HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/09/1999City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
L City of Petaluma, California
& City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
@' Petaluma, CA 9492
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
8 5 8 E -Mail pfannin!,) �ei.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: / /www,ci.l)etaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 November 9, 19 7000 P
4
5 Commissioners. Pr•esenr: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Feibusch, Glass, Healy, Vieler (left
r, at 8:00 PM)
7
8 * Chairperson
9
10 Staff: Hans Grunt, Associate Planner
1 1 Vincew C. Smith, .4rcr Planning Consultant
12
13
14 Roll Call
15 Pledge of Allegiance
16 Approval Of Minutes: Minutes of October 26, 1999 will be re- reviewed at next
17 meeting.
18 Public Comment: None,
19 Director's Report: Reminder of upcoming Sonoma State Planning Commissioner's
20 Seminar (December 4, 1999).
21 Commissioners' Report: Commissioner 1+eibusch indicated that a reader board
22 was needed at Lucchesi Community Center. Commissioner Glass congratulated City
23 Council for going ahead with new stop lights at McDowell and Washington.
24 Correspondence: Various correspondence regarding Bicycle Plan.
25
26 APPEAL STATEMENT Was read.
27
2s LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
29
M
31
32
33
34
Citv of Petaluma Planninp- Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
1 NEW BUSI
2 PUBLIC HEARING:
3
4 1. PETALUMA BICYCLE PLAN.
5
6 Consideration and recommendation to the City Council of the Petaluma Bicycle
7 Plan — A City- initiated project to amend the Circulation Element of the Petaluma
S General Plan by adding a Bicycle Element within the Circulation Element. The
9 proposed Bicycle Plan will also amend various sections of the Petaluma
10 Municipal Code, including Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to add greater
11 reference to bicycles, provide development standards for bicycle access ways
12 (Class I, 1I, and I11) and create new development standards for requiring bicycle
13 facilities in new developments and substantial redevelopments (bike parking,
14 showers, clothing lockers). In addition, under the new Bicycle Plan Sections of
15 the City of Petaluma Engineering Department, City Street Standards would
16 require modification as they relate to physical improvements to the City's
17 circulation system.
l�
19 Vincent Smith, Planning Consithant
20
21 The public hearing was opened.
22
2 SPEAKERS:
24
25 Patricia 'Tuttle -Brown — Staff needs to be armed with knowledge, every single staff
26 member needs to have this information, be encouraged to think about aspects of this
27 bicycle plan; need encouragement from the top — you're part of the top, plan will benefit
28 all bicyclists and pedestrians. Regarding feedback on plan — Shelly Kappel's name should
29 be added to first page under Vincent Smith's name, has done a lot of work. Get input
30 from County before this goes to Council. The plan stands on its own merits, you've seen
31 the goals, we want to create safe, comprehensive, integrated bicycle /pedestrian systems
32 throughout the City, it doesn't exist now. It's important. We want to develop facilities,
33 policies, standards to reduce auto dependency. That's a radical statement, but it exists in
34 almost every bike plan We want to insure implementation in a timely manner that's
35 why there's a lot about implementation, including things like putting a Bicycle
36 Committee Member on the Traffic Committee, let's get development proposals early.
37 Last goal, incorporate bike and pedestrian access as part of initial planning and design —
3K every staff member should be thinking of this. Any questions?
39
40 Commissioner Vieler — Had the opportunity to see this at CPSP and now at this stage —
41 commends document, truly magnificent: Some questions — letter from Terry Krout —
42 regarding emergency access — there are concerns that go way over our head into a legal
43 requirement, need to be addressed by City Attorney whether all trails need to be
44 accessible to fire trucks, would create a huge problem, must be dealt with. Other
45 questions — Chapter 2, Page 8, Policy 2, Police Department — have Police concurred with
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
I this idea in terms of having a year -round officer on bicycles? sounds like a good idea, but
2 wants an official response from Police saying that this is a good idea.
4 Vincent Smith — Clarification — plan has been in circulation for quite some time, Police
5 representative has consistently been invited to meetings, has been provided with various
6 versions; of plan over last 2 or more years. There isn't explicit support from Police
7 Department, haven't received much communication from them about support or lack of
8 support.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Commissioner Vieler — Policy 2 on Page 8 regarding "shall" — my only concern (I agree
with it), but I'm not the person to agree with this — I would suggest that if you're
specifically dictating requirements of the Police Department that you need to have a
specific response from that department as to what those demands will create.
t5 Vincent Smith — There is a representative from the Police Department, Officer Lyons,
16 who does represent bicycle facilities — if you specifically look at the wording, it says
17 "shall make it a priority" to maintain a full -time year around bike patrol. They do have a
18 full - time! bike patrol — different kind than the Bicycle Committee would like to see, they
19 would like to see officers on bicycles, more often than bicycles on car racks and used for
20 pursuit, but you are asking that we get feedback from the Police Department as part of
21 report to City Council for their consideration?
22
23 Commissioner Vieler — Yes, Page 12, Policy 14 — all of this regarding pesticides and
24 fungicides, this section is specific to City maintenance, correct? (answer yes); what, if
25 any, requirements will be made of property owners that have bicycle paths crossing the
26 front of :their property regarding use of pesticides or fungicides, is there something that
27 can be done? Looking at Policy 14 regarding signage and such, I end up with a picture of
2s hazardous waste signs, this concerns me a little.
29
,0 Vincent Smith — Facility built for public access will be maintained by City, if
31 maintenance shared with private property owner, agreement will be worked out with
32 owner; conditions of approval could probably be placed on projects that would limit the
33 use of pesticides adjacent to public facilities if they are going through an area that maybe
34 is heavily landscaped; if paths are going by existing private property not part of
35 development plan, it is pretty difficult to reach out and regulate that property. Start with
36 the City facilities first, on a project -by- project basis, the Planning Commission, City
37 Council and SPARC can require conditions of approval.
39 Commissioner Vieler — If this gets forwarded to City Council, include the
40 acknowledgement that there are going to be aspects of this that are unenforceable and
1 recognize that and that any bikeway of any nature is going to be moving in and out of
42 those types of areas. Page 14, Program 5 — curious as to how square footage table in
43 Appendix A was arrived at regarding starting at 10,000 sq.ft. and the types of uses and
44 would suggest that there be an additional statement made allowing additional
45 administrative oversight with regard to how specific businesses are arrived at. To just
46 say general business, and 10,000 sq.ft., you automatically fall into this category, that
3
Cit-Y of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
1 would concern me. It raises a question, regarding number of employees, an
2 administrative overview should also be provided.
3
4 Vincent Smith — So you're suggesting that in Program 5, we build in some kind of
5 language that allows for flexibility and interpretation based on relationship of sq.footage
6 to number of employees, so maybe add a layer to this development standard that is an
7 either /or kind of layer?
8
9 Commissioner Vieler — Concerns with getting so specific with something, that in order
10 to do something you have to apply for a variance, not intention in first place, in addition
11 to language here, suggest departmental review can determine exceptions to the existing
12 requirements based on case -by -case basis; again, according to this plan, advisory
13 committee subject to providing oversight and input on all of those things anyway, needs
14 to be different level of oversight, maybe unfair in some circumstances.
15
16 Vincent Smith — Provide for more flexibility to draw a relationship of employees, square
17 footage and intensity of use to come up with an appropriate standard? (Vieler, yes).
1s
19 Commissioner Vieler — Page 15, Program 10, last line — "at least equivalent to the
20 reimbursement for car driving" — point 1, I cannot find that information in Appendix A, if
21 it's not there, it needs to be added; point 2, 1 do have some concerns about my
22 understanding when you reimburse for vehicular use, part of that equation has to do with
23 gas, wear and tear on the vehicle — this standard is being held as equivalent to the
24 reimbursement for car driving, I don't think that is an appropriate standard — demonstrate
25 how that was arrived at.
26
27 Vincent Smith — This specific standard draws from other bike plans from all over the
28 nation — this is a development standard from Palo Alto plan — conversely to your
29 statement, the savings on air pollution and wear and tear on the streets and whatever else
30 happens when you drive a vehicle, that formula is out there somewhere, it's more of an
31 incentive -based performance standard than one intended to offset cost, intended to
32 encourage specifically City employees that they be given that opportunity to do that on a
33 bicycle; we can modify language to make it read as an incentive based standard.
34
35 Commissioner Vieler — Sonoma County Transit information (to Patricia Tuttle- Brown),
36 you said you would like the opportunity to contact them and work out the details and
37 have that ready before this goes to City Council? (Answer from Ms. Tuttle -Brown -Yes). .
38
39 Commissioner Feibusch — Need one clarification - is it a requirement to have a bicycle
ao license? (answer, no).
41
42 Commissioner Healy — Tremendous amount of work has gone into this plan; more of an
43 emphasis on bicycle circulation is something sorely needed in our town, getting from one
44 part of town to the other is hazardous and we need to work on that; 90% of what is in
45 here is positive and great, nature of this process is I talk about the 10% that I have
46 concerns about, don't take it out of context, one question to start with is — CPSP
E
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
1 struggled over many sessions with taking a written document and put it onto a map, how
2 are people going to respond to the map? (on page 37, how will public respond)?
3
4 Vincent Smith - Every line on map has been walked or looked at by a member of
5 committee; map intended to revise Circulation Map of General Plan to include these
6 facilities; this group has been very diligent about where they think these facilities need to
7 be.
K
9 Commissioner Glass - I am against speed bumps, I would like to see that lessened or
10 dealt with some other way, I assume that they would use that very selectively.
Il
12 Vincent Smith - That is part of Policy 24, (which reads) the City shall `consider' these
13 and other ideas to facilitate the success of its bike boulevards. There is a list of
14 opportunities to create boulevards, if you decide that that's how you are going to create it,
15 make sure that what the speed bumps are doing is not prohibiting good bike access, that
16 there is 'a way for a cyclist to go through.
17
is Commissioner Glass - These are the concerns that I had - Page 19, Policy 18,
19 narrowing car travel lanes to allow for Class 2 bicycle lanes - there are some roads where
20 you might consider that, and other roads where it would be impossible; some law changes
21 that concern me, seems like a good idea to leave these laws on the books - Page 58,
22 Appendix A, Code 11.72.230 - group riding - I think an officer could use good
23 judgment, leave law as is, riding in single file; why was that stricken?
24
25 Jerry Masser - Met with Sgt. Lyons and went over a number of sections currently
26 existing in City Municipal Code dealing with operation of bicycle - parking, moving, etc.,
27 anywhere that we suggest an elimination or deletion, there was a consensus that the
28 Police Department no longer felt that it was necessary to continue the enforcement either
29 because they were outdated or the resources weren't there; typically there was
30 consultation with Police Department on this - we were focusing on streets within the
31 City.
32
33 Commissioner Glass — I'm thinking of streets within the City that are very narrow, and
34 all I am thinking is every officer has used good judgment; that the law is written for
35 safety; would like to see law there, it is safer to stay in single -file, looking at this from
36 perspective of child - what message are we saying to children; a lot of things that I like in
37 this plan - would like to keep this in to teach children that this is the way to ride; there
,s are a couple of other law changes - hand signals - as a motorist, I would like this left on
39 books.
40
41 Jerry Hasser - This was from the 50's, when bicycles had foot brakes, leaving a left
42 hand for signals.
43
44 Commissioner Glass - I understand the need for striking that; regarding sale and transfer
45 of bicycles - Appendix A, Page 57 - why did you suggest that law be removed?
46
5
Croy of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
1 Jerry Hasser — It hasn't been enforced for many years.
2
3 Commissioner Glass — Ok, let that be removed then; regarding Page 60, Appendix A,
4 why should that be stricken?
5
6 Jerry Hasser — It might be more advantageous for commute cyclists to be on the street,
7 can travel much faster — inappropriate for them to be cited because they are on the
8 roadway.
9
10 Commissioner Glass — Ok.
11
12 Bruce )Hagen — There is a stretch along I Street that I commute on — bike path often
13 covered with debris, children riding very slow — would rather stay on roadway, doesn't
14 lock riders out of that option.
15
16 Commissioner Broad — Echos other Commissioner's comments regarding energy and
17 commitment of Bicycle Committee — impressive document. Two questions in terms of
s process that plan has gone through; surprised to see Public Works has only 6 comments
19 on entire document — is this a reflection of how closely they have worked with Bicycle
20 Committee? Looking for confirmation that Public Works is fully endorsing this
21 document with only these comments; representatives of School District have been less
22 than enthusiastic about opening up school grounds to public use — what involvement has
23 School District had, what feedback on plan?
24
25 Vincent Smith — I don't know how much coordination we have done with the School
26 District....
27
28 Patricia Tuttle -Brown — We distributed drafts of the plan at the joint meeting with City
29 Council and requested feedback on the plan and did not receive any.
30
31 Vincent Smith — Allan Tilton, Mike Evert, Jim Ryan have all been kept abreast of all
32 Bicycle meetings,, I would be hesitant to say that they fully support it based on the
33 Comment No. 1 which says change every word "shall" to "should" — to me that is not
3=4 quite a full ringing endorsement of the document, but I think that they understand what
35 the Bike Committee is intending to do, they support it, they have worked closely with
36 Committee on several occasions — Lakeville Street widening between Washington and D
37 Street, also with Washington/McDowell intersection design elements and several other
38 areas; my sense is Engineering fully supports the document — I think their concern is that,
39 as Mr. Vieler stated, they get locked into certain positions that they can't get out of based
40 on the language of the document; the language of the document allows for the flexibility
41 of the Committee, not staff, to make modifications to the plan to Planning Commission,
42 SPARC, City Council.
43
44 Commissioner Bennett — This is a General Plan Amendment — it's the allotment to
45 change the General Plan for the year — in that context, it is a comprehensive plan —
46 fantastic job; since it is so comprehensive, it will be driving certain other aspects of the
6
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
l General Plan, since there is a revision being worked on now, was there thought to hold.
2 this back until that time?
3
4 Vincent Smith — No, to the contrary, there was thought of speeding it up so that we get it
5 in well before the General Plan update is started.
6
7 Commissioner Bennett — Lots of potential for conflict with other sections of the General
8 Plan (in the future), when this goes back to the revision of the General Plan, there will
9 need to be a lot of accommodation — this is a major component of the General Plan as it
10 stands right now, it affects a lot of different areas, have there been any public workshops
I I on this?
12
13 Vincent Smith — Yes.
14
15 Commissioner Bennett — So, the process that would normally be a General Plan process
16 has been followed in terms of public input — has this gone to the Parks and Recreation
17 Commission, or is there intent to do that?
18
19 Vincent Smith — The document has been referred to staff and the Commission; Parks
20 Commission has a liaison on the Bicycle Committee.
21
22 Commissioner Bennett — So they have been given the opportunity to comment?
23
24 Vincent Smith — This document will hopefully be adopted in the next month or so by the
25 City Council, will be incorporated into the General Plan as part of the update — part of
26 what that process does is examine what is on the books today and how that relates to
27 what the community wants to see in the future; this is not a finished product, Bicycle
28 Committee fully intends to participate in the General Plan update process and wants to
29 integrate much of the visionary statements into that process.
30
31 Commissioner Bennett — Quick count — 132 Policies and 70 Programs included in this
32 document — a great number of those are Policies and Programs pertaining to Council —
33 funding, staffing, etc. and not land use — 1 am not going to concern myself with Council
34 questions — we need to look at this in context of overall General Plan and see how it fits
35 in terms of planning.
36
37 Bill Kortum — Just received this plan today — the plan has a personality; preface by
:I'8 Patricia Tuttle -Brown "we must organize something that will outlive our enthusiasm ".
39 That's a great statement, this plan needs a full -time coordinator who sells it to the City,
40 might be the best investment the City ever made', little excerpts make document
41 delightful, livened up with input from other cities, countries; attended MTL meeting in
42 Santa Rosa — statistics indicated vehicle miles traveled is going way up — there is only
43 one little excerpt in plan discussing this problem (VMT — vehicle miles traveled); this
44 must be addressed; City of Portland has lowered VMT figures; this must be done here;
45 Petaluma will be way ahead if this plan is adopted; this is a great start to lower VMT
7
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
I figures; comment to David Glass — on of best methods to slow traffic is to make lanes
2 narrower, we should try it.
3
4 Beth Merideth — Echoes what Mr. Cortum said about plan — delighted reading through
5 plan — Petaluma a great place to live, but not good for bicycle riders — she is now a car
6 driver, needs of pedestrians are different from that of bicycle riders; would like to see
7 planning staff to be made more aware of bicycle- friendly aspects of projects; thought
8 there would be people here talking against having bike lanes through the schools — I'm
9 amazed that schools are not advocating that more, I don't know what their lack of
10 response means, but it is unimpowering to kids that there isn't a way to get to school on a
1 l bike or to walk, it is a false sense of safety to think that driving kids to school is the safest
12 way for them to get to school; if there are real safety hazards that people feel with putting
13 in bike paths through school properties, I really want to deal with them, but I think they
14 can be dealt with; Sonoma Valley (which is hardly the bastion of radicalism) is hooking
15 up all schools with off -road bike paths so that you can get from every school to every
16 other school in Sonoma Valley on a bike, that's the plan that they are working on, that
17 makes enormous sense, emphasize the school aspect of this.
18
19 (Unidentified speaker) — Several years ago Sausalito rushed into a Bicycle Plan and
20 without any consideration whatsoever; there has been a great deal of thought process
21 behind this plan, a lot of people have worked very diligently to come up with a
22 comprehensive plan; Petaluma is ready to become more aware of all the bicycles that are
23 in Petaluma — a few days during the summer could be designated as "bicycle awareness
24 days" where everyone would be encouraged to ride their bicycles as a community; pass
25 this plan as expediently as possible.
26
27 Louise Latimore — Experienced bicyclist — it is true, Petaluma is not very bicycle -
28 friendly; delighted with all work done on this plan; supports what she is hearing tonight;
29 pass this as soon as you can; suspects schools are somewhat concerned with liability; in
30 terms of bike paths, liability is an issue, and of course school safety is another issue that
31 may or may not have been brought before this particular group, so maybe that is
32 something that could be discussed and negotiated.
33
34 Ken Larsen — D Street — Cyclist in Petaluma, extraordinary, exciting report is a call to
35 deliver some very valuable things to the citizens of Petaluma; point of report was idea
36 (mentioned on Page 6), had the 1974 and /or 1987 Plans been implemented, Petaluma
37 would be quite a different community now, much more attractive to
38 pedestrians /cyclists /citizens at large, would like to encourage us not to miss this
39 opportunity; perhaps 1974 would have been the best time to start, but the next best time is
40 now.
41
42 Joe Durney — 2nd Street — In years ahead, this will be one of the most important decisions
43 you will have the opportunity to make, pleased that there is no one here asking you to
44 compromise this plan; these people have done a great deal of good work.
45
8
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
I Commissioner Feibusch — Congratulates Committee — tremendous effort, not a
2 bicyclist, but a walker; takes advantage of combination bike /pedestrian path almost every
3 morning — co -exist very well, take comments in a constructive way, some thoughts and
4 questions; one thing troubled him — regarding Safety/Education portion, Chapter 2, Page
5 7 — there are negative comments on cars /vehicles, if education is to be stressed, suggests
6 leveling playing field — some bicyclists do things to annoy motorists; there may be a
7 liability issue, safety issue why access through schools is sometimes denied — you have to
9 work adamantly with schools, sorry there is no representative here tonight, would like
9 more clarification from School District; regarding Bay Area Ridge Trail access — I'm
to sure paths will be divided; regarding funding — need to be realistic, more emphasis on
11 how this will be funded, more clarification on how this will be done. Chapter 6, Page 29
12 — indicates downtown is the major destination in Petaluma — is that for cyclists, or is that
13 a generalization?
14
15 Vincent Smith — According 1987 Bicycle Plan, that plan made the statement that
16 downtown was the most popular destination.
17
18 Commissioner Feibusch — Questions some statistics — Chapter S, Page 28 — why is
t9 number of cyclists dropping?
20
21 Vincent Smith — Educated guess — culture for bicycling is not as strong as it should be;
22 also because of poor infrastructure.
23
24 Commissioner Feibusch — Commissioner Vieler brought this up — agrees that new
25 facilities should be looked at on a case -by -case basis; regarding mobile home parks —
26 recommendation for spaces for bicycles is an over -kill (maybe in Appendix A, page 67).
27
28 Vincent Smith — You believe that two 10'x20' spaces can accommodate both vehicles
29 and bicycles?
30
31 Commissioner Feibusch — Yes, that would be adequate for bicycles; not clear regarding
32 emergency access (Fire Chief) — will that apply to all trails?
33
34 Vincent Smith — There may be trails constructed in the future as a result of this plan
35 similar to Helen Putnam Park, Class 1 path along McDowell in front of Lucchesi Park, so
36 some may be accessible to emergency vehicles, some not.
37
)8 Pamela Torliatt — Spoke to Fire Chief for clarification — concern was Class 1 bikeways,
39 that access is provided to extent feasible for fire /vehicles; he addressed issue of visibility,
40 adding language in safety section (to the extent feasible) to provide vehicular access
41 would accommodate concerns.
42
43 Commissioner Feibusch — Shollenberger has access only if there is an emergency;
44 regarding Civil Engineer's recommendations — first recommendation (`shall' modified to
45 read `shall to the extent feasible'), pretty general.
46
we
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
1 Vincent Smith — The recommendation is that in every instance within the document,
2 where the document says `shall', the request is that the statement be modified to say
3 `shall to the extent feasible'; I can tell you that the Committee spent many hours
4 discussing wording, has not gone through Committee lightly — would like the document
5 to stay as it stands.
6
7 Commissioner Broad - Page 10, Program 16, what is `driver education'?
8
9 Vincent Smith — Intended to be school's driver education program — can clarify what
to that body is.
11
12 Commissioner Broad — Page 14, Program 6 — regarding employee reimbursement — feel
3 some reluctance to go that far in terms of dictating how a business should run its
14 operation when not related to a land use decision; asked for input from other
15 Commissioners regarding appropriateness of program.
16
17 Vincent Smith — Suggestion - language says `should encourage'.
18
19 Patricia Tuttle -Brown — We don't want to say `shall', but we want to educate.
20
21 Commissioner Broad — If it's of educational value, I don't object to it being retained; an
22 argument could be made that this type of document is weakened with programs and
23 policies which really don't lead anywhere; Page 24, Policy 52, water fountains —
24 requirement for development review process, or City should provide water fountains?
25
26 Vincent Smith — Interpret as both, City and developer; should this be clarified?
27
28 Commissioner Broad — Policy should specifically state intent — interesting concept to
29 provide public water fountains at private development — innovative, creative policy,
30 advances services for pedestrians and bicycles; Page 93 — where are definitions derived
31 from?
32
33 Vincent Smith — Combination of definitions from other plans and developing some
34 definitions by Bicycle Committee,
35
36 Commissioner Broad — Make sure definitions are internally consistent with language in
37 other City documents; annoying number of stop signs at so many intersections —
38 practically every block along 6` Street has a stop sign, one thing not addressed is some
39 way to try and look at placement of stop signs to make sure they are really necessary to
40 safety.
41
42 Vincent Smith — One place where document is intended to address some of those
43 problems is the recommendation that Bicycle Committee member be on Traffic
44 Committee — that is where those kinds of decisions are being made.
45
46 Commissioner Broad — That's a good way of addressing that concern.
I
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - November 9, 1999
2 Patricia 'Tuttle- Brown.— Page 22 states that an evaluation of stop signs should be done.
3
4 Commissioner Broad — That's good. Observation not meant as a criticism — overriding
5 reservation about whole document is fact that, while document is good, has been put
6 together by an advocacy group, what concerns me is that there are no other points of view
7 for a balancing force; objective is noble one, strongly supports; what type of
8 planner /consultant would review this document — what might be accomplished by an
9 outside review?
10
11 Vincent Smith — Based on who has reviewed this (individuals involved in bicycle
12 planning), to get a test of reality, this plan is pretty realistic; one benefit of a review
13 would be possible condensing of information in this plan; does not think plan is
14 unbalanced, Committee has been critical of various aspects of document to make sure it
15 is objective, not too much of an advocacy document, pretty realistic plan.
16
17 Commissioner Broad — Given fact that we will be doing a comprehensive General Plan
18 update gives me some additional comfort level, there will be an opportunity to revisit if
19 there are shortcomings.
20
21 Vincent Smith — This document and the General Plan will be one piece, mutually
22 supportive.
23
24 Commissioner Glass — In terms of laws — would appreciate Single -File Ordinance
25 remaining on books, no problems with other deletions; interested in this plan, wants to
26 see it implemented; trying to look at plan with fresh perspective; happened to live in
27 Eugene, Oregon for a time, but there are some unique differences — mentality of drivers
28 here is different from those in some other areas (Davis, etc.); map reminds him of ski
29 slope — green trails are benign slopes, diamond slopes — we have some diamond bike
30 paths in Petaluma; easiest is to go forward with Class 1 bike trails, they're the most
31 expensive, but also the safest; maybe there should be different kinds of signage indicating
32 safety levels of trails; International Study (from internet) — children (up to 9 -10 years) are
33 most at risk, creatively go forward with this with the understanding that there are
34 different degrees of difficulty on different paths.
35
36 Commissioner Healy — Glad that Dr. Cortum raised the bigger regional issues — on a
37 somewhat different aspect — important to move forward with creating housing for the
38 people who work here, if people commute to work in Petaluma, we could build as many
39 bicycle paths as we want and they won't be used; short list of specific things on map —
10 difficult issue regarding Bantam Terrace earlier this year — line on map is not what was
41 agreed to between City and School District — that should be changed to what was agreed
42 to; some other places where lines are drawn across school campuses or future school
43 campuses and those have to be looked at carefully with the respective school authorities
as because we are here proposing to request that the schools allow access across the
45 campuses and that proved very problematical in the one experience we have had with that
46 and I note there is a path across the Valley Vista campus, across St. Vincent High School
of Petaluma Planning Commission Mi nutes — November 9, 1999
I campus, the policies here are talking about allowing access (Patricia Tuttle -Brown
2 indicated the path across St. Vincent's is existing, requested in previous bike plan, St.
3 Vincent's said yes and it has been open ever since); path shown across Jr. High School
4 site; curious why Gossage Road which has no shoulders whatsoever is shown as a bike
5 path when we have just had several neighbors on that street saying they did not want that
6 street improved to City Standards — it's not a street that I would regard as safe for
7 bicyclists at this point.
8
9 Vincent Smith — Regarding Petaluma Junior High School — City Council took action for
10 an access way to be provided, also recommended /directed staff to continue to negotiate
11 with School District on the ability to provide a bike path in that area specifically, it has
12 grown in it's magnitude of discussion; intention of map is to suggest that it is still a
13 viable bike path and that it could still be proposed (it might stay proposed forever), but
14 the Committee wanted that to be reflected as a proposed bike path that could continue to
15 be pursued for purposes of ultimately changing that from proposed to existing;
16 concentrating on intent of map, easement was granted, access was there as part of project
17 approval, but access wasn't provided from the subdivision over the school property, the
18 Committee felt that that should still show on the map as a proposed bike path.
19
20 Commissioner Healy — Access as I understood it, is right at the edge of the Bantam
21 Terrace property and goes to the top of the ridge.
22
23 Vincent Smith - Yes, that wouldn't preclude the ability to continue to show a proposed
24 bike path on School District property, I don't believe, it is still under consideration;
25 regarding Gossage Road — plan talks about east /west connectors and north/south
26 connectors — Gossage Road is a logical connection (labeled as a bike route).
27
28 Commissioner Bennett — Gossage is in the County, I thought we were told earlier that
29 we were only dealing with routes within the City.
30
31 Vincent Smith — I should take that back, we could certainly influence improvements in
32 the County as evidenced by Steve Smith's comments from the County, in certain places
33 he's recommending that the suggestions on the map be changed to an arrow that would
34 connect to one of their facilities instead of specifically calling out what we want to see
35 there, and in other cases he actually says County would be willing to negotiate with City;
36 part of what we can do through bicycle facilities, as well as through transportation
37 facilities, is work together with the County and other municipalities is to leverage money
38 to do improvements, so if we wanted to extend a bike path or bike lane into the County,
39 that could be one entire project funded by several funding sources in cooperation with the
40 County, a bike route doesn't have a standard, just a suggested route.
41
42 Commissioner Healy - Map shows path over rail trestle on Petaluma River, I thought
43 that had been discussed with the rail authority and the decision was not to have
44 bicycle /pedestrian access there; in the Petaluma River area (industrial areas, Jerico,
45 Shamrock, Pomeroy) the lines on the map are basically drawn from the Petaluma River
46 Plan which sounds good but we're taking what was a plan and a wish list and
X
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
I transforming it into the General Plan which has a different legal ramification — I'm
2 concerned about having lines drawn on the riverbanks in front of existing and very
3 important industrial businesses and I'm not sure how to resolve that, but something has to
4 be done to fix that; future bike paths are shown in front of Pomeroy property along the
5 river, in front of the Shamrock property in front of the river, in front of Jerico on both
6 sides of the peninsula — for instance, to start with McNear peninsula, my understanding is
7 that the access to the future park there was to be along the McNear canal on the back
x side, but we weren't going to be getting access along the front side and that was where
9 they do all their loading and unloading with their heavy barges.
►o
I 1 Vincent Smith — There is an error on the map for the segment that is owned by Jerico
12 Products; there was intended to be a trail on the river side of the peninsula but it would
13 return back to McNear channel along the common property line, so that is a mapping
14 error; also, that angular line that goes from the McNear channel down to the River and D
15 Street is a mapping error as well because that goes right through the middle of their
16 operation and that was not intent, the intent is that it is extended off of Copeland Street to
17 the City -owned property, and that line should be drawn parallel as an extension from
18 Copeland Street.
19
20 Commissioner Healy — What about with respect to the Shamrock/Pomeroy property? If
21 we ever lose the industrial uses that rely on the river there, then it might be appropriate to
22 consider having trails there, but as long as there are working heavy industrial uses there
23 that give us the tonnage to dredge the river, there won't be access.
24
25 Vincent Smith — They are proposed trails if development occurs on those properties and
26 there is an expansion of use.
27
28 Commissioner Healy — From the CPSP, there is a big chunk of the Pomeroy property
29 that is expected to be carved off for a different use in the future, when that happens,
30 certainly that piece could accommodate a river trail, but the remaining Pomeroy parcel
I would still not be appropriate — would there be a potential argument that because it's
32 shown on this map that is now part of the General Plan, that Pomeroy has to provide
33 access along it's entire riverfront?
34
35 Vincent Smith — I would say yes, there would be a potential for that argument to be
36 forwarded, but there's also the equal potential to interrupt what the intent of this is and
37 say that which is expanding implements, that which is not, doesn't until it expands.
38
39 Commissioner Healy — Can we have language in there so that people interpreting this
40 ten years from now when we're all gone will understand that's what was intended?
-11
42 Vincent Smith — Yes we can, you could put language in there that says upon conversion
43 of use and expansion, these improvements get installed and until then they continue to be
44 proposed trails.
45
46 Commissioner Healy — I would like that language in there.
13
City of Petaluma Planning Commission M inutes — November 9, 1999
1
2 Vincent Smith — The issue that you raised about translating the Petaluma Access and
3 Enhancement Plan which is incorporated into the General Plan already, into physical
4 lines on a map that now are part of the Circulation Element is an important point, it's not
5 lost on the Committee, it does need to be reinforced, that that is what we are doing.
6
7 Commissioner Healy — Scope has really expanded beyond just bicycles, does talk about
8 pedestrians, I would throw out the possibility of calling it the Bicycle and Pedestrian
9 Plan, rather than a Bicycle Plan.
10
1 Patricia Tuttle -Brown — The reason this was not done, is because it's not inclusive, it is
12 not as through on pedestrian issues as it is on bicycle, perhaps that is why.
13
14 Commissioner Healy — That may be true, but there other paths on here that are shown
15 and people are going to look at it and say you're not going to be able to ride on certain
16 paths.
17
18 Vincent Smith — The plan doesn't have anything in there about crosswalks, actual
19 pedestrian improvements that you would see that you wouldn't necessarily build for bike
20 improvements; there is not a real strong opposition for including it.
21
22 Commissioner Bennett — Page 38 — listing of trails approximately 146 trails is
23 essentially a wish -list with the other 5 to be the priorities — those 5 priorities need to be
24 spelled out a little bit clearer; major concern with Washington Street creek corridor (area
25 behind Safeway and runs up to McGregor) site has been padlocked for years because of
26 social problems, crime, congestion, outraged neighbors; issue here is notification, if we
27 are putting it into law that we are going to reopen Washington Creek, I think the
28 neighbors should be notified that this is being discussed — there is a need to identify
29 bicycle trails that are going to be adjacent to someone's back fence, there should be
30 notification; even if it's not one of the priorities, if it's on this and going into the General
31 Plan, I think the people who are going to be affected by this need to be notified —
32 particularly those adjacent to someone's backyard, and definitely in the case of the
33 Washington Creek area where there was a problem in the past, there needs to be at least
34 some public discussion on that.
35
36 Vincent Smith — Would you suggest that that be done as part of this document, or would
37 you say that prior to the establishment of any of these which could cause some kind of
38 public conflict there be notification?
39
40 Commissioner Bennett — As this goes out of the Commission this evening, as it goes to
41 the Council, that there at least be notification that this is being discussed and give those
42 people an opportunity to at least check it — I guess I'm looking at the policies of open
43 government, if it's going to have an impact on someone's currently private property that
44 we do not currently have easements on, that should be notification.
45
14
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — November 9, 1999
1 Vincent Smith — Clarification — you are talking about proposed Class 1 (dashed- green)
2 trails, we will use our best judgment on which ones need specific notification.
3
4 Commissioner Bennett — Yes, we just don't want to find out after this is a part of the
5 General Plan that there's a major problem because of people that were impacted by it
6 who didn't know about it — it's better to find out about potential problems before they
7 happen.
x
9 Vincent Smith — So logistically, we'll find a way to notify those property owners that
io that condition occurs in our proposed map and identify that so that they can come out and
I 1 talk about it.
12
13 Commissioner Bennett — Regarding Program 10 — Clarify role of Bicycle Committee —
14 status of Committee needs to be very clearly spelled out.
15
16 Vincent Smith — Do you think it should be spelled out that they are specifically an
17 advisory body making recommendations?
Ix
19 Commissioner Bennett — I don't want to dictate what their capacity is, but their role
20 should be very clearly spelled out — I'm looking for clarity; Page 14, Program 6 —
21 regarding working with the business community about employee reimbursement — would
22 like to see a program to work with businesses to educate them on the importance of doing
23 this type of thing, instead of mandating, it might be more productive to indicate that this
24 is the direction the City is going, this is what we are trying to do, more productive in the
25 long run, rather than dictating — perhaps a broader concept of education; general concept
26 in dealing with the schools — there has to be a dialogue with the school districts — needs to
27 be an effort to get some cooperation on this — they are a separate level of government,
28 their own priorities, they have their own reasons, we can't dictate to them — strongly
29 recommend we get cooperation /buy -in from them. Hearing a general consensus that this
30 is an excellent document, probably ready to see if we can move forward on this.
31
32 Commissioner Feibusch — This needs to be moved along to Council with comments.
33
34 Consensus to move to Council.
35
36 Commissioner Bennett — Bicycle Committee has the bulk of our comments, there is
37 consensus — we've just had concern that this does not create problems down the road, not
39 so much opposition to what is being done, but just don't want to jump into something and
39 wishing we'd been a little more cautious.
40
41 Vincent Smith — For processing — we need a motion and a second; also, specifically on
42 Page 58 of the document, the issue that Commissioner Glass brought up about the section
43 about riding in tandem and riding in groups — I didn't get a sense whether the
44 Commission wanted that to stay in or come out?
45
15
City of Petaluma Planning Commi ssion Minutes — November 9, 1999
I Commissioner Bennett — Regarding Item 11.72.230 on Page 58, Commissioner Glass
2 wishes that reinstated (vote is 3/3) so I think we'll leave it the way it is.
3
4 Commissioner Glass — How about if we let the Council decide?
5
6 Commissioner Bennett — Sure, we're just advising.
7
8 Vincent Smith — We can identify that that was an unresolved issue.
9
10 Hans Grunt — Point of clarification — Commissioner Glass's issue of diamond lanes
1 1 (benign), if that was a consideration with regard to safety, I would be concerned about a
12 liability built into this document, and would seek some clarification with what the
13 reference was there with regard to the identified bike routes.
14
15 Commissioner Glass — Clarification — I think there is an issue of liability here anyway,
16 but I'm not a lawyer, any time we put up a bike route, we are specifying a preferred route
17 — I think there are various degrees of difficulty on our City streets, with the education of
18 the school system in the proposal, it specifies the schools would lay out preferred routes
19 to go to school, so we are already doing that, then there was mention of color - coding the
20 signs for the children for those preferred school routes, so we are already doing that
21 anyway. It was just a suggestion, if it has merit, maybe it would go forward, it is just a
22 suggestion, maybe the City Attorney could comment on it, if it is inadvisable, I'm willing
23 to drop it, I'm just trying to improve this plan thinking of what might help it, that was the
24 only motivation for that.
25
26 Commissioner .Bennett — Could we just send that forward with a suggestion from this
27 Commission to be reviewed for feasibility?
28
29 Commissioner Broad — Page 45, regarding authority of Bicycle Committee — that is a
30 very appropriate issue that you raised — I believe you cited Program 10 — I had some
31 concern about the language in Objective E which states that the Bicycle
32 Coordinator/PBAC review all projects that will impact travel within the City and also be
33 given timely staff reports — I think we all share the same goal which is to allow the
34 Bicycle Committee to be able to have an opportunity to provide input as part of the whole
35 process, what I think I would like to see, make sure we are clear on in this section, is that
36 we are not institutilizing the Bicycle Committee as another review body with authority
37 going beyond the scope of it's intended advisory position, like in the words "will review
38 all projects that will impact travel ", I don't know if there's any way to try to be more
39 specific on what that is, because someone could argue that the smallest scale project will
40 impact traffic to some extent, and I would just like to maybe have that whole section
41 looked at again to try and make sure that it is clear on the role of Bicycle Committee and
42 how it will fit in so that as we get a couple of years down the road we're not having that
43 pointed to increase the role of the Committee beyond what was intended.
44
45 Commissioner Bennett — I think the danger, concern in my mind, is the Bicycle
46 Committee not be a bottle neck, the intent here is to give them the opportunity to know
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - November 9, 1999
1 what is going on; from that context, there certainly is no problem with that; it should be
2 more clearly spelled out.
3
4 Commissioner Glass — Chapter 2, Page 8, Policy I — we're making some differentiation;
5 then on Page 9 of Chapter 2, Program 4 — "Safe way to school bikeways" — can City
G Attorney look at these sections?
7
8 The public hearing was closed.
9
10 Commissioner Healy made a motion to forward this to the City Council with a favorable
1 1 'recommendation including comments made tonight.
12
13 Commissioner Bennett — I think we also need a Mitigated Negative Declaration, can we
14 incorporate that into the same motion? (Yes)
15
16 Commissioner Healy — Amended his motion to include a Mitigated Negative
17 Declaration.
18
19 Commissioner Barrett seconded the motion.
20
21 VOTE: Unaminous (Commissioner Vieler absent)
22
23 Vincent Smith — Patricia Tuttle -Brown has donated a lot of her time, energy, personal
24 sacrifice — I want to point out to this group that she is the largest source of energy behind
25 this happening and she needs the recognition for that.
26
27 Commissioner Bennett — I am happy to show that recognition for Patricia, and also for
28 the entire Committee — six years is a long time to be working for anything, and we're
29 moving it on to the next step.
30
31 KEY DISCUSSION POINTS:
32
33 ® Obtain "official" response from Police Department indicating their concurrence
34 with idea of having a year -round officer on bicycle.
35 ® Build into Program 5 some kind of language that allows for flexibility and
36 interpretation based on relationship of square footage to number of employees.
_;7 ® Bicycle Committee to contact Sonoma County Transit prior to City Council
38 presentation.
39 ® Confirm that Public Works is fully endorsing document.
40 ® Confirm School District is fully endorsing document.
41 ® Add more emphasis on how Bay Area Ridge Trail access will be funded, more
42 clarification on how this will be done.
43 ® Policy on providing public water fountains at private developments should be
44 clarified to specifically state intent.
45 ® Clarify implementation of river trails — add language indicating that
46 improvements will be made upon conversion of use and /or expansion.
17
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Min utes - November 9, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
• Five trail priorities need to be clarified.
• Plan for public noticing of proposed pathways needs to be indicated in document.
• Clarify role /status of Bicycle Committee.
• Request City Attorney to review sections of Chapter 2 "Safe way to school
bikeways ".
II. PROJECT UPDATES:
- Petaluma Valley Baptist Church
III. LIAISON REPORTS.
- City Council (MH)
- SPARC (DG)
- Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV)
- Tree Advisory Committee (TB)
ADJOURNMENT: 1,1 1 0Q -Prn
s \pc -plan \agenda\ 1109
IN