Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 Agenda Bill 04/16/2001 (2) CITY OF PETALUMA,;CALIFORNIA • AGENDA BILL 2 • Agenda Title: Work Program, Budget and Schedule for Meeting Date: Implementation of-the;Central-Petaluma Specific Plan April 16, 2001 Department: Director " Contact`PersoOT Phone:Number: . Community Mike Moor Mike Moore 778-4301 Development • Cost of Proposal:•$178,000 (for Work Program"A") Account Number: Amount Budgeted: $178,000 (in midyearPCDCbudget) Name of Fund: PCDC Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1.) Draft.Work Program"A" 2.) Draft Work Program "B" 3.) March 5, 2001 Staff .Report regarding Processing Development Applications Within the Boundaries of the Central Petaluma Specific.Plan Area Summary Statement: In Decemberl1999, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Citizen's-Advisory Committee, working with City staff and consultants, completed work,on a ffnah 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 (an administrative draft is not complete enough to distribute for public review). For a variety of reasons, little 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. Attached for r Council consideration are two different work programs, both of which are intended to bring the planning •.process to a close and take some steps'toward implementation. The difference between the two work plans ("A" and `B") is in:the final products and timing of this process, Work program "A" proposes to complete the Central Petaluma,'Specific Plan, by utilizing consultant assistance to produce a set of ' development regulations and design guidelines, .complete ..a parking;study; complete an analysis of infrastructure needs (sewer,;water, storm drainage.and streets),'prepare an historic resources survey, and complete the EIR. Work program `B" would :extract the policy and land use recommendations of the existing, draft plan into a new document that `would essentially provide policy guidance for future • development, but not be a specific plan. This option would avoid the necessity of completing the EIR (project specific environmental review would still,be necessary),,and additional implementation measures development regulations, infrastructure assessment, and historic resources inventory could occur independently. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM Is.CONSIDERED'TO'BE TART OF;.OR NECESSARY To,,ONE OR MORE OF THE 1999-2000 PRIORITIES.ESTABLISHED BY-THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30„"1999 AND MARCH 18, 2000. Pnority(s) Implementation of the Central Petaluma-,Specific'Plan Recommended City Council Action/Suggested Motion: Direct staff'to proceed with work '.program "B" with any modifications deemed :necessary by the City • Council. The March 5, 2001 ;staff`report on processing development applications during this interim period .- p handle enod is attached should the Council also wish to decide on an alternative rocedure to h development applications until•finaliaction istaken to adopt theproducts in program`B". . Reviewed by Finance Director:, Reviewed'bv City-Attorney= Approved:bv City Manager: • Date: Date: ✓ 9�4ZQ L II e • Today's Date: Revision:#:and:Date Revised: File Code: April 12, 2001 - # CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA • APRIL 16, 2001 • AGENDA REPORT FOR WORK PROGRAWBUDGET ANDSCHEDULE.FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC,PLAN • 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached work•programs provide scope, times line'andibudget information for either completing the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and the Specific Plan"EIR:ora less extensive alternative. Funding,for the work programs; has been•provided through,the-redever'opment agency mid-year budget request. Both programs are based on the principles of completing the work in as short a time period'as'possible"and for`as little.additional City funding:as. possible;however, work program`"B" would'result in a greater reductioniit processing;time because it would not require completing the ER. A time line for each program has beenproposed„ includinganticipated Planning Commission and City Council:hearings: However,,once the hearing process begins,the time line may slip due the extent of public interest and review*,both the_Planning Commission and City Council. 2. BACKGROUND: For several'years leading up to Decem f ber o 1999; City:staff and consultants-worked with a dedicated • committee of Council appointed citizens°to formulate and shapethe;policy,and;design:recommendations found Wthe December 1999 draft of the Central Petaluma”Specific`Plan. In October of last year, the City Council and anning Commission met jointly to,discuss theplan. The direction from that meeting.included.soliciting further comments from the members of the.Citizen's AdvisoryCommittee on'the December 1999 draft based.on. transcripts of the final Citizen's,Comniittee meetings in early'11999 (that step was completed in November of last year); getting the Plan adopted as quickly as•possible looking at;additional opportunities to intensify development in the.Specific'Plan•area,,particularly in the area of affordable housing; and processing applications utilizing the Specific Plan to the extentspossible, as if it were adopted. 3. ALTERNATIVES: • The Council may choose to pursue oneof the follewingalternatives:, a) The`Councilfcould';choose the scope ofwork.and.time line identified in"work-program`A". b) The;Council could choose to,expand the scopeof work and time.line identified in work program "A" to include other areas that maybe identified to be important to the successiofthe Specific Plan. This could . include expanding work programs•tncover additional areas Of zoning regulation,.design,guidelines or other analysis; having the Planning Commission also review and comment-onthe work program;,or calling the Citizen's.Advisory'Corinnittee back into service to have a rolein the process: Historic preservation:issues associated with the pending Basin Street Properties development-application are likely to recur.as,other development"and redevelopment inthe area continues. As a:result.of.the importance of this issue, staff"has'recommended that an historic resources inventory and analysis be completedin both work.program,"A" and'`B"". '. c) The Council could choose work"program"`B". Under this option, thecurrent form`of the SpecificPlan couldbeadopted right away as a Council policy guideline (instead of as a Specific Plan) and would not require the completion and certification:of an EIR. Proposed development projects would be processed 'applyinggthe 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 adoptionrof the plan as a policy guideline would provide a-formal basis for applying the design and policy recommendations"alreadyin the plan. • More specific development regulations could be done:in conjunction with a procedure to comprehensively update City's development°regulations and design:guidelines,.although, an all- purpose zoning ordinance;chapter`couldbe created for the area(establishing basic regulations and procedures on the order of the PUD distfict) The infrastructure analysis could.continue as a separate ,• consultant contract for implementation, as could theparking study and a:proposed historic resources inventory and analysis. 4. FINANCIA ,IMPACTS: The'funding,requested through•thePetaluma Community Development,Commission"mid-year,adjustment would be utilized for either work"program: The actual costs for work program`B" would`probably be less because of not.havingto complete the EIR. 5. CONCLUSION: Itis important to:remember that either program will,eapture+the most important element of the specific plan work to date: the vision and policy recommendations"contained in"the December 1999 draft Thereal'issue then becomes the:container that holds the vision and policy. A specific':plan, by state law•ant common understanding, includes>notdnly the policy arid vision, but development regulations, design guid'elinesand thorough environmental reviews:Had all those'elements been completed with,the-December 1999 draft plan, leavings only the public heal-mg4process,.the City would',nowhave an planning'tool. Unfortunately, time and circumstances have suspended theplan in its current state; and subsequent development applications have raised;questions about;some`of the.draft`plan's:intentions and applicability. Adoption,of a policy: framework can still:capture the vision identified:by'the decision-makers,,citizens and staff;who:spent, considerable time and:effort in its development; but without sortie"of the additional.work necessary to"call it,a . "specific plan' Neither option is a perfect solution or outcome. • 6. OUTCOMES OR"PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS!THAT'WILL IDENTIFY>SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Either Work,program will provide greaterclarity in processing applications within the specific plan<areaMnd address important implementation steps. • - 7. RECOMMENDATION: Some of the issues raised recently as a,result of reviewing development applications in the.Central'Petaluma "area make it clear to staff that at a minimum, formally adopted policies are essential to.clearly'guide;the,review and decision-making process Although;a;complete.and:comprehensive specific plan arid EIR would provide that guidance, the question of the time andstaff resources•necessa y to finish the,project becomes an:important consideration, particularly in light of the linability to move,tne draft plan and OR in completion since'1999 As staff would work program"`B",,because;it can`be'completecIin less time, with a:lesser, such st ` comnutment of resources (financial and:staff), while still capturing and applying the vision and policy.guidance developed by th&Citizen's Advisory Committee. • • • • • February 22, 2001 • • (Revision#2 -.April 12, 2001) C entral,Petaluma:SpecificPlan Draft Work Program "Ar • Objective: Update and complete the;Central Petaluma Specific Plan;,based on the, . recommendations from the`joint City.,Council/Planning Commission hearing.of October23, 2000 using available Community Development Department and otherin-house staff:to the greatest extent possible in the areas listed below This information-and analysis will be used to supplement the December 1999draft 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:staff will develop recommendations' for the areas,listed below to•b4assed"alongto a consultant whmwill then draft the actual regulations'and guidelines for-th41an:, Development regulations: • FAR(floor area ratio). • residential densities • permitted & conditionahuses • o parking—ratios, exceptions, shared parking; etc. • bike& pedestrian facilities • • signs o definitions • Mixed Use requirements'to insure that:all elements of mixed project are built out, • small business preservation • live/work regulations • utility undergrounding , Design standards: • street trees • • street furniture • • landscaping public/private Open space • • green building standards. • resource use standards (water,,energy) • •height�limits• • ground floor appearance • building,bulk and mass • integration of:eiuSting:doWntown and historic design.guidelines •- • Engineering'Division'Responsibilitiess • Coordinate completion.of new public'improvementstandards,,(street cross-sections, trolley standards,proposed new streets,:utilities;'etc.) with Facilities & Servicesand Water Resources.& Conservation staff Locatiomoptionsfor alternate_freight.siding,for NWP Housing=Division Responsibilities: Housing unitsby typorand.affordability'by'sub-area(projectedhousing units'in the•planning.area Ere recotnmeffded to•afleast double) OtherCDD=responsibilities • — Incorporate trolley_language: Update and correct 12/99 draft plan language, descriptions and graphics, where necessary Incorporate Bike Committee comments(submitted 10/23/00) Incorporatecomments from Citizen's Advisory Committee (submitted F1/1/00) • Coordination w/.River;Walk =Bike and River Enhancement'plans, where`necessary Maps and graphics Other..Department Assistance.Required: Economic_Development and Redevelopment-Financing recommendations (public investment priorities including redevelopment agency assistance; potential assessment district options and boundaries, dredging,:etc) Police/Fire-Public safety review and comment on the draft plan Water Resources &.Conservation-review utility(sewer, water, storm drain) capacity!:and improvement pnorities by sub-area. Public Facilities & Services- review street cross-sections, proposed new streets, trolley standards Proposed:Con sultantAssistance: Parking study by subarea . Sonoma:State ICPA(current cost estimate = $9200) Coinplete DEIR:Wagstaff and Associates'(cuirent cost estimate— $62,000) Including • Updated traffie!study • Updated,noise/air-quality study • Historic preservation (this:would•be an independent inventory and analysis;prepared by a specialist with`the results folded into the draft EIR; someadditional cost to"complete this to ah appropriate level of detail is likely) • 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'anddesign guidelines: Crawford, Multari,& Clark (current. cost estimate- $39;250) • • • • Proposed'Time Line: Complete parking study: June'1, 2001 • Complete'revised land use map, retai/office_and'housing development capacity analysis; development regulation/design guideline recommendations to forward to consultants: June 1, 2001 Complete;infrastructure'analysis: June 30,:2001 Complete'draft plan and EIR for Council;Planting CdinfilisSt6h and,public review( September 1, 2001 Planning'Conunission hearing:on:dtaft'EIR and.Specific;Plan: October 9, 2001 Planning Commission hearing on;Specific;Plan:October.43,2001, PlanningiCommission hearing and-recommendation on final'EIR and draft-Plan: November 13, I 2001 • City Council certification of EIR and adoption of Plan: December,17;2001 '• • • • Aprill2, 2001 CentraiPetaluina Specific Plan Draft'Work Program `B" • Objective;: .Create;a,"Central Petaluma'Policy.Eramework" based'on the yisiop and policy • recommendations from the joint City CounciUPlanning Commission hearing of:October. 23; 2000 and`the work of the.Citizen's Advisory Committee. Staff Responsibilities -staff will;.corripile.thepolicies and.land,use recommendations,=including- • the development.of a.more refined land:use;concept plan•utilizing elementsiof the proposed land use plan and'the"illustrative concept plan"'alreadyin the December 1999 draft specificplan. Proposed:ConsriltantAssistance: Parking study by sub-area: Sonoma State ICPA(current cost estimate Utility water-,.storm drain)irimprovements and cost estimates bysub-area; CSW- Stuber Stroeh(current cost estimate -.$68;250)' • Complete a PUD- ike-zoning districtfor the Central-Petaluma area to covet basic development standards and'procedures: Crawford, Multari.& Clank(cost:estimate to,be determined) Historic,resources inventory and assessment consultant and cost to:be:determined, buf within the total"budgeted by the PCDC Proposed`Time Line: • Complete,parking+study:.:June-1, 2001 Completeinfrastructure:analysis' June 304001 Complete policy framework'document and,draft zoning.district: June.30, 2001 Pianning7Commission review of policy framework document and zoning:district: July 24, 2001 • Cit'Couti it adoption of policy framework'and:introduction zoning district ordinance: August 20;2001 • • CITY OF PETALUNIA, CALIFORNIA 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 Mike Moore' l Pilike.Moore '778-4301 Development Cost of Proposal: Unknown (additional `staff time may be ,Account,Nuinber.N/A necessary for any additionalhprocesssing that may be'requi ed). 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 fora 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 SPARC for review, this item has been framed as a more general discussion lof processing applications'within the Central Petaluma Specific:Plan area. The City Attorney:may need`to provide some 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 be taken 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 varibusi policy directions included in the plan relative to land use, design, '• circulation and other areas would'be utilized in the review of projects and a determination of a project's consistency with those applicable policies would be made as part of the review process, even though the plan does not yet have the official stainding of being adopted by the.Council. Any discussion of revising the,development review process for-the 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 rolestofthe Planning Commission and SPARC. ,Council Priority: Tins 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 JAYUARY 30, ;1999 AND MARCH'18, 2600. • Priority(s): Implementation:of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Recommended City Council Action/SUgiIested Motion ' Provide' direction to City management on 1i-ow' to process applications'within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. . . Reviewedbv Finance Director: Reviesvedlbv City Attorney: Approved by City Manager: Date: Date: j, Date: • Today's Date: ,Revision #tand'Date Revised: File C'o'de: CITY.OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA • FEBRUARY 26, 2001 • AGENDA REPORT . • OR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CENTRAL PETALI'JNIA'SPECIFIC PLAN AREA • 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The following.report,discusses the basic process;for reviewing development:applications"submitted to the Community Development.Department Although:the discussion is,focused on the•projects within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma;Specific Plan!area„the,steps,outlined in the background section generally apply to all applications we;receive. Alternatives tothe current process raise a number.of,'issuesregarding the adequacy of the City's existing development regulations•and guidelines, the respective roles of the Planning Commission and the Site Plan and"Architectural Review Committee,and the consistency ofithe development review process. 2. BACKGROUND: When a"development"application.isreceived ih the?Cominunity Development.Departrrient, we begin the review Wocess•by•determining the applicability of three essential sets'of regulations: the Zoning Ordinance, adopted y plans (the General Plan, River Enhancement Plan, Bicycle Plan,'etc), and`the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA and its related statesand localienvironmental guidelines).,Depending on the nature of the application, other City regulations may•come 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 plan is.not yet adopted This is based on the direction:provided by the City Council and Planning Commission from the joint meeting,back in October oflast year The PP y P gu . p 1 administratively (that is, by staff),bby the PlanningCovmmission lby,the tSi e Plan and ArchitecturaYRevieweCommitee (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• 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 mapscorrelate with land use category definitions in athe GeneralPlan and zoning:district=regulations^in text•ofthose respective documents.'These”"are the foundation for'determining the processing path an application must follow to receive , its required approvals. Other policies and the°level of environmental review typically address the more specific' aspectsiof the proposed project, but theconformity of the project,to basic.regulations 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 well as the'policies in'the plan, are applied, along with existing,zoning regulations,,(since.the Plan currently does not.haveF-itsjown•development regulations)',to determine how a particular project is reviewed. This procedure is,no different than any determination we make on;any other project,:except for the.application's of the policies in the Specific Plan cording to Section,2'98;020 of the Petaluma Municipal Code `thepl'anning.commission shall,perform the duties prescribed in-the:. : .zoning.ordinance pertaining to dwiding-the city into districts or zones and • regulating the use, division or subdivision of propeity within 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 development within the city," The Zoning Ordinance further defines the respective responsibilities of the Planning Commission and SPARC. The Planning Commission responsibilities for • development review:are:found throughout the Zoning; ut.Ordinance; b can be;summarized•generally'as pertaining to the review of conditional use permits,•variances, exceptions, rezonings,and:tentative subdivision (5 or more lots). In other:words, where there is M question of the:appropriate use of a;particula"rproperty .The essential."responsibilities of SPARC can•be:found in!Section 26-401 of the Zoning Ordinance;and:Section 26 405 clearly identifies"the decision making authority'of SPARC. In.;addition, the Zoning.Ordinance provides an administrative decision-making sauthority that can be found in various sections of the ordinance. This authority is vested in the "Zoning Administrator", which isthe Community Development Director or a designee•(Section 26-201). • Unfortunately; the•determistionof how a pat-dollar project;goes through the dev""elopment?review p'rocess;is::not always met with unanimity The:reason.why this item is on the City Council agenda for discussion;is evidence of that very situation..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 the yet-to-be-adopted, Specific,Plan`be interpreted (that is, what was/is the intent of its policies`and•recommendations)? Imthe absence of Specific Plan development regulations, how do current zoning regulations apply? How'do weapply zoning regulations:that in some cases:ate nearly 30 years old to current development applications?'What are-the respective 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 for decision-making bodies to "review" projects, even if there is.no formal decision for them totmake? What is thepurpose of having a Specific:Plan,"if every application is,potentially subject to more,(rather than fewer steps'm the development review process? How should'the City balance community concerns;about the development:review process with maintaining the integrity and"consistency of that process? Wnat are the.potential legal impacts of changing;the development review•pfocedure;andhow can that affect projects already inprocess? What,are the impacts to • .staff Workload ineloa n Ingo erturr tt pS e ific Pow will achanges in procedures.or regulations=affect thelevel of P - P P y • P These questions:are,not intendedto push the Councils discussion'in,any particular direction, but'rather to try and frame a;context,for the discussion. The issues at•the•heart of ihis,disscussion-;the applicability of existing policies and regulations the ability of City staff to make procedural determinations, the role of decision-making- bodies are potentially'inuch broader:and'.far-reaching than their°applicability to the implementation':of the Central Petaluma.SpecifieTlan., • • 3. ALTERNATIVES: . The Council may choose to discuss the.following:alternatives, or identify other alternatives;through•the course of its^ndeliberations;• • a) In the absence of an'adopted Specific Plan, the City^Council could act to designatea boay to formally' • interpret the policies and recommendations of the Specific Plan aspart<of the development review .process. In•other words,;Community Development Department'staff currently,determine thesconsistency of a particular project with:the;Specific Plan and other',applicable reg zlationsas part•of our review of that project. It:should be noted that.,our"determinations,are subject to the scrutiny'of the"public•andiCity decision-making bodies who have the discretion td question those determinations as part of the review process The Council could insteadgive that:responsibility to:itself,'the Planning Commission, SPARC or some combination thereof„or it could:re-establish the Citizen's Advisory Committee. for that purpose. Under this alternative,for example, prospective applicants within the Specific Plan boundaries.could • receive•a determinatiori'that'theirproject is consistent with the applicable policies and regulations, as • •