HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 09/19/2011 5.C,"'lill�rv.�^�'.n:vq"'.I";I�iJ!"°P%�.,.',!IJV'i"�a'.i"�I,�9pi,pn,Rrtiy�""N� '�'�i�lhoi,�;Jl��"'dli,,� �aol,Idl"'tlp,•,, ir..!It,'i!,�m,
DATE: September 19, 2011
,4gevi.� ItP,vw #5.0
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Geoff I. Bradley, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Appeal by Regency Centers of the. Planning Commission's Denial of
Modifications to the Previously Approved Site Plan and Architectural Review
Plans for the East Washington Place Project Located at 980 East Washington
Street; APNs 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040. (File 11 -
APL -0617)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and adopt the attached resolution
approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for modifications to the approved East
Washington Place project located at 980 East Washington Street; subject to the attached findings
and conditions of approval, including those proposed by members of the Planning Commission
on August 23, 2011.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2010, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for the East
Washington Place project.
On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2010-04 approving Site Plan
and Architectural Review (SPAR) for the East Washington Place (the "project" or "proposed
project"). The Planning Commission decision was appealed to the City Council by the Petaluma
Community Coalition (PCC), but the appeal was withdrawn as part of an overall settlement of
litigation filed by both PCC and Regency Petaluma LLC, the project applicant (Regency).
On June 14, 2010, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for
the project. The project approval date was July 21, 2010, based on the date of the final settlement
agreement among the City, PCC and Regency. SPAR approval was administratively extended
for six months in conformance with the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO), Section
24.010.I, to January 21, 2012. In July 2011, the applicant submitted plans to the City for a
grading permit based on the 2010 SPAR approval. The plans are currently being reviewed by
various City departments.
Agenda Review: no
City Attorney Finance Director City Manager '\1�
On August 4, 2011, the applicant. submitted revised plan&I to the City based on revised tenant
requirements. The applicant submitted additional materials on August 16; 2011, and brought
supporting materials to the Planning Commission meeting on.August 23, 2011. One member
was absent, and ,two members recused themselves, leaving four voting members. All four votes
were, required for approval, because under Planning Commission rules, a majority of members
present and recused must vote in favor in order to pass an action. The motion to approve the
Resolution failed 3-1. Before the failed vote, Planning Commissioners recommended changes to
the draft conditions of approval, which are described below in the Discussion section.
DISCUSSION
The submitted modification proposes three changes:
1. Reallocation of building areas and a. change in the, footprint of some retail buildings by
combining. six smaller retail tenant spaces into four larger tenant spaces, and related
parking ,and landscape: changes.
2. Due to the reallocation ofbuilding areas, the applicant also proposes changes in the
architectural design and detailing of the building elevations..
3. Replace the GardenCenter in the proposed Target building with indoorrretail space.
Staff believes that the project, with revised building square footage, is in conformity with the
General Plan 2025, the Bicycle ,and Pedestrian Plan, and the Petaluma Implementing Zoning
Ordinance ("IZO"). Staff and the Planning Commission evaluated the proposed massing and
scale of these new buildings to preventcreating a development -that looks bulky and out of scale
compared to other structures in the immediate vicinity, and found that the architectural changes
are compatible with the approved plans in terms of massing, color, materials, with a similar mix
of stone, stucco and glass in the elevations.
Staff believes that the proposed change to replace the 8,089 square foot Garden Center with
indoor retail space is consistent with the approved project from a planning perspective, as the
Garden Center was counted, in the original building commercial/retail square footage as part of
the project. However, staff has added conditions of approval, which require that exterior features
be maintained on the two,garden center facades on Kenilworth and East Washington, to maintain
visual interest. The condition requires features be included such as windows, window treatments,
or grids similar to the features found ori previously approved elevations.
.Although not project:modification, applicant has identified a 25,000 square.foot natural foods
grocery as a,l'ikely. tenant. This type of use was part of the EIR andFEIA evaluation and. is
allowed byright-in the M-.U,1B Zone. No action is required of the City Council on this item.
The proposed modifications were reviewed by the Development Review Committee (City staff
from various departments) before review by the Planning Commission. None of the
modifications would adversely affect bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and all Pedestrian and
Bicycle, Advisory Committee conditions are still' in place.
Review of the proposed modifications for CEQA purposes is limited by -Public Resources Code
section 21'1.66 and EEQA Guidelines Section 15162 to substantial changes in the project or. in
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which would require major revisions
in the EIR approved by the City Council'in 2010. Section 21166 :shifts the applicable policy
considerations and prohibits the City from requiring further environmental review unless the
conditionsstatedin'Sect'n 21166 are met. The City's, review 'is limited to new'impacts not
previously considered. More detailed -discussion of the factual basis for'the staff -recommended
CEQA findings contained. in the draft resolution is explained -in the Planning Commission staff
report for August 23, 2011, Attachment 1.
At the Planning Commission Meeting on August 23, 2011., Commissioners raised the following
specific concerns regarding ;the proposed changes and their impacts on the development.
Architectural and Tree Planting- Concerns
The architectural treatment forthe revised buildings is similar to the previously approved plans,
and the original design intent for the front and rear facades have been, maintained. The goal is to
visually break down the massing: and volumes for the front by'using varied -wall planes and
heights, and a mix of colors and materials. The towers and the canopy at buildings 80 and S 10
have also been retained. The massing and fagade from the rear is articulated through architectural
features such as clearstory windows.
The landscape architect. has confirmed that tree locations in front of 'the building facades have
been slightly modified to .respond to changes in building elevations,, to visually shield and
articulate architectural masses' and volumes. Trees have been proposed in front of stores and are
clustered near demising walls, which are walls that separate one store from, the next. The
landscape architect has also confirmed that the modification and re -centering of the parking area
has provided more opportunities f&shading. The approved tree species have not changed from
the original proposal.
The Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed elevations appear flatter when
viewed -from the front after tenant spaces have been combined. While the combination of
building footprints into larger buildings would result in less undulation;iir building frontage, this
change is only apparent at the proposed building M3. The buildings will continue to maintain a
mix of materials and colors for visual interest. The ratio of materials used on elevations (i.e.
stone, stucco) will be confirmed at'the plaii check stage by planning staff, and shall be.consistent
with the original plans. Final architectural details are subject to the approvaLof.the Community
Development Director, and shall be of comparable quality to the,original April 1"3',, 2010 Site Plan
and Architectural Review approval.
rhe'Planning„Corhinissiori also asked for a plan that shows clearly the revisedtree planting on
the, site.
Site Plan
The Planning Commiss on,discussed moving the proposed building M6 from its originaland
proposed site at the comer of°the; southern edge of the site, where itis now farther from the M3 —
M5. buildings because -of its` greatly reduced size. The applicant asserts that storefront visibility,
and sufficient rnearby�paiking is critical to the tenanting and success of this revised building and
strongly urged retaining the proposed siting for M6. Retaining the corner location for -M67 also
maintains a clear project- edge along'Kenilworth Drive, which was a consideration in the original
design approval. However, Planning„Commissioners recommended improvements to pedestrian
amenities and connectivity between M5 and M6, which are contained in; the recommended
conditions ,of approval, also discussed below under Pedestrian Plazas.
The revised drawings show a wedge-shaped space between proposed buildings NM3 and M4. This
is due to the, preference by- retail- tenants for spaces with, perpendicular- corners for ease of usage.
The Planning Coni mission concurred with staff that the wedge-shaped.space should be
completely walled off to prevent maintenance issues.
The Conditions of Approval require the installation of special paving treatments at all raised
pedestrian crossingsr across :the drive aisle, which stretches from proposed buildings Al to M6,
for easy identification and' to slow down traffic. The Planning Commission was concerned that
the two-way drive aisle in front of the retail buildings appeared to be narrower in the revised
proposal. Staff confirmed that the,Fire Department's condition for the drive aisle to be 30 feet
wide was complied, with in the, revised'proposal.
The total number of parking spaces is now, 26 spaces less than the initially approved plans,
including the removal of 19 newly proposed parking spaces in front of -proposed buildings S9
and S10. -The proposal would still comply with the City's parking regulations. .
The locations for trash. enclosures were not identified in the revised proposal submitted by the
applicant. A draft Condition of Approval requires the applicant to submit the revised trash
enclosure locations for approval by, the, Community Development Department.
Pedestrian Plaza Areas
The applicant proposed 19 parking spaces in front of S9 and S I0; with the rationale, that
customers need parking in front of stores for easy access. Staff recommends eliminating this
modification'in order to maintain vehicle and pedestrian circulation. 'The :Planning
Commissioners concurred with staff that, there was no necessity,for the 19 spaces, and that no
parking should be placed in front of S9, and S'10. This is included as:a condition of approval in
the draft resolution.
To allow more space for the pedestrian plazas, staff also recommended that ,applicant articulate
the corners at proposed buildings S9 and S 10, ;and M5. This is included as a condition of
approval.'The Planning Commission emphasized the importance of continuing~the promenade
feel along the'front of proposed buildings M3 to M5 and connecting to M6, and suggested
modifications to the proposedconditions of approval to incorporate strong, pedestrian
connections to tenant spaces along that frontage. The applicant stated at 'the Planning
Commission'meeting willingness to make this modification.
146difcations� to Conditions,of Approval
At the end. of"the Planning Commission meeting; Commissioners proposed the following
modifications and additions to the Conditions of Approval:
Amend Condition #9 to read: There shall'be an additional pedestrian plaza between the
proposed buildings M5 afid.M6 on the plan set dated July 21, 2011, with a gathering
space and seating area to provide an environment s'imilarlo.the pedestrian plaza in front
of buildings $9 and S10 and including enhancement, setback, and/or ' rounding of the
corner of M5 similar to that required of S9 and S,1 0 in COA.#6.
® Add new condition*, Plans shall be revised to maintain a 20. foot wide sidewalk along -the
frontage of the new, Wand greater articulation, shall -be incorporated: into the
architectural design of M3' .to break up the massing of the single larger'tenant space.
® Add new condition: The., new open wedge at the rear, of N13 /M4 shall be enclosed so as
not to become a maintenance issue.
® Add new condition: Plans shall be revised to incorporate a strong pedestrian connection
to M6 that continues'the entry/promenade feel and connects M6 to M5 and the other
tenant spaces along that frontage.
® Add new condition_: The color and,materials shown in the modified plans shall be
revised to reintroduce a greater variety as shown in the originally approved SPAR
package.
While the Planning Commission was notable to adopt the Resolution with the above
modifications, staff believes that they have merit and should be. carried forward. The applicant
has agreed to comply with these changes.
FINANCIAL. IMPACTS
The appeal is subject to cost based :fee: recovery to be paid by the applicant once the initial appeal
fee ($193) paid by the appellantis exhausted. As of the publication of this report, this account
has a positive balance.
The processing of the SPAR modification was subject to cost based fee recovery With processing
costs paid to date of approximately $5,300.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: DraftResolution
Attachment 2: Appeal Letter dated 8/25/11
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
Attachment 5: Applicant, Letters describing Modifications
Attachment 6: Submitted Revised -Plans
Attachment 7: Correspondence (2 items)
Attachment 8: Resolution 2010-04 (Original SPAR approval)
f�
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL :OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA
UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY REGENCY CENTERS AND APPROVING THE
MODIFIED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL; PL.ANS.FOR EAST WASHINGTON
PLACE LOCATED AT 980;EAST WASHINGTON STREET, APNs 007-031-001, 007-241-
002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040
WHEREAS, Regency Petaluma, LLA, submitted an application for Site. Plan and
Architectural Review ("SPAR ,) for the purposes of developing a 33.74 -acre property with
approximately- 362;000 square feet of retail and approximately'16;000 square feet of office uses
for a development to be called East Washington Place, "the Project"; and
WHEREAS, ata duly -noticed public hearing ohTebruary 8, 2010, the City Council
adopted ResolutionNo..2010-021A, certifying an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the
Project, in conformance. with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA" ); and
WHEREAS, at said hearing', the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-021B,.
making CEQA findings, adopting.'a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-021C,
approving a Vesting Tentativet Mapfor the Project and making findings, including but not
limited to consistency of the-Project,with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("General
Plan"); and
WHEREAS, at said"hearing, the City ,Council provided direction to the Planning
Commission on items to be addressed as part of the SPAR process; and
WHEREAS; SPAR for the Project was conducted by the Planning Conimission at duly
noticed public hearings on February 23, 2010 and April 13, 2010 in accordance with the City of
Petaluma implementing, Zoning Ordinance, Section 24.010 .and
WHEREAS,, the Project:site plan and architectural plans were approved by Planning
Commission Resolution 201.0-04 on April 13, 2010; and was administratively extended for a 6 -
month period to,January 21, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Regency Petaluma, LLA, submitted a revised SPAR application on August
4,2011 --and
ID
WHEREAS, on August.23, 2011, the City ofPetaluma.Planning Commission conducted
a duly noticed public hearing of the Project to consider and review modifications to the
previouslyapproved SPAR for East Washington Place;, including modifications to the approved
footprints, architectural detailing and division ofbuildings,Ml, M2, M3, M4, M5; M6, S9 and
S 1.0 to respond to tenant,requirements, and to convert the project. anchor's (Target) 8,089 square
foot garden center to generaljetail space. Modifications also included reconfiguration of parking
at .the south tip of the project: site, the Addition of parking in front of buildings S9 and S 10, and
some modifications to landscaping, and- loading in these "same areas of the site; and
WHEREAS, on August 23; 2011, after considering the public testimony and the
application materials the Planning Commission's motion to approve the project failed by a vote
of 3-1, however staff has carried forward the Planning Commission comments,on the modified
project and modifications to the Conditions of Approval as "the staff recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2011, an appeal .of the August 23, 2011 decision of the
Planning Commission was filed by Regency Centers; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, a public notice o'fthe. September 19, 2011 appeal
hearing before the City Council was'mailed to all residents and'property owners within 500 feet
ofthe subject property and to, all other interested.parties, and a notice of the September 19, 2011
appeal hearing before the City Council was published in the Argus Courier on September 8,
2011; and
WHEREAS, on September' 19, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing during
which the City Council considered the appeal and received and considered all written and oral
public comments for the project; including but not limited to staff report and exhibits, and
testimony from all interested persons appearing in the matter; and
WHEREAS, the staff report for the SPAR modifications which is incorporated, herein by
reference, the modifiedsite plan, elevations, revised preliminary landscape plan, other
documents. and evidence presented at and before the public hearing on the Project describe the
proposed. modification and facts sufficiently to evaluate the environmental'' effects of -the
proposed modifications; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT'RESOLVED THAT:
1. The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of the Project were adequately
examined in the EIR certified for the East Washington Place Project, and:
a. There are no. substantial changes proposed to the Project which will require revisions of
the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the. severity'of previously identified -significant effects because there are no
changes to type of use or i'iiterisity, of -use; the Project does.not increase the total project
size or maximum building height; existing mitigation measures to control parking lot
glare at the ,property lines will reniainin effect; the revised landscape plan, color,
materials and -elevations provide:sufficient differentiation along the facades of Buildings
M2, M35 M4 and M5;; the revised landscape plan:provides sufficient screening at
modified parking aisles; all applicable standards contained in prior conditions, including
all mitigation measures adopted with the EIR will. remain" applicable to the. Project; and
other portions ofthe Project, including the main anchor building, interior circulation,
Project faces along E. Washington Street and'Kenilworth Drive "and Project vehicular
access are unchanged. The Garden Center was analyzed as retail floor area in terms of
parking and traffic. The, applicant has identified a specialty natural, food store as a
potential tenant: This type of use was evaluated in the EIR andin Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, the Retail Market. Impact. Analysis for the project, and is not a change in the
project which would require revision of the EIR.
b. The City is not aware of any substantial changes which have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which -the Project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions of the EIR, due':to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the,severity of previously identified significant effects because of
the short passage of time between EIR certification in 201.0:and this application; the
minor nature of the proposed changes as described above; the continued progress of the
East Washington/101 Interchange project which is expected to go to bid and begin
construction in 2011-2012; and the lack of substantial changes since February 20'10 to
General Plan buildout projections and other major development projects evaluated in the
EIR.
c. The City is not aware of any new information of 'substantial importance which was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the EIR was certified as complete andwhich, hasi since become available which
would show a new significant effect not previously discussed in the-EIR; or that
significant effects previously discussed would be substantially more severe than shown in
the EIR; or that mitigation measures previously "found infeasible would in fact- he feasible
and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project but the
Project proponents have declined to adopt them, or that- mitigation measures or
alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the: EIR would.
stibstanfially reducc,one. or more significant impacts of the Project, but "the:P,roject
proponents have. declined to adopt them.
2'. The'City Councilfurther.finds that no subsequent or supplemental EIR..is required for the
Project pursuant to Public 'Resources Code section 21166 'and CEQA Guidelines Section
15162:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby upholds the appeal and
approves the Modified Site and Architectural Plans "for the'Project and. authorizes construction of
site improvements for the Project contained in said plans based on the findings made below and
subject to conditions of approval. attached as, Exhibit A hereto and. incorporated herein by
reference, and finds as follows:
The Project as conditioned will conform to the;intent„ goals and policies of the Petaluma
General Plan 2025. The City Council determined -in Resolution No: 20,10-021C that the
Project, together with its desigwund 'improvements ,and as conditioned by said resolution, is
consistent with the General Plan. Neither the modifications made to the Project in the course
of this SPAR nor the conditions of approval set forth in,Exhibit.Ahave modified the Project
in any fashion which would .create inconsistencies with the General Plan.
2. The Project as conditioned, willrnot constitute a.nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the communitybecause' it conforms to the Petaluma Implementing Zoning
Ordinance ("IZO"). The;Project's'ite is zoned MUIB, Mixed Use, ,and the City Council in
Resolution No. 2010-02I C determined that the uses proposed for the Project were consistent
with the Mixed Use, MU1B zoning for the site. The. Project landscaping plan, as
conditioned, and provisions for tree removal and -replacement are consistent with IZO
Chapters 14 and 17, respectively. Neither the modifications made to the Project in the course
of this SPAR nor the, conditions of 'approval set forth in Exhibit A have modified'tlie Project
in any fashion which would create inconsistencies with the IZO. All Conditions of Approval
contained in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-04 are incorporated herein by
reference.
3. The proposed architecture. and site plan, as conditioned, conform to the requirements of
SPAR as set forth in Section 24.0`10 of the Implementing.Zoning Ordinance because:
a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the Project'is in harmony and proportion to
the surrounding structures;
The Project employs stone, slate, and wood trim with stucco in variety of natural tones
with accent color. The: buildings are proportioned compatibly with retail uses across East
Washington Street and active and seasonal uses of the Fairgrounds property. The largest
Project structures, are located at the -rear of the Project, separated from the existing
residential development across Highway 101 by Highway 101 freeway improvements.
which: are.also large,n,.lscale and by Project landscaping behind the Project structures:
Landscape. and:'sireet frontage. improvements along Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive
Prov de haffering and a:. transition from the fairly large, but single:story Swim Center and
the Skate Park to, the adjacent two. -story Project buildings S1 — S41 using open ,space
plaza areas.
b. The architectural style is appropriate for the project and is compatible with other
structures in the immediate _neighborhood;
The Project employs a contemporary architectural style that is distinct from similar
projects of scale and use. This includes layers of wall massing between primary anchor
stores to create more visually interesting facades, use of broad roof overhangs,
foreground arcades and covered canopies'. The consistent color palette acts to unify the
project while the aforementioned treatments and use of stone andslate provide
distinction and 'add to the overall visual character. 'This visual character will
complement other,retail„commercial, recreational, and seasonal uses in the immediate.
neighborhood. The.changeof the Garden Centerinto retail building area represents only
a minorAange in the appearance of the `building.
c. The siting of the new structures is comparable to the siting of other structures in the
immediate neighborhood;
The siting of the.Project structures is comparable to,siting of similar structures along the
Project frontages and in ,the eiminediate neighborhood. The siting of smaller structures
along the Project frontages complements and does,not overwhelm these other structures
in the neighborhood, and'the siting of larger structures. "toward,the rear of the Project
creates a tiered visual aesthetic when viewed from the immediate neighborhood. The
largest Project structures arelocated at the rear of the Project, separated from the
existing residential development across Highway 101 by Highway 101 freeway
improvements which are also large'in scale and by extensive screening from Project
landscaping behind the Project structures. Landscape,and'street frontage improvements
along Johnson Drive;and Kenilworth Drive provide buffering and a transition from the
fairly large, but single story'Swim Center improvements and the Skate Park to the
adjacent two. -story Project buildings Sl — S4, using open space plaza areas. The
Fairgrounds improvements including the speedway are, "interq' persed with large open
areas of parking, and: have: a comparable mix of structures and' open areas as to the
Project site.
d. The bulk, height, and color,of.the new structures are comparable to the bulk, height, and
color of other structures'in ,the immediate neighborhood;'
The bulk and massing':of the Project has been appropriately scaled; to ,the site and its
surroundings. Smaller -scale. buildings have been placed: toward the Project fr, ontages
along East',Washingtan Street, Johnson Drive, anal Kenilworth Drive across from similar -
sealed' buildings fiberetail and related uses as well, as the Swim Center, and Skate Park.
Building placethent,along the Project's E. Washington Street frontage;is designed to
Ju f Il the policies. for Ae.P. Washington Corridor Sub -Area in the General Plan 2025,
which prescribe.adesired urban. frontage type and scale for this Project frontage. The
smaller bulk, height and design of the Project features along East Washington Street,
Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive will complement adjacent structures in the
immediate neighborhood: The, largest Project structures are located at the rear of the
Project, separated from: the existing residential development across Highway 101 by
Highway 101 freeway improvements which are also large' in scale and by extensive
screening from Project landscaping behind the Project structures. ,Furthermore, the
former building M6 lias been greatly reduced, in size, .and building Ml has also been
reduced in size to' accommodate size increases. in buildings S9 and SIO. The
redistribution of square footage and the elimination of one of the "major " sub -anchor
buildings do not lengthen the .internal facade frontage. along th'e southeastern portion of
the Modified Project and' do not. increase overall 'building elevations. Conditions required
by Planning Commission Resolution 2010-04 intended to make the rear of the Mseries
buildings along Highway 1'01 more pleasing to freeway viewers still apply to the
Modified Project. Landscape:and street frontage improvements along Johnson Drive and
Kenilworth Drive'provide buffering and a transition from.the fairly large; but single story
Swim Center and the. Skate Park to the> adjacent two-story Project buildings SI S4,
using open spaceplaza. areas: The ,scale of the improvements at the Fairgrounds such as
the speedway is an adjacent large structure and use within the immediate neighborhood
and is comparable to the proposed project in terms of bulk and height. Color palettes
have been selected which emphasize natural and earth tones` compatible with
surrounding structures. The,change of the Garden Center into retail building area does
not change the bulk or mass of the main anchor building.
e. The landscaping is in keeping with the character and. design of the site; and
As conditioned, the Project includes numerous landscapeelements, include a wide
variety of trees, hedges, shrubs and flowering plants that will provide aesthetic and shade
features for project users -and will complement the overall site design. Landscaping will
be drought -tolerant and will feature tree species that are compatible with local climate
and soil conditions:
f. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street automobile and bicycle. parking
facilities and pedestrian ways.have been designed to promote safety and convenience.
The Project provides multiple ingress and egress locations for maximum vehicular traff c
efficiency, and circulation. The internal traffic circulation will largely separate
truck/delivery vehicles from pedestrian and bicycle users, and internal pathways, and site
design_.°'will 'op,timlze pedestrian and bicycle use to all aspects of the project. Bicycle
parking facilities. have been provided at key Project locations and vehicular parking has
been provided per all'applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance. As conditioned; the changes to Buildings MI, S9 and SIO in the -Modified
Projectpreserve the pedestrian and bicycle pathway and gateway entrance to the Project
from. the 101 pedestrian overpass, and include display windows or windows with a view
into stores to, promote:safety. All window designs shall be reviewed and approved by
Community Development Department. staff prior to issuance.of building permits to ensure
that window designs;are adequate in terms of depth, color and materials to complement
project building design. As conditioned, the Modif ed ProjecC- ill:a'lso add a pedestrian
plaza area at the southernmost entrance to the Project"between buildings M4 and MS.
EXHIBIT A — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
From Planning`.
Before: issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other
first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building;Permit plans to list these
Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures from the Mitigation Monitoring
Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).as notes.
2. The plans submitteclT r:building,permit review shall be.in substantial compliance with the
plan sets by Johnson Lyman Architects dated July 21,.2011 and„August 15, 20.11, or as
amended per direction of the Planning Commission and/or these conditions of approval.
Final architectural details are subject io the approval ofthe Community Development
Director and shall be, of comparable quality to the, original April 13, 2010 Site Plan and
Architectural Review, approval.
3.' All Mitigation Measures, adopted by Resolution No. 2010-021B and all Conditions of
Approval adopted by Resolution No. 2010-021C and Resolution No. 2010-04 are herein
incorporated by referenceas conditions of Projectapproval.
4. All revised parking plans, landscaping plans, lighting plans, pedestrian and bicycle
circulation paths, and other changes in the planset are required to be submitted.
5. The color and materials shown in the modified plans shall be revised to reintroduce a
greater variety as shown in the originally approved SPAR package.
6. High windows shall be incorporated at rear elevations along Highway 101 frontage for' both
visual interest -and access to natural light.
7. There shall be a pedestrian plaza in- front of buildings S9 and S 10 that forms an
aesthetically inviting gateway environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Buildings' S9 and
S 10 may not have right-angled corners cutting into this plaza.
S. There shall be'no parking spaces proposed.in front of buildings S9 and S 10, to maintain a
pedestrian edge:along,building frontages.
9. There shall -be, di windows showing the interior of shops,inc orporated on
the sides of buildings S9 and 5.10 along the pedestrian pathway leading to the pedestrian
overpass; 'for visival interest and also the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. All window
designs shall be=reviewed and. approved by Community Development Department staff
prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that window designs are adequate in terms of
depth, color and materials to complement project building design.
10. There shall bean additional pedestrian plaza between the proposed buildings M5 and M6
on the plan set dated July 2.1, 2011; with a gathering space and seating area to provide an
environment similar to the pedestrian plaza in front ;of buildings, S9 and S 10, and including
enhancement, setback, and/or.rounding of the. comer of M1 similar to that required of S9
and S 10 in Condition of Approval #6.
11. Plans shall be revised4o incorporate a strong, pedestrian connection to M6 that continues
the entry/promenade feel and connects M6 to M5 and`the other tenant spaces along that
frontage.
12. Plans shall be revised to mainta n�a 20 foot wide sidewalk along the frontage of the new
M3 and_ greater articulation shall be ,incorporated into the architectural design of M3 to
break up the massing of the single larger tenant space.
13. It shall be demonstrated on diagrams where the,revised bicycle paths and pedestrian
walkways are proposed, and that these are consistent with the April 13, 2010 SPAR
approval and prior Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Conditions of Approval.
14. The number of proposed automobile and bicycle parking spaces shall conform with
Implementing Zoning Ordinance Sections 11.060 and 11.090, and this shall be
demonstrated through calculations.
15. The revised landscaping,, -plan shall remain consistent with'the,April 13, 2.010 SPAR.
approval, with the focus remaining at pedestrian,areas and throughout parking areas. All
modified or new parking areas shall meet landscaping requirements. in the SPAR
guidelines, and proposed changes, shall maintain parking lot landscaping consistent with
approved plans. Parking lot tree diamonds shall be located approximately every four
parking spaces. The landscaping plan is subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director:.
16. Loading docks shall be recessed into the buildings in a manner consistent with the
originally approved plan. set. Any modifications are subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
17. The new open wedge at -the rear of M3/M4 shall be enclosed so as not to become a
maintenance issue.
18. Truck Access;and Fire Department Connections (FDC) are subject to the approval of the
City's Fire Marshal.
19. Anyrelocatiorn of trash, enclosures resulting from modifications shall be subject to the
approval of the, Community Development Director. The applicant shall submit plans to
demonstrate this.
20. The locations of paratransit stops shall be maintained•on front of formerly proposed
proposed'buildings M1/S9,.andM5 (now labeled as M2/S9 and M4). Any minor
modifications are. subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
21. Any proposed changes to the 'fighting plan shall: not' deviate from the intent and conditions
-of the original SPAR. approval, land are subject to the approval .of the .Community
Development Director.
22. The related project improvementplans including the Final Map and on-site improvements
and grading plan:shall be revised to be consistent with the modified site plan as approved
by the Planning Commission.
23. The revised site plan shall be approved with the proposed change to remove the Garden
Center from the proposed building Al and replaced with .,indoorretail space.. The exterior
may be revised; but "shall, include architectural features that incorporate green screens and
window grills in the elevatiomis proposed on April 13, 2011.. The walls bordering that space
shall not be revised, as blank featureless walls.'The.revised elevations are subject to the
approval of the Community Development. Director.
24. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless. the City and its officials, board's;
commissions, agents, officers and employees(''Indemnitees") from any claim, action or
proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or;annul any of the approvals of
the Project to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66474:9. To the
extent permitted. by Government Code section 66474.9, the applicant's, duty to defend,
indemnify and, hold- harmless in accordance with this. condition shall apply to any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning'the Project, not,just such claims; actions
or proceedings brought w"- the time period, provided for'in applicable State and/or local
statutes. The City shall' promptly- notify, the, subdivider of any such claim, action or
proceeding concerning the, subdivision. The City shall cooperate fullyin the defense.
Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating'in the defense
of any claim, action, or -proceeding, and if the City chooses to do iso, applicant shall
reimburse City for attoimeys' fees and costs incurred:by the, City to the maximum extent
permitted by Government Code section 66474':9.
From.the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee:
25. The 'two. crosswalks' along the route of the bike/pedestrianoverpass nearbuildings S9. -.and
S 10'shall be, raised ,crosswalks with in -pavement flashing .lights triggered by motion
detectors' (idstead .of pushbuttons). Additionally, the applicant shall'nstall in -ground
'pavemerit:lighting with pole_ mounted flashers (trigger by button or motion) at the
following, locations:
a. Kenilworth Drive'pedestrian crossing at the southern end of the project.
1 0001, 10
ATTACHMENT 2
t,
August 25, 2011
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
Claire Cooper
City Clerk -
Cityof Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Appeal of August 23, 2011' Planning Commission decision on East
Washington Place Project; Regency Centers, SPAR Modification
Dear Ms. Cooper:
On behalf of Regency Centers, the project applicant for the East Washington Place
Project in Petaluma, we submit this appeal of the Planning Com mission's decision on
August 23, 2011, to deny Regency's requested SPAR modifications.
The Planning Commission's, decision is inconsistent with the.East Washington Place
project approvals, and is'inconsistent with the City of'Petaluma General Plan as well as
the standards, and criteria for projectmodifications set forth in the City of Petaluma's
Municipal and Zoning code.
Enclosed please find the pevelopment Permit Application form for Appeals, as well as a
check in the amount of''$210:37 ($193 + 9%) for the: appeal fee.
We request that this matter be; heard on the first City Council meeting in September,
2011.
Sincerely,
Ryan M. Nickelson
Vice President', Investments
cc: John Brown, City Manager —City of Petaluma
Geoff -'Bradley;, Planhi'ng Director - City of Petaluma
:Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Director— City of,Petaluma
Les] ie,Th'om'sen, ,City Attorney— City of Petaluma
2999'OAK ROAD, SUITE 1000. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597.925,279.1800.888.797.7348 . FAX: 925.935:5902. REGENCYCENTERS.COM
CITY OF PETALUMA
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 3
Community, DevelopnieiitPepartiiierit, Plaiini:gDhdsio►:;.11,Diglisll,Street, Petaluma; CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 7784498 E -nail: planning@eipetalunia.ca.us
DATE: August, 23; 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO.7
TO: Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Geoff I. Bradley, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: EAST WASHINGTON PLACE PROJECT'—SPAR MODIFICATIONS
980 East Washirfgton.Street
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
-. �CONg1VIElVDA'TI®N - ...:.
Staff recommends that, the Planning Commission adopt .a resolution approving Site Plan and
Architectural Review for modifications to the ;approved East Washington Place project located at
980 East Washington Place (APN's' 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040);
subject to the attached findingsand: conditions of approval.
Project:
Project Planner:
Project Applicant:
Property Owner:
Nearest Cross'Street:
Property Size.
C'I' S��VIIVIA�. .
11, -SPC -0535
Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager
Regency Centers (Pete Knoedler)
Regency Petaluma, LLA
Kenilworth,Drive
33.74 acres
Site Characteristics: The site is the location of the former Kenilworth Junior'High School,
which has been demolished. Exisg uses on the property include
little Teague fields; which will btine: relocated. 'The topography is
relatively flat. There are some mature, 'trees' of 'various health and
seasonal wetlands on site. The wetlands are adjacent to the athletic
fields, and receive excessive irrigation runoff from the athletic fields
in the, dry season and are seasonally wet in the winter months.
Page 1 I
Proposed Use: Development of 378,000 s:f of building area; 362,000 square feet of
commercial retail and 162,000 square feet °of,office uses.
Zoning: MU1B: Mixed -Use IR
General, Plan Land Use: Mixed -Use
PgQjf 1)ESC)'.TI®IST
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 201'0, the Planning. Conihiission,adopted Resolution 2010;04 approving Site, Plan: and
Architectural Review (SPAR) -for the East Washington Place.(the"'project" or "proposed project" ).
The Planning Commission decision was appealed to the City Council by the'.Petaluma Community
Coalition (PCC), but the appeal was, Withdrawn, as part of an overall settlement of litigation filed by
both PCC and Regency, Petaluma LLC, the project applicant (Regency).
Oil June 14, 2010, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for
the project. The project: approval, date was July21, 2010,.based on,the date of the final settlement
agreement among the City, `PCC and Regency. SPAR e4pproval was administratively extended for
six months in conformance°with.the.Implementing Zoning Ordinance (1ZO), Section24,010.1, to
January 21, 2012. In July'201!,,,the applicant.submitted.plans to the City:for. a FinalMap,;grading
permit, on-site improvements and off-site improvements based on the 2010 SPAR approval.- The
plans are currently being reviewed' by various City departrrients.
On August 4, 20.11, the.applicani�submitted revised plans to ;the City based on tenant requirements.
The applicant. submitted additional materials on August 16,,201,1 , and will .bring supporting
materials to the Planning Commission. meeting on August 23, 2011.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The purpose of the proposed changes is to :kcbm noddte� specific tenants: The revisions include the
resiting; combining, the originally proposed:buildings M1; S9, S10, M2; M3, M4, M5, Sl i, and
M6. The°number of tenant: spaces decreases from six .to four, in the area•of in=line tenant spaces.
Modifications are also made .to the parking lot on the south side of the parking lot, as well as the
parking and.plaza areas near,the entryway to the pedestrian.overpass.
Thee existing :approval, is .for,377,951 total square feet of building area. This includes 16000 `s:f of
second floor offi''ce space, with the remainder ,of 361,951 s.f consisting of,.ground floor retail space.,
The proposed SPAR modification does,not change these numbers. Some references in this and,prior
staff reports,are rounded off to 16,000 s:f of office, 362;000 s.f. of retail for a total 378,000 s. -f.
The:srnaller buildings S9;aridS1,0, which anchor the pedestrian entry to the project from the '10;1
pedestrian crossmg, are=m odifi'ed'slightly in orientation and increased in size to 6,000 and7,000
square>feetrespecti ely
fro m.5,000 square feet each. Additional parking spaces have also been
proposed..in i ont,of buildings S9 and S10. These changes have resulted in;reduced spaces for the
pedestrian walkway and the, central promenade. Building Ml, next to the large anchor Al .(Target),
is reduced from 15;000`to'10,000 square feet to' accommodate the changes to S9 and $10.
Page 2
At the southernmost -'end, of the project, the former'largeanchor M6"is,reduced from 42,000 to
approximately 16,500 square feet.
STA)'F ANALYSIS
The project with its proposed clianges; remains consistent With the General Plan 2025, and meets the
requirements of the Bicycle and Ped'estrian'Pl_an, and the Petaluma,Implementing Zoning Ordinance
("1Z0")
The project -site is zoned 'MU -1B, Mixed. Use, and the -City. Council determined. in Resolution„2010-
021C that the uses proposed for the Prgject were consistent with'the Mixed.,Use, MUIB zoning -for
the site. The uses for the situ have not been changed.
SITE PLAN AND A RCffiTECTWUL REVIEW GUIDELINES
The project is subject to the provisions of Chapter 24.010 - Site'Plan and Architectural Review; of
the Implementing Zoning: Ordinance, including the standards in Section 24.01O.G, which govern the
scope of Commission review:
1. Controls should be exercised to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in, the individual building
and its site, appropriatenesstpf the building -to its intended use and the -harmony of the development
with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and harmony will involve among other things:
a. The appropriate use ;of quality materials and harmony'an"d pr"o"portion of the
overall design.
b. The architectural style which should be appropriate for ithe, project in question,
and compatible with, the overall character of the -neighborhood.
c. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other
structures in the immediate neighborhood
d:.T,he size, location, design, color; number, lighting, and materials of all signs
and.o.utdoor advertisingstructures.
e. The bulk; height and color of the proposed structure as compared'to. the
bulk height,and color:ofother structures in the immediate neighborhood.
2. 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 preservedwherever,possible, and
shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee.
3. Ingress; egress; internal .traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall
be so designed as to pro _mote safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved city standards.
Page 3 002 .01
�.
4. It is recognized that good design character may require participation by' a recognized
professional designer, such asan architect, landscape architect or other practicing urban designer
and the reviewing body shall have the authority to require that an applicant hire such a
professional, when deemed necessary -to achieve good design character.
ANALYSIS
The current proposal reallocates, buildings areas and changes the footprint of some retail buildings.
Staff believes that the revised: project is in conformity with the .General Plan 2025, the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and .the Petaluma lmplementing .Zoning Ordinance OUO"). Because the revised
Project proposes to combine ,six smaller retail tenant spaces 'into 'four larger .tenant spaces, the
Commission's evaluation wilt include proposed massing and scale of these new 'buildings to prevent
creating a development 1. that 1,looksbulky and out of scale compared to other structures in the
immediate vicinity.
Tenant Space Sizes
The most fundamental change is the proposal to combine four- sub -anchors in the 20,000 s.f. range
into two larger sub -anchor spaces into the 46,000 to $0,000.s1range.. These spaces would still be
significantly smaller that the, main anchor tenant space (Al — Target) `of ,nearly 140,000 s.f
Additionally the freestanding sub -anchor (M6), would be significantly reduced from 42,000 s.f. to
16,524 s.f. This change would be essentially the same as removing interior walls to create larger
tenant spaces in the future, as' the tenant mix evolves over time. As a result, staff finds that this
change in tenant space sizes' is consisterit with the original approvals.
Also of potential concern is the change of S11, as -approved, was a smaller (10,800 s.f) end -cap
tenant space with an interesting- footprint that created a pedestrianplaza.near the parking area. The
current proposal would change this to a 25,000 s.f. sub -anchor (M5), with limited pedestrian, area
associated it with it. Staff believes -that this can be mitigated with the 'inclusion of a pedestrian plaza
at this location.
Building Elevations
The proposed elevations (facing,,the parking lot) _include a mix of wall colors, accent- colors 'and
trims that address massing -at ,the building facades and, provide a visually compatible mix of earthen
tone colors, that complement each other. These aesthetic features are similar to the previously
proposed elevations :approved by the -Planning Commission.
The use of stone and slate materials complements the design and ,provides visual, interest' and,
variety. The stone elements and use of stucco, as well as the articulations at the walkway„ between
buildings S9 and 510; are .appropriate and add architectural interest to, the design. The applicant has
confirmed that, there are no' changes to, the color and materials -from the previPAR ous Sapproval,
and that the modifications maintain' a similar proportion of'stone/slate and stucco: "The applicant has
also stated that an, illustrative board will be brought to the Planning Commission meeting to
demonstrate this. '
Page 4
The freeway facing_ elevations are required to be consistent with :theapproved elevations. The high
m
windows on these elevations from the original SPAR approval are ,aintained as a condition of
approval.
Pedestrian Plaza Areas
Staff recommends that, the plaza area between buildings S9. and tS10, which also connects to the
pedestrian overpass and is considered a gateway component for the prof ect be modified ;slightly, to
cut -away and articulate -the corners proposed for. buildings S9 and S10. ,;As proposed in
the SPAR. modification,these corners are close to the edge lof the: sidewalk -decreasing the space for
the pedestrian plaza, and affecting the sense,of arrival into the plaza area. A condition of approval'
requires this change would retain the -aesthetically inviting gateway environment for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Itis also a condition of approval that display windows or windowow
s'. showing the interior of shops
between S9 and S10 shall be 'incorporated to avoid a sterile and unfriendly impression on
pedestrians and bicyclists,traveling through this gateway connection.
Consistent with the original approval, staff recommends that the applicant add a second pedestrian
plaza area on the south side of the proposed building M5, at the southern edge of the site with a
gathering space and seating,area to provide more articulation. ,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access'.and• Circulation
To strengthen the comprehensive .pedestrian network throughout the project, there should be
pedestrian cross parking lot connectors tot facilitate access to the central pedestrian promenade, such
as clear pedestrian walkways. frorn,,theretail buildings to the on-ramp of 10'1 at the northern part of
the site, and other walkway's and bicycle paths from the retail buildings --to the gateways on
Kenilworth drive. Although these walkways and bicycle paths were :shown on previous plans, they
are not shown clearly on the revised. plans. It is a condition of approvalthat the applicant shall
demonstrate on revised diagrams where the bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways will be, and that
they are consistent with the prior -,SPAR approval.
The applicant has agreed with• these changes and is expected to provide revised plans for Planning
Commmission, review:
Automobile and Bicycle Parking. Spaces
It is a condition of approval that the applicant confirms that automobile and bicycle parking spaces
are in conformity with JZO' 'S'ections 1.1.060 and 11,:090: by ,showing .calculatio_tns. If is also a
recommended'- condition of approval that no parking spaces shall be added to the frorit:of'biiildings
S9 wird SIG, to maintain a pedestrian edge along building frontages and maintain, smooth traffic
flow at. this .important location. Proposed, parking has changed only slightly; with, 1,505 proposed
Where 1,512 were.approved. This is consistent with IZO standards. No change in the number of
loading docks is,proposed. .
Page 5
Landscaping
It is a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrates,- that the. landscaping remains consistent
with the original SPAR approval, with the focus remaining at pedestrian areas. and throughout
parking areas. The applicant will be submitting,a revised 'landscaping plan to clearly illustrate
changes proposed in the SPAR modification application.
It also appears 'that the "landscape fingers" at'the terminus of `parking aisles in front of M3 — M5
have been significantly reduced. It is,a condition of approval, that the modification of the proposed
change must maintain parking l'o't landscaping consistent with approved plans;- subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director: All modified or new parking areas4 must meet
landscaping requirements ,in the SPAR guidelines_ Parking lot tree diamonds should be located
'approximately every four -parking" spaces.
Truck Access and. Loading Docks
-Truck Access and Fire Departrnent Connections (FDC) shall be subject to the approval of the City
Fire Marshal. It is a condition of approval that loading docks shall be recessed into the buildings in
a.manner consistent with4he�onginal SPAR approval. Any modifications are subject to the approval
of the Community Developmentbirector.
Trash Enclosures
It is a condition of approval that.,any,relocation of trash enclosures resulting from the modifications
shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The applicant is required
to submit plans to demonstrate this.
Paratransit Stops
It is a condition of approval,that the applicant shall maintairrthelocations of the paratransit stops in
the modified plans in front; of buildings. M1 /S9, and M5."-Any'minor modif cations are subject to the
approval of theCommuriity Development Director.
Lighting. Plan
It'is a" condition ,of approval that any proposed changes to the lighting plan shall not deviate from
the, intent and conditions lof the original SPAR approval, and are subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
PUBLIC' NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing. for'the, August 23, 2011 meeting" was published in the Argus Courier on
August, ll; 2011 and notices were' sent; to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the
siibject,property, as well as 'interested_parties who. requested notification.
Page'6
�+ NVR®NN�N'�'AL vWW
There are no changes-to.type ofuse or intensity of use and.no changes .to the totalproject size. This
would mean that,no vehicle trips are added, creating no additional traffic impact. There will be no
increased glare', because the existing mitigation measures to control parking lot",glare at,the property
lines will remain in effect. All applicable; standards contained in project conditions and mitigation
measures will remain applicable to the revised project,,including review of the'revised landscape
plan to confirm that it will leointinue.to provide visual differentiation along the buildings M3,'M4,
and M5 facades and at parking aisles.
Minor modifications to, parking and loading docks are proposed: Loading .docks for the revised
buildings remain at,the rear of the buildings ,and continue to be accessed from Lindberg Lane, as
required by project conditions of approval. The overall parking ratio changes only slightly.
The modified stores remain sub -anchors ("majors") as originally proposed, and the changes made to
individual building size doubt result in changes to the internal circulation patterns of the project so
as to increase a physical iinpact:for CEQA purposes. There: are no changes to other parts of the
project which decrease or, affect the public, pedestrian and active spaces along E. Washington, the
public and pedestrian spaces within the project or the 'varied buil'ding,placement, size and amenities
along Kenilworth Drive. As conditioned, the.pedestrian and bicycle,en`trance•to the project from the
Highway 101 pedestrian overpass is maintained by the. SPAR.modifications.
Project ingress, egress, pedestrian' ways and amenities and bicycle circulation are retained. The
visual lines of sight to and from the project�remain the same because the modified buildings are in
the same location along 101, and maximum height is unchanged. The downsizing of Building M6
from 42,000 to 16,500 square:feet does not decrease views ari&may slightly increase views of the
hills beyond the project to the north and east.frorn.some southwesterly'vantage points, primarily.the
fairgrounds parking, areas because the building height remains unchanged, but the building size is
reduced to roughly forty percent of;its prior square footage.
,Review of the proposed modifications for CEQA purposes is limi'ted:by Public Resources Code
section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 to substantial` changes, in the project or in
o
circumstances under which the'project,will be undertaken which'would require -major rev'
isions -in
the ,EI approved by the City Councif in 2010 because of (i) new, ovsubstantially, more severe
signif cant, impacts; (ii) or new information which was not known and could'not be known_,'at the
time of project approval which would result in new or substantially more severe significantimpacts
and/or (iii) changes in the feasibility of.mitigation measures which would.substanifally, reduce one
Or . more signif cant; impacts �of the project.
Section 21166 shifts the applicable, policy considerations and prohibits the City from requiring
further. environmental review unless the conditions stated in Section_' 21.166 are 'met. The City's
review is limited to new impacts not previously considered.
In this case, staff recO* mmends 'a fitiding;that the project modifications do not substantially increase
the severity of any existing significant environmental impacts of the project and do not create any
new significant effects:
Page 7
CONCLUSION
Overall, staff believes that the project .remains in conformance- with Site Plan and Architectural
Review requirements and the prior SPAR approval_ on April 13, 2010. ,Staff has incorporated,
recommended changes, asConditions of Approval, which are contained in the attached draft
Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
Attachment 2: Revised., Site Plans and Elevations
Attachment 3: Resolution No. 2010-04 —Planning Commission SPAR approval dated April .13,
2010.
Attachment 4 — Applicant's Letter
1694225.1
Page 8
ATTAGH M E N T 4
CITY OF PETAW-M.A
DESK ITEM
CommuiiityDevelopmeiztDqpartitieittPlannii!gDivision,11,EngliihStieetiPeialuiyiaCA94952
(7V).7794M Fak(V�) 7*4408 E-mail. planning@cLpetalumaxaus
DATE: August,23, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
TO: Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Geoff I. Bradley, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: EAST WASHINGTON PLACE — SPAR MODIFICATIONS
986'East; Washington,Street
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
-o
0
� 14
MR r sf
The applicant proposed on August 1% 2011 to remove the 'Garden Center in the proposed Target
building (building. Al), and change ibespace. to indoor retail space. Additionally, the applicant
indicated that one of the proposed tenants is a 25,000 s.f. grocery store (specialty natural food
store). This memo provides an, analysis of both of these items.
Garden Center
The originally proposed Garden Center was an 8,089 s , f opeft=airspace, 'which was part of the
proposed Target building= ,(see ;Figure I below). The Ga:iden Center was .surrounded by walls on its
exterior, with green screens and window grills as architectural features proposed to accentuate the
walls (see Figures 2 and 3 below),
•
ij w
x,
N
AG
4
y
A
A 4*4
Figure' I — Site Plan showing location of Garden, Center.
Nge 1 19
AL
AT VaA
SetlflYfEy}' 5g E.LCVhTfCx�'-13UILDWGAI ,a
Figure 2 — Southwest Elevation showing frontal view of the Garden Center.
The proposed change does not add additional retail square feet to the proposed development. The
8,089 sf was originally analyzed in .the project's EIR as part of'the'retail square footage, and hence
this change would not change the. anticipaied'traffic impacts or amount of parking.
The originally proposed roof covering of the Garden Center was half covered and half open to the
sky. The proposed change, would extend the proposed roofing material_ and treatment over the entire
8,089 sf space, which is an incremental change in the overall roof.plan.
'The proposed change also presents no difference in the perceived .bulk or mass of the proposed
Target building as the wall' heights and coverings will not change and would allow for the
conversion of space.
Staff recommends that the 'proposed change in the use of space from a Garden Center to indoor
retail space is acceptable as,it,would not present new environmental impacts, makes an incremental
change to the roof covering, and does not change the external appearance- of the proposed building.
The previously proposed green screens and window grills should be retained as architectural
,features. to accentuate -the exterior walls, so that the external appearaince of the building. continues to
have visual interest.
Groder—Store
The applicant has identified, a: specialty natural foods store, as a potential tenant. The Draft EIR
notes that the Petaluma trade, area is estimated to be leaking sales in several" major. store, categories;
including food. (Draft:ElR, p. 4.11,-9). The Retail Market Impact Analysis for the project used in the,
Draft EIR,did.not specifically identify proposed tenants or a natural foods°store...However, it noted
that without a food store, "Capture of the $59.6, million annual leakage in the Food_ Store category
would be limited; with potential support for: a sinaller specialty food store in 2011." (Draft EIR,
Appendix .A, p. iv). It also said; "Because of the large amount of leakage in this category and.
population growth, even in combination with the under -construction Raley's, impacts on existing
food stores are estimated to be negligible. No supermarkets or other food.stores can be assumed to
be at risk for closure due, to a small food store at E. Washington Place." (Draft EIR,. Appendix A, p.
Page 2
v). Therefore, a specialty grocery tenant would not require modification of the project EIR's
analysis of urban decay or -the EIR's conclusion that the project will not.cause physical blight.
The IZO allows grocery stores both under and above 25,000 square feet as allowed uses with no
Use Permit required in the MU 1'B zone. No action is required by the Planning Commission for this
item.
ION'
Staff recommends that, the Planning Commission adopt the following condition of approval in the
resolution approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for modifications to the approved East
Washington Place located -at 980 East Washington Place:
The revised site plan 'shall be .approved with the proposed change to remove the
Garden Center from the proposed building Al and .replaced with indoor retail
space. The exterior ,may be revised, but shall, include architectural features :that
incorporate. green screens and window grills in the, elevations approved on April
13, 2011. The walls bordering ,that space shall riot be revised as blank featureless
walls. The revised elevations are subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director-.
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 5
August 16, 2011
Mr. Geoff Bradley
Planning Manager
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: East Washington Place — Minor Modification, to Site -Plan
Dear Geoff:
We kindly request thafthe City°,process, our request for a minor.site plan modification to
accommodate the prototypical footprints of our anchor tenants. We believe the
requested changes are minor in nature and offer the following, supporting information:
• Overall square footage remains unchanged
a Substantial.conformarice with approved plan
® Parking and circulation remain unchanged
® Architectural. elevations provide the same quality and quantity of materials, colors
and articulation
• .Landscaping quantity and quality remain unchanged
• Anchor tenants require prototypical building footprints in.orderto commit to
project
We are excited about the strong tenant interest in East Washington Place and hope to
have as many tenants as possible open concurrently, with Target -in"'March 2013. We are
finalizing negotiations^with .a, national sporting goods:store, a national soft goods and
home' goods' store, a, national farmer's market4ype grocery 7stbre and several other
national retailers. As'each of these retailers,store countJs significant, it`s imperative that
theyadhere to;aprototypical store,iayout and building,footprint. The,minoraite'plan
modificati6mme seek approval, of will accomplish that goal, paving the way'for,these
retailers to open as°quickly-as possible in Petaluma.
In order to accomplisK'ihis,,goal, we request that our site work drawings for the minor
modification site "plan bb;,feviewed by staff -concurrently with the site work d ,awings for
the previously approved'site plan. We acknowledge that such concurrent;plan,check°will
result in increased staff'timeand are•willing to.,.reimburse the City'for,such additional
costs under our Cost:Recovery Agreement.
2999 OAK ROAD, SUITE 1000. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597.925.279.1800.888.797.7348'. FAX: 925.935.5902. REGENCYCENTM&COM
W Geoff Bradl.ey
Petaluma -
August 1f\2U11
Also., in ans�Wer to the questionsfai . sedJn,yQqr emaitfrom yesterday, the parking count
pnAhe modified §itb,plan is 1,505 vs. 1j51,2 o,
n the approved site plan, so the ratio is
virtually unchanged. Alsb, the number of truck docks remain's un6hanged-,at 6 total.
Pk*ase"letrmehnovxlf, kaneededin orderbdprocess, our request
Ryan M. Nickelson
Vice President, Investments
2099WRO4DWifff100.VAdNUTrREEKCA94507.025278100.888J07348.FAX825.9355902. REGENCYCENTERS.COM
.
August 22, 2011
Mr. Geoff. Bradley
Planning Manager
City of Petaluma.
11English" Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: East Washington Place — Minor Modification to Site Plan'
Dear Geoff:
In addition to the minor site plan ,modification request we submitted to you on August 1'6,
2011, we kindly request.,that the City evaluate removal of'the,garden center from
Target's building. The Target�national prototype building no longer includes a garden
center. In fact, as:of August 2010, Target has eliminated the garden centers.from all of
their existing stores as -well.
The EIR, FETA and parkind'requirements all considered the garden center as general
retail square footage, so this change does not create any impacts in that regard.
Architecturally, the appr,,ove&elevations showed the garden center to be part of the
Target building, as opposed to,aseparate yard. Therefore, conversion of the garden
center to indoor space has negligible architectural iimpact.
Please let me know 'if anything 'a'dditior4 is needed in order to process our request.
Sincerely;
Ryan M. Nickelson
Vice"President; investments
cc: John Dewes, Target
2999'OAK'ACQ.SUITE 1000'. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597. 925.279.1800. 888.797.7348. FAX: 925.935:5902.. REGENCYCENTERS.COM
11�11�1111111 llll��Ijq
S S
pla- ratt:
ATTACHMENT 7 i
Brawn, John
From: J. T. Mck [JT@bergholding"s.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 2d, 2011 4:28, PM
To: Brawn, John'
Subject: 23 August 2011'
23 August 2011.
Petaluma Planning Commission
11 English Street
Petaluma, California 94952
Re: Regency Project Modification
Dear Chair and Commissioners:
It is zny understanding that this evening you'.will be considering modifications to the' Regency project.approval that will allow the
£tuther consolidation of big boxes, intofewec and yet still bigger boxes so`Target can open a sporting goods store in. addition to other
operations in their 100,000 square foot facility. I object for two reasons.
First, an already unattractive design wAIJusfbecome db, ghf ugly. The original design called.for,:a series of boxes strewn along,the
highway.with a thousand parking;spaces. in,front°of'them with.pads for.stand-alone.building's around the perimeter. Not very original.
After many public objections, the developer, included a local;hardware company's business In a separate building that,atleast made the
proje,amore interesting. However, soon;after the City Council approved the''project, the local'hardware;store was dropped from the
plans without explanation. That turn°ofevents'was:not very surprising but was a betrayal nonetheless.
Now the developer wants to coiisolidafe the fainaining boxes;into fewer bigger boxeswtiicli is exactly what they originally said they
wouldn't do because it would be,,unattractive and.ouVof character with the, community. i couldn't agree with the m more on, the' original
Assessment. As a community, we, should hold the developer- to his word and, not allow this latestdeceit. This latest changes will also
violate those provisions of the of the EIDZ certified°for4be project and'wilt require'"subsequent environmental review to assess the
impacts of these latest changes.
Second, inclusion of a sporting goo ds.store gf..this;magziitude will not encourage,competiiion; iVwill decimate it. For; those who know
me, I welcome a challenge. I would be at youri'hearing,in person but I'm competing in Ironman Canada this weekend and only found
out about the -proposal through Petaluma 360.
"I Athletic Soles, as a specialtyrunning:shoe.and apparel`business, is surviving in the midst of Kohl's, Big 5 -and the Internet.by
providing superior service and expertise:, Athletic;soles;provides an-iinportant link between the.medical.and running:communities by
holding'seminars where local medical professionals can share their knowledge with'local runners.
Athletic Soles, for it's' small' "size, also supports::the community by belonging to and''supporting the Chamber of Commerce; local
schools with discounts, and charities:like the.Carousel'Fund with the upcoming fun run. What will'Target do tliatproportionate to it's
dominance in: the marketpl'ac'e? Throw a few bones that makes up to less than Mof their profits while blowing off local business,
civic, and'charitable.organizations?
I thin&being,already'approved to be the ,biggest.store iirtown should be.enough. 'I ur"ged you;to give my local'.business and other a
fighting chance and reject' Target's attempt to maul our marketplace.
Thank you foi:you tiini attention' and hopefully NO vote.
Holly Wick,. President
Athletic°Soles
Sent from my iPad
1-I
Bradley, Geoff
From:
Chris Albertson[councilman.albertson@gtnail.com]
Sent:
Friday, August.19, 20117:03 PM
To:
Bradley, Geoff; Hines, Heather
Cc:
Eric Danleyjhomsen, Leslie; Cooper, Claire
Subject:
East Washington Place Revisions
To be sure I have not violated the,Brown Act; this memo should be submitted during open session.
TO: Curtis Johansen, Chair - Planriing Commission & Planning Commissioners (via staff)
Geoff Bradley, Planning,Manager
Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager
All --
I am sorry but I will not be able to;, attend the Planning Commission Meeting, Scheduled for August 23. I will be
visiting family in Seattle. I will not be,present,and hence will not,be voting forthese, site plan revisions.
However, I wish to go on record`that if I was present, I would vote to accept Staffs recommendations ...
allowing for these minor notations :
® Staff confirm, only for -the public record, ,that the applicants statements,that: a) "Overall square footage
remains the same"; b) "Parking and�circulation remain unchanged e) "Anchor tenants require
prototypical building footprints in order to committo project"; are all accurate.
a Buildings S9 and S10 have been enlarged., With,this enlargement, the buildings have been squared off,
where they border the promeade"leading into the pedestrian plaza and the.Ireeway foot bridge., Is it
possible .... to reduce the squared off angles on the lower -right corner. of $9 and the lower -left comer. of
S 10, possibly malting this opening more welcoming for pedestrians 'entering the plaza? I believe that
With to s ons' for the added
this proposal is ith
v Also, given the fronts, of all 'the, other buildings; I fail ee the yeas parking spaces m
t of,S9 and .
buildinone aslfrom Taron, in net down to M6, this added 1parking. should belelirninated Theelieve that tlus:proposal
SIQ.. For the
g g
is consistent with staff.
O I believe _that the improved economic opportunity provided by this. project outweigh'any potential,
negligible negative impacts through these. changes. The developer should be,allowed to moue this
project =forward and meet the expected opening date of March 2013.
On a different subi.ect.:... I'would like to welcome Bill Wolpert to the Planning Commission and offer my
congratulations.
Respectfully,
--- Chris. Albertson, City Councilmember / Liaison
1-Z
ATTACHMENT 8
R'ESOLUTI'ON NO 20110-04
CIV OP'`PEIAL M_ A PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THE EAST
WASHINGTON PLACE PROJECT, ASSESSOR'S' PARCEL NUMBERS 007-031-001,
007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007=473=040
WHEREAS, Regency Petaluma, LLA,.submitted.an;dppiication,forSite Plan and
Architectural Review for the purposes of developing a 33.74 -acre property with approximately
362,000 square feet of're,tdil and approximately 16,000 square -feet* of officeuses.for a
development to be called East Washington Place, "the Project;" and,
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 8; 2010, fhe City Council
adopted Resolution No,201'0-021 A, certifying an EnvironrrientaCImpati Report for the Project, in
conformance with the California Environmental' Quality Act ("CEQA") and,
WHEREAS, at said ;hearing, the City Council, adopted Resolution No.,2010-021 B, making
CEQA findings, adopfing d,tv1'itigotion Monitoring and Reporting Program: and'adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the CEQA, and,
i
WHEREAS, at said;hearing, the City Co adopted Resolution No. 20,10-021 C,,
approving a Vesting Tentative Map, for the Project andmaking findings, including but not
limited to consistency of the Project withithe City of Petaluma General :Plan 2025 ("General
Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, at said'he_aring, the, City, Council provided, direction to the Planning
Commission on items to be addressed as part of the Site Plan and: Architectural Review process;
and;
i
WHEREAS, the Site Plan, and A'rchite,ctural ,Review for'the Project was conducted. -,by the,
Planning Commission,at.duly noticed,public'hearings on February,23,'2010 and,April 13, 2010 in
accordance with the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance,5ecti6n 24.0.10.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED'that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site
and, Arc,hitectural Plar s for.,the' Project and authorizes construction, of site, improvements for the
Projecf.contained`in said plans based on the findings made below and.subject to conditions of
approvdl aftached as�Nh bif A hereto and incorporated: herein by reference, and finds a`s
follows:
r.
i
1. The.,proje.ct.as conditioned will conform to, the intent, goals and policies of. fhe
PetalumdGeneral Pldn.2025. The City. Council determined in Resolution' No: 2010-
021 C that` the.'Project, together with, its design and improvements and as conditioned
by sai&,resolufion, is consistent -with the General"Pldn. Neither the modifications
made,to ,the. Project in the course of this -Site Design and Architectural Review nor the
conditions,of approVol set forth in Exhibit,A'have modified ,the: Project in any fashion
which. ould, create inconsistencies with the General Plan.
i
Planning Commission Resoiulion No. 2010-04 Page 1
, t
2. The Project as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the
public welfare.of'the community because it conforms'to the Petaluma Implementing
Zoning Ordinance ("W"). The Projectsiteis zoned MUI.B,.Mixed Use,,and the City
Council in Resolution, No: 2010-021 C determined that.the,uses prioposed for the
Project were consistent with the Mixed Use;,MU.I B zoning for the,site. 'The project.
landscaping plan and provisionsfor tree'removal and replacement are.consistent
with IZO Chapters 114 and 17, respectively, Neither�the modifications made to'the
Project'in the course pf'this Site Design and•,Arghitectural Review nor the:conditions`of
approval'set forth'1h,;Exhibit' A have modified,the Project in any fashionwhich would
create inconsistencies withthe IZO.
3. The proposedarchitecture and'site pldn, as conditioned, conform to the
requirements. of Site Plan, and, Architectural Reyi,ew provisions of Chapter 24.010 of
the Implementing�Zoning Ordinance as:
a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the project is in harmony and
proportion to the surrounding structures;
The Project^employsstone, slate, and wood, trim with stucco, in variety,of natural
tones with accentcolor.'The buildings,ore°proportioned compatibly with retail
uses acrossEast'Washington Street andactive"and seasonal uses of the.
Fairgrounds"property. Th e.lorgest Projeet•structures are located at the rear of the
Project, separated' from the existing residential development across Highway 101
by Highway YO!l, freeway improvements which are also large'in scale and by,
Project landscaping behind the Project structures. Landscape:and street frontage
improvements along Johnson Drive, and Kenilworth DO'e.provide buffering and a
transition from the 'fairly Jorge, but single,story Swim Center and the Skate Park to
the adjacehf"two-story. Rrojectbuildings S I =S4,. using open space plaza areas.
b. The architectural7., style is appropriate for the project and'is compatible with other
structures.in the immediate neighborhood;
The Project brrnpioys a contemporary architectural style that is distinct from similar
projects of scale and use. This includes layers of wall massing between'primary
anchorstores to create more visually interesting facades, use of broad roof
overhangs, foreground arcades and covered canopies. The consistent color
palette actsto unify the project while'the aforementioned treatments and use of
stone and slate'providedistinction and add to the -overall visual character. This
visual character will complement other retail; commercial, recreational; and
seasonal uses°in'the immediate neighborhood.
c. The siting' ofithe' new structures is comparable to the siting of other structures in
"the immediate neighborhood;
The siting.of the Project structures is comparable to. siting of similar. structures along
the'Pro'ecf frontages dnd in the imme' e" neighborhood. the siting of smaller
1 dial
structures along, the Project,frontages complements and does not overwhelm
these�•oiherstructures°in 'fhe, neighborhood, and the siting '.6Obrger,strucfures'
to,ward'' j ' "wed`,from
'th,e rearof the Project creates -a tiered visual aesthetic"when vie
the immedi"ate neighborhood. The largest Project structures' are, located at the
rear of the,Project, separated from the existing residential development deross
Highway,10,'1 °by Highway 1.01 freeway. improvements which are also large in scale
and by`extensive screening from Project landscaping behind the,Project
structures. ,Landscape and street,frontage.improvements along Johnson Drive
and'Keniiworth Drive provide buffering and a transition from the fairly large, but
Planning Commission Resolution No.2010-04 Page 2
single story Swim Center improvements drid the Skate Park, to the adjacent two-
story Project buildings S I - S4, using open„space plaza areas: Thei'Fairgeounds
improvenierlts including the speedway are interspersed with'large open areas of
parking, and have a. comparable mix of structures and open areas as to the
Project site.
d. The bulk, height; and color of the new.,structures are comparable to the -bulk,
height, and.color of other structures 'in theAmmediate neighborhood;
The bulk and massing of the Project has been appropriately�scaled to the site
and itssurroundings. Smaller -scale buildings hgye;been placed toword'the
Project frontages -along East Washington'Street, Johnson'Drive, and Kenilworth
Drive across from similar -scaled buildings for retail'and related uses as well as the
Swim Center and Rate Park. Building placem'enVolong the'Project's.E.
Washington Street frontage is designed to4fulfill the,policies torthe E: Washington
Corridor,Sub-Area''in the General Plan 2025; ,wh'ich' prescribe a desired urban
frontage type,bnd.scale for'this Project frontage., The smaller bulk, ,height and
design of the Project features along East Washington"Street, Johnson.Drive and
Kenilworth "Drive Will complement adjacent structures in the immediate
neighborhood; The largest Project structures aie;located at the�rear of the
Project,,,sep'arated,from the existing,reside'ntial'deveiopment across Highway 101
by Highway 101, freewayimprov,ements which are. also large in scale and by
extensive screening from Project landscaping,behind'th'e Project structures.
Landscope,,and;,street froritage,improvements along Johnson Drive and
.Kenilworth Drive"provide buffering, and, a transition from the fairly large, but single
story'Swim Center and the Skate Park to .the adjacent two-story Project buildings
Sl -S4' using,,.open space plaza areas. The scale of the improvements at the
Fairgro,unds;suc,'h as the speedway is an adjacent large structure and use within
the"immediote neighborhood and is comparable to the proposedproject in
terms of bulk,and,height. Color palettes have been selected which emphasize
natural and edrth tories compatible with surrounding structures.
e. The landscaping is in keeping with the character and design of the site; and
The Project includes numerous landscape, elemerits, include a wide variety of
trees, hedges, shrubs and flowering plants thatwiil'provide "aesthetic and shade
features for project users and will complement the overall°site design.
Landscaping will'be drought -tolerant and`will feature tree species that are
compatible With locdl climate and soil condi'tioris.
f. Ingress, egress; infernal traffic circulation, off-street automobile and bicycle
parkingt'focilities,and pedestrian ways have been designed to promote safety
and convenience.
The" Project'providesmuitiple ingress and egress'locdtioris for maximum vehicular
traffic: efficiency and circulation. The internal;traffic circulation'Wilklargely
separate truck/delivery:vehicles from pedestrian and bicycle.:users, and;internal'
pathways, and, site design will optimize pedes1.trian andbicycle use' to all aspects
60he project. Bicycle parking facilities.have been provided at key ,project
locations and vehicular parking,hos been provided per all applicable provisions”
of Chapter 11 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010,04 Page 3
ADOPTED this 131h day of April 2010, by the following vote:
4.� .
:;Cam inn
i� • .. ^,�.."c.1 i�., ,;,..'' ��yz= ka.i j
� ' LL
j tAy`er ' 'No= :iAbsenti-•P bstai!k
, s_si_orier.�
Abercrombie
X
Chair Arras
X
Barrett
X
Second Vice Chair Elias
I X
Horley
I X
Vice Chair Johansen
X
Pierre
X
ATTEST:
eoff rdley; Commissio Secretary
Christopher Arras; Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORK
�w
Leslie. Thomsen, Assistant°City Attorney
Rla'nning Commission Resoluilon No. 2010-04
EXHIBIT A - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
From Pldnnina:
1. Before issuance of any development,permit, the applicant'sholl:revisethe slf&plan or other
first, sheet'offhe offlce:and lob site „copies of the Buildlhl ,'Permit plansto)lst°these Conditions
of Approval and'the Mitigation"Medsures from) the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final
Environmental limpact Report'(FEIR).dsnotes.
2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial complidnce with the
plan set date stamped March 12; 2010, unless amended per City�direction,
3. All Mitigation Measures as adgpted,inconjunction with the Project. EIR (SCH NO. 2005052061)
by Resolution No. ,201,0-02TB N.C.S, and,.all Conditionsof Approval adopfed.by Resolution No.
2010-021 C are herein incorporated by referenceds conditions of'project approval,
4. Prior to building permit* dpprov,.al, the'plans;sholl note the Installation of.high efficiency
heating equipment, (9,0%o:or higher'heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 NOx or
less) In compliance witholic „4 -P -1'5D (reducing emissions).
P. Y „
5. Prior to building orgt
adingpermit"approval, all`plans shall note the;following and all ;-
construction contracts shali'include the•samerequirernents (or measuresishown to be
equally effective, as approved'by Planning), in compliance with Geheral. Plan Policy 4=P-16:
• Maintain consfructionequipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per
manufacturer s;speclflcation for the duration of`construction;
• Minimize idling time of construction related'.equipment, including heavy-duty
equipment, motor vehicles,, and portable equipment;
• Use alternative fuel -construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural,gas, liquid
petroleum gas,,,and unleaded, gasoline);
• Use add-on,control devices such as�diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters;
• Use diesel equipment that meets -the ARB's 2000 o(newer certification stdndard;for off-
road heavy-duty diesef`engines,
• Phase constructionof, the project;. and
• Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment,
6. Prior to building or grading per mit. Issuance, the applicant_ shall prov(de a Construction Phase
Recycling Plan that would address the reuse and recycling,of, major waste materials (soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber; metal :scraps,cardboard, packing, etc:, generated by any
demolition activities and construction:of the,
he project," in compliance with General Plan Policy
2-P-122 for review by the planning staff.
7. The.project shall obtainlL'EED Silver certification. Theproposed projecV'Will`be built'in
n Buildi'
g
n standards tha�would°reduce energy related GHG
e
amsssionas by atll dst 20 oprcbhtfrom,those that wbuld occur"under"current'Titie 24"Building-
g P menfs. Th pp ' p hese'to the City,prior to the issuance "of a
Code re uire e a licant shall resent t'
bulidm "' `ermit.
i
l c6hstt6didni
aln'd nteriortwork "only betwee
i ilb ea:
liimited to 7:00 a.m.. to 6:00°p.m. MY nday't_hrough Friday
0 m. and 5:00 ft on Saturdays, Constructl6hishollIbe
Orohibited,on Suhdays and, alI holidays recognized by the City of'Petalur)c(, unless',a permit'is
first secured from the'City. Manager (or his/her designee) for, additional hours, There"'will.be
no start up of, machines or equfpment priorto 7:30 a,m., Monday through Friday; noldelivery
of'materl'dls�or equipment prior to 7:30 a.m, or past 5:30 p,m., Monday through Friday; no
" I
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-04; Page 5
i
® I
servicing of equipment, past�6:45,p.m„ Monday through, Friday. Plan submitted"fo,r City
• permit shall include the, language above.
9. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered'during grading; work shall be
halted temporarily and'a,qudlified archaeologist shdllribe-'consulte.d-for evaluation of,,the
"artifacts and to recommend future action,, The"local•Native•American'communityshall also
be notified and consulfed.in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered,
10, The project will be subject to alf applicable provisions°of Chapter 17 of the. Implementing
Zoning Ordinance concerning'tree preservation, removal, ;and. replacement criteria.
11, The applicant shall incorporate,the'foll,owing Best Management Practices into the construction
and improvement plans,:and clearly indicate these provisiohsan the specifications; The
construction contractor shall incorporate -these measures int'oth"e required Erosion and.
Sediment Control Pldn to limitJug tive dust and exhausf emissions during construction.
1. Grading and construction' equipment operated`duringon 'constructiactivities shall be '
properly muffled andImaintained'to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off
when not muse. "
ii. Exposed solls shali','be watered periodically during'construction;, a minimum of twice daily,
The frequency ofLwatering'shall be Increased"if wlnd.speed§exceed 15mph, Only
purchased city water or reclaimed water shall.be used for this purpose, Responsibility for
watering.sholl include;weekends and holiddys when worts not in progress.
iii. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide''for a'"gravel pa&area consisting of an
impermeable liner and'droin rock atthe construction entrance to clean mud and debris
from construction vehicles prior to entering thepublic:roadways. Street surfaces in the
vicinity of the project'shail be routinelyswept and cleared of mud and dust carried onto
the street by construction vehicles.
iv, During excavation "activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other
similar covering devices`to!reduce dust emissions,
v, Post -construction re-vegetatlon, 'repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be
completed ,in"a timely mdnneraccording to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of Improvements or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy,
vi. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to reouireincreased watering to monitor
the dust and erosion,control•progrom and provide,name and phone number to the'City of
Petaluma prior to".issuance'of grading permit,
12. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the, City" and its officials, boards,
commissions, agents,`officers"and:employees ("Indemnitees") from anyclalm, action or
proceeding against Indemnitees to attack; set aside,,vold or annul any of the approvals of
the project to the maximum, extent'permittecl by Government Code section 66474.9: To the
extent'permitt'ed by Government Code section 66474.9,, the applicant's duty to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to anyand,�'all
claims;, ac'tions,or proceedings brought concerning the project,not just such'claims; actions'
or,•proceedings;btbught'within,the timelperiod provided for In applicabI&Stoteand';.or local
statutes, The City shall promptly, .notify the subdivider of any such claim, actiomor
proceeding concerning the subdivision. The City shall cooperate -"fully in the defense.
Nothing°contaioed•'inpthis condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of
any claim,�action, or proceeding; and if the "City chooses4o do so,.,applicant shall reimburse
City for attorneys' fees,and costs incurred by the City to the maximum extent permitted by'
Government Code section 66474.9,
13. Provide a physical barrier to delivery trucks at the north end of Building Al, subject to
approval of the Fire Marshal and.Community Development'Department.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-04 Page 6
14. Provide contrasting colors on pedestrian pavement, as shown in.site plans dated March 12,
2010.
15. Anti -skateboard devices shall be incorporated in all seating areds.
16. No additional glare shall',b&dllowed, because of the use of 30' light standards than would be
generated by 20'°lighfstandards. StaffI&directed in -its review of the project photometric
lighting plan to reduce the height of all light standards to the extent feasible.
it 17, Should existing redwood tre'eswithin the Caltrans; rightof way along'the east perimeter of
the project site be removed,within five years;ofthe',date of first project occupancy,
oppiicantor its;successor(s) inrinferest shall provide �replacement redwood planting in that
location on the project site ata ratio determined by city staff to„be,adequate to provide
screening of project: buildings adjacent to Highway 101.
18. Bicycle parking°spaces shall be provided at 10% of the number of proposed,vehicle parking
spaces.
,. 19, Applicant shall submit, a,shopping cart management-plan.for review and approval by the
Community Devefopent:Departm
rhent prior to first building occupancy. Cart corrals shall be
available throughout the parking; areas, ,and any electronic control 'of parking carts shall
permit use of carts to the perirrlet. 4 of the project site.
20, Eliminate the large openings in the green' screen on the east side. of'Building Al.
21. Provide pedestrian connections at locations to be reviewed and "approved by the
Community Dev(jlopme.nt,Department from the parking lot to the public, sidewalk at
Kenilworth 'Drive, to the extent feasible and to the ekterit that such connections do not
impede'the functioning of the bioswales, in'the deter'minatlon of the City Engineer.
22. All windowde'signs'shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development,
Department staff 'priorto:Jssuance�of building permits to'ensure that window designs are
adequate in termsof depth, color and materials to'complerrient project building design.
23. The bus stop location shown on the: Unit Development Plan, She& L2 of the site plans dated
March 12, 2010, shall .`bam.oved,from the locationshown In front of Building S-2 to a'location
° consistent with Vesting Tentative Map condition # 32,
24. All rooftop mechanical equipment,with the exception of aiternative,energy mechanical
equipmeint,',shall, be screened from view to the highest point of the mechanical equipment
In materials and color consistent with the project architecture.
Fro m.tiie Pedestrian and Bicvcle Advisory Committee and Enaineerina:
25. The two crosswaiks'•along the route of the bike/pedestrian overpass inearbulldings S9. and
shall'.be raised crosswalks within=pavement flashing lights_ triggered by'rymotion'detectors
(instead of pushbuttons)s,Additionally, the applicant°shall Install'In-ground pavement lighting
with pole mounted flashers (trigger by button or motion) at the following,locationt:
o..Kenilworth Drive, pedestrian crossing at the southern end of the project.
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2010-04 Page 7