HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item 23 •NAR-02-01 FRI 05 04 PM BASIN STREET PROPERTIES FAX No. 7077956283
23
• BAS INSTDEBT
I1� /1):'%/1 --)41)' nor-anTIF_s
i-n 707 711 .6?∎ti
March 2, 2001
•
Mr. Michael Moore
Community TlevelopmentOirect or,
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94954
•
RE: BASIN STREET LANDING
Dear Michael:
As tire discussed today,,1 woulditiropose tlunt'B sin Strccttanduig,:our downtown riverfront
• project,be reviewed by the Planning Commission. I am suggesting this approach,not because I
believe that we are required;to lo;so—to the conirary,ipbclieve our project qualifies for
determination by SPARC'undei the current zoning,and further that it:certainly meets the
intentions of the Central PotaluirialSpecific'Plan,
On th oilier hind,the Central-Petaluma Specific Plan has_not yet been finally approved by the
City Council or the PlanningCoinmission. As a•resultI can understand the concern of the
Commission that they have an.ciiportunity to review the project.
I would appreciate youraplacing nur item on a Planning Conunission agenda at their earliest
convenience. ./
Cordially,.
Wrl.IAAM C. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
BASIN STREET PROPERTIES'
i II I ReJmnnd 4i1y.Nwle 140
Alaimo:,.c:,l.97.1,51
� ._ R'wN.iIASiN 57RLL7.r'(1M
I .
•
•
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2.3
AGENDA BILL
Agenda Title Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Meeting Date:
•
Processing of Development Applications Within the Boundaries of March 5,-2001•
the Draft Central Petaluma:Specific Plan.
Department: Director,`. -\ Contact'Person: Phone Number:
Community MikeMooren f. Mike Moore 778-4301 -
Development PI
Cost of Proposal; Unknown (additional staff time may be Account Number N/A
necessary for any additional processing that may be required).
Amount Budgeted: N/A Name of Fund: N/A
•
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
None
Summary Statement:
At its meeting-of February 20,2001, the City Council heard public comments expressing,concerns about
how a particular development application for a property within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma
Specific Plan is being processed. The comments included ;,a letter from the Planning Commission.
Because there is a pending application in process and before • PARC for review, this item has been
framed as a more general discussion,of processing applications within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
area..The City Attorney may need to'providasome direction to the Council in the event that it wishes to
discuss'the pending application more particularly because there may be due process considerations that
• have to betaken into account before that discussion can occur.
In. October of 2000, following a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on the
Central Petaluma Specific Plan, the direction'to staff at that time was to process applications that may
come in during the time prior to the formal:.adoption of the plan as;if the plan were adopted. We have
taken that to mean that the various policy directions included in the plan relative to land use, design,
circulation and other areas would be utilized in the review ofprojects and a determination of a project's
consistency with those applicable policiesF would.be made as part of the review process, even though the
plan does not yet have the official standing.of being adopted by the Council..Any discussion of revising
the development review process 'forthe Specific Plan area will not.Only have to include how the yet-to-
be-adopted Specific Plan is applied;., but will also have to include the application of existing zoning
regulations and clarifying the roles,ofthe Planning Commission and SPARC.
Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM is CONSIDERED•TO BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR
MORE OF THE,1999-2000'PRIORITIES'ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.ON JANUARY 30, 1999
1 .AND MARCH 18, 2000:
Priority(s), Implementation of the:Central-Petaluma Specific Plan'
Recommended City Council Action/Suggested.Motion:
Provide direction to City management on how to process, applications within the boundaries of the
Central Petaluma.SpecificPlan:area.
Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney: Approved by City Manager:
IP Date: Date: Date:
Today's Date: Revision#'and Date'Revised: File Code:
•
• CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY'26,;2001
• AGENDA REPORT
FOR
DISCUSSION'AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE,PROCESSING OF
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
CENTRAL PETALUNIA SPECIFIC'PLAN AREA
1. EXECUTIVE:SUMMARY:
The following report discusses the basic processifor reviewing development applications submitted to the
Community Development Department Althoughthe discussion is;focused on the projects within the boundaries
of the,Central Petaluma Specific Plan`area,-the steps outlinedinithe background!section generally'apply to all
applications we receive. Alternatives tothe current process;raiser a number of issues regarding the adequacy of
the City's existing development regulationsvand?guidelines, the;respective roles of thePlanning Commission
and the Site Plan and Architectural`RevieW'Committee, and,the'tconsistency ofthedevelopment.review process.
2. BACKGROUND:
When a development application is received in the Community Development Department, we begin the review
Wrocess by determining the applicability.of three essential isets of regulations the Zoning Ordinance, adopted
ay plans (the;General Plan, River Enhanceinent.Plan,'Bicycle Plan, etc.);'and the California Environmental
Quality Act.(CEQA and its related state=and:local'environmental.guidelines)::Depending on the nature of the
application, other City regulations maycome'into play(for example, certain sections,of the Municipal Code),
and;in the case of projects Within the Central Petaluma,Specific Plan area,we apply the.policies, definitions
and guidelines, even though the planvismnot yet adopted. This'issbased on=the direction"provided by the City
Council and Planning Commission from..the.joirit!netting back in Octobet oflastyear.
The applicability of the respective regulations determines'whether the project is reviewed;administratively(that
is, by staff), by the Planning"Commission,by the Site'Plan and Architectural`.Review;Committee (SPARC), or
some combination of those decision-making;bodies, including, when necessary,the City-Council. The City has
an adopted zoning map and an adopted General Plan land'use map,.which:divide,the City into districts based on
a particular type of land use;that is either already existing in the area, or is?anticipated. The maps correlate with
land use definitions in the General Plan and zoning district regulations in text of those respective
documents. These:are the foundation for determining the'processingipath an application must follow.to receive
its required approvals,Other policies and the level of environmental;review typically.address the more specific
aspects of the proposed project, but the;conformity of the project to basicrregulations governing use determines
which body or bodies'are responsible for making the applicable decisions. In.the case of the Central Petaluma
Specific Plan, the:land"use designations:;and definitions, as wel l.as`the'policies:in;the`plan, are applied, along
with existing zoning`regulations'(since,thePlan currently currentlY'doesnof have its ownrd'evelopment regulations) to
determine how a particular project is;reviewed: This procedure is no:differentthan any determination we make
on any other project,except"for the,application of the policies in the Specific Plan:
•,ccording to Section 2 08;020 of the Petaluma Municipal',Code;,"the planning commission-shall perform the
duties prescribed in the zoning ordinance. . .pertaining to`. . ':dividing the city into districts or zones and
CL
regulating the use, division or subdivision.of propertywithin the city." Section 2:50.050 of the Municipal Code
states that the Site,Plan and Architectural:Review Committee shall "perform the duties prescribed in the zoning
ordinance of the city. ;pertaining to securing of compliance with the:zoning ordinance,And promoting orderly
and harmonious deVelopthent within the city " The Zoning Ordinance further defines the respective
responsibilities of the Planning,Commission and SPARC The Commission responsibilities for
development review are found throughout`the Zoning Ordinance, but can be summarized generally,as pertaining III
to the review of conditional variances, exceptions, rezonings and.tentative subdivision,niaps (5 or
more lots).:In other words, where there;is a question of.the appropriate use of a particular property. The
essential;responsibilities of SPARC can be found,in Section 26-401 of the Zoning;Ordinanceand::Section 26-
405 clearly identifiesthe decision-making,authority of SPARC In addition, the Zoning Ordinance"provides_!an.
administrative decision-making authority that can be found in.various sectionsof the ordinance. This authority
is vested fin the "Zoning Administrator", which is the Community Development Director or a designee:(Section
26-201)..
Unfortunately„the,deterniination of how a particular,projedt goes through the;development teviewAirocess'is not
always"met with unanimity. The:reason why this;item.ison the City Council agenda"fordiscussion is evidence
of thatverpsituation'. A response.to`the question of what is the"appropriate" development review'process,for
projects in the Specific Plan area involves a variety of considerations: How should theyet-to-be-adopted
Specific Plan be interpreted(that is, what was/is the'intent of its,policies and recommendations)?•In the absence'
of Specific Plan development regulations, how do;current:zomng regulations apply? How do we apply zoning;
regulations that in.some cases;are.nearly 30 years;old to cugentdevelopment applications? What are the
re"spective;roles of the Planning'Commission,and'SPARC in the development review process generally, and
more particularly,in regards to,the+Specific Plan? Should we:provide an opportunity fordecision-making bodies
to ”review"projects, evengif thereCis no formal decision forthem°to make?`What is the purpose of having a
Specific Plan, if every application potentially;subject to=more, rather than fewer steps in_the development
reviewprocess?How should the City balance community concerns about the development review'process with
maintaining the integrity and:consistencyofthat;process? Wan—It—are—the potential legal impacts'of changing the di,
development review procedure:and.how^can that affect projects.already in process? What are theimpacts to
staff workload in changing,the current.process? How will changes in_proced ures or regulations affect the level
of interestin:develop ngproperty in.the Specific Plan area?
These are not intended to push the Council's discussion in any particular direction but ratherto try
and frame a context for the discussion. The issues`at the'heart of,this<discussiori'—the applicability of:existing
policies and regulations, theabilityof City staff to;make•procedural determinations, the role of decision-making
bodies-are;potentially much'broader and.far-reaching than their applicability to;the implementation of the
Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
The Council may choose to,discuss,the followingalternatives, or identify other alternatives through.the course
of its deliberations:
a) In.the absence of an+adopted Specific Plan;;the City Council could act to'designate:a body to formally
interpret the:policieMand°recommendations of the';Specific`Plan as part of the development review
process..In other words, Community�Developm min
ent,Department staff currently deterethe consistency
of a;particular project with.the Specific Plan and other applicableregulations as part of our review of
that project; It^should„be noted that our determinations are subject to.the scrutiny of the public and city
decision-making'bodies who have the discretion to question those determinations as,part of the review.
process. The Council coulff instead:give that responsibility:to itself, theiPlanning Commission,,.SPARC
or some combination thereof, orit could re-establish the Citizen's Advisory Committee for that..purpose.
Under this alternative, for example, prospective applicants within the Specific.Plan bou ndaries could
receive a deterniinationthat their projectis'consistentwith the applicable policies and:regulations, as
future:conflicts.when a project has to come back before that body for a formal decision. The details of
how this process would be implemented.would,determine the impact on department workload,the time
part of an expanded preliminary review procedure.'This procedure would have to be carefully created,
with specific standards of review if it involves City decision-making bodies-in order to avoid potential
• line'for the preliminary review process (in order twallow these items to be reviewed at regular meetings
of the-Council, Planning•Comitission or'SPARC) and the length of agendas.
b) The City Council could direct.staffto immediately develop the necessary'amendments to,the Zoning
Ordinance to clarify the types,of uses that are,permitted,and conditionally permitted in the existing
zoning districts within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area This process would start with
discussions at the Planning Commission to determine the extent.of the amendments necessary to
implement this alternative. These regulations would be adopted prior to any anticipated Specific Plan
regulations and the amendments to existing zoning districts would have to apply wherever those districts
are in the City. Since the Specific Plan is not yet adopted, it could not technically serve as the basis for
any Zoning Ordinance amendments that might apply only within its boundaries. It may be possible to
adopt these regulations as an interim ordinance under the California.Government Code while the
Specific Plan regulations are being developed.
c) The City Council could:more clearly define its direction of October 2000 as to how the Central Petaluma
Specific Plan shall be interpreted and implemented during this period prior to its adoption. This could be
accomplished by providing specific direction,as to possible standardsof review and the intent of the
Specific Plan policies and recommendations (for example, it could clarify the role, if any, of the
"illustrative concept plan" in making determinations about appropriate land uses; it co uld clarify the
meaning of particular land use definitions or,policies, etc.).
d) Take no action at this time and allow the current procedures to remain unchanged. Community
Development staff believe:that we are applying the policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and
the applicable provisions of the.Zoning Ordinance appropriately and consistently and that no additional
steps or procedures are necessary.
• e) The City Council could focus on the broader issue of updating the Zoning Ordinance and more clearly
defining the respective roles of SPARC and the Planning Commission. Both of these issues have been
discussed briefly on previous,agendas, but without any conclusion,or formal direction. The Community
Development Department does not currently have the staff resources or budget to undertake a major
review and revision of the Zoning Ordinance, although one is.desperatelyneeded. This discussion could
take place in the context of the scope:and timing of the General Plan update or in the review of the
upcoming budget.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Financial impacts will depend on the'alternative selected by the City Council. Potential impacts to the City's
budget may include the need for-additional staff,resources or consultant assistance to accomplish the preferred
alternative. There may also be financial impacts to the City resulting from potential applicants who may-choose
not to develop their property because of additional processing requirements and extended processing times. This
may affect the overall success of the Specific Plan in promoting new development and redevelopment in the
area.
5. CONCLUSION:
•
The City Council needs to address the>issue of how applications areprocessed within the'boundaries of the
Central Petaluma Specific Plan area and provide some direction so it is'clear to applicants, staff and decision-
makers how projects will be reviewed during this period leading:up to the'adoption of the plan.
•
OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION:
These will depend on the alternative selected by the City Council.
1
t
•
7. RECOMMENDATION; •
Any direction provided by the City Council should take into account the applicable questions listed above, plus
any considerations that may come up in the,course of the discussion. Assuming that the,Council.will prefer to
address larger issues such as the need fora new Zoning;Ordinance-and the roles,and-responsibilities of the
Planning Commission and SPARC`through separate, subsequent discussions, City management would
recommend that the Council provide direction at this time:on,which alternative the Council would choose to
pursue to address•theodevelopment•review process or new regulations for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
area.
•
•
•
•
•