HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/18/1999
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
October'18, 1999
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
City Council Meeting.
s
,5 'F
Vol. 34, Page 1
Monday, October 1:8,,1;999.
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 3:00 p.rn. in the Council Chambers.
Roll Call • " '
Present: Cadet-Thompson,. Healy, Hamil#on;~ Ke11er, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
Absent: None
Public Comments - - -- -
Geoff Cartwright, 58 Rocca Drive, reviewed theCity;'s#lood,plain maps acid spoke against
building in the floodplain areas.
Bryant Moynihan, 102 .Dawn Place, spoke .about 'the preservation of, historic Pefaliama
buildings.and encouraged the Redevelopment Ageneyto pursu"e:funding of a program,that
reimburses. citizens who retrofit-. ~unreirforced masonry = buildmgs~. at two dollars
(.$2.00)/square foot. He was. concerned that buildings might,be demolished because
owners were unaware of 'the program, or funding was not. made available.
Council. Member Torliatt noted. that the Planning`.Department had prepared a list of
properties that had submitted retrofit applications:. " ~ ~ .- ", ,
Mr. Moynihan asked thatthe list include all buildingspn Petaluma,that regtaired retrofifting,
the square footage, identification of those completed, and properties that, had; been
reimbursed.
- : ~,- -
Council Member Healy stressed his desire that: the program be funded again of#er
resolution of the current cash crunch the Rede~eloprnent"Agency faced.
:~«~
Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty stated the information was compiled, updated, and
that individuals applying for reimbursernent~ had been advised that their reimbursements
would be somewhat de ayed but would. be forthcoming. He explained that it was G_ity
Management and the Redevelopment Agency's intent to resume funding'the program~after
bonds were issued.
Council Comments
Council Member Torliatt received a phone call from a citizen concerned with red-light
running and speeding on Bodega Avenue at North Webster and requested City
Vol. 33, :Page 2 October 18, 1999
Management locate. the: "speed trailer" on Bodega Avenue and/or station an officer on
Bodega Avenue to remind. the public to reduce speeds and to stop for red lights.
4 Vice Mayor,Keller liad:received from the Sonoma County Transportation Authority(SCTA)
5 a final draft of a report .about transportation funding, revenue ,and returns to Sonoma
6 County, that indicated three hundred ninety million,dollars ($390;000,000) had been paid_in
~ gas, sales tax and, transportation-related sales:::°tax to the State; during the last five (5) years.
8 About two hundred`fifty million dollars .($250;,000:,.000) or sixty-four percenf. (64%) .of that
9 has come back'fo the County. Ne added'thaf a report wou'Id be published.in full by SCTA
0 shortly.
1
2 Council MemberGader-Thompson had, received a letterfrorn a constituent thatsuggeste:d
3 the .Police Department and Argus Courier include :a reminder about garage sale sign
4 removal`in the garage Gale kits the A'rgus provided #or individuals placing ads..
5
6 Council Member Maguire aftended the:Open Space District's AcquisitionPlan meeting in
Sonoma. There was Suggestion that recipients of funds ,consider including `trails `in lands
8 being set aside fior :ope.n space. The.Qpen Space. District was mapping the biological
9 resources throughout the County for habitat, rare and :endangered species; tree coves,,
0 recreation, for example.,, to help.. rank. the desirability of the properties they were
1 considering. He>reiterated that.South-Sonoma;County was significantly behind in -per capita,
2 open space and`easeme`nt share of the District's benefits. ~-
~_ . _ .
3 ~ .. .
4 Vice MayorKeller,rnade~aformal•:r,.equestthafCity:Management'invite'the:representati~es
5 of the Open Space'pistrict-toattend Council meetings and provide regular reports to this
5 Council: ~ ~ -
~ - ,
8 Council Member Cader-Thompson noted the representatives of'the Open Space District
9 were Chris Maloney and Jennifer Voigt.•'
o ~-
1 Counci(Member Maguire reportedsignficant:progress in the Old Easfside Neighborhood
2 on the new sidewalks arieLadded that th:earee, planting°would take~place on East "D" Street:
3 ~'
4 Council Member Hamilton:requested and Council concurred to move liaison reporfs to the
5 beginning of the afternoon'rneeting.~ . - .'~
6 ~~
~ Council and City Management Liaison Reports
8
9 Council Member Hamilton reported on the aefivities of'the~Airport Commission and invited.,
0 Council to take a flight above- Petaluma indicating it was a good way to "get above any
1 issue" and ee how land.,use was handled..She encouraged the Council'to contact any `of
2 the Airport Commissioners or her if `interested.
3
4 Mayor Thompson. noted the: spouts complex was a big concern to the Airport Commission.
5
October 18; 1999 Vol. 34, Page 3
1 Council :Member Hamilton .agreed, and stated That the Airport Commission wanted more
2 information about'the Complex.
3
4 Council Member Caller-Tho"mpson requested a list. of all' Airport Commission members.
5
6 Agenda Changes,. Additions, and Deletions
7
8 None
9
10 Minutes
11 July 6; July 15; July 19
12
13 MOT10N: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded, by Maguire, to approve the
14 Council Meeting Minutes of July 6; 15, and 19, as amended.
15
16 MOTION PASSED.: 7/0/0
17
18 Consent Calendar
19
2 o MOTION: Items 2 and 3A were, approved by one motion made by Council Member
21 Hamilton, seconded, by Caller-Thompson.
22
2 3 2. Reconfirmation. of City's Position an,d Support of the County Board of Supervisors'
24 Opposition to Development of 321 Acres on Lakeville Highway near Highway 37.
25
26 3A. Resolution. 99-203 N.C.S. of Official Intent to Reimburse Certain Capital
2'7 Expenditures Relating to the Payran :Reach Project and Redevelopment Projects
28 From Proceeds of Indebtedness.
29
3 0MOTION PASSED: 7/0/0 .
31
3 2 1. Resolution Establishing a Youth Commission and: a Teen Council to Represent the
33 Needs of the Youth ofi Petaluma.
34 .
35 Council Member Torliatt stated she would not. support the item unless the resolution
3"6 included a provision that it come back to Council in six months time for'review.
3 '7
3 s Council Member ,Maguire thought that twelve months was a more realistic time #`rarne
3 9 because of workthat would have to be done to form the Commission, such as fhe creation
40 . of a Mission Statement and Goals, to be ready to come back to Council for review,
41 modification,... and final approval.
42
43 Council Member Hamilton asked who would appoint,the Commission..
44
45 Mr. Carr referred to the staff .report and stated that a subcommittee of two representatives
46 from the City Council, two representatives from the School Board, and two representatives
Vol. 33, Page 4 October fi8~ 1.999
1 from the Health Care District review, would conduct interviews, and .make a
2 recommendation to the.. City Council_ regardi"ng appontees to the Youth Commission. For
3 the. Teen Council,, one :or two representatives would. be' chosen from every high school and
,4 junior high or middle school.,. including .the alternative. schools.:. These individuals would
5 sub;rnit applications to the City Council for selection and appointment.
Council Member Hamilton thought ethnic and cultural .diversity were: important factors ;to
keep in mind when selecting individuals for the'Teen Council. She also stated.°that sh:e
would like individuals who submit applications. for the Youth Commission to':nclude on the
:application their reasons for applying, what they hope to contribute to the Commission, and.
their experience. working with youth.
3` MOTLO.N Council, Member Maguire. moved; seconded' by Healy, to adopt the
4 Resolution 99-204 NC..S. withamended language to include the itern~should
-5. come back to the Council in twelve months.
6
7 MOTION 'PASSED: 6/1:/0 (Torliaft voting 'No')
9 2. Resolution Confirming Determination Not To Form Project Area Committee
0 Regarding Petaluma Community Development (PCD) Plan Amendment. (Beatty)
1
2 MOTION: Council Member Ma.guire:'moved, seconded ;by Keller to adopt ,Resolution
3 99-205 N.C.S. Confirming Determination Not To Form Project Area
4 _ Committee Regarding Petaluma Community Development (PCD) Plan
5 ~ Amendment.
MOT1ON PASSED; '7/0/b
Unfinished Business
1 4. Status Reporton Budget l'nformation for Agreement with the=Sonoma County Water
2 Agency (SCWA) for Funding Portion. of the Construction Costs of the Army'Corps of '
3 Engineers: IJ-Shaped and .Trapezoidal Channels. SCWAfunding is One.Mllion Five
4 Hundred Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($1,5`18:;000)' for U-Shaped and Three Million„ .
5 Dollars ($3,00:0,;000;) for Trapezoidal Channels, Project_ 9724 (Continued from
6 October 4 Council meeting).
8 Vice Mayor Keller asked if Council. would receive a detailed explanation. of the budget for
9- this project.
0
'1 Mr: Stouder replied yes.
2`
3 Vice Mayor I<eller.asked "if owners of properties removed from the 1.00-Year~Floodp;lain
4 during the flood. p"roject area would still be required to purchase 'filood' insurance. He
5 thought that this was a FEMA (Fe:deral Emergency Management Agency) decision, _
6
'F _
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
3'7
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
October 18, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 5
Council Member .Maguire thought the ..decision was made by the lending institution
providing financing for the individual properties,;. although they would rely on FEMA.
Vice Mayor.Keller wanted theCorps of. Engineers to provide answers to the following
questions:
a. What will the newA1:Q.0-year flood level be above the weir?
b. .Had a~ spillway been designed :for runoff in .anticipation of the water rising
.,
above, the new 1400 ,year level,. and if so, where would it be located?
_: , i. ~ ~
No Action Takeri ~ - '
5. Status Repoit Regarding Revenue Sharing Proposal From Lok Petaluma Marina
Wotel Company:"~ '
.. ..
City Manager Fred+Stouder provided a verbal status report regarding the proposal. A
consultant was selected; Keyser; Marsten and, Associates, to do a financial analysis and
develop a strategy on~the .City's_behalf. ;Several' meetings had taken place with Mr. Tim
Kelly,. Keyser,. Marsten. and Associates, and thee. Lok' Group.... The o6jeetive was to ,proceed
with construction of'ahe .hotel, if feasible, during the next oalendar year.
Council Member Torliatt questioned .the wisdom of proceeding with funding on the project
without a written agreemont.
Mr. Stouder stated that Mr. Lok was committed. to reirribursing the project, and that the
draft contract was under review by City Attorney Rich Rudnansky. Mr. Stouder asked for
reconfirmation from Council that their direction. was for the project to proceed as quickly as
possible.
Council MemberTorliatt asked why the Lok Group was notfinancing'the project direcfly.
Mr. Stouder replied.that the economic consultant worked for;the City, not for Mr.. Lok.~The
goal wasfor tho City-fo get appropriate, independent financial.counsel on this, as well.as to
structure an appropriate sfrategy, should, the Council decide to proceed. with the project.,
The economc,analysistyas to determine if the project was justified for public participation.,
If so, Council would. make a policy determination, -and structure 'the sharing, arrangement
with ;the Lok Group.
Council Member Torliattstated that although she was confident that the Lok Group,would
reimburse the City'for thes`e~expenses, she was'uncornfortable with. proceeding wifhout;a
signed contract. .
Mr. Stouder replied that a::~contract-should be in place within the next couple of weeks. He
thought it was important-to proceed quickly with, the project witfioat unduly impacting staff's
and Councils' workloads:
No Action Taken.
V.ol. 33, Page 6 October 18, 1.999 _
iVew Business . ~ ~ ~ ~~
6. Resolution Approving the Final, ,Map for the. Bantam 'Terrace ;Subdivson. The.
Project 1N'ould .Create Seven Single-Family Residential Lots As 1lUell As. A New
Public St=reet ;Designated Hilligoss ~Co:urt~.. The P"rojeet Is Located On A Ridge Top
Between .Benson Estates Subdivision and the. Petaluma Junior High, School..
Construction 'for the Project Is Sch'e"doled. To Commence April 15, 2000 1Nith An
Unknown Completion Date. No Grading UVill Be Allowed To Oecur~B'etween' October
15 and April 15. Vehicular Access To Tlie Subdivision I_s~Via Bantam Way With
Emergency Access n Favor Of'The Junior High SchoolY.Available,Near the Cul de
Sac And. Lot 7. The Estimated Cost Of Public lmprouements F:or The Subdivision Is
Two Hu"nd_red Fifty-two Thousand Two Hundred Fifteen'd,olla`rs ($252,215).
Council Member Torliatt. asked about the public access easement°;to which Council had
agreed.. ~ ~ .._ .
.,
Associate Civil Engineer Craig Spaulding replied.#hat the easement was shown on the f final
map., which was not, part of the Council packet.
Council Member Torliatt also ask. ed -about he maintenance agreement with the. School
District for ditch dredging and debris removal,.
Mr. Spaulding stated he would' follow up on the agreement.
MOTLQN: Council M.e,mber Torliatt moped, seconded by Hamilton to passe the
Resolution Approving the Final Map. for the :Bantam Terrace 'Subdivision.
MOTION PASSED: 7/Q/0
Vice Mayor I<elle.r.~noted that:the ;Saturday construction hours were stated as beginning at
8:00 a.m. He thought that had been changed'. to 9:00. a:m. in residential areas:
Mr. 'Spaulding replied:.#hat the start time for construction was- 8:00 a.rn. as stated. in the.
conditions of the agreement.
Vice Mayor I<ellex thought neighborhood residents should be notified of thatfiact: He added'
that he had noticed -at construction sites in other cifies,, the name, of a neighborhood.
complianee.contactperson for hours of operation;,-and_coriditiors"of construction #hat°was
posted at the site with a phone number arid: address:.
Mr. Spaulding replied thaf th'e Cityholds:.a pre=consfruction.rneeting with all contractors and
developers.. to go over these matters, and posts a,-sign, at the site :with phone numbers
residents can call 24 hours a day; should they have:~concerns ~ ~:
October 18, 1'999. Vol. 34, Page 7
1 Vice Mayor- Keller asked. about water quality management requirements for runoff at the
2 site..
3
4 Mr. Spaulding replied that the.Engineering Department fulfilled that requirement by having
5 an Erosion Control Plan in place. The Plan would be reviewed with the contractors and
6 developers.
7
8 Vice Mayor Kellerwondered ifithere was:a program in place to cover filtration of oilsoff the
9 street from run off to storm drains once the project was complete..
10
11 Mr. Spaulding did not think that was part of the conditions of approval on the project.
12
13 Vice Mayor Keller said:he would review the project agreerment on this issue; he added that
_ 14 he felt the. goal of reducing,-pollution in the: Petaluma River would not succeed unless.some
. 15 kind of filtration process was`implemented wherever possible.
16
17 Mr. Spaulding replied that he would discuss the matter with the developer.
18
19 Vice Mayor Keller expressed that the matter needed to; be addressed as part of the
2 o conditions for approval for all new subdivisions.
21
22 Council Member Healy stated he was disappointed Ghat the timing of. the project was
23 •disrupted so that the storm drain improvements did .not get completed during the
2 4 construction season. He added that. he thought the ditches.. needed to be cleaned out
2 5 before the winter, and hoped the School District would make that happen.
26
27 Council Member ,Healy suggested that City Management send a letter to the
2 8 Superintendent stating that dredging and removal of~debris from the- ditch was part of the
2 9 ~ _ conditions of"approval for the project; that residents complained last, winter because. the
30 ditch was not cleaned out and-water backed, up onto "their"properties; and that to avoid a
31 similar situation this year, the ditch needed to be cleaned out as soon as possible.
32
. 33 Mr. Spaulding°agreed.
34
35 Public Comment
36 None
37
38 Council adjourned to Closed Session for discussion and possible action, on the following
3 9 items as announced by City Attorney Richard Rudnansky:
40
41 Closed Session
42
43 CONFERENCE 1NITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION; Government Code
44 Section_54956.9,(a), Aigner et al vs. City of Petaluma et al, Sonoma County Superior
45 Court Case Number 220938.
46
Vol: 33; .Page 8 October 18, 1999
1 CONFERENCE W1TH LEGAL CO:U.NS.EI_, AN. TICIFATED LITIGATION, SIGNIFICANT
2 EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 5495.6.9`(b) (2)
::3. Matters.
4
'5 Adjourn
6 Aram's for Council dinner
8 Reconvene
9 The Petaluma City Council reconvened on this date~n the Council Channbens at 7::05 p.m.
0
1 Pledge of Allegiance,
:2 At the request. of Mayor Thompson,. Vince Landoff led fhe Pledge of, Allegiance.
3
4 Roll Call
5 Present: Cader=Thompson, Healy, 'Hamilton, Keller, Maguire, Thompson;, Torliatf
6
Absent: None
8 >: ..
9 Moment of Silence
0 At the request of Mayor Thompson,. a Moment of Silence was. observed. , .
1 -
2 Results of `Closed Session
3' Mayor; Thompson announced that no reportable action was ,taken on Closed S- ession
4 items.
5
6 Public Comment
7
8 Vince Landoff, 1,2 Cordelia Drive, .spoke regarding. the progress. of the flood project and .
9 commended both Frontier C_.onstruction Company and the U.S::Army Corps of Engineers
0 for their hard work: He, also commented on the tinning :and. funding for the railroad trestle`
1 replacement: project. He asked what the City's plans were regar.,ding the. two trestles.
2
3 Mayor Thompson replied that. he believed Council had received a memo regarding the
4 trestles..
5
6 City Manager Fred Stouder confirmed and stated that: Mr. Hargis had written a report on.
~ the subject: He added'that the City did intend the trestle project to be cornpleted.,by the end
8 of the .next construction season. He offered to meet with Mr. Landoff and Mr.. Hargis to
9 discuss the rnafterfurther.
0
T Richard Brawn, 141 Grevillia, spoke against the, use of stop signs to reduce,spe'eding, He
2 used Sunnyslope as an example, noting that motorists. are not stopping at the two;riew slop
3 signs.
4
5 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked that the item be brought to the Traffic
6 Committee.
October 18, 1999
Vol. 34, Page ,9
1 ..
2 Mayor Thompson. wanted to have the item.come back to the City Council and asked City
3 Management to I`ook `into the issues: ~ ~"
4
5 Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca .Drive, spoke. against development in the floodplain.
6
7 Terrence Garvey, 83 Maria .Drive, spoke against Domestic Partner legislation.
8
9 Council Member Maguire stated that Mr: Garvey's comments were an insult to the gay
10 community; :and added that he thought equating Petafuma's Domestic Partnership
11 legislation to omething that encouraged AIDS was ludicrous.. He suggested Mr. Garvey
12 meet with him and Mayor Thompson for a discussion as the Council Meeting was not an
13 appropriate venue for debate.
14
15 Council Member'Hamilton pointed out that based on this logic, domestic violence and child
16 abuse were a casualty of heterosexuality.
17
18 Bryant Moynihan, P.:O. Box C, spoke in favor of allowing the public to comment openly at
19 Council Meetings; without fear of criticism. He also agreed with Mr: Braun that the stop
2 0 signs installed on Sunnyslope should be removed. He noted that there were several items
21 on the agenda for which packet items were not made available on a timely basis. He
2 2 thought that any item for which packet materials were not available the Monday preceding
23 a Council meetingahould be stricken from the agenda. He~added that it was important to
2 4 provide the public wth~the opportunity to review information:eoming before•th'e Council, so
2 5 that coherent, educated comments could be made. '
26
2 7 Onita Pellegrin, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce, 799 B.aywood, spoke in favor the
28 Council supporting a timely processing of the Petaluma Village Premium Outlets'
29 Development Application. She added that the Chamber was not taking a position ion the
3 o proposed application, but believed that any application :deserved .timely review and
31 response and thee. opportunity to work with the City,'ifi necessary, to develop a proposal that
32 would benefit everyone:. 'She hought Councilacting on this' application would.. send a
33 positive message-from the City to the business~comrnunity. ~~ -~
34 ...,
35 Gabe Kearney, 1624 Jeffrey, spoke in favor of the `Council's upport of the Domestic
3 6 Partnership Registry. •
3 7 .. .
3 8 Council Comment.
39 '
4 o Council Member Hamilton suggested that the City adop't' a theme for the year X2000 and
41 consider that -theme as "Commitment to Suustainability." She thought that many people
42 believed, erroneously, that "sustainability" meant "you don't get to develop anything." By
43 adopting a sustainability theme, she believed these people,would learn that sustainability
44 really meant being ableto "continue doingwhatthey're doir"ig because they're doing it in a
45 responsible, sustainable way."
46 -
Vol. 33, Page 10
October 18; 1999.
Council Member`Torliatt spoke .regarding the litigious nature of doing business.
Council Member Cader Thompson spoke regarding the.topic of sustainability as~a high-
profile'issue at.a recent League of California Cities meeting. She asked that Corona Road
be scheduled on an 'agenda for full Council discussion. She added that she. had heard
there was consideration of lawn bowling at Kenilworth Park.
Presentation
Mayor Thompson, read, a Certificate of Appreci'ation`to Aglent:~Corporation-i`n appreciation
for donation of office furniture to the City of Petaluma.
Police Chief Pat ;Parks. received recognition for saving the .City over $10'0.;Q00.
6 Proclamation
7
8 Mayor Thompson readfa. Proclarnafion Observing Red Ribbon Week 0ctober,23 = 3'1, 1999.
9 and presented it to Mr Dick Sharke, Director of the McDowell Drug Task Force.
o
1 Council Member Maguire commended Mr. Sharke's.efforts and asked that the ribbons be
2 taken .down at,the end of the week.
3 ~.._.
4 Mayor Thompson read'~a Proclamation ho.noring.Susan Lauer of`the Argus-Courier for he.r
5 contributions to •the community .and wished her success in her .new endeavors.
Unfinished Business
8
9 7. :. - Status Report~:on Master'Plan for Single Homeless Facilities i'n Petaluma.
0 ~ -
1 Housing Administrator Bonre;Gaebler explained that her,pu.rpose at the meeting. was to
2 answer. any questions fromCouncil regarding the Master Plan for Si'rigle~ H;o.me~le~ss.
3 Facilities in ~etaluma.(Master Plari) and to elicit directionfrom Council on certainaspects
4 of the study. She noted that in January, 199.9, Council. asked that certain elements be
5 included injthe Master Plan; namely ~ ~•.
~ 1. A description of the tar..get population and their needs.
8 2. An assessment ofi.existing and, needed resources:
9 3, Completion of a site search as a replacement for.the armory facility.
0 4 i4ri~ expl_anatign and evaluation of how individuals' progress was measured in -the
facilities:,,
2 5. Completion of an updated census. of the home ess singles population:
3
4 Ms: Gaebler stated that items 1,and 4 were~covered thoroughly in,the status report; item 5
5 would. be completed in December 1999.., and January 2000. Council direction was needed.
6 on items 2 and 3.
October 18, 1999. Vol. 34, Page 1'1
1
2 Ms. Gaebler :noted that: completion of item 2, the resources assessment, verified the
3 perception that Petaluma, and the South County, in general, was under-served by County
4 resour"ces. She added that haling a study in place was extremely beneficial in providing a
5 framework for action to address the issue. Petaluma was in a position to discourage the
6 view of the South. County as "outlying communities'' and replace it with an image of a
~ community of well over 100,,000 people. Should Councif-approve; she would continue: to
8 vigorously elicit and.encourage County services:s`o that "citizens of Petaluma, Rohnert Park;
9 and surrounding areas would have an egaaf opportunity for assistance and treatment.
10
11 Mayor Thompson tho.ugh't Petaluma had been "ignored" by the County because they
12 thought Petaluma could "do it on their own:'' He stressed that Petaluma did need. the
13 County's Help.
14
15 Ms. Gaebler remarked that she had heard "similar comments from a former County worker.
16 She added' tliat the County Board of Supervisors. had 'stated. that they did. not want one
17 large, regional homeless center, but a number of smaller centers around the County. She
1s wondered how that would take place: if the County did not provide services. to all
19 communities in the County.. She thought that the situation was improving.:
20
21 Mayor Thompson asked how Council could help in obtaining County support.
22
23 Ms. Gaebler replied that representation by the City at County meetings and consistent
24 reminders to th°e County of Petaluma's needs were important.
25
2 6 Ms. Gaebler then reviewed item 3. She explained that a committee was formed comprised
27 of members of the non=profit community serving .homeless p.eopie, the faith-based
28 community,.:real- estate developers, the City's community=oriented police staff, the City
29 Library,- the Old East "b" Street: Petaluma Neighborhood Association,. the Petaluma
3 o Kitchen, 'the Opportunity Center, among others. The committee's purpose was to
31 determine a location for acold-weather homeless facility to replace the. armory. The
32 committee began with a map of the City, developed site criteria, and looked at dozens of
33 sites. The criteria included location in an affordable., centralized, non-residential area,
34 preferably nears bus line, and large: enough to unify existing services. B.yconsensus, the
3 5 committee; narrowed the possible sites from 12 to 3, and agreed that the: best. match was to
3 6 locate the facility at the City Corporation Yard on Hopper Street:
37
3 8 Nls. Gaebler showed' an overhead projection of a map of the area considered. In choosing
3 9 this site, the cornmitteeenvisioned scold-weather shelter., the Opportunity Center, and the
40 Petaluma Kitchen consolidating. into aMulti-Services Residential and Transitioria_f, Facility:
41 The purpose of`the cold=weather shelter was to provide a safe,. warm place. for homeless
42 citizens to sleep during the winter months. By integrating services at one Jocation, the site
43 could become a job training center as well as a facility for nurturing people back to mental
44 and physical health.
45
Vol. 33, Page 12 October 1'8, 1999
1 Ms. Gaebler added that the .committee:. had 'been in: close touch. with the New' Beginnings
2 Shelter that was to. open at Hamilton.Air Force Base in about.one year. That project,, similar
3 to what had been envisioned for ;Petaluma, :had ;provided valuable information to the City
4 as they.de~eloped their Master Plan. She added that°New Beginnings was eery interested
5 in sharing resources"with the City .of Petaluma, including "staff training and possible
6 acceptance of overflew if transportation issues could be resolved: '
7
8 Ms. Gaebler :then asked f,o:r questions, commenfs, and direction from the Council and
9 noted that two'to.three years was-required for site work. Work would.pcob.ably begin before:
o the sewage treatment plant was removed. They had consulted a physicist who had
1 developed a process to reduce ;the odor from the treatment plant.
3 Council Member'Magui~re thanked Ms. Gaebler and the Director of the°Commission,on;the
4 Shelterless (COTS): John Records, for their efforts in developing the. Master Plan and noted:
5 than: it was coming 'in ;approximately 80.% under budget. He supported "d.iye,rsificatio.n of
6 facilities ;througho,ut the" cornmunify. He asked for more information aaout th,e actual
~. " process to reduce odors caused. by the sewer plant.
8
9 Ms. Gaebler explained that it inuolved"technologyfmm Japanthat employed a filter in the
o HVAG (Heating, Ventilation, "and Ai Conditioning) system Ghat filtered odors in both
1 directions. The`physicisf had offered to makea model available.
2
3 Council. Mernbe.r Maguire. asked for confirmation that the,essential purpose was to maintain
4; air quality within the building.
5
6 Ms. Gaebler replied yes. ,
7 "
8 Council Member Hamilton expressed her pride in belonging to a:cornmunity that exhibited
9 "that caliber of care toward others. She encouraged the' City and the Council 'to pursue
0 support from the Counfy,, She noted in the staff report that Petaluma and Rohriert Park
1 received six percent of the funds available for Social Services while almost twenty-five
2 percent of the population resided: there: Santa Rosa received eighty percent She
3 expressed. that she thought that was outrageous.
y p cessed his a rec'
Ma " or Thom son .exp pp iation, for fhe proposal and offered any;assi'stance
needed to. work with°the'Coun~fy:
8 Vice Mayor Kellerasked for direction on how Council could .intervene in the: County's
9 processes.
o
1 Council :Member Cad.er-Thompson noted`tha`t Santa Rosa Junior College was to offer a
2 dental hygiene program.. and "she thought the "students in the program could. provide
3 services to the Shelter.
4
5 Council Member Torliatt thanked. Ms. Gaebler and the other City Management members
6 who worked on the ~M;aster Plan for~their efforts.
October t8, 1999, Vol. 34, Page 13
1
2 Ms. Gaebler added that~Sergeant Mark Hunter and Chief Pat Parks of the Petaluma Police
3 Department. had been supportive; She had observed in many other cities an adversarial
4 relationship. between the Police Department and the homeless citizens and expressed that
5 she was happy that the attitude in Petaluma was very different.
6
7 Council Member Torliatt emphasized that this project would benefit the community as; a
8 whole. She mentioned a statistic from .the report that major mental illnesses, such as
9 schizophrenia and bipolar disorder,-were estimated to occur in thirty to forty percent of the
1o single homeless. S.he reiterated the City's need for County assistance in working with
11 Petaluma's population and stated that Santa Rosa's population-was not quite three times
12 Petaluma's, yet the County provided nineteen times: more funds for Social Services to
13 Santa Rosa. She added that a significant number of the homeles's were veterans. She
14 thought that#act needed to ~be driven home in this community She wanted~fo know the
15 location of the proposed facility .in .proximity to the Petaluma River and: how'the Shelter
16 would look from the River. She added that it was extremely important that the facility be a
17 livable place, aesthetically pleasing, with outdoor recreation, areas. She mentioned the
18 Salishan Apartments on the corner of Petaluma Boulevard. South and " K" 'Street as a
19 positive example of .investing in making an environment livable. .
20
21 Ms. Gaebler explained that the property's rezoning would Abe addressed through t'le
22 Petaluma Specific Plan.
,.
23 _
24 Council Member Healy thought that the Animal Shelter, Corpora#ion Yard, and the IVlulti-
2 5 Services Residential and Transitional Facility should~~be;cfustered at the north end of the
26 property so the rest of the property could be used:~for other things. He thought it was
27 important to develop: a .Master Plan for the whole property with, the -Sewer Treatment
2 8 Facility gone and tressed that the project should begin soon. He. supported the change
29 from seasonal to year-round operation and agreed there should be a dining facilityfor"the
3 o residents on-site. so they would not. have to walk:daily to-the Petaluma Kitchen. He was n`ot
._
31 sure whether there_ should be kifchens on site, or whether'the facility should be served as a:
3 2 satellite operation of the Petaluma .Kitchen, He complimented Kay Russo of HC2 for h'e'r
33 census work with the homeless community citing that statistically 'two-thirds of the
34 homeless patrons of the Kitchen had been in Petaluma.for over" a year, about one-half of
3 5 the. patrons had been in town for over five years,- and many, had,'been .here over twenty
3 6 years. Ne thought:the, statistics di"sproved the.argument that being compassionateto those
37 in need. acid offering appropriate services acted. as a magnet fo bring under-served from
38 other communities. He agreed with the other Council Members that Petaluma needed to
3 9 increase. efforts to receive: additional countyfiundng,. He added. that the entire community,
4o by becoming involved in countywide organizations, could be proactively encouraging the
41 County to provide more Social Services. funding to Petaluma.
42
43 Council Member Maguire believed the "stepping stone approach" to the model was. the
44 right one to use., but noted that were some members of the homeless community'who
45 could or would not be able to participate in the program, and he asked Ms. Gaebler and M'r.
46 Records for their thoughts about solutions to the problem.
Vol. 33, Page 14 October 18; 1999
Ms. Gaebler replied.. that she had .recently atfended ~a seminar of people who worked
extensively with, the homeless population, 'They divided th'e homeless into (1) "the- "have
Hots,'' (2) the "can Hots;" and (3) the "will .Hots." The "have-Hots" were described as those
temporarily homeless due to a lost;job,; for example; and were the easiest to serve and the
most successful,. The "can Hots" had been described as those with mental or physical
illnesses and comprised the: largest number of homeless and sometimes. the hardest to
serve. The, ".will Hots" had 'beeH :described. as those :who .were ``homeless by choice;" and.
the group with which the. public became the .most intolerant.. The group was,small'in terms
of numbers; yet.. they were the group used as an example by hose opposing aid for'the
.homeless:
G
3 Mr. Records thanked: the~~CounciF and.City.Management for their efforts. and compassion:
.. ...
4 He stated..that.:athe Co_unty's fun;d.ing :for Petaluma's Homeless seniee programs was
'5 appropriately .proportio.ne~d; the problem. s the City had experienced involved siapporf'`for
6 services such as mental health .and substance abuse...
7 ~ ....x.
s No Aetion.Takeri ~ '
0 8. Presentation, Qi'scussion and Possible ActioH of Gonce.pfual DesigH of Animal.,
1 Shelter. . ~ . __ _ .- ,
2
.,
3 Assistant City Manager Gene„Beatty introduced the .new .Animal Shelter aH'd Animal
4 Services ,Manager Nancee~Tavares and ;noted that formerly Ms. Tavares was the
5 Manager o_,f the City of, Mealdsburg's Animal Shelter. _
6 .Y ., . .
Mr: Beattyexplained. that the scope of this project encompassed more than, the
8 expansion of the,Animal .Shelter: The Animal Services staff with the assistance of'the
9 Animal Services. Advisory Committee had developed a missio- n statement, a -list of
o goals; "and a five-year development plan. A core component of the plan was
._.
1 improvements to the ~Shelfer. He stated that. (here was no doubt ,the Shelter needed .to
2 be upgraded and expanded, not only fo_r the :animals, but for employees and volunteers
3 that worked-there on~a day-fo-day basis:.
5 Ms. Tavares announced-that in conjunction with National Animal Shelter Appreciation
6 Week, the Shelter sponsored an ,essay contest for'youths in grades, K-6. Participants
~ were:-asked to respond to fhe following:." I'f I were ~a dog or a cat waiting Petaluma
8 Animal Shelter, rl would wanf people to know,..." She then "read a response froma local
9 third-grader who stated she wanted people'to know, "the Petaluma Animal Shelter
0 needs. more money so they can build more kennels so they can let more dogs in and
1 .Hot have to put them to sleep like I will be more tomorrow. If you pay more money, you'll
2 save me and a lot of other.:dogs:. Also, if you p.ut in more money; the Petaluma.Anmal
3 Shelter will be able to get vets to come, so if' you adopt a .dog like me, we'~II be healthy.-
:-.
4 S.o, please put in ,more money rgfit~ away and :save: ~u . 'Because the choice is up to
5 you." '
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 15
1 Ms. Tavares explained that many of the essay:responsestalked about the animals
. _ .: 2 being killed; she had been surprised and saddened. She believed Petaluma had more
3 diversity and more, sense of:community than any other area of Sonoma County she had
4 lived in. She praised the schools, community center, Police and Fire Departments,. and
5 the vibrancy of the downtown area. She ,pointed out that the Shelter would be added to
6 the City's list of positive attributes.
7
8 Ms. Tavares stressed.. the goal was a workable and attractive Shelter that allowed staff
--' 9 to safely and humanely care for Petaluma's companion animals. The-Shelter needed to
10 be bigger so it would no .longer be necessary to kill healthy animals. because there was
11 no place to house ahem while they were waiting for adoption. Dedicated space for
12 isolation and treatment of ill and. contagious animals was necessary. Space for animals
13 to exercise., or. sit' in windows, for example, was needed rather than locking them in
14 cages twenty-four hours per d'ay. Space for education was a necessity as education
15 was the key to a better future for both humans and animals. '.She concluded by asking
16 the City to give resdenfs a message about, humanity by improving the existing Animal
17 Shelter.
18
19 Council Member Torliatt asked what information was: available for someone to dohate
2 o money to the Animal Shelter.
2.1
- '2~2 Ms. Tavares replied that anyone interested could calf 778-4396, seven days a week or
2 3 come to the Shelter., fo learn how to make a donation and designate where they wanted
24 their contribution used.
- 25 ,
2 6 Council Member Hamilton praised Ms. Tavares for her efforts and acknowledged her
27 improvements to the Shelter.
28 - ,
2 9 ~ Animal Services :Advisory Committee Chair Susan Simons explained that the committee
3 o had been appointed., to identify animal issues, needs in the community, and make
31 ~ recommendafons for meeting those. needs.. E'arlier'in the year they had brought their
32 reeommendafion to remodel the Animal. Shelter and funds were approved for the design
33 of,.the prolect~The Committee had returned with the completed design for Council's
. 34 review,'possble approval, and with a request for increased funding.. The Shelter had
3~5 been built in,.1955 when the population in Petaluma was approximately 12,OQO: The
3 6 ~ .City had not:., allocated any major funding to the Shelter since. The current population
3 ~ was more than 50,000 and the Shelter no longer met the needs of the community.
38
3 9 Ms. Simons added the appearance of the facility needed to reflect that the staff had met
` 4 o the animals' physical and emotional needs. The remodel of the Shelter was an
41 investment that would benefit the animals, the community and address the
42 requirements of the Hayden Bill, which mandated, ".increased space, longer holding
43 periods, and more. shelters."
44
45 Within the last ten years, Sonoma County and Rohnert Park had built new shelters and'
46 the Humane Society was currently looking at building a new shelter. Since it was not
Vol. 33, Page 16 October ] 8, 1999
1 possible; o build a new ,Animal. Shelter at a new location.,, the remodel of the existing
2 facility was a compromise. The. project should develop with a vision that .included the
3 evolving needs. of the.communty.
4
5 Council: Member. Maguire asked how long, if approved., the proposed remodeled facility:
6 would remain adequate.
7
8 Ms. Simons replied that it would be adequate for a number of years, and defe;r.red o the
9 project architect to address that issue.
1 I?roject Architect. Linda~Good of Equinox Design stated she..was. privileged to have had
2 the, opportunity of working with the: Animal Services. Advisory Committee, the Assistant
3 City Manager,~and the Animal Services. Manager. She explained that design of'tfe
4 ro ect be an with a v
p j g " sion:: _statement presented by;the Animal Services.Advisory
5 Committee;, that the main goal, was to protect and promote respect for and. enhance; the
6 well-being of ..all animals in our community. The spe;cific,goals of th'e remodel d`esign'
~ were .to increase ;the number ofi adoptions., improve the lining facilities for the animals;
8 and increase community aware_ Hess and involvement. She stated that the~currenf
9 condition was'inadequate:; it included a small trailer used as the office, and atwenty-
o four hundred square foot :concrete block building that housed. the animals!, which was
1 cold, damp. and noisy. There were no isolation facilities'ao provide healthier conditions
2 for sick animals.
3
4 Ms. Good presented: aslide show depicting the current Shelter facilities_and .displayed
5. the plans for the Shelter.remodel.. She explained that the $256;000 figure was any-~ . ~~°
6 earlier estimate based on a preliminary design"; the $290,000 represented. an estimate
that'included regaested changes. "
9 Ms. Good described the proposed.addtions to. the Shelter that included, a reception; ,, ;,"
o area, a large meeting area, a small adoption meeting room, isolation facilities for sick -
1 animals, and' a large dog pe.n area. She. believed the size and, costs. were_justifed '~ "
2 based on a formula provided .by the, Humane Society of the .United'. States:-The '
3 calculation provided-was based on population, animals received,:and how.aong'they.` -
4 were kept. Descriptions of comparable "projects in other cities had also been. provided`.
5
6 Council Member Healy asked how long; the facility could be expected to meet`;the City's,
7 needs and if the Shelte"r could be expanded ~atthat, time.
. ~t
8
9 Ms. Good replied that it would depend on :how quickly the City grew; however, based. on
o current ;growth, the remodeled fac)ity should be adequate for ten to fifteen years. She
;1 confirmed that expansion was allowed for in the design. -
:2
3 Vice Mayor Kelle,r~asked if the facility would be corpplefely insulated.
4
5 Ms. Good responded that the additions; would be completely insufafed :and
6 improvements: included ventilation and heating systems in existing kennels.
October 9.8, 1999 ~ . Vol. 34, Page 1:7
1 ,
2 Vice.Mayor Keller referred to the price per foot~.fgures~and asked if they included the
3 new HVAC equipment, furnishings, pens, kennels,. and cages.
4
5 Ms. Good introduced Ro.b Clark as the Engineering Consultant to answer Vice Mayor
6 Keller's question.
7 ~~
8 Mr. Clark stated that the`~pricirig at that point did;not ihclude every element.
9 ..
1o Vice Mayor Ke'Iler wanteda budgef for the building, the capital equipment; as well as all
11 the furnishings. and :accessories necessary .to make th'e=Shelter operational and. the
12 estimated Timeline for completion.
13
14 Mr. Clark replied that could be done. Ne pointed out that a contingency fee was
15 included at the ,bottom of the estimate to accommodate "unknowns." He thought it was
16 premature to make an accurate estimate of the kind Vice Mayor Keller had requested.
17
18 Vice Mayor Keller asked for a percentage by which Mr. Clark estimated the .budget
19 figure would increase when .accounting. for all the furnishings and items necessary to
2 0 make the remodeled facility operational.
21
22 Mr. Glark stated that he could not make an accurate estimate now.
23
24 Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty :explained that the next step in the process, with
25 Council's consent; was the development of construction drawings and details of
2 6 materials, which would then be presented to Council with a final engineer's estimate. If
27 approved, the project would. then go out to bid. He-added that money for the capital
2 8 improvement project was available, including additional costs.
29
3 0 Vice Mayor Keller wanted to move the project ,;ahead to develop the next level of plans
31 and funding `.requirements, He asked for an assessment of what existing equipment
32 and supplies were reusable; would need to be replaced or added, and over what period
3 3 of time.. He also wondered if the Animal Services staff or the Animal Services Advisory
34 Committee had' considered a public fund-raising campaign for this Capital Improvement
3 5 Frojeet.
36
37 Council Member Hamilton said she had attended. Animal Services Advisory Committee
3 8 Meetings and had spent time at :the Shelter walking dogs and had become familiar with
39 the current facility. She described it as ~fiauing a "turn of the century prison feeling." She
4 o stated that in order for Petaluma'to~call ifself a "decent community;" the City needed, to
41 improve the quality of the Shelter: She~.noted.that`the subject of community fund-raising
42 had been raised at the committee meetings and; thought such a project would be
43 successful. She asked. Mr. Beatty what projects would be displaced if the City fully
44 funded the Shelter remodel with 'the additional costs.
4.5 . -..
46 Mr. Beatty replied that he did not think anything would be displaced.
Vol. 33, Page 18 .O'ctober 18, 1;999
1
2 Council Member Torliatt asked; City Managemenf for a list of possible prgjects for
3 ~communtyfacilities funds. She ponted,'~..out that she had requested a list the last time
4 the issue came before; Council• and had .riot: received the irifo.rmation: She stated that in
5 addition to the Animal Shelter;and,the:Multi:-Services.,.Facility, there appeared to b.e land
6 around the property that the'City might'wanf'to acquire in°~the future.
.. "
8 Council Member..Hamilton reiterated that the Animal Shelter was built in 19;55 an: d
9 added that she thought. it was. time for fh~e City to 'be. more progressive in taking care 'of
o the current needs.,,
2 Council Member Caller-Thornpsori.thou~ght it was"important to move ahead; and did not
.3 want fo project the budget arnourit to exceed $300,.00.0.. She thought community fund-
4 raising was important: _ .
5
6 Council Member:Maguire agreed ,with C.ouncif Member Torliatt that Council should. look
.? at an overall community facilities budget an_ d plan as there were -.other projects'in the
8 City that needed to. be: addressed as soon as possible:. He thought the increased
9 estimate from :$200;.00;0 to..$3.00,000 was offset by the_rfact that a `remodeled Shelter
0 would' be adequate for a long. time.
1
2 Public Comment
4 Hank, Flu_m_, 1721 Stonehenge 1Nay, stated that' in his eighteen years of experience as a
5 remodeling contractor budget estimates tended'to increase, and remodeling jobs were
6 full ofsurprises. He suggested. that a reduction in the number of different areas where
construction would take place would .reduce the costs.
9 Council directed. Cify Management to proceed with.. construction drawings, obtain a
0 detailed list of materials required that included an assessment of reusable equpme_nt,
1 supplies, requiremernts ,for an, y new equipment and supplies, and when completed, to
2 bring the item back to Council for consideration, discussion,; and possible action on a
3 future agenda.
4
5 Clerk's. ,Note:- At the request .of Council; with the exception of public comments, "Elie.
6 discussion and action of Council regarding Agenda Item 9` and 11 were tr,.anscribed
7 verbatim. Agenda ifen 10.was removed to a date uncertain. .
8
9 9: Continued Discussion and. Possible Action on F,iral Design bptidn for the McDowell
0 Boulevard/East Washington :Street. Intersection Transportation Irnpro~ernents! Project
1: 9863:, Phase IIL. (Continued From October 4, 1999.Cquneil'~Meeting)
2
3 Mayor Thompson: We all received a eopy`of'a memorandum, from, [Supervising Engineer]
4 Mr. Mike Evert answering what `I consider to' be rnany,our, questions: `I found it to~ be very
5 straightforward. Does anybody have any. questions on this?
6 ~ ~ .
,~, ..
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page T9
1 Council Member Maguire: I do have one question, Mr: Mayor. Mike, on the answer to
2 question, 5, "Can bike lanes be added to. East G1Lashington Street without having to move
3 East Washington Street toward :and into fhe creek?"Toward the end of the paragraph you
4 point out that, "It appears a separated bike'bath would be the more expensive of-the two
5 choices" that you listed. 'It's not clear to me, when you're talking about a "separated bike
6 path" in this instance, are you saying separated, but on the same side of the creek as
7 Washington Street,. or separated :and on .the .other side of Washington Creek from the
s street?
9
10 Mr. Evert: Separated on the -same side as Washington Street.
11
-- 12 Council Member Maguire: And did we look at the other side?
13 -
.. .:
14 Mr: Evert; V1/ell, I .looked at the right-of-way today.. The creek right-of-way, near Maria.
__,
15 D:owristream from. Maria, is twenty-five (25) feet wide as you go upstream toward Sonoma
16 Mountain; Parkway; it widens to thirty (30) feet and then to ixfy (60) feet. So, I don't feel
17 there's. right-of-way~on the opposite side o,f East V1Fashington for a pathway, from Maria:to
18 McDowell.
19
2 0 Council Member Maguire: O.K. If we were to pursue the two (2) five (5) foot bike lanes~on
21 the roadway, does that qualify for T-21 funding? •
22
23 Mr. Evert: Yes; it does.
24 ~~ •^
25 ~ Vice MayorKeller: if it was a combined two-(2) directional bikeway, we're looking at an
2 6 eight` (8) foot'width, plus two (2) foot shoulders on either -side to qualify for T-21 ?
27 ,., ..
2 8 Mr. Euert: Correct. Keith Hastings, the Design Engineer„ said that the federal requiremenfs
• 29 may require a wider buffer between the curb and the outside edge of the asphalt path.
= 3 o Generally, that's~~five (5) feet. V1le could seek :an exception to drop it down to two (2) or
31 three (3)''feet, as has been. done with a landscaped strip. When you take into account the
- 32 separation from the curb to the asphalt bike path, and an eight (8) foot two (2) way bike
3 3; path,; yand then a two (2) foot. offset along'the creek channel from. the .railing to the outside
_ 34 edge of the bike path, you are looking at twelve (12) to fifteen (15,) feet into the creek,
. ~ 35 which would be further if we widened East V1/ashington Street, kept the four'(4) lanes and
3 6 put the bike lanes on the roadway.
•37
3 8 Vice Mayor Keller: In taking a tour from. Sonoma Mountain Parkway downstream, there's
39 certainly, at Sonoma. Mountain Parkway and the aenior housing up there, quite a bit of
40 right-of-way; and it's not until you get the. parcels doglegging back into the Water Agency
41 right-of-way that you get narrow. In. fact,. up to that point, .it seems like there is plenty of
42 width. If you go on the far side of the creek, 'the north side of the. creek, the whole width.,
43 the question would be after you get the doglegs from those properties where they juf in,;
44 how you.get sufficient right-of-way.
45
46 Mr. Evert: Correct.
Vol. 33, Page 20 Ocfober 18~ 1999
2 Vice .Mayor Keller;. ,And the same. ~is true on the roadway side between Maria and
3 Mcbowell'. -Until you hit the concrete cfianellzed portion; there's lots. of width and it is a
4 pleasant-place to walk..and bike`. Much more: so than on the roadway,.1'IVhat I'd like to see is
5 if there is some way~to integrate as much off pavement location for that as possible.
Mr. Evert: I've~been.speaking wifh people on the team regarding the: deadline for federal.
funds. We have to have the design done' bySeptember of-next year, sewhat'we could do
is fund bike lanes on the '.road'way and do. a separated pathway as a separate project.
That's a choice.
2 Council Member TorliattlNe're;going to give some prefty "direct direction" tonight, but as'
3 far as working out what we're ;going fo do with 'pedestrian/bicycle access -along that
4 co.rrido.r~ I really thinks that w,e need to have a few ,people go walk that creek Vice Mayor
5 .Keller, myself;; Viand Patricia Tuttle Brown, the chairof the Bicycle, Advisory Committee, went
6 for a walk:on Friday to`look at-the, creek and the area, and I justthink there aresome. moire
'7 opportunities that we can't°really°;get downfo here at the Council level. So if'we're~,going to
8 go forward with the bike ,path the whole w,ay, then I think that's a great direction, aril that
9 we can work out the details at a later tune. ~ `
1 Council Member Maguire: What did you see on your walk? Did you see that these were.
2 other alternatives for path routes?
;3 _ ..
.4 Council Member Torliatt: There is a lot of right-of-way along the northside^of V1/ashington
5 Creek,. but there: are some: issues in complying with` the T-2,1 regulations in order-to get the
6 funding for it, wh. ich is~you'have to have certain specifications for width; etc I ~don'f know if
'~ that could definitely be met in that. area, but I do know that it's a very p easant area; and
s there's absolutely no season. I would think why you couldn't .:have some, sort `of .multi=use
9 pathalong, a significant part of that area.
o '~ _
1 Vice Mayor Keller:;.lt's worth a walk.to see what it really looks, like and maybe bring a tape
2 with you to get a sense of how'quiet~things really area. ; .
3 ~-.
4 Council Member Maguire: Really it sounds like it's appropriate to have staff`take awalkao
5 they can Look at itwith the vision of-where is the.right-of-way, what arethe requi`remen'fs~for
6 T-21, and come: back owe can have documented tools to work with' and have that
~ discussion at that point. "
8
9 Vice Mayor Keller:. The only;place where it seemed there was a clear choice point, at feast.
,0 i'n m mind, was between McDowell and the freeway, where it, looks like the underpass
y
i ..route justisn't.going to work: There''s not;enough headroom; and, it looks like an area that's
2 going to sediment in every winter, and it's going to be a major problem in maintenance to
3 keep that alive
4
5 Council Member Maguire: I think that was fairly evident from our discussion.af°the last
6 meeting. My question would be, you; know, it would'be-nice to have the separated path'east
October 1$, 1999 V.g1~34, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
1.0
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
of McDowell, separated from. Washington if it's at all feasible because it's Aso much more
pleasant for bikes and pedestrians not to be next to roaring traffic, but the,re's a real pinch
point there when you come right to McDowell and that's one of those tough 'hurdles that
need some good scientific minds on the job.
Mr. Evert: Well, 'that is why I .am here, to:get direction from the Council. So we will'look at
what's feasible. Another option .here tonight is to decide what improvements fhe Council
would like in he intersection for roadway improvements, and we, can focus on, moving
forward on that in-this real short time~schedule we have, and look at the bike, path,., :bike
lanes between McDowell and Sonoma Mountain ,Parkway as a slightly separafe project. So
it's another choicethe Council has. I can understand the Council wanting ;a separated
sidewalk along; East INashrigton.
Vice Mayor IEeller: I think the integration is really at the connection points into this
intersection,, and I don'f think That's going. to be hard. to figure out.
m
Council Member Hamilton: Mr. Evert said exactly what I was going to say. Let's section it
off.
Council Member-.Maguire:: I'll just jump right'in. I Think on the improvements that Alternative.
1 is the preferred approach.l would.love to do_the north bound on-ramp„~I.don'tsee where
the funds expended would justify sufficient. benefit to; do it at this time. We can always do it
later. 1 A, the coverin of the. creek, I .want= to see if we can avoid that if
g
basicall leaves us Alternative 1 for the roadwa im rovements, so I wantpossible, so that
y y p to encourage us
to go ahead with that. ,
Mayor Thompson: Ms. Hamilton, would you like to make some statements?
;.. ,
Council Member Hamilton: is this down the row?
Mayor Thompson: Yes..
Council Member Hamilton: I would rafh`er hear from the public arid.then go down the.row.
Mayor Thompson: Fine with me.
Public Comment
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in favor of doing anything to improve the quality of
the intersection; and thought the City should take steps to get CalTrans involved. ~ _
Patricia Tuttle: Brown, speaking. on behalf of the Bicycle_Ad~isory Commitfee,, was looking.
forward to working with Council for the improvements to the intersection and ;adde'dMthat
she wanted the committee to become more involved in the project. She wondered if when
CalTrans rebuilds the overpass, they could .raise it somewhat.
Vol. 33, Page. 22 O,etober 18; 1;999.
1 'Public-Comment Closed
2
3 Council Member Hamilton:. We should look°,to CalT.rans,to he'Ip us fund it, oc fund the whole
4 thing. T mean, to fund :it.
6 Vice Mayor Keller: That's where'1 am is Alternative 1 and the northbound onramp would be
~ the second phase to be included in thePSR.(Project Study Report) that CalTrans has been
8 urged to start on that, overpass and interchange., so that? that becomes part of ;their long
9 range interchange improvemen'fs, .thaf we seek funding for:the whole ball of`wax, including
0 anorthbound. on-.ramp, I would. have. a request one Alternative 1 that we look. seriously at
1 closingthe-entranceway just around the corner.#o Best V1/.estern.. It seerms to rne, it's way
2~ too close to be asking cars that are making that right`hand turn to stop and make the.turn
3 into the dr,.iveway:1t seems`to be me that's really going to.screw up southbound trafficon
4 McDowell coming.off of'Washington.. So, work with.the owners:and Carrow's tot"rade their
5 main entrance to the next driveway over;, so that that fist driveway is closed ;The ame
6 thing at the Beaconstation; as we calked about last;time, getting rid of atJeast;one of their
'~ entrances, and~getting„all of their entrances to the,pad closed; meaning the. two'entrances
8 to the pad closed, come in-thro.u`gh the,rigfit turn lane"just„past McDonald's (that's actually
9 into the shopping center), so that that is the access to the:gasstation and there are no ins-
0 and-outs in the. right turn -lane on southbound McDowell. I think that would help a lot; .'and.
1 likewise., if there's a way to work out an agreement between the owner ,of the: propert
2 where the: warehouse is, and the shopping, center so that;they can get their access, off the
3 first.:inbound large info the shopping center ,and get. rid of that driveway ,that's 'i'n the right
4 _ hand turn;'lane; the ;fist .lane and eastbound Washington; I'd: like to see that. A16 of those.
5 ~ uses: are justbad locations'for high=intensity in-arid=out furns.at this intersection, and fhe
6 - more we can ,get rid' of the better.
7 - -.
8 Council Member Cader-Thompson: I think we should go with 1 A, personally: l think we~
" 9 have one:chance,to;really dothis, and I think we should be doing,the northbound on-ramp.,
0 becausethat left=hand turn lane to go north: is a problem.;and it's going to continue to~be:a
1 problem, because of the way it's going to back traffic up coming from the.west side to the
2 east. I'd be~wiling tolook at phasing it; but I'd like it;to be designed with the northbound on-
3 ram. _ with a free n ht-hand turn lane,
4 mone from C.al-Trans. grid then we~ can'go ahead. and.. phase it and try to get
:. y
6 'Council Member Maguire: That's actually Alternative 3 you're Talking about. 1 A is the one
'7 where the .c"reek's cove_ red.
~$
9 Council. Member Hamilton: You' mean Schedu_Ie A, Alternative 1-A. Is that whaf you mean?
1 Council Member Cader-Thompson: Yes.
2 -.
3 Council Member Maguire: Alternative 1A is where. Washington Creek is ..covered from
4 .McDowell- opposite the northbound off-ramp.
5 _ .
6 Council Member Cader-Thompson; I just think we need to think abo;utwhece'it's going to
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 23
' 1 take us ten (10) or fifteen (;15.) years down the line and I'm not sure if 1 is going to do that.
2 So; at this point that's all my comments.
4 Council Member Torliaft I just. want to b'e: clear,. because there was some confusion. Are
5 you talking about Schedule A, Alternative 1'A? Enclosing the creek?
6
7 Council Member Hamilton: Yes.. Actually, I'd like; them up on the overhead,'so we can go
8 over them. again to see what the difference is between the two.
9
10 Council Member'Maguire: Sure, let's do that.. .
• 11
. 12 Mayor Thompson: Mike, would you put up the diagrams,, please?
13
14 Mr. Evert:: Alternative. 1 is our base project,. provides us the biggest bang for our buck,
15 meets our objective; and costs approximately $2:5 million.. Alternative 1A encloses
16 Washington Creek, improves the average, level of service or the delay time in the
17 intersection by about six (6) seconds, and costs. $2 million more than Alternative 1.
18 Provides a park setting, an attractive entranceway into Petaluma. In addition to Alternative
19 1, this alternative provides aright-turn.. lane eastbound on~ East Washington for southbound
2 o McDowell,.. and westbound on East Washington to northbound McDowell, Alternative 3A is
21 1 A, which provides us with the best improvement in traffic; plus the northbound'. on-ramp.
22 We did not run a traffic model on this because. of the, high cost of improvements, but we
23 could do that to see what that, combined project's overall .improvement in level of service
2 4 would be. So we have Alternative 1, Alternative 1 A; and Alternative 3A.
25
2 6 Council Member Maguire: And actually 3, which. is the combination of 1 and 2.
27
28 Mr. Evert: Correct.
29
30 Council Member Hamilton: O.K:, what I waS~talking about was Alternative 3, but with.the
31 latter portion of the northbound lane in a phase. Alternative 3 but in two phases.
32
3 3 Council Member Caller=Thompson: l .left my stuff at home on my bed, so all my notes are
34 there. f apologize. My whole point is that L`think we need to phase in the right hand turn
3 5 lane... So whichever alternative we decide on; I would like that: included as fair as 'th'e
3 6 design, so it will eventually be done; whether its Phase 1 or Phase 2.
37
38 Council Member Maguire: Which right hand turn lane?
39
40 Council Member Caller-Thompson: I'm talking ab.out.the,northbound' on-ramp, and to.get`
41 rid of the left hand turn lane to go north. And I th'ink_it's really important for this intersection.
42
43 Council Member Torliatt: One of the questions that I asked at the last meeting was.wh:at
44 was the GalTrans suggestion to what we wanted to do if we wanted to phase in this project.
45 What it states in the staff report is CalTrans suggested that the State would be willing~to
46 relinquish enough right-of-way on East Washington Street nearthe intersection, forthe City
Vol. 33, Page 24 October 18; 1-999
1 to construct the improvements on McDowell Boulevard, in 2001.., including the curb returns.... . .
2 The remaining work in •the. State right-of=way could then 'be completed in 2002,. which is, I.
3 believe; what we're all talking about, and so it can be integrated a_nd the State can pickup
,4 some:of the bill, and so, Lwanted to make that r..eally clear to the folks out there That we':re
,,5 trying fo coordinate.. I'm looking at different :configurations: of this intersection and'. one .of
6 the issues that came: up when we were walking the site was the traffic on East,V1/ashi`ngton
~ going westbound,. and I'm ,not sure which alternative- we're talking; about; but I do not
8 believe we need. a righthand turn lane to make a r.ight.hand turn. onto North McDowell: My
9 understanding is that the traffic coming that way doesn't necessarily necessitate having •
0 that right hand turn.
1
2 Mr. Evert: That's correct.,Again, Alternative 1 improvesthe average delayfrorn 81 seconds
3 down to 31 seconds. By adding these right turn'lanes, .drop it from an average delay of 31
4 seconds down to' 24 seconds.
._
C.ouneiC Member Torliatt:; I'm,justtalking about the :one, right`hand`turn lane Ghat would go, if
you. were going. west on East Vllash'ington, to"make a nigh"t onto North McDowell The
reason I say that,.) don't know if that is a necessity ~at th'is time! ,is because of the,"fact that
you would have to: be:enclosing a fair amount of creek;in that area, and'what,l would like to
see. for that corner is more ofiia setting in which the bike/pedestrian accessan.atmosp.here,
if you could actually hake an: atmosphere: on the corner of McDowell and East 1l1'Vashington.
What I'rn hearing or what my undersfanding is is that~it's not that significant of a reduction
in wait time if' we eliminated that right, hand turn. lane. That's. what I'm seeing from Alan.
The other question I had was on East Washington going eastbound, the amount of
property that would "need to be taken from the Carrow's: Restaurant site -'it seemed'to me
while we were out there looking at it that it wasn't going to affectahe parking .lot area per.se
for Carrow's. So,, are we just going to be able :to. use the sidewalk and the planter strip
that's-there and not affect any of their parking?
0 Mr. Evert.: One parking space is very tight, near the building; but we do feel that we wi l riot
1 affect that parking space:
2
3 Council Member Torliatt: I'm talking about on East 1Nashington Street..
4
5 Mr. Evert.: Yes, on East Washington we're noton their right-of-way: We're withinthe State
6 right-of=way. We're moping the irriprove;me:nts toward the exists°g fence. There is,about'a
~ five foot space between the back°of the sidewalk and the fence for~us to move the sidewalk
8 toward ~Carrow's. 1Ne're not affecting their, parking lot on East W,ashington:.
.9.
0 Council Me_ tuber Torliatt: I just wanted to make that really clear because that was-what my
1 understanding was or at least that's what it cooked like when we were out at the site:
3 Mr. Evert: Co,rrect,, But ifi we add: the right-tu.rn lane., we:;need to move East Washington
4 roadway toward. Washington Greek; so that we don't` affect: their parking lot: That's
5 Alternate 1 A.
" -
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 25
1 Council Member'To"rliatf: So how much actual property or area are we talking about? Ten
2 feet, twelve feet?
3
4 Mr. Evert: We're: trying not to affect the. Best Western/Carrow's properties, though
5 Alternative 1'A, which'is the most we can do, moves East Washington Street toward the
6 creek by the width. of thatl2-foot right-turn lane.
7
8 Council, Member Torliatt: So you're saying that you're going to enclose twelve feet of ,the
9 creek?
10
11 Mr. Evert: Additional distance. Now; Vice Mayor Keller asked if we could do Alternative 1 A
12 and leave part of'the creek open. We feel that do to 1 A, we're going to be co~e:ring half the
13 creek, which would require an unsightly structure bridging the creek, so in that case, if we
14 do 1 A, we're proposing that we completely enclose the creek, to make a park setting on top.
15 of the creek: If you, go backto Alternative 1, we will. not, affect Carrow's Restaurant or Best
16 Western, and we can leave the creek open. And that's our base project: Alternative 1.
17
18 Council Member Maguire;, But'the theory there isthat there's enough storage accessible in
19 the left-hand-turn lanes on East Washington that frees up the flow for the right=hand.:turn
2 0 from Washington to South McDowell: ~ ~. .
21
22 Mr. Evert: Yes, that will work with, Alternative 1:. Alternative 1A does ,a better job,. but
23 Alternative 1 meets our objective and is cost-effective.. ,_ .
24
25 Council Member Maguire: 1N:ith a cover over the creek?
26
27 Mr. Evert: Correct.
28
2 9 Council Member Torliatt: Because think that everyone who drives over there understands
3 0 the left-hand.-turn_lane from East Washington to McDowell is juSt...that's where the mess
31 is, because you can't get over and it just jams up there because of the cars going straight`.
32 We have to rectify that.
_. ;
33
34 ~ Council Member Maguire;. Alternative 1 does that,
35
36 Mr. Evert: Mr. Mayor, I have highlighte.d..inyellow the improvements that we are~dong for
37 Alternative 1. McDowell is our problem street. It's not aligned.. It needs to be aligned., and
3 8 we're adding northbound a second left-turn lane and on the southbound direction
39 approaching McDowell we're adding a separate. through lane. That's the key improvement.
4 o Once you #ree up th,e time and are able to do the projected left turn on McD.owel.l_ and
41 separate t_he move_ merit, that's where we,get oursignificantimpr„ovement and the flow for
42 traffic: Then that affects and frees up East Washington. And again, Alternative to
43 improves the intersection more than Alternate 1, but it costs $2 million more and encloses
44 the creek channel. Those are the differences between 1 and 1A.
45
4 6 Council Member Torliatt: A couple of things that I think need to be followed up on, when we
Vol. 33, Page 26 October 18, 1:999
1 were on our walk, under Maria Driye, where the culverts are; there's a significant amountof
_2 siltation that was in there. ,I:t looked Like the V1(ate,r Agency had pulled o.ut a-bunch of dirt;
3 but evidently it:needs to' be looked at again,lNe also would like: to see the,maps on 'the
4; backyards where, dhe property lines :are. for the Sonoma, County 1Nater Agency along East.
5 Washington Creek, because some folks' backyards have "expanded," you :rnightsay:
6
~ Vice Mayor Keller: Qn the Fast-Map., the parcels .look "bumped out," like that.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt: Do they? Just so we can get verifi,catio:n of that, itwould be-great:,
0 Then, the other issue that Patricia. Tuttle Brown had brought; up ,and we .had. talked about
'1 was how do ~we fit into: this project taking .out. the: cement: [concrete] in the creek, and
2 making this an amenity because...it was a creek at one time; it is a creek, let's keep it that:
3 way. . -
.5~ ~C;ouncilMember Healy: I wanted to, ask you to go over one thing you douched upon at our
6 oast meefirig;~and that was what CalTrans would like o do with this intersection long=term.
That's something we really have not taken into consideration tonight. Let me see ifi I can.
8~ paraphrase it; and you can te.l.l me if I'm;getting it, rght.lNhen CalTrans comes back in and
9 looks at this intersection. at some point in the future; they would want to address both the
0 northbound on-ramp..and the northbound off-ramp. lsthdt-correct? Could~you show u§~with
1 .this diagram again more or less what they would intend to do?
3 ~.Mr. Evert; CalTrans was verycooperative and very open to what we're:trying to ,do here in
~4 - the short~schedule~we have,which. is.why they came out with the suggestion of phasing the
5~ project and relinquishing some of their' right-of-way so we :can. moue forward. with the
6 improvements at~ the intersection. V1/'e also asked Them about their plans for the::
7 interchange at 101; .and they have no plans at the. moment: There's no funding for any
8 improvements. They had. done a previous conceptual design of what -this interchange.
9 ~ ~ would look like, ;but the standards .have, changed, and we met with. them to ask,them if our
o ,proposed. northbound, on-ramp that. we're talking about will rnateh or fit -any future
1 improve,menfs that they may do with the whole'interchange; bo'th.,north:and southbound' on-
2: ramps and off-ramps. They also expressed the: concern that by ,,doing; this particular
3 ,northbound on-.ramp; it may,not match the~improvem. ents:in the future;.. howe~e'r; there is no
4 plan for those improvements at' his time. Sonoma :County Transit Authority has prioritized
5 this area. of 101 for the next round of funding, whenever that. happens. we d`on't know
6 when that will happen. But to answer your question,. Council Member. Healy, we don't
~ sense that. there 'is any long-term ,plan by CalTrans to work 'in this area. There, is no
8 funding: They don't have a `design laid: out:. They just agreed: with us that this northbound.
9 on-ramp might not match a~future interchange.
i Council Member Healy: To follow up on. that,. though, is it your sense that their future
'2 interchange configuration might' invgl~e moving the place where the northbound on=
3 ramp comes into ~MCpowell further west?
4
5 Mr. Evert: Correct. Further.;, toward the freeway to provide; the problems `at this point`. are
6 the sharp turns on the off-ramp. They would like to remote those .sharp turns ,and
. ~ October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 27
1 straighten those turns-ouf more in a direction like this with the off-ramp; and then ari on-
e ramp for northbound 101, with a bus stop at the off-ramp or across on the on-ramp.
3
4 Council Member Healy: So, if we do the northbound on-ramp project now or in a second
5 phase., that will not~necessarily be consistent with` what CalTrans might want to do with
6 the intersection„long-term and they might tear it down and do something else?
7
8 Mr. Evert: Yes. The reason that the `northbound on-ramp is so expensive is that we
9 have to plan for asix-lane 101 freeway and we have to extend out that on-ramp for
1.0 1,000 to 1;500 feet with metering Panes both to meet the current standards and to .meet
11 the future roadway~fo'r CalTrans. So, they will work with us, but it will take a while to
12 work out-what their-plans are going to be, and how our on=ramp is going to .meet their
13 conceivable future plans:
14
15 Council Member,:Maguire: Phase 2 CalTrans.
16
17 Mr. Evert: Right..And that's going to take awhile. for us to work out, because: CalTrans,
18 at this point, may not have solidified their plans for 101, and. now we're: coming in with
19 this on-ramp that needs to meet their future third Kane to 101. -
20
21 Council Member T,orliatt: 1 thought that at the Sonoma County Transportation Authority,.
22 the PSR list included this Washington interchange and the widening, from Lakeville all
23 the_ way to East Washington." Isn't that correct? Or is it not correct?
24 ,
2.5 Vice Mayor Keller::.. It' is on the priority list for the. development of a PSR. Funding is most
2 6 likely available or ~pr'ogrammed fort .his segment in 2002 and 20:04. Construction
27 typically runs about:5 to 7 years affer programming,. so we maybe looking at around
2 8 20.10.
29
3.,0 .Council Member.Healy.That's helpful to me. I; b"asieally agree with. Mr. Maguire. I think
31. Alternative 1'.gives us the most cost.-effective approach here, so I would agree with staff,
32 on that`. And that; d`oesn't.preclud"e us from financing and building a northbound on=ramp
3-3 on our own at~sorrie point down the .road, on the other hand, I think CalTrans views $5
34~ - ..or $10 million a bif:differently;than we do here i'n this City, and ifithey can be;persuaded
.,.
3!:5 ~to tlo the~whole intersection or this whole side of the intersection, that would be a better
3 6 way to gg.
37 ,
3 8 Mayor Thompson_.,I also, agree with Mr. Maguire in terms of Alternative 1, -and I think if''s
3 9 the .bests solution for a very bad situation, and we need to get going on it. At some point
4o in time.,:if CalTrans comes~around, I have no problem with phasing in the northbound
41 lane, but thatvs~ to .be. determined.
42
43 Council Member'Maguire: The only advantage I could see is that if we call it Phase 2
44 when really ou.r sneaky little ulterior motive is to get CalTrans to pay for the whole thing.
45 Fine with. me. I'm cool with that.
46
Vol. 33, Page 28 October 1:8,.1.999
Vice Mayor Keller: 1 think it's very:important that we do that so that~we can`°take the.
PSR work, make sure that, it gets done -as qu,ic_kly as possible, and then egg CalTrans`
on through; whatever channels are. available to us to,, shall we say, to opt their fu=riding
,cycle for redoing this interchange to meet their current standards. That way it will
integrate with what we do and it kind of falls'in~their court..I think it's a good .way to
proceed on this.
Council Member Torliatt: And let's keep Mazzoni and Burton~,in this loop, and send
them a copy of what it iswe're going to-do `here and what we're trying to: accomplish,
.because they need to know. They are the ones who can be our advocates-at,the Sfafe
..level.
Council Member Hamilton: Mr. Mayor, L'd "just like to say that- I don't think CalTrans lies
in Petaluma, and. you can go with Alternative 1, but. it's not going to solve the big
problem; ;and that problem is corning..#rom the west-side to the east. side and that's,
where fraffic is backing up. 1t happens every single day:. You, can sit there and you can
watch it and you can count those cars, but...
Council Member Maguire: V11ell, Alternative 1 does_solve tfiat.
Council Member Hamilton:: No, I don't .think it does. Because of he left-hand turn,,
because of the' northbound;... -
t~' -~.
Vice MayorKeller.: I would like to.enco.urage"more of~the Bike Committee`s participation
on the remaining parts, I think Patricia`Brcwn had some very good;suggestions: Let's;
go out and have staff look. at the creek, and, see what. we" can fit in, there: `: '
Council Member Hamilton: There's no resolution: . .
Mr. Evert:.Excuse me.; Mr., Mayor. I don't have clear direction: on,`which Alternative,..
Council. Member Maguire: It's. really Alternative 1 with the additional phase of the " t " '
northbound on=ramp with the encou`rage.ment:..
Mr. Evert: So it's encouraging, CalTrans to move forward with tfle 101; improvements,
which will include the interchange. ~ ~- ~ -
Council Member Maguire:.I think'we want staff'to proceed'~wifh engineering and d'esi'gn
for Alternative 1, but down the road we want to encourage CalT,rans: to fix.the ' '
-_ -
interchange. So in terms.of what'Citystaff i"s being directed to do, "it's 1,. ~ '
Mr. Evert:. And not to do a PSR on the. northbound .on-.ramp, 'but to encourage'C'alTrans
to take action in the future.
Council Member Maguire:' Just tell CalTrans fihat's our second phase aril they,should
hurry up and get on 'it.
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
3;5
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
October i'8, 1`999
Vol. 34, Page 29
City Manager Stouder: Could we have aclearly-stated motion and second on this so it's
real, real clear?
MOTION: Vice Mayor Keller:. I `would move that for the .McDowell-Washington
Intersection circulation imprgvernents that we:instruct~staff to proceed with
work on Alternative 1 to accomrno.date a second phase as delineated in
Alternative 2.._so it-.adds up to 3. For Alternative 1...CalTrans responsible for
Alternative 2, and thenwe egg CalTrans on as much as possible to do that.
Council Member Maguire.; Right.. Second.
Mayor Thompson: All those in favor, please,say, ``Aye."'
..Aye., . ..
.. ~~ ...
- {,.
Mayor Thompson;. Those opposed....
.b
[Hearing None]
MOTION PASSE D: 7/0/0
Council .Member Gader-Thompson: I want to make a comment. I do not feel as though, I do
not feel like the northbound. on-ramp will ever happen. f do not think it is going to happen
because I do not think it is in the plan.
Vice Mayor Keller: V1/ell, it is our'job to get it there.
Council Member Cader-Thompson: And'f think it's.something that we should look at a little
bit harder;. because I think it's going to be skipped over. Just as if nobody is listening now,
so it does not make any difference.
Council Member Torliatt: Mr. Mayor, the other thing that we talked about but we haven't
included is what it is that we want to accomplish is restoring; Washington Greek into a.
natural habitat. I am not quite sure where this fits in the process, but that is something~that
I want to come back as part of this project.
Council Member:. I agree.
Recess: 10:05 p.m.
Reconvene: 10.:10 p:m.
10 . Previously Removed:
Proposal for Fee Adjusfinenfs.
4
Report on Traffic Mitigation Fund ..History and Initial'
Vol. 33, Page 30 - Ocfober 18, 1999
'1 Public Hearings.
2,
3 11. Action one Appeal ,of. Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc. on Planning Department
,4, Determination To Deern Incomplete Or Process. Application for Petaluma Village:.
5 Marketplace, A Modification To The River Oaks7Petaluma Factory Outlet Village for.P:arcels
6 B and C And Direct City Management To Prepare:A Resolution Representing Tle Action
~ Taken For Adoption.. -.
9 Interim Planning Director Hans Grunt. Thank~you and good~evening Mr. Mayor and Council
o. Members. Mr. Matt Connolly, on behalf of Chelsea GCA Realty,.., Inc., is app'ealmg the
Planning Department's determination that ifs application for a Planned Community District;
2 or-PCD modification to the Rives Oaks/Petaluma Factory,0utlet Village Master Plan, which
3 includes proposed: development of ~aeant parcels B & G reflected: in the exhibif, 'is
4 incomplete, pending the City Council's next action, concerning the Corona ;Reach Specific
5 Plan. As indicated in your~report, staff~rnaintains that through,the adopted work plan forlthe
6 Corona :Reach Specific Plan in, 1995, ,the. City Council identified that this :Specific Plan
would, in part, fulfill an origiral.condition of the current River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet
8 Village Master Rlan fo' undertake a preliminary Master Plan for the larger area,...including
9 parcels. Band C._L am referring,tg condition 53 of Resolution 91-136 N.C.S;:, approving the.
0 existing .Master Plan for'-the: Factory Outlets. As the Corona Reach Specific: Plan. process
1 unfolded, the City again .experienced area flooding, which raised concerns that
2 development within the planning area would exacerbate flooding;problems. Additionally, in
3 July 199.8, in response to the City Council's directive to review alterriati`ves to the Rainier
4 project as part of` the. next General Plan update, the Corona Reach Specific< Plan
5 Committee meeting scheduled for'the completion of the Specific Pla_ n was canceled,. The
6 planning effort. is consequently bn hold. Concerning this appeal, staff has offered two
alternatives. They include:
1. Deny the appeal and up.h-old the Plannin"g Department's determinationthat the
application for a. PCD modification to the River Oaks/Petaluma_ Factory Outlet
Village Master .Plan;. including the development of parcels B and C,, remains
incomplete, pending completion of the. Corona Reach Specific Plan; or;
:4 2.. Uphold the appeal: by the applicant and, deem their. application complete. for
5 processing of the proposed.. PCD modification of'the Riper Oaks/Petaluma Factory
6 Outlet Village Master Plan, including the development:of parcels B~and:C, with th`e
~ ~ understanding that condition number 53 remains in full force.
8
9 Should: the City Council choose one of t'wo alternatives prodded, with or without changes,,
o sfiaff recommends that ;Council ,provide additional direction concerning- condition ~53;
`1 specifically, direction with respect to_-,the method or methods necessary to, undertake
2 completion of the preliminary Master Plan. -
3
,_ -
4 Lastly, staff is recommending that the~City Council take action on th`e appeal by the
5 applicant which is, again. , to. ,overturn staff's :deter,rnination Ghat the application :remains
5 incomplete and"cannot be'processed pending completion, of the Corona Reach Specific
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 31
1 Plan, a planning effort identified qy the City Council as the appropriate methodto satisfy a
2 condition of the existing PC.D approval. To undertake a preliminary Master Plan for the
3 surrounding. area, including vacant- parcels B and C of the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory
4 Outlet. Village,. and direct staff to prepare a resolution representing the action taken for
5 adoption.
6
~ Before I leave the podium; I would like to state briefly my recollection of the current events
8 leading to this appeal. I'd then like to turn the microphone over to former Planning Director
9 Pamela Tuft, so that she can provide you. some. background statements concerning the
10 originaL4Facto_ryoutlets appeal as`it pertairis to parcels B & C. Prior to February 12, 1'999,
1.1 Planning staff had. a number ofi discussion with: Matt Connolly regarding the potential
12 development of parcels B and C. During those.conversations, and at that time, Chelsea
13 submitted .material on February 12, 1;9,99. It was my understanding that the material
14 presented .on February 12, 1:999 was not: a formal development application, and I did. not
15 treat it as,such. After furthe"r discussion with Mr. Connolly, he provided further'materiaf and
16 submitted an application on April. 22, fi999, which I considered and treated as the formal
17 application,', notwithstanding, that;. Mr. Connolly wrote on the same form submitted on
18 February 12, 1999; ``Resubmitted April 22, 1999." Therefore, Planning staff did not consider
19 nor treat the material, submitted on February 12; 1999 as a formal application.
2 0 ~~
21 _ The April 22 submittal was treated as the first formal :application for the. development of
22 - •parcels B' and C. This is evident in my letferto Mr. Connolly dated March 24, 1999 (that's
23 Exhibit 9 in your index),;, whichstates in part, "Pursuant to our most recent conversation, the
24° following is a list' of .materials :and costs necessary to formally submit a development
25 application for parcels B and.C." In that same letter, reference was made to the Corona
26 Reach Specific Plan process; :.which had been designated as the mechanism for the
2~ satisfaction of condition 53~of Resolution 91-1:36`N~C.S.
2 8 ~ ~ ._
2 9 General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuft:, Mayor and City Council Members, good evening.
3 0 Ln 1991 •, l was a member of the Planning .Department `of the City, serving as Principal
31 Planner. In thatiposition, I was Project: Planner for the Chelsea Factory Outlet application:
32 This is my recollection of the even#ssurrou"ndirig the adoption of Resolution 91-1.36 N.C.S.
33 It was clearly the intent of the City Council and staff., at that time, that before City review of
3 4 development entitlements for parcels B and C, that a Preliminary Master Plan was to be.
35 completed.: In other words, before processing,, or at the very least,. concurrent with
3 5 processing of applications for parcels B and C, a Preliminary Master Plan was to be.
3 ~ developed and considered by the City. This was the very reason why there were no land
3 8 uses set forth in the PCDC for those parcels.
39
4o It was the intent of the Preliminary Master Plan to flush. land uses out in detail, although
41 condition 52 indicated that s_ uch uses would be consistent with the special commercial
42 designation contained in the City General Plan. As indicated in conditign.53 of Resolution
43 91-136 N.C.S., a Preliminary Master Plan was to~ be undertaken in conjunction with the
44 development of parcels B and C. As indicated in condition 53, the timing for completion
45 and funding for the preparation of the Preliminary Master Plan was to be directed by'the
46 City Council.
Vo1..33; Page 32 October 18; 1999
'1
`2 If was noted that the Community Developrnerit ~Direetor, Mr. Warren S:al,mons, at;tliattime,,.
3 was fo provide to the: City Council;, withn.90 days of approval of the project; ;a tirne.line and
..4 planning program for commencement .and undertaking of that Master Plan. ;I briefly
~.
`5 reviewed portions of'the transcripts and they ap""pear to coincide with my.memory..
6 -
~ Shortly after- the CouneiPs adoption of Resolution 91;-136 N.C.S., litigation was filed
8 challenging that, approvaL_A decision was ultimately made by the court'i'n July 19:92. My
9 recollection is that the reason that a timeline and; planning program was not origina_ Ily
0 presented to the Council after the; adoption of !Resolution 91-136 N.C.S., :was the
1 anticipated. or pending litigation„ and .the lack of~willingness ~of .the then owner;of parcels B
_.
2 and C. to pay any costs associated with the Prelininary Master Plan.
Further, my recollection,:is that the reason it was not presented to=the Council within 90
days after'the court's:,decision, (at .thaf point in time L was .Planning Director) was that the
developer at that'time had.. additional. financial:difficulties, and. was not willing°to~ participate
in the Master~Plan. Eventually, those parcels sold to Chelsea. ~' . j
In a notice dated June 1,, 1995 to interested property owners'regard'ingthc Master Plan for
Corona Reach; for the commencement of the Specific Plan; I ~stated'in` parf, "The Petaluma:
Factory Outlet Village project was approved by the Petaluma City Council in 1991., One of`
the: conditions. of that approval ,required the development of a ,Master Plan prior ,to.
consideration of any' additional development,, 'for the area .along the ;Petaluma River
identified as the Corona Reach between Lynch. Creek and Corona Road." .=
The snore current activities relating to this area. of Petaluma;~specificallythose involving the
Corona Reach Specific Flan, are morespecifically addressed:in. Hans' report: If you have
any questions on the 1991. history; I would be glad to assist..
o Vice Mayor Keller: If'-you could untangle:some~planning language forme [Vice Mayor Keller
1 read' from Ordinance 1853 N:C.S.] The .date on this is May 20; 19,91, arid,J'm just-trying to
2 sort out some language in here. "..:The Planned C:ornmunity ~Pro'gram is required in
3 :Section 19.302 of the Petaluma Zoning. Ordinance... hall consist of, the 'River
4 Oaks/Petalu,ma Factory Outlet Village lVl~aster Pla,"n as conditionally appro"ved by the City.of
5 Petal-uma; subject to specific project. review; environmental la. nd u_se and site .design as
5 deemed appropriate by the: City of Petaluma- prior to each subsequent development
~ proposal for parcels B' and C`, as; set forth'within said Master Plan." So that reinforces what
8 you're saying, that the Council in. tended that: to happen before there was a deve opment
9 proposal for B or C.
Nls. Tuft: That is correct.
Vice Mayor Keller: Thank:you.
Clerk's iVote: The,followng pub is cornmenfs were transcribed verbatim at the_requestof
City Management.
October 18, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 33
1
2 Public Comment
3
4 John Cheney; 55 Rocca Drive: I come before you because I was here in the 90's when we
. 5 first originally put the Factory Outlet down there. Ifought -there with everything I could
6 saying itwould add ;to the flooding. I still th,i"nk;it was th_e most ridiculous project; businesses
are good, but' a ridiculous project with a flooding parking lot in the flood way, the way it
8 floods.
9
10 Now, they say in~'98 it didn't flood. There was Sunday newspaper that got stuck in the
11 drain. Well, that was a 40-year event. If it was a 100-year event, if wouldn't have been the
12 newspaper causing the problem, I can tell. you that.
13
14 Back here .I've .got.. a 1990: report from 11Vesco. I sent you a couple of pages from it. One of
15 the things that I pointed out in.there, and he rnakes~the sfatement, you build B and C and
16 it's goin. g to ncrease.the water run, off 300% This is=alL floodplain. It's an area that.you've
17 got to leave alone. RMI when they did the original report, one of the important: things I
18 remember it stating over:at the '.Senior Center was that one of the most important things
19 you could do was stop .building in the floodplains.
20
21 North Carolina, just recently, horrible flooding down there. They"had allowed building'in the
22 floodplains, and remember all the pictures of the dead animals and everything else? Ifs
23 time you don't build;in the.floodplains. The'rest of#his town is not protected, and it's time
2 4 you stopped.
25
2:6 :And till you get. a chance to really study thaf Riper from where it hits the bay until it starts up
2 ~ there on top of than. hill; and you: can ;figure out how"yoia can safely put this in so you don't
2 8 endanger other p.eop.le down the river from this project, and the project itself. It's time fo
29 stop. I don'f know about. the rules and regulations, but;a do ,know a floodplain, and I do"
3 o know it's time just to .leave if alone. They knew.it was a hayfield when they bought it. Well.,,
31 like I've told them before, they can grow hay in if, and as important as that place is - to the
3 2 money, or whatever, it was left alone for .this many years in this town. because it~ floods'.
33
34 Let's don't' hake another fiasco like the: industrial park that's flooding now; don't have
3 5 another disaster like our area down there in Payran with the flooding. You realize when you
3 6 really look at it: that is the most ugly thing you've ever seen in your life. Solid steel walls all
37 the way up and down River. Is that what we want for the rest ofi the River? Is that what -
3 8 we're going to pass on, to our children?`
39
4 o Here's a wonderful River, walk down it and slide down the ..rocks.; not the .bushes. Please,
41 folks. Chelsea don't belong there. They made a mistake :when they built the original one, .
42 they fought for it,. and now they're making a mistake coming here frying to get the rest of it:
43 Just leave it .alone. They shouldn't have even started it. Thank you.
44
45 Geoff Cartwright, 56'Rocca Drive: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council. I delivered to each,of
46 you a copy of this picture from the Corona Reach Specific Plan and you can see the maps
vol. 33, Page 34 October 18, 1999
1 up here of the Petaluma~floodplain, and-also I have the Little County map off to the side -
;2 ~dfferent.scale, but,they fit- and.youcanaee the areas on the boftom of'the County map
3 ~ ;that fit into these slots like that one right there which is where this'project is. It's in the
4' floodplain!
6 I'd like to read very ~ b;riefly,- from the Resolution 91-136 N.C.S., Section 28, "an
~ indemnification agreement,aubject°to.approval.of the City Attorney,, shall be executed prior
..
8 to issuance of th:e firsf, certificate of occupancy to hold harmless .the City in the event. of
9 damage or loss of life occurs in spite.of,. or in case of, failure of the relocationplan:" The
0 paragraph just above that is about flooding:'Who's the idiot who's going to build in here,
:1 .and cause this; problem for our community?~
2
3 I'd Like to read another couple of lines from Section 29~ "To avoid increases, in peak-flows
4 downstream from.the building'in the pad area, all flows in excess of existing.storm water
5 flows. shall be detained .on site for up to the 100-year reoccuranee interval torm;~":Excuse
6 me? Do you know"what they're talking,about~ They're talking about an engineering figure.
Just so much water in so many hours. A storm ,event. Not a 1'00-.year lineal subject. A little
8 bit misleading.
0 Another line from that paragraph, "Outflow from the storm water detention facility shall be
1 regulated„ by a weir." Hey! They're talking about a detention pond on-site: Re,memb:er the
2 RMI report? It say, s-don't build detention ponds on the main stem of the ricer. Th'is'is~gn the
3.
main stem of-'thee river. It doesn't work. From the same Resolution, Section 5'1, "Prior to any
4. - development on. pa"reels B or C, appropriate environmental analysis shall be undertaken."
5.
6 1Nell: I think,we're going to have"ao take,a seriouslookatth'is. There's a whole..lot of new
~`information. There's thee'BKF Report, the RMl''Report,~~the news coverage. Yes,,"this place.
8 floods like the dickens, Tom Hargis fly-:over film, you can. see for yourselves. The .FEMA
;9 .. flood insurance rate maps,,, ~which~ show more than this; .and yet those are ouf :of date..
0 We've got serious~pr:.oblems here.'UVe have 100-year storm depths being produced by 40-
i. year storm events. This is nuts: Thank you.
2 ~ A '
'3 Matt Connolly, Petaluma Village Premium Outlets/Chel'sea GCA 2200 Petaluma~Boulevard
4 North ,Thank you Mayor, Council Members. Pm just a little frustrated with those comments
5- ~ and I .guess the continued :attack. that we've had as we continue to try to create a good
6 projeet,here so 1 guess 1`cn going'to 'touch on that:
8 As we've continued.; to work`with you and the Council and the public on 'really creating.a
9 nice project- in the community. That's: ,all: we're asking to do: W,e':re .not asking to~ do
o development: 1 think it's pretty .understood' that were: here just to ask you'to accept our
1 . .application.
.,2 .
"3 `As you are aware, Chelsea opened the .Petaluma Village Premium Outlets in 1994 Nand
4 1995. In 1995., we acquired "the north and south parcelsfto:ad,'d additional outlet~tenants to
5 our project. As the outlet industry g"rows; with more and m, ore designers and Warne brand
5 'manufacturers enfering the industry; consumers are demanding more of ~a critical mass of
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 35
1 outlet stores when they choose an outlet center to shop: Chelsea has always been ,a good
2 ;citizen, a good corporate citizen. We have performed all of our conditions of approval,
3 maintained ahigh-quality project, and continue to enhance the shopping experience at our
4 ~ project.
6 - In 1995, we :started working with City staff to. process a preliminary Master Plan, and
_~ ~ environmental review per our conditions of'ap,proval, which currently are on suspension. In
8 'February of 1999., we formally submitted the development application to process ~tte
9 environmental and site-specific reviews.
10
11 As you are aware,. we feel that we have every right,to process our application. We are
12 before you tonight to requestyour approval to deem ourapplication complete, so we can
13 ~ start the review process only.lNe are not asking: you. ao improve fhe project. We are. aware
14 that the final project may need to be modified prior to be presented forfinal approval before
'~ 15 the Planning Commission and City Council: Allowing the app ication to be accepted can be
16 the first- step in a private/public partnership where we can work together to create an
17 economically sustainable `project for the com, munity.
18
19 I understand thaf;you will be discussing some: form of the Corona Reach Specific Plan on
2 0 the next agenda, and addressing the Corona area land use, transportation and ,flooding
21 impact. l feel that allowing us; to process concurrently with'the Corona Reach area review'
22 wilt allow us to meet our mutual .goals and have the ability to implement them for the
23 benefit of the community, T_ he project specifics will be addressed during the process,~and
2 4 can provide one of the longest river enhancement extensions in the City, with bike trails,
25 restoration improvements, .and open space.
26
27 We will need to provide. adequate water;run-off and detention .measures to minimize any
28 flooding impacts:. 1Ne wi11 agree to theRegional Water City Consultant Peer Review to
2.9 ensure that we address flooding impact and the PCD plan that is currently presented will
3 0 allow flexibility to have mixed land .uses.
31
32 We are not asking. you to do any development, just to accept our application. so we can
33 start the process. I :request your approval or our application as deemed complete.,. so we
34 can begin the review process. John ,Klein is going to come up next: He's..from Chelsea
,3 5 GCA and we work together on development projects.. And Mayor, I'd'.like the opportunity to
36 maybe comment after your review, as appropriate..
37
38 John Klein, Vice President, Chelsea GCA Development -Petaluma Village Premium
39 Outlets, 103 .Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey 070:68:. Obviously I'm here to
4o speak to.ask`you to deem ourapplication complete, As Matt mentioned, In February 199:9,
.41 we submitted our application for development of the properties on either side of the
42 existing outlet. We intend to develop these parcels for:r:,etail and mixed uses, consistent
43 with the special commercial. land use designation in the General Plan. The City did tnot
44 respond to Chelsea's application in the time required.; however, instead of asserting our
45 rights, Chelsea volunteered to assistthe City in reviewing the application, only to be told in
Vol. 33, Page 36 October 18, 1;999
1 July that`the application cannot; be processed. until the Corona. Reach Specific Plan,~was
2 .complete.
3 ,
4 1Ne believe. the City ;may not,stall a d'e~elopment application by requiring a properfy owner,.,
5 to do something totally outside its: power, and Chelsea has no control' over the Corona.
6 Reach Specific Plan.lNe,see no.reason why our application to the Planning Commission
..
~ for modification of~the development plan cannot proceed.,as a separate but parallel track;,
8 with the completion of the Corona;Reach Plan; provided that a delay in the adoption of~the
9 Specific Plan. is not used as a.reason to delay action o,n our development plan modification.
1 In conclusion, Chelsea is not aski"ng the City Council. fo; approve .its application., only to
2 accept it as, complete.and allow us to p.rocesa it in the manner required.by law,: and. give us~.
3 the opportunity to look;at the. flooding issues and other environmental'issues that would"be.
4 .required in the process.
5 _
6 Vince Landoff, 12 Cordela Drive,: I kind, of have a problem, here. Let's go backto'84 and,
then come forward from there;- in chro,nologicaf order. Remember the draft 205 document
8 that started this whole thing about the' riper project with,`the Corps of Army Engineers.
9 You've got copies of them. The Corps saysthat fhe City does,not.add one thing along the
o river in the. way of any kind. of projects or developments aril this. is how they come on
1 board with their $5 million matching funds in order to put they project. in. If we in~any way
2 violated. That rule,, we would be disqualified'. Now ~we have been technically disqualified a
3 dozen times or more, and,. that's due to inccernental; development. Still,, you're looking at
4 buildings thaf~create sheet water run-off.
6 This project, now„ in talking with CO.E, it's deteriorated., iYs degraded, really. It's not a 100-
? year flood -protection plan any more, it's: down ;lower than the 40-year flood protection ,plan:.
8 There have bee,ntoo manyof.these 200:; 300, and 100-year flood circumstances that have
9 happened over the-past several years. Knowing that the Corps is going to"come back in
o and re=map the. area .at the :basin to redesignate flood'plain; flood-path, and "#lood way,.
1 wouldn't it be befter-to wait till they do that before jumping in there with both feet, making a
2 decision of allowing more buildirg'to go on,.
realize. that you already, in essence, have made a promise to Chelsea ;that they will be
given the green light: to go ahead, but you've got to look at what's happened since: you
agreed with Chelsea. There'is no place else for the water to go. It's going~to come down,.
it's going.to come right over those walls.. Those walls are not going to sfop~it; because.there
is too much :developme,nt ,up there. And we're. talking ,all the way to P,enngrove:.The;re i's_
just so much that Mother Earth can soak in, and the rest of it goes off. ,
Now going back on your detention ponding, in, a"heavy downpour, a detention pond is only
as good as when it gets full That's it. Once it's full; it's outlived ;its usefulness. The; water
goes over the top, and you've still. got .run-off. `Cause most detention ponds are nofi that
deep. If you've got checkval~es on them, those check valves are going to 'be cut;ope:n fo
let the water out' before it floods the area in which the detention basins are ,on.
October 18; 1999 Vol. 34, Page 37
1 But I understand Chelsea's point of view, but also you've got~to look at the citizens' point of
2 view in this town. And it hasn't just happened in the Payran area.. It's happened in all four
3 corners of town., where there's been some kind of flooding or another. It's happened all
4 across the country. It's riot just-here.
6 But- it's too much.. build out, and a lot snore planned, along this floodway. You're putting
7 people at risk-every place.. fncluding the very properties that~want to be deve oiled; thatput
8 us at risk downstream. Those properties are also put at risk, such as Chelsea. I think it's
9 been proven. out twice now, where in heavy.downpour', the 300-year flood circumstance,,
1o their parking, lot half fi.lle'd up. And. heaven help the person who goes into the store and
11 leaves the baby out,there, windows cracked, and runs'into the store for what they figure is
12 going to be a 5, to 15-minute shopping spree, ends up forgetting, and comes out half an
13 hour later and findsthe car six#eet under. But still; you remember, Jane, when we argued=
14 this point, when this project first came off the drawing board, when Chelsea was put in.
15 Let's wait untl~we look of the entire floodplain, to see if' it can take all this development, and
16 how much water can' be handled with all this sheet water run-off. Thank you.
17
18 Vasco Brasil, 4551 Lakeville ,Highway; I must say, Mr. IVlayor, you are improving. The last
19 time I was here and wanted to speak on the subject, you. opened the meeting at .five
2 0 minutes to 11:00. You did a lot better today. The reason l came up here~~was related'to the
21 retention and detention ponds that I just referred to a few weeks back. I don't Nave any
22 preference for Chelsea; and I #eel sorry for the guys-who got flooded and all that`s,orf of
2 3 stuff,: but when you get down to history, 1'00 years ago, before Petaluma was: anywhere
24 near the size it is today, it'had flooding.. Right? One:th'ing you've got to get straighf and~the
2 5 engineers hav_ a got'to get this straight, it is not a riven. It's a tidal dead-end slough: The tide
2 6 comes in; no place for the water to go. You keep the' tide out,,~Petaluma will never flood.
2.7 When I was here at that retention/detention meeting; I,got the same idea from Dr. Cordum,
2 8 who said he saw one'in action where they put:a gate:of the beginning of the tidal dead-end
2 9 slough, if there's ;any danger of flooding, they don't lei the tide- come in. You have
3 0 thousands and thousands of acres, down there where the water normally goes when the
31 tide comes in. You could have those same thousands and thousands of acres for
32 floodwater to go from run-off of all these hills. Thank you very much.
33
34 Public Comment Closed
3'5
3 6 Council Comment
37
3 8 Council .Member Torliaft: At this point in time.; what l would suggest. is upholding the appeal,
3 9 conditioned upon the .adoption of the Corona Reach Specific Plan (also referred to as the
40 PMP). l want to makeclear, that if we do that,. it is not an approval of the expansion of the
41 factory outlet.lNhat.we're doing is allowing the factory. outlet.the opportunity to go thr..ough
42 the public process. f think many issues. need to be_ addressed in the application,, including,
43 but not limited to traffic and circulation as it pertains to Corona Road and a potential
44 interchange there, a frontage road along Highway 1:01;, general circulation. throughout the
45 Corona Reach area, and obviously, the floodplain and watershed issues we're dealing with
46 right now and whether or~not building on a floodplain is going to be appropriate.
Vol. 33, Page 38 October'18, 1999
Council' Member Maguire: I concur. l think staff. has acted:appropriately. Wecan uphold the
appeal, but. really, my concern: as I ..read the d'oeuments and history of this whole thing, is
that it's clear'that the intenf on condition 53 is that there be a Master Plan or a Specific
Plan. And ,yes; we have brought that to a halt in the meantime because there have been
changes inthe process; i.e.,,the reconsideration of the validity:of Rainier; and I, for one; on
that next agenda item, am ,willing to move ahoad with that. But as I interpret condition 53;
', t be. a required Specific Plan or Master Plan (what's been
referredto as the: PMP) and;that;no project wllbe approved prior to the completion of~that
plan, so that we can.. have :consistency. Otherwise, why would the'Council have. even ,put.
that in there? That's .clearly the intent. Condition. 53 still pertains and I interpret~that as
meaning that we,,have to complete.that PMP or,'Sp,ecific-Plan prior to any project ap,proval~.
and then we .can talk;ab,out more of the specifics that Council Member Torliatt was: referring
to in the: next agenda item, .maybe,. and hammer out some of those details; and; get that
back on track.
..,Council Member Hamilton:; Mr. Mayor; I understand Chelsea's frustration with the process,,.
8 .' and staff's fr.ustration.'It's been kind of a tormented.area. Hopefully; we can straighten it out.
9 in this next year. I'd like to u,ph~old Chelsea's appeal, and allow-them to begin the process. f
0 know. that during the. Factory' Outlet; hea"rings, we fought long -and '.hard to get the
1 concession of a Master Plan. That was one of the conditions before B ;and C could' go
2 forward,, that the Master :Plan be completed, and I'd like to go ahead and snake a
,3 cornrrmitment to completing it; and to doing it in, a very timely manner. I don't want it to take
4 two.years: It.needs to be under a'year.. Well; I'm not going to, p_ut'a.time limit on it righf'now:
5 We can talk about that, but .l think it .needs to be very expedient..l'd also .like to use the
6 ~ interim :development ;policy°that~ we used in the Central 'Petaluma Specific Plan; where.
~~ . ,since it was a Specific ~P--Ian area, rather than halt development until the plan. was
8 completed;. it meant hat development could proceed, but development had fo incorporafe
'9 what was being ;incorporate,d in the. Specrfic Plan, the' policies and goals, and values,, and
o that it needed to:get a recornrnendation from the Specific Plan Committee: So, I'd like us to
1 -maybe see that policy again., and consider using it for the Corona Reach Specifie.Plan:
2
3 Council Member Mag"u'`re: Just a question for clarification.. Wou_ Idthe Central Specific Plan
4 mean any kind of approval, or would that just mean guidance and direction: as the
5 processes moved forward?
6
~~ Council Member Hamilton: It would be guidance-and direction.
8
,_ .
9 Council. ,Member Maguire: Because I can see an inherent .risk, that, they're working 'in
o conjunction with the Committee who's hammer.ing o.ut eland-.use policies and everything'
1 .consistent,, but finally, when a Master Plan, or Specific Flan comes back to this body; it
2 might actually,be modified; in which case they may be: insfantl,y out of consistency, so I'm
3 just recognizing an area of some risk to bofh sides of the arrangement:,
4
5 Council Member Hamilton;; ,It would mean. that their proposal would come with 'a
6 recommendationfrocnthe Cb,mmittee. When they went for the"ir approvals,, there would be
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 39
1 a recommendation from the Committee: "Yes., we feel thi's is in keeping with what we're
2 doing," or, "no, we ~don'f'."
3 •:~
4 Council Member Maguire.: I could support that as long as we snake it real clear to the
5 applicant that they are somewhat at risk that when it comes to finally approve such a plan,
6 Committee recommendation .doesn't mean that it's going to be ultimately consistent with
~ whatever the' City Council decides.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt: This is not an approval of the project. and neither is a
10 recommendation, as we all know.
11
12 Council M~erriber Maguire: EXactly. Thank you..
13
14 Council .Member Healy: I think we're starting to hear a:consensus emerging. I would agree
15 with upholding the appeal, and I think we're starting 'to see some thoughts on where the
16 process goes from here agreed with. upholding the.appeal. I guess my question to the City
17 Attorney is if the decision of the Council sto uphold'the appeal, do we just go the "plain
18 vanilla" resolution that has. been prepared, or do we try to add on to it some of these other
19 issues and thoughts, or are those. things better considered as Council direction or
2 o something that can be brought back at another time.
2.1
22 Council Member Hamilton: The interim development policy would be part of the Specific
2.3 Plan discussion acid not part of this appeal.
24
2 5 City Attorney Rich`Rudnansky ~I believe that's consistent.withwhat wedid tothe Downtown
2.6 Plan. In terms of the resolutions thafwere. presented to you bystaff, there is one indicating
27 upholding of the appeal, and perhaps in keeping with what I'm hearing, there can be an
2 s indication that condition X53 shall' remain_i,n full force.., and. make it clear that in order for
29 there to be any approval ofi..any project. onr~the Chelsea.property, there must be a
3 o completed, and~adbpted,Preliminary Master.Plan or whate~e~r mechanism you decide to use
31 for completori of 53.~u
3 2 ~ ,.. ..~ , .
33 Council MemberTorliatt l agree with that.
3,4, -
35 Mr. Rudnansky: That's what I'm hearing from the Council.
36
3 ~ Council Member Maguire: Rich, that could' tie a Master Plan for the whole Corona,Reach,
3 8 not just the applicant's property?
39
4 o Mr.. Rudnansky: I think ifi you look at condition 53, it specifically indicates that it's beyond
41 the .borders, and really what the mechanism is is up to you. I think you've indicated in the
- 42 past one possibility_would have been the Corona Reach Specific Plan, which is the ,next,
43 item that you're going to be discussing.
44
- 45 Council Member Torliatt: I have a question regarding the cost of this, and when we
46 received the application'I don't know where in~tlie process we deal with how much the
Vol. 33, Page 40 October 18, 1-.999,
1 applicant pays or what~it costs the Cify~to process this:; but it says on our staff report that it'
2 has cost about `$5,,200 to put this together, and the amount,_budgeted .is $2-;925.: So
3 obviously, we're ~at a deficit; sand I dgn't know how we could address that issue, that
4 projects: "pay their way:"
5
6 MOTION: Council Mern`ber.Maguire. I rno~e we adopt a resolution~upholdingthe;
~ appeal, and, a resolution that specif ies that condition #53 remain. in full force
8 and effect, sand that is interpreted to:mean thaf a PMP or Master Plan for the
9 region be,completed and adopted prior to any approval of the p_rojecf.
o
1 Council Member Torlia#t: 1Nhen yoa're saying. "or" you actually .mean they're all the .same
2 thing, PMP is the same- thing as Master Plan is the carne thing as Speeific~ Plan. It's not
3 "and/or" or whatever someone wants to define it as, being.
4 _
5 Council Member Maguire: ,EXactly.
6 .
~ Council Member Hamilton: I'll second hat.
`8
9 Attorney for Chelsea; GCA; F'red'Etzel,: ~If I eou'Id get a clarification on the-resolution.
0 ..
1 Mayor Thompson:. And' you are, sir?
-- :a.. ~ i
. , ..;~ ~-
3 Mr. Etzel My name is Fred 'Etzel, representing Chelsea;. GCA. I have a question. ~1Nhat
.4. happens if the application has been processed, it's gone through the Planning,
5 Commission, the Planning; Commission is ready,~to ;take .action-, and t_he PMP/Gor,.ona
6 Reach Specific Plan has.not been adopted b.y.the Counci_I? It would~seem to, me that inGhat
'~ instance; your only alternative is to deny the application. You can't=approve it, under what
8 you''re positioning here..
,.-•~
0 Council Member Maguire`That wasthe. express intention of my.motion. In the next-..agenda..
1 item I intend to; ,and hopefully the Council concurs, help delineate wfiat thafi process is; and'....
2 it's my intention that the Oity move ahead without .any ,delay in. doing That'process and.
3 completing and getting it adopted so that all parties are,treated~fairly: B.ut it's my express
4 intention in the motion that no approval of the project can occur prior to the,adoption of that:
5 Specific Plan. -
6
~ Mr. Etzel:lNhich means if"we are ready to go and,we',re asking fora decision, and if it's not
8 complete, you will turn us down then. ~ _
9 -
o Council. Member Maguire: Yes:
1 ~ ..
;2 Council .Member Hamilton: Mr. Etzel; how long do you think. it. will.: take fo be ready for
3 approval? ~ -
4 ~ '`
_: ~.
5 Mr. Etzel: We have a complete application on file; and if'you .go~~ahe'ad with-what you'`re
6 contemplating; which is sustaining our appeal, we do have a complete application, and
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 41
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
we're ready to process. The next step would be completion of an Environmental ;I:mpact
Report. on that application. You have a statutory time frame within which you have Ito
complete the EIR,` it's a year, and we'd like to see if done sooner than that, bu`f'the .law
does. give you a year. ~ .
Council Member Hamilton; I don't see any problem`-with those two going concurrently.
Mayor Thompson: 1Ne want :the answers as fast as:*you do.
Council Member .Hamilton: Yes.
Council Member Maguire::And just to clarify, Ms. Hamilton. A're you planning on bringing up
in the next agenda item the point you were making previously about 'the Central"Specific
Plan? Those issues?
Council Member Hamilton: Yes, I am.
Council Member Maguire: That may address some of your:°concerns.
Mr. Rudnansky: It would seem that the applicant did indicate~willingness to concurrently
process the application along with whatever we designate as a PMP. I heard #hat twice.
nllr. Etzel: Well, if l could, through the Mayor„ put a clarification on that. Yes, we will do that;.
however, we don't want to be held up by the Corona :Reach Specific Plan and if it means
:.
that you have to deny us in order to .make a decision; that's what you're going to have to
do, and we accept that,'but we want to be on parallel tracks. We did say that. And we don't
want to be held up bythe-Corona Reach Specific Plan and we had that happen before.lNe
don't want to replicate that experiment.
Council Member Torliatt: Mr. Mayor; my understanding from reading the information was
that was basically what .they were stating way back when when they made the decision to
put this through, that B and C had to go ,through that process.. I mean, we're not changing
the rules. That's what the rules were, and that's what we're living by.
Council Member Maguire: That has been a circuitous process; hopefully, it won't be as
circuitous this time.
Vice Mayor Keller:..Admittedly, you .have a significant amount of frustration. over figuring out
what it'is you've got to present to the City and to staff for project~processing.
Mr. Etzel: No, I disagree with that. V1/e have. a complete application on_file. `We've given
staff a complete application. That's done. Now; the' next step. is the EiR process. That's
pretty straightforward. Now, as we go through the EIR process; we may need to provide.
supplemental information. We understand that. But what I don't want to have happen is
that we have to go back and submit a new application after•tonight. We've done that: The
application's there. Either deem it complete or reject it.
Vol. 33, Page 42 October 18, 1999
1
2 ViceMayor Kelfer:'My understandi'ng,;and correct me.if l'm wrong, the application,needs to
3 be judged againsf a~M'aster Paan,.and we'll, define what that means.very sho,rtly.So that, if,
4 in 'fact, down the ,line ~at the time .than. a Corona Reach Master Plan or Specific .Plan or
5 whatever it is, whatev„er format that we decide to put. it into, your project is inconsistent~with
6 that Plan, then yes,, it would need'..to be altered or'modified or rejected, based on.that°. And.
~ of .cou`rse, you're aware that since 1991 there have been a gnificant number` of anew
8 pieces of information aroand the Corona Reach that have come. to our attention about
9 flood elevations, :need for flood management, surface water management, that'the prior
.:
0 Council was not aware of;~ than is a Health and Safety 'issue, "the change in Rainier as a
1 circuaation item, and the need to integrate -land uses given those factors.. So with :all that,
2 what. I'm asking of you -to understand thatthis. City is, not. where: it was in 1:991 in terms
3 inforrrmation, and we have to'accommodate ,the new inf.ormation..
4 _.. a
5 Mr. Etzel:_ I agree with;`that.:Had the City in'.91 had the i.nforrrmation available that~it has
6 today, I .doubt°very.much if That on-site.detention basin would have been partof'the project.
The concurrence is that~that is not what you do that close to the mouth of~the r,i~er:: So;
8 understand that`. - -
Vice Mayor Keller: That's~potentially true.. I'm not sure if'is .necessarily, but it's a question
that needs to be resolved.
3 Mr. Ru.dnansky:. l think it needs to be clarified in terms. of whether or not this process. is
4 "deemed complete" is a matter of law: l think you've;,heard'enough from staff today that f
.5 would really question whether or notthat°'s the case.But what's you're,doing in tti's appeal
5 is basically, in he way it's worded, is'you're upholding the appeal to the extent that the
7 Council hereby accepts the application. for processing. So I think what you've decided'is
8 you're going Ito allow thernthe process; but bythe way, you can'tforget condition 53. And,
9 in fact, you could even interpret it as meaning, no processing until-it's cornplete,'but that's
o not the way you've interpreted it. You merely -felt that there had to beconcurrent
1 processing.
3 Council Member Torliatt: I`d like to call for the ,question.
5 Vice. Mayor Keller.,: Could we'have a reading from the-Clerk as, to how thaf was worded?
6
~ Council Member Hamilton:: Wel_I, it's right here. -
8
9 -Vice Mayor Keller: 1N:ell, ;tfe:re was'th'at': additional clause that was .raised. Could you ,:read
o: that, please? - -
1
2 Mayor Thompson::, Mr..`Rudn`ansky, could you read that, please?
'3 . .
4 Mr. Rudnansky (read.Resolution)
5
October 18, 1999 vol. 34, Page 43
1 Mayor Thompson;. The. motion was made by Mr. Maguire, and was seconded by Ms.
2 Hamilton. Could we vote, please?
3
4 MOTION PASSED: 7/0/0
5
6 Clerk's Note; End of Verbatim portion of minutes.
7
8 Unfinished business
9
10 12. Discussion and Possible Action of Corona Reach Specific Plan Process and Nature
11 of Citizen Involvement and Corona Reach Specific Plan Committee.
12
13 Council Member Hamilton ;thought that;,due to the lateness in the hour, Council should. not
14 attempt to craft the Corona Reach Specific Plan Committee or its purpose. She suggested.
15 Council choose a specific date when a final determination would be made on this.
16
17 City Manager Stouderconfirmed thatCouncil.w.ould provide guidance, and the issue would
18 be brought back strucfured for further discussion, with those involved.notfied.
19
2 0 Council Member Tor`I,iatt.asked~that the Plan include discussion of a possible Corona. Road.
21 .interchange..,; afrontage road along; Wighway,10;1; providing east/west connectors under the
22 freeway for~bikes and pedestrians, flood~plain and watershed study issues.
23 >.
24 Council Member' Magui"re added;. floodwater issues including on and off-site water
2.5 detention. ~ ~ ~ ~..
26 _.
27 Council Member Torliatt.felt goals for the P-Ian should include an increase in pedestrian
28 and bicycle access:. along the`~~ river%railroad~ `rights-of-way, and a coordinated network
...
29 throughout th`e entire area: She added that;there were issues ih the design guidelines that
3 0 dealt with Rainier that should be deleted.
31 ~.
32 Council Member Healy wanted 'staffi`to share their thoughts on how the Corona .Reach
33 Specific Plan would dovetail with tte General Plan in the issues of transportation and
34 circulation, surface water development, economic development, sustainabifity.
35
3 6 Council Member Torliatt agreed.. She wanted clarification of the current amount of PCDC
37 funds obligated to the Corona Specific. Plan, the current amount collected from property
3 8 owners, and' the projections.
39
4o Council ;Member Maguire asked that the .Plan include a look at open space and public
41 access within the Corona Reach area.
42
43 Public Comment
44
45 Matt Connolly, Chelsea GCA Realty,. 2200 Petaluma,Boulevard North recapped thafwhen
46 Chelsea agreed to the original work plan, it was based on a specific scope of work tflat
Vol. 33, Page 44 October 1,8, 1999
1 dealt with Specific Flan, E1 R, financing, infrastructure plan, and'~aachedule. ,ln looking:at
2 the new process, they would. want a ~elear understanding of what the City was, proposing
3 before tatilizing'anymore of their funds. He suggested that the goal of the process should
4 be very specific; and that :its imp ementation be feasible. He encouraged participation in ahe
5 process by'the newer Council Me .tubers; and that:representatives from the Bicycle Advisory
6 Committee, the Recreation, Music and Parks Committee,, the- Petaluma Area Chamber::of
7 Commerce., and a flooding representative should. be sought for the Committee:.
8 He felt that because of time-frame constraints, the same consultants be~,again utilized. He
9 concluded by saying that Chelsea would ike t'o actively participate in the process.,. but
0 would reserve the decision to utilize any more of their funds until the final plan was
1 determined.
Geoff Dartwright; 56 Rocca Drive, suggested the use of an ihdependent
moderator/facilitator and up to fifteen people. on the Committee.
Public Comment Closed
Vice Mayor Keller wanted fo know the legal form that thi's proposal would take. If'it were a
Specific Plan proposal; what,kind of environmental review would be required for approval,
and what thetime-frame would:be. He wondered how that:time-frame wou_Id,correlate with.
. ., ,
Chelsea's time-frame. He agreed that a facilitator would,be nee_ded,for the Committee; .and
that a wide range of consultants should be available. He described the :Corona- Reach. as
the second -heart of the City, which should be treafed~ as: a community interesf area., He
pointed o.ut that there had been,overten years of verystrong communitymterest in what
happens at the Reach. That needed fo be addressed in both directons,to the commitfe;e
and in the makeup of`the committee. The Corona Reach :Specific Plan needed o integrate
with. the objectives of the Riper Access Enhancement. Plan any available materials from
prior committees should be consolidated for*new committee. He.suggested that this series
of preferred alternatives and issues.points be bro,ugh't back to Councl'in about six months:
1 Council Member Hamilton stated that she thought a new, smalf~committee should be
2 appointed, since her experience had: been that large committees~tended to need a lot more
3 time:: She-added th. at the committee should have a very focused:mission statement, as the
4 clearer the .mission',staternent~ wa"s,. the. more possible it wou'Id_ be:'forthe committee `to
:5 complete. thei'r' charge-within orie year.- - ~ '
6
,.
~ Council Member Caller-Thompson. agreed with the other Council Members:: She. described
8 the original Corona Reach Committee as a "dog and pony show:" She wanted fo make
,9 surethat the public wa"s kept, aware- of th°e committee :and its progress.. She felt the
0 Friedman%Gray property, because it was contiguous, Should be included in the :plan; as
1 should the Corona .Road over-crossing: She~stated that public members ofthe committee.
'2 should include representatives from rural properties who were especially concerned with
3 flooding.
4
5 Council Member Torliatt wanted to i'nelude people from ahe Rainsville urea,; and;those who
6 were on the downstream side on the other~side~of the hill from Magnolia.
October 18, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 45
1
2 Council Member Maguire raised the possibility of each Council Member choosing. one or
3 more persons for the committee.
4
5 Mayor Thompson suggested that two or three Council Members be on the committee as
6 well as two or three Planning Commission members.
'7
8 Vice Mayor I<ell'er felt it was important that there be .economic use of the property. With
9 regard to flooding, the question needing to be answered was; "What is this community to
10 stand behind in risk on flooding in that area? How much risk-are we willin. g to take,. and how
11 much are we asking the public to take?" He noted that this had never been discussed.
12
13 Council. Member Healy raised the issue of staffing resources and stated that the Planning
14 Department was far below strength. He wanted. to hear from staff what the impact of the
15 new direction from Council would be on the Planning Department,. and what effect it would
16 have on other project. He wanted to be realistic about what could be accomplished by a
17 greatly reduced staff.
18
19 Council agreed to :have the next meeting. on this issue from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. on
2 o Wednesday, November 10tH
21
22 Adjourn
23
24 The meeting adjourned. at 11€20 p.m.
25
26
27 E. Thompson, Mayor
28
29 ATTEST:
30
31
32 Beverly J. Kline, City Clerk
33
34.
3`5
36
37