HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/08/20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
26
27.
28
2.9
30
31
3.2
3' 3
34
3 5'
36
37:
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
May 8, 2000
City of Petaluma, California
IVlinutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Vol. 34, Page 465
Monday, May 8, 2000
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met on this date in the Counei Chambers at 6:30 p.m..
ROLL'CALL
Present: Cader-Thompson, Keller (6:35 p:m.), .Healy; Maguire,
" Torliatt
A~bserit: H~a'milton, Thompson
PUBLIC. COMMENT
None
City Attorney .Rich Rudnansky announced the following items to be addressed in Closed
Session.
CyLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE 1NITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6, Unif 6, Police. Agency {Negotiator: Acorne.
CONFERENCE UViTH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6, Unit 7, Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne.
CONFERENCE 1NITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government .Code Section
54957.6, Unit 10, Public Safety Mid-Management. ,Agency .Negotiator: Acorne.
ADJOURN
7A0 p.m.
********
Vol. 34, Page 466 Nlay~$; 2000
.RECONVENE
The Petaluma City Council reconvened at 7:05 p.m. in the. Council Chambers...
ROLL CALL
Present: Cader-Thompson, Healy, Keller; Maguire., Torliatf
Absent: .Hamilton,. Thompson
Viee Mayor`Torliatf announced that no reportable action was taken on Closed Session ~ ~.
items.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
At the request. of Vice Mayor Torliatt; Mike Moore, led fhe Pledge of Allegiance ~~
MOMENT OFSILENCE -~ -
At the request of-Vice MayorTorliatt, a Moment of Silence'was observed:" ~ ~ .
:.~ .. .
PUBLIC COMMENTS -~. -
Vince Landof, '12 Cordelia :Drive] spoke about the Army Corps of Engineers. Flood
Project.
Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, spoke about the City's Budget. ~-~ ~ ` . ~ . ,
. .: q'
Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca .Drive, spoke about drainage issues.. ~ {
Diane: Reilly-Torres, 1652 ,Rainier Avenue., spoke regarding traffic congestion.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Janice Gader=Thompson reported that she attended. a; meeting ast
Wednes_day.regarding the proposed move,ofi~the Petaluma Mushroom,Farm;from Skillrnan -°
Lane: to Two Rock. Supervisor "Mike Kerns' was also present. Council Member Cader.-
Thompson "asked to speak, to the group about ahe importance of :affordable hou"sing. for
farm workers, but was told that :this had nothing, tb do, with the: project.She explained that
she feels stronglythat farm workers should not be obligated fo live insubstand'ard housing;
she plans to gather info~rmati.on fo send to the..group; Regar~~ing the cost figures ,on the
Corps of Engineer"s' Flood Project-that. Mr. Landof requested,, she pointed out the posifive;.
this was not money being spent toy help people who :have been flooded out: The Council
reeei~ed a letter~from a local elecfrcian urging fhe use of: union workers at the Lok Marina
Hotel project. Council Member Cader-Thompson. raised the. possibility' ofi in'clud.ng .
unionization of workers on -this project as a condition of"the City's support:
May`8., 2000 Vol. 34, Page 467
1
2 Council Member Keller Noted that an outside firm had offered full financing for the Lok
3 Marina Hotel project and wondered.what the status was of that offer. He reported.that the
4 Joint meeting of the Council and the School Board scheduled for Saturday, May 13th to
5 discuss future use of he Kenilworth Junior High, School Site, had been canceled of the
6 School Board's request. He wanted to see the_dedication of the tennis courts at Lucchesi
7 Park to Bonnie Thomas. He asked Assistant City Manager Gene .Beatty to contacf Parks.:
8 and Recreation Director Jim Carr about a date for the dedication ceremony.
9
1o Council Member Healy `thought that the information Mr. Landof was seeking already
1.1 existed and suggested thaf Mr. Landof contact Redevelopment Consultant Paul Marangella
12 for these figures.
13
14 Council Member Maguire recalled that.. union fiinancing for the Lok Marina Hotel .was
.,.
15 explored early inthe project. He added that he had been planning to call Kurt Lok and urge
16 him to support hiring union employees.
17
18 COUNCIL AND.-CITY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
19
2 0 None.
2:1
22 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS', AND_DELETIOIVS
23
24 None.
25
2 6 UNFINISHED B'IJSINESS - - - ~-
27 - _
2 8 1. Discussion and Possible. Direction RegardiWng City of Pefaluma Proposals or Support for
2 9 Regional Transportation Issues to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA)
3 0 and Other Agencies. ~ .
31 . ,
32 Council Member.'Ke ler stated~that~he was _sorry~to,report that at the Sonoma. County
3 3 Transportation Authority (SCTA)'. meeting that afternoon, .the Sub-Committee on Future
3 4 Sales Tax Proposals recommended that no transportation~sales tax:measure sponsored by
...
3 5 .SCTA. or Sonoma County be..., placed ..on:. the .November -.ballot.. 'tn making this
3 6 recommendation, the Sub-Committee cited the Jack of a'new:appioach to offer voters, the
37 ..requirement fora 2/3 majority for-the measure to pass, and the~fact°ahat Maria' County
3 8would probably ,not have ;a measure on their ballot in~~ Novernbe`r. He ernphasized'~ the
3 9 .importance. of having a proposal ready should an SCA3-type bill be passed; as such. a bill
4o would. probab"ly have a, 55% majority-voting ,requirement. This proposal should use the
41 cornbined~ multi-rno--.dal approach already 'developed. Phyllis Carter,. the SCTA
42 ~representati~e frorn~ Sonoma, spoke: withCouncil -Member Keller at this meeting about
43 methods for- pursuing: thi as a joint project; with ~Marin, County. Ms. Carter suggested
-
44 regular meetings with Maria County to esfablish. North Bay transportation guidelines.
45 Council Member Keller added that SCTA~should b'e funded #or a full professional staff to
46 provide research, community outreach, and give direction to the entire County on a
47 coordinated transportation system.
Vol. 34, .Page 468 May 8, 2000
1 _.
2 Council Member. Maguire was disappointed: with the recommendation of, the SCTA Sub-
3 Committee; but was not surprised, as it would;be'difficult;to get a measure o.n the ballot`for
:,
4 _Novembe.r. He .described.SCTA as the "default clearing -house for Sonoma County" on
5 transportation; issues,, and stated that any measure: not receiving SCTA's aupport would
6 have little chance of success. He, also agreed that Maria: County would probably not place
7 a measure~.on,their,ballot in-November 2000;_therefore, aSonoma County measure at,#tiat
8 tune. would not' be effective:.. He:,added that. he was pleased with the'idea;of ~oinf.agency
9 me'etings,;and would also support SCTA as the authoritative bddy on transportaton,ssues.
'0 He had attended a;meeting at Alcatel, and learned that the host of this function would be.
1 working;-with railroad to develop. transit-oriented business around the station„ with t_he
2 railroad receiving a portion of the profits.. He,'felf this idea warranted further discussion:
Council Member Healyshared the "otherCouncil Members' disappointrnentwith the. SCTA
Sub-Cornrnittee's decision. He suggested Council study the voter approval language in
SCA3. He:_described this language as "haphazard" and #hought~that Council should urge
Sacramento to make im ro~ements. He concurred that further outreach to Maria Count
p - _: ~ Y
on transportation issues is important, and.suggested;that:Solano County also be. included,
as .more people are commut'i'ng between Solaro and Sonoma .Counties than~in the past.
1 Council Member Cader,=Thompson also. supported. discussions with both Maria and: Solaro.
2 Counties. She would like the Council to-consider tr.:ansp.ortaton issues in the Petaluma.
:.
3 area, and thought some issues had been overlooked;, for:exarnple, the fact that a num~ker
4 of homes; are directly .adjacent to 10'1, and 'soundwalls will probably hare= to: be built.
5 between these homes and; the freeway.. She stressed the need for Council to determine.
6 what needs to be done 'before: 1.;01' can be,.~widened in the Petaluma area, as~.well as
~ amounts .and sources of funding,. Council Member Gader-Thompson added that she felt;
- _..
8 Corona Road should become either a partial or full interchange at sortie point, and that
9 Council will need to develop an,"im_proved package" to "place:'on a' future ballot;
n
Council Member Keller noted that Maria Count_y~ was not°pursung a tax measure for the
next election because the :Governor may be developingra transportation bond act for ahe
November~ballot; and because of,a. growing awareness inindustry that they must help., pay
#or~the infrastructure necessary forthe large employmenf~base'they bring to the: area-. He
.,added that industry coritributions~are.already beingseen in-oilier parts of the country.
~.
Vice Mayor l"orliatt asked Council_ Member Keller if' he~~was aware of any ;update to the
Congestion Management Program.for`SCTA; as, it would be~an,.irnportanttool for prioritizing
:projects throughout the;County. ~.~ -_ ,.-~ a ..
Council'Member-'Keller"responded-:that he~had riot yet seen an update to fh'is program. He
added that no process for project-prio.ritizationyhad been adopted, and.he viewed ~th~at as a
serious problem: He thoughtthat`~the~County.~Board of Supervisors would need fo concur
that SCTA should . be in charge of pno'ritzation: Me asked that the City make,
recommendations to SCTA. on project priorities:
May 8, 2000 V,ol. 34, Page 469
1. Vice Mayor `Torliatt reported that Noreen Evans, City of Santa Rosa 'Council Member,
2 suggested a ballot measure to match rail funding in the Governor's bill to show that
3 Sonoma County is "rail-positive:°' The Vice Mayor added that the results of the .last sales
4 tax measure indicated that alternative transportation was supported in Sonoma County.
5 She inquired if there had .been discussion about this at the SCTA Meeting.
6
7. Council Member Keller replied that there had not.
8
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt; then asked. Council Member Maguire if there had been discussion of
10 ~ this matter at the SMART Meeting.
11
12 Council Member Maguire: responded., "no;" but added that the matter would be raised
13 during discussion about funding from -Prop 116.
14
15 _ Council Member Ke ler noted that SCTA endorsed. the SMART rail plan unanimously and.
16 indicated rail would take an average 25% of f,u:nds from sales tax. With the Prop 11,6
17 . ~ .money, afive-year startup of rail from Cloverdale to San Rafael could begin. Additional
18 funding sources would .include fare box revenues comparable to other successful rail
19 ventures on 1Nest Coast.
20
21 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that the rail. component Hof .any funding measure was very
22 important for transit-oriented development downtown.
2.3
2 4 Council Member Keller.explained that one stop: per City was proposed, with trains reaching
2 5 speeds of up to 79 miles pear hour in open stretches. "One stop per City" meant it would
26 stop downtown. Parking would become a critical issue.
27
2 8 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if land use was discussed.
29
3 o Council Member Keller stated that land use was not an essential part of how this tax
31 measure was. discussed,;, rather, the emphasis was on .supporting SCTA becoming a
32 source of information and taking the lead on these issues.
33
34 Council Member Cader=Thompson attended an ABAG conference where rail and land use
3 5 were discussed:.She stressed that SCTA.and the Board of Supervisors need to know that
3 6 this is the direction in which the entire state'is going, and Sonoma County "needs to get.on
3 7 board."'
38
39 Council. Mernber.Keller explained that:.this issue was difficult for SCTA and the Board of
4 o Supervisors: He. noted that the new head of CalTrans was previously head of the Chicago
41 .Transportation Authority. He also mentioned that SCTA dropped discussion of the Rural
42 Heritage Initiative.
43
44 Vice Mayor Torliatt stressed the importance of working. on solutions that can be
45 ~rriplemented, now fo reduce traffic congestion, such. as coordinating, Golden Gate and
46 Sonoma County Transit, etc., to reduce peak-hour traffic loads. SCTA has a role in
Vol. 34; Page 470
implementing these.
May 8; 2000
Council Member KeJl,e;r noted that rail would take an estimated 1,100 vehicles off Highway
101 :at.peak hour..
Vice Mayor Torliatt summarized the discussion. Council' will:
.a., ~- _
Look at City project priorities for recommendation to.SCTA.
^ Coordinate discussions on transportation issues with Solano County;
^ Study the language of the SCA3Bill to determine: how the. City can, be,prepared,
should :a similar Bill be passed.
^ Gather information on partial freeway interchanges. , `
Lea_ rn more about the Governor' possible Transportation Bond Act, =.
^ Discuss the composition of a .two-.county Congestion Management Agency (CMA):.
Further discuss possible industry, contri~b.utions necessary to infrasfructure. -
^ ,Ask SCTA to explore other ways to reduce 'traffic congestion„ as the Gales ytax;
measure was ,not on the ballot this. November. ;...
Council Member Keller stated that~~:CalTrans had requested that SCTA participate in a very
p~relimina"ry review of.the envronmental.mpact and design of the Narrows~Project..A rrult-
jurisdictional PAC would serve in an ,advisory capaeityto. CalTrans on this project. SCTA
appointed Keller-:and Kerns as the first representatives tothe PAC: After the first meeting,
they would advise how many members should be on the° PAC, who they should be, .and
whether'there should a,TechnicaLAdvsory Committee::CalTrans wanted a."heatls-up" as
soon as possible'to get the project before decision makers. This approach. had worked wel
in other areas..
Vice Mayor Torliatt: requested notice of ;that meeting as soon as possible.
Council Member Keller replied that he had requested a Brown Act posting:.
2. Discussion ,and Possible Direction Regarding; a Pending Application of Redwood
California `Ltd.. to the County of Sonoma Permit 'and Resource Managemenf
Department for 1Nh,ife Oak Estates; a Proposed Development on a Portion' of.a 1.750
Ac"re Property Located.. on Sonoma Mounfain in Unincorporated Sonoma County:
Community Develo.pmerit Director'Mike'Moore provi'ded' a:;paekage~ about the change. in the
proposal that ,included an offer of acreage for a regiona_ I park with an option for the Gounty
to purchase: additional acreage for parkland: The, pur,p.ose ~tonigh°t was fo get comments or
direction to forward to the "County: `The applicant compiled thE~ information packet.,
Vice Mayor Torliatt hoped ;to have a,meeting including Supervisor Mike Kerns for extended'
discussion with the public:;as this project evolves. - -
Council Member Healy thought a joinf "scoping session" for tf~e EI R `ins Southern Sonom_ a
Countywas a good suggestion. - - ~ ~~
May 8, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 471
1 Mr. Moore said he would call Pete Parkinson of the Sonoma County Permitand Resource
2 Management Department (PRMD) to discuss tonight's meeting. After a draft EIR was
3 prepared, there would be opportunity for formal comments.
4
5 Council Member Healy explained that this was an application for revision to the County
6 General Plan involving change of density, elimination of a portion of the trail easement on
~ Highway116, and dedication. of acreage as a regional park with possible additional
8 acreage. He asked M"r. Moore when the Board of Supervisors might hear the General Plan
9 amendments.
10
11 Mr. Moore replied thaf the project would be considered after adequacy of the
12 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was determined. He said he would confirm this with
13 Pete Parkinson, and advise Council.
14 '
15 Council Member Keller was concerned that breaking up existing agricultural land.. on the.
16 ridge top fore a subdivision was in contradiction of.;ex'istng policy and would seta `very bad
17 precedent., He pointed out that the proposal called .for offering the County "the. steepesf,
18 most unbu~ildable portion of the. property and .allowing the County to purchase additional
19 acreage ata market price notyet determined. He added that if this project were approved,.
2 o every ridge top in the County would be "open season" for developers seeking. this kind of
21 trade-off. We thought. the County should look hard at a policy emphasizing the 'Sonoma
22 Mountain ridge top as a park in 30-50 years. This should be thefocus.of".the Open Space
2 3 District
24
25 Council Member Cadet-Thompson expressed that.the project was an abuse~of taxpayers'
_ __
2 6 money;. the developer would not build the homes .until he had sold 275 acres~to th~e~County,
27 which would payfor`all the road improvements for his development, a gated community not
2 8 open to the. public. She thought the property would be a nice connection with;th'e ridge. trail.
29 She believed~fhe County shou d purchase the property outright. Council should encourage
3 0 the County to do this and save the land for open space.
31
32 Council Member Healy was not yet prepared to discuss his position on the. matter as ~he
33 wanted to give the project proponent the opportunity to state their position publicly. ~.
34
3 5 Vice Mayor Torliatt Agreed with Council Member Healy and pointed out that the applicant
3 6 noted the proposed park would be very.low-impact, which she supported. She.added there
3 ~ we`re lofs of questions left. unanswered for her. She agreed with the other Council
3 8 Members' comments on the issue.
39
4 o Council IVlember Keller stated there was a combined offer from Thornton and the Open
41 Space District on this property at full market value over a year ago. He thought the
42 proponents were not interested in thin offer as long as they thought they had a project. He
43 supported having a Council Session for the EIR to which Southern Sonoma-County
44 residents would be :invited.
45
46 Council Member Cadet-Thompson added that there were other agencies the City could
Vol. 34, Page 472.
May 8, 2000
contact to encourage the Open Space Districf #o assist in purchase of this. property..
P[1BL'IC COMMENT
Patricia Tuttle Brown,. 513 Petaluma Blvd'South,:.spoke regarding the City's;need to have a
voice. in. this issue..
Council Member Cader-Thompson.asked that the: City host ~: Community Forum on the'
Open Space District describing curr.,ent and fiuture p"rojects, and regulations go~ern'ing that
agency: 'Those on the.. City.'s Sonoma Mountain. and- Lafferty mailing lists and others
interested'~in recreation should be noticed of this meeting.
Council Member Keller asked Council to write letters to other cities. in Sonoma County
regarding objections to ridge top subdivisions,. ,as he thought there was considerable.
support to' be garnered Countywide for rejecting projects ofthis kind.
Vice Mayor Torliatt ummarized. the discussion as f.gllows:
^ .Couneil.will suggest a_ joint meef'ing of cities, :counties,, projec# proponents,, and the
Open Space District; and agreed that 'the County should send. out notice: of this
meeting'.. The City will send the County a list of those:who should be'included. Mr.
_ Moore will, provide-Council with "updates.,. in memo form, on the statusof~ths project..
Council asked that it be rescheduled on agenda when the project had progressed
further:
^ ;City- Management will' work with the Open Space. District to hold an Educational
C`omrnunity Fi?rum.
..-,
® The Council Meeting, of Tuesday, May"09, 2000, wi_II begin at CityHall,at ] F,:M. and
will', then proceed tb the railroad station fore discussion with Golden Gate Transit
__
Authority.
~i4DJ(JURN'
ti:. ..
The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 P.M.
_, .
ATTEST:
Claire Cooper, Clerk Pro em
********
_. ark Thompson, Mayor