Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1.A 03/30/2009LA CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA March 30, 2009 MEMORANDUM Conununity Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 775-4301 Fart (707) 775-4498 E-mail: edd @ei petalruua.ca.its DATE: March 26, 2009 TO: City Council Via: John Brown, City Manager FROM: Mike Moore, Community Development Directgf SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for the March 30 City Council Agenda The following information is provided to supplement the original packet of material that was distributed for the City Council meeting of March 16 (also attached). That material is still valid, except as supplemented, below. Attachments to this memo from Green Building Sub-Committec and the Hillside Preservation Sub -Committee reflect the final corrected notes from the January 27, 2009 DCAC meeting. Develonment Standards The Development Standards sub -committee had not rnet prior to the last DCAC meeting in January 2009. The memo from Kim Jordan to the DCAC, dated August 19, 2009, and included in the March 16 City Council agenda packet represented that last status report on the work of that sub -committee. At the January 2009 DCAC meeting, the full committee identified 3 topic areas considered to be a higher priority than the others on the list. Those were. A. a definition of "Mixed Use"; B. Smart Code modifications (the "warrants" recommendation addresses part of this); C. modifications to the existing "non -conforming structure" provisions to address existing non-residential structures. A definition of "Mixed Use" for the development code would need to be consistent with the land use designation established by the new General Plan. Beyond that it becomes more complicated in trying to create a definition that is responsive to various "Mixed Use" zones: What is an "appropriate" mix of uses? Is the definition "quantitative" (i.e., a fixed percentage or minimum square footage of certain types of uses), or "qualitative" (i.e., only retail on the ground floor; is it "horizontal" — a mixture of uses on the same site, but not within a given building or "vertical" — a mixture of uses within the same building)? Does every property in a "Mixed Use" zone have to be mixed use, or can the mixture of uses be spread through the entire district? Creating a single definition that applies to a variety of areas where, in most cases, the use pattern is well- established will be complicated. The original work plan for the Development Code included making modifications to the existing Smart Code and integrating it so that the City would not continue to operate with two separate sets of zoning regulations. Except for "warrants", modifications to the Smart Code did not get much attention by the DCAC through its January meeting, A more in-depth consideration of other Smart Code modifications and their integration into the new Development Code would require a much more extensive discussion than the DCAC has had to this point. The suggested modification to the non -conforming structure section of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (Section 22.030 (A)) would provide the same relief from contemporary setback requirements to alter or add to existing non-residential structures in appropriate zones that is currently provided to existing residential and accessory structures in appropriate residential zones. This would allow owners to improve their property, provided they do not make the existing structure anymore non -conforming. This would be a relatively minor wording amendment that would correct a deficiency in the current code and reflect past practices. Roles and Responsibilities The table attached to the March 16 staff report, entitled "Summary Recommendations", was intended to help focus the City Council discussion on some of the major proposals coming from the DCAC. It was not intended to comprehensively summarize all of the points discussed by the various sub -committees. The notes from the various sub -committees were also attached so that the entire report reflected the work done through the January 2009 DCAC meeting. Under the heading of "Major Development", the Srummary Recommendations table did not include all of the points that the Council may wish to consider regarding the process steps identified by the Roles & Responsibilities Sub -Committee. That list is attached under the heading "Project Approval Process — Major Subdivision" and the follow-up entitled "Roles and Responsibilities Sub -Committee, Issues without Consensus, January 2009." Hillside Preservation No final recommendations were made by the Hillside Preservation Sub -Committee or by the DCAC. The attached "Draft Summary of Sub -Committee Progress, January 22, 2009" is attached and summarizes the Sub -Committee's work through that time and where there was and was not consensus. Recommendation: This material is provided as a supplement to the original packet of March 16, 2009 that includes the staff report, table of "Summary Recommendations" and the notes and material from the various Sub-Cominittees. The staff recommendation remains for the City Council to: "Provide direction to staff. Direction should include, but may not be limited to: identifying those recommendations that should move forward now for formal hearing and adoption; any referrals back to the DCAC for additional review; any new topics to be addressed; any desired continuation of the DCAC and the Development Code update; and funding for staff support and legal services associated with the various updates and continuing the update process." Attachments: 1) "Project Approval Process — Major Subdivision" 2) "Roles and Responsibilities Sub -Committee, Issues without Consensus, January 2009" 3) "Draft Summary of Sub -Committee Progress, January 22, 2009" 4) "Draft Green Points Threshold Table, Updated January 2009" 5) Agenda Bill, Staff Report and Attachments from March 16, 2009 PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS - MAJOR SUBDIVISION 1. Neighborhood Meeting a. Must apply for neighborhood meeting through the City and pay related fees. b. City Staff (planner assigned to the project) accepts application and any materials applicant has at the time. c. City Staff notices neighbors w/In certain distance of the proposed project of a meeting to be held/hosted by the City of Petaluma and a public notice goes out (local paper and/or other). d. Meeting is only for applicantto show neighbors ideas on what is being applied for and to gather neighbors thoughts/concerns e. Staff does nothing but host meeting, state what the meeting is for and take notes on the happenings of the meeting. f. This process MUST be done prior to an application being able to be submitted. 2. Project Application a. Step #1 MUST happen prior to an application being made. b. Application must include everything outlined by the City as part of a checklist (NEW ITEC to be accepted. 3. Application Deemed Complete (30 days) a. If application contains all Items listed on checklist() (for proper project) and all information is complete, the application is deemed complete. 4. Advisory Committee Nearing as Necessary/Required -- Including (but not limited tos) Parks, Bicycle and Tree Commlttee.(2) (3) 5. SPARC Meeting Site Plan —Big Picture Review --Mandatory and Advisory a. Meeting is publicly noticed. b. A?ps #ram Pa4s/4�isr: crA K.5te~:c ERARC m y �c part of the :nretieo+c w::!gf. in, a fcr iF;.-t.5taff compiles all comments from meetings by all groups (ie, those in #1 and #4) C. st3fF d9SC nC t 5t5ff j SFt "•'i" PFOVI&S Pl_^_ 511 M)r261 as „* "{' ^i' ati^^. Staff Compiles all comments from previous meetings and makesfndings whether project compiles with General Plan and IZO. d. Staff takes notes and provides minutes to all after meeting. e. SPARC makes recommendation to applicant and/or PC 5. Project Review by Staff a. Project planner distributes project materials to city departments for review and comment. b. City Staff reviews application (must set some sort of timeline so applicants know whatto expect)(4) C. City Staff responds to application with list of "issues/concerns/comments" (ICC's) taking into account fea$enable-neighborhood concerns and SPARC (and any all other Committee) meetings findings, d. Dialog between staff and applicant occurs to address ICC's. 7. Preliminary Conditions a. When the applicant has done everything that can be done or that he/she is willing to do to address all of staff's concerns, the analicant reauests the preparation of the Preliminary Conditions of Approval (PCOA). b. Staff prepares the PCOA and supplies those conditions to the applicant for review and Identifies unresolved conditions. 8. Development Advisory Committee Meeting (DAC) a. DAC is made up of Staff Planner, City Engineer and all other City Departments that , ^ applieable to ;;#end have reviewed eend+tiesed the project(Fire, Traffic, etc.) as well as a representative from the Planning Commission. b: DAC Is scheduled on a set date/time of each month (mays e i °__ a r.n.,fs if Reeer.,2,... .rr, +ke third ed of eveFy aRth €mm 10 Nemris-DAG meetings. Advisory Committees/commissions shall be noticed when applicable. c. Once Prelim -Conditions have been sent out, applicant can request to be on the next DAC agenda. d. DAC occurs....applicant and staff attempt to work through all remaining'rCPCOAs. Applicant makes changes/concessions where able/necessary, Staff makes changes/concessions where able/necessary. PCOA's can be re-written,,Fid sa a ;. 9. Planning Commission — PC a. Once DAC is complete, Staff prepares full Staff Report containing Condition of Approvals (COA). b. As part of Staff Report, Staff outlines alll£Z'COAs and provides recommendations (Staff must recommend approval or denial of a project and support its recommendation). c. PC issues findings, recommendations and/or approval(s) of tentative map 1. PC approves with right of appeal to city council. 2. PC recommends to city council for approval 10. SPARC FeFmal Detailed a. Only review being done here is "nuts and bolts architecture, facilities (such as parks, etc.). b. SPARC findings can be appealed to City Council. END TENTATIVE MAP (TM) PROCESS -- BEGIN FINAL MAP (FMI / IMPROVEMENT PLAN (IPI PROCESS 11. Final Map/ Improvement Plan Application —Applicant to submit all necessary/required materials/items to project planner. 12. Staff reviews application for compliance to TM & COA and proper/adequate design. 13. Staff supplies applicant comments/redlined plans for applicant to address --this process continues until all staff comments are addressed (3 iterations are typical). 14. City Engineer accepts the FM/IP as complete and as in compliance with the TM/COA and can either a. Sign off, formally approving for construction or b. Take to Council with recommendation to approve, then sign off once Council approves. FOOTNOTES: (1) See attached City of Petaluma Completeness Checklists ✓ Community Development Department, Development Permit Application, Page 3 Submittal Requirements ✓ Community Development Department, Tentative Map Requirement List (2) Optional preliminary SPARC anytime before #5 (3) See Section on Subdivisions on memo from August 2155 regarding historic review. (4) #35 on the Tentative Map Requirement Checklist needs to be reviewed or eliminated as well as the note under "Submitted Requirements Relating to Staff Discretion" on the Development Permit Application.. Concern about endless incompleteness. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUES WITHOUT CONSENSUS JANUARY 2009 Below I have tried to group the items l have identified as issues on which the roles and responsibilities subcommittee has not reached consensus. I have grouped them by the two submittals we are making. PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS — MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Issues without consensus: 9. Planning Commission —PC a. Once DAC is complete, Staff prepares full Staff Report containing Condition of Approvals (COA). b. As part of Staff Report, Staff outlines all W'COAs and provides recommendations (Staff must recommend approval or denial of a project and support its recommendation). C. PC issues findings, recommendations and/or approval(s) of tentative map 1. PC approves with right of appeal to city council. 2. PC recommends to city council for approval 10. SPARC Pn;m;;' Detailed d. Only review being done here is "nuts and bolts"....architecture, facilities (such as parks, etc.). e. SPARC findings can be appealed to City Council. 14. City Engineer accepts the FM/IP as complete and as in compliance with the TM/COA and can either f. Sign off, formally approving for construction or g. Take to Council with recommendation to approve, then sign off once Council approves. FOOTNOTE: (4) #35 on the Tentative Map Requirement Checklist needs to be reviewed or eliminated as well as the note under "Submitted Requirements Relating to Staff Discretion" on the development Permit Application.. Concern about endless incompleteness. 11. August 21St memo Issues without consensus: 2. Mixed use building(s)/projects: Placeholder: Depending on where the Development Standards subcommittee ends up with the task of "defining" mixed use (Lynch and Barrett to act as liaisons). a. Any qualifying mixed use building/project (compliant with the established definition of mixed use) is simply subject to SPARC review or b. If the mixture of uses falls below the threshold established by Development Standard (is token, minimal, or nonexistent), the mixture of uses (as reflected by the form/layout of the building/project) shall be subject to PC review and approval prior to SPARC approval. 3. Environmental documents, including EIRs, to be certified by review body with decision making authority of the project. Exception: in the case of an EIR where v the adoption of overriding considerations is necessary, the decision of the regular review body shall be advisory and the CC shall have the final approval. (0 City of Petaluma Development Code Advisory Committee Hillside Preservation Subcommittee Draft Summary of Subcommittee Progress January 22, 2009 Overview: The Subcommittee members agree that the Hillside Preservation ordinance included in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance is incomplete and should be revised. The following is a summary list of topics that should either be added to the ordinance or further developed or considered. The topics have been categorized as follows: Adopted measures to be incorporated into the ordinance Discussion items with consensus (not fully developed, but recommended for consideration or further development). Discussion Items without consensus. I. Adopted Measures: a. A regulation to protect specifically identified, landmark "ridgelines and knolls" should be added. The committee has developed a map locating ridgelines and knolls to be protected. The Inap should be further developed to include lot lines, topographic and the Iocations and elevations of community "viewing platforms". Consensus has not been reached on the specific details or text of the regulation (see below) b. Tiered applicability and review process based on type on scope of application (see tables for development review and submittal requirements for single lot developments, major and minor subdivisions) c. Ordinance regulations and guidelines will also apply to residential remodels, additions, and accessory dwellings, as well as redevelopment or subdivision of existing developed parcels (per the "Tiered Development Review" tables). d. Submittal requirements including visual analysis and site analysis/opportunities and constraints map (see attached tables) e. Expand range of applicability to include hillside west of Petaluma Blvd. North from Baily Ave. to city limit. 2. Discussion items with consensus: a. The ordinance should include provisions for "clustered development" in the hillside zones to encourage preservation of prime community open space and significant natural features (Per General Plan 3-P-71). Language needs to be developed that will allow for deviations from underlying development standards (setbacks, lot sizes) without creating P.U.D.'s b. Modification to Petaluma's subdivision ordinance to require all subdivisions (major and minor) within hillside zones to go to SPARC for site plan review prior to tentative map hearing. c. SPARC review process — to be coordinated with policy being developed by the "Roles and Responsibilities" subcommittee d. Need to coordinate ordinance with other Goals, policies, ordinances, regulations and guidelines to eliminate contradictions or discrepancies e. City fire officials, engineers, planners, etc. need to work together to develop new street standards allowing steeper, narrower streets with different sidewalk and parking requirements to reduce impacts to hillsides. f. Design Guidelines should be written for hillside development. This would be a separate document including site and building design guidelines for development within the hillside zones. g. Modified street lighting standards should be adopted to reduce light pollution in the hillside zones. h. There should be a way to monitor development applications outside the city limit, but within the physical "Hillside Backdrop" of Petaluma. Coordinate with county planners to adopt or encourage compliance with Petaluma's standards and guidelines where applicable. i. Add language to provide exemptions when the ordinance threatens the economic viability of a subjected parcel. Suggested language: i. If the compliance with any section of the ordinance compromises the economic viability of the parcel, the proposed project may be exempt from only the (those) section(s) of the ordinance that eliminate such viability. ii. Economic viability is defined as the ability to construct a residential dwelling that conforms to all applicable zoning and building codes, hillside ordinance, etc., and is similar to and consistent with (like and kind) the typical residence located in the immediate area. Discussion items without consensus: j. Specific details and language of the ridgeline regulation were not discussed within the committee. Two possible standards were suggested, along with accompanying graphics and qualifiers: i. "All structures must be setback from the ridge so that no portion of any improvements is visible above the ridgeline or disturbs the visibility of the natural contour of the ridgeline from the perspective of the appropriate view platforms. This is a minimum standard, and reviewing and approval bodies are directed to make every attempt to increase the setback so that additional ridgeline areas remain visible whenever possible." (see graphic) ii. "No point on the proposed structure may extend above the parcel's `ridgeline midpoint elevation'. The `ridgeline 3 midpoint elevation' is defined as the median elevation between the highest and lowest points on a ridgeline contained within the project parcel"(see graphic) k. The hillside ordinance could include regulations requiring a secondary setback, identifying a "Non -improvement area" to restrict the location of certain site improvements. Suggested text and definitions: Definition of "Non-lmprovement Area" Land or site area that is designated to remain undeveloped and undisturbed, and in its natural state. Grading excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parldng areas and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, equestrian trails, picnic areas and planting, and landscaping which enhances the natural environment, are permitted when approved through an environmental and design review process. ii. Formula for Minimum "Non -Improvement Area" The minimum amount of "non -improvement area" should be equal to 15% of the gross site area, plus the percentage figure of average slope. Example: the minimum "non -improvement area" for a site with a 10% average slope is 25% (15% + 10% avg. slope = 25%). Sites containing 10,000 square feet or less are exempt from the minimum "non -improvement area" requirement. 1. Modifications could be made to site grading slope and retaining wall restrictions to reduce impacts to hillsides (allow taller walls and steeper slopes to reduce the footprint of the disturbed area). M. Exception to Hillside/RidReline Ordinance "If the compliance with any section of the ordinance cannot be adhered to without eliminating the economic viability of the parcel, the proposed project may be exempt from only the (those) section(s) of the ordinance, and to the extent of the requirement(s), that eliminate such viability. Economic viability is defined as the ability to construct a residential dwelling that conforms to all applicable zoning and building codes, hillside ordinance, etc., and is similar to and consistent with (like and kind) the typical residence located in the immediate area." DCAC Hillside Summary 09-0122.doc Single Lot Development (rev vowoa) Tier 1 Process Building Permit Review Guideline Compliance Public Notice/Hearing Improvements New residence Additions to existing residence Detached Accessory Buildings/Structures TIERS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Tier II Applicable guidelines are applied as standards. Required to comply with all applicable guidelines. Applicant may apply to Admin SPARC and/or SPARC Review for projects not in compliance with the guidelines. None NIA <_ 250 sq, ft or 20% of the square footage of the residence, whichever is greater s 350 sq. ft. Decks �5 30" in height measured from natural grade and consistent with all applicable guidelines Retaining walls s 5 feet in height measured from grade Gradingz, 3 <_100 cubic yards Maximum cut slope 3:1— a maximum of 1,000 cumulative4 square feet of cut slope steeper than 3:1 is permitted when this will reduce grading, protect natural site amenities, and/or provide necessary access (stairs, pathways, driveways, etc.) Administrative SPARC (Zoning Administrator) Guidelines are applied as standards. Required to comply with all applicable guidelines. Staff makes decision and determines applicable guidelines and compliance with guidelines. When not in compliance, project goes to SPARC. Public Notice More than 250 square feet to 700 square feet or More than 20% to 45% of the square footage of the residence, whichever is greater More than 350 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft. > 30" in height measured from natural grade and consistent with all applicable guidelines N/A Greater than 100 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards Maximum cut slope 3:1 - a maximum of 2,000 cumulative^ square feet of cut slope steeper than 3:1 is permitted when this will reduce grading, protect natural site amenities, and/or provide necessary access (stairs, pathways, driveways, etc.) SPARC m applicable Review of Ti{ determined th the guidelines New Developi Mo More than 2 existing rE Mo When not When not Cut for me I . New development — Development at a vacant parcel, new construction of a primary building on a developed parcel, construction of a p building on the site has been demolished. 2. When determining the amount of grading, the amount of cut is added to the amount of fill in order to account for the total amount of me 3. The excavation for poollspa is not included as part of site grading. 4. This includes all areas of cut slope that is steeper than 3:1. When there is more than one location that exceeds 3:1, the square footage together and the total square footage may not exceed the square footage noted in the applicable tier above. Single Lot Development Submittal Requirements Tier 1 Building Permit Review Existing conditions site plan with contours, existing trees Building elevations DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TIERS Tier II Administrative SPARC' Project Description2 Pr Existing conditions site plan with contours Grading plane Building elelvations2 Bu Context plane Landscape plane L Fence detail' Site Section(s) Opportuni As required by Fla Information as needed to determined compliance with Information as needed to determined compliance with Information as neer Tree Preservation requirements4 Tree Preservation requirements4 Tree Pre Arborist report and/or tree preservation and protection Arborist report and/or tree preservation and protection Arborist report and/ piano plan4 1. Additional submittal requirements are included as part of the Development Permit Application Submittal Matrix. 2. Required as part of typical administrative SPARC and SPARC application. 3. Required by Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Protection Chapter, Section 16.060 (L), Submittal Documents for Single Lot Development 4. Required by Zoning Ordinance Tree Preservation Chapter, Section 17.070. IL, Tentative Map Development Standard Density Lot Size Lot Configuration Lot Dimensions (Width and Depth) Primary Building Setbacks Clustered Subdivision Must be consistent with the General Plan density range and Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070 (D), Density Lot size required by Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070(C) may be reduced in order to comply with General Plan policies and to avoid site constraints and to preserve site amenities. The lot configuration should be responsive to site constraints and amenities and shall result in a buildable lot. Lot dimensions required by the zoning district for the property may be reduced in order to comply with General Plan policies and with Hillside Protection requirements and guidelines and to avoid site constraints and to preserve site amenities. When the lot size is reduced, consideration should be given to using the lot dimensions for the most similar zoning district (e.g, if lot size is similar to R2, consider using the dimensions for this zoning district). The appropriate lot width and depth would be determined by the review authority as part of the entitlement process. Primary building setbacks required by the zoning district for the property may be reduced in order to comply with General Plan policies and with Hillside Protection requirements and guidelines and to avoid site constraints and to preserve site amenities. Consideration should be given to using the setbacks for the most similar zoning district (e.g. if lot size is similar to R2, consider using the setbacks for this zoning district). The appropriate setbacks would be determined by the review authority as part of the entitlement process. Accessory Structures and The setbacks for accessory structures default to the zoning district for Poolst5pas the property (see Zoning Ordinance Tables 4.7 and 4.8). The setbacks for pools and spas default to the zoning ordinance (Section 7.080). There is no maximum size for accessory structures, pools/spas, "Open/Natural Space" Open/usable space would be primarily common space. Non -Clustered Must be consistent with the General F Ordinance Section 16.070 (D), Densit Must be consistent with the minimum Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070 (C) The lot configuration should be respoi amenities and shall result in a buildab Minimum dimensions must be consist Standards for the zoning district in wh Zoning Ordinance Tables 4.7 and 4.8 Lot dimensions may be increased in c policies and with Hillside Protection rE dimensions may not be decreased wii Identify a "primary building and impro, the location of the improvements relai residence, driveway, covered parking In order to respond to site conditions, when specific findings could be made In no case would a larger "primary bu the setbacks for the underlying zoninc Any future additions to the residence the "primary building area." Accessory structures, buildings and p located in the "primary building area." Process - Based on the Single Lot De improvements would be subject to SP Identify an "improvement area" where be required to be located. This may be more restrictive than alio would be Identified as part of the TPN Identify a "non -improvement area" wh could not be located. N Definition of'improvement area and 'non -improvement area' to be determined The "non -improvement area" would rE state at the time of the subdivision ap allowed in this area. open/usable space would be includes In order to comply with General Plan I may be greater than the setbacks req which the property is located. The appropriate amount of openlusat the review authority as part of the enti would be to make this area as large a l� Subdivision Process & Submittal (Requirements Tentative Map Tentative Parcel Map Tentative Sub( (4 or fewer parcels) (more than, Process Rales and Responsibilities Subcommittee is recommending a Roles and Responsibilities Subcon change to this process. change to this process. Public NoticelHearing Public Notice Public Notice for Planning Commissio Public Hearing at Planning Commissi+ Submittal Requirements4 Project Description' Project Description2 Environmental Impact Questionnaire2 Environmental Impact Questionnaire2 Site Plane Site Plane Grading Plane Grading Plane Street Sections2 Street Sections2 Site Sections Site Sections Topographic Survey3 Topographic Survey3 Opportunities and Constraints Map Opportunities and Constraints Map Slope Analysis3-- at a minimum delineating slopes of 0-10%;10-15%/ Slope Analysis3-- at a minimum delinf 15 to less than 30%; more than 30% 15 to less than 30%; more than 30% Visual Analysis from applicable viewing platforms only Visual Analysis from applicable viewir I. SPARC review is required prior to review and approval by review authority. New requirement as part of Development Code 2, Required as part of the Development Permit Application Submittal Matrix. 3. Required by Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Protection Chapter, Section 16.070 (G), Submittal Documents for Hillside Subdivisions. 4. If buildings are proposed as part of the subdivision, the following are also required: ■ Architectural drawings' ■ Visual analysis3 ■ Landscape planting plan for common areas, tree mitigations, cut/fill slope revegetation, and typical front yard.2 5. Visual Analysis would include the following: project boundary, lot boundaries, setbacks, improvements (driveways, roads, grading, reta Nate: Site sections are typically provided as part of a tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map. III �# I �'W�RJAMURMI*d TIN � t&-01 All structures must be setback from the ridge so that no portion of any improvements is visible above the ridgeline or disturbs the visibility of the natural contour of the ridgeline from the perspective of the appropriate view platforms. This is a minimum standard and reviewing and approval bodies are directed to make every attempt to increase the setback so that additional ridgeline areas remain visible whenever possible, k/kIA loot t �14 k l(O PROJECT TYPE NEW RESIDENTIAL (Low Income, Single Family, Multifamily, Grannv Unit) I i I A DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2O©9 0 s 640 sq, ft. 55 paints � H 641x1.200 sq. ft. 70 points I C 1,201 x 1,700 sq. tt. I Bopoints D 1,701 2:2.700 sq. ft. _ .. _ _ ....._______—_ __-.._..........__......_....__ _ 100 points � -tiS pninL ane 2.701 sq. ft, x i the home must meet or exceed enorgv efficiency (Title 24) Standards of a 2.701 Sq- ft, house I GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS A New construction or remodel of a Garage or Documentation of at least two(!) points from the current Build It Greets "New Home Ian Accessary Building, With an estimated Construction Guidelines or construction cast af,$15,000 ar more. Document at least (two) 2 measures from die current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines. Tltcse points or measures must be completed prior to final inspection and; Provide a completed and signed Build It Green ' New Home Construction or Remodel Checklist B New construction or remodel of a Gamge or No points or measures required. an Accessory Building with an estimated Provide a completed and Signed Build It Green "' New Home Construction or Remodel canstntctian cost of S 15,000 or less. I� Checklist cant provides Green Points Rater* I " I -- ....... ................... -� None I i None 6 GMlocuments and SehfngSLttmooreSLocal SetungslTomparary Internet FileSlCorilenLOutlook\WIZBWD991Capy oFJan-09-Green-Excel MandataryTahlelt) {2)-5.xls 3/2612009 PROJECT TYPE RESIDENTIAL REbIODELS AND ADDITIONS (Low Income, Single Family, blullifamlly, Grannv Unit) A .Residential Remodel and/or Addition with an kcstimatcd constriction cost of 5200,000 or B Residential Remodel and/or Addition with ani estimated construction cost of betwecu 550,000 and S 199,999. DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS (Build It Green Greenpoints Rated""' or I.EED) Applicant must comply with the the applicable rcquirements for new residential j construction above. Energy Audit S Ilome Performance Testing with Documentation ]{ Document at least (five) 5 measures from the current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines Document at least (five) 5 points from the current Build It Green Rcmodel New Construction Guidelines. These measures must be completed prior to final inspection and; i Energy Audit & Home Performance Testing with Documentation required. Provide a completed and signed Build It Green" Remodel Checklist; Residential Remodel and/or Addition with an Document at least (two) 2 measures from the current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines.' estimated construction cost of between 'Riese measures most be completed prior to final inspection and; S 15,000 and $49,999 Provide a completed and signed Build It Green i"' Remodel Cbecklist Residential Remodel and/ or Addition with an No points or measures required estimated construction cost o€$15,000 or less. Provide a completed and sighed Build It Green T" Remodel Checklist TYPE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION provides Green Points Rnter' None None /Staff LOM I u�el R sII 1 1�c� Iris A New Law lneomt`' ResidenEinFEeEESEriEeEieik 19ilit ORI 99 P -94d ItGfeen"-A341115 fra'Applicant-previd— Green-FointsRater' 11ro)ect, aatatwamily Guidelines- : B D*eun ext -at -least (two) 2 Eeasures €ratitelie Etrien}$uiltS E 6Fc n Remodel Fruideliaes: NeEte l��att e5Hi333E4d-E8n5EHlCHnlhe@SE of $ 15,000 or- �}4eSe-meBSEiFe^.s�7nSE-11e-�[sn7pltlEEd-13rpF-le-lira/-FlEspeEEEBFtzliifl� RWW Pm,-' e-u-eampleted-and-sigmed Build -it GFeea"'-Rentode{ lteulclisE L-nw=-lneemr-Reatedeler-AttdifioniviiiE-nFt ---. _ ...-.- __.W ............... ne -- P,, :aa a =sinjel—d and si�teEt Build it EreeEr�" RemadelGlteeklisE Nono Slat estima+ecl-c-ensEtaietismc$stof-515;BBA-oa:-less I Notes Look Into using BIG existing Homes GuEdelines in 2009 1Louk Into using BIG Existing Homes Guidelines in 2009 i Look into using BIG Existing Homes Guidelines in 2099 Look into using BIG Existing Hames Guidelines In 2009 1 G:0ocuments and SetlingsWmoore%Local SeOingMTomporary Internet FilestConlent.OutlookSWIZBWD991Copy of Jan-09_Green_Excel Mandatory Table(1) (2)-5.xls 3202009 a DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE ! _ UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF THIRD PARTY PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Greenpoints RWW"t or LEED) VERIFICATION Notes CONTIVIERCIAL A Nem Commercial Building(s) and major -The minimum number of points to achieve LEED Silver Certified Applicant provides LEER API renarations with a total area of 20,000 sq. ft.'[Note; Project must be documented by a LEED AP and be certified with the United States ornrore (Green Building Council. ' I 9 Neu' Commercial Bailding(s) with a total The minimum [umber ofpoinls to achieve LEED Silver. Applicant provides LEED AP' area bernren 19,999 and 3,000 sq. ft Note: Project must be registered with the USGBC and receive by a LEED AP but does Applicants LEED AP must register their project with the not need to be certified wide the United Slates Green Building Council. USGBC and receive Design Phase Pre -Approval prior to submitting for building permit j I CNell' CD77IN1C/'Clal �BI111[hag(5� 13'1111 rt 101x1 Document at least (twn) 2 measures from the current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines, None ! area of 3, 006 sq, J'. of less Mie5e measures must be Completed prior to final inspection and; Provide a completed and signed Build It Green" Remodel Checklist I t [ 'Tha City reserves the right 10 have any green building documentation peer reviewed by a consultanl of the City's choosing at the cost of the applicant. (Note: This is the same practice the City has usad for many Vears when aoolicanis submitted Im#fic moans and historical evaluations- l C:tDocuments and Settin©s%mmoore%Loral Sehings7empomry Internal FiIesZontent.OullooklWIZBWOggSCopy of Jan-09—Green—Excel Mandatary Table(1) (2} 5.xis 3r2M1309 DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 - GREEN REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF THIRD PARTY PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Greenpoints Rated' "t or LEER) VERIFICATION 11CONMIERCIAL TENANT IhIPROVEAlENTS A Projects which include interior and/or exterior 55% of ali possible points from tate current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED AP' modifications with an estimated evaluation of LEED for New Construction Checklist Staff would have to delemine °S. ofpoinm based upon more than 52,000,000. StatTwould have to delemine 4u of points. scope of work. Registering with USGBC. LEED Certification required. B ,Projects which include interior and/or exterior i55'3G of all passible points from the current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED AP* modifications with an estimated evaluation of LEED far New Construction Checklist Staff would have to delemine IN, of points based upon nnore than 51,000,000 and less than Staff would have to detemiuc %ofpoints. scope of work. 52,0o0,00p. [No way to provide 3rd party check because not regrisleting with USGBC No way to provide 3rd party check j I I C Projects which include interior and/or exterior 45111. oral] passible points from the current LEED far Commercial hderiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED API modifications with an estimated evaluation of LEED for new Construction. Staff would have to determine 9'0 ofpaints based upon more than S500,000 and less than 5999,999. scope of work. No way to provide 3rd party check 1 0 1,Projects which include interior and/or exterior 35", i, ofall possible points from die current LEED for Commercial interiors Checklist or modifications with an estimated evaluation of 'iLEFD for new Cousinrcdon. more than 550,000 and less than $499,000. , i E Projects which include interior and/or exterior A completed and sigmed Build it Green Remodel Green Building Checklist' modifications with an estimated evaluation of $49,999 or less. h1IXED USE PROJECTS WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS Mixed Use projects will he required to meet the residential and commercial point levels describe above. Applicants will meet with City staff to delermine the level of green requirements based on type of project li.e. percentage of residential and commercial) Applicant provides LEED AP* Staff would have to detemine °, afpoints based upon scope of work. No way to provide 3rd party check None Notes Slaff would have to detemine % of points. Staff would have to delem€ne % of points. No way to provide 3rd party check E Staff weutd have to delemine 5c of points. No way to provide 3rd party check i Staff would have to dotamina 4% of points. No way to provide 3rd party check CADocumnnts and Setlin9s4mmoore4Local SellingskTemporery lntemnt RieslContent,Cullook%WIZBWD995Copy of Jan-09_Green—Excel Mandatory Table(1) {2}5.xis 312ti nus PROJECT TYPE DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 i I l GREEN REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF THIRD PARTY (Build It Green Greenpoints Rated'rl't or LEED) VERIFICATION CITY PROJECT'S �T A New City Owned Builtling(s) with it total area (The minimum number orpoinLS to achieve LEED Silver certified. of 10,000 sq. ft. or more Note: Project must be documented by a LEED AP and be certified with the United States (Green Building Council. Note: New water resources bidlihirg is 13, 0001 sq. ft. , neo, proposed fire station 35,000sq. E New Ciry Building(s) a ith a total area of The minimum number ofpaints to achieve LEED Certified. I1, 000 - 9,999 sq. ft- Note: Project must be documented by a LEED AP but does not need to be certified with the United States Greets Building Council - C New City Building(s) frith a rotnl arca of !Document at least (two) 2 measures from the current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines, 1,000 sq. fi. or less 'Sliest measures must be completed prior to final inspection and-, Provide a completed and signed Build It Green" Remodel Checklist CITY TENANT INIPROVENTENTS l A Projects which include interior and/or exterior The minimum number ofpoints to achieve LEED Silver Certified modifications with an estimaled evaluation of Note: Project mast be documented by a LEED AP and be certified with the United Stales more than $1,000,000, Grcern Buildina Council based upon scone or work. B Projects which include interior and/or exterior I75':. oral] pass(hle points from the current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or madifications With. all estimated evaluation of LEED for New Construction based upon scope afwork. more than 5500,000 and less than $999,999. C IProjects which include interior andlar exterior 5095 or all possible points from the current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or �11adilicatio115 with an estimated evaluation of LEED for new Construction based upon scope of work. more than $50.000 and less than S499,000. D Projects which include interior and/or exterior JA completed and sigmed Build It Green t9 Multifamily Green Building Checklist' modifications with an estimated evaluation of 549,999 ar less, LEED Accredited Professional LEED Accredited Professional None )Staff LEED Accredited Professional LEED Accredited Professional LEED Accredited Professional LEED Accredited Pmfessfonal Notes Notes I - USGBC - United States Green Buildutg (Commercial Tenant Improvements Unresolved Projects which include interior and/or exterior',55",6 of all possible points from the current LEEP rar Commercial Interiors Checklist or I Applicant provides LEED AP* 'modifications with an estimated evaluation of €LEED for New Construction Checklist im orc than $2,000,000. -- - -- - Staff have to detemine yo afpaints. IStaffwould have in detemine 96 afpaints based upon _ Scope orwork. Registering with USGBC. LEED Certification required 'Staff would have to delemins % ' I of pe1i115. 0:0ocumonts and SeWrigsSmmoore%Local SeltingslTemporary Internet FloSlConlent.OutloekSWIZBWD991Copy of Jan-09—Green—Excel Mandatory Table(1) (2}5.xls 3r21312009 DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Greenpoints RateP1 or LEER) 10ef1n1!tons Unresolvad- 1 definine constmction cast and make dollar estimates based an construction contracts TYPE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION Notes 5 CADocumnnls and 5eltingslmmocrML-ocal Setlings7amporary Internet Fle55Contenl.Ouilook%MZBWO995Copy of Jan-Da—Green—Excel Mandatory Table(i l (2} 5.xls 326)20oq CITY OF PFTALUMA, CALIFORNIA .AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Direction on Development Code Advisory Committee Recommendations Meeting Date: March 16, 2009 Meeting Time: ® 7:00 PM Categorv: ❑ Presentation ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business ® New Business Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Community. Mike Moo Mike Moore 707-778-4301 Development Cost of Proposal: NIA Name of Fund: NIA Amount Budgeted: NIA Account Number: NIA Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Provide direction to staff. Direction should include, but may not be limited to: identifying those recommendations that should move forward now for formal hearing and adoption; any referrals back to the DCAC for additional review; any new topics to be addressed; any desired continuation of the DCAC and the Development Code update; and funding for staff support and legal services associated with the various updates and continuing the update process. Summary Statement: In June of 2007, Community Development initiated a two phase process to comprehensively update the City's zoning and development regulations. The first phase was the creation of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) that amended and reformatted the City's prior zoning ordinance to provide some immediate consistency with the new General Plan. The IZO was adopted, along with the General Plan in May of 2008. The second phase, which was running concurrently, was the creation of a comprehensive Development Code. As part of that process, the City Council created and appointed a 24 -member citizens committee called the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC). Based on initial feedback from the Council, the DCAC divided into sub -committees and began working on what, at the time, were identified as priority topics: Hillside Preservation, Tree Preservation, Mandatory Green Building, Development Standards, Historic Preservation and Roles and Responsibilities. Each sub -committee was supported by planning staff from Community Development. After the September staff layoffs, work on the Development Code was suspended for a time, The DCAC then decided to have the sub -committees meet on their own and try to conclude their recommendations. All of the sub -committees completed their work to the extent they were able in January of this year. The attached table summarizes each committee's major recommendations along with a staff assessment of the next implementation steps, as well as the process and resource implications for proceeding with those recommendation. The complete sub -committee summaries, identifying all recommendations, are also attached. The DCAC met on January 27, 2009 to review and pass along the recommendations to the City Council. Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1) Table of Major Recommendations; 2) Summary Recommendations from each Sub -Committee Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir: Revie«,ed by City Attornev: Approved t v f ;ty Manager: Date: Date: Date: Rev. 9 f�� Date Last Revised: File: D CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 1 6, 2009 FOR Discussion and Possible Direction on Development Code Advisory Committee Recommendations 1. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. Direction may include, but not be limited to, identifying those recommendations that should move forward for formal hearing and adoption; referrals back to the DCAC for additional review; any new topics to be addressed; the continuation of the DCAC and the Development Code update; and funding for staff support and legal services associated with the various updates and continuing the update process. 2. BACKGROUND: From the start, the intent of the Development Code update process was, for the first time in 35 years, to create a comprehensive and coordinated set of zoning, subdivision and other development related regulations and procedures that would be consistent with the new General PIan and reflect the most current and effective regulatory practices. The initial work program, based on two joint workshops of the City Council, Planning Commission, SPARC and the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee (Historic SPARC) in 2007, was to concurrently work on what in the near-term has become the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO), and, working with the DCAC, produce the final comprehensive Development Code ready for public review and hearings by the spring of 2009. The Development Code work program was to be a combination of the work already produced for the IZO; the work and resulting recommendations of the six DCAC sub -committees (Hillside, Tree, Green Building, Historic, Development Standards and Role and Responsibilities); and independent staff work on various topics, with DCAC oversight. Monthly DCAC meetings were held and the six sub -committees met regularly and were supported by Community Development staff. In addition, Community Development staff was doing research and other work on various code topics that were not assigned to sub -committees. In September of 2008, the City Council approved staff layoffs in Community Development due to FY 08-09 budget reductions. The resulting impact to the Development Code update was to not only eliminate the staff resources that had been working on the project, but also direct the post -layoff work of the remaining staff solely on development and permit review, because that function could be supported by available revenue. Staff work on the Development Code ceased, but the six sub -committees continued to meet without direct staff support during the last part of 2008. Their final recommendations (attached) were presented to the full DCAC at the end of January 2009 and forwarded to the City Council for consideration and further direction. 3. DISCUSSION: The attached summary table identifies the major (but not all) recommendations of the respective sub- committees; and includes an endorsement from the DCAC for a so-called "warrant" amendment to the "Smart Code" of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. It also identifies, based on a preliminary staff assessment, what procedural steps are necessary to implement the proposed recommendations; how these newly implemented recommendations would impact the current development review process; and how they would impact current staff resources, as well as prospective applicants. To tape the next step to implement these recommendations — turning the recommendations into ordinance language for public review and final action — will require additional staff work, including the City Attorney. However, before that work can move forward, the Council will need to weigh the various recommendations in light of the current and foreseeable realities of Community Development Department staffing and funding and, perhaps, the need for a different Development Code wort: program going forward. In addressing this situation, the City Council may wish to consider the following points as a context for its direction: The various recommendations were originally to be part of a comprehensive code update and were to be folded into a broader process of code preparation and review. Issues of internal consistency and coordination would have been handled as that part of the process progressed through the anticipated stages of DCAC and public review. Under current circumstances, the recommendations that move forward for implementation will have to be added to the IZO and, where applicable, the Municipal Code. Except for the Hillside and Tree recommendations (which would require amending newly created IZO chapters), the other major recommendations may generate additional and more extensive amendments to the IZO (which, you will recall, is mostly comprised of the former 1975 zoning ordinance) in order to insure internal consistency. ® The six sub -committees and their respective topics were originally generated as the first topics of many others to be addressed as part of the comprehensive Development Code work program. The expectation in the.original Development Code work program was that even though these topics were identified as the highest priorities at the time, they were not the only topics requiring in-depth analysis and discussion over the course of the entire process. Staffing and resource limitations, by necessity, have already curtailed the original work program and may delay additional Development Code work. This change in circumstances raises a question as to whether these recommendations are still the highest priorities and, if not, are there other code amendments that may now be more critical. • Funding in the current Community Development budget does not include dedicated staff resources for work on the Development Code (or any advanced planning), nor does it include funding for the City Attorney's essential participation in preparing, reviewing and implementing the proposed recommendations. Community Development is limited in its ability to follow-through on the original work program, and City Council direction is necessary on the future of the Development Code update process and the DCAC so that we can focus resources, accordingly. a The City Council identified two goals in its January 2009 goal -setting workshop that relate directly to the Development Code update process and any direction the Council may take regarding the proposed recommendations of the DCAC and the nature and scope of any subsequent Development Code work: "Enable the City Council to prioritize development"; and "Streamline the development review process." In the summary of the Council goal -setting workshop there is an "attachment" that calls for a 2 -year work plan to implement the aforementioned, as well as all the other Council goals. This may be an opportunity for the Council to consider how the proposed recommendations help to implement those goals. A Council discussion on implementing these two goals may have an effect on the scope and timing of the proposed recommendations and any subsequent action, as well as shape the direction for any subsequent work on the Development Code. ® The attached summary table includes a heading entitled "Process Impact", which in some cases includes a procedural question that is not evident in the written summary from the applicable sub -committee. An answer to those questions will be necessary to effectively implement the recommendations. It may not be essential to answer the question at this meeting, but the question may generate some additional questions or discussion. ® The attached summary table includes a "Recommendation" heading entitled "Major Development". The narrative summary from the Roles and Responsibilities sub-cormnittee focuses on "Major Subdivisions." Council direction is necessary to clarify whether or not the recommendations for this topic area are just for major subdivisions, or should they apply to any type of major development project (a definition of what constitutes a "major" project should also be part of that discussion). It is also important to note that the recommendations in this topic area do not address the procedural and timing requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other portions of state planning law, such as the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act, that may be applicable. This is not intended as a criticism of the work of the sub -committee, but does illustrate the problem of not having staff support available to the sub -committees to help them keep all of these factors in order. The implementation of these recommendations will have to include those considerations, and may have some affect on the timing and sequence of the proposed recommendations. The recommendations related to the so-called "warrants" amendment to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan "Smart Code" were not considered by a sub -committee of the DCAC, but came independently from two individual property owners and project applicants in the CPSP area. The DCAC did not consider the specific recommendations of the two proposals, but did endorse adding a "warrants" procedure to the "Smart Code" at its January 27, 2009 meeting. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The prior section already addresses the current budget circumstances that have severely limited the ability of Community Development staff to complete the Development Code as originally intended. In addition, budget limitations will require a discussion of the resources necessary to implement Council direction on the pending recommendations, as well as any subsequent work on the Development Code. Based on Council direction on March 16, staff can return with a more detailed staffing and cost assessment, as well as possible alternatives for further consideration. r i, SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: March 16, 2009 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recommendation Summary Implementation Steps Process Impact Resource impact HILLSIDE PRESERVATION 2) SPARC review prior to map approval (Hillside Preservation Sub -Committee) 3) New street standards, sidewalk, street lighting and parking standards (Hillside Preservation Sub -Committee) 4) "Exemption" language (Hillside Preservation Sub - Committee) Requires all subdivision maps, including parcel maps, within designated Hillside zones to be reviewed by SPARC prior to review and approval of the tentative map Establish new design and development standards that would reduce the impacts of development in Hillside zones Add language that provides an exemption from the Hillside requirements when the regulations threaten the economic viability of the parcel or project Amend Chapter 16 of the IZO Adds a new Adds new processing (Hillside Protection); amend processing step for all and administrative Section 24.020 of the IZO (Site tentative maps; need responsibilities to Plan and Architectural Review); to coordinate City staff; adds amend the Subdivision Ordinance decision-making roles additional processing (Title 20 of PMC) for coordination & responsibilities time and cost to and consistency among staff, SPARC applicants and PC Amend City Public fmprovement standards for streets, sidewalks and street lighting, including standards for emergency vehicle access; amend Chapter 11 of the IZO (Parking); amend the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of PMC) for coordination and consistency None Adds cost to the City for the analysis and preparation of new public improvement standards that are currently not funded Amend Chapter 16 of the IZO Who reviews and acts Adds new cost to the (Hillside Protection) on the exemption? City for the review What information is and determination of the applicant the exemption; adds required to submit in cost and time to the support? development review process, depending on procedure 2 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recommendation Summary Implementation Steps Process impact TREE PRESERVATION Expand the application of Expands the application of Amend Chapter 17 of the IZO "protected trees" status (Tree "protected tree" status to include (Tree Preservation); may also Preservation Sub -Committee) all protected trees on private require amendments to Chapter property, whether or not they 13.08 of the PMC (Trees and are associated with a pending Other Vegetation)for development or permit coordination and consistency application. Recommendation HILLSIDE PRESERVATION 1) Clustered development to preserve open space and significant natural features (Hillside Preservation Sub - Committee) Summary Adds regulatory language to allow deviations from applicable development standards for new residential subdivisions without establishing new Planned Unit Districts Implementation Steps Amend Chapter 16 of the IZO (Hillside Protection); amend the City's PUD regulations (Chapter 19 of IZO) and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of PMC) for coordination and consistency March 16, 2009 Resource Impact Adds a new permit Adds new requirement and time administrative, to review and process inspection and enforcement responsibilities to City staff; may require new training or expertise; adds new permit costs and time to property owners for the removal of any "Protected tree" on private property Process Impact Resource Impact See item 2, below See item 2, below 1 Recommendation HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1) New Historic Preservation Ordinance (Historic Preservation Sub -Committee) 2) Create "Historic Preservation Commission" (Roles & Responsibilities Sub- Committee/Historic Preservation Sub -Committee) 3) Amend historic district guidelines and CPSP (Historic Preservation Sub -Committee] SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Summary Implementation Steps Process Impact Create new Historic Preservation Ordinance based on policy direction in Chapter 3 of General Plan 2025 Amend Chapter 15 of the IZO (Preservation of Cultural and Historic Environment); amend other IZO chapters for coordination and consistency; amend historic district guidelines, as necessary; coordinate with CLG requirements, as necessary Establish a separate, stand-alone Amend Chapter 15 of the IZO "Historic Preservation (Preservation of Cultural and Commission" comprised of 5 Historic Environment); amend Council -appointed members with Chapter 2.30 of PMC (Historic qualifications specified by and Cultural Preservation "Certified Local Government Committee); amend Section (CLG)" criteria 24.010 of the IZO (Site Plan and Architectural Review); amend other IZO chapters for coordination and consistency (exemptions, variances, etc.); amend historic district guidelines, Simplify, update and coordinate Oak Hill -Brewster, "A" Street, Downtown Historic Commercial District guidelines, as well as historic sections of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan as necessary To be'determined Adds a new commission; adds new process step; joint meetings with SPARC requires majority vote of each body (What happens if there is some kind of split or other voting issue?) Amend and update adopted To be determined guidelines and CPSP, as necessary March 16, 2009 Resource Impact Adds staff costs that are currently not funded Adds new administrative and processing responsibilities to staff; adds costs and time to the development review process for applicant Adds consultant and staff costs that are currently not funded 3 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recommendation Summary Implementation Steps Process Impact MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 1) Neighborhood Meeting (Roles Adds a mandatory, noticed City- Amend Chapter 24 of the 1ZO Adds a new process & Responsibilities Sub- sponsored neighborhood (Administrative Procedures); step committee) meeting prior to application amend application and submittal submittal requirements and applicable fees 2) SPARC site plan review (Roles Adds a mandatory, noticed Amend Section 24.010 of the IZO Adds a new process & Responsibilities Sub- SPARC meeting following (Site Plan and Architectural step (is it "advisory" Committee) application being deemed Review); amend application and or is there a complete submittal requirements and "recommendation"?) applicable fees 3) Staff/Applicant meeting (Roles Adds staff preparation of a fist of Amend application and submittal Adds a new process & Responsibilities Sub- "issues/concerns/comments" to requirements and applicable fees step (What is the Committee) address neighborhood concerns expected outcome and SPARC comments with from this step in the applicant process for applicant, neighbors, SPARC, staff?) M arch 16, 2009 Resource Impact Adds new administrative and processing responsibilities to staff; adds costs and time to the development review process for applicant Adds new administrative and processing responsibilities to staff; adds costs and time to the development review process for applicant Adds naw administrative and processing responsibilities to staff; adds costs and time to the development review process for applicant 4 Recommendation MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 4) Preliminary Conditions of Approval (Roles & Responsibilities Sub -Committee) SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Summary Implementation Steps Process Impact Project applicant requests Amend application and submittal Adds a new process preparation of "preliminary requirements and applicable fees step conditions of approval" for review 5) Development Advisory Creates a new review/advisory Amend Chapter 24 of the IZO Committee (Roles & committee with expanded (Administrative Procedures) to Responsibilities Sub -Committee) membership to include formalize composition, purpose representatives from the and scope; amend application Planning Commission and other and submittal requirements and City committees, commissions, as applicable fees necessary March 16, 2009 Resource impact Adds new administrative and processing responsibilities to staff; adds costs and time to the development review process for applicant Adds a new process Adds new step (the existing administrative and "Development processing Review Committee" is responsibilities to comprised only of staff; adds costs and City staff and meets time to the only as necessary development review during application process for applicant completeness stage) 5 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: March 16, 2009 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recommendation Summary Implementation Steps Process Impact Resource Impact GREEN BUILDING 1) New Residential (Green Creates mandatory minimum Amend the IZO to add a new Adds an additional Adds new Building Sub -Committee) "Greenpoints" for new residential chapter establishing a mandatory process step at the administrative and development based on square green building program and building permit stage processing footage applicable standards and of development, responsibilities to procedures; insure that adopted including staff; adds costs and standards conform with requirement for third- time to the building applicable state building code party rater permit review requirements process for applicant 2) Residential remodels (Green Creates mandatory minimum Same as above Same as above Same as above Building Sub -Committee) "Greenpoints" for new residential development based on type of structure, square footage and cost of the remodel 2) New Commercial (Green Creates mandatory LEER "Silver" Same as above Same as above Same as above Building Sub -Committee) certification requirement 3) Commercial tenant Creates mandatory LEED Same as above Same as above Same as above; with improvements (Green Building requirements based on cost of requirement for staff Sub -Committee) the proposed improvement training in order to determine percentage of applicable LEED points e 6 Recommendation GREEN BUILDING 4) City buildings and tenant improvements (Green Building Sub -Committee) Recommendation SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: DEVELOPMENT CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Summary Implementation Steps Process Impact Creates mandatory LEED requirements based on cost of the proposed improvement Summary "SMART CODE" (endorsed by the DCAC) 1) "Warrants" (Chris McCarthy) Creates a procedure by which SPARC would have the authority to grant "deviations" from the "strict requirements" of the "Smart Code" 2) "Interpretations" and "Exceptions" (Wayne Miller on behalf of Gina Pittler) Creates 2 alternative procedures by which staff, the Planning Commission or SPARC would have the authority to grant "deviations" from the "strict requirements" of the "Smart Code"; same intent as item 1, above March 16, 2004 Resource Impact Same as above Same as above Adds new administrative and processing responsibilities to staff; adds costs and time to the building permit review process for applicant implementation Steps Process Impact Resource Impact Amend Section 8 of the CPSP Provides SPARC with Adds new "Smart Code" (Code the authority to grant administrative and Administration); amend Section "deviations" from processing 24.010 of the IZO (Site Plan and adopted zoning, responsibilities to Architectural Review), as development, street staff; adds costs and necessary and other standards time to the "Smart Code" contained in the development review "Smart Code" process for applicant Same as above Provides PC or SPARC Adds new with the authority to administrative and grant "deviations" processing from adopted zoning, responsibilities to development, street staff, adds costs and and other standards time to the contained in the development review "Smart Code" process for applicant 7 A+�*,iimeA4 cZ The subcommittee met on Friday Dec. 5 to discuss the status of the Tree Preservation ordinance. It was the consensus of Anthony Mills, Tiffany Renee, Teresa Barrett, Steven Kirk and George Beeler that the ordinance was complete with the exception of extending the protection of "protected trees" to private property under general circumstances (not related to construction and the issue of a permit). It was unanimously decided to extend this protection during our previous meeting in May 20D8 by those in attendance. Anthony has suggested that the written change to the existing ordinance that is necessary to extend this protection is a minor one. It may be easily accomplished by altering the "application" section in the current ordinance. We could also plagiarize the language from the tree ordinances from the other cities we considered in our research that have such protection. The subcommittee could perform this work if staff is unavailable. The Tree Manual remains in draft form. However, this is a living document that is not part of the Development Code. The ordinance only refers to the manual, and it does not have to be approved by the DCAC. Therefore, we don't have to make any changes to it for the benefit of the Development Code. It may be that any future improvement and maintenance of the manual will have to be taken up by the Tree Advisory Committee. Thank you to Anthony for summarizing the meeting. Tiff Tiffany Renee Councilmember, City of Petaluma City of Petaluma Development Code Advisory Committee Hillside Preservation Subcommittee Draft Summary of Subcommittee Progress January 22, 2009 Overview: The Subcommittee members agree that the Hillside Preservation ordinance included in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance is incomplete and should be revised. The following is a summary list of topics that should either be added to the ordinance or furtber developed or considered. The topics have been categorized as follows: Adopted measures to be incorporated into the ordinance Discussion items with consensus (not fully developed, but recommended for consideration or further development). Discussion items without consensus. 1. Adopted Measures: a. A regulation to protect specifically identified, landmark "ridgelines and knolls" should be added. The committee has developed a map locating ridgelines and knolls to be protected. The map should be further developed to include lot lines, topographic and the locations and elevations of community "viewing platforms". Consensus has not been reached on the specific details or text of the regulation (see below) b. Tiered applicability and review process based on type on scope of application (see tables for development review and submittal requirements for single lot developments, major and minor subdivisions) c. Ordinance regulations and guidelines will also apply to residential remodels, additions, and accessory dwellings, as well as redevelopment or subdivision of existing developed parcels (per the "Tiered Development Review" tables). d. Submittal requirements including visual analysis and site analysis/opportunities and constraints map (see attached tables) e. Expand range of applicability to include hillside west of Petaluma Blvd. North from Baily Ave. to city limit. 2. Discussion items with consensus: a. The ordinance should include provisions for "clustered development" in the hillside zones to encourage preservation of prime community open space and significant natural features (Per General Plan 3-P-71). Language needs to be developed that will allow for deviations from underlying development standards (setbacks, lot sizes) without creating P.U.D.'s b. Modification to Petaluma's subdivision ordinance to require all subdivisions (major and minor) within hillside zones to go to SPARC for site plan review prior to tentative map hearing. c. SPARC review process — to be coordinated with policy being developed by the "Roles and Responsibilities" subcommittee d. Need to coordinate ordinance with other Goals, policies, ordinances, regulations and guidelines to eliminate contradictions or discrepancies e. City fire officials, engineers, planners, etc. need to work together to develop new street standards allowing steeper, narrower streets with different sidewalk and parking requirements to reduce impacts to hillsides. f. Design Guidelines should be written for hillside development. This would be a separate document including site and building design guidelines for development within the hillside zones. g. Modified street lighting standards should be adopted to reduce light pollution in the hillside zones. h. There should be a way to monitor development applications outside the city limit, but within the physical "Hillside Backdrop" of Petaluma. Coordinate with county planners to adopt or encourage compliance with Petaluma's standards and guidelines where applicable. i. Add language to provide exemptions when the ordinance threatens the economic viability of a subjected parcel. Suggested language: i. If the compliance with any section of the ordinance compromises the economic viability of the parcel, the proposed project may be exempt from only the (those) section(s) of the ordinance that eliminate such viability. Ii. Economic viability is defined as the ability to construct a residential dwelling that conforms to all applicable zoning and building codes, hillside ordinance, etc., and is similar to and consistent with (like and kind) the typical residence located in the immediate area. Discussion items without consensus: j. Specific details and language of the ridgeline regulation were not discussed within the committee. Two possible standards were suggested, along with accompanying graphics and qualifiers: i. "All structures must be setback from the ridge so that no portion of any improvements is visible above the ridgeline or disturbs the visibility of the natural contour of the ridgeline from the perspective of the appropriate view platforms. This is a minimum standard, and reviewing and approval bodies are directed to make every attempt to increase the setback so that additional ridgeline areas remain visible whenever possible." (see graphic) ii. "No point on the proposed structure may extend above the parcel's `ridgeline midpoint elevation'. The `ridgeline midpoint elevation' is defined as the median elevation between the highest and lowest points on a ridgeline contained within the project parcel"(see graphic) k. The hillside ordinance could include regulations requiring a secondary setback, identifying a "Non -improvement area" to restrict the location of certain site improvements. Suggested text and definitions: i. Definition of "Non -Improvement Area" Land or site area that is designated to remain undeveloped and undisturbed, and in its natural state. Grading excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, equestrian trails, picnic areas and planting, and landscaping which enhances the natural environment, are permitted when approved through an environmental and design review process. ii. Formula for Minimum "Non -Improvement Area" ® The minimum amount of "non -improvement area" should be equal to 15% of the gross site area, plus the percentage figure of average slope. ® Example: the minimum "non -improvement area" for a site with a 10% average slope is 25% (15% + 10% avg. slope = 25%). • Sites containing 10,000 square feet or less are exempt from the minimum "non -improvement area" requirement. 1. Modifications could be made to site grading slope and retaining wall restrictions to reduce impacts to hillsides (allow taller walls and steeper slopes to reduce the footprint of the disturbed area). In. Exception to Hills i de/Ridgeline Ordinance "If the compliance with any section of the ordinance cannot be adhered to without eliminating the economic viability of the parcel, the proposed project may be exempt from only the (those) section(s) of the ordinance, and to the extent of the requirement(s), that eliminate such viability. Economic viability is defined as the ability to construct a residential dwelling that conforms to all applicable zoning and building codes, hillside ordinance, etc., and is similar to and consistent with (like and kind) the typical residence located in the immediate area." DCAC Hillside Summary 09-0122.doe 1. New development— Development of a vacant parcel, new construction of a primary building on a developed parcel, construction of a primary building when the primary building on the site has been demolished. 2. When determining the amount of grading, the amount of cut is added to the amount of fill in order to account for the total amount of modification to the hillside. 3. The excavation for poollspa is not included as part of site grading. 4. This includes all areas of cut slope that is steeper than 3:1. When there is more than one location that exceeds 3:1, the square footage of each location will be added together and the total square footage may not exceed the square footage noted in the applicable tier above. Single Lot Development Submittal Requirements I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TIERS Tier 1 Building Permit Review Existing conditions site plan with contours, existing trees Building elevations Tier If Administrative SPARC' Project Descdption2 Existing conditions site plan with contours Grading plant Building elelvations2 Context olanz Landscape olan2 Fence detail2 Site Section(s) Tier III SPARC' Project Descriptionz Grading plane _ Building elelvations2 Context plant Landscape plant Fence detai12 Site Section(s) Opportunities and constraints map3 Usual analysis3 As required by Planning staff or the decision making authority Information as needed to determined compliance with Information as needed to determined compliance with Information as needed to determined compliance with Tree Preservation requirement54 Tree Preservation requirements4 Tree Preservation requirements^ Arborist report andlor tree preservation and protection Arborist report and/or tree preservation and protection Arborist report and/or tree preservation and protection olan4 plan4 plan4 1. Additional submittal requirements are included as part of the Development Permit Application Submittal Matrix. 2. Required as part of typical administrative SPARC and SPARC application. 3. Required by Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Protection Chapter, Section 16.060 (L), Submittal Documents for Single Lot Development, 4. Required by Zoning Ordinance Tree Preservation Chapter, Section 17.070. Single Lot Development (rev 7/08108) Process Guideline Compliance Public Notice/Hearing Improvements New residence Additions to existing residence Detached Accessory Buildings/Structures Decks Retaining walls Grading2, a TIERS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Tier 1 Tier II Building Permit Review Applicable guidelines are applied as standards. Required to comply with all applicable guidelines. Applicant may apply to Admin SPARC and/or SPARC Review for projects not in compliance with the guidelines. None NIA :5 250 sq. ft or 20 of the square footage of the residence, whichever is greater 5 350 sq. ft. 5 30" in height measured from natural grade and consistent with all applicable guidelines s 5 feet in height measured from grade 5100 cubic yards Maximum cut slope 3:1— a maximum of 1,000 cumulative4 square feet of cut slope steeper than 3:1 is permitted when this will reduce grading, protect natural site amenities, and/or provide necessary access (stairs, pathways, driveways, etc.) Administrative SPARC (Zoning Administrator) Guidelines are applied as standards. Required to comply with all applicable guidelines. Staff makes decision and determines applicable guidelines and compliance with guidelines. When not in compliance, project goes to SPARC. Public Notice NIA More than 250 square feet to 700 square feet or More than 20% to 45% of the square footage of the residence, whichever is greater More than 350 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft. > 30" in height measured from natural grade and consistent with all applicable guidelines NIA Greater than 100 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards Maximum cut slope 3:1 - a maximum of 2,000 cumulative4 square feet of cut slope steeper than 3:1 is permitted when this will reduce grading, protect natural site amenities, and/or provide necessary access (stairs, pathways, driveways, etc.) Tier III SPARC SPARC makes decision and determines applicable guidelines and compliance with guidelines. Review of Tier I and II projects when staff has determined that they are not in compliance with the guidelines and applicant applies for SPARC review. Public Notice Public Hearing New Development' as defined by the ordinance More than700 square feet or More than 45% of the square footage of the existing residence, whichever is greater More than 700 square feet When not consistent with the guidelines When not consistent with the guidelines > 1,000 cubic yards Cut slopes that exceed 3:1 for more than 2,000 square feet Tentative Map Development Standard Density Lot Size Lot Configuration Lot Dimensions (Width and Depth) Primary Building Setbacks Clustered Subdivision Must be consistent with the General Plan density range and Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070 (D), Density Lot size required by Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070(C) may be reduced in order to comply with General Plan policies and to avoid site constraints and to preserve site amenities. The lot configuration should be responsive to site constraints and amenities and shall result in a buildable lot. Lot dimensions required by the zoning district for the property may be reduced in order to comply with General Plan policies and with Hillside Protection requirements and guidelines and to avoid site constraints and to preserve site amenities. When the lot size is reduced, consideration should be given to using the lot dimensions for the most similar zoning district (e.g. if lot size is similar to R2, consider using the dimensions for this zoning district). The appropriate lot width and depth would be determined by the review authority as part of the entitlement process. Primary building setbacks required by the zoning district for the property may be reduced in order to comply with General Plan policies and with Hillside Protection requirements and guidelines and to avoid site constraints and to preserve site amenities. Consideration should be given to using the setbacks for the most similar zoning district (e.g. if lot size is similar to R2, consider using the setbacks for this zoning district). The appropriate setbacks would be determined by the review authority as part of the entitlement process. Accessory Structures and The setbacks for accessory structures default to the zoning district for Pools/Spas the property (see Zoning Ordinance Tables 4.7 and 4.8). The setbacks for pools and spas default to the zoning ordinance (Section 7.080). There is no maximum size for accessory structures, pools/spas. " Open/Natural Space" Open/usable space would be primarily common space. Non -Clustered Subdivision Must be consistent with the General Plan density range and Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070 (D), Density Must be consistent with the minimum parcel size as determined by Zoning Ordinance Section 16.070 (C). The lot configuration should be responsive to site constraints and amenities and shall result in a buildable lot. Minimum dimensions must be consistent with the Development Standards for the zoning district in which the property is located (see Zoning Ordinance Tables 4.7 and 4.8). Lot dimensions may be increased in order to comply with General Pian policies and with Hillside Protection requirements and guidelines. Lot dimensions may not be decreased without a rezoning. Identify a "primary building and improvement area" that would include the location of the improvements related to the residence (e.g. residence, driveway, covered parking, uncovered parking, etc.). In order to respond to site conditions, the setbacks could be reduced when specific findings could be made by the review authority. In no case would a larger "primary building area" than that allowed by the setbacks for the underlying zoning for the parcel be permitted. Any future additions to the residence would be required to be located in the "primary building area." Accessory structures, buildings and pools and spas could also be located in the "primary building area," Process - Based an the Single Lot Development requirements, these improvements would be subject to SPARC review and approval.' Identify an "improvement area" where these structures and uses would be required to be located. This may be more restrictive than allowed by the zoning ordinance and would be identified as part of the TPM/TSM. 1 Identify a "non -improvement area" where structures and pools and spas could not be located. The "non -improvement area" would remain close to its existing/natural state at the time of the subdivision application. Landscaping would be allowed in this area. Open/usable space would be includedlidentified as part of each lot. In order to comply with General Plan policies, this open/usable space may be greater than the setbacks required by the zoning district in which the property is located. The appropriate amount of openlusable space would be determined by the review authority as part of the entitlement process. Preference would be to make this area as large as possible. Definition of 'improvement area and 'non -improvement area' to be determined Subdivision Process & Submittal Requirements Tentative Map Tentative Parcel Map (4 or fewer parcels) Process Roles and Responsibilities Subcommittee is recommending a change to this process. Public Notice/Hearing Public Notice Submittal Requirements4 Project Description2 Environmental Impact Quesfionnaire2 Site Planz Grading PIan2 Street Sections2 Site Sections Topographic Survey3 Opportunities and Constraints Map Slope Analysls3— at a minimum delineating slopes of 0-10%/ 10-15%; 15 to less than 30%; more than 30% Visual Analysis from applicable viewing platforms only Tentative Subdivision Map (more than 4 parcels) Roles and Responsibilities Subcommittee is recommending a change to this process. Public Notice for Planning Commission and City Council meetings Public Hearing at Planning Commission and City Council Project Description2 Environmental Impact Questionnalre2 Site Plane Grading Plane Street Sections2 Site Sections Topographic Survey3 Opportunities and Constraints Map Slope Analys10— at a minimum delineating slopes of 0-10%; 10-15%; 15 to less than 30%; more than 30% Visual Analysis from applicable viewing platforms only 1. SPARC review is required prior to review and approval by review authority. New requirement as part of Development Code 2. Required as part of the Development Permit Application Submittal Matrix. 3. Required by Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Protection Chapter, Section 16.070 (G), Submittal Documents for Hillside Subdivisions. 4. If buildings are proposed as part of the subdivision, the following are also required: Architectural drawings2 ■ Visual analysis3 ■ Landscape planting plan for common areas, tree mitigations, cuYfill slope revegetation, and typical front yard.2 5. Visual Analysis would include the following: project boundary, lot boundaries, setbacks, improvements (driveways, roads, grading, retaining walls, fencing). Note: Site sections are typically provided as part of a tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map. tcsol All structures must be setback from the ridge so that no portion of any improvements is visible above the ridgeline or disturbs the visibility of the natural contour of the ridgeline from the perspective of the appropriate view piatforms. This is a minimum standard and reviewing and approval bodies are directed to make every attempt to increase the setback so that additional ridgeline areas remain visible whenever possible. /m I Oct r, A Draft Minutes Historic Preservation Subcommittee January 2009 I What we agreed on 1. Use the General Plan, Chapter 3, as scaffold for new ordinance 2. a. Bring design guidelines for the three historic districts into agreement with our new ordinance to simplify, update and coordinate. i. Oak Hill Brewster ii. A Street iii. Downtown Historic Commercial b. Areas not addressed in those guidelines include but are not limited to: outbuildings, landscaping, new construction. 3. CPSP historic references need to agree with General Plan and new ordinance. 4. Pursue CLG status for the City of Petaluma 5. Develop a separate Historic and Cultural Commission for the City. II What is still hanging out there Developing content sections for the ordinance. 2. Using the draft Two Commission Model proposal submitted by staff, define the purview/scope of decision making of the Historic Preservation Committee when working with SPARC 3. Strengthening the link between sustainability/green building and historic preservation. III Obstacles/Opportunities Work from existing ordinances, our own and others suggested earlier by Diana Painter. Cull from her 07.11.08 list cities that are about our size and have CLG status. N Timeline/Next Steps 1. Familiarize ourselves with current ordinance and the General Plan, Ch. 3. 2. Evaluate other ordinances for use as a model/template. 3. Develop an outline from GP, Ch. 3 and flesh it out using OHP publication and other sources as references. PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS -- MAJOR SUBDIVISION 1. Neighborhood Meeting a. Must apply for neighborhood meeting through the City and pay related fees. b. City Staff (planner assigned to the project) accepts application and any materials applicant has at the time. C. City Staff notices neighbors w/in certain distance of the proposed project of a meeting to be held/hosted by the City of Petaluma and a public notice goes out (local paper and/or other). d. Meeting is only for applicantto show neighbors ideas on what is being applied for and to gather neighbors thoughts/concerns e. Staff does nothing but host meeting, state what the meeting is for and take notes on the happenings of the meeting. f. This process MUST be done prior to an application being able to be submitted. 2. Project Application a. Step #1 MUST happen prior to an application being made. b. Application must include everything outlined by the City as part of a checklist (PIEW�. ITEM?) to be accepted. 3. Application Deemed Complete (30 days) a. If application contains all items listed on checklistili (for proper project) and all information is complete, the application is deemed complete. 4. Advisory Committee Hearing as Necessary/Required—Including (but not limited toe) Parks, Bicycle and Tree Committee.(2) (3) 5. SPARC Meeting Site Plan—Big Picture Review —Mandatory and Advisory a. Meeting is publicly noticed. b. Rcrc f -,c "_e pa: t of the meetieg s i.i, :-ff_ti iRN :t.Staff compiles all comments from meetings by all groups (ie, those in #1 and #4) C. Staff 61986 a r$yides- PIARS r1 ^ "*^ ' as pz,-tzf ap lica Staff compiles all comments from previous meetings and makes findings whether project complies with General Plan and IZO. d. Staff takes notes and provides minutes to all after meeting. e. SPARC makes recommendation to applicant and/or PC 6. Project Review by Staff a. Project planner distributes project materials to city departments for review and comment. b. City Staff reviews application (must set some sort of timeline so applicants know what to expect)(4) c. City Staff responds to application with list of "issues/concerns/comments" (ICC's) taking into account fs:�.�natle neighborhood concerns and SPARC (and a4W all other Committee) meetings findings. d. Dialog between staff and applicant occurs to address ICCs. 7. Preliminary Conditions a. When the applicant has done everything that can be done or that he/she is willing to do to address all of staff's concerns, the applicant requests the preparation of the Preliminary Conditions of Approval (PCOA). b. Staff prepares the PCOA and supplies those conditions to the applicant for review and identifies unresolved conditions. 8. development Advisory Committee Meeting (DAC) a. DAC is made up of Staff Planner, City Engineer and all other City Departments that aFe appliEable to attend have reviewed ^nditim;ed the project(Fire, Traffic, etc.) as well as a representative from the Planning Commission. DAC is scheduled on a set date/time of each month (Frxibr tvfi ent 4 ner:essary._-v;;yh ar V-., the rd Wzzl c# cicry r�cntk frAR;."'^^^'"'^^ R. DAC p ont;ngs—Advisory Committees/commissions shall be noticed when applicable. c. Once Prelim -Conditions have been sent out, applicant can request to be on the next DAC agenda. d. DAC occurs.... applicant and staff attempt to work through all remaining X-CPCOAs. Applicant makes changes/concessions where able/necessary, Staff makes changes/concessions where able/necessary. PCOA's can be re -written, and se ^^ 9. Planning Commission —PC a. Once DAC is complete, Staff prepares full Staff Report containing Condition of Approvals (COA). b. As part of Staff Report, Staff outlines all i­WCOAs and provides recommendations (Staff must recommend approval or denial of a project and support its recommendation). c. PC issues findings, recommendations and/or approval(s) of tentative map 1. PC approves with right of appeal to city council. 2. PC recommends to city council for approval 10. SPARC-iGFMa(Detailed a. Only review being done here is "nuts and bolts". ... architecture, facilities (such as parks, etc.). b. SPARC findings can be appealed to City Council. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUES WITHOUT CONSENSUS JANUARY 2009 Below I have tried to group the items I have identified as issues on which the roles and responsibilities subcommittee has not reached consensus. I have grouped them by the two submittals we are making. PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS — MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Issues without consensus: 9. Planning Commission — PC a. Once DAC is complete, Staff prepares full Staff Report containing Condition of Approvals (COA). b. As part of Staff Report, Staff outlines all +C4�COAs and provides recommendations (Staff must recommend approval or denial of a project and support its recommendation). C, PC issues findings, recommendations and/or approval(s) of tentative map L. PC approves with right of appeal to city council. 2. PC recommends to city council for approval 10. SPARCPeFR;al Detailed d. Only review being done here is "nuts and bolts architecture, facilities (such as parks, etc.). e. SPARC findings can be appealed to City Council, 14, City Engineer accepts the FM/IP as complete and as in compliance with the TM/COA and can either f. Sign off, formally approving for construction or g. Take to Council with recommendation to approve, then sign off once Council approves. FOOTNOTE: (4) #35 an the Tentative Map Requirement Checklist needs to be reviewed or eliminated as well as the note under "Submitted Requirements Relating to Staff Discretion" on the Development Permit Application.. Concern about endless incompleteness. Il. August 21st memo Issues without consensus. 2. Mixed use building(s)/projects: Placeholder: Depending on where the Development Standards subcommittee ends up with the task of "defining" mixed use (Lynch and Barrett to act as liaisons). a. Any qualifying mixed use building/project (compliant with the established definition of mixed use) is simply subject to SPARC review or b. If the mixture of uses falls below the threshold established by Development Standard (is toren, minimal, or nonexistent), the mixture of uses (as reflected by the form/layout of the building/project) shall be subject to PC review and approval prior to SPARC approval. 3. Environmental documents, including E1Rs, to be certified by review body with decision malting authority of the project. Exception: in the case of an EIR where the adoption of overriding considerations is necessary, the decision of the regular review body shall be advisory and the CC shall have the final approval. Roles and Responsibilities Subcommittee August 2l't 2008 Memo Revised, January 2009 Subcommittee Task: Identify the role and responsibility of each Committee/Commission/Council (HCP/SPARC/PC/CC) I. Understand that major projects such as shopping centers, apartment and condominium complexes, may only be subject to SPARC review and approval (where no TSM, GPA, FEIA, or Rezoning), 2. Mixed use buildings)/projects: Placeholder: Depending on where the Development Standards subcommittee ends up with the task of "defining" mixed use (Lynch and Barrett to act as liaisons). a. Any qualifying mixed use building/project (compliant with the established definition of mixed use) is simply subject to SPARC review or b. If the mixture of uses falls below the threshold established by Development Standard (is token, minimal, or nonexistent), the mixture of uses (as reflected by the form/layout of the building/project) shall be subject to PC review and approval prior to SPARC approval. 3. Environmental documents, including EIRs, to be certified by review body with decision making authority of the project. Exception: in the case of an EIR where the adoption of overriding considerations is necessary, the decision of the regular review body shall be advisory and the CC shall have the final approval. 4. Residential Condo Conversions: Still to PC for recommendation and CC for approval. 5. CUPs and variances as now, subject to PC review and approval, including: a. Adult Entertainment CUP = PC 21-410.40 b. Cardroom CUP =PC 21-420.10 c. Alcoholic Beverage Establishment CUP =PC or Director 21-430.10 6. The historic review function will be done by a separate corunittee (as recommended by the CLG)—the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) which would be comprised of S Council appointed members having qualifications as specified by the CLG: 2 members from the professions listed and all others demonstrating an interest, knowledge, and competence in historic preservation (one means of demonstrating this could be attendance at the State Preservation Conference). a. HPC would have purview over; • Design review applications within a residential historic district (Oak Hill/Brewster & A Street) and those properties listed individually on a local, state or national listing (additions, exterior modifications, new structure); except in condition described under Joint review, bullet 3. • Fagade modifications in Commercial Historic District. + Projects subject to the City's demolition policy (Resp 2005-198) • Exceptions (minor setback deviations) for projects before the HPC (rather than also going to the Planning Commission), ie, variances. b. HPC would meet 'oil �ntly.with SPARC on the following items: • New structures and major additions within the Commercial Historic District. • Projects involving an eligible resource not yet listed or within an historic district (see c, below) • Multi -family (3 or more attached units) or non-residential principle building (new or major addition* to existing) in Residential Historic Districts (rare) * major addition needs to be defined. • Each board votes separately: a majority of each board is needed for approval. Subdivision: In the case of a larger entitlementlsubdivision involving an historic resource: + Project first goes to HPC for decision regarding: o Whether a resource exists and o Wliether to recommend to CC that the resource be listed. [Listing process is separate and should not impact project progress.] If resource exists, then to joint SPARC/HPC review for: o Recommendation to PC on the site plan and o Decision whether architectural (detail) review will be done jointly or whether to establish a resource "sphere" within which HPC will have architectural review purview and outside of which SPARC will have purview. After map approval, architectural (detail) review done jointly or separately (with HPC reviewing any modifications proposed to resource parcel and SPARC reviewing the remainder of project) — as determined at previous joint hearing. [Note: minor projects to be reviewed at the administrative level similar to current system, subject to recommendation of DCAC's Historic Preservation Subcommittee. 7. SPARC shall be comprised of 5 members 4 Council appointed and one liaison from the Planning Commission. At least two members should be qualified (eg: architect, landscape architect, contractor, civil engineer or planner) and two should be community members showing an interest, knowledge and competence in site planning and/or architecture. SPARC application should be updated. 8. Keep concept of Zoning Administrator in Development Code. Better define who serves this function, the Assistant Director of Community Development Department, or equivalent. 9. Set up, strongly encourage and finance training of members of all decision making bodies. Use community assets for training, and include urban planning lecture series. PROJECT TYPE NEW RESIDENTIAL, (Law Income, Single Family, i4lultifamily, Granny Unit) 0 s 640 sq. 11. a I 541e1.200 sa. it, C I 1,201 t 1.700 sq ft. D I 1,701 2 2,700 sq. fl. ISE 2,701 so. It. 2 I I GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS A INew construction or remodel ofa Gamge or an Accessary Building, with an estimated construction cost of $15,000 or more. I !I B INew construction or remade) of Garage or an Accessory Building with au estimated cunstruction cost of S 15,000 or less. DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS (Build It Green Greenpoints Ratedrat or LEER) 55 points 76 Doints 60 points 100 points tis pointsana the home must meet or exceed energy efficiency (Title 24) standards of a 2,701 sq. 11. house Documentation prat least two (2) points from the current Build It Green " New Home Construction Guidelines or Document at least (two) 2 measures from tire current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines. These pain is or measures must he completed prior to final inspection and; Provide a completed and signed Build It Green "New Home Construction or Remodel Ctlecklist No points or measures required. Provide a completed and signed Build It Green "' New Home Construction or Remodel Checklist TYPE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION Notes Generafivnceft4 is that.nur rsldenll�l program Is quite H hH easIertf4en Uid cote(Gal wlth 30 pts. For 4616 above 124 and 14 for city solar and water requirements not that hand 1n achive 6 pis o be at 50 also we may need to have people bond for the final plaque Applicant provides Green Points Rater' None None CADomments and SeltingslmmuorelLucaf Selfings%Temporary Internet FilesYOunlent.OullooklWIZBWo995Copy of Jan-09_Green_Faucel Mandatory Table(l) (2F5,xls 2710/2009 DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 G Lew-Foe-ease-Remadek7FAdditie3t++itltakt-Pto+�idf satnpleted-om+#-signed-Btkild-;E-Breetr-Eletftadel�heekli5t NoaeaStan estimated er-less C:%Documents and SettingsWmoorelLoca# SellingslTemporary Internet FiieslContenl.OullockSWIZBWDB9%Copy of Jan-01tGmnn_Pxcel Mandatory Table(1) (2} 5.xls 271012009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF THLRD PARTY PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Greenpoints RatedT" or LEED) VERIFICATION Notes RESIDENTIAL REMODELS AND ADDITIONS (Low Income, Single Family, Muldfamily, Granny Unlo A Residential Remodel and/or Addition wills an Applicant must comply with the the applicable requitements for new residential Applicant provides Green Points Rater' estimated continction cost of 5200,000 or construction above. Energy Audit &Flame Performance Testing with Documentation Look Into us€ng BIG I;xialing mnrr reotlrerl Homos Guidelines In 2009 B Residential Remodel and/or Addition with an Document at least (five) 5 measures from the current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines. None estimated construction cost of between Document at least (five) 5 paints from the current Build It Green Remodel New $50,000 and 5199,999. Construction Guidelines. '[hese measures must be completed prior to final inspection and; Energy Audit & Home Performance Testing with Documentation required. Provide a completed and signed Build It Green" Remodel Checklist, Look Into using BIG Existing Homes Guidelines in 2000 C Remodel and/or Additiam with an Document at least (two) 2 measures from the current Build It Green Remodel Guidelines.' None IResidential estimated construction cast ofbetween These measures must be completed prior to final inspection and; S 15,000 and $49,999 Provide a completed and signed Build It Green" Remodel Checklist Look Into using BIG Existing Homes Guidu0nes h 25109 Residential Remodel and/or Addition with an No points or measures required. None IStalf estimated construction cost of S 15,000 or leas. Provide a completed and signed Build It Gretat Remodel Checklist Look Into using BIG Existing I Hames Guldellnas In 2009 e.-,-., 4 GGME-RF9I0KNT-F:4I PROTECT-5;Al•''� rs"•,c.r'rv,i-rti{f4ini �-Ri'SkdBttH81-E©115HIkEFi9h {y�}HtmaEik;�t�Q1lt1SI-It�+feen�-ikOltlLS-frflmilte-rci}FFCIk9mf�cenSHiie-HBII-BF �PPli��nt-pfHS`idefr�ifEen-]x9fmi5-13sit1eF PF*ets ::Sik14i-fam+3y-fiuidelineS� $ -fresco-Llte-eurfenF-MId-IF6feeti-Renkedel-6nidelines= Nene45taff "timeted-cekKHikEHell-Ca5' ^rv,�aat c n�n��F :Phpee-measures-mug"cutnplete"FieFiR ii44nspe66e"nd' mate IF 6reem"--Remradel-Gheeklist G Lew-Foe-ease-Remadek7FAdditie3t++itltakt-Pto+�idf satnpleted-om+#-signed-Btkild-;E-Breetr-Eletftadel�heekli5t NoaeaStan estimated er-less C:%Documents and SettingsWmoorelLoca# SellingslTemporary Internet FiieslContenl.OullockSWIZBWDB9%Copy of Jan-01tGmnn_Pxcel Mandatory Table(1) (2} 5.xls 271012009 DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF THIRD PARTY PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Greenpoints RatedTd1 ur LEED) VERIFICATION .CON hiF.RCIAL A Nein Commercial Building(s) and mnjor Tlic minimum number of points to achieve LEED Silver Certirted Applicant provides LEED AP' renovations w(th a total area of 20,000 sq. fr. Note: Project must be documcnfed by a LEED AP and be ccrd6ed with the United States or marc Green Building Council. B Nest, Commercial Buildings) with a total T11c minimum number of points to achitvc LEED Silver. Applicant provides LEED AP' area hetivecrn 19,999 and 3,000 sq. ft, Note: Project must be registered with the USGBC and receive by a LEED AP but does Applicants LEED AP must register their project with the not aced to be certified with ilia United States Green Building Council. USGBC and receive Dcsigu Phase Pre -Approval prior to submitting for building permit, G Naw Commercial Dialding(s) with it coral Document at least (two) 2 measures front the current Build It Green Remodel Guidefincs.' None area of 3,000 sq. ft or less These measures must be completed prior to final inspection and; Provide a completed and signed Build It Green" Remodel Checklist 'The City reserves ilio right to have any green bulldhU dueumentaliion peer reviewed by a consultant of the My's choosing at the rest of the appEicant. (Nolo: This is the same pracfice the City has used for man t years when applicants submitted traffic reports and histor#cal evaluations. Notes C:4Documenls and 5e111ngs%mmoore1ccal 5e111ngs1Tamporary Intermit FilesVCenler t.Oulloak%W12BWD998 Copy of Jan -09 -Green -Excel Mandalory Table(1) (2)•5,xis 2110(2000 DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF THIRD PARTY PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Greenpoints RatedTat or LEED) VERIFICATION Notes CONIRIERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS i A Projects which include interior and/or exterior 5516 of all possible points from the current LEER for Commercial Interiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED AP* modifications with an estimated evaluation of LEED for New Construction Checklist SlafTwould have to detutnine %of points based upon more than S2,oco,000, Staff would have to detcrnine "i6 ofpoinrs, scope of work. Staff weu[d have to detemine % Registering with USGBC. LEED Certification required. of points. I B Projerts which include interior and/or exterior 55% of all possible points from the current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED AP` rnodificatious with an estimated evaluation of LEED for New Construction Checklist Staff would have to detcm€nc %of points based upon Staff would have to detemine % more than S 1,000,000 and less than SlafTwau€d have to detemine 90 ofpoinm scope of work. of points. 52,000,000, No way to provide 3rd party check because not registering with USGBC No way to provide 3rd party check No way to provide Std party 'check C Projects which include interior and/or exterior 45;n of all possible points from the current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED AP' modifications with an estimated evaluation of LEED for new Construction, Staff would have to detemine % of paints based upon more than 5500,000 and less titan 5999,999, scope of work. No way to provide 3rd party check D Projects which include interior and/or exterior :3596 of all possible points from the current LEED for Commercial Interiors Checklist or Applicant provides LEED AP` modifications with an estimated evaluation of LEED for new Construction. SlafTwuuld have to dctemine % of points based upon more than 550,000 and less than 5499,000, scope of work. No way to provide 3rd potty check E Projects which include interior and/or exterior A completed and siLuted Build It Green ° Remodel Green Building Checklist" None modifications with on estimated evaluation of $49,999 or less. All\ED USE PROJECTS WITH RES•DENTIAL UNITS A Mixed Use projects will be required to men[ the residential and commercial point levels describe above. Applicants will meet with City staff to determine the level of green requirements based on type of project (i.e. percentage of residential and commercial) !Staff would have to datemine % of polnls. No way to provide 3rd party check Staff would have to delamine % of points. No way to provide 3rd party check C (Documents and Sel[IngsImmocre1ocal SetiingsSTempordry Internet FileslContenl.OutlooktVVIZBYYD99ICopy of Jan-09_Greon_Frtcel Mandatory Table(1) (2}5,xls 2f1012009 600ZJONZ slx'94Z1 i 1?algei .GOIEPUEN Ieax3_uaat:aJBo-uEf to AdooteeiiM8ZIM%40011n0'lualuo3lsal€d lawnluI Ajrjodwa1�s6ulttaS pue sluswn000y:o 'Elulou l4 % B41W919P a3 aneq pinwn llslS •pann6at uoil"jpinZ) 331.1 -jgDSn ;pm Ru[lais!I4ad saJOK •+pom jo adoas uodn paseq siapd jo % au!walap at aneq p[noM jje1S .dV Q33-1 saplAwd Iuea![ddV leuolssalwd pal!PRJ33V 0331 !euo!ssalald Pal!pwaa'd 1331 leuolssalwd PallPalaaV 0331 leuolssalwd pallPwaaV 4331 PeISJ auON leuOlssalOJd Pal€Pataay (331 leuolssalwd Pal!PwaoV x331 N101LL` DLdRIHA AJ,HVa aim -ILL go aaA L •51u]od3o t+,o au!walap a1 ancq p1nom-11+15 '000`000'Zs untp aloes lstp[aat[a uogatttlsua:) maN loj g32-1 jo nopnnlnna patnwtlsa vu qI!M suopcal!pow !o tstp[aagZ) sinpawl [utalawwo0 tai (133,1luaslna aq1 wolj slwod a1q!SS0d pu jo wags !4!1alx2 JO/Puc aouatu! apn[au! g3nIM slaafmd' pan[asalull, sluawanoldwl lueuaL [ulalaww40 Rutp[tng 110;110 SMUTS Pat!ufl - 3fl'JSfI [ 51ION ssa[ !o 666'gr5 jn u4pen[ena patcwttsa un 1p!M Saapcag!Pow ts![.yaat[� Su!p[!ng uaatD Al!tuuitllnlV, W WD II PI!ng paw9is pun Pala[dtuoa V loualxa tofput:loualut apn[aat liaigM slaafotd 0 000'66VS uet115531 poo 000'09s ucgt WOtu 'Sliam jo adoas uodn paseq uo!IOtulsuna mau !nj Q33'I jo u4!lenlen0 patew,gsa un [[JIM suo!lt:ag!pout 10ls!ry. oagz) slnuawl [etalawtua:) laj pH3.1 maum Dip w4ij sln!od a[q!ssod [le ja gaps 10PI a l4JPun ]4LLaill[ 3pn[aw gaFl[M 5133f0ld p '666'6665 ungl ssal POP 0000055 Oetp abut '.y1am jo adoas uodn pasuq uOtlawlanoJ MON !oj Q331 jo EoucnIma palcwgso uc gl!m suugnu!pow !o 1stplaagJ sicipalal lupiawwoD laj gg3-1 i=mm at[; woij slutod a[q!ssod 11c30 %SL tuualYa to/pue soualat opnlau! ga[gm sinfo3d 8 •ylam jo aaoas uodn pasng [!aunaa nmp[tng unzq) '000,000, E s uc47 aloLu soIrIS pal!ufl aql grim pay»!3a aq pun dV C gR-j n �q pawawnaap aq Isom saafuld :aloN jo Wgtln[ena Palnw!lsa au tp!M s110p113g!pow pag!paJ m^I!S 433-1 ana!g3n al snood ja jagwna wuw!u!ur aiLL mp:OYa ja pnc muaw! opnlau!'amen slaOfwd y 1s![t[30110 Iapowall i• uaalD 11 pltng pauR!s pan pala[dwoa c ap!Acud :pun uopoadsu! Ieu>3 ul laud pala[dwoa ag tsnut salnsnaw asat[-1 •saugap!n!) [epaum-8 www) tl pl!ng wauna aqt woij salnscaw Z (oml)1sca11e waturmcl -Ilawtn:) Rulp[wg uaalrj salclS pa1!ujj 3111 qI!m paUpim aq of poat:lou saop 7nq dV ❑93'7 n Cq paluawnaap aq Isaw laafoid :ZION 'P39!u3J (I33"I ananlOc of slupd jo lagwnu wttw!utw wu SlN31u3A0il411fl LKVN31.,Al3 1 j :sai ao . J Gs 000'1' j0 Vdiv J4J U yJ4S1 �SJ�Utf1111gf1!J ltaN� 3 7j -Ls 656'6-000 , I jo vO.ry lulol v ylpu (s)2ulpling djjj otvg g 'Ls000'S uorut1sarjpasodordntav ' Jj6s', 60o+F f SI 2krpf Ut!! minami Jamil Atanl :alanl '[launoZ) Su!plwg uaaJD s31u1S paltup aql glpa pag!llaa aq Pun dV Q33'1 c Xq patuawn3op aq Isom 13401d :ZION aaow ao -1j'hs 000'01 fo 'patylllaa SOAPS 333-1 3nan137T 131 s=tood ju tagwnu wnw!utul at[j y {(131'I as 1,1galuu sluladuaa jD unaig 11 p[rnll} S.LN 3� Haulabait Naau0 Goon Xjv,nurf aa. jVad11 TIU,L a'IOHSJHH,L SJ K10d u321110 ,L21VUU S133P011d AlD I WA,L IDW02Id DRAFT GREEN POINTS THRESHOLD TABLE UPDATED January 2009 GREEN REQUIREMENTS PROJECT TYPE (Build It Green Green points Rated"' or LIKED) l0efnitlons Unrasolvad i Defininp. construction cast and make dollar estimates hascd an construction can tracts TYPE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION Notes C:%Documenls and SellinpstmmoorelLocal SeltingMTemporary Intemel FilesiContent [)viloak1W1ZBW00elCopy of Jan-00_Green_Fxcel Mandatory Tadla(1) (2)•5a1s 211012009 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail. W @ci petahana. ca. us DATE: August 19, 2008 TO: Development Code Advisory Committee FROM: Kim Jordan, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Development Standards Subcommittee Topics, Scope and Priorities Since the adoption of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, the Development Standards Subcommittee has not met. During the meetings for the IZO, the Development Standards Subcommittee created a list of topics that they felt should be addressed as part of the Development Code. The DCAC has also identified topics that would be appropriate for the Development Standards Subcommittee to address. In addition, the General Plan includes direction to include certain regulations and guidelines as part of the Development Code. Many of these appear to be appropriate topics for the Development Standards Subcommittee. It would be beneficial to the subcommittee and staff for the DCAC to identify, provide direction on, and prioritize the topics that should be addressed by the Development Standards Subcommittee. This is especially true given the current limitations of the City's budget and the availability of staff since many of the topics previously discussed would likely require the assistance of consultants and the City Attorney. The Development Standards Subcommittee identified the following topics while preparing the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. DEFINITIONS FOR ■ Sensitive Receptors ■ Mixed Use ■ Building Height ■ Lot Coverage ® Detached structures(or "building separation") REQUIREMENTS FOR • "Temporary" Carports • Location of garbage cans ® "Paving" materials for driveways, parking areas, etc. ® Lot coverage or FAR for structures and/or impervious surface CONSIDERATION OF • Modifications to the current parking requirements • Requiring "usable open space" as part of Mixed Use and Commercial projects ® Establishing threshold for what constitutes a Mixed Use project The Development Code Advisory Committee identified the following as potential topics: ■ Parking Revulations Outside of CPSP — Need to consider positive and negative impacts to on -street parking and neighborhoods. May require the assistance of a consultant (similar to work done for the CPSP SMART Code). ■ SMART Code Modifications — Consideration of modifications of SMART Code standards now that the regulations have been used for several years. Attempt to incorporate the SMART Code standards into the Development Code so that there is one document for Development. The CPSP is a policy document and does not need to be changed. ■ Planned Unit District Unified Zoning Concept — More than 100 PVDs of various eras. Each has its own set of zoning regulations. To date, it has been difficult to find unifying development standards, design intent, etc. ■ SU -m Regulations- Raises issues related to First Amendment and amortization of non- conforming signs. Requires an inventory of existing signs and determination of the status of the signs. Requires significant staff time and City Attorney time required. ■ Infill Development Standards/Guidelines — Concerns related to "mans ionization". Could consider development standards (FAR, daylight plane, etc.), design guidelines, SPARC review to address compatibility of new development/large additions. General Plan 2025 ■ The General Plan includes topics that were deferred to the Development Code. Staff is currently working on compiling the policies and programs that relate to the Development Code. This will be provided to the DCAC once it is available. 2 NORTH �ZIVER LANDING January 15, 2009 Mayor Pamela Torliatt City Council Members RE: Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) SmartCode Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The City of Petaluma remains the only city in the United States using the SmartCode without a provision for a "warrants" policy. Lack of this code provision has caused significant hardship for CPSP infill projects. Delays, costly redesigns, bureaucratic code interpretation, do not contribute to positive economic benefits for the City. At the January 8""SPARC hearing, I listened to exasperated SPARC members frustrated with the SmartCode's lack of flexibility with complex infill sites. I'm sure developers and planners alike share try angst with this inflexible blockade to progress. There is no practical reason for not having a "warrants" provision. The enclosed Draft Warrants Policy used by SmartCode cities has been modified by local SmartCode consultants for the City of Petaluma. This draft policy provides a fair and reasonable outcome for all impacted parties current and future. The logical solution is for the City Council to undo this oversight by amending the SmartCode to allow SPARC the empowerment they need to approve projects that benefit the community. Sincerely, Chris McCarthy General Partner Cc: John Brown, City Manager, Planning Commission, SPARC Committee, Mike Moore, George White, Community Planning Department Enclosure: Draft Warrants Policy EC"E ill E JAN 2 o 2009 COMMURITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT North River Landing, LP 101 'H' Street I Building D, Suite K 4 Petaluma, CA 94952 a 707.778.8393 c 707.479.8753 f 707.778.8398 north rive rland ing.com 8.10.050 WARRANTS A. The provisions of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan SmartCode are intended to govern and regulate the use and development of land within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. However, in those instances where reasons are shown that would warrant a deviation from the strict requirements of the provisions of the SmartCode, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall have authority to permit such deviations. Any such deviation, for the purposes hereof, shall be referred to as a "Warrant". B. A Warrant is an official decision that permits a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision(s) of this Code, but is justified because it is consistent with the intent of the development concepts, purpose and policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan as well as the SmartCode. C. In determining justifiable reasons for granting a Warrant, SPARC shall take into account either cumulatively or individually, among other relevant factors that may be applicable, the relationship of the property to other properties, whether the deviation would be in accord with the Purpose and intent of the SmartCode and Central Petaluma Specific Plan, principles of good land use planning as same may evolve over time, the topography of the property, or peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of the property. In determining whether to grant a Warrant, financial hardship shall not alone be considered sufficient to justify a deviation. In all events, SPARC shall take into consideration whether the proposed deviation may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purpose and intent of the SmartCode provisions. D. An action by SPARC to grant or deny a Warrant shall be subject to Section 8.10.040: Appeals. E. This Section 8.101.050 shall not be used to modify the Zoning District, Zoning Boundary or the permitted uses therein for any property, except for property located within the Conceptual Area Boundarv, shown on the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map. This section does not preclude requests for Zoning District or Zoning Boundary modifications following the procedure set forth in the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SMARTCODE OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT — February 13, 2009 (9:38am) by Wayne Miller AMENDMENT A SECTION S. Code Enforcement 8.10.060 Deviation From the SmartCode A. Intent The adopted goals and policies of the CPSP reflect the intentions of the community with respect to land use and development within the CPSP area, and the provisions of the SmartCode are intended to govern and regulate all matters involving the use and development of land within the Central. Petaluma Specific Plan area. In those instances where reasons are shown that would justify a deviation from the strict requirements of the provisions of the SmartCode as to property to which the SmartCode applies by operation of law or election of the property owner, the Commission shall have authority to permit such a deviation as an "Exception". B. Interpretations An Interpretation is a clarification as to the meaning, intention or scope of any provision of the SmartCode, whether in written, tabular or graphic format, as it pertains to a specific condition or design issue. Interpretations shall consider both the intent of the SmartCode and the Goals and Policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. 2. Section 8. 10.020 A. - Interpretation of Code Provisions grants the "Director", defined as the Director of Community Development Department of the City of Petaluma, the authority to interpret any provision of the code. 3. Per Section S. 10.020 A. of the SmartCode, The Director may also refer an issue of interpretation to the Commission for their determination. With respect to interpretations of or deviations from the SmartCode, "Commission" shall mean the Petaluma Planning Commission on matters pertaining to land use, and the Petaluma Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee for all other issues. 4. An Interpretation may be requested by any Applicant seeking approval of a development project within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. a- PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SMARTCODE OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT — February 13, 2009 (10:15 am) by Wayne Miller AMENDMENT B SECTION 3 - Building Functions Standards Table 3.1 Allowable Building Functions and Permit Requirements Multi -family Housing shall be a Permitted P(1) in the T6 Transect. SECTION 4 - Urban Standards Substitute the following language far that currently in the SniartCode. B. Location of residential uses. A mixed-use project that provides commercial and/or office space and residential uses within the boundaries of the project shall be considered a mixed-use project. When residential uses are located above a commercial or office use in a project, this is considered to be a vertical mix. When residential uses are located adjacent to or behind a commercial or office use, this is considered a horizontal mix. Projects may have either vertical or horizontal mix or a combination thereof. 2. When residential uses are placed over commercial and/or office uses, any frontage types appropriate for ground level commercial and/or office use and approved for the transect of the project such as Shopfront and Awning, Gallery or Arcade, or other frontage as may be approved by the Commission may be used. 3. When residential uses are located at the ground floor, any frontage type appropriate for this level and approved for the transect of the project such as Common Yard, Porch and Fence, Terrace or Light Court, Forecourt, Stoop or other frontage type as may be approved by the Commission may be used. 4. When a ground level space is designed to be flexibly used for residential, commercial or office use in accordance with Section 4.70.030 A. 1., any frontage type approved for the transect of the project may be used. 5. If after the issuance of an interpretation, it becomes apparent that an element of the proposed project design does not strictly comply with a provision of the SmartCode, the Applicant may apply for an Exception. C. Exceptions An Exception is an official decision that permits a practice or condition that is not consistent with one or more specific provisions of this Code, but is justified because the result is consistent with the intent of the Code and the Goals and Policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. 2. In determining justifiable reasons for granting an Exception, the Commission may take into account, among other relevant factors that may be applicable, the relationship of the property to other properties, whether the deviation would be in accord with the intent of the Specific Plan and SmartCode, principles of good land use planning and sustainable development which may evolve over time, the topography of the property, off-site infrastructure impacts, and peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of the property_ It may also consider whether granting the exception would result in a more resource and energy efficient project and compliance with mandated green building measures. In determining whether to grant an Exception, financial hardship shall not alone be considered sufficient to justify a deviation. In all events, the Commission shall take into consideration whether the proposed deviation be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the SmartCode provisions. 3. An application for an Exception by a project Applicant shall be accompanied by written and graphic analysis of the issue(s) under consideration, demonstrating the justifiable reasons for granting the requested exception. 4. In considering Exceptions for a project, the granting body must take into consideration whether or not the project as a whole would remain in substantial conformance with both the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and the SmartCode should Exceptions be granted. 5. An application for project approval may be deemed provisionally complete after any requested interpretations have been issued and applications for exception have been made by the Applicant. Both Interpretations and Exceptions shall be considered by the Commission as part of overall project review. The Director shall prepare interpretation and recommendations regarding any attached request for Interpretation or Exception. b. The Commission may approve the Exception as requested, approve the Exception subject to the Applicant complying with conditions, or deny the Exception. All decisions shall be supported by written findings. 7. In the cases where an Exception is granted by the Commission subject to conditions or denied, the Applicant may redesign the project element to come into compliance with the SmartCode or meet the conditions of approval established for the Exception, or appeal either the conditions or the denial in accordance with SmartCode Section 5.10.040: Appeals.