HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council/Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2000October 23, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 269
1
2 City of Petaluma, California
3 Minutes of a Special
4 Joint City Council and
5 ~ Planning Commission Meeting
6
7
8 Monday, October 23, 2000
9 Council Chambers
10
11 The Petaluma City Council and Planning Commission met on this day at 7:00 p.m. in the
12 Council Chambers.
13
14 ROLL CALL
15
16 Petaluma Planning Commission Members
17
18 PRESENT: Commissioners Barrett, Broad, Glass, Monteschio, Vieler
19
2 0 ABSENT: None
21
22 Petaluma City Council Members
23
24 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Keller (7:05 p.m.), Maguire; Mayor
2 5 Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
26
27 ABSENT: Council Members Hamilton, Healy
28
29 PLE®GE 01= ALLEGIANCE
30
31 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Gabe Kearney led the Pledge of Allegiance.
32
33 MOMENT OF SILENCE
34
3 5 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
36
37 PUBLIC COMMENTS
38
39 Sherry Brungart of Heritage Homes of Petaluma, 707 English Street, presented a petition
40 signed by 200 members of the community stating their opposition to the demolition of
41 historic buildings within the proposed development known as Basin Street Landing Hotel
42 and Office Complex. The project included the Victory Chevrolet dealership on Petaluma
43 Boulevard South, a contributor to the National Register Historic District, and the nineteenth
44 century livery stable east of the fire station on "D" Street. They supported sensitive
45 development of the area that promoted adaptive review of historic buildings and promoted
46 new development that complimented the character and scale of the historic downtown.
47
~,
Vol. 35, Page 270
October 23, 2000
1 Geoffrey Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition to development in the floodplain
2 upstream of the Payran Flood Project.
3
4 Susan Simmons, Animal Services Advisory Committee, spoke regarding the formation of a
5 countywide coalition of animal shelters and organizations established primarily for the
6 purpose of putting an end to euthanasia.
7
8 Bill Hammerman, aka William Howard Pepper, 421 Keller Street, spoke regarding the
9 recent successful Cyber City Symposium and in support of public/private partnerships that
1o collaboratively improve the quality of life for the benefit of the community.
11
12 Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, requested again that the City Council immediately
13 purchase ALS equipment.
14
15 Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue, spoke regarding water issues and noted that
16 she enjoyed the recent water symposium hosted by the Council.
17
18 CORRESPONDENCE
19
2 0 None.
21
22 COUNCIL /COMMISSION COMMENTS
23
24 Council Member Keller reported on the Marin Sonoma Narrows meeting with Cal Trans, a
2 s group that met monthly consisting of Supervisors from Sonoma and Marin Counties, City
2 6 representatives from Petaluma and Novato and members of each congestion management
27 agency, the CMA (Congestion Management Agency) in Marin and the Sonoma County
2 8 Transportation Agency (SCTA). The PSR (Project Study Report) parameters were from
2 9 Hwy. 37 to Old Redwood Highway. Interregional monies to be funded first will apply to the
3 0 area between Atherton Avenue in Novato and Highway 116 in Petaluma. He was happy to
31 report that Cal Trans was supportive of limited access along freeway frontage and making
32 sure improvements were integrated within 'a multi-modal solution for North Bay
3 3 transportation, that.it was not a highway project on its own. He noted that he was pleased
34 with the turnout for the North Bay regional water forum; all of the contractors were
3 5 represented. There was a water forum scheduled for Thursday evening, October 26 in San
3 6 Rafael, hosted by the Sierra CIu6 of Marin. On Thursday evening, January 11, 2001, the
37 Town Hall Coalition would host a public forum regarding water issues.
38
3 9 Council Member Maguire spoke regarding election practices ar~d noted that a "Vote Yes on
4 o Measure I" sign had been stolen from his yard in front of his .home. He then voiced his
41 belief that the editorial comments of the press, especially the Press Democrat, did not
42 accurately report on issues and instead fueled controversy. He noted that Council Member
43 Hamilton was not present at the meeting as she was grieving with her close friends,
44 Marjorie and Chip Atkin, over the recent tragic death of their son, Trey, who was struck and
45 killed by the limb of a tree while at a friend's birthday party in the recent windstorm over the
46 weekend. He asked that the meeting be adjourned in the memory of young Trey Atkin.
47
1
~~
~,s3
October 23, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 271
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that Gabe Kearney's grandmother had passed
away and that the meeting be adjourned in her memory as well.
Mayor Thompson acknowledged the Council's sensitivity.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT
None
CITY MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
None
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
None
MINUTES
(Removed) October 16, 2000 -reschedule to come back November 6.
PRESENTATION
Petaluma Trolley Project
Lauren Williams of the Petaluma Trolley, a California Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporation,
presented history and background information about the trolley project and provided
suggestions, additions, and deletions to the working draft of the Central Petaluma Specific
Plan. He then concluded his presentation with a slide show presentation given to provide
additional historical information.
Commissioner Barrett asked if there had been consideration of starting the trolley farther
south as there was no parking at the foundry wharf.
Mr. Williams replied that there were too many buildings in the right of way, it was not
possible. However, he did not favor expanding the project more than what was currently
designed. He thought multi-level parking structures in the area of "D" Street would help.
Vice Mayor Torliatt acknowledged Lauren Williams and Don Campo for all their hard work
and asked Mr. Williams to provide contact information for people to obtain further
information.
Mr. Williams, in response to questions from Council Members, replied that if the City were
interested in purchasing the bridge from the County, it would have to move ahead with
some alacrity; the bridge was long enough to span with the abutments on the bank. It was
one hundred thirty feet bearing to bearing; the original trestle was one hundred fifty feet,
which meant a loss of ten feet from the original abutments making it easier to install new
~~~
Vol: 35, Page 272 October 23, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
abutments. Also, the bridge would be above the confluence of the Lynch and Washington
Creeks with the River making it adequate to flow requirements. He estimated costs to lay
track in pavement at $1.3M per mile; overhead electrical at $50,000+ per mile. He noted
that in his opinion, the track on First Street would survive the lightweight cars without much
construction.
Council Member Keller noted that since the bridge may have been funded originally with
federal or state money for railroads, if the City planned to use the bridge as a railway
bridge, it might increase the City's chances of receiving funds for the project. He
recommended research about that option. He had suggested during a previous discussion
with Mr. Williams that research was needed on the following:
^ How much remained of the line, and what would be necessary to put it back into
working condition?
^ Who owned the right-of-way?
^ Issues surrounding shifting of the trestles and underpinnings for the trestle, which he
believed held the bank in place in front of the Mill on Water Street.
Council Member Cader-Thompson stated the area that Mr. Williams proposed was the
same as the area intended for the Rainier over crossing and if it had been approved, it
would have destroyed the natural beauty of the River area.
Mr. Williams noted the next Petaluma Trolley meeting was scheduled to take place on
Monday, November 13, 7:30 p.m. at the Petaluma Yacht Club and was open to the public.
James Cornwell, 1725 Peggy Court., spoke in support of the Petaluma Trolley Project.
Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro, spoke in favor of the trolley project, noting it would
contribute to the City's principles of sustainability, and would benefit the community in
terms of additional historic funding, improved tourism and redirected traffic circulation.
No Action Taken.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Discussion and Possible Action of Draft Central Petaluma Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report. (Continued From July 17 Council Meeting)
Community Development Director Mike Moore expressed that the purpose of the meeting
was to bring before the Council and the Planning Commission the Draft Central Petaluma
Specific Plan (Draft Plan), to provide an opportunity to allow for comments from both
Council and Commission, and the public, and to give direction to City Management for the
next steps in the process.
He provided background information about the committee, which had formed in 1996 to
address the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and noted that the December 1999 Draft Plan,
~~~
October 23, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 273
1 to be used as the basis for the discussion, was the culmination of the committee's work.
2 The accompanying staff report set forth that the Draft Plan was an attempt to provide
3 guidance and specific recommendations of how the CPSP Plan Area should be developed.
4
5 He then reviewed the boundaries of the CPSP Area and described the areas it
6 encompassed. He noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed the Draft Plan at
7 their October 10 meeting and comments from that meeting were included in the report.
8
9 Regarding the Draft Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), there was an
1 o Administrative Draft created that was not ready for distribution for the public's review. The
11 fact the draft EIR was still being documented affected the timing of when the Draft Plan
12 could be adopted. He explained the underlying process and projected, based on a
13 conversation he had with the consultant, that the earliest the Plan could come before the
14 Council for action on the Plan and certification of the EIR was at the end of January 2001.
15 He then reviewed the options City Management's recommendations to the Council.
16
17 Discussion ensued about fast tracking segments of the Draft Plan relative to design
18 objectives in an attempt to bring the project back to the Council before the end of the year;
19 the Draft Plan contained very explicit recommendations with regard to what, conceptually,
2 o Central Petaluma should look like.
21
22 Commissioner Vieler commented that Vin Smith's memo of January 26, 1999, which was
23 included in the Council's packet., was incomplete. It did not address chapters 8 and 9, nor
24 did it include the input that was given at the final meeting of the CPSP committee of
25 January 28. Additionally, to his knowledge, there were members of the CPSP committee
2 6 who had not received the Draft Plan document, had not had the opportunity to review and
2 7 were notified the previous Friday evening by telephone that this Council meeting was going
2 8 to address the document. City Management had been specifically directed to submit a
2 9 completed Draft Plan for review with documentation provided that defined any changes
3 o included in the document at the same time. With that proviso, the committee agreed that
31 they did not need another meeting for review but would allow it to move forward to
32 Planning in a public process.
33
34 Mr. Moore explained that the list the Planning Department used to notice members of the
3 5 CPSP committee was incomplete, which was why the phone calls were made Friday
36 evening.
37
38 PUBLIC COMMENT
39
40 Majida C. Gibson, 14 Cherry Street, stated that she wanted the Draft Central Petaluma
41 Specific Plan document be modified to establish a strong policy statement and gave
42 examples.
43
44 Dennis (and Dan) Hersmeyer, 1 "C" Street, proprietors of Bay Bridge Garage, expressed
45 their concern regarding the impact of the Plan's implementation on small business owners.
46
~~
Vol. 35, Page 274 October 23, 2000
1 Mr. Moore, responding to a question from Council, stated that the Planning .Department
2 used a mailing list that had been developed for previous meetings, a property owner
3 mailing list and that they also did a corresponding occupant mailing to the same address to
4 notice stakeholders. There had been two display ads in Argus Courier published for two
5 consecutive weeks that included maps of the area.
6
~ Marianne Hurley, Heritage Homes, 15 Howard Street, referred to a summary of comments
8 that Heritage Homes had routed to the Council and stated there was not enough reference
9 to the historic buildings in the Draft Plan, the' historic value of commercial buildings in 'the
10 downtown area, the characteristics of the historic district, and the sustainability of recycling,
11 reusing existing structures.
12
13 Wayne Miller, 328 Smith Drive, member of the CPSP advisory committee, recommended
14 adoption of the Plan as quickly as possible as it would free up a number of decision making
15 processes and, he believed, many people who were waiting to proceed with carrying out
16 implementation of the Plan. He addressed concerns he had with the housing and
17 sustainability components of the Plan and noted that the sustainability component should
18 include energy, and integrate with the parking component. Regarding housing, he
19 recommended a linkage of commercial /retail development with housing. Parking was
2 o another concern and he recommended locating parking garages in quadrants to allow for a
21 reduction in parking ratios in some other areas, perhaps creating a key incentive for some
22 developers to build out.
23
2 4 He concluded with three addenda on other considerations:
25
2 6 Provide target numbers for housing in each of the planning zones, including a mix of
27 units, low, moderate, and market rate. This would allow the decision makers to
28 monitor the progress of meeting the goals.
2 9 ^ Provide specific performance standards for water and power conservation and
3 o recycling and for the use of sustainable building materials. This was an opportunity
31 for Petaluma to set the example.
32 Require proposed projects be rated for their compliance in meeting the design
33 objectives and guidelines of the CPSP. He believed there could be a standard
34 rating process for all projects that were presented that could be compared against
3 5 published objectives and standards that created a method to gauge compliance.
36
3 ~ Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South, speaking on behalf of the Bicycle
3 8 Advisory Committee and in support of the Draft Plan., provided examples of some of the
39 recommendations the Bicycle Committee had given to City Management, 95% of which
4 o were not reflected in current Draft. She recommended a definition of "mixed use," such as
41 at the Foundry Wharf; and more specific terms for types of parking and parking areas. She
42 noted that the Bicycle Advisory Committee supported the Petaluma Trolley project..
43
44 Council Member Keller noted that the CPSP Advisory Committee had endorsed the Bicycle
45 Advisory Committee's recommendations and was surprised they were not included in the
46 Draft Plan and asked that she re-submit recommendations to the City Clerk for
19~i
October 23, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 275
1 reproduction, distribution, and that City Management include those recommendations in
2 the Draft Plan.
4 Jim Pallaske, 610 Keller Street, owner of Petaluma Transmissions, 322 Lakeville Street,
5 addressed his concerns with respect to transportation right of ways and small business
6 owners in the area.
7
8 Derek Simmons, Attorney At Law, 139 Alice Street, Santa Rosa, representing the Linds,
9 owners of Jerico Products, Inc. located on the River, stated that he agreed with the
10 comments made earlier, including concerns regarding public notice and provided a
11 personal example. He was concerned that the documentation being used by the Planning
12 Commission, staff, and eventually Council, for the General Plan was premature because,
13 when the process began, no one knew if the adoption of the CPSP or moving forward with
14 the new General Plan would come first. He supported a variation of option two as
15 presented in City Management's report and proposed that Council come up with a solution
16 which allowed for taking advantage of all of the hard work that had gone into the Draft Plan
17 by adopting a Council policy that set forth that the Planning Commission and staff use the
18 Draft Plan of the geographic area dated December 1999 until such time as either the
19 General Plan or the CPSP was adopted. Should the General Plan be approved before the
20 CPSP, Council would review and revise the policy as necessary, until such time as the
21 CPSP was adopted.
22
23 He added that before Council Members Keller and Hamilton leave office, they should be
24 recognized for their hard work as the Council's representatives on the CPSP Advisory
25 Committee.
26
27 John Morgan, 308 Tenth Street, also a member of the CPSP Advisory Committee,
2 8 supported the Draft Plan; and noted that the language was vague in areas concerning
29 affordable housing. He suggested changes that emphasized that the Plan's commitment
3 0 was to housing "affordable to all segments of the community and workforce." He
31 emphasized the importance of finding ways to bring the design concepts into public policy
32 so that development could occur within the area's boundaries.
33
34 John Fitzgerald, Tenth Street, member of the CPSP Advisory Committee, expressed
3 5 concerns that the. Draft did not come back to the Advisory Committee for discussion and
3 6 recommendation as directed.
37
38 Terry Kosewic, 444 Petaluma Boulevard North, former member of the CPSP Advisory
3 9 Committee, had two concerns, one being his opposition to roundabouts. Secondly, should
40 Petaluma lose its area code number 707, he wanted the name of Petaluma Boulevard
41 changed back to "Main Street," as business owners would. need to order new stationary.
42 He thought the Business Improvement District could lend support in this area.
43
44 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro, spoke in support of the Plan, wanted the density for
45 housing doubled, noted the traffic component was weak and needed an overall traffic
46 circulation vision, supported not having a roundabout as a primary focus of the Plan; and
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 276
October 23, 2000
1 supported the Council adopting a policy. He also asked for consideration of a transit station
2 on McDowell to alleviate cross-town circulation problems.
3
4 Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, noted that he participated in the committee's
5 development process and provided comments that he had given the committee, noting that
6 they had not been incorporated in the current Draft Plan; he thought the Draft Plan fell
7 short of facts and needed a financial plan, among other things.
8
9 Council Member Keller replied that the CPSP Advisory Committee received, reviewed and
10 responded to all correspondence from Mr. Moynihan during their planning process.
11
12 George Flynn, 401 Middle Two Rock Road, associated with Heritage Homes of Petaluma,
13 spoke in support of Marianne Hurley's comments, such as those regarding the lack of
14 reference in the Draft Plan document to the National Register Historic District.
15
16 Gina Pittler, Haystack Market, P.O.B. 2704, supported a Central Petaluma Specific Rlan
17 but added that automobile parking was not addressed in a way that allowed for
18 implementation.
19
z0 Recess: 9:25 p.m.
21
22 Reconvene: 9:40 p.m..
23
2 4 Mayor Thompson asked that the Commission and Council limit their discussion to how to
2 5 proceed with the draft CPSP.
26
27 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that based on public comments it was important to review
2 8 recommendations toprovide direction on development of the Plan and the process to City
2 9 Management.
30
31 Council Member Keller understood the policy of the City was to use the Plan as a
32 guideline; he thought it was important that all CPSP Advisory Committee members review
33 all the Draft's documentation.
34
35 Mr. Moore stated City Management used the Draft Plan as a guideline in its current
3 6 business practices. He thought the two processes could run on a parallel tract and believed
37 the City could continue to use the Draft Plan as a guide, while at the same time, working
3 8 through implementation priorities. He suggested, as direction from Council, reinforcement
39 of public comments and asked that they name the top three or four implementation
4 o priorities; the implementation steps were the most critical.
41
42 Council Member Keller cautioned the Council members and Commissioners about what
43 they emphasized as comments and noted that the comments made only addressed
44 contentions and that they not hold up items that were not contentious. He thought that City
45 Management should report back their recommendations of what they thought necessary.
46
1
~~
October 23, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 277
1
2 Vice Mayor Torliatt acknowledged the CPSP Advisory Committee members for their time
and efforts and for the constructive comments that had been made and provided the
3 following notations and requests to City Management:
4
5 ~ Formally adopt a resolution to acquire and express interest. in obtaining the Geysers
6 Road Bridge and notify Supervisor Kerns.
~ ^ Formally adopt all of the suggested changes as provided by the Petaluma Trolley
8 into the CPSP.
9 ^ Support the Petaluma Trolley in securing TEA-21 funds and Cal Trans funds in the
10 106 process.
11 Be open to supporting the Petaluma Trolley in any way the City can to make the
12 project successful.
13 ^ Goals and objectives should be modified to include a strong stance on affordable
14 housing and moderate-income housing.
15 ^ Address each of the historic buildings in the Specific Plan, adaptive reuse.
l6 General Plan process should address specific areas for industrial uses, such as
17 auto repair, tow truck businesses.
18 Create standards for energy and water consumption that incorporate sustainability
19 principles and use of sustainable building materials.
2 0 ^ Make sure commercial and residential development are truly mixed.
21 ^ Provide provisions for rating compliance; i.e., bike and pedestrian, building, water
22 consumption and energy.
23 Incorporate Bicycle Committee language.
24 ^ Address railroad accesses.
2 5 ^ CPSP members to compare notes.
2 6 ^ Roundabout.
27 ^ More aggressive housing number; i.e., higher density.
2 8 Address parking issues; adjust ratios that can be flexible.
29
30 She noted three other issues, infrastructure, maintenance (downtown was dirty and the
31 City needed to participate to improve its condition), and public safety and health needed to
32 be addressed in order to provide for the Plan's implementation.
33
34 Council Member Maguire noted and requested:
35
3 6 ^ Five story structures to accommodate density.
3 ~ ^ Large pedestrian square on railway properties.
38 ^ Specific numbers for each component of .housing specifying minimum, and
3 9 sprinkled throughout.
40 ^ Doubling the quantity of housing 700 - 800 throughout.
41 ^ Accommodate trolley; do not preclude expansions.
42 ^ Consider no parking next to residential neighborhoods and try no additional parking.
43 ^ Bring back comments from bike and others in the Plan.
44
45 ^ Flooding.
^ Mr. Miller's comments should be included.
46 ^ Consider the opportunity to impose sustainability principles such as "no additional
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 278 October 23, 2000
1 parking."
2 Develop performance criteria.
3 ^ Noticing must be improved upon.
4 ^ Circulation plan to provide alternate route to Bodega.
5 ERA financing plan.
6 Ms. Pittler's comments, don't preclude the opportunity to implement Council's vision
7 for employing sustainability principles.
8
9 Council Member Cader-Thompson noted and requested:
10
11 ^ Concerns about small business and suggested City Management supply alternative
12 areas.
13 ^ Affordable housing numbers be increased and define all components.
14 ^ Need for a rail area for freight transportation - Redwaod Business Park, Adobe
15 lumber?
16 Historical guidelines in specific areas to be addressed;
17 Parking was a big issue; identify a site.
18
19 Council Member Maguire suggested consideration of a parking survey.
20
21 Council Member Cader-Thompson continued:
22
23 Wayne Vieler's comments to be included.
24 Remove references to Lawler.
2 5 ^ Infrastructure concerns.
2 6 Definition of "big box."
27
2 8 Council Member Keller noted and requested:
29
3 0 Loss of heavy industrial lands and consideration of alternate locations for this type
31 of land use.
32 Foresee what the street level experience was to be, that it encouraged pedestrian
3 3 use.
34 Need for Open Space, vegetation, at the railroad and along the river.
35 Encouragement of housing with exemption of fees extended beyond the
3 6 developers.
37 Keep the river area as a working river unlike Sausalito or Carmel.
38 Change "Petaluma Boulevard" to "Main Street."
39 Telecommunication facilities -direct connection with the fiber optic line.
40 Floor area ratios greater than 3.5.
41
42 Commissioner Vieler noted and requested:
43
44 ^ Concern that the last two meetings of the committee in January addressed a
4 5 September 1998 document, not the 1999 document they reviewed for this meeting:
46 Recommended transcription of the last two meetings, and noted he was willing to
i~
1
~~
~~
October 23, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 279
1
2 share information he had researched.
^ The Planning Department updates the Draft to include recommendations from those
3 two meetings and provide the revised Draft to the CPSP Committee and Council -
4 allowing atwo-week review with the benefit of the (draft) EIR and subsequently
5 have a joint meeting with the CPSP Committee and Council.
6 Include a financial plan.
7 ^ Historic references.
8 ^ Include graphics within the Plan that provided examples of what they envisioned.
9 ^ Disappointed by ROMA -Bonnie Fischer on vacation, and Vin Smith was not
1o participating due to a potential conflict of interest as he was working with Bill White;
11 and wanted their participation.
12 ^ Parking solutions and definitions, such as parking area or garages.
13
14 Commissioner Barrett noted and requested:
15
16 ^ Agreed with Council Member Torliatt.
17 Define mixed use.
18 ^ Parking -agreed with Mr. Miller's suggestion regarding quadrant parking and
19 inclusion of performance standards for efficiency looking towards the future -
2 o identify those areas.
21 ^ Regarding small business owners and that industry not be moved out of the area -
22 have a working riverfront, not a "theme park."
23 More housing, affordable housing.
2 4 ^ Schools to support the inhabitants -input from the school district.
25
2 6 Commissioner Monteschio noted and requested:
27
28 Sunlight must hit. the streets for at least a few hours per day.
29 Reconsider taking out the roundabouts.
30
31 Chairman Broad noted and requested:
32
33 ^ That it was unfortunate that there was no EIR.
34 ^ The graphics were difficult to read, including the maps - provide a larger map with
3 5 the Plan.
3 6 ^ Two of the most important points, definition of mixed use and links where residential
37 zoning would be applied.
3 8 ^ Parking was a critical linkage that needed to be identified.
39 ^ Take into account that a parking area could be an assessment tool that would
4 o become a benefit.
41 ^ Address the historic structures -identify the inventory.
42
43 Commissioner Glass noted and requested:
44
45 ^ Reviewed the importance of the Plan..
46 ^ Agreed with all the comments that had been made.
~~
Vol. 35, Page 280 October 23, 2000
1 If building higher, include parks in the Plan.
2 Sales tax dollars, redevelopment fees, incremental fees.
3 ^ Supported the trolley; transient. occupancy tax to drive the cost of development
4 down.
5 Supported responsibly fast tracking the Plan.
6
7 Mayor Thompson noted and requested:
8
9 Mechanism that did not scare off existing businesses in the area.
10 ^ Housing vision and implementation of infill; that is, commercial and housing.
11 ^ Traffic -important; rail use will be inevitable for freight and commute.
12 ^ School -critical to look at.
13 Parking.
14
15 Council Member Keller requested that with respect to the parking component, City
16 Management look at the committee's notes and contact Vin Smith for additional
17 information. He noted that Petaluma was fortunate to have a downtown.
18
19 Council Member Maguire added that he wanted City Management to make provisions for
2 0 small businesses, that is, alternatives. He acknowledged Mr. Vieler's research and offer to
21 share the information he had prepared and asked that City Management obtain the
22 information and apply it to the revised .Draft document.
23
24 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked the City Clerk to obtain copies of videotaped
2 5 meetings of the CPSP Advisory Committee meetings and provide them to members of the
2 6 Planning Commission and Council.
27
28 Mr. Moore summarized that the Council wanted City Management to incorporate their
29 requests, bring back Vin Smith for input and return with a written proposal to the Council
3 o after thorough review, and public input to/from the CPSP Advisory Committee.
31
32 ADJOURN
33
34 The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
35
36 '
37
38
39
40
41 ATTEST:
42
43
Beverly J. Kline, City Cler
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
46 ******
1
1
~1
L6