HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Minutes 10/04/2004September 13, 2004
otobr 4,
� ALtr
City of Petaluma, C'acl ®rnia ,
REGULAR;M OF THE;PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL/
PETALUMA COMAAUNITY DEVELOPMENT `COMMISSION MEETING
Igg$
1 DRAFT City Council /PCDC:Minutes
2 Monday, September 13!,20.04
3
4
5 MON DAY SEPTEMBER. 13, 2004, AFTERNOON SESSION
6 3:00 P.M.
7
8 CALL TO ORDER
9
10 A. Roll Call
11
12 Present: Members Harris,, Healy, O'Brien, Twliatt and Mayor Glass
13 Absent: Members Moynihan and Thompson
14
15 B. Pledge of, Allegiaince
16 - C. Moment of Silence
17
18 PUBLIC COMMENT
19
20 Jack Geary Sonoma County Mayors' Committee On Employment of People with
21 Disabilities - Thanked Council for their ; support and invited members to the annual
22 awards ceremony on October 14th. He. distributed nomination forms for Council's.
23 consideration and to return..
24
25 Alix Shor, JobUnk - Explained'.she was working -with the Mayors' Committee and that
26 JobLiink is an organization that provides services to disabled people seeking
27 employment,. She invited Council Members to attend their Open House on October 14th.
28
29 COUNCIL COMMENT
30
31 Council Member Harris notified members that he had a conflict on October 4th and will
32 not be able to attend the scheduled Council Meeting.
33
34 Council Member O'Brien ,asked to adjourn the afternoon and. evening Council Meetings
35 in memory of Gerry Giesmar, to honor 'his volunteer °service to the community.
36
37 Council Member Torliatl' called Council's .attention to correspondence received
38 regarding selecting a name for McNear Peninsula Park and that suggestions have come
39 forth to name it the "Bill So'branes" Park. She asked for clarification of what the process
40 would be naming the park. She requested to adjourn the evening meeting in memory
41 of Fred Sollo.m..
42
43
44
Vol. XX, Page 2 September 13, 2004
CITY MANAGER COM'M'ENT
City Manager Bierman asked Council to ,review memos placed at the dais that address'
issues concerning the Cavanagh Demonstration Garden and Taxi F ate' concerns.
AGENDA CHANGfSANb DELETIONS (Changes to current agenda only)
City Attorney Rudnansky stated an item had come to his attention after the agenda had
been posted and it was;necessary to discuss this in 'Closed Session today. He requested a
motion to add a Closed Session item as INITIATION OF _LITIGATION, Government Code
§54956C 1 matter...
Council Member Healy asked ,for. clarification that this would meet the criteria for adding
an item' after,an agenda was posted.
City Attorney Rudnansky stated this would be correct under the Brown Act with a. two -
thirds vote by Council.
MOTION to approve the changes. M/S O'Brien/Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PRESENTATIONS /PROCLAMATIONS
There were none.
Council Members,, Moynihan and`Thompson arrived at 3:10 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES •
A. City Council /PCDC Minutes of August 1.6, 2004.
31 Council, MemberTorliatt requested that Page 1, line 30 read: "With a.
32, resolution to prevail in this litigation."
MOTION to adopt the minutes as; amended:
M /S*Torliatt and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. City Council. Minutes of August 23, 2004.
Council Member Torliatt requested that Rage2 7, line 29 state: "We need.
to re -look at °the rate structure to incenti,vize recycling."
MOTION to adopt the Minutes as amended:
;M /S Torliatt. and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,.
2. APPROVAL, OF PROPOSED. AGENDA
City Manager Bierman referred to, the revised 'agenda and requested the -
addition of an 'item titled "Potential Living Wage. 'Ordinance" under "New
Business, "
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 3
1 Vice Mayor ,Moynihan had questions regarding the EIR of Chelsea being
2 considered separately from the project and if it should be on the proposed
3 agenda. He wanfecl ;it included under the evening session for the public hearing
4 of the project.
5
6 Discussion regarding the motion and approval of the agenda as printed for
7 September 204h with the City Manager's; addition was agreed upon.
8
9 MOTION to approve`,the proposed agenda.as amended:
10
1 1 M/S Torliaft - and. Healy. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
12
13 AYES: Harris, - Healy, Torliatt, O'Brien, Glass
14 NOES: Moyn.'ihan /Thompson
15
16 3. CONSENT CALENDAR -
17
18 City Manager Bierman requested Item 1A be 'removed from the Agenda and
19 considered at a later , date.
20
21 Council. Member'T.orliatt requested to remove Item 3.C. and 3.H. .
22
23 Council Member Healy requested to:remove Item 3.B.
24
25 Council MemberO ?Brien requested to remove Item 3.0 and 3.E.
26
27 MOTION to approve the balance .of`the Consent Calendar:
28
29 M/S Torliatt and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
30
31 A. AoG�p4ing the CoMpllgfidn. of the r 2003 Airport ObStFUGN
32 Lig Project Na 65140' 1. from the
33 Agen.dd.
34
35 B. Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to North Bay Landscape
36 Management for the Cavanagh Center ,Demonstrdtion Garden. Funding
37 Source: Water Funds Estimated at $39;900. (Ban /Orr) This item was
38 removed from the Consent Calendar forseparate discussion.
39
40 C. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with
41 the. Aquatic Consulting Team of NTDSTICHLER for the Conceptual Planning
42 and Design of a Swim Center Complex for the City of Petaluma. (Carr)
43 This item - was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
44
45 D. Resolution '2004 =158 N.C'.S. Accepting Completion of the 2004 - Oxidation
46 Pond, Dike Repair Project. Funding Source: Wastewater Funds. Contractor:
47 Goebel Paving, Grading and Underground, Inc. (Ban /Nguyen)
48
49 E. Resolution Declaring Vehicles and Equipment Surplus to the City's Needs
50 and Directing the City Manager'to Dispose of the Vehicles and Equipment
51 in Accordance with Provisions of the Petaluma Municipal' Code. (Netter)
52 This. item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
Vol. XX, Page 4 September 13; 2004
1
2
F.
Resolution 2004 7 , 159 N.C.S. Adop:fing, 'FY 2004 -2005 Gann Appropriations
•
3
Limit. (Netter)
4
5
G.
Resolution 2004 -:160 :. N.C.S. Awarding the Contract to Purchase
6
Piayground Equipment to Ross Recreation Equipment of Santa Rosa, for
7
the' Walnut' Park Playground. .(Carr)
8
9
H.
Resolution Declaring Increase in , Taxicab Service Rates and Repealing
10
Resolution 9`1: -94 N.C.S. (Hood). This -item was removed from the Consent
11
Calendar for separate discussion.
12
13
I.
Resolution 2004 -161 N.C.S. Awarding the Contract to Resurface Seven City
14
Tennis Courts to, Vintage Contractors, Inc - ., of San Francisco for the
15
Amount of $43,120. (Carr) _
16
17
J.
Resolution 2004-162 N.C.S. Supporting Proposition lA (Protecting Local
18
GoverhmenfFunding). (Bierman)
19
20
' ITEMS REMOVED FOR.SEPA_ RATE. DISCUSSION
21.
22
B.
Resolution Awarding a Consiructi'on Contract to North Bay Landscape
23-
Management for the Cavanagh Center ,Demonstration Garden. Funding
24
Source: Water Funds Estimated at.$39,900_. (Ban /Orr)
25
26
Council Member Healy stated concern about the lack of any cost -
27
effectiveness analysis considering that funding was, provided. through
28
water ratepayer funds. He thought that .$40,000 _ was expensive for
29
replacing turf in such a small area. He stdteci he supported cost - effect
30
water conservation programs, but this was not one of them.
31
32
Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned if this was an appropriate Use of
33
ratepayer's money and' that the City could do without the project all
34.
together.
35
36
Council Member Torliatt asked to bring this back on the September 20 +h
37
agendd to review - additional information that was provided this date. She
38
too supported water conservation projects.
39
40
City Manager Bierman explained that this project saves 25,000 gallons of
41
water :per year and would support bringing the item back on September
42
20.
43
44
Council Member Thompson wanted to know what the dollar amount of
45
.25;000 gallons comes 'to. He stated that mainly Boys ;; and Girls Club
46
members .would use the .garden as. an 'educational tool.. He supported
47
bringing it back,
48
49
C.
Resolution 2004 -163 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an
50
Agreement with the Aquatic Consulting Team. of WE)ST,ICHLER for the -
51
Conceptual ;Planning and Design of a Swim Center Complex for the City
52
of Petaluma. (Carr)
•'
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5
•
1
2
Council Member Torliatt requested that the resolution be changed to read:
3
"Whereas, `the City of Petaluma is negotiating to sell the site upon .which the
4
current Petaluma Swim Center and Skate Park are located; and
5
6
Whereas; the City Council is committed to having a replacement aquatic facility
7
ready for public use prior to the existing facility being closed."
8
9
Council Member O'Brien wanted clarification of the acceptance of the highest
10
bid that was approximately $40,000 more than -the lowest bid. He suggested that
11
since both consultants use the same advisory group, the City should work directly
12
with them.
13
14
Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr explained that, after reviewing and
15
interviewing all bidders, the consultant,. NDT Stichler, was unanimously
16
recommended by the panel to best meet the needs of the community. He
17
addressed the question of using the same companies and explained the
18
difference was that one was premiere in developing and operating aquatic
19
facilities and the other was best at addressing the feasibility study and financial
20
end. The preference for this architectural firm and this consultant was that they
21
were leaders in building, consensus in the community between recreational and
22
competitive swimmers. They also assist with finding grant money.
23
24
Vice Mayor Moynihan supported this choice and pointed out that this firm would
25
assist in identifying a site as well. He was concerned about the $2,042,000
•
26
budgeted in the CIP under "Park Fees" since he understood that these, were to
27
be all developer contributions.
28
29
Director Carr stated he to identify park fees now because of the timeline
30
that the firm gave them. He wanted to use the park fees on hand to get things
31
started.
32
33
City Manager Bierman clarified the reimbursement from the developer would be
34
forthcoming ming but action needed to be taken now.
35
36
Vice Mayor Moynihan wanted to correct this .and did not feel that fronting this
37
money without an understanding with the developer upfront would set a
38
precedent. He wanted to request that the developer pay the fees to begin the
39
project.
40
41
Council Member Harris also. had concerns about the cost of the bid of NDT
42
Stichler. He supported the changes to the resolution and did not see a problem
43
with going with the lower bidder.
44
45
Council. Member O'Brien asked the City Manager what would happen if the
46
Kenilworth project didn't take place.
47
48
City Manager Bierman stated that the property has been purchased and if
49
Regency doesn't develop as planned, the. City would get the money for
50
whatever of development occurs there.
•
51
Vol. XX, Page 6
September 13, 2004
Council Member Healy supported staff recommendation but wanted to
direct staff to get the funds reimbursed as soon as possible; he supported
the proposed changes to the resolution language.
Council Member Torliatt hoped that the City Manager would come back
to Council with a proposal for the swim center and skate park in the next
few months as he negotiates with Regency to move this project forward,
with broad consensus as to where to locate the facilities.
Mayor Glass explained his support for this bid amount and the process
that resulted in this decision to use the consultant.
Vice Mayor Moynihan explained his opposition because the Staff Report
indicated there was a budgeted amount of park fees and this was
incorrect;, and that an inappropriate source of funds, was being used to
support this project.
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
M/S Torliatt and, Glass. CARRIED BY °THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES; Glass, Torliatt, Healy, Harris, O'Brien, Thompson
NOES: Moynihan
E. Resolution .2004 -164 N.C.S Declaring Vehicles and Equipment Surplus to
the City's Needs and Directing the City Manager to Dispose of the
Vehicles and Equipment in Accordance with. Provisions of the Petaluma
Municipal Code. (Netter)
Council Member O'Brien questioned #8 - the blowpatcher - with less than
400 hours listed as being in poor condition.
Interim Administrative Services Director Joe Netter explained the
blowpatcher was traded to Petaluma from Mill Valley because they were
unhappy with it and the City did get an additional piece of equipment.
He stated this was a piece of equipment that did not meet the intended
purpose and was a bad purchase.
Council Member O'Brien continued with surplus items numbered: 1. 1, 13,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,-25, and 26. He stated all were below 100,000
miles and listed -as in poor condition. He requested a more accurate
description of vehicle condition in the future.
Mr. Netter explained the purpose was to eliminate the old fleet, and due
to the purchase of new , vehicles a few months ago, the Finance
Department wanted to establish distinct accounting for each vehicle and
to amortize funds to replace 'the vehicles after their useful life. The
descriptions were based on the recommendation from the fleet manager
and indicated age, maintenance, insurance, safety; mileage was only
one indicator. He stated that the use of "poor" to describe their condition
was standard terminology and some vehicles were in better condition. He
•
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 7
1
•
said when the vehicles go to auction they will be priced according to
2
condition with a-minimum bid'.
3
4
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
5
6
M/S Healy and - Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7
8
H. Resolution 2004 -165 N.C.S Declaring. Increase `in Taxicab Service Rates
9
and Repealing Resolution 91 -94 N.C.S'. (Hood)
10
11
Council 'Member Torliatt indicated she was sensitive to seniors' needs for
12
taxicabs as their onlyway.of'getting around. She felt that the increase of
13
$3'- $4 would be significanttosomeone -on a fixed income.
14
15
Police Chief Steve Hood indicated that Petaluma was at, or below every
16
other City in the County when they studied this issue and rates had not
17
been raised.in thirteen years.
18
19 4.
NEW BUSINESS - CITY COUNCIL AND PCDC
20
21
A. Presentation and Resolution 2004 -166 ,NC.S Authorizing City Manager to
22
Enter Into d Cooperative Agreement with the Sonoma County Water
23
Agency :for Funding ,, and` Administration of the City of Petaluma' Water
24
Conservation Program for-Fiscal Year 2004%05: (Ban /Orr)
25
26
Water Resources and Conservation Engineering Manager Orr presented
27
the 'item. introducing the team, the background of the program, elements.
28
of the program -to be addressed, and how much potable water has been
29
offset since 1998.
30
31
Council Member Torliatt highlighted areas of the conservation program
32
that met 'state best management practices but felt that the City needed
33
to take on a:�bigger role to conserve water. She supported the "Hold the
34
Flow" as a' project that should be embraced with a major rollout of
35
_conservation efforts across the entire community to reduce capital costs
36
for retrofitting if this wasn't done on fhe front end. She wanted Council to
'37
direct staff tq implement a 'strategy to look at the long term rather than
38
retrofitting later. She .wanted to spend conservation or ratepayer dollars
39
on a billing system that identified how people can reduce their costs,
40
what tier they are ,in, and''how they can reduce their water bills. She
41
wanted to know what schools the Water Agency is visiting, and the
42
frequency, to see that the agency is focusing on the school system and
43
.that the City is getting its money's'worth.
44
45
Vice'Mayor Moynihan bad questions :regarding. the $702,000 this year and
46
-the $647;000 cost per year for the next four'years on this program.'
47
48
Mt. Orr explained that this agreement was for FY 2004 -05 but she`wanted
49
to show the five-year spread to, illustrate water conservation:
50
1
r�
L...J
Vol_XX, Page 8 September 13, 2004:
Lynn,Hulme, Sonoma County'Water-Agenc,y; clarified the expenditures of •
approximately $2:8 million over a ten period (through 2008) for - the
City with a little over half being spent already.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if the program needed to be so extensive
Ms. ;Hulme explained that these programs meet the States Urban Water
Gonservatio_n Councils' standards; she stated the City has added
programs as well. in order to get grant funding or revolving loans, the City
needs to meet these standards.
City Manager Bierman explained that previously the City had a fairly
'good program but currently the Ci;ty', has decided to implement a better
program to save water. He stated that every acre -foot that the 'City
doesn't buy from the Water Agency saves a lot of money.
Vice ,Mayor Moynihan questioned if spending twice as much money.
would , achieve twice as mush conservation. He felt, thel City needed to
identify a bare -bones program that would meet the standards.
Council. Member Healy asked what other contractors are doing and if .thel
level of funding being proposed was consistent with what other
contractors are: doing on a per- capita basis.
Ms. Hulme indicated there are some conservation programs: #hat none of
'the contractors are, in compliance with. She said , this program would
greatly improve Petaluma'S compliance with all the required conservation
programs: and that is why'the additional money was necessary:
Council Member Torilatt clarified the City's ratepayers have already.paid
into this account pursuant to Amendment 1'1. The process involves
reapplying 'for money' already committed as ratepayer money that the
City.is entitled to .use to implement conservation projects that the City has
agreed to
Mayor Glass referred to correspondence from the community:regarding
confusion relating to water billing. He supported Council Member Torlidth
suggestion for more information to be included on ;the bill to explain the,
tiered rates so the consumer could use this information to decrease their
water- usage and therefore, their bill. 'He suggested: something like the
information included on PG&E's billing.
Vice Mayor mMloynihan noted the cost of the proposal and that' the
funding coming from the Amendment'] 1 entitlement still means that more
than half is coming out of the ratepayers operating costs. He suggested
that if' cost'were decreased $.49,000 it wouldn't require an,increase in
rates, He was very concerned about the doubling of rates over the 'East
three years and expects that. they will double again in the next, three
years. ;He wanted to halve the cost and do as little. as necessary to meet
the state mandated requirements to have an effective program and save
co0sumers money.
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 9
1 Council Member Healy said he would support this proposal but he does
2 agree with Vice Mayor Moynihan's, concerns and' he didn't want to see
3 this - number treated as a "floor" for future budgets.
4
5 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
6
7 M/S Thompson and Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
8
9 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Glass,.Torliatt, O'Brien
10 NOES: Moynihan
11
12 B. PCDC Resolution 2004- 16 ,.Awarding Contract for Downtown Improvements
13 Streetscape= Landscaping, Sidewalk Treatments and Furnishings in Phase 1
14 Area Project 3300 - 54151 C200603. (Marangella)
15
16 Council Member'Heaiy recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of
1 7 this project..
18
19 Economic Development and Redevelopment Director Paul Marangella
20 presented the item to Council as the final part of Phase 1 of the
21 downtown streetscape project to award the .bid to Cagwin and Dorward
22 for $908''A3.
23
24 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
25
26 !yl /S Thompson and Harris. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
27_ .
28 AYES: Harris, Thompson, Glass, Moynihan, Torliatt, O'Brien,. Moynihan*
29 ABSTAIN: Moynili'an
30 RECUSED Healy
31
32 *Vice Mayor Moyni_han`s abstention, per the Council's Rules and
33 Procedures, 'would be recorded as on "AYE" vote in the minutes.
34
35 Council Member O'Brien left the Council Chambers of this time.
36
37 C. Consideration and Proposed Adoption of Resolution 2004 -167 N.C.S.
3$ Regarding Appointment of Applicant' to. the Building Board of Appeals.
39 (Petersen)
40
41 City Clerk Gayle Peterseh, , explaine.d that Mr.- Everett was the only person
42 indicating an .interest in this appointment. She recommended that his
43 application be approved as there was an appeal, in process that needs a
44 full board to hear it..
45
46 Council Member Torliatt indicated she had met with .Mr. Everett. She
47 requested that the City Clerk provide applications -to fill the vacancies on
48 the Animal Services Advisory Committee and Tree Advisory Committee as
49 they arise_.,
50
Vol. XX, Page 10
September 13, 2004
1 Vice• Mayor Moynihan requested that the Airport Commission
2 appointnmmnt brought back and he would like to have this on the next-
3 agenda.
4
5 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
6
7 M/S Torliatt: and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8
9 Council Member O'Brien returned to the Council Chambers at this time.
10
11 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
12
13 A. Public Hearing on the Formation of Underground `UtilityZistrict on Bodega
14.. Avenue arid, Resolution '2004 =168 :NC.S. Approving .Formation of. Bodega'
15 Avenue Underground Utility District. (Skladzien /Lackie).
.16
17 Susan Lackie, Public facilities .and :Services Project Manager, presented
18 the item and asked Council - to pass the resolution.
19
20 Mayor Glass opened ,the Public Hearing.,
21
22 William C. ,Smith Petaluma asked if each property owner would have to
23 pay $1,500 - $ 2',000 for electrical meters and commercial phone service.
24
25 PG &E Utility Representative indicated that the, City Council could pass a
26 resolution where- the $1 ; 500 of the all that the .City is eligible ,for
27 could be spent to pay to convert the meters, for every individual property
28 owner: 'The ,representative indicated 'there 'is an allocation for up to 100
29 feet of trenching from property line to "the homeowners; meter that would
30 also be paid for out of this: allocation, so there would be no cost to the
31 properfy owners.
32
33 Mayor Glass explained that this would be an improvement to` the
34 homeowner's property and paid for by all ratepayers in the PG&E .service
35 territory.:
36
37 Hearing no further•requests to speak, Mayor Glass closed the Public.Hearing.
38
39 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if it had been .determined show this would
40 impact rates.
41
42 Ms. Lackie. ',indicated that there was no way to determine what one
43 project would do to affect all ratepayers. When the project is completed
44 it would go into the PG &E rate base for everyone in the entire PG &E
45 system.
46
47 MOTION to adopf the resolution:
48
49 M. /S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED 'UNANIMOUSLY.
50
51
52
•
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
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
September "1.3 2004
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Resolution 2004 -169 'N.C. . S. to. Accept the Donation o f
Petaluma 'Boulevard South; - The "Casa 'Grande
Designation of the Site as the Future Location of
Headquarters: (Albertson)
Vol. XX, Page 11
Real Property: 307
Motel" and the
Fire Station #I/Fire
Fire Chief Chris Albertson presented this itern to Council indicating reasons
Why the Fire Department needed 'to be relocated due to its age, 'D'
Street traffic, lack of ladder truck parking abilit y,. seismic deficiencies, lack
of storage} and; the ,expanded services that are state and federally
rrian`dated. The City of Petaluma's; standards of coverage were reviewed
and' it was recommended that Station`l', be relocated in the nearby area
and Station 2 and 3 be ,upgraded. and 'modernized at their present
locations. He stated the environmental; and historical concerns of the
property `have been addressed and that neighborhood meetings would
be held'to address design and other concerns.
Council Member Healy asked the. Chief to: discuss the 'other four potential
si #es and why they were not chosen..
Fite. 'Chief Albertson explained' that the „properties under consideration
W_ eliminated because'of various access problems with the property,
contamination,,and:other events.
Vice,'Mayor Moynihan had questions about -the size. of the Casa Grande
property'and the possibility of obtaining adjoining parcels. He also asked if
a Phase 2 had been considered, and if :an appraisal had been done.
Fire Chief Albertson explained 'thaf` 'the .station would be three stories as
was consistent with'the; 7C PSP: He stated, that an architect has not been
hired to finalize how the firehouse would fit within the 20,000 sq foot
property. The Chief said that to his knowledge, a Phase 2 had not been
done. The :Chief stated an appraisal may have been done but he was not
privy to that information.
Co.uneff Member Torliatt read ,excerpts from memos included with a staff
'report from the Fire Chief to the City Manager. A July 17th memo
indicated that the site was geographiicolly well located but. said it was
unfortunate that it was on[
y 20;000: square feet. The memo indicated he
did not want to invest in a: fire station inw,hich the department's needs
would exceed the space even`before it is occupied: The memo stated
that even with a three-story. station, adequate off -site parking would not
be_ sufficient; He requested that-the City Manager look at a larger parcel
of land bordered by Second and" First Streets and `F" to 'G' Streets: A June
3rd memo from the Chief to the City Manager indicated that a minimum
lot size should be 41560 square feet (1 'acre.) with 1..5 acres preferable
according 'to fire chiefs who had.'recently built stations. She wanted, the
best site location with the maximum amount of property to service the
City's future needs. She felt. that Basin Streets gift of this property was
generous and should be accepted. She said sale- proceeds from this site
could be used for public safety.
Vol. XX, Page 1,2 September 13, 2004
PUBLIC COMMENT
Patricia 'TUttle. Brown, Petaluma -.Felt the meeting should have! been held
at 7:00 p.rn: Stated that''the donation of the site'by Basin 'Street ;should .be
separate from the fire station location and to look at Chief Albertson's
memos stating his concerns about the, property size. She wanted the City
to work with ;Cobblestone Homes who ;purchased the larger Hamilton
Cabinet,site to''build town homes.
Marianne; Hurley, 'Petaluma = Strongly objected to-the destruction of the
City's only remaining example of 1940's roadside motels and:: offered
methods for use of the Casa Grande Motel and why it was important to
`retain
,Barry Butsewlti, :Petaluma - Felt ° that giving - up the historic firehouse,
demolishing'the motel, and.:building' a significant structure in a; small =scale
neighborhood was not the best plan:, He asked why this.wasn't included in
the downtown planning process. ,He. wanted this item to be continued -to
on evening session.
Joseph ::Durney;,, Petaluma = Felt the location on `D' Street at the Boulevard
was 'better' and that the toxicity problern ;could be best dealt with by the
City to receive funding ,from the County, :State and Federal agencies to
remove'it.
:john Gorman, Petaluma - .Purchased 31.5 ,Petaluma Boulevard South last
year and, lives .a few blocks away,.. He also - supported. discussing this item .
at 7:_00 prn. He heard from neighbors ,and they had concerns regarding
violating the, CPSP not. ;noting the need for a' new ;firehouse during the
CIPS;P process; not making use, of the adjacent property that is now the
new garage, size of the. Casa Grande lot, - off -site. parking, and. that there' is
no room for expansion.
Shelena Baker, Petaluma Appreciated the new development
downtown and supported the .Casa 'Grande site as a location: She noted
the small area used for 'fire departments in San Francisco and that
expansion', could be accomplished by locating another fire station in an
appropriate. site. She. said. the Casa Grande Motel does not fit in with the
architectural style of the. neighborhood:
Andy Rogers, Petaluma - Owns property 'at 305 Petaluma Boulevard
South. He was ,concerned about the size.:of the lot as compared :to the
future needs :of' the City. He also mentioned ;the Foss of TOT and property
tax dollars and , the loss of parking. in front of his property. He was grateful
to Basin Street but wanted the community to fully explore all of its options
because of the importance of `this ,facility. Suggested using the property
and determine the best and .highest use: that could include the fire
department:
Stuort,Hyde, Petaluma:- Shared pictures that he had" taken of other motels
of the same- vintage that had . been refurbished and supported i
September 13, 2004 Vol.,XX,'Page 13
1
rehabilitating it. He said this item should have been discussed at the 7:00
2
p.m.. meeting.
3
4
Eric Grosser, Petaluma - Was concerned about replacing the old fire
5
station and thought It should have been addressed in placing the new
6
parking garage, but he supported' removing the motel. He thought the
7
City could be more creative in finding, a new site and could use the old
8
gas station site at 'D' Street; and 'to consider the new crossing south of
9
town.
10
1.1
Mary Jo Michael, Petaluma',- Thought the three -story plan was too large
12
and she liked the motel. Shestated a public hearing should be held in the
13
evening session, not at 3:OQ p.m..
14
15
Arthur Atherton, Metro Ho_'tel - Did not ,support trading the Casa Grande
16
Motel for more "tilt -up." He 'thought the fire department could find a
17
better site: He stated it could be sold' and the City a property
18
that works.
19
20
Fire' Chef`,Albertson clarified his desire for a larger site. He stated a site was
21
not availdble_'in the preferred area and that sites on the east side of the
22
River Were. not acceptable. He said this item was originally scheduled for
23
the 3:00 p.m'. session, Looki "ng "at the site location, he staffed that there
24
were no better 'locations .and_ that - using the site of the parking garage
25
was a mute issue. He explained why the Hamilton Cabinet site was
26
eliminated'. The gas station was eliminated because removing the
27
contamination is the purchaser's responsibility, the square footage was
28
smaller, and access was a I "problem. He reiterated that the community
29
would b:e involved ,in. the ,design of the three -story, building. The old fire
30
station will be used for commercial "use with the exterior maintained. He
31
said tilt t up" construction was not part of. the design envisioned and with
32
the rear access, more sunlight should be available to the parcels
33
adjacent to the new building.
34
35
Council Member Toriiatt saw the need for public support for the fire station
36
and a larger site for the facility with the Casa' Grande site preserved. She
37
felt 'the ,City. could; locate another °vacant lot if the Council directs the City
38
Manager to ,purchase the property Jo meet the future needs of the
39
community. She requested peer review' on the historical significance
40
studies that had been done, to 'determine local significance. She
41
requested clarification if the disposal of Fire Station #I would result in the
42
City no longer owning it because.of deed restrictions. She said that the
43
City' has the ability to make land available , for the number one priority of
44
public safety.
45
46
Council Member Healy supported the Casa Grande Motel site as the best
47
site to replace Fire Station #I due to its location. He was sensitive to the
48
historical preservation efforts' in the community. He stated that the City's
49
ownership had been 'confirmed. He addressed the CPSP process as not
50
having the purview to designate uses of parcels. He wanted to direct staff
51
to bring forth a recommendation for a design architectural team with
52
opportunity for neighborhood input. He wanted to add the following to
Vol. XX, Page 14 September 13,2004;
the end of the resolution: "Be it Forther.Resolyed, the Council directs staff
to interview design professionals and bring forward to . the Council a
recommendation as to which: architects and other design professionals to
retdin, as weli as a process including public participation for the design of
the new:Station Number One at the Casa, Grande Motel site."
Council Member O'Brien was in agreement with Council Member.Healy..
He recognized members of the public who lauded the CPSP and 'the
Smart Code and that the building would be in conformance with both of
these. He addressed the scheduling of .the _meeting as being well noticed.
As far as other locations, especially on 'D' Street,. which has been empty
for'years because of contamination and he did not want to expose public
safety employees to that potential ,danger. He stated that the City would
not be able to, restore the Casa Grande Motel, which he does not see as
'historical.
Council Member Harris supported, this public /private partnership, the
acceptance of this offer,, and to work with the neighborhood in the
design process.
Council -Member Thompson sensed that the public had the impression
that an exhaustive search for a replacement property was ppt -.he
stated, "it was done." He felt this was the City's only alternative.
Vice Mayor ,Moynihan, agreed with Council Member Torliatt that the `size •Of
the lot was inddequ.afe and he didn't th. ink..a three -story facility without
sufficient parking was practical. He :stated that the .City' s process of
replacing facilities was flawed and cited the Wafer Resources building. 'He
stated this;was. trade -off for the Southgate development that was given
a $6 million entitlement to build within the,'U'rban Growth Boundary for this
20,000 square feet site, °which thought was a poor deal. He thought
one of the othe,r,properties would be better and that the City should find.
an appropriate use for the Casa Grande Motel site. He: suggest,ed
creating a:sub- commiftee to identify Viand obtain a better site.
Mayor Glass., asked if the site. was accepted, how long would it take to
look at other, locations if a. new :site. could, be, secured wit the proceeds
from the motel,. He did not see the historical value of'the motel. He would .
like some rough sketches and to bring this item back to a 7;00 p.m.
Meeting.
City Manager :Bierman could not guess, on the timing issue. He did not see
where another site would beldentified unless property was condemned.
Council Member Torliatt felt that condemning property on a 'vacant lot,
versus :demolishing, a structure would be up to Council. She did not
remember the Council being asked to pursue a new fire station site. She
did not see how the City Manager had pursued an open process of site
selection. She supported the Mayor`s suggestion and wanted to address
fhe7 neighborhood's issue. She stated thatthe°City still has to pay to design
and construct the new. firehouse. She,. explained her "No" vote in
accepting the parcel and thanked ;Basin :Street for providing this to the
September 13 2004 Vol. XX, Page 15
1 City but she did`not feel the neighborhood or public was getting the best
2 site for the City's safety services or to provide for the Fire Department's
3 future needs.
4
5 Mayor Glass explained his "Yes" vote. He did not see the, motel's historical
6 significance..
7
8 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
9
10 M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
11
12 AYES: Harris, Healy, O'Brien; Thompson, Glass
13 NOES: Torliatt, Moynihan
14
15 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
16
17 The City Council' adjourned. to Closed Session at 5`45 p.m.
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 There was none.
22
23 CITY COUNCIL CLOSED�SESSION
24 _
25 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
26 Michael Bierman /Parndia Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME, IAFF Local 1415 and
27 Unrepresented Employees.
28 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: ,R&suant to Government Code §54957(e): City
29 Manager.
30 CONFERENCE WITH" LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION`. (Government Code §54956.9(x))
31 City of Petaluma ;vs. Petaluma Properties, et al (Sonoma :County Superior Case # 226706).
32 CONFERENCE 'WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure to Litigation
33 Pursuant to Subdivision:(b) of §54956.9: Potential Cases: 2.
34 INITIATION OF LITIGATION - (Government Code §54956.90) 1 matter.
35
36
37 MONDAY, ,SEPTEMBER 13': 2004 —EVENING SESSION
38 7:00 P.M:
39
40 CALL TO ORDER
41
42 A. Roll Call
43 Present: Members Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Torliatt, Glass
44 Absent: Moynihan, Thompson
45
46 B. Pledge of Allegiance
47 C. Moment of Silence
48
49 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS TAKEN
50
51 City Attorney Rudnansky reported that the City Council authorized the initiation of
52 litigation in one matter. The details would be disclosed upon request after the
53 commencement of the litigation.
Vol XX, Page 16
September 13, 2004
1
2 No reportable action on the other matters.
3
4 PUBLIC COMMENT
5
6 Carol'Eber /•Andy• Eber; Petaluma -Thanked. the Council for accepting NDT Stickler as the
7 architect /designer for the new aquatics center and asked them to move quickly to get
8 the project completed in a timely manner.
9
10, Geoff Cartrwright, ,Petaluma - Brought to Council's attention the Kohl's construction site
1 1 . that has brought in truckloads of fill. He reminded Council that this is a Zero Net'Fill area
12
13 Vice Mayor Moynihan arrived at 7:15 p.m.
14
15 Nancy Barlas, Petaluma Had a - question regarding the Sonoma /Marie Fair ;Board
16 meeting that was canceled. She asked why the City Council did not attend and
17 questioned'the °no'ticing of the meeting.
18
1`9 Mayor Glass -addressed this, explained what happened, and accepted. responsibility.
20 The City Council and Fair Board requested the: meeting and it was agreed to meet
21 September 8, 2004. He- received the agenda and, asked others what they thought of it.
22 The agenda listed "Fair Board Meeting with City Officials" he thought this was sufficient
23 but in order to legally be noticed the agenda shbOld,haver stated, " ... Meeting w►'th the
24 Petaluma City Council." The regular Fair Board meeting was held. He explained the
25 situation to the. Fair Board, and under advice, he asked them to reschedule the meeting.
26
27 City Attorney Rudnansky clarified that listing "City Officials" could be taken : as a noticed •
28 City Council meeting; however, the Brown Act is interpreted very 'conservatively in
29 Petaluma and thus the agenda should have stated "Joint Meeting with , the City
30 Council"
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan suggested writing a letter of apology to the Fair Board'and setting
33 a time and date for -the meeting.
34
35 David Yearsl'ey Petaluma River 'Keepe.r /Friends of Tolay Lake. Park - Announced a new
36 group as Friends of Tolay'Lake .Park and invited Council to two meetings regarding this
37 acquisition.
38
39 COUNCIL COMMENT
40
41 Council Member Torliatt requested, once again, that Council arrange a meeting with: the
42 Fair Board.
43
44 Council Member O'Brien reported good news that Council Member Canevaro is
45 returning from his service in Iraq.
46
47 Council Member' :O'Brien announced he was. not feeling well and left the meeting at;7 25
48 p.m.
49
50 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
51
52 There was .none.
September 13, 2004
Vol. XX, Page 17
•
1
2
Mayor Glass stated that Item T.C. Installation of Fire Sprinklers would . be continued to
.3
September 20, 2004.
4
5
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6
7
Council Member. Healy'recused himself because his home is within 500 feet of the
8
project.
9
10
Council Member Thompson arrived at'the meeting at 7.30 p.m.
11
12
A. Sweed School Townhouse .Planned Unit District Discussion and Possible
13
Action Regarding a Recommendation from the Planning Commission to
14
Approve a_ Request for Rezoning to PUD, PUD Development Plan and
15
Guidelines, a Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Mitigated Negative
16
Declaration for 14 -Lot Residential` Subdivision at 331 Keller Street, in the
17
Oakhill- Brewster Historic District. APN 006 -213 -004, Project File No. 03 -REZ-
18
0067. (Moore /Gordon)
19
19
1. Resolution 2004 -170 N.C.S. Approving Mitigated Negative
2.1
Declaration for the Sweed School Townhouse Rezoning and
22
Subdivision to be Located at 331 Keller Street, APN 006 -213 -004.
23
24
2. Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 2191 N.C.S. Rezoning a
25
31,906 Square Foot Parcel, APN 006- 216 -004, to Planned Unit
26
District, to Allow for 14 Residential Lots and a Common Area
27
Parcel, and Development of 14 Residential Units to be Located at
28
331 Keller Street.
29
30
3. Resolution 2004 -171 WC.S. Approving the Vesting Tentative
31
Subdivision Map for Sweed' School Townhouse Subdivision Which
32
Would Allow for 14 Residential Lots and a Common Area Parcel
33
Located at 331 Keller Street.,
34
35
4. Resolution 2004-172 N.C.S. Approving Planned Unit District
36
Development Plan and Guidelines for the Sweed School
37
Townhouse, Subdivision Allowing for Development of a 14 -Unit
38
Residential Subdivision, Accessed from Liberty Street.
39
40
Community Development Assistant Planner Kim Gordon presented
41
the item to Council and explained its location and plans for the
42
project. The Planning Commission approved the project.
43
44
Maria Poncell, West Bay Builders, applicant, provided additional
45
information and explained the evolution of the project and how
46
they addressed neighborhood concerns.
47
48
Council Member Torliatt stated that she had met with the
49
developer to review the plans and proposal.
50
51
Council Member Harris stated he had met with the developer as
52
part of his Council liaison role to the Planning Commission.
Vol. XX, Page 18 September 13, 2004
Council Member Thompson had .questions regarding Planning
•
Commissioner Rose's concerns about the carriage houses on
Liberty Street; he felt three. story structures were out of place in the
neighborhood. He asked how the developer changed this.
Chris Craiker, Architect, West Bay Builders, stated that from the
previous plan, the living level was brought closer to the street level
and tried.to be consistent with the neighborhood.
Council Member Harris had questions regarding traffic and level of
service and if, as a'condition of approval, it could be referred to
the Traffic. Committee to review line -of -site, issues.
Ms. ,Gordon explained that Planning Commission recognized
neighborhood concerns for traffic calming and a meeting has
been requested.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked about the applicant's replacement
of wood window and doors, if they would be vinyl clad or wood
because Council had not been requiring this and he was
concerned. with maintenance and energy -use issues. He asked the
project proposers meet with staff and go over the planning
process and make suggestions as how it could be improved.
Maria Poncell, West Bay Builders, explained that all wood windows
were required by the City to be consistent with guidelines for the
district and the historic status of the building.
Council Member Torliatt pointed out that the historic Oak
Hill /Brewster Hill district guidelines required all the homes in the
area have wood windows and this is the neighborhood standard
of expectations of all projects
Community Development Director Mike Moore explained that
these guidelines are followed but since this is a designated historic
structure there are Secretary of Interior standards that apply as
well and go beyond the districts. standards.
Mayor Glass opened the Public Hearing.
Corrine Farez Demil, Petaluma' Supported the project but was
concerned about traffic. She supported the requirements for
wood windows in the project. She was concerned about the
massing of the carr'iagethomes.
Bill Kennedy, Petaluma - Was concerned about traffic, density of
the project and parking,
Carol Eber, Petaluma - Expected more architectural information
from this presentation. As a neighbor, she is thrilled about the
restoration and that the building will be occupied.
•
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 19
1
2
Zack Matley, Petaluma`- Reported that the neighborhood strongly
3
supports the project. He also had concerns about traffic, parking,
4'
edge - line striping, massing of buildings on Liberty Street, and traffic
5
calming. He thought the developer should be responsible for some
6
of the impacts.
7
8
Rarton Smith, Petaluma - Expressed his concerns about the traffic
9
issue. He was concerned about owner /occupancy requirements
10
and toxic substance removal.
11
12
`Ms. G:ordoh answered that 'toxic substance removal would be
13
addressed through the building permit process with a permit
14
through Bay Area Air Quality. The wood windows are a
15
requirement of the hisfdricdisffict'aadl the Secretary of the Interior.
16
Recommendations will be made regarding what windows need to
17
bp.repgired and which must be. replaced.
18
19
Maria" Poncell, West 13'ay' Builders, replied to the concerns about.
20
massing. on Liberty Street. 'She reported this is tied to the small
21
increase in density of the projectto balance parking and traffic
22
issues: They have scaled down the project to more street level. She
23
stated that. they have agreed to ;do the wood windows but the
24
assessment of the 'or gihdFwindows may cause maintenance /utility
25
problems f at er. They would prefer to replace all the windows and
26
doors with new wood windows and doors.
27
28
Hearing, no further requests to speak, Mayor Glass closed the Public
29
Hearing;
30
� �
31
Council Member Thompson stated that he would compromise to
32
allow the developer to install all new wood windows.
33
34
Mr: Moore stated that they. do not have the window /door
35
evaluation back from the City -hired site consultant. This issue
36
would. be addressed *at ' C. He „ said the Council's past
37
overriding of the use of .vinyl windows applied only to new
38
construction.
39
40
Council. Member Todiatf gave direction for SPARC to look at the
41
massing issue and she supported edge -line striping; she was
42
concerned, about the, diagonal parking in one section, and the
43
solid fencing at the north side: She clarified that these are market
44
rate t0 rftuses.-On Conditions of Approval regarding street trees,
45
she wanted Historic SPARC to see if trees were there originally.
46
Regarding only interior work being performed on Saturday, she
47
wanted it to be stated only between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
48
She also wanted to :clarify the condition stating that all electrical
49:
transformers shall be underground for this project.
50
51
Vice Mayor Moynihan wanted to modify conditions 20, 21, 22, and
52
23 to reflect that if in excess of 20% of the windows and doors
Vol. XX, Page 20 September 13, 2004
needed to be replaced jor significantly repaired, the applicant
may propose replacement any or all of the additional windows .
and doors.
Council Member Thompson wanted to allow the ,developer to
come back to Council instead of filing an appeal regarding
SP:ARC's decision that they disagree with. Council Member Torliatt
agreed:.
MOTION to adopt the resolutions and introduce the ordinance'
M/S Torliatt and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Healy recused)
Vice Mayor Moynihan .requested that staff bring back the
Oak'hill /B'rewster guidelines and vinyl windows and SP'ARC`
standards.
Council MemberTorli SU.ggested'.bringing'the guidelines back if
the neighborhood had a petition and wanted to bring them back.
B. Public Hearing:, Discussion and Possible Action' Regarding: A) Adoption of
a Negative Declaration for th 'Rivas Subdivision, at; 1081 Bantam Way
(APN 9.19- 070 -043) B) Resolution Approving Prezoning the Subject'Parcel
to the R l -: -2 '0, 000 Zoning District, C) Resolution Approving a Tentative
Parcel Map. for a 3710t subdivision, and D) , Resolution Approving :the
Request for'Annezation. ( Borba)
1. Resolution 2004 6173 N.C.S. Approving a Negative Declaration' for
the Rivas Subdivision to be Located at'1081 Bantam Way, APN 01'9';
070 -043.
2. Introduction (First Reading) of : Ordinance 2192 N.C.S. Pre - -Zoning a
2 -Acre Parcel, APN 019- 070 =043, to R -1 20;000, to Allow °for 3
Residential Lots,. and Development of 2:new Residences to be
Located at 1'081 Bantam Way.
3. Resolution 2004- 174'N.C:S. Approving''the Tentative Parcel Map :for
Rivas Subdivision, Which Would Allow For 3 Residential Lots
Located iat 108.1 Bantam Way.
4. - Resolution :2004-1'75 N.C.S. of the Petaluma. City Council Making
Application - to the Local 'Agency Formation Commission .((LA, FCO)
Supporting Proceedings for a.2- Acre `Parcel Known as 1081 Bantam'
Way, APN, 019 -070 -043 Pursuant' to the Cortese /Knox Local _
Government Reorganization Act of 1985.
Community 'Development Senior Planner Irene Borba, pre_ sented
information regarding 'the subject; property within the Urban
Growth Boundary but not ,within 'the city limits. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the project with
conditions.
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 21
1
Council Member Healy requested more detail on water pressure.
2
He asked about the requirements for fire sprinkler installation in the
3
new homes.
4
to block additional lighting, from the new development. The
5
Fire Marshal Mike Ginn responded that due to the elevation of the
6
property, the department had installed special "dry" hydrants to
7
furnish emergency water to the development. This type of hydrant
8
has been installed in other developments and is standard. He said
9
that all three houses would have fire sprinklers with adequate
10
pressure.
11
12
Joe' Swicegood, applicant, stated this was an in -fill project that
13
would create two. new houses plus the existing. He explained the
14
preference for cut and fill rather than building on the existing
15
slope. They will build the homes to conform to the terrain of the
16
property.
17
incumbent on. the equipment the fire district has. The drainage
18
Mayor Glass opened the Public Hearing.
19
where the water runs into the drain.
20
Susan Kirks, Paula Lane Action Network - Said that Bantam Way
21
was not part of the Paula Lane neighborhood but because of its
22
location on a hillside and abutting the Paula Lane rural properties,
23
the neighborhood. was concerned with maintaining the visual
24
aesthetic' and rural character . of their neighborhood. She
25
mentioned the water pressure issue, and after review, they believe
26
that one ,lot would be better than two lots to decrease the fire
27
hazard. She requested an additional 90 -foot buffer zone near the
28
storm drain easement to protect visual and to allow landscaping
29
to block additional lighting, from the new development. The
30
neighborhood didn't feel a negative declaration could be
31
adopted` but a mitigated declaration could be reached on these
32
items. She also pointed out the buffer zone would protect the
33
eucalyptus frees used by nesting raptors that are protected under
34
the. Department of Fish and Game codes. She suggested an
35
arborist -assessment to preserve as many trees as possible.
36
37
Charles Carle, Petaluma - Addressed the Negative Declaration
38
philosophy and gave his past experience. in Marin County. He felt
39
that it was 'being used on` small pieces of property to support
40
subdivision and will continue. He said the water pressure is
4.1
incumbent on. the equipment the fire district has. The drainage
42
issue minimizes groundwater recharge as he sees behind his home
43
where the water runs into the drain.
44
45
David Keller, Petaluma - Stated that this is an example of
46
cumulative annexation on, the Westside of Petaluma for. which
47
there is no comprehensive planning. and the cumulative impacts
48
of these subdivisions.
49
50,
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma - Supported Mr. Carle and Mr. Keller's
51
statements and concerns about annexations done without EIR's or
52
any way to address cumulative impacts.
Vol. XX, Page. 22 September 13, 2004
Hearing no further requests to speak, Mayor Glass closed the Public •
Hearing.
Council Member Torliaft requested that staff address the run -off
issue.
Craig Spaulding, City Engineer, stated that storm drains that were
created during the earlier development in the area would collect
the run -off. He stated that lot -to -lot drainage was not allowed.
Council Member Torliatt addressed Mr. Carle's issue of cumulative
impacts and the initial study and that this was separate from Paula
,Lane's : issues. She asked. about the trees that appear to block the
view from Paula Lane and if those trees were to remain.
Senior Plan nner . Borba referred to letters from the developer's
arborist and horticultural associates who felt that the trees may be
impacted by the drainage ditch and may have to be removed.
Council Member Torliatt was not' in favor of removing mature trees,
in particular,, because of view -line issues. She felt that every effort
should be made to avoid removing the trees. She wanted under
Condition 12, the developers phone number and contact
information posted on the site along with allowable hours of
construction, She also wanted . language in the resolution and
ordinance to state the Urban Growth Boundary, not the urban limit
line. She summarized the changes to the motion as; - to minimize
tree removal on site; changes to the ordinance and resolution
from Urban Limit Line to Urban Growth Boundary; and the
developer contact information.
Council Member Healy noted the unanimous approval by the
Planning Commission and he saw this as an in -fill site. He felt SPARC
would address grading, light, and tree issues.
Mayor Glass also looked at this as reasonable to build two houses.
on 24,000 square foot lots. He talked about density and that
annexing would allow the City to collect revenue.
MOTION to adopt the resolutions and introduce the ordinance:
M/S Torliatt and Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C. Public Hearing, and Introduction (First Reading) of an Ordinance
Amending Section 17.20.070 of the Petaluma Municipal Code Requiring
Installation of Automatic Fire Sprinklers in Pre - Existing Buildings in the
Historic Downtown Business District. (Albertson /Ginn)
MOTION to call and continue this public hearing to September 20, 2004
City Council Meeting.
•
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
8.
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX,'Page 23
M/S Torliatt and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Possible Action 'on a „'Resolution Certifying the Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) as Adequate Pursuant.to
the Applicable. Provisions. "of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) `for the Proposed Developrnenf of Parcels B and C of the River
Oaks /Petaluma Facfory Outlef 'Village (Petaluma Village Marketplace).
(Moore)
1. Resolution Certifying a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for a Modification to the' River Oaks /Petaluma Village
Master General Development Plan to Allow Development of
Parcels B and C to 'be Known as the Petaluma Village
Marketplace. (2200 Petaluma Blvd. North),
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT .QN. THE ,EIR 'WAS CLOSED AT THE
AUGUST. lb, 2004 CITY ,COUNCIL MEETING. THERE, WAS NO PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE Elk ATmTHIs MEETING
Betsi Lewitter, Planner .gave the background of the project from
1991 when.it was divided' into three parcels with the definition as
'Planned Community District to allow commercial development.
She explained what was planned for undeveloped parcels 'B' and
'C',. She includ'e.d what processes had taken place in the previous
two* Council meetings-addressing this project.
Vice Mayor Moynihan had a question regarding the Opportunities
and Constraints; exhibit which showed a buffer zone for the River
enhancernenf. "He had understood that this would be a flexible,
nof .fixed "buffer zone.
'B 'etsi Lewitter, Planner expla.ined' that the River Enhancement Plan
states that it had to be an average of 1.50' and no less than 100'
from the top of bank.
C, "o.une'il Member Harris. had questions about restaurants on -site,
being in compliance with` the :Bay Area Air Quality Management
District.
Director Moore stated it' mainly had to do with retaining smoke
and odors;from cooking.
Mayor Glass stated due to agenda language, Public Comment
on new information would be taken.
Vol. XX, Page 24 . September 13, 2004
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bruce Hagen, Petaluma - 'Called Council's attention t,o articles on,
Global Warming , and the rising ocean levels that could affect how
the, flood potential should be, evaluated.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma -- Referred to the 1998 ;flood gauges
located at Willowbrook Creek', new information from the California
Department of Water Resources - Division of flood management;,
and the Corona Road gouge readings of 2002.
H:.:R. Downs, Open- Space,Vbfer Resource. Protection and Land
Use (QVNL) Foundation,- Brought .a 'DVD from •S'ebastopol's, water
forum to. help Council understand. how to. deal with the finite'water
supply. He directed them to OWL'Foundation, net website.
COUNCIL COMMENT '
Council Member Healy requested staff to point, out new,
information that has changed in the EIR and how' to - evaluate
these` Changes.
Community Development .Director Mike Moore indicated that the
EIR addressed all of the initial •scoping issues and the Final ;EIR
addresses all the issues brought 'up during the public comment
period where these concerns , were addressed by responses to.
comments and changes to the, document..He stated that 'in the.
City's view; CMA has been. complied with and new issues for
mitigation have been addressed,
Council''Member TOrhatt, asked where in the process -does the City
Council address the City's exposure to litigation; and whether the
project applicant is required to `pay for any and all lawsuits
associated with this development.
Mr. Moore explained that this was, typically a condition of project
'approvol: He explained the process is that after the . Council'
certifies. an EIR, at that point - a Notice of D'eterminat'ion is filed and
begins .the 'time period for exposure to a lawsuit.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked about when the project would come
back to, Council: and what the noticing cequirernents were.
Mri, Moore indicated that a ten -day notice prior to' the scheduled
hearing is required.
Council Member Torliat# requested clarification of what the square
footage I of the. project was a who the tenants would be since
'originally it. was to have a movie cheater and other uses; She
requested ;clarification of the difference in traffic patterns. She also
wanted to know what the square footage, limitations are 'of the
retail tenants.
September 13 ,.2004 Vol.. XX, Page 25
1
2
GMs. Lewitter indicated it has been changed from a 10 -12- screen
3
movie theater to 36;000, square feet of retail space. The notice
4
stated', movie theater or retail space since the square footage was
5
the same. She said that the retail limitation would be a total of
6
163,000,square .feet of retail space, no tenant could be more than
7
1;30;000 square feet,, and no discount department store could be
8
more than 65,000 square feet without the approval of the Council.
9
10
Steve Weinberger, W= Trans; Santa Rosa - Stated that the traffic
11
analysis in 'the 'EIR document was based on retail use, and
12
mitigation was based on the most intense usage which was retail.
13
Regarding questions of the Overriding Consideration, he stated
14
that level of service deficiencies at Washington and Petaluma
15
Boulevard, to which mitigation. options were presented. In the
16
Draft Subsequent EIR the impacts; are documented on 13.1 as
17
significant and unavoidable impacts.
18
19
Mayor Glass asked how the C has come to be required to
20
make necessary votes of 'overriding consideration for public
21
benefit and how was this found it to be adequate without knowing
22
if' it was an economic advantage or disadvantage_ He was
23
troubled by the cumulative impacts; and was concerned about
24
curing the infrastructure to prevent environmental impacts. He still
25
did not feel the report addressed reasonably foreseeable
•
26
cumulative impacts such - as the CPSP development plans. He felt
27
the report was inadequate because of the degree of unavoidable
28
and significance of impacts.
29
30
Ms. Lewife.r indicated that CEQA. does not require an EIR to
31
address economic impacts. She pointed out the sales tax dollars
32
from,the development have been identified as City income. She
33
stated that the CPSP applies to the downtown core and does not
34
apply to retail development elsewhere in the City.
35
36
Mr. Moore addressed these concerns - as being all traffic related.
37
He said these impacts: are'tl e same impacts that were supported
38
in Statements of Overriding Consideration in other projects. He
39
stated that the cumulative ,impacts have- been studied in the
40
General Plan under build -out conditions.
41
42
Council_ Member Healy supported the .Mayor's position. He felt
43
there are areas where things" look different from the beginning of
44
the process but will have to be considered at the project approval
45
stage to put more emphasis on further mitigation than-
46
recommended in the current document. He stated that with
47
newer subdivision projects being reviewed to address water usage
48
more aggressively, Council might rieed to address this on a
49
citywide basis. He, was also concerned about the issue of
50
workforce housing not being adequately considered. He was
51
satisfied that the document met the legal standards.
52
Vol. XX, Page 26 September l3, °200.4
Council Member Torliatt felt that the ,Planning Commission "would
have denied the EIR because of their concern that the project
would; be approved in its form at the Council level because .they
would not. have been able to make recommendations for
ch'ang'es, or mitigation. She agreed with the Mayor that the
environmental_ document was deficient in a variety of ways,
including the traffic analysis fiscal impacts, workforce housing,
business competition, the CPSP +, emergency services; General Plan
consistency, the flooding 'issue, -groundwater recharge area
concerns, the Rainier pr.bject traffic impacts- and and the lack of
improvement to thei Redwood Highway over crossing.
Mayor Glass agreed with Council Member Torliafl and also
pointed out that there was no mention of marine life present at the
outlet mall area. He. mentioned the economic benefit as
compared to -the millions of dollars of unavoidable consequences
that cannot be mitigated.. The report mentions an evacuation
plan for parcels 'B' and 'C' 'that the . City is responsible for - he felt
all, employees, customers and managers should "sign -off` on this
and.'it should be monitored.
Council Member Harris asked for an update on the wetlands and;
endangered species for the 'public's information.
Mr. Moore indicated, this was addressed in an earlier memo and
that endangered species are regulated at a State or Federal level..
The City typically asks the applicant to show that they have, the
appropriate permits from those agencies before they 'can
proceed.
Council Member' Torliatt added, that the document doesn't deal
with the Retail. LeaKage Strategy, either or evaluates: how this was
the .worst site for retail expansion in the community and would
have the worst impact of any of the projects.
Mayor Glass .added that the General Plan policy calls for not
creating more flooding in the City. He wanted to note the
economic exposure that the City will be exposed to. He pointed
out that the document states; that cumulative effects of flooding
will occur from this project alone and noted the millions of dollars
the City has spent to obtain flood relief. He looked at the 1:993
level of service. of 'F' at Rainier and Maria 'Drive and stated that
the traffic impacts would be very expensive to deal with in the
future.
Council Member Torliaft referred to the reap showing where the
City should or should not be building and she felt. that building
should not be .allowed in the flood plain.
Council Member Thompson pointed out that the Council voted for
the Eden Housing project that is in the flood plain.
September 13, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 27
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
Council Member Healy stated that the cumulative traffic impacts
are a serious issue and will need *to be addressed in consideration
of this project, the CPSP, the Kenilworth site, and other anticipated
developments in the General Plan documents. He did not support
project approval because of inability to identify major tenant(s),
impacts on downtown, and that Parcel 'C' of the project is poorly
defined, but he would be supporting the EIR. He felt that it would
be difficult to make findings of overriding consideration without this
information
Council Member Torliatt felt Council 'Member Healy's issues should.
have been dealt with in 'the. EIR. She noted that if the EIR was
determined to be inadequate, the project would not be moving
forward.
MOTION to adopt'the resolution:.
M/S Moynihan and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan
NOES: Glass, Torliatt'
ABSENT: O`Brien
ADJOURN
The Council Meeting was adjourned at 10 :15 p.m.
David Glass, Mayor
Attest:
Gayle Petersen, City Clerk