Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.B 01/26/2009CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIAarluary 26, 2009 Conuaanity Denelopmettt Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Far (707) 778-4498 E-mail: edd @ci petalama.ca.its DATE: January 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council via John Brown, City Manager FROM: Mike Moore, Community Development Direct r SUBJECT: Pinnacle Ridge On January 26, the City Council will consider the second reading of an ordinance, introduced on December 8, 2008, to amend the existing Planned Unit District (PUD) zoning on the site of the proposed Pinnacle Ridge residential development. In addition to introducing the ordinance to amend the existing PUD zoning of the site on December 8, 2008, the City Council also approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Map for the 11 -unit Pinnacle Ridge project. Although not a "ministerial" action by law, the second reading of an ordinance is typically placed on the City Council's consent calendar because the public hearings and the City Council's consideration of the ordinance have already occurred in the proceedings leading up to the Council's affirmative decision to "introduce" the ordinance. In this particular instance, the second reading of the Pinnacle Ridge PUD amendment ordinance, originally approved on December 15, 2008, had to be rescheduled to the January 5, and subsequently continued to the January 26, 2009 City Council meeting, to address a noticing requirement of the City Charter. In a series of three e-mails (attached) sent on January 4, 2009, January 5, 2009 and January 21, 2009, Scott Stegeman, representing a group of citizens interested in the Pinnacle Ridge project, raised a number of procedural and technical concerns regarding the project and the action of the City Council. Many of Mr. Stegeman's comments have been addressed either in writing or verbally in the course of the public hearings and actions before the City Council on December 8 , 2008 and December 15, 2008 based on information already in the public record. The purpose of this memo is to address the main points raised in the three e-mails. January 4. 2009 E-mail In this e-mail, Mr. Stegeman raised two main points: that there was "improper notice" of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that the Council's action to approve the tentative map resolution did not conform to state and local procedural requirements because the map was a "vesting tentative map." CEOA Required Public Notice: Mr. Stegeman states in his January 4, 2009 e-mail that "the staff position at the last meeting was that notice under CEQA only required mail notice to the 500 foot perimeter..." and that "the staff position was that only 1 of 3 [noticing] options was required." CEQA Guideline §15072 and the City's Environmental Review Guidelines require use of 1 of 3, but not all, of the noticing options set forth in §15072. Timely notice was mailed. We erred in not confirming the second method of notice attempted in this case, publication of the September 9 Planning Commission hearing notice in the Argus -Courier and in not sending a notice to the County Clerk, as required by CEQA. However, in this particular instance, those errors in procedural follow-through ultimately did not limit or diminish access to or the opportunity for public comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration or other aspects of the project. • Community Development provided, via e-mail, a copy of the public notice for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Map and PUD Amendment hearing on September 9, 2008, to the Argus -Courier on August 13, 2008. Both the cover e-mail and the attached notice state that the publication date is to be August 21, 2008. We now know that this notice never reached the Argus -Courier and was not published as required. • Community Development provided notice via regular mail to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the Pinnacle Ridge property. Notices were mailed on August 19, 2008, which is a reflection of our standard procedure to insure that the mail notices arrive at the same time as the notice is published in the newspaper and provide the legally required window (in this case, 20 -days for the Mitigated Negative Declaration) for public review and continent. We have proof of the mailing on file in CDD. • Community Development did not provide a copy of the notice to the County Clerk as required by CEQA. • The public comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was kept open by the Planning Commission until October 28, 2008, forty-nine days beyond the original 20 -day comment period required by CEQA. hi addition, because the City Council is the final decision-making authority for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public continent period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration remained open through the conclusion of the City Council public hearing on December 8, 2008, adding another forty days to the already extended comment period. • Public notice for the December 8, 2008, City Council hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Map and PUD Amendment was published in the Argus -Courier and mailed to property owners and residents within 500 feet within required timelines. We have the certificate of publication from the Argus and proof of mailing on file in CDD. Notice to Responsible and Trustee Aeencies under CEOA A "Responsible" agency is defined in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15381) as a public agency that has "discretionary approval power over a project'; and a "Trustee" agency is defined in the Guidelines (Section 15386) as "a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project ..." The state Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is most often the trustee agency involved in local development projects that may have habitat or endangered species issues on site. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the procedural framework by which these agencies are consulted and notified, as may be necessary. Mr. Stegeman's e-mail states that Community Development did not notify responsible and trustee agencies "based on their belief that no state agency has jurisdiction." Our determination was based on the following information: 2 • In August 2004, a biological assessment of the project site was prepared by Golden Bear Biostudies and submitted as part of the application package for Pinnacle Heights. The assessment addressed the potential impacts of modifications to the `roadside drainage ditch." That assessment is included in the public record and the documents provided to the City Council. • Subsequent to the preparation of the biological assessment, Community Development received a copy of a March 28, 2006 letter from Golden Bear Biostudies to Craig Lawson, the project representative for Pinnacle, stating, based on their review of the proposed project with potential "Responsible" and "Trustee" agencies, that neither the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, nor the California Department of Fish and Game would have jurisdiction over the drainage ditch and no permits would be required. A copy of the March 28 letter is included in the public record and the documents provided to the City Council. Because neither the Regional Water Quality Control Board, nor the Department of Fish and Game claimed any jurisdiction or would require any permits, we concluded that those agencies clearly knew enough about the project and notification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to those agencies was not necessary. • Separate from the habitat value of the "roadside drainage ditch" is the matter of water quality discharge requirements. The federal and state discharge requirements from any project subject to those requirements are the responsibility of the City to enforce. Since the City is responsible to insure that the mitigations satisfy applicable discharge requirements, and City staff reviewed and assessed the grading and drainage information provided by the applicant to insure that no extraordinary responsible or trustee agency consultation or permitting was necessary for this project, we determined that a separate notification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to those agencies was not necessary or required. VestinH Tentative Man: Mr. Stegeman's January 4, 2009 e-mail concludes that the Pinnacle Ridge tentative map is a "vesting tentative map" and, therefore, the timing and sequence of the approval process - in particular, the adoption of the tentative map resolution on December 8, 2008, prior to the adoption and effective date of the ordinance amending the PUD zoning on the subject property - was not done correctly. The Pinnacle Ridge tentative map is not a "vesting tentative map." • A "vesting tentative map" is a type of tentative map established by state law, under Chapter 4.5 of the state Subdivision Map Act, and intended to give a statutory vested right that will be effective earlier in the development review process than a "common law" vested right. Briefly, a vested right, in this context, is the right to build a project as permitted by the local jurisdiction without being affected by any changes in the laws governing the use of the property that may occur at any time up until the development rights become vested. • A "common law" vested right is typically established when the property owner has secured a building permit, has performed work in reliance on that permit, and can then complete the project according to the terms of the permit, even if the local government changes the regulations that may affect the development of that property. The vesting tentative map provisions of state law create a statutory vested right at the time the vesting 3 tentative map is approved (upon adoption of a City Council resolution) rather than after a building permit has been issued and substantial work on the project has been performed. • Vesting tentative maps are an option available to the project applicant in accordance with state law, but must be clearly noted on the tentative map and, where appropriate, in any other related application materials submitted with the map, at the time the application is made. The Pinnacle Ridge tentative map is not a "vesting tentative map'; and, therefore, Mr. Stegeman's continents about the timing and sequence of the approval process are not applicable to the decision pending before the City Council. • There is no difference between a vesting tentative map and tentative map in terms of the City's ability to enforce applicable conditions of approval. Conditions of approval are typically written with a timing requirement that: 1) prevents the review process from moving to the next decision point until that condition is completely satisfied; and 2) allows an opportunity for more detailed review, consultation, and within limitations, even revisions to meet project conditions. Each successive step in the development review process — from pre -application consultation to issuance of a building permit — requires an additional level of detail and analysis to insure that the project remains in conformance with all applicable policies, regulations and standards. That is why, for example, conditions are written to require a subsequent review and approval of documents like the CC & R's, or that drainage and grading improvement plans need to be sufficiently detailed to clearly meet all applicable local and regional standards before the final map for the subdivision can be approved or a building permit issued. January 5, 2009 E-mail: hi this e-mail, Mr. Stegeman raises concerns about the adequacy of Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to geotechnical analysis, hydrology and water quality; the rezoning of the property to PUD; and project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R's). Geotechnical. Hvdroloev and Water Oualitv: Questions regarding the adequacy of the analysis of these issues for the Mitigated Negative Declaration are the responsibility of Public Works Engineering and the City Engineer. The infonnation provided by the applicant and reviewed by City staff prior to the completion of the Initial Study and the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate for the purposes of meeting the requirements of CEQA and making the appropriate environmental determination. The mitigation measures adopted by Resolution 2008-224 N.C.S. address the need for current information at the appropriate time in development review process and insure that potential environmental impacts are addressed. • Mitigation Measure 9 (Geology and Soils) calls for an updated Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prior to "issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of improvement plans or Final Map." The report "shall be ...approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance." It further goes on to require "recommendations for site preparation and grading, foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures." There are 10 geotechnical and soils mitigations identified to address the potential impacts of this project. 4 Hydrology and Water mitigation measures 1 through 4 address the range or requirements related to these issues and how they must be addressed, including retaining and handling surface runoff and drainage on site to the City's satisfaction. Engineering details regarding the size and design of the "v -ditches" will be addressed in the project improvement plans and must meet all City and Sonoma County Water Agency standards. PUD Rezone: Mr. Stegeman's January 5 e-mail reiterates several concerns he raised previously regarding firture development on the proposed lots in Pinnacle Ridge under the proposed PUD. I have attached a copy of our memo of December 1, 2008 that addresses those and other project issues. Proiect Conditions. Covenants & Restrictions (CC & R's): Section 19.020(E) requires that an applicant submit a copy of project CC & R's, "if the project proponent intends to utilize covenants, conditions and restrictions and/or create an association of property owners in the planned unit development." • The applicant did provide a draft copy of CC & R's as part of its submittal package to the City. It is very common that the initial draft of the CC & R's (such as the version that is currently part of the public record) ends up being modified by the time the final version is approved by the City, due to circumstances and conditions that arise in the course of the public review. Condition 28 in the approved tentative map resolution (Resolution 2008-225 N.C.S.) states that "Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall be required to submit CC & R's to the City Attorney for review and approval." The condition further speaks to enforcement by a homeowners association. Although this specific condition goes on to address tree preservation requirements, the first sentence requires a final set of CC & R's for review to insure that all applicable conditions, not just the tree preservation requirements, are met and the obligations of the homeowners association are clear. Condition 53 addresses the means by which the water supply for fire flow must be resolved and the public record also makes that the responsibility of the homeowners association. • Conditions 39 and 64 require on-going maintenance of private utility systems. • All of these obligations will be addressed in the final version of the project CC & R's that are still subject to final review and approval by the City, as required by Condition 28, and would become the responsibility of the homeowners association. For further clarification, CC & R's are a private contract between the developer/homeowners association and an individual homeowner. There are approximately 120 residential PUD's with CC & R's and homeowners associations that have been approved by the City over the years. The City has never been party to any of those project CC & R's, and that has not limited our ability to enforce applicable project conditions of approval or violations of applicable City codes. January 21, 2009 E-mail: hi this e-mail Mr. Stegeman again states that the Pinnacle Ridge tentative map is a "vesting tentative map" and must be approved in the legislative sequence required by state law and local ordinance. Please refer to the comments on page 3 of this memo regarding the Pinnacle Ridge tentative map. The Pinnacle Ridge tentative map is not a "vesting tentative map." The applicant did not apply for a vesting tentative map; the project was not noticed as a vesting tentative map; and the incorrect "vesting tentative map" title block on the cover sheet of the tentative map set was corrected prior to sending the packet out to the City Council and posting the information for the public. Second Readine of the PUD Amendment Ordinance: The only action before the City Council on January 26 is the second reading of the ordinance amending the PUD zoning for the project site. A copy of the January 5 Agenda Bill and Staff Report for the second reading is attached. That ordinance includes the findings for approval required by Section 19.030 (A through D) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The public record in support of the findings includes all the documentation and testimony from the first public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 9, 2008 through the last City Council consideration of this matter on December 15, 2008. As mentioned previously, the second reading of an ordinance is not "ministerial' and the Council still has discretionary authority to deny the approval of the ordinance. However, the findings for denial must be based on facts and evidence already in the record. Attachments: • January 4, 2009 e-mail from Scot Stegeman to Fran King; City Manager • January 5, 2009 e-mail from Scot Stegeman to Teresa Barrett; David Glass; Tiffany Renee; David Rabbitt; Mike Harris • January 21, 2009 e-mail from Scot Stegeman to John Brown; Eric Danly; Mike Moore; Pamela Torliatt; Teresa Barrett; David Glass; Tiffany Renee; Mike Harris; David Rabbitt; Mike Healy; Rose Zoia; Shelley Campbell • December 1, 2008 Memorandum from Irene Borba, Associate Planner to Mike Moore, Community Development Director • January 5, 2009 Agenda Bill and Staff Report (Item 3.G) "Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance Approving a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision..." 0 JANUARY 4 2009 E—MAIL Moore, Mike From: Crump, Katie Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:55 AM To: Brown, John; Moore, Mike Subject: FW: Pinnacle Ridge item before Council on 12/5 Attachments: Pinnacle Ridge VTM conflicts.pdf Katie Crump Exec. Assistant to the City Manager (707) 778-4347 Iccrump@ci.petaluma.ca.us City Hall Hours as of 11/3/08: Mon. -Thur. 8-5; Closed Fridays -----Original Message ----- From: scotsteg@sonic.net [mailto:scotsteg@sonic.net] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 9:04 PM To: King, Fran; citymgr Subject: Pinnacle Ridge item before Council on 12/5 The following message was sent to the Council members for whom I have email addresses. I do not have Mike Healy's email, and it is not up on the web site, so I would appreciate it if you could forward this to him. I didn't want to bog the Council memo with legal fine print, but think that there are considerable obstacles to proceeding. My previous objections to improper notice of the MND still stand. CEQA clearly requires three types of notice to occur: -notice to the County Clerk -notice to all Responsible and Trustee agencies -notice to the public through at least one of the options of mail to those requesting notice as well as those within 500 feet, or notice in a local press, or notice via signage. The City has confirmed no sign notice occurred, nor did proper notice to the press take place. The staff position at the last meeting was that notice under CEQA only required mail notice to the 500 foot perimeter, which I believe is incorrect. The staff position was that only 1 of 3 options is required; in fact, 3 specific different notices are required, one of which can be meant in any of 3 ways. I stated in a prior hearing, and no response or dispute was made by staff, that the County Clerk has no physical copy nor computer record of receiving Notice for the MND last fall prior to the Commission hearing. Planning staff have also confirmed that no contact was made with any state agencies, either directly or through the State Clearinghouse, based upon their belief that no state agency has any jurisdiction. This is clearly contradicted by the the biological reports submitted by the applicant, the discussion included within the MND, and the final mitigations reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as adopted. If a discretionary approval is required of a state agency, as in the case with the requirement in the MMP for a discharge permit from the Bay Regional Water Board, than that agency is considered a Responding Agency and must be noticed as such. In addition, the trustee authority of both the Bay Board and Cal Fish and Game is again confirmed by the language of the MMP, the MND, and the technical reports. I wont rework that ground, and my client would not pursue legal options if the VTM and proposed PUD were otherwise tolerable. 1 As to the Vesting Tentative Map, the record and problem seem pretty clear. The Resolution approving the VTM was adopted based upon consistency with a Zoning District that did not exist at the time of the VTM approval. Since both the Map Act and City Code provide specific guidance for precisely this situation, I question whether some ex post facto work around would survive legal scrutiny. The memo sent to the Council follows... There are still a number of issues related to this project, and I will send a separate email specific to issues regarding the rezoning. I am also sending this to the City Manager and the City Attorney. But the attached memo deals with a significant new procedural problem relative to the Vesting Tentative Map. The memo describes the situation in greater detail, but the bottom line is that the Tentative Map cannot and could not have been legally approved on December 8, since the necessary zoning change to allow that density in that configuration wasn't yet in place. At the time of approving a Vesting Tentative Map (VTM), it has to be found consistent with the Zoning Code then in force. Since the rezoning to the new PUD (designed to allow the proposed subdivision) was not yet in force at the time of the December 8 vote (and is still not in force prior to this meeting of January 5), the subsequent approval almost a month ago of the VTM violated both the City Subdivision Code and the California Subdivision Map Act. The Map Act does provide a way to deal with these transitional situations, but these were not used in this case and are not reflected in the Resolution of December 8 approving the VTM. So it is my position that control over both the proposed rezoning and the proposed Vesting Tentative Map still lie in the hands of the current City Council. The Council can take a second affirmative vote on the rezoning ordinance, but it also has the authority to address issues appropriate to the rezoning, such as specifying controls over accessory structures and uses, providing enforceable protections for neighboring properties regarding operation and maintenance of the private infrastructure as proposed, and other issues raised in my previous memo to the City Council. The Council also has the ability to confirm that all the content requirements for a PUD District are present, such as the specific requirement that a PUD District include a specific construction timetable, that such a timetable is to be adopted by the Council with the rezoning, and that the Ordinance approving the rezone specifically incorporate that timetable. But beyond the Council options for how to approach the second rezoning vote, the Vesting Tentative Map will have to be re noticed for a subsequent City Council meeting, at which time the Council will have the right and opportunity to address issues of concern relative to setbacks, building envelopes, control of and responsibility for private infrastructure, size and location of lots, and so on. I raise this issue both so that the Council may appreciate that they have more options to address this proposal than are obvious, and to recognize that there are still significant legal obstacles to this project moving forward on January S. I regret I cannot attend the meeting on Monday night, since I am still in Delaware, but I have caught up on the item and am staying in contact with my client and their legal counsel pending my return later this week. I am sending this from the depths of Delaware and playing catchup as to how this surfaced this week, and am grappling with internet issues away from my normal office. I will be able to respond to any questions via email or phone if that would be helpful. Scot Stegeman go H The City Council action on the Pinnacle Ridge Vesting Tentative Map, as conditioned, violates provisions of both the Petaluma Subdivision Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. The sequence of actions taken by the Council on December 1 had approval of the Vesting Tentative Map following the introduction of the proposed Ordinance revising the existing PUD District. But the proposed Vesting Tentative Map is inconsistent with the current PUD District, and the proposed PUD amendment has not been approved, since the second vote has not occurred. Even then, the PUD revisions would not take effect until 30 days after the first approval. It is precisely for this reason that both the Municipal Code and the Map Act provide for these transitional situations. The City Code provides that Tentative Maps must be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code (20.04.030). And specific to Vesting Tentative Maps, the Code states that any inconsistency of a Vesting Map with the Zoning in force at the time of adoption must be noted on the Map. It also requires that the City shall deny a Vesting Tentative Map that is inconsistent with the Zoning Code (20.018.070). Contrary to that requirement, the City Council approved without restriction the Pinnacle Ridge Vesting Tentative Map prior to completing the PUD rezoning process. The Subdivision Map Act does provide a solution to these overlapping situations, and that is to expressly condition the Vesting Tentative Map to only be approved subject to completion of any associated rezoning process to maintain consistency (SMA §66498.3). The Pinnacle Ridge Vesting Tentative Map contains no such Condition of Approval; the Resolution as approved by the Council of December 1 approves the Map without restriction or reference to the pending nature of the PUD rezoning. Given the circumstances and the legal requirements, I believe the Map will have to be renoticed and reapproved via Resolution. If that action precedes the PUD rezoning taking effect, the Map Resolution will need to reflect the provisional language described above. If the second Map vote occurs after the second reading of the PUD ordinance and after the 30 day window, then no such additional language would be necessary. Citations: Petaluma Municipal Code; Title 20 Subdivisions 20.04.030 Guidance from general plan and zoning ordinance. The general plan for the city shall guide the use of all land within the corporate boundaries of the city. The size and design of lots, the nature of utilities; the design and improvement of streets; the type and intensity of land use; and the provisions for any special facilities in any subdivision shall conform to the land uses shown and the standards established in the general plan, the zoning ordinance; and any precise plans designed for the area. (Ord. 1785 NCS §1; 1990: Ord. 1046 NCS §1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.1.301.) 20.18.070 Development consistency with zoning. Whenever a subdivider files a vesting tentative map for a subdivision whose intended development is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance or general plan in existence at that time; the city shall deny such a vesting tentative map. (Ord. 1643 NCS §3 (part); 1986.) California Subdivision Map Act 66498.3. (a) Whenever a subdivider files a vesting tentative map for a subdivision whose intended development is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance in existence at that time, that inconsistency shall be noted on the map. The local agency may deny a vesting tentative map or approve it conditioned on the subdivider, or his or her designee, obtaining the necessary change in the zoning ordinance to eliminate the inconsistency. If the change in the zoning ordinance is obtained, the approved or conditionally approved vesting tentative map shall, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 66498.1, confer the vested right to proceed with the development in substantial compliance with the change in the zoning ordinance and the map, as approved. (b) The rights conferred by this section shall be for the time periods set forth in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) of Section 66498.5. {�1 JANUARY 5 2009 E-MAIL Moore, Mike From: Danly, Eric [eric@meyersnave.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:38 AM To: Moore, Mike; Brown, John; Thomsen, Leslie Subject: Fw: Fwd: Remaining issues re. Rezoning and CCRS, Pinnacle Ridge Here is the forward I received from Teresa with the email sent by Scott on January 5. Sent using BlackBerry From: Teresa Barrett To: Danly, Eric; Thomsen, Leslie; John Brown Sent: Wed ]an 14 07:19:47 2009 Subject: Fwd: Remaining issues re. Rezoning and CCRS, Pinnacle Ridge This is the email he sent to the council. You might want to forward it to Mike Moore, I just didn't think I should do that on this link. Teresa Barrett Petaluma City Council Voice: 707.953.0846 Fax: 707.762.6411 E-mail: teresa4Detaluma ancomcast.net Begin forwarded message: From: scotstea0sonic.net Date: January 5, 2009 6:15:20 AM PST To: otorliatt(a2aol.com Cc: teresa4netaIuma0comcast.net, "'dave glass"' <daveolasst7a comcast.net> <tiff( desianmotif.com>, davidBdavidrabbitt.com. mike4oet0aol.com Subject: Re: Remaining issues re. Rezoning and CCRS, Pinnacle Ridge The following are extracted from previous submittals to the City that are pertinent to the item under consideration on Monday. I apologize for the choppiness, but I do not have all the proper source documents with me in Delaware, so am doing some cut and paste, and conversion using different software. Remaining issues re. CEQA/Mitigated Negative Declaration The Bauer Report also states on page 34 that "Site conditions and standards of practice change. Therefore, we should be notified to update this report if construction is not performed within 24 months of the submittal date." Since the Bauer report is dated January 27 of 2005, the report should not have been relied upon after January of 2007, without updating. So the Geotech report has been out of date for almost 2 years "Tiffany Renee" 15 and cannot be relied upon by the MND to address issues of soil stability, stonnwater management, groundwater issues, grading, and landslide stabilization. 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. **4: 3-C) Relative to Hydrology and Water Quality 1. As noted above, there is no apparent discussion of the groundwater levels and flows, and how development of the Project may aggravate any existing problems. Neighbors have already noted groundwater seepage into their lots, and soil and debris buildup already compromises the existing v -ditch drainage system. Only one sample was gathered for winter groundwater levels, and that only for a relatively shallow pit. The proposed Condition of Approval 31 states "investigate and address the subsurface water issue along the subdivision boundary at lots 1,2,&3." Since the City clearly believes there are unanswered questions on this issue, that uncertainty should have been reflected in the MND. The staff reports to the Planning Commission noted that borings and pits were dug in December of 2003 and December of 2004. But the staff report attachments do not contain any winter samples for Test Borings 4 and 5, nor for Test Pit 17. Since these represent the sample locations closest to the adjacent residences, and given that staff has acknowledge the uncertainties about groundwater impacts in that area (see Condition of Approval 31), the winter/wet season data for this sample sites should be provided. 2. The MND (p. 21) states that site grading will "control all stormwater nmoff 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 bullring 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. Issues regarding PUD rezone 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 M R-1 District, accessory structures are pennitted 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 strictures" 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. 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-B) 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 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 3 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. The additional Conditions added by staff on 12/8 provide only for controls on tree removal, but still do nothing to address pruning or topping. *x 7 Issues regarding the proposed CC&Rs 7-A) The CCRs specifically exclude the creation of a Home Owners Association (HOA), contrary to many of the assumptions of the Project documents and conditioning. Absent an HOA, there will be no coherent and consistent enforcement of the HOA policies, nor is there a direct way to assess fees for the maintenance of the parcels and infrastructure that remains private within the Project. In particular, the maintenance of the private sewer systems, the private stonnwater systems, and the Pump house are all problematic absent and HOA and an HOA dues structure. 7-13) The CCRs do state that any violation of a local or state law or requirement constitutes a violation of the CCRs, and are enforceable through private action. This opens up a huge complication for the City relative to General Plan and City Code enforcement. Private parties can sue through private action to interpret and enforce City policies and standards, without the City having the ability to control that process or protect the City's interest in such a dispute. 7-C) The CCRs make no provision for the long-term maintenance of the 4 16 private streets and pump station, which can result in deterioration of that infrastructure. This in turn can result not simply in Code violations, but risks to public health and safety. There is no discussion of how costs will be determined and shared, the standards to be met, the retained control or authority of the City, and so on. 7-D) The CCRs specifically describe the Project for the purposes of being governed by the CCRs as consisting only of the 11 residential lots. The private parcels A and C that contain the private streets and the pump station are not even described as being governed by the CCRs. In fact, as written, the CCRs do not treat those private infrastructure parcels as part of the Project. This leaves those parcels in a confusing position, where it is unclear who will have responsibility for them. 7-E) The inclusion of the bike rack and other public amenities at the Pump Station will also create a liability issue, which is further complicated by the confusion as to who is responsible not just for operational maintenance, but for maintaining the public use functions. There is no mention of creating some form of public use easement across the Pump Station parcel. s �� JANUARY 21 2009 E-MAIL Moore, Mike From: Scot Stegeman [scotsteg@monitor.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:30 PM To: John Brown City Manager; Eric Danly; Moore, Mike; Pamela Torliatt; Teresa Barrett; dave glass; Tiffany Renee; Mike Harris; David Rabbitt; Mike Healy Cc: Rose Zola; Shelley Campbell Subject: Pinnacle Ridge Tentative Map approval status In discussing the project and the pending hearing with the neighbors (such as what makes something a Vesting Map), I realized I needed to clarify a few items. The proposed Tentative Map as submitted by Pinnacle Homes is for a Vesting Tentative Map, and it was clearly identified as such at the time of the Planning Commission review, and remains as such in the packets provided to the City Council. As provided for in the Subdivision Map Act, the only requirement that distinguishes a "Vesting" Tentative Subdivision Map from a conventional Tentative Subdivision Map is to specifically include the phrase "Vesting Tentative Map" on the front sheet of the Subdivision Map packet. Having applied with that language reflected on the proposed Map, the City is required to process the application as a Vesting Map. There is nothing in the record to suggest the City rejected that designation, nor that the applicant withdrew that part of the request. The map as "approved" on December 8 was identified as such, and was therefore approved as such, since there was no other Map before them. I won't restate the specific requirements relative to Vesting Tentative Maps, but simply note that the necessary actions to approve such a Map were taken out of sequence and contrary to both the Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. But regardless of whether it is a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map or a garden-variety Tentative Subdivision Map is ultimately irrelevant. Under the City Code, it is illegal to approve a Subdivision Map of any sort if it is inconsistent with the underlying Zoning at the time of approval. The relevant Code provisions are the following: The current Petaluma Subdivision Code provides this requirement (emphasis added): Petaluma Subdivision Code 20.04.030 Guidance from general plan and zoning ordinance. The general plan for the city shall guide the use of all land within the corporate boundaries of the city. The size and design of _lots_, the nature of utilities; the design and improvement of _streets_; the _type and intensity_ of land use; and the provisions for any special facilities in any subdivision _shall conform to the land uses shown and the standards_ established in the general plan, t_he zoning ordinance_; and any precise plans designed for the area. (Ord. 1785 NCS §1; 1990: Ord. 1046 NCS §1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.1.301.) In a parallel approach, the current Petaluma Zoning Codes provides this requirement (emphasis added): Petaluma Zoning Code 1.040 - Applicability of the Zoning Ordinance_ E This Zoning Ordinance applies to all land uses, subdivisions_, and development within the City of Petaluma, as follows. A. New land uses or structures, changes to land uses or structures. It shall be unlawful, and a violation of this Zoning Ordinance for any person to establish, construct, reconstruct, alter, or replace any use of land or structure, except in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.020 (General Requirements for Development and New Land Uses), and Chapter 22 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). No Planning Permit, Building Permit or Grading Permit shall be issued by the City unless the proposed construction complies with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. B. Subdivisions. _Any subdivision of land proposed within the City after the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance shall be consistent with the minimum lot size and dimensions requirements of Chapter 4 (Zones Districts) and all other applicable requirements of this Zoning Ordinance_. The two provisions require that any subdivision be consistent with both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Not only is the intent clear and mandatory, but the intent is embedded is both Codes to the same outcome. In addition, the Subdivision Map Act Given that, I am going to briefly state what I think are undisputed facts: 1) The Pinnacle Ridge Project is being reviewed under the provisions of the current General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Code. 2) The Pinnacle Ridge Project as designed was inconsistent with the pre-existing Westridge PUD, necessitating amendment of the site zoning, as per the proposed new PUD Plan and Policy Statement. 3) The Pinnacle Ridge Tentative Subdivision Map (Map) was approved by Resolution following the first of two required votes upon the change in PUD zoning. 4) At the time of approval of the Map, the zoning then in force was the Westridge PUD that provided for only agricultural uses and densities consistent with agricultural zoning. 5) The Resolution approving the Map on December 8 made no reference to consistency with the Zoning Code, or consistency with existing site zoning. 6) The Resolution approving the Map on December 8 did state in the first Finding that the Tentative Map was consistent with the City Subdivision Code, and relied upon that finding in adopting the Resolution. 7) The Tentative Map Resolution as approved makes no provision or contingency for the Map approval being subject to subsequent approval of the PUD rezoning. Since the evidence clearly shows that both City Subdivision Code and Zoning Code require that subdivisions be consistent with the underlying zoning, and since the underlying zoning on December 8 (the prior and still current Westridge PUD) is inconsistent with the proposed Map, the Map could not have been legally approved on December 8. 2 11 I have not attached documentation regarding the previous seven points, but point 1 is reflected throughout the staff reports and applicant submittals, point 2 is self-evident, and points 3 through 7 are reflected in the prior Resolutions as approved. As I have stated before, I believe the Council improperly approved the Map on December 8, and that the Map will have to reheard and acted upon by the Council after final approval of any rezoning Ordinance. If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact me. Scot Stegeman 3 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Coaunanity Denelopiaent Departhneat, 11 English Street, Petaltana, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fay (707) 778-4498 E-mail: edd @ci petalaaiaxa.its DATE: December 1, 2008 TO: Mike Moore, Community Development Director FROM: Irene T. Borba, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Response to Scott Stegman's Letter Dated November 30, 2008 regarding Pinnacle Ridge The purpose of this memo is to provide a point -by -point response, where necessary, to the comments on the Pinnacle Ridge project prepared by Scott Stegeman on November 30, 2008 (copy attached) and received by Community Development on December 1, 2008. Mr. Stegeman's comments have been paraphrased below in italic to differentiate them from the staff response. Issue 1 -Planning Commission Recommendation To The Council. Issue 1-a) Implementing Z017iag Ordinance Sections 25050 (B) and Zoning Code 25.050 (C) require a resolution f7-om the Planning Commission for a proposed code amendment. Response The Sections that Mr. Stegeman is referring to are from Chapter 25 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, "Amendments". This Chapter is not applicable for the proposed application a Tentative Parcel Map, and PUD Amendment. This Chapter is applicable to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, itself. Chapter 19 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, "Planned Unit District", provides the applicable procedural steps for adopting, amending and modifying a Planned Unit District (PUD). Section 19.040, "PUD District Procedures" does not require a Planning Commission resolution to accompany a recommendation to the City Council. In addition, that section of the code specifically states that "If any conflict exists between this Chapter [Chapter 19] and Chapter 25, this Chapter shall prevail." Issue 1-b) li'bile draft fundings were included in the staff report for the Planning Commission, there was no resolution to cari7) onto the Council f7•oin the Commission. Mr. Stegeman also notes that no meeting minutes were approved by the Commission for the October 28711 meeting and should be part of what the Council receives. Response The Commission had reviewed draft Findings and Conditions. The Commission made some modifications to the Conditions, which staff formalized in the Resolutions for City Council. No "draft" Resolution from the Planning Commission is required for this application. Mr. Stegeman contends that no meeting minutes from the October 281h Planning Commission are provided, as they have not been approved by the Commission. There is no requirement that minutes be approved prior to an item proceeding to the next step in the process. The meeting minutes are action minutes only given that the City uses streaming video through the Granicus program to record the meetings. Issue I -c) Mr. Stegeman contends that the importance of such a resolution is to capture the intent of the Commission and is demonstrated by conflicting information in the staff report to Council. �Lfi-. Stegeman refers to modifications that were made to the "draft" conditions of approval reviewed by the Planning Commission. Response Modifications to the "Draft" Plamiing Commission conditions of approval were made in the "draft" Resolution for the City Council. At the October 28`h Planning Commission meeting the Commission requested modifications to the "draft" conditions of approval. Staff made the changes at the request of the Commission to address their concerns. Modifications to Conditions 27 & 28 were made and agreed to by Public Works, Engineering. These changes were noted at the Commission meeting. Mr. Stegeman also notes additional modifications were made to the conditions of approval. The changes to the "draft" conditions of approval were made by staff to clarify the condition based on information that may have come up during the public hearing process. Since the Platming Commission is a recommending body on this application and not a final decision -maker, the City Council has the discretion to modify the conditions of approval contained in the draft resolution based on testimony and information in the record prior to making its decision. Issue 2- Incomplete Application Materials. Issue 2-a) Mr. Stegenrnn notes a number of documents omitted from the on-line Staff Report and Attachments available through the Cih� Clerk's web site. He noted several documents not available. Mr. Stegeman also notes that given the timing of the release of the staff report for the December I" meeting and the closing of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday created an obstacle for the public to participate. Response The documents that Mr. Stegeman is referring to being omitted may not have been available as part of the on-line information, but have been available to the public as part of the file. The documents that he notes, such as the "Opportunities and Constraints Map", "Project Site Sections", "Landscape Concept Plan", and "Site Sections", are all part of the public project file and included in the packet for review by the Council, as well as when this project was reviewed by the Commission. The agenda packet is available to the public at the time it becomes available to the Council. The uploading of the staff report and attachments is not a requirement for the City , but is done as a courtesy for the public. Much of the information cited has been available to the public as part of the Planning Commission review and process since last August. Although our office hours are limited to the public, the staff is working Monday through Thursday, and the public is more than welcome to make an appointment to come in and review the project files. 2 Issue 2-b) Mr. Stegeman notes other items omitted fr-on7 the Council version of the on-line agenda packet, such as a Vesting Tentative Map, a project timetable, a grading and utility plan and a prelin7inmy drainage plan. Response As noted, Mr. Stegeman is referring to the materials posted on the City Clerk's website as part of the City Council agenda packet. For technical reasons, the on-line packet material may not necessarily include all of the associated materials. For instance, large plans cannot be on the web site, as we don't have the ability to scan that information. The information was included in the Council and Planning Commission packets. Issue 3- Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues 3-a, b, c and e ) Concerns about the information found in the Initial Study. Response Staff would refer the Council to the Initial Study. The Planning Commission heard from members of the public, the applicant and staff, and unanimously forwarded a favorable recommendation on the adequacy of the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on to the Council. Issue 4- CEQA Procedures Issue 4-a) The Initial StudylAIND inchrded with the Cit)) Council staff report states on page 4 that the public conmrent period for the rbIND opened on August 21 and closed on September 9. The staff report includes a proposed Resolution of the Petaluma 00, Council for adoption of the Mitigated Negative declaration m7d the fourth "Wiereas" clause confirms that the posting period for continent ran frron7 August 21 to September 9 and that notice nvas mailed to neighbors and interested parties. The " Miereas' clause makes no mention of providing notice to any interested or responding agencies. The tbIND mitigations and the project conditions of approval confirm that additional clearances will be needed relative to nvater quality and biological impacts. Any agency with jurisdiction over the project, particularly agencies that are en7bedded in the project approvals must be noticed. If they were not noticed this is an additional on7ission in the required noticing requirements for CEQA. Since the project was not properly noticed, the A11ND must be re -circulated to allow proper continent opportunity. Response There was a typographical error on one page of the Initial Study that misstated the comment period on the Initial Study as running from August 21, 2008 to September 21, 2008. However, the public notice identified the comment period correctly as running from August 21, 2008 to September 9, 2008. As it turned out, because of the timing of the public hearings on the project, the Planning Commission accepted comments on the Initial Study through the close of the public hearing at the October 28, 2008 meeting. Staff has determined that no special permits from responsible or trustee agencies are required for the proposed project, and therefore notices regarding the hnitial Study were not sent to those agencies. As standard practice, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Sonoma County Water Agency review the improvement plans for the project prior to their approval and the approval of the final map to insure compliance with the County's master drainage plans for the 3 area and Regional Board's storni water quality regulations. We do not consider their review to constitute a special permit necessitating notice of the environmental assessment, since they are part of the subsequent improvement plan review process. Issue 5- PUD Amendment 5-a) The zoning code has certain specific requirements for a PUD zoning district. Some, but not all were addressed through the "PUD Development Standards " submitted by the applicant. One is to provide a project time table, a map showing the area of rezoning, all parcels within 500 feet of the rezone boundary and all owners of record of those parcels. Response Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 19.020(B) states that "the unit development plan shall consist of as many of the following as are appropriate to the size and nature of the proposed PUD and shall in any case provide all data required by the Planning Commission in order to be able to arrive at the findings set forth in Section 19.030." With regards to the project timetable, the applicant discusses the timetable in a letter/project narrative dated January 21, 2005. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide a larger zoning map of the project site and the surrounding area, which was reviewed at the October 28`h Planning Commission meeting. All property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property are part of the normal public notice by mail process and, therefore, the applicant does not have to provide this information as part of the submittal. 5-b) 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 server 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 responsibiliq, for the water system or the private streets, the street fixtures, and the Pump House. Response Public Works Engineering conditions of approval require a maintenance agreement for all shared privately owned utilities and facilities which include the private street and infrastructure. Individual owners will be responsible for private utilities such as sewer laterals, water piping and storm drain pipes on each lot, as is standard with any new residential development. The fire pump and fire line will be maintained by the project homeowners' association through Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's), a private agreement between the developer and the respective homeowners. The City reviews CC&R's to insure that they respond adequately to any applicable conditions of approval, but is not responsible for enforcing the terms of the CC&R's. That is the responsibility of the homeowners' association. The water system that will provide domestic water to individual lots is publicly owned and maintained through a maintenance agreement. Private street lights and other surface infrastructure will also be privately owned and maintained. Public Works Engineering will require these items and conditions of approval to be addressed during final map and subdivision improvement plan review period. 4 /4 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 standards. This is inconsistent with the Zoning Code which states 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 would be Rza-al Residential. Since the vast majority of the site would be zoned Rural Residential but for the PUD designation, that is the default standard that should be cited by the PUD Development Standards. Response Mr. Stegeman appears to be referring to the Westridge Units 4 & 5 PUD Development Standards which was developed with the R-1 development standards in mind. The R-1 Standards are from the previous zoning ordinance and do not apply to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 5-d) Either zoning district (RR or RI) provides for both accessory dwellings and accessory structures. Accessory dwellings are a permitted use and require only SPARC review, potentially limited to staff review. Accessory st•nrctn-es that are not dwellings are pernnitted uses and do not even trigger SPARC review. Since the PUD language states that Accessory Structures up to IS' in height are allowed outside the designated building envelope with only a building permit, this means that the extensive meas that appear to be protected fi-orn further development are not restricted from a variety of other uses that would involve grading, structures, visibility, biotic issues, etc. And since these issues would not trigger any additional CEQA review (as ministerial approvals) there world 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. Response The PUD standards are intended, except where there may be specific, stated prohibitions, to allow residents of a given development the opportunity to enjoy the use of their properties over time, consistent with applicable regulations, in the same manner as any private residential property owner. That would include the ability to add accessory structures, accessory dwellings, swirmning pools or similar features. Any decision to add these features is left to the individual home owner, subject to the need for any subsequent City review, and is not a requirement of the PUD development standards of Chapter 19. As to the lack of further CEQA review to cover these eventual improvements, CEQA clearly cautions against analysis and conclusions based on speculation. There is no reasonable basis by which to conclude that there would be prospective environmental impacts that could result from individual homeowner decisions to improve their property over time. Issue 6- General Plan And Zoning Code Consistency. The September staff report incorrectly reviews the Project against the General Plan policies rega•diag the [Vest 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. Response 6-a) The September Planning Commission report mistakenly noted the property as being within the West Hills Subareas. As Mr. Stegeman notes, that was corrected and clarified in the October 5 Planning Commission staff report. The Policies and Programs were noted in the report for the commission to determine consistency. 6-b) 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 no consistency analysis for any of those Code policies. Response In the September Planning Commission report, staff outlined the applicable Goals, Policies and Programs for the proposed project. Staff provided the Commission with a chart of applicable of goals, policies and programs. As is our responsibility in evaluating the project, staff was either able to make a determination that the project was consistent with the applicable goal, policy or program; or, where there may have been some basis for Commission discretion, requested that the Planning Commission determine whether or not the project was consistent with a given goal, policy or program. The Commission also reviewed the project in respect to the Hillside Ordinance. The Commission, at its meeting in September, requested additional information from the applicant to ensure that the proposed project was indeed consistent with the Hillside Ordinance and the applicable goals, policies and programs. 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 that SPARC will subsequently address this issue but the consistency determination is being made noiv with this approval. Response The corn nission discussed the Gateway issue at both the meetings. It was determined by the Commission that the Gateway should simply reflect the rural character of the area. SPARC is the final reviewing body that will consider the details of the Gateway along with the building design, fencing and landscaping for the proposed project. 6-d) The project misstates the meaning of the minimae: lot size/slope analysis process. Both the applicant submittal and the staff report indicate the slope/density analysis would allotiv up to 22 units. This is incorrect, and distorts the propose of the slope analysis. The slope analysis has no affect upon allowable densities, it simply specifies mininnum 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 the hillside areas. This creates a false impression that 11 units is a compromise to the 22 units. Response Slope density is for determining the minimum lot sizes in the hillside areas. The density as proposed is consistent with that allowed under the General Plan and meets the minimum lot size for properties subject to the Hillside Ordinance. 6-e) The project submittals do not show the degree of landscaping detail and subject the 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. 6 Response A concept landscape plan was provided. The PUD regulations do not require that a final landscape plan be provided. SPARC will review the final proposed landscaping. 6-f) Contrary to the Hillside Ordinance, while the house renderings and plans show that the (rouses do step with the slope in terms of the ground elevation, the house sides facing downslope do not step back, but instead show a high flat face. Response The PUD section of the hnplementing Zoning Ordinance requires professionally prepared elevations and/or perspective drawings of all major proposed structures. Such drawings need not be the result if final architectural plans but must be in adequate detail to enable the Commission to determine, within reasonable limits, the height, bulk, materials and arrangement of the proposed buildings and their general appearance. The applicant did provide this information and the final architectural plans will be reviewed by SPARC. 01 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Auenda Title: Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance Approving a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Project Consisting of Eleven Single -Family Residential Units Located at 2762 `I' Street, APN 019-401-019, Project File No. 05- ZOA-0029-CR. 3.G January 5, 2009 Meeting Date: January 5, 2009 Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM ® 7:00 PM Category: ❑ Presentation ® Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ New Business Department: Director: Community Mike Moore Development, City Eric Danly Attorney Cost of Pronosal: 0 Amount Budgeted: 0 Contact Person: Phone Number: Eric Danly 778-4362 Name of Fund: N/A Account Number: N/A Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Conduct second reading and re -adopt the Ordinance Approving a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Project Consisting of Eleven Single -Family Residential Units Located at 2762 `I' Street, ATN 019-401-019, Project File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR as introduced on December 8, 2008. Summary Statement: The City Council introduced the ordinance on December 8, 2008 and after a second reading, voted to adopt the ordinance by a vote of 5-2 at its meeting of December 15, 2008. Because there was not unanimous consent to the adoption of the ordinance or a separate unanimous motion to permit posting, the City Charter requires that it be published in the City's official newspaper rather than posted on the bulletin board at City Hall, as is normally done and was done in this case. To cure this potential procedural defect, the ordinance was published on December 18, 2008 and can now be re -adopted. Attachments to Auenda Packet Item: 1. Ordinance Approving a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Project 2. Proof of publication, December 18, 2008. Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir: Date: Rev. # I Date Last Revised: Reviewed by City Attornev: Date:12.18.08 0 File: 1180740 Aunroved bv_City Manager: Date:` CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA January 5, 2009 AGENDA REPORT FOR Ordinance Approving a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Project Consisting of Eleven Single - Family Residential Units Located at 2762 `I' Street, APN 019-401-019, Project File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct the second reading and re -adopt the Ordinance Approving a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Project Consisting of Eleven Single -Family Residential Units Located at 2762 `I' Street, APN 019-401-019, Project File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR. 2. BACKGROUND: The City Charter, Article VII, Section 45 requires that before any City ordinance is adopted, it must be published at least two days before adoption in the official newspaper of the City. The City Council may, by unanimous consent, agree that an ordinance can be published by posting on the bulletin board at City Hall, rather than published. Because the ordinance approving the PUD Amendment and development standards was not adopted unanimously, and a separate unanimous motion to permit posting rather than publication was not made or passed, the City Attorney recommends that the adoption action be re -done after publication. The ordinance was published in the December 18, 2008 edition of the Petaluma Argus -Courier. The City Charter re -adoption and publication requirements affect only the ordinance adopting modified PUD standards for the project. A mitigated negative declaration pursuant to CEQA and approval of a tentative subdivision map for the project were approved by Resolution No. 2008- 224 N.C.S. and Resolution No. 2008- 225 N.C.S., respectively, on December 8, 2005. Those resolutions took effect on December 8, 2008, and are not required to have a second reading or be re -adopted. 3. DISCUSSION: Re -adopting the ordinance after publication will conform to the Charter publication requirement. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None, other than minor costs of publication to comply with the City Charter. 1180740.1 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE Introduced by ATTACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2319 N.C.S. Seconded by APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (PUD) AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PINNACLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION PROJECT CONSISTING OF 11 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED AT 2762 'I' STREET, APN 019-401- 019, PROJECT FILE NO. 05-ZOA-0029-CR WHEREAS, Pinnacle Development Number 21, L.P. has applied to subdivide a 16.36 acre parcel at 2762 "1" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project"), and amend the Planned Unit District ("PUD") of Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated Development Plan and PUD Standards; and, WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on September 9 and October 28, 2008 after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the form required by the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in its minutes of September 9 and October 28, 2008 recommending the adoption of an amendment to Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated changes to the PUD Development Standards to allow for 1 1 single family residential units to be constructed on Assessor's Parcel No. 019-401-019; and, WHEREAS, on December 8, 2008, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-224 N.C.S., approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for the Project; and, NOW THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PUD Findings The Citv Council finds as follows in su000rt of the Amendment of the Unit Development Plan for Westridae Units 4 & 5 and Develooment Standards for the Pinnacle Ridoe Subdvision Proiect consistina of 11 sinale-familv residential units located at 2762 "I" Street (the "Proiect"1: A. The proposed Amendment to of the Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District to allow the Pinnacle Ridge property to develop as a residential development proposed is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan. The PUD Amendment will result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The proposed 11 residences complies with the 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property which are: Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (8.15 acres) and Very Low Density Residential (1.89 acres). The Rural Residential (0.1 to 0.6 hu/ac) land use designation is intended for single-family residential development located primarily at the western perimeter of the city, along the Urban Growth Boundary. This designation maintains a rural character and provides a transition to unincorporated rural and agricultural lands. This density range reflects prevailing lot sizes and development patterns. The Very Low Density Residential (0.6-2.5 hu/ac) land use designation is intended for single-family residential development applied primarily to the southern hillsides, with a minimum lot size of half an acre, and larger lots required for sloped sites. The Urban Separator includes open space lands within and/or directly adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development, as designated by the City of Petaluma. They provide an edge that buffers agricultural fields from urban land, may serve as a recreational area, and act as a key component of the city's open space system. On lands with development potential, the Urban Separator allows transferability of development potential to the remaining portion of the some property. Given the 2025 General Plan land use designations, and the allowance to transfer density from the Urban Separator, the subject property would be allowed to develop 11 units, which is what the applicant has proposed. Therefore, the development of the Property in the manner proposed by the applicant will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City, with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and with any applicable plans adopted by the City. B. The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it incorporates the policies and guidelines of the Planned Unit District Chapter 19 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is planned on a property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares ('I' Street), and said thoroughfares with the improvements required, are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the development. C. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the proposed amended PUD zoning in that the amended zoning designation will result in residential uses that are appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The project plans present a unified and organized arrangement of lots and public streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed landscaping would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. D. As determined in the City's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. Section 2. Severabilitv. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, Ordinance No. 2319 N.C.S. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 �1 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 49 50 51 52 paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council. Section 4. Publication The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the City Charter. INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this 81h day of December, 2008. ADOPTED this day of 2009. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: ATTEST: Claire Cooper, City Clerk Pamela Torliatt, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Eric W. Danly, City Attorney Ordinance No. 2319 N.C.S. ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION IN Petaluma Argus -Courier (Published Thursday) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and far the County of Sonoma DECLARATION I am a citizen of the United States- over the age or eighteen years and a resident of said county and was at all said times the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of The Petaluma Argus -Courier, a newspaper of general circulation. published weekl7 in the City of Petaluma, in said County of Sonoma. State of California: that The Petaluma Argus -Courier is and was at all times her'_in mcr ioned. L nc-.,' '.pope: . -jr gL_-n Ta;.L i Circuvil as ' that term is defined by Section 6000 of the Government Code; its status as such newspaper of general circulation having been established by Court Decree No. 35518 of the Superior Court of the State of California. in and for the County of Sonoma, Department No 1 thereof; ; nd as provided by said Section 6000, is published for the dissemination of local and telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character. having a bunt tide subscription list of paving Jbscribers. and is unt davor _d to the interests, Ill 17ubllaled fur the cnte!mhullen. Ot instruction of a particular class, profession, trade caljnm. race or denomination, of for t11.- entenainnieut and instruction of Such classes professions. trades. ctulin_s. races or denominations. that at all said time', said newspaper has been established. published in Ihn said City of Petaluma, in said County and State at regular intervals for more than one year prcceding the first publication of this notice Inerein mentioned; that Said notice was set in ype not smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed in black face type not smaller than nonpareil. describing and expressing in general terns, the purport and character of the notice intended to be given; that the Notice of Amendmeul: Ordinance No. 2; ly N_(' 4 Pinnacle of which tine annexed is printed copy, was published and printed in said newspaper at ]east one consecutive time commencing on the 18th day of December, 2005 and ending on the l8th day of Derentber 2005, to -wit December 18. 2005. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 18th day of December 2008, at Peta]unm, California. Signedt— Dotan I amj,, ' lief Clerk PD04650386 i it DEC 2 2 ZDuu i f i a ORDINANCE NO. 2319 Petaluma Planning A. The proposed Amendment to of the N.C.S. Commission yCofiled withPOrt the City Council Ns reportto Westridge Units 4 & 5 EFFECTIVE GATE /OF Its set forth in Its minutes Planned Unit District ORDINANCE er September 9 and October Ridge allow the Pinnacle Ridge by O'B 2008 recommending property to develop m t development i Mike O'Brien Milan ilia adoption of the residential ith Seconded by ge Unitsamend-4 We Units 4 meat to associated & 5 and associalev changes mconsistent Plan. prothe Petaluma the Petaluma General Plan. Karen Nau to the PUD The PUO Amendment will APPROVAL OF A PLANNED allowf r 11 Standards allow for na more desirable resultin UNIT DISTRICT (PUO) single it is single family residconstructed use land and beter AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT on units to be on physical environment than would he possible antler PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT arcel No. Assessors Paroal No. 019- any single zo n tng district m STANDARDS FOR 401-019; and, combinallon azoning de THE PINNACLE RIDGE WHEREAS, on December triels.The proposed ttreal- SUBDIVISION PROJECT 8, 2008, in compliance with Environmental dances complies with the CONSISTINGOF 11 SINGLE- the California 2025 General Plan land use FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Quality Act ("CEOA"), designalioa far the subject UNITS California Code of properly which are: Urban ,APN0DAT2762', STREET, APL 018-001- 019, PROJECT FILE NO. 05-ZOA- Regulations Sections 15000 R lotion etseq.e City Separator dents acres), Rural Residential S of Petaluma and the City of Petaluma Density aeras)and Very Lowe).The WHEREAS, Pinnacle WHER0029-CEAS, Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Residentialentia acres). The (0.1 to 0.6 Rural Rand Development Number subdivide LP.has.36 applied Resolution No. 2008-223 use des9 nation use reelat2762 a 16.3fi acre parcel at 2762 N.C.S., approving a mitigat- ed negative declaration of Is int nde is intended t for stn Ipment dy residential development "1" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project")' environmental effect for the the located primarily al the and amend the Planned Unit Project; and, western perimeter of Ure District("PUO")afWestridge NOWTHEREFORE,SE city, along the Urban Growth Units 4 & 5 and associated IT ORDAINED BY THE Boundary. This designation Development Plan and PUD COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF maintains a rural character Standards; and, PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: and provides a transition WHEREAS, the City Section 1.PUD Findings to unincorporated rural and agriculture' lands. This den - Of Petaluma Planning Commission held a public The City Council free as follows in support of the sity range reflects prevailing lot and evellopment hearing on the proposed Amendment of the Unit Plan for sizes patterns. The Low amendment on September October 28, 2008 after Development Westridge Units 4 & 5 and Density Residential (0.6-2.5 9 and giving notice of said hearing, Development Standards udac) land use designation is Intended for single-fam- in ilia manner, for ilia pert- in the form required for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdvtsion Project consist- Ily residential development too ad, and by the City's Implementing Ing of 11 single-family real- the 0 uthmn primarily lwith e Zoning Ordinance; and, dentist units located at 2762 let size of half an WHEREAS, the City "t"Street(the"Project"): minimum a acre, and larger lots required for sloped silos. The Urban Separator Includes open space lands within and/or directly adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development, as designated by the City of Petaluma. They provide an edge that buffers agricultural fields from than land, may serve as a recreational area, and act as a key component of the city's open space Sys- tem. On lands with develop- ment potential, the Urban Separator allows trans- ferability of development potential to the remaining portion of the same prop- erty. Given the 2925 General Plan land use designations, and the allowance to trans- fer density from the Urban Separator, the subject prop- erty would be allowed to develop 11 units, which is what the applicant has pro- posed. Therefore, the devel- opment of the Property in the manner proposed by the applicant will not he detri- mental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of lire City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zon- ing regulations of the City, with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 and with any applicable plans adopt- ed by the City. B. The proposal Is con- sistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it meet - parties the policies and guidelines of the Planned Unit District Chapter 19 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is planned on a property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thomughfares ('I' Street), and said thorough- fares with the improvements required, are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the develop- ment. C. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the pro- posed amended PUD zoning In that the amended zon- ing designation will result In residential uses that are appropriate and compatible with the existing surround- ing uses. The project plans present a unified and orga- nized arrangement of lots and public streets, appropri- ate to adjacent and near- by properties. Proposed landscaping would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, D. As determined in the City's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental ' Impact, and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, the natural and scenic qualities of the site one protected with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. Section 2.Severtbilily. If any prevision of this ordi- nance or the application thereof to any person or cir- cumstance is held Invalid, the remainder of the ordi- nance, including the appli- cation of such part or pro- vision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provi- sions of this ordinance are sevemble.The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdi- vision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases he held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adop- tion by the Petaluma City Council. Section 4.Publicalion The City Clerk Is hereby directed to post antler pub- lish this ordinance or a syn- opsis of it for the period and In the manner required by the City Charley. INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this 8th day of December, 2008. ADOPTED this 15th day of December 2008 by the lot - lowing vote: AYES: Freitas, Harris, Now, O'Brien, Vice Mayor Babbitt NOES: Bennett, Mayar Torliatt ABSTAIN:None ABSENT: Nan. Pamela Todimt, Mayar ATTEST -.Claire Cooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Eric W. Danly, City Attorney P004650306 -Pub. Dec. 18, 2000 ill.