HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 03/18/2002March 18, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 291
~p'i'U
a ~ City of Petaluma, California
}. City Council Meeting
rs5$
1 Meeting Minutes
2 Monday, March 18, 2002 - 3:00 p.m.
3 Regular Meeting
4
s PRESENT: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan,
6 Mayor Thompson
~ ABSENT: VM Healy (attending SCTA meeting)
8
9 PUBLIC COMMENT
to
li Bill Donahue, Sandalwood Mobile Home Park, spoke regarding the increase in rent at
12 Sandalwood..
13
14 COUNCIL COMMENT
is
16 Councilmember Torliatt -Agendize the draft policy for distributing TOT funds prior to the
1~ budget hearings. Agendize the City Manager performance evaluation on an off Monday.
la
19 Councilmember Moynihan -Bring censure policy wording back to Council.
20
zl Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Agendize the process for hiring a Police Chief.
22
23 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
24
2s The March 4, 2002 minutes were approved as corrected:
26
27 Page 3, Line 7, Councilmember Torliatt specifically asked to look at the cost of
2s maintaining the intersection at E. Washington and McDowell Boulevard and look at cost
29 estimates for repair of the four main streets in the community, Ely Blvd.,/Sonoma
3o Mountain Parkway, McDowell Boulevard No. & So., Petaluma Blvd.., No. & So. and
31 East Washington/VVashington.
32
33 Line 13, clarify other sources of monies meaning state and federal funding.
34
3s Page 6, between Line 15-30. Councilmember Torliatt specifically wanted the developer
36 to address the SPARC issues dealing with design as outlined in the staff report. When
37 you affect the grading it affects the design. If it doesn't go to the Planning Commission
3s then it will come to Council.
39
Vol. 37, Page 292
March 18, 2002
1 Councilmember Moynihan amended his motion to include corrections.
2
3 AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan, Mayor Thompson
4 NOES: Cader-Thompson
s ABSENT: VM Healy
6
7 CONSENT CALENDAR
8
9 The following items which are non-controversial and which have been reviewed by the
to City Council and staff were enacted by one motion, which was introduced by Maguire,
11 seconded by Cader-Thompson.
12
13 AYES: Cader-Thompson, O'Brien,
14 Mayor Thompson
is NOES: None
16 ABSENT: VM Healy
17
18 RESO.2002-044 N.C.S.
19 CAULFIELD SOUNDWALL
Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
20
21 Resolution 2002-044 N.C.S. Accepting completion of the Caulfield Soundwall Phase 4
22 Project No. 9860 located at mid-block on both sides of Caulfield Lane.
23
24 ORD. 2130 N.C.S.
2s VEHICLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
26
27 Introduce Ordinance 2130 N.C.S. Amending the Petaluma Municipal Code Section
28 11.12.150 to include vehicle enforcement on all streets within the Magnolia Hills
29 Subdivision (Madrone Lane and Pepperwood Lane)
30
31
32
**** End Consent****
33
34
3s ORD. 2129 N.C.S.
36 APPROPRIATIONS FY 2001-2002 BUDGET
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4s
46
47
Adopt Ordinance 2129 N.C.S. Amending Ordinance No. 2118 N.C.S. and
Appropriating Funds for the FY 2001-02 Budget. M/S Maguire/ Cader-Thompson
AYES: Cader-Thompson, O'Brien,
NOES: Moynihan
ABSENT: VM Healy
Torliatt, Maguire, Mayor Thompson
March 18, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 293
1 RESO.2002-045 N.C.S.
2 RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM
3
4 Resolution 2002-045 N.C.S. Authorizing Administration fees for the Mobile Home
s Park Space Rent Stabilization Program.
6
7 Staff to look into the allowable uses of the Administration fees.
8
9 There is a ten-day response time for an application to go to arbitration, increase that
to to thirty days response time, and if the application is not complete the City can
11 reject it.
12
13 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky -the County Ordinance indicates that if it is not a
i4 complete application they can stop processing. Petaluma's ordinance does not say
is that, but it does have language to the effect that if the information is not provided
16 then the park owner cannot collect any increases or evict any tenants.
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
Ms. Gaebler stated that during the past five years they have been paying the
administration fees to Sonoma County Community Development Commission and
also paying the City Attorney fees. She sees nothing that would preclude the City
from using it for what we chose. The owners pay 50% and the tenants pay 50%.
The contract with the County expires on June 30, 2003.
Councilmember Cader-Thompson would like to see the money that the park
owner's pay and the tenant's pay kept separate. She would like clarified if the
money has to be divided between the different parks and how much money do each
of the tenants have in each of the parks?
Mr. Rudnansky -the ordinance specifically states that it is for administration of the
ordinance. The City pay's the County to administer our ordinance. Pay the
arbitrator, their staff time, their legal counsel when they're involved as well as pay
City Attorney time. This was the focus on why this fee was passed.
Motion to approve the Administration Fees for the Mobile Home Park Rent
Stabilization Program. M/S Cader-Thompson/Maguire.
AYES: Cader-Thompson, O'Brien,
Mayor Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: VM Healy
Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
RESO. 2002-046 N.C.S.
SUPPORT OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK
RENT SPACE STABILIZATION PROGRAM
46 Adopt Resolution 2002-046 N.C.S. Reaffirming continued support of the Petaluma
47 Mobile Home Park Rent Space Stabilization Program. M/S Torliatt/Cader-Thompson.
Vol. 37, Page 294 March 18, 2002
1
2 Public Comment:
3
4 Bill Donahue, Sandalwood Mobile Home Park - $15,790 in the Administration fund at
s this time. No money has been added since June 2001. He urges the Council to
6 consider bringing more money into the fund. M/S Torliatt/Cader-Thompson..
s AYES: Cader-Thompson, O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire., Moynihan,
9 Mayor Thompson
to NOES: None
rl ABSENT: VM Healy
13
14 PAYRAIV FLOOD PROJECT
is
16 Councilmember Moynihan asked to see an updated version of the CIP.
1~ M/S .Maguire/Cader-Thompson
is
19 AYES: Cader-Thompson, O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
20 Mayor Thompson
21 NOES: None
22 ABSENT: VM Healy
~~
24
2s PROPOSED AGENDA APRIL 1, 2002
26
27 Motion to remove the Campaign Finance Ordinance from the April 1 agenda. M/S
2s Moynihan /Torliatt.
29
3o AYES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan
31 NOES: O'Brien, Thompson
32 ABSENT: VM Healy
33
34 Motion to approve the proposed Agenda for April 1, 2002 as amended. M/S
3s Maguire/Cader-Thompson.
36
37 AYES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan
3s NOES: O'Brien, Thompson
39 ABSENT: VM Healy
40
41 Councilmember Torliatt asked that Councilmember O'Brien file a clarification of the
42 discrepancy on his campaign finance reporting as soon as possible. If there is an
43 explanation that does not conform with FPPC then Council should deal with that
44 appropriately.
4s
46 Councilmember O'Brien stated that he does have the majority of funds accounted
47 for in order to file his amended statement.
March 18, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 295
2 Mayor Thompson removed Item No. 8, Summary Minutes, from the agenda.
3
4
s
6 WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE ISSUES
7
s Continued from February 25, 2002 Council meeting.
9
to At the Water Advisory Committee meeting there was a vote to keep the local supply
11 Recycled Water Program at $13 million dollars rather than $20 million. Staff's
12 recommendation to Council is to submit an application for the next round of funding
13 or select an alternative project.
14
is Councilmember Torliatt asked for clarification of the $2 million dollars per year over
16 a 10-year period.
17
is Mr. Poole, General Manager of the Sonoma County Water Agency stated that this is
19 a $13 million 10-year program. SCWA has budgeted $1.3 million dollars the first
Zo year, $1 million dollars this year, $2 million dollars next year, and $2 million dollars
21 per year until the $13 million dollars has been appropriated.
22
23 Councilmember Torliatt there is a discrepancy in the monies SCWA has requested
24 in their budget. She inquired as to where the $300,000 went for this year and the
2s $500,000 for last year. The ratepayers were told that the rates increased because of
26 an increase in electric charges.
27
2s Mr. Poole -the difference went to pay electric charges, legal service cost and
z9 Section 7 Consultation issues.
30
31 Mr. Hargis advised Council if they so direct he will prepare a resolution of support of
32 the $13 million dollar program and bring it back at the next meeting.
33
34 Motion to support the $20 million dollar level of expenditure over a 10-year period
3s and the accounting is separate from the operation and maintenance fund. M/S
36 Maguire/ O'Brien
37
3s Mr. Poole -legally cannot separate those funds from operations and maintenance fund.
39
4o Amended Motion to support the $20 million dollars level of expenditure over a 10-year
41 period and that the funds would be used strictly for recycled water projects only. That
42 there be a line item accounting and WAC will make its recommendations on what
43 projects the monies will be spent on. M/S Maguire/ O'Brien
44
4s AYES: O'Brien, Maguire, Moynihan, Mayor Thompson
Vol. 37, Page 296 March 18, 2002
1 NOES: Cader-Thompson, Torliatt (the City of Petaluma will need those
2 ratepayer dollars for its recycled water project prior to when
3 those funds may be available for us)
4 ABSENT: VM Healy
s
6 ROOSTER RUN.:
s Vasco Brazil, Lakeville Highway, the SCWA wants Petaluma to recycle Title 22 water.
9 He agrees the City should be in charge of the money.
to
11 Mr. Wing of Carollo Engineers spoke about recycling Title 22 water in the urban area at
12 a cost of $250 an acre foot and that operations and maintenance would be paid for by
13 this charge that you are going to receive from selling Title 22 water urban reuse. Make
14 sure this is true otherwise the people who you want to sell the water to have you over a
is barrel.
16
1~ Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, Sonoma County as well as other areas has hit the ceiling of
is water availability use. Reevaluate how we deal with development and these resources.
19
20 Councilmember Moynihan -supports the Rooster Run pipeline. Continue to look for new
21 water supply sources or drill new wells. Would like a cost comparison between
22 Recycled Water Pipeline and drilling new wells.
23
24 Mr. Hargis -The City is out to contract on two new wells. Because Rooster Run is such
2s a significant dollar amount, it would be good strategy to get in line for funding.
26
2~ The balance would be to create new water supplies with local wells, and potable water
28 demand with recycled water projects. The City is pursuing a tank site on Paula Lane for
29 additional water storage.
30
31 Councilmember Maguire - .Look at water rates charged to Rooster Run. What latitude
32 does the City have to go back and negotiate when we do have tertiary to get a fairer
33 market value?
34
3s Mr. Hargis -staff .researching how to get as much money back for the cost being
36 expended with a contract that has been in place a number of years. An update. will be
37 brought back to Council.
38
39 Motion: Council project priority is Rooster Run Recycled Water Pipeline and Tier 2
4o Water Conservation program. M/S Torliatt/ Cader-Thompson
41
42 AYES: Cader-Thompson, O'Brien,
43 Mayor Thompson
44 NOES: None
4s ABSENT: VM Healy
46
Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
March 18, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 297
1 Councilmember Maguire recommends that we preserve the single contractor veto
2 on new Master Agreement. He still advocates for a newly created elected Board of
3 Directors for the Sonoma County Water Agency.
4
s Mr. Hargis -suggests that Councilmembers fill out the forms relating to the new
6 Master Agreement and provide them to him.
7
8 Councilmember Torliatt - Create a JPA consisting of 3 supervisors and a
9 representative from each primary contractor who will make recommendations to the
io Board of Supervisors on these types of issues.
11
12 Councilmember Torliatt would like to have more discussion about the water policy
13 that is being considered by the Board of Supervisors. WAC is requesting that the
14 Water Agency not adopt a policy at this time, but to wait for WAC to get through its
is public review process.
16
17 She would also like to have a master list of public meetings being held.
18
19
20 CLOSED SESSION
21
22 Council Adjourned to Closed Session at 5:08 p.m.
23
24 ® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Initiation of Litigation, Government Code Section
2s 54956.9(c). (One Potential Matter).
26 u PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, Government Code Section 54957. Title:
27 City Manager.
28 ® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to
29 Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). (One Matter)
30
31
32 RECONVENE - 7:00 p.m.
33
34 Mayor Thompson stated that Council went into Closed Session to hear a matter
3s regarding Councilmember O'Brien's Campaign Finance Reform.
36
37 Motion to place this item on the agenda as an urgency item at the end of the
38 meeting. M/S Maguire/Healy.
39
4o Councilmember O'Brien recused himself from the vote.
41
42 AYES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan, VM Healy,
43 Mayor Thompson
44 NOES: None
4s ABSENT: None
46
47
Vol. 37, Page 298
March 18, 2002
1 ROLL CALL
2
3 PRESENT: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan,
4 VM Healy, Mayor Thompson
5
6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
s Paul McGavin led the Pledge of .Allegiance.
9
io MOMENT OF SILENCE
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT
13
14 John Mills, Petaluma, addressed the Council regarding his attendance at the Sonoma
is County Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meeting. With the passage of the
16 Parks Bond in the March 5 Primary Election there is money available to cities. There is
1~ also money available for river enhancement, river clean-up projects and the wetlands
is project.
19
20 Bill Donahue, Sandalwood Mobile Home Park, thanked the City Council for all the
21 support given to this matter.
22
23 Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked for clarification on who determines an
24 application is complete before it is sent to the County.
2s
26 Councilmember Maguire stated that under the ordinance the City cannot hold up the
2~ processing to the County. Incompleteness doesn't stop the application. Incompleteness
2s is a potential defense on the part of the mobile home owners when they get into
2~ arbitration.
30
31 Mr. Rudnansky, City Attorney clarified this more. 1) Whether or not they have provided
32 substantial information under the ordinance, 2) Whether or not even if they didn't
33 provide the information whether we're required to send it to the County. After a cursory
34 review of the letter, it does appear that they may have provided enough information or
3s explained their previous submittal enough to send to the County.
36
37 Glen Brunner objects to the new owners trying to make money by forcing a rental space
3s increase on the tenants. He has talked to Pete Inman who may make a proposal to the
39 new owners to buy the park.
40
41 COUNCIL COMMENT
42
43 Councilmember Torliatt -the Petaluma Watershed Foundation group is focusing on the
44 McNear Peninsula as one of the projects that might obtain some Park Bond funds and
4s they are working with Ms. Tuft on the acquisition and enhancement.
46
March 18, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 299
1 Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Petaluma Wetlands Park Alliance meeting, a
2 presentation was made on the proposal for the Wastewater .Facility. There was support
3 from the different organizations with monies.
4
s VM Healy attended the SCTA meeting during the afternoon. There was a unanimous
6 vote of the Authority not to pursue a Countywide Transit Tax Measure this fall, rather to
7 look at a tax measure in the 2004 election cycle. Marin County has decided that if they
8 do go to the voters this November it would not include a rail component.
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
The design and environmental work is continuing both for rail for the two counties and
for all the segments of Highway 101 that need to be focused on. This frees up
November 2002 ballot for Petaluma to include a measure regarding our local streets.
He would like to see this as a top priority.
WORKFORCE HOUSING
17
is Eve Stewart and Darrin Smith gave a presentation on the Sonoma County Workforce
19 Housing Linkage Fee Study.
20
21 Goals of the study include:
22
23 - Document affordable housing needs in the County as related to job growth
24 - Determine rational nexus for jobs/housing fee
2s - Present policy recommendations regarding fee level and implementation
26
27 Findings of the study include:
28
29 1. Workforce Housing is a Countywide Issue.
30
31 - Estimated 91 % of County jobs are held by workers living in the County but a
32 majority of these workers commute from place to place within the County.
33 - Some of the cities are net providers of jobs while others provide more
34 housing.
3s - Jurisdictions may be required by State law to provide affordable units at
36 levels disproportionate to local job growth, potentially creating fiscal
37 imbalance.
38
39 2. Sonoma County housing market has become less affordable.
40
41 - County median home price in 2001 rose to $312.747.
42 - To purchase amedian-priced house, a household must earn $78,000
43 annually.
44 - Prices have escalated in all jurisdictions up 80%.
45
46 3. Future employment growth will contribute to affordable housing demand.
47
Vol. 37, Page 300
March 18, 2002
1 - Of the nearly 30,000 new jobs projected for 2001-2006, the majority will pay
2 less than $30,000 annually.
3 - There is a significant gap between what new worker households can afford to
4 pay for housing and the costs of producing housing.
s - The total gap is projected at $394 million.
~ 4. A jobs/housing linkage fee could provide dedicated revenues for affordable
a housing finance.
9
to - A fee would generate revenue for affordable housing production based on
11 the nexus between job growth by land use type and the ability of employees
12 in that category to afford basic, multifamily housing units.
13
14 Recommendations:
is
16 1. Set jobs/housing linkage fee to contribute ten percent of the subsidy needed to
1~ provide affordable workforce housing for new employees (as projected over the
is next five years.).
19
20 2. Apply fee to three land use categories at ten percent of the needed subsidy:
21
22 - Commercial: $2.08 per square foot
23 - Industrial: $2.15 per square foot
24 - Retail: $3.59 per square foot
2s
26 3. Implement fee Countywide..
27
2s - The fee is envisioned as a local ordinance based development impact fee.
29 - Jurisdictions will keep fees generated locally and will have discretionary use.
30 - Ideally fees would be pooled into a Countywide housing fund and awarded on a
31 competitive basis; however, this approach would conflict with current State
32 affordable housing requirements.
33
34 Im plications:
3s
36 1. Additional $35.5 million could be generated for housing finance over the next five
37 years.
3s 2. Fees could finance the construction of up to 1,180 units over five years -the
39 equivalent of 42 percent of al affordable units built in the County '96-'01.
40 3. The recommended fees are generally higher than fees (per square foot) currently
41 charged in other Northern California Communities.
42 4. Increased development costs resulting from impact fees likely will be absorbed by
43 land prices rather than passed on to tenants.
44 5. It is not expected that the proposed fees will have a significant impact on decisions
4s to expand or relocate businesses within the County.
46 6. Location decisions will continue to hinge on access to targeted labor, quality of life,
4'7 and appropriate sites.
March 18, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 301
1 7. A jobs/housing fee is only one component in affordable housing -equally important
2 are site supply and community support for affordable projects. If the cities want to do
3 this collectively they will draft a model ordinance addressing some of the issues
4 about areas that could be exempted, how much flexibility there is in terms of the
s level of fee, how its collected and where it goes.
6
7 In looking at fees that are charged in other places. especially affordable housing fees,
s there is a correlation between high rents and the fee and low vacancies. The fee doesn't
9 mean that you're going to have a runaway office market, but essentially areas with very
to strong office markets have been able to have these fees and haven't been harmed by
11 them.
12
13 PUBLIC COIVIMEfVT
14
is Daniel Solnit, Executive Director, Leadership Institute for Ecology and Economy. The
16 population increase is from people moving here from other areas for jobs. Most of the
17 counties in the bay area are going to see the number of jobs go up at twice the rate as
is their housing over the next twenty years.
19
20 If housing is not built near where people work that they can afford, they are going to
21 have to live elsewhere and it will continue to exacerbate the traffic problems we have.
2z
23 Majada Gibson encouraged the Council to look favorably on this.
24
2s Councilmember Maguire -move forward with the fees as proposed. Encourage our
26 peers throughout the County to participate. If there is a countywide trust fund that is
27 well administered it should be the recipient of additional corporate contributions.
2s
29 Bonne Gaebler, Housing Administrator, is in favor of adding this to the Housing
3o Element.
31
32 Councilmember Torliatt - this could be an attraction for employers if adopted
33 countywide. Traffic will continue to increase if something not done. This type of fee
34 could be like this could actually be a funding mechanism for us to help in assistance of
3s mixed use development in downtown and provide housing in the downtown area where
36 people will be able to live and work in their own community.
37
3s Councilmember Cader-Thompson would like to host. a countywide discussion at the
39 Community Center.
40
41 Councilmember Moynihan is not comfortable going forward with this level of a fee.
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 37, Page 302
March 18, 2002
1 TRAFFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT
2
3 Matthew Ridgeway and Dave Robinson of Fehr and Peers Transportation
4 Consultants presented to the Council their report on the traffic model.
s
6 The traffic model determines the amount of trips generated, where each trip begins
~ and ends, and the route taken. The model's output includes projections of traffic on
s major roads. The traffic. model will be used for the preparation of General Plan
9 update .and long-range transportation planning studies. It will also be used. to
to estimate the average daily and peak hour traffic. volumes on the major roads in the
11 future under certain growth assumptions.. The model uses 13 land use types for
12 each traffic zone.
13
14 The traffic model will primarily be used for the following:
is
16 To update the General Plan
17 Evaluate the traffic impacts of area-wide land use plan alternatives
is Evaluate the shift in traffic resulting from a roadway improvement
19 Evaluate the traffic impacts of land development proposals
20 Determine trip distribution patterns of land development proposals
21 • Update the City's traffic impact fee program
22 • Support the development of transportation sections of EIR's
23 Support the preparation of project development reports for Caltrans
24
2s They have not looked at any land use alternatives. This is representative of the 1987
26 General Plan build-out scenario.
27
2s The conclusions are:
29
30 1. The model forecasts well beyond the twenty-year horizon. in terms of the commercial
31 development.
32
33 2. To support that, substantial transportation changes including acceptance of much
34 greater levels of congestion are needed. Major new transportation. infrastructures
3s i.e., roadways, bikeways or transit ways. A larger percentage of people using
36 transit, riding bicycles and walking are needed. If Petaluma achieves that level of
37 development you simply could not build enough roadways to support them in
3s anything close to a sustainable fashion.
39
40 3. A change in land use patterns to encourage transit oriented development infill.
41 Petaluma has twice as much traffic on roadways as can be accommodated based
42 on assessments of what the capacity of those roadways are.
43
44 4. The street with the most demand is Washington Street due to traffic and transit lines.
4s There are too many uses competing for orie street.
46
March 18, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 303
i 5. Look at building different types of facilities; rail, transit, bikeway and pedestrian
2 under crossings to facilitate alternative transportation modes.
3
4 COUNCIL COMMENT
s
6 Moynihan -Look at current traffic counts and various scenarios including the Shasta
~ alternative with the Rainier connection and an underpass under Highway 101.
8
9 Cader-Thompson -traffic congestion is a regional problem.
io
i i Torliatt -Update model using 2000 census numbers.
12
13 Looking at property outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) would impact some of
14 the existing traffic problems in the next 20 years. Focus on City centered growth. Look
Is at how the train will impact. transportation in the community. Results of this study are
16 encouraging bike/pedestrian improvements, river enhancement trail and rail trail.
i~
t8 Ms. Tuft, Using the 1987/2005 General Plan does not reflect the Central Petaluma
i9 Specific Plan or the Gray/Friedman property other than industrial.
20 Council would give staff direction to make land use changes.
2i
22 Maguire -Need information that gives the most common trips, what's generating them,
23 and how can the City address the underlying cause for those trips.
24
2s PUBLIC COMMENT
26
27 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma, spoke regarding the traffic modeling on or around
28 Petaluma Boulevard South. The current traffic configuration is affecting the vitality of
2~ the neighborhood.
30
31 Roger Weeks, Petaluma, spoke regarding his vision for the southern gateway known as
32 Petaluma Boulevard South and asked that it be reduced to one lane going each way.
33
34 Ned Orrett, Petaluma, spoke regarding traffic circulation in the Petaluma Boulevard
3s South neighborhood.
36
37 Joe Durney, traffic calming., gateway into the City.
38
39 Rick Savel, Penngrove, concerned with traffic modeling throughout the County.
40
41 Richard Brawn, what is the traffic going to be like at build out?
42
43 Paul McGavin, Petaluma, traffic calming needed in the Windsor area. Trucks should
44 take an alternate route.
45
Vol. 37, Page 304
March 18, 2002
1 Pat McShane, Petaluma, Payran-McKinley Neighborhood Action Committee. Don't
2 flood this neighborhood out.
3
4 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, the new General Plan is looking at water, traffic,
s flooding etc. Opposed to Rainier.
7 John Cheney, Petaluma, Draft EIR for Factory Outlet and Redwood Technology.
8 The community should come to the meetings and make their comments. Opposed
9 to Rainier.
to
11 COUNCIL COMMENT
12
13 VM Healy -Look at how realistic. the current land use designations and assumptions
14 are in the City. Concerned about some of the development proposals currently in
is the pipeline, traffic generation, job generation.
16
1~ Councilmember Maguire -Plug in information from the most current Economic
is Outlook to get a more realistic land use patterns. Look at trip generation. Run the
19 commuter rail through the model.
20
21 Councilmember Torliatt - there are no dollars for cross-town interchange
22 improvements. Anticipates serious gridlock in Sonoma County.. Looks forward to
23 update of models to include the 2000 census data. Assess what community needs
24 in land use.
25
26 Mayor Thompson -Highway 101 will be widened, when the EIR for that project. comes
27 through we should have information to show to Caltrans and the State if in fact we need
28 across-town connector depending on the land use designations.
29
3o Councilmember Moynihan -would like an evaluation and rating on various intersections
31 in town. Caltrans has started with the Highway 101 widening. We need to move
32 forward on a cross-town connector interchange.
33
34 Councilmember Cader-Thompson - SCTA members voted not to include interchanges
35 or cross-town connectors in Petaluma. Explore looking at the larger picture through
36 Specific Plans.
37
38
39
40
41
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
42 Mike Moore presented his staff report on the Residential Growth Management System.
43 Community Development Department is keeping track of the applications for residential
44 development that qualify under the ordinance to be regulated.
45
March 18, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 305
1 VM Healy -Supports maintaining 500 residential units per year cap. Continue to
2 informally monitor the applications received. Bring back the process at any point in the
3 future where any of the three threshold criteria are exceeded, which would be an
4 average of 500 units per year no more than 1000 units in any one year and no more
s than 1500 units over three consecutive years.
6
~ Councilmember Torliatt -This process allows for providing information to the community
s and the Council of what type of development is occurring.
9
to Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Because of the land use designation we need the
11 ability to look at higher density. Look at the type of development we may be able to
12 have a more intense use or it should be less intense more mixed use. Council needs to
13 be part of the process from the very beginning.
14
is Mr. Moore, the overall issue of densities and mix of land uses are better discussed in
16 the context of the General Plan update than as part of the Growth Management
1~ Ordinance.
is
1~ A development application is looked at in the context of the existing General Plan land
ao use designation and zoning that is available on that property and their guided
21 accordingly by that. Some applicants may choose to want to amend the General Plan
22 or rezone the property in order to accomplish what they want, but they can only do that
23 within the context of what has already been identified as land use designation and
z4 zoning districts that might apply to a particular piece of property. If the City wants
2s anything more than that then there would be discussions through the Planning
26 Commission and City Council. The allocation process or development objective process
27 was not intended to get into that specific discussion of each particular project.
Zs
29 Susan Kirks, Petaluma, Paula Lane Action Network Plan, opposed to the Paula Lane
3o development.
31
32 Bill Phillips, Petaluma, opposed to the Magnolia Park development.
33
34 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, suggests that Council direct staff to implement the
3s allocation procedures of the Residential Growth Management System.
36
37 Councilmember Maguire -direct staff to informally monitor the process. If staff feels a
3s project. should be reviewed by Council, or an annexation is involved with a project, that
39 we include the specific criteria of review that are included in the allocation process in
4o that annexation process.
41
42 VM Healy, Require project proponent to continue to submit the Notice of Intent to
43 Develop forms and have those collected in CDD.
44
4s Councilmember Moynihan -Suspend the formal process.
46
Vol. 37, Page 306
March 18, 2002
Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Continue with the formal process.
2
3 Councilmember Torliatt -Continue with. the formal process. Reduce the amount of units
4 from 30 to 15. This is the first step in a development review process.
5
6 Mayor Thompson -consensus of the majority of the Council is to continue with the
7 Notice of Intent to Develop forms to all developers, monitor the residential growth. limits
s and bring back the process where any of the three threshold criteria are exceeded,
9 which would be an average of 500 units per year no more than 1000 units in any one
to year and no more than 1500 units over three consecutive years.
11
12
13 COUNCILMEMBER O'BRLEN
14
is Councilmember O'Brien stepped down from the dais and addressed Council from the
16 podium.
17
is Motion to direct the City Manager or, if needed, Special Counsel, to write a letter to Mr.
19 Packard within 10 days of receipt of Mr. Packard's letter, that the City Council is going
20 to be proposing a settlement demand to Councilmember O'Brien that would take the
21 form of amending all of his campaign disclosure statements within thirty days to be in
22 full compliance with all the applicable requirements and to pay whatever remaining
23 balance cannot be identified of that $2,188 as a donation to a local charitable cause.
24 M/S Maguire/Healy
2s
26 Councilmember Torliatt noted that this should not be precedent setting. One of the
27 criteria is that it is not during a campaign period so people are able to respond to this
2s issue. If any of the donations were over $200 he would have to refund that amount and
29 or donate that to a separate cause.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Councilmember Moynihan should not be voting on this issue considering he is in
litigation regarding the Campaign Finance Ordinance.
AYES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan, VM Healy,
Mayor Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SMART
Motion: At the next City Select Committee meeting, Mayor Thompson to recommend
that the Sonoma County appointees of Councilmembers or Mayors to the new
governing body of the two county Rail Authority shall be appointed by the Mayors' and
Councilmembers' Association and they need not be members of the SCTA. M/S
Maguire/Healy
March 18, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 307
1
2 Councilmember Moynihan - concerned with the impact of taking such action as
3 interpreted by the Board of Supervisors and as interpreted by Assemblyman Joe Nation
4 who is introducing this bill at the State. It would be appropriate for Council to consider
s the implications of our actions on other bodies before we take them.
6
~ AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, VM Healy,
8 Mayor Thompson
9 NOES: Moynihan
to ABSENT: None
11
12
13
la ADJOURN
is
16 Meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
1~
is
19
20
21
22 E. Clar Thompson, Mayor
23
24
25
26 ATTEST:
27
28
29
3o Paulette Lyon, Interim ty Clerk
31
32
33
34
35 ******