Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/22/1999November 22, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 97 1 2 3 City of Petaluma, California 4 Minutes of a Regular s City Council Meeting 6 ~ November 22 1999 a Council Chambers 9 10 11 ..... 12 ROLL CALL; Healy, Tor.liatt; Gager-Thompson, Hamilton, Magui"re, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson 13 ABSENT::.. .None 14 is Vince Landof led the Pledge of Allegiance. 16 e:.. ~ 1~ MOMENT OF SILENCE a moment of silence was observed. 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENT .~ 20 21 Geoff Cartwright, 56 RoccaDrive:, stated that Petaluma has a serious flooding problem. 22 23 Terrance Garvey;: spoke on the risks of sexual. Russian Roulette since the Council 24 approved a Domestic Partner:O.rdinance. 25 26 Diane Reilly Torres,.. 1657 Rainier Avenue, spoke: of communications she has had with 2~ ~~Harry 'Yahat"a, :District Director; Department- of Transportation, Caltrans, and Za Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, regarding a safety barrier on Highway 37. As Assembly 29 Transportation Chairman., Torlakson introduced Assembly Bill 1012 which would regui're 3o the Director. of Transportation; until June 30, 2003,. to establish four Transportation 31 Project Delivery Advisory teams in certain regional districts of the. department to assist: 32 expeditious delivery of transportation projects: Caltrans needs to be more efficient .on 33 the amount of'timeif.takes projects to come to .completion. 34 3s Vince Landof~; 12 'Cordelia Drive; read a newspaper article .stating that. modifications to 36 the Laki3ville Railroad 'Bridge began last week. That work will not start until July 1,6 of 3~` next year. 3s Another article reads that. there will be an amendment to the Empire Waste 39 Management contract where their going to base their fuel calculations on the actual cost 40 of local fuel per gallon- rather than on a national diesel fuel index. Does that mean 41 higher costs for the Empire Waste Management or does it mean lower costs. The article 42 does not show the end result. 43 44 City Manager Fred Stouder will research where the information came from. 45 • 46 Matt Connolly, Manager; Petaluma. Factory Outlets, .reported That there would be a free: 4~ shopper shuttle between downtown and the outlets during the last four Saturdays before- Vol. 34, Page 98 November ~&. 9 999 i Christmas for holiday shoppers (November 27-1'8t".). There will, b'e advertising in: the 2 newspapers and also on'the back of a Petaluma Transit bus. The .shopper shuttle: stops 3 will be on Keller Street in front of Petaluma Mar'.ket and "in front of the Bank of America 4 on 1Nas,hington. s 6 Council Comment s Councilmember .Keller who .has just flown in from the Philadelphia area, and wanted to 9 pass along .that in looking at Buck's County, Pennsylvania to Delaware Valley, it is.:a rich io historic and beautiful area of Pennsylvania and it is being destroyed because there is no rl land use planning by the counties. No urban growth boundaries, the•pressure #br sub 12 urbanization for subdivision. is irnme,nse,; .and there are virtually no controls on• it, 1Ne 13 are indeed fortunate in Sonoma County that the voters understand this-;and ,put "it into 14 law. " is i6 Councilmember Caller-Thompson would like to place the "No on Knight ,I`nitiafive" on a i~ future agenda. ~ •_ , is 19 DRAFT ALTERNATOVES AS PART OF THE 20 CORONA REACH SPECIFIGPLAN PROCESS' 21 . , - 22 David W.oltering, P[oject Management Consultant, ,Council. had an applicant ;come Za forward for expansion of the Factory Outlet project. 'Prior to pursuing the expansion of 24 parcels, the- :applicant, Chelsea GCA Realty, needs fo. come~_ back= and •process~ a 2s Planned Community District Modification. They also need to work with the city on 26 Condition of Approval 53 as outlined in the: 1991 approv.;al .of this project which indicates 2~ that a preliminary Master- Flan must be processed in order to process 'a development 28 application :for parcels B & C'. It was. decided ..that in order to_ process their application 29 for developing parcels B &"C the Council would act as:a.commttee`and,~wo.rk"",with staff 3o and myself fo come up with a Specific PIan.Area within the Corona Reach Area. 32 Scenario A: is~an. area,.of about '304, acres. It includes properties west ot',Highway 101 33 and east of Highway 10:1.. Some ;of: the key features in the areaaeast of. Highway 10:1 34 land. use :designation are the Industrial Office Park. The land. use designation along 3s Petaluma Boulevard North is Thoroughfare Commercial. ~Tliis does.. not. assume 36 expansion. of the Factory Outlet; this, assumes"to the' contrary 'that th"e-ma~orify of he 37 area between Highway 101 and Petaluma Boulevard .North would be open space; so it 3s will be referred to as the Open Space Alternative. 39 4o CounciL.Member Keller, wants to know what the-county has zoned certain lands:-that are 41 adjacent to this area. 42 43 There are three different areas to focus on, Flood Plain Management; Habitat 44 Preservation .and E`nhaneement/Desgn.: The consultant. needs to expand :on those 45 three areas, 'add to them and list additional issues as well. 46 ` November 22, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 99 1 Council Member Maguire would prefer not to go east of the #reeway, The Gray property 2 was originally put in there because. Rainier was likely to have a significant impact and' 3 obviously the freeway is' a significant geographical barrier. s Mayor Thompson, we are. attempting, to satisfy Condition 53. I don't think that any other 6 properties other than this. area should be included. . s Council Member .Hamilton, I don't want the Specific Plan, just to fulfill Condition 53: I 9 want Council to do'the Specific Plan. as a focus of what we want to see happen in this to area. l want to see'it go across Petaluma Boulevard -and address both sides. 11 12 Council Member Cader-Thompson, She would like to Took at the bigger picture instead 13 of just Condition 53._ 14 is Council Member l<eller, This is a commitment fo the public that was made to look at this i6 reach of 'the city. The River Access and Ephancement Plan does not encompass all the 1~ things we neetl to look,. at in this. portion of the city.. I #hirik there are some opportunities is that -could be brought info the picture. by leaving~fhe 1=riedman/Gray property in and the 19 hospital. property and. I would like"to nclude'the other side of the Boulevard. There are 20 some circulation elemenfs for pedestrians in and. around the Gray property that'. we 21 should be looking. Also there are some resource issues in that we have a couple ofi 22 creeks that flow through the freeway on That side. If were looking at resource issues 23 maybe that would be an appropriate place to deal with it. There would be access to 24 creek ways/waterways on thaf side of the freeway. 2s z6 Council Member Torliatt, fee s the need to address the Gray property on the east side of 27 the freeway. Highway 101 goes over the railroad 'tracks so fhece should be some sort of 2s pedestrian access that goes underneath that, and connects with the Gray property. _That 29 is the key in linking the: east and west side in addition to the railroad right of way all the 3o way through town from the west side to the east side to_the; Gow .property etc. We need 31 to look. at Master Planning this area, this is the largest area left in town that we have .fo 32 develop. We need to look at the types. of .uses that are needed in our community. , We 33 need, to .look at an inventory of the land to see what it is Petaluma needs, office, refail 34. neighborhood commercial, mixed use etc. I think the Gray property could meet a lot of 3s those needs. 36 37 Council Member Maguire, f would recommend that the Council think about its focus. 3s The point of .pedestrian access, creek access. and .railroad right of way are significant 39 issues that we're all. concerned with. You. may as well take: a watershed approach to 4o creek access; you may as well take the whole railroad right of way from one end of town 41 to the: other. You .may as well Master Plan the General Plan. Were talking about. a 42 Specific Plan 'for a large open., space. area. The Gray property is a large parcef and I 43 agree we should .discuss the kinds of uses, but l; don't. know that we're quite prepared to 44 go into an, economic development plan based on what, we're trying to do. I think we 4s should. specify our pedestrian access,. open. space, issues; recreational etc, but I would 46 rather keep the Gray property out of it. I could conceivably see one parcel deep on the vol. 34, Page 100 November„ 1._999 1 other side ofi Petaluma ,Boulevard, but: the extent of Petaluma Boulevard .North along. 2 there is. acfually the border between °the city and county so I don't really see ,thaf we're 3 -going fo gain a whole lot,'in the types of uses on the west side of Petaluma, Boulevard 4 North are not as typically'intense as what is on the east side. s 6 Council ,Member. Caller=Thompson, I would 'like. fo see the Friedman/Gray property as ~ part of this. 'If`were talking about adding on the west side so we can .go downPetaluma s Boulevard. I just: see this as a disservice to the public on the: east side, of town: This was 9 part of the Specific Plan and :I think we do. need fo look at the needs of the .community . ao and we will :have to. address the. needs and. what :fype of development we want ,for this. 11 property. Thee Friedman/Gray property ties into the economic needs. This is an 12. opportunity ~to deal with both. sides of the freeway. 13 14 Council Member Healy,;,'V11ith respect to land inventory .and so: forth,. those are very valid.'. rs issues, but I think those are moreappropriately addressed in the General Plari context: 16. because. that is not the only other remaining parcel of aand,in.towci and once y..ou open that box :and we're: talking about everything inside the. urban growth boundary. I prefer is to:keep it focused. I acknowled' ge.tfle Gray',pro,perty has some .issues that inferaet with 19 what were doing here,. but not, include. it as part of this process. With, respect to the 20 parcels on the west. side- of Petaluma Boulevard I -would be curious to ee~ where the 21 parcel lines are too. The risk we get'into if you, go one parcel deep., then the question is 22 why don't you .just take the whole area back to the Urban Growth Boundary? lt's all 23 shown on our land use map as being rural with densities'. at zero-to 0.5 dwelling u:nits 24 per acre. Unless there's:~a pressing; need to,.up-zone then I don't see what we would be ?s gaining by adding that:. Those. parcels .are probably .under a whole. lot of` different 26' ownerships -and one of the cleaner things about the Specific Plan area is that it's..a more. 2~ limited number of ownerships and would streamline the process. 2s 29 Council ,Membex' Torliatt, I think that when were: looking at the FredrnanfGray property 3o it's not just access under .the freeway, 'but, a .Link to the`eastside:via any development is 31 going, to be key as to how to access that back and forth. The other issue dealing with 32 land use and what the needs are for the. community is are we going to build in `the flood• 33 plain? If. were not going, to build. in the flood, plain there's not a `lot of property that°s over 34 here that's oin to be retail or.: whatever, and so I think' we: need, fo say :where are we. f g 9 3s going- to put retail; and how °are we ,going to address the. larger picture: of the 36 communities needs, and' I think that"s where the Friedman/Gray property is definitely 37 inter .linked with this on both. sides of the freeway. 38 3a Council Member Keller I think your both correct, we needy the inventory; w,e need it #br 40: the Specific Plan, whatever the territory defined. We need..'to know what the territory is 41 and we need`~to sort' out our interim ;if not long-range policy for flood plain development 42 and those are definitely intertwined: There has :been quite a -bit of thought that's ;gone: 43 into what to do with the Friedman%G ray property and I don't s,ee any reason to difch it at 44 this: point..: Just.~leave it as special study and. not ncorporafe some kind of integration of~ 4s uses and; access• and circulation. if that applies.. There is no project proposal currently 46 corning to, us on that property that this process, is going to interfere w,fh if anytti'ing 'it. ,- r November 22, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 101 1 ~ might help guide what those uses could be and I think it's a valuable opportunity. 2 otherwise were just going to~be stuck with it again parcel by parcel. 3; _ _ 4 Council Member Maguire, It's currently zoned S =Study which means that any project 5 that comes to the Council is .going to have a review. If it'`s a. study area it still precludes 6 somebody from. just trying to sway them. with something that is inappropriate. V11e can certainly say where we want pedestrian/bicycle and other kinds of access. s 9 Council Member Hamilton, I think we should include the property on the east side of the to freeway and I think we should consider not studying: it to the depths that we would do . ~.1T, the rest of the plan, but f think. it should be ;included for the .creeks/pedestrian i2. possibilities and because it has been part of the Corona Reach Specific Plan from the 13 beginning. UVe don't have to go into the same. depth as we will in other areas and the 14 when a property is a study area it really can't be developed until the zoning is changed is and this may be a very good time to determine what kind of zoning would be 16 appropriate there and just do it all at once. 17 is David Wolter.ing;. as far as direction to us,, Friedman/Gray is in and to be depicted in all, 19 the alternatives that we bring :back to. you: ,As far as .the property on the west side of 20 Petaluma Boulevard North what.isyour direction there, please? 21 22 Council Member Maguire, tfie first thing to look. at .is where the county line runs. The 23 county line 'runs right along Petaluma Bou evard .North. 24 2s Council Member Keller, there are two county islands on either side of the outlet mall 26 bridge when that was annexed. It's within our sphere of influence and it is essentially 2~ the northern gateway to the city. 2s 29 Council Member Torliatt, when.. we were talking about the Magnolia site allocations, 3o Councilmember Keller brought up the. fact that the pie shape of Gossage and the 31 Boulevard should be looked at separately and planned separately if it is ever annexed 32 into the city. I think I see that happening more as opposed to including that, in this 33 Specific Plan.. 34 3s Council Member Keller, the only modification I would make in that case: would be to 36 move the boundary to the city limit on the west side of ,the boulevard so thaf the entire 37 boulevard: including the ..median is included within the .Specific Plan. It's a real 3s opportunity for future development. 39 4o Council Member Torliatt, the city has a little parcel adjacent to Corona there. 41 42 .David Woltering, we would include to the north side of Corona Road. C think at this point 43 we, as far as the ,boundary of this study area we would.. include the area to the east, of 44 Highway 101 as depicted on .the Corona Reach .Specific Plan diagrams. We would 4s~ .extend the boundary to the west side of Petaluma Boulevard. North in the city limit aril Vol. 34; Page 102 Novembera~, 1999 i we would include Corona Road', to the north side of that roadway in otherwise we would 2 honor basically the Corona. Reach Specific .Plan area. " 4 Council. Member Keller, I need a clarification in property boundaries.. The wedge s shaped finger between the existing railroad right-of-way/the. old redwood right-of-way; is 6 that a Calfrans right-of-way? Why is there a triangular finger in that intersection ~ between the .railroad and .freeway. If there is any private ownership on that anything s that is other than Calfrans right of way I'd (ike to include that little wedge. 9 io Public. Comment _~ ~~ 12 Don Armstrong, Superintendent Cinnabar :School District, the school. district and. Board 13 of Trustees is very 'interested'in being partners with 'the city. They would like. to be, kept" 14 apprised of any residentiaC.development, which would impact the. school district. There is is a new parcel. specific ,map of the district boundaries coming -from the: Planning 16 Department. The Council will receive a copy of the map. ~~ is Ray Peterson, representing the West Petaluma Concerned Citizens. Coalition. They 19 would like to be involved in the process., A full Corona Interchange would dump a lot of 20 traffic in the area of Skillman Lane. "There needs. to be, access into the ,Factory Outlets 21 from the freeway. There is still flooding at Corona and "th`e Boulevard. The traffic that 22 will be dumped in that area increases the. traffic accidents. If your going to continue to 23 p.ut traffic'in thaf area. and not a_nriex it and take over the fire and police services then I 24 think you ought. to be looking at your redevelopment money to mitigate the problems 2s with the Penngrove Fire. Qistrict. 26 27 Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue; feels the city should purchase some of the 2g property along 'the river i.e., Friedman/Gray property with money allocated by the Open 29 Space District. 30 31 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, read an article that was in the San Francisco 32 Chronicle August 23, 1998, regard_ ing development 'in the Floodplain. Don't build in the 33 Floodpfain. 34 3s Beth Meredith,. 104 5t" Street, asked about the process ,.and whq is working on the 36 project. Through what process didthese individuals get hired to facilitate this project. 37 She would like to be involved in the process. 3s Some of her concerns are the floodplan, pedestrian orientation, whaf the character of 39 this last piece of city design we want to have look like. 40 41 Matt Connolly, .Factory Outlets, Chelsea has made every effort not to encroach on th. e 42 Wetlands. The Corona Reach .and the Friedman/Gray property was added to the 43 Corona Reach Specific Plan at the request of Friedm.anlGray and the DSL development 44 they had a very specific project that they were proposing which. was the Target project. 45 In working with staff #hey acu,ally paid money to be part of the plan. In re"viewing where 46 were .going, I would think that within 60 to 90 days the Council should be able: to come November 22,.1999 Vol. 34, Page 1.03 i up with the information we have and really look at a .focused plan to look at the 2 alternatives and ultimately come up with a preferred alternative so that the 3 environmental. process could' concur with our application. I request that the process be 4 very fiocuse'd and in addition .insure the feasibility and economic viability which was not s addressed as an alternate. 6 ~ Vince Landoff, 12 Cordelia 'Drive, Johnson is also :applying for a permit for 350 more s apartments. in the Oak Greek development and with Chelsea applying for expansion 9 there is going to be more floodwater and it will wipe out the current flood project. io ii Scott Steinfeld, representing the Prim Property„ wanted to know if there is a plan to 12 annex more of the particular property? The Prirn family contributed $20,000 for an 13 environmental ,study of this particular ~floodway to..find out what was feasible as far .as 14 any development''in the.' area. To the best. of their knowledge there have been no results is from that expenditure of cash and would like .someone to Kook into that. It was noted i6 that the last tune a crew cleaned out the creek was in 1986. He would like to be a part v of this in anyway fo get the water running through there. is 19 Council Member Torliatt, thaf would be a contribution from the owners of the Prim 20 property to the prior Corona Reach .Specific-Plan that needs an accounting of. 'V1/,hat 21 has been expended, if these are redevelopment funds allocated to this and how much 22 that is and what the contributions were. 23 24 Council Member Maguire, a Specific Plan is going to place a land use foreverything 2s within the boundaries of the Specific Plan and. the Prim property is incorporated within 26 those boundaries,,, therefore it is .logical to assume at some point given the findings of 2~ this Specific Plan that it will be considered for annexation. 2s 29 CORONA REACH SPECIFIC PLAN 3o PLANNING AFiEAXBOUNDARIES 31 32 Council Member Torliatt would like to see the River Enhancement Plan and Bicycle Plan 33 implemented and the Railroad Authority contacted 'for their input. 34 3s The resource rrjaferials should include the Petaluma. Bicycle Plan, .Cinnabar School 36 District Boundary Map, RMI Study, Army Corps of Engineers Study, Zone2A Master 3z Plan and the Napa, River Plan. These materials should be available at the Petaluma 38 Library should someone want to look at what is going on with the Specific Plan and be 39 kept up to date. 40 41 Council Member Healy would. like brought back a break down in the inventory of 42 developable/non developable land by commercial/industrial, residential. 43 ' 44 In regards to the. Frontage Road along Highway 101 in the old 4s Petaluma/Sebastopol/Santa Rosa right-of-way that is also the area where some people 46 are looking to re-establish a trolley line to downtown, and he wants to make sure that Vol. 34', Page 104 Novern6er;'l,~,.1999 1 there is enough land, there. He" also feels that what this process does shouldn't 2 preclude. where:the General Plan Traffic and Circulation element is going an'd h~ouldn't 3 preclude any of the possible options that will be considered as part_of, the .General Plan a Traffic Circulation element. An ;interchange at Corona Road will present issues.., .Ne s feels that we should not be precluding the General Pan process- from looking at an 6 interchange%cross town connector at Rainier that is more sensitive in design than what: 7 was brought fonNard ,p;reviously. s 9 Council Member.Maguice, I''want to .proceed with ahe understanding there is no Rainier" to in this Specific Plan. He `would tike to-see an opti'on~ come back for an interchange at 11 Corona. He would like: to have ,a current. FEMA Flood. Map -with a brief exp anation 12 given to us-as to what the genesis of this map ,is. 13 14 Council Member. Hamilton ###eels that the purpose. of a Specific Plan is to determine; :land . is use and land .use will dictate circulation. 1,6 1~ Council Member `Keller, Doing a Spec. fic Plan does limit the General Plan. What do we is do for land' use in .the existing defined floodplain -and floodway until we have new 19 mapping. I think that brings us back to the old question, of what's our i'nte.rim floodplain 20 .policy. There is a longer term policy 'chat may open. up some of, this, `.land for 21 development or maybe-not dependirig on the policy issues that we decide..are important. 22 23 24: WORK PLAN 2s" _' 26 David V1/oltering, consulfant fore the projecf will come .back with a list of consultants, 27 background information on "their abilities and examples of their work products fo_ r 2s Council to select a final team. 29 3o The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p:rn. 31 32 33 37 3s ATTEST: 39 40 41 Paulette Lyon;. Deputy ~ Clerk E; "filar Thompson, M"ayor'