HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/07/1999September 7, 1999 Vol. 33, Page.437
1 ..
2 NOTE: These minutes were augmented May 11, 20,00 fo add the titles and
3 Resolution numbers of the items: approved under the Consent Calendar: ~^ •
4
5 City of Petaluma, California _
6 Minutes of a' Regular
7 City Council Meeting
8
9
10 ~. _
11 , ~ Tuesday,.,September:7, 1999
12 Council Chambers.
13 '
14
15 The City Council of the City of Petaluma met on this date. in the Council. Chambers at
16 3:15 p.m. , ,
17 ~ -
18 ROLL CALL j •
. ,
19 •
20 Present: Hamilton, Healy,. Keller,, Torliatt '
21 Absent: Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Thompson
22
23
24 AGENDA CIiANGES. AD®ITIOIVS, AIVD DELETIOfVS
25
26 Vice Mayor Keller asked for a consensus from the Council to remove from the Consent
27 Calendar agenda items 4, 9, and 10 for discussion during the evening session. Vice
28 Mayor Keller also requested the two remaining agenda items under Unfinished
29 Business, 16 a and. b, be presented in order by Director of Parks and Recreation Jim
30 Carr with possible action taken; discussion and further action would be continued to the
31 evening session.
32
33 Agenda item 2 -was removed and scheduled for the evening. session, as Council
34 Member Healy recused himself, .leaving Council without a .quorum.
35
36 Council Member Hamilton removed from Consent Calendar. agenda items 3 and 1;2.
. 37
38 Council Member Healy. removed from Consent Calendar.agenda items 5 and 6.
39 '
40 Council had questions and wanted clarification on the letter to SCTA about discussion
41 and recommendations made to Council regarding the Measure B list for John Burton's
42 tax measure. The City Manager agreed that the letter w_ ould ,circulate to the entire
l 43 Council for approval this week. •
44
45 -
46
Vol. 33, Page 438 September 7;,1999
1 MINUTES .
2 ~" .
3 Moved to :the.evenng, session.
4 July 15~; 1;999
5
6 PUBLIC. COMMENTS . '7°
7 - ~ ,
8 Geoff Cartwright,..56.Rocca.Drive, displayed illustrations of various development
9 solutions, in floodplains, from FEMA's :Engineering Principles: and Practices for
`10 Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Buildings. He reminded Council that~developrnenf
11 had' been .proposed for Petaluma's floodplain and enumerated `the consequences of
1-2 such development. He urged Council to moue forward with an Urgency Ordinance to
13 stop development in the floodplain.
14
15 C.OUIVCIL COMMENTS
16 ,.
17 Council Member Hamilton stated she had. received a ntamber of requests~for wid'eotapes
18 of the afternoon and evening meetings of the County Board of Supervisors andasked
19 that a letter be sent fo the County that regtested their meetings be videotaped and
20 copies dsfribufed to each. city: '
21
22 City Manager Fred Stouder recollected thatCouneil had previously requested-
23 videotapes from the County and that the Board of Supervisors indicated'fhey did 'not
24 have abud"get fo tape-the meetings,.
25
26
27
28
29
30
Council Member Keller#elt,this was no longer the case.
Council was in agreement that such a fetter be sent.
CONSENT .CALENDAR.
31 Motion:Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded by Council Member Torliatt; to
32 approve the following Consent Calendar items:
33 1. Approving .Claims & Bills.; Resolution. 99-17T N:C:S.
34 7. Receive & File t~uarter,Iy Treasurer's Report; Resolution 99=1'73N.C.S.
35 8. Accepting Completion of the Weed Abatement'Prog~am by Keystone'Tracfor'
36 Services of Yuba City, Resolution 99-174 N:C:S._
37 1`1.Awardin the Confract.to Expand the Community Conter and Lucchesi
9
38 Senior Center Parking Lots, Resolution 99-17fi N.C:S.
39 14. Authorizing the Purchaserof Six Ford' Crown Victoria. Police'Interceptor`
4.0 Patrol Vehicles from Henry Curtis Ford Menury in the amount of $15.5;341.4.4;
41 Resolution 99-178 N.C.S.
42 Motion Passed.4%0/3. (Caller Thompson, Magtaire and Thompson absent).
43 _ ..
44 3. Resolution 99-1'79 fVCS Accepting City of Petaluma; Diversity Report and
45 Approving Affirmative Action Plan for FY 1999-2000. (Acorne)
46
September 7, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 439
1 Council. Member Hamilton inquired about City .Management's efforts to recruit.female
2 firefighters/paramedics. D'irecfor of :Human., Resources Michael Acorne explained that
3 very few females had applied. Pefafuma could not compete vvith salaries offered by
4 larger cities in this area.
6 Mr. Acorne stressed that,the Affirmative. Action Plan applied only to positions that used
7 federal grant monies, as affirmative action was now prohipifed by the state constifuton.
9 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, to
10 adopt a Resolution 99-179 NCS Accepting City of Petaluma Diversity Report and
11 Approving Affirmative Action Plan for FY 1999-20Q0.
12
13 MOTION PASSED; 4/0/3 (Gager-Thompson, Maguire, and,Thompson absent).
14
15 5. Resolution Amending Resolution 97-180 N:C.S. Salary and Supplemental Wage
16 Benefits, for Employees in Unit4 (Professional): (Acorne); and
17
18 6: Resolution 99-1.8'1. NCS Approving Salarq and Supplemental Wage Benefits, for
19 Employees in Unit 9 (Mid-:Management). (Acorne)
20
21 Council Member Healy urged City Management to maintain a single list of comparable
22 cities for use in assuring salary equity.
23
24 Council Members Torliatt and Keller agreed with Council Member Healy on this matter.
25 .. .
26 MOTION:.C~ouncil Member ;Healy moved., seconded' by Council Member Torliatt, fo
27 adopt Resolution 99-180 N.:C.S. Amending Resolution 97=185 N.C.S. Salary and
28 Supplemental~lNage Benefits for Ernpaoyees in'~lJnit 4" (.Professional), and to adopt
29 Resolution 99-181 N C.S. Approving' Salary and Supplemental Wage Benefits for
30 Employees in Unit 9 (:Mid-:Management).
31 -
32 MOTION PASSED: 4/0/3 (Gager-Thompson,, ..Maguire and Thompson absent).
33
~34 12. Written Report by IJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regarding Status of Payran
35 Reach 'Project. (Hargis)
36
37 Council Member Hamilton asked~for clarification of funding possibilities described in the
38 report, and the process to obtain'this funding.
39
40 Mr. Hargis referred fo 1..999 legislation, the Water Resources Development Act, which
41 increased the rnaxirnum level of participation for a Section 205 Project. He had asked
42 Lynn Woolsey's office to determine if the Act would be applicable to the City's project.
43 ,
44 Council M.embe;r Torliatt;suggested Council Members should travel to Washington D:.C
45 to share with Congresswoman Woolsey the positive steps Council had taken to address
46 flooding in the community.
Vol. 33, Page 440 -September 7,.1999 "
1 ~ ..
2 Council Member Keller referred to :a. portion of the rep=ort That stated the, "project area
_,
3 would be trapezoidal- in shape, with some rip-rap banks :for fope proteetion~ and: some
4 vegetation,,, very similar in design to the channel now under construction." He wondered
5 how far upstream. the area was that Ms: 1Noolsey :had referenced,
6
7 Mr. Hargis explained. that he had spoken with Lynn Galal, the Project Manager; who had
8 informed.him that the Corps;of Engineers had studied the worst; case scenario. for flood'
9 waters ~tra~eling through Petaluma, and:. concluded. That fhe area upstream of Payran,
LO through the Graylawn Apartmerit area, should remaih in its natural state, that is; witho-u :;
11 modifications to the channel.. The step or bench channel .concept should' be utilized
12 through the Corona'Reach area.
13
L`4, Council Member Hamilton questioned the involvement of-the Golden Gate Bridge
15 .District in this project.
16
17 Mr. Hargis replied that the Bridge District was the owner of fhc railraod right of way and'
18 has been the lead for the City to :obtain right of enfry to construct the mainline bridge.
1.9
20 MOTION: Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded by Healy, to accept the Corps
21 of Engineers Report and Memorandum of Understanding.
22
23 'MOTION PASSED: 4/0/3 "(fader-Thompson, Maguire; and Thompson absent)
24
25' PUBLIC COMMENT `.
26
-..
27 Geoff C-artwright, 56 Rocca pYive, a"stied about the purpose of`the #ifteen !(15)=inch pipe
28 connected t'o the eighty-four (84)-inch, pipe behind' John Cheney's house .on-Rocca
29 Drive. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_
30 = - ~ ..
31 Mr. Hargis responded. that Mr. Cheney had expressed concern,:about o~erfilow onto hi"s
32 property from fh-e eighty=four (84')-.inch pipe. In o=rder to;mitigate this problem, the ~Co:rps
33 would install a fifteen. (15)-inch p=ipe to' drain the area and a backflow prevention,..device
34 at the manhole: ~ .
35 .. - . , .
36 UNFINISHED BUSINESS ~ ' - ~ .
37 ~ ..
,„ - _.
38 16a. Join Powers Agreement with Petaluma Schoo.I~District regarding Operation arid,
39 Maintenance Costs of Aparacio. -
40 16b. Resolution 99-~1,82.NG5 rejecting all bids for the, Kenilworth Junior High.Athletic
41 Field Renovation. ~ -
42
43 Director~of Parks and Recreation -Jim Carr presented. background, information,
44 alternatives, and recommended. founcl reject all bids, remove"tle;.lights from McNear
- -- -
45 Park at the end. of the softball season, and pursue the installation of lightS~ at~the north
46 end'of Prince ParK. - -
September 7, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 441
2 Council. Member Torliatt pointed out that the paan had been presented to the Petaluma
3 School Board on January 27, 1998,, and the School Board encouraged the commission
4 to continue with the plan and work with the Kenilworth Junior High School staff a'owards
5 any proposed improvements forthe athletic fields.-She thought it .was unfortunate that
6 the School District was not willing to allocate more Phan one hundred thousand dollars
7 ($100;000) to the- project. She asked if the School Board had .discussed the budgeting
8 of that item. ~ ~ -
9 _ .. :~
10 City Manager Stouder thought it had not been discussed. 'He had been told the School
11 Board reallocate funds. from. their budget if they were to contribute to the project.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt didn't think the School Board had adopted their budget'yet.
14 ~ ~ -
15 Mr. Stouder confirmed this .and stated -that the School District would ,discuss their
16 budget on September 14. He_ said he had discussed-with Superintendent Carl 1Nong a
17 special meeting with the School Board to discuss this project
s...,
18 ,.
19 Mr. Carr stated that he preliminary budget had, passed,, the .one hundred thousand
20 dollar ($100;000)-only fgure.had been included. If the District were to approve
21 additional funding, it would have to be pulled from another existing project.
22
23 Mr. Stouder added the School District was very clear that. they would not recommend
24 more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that had previously committed.
25
26 Council Member Torliatt referred to Alternative 3 of the staff report. and asked Mr. Carr.if
27 the McNear neighborhood had been noticed of the Parks. and Recreation Commission
28 discussion to remove the lights.
29
30 Mr. Carr responded. that City Management had ,not notified the neighborhood. He added
31 that if Council decided to proceed with Alternative 3, the entire. neighborhood would be
32 notified, and a meeting, would be held at the Cavanagh Recreation Center to explain. the
33 project. Parks and Recreation Commissioner Bruce Hagen'would facilitate the meeting.
34
35 Council Member Torliatt wanfed the Parks and Recreation Commission to discuss
36 alternatives with the McNear neighborhood residents before bringing it to Council.
37
38 Mr. Carr replied that Parks and Recreation Commissioner Voorhees Mount was to
39 speak with the McNear Park neighbors.
40
41 Council Member Maguire, at a ,Packs and Recreation Committee meeting, asked Mr.
42 Mount what he thought was the attitude of the residents in,~~tle neighborhood towards
43 the project.
44
45 Mr. Mount said he thought~the residents would .respond favorably to Alternative 3.
46
Vol. 33, Page 442 September 7, 1'999
1 Mr. Stouder reemphasized that if=the City was to award. the contract, it would bankrupt
2 the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
3
4 Council,'Member'Torliatt saw `two goal`s: -,
,..
5 1. R'emoval:`of'lights from McNear°P~ark; and.,,
6 2. Additional Iighfs el4sewhere, preferably at P'ri'nce Park.
7 _
8 She thought~the dollar figure for installation of improvements and lights of Kenilworth
9 was between seventy=five thousand and one :hundred fifty thousand dollars (.$75';0:00-
10 $150',000): _
11
12 Mr. Stouder thought`the light-fixtures forthe softball fiel.ds:would be around eighty
13 thousand dollars ($8'0,000). Construction costs wou_Id be added, and: tennis court_lights
14 had also been discussed
15
.,
16 .Council Member Torliatt reminded Council of `thee uncertainty ~f Kenilworth, remaining
17 open. Assistant Superintendent Steve B'olman had indicated that the District had.
18 submitted an application fo the State.: for hardship funds under Proposition 1 A. The.
19 funds would be used: to close Kenilworth and construct anew- junior high school... She
20 explained that if the. District sold~'the Kenilworth site, it would be rezoned as R_ 6500', that.
21 is, residential with six thousand~five hundred square foot (6,500 ft2) lots.
22
23 Cou~eil Member Hamilton thought:Council should: discuss its vision forthe property and
24 ,have a very clear, unified 'm'essage priorto meeting'with the School Board:
25
26 Gouneil Member Torliatt agreed. She~was also concerned about traffic ,generation in the
27 area and on Keisling. She wanted City Management to pursue'"the possibility of,
28 relocating or reselling the lights.
29
30: Mr. Cart stated that in :order to build .softball field; at Kenilworth, the. hardball field 'had to.
31 be removed, and that~was part of the master plan. Grading and draining would be,
32 required, and that was quit:e expensive. He explained that~the cost of'ligh'ts was
33 insignificant compared to the cost of the entire project.. It'was ,not. possible to install
3.4. lights without making other improvements: He was concerned that the School Board
35` would not commit to the site or the use of bond monies. He was in favor of the City
36 investing'in improvements to property currently owned by`the City.
37
38 Council Member Hamilton asked why th_e Setool pstrict''s unwillingness to participate in
39 the project, liad not been clarified much earlier in the,year.
40 Mr. S.touder replied that he had had a discussion.with Superintendent Wong, several
41 months ago, that the School. Dist_rict's participation shoald be more in the two hundred
42 thousand dollar ($200;000.)+ range. When bids had come in; it was even more apparent
43 that one hundred ~thousand`~dollars ($100,000) was not adequate. He had sensed in h:is
44 conversations-with Superintendent 1N,on;g that the School Districf might contribute more
45 than one hundred thousand dollars ($.100,000). However; this_ no longer seemed. to ,be
46 the case:
September 7, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 443
2 Council Member Hamilton stated that wince bids had not come in until August 19th, the
3 financial. feasibility of the: project should have been determined quite some time ago.
4 She clarified that the removal of the lights from McNear Park was a Council "direction"
5 and not a "stated goal." She was'in favor of pursuing the lighting of Prince Park. If riot
6 Prince Park,, she wanted City Management to look into Lucchesi Park. She was not
7 committed to any ore location, but rather wanted to determine how the City could move
8 lights out of McNear Park, ,and put: them somewhere else. McNear Park had waited at
9 least a decade for this to happen; and she was very committed to making it happen..
10
11 Mr. Carr rep(ied.that the. use of-the phrase "stated goal"'was his error. He understood
12 that it was a Council directive to remove the lights from McNear Park.
13
14 Council Member .Hamilton was in favor of removing the fights in a way that would limit
15 disruption to fhe sports community.
16
17 M'r. Carr agreed.
1&
19 Council .Member Healy agreed that Alternative. 4, Prince Park, was the most viable. He
20 ;supported rejecting bids received to date. With respect to the School District, he agreed
21 with Mr. Carr that the City should ,invest where. it was most useful in the long terra. If the
22 School. District was to close Kenilworth, the City should not pursue that site. He thought
23 the Council should meet with tfe School District to determine how the City could
24 support them in their goal of having three small'junior high schools.
25
26 Council Member Keller asked. Mr. Carr if the lights from McNear Park would not be
27 useable at Prince Park because of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
28
29 Mr. Carr replied that fhe fixtures may be reusable, but the poles would not. He explained
30 that installing all new equipment at Prince Park would be less expensive in the long
31 term.
32
33 Council Member Keller asked if relocating the lights to one of the fields at Lucchesi Park
34 had been discussed.
3'S _
36 Mr. Carr replied that if had not been discussed at length.
37
38 Council Member .Keller inquired if any of the fields at Lucchesi had originally been
39 intended as lighted fields.
40
41 Mr. Carr replied that he was not aware of any plan to, light those fields. The Parks and
42 ,Recreation Commission had explored a number of possibilities for reusing the lights.
43 from McNear Park.
44
45 Council Member Keller understood Council's commitment to be twofold:
46 1. Remove lights from McNear Park
Vol. 33, Page 444 September 7, 1999'
1 2. Provide. a lit field elsewhere ,in City without any service interruption.
2. He was reluctant to make an investment to the fields at_Kenilworth. He thought that
3 Council should move ahead as soon as possible with lighting for Prince ;Park, with :new
4 lights purchased; as necessary, and continue to explore-possibilities fo:r reusing the:
5 lights from McNear Park, so that the City would have two parks.with ligh"ted b~alf fields.
6 He thought the School ,District was unclear about their intentions. He proposed rejecting
7 bids for reconstruction of the fields at Kenilworth, and that City Management move
8 forward with other :options.
9
10 Council Member Torlatt, said: that her~intent. was to actively pursue. working o:ut an
11 arrangement that would benefit the community as a whole.
12 Council Member Hamilton reminded Council Members that they all served the-.same
13 constituents. ~~
14
15 Council Member Tgrliatt: asked if there had been any discussion with the ,School District ~'
16 regarding. installation of :improvements at Kenilworth by the City with reimbursement by
17 the School .'District. for its share .over time.
18 ~..
19 Council Member Keller'thought the School District had indicated they would not be ~ . .".
20 interested in such an arrangement.
21
22 Council Member Torliatt thought Kenilworth was a goodsite~for ball'#ields.. Since'tfle '~
23 Cify was to purchase property for'Cross~Creek, to be used -as ball fields, she wondered
24 if'the Kenilworth. site could be purchased. and .improved as needed. She wanted the,-City - ,.
25 and the School.. Board to make a joint decision on a site. for the Cross Creek fie ds
26 `
27 Council Member _Hamilton'wondered what,the nexts_fep would be in pursuing Prince
28 Park.
29
'30 M'r. Cara had a conversation with the surveyor- who was to locate the: boundary markers-
31 required by FAA on East Washington Street. Based up"on that information, Shutt' and.
32 Moen will determine'the exact location light standards can bey p aced to stay below
33 height restrictions. Th'e.required forms were to be sent to the .FAA; approval would -fake
;34 ,approximately thirty (30) days.. Musco Lighting, would determine power requirements
`35 and the location for wiring, and standards. The underground conduits for the wiring could
36 be.'installed prior to the heavy rains: "
37
38 C.ounci.l.Member Hamilton asked if'the.Airport..Commission needed.to'be notified. '
39 -
40 Mr. Carr stated the Airport Commission would be notified
41
42 Council Member Torl'att wan. ted the item placed on an agenda;for the Airport
43 Commission.
44 Mr. Carr recommended! ,and .asked Council for authorization, to move Shutt and Moen
45 forward, `th"en go, o A'irporf Commission..
September 7, 1999 Vol. 33; Page 445
1 MOTION: Council` Member Hamilton moved, seconded. by Healy, to reject all bids for
2 renovation of the athletic fields at Kenilworth Junior High.
3
4 MOTION PASSED.::. 4%0/3 (Cader=Thompson, Maguire and Thompson absent)
5
6 Council Member Kellerasked the Council,to adjourn to the City Manager's Conference
7 Room for discussion and possible action on Closed Session Items.
8
9 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced the following business to be heard during
10 Closed Session:
11
12 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTLNG LITIGATION (Subdivision (a)
13 of Government' Code § 54956.9) Bravo vs. City of Petaluma. Sonoma County Superior
14 Court Case No. 218404.
15
16 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a)
17 of Government; Code § 549.56.9) Signs vs. City of Petaluma. Sonoma County Superior
18 Court Case No: 217991.
19
20 3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government.
21 Code SectionLL 54956:8.
22 Property: 4104 Lakeville Highway - A.P,N.'s 017-170-002 and 068-010-026
23 Negotiating Party: Frederick Stouder
24 Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment ar both. (Gray Property)
25
26 ADJOURN` ~ '
27
28 Council adjoiarned_at 5:0`0 p.m._to the City Manager's Conference Room to hear closed
29 session items. '
30 ADJOURNED
31 ******
32
33' RECONVENE.- 7:00 P:M.
34 .
..,
35 IVIOMENY OF SILENCE ~ ~.
36 "'
37 Af the request of .council Member David Keller, a moment of silence was observed.
38
39 PLEDGE ;O'F ALLEGIANCE
40
4`1 At the request of Council Member David Keller, Hank Flum led the Pledge of Allegiance.
42 '
43 ROLL CALL
44
45 Present: ,Cader-Thompson.,. Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Torliatt
46 Absent: Maguire, Thompson
Vol. 33, Page 446 September 7, 1.999
1
2 PUBLIC COMMENTS
3 -.
4 Vernon S. Piccinotti; C:ommitte.e to. Save . U: S. Coast Guard Training, Cerite,r; ,3.700
5 Spring Hill 'Road, announced; that the; final hearing of the enuironmenfal review would
6 take ,place qn V1lednesday, September .1.5, 19.99 from 6:30- p,m. - .10:00 p.m; at
7 Kenilworth Junior High. School. He left a, :copy of the report with M'r. -Stouderfo,r
8 distribution to Couneil.
9 `
10 Alice M. Bonomi, 8625 S. McDowell Boulevard, spoke regarding th`e suffering of `feral
11 cats. in Petaluma, and requested help with the capfure and humane treatment of-these
12 animals.
13
14 Council Members Hamilton and Keller suggested Ms. Bonomi. send a letter to the:
15 Animal Services Committee via the City Manager's COffice asking that the: cats 'be,
16 trapped and brought to the Animal Shelter for treatment.,
17
18 Geoff Cartwright„ 56 Rocca, Drive; inquired about the RMI Study and whefhe,r the
19 County was going to help the City with stage:gauges.and flow gauges.
2~0
21 Victor G:hechanover; 23Q1 Marilyn Circle; spoke regarding three issues; _
22 1. .Law Enforcement Block Grant that.would be presented to Council on''Septernber. 21.,
23 He asked if, the grant was a "one time deal.," or if it would k~e repeated' each year.: He
24 thought statistics regarding drug problems in Petaluma should be made available to .
25 the Council, before the September 21' meet'i'ng.
26 2. Electric Co-Op: He asked if consideration had" treen given to ~an electric 'co-op in
27 Petaluma. '.
29 3 wouldrreflect~actual water use. by re de tabusers ~He srtatedlthat he had been that
old
30 repeatedly that the issue was being studied.
31 "
32 Mr. Stouder stated he would supply the 'information ~ o Mr: Chech'anover that • he had
33 requested. _ _ ~ _ ~ ;
34
35 Mr. Chechanove'r was frus_frated because he has been promised fihis in the past,. and he
36 had not 'received any information. He felt the answers 'to his questions should be
37 discussed publicly. ~ ~ _
38 -
39 Mr. Stouder asked Council if #hey would like him to~ add`ress the.;issues `briefly. They
40 replied thatthey would. .
41
42 Mr. Stouder, in regard to the Law EnforeementBlock Grant,. referred to a chartincluded
43 in -the CounciP packet several weeks before that provided information on all': state and
44 federal grants received by the City. He stated that-the grant to which Mr.: Ch`echano~er
45 referred was athree-year grant; but there was no obligation on the part ;of'~th:e City to
46 continue the grant.
September 7, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 447
2 Mr. Stouder`"then addressed the possibility of an electric co-op and said there had been
3 some research info the possibility of an electric co-op, which revealed that such a
4 project was,not feasible with respect"to time and money'.
5
6 Mc. Stouder stated that Public Hearings were scheduled for November 1 and December
7 6 regardinga,,proposed .increase in the sewer rates,. and a that detailed report on the
8 .issue would be available this week.
9 -.
_ .. .
10 Bruce Hagen, 145 G'revillia Drive, Petaluma, spoke in support of moving the lights from
11 McNear Park fo Kenilw,orth Junior High, and offered to help work with the ballplayers.
12 and neighbo,r`hood. residents toward an equitable solution in this matter. He then read
13 part of a September 2"d editorial from the Press Democrat regarding Lafferty Ranch.
14
15 COUNCIL COMIVIEiVTS
16
17 Council Member Hamilton had gone to the Animal Shelter to walk dogs and encouraged
18 members of the community to take the time to ~do this.
19
20 Council Member Caller-Thompson had attended the County Board of Supervisors
21 Meeting and was shocked by the tone of the meeting. She appreciated the Press
22 Democrat's depiction of the meeting. She also mentioned that ..her daughter was .having.
23 a very positive experience as a new student at Casa Grande High School and
24 commended the helpful attitudes of the upperclassmen..
25
26 Council Member Torliaft mentioned that she had also attended the Board of Supervisors,
27 Meeting to request their support in adding fhe. frail to Lafferty Ranch. She had hoped
28 that the Board would.include the trail in the Outdoor Recreation Plan.
29
30 Council Member Keller stated that there was. a request at the Board of Supervisors
31 Meeting on the Outdoor Recreation. Plan. for confirmation of the City of Petaluma's
32 intentions on Lafferty Ranch and Trail over Sonoma Mountain. Supervisor Michael Cale
33 indicated that he had not seen any correspondence from the City in this regard.
34 Council 'Member Torliaft had reminded Supervisor Cale that the City had sent two
35 communications to Philip ,Sales, Planning and Design Administrator for Regionah Parks.
36 in 1997 and 1.998,: on this issue, that indicated a strong desire on the part of the Council
37 to .have Lafferty Ranch included as a park,. with trails,. fjoth on the property and over the:
38 mountain, and an offer to provide any assistance possible towards the development of
39 the Outdoor Recreation Plan. Supervisor Cale had requested copies of the letters.
40 Council Member Torliatt stated that the Board Members seemed unaware of the City
41 Council's ,position on this matter, and they were unaware of the letters sent to Mr. Sales.
42
43 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky encouraged Council to add the issue formally fo the
44 . agenda because of :the need. for immediate action.
45
Vol. 33, Page_448 September 7, 1999
1 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved,, seconded by Caller-Thornpso'n, to add, the
2 County Board of Supervisor's request fore confirmation of the City of Petaluma's
3 intentions regarding Lafferty Ranch and the trail over .Sonoma Mountain 'to the C:.ouncif.
4 Agenda for discussion and possible action,as an urgent matter.
5
6 MOT10N-PASSED: 5/0/2 (M_aguire and Thompson absent). ,-.. -
7 ~ _
8 Council Member Keller presented a draft of a~ letter addressed to Supervisor Cafe;
9 reiterating the City of Petaluma°s support for an integrated trail. system throughout`
10 Sonoma County, that included a trail site on the City property known as Lafferty Ranch
11
12 Council Member Torliatt emphasized to :City Management that Supervisor Cale should:
13 receive a copy of thee letter.
14 -
15 Council Member Keller asked if there were corrections or additions to the letter.
16
17 Council ,Member Healy said the wording of the letter suggested that the City wanted the
18 trail from. Jack London State Park fo Old. adobe 'State Park to travel through Lafferty
19 Ranch. He thought ,it .needed to be clarified. -
20
21 Council. Member Torliatt confirmed that the letter should state the City's desire 'for trail's
23 London Stafte PaRk and O.Id Adobe State Palrkthrough Lafferty Ranch, connecting Jack
24 .
25 MOTION: Council.. Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Caller-Thompson to; send th`e~
26 letter, with corrections and clarification, ,to the County Board. of Supervisors.
27
28 MOTION PASSED: 5/0/2 (~Maguire,and Thompson absent)':
29
30 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
31 ~ .
32 2. Adoption . of Ordinance Apply' ing an Historic Overlay District to the Historic
33 Downtown and Amending Article 1°7 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Smith/Bialk),
34
35 MOTION.:., Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Hamilton, to adopt' City
36 Ordinance 99-207 N.C:S. Applying an Historic Overlay Zoning District_to Parcels Within
37 the Petaluma Downtown Commercial District sand Amending Article 17, Preservation of
38 the Cultural and .Historic Environment of'the'Zoning Ordinance.
39 .
40 MOTION PASSED: 5%0/2 (Maguire and. Thompson absent):
4.1
42 4. Resolution Accepting Completion of the 1,997 Street Resurfacing Frojecf.
43 Supervising Civil Engineer Mike .,Evert presented ~fhe staff .report that- summarized that
44 the' prgject'involved ,resurfacing ,McDowell, Boulevard North between Lynch Creek. Drive
45 and East Washington Street;, and McDowell Boulevard North between Southpoint
46 Boulevard and Sun"rise Parkway; patch repairs o,n portions of Petaluma Boulevard
September 7, 1999 Vol. 33, Page<449,
1 South between: `D' Street and `I' Street;. and slurry seal on Caulfield Lane between
2 McDowell Boulevard South and Payran Street. The contractor was to be Maggiora &
3 Ghiloft, Inc. The final project cost was one million, two' hundred fifty-eighf thousand,. two
4 hundred eighty-eight dollars ($1,258,288). The project number was 9732.
5
6 MOTION: Council. Member Caller-Thompson, seconded by Torliatt to pass Resolution
7 99-173 N.C.S. Accepting Completion of the 1997 Street Resurfacing Project..
8
9 MOTION PASSED: 5/0/2 (Maguire and Thompson absent).
10
11 Councif Member Caller-Thompson expressed interest in rrmedian beautification for
12 streets in East Petaluma other than on Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
13 ,..
14 Council Member Keller asked staff if there was a fee for repair, and maintenance to
15 trenches other than the two to three (2 to 3)-year warranty received by the City.
16
17 Director of Engineering Tom Hargis explained thaf the City required a t'wo ~or three (2 ~or
18 3)-year bond for .the trench work. An inspection was made at the end of the bond. period;
19 if work was not satisfactory, the contractor would, be required to make improvements. ,lf'
20 this were not done, the bond would be called to 'provide funds for needed
21 improvements.
22 _
23 Council Member Keller suggesfed tfe, City consider charging ,a~ fee for any trenchi ~g
. _. ,..
24 done on City streets: The fee would be added to a long-term m"aintenance~fund, as most
25 pavement failures were connected with old trenches
26 ~ -
27 16. a. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on Joint Powers Agreement wifh
28 Petaluma .School District. Regartling Operation and Maintenance Costs of Aparacio
29 Field (Located at Kenilworth Junior High School) and Status Report on Transfer and
30 Removal of Lights from .MCNear Park.
31
32 16. b. Discussion and Possible Action to Award the Contract for Phase 1 "A" of the
33 Kenilworth, Junior High Athletic Field Renova#on to Union Pacific Construction
34 Company for $773,.642.23.
35 ~ -
36 Council Member Hamilton wanted to reaffirm Council's commitment to removing the
37' .lights from McNear Park. She stated that Aparacio Field was not a viable site for he
38 fights. She wanted the, Councif to work with: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
39' for lights at Prince.Park.
40
41 Gouncf`Mem6er Torliatt wanted to keep Council's commitment to the McNear Park
42 neighborhood residents and provide lighted fields for the City's athletes during the
43 coming year and stated' the process should move forward without further delay.
44
45 Council. Member Hamilton reminded Council of previous discussions about the
46 possibility of lighting the Little League field at Lucchesi Park.
Vol. 33, Page 450 September 7,1999
2 Council Member Torliatt stated she was not in°favor of .that. She mentioned the
3 possibility, of installing lights at Kenilwortli,temporarly until a site fora ball field for Gross
4 Creek was: purchased. The lights would then be moved to that site..
6 Council Member.Keller stated Council should make a decision to Light one, ~or-pos`sibly
7 two fields at~ Prince :Park as Jim Carr had stated it was feasible and that. its could be dome
8 in time for.the spring season. He wanted to see the conduit for the;electrical service
9 trenched' before the rainy season. began: ;He wanted the process to. obtain .permission
10 from the Fed tion Ad'ministrati'on (FAA) to light. Prince Park to, begin. If ;possible,,
eral Avia
11 he wanted -the .lights from. McNear Park to be reused at Lucchesi; or with minimal
12 investment; at Kenilworth. He thought those lights; could not be reused at Prince °P;ark
13. because of. FA__A requirements.
14
_ _..
15 Council Member :Hamilton asked.. that Council schedule a discussion about Kenilworth
16 on an agenda; and then meet with the School Board to discuss Council's interest. in tle:
17 cite, and views :on traffic and rezoning..
18
19 ;Council Member Healy.agreed with Gouncil's:moving forwa"rd to obtain lights. for Prince
20 Park. He d.id not'want the,lights at: McNear to be removed until lights were'in place at
21 another site.. .
22
23 .Council Member Cade"r,=Thompson asked. if direction would be given to proceed, with
24 lighti"ng all:fou~r ball~fi`el_ds at Pnnee~~Park.
25 _ .
26 Council Mernbe;r'Healy. explained that the no,rthernrnost fie d would be lighted, with
27 possible expansion to include the soccer field.
28
29 Council Member Torliatt.. stated that Council, wbu d also have. to work with 'Prince Park
30 neighborhood residents; even though,, as .Interim Planning Diroctor Vin Smith had
31 confirmed, the ~homeownees' deed restrictions included a reference to future .lighted ..ball
32 fields at .Prince Park and a park to be developed as part of'th'e. V1/illow Glen Subdivision.
33
34 Council Member Healy-.asked Mr.:Smith ifithe homeowners' deeds for the King's Mill
35 Subdivision contained such a reference.
36 ",
37 Mr. Smith replied that, he thought they did not.
38
39 MOTION: Council Member Hamilton, seconded by Torliatt, moped `to adopt Resolution
40 99-182 N.C.S.,, .Rejecting All Bids#or the Kenilworth Junior Higfi Athletic Field '
41 Renovation Project 9$9.0, and to give direction that Gity Management proceed with
42` lighting at I'rince~ Park-.
43
44 MOTION PASSED: 5/0%2 (Maguire and `Thompson absent).
September 7, 1999 Vol. 33, Page "451
1 Councif Member Keller asked Council fo reaffirm their commitment to remove. the lights
2 from .McNear Park at the end of the season, November 1999. ,He asked City
3 Management;to further in~esti'gate relocating, ights at Lucchesi or Kenilworth.
4
5 Council "Member Cader-Thompson „preferred that the Fights be relocated to Lucchesi.
6
7 Council Mem, ber Keller agreed. He felt that the School Board's intentions regarding the
8 Kenilworth property needed to be clarified. He did not believe they wanted to invest in
9 improvements on the property.
10 Council Member Torliatt reiterated that she was in favor of reusing the McNear lights at
11 Kenilworth, ifi possible.
12
13 Council Member Ke ler pointed out that installation of.the lights at Kenilworth would.
14 require electrical .equipment underground, and foundation work for the light standards.
15
16 Council Member Torliatt replied that she was'in favor of Council scheduling a meeting to
17 discuss Kenilworth, and then establishing a meeting date for a joint meeting with the
18 School Board for discussion on this issue.
19 - -
20 APPOINTMENT
21
22 17. Discussion and Possible Action on Appointment of a Council Member to the
23 Sonoma County Children & Families: First Commission's Community Advisory
24 Committee.
25
26 Council Member Hamilton was, interested in working with'the committee and thought a
27 joint appointment would be possible.
28
29 Council Member Healy said he was also interested and had been approached by
30 Barbara Graves several months before and asked if he would serve on the committee.
31 He had encouraged Ms, Graves fo address Councif directly. He stated that Petaluma
32 was not currently adequately represented on the committee.. A joint appointment maybe
33 welcomed. He explained that the committee was d'ivi'ded into four subcommittees.
34
35 Member Cader-Thompson expressed interest in the committee as well. -
36
37 Council Member Hamilton suggested that interested Council Members should all ~ .- :~~
38 'represent Petaluma on the committee. .
39
40 Council Members Cader-Thompson and Healy concurred.
41
42 Mr. Stouder supported the suggestion.
43
44 The co,n"senses. to the Council was that interested Council Members Cader-Thompson,
45 .Hamilton, and Healy would represent Petaluma on the Sonoma County Children. &
46 Families First Comcnission's.Comrnunity Advisory Committee.
Vol. 33, Page 452
September 7;.1999
1
2 NEW BUSINESS
3
4 18. Discussion and- Possible Action on. the: Qeveloprrment Review Process `fora:
5 Preliminary Land Use: Proposal to Construct a Special fndustriaVOffiee.Park (Southgate)
6 on 39~+ Acres Located at-th'e Intersection of Lakeville~Highway arid Frates Road.
7
8 Council Member Torliatt. recused herself from this-;item due fo a conflict of.`inferest:
10 Associate Planner Hans Grunt re~iewed'the Agenda Report far Sou#hgafe, The
11 preliminary proposal includ~ed~ requested direction from Council on a plan to replace the
12 prerequisite to:prepare a specific. plan with a General Plan amendment to designate the
13 site Special Industrial/Office .Park.
14
15 Bill White,. President of G&1N Managerrment C_ompany;, submifted a request ~to City
16 Council for, discussion ;and direction; to City Management concerning., the farad. use
17 development review process for development of the property.
18
19 Mr. Grunt. continued,, rioting that the proposal included a, correspondhg~ Planned
20 Community District. Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision :Map for a project..
21 titled, "Southgate:" It anticipated the need for an Environmental Impact` Report~(EfR);,
22 'including com~par~son of land=use. alternatives,
23 ~ ~ .
24 The Planning Commission had considered'. tfae proposal ih July. The_ Cornmissib.ners
25 had ,agreed that the site did note have characteristics typical of a Specific Plan ~~area, ;and
26 preparation of a Specific Pfan was• not necessary. The Commission agreed that a,
27 General Plan amentl`menf fo, Special"Industrial/Office Park was appropriate. The
28 Commission .ernph~asized three points:
29
30 1.
31 2.
32 ~ ..
33'
34
35
36-
,37
.38`
39
4Q
41
42
The subject' site would be developed under-single~ownership.
The:. Proposed Planned Community District Development Plan should
appr..opriately address State planning,,zoning', and development laws, including
supporting land-use.alternati"v_es, financing implementation, and development
standards.
The environmental process should. assess. viable ;,land-.use. alternatives:.
-3.
The proposal supported future industrial and office; use, and as such, :contributed to the
City's future ernp oymenf and economy: Council was asked to `review staff's report to
:consider th'e Commission's recommendations, and' discuss the applcant's_: preliminary
proposal forS,outhgate and provide.,comments and ;direction to staff, concerning the: land
use development review process for development of~the pcopPrfy. No formal action was
required for the preliminary determination.
43
44 Three alternative directions were identified in the staff report:
45
September 7, 1999 Vol. 33, 'Page; 453
1 1. Following the existing General Plan designation ofi study area, which requires
2 preparation of a Specific Plar'to identify the most. appropriate. land use
3 designations'forthc property, necessary infrastructure improvements, and~a
4 funding mechanism for these improvements:.
5 2. The app icant's proposal., which is supported by the Commission, to undertake a
6 General Plan amendment, corresponding zoning amendment; and preparaton° of ~~~
7 an ELR (Environmental mpact Report). Iri his request, .applicant also raises the {
8 three points made by the Commission concerning ownership, implementation,
9 .and evaluation of alternatives for the environmenfal review process.
10 3. Include a determination of the appropriate land-use designation or designations
11 for the subject area as part of the General Plan process. This option would
12 postpone an_y action concerning an appropriate development review process until
13 completion of the General Plan. ~ ~ ~ '
14 The project was noticed to the public; published and mailed to properties withiri~five
15 hundred (500) feet of the site:
16
17 Mr. 'White, (developer):,. explained that: the Council was being asked if a Specific Plan
18 was needed for the site, or would a General Plan Amendment, corresponding zoning
19 amendment,. and EIR be .appropriate. Evaluation of the project's worth was not tli`e
20 purpose of the discussion.
21
22 Council Member Healy asked about the, PG&E easement and wanted to know if there
23 were any overhead lines. on the property.
24
25 Mr. White replied that the easement was for the Bodega Bay Nuclear Power Plant.
26
27 Council Member Healy asked if PG&E stilt wanted the easement.
28
29 Mr. White responded, that many people had tried fo reclaim that easement and had not
30 been successful.
31
32 P,IJBLIC COMMENT
33
34 Linda'Shepherd, 1.6,77 Serra Sonoma Circle, thanked Planning Department staff for
35' ahei'rpatient:clarification of the process. She liked the idea of beautification of the East
36 Side of Petaluma. She urged Council and the developer to look at_ the urban separator,
37 which was buried inside the development, and determine if the separator could front
38 Frates. She wondered if the development entrance could ;be on Ely instead of Frates.
39 She meritio,ned that the Planning Commission. had addressed that tenants of~ Southgate
40 starting work at 4:00 a.m. She. was concerned about the possibility of an incre°ased
41number of large trucks on. Frates..She thought the project should. be light offices with an
42 urban separator, hopeftally low buildings that `would not block the view of the hills,; She `
43 wanted Adobe Creek homeowners to be noticed about the project, since it would be
44 within their line of sight. , .
45
Vol. 33, Page 454
September 7-, 1999
1 Mr. Vin Smith stated that-according :to map,; .seve.ral .homeowners. at Adobe Creek would.
2 have ,had to, have. been .noticed; .however, the. President of the Homeowners
3 Association, ~or board members; may not have received notice;.. He said `th`ere was
4 communcationfrom the Homeowners Association in the packet..
5 ;
'6 Mr. Keller asked..City`IVlanagement'to add their names to the list, if they were not
7 -already included,.
8
`9: Geoff. Cartwright, .56..Rocca~ Drive; expressed concern about the ~arnount .of fill to be
1°0 used in~the,projec`t because of adjacent;subdivisioris through which runs Adobe Creek.,
11 ;He thought;t would increase °the potential for flooding,
`12
13 -Victor Chechanover was concerned with'the aesthetics of any building in ;that area, as it
14 was an entrance to Petal'uma~
15 -
16 COUNCIL :COMMENT'
17 -
18 Council Member Healy explained that at the Planning Commission meeting, his vote in
19~ favor of~the project was narrowly focused on the process issue, and agreed that
20 because of the single ownership of the property, the Specific Flan process does not
21 appear to be appropriate and may be more cumbersome than was necessary :for this:
22 He was. in support of the develop-er applying for a Generale Plan Land Use. Amendment.
23 and proceeding with the ELR process..
24
25 He mentioned -that almost any imaginable use had been.. proposed. for the. parcel. over
26 tune. He said the: parcel .provided an opportunity to evaluate the mix of
27 residential/commercial/industrial property'in town and to make an appropriate choice for
28 the parcel. He was concerned.about~future housing/jobs balance ih the community. He
29 believed .the Southgate proposal; could be a good use for the land. He stressed the:
30 importance of design. excellence for this "'gateway to Petaluma" and said he would give
31 the urban separator question careful. thought.
32
33 Council Member Hamilton was willing to replace the Specifi~.Plan designation on that=
34 .piece of property with a General; Plan amendment to d''esignate, the site for Special
35 Industr..ial%Office-Park, based on si'ngle~ownership of the property, and design
36 excellence. She was very encouraged by what she:- had _seen so #ar:
37
38 Council Member Cader-Thompson conc.urred,with Council Members Hamilton and
39: Healy ~on.~a General Plan. amendment instead of a Specific Plan. Sh'e vwould- prefer
40 mixed use to a "huge" industrial park,:.She felf'it was' necessary to "look into future" and
41 thought it-importarif that neighbors participate in the design process to blend
42, development with the sur,coundng neighborhood. She wanted the development be user-
43 friendly for tenants, their~employees, :and those lining in the vicinity,.
44 -.
45 Council Member Keller also: concurred. ,He. asked Mr. V1/hite what he estimated the
4.6 . number of ernp oyees at the site would be.
September 7, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 455
2 Mr. White believed tenants .include. "high tech" businesses, which were usually about
3 three and one-half (3.5j bodies per thousand square feet.. (1,000 ft2). The development
4 would be three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand square feet (300,000 ft2 to
5 500.,000 ft2). The numbers would vary depending on the type of development.
6
7 Council Member Keller asked if development would include retail space for restaurants:
8 and other services convenient for employees.
9
1Q Mr. White responded that it would. He stated that the goal was to make Southgate as
11 self-contained as possible.
12
13 Council Member Keller was in favor of minimizing the number of employees using their
14 cars at .lunchtime.
15
16 Mr. White questioned the optimum location for a transit station.. He thought that
17 Lakeville'Fiighway`was~;not a good choice because of traffic speed.
18
19 Council Member'Keller agreed.
20
21 Council Member Cader-Thompson was concerned about the entrance to the
22 development. She.,emphasized that for fhe project. to be user-friendly, it needed to be
23 safe. She wondered where it would be safest to locate the entrance to the development.
24 .. •
25 MOTION•:~ Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, that
26 applicant move forward with an application for a General Plan amendment on this
27 .properly.. Council would like to see an analysis of the jobs/housing balance for land-use
28 alternatives, and an economic analysis of the optimum use of the parcel, be it office
29 space with aservice%commercial component, or other mixed-use component.
30
31 MOTION PASSED: 5/0/2 (Maguire and Thompson absent).
32
33 COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT REPORTS
34
35 None.:
36
37 COUNCIL, REQUESTS
38
39 Council Member Keller requested Council place on the agenda for the September 21
40 meeting discussion and follow-up on the letter Council .had received from Steve Kinsey,
41 Marin County Supervisor. Mr. Kinsey had commented on the Cal Fed proposal
42 regarding Baseline Requests that the Marin County Board of Supervisors sent to Cal
43 Fed on their Environmental .Impact Study (ECS).
44
45 ADJOURNMENT
46
Vol. 33, Page 456 September 7, 1999
1 The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ATTEST:
9
10
1.
`i Beverly J. Kline; City Cler_
13
14
15
Cla sor, Mayor
******