| | | | | | | | 
AGENDA REPORT
|
| | | | | | | | DATE:
| February 4, 2020
| TO:
| Mayor and City Council
| FROM:
| Stefan T. Chatwin, City Manager 
| | SUBJECT: | Public Hearing;
and Resolution 2020-24 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Upholding the Appeal and Overturning the Planning Commission’s Decision Denying a Use Permit to Permit Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses in the PDC: Building A project located on Business Center Drive in the Green Valley Corporate park (APNs:0148-540-250, -260, -300). |
|
| | | | | | | | | RECOMMENDED ACTION | | Hold public hearing and adopt resolution. |
|
| | | | | | | | | STATEMENT OF ISSUE | | The Panattoni Development Company is appealing a Planning Commission decision to deny a part of the requested Use Permit (UP2018-17) which seeks to permit Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses in the PDC: Building A project. The developer seeks to have these uses permitted as part of the Use Permit. |
|
| | | | | | | | | DISCUSSION | Background and Overview:
At its meeting on November 27, 2019, the Planning Commission approved a request by the Panattoni Development Company to construct an approximately 200,000 square foot industrial building within the Green Valley Corporate Park known as PDC: Building A. As part of the project entitlements, the Planning Commission also approved a Use Permit request to allow the building to be constructed with a height 2 feet taller than that permitted within the IBP -NC (Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia) zone. The project also included a Use Permit request to allow Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses on site.
In reviewing the project, staff evaluated the Use Permit request and found that project met the required findings to allow such uses. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit request to permit additional building height and Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses.
In considering approval of the requested entitlements, the Planning Commission (the “Commission”) deliberated on the operating characteristics and intensity of the requested uses. The Commission concluded that the requested uses were incompatible with the existing and anticipated land uses in the vicinity and would create an imbalance or overabundance of similar uses in the vicinity. The Commission denied the Use permit request by a 4-0 vote.
Summary of Appeal
:
The applicant has appealed the denial of this Use Permit request. The appeal application includes an explanation for the request (see attachment 3 to this report). The justification for the appeal is economic in nature. The appellant does not want to constrain or limit the potential future tenant for the building and instead have the ability to market the property for a variety of uses including tech and manufacturing. Additionally, the appellant does not agree with the determination of the Commission that there is an abundance of warehouse uses in the project vicinity nor that the operating characteristics of the requested uses are incompatible with the existing uses in the area, specifically anticipated truck traffic. A Traffic Operational Analysis was submitted as part of the original application which found that the anticipated uses would not result in any operational issues or delays within the surrounding roadway network.
Staff Analysis of Appeal:
Staff has reviewed the justification for the appeal and has determined it to be valid. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed uses on site are compatible with the land uses in the vicinity. Wholesale, Storage and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses are a light industrial use compatible with the surrounding office uses. The Project is compatible with anticipated future land uses in the vicinity in that the General Plan encourages light industrial and office uses, including administrative centers, research and development facilities, and supporting businesses and services and the Zoning Ordinance has identified this type of development as an approvable use. The conditions of the Development Review approval and the proposed Use Permit will ensure that the project’s operating and design characteristics are compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity.
Approval of the requested Use Permit will not create an imbalance or overabundance of Wholesale, Storage and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses in the area. Currently, there are no existing Wholesale, Storage and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses in the project area. There is only one other site north of Interstate 80, located approximately 800 feet west of the subject site, where such uses may potentially occur. The specific use of that site and the subject site has not been identified.
Staff is in support of the original Use Permit request to permit Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution: Light or Medium and Manufacturing and Assembly: Medium uses and is in support of the appeal. A Resolution upholding the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission’s denial of the Use Permit request has been prepared and is attached to this report.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | FINANCIAL IMPACT | | A decision on the appeal will not result in any direct financial impacts to the City. |
|
| | | | | | | | | CITY COUNCIL WORKPLAN | Community Safety
| Community Infrastructure | Quality of Life | | Financial and Operational Sustainability | Economic Development | Travis Air Force Base |
| City Council Goal this item supports:
Not Applicable |
|
| | | | | | | | | PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION | The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project on November 27, 2019 and approved the house plans and related entitlements with a 4-0 vote.
Public Hearing Notice was published in the Daily Republic and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site, emailed to all persons on the noticing list and posted on site for the City Council meeting on January 26, 2020.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | ALTERNATIVE ACTION | | The City Council could choose to deny the applicant’s appeal and seek to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Use Permit request. |
|
| | | | | | | | | STAFF CONTACT | Amy Kreimeier, Associate Planner
707-428-7450
akreimeier@fairfield.ca.gov
|
|
| | | | | | | | | COORDINATED WITH | City Attorney's Office
|
|
| REVIEWERS: | | Reviewer | Action | Date | | Answerer | Approved | 1/21/2020 - 11:55 AM | | Feinstein, David | Rejected | 1/22/2020 - 12:26 PM | | Answerer | Approved | 1/22/2020 - 3:09 PM | | Answerer | Approved | 1/22/2020 - 6:09 PM | | Feinstein, David | Approved | 1/22/2020 - 7:51 PM | | Alexander, Amber | Approved | 1/23/2020 - 1:55 PM | | Alexander, Amber | Approved | 1/27/2020 - 6:23 PM |
|
|