HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.B-Minutes 08/16/2004•
41
July 12 2004
Aug > 200
Ca ' ; o Petailu
�' .�" ma .C'alzf ®za
X MEETING OF THE PETALU.M. A.COMM.UNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
•
DRAFT City PCD.0 /Council Minutes
Monday, July 12, 2004 3:00 "P.K
Regular"Me,eting
1 CALLTO ORDER
2
.3 X Roll Call
4
6 emb'ecs Healy, Moynhan, O'Brien Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
5 Present: M
7 Absent: H
. ` arrl$
8.
, 9 - B. Pledge. of Allegiance
l;l PUBLIC COMMENT ,
1`2'
1'3 Bill Hammerman;' Pefaiuma °thanked Vice Mayor Moynihan for assisting' at the annual
14 bell 'ringing: He 'computEid the number `of' citizens' participating at Council meetings as
15 - 1.3% of the to.tdl registefed voters'in 'Petalurrma.`..
17 COUNCIL COMMENT
19. . Council Me mber Torliatt ask
ed that Council address the items in closed session regarding
20 labor negotiations and to avoid postponing this any further,
21.
22 Vice Mayor Moynihan mentioned the adopted Central Petaluma Specific Plan and that
°� on the implementation and' "fin
23 he wanted` an. update cincing'for this plan.
24 0 ,
25 CITY MANAGER! COM'M'ENT
26
27 Th'ere*as none.
29 AGENDA CHANG�
fS AND` DEL g
ETIONS (Chan es �,to current agenda on
ly).. Mayor Glass
ss . responded "to %request` to move I'em 6 B Discussion & Approval of Lease Amendment
31 with Redwood Empire Sportsplex, LLCM to the evening session Council Member Healy
32 requested that Item 5.13' (Caltrans dt East Washington) tje moved to follow Item 3:C.
33
34 1 AP:PROVAL°.'OF MINUTES `
35
36 ,y 4 l` A. City Council %PCDC Regular'Meefing Minutes `of June 1, 2004.
37
38 MOTION to adopt the Minutes assubmitted.
39
40 M/S Healy, and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vol. XX, Pdge 2 July 12, 2004
B. City Council Budget Workshop Minutes± of JlUhe 0, 2004
MOTION to adopt the Minutes as'..
W&Torlicittand C71ciss.'CARRIED
VOTE
AYES, Heidly, Mbynihm, Tofli nd" ass
NOES: None
ABSTAIN O�Brien and Tho
� i I * I . MPSOR
ABSENT: Harris
C. City Council Budget Workshop Mihutes of June 1.4, 2004.
to tunch Torliatt' Page e 3, Lin 1?, sh e he requestedto sfdf6:
"Council cii Member Torli ott asked if the, I Fero/ Cot Committee hod rev . w
eed-
the- en ordinance and asked .it there were no objec dns On Page 6,
Line 21, she asked fo a "revi6w of What work has , done.
"
MOTION to adopt fhe,Minut.es amended:
, M/S Torliatt and Healy.. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF PROOOSED'AGMDA
A. Approval of Proposed 6,udgej Workshop Agenda fbr,July 114 20 04tC I'doi I tal
ImproVement Program (CIP), and theL Petaluma Community DevolopT-nerff
Commission,(P,CDC) Budget.
'd .
lty Manager Bierman requested a 7:00 p.m. start instead of 6:00 P.M.
MOTION to approve the Agenda for 7/14/04:.
Torliattand O'Brien. CAR . . 'UNANIMOUSLY
B. Appro Of Proposed, Agenda for Council '`s Regular-.Meeting of Jully, 1'9,
2664.
M ayor Glass wanted the!agpnclized item to* reflect the comments he had
with Supervisor Kerns and to octommod'ate him by h"avi - hg aJresdlution for
approval regarding Tol'ay listed on the agenda.
Cobricill' Member Torli'aff motioned to support this and include this
!cinguoge on the July. 19t�.meefing agenda-.
Councill Member O'Brien suggested it would, create, too latg& of a, crowd
for 'Public co,mment, and :given there are- other large items -on the
he
agenda, perhaps pubfic comment Would be best served being heard at..
the s�
Board Supervisordnd the Open Space District meetings._
Mqy,or the -City Attorney if'Cou.neil could take a vote without
taking public comment.
•
"'July, 12, 2004 VoL'XX, Page:3
N 7�
2
CRY Attorney Rudnansk said the Brown Act indicates that members of
tY y y i
I '
3'
p' item on the agenda. the ublic may,„ comment on . any g So public
commentwould' be' allowed but the number of minutes to speak could
5
be reduced.
6
7
Council, Member Healy asked if public comment is affected by whether
8
fhere ;is ,, a vote or ifthe presentation, by an elected official opened the.
p ublic
9
comment requirement. City Attorney Rudnansky indicated that
10
11
either would open the item to public comment.
12
City Attorney Rudnansky clarified' Public Comment requirements,
13
according to.the Brown. Act, specifies, that .any item on the agenda would'
.14
allow'the public comment.
15
16
MOTION by Council Member 7orliatt _to add action to approve the
17
Supervisor's proposed resolution to the agenda under the Presentation
18
Items "scheduled' for July 19 2004. The, MOTION was SECONDED by Mayor
19
Glass.
20
21
:
MOTIONVED ' by the; following vote:
22
23.
AYES: Torliatt and Glass
24
NOES; Healy, O'Brien, Thompson, and Moynihan
25
�
26
MOTION'I'to approve -the proposed agenda of July 19, 2004 as submitted.
28
M%S Moynihan and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
29
30
3. PRESENTATIONS
31
32
A. Employee Service Awards for Second~ Quarter of 2004.
33
34
Mayor Glass thanked the, employees for 'their service and presented
35 .
recognition pins and certificates.
36
37
� Ga Y i
B. City Clerk ,le �Petersen administered the Oath of Office to Sergeant
`
38°
Joe Edwards as the newly y appQi nted' Police Lieutenant for the City of
39
Petaluma.
40
41.,-
C. Prese.ntafion,,,Discussion and Possible Action to Approve Resolution No.
42
1 17 N.CS. in Support of SCTA Resolution. for. l/4 Cent Sales "Tax Measure for
43'
November: Ballot.
44"
l
45
Susan Wilford, Sonoma County Transporfation ,Authority ; 'presented the
46
request. by SCTA for the Council, to consider.` approval of a transportation
47
expenditure plan. She gave an overview . and details regarding the
48'
i planning that brought forth this tax measure.
4091
J '
+ y
U
I
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.6
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
Vol. XX, Page 4
July 12, 2004
PUBLIC INPUT
William W. Redwood Empire TRIM Committee, Santa Rosa, stated
that TRIM; a national, organization, represents seven counties from Marin to
the Oregon border. TRIM' opposes the sales tax and the organization will
present their opposition on the November ballot.
John. .Cheney, Petaluma, did not want Rainier funding included in.this
ballot measure. He' supported the tax providing road improvement
funding'.
.,Steve Birdlebough, Santa Rosa, Friends of SMART, an organization that
supports providing' for passenger 'rail funding and' expects a tax on the
ballot for 2006.
C OUNCIL: DISCUSSION
Council Member Healy, as representative to SCTA and as a. SMART
director, emphasized that the $23 million "for SMART would, be available
within the first two, to three years and would allow for work t.o progress.. The
highway component should allow additional state and federal funds to
be used for highway widening. He said the revenue growth estimate is
conservative and_;better;growth could, be ,expected. For alternative transit
concerns,'the.plan allows, for diamond lanes, for traffic relief'.and would
inclu include
de pedestrian t and bicycle facilities. He stated there is no funding for.
his tax measure.
Council Member Toiliatf asked if any other .project timing was included in
the measure; 'how the cost escalation would. ,,be addressed_ in `the
measure;, and how the polling, for this measure came out.
Susan; Wltord, SCTA responded :that there were no other timing. measures
beyond the first three years for SMART. She anticipated that for the first
years the tax. would also provide: for local street and :road improverrierits.
She explained that'the expend_ iture plan identifies an °estimated amount
for segments : if the funding is less, or more ;than anticipated, it will be
shifted to Meef' costs. It is expected that state federal funds will be
leveraged to supplemenf the ,money raised through `this measure. She
stated that polling was not done for this measure because of the timing.
SMART and the City of Santa Ros'a's polls_ were, used to determine there
would be support for local street, road improvements and a rail project;
however, Highway 101 was not included' in these polls:
Vice Mayor Moynihan had questions regarding 'the 20% that, would be
returned to= local agencies :and 'the 'enforcement of its use. He asked
about the,priority list and how funding would be handled. He brought. up'
the lack, o .funding for Rainier.
'Susan Wilford_SCTA .answered that there was ':a "Maintenance of Effort"
requirement that would prevent using these funds to supplant funds ,that
would normally be used. A provision allows for annual audits to monitor
•
July 12, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5
compliance. She explained that the expenditure plan required that SCTA
„
2
adopt a.stiategic plan to address'cost'increases and changes in priority.
4
Council Member Thompson had questions concerning SM
q g ART's rail
5
funding in'Sonoma. County and what would Morin County be doing. He
6
felt that if Sonoma County moved ahead without Morin passing a similar
7
measure a problem: would occur.
8
9
Susan Wilford ,. indicated, if the "measure passes, Sonoma County's
10
contribution would increase and the taxes would be: focused on Sonoma
1 1
County rail efforts; Marin's contribution to SMART would not change since
12 .
there is no rail funding in their sales tax measure.
13
14
Mayor Glass commented on potholes rind. traffic, particularly on Highway
15
101 , as the main focus of compidints he':hears from constituents. He stated
16
that without matching funds, Sonoma' County , 's traffic congestion had not
17
been funded and continues to worsen.
18
19
uncil , Member Torliatt asked`
Co, if Highway, 101 has a "Hot Lane"
20
designation past the Marin County line into Sonoma County.
21
22
Susan Wilford, SCTA, under the MTC - proposal, had a phase two
23
consideration for Hot Lanes. She explained that a Hot Lane is a high
24
occupancy toll lane that was; determined unfeasible in 1997 but is being
25
reconsidered,.
26
27
MOTION �fb the resolution:
28
29
MIS O'Brien and Torliatt. CORIED'BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:.
'
30
31
AYES: ._ „Healy, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Glass
'32
NOES; Moynihan ”
33
ABSENT: Harris
34
35
Councilfhen considered Item 5.B.
36
37
'S. 'UNFINISHED BUSINESS
38
B. Res olution' 2004 -122, N.C.S. Requesting Support for the Reassignrnent of
40
Ca petal Funds to Facilitate the Design and •Construction "of Interchange
41
Improvements, to the Highway 101' " - East Washington Street Interchange.
42
JBierman)
43;
4'4
Member
Councii
. „ Torliatt stated that ,sh'e' had requested that the City
.
45
Manager put together' a resolution to move along dialogue between
46
CalTrans, SCTA, and Regency Centers to have the improvements at the
47
East Washington overpass ,move forward quickly to. add auxiliary lanes to
48
iprovide better access to the retail site.
49
50
Vice Mayor Moynihan requested additional information regarding this
51
project. He said that Caltrans has noted -a public safety issue with the
52
auxiliary lane on southbound 101 conflicting with people merging onto
Vol. XX, Page b July 12, 2004
101 and getting off at Lakeville. He did ;not 'feel? this would serve the
public's best interest and that priorities must be followed. He could not
support a resolution without more information.
City Manager Bierman explained that Caltrans requested; and'4he .
City to use: the money for auxiliary lane improvements at the Washington•
intersection; thusly, he would support the Caltrans request.
Council ,Member ,Healy gave some background regarding 'the current
auxiliary lane. - improvements 'that address the safety issues. He, said
C;altrans has funding but the City must.contribute too.
Th'e Question was called by Council Member O'Brien and :Seconded by
Mayor °Glass and discussion was closed.,
MOTION to adoptlhe resolution:
M /.S .Healy and' O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
AYES: Healy, Thompson, *Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt „Glass
NOES: ' None
ABSENT . Harris
*Vice Mayor 'Moynihan was still discussing -the issue during fhe vote
and' did not cast a vote. Pursuant to the Council Rules &, Procedures;.
Section i.v.b Voting ".,.whenever a member refuses to vote, the City Clerk
shall cast d vote of 'yes'' for such member.”'
4. CONSENTCALENDAR
A.; . Resolution '2004 -118 N.Ct, Awarding Contract. for the 2004- Petaluma
Marir,fd Wed g hg Project. (Carr)
B. Resolution 2004 -119 N.C.S. Accepting the Completion of the East
Washington Street `Sanitary Sewer Main ;Replacement Project. 'Funding
Source: Wastewater Funds. Contractor:_, Ashlin Pacific Construction.
(Nguyen)
C. Resolution 2004120 N:C:S. Awarding_ a Construction Contract for the 2004
6 dcition',Pond Dike Repair Project. (Ban)
MOTION to adopt the Consent Cdlendar°items.as proposed:
M %S' O' Brien and'Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. UNFINISHED: BUSINESS
A. Resolution: No. '2004 -T21 'N.0 & Discussion and Possible Action, Amending
Rosolu,tion 2004 -028 RegardingCommercial 'Maor ng. Fees. (Bierman)
City Manager Bierman'.recommended, $5 per -foot; per slip in the Turning
'Basin: This would be applied on a year -round basis.
I
.
_ July 72, 2004 yol_.XX, Page 7
N
T
' COUNCIL DISCUSSION
" _ •,,, "
3
Council' ember O'Brien supported the fee and suggested boat owners.
4
mooring by the month be' required to - provide proof, of insurance with the
5
City listed as an ad1ditiona[ Insured. He encouraged the City manager to
6
have the Risk Manager review and, if feasible pursue that suggestion.
7
8
MOTION b adopt the resolution:
9
„
'
10
M/5 O' Brien and Healy. CARRIED' -UNANIMOUSLY..
.
11
12
6. NEW - BUSINESS - CITYCOUNCILANDPC DC
13
14
A, Discussion and Action Approving a, Resolution Consenting to the Inclusion
i
5
.
rito y of the City of ,Petai_urna within the Proposed Sonoma
l
County Tf
ouris
` m Business.,lmprovenent Area „(SCTBIA) ( Marangella)
17
18
Director Economic Development and; Redevelopment Paul Marangella
19
ex lamed tha
p i � t the e: a m
City would collect thssessments fro lodging
'
20
estabiishments.,andsend the funds to,the,County: The costs;would be ;
21
reimbursed, at up .to 2% of the assessed amounts. He estimated revenue of
22
a bout $'167,000 peryear with the:City recovering up to.$3;500 for
23
administrative costs.
24
25
n Bennett rt. this
Do ,, Lodging .Association, addeessed C "ouncil . to - suppo
��
'
26
as
a ssessment to create a permanent' r_secure funding base to °provide' ,
27
marketing for Sonoma County' tourism., He, listed Santa Rosa and Rohnert .
28
Parkas already voting in favor of this. program. „
29
30
Council .Member Healy asked ,how this would apply to ,cities that choose
3 F
to not participate and if the lodging owners in the cities who chose not to
32
participate could voluntarily co,nteibute'at %.level.
33
34
Mr; Benn, ett explained that if the. Board of Supervisors decides to adopt a
35
partial ,plan, then "the board, appointed, by the Lodging Industry and the
36
Courity, would decide how- this .would •apply to the non: participating
37
cities. He said that individual lodging owners .could possibly have the
38
option of voluntarily contributing.
39
40
MOTION to adopt the resolution: .
41
42
> M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE`. .
43'
.
44 •
AYES:. Healy., Moynihan, Thornpson, Torliatt and Glass
45
NOES: O Brien
46
ABSENT: Harris
47
48'
Council M S , Plamed his, his stating that he supported this
49"
1
he hera o TOT f iveote
idea but an unfair advantage over
r n
50
other lodgln'gs'and the Sheraton should;pay`the City back first.
51
Vol. XX, Page,8' July 12, 2004
B. Discussion. and Approval of Lease Amendment with Redwood Empire
Sports plex, L'LC. (Bierman).
MOTION to movethis iterh t ,�theevening'session:
NI /S Thompson and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIM'OUSLY..
C. PCDC'Resolutiorr_2004 -1'T Discussion and, Adopting a Resolution
Authorizing the Award of Bid for the, Installation of a Pedestrian Bridge to
Cross Washington..Creek and Construction of:a Pedestrian and Bicycle "
Pathway as Part of the Petaluma Rlver/T[ail. Enhancement Project Area :3
Project #9876/C260503. (Mii'che,/Marangella)
Director 01` Economic DeVeiopment and Redevelopment Paul Marangella
gave a •presentation and cited the Petaluma River Access Enhancement
Plan's recornmenclation for the clevelopMenf of a pedestrian /bike path
along the River.
Council Member -Moyni,ha_n asked who would be responsible and what'
funcls*oul'd be used to maintain this section of °the pathway.
Jim Carr,, :Director Parkv, and Recreation, answered that with the ,use: 'of
quarry finds to create the path., the maintenance would be very minimal
compared to "th benefit derived in opening this corridor. He didn't
n expect any maintenance until about 'five years and stated, it would` be
manageable.
Council Member ` O'Brien wanted to :add to the resolution that any
Change 'Orders must come back to Council ;regardless, of the amount. .
That addition was not supported by 'the balance of Council.
MOTION to adopt the PCD.0 Resolution presented`
M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE; FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES' Healy,. Moynihan', Thompson, Torliatt and Glass
NOES: 0`136en
ABSENT: Harris
ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
The City. Council.6djoUrned to Closed.3b sign at 4:40 pm.
CLOSEDSESSION
• CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code §549.57.6) City Designated
Representatives: .Mayor David Glass and Council Member Healy Unrepresented Employee:
City Attorney,
• CONFERENCE WITH' REAL.PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: (Governrnen`f Code §54,956.8 Properties:
• Easement Over APN #007_660.7032 Adjacent'to. Petaluma, River, Madison Village
Home.owners.Association, Property,Owner
• Easement Over APN #007 - 041 -005, 'Clover_-Stornetta'Farms Property Owner
• Easement Over APN #; 007 -019 -026 Scalamini %Sproul, Property Owner
•
•
r
July 12, 2004: Vol. X V Page 9
City Negotiator Michael, Bierman
U
2
Negotiating Parties; City Petaluma and Respective Property Owners
3
boder'' Price, Terms> of Payment or Both
4
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government.,,C bde : §54,957.6..Agency,.Negotiator:
r.,
5
Michael Bierman /Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME, IA'FF Local 1415 and
6
unrepresented Employees:,
7
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE '�
■ PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
j
8 Iyl'anage_r'
9
■ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL'C,OUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant Exposure to Litigation
10
(GovernmentCode, §54956.9.(b)) (1'Mditer)
11
■ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Code §54956.9(x))
12
,(Government.
North Ba Co.nstruction,
y � Inc. vs. Hronec, et dl (Sonoma County Superior Court Case # 234912)
13
14
15
MONDAY, JULY,: 12, 2004'. - 'EVENING SESSION
16
7:00 P.M.
17
18
CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 I .m:
19
20.
A. 8611 Call'
21
22
Present:. 'Members Harris, , Healy; Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Toriiatt and
23
Mayor'Glass
24
25
B. Pledge of, Nie'g once
26
C. Moment of Silence
27
28
REPORT.OIIT OF CLOSED-:SESSION ACTIONS'TAKEN
29
30
City Attorney Rich,Rucinansky reported that was no, °'r,,eportable action taken, but the'
.31
Council and City Attorney's Office have agreed' to an adjustment in compensation with
32
a resolution to be brought :forward tor` formal action.
33
34
PUBLIC COMMENT
35
36
Beck Winslow Petaluma, criticized
y - � Council for allowing development on the Magnolia
37
parcels regardless:'of loss of trees and environmental hazards.
38
39
John Cheney, :Petaluma, referred to an e-mail 'to Dianne Reilly from Peter De Kramer of
40
PCA stating that the yellow ribbons placed around town to support U.S. troops, support
4.1
the war.
4 2
43
Lioneh Parnera, Petaluma; is a Korean War Vet involved 'in, military groups. He
44
didn t su ort wh
pp at Peter De Kramer wrote and PCA sfated that there was a bias against
45
persons - who served'; in the military.
46
Sofi f P explained her environmental background and indicated
48
eels t Mgnolia, project reports are biased because they ;Were paid for by th °o'
49 'developer
and:� not address the hazards to humans "and wildlife..
50
51
Dick Sh°arke Petaluma joined the rest of the veterans regarding :Peter De Kromer's e -mail
52
that denigrated people who served in the military through the displaying of the' yellow
53
ribbons. Hemill not support PCA as long as Mr. DeKramer is there.
Vol. XX, Page 10 July 12, 2004
Jerry Price, Petaluma, supported PCA and hopes they can maintain.a ,balance of
information., He supported "the .veterans concerns as well He: disagreed with the decision
Council- made regarding the rescinding of the resolution to provide trail access from Jack
London'State Bark to Petaluma.
Matt Maguire, Petaluma; was very critical of Council Members Harris; O'Brien, Thompson
and_ Vice Mayor Moynihan. He stated that this was a golden opportunity to: adopt a
resolution to I provide public access Io Lafferty Ranch, and questioned whom' these
officials were seryi.hg.
Geoff Cartwright; ,Petaluma, supported the posting, of yellow ribbons. He spoke about the,
flood plain and, the displacing of water with fill and development that creates:
destruction to other properties.
COUNCIL.COMMENT
Council' Member Harris requested that the. meeting be adjourned in memory 'Of' Marge_
Manthey
Council Member Healy, 'had `a" question regarding if environmental review costs for
development paid by a ,consultant is passed along to -the developer.
Director' Mike Moore said yes'. He clarified that on occasion, the developer will have the
'own environmental work done and submit this with the application.. The Department
then hires a consultant to do peer review of the work and the developer pays for that
work.
Council' Member Torliatt- requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of AI. Getman
as well..
Council. ,Member :O'Brien thanked the veterans for their comments and noted' °fhat .
veterans protect °the freedoms that Mr. DeKramer enjoys.
Council Member TorliaW wanted t& clarify the ,City's• involvement with PCA as far as the
board. members. She explained that the . City has one :representative and th. e
membership elects the other members of PCA. The .Council does not' appoint the board
members. She the display of yellow ribbons:
Vice Mayor .Moynihan felt that PCA has`, on occasion, displayed terrible taste and
misrepresented the'tru,fh.. He felt that PCA has tailed miserably and something needs to
be done. He-did not support using public_funds for PCA,.
Mayor. Glass supported Mr. DeKramer's first amendment rights. He explained that he
used PCA. as a communication. tool to fulfill his campaign promise. He supported the
concept of 'P -.CA but doesn't agree with everything they do He also supported the
yellow ribbon campaign for' the; troops.
CITY MANAGER_ COMMENT
There was none.
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
July 12, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 1 1
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. '. Resolution 2004 -124: N.C.S. FY 04 -05 Landscape Assessment Districts
Annual Assessments Public Hearing arid Setting of Assessments.
(A_nchordoguy)
Paiks and Landscape Manager Ed Anchprdog'uy °presented information
regarding the Public Hearing fgrthis year's: assessments.
Council, Member Torliatt. recusedr herself from the Kingsfield Subdivision
because she lives near it and the:Greyst''one Creek Subdivision because
she owns property there.
Mayof'Glass opened the public hearing..H;earing no requests to speak,
the public ' hearing was closed.
Council Member Healy motioned to adopt the resolution, leveling
assessments with respect to Kingsfield Greystone Creek subdivisions
only,
Council Member O'Brien asked about ;the of the LAD'S.
under Z;AC Landscaping. He alsowanted to know- what the charge is for
this and why this does not go out`to bid.
Mr. Anch,ordoguy explained that all of the inspection is done by Hortus
Connecting; People, which is a non - profit organization. that is run by
Sandra Reed who roWq s ZAC Landscaping but clarified her business does.
not have anything to do, - 'with the..,Iandscape ..assessment. districts. He
manages th,e maintenance and their employees do the inspections. He
explained: that if Sandra does the`work'?herself, it, is ,about $60 - $65 per
hour (she rarely does this). Her subordinate 'charges $40 - $45 per hour..
Regarding the bidding process, he explained that Council accepted this
because it was a non = profit organization that promotes better
landscaping in the City, of 'Petaluma: He' m'en'tioned. that consultants that
do this type of work usually�'charge $80 - `$85 per hour. He. personally feels
that to train.someone new to, do the maintenance with mapping, it would
take years for a new contractor fo understand.
M/S Healy andThompson. CARRIED BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE-.
AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O- ''Brien and Glass
NOES: None
RECUSED: Torliatt
Council, Member Harris recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of
Corona Creek1 subdivision.
Council,. Member Healy motioned to move the resolution with respect to
Corona. Creek 11 subdivision only.
4%S Healy and Torliaft. CARRIED BY THE VOTE:
1
2
d,
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 `0
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
July 12, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 1 1
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. '. Resolution 2004 -124: N.C.S. FY 04 -05 Landscape Assessment Districts
Annual Assessments Public Hearing arid Setting of Assessments.
(A_nchordoguy)
Paiks and Landscape Manager Ed Anchprdog'uy °presented information
regarding the Public Hearing fgrthis year's: assessments.
Council, Member Torliatt. recusedr herself from the Kingsfield Subdivision
because she lives near it and the:Greyst''one Creek Subdivision because
she owns property there.
Mayof'Glass opened the public hearing..H;earing no requests to speak,
the public ' hearing was closed.
Council Member Healy motioned to adopt the resolution, leveling
assessments with respect to Kingsfield Greystone Creek subdivisions
only,
Council Member O'Brien asked about ;the of the LAD'S.
under Z;AC Landscaping. He alsowanted to know- what the charge is for
this and why this does not go out`to bid.
Mr. Anch,ordoguy explained that all of the inspection is done by Hortus
Connecting; People, which is a non - profit organization. that is run by
Sandra Reed who roWq s ZAC Landscaping but clarified her business does.
not have anything to do, - 'with the..,Iandscape ..assessment. districts. He
manages th,e maintenance and their employees do the inspections. He
explained: that if Sandra does the`work'?herself, it, is ,about $60 - $65 per
hour (she rarely does this). Her subordinate 'charges $40 - $45 per hour..
Regarding the bidding process, he explained that Council accepted this
because it was a non = profit organization that promotes better
landscaping in the City, of 'Petaluma: He' m'en'tioned. that consultants that
do this type of work usually�'charge $80 - `$85 per hour. He. personally feels
that to train.someone new to, do the maintenance with mapping, it would
take years for a new contractor fo understand.
M/S Healy andThompson. CARRIED BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE-.
AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O- ''Brien and Glass
NOES: None
RECUSED: Torliatt
Council, Member Harris recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of
Corona Creek1 subdivision.
Council,. Member Healy motioned to move the resolution with respect to
Corona. Creek 11 subdivision only.
4%S Healy and Torliaft. CARRIED BY THE VOTE:
Vol. XX Page 1 - 2 July 12, 2004.
AYES; Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliaft and, Glass
NOES: None
RECUSED: Harris
Council Member Healy MOVED the remaining landscape assessment
districts:
M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: ,
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and .Determination of the Cross' =Town Con nection /Highw:ay 1'01'
Interchange 'Lo °cal Roadwgy.Alignment Options: (Tuft /Lackie /Skladzien)
City Manger, Bierman introduced Pat Flynn from HDR to explain the four
d1teriticifives,, Including their costs. He requested Council feedback on
which,was, the: :best option:
Pat Flynn, • HDR, was directed by' Council to return 'with more details
regarding, local connector between McDowell .Boulevard and
Petaluma Boulevard. He, explained the four blternativesl
1'. The: Plan Line Alignment the Plan. Line adopted 'in 1'995 with an at-
grade crossing of the railroad tracks and a bridge (grade separation)
2. 'The Village Al- ignment
3. 'The 'Cinnabar Alignment - has an at -grade and a bridge_ ;(grade:
separation).
4. The Shasta Alignment
i
Mr .Flynn, wanted make Council aware that other than the Plan Line
alignment,, which shows. access to the proposed extension of the factory
outlets,. there were no, 'other local, access alternatives shown; this would
require developers to apply for access for any development.. Another
assumption was that Caltrans' would require a minimum distance of 400
feet from' the freeway intersection ramps to the nearest intersection. The
only option to override this, would be a "°Mandatory Design Exception,"
which is :almost impossible to obtain.
t
Mayor Gl a ss asked if any option avoids,'the Manddtory Design Exception.
The Consu'Itant explained. that. this exception ,had, to do with local access-
points located near street intersections and this does limit access for
development in the area. He said ;that the design' could be adjusted 'to
move the ramps closer to allow for more development. Mayor Glass
stofed he. would also like fo see .an at- grade crossing for °the railroad..
Mr. ,Flynn continued by explaining the difficulty in _obtaining' an at -grade
crossing from , the Public; Utility Commission and SMART. He went' through
the Matrix to explain the four °comparisons and costs.
Council Member Torliatt had a question about what the River height was
cornpare,d to , the, existing "flood plain. The consultant stated the floodplain
is. about 20 - 22 feet and the bridge height would be 2 -4 feet above the
July 12, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 13
River,. The railroad bridge is currently 8 -1'.0 feet above the; River bank. The
roadway , at -grade would be about 6 feet' iabove the River: bank.
•
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
3T
• 38
39-
40
41'
42',-.
.43
44
45
4.6
47 .
48
49
51
'M'ayor,Glassi was, concerned iabout the, concrete, pillars causing a back
up 'of floodwaters. The Consultant explained that, an,analysis was done
and the bridge abutments would be ,placed, at the edge of the 100 -year
floodplain. This analysis showed'it would not cause water to back u,p. He
said that ;the bridgelwould be about 35 - 40 feet'above the River itself..
J ,..
Councii asked how wide the planned roadway would be.
The Consultant' referred to °the Plan Line 'alignment with bicycle paths on
both sides, four lanes, and a sidewalk on; one side would result in a width
of75 - 8Q feet.
Mayor Glass clarified that'with adjustments °at the Shasta crossing, it would
be possible to avoid the removal of 6 -7 residences.
Vice, Mayor Moynihan clarified four rlanes would provide the capacity
necessary for the cross -town connector. He, also noted. that the figures
provided did not include land costs for right -of -ways. He wanted to know
howwmany property owners there -are;, the 'Consultant did not know.
Council Member Thompsonp addressed- the , at =grade crossing and asked
what would be the most palatable ,for the railroad. The' said if it
followed the Plan Line itwould be' easier with the Village alignment the
most acceptable.
Mayor Glass asked which would 'hay, the feast impact on flooding of the
four alternatives. The Consul ant'said he-co ild'.not tell.
Council;Aember; Healy asked if Council needed, to focus on just one
alternative` or could they address the; alterpative'(s) that are the most
feasible 'and would satisfy .a CEQA process and analysis. The Consultant
said Council could select. a' preferred, alternative going into a CEQA
process.
Ci ` Attorne Rudnansk said that, e .
ty 1 y y t the, Council ' could have a preferred
a`Iternative'. and make that the description,eof the project and then study
the other's in an alternative analysis. -
Council;,Member Healy asked about the Ufility, Index ;Scores, stating that
the , twot southern crossingsat_Shasfa Cinnabar scoredjhe highest.
Mr;',Flynn, stated yes, using the Fehr Peers numbers.. This alignment was
chosen because it was closer. 'to Town d
, nd took pressure off Washington
Street.
Council rMember Healy had questions regarding the need for four Lanes
". on' 'the °we'stern side of the freeway "and about the' 410 =foot separation
from'infersections; he asked if a five-w,ay intersection could be allowed.
Vo,l. XX, Page `14 July 1'2,.2004
,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
Mr: Flynn stated that.Cdltrans would not allow this but a round a bout'
would be acceptable.
Council Member Healy asked if`the Shasta alignment dt the railroad track
could b,e to take lesst area.
Mr. Flynn explained that this would be a collec ,tor %arterial' street requiring
a 500 -foot radius to meet City standards but with a, higher elevation, the
radius could be=tightened.
Council Member- Torliati. asked what' the span of thee bridge Would, be. the
Consultant stated that the bridge °would be d three -span with fill, 'abutments, and
bridge piers with a clear "span of 220 feet. `She requested clarification on the
maps; toe 'plain what, road , segments wer,.e included in the construction costs,
Mr. Flynn stated it 'included the actual ' roadway costs, embankment
material, and pavement for Rainier Avenue, including, the bridge .cost
overthe' railroad and River', and would °stop short of the interchange.
Council Member. Toriidti' clarified that • it did not include any of the
interchange construction.
Mr:. `Flynn stated that the interchange, including ramps` and .auxiliary Panes
wwouid cost about $ 8 million.
Council Member Torliatt asked r what-the distance was from the area he
outlined .from Petaluma, Boulevard; to the i'ntercha_nge,, and from the;
interchange to McDowell..
Mr. 'Flynn ,said it was about .500 'feet from Pefaluma Boulevard 'North to
_the railroad tracks; -the bridge: over the railroad tracks and the, River would'
be,abouf feet.
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated', he was conv'ince,d. Ghat four lanes - woul'd :be
required'to provide the ,necessary capacity.. He wanted north, and south;
connections shown with a frontage road to Corona and a connection. to
the existing Graylawn, or a 'two -lane' access ov;er,Shdstd. this illustration
would allow property owners in the area: to assess the potential impacts:
He "wanted to see how much local° developers .would con'tr'ibute 'to :offset
,construction *costs.
Mayor Glass said that this was the crux of the, debate, to determine how
much local developers would contribute to , provide traffic relief.
Council Member Torliatt: asked' about.the number of daily automobile trips
on'Rainier.
Mr. Flynn,stated that °the number- would be 41;907 from the Fehr and Peers
numbers:
Council Member Torlialt - wanted 'to .clarify if this includes the 27;000
generated at Rainier and McDowell and the Factory Outlet.
0 .
•
4
-
July, 12,, 2004 Vol, XX, Page 15
r�
.: •
a
General
1 Plan Administrator Pamela Tuff' explained that the 27,000 was the
3
average - daily 'trips from the threei projects and doesn't assume that all
4
would frovel 'Rainier. She will ask the traffic consultant to determine what
5
percentage of the 27,000 would be. She clarified that the 41,907 was not
6
capacity, it was anticipated volume.
7
8
Council Member Torlidtt :computed. that -the two developments would
9
generate roughly 43% of the traffic. on ;R'ainier and the other 53% would be
10
local traffic.
12
C'' uncil mber Healy referred to the' June t raffic analysis that compared
'
13
Corona , l #o Rainier. He stated' with no project there would be 47,000
14
vehicle trips per day on Washington and with Rainier :it - was reduced to
15
32;000;, the Corona option:only reduced it to 44,000 daily trips. He wanted
16
traffic relief, particularly on the Washington corridor.
18
Mayor., Glasi stated that the - community :is experiencing a windfall of
19
development;' in part due to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP),
20
and the proposed, development of Kenilworth and the Fairground sites. He
21
wanted to pursue collecting traffic impact fees from these developments
22,
ta'achieve greater relief on Washington by hot necessarily developing the
23
Rainier area., .H referred. to •the Leakage Study that identified the
q,. •,
24
Rainier area the least desirable retail' site that would increase traffic and
25
growth.
26
27
Council Member Healy responded by referring to the CPSP environmental
28.
document in Chapter 6 that' sfated 'this plan would generate an
29
additional 1151000 -new net daily trips, which does not include the
30
development amt the Kenilworth site.
31
32
Vice `Mayor Moynihan stated that iCbUncil, was :not evaluating the traffic
33
impacts of proposed projects. 'When th ;e, alternative is chosen, then the
34
irconnection impacts would ,be need
nte ed. He; ,didn't feel the .Leakage
35
study addressed development constraints . such as congestion at
36
Washington Street.'.He said that :to provide access to the development,
37 '
the Village was 'the best alternative and he wanted the public to express
38
their choices.
..39
40 A
Council Member Torliatt wanted to discuss theN: Y' development
'
41
norities and. where the ddil. car trip p y. She
p i ^ . y . s will .im act the commun t
42
stressed that Council had agreed development of the central core of
43
the community was, where development - should occur. She: felt the
44
Kenilworth Junior.Hi'gh site wo impact local. streets..and °roads the least
45 i
'rather than, the developments,' at r the Factory Outlet, Rainier and
46 ,;;` ,.
McDowell; also the timing of the funding for the!road'improvements would
47
support this development.
4
49
PUBLICINPUT
50
51,,
etaluma, criticized the plan as not -being specific enough to
DaviduKel
„
5.2
in dicate °it was supposed to accomplish:. He'wanted Council to be
I
7,
Vol.'XX Page 1'6 - July 1,2, 2004
specific to indicate thisr project allowed access to development on three •
parcels in. the Corona floodplain; provided traffic. re- elief - on Washington
Street; and he ,asked what the performance standard would be
Mark. Johnson, J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corp.,. Menlo Park, stated he
wanted to, seet the property developed in the p "roper way using
responsible means-and to accomplish this, his company was developing,
River access with parks, bicycle, and pedestrian `trails , and would improve
the blighted Payran Reach area. He referred to the Urban Growth
Boundary that indicated the: property was to be. developed. He didn't
Support a four -4 road intersecting their project that they have been
working on for two years based on an alignment at' Shasta or Cinnabar..
He wanted an cit -grade crossing at Shasta, and. Rainier that would:.
connect with the Village concept to ,best support his development. :He
stated ,that the PUG had said that , there would be no problem with an,at --
grade crossing at Shasta -Avenue: His company would pufsue Shasta and
wanted to work with the City to accomplish. this. He didn't: see, the
devel'oprnent of ball , fields on this property as.fitting the designated use for
this parcel.
Vice, Mayor Moynihan clarified that "e at- crossing at .Shasta would
be a, two -lane. crossing; Mr Johnson stated this. was 4corrett. He also
agreed that this - crossing "could be changed if there was another access
to'R'ainier such as the Village or'Ptan line. _
Jer P
ry ri'ce;, Petaluma, ,supported: the; of development that. Mr. "
Johnson has built in the past. Redid notsupport Rainier as providing traffic
relief long- term.
Wayne Eckstrom, Petaluma, asked" Cou_neil to look at the ,big pictures of
how the 'raw mate'ri'als will be delivered by heavy equipment on
dilapidated roads thdt will create: more traffic congestion.
John J. Molloy, Petaluma, withdrew his support for the Magnolia project.
Stan Golid, .Petaluma, addressed the sales fax ,issue and that it has to be
produced by the right type of` and not be pursued at the
cost to other areas, of the City.
Geoff "Cartwright, 'Petaluma; talked about infill 'being built byd'evelopers'in
the': flood plain causing negative and costly, effects.
Bill Kortum, Petaluma, referred to 'the Fehr and .Peers traffic report that
stated- 'even with a: cross -t.own connector, .traffic congestion, 'would
worsen. He supported a cross =town connector without the accompanying
development,
Cindy 'Thomas, Petaluma. = She was leaning toward not supporting the
cross- connector project.. She wanted responsible development with
more specific ,information regarding the impacts. `She Wanted . to see
traffic relief for the- southeast .part of town.
July 12, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 17
1
`2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
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
4'l
42
43
44
45
46
47
48'
4.,9
50
51.
' COUNCIL GOMMI:NT
Vice Mayor .Moynihan said that_, an - evaluation was needed to answer
questions regarding traffic impacts - retail orientation, what lands to be
taken /ac;quire'd, who will benefit, and who will "contribute. He supported a
four lane�or possibly two lane access; evaluation of a grade level crossing
with RUC; he wanted. to keep costs down,. height down, and the visual
and environmental impacts to. a reasonable level. He supported the
Village Road alternative and wanted''to give direction to staff to follow
this:altemdtive.
Mayor Glass asked the Consultant if Council would know without do
Environmental_lmpact Report which plan had the most or least impacts.
The Consultant said that any project requires a series of analyses and that
this presentation was preliminary Land did not show all the impacts. The
next step would be to analyze',' all, the impacts in the environmental
document. Mayor. Glass said then Council is n"ot aware what alternative
has the least environmental` impact.
Council ,Member Healy stated that the most,sensitive properties are in the
floodplain and #hediscussion was really'about,,Chelsea. The Urban Growth
Boundary .was analyzed to show the amount of land available for
development. Johnson, DSL and Chelsea were all included in the analysis
and now Council Members, were indicating that none of these parcels
could be developed. He cited a report from the. Greenbelt Alliance and
the Farm Bureau that. recommended "cities in lthe County reduce. pressure
on ';,the agricultural community by efficiently using the land within their
ur
ban growth ?boundaries. Mr. Johnson' property, would be developed
whether. Rainier is built, and IDS and Chelsea were not assuming that it
would be built either to get their entitlements. He mentioned the leakage
study and' he would be very careful that proposals meet the needs of the
community _ fit within ca strategy., He felt that the community needs a
Rainier cross town ,connector and interchange and that a southern
alignment would be preferable, according :to , the .transportation utility
scoring rating these at a .77 and the and Plan Line at .64. He
wanted to see the best. traffic. relief for the ,community, not just for
Chelsea. He would provide direction. to -staff and the consultant to
provide the. next steps- fo focus on the. southern alignments. He wanted
Co,un'cil :to move on this quickly to _ the! amount of'traffic that the
CPV would.generate.
Council Member Thompson said;!his' criteria would be similar to Healy's in
regards to traffic relief and the opportunity for an° at -grade crossing. He
said that without traffic relief downtown would be negatively impacted.
Council Member Harris appreciated seeing;-all the pros and cons of this
'
cont
p efeand- have the other�a , know if on. plan, could be the
_e
project, He wante toy
Iterndtive's explored. He .supported the
Shasta alternative, . .
2
3
5
6
9'
10
11
12
13
14
. 15.
16
17
1:8.
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 9.
48
49
50
51
59 .
Vol: XX, Page 18
July'] 2, 2004
Mayor Glass answered that under CEQA the Council could designate :a
preferred alternative, but after analyzing all the alternatives, the Council 0
could change their,minds.if the land was still available
Council Member O'Brien ;favored the two southern alignments and stated
Rainier`would provide traffie,relief.
Council''Member Torliatt felt that the community would rather not ,have
the addition
al 'traffic generated from the two retail. parcels: If the cartrips
were not p
part of the project she would su ort acce I
ss tot he properties to
Prevent Putting more traffic on local streets and roads. She indicated the.
original Plan Line alignment moves away from the, lRiver and
the River' Enhancement Plan. The. southern alignrnej would, put a lot
traffic through :a ,residential "neighborhood so she w
Line alignment ould choose the plan
Vice Mayot oynihan reminded the Council of Mr. Johnson's. o
pposition
to: the southern alignment and that his development �Idid nbt,need� Rainier
.
whi ch means he would not' be contributing to the cost The Retail
Lea
koge Study favored Kenilworth .if circulation impacts were ignored. He
stated fhat if. fhe �iht'erchange were not built, :Washington Street would be
P
problem. 1-1e felt the traffic utility numbers; were pre and did not
provide the interconnection of devei opments,. access: to the :Johnson or
Chelsea property or a north /south addition with ,a frontage road. to
.
impossible to determine ,bette Graylawn: `Without these .details .it ,was
orona, or a connection at
r traffic relief'at' one alignment or the other.
He felt a successful retail project helped the community and helped to
pay 'for it. He wanted Council to consider which dlignment would have
the most impact on the current projects ,he �supporte g Roo
'd.'the Village R_ d
with. the project developer building the bridge,, not the City.
Council Member Torliatt supported the southern alignment 'if Council is
considering reducing ' the number of traps generated from the. parcels that
would access this that 'migh't make d t'wo -lahe road .option.' the, better
al ternative.
Council.'M`ember Healy said he was supporting one of the: southern
alignment's with fhe Plan Line alternative removing forward as well..
City Manager; Bierman said that Council is looking at a southern and
northern alignment and both -could be evaluated.
Mayor "Glass "summarized Council support for a northern and :southern
alignment with two and four lanes {with ,bicycle and :t l rn -out. lanes) or a
combination, i
NEW BUSINESS .
A. Discussion, ;Direction and' Possible Action on a Possible, Advisory :Measure
for the November 2,'20,04 Ballo,f on the Rainier Cross -Town Connector and
Interchange Project. (Bierman)
July 12, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 19
x ,
����� � 2 Vi it �y y n- indicated f ' - - ry
1 Vice Ma or Mo niha his should not be an; adviso measure and the
Id be takih p g
,u ����� c should a leadersfli role with regard to this issue.
h 3
4 After discussion regarding the advisory ballot measure, this item was tabled for
5 consideration at the July 19,, 2004 City Council Meeting.
6
7 ADJOURN
8
9 The meeting was adjourned at 10:20p M to the,SOecial Meeting set for Wednesday, July
10 14, 2004. at 7:00 p.m.
11
12
13
14
15
16 bayid Glass, Mayor
17
18
19 Attest:
20
21
22
23 Gayle Petersen,, City Clerk
24,
25
26
• . 27
28
29 *: **