HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/27/2004 City of Petaluma, California;.
• Community Center
320 McDowell Boulevard North
Ay !t� Petaluma, CA 94954
2 Planning Commission Workshop Notes
3 July 27, 2004
4
5 Commissioners:
6 Present: Asselmeier,.Dargie*, McAllister, von`Raesfeld, Barrett
7 Absent: Harris, Rose
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: Pamela Tuft, Director of General-Plan Administration
11 Scott Duiven,,Associate Planner,:Dept: of GPA
12 -Jim Carr, Director of Parks&Recreation
13
14 GENERAL PLAN 2004-2025:. Discussion and comment-on the Land Use and
15 Mobility Alternatives Report,
16
17 PUBLIC COMMENT
• 18
19 Maddie Christenson 109 Rocca Drive: Although Rocca Drive is notin.the area that you
20 are considering tonight, thewatershedfrom that area strongly affects the flooding in her
21 neighborhood.
22 . .
23 - Sonia, Taylor'. Hopes that all have received a copy of Alternative L from Petaluma
24 Tomorrow. [Pamela Tuft.; All Commissioners received a copy]: Regarding Alternative L,
25 the first policy of-the top deals with form-based code. Has been,attendn g these meetings,
26 has heard.from Planning.Con-mission that has indicated What I think is interest in having
27 form-based codes along the specific boulevards: The;additional nine things, when going
28 through my notes and'picked out things that seemed to be of interest to the Commission
29 that could be conierted to policy. I,may have missed it, I maybewrong;---I may be right
30 but wanted to bring'to your attention in case you want to have policies on those things.
31 Wants to briefly'talk about the affordable housing,policy contained in Alternative L of
32 Petaluma Tomorrow. Wants to clarify[what is all about. Policy 4.2.is:actually in the
33 current General Plan as is Program 4:4-A-D. Program 4.4 has been changed slightly to try
34 and capture mixed-us'e projects.'The way it is written now, it says "continue to require
35 residential projects',of five or more units'and;you could argue a mixed-use project could
36 not be a residential projectentirely so I changed it-slightly trying to capture that Program
37 4.4 B and C are new,additions, new suggestions. One and two are a bit more inclusionary.
38 Inclusionary has the low and moderate income projects above a certain size and Chas to
39 do with the downtown impact fees, which was adopted by the City Council late last year.
40
S:\A dminstration\Archives\PC.Minutes 2002-2004\PC-Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting•Notes.doe
•
Planning`Commission Minutes-July 27,„2004
t Sherry'Thayer-Macia: Would like to introduce Cynthia Gooseman, +Shay•Moore, and
2 Susan.Jameson. We are here with great interest in the topic•of discussion•as far,as the
3 Western part of Petalimia, the rural area and the proposed developments`that;We have
4 been keepinwan:eye on for well over.ayear
5
6 David Keller This is an Ordinance from the City of Calabasas,, California on,Green
7 Building Standards:;Hopefully the basis for that-will beset-within the new General Plan
8 so it is an existing Ordinance: This is a:copy of correspondence. I'have prior sent:to the
9 City Council and hopefully'to the Planning Commission, •information on northwest
10 Petaluma, basically'the hills antiekation,issues:,
11
12 Susan Kirks: Brought handoutsfor,the Western-Hills discussion.
13
14 Pamela Tuft: Submittals will be copied and provided to the two absent Conunissioners.
15
16, Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive: Regarding:traffic, very much:like the cliannelization
.
17 project shy the Corp,of Engineers, which is being called the "Flood Fix” and Highway
18 101's Caltrans project is often being called.the "Traffic Fix." I'think'weball need to keep
19 in mind that really what Caltians,is doing is adding an HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle)
,20 lane and that is all that-is being added:to Highway 101. The amount of traffic that it will
21 carry more it does•now, is not going to that muchrgreater. f I , • -
22 -
23 Commission`Discussion; . . -
24 4.
25 Chairman Dargie: A lotto cover tonight. -
26 . .
27 Commissioner McAllister; How do we want to weight the topics as far,as time? The
28 ,goal is that this would be our last meeting before the General Plan goes back to'the team,
• 20 Is this our last discussion meeting?
30
31 Pamela Tuft: Would like to bring:back to the•Commmission in August'ia Draft Preferred
32 Land,Use Plan with.a brief first-draft outline of the contents lof the General Plan and
33 individual parcel•discussion;for.one meeting to wraps up Commission comments:; Then
34 the Preferred'Plan will be=sent,to Council.for-comments. Have done a,lot.of noteitaking
35 of the last:five workshops. I think,we have gotten some pretty clear direction;on,some=of
36 the corridors; would like to take that and work'with Executive Team ha-house and the
37 Consultants,and bring it back to you as;feedback:
38
39 Commissioner'-McAllister: We have so-much to cover:that its would;better; if we could
40 figure out how we want:to'weiglt our discussion rather than=go on until midnight: For
41 instance, we have;a Recreation, Music'and Parks Cotritnission that has already,weighed
42 in on;many'these issues that perhaps we do not,need to spend quite.as much'time,on
43 Parks and Recreation as a Meta Issue as we might spend: on the Western,Hills, and
44 residential density.. There might be a lot of ;discussion on that particular ,item. My
45 understanding isthat the transportation Consultant could not be with us;torught?so•wecan
46 have a brief discussion on that"but:can identify issues that maybe:we do not spend as
47 much time,on that,child. Need'to talk about.hoW we are going-to organize:the.evening
48. tinte wise.
49 .
S:\Admmstfation\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doe `Pag @.•2
•
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27, 2004
1 Commissioner Asselmeier: Concur, suggested outline, and maybe give some time •
2 parameters to the discussions. Thinks that it is a noteworthy to point out that Parks
3 Commission has already_ given substantial comments and a lot'of comments from the
4 public. Would like to-take an,opportunity to emphasize some of those discussions that
5 are noteworthy as well as from Planning Commission review. Maybe we could take off
6 three or four main concepts that we want to cover tonight; i.e., Western Hills, mobility
7 and pick up a few of tlfa=other topics.
8
9 Pamela Tuft: Suggests.the Commission discuss the two corridors (North McDowell and
• 10 Lakeville).
11
12 Commissioner Barrett: Regarding the two corridors;:do;you want to hear about the whole
13 idea of what kind of zoning should be going onin there?
14
15 Pamela Tuft: Not zoning but mapping, land uses if you had any particular issues with
16 what was presented in the Alternatives A, B, and C, both on Lakeville and North
17 McDowell. The position papers thatwe have created for those'two corridors offer some
18 topic ideas such as in north McDowell intensification opportunities, gateway characters,
19 bicycle and pedestrian needs as we know North McDowell is lacking in services for
20 facilities for both of those modes of transportation. Discuss connectabilty to existing
21 neighborhoods, connection at the open space corridors and linking those along that
22 corridor is an opportunity that is missed. In addition, whatever the Conunission feels
23 comfortable discussing.
24
25 Chairperson Dargie: Suggests starting-with open-space.
26 .
27 Pamela Tuft: Jim Can, Director of Parks and Recreation, has joined us. We have had
28 several workshops on'the topic of open space, parks and recreation. Have had a great
29 deal of interest by a number of citizens on. cultural assets for the community. In the
30 packet prepared for this workshop, we offered some ideas and questions that we would be
31 interested in hearing some input,from the Commission. We also, shared with you the
32 public workshops that%were.held in March and April of this year; relating to open space,
33 parks and recreation. We provided you with the workshop feedback+from the 2001/2002
34 visioning and the input at the end of 2002 through the beginning of 2003 when we
35 released the Existing Conditions Report. You have color graphics'from that workshop;
36 the:large copy of which is the one with all the dots. At this point in time we would be
37 glad to answer'-anyquestions.
38
39 We have a Parks Master Plan underway being completed in conjunction with the
40 Commission. We have taken the Alternatives Report to the Recreation, Music, and Parks
41 Commission to receive their input on two occasions.and the-minutes were incorporated in
42 your report. The Alternatives proposed with the exception of Alternative C, have
43 proposed the;ezact same proposed parks. Two are controve'rsial;,one on the Johnson piece
44 down by the River confluence with Lynch Creek, and the second, was originally
45 proposed on Paula Lane. The Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission was adamant
46 that they were not interested in the one on Paula Lane so we intend to delete that from the
47 Preferred Plan. We would like to hear your input on the one on the Johnson piece,
48 designated for high-density residential, under discussion with the Community
49 Development Department for a preliminary plan. The Recreation, Music, and Parks
S:Wdminstrati on\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting-Notes.doc Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes—July.27, 2004
1 Commission indicated a,strong interest in;establishing;a neighborhood,parkion this site,
2 with the ability to provide ball fields- There is a great deal of flexibility with the potential
3 design of that particular proposed park, working within the floodplain^to;increase flood
4 storage capacity in the area and provide ball fields. Or, we can look at an.upland„park
5 combination type of project Proposed parks include'the Cedar Grove parkway on the
6 Holmbergiproperty. Iliisra'continuation,of an existing proposed pack m therGeneral Plan.
7 Another park is the McNear Peninsula Park and the.Davidon Homes project on,DvStreet
8 Extension-near Windsor',Drive- Whether that is configured to be a sitei that provides flat
9 ball field has'yet to be seen- An alternative could,be a creek corridor type of recreational
10 asset. When we.talkedaabout Petaluma.Boulevard North corridor,:the Commission heard
11 input from, several citizens in the area of Jesse Lane indicating a strong desire, to see
12 recreational,assets in,that area as well Also, connectivity over the hill to the:Ma gnolia
13 area to parks-that are being established°was expressed. We are working withithe subject
14 of connectivity under the Mobility section of the Plan; and'will be working with the
15 Pedestrian/Bicycle AdvisoryCommittee onestablishingthe connectionlocations.
16
17 We could ;start the conversation with.the existing Parklands Standards. The existing
18 General Plan has adopted,minimum standards-of three acres of community;park,per 1,000
19 population and two acres of neighborhood ,park per 1,000 population... 'The Existing
20 Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report provided you with formulas showing
21 where we have parkland deficiencies- Would like input from the Commission as to
22 Whether that you feel that meets.the Standardswould continue to serve.our community for
23 the:next 20 and beyond years or if:something that includes river,and creek corridor•open,
24 space, exclusive,of flood.reduction;or detention areas, be included in either of those two
25 formulas: This would not mean the channel ,itself, but rather. anything upland that is
26 adjacent to a creek or the river, whether that would be appropriate to be included'. One
27 example would be the Industrial Avenue project that=we have underway, whic h..has a
28 staging arearand upland trails directly-adjacent to what.will.beia flood terrace as called=for
29 in the Rivet°Plan::Another area could inthe Glenbrook-.Subdivisionalong Capn Creek.
30 There is.a small pocket park type 'of iarea. This is in.the inventory so there has been
31 precedence to identify those as•part acreage: We could evaluate those:.and'recalculate to
32 see where;we are General Plan standards call for park within one-half mile, which is a
33 typical tO-minute walk. If you look,atthe Alternatives:anddn the-ECOC we have looked
34 at the areas as, far as those deficient to meet that standard. Also, within the :Public
35 Workshop one of the last things we strongly saw in the public comments was that
36 connectivity and.vistas to the River;have been identified as a value..As these.linkages;are
37 created and used, can they be located to connect recreational assets;already,existing or are
38 planned. Would,:like inputfromRhe Commission on these topics. Suggested;starting with
39 .proposed park`sites,-there arefourof them.
40
41 1) McNear Peninsula which has been shown as a park since„1961. Assumes the
42 Commission supports,the establishment of a downtown ,park on the M cNear
• 43 Peninsula, Construction 'drawings are done for Phase 1;, it is about two weeks
44 from.going to Bid.. Phase,2 is not,beingpursued at this;tirne because the>property
45 owner.is'-not^interested in,selling,it at appraised value.
46 2) Holmberg Property at Ceder Grove Parkway. [Asked George, White;if there was a
47 proposal on this property? Answer; No, no format proposal] We have the
48 mitigation area directly adjacent to the,River that was set aside toi offset the
49 impacts of the-Flood Improvement Project (Payran Corp'Project) andcan adjacent
S:\Adminst tion\Al chives\PC Minutes'2002-2004\PC,Minutes 04\072704 Commission Meeting Notes doe Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27,,2004.
park designation. ' There' is `still• interest in the proposed park serving the
2 surrounding:arda,'wluch is presently underserved by park facilities. What is nice
3 about"that site is that it would be readily accessible through the pathways along
4 the River once we"get those improved for public access.
5 3) The proposed Davidon Homes project on "D" Street (at Windsor Drive). The
6 proposed project has park included on it.
7 4) The Johnson property(Lynch Creek at the Petaluma River).
8
9 Commissioner Barrett: Regarding the Holmberg property; which side of the levy is that
10 on?
11
12 Pamela Tuft: It is on the Boulevard side, with access on Cedar Grove Parkway, off of
13 Lakeville (west side of River). Unfortunately there is no connection to the Payran
14 neighborhood because existing lots on Rocca create a barrier with backyards. There is no
is corridor or link to that neighborhood, which would be ideal.
16
17 Commissioner Barrett: Where would the link be?
18
19 Pamela Tuft: Access could be from the end of Rocca to provide a connection to the
20 proposed park, but since the park is not there the connectivity issues have not been
21 discussed to any great length.
22
23 Commissioner McAllister: This potential link, could be established over to Lakeville at
24 some point in time through the developable property?
25
26 Pamela Tuft: It would be wonderful,if we could. There is an at-grade crossing; therefore,
27 we would have a link to Lakeville.
28
29 Commissioner Asselmeier'. Would support allparks;'thinks they are all important.
30
31 Commissioner McAllister: This:one just being discussed is in a grossly under-served area
32 that does not have any parks available, so would consider it important Any development
33 on the Johnson propertyshouldinclude some majorpark amenities in it:Came up in a lot
34 of discussions I read that were provided as part,of this topic. People on the Recreation,
35 Music and.Parks Commission have talked about how parks need to be integrated into
36 development proposals and supports that It should be a goal that the connectivity issues
37 also be addressed with those parks within new development.:Supports,all parks identified.
38
39 Commissioner Barrett: Of the parks that have been outlined by Pamela Tuft, which of
40 them are large enough to include soccer fields, etc?
41
42 Pamela Tuft and Jim Can: The Johnson property.
43
44 Commissioner Barrett: Read in the minutes from Recreation, Music and Parks
45 Commission, a question regarding six acres of flat land without playing fields on the
46 Davidon property.
47
48 "Jim Can: That is what we ultimately shooting for when we.flrst started discussions with
49 that. I think we can look at probably downsizing to about'three acres. The Commission
S:\Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27,'2004
1 was pretty emphatic that it is in the General Plan now and there is 'nothing in that
2 quadrant of the City: When looking at some kind of activity, not j üst playing fields but a
3 possibility of;things•such as tennis on something of that nature. Addressing the aspects of
4 the youth of Davidon, acrossthestreet,on"D" Street, and as well as Victoria.
5
6 Commissioner Barrett: The reason.I asked this,;question is that oneof our real issues is
7 the mobility of parents having to igo,back and forth on East Washington corridor to get
8 their children to play in the field. Part of that mobility problem could be solved by the
9 existence of parks, reusable play areas and fields on the west side. That should be a
10 consideration when looking,at these areas. The Johnson property does provide'that. It
11 would be''reallynice if we could:also get that into,,that particular'lot, because'it is' so
12 well:located; potentially;it could be even'bigger., Suggests thatas a way of looking'at
13 how these parks would go forward.
14
15 Jim Can As you were starting the General Plan process the Recreation, Music and Parks
16 Commission,we didn't see a lot of input coming about the youth.aspect. We:started the
17 master planning process and we have had public hearings ourselves and the following
18 three issues carne up:
19 •
20 1) Connectivity especially on the east side, the Planning Commission and the
21 City Council, and"the Planning Department in those days, did an excellent job
22 • as>far as connecting the bike passing paths, all of our parks, all the way down
23 to Corona Ely-area. In fact, with;the exception of the SRJC, we;can;go just
24 about from Corona Road to.Frates Road. Now we come up and go right;
25 across the street and go on to the west side: This is something the Commission
26 is really adamant about that we try to have that occur in the future with pieces
27 thatwecan on the westside:
28 2) The other was the need for more;activities activity type--;fields were mentioned..
29 Soccer turninginto a ,year around sport; baseball is starting to become year
30 around, hearing mole about lacrosse, which we do not have So Me demands
31 for existing resources are increasinge Also, as Pamela Tuft indicated;:within
32 someof'these pockets of neighborhoods is a place for children to go so they
33 do not have to travel-too-far. They can go someplace-is aneighborhood park
34 in your own:neighborhood and play. Those are three of the,.real'strong areas
35 that the public was telling ust and the Commission was reflecting on
36
37 Commissioner McAllisteI; I noticed in.the packet;there was point someone brought.up
38 this west-side sports complex. Are you thinking that it might be a possibility for the
39 future or are you saying the sports facilities are using new"'ballfields,are occurring in
40 more disbursed-fashion?
41
42 Jim.Cani A more disbursed fashion. Wedwere looking at what is available-as far as land:
43
44 Commissioner Asselmeier: Voiced support for all of these proposed-parks and the fact
45 that we stipulated that,it:would be ideal for people on the corriinunity to be able:to'walk
46 within a reasonable period of time (10 minutes or so) to get to a'-park, think:it is an ideal
47 to maintain. The Johnson property is one of the only•pieces that, could accommodate
48 ballfields and;that it definitely should'be something`that is pursued. Continue to pursue
49 some, kind' of athletic field on the Davidon, property. We-are looking at. are limited
S:\Adminstrationtkrchives\PCMinutes 2002-2004■PC Minutes 04\072704,PIanning CommissiomMeeting Notes.dod Page-6
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27, 2004
1 opportunities based on developments that have not occurred. Not sure about the
2 feasibility of creating; a more level field there,but seems to we that should seriously
3 consider that and if at all possible, incorporate that into any development approvals on
4 that site. Would like to remind us that there are different cdhStitU'ehtS in the community
5 that we need to be thinking about and certainly the ball fields need to be activity type
6 fields and the ones we have listed:are important. Need to,be`thinking about those pocket
7 parks. The comments made by-the Health Care District that were very relevant in terms
8 of reminding us that when high--density development goes in we really need to be
9 thinking about smaller-areas that serve a different need'but are very relevant.and do not
10 want us to lose the importance of those by identifying the larger sites here. It is as
11 important to provide opportunitiesr within a short'Walk of housing centers and retail and
12 other places of work, to be•able,to go, have their lunch,there, to socialize.so there are
13 more green spaces. Encourages the City to continue to think about enlarging some of our
14 larger parks; i.e., Helen Putnam and`be willing to think about what other parks the
15 citizens of Petaluma can get to within a reasonable;period of time, which serve a different
16 need; i.e., scenic open space, hiking, dog walking, etc:'Would completely support looking
17 at these parks and the snialler`opportunities as they come up.
18
19 Pamela Tuft: Would,like to mention the packet from the Health Care District and a paper
20 that was written by one of the Health Care District's Board Members that does tie in
21 health, obesity, and the elderly remaining;mobile: Also Bay Area Ridge Trail is located
22 in the City. At this point-in time, incomes from the east,edge from the State Old Adobe
23 Park to McNear Park_,It does'not connect all the way to'Putnarn:and would like to revisit
24 that as a possibility. Also I.met last/Thursday evening with the Marin County Open Space
25 Representative, Sonoma County Parks and Sonoma County Open Space. They are all
26 working together to,try to get links from Helen Putnam Park;,south to Burdell Mountain
27 and other regional parks. It;is beyond the City's .Urban Growth Boundary but would be
28 an asset-for our community residents to be able to provide those linkages. Bay Area
29 Ridge Trail is funding part of the McNear Peninsula Phase 1 and is interested in finding
30 other projects with.us..You,have a paper that was submitted by a-group of citizens on
31 their desires and reconimendations for the Urban Separator at the northeast quadrant of
32 our City up along the Corona/Ely Specific Plan Area, to maintain it iri.its-natural state.
33
34 Commissioner Barrett: If the Swim>Center is destroyed, and Licnow the Boys.and\Girls
35 Swim Center on the east`side,of,town is vacated, the attempt now to rehabilitate-that, I
36 think that we also need to represent the community in keeping;.this Swim Center of that
37 stature on the west,,side It-4is;as much a traffic,and circulation issue as it is serving,the
38 population. We will do ourselves a disservice if we let-that slip,through the cracks and
39 don't keep that asa priority.
40
41 Matt Maguire:, Petaluma Tomorrow's,Alternative L for a livable Petaluma includes this
42 one objective:, create, ample playing fields, 'parks and accessible open space to serve
43 Petaluma-is-projected population andthe policy that we would'recommend''would be'"the
44 City shall reserve all undeveloped ,lands,, in the Corona Reach Floodplain for playing
45 fields, parks and open ,space". Concurs with the tenor of supporting the other ;four
46 locations but since the realty is;that park land has to fight for-its own existence against
47 development. The desire toidevelop for a profit gets a force to fight against, so it,is wise
48 for the Commission to recommend more park land rather less.,Certainly, the constraints
49 on development in.the Corona Reach area make it an ideal place for that kind of public
S:V+dminstration'Areltes\PcMinutes 2002-2004\PC;Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes;doc Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes—Jufy27, 2004
1 amenity rather than:just private'development, We have had this:discussion oneand,offfor
2 about`four years regarding'the languages for Lafferty; should that notbe in this,section
3 that says the intention is to get people onto publicly owned space;and pursue opening
4 Lafferty
5
6 Pamela'Tuft Yes it could begin this section. It-was reflected in the Built Environment
7 Workshop in the comments and in:the:graphics that werepresentedto theiCommission:
8
9 Matt .Maguire: 'Recommends that the Commission supports the opening, of Lafferty
:10 Ranch to the public.
1'1
12 Debbie;Coopers I have'a;problem,with Lafferty,=in that, we have so many other priorities
13 and there''has already been=alot of moneyspent'on Lafferty.,I do not see that is a pressing
14 issue for the City of Petaluma. Have lived in Petaluma all her lifmand had not heard of
15 Lafferty until this:stuff came up: As a citizen;;don't"considerthaEas a;prionty When
16 • ,you are,speaking of the,!Davidon property;;is that a done deal that the subdivision will
17 definitelybe going there;b"edause you ate dounting that park?'Her"understanding.is:that
.18 theprojeet isnot:approved yet.
19
.20 George White: No, it is just!an,application:
'21
22 Debbie Cooper: If we count it when we need it, then we are almost in bed with. the
:23 developer:
24
25 Pamela Tuft:;I.do not believe there is any'intent to count it It'was in the 1987 General
26 Plan. When you are.lookingat'25.yearWout for the community needs, you wouldidentify
27 it as'a proposal. If it were identified as a proposal for the analysis:atbuildout at 2025, you
28' 'would look at it as a probability of being online: The Existing Conditions,Opportunities.
29 and Challenges Report identified clearly only those parks that are enjoyed by^'citizens;
30 now When we looked'at whether we:•meet the standards or not;;then we identified the
31. deficiency in both'eategories (neighborhood and.cominunity) and the acreages:wet-teed.:in
32 addition',to`meet'the standards-that we have identifi'edas preferred.
33.
34 ,Debbie Cooper: Isrconcemedthat out swimming pool'is gone,andthererare33 acres over
35 herewith apparently,sold to someone from Florida for 23 Million (Kenilworth): Then,
36 Casa Grande, which doesn'tseem to me to be',as'sharpka location has less land:and•went
37 for more money on:abid:Thisl,land over'herehasr,long, long,freeway frontage. The skate
38 board park is going;•the swimming pool,is going, and understands they have their eyeion
39 our Fairgrounds: 'Speakingpas a native and someone who has grandchildren;,growing up
40 here, is disturbed about lit becausmeven.if thelFairgrounds is not t,the highest and:best use
41 and not the bottom• line kind of thing Wer.should do, '3,don't want'to see it disappear,
42 things that`I have"grown up,with'.children,have grown up with, and iriyrgraandchil'dren-are
43 'growing'up with That's what it feels:like. I hardly recognize tlie.downtowivandthatmay
44 be a;igood thing:for Petaluma; I don't;:know, but'it seems like everyplace I look there is
45 something'else'now: There•,is supposed to be development behindme, where the+water
46 tower is; and T thought that was Open space but apparently it-isn't Ninety-five houses
47 produce four peopleto a-houserwhich-makes 400 people. How°bigrs,this park?` Admit
48 ignorancoiabout'the processibut wanted"to comment'.
49 .. -
S:\Adminstration\Archives\PC:Minutes 2002-2004\PCMinutes 04\072704'Planning Commission Meeting Nofes.doc: . ;Page•$.
•
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27, 2004
1 Geoff Cartwright: I am not familiar with.the Davidon site on"D" Street so will not make
2 any comments. The,.Peninsula site has been in.front of the City Council on numerous
3 occasions and I believe'is a work in progress and needs the support of the community.
4 The Johnson site is bordered by the Lynch Creek and also has the Petaluma River
5 running through it. Along the River up towards the north end you get into trees and that
6 type of setting and it is really a very nice park setting. Generally, even today it is used as
7 a park in that area by the surrounding neighborhood. Up on the higher grounds I think it
8 would be an excellent,place-for a.ballpark as you get closer to the freeway. I don't know
9 if that works well with ballparks or not. Also the Holmberg area is across the street from
10 me. It has been an area of attention;for many years.. It's been an-industrial or roofing yard
11 and site with construction.materials. The access is only from,.Lakeville and borders up
12 along the River and it borders up"against Rocca Drive or the houses along.Rocca Drive.
13 That area was•supposed;to have a park when it was built in 1960-1961. In fact there was
14 going to be a strip along the:River. None of that was ever done so there has never been a
15 park in that area although there was always supposed to be. On the Holmberg site there is
16 an old original home;and not,snre of its condition. Prior to settlement;there was an Indian
17 Village on that site. ft is a. historic' site that I think would be very interesting for the
18 community. It is true}there was;an access question to that site and the only access is from
19 Lakeville near the railway crossing. The Corona Reach site which is upstream is a
20 wooded riparian area. It contains floodplain. There are development pressures on that
21 area and I think we should do everything we can to preserve that area for the purposes of
22 parks and connectivity., We-have the trail issues that-. go through there, including the
23 railroad and there is also the flooding issue, so we should do. everything we can to
24 preserve that area for a park'.and those reasons. Regarding the swimming pool and the
25 skateboard park, I have heard;a:suggestion to relocate it to Lucchesi. Suggests looking for
26 other options; and we should.aggressively;look,for`someplace to put those. Don't think
27 they should be lost, and they don'tahave to be lost. The developer's agreement for that
28 site is that they will pay for its-replacement so it isjust a matter of finding a site.
29 , .
30 David Keller- I Think .that the Recreation,. Music and 'Parks Commission meetings in
31 March and.April was a really good review Hof what the:issues were. Parks are not just
32 remnant spaces. If we.get into thinking,that the only way we get parks, other than some
33 minor parks, is what is left over after the developers get through with.the properties so
34 the Davidon is now shrinking.from six to three acres, it is unbuildable"anyway. So what
35 kind.of park is it, a neighborhood:or a creek corridor which is great.but it is not serving
36 west side needs which are tremendous. I think if you look again at the Planning
37 Commission minutes, the comments by (Mr.?) McDonald on Youth Soccer Leagues,
38 2000 kids are going from-the west side to the east side at rush hour to get to soccer fields.
39 This;is•a transportation issue and as long as we think that the only way:we can get parks
40 is by trying to get: remnant spaces out of developers; we lose: Even if we do that,
'41 Petaluma is so far :behind my other favorite city, Rohnert Park, which has done an
42 incredible,job in providing community and neighborhood parks; recreation centers and
43 pools. The same developers have come to Petaluma were never asked or told that if you
44 want to build•in Petaluma, this is what you have to;do. We always played the soft touch
45 and the result is that we do not have any where near enough parks. I do not know what
46 the acreage counts are; if you look at community and neighborhood parks versus
47 population and projected population, no less where the distribution is over the City. We
48 are in terrible shape. Like streets, if you do not lay out the public wheel, the public
49 spaces first and say this is where it has to be, development will come around that because
St\Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27; 2004.
1 it is a treasure and valuable land. If we3 do not do that first and wait on all of the
2 developments that:come to our door; we will have nothing. If you look at thePreference
3 Survey 'from the'kGeneral:Plan;Workshop, you see a huge number of red dots up and.
4 down thelCorona-Reach and-Petaluma River.'I do%not:see anything reflected likes that in
5 the kind of;planning,that is right now proposed to you and the red dots donot just mean
6 the ERepublican turf. This is everybody's'turf'and that'was the highest concentration of
7 people:atthat workshop and(successfully a whole'senesr,of workshops saying this is the.
8 area we want to preserve. It;is not reflected. The five proposed parks are^agoodstart, but
9 it does:not encompassanywhere near what a Cityof 55,000 75;000 people-is.going to.
to need in the next 20 years,and we can not get it back once it is built: It is the job ofithe
it City to say this public space:comes first. They have•,to be connected=so children.can,get
12 there without being in cars or carpools. Need safe access from schools toeparks to home
13 so all,those=connective corridors that are beginning to.happen bn;the east;also happen(on
14 the west side; they won't happen after the fact. The pedestrian/bicycle:alignment needs;to
15 belayed out:as much as we lay out.streets. If we_are goingtoget from heretohere, where
16 is the path? Likewise we need pocket parks and downtown public spaces. Weneed those
17 outdoor living rooms so that=wedo not have teenagers:in the same'space as people.having
18 dinnerard:in the same space tourists:sitting down to enjoy the River: Look at thespace
19 'around what is now the 'Golden Ea g le Shopping Center; suitable. for'hblding 10;000
20 people. We do' not have any ,downtown.gathering space: We are not Healdsburg or
21 Sonoma. Petaluma'was:built without that space and it is a big mistake and•we suffer for it
22 because everyone is trying;to,sharethe same.space downtown, we.don't have>that space,
23 it is too crowded. We'need'bigger_ outdoor livingirooms:. Regarding taking land out=of
24 development sites is like what happened in Westndge Knolls. There is'aaallfiel'd'there.
25 with five acres and tis'not"used because the-developer Candied':insisted that 'did not
26 want any parking-or access so people,could get there and"use it. He:did:not grade:it:or pay
• 27 for any improvements and got away with that So there;is,a huge field that'is<sitting,out
28 there that is public property'but is unused: He-did not Want the traffic or activity going
29 through the development. You are goingto run into the same thing on the,7ohnson site or
30 somebody else's,site. Unless thisQCommisSion,anct the City Council,are brave enough and
31 foresighted'.enough to say it's going here and you need'to build' around it oryou,are not.
32 goingito get;it. Regarding financing, how do you do this without;development? We are
33 getting'developinent and this goes:again-to the issues:I,raised in northwest;Petaluma. You
34 have got 300 acres you want=to annex so ifthe residents and propertyowners approve,
35 the same thing can be'done'that wag done at the Sunnyslope annexation::For ten years
36 Condiotti:cooled'his`heals until the property owners!"said ok we are willing,to'pony up the
37 costs of coming into the City and I think it was $10;000 per developable home
38 opportunity on every parcel:- It was done by survey,.:an engineering.process''and,put to a
39, vote as a;special benefits;district and that is how the City got themoney to7upgradethe
40 streets,and drainage, etc., and if it wanted to'include parks as part of the:cost of coming
41 into the City, it should do it.-'There is a huge revenue source out there that you are not
42 going.to getifitia all done>piecemeal. This is What happened tb people'here who we're
43 seeing-properties being approached.orieparcel at'a time Howcdo you;get enough money
44 for a development like Davidon to actually ;get a real park on the site if-you are only
45 considering Davidon? But is;not-just only going to be.used;by people living
46 there., It is going,to come to the rest,of the annexations as well The same is true on
47 Magnolia, -Paula Lane and all the rest of these lost opportunities where there is money
48 available if the City is willing tosstep ahead and get that in hand: If it is not, We are going
49 te, windup, at:best, with what we have now. Atworst, we are going to wind'end up with
S:Wdminstra[ionVvcfiives\PG Minutes 2002-2004\PCMinutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes:doc, 'Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27,;2004
•
1 not a whole lot Thanked Commission for,opportunity to participate
2
3 Maddie Christensen (109 Rocca:Drive): Being,a:resident on,Rocca,'Drive I would like to
4 emphasize, as other people have here, that developing a runoff friendly-park system
5 upstream of where I;live is a really good idea to satisfy,theneed:for playing fields, have
6 seasonal views and it would ameliorate flooding in my neighborhood. It came up in-the
7 first General Plan Workshop, which,feels like it was years-ago, but was only 18 months
9 8 ago.oOunld e bsme,alal s p tohie n t c orof w th aflt i Hes mvebery r gn:pear ro pmerty y h I o dmoen tbwa nit t to asphppear
ed t,o li kbe e.a a nbti o-tptalerk The
10 property has a narrow entrance and fans out as you go into it, 'Itis.a very difficult kind;of
11, park to,make safe. If we:ao not design it properly you will spend a lot of money putting a
12 park together and;it will be vandalized and will•be unsafe for people in the neighborhood
13 wanting to use it because of-the geography of the park the view lines and access for law
14 enforcement, So just to caution perhaps to note that you have to design that park in
15 concert with,the Police,Departments and get their input on how to make that safe and
l 16 useable place. 4
17 , ,
18 Ira Bennett representing Cobblestone Homes,_,here this,evening to offer the City a park
19 site (distributed a site plan drawing)., We have completely redesigned the proposal for ,.
20 the development ofrthe Jesse;Lare expansion from 1-59 proposed homes to 67, in a
21 configuration that feel is much more,appropriate. I will give you the context for that later
22 ,during the land use discussion, but we are proposing,as park side,that could be used for
23 -playfrelds.:Notice that a creek runs through the site, that is where it is now, it can be
24 gently moved to,the.edgeso that there°would,be an unencumbered space for-playfields,
25 which is probably:be what happens. Put along the road foot bridges across for people to
26 gain access on that side.;Int•addition, there is a creek corridor that heads back into the
27 development and that is going to be preferred alternative in the EIR is going to come
28 before..you some;-number of months•from now As far as connectivity, we have studied
29 and believe it is feasible to provide initially.temporary,pedestrian pathways in the public
30 right-of-way, both towards town and over towards Gossage. I do not know how far we
31 get going the other way but I think we could get over to the next traffic light and closer to
32 the school area Regarding• connectivity; that could. be ,built in conjunction with
•
33 development and'without.a'benefit.assessment district::.There are ways to:connect this to
34 the Magnolia site and to the proposed park there, but it would require quite extensive
35 small parcel-by-parcel development up behind,this from Jesse:Larie. We have studied-the
36 connector. The bicycle and pedestrian path can be constructed feasibly from an
37 engineering,standpoint. The property and development issues;are way beyond us. A plan
38 line would be good in-the General Plan. When:it will be implemented would be,,a long
39 time coming because every little bit of every one and two acres properties that do not
40 have much potential would have'to be redeveloped, and come,to,the City,for something,
41 to allow the requirement.
42
43 Susan ICirks Paula Lane; Wanted to thank Commissioner Asselmeier for the comments
44 about open space and people here you comment about the need or the ability to have
45 somewhere to go. Commissioner Rose is not here this evening, but atone of the Planning
46 Commission meetings, he had attended the presentation or a•workshop involving the
47 Greenbelt Alliance and Farm Bureau preventing sprawl which I hope all Commissioners
48 have had an opportunity to;review: It addresses what you are speakingabout tonight and
49 hits some questions into,the esoteric discussion of open space: and,what it means and
S:\AdminstrationVvchives\C Minutes 2002-2004\PC:Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc, Page 11
Planning Commission Minutes-July 27, 2004
1 where it can be found!and how'to accommodate population growth. Cities in Sonoma
2 County over the=next 20 to 50 years,while at;the same time protecting valuable natural
3 resources: Applauds the City of'Petaluma.Parks and Recreation Department for the
4 limited budget they work with.to provide the amenities that we hav""e;andiacknowledge the
5 discussion;they'are have.tonight because supportslwhat Commissioner-.Rose;said, that it
6 ;probably would°be a:good idea to be proactive;and make policy statements now in this
7 revised General Plan. The statements,ab"out opeit space thatI read'in the:current'General
8 Plan.arerreally wonderful. Is thinking-:if they were relevant then-for;25 years ago to?now,
9 they are going to be#even more important for the future,of our children and the thousands
.10 of creatures that are not here who would be here probably if they could `speak.
11 Comniissio ner McAllister mentioned wildlife corridors and the area where T.live -in
12 particular; we have some valuable,Natural resources we would like tb proteet Consider
13 open Space as a:potentiallyseparate^area from..park creation.
14
15 Resident of Victoria (next to Putnam Park):"Bought a house there in,1992 because it-was
16 on theiedge and next to Putnam Park Having thatkmd of openaspace is-like lungs for the;
17 soul and is disappointed that went on vacation in August and,come back and find:dust all
18 over everythingsas thetbulldozers carve'up the hills going to Putnain.Park. A kindergarten
19 class discovered. That hill has"to be rebulldoze"d three timesbefore they actually finished
20 that part of Victoria Subdivision's very hilly':area around Windsor Drn e: Questioned the
21 wisdom of:more housing developments south of Windsor Drive; particularlyin the
22 areathat comes out by,the red barn: Ifianything;the wonderful°thing+that couldhappenas
23 . that expand Putnam Park all the way down to "D" Street as the Shollenberget Park is
24 .going°to'be extended to the area south. Have hatstudied the General:Plan,,but Iknow-as'
25 somebody who has lived in;thehrea for 12.years;,the sense of openspace is:has.nghtnow
26 is important to everyone in the :City Who travels around•they west side:, It is not just
27 .encroaching suburban sprawl that will,continue indefinitely, but there is a sense of we;are'
28 now in the hills, in the creeks. We are;now in a place where Petaluma'st unique setting
29. exists and would love to see':that continue and not have it get lost.
30
31 'Peggy; Victoria=Resident:House backs up to'Windsor:and understands that there will be
• 32 development at both eastern'and westefn;edges. Concerned about traffic;has lived:there
33 for over a year, but:understand there has been an ongoing discussion abou t slowing the
34 traffic pattern down_ So far nothing has been done,and-it is only going:to get worse: Is
35 hopingrthat'it does not become a boulevard like this as it is the oiily`tl rough street. We
36 get haytriicks and 164heelers'night;and day and itisCnot what'people expected it'to be
37 Have Putnam Park on.one side of the street'and a sixteen wheeler coming:in next to the
38 bedroom.
39
40 Sherry,,Fabra-Marcia:.About a,year ago I listened to the Sonoma County:Regionall%Parks
41 large document that;camealp::It is aAwish list and:included in that document you will find
42 that they would, of course,;love to increase Helen Putnam Regional Park,coming'east
43 :incorporating what'isiknown as Sdotfproperties: Because of the application of Davidon,
44 many of us for well over:year have been looking at City:Council minutes and getting a
45 feet for how`the land was when Victoria wasproposed and reading+about allthe angst,and
•
46 concerns-the community, had>and now we are going through it again A lot of mistakes
47 were made.in the Victoria development as far as we have had landslides; and .special
48 assessments. Those of us at Victoria See' the: future for people'that would buy into.
49 •Davidoff if they aresallowedto build theirhoines:.Davidonhsd two dommunity meetings,
S:\AdniinstrationWrchives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PCMinutes'04\072704:Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 12
Planning Commission,Minutes—July 27, 2004
1 that were advertised for the:Victoria and the Sunnyslope residents and they had their.
2 computerized pictures about how the_ development will look. We evidently do not have
3 any hillside ordinances because they have houses up these hills. They going to scoop
4 out many of these hillsides and do backfill with all their geotech;experts. They are going
5 to change the whole lay of land and negatively impact all of west Petaluma. They have no
6 intension of offering anything but a walking creek park. We have mentioned to them that
7 the General Plan calls for-some type of park. When we've read all.of the documents our
8 Parks Commission has come out with, Mr.:Carr, the things he felt would be nice. A
9 Sonoma County Regional Park Commissioner came out to a meeting and said Petaluma
10 will never support it so let go of that idea. Mr. Jeff.Bayer, who represents Davidon, has
11 no intention of having less than 93 homes and has no intention to even address
12 Petaluma's needs for open space, more annexation to the Regional Parks and people need
13 to realize it is only;an application. This is;not a done deal. This is something that we can
14 be proactive to increase our increase our Regional Park and-increase active parks. Has
15 children and has visited every softball, baseball field and every soccer field. The
16 Recreation, Music and Parks] Commission is trying to address all the needs of the
17 community as well as-peoplewho can't walk those.really narrow and up-and-down paths
18 in the Regional Parks. If;you had some of the.Scott property, it would be more multi-use
19 for people who are not so, ambulatory and to address;our :elders,'families our young
20 children, that would be a,really nice thing., Petaluma.needs to be]a lot more proactive
21 because these developers_will build and they will-leave and they could care less about
22 what they are doing for all%the residents. We all,need to do a:lotsof input and they need to
23 foot-the bill to make our community what we want as well as the'people who move into
24 our community, there should be a lot more amenities.
25
26 Commissioner Barrett: Concurswith is that our General Plan'really needs to be very clear
27 about serious, useable parks. There are a wide-range of parks that are needed and concur
28 with Commissioner Asselmeier and,David Keller. The:.twaimportant things that-,I concur
29 with and is hearing.from the public, is you.need,-parks that can be used for a large
30 population needs, thatwill cut=the`traffic issues an -maintainthe open space area on the
31 west side. Those areas need to be identified and need.to be on the-west side. Agrees with
32 Ms. Cooper regarding, that it is' important to keep existing assets, like the skate park,
33 swim center and the Carter playing fields that are already there. If the developers want to
34 move that area into some other-kid.of development, we need to say we want this on this
35 lot. Look at Magnolia and that was set up as open regional.park on our General Plan.It is
36 still,thereiand developed with houses and it is tinylittle park that also has no parking for
37 anybody to get there.- Again, this is a park that is unusable to most;of the people and it is
38 not in compliance with our General Plan. Just saying this,land is what we want•for a park
II39 is not enough. You'have-to have that land ear-marked. Mr..Maguire mentioned the areas
40 in the Corona.Reach that are floodplain. Those are areas that specifically should be"just
41 locked in and other areas then should be'really prioritized; would like to see that in the
42 new General Plan. .
43
44 Commissioner von Raesfeld; ;Recognizing that it;is-a parcel in transition, it seems that.in
45 the Chelsea expansion there was an irrevocable offer of dedication that I'm not.sure if.it
46 has been recorded, or if the entitlement has been vested (conservation easement?). Am
47 wondering even though it is in flux and not very well defined and for the purposes of this
48 25-year plan that a potential at leastideritified.
49
S:Wdminstration\Archives\PC Minutes'2002-2004\PG Minutes'04\072704 Planning Commission•Meeting Notes.doc Page 13
Planning Commission Minutes—July-27;2004
1 Pamela'-Tuft: That triangular piece as a condition of approval'was;offered to the City'in
2 an irrevocable offer of'dedication. We did not pick it up because we did not want to
3 activate the Landscape Assessment District unless they failed to meet the maintenance
4 standards.
5
6 Commissioner von Raesfeld: My comment is"more that it is not well identified as a,.
7 potential on this map. It seems to be not only an obvious potential because the legal
8 mechanism is in part in place but also seems to be probably one'of the best places to put=a.
9 park.
10 -
11 'Pamela Tuft: Will follow up with.identification.of the subject portion of.the parcel.
12
13 Commissioner .Asselmeier:' The areas that we've identified as floodplain, this
14. Commission seemed to concur that we were moving in the direction of no.development.
15 in floodplain. I think when we said-that, my-understanding-of that would be that if there
16 were other passive uses that couldabe made that are consistent and donyt end:up'having
17 the City expend tootmuch`moneyin the event there is a flood, something;,has to be redone
18 if there are other purposes/uses for the'City. In thesame areas,I would most definitely
19 see those areas,at least a major area referred to in the Plan. Would.like to see.a policy
20 established that would have the City proactively look at these areas that would be
21 potentially good places for public access, like,the Westridge;parcel and'take some steps
22 to maybe invest a little bit more money: If there.was a shortfall and'the-developer,f.e.,the
23 Westridge situation, left the City holding thesbag.so to speak. I`would.like to see the
24 look at that and deterniine what kind of'expenditure-funds could be made toy open up.
25 those areas. It is really a place where:.most people don't even recognize;it,:isc over there.
26 Places,.where the Sonoma County Water Agency has easements, would like to.see'the
27 City be proactive and potentially'opening those up to be pedestrian and.bicycle;comdors
28 for walking: Lookat the things that exist:and see if could add another layer of use'on top
29 of those things; i.e., maybe some limited investment of funds to help us put into more
30 active.:use some of these areas that are sitting there. On the Kenilworth site;-I.woul'd:like
31 toøsee this Commission take a stand that if the skate board park, fields and swim',center
32 are not included in°the new plans, that-as+a.Condition of Approval; that they don't just
33 'fund it but they proactively•help the City find a place and make;it happen and then that
34 development doesn't get,off the ground.,until we know'exactly those othenuses are
35 going.,,l:think we sat around,a;couple of meetings ago and we said we Would like to.see a
36 civic'cs ace at the Kenilworth site. Iti:is a huge asite,.and we have talked about how there
P g
37 can be.a number ofother uses going on, i.e.; uses°that are consistent with the Fairgrounds
38 or Fair uses. I can°certainly see park and civic sites;being consistent on that location(the
39 larger Kenilworth property).
40
41 COniInissioner: McAllister: Agrees`with above corriments, as far as a swimming pool is
42 very concerned from a personal,and community standpoint. Feels-we need to-be:looking
43 beyond Lucchesi Park, which is lalready publicly-owned facility park wise. Part of the
44 replacement,-needs_to include propertyacquisition as-well. When we put a'pool,outhere,
45 subtracting from what-we have, itis part of the community park. There is public;land that
46 we are losing;and we need-to replace that not just°plop'the swimming-center over.here
47 "where we already have a small swim center in the Boys and Girls Club. Agrees that in
48 previous discussion regarding potential parklands being designated in the floodplain
49 .areas. Is.wondering`if there is some way to come up with a standard for acreage of parks
S:\Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 14
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27, 2004
1 within the new developments because.it ends being vague: We get the application and
2 there is usually a pocket-size park. (i,e: Riverview and Southgate). The Planning
3 Commission ends up goingbegging for these parks. Maybe the expectation could be part
4 of a policy with new development because we are iso sadlyan need of community, not just
5 neighborhood, parks to seryer that particular neighborhood which has been created but
6 also the community parks for our community as a;whole. Although I think those little
7 neighborhood parks;are important,they oftenbecome,proprietary and really do not serve
8 the community as a whole: Victoria;is the extreme example•of that where they actually
9 have signs posted saying "do not go here" because they'are owned by the Homeowner's
10 Association. This should never happen again: Homeowner"Associations should never
11 own little parks. Offer:an open-ended suggestion about creating some sort of level of
12 expectation for new development. I don't think that is very clearly articulated and then it
13 is true we are often offered things and that is nice, but I think Mr. Keller, is correct in
14 saying we need to be more assertive about what our .needs are He was .right about
15 Rohnert Park, was shocked and amazed to discover how many public ,amenities are in
16 that town that we do nothave+here.
17
18 Commissioner Asselmeier: Do we'not have a policy right now that would say that if you
19 have x number of homes on x number of acres ,that x number of parks needs to be
20 created? -
21
22 Pamela Tuft: The park fee,is based on density and thepark fee is based on the ability of
23 the City to establish a.park from those fees. The Municipal Code does have the,-formula
24 by which residential units are„to provide parks. The.Code doeS hdt;state'that it is to be
25 provided on that particular site It is to be provided by use of the fees through the
26 purchase of land from a developer as set forth in the General Plan. The City reimburses
27 the developer for required parks using park impact fees: We have tried in a few
28 occasions, where a developer proposes a park, to not reimburse a developer for a
29 volunteered park.
30
31 Commissioner Asselmeier: Nothing,prevents the Commission from recommending a
32 policy that says on site,'you need to provide an amenity on that site?
33
34 Pamela Tuft: The Comm ission-could recommend sucha.policy, which would, following
35 adoption, be followed up with a Municipal Code amendment, in conjunction with the
36 General Plan adoption.
37
' 38' Commissioner. Barrett: Would like to add a Cultural Arts component. We are very
. 39 limited,on our performancespaces,places for cultural arts:
40
41 Pamela Tuft: We have received a;lot of input and.:contact with the local Cultural Arts
42, Council; they have been very ihelpful in sharing ideas: Believe the Community
43 Development Department.is working on a Public Art Ordinance(George White indicated
44 it wa's drafted).
45
46 David Keller: One of the issues and the ways,to address it; the reimbursements are at
47 market rate for the'propertyrafter the entitlements have been granted. .So when the City is
48 spending its park dollars"it:.las collected'.as fees, it is diminished by having granted the
49 .entitlements in the first place. You have to figure out a way:to:get ahead of that 8-ball.
S:Wdminstration\chives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 15
Planning Commission'Minutes.-July 27, 2004 -
1 •
2 Pamela Tuft: Theappraised valtieisset on taw=land'''values, identified bythe Council.
3
4 Councilmember Pamela''Torliatt: In the last'couple of developments that you have
5 entertained, such as'Rockridge, the'd'evelopers were+sonice<and coaxed into;donating the
6 land in those parks That is somethmg that definitely'could be+required _andyshould be
7 negotiated intthe review process. The Council has been encouraging-the City°Manager to
8 implemerifthat=type of incentive. There are ways to petit into•the General Plan.
9
10 Jim Carr We are talking,about active parks. One'of things we'have to deal with the
11 'opponents is ,traffic: Even with some of the 'existing 'parks, such as' Wiseman, the
12 neighbors go crazy-with that type of traffic. The design we try to use nowsuch,as:Gatti
13' `Park, starting,construction in one week, traffic is one of our primary concerns with an
14 .active park. We try tomtit impact surrounding neighborhoods. We really need to-think
15; about this component with any typeof park.
16
17 WESTERN'HILLS
18
19 Pamela Tuft: The Western'edge residential:densities-were brought up very early In the
20 visioning7workshopsi The people attending the-Work-shops had-rnixed opinions, passions,
21- and `einotiens:as,to the,long-term use'of the western "edge of our:community. We have,
22 had for many years feathering policies that call for reduction of densities'as you.approach
23 the Urban Growth Boundary. On the east edge, as you approach'the Urban:Separator,
24 that habeeninterpreted over,`the`last 20 years.that lots'generally grow,in size'from 5-6000'
25 to 8=9000 square',feet in area That has been,deemed, by the Planriing Commission and
26 the City'Council, to meet the:intent of feathering. On;the western edge, as development
27 has occurred out'to that edge, particularly=those areas without an Urban Separator, we
28 have'a.Rural 'Residentral designation. On the western hills portions, out off D Street,
29 Extension, Western Avenue and.the Paula Lane area, that has allowed development to
30 occur, sometimes in the County at densities higher than our ;Rural Residential
31_ designation; Where'wethave lots'one acre in;size and,smaller that have been
32 through the County. In the-Petaluma-Boulevard North area, within the exiting General'
33 Plan;the western edge area was designated;Rural Residential With'the intent`to hold-.ifin
34 abeyance; until such time as development, scenarios could be determined'through the
35, development of a:Specific Plan. The Specific Plan never occurred, development has.
36 progressed' in accordance:.with the County regulations, and we now are faced with
37 looking, at long-term land uses within that area, that are 2compatiblei with an urban
38 environment. We bring it to thmCoiriinission thiis evening, to discuss, how =m the;long
39 term we see the western edge developing? Many of those areas have been developed
40 with historic farmhouses,:some'date.100,years.in;age. Others have a million dollarhouse' '
41 in the;middle of 2 acres; then some developed'^(i et Sunset area off of Paula);with 10,000
42 square foot lots. We looked at this as an opportunity for discussion purposes As we
43 featheriout at the:.westeiri edge'an dmeet the County Rural Residential, whether we,see 2-
_.
44 acre :lots as Still ;appropriate for an .urban:enVironment, 'receiving or the possibility of
45 receiving urban services (t e., sewer, water!'police, fire, sidewalks, etc.); Or, with
,
46 somethingia little more intense, more dense, would'also`be appropriate for the,western
47 hills. We:have presented some ideas;'we'recognizetthat^some strongly oppose the ideas.
"'
• 48 We have met with,a,number of residents'in'ihe'area,'�and"have�li'stened yerytcarcfully Yo
49 the publicand the Commission-atpast workshops: We do not hear'aresounding suppot
S:Wdminstratiori chives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704'Planning Commission'Mee.tmg Notes.dbe ' PageS6
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27; 2004 _
I for a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre,(quarter acre lots, approximately 10,000
2 square feet). That is appropriate:given:that you de not see a strong-similarity between the
3 western edge and the eastern edge, where you do,see 10,000 square foot lots, along cul-
4 de-sacs and against the Urban Separate and'east edge parks such as Wiseman. We would
5 like to hear from the Commission and the public (we held a neighborhood meeting with
6 the Paula Lane area several months ago) is what is felt to be appropriate? For example,
7 nothing smaller than 2 acres? What you have seen in the past with that type of
8 development is clustering such ,as Victoria and'Rockridge, which continues the cluster
9 concept to some extent. Do you see any policies that relate toi the continuance of that
10 opportunity of clustering or the possibility of increasing density to allow 1 acre lots?
11 What benefit would be met? Or, as requested by some Paula Lane residents, consider
12 ignoring this area-and recognizing that 2-acre densities without urban services could be
13 addressed in some way the General Plan either through.an amendment to pull in
14 the Urban,Growth Boundary in 2018 (could be set in motion within the text of the
15 General Plan), or, with the retention of very low densities.. It does not.yield a great deal
16 of the population projection:numbers, but it does offer the opportunity to provide some
17 additional residential development with the Urban Growth Boundary. We would be glad
18 to listen to concerns and opinions. This was a really hard struggle for the in-house team.
19
20 Commissioner Barrett: How would;you,assess this in terms of what,was just said? Is this
21 project that was just handed to;the Commission to look at, within the.westem edge area?
22 .
23 Pamela Tuft: No, that was Petaluma Boulevard North. In previous:.discussions with the
24 Commission we hearq'yery clearly direction to reduce the densities, not looking at high
25 densities within the corridor..
26
27 A brief discussion ensued on subarea delineations (westerns hills versus Petaluma
28 Boulevard North).
29
30 Commissioner McAllister: Doesn't this •discussion. somehow sneak into the rural
31 residential area discussion,,which also applies to portions of Petaluma.Boulevard North.
32
33 Pamela Tuft: Yes, but we .assumed that the discussion held by the Commission on
34 Petaluma Boulevard addressed the topics of densities but Was more in context with the
35 corridor, streetscape and the ridge to the west.
36 .
37 Commissioner McAllister: Sometimes:it is hard tothink this is global with one density.
38 Right now that is how it is articulated in the Alternatives, with the same color. Our
39 discussion tonight could apply the same thinking.
40
41 Commissioner von.Raesfeld: If you take Rockridge Point for example, in the context of
42 this new General Plan, and the new Zoning Ordinance to follow very shortlyy after, we
43 need a more sophisticated hillside ordinance or development standard. The little formula
44 we.have is really.strange.
45
46 George White: It doesn't really talk about developing hillsides.
47
48 Commissioner von.Raesfeld: It never talks about the true impacts. You could still end
49 up with a houseon top of a hill in the middle of a large viewshed; which is what bothers
S:Wdminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PCMinutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 17
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27,2004
1 people most It is probably more ofa"development standard or an ordinance issue,-but we
2 can't have the'discussion in that'vacuum because it,is frustrating to look at thatordinance
3 and realizethat is all we haveto use and 20 years ofobscure-history. It is time fix that,
4 with a policy or goalit-Mho General Plan. '
5
6 Commissioner=Barrett: :Concur; it is a:source,of frustration: Since theiZoningOrdinance
7 is being looked at simultaneously,that a policy that::sets out strict:hillside development:
8 Also, with an idea or statement, that the Zoning regulations should be tightened in
9 order to make sure that this policy can be implemented. Not o my would:the ridgeline
10 development be part of the Zoning: Ordinance' that needs to be looked at, but also
11 protection of■existing trees from:develop t ent. 'Not,only'that they should be protected
12 from'development,but protected during development.
13
14. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Following up on that, the regulations can,get into the
15 massing ofbuildings. This notion that hillside development is building flat;pads for 5000
16 squaregfoot homes is this side of ridiculous; and we°call t.hillside+development. I have
17 seen more'articulation"than that. Theateeper thelot is, the mere mandatory tharindeds to,
18 be.
19
20 Commissioner Asselineier: Concur with that position; Rockridgei did really provide an
21 interesting example: We heard from a member'of the'public, living in the Victoria area,
22 that did not understand how large.those homes`would be,andhow they would•loom over -
23 some of the Victoria`homes We need to Mve the-tools to help design-these projects,so
24 that we don't have Mtge masses of structures overlooking existing''homes' This touches
25 upon theiconceptof feathering. If.'the applicants;take"the position that,ihey'need to'getx
26 number'of homes out of it and the homeseneed to ber super sized, have areal concern
27 about that It;is not in keeping with'the existing`character of these neighborhoods. Paula
28 Lane was another good example: A couple of the'points are we need-to look at the
d;
29 concept of feathering a lot harder. Woul favor, in,part, clustering if it allowed us to,
30 have wildlife corridors especially along the'UGB.,'We are clustering somerd'evelopments,
31 we.havesome'ways, o'protectscenic viewsheds, to allow public access. .Also in favor of
32 limitations to the size of homes on hillsides that are so prominent, such as those at.the
33 south entrance of the City (Country Club). You can see those,from the other side of
34 town, and from Sonoma Mountain. That!is not what the community•needs when we
35 articulated,some.oiour CGuiding Principles and we sayipreserve'and enliance Petaluma's
36 historic character and:our distinct settingiin our region. If we:had"some more tools,and
37 policies that would,allow us to take the big homes off the hillsides, not everyone wants.to
38 see,them, theyrwould rather see the:ridgelines; most people. Would like to:see us work
39 harder to develop the hillside development ordinance to give better tools to,get a better
40 result:
41
42 Comiiiissione }McAllister` Concur with Commissioner-von Raesfeld's.earlier..conirnents
43 on degrading architecture and also with Commissioner Barrett's'",comments on tree
44 preservation. See so many applications where it is very obvious that tree preservation is
45 an afterthought. Would like that to be an expectation, w e define in the ZoningOrdinance
46 that existing trees will be preserved. Not every single necessarily pine tree; there are
47 obviously'sometrees that are of huge`value,'that could be left-to the Tree•Committee
48 to work on—what are thoseeexisting trees of value such',as the oaks,native vegetation and
49 those things we should notbe.`losing. It's really difficult,as a Pl`aniiing Conuilissioner, to
S`.WdminstrationWrchivesNC Minutes 2002-2004\PQMinuies 04\072704'Planning Commission Meeting Notes:doe, 'Page..1$
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27,2004
1 get these applications and be,put in`the position of,trying•;to liegthe developer to save a
2 few more trees, when honestly that should have;been an.expectation at the onset. That is
3 not clearly defined,. of the recent,developers even stated that we don't have a tree
4 ordinance, no clear definitions: .Possibility of combining tree and hillside standards.
5 Think the idea,of identifying,clear goals and,guiding principles;is really important. On
6 feathering andclustering do notsupport large-homes On small lots. One major concern
7 is how'the outlying lands could potentially; and some:havealready,been developed with
8 • super ized homes on small lots. There should be some sort of ratio developed. It really
9 affects people with smaller homes; and rural lots and they prefer the open. space.
10 Sometimes that isn't just bare land; ibis the feel of the whole neighborhood, with larger
11 lots and small homes. There is more of a feeling of openness there: When someone
12 comes in and plots out a group of small lots and places.large homes,on them, it really
13 changes the scale.of;the,neighborhood. Alot of times, we've,heard from the public that
14 they don't like that; it changes•the scale,of their neighborhood,;and it's,a-negative impact
15 to them. They don't,particularlywantto supersize their:home;,they have a more modest
16 sized home and it isn't impacting the neighborhood., There;needs to be some sort of
17 parameters.set up. ,Recognize that large homes arebecoming an American trend; while
18 our average family size gets smaller, we should be able to address that impact: It is a
19 matter of preserving the ambience of our.perimeter;lands: Not as troubled with granny
20 units, small additional units.being put on these lots;,.butthe large homes are a huge visual
21 impact to the neighborhoods.
22
23 Commissioner Barrett:, One item tossed out for discussion, rural density. We have heard
24 that clustering homes,preserves scenic and wildlife co rridors,ias a plus side. Another
25 Commissioner opinion addressed'the enormous homes on small Jots that overwhelm an
26 area. Questions the 2 acres;per:dwelling unit as a solution, versus the efficient use of
27 land resources. That does .keep" things open and we are talking about the edge of
28 Petaluma. Since we cannot'have a 300' corridor likethe eastside has, because things are
29 already developed; perhaps;that is the best way.of keeping that area open,and.respecting
30 the open space and the,neighborsthat:are already there.
31
32 Commissioner McAllister: Is it possible to have granny units.owthe rural 2 acreaots?
33
34 George White: Yes, maximum of 640 square feet.
35
36 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Is the"City thinking about amending that to reflect State
37 law?
38
39 George White: It is consistent with State law:. It is just a tighter standard,. State law
40 allows up to 1200 square feet. Amending it could be:som ething,the City couldlookinto:
41
42 Commissioner.McAllister: They wouldn't be under separate ownership but there could
43 be two dwelling units on every 2-acre parcel.
44
45 Commissioner.von.Raesfeld: Or smaller, you don't need,two acres to do that (add an
46 accessory unit) City wide. Going from what Commissioner Barrett said, couple of
47 thoughts on this area ,having grown up in the western hills, spent whole life in that part of
48 town. From perspective, we are balancing two things; one; part of the reason for
49 grappling and becoming coinfortable with.things and densities like what CPSP has, to
s:\Adminstraiion\Archives\PC Minutes-20022004\PCMinutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting,Notes.doc Page 19
Planning Commission Minutes-July27, 2004
1 balance that with what happens at the edge and what happens with the UGB and
2 everything else. Think>it is a dangerous discussion to have, thatall'densities need to go
3 upl dialogue in a vacuum: Because; the western hills' 'are a significant, predominant,
4 natural feature of the aesthetic of'what we call Petaluma. See!it basically as a valley
5 defined by the Sonoma Mountains to the east, and these western'.hills to;the west. Was
6 prepared to accept or sacrifice historic;densities in the^central coreaforthe`preservation,of
7 that.. When we have a:dialogue that says; for example,what,we are• discussing in the
8 Paula°Lane neighborhood, get up to speed like:other comntunities and densify this area-
9 it is not working. That the tradeoff with.;the CPSP 'don't;look,at those separately.
10 Yes,there is probably a;margin to havewa sliding scale that looks at a slight-increase'in • ..
11 density,,but, this `wholesale over the 'next 25 years; just bump:'up the`densities; and
12 doesn't make sense. Especially in this area when in fact we're'talking about dancing
13 across the ridgelines,of what we call the western hills. It:-is.alreadyhappening++around the
14 Petaluma Golf and Country Club, and around parts of Victoria, Most of Victoria,
15 whether,it was luck or wisdom, was stuck in the}valleylitt there are,:pieces of it that creep
16 up to=the hilltops. In summary„you can't look at them in a vacuum, it was'a balancing
17 act,-and`it`was there for lotstof reasons:
18
19 .Commissioner Asselmeier: Perhaps it istworth;some further discussion, "if"we are going
20 to increase densities; What 'that would mean on the ground, in-terms of clustering,.
21 protecting'viewsheds and wildlife corridors, less liardscape, less earth movement Would
22 like to believe thereis an architectural design solution'that would allow all ofthose things.
23 to,happen and would.be willing to Consider 'some minimal increase in density if at
24 applicant came,forward and offered something that was really superior in those things:,
25 Otherwise,don't really see much change;don't€see that we need to'_increase±the densities
26 on the edge. We;have other opportunities that.we-might consider:
27
,28I Pamela Tuft: Perhaps under certain ci'rcumstances,:like a density>bonus of normore'than
29 x', ifsomething-quantifiable;was tprovided?
30
31 Commissioner•Asselmeier:, There might some sort of reward, in,that way of a slight
32 liuriip providedthatotherpolicyolijectives were-,met
33
34 Commissioner Barrett: Agree withiCommissioner von Raesfeld;,:it is quid pro quo:, We
35 are giving densities'downtown„in order to maintain the and open'^space on the
36 edge. Particularly on the west-side=where we,do not have the 300'corridor and have no
37 hope of,getting the300' corridor,.feathering just doesn't work; because,;feathering:works
38 'because you are giving, City the 300' of open, unobstructed space. So, you feather
39 -into it,. you can't do that here, we just don't, have'that open.space, so you has to be
40 ;maintained: The Sunset,area (previous to the fast General Plan)'is the anomaly that
41 everyone,says, we don't .want that. Commissioner Asselmeier's point that perhaps we
42 could give a little more if they do'the right thing. That plugslinto'what.Commissioner
43 McAllister and von Raesfeld were ,talking about having architectural guidelines that fit
44' the topography: If-you have this kind;of land, you:have"to give^,designs that respect what
45 is there, so even'if yo fhave;mere than one reuse per2::acres, itdoesnttlebk like it. •
46
47 ,.Commissioner von R'aesfeld':, On'the architectural issue, unfortunately good architecture
48 is nearly 'impossible to legislate through ordinance. You need talented and visionary
49 -people, you don't need text to do that, sometimes you get lucky. If you:look at„two
S:CAdniinstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004'C Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc, Page 20
Planning,Commission'Minutes—July 27, 2004 •
•
1 recent western hills projects, at the extreme Rockridge.Point and the other, the recent
2 project on Sunset and Paula Lane that this Commission 'denied. \ery'different projects
3 with entirely different circumstances'other than'they're probablywithin a,mile and a half
4 of each other, they•had very little else in common. In both cases looking at them from the
5 architectural prospective, density was a 'critical component but it wasn't critical' in a
6 vacuum. Density in those kinds of projects is in thei context of the qualitative
7 characteristics, the architectural solution, of the project. To sit here and have the vacuous
8 discussion about how-many units per acre are we going to' live as a Commission is a
9 flawed process, to talk about density in the ahsence of architecture,at least in the-absence
10 of land planning and design. Unfortunately, we see that happening, maybe that is how
11 we have historically set the table,but it has to be in the context of the quality of the
12 solution proposed. Cannot say what an acceptable density is without seeing the plan,
13 seeing the quality of the homes and the sizes of the lots. There will be a threshold where
14 the number of houses i's'just too many; but asking what.the'threshold is in the absence of
15 the quality of the architecture, as an architect, isian irrelevant question. It is an important
16 question, but it is onlya half of a question.
17
18 Commissioner McAllister: Do you agree that the size of the homes is an issue, relative to
•19 lot sizes?
20
21 Commissioner von Raesfeld: When speaking in terms of the quality of land planning and
22 aesthetics, a huge part of that is clearly size. Ten thousand square foot homes on four
23 thousand square foot lots,which is achievable — you can do more than that`in Japan is
24 ridiculous on the urban edge: Not suggesting that but that is a component of the solution.
25 What is the size of the volume in the context, call it an FAR discussion.
26
27 Pamela Tuft: We have heard clear direction from.at least four of the Commissioners
28 regarding density in the western hills. Strong. sense that the Commission does not.
29 support an increase in density unless it is through very specific design consideration, and
30 even then the incremental increase is equally small.
31
32 Commissioner von Raesfeld: There has to be some accompanying qualitative
33 advancement, it is not justin a vacuum.
34
35 Commissioner Asselmeier: Could SPARC weigh in on that (i.e.: if the design was
36 superior, if this is the kind of thing that could occur)?
37
38 Pamela Tuft: We could discussithe possibilities with the CDD team and the,.General'Plan
39 consultant to see what we could propose as a policy that would be implementable through.
40 the new development standards; as Commissioner' Rose has stated, it needs to be
41 implementable,in a clear and'succinct manner by the CDD Department over the next 20
42 years. We hear the strong..momentumithat the Commission is not interested,,even on the
43 flatter areas, goiiigthi a density that would allow t/4 acre lots; you are still looking at much
44 less dense. We will"carry that'forward into the Preferred Land Use Plan.
45
46 Commissioner Barrett:. In response to what wasjust asked,about SPARC, because the
47 land use issue is key, if any deference is going to be given to.SPARC, it will have to be in
48 the instance where the development would have, to go to SPARC first, before the
49 Commission could give awaythe'density. ^r -
S:'Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes'2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 21
Planning Commission Minutes—July-27, 2004
.
2 Commissioner von Rãesfeld In the•context of what was said about 'A acre,lots; say for
3 example; you are lookinglat 10"acres: Reluctant to say nothing less than 1/41,acre lots, if
4 oneof the:proposals'ist 1/8 acre lots.but 5-acres left over for open space.. It's,has4o be a
5 whole piece, thatis the quality of design, what are the other pieces:
6
' 7 Commissioner McAllister: A lotof ithasto de with.the texture and:how that fits into the
8 overall context of the setting. For instance, if'there'lhad been a.proposal:on Paula:Lane
9 whichreally wove.an extensive:amount of open space,they didn't have to,,be 2-acre lots,
to to match more the texture of that particular site; that would have been much more
11 palatable than how it was laid out It would be more positive beginning point, rather than
the way it was laid out.
13
14 Commissioner von.Raesfeld: More like a quilt. Would like to state that;rural,ranchettes.
15 are not:,the solution either. You get a 5-acre piece with a,white picket "fence; they can't.
16 mow the weeds because three people:have to work just to pay the mortgage;iithat's not•the
17 design solution either.
18
19 Commissioner McAllister: Keeping the context is the key, keep.hearingthat throughout
20 the public hearing process on these: projects. People are really concerned about the
21 context. They are where theyare because:of-a;certain ambience. Understand that,,lives
22 close to;downtown:for the:same reason. You'.havp to situate yourself in a'particular place;
23 that works for you If I had ai.five-story office.building across the street, would be upset
24 about,it, but something similar or a little more dense would be fine.
25
26 ,Chay Moore: Resident of Victoria. Hearing about density and feathering, Wouldlike to
27 go on record. They met with:the Davidorndeveloper, a question that was;;asked of him,
28 because we know that the proposal was'to build,large homes on hillsides; what happens if
29 the process got delayed. He said that it,wouldn't matter, because, his proposal was
30 submitted under the old General.Plan. Its sounds like the new General Plan will be more
31 sophisticated, how would that:proposed development fall into the,guidelines; if there are
32 no guidelines for hillside development? Hear that the proposed development is'in,that
33 gray area Hearing the discussion'on feathering'and less density on the outskirts, don't
34 know how theproposalwill respond to what is being discussed.
35
36 George White: Technically, the proposal is;subjectto this General Plan,but he is also
37 proposing a Planned:Unit Development. It-is really how the Planning Commission views
38 this project. They can`propose any sort of revision that they want'to impose on the
39 project. 'He is°right;in the sense that',the density';is probably pretty much what
40 General.Plan,but anything besides that, is fair game.
41
42 Ms. Moore: OK, butas far as how to:buildta bighorne on"a steep lot?
43
44 George White:- The standards don't exist ,today, but-that doesn't mean the Planning
45 Commission couldn't propose them;on this project. Not saying`that„they will Sure;that
46 the developer will,argue'that point;but it will be up to this Commission to determine
47 whether that is:acceptableo_r;not. , . .
48
49 Commissioner On Raesfeld: We'curreiitlycalculate density'on gross acreage. That line
'S:\Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes'2002-2004\PC Minutes.04\072704,Planning Commission Meeting Notes:doe Page,22
Planning Commission Minutes—;July 27, 2004
I can get blurred when you'start talkingabOut the square footage of a finished lot.
2
3 George White: Density doesn't necessarily relate to the""size of a lot. Density is just a
4 way of expressingunits,per acre.
5
6 Susan Kirks: Paula Lane neighborhood. Stories from her neighborhood, shared with the
7 Commission. Farm properties,with homes from thedate:1'800's,and early 1900's. Part of
8 being in the County and having•the agriculturaldesignation,but also considering property
9 owner's rights—there is an opportunity to develop in the County at one house per 2 acres.
10 Generally most of the 'people in the neighborhood would support with a complete
11 environmental review of such a plan. The neighborhood would like. to have been
12 involved in the 2001 visioning process but were busy at that timein the opposition phase
13 (to the proposed development). Later it.transformed-to thinking what'if they had been.the
t4 property owner. What about all who have to live with the impactsr,that are presented with
15 the proposal. The voluminous documentation, we do have:an alternative„plan that they
16 hope the developer will begin to move toward. There is some indication that is a
17 possibility. When talking about building in the neighborhood though,they really want to
18 preserve the rural atmosphere and the wildlife. Waiting now to see what will be
19 displaced, what will survive:, Have seen significant increasestin raptor.nesting in.the area
20 Related to that, when talking about development; attended the Tolay Lake tour: In the
21 Paula Lane corridor, total'27 acres, they have 10 special status animals (mammals, birds,
22 etc.). Natural resources on the'edge,'of the City are worth preserving. We are focusing on
23 the history of the neighborhood and"the;natural.resources. Very much appreciate being
24 heard. When you build in that area„you bring noise, light and glare. Looking north,and
25 west, at night it is totally dark. People, come.into the neighborhood at night to walk.
26 Even at 2 acre density, ifyou•develop, even the ecosystem that has existing for 100 years
27 would all be lost They are continuing on their path and appreciate consideration of
28 contraction of the UGB,to ezchide their;neighborhood.
29
30 John-Morgenstern: Victoria resident; regarding Commission's review of the'Davidon
31 property. Declaration suggests that there should be a playing field there, interested in
32 Commission opinion. 'How does a member of the community suggest that be given
33 consideration. - , •.
34 . .
35 Pamela Tuft:. Please contact, Jim,.Carr, Parks & Recreation •Director or attend a
36 Recreation, Music &ParksCommission meeting to express?interest on that subject.
37 r
38 Susan..Cheeterstrom Victoria "resident. Following the Davidon project for a year
39 Dismayed,about letter from Davidon in January,2004,to the City the City does not
40 _have a hillside street standard, therefore they:Would be working:with the;City standards,
41 which dictate widths,xradii and-sidewalks.,,Working'with the;topography, that concerns
42 their neighborhood. .They.realized-that;theeCitydid not have a hillside ordinance,,support
43 the concept of development standards. ,Regarding•trees the site contains 452 trees (4”
44 and over in diameter). The project'removes 63•trees, of significant size. Support a tree
45 ordinance:
46
47 Ira Bennett: Would like•to.emphasize from a developer's point of view. If you go.back
48 to the Riverview project where we talk.about trees. This is where it all begins. The
49 development;community can.adjust to-most anything that is rational; but not it's brought
S:\Adminstration\Archives\PC'Minutes 2002-2004\RGMinutes 04\072704-Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 23
Planning,Commission.Minutes-July;.27; 2004
1 up'at.the last minute; it doesn't work I_f, in the General Plan, you clearly.state-principles
2 that,translate out in the future to,ordinance;policies and design,.guidelines;then 5-years
3 before we bring in a project, when,we negotiate to buy a property:. is a business; we
4 pnceat in=so'if the/General Plan,says we can get 4 units to the.acre, but=you can't really
5 because the ordinance says this, this and this has to happen to preserve coriimunity
6 stricture and design so Wei will account for it. But we can't account forlit inthe.5'-years
7 after when we're at-the,end of,the process;.there is not equity in that process. Some of
8 my 'colleagues,there are reactions to this, so you hear the same: speech over and over
9 again." Do"it, but just,do it here and_now. This is where it starts, and,if'it doesn't start
10 here,;:itcan'tereally start=anywhere. After,thefact; catch up, doesn;twork; On that score,
11 abonf.having an applicantgo'to SPARC"first.. This applicant, if you put a gunto:myhead
12 and said go to SPARC first, I would tell you to shot. In having'the discussion, the
13 ,Commission talked.about'how you would like to see a great upping in the&qualitative .
14 design and;standards but what you were;expressing is that you'would Anow itwlenyou
15' see it --that doesn't work :either: That is the:Luke Skywalker approach - the force be
16 with you;, kind of'thing, We cannot design something for 2 years, then be sent away
17 without;clear guidelines of what we-should come back with 'S'aying we will know it
18 'when we?see,it doesn't work and it; even legal. What is suggested tonight, on`.-how to
19 raise,thebar for design,is an,incredibly daunting task,,.to`put it down into regulatory text..
20 Most communities, even those who have tried, have fallen way'short of the,goals, the
21 Commission has stated you would like to.see expressed in the General Plan: Haven't a
22, clue-howyou get there,,something tostrivefor,
23
24 Commissioner von:Raesfeld:; It is darn difficult,because there are"" always Marginally
25 ,competent designers m the community'who will'be hired'because"they'ate'the cheapest.
26 Not suggestingyou, there:aredevelopers who hitetthe.cheapest.
27
28 Ira Bennett:. Commended the Commission;for making the effort; You really need`to do_
29 the heavy lifting. Everyone talks about General Plans starting the effort; but ter shy
30 away. Somehowrdown the road Ordinances will take care ofit,'but they have to start
31 withfsoine guiding'pnncipleS;;andthisris Where 'Thanked theCominrssioneis:
32 '
33 Councilmember^Torliatt;: Appreciate:the:effort, when;reviewing"an application it is very
34 difficult;;;you see different things but it1s basic principles that you look,at when you look
35 at an application; different things'for different projects. You talk about Paula'-Lane
36 versus:Rockridge, very:different,projectsl ut,sametgereral area..'Orierettheitrnng`s that'is
37 very important that we don't necessarily/get-km eypry application is a site constraints map
38 that is very/clear about the,specific site constraints!are, whether it is mature'trees,
39 which is something you are batting around'• here. The Tree Advisory Committee is
40 looking:into^creating some sort of ordinance to deal'with,mature trees, even if they're-not
41 the that/Ike/Want to`keep rn the community,because'they're not so healthy and:they
42 only have ,20 "years left, or, if they are not native trees, they still provide a,cfiaracfer,
43 particularly',on the west 'side: Even on the east side,,there are,.some, extremely Mature
44 trees, as;you come into town; They create a huge quality of life issue.'When Someone is
45 looking at developing,lots and they're'taking downthe-mature threes, and replacing'them
46 with small trees, it'just isn't,' same. From site constraints,,maybe you need to look,at
47 themature`tree issue. The plannmg documents,;floodp1'ain issues, water recharge areas: I
48 don't know'if werreally+get a map that shows all o"fthe site constraints' Then you work
49 fonn.thesite'constrdints map backwards. L`hav';&foundthat to.be"a%diffictiltand,.daunting
$:\Adminstra[ionWrcfiivesV'C Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704.Planning Commission,MeetmgNOtes:doc' Page 24
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27, 2004
•
, 1 :task. CommissionerAsselmeier and McAllister:;have talkedaabouf the mcmansion issue,
2 is'what it has+been coined,.in other communities. We'don't have to necessarily reinvent
3 the wheel, other communities-have dealt,with=the issue: We-haven't gotten;to it yet, but I
4 guarantee that we Will=get,fo'it within;the next 20 years,-under the General Plan process.
5 As Ira said telhus What.the.constraints are at the front end;on those types of issues so,
6 we're not'facing when the development is being proposed,, with no control because
7 nothing is in place. Think=a:hillside ordinances needed, we all recognize that, because
8 of the.problems thatwe"had withRockrdige•Point: Would like to,push the Commission
9 hard to .put something, in ,place. Also think one of the issues discussed with the
10 development alongahe.wes`t side is.tharthe-developers are not coming in with a variety of
11 sizes in homes. There-are no 1300 square foot homes,,proposed next to a 2500 square
12 foot that has a 3500.squareifoot;home, then.two 1200'square;foot homes. "You're getting
13 big 2800 —3500,square;foot homes right stacked next to each-other,from a marketing
14 standpoint. .Some'ofthe character that goes into the west,side development, where we
15 have 1200 square foot:homes going for a.lot of dollars; and they'are still getting the
16 market price. They-could build smaller homes and still might get that price for it,
17 depends on the quality of the design;and how if's incorporated`into.the-development. We
18 don't see the variation in sizes; how to say that is something,we want to see. .Haven't.
' 19 talked about access 'along 'the urban,separator along the west, side, haven't heard 'a
' 20 consensus about that issue:; In the Westridge area, there has been some really valid
21 attempts and actual,paths created along the urban separator that isn't really there. The
22 Bicycle Committee has made'some headway there,,but the General.Plan is an opportunity
23 to at least say, if not 300', at least access should be provided as'the:lots develop on the
24 west side, even if it's on.a parcel by`parcel basis. Also, on the tree issue, one thing we
25 will face, along Gossage,and`the,annexation area within the,hIGB, outsid'e`the'City, when
26 developers start going parcel by parcel, we will see things like' what happened on
27 Magnolia: mature trees are cut down`under County regulations — ag,exemptions. Don't.
28 know how we work with the County prior to;a developer buying a lot, clearing, it and
29 saying ooh well, there are no more trees here — no site constraints: That is'_something we
30 will see in this area. About telling developers-at'the front=end-solar. We tried to put in
31 a solar policy about'four'years.,ago, how the infrastructure needsto be in pine in homes,
32 or mandatory requirements,of including solar in a portion, or percentage of development.
33 We need to look at the long-term usage;.of electricity and sustainability"and where we are
34 going in the future:
35
36 Soria Taylor: In this particular area,..as you think about a hillside ordinance, think about
37 flat-padding. Flat_padding'is something that has been a,horrendous problem in Santa
38 Rosa. There actually is a policy:in the General Plan that prohibits flat-padding`that;has
39 been waived on numerous. occasions. Flat-padding; creates the-stair-stepped look as
40 opposed to a more natural`look. 'Something you might want to,consider for.the-General
41 Plan.
42
43 David Keller ,Appreciate the Commission's and staff's depth to-.work through this
44 There is a paradox on:one.hand, as the developer wants predictable rules ahead of time,
45 there never was;a-20-year plan. Obviously it will change over time. There is a feedback
46 loop in General Plans;,and generally seen as non-compliance, legal non-compliance, or
47 amendments. It is a document that is living and breathing,.there needs to be a feedback,
48 loop built in "so that we can see how we are doing. Would love to see some kind of
49 policy, every year a meeting is held by the Planning Commission to'see how the General
S`.\Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 12002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission'Meeting Notes.doc' Page 25
Planning Commission:Minutes—July27, 2004
1 Plan is-doing: So we don''t leave it to ad hoc amendments::which;are usually. project
2 driven. So=if the developer':wants the rules°.ahead of time, fine,,'then no amendments;•but
3 that work either way,,it:has to be flexible:' Don't take it as such a daunting task,
4 trying totget everything in it;as:much as'settingthe stage torget as much as possible into
5 it With that;are things like in this area, how aretheielevations in the water`service area?,
6
7 Parnela Tuft`. :There have been,constraints identified, particularly with provision of'fire
8 service. That`has heen,identified in,thewater:resources.analysis.. ' >
9 ,
io David'Keller: Also;,fire';response dines shave'•.been,identified'in.vai7ous=a easiofthe;.west
it edge, nowhere close the requisite 6'minutes: You haveto figure out how that's going:to
12 be done;;6;minutes for medical service. The other pieces in thereof,public:infrastructure:
13 school.sites, unlesssAhe:schools are saying they will take themsall;that is apiece of public
14 infrastructure that needsito be carvedoutnow. As well as°the pathways; connections,'the
15 parks and`the streets, or are the;parcels;are going to be left haphazard do become cul=de=
16 sacs:off of an access street'that already exists:or•will it beia;new street network? 'How
17 ..does this connectivity happen?- That leads to: is;this'whole area on,the'west,side,strictly
18 driven byproject by project? If*it is driven byproj ect applications,'then yes, evey parcel
19 is not ;going~ to be connected to the next parcels unless you mandate pathways;
20 connections and roadways that go, through. Again,, without having a comprehensive
21 sense of what is going.on there, iii terms•of,,the public infrastructure, it is hard to?-plan,
22 that, but.it will be worse;to:take:icon parcel by parcel. Another'question ,how do we
23 know that-this annexation should happen? Yes, if'it is in the,UGB, but know that Allele:
,24 are,a-number.of parcel owners•who do notwant to:bethe City, whoiare willing to'forego
25 the City,services: There are othersthatwant to come"in as,weltas developers.who.aren't
26 yet here who4ill want'to come into enjoythe benefits of the municipal services What
27 is the actual process'by which-these western hills:come into-the City Would like to.see
:28. 'some.of the decision making:for the,,General Plan, whether in the General'Plan callingfor
29 :a Specific Plan. If not, where are the connections?
:30
31 Comments on fragmented extension of City services. No way the City can;affor&to pay
32 :upfront the coordination of1he services; nor is there away for people who don't want-
33 ;annexation, services, lighting, traffic,, improvements who is!across the street from
34 development parcels. What is,created is a bunch.of islands. The"pressure is now'for
35 everyone to annex whether they want to or not,whether they pay for the improvements or
'36} not Where:does,drainage, sidewalks,.streets schools paths, corridors go? Need tothave
37 a-coordinated fashion of how. to deal with annexations, who is in,who is out, with the
,38, property owners having;a:rationale choice licit, or it=will.:be:a:total patchwork ofpothol'e
39 city. That's again, why:Sunnyslope was done the"wayit was Until the entire unit.came•
40 in, by vote, the City said;no. We have theistandards, we have the zoning, we have'a
41 proposal of what it is going to look like„but the City said no The City would not
42 annexation just oneproject(Condiotti)„'Who will pay for the new water tank, new water
43 service:lines:(not+one property owner'andmot the rate;payer).. That's,:a°ratepayer lawsuit
44 ,don't want:topay forftt, not servinghis property Not good public or fiscaltpolicy •
45
46 Would be -nice to require in the General Plan, that developments, would have a •
47 :pos"ter/billboard, which:shows the site plan,:story poles; project'coining: Notusually. in
48 this country, time to put it in the General. Plan; along the Site constraints map; As
49 Counoilmeinber Torliatt discussed, in terms of'mcmansions; you should have a-policy
S:Wdminstration Archives\PCMinutes 20022004\PClMinutes 04`,072704 Planning Commission!Meehng Notes:doc Page 26
Planning CommissionMinutes;—July 27, 2004
1 amendment about teardowns. Other communities in the Bay Area,'where-neighborhoods
2 are being torn apart,:,because of mcmansions coming in and totally overwhelm the area.
3
4 Geoff Cartwright: A lot.of what'Mi. Keller•was talking'about, is.where'you were going,
5 you don't want to see these projects in a vacuum" The drainage.issue has developed a
6 sucking sound all,of its own. The Mann Creek is where all of the development in the
7 west hills drains. It connects'to the Liberty Creek, and Willowbrook Creek which forms
8 the Petaluma River. We know about the problems,with the flooding that has occurred
9 starting up at Leisure Lake and going on down" Wondering about the possibility of
10 detention ponds, which would need a calculation on peak,flood convergence. We have
11 all of these creeks, and more, all of these timings from.these'.flows are crucial in the
12 flooding issues. There needs to be some,kind of way to control the runoff from these
13 projects before it gets 10 feet from them. Then there needs to be the timing of that so
14 there isn't resulting in+convergent peak flows from the various:creeks. In the Mann
15 Creek watershed itself there are several ,major. creeks that form_ that. So, there are
16 different converging issues on all of those, as well ,as When it gets down to the
17 Willowbrook area. There heeds to be some sort of regulation,-control, some means of
18 monitoring as well how,these'flows go down because we'do'.have a flooding problem in
19 Petaluma. The issue of water recharge areas was mentioned. There is the California
20 Department of Water Resources:study, done in the late 1980s, and all of that is mapped.
21 You can take that and lay it on the maps, that is available: Keller mentioned that with
22 these piecemeal developments, you would have trouble ;getting services, or getting to
23 • services (hospital, police:access)" Remind everyonerthat"Rainier should not be counted
24 on for that since it will be filled up with all of the development that is planned in the
25 floodplain.
26 •
27 Tom Corbett: Victoria homeowner. Don't think anyone who has spoken tonight is from
28 the `B" Street. area Davidon is developing directly adjacent to his home. The
29 overwhelming presence of big homes looking down on„srnaller homes, they are looking
30 to develop right alongthe back fences, which will look.down onto their homes” They
31 will lose their views,,but are more concerned with their-privacy and the ambiance, which
32 has been mentioned several times tonight. This'is one of those examples, faced in
33 Rockridge Point, they are planning homes which are going to radically change the
34 character of homes along B Street. Wanted to gcr on -record of supporting
35 Commissioners' efforts to incorporate into the General Plan.something• that addresses
36 changing the complete nature of'a neighborhood With another project" Support other
37 things said tonight regarding parks; connections, extending Helen Putnam Park to "D"'
38 Street, supported by everyone in Victoria. ,Davidon is:planning=a;pathway fro D to Helen
39 Putnam along;Kelley Creek" Would to see the;whole site a park,but given
40 that is probably?not,going;to fly:. Recognize -OOP wants the money from the donated
41 property. To the extent that;we can control the number and sizes of the'homes, so they
42 don't overwhelm and tower over existing, homes" Say all this, because we have an
43 opportunity to raise the bar on this planning process. Recognize that it is a living
44 document and it, must; change over time, it still needs;some"of the guidelines spoken
45 about If the Guiding Principles,are:used to develop the guidelines•"based on this-process,
46 then we will get'there: Support the Commission in that effort„ please include larger
. 47 homes looking.down on snialler.homes.
48
49 -
S:\Adniinstration\Archives)PEMinutes 200212004\P,C Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Ndtes.doc. .Page.27
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes-July 27, 2004 I • ,
•
1 North McDowell Boulevard
2
3 Commissioner Barrett: Torpiggyback on Commissioner von Raesfeld'stcomments on the.
4 -last'topic„you can''tJegislatesarchitecture. Whatever goes on thatstreethas to look better,
5 has to have a better address to the street. Like:the effect of an off-street bicycle path,
6 would like:toi sae it lengthened..
T
8 Commissioner'von.Raesfeld:. Most of issues have to do with the northwestern' reach.
9 There:;is;no there —there, there is no;neighbohood. Somehow, somewhere.we,'need to.
10 insert a neighborhood: Whether at the:intersection.of Corona, not necessarily referencing
11 the:typical Calthorpian neighborhood. There isithe:post office floating*outahere with the
12 fire-station,and a bunch of business parks'and-afew stores,.but there is no neighborhood.,
13
14 Commissioner- McAllister: There 'seems 'that, the comer- of Corona Road is is an
15 opportunity, identified in the report, to do esomething better than'what has been:done in
16 ,,the past :Another item; the connectivity as it relates to McDowell People;seem'to be
17 using the railroad right-of wayas a connection.. That signal is a real opportunity to,have
18 pathways;along:the creek'corridors.connect. Support•the intensification,of the ex isting
19 shopping centets,at East Washington and North'McDowell.
20
21 Geoff Cartwright: One reason you'don't havesa neighborhood,when'you get from Corona
22 north,;because that.is in the Denman Flats,floodplain and they didn't allow residential
23 type of development in that area That is why you have the hodgepodge type of
.24 ;development, Even:today, there are interestsdthat want to be annexed so'that they can do
25 more of that type of development up there: They have even been known to bring in
26 :deposits and place illegal`fill.
27
28 ,David Kellen There;is a neighborhood, the,industrial,park'and:offlee park, lifeless as.it is
,29 in modem; western development:.`It;does offer something, transient services by local bus
30 to serve,with 10_minute'headway; regular',routes, morning, lunch time.and evening to
31 'downtown. Money;to subsidize that is a pittance'compared•to what would'be spent'.on
32 Rainier. Likewise,,the other:end of the'transit services, the southern end.of=McDowell;
33 industrial. parks 'and.. apaitnlents down there, .could provide -a `;transit.connection to
34 downtown. Again, on;transportation, if you look at the orientation of what is developing
35 all the way around Sonoma-Mountain'Parkwayefrom the IC-back to McDowell, the:curve
36 improvements. It`has,dwindled to;al1ow it:not to be widened, it has;never been,done. It
37 needs to stay in the General,Planland;be improved with walkways: Thenrwhat youhave
38 is tremendous population that leads to:the,freeway, corona Interchange. Sat with
39 an engineer-in.Oregon, Kimberly Knox, she said Corona Road served the',connection.to
40 Sonoma.Mountain Parkway; which services thousands of residents;and businesses. As
41 Geoff was-saying,,sheet flow, if Willowbrook is channelized and the water is taken off
42 those properties, it will-increase the.,flooding 'downtown, it will increase the risk of 43 overtopping the.flood project in Payran, raS predicted by the Corps., FEMA is aware of
44 that, and'he has shared the.information_withsCity staff,
45
46 Roslyn Payne: Property owner MI Petaluma for over 30 years, not residents. Have been
47 involved in Petaluma,,most recently°with Ryder Homes on a project. Referred',to letters
48 written,by:David Bradley and,Allan;Brody regarding their property,on%Sonoma Mountain
49 Parkway and Corona Road,-wishing'to continue^the land designation as planned for in_the
S`.Wdmins[rationVvchivesU'C:Minutes 4002=2004\PCNlinutes 041072704 Planning Commission Meeting No[es.doc page 38
Planning Commission Minutes•—,'July,27,t2004
I Corona-Ely Specific Plan.. Presently'serves on-the State'of California Air Space Advisory
2 Committee. Observation that most communities in California generally do not get two
3 rail stations.
4
5 Lakeville Highway/Street
6
7 Pamela Tuft: A paper on'the Lakeville corridor was submitted to the Commission with
8 the meeting packet. It included a discussion on the intensification and redevelopment
9 opportunities. Referenced some research into mitigation fees assessed by some cities
10 against storage facilities to offset loss of employment and economic benefit to their
11 communities. Briefly summarized the content of the report.
12
13 Commissioner von Raesfeld: 'Look,at parts of the corridor, there was logic for excluding
14 it from the CPSP, but parts of it-seem like it should be part of the CPSP. 'Those areas that
15 do, in some ways it makes it easy, because we already have the document. The'areas
16 around Sunset Line and Twine, the old McPhails to the freeway overpass. The.freeway
17 creates such a defining separation between that and the remainder of the Lakeville
18 corridor. Tendency to say, although not formally in the CPSP, for the purpose of the
19 General Plan, should treat it the same. Makes the discussion easy, because the work has
20 been done. On the remainder; it has been saddled with similar'issues and challenges as
21 the north end of McDowell. That is,.they're.built out with what history will tell us, are
22 failed planning models of the 80's; but we got them.
23
24 Commissioner McAllister: Agree on the Lakeville Street piece. Another example of a
25 poorly designed streetscape. We don't really have'a good pedestrian:access along this
26 City entry. More detailed than we need to be, but that stretch needs to be looked at, a
27 plan for the image that>we'want to create, now that we've been left with the soundwalls,
28 industrial business park landscape, and.a mélange of different stuff. We should come up
29 with a statement of expectations as new development or redevelopment takes place, so
30 that what the community_expects to`see can happen. So that the whole street feels like an
31 entry rather than discordant.
32
33 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Two 'things that North McDowell and Lakeville share is
34 ,excluding,US 101, they are,the;old highways coming into the City: We always talk about
35 ` :Gateways,.but when a project occurs, we look at the existing General Plan see what-is
36 a'‘Gateway? The developer has an idea of two, flags and a couple of trees, and we have
37 this vision of something far grander than that: If we don't have the meat in the
38 documents to 'define our expectations, beyond a nice policy statement in the.General
39 Plan, we will get theishort end of the stick every time.
40
41 Commissioner Barrett: Again, pedestrian and bicycle access out there, recognizing that it
42 is a State Highway and a lot of works use that route; the Bike Committee has been
43 diligent in trying to make,it as safe as possible. That needs to be addressed to the extent
44 possible.
45
46 Commissioner,McAllister: That whole complex next to'the:Marina, perhaps a side route
47 parallel to the Highway. •
48
49 Pamela Tuft: Great connections being made through grant projects, to provide'a pathway
S:VAdminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 29
Planning Commission Minutes—July 27, 2004
1 from the downtown area,to the Marina and beyond to Shollenberger Park. Recently
2 toured,the path with the representatives of the Bay Area Ridge'Trail, Sonoma County Ag
3 Preservation.and Open Space, Marin Open Space District, and local citizens.
4
5 Commissioner McAllister: Feels that the connections are relatively close to being
6 achieved, it would certainly help.
7
8 Commissioner Asselmeier: Agrees, it-feels like a strip without integrity or unity. Seems,
9 for the most part, (Lakeville Highway portion) lose character. Supreme opportunity,
10 development is happening at a different pace than what we want for the .community.
11 Support extending the CPSP standards to a portion 'ofthe corridor closer to downtown.
12 Also,some isolated-developments have occurred, the apartment complexes::for exarnple.
13 There was an-effort to get some'localshopping opportunities in:th'e•area thmk that is still
14 an important concept. Otherwise, the residents in those apartments will have to get';into
15 their cars and needing:to come downtown or-up'to other shopping areas:for their needs
16 nothing is walkable. That is important, the whole area could use some kind of
17 comprehensive facelift, something to,give it some unity. A lot of different uses that have
18, happened along there, oyes time we might find something, to have more integrity,
19 something that hangs together better. Crossing Lakeville Highway — don't know the
20 solution, perhaps doing something-above ground. It is imperative that people from those
21 communities have an opportunity to get:safely-across Lakeville to get;into Shollenberger.
22 That-should be a very high-priority for the community; in terms of integrating that part of
23 •Petaluma into the other side,becauseditreally is separated.
24
25 Commissioner Barrett: In that section from Highway 101, southeast, we still need to
26 recognize that there are industrial;areas there and,a.project came to SPARC to increase
27 the housing-(Park Central, which-had commercial but it didn't happen). That isolateS the
28 industrial and office space that is there. We need to honor the good stuff that is-there, and
29 not continue to throw people at the°perimeter. of the City without transportation`modes,
3o ties into the•Mobilitydiscussions. -
31 •
32 Geoff Cartwright: As you go:from the Boulevard4o Lakeville, and you cross the railroad
33 tracks, you notice the Corps channelization project. There are speci'al interests in
34 Petaluma who have not figured out that we have a flooding-problem. Point'out that
• 35 during,the flooding of 1982, the-flooding went up to the Boulevard; Washington Street,
36 etc: The flooding episodes have been lesser degrees of that same pattern. The Corps
37 project showed an exhibit that illustrates the flooding-pattern with the channelization, and
38 continued development upstream. It shows that downtown does and will .flood, three
39 different scenarios, they overlap. This area goes back. into 'risk with continued
40 development.
41
42 Councilmember Torliatt: The railroad-right-of-way between the Marina and Casa Grande
43 Road, believed it is owned by Legacy Marketing. They are going•through preliminary
44 review for parking and a pedestrian link. This is particularly important with the Park
45. Central development. Need to look at that parcel, in context with the upcoming
46 development-potentials. Need to look at PPP property all the way to the ;cul-de-sac,
47 perhaps as an "office complex type of use Want to keep residential along the River, to
48 access the area and enjoy-it. Existing 250 apartments with the possibility of adding
49 another 250tapartments. There will beaa Jot-of people in'that'area, at-2.7 persons per
S:\AdminstrationVvchives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page.30
Planning Commission Minutes —July 27, 2004
•
I household. Look at how much housing and activity that will create.
2
3, David Keller: With that is the issue of connectivity through the whole area so that
4 pedestrians and bicyclists have to go back out to Lakeville. As more housing comes into
5 that area, there needs to be more functional retail to serve them, plus be able to get to
6 parks, tot lots. High density with no planning. Look at what's been built and what
7 remains to be built in that whole area.
S
9 Pamela Tuft: Thanked the'Cot tnissioners for their dedicated, serious efforts over the six
to workshops, much has been accomplished. In-house and consultant team members will be
t 1 prepared the Preferred Land Use Plans based on the input gleaned from the workshops
12 and,will return with the map for Commission input before presenting the Preferred Land
13 Use Plan to the City'Council for comment. The draft General Plan and Draft EIR will
14 then be prepared for consideration by the Commission.
15
16
17
18 Workshop adjourned.
19
20
21
S:\Adminstration\Archives\PC Minutes 2002-2004\PC Minutes 04\072704 Planning Commission Meeting Notes.doc Page 31