Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.A 03/16/2009&A CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA March 16, 2009 MEMORANDUM Comnrnutio, Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fay (707) 778-4498 E-mail: edd &i petahana.ca.us DATE: March 10, 2009 TO: John Brown, City Manager FROM: Mike Moore, Community Development Directoo-�fl SUBJECT: Agenda Item 3 A.: Continuation of City Council Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Appeal of the SPARC Approval of the Proposed Northbridge Office Project (30 West El Rose) On March 2, 2009, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the appeal of SPARC's approval of the proposed expansion of an existing office building at 30 West El Rose. At the conclusion of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing. Aside from written comments the Council has received from interested parties since the March 2 meeting, there is no additional staff report or related documentation being provided as part of the March 16 agenda packet. The original packet material and all the attachments for this item are still valid. The draft resolution, denying the appeal and upholding the decision of SPARC to approve the project, is attached to this memo (it is also part of the previous packet materials). ATTACHMENT1 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL BY SCOT STEGEMAN ON BEHALF OF ALICIA BERRIES AND THE EL ROSEtHAYES LANE COALITION OF THE DECISION OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE NORTHBRIDGE OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT 30 EL ROSE, APN 008-480-039 AND APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on May 22, June 12 and July 24, 2008, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee of the City of Petaluma held public hearings to consider an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Northbridge Office project and associated site improvements at 30 West El Rose, APN 008-480-039. WHEREAS, on July 24, 2008 after considering the public testimony and the application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Conunittee approved the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, on August G, 2008, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Soot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Hurries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition; WHEREAS, on September 15, 2008 the Petaluma City Council after considering said appeal and hearing public testimony remanded the proposed project back to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) based on conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS, on December 11, 2008, after considering the public testimony and the revised application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approved the project with conditions; WHEREAS, on December 23, 2008, an appeal of the December 11, 2008 decision of SPARC was filed by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El RosellIayes Lane Coalition; WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009 public notice of the February 2, 2009 appeal hearing before the City Council was mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property and to all other interested parties, and a notice of the February 2, 2009 appeal hearing before the City Council was published in the Argus - Courier on January 22, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, has fully considered all evidence presented at the public hearing of this appeal, as well as all oral and Nvritten evidence contained in the full record of proceedings on this matter, and on that basis denies the appeal of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes lane Coalition filed with the City on December 23, 2008 ("Second Appeal"), challenging approval of the Northbridge Office Project located at 30 West El Rose Drive, AON 008-480-039 ("thc project'). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, (CEQA Guidelines") §§ 15301 (e) (2) and/or 15303 (c), and that there are neither unusual circumstances nor a significant cumulative impact on the environment resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, so as to create an exception to the use of the exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15300.2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in adopting CEQA findings for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 in resolution 2008-084 N.C.S. on May 19, 2008, the City Council found that public services and facilities, including water and waste water facilities, were generally available and sufficient to serve build -out of the city, including the area in which this project is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that impacts of the project on traffic are less than significant based on detailed information and reports prepared by the city's traffic engineer; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adapts the following findings and associated conditions of approval of the project as a basis for its denial of the Second Appeal and approval of the CEQA exemption for the project: Findings: 1. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 1 -P -I Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), I -P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. I -P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. 2. The proposed modifications as conditioned will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with the Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code and the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed structure and site plan, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Pian and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the addition is in harmony and proportion to the [should residence be plural if it means the surrounding homes?] existing residence and surrounding structures, le. The architectural style is appropriate for the addition and is compatible with the existing residence and other structures in the immediate neighborhood, c. The siting of the addition structure is comparable to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and d. The bulk, height, and color of the addition is comparable to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. .KJ 4. The landscaping as conditioned conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (2) and is in Beeping with the character and design of the site. Existing trees are being preserved and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee and/or pursuant to the landscaping plan. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street facilities and pedestrian ways as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (3). As ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, and off-street facilities is an existing condition the project as conditioned does not create additional safety or inconvenience and conforms to approved City standards. 6. The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), § 15301(e)(2), which allows for minor alterations of existing public or private structures as well as minor additions because the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet, the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive. There are no unusual circumstances nor is there a significant cumulative impact on the environment resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, so as to create an exception to the use of the exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2. Conditions of Anoroval: From the Plannine Division: 1. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans approved by the SPARC Committee on December 11, 2008 and date stamped December 1, 2008, by the City of Petaluma for review by the Planning Division. 2. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a plan sheet, which shall contain all conditions of approval for review by the Planning Department. 3. The windows on the north elevation shall have a 39" sill height on plans submitted for building permit. 4. The trash enclosure is not approved in its proposed location as it does not conform to the required setbacks for detached accessory structures. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a revised location/design for the trash enclosure. Said trash enclosure shall be located on the east elevation (on the side adjacent to the medical offices property) and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 5. Plans submitted for building permit shall illustrate parking for four bicycles. Said bike parking shall be located close to the entrance and under the cover walkway. Said bike rack shall be inverted U bike rack(s) per the bike plan. 6. This project may be subject to the City of Petaluma's Public Art Ordinance (Ordinance NCS 2022). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any "construction or reconstruction project" as defined in the Public Art Ordinance, the applicant shall submit a completed Public Art Compliance Form to demonstrate the anticipated manner of compliance with the Public Art Ordinance. See the attached Public Art Information Packet for more details. All construction activities shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Only interior work, within closed framed walls, is allowed on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. y Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City for additional hours and/or days. 8. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be fully visually screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 9. Signs are not approved as part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform to Zoning Ordinance specifications. 10. The applicant shall be subject to the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees; the following Development Impact fees: Storm Drain, School Facilities and Traffic Mitigation fees; the Public Art fee (per the Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2202) and Commercial Linkage fee. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which time, other pertinent fees that may be applicable to the proposed project may be required. 11. Any proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and shall be subject to staff review and approval at time of building pennit. All lights to the building shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be directed downward and shall conform to City Performance Standards. 12. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/Imerbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management Techniques for the protection of pedestriansibicyclists. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. From Public Works (El nuineerine): 13. Repair or replace any broken or displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter along the entire frontage. 14. The drainage area west of the existing building, between the property line and driveway, shall be directed to the front parking lot. 15. Construct a curb along the rear parking area to prevent lot to lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 NOB Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-025). 16. Re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024. 17. Direct the entire runoff from the roof to El Rose Drive as proposed in the drainage report. From Public Works (Traffic Eneineer) 18. All new on-site parking shall be designed in accordance with the Parking Design Standards of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Procedures and Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 19. The proposed project all existing points of access shall remain, without changes to direction of traffic now. 5 20. The project shall provide or contribute to the provision for Class III bike lane facility along the frontage with West EI Rose Drive and Hayes Lane per the adopted Bike Plan. As this route remains largely proposed a route at this time, applicant shall provide "Share the Road" signage on both street frontages. 21. All pedestrian facilities along the project frontage and throughout the site development shall be ADA complaint. 22. The site shall meet the appropriate ADA disabled parking standard, in both number and accommodation. 23. The site shall meet the appropriate City standard for bicycle facilities, in both number and accommodation. 24. The site shall be improved as such to maintain a minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle approaching the exiting driveway onto Hayes Lane from West El Rose Drive. Sheet SP -8 of the project plan set depicts the sight line to be used. This shall include, at a minimum: a. Clearing and trimming of existing vegetation and trees within the sight line, with continued maintenance thereof. b. Provision for new low profile ground cover along the crest of the parking lot slope, adjacent to the sidewalk, with continued maintenance thereof. c. On -street parking prohibition along die project frontage, via red curb, for the length of the sight line. From Water Resources & Conservation:, 25. Proposed utilities shall be approved by the Department of Water Resources and conservation and be adequately designed for domestic, fire and irrigation demands. 26. The proposed 12 inch storm drain pipe, on EI Rose Drive, shall be increased to 15 inches to comply with city design standards. From the Fire Marshal: 27. SPRINKLERS- All commercial building/s (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office (FMO) for review and approval. Separate fire underground plans shall also be submitted for review and approval by the FMO. FS -2 28. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- If any facility or business uses or store chemicals exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Pian pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Coda. A completed plan must be submitted prior bringing hazardous materials onsite. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary containment and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. Standard SPARC Conditions of Approval 11 29. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim, or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 30. Public utility access and casement locations and widths shall be subject to approval by PG&E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service companies and the City Engineer and shall be shaven on the plans. 31. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 32. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Criteria. 33. All work within the public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from Public Works. 34. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, prnning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 35. All conditions of the Building Division, Engineering Department and Fire Marshal's office shall be adhered to. 36. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 37. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22-301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan. 38. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors. Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls (overflow scuppers are accepted). 1191648.1 7 5.A March 2, 2009 City of Petaluma, California Memorandum Ciy Manager's Office, 11 English Street, Petahnna, CA 94952 (707) 778-4345 Fax (707) 778-4419 E-mail: cinn:enFi`ci.nefn/rrnm.ca.us DATE: February 24, 2009 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager SUBJECT: El Rose Appeal Attached please find the staff report previously provided to the Council for the February 2, 2009 Council meeting. There are no new attachments with this report. If you no longer have the original attachments, but wish to review them, they are available on- line on the City's website, «,vw.citvofbetaluma.net. CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding an Appeal by Scot Meeting Date: March 2, 2009 Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition of a Decision of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to approve the Northbridge Office project located at 30 West El Rose, for an addition to an Meeting Time: ® 7:00 PM existing structure, APN 008-480-039 (Moore\Borba). Categorv: ❑ Presentation ❑ Consent Calendar ® Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business ❑New Business Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Community Development Mike Moore, Community Dev. Irene T. Borba, Associate (707) 778-4301 Director Planner Cost of Proposal: Name of Fund: Amount Budgeted: Account Number: Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition and uphold the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee's decision of December 11, 2008, to approve the Northbridge Office project located at 30 West El Rose. Summary Statement: The stagy report and agenda packet materials for this item were distributed to the Citv Council Drior to the February 2, 2009 meeting, when this item was originally scheduled for hearing. This staff report is identical to the February 2 version and there are no new attachments to the original packet. On July 24, 2008, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approved the Northbridge Office project at 30 West El Rose, which included an expansion to the I" floor of the existing structure, the addition of a new 2 n story, and other associated site improvements. Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition appealed the decision based on the grounds that there were multiple inconsistencies with and violations of the prior and current zoning code, multiple conflicts with SPARC policies and standards, and the decision is not supported by facts or discussion in the record. The appeal was heard by the Council on September 15, 2008. The City Council remanded the project back to SPARC for review to address the project's conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regards to the non -conforming structure provision. The revised project (based on the 2025 General Plan and 2008 IZO) was heard and approved by SPARC on December 11, 2008. On December 23, 2008 an appeal was filed by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition on the December l ld' SPARC decision. The appeal is based on alleged inconsistencies with the General Plan and zoning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding SPARC's project approval 2. Letter of Appeal dated December 22, 2008 3. SPARC staff report of December 11, 2008 (including associated attachments) 4. Memorandums from Frank Penry dated July 14 and August 25, 2008 5. Preliminary Drainage Report dated January 31, 2008 6. SPARC Guidelines 7. Letter dated January 26, 2009 from Mary Dooley in response to Appeal letter dated December 22, 2008 8. Letter dated January 27, 2009 from Clu-istopher Costin of Beyers Costin regarding the Appeal 9. Color Rendering of proposed building at 30 West El Rose Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir: Reviewed by City Attornev: ApprpvecLbv-City Manager: Rev. # 4 Date Last Revised. /24/09 - Agenda Bill File: s:\planning\cc-city council\reporfs�30 4est el rose 2nd ri only to note change of meeting date to appeal March 2 2009 Vt (� 3/2/09 l�/ CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2, 2009 AGENDA REPORT DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPEAL BY SCOT STEGEMAN REPRESENTING ALICIA HERRIES AND THE EL ROSE/HAYES LANE COALITION OF A DECISION OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE NORTHBRIDGE OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT 30 WEST EL ROSE, FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, APN 008-480-039 1. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold SPARC's decision of December 11, 2008, to approve the Northbridge Office project, which would allow for an expansion of the lst floor of the existing structure and the addition of a new 2nd story, and other associated site improvements at 30 West El Rose, APN 008- 480-039, based on the findings in the attached "draft" Resolution (see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). 2. BACKGROUND: The proposed project was received by the Community Development Department on February 8, 2008. The application request was for Site Plan and Architectural Review of an addition and associated site improvements for the subject property at 30 West El Rose. The application was deemed complete on April 21, 2008. The project was heard by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) on May 22, June 12, and July 24, 2008. It was at the July 24`h, 2008 SPARC meeting that a motion was made by Committee member Kosewic and seconded by committee member Rittenhouse to approve the project with the addition of two conditions of approval regarding windows and landscaping (Conditions 3 & 4). Committee member Elias requested two additional findings be added to the motion concerning ingress/egress and landscaping (Findings 5 & 6). The Committee approved the project based on the fact that: • The project had evolved with each of the iterations. • It had been pulled back lessening the impacts to the neighbors. • The project site is within a mixed-use area and there is diversity within the area. • The design is appropriate for a mixed use area. • The design is appropriate with the other commercial uses in the area. • The project is consistent with the 2008 Implementing Zoning Ordinance and the 2025 General Plan. • The committee did add two additional findings to support their decision on landscaping and parking and ingress/egress (Findings 5 & 6). The majority of the committee had no issues with the ingress/egress and the parking as they exist. • They liked the architecture. 2 The Committee concluded that they could make all of the findings and that there was adequate evidence in the record to approve the project. The Committee approved the project on a vote of 4:1 with Committee member Elias being the no vote. ADDeal Filed An appeal was filed on August 6, 2008 by Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. The City Council at its meeting of September 15, 2008 heard the appeal and directed that the project be remanded back to SPARC to address conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. In its discussions, the Council also raised issues pertaining to drainage, and sewer and traffic as well as a discussion of whether or not the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. At the Council meeting, the City Attorney commented for the record that there is support in the record to apply the categorical exemption. Staff would refer Council to the December 11, 2008 SPARC staff report which includes the discussion from the City Attorney from the September 15, 2008 Council meeting. SPARC meeting of December 11. 2008 (see Attachment 3, SPARC Staff report of December 11, 2008 and Associated Attachments) The proposed project was scheduled for the December 11, 2008 SPARC meeting after being remanded back to SPARC for conformance with the 2025 General Plan and 2008 Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and the other issues identified by the City Council. The following occurred at the December 11, 2008 SPARC meeting: The project applicant presented their revisions to the proposed project to address conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Attached is a letter from Mary Dooley, the project architect (Attachment 3, SPARC staff report of December 11, 2008) which describes the changes that were made to the project in response to the appeal heard by the City Council. Ms. Dooley notes that the project proposal meets the goals and objectives of the 2025 General Plan as an infill and adaptive reuse project that intensifies use and will be a green building. The improvements meet all the requirements of the IZO and will be a conforming stricture with the removal of the portion of the existing building from the 15 foot setback. The changes to the site and building are as follows: ✓ Demolish portion of building in 15 foot setback ✓ Reduce waiting room to fall within 15 foot setback ✓ Added area to north side to make a transition between plaster and wood siding. ✓ Add area to south face of ground floor at Suite C. ✓ Shifted accessible parking closer to entrance by one stall. ✓ Add planters in front of three parking stalls. ✓ Relocate trash enclosure to West El Rose entry side. ✓ Revise design of trash enclosure with flat roof ✓ Added trees at previous trash enclosure location to the west of the building ✓ The landscaping has not changed substantially. The changes to the landscaping are reflected on both the landscape plan and the elevation and will provide more screening. The applicant notes that they have contacted the adjacent neighboring property owners the neighbors, the Gaffney's and the Harris' since the July SPARC meeting to get input from them on the planting on the north property line for alternate evergreen tree species. The Gaffney's responded but did not comment on the planting proposal. The applicant notes that the Harris' response implied that they were not happy with the proposed solution. ✓ Changes to the civil drawings were made to reflect the change to the building footprint, trash enclosure and the parking layout. ❖ The Committee opened the Public Hearing. Following are some of the issues raised by the public: 3 ✓ Traffic ✓ Parking ✓ Appropriateness of the building with the site and surroundings ✓ Privacy ✓ Drainage ❖ The public comment was closed. ❖ Committee member Rittenhouse made a motion which was seconded by Committee member Johnson to approve the project per the findings and conditions in the staff report with the following modifications to Condition #5 to change "west" to "east" side and to delete Condition #7. Per further discussion, the committee made the following recommendations: Should the applicant choose to modify the striping of the parking lot and the ingress and egress, the applicant shall work with staff for review and approval; the landscape plan is to be reviewed and agreed to by the neighbors (Harris' and Gaffney's) within 30 days of the approval or the landscape plan will revert back to the originally approved plan; the fence is to be reviewed and agreed to by the adjacent neighbors (Harris' and the Gaffney's) within 30 days or the fence reverts back to the existing fence. The committee approved the project on a vote of 4:1 with Committee member Elias being the no vote. Anneal Filed An appeal was filed on December 23, 2008 by Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition (Letter of Appeal dated December 22, 2008). 3. DISCUSSION: The appeal is based on the grounds that there are multiple inconsistencies with and violations of both the current zoning code, multiple conflicts with SPARC policies and standards, and the decision is not supported by facts or discussion in the record. The appellant asks that the City Council reverse the SPARC approval and deny the project as inconsistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, SPARC Guidelines, and the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appeal grounds and associated points from the appellant are noted below (in italics) followed by a response from staff. 1) SPARC did not nrovide an obiective and independent review of the neiv submittal. The City Council previously took up on an appeal of this project from a previous SPARC approval on July 24, 2008. That appeal was based, in part, upon the staff, applicant, and SPARC concurrence that the project was to be judged against the prior General Plan/Zoning rather that the new ones in force at the tinne of SPARC action. The City Council referred the project back to SPARC for reconsideration under the new General Plan and Zoning. But there was confusion as to whether the scope of review by SPARC was limited to only issues related to the new General Plan and Zoning Code. Staff Response to Ground 1 Staff does not concur that SPARC or staff were confused as to their scope of the SPARC review at the December l Vh SPARC meeting. The Committee did not limit their discussion to only the General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). The Committee once again took public testimony. Overall, in the history of this project, this was the fourth public hearing at SPARC concerning the proposed project. The staff report by Community Development is a recommendation to SPARC and not a final decision. The recommendation by City staff is based on the project's conformance to applicable City policies, C! regulations and standards and includes recommendations from other City Departments. SPARC has the authority to approve the project subject to the findings and the conditions of approval; which they can modify, as necessary to address project specific issues that arise through the public hearing. SPARC did take into consideration testimony and related information provided by the applicant and by affected neighbors before they came to a final determination. The majority of the SPARC members felt the public's comments and the committee's concerns had been addressed and did not feel the need for further review of the issues raised. 2) The Droiect is inconsistent with the current Zoning Code in several resDects. 2a) The Staff Report and applicant's submittals proceeded based upon bringing the project into consistency with the new General Plan and Zoning Code, but the application continues to rely upon retaining legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot, and the connecting driveway. This in incorrect, since the previous Zoning Code provisions regarding legal non -conforming uses and structures call for a site to lose that status if the use is abandoned for a stated period of time. In this case, the vacancy of the building and absence of an -v use by a tenant or owner means all legal non -con forming status has been lost for such uses on the site. This leaves the Project site as inconsistent with the Code, and the project site would have to be redesigned to reflect Code requirements for size, location, and orientation of parking spaces. Staff Response to Ground 2a The proposed project does not rely on a legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot and the connecting driveway. Under the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, the parking lot is conforming in terms of number of required spaces; its location relative to required setbacks; and its overall layout relative to applicable "Parking Design Standards" for space dimensions, backup distance and driveway length, as applied by SPARC to achieve the standard of review "to promote safety and convenience" and "conform to approved City standards." The subject property is zoned MU1C (Mixed Use). The MUl zone is consistent with and implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential uses within the classification. The MU1C zone is applied to smaller parcels located in West Petaluma. Most of these parcels are located in residential areas and the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is limited (as defined by the IZO). Development Standards for the MUI District - Front yard setback -0'. The front line on a corer lot is the line with the shortest frontage. Therefore, the front of the subject property is Hayes Lane. The proposed project including the parking is consistent with the required 0' front yard setback. The previous zoning ordinance did not allow parking in the street side setback but with the adoption of the IZO this is no longer an issue and the setback is O'. Side yard setback (interior) - 0", except when abutting an R District then, 15 ft plus I foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property is adjacent to an R District. The proposed structure meets the required setback. The parking is a site improvement not a structure. There is also nothing in the IZO that prohibits parking in the side (interior) or rear setback. The applicant has also submitted an exhibit with regards to the setback and height requirements (Attachment 3, SPARC Staff Report of December 11, 2008). Side yard setback (El Rose street side) - 0'. With the exception of the trash enclosure, the proposed project is consistent with the O'setback requirement. Staff has conditioned that the applicant work with staff to relocate the trash enclosure to comply with the setback requirement (refer to draft Condition #5). 5 Rear yard setback- 0', except when abutting an R District, then 15 ft plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property at the rear setback is not adjacent to an R District. The proposed project meets the 0' rear setback requirement. Height Limit 30'. The maximum height limit is 30' for the principal building in this zoning district. The implementing zoning also notes that "when the building is more than 30 feet from an abutting property line, one additional foot of height is permitted with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet for a maximum building height of 45 feet. Per the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Building Height is defined as: "Measured as the vertical distance between the average finish grade and the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a gambrel, hip or gable roof, or the highest point of a flat or shed roof, or the ridge of the roofline of a mansard roof. When either of the following occurs, a dormer shall also be considered a roof for the purposes of determining building height: • The width of the roof of the dormer exceeds 49% of the width of the roof of the building; or • The width of the dormer measured from the building wall to building wall exceeds 49% of the width of the building measured from building wall to building wall. All building elevations are required to comply with the height limit for the zoning district in which the property is located." The proposed project meets the maximum height requirement. The applicant has also submitted an exhibit that illustrates compliance with the setback and height requirements (Attachment 3, SPARC Report of December 11, 2008 and Associated Attelunents). FAR (Floor Area Ratio). The maximum FAR allowed is 2.5. At .32 FAR, the proposed project meets this requirement. The applicant provided the FAR calculations which are provided in Attachment 3 the December 11, 2008 SPARC Staff Report). Parking. The IZO (Chapter 11) requires 1 parking stall for each 200 sq.ft., of floor area for "medical services -minor" uses. "Floor area in the case of offices, merchandising or service types of uses means the gross area used or intended to be used by tenants, or for service to the public as customers, patrons, clients, or patients including areas occupied by fixtures and equipment used for display or sales of merchandise. It does not include areas used principally for non-public purposes, such as storage and incidental repair." The deduction of mechanical and storage areas from the square footage is acceptable to determine the required parking. It is the committee's policy to allow an applicant up to a 15% reduction to reflect services and storage areas. A breakdown of the area calculations are as follows: I" Floor Existing: 3,287 sf I" Floor New: 583 sf 2nd Floor New: 2,825 sf Total floor Area: 6,939 sf 15% Mech/Storage: 1,040 sf Area for parking calculation: 5,899 sf 200 sf per car required: 29.4 cars Total proposed parking: 30 spaces The project meets the required number of parking stalls. 3 Hillside Protection (IZO Chanter 16). Chapter 16 (Hillside Protection) of the IZO not applicable to the proposed project as it only applies to properties zoned RR, RI, R2, R3, R4 and R5 and PUD. Nonconformine Structures/Uses. Section 22.030 (A) Modifications to Non -Conforming uses and Structures, states" A non -conforming use or structure shall not be enlarged, extended, or moved to a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use, except that a non -conforming structure may be reconstructed in such a way as to make it conforming." Section 22.030 (B), Change of Use states, "no non -conforming use shall be changed to another non -conforming use without approval by the planning commission and then only to a use which, in the opinion of the commission, is of the same or of a more restricted nature." Section 22.030 (C) Discontinuation of a Non -Conforming Use of A Structure, states: "A non -conforming use of a structure shall not be re-established if such use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months or more, or has been changed to or replaced by, a conforming use. Intent to resume use of a non -conforming structure shall not confer the right to do so." Section 22.030 (D) states: "A non -conforming use of land, not involving a structure other than fences, signs, and buildings less than 400 square feet in area shall not be re-established if such use of land has been discontinued for a period of three months or more, or has been changed to, or replaced by , a nonconforming use. Intent to resume a non -conforming use of land shall not confer the right to do so." The proposed use is a conforming use. Medical/dental use is a permitted use. As previously stated, the parking area conforms to all applicable zoning and design standards as applied by SPARC in the course of their review of "ingress and egress" to "promote safety and convenience." Nothing in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance or the City's Parking Design Standards prohibit parking at the side (interior) or rear of the lot. The structure as proposed conforms to the setbacks, height and floor area requirements of the zoning district. 2b) The SPARC Guidelines provide extensive detail on the design and operation of parking lots. These include specific standards regarding loading zones for truck deliveries, which require at least one loading spaces be provided that does not conflict with conventional parking spaces. Even assuming that legal -nonconforming status remained in place, the SPARC Guidelines have specific standards regarding building expansions require that such spaces be provided at that time. YVlile there are provisions for exceptions, none of the criteria apply in this case, such an argument was never made in the staff reports, and no findings that waive the requirement are in the SPARC Resolutions of Approval. Staff Resaonse to Ground 2b Section 11.100 -Off Street Loading Berth Requirements (Table 11.3) states "Professional offices, public buildings other than administrative offices, schools and colleges, places of public assembly, charitable and religious institutions and clubs not used for human habitation, and public utility and public service structures and installations, when anv of the foreeoine reauires the recurrine receipt, deliverv. or distribution of eoods or eauinment by truck. One loading berth, plus additional berths as may be prescribed by the Zoning Director." It is important to note in this particular instance that the Implementing Zoning Ordinance is not an entirely new set of zoning regulations, but is mostly (except for the zoning districts and some use and building standards) the same regulations that have been in effect since 1975 when the last comprehensive zoning amendment was adopted. Loading berth requirements are a vestige of those regulations and speak to a time when most deliveries were made by large semi -trailer trucks, as evidenced by former Zoning Ordinance Section 20-1001, which set the length of a loading berth at 45'.. In fact, the one change that was made to this section as a result of the adoption of the IZO was the elimination of dimensional requirements for a loading berth. The basis for that change was to allow SPARC the flexibility to address the loading berth requirement in the context of the existing or proposed structure and the operational characteristics of the particular use. In this regard, SPARC determined that the loading berth requirement could be satisfied by the drive aisle area near the entry to the building that would allow a delivery vehicle to stop and make a delivery off-street. 7 2c) The SPARC Guidelines conflict ivith the convoluted parking plan provided in the back corner on order to provide the necessary parking spaces. The Site Plan shote 7 spaces located in this confined area, and depict extremely complicated turn movement sequences that are necessary to enter and exit, all of which would only work if one vehicle was attempting to enter- or exit. Not only does this create an unsafe parking situation, but it is contrary to Zoning Code requirements that each parking space be accessible from a driveway or aisle that is "sufficient for readily turning and moving automobiles. " Staff Resnonse to Ground 2c A maneuvering plan was provided by the project engineer illustrating the turning movements necessary for vehicles parking at the rear of the building, which was determined to be meet the functional standard and be "sufficient for readily turning and moving automobiles.". The Committee did not consider the maneuvering of vehicles an issue. 3d) The four enclosed new spaces provided under the building are shown with hvo of the spaces being 9 feet wide and one space as 8 feet wide. This is inconsistent with SPARC requirements that any covered spaces be 10 feet wide. These spaces cannot be credited against the number of needed spaces unless they are brought into conformity. Staff Resnonse to Ground 2d This comment references an existing parking area at the rear of the building that is under a portion of the existing structure. There is no definition of "covered parking" in either the City's SPARC Guidelines or the IZO. However, the only reference to required "covered parking" is in Table 11.1 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and only in reference to residential developments. In that context, the dimensional requirement is in regards to a garage or carport, not to the proposed parking area under the subject building overhang. Section 11.070(I) states that "parking stall size shall be determined by SPARC in the SPARC Guidelines and Procedures." The stalls located in this area comply with those Guidelines. 2e) The proposed driveway entrance violates the SPARC requirennent that there be 20 feet between a site entrance and the first parking space. TWdle this standard would not apply to a legal non- conforming parking lot, the legal non -conforming status and protection have been lost, as noted above. Staff Resnonse to Ground 2e The SPARC guidelines state "a minimum distance of 20' shall be provided at driveway entrances between the fronting property lines and the first on-site parking spaces to provide adequate vehicular stacking space (refer to Figure 3 in the SPARC Guidelines, see Attachment 6). The existing entry driveway off of El Rose does not meet the minimum 20' standard set forth in the SPARC Guidelines and Procedures; however, in the case of an existing condition, SPARC's obligation is to determine whether the existing condition in conjunction with the proposed use satisfies the overall standard that the "ingress, egree, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities . . .shall be so designed to promote safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved City standards." In this particular instance, the strict application of 20' minimum driveway off of El Rose, which is intended to provide an opportunity for "adequate vehicle stacking space", was determined not to adversely affect the overall use and safety of the existing parking lot, and all other applicable standards have been met. 3) The Proiect is inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zoning Code in several respects. 0 a) The traffic and parking assessments improperly rely upon the specific immediate proposed use of the expanded structure. At the time of a building expansion, the correct and conservative way to assess traffic and parking impacts is against the use or uses that would create the greatest demand. Only then can the City and neighbors be protected f om a change of use that creates significant new impacts and no means to have them corrected. Staff Resaonse to Ground 3a The City Traffic Engineer's August 25, 2008 report, at page 4, states: "A letter prepared by an independent land use planner suggets that a traffic study should be prepared that reviews the impact of all permitted uses allowed on this site. This would indicate thatt the intended use is not known at this time .... It is not standard practice to prepare a traffic study in this manner, especially when the land use and project scale have been determined. It should be noted that industrial, office and manufacturing uses would generate fewer trips for a project of similar size project." Furthermore, neither the IZO nor CEQA requires study of future speculative uses that are not proposed as part of the project. b) The site is designated as Mixed Use in both the current General Plan and current zoning. The standards and assumptions of what constitutes "mixed use" have changed with the adoption of these neiv documents, with a call for uses that provide a robust combination of retail, office, and/or residential. But the Project as approved only provides for one specific medical office use in the entire structure. Not only does this appear inconsistent with the General Plan, the Project file contains no substantive analysis of applicable General Plan policies to support any finding of consistency. Staff ReSDonse to Ground 3b The General Plan does call for a robust combination or retail, office, and/or residential uses however it does not require the mix of uses to be part of a single project. The subject property is within a mixed use land use designation and zoning district which allows for a mixture of uses within the area of the land use designation. As noted in the December 11, 2008 SPARC staff report, the proposed office use meets the intent of this General Plan land use designation, which applies to areas, not specifically buildings. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities and encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. The subject property is zoned MU1C (Mixed Use). The MUl zone is consistent with and implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential uses within the classification. The MUIC zone is applied 0 to smaller parcels located in West Petaluma. Most of these parcels are located in residential areas and the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is limited. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning district. 4) The Proiect was inmronerly Drocessed under CEOA as Cateeo•ically Exempt, when all Initial Studv should have been DreDared. a) The Project was not subjected to any CEQA review based upon qualifying as a Categorical Exeniption. But all Categorical Exemptions are subject to some limitations. A Categorical Exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. There is already an enormous amount of it formation in the record to support the argument that significant traffic and safely innpacts may occur. Many of these were submitted by neighbors, and include specific factual information and observations. The second test is whether those potentially significant innpacts are related to sone unusual circumstance. The Project submittals and the staff reports make it very clear that marry of the concerns relative to parking and site access/circulation are a result of the existing non-standard parking and circulation plan that results in a one-witentrance and one way exist ill all area of non-standard street design and increasing use. That is combined with the non -conforming nature of the existing structure that impacts neighbor and frn•ther constrains parking and circulation. The location of such a problenn on a corner lot also limits the means of dealing with those problems through setbacks or other means. Since the two standards can be reasonably argued to apply, the Project should not have been addressed through any type of Categorical Exeniption. It is also relevant that no discussion or fnndhrgs are evident in the Project file as to whether these issues were considered before proceeding with a Categorical Exeniption b) The use of Categorical Exeniption Class I (e) (2) is incorrect, since the Project does not meet the essential test of that exemption. Class 1 (e) (2) deals with nnodifrcation or limited expansion of an existing use. Wide Guidelines 15301 provides a runnber of etanrples, the Guidelines note that "tire key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use ". The doubling in size of a building that is already a non -conforming structure with a non -conforming use is hardly a negligible expansion. c) The necessary requirements to use Categorical Exemption Class I (e) (2) were not considered and are not present in this case. The 10,000 square foot trigger is allowed only if two situations exist. The first requirement is that the project "is hn an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for nurxinnun development permissible in the General Plan. " As noted above, the neighbors have provided large announts of evidence relative to the problems with both traffic and parking in the area. Ironically, it appears the public parking will be worened with the approval of the Project, since the City proposes to red stripe the project frontage to improve sight distance at the enby/exit points. The City has already acknowledged the substandard streets in the area, an existing speeding problem, the proximity of local schools, and cnanulative unmitigated significant impacts on kev intersections into the area resulting fr•onr General Plan build -out. Neighbors have also raised concern regarding the adequacy of the storm drain system serving the area. TAile the Project proposes to manage lot -to -lot drainage, there is no discussion or assessment of the existing storm drain system. One of the few references is that the applicant will 10 increase the storm drain size to meet City standards, but only on Project frontage. The obvious conclusion is that the storm drains both above and below the Project site have storm drains that do not meet City standards. Similar evidence was cited regarding wastewater lines, street parking, and turn movements. Given all these factors that are already in the record and not disputed by the City, is it impossible to claim that all public facilities exist in the area to serve build -out, and therefore Categorically Exempt I (e) (2) cannot be used. Given the above, my clients believe the Project could not and should not have been approved by SPARC. Allany of these issues were reflected in the prior appeal, but not considered given the overarching issues of General Plan and Zoning consistency. There are multiple inconsistencies with and violations of the current Zoning Code. There are multiple conflicts with the SPARC policies and standards. There are various critical decisions that are not supported by any facts or discussion in the record. The most reasonable solution is to deny the application for the reasons cited above. Staff Response Ground 4 a, b, and c. The proposed project was subject to CEQA review. The proposed project was determined to be "categorically exempt" from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There are numerous classifications of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines -Section 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. These types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Examples include but are not limited to: (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition , or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; OR 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. After the proposed expansion, the building will be 6,766 square feet in area; the expansion consists of 3,382 square feet in area, so even after the expansion, the project is under the 10,000 square feet. All public services and facilities are available to the subject property (e.g., water, sewer, electricity, etc). to allow for maximum build -out and the project is not located in an environmentally -sensitive area. Section 15300.2 (c) - Significant Effects states "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." The SPARC committee determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No further environmental review is required. However, SPARC can require additional supplemental information to be provided by the applicant to address specific issues that may arise in the public process. The proposed project clearly falls into the Class 1 exemption. 11 It is also relevant to the requirement that public services and facilities be available that on May 19, 2008, the City Council made findings of fact in connection with approval of the general Plan 2025 by adopting resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. In those findings, the council determined that public services and facilities for citywide development through General Plan build -out were generally sufficient, including water and wastewater service facilities. The City Attorney commented for the record at the September 15th appeal hearing with regards to the CEQA exemption issues that were raised as part of the appeal. Below is the discussion of the City Attorney which clearly states that that there is support in the current records as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption: "The exception that has been talked about is the existing facilities section under 15301, Class 1, of the guidelines. It says that a project may be considered exempt provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 10,000 square feet if. (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. So staff's analysis determination was that the exemption applied. There is support in the record for that. The other issue that was raised under CEQA was the exception to the exemption and that was under section 15300.2. Subdivision C says that a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. So if, for example, the Council were to remand this, one item of direction would be to look at that issue; but I would say that there is support in the current record, as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption, and if it's the council's wish to have more discussion on the exception to the exemption, the council could given that direction. A couple of other brief comments about CEQA raised in Ms. Zoia's letter. She seems to argue that the baseline for CEQA purposes in terms of determining foreseeable impact should be no use, because, I guess, the building is currently vacant; but there is case authority for using as the baseline the permitted use existing at the time, even if it's not in full operation; so I would say that zero use is probably not the appropriate CEQA baseline; but, rather, the current permitted use probably is. I would say, too, that if there's more consideration of the exception to the exemption under 15300.2 that I disagree with Zoia. I think the substantial evidence standard is the applicable standard for considering the exception." 3. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The appellant has paid the $170 appeal fee. Pursuant to Resolution 2004-028 N.C.S., the project applicant, is responsible for any additional costs associated with processing the appeal to the City Council. 12 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL BY SCOT STEGEMAN ON BEHALF OF ALICIA HERRIES AND THE EL ROSE/HAYES LANE COALITION OF THE DECISION OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE NORTHBRIDGE OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT 30 EL ROSE, APN 008-480-039 AND APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on May 22, June 12 and July 24, 2008, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee of the City of Petaluma held public hearings to consider an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Northbridge Office project and associated site improvements at 30 West El Rose, APN 008-480-039. WHEREAS, on July 24, 2008 after considering the public testimony and the application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition; WHEREAS, on September 15, 2008 the Petaluma City Council after considering said appeal and hearing public testimony remanded the proposed project back to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) based on conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS, on December 11, 2008, after considering the public testimony and the revised application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approved the project with conditions; WHEREAS, on December 23, 2008, an appeal of the December 11, 2008 decision of SPARC was filed by Scot Stegeman representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition; WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009 public notice of the February 2, 2009 appeal hearing before the City Council was mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property and to all other interested parties, and a notice of the February 2, 2009 appeal hearing before the City Council was published in the Argus - Courier on January 22, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, has fully considered all evidence presented at the public hearing of this appeal, as well as all oral and written evidence contained in the full record of proceedings on this matter, and on that basis denies the appeal of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes lane Coalition filed with the City on December 23, 2008 ("Second Appeal'), challenging approval of the Northbridge Office Project located at 30 West El Rose Drive, AON 008-480-039 ("the project'). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, (CEQA Guidelines") §§ 15301 (e) (2) and/or 15303 (c), and that there are neither unusual circumstances nor a significant cumulative impact on the environment resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, so as to create an exception to the use of the exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15300.2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in adopting CEQA findings for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 in resolution 2008-084 N.C.S. on May 19, 2008, the City Council found that public services and facilities, including 13 water and waste water facilities, were generally available and sufficient to serve build -out of the city, including the area in which this project is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that impacts of the project on traffic are less than significant based on detailed information and reports prepared by the city's traffic engineer; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the following findings and associated conditions of approval of the project as a basis for its denial of the Second Appeal and approval of the CEQA exemption for the project: Findings: 1. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. 2. The proposed modifications as conditioned will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with the Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code and the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed structure and site plan, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the addition is in harmony and proportion to the [should residence be plural if it means the surrounding homes?] existing residence and surrounding structures, b. The architectural style is appropriate for the addition and is compatible with the existing residence and other structures in the immediate neighborhood, c. The siting of the addition structure is comparable to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and d. The bulk, height, and color of the addition is comparable to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. 14 4. The landscaping as conditioned conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (2) and is in keeping with the character and design of the site. Existing trees are being preserved and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee and/or pursuant to the landscaping plan. 5. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street facilities and pedestrian ways as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (3). As ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, and off-street facilities is an existing condition the project as conditioned does not create additional safety or inconvenience and conforms to approved City standards. 6. The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), § 15301(e)(2), which allows for minor alterations of existing public or private structures as well as minor additions because the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet, the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive. There are no unusual circumstances nor is there a significant cumulative impact on the environment resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, so as to create an exception to the use of the exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2. Conditions of Avoroval: From the Planning Division: 1. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans approved by the SPARC Committee on December 11, 2008 and date stamped December 1, 2008, by the City of Petaluma for review by the Planning Division. 2. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a plan sheet, which shall contain all conditions of approval for review by the Planning Department. 3. The windows on the north elevation shall have a 39" sill height on plans submitted for building permit. 4. The trash enclosure is not approved in its proposed location as it does not conform to the required setbacks for detached accessory structures. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a revised location/design for the trash enclosure. Said trash enclosure shall be located on the east elevation (on the side adjacent to the medical offices property) and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 5. Plans submitted for building permit shall illustrate parking for four bicycles. Said bike parking shall be located close to the entrance and under the cover walkway. Said bike rack shall be inverted U bike rack(s) per the bike plan. 6. This project may be subject to the City of Petaluma's Public Art Ordinance (Ordinance NCS 2022). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any "construction or reconstruction project" as defined in the Public Art Ordinance, the applicant shall submit a completed Public Art Compliance Form to demonstrate the anticipated manner of compliance with the Public Art Ordinance. See the attached Public Art Inforniation Packet for more details. 7. All construction activities shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Only interior work, within closed framed walls, is allowed on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 15 Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City for additional hours and/or days. 8. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be fully visually screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 9. Signs are not approved as part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform to Zoning Ordinance specifications. 10. The applicant shall be subject to the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees; the following Development Impact fees: Storm Drain, School Facilities and Traffic Mitigation fees; the Public Art fee (per the Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2202) and Commercial Linkage fee. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which time, other pertinent fees that may be applicable to the proposed project may be required. 11. Any proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and shall be subject to staff review and approval at time of building permit. All lights to the building shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be directed downward and shall conform to City Performance Standards. 12. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management Techniques for the protection of pedestrians/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. From Public Works (En2ineerin2): 13. Repair or replace any broken or displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter along the entire frontage. 14. The drainage area west of the existing building, between the property line and driveway, shall be directed to the front parking lot. 15. Construct a curb along the rear parking area to prevent lot to lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 NOB Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-025). 16. Re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024. 17. Direct the entire runoff from the roof to El Rose Drive as proposed in the drainage report. From Public Works (Traffic En2ineer) 18. All new on-site parking shall be designed in accordance with the Parking Design Standards of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Procedures and Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 19. The proposed project all existing points of access shall remain, without changes to direction of traffic flow. 16 20. The project shall provide or contribute to the provision for Class III bike lane facility along the frontage with West El Rose Drive and Hayes Lane per the adopted Bike Plan. As this route remains largely proposed a route at this time, applicant shall provide "Share the Road" signage on both street frontages. 21. All pedestrian facilities along the project frontage and throughout the site development shall be ADA complaint. 22. The site shall meet the appropriate ADA disabled parking standard, in both number and accommodation. 23. The site shall meet the appropriate City standard for bicycle facilities, in both number and acconniodation. 24. The site shall be improved as such to maintain a minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle approaching the exiting driveway onto Hayes Lane from West El Rose Drive. Sheet SP -8 of the project plan set depicts the sight line to be used. This shall include, at a minimum: a. Clearing and trimming of existing vegetation and trees within the sight line, with continued maintenance thereof. b. Provision for new low profile ground cover along the crest of the parking lot slope, adjacent to the sidewalk, with continued maintenance thereof. c. On -street parking prohibition along the project frontage, via red curb, for the length of the sight line. From Water Resources & Conservation: 25. Proposed utilities shall be approved by the Department of Water Resources and conservation and be adequately designed for domestic, fire and irrigation demands. 26. The proposed 12 inch stonn drain pipe, on El Rose Drive, shall be increased to 15 inches to comply with city design standards. From the Fire Marshal: 27. SPRINKLERS- All commercial building/s (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office (FMO) for review and approval. Separate fire underground plans shall also be submitted for review and approval by the FMO. FS -2 28. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- If any facility or business uses or store chemicals exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Code. A completed plan must be submitted prior bringing hazardous materials onsite. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary containment and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. Standard SPARC Conditions of Approval 17 29. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim, or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 30. Public utility access and casement locations and widths shall be subject to approval by PG&E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans. 31. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 32. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Criteria, 33. All work within the public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from Public Works. 34. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 35. All conditions of the Building Division, Engineering Department and Fire MarshaI's office shalt be adhered to. 36. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 37. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22-301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan. 38. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors. Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls (overflow scuppers are accepted). 1191645.1 ID This page has intentionally been left blank. TIEI .f'SCI:f�TES LAND USE PLANNING a ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS December 22, 2008 Appeal of SPARC approval of December 11, 2008. Northbridge Offices, 30 West EI Rose APN: 008-480-039 File: 08 -SPC -0048 -CR A•TiACHMENT 2 1 DEC 2 3 2008•. N t This appeal is being filed as provided for in Zoning Code §24.070 on behalf of Alicia Heroes and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. This appeal requests that the City Council reverse the SPSRC approval of July 24, and deny the project as inconsistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, SPARC Guidelines, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Issues pertinent to the appeal 1) SPARC did not provide an obiective and independent review of the new submittal. The City Council previously tools up on an appeal of this project from a previous SPARC approval on July 24 of 2008. That appeal was based, in part, upon the staff, applicant, and SPARC concurrance that the project was to be judged against the prior General Plan/Zoning rather than the new ones in force at the time of SPARC action. The City Council referred the project back to SPARC for reconsideration under the new General Plan and Zoning. But there was confusion as to whether the scope of review by SPARC was limited to only issues related to the new General Plan and Zoning Code. 2) The Proiect is inconsistent with the current Zoning Code in several resnects. a) The Staff Report and applicant's submittals proceeded based upon bringing the project into consistency with the new General Plan and Zoning Code, but the application continues to rely upon retaining legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot, and the connecting driveway. This is incorrect, since the previous Zoning Code provisions regarding legal non -conforming uses and structures call for a site to lose that status if the use is abandoned for a stated period of time. In this case, the vacancy of the building and absence of any use by a tenant or owner means all legal non -conforming status has been lost for such uses on the site. This leaves the Project site as inconsistent with the Code, and the project site use would have to be redesigned to reflect Code requirements for size, location, and orientation of parking spaces.. b) The SPARC Guidelines provide extensive detail on the design and operation of panting lots. These include specific standards regarding loading zones for truck 707.823.1925® FAX 707.823.6661 1430 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD © SEBASTOPOL. CA 95472 deliveries, which require at least one loading space be provided that does not conflict with conventional parking spaces. Even assuming that legal non -conforming status remained in place, the SPARC Guidelines have specific standards regarding building expansions require that such spaces be provided at that time. While there are provisions for exceptions, none of the criteria apply in this case, such an argument was never made in the staff reports, and no findings that waive the requirement are in the SPARC Resolutions of Approval. c) The SPARC Guidelines conflict with the convoluted parking plan provided in the back comer in order to provide the necessary parking spaces. The Site Plans show 7 spaces located in this confined area, and depict extremely complicated tum movement sequences that are necessary to enter and exit, all of which would only work if one vehicle was attempting to enter or exit. Not only does this create an unsafe parking situation, but it is contrary to Zoning Code requirements that each parking space be accessible from a driveway or aisle that is. "sufficient for readily turning and moving automobiles". d) The four enclosed new spaces provided under the building are shown with two of the spaces being 9 feet wide and one space as 8 feet wide. This is inconsistent with SPRAC requirements that any covered spaces be 10 feet wide. These spaces cannot be credited against the number of needed spaces unless they are brought into conformity. e) The proposed driveway entrance violates the SPARC requirement that there be 20 feet between a site entrance and the fust parking space. While this standard would not apply to a legal non -conforming parking lot, the legal non -conforming status and protection has been lost, as noted above. 3) The Proiect is inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zonine Code is several respects. a) The traffic and panting assessments improperly rely upon the specific immediate proposed use of the expanded structure. At the time of a building expansion, the correct and conservative way to assess traffic and parking impacts is against the use or uses that would create the greatest demand. Only then can the City and neighbors be protected from a change of use that creates significant new impacts and no means to have them corrected. b) The site is designated as Mxed Use in both the current General Plan and current Zoning Code. The standards and assumptions of what constitutes "mixed use" have changed with the adoption of these new documents, with a call for uses that provide a robust combination of retail, office, and/or residential. But the Project as approved only provides for one specific medical office use in the entire structure. Not only does this appear inconsistent with the General Plan, the Project file contains no substantive analysis of applicable General Plan policies to support any finding of consistency. Northridge Offices, SPARC rtppeal, December 23, 2008 4) The Project was improperly processed under CEQA as Categorically Exempt, when an Initial Study should have been prepared. a) The Project was not subjected to any CEQA review based upon qualifying as a Categorical Exemption. But all Categorical Exemptions are subject to some limitations. A Categorical Exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. There is already an enormous amount of information in the record to support the argument that there significant traffic and safety impacts may occur. Many of these were submitted by neighbors, and include specific factual information and observations. The second test is whether those potentially significant impacts are related to some unusual circumstance. The Project submittals and the staff reports make it very clear that many of the concerns relative to parking and site access/circulation are a result of the existing non-standard parking and circulation plan that results in a one-way entrance and one way exist in an area of non-standard street design and increasing use. That is combined with the non -conforming nature of the existing structure that impacts neighbors and further constrains parking and circulation. The location of such a problem on a comer lot also limits the means of dealing with those problems through setbacks or other means. Since the two standards can be reasonably argued to apply, the Project should not have been addressed through any type of Categorical Exemption. It is also relevant that no discussion or findings are evident in the Project file as to whether these issues were considered before proceeding with a Categorical Exemption. ' b) The use of Categorical Exemption Class 1 (e) (2) is incorrect, since the Project does not meet the essential test of that exemption. Class 1(e)(2) deals with modification or limited expansion of an existing use. While Guidelines §15301 provides a number of examples, the Guidelines notes that "the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use". The doubling in size of a building that is already a non -conforming structure with a non -conforming use is hardly a negligible expansion. c) The necessary requirements to use Categorical Exemption Class 1(e)(2) were not considered and are not present in this case. The 10,000 square foot trigger is allowed only if two situations exist. The fust requirement is that the project "is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan". As noted above, the neighbors have provided large amounts of evidence relative to the problems with both traffic and parking in the area. Ironically, it appears the public parking will be worsened with the approval of the Project, since the City proposes to red stripe the project frontage to improve sight distance at the entry/exit points. The City has already acknowledged the substandard streets in the area, Northridge Offices, SPARC appeal, December23,2008 W-1 an existing speeding problem, the proximity of local schools, and cumulative unmitigated significant impacts on key intersections into the area resulting from General Plan buildout. Neighbors have also raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the storm drain system serving the area. While the Project proposes to manage lot -to -lot drainage, there is no discussion or assessment of the existing stormdrain system. One of the few references is that the applicant will increase the stone drain size to meet City standards, but only on Project frontage. The obvious conclusion is that the storm drains both above and below the Project site have storm drains that do not meet City standards. Similar evidence was cited regarding wastewater lines, street parking, and tum movements. Given all these factors that are already in the record and not disputed by the City, it is impossible to claim that all public facilities exist in the area to serve buildout, and therefore Categorical Exemption l(e)(2) cannot be used. Given the -above, my clients believe the Project could not and should not have been approved by SPARC. Many of these issues were reflected in the prior appeal, but not considered given the overarching issues of General Plan and Zoning consistency. There are multiple inconsistencies with and violations of the current Zoning .Code. There are multiple conflicts with the SPARC policies and standards. There are various critical decisions that are not supported by any facts or discussion in the record. The most reasonable solution is to deny the application for the reasons sited above. Sincerely, Scot Stegeman Northridge Offices, SPARC appeal, December 23, 2008 ATTAC H 11/6 E=NT 3 1 CITY OF PETALUMA� CALIFOAS 2 MEMORANDUM 3 4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fax(707)778-4498 E-mail: planning@cLpetalumaca us 7 DATE: December 11, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV 8 9 TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 10 11 FROM: Irene T. Borba, Associate Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a proposal to construct an addition to the existing office 14 structure at 30 West El Rose Drive, APN 008-480-039, (File 08 -SPC -0048 -CR) 15 16 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 19 The SPARC Committee approved the proposed project/design on July 24, 2008. SPARC 20 approved the project which included additional conditions of approval, Conditions #3 and #4 21 which had to do with the window sill height and landscaping as well as two additional findings 22 (Findings 5 & 6) pertaining to ingress/egress and landscaping. The SPARC decision was 23 appealed by neighboring property owners to the City Council. The City Council at its meeting of 24 September 15, 2008 heard the appeal and remanded the project back to SPARC solely on 25 conformance with the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 26 27 Staff has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the 28 Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with 29 the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Site 30 Plan and Architectural Review Committee approve the proposed project based on the draft 31 findings and conditions of approval (see Attachments A and B, Draft Findings and Conditions of 32 Approval). 33 34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 35 36 The applicant is proposing an addition to the footprint of the existing structure and a new second 37 story addition. The existing structure is 3,310 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing an 38 addition of 3,684 square feet (6,994 gross square feet in area). The proposal includes 39 modifications to the existing landscaping for the site. 40 41 Attached is a letter from Mary Dooley, the project architect (Attachment C) which describes the 42 changes that have been made to the project in response to the appeal heard by the City Council. 43 Ms. Dooley notes that the project proposal meets the goals and objectives of the 2025 General 44 Plan as an infill and adaptive reuse project that intensifies use and will be a green building. The 45 improvements meet all the requirements and will be a conforming structure with the removal of Page I ?-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 the portion of the existing building from the 15 foot setback. The changes to the site and building are as follows: 1. Demolish portion of building in 15 foot setback 2. Reduce waiting room to fall within 15 foot setback 3. Added area to north side to make a transition between plaster and wood siding. 4. Add area to south face of ground floor at Suite C. 5. Shifted accessible parking closer to entrance by one stall. 6. Add planters in front of three parking stalls. 7. Relocate trash enclosure to West El Rose entry side. 8. Revise design of trash enclosure with flat roof 9. Added trees at previous trash enclosure location to the west of the building 10. The landscaping has not changed substantially. The changes to the landscaping are reflected on both the landscape plan and the elevation and will provide more screening. The applicant notes that they have contacted the adjacent neighboring property owners the neighbors, the Gaffney's and the Harris' since the July SPARC meeting to get input from them on the planting on the north property line for alternate evergreen tree species. The Gaffney's responded but did not comment on the planting proposal. The applicant notes that the Harris' response inferred that they were not happy with the proposed solution. 11. Changes to the civil drawings were made to reflect the change to the building footprint, trash enclosure and the parking layout. BACKGROUND The proposed project was originally received by the Community Development Department on February 8, 2008. The application request was for Site Plan and Architectural Review for an addition and associated site improvements for the subject property at 30 West El Rose. The application was deemed complete on April 21, 2008. The project was heard by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) on May 22, June 12, and July 24, 2008. SPARC meeting of May 22, 2008 (refer to City website to view meeting video). The following occurred at the May 22nd meeting: ❖ Staff and the project applicant presented the proposed project to the Committee. •S The Committee opened the Public Hearing. The following are some of the issues/concems that were raised: ✓ potential blockage of neighbor's solar panels; ✓ water drainage; ✓ the design and appropriateness of the proposed design with the site and surrounding neighborhood; ✓ shading; ✓ lighting; ✓ parking and increased traffic and ✓ privacy. ❖ The public hearing was closed. The Committee requested that the item be continued to the June 12th SPARC meeting date. The Committee did not provide any comments or direction to staff or the applicant on the proposed project. Page 2 M 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 SPARC meetinu of June 12, 2008, (refer to City website to view meeting video). The following occurred at the June 12th meeting: ❖ Chair Mills recapped the meeting of May 22nd and noted that the public hearing would be reopened and asked that comments be limited to new items/topics. ❖ The applicantlarchitect for the project then presented some revisions to the project from the May 22"d meeting. The public hearing was reopened. Following are some of the issues/concerns raised by the public: ✓ impacts on neighboring properties; ✓ opposition to the height/second story; ✓ privacy concerns; ✓ location of trash enclosure to neighboring property; ✓ traffic; ✓ intrusion into existing view sheds and ✓ new general plan and zoning and the hillside ordinance. The public hearing was closed and the committee commented on the project. Although there was not Committee consensus, the Committee made the following comments: ✓ that not all of the options had been explored ✓ look at the roof pitch and the surroundings ✓ further reduce the mass of the building ✓ break the box look of the building by using eaves ✓ make the building more contextual ✓ institutional look of the building jumps up and out, look at adding eaves, or different materials such as wood or brick ✓ there was also a discussion about the amount of glass on the building or . insetting the windows ✓ carry the planter boxes around to 1'` story it help soften the building and or set the planters back ✓ it was asked that a demonstration of the landscaping be provided in the elevation view ✓ privacy can be addressed with landscaping and obscure glass and ✓ there was a brief discussion of reversing the flow of the parking ❖ The project architect recapped what she had heard from the committee: ✓ Setback planter from the west wall ✓ Awning details to soften the building ✓ Look at contextual eave on south side ✓ Create depth to glass on south side ✓ Reduce height wherever possible ✓ Discuss landscaping at back with the neighbors ✓ Look into a trellis structure along the north elevation ✓ Look at color palettes -warm earthy tomes ✓ Maintenance agreement with neighbor (Gaffney's) ✓ Window sills at a lower level on I" floor. Show fence to sill location ✓ Look at new fence at north property line SPARC meetine of Julv 24`x' (refer to City website to view meeting video). The following occurred at the July 24d' meeting: Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ❖ The project applicant presented their revisions and noted their interpretation of SPARC's comments of June 12th, which was to; soften the architecture, reduce the scale to better match the existing context as well as noting the specifics to be looked at include: the details of the planters, awnings, windows, and landscaping. Areas of further study by the applicant included; colors, eave details which were the most significant change; site lighting and the north elevation landscape and fence in relation to the adjacent residences. Chair Mills again opened the Public Hearing. The following issues/concerns were raised: ✓ Loss of sunlight and privacy ✓ Traffic ✓ Questioned ability of committee to make the findings ✓ Appropriateness of the building with the site and surroundings ✓ Project can't be categorically exempt from CEQA ✓ Parking was questioned ✓ Non -conforming status was questioned ✓ General plan and zoning inconsistencies ❖ Public hearing was closed. •'s The committee made their comments on the project and a motion was made by Committee member Kosewic and seconded by committee member Rittenhouse to approve the project with the addition of two conditions of approval regarding windows and landscaping (Conditions 3 & 4). Committee member Elias requested two additional findings be added to the motion concerning ingress/egress and landscaping (Findings 5 & 6). The Committee approved the project based on the fact that the project had evolved with each of the iterations. It had been pulled back lessening the impacts to the neighbors. The project site is within a mixed-use area and there is diversity within the area. The design is appropriate for a mixed use area. The design is appropriate with the other commercial uses in the area. The project is consistent with the zoning and general plan. The committee did add two additional findings to support their decision on landscaping and parking and ingress/egress (Findings 5 & 6). The majority of the committee had no issues with the ingress/egress and the parking as they exist. They liked the architecture and could make all of the findings. The Committee approved the project on a vote of 4:1 with Committee member Elias being the no vote. Anneal Filed An appeal was filed on August 6, 2008 by Scot Stegeman on behalf of Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition. The City Council heard the appeal on September 15, 2008. The City Council remanded the project back to SPARC for further review (refer to City website to view meeting video) to address the project's conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regards to the non -conforming structure provision. The City Attorney commented for the record at the September 15th appeal hearing with regards to the CEQA exemption issues that were raised as part of the appeal. Below is the discussion of the City Attorney which clearly finds that that there is support in the current records as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption: "The exception that has been talked about is the existing facilities section under 15301, Class 1, of the guidelines. It says that a project may be considered exempt provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 10,000 square feet if: (A) The Page 4 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 project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. So staff's analysis determination was that the exemption applied. There is support in the record for that. The other issue that was raised under CEQA was the exception to the exemption and that was under section 15300.2. Subdivision C says that a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. So if, for example, the Council were to remand this, one item of direction would be to look at that issue; but I would say that there is support in the current record, as there was for SPARC for applying the exemption, and if it's the council's wish to have more discussion on the exception to the exemption, the council could given that direction. A couple of other brief comments about CEQA raised in Ms. Zoia's letter. She seems to argue that the baseline for CEQA purposes in terms of determining foreseeable impact should be no use, because, I guess, the building is currently vacant; but there is case authority for using as the baseline the permitted use existing at the time, even if it's not in full operation; so I would say that zero use is probably not the appropriate CEQA baseline; but, rather, the current permitted use probably is. I would say, too, that if there's more consideration of the exception to the exemption under 15300.2 that I disagree with Zoia. I think the substantial evidence standard is the applicable standard for considering the exception." STAFF ANALYSIS Zonin¢ and General Plan Consistencv General Plan - The 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subj ect property is Mixed Use (2.5 maximum FAR). This land use classification allows for a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/of offices. The proposed office use meets the intent of this General Plan land use designation which applies to areas not specifically buildings. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities and encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following General Plan Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. Goal 9-G-1: Economic Health & Sustainability. Establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents and employers. 9-P-2 Ensure new commercial development will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing business, city finances and quality of life. 9-P-3 Provide an array of employment opportunities to existing and future residents by assuring diversity in Petaluma's industry and enterprise mix. 9-P-9 Incorporate sustainability as a characteristic of Petaluma's image. Page 5 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Zoning (IZO)- The subject property is zoned MU1C (Mixed Use). The MUl zone is consistent with and implements the Mixed Use land use classification of the General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 for both residential and non-residential uses within the classification. The MU1C zone is applied to smaller parcels located in West Petaluma. Most of these parcels are located in residential areas and the intensity of the uses permitted in this zone is limited. Development Standards for the MUl District - Front yard setback -0'. Per the definition of the current zoning ordinance, the front for a comer lot is defined as, "a line separating the narrowest lot frontage of the lot from the street." Therefore, the front of the subject property is Hayes Lane. The proposed project is consistent with the front setback requirement. Side yard setback (interior) - 0", except when abutting an R District then, 15 ft plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property is adjacent to an R District. The project as proposed meets the required setback. The applicant has also submitted an exhibit with regards to the setback and height requirements (Attachment C): Side yard setback (street) - 0'. With the exception of the trash enclosure, the proposed project is consistent with the O'setback requirement. Staff has conditioned that the applicant work with staff to relocate the trash enclosure to comply with the setback requirement (refer to draft Condition #5). Rear yard setback- 0', except when abutting an R District, then 15 ft plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet. The subject property at the rear setback is not adjacent to an R District. The proposed project meets the 0' rear setback requirement. Heieht Limit 30'. The maximum height limit is 30' for the principal building in this zoning district. The implementing zoning also notes that `when he building is more than 30 feet from an abutting property line, one additional foot of height is permitted with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet for a maximum building height of 45 feet. Per the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Building Height is defined as: "Measured as the vertical distance between the average finish grade and the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a gambrel, hip or gable roof, or the highest point of a flat or shed roof, or the ridge of the roofline of a mansard roof. When either of the following occurs, a dormer shall also be considered a roof for the purposes of determining building height: • The width of the roof of the dormer exceeds 49% of the width of the roof of the building; or • The width of the dormer measured from the building wall to building wall exceeds 49% of the width of the building measured from building wall to building wall. All building elevations are required to comply with the height limit for the zoning district in which the property is located." The proposed project meets the maximum height requirement. The applicant has also submitted an exhibit that illustrates compliance with the setback and height requirements (Attachment Q. Page 6 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 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 FAR (Floor Area Ratio). The maximum FAR allowed is 2.5. At .32 FAR, the proposed project meets this requirement. The applicant provided the FAR calculations which are provided in Attachment C. Parking. The IZO (Chapter 11) requires 1 parking stall for each 200 sq.ft., of floor area for medical services -minor. "Floor area in the case of offices, merchandising or service types of uses means the gross area used or intended to be used by tenants, or for service to the public as customers, patrons, clients, or patients including areas occupied by fixtures and equipment used for display or sales of merchandise. It does not include areas used principally for non-public purposes, such as storage and incidental repair " The deduction of mechanical and storage areas from the square footage is acceptable to determine the required parking. It is the committee's policy to allow an applicant up to a 15% reduction to reflect services and storage areas. A breakdown of the area calculations are as follows: Area Calculation Ground Floor Existing: 290 sf (converted this storage area space to parking stall) Ground Floor New: -66 sf (net loss of mechanical space under building) 1St Floor Existing: 1St Floor New: 2nd Floor New: Total floor Area: 3,287 sf 583 sf 2,825 sf 6,939 sf 15% MechlStorage: 1,040 sf Area for parking calculation: 5,898 sf 200sf per car required: 29.5 cars Total proposed parking: 30 spaces The project meets the required number of parking stalls. Hillside Protection (IZO Chanter 16). Chapter 16 (Hillside Protection) of the IZO not applicable to the proposed project as it only applies to properties zoned RR, RI, R2, R3, R4 and R5 and PUD. PUBLIC NOTICE A notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier on November 27, 2008. Notices were also sent to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property as well as to and interested parties. At the writing of this staff report no written comments have been received. Page 7 W 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ATTACHMENTS A. "Draft" Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings B. "Draft" Site Plan and Architectural Review Conditions of Approval C. Correspondence from Mary Dooley Letter dated October 30, 2008 E-mail dated October 20, 2008 pertaining to setbacks and height. E-mail dated November 10, 2008 pertaining to F.A.R. D. Plans sAplanning\sparc�reports\30 west el rose december 2008 Page 8 M 1 ATTACHMENT A 2 3 "DRAFT" SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS 4 NORTHBRIDGE OFFICES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WEST EL ROSE DRIVE 5 AND HAYES LANE AT 30 WEST EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-480-039, FILE # 08 -SPC - 6 0048 -CR 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 December 11, 2008 Findings: 1. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC), authorizes the construction for an addition for the subject property located at the comer of West El Rose and Hayes Lane, 30 West El Rose Drive, APN 008-480-039. 2. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the 2025 Petaluma General Plan. The 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Use (2.5 maximum FAR). This land use classification allows for a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/of offices. The proposed office use meets the intent of this General Plan land use designation. The General Plan contains objectives and policies which foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities and encourage the use of commercial lands for economic activities that contribute to local employment and income and which encourages small and locally owned businesses. The proposed project meets the intent of the following Policies and Programs: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. 3. The proposed project will conform to the development standards of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The project as proposed meets the setback, height, FAR (floor area ratio) and parking requirements of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed modifications as conditioned will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with the Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code and the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 5. The proposed structure and site plan, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (Standards for Review) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the addition is in harmony and proportion to the existing residence and surrounding structures, b. The architectural style is appropriate for the addition and is compatible with the existing residence and other structures in the immediate neighborhood, C. The siting of the addition structure is comparable to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and d. The bulk, height, and color of the addition is comparable to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. 6. The landscaping as conditioned conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 26-406 (B) and is in keeping with the character and design of the site. Existing trees are being preserved and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee and/or pursuant to the landscaping plan. 7. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street facilities and pedestrian ways as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 24.010 (G) (Standards for Review). As ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, and off-street facilities is.an existing condition the project as conditioned does not create additional safety or inconvenience and conforms to approved City standards. 8. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to section 15301, Class 1, (e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which allows for minor alteration of existing public or private structures as well as minor additions provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The proposed project complies with the above noted CEQA exemption and therefore no further environmental review is required. Page 10 0 1 ATTACHMENT B 3 3 "DRAFT" SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF 4 APPROVAL 5 NORTHBRIDGE OFFICES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WEST EL ROSE DRIVE 6 AND HAYES LANE AT 30 WEST EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-480-039, FILE # 08 -SPC - 7 0048 -CR 8 9 December 11, 2008 10 11 From the Plannine Division: 12 13 1. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans 14 approved by the SPARC Committee on December 11, 2008 and date stamped December 15 1, 2008, by the City of Petaluma for review by the Planning Division. 16 17 2. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a plan sheet, which shall contain all 18 conditions of approval for review by the Planning Department. 19 20 3. The windows on the north elevation shall have a 39" sill height on plans submitted for 21 building permit. 22 23 4. Within 60 days of the project approval, the project applicant and the adjacent 24 neighboring property owners, the Gaf ney's and Harris's shall agree on a specific 25 evergreen tree to be planted for screening purposes at the rear of the building. If an 26 agreement on a specific evergreen tree is not agreed upon, the Site Plan and 27 Architectural Review Committee approves the proposed landscaping plan as submitted. 28 29 5. The trash enclosure is not approved in its proposed location as it does not conform to the 30 required setbacks for detached accessory structures. Plans submitted for building permit 31 shall include a revised location/design for the trash enclosure. Said trash enclosure shall 32 be located on the west elevation (on the side adjacent to the medical offices property) 33 and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 34 35 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall illustrate parking for four bicycles. Said bike 36 parking shall be located close to the entrance and under the cover walkway. Said bike 37 rack shall be inverted U bike rack(s) per the bike plan. 38 39 7. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a detail of the lattice structure to be 40 installed at the north property line behind the existing garage on the adjacent property. 41 42 8. This project may be subject to the City of Petaluma's Public Art Ordinance (Ordinance 43 NCS 2022). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any "construction or 44 reconstruction project" as defined in the Public Art Ordinance, the applicant shall submit Page 11 Eo 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 a completed Public Art Compliance Form to demonstrate the anticipated manner of compliance with the Public Art Ordinance. See the attached Public Art Information Packet for more details. 9. All construction activities shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Only interior work, within closed framed walls, is allowed on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City for additional hours and/or days. 10. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit and shall be fully visually screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 11. Signs are not approved as part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform to Zoning Ordinance specifications. 12. The applicant shall be subject to the following Special Development Fees: Sewer and Water Connection, Community Facilities, Storm Drain, School Facilities, Traffic Mitigation fees and the Public Art fee (per the Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2202). Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which time, other pertinent fees that maybe applicable to the proposed project maybe required. 13. Any proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall be shown on building permit plans and shall be subject to staff review and approval at time of building permit. All lights to the building shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be directed downward and shall conform to City Performance Standards. 14. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management Techniques for the protection of pedestrians/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. From Public Works (EngineerinO: 15. Repair or replace any broken or displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter along the entire frontage. 16. The drainage area west of the existing building, between the property line and driveway, shall be directed to the front parking lot. 17. Construct a curb along the rear parking area to prevent lot to lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 16 NOB Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-025). 18. Re -grade rear of property to prevent lot -to -lot surface drainage onto the adjacent parcel identified as 22 Nob Hill Terrace (APN 008-342-024. Page 12 MOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 19. Direct the entire runoff from the roof to El Rose Drive as proposed in the drainage report. From Public Works (Traffic Eneineer) 20. All new on-site parking shall be designed in accordance with the Parking Design Standards of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Procedures and Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 21. The proposed project all existing points of access shall remain, without changes to direction of traffic flow. 22. The project shall provide or contribute to the provision for Class III bike lane facility along the frontage with West El Rose Drive and Hayes Lane per the adopted Bike Plan. As this route remains largely proposed a route at this time, applicant shallprovide "Share the Road" signage on both street frontages. 23. All pedestrian facilities along the project frontage and throughout the site development shall be ADA complaint. 24. The site shall meet the appropriate ADA disabled parking standard, in both number and accommodation. 25. The site shall meet the appropriate City standard for bicycle facilities, in both number and accommodation. 26. The site shall be improved as such to maintain a minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle approaching the exiting driveway onto Hayes Lane from West El Rose Drive. Sheet SP -8 of the project plan set depicts the sight line to be used. This shall include, at a minimum: a. Clearing and trimming of existing vegetation and trees within the sight line, with continued maintenance thereof. b. Provision for new low profile ground cover along the crest of the parking lot slope, adjacent to the sidewalk, with continued maintenance thereof. c. On -street parking prohibition along the project frontage, via red curb, for the length of the sight line. From Water Resources & Conservation: 27. Proposed utilities shall be approved by the Department of Water Resources and conservation and be adequately designed for domestic, fire and irrigation demands. 28. The proposed 12 inch storm drain pipe, on El Rose Drive, shall be increased to 15 inches to comply with city design standards. From the Fire Marshal: Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 29. SPRINKLERS- All commercial buildings (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office (FMO) for review and approval. Separate fire underground plans shall also be submitted for review and approval by the FMO. FS -2 30. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- If any facility or business uses or store chemicals exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Code. A completed plan must be submitted prior bringing hazardous materials onsite. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary containment and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. Standard SPARC Conditions of Approval 31. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim, or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 32. Public utility access and easement locations and widths shall be subject to approval by PG&E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans. 33. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 34. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Criteria. 35. All work within the public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from Public Works. 36. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with Page 14 I other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping 2 requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating 3 condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued 4 regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 5 6 37. All conditions of the Building Division, Engineering Department and Fire Marshal's 7 office shall be adhered to. 8 9 38. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal 10 Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 11 12 39. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified in the 13 Uniform Building Code, Section 22-301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the 14 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan. 15 16 40. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors. Scuppers 17 without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls 18 (overflow scuppers are excepted). 19 20 21 Page 15 8`;� October 30, 2008 Irene Borba, Planner Community Development Department 13 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Re -Submittal of 30 West EI Rose Offices Dear Ms. Borba: ATTACHMENT C CITY OF PETALUMA. oLAW \INGIBUILIOIN VD ET 3 0 2008 PLANNING DIVISSION We are resubmitting plans due to a ruling at the City Council appeal hearing by the City Attorney who decided that our application should have been processed under the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance rather than the previous one. The other major decision by the City Attorney at the appeal hearing was to require that existing non -conforming structures be altered to meet the current zoning. This decision creates an increase in construction costs because it requires the owner to demolish a perfectly functional and structurally sound portion of the existing building. It is not an extreme hardship for this project, but it is not a sustainable approach to infill development and this decision will have a profound impact on any future improvement projects throughout the City of Petaluma. Planning and Architecture: Our project meets the goals and objectives of the 2025 GP as an infill and adaptive reuse project that intensifies use and will be a green building. The improvements meet all the zoning requirements and will be a conforming structure with the removal of the portion of existing building from the 15 foot side yard setback. The building gross area is 6,994 square feet allowing 15% for mechanical and storage needs for 4 suites. The net square footage, which is calculated for parking is 5,945 square feet. (5945 sf divided by 200 sf per car is 29.73 cars). The number of parking spaces provided is 30. The site and building changes are as follows: 1. Demolish portion of building in 15 foot setback. 2. Reduce waiting room to fall within 15 foot setback. 3. Added area to north side to make a transition between plaster and wood siding. 4. Add area to south face of ground floor at Suite C. 5. Shifted accessible parking closer to entrance by one stall. 6. Add planters in front of three parking stalls. 7. Relocate trash enclosure to W. EI Rose entry side. MAD archileclure 145 YELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94952 Tel. 707.765.9222 Fax. 707.765.9290 E. mary@madorc.com 2 8. Revise design of trash enclosure with flat roof. 9. Added trees at previous trash enclosure location to the west of the building. Landscape: The landscape scheme has not changed substantially, however, since the July SPARC hearing, we have contacted both the Harris' and the Gaffney's to get their input on the proposed planting on the north property line. In our correspondence, we described the current scheme and made suggestions for alternate evergreen tree species. The Gaffney's responded, but did not comment on the planting proposal. Their reply focused on the removal of the existing almond tree (that has ivy into the canopy) and potential ideas for building a wall between the two properties. Since the last submittal, the ivy at the base of the tree has been trimmed substantially, and it has been determined that the tree could be retained. This change is reflected on both the landscape plan and the elevation and will provide more screening - especially to the Gaffney property. Additional proposed trees previously shown remain in this area to further screen the building. The Harris' response inferred that they were not happy with the current solution, but did not offer suggestions for an alternative course. Marsha Harris wrote, "Any screening with tall trees will effect my solar. Any screening without tall trees will not provide any privacy." Therefore, we have not made any changes in this area, and stayed with lower scale deciduous trees that will screen views into their property and not effect the solar panels, while allowing more sunlight during the winter months. Civil: Changes were made to the civil drawings to reflect the change to the building footprint, trash enclosure and the parking layout. Sincerely, Mary Dooley MAD architecture MAD architecture 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94 95 2 Tel. 707.765.9222 Fax. 707.765.9290 E. mary@modorc.com Boyba,IrBne From: Sent; To: Subject Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:26 PM Borba, Irene; White, George building heights Building Heigh Interpr.doc; ATT00001.txt Dear Irene and George: The attached document is my interpretation of the setback/ height requirements in the T2D. It is generic and can be applied to any project with this condition. - Let me know if you agree or not. Thank you, Mary Dooley Building Height Interpretation of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance Table 4.10 MU1 and MU2 Zone Development Standards "Setback for interior side yard: abutting an R District: 15 feet plus 1 foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 20 feet." "Height Limit: 30 feet. When the building is more than 30 feet from an abutting property line, one additional foot of height is permitted with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet for a maximum building height of 45 feet." Reference to Chapter 27 - Glossary: "Building Height. Measured as the vertical distance between the average finish grade and the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a gambrel, hip or gable roof, or the highest point of a flat or shed roof, or the ridge of the roofline of a mansard roof. All building elevations are required to comply with the height limit for the zoning district in which the property is located." Intent: To allow additions and improvements to property without adversely effecting solar access, visibility or privacy to neighboring residential zones by stepping buildings back as the height increases. The Hillside Protection section 16.060 Figure 116.% shows a section through site and building that is an example of intent of abutting an R District. Methodology: Previous method of determining building height was based on the current glossary description of Building Height. When the interior side yard setback abutting an R district applies, the Glossary's Building Height measurement method may be in conflict. To avoid this conflict, a building's allowable height would first meet the requirement of abutting an R district. Rather than taking the average finished grade and a single building height, which may not relate to the condition at the abutting R District, the specific conditions are measured between the proposed improvements and the residential property line. The average finished grade may apply to certain projects if the site is flat and the proposed building is parallel to the setback. If the building is 20 feet tall or less at the 15 foot set back, it meets the height requirement. If the building grows in height it must step back 12 inches for every foot over the first 20 feet in height. For example, a building can be can be 30 feet high if that higher portion is set back 25 feet. (Start with the 15 foot setback plus 10 feet additional for the additional 10 feet in height)_ qC-2 The specific wording in the IZO could be improved by explaining the intent and providing a graphic scenario as well as clarifying the Glossary section. Borba, Irene From: mary dooley [mary@madarc.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:12 AM To: Borba, Irene Cc: Mary Dooley Subject: FAR M Irene The FAR is 6994 sf divided 21,745 sf= .32. The allowable FAR is 2.5! When do you think you will be finished? What is the earliest SPARC agenda we can get on? It's not sounding very good on the'agendizing' front. From what I understand, because the project was remanded back to SPARC, SPARC is the only option available. I wish someone could have been clear about that three weeks ago. Why the mystery? Sorry that your husband didn't win his race. For the most part, I was happy with this election. That never happens. rim, Mary On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Borba, Irene wrote: Mary: I am starting to review the re -submittal for 30 West EI Rose. The MU1 zoning district allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5. 1 do not see in your submittal that you provided that information. Please let me know where it is if you already provided it or provide me the appropriate information. If I have further questions, I will let you know. Irene ATTACHMENT 4 City of Petaluma, California Memorandum Public Works, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94.952 (707) 778-4495 Fac(707)776-3602 Email: fpeary(a)cLpetahuna.ca,rrs DATE: August 25, 2008 TO: Irene Borba, Project Planner FROM: Frank Penry, PE, TE, PTOE, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Northbridge Offices; 08 -SPC -0048 -CR This memo is in response to correspondence received for the Northbridge Medical Office project, including the recent appeal to City Council of the project's July 24"i SPARC approval. For clarity, my response is broken into three sections; "Initial Review", `Additional Analysis", and "Conclusions and Recommendations". NOW y : t NT1I n As noted in my previous memo, the project application was reviewed by the Traffic Division and a determination was made that the project would not be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study, based on these findings (whichhave been expanded upon); • The site is currently occupied by a 3,29ksf (thousand square foot) medical office building. The approval to construct the facility would have considered the impact of vehicle trips associated with. the project at that time_ u The proposed project will increase the existing medical office facility by 3.38ks'f, to a total project size of 6.671cs£ The proposed project, alone, is die focus of this review. a The proposed project is consistent with the previous General Plan and existing adjacent land uses. It has direct access to collector and arterial roadways. There is presently sidewalk along the entire project frontage, which provides access to the City of Petaluma Transit System. a By today's standards, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation. P Edition. the existing facility and proposed project would be expected to generate the following number of trips based on land use and square fcolage: Number of Units Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Units Trips Trips Trips 3.29 (Ex.) Icsf Medical Office Building (9720) 8 (6 in/2 out) 12 (3 in/9 out) 119 13.38 (Prop.) Icsf Medical Office Building (9720) 9 (7 in/2 out) 12 (3 In19 out) 122 16.67 (Total) Icsf Medical Office Building (9720) 17 (13 in(4 out) 24 (6 in/18 out) 241 The project would be expected to increase traffic on the adjacent roadway system by 122 daily trips, given a reduction for the existing approved facility. This includes 9 trips during the AM Peak Hour, with 7 inbound and 2 outbound from the site. Additionally, 12 new trips would be expected during PM Peale Hour, 3 inbound and 9 outbound from the site. L+";- o The following conversion of trips to vehicles is to represent the number vehicles, both patient and employee, that would be expected onsite. This is for comparison only, as all other counts and assumptions contained herein are single direction trips. Each vehicle is representative of two trips, a trip in and a trip out of the project site. Therefore the proposed project would be expected to increase traffic in the vicinity of the project by 61 vehicles per day. This would include an increase of 5 and 6 new vehicles during the AM and PM peals periods, respectively. o Given the project's close proximity both B Street and D Street, it is be appropriate to assume that a majority of these trips would distribute to and from these roadways via the controlled (all -way stop or signalized) intersections. Anywhere from 60 to 75 percent of the traffic would be expected access the site via the B Street and D Street corridors. e Of the trips associated with the proposed project, 30 to 50 daily trips or 3 to 5 peak hour trips may use Hayes Lane to obtain access to the site_ o More conservatively, by not taking a reduction for the existing facility, the number of project trips would be expected to double, with an impact of just 6 to 10 peak hour trips using Hayes Lane. u Given the guidelines outlined in the Guide for the Prenamtion of Traffic Imnact Studies. as developed by Staff, a threshold of 101csf is recommended for the request of a Traffic Impact Study for this particular land use. The proposed project, given a reduction for the existing approved building, is 3.38ksf or 1/3 of the threshold. Further, there was conjecture by the neighborhood that the internal document, Guide for the Prenaration of Traffic Imoact Studies, required that a study be completed because of the considerable opposition to the project. While this is not an adopted policy document, it remains a tool used by Staff to obtain relevance and consistency among the reports reviewed for proposed project development Reference has been made to the following: "The following table contains the threshold for requiring traffic impact studies for projects proposed is the City of Petaluma. Projects that are within 10% of these thresholds may, at the discretion of the City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer, be required to provide a traffic impact study. If a proposed project is more than 101/a below the threshold, a traffic study should not be required, unless there are special extenuating circumstances (examples of which might be unusual safety of access concerns or extreme neighborhood apposition to the project)." It should be noted that the last sentence has been removed, as the Traffic Engineer reserves the right to make a determination based on informal review. In this case, more than an adequate review has been prepared for the proposed project and the findings and recommendation, with applicable conditions of approval, have not changed. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS Despite meeting with neighborhood representatives to explain the findings noted above, then: has been considerable effort on the part of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood to illustrate the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis based on a perception of the existing traffic conditions. It is my professional judgment that the existing condition, perceived or real, will not be adversely affected by the proposed project To help illustrate this I was able collect traffic data in the subject neighborhood prior to end of the school year. The following is an analysis of the data collected. M Traffic data was collected for a period of one week starting on Wednesday, May 7". The data was collected in response to a request for all -way stop controls at the intersection of Hayes Lane and Webster Street. Of the three data collection locations, Hayes Lane just east of Pearce Street, will be used as the control for this analysis. It should be noted that the raw data consisted of every vehicle axle that "struck" or crossed the road -tube data collector, 24 hours a day. For that period of time the average daily traffic (adt) was 1,520 vehicles per day (vpd). The average traffic volumes are shown below, peak hour volumes are shown in bold. It should be noted that that although Spm is the peak hour of Hayes Lane, the proposed project would have a peak hour between 4 and 6 pm, 5pm is assumed based on the data collected. StartTime Weekday 4 Average I 12:00am 8 I 1:00 2 2:00 2 I 3:00 5 4:00 4 I 5:00 11 6:00 30 I 7:00 87 I 8:00 211 9:00 84 I 10:00 82 I 11:00 65 12:00pm 107 I 1:00 88 I 2:00 122 3:00 191 4:00 117 I 5:00 140 I 6:00 100 7:00 76 8:00 56 I 9:00 38 I 10:00 29 I 11:00 12 Saturday Sunday 9 17 9 11' I 3 5 6 4 I 8 4 4 1 11 11 30 14 48 24 I 104 40 I 118 55 I 68 97 57 97 57 99 62 95 67 I 99 71 73 68 85 68 56 47 37 45 51 49 45 28 36 26 27 14 As noted in the findings above, if the full load of proposed project trips were to be added, without discounting the existing facility, 10 or fewer trips would be expected on Hayes Lane during the PM Peak Hour (5pm), when there is an average weekday volume of 140. And if more direct alternate routes did not exist, as $ Street and I3 Street exist now, then as many as 24 trips would be added to the PM Peak Hour traffic volumes along Hayes Lane. This would account for an increase of 7% and 17%, respectively. For comparative purposes, this is 78% of the highest peals hour volume observed on Hayes Lane. It should be noted that average daily traffic volume westbound (or uphill) on Hayes Lane is 35% higher than of eastbound (or downhill), Although speeds are naturally higher for downhill traffic, there are far more vehicles traveling at slower speeds uphill on Hayes Lane. Therefore, the 85'h percentile speed for all traffic traveling on Hayes is 25mph. Less than 5% of the all traffic on the roadway is attaining speeds in excess of 30mph. The 30mph speed (speed limit 3 �7 plus 5mph) is statistically significant only if more than 15% of the traffic were traveling above it Although there were some excessive speeds observed during the course of the study, these were randomly dispersed throughout the entire day. TIafc collision data for the adjacent street system was also reviewed to complete the analysis. In the past five years there have been only two collisions on Hayes Lane, one at Pearce Street and the other at Webster Street. In the same period, one collision occurred on West El Rose, at B Street Given the proposed improvement to sight distance along the project frontage, the project is not expected to increase collisions along the roadway system. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS In conclusion this information has been assembled and presented much in the same way a Traffic Study, prepared by a consultant hired by the project applicant would have been. It is with many years of experience authoring and reviewing these types of engineering studies that I used my professional engineering judgment to make these findings without having a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the project applicant. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exacerbate traffic conditions along the adjacent roadway system or within the adjacent neighborhood. Although a Traffic Impact Study was not deemed to be necessary, Staff did take exception to conditions on site which constrained sight distance at the project's egress onto Hayes Lane. Per a completeness item and subsequent design parameters discussed with the project applicant, the project site would be developed to establish adequate stopping sight distance at the driveway for a speed of 25 mph on approach to the driveway. An inspection of conditions at the intersection of Hayes Lane and West El Rose, following some initial clearing and grubbing of the site, indicated that the sight distance condition will be markedly improved. It should be noted that these project improvements AU also provide improved view corridors for the adjacent intersection, the former Hillcrest Hospital access, pedestrians, and bicyclists traversing the street along the project frontage. As additional support for the neighborhoods appeal to City Council, a letter prepared by an independent land use planner suggests that a traffic study should be prepared that reviews the impact of all permitted uses allowed on this site. This would indicate that the intended use is not known at this time. It often during the initial scoping of a project that varying permitted land uses and site configurations would be explored to determine the highest utilization of a project site, while weighing the project against potential impacts. It is not standard practice to prepare a traffic study in this manner, especially when the land use and project scale have been determined. It should be noted that industrial, office, and manufacturing uses would generate fewer trips for a project of similar size project With respect to the numerous issues raised by the neighborhood that do not directly reflect upon this project, but are related to the negative impacts associated with living adjacent to a residential "connector" and adjacent to Petaluma Senior High School, I have offered my services as the City Traffic Engineer to review these neighborhood concerns outside the this project or process. As part of the General Plan Update 2025, a draft working paper was developed to address the concerns of neighborhoods without placing those concerns on a single project. To date, the issues have not been separated, nor has a request been submitted. It should be noted that this work is subject to the future availability of Staff time. Liq It is my hope that tlris response will help to clarify my professional engineering judgment and findings for the proposed project. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Attachments: Travel Speed Data Traffic Volume Data e_ Vince Marengo— Director of Public Works Mike Moore —Director of Community Development George White —Assistant Director of Community Development E JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page I 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Change These in the Preferences Screen Station ID: A=EB Start 05 -May -03 B6 -May -03 07-may-utl 08 -May -08 09 -May -OB Time Man Tua wed Thu Fd 12:130 AM El %A 4 3 5 01:00 11 711 '90 0 1 2 02:011 04 64 lia i3,4 —1J9 - 11a 03:00 80 144 .4 2 04:110 119 73 68 133'`.'85 3 10 55 47 65 37 'A5 48 51 49 40 06:00 27 38 26 16 34 32 07:00 ... ... 77.9% 526% 93 '117 08:00k- 001 09:00 82 '73 inn 61 6B 11:00 -1 tan .68 12:00 PM_ill 114 104 01:009574 '71 0100 130 120 03:bn 115 04:00 122 124 112 w I .131 132 118:00 94 137 107 07:00 -.7 53 -66 08:00 37 7236 43 44 10:00 25 22 35 11.00 IS 9 23 Total a 0 iOlB 1680 1632 Percentage 0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 1932% 1002% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 Vol. 196 200 PM Peak 14.00 15:00 15:130 VOL 181 199 218 13:00 15:00 99 71 so Latitude: 0'0,000 South Weekday 10 -May -Ob 11 -May a Avemae Sal Sun 4 9 17 2 9 41 0 a 3 El %A 4 14 4 33 11 711 '90 0 198 48 24 78 04 64 lia i3,4 —1J9 - 11a 97 57 80 144 95 67 x` 119 73 68 133'`.'85 Caa 113 55 47 65 37 'A5 48 51 49 40 -45 -7::- 28 27 38 26 16 '27 'A4 1269 855 77.9% 526% 11.00 11:00 119 63 13:00 15:00 99 71 so JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page 2 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Change These in the Preferences Screen Station ID: A --EB Start 12 -May -08 13 -May -08 14 -May -08 15 -May -08 16 -May -06 Time Man Tue Wed Thu Pd 1200.AM 8 9 8 8 12 07:00 2 1 1 2 4 02:00 _ 1 3 1 4 3 03:00 6''-; 0 _ 5 3 2 04:00 2 2 1 5 7 05000 6 11 7 06:08 35 30 30 23 29 . 07:00 >T _ i::': ttti9M1. i; i::?=:: c7 x'•90 .:: .. = 85'.' 80 67 08:00—=-'E1�==_—<au-287-199--=oat . -'09:00":: �. �y..: •,5 93 f'}::=;:'ti-::79:; �...;73 .' .104 - 10:00 84 59 94 103 ..:.-.11.:00; • '.'{'� _[='58':a. i::::: �::= 74 12:001'M 97 tog 115 109 ' 'tn.'j.r7p31::c '{':; ': `.-70 '. :101 as ' 02:00 110 1110 =70> 109 [is ;all '=..�=c-�uu..—,sue$_ -'; 99-23.3 �– --112 04:00 120 112 127 ` -05;00.: "::.::.`.::j,43 '=:: +.:.-:' 146 _153-: 124 - 05:00 91 95 114 94 .: :07:00 `.; =J:. :-_';92`:`: :'-. '. 61 - r120 :61 06:00 46 57 62 60 - �09d10`, %,.:-. ':28��<; �. "�. 36 .. ''33 S0 ' 10:00 35_ 24 21 28 11:00 '_ 12 :, :.. 67 10 " Total 1572 1521 1714 1690 320 Percentage 100.4°h 97.4% 1029% 101.5% 19.7% AM Peak OR= 08:09 08:00 06:00 011:00 Val. 212 240 207 196 197 PM Peak 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 Vol. 206 202 170 231 Total 1621 2732 Latitude: 0'0.0D0 South 5( Direction 1, Direction 2 36 37 39 Stall 7 21 23 25 27 Time 20„ 2224 34 26 2B ., .,_ 05107%OB ,., ' 44 99.9 __. _ Percent Percent _ 02:00 . . 5 4 . 0 . 0 . 0 03:05 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 107 04:00 . 30 1 2 1 1 05:00 0 a 0 0 06:00 24 2B 4 1 ' 07:00 0 0 0 a 08:00 183 24 27 3 2 09:00 1 0 0 ' 10:011 0 113 26 " 11:00 1 1 a a 12 PM 65 7 ii 6 5 13:00 55 12 11 5 3 14:00 135 14 12 11 4 15:OD 54 16 7 14 5 16:00 74 6 t0 11 B 17:00 66 16 16 13 10 16A0 56 5 10 10 3 19:00 36 B 2 3 2 20:00 24 4 5 2 a 21:00 22 0 4 1 2 22:110 16 2 3 a 1 23:00a 2 0 0 1 - Totai 626 92 91 ._�.-76 0 45 Percent fi374_1A-_9.3% 9.2% 7.7% 4.6% AM Peak 29 2 0 1 0 Vol. D 0 0 a PM Peak 14:90 16A0 17:00 15:00 17:00 Vol. 135 16 15 14 10 1 ,IAMAR Technologles, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road. Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Page 1 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 9 31 33 36 37 39 41 43 45 651h 051h 30 32 34 35 38. 40 42 44 99.9 __. TDIRI Percent Percent _ _ . . 5 4 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 107 . 26 . 30 1 2 1 1 0 0 a 0 0 91 24 2B 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 a 0 183 24 27 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 a 0 113 26 29 3 2 1 1 a a 0 0 0 116 26 29 3 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 131 26 30 3 1 1 a a 0 0 a 0 89 25 29 1 0 a 0 a a a 0 a 54 22 26 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 35 23 24 1 a 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 31 24 26 1 a 1 0 0 D 0 0 a 24 23 29 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 0 a 14 29 ., 30_ 27 16 11 4 0 D 0 D a 0116 .•..-t.D% 0.0% 0.0%0 0.0% 75.�'A ... ._ . _. __..._._.. 12:00 12:00 14:00 13:00 14:00 5 4 2 1 183 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Page 2 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: V0.000 South Start • 1 21 23 26 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 86th 651h _ Time �0510BI09 20 _ 2224 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 1 1 0 ll U .1 0 a 11 0 0 0 U 6 3 29 29 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 1 1 02:00 • 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a 0 0 0 03:00 3 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a 3 3 3 04:00 0 0 1 a 0 1 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 3 35 35 05:00 2 0 3 2 1 2 a 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 30 35 OB:aa 22 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 a 0 a a 0 31 24 2B 07;00 62 10 a 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 89 23 27 08:00 133 11 14 11 7 7 2 2 a 0 a 0 ❑ 0 187 25 29 09:00 45 13 10 2 2 2 2 1 a 1 a 2 0 a Ba 24 32 10:00 38 4 7 9 1 1 2 1 0 0 a 0' 0 1 fit 26 31 11:00 37 7 6 5 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 a 0 60 25 28 12 PM 77 6 10 7 4 3 1 a 1 0 0 0 a 0 109 24 28 13:00 45 10 6 6 2 3 0 0 a 0 0 U 0 0 72 24 27 14:00 86 16 5 7 5 2 1 1 0 a 0 0 a 0 123 24 27 15:00 149 13 11 7 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 22 26 16:00 70 19 15 7 5 4 0 2 0 a 0 a 0 a 122 24 2a 17:00 86 17 13 4 8 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 132 24 28 18:00 90 10 13 4 3 7 4 1 1 D 0 0 0 a 133 24 30 19:00 39 13 7 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 73 26 28 20:00 43 a 5 4 1 3 2 1 2 0 1 0 a 0 70 25 32 21:00 22 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 a 1 0 0 39 28 34 22:00 13 1 2 0 3 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 20 27 28 9 0 a 0 0_._0 0 a a 0 a 0 0_ 0 a __. B.. _._9 .__23:00 Total _. 1071 141,___ 05___61, 48 211 11 11 2 1 3 0 11620_.,_ _,_. Percent��T66.1°.6 .___...._. „_165 10.2°,6 __ 8.795 5.2% 3.896 .._...__ 3,0% � _ 1.2% 0,74'° 0.1% 0.196 0.2% _ ..... .._.�___. AM Peak 08:00 091.00 05:00 (18:00 (18:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 .0.7% 116:00 OB:00 00:00 10:00 08:00 Vol. 133 13 14 11 7 7 2 2 2 1 2 _ PM Peak 16:00 _ 16;00 16:00 y�12:00 _ _ 19:0 18:00 i8:Q0 16:90 20:00 19:00 20;00 27:00 15:00 Vol. 149 19 15 7 8 7 4 2 2 1 1 1 187 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen Page 3 Site Cade: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station U A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Start i ZS 23 29 27 29 31 33 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South Time 20 22 24 26 2B 30 32 34 d5 36 37 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 'TOW 85th 95th 05100106 4 0 tl 1 0 0 0 0 a 909 Percent Percent Oi:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 25 02:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 .22 22 03:00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 04:00 4 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 p 2 29 2 30 05:00 5 3 2 p Z 1 1 1 k 0 0 1 0 0 i6 32 33 06:00 25 Z 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 32 22 25 07:00 57 5 3 4 6 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5o 25 20 08:00 134 15 13 16 7 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 193 25 28 09;00 39 7 8 3 6 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 27 30 Igloo 27 7 4 16 5 3 2 2 0 1 1 ❑ 0 0 68 28 33 11:00 40 4 6 B. 3 4 3 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 fib Z5 30 12 PM 57 6 12 6 8 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 g8 27 29 13:00 42 5 3 10 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 67 26 30 14:00 63 14 f8 14 5 5 p 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 116 26 29 15:00 149 15 13 14 11 2 1 1 2 0 ❑ 0 0 0 208 24 Z8 15:00 60 0 14 9 9 3 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 110 27 30 17:00 80 10 6 13 7 6 4 1 0 1 a 1 0 0 129 27 31 18:00 76 11 5 4 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 105 23 29 19:00 42 8 4 4 3 2 2 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 65 25 29 20:00 22 4 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 26 21;00 26 2 6 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 24 33 22:00 21 5 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 24 28 23:00 12 4 4 ,, .....___.1...._. 0 0 2 ,,.,,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 31 Total 1 .. _._ f3f 82 54 28 13 8 3 3 3 0 ....... 1 .. __ .1553_ ._.......... ... �._.� Percent 62.5% 8.7%� 8.196 _. 8.3% ,.. .. ¢.2%� 9.4%�� 1.8% —_....._ 0.8% O.6,n _ 0.2h 00.2%- 0.2% _ _ __ _ O.p% ❑.1% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 08106 ftoo 09:00 0840 .__r.._..._OI 10:0(! 07:00 10:00 07:00 05:00 y_— Vol. 134 15 13 16 7 4 5 2_ 1 1 1 1' 193 PM Peak 15:00 15:00 14:00 14:00 15;00 12:00 17:00 16:00 14:00 16:00 12:00 13:00 22;99 16:00 Val. 149 16 15 14 11 7 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 200 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page 151 Keith Valley Read Horsham, PA 18044 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Change These In the Preferences Screen Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South Star[ 1 21 23 25 27 20 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 115111 1 95111 Time 20 22 24 2fi 28 30 32 34 35 38 4D 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 05110108 3 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 27 28 011.08 5 3 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 22 23 02:09 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 33 03:00 5 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 6 5 21 04:00 4 0 0 3 a 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 a -0 6 26 31 05:00 1 2 a a 0 0 0 1 D 0 4 ❑ 0 0 4 22 33 06:00 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 1 0 11 24 25 07:00 17 3 3 4 1 0 0 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 311' 26 27 08:00 - 33 0 3 5 2 i 1 1 D 1 0 0 ❑ a 47 2fi 32 09:00 70 11 6 3 7 2 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 9 99 23 27 ' 10:00 100 6 1 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 20 25 It= 9a 3 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 114 20 25 12 PM 80 4 4 3 1 3 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 21 26 13:00 77 a 5 3 1 1 2 0 9 a 0 0 a a 97 22 25 14:00 65 10 9 a 4 2 D 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 95 24 27 15:00 62 4 4 a 1 1 D 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 100 22 26 15:00 43 4 a 10 5 1 2 1 0 9 0 0 a 0 72 20 28 17:0D 52 4 6 6 2 5 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 78 25 29 19:09 32 6 5 5 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 25 29 19:00 24 1 4 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 D 35 27 33 20:00 32 2 2 2 5 0 0 a 1 0 a a a 0 44 25 20 21:00 29 7 3 1 1 2 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 44 23 29 22:00 19 4 4 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 a 0 0 D 34 25 31 23:00 10 3 5 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 27___ 30 Total HHH 09 80 74 4T 22 15 9 3 3 0 1 2 0 1432 --- Percent 72.1% 7.1% a.❑% 3.8`Ya 1.8% 1.2% 0.7% _0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% _ AM Peak 1000 09.10 _._6_5%.. 49:(70 TO:D'0 __ 09:00 99:00 _ 04:OQ 02:00 01AO 07:00 06:00 10:00 Vol. PM Peak 100 15:00 11 14:00 a 14:00 7 16:00 7 15:00 2 17:00 1 22:00 1 19:00 14:00 1 15:00 1 1 15:00 117 15:00 Vol. 82 10 8 10 5 5 3 2 7 i 1 1011 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Direction 1, Direction 2 51ar1 1 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 Time 20 22 24 26 26 30_ 32 .._.__. 34_•___ 36 _38_ 40 42 _ 05111/69 11 2 3 1 ❑ 0 D U 0 U U 0 01:00 9 0 1 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112:00 4 1 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a3:0a 3 0 0 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 04:00 2 1 0 D a 0 0 a 0 0 1 0 05:00 1 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 ❑6:00 6 1 2 1 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 07:00 9 0. 3 1 7 a a 0 0 a 0 0 09:011 14 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 a 0 1' 09;00 21 7 5 3 2 0 1 0 D 1 0 a 10;00 33 7 5 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 11:00 36 8 12 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 PM 34 6 5 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 131.00 44 2 4 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 a 14:00 49 0 7 4 6 3 1 0 0 0 D 0 15:00 37 7 7 6 7 1 2 0 1 D 1 1 16:00 39 10 4 a 2 a 2 0 a 1 0 11 17:00 39 7 5 3 4 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 18;00 22 7 5 3 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 19:00 24 4 7 1 4 4 1 1 D 0 a a 20:00 25 3 5 3 1 3 1 0 D 0 0 0 21;00 10 7 2 3 2 2 1 D a a ❑ 0 22;00 19 3 3 0 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 6 4 1 1 0 1 a a 0 0 0 ❑ _ Total 495 89 87 55 43 30 19 1 4 6 2 2 Percent 59.5% 10.7%8_...,..10.4%. 6.6°% 5.2% 3.6% 2.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0,6% 0.2% U.2% AM Peak ... ,.. 11:00 11:08 _ 1i:a0 -'-1'1:00""�'"11:00 — De;0D 1D:0D 10:DD 04:00 Vol, 35 a 12 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 PM Peak 14A0 16:00 14:90 10:D0 16:00 19;00 13;60 19:110 16:110 16:00 15;00 15:00 Vol. 49 10 7 8 7 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 Page 5 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 43 45 86th 051h __44_ _ 999 Total Percent Percent 0 0 17 23 24 0 0 11 9 23 0 0 5 4 21 0 0 4 3 25 0 0 4 21 39 0 0 1 1 1 ❑ 0 11 24 26 0 0 14 24 26 0 0 23 29 30 0 0 40 25 28 0 0 54 26 31 0 a 67 25 28 0 0 57 26 28 D 0 80 25 29 a 0 69 26 29 0 0 70 27 31 0 a 6a 25 28 D 1 64 27 32 0 0 44 26 31 ❑ 0 46 20 30 0 0 42 25 20 0 a 27 27 30 0 0 25 22 24 a 0 13 24 25 D 1 634 0.0% 0.1% .. _._ 11:00 57 17:00 16;00 1 70 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen Direction 1, Direction Start 1 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 nme 20 2224 D 26 28 30 32 i, 34,,, 35 05112108-fi D o 1_ 2 0 _ 0 _,_ 0 0 0 01:0a 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 D 04;00 2 D a 0 0 0 0 0 D 05:00 5 1 1 2 4 1 a 0 0 06:00 25 1 2 2 1 2 a 1 0 07:00 60 5 5 8 2 2 4 1 1 08:00 146 19 14 12 6 5 a 1 0 09:00 51 10 9 9 11 2 1 0 1 10:00 54 6 4 6 4 2 1 1 0 ll:OD 31 7 6 5 2 2 1 2 0 12 PM 58 7 13 11 3 3 2 1 0 13:00 65 3 a 7 1a 4 2 0 0 14:00 75 8 9 8 7 2 2 D 0 15:00 15B 14 10 11 7 3 2 0 D 15:00 78 8 12 5 4 8 1 D 0 17:00 78 17 12 9 a 9 4 1 3 18:00 41 13 12 6 6 4 4 0 1 19:00 47 9 5 1 1 1 3 1 a 20:00 28 4 3 4 0 2 0 1 0 21:DD 21 2 D 1 1 1 a 0 a 22:00 19 4 4 1 4 1 0 a D 3 3 2 1 1 0 D 1 0 _23:00 Tafal 1055 141 132 115 82 53 27 11 6 Percent 65.0% 8.7% 8.1% 7,1% 5,0% 3,3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.4% AM Peak 08;00 0:00 08:00 08:00 OB:00 08:00 07:00 11:00 07:00 Vol. 146 19 14 12 11 5 4 2 1 PM Peak 15:00 17:00 12:00 _ 12:00 13:00 17:00 17:00 12:00 17:00 Vol. 159 17 13 11 10 9 4 1 3 1 37 38 D D B D 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 0 a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1% 10:00 1 Page 6 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EH 39 41 43 45 40 42 44 989 o'— D ._.... 6' n" a D D 0 B D 0 9 9 D B a D o a 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a Cl D a D 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 D D a a 0 0 a 0 0 D a D 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 a D 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 D D 0 a 0 0 0 Cl a D a_,_ a 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.1% 0,0% 0,0% 05;00 1 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 851h 951h Total Percent Percent 9 25 26 2 23 23 1 25 25 4 23 29 2 2 2 15 28 29 34 25 29 88 26 31 293 24 27 94 27 2B 79 25 29 55 26 3D 98 25 29 97 27 29 111 25 2B 206 23 27 117 26 29 141 27 31 B7 27 31 68 23 31 42 26 29 26 21 20 33 26 28 11 27 1624 ,26 DB:00 203 16;00 200 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Page 7 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Site Code: HAYES FAST OF PEARCE Change These In the Preferences Screen Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: o' 0.000 South — ...__... ----.._ 1 21 23 -_....... 25 ...- 27 29 -...... 31 33 —35 35 37 39 41 43 45 SSth 95th Tlme,___.___,,,.2a-,. 24... 28 28_..... 30 32 34 36_ 39 .___40 42 44,,,._—,999 Tolal_.Percent_._Percenl ,_ 05113109 3 -.._22 0 .. 3 2 1 0 0 _- 0 _ 0 p 0 a � 0 a 9 26 27 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 1 1 02:00 2 1 a 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 21 03;00 3 2 0 1 0 a 0 1 0 0 a 0 a 0 7 25 33 04:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 2 27 27 05;00 0 1 1 1 ❑ 1 1 0 1 0 a 0 0 a 6 31 35 06:Oa 15 1 4 0 a 2 3 1 0 a 0 ❑ 0 0 25 30 32 07:00 64 8 9 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 09 23 26 05:00 159 15 21 14 4 4 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 227 24 30 09:00 48 7 9 5 3 1 3 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 77 25 28 10:00 29 7 a 4 5 3 1 1 0 1 a 0 0 0 59 27 30 11:00 44 6 9 8 6 1 1 a a a 0 0 0 0 74 25 25 12 PM 63 12 10 to 5 5 ❑ 0 0 0 1 0 a 0_ 106 25 29 13:00 47 in 4 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 23 27 14:00 57 15 12 7 5 2 1 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 100 24 27 15:00 146 15 11 14 4 2 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 1 194 23 26 10:00 65 9 11 7 7 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 109 26 30 17:00 71 20 16 10 9 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 27 30 18:00 52 10 11 5 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 90 25 29 19:00 44 a 2 4 3 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 63 24 27 20:00 25 6 9 3 7 1 0 2 a 0 0 0 0 0 53 27 25 21:00 20 0 4 4 4 1 ❑ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 34 27 20 22:00 13 2 3 3 2 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 25 27 23:00 3 2 1 1 1 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 5 26 27 Total 977 158 157 116 73 40 21 14 9 1 1 1 0 1 1569 Percent 62.3% 10.1% 10.0% 7.4%_ 4.7% 2.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1°h 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% AM Peak 05:00 05:00 08:00 06:00 11:00 08;00 06:00 05:00 (1800 10:00 (18:00 Val. 159 15 21 14 5 4 3 5 2 1 227 . PM Peak 15:00 17:00 17:00 18:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 10:00 12:00 21:0a 15:00 15:00 Val. 146 20 15 14 9 9 3 2 3 1 1 1 194 Ir JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen Direction 1, Direction 2 Page B Site Code; HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID; A=EB Siert 1 21 23 25 27 29 3'I 33 35 37 39 41 43 Time 20 22 24 28 20 30 32 34 36 36 40 42 44 05114/08 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 a 01:00 1 0 D 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 02:00 1 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 D 0 0 03;00 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 05:00 3 a 1 a a 1 0 0 a 0 ❑ 1 D 06:00 23 3 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 D 07:00 53 9 0 6 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 a 9 08:00 139 17 20 9 7 6 2 a 0 D D 0 D 09:00 48 7 7 3 4 2 1 0 a D 0 0 a 10:00 63 14 8 6 3 2 1 1 1 a ❑ 9 0 11:00 34 10 7 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 a 12PM 74 8 13 3 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 a a 13;00 62 12 14 8 7 a 2 1 1 0 0 a a 14;OD 123 12 a 16 4 1 3 1 0 0 D 0 0 15:00 54. 13 11 7 4 2 2 1 2 1 a 0 0 MOD 72 20 11 12 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 17:00 71 18 20 13 14 7 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 18;00 59 17 12 11 6 2 0 1 0 1 a 0 a 19:00 81 7 9 4 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 a 20:00 64 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 a 0 a a D 21:00 21 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 a D 22:00 11 0 2 2 1 1 1 a 0 1 a 0 a 23:00 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 Total 1046 175 780 112 77 4131 13 7, A %_____. 1 __ Percent _ 82.8°,5� _ _ ,. , ..._ D.8'% , . .. 0.4°% _ __.., _. 0.2°k _�__ 0.0% 0.1°4 0.1°m AM Peak 08;00 Oma0 _h 08:00 1 -6: d 08:00 08:00 06;00 07:00 10:99 05:00 Val. 139 17 20 9 7 6 3 1 1 1 PM Peak _ 14;00 16;00 17:00 14:00 17:D0 17:00 17:00 12;00 18:00 15:00 16:00 Val. 123 20 20 15 14 7 5 2 2 1 1 Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 45 Bath 951h 999 Total Percent Percent 0 8 26 29 0 0 Y 1 7 D 5 26 27 D 1 1 1 0 B 29 41 0 33 24 31 0 82 24 27 a 200 24 20 0 72 24 28 0 B7 25 29 0 60 24 29 0 112 24 29 0 87 25 28 0 166 24 27 0 97 25 31 0 122 25 27 0 163 211 31 0 109 25 28 0 113 24 29 0 78 22 27 0 33 25 28 1 20 39 37 0 7 27 31 1 lees ,... _ _ _ _ MOO 200 22:00 14:00 1 168 JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These In the Preferences Screen Page 9 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station ID: A=EB Direction 1, Direction 2 Latitude: U0.000 South Start 1 21 23 25 2/ 29 37 3'3 35 3f 39 47 43 45 85111 9591 Time 20 22 24 _ 26 _ 28 30 32 34 36 38 49 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 05/15/08 4 3 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 21 22 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 33 02:00 0 1 0 2 0 a 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 4 26 31 03:00 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 D4:00 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 24 25 D5:00 6 1 0 D 1 1 1 D 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 30 31 06:00 16 3 1 0 D 1 1 1 D a 0 0 0 0 23 23 32 07:00 00 9 6 6 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 77 24 2B 08:00 146 13 11 11 4 2 0 1 a 0 0 a 0 190 23 26 09:90 56 13 14 0 11 1 a 1 0 1 0 0 a 0 105 26 28 10:00 49 19 12 7 7 1 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 96 25 27 11:00 34 12 9 6 2 1 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 65 24 27 12 PM 63 B 12 10 a 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 a 110 20 29 13:00 62 11 7 3 3 a 1 D 0 0 0 0 0 1 96 26 30 14:00 70 8 13 5 5 1 1 1 a 0 a 0 0 0 102 24 27 15:00 164 16 11 10 12 -. 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 223 24 28 16:00 55 10 9 5 B 4 4 3 0 a 2 0 0 0 110 27 32 17:00 67 13 13 9 6 5 6 1 1 a 0 0 D 0 121 27 31 18:00 4a 6 11 9 9 4 3 0 0 1 1 1 D 0 93 27 31 19:80 30 4 4 5 5 5 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 2B 29 20:00 49 4 B 3 1 3 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 58 24 29 21:00 3B 4 2 3 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 D a 48 22 25 22:00 10 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 27 22 27 23:00 6 1 1 1 l� 0 0 1 0 ._ 0 0 0 0 0 10... ... 24 25. —.....--_.. _... T01a1 ----' .. 1038 --..._ .. 165 .-_._..... 143 _. _.._—_ f05 — h5 48 ._._ 2fi .._ 14 -' - 6 4 3 1 __,_„ 0,. 1 -- Percent 63.4°h 10.1°'°, 8.7°/v 6,4°h_ 12°(° 2.9°h 1.fi°%v 9.99'v_,., 0.4°h -67-.DD , , 0.2,,°/v - "05:00 0.2Yv _ ' ' _ 0.1%__0_0?m_ _ 0.1`}w.--, _ _ AM Peak 08:00 10:00 09:00 013:00 „ , J9:00 97:00 08;00 01:00 08:00 Val, 146 19 14 1111 2_ 1 1 1 100 PM Peak 15:00 15:00 14:00 1201 16:00 .., _.__z. 13:00 _..__ 17:00 16:00 12:0 18:00 16:00 18:00 13:90 IS= Vol. 154 18 13 Ir 12 a 6 3 1 1 2 1 1 223 Direction 1 Direction 2 Start 1 21 23 25 27 Time 20 22 24 25 28 09/16100 7 1 0 9 3 01:90 2 1 1 0 0 02:00 3 0 0 0 0 03:00 2 0 0 0 0 04:00 4 0 1 0 0 05:00 1 0 2 1 1 06:00 i6 2 1 1 1 07:00 45 7 2 5 3 DUO 129 17 10 11 5 09:00 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 0 5 23 29 ' 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 12 PM 7 29 33 1 3 13:00 0 0 0 0 ' 14:00 30 33 1 1 , 15:00 9 a 0 0 65 16:00 28 2 1 D 9 17:00 0 D 0 lee ' 18:00 5 6 0 0 0 19:00 a 0 313 ' 20:00 1.895 ­ ' 0,0°h _ 0.0% O.D°% 0.0% 21:00 0.0% 06:00 22:00 23:OD 0a:00 2 3 TotalC7.4 211 28 25 18 13 .. _....... . Percent P _. _....�.._-_---.--'- 67 .4°% 8.1)% _ _ '--- 8,0°%� 6.8°% 4.29'° AM Peak 09:01) O11:00 011:00 08:00 08:00 Val_^_ 129 17 19 ....._.____.._..__ 11 5 ..PM Peak 02% 0.1% ...—.. 0.001. 0.0% Vol. Total 8401 1239 1145 887 602 Percent '04.3°% 9.5% 8.8°% 6.8% 4.6% 15th Percentlie : 5 MPH 50th Percentile: 16 MPH 85th Percentile : 25 MPH 95111 Percentile : 28 MPH Stats 10 MPH Pace Speed : 17-26 MPH Number In Face: 4951 Percent In Face: 37.9% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH: 1039 Percent or Vehicles > 25 MPH: 14.1°% Mean Speed(Average) : is MPH N JAMAR Technologies, Inc. 151 Keith Valley Road Horsham, PA 19044 Change These in the Preferences Screen 29 30 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 7 2,2°% ' 09:06 3 370 2.8% Page 10 Site Code: HAYES EAST OF PEARCE Station 10: A=EB Latitude: 0' 0.000 South 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 46 65th 95111 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 999 Total Percent Percent 1 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 12 27 28 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 4 22 23 0 0 D 0 0 0 a a 3' 3 3 0 D D 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 5 23 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 29 33 1 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 28 30 33 1 1 0 0 9 a 0 0 65 25 28 2 1 D 9 D 0 D 0 lee 24 27 5 6 0 0 0 0 a 0 313 1.8°% 1.895 ­ ' 0,0°h _ 0.0% O.D°% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 06:00 06:00 0a:00 2 3 '-__ .._......_._186_ ..... 208 103 Be 23 10 13 3 6 13068 1.6% 0.8% 0,4% 02% 0.1% 0.1% 0.001. 0.0% City of Petaluma, Ca,ith-mb?. Memorandum Public Works,11 English Street' Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4495 Fac (707) 776-3602 E-mail: fpeury@cLpetalu�na ca us DATE: July 14, 2008 TO: Irene Borba, Project Planner FROM: Frank Penry, PE, TE, PTOE SUBJECT: Northbridge Offices; -5PC-0048-CR This memo is in direct response to my decision not to require a Traffic Impact Study for the aforementioned project. As noted in previous discussions with you, this was the topic of a meeting with David Harris, representative for the El Rose Neighborhood, on June 27a`. Upon receipt of the project application on February 19'h, 2008, I organized my completeness review of the application. At that time a determination was made that the project would not be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study, based on the following. • The site is currently occupied by a 3.29ksf (thousand square foot) medical office building. The approval to construct this facility would have included the vehicle trips associated with this particular use_ • The proposed project is to increase the existing medical office facility by 3.3gksf, to a total project size of 6.67ksf. • The proposed project is consistent with adjacent land use and has direct access to collector and arterial roadways. • By today's standards, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), - Trip Generation, 7c' Edition, the existing facility and proposed project would be expected to generate the following number of trips based on land use and square footage: Number of Units Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Units Trips Trips Trips 3.29 (Ex.) ksf Medical Office Building (#720) 8 (6 in/2 out) 12 (3 in/9 out) 119 338 (Prop.) ksf Medical Office Building (#720) 9 (7 in/2 out) 12 (3 in/9 out) 122 i 6.67 (Total) ksf Medical Office Building (#720) 17 (13 in/ 4 out) 24 (6 in/18 out) 241 • Each vehicle is representative of two trips, a trip in and a trip out of the project. Therefore the proposed project, given a reduction for the existing approved building, would increase traffic in the vicinity of the project by 61 trips per day. This would include an increase of 5 and 6 new vehicles during the AM and PM peak periods, respectfully. • Given the project's close proximity both B Street and D Street, it would be appropriate to assume that a majority of these trips would distribute to and from these roadways and ---_ ---- controlled intersections (all -way stop or signalized). •-= Given the guidelines outlined in the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Imoact Studies: as developed by Staff, a threshold of lOksf is required for the request of a Traffic Impact - Study. The proposed project, given the reduction for existing approved building, is just 113 of the threshold. Although a Traffic Impact Study was not deemed to be necessary, Staff did take exception to sight distance at the existing driveway exit onto Hayes Lane. Per a completeness item and subsequent design parameters discussed with the project applicant, the project site will be developed to establish adequate stopping sight distance for a speed of 25 mpb. As for the existing traffic conditions and concerns raised by the neighborhood after the proposed project was deemed complete, I offer the following reasons why the project is not expected to exacerbate the existing conditions: • The required improvements to stopping sight distance for the project driveway exit onto Hayes Lane will open and improve sight lines for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles at the adjacent driveway and sidewalk connections. o Improvements to sight distance for the project driveways should"ultimately encourage drivers to exit to the left, back to El Rose Drive. o Furthermore, sight distance concerns outside the proposed projeces frontage may be brought to the Traffic Division to be dealt wift amongst individual property owners, by trimming and care of existing vegetation and are not the subject of this proposal. • Traffic volumes along Hayes Lane are not expected to increase significantly by the further development of the proposed project. A traffic volume analysis was prepared for the intersection of Hayes Lane and Webster Avenue the first week of May, prior to the end of school. This analysis indicates that even if all the project trips were to use Hayes Lazne during a PM peak hour (5-6pm), the result would be an increase of less than 5% of the total traffic. The PM peak hour was used to indicate the impact of the project outside the affects of the adjacent high School o Additionally, the average daily volume 'on Hayes Lane is 1,500 vehicles. If all daily trips to/from the proposed were to use Hayes Lane there would be less than a 5% increase in traffic volumes. • Travel speeds along Hayes Lane are not expected to increase significantly by the'finther development of the proposed project. The analysis noted above collected speed data for the same period. It should be noted that 85% of all vehicles travel at or below the speed limit of 25mph. o Furthermore, 95% of all vehicles travel within 29mph. Although there were some higher speeds observed, these were randomly dispersed throughout the day. Those vehicles traveling over 30mph do not represent anywhere near 15,%, a standard for evaluating impacts of speeders on neighborhoods. With regard to the internal document, Guide for the Prwaration of Traffic Impact Studies. this is not an adopted policy document. This is a tool used by Staff to obtain relevance and consistency among the reports reviewed for proposed project development. Reference has been made to.the following: "Ibe following table contains the threshold for requiring traffic .impact studies for projects proposed in the City .of Petaluma. Projects that are within 10% of these thresholds may, at the discretion of the City of Petaluma Traffic Engineer, be required to provide a traffic impact study. If a proposed project is more than 10% below the threshold, a traffic study should' not be required, runless there are special extenuating 2 �� circumstances (examples of which might be unusual safety of access concerns or extreme neighborhood opposition to the project)." It should be noted that the last sentence has been removed, as the Traffic Engineer reserves the right to make a determination based on informal review. It is my hope that this response will help to clarify my professional judgment and decision on this proposed project. If you Have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Prank W. Penry, PE, TE, PTOE c: Vince Marengo — Director of Public Works Mike Moore -- Director of Community Development George White — Assistant Director of Community Development ATTACHMENT 5 R.C.E. 49302 P.L.S. 6366 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS PETALUMA MARINA BUSINESS CENTER 775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94954 TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239 LANDS OF ASHTIANI 30 EI Rose Drive Petaluma, California A.P.N. 008-480-039 Job No.: 071215 January 31, 2008 Prepared by: VV Checked by: ADF TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. General Statements..........................................................................1 2. Vicinity Map....................................................................................2 3. Drainage Map No. 1 — Existing Conditions...........................................3 4. Drainage Map No. 2 — Proposed Conditions.........................................4 5. Flow Calculations. .......................... 6. Plate B-1(SCWA)..............................................................................7 7. Plate B-2 (SCWA).............................................................................8 S. Plate B-3 (SCWA).............................................................................9 9. Plate B-4 (SCWA)...........................................................................1p E GENERA. STATEMENTS 1. Introduction The project site is approximately 0.5 acres, located at Ei Rose Drive, Petaluma, California. The location of the site is shown on Vicinity Map, Page 2. It is the intention of the owner of the property to extensively remodel the existing building and rebuild the parking. The existing topography of the site has an average slope of 10%. The scope of this report is to analyze drainage patterns and to evaluate the flows generated from the site under the conditions of the existing and proposed development, Also, the impact of post -development on the existing storm drain structures will be evaluated. 2. Methodolodv The existing and proposed conditions Drainage Maps are given on Pages 3 and 4, showing directions of sheet flow, points of concentration and watershed areas. Under both the existing and proposed conditions of development, the flows concentrate at two points, designated as Point of Concentration "A" and "B". Point of concentration "A" is at the downstream end of the valley gutter where the storm drainage from the front of the site is being directed towards El Rose Drive. Flows from the back of the site concentrate at point "B", that is a 6 -inch storm drain through curb opening at the lower parking, Under the existing development, a half of the building roof, the parking in front of the building and the landscape areas behind the retaining walls drain to the valley gutter and concentrate at Point "A". Another half of the building, the rear of the building and a portion of the lower parking is currently being drained to Point "B". It is our intention to design proposed grading and storm drainage improvements in such way to insure that the future flows at Point of Concentration "B" will be lower than the existing ones. In this way, the proposed improvements on Lands of Ashianti will not make worse storm drainage conditions on the neighboring properties downhill of this site. 3. Hvdrolocly Calculations All hydrology/hydraulic calculations presented in this report were done in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Flood Control Design Criteria. All design peak flows were calculated using the Modified Rational Method ( Q = K C I A). MEAN SEASONAL PRECIPITATION The mean seasonal precipitation was determined as 30 incheslyear based on the Sonoma County Mean Seasonal Precipitation Chart, Plate No. B-3, Page 9. W- K VALUE The K value was determined as K = 1.00 based on the Sonoma County K Factor vs. Mean Seasonal Precipitation Chart, Plate No. B-4, Page 10. TIME OF CONCENTRATION Times of concentration of 7 minutes were because the drainage areas are small with a short distance to the point of concentration. The selected value for the time of concentration are in agreement for the values recommended by SCWA in Flood Control Design Criteria on Page 11. RAINFALL INTENSITY Storms with a recurrence interval of 10 -years were used in this evaluation. For the time of concentration of 7 minutes, the rainfall intensities were determined using Rainfall Intensity vs, Duration Chart, Plate No. B-2, Page 8. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT The values for runoff coefficient, C, were determined from SCWA Runoff Coefficient Chart, Plate No. B-1, Page 7. A value of C=0.45 was used for the pervious areas, and a C=0.90 was used for the impervious areas. DRAINAGE AREAS For the size of drainage areas, refer to Drainage Maps #1 and #2 on Pages 3 and 4. 4. Results and Conclusions The calculations for the existing and proposed 10 -year flows are shown on Pages 5 and 6. Existing 10 -year flow at Point of Concentration "A" is 0.79 cfs. Under the proposed development it will increase to 0.89 cfs. At Point of Concentratlon 'B", the existing 10 -year flow is 0.28 cfs. Under the proposed conditions of development it will decrease to 0.15 cfs. It can be concluded that the redevelopment of the site will not aggravate storm drainage conditions in the neighborhood downhill of this property. Due to redevelopment, the flow being discharged at the 6 -inch storm drain through curb opening at the lower parking. (Point of Concentration "B") will be reduced by 46% compared to the existing flows. SITE.: $ b EI rtopo- Drivp LANDS OF ASNTIANI 30 EL ROSE DRIVE PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA APN 008-480-039 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SD _ - 4 - -- J �t 1 �^+ r ,/� 1 ' �1 �' ®•V �lY. V - e, ..� . q ? -n,G44) - -- - �, tr '� x ,, r +1' 'r.�ae f "Cs':i+'4Y .�2 -'�.� ' D 1%•Q6 r 1-RAVI- Y$ 04 _ _ � � \`,� ,� a t' s. � ,./'� f ' � I - - �1' - -V', s9p0'. " �`'`�"'_ li �' `.ti•w. '''� _ _'"�OIUT rJNc,91JT ),NTI4i✓ C _ - .. �"' `•i ISS "�1 -P -'-- f A _ (0,45c �•,� -} M1,V^Sk2?U;r�TznStt� ��oy�2`J' - „' .' _ L x • ;i xx �q - (: _ �kM2 71 A aP. �ctr cpw Y4S711JG- COMM : _g- PgLR''lo—'RILQ__= 0. IT cXS 1� - 11_ t �.x/I�.7��_ p� ,qv, p �•f�.-` _ ! �j '•p i n a1 K�f�ViG Ip 4A La— ..J 1FXISTbJ6-1 T-LCYJS: pol7✓T CT— COuCF�,1MA7701,1 S -i 9 0— =: at. C,ZA 6L= 1, 0,0 C+ (9,12)3 CW6(C tH7W IL- -A= o. 37 +A.2,) o-1,00, o,53 .257 o.3q (9--:- o, rl'3 CF -S, I. Tc= 7 N11ivu7t j 2) 011JT o Cp/J C �i rt1L$77oJ✓ �� 13 �� bL =1, 00 C= u.111 -I C VF1 G -4 -CI a) T= 2,59 /N/ 411, ( io-`OeA P-- r= v. I Lr �,C. t Tia t 33) 00 0,vi , 0,1 L -t O(Q_ o. Z,� CSS -rc, _ 17 MPM-Ou � 'poi)jfi ofi- Q= }. T --A Pi. WE: V- -1, ori C, o 53 z C � = �.sr7 lNI1111, ( ro A= 0, 4.2, A-C4z cA,-fAz) 0::. 1.010- 0.52,.7.517 • 0,2 OF- CoACG uT 7-/O J 7c--7 M11A T ss 0,0 T— a,5r7 IAll �,IL, (t0-�1trz liAl , Tc— h �frl S A- G. 0 P Ac9L�S C Qt -t 4 Q = 1,1 ✓' C;t�s ue-z 7164 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR RATIONAL FORMULA .80 I I ( .80 I I . .70 70I � 1 oils •- I dor111 wy� I fI = I .6060 m, Anr Lis U �i z .50 Igen. i� I�/s A Lots J .50 u LL - Ove ` LL 0 LL LL Z .40 1 .40 n zt,�g� � I .30 I I 1.30 i i i I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 AVERAGE GROUND SLOPE % (NOT SLOPE OF CHANNEL OR STORM DRAIN) NOTE: Commercial, Industrial a Multiple Residential Areas C, = 0.9 (Based on paving, roofs, etc.) When vegetated area exceeds 20% of total, C„ from vegetated curve may be used to reduce above CPas follows: C7=CV A +CP A SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY PLATE No. 8- 1 ' 3-3 CITY OF PETALUMA 0 Revised September 07' http://CityDfpetaluma.neYedd/plan-sparc.html 19 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF PETALUMA. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 1. Purpose of Site Plan and Architectural ADDroval The purpose of the site plan and architectural review process is to secure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City of Petaluma (Section 26-401). Il. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) is a five member committee authorized by the Petaluma City Council to review site plans and architectural drawings. The Committee includes one Planning Commission representative and four other members appointed by the Council. Projects Iocated in historic districts or involving City landmarks are reviewed by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee (Historic SPARC). Historic SPARC includes SPARC and two additional members appointed by Council (one member from Heritage Homes and one member from the Petaluma Historical Library and Museum). III. Proiects Subiect to Review No city permit or license shall be issued for any of the following until site plan and architectural approval has been obtained (Zoning Ordinance 26-401): A. Public buildings and grounds; public and private schools, colleges, libraries, art galleries and museums; public and private hospitals and other institutions; churches and other places of public assembly; motels and hotels; office buildings; all commercial and industrial uses; mobile home parks; parking lots; public utilities structures and installation, except poles and towers carrying overhead lines; more than one dwelling unit per lot (dwelling group); and subdivisions with five or more single family dwellings. The Director may grant administrative site plan and architectural approval for: L Non -production residential units in approved subdivisions of five or more lots. For purposes of this section, the term "non -production residential units" shall mean houses not substantially similar to other houses within view of one another as determined by the Director, ii. All residential developments of less than five units iii. All minor additions or modifications to industrial, commercial or office buildings; or may refer said development proposals to the Committee. R. Site or structure located within a designated historic district. As determined by the Director, alterations to sites or structures located in a designated historic district that are of a minor nature may be subject to administrative review and approval. 2 P� N. General Standards for Review The appropriate reviewing body reviews the exhibits, together with the reports of the Community Development Department, and based on these documents, evidence submitted, and the considerations set forth below, may approve the project as applied for, approve the project with modifications, continue the proposal for requested changes/modifications, or disapprove the project. In taking action, the reviewing body shall consider the following (Section 26-406): A. Controls 'should be exercised to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the individual building and its site, appropriateness of the building to its intended use and the harmony of the development with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and harmony will involve among other things: i. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. ii. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. iii. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood including existing topography/grading, existing trees and topography/grading on adjacent properties. iv. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of appropriate signs and outdoor advertising structures. v. The bulk, height and color of the proposed structure as compared to the bulk, height and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood, and other determining factors/parameters such as zoning ordinance requirements, historic district guidelines, and/or specific plans, etc. B. Landscaping to approve City standards shall be required on the site and shall be in keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Committee. C. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved city standards. D. It is recognized that good design character may require participation by a recognized professional designer, such as an architect, landscape architect or other practicing urban designer. The Committee or planning staff shall have the authority 3 19V to require that an applicant hire such a professional, when deemed necessary to achieve quality design. SPARC encourages that if Public Art is proposed, that the art is to be part of the project proposal and not an afterthought (Public Art Ordinance, Ordinance No.2202 N.C.S.). V. The Citv of Petaluma's Green Building Program Petaluma Build It Green is a voluntary, points -based program designed to stimulate and support green building in Petaluma The program is designed around the Build It Green Guidelines which offer suggestions for conserving natural resources, using water and energy wisely, improving indoor air quality, and planning for livable and vibrant communities. Building with these measures helps to create healthy, durable homes that reduce environmental impacts and cost less to operate and maintain. Green building measures that are incorporated into a building project can earn "Green Points." These Green Points are calculated and documented by independent, third -party Green Points Raters, who submit an application for Green Points Rating to the Petaluma Build It Green program (at the City's Permit Counter), on behalf of the building owner/developer. Buildings that achieve at least 50 Green Points (with a minimum number of Green Points earned in various categories), will, be eligible to become GreenPoint Rated, earning a Petaluma Build It Green Certificate, and reference in the City's web pages. For more information on the City's Green Building program go to: • Cityofpetalumanet Petalumabuilditgreen.net or + Contact the Community Development Department at (707)-778-4301 VI. Procedures for Site Plan and Architectural Review A. Recommended Preliminary Staff Discussion It is recommended that the applicant discuss the, prospective project with the city planning staff prior to the preparation of plans. Copies of local zoning codes, design standards, and submittal requirements can be obtained at this time. B. Preliminary SPARC Review A preliminary SPARC review for nny potential project is highly recommended on a voluntary basis and is highly recommended for large complex projects. Applicants are encouraged to provide nearby properties a courtesy notice of the proposed project. The Committee will provide comments on the proposed site plan, architecture, landscaping and lighting of the project. The purpose of a preliminary review is for the Committee to be able to provide comments and/or suggestions to the applicant to improve their project prior to a formal review by the Committee, Commission and/or Council. A preliminary review is a discussion with the Committee and the applicant. 4 Z¢ No decision or vote is undertaken by the Committee for a preliminary review agenda item. A preliminary review agenda item is not publicly noticed. The Committee is not provided any staff analysis/input or any environmental review documents. C. Formal SPARC Submittal Requirements • Completed Development -Permit Application form (which can be accessed on-line at the City's website or in the Community Development Department), • Filing fee (check with the planning staff to determine the correct fees) • Full Size design plans. Typically a minimum of eight (8) sets are required. The total number of plan sets required is at the discretion of Community Development Department staff, contact planning staff for exact number of sets. NOTE: Contact planning staff regarding the use of electronic copies of plans and reports. • 11" x 17" Reduced Design Plans, one set (1), • For more detailed submittal and plan set requirements see the Development Permit Application Submittal Requirements and attached SPARC Plan Submittal Requirements. D. Environmental Review Environmental review of the project is potentially required as part of the review of the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). E. Public Notice Once the application has been deemed complete, the applicant and all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property will be notified of the hearing date a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. Applicants must comply with all other policies regarding noticing i.e., story poles as adopted by the Planning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. F. SPARC Hearing On the date of the hearing, the Committee shall consider the staff report and any additional staff comment and allow the applicant or any other public comment to present any evidence which the committee deems to be relevant to the application. The Committee shall approve, disapprove, or can continue the proposal for requested changes/modifications, or approve the subject project with conditions. The Committee meets on the 2nd and 4d' Thursday of the month in the City Council Chambers. �l G. Notification of SPARC Action Following SPARC action on a project, a letter of approval, conditional approval or denial will be mailed to the applicant. This letter should be drafted within 5 working days of the SPARC meeting. H. ADDeal Procedure (Section 26-408) i. Any Site Plan and Architectural Review decision of the Director may be appealed to the Committee within fourteen (14) calendar days of the decision. ii. Any decision of the Committee may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the decision. iii. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. If no appeal is made within the time limits, the decision shall be final. The appeal shall set forth in writing and include the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. In the case of an appeal to the Committee, the City Clerk shall transmit the appeal to the Director who shall establish a hearing date and shall notify in writing all persons who have demonstrated their interest in the matter of the time and place of the hearing at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing.. VII. Outstandina Proiect Certificates/Committee Business The Committee may award applicants for outstanding projects. After project completion, committee members may nominate outstanding projects for a Certificate of Excellence. Certificates are in the following categories or groups of categories: 4 Architectural Design • Landscape Design • Historic Restoration ISM CITY OF PETALUMA SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ADDlication Requirements • Development Permit Application One (1) Copy a Cost Based Fee System Form if applicable a Fees a Full Size plans folded (8 copies minimum) • The SPARC Committee encourages 1/2 size plans to be submitted for SPARC members only prior to a public hearing to be included as part of the packet rather than full sized plans. a 11" x 17" Reduced Plans (1 copy) • PreliminaryEnvironmental Assessment (E.I.Q.-Environmental Impact Questionnaire) as applicable. Plans containing the following information shall be submitted for all proj ects requiring Architectural and Site Design Review Site Design Plan. • Vicinity Map indicating the site and surrounding streets. Scale 1"=200' • Minimum Scale: 1" = 20' (if necessary, break-up plans for large projects, and submit a master plan at a lesser scale). a North Arrow. ® Property lines and dimensions. • Easements. • Distances between buildings and property lines. • Proposed, existing and surrounding uses (aerial context map). • Square footage of existing and proposed buildings, and their percentages of gross lot coverage. • Existing structures, existing mature trees and landscaping, paving, drainage courses, and other pertinent man-made and natural features where applicable. • An existing site conditions drawing, Said plan shall identify existing structures and trees/landscaping to be removed. • Proposed and existing grading contours. • Outline of proposed structure including walls, doors, and windows, scale determine by staff. • Context plans that show the proposed and existing public streets, curbs, and sidewalks. Existing driveways not proposed for future use. • Contextual site plan and contextual elevations drawings. . • Proposed location of off-street driveways, bike racks and other pertinent bike plan requirements, parking spaces and loading areas with dimensions; curbing; car -stops; direction of traffic flow; provisions for access by the elderly and physically disabled, etc. • Site sections, including the relationship to adjacent properties and structures. • Proposed landscape area and pedestrian walks. • Location of retaining walls, including the wall finish, proposed fences, free- standing signs, electrical transformer boxes, trash enclosures, etc., and appropriate screening. • Designation of private and common facilities and open space within developments. • If appropriate an arborist report for trees that maybe impacted by construction. • Any other items deemed appropriate for review by the Community Development Department. Architectural Design Plan o Recommended Minimum Scale: 1" =10' a All exterior building elevations. • Colors and materials board. a Sections drawings of the building (The SPARC Committee prefers 2 sections through the building. This can also be done in conjunction with site sections, if drawn at the appropriate scale). e Exterior building elevations with materials identified. a Streetscape elevation if applicable. a Exterior lighting illustrating lighting locations and details as to the type of fixture. A photometric plan may be required. ® All visible accessory fixtures. (i.e., gas, meters, mechanical equipment, air conditioners, etc.), including roof mounted equipment, and the proposed method of screening. ® Roof plans. 0 Type of construction and occupancy type and finished floor elevations. Landscape Design Plan • Minimum Scale: 1" = 20' (Plans for large projects landscape projects may be broken up into sections. These sections must match the architectural site plans and details such as windows and doors). o Outline of the site, building, streets, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, on- site curbing, storage areas, etc., to be retained and constructed; and proposed grading contours. • Location, caliper size and drip -line, size, and species of on site and immediately adjacent existing trees and large shrubs. • Indicate all trees to be removed, to be substantiated by an arborist report (if applicable). a Precise location or pattern and spacing of all proposed landscape materials. 9 • Schedule of planting in table form showing plant sizes, ground cover spacing, and botanical and common names. • Design and location of all outdoor lighting, fencing, screening, retaining walls, electrical transformers, trash enclosures, street furniture, etc. • Exterior landscape lighting and details as to the type of fixture. A Photometric Plan may be required. • Irrigation plans. At a minimum a written description of proposed irrigation shall be provided. • The project proposal shall be in conformance with the City of Petaluma Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. uu►nui iu ' :: au � � w� ► � ► Angle of Parking Space Width of Length of Width of Len of Minimum Back- SDace Space Angled Space Angled Space u Len STANDARD CARS A B C D E Parallel Parking 9' 22' 30 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 18' 17.3' 11.5' 9.5' 19' 19' 17.7' 11.5' 10' 19' 20' 18.2' 11.5' 45 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 12.7' 19.8' 13' 9.5' 19' 13.4' 20.2' 13' 10' 19', 14.1' 20.5' 13' 60 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 10.4' 20.9' 17.5' 9.5' 19' 11' 21.2' 17.5' 10' 19' 11.5' 21.4' 17.5' 90 Degree Angle Parking 9' 19' 9' 19' 26' 9.5' 19' 9.5' 19' 24' 10' 19' 10' 19' 23' COMPACT CARS A B C D E Parallel Parking 8' 20' 30 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 15.9' 14.1' 12' 45 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 11:2' 16.9' 12' 60 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 9.2' 18.4' 14' 90 Degree Angle Parking 8' 16' 8' 16' 22' Unistall 60 Degree 8.5' 18' 8.5' 18' 26' *SMART Code -Central Petaluma Speck Plan Unistall 90 Degree 8.5' 18' 8.5' 18' 26' *SMART Code -Central Petaluma Specific Plan NOTE: For properties within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan refer to the Specific Plan for dimensions of parking spaces and driveways. 11 (8(� Ali 1411 6 PARKING SURFACE 1/2" DIA. REBAR 12 LOW GROUND COVER !N OVERHANG AREA FIGURE 2 END OF STALL 17' �r 29' 13 RGURE 3.TYPEAL PARKING LAYOUT Building .I . \\\ J I N N n • TE III *2. C 20'MIN.. 3I'•MIN.I WMIN. "`I I I I i tf'�-', .� icr •.. 2'OVERHANG YMIN. ' 3'MIN.BUFFER Typical Building Layout \\\ J D N N n • 0 eLANDSCANDAPFAS C-MiPACT6PACE TE -TeAua mxtosuu H.0 -}LNDICAPPED SPACE 14 91 J TE -TeAua mxtosuu H.0 -}LNDICAPPED SPACE 14 91 The following standards were derived to guide the design of parking lots constructed in the City of Petaluma. Additional standards pertaining to parking and loading are contained in the City Zoning Ordinance, Article 20 and the SMART Code of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Number of Parking Spaces A. The minimum number of parking spaces required for each use is specified in Section 20-300 of the Zoning Ordinance and the SMART Code for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. B. Up to thirty (30) percent of the minimum required parking spaces may be reduced in size to accommodate compact cars, except when unistall spaces are the standard- C. tandard C. The required number of safe and conveniently accessible parking spaces shall be provided for the physically disabled in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Locations near building entrances are required by the applicable Building Code. Parking spaces abutting landscape islands are encouraged. D. Parking spaces required in industrially zoned areas that exceed current employment needs may be reserved as landscaped area, subject to approval by the Director, or as -requested by the SPARC Committee. 2. Dimensions of Parking Spaces and Driveways A. Standard parking stalls shall measure a minimum of nine (9) feet wide by nineteen (19) feet long, except that end stalls shall measure a minimum often (10) feet wide. B. Compact car stalls shall measure a minimum of eight (8) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long, except that end stalls shall measure a minimum of twelve (9) feet wide by nineteen (16) feet long. C. Parking stalls for disabled persons shall comply with the California Building Code. D. Driveway curb cuts should be per City Standards or as determined by the City Engineer. E. One-way drives shall measure at least ten (10) feet in width and two-way drives at least twenty (20) feet in width. F. Covered parking spaces shall measure 10' wide by 20' deep; measurements shall be from interior wall to interior wall. 3. Desim and Lavout of Parldna and Drives A. Residential parking areas for more than four (4) cars and parking lots in all commercial and industrial zones must be designed to prevent the backing of vehicles onto any public street right-of-way. B. Dead end ninety (90) degree angle parking should be provided with adequate turning room (See figure 3). C. End row parking spaces shall be protected from the turning movements of other vehicles with landscape areas. D. Parking lots shall not be permitted in required front yards or street side yards. 15 vb'�— E. A minimum distance of twenty (20) feet shall be provided at driveway entrances between the fronting property lines and the first on-site parking spaces to provide adequate vehicular stacking space -(See Figure 3). F. Whenever feasible, curb cuts serving adjacent uses should be combined to minimise the number of entrances onto a public right-of-way. The number of street access driveways should be minimized. G. Curb cuts on comer lots should be located at the farthest point away from the curb return as is feasible (See Figure3). H. When a long driveway having only single ingress is necessary within a development, provisions should be made for the maneuvering of emergency vehicles and the arrangement approved by the City staff prior to its incorporation into the plan. I. All driveways and parking lots shall be paved with a City approved surface. Alternative paving materials maybe used subject to SPARC. Use of pervious pavement is encouraged. Projects may be required to provide a minimum of 20% of pervious pavement. I The front two (2) feet of parking stalls (overhang) may be improved with low growing ground cover instead of paving (See Figure 2). K.. In large parking lots where storm water management is required SPARC strongly encourages innovative designs including bio-swales and other natural materials/plantings. 4. Landscape. Screening, and Lighting A. Landscaping of parking lots shall conform to the City Landscape Guidelines, including the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance. B. Residential parking areas for more than four (4) cars and parking lots in all commercial and industrial zones should be screened from the street right-of-way through the use of decorative walls, fences, and/or landscaping. C. Minimum five (S) feet wide landscape strips (not including vehicular overhangs) should be provided between paved parking surfaces and buildings, fences, and property lines wherever possible. Not more than eight (8) parking stalls should be located in a row without a six (6) foot wide minimum landscape divider strip, exclusive of concrete curbing, (see Figure 3). Alternatives will be considered by the Director or the Committee. D. Any lights provided to illuminate a parking facility shall be arranged so as to reflect the light away from adjacent properties and streets (downward lighting). Lighting standards shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height and should be consistent with the architectural design of on-site buildings in terms of style, color and materials. E. Plant trees to encourage shading. 16 C�� LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS The following standards were derived to provide minimum design criteria for the installation of landscaping and irrigation systems in all commercial, industrial, residential and multi -family residential developments. Plants should be of the type which are proven successful in Petaluma's climate and soils. 2. Only landscaping will be permitted in yard areas, with the exception of driveways, sidewalks or other improvements approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 3. All unusable areas in and around parking lots shall be landscaped where practical. 4. Landscaped areas shall be encouraged between asphalt areas and all building structures, fences and property lines. Hardscape may be used where pedestrian access is necessary as determined by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 5. Landscaping should be concentrated in highly visible locations where it will have the greatest visual impact. Specifically, areas around building entrances and site perimeters should be given extra consideration. Landscaping in parking lots should introduce bio- swale features into most areas not specifically required for driveways or parking spaces. 6. Attractive natural features of existing sites, including existing trees, shall be preserved whenever possible. Trees which must be removed should be documented by a certified arborist and an ASA value should be assigned. Such documentation should be reviewed and evaluated by the City Arborist. The mitigation shall be determined by the Director or the SPARC Committee (see Zoning Ordinance. Section 23-400). 7. Parcels located along all arterial roads or highway entrances to the City (such as Petaluma Blvd., Lakeville Street, Washington Street, East Washington Street and U.S. 101, etc.) shall be designed with greater than average quality landscaping to visually accommodate the high volume of passing motorists. 8. Electrical transformer boxes and garbage enclosures should be screened with attractive fencing or walls constructed of materials consistent with those used on the primary structure(s). 9. Loading areas, vehicles, parking lots, meters, outdoor storage, etc., should be adequately screened whenever possible. 10. The improvement and dedication of island landscape areas within the public right-of-way in newly developing areas should be encouraged. 11. Plant type should be adaptable to the size and location of the space it is to occupy. 17 I 12. Use of recycled landscape materials shall be encouraged. 13. Alternative materials may be substituted for ground cover plantings. Where wood chips are used as part of the landscaping material, it should not be used where it will cause increased public maintenance problems. Appropriate planting material may also be required in addition to ground cover. . 14. Trees planted under power or telephone lines shall be of a species which will not conflict with the overhead lines. 15. Motorist and pedestrian views of long expansive building walls, fencing or paving should be visually broken up with intermittently spaced and large groupings of trees, and additional plantings maybe required. 16. The variety of landscape materials should be consistent with the building architecture and street tree master plan and with that found in the surrounding areas. For example, desert or tropical plants would contrast with the downtown iron front buildings. 17. The design and materials used for fencing, street furniture, outdoor lighting and paving should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and the neighborhood. 18. Where appropriate, the areas between street curbs and sidewalks should be improved with street trees, shrubs, ground cover, brick, cobblestone or other decorative materials and shall be maintained by the property owner. 19. Landscape material planted on dedicated City property shall be of a drought resistant, low maintenance variety. Native or adaptive drought resistant plants are also encouraged in all private developments. 20. Unless an extraordinary amount of trees are to be planted (i.e., campground), all trees shall have a trunk diameter of at least three-quarter (3/4) inch as measured one foot above the ground, (fifteen gallon minimum size container). All trees shall be double staked in accordance with approved City standards. Street trees shall conform to the City Street Tree Ordinance. For growing purposes, street trees should be planted in the ground instead of in confined pots or planters. Any tree not on the approved street tree list may be approved for such use if approved by the Public Works Director after review by the appropriate departments and commissions. Application for use of a tree type shown on the approved list must be made on a form provided by the Park and Recreation Department with the applicant to provide all necessary information for appropriate review. 21. All shrubs not used as ground cover shall be at least five (5) gallons in size. 22. Ground cover shall be spaced to allow for complete infill within one (1) year of the date of planting (for example, ivy hypericum, wild strawberry, etc., should be spaced on 18 9' twelve -inch centers). Loose stones and gravel should not be placed adjacent to streets, driveways, parking spaces of sidewalks. 23. The City reserves the right to inspect and reject any landscape material not in accordance with the approved plan, or if diseased. 24. Approved irrigation systems should be provided for all landscaping areas in accordance with the City's Water Efficiency Standards. 25. All landscaping shall be maintained in healthy growing condition by the permit holder for a period of 90 days after receiving an occupancy permit. 26. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning, fertilizing, and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements (Section 23-301 Zoning Ordinance). 27. Adequate soil preparation in accordance with accepted landscape industry practices should be a requirement for all landscape areas. Particular attention should be given to slopes or berm areas with a 5% slope or greater to prevent the loss of plant materials or slope erosion during the watering cycle or wet weather. Refer to the City's Water Resources and Conservation Department for additional conservation techniques which include but are not limited to: A. Use of jute or other biodegradable mesh to hold the plant material in place. B. Use of hydro -mulch which provides slope stabilization and adequate nutriments until the plant material has established itself. 28. Landscaping shall not be located where it will block visibility and create traffic hazards or sight distance problems. (See Zoning Ordinance Section 23-304). 29. Landscaping should be used in conjunction with required fencing as buffer between land uses where possible. 30. Tree plantings should encourage summer shade on walls, windows, roofs, parking spaces and drives, and walks to help improve energy efficiency and reduce temperatures. 31. Each project shall provide at least one on-site tree for each 500 square feet of open space and at least one tree for each 4 off street uncovered parking stalls. Those trees required, due to the amount of open space, shall be planted in the remainder of the site. Open space, for this purpose has been determined to include all open space areas existing on- site, but excludes parking or drive aisles. 32. Maintenance necessary for various types of plants will be considered in determining the appropriateness of landscaping. 19 q 33. Plants which drop seed pods or fruit should not be located where such droppings would cause maintenance or safety problems. 34. Landscaping shall be used to screen parking areas where possible. 20 97 TRASH ENCLOSURE SCREEN DESIGN STANDARDS The following standards were developed to guide the design of refuse collection facilities for commercial, industrial, and multi -family residential developments in the City of Petaluma. Additional regulations regarding the refuse collection facilities are contained in the City Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21-201, 22-303 and 22-309. Number. Size and Tvne of Containers A. Multi -family residential developments with five or more dwelling units shall provide area for an equivalency of at least two 30 -gallon refuse containers per unit or at least one 1.5 cubic yard bin for each five units. (EXCEPTION; Housing developments for elderly persons need to provide area for an equivalency of only one 30 -gallon refuse container per unit.) B. Commercial and industrial developments shall provide refuse containers in a number and size so as to adequately contain the refuse generated by the development. Waste in excess of one 4 -cubic yard container requires portable or stationary compactor service or additional bins. C. Hazardous or noxious wastes must be contained in a safe and sanitary manner, in accordance with applicable regulations. 2, Location of Containers A. Containers shall be consolidated to minimize the number of collection sites, and located so as to reasonably equalize the distance from the building spaces they serve. B. Containers and enclosures shall be located so as to allow ease of access for collection trucks and direct access to drive areas. Straight -in or circular drives are encouraged to reduce truck maneuvering problems. No parking or other obstructions shall be permitted in the access area for enclosures. C. Containers and enclosures shall be placed away from public view insofar as is practical. D. Containers and enclosures shall be situated so that they do not cause excessive nuisance or offense to occupants of nearby buildibgs. E. For large projects, designers of refuse collection facilities should consult with the sanitation company. 3. Construction Details 21 9S A. All refuse containers shall be screened with a six-foot high (minimum) fence or wall which conceals containers from all sides and gate(s). B. Concrete pads of appropriate size and construction shall be provided for containers or groups of containers having a capacity of six 30 -gallon cans or more. Aprons shall be provided for loading of bins with capacity of 1.5 cubic yards or more. Recommended construction specifications are shown in Appendix B, Figure 1. Adequate drainage shall be provided around the pad area. C. Water outlets (hose bibs) for fire safety and sanitation are required within 40 feet of enclosures for refuse containers of total capacity greater than five 30 -gallon cans. D. For storage of recyclable materials, the enclosure area and pad size shall be increased to amply accommodate the extra materials and their containers. E. The tops of trash enclosures which are directly visible from the second floor of any on or off-site building shall be screened with a roof or overhead trellis. F. Screening and gates shall be of a durable construction; fences, walls, footings, slabs and curbs shall meet City Building Code requirements. Gates shall be constructed of heavy -gauge metal or of a heavy -gauge metal frame with covering of wood or other suitable material. Gates shall be secured with sturdy hinges or sliders, and latches. For enclosures of six cans or more and for bins, the screening shall be protected at its base by curbs (see Appendix B, Figure 1). If screening is to be situated directly adjacent to parking spaces or drives, it shall be protected by a concrete -curbed buffer strip (minimum 3 feet wide) of landscaping or pavement. G. The design of the screening shall be compatible with the architectural design of on-site buildings. 22 �� APPENDIX "A" 1. DIMENSIONS OF REFUSE CONTAINERS. Standard 30 -gallon can 1.5 cubic yard bin 2.0 cubic yard bin 3.0 cubic yard bin 4.0 cubic yard bin 2. EOUIVALENCY TABLE 1.5 cubic yard container 2.0 cubic yard container 3.0 cubic yard container 4.0 cubic yard container APPENDIX"B" 201V2" Diameter x 27" High High Deep Wide 43" 36" 80" 47" 39" 80" 58" 48%2" 80" 64" 531/2" 80" 10 30 -gallon cans 14 30 -gallon cans 21 30 -gallon cans 28 30 -gallon cans 1. DIMENSIONS OF PADS (See Figure 1) Minimum Pad Size Container Size (Not Including ADron) 1 to 5 30 -gallon cans Pad Not Required 6 to 10 30 -gallon cans 1.5 to 4 cubic yard bins Width A DeDth B 101-01, 91-01, 101-011 91-01, Minimum Inside Dimension Of Curbed Pad Area Curbing Not Required Width C DeDth D 8'- 4" 8'- 2" 8'- 4" 8'- 2" 23 I(J figumT:lyplml Enclosure TA' V k 4 �lI> v •7pA' 8%1' r� 63' h I I 11 I i 1 1 Co'min. finfsfish (. hod grad i ( I Aj FooMgw /' requimdforwail Hose bib atorwithin IF-rofenclosura <�> Floordraln(optlonail 4' rAncmta slab with 6'X & 4 70-16weldedw[tafandcot asappmmd bydtysW io'wido(mtnpt6-Mghmrtaeia 4' curb ragWmdlnslda 4'mecmte apron ml swAtm umlarphmit Haevp•gauga matalormetnt <'6 fmmodq=Vdthtatch- must be able to swi ng greater thm9odegmes. 24 N0.4HORTLONTALREBAR WFROM9OP AND BOTTOM �I - A�. ALL BLOCKSGROUTEOSOLID N0.4VERTICALREBAR EVEAY32"ON CENTER AT,EACH CORNEA U0•BOLTHOOKAND - STARPHINGES INGROUT r -I LJ , NUTAND all Ir Lp I WASHER uu MEFAL FRAM 25 1/YMACHINE BOLES ETAL AME ATTACHMENT 7 January 26, 2009 Response to Appeal letter - filed December 22, 2008 Re: 30 West EI Rose (North Bridge Offices) File: 08 -SPC -0048 -CR The Applicant for 30 West EI Rose (North Bridge Offices) requests that the City Council uphold the SPARC approval of December 11, 2008 and deny the Appeal filed by Scot Stegeman and the EI Rose/Hayes Coalition. The December 11, 2008 staff report indicates that the proposed project under the 2025 General Plan (GP) meets the intent of the Policies and Programs as well as the development standards of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Prior to the review under the new General Plan, the proposed project had several legal non- conforming status items. Under the 2025 GP, these non -conformities were eliminated primarily due to the new setbacks in a Mixed Use zone. The IZO required a design revision of demolishing a portion of the existing building to conform with the new 15 foot residential side yard setback. Appeal Issue 1): "SPARC did not provide an objective and independent review of the new submittal." There is no evidence to support the claim that SPARC was not objective and independent. SPARC has seen the project four times (three, with the same members) and in those hearings the issues of traffic, drainage, parking, building massing, landscaping, privacy and solar access to neighboring properties has been discussed. Appeal Issue 2): "The project is inconsistent with the current Zoning Code in several respects." 2a): "...the application continues to rely upon retaining legal non -conforming status in regards to the upper parking lot, the lower parking lot and the connecting driveway." In the SPARC approved proposal, all previous non -conformities have been eliminated. Therefore, the project does not require the previous legal non -conforming status. The Project's use IS CONFORMING in this Mixed Use zone and the building is occupied. 2b): The Appeal cites the SPARC Guidelines and asserts that the project should have one loading space. It is in fact, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance that sets the requirements for loading. Section 20-903 addresses professional offices - "when any of the foregoing requires MAD architecture 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA Y grz IVSD Tel 707.765.9222 Fax 707.765.9290 Web www.madarcJAM17 2009 COMMUNITY DEUELOPr0ENT DEPARTMENT ��3 the RECURRING receipt, delivery, or distribution of goods or equipment by truck. One loading berth plus such additional berths as may be prescribed by the Zoning Administrator." The applicant's dental business does not require RECURRING deliveries. If deliveries are made, it is a UPS vehicle or similar up to twice a week. There are no special deliveries to this facility. The need for a loading space was discussed during the SPARC hearing and it was addressed in the above manner. The submitted and approved drawings are the record of this approval. 2c): The Appeal letter cites Section 20-402 Standards for Off Street Parking Facilities, which states "access to each off-street parking space shall be from a driveway or aisle, which is sufficient for readily turning and maneuvering vehicles." The issue he brings up is the "complicated turn movement sequences" if one car enters while another is exiting. We have attached an exhibit called "Dead End Exhibit" that shows that a Crown Victoria automobile can make a three-point turn at the rear parking area and exit even if all spaces are occupied. This size of vehicle and the modeling software used has long been accepted by jurisdictions, including the City of Petaluma to demonstrate parking accessibility. 2d): The Appeal letter states "The four enclosed new spaces provided under the building are shown with two of the spaces being 9 feet wide and one space as 8 feet wide. This is inconsistent with SPARC requirements that any covered spaces be 10 feet wide. These spaces cannot be credited against the number of needed spaces unless they are brought into conformity." This was discussed during the SPARC hearing and because of the vehicular maneuver modeling that was provided in the Parking Access Exhibits, it was determined by committee members that the covered parking and access shown was acceptable. 2e): The Appeal asserts "The proposed driveway entrance violates the SPARC requirement that there be 20 feet between a site entrance and the first parking space." The correct document to cite is the SPARC Guidelines. This was discussed during the SPARC hearing. The first existing parking stall as you enter the parking lot is protected with a landscape island and space to allow one vehicle to stop within the site as a parked vehicle would back out to leave said space (See attached "Stacking Exhibit" from Steve LaFranchi and Associates). This is the intent of the Guidelines diagram. S i MAD architecture 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94952 Tel 707.765.9222 Fax 707.765.9290 We6 www.m6darc.com 2 i 1 /o It -H �E- 0�1 � FUST 014 2003-20820 O I h` °® 4 2,t II DEA® END EXHIBIT 6 ?-h n HI5VEH 1 LARWIOG L�BBOMIE& HM B I I i I I I 1- j ASHTIANTI 'I 80 W. EL ROSE OFFICE m L___—_—__ -- a °® 4 DEA® END EXHIBIT 6 p HI5VEH 1 LARWIOG L�BBOMIE& HM ASHTIANTI 80 W. EL ROSE OFFICE m PETALUMA. CALIFORNIA I I I 'I I I I! 1Nt NWUN)\tiSEtaNY MAO®GO lVdlM9 J¢ MAK" GV0 . oamm 4 d F � BTEYE11i WRV1N419 daBBOCiaTE8, H4 I STACKING EXHIBIT ASHTIANTI 30 W. EL ROSE OFFICE PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Appeal Issue 3): "The project is inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zoning Code in several respects." 3a): "....the correct and conservative way to assess traffic and parking impacts is against the uses that would create the greatest demand. Only then can the City and neighbors be protected from a change of use that creates significant new impacts and no means to have them corrected." The allowable use in this zone that create the greatest demand is Medical Offices. This is the prevalent use in the neighborhood on West EI Rose, upper B Street and upper Hayes Street. It should be noted that Hayes and W. El Rase are identified as `Connector' streets with medium volume in the 2025 GP. 3b): The Appeal letter suggests that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan because it provides only one use in the structure in a Mixed Use zone. The General Plan on pagel-7 Mixed Use (outside of the CPSP) states "...the intent of mixed use is to recognize a broad range of uses along those corridors including both commercial and residential uses; a mixture of uses on these smaller individual parcels is encouraged but not required." The intent of Mixed Use seems clear that a mix of uses in a neighborhood achieves this same goal. This Mixed Use neighborhood currently has both residential and professional offices and medical care facilities. Appeal Item d): The Appeal states that the Project was improperly processed under CEQA as Categorically Exempt. The determination was made by Planning and supported by the City Attorney that the Project is Categorically Exempt for the following reasons: • It is less than 10,000 sl" • The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development, • It is permissible in the General Plan, • It is not environmentally sensitive. Sin mm MAD architectu re 145 KELLER STREET PETALUMA CA 94952 Tel 707.765.9222 Fax 707.765.9290 Web www.modar,c.com / F1� Al—rACHMEN-F 8 200 FOURTH ST. SUITE 400 P.O. BOX 878 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402-0878 BIC PHONE 707.547.2000 FAX 707.526.2746 WEB BEYERSCOSTIN.COM BEYERSA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COSTIN January 27, 2009 Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Appeal of SPARC Approval (Northbridge Offices) Addition to Existing Office Structure at 30 W. E1 Rose File: 08 -SPC -0048 -CR BC File No. 6502 Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Councilmembers: I represent the project applicant North Bridge Endodontics with respect to its proposed addition to its office building at 30 West E1 Rose. By separate letter, Mary Dooley, architect for the applicant, has responded to many of the claims asserted by appellants' consultant Stegeman & Associates dated December 22, 2008. I write to address certain issues related to CEQA raised both in that letter, and in the letter from appellants' attorney Rose Zoia dated September 12, 2008. At the outset it is worth noting that the Council has already considered the question of CEQA compliance during the prior September 15, 2008 appeal of this matter, and agreed that the project should be deemed categorically exempt. After the city attorney opined at that hearing that SPARC acted properly in exempting the project from CEQA, the Council remanded the matter back to SPARC only with respect to the issue of conformance with the 2025 General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. It did not instruct SPARC to make any further findings with regard to the CEQA exemption. Nevertheless, we respond to appellants' arguments on this issue below. The Project Is Properly Exempt From CEQA SPARC properly found that this proposed renovation of an existing office building falls within the "existing facilities" exemption of CEQA Guideline section 15301, which exempts "minor alteration of existing public or private structure�§§ � v� �n negligible or no expansion of use beyond that exingiarvtt-h b JAN 2 7 2009 G:\6502\Letters\CityCounci1 2009-01-27.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C�� Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 2 time of the lead agency's determination."' The Guideline includes within its examples of such exempt projects those involving "additions to existing structures" of less than 10,000 square feet where W the project is in an area "where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan" and (ii) the area is not "environmentally sensitive." Section 15301(e) (2) . This project fits squarely within this exemption. The proposed addition is only 3,684 square feet in size; it is consistent with the new General Plan and zoning as now confirmed by SPARC; and there is no suggestion that the surrounding area is environmentally sensitive. In challenging SPARC's determination that the project is categorically exempt, appellants must show "substantial evidence" that the exemption is improper.' Substantial evidence consists of more than "[m]ere uncorroborated opinion or rumor" 3 or "speculative possibilities" of environmental impact .4 Instead "project opponents must produce... evidence, other than their unsubstantiated opinions, that a project will produce a particular adverse effect."s Appellants have failed to meet this burden. For example, in arguing the inadequacy of area parking, they cite the red - 1 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15301. 2 San Lorenzo Valley Comm. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1389 (2006) (appellant must produce substantial evidence to challenge exemption for school consolidation project based on traffic, parking and access concerns) ; Centinela Hosp. Ass'n v. City of Inglewood, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1586, 1601 (1990) (substantial evidence supports agency determination that use permit for new, two-story fifteen -bed psychiatric facilities is categorically exempt under CEQA); Dehne v. County of Santa Clara, 115 Cal. App. 3d 827 (1981) (substantial evidence supports agency decision to categorically exempt the reconstruction of a cement company facilities) 3 Guidelines section 15384(a). 4 Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 756 (1990). ' Id. at 735-736 � DI Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 3 striping proposed on the project frontage as if this measure, intended to improve site distance for the entrance/exit, would strain "public services and facilities." Stegeman letter at 3. Likewise they appear to argue that the area's storm drain system is inadequate but acknowledge that the applicant has "agreed to increase the storm drain size to meet City standards" along the building frontage. Id. at 4 (emphasis added). The evidence is that this project will only improve, not worsen, storm water drainage in the area. Appellants further contend in conclusory fashion that the exemption is improper because "the environmental review of a project must take into account the worst case scenario," citing for support a case wherein the court found significant parking impacts resulting from the proposed project. Zoia letter at 7. However, the project in that case was far from a simple 3,700 square foot office building expansion, but instead involved the expansion of a "convention center and two office towers [that] would fill all the available parking spaces within three blocks, and parking spaces would still be needed for 2,621 cars." 6 Finally, appellants challenge the propriety of the "existing facilities" exemption on the ground that the project involves more than "negligible or no expansion of use" because the building is currently vacant. Based on that alleged fact, appellants proceed to argue that "no use" is the baseline from which to measure the increased use of the proposed project. Zoia letter at 6-7. This argument runs counter to the facts, the law and the purpose of the CEQA. First, the building has been used for years as medical offices (by a urologist, a chiropractor and a dentist), as well as by mortgage lenders, and it is currently occupied in part by Petaluma Care and Rehabilitation. Second, appellants cite no authority that a temporary reduction or suspension in use necessarily establishes a new baseline against which to measure impacts, and indeed the case law is to the contrary.' 6 Sacramento Old City Assn v. City Council, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011, 1020 (1991). Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board, 192 Cal. App. 3d 847 (1987) (in upholding "existing facilities" exemption, it is proper to evaluate expansion of sewage treatment capacity against permitted use, even though actual use was less). Cf. Fairview Neighbors v. F t 0 Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 4 Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that CEQA is a tool for assessing potential environmental impact, not a mandate for suspending common sense. So for example, where the City already knows the traffic impacts from a this building in its existing state (3,287 square feet), it makes no sense to ignore that data, as appellants suggest, and simply assume that this office space produces no traffic. Zoia letter at 7. Such an approach, if followed, would presumably require the City to consider even the restoration of a fire -damaged building, or the construction of tenant improvements, against a baseline of "no use" during the occupants' temporary vacancy. CEQA of course does not require such an absurd result and in fact implicitly accounts for the possibility of such vacancies in its categorical exemptions.8 The "Unusual Circumstances" Exception Does Not Apply Appellants are also wrong in their assertion that the "existing facilities" exemption should not apply due to the exception for "an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." Guideline section 15300.2. Though they complain that SPARC made no findings as to this exception (Stegeman letter at 3), it is appellants - not the City - who carry the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that such an exception applies.9 Appellants simply cannot meet that burden. While they list a series of generalized environmental concerns, appellants fail to show how any of these concerns are due to "unusual circumstances" as required by CEQA.10 As one court so aptly County of Ventura, 70 Cal. App. 4th 238 (1999) (upholding EIR based on truck trips possible under prior permit, without regard to actual trip generation). ' Guideline § 15301(a) and (d) (exempting projects involving interior alterations and restoration/rehabilitation of damaged structures). 9 Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, 101 Cal. App. 4th 786, 795-96 (2002). 10 Santa Monica, 101 Cal. App. 4th at 801 ("We also note, however, that the specific 'unusual circumstances, relied upon by [appellant] are not the kind of 'unusual circumstances' Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 5 described the requirements of this exception in a case bearing a remarkable similarity: [Appellant's] only claim under Guidelines section 15300.2(c) appears to be that the project does not include adequate parking facilities, and "will result in increased demand on the City's streets and other public parking areas, as well as an increase in traffic and circulation around the project site as potential site users attempt to park in the downtown area." She cites various comments from the administrative record, by which project opponents voiced concerns about the existing traffic and parking problems in downtown Mill Valley, and the prospect of the project exacerbating those problems. The shortcoming in [Appellant's] argument is that she has made no showing whatsoever of any "unusual circumstances" surrounding the construction of this small commercial structure giving rise to any risk of "significant" effects upon the environment. (Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) while the addition of any small building to a fully developed downtown commercial area is likely to cause minor adverse changes in the amount and flow of traffic and in parking patterns in the area, such effects cannot be deemed "significant" without a showing of some feature of the project that distinguishes it from any other small, run-of-the-mill commercial building or use. Otherwise, no project that satisfies the criteria set forth in Guidelines section 15303(c) [new facility under 10,000 square feet] could ever be found to be exempt. There is nothing about the proposed 5,855 - square -foot retail/office building that sets it apart from any other small commercial structure to be built in an urbanized area... . (emphasis added)." required for the application of this exception, because whether a circumstance is unusual' is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.") (original emphasis). 11 Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1243, 1260 (1999) (finding no "unusual circumstances" for exception to categorical exemption for new office building). L 12- Hon. Mayor Pamela Torliatt and City Councilmembers January 27, 2009 Page 6 Here too appellants have pointed to nothing "unusual" about this project that poses a "reasonable possibility" of significant environmental impact .12 The bottom line is that while appellants would prefer not to see this development in their neighborhood, CEQA provides no basis for their opposition. "[S]uspicions about a project, though sincere and deeply felt, do not rise to the level of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental effect. ,13 Sincerely, C� Christopher G. Costin CGC:sb cc: Client Eric Danley, Esq. 12 East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist., 210 Cal. App. 3d 155 (1989), cited by appellants (Zoia letter at B), provides no support for their position and was in fact expressly limited to its facts by a subsequent opinion of the same court. See Apt. Assn of Greater L.A. v. City of L.A., 90 Cal. App. 4th 1162, 1172-73 (2001): Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, we did not hold in East Peninsula an agency always must conduct an "initial study" before declaring a project exempt from CEQA review. Such a holding would run counter to the three -tiered structure of CEQA review under which, if a project is categorically exempt "no further agency evaluation is required" and no "initial study" takes place. East Peninsula was decided on the basis of the unique provision in section 21080.18, which states CEQA does not apply to the closing of a public school or the transfer of its students "if the only physical changes involved are categorically exempt.... 13 Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337, 1352 (1990) (rejecting neighbors' concerns regarding perceived traffic impacts). !13 I South-West Render 0 ATTACHMENT 2 South -Fast Render 3 ,North-West Render r 4 ,North-East Render 5 ' Eave-Sunshads Detail aosd ' _ [,Qi. ll, ",ill" n/W.. ari., e ', onm�res m.aoseune�sessrn asew.a�..i.oa.c xuw ws.u... °.Fem�wa9.n�e� er ¢wmuu.. IF $ ^IE -A 5x-014 Vi 4 � GI E to 47 D^ .Q o .� tY 0 W L M LJ 5 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 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 Rick Edwards 1030 B Street (@ El Rose) Petaluma, CA January 28, 2009 Mayor Torliatt 11 English Street Petaluma, California Re: Proposed development at 30 West El Rose Dear Mayor Torliatt, At this Monday's city council meeting, you and the council members are expected to decide on the fate of an often overlooked neighborhood on the city's west side. The decision handed down will not only effect our families, friends and neighbors surrounding this project, but will permanently influence, for better or worse, the future of other neighborhoods facing comparable development. I feel the concerns raised by myself, and other effected property owners, have been glossed over, dismissed or simply ignored by those interested in pushing this project forward. Issues regarding inadequate sewage capacity, ongoing drainage problems and increased traffic on already over burdened streets have not been seriously addressed. Responses such as `The problem was there already', `It's not our responsibility' or `We don't think there is a problem' are, frankly, disingenuous and insulting. I am not aware of any realistic studies or reports pertaining to sewage, drainage or traffic. Conclusions have been drawn based upon assumptions, supposition and, at best, outdated and / or irrelevant information. Data is "cherry picked" to support positions. Not only have we been doing battle with the developers but have felt, too often, that city officials have been indifferent, or worse, complicit by blindly letting this project go forward. SPARC could have and should have stopped this project from going forward as proposed. One of SPARC's responsibilities is to insure that a project ' fit' the neighborhood both functionally and aesthetically. Needless to say, 30 W. EI Rose does not. All but ONE member of SPARC `rubber stamped' this nroiect. Who among you, our elected representatives, has the integrity and common sense to stand and simply say: "Hey, Its not 'rocket science'. We gather the FACTS not guesses or uninformed opinion, pertaining to the legitimate concerns of the residents. Ifproblems are found the responsible parties will correct them. The council will then determine (fairly) if corrections have been made and /or the responsible parties have made a good faith effort to mitigate the problem (conforming to any applicable codes or ordinances) and the project them goes forward " It is my understanding that this action, taken openly and transparently, would satisfy the "ER/HLC" PROBLEM SOLVED! On Monday you have the opportunity to help preserve the integrity of Petaluma's governing body and a small part of our town. I hope, together, we will make this happen. Respectfully, Community Development Department Planning Division City of Petaluma I I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Northbridge Offices File # 08 -SPC -0048 -CR Dear Petaluma Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, I am concerned about the design changes that are being considered to the property located at 30 West E1 Rose. The addition of square footage indicates increased occupancy therefore having an impact on the City's antiquated sewer system. In 1971 my residence on Hill Boulevard experienced flooding caused by a sewage backup which originated within the main sewer line. At that time the City's Public Works Department explained the system was old and failed to meet the proper fall. As a result of this incident the City of Petaluma paid to have my service rerouted. Since this incident, no corrections have been made to the City's infrastructure in this area. I can only envision the impact the additional use would have on this inadequate system. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis Chambers 120 Hill Boulevard w MOIRA BI JLLEN December 10 20013 Homeowner 1 ] I hill Blvd Petaluma Calif 94952 Petaluma laity Council My concerns of this SPARC Project at 30 West El Rose Ave are as follows: (1)'Tz°affic `vill be in- creased in an already busy hillside co€nnnunity having a negative impact on streets where High School children and my neighbors are already at risk! Iia -,Fes Lane has a blind fair lain turn and a hand to get out of driveway for this business. It makes no sense to increase this risk to our com- munity by appi'm ing a proiect which hill inc€,case the traffic problems that already exist. (2) We have an overused, aged seNver line system that is al- ready beginning to not meet present preexisting demands. We do not need this antiquated seg-v-c:r system to be made more vulnerable with in- creased usage on our hillside com€nt€Mty, for it is obvious that this SPARICPrqjecl would be further taxing this very old and tired sewer systern. For instance, I have had a sewer problem in €ny house that ivill affect the value of n€)7 ho€ icy. Un - WORK STREET WORK CinWORK STATE WORN ZIP MOIRABULLEN fortunately we discovered we had an undisclosed lateral sewage line running under my house that connects to the sewer main in ftont of irry house. All the homes and businesses that alread}7 exist on the hill above me contribute to sewage flowing under in).- home potentiafiy causing future sewer blow out failures in in\- home, as well as other homes in this coinmunityr Should this project be approved when there are current problems and possibly more undisclosed sewer lines threatening the homes of this con-iniunity! that is the City of Petaluma going to do to upgrade this anti- quated system so that the homeowners are pro- tected? It has been recommended to me that an epoxy liner would best protect my house from further problems, yet the Cjt�, 7 of Petaluma will Cain- ' not spend the irioney to do this! How will it pro- tect this neighborhood NvIien sewer problems de- velop after approval of this SPARC Develope- inent upgrade at 30 West El Rose Ave. I have en- closed some paper Nvork so you can see what I have gone through. The City of Petaluma right, 11 - a bath- roompaid for the repair! I ivas without , room for seven vveeks in a one bathroom house. My neighbors Nvatched nie use an outhouse port - a -potty daily while we were expected to live at home during this nightmare. I JJCN-er -Vvant to go through this wcy0aln! (3)v1,"e heard many complaints PAGE 2 NIOIRA Bt LLEN in regard to Nvater drainage in the homes in the vicinity of this project at the last meeting belbre the City of Petaluma, Have these drainage issues been properly addressed to protect the homeown- ers below this SPARC project? I ain sure there are many who are fearful of the results if this is not properly designed . NVe had a water drainage problem in the history of the hillside above my home in which the expenses of the repair con- tributed to the homeowner loosing his hoiric in bankruptcy. Please consider all of the above issues in making a decision \,\,I-iich is best for our coni- iiiunit,,,: There were many of us who were present at the last City Hall IMecting relgarding, 30 El Rose Ave, The project is novo before us again as a SPARC Project and appears before this commu- nity asa Trojan Horse ivith all the saine flireats and lial)'I'ties masked 'ji a new desicM, Thank You PAGE 6 CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE BOX 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 Pamela Torliatt October 1 2007 Manor Teresa Barrett Moira Bullen Samantha Freitas 3erry Gebhardt Mike Harris 111 Hill Blvd. Daren Nan Petaluma, CA 94952 Mike O'Brien City of Petaluma David Babbitt 707-776-3696 Cowicilmembers RE: Sewer Claim Dear Ms. Bullen; In accordance with our recent settlement of your damage claim, enclosed please find a Release of All Claims in the amount of $17,867.43. At the bottom of the form, please sign in front of a notary sign and date where indicated, and return this original release to our office. As soon as we receive the properly executed release, a check will be forwarded to you to complete settlement of this matter. If you have any questions concerning this procedure, please feel free to contact our office at (707) 776-3696 Very truly yours. Animal Services Enclosure: Release of All Claims 340 Hopper Sireei Ext Petalaana, CA 94952 Phone 1707) 778.4396 Cc: Risk Manager Fax 1707) 7784397 Risk Management 1304 Southpoint, Suite 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone(707)776-3695 Fax (707)776-3697 E-Nlail i iskmat a ci.aelaluma.ea.us 3erry Gebhardt Cit) Nianager's Office I caghsh s'ireet Risk Claims Administrator Petnhaaa, CA 94952 City of Petaluma Phone (707) 778.4345 707-776-3696 Fax (707) 778"4419 Fax 707-776-3697 E -Mail .,,,.•t,t.i.newlaraa.rarev jgebhardt@ci.petaluma.ca.us Animal Services Enclosure: Release of All Claims 340 Hopper Sireei Ext Petalaana, CA 94952 Phone 1707) 778.4396 Cc: Risk Manager Fax 1707) 7784397 Risk Management 1304 Southpoint, Suite 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone(707)776-3695 Fax (707)776-3697 E-Nlail i iskmat a ci.aelaluma.ea.us Moira Bullen 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Arriving home after a 12 hour work day my hall, bathroom and guest room were filled with poopie soupy sludge(bio-hazard waste). It flowed 3 feet into my dinning room and was held back by the wool runner that was covered and saturated with sewage. After scouping-scraping and wiping I got into the bathroom where I grabbed towels to throw and stand on, the toilet had white mineral chunks around the base appearing to be rocks and the tub was filled with thick raw sewage. We plunged the bathtub with me holding a towel on the overflow and Donny plunging it but I begged off when the poopie splatter was getting me in the face. I will never bathe in this tub again! We did get it draining and flushed the toilet, all was flowing and working. Enclosed is a sample of the sludge from the cold air return of the furnace. The fir floors have peeled. Enclosed is a sample. I have had night mares over this happening again! It was a horrific experience! My peaceful quiet little bungalow and enjoyment of my home is gone. I want it back! The problem under the house needs to be addressed. It needs to be epoxy lined! This affects the resale value of my home and will need to be disclosed. I was not aware of a city sewer line under my house it was not disclosed to me. The city sewer workers were not aware it was there and have not maintained it for who knows how long. I was denied the city sewer workers report. They are working on the line in the front of my home, often removing rocks and chunks of cement at times. I beg of you to please ease my mind of this nightmare ever happening again, both teams of plumbers agreed that an epoxy liner Is the solution to the problem. This needs to be repaired! Donald P Mackin 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, Ca, 94952 At some unknown time of Friday 2-23-07 while occupants were away at work, a sewage blockage occurred forcing Bio -Hazard sewage waste out of the homeowner's toilet at I 1 I Hill Blvd, Petaluma, Ca. This sewage flowed out of the toilet across the bathroom floor, spread down the hallway floor into a closet and into dining room, bedroom. Carpets, garbage baskets, etc were thrown away. 4n Tuesday 2-27-07 Moira Bullen (homeowner) and Donald Mackin(Compamon) reported to the Petaluma utilities Department of this incident on 2-23-07. Moira Bullen previously had scheduled Mr. Rooter for help with this problem, with an appointment for Tuesday morning inspection 2-27-07. As a result of notification to the utility Dept, the city of Petaluma sewage maintenance crew arrived at 1 I I Hill Blvd to inspect sewage mains while Mr. Rooter crew inspected home plumbing. The two crew foreman met and reported their findings. The house plumbing was clear and unblocked. An unknown and unserviced lateral main was discovered running under the residence of I I I Hill Blvd. The city of Petaluma crew cleaned out the lateral main finding tree roots. After testing, this lateral main was found to run from main on Bellview street down to Hill Blvd main. Both crews agreed that a blockage occurred in Lateral main forcing sewage into the home of I I I Hill Blvd. A brief finding report by Mr. Rooter is enclosed. The city of Petaluma crew chief said he would be filing a report on his findings for review. Summation: Blockage occurred in city lateral sewage main causing damages to private residence at i I I Hill Blvd. City employees discovered that a sewage lateral main runs beneath home and therefore was unknown of and not serviced for many years causing blockage. City workers have for the future, scheduled twice a year cleanouts for the lateral main. Homeowner requests reimbursement for bills acquired for plumbing services and damages to home, as a result of sewage waste flowing into residence via toilet. (1) City workers to have filed report 2-27-07 (2) Enclosed is copy of Mr. Rooter report on plumbing 2-27-07 Question 4 (4) a. Description: upon our arrival home from work on 2-23-07, a Friday evening (approximately 8:0o p.m.) we found copious amounts of raw Bio -hazard sewage waste, flowing from toilet in bathroom to hallway and adjoining rooms and closet.. (see letter for M details) b. Reasons: following initial clean up attempts, we called a plumbing company to inspect incident. Enclosed is a report from Mr Rooter regarding findings. After approx 15 years of owning and living in the t l t Hill residence without incident, we found that a city lateral main runs under this residence with no previous knowledge or disclosure. On the same day that Mr Rooter did their inspection, we additionally recruited the city of Petaluma sewer dept for inspection. The city report on the incident we were denied access to! However we were present for both teams (Mr Rooter and city Dept) on their findings. Both crews ran cameras. One camera from house and one from city sewer access, cameras discovered blockage on city lateral main due to tree roots causing blockage backing up into residence. It is our understanding that the city workers were not aware of the existence of this sewer main, therefore, it had not been serviced or maintained. The city workers responded by immediately scheduling further regular maintainance and service. Both M.r Rooter and the city supervisor felt that an epoxy liner in the city main under the house would prevent further blockages and sewer back-ups. The present status of the city main under the house needs to be addressed. Mr Rooter installed a clean out for sewage to extract outside of the residence in the case of future blockage. Yet, future blockage is not acceptable. The main needs further attention. We request that this problem be properly repaired by the city with an epoxy liner as both crews felt is an appropriate and necessary solution. J 0 NAME B;ACDRESS A D D c,iir R E f T 295 Petaluma Hill Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 NIAME t 7P , I License P 791056 E, CSE AD',RESS V E-mail: mrrootersonoma@Efol.com L G 24 Hours a Day 7 Days a Week T IPHONE Never An Overtime Charge! 01 Technician 'PO. 4 I STATE ZIP iCCf!TaG..T RE Doc TASK# WARRANTY 1 RECOMMENDATION, DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS. SERVICES, MATERIALS It EQUIPMENT stal I , 4 f T �Nd lip t LIU so 51 11 Rick Bernal Technician e vc r t THE DOWN PAYMENT MAY NOT EXCEED $1,000 OR 10 PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE, WHICI AI; `:"i6iiEATfON OF WORK PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK You are entitled to a completely filled in copy of this eUTHOREATION TO PROCEED WITH ABOVE RECOMMENDATION -1, agreement, signed by both you and the Contractor, finant of his promises or which one work mentioned opera in to be &,me I hereby Rumoroe you to pearformin Recommendation, ,3rid to use each labor and materials as you nation acturesibli, A morthry service charge of I'Vire will be added after to Devi I aserva, before any work may be started. to pay reasonable attorneys hear and court costs In the event at legal action. If my check does not clear.; realize I could be liable, The low requires that the Contractor gives you a notice for [ limes tile amount of the check, nini, onto more Do, 4 1 ,Of, and in DO loas 16SS Ivan ii at' se fab, in of. catil Cair Gude Se.crion 1719, ofirre the face ehLJP of the Phank and court mi I have read this contract, including the terms addexplaining your right to cancel. Initial below if the ound iTrinr to the reverse i hector and chair to DF barrioce or of fee temno ,i 'i nmar I haveopice"eta baby of Parent. contractor has given you a "Notice hh­:,nmct jnd hence to 0. All pop, Mr be re"', , lo,, Pai Zinc .,:,aa:de- invies, orneri sperifierl of the Three -Day Right To Cancel". I hereby authorize you to proceed with the above work at the Contract Price of $ 1 A notice concerning Commercial Ell L ai insurance is attached to this contract, cUTHOSIZED DRIVER'SLIC, all X SIR DATE Also, a nothri cDriteminglitopqrs Coropmnsall Insdrance is attached to this contract LIGNATURE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED - I find the service and material= ban- -RINT ACCOUNT NUMBER C/O V CODE dared and installed in connection with he above mentioned, to have been com- pleted in a satisfactory manner. I agpe,& hat the amount set forth on the curract in the space labeled "TOTAL" to be the total and compete contract pricea/miri- CARD NUMBERAUTHOR CODE J rash El Check 4,f EXP DATE mum charge. I agree to pay reasonablesommiry's fee and Court costs in the event of legal action.A monthly service charge of 1 � nu will be adored after 10 J Credit Cenci ------ i this contract days. I acknowledge that I have read and eceivedia legible copy d or hereby state that the above work has been cour in a fro" ... ,­­ .­ manner ana to the applicable building codes. and have read the Notice to Owner. and statement required on nonevot. lentoll x Date 14r, TI.ohlClon Sil X I luta:707.525­5675 i2a5 Petaluma Hill Rd -Sonceinna, CA 95404 License; 791056 B. C36 arm"..ra'arn.mosle.1 coma. vinew.rompoliel.1can A ivavrdrod miriivel fwnmi,i, �Nd lip t LIU so 51 11 Rick Bernal Technician 707-525-5670 luta:707.525­5675 i2a5 Petaluma Hill Rd -Sonceinna, CA 95404 License; 791056 B. C36 arm"..ra'arn.mosle.1 coma. vinew.rompoliel.1can A ivavrdrod miriivel fwnmi,i, k 6 "du Petaivnie Hill Rd. a Santa Rosa, CA 9540 L.ec.,..• 7Pf OU 9, C3f. - -P-(nail: lTIYSOOt@CSOfIOI'ila 'aoi.COna 14 flours a Day T Days a Week Never An Overtime Charge! e , TASK p I WARRANTY S (N.,l E Q 13' ""FESS A + p Cl fi tR S PHGNE S 8 NAIVE. LIADDPESS L CG,Y T Pi,CriE __---:'JE Zip STATE ZIP CCNTA.T RECOMMENDATION, DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS. SERVICES, MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT Gu4T! 10C.'r s Appi -- Start D: Approxi rCample _1 .,+1'.11': rRE Stan T HI. 4:'OWN PAYMENT MAV NOT EXCEED $4,4 OR tit PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE„ MCC '11 '.FV PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE,CONTRAC7 DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK You are entitled to a completely filled in copy of this rti`IURG^-10,: T0PRo,'ELDtoIT' 40 jVE RfnXMriP-D-Tlntf - r r- an owner'aothotaino repre,cnaat,o agreement, signed by both you and the Contractor, neni 'iv,, , fes at +A, Cr, ilp work men4ongo abd/t 'S to ba ,' .o I Pereby ..o:P^r.P+ jou Ic fertortn Rh]ammendHLPYI, ials be are ached av10 dayE''crs,, before any work may be started. edvlaabte"mom"D1scr,aechan,of+'^:'xt .a Ito a�e;u-t,'abr:r andm.nu- as ymdam a a pay .-aunrA'at'cmey: `a_ and tz•,tl casts. the we++: or leg. ar,a: It my th"t6 oes not dea l maize 1 ccatd Is,12hk g Y The law requires that the Contractor IbeS OU a notice l!edh .mPe GaUems C:v,l a:: the, $ion s l ;el fie chacF ann rgun r =r.` ba,e rend tn- _nn:raa ,ndudne r"arre and explaining your right to cancel. initial below if the Ir'i ,a t'1' roc.=r,..: Wi Lwea` a^Id aC, se to be hn", i:. al, -; r•- m'mr con ;t,,e h+t e:n, : hays.ve'+-d acopy & contractor has given you a "Notice _._,n,t dn....aea:,nleu= "hand" ,t"Mern pare,, X 1 of the Three -Day Right To Cancel". ncreUy authorise you 9g emceed with the above work at the Contract Pace of $ 1 I j A nc.noe oncoming ming Comment., Ge�,eral Lvotllty InsurenCe is .-cached to this Conrad. ,131EQ DRIVER'S UC NO. EXP DATE J—j Alsn ;t notice concern a Woo,e%c G,mpeos•=.Lort Insurance is oached to fldh con4ac;. I�NArUPAruRE � , i ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED - I find the service and matcnais ren- ;T =GOUSIT NO? tflE?i G"C'o 60DI ] dered an.t installed In connection with the above mentioned, to nave been com- '•w.l4E I pleted to d satisfactnr. manner I actor, that the amount set torth on This ccniract m the spacelabeled 'TOTAL' to be the total and complete contract prwerm,ni- CREDIT CARD NUtIBER AUTHOR. CODE EXP DATE I I:3'„ash ❑Check «.__ mum ch, -me I acres to pay reasonable attomey's tee and court costs in the ' I event of 'egai action. ,v monthly service charge of ' 1,, will be added after 10 j Corea,; Carel. I days, I ac knowledge that I have toad and received a legible copy of this contract _ and have read The Notice to Owner, and statement required or contrast. ;L iendc slate that the above worl, has been done In a workmanlike manner and to the appf¢abb; sw,do,g codes, *w:e Te,nrtear. 5qnatvr }( - para NAME nCr e li.a CONTRACT 41 Q ' _ • M V ` a 0, Cay i// /_// /i/ % 'l r,.,( Today's Date �• t "d ansa p�Cm s 3 zm �7r $� E DaM Z ' qv L U M B f N Q� Rai [alums Hill Rd. • Santa Rosa, CA 95404 ,B NAME GC 1 525-WM a Fax: (707) 525-5875 L f W"p Litanea a 781056 B. C98 _ e `P.+' b,'�i�`� .T • F TMP vvww.mrrootetcom _- sn ms «u, 1 E& mail: mrrootersonomaGaoi.com L cm - - zip- J E�Qt -_ WAHMAIE BeUPE- « � :'�?:• T'. - .�FREENTML AT teQUBE p'✓atl Orort« PHONE IP.O. M CONT bay > I �" • OOA9MERC Ul sq, M. I E B.Q wave � �atf�-+s4.. f:�irsl•• ,S�-r»r�+�w" ,•�/r1�*...!`_ _ Esauers = ESQ VBAtQ a .. _ .. - #. w, p�+zoAtMEapAnON t ,r s tsea:� W~skgatxrM.sNr � AriN }ArinbwrRMa. Y Sava Ing viI / t/mfA. aa> fiA.+s.+w..✓i.. ®., l'ez�o I da ..lam^Cr.+✓f - /.. '«. T. I ait asks 1 .a ,.+ �1 G f..) �,,/P ^• -r'o< C, ,f j x -- 7� edz— — 4 A e. �a'..57 • ' , s-. w- I POW .e sE QV" /a.+• f'.^rOr lfry,:.'C{�.S,.r �.!�" s ! a r `dfa� .�i7i'r Jrt l/at K ! / _f ' !' . - t St~ -Dmmp TO %lar[✓ r,Rse I,_ —{ ty • 7 ri �r eC aG awx G - , Ess. ET"&.b. _ 4 -�' ". '* ' I I 1�IIIPuh� Ii1111d�6dVldnlulJYiv�iLL I TaP+Arn s I Tow THE DOWff PAYMENT MAY NOT EXCEED $1,000 OR 10, PERCENT O THE CONTRACT ICE, WHICHEVIR IS LESS. ! rW a E vsa IRmATm of woRK PATMENT OF nab slVogoateoWMAOT QUE URON 00ga unION OF WORK You are enwed to a completely fine COW of this -p UATNM TO PROCEED WrM ABOVE RECOMMENDATION -1, the w4a di nsd, am awn«!«ahmdaad MPM.M®fir agr at, signed by both you and Contractor, Q RTEQ ❑ ®ECUNED I t',pmlTgn, r j;a, nd� r Ne I'Mmleesat whkn then y rt»MbnWabove b b b¢do".IWOW Mh«k¢ YOU a, Parson floC«nm«ditw, gf,.�A,t wawhlro««W melwgla mlr�a¢em«�Iemro.Amomhry.«ao¢¢Mro•wrAvc rwl cb«k 411111 rndrya lam•* before any work play be atartied. Iffarn�_^; eaonaOb aaamarafse and cedar,, 5rtheawM ofhgN+OOtm, ami dWk(*ta6 tdW I MN ICMW W laaM The law requires the ContractorI ua no ee W �sE NOME FLUMagm ee the«vw�gadfh¢¢na¢k.lnro¢asem«athn 81.SC0«MNroraea Nn [fan$10064.111" 011twommfleCFAI �""®1 a""" yrm � NOT orriligiamoou T I rm n me rev«ae side h«eer amt Wee tO be bmW by "I d me team mnteie0d H.Wrt.I "a " contractor has you a "Notice I < To aglases 01✓aCOiRYr. s of tSta D Right To Cattae!". atmstsd ro wda �m vete r YOO, THE fFAE anon rns. Pts me m¢a ,ams a trb dreek «,e ¢mac . I reds rase mra r>aamet, klnkeea ca old explaining M caecal, InMal c react «a Nage to ,r ! Alm as calla coneemin4 tBNket'a omm] nl sake Irk"" Is b XafMill't 0 tN eaYkect. . Aa perlawlll t» ram4vM hen Pr«nl� atl imNae''""� oft tU ,�, b ;bP.aa,amtb. at Po-sorRrm.as 1A ,� i HAVE THE RIGHT 1 is ZE X TM TO FUANISH D,i'v'. Acca rc of wom PogtO Ed -t find"swAm and matamue roe- '. APO PAYMENT tR D TUR dar«r and inaWlIed to owaronan weh the obeys marabned, to haw bean cam. I TSR CAN RECi11RE pWmd In a sanatsctary manner. I Sagas that tha amaan set tomb en 81111 cahlnat IamardsWwY Yroedbn in the sate labeled "TOTAL' to be the toW and complete emnraet Pr�+aaK an ❑ Cheek a_ M a �yi i��'E: mtan cmaaRa. 1 agree to 001 dtomaYb M sad overt, oaq tl» - I a event of ones xenon K monlhy t ed an chaeta of 7 G will bs 1Q i e«J.ta w1 ant Card: I��hM6 days, l acknowbdga t have ref and replvad a thb meq k' ar'Akam to the bullft mW heverthe Owner, Md atffi .eRaUaMPree (� o� 4 _ D.a X aAigats t i s a l G. fi{ I oustcaur X T¢chnwin S / f 'Mau Ww i•ie a«ue.ulel, iibiu".ulud,na�Wlurmlu�ynru' VhucwUl�IPP W2�W't1°'�'°i°tJ"I ul ld„w n,.., dd„����. 6I,W'u a: a'W''�u' V J To Mr -Jerry Gebhardt, It was seven weeks with a party -a -potty! This has been a hardship, walking out at 2 am in the morning to use a plastic room that the work people have all used is discusting. Our friend have showered us and helped to keep us clean. I am wondering why we where never offered any compensation for not having a second bathroom? You new this is a one bathroom house, after all you lived here at one time. IT IS FINALLY COMPLETEDt I had just repainted the bathroom in December for the holidays a bright cheery yellow, and took pictures of it which I have enclosed. Life was good without stress at that time. This has been very difficult, working a fifty hour work week as I do without a shower or bathroom to get ready in_ I am requesting that all these cost be taken care as soon as possible so that we may move on with our Paves. Thank you. Sincerely, Moira Cr. Bullen Donald P. Mackin Housekeepit San Rafael, Ci�• Moira 111 Hill Blvd Petaluma, CA_q4_952 Services rendered: shoveling, scrapping, and removing sludge and silt effluent caused by sewage back-up into toilet and ! u t overflowing ! covering floors and carpeting. Mop up of t: 4 i. from !! Complete cleaning and then sanitizing all bathroom Bleach •! to sanitize wood floors. Total t • $50.00/hou Balance $850.00 sewagePlease note: we do not guarantee the degree of sanitization when • permeated iii flooring and carpeting, Complete removal and replacement of wood floor is highly recommended. Bonnie Hansen Perdue Hansen's Housekeeping IAN Ak ,.. , �, Mission StatemenI We do not object to commercial use of the site, nor are we asking the property be brought up to current code before any new use can occur. However, it is wrong to allow a significant expansion in an existing older neighborhood that makes no attempt to provide a mixed-use, does not resolve the existing code conflicts and actually creates new ones, ignores an existing traffic and parking problem in the area, and sets a "single use" maximum development standard that every other MU parcel in the neighborhood will expect to follow. We believe that this expansion is not suitable, and would be a detriment to us, members of the public. This is not to say that any expansion and/or remodeling would be opposed, but this particular approach seems to be completely disconnected with both neighborhood compatibility and City policies. i 0 The existing property was erected on vacant land in the early 1960's and worked in conjunction with the Hillcrest Hospital located uphill from 30 West EI Rose. o The property has been vacant for approximately 5 years and has remained relatively unchanged for the past 50 years. When erected, the owners sought to blend into the hillside and surrounding residential neighborhood to which it abuts. o The current square footage is 3,310'. The applicant is proposing the addition of 3,684 square feet to include a second story, four separate suites, 22 dental chairs and at a maximum shift, 15 employees. o The original application was filed on February 8, 2008. The City accepted a CEQA Categorical Exemption Fee of $266.00 at the same time. o The project proposal was deemed complete on April 21, 2008. a The City has been in receipt of ongoing correspondence from concerned neighborhood residents since March 12, 2008. o The project proposal has been before the SPARC"` Committee four times and City Council' once. "City of Petaluma, California Memorandum dated December 11, 2008. "SPARC voted in favor of the project 4-1 on July 24, 2008 and December 11, 2008, Vice -Chair Elias dissented on both votes -City Council remanded the protect back to SPARC on September 15, 2008 on the grounds that the application adhere to the 2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 0 Coalition Concerns We believe this project to be inconsistent with the: 0 2025 General Plan o Implementing Zoning Code o SPARC Guidelines o California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) We believe this project will: o Adversely impact the residential neighborhood to which it abuts with increased traffic on streets without sidewalks in immediate proximity to schools. 0 Set a precedent for future growth on West EI Rose and the surrounding area. a Set a precedent for using CEQA exemptions when impacts and problems are documented; and recognized by both the neighbors and City staff. o Undercut the adopted City policy of creating a mixed-use cluster in this area by allowing single - use commercial buildings. 0 Defeat the City goal of correcting legal -non conforming uses by allowing both an expansion of a use, and a structure without addressing the existing non -conforming parts. 0 Take away from the overall aesthetic of our residential neighborhood, and the adopted goals and policies set for the West Hills area of the General Plan. a Invade the privacy of its surrounding neighbors. a Exacerbate existing sewer and drainage issues. o Eliminate sunlight of individual homeowner. o Ruin the scenic beauty of Petaluma's West Hills. i &V In closing, we ask you, our elected City Council, take into account what you witnessed on our walking tours, read in our letters and, have heard us repeatedly state at the speaker podium. We implore you to use your unbiased and sound judgment and do not solely rely upon Staff's recommendation for this proposal. While it may just be unintentional short-sightedness, the end result will no doubt have consequences that are long and lasting for not only our neighborhood, but for the entire City of Petaluma. Sincerely yours, EI Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition West El Rose + ne Hayes _.I. Rose/HayesEl a School's In Session Just An Average Day On West EI Rase January 1, 2009 »««� w� . .,222. � . .. ....xy.a� m » «� � � : , «yam a< ©»?j� «. « ��v«d :�� \.° > 2v�ew:, ,�:a.., . : �o,a..... .. ., «yz.. ». ,.. .. . . �. � >� ? «:� � , . ,< »»� � � � y »� w 2:�� � � �¥�\ « :� «� ` . y� � . � \��� \� <�� � .\\: . From: 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 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 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: otoriiatl@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 a- i 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 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: otoriiatl@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! 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