HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Attch06 04/20/2004P
GENERAL PLAN 2004 - 2025
LAND USE & MO6/L/TYALTERINATIVES REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE (APRIL 16, 2004)
THAT DO NOT RELATE TO A SPECIFIC POSITION PAPER
•
•
tiq
•
RECEIVED
April 7, 2004 E F,�
?0194
City of Petaluma > 04 Pamela Tuft, Director '; NIELA TI.;ET
Dept. of General Plan Administration
, TIJPT
I1 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Ms Tuft,
The three projected Alternative Plans developed by your,department have come a long
way to finally and realistically develop concepts and plans that will allow the City of
Petaluma to enter the new generation of growing cities in California.
Below are some concerns I have about these plans::
The projected Alternative Plans are based upon the premise that growth during this
'Period of 2005 -2025, should be done within the present Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Yet, it is anticipated that the County will have a growth to approximately 293.000 of
which it is estimated that Petaluma will have a population of 89,000 + /- by 2040.
As Jack Balshaw wrote in his recent column in the Argus Courier. "...As long as
• medicine lets us live longer, immigration continues and people from other parts of the
country want to enjoy ourwonderful climate, not,wanting it to happen ('according to
some NIMBY and various environment and vested interest gioups) won't stop it."
Balshaw also stated, "... So, if we are to grow there is no need to stuff all the
development possible into the smallest infll.parcels of land not yet developed."
Consideration should then be given to increasing the UGB before 2018 when the UGB
expires or immediately afterwards.
Another factor to consider is that there has been a great many studies and development
of the downtown area. Plans are now being developed for growth to take place at both
ends of Petaluma, the possible Ke.niworth Junior High site and the Factory 0).alP*
,proposal.
The concept of having multi use development with condos and apartments is a
worthwhilel endeavor, but there will still be considerable need for single family
residential development near these sites listed.
As stated in Jim Wright's recent column in the Argus Couier; "...So once again our city
leaders are looking at a way to unite the, severed halves of the city. As I see it and to
reduce hhe.continual, frustration_ when going from east to west and vise versa and to
make the city "whole" ,: we need a series of crosstown plans that will be implemented
J'
0
I would seay the most important crossover connectors would be Rainier Avenue
(whether it be a connector with full highway .101 interchange or the crossover with no
freeway interchange), the Southern Crossing at Caulfield and the East Washington
Street. Westbound on- ramp to Northbound 101 and Westbound loop to Southbound 101.
These should be the first considerations.
Because of the development now taking place in the northern part of Petaluma, further
consideration could be given to the Old Redwood Highway to be increased to four
lanes with a possible bike lane.
After re:viewingthe�three alternatives Plans', I would recommend the City;of Petaluma,
Council select ALTERNATIVE A as the best plan to help bring Petaluma into a modern
model of city planning growth.
Lastly, [ would strongly recommend the City of Petaluma start to consider the expansion
of the Urban Growth Boundary for fut0ure growth.
Sincerely,
William Sovel
406 Barons Way
Petaluma, CA 9495`4
RECEIVED
APR 1 6 Z004 �t,)
GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS
0 4/14 . PAMELA TUFT
I have participated in all the steps thus far in providing public input into the General Plan process. I took
pictures at the very beginning of the process when citizens were asked to photograph things in the City that
had meaning to them. I filled out the 2001 Evaluation Workbook regarding the 1987 -2005 General Plan.
I went to numerous Fall/ Winter 2001/02 community meetings and workshops. I thoroughly read and then
participated with others in provided detailed feedback to the October.2001 Existing Conditions,
Opportunities and Challenges Report, feedback which was then included in the April 2003 Addendum to
the Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report.
At this stage, I am commenting on the February 2004 document Petaluma General Plan 2025: Land Use
& Mobility Alternatives. I look forward to continuing to comment as a concerned and willing-to-do-the-
homework community member as these "concepts get transformed into Goals, Objectives, Policies and
Programs. The 1987 -2005 General Plan: had numerous citizens who participated - -as many of us have- -
throughout the process and then pored over the document before its final adoption by the Council in the
1980's. I hope that for the 2005 -2025 General Plan, citizen input culminates in such a manner that Citizen
Advisory groups can thoroughly comment on this final documents Goals, Objectives, Policies, Programs
and maps, as well. As we all know, it is what is in the final language that counts.
The following twelve points are'the feedback I have regarding the current February 2004 Petaluma
General Plan 2025: Land Use & Mobility: Alternatives.
1) RELOCATION OF FAIRGROUNDS:
On page 6 of the General Plan 2025, it is stated in the `Public Participation to Date" portion that the issues
in the "Existing Condition Report" were similar in content to those identified by the public during early
visioning workshops and were kept in consideration during preparation of the Alternatives. There was no
�- mention of the Addendum to the Existing Conditions Report" in which the following was stated as having
been left out:
This fair has been at.this site for many years and has been and continues to be an opportunity for
local youth not only to show their animals [but also to] network and to develop the leadership
skills necessary to catapult agriculture in Sonoma County into the 21" century, an important task
in a rapidly changing market. Local agriculture has been in national leadership in a few areas,
and hopefully will continue to be so: the development of ` free range chickens " and the
development of the first organic dairy west of the Mississippi. When Strauss dairy began their
organic milk production in the 60(s (having farmed in Marin County since 1950) there were very
few organic dairies in ithe United States. According to the USDA', organic milk produc6tion
increased 76 fold between 1992 and 1997, with continued increases into the 21 Century. As the
niche markets for organic vegetables continues to grow, it will be this current generation of
young people who may make the difference between agriculture dying out in Sonoma County as it
has in the South Bay and East Bays, or continuing to flourish and grow. The Fairground has the
opportunity to evolve into such a inspirational space, right in the heart of Petaluma. (p. 56,
Addendum)
In the 2004 GeneralPlan.2025 document, there is no mention of this point of view. Instead, under "Land
Use and Built Environment in the "Public Participation to Date" section, it states: "Possible relocation of
the Sonoma -Marin County Fairgrounds (60plus acres) represents the highest potential core redevelopment
in the center of the City" (p. 6)
The irony that one paragraph before this, the "Economic Health" portion summarizing Public
Participation to Date itstation that "Retention of agricultural services" (p. 6) is another ;important point the
public made. To we as a City value the economic benefits of agriculture but want to kick the
Fairgrounds out'of the heart of the City to redevelop it is talking out of both sides of our mouth.
2) UNDERUTILIZED LAND IN GENERAL
f
The map Figure 2 -4 specifically labeling "vacant" land and "underutilized" land in, my opinion needs to be •
thrown out. On this map, lands such as Jerico, Van Bebber Steel and all the bungalow houses on the east
side of 2 °d street are labeled "underutilized" even though throughout the CPSP document these very
businesses and houses are called out as vital. In my opinion, this map haphazardly defines certain
properties as "vacant" and "underutilized'' and these designations will have great impact further down the
line when new owners push to buy and demolish these properties. This is not a good thing.
3) "UNDERUTILIZED LAND" IN THE RIVER-FRONT WAREHOUSE DISTRICT
With regard to the CPSP area in specific, the Warehouse District is one of the four areas making up the
CPSP area. The Warehouse District is currently attracting a great deal of development interest. My'input
is that it is important to realize that the CPSP uses the terms "vacant land" and "underutilized land" but'
1) nowhere defines what is "underutilized " although anyone can see what is "vacant ", and 2) while
encouraging creative uses on "vacant land", it does not support demolitions on "underutilized land.
Instead what is clear is that the intention of the CPSP, while acknowledging the need examine the "existing
conditions and future potentials in largely underutilized urban land" in the CPSP area, continually refers
to the Warehouse District as a "unique mix" with an important "complex" of buildings which reflect the
area's historic uses and which can and should continue to provide the "mixed use "feel and reality that the
Warehouse District is today. To demolish "mixed use" structures in order to fulfill. the current "mixed
use" zoning - -which the plan praises this area as already being, an excellent .example,of - -is ridiculous
Reuse, adaptation, and retention of industrial uses are the order of the day. Not demolition. Those
demolitions which have already been permitted were a mistake that should not be repeated in the
Warehouse District.
I have- pulled out many of the CPSP's comments that support the above comments which, for ease of
reading,J have attached as Appendix 1. For the purposes of public input to the General Plan process, I
would ask that Appendix I be included in the General Plan departments report to Council on Tuesday 20
April, along with the body of the text.
3) "ADDENDUM TO EXISTING CONDITIONS" NEEDS TO BE REFERENCED �.
This General Plan 2025 references the original "Existing Conditions... " report (p. 6) but actually should
reference, the "Addendum to the Existing Conditions... " report, because all of the original report is
contained in it with comments. that were carefully added in page by page. This makes it,a complete
document, integrating all of the public and City department commentary. The original "Existing
Conditions... " report becomes irrelevant.
4) WATER
On page 4, under "Utility /Infrastructure /Public Facilities and Parks" under "Water Supply" are the
following comments:
The water source, SCWA Aqueduct, is expected to adequately serve the needs of the community
throu7gh continue development.and implementation of water conservation programs, significant
expansion of recycled water use to offset potable water use, implementation of new technology to
reduce water uses in industrial occupancies, and continued expansion of the City's well
development program to offset short term capacity needs. (p. 4)
The only way the assertion that "there will be enough water can be fulfilled is to ensure that in the
"General Plan Team" is continued consultation with water resource experts, just as other consultants have
been included all the way along. This is a pioneering field and we cannot expect City water department
staff to so it all and we cannot do it piecemeal.
5) CAULFIELD /SOUTHERN CROSSING
This document General Plan 2025 states that the CPSP mandates a Southern Crossing but I have been
unable to locate it anywhere in the document. In.addition, there have been zero public herrings on the
impacts of this crossing of the marshland, its impacts on the communities around, etc. to counterbalance it
said usefulness for auto circulation. The height of this crossing would have to match the freeway
overcrossing, I have been told. •
6) UGB
ft t '
a) p. 12 of General Plan 2025 states that "transference of density potential away from the Urban
0 Separator" is a possibility but Lmy understanding is that Urban Separator lands must be put on
the Urban Separator. Otherwise,, the usefulness to the citizens of "going to the edge of developed
lands" is lost. In addition the comment that the Urban Separator (p, 17) is "to buffer hillside
residences at the UGB's edge ' is not the purpose of the Urban Separator. Its purpose is to provide
a ring for the public of "enough width to be meaningful, around the entire City so citizens can enjoy
and utilize the rural edge of the City of all the vistas being privately controlled.
b) The date for the UGB to end-is 2018 and the date of the current General Plan is to 2025. The
UGB needs to be extended' to 2025. . It is ridiculous to have'them be different. The Council could
simply add those years on without violating the voter - approved I agreements. Then, new discussion
of the UGB could take place concurrent with the creation of a new General Plan.
7) COPELAND STREET WESTWARD: PED BIKE ONLY
On page 13, this document includes "Extension of Copeland Street westward across the Petaluma River to
Pet5alum Boulevard North" as a Transportation improvement. Where did this come from? In the CPSP
page 70, policy 3.2, it is referred to as a "pedestrian bicycle trail" with a "new pedestrian bridge." We have
few enough of such thing - - only the Balshaw Bridge, which is used 'a11 the time by peds/bikes. Compare its
pedestrian/bike use and its ambiance with Washington Street car bridge!
8) REDUCTION OF CAR LANES PET BLVD
This document should include'" the policy from the CPSP (p. 69, Policy 2.5) which state "reduce travel lanes
and reconfigure Petaluma Blvd" in order to add bikes lanes, add turn lanes for traffic flow while keeping
parallel parking. This in an adopted policy.
• 9) FLOODING AND WHICH,LANDS ARE OUT OF FLOODPLAIN
My understanding is that Black and Veatch used , a different criteria for calculating flood lands than what
has heretofore been used in Petaluma, thus taking some Corona Reach lands out of the floodplain —and
allow greater development of that area. How was this done? Is it right? This needs to be carefully
examined.
10) RAINIER IN EVERY ALTERNATIVE?
Rainier should not be in all three alternatives, when it is such a controversial: crossing, interchange and
development tool. People have not been given the option of seeing it "not there" and agreeing —they can
only be negative and realize they have the power to say "No.." The City is thus prejudicing the feedback
received.
11) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
On page 5 this document discussed utilization of other City Plans. The Bicycle Plan should not be left out.
In addition, the Bicycle Plan in my opinion should remain a stand -along document just as I understand the
Water Plan in the County General Plan is a stand -alone document.
12) YES ON CHANGING LOS
This document is right in stating that we need,as a City to tolerate congestion at certain times of day (higher
LOS) without the assumption:ihat; more asphalt needs to be poured'.. This document is.right to interpret the
traffic studies to -show that without'alternative 'transportation modes emphasized and funded, the streets can
never hold all the traffic adequately anyway no matter how much asphalt is poured.
Thank you for your'attention'.
i
APPENDIX I
This appendix is anattachment to public comment on the document Petaluma General'Plan.2025 Land
Use. & Mobility Alternatives, February 2004. Its purpose is to illustrate and illuminate the to public
input. given 4'/14/04,:.
'With regard to the CPSP area in specific, the Warehouse District is one of the four areas making
up the CPSP area. The Warehouse District is currently attracting a great deal of development
interest. Afy input is that it is important to realize that the CPSP uses the terms "vacant land"
and "underutilized land" but 1) nowhere defines what is "underutilized " althou_gh.anyone can see
what is "vacant ", and 2) while encouraging creative uses on "vacant ,land ", it does not support
demolitions on "underutilized land. Instead what'is clear is that the intention of the CPSP; while
acknowledging the need examine the "existing conditions and f iture potentials in largely
underutilized urban land" in the CPSP area, continually refers to the Warehouse District as a
"unique mix "with an important "complex " of buildings which reflect.the area's historic uses
and which can and should continue to provide the "mixed use "feel and reality that the
Warehouse. District is today. To demolish "mixed use'' structures in order to fullll the current
"mixed use " zoning - -which the plan praises this area as already being an excellent example of --
is ridiculous. Reuse adaptation, and _retention of industrial uses are the order ofthe day. Not
demolition. Those demolitions which have already been permitted were a mistake that should not
be repeated in the Warehouse District. (Participant in General Plan public hearing, 4/14/04)
Structure of comments from the CPSP:
•
• All quotes from Central Petaluma Specific Plan are in quotation marks. Wherever shortened, are
dots... Wherever language is added or moved for clarity by me, it is in brackets
• Ifan.items is a Goal, Objective, Policy or Program it is labeled as such. Otherwise it is being quoted
out of the. illustrative language accompanying each chapter. •
• Any underlining is my emphases to call out particular part of a passage.
• My comments are in italics. This document was done in conjunction with a neighborhood meeting
and group very interesting in the Warehouse District.
INTRODUCTION, pp3 -6
p. 3: This is from the very first paragraph of the first chapter, Introduction. It pertains to the entire CPSP
area:
"This [planning process for central portion of the city adjacent:to downtown] was intended to examine_the
existing conditions and future potentials of largely underutilized urban land comprising nearly 400 acres...
The Central Petaluma area is closely ties with the origins and identity of the City and represents its
industrial core focused on the river and rail transportation corridors.
The tension inherent in this document is outlined in the veiy first paragraph. How do we balance
these three things: the notion of 1) "underutilized land", with the fact that this land represents the
2) "origins and identity of the City ' ", a very important thing and its 3) "industrial core
something we claim to value especially with regard to "river dependent industries ". And how do
we know which "industry buildings : " will provide future "river dependent " industries if we tear
all industrial buildings down?
We need to define "underutilized. " Nowhere do 1 see it defined. I do not believe it should mean
any building in the warehouse district can be torn down to buildsomething bigger. In this
district; personally, I define "underutilized" as the "empty land" only, due to the entire matrix of
uses and buildings that niake this area unique.
p. 3: "[There are] four primary districts within Central Petaluma..:.[1]North River area ... [2]Turning Basin
•
area... [3] Riverfront Warehouse District...[4]Lower Reach."
This is informational only. Riveifront Warehouse District is one offour districts. It is treated
differently in the CPSP, with a lot of comment on its historical uniqueness.
p. 4: "Preliminary list of concepts to help guide the formulation of ...Specific. Plan:...
[fourth bullet point:] "Concentrate on relationships and patterns emphasize small -scale development.
[fifth bullet point:,] " Create regulations to accommodate appropriate relationships of uses without
constraining developments."
[sixth bullet point:] "Respect existing industrial uses."
This is why we have concerns. "existing industrial uses" is more than just Pomeroy, Jericho,
Shamrock. It is the industrial uses —and buildings -= existing now in this District. E.g. Hamilton 's
cabinet shop, the dog groomer, Morgan Manufacturing.
"Appropriate relationships of uses means to me for example, that we don't just let the entire
block including Hamilton's cabinet shop be made into homes. In fact perhaps we need to insist a
fire house go there! But also, retain the existing relationship that is so "charming" of industrial
with residential. Fit and rehab that redwood building —if housing goes in next door, don't tear it
down to "match " the rest. and uniformly cram as many homes in that space as possible. There are
existing "relationships and patterns" in this neighborhood, without which the neighborhood
uniqueness will be destroyed:
CHAPTER I.: PLANNING CONCEPTS pp. 7 -12
P. 7: "1. Planning. Concepts
Overview of Planning concepts:
The plan for Central Petaluma envisions a reinvigorated central district that
accommodates a greater diversity and intensity of activities , including the continuation of
traditional industries'..."
Note: this is the very first paragraph of the chapter:on planning concepts and its
emphasis is on "greater diversity and intensity of activities.,. continuation of traditional
industries. " Does this fit with ripping out old industrial or commercial buildings that
represent "traditional industries? "
the specter of change wrought by new growth can be unsettling."
It is not the "new growth'' that is unsettling, it is the ripping out of diverse architecture,
demolition of s mall houses, removal of fifty year old or older buildings, and the creation
of new "mixed use" where old "mixed use " already was, that is unsettling.. Nowhere in
this plan does it say "Rip out what's there" but that's how it is about to be interpreted
and we have seen it in Basin Street's I11 town homes in place of warehouses on the river
and we about its presence in the Fire Chief's memo of 6103 regarding the four potential
firehouse locations.
p. 8: Reconnect the City to and along the River
"..:improve public access to the river while maintaining the traditional "working waterfront" that
is valuable to commerce as well as the image and identity of the community."
The,above sentence supports "maintaining the traditional 'working waterfront "' and
cites its value. Yet, the very f rst development proposal after CPSP was adopted was to
request and receive approval to tear down all the above' mentioned warehouses but one
on Basin Street's site! If we look at this as water it nder,the bridge and a mistake not to
be repeated, the issue is: look to the CPSP and have the guts to prevent this happening
to other warehouses ?.
• p. 9 Encouraging, Diversity in Transportation Modes
"Bicycle and pedestrian systems in Central Petaluma will be improved through construction of the
river trail and completion and enhancement of the street system ?'
This "street system" is the series of Class I, Class II., Class III bikeways and Bicycle •
Boulevards adopted in the Petaluma Bicycle Plan. Second Street is in the Bike'Plan as a
planned "Bike Boulevard.:' This means through - traffic and good, safe, access for
ped /bikes but not necessarily through -. traffic for cars. Is this being considered in any of
the development proposal in the Warehouse District?
p. 10 Reinforce the Working Character of Petaluma's Waterfront
" Along Petaluma Boulevard South, several industrial users such as Van Bebber Bros', Stee1 are
mixed. in with strip commercial uses. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan supports a mixed -use
waterfront, that, provides for continued operations of viable industries
p. U Enhance Physical Structure and Identity
"As:one of the oldest areas of town, Central Petaluma contains numerous physical features that
make it a. rich and interesting place ... [including] a number of interesting structures [which]
contribute significantly to the area's unique sense of place
"Continued operation of viable industries" could be seen as a code term that protects
those industries that contribute to tonnage that in turn makes the Feds fo'r free.
But opening the term up to include Van Bebber —which is on the river and in the CPSP
but not much if any contributor currently to tonnage —opens it up to all other industrial
uses and butildin _Zs in the Warehouse District. The importance of these buildings is
stressed in Chapter Nine.
In the next quote, one notes that the praise is, for "interesting structures [that] contribute
to. the area's unique sense of place. " Note that it does not use the term "h_istoric" which
embroils one in the "is it designated historic or not? ".question. The one sentence
supports everything we want. We don't want any of the "interesting structures" that
make this area "unique sense of place " to be taken down!
P. 11 cont'd Enhance Physical Structure and Identity
"The Specifi c Plan encourages the rehabilitation and reuse of architecturally interesting
structures... Within the Riverfront Warehouse District, the. plan seeks to maintain and emulate the
qualities of the warehouse structures while.reinforcing the character of the leafy residential
neighborhood."
Again, the term is not formal "historic" but this time "architecturally interesting
structures. .Specifically "rehabilitation and reuse" in the overall CPSP area and
"maintain and emulate the qualities of the warehouse structures " in the Warehouse
District. We lost some warehouses already, despite this language.
Promote Sustainable Development
"...the,CPSP promotes the conditions and strategies necessary for social, economic and ecological
sustainability: These include sound stewardship of the land.and restoration of.sites'deteriorated by
neglect and mis- use."
This'pertains to the Casa Grande Hotel and possibly Hamilton's Cabinet shop as well.
They may look terrible due to neglect. That does not mean the thing to do is tear them
down. Look at what was down to the Metro. It`wasgoddawful ugly —until some people
With vision tore off the Horrible brick porch and got a lot of painting done and used some
creativity. Isn't that true sustainability? Notjust throwing things away when they
appear neglected? Tear down the Casa Grande because it looks neglected and dated- -
and then build more hotel spaces ??
Ch 2: SITE AND CONTEXT pp. 13 -19
p. 14: "Many traditional industries are still located along the river...[C]onstruction- oriented
industries to the south utilize the river primarily to bring raw materials in and, in some cases, ship
finished goods out`"
s'
Who is to say which business in the Warehouse District might in the fixture use the river
to ship products —if the buildings are not ripped out?
p. 16: "Water - dependent businesses are located in the lower reaches below the D Street Bridge ,
and receive materials, by barge."
Again, we need to keep industrial buildings intact, in order to keep the door open for
more of this. There are many non polluting industries which could and used -to use the
river. What about if 101 reaches gridlock? What about if gas goes up to $5 per gallon.
Shall we the door completely and suburbanize this area.forever by our
architectural choices? I say "No, that is badplanning and poor stewardship. "
p. 17: "since the adoption of the voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1998, there is
greater commitment to the redevelopment of urban lands that no longer serve their original
purposes, that can be used more efficiently or can be consolidated with adjacent properties. The
opportunity of the Central Petaluma is to reinvigorate lands that have long been the focus of the
community, and to build for the future while retaining a sense of authenticity and connection to
the past."
This is the paradox of developing this area. "Redevelopment of urban lands that no
longer serve their original purposes" but at the same time "build for the future while
retaining a sense of authenticity and connection to'the past. " Ours is a voice to
rehabilitate the architecture of the past, using it and inviting industrial uses into it where
possible and:rehabbing it to other uses where sensible.
There is another paradox: simultaneous to realizing Central Petaluma must be denser to
permit open space at the Urban Edge; Basin Street just got approval for a single family
home project Southgate_at the corner of Frates and Lakeville Streets. You'd think
because we in Central Petaluma realize our responsibility to go denser and fill up empty
lands —with Basin Street's participation -- that Basin Street would have put the full 300
foot Urban Separator on their project's two sides that abut the City's edge? Did they?
No. Why? - Because they needed more houses to "make the numbers work. " This is not
an acceptable thing because the citizens have been short - changed at the Urban edge
when. we all thought that.higher density in the' interior is to protect the outlying public
lands for enjoyment by the urbanites.
p. 19: "With the exception of [a few] more recent projects, very little has changed in Central
Petaluma since the turn of the century.._. Key opportunity's ites' include the Golden Eagle shopping
center and adjacent lands along the Turning Basin, the Depot site, the blocks immediately south of
the ...Mill and a portion of the Pomeroy lands adjacent to the freeway. These sites offer a
potential framework fof the future redevelopment of the area.
What is interesting is that in this scenario regarding "redevelopment, " the Warehouse
District was left out of the "key opportunity sites." Is that because the CPSP framers
thought that even: the "underutilized" buildings here were worthy ofpreservation to
preserve the unique quality of this area? I think so.
Ch. 3 LAND USE pp. 21 -38
p. 21: "Central - Petaluma.. .Much of the land area is vacant or underutilized..."
No definition of what that means.. In this neighborhood, it means "Empty" to me. Not
the cute houses on E Street or the redwood, sagging Hamilton Cabinet shop nor any of
the,warehouses on the river, to cite a few example. In diversity, is strength and beauty.
•
p. 22: ; "The Riverfront Warehouse District... in the area between D Street and Foundry Wharf,
the grid of local streets provides the basic organizing, structure for an unusually high mixture of
industrial, commercial and residential land uses. " 0
See? "unusually high mixture" Unique. Don't wreck it architecturally. Blend in.
Redevelop empty lands with that in mind.
P. 23.: "The riverfront in this area.is utilized by three large industrial enterprises associated with
the construction industry: Jericho ... Shamrock ... Pomeroy...Many of their operations are
conducted outside, and as a result, they generate more noise and dust than uses conducted inside
buildings.
We cannot afford to overwhelm the Warehouse District and especially the Riverfront with
residences. If we do, the "noise and dust " across the river will eventually drive out the
very River - dependent industries we strive.to keep. This was one argument not only by
Jerico but by public citizens —which went unheard —to placing 111 town homes directly
across from Jericho. Approval of that project has already happened —but we don't want
to make more of this same mistake in the rest of the Warehouse district with,too much
residential.
p. 25 Conceptual Approach
"....the land use recommendations of the Specific Plan -place a greater value on mix and intensity
than on limiting activities to single - purpose functions Each area of Central Petaluma has^ its own
characteristic mix of land uses, and it is important that-these unique identities are reinforced
Amen!
"...First, the plan is aimed at supporting existing viable industrial uses from the feed mill's in the
northern reaches to the small -scale manufacturers and crafs erp sons in the Riverfront Warehouse
District..."
Voila. There is the language supporting `° no demolitions. "
"... Compatibilitvof "new uses with these existing industrial uses is aapriority
Good. If it a priority then we don't have any worry?
"...clear distinction between.living and working environments is less important than.intensity and
character.
That means, things don't have to match exactly. Hamilton's cabinet shop could remains
even with housing —or afire station — adjacent to it on what is now empty land?
P. 27: The Land Use Map
"Except for designated Industrial areas, the plan establishes a single Mixed Use land use
designation that represents the overall mix of land uses envisioned for the entire planning area
Important information. Also important to realize that unlike most areas of Petaluma, the
Warehouse District already.has "mixed use ` , ' in building and usage. Why re- invent it by
tearing clown buildings? Integrate them in gracefully, that is what I say.
p. 28: Land Use Goals
Note: This is the first Goals, objective, policies and programs in the text. Previous to
this has been in paragraph form.
Goal 1': "Support existing viable uses, and provide for new uses that complement and
complete the urban fabric."
Yes. "Support existing" and "complement and complete the urban fabric. " This is not a
command or even permission to "tear down and rebuild. " Note that this is the very first
goals of the entire CPSP! It relates to the entire area, not only to the Warehouse
District..
p. 30; Goal 2: "Provide for a mix of new uses. Newuses should be encouraged.on vacant and
underutilized parcels. and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad
spectrum of uses is envisioned, including those that;are nontraditional, unique:and unusual in
nature, and those which can contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the community" •
Goal 4: "Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for
innovation and the ability to change overtime."
These two Goals relate to the entire CPSP area. One can argue that redevelopment on
"underutilized parcels " in the Warehouse district can ruin the existing unique flavor that
is called out as unique and meriting preservation. This area already has a "mix of
... uses ", it is "oriented to the river'; it has a "broad spectrum of uses" and the
spectrum, of buildinQ to support it. It already is "unique ", has been stated earlier. See
next comment froin CPSP below, for support.
p. 35: Riverfront Warehouse District [objectives and policies for this area]
"The Riverfront Warehouse District is noteworthy for its distinctive mix of warehousing and
industrial uses that coexist with a small colony of residential bungalows and homes."
As mentioned above we already have a mix. Let's not wreck it to create a new "mixed
use " when we are already of model of that!
p. 36: Objective 4: " Provide for & mix of compatible light industrial, office, retail and
residential uses that maintain the , unique character of the area. The plan seeks to maintain the
unique character and, mix of uses in the Riverfront Warehouse District while allowing for new
uses and activities."
To me, this is a clear statement that tearing down things is ridiculous. What we need is
proper infill that "allows for new uses and activities" while "maintaining the unique
character and of uses, " That is what is so special about this, of the four sections in
the CPSP. Also since housing seems to be what many developers are wanting to put
here (Basin Street and the 111 rental townhomes and Cobblestone Homes having an
option on most of an entire block— one.must ponder "does this keep the mix? " Or do we
need to break it up a bit in the Cobblestone Homes portion since Basin Street's
townhomes are already approved.
• Policy 4.2: "Allow office, research and'de'velopment, and light industrial uses that are
consistent and compatible with the existing use, scale and character of the area."
In my. opinion this language is carefully crafted to rp otect the old, and simply fix it up
where necessary and add to it appropriate to the use, scale and character" of the area.
Policy 4.3: " Allow new housing within this area. New housing that is complementary to the
existing scale and character of the area is encouraged.. ...new structures or.... rehabilitation of
existing building."
Again, the. protections are built in "complementary to existing scale and character. "
What a changing area has to be careful of is: if one development goes in that is quite
different, such as! the 111 town homes on the'river —does that then rather than the
historic uses become the new "character "? I don't think so. Sometimes a mistake is
made. Don't perpetuate it. My interpretation of the above policy explanation is: "new
structures" go on, empty land and "rehabilitating of existing building" on lands with
existing structures. Simple
Ch. 9: HISTORIC PRESERVATION pp. 99 -121
p. 99: "..Data gathering was done by the consulting firm of Carey & Company and involved site
visits, [etc,...] Research was also undertaken at the Petaluma Main Public library,
etc... Windshield survey results are contained in the matrix...
It :is also possible that there are potential historic resources within the boundaries of the Specific
Plan.area that were not identified through the windshield survey"
Important! In other words, what's called "historic" in here maynot,be::all. In addition,
remember that in previous chapters other words were used to label important resources
in the area, such as "unique, ' "architecturally interesting" and "highly unusual.
Pp. 99 -100 "Overall Goal: Within the'plan boundaries are some of the community's most
visible and,historically significant structures, including industrial and comrnercia'l.properties.
These important resources are reminders of Petaluma's origins as this area is trulw the heart of the
community
Goal 1: Protect, enhance, perpetuate, and adaptively reuse properties of historic and
architectural significance. "...The Specific Plan area contains a number of historic and
architectural resources which are of value to the community ... Of the four, the .Riverfront
Warehouse District contains the lariZest cohesive collection of resources particularly warehouse
structures. ..a collection of 16 warehouses in the Riverfront Warehouse District.....The
area contains a unique collection of architectural resources with a unifying historic context. While
these buildine are not necessarily individually significant, they do_ form an environment which is
distin ,guished by its continuity setting, etting, urban designTeatures, and integrity
Wow! How could this be. said any clearer? Things, do not have to have a former label
"historic" to be being referred to here, by the way.
p. 106: "Riverfront Warehouse District
Objective 3: Preserve the industrial complex of structures on both sides of first Street
between D and H Streets. Bounded by D Street to the north, McNear Hill to the south and by the
Petaluma River and Petaluma Boulevard South on the east and west, the Riverfront Warehouse
District area marks the southwest edge of the Petaluma, Specific Plan. The area is;mixed use in
character with an equal amount of residential and industrial resources. Replacing earlier
warehouses, the existing warehouses lining the bank of the Petaluma River were built..in the early
twentieth century during the Petaluma poultry business boom:.. Several other warehouses and
industrial enterprises are scattered within the area ... The density and number Warehouses in this
area, including several examples near the D Street bridge in the Turning,Basincomprise an
important collection of agricultural /industrial building types ... The residential dwellings within the
Riverfront Warehouse District are more modest and were probably intended to be .affordable for
workers..."
Shall wecry? That at least one of these has been demolished and at least three more are
slated for demolishing on First Street? How could this language be any stronger?
p. 108 Policy 3.1: " Recognize the industrial. complex' of structures along First and Second
:Streets, including;those located across Street in the'Turning Basin"
Warehouses,. manufacturing buildings and supporting uses such as the weighing can be found
along and immediately back from the Petaluma. River. These properties form a,complex of "related
uses that are historically important , reflecting industrial uses that have their origins in the 1800s,
but which remain.today.
Again, there's not much more to add.
•