HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A Document Received After Agenda Distribution 1LAND USE PLANNING v ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
November 30, 2008
RE: Comments on the Pinnacle Ridge application and associated CEQA documentation
Dear members of the Petaluma City Council,
The following comments regarding the Pinnacle Ridge application are submitted on behalf of
various neighbors in the vicinity of the Project. This site and Project represent a convergence of
a number of issues, from hillside protection to visual impacts to reliability of electronic
documentation to the complications of crafting PUD Districts. Granting that the decision to
increase the development potential of the site has already occurred, there is no presumption that
it can and should be developed at its maximum allowed density. The potential to build at the 11
lot maximum needs to be tempered against City policies and requirements that apply to the site
as well, including compliance with CEQA procedures.
A summary of the major fatal flaws in the Project approval documents include, but are not
limited to, the following:
o Timely public access to basic project documents has been compromised by a combination
of reduced Community Development office hours, the omission of a large number of
relevant documents from the on-line meeting Agenda Packet, the failure of the Planning
Commission to approve relevant Minutes and Resolutions, and municipal holidays.
o The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was improperly noticed, did not address
multiple impact areas already confirmed by staff and/or the Applicant, relies on
incomplete or outdated information in reaching conclusions, and does not consider
impacts associated with full buildout of permitted uses.
o The proposed PUD Rezoning does not include all required information and conflicts with
existing Zoning Code standards and policies.
o The General Plan and Zoning Code consistency assessment is incomplete, and does not
support the proposed Findings.
1 Issues regarding the Planning Commission recommendation to the Council
l -a) Per City Code section 25050(13) , the Planning Commission can only forward a
recommendation to the Council for a rezoning by specifically approving a Resolution carried by
707,823J925w FAX 707.8236661
1430 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD 9 SEBASTOPOL, CA 5� 72
a majority of the entire Commission. Absent either minutes or an approved Resolution, it is
unclear how the Council could take up the item at this point.
Zoning Code Section 25..050 (B) specifically states the Commission can recommend approval of
a Zoning Code amendment (the prior PUD in this case), but adds that:
The recommendation shall be by resolution of the Planning Commission, carried
by the affirmative votes of a majority of the total members present.
In addition, Zoning Code Section 25.050 (C) states that the Commission can modify a proposed
Code Amendment, but that
If such a modification is recommended, the reasons therefore, along with a
statement as to the initial proposal, shall be transmitted to the City Council with
the recommendation.
1-b) As best I can determine, that action involved the Commission making a recommendation
to the City Council for approval of the Project submittals and the associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration. While draft Findings were included in the Staff Report for the October 28 meeting,
there was no draft of a Resolution to carry forward the Commission recommendations.
Since the October 28th meeting, the Planning Commission has not met to conduct business,
including approval of minutes for the October 28 meeting. No minutes for that meeting have
been included in the public -release version of the City Council packet for the Pinnacle . The
Council packet also does not include the Resolution as required by City Code as the mechanism
for a Zoning Code amendment moving forward to the Council.
l -c) The importance of such a Resolution to capture the precise intent of the Commission is
demonstrated by the conflicting information in the staff report to the Council. The Staff Report
discussion of the Commission changes is on page 27 of the City Council Staff Report, under the
heading "From the Planning Commission". That list includes 6 items relative to engineering
(Conditions 27 & 28), specifying the size of 2 replacement Oaks (Condition 7), bike rack
installation (Condition 8), changes to the CC&Rs (Conditions 25 and 10), modified fencing
(Condition 6), and public path ADA compliance (Condition 13).
But an actual review of the Conditions of Approval show a large number of changes following
the Commission meeting, several of which were not requested by the Commission. There is no
explanation or justification for these additional changes, or at whose request. The unsourced
changes include but are not limited to addressing General Plan "Gateway" requirements
(Condition 5), authorizing SPARC to modify the new PUD standards at a later date (Condition
10), requiring approval of final CC&Rs before a Certificate of Occupancy (Condition 25), and
expanding the allowed hours of construction work and equipment operation (Condition 17).
While further adjustment to Conditions of Approval are obviously allowed during Council
review, the post -Planning Commission changes should be specifically noted and justified.
Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
Given the procedures and actions required of the Commission before an item can be forwarded
to the Council, it is not appropriate to proceed on an assumption that there is some understanding
of what was intended.
2 Issues regarding Incomplete application materials
2-A) There are a number of essential documents that are omitted from the on-line Staff Report
and Attachments available through the City web site.
The items omitted from the on-line City Council packet include the following, even though the
documents are included in the original Planning Commission on-line packet:
-Opportunities and Constraints map (required for the application)
-Project Site Sections (provided to the Planning Commission)
-Site section mapping (provided to the Planning Commission)
-Landscape Concept Plan (required for the application)
-Site Context Plan (required for the application)
-Existing Conditions Exhibit (required for the application)
-Slope Analysis Exhibit (required for the application)
-Bicycle Circulation Plan (required for the application)
-the Lot Plans for each of the 11 lots (required for the application)
-the Area Land Use Map (required for the application)
-the Area Density Map (required for the application)
-the Pump House parking plan (provided to the Planning Commission)
-the Urban Separator Path Concept Design.
These are many of the critical documents governing the Project design. There are two
possibilities, neither of which is acceptable. The first is that the Agenda packets actually
provided to the Council do not contain these items, which means the Council cannot possibly act
on the Project absent reviewing required information. The second alternative is that the
Community Development website provides an incomplete version of the full Agenda Packet, but
does not advise the public of those omissions.
Given the timing issues around that particular public hearing, this places an unreasonable
obstacle for informed public comment. The Staff Report for the December l City Council
meeting was only released at the end of Tuesday afternoon. Between that moment and the
scheduled hearing, the Community Development offices were closed from Wednesday afternoon
through the Monday hearing date. So an interested citizen would have no realistic opportunity to
download all 43 PDF tiles (representing over 600 pages), discover the omitted materials, and get
to the City office in time to review the original documents not made available on the web site.
This is a completely unreasonable and inappropriate obstacle to public participation.
2-13) In addition to the on-line items provided through the Planning Commission packets then
omitted from the Council version, there are a number of items that were omitted from both on -
Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
line Agendas. The on-line agenda packets for the Council and the Commission omitted the
following items:
-Vesting Tentative Map (required for the application)
-a project timetable for the PUD Development plan (required for the application)
-a Grading and Drainage Plan
-a Preliminary Utility Plan.
The most significant omission is that the Vesting Tentative Map package provided with the
September 9 and October 28 Planning Commission on-line packets failed to include the actual
proposed Tentative Map or the proposed Grading Plan. The map/figure set received on October
9 contain material responding to the September Planning Commission comment. The Vesting
Tentative Map sheet bundle date stamped August 28 list 12 sheets, including Sheet 7 as the
Tentative Map, Sheets 8 and 9 as the Grading and Drainage plans, and Sheet 10 as a Preliminary
Utility Plan. None of these are anywhere to be found in the materials made available to the
public through the City web site. The fact that the public could have gone to the Planning
Department to inspect the Project file does not alter the fact that the City clearly leads people to
believe that the Staff Report and associated Attachments that can be downloaded from the web
site are complete. Having different versions of the Staff Report and agency packets in
circulation is not acceptable.
3 Issues regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 -Al Relative to Land Use
The MND contains a listing of various General Plan policies found within the Land Use
Element, but says nothing regarding any applicable policies in any of the other Elements. The
stated "threshold of significance" is does the Project "conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy or regulation...". So the question of consistency has to be tested against all General Plan
and City Code policies, not just those specifically in the Land Use Element. There are a number
of applicable policies in the Community Design, Natural Environment, Parks, Water Resources,
and Health and Safety Elements. A more specific discussion of General Plan consistency is
below, but the omission from the IS/MND of any discussion of General Plan policies outside the
Land Use Element and any discussion of Zoning Code consistency is a serious omission.
3-13i Relative to Geolo2v and Soils
1 The MND includes a long summary of the information and recommendations of the
Bauer reports of March 2004 and January 2005. The 2004 report noted that "mitigation" for
uphill soil creep and slump into building areas could include catchment areas, catchment walls,
or diversion areas. It also notes the Bauer observed groundwater seepage in several of the winter
2004 borings. After summarizing the Bauer reports, the MND then states Mitigation Measure 1
that the Bauer 2005 report recommendations shall be incorporated "as deemed appropriate".
Mitigation Measure 3 requires submittal of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as "an integral
part of the grading plan". Mitigation Measure 1 is too vague to confirm that all applicable
requirements of the Bauer report will be implemented. Measure 3 is already wrong, since no
4 Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
Grading Plan has been submitted, in spite of being required by City Code for a complete
application.
2. The Bauer Report addresses the issue of shallow soil creep and slump, but only in the
context of protecting the homes and roads. This leaves the question as to how reliable the surface
v -ditches will be if the are subject to filling up with soil and debris from erosion and slumping,
which the Bauer report acknowledges is likely to occur.
3-0 Relative to Hvdrolo2v and Water Qualitv
1. The MND (p. 21) states that site grading will "control all stormwater runoff and convey
the runoff into a piped storm system". As discussed above, there is no indication that the design
of the open v -ditches, the grassy swales, or the buried piping have been sized to accommodate
any bulking or obstruction associated with erosion sediment and debris being washed off the
slopes (noted as unstable in the Bauer report) and into the proposed storm water system.
3-D) Relative to Biological Resources
1. The MND says there is a potentially significant impact on the roadside ditch from
construction activities (p. 26). But the proposed Mitigation 2.1 is to "request site visits" from
regulatory agencies. This is followed by a listing of over a dozen "mitigations" before it becomes
clear these are mitigations proposed by the Biological studies provided by the applicant. At the
end of the Biological Resources section is what is titled "Mitigation Measures/Monitoring". This
is followed by a list of different mitigations from those in the biologic reports (p.28-29). But the
stated MND Mitigations omit a number that were called out by the biologic studies. Since the
biological consultants believed all those measures were needed to mitigate any potentially
significant impacts, their omission from the final MND mitigations creates an unmitigated
potentially significant impact on biological resources.
3-E) Relative to Visual Qualitv and Aesthetics
1. There is no citation of applicable General Plan or Zoning standards/issues. For no
apparent reason, the entire issue of hillside development visual impacts is ignored by this section
of the MND. The only item that receives any substantive discussion is minimizing light glare.
General Plan policies specific to the South Hills area are ignored. Policies relative to the Hillside
Ordinance, including the relationship to specified view platforms are ignored.
2. There is no discussion of visual impact analysis relative to identified platform sites,
including the adjacent I Street and an established Gateway entry to the City. In addition to the
Hillside Ordinance issues regarding view platforms, the General Plan South Hills policies also
add a requirement to "preserve the existing public viewsheds featuring the Petaluma community
(2-P-72) and a requirement to "minimize grading, to all extent possible, stepping development
into and with the natural terrain (2-P-73) .
3. There is no discussion of Applicant's reliance upon the landscaping plan to screen the
individual residences. The applicant has provided visual models demonstrating how the various
Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
homes will eventually disappear into landscaping, but there is no discussion as to how long that
will take, nor whether there would be short-term impacts as a result.
4. As discussed under General Plan consistency, there is no discussion as to consistency
with treating that portion of I Street as a city "Gateway" as required by the General Plan.
5. The PUD proposes that in cases where the PUD development standards are not specific,
that the standards of the R-1 District will apply. In the R-1 District, accessory structures are
permitted uses allowed within 4 feet of a interior side property line. Under proposed PUD, an
Accessory Structure has no set height limit, but must be limited to 15 feet. Total lot coverage is
allowed to up to 10,000 square feet on all Project lots, with open decks not included in that
measure. Building outside the specified envelope is limited to "single story non -occupancy"
structures. There is no quantified limit to "single story". And "accessory structures" and
"accessory dwellings" are both excluded from SPARC review.
The result is that a significant amount of additional building construction can occur outside the
specified building envelope with only a Building Permit. As such there will be no further CEQA
review nor SPARC authority over how individual lot owners choose to use the bulk of their lots.
And the amount of potential additional construction on each lot cannot be determined, since the
Applicant's narrative in Council Packet Attachment 3 provides total square interior square
footage for each house, but does not specify the footprint, for the purposes of determining the
maximum amount of building that could occur on each lot.
3-F) Relative to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. The MND dismisses out of hand any risk associated with wildland fires, in spite of the
very specific Impact Threshold in the MND as to whether the Project will "expose people or
structures to a significant risk ... involving wildland fires." But wildland fires and fire
management are a primary concern of the neighbors, who have advocated for an EVA of the cul
de sac to provide direct access to the Community Separator. The Petaluma Fire Department has
acknowledge that is a complication on the site. The failure to even discuss any fire hazard
issues, if only confirm they were mitigated, is a serious flaw.
2. There was discussion at the Planning Commission as to whether the Project fencing
would create obstacles for fire suppression. The Fire Chief indicated that could be a problem,
but the impression was left that there was not interior fencing along each lot line. Contrary to
that impression, the submitted Landscape Concept Plan provided to the Planning Commission
specifically shows an 8 -foot high open wire fence along all interior parcel lines. This will
present a barrier to both firefighters and vehicular movement across the back portion of the
Project.
3-G) Relative to Public Services
1. The MND again states there are no potentially significant issues relative to fire protection
since the Project will pay all applicable fees. This ignores the significant debate and Project
conditioning relative to sufficient water supply and pressure for fire suppression, as well as the
6 Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
adequacy of site access. Clearly the fees are not sufficient, or there would be no need for the
Pump Station.
4 Relative to CEOA procedures and processes
4-A). The Initial Study/MND included with the City Council Staff Report states on page 4 that
the public comment period for the MND opened on August 21 and closed on September 9. The
Staff Report includes a proposed Resolution of the Petaluma City Council for adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the fourth "Whereas" clause confirms that the posting
period for comment ran from August 21 to September 9, and that notice was mailed to neighbors
and interested parties.
The "whereas" Clause makes no mention of providing Notice to any interested or Responding
agencies. The MND mitigations and the Project Conditions of Approval confirm that additional
clearances will be needed relative to water quality and biological impacts. Any agency with
jurisdiction over the Project, particularly agencies that are embedded in the Project approvals,
must be noticed. It they were not noticed, this is an additional omission in the required noticing
requirements for CEQA.
Since the Project was not properly noticed as required by law, the MND must be recirculated to
allow proper comment opportunity.
5 Issues Regarding the proposed PUD Amendment
5-A) The Zoning Code has certain specific requirements for a PUD zoning district. Some, but
not all, were addressed through the Project "PUD Development Standards" submitted by the
applicant. One requirement is to provide a specific Project timetable, which seems to be missing
from the submittal and the various materials provided to the Commission. Another is to provide
a map showing the area of rezoning, all parcels within 500 feet of the Rezone boundary, and all
owners of record of those parcels. This also appears to be missing from the record.
5-13) The PUD Development Standards make no provision for long-term maintenance of the
private streets and infrastructure. For example, the last item in the PUD Development Standard
under "Grading and Drainage" states that individual owners "shall maintain all private drain and
sewer systems". There is no explanation as to how this will occur, and what recourse exists if
there are problems. There is no mention at all of responsibility for the water system or the
private streets, the street fixtures, and the Pump House.
5-C) The PUD Development Standards state that the standards of the R-1 District should apply
if the PUD does not have its own specific standard. This is inconsistent with the Zoning Code,
which specifies that the applicable Zoning District for General Plan designations of Rural
Residential is the comparable Rural Residential Zoning District. While the Urban Separator
Land Use category doesn't have an associated Zoning District, the only consistent District (in
terms of allowed density) would again be Rural Residential. Since the vast majority of the site
Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
would be zoned Rural Residential but for the PUD designation, that is the default standard that
should be cited by the PUD Development Standards.
5-D) Either Zoning District (RR or R-1) provides for both accessory dwellings and accessory
structures. Accessory dwelling are a permitted use and require only SPARC review, potentially
limited to staff review. Accessory structures that are not dwellings are permitted uses and do not
even trigger SPARC review. Since the PUD language states that Accessory Structures up to 15
feet high are allowed outside the designated building envelopes with only a building permit, this
means that the extensive areas that appear to be protected from further development are not
restricted from a variety of other uses that would involve grading, structures, visibility, biotic
issues, etc. And since these uses would not trigger any additional CEQA review (as ministerial
approvals), there would be no further review of possible impact through CEQA. So the
allowance for significant site work beyond the building envelopes as shown raises additional
questions as to the adequacy of the site drainage and visual impact assessment.
5-E) The PUD does not provide any protection or assurance that the screening trees provided
by the Landscaping Plan will remain and do the job intended. The PUD sets no specific
standards or criteria for tree maintenance, and specifically allows undefined pruning. Given the
site and views, it is likely the trees will be pruned to maintain the long views of the Petaluma
valley, meaning the trees may never reach the size depicted in the visual analysis provided by
the applicant at the October meeting. Even worse, the PUD allows tree removal subject to
compliance with the Petaluma Tree ordinance. But after the Project is built, the owners can
remove smaller trees with staff approval, and mitigate either through replanting or paying a fee
to the City. And that Code section contains no apparent restrictions to control topping or
pollarding of trees required by the Landscape Plan.
6 Issues regarding General Plan and Zoning Code consistency
6-A) The September staff report incorrectly checks the Project against General Plan policies
regarding the West Hills. The October staff report notes the mistake and cites the policies for the
South Hills area, but never assesses Project consistency with those policies. The September
Commission staff report indicates the Project is in the West Hills area as described and
conditioned by the General Plan, and assessed General Plan consistency against the West Hills
policies. This was incorrect. The Project site is actually in the region designated as the South
Hills. The October Commission staff report corrected this mistake and listed the South Hills
policies. But no analysis was done to determine whether the Project is consistent with those
area -specific policies
6-13) Consistency with the Zoning Code is discussed only relative to the proposed PUD
District amendments and the Hillside Ordinance. In neither case is there a specific comparison
with the actual adopted policies that are in force. Relative to the Hillside Ordinance, the staff
report only presented a list of stated "objectives", but provided no consistency analysis for any of
those Code policies.
8 Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201
6-C) There is no assessment of consistency with the General Plan policies for the I Street City
Gateway. There is a reference in the modified Conditions of Approval that SPARC will
subsequently address this issue, but the consistency determination is being made now with this
approval.
6-D) The Project misstates the meaning of the minimum lot size/slope analysis process. Both
the applicant's submittal and the staff report indicate the slope/density analysis would allow up
to 22 units. This is incorrect, and distorts the purpose of the slope analysis. The slope analysis
has no affect upon allowable densities; it simply specifies minimum lot sizes based upon site
slope. The number of buildable lots is determined by the General Plan and Zoning Code, not by
the process of determining the minimum lot sizes in hillside areas.
Moreover, the reference to being allowed 22 units creates the false impression that 11 units is a
compromise figure. Eleven units is the maximum allowed by the General Plan, and the Hillside
Ordinance cannot override General Plan density standards. In actual fact, based upon the amount
of the Project site that is designated Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (8.15 acres)
and Very Low Density Residential (1.89 acres). Based upon allowed General Plan densities, the
actual allowed number of lots range on the site from 3 to 11, with 7 lots being the midpoint for
allowed density. That presents a very different picture from comparing the proposed 11 lots as
reasonable compared to the alleged right to 22 lots.
6-E) The Project submittals do not show the degree of landscaping detail and subject matter
required by the Hillside Ordinance. The Concept Landscape Plan does not address all the
requirements of the Ordinance, and that information is required to be included in the original
submittal package, which did not occur.
6-F) Contrary to the Hillside Ordinance, while the house renderings and plans show that the
houses do step with the slope in terms of the ground elevation, but that the house sides facing
downslope do not step back, but instead show a high flat face.
In conclusion, I do not believe it is appropriate, or even possible, to approve the Project at this
time. Public access to the complete Project documentation has been seriously compromised.
The lack of any conclusive information from the Planning Commission as to their specific
recommendations complicates the ability of the Council to respond to a number of key issues and
to determine the origin of various changes in Project Conditions. General Plan and Zoning
consistency are not complete, and some inconsistencies are already emerging.
This is not to say the site cannot be developed, even with a significant number of the units
requested. But is simply procedurally impossible to proceed with approval at this point and
comply with CEQA, California Planning and Zoning law, and your own policies.
Scot Stegeman
Pinnacle Ridge Analysis Comments/Petaluma city Council/20081201