Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.B-Minutes 05/17/2004April 20, 2004 €F� G `' City of Petaluma, California 3. 1858 MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL Draft City Council Minutes Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. Special Meeting 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 3 4 A. ROLL CALL 7:08 PM 5 6 Present: Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt, Mayor Glass 7 Absent: Harris, Thompson, O'Brien 8 9 B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - led by Council Member Torliatt 10 11 C. MOMENT OF SILENCE 12 13 PUBLIC COMMENT None 14 15 COUNCIL COMMENT None • 16 17 CITY MANAGER COMMENT None 18 19 1. NEW BUSINESS 20 21 A. City Council Discussion Regarding General Plan Land Use and Mobility 22 Alternatives Report. (Tuft) 23 24 Director of General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuff briefly described the 25 public workshops recently conducted, as well as the items in the Council's 26 packets. She also gave a brief history on the projections of population 27 and growth trends, concluding that the three land use alternatives 28 presented in the report provide a range of 6-11 % growth over the existing 29 General Plan of Petaluma over the next 21 years. Ms. Tuft introduced Alex 30 Amaroso from the Association of B "ay Area Governments (ABAG), Scott 31 Duiven, City planner, and Rajiv Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia, who will assist with 32 discussion. 33 34 COUNCIL. QUESTIONS 35 36 Council Member Torliatt: Last time this item was before Council, I thought 37 the Council had asked to look at an alternative that didn't look at the 38 potential expansion areas in the City. 39 40 Ms. Tuff: The numbers we are presenting' and the alternatives do not show 41 the potential UGB. We did present some analysis in the report that showed Vol. XX, Page 2 April 20, 2004 A numbers for the potential, but we're not proposing to plan for the possible urban growth boundary areas or that the GP 2025 address those areas, but in response to the ,public comments during the early workshops, we felt we should at least show something in the analysis portion. The administrative draft that was presented to Council on January 5 did show that, but we understood the clear direction and the final document did not. Council Member Torliatt: The final document, at least so far, will not•show any GP land use or zoning designation in the potential UGB expansion areas. I would ask if Mr. Amoroso would give a projection of what we think the population growth will be through 2025, maybe extrapolated, and some of the requirements and needs that we might have to accommodate. She also asked that Mr. Amoroso talk about who he is and what his agency does, because she didn't think a lot of people understood what ABAG actually does. Alex Amaroso: Is a planner for ABAG, a Council of governments, a membership organization for the . 101 cities and 9 counties of the Bay Area. We have a variety of tasks, some of which relate to housing policy (the regional housing needs numbers - that's one of the state mandates we are required to implement); we have a variety of programs that relate to services we provide to cities. In addition, we do projections of growth, and this is done at the Council of government level throughout the state as well, and they provide, a basis for regional transportation planning, air quality district planning, local jurisdictional planning, and a feedback loop to us as well for those projections. The board deals with regional issues as •' well as local issues and tries to find a balance amongst all those things. ABAG has. been doing projections for about 30 years, and those projections have been based on feedback from local jurisdictions in the form of what sort of information is in existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinances and job expectations, household growth. That is melded into a methodology that takes into account Dept. Of Finance numbers at the state level and essentially feeds back to local jurisdictions what the anticipated growth is going to,be in terms of jobs by type, households, population, etc. Projections are meant as a baseline of information, and in general are pretty stable and on target on a 20 year cycle. Recently, in 2003, we are doing policy -based projections from Smart Growth vision input, with a resulting vision that was laid out for the Bay Area. Do the development in patterns that are tighter, at the jurisdictional level, at the local level, do them along corridors that provide transit and transportation, and consider intensifying development patterns. That vision with.numbers and concepts was placed in projections to consider different types of development. Petaluma is seeing some changes that the projections show but they don't match up with the numbers in the GP . but part of that is because we just did projections 03 and now we are doing a feedback loop to take into account what is happing at the local level. From the 2003 projections, ABAG has identified a total population iof 65,600 by 2025 and in 5 -year increments, the. first couple of 5 -year increments, the population changes are less and then they increase a April 20, 2004 r4 Vol. XX, Page 3 • 1 2 little more over time. 3 Council,Member Torliatt: Wanted to know what the ABAG projections 4 were because I think what we need to look at here, at least from my 5 standpoint on the Council, I want to meet ABAG projections because 1 6 want to meet our housing element needs and requirements. I'm not sure 7 we need to plan for another 2400 homes above and beyond the ABAG 8 projections, and that's where I'm personally coming from in this process. 9 That basically answers my question. 10 11 Council, Member Healy: What stood out more than the numbers was the 12 process used for the 2003 projections as opposed to earlier processes, 13 which looked at available land and absorption rates. In the 2003 forecast, 14 which applied Smart Growth concepts, there were some major policy 15 shifts of where growth was allocated for different parts of the Bay Area, in 16 particular, on p. 6, that showed projected new households for Sonoma 17 County over the 30 year period 2000 -2030 having been about 60,000 18 households, then dropping to 41,000 new households. Conversely, again 19 applying Smart Growth principles, you had about 50,000 new households 20 beyond what was projected in 2002 for some of the core counties - 21 Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara. 22 23 From our small size of our community the demand for housing is almost 24 infinite - we can add housing for 10,000 population or 100,000 additional 25 people, and it would all get snapped up because the demand is there. • 26 27 What is Petaluma's fair share.of regional growth over this period moving forward; is there starting to be buy -in to the 2003 projections from other .28 communities? 29 30 Mr. Am- aroso: ABAG Board adopted the 2003 projections, they were 31 presented to every jurisdiction so there was an opportunity for feedback, 32 and some modifications w3ere made in those projections, so in general, 33 we feel we have buy -in when the original set of projections was put in 34 place. There are local jurisdictions redoing their GP's and using these 35 projections; they are also being used by MTC in the regional 36 transportation plan. In terms of drop in overall.housing units in Sonoma 37 County, there is about 19,000 unit drop (meaning the curb doesn't go up 38 as high as previous projections); however, the reduction is going to be in 39 areas that are further out in Sonoma County (Windsor, Cloverdale, 40 Sonoma, the unincorporated Sonoma Co., etc.) will probably grow slower. 41 Generally, the intent is to focus what is coming into the county into a 42 different place - the urbanized areas. The numbers are an important 43 piece of this conversation; understand that housing needs and fair share is 44 policy based that is state law. How a community chooses to grow affects 45 the population in the long run and sort of the development patterns that 46 you have put in place in specific plans are going to affect the projections 47 and hopefully not your community feel. 48 49 Council Member Healy: Staff has indicated that given the changes made 50 in this community over the last couple of years, in terms of the adoption of 51 the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and projects that we know that are in 52 the pipeline, we would probably easily hit a 71 or 72,000 population target Vol. XX, Page 4 April 20, 2004 A by 2.025 even without touching the UGB expansion areas. From ABAG's . perspective at this point in time, does it'appear that Petaluma would. carrying its fair share of regional growth if we hit those kinds of numbers? Mr. Amaroso: It would accommodate a bigger percentage of the growth. It's not a statement of whether ABAG thinks you are doing the right thing or not as much as how that feeds into the numbers. It is not a policy statement on our part as much as following what it is this community is doing in trying to feed that into the numbers. Mayor Glass: Mr. Healy touched on this, and a while back, he had a conversation with Supervisor Kerns, if we exceeded the numbers ABAG assigns to us, and you talked about encouraging the growth going to the urban core, one thing this area is concerned about is protecting the rural area and that may not be a City issue but it is for the people who live in the proximity of Petaluma. We do protect them with feathering densities and urban separators and what not - is this the proper place to find out how we incorporate that philosophy, that we get credit through ABAG not only for what the City does, but we take on this area's share of what the county gets assigned. Because the fearis that while we put together our growth targets and our community values that the county gets assigned housing quotas and that the county then, in the rural area right outside of town, winds up having to do something that completely violates our General Plan. How do we protect against that, type, how do we make sure we accommodate that growth and then as an insurance policy are protected; that the county won't have that burden in our area? Mr. Amaroso: This is a- regional housing needs issue. There have been. many concerns raised by folks in this county and areas that there should not be housing assigned to the unincorporated area. So our intent in the next iteration of numbers, to reduce that, to minimize that as far down as we can, recognizing there are still going to be some housing needs in the unincorporated county. It is our intent to reduce that to a bare minimum' and take that into account. Another opportunity that exists is that we're planning to make it possible through some state law that's on the table right now in Sacramento as well in our own process, to allow for the county and all the jurisdictions therein to do a distribution amongst themselves. Vice Mayor Moynihan: What happens to the little guy in the county; the rest of the county says you will grow 60% and we want to grow 10 %, if you turn control over to the county instead of maintaining it at ABAG? Mr. Amaroso: If there can't be agreement, I think it would come back to ABAG to do the distribution based on our methodology was for the region. Vice Mayor Moynihan: I assume you are trying to project accurately with the market forces and current situations; why wouldn't you distribute housing units in the unincorporated areas where we'd have to assume there would be some growth? 0 April 20, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5 II � , 1 2 Mr. Amaroso: There will be some distributed to the unincorporated areas; 3 there is never a point where it will -be zero. The intent of the policy -based 4 projections is to try to pattern, differently ,at a regional level; to throw a 5 pattern out on the table that will look different and see if cities adopt 6 policies and make changes to do that. That's why if you look at the 7 numbers, there is a buffer the first ten years or so, assumes there will not be 8 very much change. Petaluma is way ahead of the curve; you are making 9 changes. There are other communities that aren't making those sorts of 10 changes yet. We are trying to build in some backup in there so that things 11 don't change rapidly in too short a time frame. 12 13 Vice Mayor Moynihan: I guess my concern is that we'd get into policy so 14 heavily that we'd lose sight of reality. From a projection point of view, it 15 seems you should have a little more credibility to the numbers as for as 16 reflecting what trends have been and their appropriateness. Lastly, you 17 have a website and in the past, you've been doing pretty well by 18 maintaining these studies on the website where the general public can 19 access. What is the website? 20 21 Mr. Amaroso: www.aba co.� Unfortunately, the projections are not 22 there in full; we give a partIial'projection, but we give a full report in the 23 libraries. 24 25 Council MemberTorliatt: On the housing needs level, how many units are 26 we looking at in Petaluma, or do we have to do it by county in looking at 27 the projections for the next-25 years? I think we need to get a general 28 idea so we can potentially back into those numbers. 29 30 Mr. Amaroso: The projections will come from Petaluma. We back into 31 what you're telling us you're doing,: so the projections are going to reflect 32 what you're saying. Our numbers are lower than what you told us 33 because we didn't assume that what would happen in terms of your GP 34 has happened. We're going to build those assumptions into our 35 projections for '05; we'll know that we have that information; and our 36 numbers will be comparable in terms of projections with what you're 37 telling us you're doing. 38 39 Council.Member Torliattc If we ,have an allocation process, if we set 40 something up that we're only going to build "X" amount of units, ABAG 41 will plug that into their projections? 42 43 Mr. Amaroso: Yes. In fact, Petaluma has had in place a growth 44 moderation policy since the 70's and that has always been a part of the 45 ABAG projections. There is recognition that Petaluma has moderated its 46 growth pattern over the years and we will take those things into account. 47 48 Council Member Torliatt: And that is something in this GP process that I 49 think we need to look at in the community because in the past, its been 50 500 units a year, and I think we need to re -look at that number based on 51 the fact that we need to prioritize where those units should be, however 52 many units we're looking for, for a variety of different reasons, including Vol. XX, Page 6 April 20, 2004 water use and where we're going to develop in the community, but we . really need to look hard at how we're going, to deal with the growth and our transportation infrastructure in our community associated with that growth. ABAG really just takes whatever we give you and then you feed it back, but sometimes you come back and say we need to meet higher housing needs. Mr. Amarosp: The projection is a feedback loop. There are certain assumptions about changes in pattern of growth in the projections, so yes it is a feedback loop from you and back out again. The housing needs is a program were the -state says here is a mass of housing units that is coming to the region, that group of housing units typically exceeds what the , region as a whole plans for, because that `s how state policy works in this case, and we have a responsibility to distribute those. That distribution is then based on these projections. We use the projections as part of our database to "do that distribution. That being said, the law changes for the regional housing needs process at the state level, there is a proposal that I think will move along, that suggests we need to take into account,_ when we do our distribution, availability of certain resources, infrastructure; a look at the jobs- housing relationships at the local and regional level - -.so those components are being built into at'the state level as our responsibility to start taking into account the regional housing needs numbers. So while that is a separate process from projections, those things are starting to feed into the state process. Council Member Healy: If that legislation does get enacted, do you have sense of how that would affect a community such as ours in terms of what you would be looking for us to achieve? Mr. Amaroso: I can tell you that it will be much more complicated for us to take a methodology together, but other than that, I don't know. ViceMayor Koyr ihan: There was question about whether or not the alternatives analysis is reflecting the proposed projects that are currently going through °the,entitlement processes in the City? . Ms. Tuft: We attempted, in most aspects, to achieve some consistency, but we had to take a snapshot in time because the entitlement process is a daily activity, We prepared the ,alternatives last year and by. September /October, they were pretty well locked in and projects were still being proposed. So I cannot tell you that everything that is in for process at this point in time is consistent with one of these. The direction from the Council in 2001 was to stay balanced, to achieve a jobs- housing balance, at the some time, as working toward achieving economic health for the organization, of providing services, and for the quality of life for this community. Vice Mayor Moynihan: You had communicated that you were working with the-Community Development Department to identify pending projects with the intent that any project that is .being processed'is addressed adequately in the preferred alternative, to work with the proposed densities. Those projects that are being processed, particularly j April 20, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 7 1 after that snapshot in time, are not incorporated but will be picked up in • 2 the preferred alternative. 3 4 Ms. Tuft: If a project has entitlements by the time we are preparing the 5 pu=le to create the preferred plan, if it has received Council approval, 6 we will make sure the preferred plan reflects the appropriate land use 7 and density, if it is a residential project. 8 9 Vice Mayor Moynihan: Whenever we had the initial alternatives 10 presentation, I had asked at the time how many years of available land of 11 each , existing land use designation do we have based on current 12 absorption rates, and I was hoping to get some feedback there so we 13 could identify at least under the existing general plan what areas are 14 particularly "endangered" of running out of in the near future. Were we 15 able to incorporate that? 16 17 Ms. Tuff: There is, some analysis on p. 23 of the alternatives about housing 18 population and projection. We have done some absorption rates with 19 regard to residential, the 3 alternatives provide for a growth rate over the 20 life of the general plan ranging from 274 to 365 units per year. Up until 21 about 4 years ago, we were averaging about 380 per year, over a period 22 of about 1.5 years. 23 24 Vice Mayor Moynihan: We're not getting into the actual land use 25 designations we have today, like office or industrial... 26 • 27 Mr. Duiven: For nonresidential, on average, we looked at building permit 28 data over a 10-11 year period, and we tended to average about 333,000 29 sq. ft., of nonresidential, which includes office, industrial, warehouse, retail, 30 etc._ There is more than adequate land, in aggregate, for nonresidential 31 assuming that you will continue to absorb that 333,000... 32 33 Mayor Healy: So we're starting, I think, with a huge cushion because 34 we're somewhere around 24% vacant right now, so what you're saying is 35 that even taking that hot real estate, market of the telecom valley 36 explosion now following the bubble burst, we should have a very good 37 comfort zd.ne with the available supply? 38 39 Mr. Duiven: If vacancy were taken into consideration, then there is the 40 ability to backfill. 41 42 Vice Mayor Moynihan: The table you are pointing out is comparing the 43 three; alternatives being presented', and not breaking it out by the existing 44 land use designations. The problem with that is that we have shortages in 45 certain land use designations and not in others, where we'll also have 46 more development in some areas than in others, so my concern was in 47 particular, I stated back then, that we're looking at changing land use 48 designations particularly to a lot of mixed use land use designations which 49 effectively takes that available land out of the market for a particular 50 designation and allows for multiple different designations to occur. So the • 51 question of whether or not we are providing adequate lands for 52 continued growth in the community in all spectrums was the concern. Vol. XX, Page 8 Aprif20, 2004 I'm not seeing the answer in what is coming forth here. I'm seeing a very general overview and not looking into the details. My problem with that is that I think we tend to miss the niches: There is, in particular, in the office and, R&D market, a glut of space on the market as the Mayor points out; but maybe for certain other types of product, there is not a lot, whether it is retail, or warehouse: industrial. I think from a point of view of balancing jobs and housing, it would be important that we improve upon that. Mr. Duiven: We have the potential to do that. Mr. Bhatia: On page. 22, we did project build out by different land use categories. We looked at overall regional projections, what,ABAG said will happen in terms of retail growth, industrial and office growth, etc. We took their employment categories and converted them back to land uses, and we tried to, be sure we were achieving a balance in the build out. For a comparison, we can provide that to you. Vice Mayor Moynihan: The point I was trying to make was that I wanted to know where we stood today with existing land uses. And what we have here again are projections based on three alternatives that don't reflect the current General Plan land use designations. I am concerned because I had asked previously that instead of evaluating three alternatives, we evaluate four, and the fourth being the existing general plan land use designations so the community would have, the basis from which to judge the differences between these alternatives and what we have today. It • would be more tangible for the community and the Council to have a basis bywhich to judge. We don't seem to be getting there, and I asked for that specifically and I understood that it was going to be part of what was going out to community discussions. l am disappointed to come back and find people still don't really understand where we are today versus what °these three alternative proposals are. Mr. Bhatia: That information is there; I think it needs to be compiled together. We can compile it and put it,in the: same tables. Vice Mayor Moynihan; I would love to see that, that we could have four columns including the existing land use designation. I think the community in future hearings needs to have that as a reference point also. Ms. Tuff: We've done the work so we can easily provide it. Council Member Hedly: I agree with Mr. Moynihan on that point and I think it would be valuable information for all of us. PUBLIC COMMENT Bill Phillips, Petaluma: Three comments by Council' Members that are very significant. Any amount of housing we would have here would be snapped Up; policy vs. reality; and numbers of growth vs, the availability of water. We live in a finiteworldAt is heartening to me that there`is • concern as to where we could end up, and ask that you keep in mind April 20;.2004 Vol. XX, Page 9 1 " that growth is something that can have a very significant effect that can 2 change the City. , 4 Matt Maguire Petaluma: Complimented staff on work being done; not 15 sure the public is driving the demand for. population projections if you take 6 into account the expansion of Petaluma Blvd. North. People feel the 7 population projections are. way too much. Have an alternative that 8 eliminates bumping out the UGR. This is taking the assurnption,there is 9 enough water to accommodate this, growth, and we know this is not true. 10 11 Rainier will .be driven by money factions. You could consider an 12 interchange at Rainier without it being a cross town connector, widen 13 Corona for a 'four lane cross' town connector - that keeps you out of the 14 flood plain land out of the !artificial pressure to develop in the Corona 15 Reach and eliminate'the effects of traffic; in support of 16 pedestrian, bicycle, train, cross town jitney- ,type things, and this is a 17 perfect document to prepare for .that; there is a provision in the general 18 plan that new development will pay for °'itself, and that rarely happens, but 19 the Council needs to try ,to ; make that happen. Concerned about housing 20 numbers, and looking at population growth, you have up to a 21,000 21 increase, of about a 1,000/year increase, which should exceed the 22 500 /year, allocation. Feels the ABAG.numbers are strong enough, and that 23 allocation could be dropped to' 200 /year or less, and this is the sentiment 24 of the community. 25 26 Sonia Taylor; Santa Rosa: Thinks an alternative . be prepared that 40� 27 does not bump. out the UGB, Is a longtime advocate for affordable 28 housing, and is concerned about the density proposals in this General 29 Plan. All three alternatives have a.great deal of `density. Thinks there 30 should be alternative prepared which is the ABAG projections so the 31 Council and public could see what that looks like, which ramps down 32 population and density: Consider a form- based code, which is what you 33 have just done in the downtown. Agrees with last speaker on growth 34 management, water, and' that newdevelopment should pay for itself. 35 36 Richard: Brawn; Petaluma: Issues ,discussed here evolve around money, 37 and how much growth is gping.to cost, and who is going to pay for that 38 growth. `What is it really going to cost vs. what we are going to get out of 39 if2v Feels ABA should help cities figure out the cost of growth, and feels 40 City should be able to tally the costs. 41 42 Geoffrey Cartwright, Petaluma: Comments on surface water 43 'management; on, p. 1.3 instates "FEMA flood maps "' and that is incorrect, 44 it is actually the FEMA,Flood Insurance Rate. Maps; p. 16, map of proposed 45 flood plain —the flooding.extends from auction yard to the factory outlets - 46 if dbesn''t the areas ,that were covered in the actual flooding as 47 portrayed by the actual flyover by Tom Hargis in 1998. Were any of the 48 figures from Brian Kangas Faulk Engineering used in the input for your 49 SWMM model? Was the channelization and diversion of those traditional 50 sheet wafer flows that you see on the map accounted for and put on the 51 SWMM model? ' fi • 52 Vol XX,'Page 10 April 20, 2004 Susan Kirks, Petaluma: Speaking on behalf of the Paula Lane Action Network, and has 6 concerns' (1) Hillside rural residential density of up to 4 houses per and feel it is inappropriate; (2) Would prefer 200 ft. urban growth separator :extend .to Bodega Avenue or contract the UGB along W. Paula Lane properties to the road itself (3) Open space and park designations = would, prefer open 'space and'vacant land designation. Category of underutilized land is a misnomer. (4) Mobility /traffic - two -lane county;road is part of historic; rural fabric that encourages joggers; walkers, and cyclists and offers a respite from urban and suburban noise and life. There is7noway to widen Paula Lane without destroying attributes. (5) Low water pressure trying to find a fix for low water pressure will not be. accepted. Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma Wanted to thank, Council for allowing public input; thinks ther& arei residents who,rnay not attend meetings. or live in Petaluma but who of Petaluma schools and think the fairgrounds'is significant; the relocation of thefairgrounds is a,wrong statement, and need to keepogriculfure at-the heart of the City;thinks the underutilized lands: marked on the document needs to be reco "nsidered, especially the warehouse -area. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED Vice Mayor Moynihan: .First of all, `the library/fairgrounds, one of the comments'.n ade, its in, the minutes of the Parks & Rec. Commission meeting on March 17th, to which I'm a Council Liaison, was made by a former Recreation, Music and Parks Commissioner, Steve Arago, acid,l% reminded us,all regarding the Kenilworth site, the Recreation, Musi'c,and Parks, Commission developed, a recreation master plan for that property thaf`ide'ntified a number of "different elements, as the ball fields, the gym, the multipurpose room, f hez skate park, the swim center, etc., as:a recreation resource. The. Council apparently adopted that. We are 'seeking a copy of master plan, and that needs to be taken into consideration and incorporated into,our General Plan. A lot of people are concerned about infill, densities, chart 2.2 on page 1.0, that 1 found interesting because of the various 'scenarios. I would have thought We'd have a lot more granny units, infill, that type of thing `potential, and 1 don't look at it from people raising existing. structures and building multiplexes on the same pad. The increase in density will result inonly so many unit's as for as infill. Everyone, seems to focus in, on, our Central Petaluma: Specific Plan as what everyone wanted when they adopted the'UG'B. I think there is a "disconnect" from that logic. It is a false•assumption that people who supported the U,G;B do not support necessarily high density, 6 -7 story structures in the heart of our downtown: A lot of people who supported the UGB basically are saying we do not want, change. Our General Plan is proposing log of change, and we're going fo hear the same 70 -80% come out and say boy, ["m really not comfortable with that change. I don'twant everyone to assume, and I don't .think'it is fair to assume; that the majority of the wants to see high- density infill and no 0 April 20, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 11 ^1 1 expansion of the UGB. I think that if you have to weigh it, at some point, • 2 people who want to preserve their quality of life in this community want to 3 see some kind of balance and planned growth and that may be a 4 mixture of the two. So, new urbanism is a great concept; we see it in 5 highly dense urban areas such as San Francisco, but I don't think that 6 when people moved to Petaluma they envisioned the some type of high 7 rise tenements here in Petaluma that they would find in San Francisco. We 8 need to temper our vision with a little reality and remember to check in 9 with the people. I had asked before that the property owners be notified if 10 there is proposed land use changes, so that we make sure they are aware 11 of it and get a chance to give some reflection on that. Has that been 12 done, or when will it be' done? 13 14 Council Member Healy: Would like to throw some ideas out to encourage 15 discussion; feels there is some skittishness in the document with respect on 16 how to treat the urban growth boundary expansion areas or the 17 expiration of that area in 2018. We need to have more focused discussion 18 about what the expectations are of the document that gets adopted 19 with respect to that issue. It is subject to interpretation that on January 1, 20 2019, the Oklahoma land rush starts anew in Petaluma and I don't think 21 that's the impression the Council wants to leave for the next generation. 22 Need to have a focused discussion on that, which loops back to the 23 ABAG projections and what this community's fair share of regional growth 24 is. The information I have at this point is that ,the ABAG 2003 projection 25 document is kind of half fish /half fowl; it is partly a feedback but also 26 partly a policy document trying to implement Smart Growth concepts 27 throughout the Bay Area. ABAG seems to have come to the conclusion 28 that you can implement Smart Growth principles in the Bay Area and the 29 number they assign to Petaluma the last time through is probably less than 30 what we would achieve by 2025 even without any further increases in 31 density; just with the existing General Plan without the urban growth 32 boundaries and with the Central Specific Plan, and things we know are in 33 the pipeline. I don't know that.we need to ramp down to hit the ABAG 34 target in the 2003 projection document, but I don't know that we need to 35 stretch or cause difficult issues in neighborhoods in terms of increased 36 densities that will be hard to achieve in practice to go beyond it. I am 37 looking forward to a close review of Mr. Moynihan's alternative four and 38 look at that in light of specific issues and specific parts of the community, 39 and think that may be the basis that we proceed on. 40 41 The fairgrounds site is something we do need to look at, and think there is 42 an opportunity for the Fair District Board and the City to work towards a 43 win -win solution. The fact of the matter is that that piece of land will come 44 back to City control within the life of this General Plan document, and the 45 City and the Fair Board really need to be negotiating over an appropriate 46 resolution of that, that gives the Fair District fee simple ownership of a 47 piece of land, either a reduced footprint there or something in the 48 periphery of the City, and people need to understand that the 49 fairgrounds in this community has moved before. It was at the edge of 50 town, at what is now Petaluma High School; that area came to be within • 51 the center of the community. It moved to what was then the far edge of 52 the community at the present site, several decades ago, and now once Vol. XX, Page 12 April 20, 2004 L' again it is in the middle of town. My personal feeling is that as an agricultural supported use would be more appropriately sited at the edge of the community and that the land that is available there could be converted to a higher and better use. On the issue of agricultural support, I was pleased to see that one of the alternatives did include an agricultural support campus; I don't know that that is necessarily the ideal site for that, but it is something that we've talked about in the past and something we should study carefully to see if there is something we can do to give the agricultural support industries in the. community a place where they can be for the long term and continue to serve as the agricultural industries in the community, county and surrounding countryside that are so important to preserving the open space and the diversification of the economy that that provides. One thing that I've mentioned before, that we haven't had an opportunity to do yet, is to study the Caltrans plans for the Petaluma Blvd. South configuration. As a member of the Novato Narrows Policy Advisory. Group, I have had the opportunity to view some of the things that Caltrans thinks that may look like down the road and it is very different from what is there now and I think we've had some difficulty in getting Caltrans staff to come down and share that information, and I'd be happy to try to•assist you in that. It is something we need to be looking at in terms of the gateway treatment at Petaluma Blvd. South intersection. With respect to flood plain, issues, Mr. Cartwright has pointed out correctly (and its in the staff materials as well) that part of the reason • that the flood plain is projected to shrink in the community is the modeling assumption change that basically uses a high tide assumption. that's 2.3 ft. lower than the high tide assumption that was used previously, based on some similar movement by FEMA, and that, in addition to the Corps flood fix, results in a much smaller flood plain projected in the community. My experience leads me to believe that when you have a highly sophisticated computer simulation model that's giving you results that appear too good to be true, they are probably too good to be true. I would like an issue paper around this issue and to see if there is an ability to benchmark these kinds of results from what we've seen in the past to get a stronger level of assurance. Mr. Cartwright in a memo earlier in the last few days, and its based on that map (on the wall) has also raised the issue of coincident storm events in the greater San Joaquin /Sacramento Valley watersheds and whether that affects the high tide situation here. I think that is an issue that I would like to have more feedback on. One thing that I have discussed with staff in the past is whether there is an opportunity at this point with neighborhood feedback to expand the two residential historic districts on the west side that cover really only a small fraction of what most people think of being the historic parts of the residential community to include a greater area, if that's something we can do as part of this process with neighborhood feedback. I think the history now of the two existing residential historic districts has been quite successful. I live in one; I think its great, and I think the other neighbors who live in it have had a positive experience. You basically get historic SPARC to do your dirty work if you have a neighbor proposing to do something April 20, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 13 1 that's really ugly, and the neighbors can continue to talk to each other. I i . 2 think there is a real problem with the types of residential product that has 3 been brought to market in recent years, and we're continuing to have this 4 issue. 5 6 The affordability of the single family detached home continues to be a 7 huge issue. We have a great deal of difficulty getting the construction 8 industry to build ownership attached, build townhouses and condos. 1 9 think that is something we need to be much more aggressive on, on a 10 policy basis. I would be willing to look at requiring a fairly aggressive 11 percentage of all housing built in the community to be townhouses or 12 condominiums. The single family attached that would be more affordable 13 for entry-level purchase. I think the Recreation, Music and Parks 14 Commission should.revisit the McNear Peninsula that we don't yet control 15 in light of the fact that the Central Specific Plan has been adopted, and 16 in the meantime, there's more dense use projected in the area and I think 17 there might be opportunities for a more intensively utilized park as. 18 opposed to the just purely passive use park that had been projected in 19 the past. I wanted to know„ and maybe staff can answer this question, are 20 there any road diets assumed for Petaluma Blvd. anywhere in the traffic 21 modeling that has -gone on so far? Are there any portions of Petaluma 22 Boulevard that are assumed to come from 4 lanes down to 2? 23 24 Ms. Tuff: At the point when we did the initial modeling, the road diet that 25 was discussed with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and subsequently 26 was not adopted. No, particularly with Petaluma Blvd. South, the road 27 diet was no. 28 29 Council, Member Healy: So, the results we've seen so far assume the 4 30 lane configuration all the way through. 31 32 Ms. Tuff: The same consultant that did the original modeling, though, did 33 the EIR for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, so is fully aware of it. 34 35 Council Member Healy: Last point I want to make at this juncture is to say 36 that one of the things that's in the existing General Plan that I think has 37 been successful and I'd like to see continued, is the special treatment and 38 sensitivity for view corridors and sensitive hillsides. You don't realize what 39 you've got until you lose it, and Santa Rosa made a horrible mistake a few 40 years back and they're going to be looking at that mess for decades to 41. come. Those are my comments to this point. 42 43 Council Member Torliatt: I think l would say I generally agree with 44 Councilmember Healy's comments so I don't have to reiterate and go 45 over them. Again, I think maybe I'm a little concerned about considering 46 policy for townhouses and condos and just because they may be 47 cheaper to purchase, that doesn't necessarily provide affordable housing 48 for families that are in the community because of maybe potentially the 49 size: of them. With that said, I think I wanted to overview probably four of 50 the-larger issues for me. As I've said before, and I'll say it again, I don't • 51 think that we need to go outside of our UGB; that is a line in the sand that I 52 don't want to go outside, and I think that we should be continuing to Vol. XX, Page 14 April 20, 2004 enforce that through 2025, and I think that hopefully we can come to • consensus on that and -the community will have an opportunity to vote on the existing UGB and its existing place through 2025. So maybe that's an additional step we may take if in fact it is in the existing place. I would also say that I think we need to do some more work on giving the community and ourselves a better idea of how many residential units would be built on an annual - basis. I think we really need to pursue an allocation process like we currently have, but we need to look at reducing the number from 500 units to something that's really going to reflect the community's vision is. I think that is probably between 150 and maybe 200 units a year. I think we need to look at housing types; this isn't rocket science, we actually pioneered if, but there are othercities in this county, including the Town of Windsor, that has allocation processes and they do have exemptions for certain types of housing. They also do have certain exemptions; for vacant land that is in their "downtown area where they're looking at mixed use housing, and I. think it would behoove us to have a discussion about that at the Council level. Third, I think that one of my issues that I've concentrated a lot on being on the Council the availability of water and how wisely we use our water resources. I think -that through this General Plan process, when we are talking about growth, we certainly need to, for all types of land use, not just housing but the retail, the industrial, the office space, the park land that we have - we need to make sure that we are looking at a water budget in conjunction with the land use that we're projecting. I know that staff has been working on that at a staff level. I think it is time to bring it forward in conjunction with Hold the Flow, which hopefully will have a presentation on in.June to deal with trying to reduce our overall water consumption in the community along with decreasing the amount of money we need to put into capital on maintenance costs in providing water to the community in general. I think-we need to look at more of an emphasis of that issue in our General Plan process. In conjunction with that, look at how we are going to prioritize where the development occurs in this community based on the water consumption and availability. I would put forward that area that we want to encourage most heavily and try to focus on, on a policy level, is in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. And fourth, after we're done with making this what they say an animal- with -a- donkeys- tail -and- an- elephant- head -and- camels -toes in a General Plan process, I agree with one of the speakers, Mr. Brawn, this has been a huge issue for me, that we need to have a financial plan that actually implements our General Plan over the 20 year period. And if we don't have a financial plan that provides for the money to build the infrastructure required to 'accommodate the growth, then we need to re -cook at our picture because. people will be saddled. with the problems which will probably be additional congestion and traffic in this community and there will be no money to pay for if, One of those things that has always come forward, and we just had a discussion about it last night, is a cross -town connector, wherever that may be in our community. I hate to see the development occur and the infrastructure never built and the community has to live with it. So those • are my major 4 points. Just to add, I would like to see the baseline that April 20, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 15 6 4 . 1 we've always used for flood plain mapping to be used in the context of • 2 what we're talking about in this General Plan. Because we have to 3 compare apples to apples, and I don't think we're doing that in this plan. 4 I'm very concerned about that and it leaves a lot of property open for 5 development just because we've changed a base assumption and not 6 living in reality. We all want to live in reality - we flood here in Petaluma, 7 and we've always flooded in the Corona Reach. I agree we should make 8 sure we are strategizing around new development; it should be paying its 9 own way. l also think that we need to focus on design priorities in this 10 community, particularly on our main arterials. Petaluma Blvd. South 11 through the community and out Petaluma Blvd. North, as well as we're 12 going to see a tremendous amount of development along the 13 Washington Street corridor. I think some of those plastic gasoline signs that 14 keep popping up after 20 years is-not what I envision as a great gateway 15 to our community, and its going to be even more heavily utilized. So I think 16 we need to adopt policies around design in that corridor. I'll just re- 17 emphasize, looking at the Brian Kangas Faulk issue that Mr. Cartwright 18 brought up. 19 20 1 also hear loud and clear, and I've spoken with the Paula Lane residents 21 a number of times about their issues regarding density in that area, and I 22 think we can, at least I could see us, looking at 2 units per acre in the 23 county area or current county area. I also think that since we are looking 24. at densities on the west side of town, which are on the hillside areas, we 25 need an improved hillside development ordinance. We went through four 26 iterations of Rockridge Point because we did not have a good hillside • 27 development ordinance in place, and I think it is critical over the next 20 28 years that we do not have to fight that issue. I'm open regarding the 29 fairgrounds relocation or not. One of the things I had asked for in the UGB 30 language last time around was an exemption for 50 acres for agricultural 31 uses so we could provide services to and water services to a use outside 32 the UGB that would be agricultural- related, and one of those things that 1 33 was envisioning at that time was potentially was making sure we could 34 accommodate the fairgrounds because I think agriculture is an important 35 part of where our history is in this community and I want to enhance that 36 as much as possible. Finally, regarding the underutilized land map is going 37 to need to - I think we're all going to have to look in detail at that map - 38 and one of the comments that Councilmember Moynihan made 39 regarding the. Recreation, Music and Commission and the planning that 40 went into a recreation component at the Kenilworth site where it seems 41 now we'relooking at a potential retail use. I totally and completely and 42 wholeheartedly agree that we need to make sure we are providing 43 recreational facilities that are somewhat located in a good area in this 44 community and its been stated in public meetings before that we don't 45 really have a lot of recreational facilities on the west side of town. It's all 46 on the east side and that creates a lot of the congestion in the East 47 Washington corridor. I would say that pursuant to our retail strategy that 48 we've completed, the Kenilworth site is the number one location and the 49 number one or two location, where retail should be in this community and 50 the factory outlet and Corona Reach area is the last. And I would see that • 51 we put those recreational facilities in an area that's on the west side of this 52 community, that's in a flood plain area, that is not going to I think impact Vol. XX, Page 16 April 20, 2004 residents and our downtown because of surface water problems and • provide that recreational opportunity for people to get to and from via walking or riding their bike. Mayor Glass: I would have the opportunity, to talk to you folks maybe in a couple of days - would everybody understand that (Mayor has scratchy voice). Because just generally, I'll say I'm in agreement with Mr. Healy, in agreement with Ms. Torliatt; there are some issues I'd like to talk to you about. I like Mr. Moynihan's idea of alternative 4. The consensus that I get out of the community is that the Central Petaluma Specific Plan is exciting;. that the people that I've talked to understood it to be a trade -off; that we would intensify the development in the inner City core, and predominately, the rest of City would therefore get pretty much left alone. That's the assumption that a lot of people made. What I would like to do is go down through my list later, but there is one thing that was not mentioned that I am in favor of and that is safe, bike travel passage. The.kids that live on the east side, to get downtown where the movie theater will be, and I don't want to present it as traffic relief. It is a safety issue,. a quality of life issue, and we are providing our amenities for downtown when there is nothing for the kids to do in this town predominantly, and that theater is going to be great. But it is going to be ruined if we have a tragedy with some kid getting hit out there on Washington Street. So that would be a priority issue for me from a safety issue - safe passage for the kids on the east to get to the downtown. Vice.Mayor Moynihan: I do and want to encourage housing affordability • discussions. My perspective, though, is that we need to take into consideration the demand is outpacing the supply. For those of us who have kids who we'd like to eventually see grow up and find a home of their own outside of our own, it would be nice to make sure we could provide for adequate. supply. "Build a condo, get a lawsuit," is kind of the current term. Our insurance markets being what they are, and litigation being what they are, there are whole teams of lawyers who go out and sue developers of condominiums for builder defect under builder defect litigation. So, if we would mandate a particular product type, such as a condo, you could very well find that you will be impeding the planned growth within the City limits and exasperating the housing affordability problem and the available housing problem.'So, I think that whole issue should be looked at in more than just a simple solution as far as product types: I was hoping that such things as growth moratoriums or growth limitation ordinances also have an impact on the housing affordability and availability. We basically, who don't know it, abandoned about four years ago, the previous Council did, the growth limitation ordinance, and we haven't been continuing that nor have we come anywhere close to 500 units a year in quite some time. The jobs /housing balance, page 23 deals with that, it's a very small table there, and I think we need to take a look at that in more detail that balance and the affordability if we have low paying jobs and high cost'housing, there is a disconnect as to whether or • not we're going to have balance here or we're just creating an out- A. it • • 1 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 April 20, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 17 commute situation or in- commute situation. Lastly, I'd like the economic plan to be able to be flushed out a little bit further. We keep continuously talking about the impact on City services and providing revenue for the City, but really what we should be looking at in a General Plan is the impact on the community. And an economic plan, from my perspective, deals with the economic health. of not only the City, but also the residences and the businesses that comprise our community. I would encourage us to go back to the Chamber of Commerce or outside economic interests to get some good input and make sure we have a solid economic plan as one component of the new General Plan. Mayor Glass: I want to thank the public, and we are adjourned. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. David Glass, Mayor ATTEST: Katie Crump, Clerk Pro Tenn C] K • REVISED TENTATIVE AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2004- AFTERNOON CONSENT CALENDAR Adoption (Second Reading) of an Ordinance Amending Community Development Project Area Redevelopment Plan. Adoption (Second Reading) of an Ordinance Amending Central Business District Project Area Redevelopment Plan. Introduction of Ordinance to Amend Lease for Two Niner Associates, a Business Located at the Petaluma Municipal Airport. (Skladzien /Glose) Resolution Authorizing Execution of Contract with Moore & Associates for Preparation of City of Petaluma Transit Short Range Transit Plan. (Skladzien /Ryan) Introduction (First Reading) of Revision to Ordinance 2160 N.C.S. Modifying the Conditions of Approval as Necessary to Allow the Plan Approved by SPARC at their April 22nd Hearing. Gatti /Strafford Place Subdivision. (Moore /Robbe) Resolution Accepting Completion of Remodel of the Transit Operations Facility Project 9032. (Skladzien /Castaldo) Resolution Accepting Completion of Conversion of Airport Fueling Tanks Project 6510 -2. (Skladzien /Castaldo) Resolution Awarding Bid for Construction of Gatti Park. (Carr) Resolution Authorizing Rough Grading of the Magnolia Place Subdivision Prior to Final Map Approval (Bates) Quarterly Treasurer's Report. (Netter) Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of June 21, 2003. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution Approving a % Rate Increase in the Refuse Collection Rate for Empire Waste Management. (Beatty) NEW BUSINESS'- CITY COUNCIL AND PCDC Discussion and Adoption of Resolutions Setting the November 2, 2004 City of Petaluma Municipal Election. (Petersen) ■ Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of a Regular Municipal Election to be Held Tuesday, November 2, 2004 for the Election of Three Council Members and Two School Board • Members. ■ Resolution Requesting the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors'to Consolidate a Regular Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 with the Statewide Presidential Election. ■ Resolution Establishing Regulations Pursuant to the California Elections Code for the 2004 General Municipal Election (Candidates' Statements, Including Charges Therefore). Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with for Construction Management Services in Support, of Construction of the Water Recycling Facility. (Ban /Orr) PCDC Discussion and ,Action on a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Street Furniture & Newsracks for Downtown Improvements, Phases I & II. (Marangella) PCDC Resolution to Award of Bid for Fabrication and Installation of 'Wayfinding Signage. (Marangella) PCD'C Discussion and Adoption of Retail Strategy. (Marangella) . MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2004 — EVENING UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Location of Cross -Town Connector. • Discussion and Preliminary Evaluations of Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials and Yard 'Trim ming Collection Services Proposals. 03 E0 •