The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 5.A 02/02/2009CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL M February 2, 2009 Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding an Appeal by Scot Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition of a Decision of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to approve the Northbridge Office project located at 30 West El Rose, for an addition to an Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM existing structure, APN 008-480-039 (Moore\Borba). X 7:00 PM Category: ❑ Presentation ❑ Consent Calendar X Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business X New Business Deaartment: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Community Development Mike Moore, Community Dev. Irene T. Borba, Associate (707) 778-4301 Director I Planner Cost of Pr000sal: Name of Fund: Amount Budgeted:Account Number: Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition and uphold the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee's decision of December 11, 2008, to approve the Northbridge Office project located at 30 West El Rose. Summary Statement: On July 24, 2008, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approved the Northbridge Office project at 30 West El Rose, which included an expansion to the I" floor of the existing structure, the addition of a new 2"d story, and other associated site improvements. Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition appealed the decision based on the grounds that there were multiple inconsistencies with and violations of the prior and current zoning code, multiple conflicts with SPARC policies and standards, and the decision is not supported by facts or discussion in the record. The appeal was heard by the Council on September 15, 2008. The City Council remanded the project back to SPARC for review to address the project's conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regards to the non -conforming structure provision. The revised project (based on the 2025 General Plan and 2008 IZO) was heard and approved by SPARC on December 11, 2008. On December 23, 2008 an appeal was filed by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition on the December I Idi SPARC decision. The appeal is based on alleged inconsistencies with the General Plan and zoning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1, Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding SPARC's project approval 2. Letter of Appeal dated December 22, 2008 3. SPARC staff report of December 11, 2008 (including associated attachments) 4. Memorandums from Frank Penry dated July 14 and August 25, 2008 5. Preliminary Drainage Report dated January 31, 2008 6. SPARC Guidelines 7. Letter dated January 26, 2009 from Mary Dooley in response to Appeal letter dated December 22, 2008 8. Letter dated January 27, 2009 from Christopher Costin of Beyers Costin regarding the Appeal 9. Color Rendering of proposed building at 30 West El Rose Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir: Reviewed by City Attornev: Approyed-bv-Cit»Manaeer: te: /417/jj, Date: Date: —270 Rev. # 3 Date Last/)2evised: ' File: s:\planning\ce-city council\reports\30 west el rose 2"" appeal feb 2 2009-Rev.2 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2, 2009 AGENDA REPORT DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPEAL BY SCOT STEGEMAN REPRESENTING ALICIA BERRIES AND THE EL ROSE/HAYES LANE COALITION OF A DECISION OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE NORTHBRIDGE OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT 30 WEST EL ROSE, FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, APN 008-480-039 1. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold SPARC's decision of December 11, 2008, to approve the Northbridge Office project, which would allow for an expansion of the I" floor of the existing structure and the addition of a new 2"d story, and other associated site improvements at 30 West El Rose, APN 008- 480-039, based on the findings in the attached "draft" Resolution (see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). 2. BACKGROUND: The proposed project was received by the Community Development Department on February 8, 2008. The application request was for Site Plan and Architectural Review of an addition and associated site improvements for the subject property at 30 West El Rose. The application was deemed complete on April 21, 2008. The project was heard by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) on May 22, June 12, and July 24, 2008. It was at the July 24d', 2008 SPARC meeting that a motion was made by Committee member Kosewic and seconded by committee member Rittenhouse to approve the project with the addition of two conditions of approval regarding windows and landscaping (Conditions 3 & 4). Committee member Elias requested two additional findings be added to the motion concerning ingress/egress and landscaping (Findings 5 & 6). The Committee approved the project based on the fact that: • The project had evolved with each of the iterations. • It had been pulled back lessening the impacts to the neighbors. • The project site is within a mixed-use area and there is diversity within the area. • The design is appropriate for a mixed use area. • The design is appropriate with the other commercial uses in the area. • The project is consistent with the 2008 Implementing Zoning Ordinance and the 2025 General Plan. • The committee did add two additional findings to support their decision on landscaping and parking and ingress/egress (Findings 5 & 6). The majority of the committee had no issues with the ingress/egress and the parking as they exist. 2 • They lilted the architecture. The Committee concluded that they could make all of the findings and that there was adequate evidence in the record to approve the project. The Committee approved the project on a vote of 4:1 with Committee member Elias being the no vote. Anneal Filed An appeal was filed on August 6, 2008 by Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. The City Council at its meeting of September 15, 2008 heard the appeal and directed that the project be remanded back to SPARC to address conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. In its discussions, the Council also raised issues pertaining to drainage, and sewer and traffic as well as a discussion of whether or not the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. At the Council meeting, the City Attorney commented for the record that there is support in the record to apply the categorical exemption. Staff would refer Council to the December 11, 2008 SPARC staff report which includes the discussion from the City Attorney from the September 15, 2008 Council meeting. SPARC meetine of December 11. 2008 (see Attachment 3, SPARC Staff report of December 11, 2008 and Associated Attachments) The proposed project was scheduled for the December 11, 2008 SPARC meeting after being remanded back to SPARC for conformance with the 2025 General Plan and 2008 Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and the other issues identified by the City Council. The following occurred at the December 11, 2008 SPARC meeting: ❖ The project applicant presented their revisions to the proposed project to address conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Attached is a letter from Mary Dooley, the project architect (Attachment 3, SPARC staff report of December 11, 2008) which describes the changes that were made to the project in response to the appeal heard by the City Council. Ms. Dooley notes that the project proposal meets the goals and objectives of the 2025 General Plan as an infill and adaptive reuse project that intensifies use and will be a green building. The improvements meet all the requirements of the IZO and will be a conforming structure with the removal of the portion of the existing building from the 15 foot setback. The changes to the site and building are as follows: ✓ Demolish portion of building in 15 foot setback ✓ Reduce waiting room to fall within 15 foot setback ✓ Added area to north side to make a transition between plaster and wood siding. ✓ Add area to south face of ground floor at Suite C. ✓ Shifted accessible parking closer to entrance by one stall. ✓ Add planters in front of three parking stalls. ✓ Relocate trash enclosure to West El Rose entry side. ✓ Revise design of trash enclosure with flat roof ✓ Added trees at previous trash enclosure location to the west of the building ✓ The landscaping has not changed substantially. The changes to the landscaping are reflected on both the landscape plan and the elevation and will provide more screening. The applicant notes that they have contacted the adjacent neighboring property owners the neighbors, the Gaffney's and the Harris' since the July SPARC meeting to get input from them on the planting on the north property line for alternate evergreen tree species. The Gaffney's responded but did not comment on the planting proposal. The applicant notes that the Harris' response implied that they were not happy with the proposed solution. 3 ✓ Changes to the civil drawings were made to reflect the change to the building footprint, trash enclosure and the parking layout. The Committee opened the Public Hearing. Following are some of the issues raised by the public: ✓ Traffic ✓ Parking ✓ Appropriateness of the building with the site and surroundings ✓ Privacy ✓ Drainage ❖ The public comment was closed. Committee member Rittenhouse made a motion which was seconded by Committee member Johnson to approve the project per the findings and conditions in the staff report with the following modifications to Condition #5 to change "west" to "east" side and to delete Condition #7. Per further discussion, the committee made the following recommendations: Should the applicant choose to modify the striping of the parking lot and the ingress and egress, the applicant shall work with staff for review and approval; the landscape plan is to be reviewed and agreed to by the neighbors (Harris' and Gaffney's) within 30 days of the approval or the landscape plan will revert back to the originally approved plan; the fence is to be reviewed and agreed to by the adjacent neighbors (Harris' and the Gaffiey's) within 30 days or the fence reverts back to the existing fence. The committee approved the project on a vote of 4:1 with Committee member Elias being the no vote. Anneal Filed An appeal was filed on December 23, 2008 by Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition (Letter of Appeal dated December 22, 2008). 3. DISCUSSION: The appeal is based on the grounds that there are multiple inconsistencies with and violations of both the current zoning code, multiple conflicts with SPARC policies and standards, and the decision is not supported by facts or discussion in the record. The appellant asks that the City Council reverse the SPARC approval and deny the project as inconsistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, SPARC Guidelines, and the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appeal grounds and associated points from the appellant are noted below (in italics) followed by a response from staff. 1) SPARC did not provide an obiective and independent review of the neiv submittal. The City Council previously took up on an appeal of this project from a previous SPARC approval on Judy 24, 2008. That appeal was based, in part, upon the staff, applicant, and SPARC concurrence that the project was to be judged against the prior General Plan/Zoning rather that the new ones in force at the time of SPARC action. The City Council referred the project back to SPARC for reconsideration under the new General Plan and Zoning. But there was confusion as to whether the scope of review by SPARC was limited to only issues related to the new General Plan and Zoning Code. Staff Response to Ground 1 Staff does not concur that SPARC or staff were confused as to their scope of the SPARC review at the December 11 "' SPARC meeting. The Committee did not limit their discussion to only the General Plan M and Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). The Committee once again took public testimony. Overall, in the history of this project, this was the fourth public hearing at SPARC concerning the proposed project. The staff report by Community Development is a recommendation to SPARC and not a final decision. The recommendation by City staff is based on the project's conformance to applicable City policies, regulations and standards and includes recommendations from other City Departments. SPARC has the authority to approve the project subject to the findings and the conditions of approval; which they can modify, as necessary to address project specific issues that arise through the public hearing. SPARC did take into consideration testimony and related information provided by the applicant and by affected neighbors before they came to a final determination. The majority of the SPARC members felt the public's comments and the committee's concerns had been addressed and did not feel the need for further review of the issues raised. 2) The nroiect is inconsistent with the current Zoninv Code in several respects. 2a) The Staff Report and applicant's submittals proceeded based upon bringing the project into consistence with the new General Plan and Zoning Code, but the application continues to rely upon retaining legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parldng lot, the lower parking lot, and the connecting drivervaj7 This in incorrect, since the previous Zoning Code provisions regarding legal non -conforming uses and structures call for a site to lose that status if the use is abandoned for a stated period of time. In this case, the vacancy of the building and absence of any use by a tenant or owner means all legal non -conforming status has been lost for such uses on the site. This leaves the Project site as inconsistent with the Code, and the project site would have to be redesigned to reflect Code requirements for size, location, and orientation of parking spaces. Staff Response to Ground 2a The proposed project does not rely on a legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot and the connecting driveway. Under the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, the parking lot is conforming in terms of number of required spaces; its location relative to required setbacks; and its overall layout relative to applicable "Parking Design Standards" for space dimensions, backup distance and driveway length, as applied by SPARC to achieve the standard of review "to promote safety and convenience" and "conform to approved City standards." The subject property is zoned MMIC (Mixed Use). The MUl zone is consistent with and implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential uses within the classification. The MU1C zone is applied to smaller parcels located in West Petaluma. Most of these parcels are located in residential areas and the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is limited (as defined by the IZO). Development Standards for the MUl District - Front yard setback -0'. The front line on a corner lot is the line with the shortest frontage. Therefore, the front of the subject property is Hayes Lane. The proposed project including the parking is consistent with the required 0' front yard setback. The previous zoning ordinance did not allow parking in the street side setback but with the adoption of the IZO this is no longer an issue and the setback is O'. Side yard setback (interior) - 0", except when abutting an R District then, 15 It plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property is adjacent to an R District. The proposed structure meets the required setback. The parking is a site improvement not a structure. There is also nothing in the IZO that prohibits parking in the side (interior) or rear setback. The 5 applicant has also submitted an exhibit with regards to the setback and height requirements (Attachment 3, SPARC Staff Report of December 11, 2008). Side yard setback (El Rose street side) - 0'. With the exception of the trash enclosure, the proposed project is consistent with the O'setback requirement. Staff has conditioned that the applicant work with staff to relocate the trash enclosure to comply with the setback requirement (refer to draft Condition #5). Rear yard setback- 0', except when abutting an R District, then 15 It plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property at the rear setback is not adjacent to an R District. The proposed project meets the 0' rear setback requirement. Heiaht Limit 30'. The maximum height limit is 30' for the principal building in this zoning district. The implementing zoning also notes that "when the building is more than 30 feet from an abutting property line, one additional foot of height is permitted with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet for a maximum building height of 45 feet. Per the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (1ZO) Building Height is defined as: "Measured as the vertical distance between the average finish grade and the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a gambrel, hip or gable roof, or the highest point of a flat or shed roof, or the ridge of the roofline of a mansard roof. When either of the following occurs, a dormer shall also be considered a roof for the purposes of determining building height: • The width of the roof of the dormer exceeds 49% of the width of the roof of the building; or • The width of the dormer measured from the building wall to building wall exceeds 49% of the width of the building measured from building wall to building wall. All building elevations are required to comply with the height limit for the zoning district in which the property is located." The proposed project meets the maximum height requirement. The applicant has also submitted an exhibit that illustrates compliance with the setback and height requirements (Attachment 3, SPARC Report of December 11, 2008 and Associated Attelunents). FAR (Floor Area Ratio). The maximum FAR allowed is 2.5. At .32 FAR, the proposed project meets this requirement. The applicant provided the FAR calculations which are provided in Attachment 3 the December 11, 2008 SPARC Staff Report). Parking. The IZO (Chapter 11) requires 1 parking stall for each 200 sq.fl., of floor area for "medical services -minor" uses. "Floor area in the case of offices, merchandising or service types of uses means the gross area used or intended to be used by tenants, or for service to the public as customers, patrons, clients, or patients including areas occupied by fixtures and equipment used for display or sales of merchandise. It does not include areas used principally for non-public purposes, such as storage and incidental repair." The deduction of mechanical and storage areas from the square footage is acceptable to determine the required parking. It is the committee's policy to allow an applicant up to a 15% reduction to reflect services and storage areas. A breakdown of the area calculations are as follows: I" Floor Existing: 3,287 sf I" Floor New: 583 sf 2"d Floor New: 2,825 sf Total floor Area: 6,939 sf G 15% Mech/Storage: 1,040 sf Area for parking calculation: 5,899 sf 200 sf per car required: 29.4 cars Total proposed parking: 30 spaces The project meets the required number of parking stalls. Hillside Protection (IZO Chanter 16). Chapter 16 (Hillside Protection) of the IZO not applicable to the proposed project as it only applies to properties zoned RR, Rl, R2, R3, R4 and R5 and PUD. Nonconforming Structures/Uses. Section 22.030 (A) Modifications to Non -Conforming uses and Structures, states" A non -conforming use or structure shall not be enlarged, extended, or moved to a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use, except that a non -conforming structure may be reconstructed in such a way as to make it conforming." Section 22.030 (B), Change of Use states, "no non -conforming use shall be changed to another non -conforming use without approval by the planning commission and then only to a use which, in the opinion of the commission, is of the same or of a more restricted nature." Section 22.030 (C) Discontinuation of a Non -Conforming Use of A Structure, states: "A non -conforming use of a structure shall not be re-established if such use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months or more, or has been changed to or replaced by, a conforming use. Intent to resume use of a non -conforming structure shall not confer the right to do so." Section 22.030 (D) states: "A non -conforming use of land, not involving a structure other than fences, signs, and buildings less than 400 square feet in area shall not be re-established if such use of land has been discontinued for a period of three months or more, or has been changed to, or replaced by , a nonconforming use. Intent to resume a non -conforming use of land shall not confer the right to do so." The proposed use is a conforming use. Medical/dental use is a permitted use. As previously stated, the parking area conforms to all applicable zoning and design standards as applied by SPARC in the course of their review of "ingress and egress" to "promote safety and convenience." Nothing in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance or the City's Parking Design Standards prohibit parking at the side (interior) or rear of the lot. The structure as proposed conforms to the setbacks, height and floor area requirements of the zoning district. 2b) The SPARC Guidelines provide extensive detail on the design and operation of parking lots. These include specific standards regarding loading zones for track deliveries, which require at least one loading spaces be provided that does not conflict with conventional parking spaces. Even assuming that legal -nonconforming status remained in place, the SPARC Guidelines have specific standards regarding building expansions require that such spaces be provided at that time. While there are provisions for exceptions, none of the criteria apply in this case, such an argument tivas never made in the staff reports, and no fundings that waive the requirement are in the SPARC Resolutions of Approval. Staff Resnonse to Ground 2b Section 11.100 -Off Street Loading Berth Requirements (Table 11.3) states "Professional offices, public buildings other than administrative offices, schools and colleges, places of public assembly, charitable and religious institutions and clubs not used for human habitation, and public utility and public service structures and installations, when anv of the foregoing reouires the recurring receipt. delivery. or distribution of goods or eauioment by truck. One loading berth, plus additional berths as may be prescribed by the Zoning Director." It is important to note in this particular instance that the Implementing Zoning Ordinance is not an entirely new set of zoning regulations, but is mostly (except 7 for the zoning districts and some use and building standards) the same regulations that have been in effect since 1975 when the last comprehensive zoning amendment was adopted. Loading berth requirements are a vestige of those regulations and speak to a time when most deliveries were made by large semi -trailer trucks, as evidenced by former Zoning Ordinance Section 20-1001, which set the length of a loading berth at 45'.. In fact, the one change that was made to this section as a result of the adoption of the IZO was the elimination of dimensional requirements for a loading berth. The basis for that change was to allow SPARC the flexibility to address the loading berth requirement in the context of the existing or proposed structure and the operational characteristics of the particular use. In this regard, SPARC determined that the loading berth requirement could be satisfied by the drive aisle area near the entry to the building that would allow a delivery vehicle to stop and make a delivery off-street. 2c) The SPARC Guidelines conflict with the convoluted parldng plan provided in the back corner on order to provide the necessary parking spaces. The Site Plat show 7 spaces located in this confined area, and depict extremely complicated turn movement sequences that are necessay to enter and exit, all of which would only work if one vehicle was attempting to enter or exit. Not only does this create an unsafe parking situation, but it is contra)) to Zoning Code requirements that each parking space be accessible from a driveway or aisle that is "sufficient for readily turning and moving automobiles. " Staff Response to Ground 2c A maneuvering plan was provided by the project engineer illustrating the turning movements necessary for vehicles parking at the rear of the building, which was determined to be meet the functional standard and be "sufficient for readily turning and moving automobiles.". The Committee did not consider the maneuvering of vehicles an issue. 3d) The four enclosed new spaces provided under the building are shown with two of the spaces being 9 feet wide and one space as 8 feet wide. This is inconsistent with SPARC requirements that any covered spaces be 10 feet wide. These spaces cannot be credited against the number of needed spaces unless they are brought into conformity. Staff Response to Ground 2d This comment references an existing parking area at the rear of the building that is under a portion of the existing structure. There is no definition of "covered parking" in either the City's SPARC Guidelines or the IZO. However, the only reference to required "covered parking" is in Table 11.1 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and only in reference to residential developments. In that context, the dimensional requirement is in regards to a garage or carport, not to the proposed parking area under the subject building overhang. Section 11.070(1) states that "parking stall size shall be determined by SPARC in the SPARC Guidelines and Procedures." The stalls located in this area comply with those Guidelines. 2e) The proposed driveway enhance violates the SPARC requirement that there be 20 feet between a site entrance and the first parldng space. A7ndle this standard would not apply to a legal non- conforming parking lot, the legal non -conforming statists and protection have been lost, as noted above. Staff Response to Ground 2e 0 The SPARC guidelines state "a minimum distance of 20' shall be provided at driveway entrances between the fronting property lines and the first on-site parking spaces to provide adequate vehicular stacking space (refer to Figure 3 in the SPARC Guidelines, see Attachment 6). The existing entry driveway off of El Rose does not meet the minimum 20' standard set forth in the SPARC Guidelines and Procedures; however, in the case of an existing condition, SPARC's obligation is to determine whether the existing condition in conjunction with the proposed use satisfies the overall standard that the "ingress, egree, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities . . .shall be so designed to promote safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved City standards." In this particular instance, the strict application of 20' minimum driveway off of El Rose, which is intended to provide an opportunity for "adequate vehicle stacking space", was determined not to adversely affect the overall use and safety of the existing parking lot, and all other applicable standards have been met. 3) The Proiect is inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zoning Code in several respects. a) The traffic and parking assessments improperly rely upon the specific innnediate proposed use of the expanded structure. At the time of a building eypansion, the correct and conservative way to assess traffic and parking impacts is against the use or uses that would create the greatest demand. Only then can the City and neighbors be protected from a change of use that creates significant neiv impacts and no means to have them corrected. Staff Response to Ground 3a The City Traffic Engineer's August 25, 2008 report, at page 4, states: "A letter prepared by an independent land use planner suggets that a traffic study should be prepared that reviews the impact of all permitted uses allowed on this site. This would indicate thatt the intended use is not known at this time .... It is not standard practice to prepare a traffic study in this manner, especially when the land use and project scale have been determined. It should be noted that industrial, office and manufacturing uses would generate fewer trips for a project of similar size project." Furthermore, neither the IZO nor CEQA requires study of future speculative uses that are not proposed as part of the project. b) The site is designated as Affixed Use in both the current General Plan and current zoning. The standards and assumptions of what constitutes "mixed use" have changed ivith the adoption of these new documents, with a call for uses that provide a robust combination of retail, office, and/or residential. But the Project as approved only provides for one specific medical office use in the entire structure. Not only does this appear inconsistent with the General Plan, the Project file contains no substantive analysis of applicable General Plan policies to support any finding of consistency. Staff Response to Ground 3b The General Plan does call for a robust combination or retail, office, and/or residential uses however it does not require the mix of uses to be part of a single project. The subject property is within a mixed use land use designation and zoning district which allows for a mixture of uses within the area of the land use designation. As noted in the December 11, 2008 SPARC staff report, the proposed office use meets the intent of this General Plan land use designation, which applies to areas, not specifically buildings. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities and encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). .61 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. The subject property is zoned MU1C (Mixed Use). The MUl zone is consistent with and implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential uses within the classification. The MU1C zone is applied to smaller parcels located in West Petaluma. Most of these parcels are located in residential areas and the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is limited. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning district. 4) The Proiect was innnroner111 Drocessed under CEOA as Categorically ExentDt. when at Initial Studv should have been DreDared. a) The Project was not subjected to any CEQA review based upon qualifying as a Categorical Exemption. But all Categorical Exemptions are subject to some limitations. A Categorical Exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. There is already an enormous anotnnt of information in the record to support the argument that significant traffic and safeo) impacts may occur. Many of these were submitted by neighbors, and include specific factual information and observations. The second test is whether those potentially significant impacts are related to some unusual circumstance. The Project submittals and the staff reports stake it very clear that many of the concerns relative to parking and site access/circulation are a result of the existing non-standard parking and circulation plan that results in a one -may entrance and one way exist in an area of non-standard street design and increasing use. That is combined with the non -conforming nature of the existing structure that impacts neighbors and fin•ther constrains parking and circulation. The location of such a problem on a corner lot also limits the means of dealing with those problents through setbacks or other means. Since the tivo standards can be reasonably argued to apply, the Project should not have been addressed through any type of Categorical Exemption. It is also relevant that no discussion or findings are evident in the Project file as to whether these issues were considered before proceeding with a Categorical Exemption b) The use of Categorical Exemption Class I (e) (2) is incorrect, since the Project does not meet the essential test of that exemption. Class 1 (e) (2) deals with modification or limited expansion of an existing use. Wide Guidelines 15301 provides a iunber of examples, the Guidelines note that "the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use ". The doubling in size of a building that is already a non -con forming structure with a non-confornung use is hardly a negligible expansion. 10 c) The necessary requirements to use Categorical Exenrptiorn Class 1 (e) (2) were not considered and are not present in this case. The 10, 000 square foot trigger is allowed only if tivo situations exist. The first requirement is that the project "is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maxinnan development permissible in the General Plan. " As noted above, the neighbors have provided large amounts of evidence relative to the problems with both traffic acrd parking in the area. Ironically, it appears the public parking will be worsened with the approval of the Project, since the City proposes to red stripe the project frontage to improve sight distance at the entry/exit points. The Citi, has ab-eady acknowledged the substandard streets in the area, az existing speeding problem, the proximity of local schools, and cumulative unmitigated significant impacts on key intersections into the area resulting fr-onn General Plan build -out. Neighbors have also raised concern regarding the adequacy of the storm drain system serving the area. TWdle the Project proposes to manage lot -to -lot drainage, there is no discussion or assessment of the existing storm drain system. One of the few references is that the applicant will increase the storm drain size to meet City standards, but only on Project frontage. The obvious conclusion is that the storm drains both above and below the Project site have storm drains that do not meet City standards. Similar evidence was cited regarding wastewater lines, street parting, and turn movements. Given all these factors that are already in the record and not disputed by the City, is it impossible to claim that all public facilities exist in the area to serve build -out, and therefore Categorically Exennpt I (e) (2) cannot be used. Given the above, my clients believe the Project could not and should not have been approved by SPARC. Many of these issues were refected in the prior appeal, but not considered given the overarching issues of General Plan and Zoning consistency. There are multiple inconsistencies with and violations of the current Zoning Code. There are nnitiple conflicts with the SPARC policies and standards. There are various critical decisions that are not supported by any facts or discussion in the record. The most reasonable solation is to deny the application for the reasons cited above. Staff Response Ground 4 a. b, and c. The proposed project was subject to CEQA review. The proposed project was determined to be "categorically exempt" from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There are numerous classifications of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines -Section 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private strictures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. These types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Examples include but are not limited to: (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the strictures before the addition , or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; OR 10,000 square feet if: 11 (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. After the proposed expansion, the building will be 6,766 square feet in area; the expansion consists of 3,382 square feet in area, so even after the expansion, the project is under the 10,000 square feet. All public services and facilities are available to the subject property (e.g., water, sewer, electricity, etc). to allow for maximum build -out and the project is not located in an enviromnentally-sensitive area. Section 15300.2 (c) - Significant Effects states "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." The SPARC committee determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circmrnstances. No further environmental review is required. However, SPARC can require additional supplemental information to be provided by the applicant to address specific issues that may arise in the public process. The proposed project clearly falls into the Class 1 exemption. It is also relevant to the requirement that public services and facilities be available that on May 19, 2008, the City Council made findings of fact in connection with approval of the general Plan 2025 by adopting resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. In those findings, the council determined that public services and facilities for citywide development through General Plan build -out were generally sufficient, including water and wastewater service facilities. The City Attorney commented for the record at the September 15th appeal hearing with regards to the CEQA exemption issues that were raised as part of the appeal. Below is the discussion of the City Attorney which clearly states that that there is support in the current records as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption: "The exception that has been talked about is the existing facilities section under 15301, Class 1, of the guidelines. It says that a project may be considered exempt provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 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. So staff's analysis determination was that the exemption applied. There is support in the record for that. The other issue that was raised under CEQA was the exception to the exemption and that was under section 15300.2. Subdivision C says 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. So if, for example, the Council were to remand this, one item of direction would be to look at that issue; but I would say that there is support in the current record, as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption, and if it's the council's wish to have more discussion on the exception to the exemption, the council could given that direction. A couple of other brief comments about CEQA raised in Ms. Zoia's letter. She seems to argue that the baseline for CEQA purposes in terms of deterniining foreseeable impact should be no use, because, I guess, the building is currently vacant; but there is case authority for using as the baseline the permitted use existing at the time, even if it's not in full operation; so I would say that 12 zero use is probably not the appropriate CEQA baseline; but, rather, the current permitted use probably is. I would say, too, that if there's more consideration of the exception to the exemption under 15300.2 that I disagree with Zoia. I think the substantial evidence standard is the applicable standard for considering the exception." 3. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The appellant has paid the $170 appeal fee. Pursuant to Resolution 2004-028 N.C.S., the project applicant, is responsible for any additional costs associated with processing the appeal to the City Council. 13 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL BY SCOT STEGEMAN ON BEHALF OF ALICIA HERRIES AND THE EL ROSE/HAYES LANE COALITION OF THE DECISION OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE NORTHBRIDGE OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT 30 EL ROSE, APN 008-480-039 AND APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on May 22, June 12 and July 24, 2008, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee of the City of Petaluma held public hearings to consider an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Northbridge Office project and associated site improvements at 30 West El Rose, APN 008-480-039. WHEREAS, on July 24, 2008 after considering the public testimony and the application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Henries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition; WHEREAS, on September 15, 2008 the Petaluma City Council after considering said appeal and hearing public testimony remanded the proposed project back to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) based on conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS, on December 11, 2008, after considering the public testimony and the revised application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approved the project with conditions; WHEREAS, on December 23, 2008, an appeal of the December 11, 2008 decision of SPARC was filed by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Heroes and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition; WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009 public notice of the February 2, 2009 appeal hearing before the City Council was mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property and to all other interested parties, and a notice of the February 2, 2009 appeal hearing before the City Council was published in the Argzrs- Courier on January 22, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, has fully considered all evidence presented at the public hearing of this appeal, as well as all oral and written evidence contained in the full record of proceedings on this matter, and on that basis denies the appeal of Alicia Heroes and the El Rose/Hayes lane Coalition filed with the City on December 23, 2008 ("Second Appeal'), challenging approval of the Northbridge Office Project located at 30 West El Rose Drive, AON 008-480-039 ("the project'). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, (CEQA Guidelines") §§ 15301 (e) (2) and/or 15303 (c), and that there are neither unusual circumstances nor a significant cumulative impact on the environment resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, so as to create an exception to the use of the exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15300.2. 14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in adopting CEQA findings for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 in resolution 2008-084 N.C.S. on May 19, 2008, the City Council found that public services and facilities, including water and waste water facilities, were generally available and sufficient to serve build -out of the city, including the area in which this project is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that impacts of the project on traffic are less than significant based on detailed information and reports prepared by the city's traffic engineer; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the following findings and associated conditions of approval of the project as a basis for its denial of the Second Appeal and approval of the CEQA exemption for the project: Findings: 1. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. 2. The proposed modifications as conditioned will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with the Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code and the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed structure and site plan, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Arcivtecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the addition is in harmony and proportion to the existing structure and surrounding structures, b. The architectural style is appropriate for the addition and is compatible with the existing residence and other structures in the immediate neighborhood, c. The siting of the addition structure is comparable to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and 15 d. The bulk, height, and color of the addition is comparable to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. 4. The landscaping as conditioned conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (2) and is in keeping with the character and design of the site. Existing trees are being preserved and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee and/or pursuant to the landscaping plan. 5. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street facilities and pedestrian ways as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (3). As ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, and off-street facilities is an existing condition the project as conditioned does not create additional safety or inconvenience and conforms to approved City standards. 6. The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), § 15301(e)(2), which allows for minor alterations of existing public or private structures as well as minor additions because the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet, 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 the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive. There are no unusual circumstances nor is there a significant cumulative impact on the environment resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, so as to create an exception to the use of the exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2. Conditions of ADDroval: From the Plannine Division: 1. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans approved by the SPARC Committee on December 11, 2008 and date stamped December 1, 2008, by the City of Petaluma for review by the Planning Division. 2. Plans submitted for building pen -nit shall include a plan sheet, which shall contain all conditions of approval for review by the Planning Department. 3. The windows on the north elevation shall have a 39" sill height on plans submitted for building permit. 4. The trash enclosure is not approved in its proposed location as it does not conform to the required setbacks for detached accessory structures. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a revised location/design for the trash enclosure. Said trash enclosure shall be located on the east elevation (on the side adjacent to the medical offices property) and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 5. Plans submitted for building permit shall illustrate parking for four bicycles. Said bike parking shall be located close to the entrance and under the cover walkway. Said bike rack shall be inverted U bike rack(s) per the bike plan. 6. This project may be subject to the City of Petaluma's Public Art Ordinance (Ordinance NCS 2022). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any "construction or reconstruction project" as defined in the Public Art Ordinance, the applicant shall submit a completed Public Art Compliance Form to 16 demonstrate the anticipated manner of compliance with the Public Art Ordinance. See the attached Public Art Information Packet for more details. 7. All construction activities shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Only interior work, within closed framed walls, is allowed on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City for additional hours and/or days. 8. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be fully visually screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 9. Signs are not approved as part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform to Zoning Ordinance specifications. 10. The applicant shall be subject to the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees; the following Development Impact fees: Storm Drain, School Facilities and Traffic Mitigation fees; the Public Art fee (per the Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2202) and Commercial Linkage fee. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which time, other pertinent fees that may be applicable to the proposed project may be required. 11. Any proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and shall be subject to staff review and approval at time of building permit. All lights to the building shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be directed downward and shall conform to City Performance Standards. 12. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management Techniques for the protection of pedestrians/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. From Public Works (Eniineerin): 13. Repair or replace any broken or displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter along the entire frontage. 14. The drainage area west of the existing building, between the property line and driveway, shall be directed to the front parking lot. 15. Construct a curb along the rear parking area to prevent lot to lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 NOB Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-025). 16. Re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024. 17. Direct the entire runoff from the roof to EI Rose Drive as proposed in the drainage report. From Public Works (Traffic Eneineer) 17 18. All new on-site parking shall be designed in accordance with the Parking Design Standards of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Procedures and Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 19. The proposed project all existing points of access shall remain, without changes to direction of traffic flow. 20. The project shall provide or contribute to the provision for Class III bike lane facility along the frontage with West El Rose Drive and Hayes Lane per the adopted Bike Plan. As this route remains largely proposed a route at this time, applicant shall provide "Share the Road" signage on both street frontages. 21. All pedestrian facilities along the project frontage and throughout the site development shall be ADA complaint. 22. The site shall meet the appropriate ADA disabled parking standard, in both number and accommodation. 23. The site shall meet the appropriate City standard for bicycle facilities, in both number and accommodation. 24. The site shall be improved as such to maintain a minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle approaching the exiting driveway onto Hayes Lane from West El Rose Drive. Sheet SP -8 of the project plan set depicts the sight line to be used. This shall include, at a minimum: a. Clearing and trimming of existing vegetation and trees within the sight line, with continued maintenance thereof. b. Provision for new low profile ground cover along the crest of the parking lot slope, adjacent to the sidewalk, with continued maintenance thereof. c. On -street parking prohibition along the project frontage, via red curb, for the length of the sight line. From Water Resources & Conservation: 25. Proposed utilities shall be approved by the Department of Water Resources and conservation and be adequately designed for domestic, fire and irrigation demands. 26. The proposed 12 inch storm drain pipe, on El Rose Drive, shall be increased to 15 inches to comply with city design standards. From the Fire Marshal: 27. SPRINKLERS- All commercial building/s (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office (FMO) for review and approval. Separate fire underground plans shall also be submitted for review and approval by the FMO. FS -2 M 28. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- If any facility or business uses or store chemicals exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Code. A completed plan must be submitted prior bringing hazardous materials onsite. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary containment and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. Standard SPARC Conditions of Approval 29. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, cormnissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim, or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 30. Public utility access and casement locations and widths shall be subject to approval by PG&E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans. 31. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 32. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Criteria. 33. All work within the public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from Public Works. 34. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 35. All conditions of the Building Division, Engineering Department and Fire Marshal's office shall be adhered to. 36. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 37. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22-301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan. 38. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors. Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls (overflow scuppers are accepted). 19 LAND USE PLANNING a ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS December 22, 2008 Appeal of SPARC approval of December 11, 2008. Northbridge Offices, 30 West El Rose APN: 008-480-039 File: 08 -SPC -0048 -CR ATTACHMENT 2 DEC 2 3 2008 I� This appeal is being filed as provided for in Zoning Code §24.070 on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. This appeal requests that the City Council reverse the SPSRC approval of July 24, and deny the project as inconsistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, SPARC Guidelines, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Issues pertinent to the appeal 1) SPARC did not nrovide an obiective and independent review of the new submittal. The City Council previously took up on an appeal of this project from a previous SPARC approval on July 24 of 2008. That appeal was based, in part, upon the staff, applicant, and SPARC concurrance that the project was to be judged against the prior General Plan/Zoning rather than the new ones in force at the time of SPARC action. The City Council referred the project back to SPARC for reconsideration under the new General Plan and Zoning. But there was confusion as to whether the scope of review by SPARC was limited to only issues related to the new General Plan and Zoning Code. 2) The Proiect is inconsistent with the current Zonina Code in several resnects. a) The Staff Report and applicant's submittals proceeded based upon bringing the project into consistency with the new General Plan and Zoning Code, but the application continues to rely upon retaining legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot, and the connecting driveway. This is incorrect, since the previous Zoning Code provisions regarding legal non -conforming uses and structures call for a site to lose that status if the use is abandoned for a stated period of time. In this case, the vacancy of the building and absence of any use by a tenant or owner means all legal non -conforming status has been lost for such uses on the site. This leaves the Project site as inconsistent with the Code, and the project site use would have to be redesigned to reflect Code requirements for size, location, and orientation of panting spaces.. b) The SPARC Guidelines provide extensive detail on the design and operation of parking lots. These include specific standards regarding loading zones for truck 707.823.1925m FAX 707.823.6661 1430 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD 0 SEBASTOPOL. CA 954 72 deliveries, which require at least one loading space be provided that does not conflict with conventional parking spaces. Even assuming that legal non -conforming status remained in place, the SPARC Guidelines have specific standards regarding building expansions require that such spaces be provided at that time. While there are provisions for exceptions, none of the criteria apply in this case, such an argument was never made in the staff reports, and no findings that waive the requirement are in the SPARC Resolutions of Approval. c) The SPARC Guidelines conflict with the convoluted parking plan provided in the back corner in order to provide the necessary parking spaces. The Site Plans show 7 spaces located in this confined area, and depict extremely complicated tum movement sequences that are necessary to enter and exit, all of which would only work if one vehicle was attempting to enter or exit. Not only does this create an unsafe parking situation, but it is contrary to Zoning Code requirements that each panting space be accessible from a driveway or aisle that is, "sufficient for readily turning and moving automobiles". d) The four enclosed new spaces provided under the building are shown with two of the spaces being 9 feet wide and one space as 8 feet wide. This is inconsistent with SPRAC requirements that any covered spaces be 10 feet wide. These spaces cannot be credited against the number of needed spaces unless they are brought into conformity. e) The proposed driveway entrance violates the SPARC requirement that there be 20 feet between a site entrance and the first parking space. While this standard would not apply to a legal non -conforming parking lot, the legal non -conforming status and protection has been lost, as noted above. 3) The Proiect is inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zonine Code is several respects. a) The traffic and panting assessments improperly rely upon the specific immediate proposed use of the expanded structure. At the time of a building expansion, the correct and conservative way to assess traffic and parking impacts is against the use or uses that would create the greatest demand. Only then can the City and neighbors be protected from a change of use that creates significant new impacts and no means to have them corrected. b) The site is designated as Mixed Use in both the current General Plan and current Zoning Code. The standards and assumptions of what constitutes "mixed use" have changed with the adoption of these new documents, with a call for uses that provide a robust combination of retail, office, and/or residential. But the Project as approved only provides for one specific medical office use in the entire structure. Not only does this appear inconsistent with the General Plan, the Project file contains no substantive analysis of applicable General Plan policies to support any finding of consistency. Nurllvidge Offices, SPARC appeal, December 23, 2006 MIM 4) The Project was improperly processed under CEQA as Categorically Exempt, when an Initial Study should have been prepared. a) The Project was not subjected to any CEQA review based upon qualifying as a Categorical Exemption. But all Categorical Exemptions are subject to some limitations. A Categorical Exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a -significant effect due to unusual circumstances. There is already an enormous amount of information in the record to support the argument that there significant traffic and safety impacts may occur. Many of these were submitted by neighbors, and include specific factual information and observations. The second test is whether those potentially significant impacts are related to some unusual circumstance. The Project submittals and the staff reports make it very clear that many of the concerns relative to parking and site access/circulation are a result of the existing non-standard panting and circulation plan that results in a one-way entrance and one way exist in an area of non-standard street design and increasing use. That is combined with the non -conforming nature of the existing structure that impacts neighbors and further constrains parking and circulation. The location of such a problem on a corner lot also limits the means of dealing with those problems through setbacks or other means. Since the two standards can be reasonably argued to apply, the Project should not have been addressed through any type of Categorical Exemption. It is also relevant that no discussion or findings are evident in the Project file as to whether these issues were considered before proceeding with a Categorical Exemption. b) The use of Categorical Exemption Class I (e) (2) is incorrect, since the Project does not meet the essential test of that exemption. Class 1(e)(2) deals with modification or limited expansion of an existing use. While Guidelines § 15301 provides a number of examples, the Guidelines notes that "the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use". The doubling in size of a building that is already a non -conforming structure with a non -conforming use is hardly a negligible expansion. C) The necessary requirements to use Categorical Exemption Class l(e)(2) were not considered and are not present in this case. The 10,000 square foot trigger is allowed only if two situations exist. The first requirement is that the project "is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan". As noted above, the neighbors have provided large amounts of evidence relative to the problems with both traffic and parking in the area. Ironically, it appears the public parking will be worsened with the approval of the Project, since the City proposes to red stripe the project frontage to improve sight distance at the entry/exit points. The City has already acknowledged the substandard streets in the area, Northridge Offices, SPARC appeal, December 23,2008 an existing speeding problem, the proximity of local schools, and cumulative unmitigated significant impacts on key intersections into the area resulting from General Plan buildout. Neighbors have also raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the storm drain system serving the area. While the Project proposes to manage lot -to -lot drainage, there is no discussion or assessment of the existing stormdrain system. One of the few references is that the applicant will increase the storm drain size to meet City standards, but only on Project frontage. The obvious conclusion is that the storm drains both above and below the Project site have storm drains that do not meet City standards. Similar evidence was cited regarding wastewater lines, street parking, and tum movements. Given all these factors that are already in the record and not disputed by the City, it is impossible to claim that all public facilities exist in the area to serve buildout, and therefore Categorical Exemption 1(e)(2) cannot be used. . Given the above, my clients believe the Project could not and should not have been approved by SPARC. Many of these issues were reflected in the prior appeal, but not considered given the overarching issues of General Plan and Zoning consistency. There are multiple inconsistencies with and violations of the current Zoning .Code. There are multiple conflicts with the SPARC policies and standards. There are various critical decisions that are not supported by any facts or discussion in the record. The most reasonable solution is to deny the application for the reasons sited above. Sincerely, Scot Stegeman Northridge offices, SPARC appeal, December 23, 2008 ►a' J ATI -AC H M E N T 3 OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM 3 4 CommunityDevelopment Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 7784498 E-mail. plmmueg&Lpetaluma.ca.us 7 DATE: December 11, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV 8 9 TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 10 11 FROM: Irene T. Borba, Associate Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a proposal to construct an addition to the existing office 14 structure at 30 West El Rose Drive, APN 008-480-039, (File 08 -SPC -0048 -CR) 15 16 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 19 The SPARC Committee approved the proposed project/design on July 24, 2008. SPARC 20 approved the project which included additional conditions of approval, Conditions #3 and #4 21 which had to do with the window sill height and landscaping as well as two additional findings 22 (Findings 5 & 6) pertaining to ingress/egress and landscaping. The SPARC decision was 23 appealed by neighboring property owners to the City Council. The City Council at its meeting of 24 September 15, 2008 heard the appeal and remanded the project back to SPARC solely on 25 conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 26 27 Staff has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the 28 Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with 29 the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Site 30 Plan and Architectural Review Committee approve the proposed project based on the draft 31 findings and conditions of approval (see Attachments A and B, Draft Findings and Conditions of 32 Approval). 33 34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 35 36 The applicant is proposing an addition to the footprint of the existing structure and a new second 37 storyaddition. The existing structure is 3,310 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing an 38 addition of 3,684 square feet (6,994 gross square feet in area). The proposal includes 39 modifications to the existing landscaping for the site. 40 41 Attached is a letter from Mary Dooley, the project architect (Attachment C) which describes the 42 changes that have been made to the project in response to the appeal heard by the City Council. 43 Ms. Dooley notes that the project proposal meets the goals and objectives of the 2025 General 44 Plan as an infill and adaptive reuse project that intensifies use and will be a green building. The 45 improvements meet all the requirements and will be a conforming structure with the removal of Page 1 ?— L� 1 the portion of the existing building from the 15 foot setback. The changes to the site and 2 building are as follows: 3 1. Demolish portion of building in 15 foot setback 4 2. Reduce waiting room to fall within 15 foot setback 5 3. Added area to north side to make a transition between plaster and wood siding. 6 4. Add area to south face of ground floor at Suite C. 7 5. Shifted accessible parking closer to entrance by one stall. 8 6. Add planters in front of three parking stalls. 9 7. Relocate trash enclosure to West El Rose entry side. 10 8. Revise design of trash enclosure with flat roof 11 9. Added trees at previous trash enclosure location to the west of the building 12 10. The landscaping has not changed substantially. The changes to the landscaping are 13 reflected on both the landscape plan and the elevation and will provide more screening. 14 The applicant notes that they have contacted the adjacent neighboring property owners 15 the neighbors, the Gaffney's and the Harris' since the July SPARC meeting to get input 16 from them on the planting on the north property line for alternate evergreen tree species. 17 The Gaffney's responded but did not comment on the planting proposal. The applicant 18 notes that the Harris' response inferred that they were not happy with the proposed 19 solution. 20 11. Changes to the civil drawings were made to reflect the change to the building footprint, 21 trash enclosure and the parking layout. 22 23 BACKGROUND 24 25 The proposed project was originally received by the Community Development Department on 26 February 8, 2008. The application request was for Site Plan and Architectural Review for an 27 addition and associated site improvements for the subject property at 30 West El Rose. The 28 application was deemed complete on April 21, 2008. The project was heard by the Site Plan and 29 Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) on May 22, June 12, and July 24, 2008. 30 31 SPARC meetinv of Mav 22. 2008 (refer to City website to view meeting video). 32 The following occurred at the May 22"d meeting: 33 ❖ Staff and the project applicant presented the proposed project to the Committee. 34 ❖ The Committee opened the Public Hearing. The following are some of the 35 issues/concems that were raised: 36 ✓ potential blockage of neighbor's solar panels; 37 ✓ water drainage; 38 ✓ the design and appropriateness of the proposed design with the site and 39 surrounding neighborhood; 40 ✓ shading; 41 ✓ lighting; 42 ✓ parking and increased traffic and 43 ✓ privacy. 44 ❖ The public hearing was closed. 45 The Committee requested that the item be continued to the June 12"' SPARC meeting 46 date. The Committee did not provide any comments or direction to staff or the applicant 47 on the proposed project. 48 Page 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPARC meetine of June 12, 2008, (refer to City website to view meeting video). The following occurred at the June 12th meeting: ❖ Chair Mills recapped the meeting of May 22°d and noted that the public hearing would be reopened and asked that comments be limited to new items/topics. ❖ The applicant/architect for the project then presented some revisions to the project from the May 22nd meeting. The public hearing was reopened. Following are some of the issues/concerns raised by the public: ✓ impacts on neighboring properties; ✓ opposition to the height/second story; ✓ privacy concerns; ✓ location of trash enclosure to neighboring property; ✓ traffic; ✓ intrusion into existing view sheds and ✓ new general plan and zoning and the hillside ordinance. The public hearing was closed and the committee commented on the project. Although there was not Committee consensus, the Committee made the following comments: ✓ that not all of the options had been explored ✓ look at the roof pitch and the surroundings ✓ further reduce the mass of the building ✓ break the box look of the building by using eaves ✓ make the building more contextual ✓ institutional look of the building jumps up and out, look at adding eaves, or different materials such as wood or brick ✓ there was also a discussion about the amount of glass on the building or . insetting the windows ✓ carry the planter boxes around to l't story it help soften the building and or set the planters back ✓ it was asked that a demonstration of the landscaping be provided in the elevation view ✓ privacy can be addressed with landscaping and obscure glass and ✓ there was a brief discussion of reversing the flow of the parking 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 47 48 ❖ The project architect recapped what she had heard from the committee: ✓ Setback planter from the west wall ✓ Awning details to soften the building ✓ Look at contextual cave on south side ✓ Create depth to glass on south side ✓ Reduce height wherever possible ✓ Discuss landscaping at back with the neighbors ✓ Look into a trellis structure along the north elevation ✓ Look at color palettes -warm earthy tomes ✓ Maintenance agreement with neighbor (Gaffney's) ✓ Window sills at a lower level on 1" floor. Show fence to sill location ✓ Look at new fence at north property line SPARC meetinu of July 24th (refer to City website to view meeting video). The following occurred at the July 24`h meeting: Page 3 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 47 48 •2 The project applicant presented their revisions and noted their interpretation of SPARC's comments of June 12th, which was to; soften the architecture, reduce the scale to better match the existing context as well as noting the specifies to be looked at include: the details of the planters, awnings, windows, and landscaping. Areas of further study by the applicant included; colors, eave details which were the most significant change; site lighting and the north elevation landscape and fence in relation to the adjacent residences. ❖ Chair Mills again opened the Public Hearing. The following issues/concerns were raised: ✓ Loss of sunlight and privacy ✓ Traffic ✓ Questioned ability of committee to make the findings ✓ Appropriateness of the building with the site and surroundings ✓ Project can't be categorically exempt from CEQA ✓ Parking was questioned ✓ Non -conforming status was questioned ✓ General plan and zoning inconsistencies ❖ Public hearing was closed. The committee made their comments on the project and a motion was made by Committee member Kosewic and seconded by committee member Rittenhouse to approve the project with the addition of two conditions of approval regarding windows and landscaping (Conditions 3 & 4). Committee member Elias requested two additional findings be added to the motion concerning ingress/egress and landscaping (Findings 5 & 6). The Committee approved the project based on the fact that the project had evolved with each of the iterations. It had been pulled back lessening the impacts to the neighbors. The project site is within a mixed-use area and there is diversity within the area. The design is appropriate for a mixed use area. The design is appropriate with the other commercial uses in the area. The project is consistent with the zoning and general plan. The committee did add two additional findings to support their decision on landscaping and parking and ingress/egress (Findings 5 & 6). The majority of the committee had no issues with the ingress/egress and the parking as they exist. They liked the architecture and could make all of the findings. The Committee approved the project on a vote of 4:1 with Committee member Elias being the no vote. Anneal Filed An appeal was filed on August 6, 2008 by Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. The City Council heard the appeal on September 15, 2008. The City Council remanded the Project back to SPARC for ftuther review (refer to City website to view meeting video) to address the project's conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regards to the non -conforming structure provision. The City Attorney commented for the record at the September 15th appeal hearing with regards to the CEQA exemption issues that were raised as part of the appeal. Below is the discussion of the City Attorney which clearly finds that that there is support in the current records as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption: "The exception that has been talked about is the existing facilities section under 15301, Class 1, of the guidelines. It says that a project may be considered exempt provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 10,000 square feet if: (A) The Page 4 I project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for 2 maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the 3 project is located is not environmentally sensitive. So staffs analysis determination was 4 that the exemption applied. There is support in the record for that. The other issue that 5 was raised under CEQA was the exception to the exemption and that was under section 6 15300.2. Subdivision C says that a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity 7 where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the 8 environment due to unusual circumstances. So if, for example, the Council were to 9 remand this, one item of direction would be to look at that issue; but I would say that to there is support in the current record, as there was for SPARC for applying the 11 exemption, and if it's the council's wish to have more discussion on the exception to the 12 exemption, the council could given that direction. A couple of other brief comments 13 about CEQA raised in Ms. Zoia's letter. She seems to argue that the baseline for CEQA 14 purposes in terms of determining foreseeable impact should be no use, because, I guess, 15 the building is currently vacant; but there is case authority for using as the baseline the 16 permitted use existing at the time, even if it's not in full operation; so I would say that 17 zero use is probably not the appropriate CEQA baseline; but, rather, the current permitted 18 use probably is. I would say, too, that if there's more consideration of the exception to 19 the exemption under 15300.2 that I disagree with Zoia. I think the substantial evidence 20 standard is the applicable standard for considering the exception." 21 22 STAFF ANALYSIS 23 24 Zonine and General Plan Consistency 25 General Plan - 26 The 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Use (2.5 maximum 27 FAR). This land use classification allows for a robust combination of uses, including retail, 28 residential, service commercial, andlof offices. The proposed office use meets the intent of this 29 General Plan land use designation which applies to areas not specifically buildings. The General 30 Plan contains objectives and policies which foster and promote economic diversity and 31 opportunities and encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute 32 to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The 33 proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 34 35 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community 36 needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 37 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density 38 and intensity than surrounding uses. 39 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for 40 innovation and the ability to change over time. 41 Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local 42 economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 43 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on 44 Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 45 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by 46 assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 47 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. 48 Page 5 I Zoning (IZO)- 2 The subject property is zoned MU1C (Mixed Use). The MUl zone is consistent with and 3 implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes a 4 maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential uses within the 5 classification. The MU1C zone is applied to smaller parcels located in West Petaluma. Most of 6 these parcels are located in residential areas and the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is 7 limited. 8 9 Development Standards for the MUl District - lo Front yard setback -0'. Per the definition of the current zoning ordinance, the front for a corner 11 lot is defined as, "a line separating the narrowest lot frontage of the lot from the street." 12 Therefore, the front of the subject property is Hayes Lane. The proposed project is consistent 13 with the front setback requirement. 14 15 Side yard setback (interior) - 0", except when abutting an R District then, 15 R plus 1 foot of 16 additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property is adjacent 17 to an R District. The project as proposed meets the required setback. The applicant has also 18 submitted an exhibit with regards to the setback and height requirements (Attachment C), 19 20 Side yard setback (street) - 0'. With the exception of the trash enclosure, the proposed project is 21 consistent with the O'setback requirement. Staff has conditioned that the applicant work with 22 staff to relocate the trash enclosure to comply with the setback requirement (refer to draft 23 Condition #5). 24 25 Rear yard setback- 0', except when abutting an R District, then 15 ft plus 1 foot of additional 26 setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property at the rear setback is 27 not adjacent to an R District. The proposed project meets the 0' rear setback requirement. 28 29 Heieht Limit 30'. The maximum height limit is 30' for the principal building in this zoning 3o district. The implementing zoning also notes that `when he building is more than 30 feet from an 31 abutting property line, one additional foot of height is permitted with each additional foot of 32 setback over 30 feet for a maximum building height of 45 feet. Per the Implementing Zoning 33 Ordinance (IZO) Building Height is defined as: 34 "Measured as the vertical distance between the average finish grade and the midpoint 35 between the eaves and ridge of a gambrel, hip or gable roof, or the highest point of a flat 36 or shed roof, or the ridge of the roofline of a mansard roof. When either of the following 37 occurs, a dormer shall also be considered a roof for the purposes of determining building 38 height: 39 ® The width of the roof of the dormer exceeds 49% of the width of the roof of the 40 building; or 41 • The width of the dormer measured from the building wall to building wall 42 exceeds 49% of the width of the building measured from building wall to building 43 wall. 44 All building elevations are required to comply with the height limit for the zoning district 45 in which the property is located." 46 47 The proposed project meets the maximum height requirement. The applicant has also submitted 48 an exhibit that illustrates compliance with the setback and height requirements (Attachment Q. Page 6 a� - t 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 47 FAR (Floor Area Ratio). The maximum FAR allowed is 2.5. At .32 FAR, the proposed project meets this requirement. The applicant provided the FAR calculations which are provided in Attachment C. Parking. The IZO (Chapter 11) requires 1 parking stall for each 200 sq.ft., of floor area for medical services -minor. "Floor area in the case of offices, merchandising or service types of uses means the gross area used or intended to be used by tenants, or for service to the public as customers, patrons, clients, or patients including areas occupied by fixtures and equipment used for display or sales of merchandise. It does not include areas used principally for non-public purposes, such as storage and incidental repair." The deduction of mechanical and storage areas from the square footage is acceptable to determine the required parking. It is the committee's policy to allow an applicant up to a 15% reduction to reflect services and storage areas. A breakdown of the area calculations are as followsc Area Calculation Ground Floor Existing: 290 sf (converted this storage area space to parking stall) Ground Floor New: -66 sf (net loss of mechanical space under building) IS` Floor Existing: 1 't Floor New: 2 a Floor New: Total floor Area: 3,287 sf 583 sf 2,825 sf 6,939 sf 15% Mech/Storage: 1,040 sf Area for parking calculation: 5,898 sf 200sf per car required: 29.5 cars Total proposed parking: 30 spaces The project meets the required number of parking stalls. Hillside Protection (IZO Chanter 16). Chapter 16 (Hillside Protection) of the IZO not applicable to the proposed project as it only applies to properties zoned RR, Rl, R2, R3, R4 and R5 and PUD. PUBLIC NOTICE A notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier on November 27, 2008. Notices were also sent to properly owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property as well as to and interested parties. At the writing of this staff report no written comments have been received. Page 7 1M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 ATTACHMENTS A. "Draft" Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings B. "Draft" Site Plan and Architectural Review Conditions of Approval C. Correspondence from Mary Dooley Letter dated October 30, 2008 E-mail dated October 20, 2008 pertaining to setbacks and height. E-mail dated November 10, 2008 pertaining to F.A.R. D. Plans s:\planning\sparc\reports\30 west el rose december 2008 Page 8 W3 M.-OX"01091DMUM. 2 3 "DRAFT" SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS 4 NORTHBRIDGE OFFICES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WEST EL ROSE DRIVE 5 AND HAYES LANE AT 30 WEST EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-4807039, FILE # 08 -SPC - 6 0048 -CR 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 December 11, 2008 Findings: 1. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC), authorizes the construction for an addition for the subject property located at the comer of West El Rose and Hayes Lane, 30 West El Rose Drive, APN 008-480-039. 2. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the 2025 Petaluma General Plan. The 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Use (2.5 maximum FAR). This land use classification allows for a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/of offices. The proposed office use meets the intent of this General Plan land use designation. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities and encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. 3. The proposed project will conform to the development standards of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The project as proposed meets the setback, height, FAR (floor area ratio) and parking requirements of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed modifications as conditioned will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with the Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code and the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. Page 9 No 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 5. The proposed structure and site plan, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (Standards for Review) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the addition is in harmony and proportion to the existing residence and surrounding structures, b. The architectural style is appropriate for the addition and is compatible with the existing residence and other structures in the immediate neighborhood, C. The siting of the addition structure is comparable to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and d. The bulk, height, and color of the addition is comparable to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. 6. The landscaping as conditioned conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 26-406 (B) and is in keeping with the character and design of the site. Existing trees are being preserved and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee and/or pursuant to the landscaping plan. 7. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street facilities and pedestrian ways as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (Standards for Review). As ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, and off-street facilities is.an existing condition the project as conditioned does not create additional safety or inconvenience and conforms to approved City standards. 8. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to section 15301, Class 1, (e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which allows for minor alteration of existing public or private structures as well as minor additions provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 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 proposed project complies with the above noted CEQA exemption and therefore no further environmental review is required. Page 10 M I ATTACHMENT B 2 3 "DRAFT" SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF 4 APPROVAL 5 NORTHBRIDGE OFFICES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WEST EL ROSE DRIVE 6 AND HAYES LANE AT 30 WEST EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-480-039, FILE # 08 -SPC - 7 0048 -CR 8 9 December 11, 2008 10 I1 From the Plannina Division: 12 13 1. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans 14 approved by the SPARC Committee on December 11, 2008 and date stamped December 15 1, 2008, by the City of Petaluma for review by the Planning Division. 16 17 2. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a plan sheet, which shall contain all 18 conditions of approval for review by the Planning Department. 19 20 3. The windows on the north elevation shall have a 39" sill height on plans submitted for 21 building permit. 22 23 4. Within 60 days of the project approval, the project applicant and the adjacent 24 neighboring property owners, the Gaffney's and Harris's shall agree on a specific 25 evergreen tree to be planted for screening purposes at the rear of the building. If an 26 agreement on a specific evergreen tree is not agreed upon, the Site Plan and 27 Architectural Review Committee approves the proposed landscaping plan as submitted. 28 29 5. The trash enclosure is not approved in its proposed location as it does not conform to the 30 required setbacks for detached accessory structures. Plans submitted for building permit 31 shall include a revised location/design for the trash enclosure. Said trash enclosure shall 32 be located on the west elevation (on the side adjacent to the medical offices property) 33 and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 34 35 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall illustrate parking for four bicycles. Said bike 36 parking shall be located close to the entrance and under the cover walkway. Said bike 37 rack shall be inverted U bike rack(s) per the bike plan. 38 39 7. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a detail of the lattice structure to be 40 installed at the north property line behind the existing garage on the adjacent property. 41 42 8. This project may be subject to the City of Petaluma's Public Art Ordinance (Ordinance 43 NCS 2022). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any "construction or 44 reconstruction project" as defined in the Public Art Ordinance, the applicant shall submit Page I I f Eo 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 47 48 a completed Public Art Compliance Form to demonstrate the anticipated manner of compliance with the Public Art Ordinance. See the attached Public Art Information Packet for more details. 9. All construction activities shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Only interior work, within closed framed walls, is allowed on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City for additional hours and/or days. 10. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be fully visually screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 11. Signs are not approved as part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform to Zoning Ordinance specifications. 12. The applicant shall be subject to the following Special Development Fees: Sewer and Water Connection, Community Facilities, Storm Drain, School Facilities, Traffic Mitigation fees and the Public Art fee (per the Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2202). Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which time, other pertinent fees that maybe applicable to the proposed project maybe required. 13. Any proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and shall be subject to staff review and approval at time of building permit. All lights to the building shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be directed downward and shall conform to City Performance Standards. 14. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management Techniques for the protection of pedestrians/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. From Public Works (EngineerinO: 15. Repair or replace any broken or displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter along the entire frontage. 16. The drainage area west of the existing building, between the property line and driveway, shall be directed to the front parking lot. 17. Construct a curb along the rear parking area to prevent lot to lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 NOB Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-025). 18. Re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024. Page 12 MOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 47 48 19. Direct the entire runoff from the roof to El Rose Drive as proposed in the drainage report. From Public Works (Traffic Eneineer) 20. All new on-site parking shall be designed in accordance with the Parking Design Standards of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Procedures and Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 21. The proposed project all existing points of access shall remain, without changes to direction of traffic flow. 22. The project shall provide or contribute to the provision for Class III bike lane facility along the frontage with West El Rose Drive and Hayes Lane per the adopted Bike Plan. As this route remains largely proposed a route at this time, applicant shallprovide "Share the Road" signage on both street frontages. 23. All pedestrian facilities along the project frontage and throughout the site development shall be ADA complaint. 24. The site shall meet the appropriate ADA disabled parking standard, in both number and accommodation. 25. The site shall meet the appropriate City standard for bicycle facilities, in both number and accommodation. 26. The site shall be improved as such to maintain a minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle approaching the exiting driveway onto Hayes Lane from West El Rose Drive. Sheet SP -8 of the project plan set depicts the sight line to be used. This shall include, at a minimum: a. Clearing and trimming of existing vegetation and trees within the sight line, with continued maintenance thereof. b. Provision for new low profile ground cover along the crest of the parking lot slope, adjacent to the sidewalk, with continued maintenance thereof. c. On -street parking prohibition along the project frontage, via red curb, for the length of the sight line. From Water Resources & Conservation: 27. Proposed utilities shall be approved by the Department of Water Resources and conservation and be adequately designed for domestic, fire and irrigation demands. 28. The proposed 12 inch storm drain pipe, on El Rose Drive, shall be increased to 15 inches to comply with city design standards. From the Fire Marshal: Page 13 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 47 29. SPRINKLERS- All commercial buildings (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office (FMO) for review and approval. Separate fire underground plans shall also be submitted for review and approval by the FMO. FS -2 30. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- If any facility or business uses or store chemicals exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Code. A completed plan must be submitted prior bringing hazardous materials onsite. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary containment and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. Standard SPARC Conditions of Approval 31. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim, or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 32. Public utility access and easement locations and widths shall be subject to approval by PG&E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans. 33. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 34. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Criteria. 35. All work within the public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from Public Works. 36. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with Page 14 I other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping 2 requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating 3 condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued 4 regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 5 6 37. All conditions of the Building Division, Engineering Department and Fire Marshal's 7 office shall be adhered to. 8 9 38. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal 10 Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 11 12 39. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified in the 13 Uniform Building Code, Section 22-301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the 14 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan. 15 16 40. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors. Scuppers 17 without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls 18 (overflow scuppers are excepted). 19 20 21 Page 15 8`;� October 30, 2008 Irene Borba, Planner Community Development Department 13 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Re -Submittal of 30 West EI Rose Offices Dear Ms. Borba: ATTACHMENT C CITY OF PETALUMA. oLAW \INGIBUILIOIN VD ET 3 0 2008 PLANNING DIVISSION We are resubmitting plans due to a ruling at the City Council appeal hearing by the City Attorney who decided that our application should have been processed under the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance rather than the previous one. The other major decision by the City Attorney at the appeal hearing was to require that existing non -conforming structures be altered to meet the current zoning. This decision creates an increase in construction costs because it requires the owner to demolish a perfectly functional and structurally sound portion of the existing building. It is not an extreme hardship for this project, but it is not a sustainable approach to infill development and this decision will have a profound impact on any future improvement projects throughout the City of Petaluma. Planning and Architecture: Our project meets the goals and objectives of the 2025 GP as an infill and adaptive reuse project that intensifies use and will be a green building. The improvements meet all the zoning requirements and will be a conforming structure with the removal of the portion of existing building from the 15 foot side yard setback. The building gross area is 6,994 square feet allowing 15% for mechanical and storage needs for 4 suites. The net square footage, which is calculated for parking is 5,945 square feet. (5945 sf divided by 200 sf per car is 29.73 cars). The number of parking spaces provided is 30. The site and building changes are as follows: 1. Demolish portion of building in 15 foot setback. 2. Reduce waiting room to fall within 15 foot setback. 3. Added area to north side to make a transition between plaster and wood siding. 4. Add area to south face of ground floor at Suite C. 5. Shifted accessible parking closer to entrance by one stall. 6. Add planters in front of three parking stalls. 7. Relocate trash enclosure to W. EI Rose entry side. MAD archileclure 145 YELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94952 Tel. 707.765.9222 Fax. 707.765.9290 E. mary@madorc.com 2 8. Revise design of trash enclosure with flat roof. 9. Added trees at previous trash enclosure location to the west of the building. Landscape: The landscape scheme has not changed substantially, however, since the July SPARC hearing, we have contacted both the Harris' and the Gaffney's to get their input on the proposed planting on the north property line. In our correspondence, we described the current scheme and made suggestions for alternate evergreen tree species. The Gaffney's responded, but did not comment on the planting proposal. Their reply focused on the removal of the existing almond tree (that has ivy into the canopy) and potential ideas for building a wall between the two properties. Since the last submittal, the ivy at the base of the tree has been trimmed substantially, and it has been determined that the tree could be retained. This change is reflected on both the landscape plan and the elevation and will provide more screening - especially to the Gaffney property. Additional proposed trees previously shown remain in this area to further screen the building. The Harris' response inferred that they were not happy with the current solution, but did not offer suggestions for an alternative course. Marsha Harris wrote, "Any screening with tall trees will effect my solar. Any screening without tall trees will not provide any privacy." Therefore, we have not made any changes in this area, and stayed with lower scale deciduous trees that will screen views into their property and not effect the solar panels, while allowing more sunlight during the winter months. Civil: Changes were made to the civil drawings to reflect the change to the building footprint, trash enclosure and the parking layout. Sincerely, Mary Dooley MAD architecture MAD architecture 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94 95 2 Tel. 707.765.9222 Fax. 707.765.9290 E. mary@modorc.com Boyba,IrBne From: Sent; To: Subject Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:26 PM Borba, Irene; White, George building heights Building Heigh Interpr.doc; ATT00001.txt Dear Irene and George: The attached document is my interpretation of the setback/ height requirements in the T2D. It is generic and can be applied to any project with this condition. - Let me know if you agree or not. Thank you, Mary Dooley Building Height Interpretation of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 4.10 MU1 and MU2 Zone Development Standards "Setback for interior side yard: abutting an R District: 15 feet plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet." "Height Limit: 30 feet. When the building is more than 30 feet from an abutting property line, one additional foot of height is permitted with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet for a maximum building height of 45 feet." Reference to Chapter 27 - Glossary: "Building Height. Measured as the vertical distance between the average finish grade and the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a gambrel, hip or gable roof, or the highest point of a flat or shed roof, or the ridge of the roofline of a mansard roof. All building elevations are required to comply with the height limit for the zoning district in which the property is located." Intent: To allow additions and improvements to property without adversely effecting solar access, visibility or privacy to neighboring residential zones by stepping buildings back as the height increases. The Hillside Protection section 16.060 Figure 116.% shows a section through site and building that is an example of intent of abutting an R District. Methodology: Previous method of determining building height was based on the current glossary description of Building Height. When the interior side yard setback abutting an R district applies, the Glossary's Building Height measurement method may be in conflict. To avoid this conflict, a building's allowable height would first meet the requirement of abutting an R district. Rather than taking the average finished grade and a single building height, which may not relate to the condition at the abutting R District, the specific conditions are measured between the proposed improvements and the residential property line. The average finished grade may apply to certain projects if the site is flat and the proposed building is parallel to the setback. If the building is 20 feet tall or less at the 15 foot set back, it meets the height requirement. If the building grows in height it must step back 12 inches for every foot over the first 20 feet in height. For example, a building can be can be 30 feet high if that higher portion is set back 25 feet. (Start with the 15 foot setback plus 10 feet additional for the additional 10 feet in height)_ qC-2 The specific wording in the IZO could be improved by explaining the intent and providing a graphic scenario as well as clarifying the Glossary section. Borba, Irene From: mary dooley [mary@madarc.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:12 AM To: Borba, Irene Cc: Mary Dooley Subject: FAR M Irene The FAR is 6994 sf divided 21,745 sf= .32. The allowable FAR is 2.5! When do you think you will be finished? What is the earliest SPARC agenda we can get on? It's not sounding very good on the'agendizing' front. From what I understand, because the project was remanded back to SPARC, SPARC is the only option available. I wish someone could have been clear about that three weeks ago. Why the mystery? Sorry that your husband didn't win his race. For the most part, I was happy with this election. That never happens. rim, Mary On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Borba, Irene wrote: Mary: I am starting to review the re -submittal for 30 West EI Rose. The MU1 zoning district allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5. 1 do not see in your submittal that you provided that information. Please let me know where it is if you already provided it or provide me the appropriate information. If I have further questions, I will let you know. Irene ATTACHMENT 4 City of Petaluma, California Memorandum Public Works, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94.952 (707) 778-4495 Fac(707)776-3602 Email: fpeary(a)cLpetahuna.ca,rrs DATE: August 25, 2008 TO: Irene Borba, Project Planner FROM: Frank Penry, PE, TE, PTOE, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Northbridge Offices; 08 -SPC -0048 -CR This memo is in response to correspondence received for the Northbridge Medical Office project, including the recent appeal to City Council of the project's July 24"i SPARC approval. For clarity, my response is broken into three sections; "Initial Review", `Additional Analysis", and "Conclusions and Recommendations". NOW y : t NT1I n As noted in my previous memo, the project application was reviewed by the Traffic Division and a determination was made that the project would not be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study, based on these findings (whichhave been expanded upon); • The site is currently occupied by a 3,29ksf (thousand square foot) medical office building. The approval to construct the facility would have considered the impact of vehicle trips associated with. the project at that time_ u The proposed project will increase the existing medical office facility by 3.38ks'f, to a total project size of 6.671cs£ The proposed project, alone, is die focus of this review. a The proposed project is consistent with the previous General Plan and existing adjacent land uses. It has direct access to collector and arterial roadways. There is presently sidewalk along the entire project frontage, which provides access to the City of Petaluma Transit System. a By today's standards, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation. P Edition. the existing facility and proposed project would be expected to generate the following number of trips based on land use and square fcolage: Number of Units Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Units Trips Trips Trips 3.29 (Ex.) Icsf Medical Office Building (9720) 8 (6 in/2 out) 12 (3 in/9 out) 119 13.38 (Prop.) Icsf Medical Office Building (9720) 9 (7 in/2 out) 12 (3 In19 out) 122 16.67 (Total) Icsf Medical Office Building (9720) 17 (13 in(4 out) 24 (6 in/18 out) 241 The project would be expected to increase traffic on the adjacent roadway system by 122 daily trips, given a reduction for the existing approved facility. This includes 9 trips during the AM Peak Hour, with 7 inbound and 2 outbound from the site. Additionally, 12 new trips would be expected during PM Peale Hour, 3 inbound and 9 outbound from the site. L+";- o The following conversion of trips to vehicles is to represent the number vehicles, both patient and employee, that would be expected onsite. This is for comparison only, as all other counts and assumptions contained herein are single direction trips. Each vehicle is representative of two trips, a trip in and a trip out of the project site. Therefore the proposed project would be expected to increase traffic in the vicinity of the project by 61 vehicles per day. This would include an increase of 5 and 6 new vehicles during the AM and PM peals periods, respectively. o Given the project's close proximity both B Street and D Street, it is be appropriate to assume that a majority of these trips would distribute to and from these roadways via the controlled (all -way stop or signalized) intersections. Anywhere from 60 to 75 percent of the traffic would be expected access the site via the B Street and D Street corridors. e Of the trips associated with the proposed project, 30 to 50 daily trips or 3 to 5 peak hour trips may use Hayes Lane to obtain access to the site_ o More conservatively, by not taking a reduction for the existing facility, the number of project trips would be expected to double, with an impact of just 6 to 10 peak hour trips using Hayes Lane. u Given the guidelines outlined in the Guide for the Prenamtion of Traffic Imnact Studies. as developed by Staff, a threshold of 101csf is recommended for the request of a Traffic Impact Study for this particular land use. The proposed project, given a reduction for the existing approved building, is 3.38ksf or 1/3 of the threshold. Further, there was conjecture by the neighborhood that the internal document, Guide for the Prenaration of Traffic Imoact Studies, required that a study be completed because of the considerable opposition to the project. While this is not an adopted policy document, it remains a tool used by Staff to obtain relevance and consistency among the reports reviewed for proposed project development Reference has been made to the following: "The following table contains the threshold for requiring traffic impact studies for projects proposed is the City of Petaluma. Projects that are within 10% of these thresholds may, at the discretion of the City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer, be required to provide a traffic impact study. If a proposed project is more than 101/a below the threshold, a traffic study should not be required, unless there are special extenuating circumstances (examples of which might be unusual safety of access concerns or extreme neighborhood apposition to the project)." It should be noted that the last sentence has been removed, as the Traffic Engineer reserves the right to make a determination based on informal review. In this case, more than an adequate review has been prepared for the proposed project and the findings and recommendation, with applicable conditions of approval, have not changed. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS Despite meeting with neighborhood representatives to explain the findings noted above, then: has been considerable effort on the part of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood to illustrate the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis based on a perception of the existing traffic conditions. It is my professional judgment that the existing condition, perceived or real, will not be adversely affected by the proposed project To help illustrate this I was able collect traffic data in the subject neighborhood prior to end of the school year. The following is an analysis of the data collected. M Traffic data was collected for a period of one week starting on Wednesday, May 7". The data was collected in response to a request for all -way stop controls at the intersection of Hayes Lane and Webster Street. Of the three data collection locations, Hayes Lane just east of Pearce Street, will be used as the control for this analysis. It should be noted that the raw data consisted of every vehicle axle that "struck" or crossed the road -tube data collector, 24 hours a day. For that period of time the average daily traffic (adt) was 1,520 vehicles per day (vpd). The average traffic volumes are shown below, peak hour volumes are shown in bold. It should be noted that that although Spm is the peak hour of Hayes Lane, the proposed project would have a peak hour between 4 and 6 pm, 5pm is assumed based on the data collected. StartTime Weekday 4 Average I 12:00am 8 I 1:00 2 2:00 2 I 3:00 5 4:00 4 I 5:00 11 6:00 30 I 7:00 87 I 8:00 211 9:00 84 I 10:00 82 I 11:00 65 12:00pm 107 I 1:00 88 I 2:00 122 3:00 191 4:00 117 I 5:00 140 I 6:00 100 7:00 76 8:00 56 I 9:00 38 I 10:00 29 I 11:00 12 Saturday Sunday 9 17 9 11' I 3 5 6 4 I 8 4 4 1 11 11 30 14 48 24 I 104 40 I 118 55 I 68 97 57 97 57 99 62 95 67 I 99 71 73 68 85 68 56 47 37 45 51 49 45 28 36 26 27 14 As noted in the findings above, if the full load of proposed project trips were to be added, without discounting the existing facility, 10 or fewer trips would be expected on Hayes Lane during the PM Peak Hour (5pm), when there is an average weekday volume of 140. And if more direct alternate routes did not exist, as $ Street and I3 Street exist now, then as many as 24 trips would be added to the PM Peak Hour traffic volumes along Hayes Lane. This would account for an increase of 7% and 17%, respectively. For comparative purposes, this is 78% of the highest peals hour volume observed on Hayes Lane. It should be noted that average daily traffic volume westbound (or uphill) on Hayes Lane is 35% higher than of eastbound (or downhill), Although speeds are naturally higher for downhill traffic, there are far more vehicles traveling at slower speeds uphill on Hayes Lane. Therefore, the 85'h percentile speed for all traffic traveling on Hayes is 25mph. Less than 5% of the all traffic on the roadway is attaining speeds in excess of 30mph. The 30mph speed (speed limit 3 �7 plus 5mph) is statistically significant only if more than 15% of the traffic were traveling above it Although there were some excessive speeds observed during the course of the study, these were randomly dispersed throughout the entire day. TIafc collision data for the adjacent street system was also reviewed to complete the analysis. In the past five years there have been only two collisions on Hayes Lane, one at Pearce Street and the other at Webster Street. In the same period, one collision occurred on West El Rose, at B Street Given the proposed improvement to sight distance along the project frontage, the project is not expected to increase collisions along the roadway system. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS In conclusion this information has been assembled and presented much in the same way a Traffic Study, prepared by a consultant hired by the project applicant would have been. 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 having a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the project applicant. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exacerbate traffic conditions along the adjacent roadway system or within the adjacent neighborhood. Although a Traffic Impact Study was not deemed to be necessary, Staff did take exception to conditions on site which constrained sight distance at the project's egress onto Hayes Lane. Per a completeness item and subsequent design parameters discussed with the project applicant, the project site would be developed to establish adequate stopping sight distance at the driveway for a speed of 25 mph on approach to the driveway. An inspection of conditions at the intersection of Hayes Lane and West El Rose, following some initial clearing and grubbing of the site, indicated that the sight distance condition will be markedly improved. It should be noted that these project improvements AU also provide improved view corridors for the adjacent intersection, the former Hillcrest Hospital access, pedestrians, and bicyclists traversing the street along the project frontage. As additional support for the neighborhoods appeal to City Council, a letter prepared by an independent land use planner suggests that a traffic study should be prepared that reviews the impact of all permitted uses allowed on this site. This would indicate that the intended use is not known at this time. It often during the initial scoping of a project that varying permitted land uses and site configurations would be explored to determine the highest utilization of a project site, while weighing the project against potential impacts. It is not standard practice to prepare a traffic study in this manner, especially when the land use and project scale have been determined. It should be noted that industrial, office, and manufacturing uses would generate fewer trips for a project of similar size project With respect to the numerous issues raised by the neighborhood that do not directly reflect upon this project, but are related to the negative impacts associated with living adjacent to a residential "connector" and adjacent to Petaluma Senior High School, I have offered my services as the City Traffic Engineer to review these neighborhood concerns outside the this project or process. As part of the General Plan Update 2025, a draft working paper was developed to address the concerns of neighborhoods without placing those concerns on a single project. To date, the issues have not been separated, nor has a request been submitted. It should be noted that this work is subject to the future availability of Staff time. Liq It is my hope that tlris response will help to clarify my professional engineering judgment and findings for the proposed project. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Attachments: Travel Speed Data Traffic Volume Data e_ Vince Marengo— Director of Public Works Mike Moore —Director of Community Development George White —Assistant Director of Community Development E JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page I 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Change These in the Preferences Screen Station ID: A=EB Start 05 -May -03 B6 -May -03 07-may-utl 08 -May -08 09 -May -OB Time Man Tua wed Thu Fd 12:130 AM El %A 4 3 5 01:00 11 711 '90 0 1 2 02:011 04 64 lia i3,4 —1J9 - 11a 03:00 80 144 .4 2 04:110 119 73 68 133'`.'85 3 10 55 47 65 37 'A5 48 51 49 40 06:00 27 38 26 16 34 32 07:00 ... ... 77.9% 526% 93 '117 08:00k- 001 09:00 82 '73 inn 61 6B 11:00 -1 tan .68 12:00 PM_ill 114 104 01:009574 '71 0100 130 120 03:bn 115 04:00 122 124 112 w I .131 132 118:00 94 137 107 07:00 -.7 53 -66 08:00 37 7236 43 44 10:00 25 22 35 11.00 IS 9 23 Total a 0 iOlB 1680 1632 Percentage 0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 1932% 1002% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 Vol. 196 200 PM Peak 14.00 15:00 15:130 VOL 181 199 218 13:00 15:00 99 71 so Latitude: 0'0,000 South Weekday 10 -May -Ob 11 -May a Avemae Sal Sun 4 9 17 2 9 41 0 a 3 El %A 4 14 4 33 11 711 '90 0 198 48 24 78 04 64 lia i3,4 —1J9 - 11a 97 57 80 144 95 67 x` 119 73 68 133'`.'85 Caa 113 55 47 65 37 'A5 48 51 49 40 -45 -7::- 28 27 38 26 16 '27 'A4 1269 855 77.9% 526% 11.00 11:00 119 63 13:00 15:00 99 71 so JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page 2 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Change These in the Preferences Screen Station ID: A --EB Start 12 -May -08 13 -May -08 14 -May -08 15 -May -08 16 -May -06 Time Man Tue Wed Thu Pd 1200.AM 8 9 8 8 12 07:00 2 1 1 2 4 02:00 _ 1 3 1 4 3 03:00 6''-; 0 _ 5 3 2 04:00 2 2 1 5 7 05000 6 11 7 06:08 35 30 30 23 29 . 07:00 >T _ i::': ttti9M1. i; i::?=:: c7 x'•90 .:: .. = 85'.' 80 67 08:00—=-'E1�==_—<au-287-199--=oat . -'09:00":: �. �y..: •,5 93 f'}::=;:'ti-::79:; �...;73 .' .104 - 10:00 84 59 94 103 ..:.-.11.:00; • '.'{'� _[='58':a. i::::: �::= 74 12:001'M 97 tog 115 109 ' 'tn.'j.r7p31::c '{':; ': `.-70 '. :101 as ' 02:00 110 1110 =70> 109 [is ;all '=..�=c-�uu..—,sue$_ -'; 99-23.3 �– --112 04:00 120 112 127 ` -05;00.: "::.::.`.::j,43 '=:: +.:.-:' 146 _153-: 124 - 05:00 91 95 114 94 .: :07:00 `.; =J:. :-_';92`:`: :'-. '. 61 - r120 :61 06:00 46 57 62 60 - �09d10`, %,.:-. ':28��<; �. "�. 36 .. ''33 S0 ' 10:00 35_ 24 21 28 11:00 '_ 12 :, :.. 67 10 " Total 1572 1521 1714 1690 320 Percentage 100.4°h 97.4% 1029% 101.5% 19.7% AM Peak OR= 08:09 08:00 06:00 011:00 Val. 212 240 207 196 197 PM Peak 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 Vol. 206 202 170 231 Total 1621 2732 Latitude: 0'0.0D0 South 5( Direction 1, Direction 2 36 37 39 Stall 7 21 23 25 27 Time 20„ 2224 34 26 2B ., .,_ 05107%OB ,., ' 44 99.9 __. _ Percent Percent _ 02:00 . . 5 4 . 0 . 0 . 0 03:05 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 107 04:00 . 30 1 2 1 1 05:00 0 a 0 0 06:00 24 2B 4 1 ' 07:00 0 0 0 a 08:00 183 24 27 3 2 09:00 1 0 0 ' 10:011 0 113 26 " 11:00 1 1 a a 12 PM 65 7 ii 6 5 13:00 55 12 11 5 3 14:00 135 14 12 11 4 15:OD 54 16 7 14 5 16:00 74 6 t0 11 B 17:00 66 16 16 13 10 16A0 56 5 10 10 3 19:00 36 B 2 3 2 20:00 24 4 5 2 a 21:00 22 0 4 1 2 22:110 16 2 3 a 1 23:00a 2 0 0 1 - Totai 626 92 91 ._�.-76 0 45 Percent fi374_1A-_9.3% 9.2% 7.7% 4.6% AM Peak 29 2 0 1 0 Vol. D 0 0 a PM Peak 14:90 16A0 17:00 15:00 17:00 Vol. 135 16 15 14 10 1 ,IAMAR Technologles, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road. Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Page 1 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 9 31 33 36 37 39 41 43 45 651h 051h 30 32 34 35 38. 40 42 44 99.9 __. TDIRI Percent Percent _ _ . . 5 4 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 107 . 26 . 30 1 2 1 1 0 0 a 0 0 91 24 2B 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 a 0 183 24 27 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 a 0 113 26 29 3 2 1 1 a a 0 0 0 116 26 29 3 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 131 26 30 3 1 1 a a 0 0 a 0 89 25 29 1 0 a 0 a a a 0 a 54 22 26 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 35 23 24 1 a 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 31 24 26 1 a 1 0 0 D 0 0 a 24 23 29 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 0 a 14 29 ., 30_ 27 16 11 4 0 D 0 D a 0116 .•..-t.D% 0.0% 0.0%0 0.0% 75.�'A ... ._ . _. __..._._.. 12:00 12:00 14:00 13:00 14:00 5 4 2 1 183 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Page 2 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: V0.000 South Start • 1 21 23 26 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 86th 651h _ Time �0510BI09 20 _ 2224 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 1 1 0 ll U .1 0 a 11 0 0 0 U 6 3 29 29 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 1 1 02:00 • 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a 0 0 0 03:00 3 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a 3 3 3 04:00 0 0 1 a 0 1 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 3 35 35 05:00 2 0 3 2 1 2 a 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 30 35 OB:aa 22 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 a 0 a a 0 31 24 2B 07;00 62 10 a 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 89 23 27 08:00 133 11 14 11 7 7 2 2 a 0 a 0 ❑ 0 187 25 29 09:00 45 13 10 2 2 2 2 1 a 1 a 2 0 a Ba 24 32 10:00 38 4 7 9 1 1 2 1 0 0 a 0' 0 1 fit 26 31 11:00 37 7 6 5 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 a 0 60 25 28 12 PM 77 6 10 7 4 3 1 a 1 0 0 0 a 0 109 24 28 13:00 45 10 6 6 2 3 0 0 a 0 0 U 0 0 72 24 27 14:00 86 16 5 7 5 2 1 1 0 a 0 0 a 0 123 24 27 15:00 149 13 11 7 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 22 26 16:00 70 19 15 7 5 4 0 2 0 a 0 a 0 a 122 24 2a 17:00 86 17 13 4 8 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 132 24 28 18:00 90 10 13 4 3 7 4 1 1 D 0 0 0 a 133 24 30 19:00 39 13 7 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 73 26 28 20:00 43 a 5 4 1 3 2 1 2 0 1 0 a 0 70 25 32 21:00 22 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 a 1 0 0 39 28 34 22:00 13 1 2 0 3 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 20 27 28 9 0 a 0 0_._0 0 a a 0 a 0 0_ 0 a __. B.. _._9 .__23:00 Total _. 1071 141,___ 05___61, 48 211 11 11 2 1 3 0 11620_.,_ _,_. Percent��T66.1°.6 .___...._. „_165 10.2°,6 __ 8.795 5.2% 3.896 .._...__ 3,0% � _ 1.2% 0,74'° 0.1% 0.196 0.2% _ ..... .._.�___. AM Peak 08:00 091.00 05:00 (18:00 (18:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 .0.7% 116:00 OB:00 00:00 10:00 08:00 Vol. 133 13 14 11 7 7 2 2 2 1 2 _ PM Peak 16:00 _ 16;00 16:00 y�12:00 _ _ 19:0 18:00 i8:Q0 16:90 20:00 19:00 20;00 27:00 15:00 Vol. 149 19 15 7 8 7 4 2 2 1 1 1 187 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen Page 3 Site Cade: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station U A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Start i ZS 23 29 27 29 31 33 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South Time 20 22 24 26 2B 30 32 34 d5 36 37 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 'TOW 85th 95th 05100106 4 0 tl 1 0 0 0 0 a 909 Percent Percent Oi:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 25 02:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 .22 22 03:00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 04:00 4 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 p 2 29 2 30 05:00 5 3 2 p Z 1 1 1 k 0 0 1 0 0 i6 32 33 06:00 25 Z 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 32 22 25 07:00 57 5 3 4 6 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5o 25 20 08:00 134 15 13 16 7 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 193 25 28 09;00 39 7 8 3 6 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 27 30 Igloo 27 7 4 16 5 3 2 2 0 1 1 ❑ 0 0 68 28 33 11:00 40 4 6 B. 3 4 3 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 fib Z5 30 12 PM 57 6 12 6 8 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 g8 27 29 13:00 42 5 3 10 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 67 26 30 14:00 63 14 f8 14 5 5 p 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 116 26 29 15:00 149 15 13 14 11 2 1 1 2 0 ❑ 0 0 0 208 24 Z8 15:00 60 0 14 9 9 3 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 110 27 30 17:00 80 10 6 13 7 6 4 1 0 1 a 1 0 0 129 27 31 18:00 76 11 5 4 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 105 23 29 19:00 42 8 4 4 3 2 2 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 65 25 29 20:00 22 4 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 26 21;00 26 2 6 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 24 33 22:00 21 5 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 24 28 23:00 12 4 4 ,, .....___.1...._. 0 0 2 ,,.,,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 31 Total 1 .. _._ f3f 82 54 28 13 8 3 3 3 0 ....... 1 .. __ .1553_ ._.......... ... �._.� Percent 62.5% 8.7%� 8.196 _. 8.3% ,.. .. ¢.2%� 9.4%�� 1.8% —_....._ 0.8% O.6,n _ 0.2h 00.2%- 0.2% _ _ __ _ O.p% ❑.1% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 08106 ftoo 09:00 0840 .__r.._..._OI 10:0(! 07:00 10:00 07:00 05:00 y_— Vol. 134 15 13 16 7 4 5 2_ 1 1 1 1' 193 PM Peak 15:00 15:00 14:00 14:00 15;00 12:00 17:00 16:00 14:00 16:00 12:00 13:00 22;99 16:00 Val. 149 16 15 14 11 7 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 200 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page 151 Keith Valley Read Horsham, PA 18044 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Change These In the Preferences Screen Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South Star[ 1 21 23 25 27 20 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 115111 1 95111 Time 20 22 24 2fi 28 30 32 34 35 38 4D 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 05110108 3 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 27 28 011.08 5 3 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 22 23 02:09 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 33 03:00 5 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 6 5 21 04:00 4 0 0 3 a 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 a -0 6 26 31 05:00 1 2 a a 0 0 0 1 D 0 4 ❑ 0 0 4 22 33 06:00 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 1 0 11 24 25 07:00 17 3 3 4 1 0 0 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 311' 26 27 08:00 - 33 0 3 5 2 i 1 1 D 1 0 0 ❑ a 47 2fi 32 09:00 70 11 6 3 7 2 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 9 99 23 27 ' 10:00 100 6 1 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 20 25 It= 9a 3 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 114 20 25 12 PM 80 4 4 3 1 3 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 21 26 13:00 77 a 5 3 1 1 2 0 9 a 0 0 a a 97 22 25 14:00 65 10 9 a 4 2 D 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 95 24 27 15:00 62 4 4 a 1 1 D 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 100 22 26 15:00 43 4 a 10 5 1 2 1 0 9 0 0 a 0 72 20 28 17:0D 52 4 6 6 2 5 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 78 25 29 19:09 32 6 5 5 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 25 29 19:00 24 1 4 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 D 35 27 33 20:00 32 2 2 2 5 0 0 a 1 0 a a a 0 44 25 20 21:00 29 7 3 1 1 2 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 44 23 29 22:00 19 4 4 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 a 0 0 D 34 25 31 23:00 10 3 5 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 27___ 30 Total HHH 09 80 74 4T 22 15 9 3 3 0 1 2 0 1432 --- Percent 72.1% 7.1% a.❑% 3.8`Ya 1.8% 1.2% 0.7% _0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% _ AM Peak 1000 09.10 _._6_5%.. 49:(70 TO:D'0 __ 09:00 99:00 _ 04:OQ 02:00 01AO 07:00 06:00 10:00 Vol. PM Peak 100 15:00 11 14:00 a 14:00 7 16:00 7 15:00 2 17:00 1 22:00 1 19:00 14:00 1 15:00 1 1 15:00 117 15:00 Vol. 82 10 8 10 5 5 3 2 7 i 1 1011 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Direction 1, Direction 2 51ar1 1 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 Time 20 22 24 26 26 30_ 32 .._.__. 34_•___ 36 _38_ 40 42 _ 05111/69 11 2 3 1 ❑ 0 D U 0 U U 0 01:00 9 0 1 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112:00 4 1 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a3:0a 3 0 0 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 04:00 2 1 0 D a 0 0 a 0 0 1 0 05:00 1 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 ❑6:00 6 1 2 1 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 07:00 9 0. 3 1 7 a a 0 0 a 0 0 09:011 14 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 a 0 1' 09;00 21 7 5 3 2 0 1 0 D 1 0 a 10;00 33 7 5 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 11:00 36 8 12 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 PM 34 6 5 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 131.00 44 2 4 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 a 14:00 49 0 7 4 6 3 1 0 0 0 D 0 15:00 37 7 7 6 7 1 2 0 1 D 1 1 16:00 39 10 4 a 2 a 2 0 a 1 0 11 17:00 39 7 5 3 4 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 18;00 22 7 5 3 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 19:00 24 4 7 1 4 4 1 1 D 0 a a 20:00 25 3 5 3 1 3 1 0 D 0 0 0 21;00 10 7 2 3 2 2 1 D a a ❑ 0 22;00 19 3 3 0 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 6 4 1 1 0 1 a a 0 0 0 ❑ _ Total 495 89 87 55 43 30 19 1 4 6 2 2 Percent 59.5% 10.7%8_...,..10.4%. 6.6°% 5.2% 3.6% 2.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0,6% 0.2% U.2% AM Peak ... ,.. 11:00 11:08 _ 1i:a0 -'-1'1:00""�'"11:00 — De;0D 1D:0D 10:DD 04:00 Vol, 35 a 12 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 PM Peak 14A0 16:00 14:90 10:D0 16:00 19;00 13;60 19:110 16:110 16:00 15;00 15:00 Vol. 49 10 7 8 7 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 Page 5 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 43 45 86th 051h __44_ _ 999 Total Percent Percent 0 0 17 23 24 0 0 11 9 23 0 0 5 4 21 0 0 4 3 25 0 0 4 21 39 0 0 1 1 1 ❑ 0 11 24 26 0 0 14 24 26 0 0 23 29 30 0 0 40 25 28 0 0 54 26 31 0 a 67 25 28 0 0 57 26 28 D 0 80 25 29 a 0 69 26 29 0 0 70 27 31 0 a 6a 25 28 D 1 64 27 32 0 0 44 26 31 ❑ 0 46 20 30 0 0 42 25 20 0 a 27 27 30 0 0 25 22 24 a 0 13 24 25 D 1 634 0.0% 0.1% .. _._ 11:00 57 17:00 16;00 1 70 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen Direction 1, Direction Start 1 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 nme 20 2224 D 26 28 30 32 i, 34,,, 35 05112108-fi D o 1_ 2 0 _ 0 _,_ 0 0 0 01:0a 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 D 04;00 2 D a 0 0 0 0 0 D 05:00 5 1 1 2 4 1 a 0 0 06:00 25 1 2 2 1 2 a 1 0 07:00 60 5 5 8 2 2 4 1 1 08:00 146 19 14 12 6 5 a 1 0 09:00 51 10 9 9 11 2 1 0 1 10:00 54 6 4 6 4 2 1 1 0 ll:OD 31 7 6 5 2 2 1 2 0 12 PM 58 7 13 11 3 3 2 1 0 13:00 65 3 a 7 1a 4 2 0 0 14:00 75 8 9 8 7 2 2 D 0 15:00 15B 14 10 11 7 3 2 0 D 15:00 78 8 12 5 4 8 1 D 0 17:00 78 17 12 9 a 9 4 1 3 18:00 41 13 12 6 6 4 4 0 1 19:00 47 9 5 1 1 1 3 1 a 20:00 28 4 3 4 0 2 0 1 0 21:DD 21 2 D 1 1 1 a 0 a 22:00 19 4 4 1 4 1 0 a D 3 3 2 1 1 0 D 1 0 _23:00 Tafal 1055 141 132 115 82 53 27 11 6 Percent 65.0% 8.7% 8.1% 7,1% 5,0% 3,3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.4% AM Peak 08;00 0:00 08:00 08:00 OB:00 08:00 07:00 11:00 07:00 Vol. 146 19 14 12 11 5 4 2 1 PM Peak 15:00 17:00 12:00 _ 12:00 13:00 17:00 17:00 12:00 17:00 Vol. 159 17 13 11 10 9 4 1 3 1 37 38 D D B D 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 0 a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1% 10:00 1 Page 6 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EH 39 41 43 45 40 42 44 989 o'— D ._.... 6' n" a D D 0 B D 0 9 9 D B a D o a 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a Cl D a D 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 D D a a 0 0 a 0 0 D a D 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 a D 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 D D 0 a 0 0 0 Cl a D a_,_ a 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.1% 0,0% 0,0% 05;00 1 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 851h 951h Total Percent Percent 9 25 26 2 23 23 1 25 25 4 23 29 2 2 2 15 28 29 34 25 29 88 26 31 293 24 27 94 27 2B 79 25 29 55 26 3D 98 25 29 97 27 29 111 25 2B 206 23 27 117 26 29 141 27 31 B7 27 31 68 23 31 42 26 29 26 21 20 33 26 28 11 27 1624 ,26 DB:00 203 16;00 200 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page 7 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Site Code: HAYES FAST OF PEARCE Change These In the Preferences Screen Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: o' 0.000 South — ...__... ----.._ 1 21 23 -_....... 25 ...- 27 29 -...... 31 33 —35 35 37 39 41 43 45 SSth 95th Tlme,___.___,,,.2a-,. 24... 28 28_..... 30 32 34 36_ 39 .___40 42 44,,,._—,999 Tolal_.Percent_._Percenl ,_ 05113109 3 -.._22 0 .. 3 2 1 0 0 _- 0 _ 0 p 0 a � 0 a 9 26 27 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 1 1 02:00 2 1 a 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 21 03;00 3 2 0 1 0 a 0 1 0 0 a 0 a 0 7 25 33 04:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 2 27 27 05;00 0 1 1 1 ❑ 1 1 0 1 0 a 0 0 a 6 31 35 06:Oa 15 1 4 0 a 2 3 1 0 a 0 ❑ 0 0 25 30 32 07:00 64 8 9 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 09 23 26 05:00 159 15 21 14 4 4 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 227 24 30 09:00 48 7 9 5 3 1 3 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 77 25 28 10:00 29 7 a 4 5 3 1 1 0 1 a 0 0 0 59 27 30 11:00 44 6 9 8 6 1 1 a a a 0 0 0 0 74 25 25 12 PM 63 12 10 to 5 5 ❑ 0 0 0 1 0 a 0_ 106 25 29 13:00 47 in 4 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 23 27 14:00 57 15 12 7 5 2 1 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 100 24 27 15:00 146 15 11 14 4 2 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 1 194 23 26 10:00 65 9 11 7 7 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 109 26 30 17:00 71 20 16 10 9 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 27 30 18:00 52 10 11 5 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 90 25 29 19:00 44 a 2 4 3 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 63 24 27 20:00 25 6 9 3 7 1 0 2 a 0 0 0 0 0 53 27 25 21:00 20 0 4 4 4 1 ❑ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 34 27 20 22:00 13 2 3 3 2 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 25 27 23:00 3 2 1 1 1 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 5 26 27 Total 977 158 157 116 73 40 21 14 9 1 1 1 0 1 1569 Percent 62.3% 10.1% 10.0% 7.4%_ 4.7% 2.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1°h 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% AM Peak 05:00 05:00 08:00 06:00 11:00 08;00 06:00 05:00 (1800 10:00 (18:00 Val. 159 15 21 14 5 4 3 5 2 1 227 . PM Peak 15:00 17:00 17:00 18:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 10:00 12:00 21:0a 15:00 15:00 Val. 146 20 15 14 9 9 3 2 3 1 1 1 194 Ir JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen Direction 1, Direction 2 Page B Site Code; HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID; A=EB Siert 1 21 23 25 27 29 3'I 33 35 37 39 41 43 Time 20 22 24 28 20 30 32 34 36 36 40 42 44 05114/08 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 a 01:00 1 0 D 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 02:00 1 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 D 0 0 03;00 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 05:00 3 a 1 a a 1 0 0 a 0 ❑ 1 D 06:00 23 3 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 D 07:00 53 9 0 6 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 a 9 08:00 139 17 20 9 7 6 2 a 0 D D 0 D 09:00 48 7 7 3 4 2 1 0 a D 0 0 a 10:00 63 14 8 6 3 2 1 1 1 a ❑ 9 0 11:00 34 10 7 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 a 12PM 74 8 13 3 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 a a 13;00 62 12 14 8 7 a 2 1 1 0 0 a a 14;OD 123 12 a 16 4 1 3 1 0 0 D 0 0 15:00 54. 13 11 7 4 2 2 1 2 1 a 0 0 MOD 72 20 11 12 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 17:00 71 18 20 13 14 7 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 18;00 59 17 12 11 6 2 0 1 0 1 a 0 a 19:00 81 7 9 4 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 a 20:00 64 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 a 0 a a D 21:00 21 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 a D 22:00 11 0 2 2 1 1 1 a 0 1 a 0 a 23:00 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 Total 1046 175 780 112 77 4131 13 7, A %_____. 1 __ Percent _ 82.8°,5� _ _ ,. , ..._ D.8'% , . .. 0.4°% _ __.., _. 0.2°k _�__ 0.0% 0.1°4 0.1°m AM Peak 08;00 Oma0 _h 08:00 1 -6: d 08:00 08:00 06;00 07:00 10:99 05:00 Val. 139 17 20 9 7 6 3 1 1 1 PM Peak _ 14;00 16;00 17:00 14:00 17:D0 17:00 17:00 12;00 18:00 15:00 16:00 Val. 123 20 20 15 14 7 5 2 2 1 1 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 45 Bath 951h 999 Total Percent Percent 0 8 26 29 0 0 Y 1 7 D 5 26 27 D 1 1 1 0 B 29 41 0 33 24 31 0 82 24 27 a 200 24 20 0 72 24 28 0 B7 25 29 0 60 24 29 0 112 24 29 0 87 25 28 0 166 24 27 0 97 25 31 0 122 25 27 0 163 211 31 0 109 25 28 0 113 24 29 0 78 22 27 0 33 25 28 1 20 39 37 0 7 27 31 1 lees ,... _ _ _ _ MOO 200 22:00 14:00 1 168 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Page 9 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: U0.000 South Start 1 21 23 25 2/ 29 37 3'3 35 3f 39 47 43 45 85111 9591 Time 20 22 24 _ 26 _ 28 30 32 34 36 38 49 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 05/15/08 4 3 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 21 22 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 33 02:00 0 1 0 2 0 a 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 4 26 31 03:00 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 D4:00 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 24 25 D5:00 6 1 0 D 1 1 1 D 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 30 31 06:00 16 3 1 0 D 1 1 1 D a 0 0 0 0 23 23 32 07:00 00 9 6 6 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 77 24 2B 08:00 146 13 11 11 4 2 0 1 a 0 0 a 0 190 23 26 09:90 56 13 14 0 11 1 a 1 0 1 0 0 a 0 105 26 28 10:00 49 19 12 7 7 1 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 96 25 27 11:00 34 12 9 6 2 1 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 65 24 27 12 PM 63 B 12 10 a 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 a 110 20 29 13:00 62 11 7 3 3 a 1 D 0 0 0 0 0 1 96 26 30 14:00 70 8 13 5 5 1 1 1 a 0 a 0 0 0 102 24 27 15:00 164 16 11 10 12 -. 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 223 24 28 16:00 55 10 9 5 B 4 4 3 0 a 2 0 0 0 110 27 32 17:00 67 13 13 9 6 5 6 1 1 a 0 0 D 0 121 27 31 18:00 4a 6 11 9 9 4 3 0 0 1 1 1 D 0 93 27 31 19:80 30 4 4 5 5 5 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 2B 29 20:00 49 4 B 3 1 3 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 58 24 29 21:00 3B 4 2 3 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 D a 48 22 25 22:00 10 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 27 22 27 23:00 6 1 1 1 l� 0 0 1 0 ._ 0 0 0 0 0 10... ... 24 25. —.....--_.. _... T01a1 ----' .. 1038 --..._ .. 165 .-_._..... 143 _. _.._—_ f05 — h5 48 ._._ 2fi .._ 14 -' - 6 4 3 1 __,_„ 0,. 1 -- Percent 63.4°h 10.1°'°, 8.7°/v 6,4°h_ 12°(° 2.9°h 1.fi°%v 9.99'v_,., 0.4°h -67-.DD , , 0.2,,°/v - "05:00 0.2Yv _ ' ' _ 0.1%__0_0?m_ _ 0.1`}w.--, _ _ AM Peak 08:00 10:00 09:00 013:00 „ , J9:00 97:00 08;00 01:00 08:00 Val, 146 19 14 1111 2_ 1 1 1 100 PM Peak 15:00 15:00 14:00 1201 16:00 .., _.__z. 13:00 _..__ 17:00 16:00 12:0 18:00 16:00 18:00 13:90 IS= Vol. 154 18 13 Ir 12 a 6 3 1 1 2 1 1 223 Direction 1 Direction 2 Start 1 21 23 25 27 Time 20 22 24 25 28 09/16100 7 1 0 9 3 01:90 2 1 1 0 0 02:00 3 0 0 0 0 03:00 2 0 0 0 0 04:00 4 0 1 0 0 05:00 1 0 2 1 1 06:00 i6 2 1 1 1 07:00 45 7 2 5 3 DUO 129 17 10 11 5 09:00 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 0 5 23 29 ' 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 12 PM 7 29 33 1 3 13:00 0 0 0 0 ' 14:00 30 33 1 1 , 15:00 9 a 0 0 65 16:00 28 2 1 D 9 17:00 0 D 0 lee ' 18:00 5 6 0 0 0 19:00 a 0 313 ' 20:00 1.895 ' 0,0°h _ 0.0% O.D°% 0.0% 21:00 0.0% 06:00 22:00 23:OD 0a:00 2 3 TotalC7.4 211 28 25 18 13 .. _....... . Percent P _. _....�.._-_---.--'- 67 .4°% 8.1)% _ _ '--- 8,0°%� 6.8°% 4.29'° AM Peak 09:01) O11:00 011:00 08:00 08:00 Val_^_ 129 17 19 ....._.____.._..__ 11 5 ..PM Peak 02% 0.1% ...—.. 0.001. 0.0% Vol. Total 8401 1239 1145 887 602 Percent '04.3°% 9.5% 8.8°% 6.8% 4.6% 15th Percentlie : 5 MPH 50th Percentile: 16 MPH 85th Percentile : 25 MPH 95111 Percentile : 28 MPH Stats 10 MPH Pace Speed : 17-26 MPH Number In Face: 4951 Percent In Face: 37.9% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH: 1039 Percent or Vehicles > 25 MPH: 14.1°% Mean Speed(Average) : is MPH N JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen 29 30 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 7 2,2°% ' 09:06 3 370 2.8% Page 10 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station 10: A=EB Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 46 65th 95111 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 1 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 12 27 28 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 4 22 23 0 0 D 0 0 0 a a 3' 3 3 0 D D 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 5 23 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 29 33 1 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 28 30 33 1 1 0 0 9 a 0 0 65 25 28 2 1 D 9 D 0 D 0 lee 24 27 5 6 0 0 0 0 a 0 313 1.8°% 1.895 ' 0,0°h _ 0.0% O.D°% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 06:00 06:00 0a:00 2 3 '-__ .._......_._186_ ..... 208 103 Be 23 10 13 3 6 13068 1.6% 0.8% 0,4% 02% 0.1% 0.1% 0.001. 0.0% City of Petaluma, Ca,ith-mb?. Memorandum Public Works,11 English Street' Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4495 Fac (707) 776-3602 E-mail: fpeury@cLpetalu�na ca us DATE: July 14, 2008 TO: Irene Borba, Project Planner FROM: Frank Penry, PE, TE, PTOE SUBJECT: Northbridge Offices; -5PC-0048-CR This memo is in direct response to my decision not to require a Traffic Impact Study for the aforementioned project. As noted in previous discussions with you, this was the topic of a meeting with David Harris, representative for the El Rose Neighborhood, on June 27a`. Upon receipt of the project application on February 19'h, 2008, I organized my completeness review of the application. At that time a determination was made that the project would not be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study, based on the following. • The site is currently occupied by a 3.29ksf (thousand square foot) medical office building. The approval to construct this facility would have included the vehicle trips associated with this particular use_ • The proposed project is to increase the existing medical office facility by 3.3gksf, to a total project size of 6.67ksf. • The proposed project is consistent with adjacent land use and has direct access to collector and arterial roadways. • By today's standards, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), - Trip Generation, 7c' Edition, the existing facility and proposed project would be expected to generate the following number of trips based on land use and square footage: Number of Units Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Units Trips Trips Trips 3.29 (Ex.) ksf Medical Office Building (#720) 8 (6 in/2 out) 12 (3 in/9 out) 119 338 (Prop.) ksf Medical Office Building (#720) 9 (7 in/2 out) 12 (3 in/9 out) 122 i 6.67 (Total) ksf Medical Office Building (#720) 17 (13 in/ 4 out) 24 (6 in/18 out) 241 • Each vehicle is representative of two trips, a trip in and a trip out of the project. Therefore the proposed project, given a reduction for the existing approved building, would increase traffic in the vicinity of the project by 61 trips per day. This would include an increase of 5 and 6 new vehicles during the AM and PM peak periods, respectfully. • Given the project's close proximity both B Street and D Street, it would be appropriate to assume that a majority of these trips would distribute to and from these roadways and ---_ ---- controlled intersections (all -way stop or signalized). •-= Given the guidelines outlined in the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Imoact Studies: as developed by Staff, a threshold of lOksf is required for the request of a Traffic Impact - Study. The proposed project, given the reduction for existing approved building, is just 113 of the threshold. Although a Traffic Impact Study was not deemed to be necessary, Staff did take exception to sight distance at the existing driveway exit onto Hayes Lane. Per a completeness item and subsequent design parameters discussed with the project applicant, the project site will be developed to establish adequate stopping sight distance for a speed of 25 mpb. As for the existing traffic conditions and concerns raised by the neighborhood after the proposed project was deemed complete, I offer the following reasons why the project is not expected to exacerbate the existing conditions: • The required improvements to stopping sight distance for the project driveway exit onto Hayes Lane will open and improve sight lines for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles at the adjacent driveway and sidewalk connections. o Improvements to sight distance for the project driveways should"ultimately encourage drivers to exit to the left, back to El Rose Drive. o Furthermore, sight distance concerns outside the proposed projeces frontage may be brought to the Traffic Division to be dealt wift amongst individual property owners, by trimming and care of existing vegetation and are not the subject of this proposal. • Traffic volumes along Hayes Lane are not expected to increase significantly by the further development of the proposed project. A traffic volume analysis was prepared for the intersection of Hayes Lane and Webster Avenue the first week of May, prior to the end of school. This analysis indicates that even if all the project trips were to use Hayes Lazne during a PM peak hour (5-6pm), the result would be an increase of less than 5% of the total traffic. The PM peak hour was used to indicate the impact of the project outside the affects of the adjacent high School o Additionally, the average daily volume 'on Hayes Lane is 1,500 vehicles. If all daily trips to/from the proposed were to use Hayes Lane there would be less than a 5% increase in traffic volumes. • Travel speeds along Hayes Lane are not expected to increase significantly by the'finther development of the proposed project. The analysis noted above collected speed data for the same period. It should be noted that 85% of all vehicles travel at or below the speed limit of 25mph. o Furthermore, 95% of all vehicles travel within 29mph. Although there were some higher speeds observed, these were randomly dispersed throughout the day. Those vehicles traveling over 30mph do not represent anywhere near 15,%, a standard for evaluating impacts of speeders on neighborhoods. With regard to the internal document, Guide for the Prwaration of Traffic Impact Studies. this is not an adopted policy document. This is a tool used by Staff to obtain relevance and consistency among the reports reviewed for proposed project development. Reference has been made to.the following: "Ibe following table contains the threshold for requiring traffic .impact studies for projects proposed in the City .of Petaluma. Projects that are within 10% of these thresholds may, at the discretion of the City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer, be required to provide a traffic impact study. If a proposed project is more than 10% below the threshold, a traffic study should' not be required, runless there are special extenuating 2 �� circumstances (examples of which might be unusual safety of access concerns or extreme neighborhood opposition to the project)." It should be noted that the last sentence has been removed, as the Traffic Engineer reserves the right to make a determination based on informal review. It is my hope that this response will help to clarify my professional judgment and decision on this proposed project. If you Have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Prank W. Penry, PE, TE, PTOE c: Vince Marengo — Director of Public Works Mike Moore -- Director of Community Development George White — Assistant Director of Community Development ATTACHMENT 5 R.C.E. 49302 P.L.S. 6366 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS PETALUMA MARINA BUSINESS CENTER 775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94954 TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239 LANDS OF ASHTIANI 30 EI Rose Drive Petaluma, California A.P.N. 008-480-039 Job No.: 071215 January 31, 2008 Prepared by: VV Checked by: ADF TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. General Statements..........................................................................1 2. Vicinity Map....................................................................................2 3. Drainage Map No. 1 — Existing Conditions...........................................3 4. Drainage Map No. 2 — Proposed Conditions.........................................4 5. Flow Calculations. .......................... 6. Plate B-1(SCWA)..............................................................................7 7. Plate B-2 (SCWA).............................................................................8 S. Plate B-3 (SCWA).............................................................................9 9. Plate B-4 (SCWA)...........................................................................1p E GENERA. STATEMENTS 1. Introduction The project site is approximately 0.5 acres, located at Ei Rose Drive, Petaluma, California. The location of the site is shown on Vicinity Map, Page 2. It is the intention of the owner of the property to extensively remodel the existing building and rebuild the parking. The existing topography of the site has an average slope of 10%. The scope of this report is to analyze drainage patterns and to evaluate the flows generated from the site under the conditions of the existing and proposed development, Also, the impact of post -development on the existing storm drain structures will be evaluated. 2. Methodolodv The existing and proposed conditions Drainage Maps are given on Pages 3 and 4, showing directions of sheet flow, points of concentration and watershed areas. Under both the existing and proposed conditions of development, the flows concentrate at two points, designated as Point of Concentration "A" and "B". Point of concentration "A" is at the downstream end of the valley gutter where the storm drainage from the front of the site is being directed towards El Rose Drive. Flows from the back of the site concentrate at point "B", that is a 6 -inch storm drain through curb opening at the lower parking, Under the existing development, a half of the building roof, the parking in front of the building and the landscape areas behind the retaining walls drain to the valley gutter and concentrate at Point "A". Another half of the building, the rear of the building and a portion of the lower parking is currently being drained to Point "B". It is our intention to design proposed grading and storm drainage improvements in such way to insure that the future flows at Point of Concentration "B" will be lower than the existing ones. In this way, the proposed improvements on Lands of Ashianti will not make worse storm drainage conditions on the neighboring properties downhill of this site. 3. Hvdrolocly Calculations All hydrology/hydraulic calculations presented in this report were done in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Flood Control Design Criteria. All design peak flows were calculated using the Modified Rational Method ( Q = K C I A). MEAN SEASONAL PRECIPITATION The mean seasonal precipitation was determined as 30 incheslyear based on the Sonoma County Mean Seasonal Precipitation Chart, Plate No. B-3, Page 9. W- K VALUE The K value was determined as K = 1.00 based on the Sonoma County K Factor vs. Mean Seasonal Precipitation Chart, Plate No. B-4, Page 10. TIME OF CONCENTRATION Times of concentration of 7 minutes were because the drainage areas are small with a short distance to the point of concentration. The selected value for the time of concentration are in agreement for the values recommended by SCWA in Flood Control Design Criteria on Page 11. RAINFALL INTENSITY Storms with a recurrence interval of 10 -years were used in this evaluation. For the time of concentration of 7 minutes, the rainfall intensities were determined using Rainfall Intensity vs, Duration Chart, Plate No. B-2, Page 8. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT The values for runoff coefficient, C, were determined from SCWA Runoff Coefficient Chart, Plate No. B-1, Page 7. A value of C=0.45 was used for the pervious areas, and a C=0.90 was used for the impervious areas. DRAINAGE AREAS For the size of drainage areas, refer to Drainage Maps #1 and #2 on Pages 3 and 4. 4. Results and Conclusions The calculations for the existing and proposed 10 -year flows are shown on Pages 5 and 6. Existing 10 -year flow at Point of Concentration "A" is 0.79 cfs. Under the proposed development it will increase to 0.89 cfs. At Point of Concentratlon 'B", the existing 10 -year flow is 0.28 cfs. Under the proposed conditions of development it will decrease to 0.15 cfs. It can be concluded that the redevelopment of the site will not aggravate storm drainage conditions in the neighborhood downhill of this property. Due to redevelopment, the flow being discharged at the 6 -inch storm drain through curb opening at the lower parking. (Point of Concentration "B") will be reduced by 46% compared to the existing flows. SITE.: $ b EI rtopo- Drivp LANDS OF ASNTIANI 30 EL ROSE DRIVE PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA APN 008-480-039 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SD _ - 4 - -- J �t 1 �^+ r ,/� 1 ' �1 �' ®•V �lY. V - e, ..� . q ? -n,G44) - -- - �, tr '� x ,, r +1' 'r.�ae f "Cs':i+'4Y .�2 -'�.� ' D 1%•Q6 r 1-RAVI- Y$ 04 _ _ � � \`,� ,� a t' s. � ,./'� f ' � I - - �1' - -V', s9p0'. " �`'`�"'_ li �' `.ti•w. '''� _ _'"�OIUT rJNc,91JT ),NTI4i✓ C _ - .. �"' `•i ISS "�1 -P -'-- f A _ (0,45c �•,� -} M1,V^Sk2?U;r�TznStt� ��oy�2`J' - „' .' _ L x • ;i xx �q - (: _ �kM2 71 A aP. �ctr cpw Y4S711JG- COMM : _g- PgLR''lo—'RILQ__= 0. IT cXS 1� - 11_ t �.x/I�.7��_ p� ,qv, p �•f�.-` _ ! �j '•p i n a1 K�f�ViG Ip 4A La— ..J 1FXISTbJ6-1 T-LCYJS: pol7✓T CT— COuCF�,1MA7701,1 S -i 9 0— =: at. C,ZA 6L= 1, 0,0 C+ (9,12)3 CW6(C tH7W IL- -A= o. 37 +A.2,) o-1,00, o,53 .257 o.3q (9--:- o, rl'3 CF -S, I. Tc= 7 N11ivu7t j 2) 011JT o Cp/J C �i rt1L$77oJ✓ �� 13 �� bL =1, 00 C= u.111 -I C VF1 G -4 -CI a) T= 2,59 /N/ 411, ( io-`OeA P-- r= v. I Lr �,C. t Tia t 33) 00 0,vi , 0,1 L -t O(Q_ o. Z,� CSS -rc, _ 17 MPM-Ou � 'poi)jfi ofi- Q= }. T --A Pi. WE: V- -1, ori C, o 53 z C � = �.sr7 lNI1111, ( ro A= 0, 4.2, A-C4z cA,-fAz) 0::. 1.010- 0.52,.7.517 • 0,2 OF- CoACG uT 7-/O J 7c--7 M11A T ss 0,0 T— a,5r7 IAll �,IL, (t0-�1trz liAl , Tc— h �frl S A- G. 0 P Ac9L�S C Qt -t 4 Q = 1,1 ✓' C;t�s ue-z 7164 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR RATIONAL FORMULA .80 I I ( .80 I I . .70 70I � 1 oils •- I dor111 wy� I fI = I .6060 m, Anr Lis U �i z .50 Igen. i� I�/s A Lots J .50 u LL - Ove ` LL 0 LL LL Z .40 1 .40 n zt,�g� � I .30 I I 1.30 i i i I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 AVERAGE GROUND SLOPE % (NOT SLOPE OF CHANNEL OR STORM DRAIN) NOTE: Commercial, Industrial a Multiple Residential Areas C, = 0.9 (Based on paving, roofs, etc.) When vegetated area exceeds 20% of total, C„ from vegetated curve may be used to reduce above CPas follows: C7=CV A +CP A SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY PLATE No. 8- 1 ' 3-3 CITY OF PETALUMA 0 Revised September 07' http://CityDfpetaluma.neYedd/plan-sparc.html 19 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF PETALUMA. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 1. Purpose of Site Plan and Architectural ADDroval The purpose of the site plan and architectural review process is to secure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma (Section 26-401). Il. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) is a five member committee authorized by the Petaluma City Council to review site plans and architectural drawings. The Committee includes one Planning Commission representative and four other members appointed by the Council. Projects Iocated in historic districts or involving City landmarks are reviewed by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee (Historic SPARC). Historic SPARC includes SPARC and two additional members appointed by Council (one member from Heritage Homes and one member from the Petaluma Historical Library and Museum). III. Proiects Subiect to Review No city permit or license shall be issued for any of the following until site plan and architectural approval has been obtained (Zoning Ordinance 26-401): A. Public buildings and grounds; public and private schools, colleges, libraries, art galleries and museums; public and private hospitals and other institutions; churches and other places of public assembly; motels and hotels; office buildings; all commercial and industrial uses; mobile home parks; parking lots; public utilities structures and installation, except poles and towers carrying overhead lines; more than one dwelling unit per lot (dwelling group); and subdivisions with five or more single family dwellings. The Director may grant administrative site plan and architectural approval for: L Non -production residential units in approved subdivisions of five or more lots. For purposes of this section, the term "non -production residential units" shall mean houses not substantially similar to other houses within view of one another as determined by the Director, ii. All residential developments of less than five units iii. All minor additions or modifications to industrial, commercial or office buildings; or may refer said development proposals to the Committee. R. Site or structure located within a designated historic district. As determined by the Director, alterations to sites or structures located in a designated historic district that are of a minor nature may be subject to administrative review and approval. 2 P� N. General Standards for Review The appropriate reviewing body reviews the exhibits, together with the reports of the Community Development Department, and based on these documents, evidence submitted, and the considerations set forth below, may approve the project as applied for, approve the project with modifications, continue the proposal for requested changes/modifications, or disapprove the project. In taking action, the reviewing body shall consider the following (Section 26-406): A. Controls 'should be exercised to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the individual building and its site, appropriateness of the building to its intended use and the harmony of the development with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and harmony will involve among other things: i. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. ii. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. iii. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood including existing topography/grading, existing trees and topography/grading on adjacent properties. iv. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of appropriate signs and outdoor advertising structures. v. The bulk, height and color of the proposed structure as compared to the bulk, height and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and other determining factors/parameters such as zoning ordinance requirements, historic district guidelines, and/or specific plans, etc. B. Landscaping to approve City standards shall be required on the site and shall be in keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee. C. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved city standards. D. It is recognized that good design character may require participation by a recognized professional designer, such as an architect, landscape architect or other practicing urban designer. The Committee or planning staff shall have the authority 3 19V to require that an applicant hire such a professional, when deemed necessary to achieve quality design. SPARC encourages that if Public Art is proposed, that the art is to be part of the project proposal and not an afterthought (Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No.2202 N.C.S.). V. The Citv of Petaluma's Green Building Program Petaluma Build It Green is a voluntary, points -based program designed to stimulate and support green building in Petaluma The program is designed around the Build It Green Guidelines which offer suggestions for conserving natural resources, using water and energy wisely, improving indoor air quality, and planning for livable and vibrant communities. Building with these measures helps to create healthy, durable homes that reduce environmental impacts and cost less to operate and maintain. Green building measures that are incorporated into a building project can earn "Green Points." These Green Points are calculated and documented by independent, third -party Green Points Raters, who submit an application for Green Points Rating to the Petaluma Build It Green program (at the City's Permit Counter), on behalf of the building owner/developer. Buildings that achieve at least 50 Green Points (with a minimum number of Green Points earned in various categories), will, be eligible to become GreenPoint Rated, earning a Petaluma Build It Green Certificate, and reference in the City's web pages. For more information on the City's Green Building program go to: • Cityofpetalumanet Petalumabuilditgreen.net or + Contact the Community Development Department at (707)-778-4301 VI. Procedures for Site Plan and Architectural Review A. Recommended Preliminary Staff Discussion It is recommended that the applicant discuss the, prospective project with the city planning staff prior to the preparation of plans. Copies of local zoning codes, design standards, and submittal requirements can be obtained at this time. B. Preliminary SPARC Review A preliminary SPARC review for nny potential project is highly recommended on a voluntary basis and is highly recommended for large complex projects. Applicants are encouraged to provide nearby properties a courtesy notice of the proposed project. The Committee will provide comments on the proposed site plan, architecture, landscaping and lighting of the project. The purpose of a preliminary review is for the Committee to be able to provide comments and/or suggestions to the applicant to improve their project prior to a formal review by the Committee, Commission and/or Council. A preliminary review is a discussion with the Committee and the applicant. 4 Z¢ No decision or vote is undertaken by the Committee for a preliminary review agenda item. A preliminary review agenda item is not publicly noticed. The Committee is not provided any staff analysis/input or any environmental review documents. C. Formal SPARC Submittal Requirements • Completed Development -Permit Application form (which can be accessed on-line at the City's website or in the Community Development Department), • Filing fee (check with the planning staff to determine the correct fees) • Full Size design plans. Typically a minimum of eight (8) sets are required. The total number of plan sets required is at the discretion of Community Development Department staff, contact planning staff for exact number of sets. NOTE: Contact planning staff regarding the use of electronic copies of plans and reports. • 11" x 17" Reduced Design Plans, one set (1), • For more detailed submittal and plan set requirements see the Development Permit Application Submittal Requirements and attached SPARC Plan Submittal Requirements. D. Environmental Review Environmental review of the project is potentially required as part of the review of the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). E. Public Notice Once the application has been deemed complete, the applicant and all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property will be notified of the hearing date a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. Applicants must comply with all other policies regarding noticing i.e., story poles as adopted by the Planning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. F. SPARC Hearing On the date of the hearing, the Committee shall consider the staff report and any additional staff comment and allow the applicant or any other public comment to present any evidence which the committee deems to be relevant to the application. The Committee shall approve, disapprove, or can continue the proposal for requested changes/modifications, or approve the subject project with conditions. The Committee meets on the 2nd and 4d' Thursday of the month in the City Council Chambers. �l G. Notification of SPARC Action Following SPARC action on a project, a letter of approval, conditional approval or denial will be mailed to the applicant. This letter should be drafted within 5 working days of the SPARC meeting. H. ADDeal Procedure (Section 26-408) i. Any Site Plan and Architectural Review decision of the Director may be appealed to the Committee within fourteen (14) calendar days of the decision. ii. Any decision of the Committee may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the decision. iii. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. If no appeal is made within the time limits, the decision shall be final. The appeal shall set forth in writing and include the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. In the case of an appeal to the Committee, the City Clerk shall transmit the appeal to the Director who shall establish a hearing date and shall notify in writing all persons who have demonstrated their interest in the matter of the time and place of the hearing at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing.. VII. Outstandina Proiect Certificates/Committee Business The Committee may award applicants for outstanding projects. After project completion, committee members may nominate outstanding projects for a Certificate of Excellence. Certificates are in the following categories or groups of categories: 4 Architectural Design • Landscape Design • Historic Restoration ISM CITY OF PETALUMA SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ADDlication Requirements • Development Permit Application One (1) Copy a Cost Based Fee System Form if applicable a Fees a Full Size plans folded (8 copies minimum) • The SPARC Committee encourages 1/2 size plans to be submitted for SPARC members only prior to a public hearing to be included as part of the packet rather than full sized plans. a 11" x 17" Reduced Plans (1 copy) • PreliminaryEnvironmental Assessment (E.I.Q.-Environmental Impact Questionnaire) as applicable. Plans containing the following information shall be submitted for all proj ects requiring Architectural and Site Design Review Site Design Plan. • Vicinity Map indicating the site and surrounding streets. Scale 1"=200' • Minimum Scale: 1" = 20' (if necessary, break-up plans for large projects, and submit a master plan at a lesser scale). a North Arrow. ® Property lines and dimensions. • Easements. • Distances between buildings and property lines. • Proposed, existing and surrounding uses (aerial context map). • Square footage of existing and proposed buildings, and their percentages of gross lot coverage. • Existing structures, existing mature trees and landscaping, paving, drainage courses, and other pertinent man-made and natural features where applicable. • An existing site conditions drawing, Said plan shall identify existing structures and trees/landscaping to be removed. • Proposed and existing grading contours. • Outline of proposed structure including walls, doors, and windows, scale determine by staff. • Context plans that show the proposed and existing public streets, curbs, and sidewalks. Existing driveways not proposed for future use. • Contextual site plan and contextual elevations drawings. . • Proposed location of off-street driveways, bike racks and other pertinent bike plan requirements, parking spaces and loading areas with dimensions; curbing; car -stops; direction of traffic flow; provisions for access by the elderly and physically disabled, etc. • Site sections, including the relationship to adjacent properties and structures. • Proposed landscape area and pedestrian walks. • Location of retaining walls, including the wall finish, proposed fences, free- standing signs, electrical transformer boxes, trash enclosures, etc., and appropriate screening. • Designation of private and common facilities and open space within developments. • If appropriate an arborist report for trees that maybe impacted by construction. • Any other items deemed appropriate for review by the Community Development Department. Architectural Design Plan o Recommended Minimum Scale: 1" =10' a All exterior building elevations. • Colors and materials board. a Sections drawings of the building (The SPARC Committee prefers 2 sections through the building. This can also be done in conjunction with site sections, if drawn at the appropriate scale). e Exterior building elevations with materials identified. a Streetscape elevation if applicable. a Exterior lighting illustrating lighting locations and details as to the type of fixture. A photometric plan may be required. ® All visible accessory fixtures. (i.e., gas, meters, mechanical equipment, air conditioners, etc.), including roof mounted equipment, and the proposed method of screening. ® Roof plans. 0 Type of construction and occupancy type and finished floor elevations. Landscape Design Plan • Minimum Scale: 1" = 20' (Plans for large projects landscape projects may be broken up into sections. These sections must match the architectural site plans and details such as windows and doors). o Outline of the site, building, streets, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, on- site curbing, storage areas, etc., to be retained and constructed; and proposed grading contours. • Location, caliper size and drip -line, size, and species of on site and immediately adjacent existing trees and large shrubs. • Indicate all trees to be removed, to be substantiated by an arborist report (if applicable). a Precise location or pattern and spacing of all proposed landscape materials. 9 • Schedule of planting in table form showing plant sizes, ground cover spacing, and botanical and common names. • Design and location of all outdoor lighting, fencing, screening, retaining walls, electrical transformers, trash enclosures, street furniture, etc. • Exterior landscape lighting and details as to the type of fixture. A Photometric Plan may be required. • Irrigation plans. At a minimum a written description of proposed irrigation shall be provided. • The project proposal shall be in conformance with the City of Petaluma Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. uu►nui iu ' :: au � � w� ► � ► Angle of Parking Space Width of Length of Width of Len of Minimum Back- SDace Space Angled Space Angled Space u Len STANDARD CARS A B C D E Parallel Parking 9' 22' 30 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 18' 17.3' 11.5' 9.5' 19' 19' 17.7' 11.5' 10' 19' 20' 18.2' 11.5' 45 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 12.7' 19.8' 13' 9.5' 19' 13.4' 20.2' 13' 10' 19', 14.1' 20.5' 13' 60 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 10.4' 20.9' 17.5' 9.5' 19' 11' 21.2' 17.5' 10' 19' 11.5' 21.4' 17.5' 90 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 9' 19' 26' 9.5' 19' 9.5' 19' 24' 10' 19' 10' 19' 23' COMPACT CARS A B C D E Parallel Parking 8' 20' 30 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 15.9' 14.1' 12' 45 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 11:2' 16.9' 12' 60 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 9.2' 18.4' 14' 90 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 8' 16' 22' Unistall 60 Degree 8.5' 18' 8.5' 18' 26' *SMART Code -Central Petaluma Speck Plan Unistall 90 Degree 8.5' 18' 8.5' 18' 26' *SMART Code -Central Petaluma Specific Plan NOTE: For properties within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan refer to the Specific Plan for dimensions of parking spaces and driveways. 11 (8(� Ali 1411 6 PARKING SURFACE 1/2" DIA. REBAR 12 LOW GROUND COVER !N OVERHANG AREA FIGURE 2 END OF STALL 17' �r 29' 13 RGURE 3.TYPEAL PARKING LAYOUT Building .I . \\\ J I N N n • TE III *2. C 20'MIN.. 3I'•MIN.I WMIN. "`I I I I i tf'�-', .� icr •.. 2'OVERHANG YMIN. ' 3'MIN.BUFFER Typical Building Layout \\\ J D N N n • 0 eLANDSCANDAPFAS C-MiPACT6PACE TE -TeAua mxtosuu H.0 -}LNDICAPPED SPACE 14 91 J TE -TeAua mxtosuu H.0 -}LNDICAPPED SPACE 14 91 The following standards were derived to guide the design of parking lots constructed in the City of Petaluma. Additional standards pertaining to parking and loading are contained in the City Zoning Ordinance, Article 20 and the SMART Code of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Number of Parking Spaces A. The minimum number of parking spaces required for each use is specified in Section 20-300 of the Zoning Ordinance and the SMART Code for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. B. Up to thirty (30) percent of the minimum required parking spaces may be reduced in size to accommodate compact cars, except when unistall spaces are the standard- C. tandard C. The required number of safe and conveniently accessible parking spaces shall be provided for the physically disabled in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Locations near building entrances are required by the applicable Building Code. Parking spaces abutting landscape islands are encouraged. D. Parking spaces required in industrially zoned areas that exceed current employment needs may be reserved as landscaped area, subject to approval by the Director, or as -requested by the SPARC Committee. 2. Dimensions of Parking Spaces and Driveways A. Standard parking stalls shall measure a minimum of nine (9) feet wide by nineteen (19) feet long, except that end stalls shall measure a minimum often (10) feet wide. B. Compact car stalls shall measure a minimum of eight (8) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long, except that end stalls shall measure a minimum of twelve (9) feet wide by nineteen (16) feet long. C. Parking stalls for disabled persons shall comply with the California Building Code. D. Driveway curb cuts should be per City Standards or as determined by the City Engineer. E. One-way drives shall measure at least ten (10) feet in width and two-way drives at least twenty (20) feet in width. F. Covered parking spaces shall measure 10' wide by 20' deep; measurements shall be from interior wall to interior wall. 3. Desim and Lavout of Parldna and Drives A. Residential parking areas for more than four (4) cars and parking lots in all commercial and industrial zones must be designed to prevent the backing of vehicles onto any public street right-of-way. B. Dead end ninety (90) degree angle parking should be provided with adequate turning room (See figure 3). C. End row parking spaces shall be protected from the turning movements of other vehicles with landscape areas. D. Parking lots shall not be permitted in required front yards or street side yards. 15 vb'�— E. A minimum distance of twenty (20) feet shall be provided at driveway entrances between the fronting property lines and the first on-site parking spaces to provide adequate vehicular stacking space -(See Figure 3). F. Whenever feasible, curb cuts serving adjacent uses should be combined to minimise the number of entrances onto a public right-of-way. The number of street access driveways should be minimized. G. Curb cuts on comer lots should be located at the farthest point away from the curb return as is feasible (See Figure3). H. When a long driveway having only single ingress is necessary within a development, provisions should be made for the maneuvering of emergency vehicles and the arrangement approved by the City staff prior to its incorporation into the plan. I. All driveways and parking lots shall be paved with a City approved surface. Alternative paving materials maybe used subject to SPARC. Use of pervious pavement is encouraged. Projects may be required to provide a minimum of 20% of pervious pavement. I The front two (2) feet of parking stalls (overhang) may be improved with low growing ground cover instead of paving (See Figure 2). K.. In large parking lots where storm water management is required SPARC strongly encourages innovative designs including bio-swales and other natural materials/plantings. 4. Landscape. Screening, and Lighting A. Landscaping of parking lots shall conform to the City Landscape Guidelines, including the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance. B. Residential parking areas for more than four (4) cars and parking lots in all commercial and industrial zones should be screened from the street right-of-way through the use of decorative walls, fences, and/or landscaping. C. Minimum five (S) feet wide landscape strips (not including vehicular overhangs) should be provided between paved parking surfaces and buildings, fences, and property lines wherever possible. Not more than eight (8) parking stalls should be located in a row without a six (6) foot wide minimum landscape divider strip, exclusive of concrete curbing, (see Figure 3). Alternatives will be considered by the Director or the Committee. D. Any lights provided to illuminate a parking facility shall be arranged so as to reflect the light away from adjacent properties and streets (downward lighting). Lighting standards shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height and should be consistent with the architectural design of on-site buildings in terms of style, color and materials. E. Plant trees to encourage shading. 16 C�� LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS The following standards were derived to provide minimum design criteria for the installation of landscaping and irrigation systems in all commercial, industrial, residential and multi -family residential developments. Plants should be of the type which are proven successful in Petaluma's climate and soils. 2. Only landscaping will be permitted in yard areas, with the exception of driveways, sidewalks or other improvements approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 3. All unusable areas in and around parking lots shall be landscaped where practical. 4. Landscaped areas shall be encouraged between asphalt areas and all building structures, fences and property lines. Hardscape may be used where pedestrian access is necessary as determined by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 5. Landscaping should be concentrated in highly visible locations where it will have the greatest visual impact. Specifically, areas around building entrances and site perimeters should be given extra consideration. Landscaping in parking lots should introduce bio- swale features into most areas not specifically required for driveways or parking spaces. 6. Attractive natural features of existing sites, including existing trees, shall be preserved whenever possible. Trees which must be removed should be documented by a certified arborist and an ASA value should be assigned. Such documentation should be reviewed and evaluated by the City Arborist. The mitigation shall be determined by the Director or the SPARC Committee (see Zoning Ordinance. Section 23-400). 7. Parcels located along all arterial roads or highway entrances to the City (such as Petaluma Blvd., Lakeville Street, Washington Street, East Washington Street and U.S. 101, etc.) shall be designed with greater than average quality landscaping to visually accommodate the high volume of passing motorists. 8. Electrical transformer boxes and garbage enclosures should be screened with attractive fencing or walls constructed of materials consistent with those used on the primary structure(s). 9. Loading areas, vehicles, parking lots, meters, outdoor storage, etc., should be adequately screened whenever possible. 10. The improvement and dedication of island landscape areas within the public right-of-way in newly developing areas should be encouraged. 11. Plant type should be adaptable to the size and location of the space it is to occupy. 17 I 12. Use of recycled landscape materials shall be encouraged. 13. Alternative materials may be substituted for ground cover plantings. Where wood chips are used as part of the landscaping material, it should not be used where it will cause increased public maintenance problems. Appropriate planting material may also be required in addition to ground cover. . 14. Trees planted under power or telephone lines shall be of a species which will not conflict with the overhead lines. 15. Motorist and pedestrian views of long expansive building walls, fencing or paving should be visually broken up with intermittently spaced and large groupings of trees, and additional plantings maybe required. 16. The variety of landscape materials should be consistent with the building architecture and street tree master plan and with that found in the surrounding areas. For example, desert or tropical plants would contrast with the downtown iron front buildings. 17. The design and materials used for fencing, street furniture, outdoor lighting and paving should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and the neighborhood. 18. Where appropriate, the areas between street curbs and sidewalks should be improved with street trees, shrubs, ground cover, brick, cobblestone or other decorative materials and shall be maintained by the property owner. 19. Landscape material planted on dedicated City property shall be of a drought resistant, low maintenance variety. Native or adaptive drought resistant plants are also encouraged in all private developments. 20. Unless an extraordinary amount of trees are to be planted (i.e., campground), all trees shall have a trunk diameter of at least three-quarter (3/4) inch as measured one foot above the ground, (fifteen gallon minimum size container). All trees shall be double staked in accordance with approved City standards. Street trees shall conform to the City Street Tree Ordinance. For growing purposes, street trees should be planted in the ground instead of in confined pots or planters. Any tree not on the approved street tree list may be approved for such use if approved by the Public Works Director after review by the appropriate departments and commissions. Application for use of a tree type shown on the approved list must be made on a form provided by the Park and Recreation Department with the applicant to provide all necessary information for appropriate review. 21. All shrubs not used as ground cover shall be at least five (5) gallons in size. 22. Ground cover shall be spaced to allow for complete infill within one (1) year of the date of planting (for example, ivy hypericum, wild strawberry, etc., should be spaced on 18 9' twelve -inch centers). Loose stones and gravel should not be placed adjacent to streets, driveways, parking spaces of sidewalks. 23. The City reserves the right to inspect and reject any landscape material not in accordance with the approved plan, or if diseased. 24. Approved irrigation systems should be provided for all landscaping areas in accordance with the City's Water Efficiency Standards. 25. All landscaping shall be maintained in healthy growing condition by the permit holder for a period of 90 days after receiving an occupancy permit. 26. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning, fertilizing, and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements (Section 23-301 Zoning Ordinance). 27. Adequate soil preparation in accordance with accepted landscape industry practices should be a requirement for all landscape areas. Particular attention should be given to slopes or berm areas with a 5% slope or greater to prevent the loss of plant materials or slope erosion during the watering cycle or wet weather. Refer to the City's Water Resources and Conservation Department for additional conservation techniques which include but are not limited to: A. Use of jute or other biodegradable mesh to hold the plant material in place. B. Use of hydro -mulch which provides slope stabilization and adequate nutriments until the plant material has established itself. 28. Landscaping shall not be located where it will block visibility and create traffic hazards or sight distance problems. (See Zoning Ordinance Section 23-304). 29. Landscaping should be used in conjunction with required fencing as buffer between land uses where possible. 30. Tree plantings should encourage summer shade on walls, windows, roofs, parking spaces and drives, and walks to help improve energy efficiency and reduce temperatures. 31. Each project shall provide at least one on-site tree for each 500 square feet of open space and at least one tree for each 4 off street uncovered parking stalls. Those trees required, due to the amount of open space, shall be planted in the remainder of the site. Open space, for this purpose has been determined to include all open space areas existing on- site, but excludes parking or drive aisles. 32. Maintenance necessary for various types of plants will be considered in determining the appropriateness of landscaping. 19 q 33. Plants which drop seed pods or fruit should not be located where such droppings would cause maintenance or safety problems. 34. Landscaping shall be used to screen parking areas where possible. 20 97 TRASH ENCLOSURE SCREEN DESIGN STANDARDS The following standards were developed to guide the design of refuse collection facilities for commercial, industrial, and multi -family residential developments in the City of Petaluma. Additional regulations regarding the refuse collection facilities are contained in the City Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21-201, 22-303 and 22-309. Number. Size and Tvne of Containers A. Multi -family residential developments with five or more dwelling units shall provide area for an equivalency of at least two 30 -gallon refuse containers per unit or at least one 1.5 cubic yard bin for each five units. (EXCEPTION; Housing developments for elderly persons need to provide area for an equivalency of only one 30 -gallon refuse container per unit.) B. Commercial and industrial developments shall provide refuse containers in a number and size so as to adequately contain the refuse generated by the development. Waste in excess of one 4 -cubic yard container requires portable or stationary compactor service or additional bins. C. Hazardous or noxious wastes must be contained in a safe and sanitary manner, in accordance with applicable regulations. 2, Location of Containers A. Containers shall be consolidated to minimize the number of collection sites, and located so as to reasonably equalize the distance from the building spaces they serve. B. Containers and enclosures shall be located so as to allow ease of access for collection trucks and direct access to drive areas. Straight -in or circular drives are encouraged to reduce truck maneuvering problems. No parking or other obstructions shall be permitted in the access area for enclosures. C. Containers and enclosures shall be placed away from public view insofar as is practical. D. Containers and enclosures shall be situated so that they do not cause excessive nuisance or offense to occupants of nearby buildibgs. E. For large projects, designers of refuse collection facilities should consult with the sanitation company. 3. Construction Details 21 9S A. All refuse containers shall be screened with a six-foot high (minimum) fence or wall which conceals containers from all sides and gate(s). B. Concrete pads of appropriate size and construction shall be provided for containers or groups of containers having a capacity of six 30 -gallon cans or more. Aprons shall be provided for loading of bins with capacity of 1.5 cubic yards or more. Recommended construction specifications are shown in Appendix B, Figure 1. Adequate drainage shall be provided around the pad area. C. Water outlets (hose bibs) for fire safety and sanitation are required within 40 feet of enclosures for refuse containers of total capacity greater than five 30 -gallon cans. D. For storage of recyclable materials, the enclosure area and pad size shall be increased to amply accommodate the extra materials and their containers. E. The tops of trash enclosures which are directly visible from the second floor of any on or off-site building shall be screened with a roof or overhead trellis. F. Screening and gates shall be of a durable construction; fences, walls, footings, slabs and curbs shall meet City Building Code requirements. Gates shall be constructed of heavy -gauge metal or of a heavy -gauge metal frame with covering of wood or other suitable material. Gates shall be secured with sturdy hinges or sliders, and latches. For enclosures of six cans or more and for bins, the screening shall be protected at its base by curbs (see Appendix B, Figure 1). If screening is to be situated directly adjacent to parking spaces or drives, it shall be protected by a concrete -curbed buffer strip (minimum 3 feet wide) of landscaping or pavement. G. The design of the screening shall be compatible with the architectural design of on-site buildings. 22 �� APPENDIX "A" 1. DIMENSIONS OF REFUSE CONTAINERS. Standard 30 -gallon can 1.5 cubic yard bin 2.0 cubic yard bin 3.0 cubic yard bin 4.0 cubic yard bin 2. EOUIVALENCY TABLE 1.5 cubic yard container 2.0 cubic yard container 3.0 cubic yard container 4.0 cubic yard container APPENDIX"B" 201V2" Diameter x 27" High High Deep Wide 43" 36" 80" 47" 39" 80" 58" 48%2" 80" 64" 531/2" 80" 10 30 -gallon cans 14 30 -gallon cans 21 30 -gallon cans 28 30 -gallon cans 1. DIMENSIONS OF PADS (See Figure 1) Minimum Pad Size Container Size (Not Including ADron) 1 to 5 30 -gallon cans Pad Not Required 6 to 10 30 -gallon cans 1.5 to 4 cubic yard bins Width A DeDth B 101-01, 91-01, 101-011 91-01, Minimum Inside Dimension Of Curbed Pad Area Curbing Not Required Width C DeDth D 8'- 4" 8'- 2" 8'- 4" 8'- 2" 23 I(J figumT:lyplml Enclosure TA' V k 4 �lI> v •7pA' 8%1' r� 63' h I I 11 I i 1 1 Co'min. finfsfish (. hod grad i ( I Aj FooMgw /' requimdforwail Hose bib atorwithin IF-rofenclosura <�> Floordraln(optlonail 4' rAncmta slab with 6'X & 4 70-16weldedw[tafandcot asappmmd bydtysW io'wido(mtnpt6-Mghmrtaeia 4' curb ragWmdlnslda 4'mecmte apron ml swAtm umlarphmit Haevp•gauga matalormetnt <'6 fmmodq=Vdthtatch- must be able to swi ng greater thm9odegmes. 24 N0.4HORTLONTALREBAR WFROM9OP AND BOTTOM �I - A�. ALL BLOCKSGROUTEOSOLID N0.4VERTICALREBAR EVEAY32"ON CENTER AT,EACH CORNEA U0•BOLTHOOKAND - STARPHINGES INGROUT r -I LJ , NUTAND all Ir Lp I WASHER uu MEFAL FRAM 25 1/YMACHINE BOLES ETAL AME ATTACHMENT 7 January 26, 2009 Response to Appeal letter - filed December 22, 2008 Re: 30 West EI Rose (North Bridge Offices) File: 08 -SPC -0048 -CR The Applicant for 30 West EI Rose (North Bridge Offices) requests that the City Council uphold the SPARC approval of December 11, 2008 and deny the Appeal filed by Scot Stegeman and the EI Rose/Hayes Coalition. The December 11, 2008 staff report indicates that the proposed project under the 2025 General Plan (GP) meets the intent of the Policies and Programs as well as the development standards of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Prior to the review under the new General Plan, the proposed project had several legal non- conforming status items. Under the 2025 GP, these non -conformities were eliminated primarily due to the new setbacks in a Mixed Use zone. The IZO required a design revision of demolishing a portion of the existing building to conform with the new 15 foot residential side yard setback. Appeal Issue 1): "SPARC did not provide an objective and independent review of the new submittal." There is no evidence to support the claim that SPARC was not objective and independent. SPARC has seen the project four times (three, with the same members) and in those hearings the issues of traffic, drainage, parking, building massing, landscaping, privacy and solar access to neighboring properties has been discussed. Appeal Issue 2): "The project is inconsistent with the current Zoning Code in several respects." 2a): "...the application continues to rely upon retaining legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot and the connecting driveway." In the SPARC approved proposal, all previous non -conformities have been eliminated. Therefore, the project does not require the previous legal non -conforming status. The Project's use IS CONFORMING in this Mixed Use zone and the building is occupied. 2b): The Appeal cites the SPARC Guidelines and asserts that the project should have one loading space. It is in fact, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance that sets the requirements for loading. Section 20-903 addresses professional offices - "when any of the foregoing requires MAD architecture 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA Y grz IVSD Tel 707.765.9222 Fax 707.765.9290 Web www.madarcJAM17 2009 COMMUNITY DEUELOPr0ENT DEPARTMENT ��3 the RECURRING receipt, delivery, or distribution of goods or equipment by truck. One loading berth plus such additional berths as may be prescribed by the Zoning Administrator." The applicant's dental business does not require RECURRING deliveries. If deliveries are made, it is a UPS vehicle or similar up to twice a week. There are no special deliveries to this facility. The need for a loading space was discussed during the SPARC hearing and it was addressed in the above manner. The submitted and approved drawings are the record of this approval. 2c): The Appeal letter cites Section 20-402 Standards for Off Street Parking Facilities, which states "access to each off-street parking space shall be from a driveway or aisle, which is sufficient for readily turning and maneuvering vehicles." The issue he brings up is the "complicated turn movement sequences" if one car enters while another is exiting. We have attached an exhibit called "Dead End Exhibit" that shows that a Crown Victoria automobile can make a three-point turn at the rear parking area and exit even if all spaces are occupied. This size of vehicle and the modeling software used has long been accepted by jurisdictions, including the City of Petaluma to demonstrate parking accessibility. 2d): The Appeal letter states "The four enclosed new spaces provided under the building are shown with two of the spaces being 9 feet wide and one space as 8 feet wide. This is inconsistent with SPARC requirements that any covered spaces be 10 feet wide. These spaces cannot be credited against the number of needed spaces unless they are brought into conformity." This was discussed during the SPARC hearing and because of the vehicular maneuver modeling that was provided in the Parking Access Exhibits, it was determined by committee members that the covered parking and access shown was acceptable. 2e): The Appeal asserts "The proposed driveway entrance violates the SPARC requirement that there be 20 feet between a site entrance and the first parking space." The correct document to cite is the SPARC Guidelines. This was discussed during the SPARC hearing. The first existing parking stall as you enter the parking lot is protected with a landscape island and space to allow one vehicle to stop within the site as a parked vehicle would back out to leave said space (See attached "Stacking Exhibit" from Steve LaFranchi and Associates). This is the intent of the Guidelines diagram. S i MAD architecture 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94952 Tel 707.765.9222 Fax 707.765.9290 We6 www.m6darc.com 2 i 1 /o It -H �E- 0�1 � FUST 014 2003-20820 O I h` °® 4 2,t II DEA® END EXHIBIT 6 ?-h n HI5VEH 1 LARWIOG L�BBOMIE& HM B I I i I I I 1- j ASHTIANTI 'I 80 W. EL ROSE OFFICE m L___—_—__ -- a °® 4 DEA® END EXHIBIT 6 p HI5VEH 1 LARWIOG L�BBOMIE& HM ASHTIANTI 80 W. EL ROSE OFFICE m PETALUMA. CALIFORNIA I I I 'I I I I! 1Nt NWUN)\tiSEtaNY MAO®GO lVdlM9 J¢ MAK" GV0 . oamm 4 d F � BTEYE11i WRV1N419 daBBOCiaTE8, H4 I STACKING EXHIBIT ASHTIANTI 30 W. EL ROSE OFFICE PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Appeal Issue 3): "The project is inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zoning Code in several respects." 3a): "....the correct and conservative way to assess traffic and parking impacts is against the uses that would create the greatest demand. Only then can the City and neighbors be protected from a change of use that creates significant new impacts and no means to have them corrected." The allowable use in this zone that create the greatest demand is Medical Offices. This is the prevalent use in the neighborhood on West EI Rose, upper B Street and upper Hayes Street. It should be noted that Hayes and W. El Rase are identified as `Connector' streets with medium volume in the 2025 GP. 3b): The Appeal letter suggests that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan because it provides only one use in the structure in a Mixed Use zone. The General Plan on pagel-7 Mixed Use (outside of the CPSP) states "...the intent of mixed use is to recognize a broad range of uses along those corridors including both commercial and residential uses; a mixture of uses on these smaller individual parcels is encouraged but not required." The intent of Mixed Use seems clear that a mix of uses in a neighborhood achieves this same goal. This Mixed Use neighborhood currently has both residential and professional offices and medical care facilities. Appeal Item d): The Appeal states that the Project was improperly processed under CEQA as Categorically Exempt. The determination was made by Planning and supported by the City Attorney that the Project is Categorically Exempt for the following reasons: • It is less than 10,000 sl" • The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development, • It is permissible in the General Plan, • It is not environmentally sensitive. Sin mm MAD architectu re 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94952 Tel 707.765.9222 Fax 707.765.9290 Web www.modar,c.com / F1� Al—rACHMEN-F 8 200 FOURTH ST. SUITE 400 P.O. BOX 878 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402-0878 BIC PHONE 707.547.2000 FAX 707.526.2746 WEB BEYERSCOSTIN.COM BEYERSA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COSTIN January 27, 2009 Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Appeal of SPARC Approval (Northbridge Offices) Addition to Existing Office Structure at 30 W. E1 Rose File: 08 -SPC -0048 -CR BC File No. 6502 Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: I represent the project applicant North Bridge Endodontics with respect to its proposed addition to its office building at 30 West E1 Rose. By separate letter, Mary Dooley, architect for the applicant, has responded to many of the claims asserted by appellants' consultant Stegeman & Associates dated December 22, 2008. I write to address certain issues related to CEQA raised both in that letter, and in the letter from appellants' attorney Rose Zoia dated September 12, 2008. At the outset it is worth noting that the Council has already considered the question of CEQA compliance during the prior September 15, 2008 appeal of this matter, and agreed that the project should be deemed categorically exempt. After the city attorney opined at that hearing that SPARC acted properly in exempting the project from CEQA, the Council remanded the matter back to SPARC only with respect to the issue of conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. It did not instruct SPARC to make any further findings with regard to the CEQA exemption. Nevertheless, we respond to appellants' arguments on this issue below. The Project Is Properly Exempt From CEQA SPARC properly found that this proposed renovation of an existing office building falls within the "existing facilities" exemption of CEQA Guideline section 15301, which exempts "minor alteration of existing public or private structure�§§ � v� �n negligible or no expansion of use beyond that exingiarvtt-h b JAN 2 7 2009 G:\6502\Letters\CityCounci1 2009-01-27.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C�� Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 2 time of the lead agency's determination."' The Guideline includes within its examples of such exempt projects those involving "additions to existing structures" of less than 10,000 square feet where W the project is in an area "where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan" and (ii) the area is not "environmentally sensitive." Section 15301(e) (2) . This project fits squarely within this exemption. The proposed addition is only 3,684 square feet in size; it is consistent with the new General Plan and zoning as now confirmed by SPARC; and there is no suggestion that the surrounding area is environmentally sensitive. In challenging SPARC's determination that the project is categorically exempt, appellants must show "substantial evidence" that the exemption is improper.' Substantial evidence consists of more than "[m]ere uncorroborated opinion or rumor" 3 or "speculative possibilities" of environmental impact .4 Instead "project opponents must produce... evidence, other than their unsubstantiated opinions, that a project will produce a particular adverse effect."s Appellants have failed to meet this burden. For example, in arguing the inadequacy of area parking, they cite the red - 1 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15301. 2 San Lorenzo Valley Comm. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1389 (2006) (appellant must produce substantial evidence to challenge exemption for school consolidation project based on traffic, parking and access concerns) ; Centinela Hosp. Ass'n v. City of Inglewood, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1586, 1601 (1990) (substantial evidence supports agency determination that use permit for new, two-story fifteen -bed psychiatric facilities is categorically exempt under CEQA); Dehne v. County of Santa Clara, 115 Cal. App. 3d 827 (1981) (substantial evidence supports agency decision to categorically exempt the reconstruction of a cement company facilities) 3 Guidelines section 15384(a). 4 Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 756 (1990). ' Id. at 735-736 � DI Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 3 striping proposed on the project frontage as if this measure, intended to improve site distance for the entrance/exit, would strain "public services and facilities." Stegeman letter at 3. Likewise they appear to argue that the area's storm drain system is inadequate but acknowledge that the applicant has "agreed to increase the storm drain size to meet City standards" along the building frontage. Id. at 4 (emphasis added). The evidence is that this project will only improve, not worsen, storm water drainage in the area. Appellants further contend in conclusory fashion that the exemption is improper because "the environmental review of a project must take into account the worst case scenario," citing for support a case wherein the court found significant parking impacts resulting from the proposed project. Zoia letter at 7. However, the project in that case was far from a simple 3,700 square foot office building expansion, but instead involved the expansion of a "convention center and two office towers [that] would fill all the available parking spaces within three blocks, and parking spaces would still be needed for 2,621 cars." 6 Finally, appellants challenge the propriety of the "existing facilities" exemption on the ground that the project involves more than "negligible or no expansion of use" because the building is currently vacant. Based on that alleged fact, appellants proceed to argue that "no use" is the baseline from which to measure the increased use of the proposed project. Zoia letter at 6-7. This argument runs counter to the facts, the law and the purpose of the CEQA. First, the building has been used for years as medical offices (by a urologist, a chiropractor and a dentist), as well as by mortgage lenders, and it is currently occupied in part by Petaluma Care and Rehabilitation. Second, appellants cite no authority that a temporary reduction or suspension in use necessarily establishes a new baseline against which to measure impacts, and indeed the case law is to the contrary.' 6 Sacramento Old City Assn v. City Council, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011, 1020 (1991). Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board, 192 Cal. App. 3d 847 (1987) (in upholding "existing facilities" exemption, it is proper to evaluate expansion of sewage treatment capacity against permitted use, even though actual use was less). Cf. Fairview Neighbors v. F t 0 Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 4 Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that CEQA is a tool for assessing potential environmental impact, not a mandate for suspending common sense. So for example, where the City already knows the traffic impacts from a this building in its existing state (3,287 square feet), it makes no sense to ignore that data, as appellants suggest, and simply assume that this office space produces no traffic. Zoia letter at 7. Such an approach, if followed, would presumably require the City to consider even the restoration of a fire -damaged building, or the construction of tenant improvements, against a baseline of "no use" during the occupants' temporary vacancy. CEQA of course does not require such an absurd result and in fact implicitly accounts for the possibility of such vacancies in its categorical exemptions.8 The "Unusual Circumstances" Exception Does Not Apply Appellants are also wrong in their assertion that the "existing facilities" exemption should not apply due to the exception for "an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." Guideline section 15300.2. Though they complain that SPARC made no findings as to this exception (Stegeman letter at 3), it is appellants - not the City - who carry the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that such an exception applies.9 Appellants simply cannot meet that burden. While they list a series of generalized environmental concerns, appellants fail to show how any of these concerns are due to "unusual circumstances" as required by CEQA.10 As one court so aptly County of Ventura, 70 Cal. App. 4th 238 (1999) (upholding EIR based on truck trips possible under prior permit, without regard to actual trip generation). ' Guideline § 15301(a) and (d) (exempting projects involving interior alterations and restoration/rehabilitation of damaged structures). 9 Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, 101 Cal. App. 4th 786, 795-96 (2002). 10 Santa Monica, 101 Cal. App. 4th at 801 ("We also note, however, that the specific 'unusual circumstances, relied upon by [appellant] are not the kind of 'unusual circumstances' Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 5 described the requirements of this exception in a case bearing a remarkable similarity: [Appellant's] only claim under Guidelines section 15300.2(c) appears to be that the project does not include adequate parking facilities, and "will result in increased demand on the City's streets and other public parking areas, as well as an increase in traffic and circulation around the project site as potential site users attempt to park in the downtown area." She cites various comments from the administrative record, by which project opponents voiced concerns about the existing traffic and parking problems in downtown Mill Valley, and the prospect of the project exacerbating those problems. The shortcoming in [Appellant's] argument is that she has made no showing whatsoever of any "unusual circumstances" surrounding the construction of this small commercial structure giving rise to any risk of "significant" effects upon the environment. (Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) while the addition of any small building to a fully developed downtown commercial area is likely to cause minor adverse changes in the amount and flow of traffic and in parking patterns in the area, such effects cannot be deemed "significant" without a showing of some feature of the project that distinguishes it from any other small, run-of-the-mill commercial building or use. Otherwise, no project that satisfies the criteria set forth in Guidelines section 15303(c) [new facility under 10,000 square feet] could ever be found to be exempt. There is nothing about the proposed 5,855 - square -foot retail/office building that sets it apart from any other small commercial structure to be built in an urbanized area... . (emphasis added)." required for the application of this exception, because whether a circumstance is unusual' is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.") (original emphasis). 11 Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1243, 1260 (1999) (finding no "unusual circumstances" for exception to categorical exemption for new office building). L 12- Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 6 Here too appellants have pointed to nothing "unusual" about this project that poses a "reasonable possibility" of significant environmental impact .12 The bottom line is that while appellants would prefer not to see this development in their neighborhood, CEQA provides no basis for their opposition. "[S]uspicions about a project, though sincere and deeply felt, do not rise to the level of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental effect. ,13 Sincerely, C� Christopher G. Costin CGC:sb cc: Client Eric Danley, Esq. 12 East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist., 210 Cal. App. 3d 155 (1989), cited by appellants (Zoia letter at B), provides no support for their position and was in fact expressly limited to its facts by a subsequent opinion of the same court. See Apt. Assn of Greater L.A. v. City of L.A., 90 Cal. App. 4th 1162, 1172-73 (2001): Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, we did not hold in East Peninsula an agency always must conduct an "initial study" before declaring a project exempt from CEQA review. Such a holding would run counter to the three -tiered structure of CEQA review under which, if a project is categorically exempt "no further agency evaluation is required" and no "initial study" takes place. East Peninsula was decided on the basis of the unique provision in section 21080.18, which states CEQA does not apply to the closing of a public school or the transfer of its students "if the only physical changes involved are categorically exempt.... 13 Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337, 1352 (1990) (rejecting neighbors' concerns regarding perceived traffic impacts). !13 I South-West Render 0 ATTACHMENT 2 South -Fast Render 3 ,North-West Render r 4 ,North-East Render 5 ' Eave-Sunshads Detail aosd ' _ [,Qi. ll, ",ill" n/W.. ari., e ', onm�res m.aoseune�sessrn asew.a�..i.oa.c xuw ws.u... °.Fem�wa9.n�e� er ¢wmuu.. IF $ ^IE -A 5x-014 Vi 4 � GI E to 47 D^ .Q o .� tY 0 W L M LJ