HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 6/17/2013 A Itenw#5 .4
tr,
n ,
A$50
DATE: June 17, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Scott Duiven, Senior Planner
'SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting,a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental.Impact
and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Petaluma SMART Rail
Station Areas--TODMaster Plan and Amended SmartCode; Resolution Adopting
the,Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas TOD"Master Plan; and Introduction of
Ordinance Adopting an Amended SmartCode and Repealing Ordinance No 2152
N.C.S.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adoptthe attached:
l) Resolution Adopting a;Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
Statement of O.venliding;Considerations for the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas:
TOD Master Plan.and AinendeetSrnartCdde..
2) Resolution Adopting,the Petaluma SMART.Rail;Station Areas: TOD Master Plan
3) Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Adopting an Amended SmartCode
and Repealing Ordinance No. 2152 N.C.S.
BACKGROUND
This item is a continuation.of the May 6, 2013'public hearing. Please see the complete staff
report and attachments provided for that meeting.
City Council Hearing—May 6, 2013
The City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony and provide comments on.the
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Draft SMART Rail Station.Areas: TOD Master Plan, and
Draft Amended SmartCodetat:its May 6, 2013 meeting. At that meeting the'City Council
directedastaff to revisit few-issues that were raised at the hearing. The City Council continued
the hearing to the May 20, 2013 Regular City Council meeting at-which time it was continued to
June 17, 2013.
DISCUSSION
■
Following are brief summaries, clarifications,!and proposed changes based on issues raised and
feedback-received at-the May 6, 2013 City Council hearing.
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Finance Dir: tort City Manager
SatpaliS ngh—421 PetalumaBoulevard South
Mr. Singh owns;and:operates,the Texaco,gas station and',car,wash at:421 Petaluma Boulevard
South. Mr. Singh-would like to make improvements to,the:;gas station and'replace the car wash
• with a market. Under the current SmartCode, gas stations are not permitted in the T5 district and
as the definition of a gas station includes a store, restaurant or other facilities Mr. Singh is not
ableto:expand the use due to its nonconforming;status: Mr: Singh requested that the Planning
Commission consider changing gas stations from not allowed in the T5 district to allowed
subject to a Conditional Use Permit At the March 26, 2013 Planning Commission hearing Mr.
Singh and Mr. Gannon both suhniittedpublic comments on the issue and Staff also presented the
issue in response to Planning Commission questions. Mr.Singh also submitted a petition with
approximately 300.signatures. The request to change gas stations from Not Allowed;to being subject
to a Conditional Use Permit is-a.policy decision-as it will apply to all parcels within that zoning
'district. The Planning Commission however did-not make a;recommendation for or against their
request. The City Council at its May 6,2013 meeting provided policy direction to-allow Gas Stations
within the T5 district subjectto.a Conditional Use Permit.:Staffhas updated the addendum to reflect
this change in Table 3.1 Allowed Building Functions and Permit Requirements, see Attachment 4.
George Weiner—133 Copeland Street
Mr: Weiner owns property-at 133 Copeland Street which currently.includes
industrial/manufacturing,uses.'Mr. Weiner pointed out concemsthatthe change from T6 to T5
for his property would further`limit the potential uses Of his property, and others, which had
previously been designated T . Staff in;consultation with.the"consultant team revisited the
"Industry, Manufacturing & Processing, Wholesaling" section of Table 3.1 found on page 19 of
the SmartCode Amendments:As many of the industrial/manufacturing uses currently allowed in
the T6 district are not appropriate to the now limited number of T6 and T6-0 districts (see Figure
2.1-CPSP Zoning Map), staff;prior toithe•Planning°Commission hearing recommended
removing several of the heavier-industrial usesfrom the T6 andT6-0 districts and adding a few
to the T5 district as outlinedih the corresponding page•ofthe.Addendutn. Mr. Weiner.presented
his comments to both the Planning Commission and City Council. No further,changes are
recommended beyond those-already presented to the Planning Commission and City Council and
included in the addendum.
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail T ransit—315 D Street
SMART staff participated and submitted comments over the course of the planning process. All
of the;input received was discussed among staff and at the Citizen Advisory Committee and
Technical Advisory Committee meetings. The.majority of that input is reflected in the attached,
Final Draft documents. However, a few-.issues were not addressed to SMART's satisfaction.
Staff also,net with, and subsequently received 'correspondence;dated March.15, 2013 and May 1,
2013 from SMART°,(Attachment 5). The correspondence points out sections of the Public
Utilities Code and Government Code:related to SMART's:statutory zoningimmunity with
respectjto'constructing transit serving facilities-while also recognizing that a transit-oriented
development project-must comply with the City's zoning regulations. SMART has requested that
language recognizing::SMART's-immunity.from the City's-zoning requirements for transit
facilities be`included.in the;Master Plan.
2
Staff recommended that,such exemption language is not necessary tosthedocument; exemptions
for'other special districts suchas school districts are not specified'in the plan. Staff further
recommended that the'Cityaddress the,statutes requiring the application of local law or
immunity from local law at the time that a proposal is made by SMART. The City Council at its
May 6th meeting did not provide direction to include such language in the Master Plan. The
Master Plan, on page 2-7, includes the following statement:
"SMART has plans to usethis;propertyin the near term for construction staging for
the rail project. Over the longer term, SMART has expressed'an interest in developing
this property as TOD in collaboration with the City of Petaluma. SMART is looking'to
the Station Area Master-Plan to provide them with information-that will help guide
their future transit-oriented development."
SMART's correspondencealso;articulates;coneerns regarding.the width.and location
requirements for the `transverse;street', in particular the design which includes a 36' wide linear
open space. As discussed at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings this design was
identified as being important,to'the community in providing both mobility for;all users between
Downtown, the transit:mall, and the SMART rail station and for lessening the impact of bus and
vehicular traffic on units that'will face onto this new street.:It was,also pointed out that through
the review of any project proposal, flexibility in design can be achieved through the warrant
process outlined in Section 8:10.020.H of the Amended SmartCode. The content of this letter
was discussed at the PlanningCommission Hearing;and no.changes to the Master Plan were
recommended by the Commission, SMART continuesto'have'concerns`regarding the plan
requirements for the transverse street: These were further articulated at the City Council hearing
with respect to the lack of flexibility in locating the transverse street;should an alternative
alignment provide abetter outcome for a future proposed project; Sec_tion5.1'0.020 of the
Amended SmartCOde states:
5.10.020 Street hnprovement.Requirements
Each approved+subdivision or other development shall provide for the
"fair share" construction on the site of all portions;of streets shown on the
Thoroughfare Regulating Plans.with required alignments, The relocation
of.a required streetalignment maybe allowed..through.the review of a
specific subdivision or parcel development proposal,;provided..that the
alternative alignment and proposed development shall:
A. Comply with all the standards of this code applicable to the original
street alignment(for example, urban standards, architectural standards,
landscape.'standards, and the thoroughfare standards);,.and
B. The alternative alignment maintains connections,with,all other streets
that intersected the subject street in°its original alignment..
C. The alternate alignment meets the block perimeter requirements in
Section 4:10 (Urban'Standards Table):
Staffproposes•additional languageto the Amended SmartCode based onSMART's input, to
expand on the flexibility in the Amended SmartCode to address the issues raised. Staff
recommends adding an.additional bullet to Section 5.10:020 as follows:
j 3
D. An alternative alignment to the layout shown on, the Thoroughfare
Regulating Plan may be approved by the decision making body as part
of a future subdivision or other development if the alternative is found
to be a superior layout,and maintains consistency with the intent and
overall circulation objectives for all.modes'of transportation.
With the above change, included in the attached Addendum, staff believes that there is
adequate flexibility with regard to the transverse street to address SMART's concerns and
ensure that the overall objectives of the Station Area Master Plan with respect to •
circulation for all transportation modes are met.
North Bay Association of Realtors—Industrial Notification
The North Bay Association of Realtors (NBAR) submitted a letter dated May 1, 2013 regarding
Section 4.70.050 of the SmartCode'which contains the-following requirement. (Note: this
requirement is a carryover from the current SmartCode adopted in 2001)
Notification,Requirement: For each parcel subject to the requirement for notification, the
developer/applicant shall record the following noticein the Official Records of Sonoma
County, and shall include the following'noticein all sale, lease or rental agreements
concerning any portion of such property:
"This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased property or you are
leasing or renting premises-Man area where river-dependent and/or agricultural support
industrial operations are located which may causeoff-site side effects•including without
limitation, noise, dust, fumes, smoke, light,:andodors, and which may operate at any time
of night or day. The nature and extent 6fsuch operations,andtheireffects may vary in
response to fluctuations in.economic'circumstances, business cycles, weather and tidal
conditions and other conditions. This statementis notification,that these off-site effects
are a component of the operations in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area of
the City of Petaluma;,and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase, lease
or rental:"
The NBAR is supportive of the overall plan as well as the intent to protect agricultural and river
industrial`uses in this!',area of the City. However NBAR is concerned that requiringJhe provision'
be included in;all sales agreements is•onerous,and could potentially open up sellers and realtors
to liability. NBAR is:requesting that the Council remove the requirement that the statement be
included.ina sale agreement as buyers will..find the;statement recorded against the property
before,closing escrow,;and therefore will be noticed on the potential impacts of nearby industrial
uses: Staff concurs with NBAR and recommends the notification requirement be amended to
remove the term "safe?' so as to read as follows;
Notification.Requirement. For each,parcelsubjectto the requirement for notification, the
developer/applicant shall record the following notice in.the"Official-Records of Sonoma
County, anddshall include-the following notice iii all lease or rental agreements
concerning.any portion of,such property:
4
This small change has been"reflected in the attached Addendum..
Basin Street'Properties, Riverfront Project—500 Hopper Street.
The Riverfront project located at 500 Hopper Street has been under planning review since 2009
with a formal application filed in February 201,1. ThetTentative Map application for the project
was deemed complete in'February 2013. The project is a 40-acre master plan that includes
single-family residential, townhomes, a mixed'use;core, hotel, office and open space.and`parks.
The project has been designed'utilizing the current Urban Standards;for Zones T-4, T-5 and T-6
from the existing 2003 SmartCode. The Tentative Map, as;a complete;application, will continue
to be processed under the 2003 SmartCode. Basin Street Properties submitted correspondence
on April 30, 2013 expressing concern that because their Riverfront Project was designed prior to
theexpanded standards forthesezones, particularly with respect to lot sizes and configurations,
theaAmended SmartCode will lead to conformance issues dining the approval process.
The next phase of project approvals would be for the Site and Architectural Review for the
individual land use components: Application of the;updated 2013 SmartCode to the Site and
Architectural Review process would require significant redesign of the project including lot
pattern and street system Given that the applicant has committed significant time and money to
develop the project:plans to thetcurrent.point, Basin Street Properties is requesting that the 2003
SmartCode; Section 4—Urban Standards be utilized for'the project approval and build out
phase;'for•a period'of time not exceed six (6) years from the date Of final!SmartCode adoption.
All otherprovisionsofthe proposed AmendedFSmartCode,'including administrative provisions
and processes would apply.
If the City Council desires carve out,languageallowing the Riverfront.Project to take a hybrid
approach could be added-to the ordinance(Attachment 3) as Section 7.
Section'7. Exceptions.,Projects within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
area deemed:complete prior to the:effective date of the new',SmartCode shall be
;subject to the existing 2003 SmartCode;Section 4 -Urban Standards. The other
sections of theupdatediSmartCode would still apply. To allow for project
processing:and build out, thisiprovision shall expire six'(6) years after the
effective date of the:updated SmartCode or until all buildings-are completed and
`issued Certificates of:Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
The above exception would be limited to the Riverfront Project as;currently proposed,as it is the.
only complete application within the plan area. Should the subdivision-map.not be approved, or
the project not be built t:out within`six;years of adoption-of the Amended SmartCode, then any
future project proposal at`this location would be processed underthe Amended SmartCode.
Another possible approach to-deal with this issue&is consideration of a Development Agreement.
DevelopmentAgreements, as outlined in the IZO Section 23.010113, "allow for assurance to the
applicant that upon approval of the project, theapplicant may proceed with the project In
accordance with existing policies, rules, and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval."
A Development Agreement isa separate approval process before the Planning Commission and
5
City Council prior to wheh.theactual project is considered. Given the desire of the applicant to
continue through the review process expeditiously, staff believes thecsame result can be achieved
through the language'proposed'for Section 7 of the adopting`ordinance of the new•SinartCode.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The total project cost is $300;000. Metropolitan Transportation Commission is providing
$240,000 and requiring'a $60,000;local'match:The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)
district has committed.to providing $10,000 of:the local match, thereby reducing;Petaluma's
commitment to,$50,000. The.Council budgeted $50,000 of PCDC funds for this•project ($25,000
in 2010/11 and $25,000 in 2011/12). Since thekdissolution of the,PCDC, funding of this project
was transferred to the Petalurna''Community Development Successor Agency as a recognized
obligation and listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment'Schedule.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
Statement of Overriding'Considerations for the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD
Master Plan and.SriartCode Amendments.
2. Resolution Adopting the Petaluma:SMART Rail Station Areas::TOD Master Plan
3. Ordinance Adopting the'Amended SmartCode and Repealing Ordinance No. 2152 N.C.S.
4. Addendum (May 28, 2014)
5. Correspondence
Z Items listed below are large in volume and'are not attached to this report,but may be viewed
in the City Clerk's office or-online.
1. Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD'Master Plan
http://citvofpetalunia.net/civgr/pdf/same-final-draft.pdf
2. Appendix A: SmartCode Amendments
http://cityofpetaluma.nef/cmur/pdf/smartcode-final-draft:pdf
3. May 6, 2013 Staff Report: Petaluma SMART Rail Station:Areas:TOD Master Plan and
Amended SmartCode
http://citvofpetaluma.net!cclerk/archives.html
6
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A.MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PETALUMA SMART RAIL STATION AREAS: TOD
MASTER PLAN AND AMENDED.SMARTCODE
WHEREAS, the City Council,of the City of Petaluma by Resolution:2009-146 N.C.S. endorsed
the filing of an application for a grant from the'Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the
Association of Bay Area,Governments'Station Area Planning Program; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council goal setting session on January 23, 2010, one of the goals
established by the.City Council was to implement the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and
maximize the potential for transit-oriented development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma executed an agreement with:the Metropolitan.Transportation
Commission in November 2010 to develop a station area master plan and related amendments to
the City's SmartCode, which prescnbes zoning standards for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
(`CPSP") area; and
WHEREAS,the Petaluma SMART Rail;Station Areas: TOD Master Plan Final Draft January
2013 ("Master Plari") evaluatesthe:potential for transit-oriented development within the two
planned Petaluma SMART''Rail,Station Areas;!.and
WHEREAS, the amended.SmartCode:contains amendments'reinstating parking requirements for
the CPSP area, corrects certain other outdated text in the existing SmartCode and makes certain
changes to implement the Master Plan("Amended SmartCode"); and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan and the Amended SmartCode constitute the "project" for CEQA
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the,Master Plan;incorporates an analysisof tarket:demand, housing, access,
connectivity, and parking, infrastructure and historic preservation; and
WHEREAS,;the.Master Plan and SmartCode also include a framework and development
standards forpublic spaces, frontage types, building:types; and phasing; and
WHEREAS,the Amended SmartCode implements Master Plan recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on April-7„ 2008, the City adopted Resolution No 2008-058 N.C.S., certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2025 ("Final EIR") in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Acts("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, on May 1'9, 2009, in Resolution No. 2008'-084 N.C.S., the City Council adopted
findings relating to environmental impacts ideritifiedin the General Plan.EIR, including a
7
findingthatthe.General PIan:EIR would`serve/as a document.whichtould be relied on by future
projects-to satisfy certain CEQA:requireinents and
WHEREAS, because the General Plan EIR determined that;buildout;of the General Plan through
2025 would result:in,five significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts, a-statement of
overriding considerations was adopted,by.the City Council for the General Plan 2025. The
significant and unavoidable impacts:and,the stdtement,of overriding considerations are contained
in Resolution No. 2008-084'N.C:S.; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan 2025. was adopted on May 19;.2008 by Resolution No. 2008-085;
and
WHEREAS,the project does notmodifydensity, change land:uses or provide for future
development other than.as contemplated in the1General Plan 2025 and evaluated in the General
Plan 2025 EIR; and
WHEREAS, no:specific development projects are approved by the project, which consists of a
general planning and policy document and related zoning amendments; and
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Study for the projectpursuant to CEQA, Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations㤤15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") and the City of Petaluma
Environmental Review.Guidelines to further assessIthe'potential environmental effects of the
Master Plan, including any new or more significant effects that were not studied in the General
Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS,the analysis contained in the Initial Study determined that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on,the environment, other than possible
incremental contributions,t'o the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the General
Plan EIR, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was therefore appropriate;and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Final EIR and.the Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration adequately address the environmental effects of the'project for,the;purposes of
CEQA such that further analysis of the effects in a second EIR would be duplicative (see CEQA
Guidelines §15152(d))`,,and
WHEREAS,the,MitigatedNegative Declaration and Initial Study were made available to the
public with proper notice and in accordance with CEQA March 7, 2013, providing
opportunity for public review and comment;and
• WHEREAS,:on March 26; 2013, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing, and,after receiving:andconsidering all comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
8
•
WHEREAS, on May 6; 20F3;,the.City`Council held a;properly,noticed hearing,accepted
comments.from all interested,parties on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
the Initial:Study, and.con"tinued the hearing to June 17, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2013,,the.City Council held a properlynoticed hearing, accepted
commentsfrom all interested parties on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration including
the Initial Study.
NOW,:THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Findings and Adoption of.Mitigated Negative Declaration.After independent review and
consideration of theinformation in the environmental documentation, including but not
limited to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, its:supporting Initial_Study, all documents
and studies referred to orincorporated in the Initial Study and"therecord of these
proceedings, the City Council:
a. Finds'thattlie Petaluma'SMART Rail Station.Areas:TOD Master Plan
and,associated Amended SmartCode ("collectively, the project") will not result in nor
increase the significance under CEQA of any significant�or potentially significant
environmental effects:not previously evaluated-in the Final.Environmental Impact Report
for the,GeneralPlan 2025.
b. Finds that further analysis of the projects effects in an additional EIR
would be duplicative and adopts the Mitigated;Negative Declaration/Initial Study
of Environmental Significance for the project.
c. Adopts'the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
2. Adoption ofStatement of Overriding Considerations.
a. The project does not-change or modify the extent or nature of the
incremental contribution of GeneralPlan 2025 programs and policies to
cumulative impacts.which were found to remain significant and unavoidable in
the General Plan 2025 Final EIR.
b. Those impacts are
(i)Transportation Impact 3.2, deteriorated:levels of service at 6 City
intersections;
(ii) Transportation Impact 3.9-1, increased noise from traffic along:certain
roadways;
(lii);cumulative potential noise impact of possible future rail and trolley
service combined with increased noise from traffic;
(iv) Air Quality Impact 3'.10-1,:from buildout population numbers that
conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan
has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan but the impact remains the
same:);;and
(v)possible cumulative air_quality impact resulting from the City's
inability to determine whether or not;implementation of the General Plan will
make a.cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to global climate
change.
9
•
c. In Resolution,No. 2008;084 N.C:S, the City Council balanced the five
remaining unavoidable impacts;against the General Plan'sbenefits;'and
determined that the-unavoidable impacts were outweighed,by the benefits of the
General Plan 2025.Pursuant to Communities for a;Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency(2002).103 Gal.,App. 4h 98.);the City Council
must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified
unavoidable.-impacts that apply to the Master Plan.,The City Council specifically
finds'that to the extent that the Master Plan makes an incremental contribution to
the adverse or:potentially'adverSe significant.and"unavoidable impacts identified
in the General,Plan.ElR which have notbeen,tnitigated to acceptable levels, there
are specific Economic,'legal, social, technological, environmental, land use, or
other benefits and consideration's, as set forth,below, that outweigh the significant
unavoidable,impacts;on the environment and support approval of the project:
These overriding considerations include but are not limited to:
(i) The;project allows the City-to-plan for growth in an orderly man ner
and to carry out`policies;of the General Plan 2025 and the Central.Petaluma
Specific.Plan.which encourage development supportive of alternative
transportation, contribute to the vitality-of'the downtown and'Corona Road
Station areas, improve;connection and.,accessibility from the existing downtown
depot to Petaluma's historic downtown,`and create opportunities for eventual
transit=orienteddevelopment.
(ii) The project will further an interconnected multimodal
transportation system'to improve traffic circulation, lessen automobile
dependence.and'lessen traffic congestion.
• (iii) The project will encourage pro,vision,ofa wide range,of housing
choices; including.urban units and apartments associated with,and convenient to
future SMART railtransit:
(iv). By encouraging residential and business development:adjacent to
rail transportation,and improving multimodal accessibility and circulation within
the City, the project furthers the:City's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
3. Notice of Determination. City staff is directed to file a Notice;of Determination following
adoption of the Master Plan and approval of the amended'SmartCode in accordance with
CEQA.
4. Record. The location and custodian of the documents,and/or other material which constitute
the record of proceedingsaupon which the decision is based:is the City of Petaluma, 11
English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, attention: City Clerk.
5. Effective Date. This'resblution shall take immediate effect.
10
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THEPETALUMA.SMART RAIL
STATION AREAS: TOD MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma by Resolution 2009-146 N.C.S. endorsed
the filing of an application for a.grant from the Metropolitan'Transportation Commission and the
Association of Bay Area.Governments' Station Area Planning Program; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council goal:settingsession on January 23, one of the goals
established by the City Council was to implement the•Central Petaluma Specific Plan and
maximize the potential for transit-oriented development; and
WHEREAS, the Cityof Petaluma executed an agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission in November 2010-to develop a station area master plan and related amendments to
the City's SmartCode, which prescribes zoning standards forthe,Central.Petaluma Specific Plan
("CPSP") area; and
WHEREAS, on December 6„2010 the City Council appointed a 17-member Citizen's Advisory
Committee for the Station Area Planning Process; and
WHEREAS, City staff, its consultant team and the Citizen's.Advisory, Committee, with input
from all affected stakeholders, developed the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master
Plan, Final Draft dated January 2013 ("Master Plan") and the proposed amended:SmartCode; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Master Plan at duly
noticed public.hearing;and,unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the Master
Plan and the amended SmartCode; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2013, the City Council approved an Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MIND) for the Master Plan and amended SmartCode in full compliance
with the California.Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Recitals. Theabove Recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Findings. TheCity Council finds as follows:
a. The;Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master'Plan ("the Master Plan".)
is consistent with'the City of Petaluma:General Plan 2025 because it is compatible with
the General Plan's objectives, policies general land uses and programs. In particular, the
Master Plan provides for SMART rail transit-oriented mixed use development
surrounding;the downtown rail depot and a future additional rail station, which will
complement and support alternative transportation choices; encourages development
11
which willisirengthen the vitality,of the downtown area and provide increased
accessibility/from transit facilities and adjacent-neighborhoods while adding to and
preserving the distinctive fabric of the City's'historic downtown.
b. The'Master Plan`is;consistent with the Central Petaluma'Specific Plan ("CPSP")
because it implements policies of the CPSP, supports and protects,existing viable uses
while providing for new uses that complement the urban fabric of the CPSP area, and
continues implementation of CPSP Objective 2, creating an intense mixed use district
with included residential uses oriented to the river-and the transit station.
3. Adoption of MastepPlan. The,City Council adopts the,Petaluma SMART Rail Station
Areas: TOD Master Plan, Final Draft dated January 2013, which is incorporated herein
by reference:
4. Effective Date. The Master Plan shall take effect thirty days from the effective date of
Ordinance No. } 4 X, introduced on June 17, 2013, pursuant to State law,including
Midway Orchards v. County of Butte (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 765, 778 and DeVita v.
County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 787, Fn. 9.
12
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCEOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA ADOPTING
AN AMENDED SMARTCODE.AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2152 N.C.S.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma byResolution 2009-146 N.C.S. endorsed
the filing of an application for a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the
Association of Bay Area Governments' Station Area Planning Program;;and
WHEREAS, at the City Council goal setting session on,January:23, 2010, one of the goals
established by the City Council was to implement the:Central:Petaluma Specific Plan and
maximize the potential'.for transit-oriented development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma executed an agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission in November 2010 to develop a station area master plan and related amendments to
the City's SmartCode;which prescribes zoning standards-for the Central Petaluma,Specific Plan
("CPSP")_area; and
WHEREAS, The SmartCode prescribes zoning,standards for the Central Petaluma,Specific Plan
("CPSP") area and Petaluma's two planned SMART station areas and the City has determined
that certain amendments to the City of Petaluma SmartCode are required to implement the
Station Area Master Plan and to correct several outdated sections of the SmartCode.. The
amended SmartCode containing said amendments is set forth in:Exhibit A to this Ordinance and
incorporated herein by reference.(the "Amended SmartCode").
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010 the City Council appointed"a 17-member Citizen's Advisory
Committee for the Station Area Planning Process; and.
WHEREAS, City staff, its consultant team and the Citizen's..Advisory Committee, with input
from all affected stakeholders,,developed the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master
Plan;Final Draft dated January 2013 ("Master Plan")'and the Amended SmartCode; and
WHEREAS, the Citizen's Advisory Committee•at its•February 21,2013 meeting recommended
that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the
Master Plan and Amended SmartCode; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Master Plan and
Amended SmartCodecat a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously recommended that the
City Council adopt-the:Master Plan and Amended SmartCode; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan and the Amended SmartCode,are collectively referred to as "the
project;" and
13
WHEREAS, on June 17,. 2013, the City Council approved an. Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative 'Declaration (MND) for the project in full compliance'. with the California
Environmental Quality,Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the City Council held 'a properly noticed public hearing, and
considered all public comments on the projectand continued the hearing to June 17, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2013, the. City Council held a properly noticed public hearing, and
considered all public comments on the project; and
WHEREAS, on.June 17, 2003, in accordance with all applicable State and local law, the City
Council adopted the Master Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
a. The above recitals are true and correct and are adopted as findings of the City
Council.
b. The SmartCode attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference (Amended SmartCode") is in general conformity with the Petaluma General
Plan 2025 and the Central Petaluma'Specific.Plan..('`CPSP") because the amendments
are expected to encourage new transit-oriented development, promote a range of
housing types, promote job'growth, and assist in-the preservation of historic structures,
thereby contributing to the City of Petaluma's economic base, yielding net fiscal
benefits and strengthening the vitality and diversity of the community.
c. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the
adoption of the Amended SmartCode because the Amended SmartCode reinstates
parking requirements appropriate to the CPSP and implements the Petaluma SMART
Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan ("Master Plan"), which in turn:
(i) Allows the City to plan`for growth in an orderly manner and to carry out
policies of the,General Plan 2025 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan which
encourage development supportive of alternative transportation, contribute to the
Vitality,of the downtown and Corona Road Station areas,, improve connection
and accessibility from the existing downtown depot to Petaluma's historic
downtown;- create opportunities for eventual transit-sensitive development on
the City's north side.
(ii) Furthers an interconnected multimodal transportation system to improve
traffic circulation, lessen automobile dependence and lessen traffic congestion.
(iii) Will encourage provision of`a wide range of housing choices, including
urban units and apartments associated with and convenient'to future SMART rail
transit.
14
(iv) By encouraging residential and business development adjacent to rail
transportation and improving multimodal accessibility and circulation within the
• City, will further the City's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Section 2. Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Amended SmartCode. .
Section 3. Repeal. The City Council hereby repeals Ordinance No. 2152 N.C.S., effective
upon the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 4. Severability , If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this
ordinance is for any reason-held to be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction or preempted by state legislation, such decision or legislation shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of
Petaluma hereby,declares,that it'would have passed and adopted this ordinance and each and all
provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions be declared
unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid.
Section 5. Effective,Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the
date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council.
Section 6. Posting/Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is,hereby directed to publish or post
this ordinance or a synopsis for the,period and in the manner provided by the City Charter and
other applicable law.
15
ATTACHMENT 4
ADDENDUM
(June 1, 2013)
NOTE:
The following pages contain edits and corrections made since publication of the Final Draft
documents based on additional staff review and:comments received and will be reflected in the
Final Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan.and Amended Smart Code .
ATTACHMENT 5
Correspondence
tk
Satpal Singh
421 Petaluma Bld. South
Petaluma, CA:94952
•
February 21; 2013
Citizens Advisory Committee
City Of Petaluma
11 English St
Petaluma, CA.94952
Re: SMART Station Area Master Plan
Subject: T5 Zoning.
To Whom It MayiConcern::
The purpose of this letter•is to request a change tdthe\Station,Area,Master Plan.
Specifically, we are requesting that the.code governing allowable land uses in the T5
zone be modified for gasstations from "7" (Not Allowed), to'CUP (Conditional Use
Permit)
As presented in the Final Draft no,expansion of an existing gas station is allowed. In
fact, the stated purpose of the "existing non-conforming" zoning of'a gas;station in a T5
zone is to ensure that:the`stations willsomeday be.eliminatedaltogether: When applied
to the station we own and operate at 421 Petaluma'Blvd, South this=means•that the
approximately 8,000-plus local residents we currently serve would be forced to travel 2-3
miles further in order to purchase fuel for their vehicles. .
The Master Plan also calls for there-development ofthePetaluma Blvd S. corridor in
accordance with very•specific architectural requirements. We would like to tear down an
old and unsightly carwash at our.gas station along this corrider`and build a
neighborhood.market in.conformance with=those architectural requirements. We believe
a market in this location would provide the local residents,with a very convenient place
to'Ibuy groceries within walking/biking distance from their homes. The proposed
allowableland uses in the T5 zone prevent us;from pursuing this concept:
If the.code were,.modified to CUP for gas;stations it would then be possible for"us to
submit a proposal to the City.thatlWould include upgrades to the gas station and the
construction of a local,market: "This would'have;the dual impact of keeping the vehicle
taps short providing a market within;walking/cycling distance from home„and furthering
the intent of the,Master Plans to revitalize the'.-;corridor along.Petaluma Blvd. South.
Sincerely,
Satpal Singh
C\Daan.Vor.R(KC.Con esponI nce\Cunool Projecic1421 PCwlunm BI,FCC Leuur 01 DOC
ji ID
•
RECEIVED
MAR 192013
March 15, 2013 CITY MANAGER
Scott Duivan, City Manager's Office
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma,CA 94952
Re: Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan and the Proposed
ZoningAmendinentsto the Petaluma SMART Code/1'33 Copeland
Street/George Weiner
Dear Mr. Duivan:
Pursuant to yourrequest,,I am setting;forth the reasons for asking for insertion of
a policy in the draft TOD Master.Plan and the Proposed Zoning Amendments to the
Petaluma SMART Code("Master Plan") in connection with'existingand foreseeable
future uses in my buildings located at 133 Copeland Street.
1. General Plan:
Section 2.2 of the PetalumaGeneral Plan,on page 2-5, states that land use
development in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Area("CPSP"),in
which my property is located, shall be undertaken according to the
Central'PetalumaSpecific Plan("Specific Plan'). General Plan Policy 2-
P=11 provides as follows with respect to properties located within the
Specific Plan area: -
i
"Encourage and support the rehabilitation and
,development of buildings and structures:reflective of
the history of Petaluma rich agricultural and'river-
oriented.industrial"pastand present use, . . :"
This General Plan supports continued industrial used within the Specific
Plan sub area.
2. Specific Plan
Policies and objectives of the Specific Plan support the retention of
existing viable uses located within the Specific Plan area These policies
include,but are not limited to, land Use goal no. 1 on'page'28 of the
Specific Plan,which provides as follows:
Lk�rl i
Scott Duivan,City Manager's Office
City of Petaluma
March 15,2013.
Page 2
"Goal 1: ,Support existing,viables uses,,and provide for
new uses that complement and complete the urban
fabric.•
There area number of existing,viable industrial uses
within Central.Petaluma that contribute significantly to the
identity of the area and the economy of the City and region.
New development within Central Petaluma should not be at
the expense of these existing businesses"
Page 31 of the Specific Plan,Policy 1.1,provides as follows:
"Policy 1.1: Support the existing industrial uses.
The plan places a priority on supporting the, existing
industries, which are well established and economically
viable. The. introduction of new uses into this area is
predicated on the understanding that. the industrial
operations will remain, and new uses need to be carefully
considered to ensure their compatibility with the ongoing
industrial activities."
On pages 101 and 102 of the Specific Plan,'there appears the following:
"Objective' 1: Preserve the industrial and commercial
complex of structures, including the Dairymen's Feed
and Supply Coop, one of the community's most visible
structures."
The text'then'.goes on to list"potentially significant resources"and,under
the"Industrial/Agricultural"category, 133 Copeland Street,is specifically
referenced as a potentially significant resource: Following';that listing,
Policy 1:1 appears and reads as follows:
"Policy 1.1: Recognize the industrial structures in the
North River as having local,historic significance.
The two major extant resources are the well documented,
Hunt.and Behren's Enterprise and the Dairymen's Feed and
Supply Coop. These two industrial structures [dominate]
the Petaluma skyline and are surrounded by a number of
auxiliary warehouses and sheds. These could contribute to
the formation of a local historic district totaling seven
properties:"
' I
I I
1)(1
Scott Duivan, City Manager's Office
City of Petaluma
March'I5,2013
Page,3
3. Master Plan
Figure 2.2 on page 2-6 of the draft Master Plan designates 133 Copeland
Street and other properties as"Priority Opportunity Sites. The text on
page 2-7 relating to"Priority Opportunity Sites"clearly states as follows:
"By identifying them as opportunityssites, it is not intended
to force the existing uses out: Instead it is intended that
• over time as the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed-
use development will become the highest and best use for
these parcels, providing •the land owners with the
opportunity and economic incentive to redevelop.
This language;clearly supports and anticipates the continuation of my
existing`leased businesses and similar future tenants.
4. Proposed SMART Code Amendments
The zoning map of the Master.Plan and proposed zoning amendments in
Table 3.1'would shift the zoning at 133 Copeland Street,from the T6 zone
to the T5`zone. That shift would render incompatible existing industrial,
commercial and retail uses located at 133 Copeland Street and would
contradict the General Plan, Specific Plan and Master Plan goals and
policies to retain existing viable uses and structures. While I understand
the long-term salutary goals of the City in'connection with its plans to
ultimately redevelop this area,the fact of the matter is that mixed use
residential development at 133 Copeland Street is impossible as long as
the Dairymen's Feed and Supply Coop is;m operation: That use,with its
attendant heavy industrial truck traffic,noises, smells and odd work hours,
would make residential redevelopment of the property functionally
impossible.
5. My Suggestion
For the reasons above, I;am requesting,that a parcel specific policy be
placed into the Master Plamand Specific Plan to deal with current and
reasonably''similar.future uses at 133'CopelandcStreet.
I would propose the text of thatpolicy read as follows:
"Existing industrial; commercial and retail uses at 133
Copeland Street may,notwithstanding other amendments to
building function standards or permitted occupancies set
forth elsewhere in the Master Plan, Specific Plan or
SMART Code, be allowed to continue and that any
It
Scott Duivan, City:Manager's:Office
City Of Petaluma
March 15; 2013
Page 4
reasonably similar future tenants to..those tenants in the
existing buildings may;. from time to time, reoccupy the
space presently leased so long as the Dairymen's Feed and
Supply Coop is an ongoing industrial,operation. At such
time as the Dairymen'.& Feed and Supply Coop use is
terminated, 133 Copeland Street will be subject to the
restrictions and requirements of the T5.zone and the non-
conforming use sections of the Petaluma City Code."
Use of parcel specific planning policies'is a useful planning tool to deal
with unique situations. Many such examples:maybe'found in the Sonoma
County General Plan: I believe that the;foregoing policy would allow for
and anticipate:the eventual redevelopment of the.area;surrounding the
Feed Coop while, at the same time,not encumbering,my property with
impossible:land use regulations and severely impacting both the ability to
'use and the value'of my land. I think that this,policy would,be a
reasonable compromise which recognizes the long-term•City goals,while,
at the same time,Making it clear:that.the;status,quo may continue so long
as;theiadjacent heavy industrial use coritinues to operate.
Pde not believe that inclusion of this policy in the.Master Plan and
Specific Plan willset any precedent with respect to other properties within
the Master Plan or.Specific Plan,areas because my property is the only one
located immediatelyproximate to a heavy industrial use and;there are no
other similarly situated or oocupied buildings in the Area.
I very much,appreciate your willingness to consider my issue and discuss it with
the Planning Commission.
Should you have any questions,please:do not=hesitate;to;call me. Again,thank
you for your, and the Planning Commission's, consideration'of what I perceive as a
personal, desperate economic,problem.
Sincerely,
&einP21
III
. . . ..,.,:, eltiO NTtrmi. Cam: M7fi4R1zfxt y. R CE VED
A
MAR 19 2013
ozimEwsta
="liggi A R ieRA- Sir ; CITY MANAGER
Judy Arnold,Chair March 15,2013.
Marin County Board of
Supervisors
Barbara Pahre,Vice Chair Mr.JohnBrown
Golden Gate Bridge, City Manager
Highway/Transportation District
11 English Street
Jim Eddie Petaluma;CA 94952
Golden Gate Bridge,
Highway/Transportation District
Re: Station Area Master Plan
Debora Fudge
Sonoma County Mayors and
Councilmembers Association Dear Mr. Brown,
Eric Lucan Thank o y u for both meeting with,-Mr.. Mansourian and briefly:.discussing with me our
Transportation Authority of
M
Mann concerns;regarding the Station Area Master Plan("Plan").
Jake Mackenzie At the,outset, I congratulate you, your staff and the-committees for producing an
Sonoma Mayors and
Councilmembers Association outstanding draft plan. Notwithstanding, SMART, as the owner of the center piece
Stephanie Moulton-Peters property; hasconcerns.
Marin Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers While a "transit-oriented joint development project" ("TOD") must comply with the
City's zoning (see'Public Utilities Code section 105087) "rail transit facilities" are not
Gary Phillips
Transportation Authority of subject to either-the City's"ioningiegulations (see Public Utilities,code section 1105100;
Mann Govt..codesection'53090) or the City's design review process.(see Public.Utilities code
David RabmtC section 105096): Hence;,should SMART decide to-construct rail transit facilities including
Sonoma County Board of stations, platforms,switches,terminals, parking tots or bicycle and pedestrian pathways
Supervisors on the-SMART property it is exempt from the City's zoning requirements.
Carol Russell
Sonoma Mayors and I'`could find nothing in either the text of the::plan or the various maps acknowledging
Councilmembers Association SMART's statutory zoning immunity.
Kathrin Sears
Mann County Board of SMART is particularly,concerned because should it exercise-its legal right to construct
Supervisors transit facilities on site it is possible that some of the assumptions (particularly
Shirleezane vehicular/pedestrian circulation) used to develop the plan may be questioned: At.e
Sonoma County Board of Minimum, the plan should recognize SMART's-status and the possibility that the very
Supervisors ,specific form'based zoning=for the SMART property may be impacted should SMART
.construct'rail transit-facilities on all;or a portion of.the.site.
Farhad Mansourian
General Manager Moreover, in the' event that SMART does pursue a TOD project,. we believe that
flexibility in the design of the internal circulation on the site is warranted. In fact;section
5401 Old Redwood Highway
Suite 200 :11 of the=the-plan provides-that "becausemarkets are likely to change it is necessary N for'
Petaluma;CA 94954 .the•''code'to.-allow maximum'mark et?flexibility''. We recognize that there-is a 100 foot
Phone:707.794-3330 transverse street essentially splitting the property-Proposed under the current code.To
Fax.707-7943037
www sonoinamarintrain.org better facilitate development prospects for the.site, the code should move- in the
direction of more flexibility, not less. At a minimum, we request that the "Transverse
Street" design be designated as"recommended" not"required".The final design of any
future-,street through SMART's property should take into -account, and -balance, the
i
•
•
needs of the City;SMART and a developer putting forth a specific development plan.
In conclusion; while it is very likely that some type of TOD will occur on the SMART
property it-is also possible-that a portion of the property may be utilized for transit
facilities rendering the very specific zoning not viable: SMART believes that the plan
should reflectIsuch reality and provideflekibility'due to the unique circumstances not
enjoyed by other privately owned:parcels located within the plan area.
SMART desires to work collaboratively with the City to insure that our respective
interests are,protected. We are looking'to.you to for any assistance that you can offer
to accomplish that goal.
Please don't-hesitate to contact me should you-have any.questions/comments.
Sincerely;
mes-Flageollet
SMART Counsel .
cc:Judy Arnold -
David.Rabbitt
Farhad Mansourian
•
r li
9
RECEIVED
MAY 062DI3
Judy Arnold,Chair
Mann County Board of
Supervisors MAYOR
May 1, 2013,
Barbara Pahre,Vice Chair
GoldedGate Bridge,
Highway/Transportation District
Jim Eddie,Gate Bridge, Mayor David Glass
Highway/Transportation District -City of Petalu tia
Debora Fudge 11 English:Street
Sonoma County Mayors and
CouncilmernbersAssociation Petaluma, CA 94952
Eric Lucan
Transportation Authority of
Mann Re: -..Petaluma;SMART Station Master Plan
Jake Mackenzie
Sonoma Mayors and
• Coundimernbers Association Dear Mayor Glass and Council Members:
Stephanie Moulton-Peters I am.writin ',on.behalf of the SMART-Board to comment on the Petaluma'SMART Station
Mann Council of Mayors and g
'Councilmembers MasterPlan-set for the.City Council's Consideration-at its May 6, 2013 meeting..
Gary Phillips
Tran spotati on Authority of Thestaff report acknowledges that SMART-,p artici p atedim,the Plan through membership
Mann on the Technical Advisory committee and by submitting comments over the course of
David Rabbis the planning process. SMART's letterdated March 15, 2013 (included in attachment 9 to
Sonoma County Board of the City's agenda item 6:A) merely summarized and reiterated the concerns and Issues
Supervisors articulated by'SMART throughoutithe-process. Specifically, SMART staff's comments as
Carol Russell early as June, 2012_.requested more flexibility in the Plan, questioned the need for a
Sonoma Mayors and mandatory 104'wide transverse street, questioned the need for a 36' wide linear park
Councilmembers Association and noted SMART's use the property for transit related construction staging. Those
KathrinSears comments went largely'unaddress-ed in:,theiPlan.
Mann County Board of .
Supervisors' As acknowledged in the City's staff report, SMART is immune.from the•.City's zoning
Shidee Zane requirements for transit related facilities: SMART's concerns regarding the lack of any
Sonoma County Board of such acknowledgement in the Plan hascless to do about recognitiori of SMART's legal
supervisors rights: and more to do about public expectations and the assumptions/analysis
• container in the Plan and accompanying EIR.
Farhad Mansourian
General Manager Once the Plan is adopted the publics expectation will be that a 104' wide transverse
street- with a 36' wide linear park be constructed through the'middle of the SMART
5401 Old:Redwood Highway - •
Suite 200 property to access the station. Should circumstances require SMART to.useits property
Petaluma,CA 94954 for transit related facilities none of these conditions would apply. SMART believes that
Phone:Tai-794-3330 transparency requires'that the Plan identify the unique nature of the zoning immunity
Fax.707-794-3037
v,ww:sonomamarmtrain:org and its possible impact on the Plan.
J?
Further, since use'ofthe transverse;street is,critical toafie traffic/circulation analysis of
the Plan and EIR, SMART is concerned that any significant deviation could result in the
questioning of the Plan or EIR.
SMART is simply requesting identification In the ,Plan of the property's present use
(construction staging for the rail project) and the underlying{possibility that the property
could be used for transit related facilities notwithstanding the vision contained in the
Plan.
Finally, SMART staffs comments have consistently,asked for more flexibility in the Plan.
As•early as June, 2012'SMART staff communicated to City staff that the Plan should be
seen as a vision to future development and-requested thatsome of the prescriptive
language be modified.
Staff requested that both the transverse street rand the rear alleys be changed to
"recommended" and not be mandatory. In response, City staff revised the. Plan to.
reflect the alleys as "recommended" but refused the same designation for the
transverse ,street. SMART is requesting that the transverse street/median park be
designated',as"recommended"to:preserve design flexibility to enable compatibility with
any futureldeyelopment.
Should-a,Transit Oriented Development eventually be developed on site, SMART fully
intends to•work closely with the City, the public and'the developer to insure that the
visions:identified in the Plan are fulfilled.::SMART believes that in order to meet that
goal the comments and flexibility identified above should be incorporated into the Plan.
•
Very truly, urs,,
udy; mold
hai SMART
cc: SMART Board Members
farhad Mansourian
John Brown
•
•
Headquarters. 131 B Stony Circle, Suite 1700
Santa Rosa,CA 95401
(707)542-1579. Fax(707)542-1008
+ + Service!Center..625 Imperial Way,Suite 2
Napa,CA 94558
Norrh,Bay Associatlon of RE1LT RS J (707)255-1040 Fax(707)252-5330
May 1, 2013
Petaluma City Council
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: Petaluma SMART`Rail Station Area Master Plan and Smart Code Amendments
Dear Mayor Glass and,Councilmembers,
I am writing on behalf of the:North Bay Association of REALTORS®(NorBAR), regarding the
SMART Area Master Plan,rand;a specific concern with one of the Smart Code Sections.
NorBAR represents nearly 3,000'members across the•North,Bay, including over 200 members
who live and work right here in Petaluma. As an association,we serve as an advocate for the
interests of current and prospective,homeowners.
As advocates for current and prospective;homeowners, we support vibrant and sustainable
communities. Accordingly, we applaud the efforts of City staff, stakeholders, and the Council to
advance a plan that will help:further these goal`s, and we are generally in support of the Plan.
However, there is one provision included in the Smart Code, we strongly urge the Council to
revise.
Section 4.70.050 requires'therecordation of specified language"as a,condition of approval of
any residential or commercial use where, in the;opinion of the reviewing authority, the potential
for concerns over compatibility may arise."' The recorded statement would explain that river-
dependent and/or agricultural;support'industrial operations in the area May conditions such
as noise, smells, dust,,etc: We believe that,givingthe City staff the discretion to require such a
recording as a condition Of project approVal may be:approptiate to,avoid future conflicts and
complaints. However, the provision-additionally requires the statement to be included in
agreements for the rental, lease, or purchase oPproperties subject to the,recording. As written,
the requirement would be-quite-onerous and potentially open,up sellers and REALTORS®to
unnecessary liability,;and not effectively accomplishing the goal of the provision.
Whenthe property is leased or sold, the owner,will,not'remember that.there is,a requirement to
provide the.written statement to the lessee/purchaser. In practice, title searches are not conducted
until there is a purchase contract in place,so requiring,that the statement be included in the
agreement isquite onerous.. Buyers,receive disclosures and pertinent information about title
before they purchasethe property, but after there is a contract. We respectfully request the
Council remove the requirement that thestatement be included in a sale agreement, as buyers
will,ifind'the statement recorded against the property before closing;escrow, and therefore will be
noticed on the`potential impacts of nearby industrial uses. In the rental context, the title is rarely
consulted, so the provision simply wouldn't come to light. -A more,effective approach would
' � DI
•
Headquarters':131 B Stony Circle, Suite 1700
y*fu
Santa`Rosa,CA 95401
e � � (707)542-1579. Fax(707)542-1008
ServiceCenter.625 Imperial Way,Suite 2
Napa,CA 94558
Not th'Bay Association i7f REAE1GRS°°. (707)255-1040 Fax(707)252-5330
seek to include the statementitrthe'CC&.Rs of the new residential/mixed use development. This
is more likely to achieve your goal,which is to:infoim tenants of the potential impacts of the
surrounding uses.
Section 4.70.050.k a carry-forwardfrom the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. We were
previously unaware of this;provision,and we are unawarelof whether City staff has ever utilized
its discretion to impose the:recordationrequirement on,a-new residential/commercial use within
the Central Petaluma Specific.Plan area However, now is an opportune time to improve the
provision.
Again, we are supportive of your intentto protect agricultural and river industrial use in certain
parts of the City and to minimize conflicts/complaints as new retailers and residents locate in
their proximity. Our goal,issiinplyto ensure the requirement is something that can be carried
out consistently to achieve the objective, without creating unnecessary processes and liability.
Thank you for your,time;and attention-to our comments on this important issue: If you have any
questions please:contact me,or Ezrah Chaaban, Director of Governmental Affairs, at
ezrahc @norbarrealtor'com•or 324-6610.
Sincerely,
5ft/dem.6414e,
Stephen Liebling, Chair
Local Government`Relations Committee
North Bay Association of REALTORS®
'4.70.050-River Dependent andAgriculturabSupport Industrial Notification
River dependent and agricultural..support,industrial uses within the Central.Peialuma Specific Plan area are typically
24-hour operations that frequently generate noise,dust„odors and light that may notbe compatible with other uses
in the immediate vicinity In order torsupport these industries as an important contributor to the local economy;;the
following notification language'shall be!required as a condition of approval of any residential or commerciahuse
where,.Ingle;opinion of the reviewing authority,the potential for concerns over compatibility may arise:
A.Notification Requirement:For each p arcel:subject to the requirement for notification„the developer/applicant.
shall record'--.the following notice in the Official Records of Sonoma County,and shall include the following notice in
all sale, lease or rental agreements concerning any portion of such property:
-'This document shall serve as notification that you have,purchased property or you are leasing or renting premises
inan'area where river-dependent and/or agricultural support industrial operations are located which'may cause off-
site effects including without limitation, noise, dust: fumes..smoke, light,:and odors, and which may operate at any
time of night or day.The nature,and extent of such operdtions and,their effects may vary in response to fluctuations
in economic circumstances, business.cycles, weather and tidal conditions and other conditions.This statement is
notification that these off-site effects'are a component of the industrial operations in the Central Petaluma Specific
Plan area of the City of Petaluma,and you should he fully aware of this:at the time of purchase. lease or rental.”
h ;J
BASINSTREET
PR r. Pr r'.. L..S
tel 707 795-4477
fax 707795—n2S3
April 30, 2013
Mr. John Brown
City Manager, City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: PROPOSED'SMARTCODE AMENDMENTS
Dear Mr. Brown:
We are writing to comment,on,the proposed changes to the SmartCode as a result of the Station-
Area Planning efforts. We understand the City has put forth'great effort and time to achieve the
level of planning contained.in the,Station Area Plan, and we understand the'City is desirous of
updating the SmartCode to;a morerecent version. Our comments are intended to be helpful to
the process and not upset thertiming of approval of the Station Area Planand/or the SmartCode
amendments.
Before we provide our comments,a.brief background on the project may be helpful. As you
may recall, since early 2009 through'the Preliminary Application Review process we have been
working closely with City Staff,on•a`design solution-fof the Riverfront property. After numerous
meetings.with City Staff about;land uses and intensities,roadway design and lot configurations,
Basin Street Properties formally submitted a development application in 2010: This application
was submitted prior to the commencement of the Station-Area Planning''effort or contemplation
of amendments to the existing 2003'SmartCode. As'of early this year, after collaboration with
City,Staff,the Riverfront project was deemed complete: Currently, staff and applicant efforts are
.directed at finalizing the environmental review document and scheduling the project for public
hearing.
Requested Action for Riverfront
Given the set of circumstances described above;;and because the project was_designed utilizing
the current Urban Standards for Zones T-4, T-5and T 6, we request thatthe City permanently
apply the Urban Standardssection of the current SmartCode to'the Riverfront project. All other
provisions of the new SmartCode Amendmentsawould'apply to River"front including the
administrative provisions and+processes. We believe this is the'most prudent approach to ensure
I N CSt•� I
Pel:duma_CA 94952
w■\W.BAS•N-SraEr-. .COSH
•
•
h
April 30„2013 #
Page 2 BASINSTREET
u(i F'E:i.9 ff99
a finding of consistency-for Riverfront with,the;SmartCode requirements•as the project was
designed and analyzed utilizing the existing 2003'Standards.
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments. We are open to discussing
this further if you find you need additional-information.
Best, ''
1��.WHIT ,
CHAIRMAN
BASIN STREET PROPERTIES
cc: Mayor and City Councilmembers, Geoff Bradley, Scott Duiven
•