HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/12/2004 July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 147
~~'LU~
W
a " ~ ~at~ of 'I'etalumac, C'alifo~nia
1858 MEETING OF THE PETA'LUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
City PCDC/Council Minutes ~ ,
Monday, July 12, 2004 -3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
1 - CALL TO ORDER
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Members Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
6
7 Absent: Harris
8 _ _
9 B. Pledge of Allegiance
10
1 1 PUBLIC COMMENT
12
13 Bill Hammerman, Petaluma, thanked Vice .Mayor Moynihan for assisting at the annual
14 bell ringing. He computed-the. number of citizens participating at Council meetings as
15 1.3% of the total registered voters in Petdluma.
16
17 COUNCIL COMMENT
18
19 Council Member Torliatt asked that Council address the items in closed session regarding
20 labor negotiations and to avoid postponing this any further.
21
22 Vice Mayor Moynihan mentioned the adopted Central Petaluma Specific Plan and that
23 he wanted an update on the implementation and financing for this plan.
24
25 CITY MANAGER COMAAENT
2'6
27 There was none.
28
29 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Changes to current agenda only). Mayor Glass
30 responded to a request to move Item 6.6 Discussion 8~ Approval of Lease Amendment
31 with Redwood Empire Sportsplex, CLC to the evening session. Council Member Healy
32 requested that Item S.B {Caltrans at East Washington) be moved to follow Item 3:C.
33
34 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
35
36 A. City Council/PCDC Regular Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2004.
37
38 MOTION to adopt the Minutes as submitted:
39
40 M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vol. 40, Page 148 .July 12, 2004
1
2 B. City Council. Budget Workshop. Minutes of June 9, 2004.
3
4 MOTION to adop# the .Minutes as subrhitted;
5
6 M/S Torliatt and Glass. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
7
8 AYES.: Healy, Moynihan, Torliatt and Glass
9 NOES: None
10 ABSTAIN: O'Brien and Thompson
11 ABSENT: Harris
1.2
13 C. City Council Budget Workshop Minutes of June 14, 2004.
14
15 Council Member Torliatt noted on Page 3, Line 19, she .requested to state:
16 '°Council Member Torliatt asked if the Feral Cat Committee had revievwed
17 the entire ordinance grid asked if there were no objections." On Page b,
l.g Line 21, she asked for°a "review of what work'has been done."
19
20 MOTION to adopt the Minutes as amended:
21
22 M/S Torliatt and Healy: C°ARRIED UNANIMOUSLY'. -
23
24 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED- AGENDA
25 - -
26 A. Approval of Proposed Budget Workshop Agenda for July l4; 2004:Capital -
27 Improvement Program (CIP) and the Petaluma Community peveloprnent
28 Commission (PCDC) Budget.
29
30 City Manager Bierman requested a 7:00 p.m. start instead of 6100 pm.
31
32 MOTION to approve the Agenda for 7%14/04:
33
34 M/S Torliatt and O'Brien.'CARRIED UNANIMbUSLY.
35
36 B. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council' Regular Meeting. of July'1'9,
37 2004.
38
39 Mayor Glass wanted..the agendized item to reflect fhe' commehts he had
40 with Supervisor Kerns and to'accommodate him by having'a resolution for
41 approval regarding Tolgy listed on the agenda.
42
43 Council Member Torliatt motioned to support this dnd ~iriclude this ,
44 language on the July 19ih meeting agenda. .
45
46 Council Member O'Brien suggesfied:it would create too large of a crowd
47 for public comment; and, given there 'are .other large items on the
48 agenda, perhaps public comment would. be .best served being heard at
49 the Board of Supervisors aril the Open Space District meetings.
50
51 Mayor Glass asked `the City Aftorney if Council .could take a vote without
52 taking' public comment.
July 12, 2004 Vol: 40, Page 149
1
2 City Attorney. Rudnansky said the Brown Act indicates that members of
3 the public may comment on any item on the agenda. So public
4 comment- would be allowed .but the number of minutes to speak could
5 be reduced.
6
7 Council Member Healy 'asked if public comment is affected by whether
$ there is a vote or it the presentation. by an elected official opened the
9 public comment requirement. City Attorney Rudnansky indicated that
10 either would open the item to public comment.
11
12 City Attorney Rudnorisky clarified Public Comment requirements,
13 according to the Brown Act,.specifies that-any item on the agenda would
14 allow the public comment.
15
16 AAOTIOfV by Council Member Torliatt to .qdd action to approve the
17 Supervisor's. proposed resolution to the agenda under the Presentation
18 Items scheduled for July 19, 2004. The MOTION was SECONDED by Mayor
19 Glass.
. 20 _ _ _
- _
21 ~ MOTION DIED by the following vote:
22
23 AYES: Torliatt and Glass
24 NOES: Healy, O'Brien, Thompson and Moynihan
25
26 MOTION to approve the proposed agenda of July 19, 2004 as submitted.
27
28 M/S Moynihan and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
29
30 3. PRESENTATIONS:
31
32 A. Employee' Service Awards for Second. Quarter of 2004.
33
34 Mayor Glass thanked the employees for their service and presented
35 recognition pins and certificates.
36 _
37 B. City Clerk Gayle Petersen administe_ red the Oath of Office to Sergeant
3$ Joe Edwards as the -newly appointed Police Lieutenant for the City of
39 Petaluma.
40
41 C. Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action to Approve Resolution No.
42 117 N.C.S. in Support of SCTA Resolution for 1 /4 Cent Sales Tax Measure for
43 November Ballot.
44
45 Susan Wilford, Sonoma County ''Transportation Authority, presented the
46 request l?y S'CTA for the Council to consider approval of a transportation
47 expenditure plan. She gave an overview and details regarding the
48 planning that brought:forth this tax measure..
49
50
51
52
Vol. 40, Page 150 July 12, 2004
1 .PUBLIC .INPUT
2
3 William W. Pisenti; Redwood Empire TRIM Cgmmittee;, Sanfa ;,Rosa, stated
4 thatTRIM, a national organization,: represents seven counties from Main to
5 the Oregon border. TRIM opposes the ales: tax and. the organization will
6 present their opposition on the November ballot.
7
$ John Cheney, Pefaluma ,.did .not want Rainier funding included in this.
9 ballot. measure. He supported th;e tax providing road improvement
10 funding..
11
12 Steve Birtlfebough, Santa Rosa,, Friends of SMART,. an organization that
13 supports providigg for passenger rail, funding and expects a tax on the
14 ballot for 2006.
15
16 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION '
17
18 Council 'Member Healy; as representative, to SCTA and as a SIv1ART
T9 director,. emphasized that the. $23 million for SMART would be dVailable
20 within the first two to three years and would allow for work to progress. ~ihe .
- - _ -
21 _ highway componerit~ sh~ould~ allow additional Efate and federal fu~rids to.
22 be used for highway widening. He said ;the revenue growth .estimate. is _
23 conservative and betfer growth ,could be expected. F,or alternative transit
24 concerns, the. plan allows for'~diarnond' lanes for traffic relief and would
25 include pedestrian and bicycle facilities. He stated there is no funding for
26 Rainier in this fax measure.
27
28 Council Member Torliatt asked if ,any other project. timing was included in
29 the measure; how the cost escalation would be addressed `in the
30 measure; and how- the polling for this measure .came out.
31
32 Susan, Wilford, SCTA responded. that there were no other tinning measures
3 beyond th'e first three years for SMART. She anticipated that for the first
34 years the 'tax would also provide for local street and road improvements. '
35 She explained that the' expenditure: plan identifies an .estimated amount
36 for segments; if the funding ,is less, or more,' ,th:an anticipated, if will be
37 shifted to meet costs. It: is expected that state and 'federal funds will be
38 leveraged to .supplement the money raised through this measure. She
39 stated that° polling was not done for this measure beccuse of the timing.
40 SMART and the: City of Santa R'osa's polls were used to determine there _
41 would bey support for'local sheet, road improvements and a rail project;;
42 however, Highway 1:01 -was no.f included in these polls.
43 -
44 Vice: Mayor Moynihan .had questions regarding the 20% that would. be
45 returned to IocaC,.ag,encies and the .enforcement of its use.. He asked .
46 about the prioritylist.and how funding would be handled. He broughf up
47 the, lack of funding for Rainier:, -
48 - .
49 Susan Wilfortl, SCT~A answered that there was a "Maintenance of Effort"
50 requirement that -would prevent using these funds to supplant funds that
51 would normally be used. A provision allows for annual audits to monitor
July 12, 2004 .Vol. 40, Page 151
1 compliance. She explained that the expenditure plan required that SCTA
2 adopt a strategic plan to address cost increases.and changes in priority.
3
4 Council Member Thompson had questions concerning SMART's rail
5 funding in Sonoma County and what would Marin County be doing. He
6 felt that ifi.Sonoma County moved ahead without Marin passing a similar
7 measure a problem would occur.
8
9 Susan Wilford, SCTA, indicated. if the measure passes, Sonoma County's
10 contribution would increase and the taxes would be focused on Sonoma
1 1 County rail efforts; Marin's contribution to SMART would not change since
12 there is no rail funding.in their sales tax measure.
13
14 Mayor'Glass commented on potholes and traffic, particularly on Highway
15 1 O1, as the main focus of complaints he hears from constituents. He-stated .
16 that without n-iatching funds, Sonoma County's traffic congestion had not
17 been funded and continues to worsen.
18
19 Council Member Torliatt asked if Highway 101 has a "Hot Lane"
20 designation past the Marin County line into Sonoma County.,
21
22 Susan Wilford, SCTA, under the MTC proposal, had a phase two
23 consideration for Hot .Lanes. She explained that a Hot Lane is a high
24 occupancy toll lane that was determined unfeasible in 1997 but is being
25 reconsidered.
26
27 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
28
29 M/S O'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
30
31 AYES: Healy, O''Brien, Thompson,.Torliatt and Glass
32 NOES: Moynihan
33 ABSENT: Harris
34
35 Covncil then considered Item 5.6.
36
37 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
38
39 B. Resolution 2004'-122 N.C.S. Requesting Support for the Reassign~merit of
40 Capital Funds to Facilitate the Design and Consfruction of• Interchange
41 Improvements to the Highway 101, -East Washington Street Interchange.
.42 (Bierman)
43
44 Council Member Toi•liatt stilted .that she• •had requested that the City
45 Manager put together a resolution to move along dialogue between
46 CalTraris, SCTA, and Regency Centers to have the improvements at the
47 East Washington overpass move forward quickly to add auxiliary lanes to
48 provide better access to the retail site.
49
50 Vice Mayor Moynihan requested additional information regarding this
51 project. He said that Caltrans has noted a public' safety issue with the
52 auxiliary lane on southbound 101 conflicting with people merging onto
Vol. 40, Page 152. July 12,.2004
1 101. and getting off at Lakeville. He did not feel this would serve the
2 public's best interest and that priorities" must be followed. He could not
3 support a resolution without more information.
4
5 City .Manager Bierman explaihed that Caltrans requested SCTA. ahd the.
6 City to use the money for auxiliary Igne'irnpro~ements~ at the Washington
7 intersection; Thusly, he would support the Caltrans request.
8 .
9 Council Member Healy gave some background regarding the current
10 auxiliary -lane improvements that address the safety issues. He: said
1 1 Caltrans has funding but the Gity must contribute too. .
12
13 The ' -Question' was; called by Council Member O"Brien dnd Seconded by
14 Mayor Glass and discussion was, closed.
15
16 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
17
18 M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
19
20 AYES: Hedly; Thompson, *Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatf, Glass
2~1 NOES: None
22 ABSENT: Harris
23
24 *Vice Mayor Moynihan,vvas.sfill discussing the issue during the vote'taken
25 and did notcast avote:. Pursuant to the. Council Rules 8~ Procedures,
26 'Sect'ion IV.D Voting, "...whenever a member refuses to vote, the Cify Clerk
27 shall cast a vote of 'yes' for such member."
28
29 4. CONSENT CALENDAR
30
31 ~ A. Resolution 2004-1:1 S N.C;S: Awarding Contract for the 2004 Pe"fr~luma
32 ~ 11A'arina Dretlgng Projecf. (Carr)
33
34 B'. Resolution 2004..-.11.9. N.C'.S. Accepting the Completion of he East
35 Washington 'Stree# Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement- Project, f=undi'ng
36 Source: Wastevvdter `Funds. Contractor: Ashlin Pacific Construction.
37 (Nguyen)
38
39 C;, Resolution 2004-.j 20 N.C:S. Awarding a Construction Contract for the 2004
40 - Oxidation Pond. Dike Repair'Project. (Bah)
41 -
42 MOTION fo adopt the Consent Calendar items as proposed:.
43
44 . M/S O''Brien.and Torliatt. CARRIED U,iVANIMOUSI"Y:
45
46 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
47
48 A. Resolution ~ No:.2004-121 N:C.S. Discussion. and .Possible Action Amending
49 Resolution 2004-028 Regarding Commercial Mooring .Fees. (Bierman.)
50
51 CityManager Bierman recommended $5 per foot, per slip in the Turning
52 Basin. This would be applied: on a year-round;l?asis.
July 12, 2004 Vql. 40, Page 153
1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
2
3 Council Member O'Brien supported the fee and suggested boat owners
4 mooring; by `the month pe required to provide proof of insurance with the
5 City listed as an additional. Insured. He encouraged the City manager to
6 have the Risk Manager review and if feasible pursue that suggestion.
7
- 8 MOTION, to adopt the resolution:
9
10 M/S O''Brien and Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11
12 6. NEW BUSINESS -.CITY COUNCIL AND PCDC
13
14 A. ~ Discussion and Action Approving a Resolution Consenting to the Inclusion
15 of the Territory of the City of ,Petaluma within the Proposed Sonoma
16 County Tourism Business-Improvemenf Area~(SCTBIA). (Marangella)
17
18 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paut Marangella
19 explained that the City would collect the assessments from lodging
20 establishments and send the funds to the County. The costs would be
21 ~ ~ reimbursed at up fog%of the assessed amounts. He estimated revenue~of
22 about $167,000 per year with. the City recovering up to $3,500 for
23 administrative costs.
24 - ~ -
25 Don Bennett; Lodging Association, addressed. Council to support this
26 ~ assessment to create a permanent, secure funding base to provide
27 marketing for Sonoma. County tourism. He listed Sarita Rosa and Rohnert
28 Park as already voting in favor of this program.
~29
30 Council Member .Healy asked how this would. apply to cities that choose
31 to not participate and if the lodging owners in the cities who chose not to
32 participate could voluntarily contribute at the 2% level.
33
34 Mr. Bennett explained that if the Board of Supervisors decides to adopt a
35 partial plan, then the board, appointed by the Lodging Industry and the .
36 County, would. decide how this would apply to the non-participating
37 cities. He said that individual lodging owners could possibly have the
38 option of voluntarily contributing:.
. 39
40 MOTION to adopt~the resolution:
41
42 M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRfED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
43
44 AYES: Healy; .Moynihan, Thompson, Torliatt and Glass
45 NOES: O'Brien
46 ABSENT: Harris
47
48 Council Member O'Brien explained his vote stating that he supported this
49 idea, but the Sheraton TOT funding gives them. an unfair advantage over
50 other lodgings and the Sheraton should pay the City back first.
51
Vol. 40, Page 154 July 12, 2004
1 B. Discussion and Approval of Lease. Amendment with Redwood Empire
2 Sportsplex, LLC. (Bierman).
3
4 MOTION to move this item to the: evening session:
5
6 ~ M/S Thompson and O'Brien. CbRRiED UNANIMOUSLY:
7
8 C. PCDC Resolution.2004.-11: Discussion and Action-Adopting.a Resolution '
9 Authorizing the Award of Bid forthe'Installation of a Pedestrian Bridge to ,
10 Cross Washington Creek and'Construction ota Pedestrian and Bicycle.
1 1 Pathway as Part: of the Petaluma .River%Trail Enhancement Project Area 3
12 Project #9876/C200503. (Niche/Marangella)
13
14 Director, of; Economic ;Development and Redevelopment ,Paul Marangella
1.5 gage a presenfation :arid cited the.. Petaluma River Access :Enhancement
16 Plan's recomrnendatjon for the devEloprpent of a; pedestrian/bike path
17 along;the Rivera
18
19 Council Member' Moynihan asked who would be responsible and what
20 funds would'.l?e used to maintain this section of the pathway.
- .
2.1~
22 Jim Carr, Director Packs and 'Recreation, .answered that with fhe use df
23 quarry :finds to create the -path, the maintenance would be ery minimal
24 compared to the benefit derived :in opening this corridor. He didn't
25 expect° any maintenance until about: five years .arid stated it would be
26 manageable.
27
28 Council Member .O'Brien wanted, to add to the resolution that any
29 Change Orders must come back fo Council regardless of the amount:. .
30 That addition was not supported by the balance of Council. ,
31
32 MOTION to adopt the PGDG Resolution as: presented:
33
34 M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
35
36 AYES: Healy, Moynihan, Thompson, Torliatt anal Glass
37 NOES: O'Brien
38 ABSENT: Harris
39 _
40 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
41
42 The City Council adjourned to .Closed Session at,4:40 p.m.
43
44 CiOSED SESSION
45
46 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ~Goverr.~ment Code §54957.6) City Designated -
47 Representatives: Mayor- David Glass and Council Member Healy Unrepresented Employee:
48 City Attorney ~
49 ¦ CONFERENCE WITH REAL,PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: (Goverrirrient Code §54956.8_ Properfies -
50 Easernent•Over-APN' #007-660-032,Adjacent to Petaluma River, Madison Village
51 Homeowners `Association, Property Owrier ~
52 Easement Over APN #007-041-005, Clover-Stornetta: Farms, Property Owner
53 Easement Over APN # 007-019-026' Scalaniini/Sprout, Property Owner
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page T55
1 City Negotiator: Michael Bierman
2 Negotiating Parfie3: City of Petaluma and Respective Property Owners
3 Under'Negotiafion: Price, Terms of Payment, or Both
4 CONFERENCE WITH ,LABOR. NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6.. Agency Negotiator:
5 Michael Bierman%Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME, IAFF Local 1415 ahd
6 Unrepresented. Employees.
7 ¦ PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE.. EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
8 Manager
9 ¦ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION -Significant Exposure to Litigation
10 (Government Code §54956.9(b)) (1 matter)
11 ¦ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code §54956.9(a))
12 North Bay Construction, Inc. vs. Hronec, of al (Sonoma County Superior Court Case # 234912)
13
14
15 MONDAY, JULY. 12, 2004 -EVENING SESSION
16 7:00 P.M.
17
18 CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 a.m.
19
20 A. Roll Call
21
22 Present: Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and
23 Mayor Glass
24
25 B. Pledge of Allegiance
26 C. Moment of Silence
27
28 REPORT OUT Of CLOSED`SESSION ACTIONS TAKEN
29
30 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky reported .that was no reportable action taken, but the
31 Council and City Attorney's Office have agreed to an adjustment in compensation with
32 a resolution to be brought forward for formal action.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT
35
36 Becky Winslow, Petaluma, criticized Council for allowing development on the Magnolia
37 parcels regardless of loss of trees and environmental hazards.
. ~ 38
39 John Cheney, Petaluma, referred to an e-mail. to Dianne Reilly from Peter De Kramer of
40 PCA stating that the yellow ribbons placed around town to support U.S. troops, support
41 the war. .
42
43 Lionel Parries, Petaluma, is a Korean War Veteran and involved in military groups. He
44 didn't support what Peter De Kramer wrote and PCA stated that there was a bias. against
45 persons who served in the military.
46
47 Sofia Penabaz'-.Wiley, Petaluma, explained her environmental background and indicated
48 she feels the Magnolia project reports are biased because they were paid for by the
49 developer and did not address the hazards to humans and wildlife.
50
51 Dick Sharke, Petaluma, joined the rest of the veterans regarding Peter De Kramer's e-mail
. 52 that denigrated people who served in the military through the displaying of the yellow
53 ribbons. He will not support PCA as long as Mr. DeKramer is there.
Vol. 40, Page 156 July l2, 2004
1.
2 Jerry Price, 'Petpluma, supported- PCA and hopes they can maintain a balance of
3 information. He supported the veterans concerns as well. He disagreed with fhe decision
4 Council made regarding°the rescinding of the resolution to provide trail access from Jack
5 London State Park to Petaluma.
6
7 Matt M"dguire, Petaluma, was: very critical ofi Council Members Harris, O'Brien; Thompson
8 and Vice Mayor Moynihan. He stated that this was a golden opportunity to adopt a
9 resolution to provide public access to Lafferty Ranch and questioned whom these..
1.0 officials were serving.
1.1
1.2 Geoff .Cartwright~•Petaluma, supported the posting of yellow ribbons. He spoke. about: fhe
13 flood plain and' the displacing of water with fill and development thaf creates
14 destruction to other properties.
15 •
16 COUNCIL. COMMENT
17
18 Council Member Harris request..ed that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Marge
19 Manthey.
20
21 Council Member Healy had a question regarding if enuironmental review costs for
22 development paid by a=consultant is passed along to the developer.
23
24 Director Mike Moore •said yes:. He clarified that on occasion, the developer will have: the _ •
25 "own environmental work done: and submit this with the. application. They Department
26 then hires a consultant to do peer review of the work•~and -the developer pays for than
27 work.
28
29 Council Member Torlatt requested'that the meeting be adjoumed in honor of AL Beaman
30 as well.
31 -
32 Council :Member O'$rien thanked the veterans for their comments and noted that
33 veterans protect flae freedoms that Mr.'DeKramer enjoys.
34
35 Council Member Torliatt wanted to clarify the City''s inpolvement with PCA as far as the
36 board members. 'She explained that the City has one; rep~esenfative. and the
37 membership .elects the' other members gf PCA. The Council; does. not appoint th-e board
38 members. She supported the display of yellov~i ribbons.
39 "
40 Vice Mayor Moynihan felt that PCA has, on occasion., displayed: terrible taste and
41 misrepresented. the truth. He: felt'tnat PCA has failed miserably and something needs to
42 be done. He did not support using public funds for PCA.
43
44 Mayor Glass supported Mr. 'DeKramer's first amendment" rights. He explained that he
45 used PCA as .a .communication tool to fulfill. his campaign promise. He supported the .
46 concept of PCA but doesn't agree with everything they do. He also upported the
47 yellow ribbon campaign forthe troop"s. -
48
49 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
50
51 There was none. ,
52
July 12, 2004 vol. 40, Page 157
1 7. PUBLIC- HEARING.
2
3 A. Resolution 2004=124 N.C.S. FY 04-05 Landscape Assessment Districts.
4 Annual Assessments Public Hearing and Sefting of Assessments.
5 (Anchordoguy)
6
7 ~ Parks. and .Landscape Manager Ed Anchordoguy presented information
8 regarding the Public Hedring for fhisyea~'s assessments.
9
10 Council Member Torliatt recused herself from fihe Kingsfield Subdivision
1 1 because she lives near~it and the Greystone Creek Subdivision because
12 she owns property there.
13
14 Mayor Glass opened the public hearing. Hearing no requests to speak,
15 the public hearing was closed.
16
17 Council Member Healy motioned to adopt the resolution leveling
18 assessments with respect to Kingsfield and Greystone Creek subdivisions
19 only.
_20 _ _
21 Council Member O'Brien asked. about the mahagement of the LAD's
- 22 under ZAC Landscaping. He also wanted to know what the charge is for
23 this and. why this does not go out to bid.
24 ;
25 Mr. Anchordoguy expldiried that-all, of the inspection is done by Hortus
26 Connecting People, awhich is anon=profit organization that is run by
27 Sandra Reed who owns 'ZAC Lahdscaping but clarified her business does
28 not have anything to, do. with the- landscape assessment districts.. He
29 manages -the maintenance and :their employees do the inspections. He .
30 explained' that if Sandra does the work herself, it is about $60 - $65 per
31 hour (she ra"rely does this). Her subordihate charges $40 - $45 per hour.
32 Regarding,-the bidding, process, he explained that Council accepted this
33 .because if was a _ rior-profit organization that promotes better
34 landscgping in the City of Petaluma. 'He mentioned that. consultants that
35 do this type of work .usually charge° $80 $85 per hour. He personally feels
36 thaf'to train•someone .new to~do the' maintenance with mapping, it would
37 take years~for a new cont~dctor to understand.
38
39 M/S Healy and Thompson:: CARRIED BY THE,FOLLOWING VOTE:
40 ,
41 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O'Brien and Glass
42 NOES: ~ None ~ _
43 RECUSED: Torliatt
44
45 Council Member Harris recused.himself because he lives within 500 feet of
46 Corona Creek II subdivision. -
47
48 Council Member .Healy motioned to move the resolution with respect to
49 Corona Creek II subdivision only.
50
51 M/S Healji and Torliatt. CARRIED B1(-THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
52
Vol. 40, Page 158 July 12,.2004
1 AYES: Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O`Brien, Torliatt and: Glass
2 NOES: None
3 RECUSED: Hdrris
4 _ _
5 Council Member.Healy MOVED the remaining landscape assessment
6 districts:-
$ M/S Healy and Torliatt:: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
9
10 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11
12 A. Discussion and Determination of the -Cross-,Town Connection/Highw,ay '1'.01
13 Interchange Local Roadway Alignment Options. (Tuft/Lackie/Skladzien)
14 -
15 City Manger Bierman introduced Pat Flynn from: HDR to explain the four
16 alternatives, including their costs: He requested Council feedback. on
17 which was-the ..best option.
18
19 Pat .Flynn,. HDR, was directed by' Council to return with more details
20 _ _ _ regarding the local: connector -,between- McDowell Boulevard and _
21 ~ Petdluma Boulevard. He explained the -four alternatives:.
22
23 1. The Plan Line Alignment -the Plan Line adopted in 1995 with an at-
24 .grade. crossing:of the railroad tracks and a bridge (grade separation):
25 2. The Villdge Alignment,
26 3. The Cinnabar AI'ignment -has an at-grade and a bridge'. ('grade
_ 27 separation): _
28 4. The Shasta Alignment _ .
29
30 Mr: Flynn wanted to .make Council aware that other than the. Plan Line
31 alignment, which shows: aecess~to the proposed extension of the factory
32 outlets, there. were .no other local access. alternatives shown; this would
33 require developers to apply for access`tor ,any development. Another
34 assumption was thdt 'Caltrans. would requ~e},a minimum distance :of 400
35 feet from. the freeway intersection ramps to the: nearest intersection.. The
36 only option ,to override: this would 'be a; "Mandatory: Design Exception,"
37 which is almost impossible to obtain:,
38
39 Mayor Glass asked. if• any:optign avoids the. Mandatory Design Exception.
40 The Consultant explained that this exception had to do with -local access
41 points locafed near street intersections and this does limit access for
42 development in the area. He said that the design could be adjusted to
43 move the' ramps .closer` to allgw for rriore, -development. Mayor Glass
44 stated he would also°like to see' an at-grade crossing for the railroad.
45
4b Mr: Flynn continued by. explaining the; difficulty in .obtaining ah at-grade
47 crossing from 'the Rublic• Utility Commission and SMART, He went through
48 the Matrix to explain the tour alter`nati~,e comparisons and cost's.
49
50 Council Member Torliatt had a question.. about what the River height was
51 compared •to fhe .existing flood plain, The consultant stated. fhe floodplain
52 is about 20 - 22 feet arid. the bridge h-eight would be 2-4 feet above the
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 1.59
1 River. The railroad bridge is currently 8 -10 feet above the River .bank. The
2 .roadway at-grade would be about b feet above the River bank.
3
4 Mayor Glass was concerned about the concrete pillars causing a back
5 up of floodwater"s. The Consultant explained that an analysis was done
6 and the bridge abutments would be placed at the edge. of the 100-year
7 floodplain. This :analysis showed it would not cause water to back up. He
8 said that the bridge would be about- 35 - 40 feet above the River itself.
9
10 Council Member Torliatt asked how wide the planned roadway would be.
1 1 The Consultant referred to the Plan Line alignment with bicycle paths on
12 both sides, four lanes, and a sidewalk on one side would result in a width
13 ~ of 75 - 80 feet.
14
15 Mayor Glass clarified that with adjustments at the Shasta crossing, it would
16 be possible to avoid the removal. of 6-7 residences.
17 •
18 Vice Mayor Moynihan clarified that four lanes would provide the capacity
19 necessary for the cross-town. connector. He also noted that the figures
20 _ _provided_did, not include land costs for_right-of=ways. He wanted to k_no_w_ _
21 how many property owners there are; the Consultant did not know.
22
23 Council .Member Thompson addressed the at-grade. crossing and asked
24 what would be the most palatable for the railroad. The Consultant said if it
25 followed the Plan Line it would be easier with.. the Village alignment the
26 most acceptable.
27
28 Mayor Glass asked which would have the least impact on flooding of the
29 four alternatives. The Consultant said he could riot tell.
30
31 Council Member Healy asked if Council needed to focus on just one
32 alternative or could they address the alternative(s) that are the most
33 feasible and; would satisfy a CEQA "process arid analysis.. The Consultant
34 said Council could select a 'preferred alternative going into a CEQA
35 process.
36
37 City Attorney Rudnansky said. that~the Council could have a preferred
38' alternative: and make that the description of the project and then study
39 the others in an alternative analysis.
40
41 Council Member Healy asked .about the Utility Index Scores, stating that
42 the two southern, crossings at`Shastd or Cinnabar scored the highest.
43
44 Mr. Flynn stated yes, using the Fehr and Peers numbers. This alignment was
45 chosen because it was closer to town and, took pressure off Washington
46 Street.
47
48 Council Member Healy had questions regarding the. need for four lanes
49 on the western side of the freeway and about the 410-foot separation
50 from intersections; he asked if a five-way intersection could be allowed.
51 '
Vol. 40, Page 160 July 12, 2004
1 ,Mr: Flynn stated that Caltrans would not allow- this but a round a bout
2 would be acceptable.
3
4 Council Member Healy asked if th,e Shasta alignment at the railroad track
5 could be realigned to Make: less area.
6
7 Mr. Flynn explained thaf this would be acollector/arterial street requiring
8 a 500=foot radius to„meet City standards- but with a higher elevation, the
9 ,radius could be tightened.
10
1 1 Council .Member Torli'att asked. what the span of the bridge would be. The
12 Consultarit stated that the bridge would be a three-span with fill,.. abutments,, ahd
13 .bridge piers. with a clear span of 220 feet. She requested clarification- on the
14 maps to explain what road segments were included in the construction. costs.,
15
10 Mr: Flynn stated it included the acfual roadway costs, ernbahkment;
17 material, and .pavement for ,Rainier Avenue, including the brig'ge cost
18 over the railroad and:River, and would stop short of the interchange..
l9
20 Council Member TorliatF_ clarified„ that it did not include any,__of,_the._ _ _ro,. _
21 interchange construction.
22
23 ~ Mr. Flynn stated that, the .interchange,: including ramps and auxiliary lanes
24 would cost about ~ 8 million.
25
26 Council Member'Torlialf asked what the- distance was from the area he
- _
27 outlined from'. Petaluma Boulevard to the interchange, and from the
28 interchange to M_ cDowell.
29 '
30 Mr. -Flynn said it was about 1500 feet from. Petaluma Boulevard North to
31 ~ the railroad tracks; the bridge over the railroad tracks and the River would
32 be about500 feet.
33 ~ _
34 Vice-Mayor.Moynihan stated. he was convinced that four lanes would be
35 required to provide ,the necessary capacity. He wanted north and south
36 connections, shown with d frontage road to Corona aria a connection to
37 the existing Gra.ylawn, -or a two-lane access over Shasta. This illustration
38 would allow property owners in the area to assess the: potential impacts.
39 ~ _ He wanted to see how much local developers would confribute to offset
40 construction costs.
41
42 ~ Mayor Glass said that #his was the crux of the debate, to determine how ,
43 much local developers would contribute to provide traffic relief.
44 ~
45 Council Member. TorliatF ~asKed about the number of daily automobile trips
46 ~ on Rainier.
47
48 ~ Mr. Flynn stated that the number would be 41;907 from the Fehr and Peers
49 numbers.
50
51 Council Member Torliatl wanted to clarify ifi this includes. the .27,000
52 generated at Rainier and McDowell and the Factory Outlet.
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 161
1
2 General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuff explained that the 27,000 was'the
3 average daily. trips :from the three projects and_ doesn`t assume that all
4 -would fravel Rainier. She will ask the traffic consultant to determine what
5 percentdge of the 27,000 would be. She clarified that the 41,907 was not
6 capacity, it was anticipated. volume.
7
8 Council Member Torliaff computed that. the two developments would
9 generate roughly 43% of the traffic on Rainier and the other 53% would be
10 local traffic.
11
12 Council Member Healy referred to the June'traffic analysis that compared
13 Corona 'to Rainier. He stated with no project there would be 47,000
14 vehicle trips per day on Washington and with .Rainier it was reduced to
15 32,000; the Corona option only reduced it to 44,000 daily trips. He wanted
16 traffic relief, particularly on the Washington corridor:
17
18 Mayor Glass 'stilted that the community is experiencing a windfall of
19 development, in part due to 'the General Petaluma Specific Plan ~CPSP),
20__ and the proposed development_of Kenilworth.,and the Fairground_sites_He
21 wanted' to pursue collecting traffic impact fees from these developments
22 to achieve greater relief on Washington by not necessarily developing the
23 Rainier Area. He referred to the Refail Leakage Study that identified the
24 Rainier area the leasf desirable retail site that would increase traffic and
25 growth..
26
27 .Council Member Healy responded by referring to the CPSP environmental
28 document in Chapter 6 that stated this plan would generate an
29 additional 11.5,000 new net daily trips, which does not include the
30 development at the Kenilworth site.
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that Council was not evaluating the traffic
33 impacts of proposed projects. When the alternative is chosen, then the
34 interconnection impacts would. be needed. He didn't feel the Leakage
35 study addressed development constraints such as congestion at
36 `Washington Street. He said that to provide access to the development,
37 the Village: was the best alternative and he wanted the public to express
38 their choices.
39
40 Council Member Torliaff wanted to discuss fhe .community's development
41 priorities and where the daily ear trips will impact the community. She
42 stressed that Council had agreed that~development of the central core of
43 the community was where development should occur. She felt the
44 Kenilworth Junior High site would' impact local streets and roads the least
45 rather than the developments at the Factory Outlet, Rainier and
46 McDowell; also the timing of the funding for the road improvements would
47 support this development.
48
49 PUBLIC INPUT
50
51 David Keller, Petaluma, criticized the plan as not being specific enough to
52 indicate what' it was supposed to accomplish. He wanted Council to be
Vol. 40, Page 162 July 12,-2004
1 specific to indicate this ,project dllowed access: to development on three
2 _ _ parcels in the.. Cgrona floodplain; provided traffic relief on Washington
3 Street; and he asked what .the perforrnanee standard would be:
4
5 Mark Johnson, J: Cyril' Johnson Investment Corp:,; Menlo. Park, stafe.d he •
b wanted to see the property developed. in the proper ,way using
7 responsible rpeans, and to accomplish this; his company was 'developing
8 River access ,with ,parks; bicycle, and pedestrian trails and would improve
9 the blighted Payran Reach area,. H'e referred to the Urban :Growth
10 .Boundary that indicated the :property was to be developed. He didn't
1 1 ~ support afour-lane road intersecting their project that they :have been
12 working. on for two years .based oh an alignment at~Shasta or Cinnabar.
13 He wanted qn at-grade crossing at Shasta and Rainier that would
L4 connect -with. the Village concepf to best support his development. He
15 stated thatthe PUC had' said that there would be no problem vyith am at- •
16' ,grade crossing at Shasta Avenue. His company wwould pursue Shasfa and
17 wanted to work with the City to accomplish this. He didn'''t see the
1$ development- of ball fields on this. property'asfitting the. designated use for
19 this parcel.
20 _
21 ~ ~ -Vice. Magor Moynihan clarified that the at-grade crossing at Shasta would
22 be a two-lane :crossing; Mr. Johnson stated.. this was correct: 'H'e also
23 agreed that this crossing :could be changed if there was another access
24 to Rainier such as the Village or Plan line.
25
26 Jerry Price,. 'Petaluma;. supported the type of development that -Mr.
27 Johnson has built in the past.. He .did'. not support Rainier as ,providing traffic
28 relief"long-term. .
29
30 Wayne Eckstrom, Petaluma; asked Council to look of thee. big picture. of
31 hove the. raw .materials will.. be delivered :by heavy, equipment on
32 dilapidated. roads that will create more traffic congestion.
33
34 John J. Molloy, Retaluma, withdrew his support for the; Magnolia project. •
35
36 Stan Gold;. Petaluma; addressed the: sales; tax issue and that it has? to be
37 produced by the: right :typ,e of development. and not be pursued at the-
38 cost to other areas of the City, ~ .
39 -
40 .Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, talked about infill'being built by.develo,pers in •
41 ahe flood ;plain causing negative and costly effects.
42 -
43 Bill Kortum, Petaluma, referred to the Fehr and Peers traffic report that
44 stated even with • a cross-town :connector; traffic congestion would
45 worsen.. Hesupported across-town connector without the accompanying .
46 development.
47
48 Cindy Thomas, Petaluma -She was. leaning toward Snot supporting. the
49 cross-town connector project:.She wanted responsible development with
50 more specific information regarding the 'impacts. She wanted to see
51 traffic relief for the southeast part of town.
52
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 163
1
2 COUNCIL COM'MfNT
3
4 Vice Mayor 'M.oynhan said that an evaluation was needed to answer
5 questions regarding traffic impacts, retail, orientation,, what lands to be
6 taken/acquired, who will benefit, and. who will contribute. He supported a
7 four lane or possibly two lane access; evaluation of a grade level crossing
8 with PUC; he wanted to keep costs down, height down, and the visual
9 and environmental impacts to a reasonable level. He supported the
10 Village Road alternative and wanted to give direction to staff to follow
1 1 this alternative.
12
13 Mayor Glass asked the Consultant if Council would know without an
14 Environmental Impact Report which plan had the most or least impacts.
15 The Consultant said that any project requires a series of analyses and that
16 this presentation was, preliminary and did not show all the impacts. The
17 next step would be ,to analyze all the impacts in the environmental
18 document, Mayor Glass said then Council is not aware what alternative
19 has the least environmental impact.
20 _ _ _ _ -
_
21 Council Member Healy stated that the most sensitive. properties are in the
22 floodplain arid the discussion was really about Chelsea. The Urban Growth
23 Boundary was analyzed to show the amount of land available for
24 development. Johnson, DSL and Chelsea were all included in the analysis
25 and' now .Council Members were indicating that none of these parcels
26 could be developed: He cited a report from .the.Greenbelt Alliance and
27 the. Farm Bureau that recommended cities in the County reduce pressure
28 on the agricultural community by efficiently using the land within their
29 urban growth: boundaries: Mr. Johnson`s property would be developed
-30 whether Rainier is built; and DSL dhd Chelsea were not assuming that it
- 31 would be built either to get their entitlements. He mentioned, the leakage
32 study and he would be very careful that proposals meet the needs of the
33 community and fit within a strategy. He felt that the community needs a
34 , Rainier cross town connector and interchange and that a southern
35 alignment would be preferable, according to the transportation utility
36 ~ scoring ..rating these at a .77 and the Village and Plan Line at .64. He
37 wanted to see the best traffic relief for the community, not just for
38 Chelsea. He would provide direction to staff and the consultant to
39 provide the next steps to focus on the southern alignments. He wanted
40 Council to move on this quickly to alleviate the amount of traffic that the
41 ~ CPSP would generate.
42
' 43 Council Member Thompson said his criteria would be similar to Healy's in
44 regards to traffic relief and the opportunity for an at-.grade crossing. He
45 said that without traffic relief downtown would be negatively impacted.
46
47 Council .Member Harris appreciated seeing all the pros and cons of this
48 controversial project. He wanted to know if one plan could be the
49 preferred and have the other alternatives explored. Fie supported the
50 Shasta alternative.
- 51
Vol. 40, Page 164 July 12, 2004
1 Mayor Glass answered that under CEQA the Council could designate a
2 preferred dlternative, but .after analyzing. all the alternatives; the Counci{
3 could change their minds if'the land was still available.
4
5 Council Member O'Brien favored the two southern alignments and stated
6 Rainierwould provide fraffic relief.
7
8 _ Counci{'M`em6er-Torliatt° felt that the community would rather not have.
9 the additional traffic generated from the two retail parcels. If fhe car trips
10 'were not .part of the •project she would support access to the properties to
1 1 prevent putting more =traffic on local streets and roads. She indicdted the
12 original Plan Line alignment moves away from the River and supported
13 the River Enhancement Plan. The southern alignment would put a lot of
14 traffic through a residential neighborhood so she would choose the Plan
15 Line alignment.
16
17 Vice Mayor Moynihan reminded the Council of Mr. Johnson`s opposition
18 to'the southern alignment and that his development did not need' Rainier
19 which medris he• would.. not be contributing' to the. cost. Thee Retail
20 _ _ . _ Leakage .Study tavored.,Kenilworth if circulation impacts. were ignored He
21 .stated that if the interchange were not built, Washington Street would be
22 a prgblem. He Celt the traffic utility ,numbers were preliminary and did not
23 provide thee- interconnection of developments, access to the Johnson or
24 Chelsea property or a north/south addition with a frontage road to
25 Corona or d connection. at Graylawn. Without these details; it was. ,
26 impossible to determine better traffic relief at one alignment or the other. .
27 He felt. a successful retail project helped the community and helped to
28 .pay for it. He wanted Council to consider which alignment would have
29 the .most impact on the current prgjects'he supported the. Village Road
30 with the project developerbuilding the bridge, not the City. .
31
32 Council Member iorlatt supported the southern alignment` if Councii is ~ ~ ,
33 considering reducing the number of trips generated from the parcels that
34 would access- this that might make a two-lane road option the better
35 alternative.
36
37 Council Member ;Healy said he, was supporting one of the southern
38 alignments with the .Plan Line alternative moving forward as well. .
39
40 City Mdndger Bierman said that Council is looking at a southern and -
41 northern alignment and both could be evaluated. - ,
42 •
43 Mayor Glass summarized Council support. for. a northern and southern
44 alignment with two and four lames (with bicycle and turn-out lanes) or a ~ r
45 combination.
46
47 9. NEW BUSINESS
48
49 A. Discussion, Direction and Possible Action on a Possible .Advisory Measure
50 for the November 2; 2004 Ballot on the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and
51 Interchange Project. (Bierman)
52
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 165
1 Vice Mayor Moynihan :indicated this should not be an advisory measure and the
2 Council should be taking a leadership role with regdrd to this issue.
3
4 After discussion. regarding the .advisory ballot measure, this item was tabled for
5 consideration at the July 19; 2004 City Council Meeting.
6
7 ADJOURN
'~8
9 The meeting was adjourned at 10:20°p.m, to the;Special Meeting set for Wednesday, July
10 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
11
. 12
13
14
15 -
16 David Glass; Mayor
17
18
19 ATTEST: •
20
21
22
23 Gayle Pe rsen, Cify `Clerk .
24 •
25
26 _
27
28