HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 08/31/2009e
August 31, 2009
City of ~t~~u , Calif®rn~a
e ®ra~
City Manager's Office, 11 English Street,. Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4345 Fax (707) 778-4419 E-mail: citym~n'a),ci.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: August 27, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
1, -
VIA: John C. Brown, City Manager
FROM: Scott Duiven, Senior Planne~~''/
SUBJECT: Prioritizing Development/Growth Management
This follows the City Council's goal of being able to prioritize development, as identified in the January
2009 Goal Setting Workshop ("Enable City Council to be able to prioritize development"). Council
expressed a desire to exercise more discretionary authority in reviewing projects, and to be more
proactive about community development. Council goals also .include "streamlining" the development
review process to improve transparency, user friendliness, and timeliness. Staff has investigated the
approaches other communities use to address prioritizing .development, and found a wide variety of
techniques, although none which appears comprehensive. Staff is seeking. additional direction, to move
forward with developing an appropriate framework for prioritizing development. This effort also
provides an opportunity, through associated policy and process changes to streamline the development
process. The following outline and narrative are intended to act as starting points for discussion.
1. Development as a Right vs. Privilege
Central to the discussion is the challenge of balancing the need to accommodate property/development
rights, while preserving community .character, the environment, and our quality of life. The issue of
development as a .right or privilege ..has. been made more complex by court decisions revolving around
property rights and takings issues. The City Attorney will be prepared to address this issue in greater
detail and identify the boundaries within which prioritization can occur at the workshop.
2. Def_nning `Prioritize"
The Council's goal-setting session covered a lot of ground within a few hours. Consequently, further
discussion regarding what the' Council wants to accomplish through this goal is needed to enable staff to
develop the appropriate prioritization framework. The Council may want to specify the kinds of
development it desires for Petaluma (within the limitations established by Federal, State, local, and
guiding case law). Or, Council,may simply want to find additional ways in which to manage growth. The
effort requires articulation of a vision of how the Community should develop, which would ideally
provide developers and city staff with a clear understanding of the kinds of projects the Council wants to
see built in Petaluma. This section of your workshop should be focused on articulating a vision for
development and defining "prioritize".
Honorable Mayor and City Council August 27, 2009
Re: Prioritizing Development/Growth Management Page 2
3. Too9s in Use
A review of the tools currently available to the .Council for prioritizing development and managing
growth may be helpful: The following list, which is not exhaustive, identifies some of the tools currently
available to us. Some of these are not being used~to the best advantage; depending on Council direction,
additional or other options may be necessary.
• General Plan & Implementing Zoning Ordinance
• Central Petaluma Specific Plan & SmartCode°
• Other Planning Documents e.g. River Plan and Bike Plan
• Capital Improvement Program
• Redevelopment Plan
• Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (FEIA)
• Design Review
• Municipal Code Sections e.g. Residential Growth Management System
• Urban Growth Boundary
While answers to what is, and is not being done now, and how more could be done with what is available,
require further analysis, it seems appropriate to consider existing tools as a primary step in determining
what additional tools may be necessary to satisfy Council goals.
4. Growth Ndanage~nent
Assuming Council seeks to improve its ability to manage growth, emphasizing specific kinds of projects
and deemphasizing others, Council's discretionary authority in prioritizing development may best be
viewed within the context of controlling the location, uali ,and timin of development -growth
management.
Location: Priorities focus on specific areas or significant properties with development and/or
redevelopment potential. For example:
• Transit-oriented - e.g. within '/2 mile of regional transit (walking distance)
• Within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Area
• Along a particular road corridor or segment
• A specific property or group of properties
• Other...
Quality: Priorities focus on the type of project and community benefit of future development. For
example:
• Mixed use development (vertical or horizontal)
® Employment generating
• Revenue generating
• Affordable housing
• Incorporation of green build'ing/technology
• Provision of community amenities e.g. parks, pathways, resource enhancement/protection
• Low water demand
• Other....
Timing: The issue of timing can be looked at both from the perspective of controlling how much of a
certain type of development occurs within a period. of time based on available facilities or services, or
attracting development which has been slow to occur through incentives. For example:
• Number of residential units per year (e.g. RGMS)
• Limits on nonresidential square footage per year
• Other...
Honorable Mayor and City Council August 27, 2009
Re.• Prioritizing Development/Growth Management Page 3
Attached is anon-exhaustive list of options that can be used for managing the location, quality and timing
of development. Also attached is a memorandum regarding the City's Residential Growth Management
System. A significant portion of this, or a future workshop should be dedicated to discussing selection
criteria.
5. Streamlining and Incentives
It is recommended that the Council consider approaches that are not purely regulatory but, instead, offer
incentives to meet (or exceed) the Council's development priorities. These may include incentives to
facilitate development in targeted areas or on targeted sites such as:
o Process streamlining
o Safe harbors
o Public/private financing partnerships
a Deferrals, credits, and financial incentives
o Other...
The foregoing outline is intended to direct discussion in the areas where it appears, at a minimum,
necessary to make further progress towards your goal. Staff looks forward to discussing these, and/or
other related subjects at your August 31, 2009 workshop.
Attachments:
1. Techniques for Managing the Location, Quality, and Timing of Development
2. August 2007 Memo on Growth Management
Techniques for Managing the Location, Quality, and Timing of Development*
1. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
2. Agricultural Buffers
3. Agricultural Use Notice
4. Area/Neighborhood Plan
5. Capital Improvement Program
6. Cluster Development
7. Conditional Zoning
8. Density Bonus
9. Design Review
10. Development Agreement
11. Development Standards .Review
12. Fiscal Impact Analysis
13. Hillside/Slope Zoning
14. Historic District Ordinance
15. Infill Development
16. Land Trust
17. Mixed-Use Development
18. Overlay Zones
19. Performance Zoning
20. Planned Unit Development
21. Purchase of Development Rights
22. Specific Plan
23. Stream/Creek Zoning
24. Streamlining Land-Use Review
25. Transfer of Development Rights
26. Urban Growth Boundary
27. Visioning
28. Wetland Mitigation Banking,
29. Woodlands Protection Zoning
30. Zero Lot Line Housing
*Source: "Alternative Techniques for Managing Growth," Irving Schiffman, 1999.
CITY OF ETALUIVIA, CALIFORNIA
IVIEMORANDLTM
Departrnertt of General:Pla'n Adniiriistration
27 Hotivar~d.Street;:Petalur~ia, CA 949'52
(707) 778-4552 FrcY (707)'.778-4586 E-mail: ~erleralp[tuinei.petaluma.ca:us
DATE: 24 August 2007
TO: Mike Bierman, City Manager
FROM: Pamela Tuft, AICP, Director of GP Administration
SUBJECT: Growth Management
This memo follows up on .the Council discussion at the ,June 4t" meeting .during.. their conclusion of
t11e Draft General Plan 2025.hearings: A majority of the Council indcated.a desire to reactivate
the use of the existing 1esidential Growth 1VIanagement Systegn (ItGMS). Most of the content
on the .history of our growth management system was outlined in a May memo to you but is
repeated herein.
As work progresses on the preparation. of .the Final EIR for the: General P1an.2025 adoption. process,
updating of development statistics is occurring. We currently have over 1,400 .residential unit`s in
Tier 3 (projects in the review process). 'These. units are the first.priorty of this memo.
Background: Petaluma's existing Residential Growth Management System (RGMS): Chapter
12.26 of the Petaluma,Municipal Code provides the authority to regulate the number of residential
units granted entitlements over a given one to.three-year period.
Section 17.26.020 B. specifically detertriines that the RGMS:
...provides the flexibility to modulate residential growth over time and prevent
overburdening local services,, while accommodating future: residential- development at a rate
consistent with historic trends."
Section 17.2'6.030 C provides the following definitions:
.and vailablecfor di pool" ;means: the numerical total of allocations as set by the city council
stributon. to qualifying. proj ects in a given year.
"De~eloprnent objective"' means a statement, made annually by the City Council, .and
approved by resolution, expressing the Council's priorities with respect to desired. future
conditions'. of residential "development for°the coming building year...."
Section 17.26.060 _ I providing the process for Award of Allotments authorizes the Council as
follows:
"The Cty.Couiicl, when establishing the annual allocatonp.ool, as described under Section
17..26..060 A,~of this ordinance, may establish ,an .annual allocation pool of less than SOO .for
any given year based on findings of fact demonstrating .detrimental impact with respect to
the general plan or to the health, safety and welfare of the eitzens.of Petaluma."
Mi~ke~Bierrnan.
Re: PrioriCizatiofa of Growth
24 August 200,7
Exemptions to the RGMS are granted to senior:an`d lower ;income housing. These two types of
housing are exempt frorri both the allocation., process and from being counted in the annual
allocation pool .set by the City Council. Projects, on fi-ve acres or less. and creating no more than
thirty units or lots are exempt from the application process but are counted as part of the annual
allocation pool; .however, these otherwise exempt.infill projects are required to be phased so that no
more than fifteen units or Pots are created per year (Section 17.26.040 D).
Legislative. actions.. on the RGMS, since the adoption. of the last General Plan in 1987, are
summarized below:
Ord. #1710 (01/1988) Adopted an Interim. Growth 'Management System for 1988,
Petaluma Municipal Code (P1VIC) Section 17.32.
Ord. #1716 (03/1988) Adopted a New Growth.Management System, P1VIC Section 17.26.
Ord. #1720 (05/1988) Adopted an Interim Growth Management System for 1988 (minor
text. amendments to Ordinance #1710):
Ord. #1795 (03/1990) Amended~.~ the RGMS to "effectively monitor residential growth
over .time and improve the efficiency of the development review
. process".
Ord. #183'9 (01/1991) ,Amended. the RGMS. deleting PMC Sec. 1732 (Interim System)
and providing text amendments to Sec. 17.26.
Ord. #1841 (03/199'1) Amended the RGMS . regarding Development Objectives,
Secondary Pool Allocation, and the. Notice of Intent to Develop
submittal.and review process.
Ord. #2038 (11/1996) .Amended the RGMS Section :17.26.040 A and C.
March 2002 The City Council discussed and determined the "consensus of the
majority of the Council is to continue with the Notice of Intent to
Develop forms to all developers; monitor the residential growth
limits and bring back the process where any of the three threshold
criteria :are exceeded; which. would b.e ari average of .500 units per
year no more than 1.000 units. in any one year and no more than
15.00 units over three consecutive years." (Copy of March 18, 2002
. minutes was attached to the May memo).
Concurrently with. the ;adoption of the new General Plan 2025 an amendment wll~be :recommended.
for the Municipal ~C,od`e;to update General Plan text references, replacing those which reference the
1987-2005 'G'eneral Plan with. references to General Plan 2025 text, in order. to '.incorporate new
°General Plan 2025 policies.
Opportunities:: The current RGMS provides the Council. with the authority to identify
priorities for residential devefo,pment: Section 17.26.030 F; which. defines "Development
Objectives", provides "....These priorities may include,,but are not limited to, consideration of such
factors as traffic, schools and- housing type and location..:." This same definition includes "...The
city council shall use the development. objectives in addition to general plan policy as criteria for
distributing allocations to .individual. projects..."
Vilithil. the current RGMS author-ity (S,ection 17.26:060 ~I, referenced above) the Council has the
ability to set an allocationz pool at whatever numl?er is deemed appropriate given all factors defined
wi-thin the RGMS legislation and 'the applicable sections of the General Plan. There is certainly
S:\Tuft\General' Plan 202\memos\Mike..Bierman\G~oyvth`mana~emeiit 082407.doc
`~` Mike=Bier~na~a 24 August 2007
Re:' Prioritization ofGt'otivth page 3
precedent in setting;.allocation pools below, the 500 maximum: In. September 1.999, the last time an
allocation pool was adopted, the Council set .the 2000 Allocation Fool at "240 units and/or lots".
The existing RGMS provides adequate legislative authority to manage residential growth for the
period of time from now through General_ Plan adoption and until the Ellis Creek Water Recycling
Facility and recycled. water distribution system, are complete and. providing additional recycled
water to reduce use: ofpotable.water required for projected growth.
A formal .notice. slio.ul¢ be sent to he :local. developers informing theme of the Council's
decision to reactivate the RGMS for residential unit allocations. The Council, per Section
17.26.050 A.1, should .identify Development Objectives and define the findings of fact
.appropriate to identify the maximum number ofallocations to be granted. It is anticipated that
findings of fact would, or could, focus on.the following:.
® Infrastructure supply availab"lfy (i.e.; water; sewer; traffic, .etc.);
® the need to keep.pace wth'the ability to serve and maintain; an acceptable level and quality
of service to existing.. and~,.fizture residences and businesses;.
® emphasis on infill devel'opmerC fo maximum use of alternative transportation;
® emphasis on green building to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.; and,
® continued' assurance of a wide range of housing by type,. price, and density (diversity).
Utilizing the existing" RGMS; and managing the residential growth now and immediately after the
adoption of the General Plan. -2025 and into the near future {at least until 2009), would allow
development to proceed while remaining within the projected available peak water supply".and areas
of potential constraint. The RGMS would also be an effective fool following 2.009 to ensure
development does :not exceed the pace of potable water offset.
Non:-Residential !Growth Mana;?ement: The City's current RGMS does not provide the authority
or a process for managing. the pace' of non-residential (industral, office acid retail) development.
The Draft General Plan 202.5, based on .p.ublic input through the public hearing. process and the
Council. action in 2002 to suspend the residential growth management process, provided minimal
direction to .address. the issue. Section 2, Land Use, Growth Management and. the Built
Enviromnent provides the following goad, policies and programs (edits recommended 6y the
:Plann>."ng. Comm>ssiori within the May 2007 compilation repor€. are: .illustrated, staff comments-are
:noted in italics): .
'GOAL'2=G,6: Grg,wth Management.`
Maintain a ;~~~;+~i~; growth management .system to ensure 'public infrastructure. keeps pace with
growth.
Rolicies and Programs
2-P-47 Ensure ~thaf the pace of `growth does not create spikes .that unduly strain City services.
A. Monitor the availability of resources Necessary to serve„new"development, prior to granting
entitlements.
B. "Upon adoption of the General Rlan immediately reevaluate the Residential Growth
Management System with the possibility of reducing the annual allocation numbers and
eliminating oc reducing "exernpfions to keep pace with infrastructure capacities and to allow a
S;1Tuft\General Plan 2025\memosUviike Bierman\Growth management 032407.doc
.Mike Bierman Z4 August 7007
Re~ Prioritization. o~Growth Page 4
reasonable annual growth rate through 2025: (Note: given the flexibility within the existing
RGN1S and the decision by the Council in June 2007`to reactivate the existing system, this
will be reworded to utilize the existing authority .under fhe RGMS fo manage residenfial
growth to keep pace with infrastructure capabilities]
C Evaluate the need for a nonresidential growth management program.
2-P-48 Ensure all new development~pcovides necessary'public facilities to support that development.
A Collect proportionate fair share of long-term infrastructure "improvement costs as
entitlements are granted.
B. Initiate design of long-term infrastructure improvements in a timely manner to insure their
completeness fo coincide with demand.
If desired by the City Council, parameters of'a non-residential growth. management program (2-P-
47 C, quoted.. above) would be researched, presented for consideration and subsequently
implemented, following the adoption of the General Plan... Studies,undertaken for the General .Plan
and DEIR work effort indicated thatnon-residential development accounts for <50% of the future
water demand. If .implementation of this program is directed by Council, discussions of possible
thresholds could include the following:
Expansion timing and capability of infrastructure (water,, sewer, streets) and local services
(police and fire) connected to an ability to serve by square footage and/or intensity of the
type of development. " "
Economic benefit" of proposed development with. the least environmental impacts.
There is already sortie discussion of the secondary economic effects of a slower rate of non-
residential development on the City's fiscal picture in General. Plan 2025 Appendix F-1, Fiscal
Impacts. .
What appears to be of more interest to the Council is the quality;. size and scale of non-residential
;development rather than, or at least equal to, the importance of the rate of growth: If that is the
case, the entitlement process including the~review of Environmental Impact Reports associated with
major projects and' the City' authority to approve or deny a project based on consistency -with
General Plan goals and"policies remains the most effective means of implementing the vision of the
physical environment of the City. , .
Direction:
Residential: 1. Fol ow up ,on Couneil direction to "reactivate the Residential Growth
Management System, identify and adopt annual Develop"merit Objectives by
which to grant allocations, set the allocation. pool based. on the ability to
serve with City infrastructure and services (this reflects the direction provided
to .City staff by the Couneil in June 20.07).
The May 30; 2007 memo outlined three options to address non-residential growth; they remain
possible for Council consideration following adoption of the General Plan 2025:
Non-Residential: 1. Exercise the 'existing authority to deny projects not meeting the vision and
goals ofthe community:
2. Provide direction. to address.ths issue :outside the context of the General
Plan and Final EIR by identifying priorities (examples discussed above).
S:\Tuft\Geneial Plan 202\memos\Mike Biem~an\Growth management 082407.doc
Mike Bier»2an. 24 August 2007
Re: ' Prio~~itizatioji of Growth Page S
3. Utilize first-come, -first-serve development processing until available water
supply is committed; thereafter- .:initiate. a moratorium .until the recycled water
system is on line to offset potable demand.
c: Scott Duiven, Senior Rlariner
GP work file
PT/rf
S:\Tuft\General Plan 2025\memosUvlike Bierman\Growtli management OS2407.doc