HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10/01/20011
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
October 1, 2001
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
City Council Meeting
Monday, October 1, 2001.
Vol. 36, Page 40T
ROLL CALL 3:00 P.M.
PRESENT:.O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
Vice MayorCader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no one wishing to speak.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Maguire reported that he attended a Telecom2001 meeting. There
were very well informed speakers present. He felt it was a stimulating meeting.
SERVICE AWARDS
Mayor Thompson handed out Service Award Pins to the following employees:
Steven Bishop - 20 years
Anneliese Butler - 5 years
Jirn Castle - 15 years
Jeffrey Crist - 20 years
Daniel Epperson - 20 years
Martin Frye - 5 .years
Merlene Fundaro - 5 years
Charles Gantt - 20' years
Todd Hart - 10 years
Kenneth. Hassler - 10 years
John Lord - 20~years
Michael Lowe - 10 years
Paulette.Lyon - 15 years
Sheila Merkel - 5 years
Bette McKnight - 25 years
Jan Morrow - 5 years
Larry Petersen - 10 years
Ronald Roskam - 15 ,years
Tara Salizzoni - 5 years
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Thompson read two `Proclamations:.
October 7th through the 13th, Fire: Prevention Week. Fire Marshal Michael Ginn
accepted the Proclamation
October 2001, Domestic Violence Awareness.. Month. Ed Crosby, Police
Department, accepted the Proclamation. He stated that there is a TRO (Temporary
Restraining Order) Clinic now operating in Petaluma.
Vo;l. 36, Page 408
October 1, 200.1.
2 CONSf NT CALENDAR
3
4 The foilowng items were :enacted. in" one motion introduced by Councilmember
5 Healy, seconded by Councilmember Torliatt: "
6
7 AYES.: O'Br'ien, Nealy, Torliatt, Maguire; Moynihan,
8 Vice Mayor`Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson
9 NOES None
10 ~ ABSENT: None
11
12 ORD. 2121 NCS
13 WHEELED DEVICES PROHIBITED
`14
1,5 Adopt Qrdinance 2121 NCS Prohibiting Pedestrians and Wheeled Devices: from
16 utilizing the concrete cap on top of the floodwall.
17
18 RESO. 2001-1`.:69 NCS.
19 WEED ABATEMENT
20
21 Resolution ~20Q1-169 NCS Accepting Completion of the Weed Abatement
22 Contractor's Work. Keystone. Tractor Services performed the work.
23
24~ RESQ. ,200.1-=170 NCS
25 VOICE MAIL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
26 ALPHANUMERIC PAGERS
28 Resolution 2001-1"70 NCS Approving California Office of Criminal Justice Planning;
29 Local Law Erifbrceme_nt Block 'G'ranf .funding for Po'Iice Uoicemail Systerm
30 Enhancement and the Purchase of Alphanumeric Pagers. Grant Funds:. $9;947,
31 City Funds:.$'1,963 fo;r a total of $11.,910.00.
32
33 STATUS REPORT
34 PAYRAN FLO:O'D MAN'AG'EMENT PROJECT
36 Tom Hargis, .Director. of UVafer .Resources .and Conservation;, advised.: the: Council
37 that th_e Array Corps .will :be installing sheet pile walls. with :concrete cap at the
38 .Lakeville Street' Bridge at the` railroad tracks. They will remove- the:landscaping that
39 was inappropriately placed on the Holmberg property. There are some storm drain
40 inlets that will improve- the drainage. °by Madison Village Townhouses arid the
41 access road. through the Holmberg site will be constructed as part of this. 1Nhat the
42 Corps :has deleted is removal. of the earth that has to be done in the environmental
43 window, which is the end of Ocfober. Work that can bey done: outside the
44 environmental window, will.. b:e done.. The Corps will be able to stay on frank by
45 combining certain :works into one project.
October 1, 2001 Vol. 36, .Page 409
1 TENTATIVE PROPOSED AGENDA
2 OCTOBER 15, 2001
3
4 Councilmember .Moynihan asked that the City Councif policy on the Traffic
5 Committee be placed on the Yellow Sheet as a future. agenda item.. Motion made
6 by Councilmember Magu'i"re, seconded by Councilmernber O'Brien to approve the
7 October 15, 2001 Tentative Proposed Agenda as printed.
8
9 AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt; Maguire, Moynihan,
10 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson
11 NOES`. None
12 ABSENT: None
13
14 ADOBE CREEK WEIR AIVD DIVERSION CHANNEL
15
16 Commu-pity Development Director Mike Moore stated that Mardel, LLC has
17 requested a modification of language in paragraph 3 of the Adobe Creek Weir and
18 Diversion Channel Agreement° regarding the: withholding. of Certificates of
19 Occupancy in the- Cross Creek Subdivision. He also advised Council that a portion
20 of the creek channel where,-some, of ,the ,work upstream needs to take place is
21 owned by the State of 'California,
22
23 The weir and diversion channel has been designed to accommodate a 100-year
24 storm and. it was designed to FEMA's satisfaction, which is why they were able to
25 issue a letter of map revision removing. those 12 homes from the floodplain. The
26 reason this :additional work was ~recomrnende'd was-`n part due to discussions with
27 National Marine. Fisheries. They: felt that the channel impr`overrients would be more
28 beneficial to the movement of fiish upstream for spawning and would improve the
29 operation of the weir and diversion. channel over time,. This was due to the stream
30 channel having a t`raighter •sflot. into the box culverf, which is likely to allow the
31 water fo maintain a speed at'wh'ich it wouldn't "drop a lot of sediment at' fh'e box
32 culvert.
33 ~ . ,. ..
34 Matt Hudson spoke on behalf of Mardel, LLC; The original requirement was to build
35 a weir in the diversion channel, The surveyor prepared{the description and stopped .
36 at the weir.. As a' result of a~discussion Doyle Heaton fiad. with the United Anglers,
37 who wanted the stream to be improved above the weir in order to help the fish .get,
38 up and down this part of the.. creek, the surveyor went back and surveyed that
39 portion.. and subsequently didn't.. Gook at the ownership. This is a wildlife and fish
40 issue that also returns the creek fo its original course sand he ps with flood control,
41 but it is not going to add orsubtracf anythirg•si'gnificant to it.
42
43 There is an immediate need yfor • the release of two additional Certificates of ~-
44 Occupancy. Thee agreement states you `you .may .withhold." Mardel is asking for
45 release of the additional CO's and- are willing to put up a bond to cover whatever the
46 cost of this will be.
47 '
Vol: 36, Page 410
October 1, 2001
1 ADOBE CREEK WEIR AND DIVERSION CHANNEL, continued
2
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
4
5 Geoff Cartwright;, 56 Rocca D.riue, asked Council' not. to release Certificates of
~_ .
6 Qccupancy withouf getting all the necessary easements from the state..,
7
8 ;Steve Block, 19 Warrick' Court; stated that the ereek~is full of debris,.: there a_re.
9 several willow trees growing in the middle of it. Certificates.:of`Oceupaney should .not
10 be released unless the. developers ~a"re willing to :assume all the .liability and take it:
11 off the taxpayers..
13 He asked aboufi the status of';the wetlands, and the: bond .money that: was posted for
14 -the work o,n~ the 'wetlands. Ne was concerned about .Canadian geese that are
15 nesting on the~other end of the, runway-and the possibility that they might nest in the
16 wetlands, should They begin to operate properly.
17 -.
18 COUNCIL COMMENT ~ '
,~
Counclmember Healy questioned'the maintenance of the channel. He would like to
;hear from the, state fo see how diffcult`it will be to gef;.an easement: He is willing~'to
release two additional Cb's-and have this come back;the first meeting in November
if it is still an ~issue..If Mardel is continuing fo operate in good faith.; he would
proceed with cash bond.
26 Mr.. Moore stated that Mr. ,R.J._INlson; :Project Man'ager.for Cross Creek; advised
27 him that the bore :was going to be .cleaned out. ,
28 .
29 He also stated that the Mello :Roos Distric_ t has .been, set up 'and'.. `those funds wll_ be
30 collected;, starting with the 'p.ecem6er ;prope_rty. tax bill:.-Those funds are- for
31 maintenance and- monitoring of the weir and diversion channel. ~Mardel :has given
32 the City $60,.000 according to the agreement: to cover any kind of extraordinary or
33 catastrophic problems with the weir and. diversion channel. Future maintenance is
34 covered by the Mello Roos s.peciaC tax::
Councilmember Torliatf ..emphasized the need to; .be certain:: that the project i`s
:-
completed, including the im;provecnents: up ~strearn„ in .accordance 'with the
agreement, by the developer - _ ,.
Councilmember. Moynihan asked; what would be;~ an appropriate bond amount:. to
assure perfo-rmanee under this contracf. He, would like C.ouncilmember Healy to
amend his motion and..go forward at this, time with, a cash bond approach in an
amount `that is determined by Mr... Moore and Mr, .R_udnansky:
45 Motion made by Councilmember' Healy to direct; staff'to increase, the: Certificates, of
46 Occupancy from six to eighty of the twelve total :at this time when appropriate and to
47 work with the State of California to determine what will be. required to get the
48
October 1, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 411
1 ADOBE CREEK WEIR -AND DIVERSION CHANNEL, continued
2 COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
3
4 necessary easement and bring this matter back at the first meeting in November, if
5 it has not been resolved. Seconded by Councilmember O'Brien.
6
7 AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Moynihan,. Mayor Thompson
8 NOES: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; Torliatt, Maguire
9 ABSENT: None
10
11 TRANSIT SYSTEM
12 ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRACKING
13
14 Richard David, Transit Maintenance Consultants; presented the Council with a
15 report regarding the different kinds of fuel that are being tested and which are
16 certified. Some of the fuels that have been evaluated are:
17
18 Diesel - certified,, available in California and is currently on the: market.
19 Methanol-.certified, limited availability and not good in performance
20 Compressed Natural Gas -certified, available in California, commercial
21 Liquefied Natural Gas -certified, available in: California, commercial
22 Liquefied:Petrol@um Gas- certified, available in California, commercial
23
24 Those in the experimental stages are:
25 `
26 Bio-Diesel -not certified, limited performance
27 Electric Battery. - certified, limited performance
28 Hybrid Eleetric~CNG LPG-certified, available in California, limited performance
29 Hybrid' ECectrio Diesel -:some certified; available in California, limited performance
30 FuelCell ~- not certified, limited availability, limited performance
31 Ethanol - notcertified, limited availability, limited performance
32
33 Since the Petaluma Transit~~fleet; which consists of eight 1989 buses, is nearing the
34 end of its useful life;; there are major repairs and maintenance overhauls taking
35 . place to keep. he buses in running condition. The City will be required to replace
36 engines by October 2002.
37
38 Several, Councilmembers stated that the preferred alternative fuel would be bio-
39 diesel at some. date in~the future. `There are emissions issues and also finding the
40 source of bio=diesel could b'e an issue, but. it is believed that there are companies
41 that could provide the City with~the facilities in order to create the bio-diesel on site.
42 It is anon-toxic, non-hazardous material that can be used anywhere, as opposed to
43 the other alternative fuels.
44
45 Mr. David stated that° they have discussed some of that with the staff at the Air
46 Quality' Management District for some of the TFCA money; but they're only willing to
47 look at certified technology. None of that is certified yet under CARE regulations.
48 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) seems to be the dominant one.
Vol. 36, Page 412
October 1, 2001
1 TRANSIfi SYSTEM
2 ALTERNATIVE !FUEL TR~ACKLNG, con#in_ued
3
4 Supplies are unce,rfain; with any of the alternative fuels. Natural, gas is cheaper than.
5 diesel on a cost per mile that people could justify the extra capital cost of a CNG
6 bus versus a diese'I bus, which is anywhere from $50;000 to $75,000moue. To build
7 a CNG facility would run. about $500;,000 to $1 million.
Counclmember Torliatt stated thafi the City should look into. using the existing .b'u_ses
as bio-diesel buses- if they're ;in working order because of the health issues.
associated with both of the fuels that are `being considered..
,13 She also :asked staff if they have looked into partnering :with the school district and
14 what the life cycle"s are. on their buses. If we could get enough buses justify .having a
15 maintenance-person in that field; it is definitely worth pursuing.
16
17 CouncilrnernberH~aly wanted to know if staff has looked at whether eight vehicles
18 is still the optimal 'fleet size, given our current operating characteristics? And if a
1.9 local -match is required, what source of local funds would that~come out of?
Mr. Skladzien, Public Facilities and Services Director. stated that we are open to
expanding in the future, b'ut.the'immed'ate needs are repiaein,g the eight buses.
w. -~ .
Mr. Ryan, Transit Administrator advised Council that,. the transit system 'is funded
with 87% TDA funds and the: City's portion.''s".12%.
27 He also stated that if we purchase. a small bus.; we.could .use diesel fuel: If we get a
28 slightly larger b.qs; over 30'; we can:,go to CNG, and we can apply for,TFCA :funding.,,
29 but we ..have ~to think about a facility and where to locate it. He recommends a 30' .
30 bus with 32=35 seating capacity.
31
32 Councilmember T'orliaft stated that Napa .County :has consolidated ~#he: transit:
33 services within the entire ,county'and. wanted to know if Sonoma County has looked
34 into doing, that as one service provider to `coordinate better among transit. agencies?
36 Mr: Ryan advised that'in Napa County their bus barn s'in Napa: All the buses would
37 either go to t_he City .of Napa or. to the county on' Highway 29. Right now we're
38 probably .$9-$12 an hour cheaper than the county for service. Ifi we had to pay
39 additional money to the county, that would be a reduction `in service for the citizens
40 of Petaluma. .
41 ,.
42 Councilmernber Healy ,pointed out That there is. a desire on 'the part of'.the public to
43 move away from diesel #or environmental reasons. He suggested'. Council follow the
44 consultanf's° recommendation that the alternative fuel path that app.ea,rs: most
45 promising at this time is'CNG, and direct staff to proceed~wth diesel as a backup:
46
October 1, 200.1
Vol. 36, Page 413
1 TRANSIT SYSTEM
2 ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRACKING, continued
3
4 Councilmember Maguire asked if there was one version of bus .more easily
5 converted to bio-diesel fuel than another. He: also wondered if it was easier to
6 convert CNG to something else, or easier to convert a'diesel than CNG.
7
8 Councilmember Torliatt stated she did not want the City to make a major investment
9 in CNG. She thinks "the price of CNG is going to be exorbitant in the future. One of
10 the reasons MTC' is not moving toward CNG is that they see the technology
11 changing in the next 3-4 years and they don't want to invest in an infrastructure for
12 CNG, because there .will b~e cleaner bases in the future. GARB has to approve what
13 it is they give funding for because it has to meet certain, air quality requirements.
14
15 Councilmember Moynihan stated that there has been a lot of advancement with
16 diesel fuel and diesel engines.
17
18 Councilmerrber Torliatt would like Council to write a letfer on behalf of the City to
19 CARB asking them to expedite the process of this experimentaf technology and
20 certify it so we can move forward.
21
22 Mr. David explained. that the CARB regulation is pushinYg the clean diesel. What you
23 now buy in a clean diesel engine would emit about 1'~0-1,5% of the emissions that
24 you experience now. There is very little difference~in the emissions outputs of clean
25 diesel and CNG.
26
27 REDWOOD EMPIRE
28 SPORTSPLEX (RESA)
29
30 Parks and" Recreation 'Director Carr presented the staff report. on the Redwood
31 Empire Sporfsplex (RESA). This was last heard on .June 5, 2.0.00. Among some of
32 the questions Council asked was the length. of_ the lease,, which was .originally 50
33 years. Council also had some questions for the City Attorney to .clarify with county
34 counsel regarding the Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission, there were
35 questions about alcohol and whether there is a need for a rnaihtenance fund.. Mr.
36 Rudnan"sky .provided a summary ~of each of the items and you have a copy of 'the
37 agreement. .
38
39 Mr. Carr addressed some. of the .primary issues. Mr: Hronee has agreed to a 25-
40 year 'lease. Mr. Carr spoke with some similar complexes i.e., C.athedraf City which
41 allows alcohol only _in designated areas, and they have no,t had. any problems;
42 Riverside allows :alcohol. anywhere on the premises, as does the: Twin Creeks
43 complex in the San. Mateo/Sunnyvale area. Neither complexYhas had any problems;
44 the key to that has been having security'guards roaming the. premises. Mr. Hronec
45 indicated that he would have designated drinking areas only, and he could answer
46 any further questions'on that.
Vol. 36, Page~414. October 1, 2001
1. REDWOOD EIVlP.IRE ,
2 SPORTSPLEX ~(RESA), continued "
3
4 Thexe was ,a question about: the formula for he rent'. This formula .is. the: same that
5 Twin Creeks' uses and we .use the same =formula, for the Rooster Run Golf Course.
6 The developer is putting. up all the money and it, has. a staggered rate as you have 'in
7 your agreement .of '2% from years 1-5, 6°Io years 6-10 and 1:0% years 11-25.
8
9 According to tfie different complexes. Mr. Carr .contacted, they dori'f carry a
10 maintenance fond, and saw no reason fo do so. One of the Conditions of Approval
11 of the Agreeraenf is that the fields; :;have. to ;be, maintained to Softball- Association
12 standards. The City has the right to rriake frequent inspections ;to make sure
13 standards are being. adhere'd' to.
14 "
15 Vice .M'ayor Cader-Thompsor "asked about maintenance of the buildings
16 themselves.
17 "
18 Mr. Carr replied. that the buildings. were not addressed. He focused; on concerns
19 about the fields, and .assumed the buildings would be 'inspected annually by 'the
20 'Sonoma County'Health, Department, as is.the Community Center.
21 "
22 .Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson is concerned about the possibility of the City coming
23 into possession of °the ,buildings in 2b .or 30 years, and, what might 'be necessary, at:
24 that time to repair and upgrade them.
26 Mr. Carr reported that Mr. Hroneck has :agreed to drill his .own well,, wfiicf will, be
27 used until; the: City can supply tertiary water from the treatment. plant. There .could be
28 and probably°will ;be some impacts 'in the water table, sand there are two residents
29 adjacent to the, complex who would. probably be affected. Mr: Carr recommended
30 that as part of the agreement.and conditions of approual, water be supplied o them.
31 One of the residents is Mr: ~Golo.rado, who has spoken before- Council. Th,e other
32 resident, is to the. east;. of the complex. Mr. Hronec has met with the neighbors; he
33 will be supplying' fencing that will; screen out the complex `and. landscaping on both
34 sides. '
Vice Mayor .fader-Thompson asked if the fiields were regulation soccer#ields.
Mr. Hronec replied. that one of the fields 'was a regulation: soccer fie d., The other
two are smaller, fo,r~ the "Under 10" ;players, which 'is what. the Petaluma Youth
Soccer League has asked for. .
Councifinemb"er, :Magui`re, regarding; the water agreement with the, neighbors, he
assumed that'the. water line would be. resfricfed to two. domiciles maximum, 'to avoid.
providing an opportunity'for further development out there. .
Mr. Moore replied that the resolution that is referred to'in the agreement'i~s the
October 1, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 415
1REDWOOD EMPIRE
2 SPORTSPLEX (RESA), continued
3
4 Outside 1Nafe'r :Policy Resolution and the language allows the City to restrict it in any
5 way deemed appropriate. It's very clear that the water is only provided for
6 residential 'purposes. and whatever other conditions may be applicable to that
7 circumstance.
8
9 Councilmember Maguire thought it should be worded to restrict it to this situation
10 only.
11
12 Vice Mayor Gader-Thompson asked how likely it was that the residents would have
13 trouble with their wells when RESA puts one in.
14
15 Mr. Moore replied. that the City does not know. Mr. Colorado has expressed that
16 concern; so the City .has provided this way ofi .dealing with that issue, should it be
17 necessary. The. only other way to deal wifh that 'issue would be to have the irrigation
18 well for the playfields installed now and run it as if those fields were installed over ~.
19 some period of months to do what is called a "draw down test" to see whether there
20 is any impact to those residential wells.
21
22 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked if this was approved would the City of
23 Petaluma have to pay to have water brought. to the homes beyond RESA now?
24
25 Mr. Moore replied, "no,"and, explained that under the terms of this agreement, the
26 City is making the findings that an outside water service could be provided to those
27 properties under'the terms of the Outside Water Policy.
28
29 Councilmember Maguire had the same question, and asked if the. City should pay ``
30 for it without knowing if there would be impacts on the neighbors. He thought it
31 might be appropriate to ask him to share in the cost if the work was going to go
32 forward at this point.
33
34. Mr. Moore clarified- that the intention was to acknowledge in the agreement that the ..
35 .two adjoining property owners might be affected, that. it might b;e necessary to bring
36 in outside- wafer for those properties, and that thecost of doing so would not ~•
37 necessarily be the City's .responsibility. `
38 -~
39 In other words, a domestic water line will be necessary to serve the concession
40 building proposed as part of RESA. It was, our intention to took at the design of that
41 line as also being able to serve those adjoining ,properties.
42
43 Councilmember Torliatt made the following requests:
44
45 Would like a site plan showing the location of these wells.
46
Vol. 36, Page 416 October 1, 2001
1 REDWOOD: EMPIRE,
2 SPORTSPLEX (RESA), continued
3
4 •
1Nould like a site. plan showing the location,. of the .adjoining, properties.
5
6 Asked: if the properties were-.with the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),
7 '
8 ® Asked if (here were any other restrictions in the UGB language about
9 outside connections.
10
1.1 Provide. a copy of the people guaranteeing this lease agreement to
1;2 Council.
13
14 :Asked if the agreement requ-iced .financial reporting on a quarterly basis..
15 She would like Council to receive those reports,...
16
17 • Asked what would be char..ged for tertiary treated water, or if Council was;
18 to defermine that arnount.
19
''20 Asked if RESA would pay for the tertiary treated water, or if the °City would
21 be providing tertiary treated water fior free.
22
23 Asked if the City leagues, have priority over other leagues.
24
25 ® Asked if there would .continue to be a residency requirement fior those.
26 leagues; '
27
28 o Asked. if the City would want to use. the well after the tertiary treated water
29 is provided:
30
31 Asked.`if the:"City should have control over the well. (Her concern is if we;
32 think we're going to b:e back:. drafting pofentally two wells irr the county,
33 how far'is that drafting out to?)
34
35 Asked if 'the General. Plan process will provide. a Study .assessing .the
36 City's water needs.' She is concerned about the new well(s) potential
37 effect on the wel_L located at-the airport.
38
39 ® Are there any_ restrictions on the water that. is applied?
40 - .
41 Is'it an unlimited use of well water? .
42
~4:3 Is there a limit on the total dollar~arnount,for this project that we're~goin'g to
44 haue available to be mortgaged on fhe property?
45
46 Asked,. for a definition of a "Maintenance and Operational Plan.."
October 1, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 417
1
2 REDWOOD EMPCRE
3 SPORTSPLEX (RESA), continued
4
5 1Nould like to see that plan and asked-when it would be available.
6
7 Asked for the definition of an "experienced full-time manager."
8
9 ® Asked if'the City would have any say in the selection of a manager.
10
11 Asked if the City .had any remedy if there are. issues arising out of poor
12 management at the facility.
13
14 ~ Under "Default and Remedies" RESA would: not have any rights against
15 the City unless RESA has given the City notice and the City has failed for
16 a period ofi 30 days to cure the default. She would 'like that extended to at
17 least 6 months .instead of 30 days:
18
19
® _
Asked if-there was a' `p`erformance bond required' on, this project.
20
21 In the ``Right of First Refusal" language about purchase of the facility,
22 asked the definition ofi a `purpose°'? Is that 51 %, 75%, 40%, or just a
23 majority of ownership? ~ .
24
25 ® Vl/ould like an update of the financial .plan for Phis facility that Council. had
26 received previously: She raised the issue previously regarding the City
27 receiving a higher percentage,of incomefrom this ,facility, and she would
28 continue. to pursue that, .based on what kind of financial informatiori was
29 provided:. -
30
31 The lessee pis a Limited :Liability Corporation.~~She would like to know the
32 members of that ;Limited Liability Corporation, and who :has invested in
33 the project,'because~she wants-to know who the City's business partners
34 are.
35
36 She would Pike to see the minutes from the last Council meeting at which
37 the item was discussed:
38
39 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson:
40
41 Asked the. purpose of language in the agreement regarding purchase by a
42 "bona fide buyer:"
43
44 ® Asked. if design. of :the facility would come before the Site Plan and
45 Architectural Review Committee (SPARC).
46
vol. 36, Page. 418 October 1, 2001
1 REDWOOD EMPIRE
2 SPORTSPLEX (RESA), continued
3
--
4 • Would like to confirm that the Petaluma: Youth :Soccer League. (PYS~L)
5 requested one;'large field .arid two smaller fields.
6
7 • Asked for clarification of the hours of :operation.
8 _
9 • Wanted to ensure that: the City will not be'' ;responsible for the two homes
10 adjacent o the property:. She was'. concerned about possible liability with
11 regard to the impact of this, project on<a rural area..
'12
`13 Asked if the.County would be able: to rezone the area for commercial use
14 once `the sports complex was in operation. If so, how would that .impact the
15
16 • Citys water hook-ups?
1.7
18 Mr: Carr explained that a preliminary design had. already gone.. before SPARC and
19 as the design was refined, it would definitely return o SPARC. PYSL,: as well as
20 Girls Softball, were both involved in~~the project fr"orn the beginning... Prince Park'~is
21 adjacent to JNillow. Glen Subdivision and with the technology of the lights, play
22 continues .until 1'0:00 p.m,
23
24 • -Asked how the 11:00 p.m. ending time was decided on for RESA..
25
26' Councilmernber Healy:
27 .
28 • Noted that th_e hours of operation were an issue fat. the .last Planning „
29 Commission meeting;:
30
31 • Regarding the lack of .clarity in the document about charges for the recycled
32 water pipeline; he assumed that: RESA .would, be paying the same ;rates as
33 other users; of .recycled water. 'H'e suggested .adding language to clarify that.
34 ~ . , _ .
35 Explained that the lease called for the' welt to be capped off as soon as the
36 recyc_ led water becomes; available.. Thought :the City should have the option
37 to take over that well and add it 'to the. back-u,p wells for the municipal
3,8 system.
39
40 Agreed with Councilmember Torl'attregarding the :3~0 days to cure a default..
41 He would be willing, fo extend that to 60 or 90 days.
42 ~ .
43 Vice ..Mayor Cader-Thompson requested from staff'to: either have an independent do
44 a financial analysis; because the: financial; analysis. originally was from the applicant
45 and not an independent one. Council should know who the partners are considering
46' this is city property.:
October 1, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 419
1 REDWOOD EMPIRE
2 SPORTSPLEX (RESA), continued
3
4 Councilmember Moynihan shares concern regarding the well. He wants to make
5 sure the extension of'the water line to the neighboring residences is only done after
6 a show of need or effecting the ground water-table 'has indeed been impacted. He
7 also has concerns regarding the subordination of the construction loan. He
8 suggests than Council consider assisting in the financing or at least exploring the
9 possibility of that either through bond financing or redevelopment. He would like to
10 make sure that the ownership interest in the land is preserved and see if there is
11 another way to approach the construction financing that's acceptable to the
12 applicant and does not require the subordination by the City.
13
14 City- Manager Stouder replied that he would ask for the most current financial
15 analysis,, who his investors are and a .letter from them that states that if the lease is
16 approved by the Council- under the. conditions that seem to be evolving, we have a
17 binding letter of commitment that they will in fact invest. Then the question is what'`s
18 the security and guarantee behind that binding letter?
19
20 Councilmember Maguire made ,a motion to authorize lease of the property with all
21 due respect to the: comments~-raised so that when it does come back for a second
22 reading if those are not addressed then we will not have a second reading.
23 Seconded by Mike Q'Brien.
24
25 Councilmember Maguire questioned the subordination clause and the risk to the
26 City.
27
28 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky advised` Council that the way the subordination
29 clause reads. now is that the City would be required to subordinate its fee during the
30 construction loan period, however the city would not be obligated to sign any such
31 subordination agreement .unless they Have received assurances from a lender for
32 long term commitment. 1t sounds like ate that time the applicants will try to arrange
33 both construction~~antl long term financing at which point if he can demonstrate he is
34 qualrfied; for 'the `long term. financing, an`d we sign a waiver on the construction
35 portion we would have the assurance that he's got to take out financing which is the
36 biggest risk with the construction phase.
37
38 He also stated that the lender agrees that the only thing that would be security for
39 the long-term loan would be the leasehold interest, not our fee.
40
41 Mr. Stouder suggested that staff bring this back in 30 days with answers to your
42 question and introduce the ordinance at than time..
43 _
44 The motion and second were withdrawn.
45
Vol. 36, Page 420 October 1, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
~10
t1
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
1'9
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
CLOSED-SESSION
Council adjourned to Closed Session.
• CONFERENCCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXIStICIg LltlgatlOn, 'SUbdNISlOII (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 ,Lltlgatlon, SUbdIVISIOCI (a) of
Government Code. Section .54956.9:, Russell Kimberly vs. City of Petaluma,
Sonoma County;Sup.erior Court Case fVo.225543:
• CONFERENCE WITH ;LEGAL: COUNSEL.. - EXI$tlClg LltlgatlQfl, 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;: Subdivisio_ n (a) of
Government Code. Section .54956.9.,. Tammy Loeffler vs. City of Petaluma; U:S:
District Court; Northern District of'California, Case N'o. C01-0395 FJH'.
• CONFERENCE; WITH :LEGALCOUNSEL - AntlClpated LltlgatlOn, Significant Exposure
to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision 9(b) of Section 54956.9: (1 matter)
RECESS 5:00 P.M.
RECONVENE 7:00 P:M: .. .
REPORT "O'UT DF CLOSED SESSION '
Mayor Thompson stated that there was nod reportable action taken during .Closed
Session.
ROLL CALL.
_,
PRESENT: O'Brien, Wealy,, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; MayorThompson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~ '
Mike Slavish led the Pledge of Allegiance; ~ ~ -~
MOMENT OF SILENCE'
At the request of Mayor Thompson,. a moment of silence was obsenied.
PUBLIC COMMENT
EdnaMae Campanile, 94 Candlewood Drive,;' addressed" Council. with her coric~e;rns
regarding mobile .home space rent increases. She asked. that. Council preserve the
city's ordinance: since there is a, movement-.. ate the state level to rescind them::
October 1, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 421
PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
2
3 David G ass, 41 Qxford Court, as we look at our Housing Element accommodating
4 growth. with our Urban Growth Boundary .measure it is important that we maximize
5 the density particularly those parcels that.. are around major transportation corridors.
6 If we're ever going to solve our traffic problems long term we're going to have to do
7 it by rail.
8
9 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria. Drive, attended. one of the General Plan meetings antl
10 reported that there were very few people there.. He has a chart that was made by
11 the Corps of Engineers and it shows the flood limits as of 1 year ago without any
12 flood control and in 2Q4'0 it shows the flood limits at that date. 1Ne're spending about
1.3 $34 million in 40 years to have the same kind of flood problem that we ,have today.
14
15 Peter DeKramer, 515 Western Avenue, advised Council regarding Councilmember
16 O'Brien's comments during a Planning Commission :meeting. relating to action
17 minutes. He would like to see summary .:minutes Transcribed. He asked when the
18 public could expect; PCA to broadcast other meetings besides. Council and Planning
19 Commission.
20
21 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, don't build in the floodplain.
22
23 Steve Block, 1~9 Warrick Court, complimented. City ,Manager, Fred Stouder for his
24 good. job. Regarding 'the, school tax proposed by the. Old Adobe School District, he
25 would like the° School Board to put their egos aside and not. I'et the. kids 'lose out and
26 take this tax off the ballot. "Should something dike that pass, it will.be fought in court
27 and they will never see a penny ofi it.
28
29 He thinks the General Plan process is not. working. Th'e' kick-off was after a water
30 supply meeting. He would like the water supply meeting rescheduled- because he
31 -was not aware of it. Because of the lack of attendance, the meetings need to be
32 advertised by mailings or in water bills. _
33
34 -COUNCIL COMMENT
35
36 Councilmember Torliatt reported. that the next General Plan meeting, will be held on
37 the 4th of October, 7:00 p.m. at the Petaluma Community Center, 320 N. McDowell.
38 Economic :Health and Physical S,ustainability will be the topics., She agrees noticing
39 should be included in'thewater bills.
40
41 She does not. support action minutes at public meetings.: It's part of: the Council
42 Policies and Procedures discussion. Council has not voted on that;issue yet.
43
44 Fred Stouder; Gity Manager, stated that the General. Plan; noticing was .mailed to.
45 23,000 addresses. The media has been cooperative. in printing the .schedule of
46 meetings.. Because of the way the water bills are mailed (every two months) it would
Vol. 36, Page 422 October 1,; 2001
;COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
not have been helpful to include the schedule in the bills:
ice Mayor .Caller-Thompson,, feels it is important to have summary minutes rather
han action minutes ,because they are easier to research.
She encourages more people to participate in the General Plan process:
She spoke to a Casa 'Grande :High School., class regarding ,government procedures
and the importance of the youth getting involved. in government.
Request that the public and entire Council attend the- meeting with. Corollo
Engineers regarding the V1/.astewater Treatment Plant, October 25th at the.
Community Center.
17 Couricilmemb.er',Moynihan poke regarding tfe increased water and sewer bills: He
18 supports a public. forum with .Corollo Engineers s.o they can give an update on the
19 1Nastewater :Facility. Citizens need to understand' the. implications and, costs
20 associated with this project.
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Thompson read 'a Proclamation commending Matthew Stuart Valdez for:-
having the stren'gtf and concern for h"urnanity to relive and relate his automobile
accident in the .hopes of preventing what happened to h'im .from happening to
others. We wish`:him the best 'in all his future endeavors.
29 Matthew Valdez thanked his peers; the firefighters who: saved his life; Police Officer
30 Ken Savano; Drew Hitfenberger for helping h_im out with his prosthesis., Rick Susick,
31 Petaluma Valley Physical Therapist; and h`is mother and father.
32
33 TRADITIONS SUBDIVI,SIOIV
34
35 ~ -Phil Boyle, Project Planner, summarized', for Council. the request by ,Ryder Homes'.
36 for two General Plan Amendments, Tentative Subdivision Map and the Zoning Map,
37 Amendment fbr.an 8`0-unit subdivision known as Traditions located at the southwest
38 corner of .:Sonoma Mou"ntain Parkway and Maria Qrive. The proposed projeet
39 encornpasses~ approximately 18 acres: The d'e~elopment of the ,.project. site would.
40 :include 80 :one :and two story family homes, a 2 73-acre park and pedestrian/b`ike
41 paths along Corona Creek. General Plan designation ;is. Urban Diversified/Urban
42 High, Open' Space along the creek and public park. The .proposed change in. Zoning,
43 is from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development.
44
45 Ir terms of~ environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act an
46 initial study of potential impacts was prepared .and mitigation measures have been
October 1, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 423
1 TRADITIONS SUBDIVISfON, continued
2
3 proposed and. agreed to by the applicant that would reduce impacts to less than
4 significant. On July 24, 2001, the Planning Commission recommendation was to
5 deny the requested General Plan Amendments, both the relocation of the park .and
6 the elimination of'the roadway alignment at Corona ,and Sonoma Mountain Parkway
7 and the Rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development and the Tentative
8 Subdivision Map..
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Geoff Cartwright, 5.6 Rocca Drive, has concerns with the reconfiguration of Sonoma
13 Mountain Parkway and the wetlands the developers are proposing to fill and build
14 on top of. This may not be an. issue as far as wildlife is concerned; however, we
15 have a flooding problem and when you add fill and build on wetlands you increase
16 the chance of flooding: He also voiced concern with separating the. park from .the
17 project.
18
19 David Glass, 41 Oxford Court, what.Council is.being asked to do is to throw out the
20 General Plan where Sonoma Mountain Parkway configuration comes into play and
21 also with regards: to the park issue. The City can't afford fo not do what is in the
22 General Plan. This. is an area that should be developed to a higher density than is
23 being proposed.
24
25 Rick Savel, Penngrove, he feels that the Circulation Study of the County General
26 Plan should be complete before considering: the .realignment of. Sonoma Mountain
27 Parkway and signalization at the Corona/Adobe Road intersection. Perhaps the city
28 and county can get. together and look at the signal and, what 'is going on down the
29 street.
30
31 Councilmember Torliatt advised Council that she has met with the developer twice
32 prior to this .meeting. She also disclosed that she received campaign .contributions
33 from Ryder Homes: one check for $900 :and another :for $1,000 when she ran for re-
34. election last November.
_.
35
36 Richard Brawn:, 141 Grevillia Drive, the Ely Specific Plan has to be adjusted in total
37 because those ...policies that are in that Specific Plan represent a web of conflicting
38 interests that have all been agreed to in the past: in which people are relying on
39 fulfillment, Why should anybody participate in this .because all the policies. that are
40 going to go into"the General Plan are just going to get.the same kind of short shrift.
41
42 Stan Gold, 615 King Road, is concerned with changes to-the General Plan. Does
43 not want Sonoma. County to become a Santa Clara County.
44
45 Scott Vouri, 1:557 .Mauro Pietro Drive, stated that he lives within. 500' of the project
46 and had recused himself as a Planning Commissioner when it went before the
vol. 36, Page.424
October 1, 2001
1 TRA_ DITIOIVS SUBDIVISION, continued
2 PUBLIC COMMENT,; continued
3
4 Planning Commission-. ,According: to 'the 'General Plan,, in exchange for the: right to
5 develop this property, the, developer is.to extend the existing park to Corona Creek.
6 The proposal of the developer is to build houses and instead of extending the. park,
7 build a separate park across the street. Mr: Vouri advised Council that he conducted
8 a neighborhood survey of the homes surrounding the existing park. Forfy-three
9 people were home and out of the forty-three, thirty-eight preferred to have the
1 Q existing park enlarged. Only three people wanted the park built at a different
11 location.
13 Bill Phillips,, $24 Blossom Court, General 'Plan'. Amendments. have to have findings
14 that. benefits; 'the ~~public. Changes sho;ul:d not be made just for ,convenience sake.
15 He also opposes the reconfiguration of Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
16
17 Jim Ernst,: 1447 Morning Glory Drive, spoke: on behalf of Ryder Homes. He 'lives in
18 McDowell Meadows Subdivision. He prefers a separate park: Ryder.Homes did, hold
1~9 a special meeting .and made themselves available: to all the. owners: in their
20 community. He objects to three story multi-level homes because of privacy:
Robert Ramirez; 61.1 West,. the one=acne park doesn't offer a ot.. He feels it should
be expanded. Kids should riot play in the street. He is against the General Plan
Amendment.. .
26 David Bradley, Ryder' Homes. There has .been strong community buy-in, and input..
27 He has: met with Council, Parks & Recreation Commission,. Planning Commiss.i_on
~28 and the Board of Directors, of McDowell Meadows Subdivision.. As a result. of the.
29 ~publie process they have .made numerous. changes to this plane such as eliminating
30 22 townhome ,: a. eul=de-sac., changed the access to McDowell pedestrian. strip and
31 increased the size- of the rear yards from 5 feet to 10 feet,.
32
33 Ryder Homes feels_ there are compelling :reas_ons for the General Plan Amendment.
.34 ;In terms of moving the park sife, they were worried about the complaints from. traff_ic;,
35 congestion and. noise. They also felt that the park location should be :closes to the
36 higher density development to the north of Corona. Creek is zoned Urban High,
37 wh'i'ch is 10 to 15 units so your looking at Townhomes, Condominiums; Aparfrnents.
38 They felt it was only appropriate. that people iferally living, on 'top of° other people
39 have snore direct .access to a park .and have it more centrally located `for their use.
40 The desire, of the Board of ,Directors :for McDowell Meadows and the' majority of the
41 people thaf came to the neighborhood meetings was to move the location of the
42 park.
44 The second General Plan: Amendment was the road: alignment. The originaC reason,
45 to change this was to protect the Corona Club (which is no 'longer~there.)„ to create a.
46 Gateway and to-.keep the ..rural .nature of Corona. Road. Allan Tilton, Consultant,
47 _
October 1, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 425
1 TRADITIONS SUBDIVISION, continued
2 PUBLIC CONiMEIVT, continued
3
4 stated there is no evidence that supports ~a woop is,going to divert traffic~or change
5 the traffic patterns., The only way the traffic pattern wild be affected on Corona Road
6 is if Corona.. Road ;is terminated at Sonoma Mountain Parkway. The remaining
7 impact for Corona Ely is that there. are. two remaining; parcels to be built out in the
8 Corona Ely Specific Plan; they totalapproximately 39.0 homes which ireludes this
9 proposal and that impact is very minimal: to this existing intersection. The existing
10 infersection.`operates. at acceptable levels. It has a very low volume, of traffic and
11 the intersection itself has: substantial capacity still available. If C'ororia Road were to
12 be an `interchange the 'traffic volumes in that area would increase by 31 % and the
13 intersection. would still operate at a B-C level that 'is still ubstantially acceptable as
14 a level of service. Another reason this was presented to the Planning Commission
15 is that this intersection is a gateway into the. area, beyond ,Corona Road that is
16 identified b,y the city as a potential expansion area of'the Urban Growth Boundary.
17 We #eel that the existing intersection. wets as a speed deterrent and that eliminating
18 the swoop is in th:e pu;b`lic's best;iriterest beeause'_with a swoop traffic speeds are
1.9 only going to 'increase along Sorioma Mountain., Parkway..He concluded by touching
20 on some of the objections of`the' Planning Commission.
21
22 Storm Water '..Runoff.: We are ,awar;.e. of. the politics and history of what has
23 happened"in this city. Ryder homes were the. first. residential development in
24 Petaluma to design and bu_ ild a.zero net increase .runoff community ,known as
25 Lansdowne Subdivision. This- project, has ~t%een designed as a zero-.net
26 increase, runoff project. ,
27
28 Less lJ able 'Park; Space.:;.They are providing 2.25 acres, more than required
29 under the Corona Ely :Specific.Plan.
30 ~ . . .
31 • Wetlands: They have ,a new plan for mitigating the. wetlands; which is on
32 8/10'h of.an acre so they are exceeding fihe mitigation on a 1/1 basis on-site:
33 This: was. accomplished by using about 2/1.Othrofi an acre of the park site ,that
34 would' be .created as wetlands in this region. and th'e remaining is restored
35 floodplain waterways that, are within the creek.channel.
36
37 :® They will. build the parkas-part of the development. They would like to
38 negotiate with. the. City .on_,receiving some #ee credits for the 78 houses,
39 which. is about $350,000 and the .park development s~ estimated to be about
40 $800;0.00. They will be about. $500,000 short, and this will come out of 'the
41 Ryderand Brody~familes":pockets. .
42
43 COUNCIL COMMENT
44
45 Councilmernber -.Healy wanted to know if this project was in the filoodplain. Mr.
46 Bradley stated that it'was removed from the. floodplain when Corona Creek was
Vol, .36', Rage 426 .October 1, 200,1
1 TRADITI:O,fVS SU,BDIVISI:ON, continued
2 COfJNCIL COMMENT; continued
3
4 channelized: There; was a Lomar ,recorded in; 199.0 that fook the whole property ouf
5 of the floodplain area o the Zero Net Fill Ordinance does riot apply to this
6 development:
7
8 Councilmember'Maguire,asked abouf a surfiace detention system in this project.
9
Mr Bradley replied that they had discussed oversizing the pipe andcreating a.
detention. basin underground. 1Ne are looking. at the, possibility of having'. the pipe
perforated so than there will be a leach effect into the surrounding area. We ,ne.ed to
r.un that by the soils engineer to make. sure we're not undermining any kind .of
strucfural elements.. There is also a. possibility in discussion with the .Regional 1N'afer
Quality Control Board of pulling' back the property line along three .homes and
creating a sass:"knoll. or~" rass swell so there is a n g y em of storm
g y g y , atural filterin s st
runoff.'
Councl_member Torliaft is concerned with price of the homes; and; "single ..loaded
streets." She is more interested in a°"traffic circle rather than a swoop..
Parks and Recreation Director Jfm'-Garr ..noted that the Recreation, Music:,, and Parks
Commission was very concerned with' the traffic ,issues that. come with an active
park. Specifically, they'want a :main :road. corning off of Sonoma Mountain Parkway
to eliminate :dnving, in front of ,indivduaC residenfiial° homes. They wanted. on-street
parking,in order to preserve' the acreage of the park. The Commission was .also very
stringent 'in looking at fhe :creek corridor' and th_e ability to develop that: The: eighf-
foot cyclone fence would' preserve the visual corridor, as you.:do on 'thee opposite
side of the. creek. 'The fence would be .there. to, protecfi the: -kids who would ~b.e using.
the park., 'The. Commission also :recommended `some berming, use of mulch,
primarily because of the water situation, and trees, to give itsome character.
Councilmember Maguire stated °that he~would like to see a pedestrian bridge access
midway over~the creek: ~.
Vice :fJlayor Cader-Thompson fee,ls~`that if the park was contiguous with the existing:
park,. it could be designed. to have a parking area, so when ,people come to take
their ;kids to occer practice.,.. they would have a-designated area in wflich to park,
in fetid of parking on the: street. By~ hifting the park around, there is stilF the issue of
peoples parking on, the street:: ~ -
Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson doesn't feel that the. swoop `is the best resolution, to
road improvements at' Sonoma Mountain :Rarkway.
Councilmembe_r 'Healy is. eery sensitive to tissue of traffic circulation on Sonoma.
Mountain Parkway. V1/ould like rail crossing on Corona Road upgraded with the
October 1, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 427
1 TRADITIONS SUBDIVISION, continued
2 COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
3
4 rubberized crossing: Mr. Bradley showed some ihdication of willingness to pay for
5 that kind, of 'improvement. When the remainder of fhe Brody parcel comes forward
6 for development; 'there can be a more focused discussion about whether a swoop is
7 appropriate. Council is aware there are some legal issues with that. He asked the
8
9 -City .Attorney to summarize those for public.
10
11 City Attorney Rich. Rudnansky spoke regarding the question of imposition of a
12 condition, which requires improvements off-site.. Provision. of the Subdivision Map
13 Act allows that; however, in the event, the developer would be unable to obtain
14 voluntarily an easement or right-of=way, the City would be required to exercise its
15 eminent domain powers to obtain .easement at the developer's cost, and if it did not,
16 that condition. is waived. One of the best ways to do that is to put. it in a public
17 improvement agreement as a condition to a.Tentative Map.
18
19 Mr. Bradley stated that Ryder had a tentative parcel map that was approved. by staffi
20 and should be recorded by the end of October. At that time, they will close on the
21 property with the. Brody family. 'By the time the final engineering and Final Map is
22 processed through the City, Ryder Homes will own the South. side of Corona Creek
23 in addition to the park area,, and the Brody family will retain -the remainder piece.
24 There is a second parcel referred,. to as the. ``Brody Site." This application actually
25 incorporates two parcels., one owned bythe Colabianchi .family trust.
26
27 Councilmember Maguire expressed~concerri regarding noticing the neighborhoods
28 and whether or not Ryder Hornes met with more neighbors than the homeowners'
29 association and their ,board.,He would like to see the applicant go .back and have
30 some more direct contact with people 'to #ind out if there really is buy-in on this
31 proposal.
32
33 He would dike to.get°the .complete ,packet of information on this ,proposal to study it.
34: He .agrees with. the underground, oversized, perforated. drainage pipes. If a majority
35 feels that the. park, configuration as proposed is ideal, he thinks. that. the, footbridge
36 would improve pedestriari.and car circulation a little bit as well. If'there was going to
37 be an eight-foot fence, he feels it should have staggered sections, one in, one out,
38 to lessen the impact of a Jong, ,eight-foot. tall chain link barrier along the street. He
39 wou d be reluctant to ~ .give: future credits for the ,park, but will consider
40 Councfinember Healy's suggestion of some quid pro quo. for railroad crossing
41 improvemenfs,~ etc.. The letter from the GG Brid'ge District needs a response.
42 Regarding the swoo;p,, he'is in favor of seeing the original Specific Plan followed. He
43 feels the interitiorS of Sonoma Mountain .Parkway is to direct the traffic down towards
44 McDowell and the freeway, and keep that channeled on the main thoroughfare this
45 will also serve Corona extension by helping to keep that more rural type of road.
46
Vol. 36, Page 428
October 1, 2001
1 TRADITIONS: SU.BDLVIShON, confin_ ued
2 COUNCIL COMMENT, continued "
3
4 Councilmember Torliatt stated that if there ;is to be a .signal light intersection at
5 Adobe and 'Corona Roads; it may impact traffic flows at those intersections; and
6 what the .possible level. of service. She spoke with the developer regarding
7 increasing density on a couple of the lots; to provide some additional housing,.. not
8 necessarily adjacent to the deve opment that. exisfs there, but farther into the
9 subdivision.: At one po_ nt they were looking at some townhomes in that area. ;She.
10 ..recently attended a seminar regarding energy :and photovoltaics. She would; like the
11 applicant to consider some of these methods.
1'2
13 Councilmember O'Brien ,was happy ,to see that wetlands have been: mitigated .on=
14 site. He agrees with Councilmember Maguire's idea. about bridging the two parks,.
15 Regarding ~ the: intersection, 'he #hough`t it interesting that when the Workforce
__
16 Housing Element came before the Planning '.Commission; Mr. Wick said the Scott
17 property had been included in that, at the: insistence- of Vice. Mayor Cader-
18 Thompson. 'He .thqugh"t that. showed:. a lof of foresight because. it's. close to where' he
19 hopes there's going to be a transit hub. He does not want to see the .intersection.
20 changed to make. access fo 'that property more- difficult. He uses Sonoma. Mountain
_ __
21 Parkway'on a regular'b'asis and has not encquntered undue delays.
22
.,
23 Councilmember Moynihan also met with the applicant subsequent to the Planning
24 Commission` meeting. One issue.. he raised was the. four lots; 21 24, fronting on
25` `what's shown as `B' Street. Those driveways would be difficult to pull in. and ,out of,
26 and he wondered, `from a afety, point-of-view; if they should be tuCned or converted
27 to he cul-de-sac. He asked the applicant to confirm that this issue= had. been
28 considered. He made a motion to fully support 'the original staf";f recommendation of
29 the Planning Commission, to approve the General ,Plan ~ame,ndmenf and relocate
30 the park, rezoning of the site from Agriculture to PU,D, Tentative: Subdivision Map.;
31 deferment of the road :realignment .until the remainder of the Brody property is
32 developed, an`d addition of a pedestrian b:ridge.
33
34 There was. no second .to the motion.
35
36 Councilmember Healy made a .motion to direct staff to bring back;' resolutions for
37 General Plan Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Maps; sand ,an ordinance for the
38 rezoning., He would .like to include the footbrdge., the additional treatment to the.
39 eighf-foot fence, the upgrade to the existing railroad. crossing;: and ;a confirmation
40 that the requirement in the Specific: Plan for the remainder of the Brody parcel will
41 still be in there for the future development of't-hat parcel;; responding.to the :Golden.
42 Gate Bridge comments and ;perforation of underground drainage pipes., This, ,would
43 be based on the 78-unit subdivision that was presented, to us tonight. with the: park in
44 the location approved' by th'e. Recreation Commission: ~ Seconded `by'
45 Councilrnecnber O'Brien_
46
October 1, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 429
1 TRADITIONS SUBDIVISION, continued
2 COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
3
4 Councilmember Torliatt stated she was ,going to vote..no because she didn't have all
5 the information sfie should to make an informed decision.
6 .
7 AYES: O'Brien,.Healy, Moynihan, Mayor Thompson
8 NOES: Torliatt, Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, .Maguire
9 ABSENT: None
10
11 FLO.ODPLAIN~ MANAGEMENT PLAN
12
13 Phil Boyle, Assistant P anner in the Community Development Department reported
14 on the progress. of the City's Draft Floodplain Management Plan. The City
15 participates. in the Cities Community Rating System, which offers flood insurance
16 rate reductions to residents within the City's floodplain. The Floodplain Management
17 .Plan was originally' developed in 1995, is not a policy document,. but describes the
18 nature and magnitude of flooding the City has. experienced in the past, floodplain
19 management activities that ..have been implemented to date, additional alternative
20 remedies, and a plan for future action to address the current flooding problems. The
21 Plan 'has to be updated ~at leash every 5 years to meet higher CRS standards and
22 maintain the City's involvement in the program. The City currently has a class rating
23 of 6, which results in a 20% reduction in flood insurance rates.
24
25 City staff and the. consulting. firm of Schaaf and 1Nheeler produced. the Plan that
26 Council rece'iyed: Staff from Com"rimunity pevelop;ment organized the Technical
27 Advisory Committee, which is comprised of taff members from various
28 departrnents.and staff from,'the Sonoma County Water Agency (SC1NA). The public
29 was also involved in several . ways: a questionnaire 'regarding :citizens' view ~of
30 flooding control practices and how they may impact homeowners, as .well as
31 opinions on how flood management activities should be .prioritized.. Two public
32 meetings were held =one in July at the Community Center, the other at McKinley
33 Elementary School in August.-
34
35 'PUBLIC .COMMENT
36
37 B'ob Martin, 171 Payran Street, has been lobbying for floodplain management for
38 years. He submitted. comments. in #hree letters and` a copy of the' General Plan
39 gu'ideli_nes for floodplain management-published by .the State. He has three items on
40 his "wish list" -expand the zero net fill area and "puf sor-me teefM"into enforcement,
41 start ch rging drainage fees for displaced floodplain, Citywide„ and monitor water
42 surface elevations relative to FEMA base flood, using. rain and stream gauge data.
43
44 'Mr. ~ Martin suggested comparing some old and new topographical maps to identify
45 possible- fill added without a permit: then require the property owner to remove. the
46 fill at his/her .own expense. He was aware of ,seve'ral projects -where extra fill was
47 added. Some property owners didn't even pay drainage fees..
Vol. 36, _Page~430
October 1., 2001
1 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN; continued
2 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
3
4 Councilme,mber Healy noted °#hat; whe,n.Council first.adopted ,the'intenm; ordinance:;
5 there was discussion about, the extent to which they could revisit old, fill -the o-
7 calme backn~fot~redel/v'e on menether They could address those parcels when they
p -
8
9 John Cheney, 55 Roeca Drive; Linda Del Mar Subdivision didn't flood: in the 60''s.
10 Twenty years later it flooded: The City is spending $34 million to fix it: That project
11 won't be done ,until federal money comes through. He acknowledged that all
12 development.could not stop; but urged the City to, '"slow down and %k at "the whole
13 floodplain:."~ .
1.4
15 GeoffgCartwrighf, 56: Roq a Dr ~~~, explained that updating of''the Foodplain
16 Mana ernent Plan was re wired b FEMA for the City to participate ,in the.. Flood
17 Lnsurance ;Program. ~Hbwe~er;. that will not stop the flooding. Building in ,areas that
18 flood will result in flooding, disasters:
19
20 C:O:UNCIL COMMENT
21
22 Councilmember Torliatt, pointed out; in the Floodplain Management Action Plan, o,n
23' a e 28 the re;~entative activities include open space preservation: "The C~ty~ will
2'4 pongt~nue its efpforts.to keep vacant floodplain lands open.. Tim, etable: On oin- " :Shea
9 9
25 was ,glad that. this Council was endorsing this kind of preventative: activities: for
26 floodplain management.
27
28 C.ounc_ilmember Moynihan noticed that. a number of the back pages contained
29 blanks for :identifying sources and sources of -funds. Me. asked when those blanks
30 would be°filled'in.
31
32 Mr. Boyle explane;d..that the blanks would be filled in with the help of Director of
33 Water Resources and Conservation `Tom Hargis:
34
35 Co.uneilrnem6er' Moynihan was, concerned that the Council had not approved: the
36 Capital Improvement Plan. Would these numbers be coming from the draft plan?
37
38 Mr. .Hargis explained that the tables in he back.. pages were based on the
39 preliminary Capital Improvement Rrograrn., They have the preliminary numbers,. but
40 the timetables are .blank, and Council will discuss them at the October $th- meeting;
41
42 Councilmember Moynihan asked ~if the; Flo.odplain Management Plan should be
43 submitfed before the C1P was voted on by:Council:
4.4
'5 ommunity Development Director .Mike ..Moore explained- that the purpose of 'this
46 report'was to respond to FEMA's, requirements'forth~ Community Rating System,...
October 1, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 431
1 FLOODPLAIN MANAG`fMENT PLAN, continued
2 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
3
4 The information is based on the best available information at this point; which is the
5 draft CIP. If it were necessary; and these things were changed significantly through
6 the CIP review ,process, then the City could amend the Plan to reflect whatever
7 significant changes were made and then resubmit it to FEMA.
8
9 Councilmember Moynihan noted that on page 7, the Plan states that 1,300 acres in
10 the City of Petaluma is within the: designated 100-year special flood hazard area. He
11 thought it important that no one. have the rnisconception that the Plan would prevent
12 development in fl'oodplains. Just. the opposite was. true: the Plan provides for it, and
13 how to mitigate for it, so the net impact is taken care of, not only on the site being
14 developed, but on. -the neighboring sites. This was how the City was going to provide
15 for economic development'in the community; and fill in the land sites that offer the
16 best opportunity fo 'reach community .goals.
17
18 Councilmember Torliaft would like staff to respond to that, as that was not her
19 interpretation of the document.. She believed.: the Plan was about, "looking at
20 effective goals that ~we can try to achieve and preventative activities that we need to
21 move forward on."She again pointed out that one of the goals was to, `preserve
22 open space"in tfe~f,loodp ain lands that are currently open.
23
24 Mr. Moore explained that the document is not a land use. p an and not. a policy
25 document. - so both Councilmember Moynihan and Councilmember Torliaft were
26 right in the sense; Ghat current City policies don't prohibit development in the
27 floodplain and they do provide for certain limitations on development in the
28 floodplain. The document pulls all of that information together to let FEMA know
29 what the City is doing, all of the policies that are currently on the books related to
30 floodplain management.. Going forward on the General Plan. and other policy
31 documents, the Council will have the opportunity to address policy aspects
32 specifically, but that is not .part of what this document. is intended to do.
33
34 In a motion by Councilmember Maguire, seconded. by Vice Mayor, Cader-
35 Thompson, Council voted to adopt th'e Updated Floodplain Management Plan.
36
37 A-YES: Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson; Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien,
38 Torliaft; Mayor Thompson
39 NOES: None
40 ABSENT: None
41
42 NOVATO NARROWS
43
44 Nino Cerruti, Caltrans; Project Manager for Marin/Sonorna Narrows Project spoke to
45 Council regarding tte project. The current project proposes widening. the Highway
46 101 corridor from Highway 37 in Novato through Petaluma to Old Redwood
47 Highway. The project is divided into three distinct units:
Vol. 36, 'Page<432 October 1, 2001
`1 NOVATO NARROWS, continued
2
3 Southerly portion; currently a six-lane freeway.: Caltrans proposes adding a
4 carpool/express bus lane in each direction:
5 Middle section, :currently an expressway; which would ,be .converted to freeway
6 and to which acarpool%express bus lane would be added in each direction:
7 Northerly section, Highway 116 fo Old Redwood Highway, which is now a four-
8 lane freeway; and to which a carpool lane/express bus lane would be added'- in
9 each direction.
11 The project- is currently iri the environmental. studies, phase, and inventories of
12 biological and cultural resources .are: being developed. They ,expect the .studies: to
13 be complete: by 'the end of year. Then. they will begin. analyzing alternatives that
.14 have been developed 'fgr project, and, defermine what environmental: impacts each
15 of them has.. Completion of that, phase. should be in about one year: The
16 environmental' document will then be circulated to the public, and' fhe public hearing
17 will' be held, ometirne in mid 2003.
18
19 There w_.as much public comment on this project.. and those comments have been
20 compiled into a book.
22 G.ouncil;member .Healy noted that in Aug,ust.Caltrans issued a Project Sfudy Report
23 for the northern segment of the Novato: narrows; which is basically the segment
24 through the City of Retaluma; ,starting at. Lakeville Highway up: to Old Redwood
25 Highway, and; it discussed some of the technical +issues. One: :thing that Caltrans
26 determined. 'in thaf .document was thaf. the two points where Highway 1 Q1 crosses
27 over the rail line in the center of town; ,neat where 'a potential Rainier connector
28 would likely go -those two overcrossings would have to be demolished and
29 reconstructed.
31 The draft.. fetter that her proposed last. ,week, and .the ;revised version in the Council
32 packet. this week;.. are essentiallyasking Caltrans to include the potentiak of a City
33 project in its design and environmental work so that: the. City would not be. precluded
34 from. aCity-owned project in that corridor: 1n the .revised letter; he expanded it, to a
35 cross=town connector and%or interchange connecting, to ..Rainier, Southpoint or
36 Corona. Councilmember Healy is Council's representative, on SCTA. Caltrans has
37 indicated that, any direction with respect fo. the scope of its work. should come from
38 SCTA; which is why he has drafted this letter for the City to go SCTA.
4Q Mr, Cerruti stated that the environmental studies are, about- $14 million, .and the. #otal
41 project .cost;: including all of the support costs; is about $375 million,;, of which $300
42 million to $325 million is the capital cost for the construction:
43
44 Councilmember Moynihan asked, if' by getting. this: project prograrimed in with the
45 Narrows Project, the City would get the~environmental' work done:
46
October 1,.2001 Vol. 36, Page 433
NOVATO NA~RROVI/S, continued
2
3 Mr. Cerruti advised Ghat if was his understanding that all it did .was. prevent the
4 possibility of adding some .kind. of cross-town connector from being precluded.
5 Caltrans would need~`to .know the: location by-the end of-this year/early next year to
6 determine if there were: any environmental impacts associated with providing for
7 that future ability. .
8
9 Councilmember Torliatt pointed out that Council tad been talking about creating
10 cross=town connectors and interchanges and she thought it sounded like they were
11 still looking of a cross-town connector and interchange for the Rainier project, but it
12 only talks about design of a replacement overcrossing for the other points. That
13 needed to be clarified.
14
15 Councilmember Healy advised that the PSR that Caltrans issued indicated that
16 there was. no need for Caltrans to demolish the ,Caulfield, Washington, or Corona
17 overcrossings: Those issues are off the table with respect fo the widening, but the
18 City might want to pursue them separately at another time.
19
20 Councilmember Torliatt would Like Corona as a potential interchange incorporated. in
21 he environmental review so the City would .know what impacts the Caltrans project
22 .would hate on' it. The .other issue that .was not addressed in the letter was the
23 replacement of the Kenilworth overpass.
24
25 Vice .Mayor Cadex-Thompson stated that she took. some Caltrans officials to the
26 'Corona .Reach area. The widening of Highway 101 would be delayed due to the
27 impacts of a 'Rainier overcrossing, and the' river would be destroyed. She believes
28 'the agenda item. was illegal. the way it was posted, because, `~Mis is about Rainier."
29 She asked if the Petaluma River Bridge needed to ke completely demolished to
30 widen Highway 101_, as well as the bridge when you. get on from Petaluma South
31 . onto the freeway.
32
33 Mr. Cerruti, it was identified in the project stud.y.report that it needed to be replaced
34 because of the skew. of the railroad tracks. underneath. the structure, and it wasn't
35 really feasible to widen the structure again.. The other .bridges we are ,looking at to
36 `determine whether like`-t'he Petaluma River Bridge if it will need to be replaced. V11e
37 hope.~to just widen 'the structure, same with the other structures along 'the corridor.
38. - ...
39 Councilmember: Maguire clarified that the letter suggests that Caltrans explore the
40 possibility of a connector crossing under Highway 101. He asked Mr. Cerruti if that
41 could be incorporated into Caltrans' scope. of work.
42
43 Mr. Cerruti explained that it would depend on the location. The highway right now is
44 levelexcept ~at the railroad crossing. Caltrans would want the. SCTA to direct them
45 to include that in the project scope.
46
Vol. 36 Page:434 October 1, 2001
1 IVOVATO (Vi4RROWS, continued
2
3 C.ouncilmember Torliatt thought atremendous amount of :fill would be: needed under
4 'the ar.,eas where the roadway was b'e'ing expanded. She hopes Caltrans looks
5 closely at the Surf ace 1Nater Management Plan, that this City is spending about $~1.7
6 million do:IPars on and includes it'in their enVironrne:ntal studies.
7
8 Mr. Cerruti stated that a; floodplain analysis 'is included as part of the' enVronmental
9 studies, as well as the .additional runoff, that. would b:e: caused by the additional _
1.0 lanes.
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT
13
14 Mary Glardon, 105 Rushmore..,. stated that if Rainier- were built, the City would have
15 lawsuits.
16
17 Sharon Fox, 1958 Bristol-'Street, is opposed: to the Rainier project.
18
19 Maddi'e Christensen, 1 Q9 Rocca Drive:, objects to Rainier in the #loodplain .because
20 her.home'will flood.
21
22 Elaine Woodriff 71'7 N. McDowell Boulevard-, is opposed to Rainier because it
23 would not ease the°traffic,'if would stimulate it; ~~
,24 . ,
25 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Dr~ej feels .the Rainier .issue should not. have been placed
26 on an agenda. The :Cify does not- need development in the; #loodplain, 'it doesn';t.
27 need. a factory outlet, and it definitely doesn't need a Rainier crossing, right into the
28 floodplain. ,He did ;not. think Calfran `°really wanted fo deal ;with the~headache you
29 guys are going to drop on them.:"
30 -
31 David Glass, 41 Oxford' Court, feat it was wrong not to put on the agenda- what this
32 item was really about: Rainier.
33
34 -Don 1Neisenfluh, ,903 .Kensingfon Place, is op_.'posed. to Rainier. He feels the Council
35 is headed for failure and, feels ome''of the Council. has conflicts of interest:.
36
37 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 51'3 Petaluma :Boulevard South, chair of'.the' Petaluma.
38 Pedestrian and. Bicycle Advisory Committee,, stated this.,; "wa_s' another atfempf, ~tq`
39 bundle the. Rainier Interchange projec.."t with he Novato Narrows 1'01' Widening .
40 Improvements:'"
41 -
42 The Committee made the following two points...
. 43 -~
44 1. "The Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee considers: Corona Reach- to e
45 a precious pedestrian/bicycle urban park and wildlife corridor. It's potental:s
46 such that:Petalurna -could ..have it's own Central Parkor Golden .Gate Park if
October 1, .200.1 Vol. 36, Page 435'
1 NOVATO NARROWS, continued
2 PUBLIC COIVIIVIENT, continued
3
4 we're all visionary enough. It has the potential also to improve off-road travel
5 between east and west Petaluma, enabling people to walk or bicycle to places
6 only considered available by car. This area is an .aesthetic gem and the PBAC
7 does .not want o see it developed as an automobile through corridor or
8 interchange. Because the,proposed Rainier Interchange/Cross Town-Connector
9 goes right through .this area;, the PBAC feels it is a tactical error to include
10 Rainier with the: Narrows Project for funding purposes."
11
12 2. "The PBAC provided testimony at the Novato riarrows forum, Awgust 22, 2001,
13 concernir-g widening'Highway 101, along with our view that a rail trail should be
14 built by Caltrans money at the time any Highway 101 work is done. What we
15 want is to build on the railroad right of way while the: freeway is being built.
16 Tonight's agenda item seems like. a sneaky .way fo draw the extremely
17 controversial Rainier, overcrossing project .into the morass with the somewhat
18 less controvers-"al Narrows project on very short- notice and without even giving
19 the courtesy to call it what it is."
20
21 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, feels this .issue was,. "slipped in through the back
22 door."He again advised the Council not to build in the'floodplain.
23 ..
24 Peter Del<ramer, 515 Western Avenue, also ,felt this was not noticed properly and
25 that if Council goe"s through with this there .will'be, "hell to pay."
26
27 Stan Gold, 615 King .Road, urged the Council to go out to the Corona Creek area
28 and visualize Rainier overcrossing being,constructed.
29
30 Matt Connolly, Chelsea, advised Council that the outlets are proceeding without
31 Rainier as a project. The City is looking: at a,traffc model. and-the traffic model 'is
32 supposed to consider ultimate''deveTopment within the, community. He knows the
33 vision is to look. at the development of downtown. If the traffic model comes back
34 and: says -that there's a need for-a cross-town connector at Rainier; or Southpoint;~~or
35 Corona,. he thought. the City was asking Caltrans to makesure the' City does not
36 lose that opportunity.
37
38 Mayor Thompson stated that one of the, issues" .being addressed in the City of
39 Petaluma is the ongoing General Plan ~proeess and where the best location would
40 be for a future cross-town connector and~or interchange between East Washington
41 Street and 01d Redwood Highway. Potential locations for such a project include
42 Rainier Avenue; Southpoint Boulevard and Corona Road.
43
44 Councilmember Healy noted that Caltrans has determined in its PSR that it does
45 and does not. need to modify certain structures in that stretch of Highway 101. All
46 they would do underneath the existing overcrossings is add a third lane in the
VoL 36, Page 436
Qctober 1, 2001
1 .NOVATO NARROWS,.:con#inued
2 PUBLIC COMMENT; continued
3
4 median.. If Council feels that would; preclude: a potential interchange: at Corona,. he
5 would be happy to amend the draft letter to address that. Caltrans .has determi-ned
6 that it must tear. down and reconstruct the two rail overcrossings clgser to a
7 potential Rainier alignment.. He thoughf, `There could be nothing dumber for
8 government fo do than tq have one branch of governmenf spending millions of
9 dollars to do one aspect of a project,that could potentiallypreclude alocal project in
10 close proximify." I am asking that they not.;preclude an opportunity for something .at
11 any of those. locations.
12
13 Vice Mayor Cader-.Thompson stated'. that the Corona overcrossing s~inadequate for
14 pedestrians and bikes because it'.s nofi.wide enough,. The. City has an opporturty,at
15 the widening of this freeway to make a, huge difference. at 'Corona for pedestrians,
16 bicycles and cars. She received a letter 'from the owners: of the theatres asking her
17 to review their potential development o.n than. property. The Friedman/Gray shopping
18 center property has. an option on this property..: She Thought it ,interesting that;,
19 "suddenly .Rainier comes ~up :and all these properties are shifting .around and they're
20 shopping center developers:'"
2.1
22 Councilmember Maguire would like to wait: until the Traffic.. Circulation Study 'is
23 compfeted.. Between the inadequate noticing. and the trust issue, he doesn't believe
24 that Council will .come away with a compelling direction for our ,representative to
25 SCTA or direction to Caltrans. lf. the .majority wants to go ahead with this, he feels
26 that Vice Mayor :Cader-Thompson's and Ms. Tuttle Brown's comments should be
27 included in the left"er:
28
29 Councilmember Q'Brien would like to wait for the Traffic Study to see what is
30 recommended.
31 -
32 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson pointed out that with ;The. Southpoi'nt alternative; there.
33 is a building in, the'way that would have to 'be. torn down. She asked if Caltrans
34 considered; the impacts to a community as a whole when they performed their
35 environmental. studies. She~,asked if this •alternative_would preclude the northbound
36 onramp.at Vllashington Street: ~ .~
Mr: Cerruti stated that. they do,,l'ook at:the impacts to the. community. They do try to
space interchanges about one mile apart.. The. project does include the northbound
onramp from EastlNashington Street westbound to the northbound freeway so thaf
traffic won't have to make a left turn to go the loop.
42
43 He advised Council that the Project Study Report states that the City of Petaluma
._
44 requested that the Kenilworth ouercrossing be removed. and that,Caltrans woufdri't
45 remove it, had there not been the request to do so. The only 'thing they would have
46 to look into to is'if if meets ADA requirement's.
October 1,2001 Vol. 36, Page 437
1 NOVATO NARROWS, continued
2 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
3 .
4 John Bertucei; 651 N. l=air Street, when he left Petaluma in 1969, flooding was not
5 an issue. "You build in the floodplains, you have floods. "` He feels there is a
6 movement for Rainier that is connected to developrrment 'and to the closing of the
7 movie theatres.. Ne is willing to respect development, "if it's honest."
8
9 John Mills, 315 `D' Street; supports Councilmember Healy's letter to the Sonoma
10 County Transportation Authority.
11
12 Motion made by Councilmember Healy to look at the opportunity to retain the
13 pedestrian overcrossing in its current location, and failing that, to replace it with
14 something else at the best possible location .either there or elsewhere.
15
16 He is concerned about the level of mistrust,. both in the community and on the
17 Council. He is concerned about the; ~ "superheated level of rheforic on this issue" and
18 wants the public and the Council to know that he is committed to an open process
19 with full .opportunities for .,public. participation now and moving forward. He believe
20 the City needs to preserve the possibilityfo eventually hake across-.town connector
21 and interchange at the most appropriate location. Potential interchanges at various
22 locations will be explored as part of the General Plan Transportation and Circulation
23 Element. He is corrimitted to seeing thaf process through. Any .cross-town connector
24 interchange that he;supp:orts wilt have to fully mitigate all flooding .issues. It will .have
25 to comply with zero-net fill,. 'it wilt have to comply with, zero net runoff, as will. any
26 other .development in the <floodplain and in the watershed. The request that he
27 placed before the Council tonight is simply to preserve opportunities for a future
28 connector as the G"eneral P-Ian process -moves forward. We would like the leffer to
29 go to SCTA.
30
31 Seconded by Councilmember Moynihan. He noted that Council's reputation suffers
32 when, `°we don't speak with one voice." He would like to send the letter forward fo
33 the SCTA with Council's representative. Councilmember Healy and. he would like
34 that to be the one. voice from this Council that resonates at the SCTA meeting:. , ,
35
3.6 Councilmember .Maguire stated he would :be• voting against this. He feels that
37 Council agreed that it would wait for the Circulation Study to be completed before
38 addressing the Rainier issue.
39
40 Vice Mayor Cader=Thompson will .also oppose the letter.. She would like to see her
41. other two colleagues write a letter along with her to send up to SCTA making a
42 recommendation that would be more appropriate.
43
44 Mayor Thompson :stated that he is committed to the Traffic Study. if the Traffic
45 Study does show that; Rainier is the best location I want to see how committed' the
46 other members of the Council are if that does in fact bear out to be true. In
Vol. 36 Page 438 Oeto6er `1, 200.1
1 NOV°ATO NARROWS, continued
2
3 his opinion, a 'cross=town connector and de~eloprnerit 'in the ,floodplain are two
4 separate; issues and he: ;has not dealt with a p,roposal,that. shows that there: will l?e;
5 development in the floodplain. He ;did not believe the letter was,. "a: clear go ahead
6 for Rainier and development in the floodplain,"
8 AYES: O'Brien, Healy; Moynih`an,'MayorThoorpson
9 NOES`. Torliatt, Maguire, Vice.Mayor Cader-Thompson
l0 ABSENT: None ~ '
11
1,2 .Motion; made by Councilmember Torliatt, seconded by Councilmember Maguire to
'13 preserve the Kenilworth Overpass as it is or to replace it if it needs to' be
14 .reconstructed. because of AQ;4 ,requirements. ~-
AYES: O'Brien, Neaiy,'Toriiatt; Maguire,.M,o,ynihan,
vice Mayor Gader=Thompson, Mayor Thompson
NOES: :None
ABSENT: :None
a
Couricilmember Wealy .announced that the: SCT4 rneeti'ng is next Monday th'e 8th at
3:15 p.m. at the County Planning Commission .Office in Santa Rosa.
ADJO`UR~IV
The meeting. was adjourned of 10:45 p.m:
E ' lark.. Thompson, Mayor
32 .ATTEST:
33
34
35 ~~.
36 Paulette Lyon, Inferior (Xit~i Clerk
37