HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11/09/2004 •
�AL>s City of Petaluma, CA.
• .City Council Chambers
is1 r City Hall, 11 English'Street
Petaluma,CA 94952
lase Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498
E-1VIall
•
planninel7,ci.petalurita.ca.us
Web Page httpi//www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004 — 7:00 PM
Present:Commissioners Asselmeier,Barrett,McAllister,-Rose,Dargie
Absent: Councilmember Harris, Commissioner von Raesfeld
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma-Referred to the County's General Plamsuggestion that the Denman Flat area
be introduced as park. He said the County had not followed through with this. He was concerned that this
leaves the area open for development using County standards and this could affect flooding m the City of
Petaluma. •
PUBLIC COMMENT—Closed
Chairman Dargie read the remaining subject matters that were to be discussed:
• Surface Water Management
• Mixed-Use Concept
• Parks and Open Space
• Infill Density and Development
• Mobility
• Retail as a Priority
• Economic and Fiscal Sustainability
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
Director:Tuft introduced the;proposed`methods-to address;Surface.Water Management within the General
Plan, particularly-alongthePetaluma River, with discussion of theRiver Plan implementation through the
designation of a River Corridor Overlay Zone.
Questions:
I. Are the existing standards for Zero Net Fill and Base Floor Elevations to be above the 100 year
' flood level adequate; and are additional policies'in the General Plan necessary to'add further
proiectiori?
Commissioner Barrett asked if the'conunercialiand mixed-use designation in the Denman Flat area had had
been discussed.
Director Tuft said that the specifics had not been discussed in the area beyond the KOA site. She said the
General Plandid:not propose the-retention of any agricultural designated lands within the Urban,Growth
-Boundary. She explained the subject site (corn maze/pumpkin) had been designated as mixed'use or
•
commercial development; with the latter preferred. She said the Draft Preferred Land Use map did not
show the possible designation of the:site as a groundwater recharge and surface water detention overlays.
She said the area appears to be suitable for surface water retention and a discussion with the property owner
was in progress for the City to purchase the property for this use She indicated, regardless of its
designation as commercial or retention, which would,depend on'how the City pays for it, it could be a
combination of retention with limited development as an option. She said it may be the City's intent to
overly this area with both designations if additional studies now underway justify the designation...
Commissioner Barrett clarified this would limit what' development could take place on the property,
especially in consideration of downstream flow. Sheasked,as projects move along,would"they be working
at cross'pbrposes.. •
Director Tuft explained this is being avoided, but as the General.Plan continues, development proposals
have been,applied for and are,being analyzed to see if the sites are appropriate.before the:General Plan is
adopted. She indicated these specific developing sites will be identified and incorporated by appropnate
land use designations to comply with the proposal. She said it,was decided that at some time the amending
of the Draft Land Use Plan would have to cease to allow completion of the Plan and Draft EIR.
Commissioner Dargie asked what areas would not be'adjacent the River Corridor.
Director Tufrgave an example of;'a Floodplain designated area not suggested'So be designated as,River.
. Corridor overlay would be the west side ofNorth'McDowell from Corona Road north to Old.Redwood
Highway.
Commissioner Asselmeier asked.about the Zero Net Fill (ZNF) and referred'to public comment that-the
City should fix prior problems that have been caused by years of development in the floodplain. She
requested clarification if the Commission should look at this as over and above;ZNF.
Director Tuft said this has been considered;specifically with the potential implementation of theRiver Plan
and the creation of.flood terraces to increase the capacity of the River within certain Reaches: She
explained another option'was detention ponds such as the property.at Denman Flat as'well as,creating?flood
terraces,as currently,proposed along Industrial Avenue,which have shown a small but definite reduction in.
localized flood elevations.
Commissioner Barrett asked for clarification of the statement" . . . no net run-off increase solutions for
those areas."
WRC Engineering'Manager Eckerson explained this meant'-that:once a development is in place, the pre
development run-off and the post-development run-off-is computed and no additional run-off is to,occur.
He said this is not what is currently in place. He stated that some developments have detention-basins to
prevent additional run-off,but this is not,consistently app lied. He;explained the,different&between No Net
Fill and No Net Run-Off. He'stated that No Net Fill.is:within a certain area when considering development
within the floodplain. This would define that once the development is in place there is no net increase in
fill within thelfloodplain area Heisaid.this distinction would raise the-:finished;floor above;the level of the
100 year floodplain and'would.require'excavation'or.removal of an equivalent amount of material within
the floodplain to prevent any net increase in fill.
Commissioner Barrett thought tlus,:should be adopted throughout the entire•flood area.
Engineer Eckerson continued explaining that No Net Run-Off would be a better way to address the effect
of the'additional impervious surfaces in the watershed. He said this focuses notonly;on the quantity.,of run-
off but also the pollutant load of the run-off.
Chairman Dargie cited the Factory Outlets and the Redwood'Technology Center"developments and the
timing of run-off from impervious surfaces:allowrng:itto'reach the River before the main,storm volume.
He asked for clarification of this and how it should be addressed. .
•
•
Engineering Manager Eckersonsaid that whenever additional impervious surfaces are introduced anywhere
in the watershed it will cause an increase in run-off, specifically increasing peak>flow.as well as the volume
of run-off. He explained that with paving,the timing results in an immediate run-off rather than a delay as
on pervious surfaces.. He stated this affects.where detention basins are:located to work in concert with this
timing. The relationship to the sub-watershed and the total watershed is very important. He said it was
possible to compare the,hydrographs thatillustrate,discharge vs. time: By comparing sub-areas, the total
will change the timing of when the peak will and could increase the peak flow further downstream. He said
if the water from the impervious:areasruns off sooner it.could be better, all depending on the timing. He
stated that any policy that proposes any type of detention facility the analysis would.have to considei not
only development-related impacts,but what affect it has on the overall watershed as well.
Chairman Dargie.asked if this could be devised as a policy to determine if quicker run-off is desirable in
certain areas depending on the analysis of the run-off.
Engineering Manager Eckerson stated yes, and said the XP SWIMM model would be a tool to analyze the
effect and verify these types of development submittals.
•
Commissioner Barrett requested an explanation of terracing and how this differs from retention ponds and
how this affects limiting run-off.
Engineering Manager Eckerson,said these were described in the River Access & Enhancement Plan. He
stated this process requires lowering the top of the river bank, and as the river rises, the flows can spread
out over the floodplain terrace resulting in increased conveyance capacity of that particular reach as well as
providing in-stream detention. He said this design is meant to help with lower storm flows and would not
deter the flood characteristics of a 100-year event.
• Commissioner Asselmeier wanted clarification of when a detention basin is not always an appropriate
mitigation based on peak flow and discharge. She asked if a detention basin could clean the water and
facilitate its conveyance and if-policies could be put in place to use basins as a tool to improve water
quality while others would allow quick release of water.
Engineering Manager Eckerson explained that if a water-quality-basin is designed it will function much
differently than a basin for peak-run-off. He suggested a policy that would include water quality basins and
• noted it was difficult to design_a basin that would be effective to meet both requirements. He said XP-
SWIMM can model the entire watershed and the effects of any changes-within the basin can be modeled.
Commissioner Barrett asked about what other tools such as a water-quality-basin, water detention and
terracing were available to control run-off.
Engineering Manager Eckerson stated that there is a wide range of options such as using pervious type
paving materials in certain areas; reducing impervious paving materials; and-inclusion of grassy swales
(allowing pollutants to settle out)to reduce pollutants froingettinginto the storm drains as a few ideas.
Commissioner Barren asked if allowing the water:to leave rapidly was a plus for development in the
floodplain. She-asked-if any of these ideas countered this by decreasing the impervious layer to keep water
on the property and cause a larger volume of water to leave at a later time. -
Engineering Manager Eckerson-indicated that anything that can be done,to reduce impervious surfaces
would reduce the ultimate'volume of run-off. He'said the developers and engineers must meet the policies
of the General Plan.
Commissioner Rose referred to the Recharge Map and asked about sites with different soil types identified
as recharge areas throughout the City: He said current recharge and run-off could be controlled by soil and
geology rather than development. He asked if there were zones in the City that should have special
consideration to require specific precautions as far as recharge importance.
•
•
Engineering Manager.Eckerson indicated that the figure provided=was based Oil geology and topography.
He said that there were very.few recharge areas identified. He said additional research was needed to
identify'specific'sites for detention and others for.recharge.
•
Commissioner Rose wanted an overlay to illustrate a coincidence for recharge and mitigation of other
factors. He felt this would be more important than mitigating flooding;and water resource conservation.
Engineering Manager Eckerson indicated that are problems with infiltration basinsbecause-over time
they clog up and reduce their intended use.
•
Commissioner McAllister referred to the 1982 Department of Water Resources map and asked if one of the
potential recharge areas°was at Corona.and Petaluma.Boulevard North. She wanted this information taken
into account for the overlay that Commissioner Rose mentioned.
Director Tuft answered that this part of the Water Resources element, for groundwater assessment and
surface water management, is still underway. She said that as this research is finalized, sites will be
identified by overlay designations.
Commissioner McAllister thought a policy should be devised to study as any development occurs„how it
contributes to the overall watershed and to require that it create no additional run-off in the entire watershed
because it ultirnately"affects everything,.downstream.
Engineering Manager Eckerson agreed that the impervious surface issue did not just apply to the floodplain
areas.
Director Tuft said that it was important to differentiate between floodplain and floodway. She said it
should not be a surprise'that homes within the designated floodway are flooded or subject to threatened
inundation.
Chairman Dargie mentioned the Paula Lane site with a detention facility planned;,he asked if this could be
calibrated to delay:flooding in the lower,teaches resulting in a benefit to the entire basin.
Engineering Manager,Eckerson said that any wording regarding a detention basin policy should be written
in such a way thatithe.detention is designed to mitigate the effects of any additional run-off generated by
the development and not cause any adverse impact to the rest of the watershed.
Commissioner,Asselmeier.asked aboutRiver oriented development that promotes the River Enhancement
Plan. She wondered if this type of development needed to be addressed versusrother.types of development
and what incentives to River oriented development could be established to implement the City s
development plans.
Director Tuft-responded that this'had been discussed on a 'small scale to encourage.and add incentives to
have appropriate development along'the River. She said it would not be necessary to spell,out the specific
incentives in a policy to support River oriented development.
•
Commissioner Rose asked, in the context of the River Enhancement Plan, how much of the plan was
dependent on the initiative of the City; and how much would have to be done with willing development
partners to achieve recreational and other amenities. • • •
Director Tuft replied that, given the very limited amount of land that the City owns and could
independently seek grants for, she estimated 90% - 95% of the implementation depends on:public/private .
cooperation between the property owner, the developer, and the'City. She pointed tcr opportunities along
the McNear Peninsula, Industrial Avenue, and some sites,owned by public agencies such'.as Sonoma '
County Water Agency that could be considered for implementation without a cooperative agreement.
•
•
Commissioner Rose asked about-how•common-existing easements-were like the floodway easement near
Lynch Creek.
•
Director Tuft.said this was.not.common. She stated this was why creating the.River Corridor Overlay to
define what would-be necessary to implement the River Plan would clarify in the General-Plan what type of
development would be appropriate within the;areaproximate to the River.
Commissioner,Rose agreed there was a'need to be very proactive in creating the River Corridor overlay as
an assertive plan to delineate thepotetitial development of the River as an amenity and this would require
mandatest He wanted,t• see a creative,approach to development near;and adjacent to the River and,to look
at how encroachments and flood terracing could be used to guide-the development in creating these
. amenities.
• • .
Commissioner Asselmeier agreed that-stating ■would help River Oriented development.
Commissioner Barrett.wanted clarification of what the mandates would be and what policies would be
.sacrificed in this effort.. .
Commissioner Asselmeier stated' she was'referring to the River Access and Enhancement Plan and
-actualizing the greenways;connections,and development that would be consistent with this Plan.
Commissioner Barrett supported strong„policies to implement•the River Enhancement Plan to improve
water.quality and reducing run-off throughout the floodplain but she did not favor allowing"wedge” words
that Could be used to undermine the General Plan.
Commissioner Rose referred to ,the River Enhancement Plan and said he envisioned some more highly
developed urban development along the River that might require-violating zero net fill to accomplish. He
said this would require a tradeoff where nothing would be held as anabsoluteibut conditions would be set
forth that if the developer complied, encroachment into the floodway and providing direct access to the
water's edge would be desirable as an amenity.
Commissioner McAllister and Barrett said they were hesitant to allow even a hint of this in a policy as it
could be detrimental.
Commissioner Asselmeier did see-this as creating "wedge" places but would work toward actualizing
the River Enhancement Plan: She-thought that with discretion by the City; the Conirnission, and with the
mandates in place, there may be times that variances would be.allowed allow creative development.
• Director Tuft suggested staff draft some policies for the Conunissionis Consideration. She mentioned•
transfer of development-rights from the River Corridor and-the need to develop development transfer
options within the General Plait to facilitate the dedication of the River Corridor-when it interacts with the
floodplain. She thoughtscenarios would'have to be developed to determine the best method to.accomplish
this. .She gave;an example from the Corona.ElySpecific Plan that had transfer of development potential
from the Urban Separator;she said very few cases did-the developers ask for the transfer.
Commissioner McAllister asked about the transfer of development rights.
Director.Tuft answered that if the City purchases the property,a transfer would not be necessary. She said
if the City tried to negotiate a-below market price,the transfer could be an option.
. Commissioner Dargie had questions regarding hardscape in the floodway that is currently permitted under
a Conditional Use Permit. He wanted clarification of the proposal in the pew General Plan to prohibit this.
Director Tuft referred to water quality issues- where a designated floodway-is affected by hardscape,
particularly parking lots, resulting in a potential for discharge of pollutants into the River. She said that it
•
•
•
was desirable to reduce,this practice as Was expressed in public comment and will be required by regulatory
agencies to reach higher.standards of water quality.
Commissioner Barrett referred to the adobe soil and developers'statements that it doesn't.absorb`water.
Engineering;Manager Eckerson answered that.this was true to some extent, but early in'the season:there is
percolation and he saw benefits to the idea.
Commissioner Rose added there was a possibility for some ,hardscape' in the Ifloodway'when it was
considered an amenity. He agreed'.that walkways and pedestrian°areas, where pollution would be:minimal,
not streets and parking lots,.would make the area useful except during inundation periods.
Commissioner Barrett,supported eliminating hardscape from areas where requests for additional"parking
exceeds City zoning.allowances;she gave as examples:Lowesiapd IColils:'
Director Tuft•.stated that the use of pervious:parking•at the Science of the Soul at Adobe-Road:and East
Washington•Street was working very well and this type of construction could be looked:at for,low,use,
overflow parking needs.
Engineering Manager Eckerson talked about storm levels when looking at different components of the
system. He said it would be impossible.to,design an underground pipe network to convey a 100-year storm .
event. He said the existing inlets and culverts are designed for. 10-year'storm event: He said the 100 year
floodplain on the;FEMA map identifies the portion of the watershed needed'to convey:floodwaters'from '
this type of storm.
Director Tuft explained that the,following would occur following the fast of the year:
• Overlays;for potential detention pond sites
• Speeific parcels
• Economic consultant discussion with Commission,
•. Full analysis on the Preferred Draft Plan through preparation of the Draft General Plan and•Draft
EIR
• Mobility consultant discussion with Commission
•
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Cartwright,Petaluma-Mentioned'convergentpeak flows and explainedhow theyaffectedflooding;
detention/retention ponds interaction with flows, water recharge areas,and the zero net fill issues. He
talked about the effects of past floods in'the area of his:home. He wanted to have the;FEMA flood
insurance rate maps(FIRM).updated.
Dianne Reilly Torres, Petaluma — Spoke about groundwater issues and recharge areas in the Petaluma
Factory Outlet area She mentioned'Santa Rosa using its wells to augment its water supply; the Grand-Jury
recommending water sustainability;;and establishing a groundwater-management plan: She mentioned the
amount of commercial water use and the affect of the new retail planned. She said the Kohl's parking lot
Was excessive and water sitting on streets cau'singpotholes: ._.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
•
Chairman Dargie asked the members to state any particular concerns and any specific directions to General
Plan staff.
Commissioner Barrett`.wanted.the General Plan.team to address park and open space issues.. She felt the
Commission strongly,,supported:parks not only as open,space;but to include fields, and playgrounds for
team sports: She also mentioned providing the various definitions of mixed use and:to customize `these
according to,the area.
•
Commissioner Asselmeier also was concerned with parks and mentioned a development that lacked on-site
playground recreation. She wanted to address the pocket park and playground concept to require certain
developments to be.self-sufficient in providing recreational and open space amenities to meet the needs of
the community.
Commissioner McAllister stated that she was looking`for specific criteria to specify to the developer if it
was to be a community park/neighborhood park,etc.
Commissioner Rose wanted to identify major pieces of land„set them aside as parks and establish a policy
to do this. He referred to the Gatti Park site.as being set aside during the evolution of the eastside as the
model to follow.
Chairman Dargie addressed the;niized use issue and the challenges involved to shape this consistently
rather than on a case-by-case basis. He agreed with establishing development policies that required
development to include a'certain amount of park land. He also addressed infill and densities to apply
cohesive policies that will produce results that are satisfactory.
Commissioner Barrett referred to the requirement to have one acre of park per 1,000 residents and by using
this standard, she wanted to establish ea method to provide this ratio. She wanted a park policy integrated
throughout the land use element of theGeneral Plan. She also wanted the Bicycle Plan interwoven like the
River Plan has been. She suggested integrating a policy of Fair Share by developers to take care of the
amenities including bicycle paths. She also mentioned the development at Kenilworth site taking
established communities amenities,and how these were to be replaced. She suggested using rooftops for
tracks and tennis courts and wanted to be creative to provide amenities.
Commissioner Asselmeier stressed the importance of prioritizing new retail and where it should be placed.
• Commissioner Rose was concerned-about minimum density and he did not want this abandoned as it was
needed to provide affordable and workforce housing opportunities. He wanted to establish economic
diversity by designating in certain appropriate areas, a certain type of housing should be prescribed. He
agreed with the idea of mixed use and viewed it as being parcel specific and transitioning to existing uses
was necessary to make the neighborhood function.
Chairman Dargie had a question about using workforce housing as an actual land use designation.
Commissioner Barrett clarified that work force.housing can be deeded to restrict the amount that the resale
price can increase. She referred to the Preferred Plan build-out projections for 2025 with a population of
73,126 which would amount'to about 259 dwelling units per year. She said a mandate and policy would be
necessary to limit the number of dwelling units that could be built within a year to prevent using up all the
development potential in the first few years.
Commissioner McAllister agreed with pacing the development for retail, commercial and residential and
thought that the Town of Windsor plan was working well with the use of incentives and smaller scale
projects.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma - Commented on the park issue. He stated in the past some floodplain had
been identified and how this tied in to the developer trade off policy discussion mentioned earlier.
Public Comment was concluded.
•
Adjourn: 9:25 p.m.
•