HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11/26/2002p, L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
Q, w City Fall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
I $ 5 $ E -Mail plannin2(r A.petaluma.cams
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes -
3 November 26, 2002 - 7:00 PEA
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, *Barrett, Dargie, Glass, McAllister, von Raesfeld
6 Absent: O'Brien
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff. Mike Moore, Community Development Director
10 George White, Planning Manager
11 Pamela Tuft, AICP, Director of General Plan Administration
12 Scott Duiven, Associate Planner
13 Shelly Kappel, Administrative Secretary
14
15
16 ROLL CALL:
17 PUBLIC COMMENT: Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive: voiced concerns about
18 flooding and local traffic congestion in Petaluma if a 12- screen movie theater would be
19 built at the Petaluma Village Premium Outlet. Need to revitalize downtown, not building
20 a whole new town somewhere north of Petaluma in the floodplain.
21 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: The. first public hearing on the Petaluma Village
22 Market Place is scheduled for December 10, 2002, which is the next Planning
23 Commission meeting. Congratulations to Mayor elect Commissioner David Glass. Future
24 public meetings on the ECOC: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee on
25 December 12, 2002, at 3:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers; Public Forum Workshop
26 at Community Center on January 11, 2003, from 9:00 AM to 12 Noon; and Senior Forum
27 Workshop at Community Center on January 17, 2003, from 9:00 AM to 12 Noon.
28 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
29
30
31 Time public hearing began: 7:05 PM
32
33
Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2002
1 COMMISSION BUSINESS:
2
3 I. DISCUSSION OF PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN 2004 -2025.
4 Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report
5
6 Pamela Tuft gave overview of progress -to -date on General Plan and gave
7 presentation on major components of Existing Conditions, Opportunities and
8 Challenges Report (ECOC).
9
10 All comments and questions will be gathered from the public meetings. An.
11 Addendum to the ECOC will be completed that compiles, by chapter, all of the
12 comments, questions and answers from the public review process.
13
14 Public Comment Open
15
16 Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive: Glad the election is over.and we can get on
17 with the business of the City. We need to continue with the process of the General
18 Plan.
19
20 Public Comment Closed
21
22 Chair Barrett We were asked to comment on Chapters 4, 5, 7, & 11, but not
23 restricted to those chapters if we had other comments on remaining chapters.
24
25 CHAPTER 4 LAND USE & BUILT ENVIRONMENT
26
27 Chair Barrett ECOC document is extraordinary and very helpful. Is unclear about
28 private recreation —is that included as open space or is open space only publicly
29 owned open space that all the City can use?
30
31 Pamela Tuft We will correct the graphs to show the distinction between private
32 and public open space. Private recreation is where you have to pay to utilize the
33 facilities, like the driving range out on Stony Point, KOA, etc.
34
35 Chair Barrett Golf Courses?
36
37 Pamela Tuft That is a component of the open space inventory; however, Parks &
38 Recreation Commission commented that should be discussed further or broken
39 out because Rooster Run is on City land so it is a public Golf Course. We are
40 working with Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the analysis of
41 recreational assets.
42
43
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes — November 26, 2002
1 Chair Barrett Is concerned Rooster Run being on City land, the City has some
2 say as to the future development of that land. The driving range, being a private
3 open space, could close the gate tomorrow, put up something if they could meet
4 the flood control needs and it would no longer be open space. Is unclear about
5 how much of that open space is really going to be open space for this lifetime of
6 the General Plan. Would like to see separation between public and private and
7 anything that has restrictions on it.
8
9 Chair Barrett Are theaters, karate, dance, or yoga studios, churches, gyms, etc.,
10 considered open space or recreation spaces or are they categorized as businesses?
11
12 Scott Duiven These are categorized as commercial uses.
13
14 Chair Barrett Your comment that we have 986 acres of vacant land - -does that
15 include the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion area?
16
17 Scott Duiven No. All of the data for the vacant lands is, for the most part,
18 collected out to the UGB and does not include the possible expansion areas.
19
20 Chair Barrett Is the acreage of vacant land, right now, within the City limits?
21
22 Scott Duiven Within the UGB.
23
24 Chair Barrett Why is the Wastewater Treatment Plant listed as being both in the
25 Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) and the Lakeville subareas?
26
27 Pamela Tuft The existing treatment plant on Hopper Street is in the CPSP
28 subarea but the ponds are in the Lakeville subarea. The new sewer plant will be
29 located out at the ponds.
3.0
31 Commissioner von Raesfeld Typo on maps in Chapter 7 (Transportation) -
32 Magnolis should be Magnolia. Maps are wonderful resource. Figure 4 -16, Vacant
33 and Underutilized Land and as it relates to Figure 5 -3, has an underutilized site
34 category —what was the thinking or ideology? For example, the Kenilworth Jr.
35 High School site does not show up on either of them —this should be listed as an
36 underutilized property.
37
38 Pamela Tuft In creating this document we had to take a snap shot of existing land
39 use (June 2001). We had to stop the never - ending process of updating it one more
40 time. Right now Kenilworth is a Junior High.
41
'42 Commissioner von Raesfeld My point is that there should be a very simple
43 discussion on the theory behind the term. On the 5.3 Map, there are some little
44 sites called underutilized sites in the middle of residential neighborhood, which
45 may be, in fact, that, but it would be helpful to know the definition before you
'46 start looking at them.
47
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes — November 26, 2002
1 Scott Duiven Regarding your previous comment, to provide clarification, for
2 Kenilworth, as well as the Fairgrounds; those were taken into consideration but
3 were listed as institutional lands and for the analysis that was done for those
4 particular exhibits. They looked at the four primary land -use categories that are
5 out there right now that can be quantified: commercial, industrial, mixed use and
6 residential but institutional lands will be addressed.
7
8 Commissioner von Raesfeld It was underutilized by those four categories?
9
10 Scott Duiven Yes, in terms of those small sites. Vacant land was looked at as
11 lands that basically have little -to- nothing on them; underutilized lands were lands
12 that may have some improvements on them, but have room for additional
13 development potential.
14
15 Commissioner von Raesfeld The power of the maps will be incredible through
16 the process, but things like vacant, underutilized, potential need a rule that defines
17 what these terms are.
18
19 Commissioner Glass I think this is a good document. It challenges perspective.
20 The challenge of this will be to control the growth to .7% compounded out to
21 2025. It is a realistic number because if that assumption turns out to be the 2.7%
22 historical average then there are other challenges that may not be in this
23 document. We need to understand the constraints going forward. It will be a
24 challenge to achieve that .7 %. If you just look back on a historical basis, and I did
25 not see this in the document anywhere, it seems like it is based on past experience
26 from Marin County and demographics and the aging of Sonoma County and we
27 may not see that. We might be setting up a situation that is going to be unique
28 onto Petaluma, because part of Telecom Valley is attracting a workforce of young
29 people, so we may be attracting people that will bring families and explode that
30 .7% growth rates. The .7% is a very low figure compared to the 2.7% and may not
31 be achieved, and if so, what then ? — should be identified as a challenge.
32
33 Commissioner McAllister Was focusing on issue of density and the
34 redevelopment opportunities, which I assume is somewhat coincidental with the
35 underutilized land. When looking at underutilized sites, are you looking at
36 building re -use when these opportunities exist? We have relatively new buildings
37 vacant and they should be re -used and not dumped —this is a sustainability issue.
38 Can we make an inventory of opportunities? Might be a constraint for developers.
39 Can we provide an incentive for re -use of existing buildings or a program
40 implemented as part of the General Plan and applies in the land use category for
41 both density and redevelopment issues?
42
43 Commissioner Dargie In the Petaluma Boulevard North subarea, there is not a lot
44 of discussion over how there is not a lot of infrastructure there. Presumes that
45 whatever planning will go on the City will take over, as appropriate, for whatever
46 projects are associated with it. Is there a need for more understanding of how
47 infrastructure is part of that process and not constructed project -by- project?
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes — November 26, 2002
1 Commissioner Asselmeier Related to the UGB issues, as I understand it, are we
2 going to have some new opportunities to potentially act on those areas? Can you
3 give a clearer idea of what the issues might be and what we should be thinking
4 about as Planning Commissioners, in terms of how we might be acting or the City
5 staff will be looking at those areas and looking for our input? What opportunities
6 does this Planning Commission have for acting on those UGB areas? Will we
7 have the opportunity to potentially designate how those areas would be used,
8 knowing that the UGB, one of the deadlines will arise during the life of this
9 document, if it goes through 2025?
10
11 Pamela Tuft The constraints of utilizing those expansion areas before 2018 are
12 listed in the ballot measure. We intend- to talk about the possibility of the
13 expansion areas within the framework of th G eneral Plan. There is not going to
14 be, at this point in time, a great deal of discussion on the possibility of moving the
15 UGB beyond where it is, other than the possible expansion areas. That discussion
16 may come at the mid -term review of the General Plan. The intent of the General
17 Plan, from the beginning as directed by the City Council, is that it will be a living
18 document and will be subject to, as required by law, an annual review report. In
19 addition, every five years we will touch base with the Plan to identify what we
20 have achieved. Perhaps move the achieved goals out of the Plan into a chapter on
21 achievements and identifying those new challenges that we identify as the new
22 goals or programs that need to be added into the Plan. We are respecting the UGB
23 as a 20 -year voter - mandated decision.
24
25 Commissioner Asselmeier Through this planning process, will the City be
26 looking at these expansion areas and giving them General Plan designations and
27 potentially predetermining use?
28
29 Pamela Tuft I do not believe so. The ballot measure said those areas are not
30 meant to be exclusive. We will talk about expansion areas in general and not
31 identify the exact locations that were shown on the Exhibit Al and A2 of the
32 Ballot Measure.
33
34 Commissioner Asselmeier Through this General Plan update process, will this be
35 an issue?
36
37 Pamela Tuft It will be an issue in a generic sense and to whether the expansion
38 areas are needed, or if something comes up in the analysis or preferred
39 alternatives, we might look at specific opportunities.
40
41 Chair Barrett Suggested that in the 12 planning areas around the UGB area, try to
42 standardize the 300 -foot Urban Separator on the west side where there are still
43 development possibilities. Since it has been required on the east side, it seems we
44 would want to extend that same standard to areas that are set up for development
45 in the west and south hills area; this should be added as an opportunity and
46 challenge. Regarding development on west side, i.e., Rockridge Point, there is a
47 challenge about areas that are within the UGB; in order to access them you have
48 to use County roads. We have LAFCO to make sure that we can service the land
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes — November 26, 2002
1 that the City is going to be bringing into its domain, but we do not have anything
2 that deals with the roads to get there. We are behind in our parkland acreage and
3 question the funding for purchase and maintenance of future parks. We need a
4 specific definition for mixed - use — different developers use different definitions.
5 Regarding re -use potential, agrees with Commissioner McAllister. Regarding
6 density, I would not like increased density at the margin and suggest increasing
7 density in the center or close to the center of the City and keep the idea of
8 feathering as we reach the UGB. Is there any way to enact localized zoning
9 density? On page 492, regarding conversion of non - residential land to residential,
10 is there a provision in zoning or a sliding designation on parcels other than mixed
11 use? Is there a way to keep some of this underutilized land and rezoning so that
12 the developer has the option without going through a zoning change requirement?
13
14 Commissioner von Raesfeld In Pamela's general introduction, it was mentioned
15 that there was an informal discussion on how to deal with existing residential
16 neighborhoods with the possibility to increase densities?
17
18 Pamela Tuft That is an opportunity that has been identified during the visioning
19 workshops.
20
21 Commissioner von Raesfeld It is probably something that this General Plan
22 needs get its hands around, i.e., the beach communities of Los Angeles where the
23 policy is tear the house down and build three /four on a lot. Do we want to do that?
24 When you have UGB's that is the next thing that will happen. Need some goals
25 and policies.
26
27 Pamela Tuft Need to balance the possibility of increasing the density without
28 losing the physical assets that presently exist.
29
30 CHAPTER 5 COMMUNITY DESIGN AND CHARACTER
31
32 Commissioner von Raesfeld This chapter really matters in the Central Petaluma
33 Specific Plan.
34
35 CHAPTER 6 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
36
37 Commissioner Glass Should the City take the 500 housing units per year, lower
38 them to manage that growth and get to the .7 % rate of increase? I think this is
39 covered in the document but it may need more explanation so someone would
40 understand why he or she may want to do that and what the danger is if they
41 don't. How far can you go above that .7 %, at any given time, and still be
42 comfortable that you will have going out to 2025, or be able to deal with the
43 traffic?
44
45
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 ,
1 Commissioner McAllister Regarding densities and where they occur and how
2 they regulate whether it is on the perimeter, etc., how do the General Plan
3 alternatives get generated? Is there going to be community involvement? How are
4 the Plan alternatives going to address these different density potentials and where
5 they occur?
6
7 Pamela Tuft The alternatives will be first drafted on a preliminary level by staff
8 and consultant, using the comments that we have gained from this document, and
9 from the visioning workshops and community survey. Three alternatives will be
10 presented that can be selected individually or, to a certain extent, blended for a
11 preferred alternative.
12
13 Commissioner McAllister Will they address this place- sensitive density?
14
15 Pamela Tuft Yes, it could.
16
17 Commissioner Glass On page 58 of the ECOC Executive Summary under
18 Chapter 6, under Environmental Design Plan of 1978, it states the 1978 Plan
19 identified an optimum population of approximately 70,000- 90,000 residents and
20 then later down beneath the Urban Limit Line it states that based on a detailed
21 analysis housing construction in the early 80's, and potential housing units within
22 the Urban Limit Line, projected buildout population totaled 67,600 residents —we
23 need to look at increased densities especially in the Central Specific Plan. As
24 some of the other projects have come in, we arrive at this ABAG projection of
25 67,600 based on patterns of the 1980's, but we may end up with a completely
26 different number. If we do end up with a different number under challenges, we
27 need to know what those challenges are. Need to keep in mind, if we increase
28 densities, what are the ramifications?
29
30 Commissioner Asselmeier Regarding the above comments, could the alternatives
31 address incentives for developers wanting to create higher densities on existing
32 parcels? Could we develop some ideas as to what those incentives might look like
33 to give greater incentive for areas we want to see have higher density first and
34 then working outward?
35
36 CHAPTER 7 TRANSPORTATION
37
38 Chair Barrett Regarding Level of Service (LOS), when proposals for
39 developments come before us, where we have not been able to tell what the
40 impact of that project would be on the streets because the LOS is only measured
41 at intersections, is it possible to, in the future, measure the LOS at the streets?
42 LOS measures A -F —need to break it down, as sometimes it is not accurate; i.e.,
43 pedestrian, bike, bus and private car. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
44 is a good idea, but to eliminate or diminish the unintended consequences; i.e.,
45 Rockridge neighbors not wanting trucks on Windsor. Need opportunities to help
46 people get around town by providing bike racks on the local buses. Bike
47 commuting is mapped at 1 %- -too low and doesn't take in consideration of the
48 Spanish population.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2002
1 Commissioner Asselmeier Look at Palo Alto, as it has a very successful Bike
2 Plan.
3
4 Commissioner McAllister Include more aggressive programs for promoting
5 alternative transportation, in terms of incentives and disincentives. Look at other
6 Cities (Palo Alto) for successful programs. To what extent do programs get
7 defined in the General Plan? How detailed does that become? Suggested using a
8 check list and rating system; i.e., the Leadership and Energy and Environmental
9 Design (LEED) is being promoted by the Green Building organization. LEED
10 program is more mainstream. A checklist is used to rate how well you do in all
1l areas. Cities and Counties are becoming more mainstream and are adopting this
12 method. The LEED web site is www.usgbc.or2
13
14 Commissioner Glass On page 71 in the ECOC Executive Summary, regarding
15 downtown Petaluma, feels will not be able to achieve a LOS in that area, so is
16 there a way to have standards that you can grant exceptions as incentives to
17 channel development where you want it to take place? When revitalizing the
18 downtown area, do not sacrifice traffic flow all over town and maintain a traffic
19 LOS standard but accept it where we want fast - traffic development. How do we
20 achieve incentives in certain areas?
21
22 Commissioner von Raesfeld Suggested a sliding LOS scale; i.e. Denver. Over the
23 past couple of years, many projects, in the area of traffic, we are being asked to
24 find for overriding considerations in the action that the Commission takes, and
25 there needs to be a goal /policy.
26
27 Chair Barrett In terms of acting as a Planning Commissioner, in table 7.2.2,
28 screen line #15 is on Western Avenue and starts at Water Street and goes onto
29 Hill Avenue—is concerned with Rockridge and the traffic impact and the problem
30 of County roads. This is an area that will be developed and there are no
31 intersections that were measured out by the Jr. High School or on Webster Street.
32 Would like to know if the new Traffic Model can measure this? These are heavily
33 trafficked intersections, especially at school times and are not a great road for
34 bicyclists. If they haven't been measured, I do not know how it can access what
35 we will be asked to look at, and throughout the City, when we are being asked to
36 look at developments.
37
38 Pamela Tuft The stopping of the screen line, just past Webster Street, is
39 indicative of the limited number of major access points beyond that and the
40 limited number of destinations. The traffic model will address that issue by
41 spreading traffic volumes based on the land use information from the County in
42 the outlining west areas. The screen line is typically measuring major roadways
43 that have a significant number of intersecting road networks. Will have to
44 research the bike concerns.
45
46 Chair Barrett Is concerned with future developments and needs as much
47 information as possible for what exists right now and how it flows.
48
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2002
1 Pamela Tuft Will talk to the Traffic Consultant about this issue.
2"
3 Chair Barrett Do traffic counts measure all the traffic from all the legs of the
4 intersections?
5
6 Pamela Tuft Measures traffic volumes from all legs of the intersection and
7 individual lanes that interact with the intersection.
8
9 Public Comment:
10
11 Geoff Cartwright Water supply projections have already exceeded. According to
12 Urban Water Management Plan by the Sonoma County Water Agency, we are
13 already looking at increased water costs. We already, at this point, are in a Stage 1
14 voluntary reduction of our water use, which is 15% (Stage 2 -25% or Stage 3-
15 65 %). At what point does that become prohibitive?
16
17 CHAPTER 11 ECONOMIC HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY
18
19 Chair Barrett When looking at areas to be redeveloped, we need to look at
20 reusing the area and reusing what is already there, if possible, to promote
21 sustainability.
22
23 Commissioner von Raesfeld In the ECOC Executive Summary, page 109, item 8,
24 it states Petaluma is fairly in line with all the other cities of the North Bay in a per
25 capita revenue of about $350.00 per person —this statement makes us the second
26 highest in the region in operating expenditures —do we know who is in first place
27 and why? Is it because we are an old City? Are there any land -use decisions that
28 can improve that?
29
30 Other Comments:
31
32 Commissioner McAllister Water Resources, Chapter 9 - suggests a program that
33 would encourage more regulation of landscape irrigation and make it a part of the
34 building permit process. Too much water is wasted on landscape maintenance.
35 Regarding the Housing Element, is this a draft?
36
37 Pamela Tuft The Housing Element was heard by the Planning Commission
38 earlier in the year and moved on to City Council with a recommendation to adopt.
39 The City Council formally adopted it. State Housing Community Development
40 (HCD) has certified the Element. It will be readopted when the General Plan is
41 adopted in 2004; we will be reviewing it to ensure that it is internally consistent
42 with the rest of the General Plan.
43
44 Commissioner McAllister In the ECOC full report, Chart 14 -15, is concerned
45 that income levels do not match the affordability of our housing. Need to
46 encourage more affordable housing.
47
48 Chair Barrett Suggested an energy tax of housing over a certain size.
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes — November 26, 2002
1 Commissioner von Raesfeld Is encouraged that the database collection and
2 modeling potentials will address flood mitigation issues. Need more discussion of
3 flooding in the Health and Safety Chapter.
4
5 Pamela Tuft It was taken out of the Health and Safety Chapter because the Plan
6 will have a separate Water Resources Element. Also, three Master Plans (Surface
7 Water, Water Supply, Recycled Water) are being prepared in concert with the
8 General Plan.
E
10 Commissioner von Raesfeld Need more definition to what is the intent of hillside
11 development.
12
13 Chair Barrett The water flow model can show how changing the cha nnel affects
14 flows upstream and downstream; will it also be able to show what different
15 development projects, if they are placed there, will do?
16
17 Pamela Tuft Yes.
18
19 Chair Barrett When is the Model available?
20
21 Pamela Tuft The XP -SWMM Model is being built right now and will be working
22 on calibration of it and checking it in January. Will not necessarily be for use in
23 current projects but will allow us to work on the alternatives analysis through the
24 spring and into, the summer.
25
26 Commissioner Asselmeier Regarding the alternatives, when they are developed,
27 i.e., bicycling and pedestrian access issues, will the alternatives address what it
28 would take to purchase easements along creeks and put in bike paths? How would
29 this be funded?
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
VI. LIAISON REPORTS:
City Council: None
SPARC: Chair Barrett Preliminary Proposals: COTS Mary Isaac Center,
Haystack Landing, Staples Office Supplies; Chair Barrett will continue to be the
SPARC liaison.
Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes —November 26, 2002
1 Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Asselmeier
2 Considering discussion on the SMART EIR that was up for public comment. Had
3 visit from Pamela Tuft to discuss options of whether the Bicycle Plan should be
4 integrated in one area of the new General Plan versus splicing it in, as appropriate,
5 throughout the transportation and other elements and integrating the separate
6 concepts as opposed to including it as a separate free standing element. PBAC
7 agreed to the idea of integrating the Bike Plan into the General Plan.
8 Tree Advisory Committee: Chair Barrett Developer for Poultry Street came
9 before the Committee to get landscaping ideas; moving ahead with the Community
10 Garden project; demonstration on different kinds of Oaks.
11
12 CPSP: Commissioner McAllister Reviewed Draft of the consultant's first drafts
13 of the Central Petaluma SMART Code. Future meetings: December 5, 2002
14 (traffic & parking); December 7, 2002 (District walkthrough with the consultant
15 team from 9:00 AM — 12:00 PM); December 11, 2002 (Final Review of Draft at
16 7:00 PM)
17
18
19 Adjournment: 9:02 PM
20
21
22 STIanning Commission\agenda02 \11/26/02
23
24
25
26
Page 11