Petaluma officials took the first step towards expanding the city’s southern boundary by annexing 19 parcels of county land to potentially create a future gateway to the city’s core along Petaluma Boulevard South.
The Petaluma Planning Commission on Nov. 8 approved a proposal to annex the 17.2 acres into the city. The city council must also give the go ahead, before a county commission that oversees land use issues makes the final decision.
The annexation is a requirement laid out as part of the deal 10 years ago that created the Quarry Heights development at the Petaluma Boulevard South and Crystal Lane roundabout. Incorporating that land into the city created a so-called island of county land surrounded by city property, which the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission said would eventually need to be brought into the city limits.
“The short of it is that when the Quarry Heights project was approved, it was approved as a two phase annexation,” Kevin Colin, the city’s deputy planning manager told the planning commission. “Islands are a no-no. They are prohibited. The purpose of that agency is to ensure orderly growth.”
The area includes land on which the city has long planned to add a bridge over the Petaluma River, connecting Petaluma Boulevard with Caulfield Lane through the new Riverfront housing development under construction just across the river. Colin said that the area is ripe for mixed-use development and has the potential to be a revitalized entryway into the city for motorists exiting Highway 101 at the new Kastania off-ramp.
“We view this as an entry point to the city of Petaluma and a gateway to downtown,” Colin said.
In approving the annexation, the planning commission designated the area for commercial and residential mixed-use. The area currently includes industrial parcels with storage and working yards, and single-family homes. No development is currently planned for the future annexed area, planning officials said. When a developer wishes to build in the area, they must conform to the new zoning and hook up to city services like water and sewer.
“My biggest concern here is the five properties whose existing uses would not be permitted,” said Gina Benedetti-Petnic, a planning commissioner. “What are we doing with them?”
Heather Hines, the city’s planning manager said that, over time, they would phase out and redevelop consistent with the changed zoning.
The parcels to be annexed are within the city’s urban growth boundary, a voter-approved limit that dictates how far the city can extend. While the council must still approve the annexation, the move is likely a formality since the county LAFCO agency has required it.
The last time the city attempted to expand into its urban growth boundary, a proposed 10-acre annexation at Corona Road in 2015, the council overturned the planning commission recommendation after several neighbors voiced concerns.
Paula Butterworth, whose family has owned land for 80 years in the Petaluma Boulevard South area to be annexed, said she would rather remain in the county. She said the cost to upgrade the property to city service will be too great.
“I’m resentful about being forced into changing the use,” she told the planning commission. “I’m feeling pressured by it and not feeling good about it. We’re happy where we are and we don’t want to annex in. It would be a huge expense.”
Planning Commissioner Jennifer Pierre questioned why the residents would be forced to conform to they city’s systems.
“If they are happily on septic, I don’t understand why they need to hook up to sewer,” she said. Planning officials said that it was city policy.
Jason Osborne, another resident in the area, said it would be nice to have city improvements, including sidewalks along Petaluma Boulevard South. He asked for the city to consider reducing the speed limit on the boulevard from 40 mph to 35 mph.
“Our family is very excited about the potential to have city services, especially police and fire being able to service us,” he said.
(Contact Matt Brown at matt.brown@arguscourier.com.)
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: