HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/06/1999July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 11'7
1
2 _
3 ~ .City of Petaluma, California
4 Minutes ofi a Regular
s - City Council Meeting
6
7
s Tuesday, July 06; 1999
9 .~ ~ CounciF Chambers
to
it
lz The City Council of.the City of Petaluma met ;on this date in the Council Chambers at
13 2:00 p.m.
14
is ROLL CALL ~ ' • -
16 Present: Caller-Thompson;, H_ amilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
17
is Absent: None. .
19 ~ '_
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
zl None
22
23 CLOSED SESSION..
24
2s 1. CONFERENCE. WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Pursuant to Government
26 Code §'54957.6
27 Units 1, 2 and 3, AFSCME, Agency Negotiator: Acorne/Stouder
2s
29 2. CONFERENCE. WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to
3o Government Code §54956;8. ,
31
32 Property:: 414.0 Lakeville Highway.~City Negotiating Agent: Fred Stouder.
33 Negotiating Parties: City of. Petaluma and Gray. Under Negotiation: Price and
34 Terms of Paymenf or Both.
35
36 NO REPORTABLE ACTION TAKEN.
37
3s ADJOURNMENT
39 2:55 p.m.
40 ,
41 ,.
42
43 RECONVENED .
44
4s The City Council ofi the City of .Pe,taluma',reconvened its Regular Meeting in the City
46 Council Chambers on this date irf `the Council Chambers at 3.:00 p.m.
Vol. 33, Page 118 July 6, 199,9
1 ~ ~ -
2ROLL CALL.
3 Present: Cader-Thompson,. Hami-Ito'n', Healy, Keller`; Magu~i~re, Thompson, Torliatt
4 - - --
;. _ _
s Absent: ..None -
6 _ - .
7
s PUBLIC COMIViEIVT
9 o Gegffrey H. Cartwright, 56 Roeca' Drive,, spoke regarding flooding and the
to negative impact of development n~.the floodplain area of the community..
11
12 .
r
13 COUNCIL CO:MMENT_S - =
14
is Council Member Torliatf announced that. a meefing.of the Board'of Directors of'the Bay
16 Area Quality Management District (BAQMD) would take place on Wednesday, July`7..
~~ -
is Employee Service Awards for April -June,, 1999
1.9
20 Mayor Thompson gave recognition and presented City pins to the following staff for (heir
21 years. of service to the City:
22
23 1. Randall Chisrn: 5 years
24 2. Don Horner: 10 years;
Zs 3. Dan Simpson: 25 years
26 4. Frede`r.ick .Chapman: 25' years
z~ 5. Henry (Hank) Creyssels: 25 years .
28
29 Fire Battalion Chief Dan Simpson .expressed his appreciation fo City Council for taking
3o the time. to visit the 'various sites throughout: the City.. He also thanked the City ;for the
31 compensation"p"acKage the fire. department has recei"ved.
32
33. Lok. Petaluma Marina Hotel Company
34 Presentation, Discussion and Possible Direction.. Regarding Revenue Sharing Proposal
35
36 City Council expressed interest and directed the :City Manager to engage in, acontract
37 for cervices in an amount between $25.,00.0 and $30,000, the~amount of which; would be
3s reimbursed;, in whole by the proponent, to: .
39
40 1. Perform a fiscal review that would ~ -
41 '
42 - cost of the onsite and offsite improvements; 'the pay-back of irnprovernents;
43
44 - cost comparison: of the income and benefits of a non-fullservice hotel ws;a'full
4s service. hotel with the City's involvement; - ~ ; F
46
July 6, 1999 vol. 33; Page'1'-1:9
1 - the pofential for pursuing some of the environmental proposals the proponent
2 proposed that may'provide for the River Plan inclusion.;
3
4 - identify relationships with the Redevelopment Agency;
s
6 - determine the necessity of RedeveJopmerit Development Agency participation
7 in the financing of the project and propose a mechanism for safeguarding any
s appropriate Redevelopment Agency involvement;
9
to - determine costs for legal review and the possibility of reimbursement from the
11 developer.
12
13 2. Staff to come back to Council with what it considers a good
14 arrangement/agreement for the public in a way that does not significantly burden
is the city staff.
16
17
is Water & Energy Conserving'1Nashing Machine. Drawing
19 Cooperation with PG&E, `Sonoma. County Water Agency, and the Electric & Gas
20 Industries Association
21
22 Winning Entry: Florence Maniscalco, 722 Ely Boulevard South.
23
24 Council requested the toilets be displayed at various locations in town to encourage
2s further community interest.
26
27
2s APPROVAL OF' MIfVUTES'OF JU(VE 7, 1999
29
3o MOTION: Mayor Thompson moved, seconded by Torliatt, to approve the minutes of
31 June 7, 1999, with the following amendments:
32
33 Council Member Keller:
34 Page 6, Line 27: Add "Lafferty Ranch" at end of sentence.
35
36 Page 6`, Lines 1-13: Eliminate words "Flood Fix" and. call it a "Flood Project:"
37
3s Adobe: Creek By-,Pass
39 ;Page 7, Line 36: Should read;; "The City shall receive an approved and
ao revised Letter of 'Map Revision from the Federal Emergency'
41 Management Agency and shall approve the design..."
42
43 Page 7, Line 39: Should read, "No .cost from the diversion and bypass shall
44 be born by the City..."
45
Vol. 33, Page 120' July 6;1999
1 Page 7, Line 40: Add "The: City shall not. be respnnSib,le for maintenance of
2 the bypass."
3
4 Include an. offer from Doyle Heaton to reimburse all staff
s expenses regard~iag the diversion and bypass from That point
6 forward.:
8 Page 8, Line 8:
9
10
11 Page 8, Line 27;
12
13
14 Page 8c Li'ne 30::.
15
16 Council Member Torliatt:
1~
18 Page 4, Line 29:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
"Staff shall re-evaluate the: con_fTact on the :ballfie ds to be
certain if the City can be relieved of expenses..:"
"County staff is not allowed to begin negotiations with
property ..."
Change "ASHTOE" to read'"AASHTO."
"Council Member Torliatt requested that we relocate .signs
on the soundwall to maybe: `hang: over the soundwall and'
remove them from the sidewalks."
Page 5, Line 30: Transient Occupancy Tax subcommittee: This was .not an'
agendized item; therefore, no action can be taken. Remove
. and re-agendize.
Page. 7, Line 8: Request for City Clerk to re-circuPate information on the
cornrnittee/commission vacancies should be listed under
Council Member Hamilton as her comment.
Page. 7, Line 12: The $1,500 to .Petaluma's Christmas in April Program was
for the East "D" Street: neighborhood improvemenfs,
including street tree installation.
Page 8, Line 10: The City may look outside the city limits for ballf,ields~ with
Sonoma County Park and Recreation.
36
37 Council Member Healy:
38
39 ..Page 5;:Lne 41: Add,; "The agreement has begin, reached with the Rail
4o Authorities. so: that the rail track grades will not be changed
41 across- East Washington Sfreef:"
42
43 AYES: Cade.r-Thompson, Harnilton~ Healy, Keller,; Maguire,,Thompson; Torliatt .
44
4s NOES: None
46
July 6, 1999 ~ Vol. 33, Rage 1.2.1
1 ABSTAIN: None
2
3 ABSENT: None
4
s MOTION PASSED: 7-0
6
7
s GOOD NEWS
9
to Water Storage Reservoir re-coated inside and out.
11
la Petaluma High. ,School congratulated. Engineering Technician Butch Smith who
13 volunteered his ti'rne to judge a drafting contest ,held. at the' high school.
14
is CONSENT CALENDAR
16
i~ MOTION; Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Hamilton, to approve the
is Consent Calendar Item Nos.'1 - 5 and 7, with item 6 removed by Torliatt.
19
20
21 1. Resolution 99-1'35 N.C.S. Approving: Claims and .Bills
22
z3 2. -Resolution 99-136 N.C.S. Accepting the Resignation of Leslie Weiss from the
24 Bicycle Advisory Committee
Zs _
26 3. Resolution 99-1,37 N.C.S. Accepting the Resignation of Judy Reynolds from the
27 Animal. Services:-.Committee
as -
29 4. Resolutions `99-138` N.C.,S. and 99-1:39 N:C,S. respectively, Establishing the
3o Classifications and Pay'' Ranges for Senior Accountant and Accounting Analyst
31 - ,
32 5. Resolutiori~~99;-1,40 ~N;C.S. Awarding the Contract #or Northwestern Pacific Railroad
~33 ,Mainline Bridge Near Lakeville. Street, Petaluma. Bids will be Opened June 29,
34 1999. ;Bid Surnmary and 'Recommendation for Award wilt be Transmitted to Council
3s After 'Bid. Opening. ~ Construction Time Estimate: 9 Months. Funding Source:
`- 36 Sonoma County Water ,Agency, Petaluma Community Development Commission,
3~. Storm Drain Mitigation Fees, Corps of Engineers. Project No. 9989. Construction.
38 'Start Anticipated: To, Be Determined.
39
40 7. 'Resolution :99-141 N.C.S. Authorizing Purchase of H.T.E. Records Management
41 System for $1`21,507
VoL 33, Page 122 ..July 6, 1999
1 -.
~:~
2 AYES: Caller=Tho ,meson,, Hamilton, Healy, .Keller, :Maguire.,
3 Thompson; ~Torliatt •
~_-
4
s NOES: None
6
~ ABSTAIN: None •
s
9 ABSENT: None
to ..
11 MOTION PASSED: 7 -'0 for items No. 1 through 5 and 7
12
13 6. Introduce and Adopt Urgency Ordinan""ce .Appropriating Funds for the Ope:ratign of
14 the City of R,etaluma Fromm July 1, 1999 to September ~0, 1"999 (Fihance Director
is David Spilman)
16
1~ MOTION: Council ;Member Maguire mooed, seconded by Hamilton, .to Adopt Urgency
is Ordinance ,Appropriating Funds `for the Operatign. of the City ;of Petaluma From •July 1,
19 1999 to August 16, 1999. .
20 •
Zi AYES: Caller-Thompson, ;Hamilfon,,;Keller,, Maguire; Thompson;
22 Torliaft ' ~ • • ~' _
23 ~ ., ,
24. NOES: Healy ~ ~ r - .
2s
z6 ABSTALN: None
27
2s ABSENT: None
29 -
3o MOTION PALLED: 6 - 1 (Healy) A: Budget Ordinance requires a unanimous vote...
31
32 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved,;. seconded by Torliaft, to adopt an Urgency` _
33 Ordinance 2093 N:C.S. Appropriating Funds for the. Operation of the City of Petaluma •
34 from July' 1, 1:99:9 to August. 3, 1999- and- reducing the Aamount ~of, 'the ,final. 6udget~
3s proportionately by That amount: = •. - ~ •
36 _.
3z Ayes: Caller-Thompson,, Hamilton, Healy.,. Keller, Maguire, _ ~ _ ,
38 Thompson, Torliatt ,
39 -
4o Noes: None -
41
42 Abstain: None ~ •
43
44 Absent: None ~ _
4s
46 MOTION' PASSED: 7 - 0
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33,_Page 123
1
2 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
3
4 Mayor Thompson announced that Item No. 10 would become Item No. 8.
s
6 NEW BaJSINESS
s 1. Petaluma Community Access (PCA) -
9 Discussion and Possible Future Direction Including Access Fee Changes
to
11 Preston Bailey; 6 Raintree Court, spoke in=favor of a $2.00 funding for PCA and.
12 the benefits PCA provided its viewers.
13
14 Patty Zimmerman, Studio Two Video;. 407 Upham Street, spoke in favor of
is funding for PCA.
16
1~ Beth Grimes, 1629 St. Anne Way, spoke: in favor of financial support for P-CA arid
is noted contributions to HC2 programs due to PCA programming.
19
zo Gloria McMahan„1413 Capri Avenue, a Hearts Home Volunteer, spoke about the.
21 benefits ..her organization had received due to PCA programming that promoted
22 volunteerism in the community.
23
24 ® Joe Devito, (no address .given), provided a handout to Council Members (not
2s provided to the City Clerk and .spoke in favor of financial support to PCA. He
26 provided information that indicated video as the most powerful communication
27 tool.
2s
29 Rob McGaughey,. .590 Ely Road North, wanted the City to show its support of.
3o public access by matching funds viewers would be charged.
31
32 m Moses. Cruz,. 412 Keller Street; thanked PCA in behalf of the Latino Community
33 for providing Spanish speaking. people with programming. He thanked PCA them
34 for helping ~to communicate his search .for his son, Jose..L, Quiroz, missing since
3s October 4, 1998. He also expressed his .appreciation to the community for its
36 support..
37
3s o Geoffrey- Cartwright,. 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding development in the
39 floodplain area of the community and the impact to flooding.
40
41 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Hamilton, to authorize City
4z Management to send a notice to ratepayers setting a public hearing date to establish an
43 increase in public access channel(s) fees not to .exceed a total of $2.00, and requesting
44 PCA return to Council with their ideas, plans/or justif'i'cation of how the addifional funds
4s would be spent.
46
Vol. 33, Page 124 July 6, 1999
i Council. directed City Management to:
2
3 1. Contact the: school district and come back- with information as to 'the
4 role/responsibility they will .have;
s
6 2. Determine the cost and', who would be financially responsible to the have °the.
~ afternoon sessions of the Board of Supervisors meetings.- included in
s programming and come backfor discussion; ~ -
9
io 3. Explore- the possibility finding/or developing a mechanism tg exempf lower
i i income o,r fixed income seniors from being :charged for`this service;
12
is 4. Review the $15'.00 fee charged .for obtaining a. copy of government programming
i4 from PCA.
is
i6 AYES: Cader=Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
1~ Th'ompson, Torlaft
is NOES: None
i9 ABSTAIN: None
20 ABSENT: None
21
22 MOTION. PASSED 7 - 0
23
24 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2s d
26 9, Downtown Activities Including Putnam Plaza~and Keller Street Garage
27 Oral reporf by Police Ghief Pat'Parks
2s
29 NO ACTION TAKEN. .
30
3 i 8. Status .of Payran Reach Project,
32 Oral report by U:S. Army Corps 'of Engineers .Lynne Galal
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENTS
35
36 Geoffrey Cartwright; 56 Rocca :Drive, stated. his questions had been .answered by
37 Ms. Galal.
38
39 John..Cheney, ;55 Rocca Drive, requested Council drive 'over and see the trees..
4o being removed from the project and asked Gouncil to; use caution, as they
4i proceed.ed.
42
43 NO ACTION TAKEN
44
45 COUNCIL AND `STAFF REPORTS
46 None
July 6, 1999 vol. 33; .Page 125'
1
2 ADJOURNED
3
4 5:45 p.m.
5
6
7
8
9 Regular Meeting
to Tuesday, July 6, 1999, 7:00 p:rn.
11
12
13 The City Council of-the City of Petaluma reconvened on this date in the Council
14 Chambers at 7:05 p.m. .
is
16 ROLL CALL ~ ".
1~ .. .
is PRESENT: Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy,'Keller, Maguire, Thompson,
19 Torliatt ~~"
20
2.1 ABSENT: None ~ .' ~ ` `
22
. .<
23 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ,_ .
24
2s At the request of Mayor Thompson, Mary Neal led.. the.Pledge of_Allegiance
26 ~ `.
27 MOMENT OF .SILENCE _ `"
28 - .
29 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment'of Silence was observed.
30 -
31 PUBLIC QOMMERlT
32
- ` , ~:
33 ® Beth Meredith; 104 5th Street, annou_riced upcoming workshop on growth in the
34 cornmunitywth well-known speakers at the Odtl Fellows Temple. at 545 Pacific
3s Avenue off Mendocino in Santa Rosa.- The workshops would -begin on July 23 at
36 acost of `$25 / $15. For more information, call 763-1532 This was a result of a.
37 City Council supported workshop, "Better Not Bigger."
38
39 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, spoke re: domestic. partners; urged Council to
4o put the measure on the ballot at the next election.
41
42 Rob McGaughey, ,1r. 590 Ely Road North, spoke in favor of Council working
43 together w'ifh`City Management to make the City's budget a high priority.
44
45 ® Bryant Moynihan, P O,. Box C, spoke re the CounciP,s approval of the construction
46 contract for the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Mainline Bridge near Lakeville.
Vol. 33, Page,'126 July 6, 1999
i Street saying it was a good project but wanted to know how the project would be
2 funded.
4 COUNCIL COMMEfVT
s
6 Council Member Hamilton wanted public to understand. what, the effect of the Fair
~ Political Practices Committee (FPPC) Gonflicf of Interest had on elected officials.~and
s municipalities and wanted to know if the Gou"Heil. wanted to put'Conflict of Interest' on
9 an agenda discuss amongst Themselves., "She read in a report that Council Member
io Janiee Caller=Thompson's house was '300 feet from a line; in the road of ,'turning lane
ii on McDowell', not from the project of Rainier: ;She wanted staff fo te'll her if the
i2. measurer"penf was done 'as the' crow flies' from "Council Member Caller-Thompson's.
i3 home to that line.. She asked whether this was the ease. when public noticing was done..
14 .'
is .Interim Planning, D'i`rector Vin Smith said.yes;, that it was done wifhin a 300°foot~ eadius of
i6 the property boundaries; :300 feet`-from the .exterior: of the. project property, not, fhe~ street.
i~
is Council Member Maguire~was in~°favor of hawing" a discussion on the recusal issue..
i9 {Conflict of Interest concerns).
?o ~~
21 Council Member Keller. was in favor of having a discussion on recusal issues; (Conflict. of
22 Interest concerns) because of its application to Redevelopment, the Central Specific
23 Plan, and other projects substantial in size that"coul_d_~affect somebody's.property or
24. business contacts. They had alrgady hall.:, couple of recusals this past year on one
?s item. Me could see that there could be sortie"situations :where there could be no
.:
26 quorum: There was a rie:ed. to proceed with finding ~out:what the aw, aid, what the Fair
27 Political Practices Commission `(FF'PC) said, and what the courts have said so that
2s Council could. make sense of it. There could be an affect on ~~ppointments "fa "
29 commissions and committees,
30 - - '
31 Council Memb;er:He.aly was also in favor of .having. a' discussion about: recusal issues.
32 He viewed the Conflict of fnterest laws as archaic,, detailed, and though well intentioned,
33 unusual in heir application at times. He had. told sfa_ff that it would. be an issue-at the
34 Council lewel and at_ the Planning Commission level. He hatl stepped, down on ,an item
3s of a Plann'i;ng Cor-nmssion,meeting ,couple weeks earlier because it came within'300
36 feet of his home: He thought the public woul"d~be well served to be better informed of
37 the archaic status of State law in the,;area of~C.onflicts of Interest. He had heard that
3g #here would be a joint meeting, with the Novato Council in August. He asked if Council
39 would: like. to know if the Novato Couneil wanted to. have the rnost recent Port Sonoma
4o proposal on the agenda: f, so; they would be invited to come and discuss'the proposal:
41 He thought the meeting had been scheduled for Auguste 24:
42
43 Council Member Maguire said that. was the. `same date the County Supe.rviso:rs would
44 have the: public hearing ~on the Outdoor Recreation Plan, at 7:00 p:m. 'in Santa Rosa.
4s
46 Council Member Hamilton asked that a different date be .set.
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 127
1
2 City Manager Stouder agreed to contact .the City of Novato to see if they would change:
3 the date.
4
s Council Member Healy reiterated that he would like to have the Port Sonoma proposal
6 on the agenda when, they met.
s APPOINTMENTS
9
10 11. Commission/Committee Vacancies
~1
12 Airport Commission
13 Council voted for candidates to fill two vacancies for four-year terms. Jerry Beene and
14 Brian Graver were elected. The "results'of the ballots follow:
is
16 Jerry Beene
v AYES: Cader=Thompson, Healy, Keller, Maguire., Torliatt
tg NOES: None
19 ABSTAIN: .None
20 ABSENT; None
21 VOTE: 5
22
23 Brian Graver ~'
24 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Thompson, Torliatt
2s NOES: None .
26 ABSTAIN: None
27 ABSENT: None
2s VOTE: 6
29
3o Mike O'Brien
31 AYES: Thompson
32 NOES: None
33 ABSTAIN: None
34 ABSENT: None '
3s VOTE: 1
36 _
37 Ricardo Barrios.
3a AYES; Hamilton, Maguire
39 NOES:. None
4o ABSTAIN: None
41 ABSENT: None
42 VOTE: 2
43
44 Animal Services Advisory Committee
4s Council voted for :candidates. to fill three vacancies; 1 one-year term, 2 two-year terms,. .
46 and one Alternate. Laurel Carter and Terri Olivadotti were elected to serve the two-yea's
Vol. 33, Page 128 July 6; 1999
i terms. Eric Nanson:was elected to. erve the one=year term. Angela Zumsteg was:
- '2 4 elected as'the Alternate.. The results of the ballots follow:
. ,, 3
4 Angela Zumsteg
s AYES.:. Caller-Thompson (as an Alternate),; Hamilton, Nlaguire, Thompson;,
6 Torliatt _
~ NOES,: None '~
s ABSTAIN: None.
9 ABSENT: None
io VOTE: 5 (.with Caller-Thompson's vote for candidate as; an
i i Alternate)
12
i3 Laurel Carter -
i4 AYES: Caller-Thompson; Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Toraiatt,
is NOES: None
i6 ABSTAI'N: None.
i~ ABSENT: None
is VOTE: 7
19
20 Dana Turner
:21 AYES:Healy,, Keller
22 NOES: None '
23~, .,ABSTA[N: None
'24 .ABSENT: None -
Zs VOTE: 2
;26
2~ Laura Rathe~
2s AYES: Hamilton; Keller, Maguire
29. NOES: None
3o ABSTAIN: None
3°i ABSENT: None .
32 VOTE: 3
33 -
34 Eric Hanson
3s AYES: - Gader-Thompson,. Healy; Keller, Thompson, Torliatt
36' 'NOES:: :None.
3~ AB:STAIN: None
`3`s ABS:ENT: None
39 VOTE: 5
40
4~i Terri Oliuado
~ ti
42' AYES: Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller; Maguire, Thompson, Torliaft
43 NOES: None
44 ABSTAIN.::. None
4s~
`ABSENT`. _
None.
a6- -~VOTE: 7
July 6,.1999 VoL 33, Page 1`29
1 .
2 Mike O'Brien
3 AYES: None
4 NOES: Notie .
s ABSTAIN: None
6 ABSENT: None
7 VOTE: 0
s
9 Ricardo Barrios
io AYES: None
ii NOES: None ~ _
r2 ABSTAIN: None
13 ABSENT: None ~ .
14 VOTE: 0 ~_
is
i6 Bicycle Advisory Committee. '
17 Council voted for candidates to fill'ahree vacancies; 1 one-year term and: 2two-year
is terms. Patricia Tuttle Brown and Briarr Msalins were sleeted to serve the two-year
19 terms. Scott. Duiven,was elected to serve the orie-year term. The results of the ballots
20 follow: '
2i
22
23 Brian Mealins
24 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire,Torliatt (6)
2s NOES.: None
26 ABSTAIN: None
27 ABSENT: None
2s VOTE: 6
29
3o Patricia Tuttle Brown
31 AYES: Cadsr-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
32 NOES: None
33 ABSTAIN: None
34 ABSENT: None
35 VOTE: 7
36
37 Scott Duiven
3s AYES: C~ader,=Thompson, Hamilton., Healy, Keller, Maguire, Torliaft
39 NOES: None
4o ABSTAIN: None
41 ABSENT: None
42 VOTE: 6
43
44 Mike O'Brien
4s AYES: Thompson
46 NOES: None
Vol. 33, Page 130 .July 6, 1999'
i ABSTAIN: None
2 ABSENT: None ..
3 VOTE: 1
4
s Ricardo. Barrios
6 AYES.: Thompson -
? NOES: ,None ~ ~ .
s: ABSTAIN: None
9 ABSENT: None -
io VOTE: 1 .
~1
I2 John Fitzgerald ~ ~ ~ - -
13 AYES.: None
14 .NOES; N;on:e ,~
is ABSTAIN; 'None
i6 ABSENT-: None
i~ VOTE: 0 -
18 ,
19 Mosquito Abatement. Board.
20 Council voted for,candidates to. fill one vacaneytfor a four-year term. Steven Ayala was;
2i elected: The results of the ballots follow:
22
23 Steven Ayala
24 AYES: Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Thompson, Torlatt
Zs NOES: None
26 ABSTAIN: None
2~ ABSENT: .None
2s VOTE: 5
29
30 Susan Bryant
31 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Maguire.
32 NOES: ~ None
33 ABSTAIN: None
34 ABSENT: None
3s VOTE: 2
36
37 Pecsonnel.Board
3s Council .voted far candidates.to fill three Vacancies foc`four-year terms. Vince Landof,
39 Michael O'Brien:, and Ricardo. Barrios were elected,i The results of'the ballots followw.
40
4i Vince Landoff
42 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Harnilfon, Healy; Keller, Maguire, Thompson; Torliatt
43 NOES: None ~ '
44 ABSTAIN: None ~ ,
4s ABSENT: None
46 VOTE: 7 '
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 1,31
1
2 Michael O'Brien
3 AYES: Healy, Torliatt
4 NOES: None
s ABSTALN: None
6 ABSENT: None
~ VOTE: 2
s
9 Ricardo Barrios
io AYES: Healy, Torliatt
i i NOES: None
i2 ABSTALN: None
- 13 ABSENT: None
- 14 VOTE: 2
is
~- 16 Recreation Commission
i~ Council voted for candidates to fill three vacancies for four-year terms. James Mobley,,
i8 Karen Greene, and Robert Kates were elecfed. The results of the ballots follow:
- 19
~.2o John Fitzgerald
_ '. 2i AYES: Healy,. Thompson
22 NOES: None
23 ABSTAIN: None
24 ABSENT: None
- 2s VOTE: 2
26
27 James Mobley
2s AYES: Hamilton, Healy, Maguire, Thompson., Torliatt
29 NOES: None
3o ABSTAIN: None
31 ABSENT: None
" 32 VOTE: 5
33
34 Phyllis Huffman -
3s AYES: Caller-Thompson, Keller, Torliatt
a6 NOES: -None
37 ABSTALN: None
3s ABSENT: None
39 VOTE: 3
40
41 Michael Harris
42 .AYES: None
43 NOES: None
44 ABSTALN: .None
4s ABSENT: None
46 VOTE: 0
Vol. 33, Page 132 July 6, `1999
1
2 Karen Greene
3 AYES.: Cadet-Thompson, Hamilton, Keller, Maguire, Torliatt
4 NOES: None
s ABSTAIN: None
6 ABSENT: None
~ VOTE: 5
s
9 Robert Kates
io AYES: Cadet-Thompson, Hamilton;. Keller, Maguire
i i NOES: None
12 ABSTAIN: .None
i3 ABSENT: None
14. UOTE: 4
is
i6 John Mills
i~ AYES: Healy:,. Thompson ~.
is .NOES': None
i9 ABSTAIN: None
Zo ABSENT: None
zi VOTE: 2 ..
22 _
2s Mike O'B.rien_
24 AYES`: .None
Zs NOES: None
26 ABSTAIN: None s
27 ABSENT: None
2s VOTE: 0 -
29 . ,
3o Ricardo Barrios
3 i AYES: None
32 NOES: None
33 ABSTAIN: None-
34 ABSENT: None
3s VOTE: 0
36
3~ Ste_ Flan & Architecfural Review Committee (SP.ARC)
3s Council Voted fo.r candidates to fill, three vacancies for two-,year terms. There were two
3s rounds of Voting; due: to a tie on the first round between Linda Mathies and 1Nillia_m:
ao Rinehart. Linda. Mathies:, Louise Leff, and `Terry Koseuvc were elected. Results. of the
4i ballots follow:
42 Round One
43 Linda Mathies
44 AYES: Hamilton,. Keller, Maguire.; Torliatt
4s NOES: None
46 ABSTAIN: None
- July 6, 1999 Vo1.33',~Page~1~33~
1 ABSENT: None-
2 VOTE: 4
3
4 Brian Graver
s AYES: Cader-Thompson
6 NOES: None
~ ABSTAIN.: None
s ABSENT: None
9 VOTE: 1
io
it William Rinehart
i2 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Healy, Thompson,. Torliatt
13 NOES: None
14 ABSTAIN: None
is ABSENT: None
i6 VOTE: 4
~~
is Louise Leff
19 AYES: Cader=Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire,
20 Thompson, Torliaft
21 NOES: None
22 ABSTAIN: None
23 ABSENT: None _
24 VOTE: ~ 7
2s `
26 Terry Kosewic
27 AYES: Hamilton, Heaiy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson
2s NOES: None ~ ~ -
29 ABSTAIN: None..
3o ABSENT: None - _
3 ~ VOTE: , 5
32
33 Ricardo Barrios -
34 AYES.: ~ `None ~ ._ ~ ..
3s NOES; ~ - Norie
36 ABSTAIN: , None ., ~ ~ -
37 ABSENT: ~ None "'
3s VOTE: 0
39
4o Round Two
41 Linda Mathie s
42 AYES: Cader=Thompson; Hamilton, Keller, Maguire
43 NOES: None ~: _
44
ABSTAIN: _
None .
4s ABSENT: None ~ , ,
46 VOTE: 4
Vol. 33, Page 1'34
1
2 William Rinehart
3 AYES: Healy,
4 NOES: None
s ABSTAIN:. None
6 ABSENT: None
~ VOTE: 3
s
Torliaft, Thompson
July 6, 1999
9 Tree.Adysory Committee,
ib Council Member Tbrliatt recused herse f from. participating in this ,item as he currently
i i had a basiness relationship with Foundry Wharf; whose. General Manager was..one of
i2 the applicants..
Council noted for candidates to fill one vacancy for atwo-year term. Mary Neal was
elected: Results of the ballots follow:
AYES: Cader-Thompson; Hamilfon; Healy; Keller, Maguire,
Thompson
NOES: None.,
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT`. None
VOTE: 6 - Torliatt not participating
24 RECESS - 8:30 p.m.
25
26 RECONVENED - 8:45 p.m:
2~
2s UiVFINISHED. BUSINESS
29
30 12. Rainier Cross-Town Connector and.lnterchange Project: Sfatus Report
31 Regarding the Project Work Plan, the~AssessmentDistrict Feasibility'Study, and.
32 Funding
33
34 Mr. Stouder: Yes, the; item on the agenda regarding the; ,discussion:, of .the,. Rainier
3s Gross-Town. Connector and U.S Highway 101 Proposed P'roj'ect ,is_ a. status report
36 continuation. from a series of meetings from, last year:. They are requesting, ultimafely,.
37 Council direction, which at this point would be tentatively schedu ed in; lafo September
3s or in October: -'
39
,...
4.o For the public's benefit :and as a reminder 'to the Council :Members, -,last year in an
ai attempt to consolidate and focus all the previous discussions that,this Council and prior
4z Councils over the years have held on this subject; _City Management compiled .a series:
43 ofi documents. I'll hold these up for fhe public, b4ecause asthis discassion begins or
44 continues again.,: there may be members of the public who a`re not aware of these and
4s would. like. to have ,access to them:: In April of last year; in response. to. City C'o.uncil
46 questions and comments, #his document was prepared in a ;quesfion and answer format
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 135
1 with attachments and [addenda] from. prior Council and City and Engineering: work over
2 the years.
3
4 That was followed by continual questions and comments and a May 15th addendum,
s which was followed, by a June 14t addendum. Many of the questions we have received
6 in recent months as this item was being further prepared for discussion are addressed
~ in these documents. These ;,documents., as well as the questions and answers you have
s in front of you, have undergone four versions just in the last month or so. They are
9 meant to provide. answers `based upon existing information or information easily
io determined. As all"of you know, many of the questions, That some of you may have or
i 1 the public may have -would .require extensive studies and additional "time frames of 6 or
12 12 or 18 months or longer, which may be entirely appropriate, but you must authorize
13 those commitments of expenditures and those special studies.
14
is Lastly, for those members of the public and in the :audience who may not have taken
i6 advantage of or be aware of this, a report was 'provided and. mailed out fo more, than
i~ several hundred .people on our mailing list...l` forget the number now, but I think it's 200
is people. The Council has seen thus report in draft form and final form. I'd just'. like: to
r9 paraphrase ;the Executive Summary of the .Agenda Report for your information. It
20 reviews that last year officially-was fhe last time the Council heard this report, on
2i September 8. There also were draft versions .of this document and the General Plan
22 presented to you in November and December,. and that's when a decision was made 'to
23 hold the issue over for ;the new Council.
24
2s The actions ,you. took last fall were to ask us to provide more detail and more expansion
26 in the Surface Water Management Plan and the Transportation Circulation Pfan Work
27 Programs as far as the General Plan. And at that time .you. asked that these- subjects,
2s the future of the Rainier Arid the Generaf Plan' be discussed at the same meeting; since
29 issues regarding transportation, land use, and surface water on this subject often folded.:.
3o into what might be' :your direction in the General, Plan. That's why, as you know, this
31 evening's agenda: is both about the Rainier questions and. comments, and the General
32 Plan.
33
34 You also asked in Septemb;e.r that we proceed with the furthering of the Engineering or
3s Property Assessment Feasibility Sfudy for he properties surrounding the proposed
36 Cross-Town Connector and Interchange. That study was estimated to cost $40 to $100
37 thousand dollars depending, and 'thaf was prior to the election last fall, which was the
3s sales tax. measure.,. as you know.. If if had been approved, it would.. have provided
39 funding. for $13 - $16 ,million of this now $32 million project. Since that measure was not
4o approved, and there; were still questions.. regarding the location of a Cross-Town
41 Connector and Interchange, that feasibility study was not entered into.
42
43 Since that. time, we have brought overall the project. cost estimates current to :Marco
44 1.999 dollars - $32,883,000.0.0. Approximately $1:.1 _ million has been spent during, the life
4s of the studies,. the Environmental Impact Report, Engineering costs, and directly .billable.
46 City personnel costs.
Vol. 33, Page 136 July 6, 1999
2 I should a_fso m_ ention that. these would not be the construction. cosfs. If` the Councif
3 proceeds and we would. get closer 'to an actual project, the- cost.. estimates would.
4 actually b.e made at mid-point in construction in a project,. So, if this project would rn #act
s be built in 3,years o,r in 5. years or. 7 years; cost estimates would be.,predi'cted at the mid-
6 point in the- construction. of the ;project. B.ut in today's dollars, if this project was at the
~ mid-point. in construction, it„would be.$33 million project.
s
9 The Assessment .District,. which would; be one of the next major steps on this ;project; if
io the Council approved, .would provide.: approximately $9 million of the' $33 million.,, and
' g g ~ q get.. of $32,883.00.,
ii that s one of, the lar" est fundin sources,. Of the total. `re uired bud
12 only $5,,36,1,000 is now available., and that's. detailed, on pale 4; "Funds Accumulated
13 To 'Date:"
14
is. Tonight, this is, a,;work session for the Counei,l for any further clarification on information
16 you ,have received ~to date or qu"estions that 3you may have for us "to research and
i2 comments .from, the audience. With that;, ,Mr: Mayor;. thank you, and. I'll turn it back for
is Council deliberation. Mr. Hargis is available to field, for questions., along with the
19 assistance of :Mike Evert, :but we don't have a presentation to make on this. .report. 1
20 think it's more, helpful for you and he public for questions you may have, Tom will stand
21 at 'the podium `br be near the ,podium ;to field questions if we can answer them ',this
22 even"ing.
23
24 Council ;Member Torliatt: Mr: Mayor,,. L just want- to be real: clear ,about; what' l=red said
2s and reiterate #hat it''s almost a $33 million: project; there is potential of an Assessment
26 District or a Benefit Assessment Disfriet" of approximately $8 million, -.and as far as City
2~ funding goes at; this point, there's only .$5,,361,000 available fo.r this project. 'So that
2s leaves a shortfall of over .half, the project. So I wanted fo make: that really clear, and
29 point. that' out. If' I'rn incorrect on that, I'd .like to be corrected- at this time:
30
31 Mr. Sto.uder.: The, ;Assessment District, of course, there is .not a legally, .establishedd
32 Assessment District. I mentioned that dollar amount because. that is the nex. t single
33 largest amount after the sales. tax that' was voted down. There is" not a source. for the
34 Assessment District: That's a process 'that th_e City would; go through at your
3s authorization; and first of all, funding an Assessment District Feasibility Study; meeting
36 with the property owners; and receiving their con. currence through a legal y established
37 process to commit themselves to an Assessment. District:.
38
39 Council. Member Keller: So that leaves a.shortfall of over X18 million.. I'd ,just like, for
4o the public's understanding, I know David Sp'ilrnan°s -not here; but. Fred or Vin; or Tom,, if
ar you could. explain why the'. maximum a Benefit Assessment District could produce is $8
42 million and change ouf of the benefiting `properties.
43
44 Mr. Stouder: I don't think there's an answer to that question, until pan Assessment
4s Feasibility Study is conducted. Some of'that i`s whaf would the property bear in return'for
46 the benefit: There would be a formal, process set up of establishing benefit, and: some of
July 6, 1999
Vol. 33; Page 137
i that is that formula, an often complicated formula, as well as the political reality of what
2 people would be willing to pay the adjoining property owners that would benefit. At one
3 point, as some of you know, I believe it' was 1996 or 1997, an Assessment District. of
4 some $1'8 million was on the table. It was determined that that was not a weight that the
s surrounding property owners would feasibly or politically or financially be able to carry..
6
~ Council ..Member Keller: I believe., I think there was also a legal limitation of a certain
s percentage of the property's valuation that. could be derived in a benefit assessment.
9
io Mr. Stouder: That could well be; that would be part of, again, going through an official
ii commission study that ultimately would require the property owners to commit
12 themselves through the public hearing process to receive the assessment and whatever
13 other criteria the City Council handled. My estimate would be that would be a three to
14 nine month process., probably more like a six to twelve..month process. `
15
i6 Council Member Keller: And so, not withstanding any questions about the nature of
i~ the project, there's at' least an $18 million shortfall, not includingthe f'inancng,.costs of
is any bonding or borrowing for the project, so add that in as well. Thank you:
19 _
--: -, ~. ,
20 Mayor Thompson: V11,ith the Council's permission, 'I'd like to start the meeting out. by
- ,.
21 having thepublc come forward and"letting tliem.speakatthis point. The first one on the
22 list is Mr. Jerry Price..
23 ..:,-- ~ ~. -
24 Jerry Price, 411 `D' Street: Tonight I would .like to speak :in opposition to the.. Rainier
zs Overpass. First off, this is really, not truly ha cross=fown connector, in my'opinion. It
26 extends to the east, ~to Sonoma M:ountain,. Parkway. It extends to the :west, to
27 Petaluma Boulevard, and ;dumps right out. on Petaluma, Boulevard. To me;'that is not.
2s really a true cross-town connector. ~ °' "
29
3o Secondly, the $33 million ,price tag is a huge price ~to pay when I think there. are
31 some other priorities that we could look at that are equally as important, or maybe
32 much more important: ,
33 ,~.
34 Thirdly,. the physical constraints of this particular ;project itself: having to go. up, over
3s the existing 101 over-ramp and go above :grade fo even get started, having to cross
36 the river, having to cross the trestle, bend around a mountain, and then come down
37 on Petaluma. Boulevard.
38
39 In my opinion, two of my top priorities for emphasis here would be (1) To do a very
ao visionary re-do of V1lashington, and I think that if'.we look out to the year 2020,.. with
41 some good vision, we have to realize that Eastern ;and Northeastern Petaluma (in
42 fact, it's in the General Plan from years back) is going to be exposed, to further
43 growth. I'm not encouraging that growth, but I cannot. help seeing it come, and I
44 would hope that we could plan ahead for that.
45
Vol. 33, Page 138 July 6, 1999
i So what I would like to see; is to'have Washington really, truly .built as a gateway to
2 downtown :Petaluma from the freeway wesf, and also to the. east, .all the way to
3 Adobe Road.. ,I mean; plan for that at leash. 1Ne have currently a .couple of choke
4 points.., .in my opinion, between McDowell and Sonoma M~untait Parkway. Thaf sure
s doesn't meet ASMTO (American Association of Sfafe Highway and Transportation
6 Officials) standards as we have been :asked to do for Sdnoma Mountain'. Road,., fbr
~ example.
s
9 Certainly; the interchange itself ,has some things `th'at are going to need to be done.,
io and those are going to take sizeable dollars and sizeable; you know, very strong
i i thinking to ;make Washngton .really work right.
12
i3 The vision :that. I had, hat. came to me; 'I hate to even. create such a vision, if
14 anybody could'imagine seeing Wilshire Boulevard in the old days, ,a long, long time
is ago, when it was "nothing but,a country- road. ,And today; you take: a look at it. And
16 that is our Boulevard; from the freeway into downtown Petaluma. Try to loole.ahead a
i~ little b'it with that.
is
i9 Second, .f. just have to feel that.. as a cross-town connector, Corona. does jusf that: it
20 goes"clear across town,,'it; goes; clear.to Adobe Road, just like VVash`ington does.
2i :think `the, area .northeast of; Town 'is ultimately ;going to have to be accessed, just like
22 somewhere along the line, like it 'or note, Adobe Road will have to be widened and
23 have to be vast) im roved.. And in
24 alread ,: at least it looks" like to me tmay,be in amminor,elittple ste1eSbut Lake °ire starting
Y ~ . ).~ . p, I le... real,LY
2s has=to be a major north%so.uth access road for us.
26
27 So,'what do we- with .all, that. great; beautiful.. land there with the; w. ond'e'rful: Valley
2g Oaks and the trestle and alf that? I'm going to be right ouf here in front with you:.
29 would hope, some of this $33 million ought to `b`e: spent. to buy out some and. and
3o maybe 'hare a ,park. there. 1f any of ,you ..ever drive on Highway 17 towards 'Los.
31 Gatos, you'll _see~'thaf there's a beautiful".park there, V_ asona Park. That's. no: different
32 from what we haue: 'we have' a great opportunity, with navigable water clear' up .to
33 that railroad ;trestle, for people to use for water-:oriented sports; to, Have .our
34 wonderful river walk completed and utilizing; that area.;, and fo protect`. some- sort of an
3s image of Sonoma County .and the beauty thaf'we all I'ovE here. Those are basically
36 what my statements are:: Thank you. for your time..
37
3s Judith Hillary, 1745 E. Madison: I ;guess my preference is for Rainier Avenue
39 again., On, January 20th of 1987; familiar .:names we all know .and. rernemb'er,
4o Balshaw, Tencer, Davis:, were appointed as the Council' reps fo the Corona-Ely
41 Specific: Plan Subcommittee.. Agree.merits with landowners :and developers started in
42 1987: Richard and Faith. Gray., Sonoma Associates, McBail and. Company; Quaker
43 Hill, Ross; Blackburn, Art and Selma Cader; for. the de~e opm.ent of Cade.r' Farris.
44 Benjamin. Tuxhorn A"ssociates for ;the development .of. King's. Milf: Delco Builders,
4s Cherry Lane Associates, for Mountain Valley, 'et cetera.
46
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33; Page 139
1 January 23, 1989., there was a Council Subeomrnittee report from John Balshaw
2 regarding the ability of the land to support the. infrastructure construction costs.,
3 which will be borne by the developers. In 1977, Petaluma had a population of
4 32,326. In 1987, we had a population of 39.,163.. Arid our present population is
s 51,668.. This is a growth of ,880 people per year from '77 to '87, and a growth. of
6 1,042 per year between '87 'and present. We stilt have only four freeway-
~ interchanges:
a
~ The public is owed an explanation. We are owed an accounting of that Fair Share
to Proposal. As Mr. Healy described the balloon .effect, you have been experiencing:
11 problems in various .areas. because .of what you do in other areas. If Rainier had
12 been built years ago, you wouldn't have to put up with all the complaints that need
13 "Band-Aids," as you put it. These Band-Aids are .costly, a waste of time, and lease
14 people with a lot of concerns. We need~Rainier Over=crossing and Interchange now..
is Thankyou.
16 _
17 ~ John .Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive: I definitely ,don't think we need Rainier now, or
is ever! Rairiier is sitting on a floodplain. down. there. There's no question. I asked you
19 this afternoon to go out;and take a look at what they just did to Payran. There were
20 huge trees dowri there that' had to come out. It was because ' of the mistake of
21 building Linda Mar Park down there years ago, and allowing the development up
22 ahead of it, that. ended up in that being a flood zone. Do you remember? It didn't
23 flood in the `.60' when if was built. It started flooding in '82. And it was development
24 that did it! You can't keep developing the river the way you are.
2s
26 That Corona reach down there is floodpiain, no question about it. On the original
2~ FEMA (Flood Emergency Map Act) ,map, it was even, most of it, flood way. That
2s factory outlet that sits down there was in no way, or shape part of the General Plan.; It
29 was added, with a flooding. parking lot, the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen in
3o your life. Didn't flood, only "a newspaper got caught over the grate.. That's fhe only
31 reason water got into.it."
32
33 Well, bull! That. area is going to f.lopd, :It is going to keep flooding. It needs to sit.
-34 down there as an open space. They bought hay field"s with the idea of making a silk
3s purse out ofi that sow's ear. And that. City Council,. the old one, bought into that plan,
36 and was ,going to feed `em .Rainier right across, now it'll cost, us $32 million. And we
37 car go; and the .report says Corona-will' hold three lanes underneath it, with a little
3s modification; aril we can put on and off ramps there, and it does connect better with`
39 everything:
40
41 Folks, if that area is:floodplaih, it's time we take a look. at this town, our .past,. I know
42 you've taken a look at the. water in the detention. pond. The report from RMI is not'in,
43 not close fo in. It should be in pretty soon. It's going to take a lot more study than
44 that to make this whole river safe. And is RMI tied up with the ones that .originally did,
4s the factory outlet? I understand the. hydrologists .are. If you can't have Rainier
46 without the development underneath there, than Rainier is a bad thing. And it'll never'
Vol. 33, Page 140
,July 6, 1999
i pay for itself, or .even come. close to. paying for itself without .development. And if
2 people looked. into that :report and realized that they're going to ..have to vote more:
3 money on themselves; to pay for it, they'd realize that vue could put the cross ramps
4 over there on Corona, ave us some money, and give us as much safety.as before:
5
6 The o d thing about railroad tracks and ambulances was bull.when put out there, and.
~ it's stilt bull: You have, fire. stations on both sides of it. Yi~u.''ye got ~to cross over this..
s side of the railroad station. I'rn dead against R;aihier; please reconsider Corona. It'
9 time to take this off~the pot:and take~that.big re,port.and burn,it. Thank you.
io
ii ~_ Vince. Landoll; 12 C.ordelia':Dr.ives' Incidentally,, before I. start speaKing, the: RMI that
12 John just made reference to;.~as .L,undersfand' `it, in the appendices `here, that r..eport.
13 should' hake been in, by May 25t": They were given 90 days from February 25t ;to.
14 May 25t" to,getit "into~the Council: Damn.
is
i6 I'm going to. read from something I wrote; "instead of relying on 20/20: hindsight,
i~ looking. back; ,as ..being the best educator, why not: consider .now that somewhere:.
is down the road in the future! a bond: measure package will be .offered again. and be
19 found -more palatable. to the votingcitizens ~to .finally: widen Highway 101.,1Ne know
20 .its going to, happen. They're going #o come up: with another package; they',re already
21 talking about; it._
22
23 It's already known that if Highway 10:1 is widened, the proposed extra H0V (high
24 occupancy vehicle.) lanes -and the on and off, ramps are going to take ~ up: the extra
2s width.. According to. what Mr. Flurn, brought out, quite: awhile back, the, Corona over-
26 pass ~wi.ll have to be .reconstructed to accommodate. them. Not only' in the width of
27 the, overpass, but the: length of it, to accommodate th°e two .extra lanes: in both
2s directions. Mr. Fluor did a lot research on this.
29
30 ,Also; if was shot down in I forget which appendix here as_ being not the case that
31 Corona's wide.:enough to handle .the extra lanes, but then.,, there was something
32 further on; `it a couple of other- paragraphs., 'that stated that if anything'.over a certain
33 height came; through, even if' it was legal on the; road,. i,t would not fit through the
34 Corona overpass; so. Therefore that shoots that down. They've shot: themselves `in
3s their own foot on' the same page!.
36
3~ Now;, the Corona overpass, since it's ;going to haue to be reconstructed, and since it;
3s was 'constructed 'in the first place :using Federal and Sfate~ funding, .sources with a
39 very small measure of~ .Petaluma. money, which. is now the, PCDC :(Petaluma
4o Community Development C.ommission), then why not reconstruct. Corona now for
41 the: cross=town. connector with the sarne~ funding from the State and Feds, .because
42 the State has a large warchest of funding already collect"ed through :gas tax money
43 that they have not spent yet.. It's, just sitting ther,.e 'in the coffers: 1N.hy they on't
44 spend.. it.=on the: infrastructure in :California; I don't, know. 1Nhatever money they are
4s spending i`s all going to the 'Southe;rn end of tle~ State. 1Nhen they got into. a conflict:
46 with Congress in Washington over the tax on used cars that Congress wanted to
July 6, 1999 Vol'. 33; Page 141'
1 overturn and'say, "Okay, let's do'like we did back in th,e early `40's, Let's stop taxing
2 used.. cars and trucks." So `the State's all bellyaching and saying, "Hey; we can use
,_
3 that money!," And Congress said, ``Well; why aren't you, using what you've .already
4 got?" And that's what's happening ~in California:.They're not using, the money that`
s they've been collecting for :the infrastructure. They've .got the money!
6 .
7 Now why should. the good peopae~ of Petaluma be responsik)1e for paying for Rainier
s just to enrich a few fat cat developers who want\to further enrich themselves off the
9 citizens' backsides? And "that's jusf what.th'e case is._ Especially,:~to;.visual impacts,
to and to the detrir-nent ofi the surrounding enyironmenf mentioned. in the CEQA
11 (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines with their proposed commercial
12 enterprises, the commercial strip that they're`talking about going all the way across,.
13 ~ ..
14 lnstead of requesting the property owners dig infothe.i`r pockets further to vote for a
is Tax Benefit Assessment District on themselves to payrthe close to $9 million. The
16 position, let's see here, I've got to put on my cheaters; petition the State instead to
v dig into their bottomless money pit that they collected fror~ the citizens already for
is the infrastructure, and have them make therepairs. Have them rebuild Corona, and.
19 have the Feds come up with. their share of the money, and then the City with the
20 PCDC that they wo_ u'Id have- to kick.. in, which would be very small by comparison.
21 And after all, i'sn't that what they collected' if from us for in the first place for through
22 the gas tax money?
23
24 The railroad-crossing question at C_ orona, or at Southpoint, if you consider
2s Southp.oint, could'be handled by Feds. Now, for crying out loud, let's stop looking out
26 for developers and start looking out for the, citizens' interests! You're .supposed to be
27 dedicated. to ahem and they .elected you to office in the first place. I'm opposed to
2s Rainier by virtue of the very fact that it would be a blight in a very sensitive area, and
29 it would be enriching developers. Thank you.
30
31 Dennis ,Kelly,. 1`07 Lassen Place: I live on the east side of town. I want to address
32 to issues for you to consider, when you're looking at the Rainier overpass.. One is that
33 living on the ~Eastside, and, going .out to Bodega all the time, I always take Corona
34 Road because it's a ;more efficient way to get out of town.. It's much quicker. And
3s intuitidely, it's always seemed ,as if' that would be a better traffic pattern. to be alale to
36 go all the way out through town on Corona than on the Rainier.
37
3s That is why, during the CEQA process; one of the things that I and others asked'
39 was that. the City study a Corona full interchange in Lieu. of Rainier. What was
4o studied, as I recall, was Corona. and Rainier: w.it_h the decision., at least at that time,
41 well, two bridges cost more than: one and clearly, we didn't need to spend ;a whole
42 lot of effort to get there.. So I'm advocating that we look at~a: Corona full interchange
43 in lieu of the Rainier interchange.
44
45 The other issue that I want to bring up is: use of redevelopment- funds. :My
46 understanding, again, is that part of the package: that has been considered off and
Vol. 33, Page 142 July 6, 1.9.99
1 on is the use of rede~elopmenf.. I've asked th, e '.City Manager to look `into the use of
2 redevelopmenf,funds_ for. Rainier; and, here's my'issue: I understand that "Rainier is in
3 a redevelopment area: It was. put~in a, redevelopment area. quite some filne ago.
4 State law was amended,,,n 19.93;~specifically to close: loop,ho.les and as I understand
s redevelopment, b_ asicall,y you cari use; the_ redevelopment.area,. "the, .fields,: the faun
~ fields, which. are now a redevelopment area°; as a poster child for whaf the state tried
7 to fix. So if vue :were to go back and visit. redevelopment in Petaluma„ I suspect: we
a would never.get'th.at area inelud'ed in a;rede~elopment area. So; therefere, I would
9 would like~:also.to consider, or ,notao coriside:r the use. of redevelopmenf funds as
io part. of"the~fund'ing, package for the ~Rain'ier overpass. Thank you..
11
12 David Glass, '41 Oxford Court: M,y`area of work, 1'm, a,M'unicipal Bond Principal' at
13 a local brokerage::frm,. which ~ ualifies .me to supervise ;the sale of municipal bonds:
q
14 w.anf to. also underwrite municipal bonds.,; but .I don't do ;that. ;But I want~to go into the
is financing on this issue ,because sgme people want Rainier. Some people may think
16 they need Rainier. But when they~find out.how it's potentially funded = I found' during
17 the. last election campaign,, from. July to November 3`d; talking 'to people almost
1g exclusively;about:this issue; that.ve:ry few people then want Rainier. 'So tonight-what
19 I would 'like to do is .I wou'Id .like to explain the financingmechanism so that the folks
20 that are listening on teleuision~~toriight-will be' a61e `to tell their neiglibo:rs exactly what
21 the financing is on this, project: and h`ow if falls apart, and how expensive pit is:.
22 `
23 And if we were. to look, at 'the package that you have in front of you, beginning; on
24 page four tonighfi,, it explaihs some ofithe`financing alternatives to fund this"particular
2s project`.. Number one, there .would, beaten-cent per gallon gasoline tax:. Now that
26 gasoline. tax is probably corning ,anywaq, .and. we need to bass it, because it the nine
27 counties of ABAG there 'is a $4 billion shortage on servicing our current
28 infrasfructure over the next twenty~years. And here in' the. City of Petaluma; wee have
29 a $3.5 rriillion shortfall on maintaining the collector and arterial streets that we have
3o in this City right now.
31
32 So we have a definite shortage in fak. ing car,.e of our very o.wn streets that currently
33. exist. Even if we could afford ",the guess:. of $32:8 million- to .build this project,. the
34 question comes down; to could we afford ~to `maintain this project`? Or it; would it
3s become dilapidated, as our. City roads -are cu"rrently becoming dilapidated. So'that's
36 number ones ten-cent per gallon .gasoline fax.
37
3s Another funding source that is recommended. in your ~rea.ding material is ~a Citywide
39 sales tax. 'Now that will really :help "us be competitive! Let'`s think about. our
4o rrierchants_ in the downtown. urea "that have a tough time: I see stores coming and
41 going in and out of ;business., Our sales taxes in Sonoma :County, are already ,greater.
42 than Marin County,:.lf we adds a~ Citywide safes tax we'll be even less competitive,
43 and we'll see even ~ more of `our `sales tax dollars d.sa,ppear .down. to .Marie at the
44 Cosco and Target stores. So l;don't find that as a very goad idea:
45
July 6, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 143
1 Another proposal is to floaf a general obligation, bond in the City of Petaluma. Now.,
2 earlier, Bryant Moynihan spoke. about the difficulties that you all are having coming
3 together and making .a budget. Pass this, try to build this project, and "good luck. to
4 future City C:ouncil's in making a budget.
s "
6
7
s
9
to
11
12
13
14 ~,.
15
i6
17
r8
19-
20
21
22'
23
24
2s
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
'33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
What does a general obligation bond do? Number one., it draws against your
statutory debt limit, so in the future you may not be able to issue bonded deb"t
through a general :obligation for such services as the Fire Department or the Police
Department. So it may not: be .good idea to draw on a general obligation bond to
solve a development. problem so that you can develop in the floodplain.
Now let's talk just briefly, and I'm going to try and condense this for you, let's get into,
fhe rnechan.ism of the Assessment District.. A 1915 act bond,, to fund a portion of this
,project. 1Ne're talking about $9 million here..1 believe that when I studied for my test,
the statutory,' requirement was that that. property would have to appraise out. at a
minimum of 3 to 1 coverage. So we'd need $27 million of property value to issue $9
million. of bonded debt. However, if you go to market with a 3-1 coverage on raw
floodplain;.property, very few bond houses. are going to want to touch that `type of
bond. ~So you're .going to have an extremely high interest rate.
Now, ore thing that works against this Assessment. District, is that the factory outlet
mall had their amount capped at .$,1.2 million. when their fair assessment would be
$2.3 millioon, so we now have an additionaC $1.1 million shortfall inside of the funding
mechanism from. the .Assessment District. Furthermore, the value of the property in
the factory outlet mall is some of the prime property. It's ten times covered. When
you .realize that. the factory outlet mall .has just about paid off their $1.2 million and
they're ;no longer going to have their property liened inside of that Assessment
District,.. no bond house is going to want to count that 10-1 coverage on the factory
outlet' mall as collateral against this bonded debt.
So the. funding mechanism of this comes down to $656 for every man, woman, and
child that lives. in the City of Petaluma. Now, I'll tell` you what. I can buy a lot of Clark
bars when. we come around to the next. election for $656 per person. And I think,
with alf due respect, Mr. Mayor, that helped the election results. T thought it was a
nice touch, personally.
Mayor Thompson.: Are we talking about Rainier or the election?
IVIr. Glass: You were .referring to the election earlier and I think the Clark bars were
one 'of the great highlights..
Mayor Thompson: (inaudible comment)
Mr. Glass:, I know, I know. I'm just tweaking you.
(Laughter)
Vol. 33, Page 144
July 6, 1::999
2 Mr. Glass:. But seriously,,-.The financing of this,,, it really does fall apart. And the
3 people ,need fo understand.. Is traffic'a problem? Yes it is. Traffic is a problem 1,5, ,20,
4 30 minutes a day. ~ But `the financing of this. is a ~pro..blem 24 hours a day,;.7 days a
s week. The bills goon and on and on, and at.what cost to other projects? I encourage
6 you. not to spend another nickel on this. until you ca.n corn~e up with a viable financing.
~ pJan, and I doubt that ,you can. And that's uhat I talked .about between July 14 and
s November 3 of last year; and I'm glad that I did.'Tflank you for the time tonight.
9
io Richard Braun, 141 Grevllia. Drive: lt's very hard to come up after such a dynamic:
i i speaker. My concern is somewhat similar., in that. I don't think that you've added up
12 all the. costs. that are going to be incurred if you. put Rainier in. Now,, God did not give
i3 us an unlimited drainage capacity here in Petaluma, :and we're stuck: with Ghat limited
i4 drainage capacity: ,And we can't increase that capacity except at an enormous cost.
is Now; we: can tweak the flows, but when you: do that,., there's an infrasfructu_re cost in
16 just plain 'trying to "tweak the flows so that you .can maximize the capacity of. the
i~ channel
is - ._ .:
i9 In 1953, the population. of '.Petaluma was estimated to be about ~25,;000~~people;
20 today, 51,000 people. And during that period.,, the population doubled. The
21 geographic, size: of the City also dou`bled., Each new ,inhabifant who-has ~corne. to
22 Petaluma h_as added between '1%8 of.an :acre. and'/a, of an acre of`impervious`surface.
23 Nowthat.surface is covered.by asphalt,; concrete; and tile,, and where does the 1%8 ;to
24 1/a of an acne come from? UVell, it comes from the: residential; surface urea;, such as -
2s the. roofs, the driveways, the. garages,, and the access roads..
26
27 The other half comes ;from the Cityinfrastructure, and that's also got to be counted.
as That City infrasfructure is schools, work .areas,. shopping centers, and al,l the parkrg~
29 that's associated"with. it'. So if we're going to cause the. development in that.Corona
3o Reach, area; .we're going to see a lot more. residents coming in, and 'each` one of
31 those people is going to demand .nfrastructu.re; and 'that's just going to increase the
32 flood.
33
34 And in a moderately heavy rainfall,, it takes about'%2 hour for an average raindrop to
3s reach the Petaluma~River.Under normal conditions, .when thi-s was agricultural land,
36 that..would have taken a day or two. The amount of increase we~,.have because of the
37 development; since thee. 1~950's has added o_ne. to~ two feet to the height, of the
3s Petaluma Riper 'in :a 1-:inch rainfall: You have a 1-inch rainfall, it°s over 1 foot higher.
39 We are just going to be continuing that and .we are converting the Petaluma River
4o into a drainage difch, 'to try and flush the water out as quickly as possible,. Where is it
41 going? 1NelI, it's going. to a cork, right ,at :Highway 1 Ot. There is a aimited. capacity
42 there, if one takes the .FEMAflood study seriously. Arid the flood study says that the
43 capacity there is 11„400 cubic feet per second`.
44
4s Now, with the new flood control projecf, we're going to be adding, on top. .of the
46 hundred'=year flood,,. 5.,500 cubic feet. per second, :Now, how serious. is that? The
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page'~1.45
1 5,500 cubic feet per second is enough water to cover an acre ;in 8 seconds, and 1
2 square mile in 1.4 hours. We're creating a whole new floodplain, and the problem is,
3 we're doing it to ourselves; as we develop up river.
4
s Now, this brings rile to the issue of timing. If we do not have mitigation in place
6 before we start Rainier, we will. watch our own creation cause the down.-river
~ destruction. of property and impose misery and financial grief on our owri citizens. If
s you believe flood mitigation fees are going to stop that, then we just have to look at
9 how the. mitigation fees worked with. traffic. 1Ne're here because they didn't work, and
to now we're asking to mortgage our future.
11
12 We know the facts., and the question comes up, then., what kind of people are we?
13 Are we going to tell the folks who are going to be suffering because of this, "Too
14 bad, we're going to have developrrlent"? Or before we build the interchange; are we
is going to pint fhe capacity of the Petaluma River in place so that we don't damage
16 and destroy other people's property. That will define us. Thank you.
17
is Flank Flum, 1721 Stonehenge vuay: Over the past 15 years the people of.
19 Petaluma were told that building the Rainier Cross-Town Connector would
20 significantly reduce traffic on Washington. That connector concept was expanded by
21 just adding a few on and off ramps to the freeway. This pipe dream is still around.
22 What had been omitted was, who, pays for it? 1Nho gains the most? And what are the
23 consequences of pouring thousands and thousands of tons of concrete for 3.,500
24 feet, up to 6Q feet high from east to west across the Petaluma River floodplain?
2s ,d. .
26 For starters, the owners of factory.. outlet bought,.a~kig piece of the #loodway. For the
27 past 150 years, that land was known as bottornland good for,growing hay after each
2s rainy season's floods. No one built"anyfhing°on .fhis cheap, bottornland.
29 _:
3o In recent years, smart money bought this land. for cheap,,'buf needs a good road into
31 it to mulf ply ifs value many.=fold, when' it can be. used for commercial development,
._
32 like malls and .stores.. Clieisea Properties, the owners of Factory Outlet, agreed to
33 contribute $1.4 million of •the~ $33 million for the cost of"the construction project.
34 Guess w,ho ultimately pays for ;the bulk of the cost? You and I, the American
35 Taxpayers. ~ ~ ,
36 ~ ~ •
37 When we look at the financial details; there are •many special funding sources, but
3s don't be misled.. Our tax dollars filled every one of those, cookie jars. There's an
39 additional $12.4: million cookie jar yet. fo be''filled, and guess who gets to fill that, if
4o the Rainier project ever gets built? ;
41
42 So, will Rainier .really eliminate traffic, on Washington? I don't think so. Like it or not;
43 Washington is our main east-west arterial ;ft'S 'our Broadway. It's our commercial;
44 lifeline. It takes cars, trucks, RVs or whatever to the West County. Families scramble
4s to get over 1,000 children to Kenilworth every morning. It takes Westsitlers fo the
Vol. 33, Page 146
July 6,, 1999
supermarket.-and stores on McDowell, and soccer .moms; who drive their kids to
Luchessi and the ball fields on W:'ashington. ~~
4 Almost every freeway driverwanting to go east or west through ,Petaluma would exit
s on Washington, :the direct. roufe, rather fh'an drive. another .mile to exit. on Rainier in'
6 order to drive another mile south fo get: back to UVashington.'Those that _w.ould use
~ the Rainier. from- the north would be increasing the already existing backups at
s PetalumaBoulevard and Washington; or McDowell and ~1Nashngton intersections..
9 Besides, large trucks:could .mot use Rainier to go west, because they can'.t negotiate.
io the turn at .Petaluma Boulevard.
ii
12 Asa .national .,policy, FEMA will. no longer :bail out flood victims who build new
13 developments in floodplains. Everyone'.in Petaluma .knows the consequences, of, our
14 ~ earlier 'p.olicies that permitted construction in the; flood` ways. 1Ne are currently
., __
is spending about $1,2 million of taxpayers' money to channelize a section of the:. riper
i6 to try to reduce the panic that- sets: in wirith every winter rain for the ;200 families in
i~ Payran.
ig
i9 Many others i~n Petaluma see street water jump the curb and creep up th'e. fawn
20 toward. their front door, or creeks that fill up with water to within. inches. of their rims.
21 Even the e~omputer studies and .best designs of engineers fait to prevenf water from
g -
22 enterin some stores at the factory ;outlet.. ~ . ,
23
24 Friends; we do,.have a genuine: flooding problem that impacts. all of us,. Euen so,, if all
2s 50,000 residents of Petaluma are willing to sfloulder the $30` million. tax bill to build
26 Rainier, we're basically forcing our.,City to1incu`r heavy development :in the fl:oodplain.
27 Global warming is no longer science fiction. Qn'e hundred-year rain conditions have
2s been coming at 10-20 year~'intervals Wei could wind up with .another development
29 fiasco, due to unanticipated weather conditions.
30
3 i For those that thi,rik i,f .can't happen he,r..e, ~ think ~ again. Recent .history .has many
32 example of failed planning.:Look around~''to: see,~~water standing where' engineers
33 s.howe.d on paper that it could not,happen.. L guess you know where I stand,. Let's not
34 increase o.ur threat. ,of floods., Let's use .the $t8 million. of taxpayers'. money
3s earmarked for Rainier for purposes:that benefit everyone; not just a,few landowners..
36 And don't try to convince us toyaccept a tax assessment for an additional $12 million,
37 to pay, for Rainier. Thank you.
38 " '
- _.
3s ~ ^ Richard Hillary, 1745 . E. ;Madison:.. Mr. Mayor,: Council Members, ~I'm here'
4o supporting .Rainier Over-crossing and lriterchange. I question why we're ..here tonight
41 discussing this issue.. ~We talked-about vision..earlier on.
42 .. .
43 This ,issue. first, came to, the City.~Council in. 1:962! Obviously .we had a .need at that
44 time. Our~City forefathers, they kind of thought we might .need :another interchange
4s and freeway over-crossing It' was °voted on, by the people 'in he November election
46 of 1988,.. and adopted by the Council in May of'89. (Resolution 89-124).
July 6, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 147•
1
2 ~ I also question why you .would even entertain the idea of building a, cross-town
3 connector without the interchange. It might. be a little cheaper without the freeway
4 interchange. But what's the purpose of Rainier A~enu"e? A place for children to play
s in the street? No, it's traffic flow, for vehicular traffic. Not for bicycles. Vehicular
6 traffic.
s ~ What do the people want and need? They need; as an individual from the Turtle
9 Creek development stated at the last City Council. Meeting, to get from Point A to
io Point B. In other words,. they need to get from 'their houses, to the highway, so they
i i 'can go to work. Then they need to come: back up the highway, and get to their
i2 houses in the afternoon. So twice. a day, they all meet at McDowell and Washington,:
13 ~` `-and as more and more houses and businesses are built, the more the number of
14 people. meefing at McDowell and Washington increases.
15
16 What was the dollar amount of the fair-share contributions identified in the General
i~ Plan in the Corona-Ely Specific Plan? The dollar amount that was sornewhaf
is earmarked for the construction of this interchange? Where is this money? Money
19 that came, from the developers? How much o_ f this is in the fund today? Who knows
20 this answer?
2i
22 Mr. Stouder: $3.2 million accumulated to date for this project.
23
24 Mr. Hillary: Was that the amount of the fair-share contributions identified in the
2s General Plan and the Corona-Ely Specific Plan?
26
2~ Mr. Stouder:. There was no fair-share contribution identified in the General Plan, as I
28 recall.
29
3o Clerk's Note: The Council Members, Mayor Thompson, and Mr. Stouder
31 discuss, in the background, whether or not the General Plan identified a
32 fair-share contribution for this project.
33
34 Mr. Stouder: The project contributions identified and estimated from the Chelsea
3s Project at,'$1,.4 ,million;, $251,OOQ had been accumulated fo date, and the 'Community
36 Facilities Fund,, $422,0'00 was-identified 6y whomever;' I'm not sure that'was in the
37 Corona-Ely Plan.: $422.;000 was available. That's part of the $5.3 million...the other
3g information is on page 4 .of the report.
39
4o Mr. Hillary: 1 haven't seen that report. VVhat_ was the amount specified in the
41 redevelopment plan for Rainier Avenue? Is that in your report?
42
43 Mr. Stouder: The City Council's never taken official action on committing those
44 dollars. An estimate from the. Redevelopment Commission for budgetary estimation
4s purposes only, was $4.5 million; $1.1 million has been accumulated to date.
46
Vol. 33, Page 1.48
July 6, 1999
1 Mr. Hillary: Thirty years we've, been. ,doing this: Why does the Council. agree to
2 continue development without the. construction, of the Rainier, Avenue: Over-crossing
3 and Freeway Interchange as was specified in the Corona-:Ely Specific Plan? 1Nhere
4 are. all those additional ears. opposed `fo go? :All these new homes' and b'usiriesses
s that are corning in.;:.we've got: the same streets.- W.e've ,grit rio place for tf%em to .go:
6 Do they cross the highway at Vl/ashington? That's where they're now waiting.
~ Waiting to move ahead a'couple of car lengths while the streets are clogged up'"with
s other cars. '
io I say build it inow. The longer we wait, :the more it's~going to cost; and the more traffic
ii is going fo increase. That's more gridlock, less. access to areas of town, more, frayed
i2 nerves, more near misses as,people take chances trying to cross streets qr enter the
13 flow of traffic; more avenue rage (which is like. road, rage,. but maybe not quite. as
14 bad) on these overcrowded streets, and certainly more red light runners. for mofo.rists
is tired of waiting for`the traffie'to clear.
16
i~ Got a little pattern going here If you won't approve the building of this "vital piece- of
is the traffic flow puzzle,. then let' stop approving new development until it is built.
19
20 Council Member Maguire: Mr. Mayor, a question for' Mr. Hillary. Mr. Hillary, we'`re
;_
2i $18 to $20 million dollars short; even if we adopt an Assessment D,strict,, I haven't.
22 heard any '.new .ideas .here 'tonight so 'far about how we'ra: going to get that money.
23 The only thing I've come across in my discussions with the peop a of'fhis 'town ,is the
24 possib;il,ty.of them,~wariting to tax themselves to pay for it. ..Are you interested in that?_
2s .
26 Mr. Hillary: I'm a taxpayer, and 'I would payfor;a fair. hare,, appropriate y so. That'
2~ not a problem. 1N~hat I don't .understand is, how come we .have all _ this new
2s development aril all these new' people coming into town, and there's not any more
29 money:
30
31 Council Member Maguire: If you'd. notice; this ,is the City Council that' helped put: a
32 UGB (Urban Growth.Boundary) on the ballot:
33
34 Council Member Torliatt: Mr: Mayor,. I just wanted tU ask Mr. Hillary.,...Did .you
3s .receive :a copy of the staff report. Are there some 'in the back, `cause it',s very
36 informational on the finances that the Cify'_has available at this: point, in'fime; and as it
37 ,sounds', like you and your wife .have talked about. you're very interested in .making
3s this go forward and where did'. the .,money go. I think the real,:answer to that,;question
39 is there wasn't an.y money for it. And that's .one of 'the problems, C think, fh'at this
.4o Council is facing. There wasn't any money for it and there. was a vision, as you
4i stated, to create this.
42
43 Mr. ,Hillary:, Weil, it seems like with all the vision, though, nothing's happening,: but
44 the problems with. traffic; all the development. that"s going on; all these other things
4s are happening. And that's happening today.
46
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 1`49,
1 This vision stuff is going to be 1 Q years down the road, or 35 years from when this
2 was first brought up 'to a' City Council to look at and talk about and to try and get
3 something fixed, We haven'-t done anything, and .yet we're growing. We've doubled
4 in population since. then.. We've got more cars on the road. We talk about bicycles,
s we talk about environmentally friendly stuff, but people drive wherever they go. They
6 drive to the corner market.
s This is a fact of life. This is America. This is how it is in this part of the world. 1Ne
9 don't all of us work herein town, so we commute out of town. We need automobiles.
to So it goes on and on. .
11 _ .
12 Ms. Tor.lliatt: It's very frustrating. And 1 think it's frustrating for the Council as well as
13 the citizens. Thank. you. ~ .
14
rs ~ Matt Connolly, 2200 Petaluma Boulevard North: Thank you Mayor, Council
16 Members. l just wanted to reiterate some of the key points of my fetter, and ther"e's
1~ been discussion. about other alternatives and stuff, and you know, Chelsea was
is asked to come to thin community to develop the factory outlet pr"oject, and' 'it has
19 provided a tot of economic benefit to the ,community. We would. support other `
20 alternatives if they're viable.
21 `.
22 Those books over there come back and they say Rainier is the best plan. All the.
23 experts, all the studies, all the analyses say Rainier is it. And there's also discussion
24 about a shortfall, and as we look at the. shortfall and how we deal with this,. if this
2s Council can make a .decision to move on, we'll find the money.
26
2~ Mr. Glass talked about, he didn't actually bring up the fact that there's Federal -
2s opportunity, and there's also the 2000 election that is going to bring the'h cent sales
29 tax. If this Council doesn't take action, and that'/2 cent-sales tax passes, we're going
3o to lose a potential revenue source that is going to come in there, that was irj the
31 Rainier Project, and was part of that. before.
32
33 We support it we .came, to this community with the understanding.,.we built our
34 project there. 1Ne think we can continue to expand and provide. excess detention,
3s and address all the requirements that will be there.. So I think. it's important that the
36 facts are communicated properly and that the some of the public. doesn't come u,p
37 and discuss that the financing sources may not be viable because we're concerned
3s about an $8.5 million Assessment District, but. I think if we can work together, we can
39 bring this thing together and make it work for all of us.
40
41 The fact that Chelsea has paid $1.2 million early on, as I discussed.. previously, we
42 paid to -the community to date through our project. and sales tax and property
43 revenue of $1.7 million. So if you look at whenever that's going to continue fo
44 incrementally increase., we're in a redevelopment .area and Matt, you said you
4s created an Urban Growth. Boundary. Well, this is infill, and the. community has to
46 start looking at revenue sources and working together to provide the River
Vol. 33, Page 150 :July 6, 1999
i Enhancement Plan, to .provide access. to the river in this area, ,and I think that we
2 can do that'f we work together and provide a good p an. It doesn't have to be the big
3 structure., it can;, or whatever it is'. But if we can make a decision; let's make a
4 decision, and. mope on. And make if "work. Th.anKyou.
s
6 Council Member Maguire:: Mr.: Mayor? So Matt;. am I; hearing ,you say that~Ch'elsea
7 would be willing to remove. their cap on their fair share of the assessment: because
g there are significant injustices' in the :proposal as it stands today.
9
io Mr,: Connol y I disagree with you that there are significant discrepancies,. because 1
i i don't agree with the Finance Director's alloeatibn to other commercial properties.
12 '
i3 Council .Member Maguire:: Okay, well L don't agree that all the: studies say that
14 Rainier's the best;alternative; so we have a disagreement on a couple 'of points.
is
i6 ~ Mr: Connolly: Okay, that's fine. Buf that's what your experts are telling; you; so...
17
1g Councl_Member .Keller: Matt;. I 'have, a question for yo.u. In your letfer and' at ot_her°
i.9 ~ times, . you've, stated that, "Retaluma Village Premiurri Outlefs was built with t_he
20 .understanding' that the Rainier Project would_ be constructed. providing optimum
2i access for the regional customer." Do you have any correspondence,,: or any
22 ,~ resolutions, or anything, in writing saying that: Rainierwas going to be built for or with
23 'the' Outlet; Village?
24 ' . ..
Zs Mr Connolly. I could go back and look at ,our correspondence. I .know 'that it was
26 implied and also we:-,.have conditions,. you know; our condition that we pay $1:2
27 million toward .a cross-town connector.
as
.. .
29 Council 'Member Keller: I would appreciate-it 'if you could do that.. If you could go
3o through the :corporate history and .provide. us with any correspondence'from'this City
31 ~ that"- says that. Rainier would be .built to serve the Outlet. MaII. Because my
32 recollection i`s. exactly the opposite. Your president, Chelsea's president ati~the time,
33 not Chelsea; GCA, stood here at this dais:,. during the hearings on the Ou°tlet Mall and
34 said up and,'down, as well as your traffic engineer; "This Outlet Mall does not, depend
3s on Rainier'Interchange, period."~ So if you have ariy evid~:nce to the contrary, I'd be
a~ very happy to see it.
37
3a Mr. Connolly,a That's a very true statement, David, or Council Member l<eller. -But it
39 doesn't allow for the optimum"success of the property.
40
4i Council Member Keller: I'm ,just frying. to, because you've been stating; over and
42 over and'. ouer again .that in fact, 'the .construction was. built with the unclerstandrg
43 -that Rainier would be built.
44
4s Mr. Connolly: UVell, maybe ;it was 'implied. I don't know if ~there''s written
46 documentation.
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33; Page 151 :
1
2 .Council Member Keller: 1 would like to see anything you have; because that.. would
3 help me understand the position that Chelsea GCA is coming from 'at this point as
4 well.
s
6 Council Member Hamilton: Mr. Mayor? I distinctly remember that during the
~ Factory Outlet.. hearings, that the: Council again arid again and again in response to
s citizens' questioning h~ow'they could base he approval for the Factory Outlet on
9 Rainier, which hadn't yet been approved, and the Council over and over reiterating:
to that. it didn't depend on Rainier, and Rainier was going to b~e a separate 'issue. and
11 both Chelsea and the Council saying that it did .not depend on Rainier and they
12 weren't counting on it. And that that approval didn't hinge on future approval of a
13 project that had not yet been approved.
14
is Mr. Connolly:. That's obvious! We built the project without Rainier, and we're
16 committed to this -.community. It's just that you're not realizing the opportunity, the
i~ upside you can create., not only with the development of Rainier, with the increased.
18 tax revenue and the development of this area. But that's for us.
19
20 When you look. at fhe community of Petaluma, there's obvious a demand, your
21 reports show that, for across-town connector and interchange. If it's at Corona, you
22 know, we don't care. Or if you. don't do it, then that's something else, but for you to
23 say that there's. not funding sources or that there are other reasons not to approve it
2a when the community to my mind, from what I understand, supports it and wants it,
2s then that's. another discussion. But, I think that there's. a way for us to work together
26 and make it work. And obviously that's the difference of the conflicts between what
27 we have to face with. But the long term comm~itrrient to this community..:yourrcports
2s say that that's the best. decision.
29 .
3o Council Member Hamilton: The ELR didn't consider Corona as an alternative, so it
31 didn't say Rainier was a better decision, it said Rainier, it didn't say what you're
32 implying.
33
34 Council Member Keller: ...Cross-town connector and Corona,. it, did not consider
3s Corona separately.
36
37 Council Member :Hamilton: Right. It didn't consider Corona as an alternative. It
3s wasn't allowed to be considered. as an alternative to Rainier, as more financially
39 feasible or better traffic numbers, so...
40
41 Mr. Connolly: Then the question is, is it today with the development that's there. My
42 understanding w.as that Rainier was the .optimum.. location between Redwood and.
43 Washington, and that's the best location for the com.mu_nity as an interchange.
44
4s Council Member Torlpatt: I guess, Mr. Mayor, I don't even know if we'd have the
46 money to build an interchange at Corona! And Matt, I know you keep saying again
Vol. 33, Page -152 JUIy 6, 1999
i and again; "Give us the opportunity for funding," you know, if you have something
2 that you think is financially viable or `if yo.u have some sort of plan, .I'd love to see it,
3 1Ne are... I don't-see the money, and it's ~arnazing to me thaf you continue. to say that.
4
s Also, this whole. floodplain issue:. Yes; you're going to contribute additional sales tax
6 dollars, but 'the. impacts that you're going 'to probably create. in the floodplain and
~ downstream, witfi all the water going downstream, '..it's only going .to offset: ;itse f;
s ...maybe; Or ;it's going to cost- the City, more, and I'm really concerned about ome of
9 the- decisions'in development .upstream of Payran .that have been made in the past.
io And that's .why I,think we're: looking at this'in 'the,bigger context; in the, bigger picture.
ii I mean, we -have Mr. Moyniha_ n up here `and other folks :criticizing the City because
i2 we don't have enough money Nand we're ~at a deficit;` and I_ can't imagihe, after being
_ _
i3 criticized for overspending;. that they want us to commit. to a $33 million p"roject that
14 has an $18' million shortfall. 1 don't understand it.
is
16 Council 'Member Keller: Chelsea GCA has within the forty o.r so acres that ;you
i~ have remaining. to build on maybe'/4 to 1/3 of that is outside th.e floodplain, meaning
is freeway frontage. Have ,you .looked at any development proposals that could. ;use-
i9 that side of the property and. access off the Old Redwood .right-of=way,; which is
20 slated to become a full :access road? So that additional access ~to those properties
2i would come: off the freeway frontage;, and using the property substantially out of'the:
22 floodplain, s'o you still ,have substantial economic value for that. acreage,, but without
23 the kind of floodplain and cost impacts that. a full .interchange access would entail:
24 .Has the company'Cooked at any kind' of development of this kind?
25
26, Mr. Connolhy: 1Ne have,. and. right now we have: an application before staff that
27 we're processing, and it's .based o.n utilizing the floodplain..:and from .what L.
2s understand based on standards, that with zero~'net.fill a_nd excess detention we,can
29 mitigate, and the 'issue is; ,as you know, it flooded two years ago with vacant land, so
3o I guess th'e' question is, ,can we work. together to cr..eate more value to this property
3i instead of obviously; we can create parks. If you guys see. the value of fhat and buy-
32 the land, but there's not a lot of'value in that.
33
34 And we're at-;the `table: today.continuing to want :to invest'in this. community;,; and deal
3s with zero net fill and deal, with the floodin im -acts and t~ to minimize that. I think ~-
9 p ry _
y good wound erigneerng standards. The
36 that we. can_ real) d`o that .based on
3~ incremental increase; and 1 know that you guys• do.n't agree with this, but as he
3g. Flood Control District :will say, an incremental increase of new development 'is not ~ ;
-_
39 going to impact." additional "flooding. It's going to flood regardless. I think that's
4o already been determined because; as you know, there are areas in floodplains that
41 get flooded. .
42
43 Council Member Keller.:. Therein. lies a policy and, risk question that this Council is
44 going to have to grapple. with as to whether we want to encourage development 'in
45 that area of~floodplain.
46
July 6, 1999 Uol. 33, Page 1,53
1 Mr. Connolly: Because it already floods?
2
3 Council Member Keller: ;B;ecause it already floods acid will always~be a hazard, will
4 always be a risk:. My question again to you is, actually, it's a request to pass back to
s your company; if you could look at; a development proposal for those properties that
6 includes the higher elevation, by either the freeway frontage,. the: most highly visible
~ from the freeway, but accessed from a freeway frontage road. I'd be very interested
s to see if the. company can come up with something on'fhat. Thank you. , .
9
ro Karen Greene,. 311 Olympic Court: Hi. I'll jusf take a few~`minutes~ I'd `like to .add
11 my voice tq the others you heard tonight raising concerns. about whether or riot the
12 Council should continue down the Rainier path.
13 ~ _
14 I thought I would .just. raise a couple of questions for consideration. 'O'ne is sort of a
is philosophic question. :I live. at 311 Olympic. Court, and my back fence is on
16 McDowell. So I am very close to McDowell and.. Rainier is where we turn into our cul
17 de sac. Rainier may have been a good idea atone time, but part of the .question than
is we need to bethinking about now is is it still a good idea? If iti had been built when
19 we started talking about it back in the `80's.; then my housewouldn't be where it is,
20 much of the development. in the area would not be where it'is. Rainier would most
21 likely be a straight street, perhaps -even going as #ar as Old Adobe Road, and would
22 be the true arterial 'that. I thinkfolks had in' mind at the time. That didn't happen.
23
24 We now have Rainier, which is a curved street, with stops on both ends. It doesn't.
2s go anywhere, and we're talking about trying to retrofit a very .large,. very expensive
26 project, and as you've heard, many people really question whether or not it's
2~ realistic or whether it's feasible to do this kind of retrofit.
2s .
29 The other question that I wanted to :raise has already been .raised by a number of
3o folks and that 'is to do. with the cost. I'm` also very concerned with how it's going to
31 get. paid, for. 1Ne know the. estimates are low, we just don't .know how low they are.
32 They're based; on construction costs of mid-point, so we don't know exactly what
33 they're :going "to be at the end of the project..
34
3s A 1'ot of mitigation measures that are mentioned in the EIR have not, we don't know
36 exactly how much those are going to cost, and we can't really know until we get into
37 it. Sources of` income that we're. talking about are either questionable or don't exist.
3s The City Manager's pointed. out that we really only have about $5 million available
39 right now: The ,rest.is based on a sort of a smoke and micro"rs approach.
40
41 This will be the largest project Petaluma bas ever done. It can't pay fo,r itself; it's an
42 interchange. Unless we're planning to do some kind of a toll. thing, it really can't .pay
43 for itself. The developers: are now estimated to pay about. $8 million,;, maybe $.9
44 million. This is ':much less than the $16 million that they were; estimated to. pay when.
45 they were talking about it in 1994.. In fact, at that time the~developers~were originally
Vol. 33, Page 154
July 6, 1999
i slated to pay a little .over ,half the .cost of the project. VCIe're now down to. „in the
2 neighborhood of`25%, which is a substantial difference.
3
9 ....
4 , Ln addition, State ;law, requires 2%3-majority vote,. ih the affirmatNe,, ,in order to
s establish an Assessment- pistrict. There are other limitations; as Mr. Glass has
6 ~ pointed out..S.o,.there's really<no guarantee that you'll even .get the,$8 or $9 .million
~ from that kind of ar -Assessment: Dist'rict.. l worry that' we .are going tocontinue; to
s ~~ throw good~~money affer,bad' ;on ahis project, and would dike to; urge the Cbuncif ,to
9 _ take a 'hard .look at, the. project, to ;ask the hard questions, and fo se;riously rethink
io , whether or not we should even confinue talking about it; Thanks.
it
12 ®~ Mark 'Johns,on 145 Grey. Lawn Drive (J, Cyrif Johnson Investment
13 ~ Corporation): I. appre'ciate.the opportunity to address, the Council; Mr'. Mayor. As I
14 was sitting here; kind of jotting some notes down., I think one. of the things that has:
is cometo mind most. tonight is -the financing for thi's over=crossing, and, yeah, where:.
i6 are the.fun,ds coming from? Right- now, the. number' appears to be up to $30 million.
i~ dollars: ~ +
is
i9 I've got a ,couple ,of ahings to look. at. I think this .Rainier Over-crossing can b'e
20 reconfigured.. I don';t think~if needs fo be as big: as it~is; I don't think if needsto be as
2.1 wide as it is: I think there are sortie things we can look~atto pull ao:me money out of
22 this thing. I think:it.can be a two- ane road, and I think the..traffic studies that..couldbe
23 conducted professionally would conclude that it can pull enough traffic'to merit going
24 down to two lanes.. I also think ther,.e are other ways to get .fo PetalumaBoulevard.
2s
26 Qne of the thing that we've been looking at..:we've been looking at other
27 alternatives to access our property; other than Rainier, and we've been doing quite: a
2s bit of study 'with the Goltleri Gate Transit Authority. Shasta Avenue could' be a
29 wonderful pl"ace to cross. I :have reason to believe- that if' we wanted a, crossing at
3o Shasta Avenue,,.. we could get, it, and that would mitigate a lot of costs., keeping this
31 thing elevated.. over a train trestle. It would take up a I'ot mor,.e of our property, which
32 we're somewhat concerned with. But we feel. that this could be a ~iable:::l .think that
33 we could probably pull $12 million out of this thing and still .have the impact that we
34 need, and .create a city that is not -divided ;east :and west, but is a city that: 'is
3s cohesive. So I think it's something that we ;need to look at.
36
._.
37 Looking; at alternatives, moving it up, moving it down:..triis has been on, the books
38 since- 1'962, and Rainier isn't the'- righf location:. We passed' an. Urban Growth
39 Boundary. Development has to occur in ahe infill areas now. And Mr. Moynihan has
4o pointed out the defcif -this City is running into:,.. Sometmes'you have. to spend`money
41 to make money:- And.,this is a situation where p.ropertytaxes, with ,development, are
42 necessary.;.-if we're going to keep the City funded.
43 .. - -~
44 I acfually Give quite' a~ ways :away: I live in ;a town called ;Las Gatos;,: and I ,appreciated
4s this fine gentleman rn'entioning Vasona Park, because it's'very near where I live. The,
,_ _ _
one thing ,you need to keep in mind,. though',. is Vasona Park is accessed. by a
46
July 6, 1999 Uol. 33, Page 155
i freeway over,crossing. That's how people-get to Vasona Park. We're not opposed to.
a dumping park-Like resources onto the property there. We think that that area-needs
3 resources., and ~we would be'willing tb work with the Council to create bike paths,
4 and apark-like. setting. That river is just begging for resources to be applied to it:
s And we're not opposed to creating a real fine asset here in Petaluma.. But we think
6 that fine asset needs to have Rainier attached to it, in order to be effective.
s The other thing I'd like to mention is flooding. Flooding continues to be a question
9 regarding that area, -and I was sitting at a Council Meeting not too long ago where
io there. was a woman here from the Corps, and 'it was confirmed at that meeting that
ii 'this' '$22 .million that's being invested in this Corp project, 'is to create a 100-year
12 flood fix. And that flood fix is with the General Plan in. a fully built-out condition. That
13 means our property built out, and all the properties on. the General Plan that exist
14 right now; th,at.f ood fix includes those properties fully developed.
15
i6 And if I'm not .mistaken, Mr. Hargis could probably help us, I think they've even
i~ elevated- those walls; above and.. beyond what was calculated fora 100-year flood fix,.,
is just to give a Tittle bit of additional protection. So, the area, with this $22 million,..that
i.9 ~ $22' million: isn't just,.being spent, it's being spent so that things can happen in the
Zo City and, the ,;City can. become more vibrant, and that ,people: will not be flooded. And
Zi " `those are the extents. of my comments. I appreciate your time.
22 .
,.
23 ® -John Mills, 1.31;5.., D, Street:. I am your recently fired .Parks and Recreation
24 Commissioner. Eveiyone keeps talking about parks in the floodplain. Folks, there is
Zs no money, and there never, ewer, will be money to build parks in that floodplain, and
26 I don't eve.r.want to hear another Councilperson ever say that they are going to build
2~ a park where.Rainier'would be now, until they promise me they will spend General
2s Fund .money on that:park.
29
30 ,You may not think I'm qualified to serve on the Parks Board, but I know a lot more
31 about the_Parks Budget than any of you people. sitting up there. And I will tell you
32 thin: there 'is _no money, anywhere, to build any .new parks, in the City of Petaluma.
33 The only way that new parks are built in the City of Petaluma is through Evil
34 Developer Fees. Fees thaf come from .housing developments, when they pay their
3s ~ money, $4;000 p.er unit, into a Park Development 'Fund. That is how we build .parks.
36 ,
37 VVe don't pull money out. of the air and say, "Oh! We're going to put a park where
3s Rainier was supposed to be. We're going to put ball fields where Rainier is.
39 supposed to be." That is a political football that you people are using to try to
40 .convince the people of Petaluma that we should dump Rainier so we can put parks.
41 there. Ws wilt never,put parks at Rainier. If you do:, I applaud you (clapping). Thank
42 you very much. Because that .means you will be spending General Fund money,
43 which I have been wanting to do for many, many years in my service on the Parks
44 Commission.
45
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 33, Page 156
.July 6, 1'999
The only way ..parks will .eves be there is, if you change ;pour minds and .change the
way parks.. are funded. in fhi's; City. Because it will not be funded by developers
because there is no development, or if you lef the people who develop that area, i.e.,
the apartment builder or the shopping centers,, :build those: parks for us, ..and I think 1
heard them ton. fight confirming that they would build parks in exchange :for land use
in thaf .area, and L would hold them to that B`ut, that 'is how you .get parks there: 1Ne
are not going to -have any park in -that floodplan,, until :you change: your decision on
how parks ;are funded, or ,unless you let developers build. those parks for us Thank
you..
Council Member Maguire: John neglects to mention that the Parks;"arid Rec
Commission is working on a ballot initiative to do the very same thing .he's
suggesting; and' that'is to change the mechanism •
Clerk's Note: Inaudible question came from the audience: - -
Mr. Millsa Because that's not necessarily true. There is a far seeing;. way off in the
future; possible plan to tax .the citizens of Petaluma to p'ay~;for parks 1Ne thin°k that pis
a. distinct. possibility, but it's. not going to have anything .: to do wifh ~tlis particular
project.:: I was working very'hard on that project and I hope to continue to serve on
the subcommittee and: work on that' partcuhar ;project That's another. one of those
things that requires votes of the people fo tax themselves-.:
_~.
Council Member `Maguire: John, if you're. going to su•ygest change, be willing to
hear the answer..
Mr. Mills: That; is one. of the answers.; unfortunately; f won't be able t'o work ~on if
any lotiger, but, I probably will. ~ ~ ~ :~
^ Rob McGaughey, Jr:, 590 Ely Road North: Good evening, City .Council. It's been a
long day: 1'd like to thank David Glass :for' bringing up a good, point that kind~_of went
by the wayside. He said something. about we"re-short $3.5 million just in the current
road situation in this town, in the first place. `.
lets .get this ,back to just ,a basic concept of what are, we pending ourmoney o,n as
a City Council. Yo,u guys determine where the. money goes and: 'if we're that far
short of fixing our roads, .wh'en you talk to the. citizens, and, they watch these
_.
meetings, all they ever see is study after study, and pet project after pet project
The ..citizens of this town .have wanfed '.Rainier for 40 years.. You tell us thaf there's
only $5 million after all these years put :aside for a. ~$32,, million project. Now, over
time, sooner or titer, we hav..e to decide what we're going to spend our money on. of
this City Council doesn't want. to spend it on. Rainier, then we probably won't have
Rainier; but'the reason. we only have $5 million toward Rainier, is because for the
last six or seven years; the. majority of this City Council has not wantetl Raini'ec: If
gets back to priorities.
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33,'Page 157
1
2 I believe the citizens. 'of his 'tow, n want Rainier:...; I `can .look at you...no one's even
3 listening to what I'n saying) 'The citizens of this -town want Rainier! They want to
4 figure out a way fo,r you to fund it. The citizens of this town are getting tired of fhe
s studies. The citizens of this town want their roads fixed. They're tired of the eredif
6 card debt being .rung up, ,time after time. We're spending our money on the wrong
~ things. Lt goes back to...most of 'you .got elected" on the facf that, you wanted to
s Lafferty. And it comes back to the fact thaf we would spend any amount of money
9 we wanted.
io
1 i .Council Member Torliatt: I hope that's not why!
i2
13 Mr. McGaughey:..:well, the majority of the City Council 'got elected on the fact that
14 they wanted Lafferty. We'll spend any money possible and it'll be a little short
is meeting; :and you'll :appropriate $.5 million for Lafferty, but when it comes down. to
16 fixing the roads in this town, it just doesn't get done, The. fact that we are not fixing
i~ our roads right now is a .major problem, and the citizens are concerned, and the fact
is that you ::guys seem to not care; and that's a bad way of putting it, but it seems .like
19 you don't care about. the. roadways of this town.
20
2i Council Member Torliatt: Rob, I can't even believe you're saying this, frankly.
22 .
23 Councik Member Maguire: Yeah, you've got to' r"e'ad the budget,. That is the most
24 uninformed statement I've. heard here tonight, and there have been several.. This
2s .City Council...only 2-112 years ago was there a shiftand a change in the majority of
-..
26 the thinking on, Rainier for one citation. alone. Do you -think we_ like to see potholes in
2~ the street? .Do you think we, like; choose that willingly? Good~Lord', man, read.. the
2s budget and educate yourself on what goes on in tfis_ City. '-'~ ,.
29
3o Mr. IUlills: The thing is, the people see the gun ban.. Rerfect exampl'e._ Why are we
31 spending money on something like that insteac! of putting it toward the roads?'
32
33 Council Member Maguire: How much did that cost? Excuse m'e?
34 _
.:.. •. ,
3s Mr. Mills; It's the $10,000 here and the $5;OOq there`=and the $200,000 here; and th'e
36 fact thaf `we're not even .willing to try to listen to.:other people. who come up here
3~ about how we can fund this.. It's just anon-issue:. I mean, if you d:on't want.it, then it's
3s not going to happen. '
39
4o So we should figure out what. are we going to do`. If we do Corona, then we're going
,' ~ 41 to have aWashngton/McDow,ell at Corona and McDowell:~We're,going to have the
42 same thing.. What's the solution? `-" _;'~
43 _
44 Council Member Maguire: If the solution was easy,. we would Have figu_ red it. out a
4s long time ago: Are you .aware that we have taken action on McDowell/Washington
46 improvements., that those are on the drawing board, that they include a free right-
Vol. 33, Page 158 ~ July 6, 1.999
i .hand on-ramp onto Northbound. 101 ? Now those are things that we -.are spending;
2 time and money on. Do you..know the :workload our staffi.is ,under? D.o you know the
s City .Manager works a minimurri of six days ~a week here? Do you know what's going
4 on in this City Hall?
s
~ I think you need to educate ,yourself a: little bit snore about what's happening here.
~ You state things. dike the gun ban. We act as a public •forurn here; and; issues of
s importance That; ,come. up to people in 'tlie G~ity are brought. to our attention for
9 discussion.. It is .important. As we supported PCA (Pefalurr~a Cor%munty Access)„ as
io you spoke in favor of; it is important. that those things get .expressed and' that we
i i allow that to bespoken here.
i2
13 Now; God forbid that we only have 24 hours in; a day, Rob., but frankly;, I would,
14 personally love to be able to apply. all my working and' waking hours to th"is job
is because it's a fascinating job. However, I have to .have a ,paying job., too, because
i6 have to eat like everybody else. ,But •I think you hake to inform ,yourselfi a little- bit
i~ more :about the job that;,people here are doing, and the conditions under which they
ig are doing there, before you. make:staternents like you've .been making:
19 ~ •
io Mr. McGaughey: Well, fo clarify something, you guys didn't fund PCA, you decided`
2i that. the citizens were going to f und PCA.
22 ~ ~..
23 .Council Member:.Maguire.Through our action, .through ouraction;we suppo:rt~::.
24
2s Cou.ncl IVlember.` Keller` Mr.~McGaughey, I think it's important .,..there have been
._ ,
26 several .misstatements abouf .how Rainier has been on t_lie books since 1962. Until
27 19.89, in the :General Plan-; the~`General Plan 'i'ncluded a half irite.rchange oaf Rainier;
2g and a ..half interchange at Corona. They were both in the: General Plan unfit 1;9:89: In
29 1989,,, after the redevelopment'area was formed, in large part to help finance Rainier
30 .and the development of. lands that no longer- .qualified for redeve,lopmenf; Corona
31 was deleted from the General Plaii and f,rocn the C1P (GAPILTAL IMPROVEMENT
32 PLAN)
33
34 You might askahe 'C:ity Councils that were here at thattime how' come they didn't
3s sock:. away money :for amonumental h:projeet. The answer is probably th"e same
36 reason~tiley didn'fi'socKaway money for a newwastewater treatment plant. It was ill
37 managed :But you might ask the people who were here "then, who were here- most of
3s the tune"between then and now.; where di'd they pint the money? Thank y..ou~
39
4o Council Member Torlatt; Mr. Mayor, I' also want to address the .issue regarding
:.
41 the budget and the .discretionary funds that this.: City .has: Probably 8Q% min'mum of
a2 the funds that the Gity expends is for employees, and 'it's, for the 'services that we
43 provide in the .city, whether it's Parks and Recreation, whether it's =the Police and
44 Fire. L mean, all :of'those'things are. basically salaries that.. we are. paying at "this ,po,int
4s in time, and we are trying to'deal with the issues of increases, with comparable
,~ .
July 6, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 159
~' i cities;; with salaries and retaining qualified folks that are in our City. That's one of the
2 • things that we're really trying to focus on.
~.
3
a I -would love to spend $3:5 million: on fixing the potholes in this City. I think. every
s single person ;here would like to see that. But we don't have a total of $3.5 million
6 dust fo put into fixing the potholes.. I believe our budget for fixing potholes is probably
7 $190 thousand; and.'I would love to allocate it.
s ..
9 We have $5.3.:million allocated fora $33 million ,project that there was no money set,
io aside for when all of this development occurred... So; it is coming. t0 us at a time when
ii the decisions had been made a long time ago, an'd'. now we're trying to grapple with
12 how we dual with this vision, and how you finance these kinds of things.
~13
14 kM-r. McGaughey: The. problem with that is, and I listened to you say, we have just
is •'formed a new department that's going to do a new General Plan at the cost. of over a
i6 $1~-rrillion. And all we talk about at this City Cou-Heil is money. Why aren't we doing
17 an~ Economic Vision Plan instead. of a new General Flan?
rs
'19 Council Member Maguire: My understanding is that we are doing an Economic
- 20 Plan as part of the General Plan: And the reason we're doing the General Plan is
2i because we have ahe confluence, of several different ,projects. Sewer Plant,. Corona
22 Reach, V1lashington, Cenfral Petaluma, et cetera, et cetera. All those things become
23 so interrelated that ,you need to do a, new General Pan so that you're not screwing
24 yourself up on One side: by taking an acfion on the other side. You need to have a
2s comprehensive; integrated picture.
26
27 Mr. McGaughey: All I came in to say-was that the, people are tired of studies; they
2s want to see some action. Thank you.
29
30 Geoffrey H. ;Cartwright, 56 Rocca; ®riVe: GOOd evening, Mr.. Mayor, Council I'cn
31 hearing a number of different factions here tonight. One i_s from some of our
32 .residents over on the Eastside Of Petaluma who are saying, "Gee, how come we
33 don't have an overpass?" And of course,. they don't seem t0 understand the
34 financing. One of the things is that because of its location,. Rainer's, location,., you
3s can't get, Federal or State highway funds for this, because it's too close to other
36 interchanges; so there's one solid reason. why it's not a good idea in the first place..
37
3s ~ Second, I'm hearing out of town developers, and I know I'm hearing out of town.
39 ~ developers. And the:y're saying, "Well, gee; we're here..." What has happened is
4o they've gone in and they've bought this land cheap, they've started. to develop On it,
4i .and they want, an access road in from the freeway, and from the other side of town,
42 and from the otherside of town right. into their .development. The problem with that
43 '``is; it 'floods. If you put those roads in there, you're going to end up with all this
44 development in the floodplain, and where does the water go? I'm now going to show
45 yOU.
46
Vol. 33, Page 1.60
July 6, 1999
1 Clerk's_IVote: Inaudible comments from the audience.
2
3 Mr. Cartwright: No; no, same ones.: I'm .Zorro. Rainier! The; grand aqueduct of
P Y g . .,
4 vehicles into the flood lain, and ou can see. aIC the vehicles comin in, and. splashing,
s into the floodpfain: The future development intended o be serviced by Rainier, in the
6 floodplain. If' you don't.. know what you're seeing, you're seeing rooftop,; . treetop,.
~ ..rooftop, treetop,
in this picture. The rest is underwater,. in, the flo'odplain;,~-.This is
a .downtown., with the continued development, uptown,,. in the floodplair, Yo,u rriay note'
9 that. only a third :of 'the. tops. of these. buildings -are showing. The,_ rest' is underwater.
to There are boats going up and down the streets. You: might be able to deal with =this
11 by creating a City Ordinance, a 5-mile-per-hour sp.ee.d ordinance. downtown, _so the
12 wakes: of the. boats don't. do further damage. And', the part you've ~waifed for! Zorro! '
13 '
14 ~ Beth Meredith,. 104 5th Street:. One of the problems:. we face whenevaluating .
is Rainier is that the alternative currently is "No ;Project:' And that means doing
16 nothing. This alte.r,native is not appealing to: anyone,, .not fo the landowners. and.,
17 investors who have a financial stake in, the deuelopment.of Corona Reach,,and not ~ .
is to the public; who see this-as a piece of vacant land' as they whiz by on the freeway.
19
~. .
20 . V,Vhat I like ;to propose is; that we undertake a serious effort. to develop an alternative ~ -
2i vision for Corona 'Reach,, which wquld address, the issues of the aandowriers and the
22 public in a different way'th~an Rainier does. In .fact, li think this area presents a unique
23 opportunity for Petaluma to do something really;special. The Corona, Reach ,is the
24 largest: undeveloped stretch. of the Petaluma River left- in town. I propose that we
2s make this area a'jewel in Petaluma's crown.
26
2~ Everyone talks- about infil.l development..l'Il teal yo,u; the one thing you `crave when
2g you .start increasing densities in an urban area, is some piece-,of land where there; is
29 not of dense ~infill development. You think. about San Francisco's Goltl'en Gate Park,
3o New York's Central Park, .:etc. I think Petaluma needs -some, kind of large natural
31 area that, has development' in it but it's not the kind of development of buildings,
32 malls,. et cetera. ~ _
33
34 luckily, there is omeone w,ho has the skills and; the: vision: necessary to .undertake
3s such a~difficult task: for the past,25 years.,, Patricia J'ohanssen :has drawn. upon her
36 backgr,.ound in art; architecture and ..biology to weave togeth'er'the urban and natur..al .
37 landscapes .in extraordinary ways. Her projects are 'highYy sophisticated in the way
3s that they solve community ,problems and address economic. needs,. while enhancing
39 the natural environment; and creating wonderful ,places; where people actually want .
4o to be.
41
42 In the process of designing, .,Patricia does. intense research into the history, cultures .
43 and. economics of the community, as well as: the ecglogy of the area:: She' draws on
44 all of these elements'in the creation of: a rich environment that,works on many° levels,-
4s but is appealing and rewarding to experience as well. It is hard to describe~the~ full
July 6, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 161
i scope of her projects.,. which range from. a lagoon. park for the Dallas. Museum, to the
2 plans for economic revitalization for the town of Brockton, Massachusetts.
3
4 I suggest that if' anyone is interested in learning more about her work, that they call.
s Public. Access Station and ,.ask to see aone-hour interview that Will Stapp on
6 "Chickeri Scratch" did with 'her. It's number 63. Or you can contact me, and you all;
7 .know my phor%e number now, for written materials.
s
9 Recently, Patricia Johansserr visited Petaluma. {I wrote. this back in March when the
io first .meeting was supposed to happen, it's really "a number of months ago she
i i visited Petaluma") where she met- with City Staff,. Council Members,. landowners,
12 business folk- and a host of citizens. She was very impressed with Petaluma and tti°e
13 visionary planning that has gone on'here in the past. And I think that the people who
14 met her were impressed with her ability to hear what they had to say, to understand:
is their needs; and to fit these into a larger context.
16
v Now, I don't. like to see tax funds wasted, and I'm not interested in having us invesf
is in yet one more plan that we don't have the funds to implement. However, given`the .
i9 real impediments to Rainier, as it is cyrrently conceived, we really do need a "Plan.,
20 B." That is why I would like to see Petaluma work together with Patricia Johanssen,
21 to create an extraordinary plan for. the Corona, Reach. I think together we are '
22 capable of developing a plan that would address our needs, while helping us to
23 preserve and enhance what is special about this area. _
24
2s We live in a wonderful town that is surrounded by a beautiful landscape. I think we
26 deserve no less than to development t:he Corona Reach in a way that is as beautiful
27 as its context. And in ease you are 'interested, Patricia Johanssen will be out here
2s next for some other conferences. this fall, and you. -can contact 'me for that schedule..
29 Thank you.
30
31 Bryant, Moynihan, 102 Dawn Placer I seem to be getting quoted a lot tonight, which
a2 I guess. is a compliment of sorts. I think my frustration..:yes, I definitely am
33 concerned. about the City deficit and. very. much concerned about-the budget process
34 and the aspect .of if that really bothered me was that we're not getting to it. We're rot
3s identifying the problems: and dealing with them. In-other words, we're kind 'of
36 "dithering." And that did bother me: This issue is. no d_ifferenf in that sense. , .
37
3s A year and a half ago, the Council. at that time was asked a very simple question:
39 choose a design. They didn't feel. like that was appropriate for them to answer, so .
4o they. created. a. Citizens Committee, and the Citizens Committee came back on two
41 different occasions -and made a recommendation of a design for Rainier. And ;for
42 whatever reason, the Council seemed. to fail to take action. They dithered. And as a
43 result, we're still here a couple of years lafer, without a design.
44
4s Now people get up here and they're "',guesstimating" what the cost of the project will.
46 be. Well, it's kind of hard to figure the cost of the project until you know what. the
Vol. 33, Page 162 July 6, 1999
i design's going to be. It should have gone #orward; it'should have started, processing
2 through Cal:-Trans to figure out what:that..project is.
3
4 There are questions as to what the benefit :area's; goin, g to be. Who° will benefit; and
s to what extent? Until you :have a design of a p.rojeet, it's hard 'to determine the
6 benefit area:, You can't hire a consultant'to go. in these and figure a benefit area for
~ an imaginary project: What are the funding. alternatives? 1Nell,. now you don't hate a
8 plan, :you don't really have a benefit area, and you're trying to figure out the financing
9 alternatives. ;I think that's kind. of back-assward, There are:. all sorts .of funds out
io there..lNe used to have .over $4 million budgeted in the CIP coming from: tl`ie PCDC,
ii the redevelopment agency of the City (a previous CIP; I should add) m :cash, that.
12 _ was to be set aside bey this time. Last ,year, in approving your PCDG budget; 'in
i3; y February I .think 'it was, we reallocated from $2.2 million to $1.1 million 'in future
14 ,..bonding capacity to Rainier. In other words, we reduced the funds.. Some of those
is funds have .gone to Lakeville; some; of them:; I'rn sure, or going to other worthwhile
i6 ~ projects. But the funding sources that were identified and were being .set aside :are
i~ _ now being eroded.
i8 _
a9 .Same thing ,goes for the Corona-Ely :Specific Plan.:.:the assessments there, Those
Zo funds are now being potentially eyed for improvements at the 1Nashington-and North
2,i ~ ~ ~ .McDowell intersection. Worthwhile improvements,. but- then again, the financing.
22 sources are; being, eroded for Rainier.
23
z4 Yet we have a locale: guy,,. a representative Warned John Burton at the State; and Mr..
2s Burton; among other things was: very instrumental., in getting Cal-Trans off: the, dime
26 to .do, a-PSR (Project Study Report) or update: a FSR for'the highway widening.
27 ~ think a good: conversation with Mr: Burton, w, hick I don't believe has necessarily
2s taken place recently by the City,, as to potential State funding resources would be
29 ~ very much worthwhile. He°s our elecfed' representative; he's mad'e' audiences with
30 other people and myself from this community. I `think he's; trying, aria I'think it's a
3i :good opportunity; seeing~as he'sservi-ng as the majority pro.
32
..
33 ~ 'p .There's T-2.1 funds, Federal. funds that filter their way down (until you. have a' project,
34 ~ ~~ It's:klnd of hard to go after those .funds). 'There's the ,general assessmenf you could
3s , ~ always have. Politically ,difficult to achieve,, but when, people are in favor; and as
36 people are in favor of this project, '..it's .quite possible.: Surveys have indicated. 70% of
37~ ~~ our population want this project.
38
39 Now; yo.u .have audience here: that doesn't necessarily represent that breakdown; So
;4o if we get all 50,000 people to come down tonight,, and 35,000 .of you go over liege,
4.1 and 15,000 of you. go here, we. can hake a little chanting session, and we .can figure
42 whether or not we're .going to- go, forward with Rainier tonight or ;not: Okay? There's
43 the majority. What is ,our obligation:'to the community?" I would,say it's: trying. to serve
44 the community. Let's gel the project done,.. Let's quitthe dithering, let's choose a plan
4s design, and let's go ,after whole-heartedly an-approach to acquire the funds and, build
46 the project, and meet the needs of this City.
July 6, 1999 Vol: 33'; Page''63
1
'~ 2 As far as flood mitigations: are concerned, they are necessary, they ace appropriate,;
3 but again, how are yo.u goring to figure out what they are until you have a design,.
4 until you have a plan. The fraffic benefits are clear. Any moron can teal you. that
s Washington and North McDowell is not going to sustain 80,000 people.,-which is the.
6 potential' build-out of Petaluma, if you #igure .our rate of growth at 2.4%, compountled
~ from 1997 and our current population rate;: or growth rate.
s
9 So we're projecting a 20%20 based on ABAG (Associafiion of Bay Area Governments).
to projections., somewhere around 59,000 and change. 'That's'a joke. It's going to~ be a
11 lot more than that. And anyone. who drives Vllashington and North McDowell knows
12 clearly .it's a problem, as you're backed up over the overpass. It's clearly an issue..
13 There are riot. hospitals on both sides of the road.. There's clearly a need. 'Our'
14 community's growing,: This is an infll site. Let's quit dithering. Let's get it done.
is Choose a design, work together, let's get it done. Thank you:
16
1~ Council Member Keller:~ If I could clarify with. Mike Evert. Hasn't the City already
is spent quite a bit of money on doing a .preliminary plan, design layout, and preliminary
19 engineering for this project?
20
21 ~ Mr. Evert: Are we speaking about Rainier?
22
23 (laughter)
24.
2s `Council Member Keller: Yes.
26 _
2~ Mr. Evert: My thoughts were on McDowell/1Nashington.
2g
~. ~ 29 Council ,,.Member- Keller.: No; I'm speaking specifically of Rainier. It was my'
3o under"standing thaf he~City, was it HDR (HDR Engineering)?
31
32 IVIr. Evert: ~ HQR. 1Ne've spent about $550 thousand at this 'point doing the preliminary
. 33 design report. ,
34
3s Council 'Member Keller: So, ;the preliminary design work has been done; we have a
36. 'precise plan ;line,..
37 '
3s ~ Mr. Evert:. We have a precise. plan line for the Rainier "Preferred" Project.
'" 39
40 -.Councif~Member~Keller: So, we know where the project would'be, we could. map it out
a.l on`the .ground where it would be, we know what it would -look like, what the structure
` ~ ~ 42 size would be. 'Everything that was apprroved has been done through preliminary,
43 engineering. So Mr. Moynihan. has unfortunately left, but Mr. Moynihan was wrong on.
_. 44' that. The City has done that. 1n fact, if I remember correctly that preliminary engineering,
45 went about. $.120-$:150 thousand over expected budget. So right from the get-go; this`.
46 project was underpriced:
Vol. 33, Page 164
July 6,•1999
1
2 M_r. Evert: Well, one of the pluses of having a project; as NI.r.:.Moynihan stated; .is that
3 we could seeklFederal or;State funds.,. and at:this point, since: we don't fiave a,confirrned
4 project with the: City,, we, are limited in seeking those funds, because: these; funds are
s very competiti"ve and other agencies are going .to say., "V1Lell, you don't have ~a project on
~ the board; you'xe not: committed to it~"'So,. w' e~ can't compete: But at this point, we have a
~ preliminary, design, we hate a good feel that the project .will.. go as it is with Cal-Trans,.
s and if we chose we could move forward with the final .design.,
9
io Council Member Keller: .And ikewi`s_e; .Fred,,: 1 don.''t know if you 'know thin; when the
i i .:preliminary worie'was done; on;lo;oking atia Benefit Assessment District;: it was based on
i2 the last preferred 'design scenario for the Ranier,lnferchange and Over_crossing. So, if l
i3 understood correctly, `thee way that David Spilman was going to look at laying out the
14 Benefit :Assessment Disteict was based on that project. ,It was not.. just guesswork, of
is throwing a dart at a map. .
16
i~ Mr. Stouder Yes, you are, correct, based on, the project. as defined in ,the -preliminary
is design: The. total ~ project, ;definition. is yet to be decided; as 'I understand it:, lJntil' final
19 design. occurs, .we don't know necessarily all the. right=of-way acquisition 'that. would be .
20 needed. 1Ne know ;most of it. But' where; 'is enough project design fo get the general
21 configuration that would address mosf of M`r.. Moynihaq's questions,.
22
23 Council IVlember Maguire:: But I think Mr: Moynihan's, point was that we don't:have an
24 approved project so~we can't be chasing the funds.
2s ._
26 Mr. Stouder~: The Council does :not have an approved project, but this is a much larger ..
2~ discussion. If this project was to be really competitive State and Federal; some; of these
2g other issues reg. arding its; placement in relation to other ..interchanges, traffic counfs gas
29 they stand up, the safety issues, .the ..degree that this reduces delays;, fhe amount, of,
30 other City commitment available; that. is, fhe lower'the percentage of Federal and State "
31 funds needed #or :a °project, 'the more competitive: it is. Funds that need 10% State and
3z Federal share are more likely to get funded than local government projects that require .
33 25-50%.
34
3s The point' of that would. be, is, I think it''s, accurate to say, a total project ,.design and ~ _
36 approvedd by tle~ Council would be more: competitive- Federal and 'Sfate-wise. My view .. -.
~.
37 would be it wouldn'f be fruly competitive until all tiie otherr.' funding sources were 'in _ _
3s pace, locally, .like. the Assessment District and other set-asides. ~ , -
39
- ,:
4o I'm the .new kid in town. on this. project. There's a rea"son the project's still ;having -the ,;
41 same discussions .it's had fo.r 20 years. The ability fo really put a finger on where ahe,
42 funds are going to come from. If .it was easy to say, "Gee, let's approve the project and
43 the State and Feds_ will fund it," that. would have happened years-ago when; State acid . .
44 Feds were funding 75% and 1'OQ% .of these projects.. And this. is not an unusual ._.
4s example, .but. a City, I was a Planning Director ,years and years ago: and f had nothing '~to _
46 do with the projecf; 'had an interchange in the downtown 1 OQ%.funded by th'e -State and'
July 6, 1999
Vol: 33, Page 1:65
i Federal government, and those funds were. also allowed to be used as a`local-share pf'
2 25% for then 100% funding in urban redevelopment.
3
4 Those days are long gone, so part of the point is, for this to .tje competitive; °my
s recommendation would be if you want to do this, and make th'is~project or a similar
6 project competitive, the local share of the dollars needs to be.firrnly committed.so~we
~ can take it to the State. and Federal government and say, "Yes, this Assessment ,District
s has been approved;" and., "Yes, the Traffic mitigation funds in the bank are $12~ million,,"
9 and., "Yes, the PCD (Petaluma Community Revel_opment) Redevelopment Bond issue' is
io ready to be drawn down on for however much you would want to spend on th'is.''
ii
12 I don't want to make this State and Federal, issue sound easy, .because my suspicions
13 are that's what happened in the 'past. They thought, "We'll just go get the °State and
14 Feds," and obviously .they .haven't. come yet and I think they're the IasT~one`s" in. You
is need to decide. how you're going to be the :first.. ones in financially if you want this'fo -
i6 work.
~~
is Mayor Thompson: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who wou.ltl .like fo
19 speak to this .item?' Okay, then I have two questions that Diane Reilly-Torres left. She-
2o had to leave;, but she. wanted these to go on the record. Number one, who was the firm
21 and persons. that did' the hydrology in the Rainier EIR? Number two, California Code of
22 Regulations 15064N, or page 5.5 from the EIR, "If there is serious controversy over the
23 environmental effects of a project, the lead agency shall consider the effect or effects
24 subject to the controversy to be significant."
25
26 So, I'm going to close the Public Comment portion of this item, I'll probably just say
27 temporarily, because they'll be more coming.
28
29 Council Member Torliatt: Could we discuss time?
30
31 Mayor Thompson: Yes, I would like to discuss time. It's 20 minutes to 11. We've got:.
32 Mike Acorne waiting....no? He's gone. And we have the other item, the General Plan.
33 And I, personally, am not.. looking forward to staying here much later than 11 tonight. I
34 don't want to be considered a wimp, but I do have a day job.
35
36 Council Member Maguire: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that we try to do the best job.
37 we can with Rainier, and not attempt to tackle anything as important and
3s comprehensive as the General Plan, starting at 11:00 p.m. It's getting late.
39
4o This always happens with 'Rainier. You guys haven't been to as many of'these as I
41 .have, but what liappe:ns is, we end up with a ton of public input, and that's all great, we~
42 want to hear that, but at some. point 1 think we need to block out time for the Council to
43 have discussion amongst ourselves in a more workshop fashion, maybe...,6ut without,
44 the public input.. And I'd like to schedule that as soon as possible, w_ hile these
4s comments are fresh.
46
Vol. 33, Page 166 July 6, 1.999
i Mayor,Thbmpsons I don't think we can do that in 15 minutes. Mr. Maguire„ I agree
2 with you.
3 -
4 Council:,Member"Maguire: So; I, think we need to ;pick a daf~e here where we can have
s our discussion and.have a couple of hours: to do it.
6
-_ .
~ MayorT,homp_son: ;Maybe insfead of trying to solve all ~the~ issues, of Rainier tonight,
s we can ;focus in on the specific things that staffi needs to. get to the, next step^,.-And that
-
9 ~.is, what. additionah issues, the Council wants 'looked into so that when the: RMI study. is-
io. completed; and Janice's situation is :cleared 'up, and we have these questions
i i responded to; 'in September or October, w.e'II: be in a position to :have this really
12 compreh~ensi~e discussion of all the issues pertaining to Rainier.
13 <•
is Because there are still some unansweredquestions, maybe it would be.appropriate~ to
is defer the. bulk of that discussion.. I know some Council members have gotten. their
r~ comments in by way of withering cross-examination of different wifriesses tonight; I
r~ didn't participate in that myself, I still do have some thoughts. to share.
is
9 Council .Member Keller: The :only person who withered was Bryant. There's a limit to
ao how much rriore; research I .want staff`to do on Rainier. I think, when if comes°down t'o it,
21 these are some Very clear policy decisions 'that need to be made. The, public has been
22, asking; for policy decisions; and I'm reluctant ~to ask staff to go spend .more tirme and
23 money to sort out anything more. that's already on he list, :and so I think we need ' o
24 ,have that discussion with that inforrriation in place. Hopefully; we can have a discussion
~2s with Janice pres~ent;as`well.
26
July 6, 1999 vol. 33, Page 167
1
2 Clerk's Note: Discussion followed regarding whether discussion of Rainier should
3 continue, :and w_ hether or ~nof the next agenda .item, the General Plan Review; should
4 begin. The following is. a summary of the discussion about the General Plan Review.
s
6 Council Member Torliatt wanted `to have input from the other Boards and Commissions;
~ such as the Planning Commission, that had been given the General Plan to review;
s prior to Council having a discussion.
9
to Mr. Stouder explained that the objective of the discussion on the General Plan (Plan)
n was to receive Council comments and add-ons to a thorough, comprehensive, draft
12 work program. request for proposal statement. Unless Council comments and citizen
13 inpuf were drastically different than the three options, provided, the intent was to use the
14 document as the.b.,asis of a solicitation document to recruit for consulting services t'o
is conduct the Plan.. It was basically a Request for Proposal (RFP). City Management,
16 Council, and the commurity wo_ uld benefit from hearing responses from those who
1~ submitted proposal"s, comments andLoc alternatives to what had been suggested in the
is draft .Plan.
19
20 Council Member Healy was~'i~n favor :of having the benefit of community input and.
21 Councif comments before the~document was distributed.
22
23 Council^Member Maguire was,not sureth.at now was the time for substantial public input
24 on the draft- Plan. He wanted to give City .Management direction to go out for an RFP
2s and haveconsultants come back and `help structure the. Plan. He wanted to continue
26 the item.. He wanted to reschedule' fhe' Rainier issue as soon as possible for Council to
27 have a discussion while the public's'comments were still fresh.
2s ~.
29 Council Member Healy wanted to focus on issues that would enable City Management
3o to take Ranier~~ to the next' ,step, such as additional issues the Council wanted to
31 address. When the RMI study., came back, and Council Member Cader-Thompson"s
32 conflict of interest, questions had been resolved, the Council would be read to .have a
33 comprehensive discussion some time in September or October.
34 '
3s Co.uncil Membe.r~ l<eller believed there was a limit to the work he wanted City
36 Management to do `in connection with Rainier. He stated there were some clear policy
37 decisions that needed to be made. He was in favor of rescheduling the Plan so Council
3s could review it, make some decisions, and move: forward with RFP's. He had specific
39 comments and significant changes that he wanted to .see in the Surface Water
4o Management and Traffic proposals. He wanted to address .them at a different time.
41
42 Council then continued comments on agenda item 12, the Rainier Cross-Town.
43 Connector and. Interchange Project.
44
4s Mayor Thompson: So how late do we want to go on discussion of Rainier?
46
Vol. 33, Page 168 July6,'1'999
1 Council Member Torliatt: 11:15?
2
3 Council Member Keller:. 11:15..
4
Council Member Torliatt:, That's fine. Mr. Mayor, are we just ..going to go down the
dais and let each person give their general,, where. they are right now with Rainier`?
s Mayor Thompson; But no coming back with rebuttals. Qnce you're done, you'.:re done.
to Council Member'Torliatt: You get your five :minutes.
11 ~ ..
lz Clerk's Note: Discussion followed at the dais on which. end of the dais:should go first.
13 _
14 Council Member Torliatt: Okay;. four minutes. ~-
is A
16 Council. Member Healy: I think tfe Council should reaffirm, its..,cornmitment to
1~ constructi'ng a cross-town connector and intersection at Rainier. I 'think the City hould,
18 in the near`term, investigate alternative designs°for' Rainier. dome of those are spelled.:
19 out in the questions that have. been ~submitted~. Mr. Johnson raised a~ coup;le of those.
Zo issues tonight. But I'm note interested in looking at alternative.- designs to Rainier,. Much
21 as with respect: to the' question of alternative 'designs for` Rainier, l ,think a lof 'of ~it boils
Za down to trying to get more outside of the box thinking than has 'been had in_ the past,,.
23 and that's Very imilar to what we've been trying_to,get Gal-Trans to do just to the south
24 ofi us.
as -
26' Ithink it's :impo.rtant; for us to reaffirm our cornm,itment to Rainier, so that theCity will be
2~ in a position to support the next funding opportunity that comes ~alongr Of~ course, ;.it's
28 unfortunate. that Measures B and: C did not pre~aiL countywide. Something like it is likely
29 to happen in the. next elec#on cycle. The other'thing that is out there, that unfortunately
3o hasn't .gotten much ,public :attention, but the 'Council is aware of it~, is'Seriator .Burton's
31 Senate Constitutional. _Ame.ndment #3, which is, I won't get intro the details now because
32 the Council_ knows 'it, but :it is. a eery exciting and potentially a ve,`ry viable method of
33 getting a'h cent sales tax .for transportation fortventy-years: It essentially does. what B
34 .and C would have done,
35
36 The draft. work component .lists several proposed alternatives to Rainier, and that's ion
3~ page 30.. To my .mind; none. of these are new. -
38
39 Council Member Keller: Which document. are you referring to?
41 Council. Member Flealy, I'm sor"ry. It's page 30 of the. d"raft `work component. war plan
42 for the transportation: regulations. None of those are .new; and it seems to me that none.
43 of these are Viable alternatives worthy of~future study. None of them didn't exist at the
.,
44 time of the '98 election. None of them didn't exist: at the time of `the '96 election, and
45 don't see why we're bringing up,,'why it's been .proposed to bring them up .pow.
46
July 6, 1999 VoL 33, Page: 1;69
i I, of course,, ran for election supporting Rainier, and I'm not prepared to~~spend $426
2 thousand for an over-.two-year sfudy exploring alternatives to Rainier,~~and~fhat's what's
3 being proposed. in the workplan:. Especially when the City has already spent over $1
4 million on Rainier itself, including; an Environmental' frnpact Plan, which,. of course,
s considered alternatives. This one sentence from page 6 of the .staff report, well; two.
6 sentences, from page 6 of the staff report kind of crystallizes the issue in my mind. This
~ is near the top of page 6 of this document. It says, "Once. these tasks are completed in
s approximately fwo years and the General Plan process is well underway, separate
9 traffic model scenarios could be run for the Rainier Project, or an alternative, using the
io re-calibrated traffic model and alternative land-uses. Information from the traffic model
i i runs would provide a comparison of traffic flow over the Rainier Project or alternative
12 projects."
13
14 So what it is this almost never-ending process.. It's over two years out. It more hundreds
is of thousands of dollars, to study alternatives that I think we're going to find are not
i6 viable.
i~
is So, just getting .back to my basic point; I think we need to investigate alternative
i9 designs, come up with a final design, fully mitigate all of the storm water effects: of
ao Rainier in that.~design. And' that really is the real question on Rainier. Can its flooding'
zi impacts be fully mitigated?' And chat's a very different focus of the question ~ttian let's do.
22 a comprehensive study .of the whole Petaluma River Basin, and then; look at` Rainier as
23 one component. That's an interesting exercise, but my training as an engineer leads me_
24 to believe that: we should look at this particular project and what can°~be done to ,make;.
Zs sure that. this project doesn't cause any additional flooding issues, and that's where, .f
26 think the focus should be.
2~
Zs I'd like to revisit Rainier in two months time. As. l mentioned at that time~we will have the
29 benefits of the RMI 90-Day Study. We'II be. able to evaluate how robust those results
3o are. At thi"s point, we're. all uncertain as to how much certainty those engineers wil) ,have
31 in their tentative. resulfs. 1Ne'll be able- to obtain answers to -questions posed on
32 alternative designs for :Rainier,. and the inerementa.l construction question, which. I
33 posed. And., of course, Janice's situation wilt hopefully be resolved 6y that point.
34
3s 1Nith respect to. handing: you know, .funding. wasn't in place .when I ran'in.'98. There
36 wasn't the money there to build Rainier. And it wasn't in place :in '96 when other folks
37 ran. The loss, of measures B and C was unfortunate, but in rny~ mind, it doesn't change
3s anything. l think what we need to do is committo making this project a City.priority,;'and
39 then go and find 'funding sources to make if happen. Measures B and C. came very
4o close, and if it had passed, we'd be in great shape. ~ ,
41
42 On the other hand, there are other design alternatives for across-town connector .and
43 intersection at Rainier that. could be considerably less costly. I want those looked into.
44 The other thing ~ I would say about funding on Rainier, and this is Yeally more .of~ a
4s General Rlan discussion but .I'll just make the point briefly here, is chat `it's true,, Hof
46 course, that the funding doesn't exist presently to go out and build it, starting tomorrow.
Vol. 33, Page 170 July 6, 1'999
i. But;: by the !same token, there's no funding for light rail. either;. Nevertheless;. the
2 General Plan doeumenfs talk about going ahead and making zoning decisions; and
3 other deci'sioris `in this town for increased density :near 'night .rail on the hope and
4 assumption that if the City makes a commitment. to rnakin.g it happen, eventually it will
s .happen. I think. that's the same :approach we show d be having for Rainier. And I could
6 go on, .but I'Iigive other-people the chance.
~ ~ -
8' Council :Member Torlatts: So; I guess; I'm not clear what we're. saying we're doing ;or
9 -.not doing. here; because, are: we waiting for Janice to enter this discussion or not waiting
io for Janice to enter this discussion?
ii
12 Mayor Thompson: 1Ne ultimate y will wait for Janice: For a: decision to :come .back on
13 Janice. But. I believe, what we'`re doing; right riow is we're responding to some of the.
14 .public's comments, we're ;gibing a sense ofi; as. an ,individual, that y,.ou would .like for
is 'Rainier, and what you wouldn't like: _
16
i7 Council Member Hamilton: Revealing to°the public where we each stand:
is
19 Council :Member Torliatt: 1Nhat I'm hearing from Council ;Member Healy is that we are
20 going to wait two months to discuss this again, with 'the benefit of the RMI study;. and
2i the responses to he questions, that ::have already been. posed. So, we.'re back ih the.
22 mode of waiting for the additional information. I mean; we've talked about` this many,
23 many times, and I did,n't baring: my. statement that I wrote in 1996; which addressed; the:
24 funding iss.ue~that I never got;and still don't get.
25~ .
,. -
26 1Nhen I ran for Council, I was in favor of Rainier.. I sat on the Planning Commission arid.
27. approved the environmental review document;, or° the Envir~inmental Impact Rep:ort._
28 think that'-was; .because we were put in a situation where when you review an
X29 Environmental Impact Report you; xeally have to app"rove it unless there's something
3o that is seriously; seriously flawed. Put 'in the 'situaton, where Rainier is the only project;
31 and. that w,as, the preferred project, I think we were put inn a poor situation;
32
33 I think that there needs,}sortie way for".;folks to get across town. Obviously,. the Corona-
'34 Efy area was built with the :idea in mind that: there :are ;going to be a lot; more. people on,
3s tl;ie:= Eastside. of. Petaluma.. that need to get over to :the' UVestside, "There a_re many more:
36 facilities `on thee. Eastside that are recreations(. 'facilities, .ef cetera. So people on. the
37 1Nestside need to get'o~er to the Easside through 1Nashingfan-McDowell:;
38
39 _One of fhe~things that; hasn't' been particularly reiterated tonight, is, whst is Rainier going
4o to get us?.What is Rainier ,going to get folks? Is it going 'to b~e~ you get across town one
41 minute faster?' That's` about it, is my' understanding. Is gett%ng across town one minute
42 _ faster worth $33 million? That°s ;an inferesting question.
43 ~ .
44 W. e ~go to the ;.flooding issue.lNe :haven't gotten the study back from RMI, which we~nee.d
4s to do. Cities such :as Napa have just decided they're not building in their flood"p'lan.
46 anymore,~and.they'ce faking houses and .building's .out of `their floodplain. It's 'incredib`le
July 6,.1999 Vol. 33; ,Page 171
to me tfat~we even think~about~adding in the floodplain when folks are finally realizing
you can't build there. But-we'll s`ee what RM1 has to say.
4 'It's a very difficult~guestion,:whether you go for it or you don't go for it, and we've all
s seen how hard it is. If the answer was easy, it wouad have been done a long time ago;.
6"and I don't particularly think~.that the funding's in place. There are things that may be
happening. with Burton's billrto:'"provide, some funding, and there may be other funding
s,"sources that are_ out 'there,; .but are we going to put. all of our money, redevelopment
9 .money, if we have if, all our'bonding capacity into traffic mitigation for the City or are we
to going. to ,.look at." tfe other projects that we haven't even started to discuss, which
11 hopefully; we're going. to discuss on .Monday night. Next. Monday, when we're talking
12 abouf the redevelopment projects. We're going to discuss it again in two months, I
13 guess.
14
is Council Member `Keller: In the final EIR, the objective for the Rainier Project was "...fo
16 provide .capacity `for new development and congestion relief on the East Washington
1~ corridor; where existing capacity,improvernents are severely limited by existing, land use
18 constraints:" S;o, we have a project that is a development supporting project, it's growth
19 inducing, ;'and. would provide high volume roadway access to land that is currently
20 relatively Land-locked: freeway frontage, .highly desirable, purchased for a few million
21 dollars in 1987, now valued' at over $35 million by the existence of the approval of
22 Rainier, that's according to the property appraisal that was done in 1989.
23
24 So those guys are happy. They'd be happier still if they had the high volume freeway
2s access that their projects depend upon. So, yeah, it would meet that objective. Does it
26 meet the second objective, which is congestion relief along East Washington corridor?
2~ The answer there. is no, 'because. if you go back through every document that was done,
2s cranking the numbers as best as they can, the best you got was maybe a 10% to 12%
29 traffic relief at Washington and McDowell, and that would only last fore ten to twelve
3o years, as it filled up again by new traffic generated, in ,part, by the very development that
31 this project will allow to happen, and. in fact is not only allowing to happen, it mandates it
32 happening, because. it's one of the funding vehicles.
33
34 So you have this bizarre instance where you're creating infrastructure that. was
3s .guaranteed to be unaffordable and guaranteed to fill itself'up and become obsolete. The
36 thinking. that went into making Rainier as across-town connector was a political sales
37 job to allow for development in the floodplain, and the last stretch of undeveloped
3s freeway frontage, highly commercially desirable land. It's a mistake. Lt does accomplish
39 that objective, `it does not do the work necessary on the Washington corridor. So the
4o public has been sold a :total snow job on this for years!
41
42 Now are ,there ways to get traffic congestion reduction. that don't cost $33 million and
43 that last a whole lot longer? Absolutely! And that's why there's a Traffic Circulation Plan`
44 proposed here. Not to-look for alternatives to Rainier, but to look at circulation from a
4s system-wide approach for the: City.
46
Vol. 33, Page 172 July 6, 1999
1 It's the same kind of fhinki.ng that we had. with the flood'f,ix and I call.~it that deliberately..
2 Because this was posited as they traffic fix: 1Ne were told'we were going to have a flood
3 fix, and everything would be' husky dory.. We could build upstream like crazy, and it
4 wouldn't be a. problem! 1lVell, we've since then come to learn, hat.you_can't manage the
s system by pouring everything into bigger channels. It°s; the carne with cars. You can't
6 manage the system by pouring everything into bigger roads. That's, why we need a
~ Circulation Plan„ and that's why we need. a land :use com,ponenf that.. is integrated with
s the traffic generation. That's why the State of Oregon .has mandated that, `.instead.. of
9 building freeways f,or the past years, they're looking .at ;reducing vehicle miles traveled
io per capita; and. they're doing it: 5. -10%. And if we .start .looking at' how fo reduce vehicle
ii mile travels in, thi's town, then we're on the right path for.~.dcaling .with crculafion, with
12 traffic, as we .are now beginning to approach with:~~filooding. ~ You look at' `source
13 generation: where does ;this traffic come from and .howelse .can. ,you get'. around? Do
14. you even have to get;around and get on the roadways? _
is
16 And that's really the eritical~ junction that this City-'is at. 1Ne could,,ehoose: the old.. path:
1~ $33, $35, $39 :million dollars, throw the financing charges in there .and youu'r~e vp~ another
18 $5 to $8 milliondollars; by the way. So you're in $40 million for Rainier; okay,,. and you're
19 down the same old path: You think everything"s fine. You ,get: traffic generated ,because
20 the new construction induces :new growth that's not anticipated in the EI.R, and` you get
'21 new congestion.. So,. 'in 15 years we'll be back of .the same. Council, dealing: with the.
22 same hassles; only now,. we'll be wondering how we're going to come up'with'$50,.'$60,.
23 $70 million :dollars; and, we have. an .unlivable. City.
24
Zs This is crazy thinking.: This is .old engineering. It ,was fine: twenty years ago: it was
26 standard,. right down the middle of the. pike in engineering school twenty years ago. It's
2~ not what they're doing, now because it doesn't work. Thia urban model doesn't work,.,
as You know; you look gat the floodplain issues, I just want to remind folks.,. in, case: you've:
z9 forgotten, that there is some reason why I; have about 8 "feel of shelf space in my~office
3o devoted to Rainier,: it's not because I.'m totally obsessive. _
31
32 On page 3.2.2-22 on Flood Impacts:. Fill,. is often selected, for support becau"se it is
33 relatively inexpensive. To raise the :over-crossing :high enough to clear th. e ri`ves' and'
34 railroad. by minimum required disfances;l°6' and 23' respectively, it would be necessary
3s to support the approache's on pylons or ear#h fills. About 85;000 .cubic. yards of fill.; as
36 much as 40 ft. deep' would be needed only between Highway 101 and the Petaluma
37 River. That 'doesn't include the fill. once you've crossed'the river. If doesn't" include the fill
3s than would be necessary fo.r the, access r..oads to Chelsea's property, fo Mr. Johnson's
39. property, et cetera. Those are all in addition, and the ELR didn't touch that tuff.
40
41 So when you talk about building in the ;floodplain, you're not ,talking about .how you
42 mitigate: for 'the flooding. on the Chelsea property down the line, because. that`s. n.ot the
43 only thing you've got. to be corice,rnetl about. You have a tremendous arno;unt of fill
44 going into the flood"plain. It is, as th, a Galloway Report pointed out' foc the ~Qorps of
4s Engineers, :again; bad engineering, it's :bad policy.
::}. - -
46
July 6, 1999 Vol, 33, Page 1'.7:3
1 The public policy is not to build in the floodplain if you don't have to. If it's riot ~water-
2 dependent, you don't tlo it, 1N,e're going to pay, the public's going to pay for those
3 'mistakes down the line. We're already paying now. We've got lawsuits now, we've had
4 flood clairrls; 'we're going to have more of them. Don't do it. As far as I'm concerned, at
s this point, I'd be ready to take a vote on this project, and I'd be happy to kill it. Thank
6 you.
s IVlayor Thompson; I think a critical component of this entire project is the RMI study
9 that we should be hearing about shortly.. I agree with Ms. Torliatt that we really can't get
to moving on anything until we have some information on that.
~1
12 The Comprehensive Transportation. Circulation Plan, in my opinion, is just. another
13 smokescreen., It's another tactic to slow this whole process down. We've got pages and
14 pages and pages of information about Rainier.
15
16 If it isn't the best solution to come out by the Police Department or wherever it was, Mr.
1~ Johnson's idea of ..moving along Shasta. Avenue, for me had some merit. I think there.
rs are ways to approach. "this. I like Mr. Healy's suggestion to begin a northbound off-bound.
19 lane coming to Rainier at McDowell - to begin starting this project.
20
21 If we continue to throw more and more time, more: and more studies at this, we're never
22 going to get;'it done. -we're :never going to get any Federal funding, State funding, if we
z3 don't have an approved project. And f say fo you tonight, that's one of the reasons why
24 we haven't had any money for this project:. because it's never been approved. And I"m
2s going with Mr. Keller: if everyone wants to put this to a vote, I'll go to a vote on this
26 thing, on the Council, 6eeause we need' to get moving. We need to do it, or not do it,
z~ and we can't be dithering. And we are! Because we're going at it half way. We're not all
2s for it, so everybody is a little tepid.
29
3o There are other people who are afraid to say they don't want it, because of public
31 opinion: because public opinion does want Rainier. And 'I know they're concerned. with
32 the money, .but I'm not sure that`s the deciding factor to them. If we are only going to
33 gain one minute, maybe that's this year. ,But in ten. years, it's got to show improvement.
34 V11e need to get going on this project. We need to do it, or not do it.
35
36 Council Member Hamilton: I think the reason that so many studies are being done
37 about Rainier, is because they weren't done, and the right .questions weren't asked :in
3s the initial stages of the process and during the E1R. So we do not have the right
39 information on which to base decisions.
40
41 I feel I have enough information to tell me that Rainier is not a worthwhile project for this
42 community to .invest money ;in We're talking about something that's less. than half
43 funded right now, it requires certain intensive development of the floodplain in order to
44 make it fund itself and work, it requires degradation of riparian habitat, and a hundred-
4s year-old oak. grove. .
46
Vol. ~3, Page 174 July 6,.1999
i And even, if none of that were true,, the ELR numbers for the project dq not; indicate
2 enough. gain.. in traffic relief to justify the project, and to justify doing it: the work.,. and the
3 money - it is a.co;mplefe sham ~as far as I'm concerned.. And 1 have 'seen this in the.'EiR
4 from the beginning, -
5
6 David is absolutely right., The purpose of 'it is .to create: congestion relief on' 1Nashington
~ and McDowell. It does not create ~eongestion relief: on Washington and McDowell that'is
s sustainable. It also creates. serious traffic. problems at Rainier and McDowe)I. The traffic
9 projections for.:Rai'ner did not include a projection. of the intense commercial
io development that. Rainier is ,going to require. So; those. numbers are not, accurate; and
i i they're not something we can rely on.
12
13 But even with the. numbers they did do; the, numbers that do not include fhe
14 development Ghat is actually going to :have to take place.,; itstill is not a good. 'bargain:
is There's -not a good' enough cost/benefit ratio for he community. So, with the' 1/2=cent
16 sales tax, with funding in place, I do not want to do Rainier.
i~
is It's hard to turn away from. something that's been a_cherished and: planned component
19 of this City's vision and face the fact that'it wasn'.t. a good one... Every, community'in this
20 country is facing the e kinds of ,issues,. is facing that certain ihtegral. parts of the :way we
21 live., don't work: And we can't .fund. them. And w.e can't keep dosing it.
23 You know.,, .our-potholes and our roads are going on all over this county. The county is
24 'deeply lacking, m funds to fix the. rural roads:. It's not unique to Petaluma `that we: have
2s roads in this condition. This is happening everywhere. 1Ne're facing the need to come up
<26 with some better 'ideas and better solutions:, and we need to do it fast. Arid f agree, we
27 do need. to come up with some changes. 1Ne need to change direction; and we need ,to'
28 think clearly, and we need to act, and one 'of' the: first actions I'd like to take 'is to~ stop:
29 considering•Raini,e,r aworthwhile project`for our community. -
30
31 Council Member Maguire: Thank you. You do these. studies,. and they are incomplete
32 and' inconclusive because it's like; okay; what's ;the best "flavor"of. Rainier; b,at do.n't
33 consider the best alternative "if it's Corona.:or Southpoinf back when it could have: been
34 done.,. or some .combination. thereof,
35
36 So you°ve got studies that; don'f support you, buf then ,you get hammered for having,
37 done the. studies, as-a way to corner you~`into not, doing more studies. Then we bear the
3g brunt of the .criticism: you',re dithering.; you're not doing anything, you're not serving the
39 public. It's an: onerous task to ,.have to put up with that, but those of us who have, done
4o the homework, as. Jane and David .have. pointed. out, have seen that this: project is
4.i inherentlyflawed, and if I had to vote on'it tonight; I'.d kill it. Because. it stinks!
42 You know, there is, induced traffic,, the EIR is incomplete, it doesn't count the :additional
43 growth. There is the pressure to change the zoning designation on the Gray p:roperfy., If'
44 that succeeded that would, throw the EIR traffic circulation numbers right. out the
45 window.
46
July 6, 1999 Vol'. 33, P.'age~175
..
~ 'You can go, dowry the ..list,, and many of us have, many times, and really, you know, we
2 wart.to improve the.. circulation in fh'is City. We want to serve the public: 1Ne want'to'give
3 the public what they want. But that means giving them a project that works.
4
s 1 cannot live with myself saying we should spend $32 million, hard pressed fo get those
6 dollars, on: a project that. is not going to have stunning, stellar benefits. Rainier is° not
~ that project. One of the things that has always rubbed me the wrong way, is that when
s you go down to the reach of~the river where that oak grove is, the largest single grove of
9 reproducing live. oaks this side of Sacramento, and envision where that thing goes, it
io goes right through the crown.
~~
12 Now, you know., the ElR says we're. going to mitigate'it, and it's not going to hurt it and
13 it's not going to kill it. And you know damned well fhat if you have four lanes of traffic
14 plus turn .lanes and access ramps on and off, `it's going to destroy that ,growth,
is aesthetically, if' no. other way. 13ut I'm convinced. it would destroy it environmentally as
16 well. It would break my heart to support something like~that.
i~
is Now, if we're going to find an answer here, my wisdom tells me always that the thing to
r9 do is to look at the cause :and address the° underlying cause. Do,n't just keep treating'the
20 symptom. We've .gotten ourselves into a horrible mess in our society, teetering on the
21 brink of,=destroying the natural. infrastructure that aupports us all, and I think David's got.
22 the right'idea; thafi is, a long-term solution: The public. demands something more quickly.
23 I, think this Council has attempted to do the most responsible thing and do the
z4 necessary research, the circulation study, the flood study,. to be able to come back and
2s say, ".what are 'ou.r alternatives?"
26
2~ We all` know that,~.everybody's driving more these days and that that's a common trend
2s for. Arnerican'~ 1Nestern .society. That is not som~etling that. we should support, That- is
29 something ~th`at we should., try to address: We need to address it and find some.
3o solutions, and we've started~to do it. The IJGB in this town is a significant step in that
3,1 direction.
32
33 Now we've ..also' taken the immediate. practical step of saying we also want to fix
34 .McDowell-Washington. intersection, because-.that is the worst one in town, and that will
3s~ take years, but we're: proceeding on that. I believe there is support for a free
36 northbound ramp onto th.e freeway. If we .had to vote on it, and I voted to kill this thing;
37 and the public wanted to r,.ecall me and throw my ass out of here, great, I'd go back to
3s my garden„ and do something that .everybody knows 'is worthwhile. So be it.
39 ,
_ 4o B:ut, short. of that happening, I'm willing to hear whatever anybody has, you know, up
41 until the 11:th hour:.. If somebody can come through with. an .idea that really makes sense,
42 f rn open to hearing about it. If we then start to take degrees back from that, then it's like
43 how much are you willing to listen to. Therein lies the Devil.
44
45 I personally have always felt that if you look at the map, if you go out and you walk the
46 land and you look at the intersection and you drive it in your car, I originally thought
Vol. 33, Page 176
July 6, 1999
i Southpoint would, have. been a superior solution, and it was being properly studied by
2 the EIR or prior councils, Now "the"re are new buildings. there; and that :complicatesthat
3 situation. ~ -,
4
s l understand that people- do want g"reate_r access on and..off the fr;,eeway. I personally
6 would support; I think; I'd need a little .more ,confirmation, but. I'm Leaning toward..
~ supporting an interchange at Corona; if it was. ,the wilt .of the Council ~to do that. I would:.
s consider; p.ossib y, ~a two-lane road over Southpont, no interchange. 1'd.even be willing
9 to hear Mr. J:ohnson's recorifigura#ion of Rainier fo see: if"there's: a diamond buried in
io 'there. I have my doubts, but I'm willing to hearthat and see if we'can fi'rid 'it.
ii ~ •
12 But at this point, there is so much that speaks aganstahis project ever working properly,
i3 and it has the negative .and undeniable effect of ruining; what. is the prettiest str..etch ofi
14 the river in the City "today,. rand losing the chance to' do anything creative and, positive
is with: it that, I would say, if' you're go:ing,.to just dream and ,be wild, let's hire Patricia.
i6 Johanssen, .and get her in .here., and do the. visioning, and :get all the parties; here; get
i~ them in the pit o fight° it .out` and see where we can go; and see if we can come up -with
i8 omething that preserves that, stretch: of ,river; and provides some additional access: to
i9 the freeway, and 'improves the circulation in the town. I don't .know if that'll solve `.it, :but.
20 for what it's worth, .that's my two. cents'. .
21
22 Mayor Thompson: Would it k)s the consensus ~of ,the. Council that we would try':to
23' schedule ,the next meeting regarding Rainier once the RMC'study is in? ~ '
24;
._
_ .r.
2; Council Member Healy,: And the FP.CC and the responses to these issues? '._ •,,:
2.6• _" y•
27 Council Member Keller.: I frankly, don't need' to wait, to: that point. As fa•r as: I'm
28 concerrie.d, important policy decisions, the; irnpact of the flooding, the RMI flood, study
29 have very little to .do: with whether or not this is an appropriate, pl°ace, to build a freeway
3o interchange and: cross-t°own connector; Frankly, I, can make that decision 'irdepend'e.nt
31 of that. So for this Council Member, I don't know howfo wait until that point.
32 •
33~ Council Member Hamilton: Mr: ,Mayor; I also .:.;it's good information...
34 _
3s Mayor Thompson: Why are we. doing "'the RMI Study? .•~ ~ -~ ~_ ::'
36
37 Council. Member Hamilton: We're doing ,it for th.e C,ify. y' .._ ~ ,"
38 '_
.. ,.
39 Council Member Torliatt: We're doing'itfor the Surface Water Management Plan.
40. _'
41 Council .Member Keller: The RMI study.of for the City. ,: ~.
42
43 Mayor Thomoson: Then.. it was part of:.... ~ ~ ~.
44
45 Council ,:Member Keller: No. Its for the entire system of which this is one piece.. ,
46
July 6, 1999
Vol: 33 'Page 177
1 Mayor Thompson: 1Nell, then that's fine.. Whenever the Council would like to schedule
2 a meeting to vote on this item is fine with me. Let's do .it.
3
4 Clerk's Note: Someone at the dais suggested an. immediate vote.
s
6 Mayor Thompson: 1Ne can't. It's not. an agenda.. It's not an... _.
8 Council Member Torliatt:...action item.
9
to Council Member Healy: I still think it's appropriate to wait until those three issues have
11 all been cleared up: RMI will give some Council Members more information, and the
12 FPPC will certainly :help that, and, also; I think the answers to these questions will- be
13 useful.
14
is Council Member Torliatt: Mr. Mayor, I also think if there are members of the public
16 that want to know more: information about Rainier, they can contact the Planning
17 Department or the City Manager's Office. They will send them a copy of the packet. Is it.
is on the Internet?
19
20 Council' Member Keller: Is this item on the Internet, Tom, do you know?
21
22 Mr. Hargis: No
23
24 Mr. Stouder: And many of the questions are answerable without commissioning.
2s additional sfudies for further clarification that. were prepared last year. Many of your
26 additional: questions are further nuances or more specifics on some of the answers that
27 are available but would require substantial commitment of dollars that you would have
2s to authorize. Not only the questions that you have in front of you in those four pages,
29 but this five pounds. of information.
30
31 Council Member Healy: Look, Mr. Mayor, if f can follow up on that, one of the issues
32 that is specified in a lefte:r from HDR is the question. that I had raised about doing a
33 partial interchange with northbound on-ramps and off-ramps connecting to Rainier, and
34 the consultants indicated $7,500.00 to prepare a cost, estimate for what that increment
3s would look like. I would like to see that money spent so we can have that information.
36
3~ Council Member Torliatt: Mr. .Mayor, as I said before, if people want more
3s information, they can contact the City Manager's Office and the Planning Department::.
39 This staff report is very informational, especially regarding the financing for this project,; .
4o because I think than any average citizen would be .able to understand whether there is
41 money or there is not money for this project. And it's very clear in this staff report as to
42 the fact that there isn't. So...
43
44 Clerk's Note: An inaudible discussion continued briefly at the dais.
45
Vol. 33, Page 178
.July 6,..1999
i. Council. Member Kelfer: I would like,; if' you will, if we could finish th'is_' discussion we
.2, started about when this is coming back.
3
4 Council Member Hamilton: Okay: It'a: 11.:30 at nighf;. and let's continue; 'the Rainier
s discussion as soon as possible. And at that tune we can decide if it's coming back. or
~ not:
g IVO ACTION TAKEN
9
io STi4FF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
i i None
12
13 CITY MAIVA"GER .REPORTS
i4 None
rs
16 ADJO.IJRN
1~` The meeting adjourned of 11':30 p.m.
is
19
20
21
22
23 ATTEST:
24
B;everly; J. Kline:;, Ct, ~ erk
E. Clark Thompson, M'ayor'
Zs
29 ******