HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/13/2004 September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 225
A~ L U
a ~ City of Petalu~aa, C'alifor~a
REGULAR MEETING OF THE`. PETALUIUTA CITY COUNCIL/
~85g PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING
1 City Council,/.PCDC Minutes
2 Monday, September 13, 2004
3
4
5 - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 -AFTERNOON SESSION
6 3':00 P.M.
7
8 CALL TO.ORDER
9
10 A. Roll Call
11
12 Presenf: Members Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
13 Absent: Members Moynihan and Thompson
1.4
15 B. Pledge of Allegiance
16 C. Moment of Silence
17
18 PUBLIC COMMENT
19
20 Jack ,Geary :Sonoma County Mayors' Committee 'On Employment of People with
2'1 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°fo return.
24
25 Alix Shor, JobLink -Explained she was working with the Mayors' Committee and that
_ 26 JobLink is an organization that provides services to disabled people seeking
27 employment. She invited C_ ouncil Members to aftend. their Open House on October 14th.
28
29` COUNCIL COMMENT
30
3~1 Council Member Harris notified members that he had a conflict on October 4th ahd will
;32 riot be able to attend the. scheduled Council Meetirig.
33
3'4 Councit.Member O'Brien asked to adjourn the afternoon and evening Council Meetings
35 iri' memory of Gerry Giesmar, to honor his voluhteerservice to the community.
36
37 Council 11Aember Torliatt called Council's attention 'to correspohdence received
38 regarding selecting.a name for McNear Peninsula Park; and that suggestions have come
39 forth to name it the "Bill Sobranes" Park. She asked for clarification of what the process
40 would be for naming. the park. She requested fo adjourn the evening meeting in memory
41 of Fred Sollom.
_ 42
43
44
Vol. 40, Page 226 September 13, 2004
1 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
2
3 City Manager Bierman dsked C_ ouncil to review .memos. placed at the dais that address
4 issues concerning the Cavanagh Demonstcatiori Garden and Taxi Rate concerns..
5
6 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Changes to current agenda only)
7
8 City Attorney Rudnansky stated an item had, come to his attention after the dgendd hdd
9 been- posted and' it was: necessary to discuss this in Closed Session today. He requested a
10 motion to add a Closed Session item as INITIATION,OF.LITIGATION, Government Code
1 1 §54956C - 1 matter.
1.2
.
13 Council'Member'Hxcly. asked' for clarification. that this-wou d meet the criteria for adding
14 an item after an agenda was: posted.
15
l,b City .Attorney° Rudnansky~ stated this would be correct under` the. Brown Act wifb a two-
17 .thirds vote by Council.
18
19 MOTION to approve the changes. M/S O'Brien/Gldss. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
20 _ _
21 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
22
23 There were none:
24
25_ Council Members Moynihan `and'Thompson arrived of 3:10 p:m.
26
27 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES `
28
29 A. City.Council/PCDC Minutes of,August 1;6, 2004.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt requested that Page 1, Iine;30`,read: '`,With a
32 resolution to prevail in this litigation.." - .
33
34 MOTION to adopt the minutes ,as :amended: ,
35 ~
36 M/S Torliaftand O'°Brien, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: .
37
38 B. City Council:IVlinutes of August 23, 2004.
39
40 ~ Council Member Torliatt`requested; that Page 7, line 29 state:: ''lNe need:
41 tore-look at the rate structure 'to ineenfivize recycling."
42
43 MOTION to adopt the .minutes as amended:
44
45 M/S Torli,att and Harris, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
46
47 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
48'
49 City Manager Bierman: referred to the: -revised agenda ;arid' requested: the
50 addition of an item titled "Potential Living Wage Ordinance" under "Ne.w
51 Business."
52
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 227
1 Vice. Mayor Moynihan had questions regarding the EIR of Chelsea being
2 consideredseparately from the project and if it should be on the proposed
3 agenda. He wanted 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 20th with the City Manager's addition was agreed upon.
8
9 MOTION to approve the proposed agenda as amended:
10
1 1 M/S Torliatt and Healy. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
12
13 AYES:. Harris, Healy, Torliaft, O'Brien, Glass
14 NOES: Moynihan/Thompson
15
16 3. CONSENT CALENDAR
17 _
18 City Manager 'Bierman. requested Item 3.A be removed from the Agenda and
19 considered at a later date.
20
21 Council Member, Torliatt requested to remove Item 3.C. and 3.H.
22 ~
23 Coun,cil:Member Healy requested to remove ltem 3.B.
24 ~ ~ -
25 Council Member-O'Brien requested to remove Item 3.C and 3.E.
26 - - .
27 `MOTIO`N to :approveah;e balance of the Consent Calendar:
28
29 M/S To'rlidtf'and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
30 AA ~ }
31 Y'c. Re~eldllen -Aeeepting the ~~,pTeti nvn-viF ~AA'2 A:.r~r~rF r1l~c~r.~r~i~n
32 ~ Lights gPrd}eEt ~Ne. ~5-~~~~~4~z+er„~.~+^',~
~'~=Removed from the
33 Agenda.
34 -
35 B. Resolution Awarding a~ Construction .Contract to North Bay Landscape
36 Management for the Cavanagh Center Demonstration Garden. Funding
37 ,.Source: Water Funds Estimated at $39,900. (Ban/Orr) This item was
38 removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
39
40 C. Resolution Authorizing the City .Manager to Enter lnto an .:Agreement with
41 . the Aquatic. Consultirig Tearn 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 a,nd 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. 40, Page 228 September 13; 2004
1
2 F. Resolution 2004:-159 `N.C.S. Ado-piing FY .2004,2005 Gann Appropriations
3 Limit. (Neater)
4
5 G. Resolution .2004':=160 N.C.S. Awarding the Contract to Purchase
6 Playground Equipment to Ross Recreation Equipment of :Santa Rosa, for
7 the Walnut Park Playground. ,(Carr)
8
9 H. Resolution. Declaring. Increase in Tgxica6 Service Rates and Repealing
10 Resolution 91-94 N;.C.S: (Hood). This item was.removed from the Consent
1 1 Calendarfor eparate discussion.
12
13 I. Resolution 2004=1.6']. N.C.S.,Awarding the Contract to Resurface Seven City
14 Tennis Courts fo Vintage Contractors, Inc., of San Francisco for the
15 Amount, of'$43,120. (Carr)
16
17 J. :Resolution 2004`-162 NC.S. Supporting ,Proposition lA (Protecting Local.
18 Government Funding). '(Bierman)
19
20 .ITEMS REMOVEb FOIL SEPARATE`DISCUSSION
21 -
22 B. Resolution Awarding a Consfruction Contrdcf, 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 ot~ any cost-
27 effectiveness .analysis; considering that-funding was pibvided fh~ough
28 water .ratepayer .funds. He thought that $4;0,000 was expensive for'
29 replacing turf in such a small area. He stated! 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 appropri -ate: use of _
33 ratepayer';s money and that the. City could do without: the projecf all
34 together. -
35 -
36 Gou""Heil: Member: Torliatt asked to bring fhis 'back on the September 20tH
37 agenda: to. review additional information 'that-.was provided this date. She
38 too supported water conservation projec;fs.
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 ahe dollar amount of
45 25,000 gallons comes to: He .sta'ted that mainly Boys and Girls Club
46 members. would use the garden as an educational tool. He supported
47 'b"ringing'it back.
48
49 C. Resolution 2004:-1 b3 N.C:S. Authorizing the City Manager to .Enter Into an
50 Agreement with th"e •Aquatic Consulting Team of NTpSTJCHLER for the. .
51 Conceptual Planning and 'Design of a Swim Center Complex for the City
52 of Petaluma. (Carr)
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 229
1
2 Council Member Torliatt requested that the resolution. be changed. fo read:
3 "Whereas, the. City of Petaluma is negotip#ing to dell .the' 'site upon which the
4 current Petaluma Swim Cenfer aril 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 fiacilitybeing 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
1 1 since. both consultants use the same advisory group, the City should work directly
12 with them.
13
14 Parks sand 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 fhe 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 dlso 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 concernedL•about the $2,042,000
26 budgeted. in the CIP under "Park Fees" since he uridersfood that these were to
27 be dll developer contributions. '
28
~ 29 Director :Carr stated he wanted to identify park fees now because of the timeline
30 that the firm gave them. He wdnted fo use the pork fees' on hand to get things
31 ~ started.
32
33 City Manager .Bierman clarified the reimbursement from the developer would be
34 forthcoming 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 undecstdnding 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
4, 5 Council Member O'B~ien risked the City. Manager what would happen if the
46 f:enilworth project didn't take place.
47
48 City Manager Bierman stated that the property has been purchased and if
49 Regehcy doesn't develop as plarinecl, the City would get the money for
50 whatever type of development occurs there.
51
Vol. 40, Page 230 September 13, 2004
1 Council Member Healy supported stafif recommendation, but- wanted to
2 ~ direct staff to get the funds reimbursed as~ soon as possible; ,he supported
3 the proposed changes~to the resolution language.
4 .
5 Council. Member "Torlatt hoped: that the City Manager would. come back
6 to Council with_ d proposal for the swim center and skate park .in the' next
7 few .months as :he negotiates with Regericy to move this project. forward
8 with broad. consensus as to where to locate the facilities.
9
1'0 Mqy",or Glass explained his support for this bid amount and the_process
1 1 that resulted in this decision to use the consultant:
1.2
13 Vice .Mayor Nloyningn explained his opposition because the Staff Report
1.4 indicated there was a budgeted: amount of park fees qnd this was.
15 incorrecf; ;and that an inappropriate source of funds was' being used fo
T 6 _ support this project..
17
18 MOTION. to adopt the resolution:
19
20 M/S Torliatt and Glass.. CARRIED BY THE FOL-LOWING VOTE:
21
`22 ~ AYES: Glass, Torliatt, Healy, .Harris; O'Brien, Thompson
23 NOES: Moynihan ~ .
24
25 E.. Resolution.. 2004=164 N:C:S. Decldring Vehicles and Equipment Surplus: to
26 the City's Needs. and Directing the City Manager to Dispose of the
27 Vehicles and' Equipment in Accordance with Provisions of the Petaluma
. '28 Municipal Code. (Netter)
29
30 Council Member O'Brien questioned #8 -the blowpatcher--- with less. than
31 400"hours listed as being in poor condition.
32 .
33 Interim Administrative Services Director Joe Netter explained the
34 blowpatcher was traded to .Petaluma from. Mill Valley because they were
35 unhappy with it and the City did get an additional piece of equipment:
36 Ke, stated 'this was. a piece of equipment that did not meet the intended
37 purpose and was a bad purchase. "
38
39 ~ Council Member O'Brien continued with surplus items numbered: 11, 13,
4Q 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. He staged a_II were 'below 100,000
41 miles and listed as •in poor condition. He requested a more accurate
42 description of vehicle condition in the future.
43
,44 Mr: Netter. explained the purpose was to eliminate the old fleet, and due
45 to the purchase of new `vehicles a few ,months. ago; the Fihance
4b_ Deparfinent vwanted to. establish distinct accounting for each vehicle and
4'7 fo amortize funds'. to replace the vehicles' after their useful life. The
48 descriptions were based on.:the recommendation from the-fleet.manager
49 and indicated age, maintenance,. insurance; safety; mileage was only
50 one indicator. He stated that-the use of "poor" to describe. their condition
51 was standard terminology'and some vehicles`were in better condition. He~
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 23l
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.CS. Declaring 'Increase in Taxicab Service Rates
- 9 and Repealing Resolution 91-94 N.C.S. (Hood)
10
1 1 Council Member Torliatt indicated she was sensitive to seniors' needs for
12 taxcdbs as their only way of getting around. She felt that the increase of
13 $3 - $4 would be significant to someone on a fixed income.
14
15 Police Chief Steve Hood indicated that Petdluma 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 200.4-166 N.C.S. Authorizing City Manager to
22 Enter .Into a Gooperafi~e 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 grid Conservation Engineering Manager Orr presented
27 the item introducing the feam, 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 the front end. She wanted Council to
37 direct staff to 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 hove they can reduce their water bills. 'She
41 wanted to know what schools the. Water Agency is visiting, and the
42 frequency, fo see thaf'the agency is focusing on the school system and
43 that the City'is getting its money's worth.
44
45 Vice Mayor Moynihan had 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 Ms. 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
Vol. 40, Page 232 September 13> 2004
1 - Lynn Hulme, Sorioina County Water Agency, clarified the expenditures of
2 approximately $2.8 :million over .a ten-year period (through 2008) for the:
3 City with a little over half`being spent already.
4
5 _ Vice MayorMoynihdn asked ifthe program needed to be,so extensive:
6
7 Ms. Hulme explained that these programs meet the States Urban Water
8 - Conservation, Cquncils' ~ standards; she stated the. City 'has added
9 programs as well: In order to get granf funding or revolving loans, the City
10 needs °to meet these standards.
11 -
12 City ,Manager Bierman explained that` previously the City had a fdirly
13 good program but currently the City has decided to implement a :better
14 program to save water. He stated that .every acre-foot thaf the City
15 doesn"t buy from -the Water Agencysaves a Lot of money.
16
17 Vice 'Mayor Moynihan questioned. if~ spending. twice.as much money
18 would achieve twice as much conservation:. He felt the City needed to
19 ~ 'identify abare-.bones program that-would meet the standards:
20
21 Council .Member Healy asked what ofher~.contractors are doing and if t_he
22 level, of tundng being proposed was consistent with what other
23 contractors are doing on aper-capita basis.
24
25 AAs. Hulme indicated there are sgrne conservation programs that -none of
26 the contractors are in compliance.. with. She. said this program would
27 .greatly improve Petaluma'scompliance with.all the required conservation
28 programs and that is why the additional. money was necessary.
29
30 Council .Member Torlidtt;clacified'the City's ratepayers have .already paid
31 into this account pursuant to Arnendrnent 11. the process `involves
32 reapplying for money already committed as ratepayer money thaf the
33 City is entitled to use to implement conservation projects that the City has
34 ~ agreed to.
35
36 Mayor Glass referred to correspondence from the community regarding .
37 confusion' reacting to wa er,billing: He supported Council. Member:Torliatt's.
38 suggestion. for more information to be included on the. bill. to explain ;the
39 tiered rates_so the consumes could. use this information .fo decrease their
40 water .usage- and therefore their- bill.. He suggested omething like the
41 information included on PG8~E's billing:
42
43 Vice Mayor Moynihan noted' the ~-cost of the proposal .and that. the
44 funding corning from the Amendment 1 1 entitlement still means that more
45. than hdlf.is coming:out of the ratepayers .operating. costs: He suggested
46 that if the cost. were. decreased $369.;000 it wouldn't require. an increase in
47 rates. He was very concerned about the doubling of rates; over the last
48 fihree years and'. expects. that they will double again in the next three
49 years.. He wanted to ,halve the cost and do as little as necessary to meet
50 the state mandated requiremenfs to have an effective program and 'save
51 consumers money.
52
September 1'3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 233
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 3300-54.151,-0200603. (Mdrangella)
15
16 Council Member Healyrecused himself because he lives within 500 feet'of
17 this project.
18
19 Economic Development .and' Redevelopment Director Paul Marangeila
20 presented. the item 'to Council 'ds the final part of Phase 1 of the
21 dowritown streetscape project to award the bid to Cagwin and Dorward
22 for $908,903.
23.
24 ~ MOTION to adopt the resolution:
25
26 M/S Thompson and Harris. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
27
28 AYES: Harris, Thompson, Glass, Moynihan, Torliatt, O'Brien, Moynihan*
29 ~ ABSTAIN: Moynihan
30 RECUSED: Hedly
31
32. *Vice :Mayor Moyn'ihan's abstention, per the Council's Roles and
33 Procedures, would be recorded as an "AYE" vote in the minutes.
- 34
35 Council Member O'Brien Jeff the Council Ch"ambers at this time.
36
37 C. Consideration. and Proposed Adoption of Resolution 2004-167 N.C.S
38. ..Regarding Appointment ,of Applicant to the Building Board of Appeals.
39 {Pettersen)
40
41 City Clerk Gayle Petersen explained that Mr. Everett was the only person
42 indicating an interest in this appointrrient. She recommended that his
43 application be approved as these voids 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. 40, Page 234 September 13, 2004
1 Vice Mayor Moynihan requested. that the Airport Commission
2 appointment be brought back and he would like to .have this on the next
3 agenda.
4 -
5 MQTION to adopt the resolution:
6
7 M'/S Torliatt and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLX.
8
9 Council Member O'Brien returned to the Council Chambers at this #irrme.
10
1 1 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
12
1'3 A. Public Hearing on the Formation of Underground Utility District on ~Bodega
14 Avenue and Resolution 2004-16'8 N:C:S.~, Approving Formation of Bodega
15 . Avenue Underground Utility District. (~Skladzen/Lackie) .
16
17 Susan Lackie; Public: Facilities and Services: Project Manager; presented
18 the item 4nd asked Council to passthe 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 vvhece the $1;SQO of the allocation that the, City is eligible for
27 could be spent to pay fo 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 cosh .fo the
31 property owners.
32
33 ~ Mayor Glass expldihed fhat this would be an m_provernent to the.
34 homeowner's property and paid for bq all ratepayers: in the PG8~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 how 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 dll ratepayers. When the project is completed
44 `it would go into the PGB~E rate base for everyone..in the entire PG8~E
45 .system.
46
47 MOTION ao~adopt the resolution: .
48 .
49 M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
50
51
52
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 235
1 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2
3 A. Resolution 2004-16'9 N.C.S. to Accept the Donation of Real Property: 307
4 Pefaluma Boulevard -South - The "Casd Grande Motel" and the
5 Designation of the Site as the Future Location of Fire Station #1 /Fire-
6 ~Headquarfers. (Albertson)
7
8 Fire Chief Chris Albertson presented this item to Council indicating reasons
9 why the Fire Department needed to be relocated due to its age, 'D'
10 Street traffic, lack of ladder truck parking dbility, seismic deficiencies, lack
11 of storage, and the expanded services that are state and federally
12 rnandafed. The City of Petaluma's standards of coverage were reviewed
13 and it was recommended that Station I be relocated in the nearby area
14 and Station 2 and 3 be upgraded and modernized at their present
15 locations. He stated the environmental and historical concerns of the
16 property have .been addressed: and that neighborhood meetings would
17 be held to address design and other concerns.
18
19 Council Member Healy asked fhe Chief to discuss the other four potential
20 sites and why they were not chosen.
21
22 Fire Chief Albertson explained that the properties under consideration
23 were eliminated because of various access problems with the property,
24 contamination, and other events.
25
26 Vice Mayor Moynihan had questions about the size of the Casa Grande
27 property and the possibility of obtaining adjoining parcels. He also asked if
28 a Phase 2 had been considered, and if an appraisal had been done.
29
30 Fire Chief Albertson explained that the station would be three stories as
31 was consistent with the CPSP.. He stated that an architect- has not been
32 hired to finalize how the firehouse would fit within the 20,000 sq foot
33 property. The Chief said thdt to his knowledge, a Phase 2 had .not been
34 .done. The Chief stated an apprdisal may have been done but he was not
35 privy to that information.
36
37 Council Member Torliatt' read excerpts from memos included with a staff
38 report from the Fire Chief to the City Manager. A July 17th memo
39 indicated that the site was geographically well located but said it was
40 unfortunate that it was, only 20,000 square feet. The memo indicated he
41 did not want to invest in a fire station in which the department's needs
42 would exceed the space even before it is occupied. The memo stated
43 that even with athree-story .station, adequate off-site packing would not
44 be sufficient. He requested that the City Manager look at a larger parcel
45 of land bordered by Second and First Streets and ''F' to~'G' Streets. A June
46 3~d memo from the Chief to the City Manager indicated ,that a minimum
47 lot size should be 43,560 square. feet (l acre) with 1.5 acres preferable
48 according fo fire ch. fiefs 'who had recently built stations. She wanted the
49 best site location with the maximum amount of property to service the
50 City's future needs. She felt that Basin Streets gift of this property was
51 generous and should be accepted. She said sale proceeds from this site
52 could be used for public safety.
Vol. 40, Page 236 -September 13, 2004
1 4
2 PUBLIC COMMENT
:3
4 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma -Felt the meeting should. have been held
5 ~ at 7:00 p.m. Stated that the donation of the site by Bdsin Streetshould be
6 ~ separate from the fire station. location and, to look, at Chief Albertsoh's
7 memos stating his -concerns about the property size: She wanted the City
8 _ to work with Cobblestone. Homes who purchased the ,larger Marnilton
9 Cabinet site ,to build town homes..
10
1 1 Marianne- Hurley, Petaluma -Strongly objected to the destruction of the
12 City's only remaining example of 1940's roadside motels and offered
13 methods. for use.. of the 'Casa Grande Motel and why it was important to
14 retain it.
15
16 Barry Bussewitz, Petaluma. -Felt that. giving up the historic firehouse,
17 demolishing the motel, and building a significant structure in a small-scale
18 neighborhood was not the. best plan. He asked why this wasn't included in
19 the. downtown, planning process. He wanted this item to be continued to
20 an evening session.
21
22 Joseph;Durney; Petaluma -,Felt the location on 'D' Street at the Boulevard
23 was better and that the toxicity- problem could be best dealt with by the
24 City to receive .funding from the County, State and Federal agencies to
25 remove it.
26
27 John Gorman; .Petaluma. -Purchased 315 Petaluma Boulevard South last
28 year and lives a few blocks away.. He also supported •discussing this item
29 ~ at 7:00 p.m. He heard from neighbors and °they had concerns regarding
30 violating the CPSP not noting the need for a new frehouse• during the
31 ~ CPSP process, not making use of the adjacent .property that. is now the
32 ~ new garage,- size. of the Casa Grande lot, off-site parking, dnd~ that there is
33 no room for expansion.
34 -
35 Shelena .Baker, Petaluma - Appreciated 'the new development
36 downtown and supported the Casa Grande site as a location. She noted
37 the small area used for fire ,.departments in San Francisco and that
38 expansion could be accomplished "py locating another fire station in an
39 appropriate site. She ,said the Casa Grande Motel does not fit in with the
40 architectural style of .the, neighborhood,
41
42 Andy Rogers,: Petaluma -Owns property at 305 Petaluma Boulevard
43 .South.. He was concerned about the size~of the lot as compared to the.
44 future needs of the City. He also mentioned the loss of TOT and property
45 tax dollars, and the loss of parking in front of his property.. He was grateful
46 to Basin ,Street but wanted the: community to fully explore all of its options
47 because of the .importance, of this facility. Suggested using the property
48 and' determine the best .and. highest use that could include the fire
49 _ • department.
50
51 Stuart Hyde, Petaluma -Shared pictures that..he had taken of other motels
52 of the same vintage that .had been refurbished grid supported
Sepfember 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 237
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:lked the motel. She stated a public hearing should be held in the
13 evening session; not at 3:00 p.m. .
14
15 Arthur Atherton, Metro Hotel -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 could find a property
18 that works.
19
20 Fire Chief Albertson clarified his desire for a larger site. He stated a site was
21 not available .in the preferred area and that sites on the east side of the
22 Rivei' were not acceptable. He said this item was originally scheduled for
23 the 3:00 p.m. session. Looking at the site location, he stated 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 Hamilfon 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 problem. He reiterated that the community
29 would be 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-up" construction was not part of the': design envisioned and with
32 the rear access; more sunlight should be avdildble to the parcels
33 adjacent to the new building.
34
35 Council Member Torliatt saw public support for the fire station and a larger
36 site for the facility with the Casa Grande site preserved. She felt the City
37 could locate the fire station to. another vacant .lot if the Council directs
38 the City Manager to purchase the property to meet the future needs of
39 the 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 # 1 would result in the
42 ~ City no longer owning itbecause 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 #l 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. 40, Page 238 September 13„2004
1 the ehd of the resolution: "Be it Furflaer Resolved, -the Council directs sfaff
2 to 'interview design professionals. and bring forwdrd to the Council a
3 recommendation as to which_archtects and other design professionals to
4 .retain, as well as a process including public' participation .for the design of
5 the new Station Number One-af he Casa.Grande Motel site:"
6
7 Council .Member O'Brien was in agreement with Council Member Healy.
8 He recognized members of the public 'wh'o ,lauded ,the CPSP grid the
9 Smart Code and that the. building would ,be in conformance with both of
10 these. He addressed the scheduling of the meeting as, being; well noticed.
1 1 As far as other locations; especially :on 'D' Street, which has been empty
12 for years because of contamination and he did not want to ,expose public
13 safety employees to that. potential-danger. He stated that the City would
14 not be able'to restore the Casa Grande Motel, which he does not see as
15 historical.
16
17 ~ - Council .Member Harris supported this public/private partnership, the
18 ~ acceptance of this offer, and to work with the neighborhood in :the.
19 design :process.
20
21 Council Member Thompson; sensed that, the ,public had the impression
22 that an exhaustive search for a replacement property.was not done - he
23 stated, "it was done." Ne felt this was the City`s only alternative.
24
25 Vice Mayor Moynihan agreed. with Counc_ il:~Member Torliatt`thaf the size of
26 the lot: was ,inad.equate and he didn't think a three-story facility without
27 sufficient parking; was practical. He stated that the City'' s process of
28 replacing facilities was flawed' and cited. the Water Resources building;. He
29 stated this was a #rade-off f,or the Southgate.: development that was ,given
30 a $6 million entitlement to build vJithin the Urban 'Growth Boundary for this
31 20,000 squar,.e feet site; which he; thought vvas a poor deal. He thought
32 one of the other properties would be better grid that: the City should.-find
33 an appropriate use for the. Casa Grande Motel site. He -suggested
34 .creating asub-committee to identify and obtain a better site.
35
36 Mayor .Glass asked if the cite .was accepted, how long would it take. to
37 look at, other ,locations it a new site could be ,secured; wit ;the proceeds
38 from the motel. He did not see the historical value of the motel. He would
39 like ;some ,rough. `sket:ches_ rind, to bring this. item back to a 7:00 p:m.
40 meeting.
41
42 City Manager Bierman could not guess on the timing issue. He did not see
43 ~ where another site would be identified unless property was condemned.
44
45 Council Member Torliatt 'felt that condemning property o? a vacant lot,
46 versus demolishing a~ structure would be up to Council. She did not
47 remember the Council being asked to pursue: a new fire station site. She
48 did ;not see how the City M:gnager had pursued an open process of site
49 selection. She, supported .the Mayor`s suggestion and wanted to address .
50 the neighborhood's ,issue. She stated that the Cify still has to pay to design
51 a_nd construct the new firehouse. She explained her "No'' vote in
52 accepting the parcel 'and thanked Basin Street for providing this. to the
- September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 239
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/Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME, IAFF Local 1415 and
27 Unrepresented Employees.
28 PUBLIC ENAPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City
29 Manager.
30 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL GCQUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION: (Government Code §54956.9(a))
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 - (Govemment Code§54956.9C) 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 Preserit: 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. 40, Page 240 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 projecf completed. in a timely manner:
9
10 Geoff Cartrvvright, Petaluma -Brought to Council's .attention the Kohl's coristruetiori site
1 1 thathas broughf in truckloads of fill. He reminded Council thatthis is a Zero Net Filf area.
12
l3 Vice Mayor Moynihan arrived af'715 p.m.
14
15 Nancy Barlas; Petaluma - Had' a question regarding the SonornaLMarin Fair Board
16 .meeting that was canceled.. She asked why the- City Council did not attend and
17 questioned the. noticing of'the meeting.
18
19 Mayor Glass° addressed. this, explained what happened, and accepted .respons'ibility.
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 should have stated, " tilee.tmg with th,e
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 fihe Cify
30 Couhcil."
31
32 Viae.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 Yearsley; Petaluma .River Keeper/Friends, of Tolay Lake Park - Announced a new
36 group a's Friends of Tolay Lake Park and invited Council to two mee#ings 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.lraq.
46
47 Council Member O'Brien announced he was no't feeling well and left the meefing„qt 7:25'
48 p.m: ,
49
50 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
51
52 There was none.
September 13: 2004 Vol. 40, Page 241
1
2 Mayor Glass stated that-Item 7.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 of 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 Guideline"s, 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
20 1. Resolution 2004:-170 N.C.S. Approving Mitigated Negative
21 Declaration for the Sweed School Townhouse Rezoning and
22 Subdivision to be Located at331' Keller Street, APN 006-21.3-004.
23
24 2. Introduction (First .Reading) of Ordinance 2191 N.C.S. Rezoning a
25 ~ 31,906 Square Foot Parcel, APN 00'6-216-004, to Planned Unit
26 District, to Allow for- 14 Resideritial 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=T71 N:C.S: Approving .the Vesting Tentative
31 Subdivision Map for Sweed School Townhouse Subdivision Which
32 Would Allow for 14 ReSidentidl Lots dnd a Common Area Pdreel
33 Located at 331 Keller Street.
34
35 4. Resolution. 2004-172 N.C.S. Approving Planned Unit District
36 .Development Pldn 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 Coun`cii 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. 40, Page 242 September 13; 2004
1
2 Council Member Thompson had .questions regarding Planning
3 Commissioner Rose's concerns about the carriage houses. on
4 Liberty Street; he felt three story structures were out of place in the
5 neighborhood. He asked how the developer changed this:
6
~ Chris Craiker, Architect, West Bay Builders, stated that from. the
8 previous. plan, the living level was brought closer to the_ street level
9 and tried to be consistent .with the neighborhood..
10
1 1 Council Member Harris had questions regarding traffic and level of
12 service and if; as a condition of approval, it could be referred to
13' the Traffic Committee to review line-of-sife issues.
14
15 Ms: Gordon explained that .Planning Commission recognized
16 .neighborhood concerns for traffic calming and a meeting has
1 ~ been requested.
18
19 Vice Mayor M'oynihdn asked about the applicant's` replgcemenf
20 of wood window and' doors, if they would be vinyl clad or wood
21 because ,Council had not. been requiring this and ~ he.` was
22 concerned with maintenance and energy-use issues. He asked the
23 project proposers meet with staff and go over the .,planning
24 process and make suggestions as how it could be improved.:
25
26 Maria Poncell, West. Bay Builders, explained that all wood windows
27 were required by the City to be consistenf with guidelines for the
28 ~ district and the historic status of the' building..
29
30 Council Member orliatt pointed out that the. -historic Oak
31 ~ HilljBrewster Hill district: guidelines required all the homes in the
32 area have wood windows and this is the neighborhood standard
33 of expectations of all projects.
34
35 Community Development Director .Mike Moore explained that
36 these guidelines are followed but since this is a designated historic
37 structure there are. .Secretary of Interior. 'stand'ards that apply as
38 well and go beyond the districts standards.
39
40 Mayor Glass opened. the Public .Hearing.
41
42 Corrine. Farez Demil, Petaluma -Supported the project but was
43 concerned abouf traffic. She supported the requirements .for
44 wood windows in the project. She was concerned about the
45 massing of the carriage homes.
46
47 .Bill Kennedy, Petaluma: -Was concerned about fraffic, density of
48 the project and parking,
49
50 Carol Eber, Petaluma -Expected more architectural information
51 from. this presentation.., As a neighbor, she is thrilled about the
52 restoration and that the building will be occupied.
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 243
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 Barton Smith, Petaluma -Expressed his concerns about the traffic
9 issue. He was concerned about owner/occupancy requirements
10 and toxic substance removal.
1,1
12 Ms. Gordon 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 ofithe historic district and the Secretary of the Interior.
16 Recommendations will be made regarding what windows need to
17 be repaired and which must be replaced.
18
19 Maria Poncell, West Bay 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 project to balance- parking-and traffic
22 issues. They have sealed dowh the project to more street level. She
23 stated that they have agreed to do the wood windows but the
24 assessment of the original windows may cause maintenance/utility
25 problems later. They would prefer to replace all the windows and
26 doors-with new wood windows and doors.
27
28 Hearing rio further requests to speaks. 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 #rom the City-hired site consultant. This issue
36 would be addressed at SPARC. He said the Council's .past
37 overriding of the use of- vinyl windows applied only to new
38 construction.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt: 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 townhouses. On Conditions of Approval regarding street trees,
45 she. wanted Historic SPARC fo see if` trees were there originally.
46 Regarding only interior work being performed on Saturday, she
47 wanted it to be stated ohly 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. 40, Page 244 September 13, 2004
1 needed to be replaced or-significantly repaired, the' applicant
2 may prgpase replacement of any or all of the additional. windows
3 and doors. -
4
5 Council Member Thompson wanted :to allow the. developer to
6 come back, to Council instead of filing an appeal regarding
7 SPARC's decision that they disagree with. Council Member Torliatt
$ agreed.
9
10 MOTION to adopt the resolutions and introduce the ordinance: '
11
12 M/S Torliatt and Harris: CARRIED;:UNANIMOUSiY. (Healy reeused)
13
14 Vice Mayor AAoynilidn requested that staff bring back' the
15 Oakhill/Brewster guidelines and vinyl windows and' SPARC's
16 ~ standards.
1.7
18 Council Member Torliatt suggested bunging the guidelines back. if
19 the neighborhood had a petition and wanted to bring them back,
20
21 B. Public Hearing: Discussion dnd~ P-ossible Action. ,Regarding:~A) Adoption of
22 a Negative Declaratign for the Rivas Subtlivision, at 1081 Bantam Way
23 (AFN 019-070-043); B) Resolution Approving Prezoning the Subject Rarcel -
24 to the R 1- 20, 000 Zoning ;District; C} Resolution Approving a Tentative.
25 Parcel Map fora 3=Jot subdivision, and D) Resolution Approving the
26 Request ;for Annexation. (Borba) -
27
28 l . ,Resolution. -2004-173_ N.C.S. Approving d Negative. Declaration for
29 y
30 070-043 sSubdivision fo be Located at 1081 Bantam Wa APN 0`19- ,
31
32 2. Introduction (First Reading) of Ortlinance 2192 N.C.S.. Pre-Zoning a
33 2-Acre Parcel, APN 0;19-070-043,.to R-1.20,000, to Allow for 3
34 Residential .Lots., dad Development of 2 new Residences to be
35 - ~ Located of 1,08'1. Bantam Way. -
36
37 3. Resolution 2004-.1.74. N,E:S. Approving the: Tentative Parcel Map for
38 Rivas Subdivision, Which Would Allow For 3 ~ Residenfial Lots
39 Located at 1081 Bantam Way.
4.0
41 4. Resolution 2004-175 N.C.S. of the Petaluma City Council ;Making
42
Application to the .Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
43 Supporting Proceedings for a,.2-Acre Parcel. Known as=1.08;1. Bantam
_ _
44 Way, APN 0`19=070=043 :Pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local
45 Government Reorganization. Act of 1985.
4b _
47 Community Development S`enior' Planner Irene Borba, presented
48 information.. regarding the subject property within the Urban
49 Growth ,Boundary .but not within the city limits. The Planning
SO Commission recommended approval of the project with
51 conditions.
52
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 245
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
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 house"s 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 .
18 Mayor"Glass opened the Public Hearing.
19
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 vvas 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 bet~te~ 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.zorie would protect the
33 eucalyptus trees 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
41 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.
Vol. 40, Page 246 September 13,.2004
1
2 Nearing no #urther requests to speak, Mayor 'Glass closed the Public
3 Hearing.
4
5 Council Member Torliatt requested that- staff address the run-off
6 issue.
7
8 Craig Spaulding,. City Engineer, stated that -storm drains that were
9 created'.duringthc earlier development in the area would, collecf
10 the run-off. He stated that lot-to-lot drainage was not allowed.
11
12 Council Member Torliatt addressed Mr:Carle's issue' of cumulative
13 impacts and the initial study:and thdt•tlis was separate from Paula
14 Lane's issues. She asked about the trees that appear to block the
15 view from Paula Lane and if those trees were to remain.
lb
17 Senior Planner Borba referred to letters, from the developer's
18 arborist and horticultural•dssociates who~.felt that the trees may be
19 impacted by the drainage ditch and m.ay have to be removed.
20
21 Council Member Torliatt was not in favor of removing mature trees,
22 in particular, because of view-line issues. rShe felt that every effort
23 should be made to ,avoid removing the trees. She wanted under
24 Condition 12, the developers phone 'number and contact
25 information posted on the site -along with allowable hours of
26 construction, She also wanted language in the resolution and.
27 ordinance to stdte the Urbdn Growth Boundary, not the' urban limit
28 line.. She summarized the changes to 'the motion as: to minimize
29 tree removal ion site; changes to the ordinance and resolution
30 from Urban Limit ::Line fo' Urban Growth Boundary; and the
31 developer contact "information.
32 •
33 Council Member Healy noted the .unanimous approval by the
34 Planning .Commission and he saw this as an in-fill site. He felt SPARE
35 would address grading, light, and. free issues.
36
37 Mayor Glass also looked at this as reasonable to build two houses
38 on 24,000. square foot lots. He talked about density and' that
39 anriexing would allow the City to collect revenue.
40
41 MOTION to adopt the. resolutions arid introduce the. ordinance: •
42
43 M/S Torliatt and Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40; Page 247
1 M/S Torliatt and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2
3 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
4
5 A. .Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Certifying the Final
6 Subse.guent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) as,Adequate Pursuant to
7 the Applicable Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
8 (CEQA) for fhe Proposed '.Development of `Parcels B and C of the River
- 9 :Oaks/Petaluma .Factory Outlet Village (Petaluma Village Marketplace).
10 (Moore) .
11
12 1. Resolution Certifying a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
13 Report :for a Modification~~to 'the River Oaks/Petaluma Village
14 AAaster. General Development „Plan to Allow ,Development of
. 15 Parcels B and C tg be. Known as the Petaluma V_ illage
16 Markefplace. (2200. Petaluma Blvd. North):
17
18 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT ON THE EIR WAS CLOSED AT THE
19 .AUGUST 16, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THERE WAS NO :PUBLIC
20 ~ HEARING ON THE EIR AT THIS MEETING
21 „
22 Betsi Lewitter, Planner gave the background of the project from
23 1991 when it was divided into three parcels with the definition as .
24 Planned Community Disfrict~ to allow commercial .development.
25 She explained what°was planned for undeveloped parcels 'B' and
26 `C'. She included what processes had taken place_in the previous
27 two Council meetings addressing this project.
28
29 Vice Mayor. Moynihan had d question regarding the Opportunities
30 and Constraints exhibit which showed a buffer zone for the River
31 enhancemerit. He. hdd understood that this would be a flexible,
32 not a fixed"buffer zone.
33
34 Betsi Lewitter, Planner explained-that the River Enhancement Plan
35 states that it had to be an average of 150' and no less than 100'
36 from'the top of bank.
37
38 Council Member Harris `had questions about restaurants on-site.
39 being in compliance. with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
40 District.
41
42 Direcfor Moore stated it mainly had to do with retaining smoke
43 and odors from cooking.
Vol. 40, Page 248 5epternber 13; 2004
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 Bruce Hagen, i'etal.:uma -Called Council's attention: ;to articles oh
4 Global Warming. and fhe rising ocean levels that could affect how
5 the flood potentialshquld be evpluafed.
6 '
7 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma. -Referred to the 1`998 flood, gauges,
$ located at Willowbrook. Creek, new ihformation from the California
9 Department of Water Resources Division of flood management,
10 and the Corona Road gauge readings of,2002.
11
12 H; R. Downs, Open-Space-Water 'Resource Protection and Land
13 Use (OWL) Foundation - Brought a DVD from Sebastopol''s vyater
14 ~ forum to help Couhcil understand hovv to deal`with the finite water
15 . . supply. He directed 'them to OWL Foundation.net website.
16
17 COUNCIL COMM'EfVT
1 "8
19 Council Member H'edly requested staff to point out new
20 information that has changed' in the EIR and how to evaluate
21 these changes.
22
23
Community Development Director Mike Moore indicated that the.
24 EIR addresse_ d all ofi the initial scoping' issues and the Final EIR
25 addresses all` 'the issues brought up during. the public comment
26 period where these concerns were addressed by responses to
27
comments.. and; changes to the document. He stated that `in the
28 Cify's view,. CEQA has 'been complied with and new issues for
29 mitigation have been addressed.
30 .
31 - Council Member Tor"liatf asked' where in the process does the City
32 Council address the City's exposure to litigation; and whether the
33 project applicant is :required to pay for any and all' lawsuits
34 associated with this development:
35
36 Mr. Moore explained that thins was typically a condition of project
37 approval. ~He explained the ,process is that after the C"oucncil
38 certifies an EIR> at that point a Notice of Defermination is filed and
39 begins the time period for exposure to a lawsuit.
40
41 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked about when the,projecf would come
42 back to'Council and what fhe noticing requirements:wece.
43
September 13, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 249
1 "
2 Ms. Lewitter indicated it has been changed from a 10-1.2-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 fotal of
6 163,000 square feet of retail space; no tenant could be more-than
7 130,000 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 Gidss asked how the Council .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. Lewitter 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 the 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
. VoL 40; Page 250 September 1.3, 2004
.Council .Member Torliatt felt that the Planning Commission would.
2 ~ have denied the EIR 'because of their concern that the project
' 3 would be approved in its, form dt the Council level because they
4 would not have been able to make recommendafions for
5 changes or mitigation.. She agreed with the Mayor that the
6 environmental document was deficient in a variety of way"s,
~ including the: 'traffic analysis fiscal .impacts, workforce housing,
$ business competition,.the CPSP, emergency services, General Flan
9 consistency, the flooding issue; groundwater recharge- area
10 concerns, the Rainier project traffic impacts, and the lack of
1 1 improvement to the Redwood Highway over crossing.
~12
13 Mayor Glass agreed with Council Member Torliatt and also
14 pointed out .that there was no mention of marine life present at-the
15 outlet mall' area. He mentioned the economic :benefit 'as
16 compared to the millions of dollars of unavoidable. consequences
1 ~ that cannot be mitigated. The report mentions an evacuation
18 plan for parcels 'B' and 'C" that the City is responsible for - he felt
19 all employees, customers .and managers should sign-off" on this
20 and it should be' monitored.
21
22 Council Member Harris asked for° an update on the: wetlands and.
23 endangered species for the public' information.
24
25 Mr. Moore indicated this was addressed in an earlier memo and
26 ~ that endangered species are regulated at; a State or Federal` level.
27 ~ The City typically asks the. applicant to show that they- have: the
28 appropriate permits from those agencies before they can
29 proceed.
30
31 ~ CounciF .Member Torli6tt added that the. document doesn't deaf
32 ~ with the 'Retail Leakage Strategy either or. evaluates howthis was
33 _ , ~ the worst site for refoil expansion in the community and would
34 have the worst impact of any of the projects:
35
36 - Mayor Glass. added that the General Plan policy calls for not
3T creating more flooding in the City, He wanted to .note the
38 economic exposure that the City will' be exposed to. He pointed
39 out that the document states that cumulative effects of flooding
40 wilt occur from this project alone and noted the millions of,dollars
41 the City has spent to obtain flood relief. He looked at the 1993
42 ~ ~ level ofi service of °F' ,at Rainier and Maria brive and stilted that
43 the traffic impacts would be very expensive to deal with in the
September 13, 2004 ~ Vol. 40, Page 251
1 Council Member .Healy stated that the cumulative traffic impacts
2 are a serious issue and will need to be addressed in consideration
3 of this. project, the CPSP, the Kenilworth site, and other anticipated
4 developments in the General Plan documents. He did not support
5 project approval because of its ihability to identify major tenant(s),
6 impacts on downtown,.and that Parcel 'C' of the project is poorly
7 defined, 'but he would be supporting the EIR. He felt that it would
8 be difficult to make findings of overriding consideration without this
9 information
10
1 1 .Council Member Torliatt felt Council Member Healy's issues should
12 have been dealt with in the EIR. She noted that if the EIR was
13 determined to be inadequate, the project would not be rnoving
14 forward.
15
16 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
17
18 M`/S Moynihan and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE' FOLLOWING VOTE:
19
20 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan
21 ~ NOES: Glass, Torlidtt
22 ABSENT: O'Brien
23
24 ADJOURN
25
26 The Council lvleeting was adjourned at~10:15 p.m.
27
28
29
30
31 ~
32 David Glass,. Mayor
33
34
35
36 Attest:
37
38
39
40
41
42
43. Gayle P rsen, City Clerk