HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01/26/2000January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page.213
1 City of Petaluma, Californa-
2 Minutes of a Special
3 City Council Meeting .. _ .
4 ~ ..
5 ~ Wednesday; January 26, 2000
6 ~ Council Chambers
,,
7
8
9 The City Council. of the City of Petaluma met on this date:iri the. Council Chambers at 7:00
1o p.m. s
11 `
T2 R(~1 I C_81 I , ,'
13
14 Present: Caller-Thompson, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson,;Torliatt "
15 Absent: Hamilton. "
16 "
17 P~ Fn ~ Of ALLE ~fAfVCE
1 s - ~.
19 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Mike Moore led the.;Pledge of,Allegiance.
20 ,
21 MOMERIT OF SILENCE
22 .. .
23 At the .request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was. observed:
24
25 PUBLIC COMMENTS "
26 .
27 Terrence Garvey,..,83 Maria Drive, spoke: regarding how to finance the flood.control project
28 and a handout was distributed#o Council regarding his thoughts and questions.
29
3o Mr. Fred Stouder,.City Manager, thanked Mr. Garvey for his comments. and questions
31 and. stated that a report regarding the flood control project, .which was on the February 7'
32 Council, agenda and would.. be available by 5:OQ p:m., on Monday, January 31st.
33
34 Diane .Reilly-Torres, Rainier -Avenue, spoke regarding PCA ("..Petaluma Community
35 Access":) and would like ,$1.25 be collected in the bill and have AT&T kick in the other
3 6' $.75 (~ seventy-five, cents).
37
3 s Rich Savel_, 499 ~ Adobe .Road, Penngrove, (Penngrove .Area Plan Committee), spoke
3 9 regarding the: need for retention or detention ponds and the benefits of PCA.
40
41 Geoff Cartwright,. 56 Rocca D,rive., spoke regarding the Rohnert Park General Plan and.
42 draft EIR ("Environmental Impact Report") and distributed a copy to Council. He tated.
43 that. there was a present flooding problem on Leehow Creek in the. area of Railroad
44 Avenue near Old Redwood Highway and a growing flooding concern to downtown'
45 Penngrove. ', ~~
46
Vol. 34, Page 214
1 COUNCIL CONiME1V1TS
4
43
44
45
46
January;26, 2000
Council ..Member. Torliatt: Mr-: Mayor, the first thing C wanted fo address was I read the
Argos Courier this evening and one of the; obituaries, .included the. passing,' of Victor
DeCarli.and I wanted to askthat we adjourn: the meeting in his memory: I wanted to.also
say that he and Harold Mahoney were cornerstones of our community and I think a
.,
tremendous amount of oral history has been lost in the lasf year by their passing so. it is a
sad day 'for Petaluma. Also, Iwanted- fo talk about what Mr.. Seville had discussed at
public commenu which was I attended a working group that had been put together by-the
Board of° Supervisors and the ~Gity of Rohnert- Park to address Rohnert Park's General
Plan and the issues associated with their General Plan; including growth, transportation,.
flooding, water resources. It was a very interesting meeting. I can provide the Council
with the ,packet that was: handed o.ut gat -the meeting. It was a very interesting discussion..
There was approximately, 'I would say, about` 25 people there sitting around a round table'
with Supervisor' Kerns and Supervisor Smith; along with Jake McKenzie,.. City of Rohnert
;Park'.Council Member Vickie: Videck Martinez. Also Pete Jenson, Vice-Mayor from 'the
City of Cotati, was there and a variety of interested. citizens from .the, I believe it's the.
Cannon Manor area which i"s.an area that's in the County that the County and Rohnert
Park have ;:been frying to negotiate on. A couple of interesting issues:'that did come up at
the meeting and/or~facts, 'assuming they' are facts since they were stated:. at the,, meeting.
by some of the staff, ones is that:. the area that Rohnert Park is looking :af for their new
General Plan --,app.'roxmately 5% of the, drainage in that development area goes.'nto the
.Petaluma watershed so any development -that occurs in that area, yo,u know;. is ,going to
affect downstream '#lows~, ~-but 5°/s was the number that, was thrown out.. Also,;. an
interesting point, that I am not sure that. came out when we had our joint meeting with.~the
Sonoma County Water Agency's: staff which was -- it.was stated :at the meeting fodaythat
if the water transmission is deemed constrained, which the;~Board of Supervisors deemed
constrained last ~D:eeember; December 7th,, ~ that the Agency, Sono"ma, County Water
Agency, actually gels to declare who,gets what allocations so ifi`that in :fact, is the case-and
they have already„ you .know, deemed the water sources constrained; it seems to me fhaf
our issue dealing' with North Marin Water District; ("NMWD") and Rohnert-- Park doesr'f
II to the Sonoma Count: 'Wafer A
really matter because the authority fias gene ation on that. Anotherynterestin gency so 1
wanted. to raise that issue. and ask for clarific _ _ g fact was
that according, to Sonoma County V1/ater Agency, because of tfle growth 'in Sonoma
County and the demand on the. wafer on an annual basis, 'the. Sonoma County Wafer
Agency :needs to provide ar additional two n~illion gallons of'water so every year it is at`
Least two :more million gallons of water per day that needs fo .be provided to the
contractors from SOnoma_County V1/ater Agency. I also wanted to let you know that Maria
Cipriani was there because they also discussed open space, issues and 1 thought it was --
acfually; (thought it, was a really good meeting for the fact that a lot. of the key players are
starting to work together. lt's still interesting. to see who 'is -going to step on whose
authority regarding general plans and regional transportation 'issues, but if; was a, 'good
way for, I think; all of us- to get some sort of idea that hey; what you do affects us and
Cotati was very outspoken about:. some ofi the ,transit ;and corridor .issues 'of not either
increasing lanes or dealing~with :the traffic~problerns that :are being impacfed~, just. like pit is
happening in Penngrove. ,I, also,spoke with Mike Kerns after~the rneefng and he''had said
January 26, 2000 vol. 34, Page 215
1 that he had spoken wifh the Mayor.and he. also wanted to.aet me know that someone had
2 contacted. him about the transit 'facility down: at the railroad depot.:here in town. and I know
3 that we've been -- and we allocated some money for the design of our transit facility
4 downtown, but he had .heard that maybe. we were in jeopardy of losing the money.. I did
5 put a call into Jim Ryan, our transit coordinator, this. afternoon and I hope he will get back
6 to us. I also asked.. him to get back to us on what.the status is of that because I know that..
7 the Council. is very. interested in moving. fihat forward. and earlier.; what about four or .six
s months ago.,; the Mayor:and myself and people from the railroad authority and staff had. all
9 met and thought we :were moving this forward so hopefully we are.
to
11 Mayor Thompson: I'm lucky. I met with Ryan this afternoon and he's. going to get a
12 memorandum out fo me tomorrow for a quick proofread and then everybody will have .it,
13 probably by tomorrow afternoon, because we've got about a month to get approximately a
14 million bucks and ;rather than going into .a lengthy discussion, that's where we are with
15 that.
16
17 Council Member .Maguire: Actually, I think Randy Pool .did mention that the- Water
la Agency did have the contractual: authority in the case-of transmission impairment. H'e just.
19 didn't. remind us that the Supervisors had; already declared the system unpaired although I
2 o think it was clear enough to most of us and that was why we directed staff to come back
. - 21 with a read on 'the contracts as: to who gets to say what and under those conditions. On
22 the subject. of good people passing, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to bring up that Gilbert Nelson
z3 passed away recently.. Gilbert is Clara Nelson's husband and he was well into his 80's,
24 wonderful guy. He was ateacher/professor aril an activist for social justice and was a
25 member of the Petaluma Progressives so I would like to also adjourn this meeting in
26 memory of Gilbert Nelson.
27
2g Council Member Keller: A couple of things, on-the Rohnert Park General.Plan and' EIR,
z9 I would hope., and I'm not sure that our Planning Department is .going to be making formal
3o responses on the review of the EIR, particularly in regards to the flooding issues
31 downstream, and' an overall. need for basin management and that their plan is not
32 complete until ,that management plan is put in place. That's obviously ...going to be a
33 multiple year project, but it needs to be .noted on the official record that: we will note accept
34 anything less than that from .everybody in :the .basin. Nobody can opt .out,. Rohnert Park,
35 Penngrove, Cotati, the County or us._ I"d .like to.make sure., I don't know where'it is on
3 6 track -- it's a question for the manager -- we have asked that. an invitation be ..given to the
37 representatives from this district to the open space district so that- we can have a meeting
3s with them on' what the Open Space District priorities and' functions are and that we have
39 some input into the discussion about what. properties are being considered. or would like
4o to be considered. Right now; we are not in .the loop at all, and it's very frustrating and it
41 has been true. for years. Also, the recent arson at Rancho. It concerns me a great deal
42 even though I personally had disagreements with them. and have gone to Court with there
43 over pollution emanating from.. their site. Nevertheless,, they are one of our businesses
44 and I am concerned that arson as a tool to drive them out: of business or harass them or .
45 whatever, since it is unknown at this point what the causes of the fire, who set it is; that,
46 that goes. on I think is a detriment to the community .and I would like this Council to
Vol. 34, Page~216
January 26, 2000
1 consider very seriously offering a _$5;000 increment to the .reward that has already been
2 .posted for arrest antl conviction of anybody `ihvolved in that arson. 'I'd' like to have -- ,if we
3 could put that on:'the agenda and have a note back f rom Pat Parks on that: Thank you:
4
5 Council Member Maguire: Mr: Mayor, if' I could. just respond. .David, on the -- what was
6 the one that you brought up before ahe .arson -- Open Space, when Mike Kerns was 'at the
~ joint Water .Agency meeting I did suggest that if for some reason.. his appointees fo he
s Open_ Space District-were feeling uncomfortable with appearing before the bodythat they
9 could maybe ,call the. Mayor or myself `and,. you know,,. we, could begin a :dialogue on a
10 one-to-one basis as w,ell~, but I have not heard anything. Have you, Me. Mayor?
11
12 Mayor'Thompson: No.
13
14 Council .,Member Torliatt: Mr. Mayor,. I just wanted toy add one snore thing, 1 also stated.
15 at :the meeting `thaf the City of: Petaluma and hopefully Supervisor Kerns would be working
16 together, putting together a watershed rrnanagement program and looking at our' basin.
~ here. So; I just wanted to say that we are continuing trying to open that dialogue up and
1a look at regional participation in that.
19
20 Mayor Thompson: Ms. Caller-Thompson, nothing.. Mr: 'Healy? Thank you.
21
22 C~O~INGIL i4ND IUTANAGEMENT REPORTS
23
2.4 None
2'5
2;6 AGENDAS CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
a ~ None
2a
29
3o LINFINISI-IED BLISIIVESS
31
32 1. Discussion and Possible Direction on Process; Work. Program; "Sch:ernatic
3.3 Development:.-Alternatives, Consultant:Selection and Bud'getforthe C~orona'Reaeh
34 Specific Plan or Project Plan in Connectionwith, an Application: Received from
35 Chelsea GCA Realty for :Processing. ,of a PCD Modification and Addressing
36 Condition No. 53 of they Original Project Approval, Resolution 9`1-.136 N:C.S:; to
3~ Allow Future Development (Parcels,,B' and C) of 'the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory
3 Outlet Village. (Stouder/1Noltering) _
39 '
4o Mr. Woltering; Mr: ,.Mayor, and other -Council Members, good evening,. I am David
41 1Noltering and I .arn a contract planner working with the City on this project. and this
42 evening my colleague., Phillip Frankle; is assisting with.: graphics and 'will be recording
43 information as well. The last time: we rne't :on the Chelsea GCA Corona Reack Project
44 was. on November 22nd and at that meeting, the Council,;gave us direction'to, come back.
45 and provide information in a variety of areas.. The.:areas include process„ work program,,
46 possible development alternatives and consultant selection and budget.. I have prepared
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 217
-~ ;i a,staff .report;; 'an agenda report, for. your review and together. with Phillip we have
2 developed some concepf alternatives :for you to review and„ consider and .in addition, we
-3 provided .you with: quite a bit of information in your Council packet for review. .For
4 example; we have a map for your .review at the.. last meeting on the 22nd. One of the
s issues; we wanted .to talk to.you about is establishing .what should be the study area: for
.. ~-
. -~ 6 Corona:,Reach and as you recall, the study area. was somewhat expanded to include all of
~~ Corona Road to the north and all ofi Petaluma Boulevard North to the west and the map:
a that you see on the screen. to my left depicts that and that's in your packet. V11e also
9.. developed conceptual or schematic development alternatives. Those, too, are in your
1 o packet. and the idea there .really is to have those as working tools for you. Each one:.of
11 them has a scheme :.and a different theme to. the .development concept. One, for
s;a example, is historic development. The Cinnabar Mill area has a number of very important
13 historic structures and properties that should be considered for preservation. Another
14 theme that we workedwith was the idea of looking at Petaluma Boulevard North and
is looking at redevelopment possibilities. along that roadway as well as coming up with
16 development standards, street development standards in the future. This is:an important
1~ gateway to the community and the street development or street .design standards would
1a help bring that. street together .and provide a real positive gateway statement. for the City
19 of Petaluma.. Another one of the concepts shows the. opportunity for mixed. use in
a o commercial development and the final theme of the development concepts we put
al together shows .opportunities for open space.; passive and active recreation and storm
Zz water detention and in putting together that particular alternative:; we refer to the RMI
z3 Study and gathered some information from th"at. We also sent_out a letter to consultants
24 who would. be working on or could. be working on this. particular project and we asked
as them to submit statements of qualifications if they would be interested in working with this
a 6 community on the Corona Reach .Specific Plan, Chelsea GCA Project. We sent. out
_ ~ a~ requests for tatements 'of .qualifications. to 10 different individuals or firms and we
a received six cespo,nses back. Those. responses,. along with: a copy of a "letter that was
z9 sent out requesting the statements of qualifications are included in your materials The
3 o firms that we received information. from include Calthorpe Associates,. Calthorpe is
31 teamed with a number of other sub-consultants. I'II :just list for you this evening the „prime
as consultants. Calthorpe. Associates is one. Design Community & Environment is another
33 consultant, again, .teamed with. other groups. LSA, Moore,; Isofanq and Goldsrnan,
3'4 Parson"stand-when Questa-submitted a statement of qualifications as an; engineering and
.3,5 hydrology consulfant. Questa is actually listed as asub-consultant on two or three of the
36 other. teams. ~"So; we received quite a bit of information. The, teams seem very well
_ 3~ qualified. L~dd put together an evaluation, a preliminary evaluation, for your consideration
3a in. the staff report. We also .included in your materials a copy of the opportunities, and
.. 39 constraints document thaf was ,previously prepared as a part of the Corona Reach work. I
4o think I can't emphasize enough that, as you move forward with. this project, you identify a
41 preferred alternative and other study alternatives for the consultant team, that you will be
4z working with Its very important to look. at this study area and look at what .are the
43 opportunities, what :are the constraints in this area: This "report is fairly detailed. It was
44 provided to you: at the meeting of November 22, 1.999. I included it in this packet again
45 aril then this evening what I d'id I looked through that packet and there were a number of
46 maps that are at a smaller size, I think 8-1/2 x 11 in your packet materials, what I did was
Vol. 34, Page 218 January 26; 2000
1 I .enlarged those to 11 x 17, dome: of the key maps in that documenf soy that in `the large
2 envelope you received tonight, there's material. there fo.r you to work with and ,ou'll find
3 that; for example.,. the biological resources map, the cultural resources .map, the
4 de~eloprpent areas map and a number of other important exhibits in That opportunities
5 and constraints document.. have been blown up for you so that you can read them better
6 :and they are included in that, envelope: In additions i'n the envelope, we have a copy~~of :the
~ detention site snap that was prepared in they RMI Sfudy and I think that would ,bei~helpful ~ .
a for you. to look at too. as far as the study"area in frying to: identify potential sites for storm
9 water detention. as you mode along. Tn addition,, we have an, .existing conditioris~ map.;
1o This existing conditions map is on the .easel to my right next. to' City' Manager Fred.
ii Stouder and-that shows existing conditions ,in the project area. For example; the floo`d'
12 plain area is identified ;there. That, too.,.. is in the large envelope. I~ think it'is important to
13 have .this: resource- material 1 provided' in the large envelope for you 'to .keep ;that
14 information.: in there;. ;as youcontinue to work on 'this process of defining; the preferred
15 alternative and other study alternatives.. It will be important to go'back to that resource.
16 -base, the opportunities and constraint document; the- RMI Study and other important
1~ resource information and so, keeping that together so you can refer back to 'if will be
1s important. As far as working with. you this evening;. what we've .laid out, we've. laid out a
19 number of different areas for follow up and discussion and to ,continue to get your
z o feedback.. Process.,. work program,. looking at the overall study .area and getting feedback,
21 feedback that we can record and use in .developing. the preferred alternative.. Them,
22 working with, you on consultant selection and then talking about budget, overall.' budget.
2'3 Those are the. topic. areas that we will be discussing and working with tonight. I'd like 'to
24 start with process 'and just give a :quick overview and' have Borne discussion 'in that area.
5 In terms of process, of .the November 22nd meeting; it was my understanding; that fhe
26 City Council would act as a committee in terms of working. on the Corona Reach Specific
a~ Plan and developing a preferred: alternative and other'~~study alternatives: That was our
2 s °understandng ~ Qlong with that, in terms of the Chelsea GCA application. that thee. City of
z9 Petaluma has received, 'itls our :understandi'ng that 'in terms of developing a range of
3 o alternatives for study `that one of those alternatives tti~at would- be studied wouldf include
31 the Chelsea GCA app- licatian. And I think that's something we -need to be clear about,
32 that you agree to as we move forward.. In terms- of :overall process,, the. process that
33 would envision is that as we develop the preferred alternative and other study alternatives
34 that would be analyzed. in the .EIR for the Corona Reach 'Specific Plan, the Chelsea- GrCA
35 application would be studied `at a level of detail :that~would allow you as'ahe. City Council -.
3 6 ultimately to "take ,action on that project. or any other body of this City 'to take action-on the
3~ project andthat in terms of an overall process that the specific plan preferred alfernati~e
38 would be developed initially along with `other study alternatives, from that an EiR wou`Id
39 be prepared .based on the preferred' alternative: and other study 'alternatives Yard
4o concurrently 'the Chelsea G.CA application would 'be eorisidered so at the end of this
41 process the City would' be taking action. on tfe EI:R for the Corona.'Reach 'Specific Plan,
42 the Corona Reach Specific. Plan and the "Chelsea~GCA application 'in terms of ar' overall
43 process. That's my understanding. if there is any deviation from that; any different
44 thoughts on that, please let me know. ~ ~ '~ . _
45 ,
46 COUnCII Member Keller.:- 'Can I ask you procedurally where there is a project application
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 219
~ 1 for a small portion of the study ,area, if that. is taken. as an :alternative, how do you deal
z with the rest of the site? In that scenario, in that alternative, would that be taken as a
3 given and then work from there or cane you work on variations within the site development
- ~ 4 of their project as well?
5
6 Mr. Weltering: You can work on variations within their site development as well as other
~ alternatives.
s
9 Council Member Keller.: So basically they would have some minimum objectives. that
io would have to be:met?
11
i~z Mr. Weltering: Yes. For .example, a preferred alternative,, an alternative that would be
i3 studied at a level of detail -that would allow fior action on the project would include the
• 14 Chelsea GCA application. There may be a variation. in another alternative, a variation ;to
15 their plan in another alternative or alternatives that would be evaluated in the EIR as well.
1'6
17 Council Member Keller: And although we don't have a formal application yet from the
1s Johnson family that would undergo a similar run through in alternatives?
19
20 Mr. Weltering--; It :could interms of taking the information in_ and incorporating the
21 information inte the project description and analyzing it in this EIR.
22 .
23 Council Member Maguire: So, David, do I understand you to say that the preferred
24 alternative must include the :Chelsea GCA application in the proposed project.
25
26 Mr. Weltering: l would' recommend that and in that way you are evaluating that project,
2 ~ you're evaluating .af a level of detail that- #hen you can take action on it. That's not to say
zs that in another study alternative couldn't look at a variation in terms of use.
29
3 o Council Member Maguire: Or couldn't we, ifi this Council decided that that wasn't the:
31 preferred alternative, the preferred alternative .did not include the Chelsea GCA, , do I
32 understand you to say that if that were the case that we should certainly include it in orie
33 of the alternatives, and study it sufficiently to the .level of detail that~•should that: project ;be
34. processed, we have the EIR documents completed.
35
36 IVir.. Weltering: ::Let. me say this, a little bit different. just to make sure I am .addressing
37 possible. concerns here. What l would be most .concerned about is studying the Chelsea
38 application at a level of pecificity, detail., that.would allow action on that project at the. end:
39 of this process. That'snot toaay that necessarily that would be your preferred alternative,
4o but it would be in the project description, studied. at a level of detail specificity to .allow
41 action at the end of th"is process. Not that we would get to the end of this .process and
42 because you didn't identify this application in the project description and with a level of
43 detail that at the end of this process you can't take action on it or there is a need toy
44 supplement the environmental work at the .end of this process. So maybe better atated
45 would be that the. Chelsea application I would recommend to be studied at a level of
46 specificity that would allow for action at the end of this process.
Vol. 34, Page 220 January 26, 2000
1
2 Council Member Torliatt;' But it does riot have to be the preferred' alternative. It can be
3 just an alternative in our process.
4
s Mr. Woltering: Yes..
6
~ Mayon Thompson: So,. basically what you are saying as a Council the vote would be to
8 select scheme D and you would--also at that point 'in time do a very detailed study on the
9 Chelsea :application? But that's. what we are- saying here..
10
11 Mr. Woltering: Right.. I'm not making a recommendation on a particular --
12
13 `Mayor Thompson: I'rn just giving you a hypothetical examp e.
14
15 Mr. Woltering: Yes.
16 '
17 Mayor Thompson: Thank you.
18
19 Council MemberTorliatt: And how many options do we need to study in ths.El'R?
20
21 Mr. Woltering: :Generally; three or"four alternatives would.. be analyzed.
22
23 Council Member Torliatf:: Okay, three.orfour.
24
5 Mr. Woltering: Three, or four: There. isn't a specified number that is required; -but
26 generally about three or four alternatives wou-Id be studied.
2.7 •
28 Council Member Torliatt: And one of those three or four is no project or =-
29
3 o Mr. Woltering: Yes, or no change.
31
32 Council'Member Torliaft: Or no change..'
33 '
34 Mr: Woltering: No~ change. There could beano. project, there should beano project
35 and (here could: be no change to your current Generale Flan and zoning and so~ in :the
3 6 overall scheme of alternatives analyzed; there 'may be five. or so given the #act that you
37 would have a no project, you. would have existing conditions which 's~ your existing
.38' General Plan -.and then working' with this :Council we'll decide how- many additional
39 ~altern, atives should be studied in this EIR=. There could be three additional. 'V1le have a no
___
4 o project,, existing conditions and perhaps three others.
41
42 Mayor Thompson: Also; I'm sorry Mr. Healy, but we're -talking a scheme is the same
43 word as an alternative too?
44
45 Mr., Woltering: Yes.
46
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 221
1 Council Member Sealy"",; I 'wante.d to follow up on one of Mr. Keller's questions with
2 respect to the. Johnson ;property and they`re two distinct parcels as I'm sure you are aware
3 -- the one for which we've recently granted housing allocations for apartments and then
4 the other parcel between the .river and the highway, they present separate issues, but I
5 was concerned, about. the .one for which the City granted .housing allocations because
6 that's one of the more time sensitive projects perhaps within the boundaries of this- plan
~ area and all four of the schematics show it as being. residential although there are. some
s variations. How would or would we be able to process that application while this process
9 is still going .forward?
10
11 Mr. VVoltering:, . What 'I would recommend is that we sit-down with the Johnsons and see
12 where they are with their proposal and see if we can't move that request .into this process
13 or at least consider a land uses scheme that,addresses what hey have in mind so that in
14 terms of the environmental impacts of their, proposal., the environmental impacts are
15 addressed and that they could~tle.n rely on fhis,EiR..
16 '.
1~ Council Member Healy: •Assuming that' ~~they are planning on doing their own
18 environmental analysis and that they would prefer not to be slowed down by this process
19 and if they're. here I'm sure they will address. this, but .chow would you see that concern
2 o being resolved. _ -
21
22
23
24
2.5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3°3
3'4
3;'5
36
3'7
38
39
40
Mr. Woltering: I'd be happy .to.. respond 'to that. One: way of ,addressing, .that is to look. at
~;
what they are proposing., in terms of ;a concept: If it"s--the Counci_I's desire to show that
concept in the °project descriptori in~ one of ;the alternatives ifi not the alternative: that is
studied at a level of detail;really allowing for action,, what would happen then is that if the
EiR is certified and .basically certifies a land. use:.concept that is consistent with their
proposal and they come4in, then there is a very good likelihood that they could come in
and perhaps do a mitigated negative declaration, instead. of a full environmental impact
report. That is a possibility which would save them time and money perhaps.
Council. IUIe_mber Healy: Vllhat. I think I'm still ;_h_ caring is that they wouldn't be able .to go
forward with the apartment complex project until this whole Corona Reach process
reached acompletion. - - , ~ .
Mr. Woltering I wouldn't say hat definitively, but thaf would make sense to me .given the
fact that if it' is the Council's desire. really to have the context of this specific plan to
evaluate developrrment in this area, it~would seem appropriate to me then to encourage
the Johnson application to come irito this process or at least that one of the alternatives
being analyzed would be consistent with what they are proposing so that when this is
finished they could use this process, this environmental review process, for their own
41 project.
42
43 Council Member Healy:. I have a problem with that, but we'll -talk about it later:
44
45 Council Member Torliatt: David, on the map that you provided us, or most of the maps
46 you provided us, you have the outline of the specific plan area and the area that I believe
Vol. 34, Page 222 January 26, .2000
1 should be included. that's .not included is the area that I think the Council gage pretty clear
2 direction on which. is ,the entire Corona interchange area and it only includes a portion
3 which is the west side of the interchange or northwest, boandaries so we need'to adjust
4 how that, line is drawn, I believe.
6 Mr. Woltering: I don't disagree with ;that at all. You were very clear as" a Council
~ indieating'that you wanted to• take a look'at opportunities for Cor-ona interchange, I believe
s was your direction. In the context of this work effort though we" decided not to do #hat:
9 looked at it and. I decided; let me put"it that way,, I decided not to do that and .it was our
1o team of consultants kind of working with this. .It's not that it's not to be done: It's that in
;i terms of developing some initial concepts; we felt we would.. focus in this area,and not on
12 that. There are some commitments to land use in the surrounding area. to Corona.
13 There's a need a work with, your Engineering Deparfinent,'with CalTrans and a,wariety of
14 agencies. it's something that you've .asked 'to.. bey done ;and it needs to be done, no
15 question about that, but it is an involved process~and would have taken quite a bite. of time
16 to check in with atl the various•agencies and departments and to get: relevant information
i~ so in terms of working with ,your- consultant team when, you select a .consultant.. team to
18 •work on this, this overall project, that's definitelysocnething~they'll have to look at.
19 ~ -
2o City Manager Fred Stouder: C;an~ I add. to this. I think the challenge that we're t .tying to
21 achieve here is which bite of the apple are you trying .to.:chew. If .the issue is. the Chelsea:
22 application and then .the Corona;Specific Plan .and. then the timely manner,. however you
23 define timely manner,, I think there's, a; sense here~~that~fhe interchange question:.if' it's
?.4 wrapped into this package• is not'a 1;2, 18 rnon'th issue.. °If you want to try -and package it
25' that way and I tlon't think anyone can do a.:realistic 'work• schedule for that; that's the
26~ issue.:How many goals are you "frying, to achieve in'this particular process?` That doesn't
2 ~ mean to say that ifs you want ~us to back up and include that: as~ part of this proce_ ss or you
28 want a parallel process, those are other questions. I think his concern and answer is can
2 9 you do all these things in thetime frame that you initially, or :at least. we heard you're trying
3 o to achieve
31
32 Council Member Torliatt: Mr: Mayor;. I :guess;:rny response is that that wasn't exp.la'ned.
3 3 anywhere in the staff report. It was just. complefely take.n~ out and wasn't .addressed and ,l
34 have a. concern with that. Ifi that was, the thinking behind it and the issues and the
3s concerns,, then I think- we ~needed that information- and maybe some :additional
3 6 information, "you know; basic information on how we are going to go along• with that
3~ process because: (..know that this' Council last year asked that the Corona interchange
38 issue 'be addressed and looked at. immediately or as soon as possible because we ,alt
39 'und'erstand that there is a traffic issue in the City and we want to provide on and off
40 ,ramps. to our '..industrial park and to thin area which we- are planning which is going to
4"1 impact traffic. The more intensive. land use: we have; the more traffic we are going to
42 have and the need for better circulation.
43
44 Council: Member Cader-Thompson: Mr: Mayor, I .agree with. Council Member Torliatt
45 and I don't see. '.how we can't include .looking a full interchange for traffic circulation., I
46 mean the public really wants us to go ,in a .direction and I'we heard from° a_lof of members
January 26, 2000 ~~ vol. 34, Page 223
1 of the public that would like to see. Corona and I think this ahould be~ parallel with this
2 process. ~ ,-
3
4 Mayor Thompson: Well;. maybe we ought to get this right orr-the floor th_en:ibecause if
s that's the case, I mean personally don't think it needs to. be 'done, .but if we have a
6 majority of .the. Council that thinks that, needs to be done then we need to get hat right up
~ front because there's no way we can meet the deadline of 12 months or 18 months. IVIr,
a Keller.
to Council Member Keller: Thank you. I think --
11
12 Council Member Torliatt: You don'tthink. there should be an interchange at Corona?
13
14 Mayor Thompson: I'm not saying that I don't think we need to do a study on it right now
1s to get this portion, to, .get this project; or whatever,. for the Corona Reach decision to be
16 made. I mean. whether or not Corona, the interchange, is developed or not is not going. to
1~ depend on .what this Council decides is going to go here. So, to me there are not that
1s related. They are in one: way, but not for this decision. Mr. Keller.
19
20 Council Member Keller: I think.. that. we need to .:acknowledge in the Corona 'Reach
21 Specific Plan the possible existence of a current ;,interchange: I don't see this as an E.I.R
22 for the Corona interchange or Sonoma Mountain Parkway interchange, as some have
23 referred to it as, because an interchange addresses really City circulation issues that I
24 don't think are; addressed. in this.-specific .plan and it's something. we need to take on: 'I
2s would like to take it on as a parallel project as soon as possible because the issues are a
26 little much larger than what happens in Corona Reach, but I'd like to see them running in
2~ parallel and obviously there are going to be different time lines°for both of those projects,
2s but it seems to me they target different areas and.: different needs, both of which. are
29 totally legitimate and both of`which are on the front burner...Finally, Mr.;Mayor, if I could
3 o pose a question, to, a follow up to Mr. Healy; you said that you: had some problems with
31 the waythe scenario was working out. If you couldexpound ":on that please.:.
3 2 ..
33 Council, Member Healy: Sure... That.~was "in the- context of the Johnson's request for'
3!4 housing .allocationstor their apartrnenfs on the westerly portion ofrther property.,.. I.<didn't.
3~s look at those materials in preparation :for tonight, ,but perhaps:- someone, can clarify at
36 some point. If memory serves,,. we approved housing allocations, a certain number. of
37 housing allocations for year 2Q00 and a certain number of> housing allocations :for yeae
3s 2001. If we don't allow those apartments to be -- 'if .we .require them~to be built;>to go
39 through this process, I think they will.. be lucky to get anything in 2001 and we're pushing
4o back much needed apartments acouple- of years~for the sake. of purity if you, will.on.how
41 we do our maps, but. hopefully that.;can be addressed and we can come;back to that
42 issue later on: With respect to the Corona. interchange issue,,. I was also struck bythe fact
43 that none of these: conceptual. drawings included an interchange at Corona Road and .I
44 raised :afi the'last time we discussed this issue: the question of whether the Council would
45 be open to the.. idea of looking at :an interchange and cross-town connector: at Rainier as
46 opposed to one at Corona because it seems to me in this-process we, are going to be
Vol. 34, Page.224 January~26, 2000
1 snaking land..-use decisions that will preclude any kind- of an intersection at Rainier from.
2 ever'being built. "Most of these schematics. show uses being placed in the path of where
3 that intersection --and cross=town connector would have to go and at the same tim. a we're:
4 making a hopeful ..assumption,.. Ithink; that a Corona interchange is feasible and what.
s don't want to, see happen and what' I think is a distinct possibility is that if' we don't,
6 explicitly address those issues in this process, what we are going to have is the Council
~ making decisions that preclude Rainier from ever being built at any tune in the future
s because we are going to be putting buildings `in the path of where it wouldhave to go --
so Council Member Keller: You mean like a Ford dealer?
11
1z Council Member Healy: Well; or something. I think we have. one of those. And then
13 down. the road .coming to the Corona. intersection question and finally getting. our arms
14 around that in some detail and then discovering, that: for a variety of reasons that isn"t.
1s feasible either` and I brought. -- and I've asked to have this put on the overhead -- this is
16 from the, it's about a 1993 'document, it's the most recent schematic of` which I'm ,:aware
17 for a Corona interchange. You"II see -- just to orient people, up is going.. :east on Corona
1s and then to the left: is north on 1';0,1 so you'll see that ;on the south side of the freeway it's
19 the proposed: interchange., on=ramp and' 'off=ramp is cutfing 'thro.ugh a big ..chunk of the
a o auction yard property and :then, on the east side of the. freeway is going right through; the
21 middle of a brand ,new building; the :one that's behind the fire station at Corona.
as
23 Council Member Keller: Mike,.-where did these drawings come from?
24
25 Council Member Healy: It's from the EIR, 'it's from draft environmental EIR, for Rainier;
z 6 July 1993. ~ -
a~
as Council :Member Keller: That"snot the only configuration.
29
3 o Council. Member Healy I"m sure there are others.,;'bu't the point is~ it's a very constrained
31 area: If you~don't~go throughEthe new building; then you are taking out traile"rs at~the trailer
32 park there, and probably ;encroaching into the PG&E substation also. There .are some
33 severe constraints and we should not proceed on the assumption that a Corona
34 ;interchange °is feasible aril `we can; desl'with 'the details .later because we're going~ to be
3s unpleasantly surprised: "if we•take that route.
37 Council Member Maguire: UVhen I cooked' afi the drawings.;: I didn't look of them as
38 ~precfuding' discussion on the ;Corona interchange., I assumed we were.'going to be
39 discussing it~and, obviously we are: ~ I also recognize the :reality- that if we were going to
4o stop;; back up and do any kind of level of review of. Corona then we wouldn't be having
41 this. hearing here tonight. We wouldn't°~be able tb~ do that ,in +a .timely fashion and' we did
42 say we wanted 'to~ have this ,hearing and this 'discussion so, I'm willing to go~ ahead and see.
43 how far'we can get discussing tfe issue and looking ;at arculation~ is one of the :issues thaf
44 we cover.. ~ Certainly, I think it isappropriate to maybe have an aerial photo of the
4s intersection or somethi'ng' ~so .than we can get. out our 'little rulers ;and see if there is
46physical space fo fit,. you, know; a cloverleaf design or a diarnond design or any of the
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 225
1 .standard interchange configurations. I'rn not..sure thatl'm going to be ..looking of this
M~ .
? project and saying got to leave room fo.r' :Rainier because in the ,diagram that we just
.._
3 shown_on Cor.ona.and the EIR, the Rainier EIR, the Corona interchange was ooked at~in
4 a very- cursory fashion and with direction from the; 'City Council that that was not. „the
5 choice -- that was not the preferred alternati~e;~in that situation. Corona has never been
6 looked at as a preferred alternative in, you .know, with direction from the Council that that.
~ is something wants to be looked at with a serious eye. ~ Certainly„-that says to me then
a that a parallel discussion or parallel look at that at east to see that; we are not physically'
9 constrained, that if is not physically impossible; to proceed with Corona, but when 1 drive
Zo over that and stop and look around, it doesn't appear that;it is:physically impossible to me.
11 Although I can appreciate Councilman,~.Torlatt's concern that-~if is not. .drawn on the
12 diagram, I also understand That; we .can. still talk about :if, that in due time when we .get
13 basic information, yes. we can put it on the diagrams,.^b-ut I was sort of thinking that the
14 direction from fhe Council that comes out. of this discussion would be driving the process..
15 _ . , ., _. . .
i6 Council. Member Torliatt: Irn response ,to Council, ,Member Healy and a couple. of
1~ comments that- he made. ;or concerns that he°=:had,, one: being the>apreclusion of Rainier
is because of .land uses that have been idenfifietl on the-.maps that we, have received in the
19 past and in .this most recent.packet and .frankly I was shocked, number one,,. to reeeive.a
2 o packet that had four schematics with differe,nt:~land use scenarios: on there again ,which, we
2.1 specifically, I thought;,but maybe I was rnsfaken, didn't want; to have land uses and ;the
22 whole reason thatw,e are doing~.this is so that we can look at the .constraints of the area:
z3 and then. come back with what we think,>tfeaand uses need. to be here. So I don't see
a4 any land. uses. on this map other than the` existing ones that-.are in our General Plan and
z5 how we are going to mold that.into what ou._r vision is going :to be and the whole-reason we
26 are having these hearings.: Secondly, the configuration of Corona and what you got out
z~ of the July '93. ELR, I mean, I,guess that's thee. whole. reason we need to be .having this
za discussion. because. I don't want ,people to think we're. thinking the .auction yard out and
z9 going to drive a road right through the ,new building. That is not what we are talking
3 o about. What we are talking about. is determining the. viability of it. and trying to incorporate
31 that transportation circulation element .into how it's going to relate to the land uses. we end
32 up coming up with. So I wanted to .address those two issues that you had' brought up.
33
34 Council Member Healy:. Just briefly, with respect to the Corona interchange question, I
3'S think what .might be useful rather than initiating a process here and not getting feedback
3'6 for 12 months on the subject is seeing what we can figure out with .our own staff
37 resources and ask Alan to come back and tell us what current CalTrans design standards
3 a would mean and what some concepfual alternatives would be :there -and we can look at it
~` 39 and see if it looks feasible to folks.
40
41 Council Member Keller: With that, I would like to make sure that we have the. current:
42 version of any CalTrans work done on widening 101 in this, section, in this reach of~ 101;
43 and how that specially relates to the existing Corona Road overpass because on standing
44 on the overpass the other day and pacing flings off, it's very hard to see how you can get';
45 two lanes down the middle of the freeway antl the .median with that structure and place.
46 So if CalTrans has measured it out and has said they can stick an extra pair of lanes in
Vol. 34; Page 226 January 26, 2000
wouldel~ke to seeuscf the~Councilsw.ouldrbelw'i~ing to essent a ly adto ey have got. What
pt a parallel path. for
3dealing with the Corona .interchange or~ alternative 'que`stion so that we don't have the
4 Corona Reach Specific Plan bogged down : in, what 'is really aCity-wide issue and then
5 take the circulation re uirements for whatever" we .recommend out: of the Specific Flan.
q
6 and fold that into the requirements or objectifies for an interchange. review or interchange
~ EIR and General Plan, of course..' -
9 City Manager Stouder: I think thetarget that we're trying, to define in order to support
1o your decision packages here are. four -- that, if you do all four you are there,, .but can you
11 do alf four.at the same time'in the- time frame: you -rnay want: One; this particular :meet_ng
12 or meetings are, the result ~of. Council :decision to be' the proce-ssing body for they Chelsea
- .
13 application. Secondly, that is the. same:.,thing potentially `depending upon how you define
14 it as meeting Condition 53 Condition 53 may or may not be `number three., the Corona
15 Reach Specific Plan;• You have 'decided I thihk that Condition .53 and completion of the
i,6 Corona Reach. Specific Klan -are- one and the same; .which means processing of the
1~ application. One, two and three ar,.e the .same: ~V1/ill number three; Corona Reach
is Specific Plan completion,~rnean~a full-scale study again of Rainier~and Corona or number
19 four, which is the G;ene,ral `Plan, and that's really the discussion you had on .November
a o 22nd and it ;obviously has n'ot been, "resolved: ~ You. can make -this a General Plan question.
z 1 and then when that's done number one. will be-answered.,.. the. processing of `the Chelsea
as application: What's in between the~two -='that's what we `are trying to listen: for and help
z3 you decide... The land use options `in°front of,you aren't:meantto be pick one through four.
24 It's meant to -- are these discussion guides to help us get to what you are trying to do or
25. one thing. actuaAy that was suggesfed`on November 22nd; we put the. Chelsea application
a ..
26 decision body,. you seven, in a room ,with magic markers and a 'plai'n map and you
a~ sincerely start mapping out color chemes~ I'll stop mysense of what I'm hearing here.,
z s but are .you doing 'a transportation plan or 'land use plan or processing ahe Chelsea
z 9 application? You are doing: all Three, but the schedule and cost to do all three are what
3 o you are faced with a challenge :and just for the ..sake of '.the other .side of the argument,
31 should transportation drive the land use or should land use drive th'e transportation?
3.3 Council Member fVlaguire Gee, thanks Fred...
34
3's 'City Manager Sfouder: With that,: I have to leave now.. (LAUG'HTER)
36
37 Councif Member 6Celler; VVe did have in the case of Rainier; we did have the
3;8 transportation driving the, land use:. and we decided 'the infra structure required a certain.
`39 type of land use .and hey were-'inextricably intertwined and I am trying to get away from
4'6 that. so' that we can get_ a look at what it is that we would like fo~~have happen `in "the City
41 and get a sense. what the public would like to have happen in the City as well as the
42 landowners would like to have happen.. If we tie it up into this tight knot, we're goin, g to.:be'
43 back to the same questions -- where's Rainier which, was not a good way to proceed, It
44 was a terrible way to proceed.
45 '
46 Council Member Cader=Thompson: Mry:~;Mayor, I just want to bring up a point about
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 227
1 these maps. If I -was a property owner and I received these rraaps; I wouldn't be very
a 'happy and l think, it was really :disrespectful to have. made.up; these maps and that's. my
3 opinion. on it. The other thing.~is, L:don't see how you can even make- land use decisions
4 until we look at transportation. They work together and we found that it didn't work the.
5 .last time and I don',t want to go in fhe same direction and I think we have to make a
6 determination of land use. and transportation as a whole and the other thing is as far: as
~ Corona, Corona is not wide enough to add two. lanes under it. It's okay for a HOV lane;
s but you cannot. add -onto the freeway an extra .lane in either direction with Corona as
9 existing so that means that .CalTrans is going to have to, come in and do something with
1o this over crossing and we need to address that because that's an important point that the
11 State would be paying for this instead of the citizens, like Rainier was 100% paid for by
12 the community where~C.orona is a stafe-owned,,. actually it's State .and County and so it
13 would be a better beneft-and so maybe we could do it on the parallel track and you know
14 this 101 seems to'be pushing buttons.
15
16 Council Member Maguire: Although I don't particularly have a favorite on one of these,
17 think it is frankly useful. to have some things thrown down on paper so we can look at it
1s and say gee I like this piece- or that one and I don't.. like this one over here so I take no
19 offense at the tools provided by staff and think. that we should be .appreciative of the'work
ao that .staff does. I would say that the Rainier issue was really land use, that it was parading
21 under the guise of transportation determining .land .use, but really was a development
Za scheme at ;heart and really was more. land use driving transportation, but I do agree with.
23 Janice that this. Council ;has often said we need to be very conscious of the nexus
24 between transportation. and land .use and, thats how we can best come to long term
25 decisions. So it is certainly -- I think we do need to be very conscious of the circulation,
a6 but again we are under time constraints so what. are we going to do? I think we look and
a~ see that. one, physically, we are not precluded. from some interchange .at Corona and
a s actually I thought I recalled in the past- when we asked staff that staff came back. and said,
a 9 yes there is room. under the freeway for two lanes; .but I maybe not remembering
3 o correctly.
31
3a Council Member Cader=Thompson: Those were HOV lanes -- that's not what is being
33 proposed.
34
35 Council Member Maguire:.But certainly it's worthwhile to have-staffi come backand give
36 us the current.infor.mation on that. Maybe the. thing to do is get out the colored pens and
3 ~ start with a blank map.
38
39 Council Member Keller: Also, I received a call from .Mack Johnson who is mystified as
4o to where the land. use scenarios came from among these proposals, as was. I. It doesn't
41 correlate to a whole lot that I heard discussed by this Council. so thanks for your creativity,.
42 but it seems to be jumping the gun and in ways that, in my mind, relate to discussions that
43 I have heard here on some. significant pieces, ;Be that as it may., I want to take a look at`
44 constraints here for a minute because you .really have some policy questions to look a#
45 and I'm .going. to speak specifically of the flood plain and the flood overflow, sheet flow
46 characteristics of this Reach and what does this Council, what does this City want to do
Vol. 34, Page., 228 January26, 2000
1 with land that is extraordinarily flood prone that has: an ..active: history of flooding .and that.
2 j hepde ~ lopment of which, P avecal tou Sh nut~o cra k o~y owners. and this City 'in future:
3. eo and and so:'I think,we~~
h g n determining our' policy. We do
4 not have. a surface water management plan in place. W,e have the first, baby, steps
5 towards it. We faave currently a lawsuit: We have some conceptuals on how to approach
6 this issue but here we are four square, before we are going to get; a surface water
~ management .plan and the corresponding, engineering mapping. and overall strategy
a financing and legal structure to put in place; we ;have: development proposals .and the
9 development proposals again.. are driving the process before the information is present
1,o and I' hope that the developers understand that by drivngafis with a deadline; whether it
11 is by .Legal abet rattling or otherwise, you will :get the best" decision that we sari make, but.
i2 this Councilmember is .,going, to be extraordinarily cautious and .conservative in decision
13 making in this kind of hazard area. That's notwithstanding all of the other.questions about
14 the value. of thin for habitat, the value as a cenferpiece, along the freeway and all the other
15 considerations. The, risk that we put our citizens to is going to be foremost in Phis,
i6 Councilmember''s decision making on this and I think this Council needs Ito decide what
1~ level of risk are we willing to accepf in developing these lands and take that as a first cut.
ss
19 Council. Member Torliatt David.,; what year was this flood plain completed or thin flood
2 o plain map completed, do we :know? Is this '88?
21
22 Council'Member Keller: 1:988 --=that's the last FEMA mapping.
23
24 Council ,Member Torliatt Then my other question is dawe have a.list of what land uses
'z5 had .been proposed in the General, Plan for this area.. arid'the amount of acreage: for each
:z s of those in' this area.
28 Mr. Woltering: Yes there is. Actually, in the materials that we've provided fo you,. there
2 9 is a General Plan land; use map that` indicates the land use designations for ;this entire
3 o project area. As far as the acreage, I could calculate -that :'for. I don't know what that is off
31 hand, but in terms of the overall land use scheme, the General Plan land. use scheme,.
32 that is in your materials and`.there' : also; a zoning map in your materials as well and I'd be
33 happy to .calculate those acreages for you.
3'4
3`5 Council ..Member Torlatt: And.a realize there is a,land use. map in :here and looking at
36 it, it's `just really hard to r..ead because it's smaller.and the:-dots turn 'into lines and I "think
3~ what I am getting of is in order to f_ry and hold true fa some of the things that.. we: had
38 planned fore in our General Plan'for office use;, retail use; and all of those other things, if
3"9 we're removi'ng' that .existing land use. from `this area, we need to know how much and we
4o need. fo 'know where we could or should' either relocate it~or have a higher intensity use
41 and so that information would be helpful. for me.
42 ~ ~ '
43 Mr. Woltering: That's fine.. One of the things to keep in mind in~terms of looking at this
44 overall area; if is important to look at the, constraints andE a constraints` analysi's has been
45 done and as you probably .know,. a fair amount ofi this project area is constraint and
46 actually while there is 310 or so acres in the' overall project: area, in terms::- of land that's
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 229
1 .actually developable, less than one-.half of that. is actually developable because of
. 2 existing constraints and we've got some of that information shown and depicted on this
3 existing, conditions map in terms of flood plains, etc. Other information that was in the
4 opportunities and constraints report :is in the packet of materials. What I might suggest is
_ " s that you have a lot of information.: You've. got the opportunities and constraints document,
6 the existing conditions reap, a number:of other pi_eees of information, the RMI map,, etc.,
~ and what might. be very helpful in_ terms of a next step with this Council is to sit down and
8 we've got some. flimsy paper Phis evening; but this may not be the best setting. You've got..
9 those schematic diagrams: and the schematic diagrams are .an effort to put concepts and
1o ideas down on paper and to brainstorm and-react and if 'it doesn't make sense,. why
11 doesn't it make sense, what we be better; etc... It's kind of a workshop effort where you do
12 roll up your sleeves and you do look at constraints and you do .look at options. 1Ne've, got
13 quite a bit of information and'in more of a workshop sort of setting as a follow-up meeting,
14 we could get together with the Council and do exactly#hatsort ofiwork. We could do that
15 in advance of you bringing on a consultant team and then giving that information to the
16 consultant team or once you bring the consultant team. on board, that could be one of
17 your first work :.efforts with that group; either way.
18
19 Council Member Torliatt: David,; I agree.; I think the Council, needs an opportunity to do
2 o that, .but. what I'm raising. at this point in time is the information I need. in order to sfart
21 drawing those lines: and looking at the things that we need to provide for and work, with
22 and I'm really glad, w.e received this :map tonight because it's in color, it's a lot clearer for'
23 us to show where the flood plain is and as you' said it impacts the areas practically half
24 impacted by the flood plain.
25
z 6 Council Member Caller-Thompson:.. As far as the flood plain; since the. mapping is old.,
2~ it seems as though we really need to remap the flood plain so we have accuracy and
28 that's not what we have to date and 1 know with the bond measures that' are coming up I
29 believe in the: March: ballot, there is money in some;of those. bond measures that the Qty
= 3 o could apply for for updating their flood ,maps arid' I think we should have staffaook into that
31 -- which. proposals that'w,e: can go after for that; money because if seems like. there's just
32 not enough, the information is :not there: because the flood. project. is almost; completed
33 and we need to have an updated flood mapping, for- the residents in the Payran area so
34 they can deal with their flood ;insurance, fiat just so we can start fooking:at the; land uses
35" and make some real .decisions because we don't really know what they are and I don't
3'°6 think these are completely accurate, the existing. ones.
37
38' Mayor Thompson: ,Mr. Woltering, I appreciate the maps that you have provided both in
• 39 the- packet ,and this evening. They are very helpful. I don't think most people will take
40 offense to that or they shouldn't because it's: sfrictly a study thing, nothing is carved. in
41 stone .and we've got. a .long way to go and we, need them:. I don't. know how we; would
42 quite do without them otherwise.. So, your first portion was process.
43
44
45 Mr. Woltering: Yes.
46
Vol. 34, Page 230
January 26, 2000
1 Mayor Thompson: That was in there ,three? . .
2
._
3 Mr. Wolterin
4 concept alfernativ his evening, ~we were going to look at process, work ,program, the.
es, consultant. selection and budget and perhaps I can ;go, quickly to
s work program and then: in terms of the schematic. alternatives' and'. that. work, we~ could
6 maybe talk about an approach because I'm hearing: some things from tiie Council, tonight
~ about more information, certain specific information, getting more '.involved in the actual
s development of the plans and then timing --'when; should 'that occur, .should we. continue
9 this effort. or should we wait u:,ntil this team comes on' kioard and I'd like, to talk to you ,more.
1 o about that; but instead of :maybe getting 'into a detailed. review ofi those: alternatives,
11 maybe we could "talk more about information. you need; .approach you would ,like to °take.
12 and; when,..and then consultant selection .and budget and' I can go fairly quickly if you'd
13 like, Mr. Mayor.
14
1s Mayor Thompson:. Please do.
1~ Mr. Woltering: In terms .of work program. which., is the next subject in the staff report',
1s assuming again that this Council can be the committee for this process an'dgive 'it focus
19 and I know you have a lot before you in this community, but assuming that you can give it
2 o this level of focus, I would hope thaf you. could bring a team on .board, a consultant team
21 on board to do this project based 'on the process. we just. discussed and once that team
-_
22 comes on board,. come fo a point where: you have: a draft plan, a draft specific: ,plan
2.3 prepared say four to six months after the team has been selected: Now that's' 'very
24 optimistic and that assumes you can give this a lof of focus and there's a minimal' amount
___
2 5 of controversy.
2 6:
'27 Mayor Thompson: V1/hieh one; process, work program, schematic development'?
28 (LAUGHTER)
29
3 o Mr. Vl/oltering I'm on ~ work' program right .now, I'm optirriistic: So 1et's say' four ~to six
31 months from time of'.eonsultant selection to a, draff plan. This is; a specific p1a_n, it's still
32 draft, but you've accepted it, you"ve said okay this'is the. plan that we, would like to have
33 analyzed in the environmental impact report:and here are--the alternatives. We've :agreed
34 to a plan, a draft-plan. on alfernatives, go ahead and,:do that EIR,; Then, I'm assuming ~t_hat
3'S during this -first four fo six months,. the E,IR consultants are already on .board and already
36 doing some: background work, sefting acid background work, and once the draft plan'-is
3~ accepted and study alternatives, that. team launches into full gear and I'm assuming that
38 eight o twelve months later the proeess'is completed. N'ow, this. is very optimistic, but `.it,~
39 does suggest that perhaps withp 18 months, if there is ..general agreement` on: This, this
4o process: could be coin, pleted. You could have an approved plan, Corona Reach Specific;
41 'Plan,. based. on` a certified ElR and. that the Chelsea applicationcould' be, processetl and
42 considered within the context of thin work effort.. That's a~ 1:2 to 18 month process,
43 would suggest that you look', at the outside end of that realistically. ~So, that's the overall . ~~
44 process schedule and estimate .at_ this ;point. In terms of how to get there, like I said~,~ it"s
45 going to take a. big commitment on your part to get there. It's going to require a lot. of
46 process management. One thing, I've done in the past on projects, I think it's very useful
January 26, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 231
1 and I'd highly recommend it on Phis project, is:onee your consultant team is selected, to as
z a group, Council, consultants; public, people. involved, develop a master schedule from
3 beginning to end, including meeting days, etc. It's not an easy thing to do, but if you do it
4 and people. can buy into it, there's a greater chance that. you can adhere to that overall
s schedule. I'd highly recommend it.
6
~ Council. Member Yorliatt: I. would agree with that.
8
9 Mayor Thompson: I'm putting that in front of process -- I agree with that as well. Good
1o idea, thank you.
11
12 Council Member Healy: I just had one follow-up question. We have a letter from one :of
13 the attorneys. from Chelsea saying That they :are willing to extend the certification deadline
14 to July 15, 2000. I assume #hat means that we have.no realistic shot. of coming anywhere
1s close to that.
16
1~ Mr. Woltering I don't think there's any realistic shot at coming close to that, but I would
1s say this -- I think that given the nature of the Chelsea application, the River Access.
19 Enhancement Plan, the environmental .constraints of this area, the history of that
2 o application .in this .area, if this Council and the people. involved in this process can, in good.:
z1 faith develop an overall process .and a_ .master schedule and really wark..toward. an 1$-
22 month process,. I think it.can be, done. I don't think July is .realistic. It's not .realistic at all.
23 lt's not realistic for;an ELR~.that they would' do for their own project. It's. simply isn't... I think
24 the best way to do this 'is to work together collaboratively, come up with. an overall. work
25 program schedule, stick with it, have the Chelsea application. considered at a level. of
26 detail specificity that at fhe end of this process, this community can take an action. on it,
_ 2~ favorably or not, but you're looked at it you've looked. of it in full :detail,, you've given it a
2s fair shot, in a realistic time frame given. the environmental constraints in that. area. I think
29 that is a fair process. .
30
31 Council Member.Torliatt I think we.can only do what we can do and I think.we have 'set
32 a very aggressive schedule and I -think all of the Council Members.have agreed to it and
33 we have. at least two meetings a month scheduled to deal with this .issue. We're on,our
34 way to putting the .consultants in place. so we are really doing the best good faith effort°we
35 possibly can in my opinion.
36
3~ Council IVlember IVlaguire:. David, a Council person asked that we update our. flood
3 s maps, I'd love to seethat, but how long would something like that take?
39
4o Mr. VVolterng: I don't know how long that could take, but it could take a long time:. I
41 think that -- I can't say exactly how long, we could look into it, but I'm not sure: even
4z .looking into it we could come back to you and say specifically it's going to take x months
43 or years. There is a lot. of information and the community has a lot of work underway righf
44 now. It's clearly :the Council's decision on this. You can. look at all the information `yoia
45 have now, hire the best. team you can in terms ,of prior work ability, sit with this
46 community, do a thorough evaluation based on the information you have and that you are
Vol. 34, Page 232 January 26, .2000
1 developing and make. a decision, but this is clearly something the '.Council will,: need ~to
2 deal with. Not.-all information is going to be available at the time of taking an action on
3 this: project:
s Council. IVlember'Cader.-Thompson:- It.seems to me that since this is a flood plain and a
6 flood way that not having,updated maps isn't logical. INe"re_ doing exactly what has: been
7 done in the past to make assumptions and go forward and .that's why we .are here today.
a And the other thing; Mr. Mayor., are. we .going; to have public comment tonight?
1o Mayor Thompson: You tell me.
11
1z Council Member~Cader-Thompson:. Of course, we are.
13
14 Council .Member .Maguire: ~ What Councilman 'Caller=Thompson says .makes.: perfectly
15 good sense; however, to get updated. maps in my estimation is going to be 'at least .a
i6 minimum of a two-year process and.it would be my guess and` possibly more and: when 'I
17 think about what is occurring with our flood project, I suspect that what FEMA would do
1s would be to reduce the amoant of'flood plain in this vicinity based on that project;, would
19 they not?
20
21 Council :.Member Keller: It's a claim,, from the Corps, that the project would; with 'the
22 exception .of .potential. change"s of elevation above the' control weir; theoretically .the', weir'is
.23 designed not to change to nsure.,that the evaluations :here do .:not change one way or the.
z 4 other. That's ~ an ass
2s how that actual) maumption, it's a design assumption, and it will be interesting; to see
y ps out when it's complete as 'to whether or not there is a poriding
;2 s effect of°the we_ it behind it.
28 Council Member Maguire: 1Nell, certainly''the Council can ,go ahead using this as a
z 9 tool recognizing, that that does constrain °the significant portion bf the property so, if we are
3 o talking about land use and we just said, well, given this 'is' they floodplain and we do not
31 wish to develop in the flood plain.. seems o be the consensus, you know take our and use
32 planning from. that starting point. I' just, don't "see ho.,w we can realistically gel truly
33 accurate flood plain .maps tin our ,)lands in any kind of ;time #rame that.: will work in the
'34 process we have~committed to:
35
36 Council iVlember Torliatt A rock and a hard ,place...
37
3s Mayor Thompson: Mr:lNolter,ing, do,you want to. kind of wrap up your -- I'=agree with Ms:
~~ 39 Caller-Thompson;. I'd Jike:.~to listen to some, of the, of course, all.`mmediafely some of the
4o people that. would like; .to speak tonight; particuharly the applicants, so would you get. us
41 moving towards that end, please..
42
43 Mr; VVolterng;. Ln terms of just completion; I can go through just'the' concept alternatives
44 as we discussed and then consultant election and then budget'. ,Is that how you: would
45 like me to -proceed? Okay, quickly going through this process,, it sounds to me ~ ike: 'in
46 terms of the work on developing a preferredalternative and study alternatives,, the
January 26, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 233
1 Council would .like. to be more directly ,involved. You have a lot of information. .Granted,
2 not all of it is as complete or as up-to-date as it could. be, but you've got a lot of
3 information and if we could work with that as an initial base; as a starting base, and
4 perhaps .we can schedule a .follow-up workshop with you. You've got the information in
5 the envelopes, the ;other information, and if you. could sketch. out_some ideas in terms of
6 land use, .circulation, etc.., .and then we could come. together .kind of in more of a workshop
~ setting. One question that I would have for you is that something .you'd like to do in the
e more immediate future or would you like to wait until a consultant team is hired? It could
9 be done either way.
10
11 Council Member. Maguire: Mr. Mayor, I-think it's appropriate to take a straw vote on that
12 point -- _ , .
13 l
14 Mayor Thompson:} ,I know,, L,agree with you, but we have a lot more of those coming, up
15 and it all may be; -after the public speaks or one of the.applicants says this is not feasible,
16 then we're having,a discussion about something we're not going to do anything about..
17 -.
18 Council Member Healy: I think weshould defer Council discussion until .the public has
19 had a chance fo_ be~ heard: .
20
21 Mr. W.oltering,P .:Sb that would be one question for you and Philip,. if you could put that
22 done and we could com,.e back to these questions. So really, timing of that. workshop
,. _ .
23 would be an+issue. I`II`move on from thatFsubject area because I think that's the key issue
24 there. Council. wants 'to.;be ,involved and I'm sure the public would be involved in that
25 process as well and then timing, when would you like to have that done and we'll come
26 back to-that: The~next.area has. to be with consultant selection. You've asked that a new
27 team be assembled. to do• the Corona .Reach Specific-Plan. We sent out. requests for
28 statements of qualifications to. 10 :different groups. I looked at a number of different
29 sources. I've worked with,actually as it turns out a number of consultants in.this State and
3o in the County .over- the past 15~or 16 years and 1 think we've got a nice response: You
31 have five. very gyalified teams that. are :very interested in doing this work. They all have
32 strength and I put.fogether some evaluation criteria in the staff report. They all are very
33 strong in certain areas. There is Calthorpe- Design Community and Environment, l_SA;
34 Moore; Isofano. &-Goldsman, Parsons., Questa -- a number of excellent. subeonsultants;
35 1Nagstaff, :Economic & Planning Systems., John Morthrope, Fairenpeers, etc. In terms of
36 evaluation criteria;, flood p ain, flood plain management, land use: planning, transportation
37 circulation, process management. I don't think I can emphasize enough having a team
38 that offers strong process management given the history of this project and some of the
39 divergent issues that you're dealing with.. You've got :resource protection enhancement
4o and then development interests involved. in this study area. I put together sortie
41 evaluation criteria, cooked it over. My sense in just a preliminary review is that.. the: team of
42 Moore, Isofano &Goldsman seems to have the best rounded qualifications at this: point
43 and that's because they are very strong on process management, they are excellent at
44 that. They have a division within that prime firm that focuses on resource planning, park
45 and ..recreation planning; ,and they are also very good at urban planning. They have
46 Fairenpeers on their team. Fairenpeers is excellent at neo-traditional traffic planning, just
Vol. 34, Page.234 January 26;.2000
1 a terrific firm in this area. However; my suggestion is thaf you .get to know some of these
z people and'what we could do is that based on your direction all'five. teams could be. asked
3 to bring some of their key representatives t_o a meeting :with, ,Council Members so you
4 could get fo know some of them and' then you can decide at than point which ones of
5 these teams do you want. to have develop detailed proposals. Preparing a detailed
6 proposal is atime-consuming, costly proposition.. You may' decide you. want all five teams
~ to do that. On the other hand, after meeting with representatives of these five teams; you
s may decide that there are: one or two that you would like. fo focus. on, 'but what I'm looking
9 for from you is direction on next steps. `You've got .qualifications to review. They are .quite
1o impressive. The: next step really would be if you want to bring people, forward 'for
11 .interviews; do you want detailed proposals °from them, are there any:partcular firms. that
i2 you'd' like fo focus on versus.othecs; I need feedback in terms of next~steps on` that. Next
13 .area is budget :and I provided some, information in the agenda -bill, agenda; report,. -and an
14 attachment. At this time based on my research, there appears Ito be, ;no funds specifically
.15 budgeted for this project. However, there was a budget ~of about $635,000 for the prior
16 Corona Reach Specific R_lan project, approximately .$3.76,,000 of that "budget .was not
1~ expended. There are; by the way,, a ;number of work products' studies; there's a
sa biological. resource study„ fhere's~ a eulfural resource study,"there's the opportunities and
19 constraints document thaf 'you. have. There are several boxes, in fact, iri your Planning
a o Department of reports and :information that were developed. fn any case:; about $376;000
a 1 worth of budget .was not expended'. Apparently; ~$238,OQ0 approximately was., reserved
zz and reserved to reimburse ,property owners 6ecause~ property owners contributed" to this
23 effort. That's fhe sum That would need'to be reimbursed to propertyowne"rs if you;~decide
?4 as a community not to' proceed with.. this project. Those `funds I'm told have been.
.... ..
25 reserved.. As far' as tfe ,remainder, going up to $376;000, I tried to -contact
2;6 representatives today with the City to find out are those funds' still being held and I was
z~ not able to confirm whether they are. Held or not~soV I don't know, b'ut `Iwill .continue to
Za research.. that. $238;000 have bee"n reserved though for-reimbursements, 'if.necessary.
a9 In any case; in terms of overall ..budget; once we-ask;~a firm or firms for a detailed
3 o proposal, including budget, then we will have~~a .better understanding of how much is this
31 effort going to cost. My estimate, and this is a broad rang°e, but my estimate _is that it's
32 going to be somewhere between $350;000 and $500,000 to complete' this project based
33 on the study area and' I would suggest; that .as we look at differenf.=components' of this
.. ._
34 project; for example; a Corona Road interchange.,, it iscertainly something that. can be
3s looked at, but :it's: abudget..::-and' timing 'issue so as~ we continue to 'work together` and
~,
36 define well what is this- project; exactly, that's going. to 'affect timing and budget; b.ut
3 ~ generally speaking°, we're at $350;000 to $500;000 as an .estimate.~i'n terms of cost.. About
3 e $376;000 was :remaining from. the prior work effort. I need to confirm exactly whether all
39 of that is still available.. 1 don't know that.. In any case, my estmate'is that there's going to
4o be a need for some. additional funds to .complete this project. Once we request a detailed
41 budget from a consultant team, we will have a better idea of how much and: that's. kind of
42 the overview and those are some of the information and questions for you still to work
43 Wlth.
44
45 Council Member Cader-Thompson: Mr: Mayor„ what I would like to add; .not add on to
46 this, but as 'far as Corona, I would like to really focus' on how` -- when Corona is a, full
January 26; 2000 ~ VoL 34, .Page 235
1 interchange., working with the residents on. Skillman and on~`Co,rona so we can start ahead
2 of time working, on signage on the freeway and .~signage intown to direct people like to
3 Bodega .and to .other areas so that they wouldn`t .use that-as 'the. direct route because
4 that's not what it should._be on;~the maps, on the State .maps and.on the City maps,. and I
5 think that's something I'd like to start working with the property~,owners out there and ,the
6 concerned citizens sa we .can. actually come upa with~aome~ real solutions. to alleviate fear
~ that that's going to happen. If you look. even on.. Stony Point Road, people are supposed
8 to be using that fo get out to Bodega and these°:are things that I really want to be brought
9 up in the process. so we can actually discuss them and take away some of the fears and
to concerns.
11
12 Mayor Thompson: I think , on that issue that we may probably want to determine if
13 Corona'is feasible at all. That would be a firststep for me.
14
15 Council Member Torla#f: Mr. Mayor; L just. want. to say from before, it's not that I don't
16 want to hear. from the ,public, I think it's important that we give. to the public an idea of
17 what we're talking about. and what we are thinking: up here so when they do come up they
18 can respond fo what our thinking's been so :I think it is advantageous to have. a Council
19 discussion to have some feedback.
20
21 Mayor Thom.-pson; Okay, .I'm going to take probably afive-minute break and come back
22 and have the public begin. Thank you.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT
25
26 Mayor Thompson,: I'rn :going to begin calling on the public. If you don't want to. speak
2~ now and I call you,. you don't have to because it's going to be ongoing meetings and
2g meetings and meetings: Then I'll say this now, if youwant to speak this evening and you
z9 want to speak,.next. meeting, please don't repeat yourself because I'll.probably say it at the
3 o next meeting.
31 , . ...
. ....
32 Matt Connolly spoke on :behalf of Chelsea., in_ favor of approving the Chelsea. GCA
33 development application and requested that a. separate.. EIR be prepared ..for its
34 development application for parcels Band C ~ and that the process should be a
35 subsequent EIR related to the final. EIR of the draft River Oaks/Factory Outlet Village:
36 project. He_also gave support for the MLG team, ~but,,questioned that the fiscal consultant
37 would address the economic viability ...of the proposed ,projects with. the 'infrastructure
3s requirements to alternate roadways, utilities, City fees,,_etc., and.that the additional
39 consultants;. Patricia Jo:hannsen and John Northmore ;Roberts; were. required. He also
_ ._.
4o requested that City, Council sitting;as,a CRSP (".Corona Reach;`Specific Plan") .Committee.
41 commit to a bi-monthly schedule until the plan and the 'EIR. on ~fhe Chelsea de~eloprnent
4z application have. been timely certified: He stated he would .submit his presenfation in, letter
43 form to the City Clerk. ,~
44 ..:
45 Mayor Thompson responded that Council had, already committed to; meeting twice: a
46 month.
Vol. 34, Page 236 January 26, 2000
1 '
Bob Johnson spoke regarding' his concern on the .four maps that were distributed .and felt
3 that there was not proper` direction. given. in creating those maps. Another concern. was
4 the detention area, depicted on the. 'maps. He also stated that there were: severe
5 reservations in participating in another Corona Reach Specific Plan to invest their time
6 and money: He stafe_dthattheir main objective .and goal' was to use their ,own land
~ planner; Gzardo's, and spend as muchK time with the appropriate City Committee as was
8 needed in order -to .develop: #heic land in; accordance with everyone's wishes that would.
9 alleviate a timeframe issue,. would help .with the budgeting process and ,would correlate
l o with Mr. Connolly and his project.
11
12 Council Member Keller responded that Council would provide him. with a copy of`the
13 RMI proposed feasible detention sites _ and that the parcel east of 'the .river and the
14 freewaywas designated as a feasible detention site on that reap.
15
16 Don 1Nesenfluh; 1092. Wren Drive, spoke against any development in the..proposed area.
17
is
19 John Cheney; 55 Rocca Drive,, spoke against the Chelsea development.
20
21 Diane Reilly-Torres, Rainier Avenue., thanked Council Member Keller for posing :the..hard
22 questions to Lynn Galal' .of the Army Corps of Engineers at last week's meeting. She
23 also stated that, the City was spending far' too much money on planning for d~sasfers
?4 instead of preventing disasters.
,2 5
26' John ..Mills, 1..315 "D" .Street,, spoke in favor of planning for. -thee future for a cross town
a~ connector interchange within the scope of the Corona Reach plan. He did not ;feel that
2 s the Corona was the proper alternative.
29 '
3o Ellen Blass Wilson spoke agansttlie'expansion of`the Petaluma Factory Outlet.
31
32 Beth Meredith, 104 Fifth Street,, spoke regarding the confusion between, `what- is
3.3 sustainable and what is smart. growth and add.'ressed both ,'issues and stated that. she was
34 ,not interested in those who were advocates of :Smart growth. and, smart development.
35 _ ,
3 6 Geoffi Cartwright,, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke against the Chelsea development project. arid.
3 ~ his flood. concerns.. ,~
39 Richard .Brawn -spoke against the Chelsea development project due to economic
4o concerns and ~a~{thorough analysis of ~t_h§ project:: was needed to determine; if` `this
41 development will.'ncrease ~or `decrease disposable income for the people of 'Petaluma.
42
n . _.
43 Mayor Thompson:Thank .you... Vllell~ Council.; I'II, throw out one suggestion for trying to
44 move on with this is -that we. ask Mr., ~1Noltering to '.get a meeting sctiedialed with. all tf"e
45 proposed people that we` would like to make presentations and to. perform ;the. plan. and.
46 inre. meef with~them and make the selection. '
January 26, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 237
1
? Council .Member Healy: Just in terms of tonight, what I would. suggest rather than
3 getting .into another one of these roundrobin discussions is perhaps we do just one pass
4 down the dais one way or,,the other .and I_et people say what further thoughts .they want to
5 contribute tonight. ~ . .
6
7 Mayor Thompson: Fine, if you'd. like that, please start. I've given mine.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
z7
z8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3' 7
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Council Member Healy: On the subject -- I'm going to take a random walk through my
notes here so bear :with me -- :but on the subject-that you raised, Mr. Mayor, I would, and
we have some very impressivegroups that are~vying to be th`e consultant on this; I'm not
necessarily adverse to the staff's' .recommendation in terms of who they think the
preferred consultant would, be. ~ On the: other ;hand, what I saw was really primarily
resumes rather than thought processes with respect to this proposal and I would; be
interested 'in perhaps a three or five ,page discussion paper from each of these folks. as
opposed to a detailed proposal on what thoughts they would see, how they would
propose handling this project, -and possibly you .could make the tape of this meeting
available to them if they ,aren't actually here and ~if that doesn't scare them off, we know
we have people who are ~up to:.the Task:,, ~;I'm also concerned about the time frame and
thought Matt Connelly's point about the'1!8-month ,process being excessive given. °the
amount of work that has already been accomplished on the Corona Reach Specific Plan..
was an interesting point and l`d,.'like to have a, response from staff with.. respect to why we
-:,..
are looking at a 12 to 18 month process; :closer ,to 18 in all likelihood. Shifting gears,
have real concerns about, where the money is .going 'to come from for this process. 1Ne.
are being told -that of the amonies that have. been contributed. for the Corona .Reach
Specific Plan that, are supposedly still being held by-the City that some of the people who
contributed. those :monies are. not anxious to have. those monies used for this particular
process or at least haven't bought into it ,yet, I think we need to have a better
understanding of our .ability to use those monies:. if they are protesting. I have a reap
concern about the: funds that are supposedly coming from the redevelopment budget:
There was aone-page attachment to the staff report indicating some: numbe_ rs from. the
redevelopment 1998-99 fiscal year budget: I looked at the ..adopted 1998-99 fiscal year
.budget and saw a different set of numbers there o I'm not exactly sure what thaf.rneans
and -then you have the more fundamental questions of whether that money really exists or
.has been borrowed and spent on something else and I guess on February 7th we will :be
taking :up the redevelopment agency budget for the current fiscal year which unfortunately
we are already seven months into, but I think when we have that discussion, we'll have a:
better understanding of what kind of redevelopment. money is realistically available and it
__
really hasn't been discussed in the staff .report, but I'm not. interested in seeing general
fund money expended~on this process because of what it would necessarily squeeze out.
Councilman .Keller ..raised the question with respect to the RMI study and what. was
shown as; feasible .and infeasible sites and he correctly pointed out .the one ;site with
respect to the Johnson. property, but what struck me was the two sites that areshown, the .
site immediately north of. the existing Factory Outlet Mall which is shown as open space
and storm water detention on no less than three of the four schematics, that parcel was.
actually shown on the AM~I reap as being not feasible for storm water detention. and 'RMI
Vol. 34, Page 238 January 26,.2000
1 concluded that a detention facility at that location would. ,have: an adverse downstream
z effect so I can't ,imagine why given that information we'~would be ,considering pu"tting a
3 .detention facility on the parcel~just north of the existing CQutlet.,Malf un ess staff has come
4 up with other information that contradicts the RMI -study and_I`m certainly not.aware ofi that
5 kind of analysis, but'we spent; a good chunk of` money.' on that analysis and I think we
6 should be;guidetl by the results that it carne up' with. And `more generally on flood ;issues,
~ I'm probably in the minority on the Council on this_'ssue,'but I do continue to believe that
s zero net fill. is a responsible ,policy: ~ ~We are allowing eonsfiruction in ;the flood ,plain..
9 elsewhere in the, City. The brand new building behind the fire station on Corona Road
1o that. I mentioned previously --
• .- - .;. _
12 Council IVlember' Keller: It°was approued quite~some time ago. _•
13 _ ,_
14 Council Member Maguire:: Not by this CQu:ncil. ~ 1~ '
15
16 Council Member Healy: It's. also in the flood plain. `
17 =. ..
1g Council Member Maguire:: But it wasn`t approved by the City Council.
19 ~ •
20 Council Member Healy: There is no' policy_by.ths Council. that. would prevent it;•from
21 being built there. •
22
23 Council Member Maguire: There has beendiscussion that. we want- ao review the
..., o
24 outlines of'the"flood plain and the zero netfll•zone. ~•
2.5
. 26. Council sMember Healy; And I supported expanding th'e;zero'~net fill zone. The poin't.is =-
2~
2a Council Member Maguire: This Council did not allow fhe approval of-that building.
29
3o Council Member Healy: 1Ne certainly:ddn'tdo anything. to stop it.
31
32 Council Member Maguire: It was foo late.
33
3:4 Council' .Member He`aly:~ 1Ne have also allowed basically most of Redwood Business
3;5 Park, 'is `in the flood plain. ,Pacific Cinemas is in the flood plain.. There are a lot of
36 properties :in the flood plain and `in my ;view it was not'irresponsible of the City to. allow
3.7 those things to :develop. I think they should have been required to :comply with. zero: net
3s fill. The other point that has been raised by at least one person ab-out the 'urban growth
3'9 boundary- and 'the land inventory of the land sur~ey~that went with it and ahl seven.
4o members of .this Council' supported the urban growth boundary measure on last.
41 November's., a year ago November's ballot, and I know that all of us were very ,well aware
42 of the land survey and that land survey showed as Mark said Phis land is being available
43 for development and to get''th_e urban growth boundary in place and then say, well no,. we
44 don't want development here, to me it strikes ~ me as ..creating a moving target' and
45 changing the, rules ins the middle of -the game.. As Council Member Torliatt indicated., I
46 certainly would concur"that if we don't. allow this development`'here, we're :going to be
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 239
1 talking. about ..housing and commercial. elsewhere and possibly outside the urban. growth
a boundary so tlere are ramifications to not; allowing responsible development in this area.
3
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson: As l am sitting here looking at this flood plain map,
5 it seems absolutely ridiculous to build in a flood ,plain and not all, the land in here is in the
6 flood plain. Qh. God, what a process,, I can't even believe we are in this process. I do
~ have a concern with spending the public's .money --
9 Council Member.IVlaguire: Welcome to the City Council.
10
11 Council Member Cader-Thompson: Should. w.e build. in the flood plain or not? These
1z properties are flooded. I .mean, the Factory Outlet did. flood and we can't deny that it.
13 didn't flood and I thnk.that we .really need to address the issue, do we think that building
14 in the flood plain is appropriate. I think we: should really be staying out of the flood plains. ~ .
15 We have to preserve land so at .least. the water can go somewhere. We know that..ky
16 putting asphalt over everything, it's not working. Depressed parking lots is not working.
r~ What a process. 1 don't know who on this; Council really supports continued development
1s in areas that we know historically has flooded. and as far as .Mike on your comments on
19 the Corona Reach, the last process, the outcome was set up, it was set. up from the very
ao beginning, that the public basically didn't„know those meetings were happening and then
21 once- the public got wind of it,. then we started getting more :involved and people~staited
as coming and they- were very proactive and it just wasn't people in the Payran area that.
23 were concerned with that. I think for, me this is, I know we are talking about where do we
a4 want to go from. here; Nand I don't really want.. to take more money and just .throw it"into
25 more consultants and I'm really :concerned. about just the waste of money :for the
a6 taxpayers and I think.we have to -- is Chelsea going to sue us. Are we going ~to:be afraid
z~ of that or are we, going to go ahead build in the flood. plain because we are fearful or. are,
as we going to do what is the best:for the entire community an"d_;I think that's where I have fo
29 look at -- what is the .best for the.community and as far as the urban.. growth ,boundary; we
3o do have the ability to expand the urban growth boundary as a Council. We can go:ihto
31 other areas and C think that's something we should consider -- taking this plan and maybe
32 looking at: other areas ,so .l also want to bring up the difficulties when the RMf study came .
33 out and all of these properties had detention ponds on them or they didn't -have detention
34 ponds on, them, it is really bad process to have people's:. lands on properties .that =are
35 showing where detention ponds should be or shouldn't with-out even. discussing with.;fhe
36 property owners and I still have an issue> with that, just like have an issue with. the maps
37 that are. up on the wall making assumptions of what people are going to be doing with
3 e their land. I don't :really know where to go.
39
4o Council Member Keller: I think.. back to why it was I became a litigant against the Outlet
41 Mall in 1.990 or 1:991 .and the issues unfortunately have not changed much since then
42 except that we .know have a25-acre development in the middle of this area; but the whole
43 idea of the City's General Plan and .the- thinking at the time was that this was an
44 extraordinarily visible and valuable and problematic. reach .and the objections to the Outlet
45 Mall were that the .overall consideration of what was going to.,happen in this key core. area.
46 of the City were not done and it was project driven and it still is project driven. The
VoL 34; Page 240 January 26,:2000
1 planning .has :always been project driven and. Rainier was project driven. If Chelsea., --
2 don't know what our attorney -would say .,about this, .but 'ifi Chelsea wants to submit an
3 application;:. fine; stick. in an application; I'll turn it down; you know; because 'there are.
4 things that I don't see: answered that are very serious, consequences for'-the: public: on this
s for the community and, unless we can get our,' arms around. that and get a handles on how
6 fo deal with those issues, it's going to be tlifficult for any developer to come 'in .here and
~ say this is what I want to do aril I don't care what happens on the rest of this property,
s they are all related. The proposed fixes. for flooding problems on these parcels ..have, not
9 worked. and it's. nothing -- maybe that's new information #or Petaluma. It's certainly isn't
o newer in other places in the world.. In .Europe where you .have. places where they have
11 four, five, six,, seven, hundred years of development andthey recognize where the flood
12 plain is; you don't build in the flood ;plain, period,, because for' the many centuries they
13 tried building there, they just kept getfing wiped out. Well.; California is young and maybe
14 "we're too. stupid, to think about that; but the. information is there. If you look:: at how we are
1s going to plan for flood plain management and for surface Ovate"r management; .we already
i6 have the steps that we know "need to be accomplished. Its an expensive process, it's a
1? time-consuming ;process •to..get that'thing in :gear. If'you look at the informat'ion "that _I have
1s provided to you from the City of Tulsa,. Oklah"oma, who went through far"bigger disasters;
19 but the same .kind.. .of de~elbpment pressures and response'to development pressures for
a o 'years, they finally bit the bullet. and aid no more and they are taking developed
a 1 properties out; of -the flood. plain and out of the: path of overflow and they're turning it into
a2 passive `recreation, they're turning it into. flood storage, they`re turning it into open space
`23 within the core of the City, saving, themselves .millions of dollars and frankly Tulsa has ,lost
24. many, many liven as well. 1Ne don't need to repeat that kind of damage and that .kind of
25 idiocy;oursel~es to prove that:it's a bad, policy. There's enough experience elsewhere in
26. the world' and not very far from here that demonstrates .its bad.. policy. So what does that
2-~~ °mean.for development`in this reach. Well, there 'is land that is outside"of the flood plain
aswithin this' and Ithink -- I've had' conversations with Mark Johnson and they are certainly
29 very cognizant of that .and looking:to build, a development. that takes advantage of the
3 o river, that takes advantage• of the setting and also stays ~ out of the flood plain and t.
3`1 applaud them: for that and that's the approach"we need to look of on this and if somebody
3a wants, if Chelsea or somebody else wants to dig their' heels in and. say, no it`s Amy
..
3:3 ,property, we've got property rights and we'_Il .sue you guys'if you don't let us ;do it, fihe; sue,
3:4. us. If you want to do .bad. planning because of a legal threat, you can do it. It's'just :not
3 s going to c"ut, it anymore and that's why we are; ;here, tying 'to do ,this process. Tls
3 6 process; is trying; to get some: intelligence wrapped':around. thischunk of land. and. take the
3.~ responsibility as a public agency for what should be.going on there and what, we should
3 s be doing. for future .generations. I mean, one of the things. I would like to see considered
3:9 here is can we raise,.money, whether it's from, the `pa"rk bonds acts or elsewhere,.or from
4:o the open space district, from #lood plain: mitigation money;; from OES; from a whole range
41 of sources; the.re's probably 30 or 40 sources that are spending; money to evacuafe flood;
4a plains and prevent flood plains from being built ;in the first place because that' ~is the
43 cheapest .way fo avoid flood damage. Maybe. we should- .make. a. very aggressive
44 approach to; pulling in enough of that money to buy out:th~e remaining lands from Chelsea.
45 that are .in jeopardy and to buy out: those portions of Johnson that they can't. build on or
46 that they shouldn't build on so that they can get some cash in return and, we "can. get th"e
January 26,.2000 Vol. 34, Page 241
.. ~ 1 security of knowing that we .haven't allowed. more development. to be put either in the path
~- z of jeopardy or to cause :additional damage. downstream. You know, maybe in terms of
• 3 funding for a process :of doing: this; maybe we need to put together an assessment district
- 4 and say, okay, you want° to develop this area, it's going to cost you, because there is a
5 cost to the. public sector to .develop. The General.. Plan once again has stated right up
6 front new development shall pay for itself. Shall, .not might, not could; not would be riice
7 if, shall. This City has: toyed. around the edges for .,years of saying well, we'll .get the.
s money somewhere else,: It ain't happening. Huge development costs and the rest. of .the
9 taxpayers are left holding the .bag. So, in my mind;. this plan has to go forward and go
1o forward as quickly as we -can and in looking at the documentation that we've got, so far on
1,1 the consulting teams,. I tend to agree to David W,oltering on preference for MIG. I would
1z not be adverse on having as Mr. Healy stated a fhree to five page proposal from all, of
13 them and a presentation, so we can get a sense of 'the persona of who's here and how
14 they would like to approach this hornet's nest, both in the issues and in the process. If
15 they can't figure it out, if they can't help us figure it out, then we probably don't want to hire
1'6 them and they've. got to be convincing about it.
17
1s Council IVlember Maguire: Don't scare them off, David.
19
20 Council Member Keller: What can. I say, it's a tough nut to crack, but relative to the
21 projects that have gone. on elsewhere in the universe, this is not that difficult.
z2
23 Council Member. Toraiatt: I agree with Council Members Keller and Healy the three fo
24 five page work paper would be something`that Iwould like to entertain. One of the things
25 that I wanted to dq and I .fhough..t. that .th's, Council .gave. direction to staff was to have the
2,6 consultants here so we could at least ask questions; ofi them; know who they are; how
27 they presented themselves, you .know, -and-..how they may interact and work with the
28 public and the Council. The monies issue and the: redevelopment budget, I am very
29 concerned about myself.. When I read the. staff report and .saw this memo.:and all the
3 o calculations and the ins-and. the outs of the. General Fund for adrnin services; ;I just; J don't
31 know, and hopefully on February 7th. we are going to have this all of this figured out and
- 32 presented to us in a very clear manner because these worksheets I hate not seen before..
33 So, I hope that is cleared up on the 7th as well. If we need to get on with our zero. net .fill
34 policy and `expand. it let's get to :it and I .don't know if it.is part o#'this process; but we~ need
35 to move fonniard on; that and 'I think that:. was another priority of the Council, but we ..need
- 36 to get- some ,feedback. from staff on that as well as which we discussed here tonight on
37 the Corona interchange and what it's going to take generally to get that moving.. I know
3a we are doing: our improvements at East Washington and McDowell and. those are sorely
39 needed and we have .somebody, Mike Evert,. is working very hard on getting that
4o completed and I appreciate that.. very much.- Mr. Braun brought up the fact that we need
41 to justify the economic:. benefit to the City on expansion of these types of things and if's
42 very true, we need.to analyze what this is putting in our coffers unfortunately because we.
43 don't have any type ~of revenue sharing that happens-.between cities and counties in order
44 to have better land use. planning. So; we're- looking at with our sales tax revenues maybe
45 $200,000 max per year which is a drop in the bucket if we have $101 .million dollar
- 46 budget, including all of our enterprise funds. So I think if we are going to go forward with.
Vol. 34, Page. 242 January26, 2000
1 this process, we need to look at the :economic benefit and what is this actually going to
2 bring: to the community. I agree with Mr. W'oltering; we need a master projecf schedule
3 and I would like to see that ,given to us or presented fo us, .Also; on the East
4 UVashington/McDowell corridor with the bike and. pedestrian project, that we have.
s underway; there was a consultant that was specifically hired for bike/pedestrian issues
6 which was .I believe Alto Consulting which I would like our .staff to look at and see if they
~ could possibly° participate as a subeonsult"ant:. I thought; lie, was pretty impressive. On the
s flood plain 'issue, I think if you were doing this project: in. Napa and youwere wanfing to do
9 it in the flood plain in Napa,, I think they'd look atyou like: you were nuts. I mean; we keep
io getting time and time again peo"plc that don't do it this way anymore. They .don't build `in
Zi their flood. plain and the more information we get at the Council level. and for the p"ublc on
12 building in the flood plain, it just doesn't snake any sense. 1Nhen we go forward with this
13 project in the final analysis, 1 think that we're ;going tb get some indication as to~ what if is
14 going to cost the City for infra structure costs to develop this area, whether it be~ providing
1s water, sewer, roads and the maintenance for that long term,. The other issue I'd,dike staff
i6 to take a look at is we were told° at one point in time. that there was Zone 2A, money;, ;I
1.~ believe, in. the ,amount of approximately $500,000! as well as open space money in the
Zs amount of $500:,000 for acquisition of, the corridor in this; area because of the flood plain
19 "management" or flood relief so I'd like to ,get a report back from staff on that as far as
2 o whether those dollars are still available.
21
22 Mayor Thompson: I can briefly° say that I concur with., as L said earlier, immediately
z 3 trying to set up 'an appointment with the various consultants and prior to. that as Mr. Healy
z4 and Ms. Torliatt reminded,. me of the financial situation,. even. before we go forward,;
25 seconded by Council, I would like to have a qu;ic_k update as to the legitimacy or the
6 accuracy of the numbers and see `if the. money is actually there as even Mr. '1Noltering
z~ was pointing out earlier in his presentation. He `is unsure s~o if'there is no money; I think
2 s that's sort of-the driving force.
29
3 o Council Member Maguire: Thank you, starting on that note; if there's no money, let"s
31 just go home. It's 10:'OQ. No money, no ;plan,, no process. I've got to belie~e`that staff will
32 come back with some answers on how the budgeting will.. occur on tfi.i_s. The City is not
33 quite ready to come to a grinding ;halt. Mr. Mayor, I wou d just;. like to point out that,just
3;4 having an urban :growth` boundary .doesn't mean that we just allow any project regardless.
35 `of its impacts. Yes;. we have a UBG;. yes. we re,~iewed the inventory; 'but you don't,just
36 throw all. the zoning and policy books out the window'. 'That's 'just not intelligent. and
3~ doesn't make for-.good planning., .Certainly, I was kind of` ready to come to the ;meefing
3 a tonight with this basic map and go, okay; we know where we're not going to build. Let's.
39 talk about the land use. on the areas that we .are going, to build in. I'm ready to do that:
4o when the. Council is ready to do that. Maybe pictures of what existing buildings are on
41 here and delineate a little more clearly owe can'. see what's out there and what we are
42 dealing. with, but the Council, hasn't adopted any of the 'sample maps that, people have.
43 raised issues with so'I ;wouldn't lose too much sleep over that. There: are strictly samples
44 for the sake of discussion. I' think we need to have a City Council workshop as ou:r
45 subcommittee :on the .specific plan. 'where we can get ou.t our peril and pencils and. get
46 some big blank ;maps and "saw okay here's what we would like to do. Start from a group
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 243
1 vision and work towards whatever constraints we have to deal with.and see if we can
2 come up with a picfure that way. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think we should
3 not build in the flood plain. and Matt, if you want a,,faster process, we can .make it really
4 fast. Bring us a project that's proposed for not`in the flood plain and'we!II tell you whether
s that flies or .not based on what our responsibilities are to the taxpaying public. I think
6 certainly that it's been, pointed out in the larger county area that's been .proposed as a
~ detention area we can., have recreational uses that are not .necessarily detention areas..: 'I
s think we need to look at that. as one of, the uses and I think that's a legitimate use as we
9 know. We don't have nearly enough recreational lands in the City and if we are notgoing
1o to allow structures in a flood plain., that certainly seems to be a positive benefit. Matt, youu
11 may want to talk to Reesa; the sports .complex that is being proposed. The zero net, fill'
12 issue has been raised. Certainly, I've always: had my doubts about zero net fill. Council
_.
13 has talked about, pursuing more responsible flood management processes. Yes; .I think
14 we need to do that.- Certainly,. there are people who are proposing developments iri the
1s City in the flood. plain now who are proposing much more significant; level of flood
16 management.,and flood mitigation issues. I think when I go to draw in land use planrings,.
17 I am going to be keeping that in mind and looking for that as the kind of responsible
18 proposals that I would be willing to accept. I just have to say thata good corporate citizen
19 is not going to exacerbate our flooding problem and a good corporate. citizen is .not going
20 to shunt some of this problem downstream on those who have already borne the brunt:-
21 Certainly, .I am open to .discussing. an assessmentdistrict if the needs (here and can be.
22 demonstrated. I. Like. the idea of a three to five page proposal from the consultants. I do
23 wa_ nt to have a gathering, a meeting. with them., a workshop with them, where they can'
24 give: us some general. ideas, demonstrate to us or present to us .w, hat: their areas of
2s expertise are and their strengths to help us come to some solutions on. this tricky issue. I
26 think looking at :the. economic benefits 'is a legitimate factor'to consider also so Mr. Mayor,
27 basically I`m ready to as soon as possible- have our. next rneeting, meet with consultants.,
2 s I'd like to get that going, pick one. and start utilizing them as. the tool. they should be .to help
2 9 us figure out the appropriate land. use and .circulation solutigrts to the Corona Reach.
30
31 Council MemberTorliatt: Just a suggestion, I_ would a_Iso like to see. after this consultant
32 selection process that the Council. go out in the field, we look at the area. We've all
33 probably been there a variety of .times, buf have some areas staked qut showing wh.ece
34 the flood plain is with respect to some of these properties and .go onsite ;and we bring. our
3 5 maps out these.
36
3~ Council. IVlember'. Keller:- Something, that needs to be worked into the process 'is
3s essential proposals for annexation of the County islands so that we can set this up so that
39 those can be annexed. This plan would be shot full:of holes literally without.doing that so
4o that needs to be part of the process.
41
42 Council Member Maguire: Good point.
43
44 COUncII Member Cader-Thompson: Council Member Torliatt and Council Member
45 Keller brought up my~ points that I wanted to bring up., but I think we should also start
46 talking with Mike Kerns and talking about open space money because this is a perfect
Vol. 34, Page 244 January 26, 2000
1 use for open space money and w.e:~may.as; well get him on board and another thing is I'd
2 like to see :the City Have photos done of"the area because even, with the propositions .for
3 bond park monies corning up, if we go afiter those monies; I think 'if we have a portfolio; of
4 the-area, I'. think it"s going .to Yeally enhance our ability to get money and vice can.also use it
s for this process.
~ Council IVlem'ber Healy: Just one .last pont~and that:was I would. hope that either at our
s next. meeting on this or the ,one ,affer this that we can have a discussion with Alan Tilton
9 and get the benefit. of his: existing knowledge about the constraints and feasibility .of a
1o possible interchange at Corona Road.
11
12, City Manager Stouder: I'rn trying to 'some. degree summarize the largess. of this issue
13 and, maybe this is not helpful, but it's meant to be: All the questions you. are raising and
14 can't resolve yet;; my cerise is .they were part of the soon to be matured. or expired or
_.
15 revised General Plan and they..are, stile. unresolved and you a_re still wrestling with them.
16. So ,part of, this comment is to say- no wonder you are frustrated: These are. 20 year
1T .questions that no ones has b°een able to answer: The other thing I'rn stricken by is "the
1s comment on the consultants: Maybe we should ask them to see if they can help us
19 resolve this and if they can't; we shouldn't hire them. It occurred to me that maybe this
a o isn't resolvable because there is of least .again,. 45 .or 50 points you all made. I'm not sure
21 they were solutions because. you want more information for the solutions,. buf they, were
a2 objectives or~ positions and, that's the' dilemma :and 1`m really struck, by what David
. 23 Wolten.rig and :those with hire tried to do: I think -what they tried fo do was listen to .you on
24 the 22nd'and all the visions that you had--habitat protection, historic prese:rvation,, open
-25 .space; transportation to some degree (but not try to~ solve the universal transportation),.
26 drainage, ~a_nd.so I did not participate. in that and I'm:certainyou wouldn't want me to draw
2'~ pictu;res; .but what they tried to do: was. C think take what. you said and depict: it ands they,'d
a 8 come back and from some of your points of'vew it was a total failure which maybe points
29 out the difficulty in taking what you ;are t .tying to achieve. and make it all work. i hope.-not,.
3 o but I think the complexity ,here to say thaf seven people: times 40 or 50 okjecti,ves can all
31 be realized; I think that's what the struggle is. I'm pretty clear that M.r.'Woltering said I will
32 come back based on'~what I hear and put them in drawings. Now;, if didn't pass the test:
33 The pictorial representation, of your assertions he wasn't. able to accomplish, tut that
34 really is .clearly what he was trying to do and all I'm saying is the. real :challenge hereto .do
3 s tli`is and then to say it ,can be done :quick when we haven't been able fo do :it for months or
36 years with. all the money we've„spenf, I just think we've .got to acceptthat. To say it can.
3~ be donee when it hasn'f~ in 20 years, ,I think: compounds the problem: This is `an editorial I
3s generally don't make, .but I've been listening°and frying to figure this out.
3~9
4o Council Member Cader-Thompson: Fo:r me, it's .a pretty'simple issue.. The bottom line
41 is t at i we don't
go through a process, we're going to tie sued ki the Factory Outlet and
..
42 that s what the driving force of this whole process is. We; know we shouldn't be building in
43 flood plains. We know we've, flooded down there ~fbr a Ibt of years. There 'is land down
44 there that is not in the flood ,plain, .but the majority of it is in 'the flood plain: I was talking to
4s Manuel ,Brazil who has the auction yard during. the break and he's going all this land
46 floods. He-and I were: raised .in thi's area, we know what floods, and here we are:makng
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 245
1 a decision, are we going. to Pend how many hundreds of housands of dollars because
2 we're .being threatened of a lawsuit:. and that"s why .we are here tonight and that's exactly
3 why we are here and I don't like being put in this position because we're in a really hard
4 position and I don't want to .spend the faxpayer's money. There's a lot of things that we
5 can do in this community and we can move forward. We can start getting open space
6 money and actually having something for our community instead of continued flogding
~ and the bottom line is it's because we're. being threatened with a lawsuit and do we want.
8 to write an open cheek to protect ourselves. Who are we protecting?
1o Council IVlember Torliatt: What I'm hearing from Fred is exactly what I guess I'm not
11 being clear on which is I didn't expect, I don't .believe. we asked in the last meeting to bring
1a us four colored .dreams of what it was that they thought we heard -- what they heard that
13 we said. I thought at that time it was very clear that we said we don't want to build in the
14 flood plain and. that was the basis of where we were going to go with this and tonight- I
15 was glad because. .I did have a discussion. with. David Woltering today because I said I
16 was surprised. at.:getting these. exactly what I wanted.. and I'm not quite sure why we didn't
1~ get it the first time which, is a map which shows where. the flood plain is .and as Council
is Member Maguire said'n_ow we can figure out what land uses go where there isn't shading.
19 We just need some general numbers on what was supposed to be here and how we are
a o going to deal with it and; spread. it out .over the City in our special. zones or sfudy .zones
a1 that we have: at various..places in the City and deal with it or we do higher density office
2z somewhere or-- I mean -- that's what we need o work out.
_., ,
23 •
?4 Mr. Woltering• Mr. Mayor;.:what would be really helpful in terms of preparing for the next
25 meeting. I've got a lot of, :infoormation, a. lot of .good information, from all of you and it's
26 clear that you want to rneet:with the pcospeetive consultants and have them do say a five
:: ?~ or six page paper on their approach and qualifications and all of that --
as
a 9 IVlayor Thompson:. Originally it was three and four and now it's five and. six --
30
31 Mr.-Woltering: -Anyway, three. to five. pages, or something like that, and we can certainly
32 set, that up. There .are a number of other things that we have talked about that ,you
33 mentioned fonight._ You would like 'to participate, roll up your sleeves, work. with this
34 sketch; that we provided 'to you tonight. and some of the background information on
35 constraints and opportunities and lay out some, possible land .uses in thin area. You also
36 asked for a variety of information from information on Corona Road from .Alan Tilton,
37 numbers on land uses, .etc. What might be helpful, Mr. Mayor, is that perhaps if there
3s are one or two council members that could be appointed that I could follow up with and
39 with the City Manager put together kind of a next. agenda or .next couple of agendas to
4o make sure that we"re .putting together what you want and expect.
41
4a Mayor Thompson: I would suggest that you probably try and prepare an agenda and
43 send it to everyone. I wouldn't dare want to pick two or three out of this group.
44
45 Mr. Woltering:. Okay. The next. step I believe I heard you say is that you would like me
46 to contact the full range of consultant teams., ask them to put together representatives of
Vol. 34; Page 246 January 26, 2000
1 their team; put together, their three to five page position paper ap,proaah and then meet.
2 with you and I assume it would be .one-on-.one where they could sit down', present their
3 paper fo all of you or all of you :that could attend, you"could. ask questions, there would be
4 a dialogue;; you could get a dense of who they are andtheir approach and that. would be.
5 the immediate next step, correct?
6
~ Mayor Thompson:. Right. and Saturdays are not out,of the question.
8
9 Council .Member :Keller: And if it would be helpful to provide a copy of the tape from
1 o tonight.
11
12 Mr: Woltering Okay:
13
14 Mayor Thompson: Th"at".s an excellent idea.
15.
1'6 CounciF .Member Caller-Thompson:. ,Also,. Mr.. Mayor,. if'-the :Johnsons :are working;. on
1~ plans; if we could just: look at a preliminary plan and if' any other property owners Have.
18 plans that they are drawing up, it woultl certainly be helpful ti? ace: what people have. on
19 their minds.
2 0 .. z_
...
z1 Mr. Woltering ~ Then what we'll do I'II work with.. your City Manager and if'Mr: Stoud'er
22 would put together that meeting, with the consulfants and th'en~ we'll develop a .draft
23 agenda or agendas forfollow=up meetings (hereafterfor your review.
2,4. ,
.:,
2s Councif'Member Torliatt Mr. Mayor, one of the things we were just talking about 'is we
?6 cari pick a consultant and we can go forward and we can- spend this money on ,a
2~ consultant, but I ..really think the Council has a pretty good idea ~of what' their first draft `is .
z s going to be on this plan and I think we need to -- I" mean I don't want to holdup getting a
29 consultant but I think we need to `~
give some pretty clear direction, after we get the
3o information back that we asked for tonight and'we can probakily~.,.save a lot-of time and'a
31 lot of money and then havethe public take a lookat what- it is that we've come up with:
32 .. t.
._
33 City Manager .Stouder: We can schedule a meeting just for the Council :".to discuss as 'a
34 group land use and it sounds simple while 1`II say it, ,but~you'll get togetherin a room with
35 blank map, s and color in land., uses. But; I have at leas( I think 50 or 60 issues,, I don't
3s know how many of them were questions: for information, but there was a .number of those
. ... ,
3 ~ -- if` you` want all that 'information prior to doing that; there are. some., I think there`s `an
3s understanding, that yeah yo.u can't. have -- no flood maps are three 'to five years out. If
3'9 we .can tell: yo.u what. we have and we also can tell you we can't get this and --
40
41 Council Member @Celler: Jf you,could provide just a list° of `what °that is -- this process: is
42 going to go forward and part: of it is going to be a disco~e-ry process over the next five; six;
43 seven months as we take a logk at what the '.impacts ..are of '.any particular` preferred
44 alternative: and: any alternatives that come with. it ,and that's where that, information will
45 come into play in more detail. 'VVe don't need; to do that before. we take a first~cut.
46
January 26, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 247
1 City Manager Stouder: And that is what I think would be most helpful 'to you -- go at first
2 cut at land. uses: because the time ~thaf `it~:might take to get- even. the simplest. question you
3 might think you have or we have, I''d be concerned about doing that in a timely fashion.
4
5 Council Member Maguire: Fred; if .I may, .,granted .unless we suddenly commit to
6 dropping all of this, taking our chances- with they lawyers and stuff and just head straight
~ out on a General. Plan process, if we are. going to riake some forward progress, l know
8 I'm going to be looking at a consultant who's got the various talents and circulation,
9 hydrology, etc.,.. because knowing -that we .can't get .updated. flood maps for two or three
1o years, I'm going to sit down and say .all right get your. hydrologist out here, take a look at
11 the video from two years ago when the flooding. occurred and what the water levels were
12 at, etc., give us your best estimation of what how the current map is affected, :let's
13 understand that. it's not perfect information, but at least get educated input on things like
14 that, traffic circulation,. etc. so that we can do as best a job in making decisions that we
15 can.
16
1~ City Manager Stouder: What are we doing first -- selecting a consultant or coloring
1s maps?
19
20 Council Member Torl_iatt: Mr. Mayor, I think that. what you said. is you're going. to have. a
21 list of 50 things -- I think.. you .need to see the list and if you can't respond at the time you
22 send it back o us, .at least .let us know number one .have it on the list, you're following up
23 on it or we're: going to try and get .information or it doesn't exist like the flood map and lef
24 us know because some of the information I asked for I would need to know in order to do
z5 the land use map.
26
2~ Council Member Maguire: I chink, it-.can be totally .parallel. Let's book a workshop to do
28 our finger painting and. let's also get the consultants lined up to come talk to us as soon
29 as possible.
30 ,. ~ .
31 Council Member Keller: I would 'prefer that -those happen in close sequence, but I
32 would prefer~that the preferred consultant be,selected so that they know they've got to be
33 present at the finger painting session..
3' 4 •
35 Council' Member Healy: Following on. Mr. Stouder's initial observation., if it's staff feeling
36 that we are, loading so many things onto this wagon that the wheels are going to come
37 flying off -then. Iwould -- and we are also prejudging in a lot of areas where the General
3s Plan process is going to go in this process -- i would invitee staff to make a proposal as
39 how we could scale the scope: of this .project back to something that is more bare bones
4o and more focused on Chelsea rather,•than doing~.everything. in this process and I would
41 invite staff if they so wish t_o.make a proposal in -that regard.
42
43 Council Member Torliatt: We.had this conversation at the last meeting.
44
45 City Manager Stouder: Yes, it is 10:15 or 1.0.:•30 and the direction -- we're doing a
46 Corona Reach Specific Plan with expanded boundaries~with ;boundaries defined.
Vol. 34, Page 248 Janua"ry 26, 2000
1
Council Member Maguire; ~ `With ~`"Corona Reach. included in Petaluma Boulevard
3 included -- that's expanded •boundanes. ..
4
5 Cify Manager- Stouder: Yes. The apparent. challenge here cannot be done in six
6 months and that's -- so far the answer~i~s no::
~ -~
8 Mayor Thompson: 1Nell, I think we realize that:
9 -
1o City Manager Sfouder: I'rn getting different° messages. here.,. but we need to go to the
1,1 next step.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt: I want if to be clear.
14
15 Mr. ~Woltering ,Mr. Mayor; then. kind. of in summation; the direction that L'm hearing is
16: that you'd like us to proceed right :away with contacting the consultant teams.;. setting u,p
1~ those interviews, we'll';'do that.. right away. We'll review our ,notes from tonight collectively:
1a .We'll put `together this list of whaf we heard in terms. of desired information. ~We'll•get that
19 to all Council members.
20
21 Mayor Thompson: 1Nhat you can answer and what you can't answer.
22
2a Mr: Woltering: VVe'Il try to put a time frame, an estimated time frame for gefting, :this
?4information. -- get that fo you. You can look through it ao you have an idea. V1/e'II try `to.
2 s work with you closeay and give you an idea. of what we may be able: to bring forward to
26 you at a session where you would roll. up your sleeves and look at the flood .plain ,maps
2~ and look at potential land. use and circulation, and. L am .assuming that we •would do (fiat
2 s immediately" after this: consultant team. is brought on b-oard, but in the meantime, ~we
2,9 would not be wasting time. 1Ne would confirm; this list with you; be .gathering; this
3o information. once: that team is on board and. one o#`theit initial tasks would be'to sit down
3.1 with you. Is that basically whaf you agreed to?
32
33 COU11C11: Yes.
`3 4 .
3~5 Mr. WOltering: Great. Thank you:
36
3~ ADJOURN ~ '
38 ~ - ,
3'9 The meeting atljourned at 10.35''p.m. in~ honor ofthe me ory of"Victor DiCarli.
40
41
42 ." " ~ ~ E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
43
44 A TES - ~ .. ~ .
4, "
4 BeverlyJ. Kline, City CI. " ~ -