`� Rc�pa p PETALUMA HEALTH CARE q m "'U z — ,_ NWC N.MCDOWELL BLVD 8, K F, Pi g =; 1 ,o p BROWMAN DEVLOPMENT J o Z 41 m LYNCH CREEK WAY ; gi g RSC ENGINEERINl',,,`" 23� ;- p CO., INC. .. y PETALUMA,CA iO iO c 0, 2250 Douglas Blvd.Suite 150 *83110" w as Roseville.CA 95661 w O DESCRIPTION IrENR, 1 Ph;916.768.2864 Fax:916.788.4408 on wramm • nwu<i�yT=..," ..r.:.mn«. nor c u xxn w Mi.-. rK'wourr W1M.naleoLM M .r »�.. .V..Yrbr+�WeW4Yaflti n i y A \ n o;o / �I 0 a z 0 0 of:sill E p, f /.4, .. 4 IA i / / V.. . '• s0.1 \ "sitN)\ m .,.,11:„: O N •��•••;�+ m '1 _�+�iPi� v.*\,, • _0, e - f.,. ‘ ,c• 0 -Vol /alt ®®fas Yom/ / 6 -�� / , 1 >' �j e 41 1 • 3� \ / /��� ^•.� .`/ r:6 �A 4 s . A‘ .Ab $ A/ -4-:AA /1. :..- ..,. leb", e , -k7 , f/ / it Nle ,/•r .' gri ./- , . , . i ��'/ ' 4 e �� / N• N ��. / / N ' i \, --„, P/e, . • ���' z y 1 ./ / / ik.,,.,,:.'.- _ I/ '' 7 // / ./..,Ade/ 'lir 71: 6 tA -. =-:1 Air ' ?so.4,,; . t , / / '-i..,N,..: , // , - ' WA: Ale ,.. .r§',2 '\ / ,/ N - _ ,, • 1 ��\ _ ' 010 / \ / �� �� `�, .�'% • •• Ngo �, e. 4, IPP , ®` /Js / / / DAX m ,,/ iiii �1it* /44* 4}A.-47 •L/-/ / f�0 • • ,,,,, \ - it 4, A) ..,- 9 - ..,7.„ / -4' / . \\ It, 111 • N # ''''/ .a. % ii A —IA. f,!// /' / • ..3.1/4 II r �� it .._ N /. rz. .„... NN„,:t044sed, N '.sem \ *4' WPO's �- . / / Ce \\ \ N Z 710_ / ♦, o \\// \. `3, •-. N g / / % )t.. \I-----NN, ♦V s V /• \ •/ , -N. �/ ,� / / / s. I/ • / / ,/ 1 / m = AP � !Ill t4 ` • 2 r11 S Nak / li: -4 - O (' rn -0r ,_ • rD • \ Z / m / r r / ,. ay.�y i 3-� A s J C s/ � m z m "0 —VARIES 1•TO 1.6' o 46, A /� I• �T I`-1 a %4 .4 4 m P y � 4.,4 WALGREENS STORE # 15244 8 mar' ® OCTOBER 22, 2012 0 0 9 S w sEcrs7F A m m RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER %,, der 9. A PETALUMA HEALTH CARE I3 xi F 6 m o o BROWMAN DEVLOPMENT NWC N.McDOWELL BLVD& g A R a, s �l 0 .1g• Z Z m LYNCH CREEK WAY ; g. g. o RSC ENGINEERIN :"s,`" t'0a, A CO., INC. o _1 0 PETALUMA,CA . a 2450 Dougloa Blvd. Sutra 150 M 833M19 „ a¢ Roseville,CA 95661 DESCRIMON M I ..� �i Ph:916.788.2884 Fox:916.788.4408 oar APPROVED • uSet Pm. um wore, -„m • p ion -tp p 71 yAFP 'Ti's / g i P / ni 1 v of( 0 r AbiSp.N.N. ka z mA W / �Zm m p e . , v— (NN,,,,,,, / i ''?:•P -•' • /1,0,0,' . RA 21, 6x1 , /�� `� - 1��I��' �• ?6 > ">N g--, , 1//://::/ / „, & P •, N / it _• 2 (9 / /,, / .,.,- ,,,1 41,'' z 0 0 N . ,:. ,,, . ,, , 4,4, ,,e,,, : , 0 4, 1 ,. / / , ,., ,_, ,, , . _. , 8' ,I, „,. .,44.e, /„, /,.. „ . . ,.. m ia, 4/./ . ,......... )..,„ c, cp . .. ;% ....:300 N...5vT,',,,,11,1,6.,,,/s,,N\ ..„/”. "NN. :1 ,:,*.,E, N\ an :u / : i‘,...., "..a...48t: /• /9 / /oi / al 0 - , IN , / # OS ,' ., ' /0 ,,T0' •...,,, ,..,,/ /. \ • /N/43 ' 4 s, Wt Ili ///41/, / . 65/ .•,, ' 411A' ,1141)/f4- \ ,\" IFri \ .iti Or is./ It ..,,,o N7:,,,t, / // 10 / ,*:# . , 7 06. 1,0 ' / ♦♦ ♦ 1\ \ Ez- Z ru ll •,, A -i ril p /\1/ -A/44\ / f %/ / Qr�"�7ppl ,./::,,,,:::, . , \ .,.. iiiif // / c • \ \ \ N:// i. M X '6 f-:;um ',, / ‘ N• • N. i /,' „ 0) m ki N/ rs. %,\\•\ NN. 4,44" 0 . . N \I N / it ' . /t1- .`. ‘N14:01\\ /, . . a ` O / //' / : li / \ VI //44( / /, app / ki v 'N sN / • -So. N -4‘rq "7 NI:E6 . UD b r Z O 0.-T, \ `% , _, a 3 r X x �j Gi 2 Gib n AmwF 6'4 k (% / i uAEnC Ri o� co i ��� `P // • N,1 r -( > o n // i// - co `c / 4 g / Q C x m R //.f, ` , S / i ro f siQ r" i v �. w w W �, D 0 r F o. n 0D 0D N - i 4sv T 4.4.N N N / 4 i. a� 4 4 F6� �rq'6 / .5 14% 44ke4 4 ,n OCTOBER 22,2012 WALGREENS STORE # 15244 *gt�r5; uAY 28, 2013 CA co RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER R RMik‘illiPr �'',Je c1 A PETALUMA HEALTH CARE -0 9 NWC N.McDOWELL BLVD 8 ,---,---A A BROWMAN DEVLOPMENT LYNCH CREEK WAY �1 �m o 42 � � Z "' r I RSC ENGINEERIN ",a T3°��` A co., INC. m CA m 2250 Oougloa Blvd.Suite 150 *e3ro1 a+ PETALUMA,0 Roseville,CA 95661 ND' DO Ph:916.788.2884 For 916.788.4408 ND. DESCRIPTION rR, ere,