Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Green Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors say Cherry Valley Park would be effectively lost under new Mary Collins site plan; call for traffic study and greater notice
Summary
Several residents and neighbors told the Petaluma City Schools board they were caught off guard by a site plan that places a new building in Cherry Valley Park, and urged the district to conduct neighborhood-focused traffic studies, preserve green space and involve residents in decisions.
Multiple residents used the board's public comment period to press Petaluma City Schools to reconsider or revise a recently approved site plan for Mary Collins that would locate a new building within Cherry Valley Park, a small neighborhood green space.
David Dines, who said he lives opposite Cherry Valley Park, told the board "our goal is really to kind of keep neighbors informed" and asked for "a seat at the table" on decisions that affect neighborhood safety, streets and park access. He said many neighbors had not received notice of the plans.
Other speakers raised related concerns:
- Judy Curham (who identified herself as a Petaluma High School teacher) described traffic conditions as a "gridlock nightmare" after a previous expansion and urged the district to perform a traffic study that examines neighborhood impacts rather than relying only on vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) modeling. Curham said the neighborhood has seen enrollment increases and cited district figures she read: "Since 2020, there have been 88 students added ... 494 students according to the stats I had in 2024-2025 as opposed to 406 in 2021." She said current congestion includes double parking, cars blocking driveways and cars near stop signs.
- Dan D'Angelo and other neighbors described the park as the only nearby green area that is in continuous use by families for play, picnics and informal recreation; speakers said the draft plan would remove about 70% of the park and place that portion behind a locked gate and fence, open only until about 6 p.m.
- Joy Rankin, who said she can see Cherry Valley Park from her home, raised safety concerns about placing children near the street and argued the district could place the new building on parts of the existing school campus: "There is a safety issue here that is not being addressed," she said.
Speakers said they had limited direct notice of the site plan and would like the district to share what alternatives were considered and to provide clearer public engagement. One speaker asked the board to explain why the park portion was chosen and requested a fuller accounting of community outreach and alternatives.
Board and staff responses during public comment were limited (the district read the standard public comment rules at the meeting start). Trustees did not take action during the public comment period; later in the meeting trustees approved other agenda items.
Why it matters: Cherry Valley Park is used daily by neighbors and families; placing school construction on parkland raises issues about local green-space loss, traffic and public notice. Speakers asked for a traffic study that measures local impacts on neighborhood streets (curbside parking, turns and driveway access) rather than only regional VMT metrics used in environmental review.
What the residents asked for: neighborhood-specific traffic analysis, written explanation of alternatives explored, better notice/outreach to immediate neighbors, and reconsidering siting the building on existing school-owned campus space rather than the public park.
Where this stands: The comments were part of the public-comment portion of the board meeting; trustees did not take final action on the site plan during this session and asked staff to continue with agenda business. Residents said they will continue to request meetings with district staff and to use the district website to share information.
