HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/20/2004April 20, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3'4
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
,4,~.~=L``U~r
~' ~ City of Petaluma, California
zss$ MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, Apri120, 200,4- 7:00 P.M.
Special Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
A. ROLL-CALL 7:08 PM
Present: Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt, Mayor Glass
Absent: Harris, Thompson, O'Brien
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -led by Council MemberTorliatt
C. MOMENT OF SILENCE
PUBLIC COMMENT None
COUNCIL COMMENT None
CITY MANAGER COMMENT None
NEW BUSINESS
A. City Council Discussion Regarding General Plan Land Use and Mobility
Alternatives Report. (Tuft)
Director of General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuft briefly described the
public workshops recently conducted as well as the items in the Council's
packets. She also gave a brief history on ,the projections of population
and growth. trends, concluding that the three land use alternatives
presented in the report provide a rdnge of b-1 1 % growth over the existing
.General Plan of Petaluma over the next 21 years. Ms. Tuft introduced Alex
Amoroso from the. Association of Bay Area. Governments (ABAG), Scott
Duiven, City planner, and Rajiv Bhatia of Dyeft 8~ Bhatia, who will assist with
discussion.
COUNCIL. QUESTIONS:
Council,Member Totliatt: Last time this item was before Council, I thought
the Council had asked to look at an alternative that didn't look at the
potential expansion areas in the City.
Ms. Tuft: The numbers we are presenting and the alternatives do not show
the potential UGB. We did present some analysis in the report that showed
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l~
16
17
18
l9
20
zi
z2
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43,
44
4j
46
47.
48
49
SU
$1
52
Vol. 40, Page 2
- , ., ~. ~ , ~s.r,
April 20, 2004
numbers for the ,potential; but we're not proposing to plan for the possible
urban. growth boundary areas or that the GP 2025 address those areas,:
but in response to the public comments dining the early workshops, we
#e(t we: should at least show something in the analysis portion. Th`e
administrative draft that was presented to Council on January 5 -did:. show
that; but we understood the clear direction and the final document did
not.
Council Member Torliatt: The final document, at'least so far;. will not show
any GP land use or'zoning designation in the potential UGB expansion
areas. I would. ask if Mr, Amoroso would give d projection of what we think
the population growth will be through.202~, maybe extrapolated, and
some of the reguirernents and needs that we might have to
accommodate. She also asked'thatMr.-Amoroso: talk about who he is
and what his agency does, because she. didh't think a lot of people
understood what ABAG actually `does.
Alex Arnaroso: Is a planner for ABAG, a Councf of governments, a
membership orgdnization for the 101 cities~and'9 counties of the Bay Area.
We have a variety of tasks,. some of'which relate fo housing policy (the
regional housing needs "numbers -that's one of the state mandates we
are reguired to implement); we'have a variety of programs thatfelate to
services we provide fo cities. In addition, we do'projections of growth; and
this is done: at the Gouncil of government level throughout the sfate as
well, and they provide a basis'for regional transportation planning, air
quality district planning, local;jurisdictional planning, and a feedback loop
to us as well fbr those projections. The board deals with.regional' issues as
well as local issues and tries to find a, balance amongst all those things..
ABAG has been doing projections for about_ 30 years, and those
projections .have been .based on feedback-from local jurisdietiors iia the
form of what sort of information s,in existing General Plan and~Zoning
Ordinancesand job expectations', househoid growth: Tl~~at is melded into
a, methodology that takes into. account Dept'. Of Finance numbers at the
s.tdfe: level and essentially feeds back to local jur;sdictions what {he
anticipafed growth is going to be in terms of'jobs by type;.households
population, etc: Projections are~rrieant as.a bas"cline of information,.. and
in general, are prefty stable and on target'on a'2Q year cycler Recertly, in
2003, we .are doing policy-:based projections from Smart Growth uisi'on .
' inputs. with a resulfiing vision that~vyds laid out for"the Bay Area. Do the
development °in patterns that .are tighter, at'.,the jurisdictional level, at the
local level., do them along corri~'ors that provide-transit and
., .
transportation, dhd consider intensifying developmenfi patterns. That vision
with numbers and concepts was placed in projections to consider
different'types of development. Retalurna is seeing same changes that
the ,projections show ,but they:don't match up with fhe numbers in the GP
but part of that is because vye,just did projections: Q3 and new we are.
doing a feedback loop to take into account whdt is napping at the local
level.
From the 2003 projections, ABAG has identifiied a total population of
65,600 by.2025 and in 5-year i'ncrenaents, the first couple of 5-year
increments, the population changes are less and then they increase a
~'° ' A~r'il°~20; 2004
Vol. 40, Page.3
1 little more over time.
2
3 Council. Member Torliatt: Wanted to know what the ABAG projections
4 were because 1' think what we need to look at here, at least from my
5 standpoint on the. Council,. I want, to meet ABAG projections ,because I
6 want to meet our housing element needs and requirements. I' m not sure
7 we need to plan. for another 2400 homes above and beyond the ABAG
8 projections; and that's :where,l'rn personally coming from in this process.
9 That basically answers my question.:
10
11 Council Member Healy: What stood out more than the numbers was the
12 process used for the 2003 projections as opposed to earlier processes,
13 which looked at available land and absorption. rates. In the 2003 forecast,
14 which applied :Smart Growth. concepts; there were some major policy
15 shifts of where~growth was allocated for different parts of the Bay Area, in
16 particular,. on p: b, ,that showed, projected new households for Sonoma
17 County over the. 30 year period 2000-2030 having been about 60,000
18 households, then dropping'to .41,000 new households. Conversely, again
19 applying:Smarf Growth principles,. you had about 50,000 new households
20 beyond what was projected in 2002. for some, of the core counties -
21 Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara.,
22
23 From .our small size of our community the demand for housing is almost
24 infinite- we can add housing for 10;000 population or 100,000 additional
25 people,. and it would all get snapped up because tf ~e demand is there.
26 What is'Petalurna's fair share of regional growth over this period moving
27 forward; is there starting to be buy-in to the 2003 projections from other
28 communities?
29
30 Mr. Amoroso: ABAG Board adopted the 2003 projections, they were
31 presented to every jurisdiction so there was an opportunity for feedback,
32 and some modifications w3ere made in those projections, so in general,
33 we feet .we have buy-in when the original set of projections was put in
34 place. There are local jurisdictions redoing. their GP's and using these
35 projections; they are. also being used by MTC in the regional
36 transportation planln terms of drop in overall .housing units in Sonoma
37 County, there is about-19,Q00 unit drop. (meaning the curb doesn't,go up
38 as~high .as previous projections); however, the reduction is going to be in
39 'areas that are further outsin Sonoma County (Windsor; Cloverdale,
40 Sonoma; the unincorporated'Songma Co_, etc,). will probably grow slower.
41 Generally, the intent is.'to~ f.ocus'what is coming .into the. county into a
42 different place.-the urbanized areas. The numbers are an important
43 ~ piece of this conversation; understand that housing needs and fairshare is
44 policy based that js state Iaw;Now a community chooses to grow affects
45 - the population,in>the long run and sort of the development patterns that
46 ,you have put in place in specific plans. are going to, affect the projections
47 and hopefully riot your community-feel..
4'8
49 ~ zCouncil Member Healy:: Staff has indicated that.given the changes.made
50 ~ yin this community over the last couple of years, in terms of the adoption of
51 -the: Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and projects that we know that are in
52 the pipeline, vie would. probably easily hifi a 71:or 72,000 population target
Vol. 40, Page 4 April 20, 2004.
by 2025.even without fouchng the UGB expansion aceds. from A&AG's
perspecfive at this point in time; does it appear that Petaluma would
carrying its fair share of regional growth if vve hit those kinds of numbers?
Mr., Amoroso: It would accommodate a' bigger'percentage of'the growth.
It's nota statement of whether ABAG;thinks you are: doing the right thing
or not as much qs. how that. feeds into the numbers. It is not a policy
statement on our pdrt .as much as following what'it is this community is
do'ing'in trying to feed that into the numbers.
.Mayor Glass: Mr, Healy'touehed on this, and a while back; he had a
conversationFwith Supervisor Kerns, if we ,exceeded the .numbers. ABAG
as"signs to: us, and you talked about encouraging the growth going to fhe
urban core, one thing. this ared is concerned about is protecting: the rural '
area and that may not be a Ci~ty`issue but it~is~for the people who live,in
~y
the proximit, of Petaluma. 1Ne do protect~'thern with feathering densities. •'
dnd urban separators and what not - is' this'the proper place to find out
how we incorporate that philosophy; that we;get"credit: through ABAG' -
not only for whdt,the City does,;but we take on thinarea's share of what
the county gets assigned.,,Because the. fear is that white we put together
our growth targets and du~Lcommunty values that the county gets
assigned housing quotas and thatthe county then; in the rural dreg right
outside. of town, winds up having to do something that completely
violates our General'Plan. Hove do we protect agdinstthat type,'howdo
we make sure we accommodate that growth and =then as an insurance
policy are protected,; that the county won't have that burden in our _
area?
Mr. Amoroso:; This is a regional housing needs .issue.. There .have been
`many .concerns raised by folks ih this county `and areas`that there should
not be housing assigned'to the unincorporated area. So ourintenfin the
next`iteration of numbers, to reducE that,.to minimize that as fdr down as
we can, recognizing thereare still goingto be'some housing needs in the
unincorporated. county. It is our intent to reduce that fo a bare minimum
and take tlidt into account. Another opporfuriity that exists is that we're.
planningto make it possible through some state law that's on the.table
right'now in :Sacramento as well in our own process; to dllow for the
county dnd dll the jurisdictions, therein to~ do a distribution _amongst
themselves.
Vice: MayorNloynihon. What happEns to the ittle guy in tfie county; the
rest of'the county says ydu will grow 60%~and we want to grow 1.0%, if you'
turn control over to the county instead of maintaining it dt ABAG?
Mr. Amaroso:'If there can''t be•agreemenf; f think •it=vvould"cdme back to
ABAG. fo do the distribution based on our methodology was for the
region. ~ '
Vice Moyor Moynihan: I, assume you are ,trying to.project accurately with
the mdrket~forces and current situations; why wouldn't yov distribute
housing units. in the`unincorporated areas where we'd'hdve to°assume
there would be some growth?
April 20, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 5
1
2 Mr: Amaroso: There will be some distributed to the unincorporated areas;
3 there is never a point where it will be zero. The intent of the policy-based
4 projections is to try to pattern differently at a regional level; to throw a
S pattern out on the table that will look different and see if cities adopt
6 policies and make charges to do that. That's why if you look at the
7 numbers, there is a buffer the first ten years or so, assumes there will not be
8 very much change. Petaluma is way ahead of the curve; you are making
9 changes.; There are other communities that aren't making those sorts of
10 changes yet. We are trying to-build in some backup in there so that things
11 don't change rapidly in too short a time frame.
12
13 Vice Mayor~Moynihan: I guess my concern is that we'd get into policy so
14 heavily that we'd lose sight of reality. From a projection point of view, it
15 seems you should have a little more credibility to the numbers as far as
16 reflecting what trends have been and their appropriateness. Lastly, you
17 have a website and in the past, you've been doing pretty well by
18 maintaining these studies on the website where the general public can
19 access. What is the website?
20
21 Mr. Amaroso: www:abaa.ca.~ Unfortunately, the projections are not
22 there in full; we give a partial projection, but we give a full report in the
23 libraries.
.
24
25 Council Member Torliatt: On the housing needs. level, how many units are
26 we looking at in Petaluma, or do we have to do it by county in looking at
27 the projections for the next 25 years? I think we need to get a general
28 idea so we can potentially back into those numbers.
29
30 Mr. Amaroso; The projections will come from Petaluma. We back into
31 what you'.re telling us you're doing, so the projections are going to reflect
32 what you're saying.. Our numbers are lower than what you told us
33 because we didn't assun-~e-that what would happen in terms of your GP
34 has happened. We're going to build those assumptions into our
35 projections for 'O5; we'll know that we have that information; and our
36 numbers will be comparable in terms of projections with what you're
37 telling us you're doing.
38
39 Council Member Torliatt: If we .have an allocation process; if we set
40 something up that we're only going to build "X" amount of units, ABAG
41 will plug that into their projections?
42
43 Mr. Amaroso: Yes. !n fact, Petaluma, has .had in place a growth
44 moderation policy since the 70's and that has always been p part of the .
4S ABAG projections. There is recognition that Petaluma has moderated its
46 growth pattern over the years and we will take those things into account.
4'7
48 Council Member Torliatt: And that is something in this GP process that I
49 think we need to look at in 'the community because in the past, its been
50 _ 500 units a year, and I think we need to re-look at that number based on
51 the fact that we need to prioritize where those units should be, however
52 many units we're looking for, for a variety of different reasons, including
Vol. 40,• Page. 6 April20, 2004
water use and where we're going. to develop in the community; but we
really need fio lookhard at how we're going to deal with. the::growth. and
our transportation infrastructure in our community associated with that
growth. ABAG really just takes whatever we give you, and then you feed it
back, but. sometimes you come back and. say we heed to meet higher
housing needs.
Mr. Amaroso: The projection`is a feedback loop. There are certain
assumptions about changes in pattern of growth in the projections; so yes
it is-a feedback loop from. you and back out again. Th,e housing needs is a
program where the state says here is a massof housing units that is
coming to the region, Ghat group of housing units typically exceeds. what
the. region .as a whole plans, for, because that's how state policy works ih.
-this case, dnd we have a responsibility to distribute those.. That distribution
is then based on these .projections.. We use~the projections as p-.art o.f our
database to, do that distribution. That being~said', the'law changes for the
regional housing needs process pt the state level, there is a proposal that I
think will ,move along; that'suggests we need to tdke into account, when
we do our distribution, availability of certain resources, infrastructure; a
look at the jobs- .housing relationships at the-local and. regiondl level - so
those components are being built into at the state level as our'
responsibility to start taking into:aecount the regional' housing needs
numbers. So while that is a separate process from projections, those things
are starting to feed into the state process.
Council Member Hegly: If that legislation does get enacted, do you. have
sense of how that would affect a community such as-ours in terms of what
you would be looking for us to achieve? '
Mr. Amaroso: I can tell you that it will be much more cprnplicated for us to
take a methodology together, 'but other than.. that; I don't know.
Vice Mayor'Moynihan: There was question about whether or not the
alternatives analysis is reflecting the proposed projecfs that a"re currently
going through the entitlement processesin the-City?
Ms: Tuft: We attempted;. in most. aspects, to achieve; some consistency;
but ,we had to take: a snapshot in time because the entitlement process is
a daily activity. We prepared the alterriatiVes: last year'and by
September/October, they were pretty well locked in and projects were
still being proposea'.'So I cannot tell you that sverythirig; that is in for
process of 'this point in time is consistent with, one of these. The direction
from the Council in 2001 was, to stay balanced, to achieve ajobs=housing
balance, at flie same time as working toward achieving' economic health
for the organization, of providing services, drill for the quality of life forthis
community.
Vice~AAayor Moynihan: You had communicated that you were working
with the Community Development bepdrtmenf to identify~pending
'projects with. the .intent. that any project that is being. processed is
addressed adequately in the. preferred alternative, to work with the
proposed densities. Those-projects that are being processed, particularly
' April 20, 2004
Vol. 40, Page 7
1 after that snapshot in time, are not incorporated but will be picked up in
2 the preferred alternative.
3
4 Ms, tuff: If a project has entitlements by the time we are .preparing the
5 puale to create. the preferred. plan, if it has received Council approval,
6 we will make sure the preferred plan reflects the appropriate land use
7 - and density; if it is a residential project.
8
9 Vice Mayor Moynihan: Whenever we had the initial alternatives
10 presentation, I had asked at the time-.how many years of available land of
1.1 each existing land use designation do we have based on current
12 absorp#ion rates, and I was hoping to ge.t some feedback there sc we
13 could identify at least under the existing general plan what areas are
14 particularly "endangered" of running .out of in the near future. Were we
15 able to incorporate that?
16
17 Ms. tuff; There is some analysis on p. 23 of the alternatives about housing
18 population and projection. We.have done some absorption rates with
19 regard to residential, the 3 alternatives provide fora growth rate over the
20 life ofithe general plan ranging from 274 to 365 units per year. Up until
21 dbout 4 years ago> we were averaging about 380 per year, over a period
22 cif ab.au 15 yedrs.
23
24 Vice Mayor Moynihan: We'r'e not getting: into the actual land use
25 designationswe have today, like office or industrial...
26
27 Mr. Duiven: for nonresidential, on average, we looked. at building permit
28 data over a 10-11-year period, and we tended to average about 333,000
29 sq. ft. of nonresidential, which includes office, industrial, warehouse, retail,
30 etc. There: is more.than adequate land, in aggregate; for nonresidential
31 assuming fhat ,you will continue to :absorb that 333,000...
32
33 Mayor 61ass: So we're starfing,l think, with a. huge cushion because we're
34 somewhere around 24% vacant right .:now,, so what you're saying, is that
35 even. taking that hot real estate market of the telecom valley explosion
36 now following the bubble burst, we should have a very good comfort
37 zone. with the available supply?
38
39 Mr. Duiven: if vacancy were taken into consideration, then there is the
40 ability to backfill.
41
42 Vice Mayor Moynihan: The table you are. pointing out is comparing the
43 three, alternatives being presented,.and not breaking it out by the existing
44 land use designations. The problem with that is that we have shortages in
45 certain land use designations and not~in others, where we'll also have
46 ~ more development in some areas than in others, so my concern was in
47 particular, I stated back.then, that we`relooking at changing land use
48 designations particularly to a lot of mixed use .land use designations which
49 effectively takes that available land out of the market for a particular
50 designation and. allows for multiple different designations to occur. So the
51 question of whether or not we are providing adequate lands for
52 continued growth in fhe community in al! spectrums was the concern.
Vol. 40, Page 8 April 2b, 2004
I' m not seeing the answer in what is coming, forth here. I`'`m seeing d very
general overview and no.t looking, into the detgils: My problem with that is
that I' think we tend to .miss the .niches,: There "is, in particular, in the office
and'R8~D market; a glut of space on the markef as ,the Mayor points but,
but maytje for certain othert,ypes of`product, there is not a lot,~whefher it
is retail; or warehouse industrial... I think from a point of view of balancing
'jobs and housing, it wou d'be important that we improve upon that.
Mr. Duiven: V~[e have the potential fo do that.
Mr. Bhatia; On page 22, we did projeef build out by different'land use
categories. We looked at overall regional projections; what ABAG said' will
happen in terms of`retal;growth, industrial'and office growth, etc: we
tookaheir employment categories and converted them back to land •
uses, and we tried to be•sure we were achieving a balance in the build
out._ For a comparison, we cari .provide that to you.
'Vi'ce Mayor,Moynihan: The point I was trying to rndke was thatJ'wanted to
knovw where'we'stood `today with existing .land uses. Arid: what we have
here aggiri are projections based on three alternatives that don't reflect
..
the current General Plan land' use designations.l am concerned' because
I 'had' asked previously-that instead of evaluating three alternatives; we
evaluafe four, and-,the fourths being the existing genera_I plan; land' use
designations so the community would have the basis. from which to judge
th'e differences between these alternatives and what we helve today: It
would be more tangible: for the community q.nd'the Council to have a
basis by which to judge. We don't seem fo• be.getting there; and tasked: -
for that specifically dnd'I' understood that it was going to be part of what ~ _
was; going out to community discussions. I am disappointed to come, back
and .find people, "still don't really understand where°we are today versus
what these: three alternative proposals are.
Mr: Bhdtaa That information is there~'I think it` needs to be compiled •
together. we can compile it and put it in the same tables.
Vice Mayor Moynihan: I would Iove'to: see'that, that we could. have four
columns including the existing; land use designation.'I think. the .community
in future hearings needs: to have .that as a reference point also.
Ms Tuff: We've done the workso we can easily provide.;t.
Council Member Healy: I agreewith. Mr. Moynihan on that point and I
thinkit.would be valuable inforrnafion for all of us.
PUBt:IC' COMMENT:.
BiIF Phillips; Petaluma: Three comcnenfs,by Council Members That aye very
.significant. Any amount ofihousing we would have here would be
snapped up policy'vs. reality; qnd numbers of growth vs. the availability
of water, tNe live in a finite. world. It is heartening to me that, there. is
concern as to where we could :end up, and ask that°you. keep in mind
April 20, 2004
Vol. 40, Page 9
~~ -'1 ~ ,that growth is something that can have a very significant effect that can
2 change the City.
3
4 .. Matt Maguire, Petaluma: Complimented staff on work being done; not
5 sure the public is driving the demand #or population projections if you take
6 ~ °into account the expansion cif Petaluma Blvd. North. People feel the
7 population projections are way too much. Have an alternative that
8 eliminates bumping out the UGB. This is taking the assumption there is
9 enough water to accommodate this growth, and we know this is not true.
10
11 Rainier will be driven by money. factions. You could consider an
12 interchange at Rainierwithout`it being a cross town connector, widen
13 Corona for, a four lane cross- town connector -that keeps you out of the
14 flood plain and out of the artificial, pressure to develop in the Corona
15 Reach and eliminate the negative effects of traffic; in support of
16 pedestrian, bicycle, train, cross town jitney-type things, and this is a
17 perfect document to prepare for that; here is a provision in the general
18 plan that. new development will pay for itself, and that rarely happens, but
19 the Council needs to try to make that happen. Concerned about housing
20 numbers, and looking of population growth, you have up to a 21,000
21 increase, of'about a 1,000/year increase, which should exceed the
22 500/year allocation. Feels the ABAG numbers are strong enough, and that
23 allocation could be dropped to 200/year or less, and this is the sentiment
24 of the community.
25
26 .Sonia. Taylor,. Santa Rosa: Thinks an alternative should be prepared that
27 does not bump out the UGB. Is a longtime advocate for affordable
28 housing; ,and. is concerned about the density proposals in this General
29 Plan,. All three alternatives. have a,great deal of density. Thinks there
30 should be an alternative prepared which is-the ABAG projections so the
31 Council and public could .see what that. looks like, which ramps down
32 population. and density. Consider d-form-based code, which is what you
33 ~ havE just done in the downtown.; Agrees with last speaker on growth
34 management, water, and that new development should pay for itself.
35
36 Richard drawn, Petaluma: Issues discussed here evolve around money,
37 ~ and':.how much.. growth is going to .cost,. and who is going to pay for that
38 growth. What is it really going to cost- vs;-what we are going to .get out of
39 it? Feels ABAG should help cities figure out the cost of growth, and feels
40 City should be able to tally the costs.
41
42 Geoffrey Ca-twright, Petaluma: Comments on surface water
43 managernent~, on p. 13, it states "FEMA flood mpps" and that is incorrect,
44 it is actuahly the FEMA Flood Insurdnce Rate Maps; p. 16, map of proposed
45 flood ,plain -the flooding. extends from auction yard: to the factory outlets -
46 it'doesn''t cover the areas that were covered in. the actual flooding as
47 portrayEd by the actual flyover by Tom.Hargis in 1998, Were any of the
48 figures from~~Brian. Kangas Faulk Engineering used. in the input for your
49 S.W,Iv1M model? Was the channelization and diversion of those traditional
~0 sheet water flows that you see on the map accounted for and put on the
51 S~WMM model?
52
Vol. 40, Page TO April 20, 2004
Susan: Kirks; .Petaluma:: Speaking on behalf of the Paula Lane Action
Network, and has 6 concerns: (1) Hillside rural residential density of up to 4
houses per acre, and. feel it is inappropriate; (2) Would prefer 200 ft. urban
growth separator extend 'to Bodega Avenue or contracf. the UGB -along
W. Paula Lane properties to the'road. itself (3) Open space and ,park
designations.- would; prefer open space and vacant land-designation.
Category of underutilized and is a misnomer;. (4) Mobility/traffic -two-lane
county road is part of historic, rural fabric, that encourages joggers,
walkers, and cyclists and offers~a respite from urban and suburban noise
and life. There is no way to widen. Paula:Lane wifhout destroying
attributes..(5), LovYwater Ares"sure -trying to find' a fix for low water pressure
will not be accepted.
PatriciaTuttle Brown, Petaluma:Wanted to thank Council for allowing
public input; thinks there are residentrwh'o may not attend meetings or
live'in Petaluma but.who attend Petaluma schools and think the
fairgrounds is~~significant; the relocation of the fairgrounds is a~wrong
statement,. acid"need to .keep, agriculture:'at the' heart of the City; thinks
the underutilized lands marked on the document needs to be
reconsidered, especially the warehouse area.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
Vice N-ayor'Moynihan: First of all> the library/fairgrounds, one of the
comments made, ifs in the minutes: of the Parks & Rec. Commission
meeting on March 17th,. to which I' m a Counci(liaison, was made by a
former Recreation, Music and Parks Commissioner, Steve Arago, and he
reminded us all regarding the.Kenilworth site; the Recreation, Music-.and
Parks. Commission developed. a recreation master plan for'that property
that identified a number of different elernenfs, sueh~ as the ball fields; the
gym; the multipurpose room, the skate park, the swim center; etc:; as a
' recreation resource.. The Council apparently adopted' thdt. We are .
~'~ seeking dcopy of that master plan, and that needs to be taken.into
consideration and! incorporatecJ into our General Plan. A-lot ofi people are
concerned. about infill densities; chart 2.2 on page 10, that I found
interesting because of the variousacenarios.:lwoind have thought we'd
have a lot more granny units,' infill, that- type of thing potential, and I' don''t
.look at it from. people raising existing structures and building multiplexes on
the same pad. The increase in densitywill resulf in only so many units"as far
as infill.
Everyone. seems to focus in on our Central Petaluma Specific Plan as what
everyone wdnted when they adopted'the UGB'. I think there is a
"disconnect" from fhdt logic. It is, a false. assumption: that people.. who _°
supported the UGB do not support necessarily high density, 6°7 story
strucfures in the heart of our downtown. A lot of people w,ho supported ,_
'the UGB basically are saying we do not want ch"tinge. Our General Pldn is '
proposing a log of change, and we're going, to hear the same 70-80
come out and say boy, I'mm really not comfortable with that change.
I don't want everyone to assume, and I don't think if is fair to dssume,, fhat
the majority of`the community wants to see high-density infill-and no
~~ April 20, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 1 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
expansion of the UGB. I think that if you. have to weigh it, at some point,
people who want to preserve their quality of life in this community want to
see some, kind: of balance and planned growth and. that'may be a
mixture of the two. So, new urbanism is a great concept;: we see it in
highly dense :urban areas such as San Francisco, but I don't think that
when people moved to' Petaluma'tiiey'envisioned the same type of high
rise tenements here ih Petaluma that they would find in San Francisco. We
need to temper our vision-with a little realify and remember to check in
with the ,people. I had. asked before that the property owners be notified if
there is, proposed land use.changes, so that we make sure they are aware
of it.and get a chance to .give some reflection on that. Has that been
done;. or when will it be .done?
Council Member`:Healy; Would, like to .;throw some ideas out to encourage
disco"ssion; :feels there is some skittishness i^ the. document with respect on
how to treat. the urban growth boundary' expansion areas or the
expratioh of that area in 2018. We need to have more focused discussion.
aboutwhat the expectations are. of the document that gets adopted
with respect to that issue.. It is subject to interpretation that on January 1,
201'9,; the Oklahoma land rush starts anew,in Petaluma and I don't think
that's/:the impression the Council~wants fo leave for the next generation.
Need. to have.a .focused discussion on that,, which loops back to the
ABAG projections and whatfhis comrmunity's fairshare of regional growth
is. The informatign,l have at this-point is thaf the ABAG 2003 projection
document is kind .ot half fish/Half fowl;-it, is partly a feedback but also
partly~a policy document trying to implement Smart Growth concepts
throughout:;the Bay. Area.. ABAG seems to have come to the conclusion
that you.cap irnplemenf'Smart Growth principles in the Bay Area and the
number they assign to Petaluma the:Idst time. through is probably less than
what we would achieve by 2025 even. without any further increases in
density, justvvith the existing' General Plan without the urban growth
boundaries and with the Central Specific Plah, and things we know are in
th'e'pipeline:Idoni know that we need to ramp down to hit the ABAG
forget in the 2003 projection document, but I don't know that we need to
stretch or causedifficult:iss~es in neighborhoods in .terms of increased
densities that will be hard to achieve in practice to go beyond it. I am
looking forward to a close review of Mr. Moynihan°s alternative four and
Iook~c~t that in light of specific issues and. specific parts of the community,
and:.th'ink that may be the basis that we proceed on.
Thefair-grounds site is something we do need to look at, and think there is
ar opportunity for thefair District Board and. the City to work towards a
wih=win solution..The fact of the°matter is that that piece of land will come
..back to City confrol within the life:of this General Plan document, and the
Cityarid the Fair Board really need to;be negotiating over an appropriate
resolution of.that, that gives the Fair;District fee imple ownership of a
piece pf land, either a reduced footprihtthere or something in the
.periphery ~f the City, and people need to understand that the
fairgrcunds in this community has .moved before. It was at the edge of
town,. at what is :now Petaluma High.School; that area came to be within
the. center of the community. It ,moved, to what wds then, the far edge of
the community at the present site, several decades ago, and now once
Vol. 40, Page 1.2 Ap'ri1;20, 2004
again it is in the middle of town. My personal feeling is that as'an
.- .
agricultural supported' us'e would be:more appropriately sited at the edge
of the community and'that the land that is available there could,be
converted to a Nigher and better. use..
On fhe issue of agricultgral support,. I was pleased, to see thaf one o'f the
alternatives did include an agricultural°support campus;1 don't know that
fhat is necessarilythe,ideal site for that, but it`is something that we've,
falked about in the pasf and something we should study carefully to see if
there is something we can do to give- the agricultural support industries in
the community a place where. they can be'for the long term and
continue: to serve as the agricultural industries in the community, county
and surrounding countryside that are so important to preserving the open
space and'the diversification of'the economy that that provides.
One -thing that; I've mentioned'.. before, that we haven't had an
..opportunity to do yet, is to study the Caltrans plans for the Petaluma :Blvd,,
South .configuration. Asa .member of`the Novato Narrows Policy Advisory.
Group, I have had the opportunity to-view some of the things that
Caltrans thinks that may. ook like down the road and it is'very different
from what is there. now and I think we've had some difficulty in getting -
Galtrans staff to come down-and share that infgrmation, and.I`d be
happyto try to assist you in that. It isaomething we.need to be looking at
-~ in teems of the gateway-tredtment at the Petaluma Blvd. South
'intersection. With respect to flood plain issues., Mr. Cartwright'has pointed
-- ouf correctly (and its in the staff mdte~'i'als:as well)' that'part of the' reason...
that the flood plain is protected to shrink in the community is the model°ing
assumption change thgtbasically uses a high #ide:assumption that's 2.3 ft.
-lowerthan the high title assumption that was used previously; based on
some similar movement by FEM'A; and fhat,'in addition to the Corps:flood
fix, results in a .much smaller flood plain pro1ected in the community. My -
+ experience,leads me to believe that when~you have a highly
sophisticated computersmul.anon model that's giving you results that
appear too good to be true, they are."probd6ly -too~,good to be: true. l
- would like,an issuep""apes around th-is issue and to see if there is; an ability
to, benchrnarkahese kinds of'results from wharf we've seeriin the past fo
.,-~ get a stronger le.yel of assurance: Mr-. Cartwright.in a memo earlier in the
last`few days, and its based on fhaf map; (on the wall} has° also raised the
= - issue of°coincident storm events'in the greater San Joaquin/Sacramento -
. Valley wafe~sheds and whether that affects the .high -tide situation here. _
fhink that is an .issue that I would like to_ have. more: feedback on.
Orie thing that l have discussed, with toff in the-past'is whether there is an -'
opportunty`af this point with neighborhood feedback to expand the two
_•
- residentia( historic districts on the west. side that cover really only asmall -
- fcaetion of-what most people think of!being the historic parts of the
residential community to'include a greater area; if°that's something we ~~-
:.
can do as part'of this process with neighborhood feedback. l think the -
_.
hi"story now of'the two existing residential historic.districts..has been.qute -'~
successful. Dive in one; I think its.great, and I think.the other neighbors who
live:in it have had a positive experience. You basically get'historc SPARC
fo do your dirty work if you have d neighbor proposing to do something
April 20, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 13
1 that's really ugly, and the neighbors can continue to talk to each other. I
2 think there is a real problem with the types. of residential product that has
3 been brought to market in recent years, and we're continuing to have this
4 issue.
5
6 The affordability of the single family detached home continues to be d
7 huge issue. We have a great deal of difficulty getting the construction
8 industry to build ownership attached, build townhouses and condos. I
9 think that is something we :need to be much more aggressive on, on a
10 policy basis. I would be willing to look at ,requiring, a fairly aggressive
11 percentage of all housing built in the community to be townhouses or
12 condominiums. The single family attached that would be more affordable
13 for entry-level .purchase. I think the Recreation, Music and Parks
14 Commission, should.. revisit the NIc,Near Peninsula that we don't yet control
15 in .light of the fact that. the Central Specific. Plan has been adopted, and
16 in the meantime, there's more dense use projected in the area and I think
17 there might be opportunities for a more intensively utilized park as
18 opposed to the just purely passive use park that had been projected in
19 the past: I wanted to know, and maybe staff can answer this question, are
20 there .any road diets assumed for Petaluma Blvd. anywhere in the traffic
21 o modeling that has. gone on so far? Are there any portions of Petaluma
22 Boulevard that are assumed to come from 4. lanes down to 2?
23
24 Ms. Tuff: At the point when we did the initial modeling, the road diet that
25 vvas discussed with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and subsequently
26 was. not adopted. No, particularly with Petaluma Blvd. South, the road
27 -diet was no.
28
29 Council Member Healy: So, the results we've seen so far assume the 4
30 lane configuration all the way through.
31
32 Ms. Tuff: The same consultant that did the original modeling, though, did
33 the EIR for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,. so is fully aware of it.
34
35 Council Member Healy: Last point,l,want-to make at this juncture is to say
36 that one of the things that's in the. existing General Plan that I think has
37 been successful and I'd like to see continued, is the special treatment and
38 sensitivity for-View corridors. and sensitive hillsides. You don't realize what
39 you've got until you lose it, and Santa Rosa made a honrible.mi~take a few
40 years back and they're going to be looking at that mess for decadES to
41 come.. Those are my comments to this point.
42
43 CounciC Member Torliaff: I think I would say I generally agree with
44 Councilmember Healy's commentsso I don't have to reiterate and go
45 over them. Again, I think maybe I`rn a little concerned about considering
46 policy for townhouses and condos and just because they may be
47 cheapen to purchase, thatdoesn't necessarily provide affordable housing
48 for families that are in the community because of maybe potentially the
49 size of them. With that said, I think I wanted to overview probably four: of
50 the larger issues for me. As I've said before, and I'll say it again, I don't
51 think that'we need to go' outside of our IJGB; that is a line in'the sand that I
52 don't want to go outside, and I think. that we should be continuing to
Vol. 40, Page 14 April 20, 2004
enforce that through 2025,. and I think that hopefully we can come to
consensus on that; and the community v~!ill have an opporf~nity to vote on
the existing UGB and its existing place through 2025. So maybe that's an"
additional step we: may take if in fact if is'.in the existing ;place.
I'would also say that I think we need' fo do some more: work on giving'the
community and ourselves a beffer idea of how many residential .units
would be built.on an annual basis. l' think we really need to pursue an
allocation process like we currently have, but we need to look at
reducing the. nuniber`from'S00 units to something that's really going to
reflect the cornmunify's vision is.'I #hink that is ,probably between 150 and
maybe 200. units a year.:I think;we need to logk at housing types;: this isn't
rocket science, we actually pioneered it, but there are-other cities in this
county, including the Town of Windsor,.that has allocationprocesses.and •
they do have exemptions for certain `types of housing. They~also do have
certain exemptions forwacant land that is in their'"downtown" area.
where they're looking at mixed use housing; and I think'it would behoove
us to have a discussion. about that dt the Counciflevel. Third, I thinkahat
one of my issues that I `ve concentrated a'lot on being on the Council the
availability of water and how wisely we use our water resources, I think
that through this General Plan process, when we are talking about
growth; we certainly need to,-for all: types of land use,, .not just housing but
the retail, the industrial, the office space, the park land that we have - we
need to make sure that'we are looking at a water budget in conjunction
with the land use thafi we're projecting. I know that staff has been working.
on that at a staff'level. I think it is time tb bring it forward in conjunction
with Hold the Flow., which hopefully we will have a presentation on in June
to deal with trying to reduce our overall water consumption in'the
community along with decreasing the amount of money we need to put
into. capital on maintenance costs. in providing water to the community in
general.l think we need to look at more. of an emphasis of that issue: in our
General Plan process. In conjunc ion with that, look' at how we are going
fo prioritize=where.the development occurs in this community based on
the waterconsumption and availability. I would put forward that area
that we want` to encourage most heavily and try to focus ori, on a policy •
level, is in the Central Petdlumd Specific Plan area. And fourth, after we're
done~with making this what they say an animal-with-a-donkeys-tail-and-
an-elephant-head-and-camels:-foes in a General Plan process, I .agree
with. one of the speakers,. Mr. Brawn, this hasbeen a huge issue for rne,
that°we need to .have a financial plan that detualVy implements our _
General Plan over the 20 year period. And if we don't have: a financial
plan that provides. for the money to build the infrasfructure required'fo
accommodate the. growth, "then we need to re-look at ourpicture
because people wyill be saddledwith the problems which will probably be
additional congestion `and' traffic ir_ this community and. there wilt be no
money to payfor it. -
One of those things that has.always come forward, and we just had:' a
discussion about''it last night, is a cross-town connector, wherever that
maybe in our community. I hate to see the development occur arid. the
'infrastructure never built and the: communify has to live with it, So those
are my major 4 points. -Just to 'add, I would like fo see the baseline that
April 20, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
we've always used for flood plain mapping to be used in the context of
what we're talking about in this General Plan. Because we have fo
compare apples to apples, and I don't think we're doing that in this plan.
I'm very concerned about that and it leaves a lof of property open for
development just because we've ehdnged a base assumption and not
living in reality,.: We all. want to live in reality - we flood here in Petaluma,
and. we've always flooded in the Corona Reach. I agree we should make
sure we,are, strategizing around new development; it should be paying its
own way. I also think fhat we need to focus on design priorities in this
.community, particularly on our main arteri:gls. Petaluma Blvd. South
through the community anei out Petaluma Blvd. North, as well as we're
going to see a tremendous amount of development along the
Washington Street corridor. I think some of those plastic gasoline signs that
keep popping up after 20 years is .not what I envision as a great gateway
to our community,. and its going to be even more heavily utilized. So I think
we need to adopt policies around design in that corridor. I'll just re-
emphasize, looking at the Brian Kangas Faulk issue that Mr. Cartwright
brought up.
I also hear loud and clear, and I've spoken with the Paula Lane residents
a number of times about their issues regarding density in that area, and I
think we can, at least I could see us.looking at 2 uriits per acre in the
county area or current courty..areq. l also think that since we are looking
at densities on the west side of town, which are on the hillside areas, we
need an improved hillside development ordinance. We went through four
iterations. of Rockridge Point because we did not have a good hillside
development ordinance in place, and I think it is critical over the next 20
years~that we do not helve to fight that issue. I'm open regarding the
fairgrounds relocation or not. One of th,e things. I had asked for in the UGB
language:last time around was an exemption for 50 acres for agricultural
uses so, we could, provide services to and water services to a use outside
the UGB that would be agricultural- related, and one of those things that I
was envisioning at that time vvas potentially was. making sure we could
.accommodate the fairgrounds .because I think agriculture is an important
pdrt, of where our history is in this community and I want. to ehhance that
as much as possible. Finally, regarding the unaerutilized land map is going
to need to - I think we're all going to have•to look in detail at that map-
and one of the-comments that Councilmernk~er Moynihan made
regarding'the.Recreation, Musicand Commission and the planning that
went irito a recreation component at the.Kenilworthaite where it seems
now we:'re looking at a potentialretail use. I totally and completely and
wholeheartedly agree that we need. o make sure we are providing
recreational facilities that are somewhat located in a good area in this
community and its been stated in ,public meetings before that we don't
really have a lot of recre.ationai facilities on the west side of town. It's all
on the east side and that creates a .lot of the congestion in the East
Wastiingtoh condor: I would say that; pursuant to our retail strategy that
we've completed, the Kenilworth site is fhe number:one location and the
number one or two location,. where. retail should be in this community and
the factory outlet and Corona Reach area is the last. And I would see that
we put those recreational facilities iri an area that's on the west side of this
community., that's in a flood plain area, that is not going to I think impact
Vol. 40, Page 1.6'. Aprif20, 2004
residents and our downtown because of surface waver problems.and'.
provide that recreational opportunity for people to get to and from via'
walking or riding their bike.
Nlaybr`Glass. l would. have. the opportunity to .talk.. to you folks maybe in 'a'
couple of days =would everybody undersfand thdt (Mayor'has scratchy
voice). BecduseJust generally, I`II say I'm'in ggreerpent'with NIe: Healy, in
agreement with Ms. Torliatt>there are same issues I'd like to falk'to you
about. I like Mt. Moynihan!s idea of alternative 4: The consensus that I get
out of the community is that the Central Petaluma Specific Plgn is exciting;
thdtthe people that I've talked to understood it to be a trade-off; thdt°we
would intensify the development. in the inner City core,.and
predominately; the resf of City°would fherefore get preffy much left alone.
That'"s the assumption that a lof of people made.
What I would like to do is ga down through my'list later, but there is ohe
thing. that was not mentioned that I am in favor of and that is safe bike
travel passage. The kids that live on fhe east side, to get" down'toWn where
the movie theater will be, .and. I don't wanf to present it as traffic; retie€: It is
a safety issue, a quality of life" issue, and we are providing our amenities for
downtown when: there is nothing for the kids to" do in this town
predominantly, and that theater is going to be great. But it is going to be
ruined. if we have a tragedy with some kid getting.;hit out there on
Washington Street. So that would be a priority issue for cne from a safety
issue -safe passage for the kids on the east side fo get to the downtown.
Vice Mayor Moynihan: I do and want to encourage. housing :affocddbilify
discussions. My perspective, though,. is`that_we need to take-into
consideration the demand is oufpacing the supply. For those. of us who
have kids who we'd like to eventually see grow up and find a home of
"their own outside of our own,. itwould be nice to make sure we-could
provide for ddequate supply. ".Build a condo; ge# a;lawsuit,"`is kind of the
current ferrn. Our insurance mdrkets being. whaf"they are, and. litigation .
being what they are, there are whole teams .of' lawyers. who go out and
sue developers of .condominiums for.,builder d'efect' underbulder defect
litigation. So,.if we`would mandate a particular product fype, such as a
condo, you could very well find thaf you will be impeding the" planned
growthwithin the City lirriits and exasperating the housing affordability
problem and'the available ho-using proEjlem. S`o, I think Ghat whole issue;
should be looked at in more thdn just a simple solution as .far as product
types,. I was hoping that such things as growth. moratoriums or growth
limitation ordinances also have an impact"on the housing affordability
and availability.
`We basically, who don't'know it, abandoned about tour years ago, the
"previous Council did, the growth limitation ordrnance, and we fiaven't
been continuing thatnor have we come anywhere close to 500 units a
year in quite'sorime time. The jobs/housing balance,, page 23 deals with.
that, it''s a very mall table fhere; and I think~we need to tdke a Jook at
that: in more detail that balance and the a,ffordabilit'y if we• have ow
paying jobs and:high cost housing, there is a .disconnect as to whether or
not we're gohg to have balance here or we're just creating do out-
1
2
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
April 20, 2004
Vol. 40, Page 17
commute situation or in-commute situation. Lastly, I'd like the economic
plan to be able to be flushed out a little bit further. We keep continuously
talking about the impact on City services and providing revenue for the
City, but really what we should be looking at in a General Plan is the
impact on the community. And an economic plan, from.. my perspective,
deals with the economic health of not only the City, but also the
residences and :the businesses that comprise. our. community. I would
encourage us to go back to the Chamber of Commerce or outside
economic interests to get some good `input and make sure we have a
solid economic plan as one component of the -new .General Plan.
Mayor Glass: I want to thank the public, and we are adjourned.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Katie rump, Clerk Pro Tem
***~***~
-.
David^Glass, Mayor '