HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/21/19991
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 95
,MINUTES OF A REGULAR.
PETALUMA CITY COUNCLL MEE .IIVG
MONDAY, JUNE'21, 1999
ROLL CALL 2:00 p.m:
PRESENT: Cadet Thompson, Hamilton (3:20), Healy, Keller,
Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt (2:15 p.m.)
.ABSENT: None , _
Mayor Thompson asked. the Council to relocate in the City Manager's Conference
Room 10 to conduct the .business of the Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION
.,
CONFERENCE 1N~ITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Pursuant to Government Code
§54957.6. Unit 7 Fire. Negotiator: Agency Krout/AcorneLBeatty '
The meeting was adjourned of 2:55 p.m.
*****
`~ ADJOURN
REGONUENE
The City Council of the City of Petaluma. reconvened in the Council Chambers on
this date at 3:00 p.m.
REPORT O,UT OF CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Thompson announced that no reportable action was taken by Council in
Closed Session.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Duane. Bellinger, P. O. Box 750031., stated his concerns regarding Council Member
C;ader=Thompso,n's recusal fiom the Rainier Overcrossing Project. He also spoke in
favor of having three junior high schools `instead of shutting one down as it would
have a negative impact on traffic. He also asked Council to outlaw arcade games
within the City limits that teach killing.
Geoffrey Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive,. read a letter included in the packet about
Council Member Cadet-Thompson's recusal from the Rainier Overcrossing Projecf
e~
Vol. 33, Page.96 June 21,1;999.
1 and stated he did not believe that scrutiny of one member of the Council was fair
2 and that it could create an "uneven field_ :"
3
4 Linda. Buffo,. 7 Fourth Street„ Suife 61-,. stated she was prepared to answer any
5 questions Council had relative to agenda item'9A.
6
7 COUNCIL COMMENT
8 -
9 None
10
11 MIIVU.TES
12
13 'Mayor. Thompson. rescheduled approval of the Minutes of June 7 to July 6 as not all
'1'~4 ,Council Members; had received a copy to review..
1,5
'16 GOOD.°fVEWS
17
1; 8
Mayor `Thompson r-epo,rted That, the State Budget n®w included. funding for
19 reimbursement to the City for'the Lakeville Street Bridge: The amount submitted :for
~20 reimbursement is' approximately one-and one-quarter million dollars.
21
22 PROCiAMA~lO'N~~.. _
23 ~ -
24 Mayor, Thompson presented Billye Kaye Lipscomb with a proclamation in
25 ' recognition of her outstanding service to the community. '
26
27 -C:OIVSEIVT CAL` END'AR
,28
29 Resolution 99=128 N.C.S..
30 Animal. Shelter Expansion.Des'gn
:31 - ~ .
,.-
•~32~ Awarding of Animal :Shelter Expansion Design Services to Equinox Design for
33 • $24:,000.00.
34 - -
35 Reso ution. 99-129 N.G S. '
`36 Sewer Main Rehabilitation Project
37 -
38 Approving the. Plans and. Specifications' Prepared by the Erigineering Department
39 and Awardirig the Contract for :the 1999 Sewer Main Rehabilitation: Project the
40 Projecf ;Involves Lining -an Old. and .Deteriorated Sewer ,Main in F Street Between
41 Second and Eighth Streets ~to ~ Decrease Maintenance Costs and to Reduce
4'2 Inflow/Infilfration '(J/I).
43
44
45
46
June 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 97
1 Ordinance 2092: NC:S.
2 Central Business District
3
4 Extending the Time and Fiscal Limits on the. Central Business District....
5
6 MOTION: Council. Member Maguire moved,. seconded by. Keller, to approve
7 Consent Calendar .items 1, 7, and 8'.
8
9 Ayes: 'Cader-Thomason, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson,
10 Torliatt
11
12 Noes: None
13
14 'MOTION PASSED: 7 - 0
15
16 - Resolution 99-130 N.C.S.
17 Municipal' Airport and Main Fire Station Rest Rooms.
18
19 .Accepting Completion .of the Municipal Airport and IVlain Fire Station .Rest
20 Rooms, by Wildcat Engineering & Construction Company in the amount of
21 $87,303.00.
22
23 MOTION: Council Member ,:Keller moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt the
24 resolution accepting Completion of the Municipal Airport. and Main Fire Station Rest
25 Rooms by Wildcat Engineering & "Construction Company.
26
27 Ayes: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson,
28 Torliatt
29
30 Noes: None
31
32 MOTION PASSED: 7 - 0
33
~34 Reso ution 99-:131 IV.C.S.
=35 Oak Hilf Park Improvements
;36 Accepting Completion of Oak Hill Park Improvements..
37
;38 `MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt the
39 resolution Accepting C.ompietion of Oak Hill. Park Improvements.
40
41 Ayes: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller! .Maguire, Thompson,
42 .Torliatt
43
44 Noes: None
45
46 MOTION .PASSED: 7 - 0
Vol. 33, Page 98 June. 21;1:999
1 .
2 Resolution 99-1:32 N:C.S.
3 Replace. Utility Billing System
4
5 Awarding Contract to ,Replace Utility Billing System
6
7 MOTION: Council Member .Maguire moved, econded by Torliaft, to adept the
8 Resolution Awarding Contract to Replace Utility Billing Sysfem.
9
10 Ayes: Caller-Thompson, Hamilton,. Healy, Keller; .Maguire, Thompson, .
11 Torli'att
12
13 Noes: None
14
15 MOTION PASSED: 7 - 0
16
17 Resolution.'99-1`33 N.C.S.
18 Jet FueL~Storage.Tank IJpgr.ad'e~-
19
20 Awarding Contract for Phase 2 of the. Jet Fuef Storage Tank Upgrade; of the
21 Petaluma Municipal Airport.
22
23 MOTION: Council Member 'Healy moved; seconded by .Maguire,, `to adopt; the
24 Resolution :Awarding Confraet; for Phase 2 of the Jet Fuel'~Storage `Tank Upgrade at
25 'the Petaluma Municipal Airport.
26 _
27 Ayes: Cadet-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy; Keller, Maguire,. Thompson, .
28 Torliatt
29
30 Noes: None
31
32 MOTION, PASSED: 7 - 0 .
33 _
'34 Resolution, 99-134 N:C.S.
35 "C" S_ treet Storm Drain
'36 ~,
37 Authorizing the Gity ,Manager fo Sign Agreement with Sonoma County Water
38 Agency (SCWA) for Funding .ofi Design. and Qonsfruction Costs for the "C" Street
:39 Storm .Drain. Cost": $6Q,9,OOQ.,Proj'ect No: 9746.. _
40
~41 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by iMaguire, to adopt; the
42 resolution .Authorizing•fhe City Manager to :Sign Agreement with Sonoma County
43 Water Agency (SCWA) for Funding of ;Design and Construction Costs fore the "C"
44 Street- Storm Drain: Cost:$609,000:. Project No: 974'6.
45
46 Ayes: Caller-Thompson, Hamilton Healy Keller Maguire Thompson
,.
June 21, 1999 Vol. 33; Page X99, .
1 Torliatf
2
3 Noes::. None ~ .
4 -
5 MOTION PASS''€D: 7 - 0
6 -
7 WaVfindinq Sign Program
8 _
9 Status Report and Strategy Regarding Proposals for Wayfinding'S.i,gn Program.
10
11 City Council requested City Management to :proceed with the study, come :back with.
12 a defined program; and include in their findings alternative partnership funding
13 sources within the private sector.
14 `
15 UNFINISHED BUSINESS '
16
17 Healthy Community Consortium (HC2~~)
18 _
19 Report and Discussion by Healthy Community Consortium (HC2) Committee
20 Action/Youth Programs.
21
22 Council expressed concern that projects being targeted were done so as a result of
23 the. umbrella organization strategizing without seeking, the ideas and input from
24 volunteers and participants in programs. Council requested the volunteers and
25 participants be em'poweced to determine projects that would benefit those involved
26 with the various programs.
27
28 Director of Recreation Jim Carr agreed and announced that a meeting would be
29 held at the Petaluma Community Center,. 320 N. McDowell, at 7:00 p.m., on
30 Tuesday, June 22, to develop a recommendation that would be presented to the:
31 Council for adoption.
32
33 Pedestrian Undercrossing Path
34
35 Discussion/bisection Regarding the Installation ~ofi a Pedestrian Undercrossing Path
36 Concurrently with the Construction of the "D" Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project No.
37 '9861.
38
39 :Council requested City Management:
40
41 Not to purchase docks at this time.
42 Proceed with the :design of the existing dock extending to the Foundry Wharf:
43 Install pilings under"D" Street.
44 Install infrastructure to accommodate floating docks and an at-grade crossing to
45 meet the American's with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.
Vol. 33; Page 100 June 21.,,1999
~1 Meet with stakeholders, i:e.. Petaluma Downtown Association, private; ,property
2 owners (UValt Haake, Foundry U1/harf Properties, Paul Lewis, and Bar Ale, Bill.
3~ ~ 1Nhite, The Great 1etaluma Mill;. and others) to~ share ,project. plans, solicit
4 support, and comments to assist' when constructive notice went out to the
5 community:;
6 • Work towards an agreement with. Pacific Gas. & Electric Company (PG`&E) that
7.. .would:
,8' , ~ ~ ^ provide landscaping on PG&E°s adjacent property;
9 . .. .• deliver necessary easerne.nts based on ~rnutuaL needs; and
10=~ ~ , ~ upgrade; paint/improve existing building on the project site
11
12' Historic "D" Street Bridge
13
14 Discussion,, Status Report and Direction on Construction Alternatives to Reduce or
l:5 Eliminate Closure of, the Historic "D" Street Bridge V1lhile the Rehabilitation 1Nork~
1.6 ,. is Taking Place:
17
18 ° ~ Senior Engineer Mike Evert reviewed the staff report and provided slides .depicf'ng
19 various alternatives/options during the rehab-ilitation project.
20
21 Council was in favor of a #wo and a half month closure of the bridge:.during the
22 project.
23 -
24 Council requested City Management;.
25
26 • Work with the Petaluma Downtown Association (PDA) to post `"reade"r=signs' and
27 stationary sigras conspicuously at major intersections and at ingress and egress
28 streets in the: downtown urea.
29 • Suggest alternative transportation during the. construction when noticing the
30 .public, such as bicycles and walking, 'and. provide safe, alternative routes, for.
31 both;.
32 • Notify trucking agencies of limitations in advance and provide details of the
33 construction project that may reduce fruck traffic during peak traffic hours;
34 • Nof~perfo`rm traffic counts during the course of the project due to the probability of
35 adversely influencing the Draft,Circulation Element of'the General Plan;
36 Try to obtain federal .grant monies to pay for or subsidize the increased costs of
38 stat ps as to whops' a~ne fodwhatk schedule and keep Council apprised of the
P Y. 9
39 'Work with PDA to coordinate removing parking on Petaluma Boulevard during .
40 peak traffic hours.
41 .
42 Mayor. Thompson announced that 'he would to meet with City ~staf# members and
43 representatives of`the Railroad on Wednesday at 1:00.p.rn:
44
45
June 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 101
1 PUBLIC COMMENT.
2
3 Geoffrey Cartwright,, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in favor of floating docks so as to not
4 impede the flow of water due to existing flood problems.
5
6 Linda Buffo, 7 Fourth Street, Suite 61, indicated PDA would like to be a part of the
7 communications/noticing with the public on these projects.
8
9 Removal of Lights From McNear Park
10 .
11 Status Report on Transfer and Removal of Lights From MclVear Park.
12
13 Informational report - no action taken.
14
15 ~ COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORTS.
16
17 Liaison Reports - NONE
18
19 ~ ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION
20 -
21 At 5:15 p.m. Mayor Thompson asked Council to relocate in the City Manager's
22 Conference Room :to continue thebusiness of the Closed Session.
23
24 ~ _ CONTINUTATION OF CLOSED SESSION
25
26 CONFERENCE WITH 'LABOR NEGQTIATOR, Pursuant to Government Code
27 §54957.6. Unit 7 Fire.: Negotiator' Agency l<rout/Acorne/Beatty
28
29 ~ ~ ADJOURN
30 ..
31 7:00 p.m.
32
33 ~ *****
34
35
36 ~ ~ ~ RECONVENED .
37
38 The Regular,M:eeting of the City Council of the City ofi Petaluma reconvened on this
39 date. at 7:10 p.cn.
40
41 ROLL CALL
42
43 PRESENT: Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire,
44 Thompson, Torliatt .
45 ABSENT: None.
46
Vol. 33, Page 102 June•21.,1999.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Thompson. requested AI Alys to lead the Pledge o~.Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE`
Mayor Thompson requested.. a Moment. of Silence be observed..
PUBLIC COMMENT
Clerk's. iVote: Speaker cards were; received from the following. nine citizens to
comr~ent on the Domestic Partners Registry; they chose. to have Lisa Bearinger,
Kurtis Kearl, and. Wayne Bigelow represent their views: ~- •
Jim Alexander; 6$4 D,raco Qrive
Eileen Alexander, 684 Draco Drive
Bob Deisher, 904 Sunny Slope
John Armstead,.401 Raven Way
Daveen Spencer, `109 Post Street
Terrence Garvey; 83 Maria Drive
Sami;:Dixon, .5, Pamela Drive
Les Dixon, 5' Pamela Dr,,ive
Barry Bearinger, 544'Sutter Street
. ...
Lisa Bearinger, 544 Sutter Street; spoke in oppo ition .of the Domestic Partners
Registry and. stafed it was a blow to the sanctity .of traditional marriage.:She asked.
Council, which of :the"m represent.. the -opinions of.'fle many 'people present at; this
meeting who share this view and are sapporting an. initiative process to place the:
item on the ballot:
Kurtis Kearl, 812 'Elm Drive, spoke in .opposition of the Domestic Partners• Registry
and urged Council to take action, to rescind the Qrdinance: ,
Wayne Bigelow; 1617 Van Caster 'Drive:, representing his congregation; spoke in
opposition of the implementation of the Domestic Partners Reg try ;and urged
Council to reconsider their decision.
John. Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, poke regarding non-compliance of Holrn_ berg, to
remove trailers from property.
Geoffrey Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding flood issues and drainage:
Vince Landof;, 1;2 Cordelia Drive, spoke in favor of 'the Council keeping on tract with _
the Payran Reach Improvement Project.
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 103
1 Frank .Edwards 532 Laurel Street. (received no speaker'card);, spoke in opposition of
2 the Domestic Partners Registry. He stated that he was opposed to the additional
3 burden to taxpayers fo provide benefits to domestic partners of city employees.
4
5 Richard Hillary 1745 Hillcrest Drive, spoke in favor of the City .proceeding with the
6 construction of the Rainier Cross-town Overcrossing and. Council Member Janice
7 Cader-Thompson's recusal on the issue.
8
g COUNCIL COMMENT
10
11 Council Member Cader-Thompson indicated there had been five million dollars set
12 aside for the Rainier Cross-town Overcrossing Project.
13
14 Council Member Keller read portions of a recent article from the San Francisco
15 Chronicle that focused on the rights of the public to access open space and stated it
16 paralleled with issues the community is addressing with Lafferty Ranch.
17
18 Council Member Torliatt noted that the she had heard the opposition of the,
19 constituents present at the meeting about the Domestic Partners Registry and
20 stated that Council did support traditional marriage. As a governing body, the
21 Council also represented other members of the commun_ity.. Petaluma was a diverse
22 community;. that made us who we were. The Council may not agree with the citizens
23 opposed to .this issue, .but represented them on many other issues that affected a.
24 community enriched by its diversity and~complexties. ~ .
25
26 ~ GOOD NEWS
27
28 Mayor Thompson reported that the State Budget ~ now included funding for
29 reimbursement to the City for the Lakeville Street. Bridge, The amount, submitted fo'r
30 reimbursement is approximately one and one-quarter million dollars.
31 `
32
33 PROCLAMATIONS
34
35 Mayor Thompson presented Jenny Thompson, Phil and. Julie Gross., and `Polly
36 Klaas' mother,. Eve Nichol, and her husband Alan Nichol., a proclamation for the
• 37 Polly Klaas Foundation for outstanding service fo the community. '
38
39 Mayor Thompson presented Officer Mr. Sharpe Johnson, ~ Petaluma Police
40 Department witha proclamation for Distinguished Service to the community. ;
41
42 Police Chief Pat Parks presented Officer Johnson with a, Meritorious Service Award
43 and commended him for his positive energy and noted he was ah .asset to the .
44 department. .
45
Vol. 33, Page 104 -
June 21,1999
1 Mayor Thompson presented .Pamela Morris, President of the Old East. Petaluma
2 Neighborhood Association with the HC2 Healthy Community Recognition Award.
3 Ms. Mor,cis thanked Council and stated the neighborhood would like to have the
4 COPS program reinstated in their neighborhood.
5
6 Kay Russo of HC2 commented. that she saw a transformation of the neighborhood;
7 collaborating with all the necessary agencies in the community.. She also
8 recognized members of staff and the residents of the neighborhood for their
9 advancements.
10
11 RECESS
12
13 7:55. p.m.
14
15 RECONVENE
16
17 8:15 p.m.
18
19 PRESENTATION
20 Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District
21
22 Sonoma County Agricultural and. Open Space District- (the D.i`strct). -Acting
23 General .Manager Steve. Sharpe .introduced 1999 Open Space. Authority Board
24 Member AI Alys .and then proceeded with apresentation/overview of the 'history of
25 the District and its accomplishments, its structure and authority, the organizational
26 assessment and what is being done, the acquisition plan update, and. partnerships.
27
28 Accomplishments included protecting twenty-seven thousand acres of land in the
29 ,County,, ranking fourth`in ,agricultural preservation in the nation., and establishing a
30 legacy ~ for the .present and future- generations to enjoy. Twenty-five percent of
31 easements: acquired we`re made up of "forever wild land," .and two per- cent acg:uired
32 in fee.
33
34 The Mission Statement of the 'District. was stated as "Over a twenty year period, the
35 .District shall seek to acquire interests in Sonoma. Cou_nfy's. Agricultural, Natural'
36 Resou"rce and Open Space Lands in a manner.wh'ich wily encourage and promote
37 their perpetual preservation."
38 .. . <<
39 The District came about. by voter approval of 1990 Ballot ,Measures A, creating the.
40 District, and Measure C,: generated funding;. by assessing cone-quarter percent
41 sales tax earned over.- a twenty year period (2011,), that equated to approximately
42 twelve million annually, ,The Open Space Authority (Authority) had an agreement
43 with the pistrict for the use of the funds pursuant; to the 'Authority,'s Expenditure
44 Plan. The. Expenditure Plan is based on the County's. General Plan Open Space
45 Element and identifies .designated open space areas .such. as community
46 separators, scenic landscape areas, 'and sensitive biotic areas. The District acquires
47
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 105
•.:.
1 interest iri properties from willing property owners; they had no power of eminent
2 domain. o.r sought .solicifation's::from prospective donors. The District could acquire
3 an interest in lands -used for recreational purposes as long as the acquisition was
4 consistent with the County's General Plan. The District did not own or operate
5 recreational land; it was prohibited from doing so by the enabling legislation.
~6
7 The organizational. structure was comprised of a Board of Directors, five members,
8, the Open Space Authority, five members, and the Advisory Committee, seventeen
9 members; the latter two bodies were done by appointments of the Sonoma County
10 Board of Supervisors. The staff included twelve people; a receptionist and nine
11 professionals. _
12
13 Overview'of the • acquisition `process ~ included staff review and recommendation,
14 Advisory 'Committee ~ review and recommendation: processing priority, project
15 design, appraisal, negotiations, Authority for General .Plan Consistency/expenditure,
16 and Directors approval. The ongoing process was stewardship. The issues included
17 a backlog of seventy projects, unclear priorities, unclear roles, and a need to do
18 public' •outreach to increase public awareness. An' organizational assessment was
19 completed a couple of years ago and the key recommendations included
20 establishing clear roles, re-engineering the acquisition process, developing a work
21 program for project backlog, and an acquisition plan update to establish clear
22 priorities.
23
24 The most important recommendation was that of roles clarification. The District
25 Board of Directors focus was on General Plan consistency, a work program, and
26 project approval. The Open Space Authority focus was on fiduciary and financial
27 responsibilities, Expenditure Plan consistency, insuring the District was not paying
28 more than fair market value for acquisitions, maximizing use of funds, and
29 conducting financial audits. The Advisory Committee's focus was to advise on
30 processing acquisitions, and advise the District General Manager and Board of
31 Directors on anything they were doing such as public outreach.
32
33 The tax measure will come back to the voters in 2011. The District incorporated a
34 science based process to re-prioritize, to collect data, and to determine the high
35 priorities. The process included mapping the,. County's open space, natural. and
36 agricultural areas into the County's Geographic Information System (GIS). A
37 consultant was hired and worked with local technical experts from a variety of areas
38 such as farming, dairies, vineyard and orchards, wildlife resources, wetlands and
39 biotic resources, and recreation, who helped to develop twenty-five layers of
40 information. The development of guiding principles and selection criteria for
41 resource protection and project selection will be done. A draft plan will be developed
42 and a series of Public workshops, six to eight meetings with the public, will begin in
43 Fall 1999. The Advisory Committee will hold reviews, provide comments to the
44 Board of .Directors,, .and have an acquisition plan update approved by the end of
45 December1999.
46
Vol. 33, Page 106 June 21,1999
Partnerships that support .the Districf included the citizens of the County, .the land
owners, other .agencies, such as Bureau of .Land Management (BLM); State Parks,
County- Parks and the Department df Fish and Game and nori-'profits such as land
paths, land trust, and the Audubon Society. Other program .improvements included
ongoing acquisition. process re-engineering, public outreach, stewardship planning, .
appraisal process, and marketing priorities.
Council Member Maguire asked if the likelihood of development were used as ..a
basis for determining the. existing three categories for acquisition. He. wanted.to
know who the District was meeting with. ,
Mr. Sharpe said the three categories were based on the General Plan; The first
priority, category one, was community separators; category two was. scenic
landscape:and unique biotic areas, category three vvas~anything.other than category
one or two. As part of the acquisition plan update; all three categories would
probably not prevail. A series of eight categories which. in tfemse yes were not
priorities would probably be derived from the data collected from the GIS~ system.
Council Member Maguire asked what the intent was for the information', being
collected. -
Mr. Sharpe stated the intent was to refine 'the information on the County's GIS
system and develop a mafrix, a numbering system;. to evaluate what the priorities
might be. The: political process was choosing what priority was next.
Council Member .Maguire asked where the process took into consideration -the
public's desire to access to open space.
Mr. Sharpe said the Board of` Directors established priorities for acquisitions. Some
recommendations would come from workshops planned and go to the Advisory
Group and the Authority Board before ,going to 'the Board. of Supervisors.
Council Member Maguire .asked what percentage of acres preserved today are
accessible to the public.
Mr. Sharpe replied that two percent represented was owned in fee. He ..reiterated
the District did not own and operate parks. That type of acquisition would require a
partner ;and would immediately be turned over to State IParks or County Parks, for
example. They would be responsible for making the property accessible to the
public. The holdings,. projects and conservation easements, sometimes would
include the donation of a trail. The District did. not acquire the trail. The' irrevocable
offer for that type of acquisition went to the County of Sonoma;: none of those offers
had been accepted at this time. ~: `_
Council Member Maguire inquired if Mr. Sharpe was familiar with -the ~ Morelli
property in the~Petaluma area. ~ ,
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 107
1 Mr. Sharpe understood the property was currently in the acquisition process as a
2 contribution easement and could be on the deferral list.
3
4 Council Member Maguire asked if the deferral list had green, yellow, and red
5 rankings.
6
7 Mr. Sharpe replied that the Morelli property had been ranked green but was
8 included in a group of projects that had .not been reviewed. He reiterated that the
9 property would be a conservation easement, not a fee purchase.
10
11 Council Member Maguire. inquired if the District was empowered to put some money
12 aside, use it, or the .interest it earned, to do maintenance and operations of
13 properties acquired iri fee.
14 Mr. Sharpe replied that at this time the District had no direction to do so. He clarified
15 that whenever the District acquired anything they turn the property over to a
16 partnership program and maintain a conservation easement resulting in a
17 stewardship responsibility. They have contracts with people/parks and paid for
18 maintenance.
19
20 Council Member Hamilton inquired about the date the workshop had been
21 scheduled for in July.
22
23 Mr. Sharpe said ,there was no specified date. They were trying to put something
24 together. The workshop would be an overview of recreation; district issues, and
25 issue related to parks,, such as the outdoor recreation plan that would be
26 incorporated into the General Plan (Plan) at some time.
27
28 Council Member' Hamilton asked the District to provide Council with notification of
29 the workshop(s) as early as possible when the, date had been established. She
30 requested the workshop not take place in August due to conflicts for citizens who
31 would otherwise attend and may be unavailable..
32
33 Mr. Sharpe thought the District was aware of that.
34
35 Council Member Caller-Thompson had heard from Jim De Angelo, County Parks
36 and Recreation, that the Board of Supervisors was to have a meeting on July 20
37 regarding the Plan.
38
39 Mr. Sharpe thought the date was not confirmed.
40
41 Council .Member Caller-Thompson had voiced her concerned to Mr. De Angelo and
42 to the District, that ,meetings were scheduled at 2:15 p.m. in the afternoon. She
43 asked that consideration be given to having the. meetings scheduled at a time
44 members of the public who work could attend.
45
46 Mr. Sharpe replied that he was not certain if the time had been set.
Vol. 33, Page 108
June 21,1999
1
2 Council Member Cader-Thompson .understood that following °the Board: of
3 Supervisors meeting there would be workshops scheduled for members of the
4 public.
5
6 Mr. Sharpe confirmed and that the :Board of Supervisors wanted a lot of public input;
7 the Board of Supervisors had been encouraged to schedule meetings later.
8
9 Council Member Keller said he was looking forward to having regular conversations
10 with the District. Council. was of the opinion that dialogue was non-existent and
11 suggested that Supervisor Mike. Kerns should' name a replacement appointment for
12 Patty Hilligoss who had not .been able to attend meetings. He was sorry Bill Roof
13 had not been_-able to attend this meeting and felt it would have been useful.
14
15 Mr. Sharpe stated Ms. Hilligoss. had.. not resigned.
16
17 Council Member Maguire stated Ms. Hilligoss had not been, very diligenf in her
18 attendance at the meetings.
19
20 Mr. Sharpe said, to his ..knowledge, Ms. Hilligoss had attended all Advisory
21 Committee meetings that he was aware of until. she suffered a recent injury.
22
23 Council Member Keller said the Council had not had any communication with Ms.
24 Hilligoss and' that. made dialogue difficult. He referred #~ legislation passed by the
25 voters that indicated that, ".;..:the .purpose of the District would be established
26 primarily through purchase of development rights from willing sellers but .may also
27 include the purchase in fee for public or recreation", as an area that had become.
28 increasingly prominent. The Council wanted to have that part of the legislation met
29 statutorily, that is, the intent of the voters. Figures provided from the. Outdoor
30 Recreation. Show in Sonoma County indicated -only four percent of the 'County's
31 land, with less than a half of a percent accessible to the public was .locally
32 administered as open space.:
33
34 Compared to other counties around the Bay Area the figure was woefully sm,all..
35 Southern Sonoma County was under-represented in comparison with. what the
36 County had as a whole. He was astonished that, as one. of the wealthiest counties:
37 in open space districts in the country., Sonoma County residents had some of the.
38 least capabilities of setting foot on the land. There was something wrong with the
39 quarter percent `tax when .residents had to travel to another county to access open
40 space. Council and. the residents of the community wanted to -know what the- tax
41 money had. accomplished. The urban separators are there.; they had .been protected
42 as intended. That.. didn't represent, twelve million dollars per year. The community
43 wanted:. to get their, feet on the land. It did not wantto have: to drive to Marin County,
44 or over to Napa County, or to the middle of Sonoma County in order to access. open
45 space,: He had heard this frustration voiced repeatedly.
46
June 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 109
1 The legislation clearly intended that fee purchases had to be one of the techniques
2 used. It stafed specifically that for purchases, "other areas of bio#ic significance
3 which may be adversely impacted by development and incompatible land use or fhe
4 Petaluma River, Laguna to Santa Rosa and. San Pablo Bay Margin." There was a
5 lot of activity around the Laguna and San Pablo Bay Margin and very little activity
6 around the Petaluma .River. The Petaluma River and San Rosa Creek were named
7 in the legislation and had qualified for use of the tool of purchase in fee.
8
9 He hoped that any meetings held would be held in the evenings and that the Board
10 of Supervisors understood very clearly that the voters were not happy. A large
11 number of people wanted to put their feet on the land and were frustrated. He did
12 not know what if would take .to get this point across to the Board of Supervisors and
13 the new Advisory Committee who devised protocols to establish priorities. The
14 acquisition plan from 1992 indicated there were few category one lands in
15 Petaluma; in fact, the Highway 101 Corridor was the only one in the area He
16 thought this side stepped the question of recreational lands. Recreational lands had
17 been anticipated in th"e legislation, they had-legal status in the legislation, and was
18 extraordinarily desirable by the public. He questioned whether there was a range
19 management policy or requirement on lands acquired that the District had
20 stewardship responsibility.
21
- 22 Mr. Sharpe said the District did not have a range management policy. A
- 23 stewardship plan and a land owners handbook was being developed that would
- 24 include range management issues.
25
` 26, Council Member Keller asked who would be responsible to carry out a range
27 management plan.
28~
29 Mr. Sharpe- said a stewardship coordinator, staff person, and volunteers had been
30 assigned the responsibility.
31
- 32 Council Member Keller asked if, at the time easements are negotiated, the District
33 acquired an option of first right of refusal, an option to buy should the seller decide
34 to ~ put the' property on the market voluntarily. He wanted to know if the District
35 -negotiated,- as part of their agreement; the right to be the first in line to buy the
36 property in fee.
37
38 Mr. Sharpe did not know that to be true.
39
- 40 Council Member Keller thought it would be a mistake I that much money was spent
41 thaf the additional step could be taken to have the right to be first in line to buy it. He
- 42 asked if acquisition priorities would be set by the Board of Supervisors.
43
44 Mr. Sharpe agreed.
45
Vol. 33, Page 110
June 21,1999
Council Member Keller urged members ofi the. public .who were: worried about.
acquisition priorities to communicate with 'the Board of Supervisors and that Council
would continue to do use their influence.
Council Member Torliatt encouraged members of the public who eontacfed the
Board of Supervisors, to specify that. they would like .their correspondence to be a
matter of public record. and send a copy to all:. of the Board members. if it was. not
done: in .a formal process it would ,not get logged on as a record. She asked Mr.
Sharpe if the District would start public workshops in the fall of 19.99.
Mr. Sharpe said yes.
Council Member Torliatt asked .Mr. Sharpe if someone wanted to be: on the mailing
list of the Open Space District or be notified of when the meetings would occur, who
they should contact, such as a name .and. address.
Mr. Sharpe .replied that they should notify the District office at 747 Mendocino
Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, to get on a mailing list.
Council Member Torliatt asked if there was a ,phone number.
Mr. Sharpe replied the ,phone number was 524-7360; it was in the phone book ,.
under the heading of County Government and in Uovernment pages under
Agricultural and Open Space District, Sonoma. County Agricultural Preservation and
Open Space District. ,
Council Member Torliaft thanked Mr.. Sharpe for coming to the meeting and added
that it was very helpful when Council had the. opportunity to communicate with the
District.. She reiterated Council Member Hamilton's comments to be notified as soon
as possible when the workshop for the ;recreation was scheduled so the public
would know. She asked how much money the Open Space Dist"rict had in hand for
property acquisitions. ~ ,
Mr. Sharpe replied that there was approximately thirty-one million for acquisitions.
Council Member Torliatt asked how much sales tax revenue the District was.
receiving on a yearly basis. - - .
Mr. Sharpe replied approximately eleven and one- half'to twelve million dollars.
Council Member Torliatt asked whether that was more than what had i'riitially been
projected.
Mr. Sharpe replied that it was close to the projected amount.
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 111
1 Council Member Torliatt asked whether the outdoor recreation plan was a
2 component of the Open Space District Plan or a completely separate plan.
3
4 Mr. Sharpe replied that it was a separate plan. The Outdoor Recreation Plan would
5 be a component of the County's General Plan, and the County's. General Plan, of
6 least the Outdoor Recreation component, would assist the District in prioritizing
7 recreational land acquisitions.
8
9 Council Member Keller asked if there could be a problem if it was not included in the
10 General Plan.
11
12 Mr. Sharpe replied that everything the District did was consistent with the General
13 Plan.
14
15 Council Member Cader-Thompson encouraged Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Alys that the
16 community needs to have recreational facilities look at a high percentage of public
17 space for'the community. We have asked, as a city, to be included on the mailing
18 .list; looking at open space for public access.
19
20 Council Member Healy expressed gratitude that the organization is reviewing. its
21 process and asked if they .will be distributing information about the issues. He
22 agreed with using District funds for recreation and open space and also felt it should
23 be a priority to survey the weaker spots. iri the urban growth boundary and look at
24 ways of using the Open Space District to help backstop the weaker areas in the
25 urban growth .boundaries. With respect to recreation, the Open Space District has
26 helped the City obtain portions of the MclVear peninsula; and the other portions of
27 the peninsula are in the City's General Plan as a park and the. City would like to
28 obtain it.
29
30 Mr. Sharpe stated the workshops on the acquisitions to solicit information will occur
31 in the fall with. a plan, an overview of the plan and issues that come out of it and it
32 will be circulated to the. Petaluma City Council as well.
33
34 Council Member Keller asked about trail easements that had been donated to the
35 district and asked how they are being held and if any are in Petaluma.
36
37 Mr. Sharpe explained that the trails are being held by the county as irrevocable
38 offers and will not be accepted until such time as they are ready to be developed.
39 He stated he is not familiar with the acquisitions.
40 .-
41 Council Member Keller asked for a list of what trails have been offered to the
42 County but not yet accepted.
43
44 Council Member Maguire asked if there has been any word on the Bohemia Ranch
45 Mr. Sharpe reported there was a prospective new owner and the property was in
46
Vol. 33, Page 112
June 21,1999
1 escrow. He stated they understood the prospective. new owner was a
2 conservationist. -
3
4 AI Alys said his .responsibilities were to manage the fund.. The appraisal process
5 was_ the .most difficult responsibility; a narrow body ofi people bad the expertise. to
6 appraise properties, for example, the Bohemian Ranch. The District did not take into
7 consideration.;if the public wanted a particular piece of property,
8 -
9 Council Member Torliatt stated that it would be helpful to know a re-prioritization of
10 these properties.
11
12 Council Member Hamilton asked Mr.Sharpe to provide the. a-mail address of the'
13 Citizens .Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors so people could
14 communicate with them.
15
16' Mr. Sharpe said he would do so. -
17
18 Hank Flum spoke: regarding tax monies for property adjacent to the Jack Lo"ndon
19 Park. The Open Space:. District did not give access to this property; if was an
20 obscure wilderness. There seemed to be a iack of interest and action on these
21 properties. The Board of Supervisors, and or those giving direction; needed more.
22 public consciousness as the public was.not getting a fair break.
23
24 Diane Reilly Torres asked Mr. Sharp to .get the answers to the City Council's
25 .questions .and requested a copy of the minutes of this meeting be forwarded to Mr.
26 Sharp.
27
28 Mayor Thompson said he would follow up with Mr. Sharp. -
29
30 Ms. Torres recommended that all seven Council Members go to Santa Rosa to
31 meet with, Supervisor Mike Kerns on this issue.
32
33 Council Member Torliatt encouraged' Mr. Sharpe: to have the meetings taped and..
34 provide copies to PCA so more citizens would be able to view on the public access
35 channel.
36
37 Council Member Keller wanted to send a message to the public to get to the
38 meetings and to get in touch with the Board of Supervisors. -
39
40 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4~1-
42 Discussion and Possible :Action Regarding Traffic Circulation Pattern for So-noma
43 Mountain Parkway, Vicinity of East Madison, Chehalis Drive and Monroe Street.
44
45 Mr. Hargis reviewed the staff report, reiterating all options and, pointed out that 180
46 residents were mailed notices.
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 11:3
2 Council Member ..Healy asked what the public safety personnel feelings were on
3 speed undulations.
4
5 Fire Chief Terry Krout stated he is not in favor of speed undulations as it is difficult
6 for emergency vehicles to pass over them. He stated if undulations are kept off the
7 main arterial streets,, safety vehicles can work around them but it does slow down
8 response times. He stated he is encouraged by the option of the "worm concept"
9 which allows the emergeriey vehicles to make turns and maneuver around them. He
10 pointed out that speed undulations increase noise levels in the neighborhoods that
11 have them. `
12
13 Mayor Thompson opened•the public hearing on this subject.
14
15 Arline Kaylor, 1636 East Madison, ,stated they are asking for no direct access from
16 Turtle Creek. to E. Madison and Chehalis. She requested they leave the median that
17 the City Council approved .in T997 'in place.
18
19 Judy Hillary, 1745 East Madison, reviewed the development of Turtle Creek and
20 future access.. She- felt Option A wou d be acceptable only if the median was
21 extended another 20 feet or if concrete, parking Jot wheel stops were placed in front
22 of the median. and the left turn arrow, removed, Option B, would be her second
23 choice, plus. adding :speed undulations on Mgclips, Chehalis and Wynoochee Way.
24
25 Arnold Kaye, spoken favor of removing~the resfrctions on E. Madison.
26
27 Charles Tofrou, 404 Song Bird Way,. (Turtle. Creek) recommended that Council do
28 nothing to the intersection or do a roundabout. ~~ '
29 ~ -
30 John Armstead, first resident in Turtle Creek, stated there was not a lot of pressure
31 from Turtle Creek residents to do anything with the intersection. He agreed
32
33 Kathy Whitter, 1641 East Madison, treviewed the history of the Turtle Creek
34 Subdivision and pointed bout ,that Resolution 97-86 had. conditions of approval to
35 extend the median and add pedestrian crossings and asked how can the Council
36 take away something that has been approved. She questioned if all of the
37 conditions of approval were actually completed. She stated that the median has
38 never been finished and the .crosswalk has never been painted. She felt that speed
39 bumps do .not solve traffic problems. She urged that the median not be removed.
40
41 Mr. Hargis. explained. that Ms. Whitter was correct about the history. The Turtle
42 Creek Subdivision conditions of approval were modified to require the installation of
43 the .island at Madison Street. He stated the, Council stopped the activity of the
44 construction of Madison in order to have public input. on Sonoma Mountain Parkway
45 as to whether to go ahead and finish the median or make some modification. He
46
Vol. 33, Page 114
June 21,1999
stated that this was the point the .Council, was at now, determining whether to
complete the ,island 'as planned, take it out, or make some modification.
Council Member Caller-Thompson asked why there was not a roadway onto
Washington Street from Turtle Creek.
General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuft explained that the property located
between Prince Park, Turtle Creek, and E.. Washington was not owned by Turtle
Creek buf was held 'by an estafe .and was not part of the specific plan, and had
never gone through ary planning process for a project yet.'Turtle Creek i;ncl:uded an
opportunity to extend it should that property come into play.
Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, stated that the plans 'show a road going to E.
Washington.. and people should be '.properly informed. She had reviewed
requirements when the Brody property was developed.
Michelle Stegman, 220 Wishkah. Lane., reviewed the .dates and timelines on the
Chehalis issue. She stated that the .modified openings option would seem to work
and :now that recommendation was not going to be done.,
Ed Kilgore, Rose Petal Court, wasp unhappy hat cars could not make a heft hand
turn onto Sonoma .Mountain Parkway to .get to E. Washington.
Alexander Mark. ,Irvine, 1652 Mocli~ps;; felt it was important to be fair to everyone. if
access was limited to' one neighborhood,, `limit access to all neighborhoods; or if
access was open, then open it to, all neighborhoods. He stated that he preferred
modified' access, and'. preferred the dips over bumps.
Denise Foster, 225 Wishka:, agreed. that if the."worm option" was not looked at then
it needed to be looked at to open up the median on Soryoma Parkway. She stated
that, signalization needed to be considered and all homeowners needed to be
notified priorto it happening. She was opposed to signalization.
Mr. Hargis stated that the Traffic Engineer said a signal was not warranted at this
time.
Council Member Gader-Thompson said if the light was not going in did the City still
get the money from the developer and, if not, she stated` she would like to know
what the~time period was that the developer was on the hook to pay for the signal.
Council Member Hamilton. thanked staff for a clear concise staff report and said thaf
she: was in favor. of staff recommendations and to open everything up but would. like
more exploration into traffic calming methods. She asked whether certain numbers
had to be reached before a signal can be justified..
June 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 115
1 Mr. Hargis explained. that due to the cost, the City established a priority list based
2 on a state-wide warrant system.
3
4 Council Member Hamilton asked whether the signal had been fully paid for by the
5 developer.
6
7 Mr. Hargis stated that he believed the developer would pay apro-rata share and
8 that the community would pick up most of the additional cost.
9
10 Council Member Hamilton stated she would then retract her recommendation.
11
12 Council Member Maguire suggested Council act on the staff's recommendation. He
13 felt it was a poor solution, but the best of a series of poor solutions. The
14 recommendation to remove the median at E. Madison was a bad idea and had
15 wasted -time over the lasf year and a half. He stated. he supported speed undulation
16 in the Chehalis neighborhood and not waste anymore. time.
17
18 Council Member Healy ~ stated he was. not in agreement with the staff
19 recommendation as he felt speed undulation was more trouble than they were worth
20 and were a safety hazard. Left turns out of Turtle Creek needed to be allowed for at
21 least one of the two entrances. He stated he favored leaving the median island at E
22 Madison.
23
24 Council Member Keller stated the objective was to disburse the traffic and he
25 favored opening everything up on Sonoma Parkway; with no restrictions and no ~ ,
26 medians. He suggested visually narrowing the streets with an amenity ,for the _
27 neighborhood with trees planted at the curbs in bump-outs for traffic calming rather _
28 than a mechanical block. ~ ~ .
29
30 Mayor Thompson stated he was in favor of opening up the median on Sonoma
31 Mountain Parkway. ,
32
33 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Maguire, to open those
34 intersections through the median as the first phase without undulations; and as a
35 second phase the Council take a close look and implement traffic-calming
36 mechanism on Monroe, Chehalis, Madison Streets, and other options that are _
37 available.
38
39 Council Member Torliatt stated she was in favor of dips in the roadway:as opposed
40 to undulations. She reviewed other traffic calming mistakes made within the City.
41
42 Mr. Hargis stated his understanding of the motion was to direct staff to proceed with
43 the median removal on Sonoma Parkway at E. Madison and to look at other traffic .
44 calming methods within the neighborhood streets without using undulations, and
45 preferably with bump-outs with trees.
46
Vol. 33, Page 116
June 21,;1999
1 Council Member Torliatt requested that pedestrian, safety and access also needed
2 to be examined.
3
4 Ayes: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
5
6 Noes:. Healy
7
. 8 MOTION .PASSED; 6 - 1.
9
10 STAFF AND COUNCIL. REPORTS.
11
12 None
13
14 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
15
16 None
17
18 ADJOURN
19
20 The meeting adjourned. at 10:18 p.m.
21
22 '
23
24 -
25 ~F
26
27 -~
28 ATTEST:
29
30
C
31
Beverly J. Kline, City . ° erk
3 ._
34
.Clark Thompson, Mayor
35 ~ ******