HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/12/1999April 12, 1999 Vo1.33, Page 13`
i MINUTES
z OF A REGULAR MEETING
3 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
a 1VIONDAY, APRIL 12, 1999
s ROLL CALL 6:00 p.m.
6 Present: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson,*Maguire, Mayor Thompson
~ Absent: Hamilton, Vice Mayor Thompson (*Councilmember Maguire arrived at 7:00 p.m.)
s PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Thompson
9 MOMENT OF SII.ENCE
to PUBLIC COMMENT
ii John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, I do want to add what Geoff said up here about the housing
12 and everything and the Corps of Engineers. I read through that report, the deterioration on
13 that project with the present buildout of the General .Plan starts in 2005 and it keeps
is deteriorating. You can cheek that out in the EIR. I haven't mentioned the lawsuit because
is I'm worried about what's happening, what's not going behind us. I would like you to take a
16 look at the 30 something names on that list, take a look at the ones that have lived there past
i~ the 80's, look at the ones that are retired. Were angry, and were bringing this lawsuit
is because we were wronged We were forgotten. They knew of the flooding and they
i9 continued to develop. Let's do the mandatory detention ponds and keep going, but the city
20 needs to study the whole river.
21 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, handed out a map several weeks ago that showed the
z2 expanded flood .plain. It showed the project, without the project, and with continued
z3 development up stream. On that you can see that by the year 2005 the flood protection
2a project begins to deteriorate and also after the year 2000 the downtown area becomes subject
zs to flooding. I think it is time for the Council to get serious and get some work done.
26
COUNCIL. COMMENT
z~ JCT, Just got back from a trip to Hawaii where she had the opportunity to look at some
2s planning projects. It seems that planning issues i.e., traffic, noise, pollution etc., are the same
z9 everywhere.
3o STUDY SESSION
31 Fire Department's Draft Master Ptan -This document has been developed over a 14
32 month period, after 25 meetings over the course of that time period. The following list of
33 recommendations were developed by the committee:
Iia Information Gathering and Reporting System
3s 1. Completion of the Records Management Information System. This requires upgrading of
36 the Department's ability to transmit computer-generated data efficiently..
Iii Fire Prevention
14 Page ,Vol. 33
April 12, 1999
i 2. Strengthen the City's policies and- procedures to prevent fires by .adopting a zero square
2 foot sprinkler ordinance for all new construction, enhancing ~ the ordinance for non-
3 combustible roofing and siding, in high fire hazard and high density areas, increase delivery of
a public education on fire. safety and related health matters to schools and to the general public.
s III.Increase Emergency Medical :Service (E1VIS) Capability so that Advanced I_,ife Support
6 Services are available for 95% of the Calls
~ 3. Change the EMS. service levels to 95% availability by implementing one of these three
s alternatives:
9 a. Use the same crew on either the reserve ambulance or fire engine, or
io b. Replace firefighters with paramedic/firefighters through attrition, or
i ~ c. Add Advanced Live Support equipment to all engines, or
iz d. Add one firefighter/paramedic .and Advanced Life Support equipment to the rescue
13 truck, or
is e. Purchase and staff a first line ambulance within 12 months so that the City would
is have three. ambulances
i6 -Additionally, retain afull-time Bmergency Medical Service coordinator
i~ f. Train. dispatchers to become Emergency Medical Dispatchers. (EMD) to give pre-
is arrival medical instructions to those requesting aid.
i9 1V. Firefighting and Rescue Services
zo 4. Reevaluate the. present response time ,:policy which is to respond to fire calls within. four
ai minutes travel time by doing the following`
s2 a. Install equipment to 'allow the Petaluma Fire Department to accurately measure
23 actual response times.
Za b. Adopt. the "cascade of ..events" standard for determining which steps should be
2s included and measured.
26 c. Monitor actual response times for two years.
2~ d. Reconsider the 100% four=minute trammel time policy
ss e. Evaluate the capabilities of a computer aided dispatch system.
z9 f. Add fire-fi'ghfing/rescue capability; is e. men and equipment
3o V. Adopt a City Policy which_ establishes the Eire; Departmenit's:.abilty to respond to two
31 simultaneous major incidents. =and. - to be; able ;to handle ~~fires and rescues on all
3z structures in the city efficiently and promptly.
33 5. Add an aerial ladder company with cross staffing; i.e. paramedic and fire-fighter training
3a and strengthen mutual aidf and automatic aid to improve- 'the availability of aerial .ladder
ss capabilities.
April 12, 1999
Vo1.33, Page 15
VII. Evaluate feasibility of automatic aid after. iz to, twelve months of data from the
z Records Management System i§ available.
V3II.Continue and strengthen mutual aid relationships.
V~.Evaluate structural integrity of fire stations.
IX. Upgrade water supply when replacing water pipes.
Ifs Increase storage at main fire station.
X~. Management Personnel be supplemented with a 'raining ®fficer, an Emergency
s Medical Service officer with the third ambulance, and a deputy chief when the aerial
v ladder truck company is added.
~aII.Personnel development:
51 Write a career development guide,
fiz Continue to use consultants for less than full-time staff personnel needs,
~3 Replace full-time contract fire marshal staff with regular fire department personnel,
Sa Develop a physical training program,
~s Continue basic Rescue System 1 training and basic Water Rescue techniques.
X~ILFunding of Petaluma Fire Department
I®. The City adopt the policy to adequately fund the Petaluma Fire Department services at
is recommended levels and asking the voters to approve additional taxes to fund these service
i9 increases which the City now cannot handle.
1zI. The City adopt a funding policy to insure that present first line equipment is replaced at
zi the end of its normal service life.
zz Bob Buchanan, Art Cader, Fred Groverman, Dick Lieb and Bill Hammerman of the Citizens
z3 Advisory Committee spoke favorably about the experience and valued lessons learned in
za. compiling the Fire Master Plan.
zs It was the Council consensus to accept the Fire Master Plan as presented. This will be done
z6 by Resolution at a meeting in the near future.
z~ CLOSED SESSION
za
z9 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, Significant
3o exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code § 54956.9 (1 matter),
31 There was nothing to report our of Closed Session,
3z PARKWAY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
33 The City Attorney announced that two Councilmembers could have a potential conflict of
34 interest with the Parkway Plaza Shopping Center project, therefore with two
16 Page ,Vol. 33
April 12, 1999
i Councilmembers absent and two. abstaining there would be n~ quorum to hear the matter.
z This will be continued to April 19
3 REDWOOD PLAZA SHOPPING CANTER
a There was a meeting held at City Hall which the Mayor facilitated and the: tenants and
s property owners met. ,Staff included Vin Smith, .Jane Thomson,, and Allan Tilton,. Traffic
6 .Engineer. The outcome. was a fetter from Mr: McDevitt; the applicant; and included. in. ,the
~ Council packet are 8 conditions of .approval., The conditions in summary discuss the
s formation of a Tenant/Merchant Association, developing an enforcementmechanism for
9 unauthorized parked vehicles. Develop a parking program for specific location .for
io employees both Orchard Supply and. Redwood Plaza portion. Establish direct truck. delivery
ii times which may not occur between 11.:30 a.m'. and 1:30' p.m. Develop signs for no parking;
iz fire lane and customer parking only.. ,Paint .curbs red, trash enclosure and reconfigure parking.
13 spaces,. in -front of the Orchard Supply retail building so compact space are: 'redistributed
14 throughout the center. All those were agreed to by the applicant or by other tenants in the
is Shopping Center to assist in the improvement of the shopping renter.
16 Eric Koenigshofer, representing Jerry Schwartz of Jeromes Restaurant addressed some `issues
~~ of concern.
is Mr..Schwartz appealed the SPARC decision.. relating. to the opposition .of a 4,50.0 square foot
19 building~proposed at the subject address. :Mr. Schwartz takes'issue with the quality of design
zo of the building and- its site as well as the bulk and height of the structure. as compared to other
zi structures in the immediate neighborhood. Parking -and circulation is still unresolved ;for. the
zz whole center.
z3 The building should be oriented so that the front of'the .building is obviously the side of the
za building. that faces Orchard Supply Hardware the main open .area of the center. The' building
zs should be constructed so as to create the effect of a front porch which is not unlike the
z6 building in which Jerome's is located where you .have that long covered walkway that
z~ presents a certain design standard and precedent which is. within the center: The benefit. of
zs doing that an. the .proposed building would be to open the face of 'it up and give it a "porch
z9 effect" which would ::allow more site through the main parking lot. area toward. the building
3o which Jerome's is .located which would be consistent with designing the .new building
31 compatible with buildings in the immediate area and would. also better serve the. overall'
3z operation of the center by avoiding creating a canyon effect between the proposed building
33 and the building.in which Jerome's is located.
34 On the side of .the building that faces Jerome' it should be in line: with the wall. of Oil
3s Changers and the purpose of that 'is to conform it so. that. the new building didn't rise directly
36 from the edge of the property at the top of the bank-,adjacent to the parking,. but that there
37 would' be~ a setback so that it: was consistentwith the existing Oil Changers building. It would
3s soften the effect by staging that elevation instead of having. one abrupt wall.. The feature that
39 I mentioned: of'having the porch type arrangement to :make it consistent with other buildings
ao in the center and to open. it up somewhat would also be :beneficial to wrap. at least partly
ai around that side of the building that faces the building in which Jerome's is located. That
az way again- it would soften. the architectural effect as opposed ,ta having the one solid high wall
43 at the tope of the elevated. bank. Appropriate lighting ,should be installed on that same side of
44 the building to improve parking aesthe_ tics and security consistent with general design
as standards,
46 The alteration of the parking in the front of the building in wtuch Jerome's is located by .the
a~ elimination. of three landscaping units would pick up a substantial. amount of space which
as could then be applied to improve size of parking. Additional signage especially associated
April 12, 1999 Vo1.33, Page 17
i with the building in the rear would insure a more likely successful future for those buildings in
a the center.
3 Willie McDevitt, Applicant, Bristol Street, He has taken parking counts at various times
a along with photographs during the peak parking times of 12:20 and 12:40 PM. Allan Tilton,
s Traffic Engineer indicated in his report that about 15% of the spaces were vacant. Aerial
6 photographs taken for 6 days on Monday -Saturday period. They confirm the numbers of
~ our counts.
a He is going to address his comments mainly to parking and circulation because that was the
9 primary focus of the original appeal and what came up at the meeting with tenants and
io property owners. SPARC approved the design as it was and during that process time was
ii spent making sure that the project would not be adding cars to Jerome's side of the building.
iz The major entrance to this building is on the south side Orchard Supply and there is a greater
13 entrance feature on the west side of the building facing Burger King, but there is in fact an
is overhang and windows on the side of the building facing Jerome's.
is Regarding the circulation issues, everyone realizes that there are trucks in the center which
i6 have a significant affect on circulation because the truckers are parked out of the way, the
i~ cars can get in and out. Mr. Koenigschofer brought up that there is no enforcement
is mechanism other than the law, that's the way the process works. We have created a forum
19 that will allow the tenants to work better together and we're guaranteeing to monitor that
so forum for two years. I think that it is real important to understand that when you. look at
z~ those photographs that a center has been. created that allows for circulation, whereas what
z2 was there before did not allow for circulation. And that there has been a proactive reason for
z3 the things being there including, in the staff report you received, there were many of the
2a recommendation of Allan Tilton's report that he did then as a private consultant, if you see
zs that their incorporated into that and the only one that wasn't is what he called
zs Recommendation A2 which is to turn 'all the parking in front of Orchard 90° and the reason
2~ that was not incorporated was the people at Orchard felt the flow would be better the other
zs way and it was agreed by the Planning Commission and SPARC not to do it at that time.
29 Robert Oliker, Attorney on behalf of the applicant. We met in good faith with the Mayor to
3o come to some reasonable conclusion of a problem that we thought was of concern to
31 everybody, and the issues about bulk and architecture was not one of them. If these were
3z issues that Mr. Schwartz wanted you to consider, they should have been brought up in-the
33 meeting with the Mayor or they should have been brought up at the first hearing. I would
34 ask you not to consider these issues. It shows that this iS not about parking this is really
3s about who can see my business and you should look beyond those issues and look at the true
36 issue here which is parking and circulation.
37 PT: Mr. Oliker what uses are you proposing in this building.
3s Robert Oliker, the one use right now is going to be a Laundromat. I don't believe that the
39 balance of the building has a use determined -yet..
ao PT: So there is not a restaurant or food use proposed at this point.
ai Robert Oliker, I don't believe there's any food use proposed. I don't know if a food use
a2 would be allowed in that area. or not. I know it was something that was discussed at the
a3 meeting and I think that is an unresolved issue.
18 Page ,Vol. 33 April 12, 1999
i Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, I'm not here tonight to deny orpraise the project. I have
z actually been hit with a touch of curiosity. It's my understanding that this. area.. used. to flood.
3 It is also my understanding that this area no longer floods. I doubt if anyone wants to
a approach this tonight, but I'm stuck'with this. curiosity and I will ask, -how :come this area no
s longer .floods?
6 Richard Rudnansky: I'm looking at the appeal letter by Mr. Schwartz and it .does indicate
~ that he is .appealing the decision to allow the building, but it seems fairly clear that in the
s letter the grounds for that attack is the parking. In our Ordinance there's an indication that:
9 the grounds of the appeal must be setforth in the. appeal. It appeazs as if the parking, is the.
io ground for the appeal, In. the notices that go in the. SPARC agenda it indicates the appeal.
i~ shall .state specifically the grounds -for the appeal. So: based. on that it would seem that the
iz area of the appeal is quite narrow. However I am aware of situations where worded; a bit'
13 more specif c, there's been other :issues that have been brought to the attention and.,discussed
is by the Gouncih but as I recall typically they have. some connection. with the specif c :ground
is that was mentioned in the appeal letter.
16 CT: Mr. Smith. is it possible Mr. Koenigshofer indicated something about the possibility of
i~ removing some finger islands that are paved for' additional parking. Is that a possibility?
is Vin Smith, I think .it's a possibility, I didn't have benefit of the ;applicants attorney's
19 communication so I haven't been able to completely understand what he was talking about..
zo CT: He mentioned something about four or five spaces in front that could be added.
zi Willie McDevitt, This was brought up during the rrieeting •and we took it upon ourselves, I
zz don't think it's any part of this appeal, but 'Mr. Bucklin the managing, partner of 'the group
z3 that owns the. building where Jerome's is a tenant,. has aid that.. if staff wilh approve it he
za would change. the parking to the configuration shown in this drawing which is the removal
zs and relocatign of a couple of islands that adds six spaces and makes all the spaces in'front of
z6 the building full size spaces.
z~ CT: Would most of those spaces be in front of the strip where Mr. Schwartz is?
zs Willie McDevitt: All of them would be. I think one or two of the spaces. could. be added on
z9 the corner would be the northwest corner of the building.
3o MM: Is the building proposed to be larger than that?
31 Willie McDevitt`: No, `in fact it's smaller than that 'because the curbs :are, in, .and there's
3z landscaping on two .sides ,and walkways and a little landscaping on one and the side closest. to
33 Oil Change it's right on'that edge. That's a fire code. There can't'be any windows on that;
3a side, it's a blank wall with a' little rustication because; of the fire code issues. There are
35 windows facing Jerome''s and it's ,set back from the curb by about 6' or so. The arcade is
36 only on the south side~and the west side.facing Burger King.
3~ MM: would you or Mr. Bucklin have significant objections to wrapping the .arcade around' a
3s certain portion on the side facing Jerorne's to try to tie together and give it some architectural
39 continuity. .
ao Willie McDevitt: The building does -that. to a certain extent now and we did ,put the windows
ai in. The architect of the building Sam, $urchetti and Burns is a retail architect, they were
az brought in.by Orchard Supply'and we. decided' to use them to do our building. as well, and we
a3 felt that their feed back'in that regard was important to try and beep the focus of the building
April 12,1999 Vo1.33, Page
a on the side where the most parking was. The landscaping was changed in SPARC to grow
z taller and be more conducive with the shaded area that will occur on that side of the building.
3 Mr. Koenigshofer,: The meeting that you moderated was announced as a meeting about
a parking and circulation. That's why we didn't bring up any other issues. We focused on
s parking and the 1993 Use Permit. At the first portion of this process the hearing was still
6 opened and we continued our discussion into other areas which are in our consideration
~ included in the statement in the first paragraph where the specific appeal is regarding a 4,500
s square foot. building which by definition brings into issue size and since size in this particular
9 project is a function of the only currently undeveloped portion of the parcel that is the subject
io of the discussion.
ii Jerry Schwartz; Is concerned with the elevation of the pad and the size of the building. The
iz shopping center is under parked and overcrowded. You have 300 parking spaces, 80
13 employees, that leaves 220 spaced. If you count up all. the restaurant seats your going to add
is another 180 so your left with 30 or 40 parking spaces in that center for Orchard, and every
is non restaurant building in that shopping center. The only way that this building is being built
i6 is by that Use Permit that was granted in 1993. We can all stand out there and we all know
i~ that there really isn't any room for this building and yet we're going to have to build it to
is some degree because the guy has a right to build on his property, but does he have the right
i9 to build such a big building that is going to block me, that's going to create a.....it just
zo doesn't flow, it doesn't look right. Right now it's not the greatest but it certainly isn't the
zi worst.
zz Vin Smith, the pad elevation is fixed due to flood reasons. The entire shopping center was
z3 engineered with the Sonoma County Water Agency's review and approval and that pad
za elevations are fixed for the development. What may for the sake of possibly move this
zs project along we could add a ninth condition that would look at the pad elevation and get it
z6 as low as possible and still meet Sonoma County.-Water Agency's Development Standards
z~ and the intent of the shopping center.
zs Willie McDevitt, Weather or not this is a restaurant I think in the remaining space or what it
z9 becomes in the future if this whole building became a restaurant which is what your alluding
3o to 10 or 15 years- from now I think that's addressed. Now if Orchard became a restaurant
31 that would be an issue. Orchard has the least intense parking per square foot. Jerome's has
3z the most intense. The reality of there being that .many .restaurants. in there is probably
33 unlikely, but from a stand point of what's there now and if our site was developed out as a
34 restaurant and even if a couple of other restaurants developed there would be days when it's
3s extremely crowded in there similar to the way it is all the time at the Lucky's Center, but
36 there would still be enough parking in our opinion and we have looked at that very carefully.
37 It was Council consensus to implement the following conditions:
3s 1. An association shall be formed that meets quarterly and includes both property
39 owners and tenants.
ao 2. An enforcement mechanism for unauthorized parking and loading shall be established
ai and implemented immediately. ,
az 3. All employees and business owners shall park in the least desirable ,parking spaces
43 first. -
19
44 4. Truck delivery, times are restricted to off-peak hours, and drivers shall be monitored
45 for compliance (no deliveries between 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.
20 Page ,Vol. 33
April 12, 1999
1 5. Signs shall be installed that clearly .state "No Parking," "Fire, Lane," and. "Customer
2 Parking Only."
3 6. All appropriate curbs shall be painted red.
a 7. The trash enclosure at the rear of'the Orchard Supply Shopping Center .retail building shall
s be repaired.
6 8. The three: inner landscape finger islands. in front. of the building occupied by Jerome's and
7 other tenants,. shall be remo~ed'.and the parking spaces shall be reconfigures (widened) and, if
s possible, spaces added to this area.
9 9. A minimum five feet (5') continuous planter shall be installed on the °north side of the
to building, except where three (3) 24"'box trees shall be planted. The .planter `area for the 24"
11 box trees. shall be a minimum dimension of eight feet by' eight feet in size (8' x 8'j.
12 10. Security lighting shall be installed on the north side of the building.
13 11. Trellises .shall be installed on the north side of the building,. and the landscape plan
la amended to reflect the additional plant material of a climbing vine.
is 12. The buildingshall feature two colors to depth.
16 13. The building pad shall be lowered to the minimum height authorized by Sonoma County
17 Water Agency. .
la Resolution 99-&,7 NCS' Denying the Appeal and Approving ahe -Site and Architectural Plans
19 fora 4,500 .Square Foot. Retail Building. at. Redwood Plaza Shopping Center, 53.08 Old
zo Redwood' Highway was introduced by Councilmember Matt. l~/Iaguire, seconded by .Pamela
21 Torliatt.
zz
23 ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 10'00 p:m
za
2s
26
27
za E. Clark hompson, .:Mayor
z9 ATTEST:
30
31
32
33 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk