HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.C 05/04/2020a��LU Agenda Item #5.0
z85s
DATE: May 4, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager; `J
FROM: Brittany Bendix, Deputy Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance approving Zoning Text Amendments to the
SmartCode Section 1.10.010, Table 3. 1, Section 4.70.040 and Section 9.10.020 to
clarify land us size limitations, align specific permit requirements, enable
administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review, and coordinate reference to
green building requirements
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance approving Zoning Text
Amendments to the SmartCode to modify Section 1.10.010 (Applicability of Code Standards),
Table 3.1 (Allowed Building Functions and Permit Requirements), Section 4.70.040 (Building
Material Guidelines), and Section 9.10.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) to
clarify land use size limitations, align specific permit requirements with the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance (IZO), enable administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for minor scopes of
work, and coordinate reference to Green Building requirements with those of the current Building
Code.
The Council may also wish to provide policy direction regarding future code amendments to create
parking maximums instead of or in addition to parking minimums.
BACKGROUND
The Central Petaluma Plan r r . and SmartCode provide specific land use ai
development. • for an area generally boundedby on and nort
PetalumaBoulevard on i Highway 101 on the south.i• .• in June of 00
shopping,Plan envisions Central Petaluma to be a place where a wide range of new employment, housin
i entertainment activities develop in relativet t one •
urban• adjacent o the historicdowntown and the Petaluma River.As an appendix•.
tile r r initialr' t was adopted • provide zoning regulations for
CPSP boundaries.
In 2013, the City adopted t Area Master Plan and an amended SrnartCode to furthm
advance • for area. amended SmartCode included significantrevisions
regulatoryprocesses,and creationwarrants • variances to provi l
flexibilitv. Since that aipplication of r ••- standards hasproceeded smoothl - howev
identifiedstaff has areas •uld benefit from greater clarity and/or flexibility wA standard
especially as they relate to market changes, modification to the Implementing Zoning Ordinanc.
Page I
which governs the broader City, and advancements in Green Building practices.
I lo NO V R. • me I is I RM tog�' 'i• ♦ . �.
• Provision for Administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for smaller projects and
matching provisions in the IZO
• Reference to Nome Occupation Permit requirement in the land use table
• Clarification of size limitations for specific land uses
• Modification to the definition of Artisan Craft Product Manufacturing to include small
scale food and beverage manufacturing
• Creation of a new land use category for Tasting Rooms to be allowed with a Minor Use
Permit
The proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission on March 10, 2020 and
the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2020-04 recommending City Council approval
of the SmartCode amendments. The Planning Commission identified most of the proposed
amendments as legislative clean-up items. Each of the proposed amendments is presented in
Attachment 3 to include a summary of the existing regulation, the proposed modifications, and the
rationale for the amendment.
In addition to these modifications, the staff report also initiated a discussion with the Planning
Commission regarding the potential for future modifications to transition parking requirements for
properties within the SmartCode boundaries from parking minimums to parking maximums. Staff
raised this topic in response to recent feedback from both the public and decision makers during
specific project review.
In addition to the discussion regarding a future transition to parking maximums, the Planning
Commission's deliberation also focused on regulations and oversight of tasting rooms and public
noticing practices. The following surmnarizes the Planning Commission's discussion on those
specific topics.
Public Noticing
During the public comment portion of the hearing, a resident raised a concern that the proposed
amendments were reducing public involvement when their opinion was that increased public
involvement was desired. Changes to allow Administrative SPAR and allowing tasting rooms and
small scale food and beverage manufacturing with a Minor Use Permit would reduce noticing from
the required 1,000 foot radius for major projects to the 500 foot radius for administrative projects.
This comment carried forward into the Planning Commission's discussion about the appropriate
noticing radius for projects and consideration of whether increased public noticing should be
encouraged to require a 1,000 foot noticing radius for all projects. During this discourse, staff
reminded the Commission of the most recent changes to noticing requirements adopted by the City
Council in 2018 to increase the radius to 1,000 feet and requirement for onsite posting for major
projects and acknowledged that the minimum radius required by State Code is 300 feet. Staff also
noted that the cost of preparing and mailing notices is applied to the project and that while the cost
varies for each project based on the number of owners and occupants within the noticing area that
Page 2
generally the 1,000 foot radius is significantly more expensive for the project.
The majority of Commissioners indicated that the current noticing requirements based on the scope
of the project (major versus minor) is acceptable although there was openness to future discussion.
Commissioner Streeter indicated that the City of Santa Rosa has seen an increase in participation
by shifting to a postcard notice. Commissioner Gomez encouraged staff to consider ways to use
social media and the website to expand outreach regardless of the required noticing radius.
Commissioner Alonso, indicated he did not believe the 500 -foot radius sufficient for
administrative projects and encouraged staff to pursue increasing it to 1,000 feet.
No changes to the amendments were proposed as a result of the Commission's discussion.
Tasting Rooms
Building on the discussion of public noticing, Commissioner Alonso raised a concern that the
proposed amendments would diminish the Planning Commission's oversite with regards to tasting
rooms, either as a component to a food and beverage manufacturing use, or as a stand-alone use.
The Commission discussed the proposed modifications to allow Tasting Rooms through a Minor
Use Permit, with particular focus on the Planning Division's coordination with the Police
Department, avoidance of an over -concentration, and the review framework for processing a
Minor Use Permit.
Staff clarified the differences between the administrative review process for MUP or
Administrative SPAR as differentiated from Planning Commission review of a CUP or Major
SPAR. The two scales of review are distinct from each other in the cost of the application and the
requirement for a public hearing. The standards of review, internal coordination with City
departments, and application of conditions of approval remain the same. Additionally, the intent
of offering an administrative review process is to provide a more cost effective and time efficient
path for small projects, which is essential for small businesses that may need to pay rent while
seeking entitlements or individual property owners that are pursuing minor improvements to their
sites. Coordination with the Police Department relative to alcohol related establishments happens
regardless, and if the Police Department, or any other City department or division raises strong
objections to a project during administrative review, the Planning Manager can refer the
application to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. This would also be the case should
over -concentration and resulting impacts become a concern. Additionally, all administrative
decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission.
Upon further discussion the majority of Commissioners appreciated the flexibility afforded to
tasting rooms to proceed through the administrative review process, especially as this is consistent
with the controls in the IZO as amended in 2018, and that since that time staff has not received
public opposition to such projects. Further, Commissioners suggested that should over -
concentration become an issue of concern in the future, the matter return for consideration and
policy direction. Ultimately, six of the Commissioners voted in support of the text amendments as
initially proposed. However, Commissioner Alonso voted against the modification package
maintaining his concern that the lack of direct oversight by the Commission and potential for over -
concentration of tasting rooms was a matter of public health and merited additional study and
outreach prior to any procedural changes.
Page 3
Parking Maxilmns
Although there was no formal action before the Planning Commission relative to applying parking
maximums in the SmartCode, the Commission welcomed the discussion and supported advancing
the concept. There was also consensus that such a policy shift should use incentives or exceptions
to encourage less parking, rather than using restrictions. Additionally, some Commissioners
recommended the following information should zoning amendments be brought forward in the
future:
• The influence of onsite parking relative to financing options through banks, with the desire
to not create additional financial obstacles
• The appropriateness of maintaining some level of a minimum parking requirement
• Comparison with other cities of a similar scale to Petaluma that have shifted their parking
requirements and using those case studies to assess unintended consequences
• Ensuring that parking maximums do not impact ADA accessibility
• Ensuring that visitor serving uses have adequate parking
DISCUSSION
Prior to approving a Zoning Text Amendment the City Council must find that the amendments
conform to the Petaluma General Plan and are consistent with the public necessity, convenience,
and general welfare in accordance with Section 25.050(B) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance.
As outlined in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-04, the proposed zoning text
amendments are in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan 2025 and Central Petaluma
Specific Plan in that the amendments do not change the general character or impacts of current
zoning regulations. The proposed amendments to the SmartCode provide greater clarity for
existing controls by simplifying language and bring requirements into alignment with the IZO and
Building Code. Ultimately, the changes support the General Plan's overall goal to guide
development in line with the vision and underlying policies.
Specifically, the proposed text amendments are consistent with the following General Plan
policies:
Policy 1-P-7: Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for
innovation and the ability to change over time.
Policy 1-P-9: Support continued development and intensification of employment centers.
Policy 1-P-13: Maintain Downtown as the City's geographic and symbolic center and a focus of
commercial activities.
Policy 9-P-1: Retain and attract `basic' economic activities that bring dollars into the local
economy by exporting products and services. Allow flexibility within the City's
standards and regulations to encourage a variety of housing types.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and welfare in
that they update and clarify existing regulations, provide greater flexibility in processing
Page 4
development proposals, and remove identified obstacles to the implementation of the zoning code,
which implements the policies of the General Plan.
CITY GOALS
The proposed text amendments are in alignment with the following City Council Goals for 2019-
2021:
Workplan Item #101: Create and promote business -friendly City operations such as zoning,
permitting and licensing.
Workplan Item #106: Enhance information on licensing and permitting guidelines to be accessible
and understandable to all.
Workplan Item #110: Retain businesses that support local agriculture (e.g. processing, product
development).
Workplan Item #111: Incentivize, support, and incubate small, start-up businesses.
Workplan Item #122: Review Downtown zoning to identify ways to balance entertainment venues
with retail and services and to incorporate SmartCode
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed zoning text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15061(B)(3), General Rule, in that there is no possibility that the approval of the
modifications to the SmartCode will result in a significant impact on the environment.
Additionally, the zoning text amendments are exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
in that the modifications are consistent with the General Plan as discussed above. The subject
zoning text amendments are minor modifications to existing regulations that only apply to specific
locations and uses as governed by the SmartCode, consistent with the General Plan. For the above
reasons, the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public notice for both the March 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting and the Mary 4, 2020
City Council meeting was published in the Argus Courier as an eighth page ad at least ten days
prior to each public hearing. No written public comments have been received in response to either
public notice.
Two members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission hearing on March 10, 2020. One
individual, as noted above encouraged the Commission to consider expanding the notification
radius for administrative projects from 500 feet to 1,000 feet. A second individual spoke to provide
encouragement of future study of parking maximums.
Page 5
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The SmartCode Amendments were drafted by staff under Base Level Services without any
additional cost to the General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit 1:
SmartCode Amendments Clean Copy
Attachment 2:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-04
Attachment 3:
Planning Commission Staff Report, March 3, 2020
Attachment 4:
Redline of Proposed SmartCode Amendments
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AMENDING
THE TEXT OF THE SMARTCODE, ORDINANCE NO. 2470 N.C.S., TO MODIFY
SECTION 1.10.010 (APPLICABILITY OF CODE STANDARDS), TABLE 3.1
(ALLOWED BUILDING FUNCTIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS), SECTION
4.70.040 (BUILDING MATERIAL GUIDELINES), AND SECTION 9.10.020
(DEFINITIONS OF SPECIALIZED TERMS AND PHRASES) TO PROVIDE CLARITY
ON LAND USE LIMITATIONS AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the text amendments contained in Exhibit 1 to this ordinance would modify
the following sections of the City's SmartCode Ordinance 2470 N.C.S.: Section 1.10.010
(Applicability of Code Standards), Table 3.1 (Allowed Building Functions and Permit
Requirements), Section 4.70.040 (Building Material Guidelines), and Section 9.10.020
(Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases); and
WHEREAS, the text amendments contained in Exhibit I would provide clarification and
minor updates common to address changing trends in land use and construction and to more
effectively use the SmartCode to implement City policy as adopted in the Petaluma General Plan
and Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, public notice of the March 10, 2020 Planning Commission
meeting to consider the amendments was published in the Argus Courier as an eighth page ad; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to IZO Section 25.050, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the zoning text amendments on March 10, 2020, at which time
all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 2020 -XX, recommending the City Council adopt the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2020, public notice of the May 4, 2020 public hearing before
the City Council to consider the amendments was published in the Argus Courier in accordance
with Government Code Section 65090; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2020, the City Council of the City of Petaluma held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Findings. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby finds:
The text amendments contained in Exhibit 1 to this ordinance, which exhibit is hereby
made a part of this resolution for all purposes, are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15061(b)(3) and 15183 in that the proposed text amendments are minor modifications to
existing regulations that will only apply to specific locations and uses as governed by the
SmartCode.
ATTACHMENT 1
2. In accordance with Sections 25.010 and 25.050(B) of the City' s Implementing Zoning
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S., ("IZO"), the proposed amendments to the
SmartCode as contained in Exhibit 1 are in general conformity with the Petaluma General
Plan 2025 in that these amendments do not change the general character or impacts of
current zoning regulations and implement the General Plan as outlined in the March 10,
2020 Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated into this ordinance by this
reference.
3. In accordance with Section 25.050(B) of the IZO, the proposed amendments are consistent
with the public necessity, convenience, and welfare in that they update and clarify existing
regulations, provide greater flexibility in assigning designations to current land uses, and
remove identified obstacles to the implementation of the zoning code, which implements
the policies of the General Plan.
Section 2: Section 1.10.010 of the SmartCode, Ordinance No. 2470 N.C.S. is hereby amended
to read as follows:
H. Design Review. All buildings and associated site improvements within the
Central Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries are subject to Site Plan and
Architectural Review and approval, as outlined in Petaluma Implementing
Zoning Ordinance Section 24.010. Refer to the Architectural Guidelines
(Appendix "B" of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan) for example
illustrations and information on architectural character in the Specific Plan
area.
Section 3: Table 3.1 of the SmartCode, Ordinance No. 2470 N.C.S. is replaced by Exhibit 1
to this ordinance.
Section 4: Section 4.70.040 of the SmartCode, Ordinance No. 2470 N.C.S. is hereby amended
to read as follows:
D. CALGreen Requirements. Building shall meet or exceed the current
requirements of the adopted local Building Code and any associated Reach
Codes.
Section 5: Section 9.10.020 of the SmartCode, Ordinance No. 2470 N.C.S. is amended to read
as follows:
Artisan/Craft Product Manufacturing. An establishment manufacturing and/or
assembling small products primarily by hand, including jewelry, pottery and other
ceramics, as well as small glass and metal art and craft products. Includes
taxidermists. May also include small scale artisan food and beverage product
manufacturing and affiliated tasting rooms.
Bar/Tavern. A business where alcoholic beverages are sold for on-site
consumption, which are not part of a larger restaurant. Includes bars, taverns,
10
ATTACHMENT 1
pubs and similar establishments where any food service is subordinate to the sale
of alcoholic beverages. May also include beer brewing as part of a microbrewery,
and other beverage tasting facilities. Does not include adult entertainment
businesses. Does not include tasting rooms that are limited to a sole manufacturer.
Food and Beverage Product Manufacturing. Manufacturing establishments
producing foods and beverages for human consumption, and certain related
products. Examples of these uses include:
bottling plants; breweries; candy, sugar and confectionery products
manufacturing; catering services separate from stores or restaurants; coffee
roasting; dairy products manufacturing; fats and oil product manufacturing; fruit
and vegetable canning, preserving, related processing; grain mill products and by-
products; meat, poultry and seafood canning, curing, byproduct processing; soft
drink production; miscellaneous food item preparation from raw products;
wineries.
Does not includes: bakeries, which are separately defined; beer brewing as part of
a brewpub, bar or restaurant (see 'Bar/Tavern," and "Night Club"); or tasting
rooms.
Tasting Room. A facility or portion of a facility that supports a small-scale
artisan craft brewery, distillery, or winery. The tasting room shall only serve
and/or sell those beverages produced by the operating manufacturer and may
operate at a separate location from the production facilities if under a duplicate
ABC license type. The tasting room must also comply with all applicable ABC
and State regulations for wine, beer and distilled spirit manufacturers and tasting
rooms.
Section 6: Except as amended herein, the SmartCode, Ordinance No. 2470 N.C.S. remains
unchanged and in full force and effect.
Section 7: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or preempted by state legislation, such
decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would
have passed and adopted this ordinance and each and all provisions thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions be declared
unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid.
Section 8: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the
date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council.
Section 9: Posting/Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish or post
this ordinance or a synopsis for the period and in the manner provided by the City
Charter and other applicable law.
1-3
Attachment 2
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE
SMARTCODE, ORDINANCE NO. 2470 N.C.S., TO MODIFY SECTION 1.10.010 (APPLICABILITY OF
CODE STANDARDS), TABLE 3.1 (ALLOWED BUILDING FUNCTIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS),
SECTION 4.70.040 (BUILDING MATERIAL GUIDELINES), AND SECTION 9.10.020 (DEFINITIONS OF
SPECIALIZED TERMS AND PHRASES) TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON LAND USE LIMITATIONS AND
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the text amendments contained in Exhibit 1 to this resolution would modify the following
sections of the City's SmartCode Ordinance No. 2470 N.C.S., Section 1.10.010 (Applicability of Code
Standards), Table 3.1 (Allowed Building Functions and Permit Requirements), Section 4.70.040 (Building
Material Guidelines), and Section 9.10.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases); and
WHEREAS, the text amendments contained in Exhibit 1 would provide clarification and minor
updates common to address changing trends in land use and construction and to more effectively use
the SmartCode to implement City policy as adopted in the Petaluma General Plan and Central Petaluma
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, public notice of the March 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to
consider the amendments was published in the Argus Courier as an eighth page ad; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to IZO Section 25.050, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the zoning text amendments on March 10, 2020, at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report dated March 10, 2020 including
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination included therein; and
WHEREAS, IZO Section 25.010 provides for Zoning Text Amendments, which in this case has been
initiated by the Community Development Director.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated into the
resolution as findings of the Petaluma Planning Commission.
2. The text amendments contained in Exhibit 1 to this resolution, which exhibit is hereby made a part of
this resolution for the purposes, are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b) (3) and 15183 in
that the proposed text amendments are minor modifications to existing regulations that will only apply
to specific locations and uses as governed by the SmartCode.
3. In accordance with Sections 25.010 and 25.050(B) of the City' s Implementing Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S., (" IZO"), the proposed amendments to the SmartCode as contained in
Exhibit 1 are in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan 2025 in that these amendments
do not change the general character or impacts of current zoning regulations and implement the
General Plan as outlined in the March 10, 2020 Planning Commission staff report.
4. In accordance with Section 25.050(B) of the IZO, the proposed amendments are consistent with the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-04 Page 1
public necessity, convenience, and welfare in that they update and clarify existing regulations,
provide greater flexibility in assigning designations to current land uses, and remove identified
obstacles to the implementation of the zoning code, which implements the policies of the General
Plan.
5. The proposed amendments attached hereto as Exhibit 1, are hereby recommended to the Petaluma
City Council for consideration and finings in accordance with Sections 25.010 and. 25.050 of the City's
Implementing Zoning Ordinance.
ADOPTED this 10th day of March, 2020, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye No
Councilmember
X
McDonnell
Chair Alonso
X
Vice Chair Bauer
X
Gomez
X
Marzo
X
Potter
X
Streeter
X
ATTEST:
Heather Hines, Commission Secretary
Scott Alonso, Chair
Absent
Eric Danly, City Attorney
GI: n, m
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-04 Page 2
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brittany Bendix, Deputy Planning Manager
Attachment 3
Wei 110 7_\119100 [em/ ?
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment to SmartCode Section 1.10.010, Table 3.1, Section
4.70.040 and Section 9.10.020 to provide clarity on use size limitations to better
assist the public, to align permit requirements with the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance (IZO), to enable administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for
minor scopes of work — as consistent with the IZO, and to align Green Building
requirements with those of the current Building Code.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve a Zoning Text Amendment to the SmartCode, modifying Section 1.10.010
(Applicability of Code Standards), Table 3.1 (Allowed Building Functions and Permit
Requirements), Section 4.70.040 (Building Material Guidelines), and Section 9.10.020
(Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) to provide clarity on use size limitations to better
assist the public, to align permit requirements with the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO), to
enable administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for minor scopes of work — as consistent
with the IZO, and to align Green Building requirements with those of the current Building Code.
(Attachment A)
DISCUSSION
Site Plan and Architectural Review
Section 1.10.010 of the Smart Code currently requires Planning Commission review for all
building and site improvements within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. However, the
SmartCode does not directly identify the mechanism or findings by which to conduct this review.
In practice, this review process has functioned as Major Site Plan and Architectural Review
(SPAR) consistent with the requirements outlined in Section 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance (IZO). The proposed text change to SmartCode Section 1.10.010 would make the
connection to the IZO explicit and remove any existing ambiguity. Additionally, the proposed
amendment would allow Administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for those projects that
fall within the definition outlined in the IZO:
"Tire Director may grant administrative site plan and architectural approval for
nonproduction residential units in approved subdivisions of five or more lots, all
residential development of less than five units, and all minor additions or
modifications to industrial, commercial or office buildings, or may refer said
development proposals to the Planning Commission. " (IZO Section 24.010.B)
Page I
Home Occupation Permits
A Home Occupation use is a commercial activity conducted in a dwelling unit that is secondary to
the use of that dwelling. Many of the uses that are permissible as home occupation activities, such
as a professional offices and private one-on-one instruction, are principally permitted within the
Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. However, the `home occupation' designation and permitting
process enables the business activities to be conducted within a residence, subject to specific
conditions that ensure the business is compatible with adjacent residential uses. SmartCode Table
3.1 indicates that a Home Occupation use is principally permitted in the T4, T5, T6, T6-0 and D4
transect zones. However, it does not include any reference to the actual home occupation permit
outlined in IZO Section 7.050. In practice, residents pursuing a Home Occupation use at their
residence must complete an over-the-counter application with the Planning Division and submit a
Business License. This application process alerts residents to the operational conditions required
of a Home Occupation use and asserts their awareness of these requirements. The proposed text
amendments include a direct reference to IZO Section 7.050 to provide greater clarity.
Use Size Limitations
When the City adopted the Station Area Master Plan and the updated SmartCode in 2013 the newly
adopted code introduced the Minor Use Permit application process. The Minor Use Permit process
enables administrative review of proposals that necessitate conditional operation standards, but are
otherwise routine, small in scale, or straightforward. These permits require a 10 -day mailed notice
to all owners and occupants within 500 -feet and an advertisement in the local paper. Alternatively,
the Conditional Use Permit process extends the notice area to 1,000 -feet, requires onsite signage,
preparation of a staff report and a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The timeline
and cost associated with a Conditional Use Permit versus a Minor Use Permit is significant.
However, the required review and findings are consistent. Therefore, Minor Use Permits typically
enable a more efficient and cost -sensitive pathway for small business owners who may be opening
their first brick and mortar location.
As part of the 2013 amendments to include the Minor Use Permit process, changes to SmartCode
Table 3.1 included footnotes that addressed how the permitting requirements differed based on the
size of certain uses. Footnote "Y in Table 3.1 limits certain small to moderate scale manufacturing
uses to 5,000 square -feet on the ground floor. The proposed amendments would clean up the
current language to express that clearly and concisely. Footnote "4" in Table 3.1 requires larger
manufacturing or wholesaling uses to obtain either a Conditional or Minor Use Permit if they are
greater than 8,000 square -feet on the ground floor. If the uses are 8,000 square -feet or less, then
they are principally permitted. The proposed amendments clarify this requirement.
Artisan/Craft Product Manufacturing
Table 3.1 of the SmartCode sets forth the permit requirements for Artisan/Craft product
manufacturing uses in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Area. Such uses are principally
permitted in the T4 and D3 Transects and require a Minor Use Permit in the T5, T6, and T6-0
Transects. As currently defined, artisan/craft product manufacturing includes a grouping of small
manufacturing uses that are smaller in scale and less operationally intensive than larger
manufacturing uses. Table 3.1 of the SmartCode also provides the permit requirements for Food
and Beverage Product Manufacturing. This use requires a Conditional Use Permit in the T4, T5
and D1 Transects and is principally permitted in the D3 Transect.
Page 2
In 2018, the City Council approved changes to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance that broadened
the definition of Artisan/Craft Product Manufacturing to include small-scale artisan food and
beverage product manufacturing when impacts are minimal. As a result, this change has enabled
small business owners to locate small scale artisan food and beverage manufacturing in the
downtown Mixed Use zoning districts. The IZO amendments in 2018 did not extend to the
SmartCode, which covers the majority of non-residential tenant space in downtown and where
there is still a demand from local small-scale food and beverage entrepreneurs to operate. The
proposed amendments to SmartCode Section 9.10.020 would change the definition of
Artisan/Craft Product Manufacturing in the SmartCode to be consistent with the definition and
standards in the IZO.
Tasting Rooms
To further address the demand of local small-scale artisan food and beverage producers, the
proposed SmartCode amendments include `Tasting Room' as a new land use category. As
proposed, the definition for `Tasting Room' means a facility or portion of a facility that supports
a small-scale artisan craft brewery, distillery, or winery. The tasting room shall only serve and/or
sell those beverages produced by the operating manufacturer and may operate at a separate location
from the production facilities if under a duplicate ABC license type. The tasting room must also
comply with all applicable ABC and State regulations for wine, beer and distilled spirit
manufacturers and tasting rooms. The proposed amendments would require a Minor Use Permit
in the T4, T5, T6, T6-0 and D4 Transects.
Tasting Rooms, as an individual land use category, are distinct from `Artisan/Craft Product
Manufacturing' because they are allowed at the street front, on the ground floor and are not subject
to the same square -footage controls as manufacturing spaces. As a small-scale use, Tasting Rooms
are distinct from the `Food and Beverage Product Manufacturing' category which addresses large-
scale operations. Tasting Rooms are distinct from the `Bar/Tavern' category because the are
limited to a single manufacturer and typically do not have the same operating hours and service
impacts as a bar/tavern use. Finally, Tasting Rooms are distinct from the `Alcoholic Beverage
Sales' category because they include on -premise consumption and provide an ancillary retail
component for a specific manufacturer, operating under a shared or duplicate ABC license for
production.
To track with the creation of "tasting rooms" as a separate land use category, changes are proposed
to the definition of "Bar/Tavern" to exclude tasting rooms.
Green Building Materials
SmartCode Section 4.7.040 requires that all buildings meet the minimum requirements of
CALGreen Tier I. As of January 2020, the Building Code requires CALGreen Tier lI compliance,
and the City Council is poised to consider all -electric regulations in the near future. Therefore, the
proposed amendments modify this requirement to align with and exceed the current requirements
of the adopted local Building Code and any associated Reach Codes.
Off -Street Parking Requirements
Although the amendments included in the attached draft Ordinance do not include changes to the
SmartCode's off-street parking requirements, staff would like to initiate a discussion with the
Planning Commission on the topic of potential future amendments that would transition the CPSP
area from a minimum parking standard to a maximum parking standard. This is especially relevant
Page 3
as recent development proposals have generally provided more than the minimum amount of
required parking spaces. However, the General Plan and Central Petaluma Specific Plan encourage
a more transit oriented, bike and pedestrian friendly development pattern in the downtown core.
Additionally, feedback from both the public and decision makers has been to encourage a more
transit -oriented development pattern that is less dominated by the automobile.
In response to this feedback staff is considering proposing an amendment that would limit
automobile parking and encourage a development pattern more in keeping with the stated intent
of the General Plan, CPSP, and Station Area Master Plan. The current off-street parking
requirements for the SmartCode are stated as minimum requirements as follows:
■ One space per market rate housing unit
■ Half a space per affordable (below market rate) housing unit
■ One space per room in a lodging use
■ Two spaces per 1,000 square -feet for all other uses.
Staff would like to engage the Planning Commission on this topic and get a sense of any preferred
approach. For example, if the current requirements became parking maximums, instead of
minimums, could developers seek an exception to exceed that maximum and what criteria should
be used to evaluate that exception? The following is a list of criteria established by other
jurisdictions that have parking maximums:
1. Vehicle movement on or around the project does not unduly impact pedestrian spaces
or movement, transit service, bicycle movement, or the overall traffic movement in the
district;
2. Accommodating excess accessory parking does not degrade the overall urban design
quality of the project proposal;
3. All above -grade parking is architecturally screened and lined with active uses and the
project proponent is not requesting any other exceptions or variances;
4. Excess accessory parking does not diminish the quality and viability of existing or
planned streetscape enhancements;
5. Where more than 10 spaces are proposed at least half of them, rounded down to the
nearest whole number are stored and accessed by mechanical stackers or lifts, valet, or
other space -efficient means that reduces space used for parking and maneuvering, and
maximizes other pedestrian oriented uses.
Additional criteria could also reference the provision of below market rate units on-site, the
application of green building features beyond minimum requirements, and the implementation of
voluntary transportation demand management tools.
G_\ 1 ►_
To recommend the proposed amendments to the City Council the Planning Commission must find
that they conform to the Petaluma General Plan and are consistent with the public necessity,
convenience, and general welfare in accordance with Section 25.050(B) of the Implementing
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission has discretion to recommend modifications to the
proposed amendments. If it does so, the Commission should convey the reasons for the
Page 4
modifications to the City Council. A simple majority vote of the Commission members present,
assuming a quorum of Commissioners is present, suffices to approve a resolution recommending
action on the amendments to the City Council.
The proposed zoning text amendments are consistent in general conformity with the Petaluma
General Plan 2025 and Central Petaluma Specific Plan in that the amendments do not change the
general character or impacts of current zoning regulations. The proposed amendments to the
SmartCode provide greater clarity for existing controls by simplifying language and bring
requirements into alignment with the IZO and Building Code. Ultimately, the changes support the
General Plan's overall goal to guide development in line with the vision and underlying policies.
PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND WELFARE
The proposed amendments are consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and welfare in
that they update and clarify existing regulations, provide greater flexibility in processing
development proposals, and remove identified obstacles to the implementation of the zoning code,
which implements the policies of the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed zoning text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15061(B)(3) and 15183 as follows: Section 15061(b)(3), General Rule, of the CEQA
Guidelines is applicable as there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact
on the environment in that proposed zoning text amendments Section 15183 of the CEQA
Guidelines provides an exemption for projects that are consistent with the General Plan. The
subject zoning text amendments are minor modifications to existing regulations that only apply to
specific locations and uses as governed by the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, consistent with
the General Plan. For the above reasons, the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental
review.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public notice was published in an eighth page ad in the Argus Courier on February 27, 2020. No
specific public comment has been received in response to this public notice as of the preparation
of this report.
EII ■u _L --
Attachment A Resolution Recommending Council Approval of Text Amendments
Exhibit 1 SmartCode Redlines
Exhibit 2 Draft Text Amendment Ordinance
Page 5