HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 02/04/2002February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 211
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a
3 Regular City Council Meeting.
4 Monday, February 4, 2002
5
6
7 ROLL CALL
8
9 PRESENT: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy,
10 Maguire, Moynihan
11 ~ ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
12
13 PUBLIC COMMENT
14
15 Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca Drive, referred to a recent Jack. Balshaw column in the
16 Argus-Courier stating that the cost of some City projects has increased 300%. He
17 .told the Council that a Rainier cross-town connector would serve. only developers in
18 the.ifloodplain: He~ asked if -the Council was used to serve community or used to
. 19 serve a small. group of profiteers in the floodplain. He noted that at the last Council
20 meeting, Councilmember Moynihan was forced to disclose that he has business
21 interests ,in what M`r. Cartwright called the "Rainier profit circle." He thought he was
22 seeing a pattern emerge.
23
24 COUNCIL COMMENTS, LIAISON REPORTS
25
26 Councilmember Cader-Thompson referred to Councilmember Moynihan's censure
27 of ~Gouncilmembers who. he believes disseminated confidential information
28 disclosed in Closed Sessions., and ,asked that when this matter comes before
29 Council, it be combined with a discussion of FPPC violations. She would like
30 Council to meet as soon as possible with the Petaluma Area Chamber of
31 Commerce regarding, a possible road. improvements ballot measure in November
32 2002.. She stressed the importance of an early- start for the Chamber and any
33 citizens' ..groups campaigning for such a measure. She would like the public to be
34 fully informed on the issue. She asked for comments from the other
35 Councilmembers.
36
37 Vice Mayor Healy .asked City Manager S#ouder if he would like tq weigh in on the
38 issue., :.and noted that the March 4;. 2002 proposed agenda- included, under
39 Unfinished Business',. continued discussion regarding the street reinvestment
40 options.
41
42 City Manager Stouder replied that it was Council's prerogative to decide how the
43 Chamber, or ;any other group, should participate..He mentioned that a number of
44 special Council Meetings have been scheduled in the next. few months.
45
46 Councilmember Catler-Thompson was willing to have special meetings if
47 necessary. She emphasized that `dime is of the- essence" if the City is to prepare a
Vol. 37, Page 212
Febeuary 4, 2002
1 COUNCIL COMMENTS: LIAISON REPA,RTS, .continued
2
3 ballot measure for November 2002. She asked the other- Councilmembers if they
4 preferred to meet Chamber representatives individually; or at a group meeting.
5
6 City Manager Stouder suggested. that Council. invite representatives of the Chamber
7 and other groups to attend the March 4; 2002 Council Meeting, at which Council
8 can decide if'a subcommittee will be needed.
9
10 Vice Mayor -Healy clarified that he thought: `po si61e action" was not. feasible., but
1;1 "direction'' would be. He, adtled that Council would .have more information °about the .
12 possible countywide tax ballot measure by that time.
13
14 Councilmember Maguire concurred with Vice Mayor Healy. He .did not see .;any
15 controversy :among Councilmembers regarding a ballot measure for road
1'6 improvements. . _.
17
1.8 Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked for confirmation that Council could cake
19 action at the= March 4th meeting.
20
21 Council concurred.
23 Councilmember Torliat
t attended a Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) 1Nater
24 :Advisory Committee (V11AC) meeting. earlier in the day, and .reported the following:.
25
26 On. March 1.4th, a draft will 6e available for the SCWA Water Policy ,Statement: _
27 ® SCWA wi_II hold: a workshop on March 25th, at 9 ~a:m., at' the Board of
28 Supervisors meeting to discuss any changes to that draft 1Nate_r Polcy-
29 Statement:
30 • She asked SCWA 'Director Randy Poole how he, would coordiriafe the: WAC's
31 efforts at the public input process le_ yel and the new 1N'ater Resources Element
32 for the' County General Plan but did .not receive an answer.
'33 ® She has been asking WAG to receive input from all of the contractors and
34 SCWA on the `Y~echnical aspects of a new Master Water Agreement'' so the
35 public will have a sufficient amount of tirime to review those policy=driven projects.
36 that need to be addressed in the new Master Water Agreement. SCV1fA has
37 said they will ;probably :have a draft.. available on April 15th:. of the. issues they
38 want to see addressed in the new Master Water Agreement...
3.9 North Coast Region O,ne has reviewed its TMDLs assessment and '.has
40 declared the .Russian River 'an .impaired. water body as a result of high
41 temperatures due: to shallow water: A biological final. assessment should be
42 available in March, and an~ alte,rnatives report supplied in late summer.
43 • .Regarding Collector 6, only one .more laferal needs to be installed. They were:
44 not given a timeline for completion.
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 213
C.OU.IVCIL COM1UlENTS, LIAISON' REPORTS, continued
2
3 In addition to the Tier Two issue. scheduled for next_ Council Meeting,
4 Council's input is needed on the Vision Statement, as well as on the 50+
5 items that have come up at the public, workshops: WAC has hosted for the
6 water policy.
7 She received at the UVAG meeting'this morning the draft budget for SCWA,
• 8 which they want to .adopt by April 30th. SCWA is required, pursuant to
9 Amendment 11, to provide the contractors with that budget.. as of February
10 1St. She pointed out that, Petaluma's Council had -not. yet seen. it. It turned
11 out that .only two of the eight contractors had:.actually seen. the draft budget
12 -Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park. Council also needs to agendize that.
13 SC1NA is "guestimating" that the acfual power expenses for the water
14 agency is about $5 million. The budget thaf Council and SCWA approved
15 had budgeted-for $5:5 million, so there should be an approximate $500,000
16 surplus. She asked Water Resources & Conservation .Engineering Manager
17 Mike Ban to provide Council with. copies:of that document.
18
19 Councilmember Moynihan thanked the City Clerk's Office for providing the list of
20 commission term expiration dates. He asked the Council to ..give direction to the City
21 Clerk's Office to post the vacancy on the Recreation, Music, and Parks
22 Commission.. Council agreed. He complimented the Airport Commission. The airport
23 is "pretty much operating in the .black" and has.' a hangar project ready to move
-. 24 forward. There ar,.e 83 on the-: waiting list for hangar or tie-down spaces. He would
25 like to discuss the :Five-Year G:IP at the same time streets are discussed March 4.
26 He has received calls from many citizens upset with the condition of the streets, and
27 many claims for damage are tieing submitted to the City. Regarding the wastewater
28 treatment facility ..resolution, which he understood had-been signed, there were a
29 number of things. in the resolution that he thought were either unclear or
30 inappropriate. He thought the full Council should .have reviewed it. He would still
31 appreciate the opportunity to bring it back to Council. He made a motion to bring
32 back for reconsideration at the next. meeting the Council Rules, Policies, and
33 Procedures.
34
35 Councilmember Torliatt told Councilmember Moynihan that in order to ask for a
3'6 motion for reconsideration, he would have to have voted `yes'' on the item, and that
37 at the time he voted "yes," he would have: had to" estate that he was going to
38 reconsider the item: She did not hear a second fore- Councilmernber Moynihan's
39 motion.
40
41 Coun'c_ilmember Moynihan confirmed-that he had voted "yes,"and explained that at
42 the time, he was not intending to bring it back. In light of some discussion he has
43 had since, he believes. it is appropriate to do so. He did not believe a second to his
44 motion was necessary.
45
46
Uol; 37, Page 214
February~,4, 2002
1 COUNCIL COMMENTS. LIAISON REPTORTS, continued
2 .
3 City Attorney .Rich Rudnansky clarified that the. motion could be made, and would
4 typically be toted ~on at the .next Council meeting.
5 ,
6 Councilrnember Maguire asked ;if the: motion required a second. He .had read
7 Councilmernber' Moynhan's a-mail. regarding the wastewater treafinenf ,plant
8 resolution and thought his arguments were the same ones .Council had afready
9 heard, and saw no purpose in Couneilrrieniber Moynihan's reiterating them..
Mr. Rudnanskysaid he would determine if the motion required'a second. (Note: Mr.
Rudnansky~,later confirmed thafa second would be required).
14 C,ouncilmernbe~r O'Brien agreed with 'Councilmember Moynihan 'regarding; the
15 condition of the streets. Citizens have telephoned him regarding existing potholes..
lb However, he has also been getting calls from people thanking the. City for fixing
17 potholes. Regarding, Councilmember Caller-Thornpson's question about. the
18 Traditions; subdivision mitigating wetlands offi-site, he had received a reply from.
19 Community Development Director Mike Moore: saying that,. the off-site .mitigations
20 were over and above and beyond what they' needed to do on-site. It was nice to see
21 someone doing more than. they had: to do instead of getting by with the bare,
22 minimum.
APPROVAL OF.MINUTES January"7, 2002
Page 152,.~line 9: Councilrnember Caller-Thompson SCTA~ did not think he voted
eyes „
28
29 Couneilmember; 'Torliatt thought some votes were left. out entirely. She would like
30 the City Clerk's Office to listen to the audiotape of the: meeting and ;return with the
31 minutes,. corrected if necessary, at the next meeting: ,
32
33 Council .agreed..
34
35 CONSENT CALENDAR
36
37 Pavran Flood IVianagement Project
38
39 Status. Report. Regarding Pavran Flood Management Project Financing. and'
40 Budget.
Vice :Mayor Healy .noted that'the President's budget carne out today, and that. the.
Pavran Projeet'is in the budget at ~$4 :million.
City Manager S:touder confirmed this, and added that the City is in an excellent
position to achieve~what it'sef'out to achieve..
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page. 215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CONSENT CALENDAR, continued
Councilmember Torliatt thanked City staff #or putting together the information, which
is important to both Council and the public.
Councilmember Moynihan congratulated City. management on securing the
additional: funding He thought it would be helpful to get` an updated CIP, which he
said he had been requesting for some time.
Approval of .Proposed Agenda
Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of February 25,
2002...
Councilmember Moynihan referred to item 12, which was a resolution adopting 'the
Development Fee Impact Report. He asked for confirmation that the item did not
involve implementing any new fee structure, per se: Council concurred., He asked
that his. motion to reconsider the Council Rules, Policies, and Procedures be added
to the agenda. He referred to a letter he sent to~Councl rega"riling his concern~about
the liability risk associated with the City acquiring property cohtaminated with toxic
substances. He would like the City Attorney to review the: letter and craft a policy
that will protect the City in the future.
Vice Mayor Healy asked staff to respond to the letter; when that has been done;
Council can decide if it needs to be agendzed.
Councilmember .Maguire thought that .most of the; suggested actions listed ..;in
Councilmember Moynihan letter were Things the; City already does.
Vice Mayor Healy commented that the agenda for February 25th was very full.
City Manager Stouder offered to provide Council with information on the City's
process for dealing, with ``brown fields" issues and its d.ue diligence through the ELR
process, deve opment review, ,liability/risk management services, etc.
CouncilmemberTorliatt referred to agenda item 3. She thought Council had planned
to have .a discussion on Proposition 42 (Transportation Congestion improvement
Act. Allocation of Exisfing Motor Vehicle Fuel Sales ,and Use Tax Revenues for
Transportation Purposes Only. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.) She also
.noted that the issues she discussed regarding the `1NAC meeting needed to be
agendized. She wondered if a special meeting would be necessary.
Councilmember Moynihan. thought Proposition 42 was supposed to .have been
included on the Consent Calendar for today's meeting.
Vice- Mayor Healy asked the time-sensitivity on the WAC issues.
Vol: 37, Page 216 .February 4, 2002
CONS-ENT CALENDAR, continued
3 Councilmember Torliatt replied that th:e third public input session was: scheduled for
4 February 28t" in Petaluma. Some of the issues were.scheduled for discussion at the
5 March 4t" UVAC meeting;.
6
7 Vice MayorHealy, asked when the SCV1/;4 board',would weigh'in on the: policy issues
8 raised at the: public input meetings.
9
10 Councilmember Torliatf clarified that .the SCWA board would weigh. in on their policy
11 ~~issues onMarch 14'". That was a completely different process not aimed at the
1~2 .~ Master Water Agreement..
,13 ~.
14 Vice .Mayor Healy asked when the water agency board would `put its cards on the
1.5 fatile."
17 Councilmember Torliatt ;exp dined that they would put their "tecMnieal"cards; on. the.
18 table. on April. 15t" in a draft of a new agreement: She clarified that what;she "was
19 talking about. was policy as it pertained to issues. raised during the public input
20 process: SCWA'will discuss their policy`ssues on March 14t" (which is a completely
21 different subjecf'than'the issues coming~out of the public input process).
22 ~ -
~23 Vise Mayor Healy noted that it should 6e agendized, but not at the next meeting..
X24
25 Councilmember Torliatf agreed, but added that. if was critical, and if' a .special
26 .meeting was necessary, thaf was acceptable.
27
28 Councilrnember :Maguire pointed out that: if, the SCWA reviewed and potentially
29 adopted .their .own policy on March 14t" and UVAC is 'meeting a month later;
30 Council's discussion of the issues might be "an exercise in futility."
31 ~~
32 Councilmember Torliatt corrected that a draft would be available March 14t"; 'March
33 25t" was SC1NQ's workshop. She did riot- know their adoption date,, but repeated Ghat
34 _ the .draft of the new' agreement was scheduled' to come ou't April 15t", She
35 emphasized. the importance. of Council continuing the process because Petaluma
36 buys 80% of its water from the water agency.
Vice Mayor Healy 'suggested agendizing',the item for the evening of March 4tn
40 Councilmember Torliatt, was. willing to let staff;. "work it out." She provided: a list to
41 Steve. Sirnrnons of Water Resources- and Conservation. He would be sending an e-
42 mail. to Mr: Stouder and Mr. Hargis.
Vice Mayor Healy suggested the agenda ifem read, ``Discussion and Possible.
Direction on /ssues Pertaining to New SCWA Master WaterAgreement:"
February.4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 217
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
COIVSENT.CALENDAR, continued
City Manager Stouder suggested that if Council wanted to agendize Proposition 42
for the :next meeting,, the meeting start at 2:00 p.rn: and that item be first on the
agenda.
Councilmember Moynihan thought the item could be placed on the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Healy preferred to schedule it for the evening meeting, to give :the public
the opportunity for input. He noted there was organized opposition to the
,,
proposition.
Councilmember Torliatt pointed. out that -.Couricif had no control- over the success or
failure of the, proposition. She thought ,individual. C_ouncilrnembers could support or
not support the proposition as they chose. She wondered if discussing it was a .good
use of Council' time:
Councilmember Maguire suggested that `if- there .was no opposition on, _the matter
among the , Councilrnembers; it should ~ be -placed on the Consent Calendar. If a
number of members of the public were present at the meeting and wished to -speak
to the item:,. it could be removed from the Consent. Calendar and pl"ace it~at the. end
of the meeting, to be discussed if time allows., He ;noted it was important tool for
financing cities and. help balance the taking away of monies from cities and counties
by the state.
Councilmember Maguire moved, seconded by Moynihan; to approve Consent
Calendar Iterns'2 and 3. r
AYES: O'Brien, Tgrliatt, Cader-Thompsori,~ Vice -Mayor Healy,
Maguire, Moynihan
NOES: `'Non`e
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
***End Consent Calendar**#
GENERAL PLAN
Discussion Regarding Status ofi Initial Meetings of `the General Plan Process.
Director of General .Plan Administration Pamela Tuff explained that in December
2001, Council 'received summaries ofi the General. Plan workshops attended by
snore than 20O:citizens.
Regarding the Traffic Data Model, the base data is in and has. been calibrated (for
existing conditions).. Data for land that is vacant or has additional. development
Vol. 37, Page 218 .February 4, -2002
GENERAL PLAN, ,continued
3 potential is now being uploaded. That will proyid.e estimates to build=out,, and the
4 results will:. be presented to Council 'in late February, or early March, The ~works.fiop
5 summanes are being examined to determine common values and develop a vision
6 statement. The CommunitySurvey Questionnaire. will be conducted in March or
7 April
8 ,
9 Councilmember O':Brien asked if `the Traffic Model would be "usable." when it 'is
10 presented to Council.
11 .. .
t replied that the model could be used to evaluate current proposed project;
._
13 project ons for traffic volumes at-,cumulative build-out of the existing General Plan
14 (including traffic "hot spofs'),, and begin fo identify altesnatives.
~~
L6 City .Manages ~Stouder clarified that the model has been calibrated b,ut not yef
17 aested. Before -thee model is broughf to Council;; if will be tested: with. various
18 scenarios.
19
20 Councilrnember O'Brien asked ~ if' the.::"initial bid" on the project included
21 assurarice~ that the model works correctly.
22
s
23 Mr. Stouder affirmed.
25 Uiee Mayor Healy ,rioted That 'there;'is ."a long tradifiori of `shooting the messenger'
26 when people don,'t:,like 'the message," and wondered how to assure the public that
27 the model works correctly and: makes sense.
28
29 Mr. Stouder thoughf that it some point;: "we'dha;~e to say this, is the best avaiilab/e
30 work and the hest. available- :data:'" He reminded Council that this; is a .model' -
- ~ :.
31 information in; .and projections o,ut. Asking how one could. be certain it was accurate
32 was like asking, "Ho,w can we make sure where the 1:00-yearflood line is?"
Coun'cilmernber Moynihan thought Council had been waiting for the Traffic Model in
order to e~aluate~ a variety of across-;town: connectors and highway 'interchanges:
He asked Ms: Tuft if that work would be 'started now.
3'8 Ms. Tuft explained that, the model,. when brought; to Council, would: show traffic
39 patterns, volumes; etc. at build-out. There was, no point in plugging `in alternatives'
40 using only the existing conditions.
41
42 Councilmember Moynihan asked.. if, Ms. Tuft would be asking Council for an
43 additional .contract. to complete the model for the cross-town connector alternatives:
Ms. Tuft .rep,lied; '`no,'',and clarified. that across-town. connector was 'included in the.
Existing. Conditions and Opportunities Report: Alfe_rnative would ,be discussed,
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 21;9
1
2 GENERAL. PLAN;. continued
3
4 direction could 'be provided by Council and the public, and then the models would
5 be run.
_ 6
7 Councilmember Moynihan asked. if alternatives for across-town connector at
8 Southpoint, Corona, and Rainier would. be laid out and brought to Council for
9 evaluation.
10
11 Ms. Tuft replied ~th'at if that was the direction given by Council, that would happen.
12
13 City Manager Stouder clarified, "Something will be ready in two weeks."
14
15 CouncilmembeY~Torliaft looked forward to seeing. the traffic model. She did not want
16 Ito look at the° components of the General Plan "in a vacuum." She asked how the
17' elements of the General Plan would, be brought together so that Council could see
18 the potential impacts of development in certain areas.
19
20 Ms. Tuft answered that the Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges.
. 21; Report will bring all of those elements together for analysis. Consistencies and
22 inconsistencies among :the elements will be evident.. When preferred. alternatives
23 are selected,: Council will be ;able to seethe pros and :eons. This is where policy
24 decisions.would .be made by Council. She noted that in addition to the Traffic Model,
25 Water Supply and Surface Water Models are also underway. As a component was
26 changed 'in one model, the -companion change would be made. in the other
27 model(s). That would allow analysis ofi the .impacts.
28
29 Councilrnember Cader-Thompson mentioned that she had attended a SPARC
30 meeting where the. Riverwalk was discussed. There was no discussion of how the
31 Eden Housing project and the Riverwalk project would interact. She asked if and
32 when Community Development and Economic Development would be able to use
33 the model to connect the projects. together.
34
35 Ms. Tuft explained. that the model included pedestrian movements, bicycle links as
36 alternatives, and also included bus routes: and stops, so that the overall
37 transportation. system was analyzed in the Traffic Model, not just single-occupant
38 vehicles, There has been discussion about the best place to locate bus stops,
39 crosswalks,; etc., for the .Eden Housing project residents.
40
41 Councilmember Cader-Thompson pointed out that when projects are approved by
42 Council without that information, the City ends up paying for improvements that
43 'should be paid'for by the developer.
44
45
Vol. 37, Page-220 February 4, 2002
1 GENERAL PLAN, continued
2
3 PUBLLC COMMENT
4
5 Geoff Cartw"right; 56' Rocca Drive.,; uggested `it would be easy fo determine the
6 accuracy of the model:, simply attach an outboard motor to a car, drop if 'into. the
7 river; and watch what happens. fVo need to wait 20 years!
8 ., .
9 Councilmember Maguire commended Ms. Tuft on her hard work.
10 .
11 MfD-YEAR B:U.DGET REVIEW _
12.
,13 .Initial. Review and Discussion of. Mid-Year Budget,. . .
14
.15 ~ Finance Director BiIL Thomas urnmarized the Mid-Year Budget :Review. The -Staff
16 Report. Council received in their packets reviewed all funds. His presentation..
17 focused on the General 'Fund. We explained: that.: the General Fund consists of -
18 revenues categories, of which the three biggest are sales tax (33%);, revenue from
19 other agencies (21%), and, property tax (14%). A mid-year analysis of .revenues
20 suggested that several revenue categories were not meeting estimates. Sales tax:
21 revenues declined 26.2% from last year.., Salary savings are being offset by -
,22 increases in overtime. He reported several areas that have been identifiedthat are
24 outl n d supported by the General Fund; and should be funded by other means. _He
recommendations for use of some reserve :funds, a_nd -for increases to
2S others.
26 .
27 Mr.: Stouder .recommends that the City confinue to increase. the General Fund
28 reserve and 'Equip:ment .Replacement: Program and add fo th-e Street' Improvement
29 Reserve, to create a sound financial condition and prepare fora "rainy day."
30
31 Councilmember' Maguire commended Mr. Thomas for generating a "very ,clear
32 report."
33
34 Councilmember Torliatt asked Mr. Thomas if` had he chosen soffware fo_r the
35 business license function. f
36
3.7 Mr. Thomas explained that consultant had advised him against buying -something
38 "off the shelf" that might not work with whatever financial management software the
39 City eventually buys.
40
4.1 Councilmember Torliatt asked if the: 1Nashington, D.C. expenses came out of
42 Redevelopment Funds or the General Fund.
43
44 Mr. Thomas replied that-they were not being charged to the General Fund..
:.45
4.6
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 221
1 MI®-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW, continued
2
3 Cou_ncilmember Torliatt thought they should be charged to Redevelopment Funds.
4 Regarding "fhe $2QQ,,000:available for street repairs, she would like to move forward
5 with the most critical, repairs. She asked the City Manager how the City was dealing
6 with overtime expenses incurred because of the. salary swings strategy mentioned
7 in th.e Staff Report: Was the City going to hire employees,, or was the City `just not
8 going to: do the job"?
9
10 Mr. Stouder answered that he "was. not going to sit here and make any promises."
11 Department heads have been asked to identify the. one service that must be
12 provided by their department and where the: revenue making that service possible
13 would come from, assuming the budget was $O, .He did not think the solution
14 overtime costs was necessarily adding more personnel.
15 ..
~_ 16. Mr.. Thomas :continued that he had noticed an extraordinary write-off. of bad debt in
17 ~ ambulance billings. That situation was ..improved by having an Accounting. Assistant
18 responsible. only for amba'lance bills.
19
20 Councilmember Torliatt thought a strategy for tracking the activities of the Planning
2'1 Department was needed, as she. thought a variance of $680,000 was "pretty
22 shocking. "
23
24 Mr. Thomas reminded her fihat that was a potential figure.
25
26 Councilrnember O':Brien: ,reminded those present. that. OTS grants .are: ,not given to
27 generate revenue.. Those officers will reduce. drunken driving,, .accidents,. etc. He
28 added that. it appeared that it would be more cost effective to fill. open positions,
29 especially in Public'Safety, then continue to pay more and more overtime.
30 .
31 Mr. Stouder replied that the bottom line was "Can the City's base revenue support
32 its base services?"
33
34 Councilmember O'Br;ien said it was ``a pretty lonely, postion''to be the only .officer
35 responding to call, because Dispatch. has said,, "There ain't.~no help coming,. `cause
36 there is nobody"
37
38 Mr. Stouder replied that the City was not: in that position.
39
40 Vice Mayor Healy would like staff to bring back`to C.ouncil.an explanation of why it is
41 appropriate to move the entire cost of the General Plan `to the Redevelopment
42 Agency.
43
44 Couneilmembe:r Moynihan. asked to have a table he had brought showing the Five-
45 Year General Fund Overview shown on the overhead projector. He asked Mr.
46 Thomas the status of the marina.
Vol. 37, Page 222'
February 4„ 2002
1 MLD.-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW, continued
2 ,
3 Mr. Thomas replied thaf fhe marina is in default, as it has been 'for some, time.. Any
4 solution to the debt. service; prob em would .involve the principal gnly. 'He was
S in estigating the possibility of` privatization of the'marina.
6
7 Couneilmem_ber Moyriih.an thought the 'City was: looking:, at rating Rede~el:opment
8 Funds: to cover other .General Fund shortfalls. He believes the issue of the- marina
9 operating in the red :needed; to be resohed;. He was concerned. about Special
10 Revenue Funds,. because of the huge variances between budget and actual.
Councilrnembe.r Cader-Thompson noted 'that inee the Septe,mbe.r 11 attacks on
America, the City has experienced a ~ $900,000 shortfall. She. asked how thaf
affected services to the community.
1'6 Mr. Stouder stated that,, "The City does not look to spend money, but looks to '.
17 provide bas~c~ services that are mandated' and .that Council has directed. us to do at
18 .the lowest possible cost while having fhe best possible people ewe] can."He added'
19 that''if any Gouncilmember thought Mr: Thomas; or he would make budget decisions
20 based on "rating funds,, Council should fire' the City Manager on the spot.:"
21
22 Vice Mayor 'Healy' noted ,tiaf one of the reasons the salaries went up was that.
23 Petaluma: employee salaries: historically had been well below those of comparable
24 cities ;across the board: The new contracts in place are making an effort to remedy
25 that.
26
27 Councilrnemb'er Maguire noted, regarding. Vehicle Licensee 'Fee (VLFj, backfill, ,he:
28 had been told; by a representative of the League of California Cities that tho"se funds
29 are not as secure- as Council and the City wouad Like. to think.., If the City Lost aII or
30 part ofi;that.backfill, it would have a seriou impact. He suggested~that Council direct
31 Mr. Thomas to explore the implications of that possibilities so that a. back::-up
32 position could b'e devel'oped.
Counci_Imember Moynihan commented that h'e did n°ot think Council had looked at,.
reducing, expenditures. The next time, the budget was discussetl, he would like to
come up. with: cost-cutfing :methods to offset shortfall. Council has a respon5'ibilty fo
cut expenditures. He asked 'if Council was asking, staff's ,recommendation on what
costs could be reduced.
Vice .Mayor Healy thought that request would be more .appropriate when ..Council
began to review the °budget fbr FY 2002-2003 in .May.
Council Member Caller=Thompson expressed: disappointment that the .C;ity '.Clerk
position had been. moved,:to last on the agenda; She did not think. Council would; get
to the item:, She did not think Go.uncil has addressed: the issue as °they should. She
#eefs there'i'n slack of respect for the position `in this community.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4'8
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 223.
MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW, continued
Mr. Stouder quipped that he had done his part toward cost reduction by canceling
his. subscription to the New York Times.
PUBLIC CO.MIVIENT
None.
-CLOSfD:SESSION
City Attorney Rich: R.udnansky announced that Council would adjourn to Closed
Session on the following:
® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 54956.9, Bobby Thompson,; et al ys. City of Petaluma,
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 225677. ,
® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) bf
Government Code Section 54956:9, Russell` Kimberly vs'City of Petaluma, Sonoma
County Superior Court. Case No. 225543.
® CONFERENCE WITH .LEGAL. COUNSEL - ~ Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 54956:9,. Ronald Pike vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma
County Superior Court Case. No. 226388.
® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a). of
Government Code Section 54956.9, Tammy ..Loeffler vs. City of Petaluma, U.S.
District Court, Northern .District of~California, Case No. C01-0395 PJH.
® CONFERENCE WITH: LEGAL COUNSEL - Ar1tlClpated LltlgatlOn, Significant Exposure to
Litigation Pursuant.to Subdivision 9(b) of Section 54956.9: (2 matters)
ADJOURN
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:40 p.m.
7:00 PM -RECONVENE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy,
Maguire, Moynihan
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
PLED:G'E OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request of Vice Mayor Healy, Ray Peterson I'e.d the Rledge of Allegiance.
Vol. 37, Page 224 '.February 4, 20.02
1 MOMENT OF SILENCE
2
3 At the request of Vice Mayor Healy, a moment of silence was observed.
4
5' REPORT "OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
6
7 Vice Mayor'Healy stated that there was no reportable action taken during Closed
8 Session..
9 _
10 PUBLIC_C.OMMENT
--
11 _.
12 ~ Ray Peterson, ;address not given, is a candidate #or upervisor. He encouraged
13 . Council to -look at a model in .Sonoma Valley, the Citizens Advisory Commiftee,;
14 which: looks at things that cause problems: both for, the Gity and Council., Ct supports
15 ways.-for cities and coranties to work together.
16
..
17 David. Glass; 41. ~Qxford Cou
rt, displayed a chocolate candy ,bar Petaluma students
Y8 are selling "for~$1.OQ = the. schoo keeps ~50 cents for, each bar sold.. Kids have to .sell
19 candy to make ends meet .af schools.. He wondered if the City should open a: candy
20 s#ore. He believes `fhe~ money Pefaluma has spent: attempti"ng to enforce the
21 campaign limits ordinance. provides a .good example. of what .happens;, when "the
22 dollar 'is too :influential in the political process,. Takes a Jot of courage for a..City
23 Councilmember°to "buck" the deyelopers.`When it comes time'forcanddate support
24 .later., 'they may not see it Let the voter bewa"re.. Don't. let peop a run on slogans, Get
25 underneath that -find out what they stand for.:
26
27 Sheri Cardo, 501 Bryce Canyon Court, representing the Animal Services :Advisory
28 .Committee,'which is helping to raise $200;0;00 forethe shelter'renovator/expansion.,
29 She displayed samples of personalized tiles the animal shelter is offering for the:
30 "Wall of Honor..:"They are available in three versions at $1:0.0, $250, and $500 at the
3.1 shelter, 84'0' Hopp"er Street, 778-4396. Participants will receive a decorative
32 certificate explaining the program and an invitation to the unveiling, ceremony when
33 the wall is complete. She also. announced theAnnual Business Supporter Program..
34 Businesses participating will receive~a window decal.
36 John King, 86:17 .Petaluma Hill. Road, Penngrove, spoke about groundwater. He
37 wanted Council to be aware of the problems ceside.nts of the I'enngroue; -area are
38 experiencmg.;.A number of residents in the Denman,. Flats area,, :just .adjacent to the
39 "techndlogy area''`have lost their wells. because .of water table decline. He p:ro~ided
40 Council with a handout from fhe State of California dated 1982:. It contained maps
41 displaying -the various areas of ground- wager recharge in the Santa. Rosa plain and
42 the Petaluma urea. He"told Council that.. what they do in the City of Petaluma affects
43 not only the City of Petaluma and its recharge: rate; it affects. neighboring property
44 owners - in this case, -the people of 1'enngrove. No one knows- how much
45 development;is poss'ibJe while maintaining a sustainable groundwaterlevel.
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37; Page 225
1 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
2
3 Glen Brunner, P.O, Box 6152, Santa Rosa., Sonoma County ,M;oblehome Owners
4 Association, gave handout to Council regarding non-profit purchase of mobilehome
5 parks, which be believes is a viable solution for Sandalwood. The City Clerk was not
6 given a copy .of the handout for use in preparing the minutes.
7 ,
8 Edna Mae Campanile, ;94 Caadlewood ..Drive, ~Saridalw,ood.. Mobilehome Park,
9 pointed out that for many "residents of the park, it is their last 'horme. She. urged
10 Council to save the Petaluma Rent Sfabilizatiori Ordinarice~. She .quoted James
11 Madison: "lf men were angels, government would not be necessary."Those with the
12 willingness and ability to coerce the elderly in their: fading years of._their lives .,are
13 .preying on the residents of Sandalwood. They were told that;if they did.not sign the
14 new lease, they, would. be forced into arbitration. With .that lease., residents lose
15 individual.. rights .and 'may .eventually lose .their homes. Sheasked Co.u.ncil to place
16 on the`Consent_Calendar a_ letter pledging support for-Sandalwood residents if they
17 are forced into arbitration. She described the present as "The': times that ytry -men's
18 souls:" She; asked :Council to consider the idea of Sandalwood Senior Affordable
19 Housing.
20 ~, ,
21 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, referred to the. proposed expansion of the
22 Petaluma Village Factory O..utlets, which has been in the planning process for some
23 time. He noted that the site of the proposed expansion is `prime recharge ground"
24 for the City's water table. -
25
26 Diane Reilly Torres; Rainier Avenue, .displayed the Environmental' Impact Reports
27 (EIRs) for the Factory Outlet Expansion and Redwood Technology Center. She
28 explained that the Facfory Outlet EfR .called. for °`recerfifying the Rainier EIR."She
29 thinks some of the mitigation measures are. in direct conflict with. the River
30 Enhancement Plan. The Red.wood,Technology~Center E1R refers to flooding at the
31 intersection. She thought. Community Development Director Mike Moore was
32 supposed to be sure that ary projects appro~e~d would not flood. She pointed out
33 that both ELRs involved :the same hydrologist` .Phillip 1Nilliams and Associates. She
34 would: like .the consultants for the General Plan Update to' do a peer review.. At the
35 'PJanning Commission meetings there is no b'inderj no, maps,. no agenda bills for
36 public review as there are at Council meetings: .
37
38 Vice Mayor Healy noted that at the Mayor's regae'st, the.:City Clerk matter moved to
39 the end so ,he would have a chance: to get t_o the meeting ,f_or`that item.
40
41 ~ COUNCIL COMMENT
42
43 Councilmember, Caller-Thompson thanked Councilmember Maguire and City
44 Manager Stouder for attending meeting on Friday. She encouraged Ms. Campanile
45 to continue to come to Council Meetings, bringing Council information.
Vol. 37, Page, 226 February 4, 2Q02
CO.UNC(L COMMENT, confinued
3 he was disappointed that the City Clerk item was moved to the end of the agenda:
4 The City' Cierk's position, is very .important fbr `the community and: Council. She does
5 not think'it; has been addressed as,'it should' be, She th-inks there is ;a lack of respect
6 in this~cornmunity for that position. She does not think it would 'be heard tonight.
8 CounciJ;member O'Brien thanked' Mr. Stoude;r,, Councilmember .Maguire,: ,and
9 Councilmember Cader.=Thompson for coming to the Ducks Unlimited 'Fundraiser on
1Q Saturday night. A checkwill be sent to Ducks ,Unlimited for about $45,000, ..Protects
11 wetlands."from furtfler development.
"Councilmember To,rliatt attended. the Sonoma, County Boar.,ds of Supervisors.
meeting. The board voted in: favor of, adding a Wafer Resources element' to the,
County' .General Plan However, she was disappointed. th-at they did; not adopt :the
recommendations of the .Citizens' Advisory Committee that they 'include a
Groundwafe~r. Management Plan.' She reminded Council that the Sonoma.. County
1Nater Agency (SCWA) requires contractors, including Petaluma, to pump.
..groundwater during peak demand period to supplement the water'suppl.y.
Councilmember Maguire asked if that was a 5/0 vote.
ounoilmember Torliatt-confirmed that it was::
25 Councilmember .Maguire was also disappointe_ d that a Groundwater Management
26 plan had not been included..
27
28 Councilmemb"er Moynihan said he was. frustrated by the "inabilityfo_ .get; everything
29 done,'' He has received. lots of complaints lafeiy about -the condition, of the streets.
30 .The City has about. $1''5 million in traffic m-it!gati'on funds that could be~.used to fix the
31 streets, but Council' voted not to use ;His friend `Animal" got out his real paint and
.32 circled a'll 'the: potholes he cou"Id find. They got fixed! 'He requested that three
33 policies be formalized: (1) That. it, be a condition. of approval for any development's
34 the flood"plain that a flowage easement ,would', allow the. City to flood. their property;
3'S (2j That all.-solar~wiring or solar paneling'be.prop~erly insulated;; and (3) The risk to
,36 the City if 'it purchases property that. is confami:nated., He asked #hat these be
37 agendized.
38.
39 Councilmember .,Maguire explained to' Councilmember Moynihan thaf current codes
40 cover wiring for photovoltaics, Regarding the other issues Councilmember
41 Moynihan raised., he reminded hire that there was no support .for those #.rom the' rest
42 of Council:
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 227
1
2 ~ PROCLAMATION
3 Free E-Mail Sign-Up Day
4
5 Vice: Mayor Healy read. the proclamation celebrating Wednesday; February 20,
_ 6 2002 as Free E-IVI'al Sign-Up Day. Volunteers will assist citizens wishing to obtain
7 `ari e-mail address at seven locations around the city. Bill Hammerman, CyberCity
8 Roundtable., accepted. the proclamation. He asked. if .each Councilmember could
9 visit on_e of the sign-up locations on sign-up day.
10
11 Councilmember Caller-Thompson thanked Mr: Hammerman for all his contributions
12 to the community, She asked for clarification on 'the City Clerk issue.: Would it be
13 heard tonight? Could it be moved to the beginning of the next meeting's agenda?
- ~ 14
15 Vice-MayorHealy suggested that Council decide after the Baker Ranch item.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING
lg BAKER. RANCH
19
20 Discussion and Possible .Action Regarding a Recommendation from the Planning
21 Commission to Approve an 1.1-Lot Subdivision on the 5-Acre Baker Ranch
22 Property Located at the Lntersection of Ely Road and Corona Road (APN 137-070-
23 09):
24
25 ~ A. Resolution 2002-Q20 N.C.S. Adopting a. Mitigated Negative Declaration.
26 B. Resolution 2002-021 N.C:S: Adopting the Tentative Map for Baker Ranch
27 Subdivision.
28 C. Resolution 2002-022. N,C,S. Supporting. Annexation of the. Baker Ranch
29 Property to the City of .Petaluma.
30 D. Introduction of Ordinance 2128 N.C.S. Prezoning Baker Ranch Property to
31 Planned Unit District.
32
33 Director of Community Development Mike Moore introduced Laura Lafler, LSA
34 Associates, ..Project Manager-for Baker Ranch project.
35
36 Ms. Lafler summarized the project and the applicant's. requests. The proposed
37 p'rojeet wouad prezone the property, consistent with, the Corona Ely Specific Plan,.
38 and then annex .the property .into the City. The development would involve
39 construction of ten .new homes and related improvements on an .approximate 5-acre
40 site.. Two of the four oak. trees on the site would remain,; and two would be removed,
41 based on the recommendation of the applicant's consultant arborist.
42
43 Ms. Lafler explained the' .recommendations of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
44 Committee regarding paths. She also made two corrections to the Staff Report, as
45 follows: Attachment 7, Page 4, Item 1: "Draft Resolution for the Approval of the
46 Tenfati.ve Subdivision Map." It should read, "Street improvements on Ely Road shall
Vol. 37, Page 228 February 4, 2002
1 PUBLIC HEA~RFNG
2 .BAKER RANCH, continued
3
4 includecurb, gutter, and sidewalk from ..Baker Ranch Court to the driveway for the
5 existing house on lot 2:" Item 6: "Street improvements shall include:.:," The .re.mainder of
6 the sentence should .read, "a decomposed ,granite path or similar material fronfing Ely
7 Road .from the existing driveway to the corner of Corona Road and a bench as part of
8 the landscape plan to be re"viewed by SPARC." "
9 .
10 Councilmernber Maguire asked if' the age of the oak. trees: was known, and` the goals
11 were for the .larger trees on the property. ,
12
13 Ms. Lafler replied that the goal. was to preserve and maintain trees when possible: An
1.4 arborist had identified two of the four oak trees as diseased:
15 __
1.6 Councilmember Maguire answered that he did not 'interpret what the arborist. reported
1'7 as "diseased."
18
19 Ms. Lafler explained that the Planning Commission had added a condition that.<a second
20 .arborist examine the trees.
2`1
22 ViceMayor Healy if the house on lot 1 was accessed off the court.
23
24 Ms. Lafler replied that it was..
25
26 Couneilmemb,er Caller-Thompson asked if`the existing. house. on parcel 2 would remain
27 the only one on :the site.
28
29 Ms. Lafler answered. that, 'if ;kitchen facilities: remained in 'thef residence `it would have to
30 be the only one on the parcef:
31
32 Councilmember Moynihan asked if there was anything to prohibit further subdividing of
33 the property in the future..
34
35 Ms. Lafler -replied that: there- was not; however, General Plan density limifations would.
36 prevent further subdivision:
37
38 Councilmember. Maguire referred fo page one: of the Staff Report, which states that -the
39 City would serve as lead agency: on the project and is responsible for' approval of the
40 environmental documenfation of-the project. He asked if that'would be at the expense of
41 the project proponent.
42
43 Ms. Lafler confirmed this.
44
45 Councilmember Torliaft asked if the existing wells on the properlywould be''used.
46
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 229
1 Pl96LIC HEARING
2 BAKER RANCH, continued
3
4 Ben Smith, Waterford Associates, thanked staff for an excellent job in this long,
5 complicated process: The Staff Report covered the. issues and merit of projects.
6 Waterford worked hard.. to comply with both the General Flan and Specific Plan.
7 One neighborhood meeting was held, at which, three issues were .raised:
8
9 ® Oak Trees: An. arborist examined. the four oak trees. on the property. He :felt two
10 were. in ,poor structural condition and should be :removed; the other two were in
11 good condition:;A second arborist will examine the trees.
12 ® Streetlights on fhe Cul-de-.Sac: Waterford worked: with one neighbor who was
13 concerned about the possibility of streetlights shining into his backyard. The
14 issue was resolved.
15 School Fees:.. This parcel will join the Mello-Roos district that was formed for
16 Waugh School built so residents will pay their fair share:
17
18 Councilmember Maguire asked if the project. proponents' intent was to construct
i9 homes. or sell lots.
20
21 Mr. Smith answered that the plan was to move through SPARC and build homes.
22 However, Waterford had gone through some recent changes and it was possible
23 they might sell the. land.
24
25 Councilmember Torliaft asked the location of the existing well.
26
27 Mr. Smith indicated, the location on lot 2 at the corner of the barn. Waterford had not
28 had it tested so they don't know what condition it is in. Their idea was to leave it in
29 place so a #uture resident could use f.or it for' agricultural. irrigation. The homes in the
30 development will be connected to City water.
31
32 Councilmember Torliatt asked if someone purchasing lot 1 could drill a well.
33
34 N1s. Lafle,r referred to page 8 of~ the. Staff Report. Existing wells may be maintained
35 for ag p:urposes buf musf meet City standards.
36
37 Greg Hurd, Carlenzoli. Associates; explained that they,planned to retain the well on
38 lot 2 for ir.rigafion purposes unless it tested unfeasible'; in which case it would be
39 abandoned according to Sonoma County Health Department standards:
40
41 Curt-Bates said that lots 1 and 2 would. be connected to Gift' domestic water. He-did
42 not know any procedures~to either allow or disallow drilling a well on lot 1.
43
44 Councilmember Torliatt wondered if the project was compared to a map showing areas
45 where ;groundwafer recharge is successful. She remarked. that during her four years on
46 the. Planning Commission, she never saw a project without site plans
Vol. 37, Page 230 February 4, 20Q2
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 BAKER RANCH, continued
3
4 .showing adjacent, uses so any conflicts would be readily .apparent. She w,.as, very
5'frustrated' not°'to have such plans.°fo=r this project.
6
7 Mr. Smith stated that he did not have a problern'abandoning the wells~f'the Council,
8 wanted to add that as a condition of approval; .
9
10; Couneilmerriber'Torliatt would like to s,ee~ some irrigation use. She saw 'it as.a. matter
11 of the City being able to track how much::water from the well is used:.
12 ,
13 Vice; Mayor Healy could see no reason why it would. not be advantageous to the
14 City to retain the well:
1~5
16 Counclmember O,'Brien was .concerned because the: m'ifigations stated that the.
17 wells would be abandoned so there would be no drawdown.
18
19 Mr. Bates clarified that the intent of the: wording in the initial 'study was "if~they were
20 abandoned."
21
22 Vice Mayor Healy asked what thewell has been used for recently.
23
24 Mr. Bates :replied that the property 'is vacant. The City does note know the depth of
25 the well.
26
27 Ms. Lafler told Councilrnembe.r O'Brien: that what he read,.was not a mitigation. She
28 pointed out the mitigations on the following page.
29
30 Councilrriember Torliatt~ asked if Ms. Lafler had provided Mr. Mahoney with a site:
31 plan.
32
33 Ms. Lafler confirmed thaf -she sent, him a map and provided' a description of ~th'e
34 project. and the proposed. connection at that point.. His concern is fhe day care
35 center there, and the safety of the children. He would prefer one point of access..
3.6
37 Councilmember Torliatt wondered if the deu,,eloper couldn't ,provide additional
38 fencing. She: hated. the idea of making residents~~rnore 'dependent on' their- ears,.
39
40 Councilmember Maguire thought.: this was an opportunity to allow residents to
41 circumvent unnecessary automobile trips. for very short distances,, and Council
42 should be creating easements: for the day when "society really wises up." H`.e
43 reported. he was "constantly fru"strafed" I?y'=a lack of large`r' area maps that show the
44 location of adjacent properties with street names; etc.
45
46
February 4,.2002 Vol. 37, Page 231
1 PUBLIC HE~4RING
2 BAKER RANCH, continued
3 .
4 Vice .Mayor Healy suggested that in the interests of moving the project forward,
5 .Council consider a pathway up to the school property line.
6
7 Councilmember Maguire .:explained that he had; been about to suggest that, if
8 nothing else., the City '..have an easement. for a .path on 'the Corona edge of the
9 ,property, if not in the. drainage ditch, then inboard,. and at a minimum, a path from
10 the cul-de-sac to the adjacent street, Hartman Lane. He thought this would make it
11 much. more pedestrian-accessible area.
12
13 ~Councilmember Cader=Thompson pointed out Ghat the chool field is on the urban
14`separator. It is supposed. to be open on weekends, but when she went there it was
15 locked. The firstconcern should be -the safety of students getting to and from
16 school.. ;She did not think kids on the cul-de-sac should 'have to go all the way
17 around to get to and from school.
18
19 Councilmember Torliatt was concerned with risibility from the driveway of lot 7.
20
21 PUBLIC .COMMENT
22
23 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, expressed concern about the wells., She
24 thought the report referred to a letfer from Sonoma County stating that the wells
25 must be abandoned. She wondered how the. City would benefit by annexing this
26 area sand providing.: water. She suggested the developer be required to fix some
27 .potholes in area..
28
29 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Chair, .Pedestrian. and Bicycle Advisory .Committee, was
30 pleased to hear discussion of the proposed conditions of approval from the
31 committee put forth. Three- issues remain:.(1) On Corona Road, the Committee
32 recommended an .off-.road path, (2) A path into th.e school,, and (3) path along back
33 of .Hartman. Lane: She asked how. people were: going to get to the urban separator
34 and the historic buildings, (except by .car) if they lived in or near the new
35 development: She thought this was a perfect opportunity to link open space to an
36 activity center, a"nd establish scenic trails, and maximize joint use of public land and
37 facilities, as mandated by the General Plan.
38
~.
39 Councilmember C:ader-Thompson pointed out. that the County expect"s the City to
40 improve Sonoma Mountain Road., which is outside City limits.
41
42 Counclrnembe.r Moynihan asked if the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee
43 had' a chance'to review the. project.
44
45 Co.unc.ilrnember Torliatt replied that they had, and that the recommendations were
46 in the staff report.
Vol. 37; Fage232
February 4, 2002.
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 (BAKER RANCH, continued
3
4 Ms. Tuttle Brown believes each body needs~to get the full picture on the issues:..
5
6 Vice Mayor Healy would like the applicant to respond.
7
8 Councilmernber Torli'atf asked for, clarification from staff on the location of-the Urban
9 Growth Boundary' (UG13~) on Corona Road.
10. ~_
11 Ms. Lafler replied that fhe UGB is at 'the. property line. It does not include Corona
12 Road.
14 Geoff Cartwright, 5'6 Rocca Drive,,, noted ,that fhe presentation mentioned retaining;
-,
15 'the water';onsite and .riot letting it leave the. site:. He; thought 'this was. a .good idea
..
16 because dra'ina
17 and would ,accumulate with phe Redwood Tecl dowry through. the Ryder prop.e:rty
e from this ro'ect would tra~ehnology Center project's .dYaihage.
18 Since there 'is already a. drainage ,issue with those two- properties, he did not' want.. to
19 see drainage from this project added- to it. In fhe wriften rnater,ials, under '``Grading
20 and Drainage" he saw nothing 'i`n writing :pertaining fo thaf. He :asked for an
21 explanation: ,Regarding 'Item 2:3, "Flooding" on .page 4 of 24, it showed the area as~
22 zoned AH, describe.d as an :area prone to `pondng, with flood'depfhs of one to three
23 feet'" It also:'indicates that USES map has this cite listed .differently, showing it lying
24 outside of any flood-prone areas: He was eoncerned'`abou the inconsistency.
_25
26 Vice: Mayor- ',Healy read: thaf Condition 5 of the Planning Commission. stated that,
27 "The proposed project'shall result in zero .net increase in' peak stormwafer runoff.°'
29 Mr. Bates clarified that taff was not :requiring detention for the site because the
3Q parcel', was included as part of~ the Corona Ely° Specific Ilan. I~mprovements~ w, ere
31 made to Corona' Creek that removed this parcel from ,the floodplain by a etter of
32 .map. revision (LOMAR) process through the Federal' Emergency Management
33 Agency (FEMA).
34
3S Vice Mayor .Healy asked ifi that same statement would be true for Traditions.
Mr. Bates said he assumed so.
39 Jim Roeters; 1835 .Hartman .Lane;, which is' at the, corner of the school, 'and the:
40 proposed new developmenf. He and his nei=ghbors are not :in favor of ,haying
41 bicycle/pedestrian paths on either side of their properties for the same reason the
42 school is concerned: kids using"the paths would be out of sight of traffic guards...
43
44 Vice Mayor Healyannounced that the Public Hearing .was closed.
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 233
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 BAKER RANCH, continued
3
4 Ms. Lafler announced- one addition to the list of entitlements she recommended for
5 approval: approval of the annexation by LAFCO (attachment 8 in the packet).
6
7 Councilmember Torliatt asked Ms. Lafler what information. resulted in her statement
8 that ,the groundwater recharge issue on th'e project was "less than significant i
9 impact:.,"
10
11 Ms. Lafler replied that she was not sure what was used; however, they were not
12 intending to use the groundwater in the wells.
13
14 Councilmember Torliatt expounded. that she meant, "groundwater, in general."
15 ~ ~~
16 Ms. Lafler repeated that she was_ not sure of the information source. She offered to
17 get back to Councilmember Torliatt with that information.
18
19 Co.ancilmember Maguire asked Ms. Lafler, regarding the recommended condition
20 requiring curb.,, gutter; and sidewalk from Baker- 'Ranch. Court to the existing
21 driveway on Ely Road, if he driveway is to the right of the existing home.
22
23 Ms. Lafler aff'irrned.
24
25 Councilmember Maguire asked Mr,. Roeters, who had spoken during Public
26 Comment, ifi:the backyards where he lives were f"enced.
27
28 M`r. Roeters said, that they were.
29
30 Councilmemberr, .Maguire traveled to England. to the. Cotswolds. There are a great
31 number of pedestrian pathways there. SMART development says what. makes safe
32 streets is making the environment amenable to .residents, being out in the street. He
33 thought it ridiculous to keep making "little {and-locked sfreets"where people have to
34 .get in their cars to go anywhere. He warned Council against replicating the same
35 broken paradigm seen in many parts of town. There should. be at the least an
36 .easement off th,e top. of the cul-de-sac,. and preferably a path. to school. Maybe the
37 school would be willing. to have an extension along Corona of the pathway up to the
38 urban, separator. A pathway across the top of parcels 3 and 7 out to Hartman Lane
39 'makes sense to him.
40
41 Vice Mayor Healy asked the applicant to speak. to the Pedestrian and Bicycle
42 Advisory Committee recommendations.
43
44 ~IVIr. Smith stated that.: the Line of trees along Corona next. to the drainage ditch and a
45 historic barn would have to be removed to put in a bike path.
46
Vol. 37, Page 234 February 4, 2002'
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 BAKER R°ANCH continued
_3
4 Counclmember Maguire asked if the path could be moved inboard of the trees.
S •
6 Mr. Smith responded that'the barn would have to be removed in that case.
7
8 Councilme"tuber Maguire noted that the plans ealled'for removal of the barn. _
9 ..
10 Mr. Smith explained that it was an ,error.
11 ~ ~ '
12 Councilmember Torlatt asked if improvenerits could be made to the: drainage ditch
13 and the bike path puf there.
14
15 ~ Mr. Smith replied that' _he Corona/Ely Specific. Plan specif,ies;tliat the drainage.difeh
16 was to remain. _
. _
17 -
18 C.ouneilmember Torliatt did not see a conflict if a bike~pathway was created.
19
20 Councilmember Maguire thought. there must. be sorn~e space between the:. "row of
21 trees and the existing barn. ~ ~ • • '
22
23 Mr. Hurd clarified that the bike was to be path 8'-10' according ~to the Corona/Ely
24 Specific flan. •
25
26 Vice Mayor Healy would ..like. to find way to move the item forward. and allow fhi's
27 point to be brought buck to the: appropriate body, which he ahoaght would=. be
28 SPARC.
29
30 Councilmember Moynihan ;pointed out that Council and the City specified a process
31 that this applicant 'has gone through and these issues alt seems to have been cai'sed.
32 at various times. He `tho,ught it i:nappropr'iate for Council to try to "redesign the.
33 project' frorr- the dais" of this `time, or reversing what staff; ;Planning Commission, or
34 another entity has done, He made a motion to rnove~ the project forward.
35
36 CounciCmember Maguire noted a "Point of Order:"
37
38 The motion was riot. seconded.
39
40 Vice Mayor Healy would personally support. an easement from the cul-de-sae
41 straight north to the edge of the school site in case the school .could'. be persuaded'
42 to change their mihds in the future.; but not one connecting to Hartman.
43
44 Councilmember Maguire was in favor of :a path connecting, to Hartman Lane; as 'it
45 would provide an .alternative route for people to get to Hartman Lane :and the. urban
46 separator, staying off'the busier roads.
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page: 235
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 BAKER RANCH, continued
3
4 Councilmember Caller-Thompson agreed with Councilmember Maguire. There is
5 no guarantee what'the timeline would be with the school district, ..but the other would
6 definitely go in when the project moved forward with the development of the homes.
7 This would be the appropriate time for the developer to make arrangements for that
8 path.
9
10 Councilmember Torliatt asked if the path would be the same width as the end. ofi the
11 cul-de-sac. A Landscape Assessment District (LAD) would need to be created to
12 provide for mairitenanee of the path.
13
14 Councilmember O'Brien pointed. out that the City has no jurisdiction with the school
15 and can't force them to agree. He would hate to "create a path to nowhere,"or path
16 not visible from the street that could not be patrolled by'the Police Department.
17
18 Councilmember Maguire countered that the City did have some leverage with the
19 school. They are using the urban separator for. playfields. It is supposed to be left
20 open to the pub.l'ic after school and on weekends. That might be a good starting
21 point for discussion with the schools.
22
23 Mr. Moore noted. that conditions of approval become the responsibility of the
24 developer. It is very difficult to make. the developer responsible; for: negotiating with
25 the school..
26
27 Councilmerrmber'Maguire would like fo make it a condition of approval that;there be
28 a pathway towards Corona that~would conned`up with one on Corona.
29
30 Councilmember Torliatt thought it was a great opportunity to have a dialogue with
31 the school district.
32
33 Vice Mayor Healy thought it was Council consensus to have: a bike path on Corona
34 Road itself. Council may be locked 3/3 on a path from :Baker Ranch Court to
35 Hartman .Lane..
36
37 Councilmember' Caller-Thompson asked if the plan"s for lots 3 and 7 were "set in
38 stone."
39
40 Councilmember. Maguire explained thaf in England there. were: six-foot walls on
41 either side of`fhe pathways.
42
43 Vice. Mayor Healy suggested 'that with Council's concurrence,,. the City Clerk item be
44 agendized as the. first item i'n the evening for the February 25t" meeting.
45
46 Council agreed.
Vol. 37, Page 236 February 4, '2002
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 ,BAKER RANCH; .continued
3
4 Five-minute .recess
5 _ ;
6 Vige Magog Hepal paskedpPat .Parks.,, Chief' of Police;! to give his department's opinion
7 re ardin" the ro osed aths.
8
9 Chief ,Parks aid 'h'e would try to work with Counci_I and the Pedestrian aril ;Bicycle
10 Committee. The notion of an easement:. to allow some access was, not untenable...
__ .
11
12 Vice Mayor Healy asked if~'an easement would require the lot lines to move:.
13
14. Mr: Moore replied. that all the lots would ,probably have to be readjusted "after
15 `working with.neighbors and the .Police Deparlrnenf.
16
17 Councilmember, Maguire elucidated that aten-foot .path. would require two, feet-.:off
18 each of the fire lots.
19
20 Mr. Moore agr"eed Thal "there would be an impact.. Th.e setback.. requirements might
21 change,., too.., ,
22 -
23 Mr. Carlenzoli confirmed that each lost would be reduced by.2'.
24 , -
25 Vice Mayor Healy called for a straw vote: on:
26
27 • . A ten-foot ppath between Baker Ranch and Hartman .Lane. There was Council
28 consensus.:
29 ~ A ten-foot easement East from Baker Ranch Court. to the school district
30 property.. There was Council consensus.
31 • A 'path on the. Baker Ranch- properly on. Corona Road along the frontage
32 property subject fo engineering/design confirmation thaf it can work. There was
33 Council consensus.
34
35 Councifrnember Cader-Thompson added that: staff would determine alignment:
3:6 "
37 Mr,. Sto_uder.asked Mr. Moore.~to repeat .what he understood'was Council's direction.
38 Mr. Moore complied.
"39
40 C- ouncilmember Maguire was concerned with. losing. the two oak frees. He would"
41 like to see them saved .if at all possible. W.hate~er frees remain. he wound, like to see
42 registered' as heritage trees. Regarding' the well,. was willing to have 'it remain, for
43 irrigation/agricu.ltural use... He was curious to know if the City .could! i'n "times ~of, need,
44 limit the use (as with the well on the RESA property).
45
46
February 4, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 237
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 BAKER RANCH', confinued
3
4 Councilmember Torliatt agreed: that it was important that. the City have some way of
5 tracking and controlling use.
6
7 Councilmember Maguire would like to see the project developed with photovoltaic
8 rooftop systems (built to code, of course). Installing internal. recycling systems. in the
9 homes was a worthy'idea as well.
10
11 Councilmember Torliatt would like construction to start after 8 a.m. on Saturdays.
12
13 Vice Mayor Healy, Councilmember Maguire agreed.
14
15 Councilmember Torliatt observed that Council had .not received confirmation from
16 staff regarding Diane Reilly Torres's question about approval projects that will make
17 demands on the water supply.
18
19 Mr. Moore .explained .that the project was routed through various City departments,
20 including V1%ater Resources & Conservation,. which said there was sufficient water to
21 serve the development.
22
23 Councilmember Torliatt countered that 'it didn'taddress the impairmentaissue.
24
25 Vice Mayor Healy would prefer that Mr. Hargis and his staff address that.
26
27 Councilmember Torliatt agreed. She would like SPARC to address her concerns
28 regarding line of site for the driveway on lef 7 looking east.
29 ~ `
30 Councilmember Moynihan pointed out that there is a difference between the ~-
31 Uniform Building Code and Council policy. He did .not think Council should calf for
32 photovoltaic installations "willy-Hilly" project by project.
33
34 Mr. Smith stated that Waterford goes above and beyond the call of duty to reduce
35 energy .needs. Fie thought there were many ways to do this in addition to
36 photovoltaic:: cells.
37
38 Vice Mayor Healy would be prepared to support the same requirements as the
39 Traditions Subdivision had - a minimum of 10% -which in this case would be one.
40 He didn't want to see. this as a "moving target for every subdivision." .
41
42 Councilmember Torliatt added that the ,balance of the residences would be
43 designed to enable installation of the photovoltaics system.
44
45
46
Vol. 37, Pa9e 238 February 4, 2002
1 PUBLIC" HEARING
2 BAKER:"RANCH", continued
3
4 Councilmember Maguire "recommended that at least two, residences have: the
_ _..
5 photo~olta'cs :sysfem ''installed. They are a very 'big selling point in other parts ofi
6 California..
7
8 Counci member Moynihan apologized to staff,. committees,. and applicants for
9 "putting: them through this.'"
10
11~ Vice Mayor Healy asked for a show of hands on the "Traditions approach."'There
12 " was' Council consensus.
13
14 . Councilrnember Torliatt moped; seconded by Maguire, to adopt Resolution 2002-
1`5 - 020 N`CS A'dopfing a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Resolution 2002-21 NCS'
16 Adopting th'e ~Tentati~e Subdivision Map.,, Resolution 20Q2-022 Support ,g
1~7 Annexation; of the Baker Ranch Properfy #o the Cit"y of .Petaluma, and to. introduce;
18 Ordinance 2128 NCS Prezoning Bal<,er Ranch to a Planned Unit District; as
19 .amended., and, with approval of the Police Department: Change construction time to
20 8 a m~. on :Saturdays;:.. SPARC to review traffic flow for lot 7 ingress7egress,
21 photovoltaic infrastructure to included on rooftops of all ho"mes, systems installed on
22 two homes,: retain, all existing oalc~trees if possible.
23
24 Councilmernber Maguire amended his second.
25
26 .AYES: " O'B~ien, Torliatt, Caller=Thompson, Vice. Mayor Healy,.
27 Maguire, Moynihan
28 NOES: None
29 ABSENT: MayorThompson
30
31 PUBLIC HEARING
32 WASHINGTON CREEIG VILLAGE
33
34 Discussion and Possible Action .Regarding Recommendation. from the Planning
35 Com ,mission to Approve:
36
37 A. Resolution. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 37 unit
38 Washington Creek Village Subdivision Located on a 9..23-acre Parcel .at East.
39 W. ashington Street Southwest of Prince Park;.
40 B. Resolution Approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for the Washington:: C:reelc
41 Village Subdivision.; and
42 C. Resolution Approving a Planned Unit DistCict Development Guidelines for the
43 Washington Creek'Village Subdivision.
44
45 Tiffany Robb;e, Assistant Planner, summarized the project.
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page, 239
PUBLIC. HEARING
WASHINGTON.CREfKVlLLAGE, continued
Bruce Aspinall, planning consultant for the, applicant, Cobblestone Homes; matter
reviewed twice by Planning Commission.. Tonight's presentation incorporates all
requests of Planning: Commission's conditions and has complete Planning
Commission approval. He displayed the site. plan ,and indicated the open space
area to be dedicated to the City, and the bike/pedestrian paths. Ne pointed out the.
eight-footpath that will connect Noriel Lane to Prince Park.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Diane. Reilly Torres., Rainier Avenue, would like, to 'have the. General Plan
consultants reu,,iew the hydrology and traffic o.ri this project.
Bari Galloway,, 2265 Parkland. Way, recently purchased property (.indicated on
map).., Her property is the only one on that section of Washington Street without a
soundwalL She had a noise assessment, .done on the property. The noise levels
were above fhe General. Plana standards. 1Nould like to see a soundwall put in, or
the developer/City to sp it cost, or third choice,. get a variance on limit to how high a
fence she could put in.
Bob.Spieldenner, 285. Redwood Circle,; ,Alde,rwoo,d Subdivision: His property is at
the lowest point on circle. lNater .has' come up to his property line numerous time.
When Turfle Creek' was built, the tots had fill added in the back. If the same thing
happened with this orie, he would be looking at the foundations over his back fence.
Patricia Tuttle Brown, Chair, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee; stated
this was the last undeveloped, site in the area and the City's last opportunity to
provide access to this beautiful creek. The Bike: Committee wanted paths on both
sides of the creek and that somehow was not reflected in the staff report. She
thought the Police were not "as anti-path. as they were made 'out to be."The Bike
Committee is about to receive: $:100:,000 from the Sonoma County Transportation
Authority (SCTAj. Perhaps a connector from this subdivision over to Sonoma
Mountain Parkway could be paid for with this money.
Couneilmember Maguire asked Ms. Tuttle Brown.where she envisioned a north .path
beginning Arid ending.
Ms. Tuttle Brown,6elieved that path should extend from,. Sonoma Mountain Parkway
to Prince Park.
Councilmember Maguire asked Ms. Tuttle Brown if she:: mean through Prince Park
and through the project and then across a bridge.
Vol. 37, Page 240. February 4, 2002
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 'WASHINGTO,N'CREEK VLLLAGE; continued .
3
4 Ms.. Tuttle .B,rown replied. that the: February 2001' recornrnendatio:n from the Bike
5 Committee included a pedestrian bridge. She staid there were numbers of iterris that
6 were somehow dropped along the way. ~ ~ -
7
8 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, roofed that the gentleman from; Alderwood alluded
9 to the creek being, altered when. other subdivisions were put 'in. Mr. Cartwright
10 recalled ahaf~;after thaf, the ,ground subsided, and there were one or two houses'th'at
11 had fo be removed;.. He thinks Council is hearing another problem: the fill that's
12 going in behind the houses] which will add additional pressure, He told Council they
13 were ``clearly getting, into the same situation you got info 'with Cross Creek..", He
14 thought Council recognized. that. He had: not'iced.• letter from the Sonoma .County,
15: 1N'ater Agency in the packet, which stated, they were not sure what they will be able:
16 `to pursue in flood mitigations in this creek because of'the Section 7 process...
T7
I8 Vice Mayor Healy asked if any other members of the public wished to speak: There
19 was no response; therefore, :he announced that;the Public Hearing was closed.
20
21 Councilmember Toraiatt if there was a provision to notify property. owners of the
23 .asked what kind of'fenc narwou d beSnstalledtalonh the's an airport:next_door. S,he
g g backs of the homes on the
24 northern, edge of the creek. ~ "~,
25 ~ ...
26 Frank Qenny, Cobblestone Homes, explained. tliaf open wire fences would be
27 'installed.
28 ~ ..
29 Councilmemb:er Torliaft asked if there would be.gates in the'fences.
3.0 _
3,1 Mr. Denny replied that there,was not..
32
.~
33 Gbuncilme"tuber To,rliatt. mentioned that Ms: Tuttle .Brown had' asked about .cut=
3:4 throughs to the creek.
35
36 Mr: Denny explained that the 'intent was for private access for those individual lots.
37 There will be: a navigation easement on'those `properties.. He added that there will.
3'8 be notification of the hours for Prince Park and' RESA.
39
40 Councilmember Torliatt would like the developer to work with Bari Galloway on her
41 sound concerns.
42
43 Mr. Denny agreed.
44
45 Councilrnember Torliatt asked. the elevation level for the pads compared to the
46 Alderwood Subdivision (behind them).
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 241
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE, continued
3
4 Mr.. Denny explained that they-.needed to make, the lots drain from back to front. The
5 pads would'be, ~r`aised 1 to 2 feet from existing:grade.
6
7 CouncilmernberGader-Thompson asked what the. setback was for the lots.
8
9 Mr. Denny replied that the backyard setbacks were 15 feet.
10
11 Councilmember Torliaft noted that a portion of creek was dedicated to the City. She
12 thinks the developer should have. responsibility for maintenance of the creek
13 included in their Landscape Assessment District (LAD). She asked ifi the floorplans
14 were the same as those. in Turtle Creek.
15
16 Mr.. Denny replied that they were completely different.
17 .
18 Councilmember~Torliatt.would like to see a bike path on the north side of the creek
19 as recommended by. the Recreation, Musie, ~ and Parks Commission and the
20 Pedestrian and Bike Committee.
21 ,
22 Councilmember Maguire knew that lot 15 contained ,heavy clay soil. He asked how
23 that could be dealt.. wifh.
24
25 Gary Russet', RG'H Geotechnical and Environmental Consulfa,nts, recommended
26 removing they clay soil and filling the lot with engineered, compacted soil to allow
27 most~of the runoff to go to the sfreet.
28
29 Councilmember Maguire- shared the neighbors' concerns.
30
31 Councilmember Maguire asked if there was a way to leave the buckeye tree in
32 place.
33
34 Mr. Denny explained that from a risk management standpoint, removing. the
35 buckeye. tree would improve the situation.
36
37 Councilmember Maguire thought that if th"e lots were built up to improve drainage
38 and the houses were two stories on top of that, all 'fhe neighbors would feel they
39 were being "loomed over "
40
41 Councilmember Cader-Thompson believed that when Alderwood was built, the
42 creek was covered :over and not done correctly. She was concerned; about lot 15.
43 She asked if (here were any wetlands on property.
44
45 Mr. Denny -said there were no wetlands on the. property, and added that it was in
46 Cobblestone's best interest not to create problems for neighbors.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
1.1
12
i3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3'5
36
37
3'8
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 37, Page 242
February 4, 2002
PUBLIGHEARING
WASHfNGTON CREEK VILLAGE, continued
Ms. Robbe explained that when Alderwood, was built, the .creek was relocated aril
some houses were. built where the creek ,used fo. be; a process ,that. wo.uld_ not be
done now:. The depression. 'on lot '15 would be filled and the home' would n_ of be
located on that area of°the lot..
Councilmember Torliatt asked where the stocmwater flowed from the pa`reel, toward,
the creek or toward East- V1/ashington, ~ -
Mr. Denny explained that~the runoffifrom lot 15 would be channelized'to~~the creek.
,:
Vice Mayor Healy .asked why the. Planning Goromssion did not recommend a path
on the north side of creek.
Chief Parks explained that.. there have been problems his#orically.witf houses that
back up to a path on a creek. He was willing to ;go take another look and see if there
was a. way to address it safely. It was not so much an issue of risibility; as of
accessibility of the area to Po ice personnel responding'to calls. _ _
Vice Mayor Healy asked Chief Parks, if there was path on the north side of creek,
wha~t'kind of fencing he would "recommend. -
Chief Parks answered that they should be six=foot. fences.. They. could be open
fences.
Vice Mayor Healy asked Mr. Moore; if Council wanted' to lef the Police take another
look at the area, how the Community Development pepartment would deal with any
recommendations the Police Department might have.
Mr: Moore replied, that it` could be :dealt with through the .Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee{SPARC).
Councifinember Cader=Thompson. envisioned a bike path on the north side of the
creek as the link to get kids to Prince .Park. 1Nashington Street is very busy, and this
would be an opportunity to. make the _rgads_ safer,`. She asked. Chief Parks .about.
lights for the path.
Chief Parks explained.. that fights would ,hake to be bright enough to give clear
visibility but not so bright as to be intrusive.
Councilmember Maguire .asked Chief 'Pa'rks acid Mr. Moore to look at a potential
cut-through between ahe ,garages on lots 17 and 18 and a brid'ge,'if it appeared to
them that it was not feasible to do a full north side path.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 243
PUBLIC HEARING
WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE, continued
Chief Parks agreed.
Councilmember Torliatt asked Chief Parks, if the City could create: snore access to
the north side of the creek. if` the driveways that .cut through almost fo the creek
could improve police access.
Councilmember O'Brien was concerned that using driveways. for access would open
up City to liability. ~ p
Councilmember Torliatt clarified that she meant like the areanear G'&G Market..
Vice Mayor Healy did not think there was a ,need' to burden homeowners. with
people marching up their driveways.
Ira Bennett, Cobblestone Homes, regarding. flag lots,,, thinks it would be unworkable.
to make them access points. Pointed out they are going to install three bike ,paths.
They ,have no inherent objection to bike path on north side. The way project is
designed there will be access in a number of places.
Mr: Russey stated thaf all the homes would be on drill. pier'foundations,
Councilmember Cader-Thompson had a strong feeling that no dwelling should be
built on. lot 15. She ;thought it should lease.undeveloped to proteet.the neighbors on
the other side of" the fence: She did not think the City should try to "engineer (its]
way around it."
Councilmember Torliatt asked how filling and stabilizing lot 15 would help 'people
living in Alderwood who might not have such stable. land,
Mr. Russey explained Cobblestone could improve whatever foundation system the
homeowners had, without them..underpinning their 'homes. He proposed
imp. rovements on lot 15 would improve the Alderwood residents' back property lines
by stabilizing the. soil that .has had lead fo their fences shifting and .leaning. Also,
the. grading would drain .away from, the Alderwood properties.
Mr. Spieldenner said he had. fiad a lot of settling problems: He hired someone to put
piers in his :house: they had. to drill 35 feet deep. 'He added that he couad stand and
look. UP~ to Washington Street.
Councilmember Maguire was reluctant. to approve the `~roub/esome" parcel, and
that if might be best .not to let lot 15 be developed. He saw this development as
another- opportunity to require 10% photovoltaics >system installations. That would
be four residences. He asked Mr. Denny if the garage units on lots 11-14 could be
Vol. 37, Page 244
February.4, 20Q2
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 W~ASHINGTOIV CREfK VILLAGE, continued
3
4 one story, or'if the homes on those lots could be redesigned to be one=story, h:omen..
5 He supports ,the bike path on the north side, .of the creek. with. no intermediate
6 access. If the buckeye has to be removed, he: would ike to see 1 fo 1'/2 or 1 to 2:
7 replacement withy native ,species. He supported' the City helping ,Bari .Holloway with
8 her~~sound concerns. He spoke of'the possibility of access to-the creek between lots
9 17 and 18, and abridge.
10
11 Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked .Co:uneilmember Maguire if l'e was
12 suggesting there.be a path between lots 17 and 1$'fo the creek:
13 _
14 Councilmember Maguire replied that he was -suggesting that, should Mr: Moore and
15 Chief Parks conclude that a ath on the north side, of the creek'was n.ot doable, He
p
16 did" prefex the path on the -north side. of the creek.,
17
18 Mr. Denny .agreed to look at two-story garage structures and modifying homes to
19 one story: ~ .
20
21 Mr. Denny proposed that he install. the Energy StarSystem in-lieu of photovoltaics.
22
23 Councilmember Torliaft. pointed out that. this developer would not be the first one
24 required to~ °instahl photovoltaies. She thinks the City needs ~to follow though with
2S efforts to get off'the power grid.. The Energy Star System would note help That effort.
26
27 Councilmember Maguire noted that this was actually a way of creating clean supply.
28
29 Vice. Mayor Healy felt. the engineering on lot'. 1.5 .had to be really solid before it
30 moves forward.
31
32 Counclmember Cader-Thompson said, she was still not comfortable wifh lot T~5.
33
34 Councilrnember Maguire recalled the trouble 'and.: cost the City had with Cross:
36 that woufld indemn fy~the Citw n per~netuit b'e approved, fie wanted to see something
Y p Y•
37
38 Vice Mayor Healy asked) staff what they would propose ~in .terms of a final ~le~el of
39 .review,.
40
4.1 Mr: Moore noted; That fhe City could obtain a .peer review' of the hydrolog'icaC aril
42 geotechnieal work:
43
44 Vice MayorHealy~sai'd he would agree~to that:
45
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 245
.PUBLIC HEARING
WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE, continued
Councilmember Maguire stated that. he: would not agree. He was willing to make a
motion to continue'the item. He added, `A simple peer review is not going to do it."
Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked if the. item could move forward without lot
15.
Mr. Moore thought the only thing that could be done at this point would be a peer
review of the hydrological and geotechnical work. that has been. done by the
applicant.
Vice Mayor Healy was in favor of that idea.
Councilmember Maguire countered that he would also want specific indemnity
language, for lot Y5: A "simple peer review" would not "gef (his] vote on this issue."
He was willing to make a motion to continue the item.
Councilmember Torliatt made a motion to .move the project forwa"rd without lot. 15,
which could come back later.
Mr. Moore was not; sure one could approve a tentative map, and leave one lot :out.
Councilmember Torliatt ,replied that it would continue to be a lot, it would :simply not
be approved for a residence at this .time.
Mr. Moore thought it then became a question of what would happen to the lot if
Council decided it was not buildable.
Councilmember Torliatt answered that it would then. become. ,part of the property
along, Washington Creek that the developer is dedicating to the City.
Vice .Mayor Healy suggested having the peer review that ,Mr. Moore mentioned, and
ask the City Attorney to draft specific indemnity language for lot 15.
Mr. Denny stated. that his .company was .willing, to do additional studies, and work
with the .City Attorney on appropriate wording.
Mr. Rudnansky was not sure. :the City could craft anything_in terms. of "in perpetuity."
Councilmember Maguire asked Mr. Rudnansky if the tentative map could. be
adopted without incfuding lot 15.
Mr: Rudnansky said he had never heard of that happening.
Vol. 37, Page 246
February 4, 2002
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 WASHINGTON CREEK VIL'LAGE', con inued
3
4 Mr. Denny proposed that Council proceed with `the action on the tentative .map,
5 direct him tg make a special study of lot 15 which would .come back to the. City's
6 engineer for his confirmation.
7
8 Councilmecnber Cader-Thompson would like to know. how many other homes in
9 Alderwood had to go through what Mr. Spieldenne.r did before she would be.
1.0~ comfortable:. supporting development on lot 15:
-1.1
12 Vice Mayor Healysaid that Mr. Denny could include-that in his study.
13
,..
14 Councilmember Maguire would also like a legal review, but he was not sure it
~15 sh.ould be focused just on Jot 1~5.
~16
17 Vice Mayor Healy asked Council if 'they would support applicant's proposal for, a
18 special.. -study regarding lot 15, with Councilmember Cader-Thompson's added.
19 proviso of surveying owners of other homes in Alderwood regarding problem"s they
20 might. have had: .That information would. then come back. to taff for review, and
21 possible peer rev.i'ew, and would then be given to the City Attorney. for additional
2,2 indemnity language..
23
24 Co,unclrnember Toxliatt asked Mr. Moore if` he was comfortable. with what the
25 applicant had ~originallq proposed.
26
'27 Mr. Moore replied that he was, and that staff is satisfied with. the analysis that's
:28 been 'done.:
°29
30 Mr. Bates explained that. the City relies on the. developer's design team: Mr. Russet'
._
31- is a Iicen_sed ,geologist with. the State of California: The only way to obtain more
32 information would fje a peer review:
33
3'4 Couneilmember Caller-Thompson did ,not feel comfortable with. lot 15,, or the
35 response from staff, and though"t it would end up being a problem to the City in the
"36 long run.
37
38 Councilrnember .O'Brien w.as willing 'to go along with staff's recommendation: He
39 thought that-what was best practice `in 1974 had certainly been 'im_proved upon.
40
41 Councilmember Torliattwould. prefer not to approve a house on lot 1"'5.
42
43 Counclmernbe,r Moynihan remarked 'that; Council was "stooping o view levels.'' H;e
44 continued that Council ,was "hardly in a position to second.-guess staff
45
46 Mr. Denny asked for atwo-week continuance of'the item:
February 4, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 247
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 WASHINGTON. GREEK VILLAGE, continued
3
4 Mr. Stouder suggested continuing the item fo 2:00 p.m. on February 25th
5
6 Councilmember Maguire said he was willing to move ahead tonight if lot 15 could be
7 brought back.
8
9 Councilmember Moynihan moved, seconded by Maguire, to continue the item to the
10 February 25th meeting, at 2:00 p.m.
11
1.2 _ AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, and Moynihan
13 NOES: Caller-.Thompson
14 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
15
16 A®JOURIV
17
18 The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
I9
20
21
22 ~j
23 /J `
24 Mike Healy, V e Mayor
25
26 ATTEST:
27
28
29
30
31 Claire Cooper, Clerk Pro m
32
33
34
35
36 ******
37
38
39
40
41