BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the October 13, 2022 Planning Commission hearing. A more detailed background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 3.
Background
The City adopted a revitalization strategy in 1999 to support improvements to the Historic Old Town, Vernon Street, and other aging areas of the city. This effort resulted in the adoption of the Riverside Gateway Specific Plan in 2006 and the Downtown Specific Plan in 2009. The intent of this investment was to return these areas, which to this day still serve as the center and core of the fabric of the City, to their former prominence. These efforts stimulated reinvestment in these areas, with improved streetscapes, as well as the development of new businesses and housing.
City Council identified further corridor planning and reinvestment as a Council priority, and in 2019 authorized staff to submit a grant application pursuant to Senate Bill 2 for this work. Senate Bill 2 established a permanent source of funding for planning activities that can demonstrate a connection to housing production. In the grant application brought to City Council, staff identified Atlantic Street, Douglas and Harding Boulevards, and Douglas and Sunrise Boulevards as key areas which are connected to each other, to the City’s downtown, to the Downtown and Riverside Gateway plans, and to vital transportation hubs. Staff proposed to develop separate but related Specific Plans for each of the corridor areas, with the purpose of streamlining and incentivizing redevelopment.
City Council’s decision to consider planning activities in these areas was also influenced by several controversial infill projects, including the proposed Dutch Bros coffee kiosk at 1017 Douglas Boulevard and the Old Town Lofts at 241 Nevada Avenue. The Dutch Bros project was denied and the Old Town Lofts project was approved, but a message heard from the community was a concern about sites developing one by one without a cohesive plan for the overall area. The proposed Commercial Corridor Plans project is an opportunity to develop these cohesive policies, design guidelines, and plans for each area.
Summary Evaluation
The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3) provides detailed descriptions of the proposed project, evaluations of the requested entitlements, and how each component of the proposed Specific Plans meet the required findings. Below are summaries of those evaluations. Refer to Attachment 3 for detailed descriptions and evaluations.
General Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Amendment would:
- Amend the actual text of the General Plan document to add references to the new plans in the Land Use Element;
- Amend Figure 2-2, the General Plan Land Use Map, to reflect the land use designation changes in the plans, correct the land use from Low Density Residential to Open Space in the Dry Creek open space area, and to remove the land use designations over the arterial roadways within and adjacent to the plan area consistent with current City practice;
- Amend Figure 2-1 to add the boundaries of the new specific plans; and
- Amend Figure and 3-1 and 8-3, because the specific plan boundaries and City land use map are included as background information on these figures
Further, as the planning process for the project got underway, staff determined that many of the parcels located within and near the corridors had General Plan land use inconsistencies that could potentially result in future issues if developed or improved, including incompatibility between land use and zoning designations. In several instances, these inconsistencies precluded any improvements to certain properties without a time consuming and costly entitlement process.
In addition to bringing the General Plan land use map into consistency with the underlying zoning and actual use of each property, the General Plan Amendment would also make the map consistent with the City’s typical land use practices, such as removing land use designations from arterial roadways located within the Plan Areas and replacing the Low Density Residential land use designation within the designated floodplain along Dry Creek to Open Space, consistent with it's zoning designation. The project “cleans up” and makes clear a logical and internally consistent land use hierarchy from the General Plan down to the Zoning Ordinance level.
Specific Plan Amendment
The City’s overall growth strategy in the General Plan is based largely on the implementation of Specific Plans to ensure balanced growth, appropriate infrastructure and public services, and provide community and neighborhood character. The project includes a water and sewer technical study to ensure there is capacity for up to 850 multifamily residential units in all three plan areas, which includes up to 50 units assumed within the Atlantic Street plan, up to 200 units in the Douglas-Harding plan, and up to 600 units in the Douglas-Sunrise plan. The project also provides Design Guidelines and conceptual streetscape improvement options to promote community character, provide for community gateways, and ensure any new development is an integrated part of existing development.
Adoption of the Corridor Plans creates a clear and internally consistent hierarchy, by applying the City’s current practice of planning for logical and efficient development through the use of specific plans in three areas of the City where development pre-dates the practice. Recognizing the demand for revitalization of the City’s older commercial corridors and the need for housing to support existing commercial areas, the Corridor Plans allow for the City to encourage development using a consistent, planned approach to improve neighborhood identity and avoid piecemeal and spotty development without adversely affecting infrastructure capacity. This is consistent with the City’s overall approach to growth management.
Rezone
Approval and adoption of the Specific Plans would result in the correction of several existing land use and zoning inconsistencies, including spot zoning, inconsistencies between land use and the zone district, and outdated Planned Development zones. The correction of these issues will further the public interest, health, safety, and welfare of the City. Incompatibilities between land use designations and zoning can create a costly and time-consuming administrative issue for property owners wishing to improve their properties, which disincentivizes property improvements and leads over time to properties and businesses which suffer from disinvestment. Furthermore, the use of property-specific Planned Development ordinances reduces clarity for the public, property owners, and tenants. Removing these barriers reduces costs and processing time while providing streamlined processes for property owners, creating assurances and an incentive for property improvements.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The Project adds each Specific Plan to Roseville Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) Section 19.18.030, Special Area (SA) District. This section lists the Specific Plans in the City which have adopted area-specific development standards; each of the proposed three Specific Plans will be added to this list. The Project also establishes Chapter 19.33 (Commercial Corridor Plans) of the Zoning Ordinance, which includes the new permitted use tables, development standards, and approval processes all in one location. Placing these regulations within the Zoning Ordinance, rather than in a stand-alone ordinance, makes them easier to access and more user-friendly. The Corridor Plans include user-friendly summaries of how the regulatory processes work, with references provided to the detailed regulatory standards of Chapter 19.33 of the Zoning Ordinance. Once adopted, the Specific Plans will include hyperlinks to the relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance, making cross-referencing as easy as possible.
Planning Commission Hearing
The Public Review Draft Commercial Corridor Specific Plans were considered by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2022. Several members of the public spoke on the project and expressed: general opposition to the project; objections to multifamily and high density housing; concerns about various issues such as water supply, lighting, groundwater, and utility capacity (including schools); general concerns they felt could be exacerbated by the project, including public safety, parking, issues with unsheltered individuals, concerns regarding the influence of State legislation on the City’s planning process and the project, and concerns with the public outreach process. Other members of the community expressed support for the project, though one commenter felt that it does not go far enough to move the City in the direction of creating more multi-modal corridors, which would require major transportation engineering efforts.
Staff provided more information about the role of long-range planning in the City and provided some clarity about what the project would and would not do, since many public concerns have been based on misunderstandings about the project. Staff further clarified that housing and commercial development were already allowed uses in these areas, and that the project provides streamlining and would remove administrative barriers, which would be more likely to result in higher quality projects and have a benefit to the community. Staff also clarified that any development of housing or other uses would be private sector projects, not City projects, and that approval of the project does not result in approval of any particular site for development. Property owners seeking to make improvements will continue to be required to submit an application to the City.
The Planning Commission did not recommend any changes to the Public Review Draft Commercial Corridor Specific Plans, and unanimously recommended approval of the project (6-0-0). Minor, non-substantive administrative changes have been made to the Specific Plans, including adding the right-of-way acreage to the "Land Use, Zoning, and Acreage by Parcel" table of each Specific Plan (Table 3.1 in all three plans). A redline version of this table change is included as Attachment 4.