HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/15/1999November 15, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Monday, November 15, 1999
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met at 3:10 p.m. on this date in the Councif Chambers:
Roll Call .. , .
Present: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy.,,Keller (3:40 p.m.), Maguire, Thompson,
Torliatt
,.
Absent: None
Public Comment
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition; to development in the floodplain.,
Council Comment
:y
Council Member Cader-Thompson attended~'the Zone 2A<meetng, but did not receive a
copy of the agenda ,before hand. There wouad be •another meeting, butshe would not be
able to attend until 5€OO p.:m. on Monday o,r Friday. She asked if the Council concurred that
City Management senda letterto Kordel._Stillman about meeting times:. :.
Council was in concurrence.
Council Member Matt Maguire was sad to report: that on Saturday night. the. `D' Street
Neighborhood Beautification Project was vandalized and severrtrees were killed. Aaource
for more trees was being investigated and the neighborhood was willing to plant again.
Proclamation .
Recognition for Beautification Efforts in Old East `D'. Street Neighborhood received by Boy
Scout Troop 23, Christmas in April, the Ellwood Opportunity Center,.the Old East Petaluma
Neighborhood'. Association, ;the Petaluma Host Lions,. the; Petaluma ,Junior High ,Interact.
Club, Petaluma Tree Advisory Committee, Petaluma Tree Planters, Petaluma Valley
Rotary, Sonoma Earth Action, St. Vincent de Paul Kitchen, .and Sustainable Petaluma.
Council and City Management Reports
45
4 6 None
47
Vol. 34; Page 68 November. 15; 1999
1 Agenda Changes, Additions,. and Deletions
2
3 None
4
5 Approval of Minutes
6
~ Motion: Council Member Maguire moved; seconded by Council `Member
8 Cader-Thompson, to~approve the minutes for the Council Meetings;of
9 July 21 and July 26', 1999, as corrected.
10
11 Motion Passed: 6-0-1 (Keller absent)
12
,.
13 Consent Calendar
14
15 Items 2,, 3, and 4 were removed from Consent°for discussion and possible direction/action
16. by Council:.
1`7
18 1. Resolutio,nA.pprovi"rig Quarferly T`reasurer's .Report.
19
2 o Motion: - ' ~ '~ ~ ' ~ Council' ,Member Maguire ,mooed, seconded by Healy,., to :approve
21 Consent Calendar Item T.
22
23 Motion Passed; 6-0-1 {Keller absent).
24 A ~ .
2 5 2. Status' Report on _X2K,P'rep`arations. ~ .
2 6 .. ..
27 Council Member"Healy ,questioned. if there: was an operational discrepancy in~ the billing
2`8' system.
29
3 0 City .Manager Fred Stouder stated testing, would be completed in December.. Finance
31 Director David Spilman.added that the City would have any needed changes to make the
32 system Y21<-compliant;before the'new, year.
33 ,.
34 Motion: Council 'Member Maguire moved, seconded by Council: Member
35 Torliatt; to approve'Item 2.
36
3 ~ Motion Passed: 6-0-1 (Kellerabsent)
38
39 3: Resolution Amending Agreement with Empire Waste Management Regarding
40 Modification of Rate Formula.
4.1
42 Council Member Torliatt mentioned that.a citizen lining at:6151Nebsfer had concerns about
43 re-cycling and .customer service `practices of Empire Waste Management
44
4 5 Assistant; City'Manager, Beatty said he would follow up on fhe matter.
46
47 Council Member Healy agreed that the language'in the contract that read "work increased"
r
l~
November 15, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 69
1 should be changed to "not increased."
2
3 Motion: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Council Member Torliatt,
4 to approve Item 3.
5
6 Motion Passed: 6-0-1 (Keller absent)
8 Unfinished Business
9
10 4. Discussion and. Direction Regarding Future Agenda 1tern on Kenilworth School
11 Property Future Land Uses.
12
13 City ManagerStouder said this.item was on the agenda as requested by Council and would.
14 .return on an agenda in January 20,00. He asked Council for input on structuring the
15 discussion of the item: for the meeting in January.
16
17 Council Member Maguire asked for a recap of meeting(s) with the School District.
18
19 Council Member Hamilton wanted information regarding traffic circulation at the
2 0 intersections of Washington and McDowell, Caulfield and Lakeville, and Washington and
21 Ellis.
22
2 3 Council Member Torliatt .asked that City Councif and School Board Members meet and
24 ~ discuss traffic circulation in school areas acid'its impact'onthe General Plan development.
25
26 'Council M~ember~Cader-Thompson wanted to know if`the public expectation included, for
27 example, the addition of a junior high school.
28
29 Council Member Healy expressed interest in the School Board's thoughts on the timing of
30 the General Plan. development, zoning .issues relative to the junior high schools, and
31 surplus1and.
32
33 Council Member Torliatt wanted information .relevant to the City's potential purchase of
:34 surplus?property, suggestions for use, and feasibility of long-term use of such property by
-3~5 the Parks and Recreation Department.
36 ~ .
3.7 Counci ~ Member ..Maguire explained that the Parks and .Recreation Department- was
3 8 establishing goats with. a fresh outlook and requested the process proceed in parallel with
3 9 the G'enecal Plan developmert.
40
41 Council Member Caller-Thompson wanted to know the location and current use. of all the
42 ball fields.
43
44 Council Member Maguire replied that Jim Carr would provide the information.
45
Vol. 34, Page 7,0 ..November 15, 1:999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
1-1
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3'.5
36
37
38
3.9
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mayor Thompson.wanted City Management to provide information regarding potential uses
of those areas that were the most economical for the City; that. is, for he City would be
eligible to receive funding from outside sources (regional, state,. federal grants)..
City Manager Stouder then. recapped whaf'f1e understood. was the Council's direction.
Council Member Cader-Thompson stressed.the importance of the School'Boai•d and the
City Council working togefher on -these issues.
Diane Reilly-Torres s,polce in favor of focusing on children firsf and giving Traffic, money,
and other issues lower priority. She thought "the junior college should, attend discussions
between the School Board and the City Council. She noted The urban separator was filled.
with garbage. .
New Business
Mayor Thompson, with. Council's :concurrence, continued New Business items 'for
discussion and possible action fo 'the evening session.
Mayor Thompson asked.the Council's indulgence to reviewa film done:on location of~the
Payran Flood Project. created and produced by Diane 'Reilly Torres.
Council concurred and Ms. Reilly Torres presented -the film 'that included.. #ootage~ of the
physica_ I area :and discussions, with contractors and citizens.
Mayor Thompson announced the Council would adjourn to Closed Session in the City
Manager's Conference Room.
Public Comment
None
Closed. Sessi'on.355 p.m. '
Assistant City Attorney Li"sa Goldfein announced the following item to be addressed during ,. .
Closed Session:
. ~.! , ,
CONFERENCE 1Nil-H LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATIQN
Significant,exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code.Section
54956.9 (2 matters).
Adjourn
Council adjourned their meeting to the River House Restaurant for dinner. ~~
Reconvene.
November 15, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 71
1 The Petaluma Cty:Council reconvened on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
2
3 Report; on Closed Session ' ~ ~~ ~'
5 Mayor Thompson announcedthat rio reportable action was taken on the item addressed
6 during Closed Session.
7
8 Roll Call
9
1o Present: ~ Cade.r-Thompson, Harn_ilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire,
11 Thompson, Torliatt ,
12
13 Absent: None ~~ ~- ,'
14 ".
15 Pledge of Allegiance _,
16
17 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Tom Isaak led.:the Pledge of .Allegiance.
18
19 Moment' of Silence; ,
20
21 At the request of Mayor' Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
22
2 3 Public Comment
24
25 Terrence M. Garvey, 83 Maria Drive; spoke regarding evolution and law.
26
27 Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca brive, spoke regarding the flooding problem in Petaluma.
28
2 9 Victor Chechan~over, 2301 Marilyn Circle, asked City .Management to take into
3 o consideration contracts with vendors -who paid the 'lining wage' to all their full time
31 employees.
32
33 Steve 61ock (no speaker card completed) spoke regarding the Zone 2A meeting he
34 attended last`week, Abobe Creek was lined with riprap high water overflow and covered
35 with dirt., Barre s on the upper road had not.been cleared. He asked how. the silt, mud, .and
3 6 debris were fo be handled. He also talked about roundabouts.
3 '7
3 8 Emilie Rogier and' Wendy Staples, 669 Ely Road, spoke about their concerns regarding the
3 9 sale of the Phoenix Theatre.
~4 0
X41 Mr. Kay (did. not~complete.a speaker card) requested that-the scheduling of public hearings
42 on wastewater.rates_occur earlierduring evening sessions.
43
44 Dianne Reilly-Torres; Rainier'Dri~e, spoke regarding the Zone 2 A meeting last week. She
45 had video taped, the meeting and would give the tape to Pefaluma Cornmunity.Access
46 (PCA). She was disappointed about„the .manner in which the Zone 2 A meetings."we_re
47 conducted. She_also addressed the need for an Environmental Impact Review (E1 R) on
Vol. 34, Page 72 November 15; 1999>
1 the River Enhancement, Plan.
.. - ;
2 .. .. ".
3 Vince. Landoll, 12~ Cordelia Drive,,, voiced concern; That the. incoming tide; had; oi.l slick. ,He
4 a ~ reed with Ms: Torres re, ~~ ardin. the
g s g g need fo-r'an Environmental lrnpact Re'vienr (ELR) on
5 the River'Enhancement Plan and addressed~envi`ronmental issues in general..
6
., .
~ Public Comment' Closed
8 •-
9Council Comments
10 `
11 Council Member Hamilton. asked. City Manageme,nt~to schedule wastewater rate, increases
12 for discussion early during he Co.uncil's evening; sessiori'a..t;`the next, scheduled. Public
13 Hearings. She :also wanted the Council to get.,together todiscuss /brainstorm solutions~for
14 the Phoenix Theater: If the Council could not take action to keep it open, she .was m favor
15 of moving the spirit of the Phoenix somewhere else in the community:. She asked City
16 Management "fo schedule the discussion by December` 1=...
17
18 Council Member Gader=Thump on wanted''to have a discussion regarding the. Phoenix
19 Theater placed:on an agenda, too. Shea also requested that°the Mayor allow Mr. Kaye to
2 0 speak earlier on the agenda regarding wastewater rates ifi he had to'leave ..before the item.
21 was heard. She spoke favorably of the Cify of Arcata's wastewater'facility.
22
2 3 Council Member'M,aguire expressed adness about the-sale: of the. Phoenix but noted that
24 it was a private enterprise: He was in favor of having a brainstorming sessionwith the'new
2 5 owners.
26
2 7 .Vice Mayor: Keller also expressed sadness about the closure .of the Phoenix and looked
2 8 fonNard'to brain: storming on so:me'ideas for alternatives for youth. A draft copy of''Getting
2 9 Around ;Sonoma County in 2020; A Vision for the Future" was provided' by the Sonoma
3 0 County Transportation (.SCTA) :and he .asked. Council Members to provide: hire with their
31 comments before the December SCTA meeting: A letter from Tom Torlakson of tfe
3 2 Assembly .Commi.ftee on .Transportation was also provided' regarding.efforts to. renew, the
33 Burton tax, proposal, SCA 3, for transportation improvements statewide for counties that
34 voted. The Committee con'tinued't'o work.on a ball`at measure, which, with approval by the
3 5 legislature and Governor, could qualify for the November""2000 ballot.,The measure would
3 6 provide fore a comprehensive transportation=fiundirig package:
37
38 Council Member Torliatt was in agreement with Council's: remarks and.suggestons.
3'9
4 0 Proclamation/Presentation. ~ ~ "
_.
41 .
42 Mayor Thompson presented a proclamation'for National•Geograplic-Information System
43 (G1S) Day and G'IS Power.Poirit Presentation 6y Petaluna',Gharter=School Students to Bill
44 Hammerman of..PetalumaNet:
45 ~ ' `
46 Mr. Hammerman; ,accepted the ~ proclamation and: presented a video created'.. for the.
47 celebration of G'IS Day, November 19, 1:999. ak?out .the :value - of GlS (Geograph'ic
. .
November 15, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 73
1 Information, Systems); to .the community. He encouraged the. community to visit
2 PetalumaNet's websife for details aboutthe various events during the weeklong celebration
3 of GIS Day throughout the County. He mentioned that PCA would cable cast the entire
4 video, which was shown in its abbreviated form this evening..
6 Mayor Thompson read and presented a proclamation to the Committee on the Shelterless
7 (COTS) accepted by the committee's co-founder; :Mary I aak. Ms. Isaak thanked the.
8 community withouf'whose support success would not have been possible.
9
1o Council Memb=er Gader-Thompson noted that on October 23rd Mary Isaak fumed 80 and
11 that she had just quit smoking. She shared an experience of hiking up to Lafferty with .Ms.
12 Isaak and wished her a happy birthday.
13
14 Unfinished Business
_ 15
16 6. Status Report o:n Downtown Activities Including Putnam Plaza.
17
18 _ At the request of City Manager Fred Stouder, the item was continued to a date uncertain.'
19 _
2 0 7. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Status on Removal of Lights atMcNear
21 ~ Park.
22
2 3 Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr reuievved the staff report and provided an update
24 on the status of the removal of lights from. McNear Park.
25
2 6 ~ Council asked City Management to provide information regarding alternative uses of
27 _playing fields and to keep them informed about the progress of this issue. They agreed to
2 8 defer a decision on. the item until a report%reconmen~dation. was received from the Parks
29 ,and Recreation Department and the Music,. Recreation and Parks Commission after a
3 o public outreach meeting on the subject was held, preferably at the Boys and Girls Club..
31 Until fhat time, City Management was directed to have the lights in the park turned off by
32 8:00 p.m.
33
34 8. Continued .Discussion and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the. Ridge. View
3 5 Heights Tentative Subdivision. Map fora 9-Lot Subdivision with a Remainder Parcel
3 6 and PUD Development Standards.
37
38 Senior Planner Mabel Bia~lik presented. background information. about.the project. It was
39 continued from an August City Council meetingto enable furtherdiscussion about whether
4 0 or not to include a bike path through the project. She then read from the staff report the
41 request by the applicants to .reconsider certain conditions of approval and staff related:
42 requests for clarification and/or direction as follows.:
43
44 1. Change the maximum building height from twenty-five feet to twenty-seven.
45
46 The Council had determined the building heighf should remain at twenty-five feet.
47
Vol. 34,, Page 74
November 15,..1'999
1 2. Change the hours of construction from 8:00 a.m. to 5:0;0. p:m: Monday through
2 Friday to 7:Q0 a.m: Ito 7:00. p:m. Monday through Friday, with indoor construction
3 .allowed :on Saturdays:
4
5 The Council changed the hours of construction from 8:00 atm. to~6:00 p,m. Monday
6 through Friday with no:Saturday, Sunday.,. or holiday construction.
7
8 3. A question regarding a sfr"p of and that was part of .Lot 9 adjacent to the Lake
9 property to allow Mr: Lake to have driveway access off of the new road from
10 Ridgeview Subdivision.
11
12 ~ The Council found that an access easement should be recorded to all the drivewayaccess
13 to the Lake. property; but that landscape maintenance of the strip of land shouldremain~`the ;
14 responsibility of, the owner of Lot 9.
15
16 4. Staff also asked, for clarification or direction, from Council regarding, sidewalks- on
1'7 both sides of street on Sunnyslope Road. The Sannyslope Enviro.nmenfal Impact
18 Report stated sidewalks should only be on: one side of the street. The, City's
19 municipal code stated only that developments should provide sidewalks: ~ The
2 o applicant was willing to put sidewalks, in front of.the project,,. but for future` projects,
21 staff requested direction regarding whether it would be a policy that sidewalks.-be
22 required on both sides.of the street when developed.
24 5. The bike path issue that remained for Council discussion.
25 >~
26 Public Comment
27. .
2 8' Patricia. Tuttle: Brown; 513 Petaluma Boulevard South,., read her letter dated Oefober25;
2 9 1.999 regarding her support of a pedestrian/foot%bike path. through Ridge View Heights.:.
30
31 Diane ..Reilly Torres, RainierAvenue, questioned development. irnpacf fees on page; l5: She
3 2 thought the storm drain fee was too ,low. On page 6, she noticed. that there was no'further
3 3 reference to the payment application of the storm drain fee.
34
35 Geoff Cartwright; 5:6 Rocca''D;rive, spoke regardingdrainagc issues in,connectior with the
36 flooding problerns'in Petaluma.
37
38 Gerry'Patterson Bassist 124~SunnyHill privet; spoke in.opposition to a pedestYian/foot/bike
`39 paththrough the Ridge View Heights Subdivision.
40
4,1 Vice.Mayor Kellerasked if Ms. Bassis had any alternative suggestions:
42
43 Ms. Patterson replied.ahatshedidn't thinkaconnection through the Ridge View`Subdivson
44 was needed as she had walked an established. path along a creek;be,d, a level path.; down
45 her hill, around the block; up the atreet and'. over into Ridge View. She was on City
46 sidewalks the entire: -route. She thought that thr.qugh discussion, an alternative 'j'oint
November 1'S, 1999 ~ VoL-34, Page 75
1 community project could be identified, such as a small open space~where the community
2' could gafher.
3
4 Steve Buckley, 5:01 East 1Nashington Street, agent for the applicants. on this. project,
5 thought a requirement for the applicants to locate apedestrian/foot/bike path fo obtain
6 ,approval bn tli`is ,project was unfair. The map, almost exactly as it was drawn, was..
7 approved in 199`1: At thaf time the appl.'icants were asked to and agreed to give. a~-very
8 large portion of the property-gas a scenic easement, which fook up a majgrity of thee.
9 remaining lands of the Beatty. Mr. Buckleyrequested that Councilapprove the map without
1o a requirement for apedestrian/foot/bike path.
11
12 Mayor Thompson asked, other than path, if he agreed to the conditions of approval.
13 Mr. Buckley replied that `he did.
14
15 Jerry Beatty, 120 Sunny Hill Drive, thanked the members of Council who had visited the
16 site. He was opposed to a requirement fora pafh as a condition ofiapproval on this project
17 for privacy and safety concerns.
18 .
19 Jim Simons, 1.32'Sunny..Hill Drive, said that.he thought a path was unfeasible and.vnsafe
2 0 and recommended thaf Council move forward with the recommendation of the Planning;
21 Commission, without the recommendation of a bike pafh. .
22
23 Vice Mayor Keller asked if there was a need for a path over the ridge and if there were
24 alternatives available. -.
25
2 6 Mr. Simmons. said he thought. there was no need for a path; additional paths over ridges
27 were nice, but he s_aw no need for one.
28
2 9 Sue Simons,..132 Sunny Hill Drive,: spoke regarding a bike path :being unsafe. ,on this
3 0 project; there was a blind rise and (here were no sidewalks at the. bottom. ',
~-
31
32 Closed Public Hearing ~~
33
34 Council Member Maguire asked Senior Planner Mabel Bialik`for the average number of
35 .automobile trips per house per'day. _ ~ .
36
37 Ms. Bialik replied that the City Traffic Engneer:had.determ'ned that with nine homes, the
3 8 average was eighty-six (86) vehicle. trips per. day, with. a total of six. (6) to eight (8) per-
39 house during peak hours.
40
41 Council Member Maguire wasopposedto adopting the resolutions:ll,Vith respectto~safety
42 issues, he.thought no amount of planning could guarantee safety and that pedestrians and
43 drivers needed~to be responsible for themselves, He thought the path would pe.designed
44 and constructed in: a way'that would provide the most privacy to property owners...
4 5 _ ~.
4 6 Mayor Thompson was in favor of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Vol. 34, Page•76 November 15, 1:999
1 Monitoring; Program -,and a resolution approving the Ridge ,View: Ne:ights Tentative
2 Subdivision Map,and~PUD Development~Standards, without the trail, because of the safety
3 anal privacy issues.
5 Viee Mayor Keller. wanted to approve the project ~w'ith a pathway. The aubdivision was
6 encumbered by City requirerne;nts; it: was not sub-rural. land,.'it was: urbanized land.- The
~ expectation for land use was different,,.the'rights and obligations were different. This parcel
8 wasthe onlyparcel rem'ainingfthatallow~d for a path across-.the hill conne.cfion. He would.
9 personally walk thee. path., 'The neighbors with knowledge of the safety issues were
1 o responsible to mainfa"n safetyfor individuals walking on (heir street; it was :a. publ_i;c street..
1.1 The lack of sidewalks at the`bottom of the: hill was a mistake that was made twerify to'thirty
12 years ago when the homes;were built. At the time;.it was a rural area: Rethought that~the
13 lack of sidewalks did not make if unsafe for pedestrians or bicyclists. Drive: safely:;. look out
14' for kids on bicycles. and skateboards.
15
16 C:ouneil:Member°Cader-Thompson thought that raising fears, such as issue:of~ fhe woman:
i~ who was recently struck and killed on 1Nashing'ton Street, was not agood=way to review
18 projects, live or,ourteachfiamilie to live. She knew of people i.n the comrnunitywho:used
19 the existing path to get over the hill. , It wa's a. difficult issue. She recognized safetyand
2 0 privacy issues and thought that connecting neighborhoodswas important. She was in favor
21 of an additional fifteen feet to make, the path plausible. Property developers bore the
2 2 responsibility of trying to connect nei.gh'borhoods and all too often it had not been done and
23 the City had lost opportunities..She was'not sure how she would vote.
2 4 "_. .
2 5 Council Member Torlatt Thanked the Beatty's,and the neighbors for#heir time in helping'the
2 6 Council understand the issues; it was difficult issue due ao ahe existing conditions. If she
2`7 lived. in that neighborhood, she would like the abilityto travel over that hill,. 'The location of
28 the path had been discussed as ;ranging from ,five to fifteen feet from the home' of the
29 ~Beatty's-and a portion;was located on_the Marlin's property.. She favored having'the path
3 0 as faraway-from. resid'enees'as possible:. If Council' approves the project~wth the path, she
..
31 wanted the Council 'to w.ork~°.together with the Maslns in order to allow the path 'to go
32 through .a small section of their land that would not. affect de~elopme.nt of their property.
3,3
34 Council Member Healy was,~not. in favor of a focusing on what he deemed low priority
,_ .
3 5 ~ projects that would benefif'few people; a path that would not be well used in his view. He
'3 6 thought the' neighbors. raised :valid concerns regarding s'afefy `issues.. His position was in
;37 favor of appro~ing,.the subdivision without a requirement for a path. He wanted, the
3 8~~ cornmunity'to focus on providing meaningful bicycle and ;pedestrian. access with h'igler
~3-9 priority items as set forth in the.Bicycle Plan.
4,0
41 ~Couneil .Member. Hamilton was in favor of the project with a pathway.. She was hesitant;
42 she' could-not envision logistically how a trail. would` work when it hit. the paved part of b.r.
43 Beatty's.drveway She wantedthe Councif to~workwith the developer to make the project
44 work:°° ~ ~ ~ ~ '
45 ._.
46 Council Member~M'aguire,offered some alte,cnate solutions for a pathwifhin the project to
November 15, 1999 ~ Vol. 34; Page 77
1 preserve access for the neighborhood and privacy for Mr: Beatty.
2
3 Council Member°Torliatt thought though difficult, she wanted to work with the parties to find
4 a solution. She was vvilling to lookat the alfernatives. She thought it would be an amenity.
5
6 Mayor Thompson ahe purpose of-the meeting was not to discuss alternative and clarified
7 the purpose ofi the discussion was for the approval of the subdivision. '~ ` ~ ` '
8
9 Council Member Caller-Thompson asked Mr. Beatty if he knew of a way to resolve the
10 issue.
11
12 Mr. Beatty said he did. not know. The solutions he had heard involved a remodel of recent
13 improvements; that is, move the door,. change the window; buy a piece of Maslin's
14 property. He:believed there were many costs to him to provide access for a limited number
15 of people in the community to travel overthe hill. The only way was to go through Maslin's
16 property.
17
18 Council Member Hamilton asked Mc..Beatty if fie was willing to meet with a smaller group
19 of the Council and perhaps Mr. Maslin and try to problem solve'the issue.
20
21 Mr. Beatty said he didn't know.
22
2 3 Vice Mayor Keller was in favor of looking at: alternative solutions and that if necessary; aril
24 perhaps the City's participation in the purchase of a portion of the Maslin propertyto secure
2 5 access.
26
27 Council Member Hamilfonasked if Vice Mayor'Kellerwanted to review alternative solutions
2 8 before the vote.
29
3 o Vice Mayor Keller replied before the final vote:.
31 .
3 2 Mayor Thompson asked if there was a majority of theCouncil in favor of holding the item
3 3 over.
34
3,5 Council Member Torliatt was in favor'of holding it over to continue discussion about the
3 6 feasibility.
37
3 8 Council Member Healy wanted to know if Vice Mayor Keller was considering the use of
39 imminent domain to purchase the property.
40
41 Vice Mayor Keller replied that was a possibility and he would leave that open, preferably
42 not.
43
44 Council Member Maguire added: that the City's first step was to contact Mr. Maslin to find
4 5 out if he was willing to negotiate a sale. He was not interested in pursing imminent domain.
46
Vo1..34; Page 78 November 15,1999
1
2 .Mayor Thompson questioned if` the Council wanted to .hear from Mr. Maslin, as he was
3 present.
4
5 Council M'emb'er Maguire did n'ot think it was appropriate in a public forum to ask: Mr.
6 Maslin property sale related questions. He understood thaf if voted upon now.;. Council
~ would approve the project with a requirement for a path, ~ .
8 .
9 Mayor Thompson :agreed.
1;0
11 Council Member Torliatt stated a need for City :Management to provide Council. with
12 appropriate findings. for the path before, Council made a decision. .
13
14 Mayor Thompson polled the Council .as to whether or not hey wanf_ed to continue the. item.
15
16 Council Member Maguire was in'favgr of continuirng the item.
17
18 Council Member Hamilton wanted asub-committee of fhe.Co;uncil, Mr. Beauty; members. of
19 City Management, and perhaps. Mr. Maslin if' he wanted to participate; to try to. work.
2 o through the ,practical.,, logistic matter of how p:eopJe :could go over the hill; she did not think
21 enough had .been done. She was in favor of continuing .discussion .,focused. on solutions:.
22 She thought trail issues were' very sensitive and threatening to people. The: Council
2,3 needed to try to work towards solutions with people.
24
2 5 Mayor Thompson asked whether Vice Mayor Kelley's vofe was yes or no.
26
2'7 Vice'Mayor Keller replied yes;.he was in agreement with Counci_I Member Hanlfon, that is:;
28 it was important to take the ;time to work #owards an' amicable solution otherwise the
2 9 opportunity would no,longer exist. It was well. worth'it for future generations of the. City and
3 o the residents of the would=be subdivision.
31
32 Council Member Cader-Thompson wanted to continue th"e .discuss_on with D;r: Beatty to
3 3 arrive at an amicable solution. _
3~4
3 5 Mayor Thompson indicated. that there was a. majority:
36
3 ~ Council Member Healy asked.for confirmation #rom the City Attorney`that he item could be
3 8 continued.
3.9
40 City Attorney Rich. Rudnansky responded. thaf he did not believe there were time
4i constraints. He then deferred to'Mabel ~Bialik:
42 ..
43 Ms. Bialik indicated there was not.
44
45 Mr. Rud.nansky asketl for clanfication.f the Council wanted a straw vote; Council Member
46 Torliatt was correct there was a need for direction in order to bring finding back to the
November 15, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 79
1 Council. If riot, he advised that the Council could delay the straw vote pending discussions
2 and bring it back- with the findings for the vote.
3
4 Mayor Thompson agreed.
5
6 Council Members Cader-Thompson,, Hamilton, and. Maguire agreed to be the, sub-
? committee of Council to continue work with Mr. Beatty to look at solutions.
8
9 Roger Mas in was willing to discuss ifwitli vvhoever wanted to discuss.. He was not in favor
10 of a path but it was not his call ° .
11
12 This item was .continued to a date not yet determined.
~~
13
14 IVew Business
15
16 1. Resolution Approving the Final Map for Roseview Subdivision Unit 3.~ Unit 3
17 Consists of Six. Lots and is the Last Unit of Roseview Subdivision Which Totals,_.14
18 Lots. The Subdivision is Located on Melanie Court Off of Olive:Street. Construction
19 Would Begin After Final Map Approval With an Estimated Completion.. Within ,30
20 Days (Weather Permitting): The Estimated Cost of Public Improvements is
21 $130,000. r
22
23 Mr. Stouder noted that an-agreement had been reached.-
24 _. -. .
2 5 Craig Spaulding reporfed that h.e had heard from the parties involved and looked to the
2 6 Council's for approval .
27
2 8 .Mayor Thompson- noted erosion control concerns.
29 `
30 Mr. Spaulding replied that erosion control measures had been installed. He thought that
31 once construction started the. Public Works. Inspector would be very cautious and diligent.
32 about erosion. concerns during inspections.. . .
33
3'4 Mayor Thompson remembered that this had come before the Planning Commission in
3 5 19..92. and that there. had been a huge grove of°eucalyptus trees located there, and when he .
3 6 visited the property recently, the grove of trees was gone. . ,
37
38 Mr. Spaulding replied that he was correct. The trees were gone.
39
40 Interim Planning Director Hans Grunt did not.have an answer..
41
42 Mayor Thompson asked that City Management look into it and advise him.
43
44 Council Member Maguire heard that the trees were cut and done without the property
45 owners' consent.
46
Vol. 34, Page 80 November 15, 1999
1 Motion:. Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Caller-Thompson to adopt a
2 Resolution -Approving; the Final Map 'for R:oseview Subdivision Unit 3. Unit 3 Consists of
3 Six Lots :and is the. Last Unit of Roseview Subdivision Which Totals 14 Lots. The
4 Subdivision~is Located on Melanie Court off Olive,Street. Construction Would Begin After
5 Final Map Approval 1Nith an Estimated Completion Within 30 Days
6
~ Motion Passed: 7/0/0
8
9 Council Member Torliatf fhanked the partiesnvolved,, City Management; and Mr.,Stouder
10 for their work in resolving concerns before it came to the' Council; it'made t_he Council's job
11 a lot easier.
12
i3 Kathleen Blankey.indicated the access issued had been a problemfor riine~years, thanked
14 City Management; and the Co,ancil for making resolution possible.
15 ~ .
16 Recess~:::930 p.m.,
17
18 :Reconvened.: 9:4"5' p. m~:
19
2 0 Public Hearings
21
22 9. Baker Street Bar & Grill, 205 Kentucky Street::
23
24 . ~ a..Appeal by` Jon Jernigan and Jim Maestretti of the Planning Commission's
2 5 9/1.4/9:9 R.e~ocation of the Conditional ,Use Permit Held by BakerStreet: Bar and
2 6 ~ Grill at 205.Kentucky Street, APN 006-275-028..
27 _
2 8 b. Determinationthat Public Convenience:and Necessity is No Longer Served by
2 9 Baker Street Bar & Grill Retaining -Its Type 47 (On=Sale G"e'neral -Eating Place)
3 0 State of California Alcoholic Beverage Confrol License.
31
3 2 Jane Thomson reviewetl'the hi"sfory, general basis of the appeal; ,and components of the
33 Conditional. Use Permit (C.U.P.) that was revoked.
34
3 5 Council Member Maguire asked f'the Alcohol and Beverage Control's (A.B.C') policy was
3 6 to be consistent and uphold' a local governing body's decision/position on a C.U.P. relative
37 to Public Convenience and Necessity (P.C.N.);.
38
3 9 Ms. Thomson .replied that it was.:
40
41 Ms. Thomson offered. the conclusion of the Planning Commission to revoke the C':U:P. and
42 recommendation that the Council overturn the determination of the P.C.N. She -then
4 3 reviewed four alternatives for the Council to consider, described. on page 3 of the Agenda
44 Report attached to the Agenda:B.ill aceompanyi.ng the item.
45
4 6 Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification of whether or not the C.U.P. was issu_ ed to
47 Tom Baker.
November 15, 1999. Vol. 34, Page 81
1
2 Ms. Thomson replied that :the C.U.P. was issued in two parts; one was the Alcohol and
3 Beverage Establishment (A.B.E,) component that was issued to Baker Street Bar and Grill.
4 The other component, Commercial. Recreation And Live .Entertainment, was issued,to Tom
5 Baker. `Howeuer; the two components sari with the land. She continued that the Council
6 could decide to agree with the appellants and take action to have the A.B.E. transferred to
7 them.
8
9 Council Member Maguire asked if the appeal was a request to the Council to transfer the
1o permitted. uses toga new owner.
11
12 Ms.: Thomson clarified that the appeal was to have the use permit be an A.B.E., .have
13 commercial recreation activities, live entertainment, and to have the P.C.N. determination
14 not overturned.
15
i 6 Council Member~Maguire recollected that'when Council. previously adopted the P.C.N. and
17 addressed concerns raised by the comimunity, control criteria had been established that
18 had failed miserably. He preferred a cormprehensive consideration by Council of prior
19 discussions, determinations, and a review of what had gone wrong in order to arrive at a
2 o decision.
21
...., ,.,
22 Council Member' Torliatt wanted to hear some of the compromises or suggestions from
23 ~ others prior to making a decision.
24. ~ -
25 ..Vice Mayor :Keller asked which permits w.e.re owned/issued to Mr. Jernigan and Mr.
2.6 Maestretti'...
27 -
2 8 Ms. Thomson replied that the permits that. ran with ownership of the land were the C.U.P. 's
29 for Commercial Recreation And Live Entertainment.
30 _
_ 31 Vice MayorKeller asked who was responsible for compliance with those conditions.
32
3 3 Ms. Tlomsori replied that they were the. property owners' responsibility.
3,4; .
3 5 Vice Mayor Kellerasked for clarification that violations of the two prior approvals were`the
3"5 .,:responsibility of the property owners.
.. 37 ~ ~-_
3 8 MS. Thomson confirmed this.
3:9 __ _- _
4o Vice Mayor Keller- pointed out that there had' been failure to comply previously; he
4;i wondered if that would happen again..
42
43 Councils Member Maguire asked who owned the Baker Street Bar and Grill.
4 4;: '
4"5~ Ms, Thomson deferred #o Mr. Jernigan and Mr. Maestretti. She knew that it was a
46 partnership and that Tom Baker was one of'the partners but did not know whom the others
Vol. 34, Page 82 Novernberl5.; 1999
1 were.
2 ~ ~ ~ .
3 Public Comment -
4
5 David Glass, 41 Oxford Court; was in favor of. imposing severe restrictions. on.the business.
5 operation...
8 Jon Jernigan had entered into an agreement with Mr.: Baker ao purchase the equipment
9 and terminate the Lease of Baker Street:. He believed the question for Council to~ address
10 was what commercial recreation activities would'require a C.U.P. He reviewed a nucnber_of`
~.11 the options. Regarding lire entertainment, he had met 'with the resident's of the Hofel
12 Petaluma.an. d reached,agreem.ent.that;if live; amplified entertainment and; all loud rimusic
13 ceased at' 10;00 p.m., they would approve: Mr. Jernigan stafed subsequent.leases would
14 include those restrictions.
15
1,6 C.ouncil:Member~Magui`re asked Mr:.Jernigan.who the owners of Baker StreetBarand Grilf
17 were and for verification that Mr: Maestretti and~Mr. Jernigan were the landlords.
18
19 Mr. Jernigan. replied that Tom. Baker w_as the sole .owner and he and `Mr. Macs"tretti; were
2 0 the landlords.
21
22 Council Member Maguire. asked if .Mr. Jerni.:gan was aware of the number of police calls' ~:t
23 that had occurred regarding Baker Street B,ar and Grill.
24
,. .
2 5 Mr, Jernigan replied that he had, not, -until if was brought out at the last meeting: He added"
2 6 that .eviction proceedings would probably begin after the-hearing if they had Wort resol'v`ed '~
2 ~ the: noise 'issues. He explained that when the business: became-a nightclub in~ Ap"ril, ~tle~
2 s problems escalated, .He had tried unsuccessfully .to calm the tenants down for several ..
2 9 months. He apologized for .not taking decisive action sooner. ~- _ ~ ,
30
31 Council Member Maguire asked what Tom Baker's involvemen't,was.at that~time.
32 - ,. .
33 Mr: Jernigan replied that: Mr: Baker had.turnedthe'business over-to',an outside_manager
3 4 and wasaomewhat "in denial" regarding the problems; 'his management'team~did not keep.,.
3 5 him informed, ~ '- _ -
..
37 Council Mem. ber Maguire asked if Mr. Jernigan planned to operate the.business hirnselfor~ `
3 8 lease the. premises to someone to open a full service, restaurant° with bar' service: =
3`9 Alternatively, ~he askedd', would the.bar be sepagate, the type that flag barstools o"r the type,,.
40 of bar that catered/served-seated diners. -
41 .
.9, -.
42 Mr, Jernigan responded that he would not be operatin° .the restaurant. He understood that : -
43 it was planned for a restaurant that served alcohol at meals.. If music stopped. at 10::0,0
44 p.m. as previously indicated, a bar business would.not:be interested in this'I'ocafion...
4 5 ..
46 Council Member Maguire asked for confirmation .from Mr. Jernigan that he .understood` ._
-.. ;,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
No~ember'1`5, 1999
there would be no separate bar at the facility.
Vol. 34, Page 83
Mr. Jernigan replied:;tiiatas he did~not know who would be the ultimate tenant would be, he
was unable to answer that question.
. -.
Council Member Magui"re asked if, in Mr. Jernigan's:opinion, the tenant needed to have live
entertainment to be: successful.
Mr. Jernigan agreed, and~offeredas an.example;~a~wedding,reception. He said. he did not
y-
want to imply that live entertainment was the `reason :for people to come to tli'e facility.
Council Member Maguire clarified that Mr. Jernigan: wanted the ability to have combined
banquet/music events. ~ '
Mr. Jernigan confirmed this.., ~ - ~ -_
Lawrence. Longenbaugh, 225 I<,entucley Street, preferred that Council .deny the appeal, and
have the owners. come back with a confirmed business and a'proposed use for discussion.
Kerstin Mollinder; 14 Market Street, thought Mr, Jernigan's plans vague. She urged
Council to deny the appeal and fo uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Barry Sclarelli; Attorney,, 30 Fifth Street, sta_ fed that for the last 5-1 /2 years he had been an
owner and chief financial, officer of H. S. Restaurants, which owned II Davida Restaurant on
`A' Street between. Third and 'Fourth in San Rafael. He prodded information about plans
his partners had forthe establishment formerly known as Baker Street.
Council Member Hamilton questioned the process, Council was being asked to snake a
decision based on vague information.
Council Member Torliatt agreed.
Council Member Healy had attended ameeting the previous day with the neighbors 'and
local property owners:. He was in favor of upholding the appeal and. encouraging the
owners `to come forward with a specific proposal; or preferably,, continue the item until the
owners could present something specific and have meetings with the neighbors around the
area to reach an agreed upon use.
Council Keller agreed with one~of Mr. Healy"s proposals.. Given the history of the operation
of the .property :and the permits, he was in favor of acting. on: the appeal revoking the
C.U.P:'s. He was willing to revisit when.details,materialized-and specifics were available
for a discussion. He wanted; to, act on tfe,,appeal.
Mayor Thompson clarified that .Council was looking at, f our alternatives.
Vol. 34, Page 84
No~ernber~l.5„ 1999.
1 Vice Mayor Keller was in favor'ofwoting to uphold the denial. of the appeal.
2
3 CoanciL Member Maguire thought`there, was something amiss. in the; information provided.
4 He asked Ms. Thomson; if Council rejected the P.C.N ;,could'the appellants could get an
5 A.B.C. License, and under existing .zoning, run a restaurant;.. and if they :got a full liquor
6 license, they had the. right~to operate as a:full' liquor licensed establishment.
~ ,.
8 Ms. Thomson replied that there was no C.U.P. for'an A.B:,E Torn: Baker had surrendered
9 his A.B.C. license because~A B ;C advised .hi.m.that he, must. If the. C.U.P. for an; A.B.:E.
10 was ,gone, by rights, the P;C.N had to follow; it was ,gone} also. If someone came. in
11 tomorrow, ,opened a. restaurant,,,,applied to the A.B.C for their own license; A.BC. would
12 provide them with a zoning affidavit form;; go to the- `Plan_ning Department to verify the
13 zoning, and find out if a,use permit;.was required. .
14 ~ .
15 Council Member Magurethoughtsometh'ing w_,as amiss, thats., he wondered why<C:ouncil
16 had gone through. the .P.C:.N. hearing process.; His-understanding was that :new state
`17 legislation said that there:had to, be a finding of P:C.N_:and that therA.B.C. was~nottgoi_ng to
18 give a liquor license unless a.P;C.N. process°was done antl findings made.
19
2 o Ms. Thomson stated that was correct.
21
22 Council Member Maguire added there were areas that were satu-rated with this type of use
23 and that this was orie of them.
2:4 '
2 5 :Ms.'Thomson' agreed That there existed an und'ue:concentration of bars and.. it was because
2 6 the applicant wanted to open a bar, the A.B..C: told the applicant to obtain.tl'e P.C.N. from
2 ~ the City. _
28
29 Council: Member Maguire asked., if that: if was because the application was for a. bar as
3 0 opposed to a bar'and restaurant.
31 '
32 Ms. Thomson stated that. she was sure that was-correct.. 'There was a letter in the packet..
33 from the A.B.C.'dated January' 1'995 that'discussed the Business and Professions Code
3.4 and who was requice:dto obtain a P.C, N. Bon-a-fde.restaurants~were~required fo.obtain a
3 5 P,C.N., but the A.B.C. had made. a ~deterrrii'nafio.n that lit. is not the governing .body that
3 6 made thatdeterrninat'on, it_was the:applcant. Forbusinesses other than a'restaurant; th'e
3 ~ governing body had to make the determination:.
38
39 Council',MemberMaguirc did not recollect thatand~asked ifahat cameup afterthe hearing
40 in 1995.._; had it been a further development at the A.B.C.? .
.41 ,
. ,. .
42. Ms. Thomson clarified that itwas January in 1°995 that the Business-:and Professions Code
43 changed'; and `thaf it was in December 19.96~~that Council made the P:C.N. determination, It
44 had been made by -the Planning `Commissi`on 'but on appeal, because the. neighborhood
45 only appealed the P.C..N., nqt the'-use permit... That is •why it came before :Council..
46 ,~~
November 15, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 85
1 Mr. Barry Parkinson, attorney for the appellants, stated he was a member of the Petaluma
2 Downtown Association and had'participated in a discussion relative to the Central Specific
3 Plan and ways to k. a@p the downtown vibrant and healthy. Nighttime activities, such as
4 restaurants and theaters, would keep. the downtown area alive at night. He reviewed
5 statements by Mr. Offered made at the Planning Commission hearing. He suggested
6 Council lookat fhe list'of use permit conditions for the Baker Street Bar. He noted that the
~ hours of operation for the bar, the Alcoholic Beverage Establishmenf, the Commercial
8 Recreation and the Live Entertainment, permitted to go to 2:00 a.m: or on weekdays to
9 11:00 p.m., had created the problems. He had a conversation with Officer Fish when
1o meeting earlier with Jane Thomson, and he indicated the problems occurred between
11 midnight and 3:00 am. He requesfed the appeal be upheld with a condition that the hours
12 for loud/live .music be limited to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, and close of business
13' operations 6y midnight.
14 ,
i5 .Council :Member Torliatt wanted to know if the business owner or the property owner
16 generally applied for the use permit.
17 .
18 Ms. Thomsonreplied that typically it was the applicant with the approval of the property
19 owner. ~ .
20 _ - `
z1 ~ Council ,Member Torliatt; asked if there was a ..restriction fora .property owner to apply and
22 then allowing the tenant to operate a business.
23~
24 Ms.,Thomson replied no.
25
2 6 Council Member -Healy asked if there was any substantive difference between the two
2 ~ ~ different approaches he had heard the Council discussing, that is, one being a deny of the
2 8 .appeal and inviting; the applicants to come back with a specific proposal versus continuing
29 the hearing until :a ignore specific proposal came: "forward; did there exist a prejudice of
3 0. anyone's~substantive rights approaching it one way or the other.
31
32 Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification of whether Council Member Healy meant
3 3 tenant or owner.
34
3 5 -Council .Member Healy replied that in general, he meant both.
3~6
,_ _
3 7 Ms: Thomson thought the ability to have a more informed decision would be based on
3 8 having a continuance and be .provided more specific information about the ,operating
3 9 characteristics: She also heard Mr. Parkinson and Mr..Sclarelli indicate that they we"re
4o willing to look at conditions imposing a reduction in hours of operation tonight.
41
42 Council Member Healy stated he had not heard .enough specifically from the owners or
43 their counsel to make.him in favor of taking that action. He queried if the appeal should.: be
44 denied or the hearing continued.
45 .
46 Ms. Thomson replied that it was Council's decision. She clarified that Council could cake
Vol. 34, Page 86 November 15, 1.999
1 action. on ,the appeal which was specific to Baker.:Street Bar and Grill or take,action. based
2. on .the suggestions of the property owners that placing additional time restrictions would
3, eliminate.the problems:
4
5 .Council ,Member Healy had.. heard Vice Mayor Keller express his: intent to close the chapter
6 and start fresh.. He wondered if Council took that action:; would that prejudice anyone's
7 rights. -
8
9 Ms. Thomson clarified that if 'the. appeal was denied and the P._C.N. revoked,, the use
1o permit, and all its components should go away, it meant, under the zoning ordinance., it
11, was not possible to apply for one year after a revocation. for tte same types of use. : ~`"
12
13 Council Member Healy asked if that condition could be waived. .
14 - ~ ~ '
15 Ms. Thomson deferred his question to City Attorney Rich Rudnansky. Y '- _ ..
16
17 Council Member Maguire asked;. if that was the case,; the owners could also, apply°for a
18 liquor license through the A:B.G. and open. a restaurant underahe existing zoning.
19
2 0 Ms. Thomson .replied that he was correct. They could open a restaurant without a use.
21 permit, without P.G.N:. through tfe Cify but they couldn't include the components thaf were: .
22 in the prior use permit. ~ ~ ~ -
23
2 4 Council Member Hamilton asked for clarification if that was unless the Council took„action
2 5 and denied without prejudice. - ~ ~ -
26
2 ~ Ms. Thomson deferred to City Attorney .Rich Rudnansky for an answer}~
28
_ . ...
29' City Attorney Rich 'Rud'nansky replied that if the Council specifically indicated that tte " '
3 0 denial was witho"ut prejudice that would solve the one-year reapplication problem,, . '
31
3 2 Mayor Thompson asked'if the. reapplication problem could be avoided if Council continued .
33 the public hearing. ~~ -- : -
3 4 .. ,
,..
35 Mr. Rudnansky replied.that'would avoid th`e applicant having to go through he process
3 5' from step one..
37
3 8 Council, Member Healy, asked if it would."come back.#o the Council instead of the Planning
3 9 C.ommission:.
,4 0
41 Mayor Thompson asked Mr:. Rudnansky to'clarify should: the public hearing be continued
42 that the appellant would. come to the Counci_I with their plan,.
43 -
_ _.
44 Mr. Rudnansky clarified that if the item was continued that was correct. He added if the
45 Council deni'ed' the appeal and require the owners fo reapply, they would have to go
4 6 through. the usual steps.
November 15, 1999
Vol: 34, Page'87.
1
2 Council Member Hamilton asked Mayor Thompson to end the pufjlic hearing so ,Council
3 could continue their discussion
4'
Mayor Thompson asked.. Mr. Parkinson if he wanted to add any comments.
7 Mr. Parkinson expressed'it wo.uld'be the appellants preference to not start the process'all
8 over again. If council was not: in favor of approving the appeal -then they would prefer the
9 public hearing be continued fo provide: his clienfs with. adequate time to develop a plarrthe
1o satisfied the Council and. .the comi~nunity `for a successful business to operate on the
11 premises.
12
13 Mayor Thompson, called for Council discussion.
14
15 Council Member .Hamilton was in favor ofi denying the appeal and having the property
16 owners begin. anew. She .expressed. the. ,importance. of the owners specify what they
17 wanted to do, whaf the Council wanted, and 'have them go -:back through the Planning
1.8 Commission. She wanted to address the appeal as presented and deny it.
19
2 0 Council. Member Tbrliatt. wanted to know the cost factor associated with beginning the
21 process again. She. wanted to see if the representative from the restaurant should be ..
t:
22 making the application as opposed to the owners of the building.
23 -
24 Vice Mayor.Keller expressed h_is concern that the C.U.P. ran with the ownership_.of'the
25 land,. control of the site~and use of the C.IJ.P waS the re-sponsibility of the property.owner..
2 6 As a conse,q"uence of that, the :owners were responsible compliance. The cost of. doing
2 7 business properly had been passed on to the Gity, the neighbors, other businesses' with
2 8 broken windows and vandalism. He did know if :thee City had been reimbursed fo_r' any ofi
29 the. Police calls. Ne did not know if there was;a.policy-for reimbursement for excessive
3 o police calls. He asked City Management if the`owners had been billed.
31 ~, -
32 City Manager Fred Stouder did not know ifthe City had a policy to be reimbursed for police
3 3 Calls. ~ _.
34
35 Vice Mayor Keller requested City Management for an accounting. and~~asked that`the
3 6 owners be billed for the excessive Police: calls. He reminded that the owners were the
37 permit holders,, not. Baker Street.. Due to what he considered ir.responsible,-actions of the
3 8 owners, as permit, holders, he was in favor ofi denying the appeal and having .property
3 9 owners begin.. anew'with the Planning Go.mrriission and get. it right the. next time. He saw
• 40 no further need for a continued discussion and continue to try to negotiate some~:future
4.1 activity on_the site. He hoped the restaurant owner would be able to relocate. in Peta-lama;
42 there was bad history that needed to be cleaned up arid.: responsibility taken. He did not
43 think that would happen if the item was continued to renegotiate terms.
44
45 Council .Member Healy asked Ms'. Thomson how much it would cost for the applicants to
46 begin the process anew. .
Vol., 34~ Page 88 ~ Nove_ tuber 15, 1999
1 •
2 Ms.,~Thomson ;replied upwards of thirteen hundred. dollars ($1.,300) for the C_U.P.,
3 ~envirobm'enfal'review;. and deposit for the public notice.
4 _.
5 Council Member:Healy asked for clarification of "upwards."
6
7 Ms. Thomson clarified six hundred forty .dollars ,($64,0), for the use permit, :four, hundred
8 thirty-five or four hundred. fifty-five dollars .(.$435. - $455). 'for. the initial. study; the
9 environmental review,., and one hundred.:fifty dollars ($150) for the public. notice and
10 deposit. The public. notice fees were deemed a 'depost' in the event it cost, more, the
11 applicant was.billed :for the. additional amounf necessary to notice the public and advertise.
12
13 Council.. Member Healy asked Ms. Tho,mson'if ,Cquncil decided that the owners~begin the
14 process` anew if~the entire, matter could it be settled of-the Planning Commission IeVe.l,
15
15 Ms. Thomson replied:fhat City Management would be taken to the Planning Commission
1`7 but'if not resolved at the level it would come back to Council.:
18
19 Council Member Healy clarified,that if the owners did what they proposed and developed a
2 0 plan that worked for everybody, it would get resolved atthe Planning Commission, level and
21 not come back to Council.
22
23 Council Member Maguire-was not opposed to continuingthe_item, or rejecting the appeal
2~4:.If. they could accomplish what was necessary that;is; greater safeguards, resolution with
2 5 "_.the neighbors. and ott5er. businesses, then he' did hot care if fh:e item .w,as continued or if
2'6. Council was in:favor of`reje-cting the~appeal. He supported the use ri'itiallywith interest:ard
27 enthusiasm because he was in favor o#ahriving busness',in fhe downtown `area. Nighttime
2 8 ` activities'were good for the downtown and there were benefits 'if done properly.
29
30 Mayor Thompson-.was in favor of eonti_nuing the item. He thought th:e end result'would'be
31 improved'. The project would come back to Council 'and it would be finalized.
3 2 . ~.
33 Council Member Torliatt was not sure what the difference -wasbetween the owners:
3 4 beginning again or making some concessions. She. thought fh'e. end result would be the
3 5 same:: ~ •
36 . - .
3 7 Vice Mayor: Keller contended Ghat restaurants did nqt; these kinds of restrictions :becau"se
_; ~,-
3 8 this was not usually'a behauorproblemfrotu restaurants:. The City had many restaurants
39 that,didn't have C.U,P.'s who have no problems. .It did not_ see that as an advantage fo
4 0 have~'that kind of control. ~ •
41 .-..,
_.
42 Council Member Torliatt clarified that; it was,not going to be the same use; it was fhe same
43 place. .
44.
45 Vice„Mayor Keller understood.
46
November 15, 1999
Vol. 34, Page~89
1 Mayor Thompson asked for a motion.
2
3 Motion: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire to continue 'the
4 public hearing.
-- 5
6 Mayor Thompson clarified the motion was item "d" listed in the alternatives:
7
8 "Contihue the public hearing to a future date when the owners of the Hotel Petaluma LLC,
- _ g Jon Jernigan and Jim Maes"tretti return with a new proposal (new tenant and business plan)
1o for Council consideration."
11
12 Vice Mayor Keller asked if the item had to come back to the Council.
13
14 Mayor Thompson noted that there was a motion duly seconded on the floor.
15
16 Council Member Maguire thought it-best to have the item come back to the Council. The
17 Council made: the decision for the original use permits; theywere the ones that expressed
18 immediate concerns.
19
2 o Council Member Hamilton would supporf the motion if reimbursement for the Police calls
21 were included.
22
2 3 Mayor Thompson was not sure if there was a policy that covered reimbursement for Police
2 4 calls.
25
2 6 Council Member ..Maguire: clarified that there was a policy that established that more than
27 three calls a week, or a month, triggered reimbursement.
28
29 Mr. Stouder responded that-the Council had adopted policy several years earlier.. He did
- 3 0 not know if this situation met the conditions of that policy and had they been invoiced. If
31 there was a .policy., it was. enforced. I-ie had checked' with Police Chief Pat Parks on this
3 2 issue a couple of months earlier when it had come up. Chief Parks had provided the most
3 3 recent .information 'but he could not recall what'it was.
34
3!5 Vice Mayor Keller noted that if the incidents at this location did not meet.the standards of
3 6 that reimbursement it was time to re-write the policy.
3.7
38 Council Member Maguire asked that. the item be continued and. requested City
3 9 Management to come :back with specific points; that is, did it 'meet the criteria, had the
4 0 owners been invoiced, how much money it was, and at thattme Council could determine if
41 they wanted it a condition of approval.
42
43 Officer Fish noted there was a.poliey. The Police Department had a Generaf Order that
44 allowed them to bill for disturbance calls for public businesses. At the time the incidences
45 had occurred of Baker Street, the policy was not being widely implemented asit was in the
' 4 6 process of being revamped. Currently, there was a policy but it had not been enforced., as
Vol. 34, Page 90 November 1:5,.1999
1 theneed had not arisen. The policy was in place and itallowed for Police and Fire to bll.if
2 required to respond.an inordinate number of times.,. that is, snore than three times withih six
3 months. There;were certain restrictions; ,certain types of calls triggered that policy.
4
5 Council Member Hamilton questioned why, if there was a policy, it was not enforced.
6
7 Officer Fish responded that. it had. not been. reissued when the policy was revamped to
8 include the three calls, within asx-month. period. There were admin_istrafive issues such.
9 as, it had not been. s"igned; reissued, and .used because there. were billing issues: and
1o responsibility `issues within the department for the billings. That was not the ease now'.:
11
12 Council Member Hamilton, recollected. thatthe City had billed Holidays a #ew;years,ago.
Council .Member Maguire stated that would. indicate the since the policy was revamped/
revised. that the prior policy was still `in effect.
Mayor Thompson .agreed:
19 Council Member Torliatt clarified'that the business at that location was closed; there were
20 no more-Police calls at thaf location:. The,Council was in'the process of was working on
21 the use. permits to address~the nuisance. issues in the community.
22
2 3 Vice Mayor Keller asked if the public hearing was: continued, what restrictions were there:
24 for the use of the property.
25
2 5 Council Member Torliatt:responded~that he Planning Commission had de .Hied the appeal,
27
28 Mr. Rudnarisky .asked: for confirmation from the appellant that based on tlie. Couneil!s
2 9 conversation they were still agreeable to requesting a continuance.
30
31 Mr. Jernigan asked how long that would #ake.
32
3:3 Mayor Thompson replied that:. it ,was ,until: there was a~ proposal.:; `that what; had. been
34 presented wa_s. not adequately conceived.
35
3 6 Vice'Mayor Keller clarified.. to-the:.appellant that he wanted to see a proposal in writing, that
3 7 is what was going on, what kind of activities were proposed.
38
3.9 C'ouncif Member Maguire added discussions with the neighborhood.:
40
41 Mayor Thom. pson agreed aril added that the Council ;could deny it.
42
43 Council Member Hamilton nofed:that the appellants' response was a basis for the Council
44 to deny the ap""peal. and_ hate them. begin` all over..- The appellant would not.come`through
45 with a solid plan uritil they, came through,arid had to apply for a C..U.P.
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
November 15, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 91
Vice Mayor Keller agreed.
Council Member Maguire understood that the applicant would bring that back.
Mr. Parkinson. expressed his clients' concern that they did not want to come back in a week
with a plan and find they had to wait ninety days for a hearing.
Mayor Thompson asked that the appellants come back with a plan that satisfied all known
requirements; they still had a denial from the Planning Commission
Council Member Maguire reminded the Mayor that it would not come back to Council
before January 2000.
Mr. Parkinson indicated that his clients' concern was that it would come back. at ari
unknown date'in the future and if they had a tenant that was ready to go they might not be
able to so even if they had specific plans and had met all requirements.
Council Member Maguire and Mayor Thompson indicated that were the case, the Council
would prioritize it on an agenda.
Vice Mayor Keller did not agree. Sufficient time was required to have neighborhood ~~
discussions; it would involve a lot of history and getting the conditions sorted out and
ironclad.
Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that Baker Street was not at all like the Elks Club
and what the owners were proposing at this time. She thought there was a lot for the
Council to discuss and for the owners to bring back as a proposal.
Council Member Torliatt stated that the plans should include the tenant, as that would have
bearing on the Council's decision.
Council Member Healy agreed with Council Members Torliatt and Cader-Thompson's
comments. He thought the bulk of the time constraint would be spent developing~a more.
formulated business plan, addressing constraints the operator could live with figured out
more formally,'and meeting extensively with all concerned parties. By the time the owners
went Through the process and had something that people could agree to, it would,not take
a whole lot of the Council's time.
Mr. Parkinson asked for clarification of the Council's procedures when an item was
continued.
Mr. Rudnansky replied that the letter received from the appellant requested aninety-day
continuance of the matter. He asked Mr. Parkinson if that was still their request.
Mr. Parkinson .replied yes.
Vol. 34, Page 92 November 15, 1999
1 Council Member Maguire asked City Management to look at the. Council agenda calendar
2 to see if ninety-days was acceptable due to the heavy workload the Council was
3 undertaking.:
4
5 Vice Mayor Keller thought;it best, due°to the workload of the Council, for t_he matter to goto
6 the Planning Commission first; let that process continue to weed. out the issues,.. focus the
~ issues, and come back'to Council with a final proposal.
8
9 Council Member Hamilton stated the matter had. all ready been to the Planning
10 Commission and Council could not ask them. to rehear it.
11
12 Vice Mayor Keller stated,. if that was. the case., he was in favor of a denial; .the matter
13 should go back to the Planning Commission and not come back to Council.
14.
1.5 Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed with Council Member Torliatt comments that the
16 ~ tenant was an integral part of the: use permit approval process.
17
1 s Mayor Thompson:agre'ed and asked the City Attorney if the.Council needed to vote on one
19 of the recommendations, that is 'a,' 'be,' 'c;' or 'd, ' as set forth in the Agenda Summary
2 o accompanying the item.
21_ ,.
22 Mr. Rudnansky replied in the affirmative. He added that the. Council could vote for a
23 continuance.
24
25 Mayor.~Thompson clarified that was item 'd.'
26
27 Mr. Rudnansky said yes..
28
29 Ms. Thomson noted that the P.C.N. determination had to eome~back to the Council for a
3 0 decision because it was the Council that made the initial determination and therefore the
31 only governing body that could overturn it.
32
33-Council Member Maguire. asked for clarification from Ms. Thomson that if the Council
34 .denied;the,appeal and the owners apply to the A.B.C., was it necessary to go through a
3 5 P.C.'N. process.
36
3 ~ Ms. Thomson replied that the reason she made the comment was based on what she was
38 hearing from the Council about decisions that could be made afthe Planning Commission
3 9 level. .
40
41 Council Member Maguire asked if what she said wou'Id apply if (here was a decision to
42 have a continuance.
43
44 Ms. Thomson .replied in the affirmative. She :clarified that it could not be continued and
45 then referred, at some point,, to the Planning Commission for resolution. Council may be
46 able to accomplish that review with the use permif but it could riot happen with the P.C.N.
November 15, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 93
1 component..~~.
2
3 Council Member Maguire asked that if the Council denied the appeal, then that resolved
'4 the P.C.N. question, that it would not come back to the Council.
5
6 Ms. Thomson replied that he was correct. If the~Council denied the appeal, it would uphold
7 the Planning Commission's revocation and simultaneously make the determination to
8 overturn the P.C.N. Any subsequent application would. start from the beginning, go through
9 the Planning Commission, and the Council would only hear it on an appeal.
10
11 Council Member Maguire added the A.B.C.
12
13 Ms. Thomson said no, the P.C.N. for a restaurant would be made by the applicant by going
14 to the A.B.C.
15
16 Mayor Thompson announced there was a motion and duly seconded on the floor.
17
18 Mr. Rudnansky clarified that the motion was for aninety-day continuance at the request of
19 the appellant.
20
21 Mayor Thornpson~stated he was correct.
22
Y
23 Mr. Stouder announced the date would be the twenty-fourth of January 2000 and that it
24 would be a Special Meeting. .
25 ,.
2 6 Council Merriber Hamilton asked Mr. Stouder about the schedule for the Corona Specific
2 7 Plan.
28 ,
29 Mr. Stouder replied that Council had'not scheduled a meeting yet for the Corona Specific
30 Plan.. As a result of the following Monday evening meeting, Council would probably do
31 that.
32
3 3 Council' Member Healy ~stafed that ninety-days fience would bring them to February.
34
35 Mr. Stouder offered February 28.
36
3 7 Mr. Rudnansky, asked the appellants if that was acceptable.
38
39 Mr. Parkinson replied in the affirmative:
40
41 Mayor Thompson called for the vote.
42
43 Motion passed: ". 5/2/0 {Hamilton and Keller voting "No")
44
45 The item was continued to February 28, 2000.
46
Vol. 34, Page 94
November 15, 1999
1 9. Public Hearing on Proposal to Increase Wastewater Rates and Fees..; It is Proposed
2 That Residential Wastewater User Rates Increase From $1.5.75/Month to
3 $20.75/Month in January 2000; to $25.75/Month in January 20.01; and to
4 $3.0.75/Month in Ja_'nuary 20.02. Increases in Commercial.and Industrial User Rates
5 and Connection Fees are Also Proposed. The Increases Are Necessary to Support
6 Construction, of Improvements to The 1astewater System, .Including .Development
7 of the New Wastewater Treatment~Facility.
8
9 Mr. Stouder .introduced Brown and Caldwell as the, consultant working with the City and
10 suggested due to the lateness i'n hour to take public testimony this evening and. arrange to
11 have the consultant make their presentation when the item was~scheduled to return.
12
13 Council Member`Torliatt, Healy, and Vice:Mayor Keller asked to.hear, public.testimony and
14 agreed that at the next hearing the item be scheduled first on the evening agenda.
15
16 Council Member Hamilton excused herself from the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
17
18 Public Comments
19
2 0 Victor Chechanover 230:1 Marylyn Circle- wanted, to defer comment until after he had the
21 opportunity hear the analysis.
22 ' ~ '
2 3 Toni Poague 105:1 Daniel Drive wanted to know what happened to the money from all ;the
24 new homes and subdivisions: As a senior,. she lived on a fixed income acid asked if she
25 had to paythe same amount as the home upthe treet witf%3-1/2 baths and few children.
2 6' She asked what happened to the moratorium.
27
2 8 Vice Mayor Keller replied that hopefully the answer would be no; right- now, she did.
29
,. , ~ .
3 0 Ms. Poague was concerned about seniors living, on .a fixed income. T_ he figures were
31 frightening.
32
33 MayorThompson thanked her and advised thather concerns would be addressed at.the
34 next two public hearings on this subject.
35
3 6 Council Member Maguire added. that Council would .explore special rates for people living
3 7 on fixed incomes. - .
38
39 Dan LaBarro 1319 "I" Street had a number concerns he wanted to address ;and asked
40 when the next public hearings would take place so he could speak to those issues of that
41 time.
42
43 Mayor Thompson replied the meetings were scheduled for November 29: and December 6.
44
45 Mr. LaBarro noted thatthis was a huge issue, one of approximately $.50,to.$60 million; the
46 people needed the time to discuss it.
November 5:5, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 95
1
2 Vasco Brazil 4551 Lakeville deferred his comments to a later date.
3 ..
4 Geoff Cartwrigh 56, Rocca: Drive., questioned information`about-connection.
5 ~.
6 Council Member Ca'der=Thompson commented that the C_ouncilshould have done some
~ agenda management so `that members of the commwn'ity did not have to stay so late. to
8 voice their opinions.
n
,..
10 Council Member Healy concurred with Council-Member~Cader-Thompson's points. He
11 asked whether the consultant was going to do.a presentation then: ~•
12 •
13 Council agreed that the consultant would make their presentation "at'the next publichearing
14 on the subject. ~ -~ -
15
16 Council Member Healyhad looked at some of the slide~presentation included in the packet.
17 His focus was how quickly the City could.. moue to use-based. rates for residential. He
18 thought the City could do better Phan- a•, three year fixed rate solution that was
1.9 recommended.. He would continue push fora.-mechanism that would. enable the City to do
2 0 better; he understood that it was more complicafed than people may think. He thought that
21 was where the City needed to be to encourage conservation to give people better pricing,
2 2 that is be fair to Seniors and fair to singles. Water was a precious resource and added that
23 he thought it tied in nicely with the toilet retrofit program. He offered to work with City
24 Management and the consultants towards solutions.
25
2 6 Mr. Stouder replied that City Management could not guarantee that the City could meet a
27 use-based system in less than two years.. It would be. discussed at'the next meeting.
28
29 Council Member Torliatt queried if it was possible for the. Council to change the rate at any
3 0 time.
31
32 Vice Mayor Keller noted That he had received a proposal from The Natural Step. (TNS);
33 they were aware of. grant funds from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in the
34 approximate amount of'$15O,bOO that may be available #or the General Plan. TNS would
35 work on a grant application should the City want. The .deadline--'was' Nouember22 and
3 6 offered to .meet and. discuss further with City Management. in the interi"m to see if it was
3 ~ feasible.
38
3 9 This item was continued to November 29, 1999 and December 6, 1999.
40
41 •
42
43
44
45 •
46 `
Vol. 34, Page. 9.6 November'15, 1999
1 ADJOURfV
2
3 The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
4 ,. -
.. -t. ~.
5
6 ~ _.
7 ~ - ~ . -,_ ~ E. Clark Thompson:, Mayor
8 - _ .
9 ~.
10 ATTEST: ~ .
11 ~ ..
2
Beverly J. Kline, City"C' k _
1: ~ .' ,
15
17
.r,-
18
19 ~ .
2 0 . t.=
21 ******
22
23
24
~2~5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Y