Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A Late Docs 03/02/20095 fk From: james page Dimmymio@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:56 PM To: pamela torliatt; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4petaluma@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; davidrabbit@davidrabbit.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr@cipetaluma.ca.us; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Fellow Petalumans: I am a homeowner and live on Laurel Ave. right near B St. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of 30 El Rose. I am well familiar with the area as both my physician and my dentist are located in that area. I am particularly concerned about the traffic increase that would be imposed upon B St. You are well aware of its proximity to the high school and I'm sure it comes as no surprise that the kids drive very fast and often recklessly in this neighborhood. And some of the ones who aren't driving are barreling down the B St. hill on their skateboards. Its already a dangerous combination and it frightens me to think of adding so many extra car trips into that mix. Another concern is the negative impact such a facility would have on the independent Petaluma dentists who already practice in that area. Do we really want to jeopardize their businesses while facilitating this dental factory? Please vote against this proposal. Sincerely, James Page From: JoAnn Pelissetti Upelissetti@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 12:01 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com Cc: tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: 30 West EI Rose Expansion Attachments: 30 West EI Rose Expansion.doc 1 The Ashtianis want to expand their dental practice. They think it will be financially and professionally successful. That is understandable. That is how they make their living. Mary Dooley has designed a building for this expansion. She designs buildings that are appealing to her clients. That is understandable. That is how she makes her living. They stand on one side of the scale. And who stands on the other side of the scale? The rest of us. Our community. This is not how we make our living. This is where we live. Where we raise our children. Where we vote. And we are appalled at the size and architectural design of the 30 West EI Rose project. It is completely out of keeping with the rest of our neighborhood. It is jarringly out of place. It will give us nothing and take away much of the joy we have in where we live. We are saddened and frustrated that people who do not live in Petaluma would be allowed to change the face of our west Petaluma neighborhood forever. And so we keep on fighting. And we turn to our elected officials for help. Are you listening? There the Ashtianis are on one side of the scale. And there the rest of us are on the other, struggling to be heard. What is wrong with this picture? JoAnn Pelissetti 25 West El Rose Drive From: Dennis Elias [dstevenelias@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:33 PM To: - City Clerk Cc: 'Pamela'; citymgr; King, Fran; Moore, Mike; Borba, Irene; 'David Glass'; 'David Rabbitt';'Mike Harris'; 'Mike Healy'; 'Teresa Barrett'; 'Tiffany Renee'; 'Jack Rittenhouselll'; 'John Mills'; 'Ray Johnson'; 'Terry Kosewic' Subject: 30 West EI Rose Appeal Attachments: Appeal II_30 West EI Rose.pdf; image001.gif For your review and consideration regarding 30 West EI Rose. Dennis S. Elias T. 707-776-0608 F. 707-776-0607 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Date: January 31, 2009 From: Dennis S. Elias, Vice Chair SPARC To: Mayor Pamela Torliatt Petaluma City Council Petaluma City Clerk — Claire Cooper, CMC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee John Brown, Petaluma City Manager Eric Danly, Petaluma City Attorney Director Community Development Department Irene Borba, Senior Planner CDD Re: File No. 08 -SPC -0048 -CR, 30 West EI Rose, Northbridge Offices, Appeal The proposed renovation and addition to an existing office building located at 30 West EI Rose was reviewed by SPARC on May 22, 2008, June 12, 2008 and again on July 24, 2008. Hearings were held as formal SPARC hearings, there was no preliminary SPARC in this matter typically recommended by Community Development Department, CDD. At the conclusion of the SPARC hearing, July 24' 2008, the project was approved in a vote of four in favor and one opposed. An organized group of neighbors filed an appeal with the City Clerk on August 12, 2008. The City Council heard the appeal in September 15, 2008. The City Council action remanded the project to SPARC with direction that the project will be in conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the associated Implementing Zoning Ordinance, the IZO. Implicit in this action and direction is compliance with all relevant matters including the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. The approval of a project by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee carries with it compliance with all relevant matters included in the findings. The CEQA exemption was included in the SPARC findings and identified in the public notice for the September 15, 2008 Appeal Hearing. Therefore in my opinion, CEQA remains a matter of undetermined disposition. The project applicant presented the revised project to SPARC on December 11, 2008. The project was again approved on a vote of four in favor and one opposed. My vote was the single vote opposed to the project. The project is now before the City Council for a second appeal hearing on February 2, 2009. 1 am providing you with some concerns and comments regarding the project in light of the IZO and SPARC responsibility. Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines, states "the purpose of the review is to secure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma." http://citvofi)etaluma.net/cdd/iodf/sparc-guidelines- final.pdf 1 1 SPARC is provided with the following General Standards for Review: 3 IV. General Standards for Review 5 The appropriate reviewing body reviews the exhibits, together with the reports of the Community 6 Development Department, and based on these documents, evidence submitted, and the 7 considerations set forth below, may approve the project as applied for, approve the project with 8 modifications, continue the proposal for requested changes/modifications, or disapprove the 9 project. In taking action, the reviewing body shall consider the following (Section 26-406): 10 11 A. Controls should be exercised to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the individual 12 building and its site, appropriateness of the building to its intended use and the harmony 13 of the development with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and harmony will 14 involve among other things: 15 16 i. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of 17 the overall design. 18 19 ii. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in 20 question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. 21 iii. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting ofother 22 structures in the immediate neighborhood including existing 23 topography/grading, existing trees and topography/grading on adjacent 24 properties. 25 26 iv. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of 27 appropriate signs and outdoor advertising structures. 28 29 v. The bulk, height and color of the proposed structure as compared to the bull:, 30 height and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and other 31 determining factors/parameters such as zoning ordinance requirements, historic 32 district guidelines, and/or specific plans, etc. 33 34 B. Landscaping to approve City standards shall be required on the site and shall be in 35 keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved 36 wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee. 37 38 C. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities and 39 pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience, and shall 40 conform to approved city standards. 41 42 D. It is recognized that good design character may require participation by a 43 recognized professional designer, such as an architect, landscape architect or other 44 practicing urban designer. The Committee or planning staff shall have the authority to 45 require that an applicant hire such a professional, when deemed necessary to achieve 46 quality design. 47 48 1 The above reference provides language used in staff reports prepared for SPARC outlining the findings 2 used to arrive at a disposition for a project. Findings are sometimes modified and/or added to in order 3 to satisfy the particular requirements of a project. 5 In my review of the proposed project at 30 W. EI Rose, I was not able to make all of the findings, and 6 based on my conclusions, I could not vote in favor of the project. In addition to the findings, other 7 considerations were weighed, specifically related to securing compliance with the Implementing 8 Zoning Ordinance, General Plan 2025, and other regulatory matters (CEQA), including the objective in 9 promoting the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma. I arrived at my decision 10 based on the following findings and considerations enumerated in bullet items 1) through 11) as 11 follows: 12 13 1) Ref: General Standards for Review — IV. A. i., ii., v. 14 15 RESPONSE: Although the architectural characteristics do incorporate quality materials used appropriately, the proposed expansion of the existing structure as a whole is not in harmony or proportion with its surroundings. The site is adjacent to single story residential structures and proximate to a residential neighborhood. The design and construction of the original building succeeded in achieving greater proportionality, sensitivity and consideration to the residential component of the neighborhood surroundings while adequately maintaining its commercial application and activity as a medical office building. The proposed addition to the existing structure is not compatible with the overall character of the residential neighborhood. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 2) Ref: General Standards for Review — IV. C. RESPONSE: After extensive study of the physical site characterized by its corner location, sloped topography, shared zoning boundary with residential district, and its relation to street slopes in EI Rose and Hayes Lane, I have concluded that changes could be incorporated to the site's ingress, and egress to promote and achieve a greater degree of vehicular safety while entering or leaving the property. In addition, the off-street parking facilities proposed to achieve the required number of spaces does not promote safety and convenience. The additional single covered parking space and the three uncovered parking spaces created at the rear lower northeast area of the property require maneuvering a vehicle into a series of positions in order to achieve a parked position, and conversely another series of positions in order to leave the area. It has not been demonstrated that the newly created parking in the area behind the building promotes safety and convenience. Pedestrian access from this area of the property to the building entrance is not provided in the site plan and does not include ADA accessibility. See Design Review Site Development Plans pages SP -6 and SP -7, date stamped July 14, 2008. 40 At the SPARC meeting of December 11, 2008, 1 recommended the onsite traffic circulation pattern be 41 reversed such that ingress to the property occur at Hayes Lane, onsite parking in the main parking area 42 be redesigned to facilitate parking, and egress from the property occur onto West EI Rose. The 43 reasoning for the change was to increase traffic safety to the greatest extent possible, and discourage 44 traffic impact on the residential neighborhood adjacent to this mixed use district. Currently, cars 45 leaving the property onto Hayes Lane are instinctively inclined to turn right, going downhill into the 46 residential neighborhood. 1 3) IZO Chapter 11 Parking and Loading Facilities, Off -Street 2 3 11.030 -Off-Street Parking — General Regulations 4 The following general requirements apply to off-street parking: 5 6 A. Off -Street Parking. There shall be provided on the same site with any use off-street parking, spaces 7 for automobiles and bicycles in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter, or as provided in 8 Section 11.040 (Alternatives to On -Site Parking). 9 In all cases where bicycle parking is required, bicycle parking shall not be more inconveniently 10 located than car parking and attempts should be made to have bicycle parking more convenient. All 11 deviations from the City of Petaluma Municipal Code or the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance 12 regarding bicycle parking shall be routed through the PBAC. Where existina buildinas not now 13 meeting these reauirements are or000sed to be enlarged or increased in capacity in excess of ten 14 percent (10%). in anv district exceot an agricultural (AG) or single dwelling district (RR, R1, 132), off - 15 street oarkina shall be orovided as reauired herein for the entire floor area of the structure. 16 17 RESPONSE: The subject property has an existing floor area of 3,287 square feet. The proposed 18 renovation to the existing building includes an additional 583 new square feet to the first floor and 19 2,825 new square feet as the second floor, for a total of 3,408 square feet. This constitutes an increase 20 over the existing structure of around 103%, (3,408/3,287=1.03). The required parking is one (1) space 21 for each 200 square feet of floor area for medical office, dental office, and clinics. Therefore the 22 renovated building as a dental office should provide 33.48 parking spaces (3408 + 3287 = 33.5) 23 rounded to 34 parking spaces. The project plan is only showing 30 parking spaces based upon a 15% 24 reduction in floor area for storage. This does not satisfy the requirements of the zoning code therefore 25 1 could not vote in favor of the project. I also noted that I could not find any written policy to allow up 26 to a 15% reduction in floor area to reflect services and storage areas. Reference last paragraph page 6 27 of agenda item. Also, floor area calculations are erroneous. Based upon values indicated, the total floor 28 area is 6,695 square feet, not 6,939 square feet as shown. 29 30 4) IZO Chapter ll Parking and Loading Facilities, Off -Street 31 32 11.070 - Standards for Off -Street Automobile Parking Facilities 33 All off-street parking facilities shall conform with the fallowing standards: 34 35 A. Aisles. Access to each off-street automobile or bicvcle oarkina space shall be from a drivewav or 36 aisle. which is sufficient for readilv turning and maneuverino automobiles and bicvcles. 37 38 B. Access. Each parking space shall be accessible from a street or alley or from an aisle or drive 39 connecting with a street or alley. No off-street parking facility for five (5) or more spaces in an R 40 District shall be designed so that vehicles must back across a sidewalk in order to gain access to a 41 street or alley. When a oarkina facilitv does not abut a oublic or orivate street. allev. or access 42 easement. there shall be provided an access drive of not less than twentv (20) feet in width. exceo( 43 as follows: 44 45 1. Drives furnishing access to parking facilities serving from three (3) to ten (10) dwelling units shall 46 be not less than twelve (12) feet in width and drives serving two (2) or fewer dwelling units shall 47 be not less than ten (10) feet in width. 48 49 2. Where separated one-way access drives are proposed, these shall consist of two (2) drives each 50 of which shall not be less than twelve (12) feet in width. 51 52 I. Parking Stall Size. Parking stall size shall be determined by SPARC in the SPARC Guidelines and 53 Procedures. 1 RESPONSE: SPARC standards for review require off street parking facilities be so designed as to 2 promote safety and convenience. In my opinion the three newly created uncovered parking spaces at 3 the northeast corner of the property do not promote safety and convenience nor is the area sufficient 4 for readily turning and maneuvering. (Ref: 11.070 A. above) 6 The access drive to the rear parking area is shown to be eleven (11) feet in width from the east line of 7 the property boundary to the northeast corner of the existing structure (Ref: 11.070 B. above). The 8 creation of four additional parking spaces in this area, three uncovered and one covered, will 9 negatively impact an already confined and difficult area in which to negotiate a vehicle. The pre - 10 existing condition is an access driveway, eleven feet in width and two legal size covered parking spaces 11 (10' wide x 20' deep) under the building. The addition of the new parking spaces intensifies the pre - 12 existing condition and use of the parking area and driveway access. The change from the pre-existing 13 condition to the increase in parking spaces does not comply with the parking standards nor the IZO. 14 Further, this change in condition raises the question regarding the scope of compliance in pre-existing 15 conditions. Especially since the change is in a condition that becomes non-compliant to the current 16 code with respect to the addition of one of the additional parking space under the building. 17 18 See Agenda Page 92 (Parking Standards) 19 Ref: Parking Standards item 2F of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines: 20 Implicit in Parking Standards item 2F is the definition of a covered parking space in that it states 21 "Covered Parking spaces shall measure 10' wide by 20' deep; measurements shall be from interior wall 22 to interior wall" The three covered parking spaces would be 9' wide, 8' wide and 9' wide, their depth is 23 not in question. The covered parking area under the building is approximately 26 feet wide, four feet 24 shy of the required size for three parking spaces at 10 feet wide each. 25 26 It is noted that although compact parking spaces are shown in the engineer's drawings in the covered 27 parking area under the building, this has no bearing over the specified dimensions given in the Parking 28 Standards for a covered parking space. I suppose compact cars could be parked in these spaces but the 29 parking stall dimension is still required to be 10' wide by 20' deep. 30 31 5) See Agenda Page 5: Staff Resoon5e to Ground 2a 32 Last paragraph, 2"d last, and last sentence, as follows: 33 "The parking is a site improvement not a structure. There is nothing in the IZO that prohibits 34 parking in the side (interior) or rear setback" 35 36 Chapter 12 Development Standards Modifications 37 12.050 - Projections into Required Setbacks The permitted projections into required setbacks 38 are as prescribed in Table 12.1. 39 40 RESPONSE: Titled — Allowable Projections into Required Setback, Table 12.1 describes and lists 41 allowable projecting features which are either a structure, or an element attached to or subordinate to 42 a structure. For each listed feature, there is a corresponding linear dimension indicating the maximum 43 projection allowed in the setback. What the table does not include in its list of features is any reference 44 to required parking as in a space, area or facility. Given the title of the table, it implies that the only 45 features or structures that are allowed are the ones listed, therefore and by omission, any other 46 structural feature is not allowed. 2 6) Title 13 of the City of Petaluma Municipal Code, section 13.20 Future Rights of Way sub -section 3 13.20.040 Building or structure defined states as follows: 5 PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE 13.20.040 Building or structure defined. 6 "Buildino or structure" means as defined by the building code of the city and also 7 includes retaining walls, stairways, required off-street oarkino facilities, any well, 8 whether for water, oil or other hydrocarbon products and any underground storage 9 facilities in excess of one thousand gallons capacity; provided, "building or structure" 10 does not include any building or structure as herein defined existing on the effective 11 date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or trees, agricultural crops, temporary off - 12 street parking facilities not required by the city, walks or public utilities installed under 13 authority of franchise. (Ord. 597 NCS §21.53: prior code §21.53.) 14 15 RESPONSE: Municipal Code section 13.20.040 states a required parking facility is a structure. This 16 feature is not listed in the table of allowable projections in the setback area adjacent to the residential 17 district. Based on the foregoing analysis, I could not make the finding that the parking as proposed in 18 the northwest corner of the property complies with the intent of the zoning. 20 F. Permanent Surface. Parking areas, aisles, and access drives shall be constructed and maintained to 21 provide a durable, dustless surface and shall be graded and drained to disoose of surface water without 22 damage to orivate or oublic orooerties streets. or allevs. 23 24 RESPONSE: (Ref: 11.070 F. above) Surface water runoff is being allowed to cross over property line 25 onto adjacent east property. Damage to property has occurred at Velma Pool's property on Knob Hill 26 Drive and at the terminus of the swale along the rear of the properties along the north side of West EI 27 Rose until it reaches the sidewalk and the property at 1030 B Street. See bullet item 6 below. 28 29 7) IZO Chapter 11 Parking and Loading Facilities, Off -Street 30 31 11.100 - Off -Street Loading Berth Requirements 32 For every building or addition, the number of off-street loading berths required shall be as indicated in 33 Table 11.3. 34 35 Table 11.3 indicates the following: 36 For the following Use: Offices, public buildings other than administrative offices, schools and colleges, places of 37 public assembly, charitable and religious institutions and clubs not used for human habitation, and public utility and 38 public service structures and installations, when any of the foregoing requires the recurring receipt, delivery, or 39 distribution of goods or equipment by truck 40 41 Number of Loading Births Required: One loading berth, plus such additional berths as may be prescribed by 42 the Zoning Administrator (Director) 43 44 RESPONSE: Implicit in the proposed use will be delivery of supplies and materials by truck for the 45 continual uninterrupted operation of a dental facility of the proposed size, yet there is no provision for 46 a loading/parking space for these deliveries. The omission of the loading berth is not in compliance 47 with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 48 49 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 8) Regarding CEQA Article 19, Categorical Exemptions Section 15301 Existing Facilities Sub -section (e), (1), and (2)(A)(B). A categorical exemption can be made when a project meets the test of Section 15301 (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 per cent (50%) of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less: or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A)The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. RESPONSE: The project was exempted from CEQA based on (2)(A)(B), yet these criteria conflicts with the criteria described in subsection (e)(1). Since the proposed structure does constitute an increase in size of more than 50% of the floor area as well as more than 2,500 square feet, I concluded that the project should not be approved until further review and clarification is provided regarding this exemption. I did meet with planning staff to discuss the rational for focusing on subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1) but I was not persuaded that subsection (e)(1) can be ignored in preference to subsection (e)(2)(A)(B). CEQA Section 15301 provides explicit direction that "the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing structure". I could not characterize the project as negligible with a proposed expansion of an existing structure greater than 50 % of the floor area. Therefore I concluded the disposition of the project regarding CEQA should have had one of three possible outcomes; either (a)- make no categorical exemption and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (b)- provide to the committee the rational for the use of subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1); or (c) -prepare a negative declaration. Since none of these actions were provided to the committee, I could not support the project. 7 1 9) The traffic analysis provided by the traffic engineer showed an increase of 122 daily trips to the 2 existing 119 daily trips based on the building square foot metrics, existing and proposed. This 3 constitutes an increase of 103% (122/119=1.03) in daily trips which impressed me as a 4 significant increase in the amount of traffic generated from the project site and could create a 5 noticeable effect in the neighborhood. The significance of traffic impacts in the neighborhood 6 has been articulated on numerous occasions over a period of several years. I could not justify 7 approval of the project without the inclusion of traffic calming measures being implemented to 8 improve pedestrian and vehicle safety in the neighborhood. The proposed project although it 9 would contribute to the traffic issue, I don't feel it is the property owners sole responsibility. 10 The traffic issue is separate from the project itself, but the proposed project would be a 11 contributor to an increase in traffic and therefore should bear some responsibility in mitigating 12 the impact through good site design of ingress and egress, internal traffic circulation and 13 possibly project size. 14 15 10) Draft Site Plan and Architectural Review Conditions of Approval, item numbers 14 and 15 from 16 Public Works (Engineering) require the construction of a curb along the rear parking area to 17 prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 Nob Hill Terrace 18 (APN 008-342-025); and to re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto 19 the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024). However there is no 20 mention in the conditions of approval to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent 21 property to the east of the subject site identified as 24 West EI Rose (APN 008-480-024). 1 found 22 this to be inconsistent with the stated requirements to prevent runoff to some properties but 23 not others. 24 Some uncontrolled surface runoff from the subject site is being allowed to find its way into a six 25 inch opening in a concrete curb behind the adjacent east property and then into a three inch 26 flex tube, which leads down an embankment into an open ditch which then meanders along the 27 rear property lines of the adjacent EI Rose properties until it reaches the sidewalk at B Street 28 where it is diverted into an underground storm drain. In my opinion the subject property site 29 should direct all its water runoff to W. EI Rose Avenue. 30 31 SPARC was not provided with an exhibit describing the legality of allowing storm water runoff 32 onto the adjacent east property. Typically storm water runoff is confined to the property where 33 it is collected and directed to city street and storm drain systems thereby avoiding the use of 34 neighboring private property to distribute run off unless an easement or legal description 35 explains such a condition has been agreed upon by the effected neighboring property owners. 36 37 Additionally, regarding the Drainage Study, the drainage calculations were prepared by the 38 engineer in January 2008. Since then, the northwest corner of the building has been modified 39 to comply with setback requirements. The modification exposed additional ground area to 40 storm water runoff. This new condition should be included in the drainage study to account for 41 potential additional storm water runoff toward the neighboring properties. 42 43 My recommendation is a Condition of Approval that the property owner of 30 W. EI Rose 44 establish an easement for purposes of storm water runoff onto the neighboring east property 45 or mitigate all water runoff onto other properties. 46 1 11) On February 27, 2008 the Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee PBAC reviewed this project 2 and submitted to planning staff the comments made at that meeting. Comments not included 3 in the staff report from PBAC included concerns regarding visibility and potential conflict 4 between bicyclists coming around the turn from EI Rose onto Hayes Lane and automobiles 5 exiting the property onto Hayes Lane. Other recommendations included the provision for 6 parking of four bicycles close to the entrance under the covered walkway and the type of 7 bicycle rack to be provided; the installation of curb ramps at specific locations along EI Rose 8 Drive; the reconstruction of the driveway crossing on West EI Rose Drive with ramps and the 9 reconstruction of the driveway on Hayes Lane; the installation of fluorescent yellow -green 10 pedestrian signs for safer pedestrian use. 11 12 These recommendations from PBAC were not included in the information provided to SPARC 13 for review. SPARC relies upon the comments and recommendations of various other reviewing 14 committees. These recommendations from PBAC would not have been included in the project 15 based on the SPARC approval. This appeal provides the opportunity for the City Council to have 16 these matters included when the project is resubmitted. 17 18 The foregoing information summarizes the content and considerations made during review of the 19 project in order to arrive at my conclusion to deny the project as proposed. 20 21 Respectfully, 22 23 -w 24 25 Dennis S. Elias 26 Vice Chair Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee From: winaarch@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:52 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: Northbridge Office Project, Feb.2, 2009 I want to underline the concerns of the EI Rose/Hays Lane Coalition regarding the effect the expansion at 30 West EI Rose will have on the neighborhood. Especially on traffic and parking. Where will the potential 37 additional cars (22 chairs + 15 employees) park and drive? The parking lot at 30 West El Rose will not accomodate 37 additional cars and El Rose parking is already limited during the day. The neighborhood was concerned about the "speedway" aspect of Hays BEFORE this project was considered. With the completion of the Northbridge Office Project, there would be MORE speeding cars! Note that it is a straight shot - no stop signs - on Hays from West El Rose to Hinman Lane! The Northbridge Office Project will not benefit our neighborhood! Please support the coalition! Thank you. Win Archibald 103 Belle View Avenue From: Christine [Christine@thelightfoundation.org] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:19 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com Cc: teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: EI Rose/Hayes Lane I believe that we need to listen and take action for the concerned neighbors who will have to tolerate the noise, traffic, including parking issues, and loss of privacy if the proposed project expansion for the El Rose/Hayes Lane is passed. You all know the narrow the streets and circumstances and perhaps predictable accidents in the tight spaces of this neighborhood. Your vote to change the neighborhood may be good for city revenues, however since Petaluma is filled with families and family concerns, I'm wondering if there could be some sort of a win/win situation? Less square footage in the building? More traffic, more noise, probable accidents with expansion may not be favorable to families. Could you table the issue until there is more light on the problem? We are experiencing some trouble at this time with sewer and drainage as well as dust coming into our home from present traffic along B Street. I find it more challenging to teach in our commercial space because of the noise and dust already present from existing traffic. Many of my students and clients have environmental sensitivities and cannot tolerate dusty conditions. I am constantly cleaning to make the place safe and comfortable. Thank you for taking this issue back to the drawing board for more consideration. Sincerely, Christine Bandettini, MA, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Registered Yoga Teacher, Certified to work with children who have special needs Member of the DPA and Heritage Homes Association 511 B Street Petaluma 1 From: Jennie and Matt Lounibos [pravda@sonic.net] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:49 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: 30 West EI Rose expansion Dear City Leaders, We are writing to you with our concerns about the irresponsible expansion of the property at 30 West El Rose. We live in the neighborhood, at 129 Hill Blvd. We are unable to attend the meeting on Monday, February 2, but would like to add our voice to the debate. The project as currently proposed is not acceptable. First of all, we are concerned about the impact on traffic in the neighborhood. We are already impacted by traffic at the high school, which can be quite dangerous at times. There is not a single stop sign the length of both Hill Blvd. and Hayes Lane, which leads even the most responsible drivers to drive at excessive speeds for a residential neighborhood. It is dangerous to even pull in and out of our driveways. Walking in the neighborhood will also be impacted, with more and more traffic pulling in and out at the curve at Hayes Lane/West El Rose. The sidewalks in that area are not adequate (you have to cross the street on the curve to remain on a sidewalk) and with increased traffic it becomes dangerous to walk. We are not expecting a deluge of traffic, obviously, from one building, but you are adding more traffic to an area that has been neglected in traffic regulations. Secondly, we are concerned about the impact on our aging water/sewer infrastructure. Our neighbor on Hill Blvd, experienced a sewer main that backed up into and flooded her house, because the city had neglected to clean it regularly. We experienced an unnatural "spring" of water under our house (causing our house to settle 3 inches on one side) which miraculously disappeared when the city allegedly fixed a leak up the hill from us. We spent tens of thousands of dollars replacing our foundation, which was aging to begin with, and leveling our house. Lastly, we are concerned for the privacy of our neighbors immediately near 30 West EI Rose. They bought their properties under the existing conditions. To allow those conditions to drastically change will impact people's living spaces (24 hours a day) negatively in favor of a business that operates 8 hours a day. In short, we do not reject the doctor's business in our neighborhood, but we do ask that our city leaders consider the interests of the people that vote for them and protect our safety and rights. Sincerely, Jennie and Matt Lounibos Rick Edwards 1030 B Street (@ El Rose) Petaluma, CA January 28, 2009 Mayor Torliatt 11 English Street Petaluma, California Re: Proposed development at 30 West El Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt, At this Monday's city council meeting, you and the council members are expected to decide on the fate of an often overlooked neighborhood on the city's west side. The decision handed down will not only effect our families, friends and neighbors surrounding this project, but will permanently influence, for better or worse, the future of other neighborhoods facing comparable development. I feel the concerns raised by myself, and other effected property owners, have been glossed over, dismissed or simply ignored by those interested in pushing this project forward. Issues regarding inadequate sewage capacity, ongoing drainage problems and increased traffic on already over burdened streets have not been seriously addressed. Responses such as `The problem was there already', `It's not our responsibility' or `We don't think there is a problem' are, frankly, disingenuous and insulting. I am not aware of any realistic studies or reports pertaining to sewage, drainage or traffic. Conclusions have been drawn based upon assumptions, supposition and, at best, outdated and / or irrelevant information. Data is "cherry picked" to support positions. Not only have we been doing battle with the developers but have felt, too often, that city officials have been indifferent, or worse, complicit by blindly letting this project go forward. SPARC could have and should have stopped this project from going forward as proposed. One of SPARC's responsibilities is to insure that a project ' fit' the neighborhood both functionally and aesthetically. Needless to say, 30 W. EI Rose does not. All but ONE member of SPARC `rubber stamped' this nroiect. Who among you, our elected representatives, has the integrity and common sense to stand and simply say: "Hey, Its not 'rocket science'. We gather the FACTS not guesses or uninformed opinion, pertaining to the legitimate concerns of the residents. Ifproblems are found the responsible parties will correct them. The council will then determine (fairly) if corrections have been made and /or the responsible parties have made a good faith effort to mitigate the problem (conforming to any applicable codes or ordinances) and the project them goes forward " It is my understanding that this action, taken openly and transparently, would satisfy the "ER/HLC" PROBLEM SOLVED! On Monday you have the opportunity to help preserve the integrity of Petaluma's governing body and a small part of our town. I hope, together, we will make this happen. Respectfully, Community Development Department Planning Division City of Petaluma I I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Northbridge Offices File # 08 -SPC -0048 -CR Dear Petaluma Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, I am concerned about the design changes that are being considered to the property located at 30 West E1 Rose. The addition of square footage indicates increased occupancy therefore having an impact on the City's antiquated sewer system. In 1971 my residence on Hill Boulevard experienced flooding caused by a sewage backup which originated within the main sewer line. At that time the City's Public Works Department explained the system was old and failed to meet the proper fall. As a result of this incident the City of Petaluma paid to have my service rerouted. Since this incident, no corrections have been made to the City's infrastructure in this area. I can only envision the impact the additional use would have on this inadequate system. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis Chambers 120 Hill Boulevard w MOIRA BI JLLEN December 10 20013 Homeowner 1 ] I hill Blvd Petaluma Calif 94952 Petaluma laity Council My concerns of this SPARC Project at 30 West El Rose Ave are as follows: (1)'Tz°affic `vill be in- creased in an already busy hillside co€nnnunity having a negative impact on streets where High School children and my neighbors are already at risk! Iia -,Fes Lane has a blind fair lain turn and a hand to get out of driveway for this business. It makes no sense to increase this risk to our com- munity by appi'm ing a proiect which hill inc€,case the traffic problems that already exist. (2) We have an overused, aged seNver line system that is al- ready beginning to not meet present preexisting demands. We do not need this antiquated seg-v-c:r system to be made more vulnerable with in- creased usage on our hillside com€nt€Mty, for it is obvious that this SPARICPrqjecl would be further taxing this very old and tired sewer systern. For instance, I have had a sewer problem in €ny house that ivill affect the value of n€)7 ho€ icy. Un - WORK STREET WORK CinWORK STATE WORN ZIP MOIRABULLEN fortunately we discovered we had an undisclosed lateral sewage line running under my house that connects to the sewer main in ftont of irry house. All the homes and businesses that alread}7 exist on the hill above me contribute to sewage flowing under in).- home potentiafiy causing future sewer blow out failures in in\- home, as well as other homes in this coinmunityr Should this project be approved when there are current problems and possibly more undisclosed sewer lines threatening the homes of this con-iniunity! that is the City of Petaluma going to do to upgrade this anti- quated system so that the homeowners are pro- tected? It has been recommended to me that an epoxy liner would best protect my house from further problems, yet the Cjt�, 7 of Petaluma will Cain- ' not spend the irioney to do this! How will it pro- tect this neighborhood NvIien sewer problems de- velop after approval of this SPARC Develope- inent upgrade at 30 West El Rose Ave. I have en- closed some paper Nvork so you can see what I have gone through. The City of Petaluma right, 11 - a bath- roompaid for the repair! I ivas without , room for seven vveeks in a one bathroom house. My neighbors Nvatched nie use an outhouse port - a -potty daily while we were expected to live at home during this nightmare. I JJCN-er -Vvant to go through this wcy0aln! (3)v1,"e heard many complaints PAGE 2 NIOIRA Bt LLEN in regard to Nvater drainage in the homes in the vicinity of this project at the last meeting belbre the City of Petaluma, Have these drainage issues been properly addressed to protect the homeown- ers below this SPARC project? I ain sure there are many who are fearful of the results if this is not properly designed . NVe had a water drainage problem in the history of the hillside above my home in which the expenses of the repair con- tributed to the homeowner loosing his hoiric in bankruptcy. Please consider all of the above issues in making a decision \,\,I-iich is best for our coni- iiiunit,,,: There were many of us who were present at the last City Hall IMecting relgarding, 30 El Rose Ave, The project is novo before us again as a SPARC Project and appears before this commu- nity asa Trojan Horse ivith all the saine flireats and lial)'I'ties masked 'ji a new desicM, Thank You PAGE 6 CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE BOX 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 Pamela Torliatt October 1 2007 Manor Teresa Barrett Moira Bullen Samantha Freitas 3erry Gebhardt Mike Harris 111 Hill Blvd. Daren Nan Petaluma, CA 94952 Mike O'Brien City of Petaluma David Babbitt 707-776-3696 Cowicilmembers RE: Sewer Claim Dear Ms. Bullen; In accordance with our recent settlement of your damage claim, enclosed please find a Release of All Claims in the amount of $17,867.43. At the bottom of the form, please sign in front of a notary sign and date where indicated, and return this original release to our office. As soon as we receive the properly executed release, a check will be forwarded to you to complete settlement of this matter. If you have any questions concerning this procedure, please feel free to contact our office at (707) 776-3696 Very truly yours. Animal Services Enclosure: Release of All Claims 340 Hopper Sireei Ext Petalaana, CA 94952 Phone 1707) 778.4396 Cc: Risk Manager Fax 1707) 7784397 Risk Management 1304 Southpoint, Suite 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone(707)776-3695 Fax (707)776-3697 E-Nlail i iskmat a ci.aelaluma.ea.us 3erry Gebhardt Cit) Nianager's Office I caghsh s'ireet Risk Claims Administrator Petnhaaa, CA 94952 City of Petaluma Phone (707) 778.4345 707-776-3696 Fax (707) 778"4419 Fax 707-776-3697 E -Mail .,,,.•t,t.i.newlaraa.rarev jgebhardt@ci.petaluma.ca.us Animal Services Enclosure: Release of All Claims 340 Hopper Sireei Ext Petalaana, CA 94952 Phone 1707) 778.4396 Cc: Risk Manager Fax 1707) 7784397 Risk Management 1304 Southpoint, Suite 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone(707)776-3695 Fax (707)776-3697 E-Nlail i iskmat a ci.aelaluma.ea.us Moira Bullen 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Arriving home after a 12 hour work day my hall, bathroom and guest room were filled with poopie soupy sludge(bio-hazard waste). It flowed 3 feet into my dinning room and was held back by the wool runner that was covered and saturated with sewage. After scouping-scraping and wiping I got into the bathroom where I grabbed towels to throw and stand on, the toilet had white mineral chunks around the base appearing to be rocks and the tub was filled with thick raw sewage. We plunged the bathtub with me holding a towel on the overflow and Donny plunging it but I begged off when the poopie splatter was getting me in the face. I will never bathe in this tub again! We did get it draining and flushed the toilet, all was flowing and working. Enclosed is a sample of the sludge from the cold air return of the furnace. The fir floors have peeled. Enclosed is a sample. I have had night mares over this happening again! It was a horrific experience! My peaceful quiet little bungalow and enjoyment of my home is gone. I want it back! The problem under the house needs to be addressed. It needs to be epoxy lined! This affects the resale value of my home and will need to be disclosed. I was not aware of a city sewer line under my house it was not disclosed to me. The city sewer workers were not aware it was there and have not maintained it for who knows how long. I was denied the city sewer workers report. They are working on the line in the front of my home, often removing rocks and chunks of cement at times. I beg of you to please ease my mind of this nightmare ever happening again, both teams of plumbers agreed that an epoxy liner Is the solution to the problem. This needs to be repaired! Donald P Mackin 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, Ca, 94952 At some unknown time of Friday 2-23-07 while occupants were away at work, a sewage blockage occurred forcing Bio -Hazard sewage waste out of the homeowner's toilet at I 1 I Hill Blvd, Petaluma, Ca. This sewage flowed out of the toilet across the bathroom floor, spread down the hallway floor into a closet and into dining room, bedroom. Carpets, garbage baskets, etc were thrown away. 4n Tuesday 2-27-07 Moira Bullen (homeowner) and Donald Mackin(Compamon) reported to the Petaluma utilities Department of this incident on 2-23-07. Moira Bullen previously had scheduled Mr. Rooter for help with this problem, with an appointment for Tuesday morning inspection 2-27-07. As a result of notification to the utility Dept, the city of Petaluma sewage maintenance crew arrived at 1 I I Hill Blvd to inspect sewage mains while Mr. Rooter crew inspected home plumbing. The two crew foreman met and reported their findings. The house plumbing was clear and unblocked. An unknown and unserviced lateral main was discovered running under the residence of I I I Hill Blvd. The city of Petaluma crew cleaned out the lateral main finding tree roots. After testing, this lateral main was found to run from main on Bellview street down to Hill Blvd main. Both crews agreed that a blockage occurred in Lateral main forcing sewage into the home of I I I Hill Blvd. A brief finding report by Mr. Rooter is enclosed. The city of Petaluma crew chief said he would be filing a report on his findings for review. Summation: Blockage occurred in city lateral sewage main causing damages to private residence at i I I Hill Blvd. City employees discovered that a sewage lateral main runs beneath home and therefore was unknown of and not serviced for many years causing blockage. City workers have for the future, scheduled twice a year cleanouts for the lateral main. Homeowner requests reimbursement for bills acquired for plumbing services and damages to home, as a result of sewage waste flowing into residence via toilet. (1) City workers to have filed report 2-27-07 (2) Enclosed is copy of Mr. Rooter report on plumbing 2-27-07 Question 4 (4) a. Description: upon our arrival home from work on 2-23-07, a Friday evening (approximately 8:0o p.m.) we found copious amounts of raw Bio -hazard sewage waste, flowing from toilet in bathroom to hallway and adjoining rooms and closet.. (see letter for M details) b. Reasons: following initial clean up attempts, we called a plumbing company to inspect incident. Enclosed is a report from Mr Rooter regarding findings. After approx 15 years of owning and living in the t l t Hill residence without incident, we found that a city lateral main runs under this residence with no previous knowledge or disclosure. On the same day that Mr Rooter did their inspection, we additionally recruited the city of Petaluma sewer dept for inspection. The city report on the incident we were denied access to! However we were present for both teams (Mr Rooter and city Dept) on their findings. Both crews ran cameras. One camera from house and one from city sewer access, cameras discovered blockage on city lateral main due to tree roots causing blockage backing up into residence. It is our understanding that the city workers were not aware of the existence of this sewer main, therefore, it had not been serviced or maintained. The city workers responded by immediately scheduling further regular maintainance and service. Both M.r Rooter and the city supervisor felt that an epoxy liner in the city main under the house would prevent further blockages and sewer back-ups. The present status of the city main under the house needs to be addressed. Mr Rooter installed a clean out for sewage to extract outside of the residence in the case of future blockage. Yet, future blockage is not acceptable. The main needs further attention. We request that this problem be properly repaired by the city with an epoxy liner as both crews felt is an appropriate and necessary solution. J 0 NAME B;ACDRESS A D D c,iir R E f T 295 Petaluma Hill Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 NIAME t 7P , I License P 791056 E, CSE AD',RESS V E-mail: mrrootersonoma@Efol.com L G 24 Hours a Day 7 Days a Week T IPHONE Never An Overtime Charge! 01 Technician 'PO. 4 I STATE ZIP iCCf!TaG..T RE Doc TASK# WARRANTY 1 RECOMMENDATION, DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS. SERVICES, MATERIALS It EQUIPMENT stal I , 4 f T �Nd lip t LIU so 51 11 Rick Bernal Technician e vc r t THE DOWN PAYMENT MAY NOT EXCEED $1,000 OR 10 PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE, WHICI AI; `:"i6iiEATfON OF WORK PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK You are entitled to a completely filled in copy of this eUTHOREATION TO PROCEED WITH ABOVE RECOMMENDATION -1, agreement, signed by both you and the Contractor, finant of his promises or which one work mentioned opera in to be &,me I hereby Rumoroe you to pearformin Recommendation, ,3rid to use each labor and materials as you nation acturesibli, A morthry service charge of I'Vire will be added after to Devi I aserva, before any work may be started. to pay reasonable attorneys hear and court costs In the event at legal action. If my check does not clear.; realize I could be liable, The low requires that the Contractor gives you a notice for [ limes tile amount of the check, nini, onto more Do, 4 1 ,Of, and in DO loas 16SS Ivan ii at' se fab, in of. catil Cair Gude Se.crion 1719, ofirre the face ehLJP of the Phank and court mi I have read this contract, including the terms addexplaining your right to cancel. Initial below if the ound iTrinr to the reverse i hector and chair to DF barrioce or of fee temno ,i 'i nmar I haveopice"eta baby of Parent. contractor has given you a "Notice hh­:,nmct jnd hence to 0. All pop, Mr be re"', , lo,, Pai Zinc .,:,aa:de- invies, orneri sperifierl of the Three -Day Right To Cancel". I hereby authorize you to proceed with the above work at the Contract Price of $ 1 A notice concerning Commercial Ell L ai insurance is attached to this contract, cUTHOSIZED DRIVER'SLIC, all X SIR DATE Also, a nothri cDriteminglitopqrs Coropmnsall Insdrance is attached to this contract LIGNATURE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED - I find the service and material= ban- -RINT ACCOUNT NUMBER C/O V CODE dared and installed in connection with he above mentioned, to have been com- pleted in a satisfactory manner. I agpe,& hat the amount set forth on the curract in the space labeled "TOTAL" to be the total and compete contract pricea/miri- CARD NUMBERAUTHOR CODE J rash El Check 4,f EXP DATE mum charge. I agree to pay reasonablesommiry's fee and Court costs in the event of legal action.A monthly service charge of 1 � nu will be adored after 10 J Credit Cenci ------ i this contract days. I acknowledge that I have read and eceivedia legible copy d or hereby state that the above work has been cour in a fro" ... ,­­ .­ manner ana to the applicable building codes. and have read the Notice to Owner. and statement required on nonevot. lentoll x Date 14r, TI.ohlClon Sil X I luta:707.525­5675 i2a5 Petaluma Hill Rd -Sonceinna, CA 95404 License; 791056 B. C36 arm"..ra'arn.mosle.1 coma. vinew.rompoliel.1can A ivavrdrod miriivel fwnmi,i, �Nd lip t LIU so 51 11 Rick Bernal Technician 707-525-5670 luta:707.525­5675 i2a5 Petaluma Hill Rd -Sonceinna, CA 95404 License; 791056 B. C36 arm"..ra'arn.mosle.1 coma. vinew.rompoliel.1can A ivavrdrod miriivel fwnmi,i, k 6 "du Petaivnie Hill Rd. a Santa Rosa, CA 9540 L.ec.,..• 7Pf OU 9, C3f. - -P-(nail: lTIYSOOt@CSOfIOI'ila 'aoi.COna 14 flours a Day T Days a Week Never An Overtime Charge! e , TASK p I WARRANTY S (N.,l E Q 13' ""FESS A + p Cl fi tR S PHGNE S 8 NAIVE. LIADDPESS L CG,Y T Pi,CriE __---:'JE Zip STATE ZIP CCNTA.T RECOMMENDATION, DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS. SERVICES, MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT Gu4T! 10C.'r s Appi -- Start D: Approxi rCample _1 .,+1'.11': rRE Stan T HI. 4:'OWN PAYMENT MAV NOT EXCEED $4,4 OR tit PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE„ MCC '11 '.FV PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE,CONTRAC7 DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK You are entitled to a completely filled in copy of this rti`IURG^-10,: T0PRo,'ELDtoIT' 40 jVE RfnXMriP-D-Tlntf - r r- an owner'aothotaino repre,cnaat,o agreement, signed by both you and the Contractor, neni 'iv,, , fes at +A, Cr, ilp work men4ongo abd/t 'S to ba ,' .o I Pereby ..o:P^r.P+ jou Ic fertortn Rh]ammendHLPYI, ials be are ached av10 dayE''crs,, before any work may be started. edvlaabte"mom"D1scr,aechan,of+'^:'xt .a Ito a�e;u-t,'abr:r andm.nu- as ymdam a a pay .-aunrA'at'cmey: `a_ and tz•,tl casts. the we++: or leg. ar,a: It my th"t6 oes not dea l maize 1 ccatd Is,12hk g Y The law requires that the Contractor IbeS OU a notice l!edh .mPe GaUems C:v,l a:: the, $ion s l ;el fie chacF ann rgun r =r.` ba,e rend tn- _nn:raa ,ndudne r"arre and explaining your right to cancel. initial below if the Ir'i ,a t'1' roc.=r,..: Wi Lwea` a^Id aC, se to be hn", i:. al, -; r•- m'mr con ;t,,e h+t e:n, : hays.ve'+-d acopy & contractor has given you a "Notice _._,n,t dn....aea:,nleu= "hand" ,t"Mern pare,, X 1 of the Three -Day Right To Cancel". ncreUy authorise you 9g emceed with the above work at the Contract Pace of $ 1 I j A nc.noe oncoming ming Comment., Ge�,eral Lvotllty InsurenCe is .-cached to this Conrad. ,131EQ DRIVER'S UC NO. EXP DATE J—j Alsn ;t notice concern a Woo,e%c G,mpeos•=.Lort Insurance is oached to fldh con4ac;. I�NArUPAruRE � , i ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED - I find the service and matcnais ren- ;T =GOUSIT NO? tflE?i G"C'o 60DI ] dered an.t installed In connection with the above mentioned, to nave been com- '•w.l4E I pleted to d satisfactnr. manner I actor, that the amount set torth on This ccniract m the spacelabeled 'TOTAL' to be the total and complete contract prwerm,ni- CREDIT CARD NUtIBER AUTHOR. CODE EXP DATE I I:3'„ash ❑Check «.__ mum ch, -me I acres to pay reasonable attomey's tee and court costs in the ' I event of 'egai action. ,v monthly service charge of ' 1,, will be added after 10 j Corea,; Carel. I days, I ac knowledge that I have toad and received a legible copy of this contract _ and have read The Notice to Owner, and statement required or contrast. ;L iendc slate that the above worl, has been done In a workmanlike manner and to the appf¢abb; sw,do,g codes, *w:e Te,nrtear. 5qnatvr }( - para I i t t 1 1fj IS 44 i s Q �t}r* if 40 i a 11 - O am E z� �a v m.E LL � §E J m 3, E i To Mr -Jerry Gebhardt, It was seven weeks with a party -a -potty! This has been a hardship, walking out at 2 am in the morning to use a plastic room that the work people have all used is discusting. Our friend have showered us and helped to keep us clean. I am wondering why we where never offered any compensation for not having a second bathroom? You new this is a one bathroom house, after all you lived here at one time. IT IS FINALLY COMPLETEDt I had just repainted the bathroom in December for the holidays a bright cheery yellow, and took pictures of it which I have enclosed. Life was good without stress at that time. This has been very difficult, working a fifty hour work week as I do without a shower or bathroom to get ready in_ I am requesting that all these cost be taken care as soon as possible so that we may move on with our Paves. Thank you. Sincerely, Moira Cr. Bullen Donald P. Mackin Housekeepit San Rafael, Ci�• Moira 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, CA_q4_952 Services rendered: shoveling, scrapping, and removing sludge and silt effluent caused by sewage back-up into toilet and ! u t overflowing ! covering floors and carpeting. Mop up of t: 4 i. from !! Complete cleaning and then sanitizing all bathroom Bleach •! to sanitize wood floors. Total t • $50.00/hou Balance $850.00 sewagePlease note: we do not guarantee the degree of sanitization when • permeated iii flooring and carpeting, Complete removal and replacement of wood floor is highly recommended. Bonnie Hansen Perdue Hansen's Housekeeping a 0 u ra S rt� X O O Q QX I t O 0 w X lh co �t9 Q. O @ t cy- 0 w N N v© O H O `< i5 Sy CF o @ O G O O CY CD N O O M Q@ N N j O G N N O C) CD cD _ O TV) O O U).+ a f6 N O Sy O N�p CD O O D 75 O C N C) N @ N O Ct a 0 Q to N O O N.c') O O LD O 0- U Q C)Co O a v co75 ca @ Q a O m sv - n� @ QM z o_ ciOc" m m � Con �Nc QQQ NN m75 m CD �� m �.r w 3 _ CY � C � O O O Q t/ ry G C1 0V = c m O, CU) N n C l< 0 0 N,N 0.. -n NN CD Off` NO N -o (D ° r o mm -oo o° N° mwo' o� �. �n Sg>& con w— w rQ� 0O vo o �Fa5i w t mo 51) s z cno Q' o e z> N N� n oN ° 10 o-oo wro rywQ � OD m0. °�' o`�'m =o CD °" Eno No gab< g 0 o o -n -0 pyo � o � 3 m n CD CD w -4 (, x, 0 w ,ro (o o a Q)m X03 m= CD o @ @m CD 0�v �w 0 o C� •-� 0 � N- 0 0 OC 'O A 'CT O� co w 0cn G ¢. MCD my @ C7 -� -=` @p Q� O� '0 � O- N r 0p 0 � N 0 y to a N 0 K :T(o O"N ti c 0 O O n n N CD o w cc nCD CD '6 0. NCD O.. "". CD CD O- �' �'" 0. O N =Ow w N CD w to m a CD < Q si :.Ir X.CO w CD =5{7 o Q c o �c 0 ca 0 0.. m -0 3 o • w 0 U �= cn CD 0 ° a o 0 0 �k 0 0 0 ° 0a Oar' p f -CD (D �ro D ° �C �(0 NCD i4 t1 a wq> 0, `t 6. 3 � w (D 0 - n-0 CD CD s—,. ID °f o�� mn 0 CD C' CD "4 U O C (P n. to iS,.0 5 O O0 —� rte* CD (C) O Q7 CL Q. N, CCD :: CU) CD < a Cfl �CQ iD CD t52 0 CL f z-) Q C < C7 cu o O G (D CD Q' +- @ YS m O O. -� C: N n O 0 S.? tD ¢3 N @�Qc7maa �Np5CD o o� No�osu �0��p SCD CD' a O '{ M ° 0 Nave (D0 Z1�¢ m C Q CD X.QNUll a aaa (D U) CSD {Z. �'. Q X C Q N to N0CD t1 Q- 5 n N O to N <'^° "t3 Q C C CD (D ¢> (D n CD Q Ulti Lo D US C � O @ O �2 t1 0 to U, CD SD CQ w U1 SD Q N aCD CD N C) ¢) N SSD_, OQ 12 "X6 rG C CD p tD ii? C i1 C N N O C`D Q � &&\\ j\a e \ ƒ $ °\/ / \\ r oa« \ ®� �� 0 ƒ\\® ®\ oaG \a k 00 p \t± \8 \ƒ\ \¢ \$& \ƒ \\ D \ \.& \ i ,C\ »� ,0 7\5 4\ �00, \®® }y .z CPD\ 0 k/ \© \� ul0 0° West El Rose + ne Hayes _.I. Rose/HayesEl a School's In Session Just An Average Day On West EI Rase January 1, 2009 »««� w� . .,222. � . .. ....xy.a� m » «� � � : , «yam a< ©»?j� «. « ��v«d :�� \.° > 2v�ew:, ,�:a.., . : �o,a..... .. ., «yz.. ». ,.. .. . . �. � >� ? «:� � , . ,< »»� � � � y »� w 2:�� � � �¥�\ « :� «� ` . y� � . � \��� \� <�� � .\\: . From: Farideh Gharai [farideh007@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:32 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: support the expantion of 30 West Elrose dental office I, Farideh Gharai and my family, have been residents of 535 Hayes lane in Petaluma for 18 years. We want to support Dr. Ashtiani and his wife 100 percent to be able to expand their dental office at 30 West Elrose. It is their right and it would not harm any of us who live in the neibourhood at all. Actually it will bring a lot of prestige to this area. We love and look forward to have them. Besr Regards, Farideh Gharai. 1 From: Crump, Katie Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:32 AM To: - City Clerk Subject: FW: 30 West EI Rose For binder Katie Crump Exec. Assistant to the City Manager (707) 778-4347 kcrumo(@ci.oetaluma.ca.us City Hall Hours as of 11/3/08: Mon. -Thur. 8-5; Closed Fridays -----Original Message ----- From: james page [mailto:jimmymio@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:04 PM To: mike4pet@aol.com; david@davidrabbit.com; citymgr Subject: 30 West E1 Rose Fellow Petalumans: I am a homeowner and live on Laurel Ave. right near B St. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of 30 E1 Rose. I am well familiar with the area as both my physician and my dentist are located in that area. I am particularly concerned about the traffic increase that would be imposed upon B St. You are well aware of its proximity to the high school and I'm sure it comes as no surprise that the kids drive very fast and often recklessly in this neighborhood. And some of the ones who aren't driving are barreling down the B St. hill on their skateboards. Its already a dangerous combination and it frightens me to think of adding so many extra car trips into that mix. Another concern is the negative impact such a facility would have on the independent Petaluma dentists who already practice in that area. Do we really want to jeopardize their businesses while facilitating this dental factory? Please vote against this proposal. Sincerely, lames Page 1 Padovan, Deborah 5 fV FYI Alicia Kae Henries ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: 'Rose Zoia" <rzoia@sbcglobal.net> To: ptorliatt@aol.com, teresa4petaluma@comcast.net, daveglass@comcast.net, mike4pet@aol.com, david@davidrabbitt.com, mthealy@sbcglobal.net, tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: edanly@meyersnave.com, mmoore@ci.petaluma.ca.us, iborba@ci.petal uma.ca.us, akherries@comcast.net, "Scot Stegeman" <scotsteg@mon itor. net> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 3:44:03 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council Members, Please find attached a letter from traffic expert Bob Shanteau regarding the above -referenced project. I will be submitting a separate letter to you via email as soon as possible but certainly prior to 6:00. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Rose Zoia Lent, Office nJ Rose M. Zoia From: akherries@comcast.net Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:48 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Attachments: 30 W EI Rose letter report BS.pdf FYI Alicia Kae Henries ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: 'Rose Zoia" <rzoia@sbcglobal.net> To: ptorliatt@aol.com, teresa4petaluma@comcast.net, daveglass@comcast.net, mike4pet@aol.com, david@davidrabbitt.com, mthealy@sbcglobal.net, tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: edanly@meyersnave.com, mmoore@ci.petaluma.ca.us, iborba@ci.petal uma.ca.us, akherries@comcast.net, "Scot Stegeman" <scotsteg@mon itor. net> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 3:44:03 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council Members, Please find attached a letter from traffic expert Bob Shanteau regarding the above -referenced project. I will be submitting a separate letter to you via email as soon as possible but certainly prior to 6:00. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Rose Zoia Lent, Office nJ Rose M. Zoia 50 Old Courthouse .Sy., Ste. 401 Sawa Rosa Cd 95404 tel: 7-07-526-5894 /ae: 707-540-C49 Important Notice: This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not an addressee or the person responsible for delivering this message to the addressee)s), please be notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, or copying this message is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify me by replying to this message and then completely deleting the original message and your reply. Thank you very much. llOobeiril:M. Shanlfe&u, li'h.D., P.E. Registered Traffic Engineer 13 Primrose Circle (831) 394-9420 Seaside, CA 93955 Cell: (831) 917-0248 email: RMShant@gmail.com FAX: (831) 394-6045 February 2, 2009 Law Office of Rose Zoia 50 Old Courthouse Square Suite 401 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Attention: Rose Zoia By email to rzoia@sbcglobal.net Subject: Northbridge Offices; 08 -SPC -0048 -CR 30 W. El Rose Dear Ms. Zoia: At your request, I have reviewed the letter from Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner, to David Harris dated July 14, 2008; City of Petaluma Memorandum from Frank Penry, City Traffic Engineer to Irene Borba, Project Planner, dated July 14, 2008; City of Petaluma Memorandum from Frank Penry to Irene Borba dated August 25, 2008; and Design Review Site Development Plans for Northbridge Offices dated October 29, 2008. In summary, the project applicant and the City of Petaluma have failed to identify possible environmental impacts related to traffic. In my opinion, a Traffic Impact Study should be prepared that identifies the impacts of the project and proposed mitigations. These are the flaws that I find in the various documents: 1. The sight distance diagram in the Design Review Site Development Plans, details of which are shown below and on next page, fails to show any vehicles parked in new space numbers 9-12 (see detail of parking plan on next page). The normal situation is that these spaces would be filled, in which case a driver turning left out of the 6L XYBk WYO _ MYtl YYY� February 2, 2009 Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE 2 30 W. EI Rose, Petaluma driveway would have to see through these parked vehicles and thus would not have the view shown on the plans and therefore be at a heightened risk of colliding with a velucle coming around the corner. Even if they are reserved for employees, though, the parking c t. i hazard associated with that space would still exist. 2. Parking spaces 24-30 (see excerpt at right) are located behind the building. Because @� as azn maneuvering space is so tight here and because it would be difficult for a driver looking for `r and not finding a space here to backout, it K=, would make sense not to make these available s to the general public and instead to reserve `E v these spaces for employees only. d:E 3. Space number 29 (see excerpt at right) is a q` ( "° — parallel parking space and is likely to be struck by a vehicle maneuvering into or out of one of _; o the others aces in this tight area. — _ -- 4. Although City parking standards may require a °' "' � IX� ? •: ' ' 1 •, a mei-,, .. total of 30 parking spaces, parking demand will "'' likely be higher. The site drawing submitted with the original application provides a total of 22 dentist chairs which, if all are filled, will j. mean that along with the necessary staff and with patients waiting and checking out, there February 2, 2009 Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE 30 W. El Rose, Petaluma will be between about 50 and 100 people in the building at any one time. In my experience, staff are instructed to park on -street in order to leave the parking lot available for patients. If this happens, there is likely to be an impact from on -street parking. It would be instructive to know what the parking demand of the building was when it was fully occupied in order to determine whether the proposed number of parking spaces would be sufficient. 5. Although the plans show a sidewalk along the property frontage, there are no existing sidewalks on several of the adjacent properties. According to the City to David Harris, "the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible tin the General Plan." The lack of sidewalks in the area, however, mean that pedestrians must walk in the roadway, which means that they are being denied a vital public service. This is especially important due to the presence of the adjacent high school. Indeed, the lath of sidewalks creates s safety hazard for students walking to and from the school. 6. The streets in the area are hilly and curved, meaning that speeds should be lower than those reported by the traffic engineer. Additional measures should probably be taken to "traffic calm" these streets, especially given the lack of sidewalks in the area. The traffic engineer reports on the results of a speed study, but does not provide the speed study itself. Thus it is impossible to determine under what circumstances the speed study was done, including the location, time of day, sample size, speed measuring device, etc. This information is vital to understanding the existing traffic conditions in the project area. 8. The Traffic Engineer refers to the City of Petaluma internal document, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, from which he quotes, "If a proposed project is more than 10% below the threshold, a traffic study should not be required, unless there are special extenuating circumstances (examples of which might be unusual safety or access concerns or extreme neighborhood opposition to the project)." He then states, "It should be noted that the last sentence has been removed, as the Traffic Engineer reserves the right to make a determination based on a formal review." He does not state, however, when that sentence was removed or under what circumstances. The sentence is actually quite reasonable, as unusual safety or access concerns or neighborhood opposition to a project should trigger a traffic impact study. For the subject project, all three issues (safety, access and neighborhood opposition) are present, so a traffic impact study is indicated. In his August 25, 2008, memorandum, the City Traffic Engineer states, "this information has been assembled and presented in much the same way a Traffic Study, prepared by a consultant hired by the project applicant would have been." In reality, a traffic impact study is quite a bit broader and provides more detail than the information provided in the memorandum. In particular, I am not able to review several of the possible impacts of the project (pedestrian and bicycle safety and access, parking demand, etc.). Even the City Traffic Engineer recognizes the February 2, 2009 Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE 30 W. El Rose, Petaluma lack of specificity when he states, "It is with many years of experience authoring and reviewing these types of engineering studies that I used my professional engineering judgment to make these findings without a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the project applicant." Well, I also have many years of preparing and reviewing traffic impact studies, and it is my professional opinion that it is not possible to assess the possible impacts of the projects in the absence of a formal traffic impact study. Sincerely, Robert M. Shanteau Cooper, Claire 544 From: akherries@comcast.net Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:29 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; daveglass@comcast.net; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; Mike4Pet Cc: citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; Scot Stegeman; Rose Zoia Subject: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Hearing Documentation Attachments: Zoia 020209.pdf Greetings Mayor Torliatt, Vice -Mayor Barrett and Council Members Glass, Harris, Healy, Rabbitt and Renee — Attached, please find further commentary from Ms. Zola with regard to the appeal hearing of 30 West EI Rose. Note, we will provide you with hard copies of this documentation, as well and Dr. Shanteau's comments at this evening's hearing. Sincerely, Alicia Kae Henries EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition (707)758-8397 1 Rose .M. Zoia Attorney 50 Old Courthouse square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894. fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@5hcglobal.net February 2, 2009 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: SPARC Appeal: 30 West EI Rose location February 2, 2009 hearing Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers On behalf of Appellant EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appellant incorporates fully by reference the undersigned's letter dated September 12, 2008, attached hereto, and takes this opportunity to respond to the letter from Chris Costin, Beyers Costin, dated January 27, 2009 (as well as the verbal comments by Eric Danly at the September 15, 2008 City Council hearing on the original project related to the standard of review for exceptions to exemptions). A. The Project The physical aspect of the project proposes to more than double the square footage of the existing 3,287 square foot, single -level structure to a 6,669 square feet, two-level building. The anticipated use of the building is now not entirely clear. The original Development Permit Application and related submittals dated February 8, 2008 apparently still is the operative application. It Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 2 describes the project as a "full service" dental facility' called the "Northbridge Offices 112, with 15 employees and hours of operation from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and including 29 parking spaces.' The original floor plan showed 22 dental chairs° but, curiously, the floor plan attached to the December 11, 2008 SPARC Memorandum labeled, "30 W. EI Rose Offices," shows only "open office" in place of the dental chairs. (No floor plan is attached to the current City Council Agenda Report.) This floor plan raises the questions of what is the actual current intended use and why does the floor plan not show dental chairs. The answers to these questions are essential to allow the Council to make an informed decision. B. The Standards of Review Projects may be categorically exempt from CEQA review only if they "do not have a significant effect on the environment."' Thus, "[w]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper."' The substantial evidence standard of review applies to an agency's initial factual determination of whether the exemption applies.' ' Project Description, 2/09/08; Environmental Impact Questionnaire, p. 3. ' Development Permit Application, 2/8/08. 3 Development Permit Application, 2/8/08. I See also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://petaluma.granicus.com/ MinutesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:02:14-38 (Member Ray Johnson) ; 03:05:15-06:34 (architect Mary Dooley. ' Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300 et seq.; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 126-127.) 'Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1192 ("This principle of interpretation is embodied in the Guidelines, which state that CEQA should be interpreted to "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Cits.]".) ' See Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Guide to CEQA (Solano Press, 11" ed. 2006), pp. 159-160, discussing Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 3 The CEQA Guideline states that "if there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances ...." the agency may not find the project to be categorically exempt.e This language implicates the fair argument standard of review and the emerging consensus in case law is that the fair argument test applies to whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, i.e., whether an exception applies.9 "Any activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt."10 The record is devoid of legal citation to the contrary. Whether or not the circumstances surrounding the project are unusual is a question of law for the reviewing court." C. The Minor Alteration Exemption Does Not Apply Section 15301 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of existing private structures "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.... The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an App. 4th at 129. a Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c) [emphasis supplied]. Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 655; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4'h 1359, 1406, fn.24 ("We have held that a substantial evidence standard of review applies to an agency's factual finding that a statutory exemption applies. [Cites.] Most statutory exemptions, however, operate regardless of whether the project will have effects on the environment. [Cites.] Thus, "[w]hen reviewing a statutory exemption, the nature and extent of the project's environmental impacts are ordinarily irrelevant." [Cite.] Therefore, we have at least suggested that where a statutory exemption does depend on whether the project will have significant environmental effects (as does section 21083.3), the fair argument standard should govern review of an agency determination that the statutory exemption applies. [Cites.]." [Emphasis supplied.]); Guide to CEQA, supra, pp. 160- 165. " Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 CalAth at 124 [emphasis supplied]. " Azusa Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Water -master (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1207 ("... the question whether that circumstance is 'unusual' within the meaning of the significant effect exception would normally be an issue of law that this court would review de novo.... This court will decide that issue for itself.") Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 4 existing use .02 Notwithstanding the curious current and temporary activity in the building, the structure has been vacant for several years. (Appellant has been informed that an entity has set up four copy machines in part of the building and that workers are running off copies at various hours of the day based on a three- month lease.) A new project that increases the size of a building by more than 100% and introduces a new use into a vacant building is not fairly subject to the "minor alteration" categorical exemption. The baseline that must be used for comparison purposes is the current and recent historic vacant use.13 The cases cited by Mr. Costin in his letter are not applicable to this case and are readily distinguishable. Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board (p. 3, fn.7), did not involve a discussion of baseline. In that case, the agency reestablished wastewater discharge requirements to the level at which they had previously been approved for a wastewater treatment plant. The issue was whether the reestablishment of the discharge requirements within levels previously approved under CEQA fit the definition of a "new project" subject to a new EIR. The court explained the project was the earlier expansion of the wastewater treatment plant for which an EIR already had been prepared. The court held that the reestablishment of discharge requirements within previously approved levels was merely a separate governmental re -approval of the original project and did not itself constitute a new project under CEQA. 14 In this case, the proposed use never has been and, unless this Council insists on environmental review, never will be subject to CEQA review. Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (pp. 3-4, fn.7) also involved a longstanding active project. The project site in that case had been mined for "- Guidelines, § 15301 [emphasis supplied]. " Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350 ("... in comparing an old general plan with a new county general plan that would allow less growth than the old plan, the EIR had to address the existing level of actual physical development in the county as the baseline for the comparison." The court emphasized that "CEQA... concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area. The legislation... has clearly expressed concerns with the effects of projects on the actual environment upon which the proposal will operate." Thus, the proper environmental baseline is the contemporaneous physical conditions of the environment, rather than future hypothetical conditions.) 14 Id., (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 847, 863-864. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 5 more than 50 years and, in 1976 was subject to an EIR and CUP which permitted production at the level correlating to a daily average of 810 truck trips per day. In 1993, a new owner acquired the site and filed an application to modify the 1976 CUP to increase the mine's site and production. While the modification application was pending, the 1976 CUP expired so the agency permitted the owner to continue operating the mine pursuant to a compliance agreement while the agency continued to consider the modification application. The compliance agreement permitted production at the same level allowed under the 1976 CUP, i.e., a daily average of 810 truck trips. The county then required an EIR for the modification application. The court held that the EIR properly discussed the existing physical condition, i.e., the baseline, of the affected area as including the previously allowed and assessed 810 truck trips associated with the long -operating and ongoing mining operation.15 Again, the subject application is for a new project which never has undergone environmental review. Contrary to the Committee for a Progressive Gilroy and Fairview Neighbors case, in this case the City is presented with a new application for a new use at a currently vacant site. In such a case, CEQA requires a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project "before the commencement of the project" which constitute "the baseline physical conditions" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed.16 The baseline is required to describe the existing physical conditions. As explained in detail on pages 6 to 8 of the attached letter, the baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of this new proposed project is the state of the building as a one-story, 3,287 -square foot, vacant structure. Mr. Costin offers that the City already knows the traffic impacts form this building in its existing state of 3,287 square feet so that it but offers no evidence to support this claim. (P. 4.) Unlike the projects in the above two cases, this project does not have a history of environmental review, much less an EIR. It is more than an assumption that this office building produces no traffic; it is a fact. The building is empty. Likewise, Mr. Costin's hypotheticals relating to the restoration of a fire -damaged building or the construction of tenant improvements are not persuasive. Such improvements would simply restore one building to its pre -fire -damaged state and add or remove walls and fixtures from the interior of the other building. These examples presumably do not include more than doubling the current size of those buildings and introducing a new uses. 15 Id., (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238, 240-244. 16 Guideline section 15125 Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 6 The record is lacking in substantial evidence that this project and the spectrum of permitted uses involves "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing" at this time. The exemption does not apply. D. The Significant Effect/Unusual Circumstances Exception Applies Assuming for the sake of a complete argument that the project is exempt, may have effects that would except it from the exemption." As explained, the fair argument standard as set forth in detail on page 9 of the attached letter is applicable. Thus, if there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may create significant environmental impacts, the project is excepted (taken out) of the exemption and subject to CEQA. The unusual circumstances language considers whether the circumstances of the particular project (1) differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. As can be seen by the list of examples set forth in footnote 10 of the attached letter, the exemption does not contemplate the doubling of the size of the current structure or project to allow a panoply of permitted uses. The unusual circumstance in this case is the prospect of a 6,669 square foot building zoned for many and varied types and densities of permitted uses in a low density area including residences and a school. These circumstances create specific environmental risks as summarized herein and as presented in written and oral testimony. Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, cited by Mr. Costin at pages 4 to 5 of his letter, fn. 11, is distinguishable. In that case, the exemption was for small commercial structures in an urbanized area and the court held that a project that involved "the addition of a small building in to a fully developed downtown area" was not an unusual circumstance.18 The abundant testimony by neighbors and experts on various issues including density/massing, air and light interference, drainage and wastewater infrastructure, and traffic and parking based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the site provides substantial evidence for purposes of the fair argument test. This project will create incompatibility with the surrounding residences with its size and mass. The traffic associated with the project, including demolition and construction related traffic and other demolition and " Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.AppAth at 104. " to., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1260. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 7 construction related effects, are serious. Neighbors have provided abundant testimony regarding the inadequacy of drainage problems and wastewater infrastructure. This evidence places this project directly into the significant impacts/unusual circumstances exception. The evidence is found in many submittals into the record, both from percipient witnesses and experts. The Coalition has made it clear that it does not oppose commercial use of the site. It does, however, oppose the project as proposed without environmental review and respectfully requests this Council find the exemption inapplicable and order the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Should the Council exempt this project from CEQA, this project will never undergo any level of environmental review.19 Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Vetrry my yours, Rose M. Zoi cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Eric Danly Mike Moore Irene Borba " Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 124 (A project falling within a categorical exemption is not subject to CEQA.) Rose 1.1. zoia Attorney 50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894. fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@sbcglobal.net September 12, 2008 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 via email and USPS RE: Northbridge Office Project at 30 West EI Rose Notice of Public Hearing' City File No. 08 -APL -0370 -CR Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: On behalf of Alicia Herries and the EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an appeal from SPARC's decision to approve the project. SPARC made its decision based on its assumption that the project complied with CEQA and zoning and the General Plan. In other words, SPARC did not independently review these issues vis-a-vis this project's comformance with these laws. In fact, not all members thoroughly reviewed the proposed findings on these issues prior ' Note: The last sentence of the Notice of Public Hearing mentions a 90 -day time period to challenge an administrative decision of the City Council. However, this 90 -day time period does not apply to challenges of an approval under CEQA. One has 35 days of the filing of a Notice of Exemption or 180 days after the decision if an NOE has not been filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167, subd. (d).) Thus, in relying on the language in the Notice of Public Hearing, the public can be misled into missing the CEQA statute of limitations under CEQA. }}-++och m eh -r Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 2 to approval, but SPARC nonetheless approved the findings .2 This Council, therefore, is the first public forum for discussion and consideration of these issues. (The project has not been before Planning Commission.) The threshold issue of incompatibility with the General Plan and Zoning Code is addressed in the submittals by land use planning and environmental analysis expert Scot Stegeman, Stegeman & Associates. This letter will discuss the inapplicability of the exemption under CEQA and, for the sake of completeness, the applicable exceptions. However, because the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, it cannot be approved on that basis and CEQA can be waived. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Council finds that the project somehow is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, it cannot be approved on an exemption. This Council should find the exemption inapplicable and order the preparation of an Initial Study (CEQA Environmental Checklist Form) to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is defined as a proposal to expand the first floor of an existing 3,287 square foot, single -level structure by 559 square feet in lateral area and to add a 2,823 -square foot second floor for a total addition of 3,382 square feet. The finished structure would occupy 6,939 square feet. (The First and Second Floor Site Plan gives a total square footage of 6,766.) That is the plan for the physical construction; the use of the building is another consideration. The information on the use of the building is cobbled together from several sources: � the proposed use is for a "full service" dental facility (Project Description, 2/09/08; Environmental Impact Questionnaire, p. 3); -4 15 employees are proposed for the maximum shift; 4 the proposed hours of operation are 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; 4 29 parking spaces are proposed, (Development Permit Application, p. 2); and 4 22 dental chairs are anticipated. (First and Second Floor SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://Petaluma.aranicus.com/MinutesViewer .php?view id=4&clip id=706, 02:42:07-02:43:07 (Chair John Mills: assumes application deemed complete and within the zoning code), 03:11:35-13:20 (Chair Mills: the use of the building is not an issue for SPARC); 03:28:32-29:37 (Chair Mills emphasizing importance of understanding the findings; member Terry Kosevic stating that he "glanced over the findings ... comfortable with staffs analysis ... staff usually does their job."); see also, letter of appeal by Stegeman & Associates dated August 6, 2008, p. 5, item e). Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 3 Plan; see also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - hftp://petaluma.granicus.com/ Min utesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:02:14-38 (Member Ray Johnson) ; 03:05:15-06:34 (architect Mary Dooley). Despite the fact that the proposed physical additions will increase the square footage of the building by more than 100% and that the use of the building will go from vacant to full professional offices, SPARC determined the project exempt based on the"minor alteration" categorical exemption set forth in section 15301(e)(2), Class 1, of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.). Should the Council agree with SPARC's decision, this project will undergo no level of environmental review prior to approval.3 A. Categorical Exemptions Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code authorizes Guidelines that list classes of projects "categorically" exempt from CEQA. These projects may be exempt from CEQA review only if they "do not have a significant effect on the environment."' Therefore, "[w]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper."5 An agency's decision related to exemptions is two -fold. First, the agency determines whether an activity is covered by an exemption, in this case, whether it is a "minor alteration" and meets the conditions set forth in section 15301. The substantial evidence standard of review applies to this determination.' Then, the agency determines whether any of the exceptions apply, i.e. whether the project ' Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 124 (A project falling within one of these categorical exemptions is not subject to CEQA.) Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300 et seq.; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 126-127.) ' Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1192 ("This principle of interpretation is embodied in the Guidelines, which state that CEQA should be interpreted to "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Cits.]".) 6 See Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Guide to CEQA (Solano Press, 11'h ed. 2006), pp. 159-160, discussing Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 129. Letter to Pamela Torllatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 4 may create particular significant effects.' The question of whether exceptions apply is reviewed under the fair argument standard.' B. The Minor Alteration Exemption Does Not Apply in this Case Section 15301 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of existing private structures "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.... The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use."9 SPARC approved the subject project as exempt under the example set forth in section (e)(2), as follows: (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The exemption further provides illustrative examples of projects subject to the exemption, which are useful for comparison purposes.10 'Guidelines, § 15300.2. ' Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 644, 655. B Guidelines, § 15301 . " The other examples are: (a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances; (b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly -owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services; Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 5 FOOTNOTE CONT. (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety). (d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as earthquake, landslide, or flood; (f) Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices; (g) New copy on existing on and off -premise signs; (h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs (excluding the use of pesticides, as defined in Section 12753, Division 7, Chapter 2, Food and Agricultural Code); (1) Maintenance of fish screens, fish ladders, wildlife habitat areas, artificial wildlife waterway devices, streamflows, springs and waterholes, and stream channels (clearing of debris) to protect fish and wildlife resources; Q) Fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game; (k) Division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common -interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt; (I) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subdivision; (2) A duplex or similar multifamily residential structure. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to duplexes and similar structures where not more than six dwelling units will be demolished. (3) A store, motel, office, restaurant, and similar small commercial structure if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to the demolition of up to three such commercial buildings on sites zoned for such use. (4) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 6 One can see from the examples that the phrase "negligible or no expansion of use" is given serious consideration. The application of the exemption in this case must fail at this first test. This project does not involve negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The structure has been vacant for at least three years. It is vacant at this time and will remain so at the time this agency makes its determination. The baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of this proposed project is the state of the building as a one-story, 3,287 -square foot, vacant structure. CEQA Guideline section 15125 requires a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project "before the commencement of the project" which constitute "the baseline physical conditions" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed. The baseline is required to describe the existing physical conditions. Measuring possible environmental effects against an improper baseline skews all the analyses, findings, and decisions that follow. As one court explained: CEQA ... concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment, defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area.... The courts, of course, have so recognized: "[W]e conclude that the Legislature intended the [C]EQA to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the (m) Minor repairs and alterations to existing dams and appurtenant structures under the supervision of the Department of Water Resources. (n) Conversion of a single family residence to office use (o) Installation, in an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, of a steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste generated by that facility provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (p) Use of a single-family residence as a small family day care home, as defined in Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 7 reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Cite.) "The highest priority must be given to environmental considerations in interpreting the statute." (Cite.) "In determining environmental impact, agencies must consider the effect of the project on the environment." (Cite.)" In this case, the proposal more than doubles the size of the structure and, more importantly, increases the use from nothing to a dental practice including 22 dental chairs, several doctors, hygenists, and other staff. Currently, the use implicates no increased aesthetics, no air quality, no hydrological, no land use/planning, no noise, and no traffic or parking impacts. The proposed use implicates all of these impacts on the environment. As stated in the exemption, "[t]he key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." A change from no use to intense use cannot be characterized as a negligible expansion. An example of the misapplication of the baseline can be found in memoranda from Frank Penry to Ms. Borba dated July 14, 2008 and August 25, 2008. In those memos, Mr. Penry appears to have made a determination that the project does not require a traffic study based on, among other things, a baseline which includes vehicle trips associated with a 3,287 square foot medical office building. As explained above, the traffic and parking impacts associated with the use of a 6,939 or 6,766 square feet building must be compared to the traffic and parking impacts associated with the non-use of the current building. Finally, the environmental review of a project must take into account the worst case scenario. For example, in one case, the EIR found that, under the worst case scenario, every available parking space within a three -block radius would be occupied and, therefore, concluded that parking impacts of the proposed project were significant. 12 As pointed out by Stegeman & Associates in its letter of appeal dated August 6, 2008, the current Zoning Code provides for a variety of permitted uses, including a broad range of office functions. Many of these uses could generate more traffic and/or require more parking than the currently proposed use. Since a change in use would occur with no further " Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of EI Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354. 12 Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1020, 1025; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. LIC Regents (Laurel Heights 0 (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405 (EIR must serve CEQA's public informational purposes and, therefore, must analyze all aspects of a project that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project.). Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 8 discretionary review by the City, the current review should anticipate the worst case scenario in terms of use. As mentioned earlier, the use of an exemption must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record is lacking in evidence that this project and the panoply of permitted uses involve "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing" at this time. C. The Significant Effect/Unusual Circumstances Exception Applies Even assuming a project is exempt, it may have effects that would render it nonexempt due to the significant effects exception of section 15300.2, subdivision (c).13 "Any activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt."14 "[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances " the agency may not find the project to be categorically exempt.15 There is no indication in the record that an exception was considered. As one court has stated: Categorical exemptions require a specific finding by the Secretary of the Resources Agency that the class of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment. (Cites.) ... it is not unreasonable to require a consideration of the issue of significant environmental effects at the preliminary review stage (cite) when the agency assesses the applicability of a categorical exemption.16 As it is applicable here, section 15300.2 provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.t7 " Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.AppAth at 104. " Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 CalAth at 124 [emphasis supplied]. 11 Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c) [emphasis supplied]. 16 East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 155, 171, 172. 17 See also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1191. Letter to Pamela Torllatt„ Mayor, and Glly Counclimembers September 12, 2008 Page 9 In this case there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have significant impacts on the environment due to unusual circumstances, related to building height and density, air and light impacts, and traffic and parking and related effects. The applicable fair argument standard states that if there is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an initial study.t8 Thus, whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption is not proper.79 "Stated another way, if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact, but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required [initial study or] EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed 'in a manner required by law.' [Citation .]"20 Substantial evidence is "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached .1121 It includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts."22 Relevant personal observations by area residents are properly considered for this purpose .21 In addition, an agency's lack of analysis cannot provide the basis for an exemption 24 Here, the abundant testimony by neighbors on the issues of density/massing, air and light interference, and traffic and parking based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the site provides substantial evidence for purposes of the fair argument test. This project will create incompatibility with the surrounding residences with its size and mass. The traffic associated with the project, including demolition and construction related traffic and other demolition and construction related effects, place this project directly into the significant "Friends of 'B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. 9 Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at 1198. 2° Friends of 'B" Street, supra. 2' Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a). zz Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b). 29 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 339. 11 See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 10 impactslunusual circumstances exception. The evidence is found in many submittals into the record, both from percipient witnesses and experts. The following are a few examples: Email from Allison Murohv to Irene Borba dated March 12. 2008: Currently, parking on West EI Rose Drive is so difficult there are days when people cannot find parking to visit neighbors or to attend doctors appointments. Overflow parking is going up Hayes St and down B. Street. As a solution, many patients from the dentists and doctors offices park in the parking lot at 30 West EI Rose Drive CURRENTLY. And there are still problems finding parking on the street. This demonstrates that the parking needs of this area are already lacking. Email from Jenn Call dated April 29, 2008: We also are concerned about potential parking issues. Substantially increasing the size of this commercial building will mean that many 30 West EI Rose clientele will likely park on the street. Parking spaces on our street are extremely limited. While we don't mind sharing these spaces, if the spaces are used in virtual continuity by 30 West EI Rose clientele, there would be nowhere for our guests to park. Additionally, these spaces are used regularly by delivery vehicles such as FedEx and the U.S. Postal Service. If delivery vehicles began double-parking while making daily deliveries, traffic issues would be further exacerbated. (See also letter from Dan Gaffney dated May 10, 2008.) Letter from Jennifer and Matthew Lounibos to Ms. Borba dated Mav 12, 2008: Already our neighborhood is plagued by too many cars, too little parking, and drivers that have no regard for the speed limit. The hill that 30 West EI Rose is atop seems to encourage drivers to speed down Hayes Lane, which has no stop sign or speed bumps anywhere on it until it dead ends into Petaluma High School. Our street, Hill Boulevard, is similar in that there are no stop signs the length of it, allowing drivers from the La Cresta area, English and Bassett Streets, and Petaluma High School to speed past our homes at 40, 50 or more miles per hour, way above the speed limit. As such, there are certain times of the day when we don't feel conformable going for a walk because the traffic is so fast.... Our street seems to have become a rapid thoroughfare around the stop signs that have been added on Webster Street, and we can see the problems only worsening once the number of clients visiting 30 West EI Rose grows. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2006 Page 11 Regarding parking issues, our neighborhood is impacted with cars already. Parking is so competitive on our street that a neighbor regularly phones the police when our car is parked in front of our own house because he wants to park his numerous vehicles there. Having more clients at 30 West EI Rose will only worsen the problem, due to already inadequate parking space. 4. Anneal letter from Steaeman & Associates dated Auaust 6. 2008: As explained in detail in this letter, the project is inconsistent with the previous General Plan and Zoning Code, Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines (SPARC Guidelines) regarding parking lots and exterior lighting. Letter from Dennis S. Elias. Vice Chair SPARC. dated Auaust 27. 2008: In the case of the proposed project at 30 W. EI Rose, I was not able to make all of the findings [based on SPARC Guidelines], and based on my conclusions, I could not vote in favor of the project. In addition to the findings, other considerations were weighed, specifically related to securing compliance with applicable Zoning Ordinances and other regulatory matters (CEQA), including the objective in promoting the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma. I could not characterize the project as negligible with a proposed expansion of an existing structure greater than 50 % of the floor area. Therefore I concluded the disposition of the project regarding CEQA should have had one of three possible outcomes; either (a) -make no categorical exemption and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (b) -provide to the committee the rational for the use of subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1); or (c) -prepare a negative declaration. Since none of these actions were provided to the committee, I could not support the project. Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Elias qualify as experts and, therefore, their respective testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant impacts on the environment. Thus, it is excepted from the exemption. Letter•to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 12 Other documented problems include the project's potential to compromise residential privacy and block sunlight. The fact that story poles were required speaks to the reality of the environmental impacts of the project; if the project has no potential for impacts on the environment, story poles would be unnecessary. On the other hand, their existence shows the project's potential for impacts. In conclusion, the Agenda Bill for this hearing is not persuasive in its recommendation to deny the appeal. Since the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning, it cannot be approved on that basis. In the alternative, appellants request that the project be subject to an Initial Study. There are far too many unknowns and potential impacts associated with this project. 25 Only by subjecting the project to environmental review under CEQA can this Council make an informed decision. The Coalition has made it clear that it does not oppose commercial use of the site. It does, however, oppose the project as proposed. Thank you for your close attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ose M. Z la cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Eric Danly Mike Moore Irene Borba " See also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://petaluma.granicus.com/ Min utesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:01:23-29 (Vice Chair Dennis Elias); see also 03:02:14-38 (Committee member Ray Johnson). Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. Dear Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please Appeal. SigrAture Address ohone or email D1) 1 z� 7C 5-60a) m r FES 2009 76-2- - 9 �8 OC- 15i5{fn400 f� q//(i7a G� -iyll lieKall Ct cu (i�z. r4c ;. ti V111of 'idl ct �\\ J '7c, -7-y �q -6SS8, a Fair ,51- Pmt 96a-u6s �6 ,q(� 16717 Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose.. Dear Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as proposed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. Sienature Address phone or email 7IGZ- sS 6 �'rr !TR -dT �'S � N• '(7 7ia� 7�S�j ' � V < t 'J Gi�•�lKCU. .��� W N3 os I f -o Cccx V2 Vt « i� l..t,t`-`+�.1 J � � �G? ���ft,r (GF I�€, �� �•� rt' M �C,�{,��'tt�-c,, ._ � r div, (� �Lf�,�,, ;�21�j' • f,45bCr' �<:,.0 S�rq.fic �<<��„,� }% � �� (� E' (3���cLnr tii�l��;lr (� 1211c� �41�1vs 60�)��( jam-+ � �/''y/� � _,\,7 { �� --4(,,3 --��./" /v.l.�c�.-" '7",J Uln l� �� I(�Tl A, ��. 1N1 a i l],3- Cf cF A f1 7)-7 73 37110 el �c��t,�I�+i{.i.it1 l{f�."7j t�J1S�lL'�,_=Y'� C_;tj �C'�-• 1. /7c 1 Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. Dear Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as proposed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. Si¢nature Address phone or email 061pla::�! / —/,� 401J -f- I� z J-,.4 %1t0Ja %','� '�J VOJ cz Ca/✓c"-"'t%t 7A C; Z6I hsoo I? J S C6400r,(C`t�`t r G / CI7tl�F'%S iZIJ tTin/ l 9rt' sr4c. 3. 0 8' iei sltpp rck � /1D�OL�M� EI Q Li�SQNti. �7 /A63 C Lfu4 X70 7% �/0 ."✓JEl-/h+aif �?;7'_ , t���'_` G� c/'Cf j��� ?�t > 9�� C/ (5 S 5 5- / ( Co ;a -- -LO-) --lC 3 - sc) -t��� E�12� c�Gati�UfFn N� �1�) l lq-�?sql �jUnt„� �. � hOlma;t (Uvx Nt It ) C 1 ( � �jS`-C- Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. Dear Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as proposed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. Sienar, r Address Z ¢ �(>a enL (T - Liz- en iz phone or email 'ID Its F: "; \l\ n \ (A 0 U7) , � . 4 A 60 0 I zd ,fA late j Senn,) yr CAQYcI,SP V �vv �LGI (:�-, y�l ` l v✓ )'Z ul'6tl�. fhav ���LLl1l� %' '17t` I'SE`1 6;', CD c— I� \�W\Z.12,2,XIO A, r,V(/V`r141'r 16/1 / Ii H'AY�rII/1l W/�Y / /"Ir%`Lf%/J` 7/ E/9� f V slrei-A 1 1 n Cl`r0 J �)Yr; r. -P r IV•rL/ i r,� �i„ria I4 V � ,�.� lS rr.G / G 2 FJr'� 1 Y C } << Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. Dear Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as proposed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. Sienature i _ /' Address phone or email Wlew -21'7 CJ G/G 9` ll✓ JCzr1(�!rc� �' Pc.4cdwoif,,,, q6 -8�'L(i AID tN v� r �� I• :. I s?`' �� 1� 1"I C S6,-tl ,V7 7-63 .63 6 3 ,i4a.a 'Y9.taji)r_A r a4w Gas.e l_\ � jeomt, 7C�3-R�sy0 Stye i��%0/ua1)Q, Ci4 `]y95Z ji 0 s Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. Dear Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as proposed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. r Address b� Tuf�e S.j--- phone or email /-7 go 1/ 0L V 96LIC� snitC wLII /�� Sf _Z3\ -9z�55 0MIM ;M leme-,-wn0t,,4 I, czl,l Y9/- S/R� 10Ui04 M.Porlrxo,,,,00 r2P /ir)gz-o 7� z- 37 '% - Petition to support the proposed project at 30 W. El Rose. We the undersigned are in support of the 30 W. El Rose office project as proposed and approved by the site plan and architectural review committee. Please deny the appeal. Cok[1-; Name /Sign Telephone Email ; -1F14 �-53-5 ' J u�n5 �Z� (a�,�✓'el l l . e� V`' 111 ��15'Azv:G CAI-.V.i[7S LoSI�LS �`0)�5 -2431 �HPeoRr,� P�GI.�A1. 0.$T ?LSI �vinell� �f `asp Ma,,„sr. -7m- 31(3-GC1001 „&A) IT720401fc-u.cov-1 420s•Mc�[vZl1i [YAzc �Yu� lei IqO, 0 43 l�rc�.�arru�irrm�r�C�:ite1 ;-7 5 �k�llrYrn In r1 rug UGl,�fhn � �cc) ��1X2 sLtP Sl I "_;,k% r\qI(V -1-,'I '•1- NI44A-,� 61,- ( 7o -� ) y�lr�lr��--��-�C�r�mcast.��z-� ;�� V) Ol ker BICC I—call r>, o �^, 1� j - �4 Q 5 chi ��v \ . (XL"C r � d j�,� oa c '� I(t 99k4Wnq 6lvcq o/62- :r7t�Uf LL'un, Y L1 %) 11 J ?� \ 5 �moke� IWT111iCllr �/C i�c .Y< c <-� 767 ;223 J.3 2 C/ Y, i-TjO: OZ e (9 . C r(. _� �.�;.rr-, �'. h0 `1 -'181- 0943 rrlc-�• fsi��cc�r�evre'aS:n F'4rl((G S `t n4;Ili�eSdfit([ttirrl J JZ SS[ � L�2.�-t-p..ti l �L �✓rte ' i 79c(0 <te,-e K , mi leis; t, l- �; oncrnc� fav[ �i S '�; rvl 1t Cr wo -)D > - cl 1 - Sl �7 ;q ga;i good DT:, °J � a Il ,i�r�nrran(�,�r}I` I fie,cC��r.� s.U1L A4'M Ae 7T��1- 1`�-2ik2- 1Jv-O (Lec<< C��lj,IFCF.II;2U -2D b 1134Z%I, ,j lo{.:I net ,— �j4• 1,1id��EliZl� t�MOA&eu Dr-FYJ 3u1 - ij b 5?t I N.A) v 5-)57 :i, ShaunalCculauc(llx nk,-+':c a - z:,d s+ Ce) (t5AvJ_ !1'M47 1,/) `7 '> 3 -z �t ///n �i s� VOA 111-j- rVz.l-t,'c,.� �L)Q (F�j.-an�cu1y �� 5A I�vlw r`v)Y- 'I,p ( X1"15"-7, > L �% �L� 7 �7 % ' r� I `7 "✓ �IC-L 2 lf�lc"GY Ci%Jf�(����'��w� ��-� w,Cl[:41ESk� �,I✓!i�l\� ,'�Il�r.^�,L'.Y`, i"!`-OJiq�7�JLCCV-5���• �k gvslL ( o. . ShfS (�U H& 1) 7`i (I /: CCIrw ClclalG�sbccj l c Q `LAnn,)�(D:'C KVC i1 T 7 = tum VLSt>1c L r f 7a7y "3 e4 A-✓.- C' - e- -Q W I -n ti l 24irP27r1 /f/W I r -76-7 17 5( l, ao t $[ op Com,- ! ni i/; ' =fx::a APc �i'� -�7� -7'7-7 2/Z,�/ ✓�C', _ ` N V -7o7 z -99-D9 9 406,m4v. �0 , c. rvr w t,x Lr, Petition to support the proposed project at 30 W. El Rose. We the undersigned are in support of the 30 W. El Rose office project as proposed and approved by the site plan and architectural review committee. Please deny the appeal. NpnGiwr�``� Name /Sign Telephone Email Gt�tra Si��t?eltiunt�i. '�i%U;C�P, � rLl./i,,r• ��� ���� ln,u�-ItioFFi,>�c.+� �r�� � f �-_ '4[X{ SE1E tcld3t 'LA 1� �c u�k 7i��i --1 1 0 500 �vlk rtiY� \j{, �PI' � ^ytiv Kir � ,�rS I-1 5; L4 — q"71:9 1 <cl `sser�¢S�7cr� 'cd s6C�`inck ��. jj/!f �121l3/t1<u 76z_�s7� 76.5 /&S6 C S11-2;11 `itJ4.. nY1t'CCK. Sir". Cx Qo4'�c = \ �a�j'7 ,��r1�l�K 7L2 -q �lq7 Pe.i lc�m0. "z'1', 1t77, � C! Qe� U-4,np- r� VrwL ?x vii w -) Cr P �c�lu rr c� big i3rzj a c�i�S Li t5 - � o - ---v", 3 - 43 t� st °e�ai cA Q�� c�lv me ca; r t va t--, .Vx -q: , j)'1jV n � fir, 5\aa(� i,7G wlL. AY�-c 1�Irt...'} �J iCt Oh tr tS `�. 1- Vina7 ..,..�+t '� t"k wtcw� i 1��,�q.,,,i;.t✓./i-t.t.,/�(,(:.9�.n-�^eb' ��t'{±ilr `i1� l�C�`�Yt.t�41te41i2',(T5R}ttC.lC:t`£ti1��'�'� 0 VU PL.9-VT CACScIt, ✓ �54,r<i��:1.., i y�'dYY1�1e� v�. 7l A, :s`" inrU ;-f7, Vel0 PI �l ? �l�rn ��[Vscj� tact WZ oiwsCvt �ehclo c�tOtcf *1i9���irncaai.co-n SO A From: Ronda Evans [evans ronda@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:07 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: North Bridge Orthodontics and Endodonics To Whom It May Concern: Please consider the building requests of Dr. Claudia Karkia and Dr. Andy Ashianti. The dental offices would not negatively impact the neighborhood. They have both donated so much to our community and, especially to our children. Thank you for your consideration. Ronda Evans 1029 Glen Eagle Dr. Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 773-3790 From: Ellen Glass [bill.ellenglass@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:42 AM To: David Glass; - City Clerk; David Rabbitt; King, Fran; citymgr; mike Healy; Moore, Mike; Teresa Barrett; Tiffany Renee Subject: Nothbridge Dental multiplex, 30 West EI Rose@ Hayes Lane, Petaluma. Attachments: This is a question of which is the greater good.doc 1 Northbridge Offices. El Rose @ Hayes Lane. This is an issue of which is the greater good; whether the rights of the individual supersede the rights of the community. Whatever short tern tax benefit the city may derive from approval of this project will be outweighed by the traffic nightmare created to the community, this neighborhood, and Petaluma high school. It is evident that the traffic engineer, no matter what his motivation or intentions,—is clearly in error when he reports that only thirty-one vehicles, generating sixty two trips daily, will result from approval of this project, therefore no traffic study is warranted. In fact the only way the traffic engineer's mathematical calculations work is if one deduces that there will be nine employees, treating twenty-two patients (each patient occupying one of the needed twenty-two dental chairs.), over the course of a ten hour day. Again, I invite the council to do a comparable, comparative analysis with their dentist as I have done with mine. My dentist operates four doors down from the proposed project site; he has three dental chairs (less than one seventh the size of the proposed project). He employs four others during the hours of operation. On average, he sees eighteen to twenty four patients a day. Using an exponential of seven (being the equation of additional operating dental chairs), it is evident that in order for a twenty two chair complex to be operable, thirty five employees would be *necessary. There would be an expected patient load of one hundred and twenty five to one hundred seventy patients daily. Like you, I find these numbers both astounding and dubious, but if not factual, why then the necessity for so large a complex? What seems to be the "Catch-22" in this equation is the traffic engineer. The traffic engineer operates carte blanch. No one is allowed to question his decision. SPARC is not allowed to consider traffic when making their determination. When the issue of traffic was brought up at the last SPARC meeting, the assembly and the board were repeatedly reminded of this fact. SPARC member, Dennis Elias, attempted to bring up the neighborhood concerns regarding traffic once more at which time the dismissive reply, "Are you a traffic engineer?" was made by one of his SPARC colleagues. If we factor in only twenty employees (not the thirty five calculated,), each one leaving and returning for the lunch hour, we end up with eighty trips. If we factor in only eighty eight patients, assuming each required chair will only seat four patients a day (One half the exponential of my dentist.), we end up with one hundred and seventy six trips, for a combined total of two hundred and fifty-six trips. This is a figure very different from the traffic engineer's calculation of sixty two. The applicant asserts that in order for the complex to be financially viable it must be this large. But isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Isn't it prudent to find out if a project is ordnance permissible before purchasing the property? If COSTCO purchased the site of the former Hillcrest Hospital would they be permitted to construct a warehouse, because denial of a permit would be a financial burden upon them? Who amongst you,—traffic engineer or not,—can look at these pictures of Hayes Lane during school hours, and with a clear conscious assert that two hundred and fifty additional vehicles on this four block, narrow road would not have an adverse affect and warrant a traffic study? Project architect, Mary Dooley, reminds the council that the city hospital was just one block away from this project until 1980. 1 remind the council that niandatory e27•ess from the hospital was not down Hayes Lane, nor was hospital parking off site. ( *While applicant states he anticipates a staff of fifteen, nothing would prevent applicant from increasing staff help if he had underestimated or misstated the number of needed employees). William Glass 103 Hill Blvd. Petaluma 2 From: BUTCH SMITH [the.keeper@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: - City Clerk; ptorliatt@aol.com Subject: 30 West EI Rose Drive Claire Cooper, City Clerk Madam Torliatt, Mayor I have followed the journey of this project located at 30 West E1 Rose Drive and I have to admit why it has not been approved long before now... One thing this City needs to have is good Medical and Dental care. The applicant is trying to give the City of Petaluma "Choice" to the citizens and some people in the neighborhood are trying to take that away. In all the years I worked for the City of Petaluma, I have never seen something that would benefit the City in every way and the City is questioning a second story and more benefits for the ALL the citizens, not a few. Maybe the City should have thought about the awful sight the City let happen when they let a development go though that started on Windsor Drive and destroyed the vista of the hill top that can be seen not only on the West Side of our community but the East Side as well.... The Council is questioning a second story to a medical neighborhood on the West... Get some priorities together for the City of Petaluma.... Like, businesses that the citizens of Petaulma can shop at and stop sending our money to Rohnert Park and Novato. Get going on not one but two cross town connectors (Rainier and Caulfield) and tell Basin Street (Developer of a nice theatre and a lot of empty buildings)... "You want to Build residential, commercial and industrial by the old Sewer Plant" off of Hopper Street... then extend Caulfield over to the Boulevard on the South End of town and let a Big Box Center go on the Gray Property and build Rainier at the North. Very very few citizen know that when Park Place Subdivision was being constructed, one of the main selling points was "Some day there will be a large shopping area on the other side of McDowell and instead of driving the buyer will be able to walk to the center to do all their shopping from groceries to clothes. As the City has probably figured my now, don't put all your eggs into an Auto Mall that can't currently give a car away and get enough backbone to get a TAX -BASIN that will produce some dollars for the City.... You the council needs to look at the BIG PICTURE rather than stopping a Dental Facility that will benefiit our citizens of Petaluma. This email is from a loyal employee that put almost 34 -years with the City trying to make a better community. Butch Smith, City Graphic Artist, Senior Planning Tech and Assistant in Civil Engineering. February 04, 1975 until October 30, 2008 From: Rick and Gale [drtee@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:17 AM To: - City Clerk Cc: ptorliatt@aol.com Subject: Ashtiani/Karkia EI Rose Lane project 3/2/09 meeting Attachments: Ashtiani letter 2_09.doc; ATT01069.txt Greetings, Please find attached my letter re the proposed agenda item for your upcoming Council meeting Thank You, R Thayer, DDS 2/24/09 Members of the City of Petaluma I am writing this letter in support of Drs. Ashtiani and Karkia's project on EI Rose Dr, that will be coming before you in early March. I speak as a property and business owner in the immediate area (Hayes Lane). I have known these two fine doctors since they brought their practices to Petaluma and have collaborated with them for patient care since that time. I know them to be ethical, honest and responsible practitioners, and I know that the underlying motive for this project is to improve their ability to deliver patient care to the people of Petaluma. To my knowledge, they have undertaken this project with responsible advisors that have worked with the city previously and have abided by recommendations and have been approved by SPARC. Their project meets the requirements of the General Plan and I feel that this alone should be enough for you folks to approve their request to begin work. The present building is an eyesore. It sits in a mixed use zone and predates many of the homes in the area and so it's improvement should not be judged by it's effect on homes, but should be judged on it's merits as a business use building. Expanding the square footage makes sense as a business to make it economically viable as a project and investment. I hope you will look favorably on this project. This is a difficult time for development. You have willing business owners, and a property that need improvement. Respectfully, Richard Thayer, DDS 511 Hayes Ln 94952 From: Steve Lafranchi [steve@sjla.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:05 PM To: - City Clerk Cc: Borba, Irene; Bates, Curtis; 'Mary Dooley'; atilton@w-trans.com; 'Chris Costin'; Moore, Mike; 'Sarah Monize' Subject: 30 EI Rose Appeal Attachments: Response to Comments on Traffic Issues.pdf; SP -8 Sight Line Exhibit.pdf Hi Claire... Pursuant to our conversation I confirmed with Irene that CDD would not be submitting additional information therefore we are requesting that the attached letter from W -Trans and exhibit by SJLA be added to the late document package that will go to the City Council and posted on the City web site. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks Steve Steven Lafranchi, P.E., P.L.S. President Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers — Land Surveyors — Land Planners Petaluma Marina Business Center 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, California 94954 707.762.3122 Voice 707.762.3239 Fax steveta7.sila.com check out hnn ;'arrow .sda cnm'PnnficY970HDS nnnficids Lnnl to rend obout our nem LIDS sem cc 1 w -t ra ns February 23, 2009 011 Whi lack & W6,,ber,r Mr. Steve Lafranchi Ti,mi,.,aaom,m,,- Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates 499 Mendocino Avenue Suite 201 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Santa Rosa, CA 95491 Petaluma, CA 94954 volt. 707542.9500 !ax 797.542,9590 web ww w -mans cam Response to Comments on Traffic Issues — 30 West EI Rose Drive Dear Mr. Lafranchi; As requested, we have reviewed the City Council Staff Report for an appeal of the Site Planning and Review Committee's approval of the project at 30 West EI Rose Drive. Contained in the staff report are two memos from the City Traffic Engineer as well as letters of concern related to traffic issues. There are five basic issues raised, including available sight lines at the existing egress driveway, parking layout, parking supply, safety, trip generation and related capacity impacts. Following are the results of our review of each of these issues, Sight Distance Concern has been raised aboutthe adequacy of sight distance at the site's driveway. The applicant's engineer has provided an illustration of the sight lines between a vehicle exiting from the driveway and a vehicle approaching from the east through the curve on West EI Rose Drive. The graphic shows that available sight distance is 155 feet, which is sufficient for an approach speed of 25 mph. The sight line cuts across the corner of the curve and passes over the project parking area. The illustration shows that the sight line in not obscured as it passes over parked vehicles even if those vehicles are step van type trucks. However, in order to see a westbound vehicle approaching on West EI Rose Drive from 155 feet east of the driveway, the driver would need to look over their left shoulder and well beyond a 15 -degree angle, which is considered the greatest angle that is comfortable for most drivers, Seeing this distance around the curve is therefore impractical, Further, the driver of the vehicle on West EI Rose Drive will see the vehicle in the driveway only in their peripheral vision, so they are less likely to perceive the vehicle at the driveway than if it was in their forward line of sight. The curve connecting West EI Rose Drive to Hayes Lane has a tight radius of approximately 90 to 95 feet at the centerline. The appropriate design speed for a curve of this radius is 20 mph based on data provided in Exhibit 3-16 in A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTC. Driving through this curve indicates that it is difficult to negotiate this curve faster than 20 mph, so this is a more appropriate design speed than 25 mph. The stopping sight distance for 20 mph is 115 feet Measured from the driveway, I 15 feet is the point on the curve where both drivers have line of sight to each other outside the area of parked vehicles, so the presence of parked vehicles is not an issue. Likewise, using the 20 mph design speed the driver of a vehicle waiting in the driveway can see the vehicle approaching on West EI Rose Drive more easily as the vehicle is within the 15 -degree limit when looking over the left shoulder. Therefore, based upon this assessment there is adequate sight distance and line of sight. It is suggested that the City consider installing a curve advisory speed warning sign on West EI Rose Drive prior to the curve. The advisory speed should be based upon the results of a standard "Ball Bank" indicator Mr. Steve Lafranchi Page 2 February 23, 2009 test. The ball bank indicator is mounted on a typical vehicle and the curve then driven at various speeds. Based upon the indicator readings the proper advisory speed is determined. Parking Lot Layout Concern has also been raised about the size and adequacy of maneuvering space in the parking area on the northerly side on the building. The plan identifies four covered spaces and three uncovered spaces. The applicants engineer has provided diagrams showing the maneuvers needed to enter and exit the parking area in the event that all of the spaces are occupied. A review of the proposed maneuvers indicates that they are feasible, so access is adequate. Though drivers can exit the lot if no parking is available, this is somewhat inconvenient. To avoid this situation it is recommended that the seven spaces in the north parking area be assigned to staff. Staff typically park for four to eight hours and rarely move their vehicles during work hours. The smallest parking spaces can be assigned to a staff person with a small fuel efficient vehicle and could be viewed as a reward for having a fuel efficient car/motorcycle or an electric car. A sign should be placed at the gore where the two parking drive aisles split indicating that patient parking is to the left and staff parking ahead to discourage patients from going down to the north parking area. A patient once committed to seeking parking in the main parking area and not finding a space is more likely to park on the street than be attracted to a lot designated for staff and where the spaces are not visible. Based on the review performed it appears that the issues related to the north parking area such as size, maneuvering space and errant patients being trapped can be managed effectively, so this lot can be expected to operate acceptable. Number of Parking Spaces Provided Two additional issues associates with parking were raised, including the adequacy of the number of parking spaces for the proposed use as well as the need to perform the parking assessment based upon the highest use for the site. The Institute of Traffic Engineers' Parking Generation provides parking demand data for various land uses. Application of the rates for General Office (LU #701) and Medical/Dental Office (LU #720) indicate that the 6,766 square foot building would need 23 parking spaces forgeneral office uses, while the medical/dental office needs 29 parking spaces. Clearly the medical office requires more parking spaces and represents a worst case scenario for evaluation. The project plan identifies 30 parking spaces, which is adequate to accommodate the projected parking demand for 29 parking spaces. Shown in the enclosed exhibit is the expected peak parking accumulation on site over the course of a weekday, indicating that the 30 parking spaces will be adequate. Based upon this evaluation the parking supply is expected to be adequate, so the project will not adversely impact available parking in the area. Safety Safety is and must be a primary concern. Neighbors have expressed concern about various safety issues related to speeding, pedestrians and proximity to schools. Mr. Steve Lafranchi Page 3 February 23, 2009 To better understand these issues, City of Petaluma collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) was reviewed. During the past 10 years (1999 through 2008) there were 7,684 reported collisions in the City of Petaluma. Only three of these 7,684 collisions occurred adjacent to or near the project site, and all three involved a sideswipe of a parked vehicle by another vehicle. There were no reported collisions at the project driveways. Over this ten year period there were two collisions reported at the nearby intersection of Hayes Lane and Webster Streets. None of the collisions reported in the project area involved a pedestrian. The collision rate based upon the number of collisions per vehicle miles traveled on a segment of roadway was evaluated and compared to the published statewide averages. The calculated collision rate is 2.57 collisions per vehicle miles (c/mvm) which is below the statewide average for two-lane conventional streets of 3.05 c/mvm as published by the California Department of Transportation in 2007 Collision Data on California State Highways. Based upon the review of traffic collision data and comparison to statewide averages there is no evidence that the streets adjacent to the project site have a significant safety issue that is demonstrated by a collision history. The time of day when collisions occurred was reviewed to determine if there is a pattern that could suggest a connection to the adjacent Petaluma High School. Of the two collisions occurring at Hayes Lane/ Webster Street, one occurred at 8:23 a.m. on a Wednesday and involved a 16 year old driver. With only one collision in 10 years, a pattern involving activities related to the school can not be made. Speed is often raised as an issue in neighborhoods. Traffic volume and speed data provided in the Council Staff Report were reviewed. The data shows that the average speed on STREET was 16 mph, the 85' percentile speed was measured at 25 mph and the 10 mph pace, which the 10 mph range having the highest volume, is 17 to 26 mph based upon 13,068 observations. There were observations made of speeding; however, the percentage of observed vehicles exceeding 30 mph is approximately 3 percent. The data in the Council report by the City Traffic Engineer indicates thatthe streets adjacent to the project site operate in a manner that is typical of a low volume residential street; there is no evidence to support a claim that speeding is a significant issue. Furthermore, there is no evidence that suggests that the project will have a significant impact on vehicle speeds as the project will not affect street alignment or profile. Project Trip Generation Concern about the number of new trips that will be added to the area street system from the proposed project has been raised. The City Traffic Engineer's memorandum of August 25, 2008, provides a trip generation estimate based on data in the 7`h Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Late in 2008 ITE published an 8 1 edition and this was used to determine if there are significant differences between published rates for medical/dental office buildings (LU # 720) between these two editions. Using the 8' edition rates, the project would be expected to generate 16 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 23 trips during the p.m. peak hour and 241 trips daily. These values are lower, by one trip, than the results based upon the 7"' Edition data as presented in the Traffic Engineer's memo. The daily rate remains unchanged at 241 trips. Based upon the number of trips generated, the project would fall below the City's threshold that would trigger the need for a Traffic Impact Study. A concern has also been raised that the proposed improvements to the site and related trip generation will adversely impact capacity at intersections in the vicinity. The Environmental Impact Report for the City's Mr. Steve Lafranchi Page 4 February 23, 2009 recently adopted General Plan was reviewed to determine if there are intersections in the project area with capacity constraints. Table 3.2-5, "Intersection Levels of Service, Existing Conditions," shows that there are no capacity constrained intersections within half a mile of the project site. The project, like any project, will have some very minor impacts to intersections throughout the City; however, the City of Petaluma has established a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee to fairly mitigate the impact of large and small projects alike and ensure that all developments contribute their fair share. This project is subject to this fee that addresses the cumulative Impact of small projects. Conclusions Based upon the data presented in the Council Report and an independent evaluation of the proposed project and the adjacent street system, the following conclusions were reached: Sight distance at the project egress driveway is adequate for speeds of 20 mph, which is an appropriate design speed for the conditions at the curve located at West EI Rose Drive and Hayes Lane. • Parking in the northerly lot can be accommodated by using these spaces for employees and with simple signing directing patients and visitors to the main parking area. • The number of parking spaces is adequate for the proposed medical/dental office. • The streets adjacent to the project site do not have a significant traffic collision record. • The project will generate an average of 241 daily vehicle trips. • There are no identified capacity restrained intersections within a half -mile radius of the project and a project of this size cannot reasonably be expected to result In even a measurable, much less significant, adverse impact beyond this distance. • The project applicant is required to contribute to the City's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee that addresses cumulative traffic impacts throughout the City. There is a great deal of information contained in the Council staff report for this project and it adequately addresses the concerns that have been raised. Together with this analysis, the staff report provides the information typically contained in a traffic impact study for a project of this size; further examination will not result in new information of a significant nature. We hope this information adequately addresses the concerns regarding potential traffic impacts associated with development of 30 West EI Rose Drive as a medical office. Please call me if you have further questions or concerns. Sincerely, F Allan G. Tilton, P.E. Senior Associate '- �c AGT/agUPEf166.R2C.wpd EL ROSE DRIVE 9-O PROFLE —11 K yyN G� — x - EL ROSE DRIVE._ ._ .--=�.oe n e• moa v n-�m.+a m,+e..v+._ ... _ __ __ \ - - _ - -------- .__. _... - PROFILE — EL_ OgE-ANO HAVES-- ------------- - I N v e I I _ r,v hP �r ------------- - I N v e I I From: TERRY BOYER [terrymboyer@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:29 PM To: - City Clerk Cc: endo4all@yahoo.com Subject: 30 West EI Rose Good Afternoon, I am writing in response to the project being proposed at 30 West E1 Rose. I have attended three meetings and have followed this case closely because I was in the planning department for the City of San Jose for many years and have been interested in developing a project here in Petaluma. Our office address is 1124 B street and we look down on E1 Rose. At the first meeting the neighbors were there in a crowd. The lady below the project is a real estate agent and considered herself a friend of the former owner of the property. She was very irritated that the lady seller did not give her the sales listing and made it obvious that the present owner would pay for that mistake. She claimed her solar exposure would be diminished from the addition even though the owner presented engineered proof to the contrary. Then the complaining group wanted new solar studies done because they did not trust the computer driven program. I have since discovered that a new councilperson is one of the major complainers and may have been elected because of promises made that the project would never be built. I motion that that council person excuses them selves due to a major conflict of interest. I have several deep misgivings about the procedure here.The first is that the property is zoned for the project and the building department and planning have given their approvals. The second is that I thought SPARC only dealt with exterior issues and had signed off on the project. The neighbors knew they lived against a commercially zoned property and have always lived next to a commercial property. Where are the rights of the property owner here? What is the position of the City of Petaluma on property right of citizens? If a developer is forced into extraordinary costs or bankruptcy due to the City of Petaluma being unable to read it's own zoning ordinance I do not know if I want to invest my fortune in the town. Anyways, those are my feelings. In conclusion the councilperson should excuse them self for a conflict of interest and Petaluma as a City should show respect for their own planning and zoning ordinances. Why should anyone invest in this town if the building and zoning people will not allow people to build to the building and zoning codes in place?? The income to Petaluma will increase if legal building is allowed and will decrease if any group of naysayers is allowed to stop progress. So a few citizens get irritated. The law is the law and those citizens should be made to accept that fact also. I would attend the meeting next Monday except I have a class from 5:30 until 9 pm. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Terry Boyer Cell (707) 508 - 7187 From: Allison Murphy [allison.murphy@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:28 PM To: Pamela; daveglass@comcast.net; mhealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: 30 West EI Rose Drive Attachments: Council Letter.doc; ATT11583.htm Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members: Please find the attached letter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Allison and Jack Murphy 1 Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members: From the beginning of the 30 West EI Rose project the neighborhood residents have had a very clear message for the dentists/owners: "We welcome your business, but the expansion to a second story is too large and the result will negatively impact our neighborhood and our quality of life". The dentists of Northbridge have met with community members and have chosen to ignore our concerns and the negative impact of their very ambitious expansion. The minimal changes to they have made to their plans have been forced under the New General Plan. We need your help to make sure that the community interest is not ignored because this business wants to expand. (to More than double the size of the current building, 22 dental chairs and staff available to handle the volume) 111 residents in the Hayes/ EI Rose Area signed a petition in opposition to the expansion of building ---no resident declined to sign. We want the community interests AND The Northbridge dentist's self interest to both be taken into consideration. Balance is sustainability. Business and community can work together. Infill is good policy. We are opposed to the second story expansion because: • Taxing the infrastructure: to date 2 residents in the area have had problems with sewage backing into their homes. The city (our tax $) bought one a new bathroom. • A major increase of traffic--- to keep up the volume of patients the doctors will need to fill 22 dental chairs, every hour, every day! • Petaluma City Traffic Report estimates a 103% increase traffic in our neighborhood! • Parking is already inadequate --West EI Rose is already lined with cars daily • Drainage is antiquated and neighbor's yards already flood without the additional use. • The scale of the new building is out sync with the neighborhood. • It impacts elderly residents tremendously --their life savings are at stake. • Loss of privacy, loss of sunlight (one of the neighbors has solar panels) and airflow • This is a safety issue with additional traffic -how many people walk or run "heartbreak hill" on West EI Rose? Children take this route to walk to local schools . The track team, boot camp, every ambitious walker and runner in Petaluma runs this hill. This is a quality of life issue -not a business issue. We in the EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition care about our community and welcome businesses into our area; we have co -existed successfully with other dental/doctors practices for years. However, this project is too large for this neighborhood. In the world economy today we are all experiencing the negative effects of policies that allow business interests to outweigh common sense. Let's not let that happen here. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jack and Allison Murphy 27 and 29A West EI Rose Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 From: MikeTanzer [zatman@comcast.netj Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 7:40 AM To: - City Clerk Cc: ptorliatt@aol.com Subject: 30 W. EI Rose project I am hoping to personally attend the meeting tonight regarding the above. In the event I cannot, I wish to be on the record with my full support for the approval of this well-designed and welcome addition to our community. We should feel gratified that people like Dr. Ashtianti and his wife have chosen Petaluma as the place to which they brought their specialty practices more than six years ago. Professionally, they received their designations from some of the most prestigious schools in this country. I am sure they could have located in many other urban areas and probably made considerably more money but .... the chose Petaluma for its many features. I am both a patient and a friend of Dr. Ashtianti. He is considered tops in his field by the practicing dentists and related practices (periodontics) who recommended him to me initially as "the best there is." In this day when Petaluma is having difficulties recruiting and keeping qualified professionals (Petaluma Valley Hospital, for example), we certainly do not want to discourage others from locating in our community or establishing a reputation as having a political structure which is just too difficult to reasonably deal with. As someone who has spent 35 years in the development and rehabilitation of real estate in 10 states, including four medical office complexes, I have both the experience and background to speak to the issues of the EI Rose building proposal. Dr. Ashtianti has met all of the demands made of him to get this project approved. He has more than complied with some of the requirements foisted upon him — some of which were "over the top." As far as I can tell, he is in compliance with the zoning, the designation, the general plan, etc. and has shown good faith to provide extra parking spaces and services which exceed the norm. Contrary to some of the allegations I have read, and talking to Dr. Andy about them, there is no intent to establish a dental clinic at this locale — he and his wife simply want to practice their specialties. I have no financial stake in this matter but, as a citizen of this community, am seeking only that he be treated fairly and have his project approved without further financial burden. I can appreciate the concerns of citizens within the immediate area of the property but, I believe these concerns have been met and mitigated. Finally, I would remind the council that there is always a degree of NIMBYism with every change but there is a fine line crossed when cities and neighborhoods create laundry lists of compliance items to stall projects. Those unwarranted actions begin to take on an appearance of discrimination which is not what Petaluma tolerates. I would therefore respectfully ask that you please approve this project based solely upon its merit and the enhancement it will bring to Petaluma and do it now.... without further delay. Sincerely, Michael Tenzer 333 Bishop Circle Petaluma, CA 94954 From: F & T Di Stefano Iforzabici@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:55 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Cc: 'F & T Di Stefano'; neighbors@elrose-hayeslane-coalition.com Subject: 30 West EI Rose Dear Petaluma City Council, We are writing to express our concern regarding the proposed construction at 30 West EI Rose. We reside at 1009 B Street, and we are here to tell you that we did not move to B Street to have it become more like D Street or or any other major thoroughfare in town. We currently still have some amount of a neighborhood feeling, though at certain times on a week day you'd be hard pressed to hear your neighbor chat with you ten feet away. Have you done a traffic study to see what the impact will be? B street is busy enough and hardly anyone drives the speed limit! (Which is another matter to complain about altogether.) It is very upsetting that people race up and down this hill while all of us residents have young children and pets to worry about. Why don't you do a traffic study and you will see what a busy, speedy corridor it is. We certainly don't want to invite any more regular traffic. We also don't wish to have more non-residential presence than the existing offices, extended care/nursing homes, and pre-school that are located further up the hill. There are most likely plenty of empty buildings in town in commercial areas that would be ideal for dental offices. Wiry do they have to be in a neighborhood? We don't want to live amongst businesses, we are happy with our neighborhood as it is, full of residences. Enough! We are horribly concerned about our property value. We are already seeing our home value decline, which is depressing enough. Now you want to turn our neighborhood into a mixed zone with enough non-residential activity and it's associated traffic nuisances, that we are certain to see our value decline even further. We will be leli with nothing and no escape. Between this and the proposed asphalt plant, we are seriously considering walking away and moving out of this town. It doesn't seem like Petaluma's goals mesh with ours. What about more parks and open space? What about not developing into a sprawling characterless suburb? Peels more like SoCal than NoCal. Just say no to umrecessary commercial expansion into predominantly residential neighborhoods and leave us in peace, please. Urgently, Traci and Franco Di Stefano From: Priscilla Breuer [priscilla@odell-printing.com] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:06 PM To: - City Clerk; ptorliatt@aol.com Subject: Support for 30 W. EI Rose project I live at 109 Webster Street, very close to the expansion project at 30 W. E1 Rose that has been approved by Petaluma's SPARC committee. I have been receiving flyers against this project for months now on my doorstep and feel I must speak out before the March 2nd City Council meeting regarding this project. I strongly support this project. I feel that is an excellent use of an existing, commercially zoned building and is a benchmark for future infill uses of existing properties around Petaluma. The days of building and building on unimproved land are over and infill is the future of Petaluma. The W. E1 Rose area has long been used for medical buildings and I cannot quite understand why my neighbors feel they NOW have the right to say no to this type of business. Certainly they knew of the commercial/mixed use zoning before they moved in?? Some of their concerns seem to be about traffic and yes, E1 Rose, Hayes & Webster (where I live) are busily trafficked streets right now during the school year. This route is used by parents driving their kids from the southern westside (Westridge, Grant, Sunnyslope) areas to and from Petaluma Junior High and High Schools. This traffic literally dies when the kids are out of school for the summer and during the day after kids are dropped off and then picked up, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about regarding traffic. Dental offices are open during traditional business hours - 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM - and patients don't all come at once, like the school kids. The traffic would be staggered throughout the day. I don't see this as having a huge impact on my neighborhood, as the projects' opponents state. Trust me - I live right on the traffic path! I suppose if this were a 7-11 or a business that would have night hours, I would have some empathy for the people who feel that they might be impacted by this business. However, that is not the case. They knew full well they were in a mixed use zone when they moved there, so they really are just whining, I think. I live right behind the Petaluma High School and I cannot even imagine thinking I have the right to complain about the cars, traffic, field lights shining in my windows, etc. - it is just part of the neighborhood. I am hoping the opponents to this project can find a better use of their apparent NIMBY -focused energy and actually see that keeping business in Petaluma is worth the very slight modification they might need to make in their day to day lives to accommodate this project. This project benefits Petaluma - please approve it, post haste! Sincerely, Priscilla Breuer 109 Webster Street Petaluma, CA 94952 IRose/Hayes Lane Coalition i Who: Petaluma City Council e � 4 R What: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Appeal Hearing of 30 West EI Rose When: Monday, March 2, 2009, 7:00 (continued from February 2) Where: City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Do you have concerns with increased traffic in our neighborhood? Are you currently exraer6eno'srt seaaer or draaraatae problems? You are not alone! Our coalition is a group of west Petaluma neighbors and friends. We came together because we are extremely concerned about the proposed expansion of 30 West EI Rose at Hayes Lane. Our first-hand knowledge of our neighborhood's aging infrastructure and our grave concerns about increased traffic and parking issues continue to fall on deaf ears at the Planning Department, The City of Petaluma deems the existing infrastructure and traffic controls adequate and quite frankly, we couldn't disagree more. The project proposal includes: a doubling of the existing square footage (3,310 to 6,894) to include 4 suites, 22 dental chairs and 15 employees at a maximum shift The future of our neighborhood—of ALL Petaluma neighborhoods --hangs in the balance if given the precedent that will no doubt be set should this proposal be approved "as is"; WffLCott 'oars us on March 2.2009 and s eak io these concerns? If you are unable to attend, can we count on von to write a letter or send an emsysai9 to the City Cotstrocil outlining your concerns? In your own words, please tell City Council to fix the existing problems and NOT to approve this protect as currently proposed. Join us, and !et yorar voice fie heard! Mail your letters to: City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 and send your e-mails to: Mayor Torliatt: otorliatl@aol.cont Vice -Mayor Barrett: teresa14Detehima@coaicast.net Council Member Glass: daveulass@comcast.net Council Member Harris: mike4oet@aol.com Council Member Healy: mthealvdsbculobai.net Council Member Rabbitt: david(Livdavidiabbdt.corn Council Member Renee: tdf4tiff mvrenee.com John C. Brown, City Manager, citvmait<ici.netalumrixa.us Claire Cooper, City Clerk, citvderktQci netaiums en i.is Mike Moore, Director of Community Development, mmoorecu, ci.oetaluma.ca.LIS Eric W. Danly, City Attorney, us From: Rose Zoia [rzoia@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:58 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; daveglass@comcast.net; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; Mike4Pet@aol.com Cc: citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; edanly@meyersnave.com; Borba, Irene Subject: SPARC Appeal: 30 West EI Rose Attachments: letter CC final.pdf; Shanteau letter 2-27-09.pdf Dear Mayor Torliatt and Councilmembers, Please find enclosed updated letters regarding the above -referenced matter. Also, please note that I am not able to attend the hearing this evening due to the scheduling of a memorial service for a dear friend of mine. However, feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you, Rose Zoia LML O(/ke Of Rose M. Zoia 50 Old Coarrhoase Sq., Sle. 401 Santa RUSO C. -I 45404 rel: ,'07-526-5894 fn: 70;-541-634() Imporiont Notice: This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not an addressee or the person responsible for delivering this message to the addressee(s), please be notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, or copying this message is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify me by replying to this message and then completely deleting the original message and your reply. Thank you very much. I Rose A Zoia Attorney 50 Old Courthouse square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894. fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@sbeglobal.net March 2, 2009 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: SPARC Appeal: 30 West EI Rose March 2, 2009 hearing Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: On behalf of Appellant EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these updated comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appellant incorporates fully by reference the undersigned's letters dated September 12, 2008, and February 2, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, and takes this opportunity to introduce the updated letter from Bob Shanteau, Registered Traffic Engineer, dated February 27, 2009 and sent as a separate document. As you can see from the attached letter, Mr. Shanteau's expert opinion is that the project has potential significant impacts on the traffic environment. CEQA hold that projects that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt."' Also, as pointed out by Scot Stegeman, land use consultant, the documentation of insufficient water/stormdrain/sewer facilities for build -out takes the project out of the exemption. ' Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 CalAth at 124 [emphasis supplied]. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers March 2, 2009 Page 2 As explained in my prior letters, the minor alteration exemption does not apply here because the project does not "involv[e] negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the City Council's determination on the project .2 The record does not contain substantial evidence that this project and the spectrum of permitted uses will not create environmental impacts and the exemption does not apply. Assuming for the sake of argument that the exemption applies, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may create significant environmental impacts and, therefore, the project is excepted (taken out) of the exemption and subject to CEQA. The Coalition reiterates that it does not oppose commercial use of the site but it does oppose approval of this proposed project without environmental review. The Coalition respectfully requests this Council find the exemption inapplicable, or find it excepted from the exemption, and order the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Ve try ruly yours, Rose M. Ua cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition John Brown, City Manager Eric Danly, City Attorney Mike Moore, Director of Community Development Irene Borba, Senior Planner Claire Cooper, City Clerk z Guidelines, § 15301 [emphasis supplied]. Rose A oia Attorney 50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894 . fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@sbcglobal.net February 2, 2009 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: SPARC Appeal: 30 West EI Rose location February 2, 2009 hearing Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: On behalf of Appellant EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appellant incorporates fully by reference the undersigned's letter dated September 12, 2008, attached hereto, and takes this opportunity to respond to the letter from Chris Costin, Beyers Costin, dated January 27, 2009 (as well as the verbal comments by Eric Danly at the September 15, 2008 City Council hearing on the original project related to the standard of review for exceptions to exemptions). A. The Project The physical aspect of the project proposes to more than double the square footage of the existing 3,287 square foot, single -level structure to a 6,669 square feet, two-level building. The anticipated use of the building is now not entirely clear. The original Development Permit Application and related submittals dated February 8, 2008 apparently still is the operative application. It �111.7! � \ Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 2 describes the project as a "full service" dental facility' called the "Northbridge Offices 112, with 15 employees and hours of operation from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and including 29 parking spaces." The original floor plan showed 22 dental chairs' but, curiously, the floor plan attached to the December 11, 2008 SPARC Memorandum labeled, "30 W. EI Rose Offices," shows only "open office" in place of the dental chairs. (No floor plan is attached to the current City Council Agenda Report.) This floor plan raises the questions of what is the actual current intended use and why does the floor plan not show dental chairs. The answers to these questions are essential to allow the Council to make an informed decision. B. The Standards of Review Projects may be categorically exempt from CEQA review only if they "do not have a significant effect on the environment."' Thus, "[wjhere there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper,"' The substantial evidence standard of review applies to an agency's initial factual determination of whether the exemption applies.' ' Project Description, 2/09/08; Environmental Impact Questionnaire, p. 3. ' Development Permit Application, 2/8/08. 3 Development Permit Application, 2/8/08. " See also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://petaluma.granicus.com/ MinutesViewer.oho?view id=4&clip id=706, 03:02:14-38 (Member Ray Johnson) ; 03:05:15-06:34 (architect Mary Dooley. Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300 et seq.; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 126-127.) 6 Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1192 ("This principle of interpretation is embodied in the Guidelines, which state that CEQA should be interpreted to "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Cits.]".) 'See Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Guide to CEQA (Solano Press, 11" ed. 2006), pp. 159-160, discussing Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 3 The CEQA Guideline states that "if there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances ...." the agency may not find the project to be categorically exempt.e This language implicates the fair argument standard of review and the emerging consensus in case law is that the fair argument test applies to whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, i.e., whether an exception applies.' "Any activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt.i70 The record is devoid of legal citation to the contrary. Whether or not the circumstances surrounding the project are unusual is a question of law for the reviewing court." C. The Minor Alteration Exemption Does Not Apply Section 15301 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of existing private structures "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.... The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an App. 4th at 129. a Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c) [emphasis supplied]. ' Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 644, 655; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4'" 1359, 1406, fn.24 ("We have held that a substantial evidence standard of review applies to an agency's factual finding that a statutory exemption applies. [Cites.] Most statutory exemptions, however, operate regardless of whether the project will have effects on the environment. [Cites.] Thus, "[w]hen reviewing a statutory exemption, the nature and extent of the project's environmental impacts are ordinarily irrelevant." [Cite.] Therefore, we have at least suggested that where a statutory exemption does depend on whether the project will have significant environmental effects (as does section 21083.3), the fair argument standard should govern review of an agency determination that the statutory exemption applies. [Cites.]." [Emphasis supplied.]); Guide to CEQA, supra, pp. 160- 165. 14 Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 CalAth at 124 [emphasis supplied]. " Azusa Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1207 ("... the question whether that circumstance is 'unusual' within the meaning of the significant effect exception would normally be an issue of law that this court would review de novo.... This court will decide that issue for itself.") Letter to Pamela Torliatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 4 existing use .1112 Notwithstanding the curious current and temporary activity in the building, the structure has been vacant for several years. (Appellant has been informed that an entity has set up four copy machines in part of the building and that workers are running off copies at various hours of the day based on a three- month lease.) A new project that increases the size of a building by more than 100% and introduces a new use into a vacant building is not fairly subject to the "minor alteration" categorical exemption. The baseline that must be used for comparison purposes is the current and recent historic vacant use.'3 The cases cited by Mr. Costin in his letter are not applicable to this case and are readily distinguishable. Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board (p. 3, fn.7), did not involve a discussion of baseline. In that case, the agency reestablished wastewater discharge requirements to the level at which they had previously been approved for a wastewater treatment plant. The issue was whether the reestablishment of the discharge requirements within levels previously approved under CEQA fit the definition of a "new project" subject to a new EIR. The court explained the project was the earlier expansion of the wastewater treatment plant for which an EIR already had been prepared. The court held that the reestablishment of discharge requirements within previously approved levels was merely a separate governmental re -approval of the original project and did not itself constitute a new project under CEQA." In this case, the proposed use never has been and, unless this Council insists on environmental review, never will be subject to CEQA review. Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (pp. 3-4, fn.7) also involved a longstanding active project. The project site in that case had been mined for "- Guidelines, § 15301 [emphasis supplied]. " Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of EI Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350 ("... in comparing an old general plan with a new county general plan that would allow less growth than the old plan, the EIR had to address the existing level of actual physical development in the county as the baseline for the comparison." The court emphasized that "CEQA.. , concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area. The legislation... has clearly expressed concerns with the effects of projects on the actual environment upon which the proposal will operate." Thus, the proper environmental baseline is the contemporaneous physical conditions of the environment, rather than future hypothetical conditions.) 14 Id., (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 847, 863-864. Letter to Pamela Tor iatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 5 more than 50 years and, in 1976 was subject to an EIR and CUP which permittec production at the level correlating to a daily average of 810 truck trips per day. in 1993, a new owner acquired the site and filed an application to modify the 1976 CUP to increase the mine's site and production. While the modification application was pending, the 1976 CUP expired so the agency permitted the owner to continue operating the mine pursuant to a compliance agreement while the agency continued to consider the modification application. The compliance agreement permitted production at the same level allowed under the 1976 CUP, i.e., a daily average of 810 truck trips. The county then required an EIR for the modification application. The court held that the EIR property discussed the existing physical condition, i.e., the baseline, of the affected area as including the previously allowed and assessed 810 truck trips associated with the long -operating and ongoing mining operation,t5 Again, the subject application is for a new project which never has undergone environmental review. Contrary to the Committee for a Progressive Gilroy and Fairview Neighbors case, in this case the City is presented with a new application for a new use at a currently vacant site. In such a case, CEQA requires a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project "before the commencement of the project" which constitute "the baseline physical conditions" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed." The baseline is required to describe the existing physical conditions. As explained in detail on pages 6 to 8 of the attached letter, the baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of this new proposed project is the state of the building as a one-story, 3,287 -square foot, vacant structure, Mr. Costin offers that the City already knows the traffic impacts form this building in its existing state of 3,287 square feet so that it but offers no evidence to support this claim. (P. 4.) Unlike the projects in the above two cases, this project does not have a history of environmental review, much less an EIR. It is more than an assumption that this office building produces no traffic; it is a fact. The building is empty. Likewise, Mr. Costin's hypotheticals relating to the restoration of a fire -damaged building or the construction of tenant improvements are not persuasive. Such improvements would simply restore one building to its pre -fire -damaged state and add or remove walls and fixtures from the interior of the other building. These examples presumably do not include more than doubling the current size of those buildings and introducing a new uses. 15 Id., (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238, 240-244, 14 Guideline section 15125 Letter to Pamela Torhatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 6 The record is lacking in substantial evidence that this project and the spectrum of permitted uses involves "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing" at this time. The exemption does not apply. D. The Significant EffectlUnusual Circumstances Exception Applies Assuming for the sake of a complete argument that the project is exempt, it may have effects that would except it from the exemption." As explained, the fair argument standard as set forth in detail on page 9 of the attached letter is applicable. Thus, if there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may create significant environmental impacts, the project is excepted (taken out) of the exemption and subject to CEQA. The unusual circumstances language considers whether the circumstances of the particular project (1) differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. As can be seen by the list of examples set forth in footnote 10 of the attached letter, the exemption does not contemplate the doubling of the size of the current structure or project to allow a panoply of permitted uses. The unusual circumstance in this case is the prospect of a 6,669 square foot building zoned for many and varied types and densities of permitted uses in a low density area including residences and a school. These circumstances create specific environmental risks as summarized herein and as presented in written and oral testimony. Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, cited by Mr. Costin at pages 4 to 5 of his letter, fn. 11, is distinguishable. In that case, the exemption was for small commercial structures in an urbanized area and the court held that a project that involved "the addition of a small building in to a fully developed downtown area" was not an unusual circumstance." The abundant testimony by neighbors and experts on various issues including density/massing, air and light interference, drainage and wastewater infrastructure, and traffic and parking based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the site provides substantial evidence for purposes of the fair argument test. This project will create incompatibility with the surrounding residences with its size and mass. The traffic associated with the project, including demolition and construction related traffic and other demolition and " Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 104. `x (d., (1999) 75 Cal.AppAth 1243, 1260. Letter to Pamela Todiatt, Mayor, and City Councilmembers February 2, 2009 Page 7 construction related effects, are serious. Neighbors have provided abundant testimony regarding the inadequacy of drainage problems and wastewater infrastructure. This evidence places this project directly into the significant impacts/unusual circumstances exception. The evidence is found in many submittals into the record, both from percipient witnesses and experts. The Coalition has made it clear that it does not oppose commercial use of the site. It does, however, oppose the project as proposed without environmental review and respectfully requests this Council find the exemption inapplicable and order the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Should the Council exempt this project from CEQA, this project will never undergo any level of environmental review, 19 Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Ve truly yours, Rose M. Zooi cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Eric Danly Mike Moore Irene Borba "Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 124 (A project falling within a categorical exemption is not subject to CEQA.) Rose A Zoia. Attorney 50 Old Courtbouse ,Square, ,Suite 401 Santa Rosa, California 95404 707.526.5894. fax 707.540.6249 rzoia@sbcglobal.net September 12, 2008 via email and USPS Pamela Torliatt, Mayor and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Northbridge Office Project at 30 West EI Rose Notice of Public Hearing' City File No. 08 -APL -0370 -CR Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: On behalf of Alicia Herries and the EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition, please accept these comments on the above -referenced project and the proposed categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an appeal from SPARC's decision to approve the project. SPARC made its decision based on its assumption that the project complied with CEQA and zoning and the General Plan. In other words, SPARC did not independently review these issues vis-a-vis this project's comformance with these laws. In fact, not all members thoroughly reviewed the proposed findings on these issues prior ' Note: The last sentence of the Notice of Public Hearing mentions a 90 -day time period to challenge an administrative decision of the City Council. However, this 90 -day time period does not apply to challenges of an approval under CEQA. One has 35 days of the filing of a Notice of Exemption or 180 days after the decision if an NOE has not been filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167, subd. (d).) Thus, in relying on the language in the Notice of Public Hearing, the public can be misled into missing the CEQA statute of limitations under CEQA. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 20D8 Page 2 to approval, but SPARC nonetheless approved the findings .2 This Council, therefore, is the first public forum for discussion and consideration of these issues. (The project has not been before Planning Commission.) The threshold issue of incompatibility with the General Plan and Zoning Code is addressed in the submittals by land use planning and environmental analysis expert Scot Stegeman, Stegeman & Associates. This letter will discuss the inapplicability of the exemption under CEQA and, for the sake of completeness, the applicable exceptions. However, because the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, it cannot be approved on that basis and CEQA can be waived. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Council finds that the project somehow is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, it cannot be approved on an exemption. This Council should find the exemption inapplicable and order the preparation of an Initial Study (CEQA Environmental Checklist Form) to determine whether the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is defined as a proposal to expand the first floor of an existing 3,287 square foot, single -level structure by 559 square feet in lateral area and to add a 2,823 -square foot second floor for a total addition of 3,382 square feet. The finished structure would occupy 6,939 square feet. (The First and Second Floor Site Plan gives a total square footage of 6,766.) That is the plan for the physical construction; the use of the building is another consideration. The information on the use of the building is cobbled together from several sources: -4 the proposed use is for a "full service" dental facility (Project Description, 2/09/08; Environmental Impact Questionnaire, p. 3); - 15 employees are proposed for the maximum shift; -+ the proposed hours of operation are 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; 4 29 parking spaces are proposed, (Development Permit Application, p. 2); and 4 22 dental chairs are anticipated. (First and Second Floor I SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - hfD:HDetaluma.aranicus.com/MinutesViewer .Dho?view id=4&clio id=706, 02:42:07-02:43:07 (Chair John Mills: assumes application deemed complete and within the zoning code), 03:11:35-13:20 (Chair Mills: the use of the building is not an issue for SPARC); 03:28:32-29:37 (Chair Mills emphasizing importance of understanding the findings; member Terry Kosevic stating that he "glanced over the findings ... comfortable with staffs analysis ... staff usually does their job."); see also, letter of appeal by Stegeman & Associates dated August 6, 2008, p. 5, item e). Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 3 Plan; see also SPARC July 24, 2008, hearing - http://petaluma.granicus.com/ MinutesViewer.Dha?view id=4&clic id=706, 03:02:14-38 (Member Ray Johnson) ; 03:05:15-06:34 (architect Mary Dooley). Despite the fact that the proposed physical additions will increase the square footage of the building by more than 100% and that the use of the building will go from vacant to full professional offices, SPARC determined the project exempt based on the"minor alteration" categorical exemption set forth in section 15301(e)(2), Class 1, of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.). Should the Council agree with SPARC's decision, this project will undergo no level of environmental review prior to approval.' A. Categorical Exemptions Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code authorizes Guidelines that list classes of projects "categorically" exempt from CEQA. These projects may be exempt from CEQA review only if they "do not have a significant effect on the environment."' Therefore, "[w]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper."' An agency's decision related to exemptions is two -fold. First, the agency determines whether an activity is covered by an exemption, in this case, whether it is a "minor alteration" and meets the conditions set forth in section 15301. The substantial evidence standard of review applies to this determination.' Then, the agency determines whether any of the exceptions apply, i.e. whether the project ' Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105,124 (A project falling within one of these categorical exemptions is not subject to CEQA.) Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300 et seq.; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 126-127.) ' Land Reclamation Company v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster(1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1165, 1192 ("This principle of interpretation is embodied in the Guidelines, which state that CEQA should be interpreted to "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Cits j".) ' See Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Guide to CEQA (Solano Press, 1 Vh ed. 2006), pp. 159-160, discussing Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 129. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 4 may create particular significant effects.' The question of whether exceptions apply is reviewed under the fair argument standard.' B. The Minor Alteration Exemption Does Not Apply in this Case Section 15301 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of existing private structures "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.... The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.i9 SPARC approved the subject project as exempt under the example set forth in section (e)(2), as follows: (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The exemption further provides illustrative examples of projects subject to the exemption, which are useful for comparison purposes." ' Guidelines, § 15300.2. ' Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 644, 655. ' Guidelines, § 15301 . 1° The other examples are: (a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances; (b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly -owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services; Letter to Pamela Torliatt,, Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 5 FOOTNOTE CONT. (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety). (d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as earthquake, landslide, or flood; (f) Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices; (g) New copy on existing on and off -premise signs; (h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs (excluding the use of pesticides, as defined in Section 12753, Division 7, Chapter 2, Food and Agricultural Code); (1) Maintenance of fish screens, fish ladders, wildlife habitat areas, artificial wildlife waterway devices, strearnflows, springs and waterholes, and stream channels (clearing of debris) to protect fish and wildlife resources; (j) Fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game; (k) Division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common -interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt; (1) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subdivision; (2) A duplex or similar multifamily residential structure. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to duplexes and similar structures where not more than six dwelling units will be demolished. (3) A store, motel, office, restaurant, and similar small commercial structure if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to the demolition of up to three such commercial buildings on sites zoned for such use. (4) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences, Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 6 One can see from the examples that the phrase "negligible or no expansion of use" is given serious consideration. The application of the exemption in this case must fail at this first test. This project does not involve negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The structure has been vacant for at least three years. It is vacant at this time and will remain so at the time this agency makes its determination. The baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of this proposed project is the state of the building as a one-story, 3,287 -square foot, vacant structure. CEQA Guideline section 15125 requires a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project "before the commencement of the project" which constitute "the baseline physical conditions" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed. The baseline is required to describe the existing physical conditions. Measuring possible environmental effects against an improper baseline skews all the analyses, findings, and decisions that follow. As one court explained: CEQA ... concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment, defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area.... The courts, of course, have so recognized: "[Me conclude that the Legislature intended the [C]EQA to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the (m) Minor repairs and alterations to existing dams and appurtenant structures under the supervision of the Department of Water Resources. (n) Conversion of a single family residence to office use (o) Installation, in an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, of a steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste generated by that facility provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (p) Use of a single-family residence as a small family day care home, as defined in Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 7 reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Cite.) "The highest priority must be given to environmental considerations in interpreting the statute. (Cite,) In determining environmental impact, agencies must consider the effect of the project on the environment." (Cite.)" In this case, the proposal more than doubles the size of the structure and, more importantly, increases the use from nothing to a dental practice including 22 dental chairs, several doctors, hygenists, and other staff. Currently, the use implicates no increased aesthetics, no air quality, no hydrological, no land use/planning, no noise, and no traffic or parking impacts. The proposed use implicates all of these impacts on the environment. As stated in the exemption, "[t]he key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." A change from no use to intense use cannot be characterized as a negligible expansion. An example of the misapplication of the baseline can be found in memoranda from Frank Penry to Ms. Barba dated July 14, 2008 and August 25, 2008. In those memos, Mr. Penry appears to have made a determination that the project does not require a traffic study based on, among other things, a baseline which includes vehicle trips associated with a 3,287 square foot medical office building. As explained above, the traffic and parking impacts associated with the use of a 6,939 or 6,766 square feet building must be compared to the traffic and parking impacts associated with the non-use of the current building. Finally, the environmental review of a project must take into account the worst case scenario. For example, in one case, the EIR found that, under the worst case scenario, every available parking space within a three -block radius would be occupied and, therefore, concluded that parking impacts of the proposed project were significant.12 As pointed out by Stegeman & Associates in its letter of appeal dated August 6, 2008, the current Zoning Code provides for a variety of permitted uses, including a broad range of office functions. Many of these uses could generate more traffic and/or require more parking than the currently proposed use. Since a change in use would occur with no further " Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354. " Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1020, 1025; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. UC Regents (Laurel Heights 1) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405 (EIR must serve CEQA's public informational purposes and, therefore, must analyze all aspects of a project that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project.). Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 8 discretionary review by the City, the current review should anticipate the worst case scenario in terms of use. As mentioned earlier, the use of an exemption must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record is lacking in evidence that this project and the panoply of permitted uses involve "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing" at this time. C. The Significant Effect/Unusual Circumstances Exception Applies Even assuming a project is exempt, it may have effects that would render it nonexempt due to the significant effects exception of section 15300.2, subdivision (c).13 "Any activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt."'" "[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances " the agency may not find the project to be categorically exempt.15 There is no indication in the record that an exception was considered. As one court has stated: Categorical exemptions require a specific finding by the Secretary of the Resources Agency that the class of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment. (Cites.) ... it is not unreasonable to require a consideration of the issue of significant environmental effects at the preliminary review stage (cite) when the agency assesses the applicability of a categorical exemption.16 As it is applicable here, section 15300.2 provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." " Communities fora Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.AppAth at 104. 14 Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal.4th at 124 [emphasis supplied]. 15 Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c) [emphasis supplied]. 16 East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc, v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (I 9B9) 210 Cal.App.3d 155, 171, 172, 17 See also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1191. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 9 In this case there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have significant impacts on the environment due to unusual circumstances, related to building height and density, air and light impacts, and traffic and parking and related effects. The applicable fair argument standard states that if there is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an initial study.'a Thus, whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption is not proper.19 "Stated another way, if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact, but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required [initial study or] EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed 'in a manner required by law.' [Citation.]i20 Substantial evidence is "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached .1121 It includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.i22 Relevant personal observations by area residents are properly considered for this purpose.23 In addition, an agency's lack of analysis cannot provide the basis for an exemption.24 Here, the abundant testimony by neighbors on the issues of density/massing, air and light interference, and traffic and parking based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the site provides substantial evidence for purposes of the fair argument test. This project will create incompatibility with the surrounding residences with its size and mass. The traffic associated with the project, including demolition and construction related traffic and other demolition and construction related effects, place this project directly into the significant 1 a Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. 19 Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.AppAth at 1198. 20 Friends of T"Street, supra. 2' Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a). 22 Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b). 21 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 339. 24 See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2DOB Page 10 impacts/unusual circumstances exception. The evidence is found in many submittals into the record, both from percipient witnesses and experts. The following are a few examples: Email from Allison Murphv to Irene Borba dated March 12, 2008: Currently, parking on West EI Rose Drive is so difficult there are days when people cannot find parking to visit neighbors or to attend doctors appointments. Overflow parking is going up Hayes St and down B. Street. As a solution, many patients from the dentists and doctors offices park in the parking lot at 30 West EI Rose Drive CURRENTLY. And there are still problems finding parking on the street. This demonstrates that the parking needs of this area are already lacking. 2. Email from Jenn Call dated Aoril 29, 2008: We also are concerned about potential parking issues. Substantially increasing the size of this commercial building will mean that many 30 West EI Rose clientele will likely park on the street. Parking spaces on our street are extremely limited. While we don't mind sharing these spaces, if the spaces are used in virtual continuity by 30 West EI Rose clientele, there would be nowhere for our guests to park. Additionally, these spaces are used regularly by delivery vehicles such as FedEx and the U.S. Postal Service. If delivery vehicles began double-parking while making daily deliveries, traffic issues would be further exacerbated. (See also letter from Dan Gaffney dated May 10, 2008.) 3. Letter from Jennifer and Matthew Lounibos to Ms. Borba dated Mav 12, 2008: Already our neighborhood is plagued by too many cars, too little parking, and drivers that have no regard for the speed limit. The hill that 30 West EI Rose is atop seems to encourage drivers to speed down Hayes Lane, which has no stop sign or speed bumps anywhere on it until it dead ends into Petaluma High School. Our street, Hill Boulevard, is similar in that there are no stop signs the length of it, allowing drivers from the La Cresta area, English and Bassett Streets, and Petaluma High School to speed past our homes at 40, 50 or more miles per hour, way above the speed limit. As such, there are certain times of the day when we don't feel conformable going for a walk because the traffic is so fast.... Our street seems to have become a rapid thoroughfare around the stop signs that have been added on Webster Street, and we can see the problems only worsening once the number of clients visiting 30 West EI Rose grows. Letter to Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 11 Regarding parking issues, our neighborhood is impacted with cars already. Parking is so competitive on our street that a neighbor regularly phones the police when our car is parked in front of our own house because he wants to park his numerous vehicles there. Having more clients at 30 West EI Rose will only worsen the problem, due to already inadequate parking space. 4. ADoeal letter from Steoeman & Associates dated Auoust 6, 2008: As explained in detail in this letter, the project is inconsistent with the previous General Plan and Zoning Code, Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines (SPARC Guidelines) regarding parking lots and exterior lighting. Letter from Dennis S. Elias, Vice Chair SPARC. dated Auaust 27, 2008: In the case of the proposed project at 30 W. EI Rose, I was not able to make all of the findings [based on SPARC Guidelines], and based on my conclusions, I could not vote in favor of the project. In addition to the findings, other considerations were weighed, specifically related to securing compliance with applicable Zoning Ordinances and other regulatory matters (CEQA), including the objective in promoting the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma. I could not characterize the project as negligible with a proposed expansion of an existing structure greater than 50 % of the floor area. Therefore I concluded the disposition of the project regarding CEQA should have had one of three possible outcomes; either (a) -make no categorical exemption and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (b) -provide to the committee the rational for the use of subsection (e)(2)(A)(B) over subsection (e)(1); or (c) -prepare a negative declaration. Since none of these actions were provided to the committee, I could not support the project. Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Elias qualify as experts and, therefore, their respective testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant impacts on the environment. Thus, it is excepted from the exemption. Le,tterto Pamela Torliatt„ Mayor, and City Councilmembers September 12, 2008 Page 12 Other documented problems include the project's potential to compromise residential privacy and block sunlight. The fact that story poles were required speaks to the reality of the environmental impacts of the project; if the project has no potential for impacts on the environment, story poles would be unnecessary. On the other hand, their existence shows the project's potential for impacts. In conclusion, the Agenda Bill for this hearing is not persuasive in its recommendation to deny the appeal. Since the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning, it cannot be approved on that basis. In the alternative, appellants request that the project be subject to an Initial Study. There are far too many unknowns and potential impacts associated with this project. 21 Only by subjecting the project to environmental review under CEQA can this Council make an informed decision. The Coalition has made it clear that it does not oppose commercial use of the site. It does, however, oppose the project as proposed. Thank you for your close attention to this matter. Very truly yours,, (6-s-eM Z la cc: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Eric Danly Mike Moore Irene Borba zs See nkn SPARC Ji lv 94. 9nOR hearina - httn-//netaluma nraninus nnm/ Robert M. Shanteau, Ph.D., P.E. Registered Traffic Engineer 13 Primrose Circle (831) 394-9420 Seaside, CA 93955 Cell: (831) 917-0248 email: RMShant@gmail.com FAX: (831) 394-6045 February 27, 2009 Law Office of Rose Zoia 50 Old Courthouse Square Suite 401 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Attention: Rose Zoia By email to rzoia@sbeglobal.net Subject: Northbridge Offices; 08 -SPC -0048 -CR 30 W. EI Rose Dear Ms. Zoia: This is a revision of my letter report to you dated February 2, 2009. In addition to the documents that I reviewed for that letter, I have also reviewed a letter report dated February 23, 2009, from Allan G. Tipton, P.E., Senior Associate with W -Trans, to Steve Lafranchi with the subject, "Response to Comments on Traffic Issues - 30 West EI Rose Drive." In summary, this letter fails to identify a sight distance problem at the exit driveway from the proposed project and therefore fails to identify a potential significant impact of the project. In addition, the letter omits an exhibit related to the peak parking demand, making it impossible for the to assess the accuracy of the statements relative to parking demand, l do note that the letter recommends, as I did in my previous letter to you, that the parking behind the building be reserved for staff. My opinion is still that a Traffic Impact Study should be prepared that identifies the impacts of the project and proposed mitigations. These arc the flaws that I find in the letter from Mr. Tipton: The sight distance diagram in Mr. Tipton's letter shows the ground contours along a line from the driveway exit to the driver's left, but fails to show a large tree on the property that blocks a driver's view. On the next page is a pair of photographs taken from the driver's eye point of view towards the left, from where conflicting traffic comes. As you can see, a main branch of the tree blocks the view of approaching vehicles as they round the corner from El Rose Drive to Hayes Lane. 2. Mr. Tipton's letter states that the 30 parking spaces exceeds the estimated demand of 29 based on ITE Trip Generation, but the exhibit that he says supports his contention that peak demand will not exceed 30 spaces is missing. Therefore I cannot review his contention. My opinion that there will likely be between about 50 and 100 people in the building at any one time is unchanged, as is my opinion that lower level staff will be instructed to park on -street in order to leave the parking lot in front of the building available for patients. This on -street parking should be identified as a potential significant impact. 3. In my previous letter, I stated that it would be instructive to know what the parking demand of the building was when it was fully occupied in order to determine whether the proposed number of parking spaces would be sufficient. Mr. Tipton has provided no such information. 4. In my previous letter, I pointed out that there are no existing sidewalks on several of the adjacent properties. Mr. Tipton provided no information regarding the lack of sidewalks, either. The additional traffic from the project will likely cause an impact due to the fact that pedestrians are forced to walk in the roadway. 5. Mr. Tipton addresses safety on the neighboring streets by pointing out that the curve connecting El Rose Drive and Hayes Lane should have a speed advisory of 20 mph, which is an indication that its radius is substandard. The standard for a curve's radius depends on whether it is functionally classified as local, collector or arterial, as discussed in,,l Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (commonly called the Green Book), published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004. According to the Petaluma General Plan, Figure 5. 1, this portion of El Rose Drive and Hayes Lane is classified as a connector, which means that it is more important than a local street but less important than a collector. The General Plan states, "Connector streets provide low- speed/medium-volume access within and between neighborhoods and nearby collector and arterial streets." The Green Book specifies that the minimum radius of an urban local street is 100' (p. 391), while the minimum radius for an urban collector street depends on the design speed and cross slope. The design speed for a connector such as El Rose Drive/Hayes Lane is about 25 mph, for which the minimum radius is 181' (Green Book, Exhibit 3-16, page 151). The actual radius of the curve is only about 85', which is less than the minimum radius for even a local street. Thus this piece of infrastructure is insufficient for existing conditions, so any additional traffic from the proposed project will of necessity cause a significant impact on safety at this curve. The speed advisory of 20 mph recommended by Mr. Tipton is unlikely to have any real effect on actual speeds around this curve. 6. In my previous letter, I suggested that it may be necessary to take additional measures to "traffic calm" the streets in the area of the proposed project. Mr. Tipton did not address this issue, except to recommend a speed advisory of 20 mph for the El Rose Drive/Hayes Lane carve, which, as I stated above, is unlikely to have any real effect on actual speeds. 7. Mr. Tipton contends that an apparent lack of reported accidents indicates that there is no safety problem on the streets in the neighborhood of the proposed project. In assessing whether a street's safety is acceptable, it is necessary to look at not only accident experience but also the features of the street. In this case, the substandard radius curve and the lack of sidewalks are features that are known to lead to accidents. 8. Mr. Tipton also references the speeds that were reported in the previous Council Staff Report. In my previous letter, I noted that the speed study from which these speeds were found was not provided. Thus neither Mr. Tipton nor I can determine under what circumstances the speed study was done, including the location, time of day, sample size, speed measuring device, etc. This information is vital to understanding the existing traffic conditions in the project area. In conclusion, I still find that several possible significant impacts of the proposed project have not been identified. It is still my opinion that a full Traffic Impact Analysis be performed on the project to identify possible significant impacts and mitigations. Sincerely, 6'idr'a�tccvt Robert M. Shanteau Rick Edwards + 1030 B Street Petaluma, CA 94952 March 2, 2009 Claire Cooper, City Clerk City Hall I 1 English Street s' Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: 30 W. EI Rose Dear Ms. Cooper, I Have sent you the photos enclosed to keep all parties involved with the proposed development at 30 W. El Rose, informed about malicious activity directed towards myself because, I believe, of my public support of the El Rose /Haves Lane Coalition. (Diagram and photo info, are on SACK of photo sheet.) The photos show where soil was removed and then relocated in a deliberate attempt to redirect run-off water, from the offices on W. El Rose, onto my property. (Via the city easement that runs between my property and properties on W. El Rose.) It may not be as clear in the photos that the excavation was not caused by natural means, animals, or playful children, etc. The quantity of material and the manner in which it was moved could only have been done by a person (or persons) with hand tools. This was confirmed by someone with extensive experience in excavating. Though I only discovered this action a few days ago when I noticed an unusually large amount of water pooling in the side yard next to my home, it appears to have been done a number of weeks ago, judging by the state of the surrounding vegetation. Fortunately I was able to correct the diversion before it had caused any property damage The question that remains is, (and most likely always will, unless someone comes forward and claims responsibility) who did this and why? The thought that someone feels that this is an acceptable way to express their disapproval with the cities practices or it's citizens for expressing their views is, to say the least, disturbing. Who is next on their `Hit List'? Respectfully, C C= z r t.i ') t Rick Edwards <} � -'� '• '� 3 � - figg, a � _ ,j, ��'� -�+•e � y` € fig -„� rt � £ � � _ 4 f� -. � '�� ,ss' g� � ;� -t l �. -_ �. � a _ a e es� �. �F. _ - � _- (' .� .,� y I.. ii l�' _ " i� P�7 �P'�v'Y' �i i .,. II" .,. h. '4.' 'ti+ j. -.. .- ,,: r .,�,� a i�,,, ,, i F.... �, a., ,,",. {, �: i'; �, F�,:.I v'� :.� .�. ...i ��� a. ,q,.. �, . V i V v �„ r- �, ', - � -, From: Shawna Fross [shawnafross@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:40 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbit.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; atterney@ci.petaluma.ca.us Cc: neighbors@elrose-hayeslane-coalition.com Subject: 30 West EI Rose Dear City Council, There are many reasons that the expansion of 30 West EI Rose is not a good idea. I know you have heard about them all. I would like to focus on the fact that there is vacant office space all over Petaluma. On both the east and west sides of town offices lay vacant waiting for tenants. If the owners of 30 West EI Rose are feeling the need for a larger space why not move to a more appropriate location that can accommodate their needs. Why would they spend the time and money to remodel/build on. Let's fill up the office space that this town already has. My daughters dentist is off Lakeville in a beautiful state of the art building. There is no need for this "new building' when there are so many other alternatives. Thank you for your time, Shawna and Jason Fross 925 B Street, Petaluma CA From: Denise Soza [Denises@ibewlocal551.org] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:40 PM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; citymgr; - City Clerk; Moore, Mike; King, Fran Subject: Approve Northbridge Office Project This is just a short sweet note to urge you to approve the Northbridge Office Project at 30 West EI Rose, Petaluma, Ca. This will create much needed union construction jobs. It will also employ dental workers. These are great jobs that will keep money circulating here in our local community. We're talking dental office here. Good jobs people, good jobs. Denise D. Soza Business Representative IBEW Local 551 2525 Cleveland Ave. Santa Rosa, Ca. 95403 707-542-3505 1 SIN From: Clyde Schultz [saltcaymanl@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:58 PM To: - City Clerk Cc: ptorliatt@aol.com Subject: 30 W. EI Rose Project Attachments: Neighborhood handout.pdf Dear City Clerk and Mayor Torliatt, I practice dentistry in Petaluma at 10 W. El Rose, a few doors down from the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. 1 have practiced at that location since January 2007, when I purchased that dental practice. Last week, I received a hand -delivered flier at my office, supposedly from the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. On the front it states that the "City of Petaluma deems the existing infrastructure and traffic controls adequate..." but goes on to explain that the coalition knows so much more about this subject that they need to help the city see the error of its ways. On the back is the slogan "power to the people" repeated over and over again. I have attached a copy of this literature in case you haven't seen it. I have no financial ties to this project at all. Nonetheless, I am a member of the community. I am an incoming officer in the Elks Club, I support the Cinnabar Theater and I help every year in the Butter and Eggs parade. I belong to the Petaluma Downtown Association and to the Chamber of Commerce. I ani committed to Petaluma as my home and my business community, and I am deeply concerned. What is announced in the flier as a group of concerned citizens trying to protect their neighborhood from the ravages of uncontrolled traffic began as some little fat guy and his wife complaining at a meeting of about 7 or 8 people that a second story on the proposed project would have people looking at them in their backyard, and throwing a shadow on them in the summertime a few minutes before it would have fallen anyway. Now it's a campaign to preserve the power of the people. Good grief. If you don't want people looking at you from uphill, buy at the top of the hill - not at the bottom. don't know what they call people who don't understand that here, but where I grew up we called them slow learners. The real issue for Petaluma is that this kind of activity is discriminatory. If the little guy who wants to invest here and build can't trust the city to follow its own laws and building codes, then it gives unfair advantage to the rich people who can afford to fight a battle the rest cannot. It hurts our town, and it makes us look like a bunch of good ole boys who make deals in the back room with whoever knows the most people in Rotary or Planning or whatever the most powerful group happens to be. If the project meets code, I urge you to finalize your decision and stop giving the spotlight to mean and selfish people who happen to have too much time on their hands. Sincerely Clyde L. Schultz DDS 10 West el Rose Petalruna, CA I Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Who: Petaluma City Council What: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Appeal Hearing of 30 West EI Rose When: Monday, March 2, 2009, 7:00pm (continued from February 2) Where: City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Do you have concerns with increased traffic in our neighborhood? Are you currently experiencing sewer or drainage problems? You are not alone! Our coalition is a group of west Petaluma neighbors and friends. We came together because we are extremely concerned about the proposed expansion of 30 West EI Rose at Hayes Lane. Our first-hand knowledge of our neighborhood's aging infrastructure and our grave concerns about increased traffic and parking issues continue to fall on deaf ears at the Planning Department. The City of Petaluma deems the existing infrastructure and traffic controls adequate and quite frankly, we couldn't disagree more. The project proposal includes: a doubling of the existing square footage (3,310 to 6,994) to include 4 suites, 22 dental chairs and 15 employees at a maximum shift The future of our neighborhood—of ALL Petaluma neighborhoods --hangs in the balance if given the precedent that will no doubt be set should this proposal be approved "as is'; will you loin us on March 2. 2009 and sneak to these concerns? If you are unable to attend, can we count on you to write a letter or send an e-mail to the City Council outlining your concerns? in your own words, Mail your letters to: City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 and send your e-mails to: Mayor Torliatt: ptorliatt@aol.com Vice -Mayor Barrett: leresa4oetaluma0comcasl.net Council Member Glass: davealass Ocomcast.net Council Member Harris: mike4oet@aol.com Council Member Healy: mthealy@sbeglobal.net Council Member RabbitC david®davidrabbilt.com please tel! City Council to fix the existing problems and NOT to approve Council Member Rende: tiff@tiffanvrenee.com this project as currently proposed. John C. Brown, City Manager, citvmarr@ci.oetaluma.ca.us Claire Cooper, City Clerk citvclerk®ci.oetaluma.ca.us Mike Moore, Director of Community Development mmoore@ci.netalumn,ca.us Join us, and let vour voice be heard!, Eric W. Danly, City Attorney, altornev@ci.oetaluma.ca.us www.eirose-hayesiane-coalition.com Who: Petaluma City Council What: EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition Appeal Hearing of 30 West EI Rose When: Monday, March 2, 2009, 7:00pm (continued from February 2) Where: City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 *.9"ITITZ "I From: Jwr3Design@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:41 PM To: Ptorliatt@aol.com; ptorliatt@mycingular.blackberry, net; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; Mike4Pet@aol.com; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: - City Clerk; citymgr Subject: 30 W EI Rose Project Madam Mayor and City Council, I most unfortunately have been in bed with the flu for the last three days! It is unlikely that I will be able to attend tonight, for which I am very sorry. The 30 W EI Rose project is well within the parameters of both the old and current General Plans, the IZO, and will in fact improve the drainage situation for the down stream properties. This project was approved two times by SPARC, and we are appointed by you to make a decision as to conformity, and appropriateness of projects before us. We took hours of public testimony, studied the staff reports and drawings, and came to the same conclusion on a 4-1 vote for approval. This infill type development is appropriate for this location! Please consider the testimony, and come to the right decision, just as SPARC has. Thank you for your consideration. Jack Rittenhouse III 502 Selmart Lane Petaluma CA 94954 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See vours in iust 2 easv steps! Petition to Support the proposed project at 30 West El Rose. Cr Dear Mayor Torhatt and Council Members: U We the undersigned are in support of the 30 West El Rose Office project as propose�dcJj and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. Si,znature Address phone or email d?M"? a7 / l t' 1 d '1:.-!'E i �3� ii•� t..�-A C i i t: R:.: � " t { 1 b �1 L/ 4,. i 7- &L14—LU-1 - &L14• -1/e St3lnQyc'C j h -- Y l—G o ,� _ jj �) / Nvt? cri �'n.cacr �i�1� Iry r5 j rxnP_ �iQ�I �/u-f�l-L l R t, do,l— 3 c F P4 v ro nt T 7 7S Z S ZZ ' GJ7 S 225 z_ f< Ci i all aim -7 tz, T/�� a�7 0 kA -6-V- ta Cn -v j-0 _.i - qjq?-e q6'1 Petition to Support the proposed project at 3o West hl hose. Derr Mayor Torliatt and Council Members: We the undersigned are in support of the 3o West El Rose Office project as proposed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Please deny the Appeal. Signature Address Phone or email, 16 s` M9 qa"0 �. �Mrl'-/ 0 OtDUO ,iA"!!l �C ��St•"f}7ri:�''H't>�°Af'��CJI'(,11�+JYY1G 1 1���75_..t�V�'iir�L9.rS 5 Cyon -• a vt..0 pekfd -51 vel (eA rnq C74 5 t1��utiy Lv���urh��63 Nq3� �r �tCJI C bbACO alb(. � 07 6�9�5 /7a%f(il JffaIr3 moi'/4r//Yz/11 717 Petition to support the proposed project at 30 W. El Rose. We the undersigned are in support of the 30 W. El Rose office project as proposed and approved by the site plan and architectural review committee. Please deny the appeal. ,ao� eeFat a Name /Sign Telephone Email -I!5 S4�eChcLn ,} .I 2 t74n C{'tv(t�min 7t -t. 1�LCCV � rl.t . r• �J Mt-�nvYFlvtii. Lr ir�2 tt1Al . 0 �u'a-� '7 tG 3 -7 1 0 ;t#2 l�eolcu Sk. JGne 01 govilC i j- �S�f� i �cn r �" • ,. L4 J ! , 14-. C7.(,1 Z -IFY lel r✓iV' li `'.: l.Y W •� 765 -/ D / 6 I r&J6 J�}} e'7 M21v,n GA, i 1C1 ,���JVXI�K ltd 1 a�?1�1,�,_ �t11SbC10 �f t,a1r�(12Y C:r �f l•=�%z -7U7-762-g7g7 P -e c leL rr c� (ems tl�a, () lbT~ -1,9 -14'�- S U-) Q /L Z� > � (` fit e Stu n,G ._t? a -t t5 - moo _ qh 3-�- Q� 3 l� 5V - °e\-ck-,,k =A t vu.c_..l T `JZ i.r+-t...�/u'z✓l1, .'.'�-ti' J4e t" -1- PCt -JKw nc,nke, & 5n1t(c ,ti11LwPc pct IcxvSc��,r�sb yi ix;l.,,..9 Pel. WZ-7cAas Ln FeAlow-a. wel11,101114 r�We,i �1%ea � a,i.cm n cSkr- S ^ ,1011/4 Is'/ -e11#- 766 7/ZY I*,( Ck, 07ale -a -,)--1 X7 i'r'` C�.r t=`�,�.-�I U 7�,z Ic�t737�/ cluaa/imp K��n.�rcur,ly /�fi.+, vhC 'D:".�i�C b, i�'G'CV1 i�'Z.�i�•LG %�1�-�-(,;; �J(?L!"i CG:.Nt�fi+6'�-L.t rvah'�st C-% Erl hohr}g17Gr �1\li�Cl C.1u1)'-I�199 vicdance 17a�hntnact,l.e pry Nc7. n t"S-' 1 a �cr L �1a > a��i -i 7a-7- 7&3 -rte,: 9 LY�a q.GG�c�t�tr�� +.�,z cif y�Gj { a r rr�a� �� • a G e.ct �;Ic k(Ck\j0Cflal.co. t�2�")��•{aP,�%�.�`Ztk_.�'i``ti?1r �1,{rt^-L ��at! �,i�,p.P�iUa"GL�-i-F.r1e+ r rn (aKc wit. , .7 (?:17 Rn? fain 91 � C�Y-i-Mall 7� n W a 5'e rano lo -1- -M(9-0-4pie f t � eKYC+I iA Ar (Cart i1 '(•Wa sevyMi a IDJ- ` -tto- 421a S evmlto eW X61011 rig t�A ',o -+oyLk 2 yYa m o 116- di SevrciKo 1 Prt,o 6014/1 h)ai (f6 SC' r rl o 2-711,E-tl t9 � 5YaKo 1 rtc7 i,coviL 1`krlS� 7I „CRne. 20 71rA .-1-'�� S3i�Pl�ta.n LU a �UA"�tGY