HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6A 06/07/2010~l~Itewv#6.f1
TO:
FROM
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Resolutions to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; to Approve, or Deny a Planned Unit District
Unit Development Plan and Development Standards; and to Approve or Deny a
Vesting Tentative Map fora 19-lot Subdivision to Allow for the Construction of
Single Family Homes for the Sunnyslope II Project Located within the
Sunnyslope Planned Unit District, at 674 Sunnyslope Road, APN 019-203-008,
File # 03-TSM-0460
I2>EC®MMENIDATI®N
It is recommended that the City Council continue the item to August 2, 2010.
BACKGIt®IJNI)
On February 22, 2010, the City Council considered the Sunnyslope II project application for a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, PUD Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. After receiving
public comments, and following Council deliberation, the City Council continued the item to
April 5, 2010 in order to allow for project revisions in response to the Council's direction.
On March 16th the applicant submitted a request for continuance to the June 7, 2010 City Council
meeting to allow adequate time for revisions, additional neighborhood outreach, and staff review
and analysis. To date, the applicant has not submitted revised plans or a written outline of
anticipated project revisions. To the best of staffs knowledge, the applicant has not held a
neighborhood meeting or done additional neighborhood outreach since the previous Council
meeting in February.
On May 1 lth the applicant submitted a subsequent request for continuance to a date uncertain,
citing disagreement about the current cost recovery balance of $34,577. It appears that the
applicant questions whether costs the City has incurred to defend litigation brought by the
applicant have been charged to the project cost recovery account. Three CEQA settlement
conferences were held with the applicant which went beyond the scope of the CEQA litigation to
include discussion of substantive project processing matters. The City has not.to date sought to
recover from the applicant the cost of attorney services. incurred during the three settlement
Agenda Review:
Div. Manager~~ City Attorney ,Finance Director /~' City Manager,"
conferences, even though those services in large part related to project processing and
conditions.
Applicant's pending CEQA action against the City involves only the timeliness of processing of
the CEQA document and does not include substantive consideration of the project or various
conditions and/or project modifications that the Planning Commission or City Council may
determine appropriate.
City staff has informed the applicant that the City remains open to further settlement conferences
involving the subject matter of the litigation, and that future discussions of project processing
matters such as conditions of approval, etc. are subject to the cost recovery agreement and will
be billed to the applicant.
I)ISCIJSSION
Staff has maintained regular communication with the applicant's representative to stay up to date
on proposed project revisions. Staff and the City Attorney will continue to be responsive to
questions about any specific cost recovery items.
In the absence of revised plans responsive to the Council's February 22, 2010 direction and
payment of the outstanding cost recovery balance, staff concurs that further continuance of the
item is necessary. In the interest of meeting the Council's expectation that this matter will be
processed in an expeditious fashion, however, staff recommends continuance of this item to a
date certain: August 2, 2010. The eight week continuance recommended by staff should allow
sufficient time for project revisions, additional neighborhood outreach, and necessary staff
review and analysis. If the applicant is not ready to proceed on August 2°d, Council can decide at
that time whether to grant any additional continuance that maybe requested by the applicant.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The project is subject to cost recovery. Processing costs paid to date are approximately
$119,000. This account currently has a negative balance of $34,577.93.. An additional deposit
has been requested to ensure that funds are available for remaining cost recovery work.
ATTACI-IMLNTS
1. Letter from Steve Lafranchi, dated May 11, 2010
2
ATTACHMENT 1
R.C. E. 49302
STEVEN J. LAFRANCFII & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS ~ LAND PLANNERS
PETALUMA THEATRE SQUARE
140 SECOND STREET, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94952
TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239
May 11, 2010
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Attention: Heather Hines
Subject: Sunnyslope II Subdivision Continuance
Dear Heather,
Thank you for your email notes of May 4th and May 10th.
Our client does need an extension of the Council's April 5th continuance of the
Sunnyslope project. However, they are requesting this continuance for reasons other than
providing us additional time to respond to the Council's comments.
As you are aware, there is an ongoing dispute between our client and the City over
inappropriate cost-recovery charges placed on the applicant's account. They are seeking
a way to resolve this issue amicably in the face of the intransigent position of the city
attorney. However, since the City refuses to process the project until the erroneous
charges are paid, we have no recourse but to request a continuance to a date uncertain..
Thank you for your consideration.
S'
Lafranchi, P.E., P.L.S.
Cc: Bart Van Voorhis