Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A Late Docs 02/02/20095 fk From: james page Dimmymio@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:56 PM To: pamela torliatt; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4petaluma@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; davidrabbit@davidrabbit.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr@cipetaluma.ca.us; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Fellow Petalumans: I am a homeowner and live on Laurel Ave. right near B St. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of 30 El Rose. I am well familiar with the area as both my physician and my dentist are located in that area. I am particularly concerned about the traffic increase that would be imposed upon B St. You are well aware of its proximity to the high school and I'm sure it comes as no surprise that the kids drive very fast and often recklessly in this neighborhood. And some of the ones who aren't driving are barreling down the B St. hill on their skateboards. Its already a dangerous combination and it frightens me to think of adding so many extra car trips into that mix. Another concern is the negative impact such a facility would have on the independent Petaluma dentists who already practice in that area. Do we really want to jeopardize their businesses while facilitating this dental factory? Please vote against this proposal. Sincerely, James Page From: JoAnn Pelissetti Upelissetti@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 12:01 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com Cc: tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: 30 West EI Rose Expansion Attachments: 30 West EI Rose Expansion.doc 1 The Ashtianis want to expand their dental practice. They think it will be financially and professionally successful. That is understandable. That is how they make their living. Mary Dooley has designed a building for this expansion. She designs buildings that are appealing to her clients. That is understandable. That is how she makes her living. They stand on one side of the scale. And who stands on the other side of the scale? The rest of us. Our community. This is not how we make our living. This is where we live. Where we raise our children. Where we vote. And we are appalled at the size and architectural design of the 30 West EI Rose project. It is completely out of keeping with the rest of our neighborhood. It is jarringly out of place. It will give us nothing and take away much of the joy we have in where we live. We are saddened and frustrated that people who do not live in Petaluma would be allowed to change the face of our west Petaluma neighborhood forever. And so we keep on fighting. And we turn to our elected officials for help. Are you listening? There the Ashtianis are on one side of the scale. And there the rest of us are on the other, struggling to be heard. What is wrong with this picture? JoAnn Pelissetti 25 West El Rose Drive From: Dennis Elias [dstevenelias@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:33 PM To: - City Clerk Cc: 'Pamela'; citymgr; King, Fran; Moore, Mike; Borba, Irene; 'David Glass'; 'David Rabbitt';'Mike Harris'; 'Mike Healy'; 'Teresa Barrett'; 'Tiffany Renee'; 'Jack Rittenhouselll'; 'John Mills'; 'Ray Johnson'; 'Terry Kosewic' Subject: 30 West EI Rose Appeal Attachments: Appeal II_30 West EI Rose.pdf; image001.gif For your review and consideration regarding 30 West EI Rose. Dennis S. Elias T. 707-776-0608 F. 707-776-0607 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Date: January 31, 2009 From: Dennis S. Elias, Vice Chair SPARC To: Mayor Pamela Torliatt Petaluma City Council Petaluma City Clerk — Claire Cooper, CMC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee John Brown, Petaluma City Manager Eric Danly, Petaluma City Attorney Director Community Development Department Irene Borba, Senior Planner CDD Re: File No. 08 -SPC -0048 -CR, 30 West EI Rose, Northbridge Offices, Appeal The proposed renovation and addition to an existing office building located at 30 West EI Rose was reviewed by SPARC on May 22, 2008, June 12, 2008 and again on July 24, 2008. Hearings were held as formal SPARC hearings, there was no preliminary SPARC in this matter typically recommended by Community Development Department, CDD. At the conclusion of the SPARC hearing, July 24' 2008, the project was approved in a vote of four in favor and one opposed. An organized group of neighbors filed an appeal with the City Clerk on August 12, 2008. The City Council heard the appeal in September 15, 2008. The City Council action remanded the project to SPARC with direction that the project will be in conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the associated Implementing Zoning Ordinance, the IZO. Implicit in this action and direction is compliance with all relevant matters including the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. The approval of a project by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee carries with it compliance with all relevant matters included in the findings. The CEQA exemption was included in the SPARC findings and identified in the public notice for the September 15, 2008 Appeal Hearing. Therefore in my opinion, CEQA remains a matter of undetermined disposition. The project applicant presented the revised project to SPARC on December 11, 2008. The project was again approved on a vote of four in favor and one opposed. My vote was the single vote opposed to the project. The project is now before the City Council for a second appeal hearing on February 2, 2009. 1 am providing you with some concerns and comments regarding the project in light of the IZO and SPARC responsibility. Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines, states "the purpose of the review is to secure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma." http://citvofi)etaluma.net/cdd/iodf/sparc-guidelines- final.pdf 1 1 SPARC is provided with the following General Standards for Review: 3 IV. General Standards for Review 5 The appropriate reviewing body reviews the exhibits, together with the reports of the Community 6 Development Department, and based on these documents, evidence submitted, and the 7 considerations set forth below, may approve the project as applied for, approve the project with 8 modifications, continue the proposal for requested changes/modifications, or disapprove the 9 project. In taking action, the reviewing body shall consider the following (Section 26-406): 10 11 A. Controls should be exercised to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the individual 12 building and its site, appropriateness of the building to its intended use and the harmony 13 of the development with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and harmony will 14 involve among other things: 15 16 i. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of 17 the overall design. 18 19 ii. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in 20 question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. 21 iii. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting ofother 22 structures in the immediate neighborhood including existing 23 topography/grading, existing trees and topography/grading on adjacent 24 properties. 25 26 iv. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of 27 appropriate signs and outdoor advertising structures. 28 29 v. The bulk, height and color of the proposed structure as compared to the bull:, 30 height and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and other 31 determining factors/parameters such as zoning ordinance requirements, historic 32 district guidelines, and/or specific plans, etc. 33 34 B. Landscaping to approve City standards shall be required on the site and shall be in 35 keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved 36 wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee. 37 38 C. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities and 39 pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience, and shall 40 conform to approved city standards. 41 42 D. It is recognized that good design character may require participation by a 43 recognized professional designer, such as an architect, landscape architect or other 44 practicing urban designer. The Committee or planning staff shall have the authority to 45 require that an applicant hire such a professional, when deemed necessary to achieve 46 quality design. 47 48 1 The above reference provides language used in staff reports prepared for SPARC outlining the findings 2 used to arrive at a disposition for a project. Findings are sometimes modified and/or added to in order 3 to satisfy the particular requirements of a project. 5 In my review of the proposed project at 30 W. EI Rose, I was not able to make all of the findings, and 6 based on my conclusions, I could not vote in favor of the project. In addition to the findings, other 7 considerations were weighed, specifically related to securing compliance with the Implementing 8 Zoning Ordinance, General Plan 2025, and other regulatory matters (CEQA), including the objective in 9 promoting the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma. I arrived at my decision 10 based on the following findings and considerations enumerated in bullet items 1) through 11) as 11 follows: 12 13 1) Ref: General Standards for Review — IV. A. i., ii., v. 14 15 RESPONSE: Although the architectural characteristics do incorporate quality materials used appropriately, the proposed expansion of the existing structure as a whole is not in harmony or proportion with its surroundings. The site is adjacent to single story residential structures and proximate to a residential neighborhood. The design and construction of the original building succeeded in achieving greater proportionality, sensitivity and consideration to the residential component of the neighborhood surroundings while adequately maintaining its commercial application and activity as a medical office building. The proposed addition to the existing structure is not compatible with the overall character of the residential neighborhood. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 2) Ref: General Standards for Review — IV. C. RESPONSE: After extensive study of the physical site characterized by its corner location, sloped topography, shared zoning boundary with residential district, and its relation to street slopes in EI Rose and Hayes Lane, I have concluded that changes could be incorporated to the site's ingress, and egress to promote and achieve a greater degree of vehicular safety while entering or leaving the property. In addition, the off-street parking facilities proposed to achieve the required number of spaces does not promote safety and convenience. The additional single covered parking space and the three uncovered parking spaces created at the rear lower northeast area of the property require maneuvering a vehicle into a series of positions in order to achieve a parked position, and conversely another series of positions in order to leave the area. It has not been demonstrated that the newly created parking in the area behind the building promotes safety and convenience. Pedestrian access from this area of the property to the building entrance is not provided in the site plan and does not include ADA accessibility. See Design Review Site Development Plans pages SP -6 and SP -7, date stamped July 14, 2008. 40 At the SPARC meeting of December 11, 2008, 1 recommended the onsite traffic circulation pattern be 41 reversed such that ingress to the property occur at Hayes Lane, onsite parking in the main parking area 42 be redesigned to facilitate parking, and egress from the property occur onto West EI Rose. The 43 reasoning for the change was to increase traffic safety to the greatest extent possible, and discourage 44 traffic impact on the residential neighborhood adjacent to this mixed use district. Currently, cars 45 leaving the property onto Hayes Lane are instinctively inclined to turn right, going downhill into the 46 residential neighborhood. 1 3) IZO Chapter 11 Parking and Loading Facilities, Off -Street 2 3 11.030 -Off-Street Parking — General Regulations 4 The following general requirements apply to off-street parking: 5 6 A. Off -Street Parking. There shall be provided on the same site with any use off-street parking, spaces 7 for automobiles and bicycles in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter, or as provided in 8 Section 11.040 (Alternatives to On -Site Parking). 9 In all cases where bicycle parking is required, bicycle parking shall not be more inconveniently 10 located than car parking and attempts should be made to have bicycle parking more convenient. All 11 deviations from the City of Petaluma Municipal Code or the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance 12 regarding bicycle parking shall be routed through the PBAC. Where existina buildinas not now 13 meeting these reauirements are or000sed to be enlarged or increased in capacity in excess of ten 14 percent (10%). in anv district exceot an agricultural (AG) or single dwelling district (RR, R1, 132), off - 15 street oarkina shall be orovided as reauired herein for the entire floor area of the structure. 16 17 RESPONSE: The subject property has an existing floor area of 3,287 square feet. The proposed 18 renovation to the existing building includes an additional 583 new square feet to the first floor and 19 2,825 new square feet as the second floor, for a total of 3,408 square feet. This constitutes an increase 20 over the existing structure of around 103%, (3,408/3,287=1.03). The required parking is one (1) space 21 for each 200 square feet of floor area for medical office, dental office, and clinics. Therefore the 22 renovated building as a dental office should provide 33.48 parking spaces (3408 + 3287 = 33.5) 23 rounded to 34 parking spaces. The project plan is only showing 30 parking spaces based upon a 15% 24 reduction in floor area for storage. This does not satisfy the requirements of the zoning code therefore 25 1 could not vote in favor of the project. I also noted that I could not find any written policy to allow up 26 to a 15% reduction in floor area to reflect services and storage areas. Reference last paragraph page 6 27 of agenda item. Also, floor area calculations are erroneous. Based upon values indicated, the total floor 28 area is 6,695 square feet, not 6,939 square feet as shown. 29 30 4) IZO Chapter ll Parking and Loading Facilities, Off -Street 31 32 11.070 - Standards for Off -Street Automobile Parking Facilities 33 All off-street parking facilities shall conform with the fallowing standards: 34 35 A. Aisles. Access to each off-street automobile or bicvcle oarkina space shall be from a drivewav or 36 aisle. which is sufficient for readilv turning and maneuverino automobiles and bicvcles. 37 38 B. Access. Each parking space shall be accessible from a street or alley or from an aisle or drive 39 connecting with a street or alley. No off-street parking facility for five (5) or more spaces in an R 40 District shall be designed so that vehicles must back across a sidewalk in order to gain access to a 41 street or alley. When a oarkina facilitv does not abut a oublic or orivate street. allev. or access 42 easement. there shall be provided an access drive of not less than twentv (20) feet in width. exceo( 43 as follows: 44 45 1. Drives furnishing access to parking facilities serving from three (3) to ten (10) dwelling units shall 46 be not less than twelve (12) feet in width and drives serving two (2) or fewer dwelling units shall 47 be not less than ten (10) feet in width. 48 49 2. Where separated one-way access drives are proposed, these shall consist of two (2) drives each 50 of which shall not be less than twelve (12) feet in width. 51 52 I. Parking Stall Size. Parking stall size shall be determined by SPARC in the SPARC Guidelines and 53 Procedures. 1 RESPONSE: SPARC standards for review require off street parking facilities be so designed as to 2 promote safety and convenience. In my opinion the three newly created uncovered parking spaces at 3 the northeast corner of the property do not promote safety and convenience nor is the area sufficient 4 for readily turning and maneuvering. (Ref: 11.070 A. above) 6 The access drive to the rear parking area is shown to be eleven (11) feet in width from the east line of 7 the property boundary to the northeast corner of the existing structure (Ref: 11.070 B. above). The 8 creation of four additional parking spaces in this area, three uncovered and one covered, will 9 negatively impact an already confined and difficult area in which to negotiate a vehicle. The pre - 10 existing condition is an access driveway, eleven feet in width and two legal size covered parking spaces 11 (10' wide x 20' deep) under the building. The addition of the new parking spaces intensifies the pre - 12 existing condition and use of the parking area and driveway access. The change from the pre-existing 13 condition to the increase in parking spaces does not comply with the parking standards nor the IZO. 14 Further, this change in condition raises the question regarding the scope of compliance in pre-existing 15 conditions. Especially since the change is in a condition that becomes non-compliant to the current 16 code with respect to the addition of one of the additional parking space under the building. 17 18 See Agenda Page 92 (Parking Standards) 19 Ref: Parking Standards item 2F of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines: 20 Implicit in Parking Standards item 2F is the definition of a covered parking space in that it states 21 "Covered Parking spaces shall measure 10' wide by 20' deep; measurements shall be from interior wall 22 to interior wall" The three covered parking spaces would be 9' wide, 8' wide and 9' wide, their depth is 23 not in question. The covered parking area under the building is approximately 26 feet wide, four feet 24 shy of the required size for three parking spaces at 10 feet wide each. 25 26 It is noted that although compact parking spaces are shown in the engineer's drawings in the covered 27 parking area under the building, this has no bearing over the specified dimensions given in the Parking 28 Standards for a covered parking space. I suppose compact cars could be parked in these spaces but the 29 parking stall dimension is still required to be 10' wide by 20' deep. 30 31 5) See Agenda Page 5: Staff Resoon5e to Ground 2a 32 Last paragraph, 2"d last, and last sentence, as follows: 33 "The parking is a site improvement not a structure. There is nothing in the IZO that prohibits 34 parking in the side (interior) or rear setback" 35 36 Chapter 12 Development Standards Modifications 37 12.050 - Projections into Required Setbacks The permitted projections into required setbacks 38 are as prescribed in Table 12.1. 39 40 RESPONSE: Titled — Allowable Projections into Required Setback, Table 12.1 describes and lists 41 allowable projecting features which are either a structure, or an element attached to or subordinate to 42 a structure. For each listed feature, there is a corresponding linear dimension indicating the maximum 43 projection allowed in the setback. What the table does not include in its list of features is any reference 44 to required parking as in a space, area or facility. Given the title of the table, it implies that the only 45 features or structures that are allowed are the ones listed, therefore and by omission, any other 46 structural feature is not allowed. 2 6) Title 13 of the City of Petaluma Municipal Code, section 13.20 Future Rights of Way sub -section 3 13.20.040 Building or structure defined states as follows: 5 PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE 13.20.040 Building or structure defined. 6 "Buildino or structure" means as defined by the building code of the city and also 7 includes retaining walls, stairways, required off-street oarkino facilities, any well, 8 whether for water, oil or other hydrocarbon products and any underground storage 9 facilities in excess of one thousand gallons capacity; provided, "building or structure" 10 does not include any building or structure as herein defined existing on the effective 11 date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or trees, agricultural crops, temporary off - 12 street parking facilities not required by the city, walks or public utilities installed under 13 authority of franchise. (Ord. 597 NCS §21.53: prior code §21.53.) 14 15 RESPONSE: Municipal Code section 13.20.040 states a required parking facility is a structure. This 16 feature is not listed in the table of allowable projections in the setback area adjacent to the residential 17 district. Based on the foregoing analysis, I could not make the finding that the parking as proposed in 18 the northwest corner of the property complies with the intent of the zoning. 20 F. Permanent Surface. Parking areas, aisles, and access drives shall be constructed and maintained to 21 provide a durable, dustless surface and shall be graded and drained to disoose of surface water without 22 damage to orivate or oublic orooerties streets. or allevs. 23 24 RESPONSE: (Ref: 11.070 F. above) Surface water runoff is being allowed to cross over property line 25 onto adjacent east property. Damage to property has occurred at Velma Pool's property on Knob Hill 26 Drive and at the terminus of the swale along the rear of the properties along the north side of West EI 27 Rose until it reaches the sidewalk and the property at 1030 B Street. See bullet item 6 below. 28 29 7) IZO Chapter 11 Parking and Loading Facilities, Off -Street 30 31 11.100 - Off -Street Loading Berth Requirements 32 For every building or addition, the number of off-street loading berths required shall be as indicated in 33 Table 11.3. 34 35 Table 11.3 indicates the following: 36 For the following Use: Offices, public buildings other than administrative offices, schools and colleges, places of 37 public assembly, charitable and religious institutions and clubs not used for human habitation, and public utility and 38 public service structures and installations, when any of the foregoing requires the recurring receipt, delivery, or 39 distribution of goods or equipment by truck 40 41 Number of Loading Births Required: One loading berth, plus such additional berths as may be prescribed by 42 the Zoning Administrator (Director) 43 44 RESPONSE: Implicit in the proposed use will be delivery of supplies and materials by truck for the 45 continual uninterrupted operation of a dental facility of the proposed size, yet there is no provision for 46 a loading/parking space for these deliveries. The omission of the loading berth is not in compliance 47 with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 48 49 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 8) Regarding CEQA Article 19, Categorical Exemptions Section 15301 Existing Facilities Sub -section (e), (1), and (2)(A)(B). A categorical exemption can be made when a project meets the test of Section 15301 (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 per cent (50%) of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less: or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A)The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. RESPONSE: The project was exempted from CEQA based on (2)(A)(B), yet these criteria conflicts with the criteria described in subsection (e)(1). Since the proposed structure does constitute an increase in size of more than 50% of the floor area as well as more than 2,500 square feet, I concluded that the project should not be approved until further review and clarification is provided regarding this exemption. I did meet with planning staff to discuss the rational for focusing on subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1) but I was not persuaded that subsection (e)(1) can be ignored in preference to subsection (e)(2)(A)(B). CEQA Section 15301 provides explicit direction that "the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing structure". I could not characterize the project as negligible with a proposed expansion of an existing structure greater than 50 % of the floor area. Therefore I concluded the disposition of the project regarding CEQA should have had one of three possible outcomes; either (a)- make no categorical exemption and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (b)- provide to the committee the rational for the use of subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1); or (c) -prepare a negative declaration. Since none of these actions were provided to the committee, I could not support the project. 7 1 9) The traffic analysis provided by the traffic engineer showed an increase of 122 daily trips to the 2 existing 119 daily trips based on the building square foot metrics, existing and proposed. This 3 constitutes an increase of 103% (122/119=1.03) in daily trips which impressed me as a 4 significant increase in the amount of traffic generated from the project site and could create a 5 noticeable effect in the neighborhood. The significance of traffic impacts in the neighborhood 6 has been articulated on numerous occasions over a period of several years. I could not justify 7 approval of the project without the inclusion of traffic calming measures being implemented to 8 improve pedestrian and vehicle safety in the neighborhood. The proposed project although it 9 would contribute to the traffic issue, I don't feel it is the property owners sole responsibility. 10 The traffic issue is separate from the project itself, but the proposed project would be a 11 contributor to an increase in traffic and therefore should bear some responsibility in mitigating 12 the impact through good site design of ingress and egress, internal traffic circulation and 13 possibly project size. 14 15 10) Draft Site Plan and Architectural Review Conditions of Approval, item numbers 14 and 15 from 16 Public Works (Engineering) require the construction of a curb along the rear parking area to 17 prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 Nob Hill Terrace 18 (APN 008-342-025); and to re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto 19 the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024). However there is no 20 mention in the conditions of approval to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent 21 property to the east of the subject site identified as 24 West EI Rose (APN 008-480-024). 1 found 22 this to be inconsistent with the stated requirements to prevent runoff to some properties but 23 not others. 24 Some uncontrolled surface runoff from the subject site is being allowed to find its way into a six 25 inch opening in a concrete curb behind the adjacent east property and then into a three inch 26 flex tube, which leads down an embankment into an open ditch which then meanders along the 27 rear property lines of the adjacent EI Rose properties until it reaches the sidewalk at B Street 28 where it is diverted into an underground storm drain. In my opinion the subject property site 29 should direct all its water runoff to W. EI Rose Avenue. 30 31 SPARC was not provided with an exhibit describing the legality of allowing storm water runoff 32 onto the adjacent east property. Typically storm water runoff is confined to the property where 33 it is collected and directed to city street and storm drain systems thereby avoiding the use of 34 neighboring private property to distribute run off unless an easement or legal description 35 explains such a condition has been agreed upon by the effected neighboring property owners. 36 37 Additionally, regarding the Drainage Study, the drainage calculations were prepared by the 38 engineer in January 2008. Since then, the northwest corner of the building has been modified 39 to comply with setback requirements. The modification exposed additional ground area to 40 storm water runoff. This new condition should be included in the drainage study to account for 41 potential additional storm water runoff toward the neighboring properties. 42 43 My recommendation is a Condition of Approval that the property owner of 30 W. EI Rose 44 establish an easement for purposes of storm water runoff onto the neighboring east property 45 or mitigate all water runoff onto other properties. 46 1 11) On February 27, 2008 the Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee PBAC reviewed this project 2 and submitted to planning staff the comments made at that meeting. Comments not included 3 in the staff report from PBAC included concerns regarding visibility and potential conflict 4 between bicyclists coming around the turn from EI Rose onto Hayes Lane and automobiles 5 exiting the property onto Hayes Lane. Other recommendations included the provision for 6 parking of four bicycles close to the entrance under the covered walkway and the type of 7 bicycle rack to be provided; the installation of curb ramps at specific locations along EI Rose 8 Drive; the reconstruction of the driveway crossing on West EI Rose Drive with ramps and the 9 reconstruction of the driveway on Hayes Lane; the installation of fluorescent yellow -green 10 pedestrian signs for safer pedestrian use. 11 12 These recommendations from PBAC were not included in the information provided to SPARC 13 for review. SPARC relies upon the comments and recommendations of various other reviewing 14 committees. These recommendations from PBAC would not have been included in the project 15 based on the SPARC approval. This appeal provides the opportunity for the City Council to have 16 these matters included when the project is resubmitted. 17 18 The foregoing information summarizes the content and considerations made during review of the 19 project in order to arrive at my conclusion to deny the project as proposed. 20 21 Respectfully, 22 23 -w 24 25 Dennis S. Elias 26 Vice Chair Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee From: winaarch@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:52 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: Northbridge Office Project, Feb.2, 2009 I want to underline the concerns of the EI Rose/Hays Lane Coalition regarding the effect the expansion at 30 West EI Rose will have on the neighborhood. Especially on traffic and parking. Where will the potential 37 additional cars (22 chairs + 15 employees) park and drive? The parking lot at 30 West El Rose will not accomodate 37 additional cars and El Rose parking is already limited during the day. The neighborhood was concerned about the "speedway" aspect of Hays BEFORE this project was considered. With the completion of the Northbridge Office Project, there would be MORE speeding cars! Note that it is a straight shot - no stop signs - on Hays from West El Rose to Hinman Lane! The Northbridge Office Project will not benefit our neighborhood! Please support the coalition! Thank you. Win Archibald 103 Belle View Avenue From: Christine [Christine@thelightfoundation.org] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:19 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com Cc: teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: EI Rose/Hayes Lane I believe that we need to listen and take action for the concerned neighbors who will have to tolerate the noise, traffic, including parking issues, and loss of privacy if the proposed project expansion for the El Rose/Hayes Lane is passed. You all know the narrow the streets and circumstances and perhaps predictable accidents in the tight spaces of this neighborhood. Your vote to change the neighborhood may be good for city revenues, however since Petaluma is filled with families and family concerns, I'm wondering if there could be some sort of a win/win situation? Less square footage in the building? More traffic, more noise, probable accidents with expansion may not be favorable to families. Could you table the issue until there is more light on the problem? We are experiencing some trouble at this time with sewer and drainage as well as dust coming into our home from present traffic along B Street. I find it more challenging to teach in our commercial space because of the noise and dust already present from existing traffic. Many of my students and clients have environmental sensitivities and cannot tolerate dusty conditions. I am constantly cleaning to make the place safe and comfortable. Thank you for taking this issue back to the drawing board for more consideration. Sincerely, Christine Bandettini, MA, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Registered Yoga Teacher, Certified to work with children who have special needs Member of the DPA and Heritage Homes Association 511 B Street Petaluma 1 From: Jennie and Matt Lounibos [pravda@sonic.net] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:49 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: 30 West EI Rose expansion Dear City Leaders, We are writing to you with our concerns about the irresponsible expansion of the property at 30 West El Rose. We live in the neighborhood, at 129 Hill Blvd. We are unable to attend the meeting on Monday, February 2, but would like to add our voice to the debate. The project as currently proposed is not acceptable. First of all, we are concerned about the impact on traffic in the neighborhood. We are already impacted by traffic at the high school, which can be quite dangerous at times. There is not a single stop sign the length of both Hill Blvd. and Hayes Lane, which leads even the most responsible drivers to drive at excessive speeds for a residential neighborhood. It is dangerous to even pull in and out of our driveways. Walking in the neighborhood will also be impacted, with more and more traffic pulling in and out at the curve at Hayes Lane/West El Rose. The sidewalks in that area are not adequate (you have to cross the street on the curve to remain on a sidewalk) and with increased traffic it becomes dangerous to walk. We are not expecting a deluge of traffic, obviously, from one building, but you are adding more traffic to an area that has been neglected in traffic regulations. Secondly, we are concerned about the impact on our aging water/sewer infrastructure. Our neighbor on Hill Blvd, experienced a sewer main that backed up into and flooded her house, because the city had neglected to clean it regularly. We experienced an unnatural "spring" of water under our house (causing our house to settle 3 inches on one side) which miraculously disappeared when the city allegedly fixed a leak up the hill from us. We spent tens of thousands of dollars replacing our foundation, which was aging to begin with, and leveling our house. Lastly, we are concerned for the privacy of our neighbors immediately near 30 West EI Rose. They bought their properties under the existing conditions. To allow those conditions to drastically change will impact people's living spaces (24 hours a day) negatively in favor of a business that operates 8 hours a day. In short, we do not reject the doctor's business in our neighborhood, but we do ask that our city leaders consider the interests of the people that vote for them and protect our safety and rights. Sincerely, Jennie and Matt Lounibos Rick Edwards 1030 B Street (@ El Rose) Petaluma, CA January 28, 2009 Mayor Torliatt 11 English Street Petaluma, California Re: Proposed development at 30 West El Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt, At this Monday's city council meeting, you and the council members are expected to decide on the fate of an often overlooked neighborhood on the city's west side. The decision handed down will not only effect our families, friends and neighbors surrounding this project, but will permanently influence, for better or worse, the future of other neighborhoods facing comparable development. I feel the concerns raised by myself, and other effected property owners, have been glossed over, dismissed or simply ignored by those interested in pushing this project forward. Issues regarding inadequate sewage capacity, ongoing drainage problems and increased traffic on already over burdened streets have not been seriously addressed. Responses such as `The problem was there already', `It's not our responsibility' or `We don't think there is a problem' are, frankly, disingenuous and insulting. I am not aware of any realistic studies or reports pertaining to sewage, drainage or traffic. Conclusions have been drawn based upon assumptions, supposition and, at best, outdated and / or irrelevant information. Data is "cherry picked" to support positions. Not only have we been doing battle with the developers but have felt, too often, that city officials have been indifferent, or worse, complicit by blindly letting this project go forward. SPARC could have and should have stopped this project from going forward as proposed. One of SPARC's responsibilities is to insure that a project ' fit' the neighborhood both functionally and aesthetically. Needless to say, 30 W. EI Rose does not. All but ONE member of SPARC `rubber stamped' this nroiect. Who among you, our elected representatives, has the integrity and common sense to stand and simply say: "Hey, Its not 'rocket science'. We gather the FACTS not guesses or uninformed opinion, pertaining to the legitimate concerns of the residents. Ifproblems are found the responsible parties will correct them. The council will then determine (fairly) if corrections have been made and /or the responsible parties have made a good faith effort to mitigate the problem (conforming to any applicable codes or ordinances) and the project them goes forward " It is my understanding that this action, taken openly and transparently, would satisfy the "ER/HLC" PROBLEM SOLVED! On Monday you have the opportunity to help preserve the integrity of Petaluma's governing body and a small part of our town. I hope, together, we will make this happen. Respectfully, Community Development Department Planning Division City of Petaluma I I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Northbridge Offices File # 08 -SPC -0048 -CR Dear Petaluma Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, I am concerned about the design changes that are being considered to the property located at 30 West E1 Rose. The addition of square footage indicates increased occupancy therefore having an impact on the City's antiquated sewer system. In 1971 my residence on Hill Boulevard experienced flooding caused by a sewage backup which originated within the main sewer line. At that time the City's Public Works Department explained the system was old and failed to meet the proper fall. As a result of this incident the City of Petaluma paid to have my service rerouted. Since this incident, no corrections have been made to the City's infrastructure in this area. I can only envision the impact the additional use would have on this inadequate system. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis Chambers 120 Hill Boulevard w MOIRA BI JLLEN December 10 20013 Homeowner 1 ] I hill Blvd Petaluma Calif 94952 Petaluma laity Council My concerns of this SPARC Project at 30 West El Rose Ave are as follows: (1)'Tz°affic `vill be in- creased in an already busy hillside co€nnnunity having a negative impact on streets where High School children and my neighbors are already at risk! Iia -,Fes Lane has a blind fair lain turn and a hand to get out of driveway for this business. It makes no sense to increase this risk to our com- munity by appi'm ing a proiect which hill inc€,case the traffic problems that already exist. (2) We have an overused, aged seNver line system that is al- ready beginning to not meet present preexisting demands. We do not need this antiquated seg-v-c:r system to be made more vulnerable with in- creased usage on our hillside com€nt€Mty, for it is obvious that this SPARICPrqjecl would be further taxing this very old and tired sewer systern. For instance, I have had a sewer problem in €ny house that ivill affect the value of n€)7 ho€ icy. Un - WORK STREET WORK CinWORK STATE WORN ZIP MOIRABULLEN fortunately we discovered we had an undisclosed lateral sewage line running under my house that connects to the sewer main in ftont of irry house. All the homes and businesses that alread}7 exist on the hill above me contribute to sewage flowing under in).- home potentiafiy causing future sewer blow out failures in in\- home, as well as other homes in this coinmunityr Should this project be approved when there are current problems and possibly more undisclosed sewer lines threatening the homes of this con-iniunity! that is the City of Petaluma going to do to upgrade this anti- quated system so that the homeowners are pro- tected? It has been recommended to me that an epoxy liner would best protect my house from further problems, yet the Cjt�, 7 of Petaluma will Cain- ' not spend the irioney to do this! How will it pro- tect this neighborhood NvIien sewer problems de- velop after approval of this SPARC Develope- inent upgrade at 30 West El Rose Ave. I have en- closed some paper Nvork so you can see what I have gone through. The City of Petaluma right, 11 - a bath- roompaid for the repair! I ivas without , room for seven vveeks in a one bathroom house. My neighbors Nvatched nie use an outhouse port - a -potty daily while we were expected to live at home during this nightmare. I JJCN-er -Vvant to go through this wcy0aln! (3)v1,"e heard many complaints PAGE 2 NIOIRA Bt LLEN in regard to Nvater drainage in the homes in the vicinity of this project at the last meeting belbre the City of Petaluma, Have these drainage issues been properly addressed to protect the homeown- ers below this SPARC project? I ain sure there are many who are fearful of the results if this is not properly designed . NVe had a water drainage problem in the history of the hillside above my home in which the expenses of the repair con- tributed to the homeowner loosing his hoiric in bankruptcy. Please consider all of the above issues in making a decision \,\,I-iich is best for our coni- iiiunit,,,: There were many of us who were present at the last City Hall IMecting relgarding, 30 El Rose Ave, The project is novo before us again as a SPARC Project and appears before this commu- nity asa Trojan Horse ivith all the saine flireats and lial)'I'ties masked 'ji a new desicM, Thank You PAGE 6 CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE BOX 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 Pamela Torliatt October 1 2007 Manor Teresa Barrett Moira Bullen Samantha Freitas 3erry Gebhardt Mike Harris 111 Hill Blvd. Daren Nan Petaluma, CA 94952 Mike O'Brien City of Petaluma David Babbitt 707-776-3696 Cowicilmembers RE: Sewer Claim Dear Ms. Bullen; In accordance with our recent settlement of your damage claim, enclosed please find a Release of All Claims in the amount of $17,867.43. At the bottom of the form, please sign in front of a notary sign and date where indicated, and return this original release to our office. As soon as we receive the properly executed release, a check will be forwarded to you to complete settlement of this matter. If you have any questions concerning this procedure, please feel free to contact our office at (707) 776-3696 Very truly yours. Animal Services Enclosure: Release of All Claims 340 Hopper Sireei Ext Petalaana, CA 94952 Phone 1707) 778.4396 Cc: Risk Manager Fax 1707) 7784397 Risk Management 1304 Southpoint, Suite 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone(707)776-3695 Fax (707)776-3697 E-Nlail i iskmat a ci.aelaluma.ea.us 3erry Gebhardt Cit) Nianager's Office I caghsh s'ireet Risk Claims Administrator Petnhaaa, CA 94952 City of Petaluma Phone (707) 778.4345 707-776-3696 Fax (707) 778"4419 Fax 707-776-3697 E -Mail .,,,.•t,t.i.newlaraa.rarev jgebhardt@ci.petaluma.ca.us Animal Services Enclosure: Release of All Claims 340 Hopper Sireei Ext Petalaana, CA 94952 Phone 1707) 778.4396 Cc: Risk Manager Fax 1707) 7784397 Risk Management 1304 Southpoint, Suite 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone(707)776-3695 Fax (707)776-3697 E-Nlail i iskmat a ci.aelaluma.ea.us Moira Bullen 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Arriving home after a 12 hour work day my hall, bathroom and guest room were filled with poopie soupy sludge(bio-hazard waste). It flowed 3 feet into my dinning room and was held back by the wool runner that was covered and saturated with sewage. After scouping-scraping and wiping I got into the bathroom where I grabbed towels to throw and stand on, the toilet had white mineral chunks around the base appearing to be rocks and the tub was filled with thick raw sewage. We plunged the bathtub with me holding a towel on the overflow and Donny plunging it but I begged off when the poopie splatter was getting me in the face. I will never bathe in this tub again! We did get it draining and flushed the toilet, all was flowing and working. Enclosed is a sample of the sludge from the cold air return of the furnace. The fir floors have peeled. Enclosed is a sample. I have had night mares over this happening again! It was a horrific experience! My peaceful quiet little bungalow and enjoyment of my home is gone. I want it back! The problem under the house needs to be addressed. It needs to be epoxy lined! This affects the resale value of my home and will need to be disclosed. I was not aware of a city sewer line under my house it was not disclosed to me. The city sewer workers were not aware it was there and have not maintained it for who knows how long. I was denied the city sewer workers report. They are working on the line in the front of my home, often removing rocks and chunks of cement at times. I beg of you to please ease my mind of this nightmare ever happening again, both teams of plumbers agreed that an epoxy liner Is the solution to the problem. This needs to be repaired! Donald P Mackin 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, Ca, 94952 At some unknown time of Friday 2-23-07 while occupants were away at work, a sewage blockage occurred forcing Bio -Hazard sewage waste out of the homeowner's toilet at I 1 I Hill Blvd, Petaluma, Ca. This sewage flowed out of the toilet across the bathroom floor, spread down the hallway floor into a closet and into dining room, bedroom. Carpets, garbage baskets, etc were thrown away. 4n Tuesday 2-27-07 Moira Bullen (homeowner) and Donald Mackin(Compamon) reported to the Petaluma utilities Department of this incident on 2-23-07. Moira Bullen previously had scheduled Mr. Rooter for help with this problem, with an appointment for Tuesday morning inspection 2-27-07. As a result of notification to the utility Dept, the city of Petaluma sewage maintenance crew arrived at 1 I I Hill Blvd to inspect sewage mains while Mr. Rooter crew inspected home plumbing. The two crew foreman met and reported their findings. The house plumbing was clear and unblocked. An unknown and unserviced lateral main was discovered running under the residence of I I I Hill Blvd. The city of Petaluma crew cleaned out the lateral main finding tree roots. After testing, this lateral main was found to run from main on Bellview street down to Hill Blvd main. Both crews agreed that a blockage occurred in Lateral main forcing sewage into the home of I I I Hill Blvd. A brief finding report by Mr. Rooter is enclosed. The city of Petaluma crew chief said he would be filing a report on his findings for review. Summation: Blockage occurred in city lateral sewage main causing damages to private residence at i I I Hill Blvd. City employees discovered that a sewage lateral main runs beneath home and therefore was unknown of and not serviced for many years causing blockage. City workers have for the future, scheduled twice a year cleanouts for the lateral main. Homeowner requests reimbursement for bills acquired for plumbing services and damages to home, as a result of sewage waste flowing into residence via toilet. (1) City workers to have filed report 2-27-07 (2) Enclosed is copy of Mr. Rooter report on plumbing 2-27-07 Question 4 (4) a. Description: upon our arrival home from work on 2-23-07, a Friday evening (approximately 8:0o p.m.) we found copious amounts of raw Bio -hazard sewage waste, flowing from toilet in bathroom to hallway and adjoining rooms and closet.. (see letter for M details) b. Reasons: following initial clean up attempts, we called a plumbing company to inspect incident. Enclosed is a report from Mr Rooter regarding findings. After approx 15 years of owning and living in the t l t Hill residence without incident, we found that a city lateral main runs under this residence with no previous knowledge or disclosure. On the same day that Mr Rooter did their inspection, we additionally recruited the city of Petaluma sewer dept for inspection. The city report on the incident we were denied access to! However we were present for both teams (Mr Rooter and city Dept) on their findings. Both crews ran cameras. One camera from house and one from city sewer access, cameras discovered blockage on city lateral main due to tree roots causing blockage backing up into residence. It is our understanding that the city workers were not aware of the existence of this sewer main, therefore, it had not been serviced or maintained. The city workers responded by immediately scheduling further regular maintainance and service. Both M.r Rooter and the city supervisor felt that an epoxy liner in the city main under the house would prevent further blockages and sewer back-ups. The present status of the city main under the house needs to be addressed. Mr Rooter installed a clean out for sewage to extract outside of the residence in the case of future blockage. Yet, future blockage is not acceptable. The main needs further attention. We request that this problem be properly repaired by the city with an epoxy liner as both crews felt is an appropriate and necessary solution. J 0 NAME B;ACDRESS A D D c,iir R E f T 295 Petaluma Hill Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 NIAME t 7P , I License P 791056 E, CSE AD',RESS V E-mail: mrrootersonoma@Efol.com L G 24 Hours a Day 7 Days a Week T IPHONE Never An Overtime Charge! 01 Technician 'PO. 4 I STATE ZIP iCCf!TaG..T RE Doc TASK# WARRANTY 1 RECOMMENDATION, DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS. SERVICES, MATERIALS It EQUIPMENT stal I , 4 f T �Nd lip t LIU so 51 11 Rick Bernal Technician e vc r t THE DOWN PAYMENT MAY NOT EXCEED $1,000 OR 10 PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE, WHICI AI; `:"i6iiEATfON OF WORK PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK You are entitled to a completely filled in copy of this eUTHOREATION TO PROCEED WITH ABOVE RECOMMENDATION -1, agreement, signed by both you and the Contractor, finant of his promises or which one work mentioned opera in to be &,me I hereby Rumoroe you to pearformin Recommendation, ,3rid to use each labor and materials as you nation acturesibli, A morthry service charge of I'Vire will be added after to Devi I aserva, before any work may be started. to pay reasonable attorneys hear and court costs In the event at legal action. If my check does not clear.; realize I could be liable, The low requires that the Contractor gives you a notice for [ limes tile amount of the check, nini, onto more Do, 4 1 ,Of, and in DO loas 16SS Ivan ii at' se fab, in of. catil Cair Gude Se.crion 1719, ofirre the face ehLJP of the Phank and court mi I have read this contract, including the terms addexplaining your right to cancel. Initial below if the ound iTrinr to the reverse i hector and chair to DF barrioce or of fee temno ,i 'i nmar I haveopice"eta baby of Parent. contractor has given you a "Notice hh­:,nmct jnd hence to 0. All pop, Mr be re"', , lo,, Pai Zinc .,:,aa:de- invies, orneri sperifierl of the Three -Day Right To Cancel". I hereby authorize you to proceed with the above work at the Contract Price of $ 1 A notice concerning Commercial Ell L ai insurance is attached to this contract, cUTHOSIZED DRIVER'SLIC, all X SIR DATE Also, a nothri cDriteminglitopqrs Coropmnsall Insdrance is attached to this contract LIGNATURE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED - I find the service and material= ban- -RINT ACCOUNT NUMBER C/O V CODE dared and installed in connection with he above mentioned, to have been com- pleted in a satisfactory manner. I agpe,& hat the amount set forth on the curract in the space labeled "TOTAL" to be the total and compete contract pricea/miri- CARD NUMBERAUTHOR CODE J rash El Check 4,f EXP DATE mum charge. I agree to pay reasonablesommiry's fee and Court costs in the event of legal action.A monthly service charge of 1 � nu will be adored after 10 J Credit Cenci ------ i this contract days. I acknowledge that I have read and eceivedia legible copy d or hereby state that the above work has been cour in a fro" ... ,­­ .­ manner ana to the applicable building codes. and have read the Notice to Owner. and statement required on nonevot. lentoll x Date 14r, TI.ohlClon Sil X I luta:707.525­5675 i2a5 Petaluma Hill Rd -Sonceinna, CA 95404 License; 791056 B. C36 arm"..ra'arn.mosle.1 coma. vinew.rompoliel.1can A ivavrdrod miriivel fwnmi,i, �Nd lip t LIU so 51 11 Rick Bernal Technician 707-525-5670 luta:707.525­5675 i2a5 Petaluma Hill Rd -Sonceinna, CA 95404 License; 791056 B. C36 arm"..ra'arn.mosle.1 coma. vinew.rompoliel.1can A ivavrdrod miriivel fwnmi,i, k 6 "du Petaivnie Hill Rd. a Santa Rosa, CA 9540 L.ec.,..• 7Pf OU 9, C3f. - -P-(nail: lTIYSOOt@CSOfIOI'ila 'aoi.COna 14 flours a Day T Days a Week Never An Overtime Charge! e , TASK p I WARRANTY S (N.,l E Q 13' ""FESS A + p Cl fi tR S PHGNE S 8 NAIVE. LIADDPESS L CG,Y T Pi,CriE __---:'JE Zip STATE ZIP CCNTA.T RECOMMENDATION, DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS. SERVICES, MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT Gu4T! 10C.'r s Appi -- Start D: Approxi rCample _1 .,+1'.11': rRE Stan T HI. 4:'OWN PAYMENT MAV NOT EXCEED $4,4 OR tit PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE„ MCC '11 '.FV PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE,CONTRAC7 DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK You are entitled to a completely filled in copy of this rti`IURG^-10,: T0PRo,'ELDtoIT' 40 jVE RfnXMriP-D-Tlntf - r r- an owner'aothotaino repre,cnaat,o agreement, signed by both you and the Contractor, neni 'iv,, , fes at +A, Cr, ilp work men4ongo abd/t 'S to ba ,' .o I Pereby ..o:P^r.P+ jou Ic fertortn Rh]ammendHLPYI, ials be are ached av10 dayE''crs,, before any work may be started. edvlaabte"mom"D1scr,aechan,of+'^:'xt .a Ito a�e;u-t,'abr:r andm.nu- as ymdam a a pay .-aunrA'at'cmey: `a_ and tz•,tl casts. the we++: or leg. ar,a: It my th"t6 oes not dea l maize 1 ccatd Is,12hk g Y The law requires that the Contractor IbeS OU a notice l!edh .mPe GaUems C:v,l a:: the, $ion s l ;el fie chacF ann rgun r =r.` ba,e rend tn- _nn:raa ,ndudne r"arre and explaining your right to cancel. initial below if the Ir'i ,a t'1' roc.=r,..: Wi Lwea` a^Id aC, se to be hn", i:. al, -; r•- m'mr con ;t,,e h+t e:n, : hays.ve'+-d acopy & contractor has given you a "Notice _._,n,t dn....aea:,nleu= "hand" ,t"Mern pare,, X 1 of the Three -Day Right To Cancel". ncreUy authorise you 9g emceed with the above work at the Contract Pace of $ 1 I j A nc.noe oncoming ming Comment., Ge�,eral Lvotllty InsurenCe is .-cached to this Conrad. ,131EQ DRIVER'S UC NO. EXP DATE J—j Alsn ;t notice concern a Woo,e%c G,mpeos•=.Lort Insurance is oached to fldh con4ac;. I�NArUPAruRE � , i ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED - I find the service and matcnais ren- ;T =GOUSIT NO? tflE?i G"C'o 60DI ] dered an.t installed In connection with the above mentioned, to nave been com- '•w.l4E I pleted to d satisfactnr. manner I actor, that the amount set torth on This ccniract m the spacelabeled 'TOTAL' to be the total and complete contract prwerm,ni- CREDIT CARD NUtIBER AUTHOR. CODE EXP DATE I I:3'„ash ❑Check «.__ mum ch, -me I acres to pay reasonable attomey's tee and court costs in the ' I event of 'egai action. ,v monthly service charge of ' 1,, will be added after 10 j Corea,; Carel. I days, I ac knowledge that I have toad and received a legible copy of this contract _ and have read The Notice to Owner, and statement required or contrast. ;L iendc slate that the above worl, has been done In a workmanlike manner and to the appf¢abb; sw,do,g codes, *w:e Te,nrtear. 5qnatvr }( - para NAME nCr e li.a CONTRACT 41 Q ' _ • M V ` a 0, Cay i// /_// /i/ % 'l r,.,( Today's Date �• t "d ansa p�Cm s 3 zm �7r $� E DaM Z ' qv L U M B f N Q� Rai [alums Hill Rd. • Santa Rosa, CA 95404 ,B NAME GC 1 525-WM a Fax: (707) 525-5875 L f W"p Litanea a 781056 B. C98 _ e `P.+' b,'�i�`� .T • F TMP vvww.mrrootetcom _- sn ms «u, 1 E& mail: mrrootersonomaGaoi.com L cm - - zip- J E�Qt -_ WAHMAIE BeUPE- « � :'�?:• T'. - .�FREENTML AT teQUBE p'✓atl Orort« PHONE IP.O. M CONT bay > I �" • OOA9MERC Ul sq, M. I E B.Q wave � �atf�-+s4.. f:�irsl•• ,S�-r»r�+�w" ,•�/r1�*...!`_ _ Esauers = ESQ VBAtQ a .. _ .. - #. w, p�+zoAtMEapAnON t ,r s tsea:� W~skgatxrM.sNr � AriN }ArinbwrRMa. Y Sava Ing viI / t/mfA. aa> fiA.+s.+w..✓i.. ®., l'ez�o I da ..lam^Cr.+✓f - /.. '«. T. I ait asks 1 .a ,.+ �1 G f..) �,,/P ^• -r'o< C, ,f j x -- 7� edz— — 4 A e. �a'..57 • ' , s-. w- I POW .e sE QV" /a.+• f'.^rOr lfry,:.'C{�.S,.r �.!�" s ! a r `dfa� .�i7i'r Jrt l/at K ! / _f ' !' . - t St~ -Dmmp TO %lar[✓ r,Rse I,_ —{ ty • 7 ri �r eC aG awx G - , Ess. ET"&.b. _ 4 -�' ". '* ' I I 1�IIIPuh� Ii1111d�6dVldnlulJYiv�iLL I TaP+Arn s I Tow THE DOWff PAYMENT MAY NOT EXCEED $1,000 OR 10, PERCENT O THE CONTRACT ICE, WHICHEVIR IS LESS. ! rW a E vsa IRmATm of woRK PATMENT OF nab slVogoateoWMAOT QUE URON 00ga unION OF WORK You are enwed to a completely fine COW of this -p UATNM TO PROCEED WrM ABOVE RECOMMENDATION -1, the w4a di nsd, am awn«!«ahmdaad MPM.M®fir agr at, signed by both you and Contractor, Q RTEQ ❑ ®ECUNED I t',pmlTgn, r j;a, nd� r Ne I'Mmleesat whkn then y rt»MbnWabove b b b¢do".IWOW Mh«k¢ YOU a, Parson floC«nm«ditw, gf,.�A,t wawhlro««W melwgla mlr�a¢em«�Iemro.Amomhry.«ao¢¢Mro•wrAvc rwl cb«k 411111 rndrya lam•* before any work play be atartied. Iffarn�_^; eaonaOb aaamarafse and cedar,, 5rtheawM ofhgN+OOtm, ami dWk(*ta6 tdW I MN ICMW W laaM The law requires the ContractorI ua no ee W �sE NOME FLUMagm ee the«vw�gadfh¢¢na¢k.lnro¢asem«athn 81.SC0«MNroraea Nn [fan$10064.111" 011twommfleCFAI �""®1 a""" yrm � NOT orriligiamoou T I rm n me rev«ae side h«eer amt Wee tO be bmW by "I d me team mnteie0d H.Wrt.I "a " contractor has you a "Notice I < To aglases 01✓aCOiRYr. s of tSta D Right To Cattae!". atmstsd ro wda �m vete r YOO, THE fFAE anon rns. Pts me m¢a ,ams a trb dreek «,e ¢mac . I reds rase mra r>aamet, klnkeea ca old explaining M caecal, InMal c react «a Nage to ,r ! Alm as calla coneemin4 tBNket'a omm] nl sake Irk"" Is b XafMill't 0 tN eaYkect. . Aa perlawlll t» ram4vM hen Pr«nl� atl imNae''""� oft tU ,�, b ;bP.aa,amtb. at Po-sorRrm.as 1A ,� i HAVE THE RIGHT 1 is ZE X TM TO FUANISH D,i'v'. Acca rc of wom PogtO Ed -t find"swAm and matamue roe- '. APO PAYMENT tR D TUR dar«r and inaWlIed to owaronan weh the obeys marabned, to haw bean cam. I TSR CAN RECi11RE pWmd In a sanatsctary manner. I Sagas that tha amaan set tomb en 81111 cahlnat IamardsWwY Yroedbn in the sate labeled "TOTAL' to be the toW and complete emnraet Pr�+aaK an ❑ Cheek a_ M a �yi i��'E: mtan cmaaRa. 1 agree to 001 dtomaYb M sad overt, oaq tl» - I a event of ones xenon K monlhy t ed an chaeta of 7 G will bs 1Q i e«J.ta w1 ant Card: I��hM6 days, l acknowbdga t have ref and replvad a thb meq k' ar'Akam to the bullft mW heverthe Owner, Md atffi .eRaUaMPree (� o� 4 _ D.a X aAigats t i s a l G. fi{ I oustcaur X T¢chnwin S / f 'Mau Ww i•ie a«ue.ulel, iibiu".ulud,na�Wlurmlu�ynru' VhucwUl�IPP W2�W't1°'�'°i°tJ"I ul ld„w n,.., dd„����. 6I,W'u a: a'W''�u' V J To Mr -Jerry Gebhardt, It was seven weeks with a party -a -potty! This has been a hardship, walking out at 2 am in the morning to use a plastic room that the work people have all used is discusting. Our friend have showered us and helped to keep us clean. I am wondering why we where never offered any compensation for not having a second bathroom? You new this is a one bathroom house, after all you lived here at one time. IT IS FINALLY COMPLETEDt I had just repainted the bathroom in December for the holidays a bright cheery yellow, and took pictures of it which I have enclosed. Life was good without stress at that time. This has been very difficult, working a fifty hour work week as I do without a shower or bathroom to get ready in_ I am requesting that all these cost be taken care as soon as possible so that we may move on with our Paves. Thank you. Sincerely, Moira Cr. Bullen Donald P. Mackin Housekeepit San Rafael, Ci�• Moira 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, CA_q4_952 Services rendered: shoveling, scrapping, and removing sludge and silt effluent caused by sewage back-up into toilet and ! u t overflowing ! covering floors and carpeting. Mop up of t: 4 i. from !! Complete cleaning and then sanitizing all bathroom Bleach •! to sanitize wood floors. Total t • $50.00/hou Balance $850.00 sewagePlease note: we do not guarantee the degree of sanitization when • permeated iii flooring and carpeting, Complete removal and replacement of wood floor is highly recommended. Bonnie Hansen Perdue Hansen's Housekeeping IAN Ak ,.. , �, Mission StatemenI We do not object to commercial use of the site, nor are we asking the property be brought up to current code before any new use can occur. However, it is wrong to allow a significant expansion in an existing older neighborhood that makes no attempt to provide a mixed-use, does not resolve the existing code conflicts and actually creates new ones, ignores an existing traffic and parking problem in the area, and sets a "single use" maximum development standard that every other MU parcel in the neighborhood will expect to follow. We believe that this expansion is not suitable, and would be a detriment to us, members of the public. This is not to say that any expansion and/or remodeling would be opposed, but this particular approach seems to be completely disconnected with both neighborhood compatibility and City policies. i 0 The existing property was erected on vacant land in the early 1960's and worked in conjunction with the Hillcrest Hospital located uphill from 30 West EI Rose. o The property has been vacant for approximately 5 years and has remained relatively unchanged for the past 50 years. When erected, the owners sought to blend into the hillside and surrounding residential neighborhood to which it abuts. o The current square footage is 3,310'. The applicant is proposing the addition of 3,684 square feet to include a second story, four separate suites, 22 dental chairs and at a maximum shift, 15 employees. o The original application was filed on February 8, 2008. The City accepted a CEQA Categorical Exemption Fee of $266.00 at the same time. o The project proposal was deemed complete on April 21, 2008. a The City has been in receipt of ongoing correspondence from concerned neighborhood residents since March 12, 2008. o The project proposal has been before the SPARC"` Committee four times and City Council' once. "City of Petaluma, California Memorandum dated December 11, 2008. "SPARC voted in favor of the project 4-1 on July 24, 2008 and December 11, 2008, Vice -Chair Elias dissented on both votes -City Council remanded the protect back to SPARC on September 15, 2008 on the grounds that the application adhere to the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 0 Coalition Concerns We believe this project to be inconsistent with the: 0 2025 General Plan o Implementing Zoning Code o SPARC Guidelines o California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) We believe this project will: o Adversely impact the residential neighborhood to which it abuts with increased traffic on streets without sidewalks in immediate proximity to schools. 0 Set a precedent for future growth on West EI Rose and the surrounding area. a Set a precedent for using CEQA exemptions when impacts and problems are documented; and recognized by both the neighbors and City staff. o Undercut the adopted City policy of creating a mixed-use cluster in this area by allowing single - use commercial buildings. 0 Defeat the City goal of correcting legal -non conforming uses by allowing both an expansion of a use, and a structure without addressing the existing non -conforming parts. 0 Take away from the overall aesthetic of our residential neighborhood, and the adopted goals and policies set for the West Hills area of the General Plan. a Invade the privacy of its surrounding neighbors. a Exacerbate existing sewer and drainage issues. o Eliminate sunlight of individual homeowner. o Ruin the scenic beauty of Petaluma's West Hills. i &V In closing, we ask you, our elected City Council, take into account what you witnessed on our walking tours, read in our letters and, have heard us repeatedly state at the speaker podium. We implore you to use your unbiased and sound judgment and do not solely rely upon Staff's recommendation for this proposal. While it may just be unintentional short-sightedness, the end result will no doubt have consequences that are long and lasting for not only our neighborhood, but for the entire City of Petaluma. Sincerely yours, EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition West El Rose + ne Hayes _.I. Rose/HayesEl a School's In Session Just An Average Day On West EI Rase January 1, 2009 »««� w� . .,222. � . .. ....xy.a� m » «� � � : , «yam a< ©»?j� «. « ��v«d :�� \.° > 2v�ew:, ,�:a.., . : �o,a..... .. ., «yz.. ». ,.. .. . . �. � >� ? «:� � , . ,< »»� � � � y »� w 2:�� � � �¥�\ « :� «� ` . y� � . � \��� \� <�� � .\\: . From: Farideh Gharai [farideh007@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:32 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: support the expantion of 30 West Elrose dental office I, Farideh Gharai and my family, have been residents of 535 Hayes lane in Petaluma for 18 years. We want to support Dr. Ashtiani and his wife 100 percent to be able to expand their dental office at 30 West Elrose. It is their right and it would not harm any of us who live in the neibourhood at all. Actually it will bring a lot of prestige to this area. We love and look forward to have them. Besr Regards, Farideh Gharai. 1 From: Crump, Katie Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:32 AM To: - City Clerk Subject: FW: 30 West EI Rose For binder Katie Crump Exec. Assistant to the City Manager (707) 778-4347 kcrumo(@ci.oetaluma.ca.us City Hall Hours as of 11/3/08: Mon. -Thur. 8-5; Closed Fridays -----Original Message ----- From: james page [mailto:jimmymio@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:04 PM To: mike4pet@aol.com; david@davidrabbit.com; citymgr Subject: 30 West E1 Rose Fellow Petalumans: I am a homeowner and live on Laurel Ave. right near B St. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of 30 E1 Rose. I am well familiar with the area as both my physician and my dentist are located in that area. I am particularly concerned about the traffic increase that would be imposed upon B St. You are well aware of its proximity to the high school and I'm sure it comes as no surprise that the kids drive very fast and often recklessly in this neighborhood. And some of the ones who aren't driving are barreling down the B St. hill on their skateboards. Its already a dangerous combination and it frightens me to think of adding so many extra car trips into that mix. Another concern is the negative impact such a facility would have on the independent Petaluma dentists who already practice in that area. Do we really want to jeopardize their businesses while facilitating this dental factory? Please vote against this proposal. Sincerely, lames Page 1 Padovan, Deborah 5 fV FYI Alicia Kae Henries ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: 'Rose Zoia" <rzoia@sbcglobal.net> To: ptorliatt@aol.com, teresa4petaluma@comcast.net, daveglass@comcast.net, mike4pet@aol.com, david@davidrabbitt.com, mthealy@sbcglobal.net, tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: edanly@meyersnave.com, mmoore@ci.petaluma.ca.us, iborba@ci.petal uma.ca.us, akherries@comcast.net, "Scot Stegeman" <scotsteg@mon itor. net> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 3:44:03 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council Members, Please find attached a letter from traffic expert Bob Shanteau regarding the above -referenced project. I will be submitting a separate letter to you via email as soon as possible but certainly prior to 6:00. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Rose Zoia Lent, Office nJ Rose M. Zoia From: akherries@comcast.net Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:48 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Attachments: 30 W EI Rose letter report BS.pdf FYI Alicia Kae Henries ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: 'Rose Zoia" <rzoia@sbcglobal.net> To: ptorliatt@aol.com, teresa4petaluma@comcast.net, daveglass@comcast.net, mike4pet@aol.com, david@davidrabbitt.com, mthealy@sbcglobal.net, tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: edanly@meyersnave.com, mmoore@ci.petaluma.ca.us, iborba@ci.petal uma.ca.us, akherries@comcast.net, "Scot Stegeman" <scotsteg@mon itor. net> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 3:44:03 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council Members, Please find attached a letter from traffic expert Bob Shanteau regarding the above -referenced project. I will be submitting a separate letter to you via email as soon as possible but certainly prior to 6:00. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Rose Zoia Lent, Office nJ Rose M. Zoia 50 Old Courthouse .Sy., Ste. 401 Sawa Rosa Cd 95404 tel: 7-07-526-5894 /ae: 707-540-C49 Important Notice: This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not an addressee or the person responsible for delivering this message to the addressee)s), please be notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, or copying this message is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify me by replying to this message and then completely deleting the original message and your reply. Thank you very much. llOobeiril:M. Shanlfe&u, li'h.D., P.E. Registered Traffic Engineer 13 Primrose Circle (831) 394-9420 Seaside, CA 93955 Cell: (831) 917-0248 email: RMShant@gmail.com FAX: (831) 394-6045 February 2, 2009 Law Office of Rose Zoia 50 Old Courthouse Square Suite 401 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Attention: Rose Zoia By email to rzoia@sbcglobal.net Subject: Northbridge Offices; 08 -SPC -0048 -CR 30 W. El Rose Dear Ms. Zoia: At your request, I have reviewed the letter from Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner, to David Harris dated July 14, 2008; City of Petaluma Memorandum from Frank Penry, City Traffic Engineer to Irene Borba, Project Planner, dated July 14, 2008; City of Petaluma Memorandum from Frank Penry to Irene Borba dated August 25, 2008; and Design Review Site Development Plans for Northbridge Offices dated October 29, 2008. In summary, the project applicant and the City of Petaluma have failed to identify possible environmental impacts related to traffic. In my opinion, a Traffic Impact Study should be prepared that identifies the impacts of the project and proposed mitigations. These are the flaws that I find in the various documents: 1. The sight distance diagram in the Design Review Site Development Plans, details of which are shown below and on next page, fails to show any vehicles parked in new space numbers 9-12 (see detail of parking plan on next page). The normal situation is that these spaces would be filled, in which case a driver turning left out of the 6L XYBk WYO _ MYtl YYY� February 2, 2009 Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE 2 30 W. EI Rose, Petaluma driveway would have to see through these parked vehicles and thus would not have the view shown on the plans and therefore be at a heightened risk of colliding with a velucle coming around the corner. Even if they are reserved for employees, though, the parking c t. i hazard associated with that space would still exist. 2. Parking spaces 24-30 (see excerpt at right) are located behind the building. Because @� as azn maneuvering space is so tight here and because it would be difficult for a driver looking for `r and not finding a space here to backout, it K=, would make sense not to make these available s to the general public and instead to reserve `E v these spaces for employees only. d:E 3. Space number 29 (see excerpt at right) is a q` ( "° — parallel parking space and is likely to be struck by a vehicle maneuvering into or out of one of _; o the others aces in this tight area. — _ -- 4. Although City parking standards may require a °' "' � IX� ? •: ' ' 1 •, a mei-,, .. total of 30 parking spaces, parking demand will "'' likely be higher. The site drawing submitted with the original application provides a total of 22 dentist chairs which, if all are filled, will j. mean that along with the necessary staff and with patients waiting and checking out, there February 2, 2009 Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE 30 W. El Rose, Petaluma will be between about 50 and 100 people in the building at any one time. In my experience, staff are instructed to park on -street in order to leave the parking lot available for patients. If this happens, there is likely to be an impact from on -street parking. It would be instructive to know what the parking demand of the building was when it was fully occupied in order to determine whether the proposed number of parking spaces would be sufficient. 5. Although the plans show a sidewalk along the property frontage, there are no existing sidewalks on several of the adjacent properties. According to the City to David Harris, "the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible tin the General Plan." The lack of sidewalks in the area, however, mean that pedestrians must walk in the roadway, which means that they are being denied a vital public service. This is especially important due to the presence of the adjacent high school. Indeed, the lath of sidewalks creates s safety hazard for students walking to and from the school. 6. The streets in the area are hilly and curved, meaning that speeds should be lower than those reported by the traffic engineer. Additional measures should probably be taken to "traffic calm" these streets, especially given the lack of sidewalks in the area. The traffic engineer reports on the results of a speed study, but does not provide the speed study itself. Thus it is impossible to determine under what circumstances the speed study was done, including the location, time of day, sample size, speed measuring device, etc. This information is vital to understanding the existing traffic conditions in the project area. 8. The Traffic Engineer refers to the City of Petaluma internal document, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, from which he quotes, "If a proposed project is more than 10% below the threshold, a traffic study should not be required, unless there are special extenuating circumstances (examples of which might be unusual safety or access concerns or extreme neighborhood opposition to the project)." He then states, "It should be noted that the last sentence has been removed, as the Traffic Engineer reserves the right to make a determination based on a formal review." He does not state, however, when that sentence was removed or under what circumstances. The sentence is actually quite reasonable, as unusual safety or access concerns or neighborhood opposition to a project should trigger a traffic impact study. For the subject project, all three issues (safety, access and neighborhood opposition) are present, so a traffic impact study is indicated. In his August 25, 2008, memorandum, the City Traffic Engineer states, "this information has been assembled and presented in much the same way a Traffic Study, prepared by a consultant hired by the project applicant would have been." In reality, a traffic impact study is quite a bit broader and provides more detail than the information provided in the memorandum. In particular, I am not able to review several of the possible impacts of the project (pedestrian and bicycle safety and access, parking demand, etc.). Even the City Traffic Engineer recognizes the February 2, 2009 Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE 30 W. El Rose, Petaluma lack of specificity when he states, "It is with many years of experience authoring and reviewing these types of engineering studies that I used my professional engineering judgment to make these findings without a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the project applicant." Well, I also have many years of preparing and reviewing traffic impact studies, and it is my professional opinion that it is not possible to assess the possible impacts of the projects in the absence of a formal traffic impact study. Sincerely, Robert M. Shanteau Cooper, Claire 544 From: akherries@comcast.net Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:29 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; daveglass@comcast.net; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; Mike4Pet Cc: citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; Scot Stegeman; Rose Zoia Subject: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Hearing Documentation Attachments: Zoia 020209.pdf Greetings Mayor Torliatt, Vice -Mayor Barrett and Council Members Glass, Harris, Healy, Rabbitt and Renee — Attached, please find further commentary from Ms. Zola with regard to the appeal hearing of 30 West EI Rose. Note, we will provide you with hard copies of this documentation, as well and Dr. Shanteau's comments at this evening's hearing. Sincerely, Alicia Kae Henries EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition (707)758-8397 1 Rose .M. Zoia Attorney 50 Old Courthouse square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894. fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@5hcglobal.net February 2, 2009 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: SPARC Appeal: 30 West EI Rose location February 2, 2009 hearing Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers On behalf of Appellant EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appellant incorporates fully by reference the undersigned's letter dated September 12, 2008, attached hereto, and takes this opportunity to respond to the letter from Chris Costin, Beyers Costin, dated January 27, 2009 (as well as the verbal comments by Eric Danly at the September 15, 2008 City Council hearing on the original project related to the standard of review for exceptions to exemptions). A. The Project The physical aspect of the project proposes to more than double the square footage of the existing 3,287 square foot, single -level structure to a 6,669 square feet, two-level building. The anticipated use of the building is now not entirely clear. The original Development Permit Application and related submittals dated February 8, 2008 apparently still is the operative application. It Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 2 describes the project as a "full service" dental facility' called the "Northbridge Offices 112, with 15 employees and hours of operation from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and including 29 parking spaces.' The original floor plan showed 22 dental chairs° but, curiously, the floor plan attached to the December 11, 2008 SPARC Memorandum labeled, "30 W. EI Rose Offices," shows only "open office" in place of the dental chairs. (No floor plan is attached to the current City Council Agenda Report.) This floor plan raises the questions of what is the actual current intended use and why does the floor plan not show dental chairs. The answers to these questions are essential to allow the Council to make an informed decision. B. The Standards of Review Projects may be categorically exempt from CEQA review only if they "do not have a significant effect on the environment."' Thus, "[w]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper."' The substantial evidence standard of review applies to an agency's initial factual determination of whether the exemption applies.' ' Project Description, 2/09/08; Environmental Impact Questionnaire, p. 3. ' Development Permit Application, 2/8/08. 3 Development Permit Application, 2/8/08. I See also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://petaluma.granicus.com/ MinutesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:02:14-38 (Member Ray Johnson) ; 03:05:15-06:34 (architect Mary Dooley. ' Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300 et seq.; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 126-127.) 'Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1192 ("This principle of interpretation is embodied in the Guidelines, which state that CEQA should be interpreted to "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Cits.]".) ' See Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Guide to CEQA (Solano Press, 11" ed. 2006), pp. 159-160, discussing Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 3 The CEQA Guideline states that "if there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances ...." the agency may not find the project to be categorically exempt.e This language implicates the fair argument standard of review and the emerging consensus in case law is that the fair argument test applies to whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, i.e., whether an exception applies.9 "Any activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt."10 The record is devoid of legal citation to the contrary. Whether or not the circumstances surrounding the project are unusual is a question of law for the reviewing court." C. The Minor Alteration Exemption Does Not Apply Section 15301 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of existing private structures "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.... The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an App. 4th at 129. a Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c) [emphasis supplied]. Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 655; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4'h 1359, 1406, fn.24 ("We have held that a substantial evidence standard of review applies to an agency's factual finding that a statutory exemption applies. [Cites.] Most statutory exemptions, however, operate regardless of whether the project will have effects on the environment. [Cites.] Thus, "[w]hen reviewing a statutory exemption, the nature and extent of the project's environmental impacts are ordinarily irrelevant." [Cite.] Therefore, we have at least suggested that where a statutory exemption does depend on whether the project will have significant environmental effects (as does section 21083.3), the fair argument standard should govern review of an agency determination that the statutory exemption applies. [Cites.]." [Emphasis supplied.]); Guide to CEQA, supra, pp. 160- 165. " Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 CalAth at 124 [emphasis supplied]. " Azusa Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Water -master (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1207 ("... the question whether that circumstance is 'unusual' within the meaning of the significant effect exception would normally be an issue of law that this court would review de novo.... This court will decide that issue for itself.") Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 4 existing use .02 Notwithstanding the curious current and temporary activity in the building, the structure has been vacant for several years. (Appellant has been informed that an entity has set up four copy machines in part of the building and that workers are running off copies at various hours of the day based on a three- month lease.) A new project that increases the size of a building by more than 100% and introduces a new use into a vacant building is not fairly subject to the "minor alteration" categorical exemption. The baseline that must be used for comparison purposes is the current and recent historic vacant use.13 The cases cited by Mr. Costin in his letter are not applicable to this case and are readily distinguishable. Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board (p. 3, fn.7), did not involve a discussion of baseline. In that case, the agency reestablished wastewater discharge requirements to the level at which they had previously been approved for a wastewater treatment plant. The issue was whether the reestablishment of the discharge requirements within levels previously approved under CEQA fit the definition of a "new project" subject to a new EIR. The court explained the project was the earlier expansion of the wastewater treatment plant for which an EIR already had been prepared. The court held that the reestablishment of discharge requirements within previously approved levels was merely a separate governmental re -approval of the original project and did not itself constitute a new project under CEQA. 14 In this case, the proposed use never has been and, unless this Council insists on environmental review, never will be subject to CEQA review. Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (pp. 3-4, fn.7) also involved a longstanding active project. The project site in that case had been mined for "- Guidelines, § 15301 [emphasis supplied]. " Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350 ("... in comparing an old general plan with a new county general plan that would allow less growth than the old plan, the EIR had to address the existing level of actual physical development in the county as the baseline for the comparison." The court emphasized that "CEQA... concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area. The legislation... has clearly expressed concerns with the effects of projects on the actual environment upon which the proposal will operate." Thus, the proper environmental baseline is the contemporaneous physical conditions of the environment, rather than future hypothetical conditions.) 14 Id., (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 847, 863-864. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 5 more than 50 years and, in 1976 was subject to an EIR and CUP which permitted production at the level correlating to a daily average of 810 truck trips per day. In 1993, a new owner acquired the site and filed an application to modify the 1976 CUP to increase the mine's site and production. While the modification application was pending, the 1976 CUP expired so the agency permitted the owner to continue operating the mine pursuant to a compliance agreement while the agency continued to consider the modification application. The compliance agreement permitted production at the same level allowed under the 1976 CUP, i.e., a daily average of 810 truck trips. The county then required an EIR for the modification application. The court held that the EIR properly discussed the existing physical condition, i.e., the baseline, of the affected area as including the previously allowed and assessed 810 truck trips associated with the long -operating and ongoing mining operation.15 Again, the subject application is for a new project which never has undergone environmental review. Contrary to the Committee for a Progressive Gilroy and Fairview Neighbors case, in this case the City is presented with a new application for a new use at a currently vacant site. In such a case, CEQA requires a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project "before the commencement of the project" which constitute "the baseline physical conditions" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed.16 The baseline is required to describe the existing physical conditions. As explained in detail on pages 6 to 8 of the attached letter, the baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of this new proposed project is the state of the building as a one-story, 3,287 -square foot, vacant structure. Mr. Costin offers that the City already knows the traffic impacts form this building in its existing state of 3,287 square feet so that it but offers no evidence to support this claim. (P. 4.) Unlike the projects in the above two cases, this project does not have a history of environmental review, much less an EIR. It is more than an assumption that this office building produces no traffic; it is a fact. The building is empty. Likewise, Mr. Costin's hypotheticals relating to the restoration of a fire -damaged building or the construction of tenant improvements are not persuasive. Such improvements would simply restore one building to its pre -fire -damaged state and add or remove walls and fixtures from the interior of the other building. These examples presumably do not include more than doubling the current size of those buildings and introducing a new uses. 15 Id., (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238, 240-244. 16 Guideline section 15125 Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 6 The record is lacking in substantial evidence that this project and the spectrum of permitted uses involves "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing" at this time. The exemption does not apply. D. The Significant Effect/Unusual Circumstances Exception Applies Assuming for the sake of a complete argument that the project is exempt, may have effects that would except it from the exemption." As explained, the fair argument standard as set forth in detail on page 9 of the attached letter is applicable. Thus, if there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may create significant environmental impacts, the project is excepted (taken out) of the exemption and subject to CEQA. The unusual circumstances language considers whether the circumstances of the particular project (1) differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. As can be seen by the list of examples set forth in footnote 10 of the attached letter, the exemption does not contemplate the doubling of the size of the current structure or project to allow a panoply of permitted uses. The unusual circumstance in this case is the prospect of a 6,669 square foot building zoned for many and varied types and densities of permitted uses in a low density area including residences and a school. These circumstances create specific environmental risks as summarized herein and as presented in written and oral testimony. Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, cited by Mr. Costin at pages 4 to 5 of his letter, fn. 11, is distinguishable. In that case, the exemption was for small commercial structures in an urbanized area and the court held that a project that involved "the addition of a small building in to a fully developed downtown area" was not an unusual circumstance.18 The abundant testimony by neighbors and experts on various issues including density/massing, air and light interference, drainage and wastewater infrastructure, and traffic and parking based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the site provides substantial evidence for purposes of the fair argument test. This project will create incompatibility with the surrounding residences with its size and mass. The traffic associated with the project, including demolition and construction related traffic and other demolition and " Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.AppAth at 104. " to., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1260. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 7 construction related effects, are serious. Neighbors have provided abundant testimony regarding the inadequacy of drainage problems and wastewater infrastructure. This evidence places this project directly into the significant impacts/unusual circumstances exception. The evidence is found in many submittals into the record, both from percipient witnesses and experts. The Coalition has made it clear that it does not oppose commercial use of the site. It does, however, oppose the project as proposed without environmental review and respectfully requests this Council find the exemption inapplicable and order the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Should the Council exempt this project from CEQA, this project will never undergo any level of environmental review.19 Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Vetrry my yours, Rose M. Zoi cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Eric Danly Mike Moore Irene Borba " Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 124 (A project falling within a categorical exemption is not subject to CEQA.) Rose 1.1. zoia Attorney 50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894. fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@sbcglobal.net September 12, 2008 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 via email and USPS RE: Northbridge Office Project at 30 West EI Rose Notice of Public Hearing' City File No. 08 -APL -0370 -CR Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: On behalf of Alicia Herries and the EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an appeal from SPARC's decision to approve the project. SPARC made its decision based on its assumption that the project complied with CEQA and zoning and the General Plan. In other words, SPARC did not independently review these issues vis-a-vis this project's comformance with these laws. In fact, not all members thoroughly reviewed the proposed findings on these issues prior ' Note: The last sentence of the Notice of Public Hearing mentions a 90 -day time period to challenge an administrative decision of the City Council. However, this 90 -day time period does not apply to challenges of an approval under CEQA. One has 35 days of the filing of a Notice of Exemption or 180 days after the decision if an NOE has not been filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167, subd. (d).) Thus, in relying on the language in the Notice of Public Hearing, the public can be misled into missing the CEQA statute of limitations under CEQA. }}-++och m eh -r Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 2 to approval, but SPARC nonetheless approved the findings .2 This Council, therefore, is the first public forum for discussion and consideration of these issues. (The project has not been before Planning Commission.) The threshold issue of incompatibility with the General Plan and Zoning Code is addressed in the submittals by land use planning and environmental analysis expert Scot Stegeman, Stegeman & Associates. This letter will discuss the inapplicability of the exemption under CEQA and, for the sake of completeness, the applicable exceptions. However, because the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, it cannot be approved on that basis and CEQA can be waived. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Council finds that the project somehow is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, it cannot be approved on an exemption. This Council should find the exemption inapplicable and order the preparation of an Initial Study (CEQA Environmental Checklist Form) to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is defined as a proposal to expand the first floor of an existing 3,287 square foot, single -level structure by 559 square feet in lateral area and to add a 2,823 -square foot second floor for a total addition of 3,382 square feet. The finished structure would occupy 6,939 square feet. (The First and Second Floor Site Plan gives a total square footage of 6,766.) That is the plan for the physical construction; the use of the building is another consideration. The information on the use of the building is cobbled together from several sources: � the proposed use is for a "full service" dental facility (Project Description, 2/09/08; Environmental Impact Questionnaire, p. 3); -4 15 employees are proposed for the maximum shift; 4 the proposed hours of operation are 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; 4 29 parking spaces are proposed, (Development Permit Application, p. 2); and 4 22 dental chairs are anticipated. (First and Second Floor SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://Petaluma.aranicus.com/MinutesViewer .php?view id=4&clip id=706, 02:42:07-02:43:07 (Chair John Mills: assumes application deemed complete and within the zoning code), 03:11:35-13:20 (Chair Mills: the use of the building is not an issue for SPARC); 03:28:32-29:37 (Chair Mills emphasizing importance of understanding the findings; member Terry Kosevic stating that he "glanced over the findings ... comfortable with staffs analysis ... staff usually does their job."); see also, letter of appeal by Stegeman & Associates dated August 6, 2008, p. 5, item e). Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 3 Plan; see also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - hftp://petaluma.granicus.com/ Min utesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:02:14-38 (Member Ray Johnson) ; 03:05:15-06:34 (architect Mary Dooley). Despite the fact that the proposed physical additions will increase the square footage of the building by more than 100% and that the use of the building will go from vacant to full professional offices, SPARC determined the project exempt based on the"minor alteration" categorical exemption set forth in section 15301(e)(2), Class 1, of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.). Should the Council agree with SPARC's decision, this project will undergo no level of environmental review prior to approval.3 A. Categorical Exemptions Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code authorizes Guidelines that list classes of projects "categorically" exempt from CEQA. These projects may be exempt from CEQA review only if they "do not have a significant effect on the environment."' Therefore, "[w]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper."5 An agency's decision related to exemptions is two -fold. First, the agency determines whether an activity is covered by an exemption, in this case, whether it is a "minor alteration" and meets the conditions set forth in section 15301. The substantial evidence standard of review applies to this determination.' Then, the agency determines whether any of the exceptions apply, i.e. whether the project ' Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 124 (A project falling within one of these categorical exemptions is not subject to CEQA.) Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300 et seq.; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 126-127.) ' Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1192 ("This principle of interpretation is embodied in the Guidelines, which state that CEQA should be interpreted to "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Cits.]".) 6 See Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Guide to CEQA (Solano Press, 11'h ed. 2006), pp. 159-160, discussing Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 129. Letter to Pamela Torllatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 4 may create particular significant effects.' The question of whether exceptions apply is reviewed under the fair argument standard.' B. The Minor Alteration Exemption Does Not Apply in this Case Section 15301 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of existing private structures "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.... The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use."9 SPARC approved the subject project as exempt under the example set forth in section (e)(2), as follows: (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The exemption further provides illustrative examples of projects subject to the exemption, which are useful for comparison purposes.10 'Guidelines, § 15300.2. ' Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 644, 655. B Guidelines, § 15301 . " The other examples are: (a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances; (b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly -owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services; Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 5 FOOTNOTE CONT. (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety). (d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as earthquake, landslide, or flood; (f) Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices; (g) New copy on existing on and off -premise signs; (h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs (excluding the use of pesticides, as defined in Section 12753, Division 7, Chapter 2, Food and Agricultural Code); (1) Maintenance of fish screens, fish ladders, wildlife habitat areas, artificial wildlife waterway devices, streamflows, springs and waterholes, and stream channels (clearing of debris) to protect fish and wildlife resources; Q) Fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game; (k) Division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common -interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt; (I) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subdivision; (2) A duplex or similar multifamily residential structure. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to duplexes and similar structures where not more than six dwelling units will be demolished. (3) A store, motel, office, restaurant, and similar small commercial structure if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to the demolition of up to three such commercial buildings on sites zoned for such use. (4) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 6 One can see from the examples that the phrase "negligible or no expansion of use" is given serious consideration. The application of the exemption in this case must fail at this first test. This project does not involve negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The structure has been vacant for at least three years. It is vacant at this time and will remain so at the time this agency makes its determination. The baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of this proposed project is the state of the building as a one-story, 3,287 -square foot, vacant structure. CEQA Guideline section 15125 requires a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project "before the commencement of the project" which constitute "the baseline physical conditions" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed. The baseline is required to describe the existing physical conditions. Measuring possible environmental effects against an improper baseline skews all the analyses, findings, and decisions that follow. As one court explained: CEQA ... concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment, defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area.... The courts, of course, have so recognized: "[W]e conclude that the Legislature intended the [C]EQA to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the (m) Minor repairs and alterations to existing dams and appurtenant structures under the supervision of the Department of Water Resources. (n) Conversion of a single family residence to office use (o) Installation, in an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, of a steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste generated by that facility provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (p) Use of a single-family residence as a small family day care home, as defined in Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 7 reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Cite.) "The highest priority must be given to environmental considerations in interpreting the statute." (Cite.) "In determining environmental impact, agencies must consider the effect of the project on the environment." (Cite.)" In this case, the proposal more than doubles the size of the structure and, more importantly, increases the use from nothing to a dental practice including 22 dental chairs, several doctors, hygenists, and other staff. Currently, the use implicates no increased aesthetics, no air quality, no hydrological, no land use/planning, no noise, and no traffic or parking impacts. The proposed use implicates all of these impacts on the environment. As stated in the exemption, "[t]he key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." A change from no use to intense use cannot be characterized as a negligible expansion. An example of the misapplication of the baseline can be found in memoranda from Frank Penry to Ms. Borba dated July 14, 2008 and August 25, 2008. In those memos, Mr. Penry appears to have made a determination that the project does not require a traffic study based on, among other things, a baseline which includes vehicle trips associated with a 3,287 square foot medical office building. As explained above, the traffic and parking impacts associated with the use of a 6,939 or 6,766 square feet building must be compared to the traffic and parking impacts associated with the non-use of the current building. Finally, the environmental review of a project must take into account the worst case scenario. For example, in one case, the EIR found that, under the worst case scenario, every available parking space within a three -block radius would be occupied and, therefore, concluded that parking impacts of the proposed project were significant. 12 As pointed out by Stegeman & Associates in its letter of appeal dated August 6, 2008, the current Zoning Code provides for a variety of permitted uses, including a broad range of office functions. Many of these uses could generate more traffic and/or require more parking than the currently proposed use. Since a change in use would occur with no further " Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of EI Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354. 12 Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1020, 1025; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. LIC Regents (Laurel Heights 0 (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405 (EIR must serve CEQA's public informational purposes and, therefore, must analyze all aspects of a project that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project.). Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 8 discretionary review by the City, the current review should anticipate the worst case scenario in terms of use. As mentioned earlier, the use of an exemption must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record is lacking in evidence that this project and the panoply of permitted uses involve "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing" at this time. C. The Significant Effect/Unusual Circumstances Exception Applies Even assuming a project is exempt, it may have effects that would render it nonexempt due to the significant effects exception of section 15300.2, subdivision (c).13 "Any activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt."14 "[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances " the agency may not find the project to be categorically exempt.15 There is no indication in the record that an exception was considered. As one court has stated: Categorical exemptions require a specific finding by the Secretary of the Resources Agency that the class of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment. (Cites.) ... it is not unreasonable to require a consideration of the issue of significant environmental effects at the preliminary review stage (cite) when the agency assesses the applicability of a categorical exemption.16 As it is applicable here, section 15300.2 provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.t7 " Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.AppAth at 104. " Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 CalAth at 124 [emphasis supplied]. 11 Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c) [emphasis supplied]. 16 East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 155, 171, 172. 17 See also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1191. Letter to Pamela Torllatt„ Mayor, and Glly Counclimembers September 12, 2008 Page 9 In this case there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have significant impacts on the environment due to unusual circumstances, related to building height and density, air and light impacts, and traffic and parking and related effects. The applicable fair argument standard states that if there is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an initial study.t8 Thus, whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption is not proper.79 "Stated another way, if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact, but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required [initial study or] EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed 'in a manner required by law.' [Citation .]"20 Substantial evidence is "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached .1121 It includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts."22 Relevant personal observations by area residents are properly considered for this purpose .21 In addition, an agency's lack of analysis cannot provide the basis for an exemption 24 Here, the abundant testimony by neighbors on the issues of density/massing, air and light interference, and traffic and parking based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the site provides substantial evidence for purposes of the fair argument test. This project will create incompatibility with the surrounding residences with its size and mass. The traffic associated with the project, including demolition and construction related traffic and other demolition and construction related effects, place this project directly into the significant "Friends of 'B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. 9 Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at 1198. 2° Friends of 'B" Street, supra. 2' Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a). zz Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b). 29 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 339. 11 See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 10 impactslunusual circumstances exception. The evidence is found in many submittals into the record, both from percipient witnesses and experts. The following are a few examples: Email from Allison Murohv to Irene Borba dated March 12. 2008: Currently, parking on West EI Rose Drive is so difficult there are days when people cannot find parking to visit neighbors or to attend doctors appointments. Overflow parking is going up Hayes St and down B. Street. As a solution, many patients from the dentists and doctors offices park in the parking lot at 30 West EI Rose Drive CURRENTLY. And there are still problems finding parking on the street. This demonstrates that the parking needs of this area are already lacking. Email from Jenn Call dated April 29, 2008: We also are concerned about potential parking issues. Substantially increasing the size of this commercial building will mean that many 30 West EI Rose clientele will likely park on the street. Parking spaces on our street are extremely limited. While we don't mind sharing these spaces, if the spaces are used in virtual continuity by 30 West EI Rose clientele, there would be nowhere for our guests to park. Additionally, these spaces are used regularly by delivery vehicles such as FedEx and the U.S. Postal Service. If delivery vehicles began double-parking while making daily deliveries, traffic issues would be further exacerbated. (See also letter from Dan Gaffney dated May 10, 2008.) Letter from Jennifer and Matthew Lounibos to Ms. Borba dated Mav 12, 2008: Already our neighborhood is plagued by too many cars, too little parking, and drivers that have no regard for the speed limit. The hill that 30 West EI Rose is atop seems to encourage drivers to speed down Hayes Lane, which has no stop sign or speed bumps anywhere on it until it dead ends into Petaluma High School. Our street, Hill Boulevard, is similar in that there are no stop signs the length of it, allowing drivers from the La Cresta area, English and Bassett Streets, and Petaluma High School to speed past our homes at 40, 50 or more miles per hour, way above the speed limit. As such, there are certain times of the day when we don't feel conformable going for a walk because the traffic is so fast.... Our street seems to have become a rapid thoroughfare around the stop signs that have been added on Webster Street, and we can see the problems only worsening once the number of clients visiting 30 West EI Rose grows. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2006 Page 11 Regarding parking issues, our neighborhood is impacted with cars already. Parking is so competitive on our street that a neighbor regularly phones the police when our car is parked in front of our own house because he wants to park his numerous vehicles there. Having more clients at 30 West EI Rose will only worsen the problem, due to already inadequate parking space. 4. Anneal letter from Steaeman & Associates dated Auaust 6. 2008: As explained in detail in this letter, the project is inconsistent with the previous General Plan and Zoning Code, Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines (SPARC Guidelines) regarding parking lots and exterior lighting. Letter from Dennis S. Elias. Vice Chair SPARC. dated Auaust 27. 2008: In the case of the proposed project at 30 W. EI Rose, I was not able to make all of the findings [based on SPARC Guidelines], and based on my conclusions, I could not vote in favor of the project. In addition to the findings, other considerations were weighed, specifically related to securing compliance with applicable Zoning Ordinances and other regulatory matters (CEQA), including the objective in promoting the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma. I could not characterize the project as negligible with a proposed expansion of an existing structure greater than 50 % of the floor area. Therefore I concluded the disposition of the project regarding CEQA should have had one of three possible outcomes; either (a) -make no categorical exemption and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (b) -provide to the committee the rational for the use of subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1); or (c) -prepare a negative declaration. Since none of these actions were provided to the committee, I could not support the project. Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Elias qualify as experts and, therefore, their respective testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant impacts on the environment. Thus, it is excepted from the exemption. Letter•to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 12 Other documented problems include the project's potential to compromise residential privacy and block sunlight. The fact that story poles were required speaks to the reality of the environmental impacts of the project; if the project has no potential for impacts on the environment, story poles would be unnecessary. On the other hand, their existence shows the project's potential for impacts. In conclusion, the Agenda Bill for this hearing is not persuasive in its recommendation to deny the appeal. Since the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning, it cannot be approved on that basis. In the alternative, appellants request that the project be subject to an Initial Study. There are far too many unknowns and potential impacts associated with this project. 25 Only by subjecting the project to environmental review under CEQA can this Council make an informed decision. The Coalition has made it clear that it does not oppose commercial use of the site. It does, however, oppose the project as proposed. Thank you for your close attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ose M. Z la cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Eric Danly Mike Moore Irene Borba " See also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://petaluma.granicus.com/ Min utesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:01:23-29 (Vice Chair Dennis Elias); see also 03:02:14-38 (Committee member Ray Johnson).