HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 03/13/2000March 13, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 299
1 ~ City of, Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a
3 Special City Council Meeting
4
5
6 Monday; Niarch 1'3; 2000
~ Council Chambers
8
9
10 The Petaluma;City Council met on this date at 5:40 P.M..'in the Council Chambers.
11 -
12 ROLL CALL. ~~
13
14 Present: Caller-Thompson, Hamilton (6:00 P.M.), Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson,
15 1'orliatt '
16 '" ~ ~ '
1~ Absent: _ None -- -
18 -
19 PUBLIC COMMENTS
. t
20 e ~.
21 Jim'Dombroski; 6039 Bodega Aveiu:e; spoke in support of Petaluma High School Girl's
22 Basketball Team Championship game in Sacramento at the Arco Arena.
23
24 Vince Landoff; 12 Cordelia ;Drive, spoke regarding Council support for the Personnel
2 5 Board. '
26 ~ ~ '
27 Diane Reilly-Torres., 1657 Rainier.:Avenue, spoke regarding .her T.V. show; the City's
28 Watchdog that appears on Petaluma Community Access (I'CA) and provided the. City
29 Clerk with a;l'etter she had written to A.T.& T.
30 _ .. ..
31
32 COUNCIL COIIIIMENTS
33 -
34 Council Member-;Keller:
35 ,_ `
3 6 ® Wanted City. Management to investigate :whether batteries and other debris .had .been
37 discardetl `in the detention pond near Ryder Homes; if so, he wanted the responsible
3 8 party notified thaf they needed to remove the items,.
39
40 ® Distributed. an article from the: New York Times that addressed growth issues~in an
41 affluent town irf thestate of New York that isadjacent-to less affluent towns~engaged'in
42 major "big box" development, and associated transportation issues. He stressed the
43 need for coordinated decision-making regarding such issues in Sonoma County.
44
4 5 ® Noted there had been criticism of Council for cancellation of the February 28th meeting,.
46 with regard to public comment on Measures B and C. He recommended Councif
Vol. 34, Page. 300 Mareh 13, 2000
1 discussion with ,groups; such as: the American Association of University Women
2 (AAU1N) and the League of 1Nomen Voters regarding possible: community forum-Type
3 meetings on issues ove'r~whic.h Council-does not have;directlurisdiction. Hewanted to
4 discuss his with the other Council Members of theirworkshop scheduled#or Saturday,
5 March 18, 2000.
6
7 ^ Anno.unced that the Federal Communications Commission. (FCC) was'working Towards.
8 licensing low-powered ,radio stations; anyone nferested'in this issue should send letters
9 of support to the FCC.
10
Zi Vice Mayor Torliatt:
12 . ~~~~ ..
13 ^ Thanked Mr;, Domb.roski and asked, City Management to do whatever possible to
14 support the Petaluma High School Girls' Basketball Team..
15
-.
1:6 ^ Announced that Council had received information ~ from `Facifc~ Bell. regarding a
1~ community-enrichment grant:programske thought FCA was a potential recipient for
18 such a grant; which would provide $25;000,- to be. used. for expanding information
19 resources: She wanted PCA to be aware of this program.
20
_:
21 ^ Asked that the Council schedule an agenda item regarding the Association of'Bay Area.
2 2 Governments (ABAG) housing allocations issue;- and,„ noted that the Ma,,"yore' and
2 3 Council Members; Association had requested Council .involvement. ,
2.4 - ~ - -
25 ^ Received information from the Sonoma County.Fermit-ai~d ,R,esource Management
2 6 Department:regardingtke water basin study. She wanted Council to address a letter to
2 ~ the County requesting the Petaluma ValleyBasin be ~gi~en. priority ;for fund'ing' and
2 8 scheduling issues. - ~ .
29 - -- ,
3 0 ^ Reported that six Council Members attended :a four-day conference° in Yosemfe
31 regarding urban habitats, waterways, and erihancement,~of water resources;
32
33 Council Member Healy: - ",
34 _ _
35 ^ Concurred with Vee Mayor Torliatf that Council shoGltl discuss`ABAG housing
3 6 allocations, He added. that- the target numbers. for Petaluma.. were reasonab e: and.
37 easily achievable, but the number of~.housing units targeted for~;fhe Town of Windsor
38 and the unincorporatedareas of Sonoma County were not. ~ ~`
39
40 . Agreed with Council Member Kellet regarding a discussion than.occurred at.Council's
4:1 .Saturday workshop. of items outside the .C.ouncil's. core: 'jurisd'iction,: He wanted a.
42 broader`d_iscussion of prioritizing agenda'items foi• City Management and City Council
4 3 consideration..
44
45
46
March 13, 2000 vol. 34, Page 301
1
2
3
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
- _ ..
® Had received. several comments and complainfs,regarding the perceived inability of the
Planning Departmenf to process permits and applications in a timely manner, and
noted that for certain projects, there been delays'in processing`of several months. He
asked for a response; from City Management regarding their thoughts on this situation.
years, the '.City had- been.. geared to~~processing 1`00-unit
subd ~ seonsh wh ch can be done fairly quickly; the; .smaller; in-fill projects now being
~ received were much rriore time-consuming and required review by Site Plan. and'
Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). He~ thought: this type of project would.
I become more common. " ' ~ ° -
Council Member- Maguire:
® Explained that'the-conference Council Members had attended in Yosemite was hosted
by the. LocaLGovernment;Comm sign, and was entitled, "Integrating Natural Habitats
Into Urban Enviro.nments." He described it as interesting, ,productive, and. thought
provoking, and added'thaf Petaluma had.the: greatest.representation of any Cityat the
conference. He noted that the City of Seattle had provided a number of inspiring
examples.
® Recommended'thatwitEthe defeat of Measures B and. C; Council's repre entatve to
the Sonoma County Transt,Authority (SCTA) push fora transportation summit meeting;
He'believed that the SCTA should b-e the recognized authoritative body for the County,
and wanted the County Supervisors to support that.
Council Member Cader.-Thompson:
® Received a call from a citizen regarding community involvement. He suggested that fhe
City supply "suggestion boxes" around the City soy citizens could make their. views
known.
,.
® Added that;the same citizen suggested that with the; closure of the `D' Street-Bridge, the
City convert some ~of the parking on 1Nestern Avenue near the-Boulevard into yellow
zones where delivery trucks could stop,. She wanted-City Management to explore this
idea. The citizen also. suggested that the left=turn lane- on.'eastboun,d Caulfi`e'Id at
Payran be converted fo a left/straight lane, and' that large trucks currently u"sing
Caulfield u e Lindberg Lane instead. She wanted .that ,idea considered' with
redevelopment plans. _
® Wanted Council: to discuss acceptable transportation measures . She added that
Council should meet-with County representatives todiscuss apossible comprehensive
Measure for the November ballot: .- ~ V
® Reported she had attended a productive Zone 2A meeting.
Vo1..34, Rage 302 March 13; 2000
1 ^ Wondered if~,the Schulz~Grant could be used for'the dog park. Asked that Parks and
2 Recre=ation Director.Jim~ Carr'researeh and advise if there. were, available funds in the.
3 Schultz Grant~for a:;City dog park. - "
4 `
5 ^ Encouraged the School District Ito provide .buses, subsided by the _ Chamber of
6 Commerce; in order toaupporf'the Petaluma High School Girls Basketball Team.during
7 .the championship.games in Sacramento:
8 ", -
9 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, SAND DELETIONS.
_1 O
11 None
12
13 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14
15 1. Interviews ofTliree Consulfants; Discussion, aril Possible Direction on l'ro:cess, Work
16 Program, Consultant Se ection,, and Budget.for the Corona Reach Specific Plan or
17 Project Plan; in Connection with an Application Received from Chelsea GCA„Realty for
18 Processing of a PCD Modification. and Addressing 'Condition. No. 53 of the OYg'inal
19 Project Approval; ..Resolution 91-136 N.C.S., to Allow` Future Development (,Parcels B
2 0 and C) of the River- Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village. (StouderNVoltering)
21
2.2 Community Development `Director ;Mike Moore explained that following ,his remarks;
2;3 Council would !interview one Corona Reach cons:u'Itant (Parsons);, and, then adjourn to
2 4 Closed Session. They`would reeonuene at;approximately 8:45, p.m., and interview the next
2':5 two consultants.. He noted that Calthorp and Associates: had dropped out of the interview
:2;6' process. At the. conclusion, of the interviews, City Management would need Council
2 7 direction on the nexf steps in the, process.
28
29 Council Member Healy noted that~Councif had a nine or ten-monfh-old memo frorrm Hans.
3 0 Grunt detailing the financing for the original Corona Reach Specific Plan project. Since
31 then, two of the larger.lpropertyowners had stated they did not want their;escrowed funds.
32 used for this project: He wonde,red_ .how this issue would be resolved;: and wanted
3 3 information about finaricirig of the. project..
34
3 5 Mr: Moore- repliedahat~the~ appropriate time: for that ,discussion would be at the en'd of the
3 6 interview process.
37 - _ "
3 8 City Manager Fred Stouder stated there was no adopted. budget~for the project at this time.
39
40 Mr. Anders Hague, Parsons..; introduced Himself and the Parsons team, and outlined the
41 previous experience of. each member, of the team. '
42 ~ _ ~ .
43 The issues defined were technical; including development ih floodplairis :and f=reeway
44 access and circulation; process; in terms: of pro~idmg 'aimely responses to pending
45 applications; vision,. focused on th~e~ community .image,, implementation of sustainability
46 issues, an_d~takng advantage of unique oppo.rtuniti'es of'the ite.
47
March 13, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 303
1 The team's approach was established as two steps:
2 -
. ,. ,
3 1. Direction from Council.. on issues such as transportation and floodplain development..
4 2. Plan Developmenf considering opportunities and constraints a.nd with built in
5 mitigaton::.Critical: factors to the approach included the'team's and the City's hands-
6 on involvement; ,City/owner/community consent; determination that any proposed
7 actions are c"onsistent'with the,;General Plan;
8
9 Mr. Hague explained thatthe purpose'~of these steps was to provide Council the abilityto
10 make confident.decisions about the Corona Reach area. The Parsons' proposal included
11 an aggressive thirteen-month sefiedule including an Ei'R (Environmental Impact Report).
12
13 ,Public participation' would incorporate Public Information "Fact Sheets," Community
14 Workshops fo include the community in the vision.. and direction of the plan, Stakeholder
.;
15 Focus Groups with property and business owners in the area to understand their issues
16 and.be sure they were~addressed, withCouncil in the decision-.making, role.
4 ~
17 _ _ ~ _
18 Mr. Jeff Peters, Q_i:esta Engineering'; spoke. regarding` floodplain management,..and the
19 need for new.flootlway/floodp ain delineation. He explained that the existing FEMA (Flood
2 0 Emergency Management Agency) topographic. mapping was outdated and inaccurate. He
21 discussed the' importance of~charaeterizing the functions and values of the floodplain,,,
2 2 including floodplain storage, water quality; and riparian-hydrologic interactions.. He pointed
2 3 out that the. Condition.. of Apprgval'in the_ outlet village legislation included. "no increase in
2 4 downstream`wafer-levels,"ahd added #hat.a sophisticated hydrologic model could be used
2 5 to model the~~existing. environment and the proposed development.
26
27 Mr. Peters explained that'Parsons' approach to the transportation element of the Specific
28 Plan was performance-based. They would explore the operation. of all modesof traffic
29 independent of .land-use: concepts during the first phase of work. They would review
30 changes that havebeen made to-date., the reasons. behind past decisions,,. and future
31 possible changes in opportunities and constraints for the site. They would then develop
32 circulation alternatives. for different modes 'of transportation.. Mr. Peters -described the
33 concept of "trip budgets.," as the "essence of Step 1:" Trip budgets identified the
34 transportation capacity of'the site, independent of actual land-use:conce,pts. They focused
3 5 on the. infrastructure needed .for various levels. of .development-, and: the :cost of that
3 6 infrastructure. 1Nith this transportation assessment, Parsons'would be looking for policy
3 7 direction on the greater transportation system serving the Corona Reach area. _
38
39 Council Member Keller asked for clarification on:assessing circulation issues independent
4 0 of land use.
41
42 Mr. Peters replied that in a typical scenario, they are given a land use scenario, and,then
43 determine the leyel'of traffic, usually vehicular, thatscenario could, accommodate. Forthe
44 Corona Reach,, the number of trips. it would be .possible to accommodate with varying
45 levels of transportation.. infrastructure would be determined. In Phase 2, based on policy; a
46 range of transportation infrastructure to allow a certain amount of traffic generation would
Vol. 34, Page 304
March 13, 20Q0
1 be selected, and at'that time. the mixture. of land uses would be, determined. .
2
3 Council. Memb.er.Keller asked if` Parsons' plan would.. include strategies to' reduce VMT'
.. .
4 (.Vehicles Miles: Traveled} per capita,.to permit, in some targetareas, higher density;
5 without thestandard,assumption"s for~the number'of trip generations'that~w,ould require..
6
~ Mr. Peters responded that Parsons had' never used the standard assumptions `for trip
8 generation; much of their work focused on p'edestrian_ and transit-orienteddevelopment,
9 and industry-standard trip generation .rates, did .not; reflect that kind of :development.
10 Parsons- worked on the. basis of productions. and'.attractions. for arious~-sites, for various
11 development levels; modes ;of travel; and how:` tlat,~ affected trip :generation,, Other
.1`2 measures or indicators could be used. He emphasized fh,at when looking;;at in-..fill, .high=
13 densitydevelopment; they were very careful about looking atrthe interaction befween;'lan'd
14 use and levels of'tra"vel, in a realistic manner. . ~ ~ ~~
1.5 ..
16 Council Member Healy asked, hypothetically speaking; if the -same group,.of consultants
1 ~ 'was working on the Corona Reach Specific Plan as4was working on .the City's General
18 Plan., what°synergies would, be achievable,;. and what work would not haue~to be done twice,.
19 with respectto.land-use issues,.. transportation circulation issues, and the hydrologicstorm
2 0 water issues. ~ - ~ '
21
_, ., . :.
22 Mr. Hague replied that he'would be Project. Manager for_bofh plans.. He :explained 'that
-:
23 Parsons would be able to'.use: the Corona Reach Specific. Plan"to begin addressing some
'24 of the' citywide, issues, ~as part of the early visioning and'''public outreach: H;e listed
2.5 workshops, data collecfion'for transportation,, and ffie Environmental Impact.Report (ELR)
2!6" as items=that would not have: to be duplicated. ~.
27
2 8 Council Member Caller-Thompson asked if the team fiad walked the property.
29
3 0 Mr. Hague `said. that. due to the recent wet weather; they had been. °able to walk` the.
31 perimeter of the property only.
32
33 Mayor Thompson asked what info. rmation Parsons would need from the City i'n order to
3 4 establish a budget.
35
3 6 Mr. Hague repliedthat his team -would need:. direction regarding the amount of detail
37 desired'for~'the Specific Plan, whether the entire Plan would be developed~at':tle same.
3 8 time;.., orwould the `portion :concerning Parcels B and, C b~e devel'oped first 'to move
3 9 Chelsea's application' forward„ how much public outreach was.desired,,.and how much the
4 o Council wanted fo be. involved. This iriformation would enable `them to develop `the scope
41 and budget for the Paan. He also .suggested that the hydrology model. be studied in
42 conjunction with development of the Plan,
43 ..
4.4 Council .Member Keller wanted to know how long: revised floodplain map. ping for the
45 specific plan project area.would require; should the: Council request it.; -
46 '
.. a
March 13, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 305
1 Mr. Jeff Baird responded that.floodplan and'floodwaydelineation, including gathering the
2 topographic mapping necessary, would require six to eight months.
3
4 Council Member Keller. asked Mr. Baird how much he thought a new map of the floodplain
5 area would differ-frbm the existing map..
6
7 Mr. Baird opined that it would not change sigriifieantly; there, would be no "huge surprises"
8 within. the Corona Reach.
9
10 Council Member;K;eller clarified that he was asking if there was ufficient data available,at
11 this point to .provide Mr. Baird with a high degree of certainty for a new delineation:
12 .`
13 Mr. Baird stated that there was,, and added that the downstream hydrology would come
14 from the City's detention basin, study; after that, a new channel hydraulic model would be
15 constructed to-allow an accurate delineation otthe floodplain and floodway and prediction
16 of effects of any new development on upstream and downhill flooding.
17 _
18 Council Member Keller asked, regarding ,potential recommendations on policies and
19 construction. alternatives;in the Reach, if thought.hadbeen given to reduction of floodwater
2 o downstream as opposed to simply .not increasing flood flow..
21
22 Mr. Baird confirmed that .Parsons. had given some, thought to that; one possibility was
23 reconfiguring.some ofthe°existing parking'in the factory outlet area toincrease-roughness
2 4 and change the floodplain detention characteristics and restore some_ ripari'ari character in
2 5 the outlying parking area along the river.
26
27 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Baird his thoughts. on developing a "response. to 'an
28 application when, under pressureto respond within a.short period of time.. That is, how~did
2 9 Parsons envision coordination of the two tracks: the specific project proposal with. ~an
3 o incomplete Specific Plan and. recommendations, and the development of the Specific''.Plan.
31
32 Mr. Baird replied that the Proposed Master Plan. submitted by the applicant couldbe tested
3 3 with the hydraulic model to determine if it met the zero net increase in upstream.. and
34 downstream flooding requirement.
35
3 6 Council Member Keller -asked how that work would coordinate with .Chelsea's :needs and.
37 the corporate desire to push through ,on aproject=specific proposal and development .
3 8 .application.
39
4o Mr. Hague replied that.depending on the level of environmental documentation the.Council
41 desired; for example, if. itwere going. to be a negative declaration.based on what had;been
42 submitted, or a focused EiR, Parsons could work with City Managementto meetthe-t,ghter
43 schedule. Those examples could move more rapidly°than an EIR on the full Specifie;Plan,
44 but it would still take six to eight months to complete an EIR: The information based on the
45 hydraulic model could be completed in about three months.
46
Vol. 34, Page 306
March 13; 2800
1 Council. Member Hamilton. asked, if the floodway/floodplain delineation would be official -
2 would there be legal issues involved in changing the.delineations for property owners.
4 Mr.: Baird replied .that:there was~a:~formal Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
5 middle process, so that formal letter of map revision with. the FEMA language,. buf you
6 would be able to getthe technical information completed. As long as the hydrology and the
~ channel hydraulics:follow accepfed FEMA.standards; then, information would.be useful, but
8 it would' be tough to get the change officially designated by FEMA in that six-eight °rnonth
9 time period.
10
1:1 Council Member Hamilton asked ;what the process was - did a technical person; such as
12 Mr: Baird gather the information and present it to FEMA,, and'then FEMA processed of
13 approval?
14
Mr. Baird replied that information was submitted to their consultant; and.. they do technical
16 review of the model.
17
18 Council Member ,Hamilton asked about how long. the process took..
19
2 0 Sid Temple with Quesfa Engineering exphained that n:order to obtain a new~designation for
21 a FEMA:floodplain, the City would. need to process either a Letter of Map Revisio_ n (LOMB)
22 or a .Letter` of Map Amendment (COMA);, which involved submitting hydrology data ;to
2 3 substantiate the flows used to map the floodplain. The survey data must conform~to FEMA
2 4 'survey standards., and all hydraulic modeling can ,probably be completed in three months.
25 ~ - - '
2 6 Council Mem, ber Hamilton asked Mr.. Temple if 'he had aid he didn't anticipate much.
27 change in.the ;delineations.
28
29 Mr. Peters°replied that he did not think there would' be substantial change.
30
31 Council Member Hamilton asked Mr: Temple, what. he meant by'`substantal.''
32
3 3 Mr, ~ Peters. replied, that 10-15% expan"sign, or contraction in the floodplain would be
3 4 considered "substantial.''
35
36 Mr. Temple explained that what was more;likely to change the;:floodplain delineation was
3 ~ the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) .that you see on the; FEMA floodplain maps:: The specific
3 8. water~surface elevation would probably change based on new channel conditions, as well
3 9 as new topography. I'n some eases, the flooding depth may change:.,, because: of more.
4'0 .accurate topographic nforrnation, and that may result in different FEM!A designations; In
4.1 other words, the".borders of the floodplain may not: changedrastically on the'rnap; b:ut the
42 depth may` change, antl 'that meant that the' first; floor :height of a :building would also
43 change, fo be fhe standard one foot above the 100-t'e'ar flood elevation.
44
4 5 Council Member`Hamilton thought it would be important'to obtain this information up front.
46
March 13, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 307
1 Mr. Templeagreed, ~eSpecially for planned developmentto co.mplywith the no net fill policy.
2 The numbers could be used "prior to official adoption, by 'FEMA as a planning guidel.i'ne.
3 Before adoption byFEMA; they might be amended, based ontheir review, but typically;.the
4 changes would not be significant.
5
6 Mayor Thompson asked if FEMA typically did. new mapping -for the type of channelization
~ project currently underway'in Petaluma.
8
9 Mr. Temple- replied that his was not always the case, especially with an Army Corps of
10 Engineers project. He saw several alternatives:
11
12 a. Hire consultants such as Questa to process the LOMR.
13 b. Ask the Corps to process the LOMR..
14 c. When the next round of restudy came up for Sonoma County, have the
15 representative from the City ask that .the FEMA money designated for the
16 restudy of Sonoma County be spent on the lower portion to remap the
17 floodplain.
18
19 Mayor Thompson asked if the Corps would pay for the processing of the LOMB if we asked
2 0 them.
21
22 Mr. Temple was notsure. If'thought that would be a good question for the Corps Project
23 Manager.
24
2 5 Vice Mayor Torliatf thought the Citywould pay no matter what, She added that part of the
26 reason the Council was traveling to Washington was to secure funds for floodplain
27 management. She stated that. Corps would'definitely process the. papers for the City, but
2 8 the money would come from the City.
29
3 0 Council Member Keller thought there was: no reason to believe the. Corps would do a new
31 FEMA mapping; that would be the City's responsibility. He asked Mr. Temple if his firm
32 would present to.the community the risks of building in or adjacent to or upstream from the-
33 floodplain regardless of the insurance criteria known as the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
34 FEMA states that insurance is required within the floodplain,. with_exemptions x°feet above
3 5 BFE: He wondered if it'was good public policy. and what risks were involved. The public'has
3 6 never had the discussion of what's acceptable risk.
37
3 8 Mr. Temple proposed to'use a quasi two-dimension, al model because the Corona Reach
3 9 area wgrks as a kind of "ad hoc" detention .basin for the Payrah area. Water flows out of
4o the channel, floods thatwhole field area,,is temporarilystored in that field., and then moves
41 downtown. Development in the area with no-net fill has. typically involved digging o.ut
42 immediately adjacent. to that channel. The: volume .might be exactly the same,. but. water
43 may move through the area faster, so by changing the timing, there would be an increase
44 of discharge at Payran.
45
46 The hydrograph model (time versus flow graph) would allow routing through the Corona
vol. 34, Page 308 March 1'3, 2000
1 Reach in its current.condition as-well as the proposed condition: The results would. then. be
2 put through the hydrology_ model. to see how they would relate to Washington and Lynch
3 Greeks' peaks. The whole project: could be: studied'in the context of, the Corpsproject and
4 the flooding that occurs'i'n the Payrari area.
5
6 Council Member Gader-Thompson asked if any area other than the Corona Reach was
7 being looked at: She thought the upstream industrial area which had been:.,floodi'ng alot
8 should be included, even (hough it was not in he project~area, in order for the calculations
9 to be correct.
10
11 Mr. Baird responded that the conditions,.of approval required. zero increase in upstream or
12 downstream floodwater surface elevations, so modeling of possible backwater effects
`13 upstream would' be required.
14
15. Council ;Mem_ber Cader-Thompson asked. Mr. Baird if he thought the General 'Plan
1.6 calculations were inaccurate.
17
18 Mr. Baird replied that the previous topography included two-foot,.contours, which was
19 considered fairly gross for modern. FEMA floodplain mapping.
20 '
21 Council Member Healy mentioned a memo Council had received from City Management
22 recommending another firm be awarded this project, the reason being that,•the other'tearn
2 3 was well .known for its project management skills in which creafive open public participation.
2 4 .was strongly emphasized. He: asked what Parsons' skills were in that area.
25
2 6 Mr: Hague answered that Parsons had .good skills and good people for that process: 'He
27 descriked a number of past and current Parsons projects.
28
29 ADJOURN
30
31 To closed session - 7`]'0 P:M:
32
3 3 CLOSED SESSfO:IV .
34
:3;5 City Attorney Rich Rud'nansky announced the: following items to be addressed in Closed
3 6 Session:
37
'3 8 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL,, EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code
3=9 Section. 54956.:9„ Baykeeper vs. 'California State Water Resources Control Board;
4 0 Sacramento Superior Court. Case No. 99CS02579.
41
42 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant, to Government Code Section.
43 54957.6, Unit 7, Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne/Beatty/Krout
44
45 CONFERENC_ E' WITH LEGAL. CO.U.NCIL, 4NTIC,IPATED LITIGATION Initiation of
4 6 Litigation. Pursuant to Subdivision: (c) of Government' Code Section 54956.9 (one (1)
1 potential case)
2
3
4
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
'3 5
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
March 13, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 309
COIVFEREIVC;E WITFI LEGAL COUNCIL, ANTICIPATE® LITIGATION Significant
exposure fo litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(b) .(one (1) matter) ,
G.
RECONVENE - 8:20 P.M.
Mayor Thompson announced that no reportable action was taken on items considered
during Closed' Session. ~ c
ROLL CALL
Present: Cader-Thompson',,...Healy, Keller (8:30 P:M'.), Maguire,. Thompson, Torliaf„t
Absent: Hamilton
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Interviews of Three Consultants; Discussion, and Possible Direction on Process; Work
Program, Consultant Selection, and Budget for the C_ orona Fteach Specific Plan or
Project .Plan in 'Connection with an Application Received from Chelsea GCA Realty for
Processing of a PCD Modification and Addressing,Condition No. 53 of the Original Project
Approval, Resolution 91-1'36 N.C.S., toAllow Future Development (:Parcels B and G) ofthe
River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village. (Stouder/1Noltering)
.Mike Moore announced the continuation.of interviews of consultants. He introduced Moore,
lacofano, Goltsman, Inc. and. project leader Daniel lacofano. Mr. lacofano introduced the
firms who would supporf MIG in.their completion of the Corona Reach Specific Plan; They
included Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for the EIR and technical. analyses,
,Phillip Williams &,Associates for trafficanalysis, and Economic & Planning Systems (,EPS)
to evaluate the fiscal impacts of alternatives. He described other projects with which MIG
and the of .her firms had been involved.. He then described what his firm's general approach
to the project. would be. Representatives of the supporting firms discussed their
contributions to the.: project..
Mayor Thompson .read Diane Reilly Torres' questions regarding traffic: What data is used.
for your traffic model? Do you-.use data from other EIR reports, and if so, which ones? Do
you use data from Cal Trans?
Mr. Daisa responded that, in an effort not to "reinvent the wheel," it was his firm's policy to
use any data still considered valid that had been previouslycollected in connection with the
Corona Reach. He explained that the City maintained a citywide traffic model that his firm
Vol. 34, Page. 3.10
March 13, 2000
1 hoped to use once they had ensured that `it; was up-to-date and sufficiently detailed,.. He
2; added that"they would .use-Cal Trans volume data, although that information tended to be
3 very :gene"ral. Most traffic count data would be newly collected.
4' ,
5 Council Member Caller-Thompson pointed out that the future widening of 101 to three
6 lanes must. be taken into considerati'on' when viewing Corona as a partial or complete
~ 'interchange,. S.he did not believe the existing over crossing,could accommodate three lanes
8 it each direction.
9
10 'Mr. Daisa replied that if`Corona o.r Rainier were considered as an interchange, MI`G would
11 look,fo Cal. Trans design standards'for.'avy future planning.
12 .r
13 Couricil,;IVlember Caller-Thomp"son brought up the flooding.of the Outlet`Vilfage parking lot
1.4 ~ and buildings. ,
15 '
16 ,Elizabeth.Andrews; Principal-ih-Charge of Hydrology & Floodplain Assessrnenf for Philip
1~ Williams Associates, responded that-the flood analysis on that project used the best flow
18 values and the rive"r hydraulics model available at that time..: They now ,had a calibrated
19 hydrology model of the Petaluma River system, which Willams.Associates completed two
2 o years..ago. She.explained tha_ t this provided a much bette,r.understanding.of'the flows from
21 the,various #ributaries. Every hydrologic projection carried some risk ofinaccuracies, due:to
2.2 weather patterns;. etc.: Anywhere inside the 1.00-year.floodplain~contained.some element of
2 3 risk. She added that her firm recommended 'thaf clients build conservatively to protect.
2 4 themselves from. flood hazards..
25
2.6 Vice- Mayor Torliatf asked cif, .whendoing the previous EIR', Williams; Associates had
27 suggested to the City that they needed a~.calib"rated hydrology model in order for the flood
28 analysis to be accurate.
29 '
3 o Ms. Andrews responded thatshe.came in at the end of-the project, and was not.prvy to all
31 the conversations that took. place before her arrival.
32
3 3 Vice Mayor Torliatt wondered if Williams' Associates-would beable to maintain objectivity if
34 the data collected for the current.ELR conflicted with that of the previous EIR.
35
3 6 Ms. Andrews replied that the. most current data collected -with the Alerf Gauge System, the,
37 calibrated hydrology model, and the best topographic information available for the area
3 8 would' be used. '
39
4 o Council Member Healy explained to Mr. lacofano that the City was currently in the process
41 of preparing an' updated General Plan,, which inc(ud,ed economic; land use, ;traffic and:
42 circulation, and surface wafermanagement issues, among others; citywide. He asked Mr:
43 lacofano how his `firm proposed to coordinate the work to be done for the Corona Reach.
44 Specific Plan with the work~for the General Plan to prevent duplication of effort:
45 .
March 13, 2000
vol. 34, Page 311
1 Mr. lacofano stated that' it=was not unusual :for a General Pian to mark off' a complex and
2 .controversial area such :as the Corona Reach as a "to be :determined later effort." He
3 thought that M1G had an, opportunity to provide information that could be used in the.
4 General Plan.
5
6 Jeff Loux., Project Manager forN]IG, added that it'was important:to make sure the analytic
~ assumptions and the modeling were consistent between the two projects.
8
9 Council Member Healy explained that two elements about which he was most concerned
1o were traffic and circulation and surface water management, because the Corona Reach
11 Specific Plan was. on a faster track than the General. Plan, yet there were citywide issues
12 that: needed to be addressed in the Corona Reach Specific Plan.
13
14 Mr..'Loux thought it was important to consider alternatives early for some of the big picture
15. choices that the General PI'an has to include. He added that this was truer of circulation
16 Than flooding and~hydrology. The data and mode i'ng needed to be accurate, and the same
1Z data and modeling .should be used for the big picture as for the smaller.
18.
19,-- Council Member Keller asked Fehr and Pears if they would use the same approach they
20 had used in~fhe previous package they prepared for City.
21 Mr.. Daisa replied that they had developed. a single approach for the firms that had asked
2 2_ them to join their team.:All elements of the: approach would happen, but the order in which
2 3 theyhappened could, differ.
`~ 2 4
25 Council Member Keller asked MLG .how they would. deal with :the fact that the City was
2 6 "under the gur'' with aapecific project application that. required that a decision be made in
27 advance of completion of this project. Was #here some framework or guidancethey would
2 8 give the Council and City;Managementsnd public on how to integrate that specific project
2 9 proposal with the Specific Plan information being developed along the way?
30. ~_
31 Mr. Loux replied;thatthe City would rieed.to be sure that-the applicant's proposal, or some.
32 variation thereof, would. be part of the alternatives analysis early on. if the proposal would.
33 be carried all the way along, the EIR needed to treat it as an equal weight alternative.
3 4~
35 Council Member Keller, speaking to Ms. Andrews, explained that Elizabeth Bradley had
3 6 worked on the project at the time the Outlet Mall project, and-had told him the data she had.
3 7 .at the,time was inadequate for the kind ofi modeling she wanted to do now. He asked if her
38 team could turn out new BFE maps fairly quickly, and what level of certainty they would
39 have in terms of expansion of floodplain borders and. increase in depth. Ms. Andrews
40 responded that she considered flood plain storage to be one of the big issues in the
41 Corona Reach. Most of .the work that has been done, including what Elizabeth Bradley did
42 on_the outlet mall ELR, useda steady state assumption -assumed that what came in of the
43 upper. end of that reach was continuous all the way through the reach, and didn't change
44 through the analysis period. What acfually happened, she explained,, was that when a
45 storm wave moved through the system the water came in, spread. out, and as the waters.
4 6 .receded downstream, flowed back into the channel. She described that as a "dynamic
vol. 34, Page 312 March 1'3; 2000
1, ystern." A dynamic model was needed as a fool for analyzingthe situation: Particularly
2 with downstream concerns the City had, looking: at floodplain storage effects of any
3 development option, in this area would be key.. It would be: possible with tools they had, to
4 do rapid flood"plain mapping: It would depend on the quality of~topography,available. If they
5 had #gures for water depth in buildings during recent flooding, they would have a much
6 better chance to. calibrate 'hydrauaic model as well as the hydrology model, which would.
7 increase their ability to predct~floo,d conditions that would r..esult from .any developme.nt.in
8 the reach., She compared such prediction to weather reports, saying it was not possible to
9 be 10:0% accurate. She thought the ,best plan was taking a, reasonably conservative
10 .approach to possible ,storm results,.
11
_.
12 Council Member Maguire: asked if they would'be usng'the UNET 2D mod.el. , . -_,
13
hat her office: preferred a different model ..because of its ve
14 Ms. gndrews stated th _ ave ahem the abilit to do ra id ma in which she thou strong ~~
15 lmka es to ,GIS, whic_ g y p pp g, ~" _..~ ght was;
16 enormously useful 'for; any kind' of community interaction, community-based.. planning
17 process. They had' used that on the Napa River project flood management project. The
18 ability to rapidly turn data into information useful. for ,making decisions. ~~
19 ~. `
2 o Council Member Maguire asked what they call. their `tool.. ~ ' ~ ~°
21 ~ .
22 Ms. Andrews explained that there would be two different versions'. One was a 'two-,
23 dimensional version, which she did not feel was necessary for this p"ro~ect The, one she
24 thought they~would use was fairly linear, and was called, Mike 11:
2 5 ~ ,. -
~, ..
2 6 Council Member Magui-re asked ~f' there would be modeling of :transit and ~transporfation
27 circulation based on prioritizing pedestrians highest, automobile.'lowesf, etc-..to.develop,a
2 8 variety of transit options
29 - ,. ..
3 o Mr. lacofano replied that transit design and'i'ntegration of alternati~e:transportation' modes
31 were also key strengths of MIG. He described several projects'of'that type his firm'had "~'
3 2 done. ~'
33 - ~-
34 Council Member Maguire pointed out°that ideals were worth looking af; as we l'as demand. Y`
;.3 5
,_
3 5 'M'r. Daia agreed.
37
3 8 Mr. Lour spoke about his work in Davis designing' an integrated transit/p:edestrian/bicycle
3 9 system.
40
41 Mr. lacofano thanked the'Council and City Management for the opportunity°to present, his
42 firm's qualifications.... He thought 'th'at: they. brought the ;public and private design .and
43 development expertise; a very wide range of planning and. design .and technical -skills.,
44 environmentalaklls, ,illustrated by the,:range~of project experience. He'stressed their ability
4 5 to work in an interactive process with the City and the community,
46
March 13, 2000 ~ Vol. 34, Page 313
1 Vice Mayor Torliattasked how many.~other projects:the team was currently working on and
2 how they would affect the amount of time the .team:, could apply to the Corona Reach
3 Specific. Plan.
4
5 Mr. lacofano described several projects~th'at were in the final stages and stated that the
6 Timing°w.ould be perfect: All the supporting,firms"had plenty of personnel and resources for
7 the project.
8
9 Recess: 9:20 P.M. _ _u -
10
11 Reconvene: 9;30 P.M.
12
13 Mr. Moore introduced the final consultant teamm, Design; Community & Environment., and
14 their Prime Consultant David Early, Principal.. Mr. Early presented his team membe"rs for'
15 the project as follows:
16
17 Tom Ford, Associate, Design, Community & Environment; Jeff Peters., Principal, Questa
18 Engineering, Hydrology; 'Water Quality;: Terry Bowen V1lilliam R. Gray Associates,
19 Lnterchange . Feasibility (State Highway System) Steve 1N:einberger, Whitlock. and.
2 0 Weinberger Transporta#on; Principal, Transportation and Circulation; Stephanie Myers,
21 Jones & Stokes Associates, Lnc:; Biological and Cultural Resources, Wildlife; Matt Kowta;
22 Bay Area Economics, Fiscal and Economic Analysis.
23
24 Mr. Early explained that this. project, as a combined specific plan and EIR with a significant
2 5 process management component as well; was exactly the kind of project to which his firm
26 was ideally suited. He described. Design; Community &,Environment as one of the few
27 firms that had in-house capabilityin land. use planning, urban design, environmental review
28 with full SEPA compliance; and public.~p,rocess facilitation, providing streamlined and
2 9 flexible management. of the process,, The:: philosophy of the firm was ..reflected in their
3 0 .name:. Design,. Community and Environment.
31
32 Jeff Peters; Questa Engineering, Hydrology and. Water Quality, described his firm's two
3 3 main tasks as delineation and characterization of th`e floodplain, including some of its
34 important functions. This would serve _as a baseline for the. environmental analysis;
3'5 floodplain storage, waterquality, some of the important riparian actions that' are important
3 6 .and finally, construction of a hydrologic model to, help itlentify .impacts of different plan
3 7 alternatives and evaluate the. impacts of.theapplkant-submitted proposed masterplan on
3 8 both upstream and downstream flootl,ing.. They prop°osed, a very sophisticated hydrologic
3 9 model would. allow. them to look at changes in floodplain storage and timing.
40
41 Terry Bowen, William'R."G~rayAssociates, Interchange Feasibility (State Highway System)
42 :described'her firm as specializing in the planning, programming.anddelivery ofprojects in
43 the state highway system, working for...and with local, government, as well as Cal Trans.:
44 She added that her firm has strong working relationships with the Metropolifan
45 Transportation Commission as well ""as the California Transportation Commission.
46 Regarding the viability of a new interchange of Corona; she stated that two key parties
Vol, 34, Page 314 March 1"3, 2000
1. would be involved. in :a decision regarding th:e appropriateness of that 'location for an
2 interchange: the City of, Petaluma and, Gal Trans.~S'he: thought that Cal Trans would view
,_
3 the proposal as a:locally initiated project; and~wo:uldaexpect the City to take the. lead in tfe
4 project development process; with Cal Trans. providing State oversight. There: were a
5 number of Jocal ..issues the: City would have to, address to determine if an interchange at
6 Corona would be: cost effective and'would benefit the City. She wenf, on to describe some.
.- -
~ of the issues with which, Cal Trans would be concerned,. and `those that would be of local
8 concern.
9
1.0 Steve Weinberger, 'Whitlock: .arid Weinberger Transportation, Transportation and.
1.1 Circulation, explained that his firm's part in 'the .process would focus on the local, street
12 connections by:creating. a model to determine the. key constraints; forthe circulation system;
13 are,, depending on which design. was chosen :for a connection to 101. They would then
14 translate those. constraints into the number- of trips and amount ofi development, then
15 translate. That into actual land use and capacity of fhe specific plan area in terms of wand
16 use and the key constraint in terms of traffic. That. information. would be used to ;create a
17 system That was more.pedestrian :and bicycle oriented
18
19 Matt Kowta, Bay Area :Economics,. explained. that his firm's role would be economic -and
2 0 fiscal analysis. Some; of'the areas he suggested for analysis as part of the. study included
21 open apace preservation mechanisms, and their financial implications. A financi'ng' plan
22 would be developed Ito ensure that improvement identified during 'the process would be
;2 3 adequately funded.
24
25 Council Member° Healy asked how Design, Community & Environment's workwould
2`6 integrate `with the work being done on the General Plan, especially- 'in he areas of
2 7 transportation sand circulation, and surface water m°anagement, to prevent duplication of
2 8 effort.
29
3 0 Mr. Early responded that since circumstances made. it impossible to delay the :Corona
31 Reach Specific Plan until after completion of'the General Plan.Update; Design, Comm"unity
32 & Environment could keep very closearack of the,General Plan Update process fo ensure
33 that effortwas not duplicated and`that polieies~set'for both`planswere consistent. Mr. Early
34 hoped~the City would have a consultant working on both projects: He thought his firrn~was
3 5 .ideally situated: to fill that'need;
_~ h
3~ Council Member Maguire saidnfhat as a rnernber of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail; Transit.
3 8 Committee.,. he wasconvineed.that commuter-rail would come to Sonoma.County n'the not
39 too distancefuture; and that should be considered~when looking transportation/circulation...
_,
40 He asked if Mr. Early's firm had been able to develop, scenarios giving pedestrians first
41 priority and automobiles last priority.
42
43 Mr. Early would like to hea"r~putting pedestrians first and automobiles last giuen~as'direction
44 from Council before proceeding. He stated tha#'hissfirm wassa B'ay Area leader in planning
45 for transit-oriented developrnenf.
46
March 13, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 315
1 :Mr. Early added'that his firm believed flood concerns were. a key factor of this project, and
2 .he thought that their extensive. experience on the Napa Riper, including land and open
3 space acquisition, the Cal Fe:d Project, and FEMA grants, would be invaluable when
4 working on the.~Corona Reach Specific Plan.
5
6' Council Member Keller asked with what section of the Napa River project his firm was
~
7 involved.
` ` ~ "
8
9 Mr:.Early replied tt%afithey had prepared the EIR/EIS for the entire project. The EIS was
10 osfensibly.,an Army Corps of Engineers project;. in reality, Design, Community &
11 Environment wrote`the joint EiS7EIR. In addition, they managed the traffic analysis for the
12 construction project, they. have done three follow-on studies for the Third Street Bridge, and
13 two other bridges are in process.
.14
15 Vice Mayor Torliatt.asked Mr. Kowta for which other projects he had put together financial
,' 16 packages. ~ '~
17
18 Mr. Kowta answered, thaf~,Bay Area Economics had completed the financing, plan for
19 numerous projects with - Mr. Early as well' as~ other .consulting firms.. "Recent projects
2 0 -included the `E' Street Corridor Specific Plan in Woodland,.. the South of Forest Area. Plan
21- in Palo Alto, the Downtown Larkspur Plan, the Lemore Specific Plan, and the South 'San
2 2 -~Franciseo Area 'Plan.
~.
23.
' 2 4~ Mr.~ Early asked what the City's process would be from this point.
25
2 6 Mayor Thompson rep. lied. that they would. find out shortly.
27
28 PUBLIC COMMENT
' 29
3 o Geoff Cartwright,. 56 Rocca Driue, stated that there-was a.flooding problem in Petaluma,
31 showed photographs of the floodplain and spoke. against development'in that area:
32
3 3 Council .Member .Keller asked Mr. Carfwright if he had approximate times when th'e
34 photographs of the February 1998 flooding were taken..
35
3 6 Mr. Cartwright did not, but.. stated he could ,.get them.
37
38 Council Member Keller indicated that would 6e helpful.
39
4 o Bryant Moynihan., 1 Q2 Dawn Place, voiced concerns about the City's ability to finance the
41 Corona Reach Specific Plan, or the General Plan Update. He had heard that the cost of
42 the General Plan Update would: be $3.5. million., He did not feel. the City should go forward
43 with the Specific ~Plari until they had completed the General Plan. Update. He thought tle.
44 Specific Plan was being used to thwart Chelsea's application, at great cost to the
45 Community.
46
Vol. 34, Page 316
March. l 3,:,2000,
1 Vice Mayor Torliatt .asked Mr. Moynihan~where he had heard the figure $3.5 million. t
2' " .
3 Mr..Moynihan replietl that the Director of the. Petaluma Area Ch:am_ber of'Commerce had:
4 given him that figure earlier in the day: He asked if `that figure was incorrect: ~.
5
6 Vice Mayor Torliatt explained that they had not defined;thescope of work for the General.
7 Plan process, so they w.ouldn't know exactlywlat the cost would ,be. She ad"deal that there
8 had been three different alternatives proposed. _ ~ "
9 , _ , .
10 Mr. Moynihan asked if Vice Mayor Torliatt was saying that.the' cost could be much more
11 #han $3.5' million: .. "~ .: ~ _,
12 .~
i3 Vice Mayor Torliatt responded that it could be much less than. that, and that is~what she
14 expected, ~ "'
15
16 Mr. Moynihan asked Vice Mayor Torli'atf if she meant; "like the ~Payr`an flood fix was `way
1 ~ less'?"
18 LL . _,
19 Vice Mayor Torliatt explained to `Mr. Moynihan that one. of the reasons the Council was
2 o undergoing, tfe planning process;was to fulfill,-a. past CAuncil'scommitment in order Ito
21 finish the develgpmentproposal that is;,being pushed by he factory outlet She added that.,
22 Council was being put>.in°this position be.cause:they would probably get sued'~if theydid,Fnot
23 continueto deal'withthe flooding problem„the traffic circulation problem, aria processing
2;4 the development proposal., She 's. aid the Council was. attempting to ,be ,proactive on the
2:5 issue, although they were in a position~fo be reactive.
2'6
" _.-•"~
2 ~ Mr. Moynihan replied that ..his understanding. was that, Chelsea's .application. could be
2 8 processed and all the issues involved in the Specific Plan could be dealt with ;in a Precise
2 9 Development Plan-.
30
31 Couneil~Member Maguire,-as a point of :order; noted thaf Mr. Moynihan was rebutting Vice
32 Mayor Torliatt's. statement, and had exceeded the three=minute time limit;
33
34 Vice Mayor Torliattaaitl`that:in orderfor`herto make a,decision on this matter; she;needed
3 5 to look.at it'in the "bigger picture." She thought- if Council only looked at this project; as it
3 6 pertains to a floodplain issue:, then there really wouldn't be much of a project, if he City
37 were not going to build ~in the floodplain: She added that Council and City Managemerit
38 were trying to work wifh Chelsea to come to.an agreemerif.
39
40 PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
41
42 Mr. Michael Moore, C?irector:of the Community p~evelopcnent.Department; stated that~the
43 purpose of the interviews was to have the Council make adecision-on a consulting team
44 for the Corona Reach: Specific Plan. He also expected the Council would'. have
45 recommendations for apecfic scope. The scope information was. necessary;before the,
4 6 budget information could be: developed for the project.
March 13, 2000 Vol. 34; Page 317'
1
2 Mayor Thompson asked Mr. Moore. if he thought Council should first define the scope of
3 work, present this to the three consultants and obtain. a price from them, or select a
4 consultant tonight.
5
5 Mr. Moore suggested thatahey discuss the proposed scope ofiwo.rk, the presentations from
7 the three consultants, and choose a.consultant tonight. Mr. Moore and David 1Nolterng
8 could then, with Council's help; prepare a revised scope of work to forward to the chosen.
9 consultant fora.budget. Alternatively, Council could provide him with a written evaluation of
1 o the proposals and their choice of consultants, and -any scope issues they wanted to
11 incorporate, and he could contact the consultant. ~ -
12
13 Council ,Member I<e ler thought that Mr. Moynihan had asked a valid ,question,, and he
14 wanted to explain Council's reason fo,r moving forward with the Specific Plan, and-how it
15 would be financed. He explained that the City had received a demand from Chelsea for a
16 refund of $61,000 that they deposited with the City in 1996 as a fair share portion of
17 preparing and adopting the Corona Reach Specific Plan.. They didn't want to pay for
18 anything else, but at the same time, they, wanted the City to proceed with~the development
19 application without consideration of the larger context, and have stated they would bring a
20 lawsuit against the City if their demands were not met. He noted that this was in spite of `a.
21 written commitment, and a commitment to the public, that the City would have the EI'R and;
22 the Specific Plan in hand before considering anyfurther development
23
24 Council Member Healy agreed, that. th..e funding was problematic.. He suggested
25 coordination of selection of the consultant team fo.r the Specific Plan with selection~of the
2 6 team for the General Plan. He thought the Council should meet and make this selection in
27 one meeting: V1/ith respect to the financial issues, he hoped to have by thataime :more
2 s input from City-.Management regarding funding sources. He added"that if there were not
2 9 money available to do the complete Specific Plan, perhaps it`would be necessary to reduce
3 o the project to a plan more specific to Chelsea's application, leaving the other issues to the
31 General Plan process.
32
33 Mayor Thompson agreed with Council Member Healy.
34
3"5 .Council Member Maguire. agreed with. Council Member H.ealy's suggestion to choose
36 consultants for both plans on the same evening.. He added that.,he ;would prefer to
37 ~conaplete the General Plan, process before the Corona, Reach Specific Plan, but
3 8 circumstances made that impossible. He stated that Council' had spent considerable time
39 and energy in addressing'the applicant's regaest. ~He pointed out that if the Corona Reach
4 o Specific Plan could not Abe funded., Council could decide to hear Chelsea's application on
41 its merits and continue with the General Plan process,.
42
43 Council Member Maguire asked the other Council Members if they wanted to have further
44 discussion of the scope of-work tonight, or wait until the consultants had. been chosen..
45
Vol: 34 Page 318.
March t3, 2000
1 Council Member Healy replied that he thought the scope of work was driven by the
2 financing.
4 Council.. Member Maguire asked Council Member Healy if. he wanted to choose the
5 consultantteam, ask them for a-cost estimate, and determine if#unds would be available.
6
~ Council Member Healy confirmed that he did and added that while ,waiting #or the
8 consultant?s estimate, he hoped Council could be given more information about any funds
9 the City might.be able to make available.
10
11 Coun, cl Member Maguire pointed out that.the question of'whether the C.ify.could finance
12' this process would.depend onthe scope ofiwork;that Council dictated.
13
14 Council'Member Healy :agreed.
1,5 ..
1b Vice Mayor Torliatt:tfoughtCouncil needed to further refine the scope of work, and added
17 than: she like being; ,able to interview a number of. consultants '.because all, of their
18 ,perspectives and: ideas made it.easier to refine the scope of work for the project.
19
20 Council, Member Healy noted th'af, "refining" usually meant "expanding" .instead of
21 "narrowing."
22 .
_:2'3 .Council Member Maguire'sfated that he would be happy to narrow'tie focus.
24
. -.~
2`5,~ Mayor Thompson asked~,f Council would prefer to prepare written comments for the
2;;6 Plan_ning`~Director regarding their choice of consultants. .
'2 7
28 .Council. Member;Maguire said thaf he preferred an open discussion:.
29 ~ -
3 0 _Mayor Thompsorrsuggested that. instead of defini`ngthe scope this evening,.. each Council
31 `Member speak-for about two minutes about their vision of the scope of the project:.
32
3 3 The other Council ;Members agreed.
34
35 .,Mayor Thompson stated that he was very impressed with Mr. Early'~s, presentation,, as he
3 6 was the only consultant wf.o spoke. to the econornicimpact of the projeef. He hoped that
3~ the.. consultant group, that was elected would go through the funding: options,, the public.
38 improvement financing plan, the ecgnomic impact and the City budget: Me addedthat the
3 9 transit and rail issues were important to him.
40
41 Council Member Cade,r-Thompson thought. it was °imperatiue to recognize the fact- that
42 almost the entire area is in the floodplai_n, and that throughout;the State of. California, and
43 the nation, peop a were: no.longer developing in floodplains. She thought it wasp important
44 to get the. right information.to: make the right decision, because the decision would impact
4 5 the community fbr the' next 100 years.. S~f1e pointed outwhat had, happened'in the pasf, but
46 information changed so quickly, she thought it important to obtain the most up-to-date
March 13, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 319
~1 information on the hydrology: She thought it was important to focus on what were the best
2 practices for development in 'a #loodplain.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed that it was important to determine .how the project would be
5 funded from the beginning. She suggested Council. develop their "dream" scope of work,
6 find out how much that would cost, and "pare it down from there." Regarding the
7 consultants' presentations, she liked the:idea of acommunity-based approach of looking,at
8 the development.orvon-development of the area. She noted that there were many people
9 with a vested interest in the Petaluma River. She wanted to include all those .people 'n
10 looking at how to implement. the Petaluma River Enhancement Plan. She saw that as a.
11 huge asset to the community. She viewed this process as focusing on the River
12 Enhancement Plan as well as looking at development as buildings and structures in areas
13 out of the floodplain. She also mentioned implementation of the bike plan, including the
14 Rails with Trails concept: She liked the. idea of sustainability integrated throughout the plan,
15 and focusing' on-the basic environmental. and .infrastructure constraints.
16
17 Council Member Keller stated that he .had spent twelve years working against
18 "piecemealing" this area,. and he was. not about to see it happen now. He did not want to
19 look at a small project and try to handle it without°the broader context in place, whether that
2 o was the Corona Reach Plan, which he would prefer, or waiting for the General Plan. He
21 reiterated that he would not reduce the. scope of the project to just the application from.
22 Chelsea for expansion of -the outlet mall. Ne said.. that a number of State and Federal
23 agencies were providing money for planning grants in the floodplain, as government at all
2 4 levels had recognized that construction in the floodplain would always cost the public in the
25 long run. He wanted to :know what was available in planning grants that would help
26 Petaluma fund this kind. of specific plan. He liked MIG's comprehensiveness and their
27 approach to public involvement, He was comfortable with all MIG's sub-agencies.. MLG
28 would be his preference at this point.
29
3 0 Council Member Healy thought the Council. should prioritize the scope of the project and
31 then determine what. could.. be afforded. He added thaf if a project with.'"all the bells and
32 whistles," could not be afforded, the City may have to settle for something less. He
33 mentioned that two of the three consultants' proposals included interviews with Council.
34 Members, and he thoughf that would be more appropriately done in public.
35
3 6 CouncifMember Cader-Thompson agreed that there were financial issues, butthought thaf
3 7 a lot ofthe information gathered for the Specific Plan could be .rolled into the General Plan..
3 8 She wanted the Council to be united in protecting the future of the community. She thought
39 this was possible if everyone would work together and be willing to compromise.
40
41 Council Member Maguire.agreed that the economic impacts needed to be part of the scope
42 of work. He wanted to 'stress sustainable uses and use the "natural step" criteria to
43 measure the effectiveness of those uses, and use the natural step in our land use planning
44 thinking and circulation thinking. He described those criteria as the quantifiable base
45 measurement that could be used for sound environmental work, long-term land use and.
46 transportation planning.
Vol. 34, Page 320
March 13, 2000
1
2': Mr. Stouder reserved April 3rd and 5'h .for further,meetings.
3
4 P:UB.LIC C.OMNIEiVTS.
5
6 ADJOURN to Adjourned Clo ed Session
7
8 10:55 P. M.
9
10 ADJOURN
1.1
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18 ATTEST:
19
20
21
~everly J. Kline, C.M.C..; ~ yClerk.
'2 4
'2;5
26 ******
Clar , on,. Mayor`