Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6BPart1 09/14/2009CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA September 14, . AGENDA ILL Agenda Title: Discussion.of'Planning Commission Recommendation and Meeting Date: September 14, Possible Introduction of Proposed Ordinance Amending `Specific Sections 2009 of"the,Implementing Zoning.Ordinance, Ordinance No: 2300 IV:GS:, to Implement. Consolidation of Planning Commission and Architectural Meeting Time: 7:00 PM Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted Planning; Commission and Repealing Ordinance 2338 N.C.S.; Proposed Ordinance.Amending Specified Sections of the SmartGode©, Ordinance No.: 2152 N,C.S., to Implement Consolidation of Planning Commission and Architectural. Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted Planning Commission and Repealing Ordinance 2339 N.C'.5.; and Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 Entitled "Amendments"' of the Irriplementing.Zonng .Ordinance; Ordinance No. 2300: N.C.S'., to Clarify the Review of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments by the Planning, Commission aril Repealing Ordinance 2340 N.C.S. Cafe~ory: ^ Presentation ^ A ointments ~'Public::Hearing ^ Unfinished Business ^ New Business pp ^ Consent Department: Director: Contact 'Person: Phone Number: City Attorney Eric Danly Eric Danly (707)778-4362 Total Cost of Proposal or Proiect: N/A Name .of Fund: N/A Accoun"t Number: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Current Fund Balance: N/A 12ecommendaton: It is recommended' that the City Council take the following action: Consider September 8, 2009 recommendation of Planning, Commission regarding the proposed: ordinances. (Attachments B, C and D) and introduce .the ordinances: l . ^ First reading of~Ordinance approved unanimously, or with.unanimous vote to allow posting prior to second reading 2. ^ First reading of.Ordinance;;approved without unanimous vote: Ordinance has beenpublished/posted prior to second reading; see Attachment 3. ®Other action requiring special notice: Hearing notice..published September 3, 2009 (Attachment A). 0 2009 .Summary Statement: On Auguste _1.1.,..2009, the City .Council adopted Resolution No. 2;0.09-.137"N.C.S., in response to litigation alleging procedurah;defects in the Council's prior adoption of .Ordinances No: 2238, 2239 and 2340 N:C.S.. To cure the ~all'eged, defects and remove that issue from the pending .litigation, Resolution No. 2009-137 .referred proposed ordinances identical to Ordinances No. 2238, 2239 and. -2340` to the Planning Commission 'for review, as demanded in the' litigation. The Council's -intention was to re-adopt- the ordinances .following that. review as a .cure for the procedural defect alleged. The staff :report for .the Planning Commission meeting on. September 8, 2009 outlines'the nature of the. Commission's review authority under. the IZO (Attachment E). On :September 8, 2009,; after lengthy discussion, ,the Planning Corninssion adopted by a 4-1 vote the following motion: "The Planning; Commission ,has considered all aspects and cannot, recommend. the three ordinances; based upon:not Ending them consistent• with the public necessity; convenience and welfare." The Commission was requested to make a ,finding of General Plan conformity, but did not do so: While the. Commission did not expressly find that the proposed ordinances conformed to the city's General Plan 2025,, the record of the Planning Commission hearing contains a factual °basis to support: a "finding of General Plan conformance. Staff, after thorough review, did not find any basis `.for General" Plan non-eonfbrmance, and no such basis was identified at . the .hearing. The. City :Council should now consider the Planning Conunission's,recommendation and determine whether it wishes to followthat recommendation, or whether it wishes to introduce the ordinances. If introduced and adopted, the three proposed ordnances:~would repeal°and replace Ordinances 2238, 2239 and 2340, which have ~ been alleged to be procedurally defective: Attachments fo Agenda Packet item: A. Hearing Notice B. Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Amending Specified Sections of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance; Ordinance No. ,2300 N.C.S> to,Implement Consoldation.of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Responsibi ities in a Single, Reconstituted.Planning Commission. C..Proposed .Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Amending Specified Sections of the SmartCode°, Ordinance No. 2;152. N.C:S. to Imp'lemerit Consolidation of Planning Commission and. Architectural Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted Planning Commission. D: Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of'the City of Petaluma Amending Chapter 25 Entitled "Amendments'' ofthe Implementing Zoning Ordiriarice, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. to Clarify the Review of;Proposed Zoning Amendments by the Planning Commission. E.. September~9;,2009 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments 1 and 2 (Draft Resolutions) F: August 11', 2009 Staff Report and Resolution 2009=137 N.C.S.referring proposed Ordinance to the Planning Commission Rey iewed b Finance Director: Reviewed.b..Ci ~ orrie A roved=b 'Ci 1Vlana er: ~- Date: - ~/0 z~` Date: Date: - 6 -~ Rev #' ; ' Date Last Revised: Eile:'I292206.1 ~ ..... CITY ®F PET'ALUMA, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 AGENDA REPORT FOR Discussion of Planning Commission Recommendation and Possible Introduction of Proposed Ordinance Amending.Specific Sections of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance N.o. 2300 N.C.S., to Implement-Consolidation of:Planning Commission and Architectural Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted .Planning Commission and. Repealing Ordinance 2338 N.C.S.; Proposed Ordinance Amending. Specified Sections of the SmartCode©, Ordinance No. 2152 N.C.S., to Implement Consolidation of-Planning Commission, and Architectural Review I2esponsibilit'ies in a Single; Reconstituted Planning Commission and Repealing Ordinance 2339 N.C.S.; and Ordinance Amending'Chapter 25;Entitled "Amendments" of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance,.Ordinance No. 2300 N:C.S„ to Clarify the Review of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments by the Planning. Commission and Repealing Ordinance 2340 N.C.S. I, RECOMMENDATION: Consider September 8, 2009 recommendation of Planning, Commission regarding the proposed ordinances (Attachments B; C and D), pursuant to IZO Sections .25.060 and 25.070, and. introduce the ordinances. 2. BACKGROUND: On March 30, 2009, while reviewing, the recommendations of the Development Code Advisory: Committee, the City Council directed staff to combine the duties of the Planning Commission and the. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee ("SPARC") into a single Planning Commission. Per that request, staff prepared a series of ordinances that would abolish SPARC, expand the duties of the Planning Commission to include site plan and architectural review, require the appointment of all new members to the reconstituted Planning Commission, and amend the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and the SmartCode° provisions to implement that consolidation. On June 15, 2009; the City Council introduced. an ordinance to amend the Petaluma Municipal. .Code to abolish SPARC and assign SPARC,'s site plan and design review duties to a newly reconstituted.. Planning Commission (,Ordinance No. 23.37 N.C.S.). Two other ordinances- were also introduced to amend. the. Implementing Zoning .Ordinance (IZO) and SmartCode© to substitute; references _to the Planning Commission for .references to SPARC to conform the IZO and SmartCode® texf to the 1Vlunicipal Code amendment abolishing SPARC and reassigning its former duties. These ordinances were adopted on July 6; 2009 (Ordinances No. 2338 and 23'39, N.C.S., respectively),.. A fourth ordinance amending the IZO to clarify which proposed zoning amendments must be reviewed by the Planning Commission was introduced on July 6, 2009 and adopted on July 20, 2009 (.Ordinance No. 2340 N.C.S.). Because the last three ordinances which affected the IZO were procedural changes only that did not modify any land use, zone, development standard, - regulation of structures or other use of property within the City, and therefore raised no issues of _3 General Plan consistency, the three City Council-initiated amendments were not first referred to -the Planning Commission for hearing. On August 3, 2009;, ,three sitting City of Petaluma. Planning Commissioners, John Rittenhouse III, Kathleen C: Muller and Spence F. Burton, through their legal counsel, filed and served on the City a writ. petition challenging the City Council's action to reconstitute the. Planning Commission and appoint new commissioners to the reconstituted body,. and seeking reinstatement and' costs and attorneys' fees: Petitioners based their challenge on two arguments: first, that removal of any sitting Planning Commissioner requires .five votes. under Section 2.08.010 of the Petaluma 1Vlunicipal Code; and second, that sections 25.01.0 and 25.040 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance require that all amendments to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance must be presented to the Planning Commission prior to adoption. On August 11, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-137 N.C.S. (attached as Attachment F), in response to the second claim in the writ petition. To cure the ..alleged defect and resolve that claim, Resolution No. 2009-137 referred proposed ordinances identical to Ordinances No. 2238, 2239 and 2340 to the Planning Commission for review, as demanded 'in the litigation. Resolution No. 2009-13T provides for .Planning, Commission review, assuming it is required, allowing the Council to re-adopt the .ordinances following that review as a cure for the alleged. procedural defect. On September 8, 2009 the Planning Commission adopted'by a 4-1 vote the following motion; "The Planning Commission has considered. all aspects, and cannot recommend the three ordinances, based upon not finding them consistent with the public necessity, convenience and welfare." The Commission was requested to make a finding of General Plan conformity, but did not do so. While the Commission did not expressly find that the proposed ordinances conformed to the city's General Plan 2025, the record of the Planning. Commission hearing contains a factual basis to support. a finding of General Elan conformance. Staff, after reviewing the General Plan„ did not find any basis for General Plan non-conformance, and no such basis was identified at the hearing. DISCUSSION: Section 25.010 of the. IZO provides in pertinent. part that no amendments shall .be made unless the Planning Commission and City Council find the amendment' to be in conformity with the General Plan, Section 25.040 requires the Zoning Administrator to make an investigation of proposed .amendments and submit a report.to-the Planning Commission. However, the applicability or purpose of Sections. 25.01:0 and 25:040 concerning amendments such as those contained in, adopted Ordinances No. 233`8, 2339 and 2340,.and the proposed replacement ordinances,~'is :unclear. These ordinances affect only the ;make up and :authority of subordinate bodies' of the City Council' concerning planning and land use matters. They do not affect substantive zoning issues.such as permitted uses; location .and size of structures, dots, parking requirements, etc: It is. not clear why a f riding. of consistency'with the General Plan would' be :requred for this type of procedural enactment adopted pursuant o'the City Counclk's,general legislative authority, or whatpurpose such, a finding would. serve with respect to such amendments. The City's General Plan does not address such procedural matter.. Rather than litigate the issue, the Council referred, the amendments to the Planning Commission for review to `-`cure" any procedural defect before taking action to re-adopt them: In considering re=adoption, the Council may consider the Planning Commission's motion that it "cannot recommend. the three ordinances, based upon not finding them consistent with the public . 4 .:necessity; convenience and welfare," one of the _matters the Planning Commission was charged. with. determining, pursuant to IZO Secton.25.040:B. At the September 8 hearing,. discussion by some Planning Commissioners. acknowledged that. the -ordinances set out. in Attachments B and C (equivalent to Ordinances No> 23,38 and 2339) merely made the text of the LZO and the SmartCode.°' coriform to the Municipal. Code amendment by which the City Council gave SPARC's review .responsibilities to the :Planning Commission by changing references to the Site Plan and Architectural. Review Committee and SP-ARC in the IZO and the SmartCode° to read "Planning Commission." Concerning the proposed ordinance. equivalent to Ordinance 2340, Chair Miller stated that there was value in having two. separate bodies consider amendments to the zoning ordinance and that the Planning Commission .has -expertise and potentially valuable input to provide on all, amendments, including procedural amendments. Therefore; Chair Miller concluded that the third ordinance (Attachment. D equivalent to Ordinance No. 2340); clarifying which zoning ordinance amendments must be referred to the Planning Commission. in -the future was not consistent with the public convenience and necessity. Commissioners Rittenhouse and Arras stated that they saw no purpose in the Commission reviewing ordinances which were identical tq those already adopted by the Council,, despite the Council referral. Commissioner Arras stated that he believed it was unfair to ask the three. Commissioners who were petitioners in the litigation-to take actions. as Commissioners which could negatively affect petitioners' interests in the litigation. Commissioner Arras further .stated that he did not. believe the staff work demonstrated an adequate legal basis for the City Council's authority to take action to cure the alleged procedural defect through the referral. The City Attorney noted Ghat ,these issues are outside the scope of the findings which the Commission is required by the IZO to consider in its review" of proposed amendments to the IZO. The City Attorney also advised ,the Commission that the IZO required action by resolution, but the Commission proceeded by motion: Although IZO Section 25.010 provides. that amendments to the IZO require a f riding of General Plan conformance by both the 'Planning Commission and the City Council, as noted. above, that requirement. makes little sense in cases where the 'General Plan lacks goals, policies or programs that relate to the procedural aspects of'the development process. The Planning Commission has had an opportunity to review the proposed amendments and has. declined to make General Plan consistency findings,. but did' not identify any basis, for .non-conformity. IZO Section 25.OSO.B. provides that.the.Planning Commission's "denial of an application" shall not terminate proceedings for Council-initiated. zoning amendments. Therefore, the Council is free. to consider ;and introduce the proposed Ordinances. The record of the Planning Commission hearing. provides an adequate> basis,. as set out: in the staff report and the draft Planning Commission resolutions that were .Attachments" l and. 2 to the staff report, for a finding of General Plan conformance, assuming such a finding is required for°this type of procedural :amendment. No facts. or evidence suggesting lack of conformity with the General Plan were presented at the Planning Commission hearing. IZO Section 25.07Q requires two findings be.made'by the Council in order to amend the IZO: A. That the proposed amendment: is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and any applicable plans.. B. That. "the public necessity, convenience :and. general welfare require or clearly permit the adoptonof the proposed amendment. As noted above, there is no evidence in the. record of the Planning Commission proceeding of nonconformity with t_he General Plan, and a~sufficient factual basis for a finding of conformity: 5. The Council, is free to make its own determination about whether public, necessity, convenience and :general welfare require or clearly permit, the adoption. of the proposed ,amendments: As to first fwo ordinances; if the Council believes that having the terminology of the IZO and SmartCode© match 1Vlunicpal Code provisions on establishment, of commissions and committees avoids confu5on_ ;about what process isrequired for, review of proposed projects. and maintains an effective and up-to-date zoning ordinance, that would support consistency. Staff has not identified. a basis' for a finding of inconsistency as° to the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. concerning the first two ordinances.. As to the third ordinance; he Council _ may wish. to evaluate how consistency with the public necessity, 'convenience .and. general welfare would apply to an ordinance which governs procedural matters that do not `invol've actual entitlements:.. Relevant considerations supporting a consistency determination could include :efficiency and. avoiding unduly duplicative process in order to streamline, expedite. and enhance .the processing and consideration of development applications in ~.. the City. Relevant considerations potentially supporting. an inability to make 'a :Ending of consistency with the public necessity, convenience and general welfare as to 'the third ordinance could .include facts, such as the considerations raised by Planning Commission Cliair Miller; that identify benefits to the, community and the public of Planning Commission review of procedural' as well as substantive amendments to.the City's zoning ordinance. 4. 1F'INANCIAL IMPACTS: The direct- financial impacts :are staff time devoted to egslatve analysis and drafting, including staff reports. and draft Planning Commission resolutions, and attending the Planning Commission . hearing: on September 8; 20Q9. Indirect financial benefits may result from increased cost recovery and other development related expense due to streamlining ofthe development process. 1°292206.4 (o { ' ;" .. i U~., ~ CERTIFICATIQN OF PUBLIC~ArTICSNwTIV4. V l?etaWna Arius-Courier;"•' ~;~^~ .- € ~ ~~~. (` Published"Thursd :~~ ~ ., j~ " ~ M THE h` .. , _ . ` °`~~~. ~; " SUPERIOR ,CUCIRT , ` ' `~ I,_,:.• ~, - OF THE ~ ` ~ ~ r Thu STATE"OF"CALIFOR~T:.` _, , "i ~" ht and For the County of So?t~ma- .. , ~~~~t,~ ~I .E~', DECLA-RATION ~' :- 1 am :a citizen. of the United States; over the, age. of eighteen,years and a.resident'of satd.,county"and ryas a[ all said times the principal clerk. of the, printer and pulilishef of The Petaluma Angus Courier a newspaper of general' circulation, Published 'weekly in theCity of Petaluma; in said County of'Sonoma;:State of California; that The"Petaluma Angus-Courier is,an..d was at all times herein mentioned, •a newspaper ;of`eeneral" circulation as ltat term is defined by Section'6000'nF~the Government Code;'its status as such. newspaper~of general circulation having 'been established 'by Court :Decree "No. 3'5518 of the' Superior -Court of the' State of California, 'tn and for the County of Sonoma;: Deparfinent,No: I thereof;' and as "provided by~ said °5ection 6000, is published' :for tlte' dissemination of local ~ and 'telegraphic news: ,and ' intelligence of a general .character, having a bona fide. subscription list of paying,;subscribers, and isnot`devoted. to the• interests. nr publtshed for the :entertainment or , 'instruction of a particular;class, profession. trade, calling; ~ ace' :or denomination;: ;or for the entertainment ,and, .instruction of such classes, professions, trades, callings,. races or denominations, Thar, at all said times said. newspaper has .been estabhshe~, published in ahe said,: City of Petaluma, in said County and State a't;regular,.. intervals for more .than one .year preceding the first: I publicafion of this notice herein ,mentioned; .that .said i ~ notice_avas set 'in'type not smallerthan. nonpareil and was preceded with words printed 'in black; face .type not ' .smaller than. nonpareil;.:,, describing and expressing: in _ ;gen.eral terms, the purport and character of the notice ',ntendi:d to~6e;given; that. the Notice of Public Hearine: ' ,~omn~ ':ordinance Smart Code. of Fvhich` the annexed ,is panted copy, ..:was ;published and printed in said newspaper at ]east one consecutive time: commencing on ~I .: ahe 3rd day of iSeptember, X009 ;and, ending•.on .the 3'rd day;of'September X009;, to-wit:Septemlaer 3, 2009:. ' ~': ~I DECLARE UTV,DERPENALTY:OF.PElt.1URY;thatahe (! fore?oing is: rue and correct. ~ .,., _ . ~QATED,,this 3rd dayof.Septemliu, ~OQ.9 of Petaluma;. Caltfomia. ~~ Signed - ~`~.~ Donna.Tani~oie i, Chief Clerk "~IZ5369 ~~~A~~~~~~ A EFFECTIVE,DATE OF ORDINANCE ORDINANCE' NO. `XXXX N.C.S': ~ "_ L ,, I Introduced by ~ Seconded by r ._ 2' F 3 . 4 xxxxx ~ xxx~oc 5 . I 6 7 - ` I 8 ORDINANCE OF~THE-CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF "PETAL'UAAA A'MENDIiVG SPECIFIED ` 9 ._ SECTIONS OP THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDIIVAIVCE; ORDINANCE NO.2300.N C.S: T0' . 1Q : : IMPLEMENT C;ONS,OL-IDA•TION;O,F'PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW . - I ~ 11 G ~. _ `R~SPONSIBILITIES''IN A SINGLE; RECONSTITUTED P.LANIVING~COMMISSION AND RE"PEALING. ~ - 1'2 `ORDINAN,CE NO.2338 N.C.S:,`ADOPTED'JULY 6;..2009 13 _ . , ,_ 14. WHEREAS; .Article VIII, Section 55 of the Petaluma Charter,°authorizes the-City Council to j., 15 ~. .establish such; commissions;as shall be. necessary°for~the~effective:accomplishment of;municipal . • I, 16 ,business ,provided that a"member of the City Councilahall":be.a~member.of each cornrnission, ' ~ ' ~ 17 ' commissioners' tecrnsahall not exceed four years and commissioners that have sere"ed ~ :18 ,continuously--for six years~`shall not be reappointed until at least one year has elapsed after:th'e- . ' _ . 1`9 . , :'expiration of°the sixth'year of service; and •= ,. 20 • 21 WHEREAS, the City~Council of the.Caty of Petaluma,'on March 30, 2009 directed taff to - ' ~ ` 22 cornbirie the duties of the `Planning Commission sand.Site Plan and: Architectural Review '. 23 Committee. into. a single„:reconstituted' Planning Comrmssion'm order to,streamine, expedite•.and 24 enhance ;fhe processing and' consideration o_ f; developm.enf applicafions in the. City of ', ! " '25 Petaluma; and ' `. ~26 .. . ' -2T ' _ . <. , ` . -.. '; 'FINDINGS ';: - - _ 28 _ .. . _: - ~ , . ' 29 30 ,, `~ WHEREAS, the City Council.of the Crty of. Petaluma hereby finds that the-amendments..,.. . ,. _ t in i t d ~ ' i con a ed n his or inance to the:City s Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance no. 2300'. ( 31 " N C.S. are in eneral conforrni '" g. ty'with the"'Petaluma General Plan and any applicable;plans,.:and '~ 32, that he:pubhc=necessity convenience and general welfare~equire or clearly permit the °~ 33 adoptien, of the proposed;amendments" 34 - . - !< ' 35 ~ ,, _ , ,PdOW'THEREFORE;,be it ordained by the:'Council of the Gty of Petaluma as follows. ` '' 36 ~ ~ 37 Section=l They`provisions~specified'~,belovv'of the Petaluma Im'pleme nting Zoning'.~rdmance `" ' 38; Ordinance No. 2300 N.C:S: adopted June 2,2008 and; effective-July 2, 20Q8`,are heieby . ~ .39 amended!in accordance-with ;the.following . 40 - __ , 41 ::. _ ~.;." Sectfon 7 090. Telecommunications Facil~fies,`-" paragraph (C)(4);,is amended,,to read as 42 .. ..follows:... .- . . _ .: 1 ~,Mdjor Facility. A~ major facility requires approval of .a'ma~o"r~;conditional use permf as 2 prescribed`in Section 24.030. and Planning .Commission approval as prescribed in Section ~3 24.1'ot . 4 5 Section 11.065 Power of the Zoning Administrator (Directbr)~to Modify Requirements - 6 paragraph (A) - is amended to ~ead~as follows:' 8 Compact spaces may be~. proposed as set forth withinahe adopted City standards,. 9 subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. - 10 11 Section'11070 -,Standards forOff-Street Automotile'.Parking Facilities paragraph (I) - is 12 amended' to read `as follows: 13 . 14 Parking StaIl;Size:•Parking stall~size shall.be d'eterrriined by the Planning Commission in the 15 Sife, Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines. 16 17 .Section '15.020 -Powers! and. Duties of the; Planning., Commission and .historic: and Cultural 18 . Preservation! Committee - paragrgph'(B)(4) - is amended to read as follows: 19 _ 2Q The•Historic'and Cultural'Pr„eservation Commiftee shall consist of the membership of the. 21 ~ ', Planning Commission and two additional members; gone representing the Petaluma. 22 Historical Museum and one representing Heritage Homes of Petaluma. 23' 24 . .Section 1'b.060 - Single'l:otDevelopment - paragraph'.(C) is amended to read as follows: 25 26 Situ. Plan and' Architectural Review: Planning Commission approval is required for new 27 development in the Soufh Hills'and West Hills: 28 29 .Section 16.060;Single Lof Development -paragraph (E) - is amended to read as,follows: 30 , 31 Exception to Required Setback'. An exception to the setback required by the underlying '32 zoning. district may be provided for as follows: 33 34 1.:Primary Structure. A~primary structure.may encroachfinto a requiredsetbaak for a 35 distance of not more than one-half of the~required~setback,.subjec to approval by~the 36 Planning Commission, if itcan be found that the de.,crease minimizes the impacf of 37 hillside°development and .,grading and is consisfent, With'the guidelines contained in this 38 chapter. If such a reduction is granted>,a compensating ,increase in setback is required 39' . in ;the opposingsetback., Forexample; a five=foot ('S'j redu.ction in a #ront setbackwould 40 increase the. rear, setback byfive feet (5'). 41'~ . . ~42 2. Required'Covered'Parking, Required covered. parking ma,y encroach into a requi"red. 43- front and/or sid_e;yard°setback f~'the decrease minimizes the impact of hillside 44 development and 'grading and is consisfent with the guidelines contained".in this chapter. 45 46 Findings Required' When the Planning Commission approves a reduction in the required 47 setback, findings:to support the granting of;the exception shall be provided. 48 49 Section 16.060 -Single Lot Development -paragraph (F) - is amended to read as follows: 50 S1 Additional SetbacK Required. In orderto protect significant natural resources or to 52 reduce visual prominence. of a proposed developmenf, the Planning Commission may Ordinance No. xxXX N:C'S. ~ Page 2 ., 9 1 require building. setback(s) that exceed(s) the required setback of the underlying zoning 2 .district. 3 4 Section 16:060 -Single Lot Development -paragraph.(G) - is amended to read as follows: 5 6 Exception to Retaining Wall Height (Section T3.050): For projects subject to Section T6.060> 7 a maximum exposed retaining wall height of 5 feet (5') may be permitted with Planning 8 Commission approval. 9 10 Section 1.6.060- Single Lot Development- paragraph;(H) is amended to read as follows: 11 12 Site. Design. The following site design:: guidelines shall be .taken into consideration and 13 incorporated into the design of a hillside lot whenever possible. Conformance with these 14 guidelines will be determihed by the Planning Commission. 15 16 1. Development.pptterhs that form visually protruding or steeply cut slopes for roads 17 or lots. should be avoided. 18 2. Building pads, including spaces leveled for foundations and the grading for 19 driveways.and yards, should be as small as possible. 20 3. Building construction -and related site grading should not significantly disturb any 21 ephemeral or perennial watercourse on the site. . 22 4. Buildings should be located to take advantage of existing vegetation for 23 screening. 24 25 Section 1.6.060- Single Lot Development -paragraph (.I)'is amended. to read as follows: 26 27 Architectural' Design. The following architectural design guidelines shall be taken into 28 consideration and incorporafed into the design of a hillside lofiwhenever possible: 29 Cohformance with these guidelines will be determined by the Planning Commission as 30 part of project review. 31 32 1. Design buildings to conform to the natural topography and hillside setting of the 33 site; to follow the contours of the site; and to blend with the existing terrain in 34 order'to reduce bulk and mass. 35 2. Scale structures to fit the surroundings, and not visually dominate the.landscape. 36 The apparent size of exterior wall surfaces visible from off site may be minimized 37 through the use of., single story elements, split level. foundations, varying setbacks 38 and structure heights, and landscaping, all designed to breakup massive forms:, 39 3, Design buildings. to' minimize .bulk;. mass and'v.olume: 40 4. Bulk and Mass. Bulk and`massshould;be rnhimized`when developing a hillside:.. 41 ~ parcel. The, following methods may be used to minimize the bulk and mass of a 42 buil'drig. 43 a. Keep building forms simple (see Fgures 16.1 and 16.2) 44 b. Avoid architectural styles that are inherently viewed as massive and bulky. 45 c. Utilize grading cuts, rather than fills, to create building pads. 46 d. Excavate or use below-grade rooms to reduce effective bulk. The visual 47 area of the building can be minimized through a combined use of 48 grading and landscaping techniques. Earth sheltered buildings and 49 ",living roofs" are encouraged. 50 e. Exposed understory stem walls should not exceed S' and should be 51 finished with visually recessive, earth-toned materials. Ordinance No. XXXX N:C.S. Page 3 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ~41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 f. Step the building foundation and roofs with the natural slope (see Figures 16.1 and 16.2). g. Use horizontal and vertical. building components to reduce bulk. h. Avoid two story wall planes. i. Step back, the second story so the. difference in wall planes is visible from a distance. ~ ' j. Vary elevations, such as stepping back second stories, to conform with topography. k. Avoid overhanging decks, large staircases, and patios formed by retaining walls .that make~buildings appear more massive (see Figure 16.3). I. Avoid. use of solid wall railings that add to the mass of the design. m. Create light and shadow by providing modest overhangs, projections, alcoves and plan offsets. n. Use a combination of siding materials and articulate walls to reduce expansive, continuous planes. o. Use vaulted ceilings rather than high walls and ceilings to attics above to achieve a feeling'of volume. 5. Colors and Mlaterials. The following methods may be used to reduce the. visibility of hillside development: a. Use subdued and unobtrusive exterior finish materials and colors for all structures. b. Minimize the`use of reflective material. c. Earth tones and colors that occur naturally in the Petaluma hills are encouraged. d. Structures should not call undue attention 'to themselves when viewed from a public vantage point. 6. Roofs. a. Break roof'forms and rooflines into smallerbuilding components to reflect the irregular forms of surrounding natural features (see figures 16.12 and 16.2) ._ b. Generally orient the slope of the man roof in the same direction_as the. .natural slope of the terrain (see Figures 16..1 dnd 16.2). c. Avoid large gable ends on downhill elevations. d. Light colored and reflective roofing materials are discouraged. Section 16.060- Single'Lot Development -paragraph (J) isamended to read as follows: Process. As prescribed by Section 24.010 (Site Plan and Architectural Review). Section 17.060- Tree Removal -paragraph (B)(3) is.amended to read as follows:. Development Projects - If a project applicant .chooses to remove trees from a development site the project applicant will be required to replace the tree ortrees. Refer to the "Tree Technical Manual" for approved forms of the tree replacement. On projects where Planning Commission/City Council approval is not required, replacement will be at the direction of the Community Development Director. For development projects that require Planning Commission/City Council approval, protected trees authorized for removal. will. be.addressed as part of the development conditions of approval. The approving bodyshall'be the deciding factor on appropriate replacement and the project will be conditioned accordingly. Section 18.020 -Applicability is amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. XXXX N.C.S. Page 4 ~1 1 2 3 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51~ 52 The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to any project that receives any required entitlement approvals .(tentative map; rezoning or preonirig; General Plan amendment and related environmental determination) from the Planning Commission and City Go.uncil'after the effective date of this ordinance. if a building permit is only required and`rione of the circumstances listed in this Section apply to the application, then the building permit must be issued for the project priorto the effective date of this ordinance. However, when a developmenf agreement or some other agreement authorized by they City Manager is in place that cledrly establishes provisions for the payment of in-lieu fees, said project may be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance. Section 18.090- Compliance -paragraph (B)(3) is amerided to read as follows: The artwork shall be related in terms of scale, material; form and content to immediate and adjacent buildings and architecture, landscaping or other setting so as to complement the site and its surroundings and shall be consistent with any corresponding action of the Planning commission or City Council as. it may relate to any development entitlements;. Section 19.040- P.U.D. District Procedures - paragraph (.l)(4) is amended to read. as follows: Minor Modification to Approved Unit Development`.Plan. As determined by the Director, modification which is minor in nature and clearly inconsequential may be made administrativelyor, in the:.judgment of the Director, may be referred to the Planning Commission-for review and approval. Minot modification includes modification to unit architecture and.site design so long as no significant alteration to road alignment is made and no increase in unit yield'results. Up to 2Q% of the individual~dwelling units in residential P.U.D.'s may be substituted for other.prevouslyapprovcd units if the resulting substitutions do not substantially alter the intent of'the P.U:D. as originally approved. Section 24.010 -Site Plan grid Architecfuraf Review -paragraph (B) is amended to read as follows: Administrgtiye Site Plan and'.Architecturdl Review. The- Director may grant administrative site plan and architectural approval for nonproduction residential units in approved subdivisions of five or snore lofs; all residential developments of less than five units, and all minor~additions or modifications to industrial; cornmercidl or office buildings, or may refer said development,proposals to the Planning'Cornrnssion: For purposes of this section, the term "nonproduction residential units" shall mean houses. not substantially similar to other houses.within view of one another as deterrniried by'fihe Director, or houses within a subdivision where the same floor plan or exterior design is~used less than three times. Section 24.OT0- Site Plan and Architectural Review-paragraph (F) is amended to .read as follows: Procedure. On matters to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, or when the Director refers an~application to the Planning Commission with recommendations; the applicant shall be so. notified and a hearing date shall be estdblished. On the date for said hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the. Director's report and any additional staff comment and shall permit the applicant or any other affected person to present any Ordinance No. XXXX N.C:S. Page 5 ~,V 1 ~ evidence which the Plannng~Commission deems. to be relevant to said applicant;The 2 Planning~Gommission,shall approve, disapprove, or,approve with rriodifications projects 3` for which°the Planning Commission is the entitling body, or recommend approval, 4 disapproval; or approval with modifications or.give other approp"riate recommendation 5 to the City`Council, concerning projects for-which the Planning Commission is an advisory 6 body. 7 8 Section 24;010-::Site PI6n'and Architectural Review =paragraph (G)(2) is amended to 9 read. as~follows: 10 1'1 Landscaping to approved City standards shat( be,required on the site and shall be in 12 keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing; trees shall be preserved 13 wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Planning 14 Commission. 15 16 Section 24:030-.Conditional Use Permits - .paragraph A is amended ~to read as follows: 17 1S Purpose. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure the proper integration. of 19' ' uses which, because of`theirspecidl nature,.may besuifable only in certain locations 20 and only provided such uses are arranged or operdted`in a parficularmanner. In 21 addition to -the review described herein; any proposed conditional use shall be subject 22 to.site standards sef.forth in Section 24a)`,10 (Site. Plan and :Architectural Review).. 23, . Additional application shall be required and additional fee shall be charged for site plan 24 and.arcfi#ectural review: 25 , 26 Section-24,030- Conditional Use Permits -paragraph B is amended to read as follows: 27 28 . Application. Application for a conditionaP use permit hall be made by the.properfy 29 owner or certified. agent thereof to the Planning Commission on a form prescribed ,for this 30 . purpose by the City of Petaluma and shall be accompanied by such additional 31 documents or supporting materiaCas;mdy.be required for review of the proposed:use~, '32 including where dppropriatei the pla'n`s; drawings,~and information to permit a site plan 33 and architectural review in.accordance with the'procedure in Section 24.Q10.(E) 34 (Investigation and Report). 35 `36 Section 24;OZ0.6(1) - Appeals'is amended #o read as follows: 37 . 3$ Appecl Subjects and Jurisdiction.. 39 . 1. A decision on do administrative site plan and architectural review application. or 40 : historic and cultural preservation application may be appealed to the PI'anning 4.1 Commission. 42' 43 Section 24:070.-Appeals -paragraph (B)(5); is dmended to read as follows, and 44 :paragraph (B)(6)'is deleted. 45 ' 46 5. A decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to City Council. 47 48 49 50 Section.2: Ordinance No.- 2338. N:C.S. adopted July 6„2009 is hereby repealed in its entirety: 51 Ordinance. No. XX~XX N.C:S. Page 6 13 ,. 1 Section 3.° The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the Cgliforriia '. 2';. ,Environrnenfal Quality Act (''CEQA"), pursuant'to Sections 1506,1(b)'(3) ono possibility thdt the 3 ~'..activfy may~.have a significant impact on~the environment) and 15060(c) (3) (the activity is not a 4 project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines (jtle 14, Chapter 3 of t_he California 5 Code of Regulations).. '~6 ,i ~ Z Sectioh 4: ;If=any section, subsection, sentence, clause,: phrase or. word. of this ordinance is for '. 8 "' ~ any,reasonheld to.be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid by a court-of competent 9 jurisdiction or preempted` by state legislation, such~decision, or legislation shall:not affect the 10~, validity of the: remaining portions;~of; this ordinance. ~ The Cify Council of'the City'of Petaluma ~11 hereby declares=that it'would have passed and adopted this ordinance and each and all ~' 12 provisions~thereof irrespective of the fact that any one•or more of slid provisions be declared ;~ _ 13 unto"nstitutiondl', unlawful or;otherwise invalid. I` .14 . ' ~ 16 th_ e tion 5 This-ordinance shall;becorne effective thirty. (30) days after the date of its adoption by ` ~ Petaluma City'Council. 17 18~~.. Section 6`: The Gty Clerk is hereby directed to publish or..post':=this,ordinance or a synopsis for the; ..19` peribd;and in the manner provided by the City Charter and any other applicable law. 20, - 21 , 22 INTRODUCED and ordered'posted/published this XXtn day of XXXX, 2009. ~~ ' 23 24' ADOPTED' this XX~h day of XXXX 2009, by'the .following ugte: 25 26" AYES: 27 NOES: 28 ABSENT: 29 ABSTAIN: ~~ .30. 33 . 32 , 33 34 ~, 35 ~ Pamela,Torliatt, Mayor 36 , 37 38; ATTEST:.. APPROVED AS TO FORM:. 39 4'0 ~ ~ .. 41 ' , 42_ .Claire :Cooper; Cify Clerk ~ Eric Ddnly, City Attorney 43 1292329.2 ` 1 Iritroduced by Seconded by 2 3 i. 4 xxxxx xxxxx 5 6 " r 7 ... 8 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AAAENDING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF'THE ~' { 9 SMARTCODE ©ORDINANCE 2152 N.C.S. TO IMPLEMENT CO;NSOLIDATfON OF PLANNING ~ ' . .. ~ 10 C07UlMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL- REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES IN A SINGLE, ' 11 RECONSTITUTED PLANNING COMMISSION AND REPEALING O`RDINAIVCE NO.2339 N.C.S., " 12 ADOPTED JULY 6, 2009- 13 14 WHEREAS; ArticleVIII, Section 55 of the. Petaluma Charter authorizes the City Council to ~ ' 15 establish such commissions as shall be riecessary for the. effective accomplishment of rriunicipal 16 business, provided that a member of the City Cquneil shall be a member of each commission, 17 commissioners' terms shall not exceed four years; and commissioners that have served ~' 18 continuously for six years shall not; be reappointed until at least one year has elapsed after the !' - 19 expiration of. the sixth year of service; aril I' 20 ~' 21 WHEREAS,, the City Council of the City of Petaluma, on March 30, 2009 directed staff to i 22 combine the. duties of the Rlanning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review j ` 23 Committee into"a single, reconstituted :Pla.nning Com""mission in order to streamline, expedite and ` '. 24 enhance the processing and considerafion of development applications in the "City of ` ''° ' 25 Petaluma; and ' 26 " 27 .FINDINGS _. 2$ l 29 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby-finds that the amendments ~ ' 30 contained in this ordinance to the City`s SmartCode;© Ordinance no. 2152 N.G.S. are in general. ..31 ~ conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and any applicable plans, and that the public 32 necessity, convenience and general welfare require orclearly permit the adoption of°the _ 33 proposed. amendments; ' 34 35 NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by-the Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: '36 37 . Section 1._The SmartCode ©Ordinance 2152 N.C:S.> s hereby amended as follows: ~ ,. 38 - ~ 39 ~ Section 1.10:010- Applicability of Code Standards - paragraph (H).is amended to read 40 as follows: 41 42 ,Design Review: All. buildings and associated site'improvements within this Specific Plan 43 are subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Refer to the Architectural ~~~~~~~~ Ordinance No. XXXX: N.C.S. Page 1 ~ 5 1 Guidelines '(Appendix "B" of fhe Specific Plan);for example illustrations and information 2 ~ on architectural character in the Specific Plan area,. 3. 4 Section 4:20.010 -Building Height.. Exception in T6 Zone - is amended.to read as follows: 5 6 The maximum building height in the~Tb zone shall be 4 stories, unless the Planning 7 Commission is able to make the following findings to allow up to two. more stores (a total 8 maximum of 6 stories):: 9 A,. That the additional height makes a positive contribution to the overall character 10 '. of the~area and wil6be compatible-with its surroundings. 11 B. That the additional height will not result in unreasonable restrictions of light and air 12 fo adjacenf properties or the public right-of-way; or otherwise be detrimental to' 13 the public health, safety and welfare. '14 C. That the additional height willsupport other;policies and standards of the Specific 15" Plan and will result in a better overall project 16 17 The'firstparagraph of.Section 6.10.050 -Parking Design and Development Standards ~-:is 18 amended to read; as follows: 19 , 20' Required parking areas: shrill be designed' and construcfed as follows, and in compliance:. 21 with the guidelnesof-the Planning Commission. The.standardsof this Section may be 22 modified by the Planning.Commission where if deferrnines that alternative parking 23 designs and standards will more appropriately relate to the operating characteristics of 24 the proposed development or new land use, while being equally effective in providing' 25 parking areas that are safe, convenient, use I'and efficiently, and are aesthefically 26 attractive: 27 28 Section 9 -Glossary (Wistoric and Cultural Preservation Committee) - is amended to redd 29 as #ollows: 30 31 Historic. and Cultural, Preservation Committee. The Historic and Cultural .Preservation 32 Commitfee established by, and with powers and duties: assigned by the Implementing 33 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 1`5 {Preservation of-the Cultural and :Historic Environment)„The 34 Historic and :Cultural Preservation Committee consists of the membership ofi the Planning 35 Commission, plus one member representing the.Petaluma Historical Museum, and one 36 rnernber representing Heritage Homes of Retaluma. 37 . 38 Section 2: Ordinance No: 2339 N.C.S. adopted July 6, 2009 is hereby repealed in its 3~9' enfirety.. 4Q 41 Section 3, The City Council. finds that adoption. of this ordinance is exempt from the 42 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),,pursuant'to Sections 1506'1(b)'(3) (no possibility 43 .that the activity mgy.hauea significant impact on the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the 44 activity is not'a project,as defined in Section 1537. 8) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 45 of the California Code of Regulations). 46 47 Section 4.. If any section,. subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance 48 is for any reason held.ta be unconstitutional, unlawful. or otherwise invalid by a court of 49 competent jurisdiction or.preempted:by state legislation, such decision or legislation shall not 50 affect the validity of the remaining portions ofithis.ordinance: The City Council of the City of 51 Petaluma hereby declares'that it would have passed and adopted this ordinance and each Ordinance No. XXXX N.C.S. Page 2 ,. l'b 1 and all provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that any. one or more of said provisions be 2 declared unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid': .3 4 .~ ~ Seetiori_5. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date-of its j 5 ~ adoption by the Petaluma City Council. ' 6 ~` 7 Section ~6. The City Clerk is. hereby directed to publish or post this ordiriance or a synopsis ~' 8 .for the period and in the mannerprovided`by'the City Charter and any other applicable law. 9 1:0 INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this XX~h.day of XXXX, 2009. ~ 11 ~. j 12 ADOPTED this;XX'h day of XXXX'2009 by the. following vote: 13 I 14 AYES: 15 NOES: 16 i ABSENT: 17 ~. ABSTAIN: 18 I; 19 20 21 22 23 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor 24 f 25 E 26 ; ATTEST: ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: . j 27 28 29 30 G .. Claire; Cooper, City Clerk Erie Deinly, City Attorney 31 32 33 34 35 . 36 37 1292327:2 Ordinance No. XXXX N.C.S. Page 3 . ~ rl . EFFECTIVE DATE ORDINANCE NO. XXXX N.C.S. OF ORDINANCE 1 Introduced by Seconded by 2 3 i I 4 xxxxx xxxxx 5 L 6 7 8 ORDINA[VC[c OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' PETALUMA AMIENDING CHAPTER 25 _ _ _. . 9 ENTITLED "AMENDRA'ENTS" OF THE IMPLEAAENT[NG ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANGE'NO. 10 2300 N.C.S.; 'TO CLARIFY THE REdIEW OF PROPOSED'ZONING AAAENDMENTS BY THE 11 - `° -" PLANNING CONIAAISSION: AND. REPEALING ORDINANCE N0.2340 N.C.S., 12 ~ ADOPTED JULY 20, 2009 ~ 13 . . 14 . 15 WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 55 of the Petaluma Charter authorizes the City Council to 16 °establish such commissions as shall benecessary for the effective accomplishment of'municipal 1 17 business, provided that a member of the-City Council shall be a member of each commission, 18 commissioners' terms shall not_ exceed four years, and commissioners that have served j 19 continuously fior six years shall :not be reappointed until at`least one year has elapsed after the I 20 expiration of the sixth year of service; and ii! 21 I 22 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma, qn tvlarch 30, 2009 directed staff to I 23 combine the duties of the Planning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review 24 Committee into a single, reconstituted Planning Commission;in order to streamline, expedite and j' 25 enhance the processing and eonsiderdtion of development' applications in the City of 26 Petaluma; and .: . 27 " .: ~ ; ~ 28 , WHEREAS, on.June.1~5, 2009:,.the City Couneil:of the;City of:Petaluma introduced . _. 29 , Ordinance No. 2337:amending Chapter'2 08 and repeahng 50 of the Petaluma Chapter 2 30 _ . Municipal Code to abolish the Site Plan. and. Arehitecfural Review Committee acid add'site plan 31 and architectural review responsibilities to the duties of a reconstituted Planning Commission; 32 and Ordinance Nq. 2338 amending specifed provisions of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. ` ~ 33 and Ordinance No.:2339 amending s_peclfied provisions o.f the SmartC.ode© to implementahe " ~ 34 consolidation;of Plarning. Commission`and ite plan'and architectural review duties in;d newly,,, ,, _. ... 35 reconstituted Plannirg Commission and .-' " . ` 36 ,, , _ .:: . 37 .. _. `FINDINGS 38 _. . 39 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby finds that the amendments 40. contained in this ordinance to th.e City's Implementing.Zoning.Otdinance, Ordinance N.o. 2300 41 N C.$:, are in general.conformitywith the Petaluma.General Plan_and ariy dpplicabfe'plans, and ~ 42 that the' ublic necessi - p ` ty, convernence. and general welfare regu.ire or cle"arly_ permit the 43 adoption of the proposed amendments` - Ordinance No XXXX N.CS: ~ 'Page 1 ~g 2 3 NOIN, THEREFORE; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUAAA AS 4 FOLLOWS: 5 6 ~ Section 1. Section 25..0. 10> "Amendment" of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, 7 Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S.; is hereby amended to read.as follows: 8 9 :This Ordinance may be Amended by changing the,boundgries of any district or by, 10 chan. Bing any other provision., thereof whenever the public necessity and convenience and 11 general welfare require such amendment. No amendment to provisions. of this ordinance that 12 regulate matters listed in Government'Code section:65850; as from time to time amended, shall 13 be made unless the Planning Commission. and the Gity Council find the amendment to be in 14 conformity with the General Plan. The City Council', ,i,n its ol_e discretion, may direct that 15 arnendrnents to provisions of this Ordinance that regulate matters otherthan those listed in 16 Government Code section. 6585Q, as from time to, tune. amended; be submitted to the- Planning 17 Commission fora finding.. of conformity with -the General .Plan. 18 19 Section 2. Section 25.040, ".Investigation and Report"'of`the Implementing Zoning 20 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S., is hereby amended to read as follows: 21 22: The ZoningAdmnistrafor (pireetor) shall make do investigation of the proposed 23 amendment and'shall prepare a report thereon which shall be submitted to the City body or 24 bodies with jurisdiction over the proposed amendment. 25 ~ , 26 Section 3. The title and first sentence of Section, 25:050; currently entitled "Public 27 Hearings" of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance,: Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S., are hereby 28 amended to read as follows: 29 30 25.050 -Public Hearings of the Planning Commission 31 For proposed amendments subject to Planning Commission. review in accordance with _ , 32 section25.010, the'. Pldnning.Commisson shall hold a puEiic' hearing in accordance with this 33 section. 34 35 Section 4, Anew Section 25.065, entitled "Public Hearings of the City Council" is hereby 36 added to read as follows: 37. ._ 38 ~ 25.065 -Public Hearings of the City Council 39 The City Council shall hold public hearings in accordance with this section to consider 40 .proposed amendmentsaubjectto Planriing.Commission review in accocdance.with section 41 25.010': Th`e City Council may; in its sole discretion, hold. public hearings~,in ciccordancerwith'fhis 42 section on proposed: amendments for which Planning' Commission review+is not required'in 43 accordance with section 25.010. 44 45 A. Notice of public hearing. Notice of the time and place ofithe hearing shal6 be 46 published in a newspapeFOf general circulation in the. City of Petaluma, at least ten (l0) days 47 prior to said public heaping, or by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of 48 the hearing to all personswhose names appear on the last adopted tax roll of Sonoma County 49 as owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the'boundaries of the property that is the 50 subject of the hearing. 51 Ordinance No. XXXX N.C.S. Page 2 19~' 1 B. Action by the City Council at conal'usion of hearing. If, at the conclusion of the ' ~~ -. 2' • ;hearing, the; City$Council fihds the amsndrnenf to be in conformance with the findings specified 3 ~ in section 25:070, the City Council may adopt the amendment. 4 5 Section 5. Section 25.080, '°Changes by City Council" of the Implementing Zoning 6 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S:, is hereby amended~to read as follows: 7 ~; .' 8 If the City Council proposes to alter a proposed zoning,amendment recommended by ': 9 the Planning Commission, or to alter'or adopt an amendment which has been denied. by the 1Q Planning Commission, onto alter a proposed zoning amendment for which Planning Commission _ 11 review is not,required in accordance with section 25.01.0; the City Council, in its sole- discretion; i. ~' , 12 may either. refer the proposed altered amendment_ back. to the Planning Commission for report -I' 13 and cecomrnendation before adoption,:or adopt the proposed.alteredamendment. Failure of !° 14 the Planning Commission to report to the. City Council within thirty (30) days of.the City Council's. ~:. 15 referraCshall be deemed approval by tfie'Planning Commission. of the proposed amendment. 16 17 Section 6..Ordinance No,. 2340 N.C.S. adopted~July 6, 2009 is hereby repealed in its 1$ entirety. 19 .',j 20 ,Section 7..The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance:is exempt-from the :. 21 California Environmental Quality Act (`'CEQA"), pursuant`to Sections 150'61(b)(3) (no possibility 2Z tfiatthe•actvity`mayhdve asignificant. impact on the`environment) and 15060(c)(3); (.the. 23 activity is not a'project as defined. in Section 15378)!' of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 1:4, Chapter.3 24 ofi the.~California Code of Regulations). 25 ~ - 26 Section 8. If any section; subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance ' nstitutionaL unlawful: or otherwise. invalid by a court of y 28 co i 27 is fmpete taju~ d ct on obpreempted by state legislation, such decision orlegisldtiori shall not L . 29 affect the validity of the remaining portions:of this ordinance. The. City Council of the Cify of 30 Petaluma hereby declares thaf it~ would have passed and adopted this ordinance aril each 31 and all;provisions thereofirrespective of the factthat anyone or more ofsaid provisions be I" 32 declared unconstitutional, unlawful orothenvise invalid. J . ~' 33 34 Section 9. This ordinance shall become. effective'thirty (30) days after the date of its 35 adoption by the Petaluma City Council. 36 - 3.7 Section 1'0: The City Clerk~is hereby-directed to publish or post this ordinance or q 38 synopsis forthe period and in the manner provided by"the City Charter and any other. 39 applicable law. 4'~ .. 41. . 42 INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this XXfh day of XXXX, 2009. l.. ~: 43 , I 44 ADOPTED this XXt~ day of XXXX 2009 by the following vote: I 45 r 46 AYES:. • ~" 47 NOES: ;. '. 48 ABSENT: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ATTEST: 8 9 10 11 Claire Cooper, City Clerk 12 13 1292299.2 Pamela Torliatt, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Eric Danly, City Attorney Ordinance No. XXXX.N.C:S. Page 4 2 ~ CITY OF PE'~'A~.ITIVIA, CALO A ~'I'AF~ 'P®T COMMUNITY DEVELOPtLIENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION; 11 ENGLISH ST PETAL UMA, CA 94952 (707)' 778-4301' FAX (707) 778-4498 E-MAIL: PI;ANIVING(a~CLPETALUMA.GA. €IS DATE: September 8, 2009 AGENDA ITEMNO. 9A TO: Planning Commission ~~ PREP-ABED: BY: Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City Attorney REVIEWED BY: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Consideration and'recommendation fo the City Cbuneil on whether three City Council - initatedamendments to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance are in conforrrance with the City of Petaluma;:General Plan ;and consistent with.the public necessity; convenience and.general:welfare: 1. Proposed Ordinance Amending, Specif c Sections of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C;S., to Implement Consolidation of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Responsibilities in a Single Reconstituted Planning Commission (Identical to adopted Ordinance No. 2338 N.C.S.); 2. Proposed Ordinance Amending Specified.Sections ofthe SmartCode©, Ordinance No. 2152 N.CS., to-Implement Consolidation of Planning Commission and.Architectural'.Review Responsibilities. in aSingle Reconstituted Planning Commission (Identical to adopted Ordinance No. 2339 N.C:S:); and 3. Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 24 Entitled "Amendments" of the'. Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C:S:, to Clarify the Review of Proposed .Zoning Ordinance Amendments by the Planning Commission (Identical to adopted Ordinance No. 2340 N.GS:). The full text.of the ordinances is contained in exhibits to Attachment 1 and 2, . the proposed resolutions. SEC®~il~dlE9t9~d4~T@®R9S' Adopt the proposed resolu't_ions (Attachments 1 and 2) recommending adoption of the three ordinances to the.City Council. ~ _.. ' Item 9: A. Page 1 1~~'~~~~~~~' ~ 22 S191~16!!~~-Rlf ~ ~~CI~GRO~~!® On March '30, 2809, while reviewing. the recommendations of the Development Code Advisory Committee, the City Council directed. staff to combine the duties, of the Planning Commission and the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee ("SPARC") into a single :Planning Commission: Per that recjuest; staff prepared a series of ordinances. that would abolish.: SPARC, expand the duties of the Planning. Commission. to include site plan and architectural review, require the appointment of all new members to fill the seats on the reconstituted Plannin~ Commission; and amend provisions of the. Implementing Zoning Ordinance and SmartCode that refer to SPARC to refer to the Planning Commission. On June 15, 2009, the City Council :introduced an ordinance. to .amend the Petaluma Municipal Code to abolish SPARC and assign SPARC's site plan and design review duties. to a newly reconstituted :Planning Commission. Two other ordinances were also introduced to amend the Implementing Zoning'Ordinance (IZO) .and SmartCode© to substitute references. to the Planning Commission for references to SPARC to conform "the IZO and SmartCode© text to the Municipal Code amendment. abolishing SPARC. and reassigning its former duties. These ordinances were adopted on July 6, 2009. . A fourth ordinance amending the IZO to clarify which proposed. zoning amendments ;must be ,.. reviewed by the Planning. Commission was introduced on July 6, 2009 and adopted on July 20, ., 2009. Because the three ordinances. which affected the IZO were procedural changes only that did not modify any land use, zone; development standard, regulation of structures or other use of property within the City, and therefore- raised no issues of General Plan consistency; the three City Council-initiated amendments were not first referred to the Planning Commission for hearing. Ordinance 23.37 N.C.S., the Municipal Code amendment adopted 6ythe City Council abolishing SPARC and reconstituting the Planning Commission 'is not before 'the Planning Commission. Ordinance 2337 N.C.S. was adopted pursuant to the City Council's inherent administrative authority over subordinate City bodies,. does.. not amend the IZO, and does not require consideration or recommandation of subordinate bodie§ such as the .Planning Commission., See, e.g;. City of Petaluma. CityCharter, Sections 34, 54, and 5,5. Ordinance 2337 N:C.S. took effect' on August 6, .2009, 30 days. after its adoption by City Council ordinance. OnAugust- 3; 2009 a~ petition was filed on behalf of Commissioners Rittenhouse, Miller; and Burton; and served on the City challengingahe City Council's. action to reconstitute the Planning Commission and appoint new commissioners to the reconstituted .body, and seeking. reinstatement of the petitioners and costs. and attorneys' fees. The challenge is based on two arguments: 1).removal of any Planning Commissioner prior to expiration of his/her term requires five votes under Section 2.08.010 of the Petaluma Municipal Code; and 2) under sections 25.010 and 25.040 of the IZO all amendments to the IZO must be heard by the Planning Commission prior to adoption: r' ~~ '~ .., ~ Item 9. A. Page 2 2'3 S'I'AIa]F ANALYSIS/ZONING ADA7INISTRAT®I2 REPOIZ'T (IZO § 25.040) Introduction This .investigation and report. of the Zoning Administrator on the. proposed amendments required.. by.IZO section 25..040 is presented by the City's Planning Manager, who serves as the City's Zoning Administrator. The, three ordinances referred to the Planning Commission are identical to those adopted by the City Council orn July 20th and' August 6th. To the extent Chapter 25 of the IZO requires referral of the atfached ordinances'to the Planning Commission beforeCouncil adoption, referral by City :Council ;resolution 2009-.137 on August ll, 2009 and subsequent action by the Planning. Commission in accordance with Section 25.050: will ensure any applicable requirements in IZO Chapter 25 are satisfied and provide: `for Planning Commission review and recommendation to the. City Council in accordance with Chapter 25. The three ordinances referred for Planning Commission review'and recommendation, the applicable legal standards; and analysis of General Plan consistency are provided below. Action of Commission and AnalicableStandards !" ~, IZO section 25.010 provides: Amendment. This Ordinance may be amended by changing the boundaries of any district or by changing °any other provision thereof whenever the public necessity and convenience and general welfare require such amendment, No amendment shall be made unless the~Planning Commission and City Council find the amendment to be in conformity with the General Plan. IZO section~25.O5U:B provides in pertinent-part that the Planning. Commission shall take action after a' properly noticed. public hearing as follows: .Action by. fihe Planning Commission a"t conclusion of hearing. If, at the conclusion of the hearing; the Planning Commission shall find the, amendment toy be n;~confonnance with the Petaluma General Plan, and consistent with the public :necessity, convenience and general welfare, it may recommend amendmentofthis ordinance.;T-he recommendation shall be made by resolution of the Planning Commission, carried by-the affirmative votes of.a majority of the total..members ..present; .including any member disqualified to vote for reason of conflict of interest... Because the proposed amendments have been initiated by the City Council, "[d]enial of an application" for amendment by the Planning Commission does not terminate the proceedings. (IZO §25.OSO:B.) _._ r~ ,. Item 9. A. Page 3 Zy I"f the Planning Commission wishes to recommend modifcation of the proposed amendments, it must' deem' any such modification necessary in light of the required findings -general. plan :conformance `and consistency with the public necessity, convenience and welfare, and: must .state the reasons for its propo"sed modifications in its recommendation to the City Council. (IZQ §25.OSO.C). General Plan Conformance Proposed Ordinance 1 :(Identical to' adopted Ordinance No~ 2338 N.C.S): Should references to the Site °Plan and Architectural Review Committee and/or SPARC in the IZO be changed to read, "Planning Commission" ? Proposed.Ordinance,2:(Identi'cal-to adopted O_.rdnance No: 2339`:N.C.S): Should references to the Site Plan and A"rchitectu"ral Review Committee and/or SPARC in the SmartCodeO be changed to read, "Planning Commission" ? Pro osed Ordinance 3. cledtcal to p .~ (I adopted Ordinance No 2340'N.C.S.): Should the IZO be amended ,to. clarify and expressly .provide that Planning Commission review is required only of` ,those proposed' zoning ordinance . amendments related to matters covered by Government Code §65950' (land uses and zones,: building. and. structure characteristics; size and use oflots, lot coverage, -:. land, use intensity; building setbacks, signs, billboards and the creation of civic "" - :districts);. and such other~matters as maybe referred by the City Council? Evaluating ,General Plan conformance of the: three proposed ordinances before the Planning . Commission by reference to General, Plan. goals sand -policies highlights the procedural and administrative nature of-these ordinances. The .first ltwo .proposed ordinances simply conform .the text of the City's zoning ordinance and SmartCode~ to the action taken by the City Council under Ordinance 2337 N.C:S. to amend the Municipal Code provisions regarding the duties of subordinate :bodies. The third ordinance is proposed to clarify administrative proVi`sions of the IZO~addressing which types .of'amendments are subject to" Planning Commission review for a . ;determination: ,of consistency with the General Plan. and. the :public necesssity, convenience and general welfare. The purpose ofathe General Plan conformance finding requirement in the: TZO is to ensure that = ., :City decisions ,relating to land user policies and other matters covered by-G"overnmenY'Code §6585Q, carry out the land use and other policies of tlie; General Plan. As :can be seen from the ,analysis below; because. there°are no express General' Plan goals, policies or' programs that directly- addre§s maintaining, textual consistency of the zoning ordinance with the General; Plan, or.the scope of duties of the Planning Commission, or procedures governing zoning enactments, General Plan conformance of the three. ordinances can only be evaluated in a general sense. . For example;':continuing to refer to'SPARC as the City'S design review authority would generally create confusion among the public. and potential applicants for permits. and other entitlements as to the body 'which will be reviewing applications and. conducting hearings. Eliminating this Item 9..A. Page 4 25 t ..confusion and facilitating an efficient and effective process :for site design and architectural review makes possible; the implementation of all General Plan goals and policies which are carried out in part through the site design and architectural review process. Iri General Plan Chapter,.. 1, .Land Use, Growth Management & the. Built Environment, and Chapter 2, Community Character, Design and Green Building, the following goals are among those'implemented Through site design and architectural review: Goal 1-G-1: Maintain a balanced land use program ~tlat:-meets the long-term residential; employment, retail, education, recreation, and open space needs ofthe community. Goal 1-G-2: Preserve he essential scenic and natural resources of the open ridglines and hillsides that help define the unique character ofPetaluma. Goal l-G-3: Maintain a~well-defined boundary,at the edge of urban development. Goa12-G=2: Maintain and` enhance Petaluma's unique identity and sense of community,. history and' place Goals 2-G-3 through 2=G-17 [Specific goals for Planning:Subareas] In addition, all other° goals throughout the General Plan which are implemented in part through site design. and. architectural review are.-also more readily achieved with a textually consistent IZQ. These include goals and policies relating to green'buildng (Goal 2=G=18; Policies 2-P-1;18; 2-P'=119); bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Goa1~5-G-S; Policies S=P;-15(A) & (B),S-P-1'-8, 5-P-19, 5-P=20 5-P-22 5-P=26.5=P-31~; )• historic-preservation (Goa1.3=G-l,,Policies,3-P-5 3.-P-6); parks - and open space (Goal 6-G-1, Policies 6-P-1(E), 6-P-4, 6-P-5); noise control (Policy 10-P-3(A); ~~ (B)' and: (E)). Fiscal' health-was so important to "the:,General Plan°thatit.isthe subject of a separate section, "Economic Health & Sustainability". ~ Goa19-G-1 states; "Establish a,:diverse and. sustainable local economy hat mets the needs of the~community's residents and:employees." Policies and programs throughout This section cecogrize that the City must "[r]etain and attract 'basic' economic activities that bring dollars into the local economy by exporting products and services:" Policy 9=P'-1: The General Plan notes, at page .9-9, "The City's challenge is ao attract .new de~eloment that_will contribute revenues to help cover the cost of public services. Such development„ in turn, is most.lkelyto be attracted to a City that presents an image of a well- maintained well-served.. place to live and do business:." :General Plan Policy 9-P=5 under Goal 9-G-1. requires the City'to "[m]onitor availability"of adequate land; transportation, and infrastructure for desired types of;growth to meetahe. community's economic vitality goal." Implementing program 9=P-5(B) states that;the City will "[f]acilitate development for economic activity on appropriatelydeveloped sites." Subprograms under this heading require review of zoning requirements and design guidelines to identify obstacles to economic development of the type required; provision of an expedited approval .process for projects that conform to City development guidelines and design.criteria; and .monitoring of the project approval process and revising it, if necessary, to assure that it.is business-friendly. 'Maintaining ari up-to-date zoning ordinance that,governs review of proposed Item 9. A. Page 5 . Zw develgpment,~and eliminating duplicative procedures where appropriate are consistent with these General Plan fiscal. goals, policies and programs. The City's General Plan, .in its various elements, will continue. to contain references to SPARC. When'tlie General Plan was written and adopted, SPARC was a component of the City's existing development review process. These. references in and of themselves do not create lack of comformity with General Plan goals, policies or ,programs because the General Plan does not contain -goals, .policies or .programs that encourage or require the retention of certain development review processes or subordinate bodies. The. Commission should make a finding of conformance with the General Plan if the .Commission.. concurs with staffahat no General Plan goals, policies or. programs provide a basis for a finding of General Plan nonconformity as to the proposed: IZO amendments before the Planning Commission. The •General Plan is not intended to specify particular procedural requirements ;governing the duties or role of the Planning Commission or other City bodies involved in the development process. Consistency with the Public Necessity, Convenience and General Welfare This finding by the Planning Commission is'referred to in IZO Section.2:5.040.B but isnot listed as a requirement for amendment in IZO Section 25.OI0. It should Abe made for the first two ordinances if the Planning Commission believes that-having the Municipal Code provisions on establishment of commissions and committees match the IZO serves the public necessity; convenience and general welfare by avoiding confusion about. what process. is required. for review of proposed projects and maintaining an effective and up-to-date zoning ordinance. Staff has not identified a basis for a finding of'inconsistency as to the public necessity, conveninece and general welfare concerning the first two ordinances. As to the third ordinance, the Planning Commission may wish to evaluate how consistency with the public necessity, convenience and. ;general welfare would apply to an ordinance .which governs procedural matters that do not involve actual entitlements. Relevant considerations supporting a , consistency determination could include. efficiency and avoiding unduly' duplicative process in order to streamline; expedite and enhance the processing and consideration of development applications. in the City. .Relevant considerations potentially supporting an inability to make a finding of consistency with the public necessity, convenience and general welfare: as to the third ordinance: could 'include facts which identify benefits. to'the community and,the public.of Planning Commission review of procedural as well as ubstantixe~:amendinents to the. City's zoning ordinance. Those facts should themselves be. consistent with the scope of the Planning Commission's legal authority, which is defined by Chapter 2:08 of the Municipal Code pursuant to the City Charter: ATTACHMENTS Attachment I:iZesolution making findings and recommending. adoption of amendments to Implementing Zoning Ordinance and SmartCode~ to change references from SPARC to Planning Commission. Attachment 2: Resolution making findings and recommending. adoption of .amendment to Implementing Zoning Ordinance to clarify which future amendments require Planning Commission review. ~_ _.. :.. .:: 1 ~ . Item 9. A. Page 6 21 Attachment 1 RESOLiJTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE -CITY OF PETALiJMA MAKING FINDINGS AS TO GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE AND CONSISTENCY WIT)Ei ~'HE PUBLIC NECESS'IT'Y, CONVENIENCE ANI) WELFARE AND RECOIVIMENDING TO TIIE~CITX COUNCIL ADOPTION OF: PROPOSED . ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIFIC SECTIONS. OF Tl~IE IMPLEMENTING .ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE N0:;2300 N,C.S., TO IMPLEMENT CONSOLIDATION' OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES IN A SINGLE, RECONSTITUTED PLANNING COMMISSION; AND' PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF THE SMARTCODEO; ORDINANCE NO.2152.NrC.S„ TO.IIVIPLEIVIENT CONSOLIDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCI=IITECTBJRAL REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES IN A. SINGLE, RECONSTITUTED PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Article VIII,. Section 55 of the Petaluma Charter in pertinent part authorizes the -City Council. to establish such commissions as shall be necessary for the effective accomplishment of municipal'business; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the: City of Petaluma, on March 30, 2009 directed staff to combine the duties of the Planning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review: Commttee,into a single, reconstituted Planning Commission in order to streamline, expedite and enhance the processing and consideration of development applications in the City, of Petaluma; _. <, ' and WHEREAS, the .City Council ofthe City of Petaluma, by Ordinance No. 2337`N.C:S. adopted July 6, 2009, amended the City of Petaluma Municipal Code to effect said change; and WHEREAS, Section 25.010 of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning .Ordinance; Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S ("IZO"), provides in pertinent part that no amendmentshall.be made _ to the IZ0 unless the Planning Commission and City Council. find the amendment to be'in conformity with the General Plan; and WHEREAS; Section.25.050(B) of the IZO provides in pertinent part that if at:the conclusion of a hearing. the Planning Commission finds that a proposed amendment to the IZO: is inconformance--with the: Petaluma General Plan, and consistent with the public necessity, convenience and .general- welfare, .the Planning Commission may recommend amendment of the IZO by resolution, and` that except in the case of amendments initiated by the City Council, denial of an amendment application by the Planning Commission shall terminate amendment proceedings; unless such decision is appealed to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 1.1, 2009 by Resolution No. 2009-137 N.C.S:, the City Council of the City of Petaluma referred two City Council-initiated ordinances which are attached to this resolution,as Exhibits A and B', respectively, and:made a part.of this resolution ("the Ordinances") for'review and. recommendation by the Planning Commission in accordance with ~- Chapter 25 of the IZO; and ~, ~~ W~)1-IEREAS, on August 27, 2009; notice of a;hearirig before the Planning Commission to consider the Ordinances was published pursuant to IZO Section 25.050(A): WHEREAS, on September 8, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public .'hearing;. considered public comment and reviewed the Ordinances for the purposes of determining whether ahe Ordinances conform to the General .Plan and whether the Ordinances are consistent with the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. NOW, 'T'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the. Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma that: 1.. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated as findings. 2. In accordance with paragraph B of section 25.050 of the. City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance; the Ordinances. attached to and made a part of this resolution which were referred for Planning Commission review and recommendation by City Council Resolution No. 2009-.1.37 N:C.S.; adopted August. l 1, 2009 ("the Ordinances"), are in conformance with the City of Petaluma General Plan because: a. There is no General Plan. goal, policy or program that refers to maintenance or updating of the :Implementing Zoning, Ordinance and there is no identified lack of conformity between the Ordinances and the General Plan with respect to such maintenance or .. updating. b. The Ordinances modify the;text of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to replace references to the "Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee" and/or "SPARC" with references to the "Planning Commission" and conform the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to the>changes previously adopted by Ordinance No. 2337 N.C:S. These conforming text amendments: remove a source of public confusion and eliminate inconsistencies between. the City's governing ordinances, thereby facilitating a more effective and efficient process for site design and' architectural review. c: An effective site design and architectural review process is needed to implement many goals, policies and programs in the General Plan, including but notaimited to those which relate to land use, growth management, the.bult environment, community charade, ,historic preservation, green building, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parks and open space, traffic circulation and noise control. d. The Ordinances also maintain an up-to-date zoning ordinance that governs review of proposed development; presenting the `image of a city which is swell-maintained, well-served place to lve~and do business, furthering General Plan Goal 9-G-1 and Policy 9-P-1. General;Plan Goa'19=G-1 and Policy 9-P-1 recognize that an essential part of the City's economic health and sustainability is attracting appropriate new development which will contribute revenues to help :cover the cost of public services. ~q ,, ~ ~ 3': `The Ordinances, are consistent with tfie public necessity, convenience and general. ' _` ,welfare, because they modify the text of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to replace references to the ".Site. Plan and Architectural Review Committee" and/or "SPARC" with references to the "Planning Commission" to conform the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and ` -the SmartCode© to the. changes previously made to the Petaluma 1Vluncipal Code which I abolished the Site Plan. and Architectural Review Committee and added site-plan and. I architectural review to the duties of the Planning Commission. These conforming text amendments. to the Implementing Zoning Ordinarice~and Smart Code© remove confiision and inconsistency between the City's governing ordinances and facilitate a more effective and. efficient'process forsite design and architectural review. 4. The: Planning•.Commission recommends'.-that the City Council. adopt the proposed Ordinances set forth in Exhibits A and B fo this Resolution. i 1287372.4 3° EFJFECTIV.E DATE ORDINANCE NO: . N:C:S.:. : OF ORDINANCE ~~ 1 Introduced by Seconded l?y 2. 3 , 4 5 6 7 8 ORD(NANCf OF THE CITY"COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFP,ETALUMA,.AMEidDING"SPECIFIED ` 9 . _ SECTIONS OF`THE IMPLEMENTING`ZONING ORDINANCE; ORDINANCE N0:.2300 N.C,S. TO 10 lMPLENIENT'CONSOLID'ATION OF PLANNING~COMM,ISSiOfV AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 11 RESPONSIBIl:ITIES~IN A SINGLE, RECONSTITUTED PIANNING CONIAAISSiON 12 13 WHEREAS, Article VIIf,.Section 55 of the Petgl~ma Cfiarterauthorizesthe:City Council to 14 establish such commissions as~shaH`be necessary for'the effecfive::accornplishment bf'municipal 15 business', provided that a member. of the City~Council,stgll'be a member of'each, commission, 16 commissioners' terms shall not :exceed four years, and commissioners: that have served 17 continuously for six:years;shall not`be reappointed untilat least one year has elapsed offer the 18 expiration of the~5ixth~~year of;service; and, ,,19 z0 WHEREAS, :the City Council'of`the'City of Petaluma, on March 30, 2009 directed staff to 21 combine the. duties of ;the Planning Cornmission:and Site :Plan and Architectural Review 22 Cornmitfee into a sngle,~~econstitufed Planning Cornmission.in ocderto streamline, expedite and 23 enhance the processing and°consideration ofidevelopment`applications in the City of 24 Pefaluma;:and, _. 25 . 26 FINDIPIGS 27 28 ~ ~ ,WHEREAS, the City Council of the. City of Petaluma`hereby finds: that the'amendments 29 ~ . confained;in this ordinance to'tlie City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance no: 2300 30 NBC S are m general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan;.and any applicable plans, and ~31 ' that the;public necessity,'convenience and general welfare regoire~or clearly-permit the 32 adoption' of the proposed amendments.. , 33' _~ 34' ~:- t~10W THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: 35~ .. .. . .. 36' - Sectionl: The provisions specified below ofthe Pefalurna Implementing Zoning Ordinance, 37 . Qrdinance No; 2300 N:C.S. adopted June 2, 2008 and effective July 2, 2008 are hereby. 38 amended in accordance with the following: ' 39 - '40~ Section,7:090-'Telecommunications Facilities - pardgroph (C)(4) - is amended to read 41 as follows: 42 ,43. 'Major Facility. A .major facility requires approval of a major conditional use permit as ,~. ~ prescribed in Section 24:03x. and Planning Commission approval as prescribed in Section. 45 24.101.: ' Ordinance No. NAGS. EXHIBIT A . Page ~ of 7 . 3~ 1' .2 3 4 5 6 8 9 TO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1'9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 " 28 29 30 31 32 33 . 34 35' 36 37 38 39 110 41 ~42 43' 44. 45 46 49 48 49 50 51 52 53 '~ Section 11.D6'S Power of the Zoning Administrator (Director) to Modify Requirements - paragraph (A) - is amended to read as followst Compact~spaces ,may be proposed as set forth within the adopted City standards, subject to review and approval of-the Planning Commission. Section 11.070'- Standards for Off-Sfreet Automobile Parking Facilities paragraph (I) - is amended fo read as follows: Parking Stoll Size. Parking stall size shall be determined by the Planning Commission in the Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures and Guidelines. Section 15.020 -Powers and.Duties ofthe Planning Commission. and Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee - paragraph. (.B)(4) - is amended to read as follows: The Historic and Cultural'Preservafion Committee shall:consist-of the membership of the Planning Commission:and two additional,mernbers, one representing the Petaluma Historical Museum dnd one representing Heritage Homes of Petaluma. Section 16.060 -Single Lot Development -paragraph (C) -'is amended to read as follows: Site Plan and Architectural; Review. Planning Commission approval is required for new development in'the South'Hills and' West H11s. Section 16.060 Single Lot Development -paragraph (E) - is amended to read as follows: Exception to Required Setback. An exception to the setback required by the underlying zoning district may be provided for as follows: 1.• Primary,Structure.,A primary structure may encroach into a required setback for a .distance otnot'more than one-hdlf of'therequired setback, subject to approvaNby`the jPlarming Commission, if it can be found that thedecrease minimizes the impact of hillside~development and grading and is consistentwith the~guidelines contained in this chapter, Ifsuch a reduction is granted, a compensating.ncredse insetback~is required ~. in the opposing setback. For example, afive-foot {5'') reduction in a front setback would increase the rear setback by five feet (5'). 2. Required. Covered Parking. Required covered parking may encroach into ca required front and/or side yard setback if the decrease minimizes the impact of hillside development and grpding and is consistent with the guidelines contained in this chapt.e~. Findings Required: When the Planning Commission approves a reduction'in the required setback, findings toaupport the granting of the exception shall be provided. Section 1b.060 _ Single Lot Development -paragraph: (F) - is amended to read as follows: Additional,Set6ock Required: In orderto protect significant natural resources or to reduce visual,prominence of a proposed development, the Planning Commission may require building setback(s) that exceed(s) the required etback of the underlying zoning district. EXHIBIT A Ordinance No. N.Gs'. Page 2 Of 7 32 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 . 1.8 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 . 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42: 43 44 45 46'. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Section 16.060 - Single'Lot Development -paragraph (G) - is.amended to read as follows: Exception'to Retaining-Wall Height (5eefion 13.050). For projects subject to Section 1:6.060, a maximum exposed retaining wall height of 5 feef (5`J may be permitted with. Planning. Commission approval. Section 16.060- Single !ot Development- paragraph (H) i5 amended to read as follows: Site Desgn.:The following site design guidelines shall be taken into consideration an. d incorporated;into the :design of a'hillside lot wheneverpossible. Conformance with these guidelines will be determined by rte Planning Commission. l: Development patterns that form visually protruding or steeply cut slopes for roads . or lots should be avoided. 2. Building pads, including spaces leveled~for foundations andthe grading for driveways and :yards, should. be as~small as possible: 3. Building construction and related site grading sh9uld.not significantly disturb any ephemeral or perennial watercourse on the site. 4. Buildings should"be located to take advantage of existing vegetation for screening: Secfior- 16.060 -Single Lot Developrx-ent -paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows: Archffectural'Design. The following architectural design guidelines shall be taken into consideration and incorporated into the design of a hillside lot whenever possible. Conformance with these guidelines will'be determined by the Planning Commission as part of project review. 1.. Design buildings fo .conform to the natural topography and hillside setting-of the site; to fotlow the contours of the site; and to blend with the existing terrain in order to reduce bulk and mass. 2: Scale structures to..frt.ttie.su~oundings,-andaaat~isually"dominate-the landscgpe: The•apparenf size of exferiorwall surfaces°visible from offaite may be minimized. through the use of single story elements; split level foundations; varying setbacks and structure heights, and landscciping, all designed to break up massive` forms. 3. Design:buildings to minimize bulk, mass and:'volume: 4. Bulk..and-Mass. Bulk and mass should be minimized when developing, a hillside ,parcel. The following methods may be used to. minimize the bulk and mass of a - building. a, Keep building forms simple .(see Fgures 16:,1 dnd 16.2) b Avoid architectural styles.thaf are inherently viewed as massive and bulky. c. Utilize grading-cuts;"rather than fills, to create building pads: ~d( Excavate or use below-grade rooms to reduce effective bulk. The' visual . '' area of the building can be minimized through a combined use of grading and landscaping fiechnques. Earth sheltered buildings,and "living roofs" are encouraged. e. Exposed.understory stem walls should not.exceed 5' and should be firished with visuaNy recessive, earth-toned materials. f. Step the building foundation and roofs with;the natural slope (see Figures lb..l and `16.2). g. Use horizontaiand vertical building components to reduce bulk: h. Avoid two story wall planes. ;' Ordinance No.: N.CsS. EXHIBIT A~ Page 3 of 7 . 33 1' i. Step back the second story so the difference in wall planes is visible from a .~~ ~' 2 ~ ~ distance. 3 j. Vary elevations, such as stepping back second stories, to conform with 4 topography. 5 k. Avoid overhanging:deeks, laege staircases, and patios formed by 6 retaining walls that~rnake buildings appear more massive {see Figure 16'.3). 7 I. Avoid use of solid wall railings. tha# add to the mass of :the design. 8 m. Credte Sight and shadow by providing modest overhangs, projections, 9 alcoves and- plan offsets. . 10 n. Use a combination of siding materials and articulate walls to reduce ~ 11 ~ expahsive, continuous planes. ~ 12 0. Use vaulted ceilings rather than high walls. and ceilings to attics above to 13 achieve a feeling' of volume. ' 14 ~ 5. Colors and;Materials, The following methods may be used to reduce the visibility 15 of hillside development- `.16 a. Use subdued and unobtrusive exterior finish materials and colors for all 17 ~ structures. 1'8 b. Minimize thevse of reflective material. . 19 ~ ~ c. Earth tones and colors that occur naturally in the Petaluma hills are 20 I encouraged. 21 , d: Structures should not call undue atfention to themselves when viewed 22 from a public vantage point. 23 6. Roofs. ,, 24 a.. Break<roof forms and Poof(ines ihto smaller building components to reflect.. ~ 25 , the irregular forms of surrounding natural features (see Figures 16.12 and 26 1b.2). 27 b. .Generally orient the slope of the main roof in the same direction as the ~28 natural~slope of the terrain jsee Figures 16.1 and 16.2). '29 ~ c. Avoid large gable ends on downhill elevations. 30 ~ d. Reflective roofing materials are discouraged.- 31 32 Section 1 b.060 -Single Lot Development - parograph•(J) is amended to read as follows: 33 34 Process. As prescribed by Section 24.010 (Site Plan and Architectural Review). 35 I'. 36 Section 17.060 -Tree Removal - paragraph (8)(3) is arriended to read as follows: 37 ':, 38 Developmenf Projects - If a projecf applicant chooses to remove: trees from a 39 development site fhe project applicant will be required to~replace the tree or trees. Refer '. ~4U' to the "Tree Technical.~Manual" for approved forms of the free replacement. On projects ! 41 ~ where-Planning,Cornrnission/City Couricil approval is nof.required, replacement w81 be .. , 42, . at the. direction of the Comrimunity Development Director. Fordevelopment projecfs that i. 43 ` :require Planning Commission/City Council approval, protected trees.author¢ed'for 44 removdl; v~ill, be: addressed as part of .the development conditions of approval. The 45 ~ approving body shall be the deciding factor on appropriate replacement and the _ 46 - project willbe conditioned accordingly. 47 48 Section 18.020 -Applicability is amended to read as follows: 49 50 ~ The provisions of this ordinancestiall apply to any project that receives any required 51 ~ entit_lementapprovals (tentative map, rezoning or prezoning, Generdf Plan amendment 52 and related, environmental determination) from the Planning Commission and' City 53 Council after~ttie effective date of this ordinance: If a building permit is only required 54 ~: and' none of the circumstances listed in this Secfion apply to fhe applicafion, then the ~. EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 7 3~l 1 building permit must be issued for the projecf priorto the effective date of this 2 ordinance: However, when a development agreement orsome other ogreement 3 ~ authorized. by the City Manager is in place that clearly establishes provisions for the 4 payment of'in-lieu fees, said project may be exempt from the requirements of this 5 ordinance. 6 '7 Section 18.040- Compliance -paragraph (B)(3) is amended to read as follows: 8 9' The arf work shall be related in. terms of scale, material, form and content to immediate 10 and adjacent buildings and architecture, lapdseaping or other setting so as to 11 complement the site and its surroundings and shall be consistent with any corresponding 12 actiori of the Planning C~mmissian or City Council as it may relate to any development 13 entitlemerifs; . 14 15 Section 1'4.040- P.U:D. District Procedures -paragraph (E~(4) is amended to read as 16 follows: 17 18 Minor Modfication to Approved Unit Development Plan. As determined by the Director, 19 modification which is minor in nature and clearly inconsequential may be made 20 administrativelyor„in the judgment of the Director, may be referred to the Planning 21 Commission fof• review and:approvpl..Minor madifcdtion includes modification to unit. 22 ... architecture and'site design so long as no significant alteration to road glignmenf is 23 made and no increase in unit yield.results. U.p to 20%of`the indi~ridual dwelling units in 24 residential P.U.D.'s may be substituted for other previously:approved units if the resulting 25 substitutions do not substantially alter the intent of the P.U.D: as originally approved. 26 27 Section 24.010 -Site Plan and Architectural Review -paragraph (:B) is amended to read . 28 as follows: 'z9 30 Administrative Site Plarrand Architectural Review. The Director may grant administrative 31 , site plan and architectural approval for nonproduction residential units in approved 32 subdivisions of five ormore lots, all residential developments of less than five units, and all 33 minor addl.lions-or-tri©d~c-etians-to.-indus#r~cil,-corr~rriercial ~or offce buildings; or-mra~ refer 34 said developmentproposals to the Planning Commission. For purposes of this section; the 35 term"nonproduction residential units" shall mega houses not substantially similar to other 36 houses within view of dne another as determined by the Director, or houses within a 37 subelivision where the 'same floorplan or exterior design is used less than. three times. 38 39 Section.24.O10-Ste Plan End Architectural Review -paragraph. (F-) is amended to read as 40. follows: 41 ~ ' 42; ,,. ,Procedure: On matfer5 to:be reviewed bythe Planning Commission, orwhen the: Director 43 refers an application;`fo~he Planning Comrnissionwith recommendations; fihe applicant 44' ~ hall' be so notifed and;a hearing date shall be establi hed., On the date for said hearing, 45 tt5e'Planning :Commission shall consider the Director's report and any additional staff, . 46 comment and shall;permit the applicant or any other affected person to present any 47 evidence which the Planning Commission deems to be relevant to said applicant. The 48 Planning Commission shall approve, disapprove, orapprove with modifications projects 49' for. which the Planning Commission is the entitling body; or recommend approval, 50 ~. disapproval, or approval with modifications or give oilier appropriate. recommendation 51 to the.City Council, concerning, projects for which the Planning Commission is an advisory 52 body. 53 Ordinance No. N:C.S. EXHIBIT ~A Page.5 of 7' 3S 1 $ecfion24.010-Sate Rlan and:Architecturdl Review -paragraph (G)(2) is amended to 2~ read as tollows: 3' 4 Landscaping to approved;City standards shall be.required on the site and shall be in '1 5 `keeping with the, character or design of the site.. Existing trees shall be preserved I 6' wherever possible, and shalt not"be removed. unless approved by.the Planning: 7 Cornrnission. 8 9 Section 24030- Conditional Use Permits =.paragraph A is amended to read as follows: 10 • 11 .Purpose. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure the .proper integration of 12 uses which, because of their special nature, may Abe suitable only in certain locations 13 and only provided such uses are .arranged or operated in a particular rndnner. In 14 addition to°the review~described herein, :any proposed. conditional use shall be subject 15 to site standards settorth in Section 24.t)10.(Site Plan and'Architectural Review). 16 Additional application shall be required and additional°#ee shall be charged for site plan 17 and architectural review. 18 _ 19 Section 24.030- Conditionafi Use Permits•-parag rapti>B~is amended to read as follows: 20 21 Appiication..Applicationfor aconditional use permit shall be made by the property `' 22 owner:or certified agent thereof to the Funning Gommission_ o.n a`form'prescribed for this - 23 purpose(by the City of Petaluma and shall be accompanied by such additional 24 documents or supporting material as maybe required for review of the proposed use; 25 including where appropriate; the~plans, drawings, and information to permit asite plan' 26 and architectural review in accordance with the procedure in Section 24.010.(E). 27 . (Investigation and' Report). - .;~$ . 'I' ' 2~ 'Section.24.070.6(1) - Appeals. is amended to read as follows: j 3U ' I ~ 31 Appeal Subjects and Jurisdiction:., 32 33 1. A decision..on.an adrx~inst~a#ive~ite-plate-and-arE-t-iitec--#drat-reviev~i appliGaton~or~- :34 historic and cultural. preservation;,opplication maybe appealed to the'Planning 35 Commission. • 37 Section 24.07,0-.Appeals -paragraph (B)(5), isamended to read as follows, and 36 38 paragraph (B)(6) is deleted.. 39 - . I 40 5. A decision by the Planning Commission cnay°be appealed to City Council, 1" ...41 ;42 . .. -.: ~. r43' Section 2~ If an section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase• or word 'of this:ordinance is for ' Y ,,~ 44 any`reason held `to be~unconstitutional, unlawful or othenNise invalid by a court~of competent' . I' 45' ,jurisdiction or preempted bystdte-legislation, such decision or legislation shallenot affect the 46 validity'of the;rernaining portions of this ordinance. The .City Council of the: City of Petaluma 47 hereby declares"that, it vvoulei have passed and adopted this ordinanee•and each and all • 48 provisions fheieof,irrespective of the factthou any one or more of said provisions be declared 49 unconstitutional; unlawful or otherwise invalid. 50 _ 51 Sectiom:3: The; City Council. finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the-California 52 Environmental•Quolity Act:.(." CEQA"), pursuant• to Sections 1506.1 {b) (3) (no possibilitythat the. 53' activity may have a signifiednt impact on the environment} and• 1,5060(c)(3) (the~activity is not a EXHIBIT A - Ordinance No. N.C.S. Page 6 of 7: . 3 ~o l ~ 1 project as defined"in,Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the. California ~• 2" Code°of_Regulations). ~ 3 j i 4. Section. 4: Ihis ordinance shall become effective thirty j30) days after the date of its adoption by I° ~ 5 the Petaluma-City Council. [; 6 `! 7 Section~5. The City Clerk is hereby direcfed~to publish orpost this ordinance or a synopsis forfhe u. 8 period and in the manner provided by the: City Chatter ahd any other applicable law. 9 `j 10 INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this day of :2009. i 11 12 ADOPTED this day of , .2009' by the following voter 13 . 74 AYES: 15` .LADES: 16 ABSENT: 17 ABSTAIN: • 1'8 19 . .20 21 • 22 ' 23` 24 . ._.:~15 l6 27 28 29 30 I 31 32 ~ 33 ~ 34 35~ 36 37 38 . :40' 41 42 43 , ~ . 44 • . 45 ' 46 47 ,. 48 49 50