HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item 22 * CITY OF PETALUMA,-CALIFORNIA 22
•
AGENDA .BILL
• •, Agenda Title: Work Program, Budget and Schedule for Meeting Date:
Implementation of the Central Petaluma SpecificfPlan March 5,.2001
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
Community Mike Moorelnf`{l, Mike Moore 778-4301
Development II 11
Cost of-Proposal. $178,000 Account Number:
Amount Budgeted: $178,000 , • Name of Fund: PCDC
Attachments to Agenda Packet=Item;,
•
1.) Draft Work Program
Summary Statement:
In December 1999, the.Central Petaluma Specific Plan.Citizen's Advisory Committee, working with City
staff and consultants, completed work on.a final draft of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan- In addition,
staff and consultants prepared an,,Administrative Draft of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Specific Plan. Due to staff transition and other workload priorities, no progress' has been made on
completing the plan and EIR and moving•those documents through the final review process by the
Planning Commission and City Council The attached work program is intended to close that loop in a
cost effective and timely manner. The intent of the work program is to focus on a limited number of
•, essential implementation tools for=the,plan (zoning regulations, design guidelines, infrastructure needs,
etc:), while leaving the policybasis 'ofthe-plan,as;it evolved through the'Citizen's Advisory Committee,
essentially untouched. The program also provides for the completion of the Environmental Impact
Report.
Council.Priority: THIS AGENDA.ITEM IS CONSIDERED To BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY To, ONE OR
MORE OF THE 1999-2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY Tim CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30, 1999
AND MARCH 18, 2000.
Priority(s):,Implementation of the Central'Petalutna Speoific Plan.
• Recommended'City Council Action/Suggested.Motion:
Provide direction to City Man agement on the scope and timing of the work program. All of the
consultants identified in the work program are-ready to go and have committed to the proposed timetable.
The unknown in-the proposed time line is the number of meetings:that may be necessary for the Planning
Commission and City Council,to Complete'their respective reviews of the Specific Plan and EIR, The
Council may also wish to consider whether or not to reconvene the Citizen's Advisory Committee for
further review of the Plan and EIR at particular points in.the'upcomingprocess.
Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney: Approved by City Manager:
Date:'
Date:
.1 Date:
Today's Date: Revision #,and-Date Revised:, File.Code:
Februaryw22,.2001 -.
• -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.•
II
•
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MAxcH 5, 2001
• AGENDA REPORT
FOR •
WORK PROGRAM,BUDGET AND,;SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
The attached work programprovidesta,scope, time line and budget for completing the Central Petaluma
Specific Plan and the Specific.Plan EIR: Fundingfor the additional work, which focuses on implementation
tools (zoning regulations, design guidelines:and infrastructure improvements)and completing the EIR process,
has been provided through the redevelopment,agency mid-year budget request. The work program is based on
two principles: complete the work in as short a"time-period as possible and for as little additional City funding
as possible. The emphasis is on completing the measures necessary to guide the implementation of the plan and
not on revising the.policy and design directions already provided in the plan. A time line, including anticipated
Planning.Commission and City Council hearings, has also been;prepared. We are presently confident that the
work of staff and consultants can be completed in the time allocated. However, once the hearing process begins,
the time line may slip due the extent o f public;interest and review at both the Planning Commission and City
Council.
2. BACKGROUND:
Ilkor several years leading up to December of 1999, City staff and consultants worked with,a dedicated
committee of Council appointed citizens to formulate and,shape the,policy and design recommendations found
in the December 1999 draft of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan:,Efforts to certify the EIR and-adopt the plan
have been delayed by staff turnover and other priorities: In October of last year, the City.Council'and Planning
Commission met jointly to discuss the plan. The direction from that meeting included soliciting further.
comments from the members of the Citizen's Advisory Committeefon`the December 1999 draft based on
transcripts of the final Citizen's Committee:meetings in early 1999 (that step was completed in November of
last year) getting the Plan adopted as quickly as possible, looking att;additional opportunities to,intensify
development in the Specific Plan area, particularly in-theharea•ofaffordable housing; and processing
applications utilizing the Specific Plan.to the'extent..possible; as if it were adopted.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
•
The Council maychoose to pursue one of the following alternatives.
a) The Council could choose to expand the,scope of work and time line to include other areas that may be
identified to,be important•to the success of the Specific Plan', This could include expanding work
programs to cover'additional!areas of zoning`regulation, design guidelines or other analysis; having the
Planning Commission'also review and comment on the work program; or calling the Citizen's Advisory
Committee back into service to have a role in the process: .
b) The Council could,choose to limit the scope and time line and rely more on in-house staff to cover some
. of the identified areas of work The original draft of the scope of work anticipated this option, but
subsequent discussions with Community Development staff led to the conclusion that current project
review workloads-would not provide adequate time to devote to"completing the Specific Plan.
c) The Council could,choose not to pursue the:additional'work required to complete the Specific Plan and
FIR. Under this option,the current form of the Specific Plan could beiadopted right away as a Council
policy guideline (instead of as a Specific Plan) and would not require the completion and certification of
•
an BIR. Proposed development projects would-be processed applying the guidelines,as necessary, along
with other City regulations and policies. Environmental review would occur on a case-by-case basis _ .
consistent with CEQA. This option would essentially continue the current manner of processing
applications; the adoption of the plan as a policy'guideline would provide'a:formal basis;for applying the `
design and policy recommendations already in the plan. More specific development regulations would Aik
not_be prepared and existing regulations would•be utilized. This could be done in conjunction with a
procedure to update the City's development regulations and design guidelines. Any additional
discussions of policy`directionsfor the Specific Plan area could be done as part,of the General Plan
update.
4. FINANCIAL.IMPACTS:
A request has already been made to the°Petaluma•Community:Development Commission to add the necessary
to complete the plan and Ent as described in the scope of work. as•part of the mid-year budget request
for the redevelopment agency. •
5. CONCLUSION:
N/A •
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT-WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS'OR.COMPLETION:
The work program provides specific,dollar amounts for the work proposed and aaiine:line forcompleting the
plan and.EIR and having then adopted by the City Council.
7. RECOMMENDATION.
Provide direction to'Citymanagementon the rscope•and timing:of the work program.
g:ffor ns/2000 Agenda Bill revised 042100
•
•
•
•
•
Y
• • February 22, 2001
Central_Petaluma.SpecifiePlan
• Draft Work-Program •
Objective: Update and complete the Central Petaluma'Specific;Plan based on the
recommendations from the:joint City Council/Planning'Commission hearing of October 23, 2000
using available Community Development.Department and'other in-house staff to the greatest
extent possible in the areasilisted.below. This information and analysis will be used to
supplement the December 1099<draft'of the Central Petaluma'Specific'Plan without changing the
essential policy directions recommended by the Citizen's Advisory Committee•and will focus
primarily on;implementation programs. •
Planning Division Responsibilities—the.Planning Division staffwill develop recommendations
for the:areas listed below to be passed along to a consultant who will.then draft the actual
regulations and guidelines forthe'plan:
Development regulations:
• FAR -• •residential densities • •
• permitted & conditionalsuses
• parking—ratios, exceptions, shared'parking, etc.
• • bike &.pedestrian facilities
• signs •
• definitions
• Mixed Use'requirements to insure that all:elements of mixed project are built out
• small business preservation
o live/work regulations'
• utility undergrduuding
Design standards:
• •street trees -
o street furniture_
• landscaping
• public/privateopenaspace • .
• green building,standards
• resource use,standardss,(water, energy)
• height limits
o ground floor.appearance
o building(bulk and:mass
• integration ofexisting downtewn,and.historic design guidelines
Engineering,Division'.Responsibilities:
Coordinate completion of new public improvement standards(street cross-sections,'trolley
standards, proposed new streets,•utilities, etc.)with Public Facilities& Services and Water
• Resources &Conservation staff
•
Location:options for..alternate freight siding for NWP •
Housing Division,Responsibilities:
-Housing units'by type and affordability sub-area(projected housing units in the•planningarea
are recomtnended.to at least double)
Other''CDD:responsibilities -
Incorporatetrolley language
Update and correct 1 2/99 draft plan language, descriptions and graphics, where necessary
Incorporate Bike Committee:comments(submitted 10/23/00)
Incorporate'comments from Citizen's,Advisory Committee'(submitted 11/1/00) •
Coordination--w/River Walk, Bike and River Enhancement plans, where necessary
Mapsand graphics
Other Department AssistancerRequired
Economic Development"and;Redevelopment-Financing recommendations;(public investment
priorities including redevelopment agency assistance, potential assessment district,options and
boundaries; dredging,"eta)
Police/Fire-Public safety review and comment;on'the draft plan
Water`Resources &&Conservation-review utility.(sewer, water, storm drain)capacity°and
improvement'=prioritiesby sub-area.
P.ublic-Facilities'&;;Services- review street.cross=sections, proposed new streets, trolley
standards
Proposed:Consultant Assistance:
Parking study;by sub-area Sonoma State ICPA,(current cost estimate - $9200)
Complete DEIR Wagstaff and Associates (current cost estimate— $62,000) • •
Including: ' •
• Updated;traffc`study
• Updated•noise/air'quality study"
• Historic preservation analysis _ _
• Potential school impacts. •
Utility system(sewer, water, storm drain);improvements and cost estimates=by sub area:•CSW-
Stuber Stroeh (current.cost estimate - $68,250)"
Complete development regulations and design guidelines Crawford, Millar) &'Clark,(current
cost estimate- $39;250)
•
•
• Proposed Time line:
Complete parking:,study: April 1, 2001
Complete revised land use map, retail/office and housing development capacity analysis;
development regulation/design guideline recommendations to forward to consultants: March 15,
2001 •
Complete infrastructure analysis: April 15,2001
Complete draft plan and EIR for Council ,Planning Coniinissitittand`public review: May 31,
2001
Planning Commission hearing oh.dFaft EIR and Specific Plan: July 10, 2001
Planning Commission hearing onrSpecificPlan: July 24, 2001
Planning Commission hearing and recommendation on final ErR and draft Plan: August 14,
2001
City Council certification of€EIR and adoption of Plan: September"4,2001
•
•
•
•
•