A short history of SPARC

<p>Once upon a time, what is now the city’s Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (it didn’t have a formal name then) consisted of two planning commissioners who met twice a month with an applicant and staff.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>A site design and architectural package, consisting mainly of the view from the nearest public street, was worked out at that meeting and presented to the Planning Commission when the rest of project approval was acted upon.</p><p>If there was significant concern by the Planning Commission, a portion of the site design might be discussed by the full commission.</p><p>This worked for a long time until certain members of the Planning Commission insisted on reviewing the total (original) preliminary site design. This was a terrific time waster.</p><p>Eventually, the two planning commissioners who did the site design review (I was one) said that if the total package was going to be discussed at the Planning Commission presentation, there was no need for them to continue having special meetings with the applicant and staff.</p><p>The Planning Commission members said OK, we’ll do it as part of the full hearing. What was overlooked was that much of the design that had been approved during the site meeting had to be discussed all over again from scratch with now seven critics who each wanted to contribute their unique views.</p><p>This became very time consuming and shortly was met by the Planning Commission members looking for alternative procedures to lessen their workload. They couldn’t just go back to the previous procedure; something new and better had to be developed.</p><p>We eventually ended up with the present SPARC, with a number of seats designated for specialists. Of course, having these professionals did cause some other problems.</p><p>First off, being professionals, they could nitpick design at a much higher level, with each specialty being allowed to dominate its area of expertise as long as they didn’t criticize other areas of expertise. </p><p>Landscapers could roll over anyone else because they knew the Latin name of flora. Architects followed closely behind. The generalists (common citizen appointees) were usually left out. After all, how could professionals defer to amateurs?</p><p>A second problem was that the specialists often had to recuse themselves whenever they had any existing or previous relationship with the applicant. It was only then the general members might fully participate.</p><p>Since then, a heritage component — persons with special historical knowledge — has been added to the mix. </p><p>It eventually was worked out, but with new bureaucratic hoops for applicants to jump through (the addition of SPARC and the heritage component).</p><p>Fast-forward a number of years.</p><p>SPARC, which used to focus on a project’s public appearance, has evolved to practically considering itself a mini-Planning Commission and the Planning Commission looks at itself as a mini-City Council. </p><p>The present plans to reinvent SPARC and the Planning Commission as a single body (if it isn’t just a ploy to give the council more control) might work out. I just hope the City Council will give as a general instruction, “You are a technical body focused on implementing the General Plan, zoning requirements and overall visual public appearance of projects brought before you. Policy issues will be handled at the council level.”</p><p>Much time is now spent by the Planning Commission and SPARC reviewing and discussing individual land-use and design preferences. With the new General Plan and SMART zoning in place, there should be much less need to fine-comb applications for appropriateness.</p><p>If the city intends to keep staff lean in the future, it should consider that, with the new complexities, the new organization might require more staff and add more delay.</p><p>Let’s hope the search for perfection doesn’t create a new monster.</p><p>(Jack Balshaw is a retired transportation planner and former Petaluma City Council member. His e-mail address is jbcolumn@sbcglobal.net. His blog is jacksblog.bal shaw.com)</p>