HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2006-161 N.C.S. 09/11/2006 Resolution No. 2006-161 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE
TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council originally approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan
for the Petaluma Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area ("CBD Project Area")
by Ordinance 1221 N.C.S. on September 27, 1976, and subsequently amended such
redevelopment plan by Ordinance 1973 N.C.S. adopted November 21, 1994, Ordinance 2092
N.C.S. adopted July 21, 1999, Ordinance 2116 N.C.S. adopted June 18, 2001, and Ordinance
2184 N.C.S. adopted June 7, 2004 (as so amended, the "CBD Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council originally approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan
for the Petaluma Community Development Project (the "PCD Project Area") by Ordinance
1725 N.C.S. adopted on July 18, 1988, and subsequently amended such redevelopment plan by
Ordinance 1972 N.C.S. adopted November 21, 1994, Ordinance 2100 N.C.S. adopted April 3,
2000, and Ordinance 2183 N.C.S. adopted June 7, 2004 (as so amended, the "PCD Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC") staff and
consultants have prepared proposed plan amendments ("Plan Amendments") that would
effectuate a fiscal merger of the CBD Project Area and the PCD Project Area, and the City
Council anal PCDC held a joint public hearing on the proposed Plan Amendments on July 17,
2006 (the "Public Hearing"); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33363 of the California Health and Safety Code, the
City Council is required to respond to written objections to the adoption of the proposed Plan
Amendments received prior to the -close of the public hearing on the Plan Amendments; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all written objections to the Plan
Amendments that the City Council and PCDC received prior to the close of the Public Hearing;
Resolution No. 2006-161 N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, responses to such written objections are set forth in Exhibit A to this
Resolution and are hereby incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council has reviewed all written objections to the adoption of the Plan
Amendments received by the City Council and PCDC prior to the close of the Joint Public
Hearing held on July 17, 2006, and hereby adopts the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein in response to those written objections.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 11 day of September, ,i or
2006, by the following vote: ~
~/l_ ' ~
City Attorney
AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Vice Mayor Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt ~
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Healy
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Resolution No. 2006-161 N.C.S. Page 2
Exhibit A
FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
The City Council of the City of Petaluma adopts the following findings in response to
written objections submitted to the City Council and the Petaluma Community Development
Commission ("PCDC") prior to the close of the Joint Public Hearing held on July 17, 2006
regarding the adoption of proposed amendments. to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma
Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area and the Redevelopment Plan for the
Petaluma Community Development Project (collectively the "Plan Amendments"). These
findings are based on the entire administrative record of proceedings before the City Council
regarding the Plan Amendments.
Section 1. The City Council acknowledges receipt of a letter dated July 10, 2006 from Diane
Reilly Torres, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Reilly Torres Letter").
Section 2. The City Council hereby makes the findings described below in response to the
objections raised in the Reilly Torres letter.
A. Procedural Concerns Relating to Planning Commission Report on Conformity with the
General Plan (Items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) marked on Exhibit B.)
The City Council finds that the proceedings of the Planning Commission with respect to its
report and recommendations on the conformity of the Plan Amendments with the Petaluma
General Plan conform to the requirements of law, including without limitation, California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.J (the
"CRL").
This finding is based upon. the following:
(a) CRL Section 33346 requires redevelopment plans and plan amendments to be submitted
to the Planning Commission for review of conformity with the community's general plan.
PCDC transmitted the proposed Plan Amendments to the Planning Commission as
required. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Plan Amendments at a
regularly .noticed meeting held on June 27, 2006. A copy of the Planning Commission
report is included in the Supplement to the Report to Council which is on file with the City
Clerk.
(b) The CRL requires the Preliminary Report prepared in connection with proposed
redevelopment plans and plan amendments to be transmitted to affected taxing
entities and to the City Council, but does not require the Preliminary Report to be
submitted to the Planning Commission.
(c) Consideration of the conformity of the Plan Amendments with the General Plan was
included on the agenda for the June 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and
noticed in the same manner as all Planning Commission meetings are noticed. The CRL
does not require any additional notice for this action. In accordance with usual practice
for Planning Commission meetings, the Planning Commission agenda and associated
materials were made available to the Commission and the public ire advance of the
Planning Commission meeting. An informational packet on the Agenda items was
available from the City Clerk in advance of fhe meeting. This packet included the Plan
Amendments, a memorandum regarding the Plan Amendments from PCDC Executive
Director Mike Bierman to the Planning Commission, and an Executive Summary of the
Report to Council. In addition, both the Preliminary Report and the Report to Council
were made available for review prior to the June 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
The proposed Plan Amendments were submitted to the Planning Commission on June 20,
Resolution No. 2006-161 N.C.S. Page 3
2006 in the informational packet described above, well before the Plan Amendments
were submitted to the City Council on July 1 1, 2006.
(d) The proposed Plan Amendments do not alter land use designations in the Project Areas,
and thus will not affect the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan Amendments with the
General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be updated. Under the Plan
Amendments, land uses, design standards and development controls in the Project
Areas will continue to be governed by applicable City and County standards. At the
time of their adoption, the PCD and CBD Redevelopment Plans were found to be in
conformance with the General Plan. Both of these Redevelopment Plans specify that
land use designations applicable to the Project Areas shall be in accordance with the
standards of the City or County, as applicable. In order to maintain conformity as
General Plan updates occur, the Redevelopment Plans defer to City and County
General Plans as they exist and as they may be updated. The proposed Plan
Amendments make no changes to the land use authority set forth in the Redevelopment
Plans. Therefore, as updates to the General Plan are considered, such changes are
addressed in the General Plan update process and the do not require amendment to
the Redevelopment Plans to maintain consistency.
B. CEQA Exemption for Proposed Plan Amendments (Items marked (v) on Exhibit B.)
The City Council finds that the PCDC and City Council determinations that the proposed
Plan Amendments are exempt from CEQA review are valid.
This finding is based upon the following:
(a) The potential environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plans were analyzed in
previous environmental reviews, including the Petaluma General Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), the program level EIR for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, the
PCD Project EIR and the CBD Plan Amendment EIR.
(.b) The proposed Plan Amendments do not propose new projects or activities, do not alter
the redevelopment programs described in the Redevelopment Plans, and do not
propose any land use changes to those already analyzed in the current General Plan.
(c) While the proposed Plan Amendments are considered exempt from CEQA, all specific
projects proposed for development pursuant to the Redevelopment Plans will require
environmental review in accordance with CEQA, and those that may have potentially
significant environmental impacts will require aproject-specific EIR. Such project EIRs will
consider floodplain and water availability issues as applicable.
C. Fundincl for Onaoina Maintenance Costs for New Capital Improvements. (Items marked (vi)
on Exhibit B.)
The City Council finds that the availability of resources for ongoing maintenance will be
undertaken in connection with PCDC's and the City's capital improvement budget and
implementation plan review, and that it is not necessary to evaluate the availability of such
resources in connection with the Plan Amendments.
The City Council further finds that ongoing maintenance costs for new capital improvement
projects funded through redevelopment will be assumed by the responsible governmental
entities and special districts, and will be funded in part through pass through payments
made to such affected taxing entities, and after the redevelopment projects are
completed, through. increased property taxes generated by the expanded tax base
resulting from redevelopment. Further, major improvements to existing deteriorated and
Resolution No. 2006-161 N.C.S. Page 4
inadequate infrastructure will reduce ongoing maintenance costs.
D. Riverfront Property Assistance. (Items marked (vii) on Exhibit B.)
The City Council finds that in conformity with the CRL Section 33426.5(b), the existing
Redevelopment Plans, the Plan Amendments and Redevelopment Programs do not include
redevelopment assistance to parcels of land of five acres or more that have not been
previously developed for urban use and that will, when developed, generate sales or use
tax, unless the principal permitted use of the development is office, hotel, manufacturing, or
industrial.
Further, the PCDC has not provided direct assistance to the Riverfront Property, amixed-use
housing and retail development proposed to be constructed on a site that has not
previously been developed for urban use. Further, as currently envisioned, the principal use
of the property would be residential (400 units), with 20,000 square feet of commercial
development.
E. Concerns Related to Report to Council Maps; Building Requirements for Floodplain (Item
(viii) on Exhibit B.)
The City Council finds that the Plan Amendments do not alter building requirements, and
that all projects proposed for development pursuant to the Redevelopment Plans will be
required to comply with all applicable planning, zoning and building requirements.
F. Questions Regarding Redevelopment Priorities and Programs (Items marked (ix) on Exhibit B.)
The City Council finds that the Plan Amendments do not alter the Redevelopment Programs
and do not propose new projects or activities. Specific projects and programs to be
undertaken or assisted by PCDC will be considered in the context of the PCDC ,budget and
implementation plan review and will be considered on an individual basis as proposals for
particular projects are presented to the City Council and PCDC.
Resolution No. 2006-161 N.C.S. Page 5