HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7.B 08/06/2007CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL
/.M
August 6, 2007
Aeenda Title: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Follow -Up to the Meetine Date: August 6, 2007
June 25, 2007 Joint City Council, Planning Commission, SPARC, Historic
SPARC Study Session on the Development Code.
Meetine Time: ❑ 3:00 PM
�]C 7:00 PM
Category: ❑ Presentation ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ® Unfinished Business ❑ New Business
Department:
Community
Development
Cost of Proposal: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Director: Contact Person:
Mike Moore Mike Moore /V
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
July 12, 2007 Memo from Mike Moore to Mike Bierman
Phone Number:
778-4301
Account Number: N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Summary Statement: The attached memo has been distributed to the City Council and makes some
recommendations on next steps in the revision of the City's Development Code based on the comments made at
the June 25 joint study session.
Recommended Citv Council Action/Sueeested Motion:
Provide direction to staff regarding next steps in the revision of the Development Code.
Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir: Reviewed by City Attornev: ADDroved by City Manaeer:
�,, ticc hI 11tol1u_
� u VG l
#Da'te.��UI3h7 U� Date: Date: l�j't U
Rev. # I I Date Last Revised: File:
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Conunanity Denelopoieat Department, 11 English Street, Petaltuna, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fac (707) 778-4498 E-mail: edd @e petakana.cams
DATE: July 12, 2007
TO: Mike Bierman, City Manager
FROM: Mike Moore, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Next Steps from June 25 Development Code Study Session
At the joint City Council/Planning Cormnission/SPARC/Historic and Cultural Preservation
Committee study session on June 25, the meeting concluded with a list of Development Code
priorities and some consensus direction on next steps. One of those steps was to report back to
the City Council by its meeting of July 16, 2007 with a further refinement of the Development
Code scope of work, based on the identified priority list, further recommendations on the
composition of the proposed "End User" Committee, and proposed dates for the next 2 joint
study sessions.
Scope of Work
The joint study session identified the following topics as "priorities" for the new Development
Code:
• Hillside Regulations
• Signs
• Story Poles
• Public Notification
• Tree Regulations
• Historic Preservation
• Mandatory Green Building
• Gateway Overlay regulations (particularly for East Washington Street)
• Mobilehome Parks
• Residential and Non -Residential Growth Management
After reviewing this list, we believe that there are 3 "priorities" that we are able to start working
on — Hillside Regulations, Tree Regulations and Mandatory Green Building — for the following
reasons:
• There are already established convnunity interest groups/committees that can be used to
assist the "End User" Committee and staff in doing the required research and analysis;
• These three topics represent a manageable addition to the current work load for CDD
staff, and
• Some of the topics on the list have other considerations or processes associated with
them that, in our opinion, make them more suitable for either an action apart from the
Development Code, or as part of a more inclusive Code topic. For example,
o Any proposed changes to existing Historic Preservation regulations should be
done following a final determination by the state on the City's pending Certified
Local Government (CLG) application. CLG status may require the City to make
other zoning and related code changes and we believe it would be best to
consider those more comprehensively once we have those results.
o Story poles and On-site notice signs should be part of a broader discussion on
public notification and are also dependent on subsequent discussions we would
like to have at the next joint study session on development review procedures.
The City Council adopted story pole guidelines and procedures several years ago
and are currently applied as required.
o The major sign issue identified at the joint study session, the human sign holders
that stand on various street comers, can be enforced under existing regulations.
The current sign code does not allow signs in the public right-of-way, nor does it
allow off-site signs. However, should the City Council decide to enforce the sign
code for these violations, it raises the question of enforcement of other signs in
the public right-of-way, such as the numerous downtown business "A -frame"
signs. We also believe that any specific direction regarding changes to the sign
ordinance needs to be in the context of the limits of local regulation versus First
Amendment rights. That discussion could be part of a future joint study session
agenda.
o Local mobilehome development and building standards are pre-empted by state
law, so there are no plans at this time to address mobilehome development
standards in the Development Code, except to identify existing mobilehome
park zoning districts. Staff is monitoring the mobilehome conversion to resident
ownership issue that has arisen in Santa Rosa and unincorporated Sonoma
County. This issue is not related to the Development Code update because its
direct impact would be to the application of the City's existing mobilehome rent
control ordinance. We have not had any inquiries about owner -initiated
conversions of local mobilehome parks to resident ownership. There is pending
legislation to amend the state Subdivision Map Act to address this problem.
o Growth management regulations are not zoning regulations, per se, but are
certainly an important component of a comprehensive Development Code.
Growth management procedures and regulations, particularly those related to
non-residential growth management, needs the policy and environmental
analysis embodied in the new General Plan to move forward.
It is important to remember that these recommendations are intended to provide an initial
rationale for ordering the work on the Development Code. All of the aforementioned "priorities",
as well as many other topics related to the code will be addressed in due course and will be
included in an updated scope of work that could not be completed in the time available to
prepare this memo. The 3 topics we've identified to focus on over the coining weeks were
chosen because the resources are, for the most part, already in place to begin work on these
topics. We will provide a more complete scope of work and timeline by the Council's first
meeting in September (September 10, 2007). This date also gives us time to review the revised
draft scope with the Planning Commission and SPARC/Historic SPARC.
"End User" Committee
The joint study session endorsed the proposal for an "End User" Committee made up of
representatives of the Council, Planning Commission and SPARC, as well as designated
representatives of various community and professional interest groups that would have a
significant stake in the outcome of the Development Code process. We would further propose
that the membership of this committee remain constant throughout the process in order to
provide the continuity necessary to achieve a consistent and comprehensive document. We
would further propose that as specific topic areas come up, that the committee could be
supplemented on an ad hoe basis by various local professional and community interests on a
given topic (e.g., historic preservation, green building, trees, subdivisions, etc.) and that those ad
hoe participants be identified by the committee as necessary.
We would propose that the composition of the "End User" committee (we will rely on the
conunittee to select a better name for itself) be as follows:
• 2 City Council members (also serving as Co -Chairs)
• 2 Planning Commissioners
• 2 SPARC members
• 1 Historic SPARC member
• 1 representative of each of the following local interests:
o Real Estate/Commercial Leasing
o Civil Engineer/Land Surveyor
o Business Owner
o Local Contractor
o Chamber of Conunerce
o Home Builders Association
o Architect
o Commuuuty/Neighborhood Group
o Citizen at -large
17 total members
Representatives from the City's decision-making bodies would self select their representatives.
The City Council would select the other members by majority vote following a public notice and
an application process. The Council could do the selection of the local citizen/interest group
representatives also at its September 10 meeting.
Next Joint Stndv Sessions
There was consensus that the next joint study session of the City Council, Planning Commission,
SPARC and Historic SPARC be at the end of October. There are 5 Mondays in October, so the
study session could be set for either Monday, October 22 or Monday, October 29. We would
propose that the agenda for that meeting include an update on work in progress and a discussion
on process related topics such as regulations v. guidelines, administrative review v.
Council/Conunission/Cormnittee review, and the roles and responsibilities of the Planning
Commission and SPARC/Historic SPARC.
A second joint study session was suggested for January of 2008. Monday, January 28 is the last
Monday of that month; however, that would be a regular City Council meeting date because of
the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday on January 21. The available Monday that month for another
3 �%
joint study session would be January 14. We should have a better idea of what the agenda for
that meeting will be once we are able to develop a more complete scope of work and timeline for
the Code.
Additional Follow -Un
A discussion of this memo is tentatively scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of
Monday, August 6. The Council will have the opportunity to provide any further direction at that
time.
Planning Commissioners
SPARC members
Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee (Historic SPARC) members
CDD Planning Division staff
City Engineer
Paul Crawford, Crawford, Multari & Clark