HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/26/2006 City of Petaluma, CA
•
City.Council Chambers
4 :•4q City,Hall, 11 English Street
4:17 Petaluma,Petaluma,.CA 94952
185.0 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498
E=Mail planning @ci.petaluma:ca.us
Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca:us
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2006 - 06:58
Present: Will Dargie,Terry.Kosewic,John Mills,Karen Nau,Kathy Miller,Christopher Arras,Tanya
Sullivan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 12,2006(06:58 PM)
Motion:'Approve APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 12,2006
Moved by John Mills,seconded by Christopher Arras.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
Yes: Will Dargie;Terry Kosewic; John Mills;Karen Nau; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Kathy Miller
PUBLIC COMMENT:OPEN(06:58 PM)
PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED(06:59 PM)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:'(06i59.PM)
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (06:59 PM) •
CORRESPONDENCE: (06:59 PM) . .
�, APPEAL STATEMENT: Within.fourteen(44)calendar days following the date of a decision of the
• Planning Commission,die,decision may be appealed.to the City..Council by the applicant or by any,other
interested party.-if no appeal is made within that time the'decision shall be final. An appeal shall be
addressed to the Council m writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk.Said appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002-114=N C.S. as adopted'.by,the City Council. The appeal
shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the;relief sought by the appellant(06:59 PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE'STATEMENT:Persons commenting orally:or in writing are advised to raise all
pertinent issuesat th'is:state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the
earliest opportunity:.If:you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court,you may;belimited
to raising only thoseissues you'or:someone,else;raised during the public review,process, onin written
correspondence delivered to,the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (06:59 PM)
OLD BUSINESS: (06:59 PM),
I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025&DRAFT'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Planner: Pamela Tuft(06:59:PNI)
Updated Public Workshop/Hearing Schedule
•
Pamela Tuft:presentedxhe Land:Use andWater Resources'portiomof,the General:Plan and summarized°the
goals and,policies to ensure that the General-Plan and Development Code remain consistent.
Commissioner Sullivan asked•Pamela to.explain"Overlays"and"Transfers
Pamela,Tuft explained;that an"`Overlay"`is atransparent set of regulations that:combines,underlying zoning
designations; such as historic districts. She said it was a•layer with an underlying designation as'the
prevailing land userdesignation.
A "Transfer" of density,: she explained„recognizes that underlying land use has a development potential
allowing development to be moved from the overlay to therest of the based;on the developable basi_s'of
the property. This 'process' provides. protection for the community but doesn't punish the
landowner/developer:.
Conunissioner Mills asked if an overlay would be more?powerful than the:underlying zoning,designation..
He posed;tliat based^on the•set-up of thenvetlay district in the underlying district,its rules could overstep
the`rules of the underlying district.
Parnela;said thatdhis couldoceur. ,.
He further questioned'if.this•happins or.'is`the base underlying zoning,more importantthanithe overlay such
as in the CPSP's"Smart Code' oven-uling,the normal,zoning.code.
Pamela said that the:"Smart Code"completely replaced:the Zoning Ordinance iniihis:instance.
Commissioner Mills'asked when an overlay district parameters would then become the'governing entity:
Pamela answered that this'was.not a yesMol question because the remaining'benefits'of the underlying
district,such as the Urban Separator,the opportunity exists to move the density into the developable area of
thesite:
Commissioner Mills'statedthis would then remove the requirement to reimbtirse'the'landowiier.,
•
• Pamela said this'was in consideration of health, safety, and community concerns and did;not fE ulfiin',the
salting of land.
Chairperson asked if it was possible that because of an overlay a project'.could become"more dense
and move into'another:land,use designation because of ratios:
Pamela said.no, because at the timeaof development it;ns•based oil the net dev,'elopabletarea including`the
underlying property She mentioned the?PRC*created undevelopable properties such as•that within the
floodway where the.City would remove housing stock in.these flood-sensitive areas.
Commissioner Sullivan did_not use her microphone-sooher question was inaudible:Pamela answered that
the City noilonger does an RGMS because of the'lack of'manpower to pursue afirll allocation evaluation.
The City keepstrack of th umbers and as;of late the=City"is averaging abo`ut•384''µnits. She.s aid the
PlanningConinmssion would look at the entire RGMS'and'retorithiend' reasonable growthr:rate. She
ekplaified that DiscussionPaper s•would:follow,with all'ofthe comnutteesVcommissions' recommendations
funneling,through:the Planning Commission to the City Council;for:their consideration:
Commissioner Kosewic mentioned'the"Minimum/Maximum-Densities"andthought'this wassconfusing.
Pamela explained this came fromthe 1987.General Plan thatintroduced the;conceptof minimum•densities
for every:designation and she felt;this.was a very importantpolicy: This means that atdesignation'of2.81 —.
8 Units Per Acre would not support one acre lots. This allows for-a wide range of development, not just
high=end housing.._ ,
Commissioner Dargie said her explanation was excellent and should be expanded upon in the General Plan
to clarify the designations.
Commissioner Kosewic suggested stating: "cannot go below minimum or above maximum" would be
easier to understand.
'
Commissioner Mills asked-if this allows phasing of development and if there was a time limit on when
development could occur.- .
Pamela stated that when the.property is subdivided to create the lots the developer can develop as the
minimum/maximum designations.allow.
Commissioner Kosewic mentioned the1987 General Plan concept of thedowntown densities as the highest
with feathering of density as it reaches the UGB. He said he didn't think this was happening because of the
UGB and in some areas no feathering occurred.
Pamela answered that feathering has occurred, but because of the cul de-sacs and curving streets it is not
apparent from the street. She'said..theicommunity supported- his.transfer-of development and the Wiseman
Park area was a success usingthis strategy.
Commissioner Kosewic saidthat the Wiseman area gave people More access to the UGB and asked if the
language should be more specific to state backyards cannot.face the,UGB.
Pamela explained that this is;the-"Single Loading"concept and does not allow lots to back to UGB, creeks,
etc. to allow for trails and habitat in these sensitive areas. She said there is not a written policy regarding
this and she will follow up. The Commissioners,supported this policy.
Commissioner Mills asked about the PRC at the Turning Basin and what the setbacks were. -
Pamela answered that this area was under the guidelines of the CPSP.
Commissioner Mills mentioned.the UGB variance,especially on the Westside, due to terrain and suggested
using an"average".
I. Pamela agreed that this needs to be discussed in.Land Use to allow for topography and existmg structures
to determine if it would meet minimum/maximum or if the UGB needs to become the Urban Pathway. She
didn't support using averages because it would be subject to interpretation and suggested using project.
' specific scaling,and if it shows 300' on the map,then it would be 300' when dedicated.
Commissioner Mills supported this suggesting the General Plan could state "whenever possible,scale on
map." He mentioned Open Space areas and if they need to be designated to be sure they stay Open Space.
Pamela mentioned areas where property is encumbered by Open Space easements as well as a "non-
development"-area in Westridge, She said this was a good point to state in the General Plan.
Commissioner Mills asked about a`,`Hillside Ordinance"and if this should be stated in the GP.
Pamela answered that parameters were identified in the Development Code and a proposal will be detailed
with specific direction to be brought back to the Commission:
Commissioner Mills asked about a"Tree Ordinance"inclusion in the-Development Code.
Pamela said this policy was addressed in•the "Community DesigncSection.", This.would;inebrporate the
Tree:Committee's recommendations that,th e Commission,Would present:to Council. He,also asked,about
the addition of "Hi'story'? section. Pamela said,this would be;brought-back:to-the:Planning:Cotnmission
with.a recommendationshe is.working on.
Commissioner Nau asked how,a cross-reference to the Petaluma River Commercial designation was
addressed.She stated:this was important to allow for dredging of the River.
Pamela.pointed•to'the River Dependent Commercial Land Use•Plan'to answer this point: She saidth_eonly
recommended change to the CPSP was to include the'parcel at the head of the McNear°channel to be
changed to Mixed Use from River Dependent because of the loss of river access with the,parks creation.
Commissioner Nau asked if landowners were notified of designation changes-and if they supported this •
Pamela.answered,"Yes"and she has met with them and a letter from the former Pomeroy acreage;;asking;
for Mixed Use designation would be sent to the Commission for their consideration.
•
Commissioner Mills asked.when commissioners,would be asked for recommendations•and if it would'be •
site specific:
Pamela responded:that she would like them to identify ytopics as'early'as possible..
Commissioner'Kosewic suggested adding a:FAQ section for developers/architects that would heft-on-1:a
Planners and SPARCperspective. He was'especially concerned about monument,signs,'to be sure that they
are sizeYis appropriate'to the;,site and not just the,maximum allowed. He also Mentioned the opposite
problem where buildings are limited to a certain height brittdon''t fit into the neighborhood because they:are
dwarfed,by established'buildings.
Pamela said that policies requiring a,:sense of;scale/proportions that would fit with existing%development
needed to be considered to maintain the atmosphere of the neighborhood.
CommissionerArras asked for Pamela to explain to the;public how they can participate in-the General Plan
process.
Pamela-said that presenting their ideas in;writing was the best means'of providing input. She.explamed how
to reach th General Plan Administration.
Chairperson Dargie asked about Land,Use Goal 2:6.1, the updating of the City's Development Cede(and
how these guidelines:would'be addressed.
Pamela explained'that the.new GeneralPlan would bnngthe Development Code mto'.the 21'century with
the,goal,of promoting a range.of•land use to maintain a.balanced environment:. This will be a major work
project because the old land use designations do not tmatchthe recommendations.of the new General-Plan.
Chairperson Dargie asked for more detail about 2:P 10,NeighboihoodCenters.
Pamela explained air example of-this concept was the G& • shopping center'that serves as'a pnmary
commercial destination for the surrounding`area. The new GP identifies five such areas•that need to have
more neighborhood centered commercial development to provide•residents access to development that
serves their commercial needs.
Chairperson;Dargie asked about 2.P.12, Encourage Reuse of Underutilized Sites; such as,the'Washington.
corridor, and if there'would be mechanical things-Written hito.the Code to implement:
•
•
' Pamela said development incept ves'in the,Codereould beiused'to'encouragepolicies such as lower parking
tequirements, setback `options;,increased height allowances, and relocation of driveways that wouldn't
_ impact the neighborhood andwould be an a"sset:to make the area more pedestrian-friendly.
Chairperson Dargie asked about the Petaluma River Corridor concept.
•
Pamela explained dthis'concept is:implemented through•development standards,of-the PRC that are set aside
in the GP.. A recommendation for the Department of Water Resources, with support from other
departments, would lead thisi effort to study flood capacity and water quality improvements. This would be
a cross between the.Development Code and be like street standards to,set levels of development and
improvements achievable through the use ofthe XPSWMM model and habitat studies.
Commissioner :Mills asked. about- the proposed park parcels and how these properties would be
acquired/developed.
Pamela said McNear Peninsula is a good example of acquiring parkland: She said`that, if necessary for the
community's benefit, eminent domain could be used as a last resort: The 1987 General Plan identified
parks but did not state the acreage;;and example is the Magnolia site The new General Plan will be site and
acreage specific with "Neighborhood" where-the developer provides the park-without City money and
"Community Park"where the,City negotiates to purchase property atFair•MarketValue.
Commissioner Millvasked about a'"Park"designation within another\designation,such as the Regency site
and if this would be designated as a,certain;acreage.
Pamela explained the Municipal Code sets the acreage formula with park fees, etc. The General Plan will
be parcel and acreage specific based,on need and that the Kenilworth/Regency park will be an active park.
Commissioner Sullivan asked about meeting future,affordable housing needs and if this would impact the
Urban Growth Boundary to fill these needs.
Pamela answered that the UGB' area would not be an ideal site for affordable housing because of its
location and that was not the intent of establishing;it. She said with the regular-updating and certifying of
the Housing element;she doesn't-see this as a problem.
Commissioner Sullivan said-that not-every developer sets aside an area for affordable:housing but pays the
in lieu fees and she was concerned about the possibility of the lack of appropriate locations and buildable
land.
Pamela said she would:ask'Housing Administrator Bonne`Gaebler'to address these concerns. She added
that with the;leverage,of the Housing ImpactPees,she didn't•see this as a near-term problem.
Commissioner'Mills asked what was proposed for the UGB on the proposed GP map.
Pamelasaid it would be•300 feet,scaled on Me map whetever•possible. Regarding:the RGMS, she said they
might talk about additional policies with more detail; reducing numbers and more parameters could be
presented-3n a Discussion Paper..
Chairperson Dargie agreed and had questions'about the-need for this and how a slowdown in growth would
impact City use fees.and'City services.
Pamela said,she woulff like to do a Discussion Paper to explain how cost-recovery would,affect CDD in a
slow-growth climate. She did not expect a large fiscal impact,since this would only'affect
projects. The GP allows for reasonable development over the life of the plan to allow for business and
employment opportunities to support the economy.
•
Commissioner,.Kosewic asked:ifthe average.of 384 included;affordableihousing and,projects,oftlessithan •
30 units.
•
Pamela:said thatthe384'average included all units whetherpart of the RGM or not.
Commissioner Kosewic:felt it should be::left-alone:since it-seems to:be working.., He said Commercial
projects were•noeincludedfin the'RGM and hey were not overbuilt since they.have to;meetja demand.
Commissioner Sullivan wanted clarification of how to put teeth mto a program to put the brakes'on-if
market conditions,change and begin to affect'the,RGM. She said.she wasn't interested'inhaving-a-program
that didn't matter.
Councilmember Nau left,the meeting.
Pamela presented the Water Resources Element and explained the depth of analysis and themiportance of
this element.: She.especially stressed that the 1989 FEMA mappwas the regulatory'document for this.GP
and won't be:changed until,the Corps of Engineers projectrs completed m 2007., She;explained tlie,value
of the XPSWMM data to establish the "Anticipated Build-Out`Flood Boundary' to determine where
inhabitable structures could'be built and how'high'the''finished floor.elevations would needlto be She,said
flood terraces'with,setbacks*would be the focus as well as the,recognition,that the :floodplam needs-a
regional approach andtto=work with the County'to respect:"the Zero=Net Fill parameters., She mentioned
historic;detention areas and need.to:look it them for other than agricultural'uses possibly as water
capacity areas:
Chair;Dargieaskbd,the cornniissieners,fora.focus for the next meeting.
Commissioner Mills suggested going through;the subzoning areas]to bring-specific`recommendations on.
the Land UseMap.
Commissioner Sullivan'asked'if members were clear on'.how to identify conflict of interests other real.
property holdingssuch as'employment and:investments._
•
Pamela-suggested commissioners contact City'Attomey:Eric Danly for their,questions concerning conflict
of interests specific to their circumstances:
Commissioner Kosewic said that,he understood that a'financial gain has to be proved and,tfie Commission
is only•being.asked to approve the City's work.
Motion.Contmue meeting,regarding DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 & DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTREPORT(DEIR)to October 10,:20061
Moved by John Mills, seconded'by-Tanya'Sulliyan.
V ote:.Moti on carried 7-0.
Yes Will Hattie;Terry Kosewic; John Mills,Karen Nau;Kathy Miller; Christopher Arras;'Tanya
Sullivan
II. LIAISON REPORTS: (09:26 PM)'
•
a:-City{Council
b.;SPARC'(09:26,PM) •
c. Petaluina Bicycle.,Advisory:Committee(09:28 PM) -
d.Tree Advisory Committee(09:28 PM)
Adjoutnmenb(09:29PM) •
I City of Petaluma, C4
`�? City Council Chambers
'City Ball; 11 English Street
Wrf Petaluma;'CA 94952
Hf Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498
E-Mail planning @ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission'Minutes
October 10, 2006- 06:56
Present: Will Dargie,:John Mills,Karen Nau,Kathy Miller, Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Terry Kosewic
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 26;2006(06:59 PM)
Motion: Approve MINUTES of September 26,2006
Moved by John Mills, seconded by Christopher Arras.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
Yes: Will Dargie;John Mills;Karen Nau;•Kathy Miller;Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Terry Kosewic
PUBLIC COMMENT:OPEN(07:00•PM)
PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED(07:00 PM)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:None(07:00 PM)
•
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:None(07:00 PM)
CORRESPONDENCE: (07:00 PM) •
George White
APPEAL STATEMENT:Within fourteen(14)-calendar days following,the date of a decision of the
Planning Commission,the decision may be'appealed to the'City Council by the.applicant or by any other
interested party. If no appeal is made within=that(time,the decisiomshall.be final. An appeal shall be
addressed to;the Council in writing and shall be filethwithithe[City Clerk..Said appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee as specified by>Resolution 2002-114-N.CS. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal
shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. (07:00 PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing areadvised.to raise all
pertinent"issies at this state'o€review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the
earliest opportunity. If you-challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court,you-maybe limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review process, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process.(07:00 PM)
OLD BUSINESS: (07:00 PM)
I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025-&DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Planner: Pamela Tuft(07:00 PM)
•
•
• General Plan Workshop Comments
Pamela;Tuft continued with.the;presentation of'the;Dtaft.General'Plan-and Draft Ern'addressing=the sub-
areas with a summary of Chapter 3 and comments'from the public that will be>responded,to.
Commissioner Mills commented on the MaximumsFlexibility to Encourage Mixed Use element and that
from his experience on the Site Plan and Architectural Committee; he would like to see more flexibility_to
interpret the CPSP to meet site specific projects in this;area in the spirit of,butnotword-for-word'from the
CPSP.
Pamela replied that the 1987 General Plan allowed for 10.0%- in mixed use areas and asked for
input from theiPlantiing Commission and City Council to see ifthis had been useful and reiterated in the
new GP.;She said other areas of the 1987 Plan could be reviewd to determine;;if they could be "polished"
and incorporated in the new GP.
Commissioner.Mills wanted to include a small craft center'm the area. He mentioned the possible change in
• designation for the'former Pomeroy site to include a small craft center that would implyriver,dependeriey.
Pamela said this was an amenity that the;,Commission could'look into.
Commissioner:Sullivan,had a question'abontthe "Raise„Standards,for.Infrastructure” element asking if the
City has inade•a commitment to adopt"Green"standards to build.things.to last.
Pamela,stated that;in:certain City projects the City has already,used "Green" standards-for infrastructure,
such as at Steamer Landing and the River Trail. She will research,if this policy is being used for public
improvements and report back to the.Commission.
Council Member Nam said the Council adopted a,voluntary,standard.but this could be'brought back to make
it.mandatory— she said this is the future of development standards for the City and mentioned Kenilworth
school as an example.
Pamela said that a policy-could be included to implement the Green Building:standards, such as at the,time
of sale.
Commissioner Mills wanted an in depth discussion for new rules establishing standards at time of sale. He
said a general policy attaching conditions;a§ the projects,comegtheaugh Planning and'SPARC regafding
how to address fmal inspection and standards was important.
Pamela introduced the discussion'of the Downtown element of the General Plan,and,the!public comments
for this area: During this, the Commission.wanted to know about the Road Diet' for Petaluma Boulevard
and the reconfiguring of'the Boulevard between Washington and Lakeville: She:said she-.would ask about
the status of this project. She mentioned that parking was mentioned as a problem.
•
Commissioner.Mills asked if there could be,a'_recommendation about;a parking,assessment district north of
Washington on Petaluma Boulevard, and specifically mentioned the Mahoney property.
Pamela said this was addressed some years ago but she didn't know if anything was being pursued.
Chair Dargie asked about a policy to promote'underground parking.
Pamela said this could be crafted for.Petaluma.
Commissioner Mills suggested.a.policy for buildings,over two stories in any mixed-use area explore the
use of underground'parking,
•
Commissioner Sullivan asked about3.P.l2''—Enhance Linkage Between Downtown'arid River and Increase
Street Connectivity With Surrounding Neighborhoods..-:
Pamela explained,this was seen as a problem with really long blocks:that result in Streets stopping abruptly
at arterials such as the Boulevard and Washington'Street. This-program-would try to link streets to one
another and was an idea in the CPSP that the General Plan,coald adopt.
She explained that;a4correction to the Land Use map°:for 515 E. Washington Street would be made to
designate it as Mixed. Use. She..talked about public• comments supporting improved access to the
Fairgrounds; better use of Kenilworth Park and the land surrounding the Library; checking to see if the
additional retail planned by the Regency'Group would.have:a negative economical effect on downtown
businesses(she'didn't think-this-would, accordingto'the'Retail-Leakage Study).
Commissioner Mills asked about policies to facilitate the reuse/relocation of existing residential buildings
on Washington Street.
Pamela said most have:been converted to'business use but:;.with,driveways every 30'—40 feet, this made
pedestrian and safe exits/entrances fiom,Washington Street a'problem She said this could be discussed with
the possibilities of'alleyways.explored.
Commissioner Mills said he would support relocating residential homes and changing,zoning to Mixed Use
and to provide incentives to do,this. He said this could make Washington true urban corridor and make
better use of this major artery:
Commissioner Sullivan supported this idea and wanted further discussion to improve pedestrian passage
and make the corridor safer.
Commissioner Arras agreed;this,would'encourage the highest.and'best use.
Council•MembeI-Nau commented that the&paiking lots don't work together, forcing people to return to
Washington Street and try to make dangerousturns and the lack of bicycle lanes.
Commissioner.Mills said that by combining parcels, this;.would make the rarea more,inviting to developers
for commercial pioject; he said'this`wouldrapply specifically•to the Washington Street corridor, not
Petaluma Boulevard:
Commissioner Miller supported thealleywayidea,with more lighted crosswalks: She was concerned about
-slowing traffic on this :artery since it is the only East-West corridor in town. She favored further
discussion.
Council.Member-Nau commented that it is difficult:to..get property,owners to agree to sharing access to
their properties.
•
Pamela suggested the Commission work on identifying links and list these to draft a,policy to support
incentives-for sharedaccess: She,said'itwould be a piecemeal process unless the policy was supported by
eminent domain Or other-:legal avenues:
Commissioner Mills said the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan reviews projects for;future links and this could be
used to put in place conditionsregarding access to properties.
Commissioner Sullivan supported the City and the Fair Board working;together to improve public access
on a year-round basis.
Commissioners agreed to support this and to put in the General Plan wording`to encourage joint use and
year-round usage of the'Fairgrounds forthe community.
Pamela explainedthatathis tlanguage;could;state thattelected/appointed,officials could, when negotiations'
occur,provide a policy direction'io.iniensify.usage atthe:Fairgrounds.
Chairperson Dargie said designating ai type of land use for this property should be looked at and the
Commission'.agreed to draft a policy for-this: •
Pamela introduced the Lakeville Highway area for discussion and listed the community s direction to have
neighborhood 'oriented commercial, with street scaping, and creating+..neighborhood ':gateways: The
Commission agreed andthe General Plan team wilt draft more'specificsfor thisarea:
Commissioner Mills., mentioned the property, behind the Silk Mill that is going to be converted' to
residential/mixed use He suggested removing the industrial• designation because the area is mainly
residential.
Commissioner Sullivan asked if intense industrial use,:like the propane business;required buffer:.
Assistant Planning Director George White couldn't say,if this was required but he mentioned this sort of
use regulated by agencies and;overseenby the Fire Marshal'soffrce:
Commissioner Millsjsaid he wanted to protect existing businesses,but when usage changes the City should
look:at-"Best:Use"for"the properties at thattithe. -
CommissionerSullivan supported flexibilityirithe;Plan.
Pamela:saidshe would look at the industriatinventory andbring;this back to.the Commission.
PUBLICiCOMMENT' • •
:1-
Dianne Reilly=Torres had concerns about Manion Park at'Magnolia being+listed as an existing park since it ,
hasn't been.built, how the crosstown connector would affect/her meighborhood; and-the Level of Service
being lower than it is currently; how could'the Trip Reduction Ordinance be enforced since it involuntary
and how could this be a:feasible;mitigations how would the:City:optimize usage'of water from the Sonoma•
County Water Agency, and tf this is a feasible'mitigation: She supported the Icontinuation of the Zero'Net
Fill and'Zero Net Run off requirements: She wanted;to include ig:the GP'the`.low power FM connection'
that is provided by Petaluma Community Access; She willsubmit1ier concerns in writing. •
Rita.Agnese had=a'questionaboiut'.her'two acre property located_at the northeast end of the City that
zoned agricultural and;who she would talk.to about this She asked if a road could be built toprovide access.
to her,land-locked property.
Pamela.explained that her property.had been looked at,but sincetthe:flooding on New Yeai s eve;-Council
directed to leave the usage. agricultural. She suggested Rita contact CDD about'road. access ._and if
easements be obtained.
Commissioner Mills explained that the GP is not written in stone,and.rf'a_dditional informationsonchanges
occur an;owper'can"request a review of their property:
PUBLIC COMMENT END
PLANNING COMMISSIONER`COMMENTS
Pamela continued with;the Payran MCKinley'sub-area and the public's.comments on accessibility;noise
level; increasing,ontlets.trails,`bikeways,arid'prbviding,linkage to,other:areas.
Commissioner SulliVanasked..why streetextensions mentioned;weren't included,in;the Mobility portions of
the GP—;Pamela-will look into this.
Commissioner Mills commented,on Clover Stometta's plans to move and how thiswonld impact land use
and possibility of mixed-use in the.future.
Pamela recommended leaving the designation a's Industrial since both creameries andahe grain businesses
in the area indicated that they will maintain their presence: Clover's plans were to move only their trucking
activity out of the area.,
She introduced the Petaluma Boulevard South sub-area and mentioned that "road diets" would have to be
researched and brought back. She said this wasa gateway opportunity and offered a great deal of input
with the planned southern crossing, River access,boating-activities, connecting to trails,beautification, and
trees.
Commissioner Mills said SPARC had explored the opportunity to create a southern entrance to town to go
slowly from rural,to industrial,to residential as>was.experienced at Petaluma Boulevard North.
Council Member Nau asked how the City would work with the County to improve this area, especially the
southern exit leaving the City.and if City staff attends the County's GP workshops.
Pamela said that policies in the GP;could require the City to work with the County to implement specific
standards. Pamela said she had attended the Surface Water meetings but would look at this again to
establish gateway standards with the County.
Commissioner Mills stated that soundwalls would not be part of this solution and Chairperson Dargie
agreed.
Commissioner Sullivan supported having trees as a vital part ofiinproving this area.
Commissioner Arras asked about including on-street parking as an area tolook into. He also supported the
tree canopy to create a gateway.
Pamela mentioned Petaluma Boulevard North's median and asked if the Commission supported including
this.
Commissioner Mills said SPARC had not required this,but he supported the idea.
Commissioner Miller supported a median to define the lanes and to slow traffic.
Commissioner Mills supporteda median. He also wanted to look at reducing the four lanes with a median
' including bicycle and pedestrian access.
Council Member-Nau:asked°about the-planned light at the Lomas(Quarry) development with a median and
a road diet including bike and pedestrian lanes for mobility. Pamela will look into the Conditions of
Approval for this
Commissioner Mills suggested--another pocket park at the McNear development to include boat access.
Pamela will look into this with the extension of Mountain View.
Commissioner Sullivan.asked about the connection with the Lomas site to nearby areas. She wanted to
know if the sidewalks would be continuous from the site to the bowling alley.
Assistant Planning Director,George White answered that onside of the street is in the County but in front
of the Lomas project there will be sidewalks'with connectivity to McNear Avenue and the frontage areas.
Pamela introduced the.Petaluma Boulevard North sub-area with the three areas: Cinnabar South, Cinnabar
to Gossage and Gossage North.
Commissioner Mills.asked if,the Rancho Veal parcel would be rezoned;to medium density residential;
Pamela replied, "Yes." He also asked about live/work units on the+Boulevard.and if theproposed zoning
would support this Las SPARC members liked this concept rather than all,medium use:•residential and'it
would flow better.Pamela agreed'and the Plan,will
•
Pamela replied:that she would check;but the original included mixed use when fronting on an arterial.:She
mentioned the"blending"'concept when'two designations occur on one parcel.
Commissioner Mills•asked if the "Old Mexico" restaurant, Cal-West"Rentals and detail shop parcels
would be industrial;-Pamela•said;"Yes:"
Chair Dargie asked about around Cinnabar area and supported mixed use in this•area.
Commissioner Miller had-questionsrabout setbacks i±this area.
Pamela explained that when a parcel abuts the"U-GB, 80'setbacks were desired.
AssistantPlanning'Director White'explained that a lot of the,parcels in this area are in the.County and their
setbacks are usually'abo t20'.
Pamela suggested ,crafting language to allow sensitivity for setbacks. She said that whatever CDD
implements in the Development Code would look at size'of the for appropriate'setbacks.
Council Meinber;Nan•askedrif Rancho Veal mill-Provide a Sin-filar parking plan n-as`:Old`Elm'Village,and if
the,parking would,be,part of the setback.
Pamela explained that.the-property line is at the edge of the street and somewhere behind thessidewalk is •
where the setback would begin.
Council Member-Nau asked if there wereplans to level Petaluma Boulevard North.
Pamelaisaid'"No:"because of the,terrain and utilities in•thearea.
Commissioner'Arras asked about the Transit Station mdicated on the west side.of Highway 101.
•
Pamela explained this was a station and'was noted'inconjunction with the.development of the Rainier
connector with a Park`N Ride; etc:,but it-was'.not a train station:
Pamela introduced the
West Hills area south of town'and indicated some of the policies for this area
including infill, flexible design, smaller lots,,hiillside regulations, and "I" Street as'a gateway as ideas for
this area She stated they'were:not recommending acquisitiomof the full Scott property torextend Helen
Putnam Park to"D" Street because there were already numerous public encumbrances on this property.
Commissioner Miller clarified a citizen's desire to have a more design plans,for creating gateways
and not wanting"cookie cutter"'gateway designs',for different areas in the City.
Pamela said she understood and entrances would be done in respect to their locations in the several sub-
areas:
Commissioner Arras,asked about very low density residential and-rural residential densities:and how these
designations were established.
Pamela explained that the proposal to,elim nate.rural residential:with two-acre ranchettes, since they were
not a good fit Within the.UGB, was-not accepted by the public or Council so The rural residential.
designations"froin the.1987 GP were continued.
Commissioner Arrasasked about-the comment regarding no gated communities.in,Petaluma.
Pamela explained there;is only one gated community located at Country Club #3. This was a reaction to
allowing houses on hilltops in'trade for public access to the UGB.,She asked if the Commission would like
to craft language to address this concept.
Commissioner;Mills had questions about the.LaCresta designation.of very low or rural residential and if
this area would be a combination of both,
Pamela said LaCresta is very'low;'residential, suburban designation She said it wasn't presented as low
residential but areas,of Bodega Avenue remain aglow density residential as well as areas.on Western
Avenue with this designation.
Commissioner Mills asked about a large area kept as rural residential that was adjacent to West Haven and
the LaCresta Ridge.
Pamela said this was done primarily because of the lack of a road network, topography, utilities and also
public input for rural residential.
Council Member Nau asked about"a'city-owned lot near LaCresta where the neighborhood was interested
in establishing a community garden.
Pamela said this appeared,to be,near a city water,tank and public'use,would not be.desirable because of
this. She said she would talk to Water Resources and visit the site to see if there was a possible area for a
community garden.
Commissioner Mills asked about.the-possibility of rezoning the Rancho Veal site to medium density
residential.Pamela.said,"Yes."He asked about live-work on the Boulevard:andif the;zoning could support
this as SPARC liked this idea.
•
Pamela said she will check but the original plan included mixed use When fronting on an arterial.
Commissioner Mills said that SPARC really liked the mixed use on the Boulevard rather than all medium
use residential.
Pamela said this would.be reviewed.
Commissioner Mills stated that this'"would allow for better flow from industrial to mixed use.with double
zoning. _. _. .
Pamela agreed and the draft GP will reflect this She mentioned blending and how to address two
designations on one parcel.
Commissioner Mills asked if the Old Mexico restaurant, CalWest and detail'shop sites would continue,to
be industrial.
Chair Dargie mentioned' hataround Cinnabar the area builds to mixed use and he supported this concept.
Commissioner-Miller asked'for clarification of setbacks.,
Pamela explained that when a property abuts the UGB an 80' setback wasrequired.
Assistant Planning Director White explained that a lot of this area is.imthe County where the setbacks are
about 20'.
•
•
Pamela said'.language scould:be°crafted;to.address sensitivity to setbacks and,this,would be,established.'by
CDD in the Development Code;to look at size,of dots,and allow setbacks that would be appropriate. .
Council Member Nau asked about the parking:at Rancho Veit and sif it would be like(Old Elin'Village.:She
asked'if the;parkingarea is part of the setback.
'Pamela said-that+the property line at the edgeof the street and the setback is behind'the sidewalk.
Council Member Nau asked about the possibility,of leveling,PetalumaBoulevard North.
Pamela said thatbecause of:the!terrain and utilities this could not be done.
Commissioner Arras.had'questions regarding the transit station noted.on the west side of 101:
Pamela said this would be a Park "n Ride in conjunction with the development of'Rainier, not atrain
station.
Pamela introduced the West Hills at the south end of town`cwith policies and public input: She.said that the
acquisition of the Scott property to extend Helen Putnam:Park to "D" Street would not be recoihmended
because there was a great deal of public encumbrance already.
Commissioner Miller'clarifted,a citizen's comment regarding gateways to Petaluma areas that Would be
varied andtrot"cookiecutter.'-'designs.
Pamela said that entrances to;the..sub-areas`have,been,addressed to vary throughout;the'City.
ConittiissionerArrasrasked about.he verydow,density residential and rural r.residential.densities and how
these,were established.
Pamela explained that the{proposal to eliminate rural.residential with 2-acre ranchettes was not a good.use
within the iUGB but the public and Council did not support'changing this so the 1.987 General Plan'was
followed.
Commissioner:Arras asked about the comment regarding nogated communities.
Pamela explained that there is only one :gated community in Petaluma, She said this comment'was,a
reaction to allowing homes on the hilltop*trade'for publicaccess tothe.UGB She asked the Conuhission'
if they wanted-to.draft languageto addressithis.
Commissioner Mills. mentioned'LaCresta and if this would be very low or rural re sidential'=or some
combinationof both.
Pamela replied that LaCresta is very lOw.residential currently.
Commissioner Mills asked if this area should or could still be rural residential instead of very low
residential.
Pamela said it wasn''tpresented-ass low.residential hut that looking',at some areas'off Bodega that remained
at low density near Bantam Way, east of'the Bodega'Market were low density residential and other.
property was at low density instead of very low on Western Avenue.
Commissioner Mills:wanted, to know about one large pentagon-shaped;parcel that was kept as rural
residential'that was adjacent to West Haven on LaCresta edge.
Pamela this was primarily because of the lack of a road'network, topography,,utilitiesiand public input
supported'keeping thi's!atea as rural residential—it would be;looked atsfitther.
Council Member.Nau asked about the City-owned lotnear LaCresta and if it could be designated as a
community garden that the neighborhood wanted. She saidj if it was on the same site as the public water
tank it would not be appropriate.
Pamela said this parcel would be visited and looked at for this use.
Commissioner.Sullivan asked about the'proposed hillside ordinance and how to define the term"ridgeline".
She said there was a need to identify what is being talked about.
Assistant Planning Director George White said it was itriportant to look at topography and identify
ridgelines that would need protection. He said there were also numerical methods to measure how
development could occur and:that a policy in the GP could be defined.
Commissioner Mills wanted to.encourage such an ordinance to be included in the GP.
Commissioner Sullivan asked if the Commission should select ridgelines.
Pamela mentioned policy 2.15, Goal 262 regarding hillsides and an illustration could be created with
definitions and specifics to define ridgelines and mention areas.
Commissioner Mills said anordinance has to start with defining;ridgelines and mention areas. He wouldn't
want it to be too specific however.
Pamela said a new exhibit could be created and would talk to CDD to see,what they wanted to include.
Commissioner Miller suggested using language such as these are the current examples; not meant to be
inclusive:
•
Council Member Nau referred to density blending and Pamela said this would be discussed in the next
workshop.
Council Member Nau mentioned Novato's hillside ordinance. •
Pamela said other communities'hillside ordinances will be reviewed.
Pamela introduced the Washington Core area.policies and land:use changes,such as Sunset Line and Twine,
parks, community gardens, -relocating or better use of the fairgrounds, and defining entrances to
neighborhoods.
Commissioner Mills mentioned Berkeley's method of identifying neighborhoods as motorists enter
neighborhoods.
Pamela asked the Commission if they wanted to draft a transitional streetscape strategy in,the Liberty,
Keokuk neighborhoods.
Commissioner Sullivan said that the homes themselves make a statement and any attempt to create
something might not work.
Council Member Nau suggested pressed concrete instead of cobblestones or historic street signs.
Pamela said there were historic street signs in the "D" Street area but not everyone noticed these — the
Planning Commission wasn't interested in pursuing creating neighborhood entrance statements.
Commissioner Arras asked about the Fair Board and the City working together and how to express this in
the GP.
.Commissioner Mills mentioned.3P172 'as starting to address this issue"but the ianguageneeded to be
strengthenedto open.the:area to more public access.
Commissioner Sullivan mentioned this is in the CPSP and it should be specific to mention recreational
opportunities.
Connnissioner'Miller agreed that the encouragement of recreation and wanted the.City to work;with'.the
Fair Board to maximize recreational usages.
Commissioner Mills suggested adding`year-round"to the language.
Char Dargie agreed with this and that the Fair did not need or use all of the 64•acres located_in the middle
of the City.
Council Member Nau agreed the Fair doesn't use the entire 64 acres for the best purposes,she proposed
having theFair give up I5 acres for residential'use.
Pamela Tuft said the eRecfeation,Music,and Parks Commission•:would discuss.this too.
Pamela;mtroduced the North McDowell policies with the Deer Creek Plaza, Corona:and Old Redwood
areas to be brought back She mentioned public,comments.regarding•this.area for Rainier;Avenue,retail,
pedestrian-access,no freeway interchange.at Rainier,and flooding.
Commissioner-:Mills commented on the turf buy=back;water conservation„and sidewalk walkability ideas
forthis+area. He wanted to strengthen changing turf buffering:at:the north end of McDowell from'the Fire
Department up to'Kolils.
Pamela said this couldbe addressed and she supported"this: ' •
Pamela introduced the North East area policies and public input for,changes at Corona_Roa_d for Centex
builders;improving'older streetscapes,community identity; no strip malls, and no architectural themes.
She introduced the South East area change at the Lutheran Church at Ely Boulevard South,public,comment
mentioned Arroyo Park,medium density,neighborhood markets,,comniunity'gaidens,and bike lanes.
Commissioner Mills said the'.gateways should,be similar to others with trees.
Pamela introduced the West sub-area with proposed change atSt:.Vincent school with its acquisition of a
small,parcel. The public wanted to encourage neighborhood connectivity, street trees and an interface with
the western hills,etc.
IL LIAISON REPORTS: (10:04 PM)
a. City Council-Commissioner Nau(10:04'PM)
b. SPARC-Commissioner Mills(10:06°PM) •
c.Petaluma Bicycle Advisory-Committee-Commissioner Aims(10:07 PM)
d. Tree Advisory Committee-Commission&Sullivan(10:08 PM)
Adjoutrunern: (10:08 PM)
•