Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/20/2002May 20, 2002 L a~A ~ ~ City ®f Petaluma, Calif®rnia ~.- City Council Nieetinc~ I85$ Vol. 37, Page 419 1 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 Monday, May 20, 2002 - 3:30 p.m. 3 Regular Meeting 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 PRESENT: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Healy, Mayor Thompson ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT None, COUNCIL COMMENT • Councilmember O'Brien: In looking at schedule - we have ten meetings for balance of May and June - let's have one for July and one for August. PROCLAMATION EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK Fire Chief Chris Albertson explained the program and presented the recognition awards to those being recognized by the County EMS Agency as part of the "Survivor's Reunion." PRESENTATION FIRE DEPARTMENT'S NEWLY PROMOTED EMPLOYEES Fire Chief Chris Albertson introduced the newly promoted employees, Judd Cuenin Battalion Chief Mike Ahlin Battalion Chief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 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 Vol. 37, Page 420 Ken McDermott Phil Sutsos Rick King Randall Chism May 20, 2002 Acting Battalion Chief Captain Captain Engineer PRESENTATION SONOMA COUNTY TOURISM PROGRAM Presentation by Sheila Romero of the Sonoma County Tourism Program on Accomplishments To Date and Future Goals and Programs. Ms. Romero thanked the City for investing in the Sonoma .County Tourism Program. There is more and. more private sector participation, Seven cities are now participating. She provided materials -strategic marketing plan, statistics, program highlights, current ad campaign, Councilmember Cader-Thompson: City's new wastewater facility will bring much potential for tourism - similar to Arcata, She will provide web addresses for sites with data on how much similar areas have gained in tourism. Mayor Thompson: Petaluma Visitors Program will hold public meeting on Tuesday, June 4 to select new members -three from City Council, TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT Presentation of Tree Advisory Committee's Annual Report Joseph Noriel: Thanked Council for their feedback and support, and his fellow committee members and staff involved with committee, The committee is involved in many street tree plantings, school plantings and neighborhood plantings. Continuing to educate public. Proud of continued Tree City USA status. Showed short video on Tree City USA Program, Mayor Thompson and Vice Mayor Healy displayed Tree City USA Flag Arbor .Day Foundation flag - to replace the tattered flag hanging now at City Hall. Mayor Thompson gave the flag to Ed Anchordoguy, Parks and Landscape Manager. Mr. Noriel gave Council promotional items as ambassadors of Tree City USA Program. Sweatshirt, caps, Vice Mayor Healy asked about signs for City limits signs -originals were misplaced. May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 421 1 Mr. Noriel: They are up on freeway entrances -but one of their next agenda 2 items will be getting more signs. 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 Councilmember Torliaff; Would like committee to walk through the downtown and see how the trees are doing, Asked when clean up day was because she will participate. Councilmember Maguire reported a tree broken off on B street between fourth and fiffh. Ross Parkerson thanked Council for help and support for committee. To designate a tree a Heritage Tree one needs to make an application to Planning, describe it, it goes before SPARC. Trees are recorded at County Recorder's Office, so tree is protected when property changes hands. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are non-controversial, and were approved in one motion. Introduced by Healy, seconded by Torliaff, AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Healy, Mayor Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None RESO. 2002-073 N.C.S. QUARTERLY TREASURERS REPORT Resolution 2002-073 N.C.S. receive and filing March 31, 2002 Treasurer's Report. Introduced by ,seconded by. TENTATIVE PROPOSED AGENDA JUNE 3. 2002 RESO. 2002-074 N.C.S. SALE OF REFUNDING BONDS Resolution 2002-074 N.C.S. amending and restating Resolution 96-135 N.C.S. Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Refunding Bonds relating to Reassessment District 1996-1 and 1996 Authority Revenue Bonds and approving related documents and authorizing official actions. ***End Consent Calendar*** Vol. 37, Page 422 May 20, 2002 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 SB 1243 ABAG/MTC MERGE Discussion and Possible Direction on SB 1243 (Torlakson), a Bill Which Seeks to Merge the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to Foster the Creation of a .Regional Vision and a Regional Plan for the Bay Area, Councilmember Torliatt; ABAG passed resolution 5/16/02 in support of a merger if certain things are done Vice Mayor Healy; Had brief discussion of this at SCTA. Apparently there are amendments that are expected -SCTA will wait for those, Councilmember Maguire; Get a copy of ABAG's resolution to find out conditions of merger -from Torliaff Councilmember O'Brien; Opposed to merger -working well as is. Vice Mayor Healy; ABAG not done well with the fair-share housing process. Don't know how to address issue. If resolution were simply to send a letter opposing SB 1243 he would not support. Instead -express interest in studying current situation with a look toward reorganization of existing bodies. Councilmember Maguire; Need to take a position. Should take constructive action, He would like staff to write a letter opposing SB 1243. Motion to send letter opposing SB 1243. M/S Maguire/Cader-Thompson. Councilmember Torliatt; Suggested that Council oppose the bill as currently draffed. Support study of merger but not current way, Restate motion: Oppose existing legislation as draffed but support legislation to merge land use and transportation planning in the Bay Area. Vice Mayor Healy; Would not support that -would support amendments to SB 1243 language -studies mean nothing happens, Councilmember Torliaff; The way Torlakson originally draffed bill, ABAG supported. (3-1 /2 year study). Language has changed so many times, May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 423 1 AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Mayor Thompson 2 NOES: Vice Mayor Healy, Moynihan 3 ABSENT: None 4 5 6 RES0.2002-0751V.C.S. 7 RECYCLED WATER USER'S AGREEfVIENT 8 9 Resolution 2002-075 N.C.S. Authorizing City Manager to Execute a Recycled 10 Water User's Agreement with Charles and Diana Karren for Irrigation of their 11 Vineyard with Recycled Water. 12 13 Councilmember Torliatt; Is not prepared to approve an agreement that she has 14 not seen, 15 16 Vice Mayor Healy -Motion: Add language that term would be five years and 17 include the rate structure as proposed in the staff report, We are finally going to 18 actually be paid for this resource instead of paying people to take it off our 19 hands, 20 21 Councilmember Maguire: Would like to know the agreement has been seen by 22 the City Attorney and Risk Management but does not need to see agreement 23 come back. 24 25 Michael Ban, Engineering Manager: Amount of water the new irrigation line will 26 be using will have no impact on other users, Rooster Run will have an impact. 27 28 Councilmember Moynihan: Thought their agreements were up. 29 30 Mr. Ban: It was extended for two years -until Rooster Run comes on line. At that 31 point it will come to Council for direction, 32 33 Councilmember Cader-Thompson: Prefers the agreement come back so 34 Council could read it before agreeing to it. 35 36 Mr. Hargis; If we don't have someone to take the water, we are in violation of 37 discharge contract. Have not had enough time for advance planning for this. 38 Five-year extension was discussed, or until new project on-line, we decided two 39 years because of General Plan Process and other things that need to fall into 40 place. His suggestion was two-year extension under same conditions, Last time 41 we spent 1-1 /2 years discussion with Council and ended up with same thing, We 42 cannot get by without the agricultural users. $5,000,000/day fine if we violate 43 discharge requirements. 44 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 Vol. 37, Page 424 May 20, 2002 Councilmember Torliatt: Supports concept of receiving money for recycled wastewater. Does not support approving contracts she has not reviewed. Contract for agricultural users -significant changes over 1-1 /2 years -reduced amount paid by $90 acre/foot. Economic benefit now spread among contractors. Wants to reduce. Motion to adopt Reso. 2002-075 N.C.S. M/S Healy/Maguire. Councilmember Maguire added that the item should come back on the Consent Calendar? Motion/Second amended, M/S Healy/Maguire AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Healy, Mayor Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None Adjourn to Closed Session: 4:30 p.m, PUBLIC COMMENT None CLOSED SESSION • CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXIStIng Litigation, SUbdIVISIOn (a) Of Government Code Section 54956.9, Bobby Thompson, et al vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 225677, • CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXIStIng Litigation, Subdivision (a) of 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. COl -0395 PJH. • CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - AntlClpated LltigatlOn, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision 9(b) of Section 54956.9: (1 matter) • CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Government Code Section 54957.6. Agency Negotiator: Bill Thomas/Frederick Stouder/Dennis Morris. Employee Organization: AFSCME. 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 May 20, 2002 5:30 P.M. -RECESS RECONVENE: 7:00 p.m. Vol. 37, Page 425 PRESENT: O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan, Mayor Thompson ABSENT: Cader-Thompson*, Vice Mayor Healy** *Councilmember Cader-Thompson arrived at 7:15 p.m. **Vice Mayor Healy arrived at 8;40 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Fire Marshal Michael Ginn. MOMENT OF SILENCE REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION Mayor Thompson stated that there was nothing to report out of Closed Session, PUBLIC COMMENT Vasco Brazil, Petaluma -Asked what the City policy was in order to get information from different departments. Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney -Stated that the process for a public records act request is that the requests are funneled to the City Attorney's office, who then asks all departments whether they have any documents that fall within that request and then those are compiled and provided. Bruce Hagen, Petaluma -Spoke regarding the application of Open Space District funds for preserving Lafferty Park. A public hearing is to be held on May 28th at the Board of Supervisors Office. Ken Grant, Petaluma -Spoke regarding the Holmberg Roofing Company. This property is an eyesore, Kevin Callahan, Petaluma -Holmberg is in violation of the noise and odors coming from the tar trucks is over the limit, John Cheney, Petauma - Not in compliance with hours of operation. Vol. 37, Page 426 May 20, 2002 1 City Attorney to work with Mike Moore and Rick Jarvis on what the issues are 2 and what options can be taken. 3 4 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma -Disapproves of Redwood Technology being built in 5 the floodplain. 6 7 COUNCIL COMMENT 8 9 •Councilmember Torliatt: to 11 There is a meeting at the Petaluma School District tonight to discuss the plan 12 to replace Kenilworth Junior High School. 13 14 Food 4 Less is dropping Clover products from their inventory which amounts 15 to approximately $1 million dollars per year. 16 17 •Councilmember Moynihan: 18 19 Would like staff to respond to Mr. Garvey's inquiry regarding the costs of the 20 wastewater facility project which has gone from $24 million to $35 million to a 21 proposed $88 million dollars. 22 23 May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 427 1 RESO. 2002-76 N.C.S. 2 APPOINTMENT -ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 Resolution 2002-76 N.C.S. appointing Trish Kinsella to a two (2) year term and 5 Cindy Thomas to a one (1) year term on the Animal Advisory Committee. 6 O' T C H T M M T B O A E H A O O R R D A O G Y T I L E L M U N A E I R Y P I I L N A - S R H T T O E A T H N N O M P S O N KINSELLA, Trish 1 A 2 l 2 2 2 2 YR. THOMAS, Cindy 2 A 1 2 1 1 1 1 YR. 7 8 1 2 3 4 6 Vol. 37, Page 428 RESO. 2002-77 N.C.S. PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 2002 Resolution 2002-77 N.C.S. Appointing Stephanie McAllister to complete a four (4) year term on the Planning Commission expiring June 30, 2004. O' T C H T M M T B O A E H A O O R R D A O G Y T I L E L M U N A E I R Y P I I L N A - S R H T T O E A T H N N O M P S O N ASSELMEIER, Pamela MATHIES, Linda X 1 MC ALLISTER, Stephanie X X X X X X 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRESENTATION A presentation was given by Becca Perdue -Petaluma High School and Domenica Giovanni - Casa Grande High School from the Teen Council regarding General Plan Visioning Workshop. About 150 people participated in the survey. The results were that they would like to see streets maintained, Phoenix Theatre renovated along with other historical buildings and creating more hassle free teen hangouts and entertainment, i.e., movie theater or bike park, The next steps for the teen council will be to conduct a series of teen townhall meetings to begin in the fall. They would like to make the community more aware of the teen councils function. The teen Council is currently planning the second annual Youth Festival, They are also working to create a teen health resource center to be located at the Petaluma Teen Center. 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 May 20, 2002 ORD. 2131 IV.C.S. FIREWORKS Vol. 37, Page 429 Adopt Ordinance 2121 N.C.S. Amending Section 17.20.070 of the Petaluma Municipal Code relating to Safe and Sane Fireworks. Motion to adopt Ord. 2131 N.C.S. M/S Maguire/O'Brien. Connie Williams feels the ban on her neighborhood lighting fireworks is inappropriate. They are not near any open grass land and feels it is safe to have fireworks under the guidance of the parents. AYES; O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire, Mayor Thompson NOES: Moynihan ABSENT: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY The second public hearing on the adequacy of the DEIR for the Wastewater Treatment Facility was opened, Gerald Moore, Petaluma -Impressed with the DEIR, Please to see that it included a discussion of the polishing wetlands on the Gray's Ranch property. Not all of the Gray's Ranch .property is an agricultural loss because a portion of this property will be used to raise feed for wildlife, but it's food just the same. Jim Rose, Petaluma -Commended staff for a thorough process, As the dean of Instruction for the Petaluma campus of Santa Rosa JC he would like to state that they are very interested in the potential opportunities for partnerships should this enterprise proceed in terms of the development of the Wetlands and river access. The Junior College is most interested in the education opportunities that will afford the entire community. David Yearsley, Petaluma River Keeper -Complimented staff on the DEIR, Excited about the educational facilities, the possibilities to benefit the community and schools. shoreline trail from the Marina to Shollenberger. The diverse habitat of both the agricultural lands, the tidal wetlands, polishing marshes with fresh water habitat will create a very diverse eco structure and attract diverse wildlife including the proposal in the DEIR for creating habitat islands. Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma -The SCWA indicates that it wishes to acquire the water rights to all sources of water including recycled water. Does this Vol. 37, Page 430 May 20, 2002 1 environmental. impact report evaluate the values of the recycled water and 2 what might be lost as far as values if the SCWA is successful in acquiring the 3 rights to Petaluma's recycled water? 4 5 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma - Is in favor of the DEIR that related to public 6 access. Feels it is important to have the levee path continue from Shollenberger 7 to the Marina. Important that there be a bridge over the levee breach. Also is 8 needed to have habitat areas built on existing concrete so there can be 9 viewing from above. Important to go with.. the educational component. 10 11 Vasco Brazil, Petaluma -Feels the existing oxidation pond site is not stable due to 12 the fact he believes it connects to the Tolay Fault, He feels that the City should 13 adhere to the Division of Safety of Dams Seismic Safety Standards, 14 15 Stan Gold, Petaluma -Approves of the DEIR for its thoroughness and urges the 16 Council to accept the DEIR and manking sure that the access components 17 remain undisturbed. 18 19 David Keller, Petaluma -Approves of the DEIR and would like to see Council and 20 staff move forward to the final EIR, 21 22 Council Comment 23 24 Councilmember Maguire noted for the record that a letter was received dated 25 May 20th from the City Manager to a Mr. Parkinson in the County Permit and 26 Resources Management Department asking them to note that we are 27 proposing a change in the agricultural use of the Gray Property and ask them to 28 incorporate that into the Countywide General Plan Revision, 29 30 Councilmember Torliatt questioned Pat Collins regarding the monitoring of a 31 well on the Mattery property. She wanted to know if there were currently any 32 contamination of that well. 33 34 Ms. Collins stated that there is no information about the water quality of the well 35 existing today, The Regional Water Quality Control Board has set a standard 36 that any drinking water wells be within a quarter mile of a wastewater treatment 37 facility, She is proposing that as mitigation that there be some monitoring done 38 to see if there is any problems. 39 40 Councilmember Torliatt: The EIR refers to the levee stablization along the 41 Petaluma River on Parcel B to prevent erosion and widening of the levee 42 breeches, and two pedestrian bridges with a span of approximately 100 feet to 43 bridge the levee breeches along the river. She would like to make sure those May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 431 1 two projects wouldn't need additional environmental review as the project 2 moves forward. 3 Ms. Collins: If the final engineering design of the levee improvements and the 4 bridges stay within the peramiters that we now have characterized them as in 5 the EIR then no further environmental review would be necessary. 6 7 Councilmember O'Brien would like to know if the Tolay Fault is active, when the 8 last earthquake was on it, what the magnitude was and how USGS rates it. 9 10 Motion to provide direction to staff to initiate the preparation of the final EIR for 11 the Wastewater Treatment Facility. M/S Maguire/Healy. 12 13 AYES: O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Healy, 14 Mayor Thompson 15 NOES: None 16 ABSENT: Cader-Thompson 17 18 RESO.2002-079IV.C.S. 19 REDWOOD EMPIRE SPORTS COMPLEX 20 21 Resolution 2002-079 N,C.S, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning 22 Commissions decision adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval 23 of a Conditional Use Permit. 24 25 The sports complex shall operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11 p.m. 26 daily. If someone wants to hold a special event they need to obtain a zoning 27 permit. 28 29 Elizabeth Reifler, Attorney representing the property owners, stated that the 30 Initial Study failes to quantify the environmental impacts primarily water and 31 noise. 32 33 The Initial Study indicates that there will not be a significant effect from noise, It is 34 difficult to determine a standard level of noise due to variables such as the 35 number of players, number of spectators and number of games being played at 36 one time. It was stated that a ballfield would .generate noise levels in the range 37 of 58-60 decibles at a distance of 225 feet. The General Plan states that noise 38 levels in the range of 50-b0 decibles are normally acceptable for single family 39 residetial land uses. California law requires that in order to access whether there 40 will be a significant adverse effect on the environment that the current 41 condition be studied and the projected changed condition be compared with 42 the existing situation. The noise issue needs further study. 43 Vol. 37, Page 432 May 20, 2002 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 The Initial Study concludes that there will be a potential effect upon their water, but the Lease and Conditions of Approve state that the City is not obligated to do anything to mitigate until 95% of their water is gone. That would eliminate any ability the Colorado's have to develop the property either as a vinyard or low density residential. The Initial Study does not predict how much water the complex would be using. Jim Ulrich, Hydrologist, stated that the project will include a water well that may impact adjacent properties including Mr. Colorado's well. The mitigation proposed is to supply water as a single family residence that is 1 gallon per minute which seems inadequate for 10 acres, It also says that the sports field well could be converted into a City municipal well and there is no quantification of what that would mean for adjoining wells. He would like to see data that quantifies the amount of water that is proposed to be used by RESA. Where the well wil( be located, how deep it would be, how much water it would pump, peak flow, monthly average amounts, ground water basin, how much water does it yield, is it confined or unconfined. Councilmember Torliatt: Some issues of concern are ground water, and the fact that Council has never received a list of financial backers for the project. The county has hired a company to do ground water assessments and studies to identify what the existing county policies and procedures are for accounting for ground water. The policy provides specific direction regarding ways fo improve the well permit application and the data collection process. It specifically talks to revising the pump test requirements from four-hour tests to a minimum of twelve hours for single family residences and considering additional requirements for multi users systems, She is concerned with issues inside and outside the UGB, We owe it to the City,. the Colorado's and adjacent uses to have a better idea of what is going on with the ground water in this area and monitoring it so we don't deplete water storage and supply in and outside the UGB, She would Like the Council to adopt at a minimum some additional criteria that is being suggested in the Kleinfelder study for evaluating ground water issues and levels in this area and sustaining them. Hire a licensed contractor and make sure the adjacent property owners including the Colorado's are notified, that all City wells and adjacent wells to the property are on a 24-hour test period if we're going to do draw down tests. Elizabeth Reifler; There needs to be a mathmatical analysis done that tries to predict the amount of water that will be used per day by the new wells and also the depth of the new wells. The new wells will be deeper than the Colorado's May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 433 1 current well and that could be a major issue. This project is 225 feet away from 2 the Colorado's property and they are most likely to be affected for that reason. 3 4 The data received from the consultant reveals that there will. be a significant 5 adverse impact regarding the noise. There needs to be a study of what the 6 noise level is now and what it will be. 7 8 Public Comment 9 10 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma -The Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee 11 asked for a path around the 28 acres complex. This is publicly owned land and 12 the public needs to benefit. In specific it would have included a path along the 13 urban separator. The committee would like to see a Class 1 off-road path that in 14 the future could connect from Rooster Run, Airport and the sports complex. 15 16 John Mills, Petaluma -Feels the bike path issue was thoroughly discussed and felfi 17 that it was unsafe to have a bike path encompassing around the 28 acres 18 because of golf balls and baseballs. 19 20 He feels the water is adequate enough for the Colorado's to build four houses 21 on their property. 22 23 Stanley Gold, Petaluma - He attended the Planning Commission meeting in 24 which these issues were raised. It was not a unanimous vote. 25 26 Vice Mayor Healy; I've heard this 255 ff. distance do we know how far apart the 27 proposed RESA well is from the Colorado's existing well? 28 29 Marty Hronek; It would be upwards of a 1000 feet away because it would be 30 built on the first ballfield near the outfield so that at some point when reclaimed 31 water is available it can be connected at that point. Close to where the 32 Rooster Run pipeline is coming in. 33 34 Councilmember Torliatt; Shouldn't that number the ballfields would potentially 35 be using be quantified in the Initial Study for it to be adequate? 36 37 Mr, Moore: The Planning Commission had the opportunity to do that as part of 38 their analysis, they were the ones that adopted the Initial Study before 39 approving the Conditional Use Permit so the Planning Commission was the 40 decision making body on this item because it was a Conditional Use Permit. This 41 is not a recommendation, the Planning Commission has final decision making 42 authority and they approved the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration as it 43 was presented to them. 44 Vol. 37, Page 434 May 20, 2002 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 Councilmember Torliatt: Normally the Initial Study would have the quantification of existing conditions, the impact of whatever the project is. Mr. Moore, I think that information was presented to the Planning Commission as part of their deliberations through the numerous hearings on this project. It is not in the body of the Initial Study. Vice Mayor Healy: Getting back to Phil's July 24, 2001 memo where he references the other wells at Prince Park and Airport it says that those sustainably pump 5-7 times the amount of water required from the proposed wells. That tells me explicitly that someone has done calculations whether or not their actually included in the document, Mr. Moore: No, I think that was the reason for explaining it the way that we did. We did consult with Steve Simmons, Water Resources & Conservation and we looked at the numbers and the information that was provided by Mr, Hronek as part of his application as to whether or not their might be impacts associated with his well. Vice Mayor Healy: When this came to us at a previous meeting I was under the impression that under the county zoning that the Colorado property was only allowed to have one house. I had not heard of four houses before tonight. Mr. Moore did not look at that issue specifically as to what the particular zoning would allow. It is my understanding that Mr. Colorado does not have any entitlements for any additional homes. Juan Colorado stated that there are two five-acre lots, One lot has asix- bedroom perk, we're allowed a granny unit on that lot. And a granny unit on the other lot also, Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney; In terms of the issue of whether or not CEQA persay requires a quantative measurement I don't believe that it does, It could be used, but the real question is whether or not the evidence as a whole would indicate whether or not the impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance. In reading the memo of July 24, 2001 which was actually an excerpt from the Negative Declaration or Initial Study there were other factors and that may very well have been taken into account and led the Planning Commission to come to that conclusion. Mr, Moore: I think on the noise issue the analysis that was done was based on the project not on a single ballfield. It was clear that the analysis was directed by the Planning Commission based on concerns that were raised about noise May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 435 1 relative to the project. When Illingworth and Bodkin were hired, they were hired 2 knowing that they were looking at the whole facility. 3 4 Vice Mayor Healy: The ballfields at Prince Park are much closer than 250' to 5 some of the homes in the Turtle Creek Subdivision. Has your department 6 received complaints about the ballfield noise from residents at Turtle Creek? 7 8 Councilmember Torliatt has received phone calls from some of the neighbors. 9 10 Councilmember Maguire; On our policy for water hookups outside the City, 11 should there be an impact on the Colorado's residence that this would be a 12 solution. If there is the potential for four residences does our ordinance address 13 situations like that or restrict it strictly to a single residence? 14 15 Mr. Rudnansky: Now there is the UGB issue that you need to address. I believe 16 that the mitigation measure and also the language in the lease is meant to deal 17 with the UGB requirements for outside water hookup. 18 19 Mr. Moore: The language in the lease and the .language that was used in the 20 Initial Study is based on our current standard. The language is identical our 21 outside water policy uses the language that refers to where it says "such that 22 water production capacity may drop below that required by County of Sonoma 23 Health Regulations for single family dwellings. 24 25 Councilmember Maguire: Outside connections were based on single family 26 dwellings. If you have the potential for four dwellings does that fall under the 27 existing outside water ordinance. 28 29 Mr, Moore: First of all the City's UGB resolution in Policy 3.1 states that no urban 30 development beyond the ugb shall be served by City services except for 1) 31 extensions to residential dwellings in existance or approved for construction on 32 parcels created on or before December 5, 1983. 2) Extensions required pursuant 33 to the terms of a service contract in effect as of July 20, 1998. 3) Extensions to 34 remedy a clear health hazard to residential dwellings in existance or approved 35 for construction on parcels created on or before July 20, 1998 where there is no 36 reasonable alternative means to remedy that health hazard. 37 38 Councilmember Torliatt: How many people can possibly be accommodated at 39 this sports complex, And how many parking spaces on site. 40 41 Mr. Hronek: 1300 people. 300 parking spaces. 42 Vol. 37, Page 436 May 20, 2002 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 Councilmember Torliatt: Maybe I should seek clarification if there is an appeal that comes to Council you are able to address any of the issues that are in the Condition Use Permit. Mr. Rudnansky: It's a de novo hearing and the ordinance indicates that you can modify the conditions. Councilmember Torliatt; So # 1 if the Council is wanting to go forward with this I think that we need to at a minimum put in a condition that in order for the CUP to be valid that the lease must be executed. She would like clarification of what the mitigation for loss of agricultural land use would be on this property -define. One of the mitigations that is discussed in the CUP is the safe crossing of East Washington Street and I believe the safe crossing of East Washington Street requires that the funds be allocated by the City Council to construct a crosswalk from Prince Park to RESA. She also wants to address the issues that Ms. Tuttle- Brown brought up regarding the fact this is a publicly owned land and we are supposed to continue to provide a path along the urban separator in areas in which to continue recreational uses and provide open space. There should be something to the effect that the applicant shall install a recycled water connection for irrigation use within 60 days of completion of the City of Petalumas main recycled water pipeline. Water from the private well shall not be used for irrigation affer the 60 days period and the well shall be abandoned at the applicants expense per Sonoma County Standards or available for City use whichever the Water Resources Department determines. She doesn't want to see us abandon a well when in fact the City may be able to use it for a potable water source in the future. February 26th Page 7 # 53: She would like to see a modification of a separate water meter for domestic services, well water usage and recycled water is required and shall be shown on plans submitted for the Building Department. Add item # 56 That the Water Resources Department shall have the authority to regulate and control any and all well water pumping on the property if deemed necessary. She still has significant issues with the issues that have been raised by the Colorado's particularly quantification of the ground water monitoring in this area. Mr. Ulrich: The statement that municipal wells at Prince Park produce a minimal draw down at 5-7 times the amount of the proposed RESA well, its hard to access what that means. They could. be deeper wells, different aquifer and it's hard to say. Its not apples and oranges to say that that's going to be the same May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 437 1 as the RESA well, It could be a completely different zone that its pumping from. 2 That doesn't tell me that everything is fine just because those wells are fine. 3 4 Vice Mayor Healy; On the water issue I think Mr, Boyle's July 24.2001 memo does 5 provide considerable basis for the treatment of the issue in the Initial Study. The 6 fact is, the wells we're talking about are actually 1000 feet apart, That other 7 more heavily used City wells do not cause draw down, and information 8 provided by the county with respect to the nature of the aquifer in that area, 9 That in my mind supports the Planning Commission's action, but with that said; 1) 10 we're talking about a fairly short duration issue. It is primarily of concern unless 11 the City decided to take over the well we're only talking about this being an 12 issue until the Rooster Run pipeline comes on board. 2) you have the documents 13 suggesting that there should be no significant impact, but then once you sort 14 through the way the lease conditions work given the County Standards. He 15 would be willing to see that standard adjusted upward and if there was a 16 discussion at the Planning Commission level for a much smaller impact until 17 additional service to the Colorado property kicked in he would be willing to 18 have that discussion. When the Rooster Run pipeline is complete then the 1.9 opportunity for ag reuse goes to other adjoining properties including the 20 Colorado's and other neighbors in the area. 21 22 Based on what staff has told us that the noise analysis that was done was based 23 on the planned project not on a single field, He does not support the appeal on 24 that basis. 25 26 Councilmember Maguire is willing to try and accommodate more. We need to 27 find a more precise level of when the RESA applicants mitigation have to kick in 28 once there is something demonstrated. Do we test the well for current 29 capacity, who tests it, if it turn out that it's a 28,000 gallon per day capacity will 30 the law support us if that drops down to 20,000 gallons a day then the RESA has 31 to follow the lease directive on that, 32 33 Mr. Rudnansky; It's a matter of degree and what a court looking at this would 34 consider to be significant. 35 36 Councilmember Maguire would support if the well proved to be a 28,000 gallon 37 and if the RESA project made it drop by 5,000 gallons a day lets kick in the I 38 would still support a minimum standard of tree planting and fence to address 39 that issue, There's an existing residence there and to drop 6 ballfields next to 40 you is not what we want, 250 feet is a good distance, but with 1000 people 41 hollering that could have an impact, We need to specify what that criteria is, 42 43 Agree that we need to add the financial statement information at least 44 execution as part of the CUP requirements as recommended by our City Vol. 37, Page 438 May 20, 2002 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 attorney. Agrees with Ms. Tuttle Brown with a bike path at least running the length of the RESA project or preferable the circumfrence the the project or an easement for future connections, Abandoning the well or keeping it for the City okay. Switching over to recycled water within 60 days would be adequate. Supports a crosswalk on East Washington. Mayor Thompson agrees with everything except the issue of the pedestrian/bike path around the perimeter of the project. Look and work on a percentage of what impacts on Mr. Colorado's well, when will that start the movement of the City to try and protect him and at what percentage. Councilmember Moynihan; Stick with the appeal. With regards to the water issue, the City should execute a separate agreement with the Colorado's as to mitigate any impacts in the prevailing uses at the time. Vice Mayor Healy wants to act on the appeal tonight and then try to work willing to say that we can specify tonight that and give direction to staff that if theres as much as a 5% reduction in their well capacity that would trigger City response if needed. Councilmember Torliatt: If we ever get the info on financial partners, and if we approve this conditional use permit and were talking about changing the requirements regarding water in the CUP would that require us to change the language in the lease document if the lease document ever gets executed. Which takes prescedent the lease document that's not executed or the cup that sets forth criteria? Mr. Rudnansky, you can always amend the lease and bring it back particularly since it has not been executed yet. Councilmember Torliatt: This amazes me, we still consistantly deal with issues on this project. Mr, Moore: In response to Councilmember Torliatt related to the water issue, the language in the lease is what has defined the language in the condition of approval. The environmental analysis that was done for the Negative Declaration is based on existing conditions. The only use out there right now is the existing single family residence. That is the analysis that we've done. The standard that we have applied is the City's adopted standard which is in the outside water policy and urban growth boundry legislation which is that property is eligible for outside water if the well on that property drops below the county requirement for a single family residence. That is a standard and it is a standard that we have applied in this particular condition, The county standard for a draw down test is one time, The Council requires an annual draw down May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 439 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 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 test, What is proposed at this time is under current county standards, but if county standards change in terms of how long a well needs to run to perform an adequate draw down test that could be picked up in subsequent years as part of the annual requirement that Mr, Hronek has, Councilmember Maguire.: Our outside connections is a policy driven by resolution or does the UGB regulate that. Mr. Moore: There are two resolutions that we use to analyze outside water and for residential properties if a property meets the criteria in those resolutions then we provide them with an outside water connection. Resolution 91-16 N.C.S. is the policies for extension of water services, Resolution 98-251 N.C.S. is the UGB legislation adopted by the voters which contains the criteria for extension of services outside the UGB. Councilmember Maguire would like to do is set some threshold. where if, establish the capacity of the well, and if it falls by 5% or more that we have some other alternative rather than 750 gallons a day, cause that big deal unless you say it only fell by 5%. He would like staff to go back and look at that particular question and come back to us with their best suggestion as to accommodate the issue of fairness and equity iVlotion to continue this with direction to staff to research that particular issue on the water at the same time not part of my motion, but I would like to make the other changes that I had outlined in the cup including a planting schedule for trees along the fence to mitigate notice, M/S Maguire/Torliatt. AYES: Maguire, Torliatt NOES: Vice Mayor Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Mayor Thompson ABSENT: Cader-Thompson Vice Mayor Healy: Propose a different approach. I would like take action on this tonight. I am willing to entertain Mr, Maguires suggestion with respect to additional noise mitigations, I think the bicycle issue can be dealth with at a later time and in different context. He would deny the appeal for reasons I previously stated, but I would also authorize staff to open direct discussions with the Colorado's to see if there is a way of resolving their discussions compromising and making sure they are legitimate issues are being addressed and further to authorize our staff to enter into a tolling agreements so that those negotiations could take place and a lawsuit didn't have to be filed under CEQA within the short statute of limitations that applies. Councilmember Moynihan: Some of the concerns that have been raised are relative to whether the lease has been executed or not, when the CUP applies Vol. 37, Page 440 May 20, 2002 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 and when it doesn't and their separate actual items and until they have a lease there not going to benefit from the CUP. Not concerned about a lot of the other points. We need to act on the appeal. Would very much like to see us sit down and work out some of the problems being created. Motion to deny the appeal and direct staff to enter into negotiations with the appelant to see if their outstanding concerns can be resolved amiacbly, and authorize staff to enter into a tolling agreement if the appelants wish to do so to make it so they don't have to file a CEQA lawsuit in the near term. M/S Healy/Moynihan. Councilmember Maguire doesn't feel that we can negotiate in good faith or with something to offer to the Colorado's without knowing the details of the questions he has raised, He does support the tolling agreement. Councilmember O'Brien supports the motion made by Vice Mayor Healy, he would like to see this project move forward. Staff to work with the Colorado's to resolve the problems. Councilmember Maguire: Based on Council's advice that we do include the lease to be executed and financial statements to be supplied as part of the cup requirement because if you don't do that, then there is a defacto vesting that could occur here that isn't the intention of the Council to provide, we want to see a project built there; we don't want to see vesting rights then make it an instrument that could be sold, Vice Mayor Healy; Is that something that should be part of this motion or is that separate direction. Mr. Rudnansky: You're talking about voting on the CUP, If you deny the appeal then there will be a CUP in effect, of course subject to the conditions and subject to any potential successful litigation down the road. I would include any modifications you want to make now to the CUP as part of this motion, The other thing I want to make sure I was clear on and that is if in fact you proceed with denying the appeal and there is a CUP in effect, the negotiations that your talking about, I'm assuming your meaning negotiations between the City and the Colorado, because Mr, Hronek will then have a CUP, Councilmember Maguire: I would ask the maker of the motion to include those items as part of the CUP requirement. I would also ask that we do include at a minimum a bike path easement and some criteria for a fence with trees for noise mitigation.. May 20, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 441 1 Councilmember Moynihan: What good is a CUP to an applicant if they don't 2 have a lease hold opportunity on that property? 3 4 Mr, Rudnansky. As a practical effect probably it doesn't make a lot of difference 5 other than in the event he is unable to provide the financial information of the 6 guarantors and under your earlier direction is that the City manager does not 7 receive that and is not satisfactory to him he does not sign the lease. However, 8 there is a CUP out there that runs with the land, without a condition in it saying 9 that an executed lease is necessary. The reason is that I'm suggesting this is that 10 for revocation purposes. If you have a condition you can point to that has not 11 been fulfilled you have more of a basis for revoking a CUP or requiring that it 12 expire affer the period of time that we talked about in our ordinance. 13 14 Councilmember Moynihan: Speaking to the lease,. you don't have a lease 15 obligation, then you have the City owned property without a lease hold interest. 16 If the City wishes to modify the CUP or revoke it, they can come forward and do 17 so in a separate action. I don't see what the hang up is tying the two together. 18 It's outside the scope of the appeal. 19 20 Mr. Rudnansky: Either he signs the lease and fulfills that condition and therefore 21 the CUP kicks in or he doesn't. The concern he has is that there is some authority 22 out there that once someone has a CUP, it runs with the land and even though 23 there aren't sticks in the ground if there is substantial expenditures there is at 24 least the argument that with some authority out there to support it that the 25 automatic expiration of a CUP when conditions aren't met would require a 26 hearing., Even though you say in your ordinance affer a year if there is not a 27 fullfillment of the CUP it's dead, there is some authority out there if they spend 28 money they will have to come back for a hearing. I'm not saying you can't 29 revoke it you probably could, but if you have a CUP.. , .. . 30 31 Vice Mayor Healy: I agree with Councilmember Moynihan -the concern may 32 be more theoretical than actual, but never the less if we can take care of that 33 issue here, I will amend my motion to accommodate Mr. Rudnansky's 34 suggestion.. 35 36 Mayor Thompson: Will the maker of the second, amend? 37 38 Councilmember Moynihan; Considering the lateness of the hour, I'm all too 39 willing to amend the second. 40 41 AYES: O'Brien, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Healy, Mayor Thompson 42 NOES: Torliatt, Maguire 43 ABSENT: Cader-Thompson 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Vol. 37, Page 442 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. May 20, 2002 E. CI rk Thompson, .Mayor ATTEST: ©~ Paulette Lyon, Interim ity Clerk ******