HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 11/02/2015Agenda Item #5.A
DATE: November 2, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution modifying the approved Unit Development Plan for the Leghorn
Marketplace to enable construction of a 9,120 square foot single -story building at
an existing parking lot abutting Riesling Road and approving a minor Planned
Unit Development text amendment to clarify that Medical Service -Minor is a
permitted use.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution modifying the approved Unit
Development Plan for the Leghorn Marketplace to enable construction of a 9,120 square foot
single -story building at an existing parking lot abutting Riesling Road and approving a minor
Planned Unit Development text amendment to clarify that Medical Service -Minor is a permitted
use.
WITQ_1111_ 1 161 1
Project Description
The project is located at the Leghorn Marketplace shopping center (formerly "Parkway Plaza ")
at the northeast corner of Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling Road. The shopping center
was originally constructed in 2001 and presently includes a grocery store accompanied by retail,
restaurant, and service uses. Buildings in the shopping center are located along the site perimeter
with an interior, shared parking lot.
The project consists of a proposal to modify the Unit Development Plan (site plan) and request
for Site Plan and Architectural Review to enable construction of one 9,120 square foot single -
story building. The proposed new building would be located within an existing parking lot
abutting Riesling Road. The proposed site plan is shown at Figure 1. No specific use of the
building is identified at this time.
In conjunction with the modification to the Unit Development Plan, the application also requests
clarification through a minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) text amendment that Medical
Service -Minor is a permitted use within the center. A minor PUD text amendment was approved
by staff on January 8, 2001 to allow dental and optical uses as permitted but specifically
excluding medical offices and clinics. The current Implementing Zoning Ordinance defines
Medical Service- Minor, in part, as, "A facility other than a hospital where medical, dental,
Page 1
mental health, surgical, and /or other personal health care services are provided on an outpatient
basis." This category intends to accommodate chiropractors, dentists, medical doctors,
optometrists, prescription opticians, psychologists, and outpatient facilities which may include
surgery, urgent care facilities, dental laboratories, and medical laboratories.
JJ
Gf
f �. R^� E 5 L 1 � G - 'm �-y o o� fI _� =•` � +e � t � _�
L
1
a
1
Er
FLI I �
r
;_ -I I I y` n �i t I� 00 1 00
I�'61
G&O MARKET
BUILDWO'A' J l I
A l °� Iil t I L[ I I a
o ,
b
b
U
Cl�Ir111iL� II i'
_ 1� I' _ x ewnxu ro � 8 9 ; manNO a' ;� r`—_,�., ( •
®R'
t
Figure 1— Proposed Site Plan (New Building Highlighted).
Should the City Council authorize the Unit Development Plan and minor PUD text amendment,
the Planning Commission would next review and act upon a Site Plan and Architectural Review
(SPAR) request for the project's specific site, landscaping and architectural plans.
Building Architecture
The proposed building includes an open floor plan able to accommodate between one and five
tenant spaces. The building interior is based upon an internal grid of 24 -foot wide cells with
accompanying storefronts (e.g., windows /doors).
The building elevations include design elements (e.g., flat roof, cornice, insets, metal grids,
awnings) consistent with the architecture found in the existing shopping center. The majority of
the building is 20 feet tall with some architectural elements going up to 28 feet in height. Roof-
top mechanical equipment would be enclosed by parapets at least 10 feet in height. An
architectural rendering of the proposed building is at Figure 2.
Page 2
Figure 2 — Rendering of Proposed New Building.
Mid -Block Crosswalk (Riesling Road)
A mid -block crosswalk presently exists at Riesling Road between Sonoma Mountain Parkway
and Casella Way. The crosswalk includes a push - button warning system (in -road lights and pole -
mounted sign) for motorists that is presently inoperable. The project would repair this system
through the installation of replacement hardware. This proposal is not required by any adopted
policy or standard.
Covered Bats Shelter (Sonoma Mountain Parkway)
A bus turnout with uncovered seating is presently located on the south side of Sonoma Mountain
Parkway, at the intersection with Riesling Way. The project would replace the existing seating
with a solar- powered bus shelter, consistent with others around Petaluma. This proposal is not
required by any adopted policy or standard.
Planning Commission
On August 25, 2015, the Planning Commission considered both requests at a noticed public
hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously approved (7 -0) a resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt a resolution approving the request (Attachment 2), and also provided
preliminary comments on the project's SPAR component.
Prior to taking action on the requests, the Planning Commission received comment from three
members of the public. General topics of concern included vehicle and pedestrian circulation
within the shopping center and at adjacent streets, noise, potential vacancies in the shopping
center, building setback and size, and tree preservation.
The Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes are included as Attachment 3. The
Page 3
Planning Commission's SPAR comments are discussed further below.
Community Input
On February 26, 2015 (prior to filing the application under consideration), the applicant held a
community meeting at the Santa Rosa Junior College. This meeting was preceded by a mailed
postcard including a summary of the project. According to the applicant, four persons attended
the meeting.
DISCUSSION
Staff Ana lysis
Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §19.070 provides that changes in a Unit Development
Plan are to be considered as legislative changes to the zoning map. Therefore, City Council
approval is necessary to approve this application after receipt of a Planning Commission
recommendation. The following staff analysis (in italics) compares the proposed project against
the findings required by IZO § §19.030 and 19.040(E)(5).
1. That any P.U.D., or modification of a P.C.D., is proposed on property which has a suitable
relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to
carry any additional traffic generated by the development. (IZO §19.030(A))
The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project demonstrates that affected thoroughfares
are adequate to carry traffic generated by the project. For existing, baseline and future
conditions, the intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling Way is anticipated to
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) B. This exceeds the General Plan's minimum standard of
LOS D.
2. That the plan, or modification thereof, for the proposed development presents a unified and
organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if
necessary to insure compatibility. (IZO §19.030(B))
The project retains existing mature trees along Riesling Road that provide screening for
adjacent residences. The project retains existing circulation features for pedestrians, bicycles
and vehicles, and the architectural design of the project is consistent with existing buildings
at the shopping center.
3. That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public
and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan or General Development Plan.
(IZO §19.030(C))
The project would place a new building within an asphalt parking lot and retain an existing
landscape feature along Riesling Road. The project would have no effect on private or public
spaces. Existing private gathering spaces at the shopping center would remain. The project
also retains pedestrian access fi°om Riesling Road through the shopping center to Leghorn's
Park.
Page 4
4. That the development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will
not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in
keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma,
with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plans adopted by the City. (IZO
§19.030(C))
The project efficiently utilizes land within Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in a
manner wholly consistent with applicable development standards. The site's General Plan
Land Use Map designation of Neighborhood Commercial permits a floor- area -ratio (FAR)
or 0.8; the project would result in an FAR of 0.29 for the site. The project is also consistent
with and promotes the following General Plan policies in particular:
Goal 2-G-15 Maintain the rich mix of residential densities, commercial opportunities,
educational facilities, and natural and public amenities.
Policy I -P -10 Develop and maintain the following areas as neighborhood centers. These
centers will serve to focus commercial activity close to residential uses,
providing convenient retail and services for all Petaluma residents:
Sonoma Mountain Parkway, at Riesling Road; et al.
Policy 9 -P -14 Plan and locate retail uses appropriately to their types and the sites
available.
Policy 9 -P -16 Strengthen existing retail concentrations.
Policy 9 -P -17 Incorporate access and amenity features into retail rehabilitation and
intensification projects, including streetscape improvements, relocation of
parking behind buildings to add visual appeal, and improved bicycle and
pedestrian connections between existing and new retail areas and to
adjoining neighborhoods to promote non -auto access.
The Planning Commission concurred with this analysis and unanimously approved (7 -0) a
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the request.
Site Plan and Architectural Review
The City of Petaluma's Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines provide
general standards to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the individual building and its site,
appropriateness of the building to its intended use, and the harmony of the development within
its surroundings. Prior to SPAR approval the Planning Commission must make the following
findings as outlined at Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.010.
1. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall
design.
2. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in question, and
compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood.
Page 5
3. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in
the immediate neighborhood.
4. The bulk, height, and color of the proposed structures as compared to the bulk, height,
and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
5. Landscaping to approved City standards shall be required on the site and shall be in
keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved
wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Planning
Commission.
6. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and automobiles, off - street automobiles
and bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote
safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved City standards. Any plans
pertaining to pedestrian, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the PBAC
for review and approval or recommendation.
The following topics were discussed by the Planning Commission at their August 25, 2015
meeting and with regard to the SPAR component of the project. The applicant's preliminary
responses are included in italic text.
1. Four Sided Architecture - This topic was particular to the building elevation facing
Riesling Road. The Planning Commission thought it should have more architectural
features and articulation that would represent the building independent of the screening
provided by the Coastal Redwood trees.
The applicant intends to revise that elevation to meet that goal, but without the glazing
that would allow light from the commercial space to go toward the residential area. Also,
the wall sconces which supplement the light to the walkways will be changed to
something more contemporary and effective, in line with specific comments from the
Planning Commission.
2. Pergola at the Southeast Building — As proposed, the project shows the removal of one
existing pergola along a pedestrian walkway extending from Riesling Road to Leghorn's
Park.
The applicant is exploring ideas to reshape the corner of the new building in a way to
retain the existing pergola and provide a design element that will complement the angled
fagade of the adjacent building at the corner of Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling
Road
3. Construction Noise — The Planning Commission expressed concern about the potential
for construction noise to impact nearby homes.
The project includes a construction staging area on -site and in a location removed from
nearby homes. Staff recommends restricting construction activities beyond that required
by the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to 8: 00 AM to 6 :00 PM Monday through Friday,
9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, and all construction prohibited on Sundays and
Page 6
holidays. The applicant also intends to provide a proposed construction period
mitigation plan to further reduce impacts at nearby homes.
The construction period noise mitigation plan would be considered during the future Site
Plan and Architectural Review application. Potential mitigation measures could include
the following: use of quieter equipment and tools, retro- fitting equipment with damping
materials, erecting sound barriers and blankets, restricting activity away from noise
sensitive areas, adjusting equipment (e.g., back -up beepers) to lowest setting, and
monitor work activities.
4. Existing Shopping Center Noise and Truck Circulation — Two neighbors in attendance
voiced concern about existing noise levels at the shopping center. The Planning
Commission requested the applicant investigate and respond.
The applicant is studying ways to mitigate an existing sound source that was reported at
the meeting. A chiller unit at the north -east corner of the center may need some
additional sound attenuation features to reduce the impact to the nearby residents. This
upgrade is voluntary and would be independent of the current project. Management is
currently involved in controlling the truck circulation with signs and notices to vendors.
5. Landscaping between the Building and Riesling Road — The Planning Commission
requested the applicant to investigate the viability of proposed plantings underneath the
existing Coastal Redwood trees.
The project's landscape architect is confident that the landscape palette as proposed has
been designed to succeed and will be available at future SPAR hearing to discuss in
greater detail. The applicant also intends to provide more trees at the corner of Riesling
Road and Casella Way as a visual buffer to the Center. The applicant is also
investigatingpotential landscape improvements to the median along Riesling Road.
6. Upgrades to the Existing Shopping Center — The Planning Commission requested the
applicant to consider architectural /design upgrades to the entire shopping center.
The applicant believes that the center is in good physical shape and not due for a facelift
or design change at this time. In 2015, the owner improved the center as follows: (a)
painted the whole center; (b) parking lot sealing and striping; and (c) minor landscaping
and tree replacements along with repairs to fencing. In staff's view, the functional and
aesthetic qualities of the shopping center are contemporary (i.e., it is 14 years old), well
maintained and on par with other new shopping centers in town.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15303 (New Construction or Conversation of Small Structures).
The project involves an existing developed property. The project conforms to the criteria of
CEQA Guidelines §15303 since it: (a) is located in an urbanized area; (b) is less than 10,000
square feet in floor area; (c) is located at a site zoned for the proposed use; (d) does not involve
the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances; and (e) is not environmentally sensitive.
Page 7
Additionally, none of the situations of CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 indicating when the use of a
Categorical Exemption should not be used are present.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The project is subject to cost recovery with all expenses paid by the applicant. The applicant has
paid $6,827 cost recovery fees to date.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -13 Recommending Approval
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 25, 2015
4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, August 25, 2015
5. Reduced Plan Set
6. Traffic Impact Study
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE APPROVED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE LEGHORN MARKETPLACE TO ENABLE CONSTRUCTION OF A 9,120
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE -STORY BUILDING AT AN EXISTING PARKING LOT
ABUTTING RIESLING ROAD AND APPROVING A MINOR PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TEXT AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THAT MEDICAL SERVICE -
MINOR IS A PERMITTED USE - ALL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 SONOMA
MOUNTAIN PARKWAY (APN 137- 070 -067)
FILE NO. PLZA -15 -0002
WHEREAS, Greg LeDoux submitted an application, on behalf of property owner Keith
M. Moser, to the City of Petaluma for an Amendment to the Unit Development Plan for the
Parkway Plaza Planned Unit Development (File No. PLZA -15 -0002) and Site Plan and
Architectural Review (File No. PLSR -15 -0009) to enable construction of one 9,120 square foot
single -story building at an existing asphalt parking lot located at 701 Sonoma Mountain Parkway
(APN: 137 - 070 -067) and for a minor Planned Unit Development text amendment to clarify that
Medical Service -Minor is a permitted use within the Parkway Plaza Planned Unit Development;
and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2015, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.040(E) and 19.070, to
consider the application and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the staff report
dated August 25, 2015, analyzing the application, including the CEQA determination included
therein; and
WHEREAS, on August 25,'2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Unit Development Plan Amendment and minor Planned Unit Development Plan text
amendment; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the proposed Unit Development Plan amendment and minor Planned Unit
Development text amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
1. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.030 and 19.040(E)(5), the City
Council adopts a Resolution approving the amendment to the Unit Development Plan of the
Parkway Plaza Planned Unit Development to enable construction of the proposed new building,
as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, as well as a minor PUD text amendment clarifying that
Medical Service — Minor, defined at Implementing Zoning Ordinance §27.020, is a permitted
use, based on the following findings:
a. The amendment would result in a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares
(e.g., Sonoma Mountain Parkway, Riesling Road) and, as demonstrated by the traffic
impact study prepared for the amendment, said thoroughfares are adequate to carry
any additional traffic generated by the development.
b. The amendment presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and
service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties.
Adequate new landscaping is included and existing screening by mature trees at
Riesling Road would remain to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The
project also retains existing circulation features for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles,
and the architectural design of the project is consistent with existing buildings at the
shopping center.
c. The amendment does not concern a property with natural features (e.g., creek) but
does include adequate private spaces for gathering. Leghorn's Park, a public park,
abuts the site of the amendment and would remain unchanged. The project would
place a new building within an asphalt parking lot and retain an existing landscape
feature along Riesling Road. The project also retains pedestrian access from Riesling
Road through the shopping center to Leghorn's Park.
d. The amendment would not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best
interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the
zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, with the General Plan, and with the
Corona Ely Specific Plan because it will strengthen and reinforce an existing
commercial shopping center serving residential neighborhoods in the North East
Subarea of the General Plan as demonstrated by its consistency with the following
Petaluma General Plan policies: Goal 2 -G -15 (Land Use Mix), Policy 1 -P -2 (Infill
Development), Policy 1 -P -10 (Neighborhood Centers), Policy 1 -P -49 (Tree
Preservation), Policy 2 -P -1 (Development Within UGB), Policy 2 -P -121 (Green
Building), Policy 2 -P -122 (Construction Recycling), 5 -P -1 (Interconnected Mobility
System), Policy 5 -P -9 (Safety Improvements), Policy 5 -P -10. (Intersection LOS),
Policy 5 -G -5 (Bicycle and Pedestrian System), Policy 5 -P -22 (Pedestrian
Connectivity), Policy 5 -P -23 (Pedestrian Site Access), Policy 5 -P -24 (Pedestrian
Network Near Schools, Transit, Shopping, and Mixed -Use Corridors), Policy 5 -P -31
(Bicycle Support Facilities), Policy 9 -P -14 (Retail Uses), Policy 9 -P -16 (Retail
Concentrations), and Policy 9 -P -17 (Retail Rehabilitation); and the following Corona
Ely Specific Plan Policies 37, 38 and 39.
2. The City Council reviewed the application and, for the reasons explained in Exhibit B,
determined it so be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) and not subject to any exceptions to use of a Categorical Exemption provided at
CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 (Exceptions).
I - Z
EXHIBIT A
FILE NO. PLZA -15 -0002
Re"ISIONS, BYE
Printed 03127/15
As submitted for
Design Review
A PRDMSED NEW
BUILDING FOR:
LEGHORN
MARKETPLACE
o nn+rnrvrau-
-A -
APN: 137 -070 7
NEW
51TE PLAN
1
�Qe�1l�
GREG
Le170UX
Ond
Na.
48 W. SIEW -RA AVE.
�corAn, CA
-°° A1.1
a
Ifs
o-YJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I raw�ar-
IPMKMS
I
I
I
�o I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ME
FILE NO. PLZA -15 -0002
�I4
---------- - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - --''f�\' - - -- —�'
`.waft. a'1c1.ba P,.�asl.�
1 NEW SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT �j„11J
kNE. 1' . W'O'
Y/1L P. Ida'
RtYiSIONSt BYE
Printed 03/27/15
As submitted for
Design Review
A PROPOSED NEW
BUILDING FOR:
LEGHORN
MARKETPLACE
APN: 137 -070-0 7
NEW
51TE PLAN
ENLARGEMENT
wc+uaw
e�rsc u -sw
GREG
LeDOUX
ASSCW vr,Es,
Imo.
46 NI. SIERRA AVE.
,m ^^.C_
pv A1.2
I' . bb' Q 1 A.GH tli15.
N
Ct1
N
O
3
ch
(A,
00
N
X
Cn
C
:
Z
m
0
an
r
v
c
M
cn
Y/
I
z
0
p
C7
10
'r.
°
T
>
m'
D
z
m
O
�."'
m
,'p
n
m
z
p
c���
m
=
v
a -1
-�
o
70
a
70
ttoor+c
^rn
r
>
�
n
CD `°
Ul M.
� +
z
C
^
m
�
m
n
m
m
�
�
v
m
--�
<
m
O
m
z
z
X
D o W (n W 0 5"3 * m an 0 -0 3 W ,i K m w 0 =bc 5C)
-0 ZI N (OD � rt W(D W. (x) m m m (D C Q" O 3 0 o� m m
°� 0 m c (D c) -a � > A
W 5 = D 0 c 0 C a m W< x
rtQ0 a Z3 m civ O Q� rt� Q a a ac° 0
v5'� ,g�'a(D ?a.c c �0 (D cn o cn u, v, a 50�a< „mac
(Q rt m W -a �% (D �- G. v, a• "s m o m 0 =1 (Q —h cfl m
<” c•W x o r �' w= m c m a ° v, n o 0 n W c-O� m
m o 0-0 _ W <n (D m rt w W O
m (D Q„ m C N () cn (D O (p 3 0 O m m < W N O (D O m
O vi (D W rt v (D (D to (D < O Q O a c G W
�. O �. 0 v O (0) N O (D' _+' S �_ �' V) Q. W W cn Q (0)
S C 00 0 zy 0 rt- (mn ,-. cn (�D v O- O O W O W m O C N m Q_ V7
(D -, R 0m (D 0' rtSW w rn0, m 3 < (n c (n m (D W
'a W O Q m N N _� Ort m O p > — (Q � � (rtD O "a = (D Q. (n O
�• N C �< O N m O N N G O O 0• N m N 00 W � �• N 0 m W
N Q m m X ((DD O C N Oa 0 C Q Q � W W n p o
m -� rt U) .-« (n C N
0 a 0- m m 0 =' � x m (D�" � m (D Q w (D a 3 0 �. 0 a D �.
Q 7 (�D �. �. Q a ill N 7 3 ((DD � O O mn O � N O (�
<n 0 OC � 0 m O O �_ N (aD 0 =�; � � rt m m o �� O m 3 Q. Q.
W� 3 3WC ��W o cm <m (D (° W r ���(D0 (D
v 3 m a a (n — � rt 0 n (D 5 o� W xc �. (n
O a Q O, O. rte+ W W C o _+ N 3 a X
_ a a W O 7 (n cn
O (D• m 0- 3 m 0 to (: O (D O< m rt O O *: OC -Ort' 0 (.0) 3
" O W p� a (n r« W x N m (D W Q < C a Cn "a
N N< Q. o« m W m a m (D (D O Q N N W N p (min
m � � ( N -
- a O m N a C. ill O cv
U • 0 Cl) 0 c W W ° c i-
W a -,, 0 W 0 0 `� m W D m
0 c rt Q_ (n
(D A (3D N (n O n w c -., lD c 0 X
0(n n O0- G Ct v 3 m ((DD N — O to 0-6 m
-h We (pA ci'0o�m3
< o W a O O 5• _ W W. Q. O C a a
m e (rtD a m 0 (p 0 D O C m 0 C 0 3 0
3 Wm a3 �(0W m� aG)-„ W Zca(n
m c c c _+; �+ �' c C7 (n 0(n O° m
� (D -, N m 0 Q- (n W m 0„ m (p - �
W� c (D (D A u, 0 =� 0 CL
=cr a 0 rt� �� a (D D N a c c �-o
rtN 5 m 0 0 W Q ° H o m o
"n0 O0 (D W *cm� (D c -a
(n (Q W o (mn � � 0 (Q cn (D n < � 0 (mid W
m
cQ
0 W3v :E n0io5 a = 0mcQ.
a0c < m �,; c0 mWa Q ac' Q a
v � 0 rt Q rt o rt� W rt 3(0 Q
Q " N N 0. a< x 0 m CIt m ((D N O n
W Q (D W a W W C 0
a 0 O Q (� C O Q _0 (D O < OW �, N O �' o
C. 7 0 cn o(D m a CL x -0 N 3 0
W
S2. O Q m O m 0= a 0� (n
c Q c W
(D C (D 0 0 <. m cn O 6 Q_ m Q N (n rt
m m< O S O W (n S a (D W D a m m
3 rt 5m m
Q a o o O o °(0 m
m
w0(n00 n 0-amc-0=r
n 3 0 m m mmW O W
c0«c �•0 D pv 0 QQm
m 0 c v o a, (D ((D :U
Qo o c c
fl CL 6* a a rtm Q
m C Q. o as p om m om Q0
-0 0X
ao c .�� �' maaW(D 0
�m m W m
Q a cci t0) p -' o (mn ' n
O -n 7
7 rt o cSl C O
:3- ' O Q Q
«mWcW �,� 3 3 m
-s C O p Q (D (D a a
(n m Q W :3 n �" O -' O N
m
cn =W°(D z c�'W(D
0 l< �. 0 =t m a CL o o
W + • m om
" --, 5' C O m m 0 C
+ 3 N O m ,Uli W (n
n- 03�'0 -+ - ,,)m0) N.(mn
CD Q. W .v c o Occ rt
3 0 -iQ
X v rti
C C W 0 Q W 7 (D m p W 7
3 a o c n o m (D :3 rn 7
W -0 CL
3 W c 3 m o o o o co c mD
-,(n(c0 o cm 0 (D G)
O m 0. < O Q' a- rt� c CL
NN O N -mi (D O O m o 0 m
((DD N zT� X n (WD M (CND C N
O C m m (D 7 6 rt (Q m rt m (n
c c0 3 -h Q.(n °•p0 m rt
CD Q N Wrt N N G) <, 0
cCD "= c0m03cc
v ow cn 0a•x�W3m
c
_0 c o•m 3 N m Q-n W
W005F mZ 0-n�rt_
(0 - m 0 N - (D (D 7 �-
m �x- 0 nCD 0 0cQ 0 CD
c (a W a « O � W
CL 0
0 --n ((D C 0 � N
(D p3j O O (rtD U
CD O Q < fll O
(D (p (<D -n ' -a
a 0(J) -0 3 W c' O
O (1) (D X ((D m
m W
<n p
Ul a0 o In rt 0 (j
O O 0� 7 m 0-0
- 3 -y, W -h m rt to m =
c
N
-u
N �
O
m
0 N
_0 O _0 �o
° o, o o, W
0 0 0 D
O
rt rt O
C N
(D O ((DD
Z3 0
= _
C O O
Q
rt p in 3 rt
N C rtl< O
(D N p'
O 0 O C ((DD
(D N (n O
O 0
0 C
C
n Q 3 O
5.3cin
ncQ(D Cr..
mW -0.rt-i
TJ
(n `' (n
G) (D p (D
C x,o v n
Q p� �. (D
(fl 0 c
(D (OD (OD o
(a'�m =r
(n C Z3 ((DD
°o o °
(n �• D
.��C
Q ((D O, S N
O (D 0 N
(Nn Q (n cQ
C O �•� O
0 C O.
�rt O
m v(D
7 (D • O N
rt t1iv0 3
O p 'p
(D 0-0 C (D N O
O
�� ? O
cn
0 ,(OD rtN
O —
O' N
(D C 0
(n Q (D p-
O (n (D
C: (D O C
COD C (D
0
N (D Q
O
(D (D (D N
O- G) -p -� G) m C p * —
cil N ° 0. W " Cl)
Al (<D (D O C O O
O (D -p O = O
Ort IV n' S -0 � IV
N (D 00 (D (D C !
Z3 Nrt (,D) 0 O
C7 0.. N u, " 3 O (On 0
(D O N W (D -O -s C (D
• N p N O C " (n +•
N V C Q O p < 3 C 0
v(n N u) 3- Q=
� rt N Al Ba
(D �-� OQ 3
(D
(D (D (n
o °•g rt (n (n g ° (D cn
(D o — 0 0 (D n
rt o (n C 0 (D �
(n s ,-- v n' O- (n (n
(D ((DD �. (n -0 � ¢� (OD fn
X �n' CO (D S n' X
'o In n ° N .Q Q (p 0
O Q �' 3 << c (n
Q �• O
lD
0
O C Ort Q- 0 -p Q (Q
o O z � N (n+
mmoo � :3 -
pQV � . -3 o Q (n
C j , -e. !On O N
p'.<
CDC O 0 C � (Q
o D
�O3n -o`<(n �o
(0� 3 -0 (D 6 C = 0 �.
O
W�p0 zi. C 3 CL (D X
oo- 3(D
OTC
O w N N N Q p
N —C (D =r 0-
rn N X '-" O
(D rt C 0 N(D rt 0 C
rt (D N rt
(OQD En 0 6 --+, (rtD (p N
C
O (n Cn C 0 (D C
p * ! _7 _�
fl) _ O N s
O (p
-0 N 7 o (Q O C
l< Ort D S pD
O -'• W 6 = 0 v C- Q•
—(D - - 0- C OC p� 0— 0
6 0 cn 0 v O� (p N
N p Q n (D N -0
-f a• CL
(D (D rt O m ::h
O, O 3 ' > (D (D O
4, N.
, (D W Q (n 77 +
(n '" Q- N N c• CO
m(
� n < m�W �3m
-. O CD
cn 0 p < O � - C
O (D
--0 (D
(D Z3 SC (D ° (D`°•S
(D CO C (p Cl) -0 C07 (D
n CD rt FT `O
O N 0 0 0• W rt O (D
Q c (n 7 (D w
p (n 3 v " (n
M (D W m U-0
-
0 0 (� (D Q
N Q � O
C � ( Z'
E (cn (D � .0 (n 0
(D 0 'O (D O 0 C (D
��no.-6cnx 3�
m Q o
� 'T rto =-O m �
C� (D (D rt r' rt -.
o < <
W 0 p C (D O
SU C (n y
oOm CL— -
N C - (n N Q
o
0 0
< o �
Q � o- O 0 :3•
(On 00- mm
C O< N O rt
0 (D
O
0 O
"• 0 O OQ = (Q C (D
�(p < N
�00 mm
�=3 °'3'(nX po
-0 N Q C -0 C rt
(D 0 0 � (D Q
cn
N (n < (D Q (D D
cr —" M N
(D _
(p D O (O> a
=.
O
N �• 0 O Ol 0
rt O =3 rt W
50 C -s C) w
N r 3 0 (D IV (n
(D 0 C C
a. (D N N s (07
(D X < � Q Q
(n' -n O O (n
O = N 3 (On O
(Q C (D C
vi• v 00
=(n -o o D T. N =-
0 ;:p -
0 O C (D C (D W -0 N
N O (D N rt 0 n O rt Q
O 2 C N' — (D S s O
(D =3, C Q- C7 N
0 (n (D 3 C p rt
Q 7� 0 N C (D (D
0 o' O
CD
iU
aco (D w -M < -n
nN ((DD 0 p
°v <•mc v3
-o Q Q (n 3 n� N (D
um(n(n((D p (D
Q��rtG)
< N Z N � c N
(D (rtD (D• N (> O
0
°
m O = Ln.O
O s o (D Q-
.�, C p O (D p (D
=r Q O S
-0 O
° (D O 0
0 o n Q -o m' rt
3 �m m
��(D °`� X
v v'3.o 5D m
(D —
CONQ�v (nX °
(On (On �, (rtD N 0 C
O (a Q Q (3D 3 N
C_n C
Q v (Q rt ° ffl
° m m ((DD cn
Q Z D
O N ° (n O C G)
(D (n N ((D Q
(D N N N (n (ND.
U) N (D
Q (n 3 (>
Q OC n =r C (D Qj cm
o p+ O (D N a O
3 rt 0 O p O CO
3 v °' CD �' °
m��-I� om N
in-' (D =r (D v
s(D =rG)0 --o O
O
O. O p N (n (3D
co O. G M (rtn (n' (D Ort
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -13
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT
TO THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PARKWAY PLAZA PUD
LOCATED AT 701 SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY (APN 137 - 070 -067)
FILE NO. PLZA -15 -0002
WHEREAS, Greg LeDoux submitted an application, on behalf of property owner Keith M.
Moser, to the City of Petaluma for an Amendment to the Unit Development Plan for the Parkway
Plaza Planned Unit Development (File No. PLZA -15 -0002) and Site Plan and Architectural Review
(File No. PLSR -15 -0009) - all to enable construction of one 9,120 square foot single -story building at
an existing asphalt parking lot located at 701 Sonoma Mountain Parkway (APN: 137 - 070 -067); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.040(E) and 19.070, the City's
Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on August 25,
2015, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report dated August 25, 2015,
analyzing the application, including the CEQA determination included therein; and
WHEREAS, Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.040(E) and 19.070 provides for changes in
a Unit Development Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
1. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.030 and 19.040(E)(5), the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
amendment to the Unit Development Plan of the Parkway Plaza Planned Unit
Development to enable construction of the, as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto,
based on the following findings:
a. The amendment would result in a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares
(e.g., Sonoma Mountain Parkway, Riesling Road) and, as demonstrated by the
traffic impact study prepared for the amendment, said thoroughfares are adequate
to carry any additional traffic generated by the development.
b. The amendment presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and
service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties.
Adequate new landscaping is included and existing screening by mature trees at
Riesling Road would remain to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The
project also retains existing circulation features for pedestrians, bicycles and
vehicles, and the architectural design of the project is consistent with existing
buildings at the shopping center.
c. The amendment does not concern a property with natural features (e.g., creek) but
does include adequate private spaces for gathering. Leghorn's Park, a public park,
abuts the site of the amendment and would remain unchanged. The project would
place a new building within an asphalt parking lot and retain an existing landscape
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -13 a Page 1
feature along Riesling Road. The project also retains pedestrian access from Riesling
Road through the shopping center to Leghorn's Park.
d. The amendment would not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best
interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the
zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, with the General Plan, and with the
Corona Ely Specific Plan because it will strengthen and reinforce an existing
commercial shopping center serving residential neighborhoods in the North East
Subarea of the General Plan as demonstrated by its consistency with the following
Petaluma General Plan policies: Goal 2 -G -15 (Land Use Mix), Policy 1 -P -2 (Infill
Development), Policy 1 -P -10 (Neighborhood Centers), Policy 1 -P -49 (Tree
Preservation), Policy 2 -P -1 (Development Within UGB), Policy 2 -P -121 (Green
Building), Policy 2 -P -122 (Construction Recycling), 5 -P -1 (Interconnected Mobility
System), Policy 5 -P -9 (Safety Improvements), Policy 5 -P -10 (Intersection LOS), Policy 5-
G-5 (Bicycle and Pedestrian System), Policy 5 -P -22 (Pedestrian Connectivity), Policy
5 -P -23 (Pedestrian Site Access), Policy 5 -P -24 (Pedestrian Network Near Schools,
Transit, Shopping, and Mixed -Use Corridors), Policy 5 -P -31 (Bicycle Support Facilities),
Policy 9 -P -14 (Retail Uses), Policy 9 -P -16 (Retail Concentrations), and Policy 9 -P -17
(Retail Rehabilitation); and the following Corona Ely Specific Plan Policies 37, 38 and
39.
2. Planning Commission reviewed the application and, for the reasons explained in Exhibit
B, determined it so be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15303 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures) and not subject to any exceptions to use of a Categorical Exemption
provided at CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 (Exceptions).
ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye
No
Absent
Abstain
Councilmember Barrett
X
Vice Chair Benedetti- Petnic
X
Gomez
X
Chair Lin
X
Marzo
X
Pierre
X
Woipert
X
ATTEST:
Jocelyn Lin, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Heather Hines, Commission Secretary Andrea Visveshwara, Assistant City Attorney
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2015 -13 ;? — Page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
DATE: August 25, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: LEGHORN MARIETPLACE
Unit Development Plan Amendment
Site Plan and Architectural Review
701 Sonoma Mountain Parkway (APN: 137 - 070 -067)
File# PLZA -15 -0002, PLSR -15 -0009
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
a) Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a resolution modifying the
approved Unit Development Plan for the Leghorn Marketplace to enable construction of
one 9,120 square foot single -story building at an existing parking lot abutting Riesling
Road (Attachment A); and
b) Provide initial comments on the Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction
of the building.
BACKGROUND
Project Location
The project is located at the Leghorn Marketplace shopping center (formerly "Parkway Plaza ")
at the northeast corner of Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling Road (See Figure 1 below).
The shopping center was originally constructed in 2001 and presently includes a grocery store
accompanied by retail, restaurant, retail and service uses. Buildings in the shopping center are
located along the site perimeter with an interior, shared parking lot.
General Plan Sub Area
The project is located in the General Plan's North East planning subarea. Bounded by East
Washington Street, North McDowell Boulevard, Corona Road, and Petaluma's Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), the North East subarea consists of established suburban residential
neighborhoods with low building densities and heights. Significant public uses in the subarea
include the Community Center, Lucchesi, Prince, and Leghorns Parks, numerous smaller
� — Page I
neighborhood parks, Boys and Girls Club, Santa Rosa Junior College Campus, a public golf
course, and numerous schools and churches. Neighborhood commercial is limited to a small
shopping center on Sonoma Mountain Parkway (i.e., the project).
Arterials and principal connector roads are Sonoma Mountain Parkway, North McDowell
Boulevard, East Washington Street, Maria Drive, and Rainier Avenue. East Washington Street
and Corona Road serve as gateways to Petaluma at the eastern city limit.
The General Plan explains that the North East subarea follows the "neighborhood unit" concept
to some degree, with commercial uses located at intersections of arterial streets, schools at the
center of neighborhoods, and dwellings mixed throughout. The North East subarea contains more
parks than any other subarea, as well as access to the public Rooster Run Golf Club and the
Urban Separator running nearly continuously along its northeast boundary of Petaluma. Walking
and bicycle trails that provide linkages between neighborhoods, open spaces, and other local
destinations include those along Lynch, Capri, and Corona creeks. Opportunities exist to further
link the network of walking paths, creeks, and open spaces in this subarea.
Figure 1— Project Location and Surrounding Vicinity.
Corona Ely Specific Plan
In 1989, the City adopted the Corona Ely Specific Plan (CESP), allowing annexation and
development of 675 acres of agricultural lands to the northeast of town. Development of most all
of the land within the CESP boundaries has occurred since 1989. The Leghorn Marketplace
shopping center is located within the Central Area of the CESP. The CESP recognized the
3 Page 2
central location of the project site by intending for it to function "as the focus of activity and one
of the principal identifying elements" for the plan area.
Neighborhood Context
The Leghorn Marketplace shopping center serves residential neighborhoods located at the
northeast end of Petaluma and generally accessible from Sonoma Mountain Parkway. Single and
multiple - family dwellings surround the shopping center to the west, north and east. Leghorn's
Park, a 9.37 community park, abuts the project site to the south. Santa Rosa Junior College is
located south of Leghorn's Park but within walking distance of the shopping center. Capri Creels
flows in a southerly direction between Leghorn's Park and Santa Rosa Junior College.
Vehicular access to the shopping center's main parking area is provided by two driveways at
Riesling Road. A service lane is also located along the center's southern property line and
connects to Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Casella Way. Pedestrian access to the shopping
center is accommodated by public sidewalks on all adjacent streets, including from Leghorn
Park. An interconnected network of pedestrian walkways extends from abutting streets and leads
to on -site sidewalks along each building frontage.
Riesling Road provides one vehicular travel lane and one Class II bike lane in each direction.
Residences on the west side of Riesling Road are provided vehicular access via a separate one -
way slip lane travelling in a north to south direction. Vehicle movements between the slip -lane
and Riesling Road are controlled by a landscape median separating the two streets from Casella
Way and just north of Sonoma Mountain Parkway. A mid - block crosswalk exists on Riesling
Road between Casella Way and Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Approved PUD
On April 19, 1999, the Parkway Plaza PUD and accompanying Unit Development Plan (i.e., site
plan) was approved by the City Council via Ordinance No. 2090 N.C.S. and Resolution No. 99-
96 N.C.S. This approval authorized a commercial shopping center on the approximate 7.13 acre
site. The approved, as -built Unit Development Plan is provided at Figure 2 below and the full
text of the PUD, including one minor amendment to allow Medical Service — Minor as a
permitted use, is included at Attachment B.
The approved Unit Development Plan includes three buildings with approximately seventeen
tenant spaces, including a major grocery store. The total floor area for the site is approximately
81,184 square feet. A total of 366 off - street parking spaces currently exist in the shared parking
lot.' Subsequent to approval of the PUD, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
(SPARC) approved design details for the site and buildings on May 13, 1999.
The Parkway Plaza PUD development standards are a modified version of the Neighborhood
Some parking spaces are now occupied by trash bins and shopping cart return areas not depicted in the
approved Unit Development Plan.
3—Page 3
Commercial (C -1) zoning district found in the previous Zoning Ordinance (i.e., prior to 2008).
The development standards (Attachment B) identify principally permitted uses, permitted
accessory uses, a maximum height of thirty -six (36) feet for principal buildings, and a maximum
accessory building height of thirty (30). The PUD standards are supplemented by the City
Council's acceptance of the following Planning Commission conditions :2
1. Hours of operation for all businesses within the shopping center shall be between 7AM
and lOPM. Any business may propose extended hours through means of a Minor
Conditional Use Permit (staff approval).
2. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee shall review lighting plans to ensure
minimum light /glare to adjacent residential properties.
Figure 2 — Approved Site Plan.
Proposed Unit Development Plan Amendment
Proposed Site Plan
The project consists of a proposal to modify the Unit Development Plan (i.e., site plan) and
request for Site Plan and Architectural Review to enable construction of one 9,120 square foot
single -story building. The building would be located within an existing parking lot abutting
2 See April 19, 1999 City Council Meeting Minutes.
3— Page 4
Riesling Road. The proposed site plan is shown at Figure 3 below. No specific use of the
building is identified at this time. Prospective uses would be consistent with the approved PUD
which permits retail, restaurant and personal service uses. The complete plan set associated with
the project is at Attachment C.
Access and Parking
The project's placement of a building within the shopping center's parking lot results in a
reduction of parking spaces and minor changes to vehicular drive aisles and pedestrian pathways.
Currently the project site provides a total of 366 off - street parking spaces. The project would
eliminate 35 of those spaces leaving 331 on -site spaces remaining. Since the PUD excludes site -
specific off - street parking standards, Implementing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 11 (Off - Street
Parking and Loading) applies. Attachment D includes a tabulation demonstrating the project
would, under current IZO parking standards, result in a surplus of 28 off - street parking spaces.
The project would not alter existing drive aisles connecting to Riesling Road. At the south drive
aisle, new head -in parking spaces would abut the building. At the north drive aisle, a new
cast/west drive aisle would provide access to reconfigured parking spaces. For pedestrians, the
project retains existing decorative and raised pathways connecting to both Sonoma Mountain
Parkway and Riesling Road. Where the pathways abut the new building, the project would insert
raised sidewalks. The project retains the landscape area abutting Riesling Road, including all
existing mature trees.
- Lill'
rf1
�, -I`_ )- � _� -r r • _ � _-ice -` "°' � , � --'-�. �„ l Jta�7 _%1 r , l � -_
L I
t
jj
I . D>••. i I j — f i GSG MARIfET /
BUILDING'S'
7 iiI` I �I AI I 1,
j 1
Figure 3 — Proposed Site Plan (New Building Highlighted).
3 Page 5
Site Plan and Architectural Review
Should the Unit Development Plan Amendment request ultimately be approved by City Council,
the design details (i.e., site and building) of the project are subject to Site Plan & Architectural
Review (SPAR) review by the Planning Commission. The following description summarizes (for
contextual purposes) the project's design details and amenities that would be brought back to the
Commission for consideration if the Unit Development Plan Amendment is approved.
Building Architecture
The proposed building includes an open floor plan able to accommodate between one and five
tenant spaces. The building interior is based upon an internal grid of 24 -foot wide cells with
accompanying storefronts (e.g., windows /doors).
The building elevations include design elements (e.g., flat roof, cornice, insets, metal grids,
awnings) consistent with the architecture found in the existing shopping center. The majority of
the building is 20 feet tall with some architectural elements going up to 28 feet in height. Roof-
top mechanical equipment would be enclosed by parapets at least 10 feet in height. See Sheet
A.2, A.3, A.4 at Attachment C.
Bicycle Parking
The project includes a new covered area for parking at least 12 bicycles. The proposed covering
resembles a carport with steel support columns and roof with wood cross beams and fascia trim.
The parking area is located at the east building elevation near Riesling Road, and separated from
pedestrian pathways and vehicle drive aisles /parking spaces. The number of bicycle parking
spaces required for the proposed new building by Implementing Zoning Ordinance §11.090(A) is
4 spaces. See Sheet A1.4 at Attachment C.
Mid -Block Crosswalk (Riesling Road)
As mentioned above, a mid - block crosswalk presently exists at Riesling Road between Sonoma
Mountain Parkway and Casella Way. The crosswalk includes a push -button warning system (in-
road lights and pole- mounted sign) for motorist that is presently inoperable. The project would
repair this system through the installation of replacement hardware. This proposal is not required
by any adopted policy or standard. See Sheet AI A at Attachment C.
Covered Bus Shelter (Sonoma Mountain Parkway)
A bus turnout with uncovered seating is presently located on the south side of Sonoma Mountain
Parkway, at the intersection with Riesling Way. The project would replace the existing seating
with a solar- powered bus shelter, consistent with others around Petaluma. This proposal is not
required by any adopted policy or standard. See Sheet A1.4 at Attachment C.
Landscaping
The project would remove certain landscape islands in and around the new building and
reconfigured parking lot but retain all existing landscaping abutting Riesling Road. The
approximate 30 -foot wide on -site landscape area fronting Riesling Road includes Coastal
Redwood, Live Oak and Alder trees. Some of the existing Coastal Redwoods are large enough to
qualify as protected trees under IZO Chapter 17 (Tree Preservation). The project involves minor
trenching (to remove stormwater pipes) in the vicinity of these trees but retains them.
3-Page 6
DISCUSSION
General Plan
Land Use Map
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial (see
Figure 4 below). The project site is the only property within the North East subarea designated
for such commercial uses. The Neighborhood Commercial designation is intended to provide for
shopping centers, typically ten acres or less in size, with off - street parking, or clusters of street -
front stores that serve the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum floor -area -ratio (FAR) for
the Neighborhood Commercial designation is 0.8.3
LAND USE CLASSIFICA710NS•
Rural Residential (0.1 -0.6 hu/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.6.2.5 hu/a
Low Density Residential (2.6-8.0 hulac)
Diverse Low Density Residential (6.1 -12.0
FM Medium Density Residential (8.1 -16.0 We
High Density Residential (18.130.0 hulac)
® Mobile Homes (8.0 -18.0 hu/ac)
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Mixed Uso
Business Park
Public/Semi- Public
Education
Industrial
Agriculture Support Industrial (CPSP)
® River Dependent Industrial (CPSP)
Agriculture
City Park
Proposed City Park
Open Space
Regional Park
Urban Separator
Urban Separator Path
River Plan Corridor
Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use Map Designations.
Policy Analysis
The following General Plan policies, both specific to the subarea and citywide, apply to the
proposed project. Staff's consistency analysis is provided in italics after each policy.
North East Subarea
Goal 2-G-15 Maintain the rich mix of residential densities, commercial opportunities,
3 The project would result in an FAR of 0.29 for the site.
2,— Page 7
educational facilities, and natural and public amenities.
The project consists of infill development on a developed parcel. The project
has a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.29. Similar to the project, surrounding
properties include one -story buildings with adjoining surface parking. Thus, the
project is at development intensity equal to surrounding uses.
Citywide
Policy 1 -P -2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density
and intensity than surrounding uses.
The project proposes infill development at an existing commercial shopping
center. This constitutes an efficient use of existing urbanized land within the
cio)'s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Policy 1 -P -10 Develop and maintain the following areas as neighborhood centers. These
centers will serve to focus commercial activity close to residential uses,
providing convenient retail and services for all Petaluma residents: Sonoma
Mountain Parkway, at Riesling Road; et al.
The project would facilitate the retention and expansion of neighborhood
commercial uses at an existing shopping center. The project would also enable
the provision of additional retail and service uses at a location encouraged by
this General Plan policy.
Policy 1 -P -49 Preserve existing tree resources and add to the inventory and diversity of
native /indigenous species.
A landscape planter area with existing Coastal Redwood, Alder and Coast Live
Oak trees abuts the new building proposed project. The Coastal Redwood
Trees, in particular, provide visual attenuation at Riesling Road. Submitted
plans confirm that neither the proposed building or construction activities
would remove any of these existing trees.
Policy 2 -P -1 As depicted on the Land Use Map allow for urban development at defined
densities and intensities to prevent the need to extend outward beyond the
Urban Growth Boundary.
The Land Use Map assigns a maximum floor- area -ratio (FAR) of 0.8 to the
project site. The project site is 7.13 acres (310,383 square feet) in area.
Existing building plus the proposed project would result in 90,306 square feet
of buildingfloor area. This equates to a General Plan compliant FAR of 0.29.
Policy 2 -P -121 Evaluate the success of the voluntary green program and develop and
implement a mandatory program for new residential, commercial and municipal
3 Page 8
development and remodels.
Since adoption of the General Plan in 2008, the City of Petaluma adopted the
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) with local
amendments. Construction associated with the project is subject to the
mandatory requirements of CALGreen.
Policy 2 -P -122 Require development projects to prepare a Construction Phase Recycling Plan
that would address the reuse and recycling of major waste materials (soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard packaging, etc.) generated
by any demolition activities and construction of the project.
The CALGreen building standards mentioned above include mandatory
requirements for a construction waste and recycling plan. Implementation of
the mandatory plan includes the requirement for third party verification of
compliance.
Policy 5 -P -1 Develop an interconnected mobility system that allows travel on multiple routes
by multiple modes.
Off -site, the project site is surrounded by an interconnected network of public
streets. On -site, the project site includes an interconnected network of
pedestrian walkways. As proposed, the project would retain these mobility
features and continue to enable multiple routes and multiple modes.
Policy 5 -P -9 Ensure safety improvements are undertaken in response to the changing travel
environment.
On Riesling Road, between Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Casella Way, there
is an existing mid -block pedestrian crosswalk. Presently, the crosswalk has an
illuminated warning system that is broken. However, the proposed project
would fix this situation by installing a new LED illuminated crosswalk sign, in-
road blinking lights and push- button activation.
Policy 5 -P -10 Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle
circulation that ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility
goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or better for motor vehicles due to
traffic from any development project.
The City of Petaluma generally requires traffic impact studies for commercial
development projects of 10,000 square feet or more. The project would
accommodate a new commercial building of less than 10,000 square feet.
However, the application includes a traffic impact study which demonstrates
intersections affected by the project are will remain at an acceptable LOS
(Attachment E).
S— Page 9
Policy 5 -G -5 Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle and
pedestrian system throughout Petaluma that encourages bicycling and walking
and is accessible to all.
Policy 5 -P -22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing neighborhoods and
require a well- connected pedestrian network linking new and existing
developments to adjacent land uses.
Policy 5 -P -23 Require the provision of pedestrian site access for all new development.
Policy 5 -P -24 Give priority to the pedestrian network and streetscape amenities near schools,
transit, shopping, and mixed use corridors emphasized in the General Plan.
Policy 5 -P -31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring
development to provide necessary support facilities throughout the city.
The project site includes an interconnected network of pedestrian walkways that
connect with sidewalks on abutting public streets. The project would also
include the construction of a new covered parking for at least twelve (12)
bicycles. As proposed, the project would retain existing mobility features,
provide new bicycle parking spaces, and, in doing so, create and maintain a
safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle and pedestrian system.
Policy 9 -P -14 Plan and locate retail uses appropriately to their types and the sites available.
Policy 9 -P -16 Strengthen existing retail concentrations.
These policies seeks to strengthen and reinforce existing local commercial
areas serving Petaluma's residential neighborhoods such as the project site.
The project site can accommodate additional floor area in compliance with
building intensity and off - street parking standards.
Policy 9 -P -17 Incorporate access and amenity features into retail rehabilitation and
intensification projects, including streetscape improvements, relocation of
parking behind buildings to add visual appeal, and improved bicycle and
pedestrian connections between existing and new retail areas and to adjoining
neighborhoods to promote non -auto access.
As mentioned, the project includes repairs to the existing mid -block crossing at
Riesling Road. The project also places a building between an existing parking
lot and streetscape. Lastly, the project retains and enhances existing pedestrian
and bicycle connections.
Parkway Plaza PUD — Development Standards
The only site - specific PUD development standards applicable to the project is a maximum
building height of thirty -six (36) feet. With building height ranging between twenty (20) and
twenty -eight (28) feet, the project adheres to this standard. No minimum or maximum building
3—Page 10
setbacks apply. As mentioned above, the project would result in a surplus of twenty -eight (28)
off - street parking spaces for the shopping center.
Corona Ely Specific Plan
At the time of the Corona Ely Specific Plan's (CESP) adoption, much of the east side of
Petaluma had been developed. The CESP concerned undeveloped land and implemented
Petaluma's 1987 General Plan policy to guide and facilitate its development in a coordinated
manner. Because the CESP is primarily prospective, many of its provisions are not applicable to
the project. However, CESP Policies 37, 38 and 39 speak to building form and design, and the
project site itself. Staff's consistency analysis under these policies is provided in italics below.
Policy 37 All individual structures shall be designed to be harmonious with the local
setting and with neighboring developments. Building designs shall reflect a high
standard of architectural quality and shall be coordinated and unified though the
use of complimentary forms, materials, colors, and other architectural
treatments.
The project's building architecture mimics the form and materials already used
at the shopping center. For these reasons, the project reflects a high standard of
architectural quality which is unified in the manner anticipated by this policy.
Policy 38 All building surfaces in direct public view shall receive integrated design
treatment (including rear and side elevations exposed to view from the parkway
or adjacent buildings). On corner sites, in particular, front fagade treatments
shall extend around the building corner.
The proposed building would be primarily visible to public view at its west,
south, and east elevations. Visibility of the north elevation facing Riesling Road
would be screened by a row of Coastal Redwood trees. For elevations visible to
the, public, each side is provided with equal architectural treatments in a
manner consistent with this policy.
Policy 39 The design and siting of the 9.2 -acre commercial component shall emphasize
creation of a perceived "complex" of buildings rather than two or three large,
individual, separate structures.
Existing buildings are generally placed along the perimeter of the project site
except at Riesling Road The project would place a building at Riesling Road
and, in doing so, further enclose a centralized parking lot. The project's
building architecture is also consistent with the form and materials already
used at the shopping center. For these reasons, the project maintains the
"complex" of buildings intended by this policy.
Unit Development Plan Amendment Findings
IZO §19.070 provides that changes in a Unit Development Plan are to be considered as
legislative changes to the zoning map. Therefore, City Council approval is necessary to approve
this application after receipt of a Planning Commission recommendation. IZO §19.040(A)
3-Page 11
provides that the Planning Commission shall recommend approval as submitted or as modified.
The following staff analysis (in italics) compares the proposed project against the findings
required by IZO § §19.030 and 19.040(E)(5).
1. That any P.U.D., or modification of a P.C.D., is proposed on property which has a suitable
relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to
carry any additional traffic generated by the development. (IZO §19.030(A))
The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project demonstrates that affected thoroughfares
are adequate to carry traffic generated by the project. For existing, baseline and future
conditions, the intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling Wat is anticipated to
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) B. This exceeds the General Plan's minimum standard of
LOS D.
2. That the plan, or modification thereof, for the proposed development presents a unified and
organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if
necessary to insure compatibility. (IZO § 19.030(B))
The project retains existing mature trees along Riesling Road that provide screening for
adjacent residences. The project retains existing circulation features for pedestrians, bicycles
and vehicles, and the architectural design of the project is consistent with existing buildings
at the shopping center.
3. That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public
and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan or General Development Plan.
(IZO §19.030(C))
The project would place a new building within an asphalt parking lot and retain an existing
landscape feature along Riesling Road. The project would have no effect on private or public
spaces. Existing private gathering spaces at the shopping center would remain. The project
also retains pedestrian access from Riesling Road through the shopping center to Leghorn's
Park.
4. That the development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will
not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in
keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma,
with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plans adopted by the City. (IZO
§19.030(C))
As explained above, the project is consistent with and promotes all applicable General Plan
policies. The project also efficiently utilizes land within Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) in a manner wholly consistent with applicable development standards.
3 Page 12
Site Plan and Architectural Review
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the site, landscaping and architectural
plans for the proposed project, consider any comments from the public, and provide initial
feedback. The Planning Commission cannot take final action on the Site Plan and Architectural
Review until the City Council acts on the Unit Development Plan Amendment. Upon approval
by the City Council the project will be brought back to the Commission for formal Site Plan and
Architectural Review.
The City of Petaluma's Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines provide
general standards to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the individual building and its site,
appropriateness of the building to its intended use, and the harmony of the development within
its surroundings. Prior to SPAR approval the Planning Commission must make the' following
findings as outlined at Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.010.
1. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall
design.
2. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in question, and
compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in
the immediate neighborhood.
4. The bulls, height, and color of the proposed structures as compared to the bulk, height,
and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
5. Landscaping to approved City standards shall be required on the site and shall be in
keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved
wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Planning
Commission.
6. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and automobiles, off - street automobiles
and bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote
safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved City standards. Any plans
pertaining to pedestrian, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the PBAC
for review and approval or recommendation.
Public Art
IZO Chapter 18 (Public Art) provides procedures and standards for the integration of public art
into private development. The ordinance requires non - residential development with a total
construction cost greater than $500,000 to install public artwork on -site or pay an in lieu fee
equal to 1% of the total construction costs.
It is the developer's choice to either integrate public artwork into the project or pay the in lieu fee
which is then placed in the Public Art Fund. If a developer chooses to integrate public art onsite
the cost of acquisition and installation of the art work must not be less than 1% of the total
construction costs of the project. If the cost of the artwork is less than the defined 1% then the
3 —Page 13
difference shall be paid as an in lieu fee.
The applicant proposes to pay the public cart in -lieu fee for this project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
On February 26, 2015 (prior to filing the application to amend the Unit Development Plan and
request Site Plan and Architectural Review), the applicant held a community meeting at the
Santa Rosa Junior College. This meeting was preceded by a mailed postcard including a
summary of the project. According to the applicant, four persons attended the meeting.
For this Planning Commission meeting, a notice of public hearing was published in the Argus
Courier on August 13, 2015, and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of
the project site. Staff received no written or verbal comments prior to this meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Public Resources Code §21084 requires the CEQA Guidelines to include a list of classes of
projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and
which shall, therefore, be considered exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that
mandate, the Secretary for Resources has defined classes of projects, listed at Article 19 of the
CEQA Guidelines, that do not have a significant effect on the environment and they are declared
to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents.
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA
Guidelines § 15303, for the reasons described at Attachment F.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Resolution for Unit Development Plan Amendment Approval
Attachment B:
Approved PUD & Amendment
Attachment C:
Plan Set
Attachment D:
Parking Tabulations
Attachment E:
Traffic Impact Study
Attachment F:
Class 3 CEQA Exemption
Page 14
Page 1 of 7
ATTACHMENT 4
City Hall Council Chambers
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
MINUTES
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER (07:00 pm)
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT :Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti - Petnic, Bill Wolpert, Jennifer Pierre,
Jocelyn Yeh Lin, and Council Member Teresa Barrett.
ABSENT: Richard Marzo.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Committee will hear public comments only on matters over which it
has jurisdiction. There will be no Committee /Commission discussion or
action. The Chair will allot no more than three minutes to any individual. If
more than three persons wish to speak, their time will be allotted so that
the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be 15 minutes.
4. PRESENTATION
A. N/A
5. COMMISSION COMMENT
A. Council Liaison - Teresa Barrett
Council member Barrett had nothing to report.
Ll - I
http: // Petaluma .granicus.com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id =31 &clip _ id = 1990 &doc id =0... 10/14/2015
Page 2 of 7
B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee - Jocelyn Lin
Chair Lin had nothing to report.
C. Tree Advisory Committee - Gina Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic reported about the recent Tree
Committee meeting. The Committee had continued discussion
on the topic of Fire Blight of ornamental trees and have received
commitment from staff to look at
creating educational information for identifying and treating it.
There was also continued discussion on the East Washington
Park tree review and possibly revisiting the tree palette at a
future meeting.
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Chair Lin
D. Other Committee Comment
6. STAFF COMMENT
A. Planning Manager's Report
Planning manager Heather Hines reported that the Floathouse
project will be going to Council on September 14th. Ms. Hines
stated that there are two significant projects coming to the
Planning Commission for their September 8th meeting - Altura
Apartments and Cader Corporate Center and noted that the
environmental documents are available on the City's website.
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
Tuesday, August 11, 2015.
Chair Lin
Minutes were approved without changes.
8. OLD BUSINESS
1 11
LA -2—
Page 3 of 7
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Leghorn Marketplace - Amendment to the Leghorn Marketplace
shopping center (formerly Parkway Plaza) Planned Unit
Development and initial comments for Site Plan and Architectural
Review to enable construction of a 9,120 square foot single -story
building. Project Location: 701 Sonoma Mountain Parkway
File Number: PLZA -15 -0002, PLSR -15 -0009 Staff: Kevin
Colin, Senior Planner
Leghorn Plaza Staff Report ,"
Attachment A - Resolution -
Attachment A - Exhibit A '1___
Attachment A - Exhibit B
Attachment B - Approved PUD, 6/2/1999,``=
Attachment B - Approved PUD, 2/23/1999 ,
Attachment B - Minor PUD Amendment, 1/8/2001;
Attachment C - Plans =7.--1
Attachment D - Parking Tabulations
Attachment E - Traffic Study "�-
Attachment F - CEQA Exemption
Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Greg LeDoux, applicant
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Chair Lin
3
Page 4 of 7
Marilyn Sullivan, Petaluma resident, expressed concern about
existing congestion at the shopping center and issues with
noise, drug use and vacancies. She stated that currently the
G &G Market's refrigeration system runs day and night at 70
decibels. She stated that the delivery trucks make a left turn out
of the shopping center parking lot even though no left turn is
allowed. She felt that these issues will get worse with the new
project.
Donna Parrilli, Petaluma resident, stated that she likes the
current shopping center and uses it daily but has questions
about the proposed project. She feels there is not enough
setback and that the size is an issue. She feels that there will be
an issue at the West driveway, that the new configuration will be
a problem, and that there should be more consideration to the
plan before approving a bigger building. Ms. Parrilli also stated
concern about the current vacancies and about a large building
being subdivided into smaller spaces.
Paul Ibanez, Petaluma resident, stated he attended the
neighborhood meeting in February and is concerned about the
vacancies. He also noted that the trees should be left alone or
the view will be ruined. Mr. Ibanez noted that the crosswalk is
dangerous and that traffic is often backed up onto Sonoma
Mountain Parkway and these should be addressed in the traffic
study. He also feels that noise is an issue due to the U- shaped
configuration.
Chair Lin
Commissioner Gomez
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Gomez
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Gomez
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Hines
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Gomez
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Commissioner Gomez
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Gomez
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Gomez
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Gomez
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
q_�
Page 5 of 7
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Ms. Hines
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Benedetti - Petnic
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Wolpert
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Pierre
Mr. LeDoux
Keith Moser, property owner
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Mr. LeDoux
Council member Barrett
Mr. LeDoux
Council member Barrett
�f -5
http: / /petaluma. granicus. com /MinutesViewer.php ?view_id =31 &clip _ id = 1990 &doc id =0... 10/14/2015
Mr. LeDoux
Council member Barrett
Mr. LeDoux
Council member Barrett
Mr. LeDoux
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. LeDoux
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Commissioner Gomez
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
Commissioner Benedetti- Petnic
Commissioner Pierre
Chair Lin
Commissioner Gomez
Commissioner Benedetti- Petnic
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti- Petnic
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Benedetti- Petnic
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Page 6 of 7
q4
Page 7 of 7
Chair Lin
Commissioner Pierre
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
Motion to Approve recommendation that the City Council approve an
amendment to the unit development plan for the Parkway Plaza PUD
located at 701 Sonoma Mountain Parkway made by Jocelyn Yeh Lin,
seconded by Jennifer Pierre.
Vote: Motion carried 6 - 0.
Yes: Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti - Petnic, Bill Wolpert, Jennifer
Pierre, Jocelyn Yeh Lin, and Council Member Teresa
Barrett.
Absent: Richard Marzo.
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
B. Verizon Telecommunications Facility - Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct a new
telecommunications facility at 1364 N. McDowell Boulevard. THIS
ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN OF
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
Verizon Memo `=
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Andrea Visveshwara, Assistant City Attorney
Motion to Approve the continuation to a date certain of September 22,
2015 at 7:00 pm of the Verizon Telecommunications Facility
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review to
construct a new telecommunications facility at 1364 N. McDowell
Boulevard. made by Jennifer Pierre, seconded by Diana Gomez.
Vote: Motion carried 6 - 0.
Yes: Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti - Petnic, Bill Wolpert, Jennifer
Pierre, Jocelyn Yeh Lin, and Council Member Teresa
Barrett.
Absent: Richard Marzo.
10. ADJOURN
Next Meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday,
September 08, 2015 (8:36:01 pm).
q -1
ATTACHMENT 5
LU
Rg
e�
°�'jleyy! °ws pd qg d w � � ,i1ryy, y
05 �Q z fir• 0 �W`M' dddq�lll�� Rg g
J �
?:X ~ s
s O 4 - $
@g gg gBc 'a z m 9 8 g ` g iC
4333oSS" fill 0 9� o§ $ 4 F y� w
cc
E�iass_iiii -IS�u �$ ~
LU
w 9a
RE LL
sQaaaaa� v o F a<<<<<< a a t n w
8
- IRR S ie @' ! s z
cr
Om
LL
LL
ILI I I_I11 Lo
z IN
L
W O
Hit
e v_ li;ze,i sF, cr g d £ £ 4 4ajHI
E 12aa I- �
ozow
a Z PAP z, V
O O d
Y � Z
s�s3�3 & 9g i a e� F
� Fr Z
J �
E
gp egg 1 1111
,9-1€ lad ImmIkAip
z
O
� �t a
y a 4 3F�€ 4kk lei F—
a
§��� v
IS'
a
o OY
o;§
UVU
� I
�an$�a oo ®o
ado�aeo-
I�
�` a ns
sate -zts (eon)
i0tS0 '3i'IV0 tl50. d1NVx
oaoi xlins '33�x[� �u als ier
SIIVAG ONV QN3231 'SALON
_
$g8 y5a3
n
U r
�6
!y� a
L90 -Oto-ta t7dV 'W&ib3'iV0 bV{filtll3d'AVhUkIVd MtlIlUIOiY v' O lot
-
�RK H9
p
oY a
Sx3N.YVtd R xx33NI0N3'iLV0 0uCL'I0M-
DO`d�dlDJldb'W NaOHJD�
ic
€Hy�
SIQf1H Z� LHa��g
UCJ Mf" ir3eenOUM
o 9
o
3 _
a
o OY
o;§
UVU
� I
�an$�a oo ®o
ado�aeo-
999g`3 =8E
O�g`a�9
ddag�;g° tl's
abm °�8$u g'
si` < &Ag�i
3 °� °k73V
SB = -.ag�5
-Ra Nt°°
°da °=P,SS
H
es g
6
F
U
E¢E
Qy
i6 =
O
2
I�
L° -�
am''
s
v' 4.01
S
$g8 y5a3
gig€
T,
�6
�RK H9
p
€Hy�
999g`3 =8E
O�g`a�9
ddag�;g° tl's
abm °�8$u g'
si` < &Ag�i
3 °� °k73V
SB = -.ag�5
-Ra Nt°°
°da °=P,SS
H
es g
6
F
U
E¢E
Qy
i6 =
O
2
d9 a
u. NAS
953"
AN
e s o°„
hfi
2a
adz d: 3 '< >3g
a ci ga€ss
=Fsa s
A. ps � a@ =g s2 r8d° °a o �k � �° 3g� "i+3Y
WIN
g°
a°
= a8� �im Fzd°di g'S
ps 8'9 8° eaxm
W., .
44.,
tae°
;ggd
gg
3
JIRB
O
P .6
a.�m
off.,
�?e ° ,e� °� aG y° g 3 soo g a €4 a g� eM
6s x s aG g" F��Ea82 Eg
° w =yona Q� 3 3acPgs a=' gb m =_ _ods @ ' -
3y.4 j°`=.°` < On R. B� = C qv -
-M
$ 8 Lo d a�R �' aag3 Mg qgj'
$ �a ro sso�� y� _ 3 HP e_. s s °3 ga flo oke; m s �oaSE °a °y .,g�3
3a� `aka ma o su r,3a °sg.,' a =j °$
$a� "€ QgW
4 °t z °95�a y ° °G 3 �' a' g �Mj
Vie;
€°
-9 "N Boa 'M <$ . io € �a oa m °a
G3U 8 E 3<; d
fl
„ $t1 a 3� hk ROW
g € €o k3m eR ' =S BE
=e
° s €
tl g =�
a ° =�F 6"� h9lap..' a3<
��',` Fad z
w me g, =Nd fiy %s �d °g = ° °E @= - a a`?e s Aah ge
i kza Sao €EEE-IN, 2 Qi 3g 'FO k
for n � e a �k ° p §'c am " €or gs5' € m a3- --b °gin ;taro[; 5 ak
ay 8 ° �$ e' €� = =a° aG m €_7i g� w.,' =g °a k e 3
° 8 g° �< =azi a° ;-En o ,Y el 3 Y. 0 o v
ffae €� = ° ss a= . SM =
m E,Mo °a Btl 3g mg 8 a°`° ya° €pV = °`° =" �' 3 as g`
= a go3a °g 2 °1 �js A_ j53 Sao �a
91V
;aa a .5 = MR
a2
1 a«s' =3ioo4tl= ° g G E G Gee � Q
sm °G.SE• �o 5so€ g,a
� os°
4— as ° a €a «RXMmH " €:EH53 g. fl, ��g� g €vs " €a Va X- <c�
O°
O
l•L
$oQ
age i sk�� $ao ag s - 9
soy ,9 `
a es at M sa =s s ° _ 3
g egk3s9 o P -H @a sj UP Ha€
°5g a a hya
or,
� i g
t�
��9od
or
soaF
F° 1. rc €o
15-2—
I�
<
gig€
T,
Em'
'A. U
t Tr ,9
d9 a
u. NAS
953"
AN
e s o°„
hfi
2a
adz d: 3 '< >3g
a ci ga€ss
=Fsa s
A. ps � a@ =g s2 r8d° °a o �k � �° 3g� "i+3Y
WIN
g°
a°
= a8� �im Fzd°di g'S
ps 8'9 8° eaxm
W., .
44.,
tae°
;ggd
gg
3
JIRB
O
P .6
a.�m
off.,
�?e ° ,e� °� aG y° g 3 soo g a €4 a g� eM
6s x s aG g" F��Ea82 Eg
° w =yona Q� 3 3acPgs a=' gb m =_ _ods @ ' -
3y.4 j°`=.°` < On R. B� = C qv -
-M
$ 8 Lo d a�R �' aag3 Mg qgj'
$ �a ro sso�� y� _ 3 HP e_. s s °3 ga flo oke; m s �oaSE °a °y .,g�3
3a� `aka ma o su r,3a °sg.,' a =j °$
$a� "€ QgW
4 °t z °95�a y ° °G 3 �' a' g �Mj
Vie;
€°
-9 "N Boa 'M <$ . io € �a oa m °a
G3U 8 E 3<; d
fl
„ $t1 a 3� hk ROW
g € €o k3m eR ' =S BE
=e
° s €
tl g =�
a ° =�F 6"� h9lap..' a3<
��',` Fad z
w me g, =Nd fiy %s �d °g = ° °E @= - a a`?e s Aah ge
i kza Sao €EEE-IN, 2 Qi 3g 'FO k
for n � e a �k ° p §'c am " €or gs5' € m a3- --b °gin ;taro[; 5 ak
ay 8 ° �$ e' €� = =a° aG m €_7i g� w.,' =g °a k e 3
° 8 g° �< =azi a° ;-En o ,Y el 3 Y. 0 o v
ffae €� = ° ss a= . SM =
m E,Mo °a Btl 3g mg 8 a°`° ya° €pV = °`° =" �' 3 as g`
= a go3a °g 2 °1 �js A_ j53 Sao �a
91V
;aa a .5 = MR
a2
1 a«s' =3ioo4tl= ° g G E G Gee � Q
sm °G.SE• �o 5so€ g,a
� os°
4— as ° a €a «RXMmH " €:EH53 g. fl, ��g� g €vs " €a Va X- <c�
O°
O
l•L
$oQ
age i sk�� $ao ag s - 9
soy ,9 `
a es at M sa =s s ° _ 3
g egk3s9 o P -H @a sj UP Ha€
°5g a a hya
or,
� i g
t�
��9od
or
soaF
F° 1. rc €o
15-2—
w
5
Li
MIR
�z p€
€o05 €o?a pi dW�wa'g
za w (5 !ag
LL°faz oU Zz a 3
° PUS �o °pb o
- FF RN aS
2 u=os �°p< " a p o� o� ^o��' ooF E oo a z?��zpoo�
s�o S
GeNpaY
IN Wo � n�'
soV c€ s s ooHaaFF
Hul- diHM v € ESE
S�pB
/ 0 �Nriruiurmm
/ fit' j
II / � ��- �tv / W • � J � I
I •. �/ Y � Z p � �] I
II WW I 1i
C:f CD
ill '•r;- ..$.;_' • ❑ �.�
I I q v a- r °I
in
NI 1 • �O ' 1 - ---
I �' 1 �
i
I - - -- - - - - --
�I
1 l
=
o
al '- 6
qq N, r
:k� L71 \\ .
_ .••.• r_____ W
__ m y::• ---a-
- L - - - -- •'r✓ --. - ---- ----- ---- -- ----1� •eO .�
y
4 F__
r - - -- ---- -I r - --- \N - ---1 r-
------
I_ - r - - - - -- - - - - -; - - - -- - - - - - - - - --
I
o
SCI, >l \. _ _ 1 z G • ��=
• s,
I N ! "u:0 .. Y' •� � � • - - sma_z m�.n m I [ ______i.'.
\ 1 • •1_ ___ =i.0
------ n ----- .•.• re,. :1 n'i
I I
11 111• ` mw < - --
1
-LL
,L9'96£ h1 ,90,6£.49 N
``"'�¢• ______ - _,.,yam ---- ------------------------
L
AVM>1?/V d NI VI N n OW VWONOS
s s�>
(cae)
rorse ,dnnn 'nsoa'nm. ��y.�tpr..�n�
000[ s.[.[ns a•Inwo xna.IS [ar (1 11..0
NOW10VOCI 'SNOMONOO ONLLSIX3
-
_
3 q
CV „
//I\\ ° -
< a
L90- OLa-Lp t7dt+•V9mo -mo ViYf Wi-ja AVAMVd "vimm WIOIOS WL
-
d
a �
533N.YVId A SN33M0:13 'II,UO O:ILL'InSN00
3�'d�d13�i F3dW N�IOH���
V
�3 5
SIQIIH Z3.LHa3 3g
� �vw Id ,/ava,O�v
o �
s a
� -
/S,D�
w
5
Li
MIR
�z p€
€o05 €o?a pi dW�wa'g
za w (5 !ag
LL°faz oU Zz a 3
° PUS �o °pb o
- FF RN aS
2 u=os �°p< " a p o� o� ^o��' ooF E oo a z?��zpoo�
s�o S
GeNpaY
IN Wo � n�'
soV c€ s s ooHaaFF
Hul- diHM v € ESE
S�pB
/ 0 �Nriruiurmm
/ fit' j
II / � ��- �tv / W • � J � I
I •. �/ Y � Z p � �] I
II WW I 1i
C:f CD
ill '•r;- ..$.;_' • ❑ �.�
I I q v a- r °I
in
NI 1 • �O ' 1 - ---
I �' 1 �
i
I - - -- - - - - --
�I
1 l
=
o
al '- 6
qq N, r
:k� L71 \\ .
_ .••.• r_____ W
__ m y::• ---a-
- L - - - -- •'r✓ --. - ---- ----- ---- -- ----1� •eO .�
y
4 F__
r - - -- ---- -I r - --- \N - ---1 r-
------
I_ - r - - - - -- - - - - -; - - - -- - - - - - - - - --
I
o
SCI, >l \. _ _ 1 z G • ��=
• s,
I N ! "u:0 .. Y' •� � � • - - sma_z m�.n m I [ ______i.'.
\ 1 • •1_ ___ =i.0
------ n ----- .•.• re,. :1 n'i
I I
11 111• ` mw < - --
1
-LL
,L9'96£ h1 ,90,6£.49 N
``"'�¢• ______ - _,.,yam ---- ------------------------
L
AVM>1?/V d NI VI N n OW VWONOS
s s�>
w
U
a
I I__ 3
3j (� §S E
d8!{. `ad a
IN R
Z ca
/ I
1 a ol0 a -.q 8
.. "?.O �I
4
, II
4_. o
n _
C7 I I h �; ______ _____
-�"a, -----A-- - - - - -- -----
JI.IIF
I f7 N
I b o.
1 I4 L I &
Vil
nx .° 9io, h
9 I qq 5F
-
T y
C'3 .
I`.
1 1 I __-Y ____ ----
11 ley _ -' °n- --- --; rJ
n1{
9� t
�7
1 1 1' +z • •'ta�'� --
i#
___________
- - /
-- �______- _____.tom 7
l VM NNV d NIVI NfIOW V J NOS
=
�
�. a
seto -zn
IOCS vsox
oo[ an'MU [o NOs T.T
WN3W3AOHdW1 ills bmclvuo
n
v
C'1 7
-
U
L90-o[O -11 tWtl bVJk103TdU' 7YVf iT lJ3d 'AVMJPNdtBtliNnOVi WiONOS {OL
�°r,
i
SY3N.NVId R SH33NIONa 'ILllO ONLL'I(lSN00
9Oy�cJiDAUVN NUGHOD�
szQnH zHsHDHVU
rW SN"
e
o
-
w
U
a
I I__ 3
3j (� §S E
d8!{. `ad a
IN R
Z ca
/ I
1 a ol0 a -.q 8
.. "?.O �I
4
, II
4_. o
n _
C7 I I h �; ______ _____
-�"a, -----A-- - - - - -- -----
JI.IIF
I f7 N
I b o.
1 I4 L I &
Vil
nx .° 9io, h
9 I qq 5F
-
T y
C'3 .
I`.
1 1 I __-Y ____ ----
11 ley _ -' °n- --- --; rJ
n1{
9� t
�7
1 1 1' +z • •'ta�'� --
i#
___________
- - /
-- �______- _____.tom 7
l VM NNV d NIVI NfIOW V J NOS
=
�
i
� 4
8 �
o
S1
w
09
t7Y
J
�� Z
a'm
a
Q
� 4
8 �
o
S1
-------------
o yon
h � \
J
� A
o
w�
6J
as b
j
ob Z
�a od
i
-------------
o yon
h � \
J
� A
o
w�
6J
as b
j
ob Z
�a od
-------------
o yon
h � \
J
� A
o
O
l�
Z
s
jy
tu
ZR v Nz 0 � R
W
---------------------------------
I I
I I d�
1
PP
I.
8
LQ
02 J
H
w 0
C H
o�
09
=U
�
am
-��
2G a
<
<
jy
tu
ZR v Nz 0 � R
W
---------------------------------
I I
I I d�
1
PP
1
i----------- - - - - -o ------ - - - - -- -�
'1
0000 ... �•.
5-1
I.
n S
a
�
I
I
I�
I�
I�
I
n
I
I
I
a
I
�
z
I
�
1
i----------- - - - - -o ------ - - - - -- -�
'1
0000 ... �•.
5-1
I.
n
a
I
-----------------
I
I I
_ __________
=-
I LL
m- j
--- - - - - --
AS
I
I
I I�
I Z
I
,III
�
I
� ®I
:: —t
� � . �—
,—
� -f •• -
- - -,
—.— ...
I
1
i----------- - - - - -o ------ - - - - -- -�
'1
0000 ... �•.
5-1
•H ) ! $ M
a�
\(
\
N �, �:xl�
�o
0o
W
m
°zG a
�
o a
N �, �:xl�
I
I �
f
o
I
�a I
I I
I�
I
I
j
FBI
I0
j�
I�
�I
�I
'I • 'II
-TE'� >t
IT7
b 4
I.,
€4l
flog idl
s� �� 3��3a
���� �m
-'r' -T -- --. - -c - T - -c - -,Z- -c - -7 -
10�NOWN M
I
U I
oaop . •
Icy`, 1 •.• •.•. .• .............. ..:..
a
I
a
E>
a
- e
a �
?I°
J
S —(o
v
g: m
ws
Z
03
s s
W
$
-TE'� >t
IT7
b 4
I.,
€4l
flog idl
s� �� 3��3a
���� �m
-'r' -T -- --. - -c - T - -c - -,Z- -c - -7 -
10�NOWN M
I
U I
oaop . •
Icy`, 1 •.• •.•. .• .............. ..:..
a
I
a
E>
a
- e
a �
?I°
J
S —(o
C-4
rz
lie
Fig
CL
01
W
U- 3:
O 0
------------ --------- t --------- z
--
CL
LL
cI
lit
S --1 I
ZR
W
CH
C-4
rz
lie
Fig
CL
01
W
U- 3:
O 0
------------ --------- t --------- z
--
CL
LL
cI
lit
S --1 I
et€ S9
IL
a- w LU o£ a� .� I • Q
e01d9
1 +1�,�• m a �a � �w 3'
a �
S
o
S-12-
z
VL
id
In —
L m
OOm 0'
w
lie
Z 4
CCA
ws
0
pie
z
VL
id
In —
L m
OOm 0'
Sr I -),
lie
pie
Zc
C- 2
kh
a
LL
0
ii
o
2i
U
cc
OC
Z
z
LL
0
0
cc
IIA�
�Jw
9
Sr I -),
I
E>
AN
F- r
a
C) F
UZZ co
0Z¢ aqa
J °a W
Z z¢F
:.vim YNC w F
�a °
0
6A
= o
ag d
M
y €
s
F- r
a
C) F
UZZ co
0Z¢ aqa
J °a W
Z z¢F
:.vim YNC w F
�a °
wl -15
..Y
A�
i
-- :----- - - - -�- - -
i
o.� Own
p
N'
ar�.q
Ja
J
y €
�
m m a m
000a-
E8
s
hod
o00
S
€
z s$a�€
W °
a¢$s§ apq
€'
g
3
J st `g8
I
Y §3B� 9 ; i g
oil,
g gs
I'llpi p 9ppl
I S PP
-
F3
€x8844$
8 =a
g
mmo
wl -15
..Y
A�
i
-- :----- - - - -�- - -
i
o.� Own
p
N'
ar�.q
Ja
J
ao
� ..
12
G
z
a5
Ls
z o
z
d 0
,
a ~g
am
�a
g� �
z¢
CO w
m
o INS
-Fm wg¢
l F
1
--
_ o H �.
z 0 3§8tF§ A YF
lig
z a� w� as �6 �� �� � � @@gg - • ;F � �� 9 a
O d 8 IE
LD
cc
cr
�Ial
i -
0.1
i I �'� •} ii I I � �i�
C
11 111 +�+ �ly�{■r •': . ,." �' L � - ` .1 .� V
,1 � ")-` �� ■11th •tom■ ■•
1
5 -15
1i
2
LU�� s J
Q Q OC U) < o`o�
WU=. -•` W . °wow
Q W oS < g m 6 €Yc
IL M
i
B °Yakb a a'$as sg- s�g °k °° aE ➢. g bLg�
Y°� g$ X11 14 R ��' `gag° s le g�c $°s t8af �3 � ka�&e£€55 f8��B �y
a $ a�9a ° E � g� e ° 111! = gp �sR B : Ps B � g
_ $ e "� e
1 `
c¢i 'Hinl- I181 - 93- aa
E ; -
aEaol as Ill n M
- i ?b K-Ha E$I'Maal 01 sa xg p 3 � _ a
L 2.
$g€
- g
1!5
Z xilu xsb b �P° 1 • $ M , IM$A-s $ � .I aiAgm-
1g s; a$P G g- �a €g oot a° 1 fF a P$ H AI E E
1E z
1 s -
0 ° e _
i�Sh a: a__m�i• � � � � �� ® `�
R' B
€a m gs €$ t §$g.$ w eQo a< E4 €s m s
Aa k^gx ip- 5§ s5 a {$, FF�e $$ PaFe a` M. 9�3 i�E..s- �# -s�€ ;�a F z¢
z 3k =9t g�'.ssn $'➢z€.� 8_Sa $ 3ga; "as �;$ =a
s;1$ka lg"Ha$ g° §' z ®da §g °
w s@° @ I °ss °Rg$`i € ° ;8 " h¢Ag °aap$ R :ilk 1 1a' e•Eg�ss_ z �g 8g m ens
Z Q Ak�8•. g '�E.aeo� $$g 31E° ��a� £2- 3 <�g� $sen bf
oa E $li f sl�kls�a$ ''g sag° as gE�f §'$ °A - °$ i- =�w a ba X34
$s $ $ as Saa l -$ a i<
a H1 � Fa ;J11 $o ��
-' 8a- Aar .� 5°gg0a �s �� � � N� € ° �2
u maiy a.s $ °$ .°3A� -9$ s °RSyS$ $$a ¢< a s as
,U yppyp33!! $ $ �_ s§ g g gae .',in, $s$ $
'W al
s id' g a 5tga °r'a €�,9$Ps,g'i gg$s�s
L R as ag 51 n`ss &g¢ ss I I
w a ®a tg�F n3a s6 SaE $` #zgsSs;
��fr �
'F 's g�� ga i`4 ;4a 's E11 l �$
Z g fig' ages "� g '�aR$ gg 'ag�Z 5ga a;xsss�g ag.s�
5 lilt �. a 11M b gi g =a5�
za�a1 a€ UR zas n Hs s= °61141 Saa �R H HH11 -a1Z§_ :fi � €oE'a.
i All
i!
$a€ �E 5 fi
gg ss a;l gi
1 liiil� (��S psi fm$ am �a Him, Aso eg
$
e ilei3 =3s' E y g 'ssg 'E�` ;ef� B�s�
$eg as8€e� gs$g�
sa�3
§o> Sag 1'SS �$£ ae Bea
Q T REOe
LLuuuu H d HE— 53:g nevi a5 `d= 55Em
"a m 3=ze aomE`9s� $gm4
ege °g %sBa
mi sH, og > aag 1h gs ; Hill
LL 12--0„15 $g E IMH g§aE lol
e
f g is eage
m to m w �mE s k$oe gee s 3 H
F °oa io @ y O @R hI Ese iSa @_ gs-.Es
gE N z �s� a¢ "Y sf °s s °es� 5��
sg0000 Rs� @amp ens s$s$; $€ Qu
q z } w a g °@, N «a gee
3.. tL
-I b
cpQs
o
�g
a
am
JQ�
a
<
¢
1i
2
LU�� s J
Q Q OC U) < o`o�
WU=. -•` W . °wow
Q W oS < g m 6 €Yc
IL M
i
B °Yakb a a'$as sg- s�g °k °° aE ➢. g bLg�
Y°� g$ X11 14 R ��' `gag° s le g�c $°s t8af �3 � ka�&e£€55 f8��B �y
a $ a�9a ° E � g� e ° 111! = gp �sR B : Ps B � g
_ $ e "� e
1 `
c¢i 'Hinl- I181 - 93- aa
E ; -
aEaol as Ill n M
- i ?b K-Ha E$I'Maal 01 sa xg p 3 � _ a
L 2.
$g€
- g
1!5
Z xilu xsb b �P° 1 • $ M , IM$A-s $ � .I aiAgm-
1g s; a$P G g- �a €g oot a° 1 fF a P$ H AI E E
1E z
1 s -
0 ° e _
i�Sh a: a__m�i• � � � � �� ® `�
R' B
€a m gs €$ t §$g.$ w eQo a< E4 €s m s
Aa k^gx ip- 5§ s5 a {$, FF�e $$ PaFe a` M. 9�3 i�E..s- �# -s�€ ;�a F z¢
z 3k =9t g�'.ssn $'➢z€.� 8_Sa $ 3ga; "as �;$ =a
s;1$ka lg"Ha$ g° §' z ®da §g °
w s@° @ I °ss °Rg$`i € ° ;8 " h¢Ag °aap$ R :ilk 1 1a' e•Eg�ss_ z �g 8g m ens
Z Q Ak�8•. g '�E.aeo� $$g 31E° ��a� £2- 3 <�g� $sen bf
oa E $li f sl�kls�a$ ''g sag° as gE�f §'$ °A - °$ i- =�w a ba X34
$s $ $ as Saa l -$ a i<
a H1 � Fa ;J11 $o ��
-' 8a- Aar .� 5°gg0a �s �� � � N� € ° �2
u maiy a.s $ °$ .°3A� -9$ s °RSyS$ $$a ¢< a s as
,U yppyp33!! $ $ �_ s§ g g gae .',in, $s$ $
'W al
s id' g a 5tga °r'a €�,9$Ps,g'i gg$s�s
L R as ag 51 n`ss &g¢ ss I I
w a ®a tg�F n3a s6 SaE $` #zgsSs;
��fr �
'F 's g�� ga i`4 ;4a 's E11 l �$
Z g fig' ages "� g '�aR$ gg 'ag�Z 5ga a;xsss�g ag.s�
5 lilt �. a 11M b gi g =a5�
za�a1 a€ UR zas n Hs s= °61141 Saa �R H HH11 -a1Z§_ :fi � €oE'a.
i All
i!
$a€ �E 5 fi
gg ss a;l gi
1 liiil� (��S psi fm$ am �a Him, Aso eg
$
e ilei3 =3s' E y g 'ssg 'E�` ;ef� B�s�
$eg as8€e� gs$g�
sa�3
§o> Sag 1'SS �$£ ae Bea
Q T REOe
LLuuuu H d HE— 53:g nevi a5 `d= 55Em
"a m 3=ze aomE`9s� $gm4
ege °g %sBa
mi sH, og > aag 1h gs ; Hill
LL 12--0„15 $g E IMH g§aE lol
e
f g is eage
m to m w �mE s k$oe gee s 3 H
F °oa io @ y O @R hI Ese iSa @_ gs-.Es
gE N z �s� a¢ "Y sf °s s °es� 5��
sg0000 Rs� @amp ens s$s$; $€ Qu
q z } w a g °@, N «a gee
3.. tL
-I b
Leghorn
Focused Traffic Impact
Prepared for the
City of Petaluma
zees
Submitted by
Whitlock &Weinb,
490 Mendocino Avenue
Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
voice 707,542,9500
srger Transportation,
475 141' Street
Suite 290
Oaldand, CA %
voice 510.444.26
web www.w- trans.com
June 25, 2015
ATTACHMENT 6
b'1
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ............................. ...............................
1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ........................................................... ..............................5
2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... ............................... 6
3 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... ............................... 7
4 Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ ............................... 8
5 Trip Distribution Assumptions ....................................................................................... ............................... 10
6 Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...... ............................... 10
7 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .... ............................... 11
8 Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .......... ....................... ......... I I
Appendix
A Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 1 w -trans
�'2
Introduction.........................................................................................................................
..............................2
TransportationSetting .......................................................................................................
..............................4
CapacityAnalysis' ................................................................................................................
..............................5
Accessand Circulation .....................................................................................................
.............................12
Parking..................................................................................................................................
.............................14
Conclusionsand Recommendations .............................................................................
.............................15
StudyParticipants and References .................................................................................
.............................16
Figures
I Study Area, Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
............................................... ............................... 3
2 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................
..............................9
Tables
1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ........................................................... ..............................5
2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... ............................... 6
3 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... ............................... 7
4 Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ ............................... 8
5 Trip Distribution Assumptions ....................................................................................... ............................... 10
6 Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...... ............................... 10
7 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .... ............................... 11
8 Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .......... ....................... ......... I I
Appendix
A Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 1 w -trans
�'2
Executive Summary
The proposed Leghorn Plaza project would result in construction of 9,360 square feet of commercial
space on an existing lot currently occupied by parking spaces. For the purpose of this study, it was
assumed that the space would be occupied with a medical office use. The project's anticipated trip
generation includes 338 daily trips on average during a weekday, with 22 trips during the a.m. peak hour
and 33 during thelp.m, peak hour.
The study area was established though input from City and includes the intersection of Sonoma Mountain
Parkway /Riesling Road. Analysis indicates that the study intersection is operating acceptably under Existing
conditions and will continue to do so with project traffic added.
Under the Baseline and Baseline plus Project scenarios, which include trips from projects that have already
been approved and are likely to be occupied within the next few years, the study intersection is projected
to continue operating acceptably.
The study intersection is expected to operate acceptably under projected Future volumes both with and
without the project.
Vehicles will access the project via four driveways, one with restricted access on Sonoma Mountain
Parkway, two full access driveways on Riesling Road and one full access driveway on Casella Way. Sight
distances at the project driveways for both entering and exiting drivers are adequate. Existing limit lines
and stop legends at the project driveways have deteriorated and should be refreshed.
The existing uncontrolled crosswalk at Riesling Road /Stratford Lane has enhanced features that are not
currently functioning. The applicant proposes to install new enhanced crosswalk features, which would
be expected to increase driver awareness of the crossing.
The proposed parking supply of 331 spaces exceeds the City's required supply of 320 spaces.
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page I w -trans
��
Introduction
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with development
of a proposed project that includes a 9,360 square -foot commercial building to be located in Leghorn Plaza
on Sonoma Mountain Parkway in the City of Petaluma. The traffic study was completed in accordance
with the criteria established by the City of Petaluma, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering
techniques. The study area was approved for analysis by City staff.
Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers with data that they can use
to make an informed decision regarding the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any
associated improvements that would be required in order to mitigate these impacts to a level of
insignificance as defined by the City's General Plan or other policies. Vehicular traffic impacts are typically
evaluated by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate,
distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated
travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the impact the new traffic would be
expected to have on critical intersections or roadway segments. Impacts relative to access for pedestrians
and bicyclists are also addressed and on -site parking is discussed.
Project Profile
The proposed project would develop a 9,360 square foot building intended for commercial uses within
the existing Leghorn Plaza in an area currently occupied by parking spaces. The shopping plaza is bound
by Sonoma Mountain Road to the west, Riesling Road to the north, Casella Way to the east, and Leghorn's
Park to the south, as shown in Figure 1.
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 2 w -trans
6_q
282(176)
co `"' —426(618)
32 (44)
(175) 81
(416)490—
Existing
I
X
o 282(176)
CQ 437(548)
sr 32 (44)
(175) 81-�
(434)517 —
Baseline
I � N
r N
M ti +- 312(194)
1 623(690)
,r 32 (44)
(193) 90-x'
(574)592—
Future
10(15)
r -E 0 (0)
sr 0 (0)
(12)8
(0)0 —
Project
198pet.al 6115
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study
Figure I — Study Area, Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes w -firans
5
Transportation Setting
Operational Analysis
Study Area and Periods
The study area consists of the intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road. Operating
conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential impacts
for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network. The morning
peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school
commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6 :00 p.m, and typically reflects the highest
level of congestion during the homeward bound commute. It should be noted that there is a brief localized
surge in traffic volumes in the mid- afternoon when the nearby junior high school releases its students;
however, the highest traffic volumes on the local transportation network on an hourly basis are still
expected to occur during the traditional evening peak period.
Study Intersection
Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road is a signalized, tee intersection. The northbound and southbound
Sonoma Mountain Parkway approaches both have protected left -turn phasing, with the northbound
movement serving u- turns. There are marked crosswalks on the south and east legs with pedestrian
crossing signals.
The location of the study intersection and the existing lane configurations are shown in Figure I .
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma ��`�
June 25, 2015 Page 4 w- tran)1/
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes
and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service
A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions.
A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersection was analyzed using the signalized methodology published in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various
types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of
seconds per vehicle. The signalized methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time
for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian
activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS
methodology. For purposes of this study, delays under Existing and Baseline Conditions were calculated
using signal timing from Synchro files provided the City and optimized signal timing was used to evaluate
operation under Future Conditions.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 1.
Table I
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
LOS B Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers 'still do not
have to stop.
LOS C Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still
pass through without stopping.
LOS D Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to
stop.
LOS E Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay
excessive.
LOS F Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Traffic Operation Standards
The Petaluma General Plan 2025 has an adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard for streets that indicates
the minimum acceptable operation is LOS D, with the following standard of significance for motor vehicle
circulation:
Policy 5 -P -10: Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that
ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level
D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project.
With the current General Plan, the City is shifting toward a multimodal emphasis and LOS standard. "A
multimodal analysis that, in addition to motor vehicles, takes into consideration the overall mobility and
conditions for non -auto road users (i.e., bicycles and pedestrians) is highly encouraged." The Community
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma �IS�
June 25, 2015 Page 5 w -tram
—1
Character Element of the General Plan also contains circulation - related objectives and policies. This
element directs that pedestrian and bicycle circulation be integrated into street designs and improvements.
It also states that the amount of paving and the apparent width of streets should be reduced where
possible.
In 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), under which amendments to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines are to be developed that will replace the LOS
standard for traffic with a "vehicle miles traveled" standard. The state has not yet adopted the proposed
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, in part due to the need to first develop methodologies to measure
this metric, and LOS continues to be the proper threshold for traffic analyses.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic
volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project - generated traffic
volumes. Volume data was collected February 24, 2015, while local schools were in session.
Intersection Levels of Service
Under existing conditions, the intersection is operating acceptably at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 1. A summary of the intersection level of service
calculations is contained in Table 2, and copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix
A.
Study Intersection
Table 2
Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
I. Sonoma Mountain Pkwy /Riesling Rd I 14.1 B 14.3 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Baseline Conditions
Baseline conditions were assessed to reflect traffic operation with the addition of traffic associated with
known projects that may be constructed and /or become operational in the study area in the next two to
three years. Trips for each of these project were determined using standard trip generation rates or the
traffic study for the project, as applicable, and those trips that would be assigned through the study area
were added to existing volumes at the study intersection to determine Baseline volumes.
• Lynch Creek Plaza — 22,500 square feet of retail at Lynch Creek Way and North McDowell Boulevard
• Riverfront 2010 — 273 residential units, 120 -room hotel, up to 60,000 square feet of office and 30,000
square feet of retail /service space
• Deer Creek Village -- Approximately 345,000 square feet of commercial center located on North
McDowell Boulevard between Lynch Creek Way and Rainier Avenue
• Keller Court Commons -- 8 single - family homes located on West Street at Keller Street
• Davidon Homes -- 93 single family residential subdivision on Windsor Drive and D Street
• Petaluman Hotel -- 57 -room hotel located at 2 Petaluma Boulevard South
• Maria Drive Apartments — 144 -unit apartment complex to be located at 35 Maria Drive
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 6 w -tranT /
• Addison Ranch Apartments — 100 multi - family units in an existing apartment complex located at 200
Greenbriar Circle
• Baywood Apartments -- 162 -unit apartment complex to be located at the northwest corner of Baywood
Drive /Perry Lane
• Petaluma Poultry — 24 -hour production facility at the southwest corner of Lakeville Highway and
McDowell Boulevard South
• Safeway Fuel Center -- Gas station with 8 fueling stations and convenience market at 335 South
McDowell Boulevard
• North McDowell Commons — 34 residential units located on North McDowell Boulevard
• Avila Ranch Subdivision -- 21 single - family homes located at 51 l Sonoma Mountain Parkway
• Sid Commons — 282 -unit apartment complex located at the end of Graylawn Avenue at the Petaluma
River
• Sunny Slope 11— 18 single family homes located on Sunnyslope Road
• Pinnacle Ridge — I I single family homes located at 2762 1 Street
Birches /Yarberry — 21 -lot single family residential subdivision on Wood Sorrel Drive near North
McDowell Boulevard
• Avila Ranch Subdivision — 21 -lot single family residential subdivision located at 511 Sonoma Mountain
Parkway
• Ferrin Subdivision — I I single family homes located at 2832 1 Street
• Corona Road Subdivision — 30 single - family homes located at 470 and 498 Corona Road
• Haystack Landing — Mixed -use development with 2 1,1 1 1 square feet of commercial space, 120 units of
apartments units, and 31 units of senior adult housing located between Copeland Street and Weller Street
• Brewster's Garden — I I I -seat restaurant with outdoor dining and beer garden
• River Cardroom — An expansion of an existing casino at the north end of Petaluma
• Hansel Toyota Expansion — An expansion of an existing car dealership at 1 125 Auto Center Drive
Under Baseline conditions, the study intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS B
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. These results are summarized in Table 3, and Baseline volumes are
shown in Figure I.
Study Intersection
Table 3
Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Baseline Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
I. Sonoma Mountain Pkwy /Riesling Rd 1 14.1 B 14.3 B
Notes; Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
It should be noted that average delay at the study intersection is not expected to increase from Existing
Conditions. While this is counter - intuitive given that there is an increase in volumes, this condition occurs
because trips are added to the through movements, which have below- average delay, The conclusion
could incorrectly be drawn that the added trips from the approved projects actually improve operation
based on this data alone; however, it is more appropriate to conclude that these trips are expected to
make use of excess capacity, so drivers will experience little, if any, change in conditions as a result of the
project.
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma �ISIN
June 25, 2015 Page 7 w�- tram)
L_ I
Future Conditions
Volumes for the through movements on Sonoma Mountain Parkway for the horizon year of 2025 were
obtained from the City's gravity demand model. Because the neighborhood using Riesling Road as an
access is already built out, a growth rate of one percent per year for ten years was applied to turning
movements to and from Riesling Road in order to reflect potential for growth in the area.
Under the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersection is expected to continue to operate
acceptably at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Future volumes are shown in Figure I and
operating conditions are summarized in Table 4,
Study Intersection
Table 4
Future Peak Hour Levels of Service
Future Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
I. Sonoma Mountain Pkwy /Riesling Rd I 14.4 B 15.6 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Project Description
The project would construct a new 9,360 square -feet building in an existing shopping center located on
the southeast corner of Sonoma Mountain Road /Riesling Road. Access to the site is provided by an
existing driveway on Sonoma Mountain Parkway, two driveways on Riesling Road, and one driveway on
Casella Way. No changes to site access are proposed. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure
2.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012, for Medical -
Dental Office Building (Land Use #720). For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed thatthe proposed
building would be occupied with the medical office use since it has the highest trip generation rate for
commercial uses that are currently permitted in the shopping center. The expected trip generation
potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 5 and includes an average of 338 trips per day,
with 22 a.m. peak hour trips and 33 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Table 5
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips
Rate Trips In Out
Rate Trips In Out
Medical- Dental Office 9.36 ksf
36.13 338
2.39 22 18 4
3.57 33 9 24
Building (LU #720)
Notes: ksf = 1,000 square feet
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 8 w -tranT
r ° w
0
0
i
Z z
C
ro
I
b
u
v �
a�
� Q-
u �
L2
b iA
R
N
o �
J LL,
01.
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined by reviewing the
turning movements at Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road. The applied distribution assumptions
and resulting trips are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route
Percent
Daily
Trips
AM
Trips
PM
Trips
Sonoma Mtn Pkwy north of Riesling Rd
35%
11-8
8
12
Sonoma Mtn Plcwy south of Riesling Rd
55%
186
12
18
Riesling Rd east of Sonoma Mtn Plcwy
10%
34
2
3
TOTAL
100%
338
22
33
Intersection Operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project - related traffic to the Existing volumes, the study intersection is expected to
operate acceptably at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. These results are summarized in Table
7. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 1.
Table 7
Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour'lntersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS I Delay LOS Delay LOS
I. Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /Riesling Rd 1 14.1 B 14.3 B 1 14.8 B 14.9 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle
Finding: The study intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably at the same levels of service
upon the addition of project- generated traffic to existing volumes. This indicates a less- than - significant
impact.
Baseline plus Project Conditions
With project - related traffic added to Baseline volumes, the study intersection is expected to operate
acceptably at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. pealc hours. These results are summarized in Table 8.
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 10 w -tran
� -I _Z_
Table 8
Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection Baseline Conditions Baseline plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
I. Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /Riesling Rd 14.1 B 14.3 B 14.9 B 15.0 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Finding: The study intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably under Baseline plus Project
Conditions at the same levels of service as without project - generated traffic. The project's impact is
therefore less- than - significant.
Future plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project - generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersection is
expected to operate acceptably, The Future plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table
9.
Table 9
Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection Future Conditions Future plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
I. Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /Riesling Rd 14.4 B 15.6 B 14.9 B 16.3 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Finding: The project has a less - than - significant impact as the study intersection will continue operating
acceptably with project traffic added to Future volumes, at the same Levels of Service as without it.
Leghorn Piaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
f une 25, 2015 Page I I w -trany
�-I_3
Access and Circulation
Site Access
There are currently four driveways that provide access to Leghorn Plaza. There is one driveway on
Sonoma Mountain Parkway approximately 400 feet south of Riesling Road, one on Casella Way 300 feet
south of its intersection with Riesling Road, and two on Riesling Road 130 feet east (west driveway) and
350 feet east (east driveway) of Sonoma Mountain Parkway, respectively. The driveway on Sonoma
Mountain Parkway is limited to right turns in and out by the center raised median island.
Sight Distance
At unsignalized intersections a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of
a vehicle waiting to cross or enter the street and the driver of a vehicle approaching on that street,
Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross, turn left, or turn right, without
requiring the through traffic to radically alter their speed. Sight distances along Sonoma Mountain
Parkway, Riesling Road, and Casella Way at the existing driveways were evaluated based on the City's
preferred sight distance criteria, which is contained in the Highway Design Manual published by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The recommended sight distances for driveways are
based on stopping sight distance, which use the approach travel speed as the basis for determining the
recommended sight distance.
Sight distances at the existing driveways were field measured. Based on a design speed of 25 mph for
Casella Way, 25 mph for Riesling Road, and 40 mph for Sonoma Mountain Parkway, the minimum stopping
sight distance needed is 150 feet for Riesling Road and Casella Way and 300 feet for Sonoma Mountain
Parkway. A review of the field conditions showed that sight lines from the project driveway on Casella
Way are more than 300 feet in both directions. Vehicles approaching the project driveway on Sonoma
Mountain Parkway can be seen from more than 385 feet away. Sight lines from the easterly project
driveway on Riesling Road are clear to the westerly driveway (200 feet) and approximately 160 feet to
the east. From the westerly project driveway, sight lines are unobstructed to the intersection of Sonoma
Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road (150 feet) and clear to the easterly driveway (200 feet). All of the
available sight lines are equal to or greater than the minimum recommended, and therefore adequate.
In order to maintain these sight lines for vehicles leaving the site, it is recommended that landscaping be
trimmed such that tree canopies are at least seven feet above the ground; other landscaping should be
limited to low -lying vegetation no greater than three feet in height. In addition, any new signs and
monuments planned along the project's frontage should be placed in a manner that does not obstruct
sight distance at the project driveways.
Finding: Adequate sight distance is available at the four project driveways provided that trees and other
landscaping are trimmed to maintain clear sight lines.
Recommendations: Landscaping should be maintained such that foliage stays above seven feet and below
three feet from the ground. Signs or monuments to be installed along the project frontage on Sonoma
Mountain Parkway should be placed so that sight distance is not obstructed at the project driveway.
On -Site Circulation
Upon the addition of the new building, most of the existing parking on the north side of the plaza between
the two Riesling Road driveways would be either eliminated or rearranged to better accommodate the
new building. A review of the site plan shows that the drive aisles leading up to the driveways on Riesling
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 12 w -tran7
Road would remain unchanged and circulation through the modified parking fields so vehicles would
continue to be able to negotiate the parking lot, making circulation acceptable.
The stop bars and legends were inspected at the project driveways and found to be worn and difficult to
see.
Findings: Site circulation is expected to be acceptable upon the addition of the new building and with a
change in parking layout. The stop bars and legends at the driveways are worn.
Recommendation: The stop bars and "STOP" legends should be refreshed at all of the driveways.
Queuing
Kenilworth junior High School is located on Riesling Road less than one -half mile from the project study
intersection. Many parents pick up their children from school and return to Sonoma Mountain Parkway
via Riesling Road, causing westbound queues to extend past the westerly driveway on Riesling Road.
Because of this, vehicles trying to turn left out of the plaza driveway must wait until the westbound queues
clear to turn onto Riesling Road. A field visit conducted during the school dismissal period (at
approximately 2:15 to 2:30 p.m.) revealed queues of four to five vehicles waiting to exit the parking lot
from the west Riesling Drive driveway.
Finding: Westbound queues at Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road extend past the westerly driveway
on Riesling Road during the school dismissal period, making it difficult for vehicles trying to exit the plaza
onto Riesling Road.
Recommendation: Because this condition inconveniences only site patrons, who have other options for
exiting the site, and it is limited to a very short period during the day, no remedial action is suggested.
Some drivers will naturally create a gap to allow a driver exiting the site to enter the queue, and drivers
that patronize the site regularly will learn to use other driveways to avoid the queue, resulting in a
somewhat self- mitigating situation.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Pedestrian facilities in Leghorn Plaza were assessed during the site visit. Existing pedestrian. facilities
include textured sidewalks and ramps within the site that provide adequate connections between stores.
Off -site, an enhanced crosswalk exists on the west leg of the intersection of Riesling Road /Stratford Place,
approximately 260 feet east of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road. The crosswalk spans both
Riesling Road and the parallel frontage road. The crosswalk has high- visibility ladder -style markings and
pedestrian signage with push button activated flashing lights. However, the enhanced signage and
pedestrian push buttons are not currently functional. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to
replace the existing nonfunctional equipment with pedestrian crossing signage with LED flashing lights and
in- roadway lights that are flush- mounted to the pavement with either passive or active actuation.
The site plan shows pedestrian facilities along the proposed frontages of the building as well as connecting
to the rest of the shopping plaza and to the existing sidewalk along the south side of Riesling Road.
Finding: Pedestrian facilities, including connections to other stores within the plaza and to the sidewalks
along Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling Road, are adequate. Off -site, the existing enhanced
pedestrian signage is not functioning. The applicant's proposal to install new lighted signage, in- roadway
lights and system actuation would be expected to increase driver awareness of the crosswalk,
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 13 w -trans
k 5'
Parkin
Leghorn Plaza currently provides a total of 366 parking spaces on -site. The parking required for the
shopping center was determined per the City's Code. The numbers of City - required parking spaces are
summarized in Table 10. Based on application of the City's rates the project would require a total of 283
spaces with the existing buildings. With the proposed project, 320 spaces are required. The total
proposed off- street parking supply is 331 spaces, which exceeds the required 320 spaces.
Table 10
City of Santa Rosa Parking Requirements
Land Use Units
City Code
Required
Spaces
Existing
Building A
General Retail 33,381 sf
I space for each 300 sf of gross floor area
I I I
Wholesaling and Warehouse 6,816 sf
I space for each 500 sf of gross floor area
14
Building B
General Retail 2,303 sf
l space for each 300 sf of gross floor area
8
Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Cafe 57 seats
I space for each 2.5 seats
23
Building C
General Retail 3,928 sf
I space for each 300 sf of gross floor area
13
Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Cafe 141 seats
I space for each 2.5 seats
57
Building D
Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Caf6 101 seats
1 space for each 2.5 seats
40
Banks and Financial Services 2,420 sf
1 space for each 300 sf of gross floor area
8
Building E
Medical Services -- Minor 1,085 sf
I space for each 200 sf of gross floor area
5
Offices — Business /Service 1,085 sf
I space for each 300 sf of gross floor area
4
Existing Subtotal
283
Proposed
Building F
Medical Services — Minor 7,488 sf
I space for each 200 sf of gross floor area
37
Total Parking Demand
320
Note; sf = square feet
Finding., The proposed off - street parking supply of 331 spaces exceeds the required parking supply of 320
spaces.
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma lWalu
June 25, 2015 Page 14 w -trans
4 -/%
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 338 trips per day, including 22 am. peak
hour trips and 33 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
• The study intersection operates acceptably at LOS B under Existing Conditions.
• The study intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS B under Baseline and
Future Conditions and upon the addition of project generated trips to Existing, Baseline, and Future
volumes,
• Adequate sight distance is available at all four site entrances provided that trees and other landscaping
are trimmed to maintain clear sight lines.
• The existing limit lines and stop legends have deteriorated on all of the driveway exits.
• Westbound queues at Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road extend past the west driveway on
Riesling Road during the school dismissal period, causing queues to form from vehicles trying to exit
the plaza onto Riesling Road.
• Pedestrian facilities, including proposed connections to other stores within the plaza and to the
sidewalks along Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Riesling Road, are adequate and will be further
improved with the proposed project.
• The existing enhanced pedestrian signage at the crosswalk at Riesling Road /Stratford Lane is not
currently functioning. The applicant's proposal to install new illuminated signage and in- roadway lights
would be expected to increase driver awareness of the crosswalk.
• The proposed parking supply of 331 spaces exceeds the City's required supply of 320 spaces.
Recommendations
• Landscaping should be maintained such that foliage stays above seven feet and below three feet from
the ground. Signs or monuments to be installed along the project frontages should be placed so that
sight distance is not obstructed at the project driveway.
• The existing stop bars and legends at all of the driveways should be refreshed.
• No actions should be taken to address queuing impacts during school dismissal. This short -term
existing conditions will be minimally affected by the project and will continue to be self - regulating.
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 2015 Page 15 w -trans
Study Participants
Principal in Charge:
Associate Engineer:
Assistant Engineer:
Technician /Graphics:
Editing /Formatting:
References
Study Participants and References
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE
Smadar Boardman, EIT
Lauren Davini, EIT
Deborah J. Mizell
Angela McCoy, Corinne Rasmussen
City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025, City of Petaluma, 2008
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2012
Petaluma Municipal Code, Code Publishing Company, 2014
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012
PET 198
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 25, 20 15 Page 16 w -trans
ndix A
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Leghorn Plaza Focused Traffic Impact Study for the City of Petaluma
June 20 15 w -trans 1 ���
( ..- zo
� -21
� -Zz
L ✓Ld
41
N
f6
C
Q
(0 'o
4 �
U � r
o ti
m
c
c
m
om E
c
�0
l
OR
N
T F
U
CL
R
o
da
a�
�P
c
UN
'tom
I a�
La
3
s
t�
d�
m
e
s
Fry
8
.Q .
a
az
oa
J� Q
j i,2
j Jlv
lF.
98
IVA
cs
19 F4 8
Mn
M
is
CL
cr 's,
11 q
(U
ma:2
;E
E'o
'K
CD 0
L
- 0� 2
I T
A
ir
" F.
i�
2. �,
43
zr
A A md<u
z# Of ig �q� q
A: q E� q �!R`
LAI
ll VIM RV!
qv
L2
0
61 !q
40
q
TV
N
12
7;
t Lei
q
0
AT
E
sZl� rr
- A
- I I M;.:, Z ll
; 2 U
- __�! PIP
A
Il -