HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/16/1999February 16, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 405
1
2
3
4 1VIINUTES OF A ItEGULAI1;11'IEE~TG
5 OF THE PETALUIVIA CITY COUNCIL
6 FEBRUARY 16, 1999
7
8
9 ROLL CALL 2:00 p.rn.
10 Present: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
11 Absent: None
12
13 COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO CLOSET) SESSION
14
15 RECONVENE Council reconvened at 3:35 p.m.
16
17 PUBLIC COMIVIENT .
18 Arnold Ostern spoke regarding red light runners. He would like to see the fines posted at
19 intersections with trafFic signals.
20 The Police Department will provide Council with information on red light running.
21
22 .John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, :the Payran area almost went under water on February 7. How is
23 the plug at Willow Brook?
24
25 COUNCIL CONYIVIENTS
26 PT, is concerned with a survey which the Sonoma County Transportation Authority Citizen
27 Advisory Committee sponsored. There was concern votes maybe stacked and there was a
28 question of how the survey's were being, disseminated.
29
30 PT, stated for the record that she will not be running for Assembly in the March 2000 election.
31 She will focus her energy on her remaining two years as a Petaluma City Councilmember.
32
33 MM, reported an unlabeled recycling bin at the bus stop. on Fourth Street. Waste Management
34 needs to label it appropriately.
35 Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, has an Acquisition Plan that
36 was written in 1992, and revised in 1994, which states, "The Open Space District shall consult
37 with Cities on a regular basis regarding the Acquisition Program and the Annual Action Plan." As
38 far as he knows that has never happened. He would like to get some dialogue going with the
39 County on that.
40
41 JCT, she was also concerned with the Transportation Survey and the lack of information asked
42 for on the survey.
43
44 JH, she would like an update on the McNear Park softball lights on a regular basis, so Council can
45 keep track of what is going on with moving the lights. She received an E-Mail about parking on
405
Page 406, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
2
3
4
5
Clegg and Rand Streets.. 'She asked that it be scheduled fora 'Traffic Committee meeting and
would like to know if'it has-been agendized yet.
DK,. He feels the intent of the Sonoma 'C,ounty Transportation... Authority Citizen Advisory
Committee was to try and get ,some. sense of where the interest"sin the public were. His request at
the SCTA meeting was that unless the Committee talks to people who voted 'no' .against- the
measures they were never going to get anywhere with another tax measure. Hopefully the
Citizen Advisory Committee will come_ back to SCTA with some feeling for what at. leash the
participating public has to say.
As far as the. survey forms, being handed 'in. in mass or being stacked as votes, there were
thousands of forms handed out and they can be handed in at any time, any place: That's the
nature of this kind.. of survey.
The Mayor's and Councilmember's Association Handbook-proposal that Council received: still`has
Patricia Hilligoss as the, Legislative Liaison. Mayor Clark. Thompson stated he would act as
Liaison.
It was noted that when Council receives revised agenda's to mark the date of the_ :revision and
number of revision.
The Nlinutes of January i l .and 25 wereapproved as submitted. r
The Minutes of January 30 were amended as follows:
DK, List the Council goals
MH, roll call should reflect that the meeting started at 8:30 a.m. not 8:30 p.m.
The Minutes of February i were amended as follows:
PT, Page 3.94 Line 28-42 and :Page 395 Line 3-34 would like stai~to listen to the tape and insert
Council. direction regarding the report on the I & I and the cost: benefit ratio.
Page 396` Line 9 Councilmember Caller-Thompson referred. to the impact on achools~ in the
Petaluma area 'and how the students were. going to get to Petaluma froim this subdivision (White
Oak).
JCT, the issue was raised that issue. because the roadway was on the Sonoma side and there
wasn't any access. This was not reflected: in the letter sent to Supzrvisor Kerns.
DK, There was an addendum to that letter
PT: Page 401 Cross Creek. add there would be no grading $efore April 1 and change, of work
hour
DK, on Page 401 Line 19 Clarify the creek monitoring .program and who pays. for what..
Line 21 Bring:: buck answers on Section 7 and .Section 10 consultation Line 23 ~ Clarify
Avigation easement approvals at the ball fieldse
406
Febniary 16, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 407
1 MH, on Page 401 Lines 23 .and 24 more specific we asked to revisit the appropriateness of ball
2 fields under the flight path at that location.
3
4 CONSENT CALENDAR
5 The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed. by the City
6 Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Councilmember Maguire,
7 seconded by Councilmember Hamilton.
8 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
9 NOES: None
10 ABSENT: None
11
12 Item numbers 2, 6 and 7a were removed from the Consent Calendar.
13
14 RESO.99-32 NCS
15 CLAIIVIS AND DILLS.
16 Resolution 99-32 NCS approving Claims and Bills Nos. 79277 through 79586.
17
18 RESO. 99-33 NCS
19 EAST WING RE-ROOF
20 Resolution 99-33 NCS Accepting Completion of the Re-roofing of the East Wing of City Hall.
21 Work done by Henris Roofing Company of Petaluma. Final cost is $109,366.
22
23 RESO.99-34 NCS
24 FOLLY IIANNA)EI KLAAS THEATER RE-ROOF
25 Resolution 99-34 NCS Accepting completion of the Re-roofing of the Polly Hannah Klaas
26 Theater. Work done by Henris Roofing Company of Petaluma. Final Cost is $68,896.
27
28 ICES®. 99-35 NCS
29 POLICE TRAINING
30 Resolution 99-35 NCS Authorizing the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide training to
31 Police Department personnel.
32
33 RESO.99-36 NCS
34 INITIATE PROCEEDINGS
35 STONERIDGE SUDDIVISION LAD
36 Resolution 99-36 NCS Initiating proceedings to form a Landscape Assessment Maintenance
37 District for Stoneridge Subdivision.
38
39 RESO.99-37 NCS
40 ®RDER I)VI~$tO VE1VlENTS
41 STONERIDGE SUDDIVISION LAD
42 Resolution 99-37 NCS Ordering Improvements to levy first year assessments in FY 99-2000
43 for Stoneridge Subdivision Landscape Assessment Maintenance District.
44
45 * * *End Consent Calendar* * *
407
Page 408, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 ICES®. 99-381vCS
2 SICA'I'EBOAItD -PARK
3 Resolution 99-38 NCS Approving enforcement of safety regulations at the Skateboard Park
4 located on E. Washington at'the Fairgrounds. State law requires safety equipment be worn when
5 using a skateboard park...
6 Staff recommends a 30 day grace period to warn skateboarders before issuing citations, When the
7 press release goes out regarding the requirement; for ,safety equipment, staff will also put out a
8 request to the community for donations of safety equipment. The cost of a :first :citation is $100,
9 second within the same year $20Q, up to a maximum of°$500. Eighty five percent of'therevenue
0 is returned to the city. MM uggested kick starting a program where. the city can at least come: up
1 with a small fund to make equipment available to those who can't afford it. Introduced by'M1V1y
2 and seconded by Jx.
3 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor,Hilligoss
4 NOES: None
5 ABSENT: None
6
7 Staff to look into using a cast metal sign at the park so the graffiti can be more easily cleaned.
8
9 Aaron Lasnover, Skateboarder, .Indicated that there. are skateboarder's who don't like to wear
0 safety equipment. and if cited.. they might not pay the citation. He felt it would cost the .city -more:
1 money by having the Police. ;Department patrol. the park because when the skateboarder's see a
2 Police Officer coming. they put on their equipment and then remove it when they are .gone., To
3 watch the kids constantly at the tax payers expense is going to be a losing battle.
4
5 RESO.99-391YCS
6 ANIIVIAI. S>E~LTER IDESIGN
7 Resolution 99-3.9 'NCS Authorizing solicitation of proposals for the design ,services for an
8 expanded Animal Shelter, not to exceed project cost of $200,OO~D. It is not' considered to be a
9 long term fix_for .housing- animals, but it could' be for five years ar longer. To locate the shelter
0 elsewhere would involve land acquisition in addition to construction. Introduced. by JH', seconded
1 by DK.
2 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
3 NOES: None
4 ABSENT: None
6 PT: What were the other uses for the Community Facilities Fund? I thought we were going to
7 take a look at what other projects were worthy. L'd like to .know if we have an idea of what our
8 emergencies are and I think in making a decision on spending $200,000 thati we should 'have a
9 general idea.
0
1 Staff, Because there is such a little amount of money and a huge amount of needs. there .has not
2 been a Community Facilities Plan developed.
3
4 Diane Reilly, is interested in finding. a more innovative way to shelter the- homeless and the
5 animals.
408
February 16, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 409
1 PETALiTMA TREE PLANT'E1tS
2 Bruce Abelli Arran, 608 .Petaluma Blvd. S. Represents the Petaluma Tree Planters. He is asking
3 for Council support for a grant application in the amount of $17;065.00 from River Networks.
4 The activities of the Tree Planters is to include continued water quality monitoring of creeks in
5 the Petaluma River and complete sampling and analysis for pesticides. They have found that
6 several creeks have concentrations of pesticides that are toxic. This grant focuses on forming. a
7 Watershed Partnership. He proposes that the Tree Planters join with the City of Petaluma to form
8 anew partnership with regard to fixing the problem.
9
10 JH, On Page 4, of the proposal change the last paragraph to read "with the City. of Petaluma, Tree
11 Planters, will act as project manager for the City and Jim Carr will be the staff contact person."
12 JH also suggested that the Tree Planters go on Petaluma Community Access to educate the public
13 on what is happening.
14
15 PT, Council will be discussing Mandatory Detention Ponds and alternatives. One of the
16 alternatives is conducting a Watershed Studyinvolving the entire watershed. That also includes
17 water quality and those types of issues and I'm wondering how we can possibly roll this into what
18 we are going to be doing on a larger level.
19
20 DK, Will you be able to identify any specific source locations for these pesticides entering those
21 waterways?
22
23 Bruce Abelli Aman, what other counties have done once they have identified toxicity at an
24 outfall, they move into the neighborhoods during a storm event and collect 30 or 40 samples all at
25 the same time from different corners and gutters and have it analyzed. This is basically a
26 residential product that people can buy at any store- and spread it around their yard. It is legal to
27 use so the sources are always moving.
28
29 Bryant Moynihan, noticed on the agenda under Closed Session, California Regional Water Quality
30 Control Board (Baykeeper). .Baykeeper is one of the major ,funding sources of the Rose
31 Foundation and Baykeeper gives them funds from settlements they receive in their lawsuits
32 against both public and private enterprises. What is the legal point of view for the city to apply
33 for a grant from a foundation that receives the proceeds of lawsuits that would potentially come
34 from the city.
35
36 DK, any time funds are collected by the Rose Foundation it is a .consequence of the .failure of
37 those business' and property owners to conduct business in a way that protects the natural
38 resources and the public trust.
39
40 Bruce Abelli Aman stated the Tree Planters are applying to River Networks for the grant.
409
Page 410, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 MANDA~'ORX DETENTION PONIDS
2 Tom Hargis, Director of Engineering addressed the Council regarding vandatory. Detention
3 Ponds.
4
5 Resource Management International (RMI), consultants, have completed an :interim.. report.. on
_-
6 flood control investigations and the effects of detention- on the. a~pper reaches of the Petaluma
7 River. This is a continuing study that has: been focusing on flood improvement solutions in the
8 upper watershed. The upper watershed is defined as upstream of Corona Road on the Petaluma
9 River and its tributaries.
0
1 RMI recommends that the city be cautious where: they continue ao add.. detention ponds. in the
2 system in order that, while .improving a tributary or a part of the river .reach your ;not making
3 something worse. in a different. part of'the river: The elements now under investigation. consist. of
4 channel modification and storage of flood water and detention ponds. Detention: ponds are an
5 important component of.Flood Plain 1Vlanagement. in the Petaluma. watershed,. however, to .insure
6 that this detention `is properly designed and placed, a watershed view is required.
7
8 The recommendation of'the consultants is that the °city should; be looking at a watershed concept
9 approach to Flood Plain Management. Staff also recommends long term solutions which are;
0 Watershed Management with ~ General Plan with detention. built into that,. mandatory. ~ Detention
1 Pond requirement .rather than have the option of .paying fees or putting in detention„ .with
2 whatever appropriate environmental review is necessary ,in order to ensure. that detention is
3 properly sited: .
4 One of the things Pwe thought. about is a ,combination of detention, non structural channel
5 improvements.- It may be appropriate to use detention. in some. of the upper reaches of the
6 Petaluma River tributaries in order to improve the flood protection in isolated parts.
7 ,
8 RMI will be providing: the city with> a scope of services and a, cost. to tell us where the: appropriate
9 sites would be for- detention within the watershed. This information should. be forthcoming in
0 about two weeks. The 12-18. month processinvolves going through an environmental process.
2 Tom Hargis, the .results are probably going to be that the. further up in the watershed. you go the
3 better it is to put your detention. And the further downstream i:~ better than some of theupper
4 reaches if your looking at total watershed.. If you do it on a bigger watershed basis I think we can
5 second guess, it will take some model runs to,~erify that, but. tuition says if you hold it further
6 away what your trying to do is lengthen- that time, of water coming down and you either get the
7 water out fast or you delay it ,long. enough for' the crest to come through .and. ,you .let .it out' at a
8 later time period.. One of the alternatives I've given here is where the city could be looking at
9 buying land or using the Urban .Separator to create a detention pond banking system that the
0 development community .could buy into to utilize what we did. This was donee with the first
1 detention ponds that were built by the city east of the Airport before the new airport was built.
2 We took storm drain funds, built detention and they were sized. ,such that some amount of
3 development could take place and in effect buy into that. What I don't know is what the
4 environmental review process is. If-were generic it may be less precise and be able to do it in a
5 shorter time period. I think once you get into site specific pieces of property on watersheds it
6 .maybe more complex.
410
Febniary 16, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 411
1 MH would like to be able to not wait a year and half before we start taking action if we could get
2 some preliminary results that the consultant and staff are comfortable with so we can start
3 implementing policy.
4
5 DK, would like to commit to doing a Surface Water Management Plan. He would like to .look at
6 retention in which the water does not leave the site. What can the city do to move water without
7 environmental damage and without damage downstream? To what extent are we willing to
8 protect existing structures? To what extent .are we willing to say they need to be removed from
9 areas of jeopardy? To what extent are we going to stop development if new structures are in
10 jeopardy or in additional flood plain areas? He approves of the basin wide modeling, but in order
11 to see the whole picture they need to be able to include. information from outside the city limits.
12 What he would like to is for the city to put together a work proposal for a new General Plan
13 Chapter with all the supporting technical data and put it out to bid. That will take us to a long
14 term solution. Then look at any short term things we need to do in the interim. Do we deal with
15 a moratorium, do we deal with encouraging detention basins not knowing how their going to fold
16 into an overall watershed model. How are we going to deal with this in a way that makes it
17 equitable to property owners and project proponents, but is also equitable for those people who
18 suffer the results of mistakes.
19
20 MM. The watershed approach is appropriate and appears to be necessary. One of the things I'd
21 like to focus on is permanent detention. It makes sense to retain some in the ground as it used to
22 be in its more natural state.. Once we have a model it shouldn't be hard to check its calibration
23 on a periodic basis. The big issue is protecting or removing or preventing new structures.
24
25 Tom Hargis advised that RMI has created a functional base that we could do some modeling
26 under different conditions.
27
28 PT; We need to look at what can be done in the interim. We need some recommendations back
29 from staff because we have development proposals coming through on Old Elm Village, Bantam
30 Terrace, were dealing in an emergency state trying to find out how were going to alleviate some
31 of the run off problems in the short term. She supports the Surface Water Management Plan.
32 Council has identified it as one of our goals. In Alternative B of the staff report it says
33 "conducting a watershed. study involving the entire watershed". I think we need to include with
34 that, working with the other agencies and soliciting financial participation. The development
35 upstream needs to be paying for it as well, and so we need to start out with the County and
36 Supervisor Kerns.
37
38 'Tom Hargis, the 1986 Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan was jointly funded. The
39 County did the study using their staff and the city funded the aerial photography and topo maps. I
40 think our contribution was around $30;000, theirs was more than $30,000 plus staff time. That
41 was the first Master Drainage Plan done by the County for the Petaluma River: There have been
42 other studies by State and Federal agencies and we have discussed this at the Zone 2A meetings
43 about the possibility of updating that Master Drainage Plan because it is starting to get old and
44 improvements have been done.
45
411
Page 412, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 The city should request an updated Flood Plain Map once the Arniy Corps of Engineers project is
2 completed.
3
4 DK; I think when we .look for assistance I flunk the Water Agency is an appropriate place to ask,
5 FEMA and. Corps of Eng. the former .project. manager for the' corps project indicated that 'the
6 corps-now has funding °for overall watershed management .looking at alternative ways.'of doing:
7 things. Again I would request that we put together a proposal that could go out to bid so that, we'
8 can get expertise from the industry and get a sense of how to proceed.
9
0 JCT, I do want. this to be a comprehensive. plan, T don't want .another channelization. .
2 Tom Hargis, IZNII has offered to come do a. presentation for Council. I have told them.that within.
3 the .next couple of weeks I would like to have an idea of what could be: implemented on.a abort
4 term basis. RMI wants to view the tape of this afternoons meeting'to see where Council wants' to
5 go and. get some :direction from you.
6
7 Geoff Cartwright; Rocca Drive, showed .pictures of the Vintage Chateau project on North
8 McDowell. He stated that: there was no detention or retention on the property. The runoff will
9 go down to the'Payran area.
0
1 Diane Reilly, The city's :Flood Plain .Administrator is the Planning Director., FEMA `should be
2 working-.closely with that person and other staff persons: I don't see how you ,can continue- doing
3 detention ponds. if it says you can't in the General -Plan :because it will create flooding in different:
4 watersheds. Why do we need to do another study when we have all the data from 1989.
5
6 Bryant Moynihan, concurs with Council on the long range plan. He has concerns 'in regards to
7 onsite storm water :runoff detention facilities in regards to land use :plans Council has' ..for the
8 Central Petaluma ..Specific Plan -and Generale Plan. .Especially when your calling for heavy floor
9 area ratios ;in the Central Petaluma Specific: Plan. It ,doesn't really provide for a financially
0 possible mitigation on site all the time .so that's an inconsistency. He would like the Planning
1 Department to at least weigh in orr this decision before Council goes forward' with the Ordinance.
2 There has always been flooding. in .Petaluma and always•.will be. -Where is a real need to rriitigate
3 the problem and as much as possible..eliminate the :flooding, but :he feels any kind of short term
4 growth. moratorium is sending the wrong signal. for both.the economy and community:.
5 He would like to encourage. Council at some point to require mandatory on site storm.: water
6 runoff detention facilities, but wait for the- big picture to come into focus.
7
8 Council will continue discussion. and .action at a future meeting date.
9
0 7CT; would like a copy of the development projects that have been approved in, the past: How
1 many of them are coming up and where thereat-and. as far as what; kind of flood' mitigation's were
2 done. She would, also like a copy of the Petaluma River Master~Drainage~Program.
412
Febniary 16, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 413
1 CEN~'RAI. PE~'AI.UIi~A SPECIFIC PLA1V
2 SZJB AREA DETAILED 1VIAS'TEIt PLAN/DESIGN REGiJLA1'IOPIS
3 Vin Smith, Planning Director gave the following alternatives to'the future development of the area
4 south of the Great Mill.
5
6 1. Expand the boundaries to include "B" Street to "D" Street and Petaluma Boulevard to the
7 River subject to the new Interim Downtown Historic Design Guidelines and would provide
8 additional architectural control over future development within the subject area. .Land use would
9 continue to be governed by the existing General Plan and Central Commercial Zoning District.
10
11 2. Establish a Master Plan or Study Zone Area that would essentially be a General Plan
12 Amendment and/or Rezoning to either establish or require the establishment of a precise
13 development plan :including infrastructure phasing, roadway improvements and right-of--way
14 needs, specific uses by property and potentially more strict architectural controls.
15
16 3. Declare a Development Application Moratorium. If this is done he recommends that it
17 should be for the entire Central Petaluma Specific Plan area rather than the sub area. As we are
18 beginning to get contacts from .the development community on those properties that are either
19 currently for sale or could be for sale very ,soon and have some development or redevelopment
20 potential, primarily in this area -and the riverfront warehouse area.
21
22 MH, likes the idea of having the Historic Downtown Guidelines extended to the area, but he is
23 also interested in the idea of a Master Plan or a Special Study. He believes it is Council's goal to
24 do something that is of the highest quality in this area. On the other hand he does not want a
25 process that is so long that, it will scare potential developers away. There is not a need 'for a
26 moratorium throughout the whole area to accomplish what we need to accomplish.
27
28 MM, concurs with MH, and Resolution 91-03. He approves of a small commercial hotel, but he
29 is open to other projects as well.
30
31 JH, Approves of Option 1 by extending the boundaries.
32
33 DK, Approves of Option 1. If were looking at leverage over any particular type of occupancy or
34 construction, we should look to other tools to do that such. as Redevelopment or any bonus's that
35 can be done encourage a specific occupancy that we like or discourage those we don't think fit in.
36 Option 1 and' the expansion of the resolution will cover what we can do expeditiously.
37
38 PT, Council needs to be proactive. If there are development proposals or things being thought
39 about in that area it could be conveyed to the Council in memo form. If there are any concerns
40 the Council can bring up those up at a Council meeting. Just so the .Planning Department keeps
41 us apprised of what is .going on and what their hearing I think would be helpful.
42
43 Vin Smith, Under Option 1 the final paragraph would modify the procedure by which
44 architectural approvals are granted within this boundary and would require that they go to the
45 City Council rather than be finaled by the Site Plan Architectural Review Committee.
413
Page 414, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 MH, Bring before the council any new construction anywhere within the boundaries, but not for
2 remodels.
3
4 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION CONIIVIISSION
5 JH, the second paragraph strike the last sentence `'Of particular concern. are the wasted .hours
6 sitting in stopped traff c in the area of the. Petaluma: River fridge, the area ,known as the
7 "Novato Narrows" between .Petaluma and ..Novato, and the area known as the '"San. Rafael
8 Gap"and 'insert. "The City of Petaluma belaeves it is particularly important to upgrade. 'U,S
9 Highway.101 between Petaluma and Novato because'this`,sectian of the highway functons.:as
0 a gateway to interregional travel and ahe movement: of good and services for the entire north
1 coast and:connects major urban areas in Marin and.Sonoma Counties
2
3 TCI CABLE
4 Rhuenette Alums, Director-External Affairs for Facfi'c Bell, stated that. the transfer of control
5 between. TCI and AT&T 'is welcome by Pacific Bell.: ,She is raising concerns as these mergers,
b acquisitions and partnerships begin to take shape: Particularly ors something. like this when. were
7 involving a connection between our local .telephonic ..services and cable;. we need to make ,sure that
8 local telephone cgmpani`es are being .asked to provide open and fair competition so that everyone
9 can participate who :has:the, capital and the wherewithall to do so. Council should raise their own
0 questions and have .your discussions about what- that landscape, and environment is going; to look
1 like, and ultimately if in fact your going to be able to make sure thhat the, rules and guidelines you
2 set forth benefit all the consumers who are going to have-access within the service provider- area.
3
4 DK, if you have available to you any contractual arrangements, with one of the cable suppliers be
5 it TCI or somebody else Ghat you think works particularly well for access issues, could you please
6 furnish a copy of that with~sorne notes to `this city?
7
8 Rhuenette Aluma, One of the concerns from PacificBell's perspective is to make cure that we
9 have and: provide. access to everyone. 'The same ;issues, should `apply to the cable industry: Make
0 sure. that you are providing the best. service for all the consumers i;n this particular municipality: If
1 not find out why and what do we need to do with this' Franchise to make sure that is done;
2
3 Alice Forsyth, representing: Oruta:Pellagrni with the,Chamber of Commerce; ;she wantsao convey
4 here encouragement to go forward with this project: She appreciates the diversity of cervices: that
5 it offers the members and especially the opportunity and convenience for small business's.
6
7 CLOSED SESSION
8 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL„ COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATIOrf -Significant Exposure to I:idgation
9 Pursuant.to Subdivision (b).of Section 54956:9 (I matter)
0
1 ADJOURN at 6:22 p.m. for dinner and return to Closed- Session
2
3 RECONVENE 7:30 p.m.
4..14
February 16, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 415
1 I'It®CIAMAT'ION
2 A Proclamation was read for .Engineers. Week .from February 21st through the 27th. Jim Clark
3 received the proclamation. .
4
5 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6 Troop II led the Pledge. of Allegiance. Jason Franz stated that the troop was here in order to earn
7 their Citizenship of the Community Merit Badge
8
9 PUBLIC: COIVIIVIENT
° 10 Nita Stenlen, 105' Banff Way spoke regarding Graffiti in Petaluma. She feels there is an increase
11 in Graffiti and would like Council to take a proactive role.
12
13 She was advised by Council that there is a volunteer group that cleans up graffiti and that she
14 should leave her phone number with the City Clerk so she could be contacted. It was also .noted
15 that the Council has addressed this issue and will be addressing it again in the near future.
16
17 JCT, suggested that maybe the Citizens on Patrol could help in relation to the graffiti problem.
18
19 Terrance Garvey addressed the issue of Domestic Partners. I-ie would like Council to delay their
20 vote and look into other alternatives in which to help women gain security and economic benefits.
21
22 Rob McGaughie Jr., 590 Ely Road stated that he did not understand Councilmembers Hamilton
23 and Cader-Thompson's `no vote' on February 1 relating to the Cross Creek Phase 4 Final Map.
24 He believed it was in conflict with City Attorney Rich Rudnansky's statement that if all the
25 conditions had been met the Council should vote `yes', unless they had the opinion that conditions
26 had not been met. Mr. McGaughie had to leave and therefore could not be present for the
27 discussion later in the evening.
28
29 COUNCIL COMMENT
30 JH, advised Council that Wendy Cowans of the North Bay Environmental Institute is planning a
31 three part workshop on Walkable Communities, June 17 in Santa Rosa, June 18 in San Rafael,
32 June 19 will be announced. She would. like it to be held in Petaluma. She would also like to
33 invite Wendy Cowans to speak before the Council.
34
35 The Sonoma County Community Foundation would like to ask neighborhood: groups and
36 organizations that are interested in neighborhood .improvement projects to make application to the
37 Schultz Neighborhood Grants Program. The Community Foundation is able to make grants
38 available for up to $1,500 to support small one time projects to improve neighborhoods.
39 Community Foundation ;staff are available to explain how to apply for these grants. The
40 proposals are due to the Community Foundation by March 12.
41
42 The cobblestones on "G" Street are being stolen between First and Second Streets. These are
43 historic cobblestones and she would like to have them returned.
44
415
Page 416, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 JCT, read a letter she received from Susan J. Sparks and Robert and 7oella Maser of theMasona
2 Kennel Club, .regarding the city's:'Spay/Neuter Program.. They fiave generously donated $500 to
3 the Petaluma Animal Control. Department to defray the .cost in the spay and neuter clinics.
4
S JCT, spoke about the BP gas station on the corner of McDowell and Washington which is under
6 construction. 'There is standing water in° a: hole which could. be contaminated. She would -.like a
7 report on the schedule of completion and what is being donee about .standing water::
8
9 She' received a .letter from Frank Armandi about the traffic signal lights on Washington and.
0 McDowell. '.She would like to have a real fix. Thee lights just do what they want to do. Down by
1 the Orchard Supply shopping center ,the new median is a problem, she. would like Council to
2 discuss this. The Rocky Dog Park. needs a water spigot installed.
3
4 1VII)KE KERN. S
S Mike Kerns spoke to the, Council:. regarding several issues that the Council was. interested in i:e.,
6 closure of Two Rock Coast Guard Station which the President has not put. in the budget. for any
7 base closures this year, but there is still talk about proceeding. with the; process to close; the
8 development of Port Sonoma expansion,,. the .possible development of 321 acres off Lakeville
9 Highway near Highway 37, flooding issues and update on 1120 Magnolia open space.
0
1 Supervisor Kerns has contacted attorney's for the ,Sonoma Mountain Conservancy and asked if
2 they' would approach the .membership in an effort to facilitate a meeting either between the.
3 Council or other members of the community that are interested in ..opening Lafferty ,Ranch as a
4 wilderness park. and perhaps° get a :meeting together and maybe agree on some process by'which
S we can begin a dialogue: to reach some kind. of agreement..
6
7 Supervisor Kerns agreed to setting an agenda with several items' for each meeting. It has been
8 .suggested that he meet with Council on a quarterly basis. I'rn certainly willing, if :something.
9 comes up in the interim that you feel. is important. that we communicate.
0
1 ICES®. 99-40 NCS
2 'I'CI CHANGE OF' CONT$tOL `T® AT~iT
3 Gene Beatty, The cty~had a request .from TCI to approve a change of control. in relationship to
4 their proposed merger with AT&T. Our Franchise Agreement has -language n'it that. requires that
S the city authorize such a change in control. The Council at that time retained the services of the.
6 Buske Group,- to do a financial .audit.. of then Franchise: Fee .payments, but also-the performance
7 obligations. 'The Franchise is in its. fourth year and.has 10 or 11 years left on it.
8
9 MM, I'm willing;to vote in favor of this as it;stands, but I would like to say to `TCI that it is very
0 important that TCI is a.good corporate member of the. community. I personally don't feel.. that the
1 agreed. upon contract represents all that, can be done .and by rights ought °to be done for the
2 community: In the past there was some- monies owed the city, that were held by°TCI until'the city
3 asked for those .monies. I would like to see a more forthright- relationship than. that: I ~don't`want
4 to city to ask for what is rightfully .ours under the :contract. That shows bad faith. and I'm looking-
6 forward to moving ahead, and moving. into a new era where the relationship: between the city and
5 TCI or TCI and A'T&T is improved from this point on.
416
February 16; 1999
Vol. 32, ,Page 417
2 MH, One of the issues discussed .had to do with provision of cable service downtown. With
3 telecommunications coming over the cable lines it is imperatives to .get that kind of service
4 downtown and the agreement reflects that. I support this as proposed.
6 DK, would like TCI and AT&T to continue to look at improving the FM service perhaps by
7 looking at alternative. antenna sites in town.
8
9 7CT, she has received complaints from people with older TV's that don't get the Community
10 Access channel. These are usually the elderly who are on a fixed income and can't afford to pay
11 higher rates.
12
13 Gene advised Council that the city has an arrangement with TCI to do whatever is necessary to
14 allow folks to receive access.
15 .Resolution 99-40 NCS approving a Change of Control Agreement with TCI. Introduced by JH,
16 seconded by JCT:
17 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
18 NOES: None
19 ABSENT: None
20
21 PI~SENTATION
22 Supervisor Mike Kerns. was. given a plaque for hiss twenty years of dedicated service with the
23 Petaluma Police Department.
24
25 ICES®. 99-41 NCS
26 F"L®®D C®NTROL ADVIS®ItY COMMITTEE
27 Resolution 99-41 NCS Appointing Janice Cader-Thompson as Council Liaison to the Zone 2A
28 Flood Control Advisory Committee. Introduced by MM, seconded by JH.
29 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
30 NOES: None
31 ABSENT: None
32
33 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma Flood Victims Association, handed out a map from the Army Corps.
34 of Engineers which shows the 100 year storm flood plain. It shows the extended flood plain with
35 the continued development upstream. He would like Zone 2A Advisory Committee and Council
36 to get a copy of this map.
37
38 CI2®SS CIiLLIC
39 City Attorney, Richard Rudnansky stated that Councilmember Keller contacted him regarding the
40 reconsideration of the action taken on February 1, 1999, approving Final Map for Cross Creek
41 IV. Council rules estate that any :member that voted in the. majority of an action may move for
42 reconsideration at the next Council meeting and that the vote shall be held on that motion at that
43 time. The actual reconsideration of the action will be at the .next Council meeting in a week. If
44 this motion passes, the actual reconsideration of the Resolution that approved the Final Map for
45 Cross Creek IV will take place on March 1.
46
417
Page 418, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 Councilmember Keller stated that. the reason.. he had this placed. on the agenda.. was due to
2 questions raised` over Ball, Fields, Avgation Easements, Adobe (reek Bypass; and. condition of
3 the W etlands. Council was- given. assurances. that .all the permits: and compliance's were in .place
4 and therefore,. Council had no grounds to deny Final Map. He does not 'believe all conditions
5 have been met.
6
7 JH, she would like: a complete ,list of conditions, and the; dates. they ..have been fulfilled and exactly
8 how they were fit1fi11ed. She does not'believe they have been fulfilled.
9
0 PT, If Councilmember Keller.'s;information is correct we have: no choice but to reconsider.
2 Fred Stouder City Manager, Council will receive a copy of all documents on record having to do
3 with this project in which to reach their decision.
4
5 MH, Some of the concerns. are covered ;by-actual conditions of approval. Some of ape other areas
6 of concern may note be covered by conditions of approval. I was trying to ascertain that there are
7 conditions of approval that are actually implicated that. we should be thinking about looking at
8 again.
9
0 Vin Srruth, Interim ..Planning Director, .issues such as .Adobe Creek bypass require ongoing
1 monitoring.. Staff,recognizes,tpat in addressing the wetlands'issue first. .Some of the grading that
2 was done may not have had. the soils investigated as much as they should have; aril as part of the
3 monitoring process you build tlike you think it's going to work and if it doesn't work you go
4 back and fix the problems. That's the purpose;of establishing, monitoring programs and setting.. up
5 funds to. take care of those :issues. There will be a meeting, this Thur"slay- -with everal agencies
6 including. the County Fish and Game, Army Corps., National Manne~ Fisheries, Supervisor etc.
7 Mr. Heaton indicated that he has done some grading and compaction of the. berm, and hopefully it
8 will last for the interim. On Thursday we can come up with at leash a temporary solution. and then
9 along term solution. We would still need to coordinate: with FE:MA as part of a Flood Control
0 Management. Project.
2 PT, If I remember correctly the .improvements to Adobe Creek were supposed. to be completely
3 installed prior to the Final Map, so if were still having issues with that, we need. to, let's call for
4 the vote and get on with it.
5
6 Steve Block, Petaluman's for Sensible Development, Some of his concerns were the frequent
7 overflow of Adobe Creek, whether the .Sonoma County Water Agency was. conducting an
8 analysis of growth of vegetation for five years, the bypass eharinel that failed, grass that was
9 sprayed with a chemical which is in violation. of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. allowing run-
0 off into the: creek, it is toxic to ,fish and wildlife. Councilmember :Keller requested a report on the
1 impact of all the variety :of projects going on and has not .received, that report to date: Mr: Block
2 was assured by an Airport.'Commissioner that. nothing will be built under the inner approaches to
3 the airport. :He wants the city to stop issuing building permits fore Crosse Creek Phase 3, and
4 reconsider the vote for Cross Creek Phase IV.
4.18
February 16, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 4-19
1 Joe Francis, 23 Wamck, is concerned .about a swale behind his house and during a rain storm you
2 can see the water go into the Swale and it drains into his v-ditch in rear yard. Now the Swale is
3 blocked. and the runoff is going other places. The field as it exists is not draining the way it was a
4 year ago. He also asked Council to reconsider this because he believes there are some serious
5 problems. He feels that they are no closer to a solution than they were three years ago.
6
7 Doyle Heaton, Developer of Cross Creek, is working with the city on every issue and on
8 conditions stated in the Development Agreement. If the ball fields are not to be placed there he
9 will work with the city to place the fields at another location. He still feels that the ball fields
10 should not be part of the Phase IV approval. The diversion channel was approved nine years ago.
11 It originally should have been put in as part of the Adobe Creek Development, it was put as an
12 additional condition on Cross Creek. We stated that if the original design has flaws in it we
13 would rectify the problem. We still feel that Phase IV approval should remain. The issues with
14 the creek and the ball fields are separate from Phase IV.
15
16 Matt Hudson, Attorney .for Mardel LLC, Feels that the Council should not reconsider the action
17 taken two weeks ago approving the Cross Creek Final Map for Phase IV. The map that was
18 submitted for Phase IV has been done in substantial compliance with the Tentative Map and the
19 question is whether conditions you have legally imposed on the subdivision have been satisfied.
20 The bypass channel issue was done according to plans and .specifications that were required of
21 them. The ball fields will be built where the city tells them to build them. Whether or not they
22 have ever gone through the Airport Commission is a question that has to be resolved. That
23 doesn't mean however, that conditions haven't been satisfied. We have until the year 2002 to
24 satisfy that condition under the terms of the Use Permit. The Cross Creek has been in front of the
25 City Council since 1994, there have been countless hearings in front of the Council, Planning
26 Commission and other bodies. Every conceivable part of this subdivision has been considered.
27 The requirements have been met according to staff and I submit to you with that information in
28 front of you, the only choice for you under the Subdivision Map Act is to approve it.
29 A Motion for Reconsideration of the approval of the Cross Creek Final Map Phase IV was
30 introduced by DK, seconded by MM.
31 AYES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire,. Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
32 NOES: Healy
33 ABSENT: None
34
35 RESO.99-47 NCS
36 EIVIIN)ENT I)OIVIAIN - PAYRAN REACIEY FLOOID CONTROL PROJECT
37 Resolution 99-47 NCS Resolution of Necessity #o acquire easements from property by Eminent
38 Domain for the Payran Reach Flood Control Project; Properties: 19 Rocca Drive (Beck), 48 Jess
39 Ave., (Juratovae and Kim), APN 007-660-032 (Madison Village Homeowners Association).
40 Introduced by JH, seconded by MM.
41 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
42 NOES: None
43 ABSENT: None
44
45 The public hearing was opened.
46
419
Page 420, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 John Hess, 9 Natalie Circle spoke .representing the Madison Village Homeowners Association.
2 He advised Council that the. Homeowners Association: needed more- time. He also stated that the
3 Homeowners Association feels the city's offer was to low o they-will. have their own appraisal
4 done. This is still.. in the negotiation stages„ however the city will continue with Resolution of
5 Necessity.
6
7 The public hearing was closed.
8
9 )Et)ESO.99-48 NCS
0 HOLMBERG Ito®F'ING
1 This business is located at 16 Cedar Grove Park off of Lakeville Street. In 1983 the;. Holmberg'
2 commenced operations on the site as Holmberg .Roofing Comp'anry office and warehouse:- with no
3 open. space storage.. In 1.993 due to complaints from neighbors. that the business was storing
4 materials outside, the Holmberg's applied for a Conditional Use Permit for open. storage: This.
5 Use Permit was granted in September of 1993. In 1998 staff received complaints from Rocca
b Drive residents :regarding the amount of storage and the location of the open storage on site.
7 These complaints started' the Conditional Use Permit revocation process, which culminated in the
8 revocation of the°Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission on.December 8, 1'998.
9
0 Vin Smith: It was staffs belief that the Use Permit that was issued. in 1.993 was for the entire Use.
1 and that. the Planning Commission was within their right to revoke that Use Permit: There is some
2 question..about exactly what was on the property in 1983, if the husiness wa_s actually there; and.
3 then what was actually ,legally operating. on the property when; the General Plan designation •went
4 from what it was to the current designation of proposed park. The action the Planning
5 Commission took was to remove the :entire use off the property. The more' appropriate action.
b would be to specifically address the' Resolution. for the 1993 iJse Permit approval which was for
7 open storage. Staf~a recommendation of Council's tq revoke .the 1993 Conditional Use. Permit
8 for the outdoor storage with the understanding that staff'will be pursing further ;abatements on the
9 property given the knowledge of what we `have learned in the last couple ofweeks.
0
1 John Cheney, 55 Rocca, Drive, he moved ..into the neighborhood in 1984 and there was nothing
2 on the site except an old farm house. Some of the i sues by Mr: Cheney were. from the amount of
3 infill brought onto. the property causing, flooding in peoples- yards on Rocca Drive. Mr..
4 Holmberg appeared before. the Planning Commission and' was given a permit to put in outside
5 storage. After Mr. Holmberg built. a cement ditch to catch the. extra water .coming off'his
6 property the neighbors have moved on to •other concerns. In January. 1998, Mr. Cheney again
7 complained to the city that Mr. Holmberg was again adding fill on the property. After that
8 Holmberg managed to get. a permit to put 41'-5 yards of fill in. If there is going; to be trouble. with
9 that fill it's going to be between Mr. Cheney and the city, because they approved it. Right now
0 this man. has not. made honest attempts and seems to think the permit. process is something for-
t somebody else to do and not 'him.. He is a roofing: contractor, he knows what a permit is, yet
2 three times now he's been: caught without ,permits. I think it's time that he definitely gets
3 revoked. It is time Mr. ;Holmberg realizes that 'he is part of this community and as neighbors we
4 have rights too.
5
420
February 16, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 421
1 Richard Giddens; 63 Rocca Drive, his property butts up to the Holmberg property. He
2 complained about the smells that come from the hot tar, employees that live in trailers on the
3 property have loud parties and the tiles that have alleged asbestos in them get crushed under the
4 tires of vehicles. 'The property needs to be properly 'inspected and revoked entirely.
6 Kevin Callanan, S1 Rocca Drive, According to the I-Iolmberg's the city revoked their permit for
7 the sole finding of occasional temporary .storage. Numerous prior Planning Commission meetings
8 found them to be in violation of many provisions of their CUP. There are visual photos as well as
9 eye witness documentation to verify the spread of pallets of roofing material, cars, pots, non
10 operating trucks -and campers. This business and it's way of conducting itself is most definitely
11 detrimental to the public welfare: The adjoining neighbors must constantly be subjected to
12 unnecessary noise, dust, visual blight and varying hours of operation. Mr. Callanan had to call to
13 file a complaint for two instances of workers relieving themselves at the rear of the trucks
14 adjoining his fence. The business has expanded with illegal storage containers, staging areas and
15 materials stored outside.
16
17 Maurice Matheson, 23 Woodworth. Way, There is chemical waste being tracked everywhere. The
18 property needs inspected.
19
20 John Knott, Representing the Holmberg's, This property is owned by Allan and Carolyn
21 Holmberg, they have a roofing.. company. They are, stacking roofing material. The outside storage
22 area needs to be expanded so they could be in compliance. Is there any objection to the
23 Holmberg's stopping what their doing now which. is a conditional use permit and go with one of
24 the permitted uses that are available under .the existing Zoning Ordinance? Would it be
25 appropriate to approach Council with a request °for a larger outdoor storage area if Council does
26 not want any outdoor storage.
27
28 The public hearingwas closed.
29
30 DK, There has been a clear abuse of privilege and abuse of permit. Mr. Holmberg has had
31 many chances to correct this by way of contact with city staff and Planning Commission. This has
32 not been done. There are a number of issues that have been identified that still need to be
33 resolved. DK, would like to see; they outside storage eliminated, if you want to build a shed and
34 have a permit for it, and have it as inside storage, and have the rest of the conditions that go with
35 cleaningup the property go ahead.. and bring that application. in. In the meantime I encourage staff
36 to proceed vigorously with abatement on unpermitted buildings; structures; storage and potential
37 hazards to health and safety. If we can have the Regional Water Quality Board check the site for
3 8 surface water run-off on any contaminated water let us do that. There is also a need to check for
39 any asbestos laden debris on site.
40
41 MM: would like to proceed to investigate the alleged asbestos on the entire site and abate it. He
42 supports the original Planning Commission recommendation for vacation of the business on the
43 site. If it is found that cannot be done he would recommend revoking the CUP as quickly as
44 possible. "
45
421
Page 422, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 Vin Snuth, will talk with the Fire Marshal's OfI`ice, Hazardous ;Materials Division .and. the City
2 Attorney regarding the procedure of entering the property to do inspections based on -the
3 testimony,given this evening.
4
5 JH, is in favor of denying-the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission.action'because it has
6 gone on so'long which shows a complete ack of respect for policy and regulationso
7
8 City Attorney,, Rich Rudnansky, does Council want to revoke t;he 1993 permit with respect to
9 outside storage? With respect to .shutting. down. the business or investigating other problems' with
0 the property is .something,-that cane be done in the form ofa nuisance. abatement situation.
1 Whatwe .have learned is than there were a number of buildings pint-out: there over a,period of time
2 without permits and dates unknown. In terms of what was out there in 1983 is something that
3 needs to be explored. Perhaps at, that point it was a Permitted L1se and therefore- that Permitted
4 Use at that time .may or may not become :a non-conforming use when the General Plan was
5 changed.
6
7 MM: Because in 1986 the. usage `was potentially less; less buildings, less activity that .thee non-
8 conforming use that came later is not as much as the use there now. If that's the case can we
9 abate back to that level..
0
1 City Attorney, Yes, if in fact it is a legal non-conforming use: Tlie only use he would. be enfitled
2 to with respect to a legal non-conforming use is whatever°use w~ on the property at the change
3 of zoning or possibly a General Plan Amendment .that was. legal at that time. So if he had :.four
4 buildings out there .and. then there was a change irizoning, or General Plan and only one of those
S buildings was legal at the time, that's the legal non-conforming"use, the rest- of them -are ;non-
6 conforming, their not. legal non-conforming, That is a possibility; but we''would :need to follow
7 that up with an investigation.
8 .
9 CT, Mr. Holmberg,. all. the years. you have been before the Planning Commission you never
0 listened. to us. How many ,times~you came back, there were nuestons about what ;you. were
1 doing, the-neighbors kept coming in, we kept telling you to please follow the -Conditional Use
2 Permit and I am going, to vote in favor to revoke .your Condition<~1 Use Permit, but you still have
3 more time. And ~I like Mr. Keller will entertain t_he possibility of a building for indoor storage if
4 you take out the proper permits, but that's~assuming you .become'a good. neighbor.. I think- these
5 people are willing to work with. you, but .you've not shown you: are willing to work with. them.
6 Here is your opportunity, your last chance and please take advantage of it.
7
S MH, I think part. of the. problem we've been dealing with 'is that; this ite has' been. in a holding
9 pattern with the General Plan. designation as ,park,. but still carries the ..Light Industrial zoning. I;
0 think'this parcel. should be looked at closely in; the new General Plan process to see what.. his. long
1 term use is going to be because I think :part of what we are Being here is what happens when. a
2 parcel is strung, out in terms of what its ultimate: long term use is going to be: I' also would
3 encourage Mr. `Holmberg `if he so desires,: to come in with something~that is a permitted use on the
4 site. I would ike to see the General Plan process reevaluate how realistic it is to consider this as a
6 future park site:
6
422
February 16, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 423
1 Resolution 99-44 NCS, Denying Appeal of Mr. Holmberg and Revoking. the Conditional Use
2 Permit for open storage was moved. by MM and seconded by PT.
3 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice `Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
4 NOES: None
5 ABSENT': None
6
7 BAN'I'A1VI 'I'ERI~ACE SU~I)IVISI®N
8 Councilmember Torliatt stated that she lives farther than the 300 feet from the proposed
9 subdivision so she. will be voting on this issue even though she declined at the Planning
10 Commission level.
11
12 Vin Smith, Planning Director stated that this item is a request for a General Plan Amendment to
13 amend an acre and half of land. from School to Urban Standard and a proposal for a Tentative
14 Map fora 2.7 acre parcel into seven single family residential lots served by a public street and the
15 extension of a private driveway off a cul-de-sac to serve two of the seven lots. This is surplus
16 property of the school district selling it to the developer. The primary issues raised at the
17 Planning Commission .hearing involved a drainage pattern that ends up on properties that front on
18 North Webster Street which the developer agreed to install improvements, and a pedestrian/bike
19 path.
20
21 The hearing was opened.
22
23 Michael Smith, Waterford Associates and Developer of the project. This was originally a four lot
24 subdivision, he is asking that three additional lots be approved for a total of seven lots.
25
26 John FitzGerald, Civil Engineer handling the off site drainage explained to the Council that the
27 1986 Master Storrn Drain Plan anticipated an 18" pipe coming up Western Avenue to a point to
28 intercept a large drainage area that sits within the unincorporated area of the county. This system
29 was extended in 1.989 with the Aaron Acres Subdivision. The applicant Dr. Jonas, placed 550
30 feet of pipe up Western to front his project. This part of the proposed project would extend that
31 existing system up to a point that will accept the entire drainage area which is approximately 27
32 cubic feet per second which now flows under Western Avenue down into the school yard.
33 Western Avenue is crowned, so .everything on the northerly side of Western Avenue will still
34 dump into the school yard. All the water from the incorporated area on the southerly side of
35 Western Avenue would be intercepted by this extension.
36
37 I,ee Oberkamper, Oberkamper Civil Engineer, spoke regarding the pedestrian/bike path he feels
38 that the property is too steep to accommodate the path.
39
40 Carolyn Tenneyson, representative of the Petaluma School Board, does not want a
41 bike/pedestrian path crossing school property. There is a safety issue relating to students.
42
43 Sandra Shand, 617 N. Webster, spoke regarding the drainage concerns of neighbors on N.
44 Webster St. They are grateful that the developers are willing to complete the portion of the storm
45 drain linking the county to the city prior to the occupancy of the first home on Bantam Terrace.
46 As another condition of approval the school district expressed willingness to enter into an
47 agreement for regular maintenance and monitoring of the ditch which drains the school property
423
Page 424, ~Iol. 32 February 16, 1999
1 up hill from their homes. and enters the city:pipes at the church on t?Vebster. We thank, the :.school
2 for the initial steps that they have taken in- regard. to ditch mainternance :and :given their experience
3 with what we've learned from that, we would like to suggest more specific maintenance and
4 monitoring ideas. First that the ditch be dredged annually, monitor and kept clean of debris and
5 ask that the debris. removed be disposed of and not placed on the bank to wash down into the
6 ditch again.
7
8 Sandra also. spoke on'behalf of Mr. Toe FinnerCy who .has lived. in this neighborhood for 50 years.
9 He would like the Council to set the priority of correcting the drainage system problems before
0 the recreational desires of some citizens.
2 Caroline. Dlugy-Hegwer, 621 N, Webster, °The drainage and street flooding issues. in our
3 neighborhood have: been' left unresolved long enough. This past weekend the ditch on the .school
4 property over ,flowed and the water started. running through our streets. We will not go through
S another winter under these conditions. We ask the Councilmembers for a time line, with dates
6 telling us when. the work will :finally start. We are resolved not t~ let anything come between us
7 and the solution to our problem. It is vital to the well being of our community that'the drainage
8 and flooding problem be solved. If the proposed seven lot subdivision is not :approved we have
9 been told. nothing will ever be done for us and the storm drain system is certainly not- going. to be
0 improved on Western. 'The four (4) lot subdivision that has already been approved will be
1 developed adding to the run .off and putting an additional weight on he already deficient drainage
2 system. In the event that. the three (3) additional lots are not. approved, Mrs.. Shand and myself
3 will be forced 'to seek remedy and let a third party decide who' is responsible and for what
4 percentage. 1VIs. Hegwer presented a petition to the City Clerk with 34 signatures on it.
S
6 Dusty Resneck, 1.10 Purrington Road, Vice Chairman of the Bicycle Advisory Committee would
7 like to have apedestrian/bike path through this project area.
8
9 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Chairperson. of-the Bike Committee showed different :locations for a bike
0 path in relation to the Petaluma Junior High School and the proposed seven (7) lot project. There
1 were two options presented by`the Bike Committee: OO Coming r~irectly off the cul'-de-sac down
,-
2 into school property.., joining,, the fire access road and then coming. down ome steps and joining. a
3 path that is already there and contnuing'down and out the'back way fo N. Webster. ~ Continue
4 the public access from the cul-de-sac going- down the fire acces:> road which would also be 'the
S driveway of Lot 7, continue the :public access down through, the fire access gate and onto the fire
6 access road. already being built on Junior High property.
7
8 Older Gentlemen: He is against the .development, There is to much traffic on N. Webster with
9 parents picking up their children ;from school. Sometimes there are 50 cars blocking the street.
0 Bantam way gets plugged up from Western Avenue to Bodega Avenue.
2 Public hearing closed.
3
4 Council Comments:
424
February 16, P999 Vol. 32, Page 425
1 MM, This is a good infill project. The school stands to benefit. The General Plan talks about
2 public access. If it didn't cost you anything do you have any objection to a bike path leading off
3 from the cul-de-sac?
4
5 Michael Srruth, He has no .objection. You have the perfect right to go down the public right-of-
6 way and then. make a right turn. The City would have to sit down with the School District and
7 negotiate with them. It has no bearing on my project.
8 Dr. Wong: The issue raised by our board president is one of safety, security and exposure of
9 liability. It is true that our governing board has not addressed this issue as an agenda topic. He
10 will bring Mr. Maguire's suggestion before the board.
11
12 JH, there has not been enough conversation. with the school district and city to really identify how
13 we could meet each others concern and needs. It also sounds like the developer has told the
14 neighborhood that their drainage problems will not be fixed unless the path is denied. The two
15 issues need to be separated. The drainage problems. have gotten worse in the last year after
16 construction has taken place on the school property. It is a false assumption that we need to deny
17 a bike path in order to fix the drainage problems is not. straight forward thinking. Jane would
18 like the School .District :and the city and the developer and bike committee to work together to
19 reach a resolution that meets everybody'-s needs.
20
21 DK, Agrees. It really is important to get a path way through so that students and public have the
22 ability to traverse public property. I think it would be a bonus for that fire access easement to be
23 used as a path way. I agree that is not an issue. that is .hinged upon any agreement having to do
24 with drainage. There are drainage improvements that are proposed as a consequence of this
25 development.. I think we_need to be very careful, because°what they are essentially proposing is to
26 make the system. more efficient for this neighborhood, but what that also does is take water that is
27 currently in storage during storms, i.e. in you back. yard and streets and shove it down hill. It's
28 somebody else's problem then. How much water are we talking about changing the direction of
29 flow and speed of delivery downtown. What is going. to improve traffic flows, to reduce the
30 speed on Bantam. He would .like secure walkway from.. Bantam Terrace to the school sidewalk.
31 He would like to see that included in the improvements required. I understand the school is
32 willing to maintain the ditches on their property. Is the city taking on any responsibility for
33 cleaning existing ditches as a consequence of this project?
34
35 Vin Smith, advised Council that additional signs on both sides of Bantam, the new green colored
36 school crossing signs, and the fact that there is an intersection there will also visually slow cars
37 down because there is now a new access way that wasn't there before that motorists would need
38 to pay attention to. The sidewalk improvements will improve frontage beyond the property
39 boundary to tie in-with existing curb, gutter and sidewalk that is in front of the neighbors property
40 on Bantam. There is only .sidewalk on the north side of the proposed cul-de-sac that ties in with
41 an existing sidewalk to the north of the proposed proposal. There is no .sidewalk on the schools
42 frontage that this project would tie to. The drainage that is generated from construction of this
43 project will flow toward Bantam Way, be piped out from that point all the way through the school
44 property down to N. Webster Street and into the Western Avenue storm drain. The drainage
45 solution that the developer agreed to fixing at the requirement of the Planning Commission is off-
46 site of the proposed project.
425
Page 426, Vol. 32 February 16, 1999
2 Mr. FitzGerald said. that the ,drainage improvements at Western will be intercepting 27 ,cubic feet
3 of water and rejecting it into the Western Avenue system. It is sizf;d fora 1D year storm.
4
5 DK, See if we can get. this on paper from an :engineer that is 'willing to make a:.professional
6 estimation of flows down steam and that in fact it will. riot: change flood elevations, downstream
7 towards the river and: that there would be no cumulative impact to the flood levels n,;and around
8 the turning basin particularly on the other side of the turning basin.
9 - "
0 7CT, Put a detention pond on the school property. Make sure the school cleans out the ditch.
1 IDon't tie a flood project into a development project: Wot-k with, school on .location of
2 bike/pedestrian path.
3
4 MH, supports the project. A bike path should not be a requirement of this site. A path at this
5 location doesn't; really accomplish anything meaningful.. If there is a concern about the turning
6 basin then we should be looking at extending the zero net fill .area. Council is not in a position to
7 override the school on safety issues. He is willing; to approve this project as proposed: If .the
8 School District would ,be willing to entertain .access from the street portion of .this project that
9 would be appropriate. .
0
1 JIi, Were not just talking about a bicycle path but a pedestrian path and many people enjoy and
2 need to walk. ~ _
4 Steven Bolman, Assistant Principal stated that. there currently is access through, the campus that is
5 provided to the community.
6 ".
7 PT, has been. on both the school site and project'site :and has met with `neighb'ors. The 1Vlormon
8 property may not develop for 25 ,years, it may .never develop. t?-11 I think the .Bicycle Advisory
9 Committee is looking for is an easement to get to the ridge so that if the Mormon, property does
0 develop it can be considered and' it's not. precluded ~in the .long- run. As fare as the access down =the
1 fire road there is absolutely no money that would need to be expended by the developer, it's just ~a
2 fact of opening the gate.
3 _
4 PT, What were looking at is the easement that goes down the private driveway or I don't know
5 why you don't even make a portion of it public, -that there's a pubblc easement. down."there. to go
6 directly ;up to .the fence where the ridge; line is and then I'm not "sure how the fire easement is
7 already worked. out because if it's a, fire easement you. just ..make it a public one as well and I think
8 that many people walk in front of many people's houses every day and so I don't know how this
9 would be any different.
0
1 Sandra Shand, stated that what he heard from,. Councilmember Hamilton felt very condescending.
2 to her and she felt there was the implication that she .and her neighbors were some :how a mouth
3 piece for the developer. I would like~you to know that bur community looked at the letter stating
4 what seemed to be a fairly unambiguous straight forward letter from the developer about 'his
5 intentions:. We looked at that, we had. no contact. with the. deveioper, we came to, this decision
6 and this recommendation which we brought to you as a whole neighborhood by free. -discussion
426
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
February 16, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 427
and I resent that there be any .implication that we are not- capable of thinking clearly or reaching a
clear headed decision.
This item to be brought back after representatives from the School District, Bicycle :Advisory
Committee, Neighborhood, City and Developer have met to determine where abike/pedestrian
path should go.
LIAIS®N l~P®1ZT
At the Planning Commission meeting last week Bonne Gaebler reported on the progress of the
site selection process for the .Armory replacement. A committee has narrowed the sites from 40
to 2 sites. This will be made public as soon as the property owners are aware their sites are
among the two finalists.
AIDJ®UItN The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
ATTEST:
Paulette Lyon, Deputy C' Clerk
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
427