Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/20/1998July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 47 t MINUTES z OF A REGULAR 1VIEETING 3 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL a 1VIONDAY, JULY 20, 1998 s ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m. 6 Present: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss ? Absent: None s PUBLIC COMMENT 9 ~ Victor Chechanover, 2301 Marylyn Circle - he has concerns regarding an article in the io newspaper about a police action in Petaluma. He said it seemed formidable and excessive i i and there was no reason given for the number of officers present. Another issue he had was 12 that he understood that the police do not keep a record of the amount of drugs that are 13 confiscated. The third issue aS the Sonoma Action suggested ways to use surplus State is budget funds. They should go to children, education and health. It was urged that Cities is adopt a `Children and a Family Element" to their General Plans. Police Chief Parks said i6 every amount of drugs is tabulated. If there is a question of public safety in such a situation, i~ the number of officers is increased. is Raymond Jax, Waterfront Jazz Committee -requested that the Transient Occupancy Tax i9 funds be very helpful to that group. They are going to welcome the Schooner Alma to 20 Petaluma with Jazz Concert. They are continuing to work on jazz events along the 2i waterfront with the benefits of such activities to go to youth activities. 22 Beth Grimes -requested the Council approve the Domestic Violence grant listed on the 23 agenda. The City needs to have this money and to add a TRO Clinic to the City's,various 2a activities. The grant is for one year and the City will have to look at it during budget time as 2s an ongoing project. She is opposed to the State's proposal to take Vehicle License Fee 26 monies from local governments. If they want to keep starving local governments, you should 2~ all join in protesting. 2a Kay Russo -she also supported the Domestic Violence grant. She said there is a need to 29 - - recognize that substance abuse is part of domestic violence. We need to wake up and 3o recognize the issue exists. We need to make sure public safety continues. Make public safety 31 funding your priority. 32 COUNCIL COMMENT 33 NR -the League of California Cities has indicated the Vehicle License Fee program $2.1 34 Million reduction will not be this year. She asked the City Manager to let the Council know 3s what the status is by the end of the week. She referred to a NWP RR letter aslang us to 36 come to the table and talk. The Council needs to talk and establish a position. The Council 37 should review the advanced telecommunications available. The Council agreed that a letter 3a should be written Ke_v to abbreviations: JH-Councilrrember Jane Hamilton, I<'R-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-Mavor ~1~1. Patricia Hilligoss, ~rL1~Councilmember Mary Stompe Df~'- Courci/member David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ,~Llf-V ce ~Llayor Blatt Maguire . - ._ ... Page 48, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 1 MS Linda Buffo has said that Putnam Plaza is doing better. Off cer Terry Campbell is doing s well at Putnam Plaza. He should be recognized for that: 3 DK asked for an update on the Cross Creek problems. City Manager Stouder said the memo < in the Friday packet was the most recent information he had. Planning Director Tuft has s spoken to the developer who is willing to work on the problems. The only thing left to 6 discuss with him is a drainage Swale. ~ MINUTES a The minutes of the July 6 meeting were approved as submitted. 9 The minutes of the July 13 meeting were approved as submitted. to CONSENT CALENDAR ^. 11 The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City lz Council and staffwere enacted by one motion which was introduced by NR and seconded by 13 MM. la Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mavor Maguire, l~fayor Hilligoss 1 s Noes: None 16 Absent: None 17 RESO.98-.135 NCS la CLAIMS AND BILLS 19 Resolution 98-135 NCS approving Claims and Bills #74332 to #74739. so RESO.98-136 NCS it RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT -BURGUNDY COURT' Zz Resolution 98-136 NCS establishing a Permit Parking Zone encompassing Burgundy Court. z3 This action was requested by the residents to address parking intrusion from the adjacent 2a Corona Ranch Apartments. zs RESO.98-137 NCS z6 WOODSIDE VII,LAGE FENCE 27 Resolution 98-137 NCS amending the Woodside Village Subdivision Planned Unit District 2a Landscaping and Fencing Development Standards to authorize fencing in the quad-lots to be z9 constructed in alternate locations subject to the consensus of all 4 property owners in the 3o quad, and approval of a fence permit from the Planning Department. tev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton. . PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilli oss. NR-Councilmember Nancy Read S MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M~! ice Mavor.~latt,~laguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 49 I RESO.98-138 NCS s BENSON ESTATES STORM DRAIN REIMBURSEMENT AGMT. s Resolution 98-138 NCS of intent to authorize a storm drain reimbursement agreement for a Glenn E. Kierstead within Benson Estates Subdivision on Bodega Avenue. The developer s has constructed anoff-site storm drain in connection with this subdivision and which will 6 benefit other properties. The maximum refund due shall not exceed $63,293.69. The ~ agreement shall be valid for ten (10) years or until the maximum amount of refund has been a returned to Mr. Kierstead. s RESO.98-139 NCS to ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION I~"EES II Resolution 98-139 NCS setting Annual Assessment for Administrative Costs for assessment Iz districts as follows: I3 Assessment Dist. Nbr. Parcels 1998-99 Assessment I4 Corona Ely AD 58 Parcels $14,900.00 Is Refunding AD 1996 210 Parcels $38,764.00 I5 Redwood Bus. Pk. 8 Parcels $4,742.40 I7 Lakeville Hwy. AD 61 Parcels $6,218.G0 IS RESO.98-140 NCS I9 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GRANT so Resolution 98-140 NCS accepting the OCJP Domestic Volence Grant Award of $90,000. ZI The City will match this award with $44,700 of General Fund Monies. zz * * '~ * * End of Consent Calendar * * * * * z3 RESO.98-141 NCS za REJECT BIDS -OAK HILL, PARK PROJECT Zs Resolution 98-141 NCS rejecting all bids for the Oak 1~Fill Phase II project and authorizing z6 staff to re-advertise for bids. There was one bid received on this project; the bid came in z~ $50,000 over budget. Staff will seek bids Later in the season when the contractors are not so zs busy. PT asked if the matter has been reviewed by the Recreation Commission. It has. z9 Introduced by JH and seconded by MM. 3o Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor 3I HilIigoss 32 Noes: None 33 Absent: None Kev to ubbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Counc•'Imember .~'ancti~ Read PH-,LlavorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember.ltary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, P7'OR-Councilmemoer Pamela Torliatt MM-Yce Mayor Matt Maguire Page 50, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 r RESO.98-142 NCS z CHARTER AIVIENDNIENT COUNCIL COMPENSATION 3 CALL SPECIAL ELECTION a Resolution 98-142 NCS calling and giving notice of a special election to be held November 3 s for submittal of a measure on Council compensation. The wording of the ballot question 6 follows: ~ Compensation for Councilmembers and Mayor s Shall there be an amendment to Petaluma City Charter Section 19 to become effective 9 immediately and read: "Compensation. The Councilmembers shall each receive to compensation of $500 a month [currently $5 a meeting with a maximum of $20 a month]. it The Mayor shall receive compensation of $750 a month [currently $10 a meeting with a is maximum of $40 a month]"? t3 Introduced by MM, seconded by DK. to Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayer Hilligoss is Noes: Read*, Stompe t 6 * Every Councilmember know when they ran for off ce that the pay was t ~ SS/meeting. ~ s Absent: None t9 RESO.98-143 NCS Zo CHARTER AMENDr'YENT COUNCIL COMPENSATION ~~ CONSOLIIDAT'E zz Resolution 98-143 NCS requesting the Board of Supervisors to consolidate a Special ~ Municipal Election on a measure relating to Council Compensation on the November 3, 2a 1998, Statewide General Election. (for wording see Reso. 98-140 NCS). Introduced by MM, zs seconded by DK. 26 Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss 2~ Noes: Read#, Stompe zs * Every Councilmember know when they ran for office that the pay was 29 $5/meeting. 3o Absent: None 31 RESO.98-144 NCS 3z CHARTER AMENDMENT COUNCIL, COMPENSATION 33 ARGUMENTS I)UE AUGUST 14 3a Resolution 98-144 NCS authorizing submission of written arguments for the ballot measure 3s on Council Compensation to be on the November 3 ballot. The 300 word maximum 36 arguments are due 1n the Office of the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on August 14. It was agreed 3 ~ that Councilmembers Hamilton, Keller, Torliatt, Vice Mayor Maguire and Mayor Hilligoss 3a would write the argument. Introduced by MM, seconded by DK. 39 Ayes: Keller, Torlian, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss ao Noes: Read*, Stompe Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MavorM. PalriciaHilligoss, M.~CouncilmemberMarvStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~LL'~f-I/ice Mgvor:Llatt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 51 t * Every Councilmember know when they ran for office that the pay was z $5/meeting. 3 Absent: None a ~ RESO.98-145 NCS s CHARTER AMENDMENT COUNCIL COMPENSATON 6 CITY ATTORNEY IMPARTIAL A1+TALYSIS IDUE AUGUST 17 ~ Resolution 98-145 NCS directing the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis of the a ballot measure on Council Compensation for the November 3 ballot. Introduced by MM, 9 seconded by DK. to Ayes: Keller, Torliait, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor I~illigoss t t Noes: Read*, Stompe iz * Every Councilmember know when they ran for office that the pay was t3 $5/meeting. to ~ Absent: None is RESO.98-146 NCS t6 CHARTER AMENDMENT COUNCIL COMPENSATION t~ REQUEST FOR FISCAL AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE MEASURE is .Resolution 98-146 NCS referring the measure on Council Compensation placed on the t9 November 3, 1998, ballot to staff for reports on Fiscal and other impacts of the measure. zo Introduced by MM, seconded by DK. zt Ayes: Keller, TorIiatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss zz Noes: Read*, Stompe 23 * Every Councilmember know when they ran for office that the pay was za $5/meeting. zs Absent: None z6 STATUS REPORT z~ COR7IVIUNTI'I' ORIENTED POLICING AND PROBLEM SOLVING zs Since November of 1996, staff has been sent to many classes to be trained. The department 29 has submitted a number of grant applications to increase personnel and support community 3o policing. The Police have opened an office called a `storefront' in the Washington Square 3t Shopptng Center. The department is working with many community groups to increase 3z police communication with the community. The Petaluma Drug Abuse Resistance Education 33 ~ - (D.A.RE.) project continues. Police staffis working to improve communication between the 34 Planning Department and the Police Department. There are Reserve Community Service 3s Officers who assist with department work, with the Citizens Academy and with 36 Neighborhood Watch groups. The Department offers a Chaplaincy program to provide 37 counselling and guidance to personnel and their families. The Youth Police Academy is 3s under development. Chief Parks said that the POST groups has been looking to put 39 resources in a local department to be a model department. They have selected Petaluma to ao develop a model policing program for the state. Introduced by NR, seconded by MM to at accept the status report. az Ayes: Keller, Toriiatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor a3 Hilligoss as Noes: None Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmeinoer Nancy Read PHMavorM. PatriciaHi/ligoss, M.S-Councilmemoer,~farvStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Tvrliatt MM irce Mayor Matt Maguire Page 52, Vol.. 32 July 20, 1998 t Absent:. None s STATUS REPORT 3 YOUTH SERVICE PROGRAM AND OTHER ISSUES a The Department has not been able to obtain funding for youth services. It will continue. to try s to work with the youth .through the schools, Petaluma Peoplt; Services Center, Beat the Heat 6 and the proposed Youth Academy. HCu as been looking at this particularly in regard to ~ substance abuse. Introduced by NR, seconded by MM to accE;pt the status report. g Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Ma or Ma 9 Hilligoss Y quire, Mayor to Noes: None t t Absent: None ti RESO.98-Y4Z NCS t3 YOUTH POLICE CITIZENS ACADEMY is Resolution 98-147 NCS authotizirtg the development of a Yduth Police Citizens Academy. is Twelve 2% to 3 hour workshops have been planned. Steve Evans has helped to develop the t6 program. There will be a meeting in the Petaluma Mill about this academy soon. PT said she 17 hoped the newspapers picked up this information. This is coninunity building. It is good to is see the happening. Mike Cook has worked on the project as well. Introduced by NR, t9 seconded by MM. 20 Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Ma zi Hilligoss quire, Mayor 2= Noes: None ~ Absent: None sa RESO.98-148 NCS 2s TOT FUNDING ~6 Resolution 98-148 NCS approving Transient Occupancy Tax funding, partial allocation for 27 the Petaluma Adobe Association - up to $3,000 (including $500 for Transit services) -and the zg Great Petaluma Quilt Show - $8,000 and $3,000 to the- Jazz Festival described by Mi. Jax s9 during Public Comment. It was noted the Quilt Show had asked for $4,500 of that earlier 3o figure to be used later in the fiscal year. Also approved was $5,000 for visuals and a TV 3i contract. All the foregoing relate to events happening the 7th, 8th and 9th of August. 32 Introduced~by NR, seconded by JH. 33 Aver: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayoi Ma 34 Hilligoss guise, Mayor , 3s Noes: None 36 Absent: None 3 % MOSOUTTO ABATEMENT DISTRICT LAND 3s Staff requested that the City Council authorize that a letter of interest in the property at 556 39 North McDowell Blvd. be sent to the Mosquito Abatement District prior to August 23. Staff ~o will complete further research into their to be abandoned property and coordinate potential at uses and examine funding sources for future Council consideration. It was moved by MM Kev to abbreviations: JH-Couneilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor:~1. Patricia I~illigoss, MS-CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Couircilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mavor Matt ~laguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 53 i and seconded by PT to ask staff to send a letter to the Mosquito Abatement District saying z the City is interested in the site. 3 Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor a Hilligoss s Noes: None s Absent: None ~ ITRBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY s PH: Then we'll go to item number thirteen, continued hearing and discussion and 9 possible action regarding Urban Growth Boundary. io FRED: Madam Mayor, we put this both on this afternoon's agenda and this evening's 11 , agenda to allow you aS much time as you'd like to have to discuss among yourselves iz clarifications or direction. The Planning Director will soon be here, I'm assured, to answer 13 -- any questions. She put in front of you some amended language a5 a result of some is conversations I've had with some of you regarding clarification, and hopefully that will is answer some of those questions and others. But this is your time. I would assume that you'd 16 want to break at five or so, so you can come back this evening to a cool room and fresh to 17 continue other deliberations, unless you have a decision you want to make this afternoon on is it. You have to come back tonight anyways. 19 PH: Yes. zo FRED: So we're prepared for testimony or answer any questions? zi PH: No, I think we'll let Pamela. zz PTUFT: I won't bore you with the details on the history, because we have provided z3 to the City Manager's office updates on the UGB effort about every other week. So we za won't dwell on that. zs The contents of the ballot measure include a number of options, and I thought just for more z6 of the public's viewpoint or interest, I would run through those very quickly. The first of the z~ three options available to you this afternoon and evening are the term limits to the Urban zs Growth Boundary. Option number one provides for an urban growth boundary that z9 coincides with the term of our existing General Plan. It does provide for a statement that 3o could be incorporated to state the intent of the City Council to present another urban growth 31 -- boundary before the voters, either.before or subsequent to the adoption of a new General . 3z Plan. It would also include an action, if interested by this council, that could be taken to 33 formally request to the County Board of Supervisors requesting that they in good faith honor 3a the community separators in the intervenung period until we prepare a new General Plan. 3s Option two presented to you for your consideration is a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary or 36 until twelve months following the adoption of a new General Plan in the twelve months 37 following the adoption of the General Plan. That does not preclude the Citv Council at that 3s time taking the option to present an UGB before-the adoption of a General Plan. So we offer 39 that for your consideration. ao MM: l~fadam Mayor, if I may, Pamela. Kev to abbreviations.• JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-:favor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Marv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt A•L~!-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 54, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i PTUFT: Certainly. z MM: I read that to be twelve months or more. I thought the way I was reading the s document you were trying to give yourself one year so that after the UGB was adopted you'd a have sufficient time to get it on the ballot;without having ~a` less than twelve-month window. s Is that correct? 6 PTUFT: That's correct. And if the council in seat at that time chose not to, twelve ~ months would allow. a voter initiative or citizens' initiated a ballot measure to be circulated a and signed in .order to actually place it by the citizens rather than the council, if the council 9 chose at that point in time not to place it on the ballot. io MM: Of course, actually, though,. there's nothing in the wording here that prevents a , i i citizen-sponsored initiative to come up at any time. . iz PTUFrT: At any time. Or a couned. None of the options preclude a council or a 13 citizens' group or a single citizen... is MM: Or after a new General Plan. is PTUFT: Exactly right. Garnered enough signatures they could present an urban i6 growth boundary ballot measure, that's a mouthful, at any time. Option three states adopt a i~ twenty-year Urban Growth Boundary as is with the exceptions as recommended or'included ra in the packet before you. Once going beyond the term limits, we move into the exceptions of 19 which five are included. The first is the size reduction, which allows the City Council at any zo time, without going to the ballot, to reduce the Urban Growth Boundary. The Planning u Commission did not receive or did not achieve formal consensus on anything but there appear zz to be a strong consensus that this was unnecessary and was unnecessary and should be z3 eliminated. Option two is the affordable. I'm .sorry. Option one is included on page, I want za to say -six, yes. Option six, or option one on page six. If you put boxes around formatting it zs drops your line numbers and I apologize. We couldn't get past that last week. I'm sure z6 there's a secret in the computer somewhere, but the star of the show at our office wasn't able z~ to figure it out. So as soon as you enter into a box you lose your line numbers. It's towards zs the bottom of the page. z9 NR: Probably can't overlap. 3o PTIJFT: Right. It's overlapping format instructions. Right: So, option two 31 addresses tfie affordable housing clause. We do recommend this. It is provided to allow the 3z option where and when needed to comply with the state law. Given our excellent track 33 record in this area, I don`t believe this will ever be in need of use, but it certainly indicates to sa the public and to the state that we are serious about our affordable housing programs. 3s Option three provides a takings exception. This again is recommended and it offers the City 36 Council an, exception in the off chance of anon-constitutional takings claim. Option four is 3~ transit oriented or industrial. development. This option was developed based on substantial 3s input from the Planning Commission and Council to address future job generation .goals 39 and/or needs. Option five is the agriculture, agriculture support or related development. ao This option was developed at the request of council to address the future impacts to our ~~ existing ag support businesses. In response to those concerns, I prepared some overhead ~~ revisions that I can go into this afternoon. They're quite brief. Or we can save them for this Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, 14R-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-MavorM. Patricia Hilligoss, AfS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MLI--Vice Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 55 i evening when we're televised, whichever is your priority for this afternoon. If you'd like to s get into just actual location of the boundary discussion, you were each given a map and pens, s or I have the pens. We can begin to draw lines or we can go directly into the very brief a revisions. Televised live? s MM: Yes, we're back on television, yes. 6 PTUFT: Pm song. I didn't realize that. Okay then, forget everything I just said. ~ And I'm going to move nght down here. 8 NR: Madam Mayor? 9 PH: Yes. io NR: Before Pam puts up any graphics; I think it was about 11 o'clock last Monday ii .. night when I said the first thing that I think we need to look at is what the length of the Urban iz Growth Boundary is going to be. Because that predicates everything. And unless you've got 13 variations on twenty and variations on seven and variations on existing; I don't know what is you're going to show me that hasn't answered that question yet. is PTUFT: The ballot measure that's before you for consideration is kind of like a ala 1s carte menu. 0 i~ NR: Cafeteria plan. is PTUFT: It's a cafeteria plan, if you will. You can select any of the term options and i~ then move into the exceptions. You could propose or conclude or achieve consensus to zo include the five exceptions on any of the three terms. Or you could say if this is going to be a zi seven-year and we're going to discuss exceptions, we're going to discuss urban growth ii boundary locations, we're going to discuss the entire gambit of growth through the new s3 General Plan, then I would offer to you that very few exceptions are really needed for a za seven-year plan. So if you choose option one, then I would say the exceptions are not as zs important. Then if you take option two or three of the term limit options. If you move into 26 the options for atwenty-year plan, then the outside legal counsel and the staff strongly z~ recommends that you incorporate all of the five options or exceptions that were offered to za you for inclusion in the ballot measure. But we would be glad to discuss those individually 29 with you. Chris Taylor, representing Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, is here this afternoon 3o and will join us this evening. Richard Taylor is out of the state for the weekend until 3 i _ tomorrow. 3z MM: Madam Mayor? 33 PH: Yes. 34 MM: Yeah, I'd like to have the Urban Growth Boundary be long enough to encircle the 3s whole town. Could we see what staffhas to show? 36 PT'LTFT: Certainly. The clarification. and amendments. The first is page five, line 3; ten. Pro~ldes for some clarity. We are inserting on line ten amend to read but shall not 3a include and then adding the words providing municipal or public services to, to fully explain Kev to abbreviations.• JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember ,Nancy Read PH-:~lavor~l. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember.llaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~Ltll--Lice flavor Matt ,1 faguire Page 56, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 r that we recognize urban development would not include expansion of school services that are s adjacent to the urban separator, provision of public services to public uses, such as a s firehouse, such as a recreation facility outside the urban limit line that was .deemed to be a a public service. Page five, Iine twelve, is proposed to be amended to add that sentence said s municipal or public services or facilities can be developed beyond the UGB to provide 6 services within the UGB, I said inside or you could use within, the UGB. That is to ~ recognize that the city may now or in the future own property or facilities outside the UGB, s which may be utilized to provide services inside the UGB. 9 PTOR: Madam Mayor? ro PH: Yes. r r PTOR: As opposed to providing for services outside the UGB. _. _ r2 PTUFT: Right, We would not create a .municipal service outside the UGB that r3 would serve outside but that service might be brought, municipal service, might be brought r4 back in to service citizens within the UGB. rs PTOR: Thank you. 16 PTt-~'T: Such as a sewer, wastewater treatment facility or a park, or something else. r~ Page seven, number one, again, I apologize for losing line numt~ers. Line one is amended to 18 add the word sufficient in the third line before evrdenee, so that the land is immediately i9 adjacent to existing comparably developed areas and the applicant for the designation has zo provided sufficient evidence that the fire department and so on. Moving onto page nine, 2C, zr towards the. bottom of the page, would be worded, amended to read that the land to be z' included is immediately adjacent to one, the existing UGB and, and then amended to add the ~ words can be provided, parentheses, two, serviceable water and sewer connections. Right ~; below that, 2D, third line, .that the land to be included meets the intent of the General Plan =5 pertaining to the preservation of open space or urban separator edges at the edge of the, and 26 eliminate the words city limits, because it's confusing, and add proposed expansion area. 27 Pardon? 28 PTOR: Proposed UGB expansion 29 PTT: That'd be wonderful. aI think that's how I typed it, yes. Instead of 3o proposed UGB expansion area. That was the intent, wasn't necessarily, it wasn't adequately 3i clear that one could amend the UGB or propose to amend the UGB and not necessarily 3= annex immediately. And that was the assumption when we wrote it as city limits. In addition 33 to those minor text .amendments, the outside legal counsel has been struggling, if you will, 34 with the intent of Policy 3.1. 3s PTOR: Madam~Mayar? I'm sorry, Pam. 36 PTUFT: Yes. 3 % PTOR: Before you jump to that, the. last .two amendments that you: talked about on page 3s nine; 2C and page nine, 2D, would also, I believe, pertain to page 11, C and D. hev to abbreviations: JH-CouncilmemberJane Hamilton, NR-Councilnaember Nancy Read PH-ltlayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, ~f~C'ouncilnaemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mavor,~fatt ,Llaguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 57 I PTUFT: I believe so. Yes. ~ The wording would be the exact same within the z exception five. Thank you. I have a note on that but I didn't type it. 3 PTOR: I wanted to make sure that that was clear so we're consistent. a PTUFT: Certainly. Bouncing back to page five, address the immediate need would s be amendment that was just presented to you on line 10 and 11. Over the weekend, Richard s Taylor addressed his concerns. I'm going to put that up. It's the first page of one and a half ~ pages, with a rewrite of 3.1. And let me explain just briefly, is we have outside sewer and a water policies that are adopted by the City Council and were adopted by resolution one in '89 9 and one in '91. And an Urban Growth Boundary with service policies within it would Io supersede that, but you have, we have, a good deal of water and sewer services extended II beyond our city limits lines within an area called the water service boundary area and through Iz pnvate agreements to address health and safety issues. And the outside legal counsel and I I3 _ have both struggled with the need to continue to provide health and safety services to Ia existing development. The draft in the text in the ballot measure was drafted by staffwith the Is intent to continue to allow some flexibility. The outside legal counsel addressed that in a I6 more legal manner by the verbiage that's presented. It is also copied in the handout I gave I7 you today that's titled Qualifications and Amendments. It's written in text there, so that is Is the exact same thing. It just provides for repetition of those policies from resolutions I9 adopted in '89 and '91 to provide the flexibility without jeopardizing those resolutions or zo finding them in conflict. Last, the outside legal counsel, in all defense of their need to add zI this at the very last minute, I wrote the ag support clause quite late last week and didn't have zz a great deal of chance to discuss it with Richard or Chris. Speaking with Chris this monung, z3 actually, earlier this afternoon, she expressed a concern that we do not in any of our land use za regulatlons provide for a definition of agricultural support business, which I agree is a zs concern. So Chris and I have not reviewed this, and so if she kicks me, it's because she z6 doesn't agree with my draft. And what I would suggest is that we defer discussion on this z~ until Chris and I have a chance to meet between this afternoon and this evening's meeting, zs and add perhaps some extended legalese, I would be glad to receive continents if this meets z9 the intent of the counsel. An industrial manufacturing or mixed use project which is 3o determined by the city to support the Sonoma County agricultural community and is 3I dependent upon munlclpal services to exist. Function to operate, to... 3z DK: Since the city serves both Mann and Sonoma, you might want to make that... 33 PTUFT: I thought about that, but I couldn't think of an agricultural activity that 3a _ _ exists only in Mann that doesn't exist in Sonoma as well. 3s DK: Well, I'm just concerned about specialized markets... 36 PTUFT: I'd be glad to add Marin. 37 DK: That might be useful to be able to support in town. 3a MM: Maybe we could say to support the regional agricultural committee, community. 39 PTLTFT: Certainly. ao MM: Although industrial manufacturing or mixed use, does that cover everything? Kev to abbreviations: JH-CouneiJmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmemper Nancv Read PH-alayorM. Patricia HiJligvss, MS-Councilmember:~Iarv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~tLlf--mice Mavor,~t~fatt Maguire Page 58, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i FRED: Yeah, I'm sure you want to start identifying counties as agriculture, or connected z with agriculture, regional agriculture, agriculture, period. s PTLJFT: That's great. a FRED: Is enough. s MM: Madam Mayor. Pamela, you know, I can. see that, an agricultural support business s may provide a service in which .case would it be called industrial, manufacturing or mixed ~ use? s PTLJFT: There is, yes, I mean, if you, if something happened to one of our 9 creameries, that is technically an industrial use. io MM: -What if there's just like a pick up service or something, it's not, I guess you could u call, well, that would be trucking and then, yeah, a mowing service or something. iz PTUFT: I would not necessarily state that they would need, I think that's, why I is wrote as determined by the city. A mowing service aught not necessarily need municipal ~; services to exist. is And I was trying to offer you some discretion or the discretion of subsequent councils to say io well, the livestock auction yard does need services there, or to allow some flexibility or some z % discretionary action by council in the future to say this is real important to ags and it does is need municipal services, therefore we want to make the exception. 19 PTOR: Madam Mayor, also, I guess it also reflects on the fact that it's only if those .o services can't be provided within the urban growth boundary. So if it's a mowing service, you .~ would, I mean, unless it's an absolutely huge mowing service, you should be able to provide for that within the UGB. So I think that finding needs to be:.. ~ ~ PTUFT: Going back to page ten, you would still have to find the findings based on .; substantial evidence of one A, B, C and D. So I'd be glad to answer any questions or work ~s on anything between now and seven o'clock when you... :5 MS: Madam Mayor. I need to clarify option one. To me, it looks like a compromising Y plan. On page two, jumping back. But I have a question. If we proceed with a General s Plan, a ne~General Plan prior to 2005, the end of 2005, the way the language is written, say, we have a new General Plan in 2003, and we'd have to wait until 2006 or put it before the :~ vote of the people again? i . PTLTFT: The way it's worded, it would take effect 2006 or earlier. You would __ represent that to the voters for basically readoption. .3 MS: Okay. And then... PTUFT: Assuming if it was identical, then you could wait until 2006 because there would be internal consistency between the two documents. .s MS: Rieht. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-1LfavorM. PatriciaHilligoss, 1Lf~CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilm~+nber David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~LiM-iT ce Mawr _tfatt .Llaguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 59 i PTUFT: Or the two actions. Or if it differed you would want to put before the s voters in a reasonable period of time. 3 MS: Thank you. a MM: Madam Mayor? s PH: Yes. 6 MM: On option two on page three, Pamela, reading down about the fourth or fifth line, ~ well, it's starting out at the beginning, this Measure Designates the urban limit line established s in the General Plan as a cites UGB to .remain in effect through 2018, unless the city adopts a 9 new General Plan before that time. And the city council places a UGB measure on the ballot io for consideration either prior to or following the adoption of a new General Plan. Then you i i go down, skipping the next sentence and onto the sentence after that, this measwe provides tz ,. that the UGB established herein will expire at the time of the first statewide election held at 13 least twelve months following the adoption of a new General Plan. If where you put either is prior to or following the adoption of a new General Plan, I read that as being in conflict with is the statement will expire at the time of the first statewide election held at least twelve months 16 following. i~ PTUFT: Placing it on before the city council adopts a new General Plan is entirely is optional. What this says is if you don't place it on before or within twelve months after, then 19 the existing one expires. So the first sentence allows you clearly the option, but the second zo one says if you do neither then the existing UGB expires twelve months after the new zi General Plan. . zz MM: I guess the part that, the prior to, for consideration prior to, sounds like a conflict z3 to expires, you know, after the twelve months. I know that you still... za PTUFT: It would if it was reversed. It would be...I understand what you're saying, zs because the original draft, the way we first wrote it, allowed you to put it on before or after z6 and the outside legal counsel had a real hard time with that. So they preferred it to be, and I z7 understand after numerous discussions with Richard, that I understand why. za The option unless the city council places an UGB measure on it for consideration either prior z9 to, so if the council developed a new General Plan with an urban growth boundary, proposed, 3o and before you adopted the General Plan, you said, or subsequent council, said, you know, 31 . _ we'd like to touch base with the voters, let's put this proposed UGB out. You could do it 3z before you adopt your General Plan. That would supersede the UGB that is put in place, 33 assuming it's adopted this November. But if you put it on the ballot before the General Plan 34 and it's defeated, then this would still be in place, this first urban growth boundary would be 3s in place until twelve months after, which would give you an option of quickly developing 36 another ballot measure and doing it after, massaging your General Plan to make it more 37 palatable to the public so that they could adopt it, or just letting this ride and it would expire. 3s MM: I understand that that is how the mechanism works, but if, you know, since we 39 know anybody, any counsel, or any, you know, group that gathers enough signatures can put ao a measure on the ballot at any time, I'm thinking that, you know, the prior to, just the words ai prior to, tend to confuse the clarity of this option, and I don't know that it's necessary to have 1C'ev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane. Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-,tlayor ~f. Patricia .Nilligoss, 1LIS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ALIT--Tice ~ltm~or,~tatt ~llaguire Page 60, Vol. 32 July 20, 1498 i it in there to prove that we have that we can do what we know we can do. So I'm just z thinking... s PTUFT: That's not the wording in the ballot. Okay. The prior to is not in the a ballot. That's just for me trying to explain all of the options that are available to you. On s page four and starting on, leading onto page five is the actual boxed in ballot measure. And it s would say maintain a parcel specific urban growth boundary for.. Option two would read ~ December 31, 2018 or until the first statewide election held a~X least twelve months following s the adoption of a new General Plan. So the prior to or anything is not in there. That was 9 just... io MM: That was the explanatory part of the staff report. . it PTLJFT: Explanatory as part of the staff report. iz MM: Sounds good to me. Thanks, Pamela. i3 PTUFT: You're welcome. is MM: Madam Mayor, do we have speakers? is PH: Yes. i6 MM: From the public? i~ PTLTFT: Thank you. is PH: Vctor Chechanover? i9 VC: Madam Mayor. Mr. Goldstein, having heard what lie had to say, I would like to zo let him speak and then I will speak after him. zi PH: Okay. zz RUBEN GOLDSTEIN: Don't touch the mike. ~ PH: No, I think it's okay now. za RG: I~cnow we've had trouble with the mike before. Madam Mayor, members of the zs city council; I've addressed you before. 11iiy primary purpose to come here before you this z6 morning or ibis afternoon, rather, is not to ask you to or to remind' you but to have you recall z~ the letter I addressed to Pamela and which you had copies of that letter, identifying a specific zs area outside of the city limits that not necessarily is entitled to be brought before the voters of z9 Petaluma, before their acceptance of this area. into the Urban Growth Boundary. Before I go 30 on any further, I am Ruben Goldstein. 31 I live in Penngrove, the address is 500 Orchard Lane. This is a unique situation for the 3~ growth of Petaluma. The property in question lies north of the Redwood Business Park. It's 33 dust outside of the maximum stretch of the. Denman .flat area that usually floods. Now, I have 3~3 lived on that property for 51 years. Just before they put the freeway in, the California State Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-li~tayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK-,Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Lill-f-mice Mawr .Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 61 i engineers and the U.S. people came into our neighborhood and asked us the flow of the flood 2 waters off the hill. That would be Meacham Hill m the area just above the flatland there. 3 How did that water flow? And we gave them, because they were going to put the dam in a there, and the dam being identified as the highway 101. We spoke to them and we walked s the property and we showed them the flow of the water. That gave them the opportunity to 6 provide appropriate culverts under the freeway so that that water would run off. Now, I ~ bring this up because as long as I have lived there, raised my family there, it has always s flooded. I hear people address you saying that this area, because of the development in this s area, is causing the Petaluma City to flood. I don't--I disagree with them totally. I have seen io Petaluma grow. We have lived with the Petaluma people. We know many of the residents of ii Petaluma, and I've always maintained that when they vvrthdrew the Army Corps of Engineers iz that by that they were not keeping the Petaluma River flowing, not only at low tide but at 13 high tide to ease the flooding in the upper reaches. Again, I am here to let you know. Let is me address the uniqueness of our area. Back in 1962, the City of Petaluma addressed the is _ residents outside of the city limits to help them finance the sewer availability that was i6 installed after the freeway was put in. That was in 1962. And there were many of us in the i~ area who went along and we allowed the assessment of our property to establish the Denman is Assessment District no. 6, and the conclusion of the construction of the sewer system along 19 the freeway, they had solicited or they had received in the assessment more funds than was so necessary. The construction was completed in 1972. And fortunately, the excess or the zi surplus funds was redistributed to those who participated in the assessment. You have a zz letter that was addressed to me and my wife identifying the amount of the funds. Now, that z3 was as an enclosure of the letter that I addressed to Pamela. But we cannot ignore the fact za that a Denman Assessment District no. 6 exists. And this entitles those participants access or zs reserve space in the Petaluma sewer system. I can go on and elaborate more, but again this is z6 a unique situation. And what you're looking at is approximately 63 or just 64, maybe more z~ or less, acres that are still lie outside of the city limits that have not been developed. And I zs would like you to consider this as an exception, as an exception to the planned urban growth. ` z9 I don't know what it would take, whether we would have to incorporate or ask adrruttance 3o into the city limits. This is a moot point. But the point that I want to bring out is that we are 3 ~ entitled to the city's sewer system and I address you to remind you or have you recall. Each 3z of you have a letter that when I last addressed you indicating our position. Thank you. 33 MM: Madam Mayor? 34 PH: Yes. 3s ..: MM: Question for the speaker, Mr. Goldstein. I've been out of town for a couple of 36 weeks and I don't have the letter in front of me or if I do it's in, it's in this pile. 37 RG: It's probably in your pile. 3s MM: Would you refresh me? Are you stating that you want your property included 39 inside of the urban growth boundary? ao RG: At this point, I don't know. I'll tell you why. Because it's immaterial. We have ai paid for the access to the city sewer system already. az I~~1: You're interested just in preserving your access? Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-:Lfavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember,Lfarv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~1 Ll1 6~ice Mayor .Matt Maguire Page 62, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i RG: That's correct. Not only that. If the City Council finds it's necessary to indicate us s as one of the exceptions that should be included, we would appreciate that too. s MM: Okay. And could you please remind me just exactly where your property is. Is it a the Orchard Lane at the intersection of, this is awful small writing. s RG: There's no intersection. You go down Denman Road, just north of the Redwood 6 Business Park where they have stopped their building along Denman Road. Okay. ~ MM: Maybe, Pamela, could you maybe show us on a map or something, 'cause I mean I s have a general idea where it is but I'd like to know specifically. 9 RG: It's on the northeast corner, Pamela. She knows it well. io PTTJFZ': I've been doing some research in anticipation or in response to Mr. i i Goldstein's letter, just trying to find communication files from the SOs and the 6Qs. It's a real iz challenge. So Tom's tnbal knowledge has been incredible. is MM: What tribe is that? is PTUFT: Just to orient you to the graphic, this is Redwood Business Pazk .two and u three. The dashed line here and the solid line show the existing urban limit line and city r6 limits. Mr. Goldstein is right here. i % MM: And it's 64 acres contiguous to the urban limit line? is PT: Yes, sir. Pardon? I believe you do have frontage on the freeway as well. Yes? 19 RG: No. zo PT: I thought you...I thought there was... zi RG: Councilman Keller... zz PT: I'm sorry. :~ RCr: The original agreement, we owned 13 acres at that time, what I'm saying total, z.~ total in th~remairung part of the Denman Assessment District no. 6. That's total. I have a zs neighbor that will address you too. But he is... z6 PT: You and Mrs. Goldstein do not own 63 acres? z; RG: Well, that--let me make that clear. Okay. zs MM: Thank you, sir. z9 PTOR: Madam Mayor, I also wanted to address the speaker. Mr. Goldstein? I just 3o wanted to let you know that I understand that the flooding has occurred in Petaluma for a 3i very long time and just because Redwood Business Park is there and all the development 1Cev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember 1Vancv Read • PH-Mavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Dice Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 VoI.32, Page 63 i upstream has occurred doesn't mean that it wasn't there prior to that. And I recognize that. s Absolutely. So thank you. . 3 RG: I guess age and history helps. a ??: Madam Mayor, there's another speaker on the same subject and then I'd like to s speak after. 6 PH: Brian Grieser? ~ BRIAN GRIESER: Madam Mayor, City Council Members, my name is Brian Grieser 8 and this is Joan Grieser at 520 Orchard Lane. And we're neighbors of Mr. Goldstein's. What 9 you have there really kind of explains a little bit of what he was talking about. The enclosure, io enclosure one, addresses that assessment district and identifies the properties. And we're i i contiguous with the city limits at this time. And unlike Mr. Goldstein, we would like to be a iz part of the UGB. And first o~ we expect to be, because we do have this authorization. In l3 fact, we were told at the time when we were acquiring the property that this existed. And is only the expense of moving it from, at that time Motel 6 to our house, prevented'us from is having city water. At least, when we called up the city, it was exorbitant. Now, of course, i6 the business parks have moved a little closer and we'd expect it to be a lot less. And our i % concerns really are that should we have a problem, we have an engineering perk, and should is we have a problem we want to make sure that we be included. And this is not really possible i9 in the short term anyway, unless we're part of the UGB. So we feel the precedence is already so set and that we should be included. z~ PTOR: Madam Mayor? I believe in the draft ballot measure, it includes exceptions in case z~ of an emergency or health hazards. ~ BG: Right. But we would like to be, not because of emergency, because we want to be ~a if the price is right. And we might just go ahead and not want to be included, but we couldn't ~s be included if we were outside. And this way here, we could be. z6 PTOR: Thank you. r BG: And we're also part or right next to the city limits. And of course this is to our zs advantage, frankly, to be a part of the city. And this is another concern that we have, you ~ know, and certainly is something that we are thinking of in the future. We thought about that so really twenty years ago when we bought the property. But it continues and we want it to be 3i - - a viable concern for us. 3. MM: Mr. Grieser? 33 BG: Right. 34 MM: Does your parcel. straddle Orchard Lane or is it just on the southwest... ss BG: It does not straddle. It borders Orchard Lane and the piece of property that's in 36 the city. So if you Look at that drawing there. 3 ~ MIVs: Its the parcel where the 42 is circled. Kev to aboreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, ~tiR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MavorM. Patricia Hilligoss, M~Councilmember.ltary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MALI-i/ice Mavor Matt Maguire Page 64, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i BG: That's correct. s MM: Okay. Just up to Orchard Lane. s . BG: And you see that city line urban service line, that piece of property goes to the a freeway. s MM: Okay. And, then is that 41, is that Mr. Goldstein's? 6 BG: Forty-one is a part of Mr. Goldstein's. He has three acres and there's ten acres ~ outside of that. a MM: Thank you. 9 BG: "I would just like to reiterate the facts that we did pay to get into the sewer system. io We do have reserve space and I don't .feel that you should have to go to the City of Petaluma i i and ask the voters to approve it. I think that since we -are entitled to it, we paid for it, I think iz it's up to you to do the nght thing. Okay. Thank you. 13 NR: Madam Mayor? A question for Mr. HARGIS. Just very briefly, could. you state i; for the record the Petaluma Sewer District No. 6 and the parcels that have paid into it, how i ~ large that area is, what's the length of the assessment, and is it in writing that states that 16 there's promise of availability? Those types of questions, please. i % TH(TOM HARGIS): Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there were assessment is district six and nine and then the Denman combining, and those were done in the early 60s. is As I remember, the assessment district extended sewer probably from Corona Road northerly zo along McDowell. One of the districts actually brought sewer out to Corona Road from zi closer in to town. The Denman combined those districts and these properties were assessed. z. There were primary, secondary, and tertiary assessments created at that time, so if you z3 fronted onto the sewer that came by you paid the most money, these properties were tertiary, za they were far removed but the sewers were sized to accommodate their future inclusion and zs treatment by the city. So it was a very long sewer extension. Some people look at the z6 Petaluma map and. used to say kind of look like a turkey in flight with its neck stuck out, and z~ this assessment has brought the sewer and water and' some street improvements up along the zs neck towards the head on there. And so, somehow, when the urban boundary was drawn, I z9 think it followed the secondary assessed properties and somehow those few tertiary 3o properties were excluded from the urban boundary, and that's something we have learned by 31 these folks coming forward and talking to us. 3z NR: May I follow up, Madam Mayor? Then what was the fee to buy into the 33 assessment district and then what's been the monthly fee since the 60s, since it's 1998? 34 TH: I don't remember what those numbers were. The assessment district probably was 3s paid off, it was probably either a 20-year assessment, so they've probably been paid off for 36 ten years. ~' NR: So it hasn't been on your property tax bill in a while? 3a TH: No. I:ev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, ~tlS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ILlM iTCe Mmbr Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 i NR: Okay. Thank you. Vol. 32, Page 65 z TH: And that's why the most recent correspondence is a refund that was actually paid s back for an overcollection of costs. a DK: Madam Mayor? s PH: Yes. s DK: Tom, do you know in the assessment district were there any commitments to any ~ particular capacity? Or was it just you shall have the capability of being connected but there s was no usage unplied, intended, understood, or agreed to? 9 TH: I think that assessment district--I don't remember which sewer master plan those io might have been under, but they probably would have been using a master plan for guidance ii -for projected residential commercial generation rates. But at the time the district was iz formed, if there was anything it would have been referenced to some city planning document 13 of the type of plan uses, the density and probably the type of high flush toilets that were even is in use at that time. is DK: Somewhere is this, makes it go rounds, I would be interested to see if there is any 16 documentation and what kind of capacity was to be provided. Are we talking high intensity i; use in organics and volume of liquids, or are we talking residential or what land of is expectation? 19 TH: Well, it was a assessment district that was to include mainly commercial and zo industrial properties. There was some in residential, most of it was the mobile home type of zi development that was envisioned or was being utilized, but it was very much of a business zz oriented sewer district. And what kind of numbers might have been used in those days for z3 generation are pretty hard to say. As Pamela says, going through some of these records are za pretty antiquated. And they even predate me, that tells you how old they are. zs VICTOR CHECHANOVER: Victor Chechanover, 2301 Marylyn Circle. I came here z6 today to urge you to fix the urban growth boundary, same as the present urban limit line for z~ twenty years. And before the hearing I heard from Mr. Goldstein, and I realized, based on zs the effect of not. being within an urban growth boundary, the study would not have normally z9 an obligation to provide service, and I was concerned about that, and that's why I presume 3o that without even including them, that the commitment would be honored, but if that's not the 31 - - case then I would suggest that the urban growth boundary be extended to include the 3z property, the land that was intended to have sewer service. In any event, I attended the 33 workshop, the last workshop, I missed the first one because I was not m the city. However: I 3a was given all the material that had accumulated up until June and I have received material 35 since then. 36 So I feel not only as a citizen but as someone who has studied a lot of this material, and it's 3z appropriate that I come here and offer my recommendation. First of all, I would like to ask 3s you all to recommit yourself to the idea of democracy that the people know what is good for 39 them. And in view of the fact that this urban growth boundary, if it's fixed as I would suggest, ao at its present state, can be changed if it turns out that that was a mistake. Can be changed by at the people. I heard the exceptions that would be in the ordinance and I think that takes care Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaNilligoss. ~!S-Councilmember MaryStompe DIt- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M~Ll--dice Mayor;llatt Maguire Page 66, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i of .most pressing problems. Now, I heard a lot of discussion -from people at the workshop z and here at the city council .and possibly from the dais there, about why we're rushing this, we s haven't got enough information and so, forth. Well, I have a document here, it's called a a discussion paper dated June 30, 1998, ,which, I presume all Hof you have. It's headed in big s letters Projected Population and Employment, and it goes on to indicate projections up until 6 the year 2020, which is more than twenty years from today, I think. Yeah, two years more. ~ And everywhere I read, everything I .read rather, indicates that based on these projections, a which I have confidence in since they came from both ABAG and the City, and they're very 9 close. It seems to be enough land within the present boundary to provide--for residential io needs, for industrial needs and commercial needs. Now, I heard and so I feel for that reason ii alone the present urban limit line should be the urban growth boundary. Then I heard that iz while we're expanding telecom valley, we're going to need for land, we need the revenues. i3 Well, first. of all, telecom valley is a value, no question about it. But again, we are dealing is with a problem in the .Asian market, we .read at least one of these companies .has a problem is now. There's no way of telling what's going to happen in the future. In any event, if that does i6 become a problem, that's an industrial use which I believe is an exception to the fixing of the i7 boundary. Now, aS far as the revenue is concerned, I've heard this argument over and over is again. If we have more people and more business we're going to generate more revenue, but i9 no one ever talks about what it costs to provide services for all these people and all these zo businesses. We hear that there are developers fees and that takes care of the infrastructure z ~ and so forth. -: But we don't really have--I've never seen an analysis since I'm living here for the last nine z3 years, as to what it really cost to provide services to these additional people and industries. za So I think that we need the additional .revenue would be fine. Let's figure--let's start. fighting zs for more revenue from the state, but let's not kid ourselves that by just adding to the city z6 we're going to increase revenues without incurring additional expenses. Thank you. z~ PH: Glenn Allen. zs GA: Thank you. I came up from San Francisco to beat the traffic and heard the z9 meeting was on this afternoon. 3a JH: This evening, too. 31 GA: Okay. But if there's no problem it would just... 3z PTOR: You can go ahead and address us now. 33 GA: Okay. Thank you. Going way back, my parents had bought some land, if I can 34 just point to the spot, right here on Old Adobe Road near Casa Grande. And I think they'd 3s hoped that there would be residential development. I think we're talking forty or more years 36 ago, and there wasn't. 3 % And the :property was kept aS grazing property and I have a half interest with my father now, 3a who is very elderly and couldn't come up here himself. But I guess there's two things I would 39 like to mention. First of all, I do look at the paper I get from Petaluma that comes across in ~o the mail. And I really wasn`t aware that something very important was going to happen in ~i terms of an urban growth boundary until, as I remember, about ~ week before I got the notice s, of this second workshop. And it impressed me that it was very important, and in spite of f~evtoaboreviatlons: JH-CouncilmemberJaneHamilton, NR-CounrilmemberNancy Read PH-Mavor,~l. Patricia Hilligoss, M~CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M1L1--vice Mmbr Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 67 ~ certain work problems, I got up here for the workshop and the background is my father z always thought gee, this property would make a nice piece of property for a research center 3 or a high grade commercial. I've never tried to develop the property. Some people have a approached me over the years and said that's a fine piece of property to develop, but, you s know, they talked about options and contingencies and I didn't really thuilc that the time had s come for the development and maybe it never will. I'm not trying to represent that I intend to ~ develop it at any point in the future. But it is family property and I think my father's correct, a and I want to join him in saying this is property on the flatland, not on the hillside, which I 9 can understand why you'd want to protect and it's part of a scenic area. It's on the flatland. io It's not a flooding area. It is hard ground which is really good for nothing, I guess, except ii grazing or building something on it. I think it's beautiful, I`ve been out there a number of iz tunes, rt's a beautiful location. I really think that it could be developed into something that 13 would be a credit to the City of Petaluma some day, that could provide good job is opportunities, could be a beautiful development. And so what I'd like to say, it seemed to is me, if I understand the notices I've received correctly, .and what I heard at the meeting, that i6 this thing's being very rushed. Granted, I don`t know a lot of the history of what's gone on, i~ but from my perspective it just all happened all of a sudden. I came up at the workshop, I is made my pitch and there were some people there, one a developer and a real estate person at 19 the table, who also were very enthusiastic about the idea. But then I got in the mail the thing zo about where you are going to mark it, which is within. So one, Pd say it seems like it's been zi rushed and two, I think that to mark this property off for twenty years, when perhaps it could zz be very much to the advantage of the City of Petaluma. I think it's a beautiful spot for some z3 kind of development, and to rule it out, which is, I understand, what happens for twenty z~ years, I just think would be a mistake. Not that I'm saying you should develop that property, z~ but just that I think it's as the right kind of development comes to this area, the kind of z6 development where people don't want to commute to San Francisco, where businesses who z~ want to develop and have a nice piece of property, that this area is excellent. Thank you. za JH: Madam Mayor? I have a question. Did you say that you got something in the mail z9 that said we wanted to mark it within? 3o GA: No, no. If I said that, no, no. 3 i 7H: I think I might have misunderstood you. 3z GA: Yes. I can see up there and what I did get, what I meant to say was it would be 33 outside and would not be inside the urban growth boundary. So no, I understand that the 34 way it's proposed as of now, that we will be outside and that's why I'm here to say it just 3s seems to me like, and again, I haven't talked to anybody here and I've never been to the 36 planning department, I have talked to Miss Tuft about it briefly just In the last couple of 37 weeks. 3s So Iwe never made any pitch to anybody here, but I always thought that maybe someday this 39 would be a great spot, and when I got this saying It was going to be basically cut out for as twenty years, and I thought well, that's a shame, because maybe m the next twenty years you ai the council would have an opportunity, and I know, I`ve heard about you being very strict az about development. I know there's not going to be any development out there unless rt's the a3 kind that you think is going to be satisfactory to the people here and is going to be a plus for •u the community, so I'm not here trying to push anything in particular or anything otherwise. as I'm just saying when you go out there and you look at that property it just has a little rise, it's Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-,i~lgvor,~I. Patricia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Marv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torlratt M1Lf-ice .flavor Matf Maguire Page 68, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i just to me it's a great location, and it can have the kind.of development which didn't have a z lot of people, that would fit into future plans. So the reason I`m here is because I understand s it is outside your line and I would hope that you would reconsider, put it inside the line. a PTOR: Madam Mayor? s PH: I heard a voice over here. 6 DK: Thank you. How many acres is the property? ~ GA: It's between 53 and 54 acres. The history of it was, it was on the corner of Casa. s Grande and Adobe. And when my parents bought it, there was that eucal tus ove that 9 you can see, which was, I understand, about 13 acres, and that was the state wanted it, and it io was sold to the state for whatever reasons aey wanted, and so now it's basically all on .Adobe ii and I believe there was left right at the west side of the grove, there's an azea where there iz could be a driveway in if there ever was a development. So it has a tiny bit of frontage over 13 there. is DK: And the current use of the property? is GA: It has a few cattle out there. It always has. That's been the use. There's an old i6 barn out there. And it's always been grazing land. i~ DK: Thank you. is MS: Madam Mayor? Just a comment. The problem is we don't know what the best 19 uses for that property are because we haven't had the opportunity to study all of the zo properties outside of the existing urban limit line. And I guess that's where I concerned with zi the process that we're going through now is if this was m conjunction with this urban limit zz line, a 20-year urban limit line, in conjunction with a General Plan update, then we would z3 have the opportunity to study your parcel and every other parcel right outside the city limits za to see. Is that a direction we want to go to somewhere down the road? Or is it an zs inappropriate use for our city? So I guess I'm in agreement with you that I'm .concerned z6 about the process and setting an urban limit .line, a 20-year urban limit line tonight, without z~ going through that General Plan review and update. zs PTOR: Madam Mayor? I just want to say that study has been done on the areas outside z9 our urban- limit line because it was done in conjunction with our General Plan that was 3o adopted back in 1987. 31 So those uses have been looked at, but if you read the ballot measure that is before the 3z council, if your property has significant merit and the project on your property has significant 33 merit, the council has an ability through some of the exceptions that are In this urban growth 34 boundary measure to include your property. So it would take. a vote of six. out of seven 3s council members to do that. If in fact, a development proposal came up and it would be 36 decided upon the proposal's merits. And so If you read the ballot measure that we do have, it 3 % includes for a certain amount of property to be included during that 20-year period. 3a GA: It just sounds like, you know, knowing how councils do have different, you know, 39 groups and viewpoints, that six out of seven aught be, you know, very tough to make but Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, 14R-Councilmember Nancy Read . PH-~l'lavor elf. Patricia Hilligoss, ASS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 69 i obviously it leaves some opportunity. I just wanted to--I understand it's a complex matter z you have to analyze and you can't predict the future, I just wanted to--and I understand that 3 my perspective is that of a landowner, but I did appreciate the opportunity to make that a known to the council. s PTOR: Thank you. s PT: Madam Mayor? If I would tike to clarify, on page, the bottom of page nine, under ~ the option to add industrial or employment based, transit onented or industrial development, s Mr. Allen's property is not within one of the expansion areas, so it could not be, unless we 9 modify the expansion area, so I wanted to make sure if it is a direction or wish the council io that we blend those, we need to discuss about expanding those. ii MM: Madam Mayor? Pamela, the Policy 3.1 with this new revision that you gave us iz today is the part of the ordinance that would address Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Greiser's is - situation. Is it not? is PT: Policy three, yes, as amended by the attorney, yes, would be... is MM: Okay. So whether or not there are... i6 PT: It also would be--it's also addressed because it's within an expansion area. i; MM: Right. So whether or not it's included in the urban growth boundary, they will is definitely continue to get the services that they have. i9 PT: They're eligible to ask for the services. Under 3.1 they would be eligible to ask for zo their existing homes. Under the option for expansion within the expansion areas, they would zi be subject to or have the ability to ask for consideration through the administrative __ discretionary approval, not adrrumstrative meaning me, but administrative meaning the v council. 2.s MM: To expand the boundary to include them? zs PT: Right. z6 MM: Okay. z; - PT: Through an employment base type of development. za MM: Okay. Thank you, Pamela. z9 NR: Madam Mayor? >f I might call upon the City Manager and all of his brains he ao brought with him from Washington to help us. Tonight we're going to be hearing the second si public hearing of the Petaluma City Council regarding a proposed urban growth boundary. sz And I would assume, as you always have, is that people who haven't spoke before in the s; audience would speak.. Is that true? Who haven't spoke before? 31 PH: Who haven't spoken, yes. Ke_v to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, 1VR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-alavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, K1S Councilmember.tilarv Stompe Dl;- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt tlL1 t- ice Mawr Matt ,Maguire Page 70, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 ~ NR: Who haven't spoke before to speak. And then Iwas--the staff was given this s written options, and so that there can be a decision made tonight. And I don't know how 3 many people are going to show up., Would you be--are you going to ask the staff to ask us a to discuss the options before we discuss length of term? Before we discuss a physical line or s I would kind of like to know before, if anybody else cares, if we're going to do-that: 6 MM: Madam Mayor, if I may, that I think is a consensus of the council to have decision. ~ NR: So that's what I said, I'm just asking Fred, does he have any wishes to impose or s anything to help us get through this step, and maybe we could all think about it over the next 9 two hours to find out what. . io FRED: I was assuming that if you so chose, you could go down the various options that i i the Planning Department has provided in sequence and discuss them as we outlined that we iz try to make those as easily discernible and discussible as possible on a very complex subject. i3 Or you may have some other preferred way of doing it, but we tried to design. the ballot is measure grid the options with the suboptions as a waythat you could review it, if you want~to is do it that way. You don't have to do it that way, the planning director may have some other 16 suggestions on how to get through the discussion. i~ PT: Any which way you'd like. is PTOR: Madam Mayor? i9 NR: Show up at seven. 20 PTOR: I just have a couple typographical things that I wanted to suggest just real quick. si PT: Before we get into that, I would ask that I'm busily taking notes and what I will do zz between five and seven is I will print those up and get them available to the public because z3 the notice public hearing is at seven this evening. So I would ask that if the council achieves sa some movnng towards consensus that we reserve those conclusion of those consensus and is actions until this evening's public hearing. This was just to allow some convenient afternoon z6 times for public input and for the beginning of council discussion, or if you actually wanted to s~ take some time to draw lines and ask staff to do some work between five and seven. zs PTOR: Madam Mayor? On page one, ,line 16, this measure establishes the City of s9 Petaluma's, should that be an apostrophe, S, urban gowth boundary? Possibly? 3o MM: Six and one half and dozen of the other. si PTOR:Petaluma's. And then on page two, line ten, promote use, uses that foster. public 32 health and safety and productive nnvestment for farming enterprises on lands. outside 33 Petaluma's urban growth boundary, strike the "the" and say Petaluma's urban growth 34 boundary. And then on line 16, concentrate growth within ~ well-defined urban. growth 35 boundary or is that supposed to be urban boundary? That was just a couple. 36 DK: Madam Mavor: 37 PH: Yes. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane. Hamilton, PH-.~fayor~t. Patricia Hilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, ~LL~I- ice Mavor Matt Maguire NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 71 i DK: Relative to the question that was just brought up by Mr. Allen, on page nine, z Section 2E, that's the bottom of the page, where we have targeted areas for future expansion. s If the word "is" was changed to the words "should be" that's less than mandatory. Is that a correct? Intended but less than mandatory? s ~ ??: I'm going to defer. s ??: It should be located. ~ DK: I was wondering whether or not and depending on how the council feels about this s in terms of flexibility, that the land to be included is located in one of the following areas, the 9 way it currently reads, that the land to be included should be located as an alternative if that io allows essentially a statement of intent but with some flexibility to it. i i PT: If I may ask for clarifies, your intent that these be the priority areas... iz DK: Yes. 13 PT: And that anything beyond this would require some di$'erent level of scrutiny or is would not be--would be less than priority? is DK: Correct. i6 PT: Let us work on some--let Chris and I work on that, now that we know your i~ interest. is DK: If that meets with the rest of the council's interest. i9 MM: Madam Mayor, I'm comfortable with that, although I had a couple other zo discussions that Pd like to hear comment from the rest of the council regarding the haystack zi landing area and whether or not that we want that included or if that should be as a hish zz priority. I also wanted to know if the explanation of the bottom at that box that says the z3 general location of these areas is illustrated on exhibit A-2. If this is specific enough or do za we want to specify the number of acres in each area, but I'm comfortable discussing that after zs we come back from dinner, so we have time to really get into it. z6 DK: For clarity purposes, the haystack landing is what was intended for the original z~ South Boulevard specific plan, so, and that is area that is currently within the urban limit line. zs MM: Okay. z9 PT: To provide just a touch more clarification, it takes out to property line so we don't 3o dissect property lines. And it also would allow us to do some real tight open space 31 preservation of some questionable... 3z DK: My question on that, Madam Mayor, in that intent I know the current urban limit 33 line, I believe, splits that one parcel. 3~ PT: This expansion area would take it right out to that point. Kev to aboreviations.' JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, ~\7R-Councilmember:'~arrcy Read PH-:I favor,lf. Patricia Hilligoss, a1S Councilmember:lfary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ;~Lt1 Vice ;flavor Matt Maguire Page 72, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 DK: So you would include this as the entire parcel? z PT: That's why I recommended an expansion area in there so we can pick up those s wetlands. a NR: Madam Mayor, yeah, but that wetlands, that was the reason why, 'cause it was a s proposed marsh adjacent to it, and that's why we studied it under the South Petaluma s Specific Plan. ~ DK: Excuse me, if I might continue. Does that take it out, then, beyond the existing a urban limit line? 9 PT: Yes, to that point of that. That's why it's shown on ]Exhibit 2-A It's' not shown on io that Exhibit 2-A, it's shown on the Exhibit 2-A, the little one that you have. It shows dashed ii lines that ~e drawn. The intent is to be parcel specific out to those points. By this evening, i~ I'll have a better graphic. is DK: Is that--in you're looking at potential, so in looking at potential expansion areas as 1a those are noticed, some of them are within the existing urban limit lines, some of them is beyond the existing urban. i6 PT: The expansion areas, because of the recommendation is offered to provide it on i- the existing urban limit line, the expansion areas would be beyond the existing urban limit is line, because we are recommending for al] three options that the urban growth boundary be i9 fixed at the ULL. We're not recommending expansion at this point in time, and that's why we zo provided you with the flexibility of the expansions so that no expansion areas beyond our ~i existing urban Limit line is recommended with any of the options. i. DK: Okay. Thank you. ~ PT: It's a fairly conservative approach but we feel it's. assures consistency, internal ~a consistency with the General Plan and allows some greater discretionary decisions. .s DK: So essentially, then, these target areas are just that they are target areas for future s6 expansion. Priority. ~ % ??: How about Dempsey's? ~s PT: Madam Mayor, if we're done with our discussion, I want to state thank you to z9 .Fred Chapman for getting us up and running with our microphones. I really appreciate that so and the quick response time. So, thanks. si PH: Okay. I guess they're going to Dempsey's for dinner. s. ADJOURN 3s At 5:00 p.m., the Council adjourned to dinner. s~ RECONVENE 7:00 p.m. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-:LlavorM. PatriciaHilligoss, ~1S-Councilmember MarvStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~LLf--Vice .~fm~or Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 73 1 Present: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, q Mayor Hilligoss 3 Absent: None a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE s Onita Pellegrini led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 6 MOMENT OF SILENCE ~ PUBLIC COMMENT s Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive - he listed the projects coming online upstream. They will 9 cause more flooding. io ~ Hank Flum, 1721 Stonehenge Way -the cost of each landscape homeowners association was ii added to the cost of each house. The investment is gone because of the lack of maintenance. iz We must protect and enhance our investment. He suggested creation of a citizens committee 13 to oversee these landscape districts. That would restore support for landscape assessment is districts. is COUNCIL COMMENT i6 JH asked for the Vice Mayor to be the time keeper for the evening if the Council was willing. i~ The Council was willing. is MM there was pretty bad vandalism downtown. That sort of behaviour is uncalled for and i9 unproductive. It might be appropriate for the Council to offer a modest reward. With zo concurrence from the Council we could offer a couple hundred dollar reward. It was noted zi that the Downtown Merchants Association has established a $550 reward. He asked that be zz placed on an agenda. z3 MS would like a report on the progress of the sewer plant bidding of Montgomery United za Water, USF and the public pricing as soon as possible. The Humane Society has no place for zs animals to be sheltered during off hours. She suggested putting animals in a cage at the z6 Police Station. This can be referred to the Animal Control Committee for alternative z~ solutions. zs - PT agrees with the foregoing. z9 DK asked that staff come back with suggestions on the Citizens Committee for LAD's. 3o RESO.98-149 NCS 31 HEARING -APPEAL FROM G. BROAD 3z 445 BLACK OAK DRIVE 33 The Council considered. the appeal from Gary Broad about the SPARC approval of a home at 3a 4~5 Black Oak Drive in Westridge Knolls. Ke_v to aboreviations: JH-CouncilmemberJane Hamilton, I~R-CouncilmemberNancvRead PH-:LfavorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councibnember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Mt1 Lice.4layor,l.lattMaguire Page 74, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i The appeal included the obstruction of view of a prominent hillside rock and oak trees, z incompatibility of massing of the. residence in the hillside setting, potential for erosion and 3 landslide impacts, and incompatibility of proposed landscaping with the native vegetation. a Mr. Broad said he felt the house could be sited at a better location on that lot. s The house was designed as a 2-story structure and has been redrawn as a one story home. 6 The size was reduced, the building was relocated, guest parking was changed so cars face ~ upslope so they will not interfere vv~th the downhill neighborhood at night, a landscaping plan s is to be submitted and there has been a drop in elevation to reduce the amount of grading that 9 would be needed. io Mr. Broad said the story poles were put up but it was unclear what they represented and no ii grading plan was proposed. iz PT said she cannot make a decision because of insufficient information. 13 NR asked to hear from the applicant. is DK also asked what the story poles represent. is The Hearing was opened. The architect Michael Ginn said the lower pole represents the eves 16 of the house and the higher story pole represents the ridge of the house. They had planned to i~ have the rock outcroppings as part of the home's view but the view of the neighbors was is blocked. i9 There was confusion about the first SPARC meeting when this had been discussed and zo whether Mr. Broad had said anything. It was noted that Ivlr. Broad did not participate in the zi conversation about the project at all that meeting. z: This is on a knoll that is at the southern edge of the City continuous to the Urban Limit Line. z3 It was noted that the City should look at how they are feathering the housing at the urban za fringes. zs Appellant Gary Broad agreed with the architect that there is a better location for that home z6 on this parcel. This parcel is continuous to the Urban Growth Boundary. He feels there are z~ things that could be done. The ridgeline should be protected from building silhouettes. He za showed the City Council a large photographic print of how the `story poles' looked from the z9 neighborhood. ~He the building was shifted eastward 40 to 50 feet to keep a separation from 3o the rock outcropping and that move was to excess. According to the General Plan the 31 building's prominence should be reduced in order to enhance the views for everyone. He 3z suggested a location about 15 feet from the rock outcropping. The neighbors would like to 33 see the rocks and trees so the architect pulled the house back. 34 Richard Brawn, 141 Grevillia -our objections were that is a ridge line. The house was a two 35 story building which destroyed the view of the rocks. 36 Principal Planner Vin Srnith showed the building envelope. The goal is to reduce the amount 3, of grading . Kev ro abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, 1L1S-Councilmember,tfarv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM Dice 1Lfavor Man Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 75 t Resolution 98-149 NCS was introduced by MM and seconded by DK to uphold the appeal, s require the house be moved down hill in a northerly direction to a mutually agreeable s location. The house is to remain a single story structure. The architect is to work with the a neighbors and staff and come up with a way to move the house off of the ridge and do it in a s way that is more compatible. If there is not any resolution within 30 days from this date, the 6 subject should be brought back to the City Council. ~ Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor 8 Hilligoss g Noes: None to Absent: None tt HEARING -LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS tz Finance Director David Spilman noted that this is the second of two public hearings on t3 Landscape Assessment Districts. Ballots have been sent to all homeowners in the districts. to The public hearing was opened. is Jeff Trick, 1945 Matzen Ranch Circle -there has been no maintenance. $71 is reasonable if it t6 goes to landscaping. Would like to see how Ryder Homes got rubber stamped on the t~ project. is Lew Tetley, 1946 Matzen Ranch Circle -agreed with Mr. Trick. The accounting breakdown t9 is hard for a lay person to understand. It takes too many calls to get anything done. zo Hank Flum 1721 Stonehenge Way -Sonoma Glen -plants have died. He has protested, but zi there has been no result. v zz Ed Nessinger, Nessco Landscaping -you really need to obtain Performance Bonds. z3 Carol Harvey - is the City Council willing to assist .neighborhoods to explore other methods za of doing this such as homeowners' associations? zs Recreation Director Carr noted the staff is going to look at this possibility. The next step is z6 to try to stay within the budget. Staff feels that beginning with this May the maintenance is z~ beginning to be addressed. We plan to defer the fronts of properties to the homeowners, zs with the exception of the subdivisions where the irrigation systems are tied together. z9 Water acquisition has taken most of the assessments. 3o MS asked if the City could work on simplifying the accounting for homeowners. 31 DK wants maps to go to the homeowners. 3z PT why isn't landscaping in place before we allow occupancy? She wants to make sure the 33 City is moving forward on that. 3a JH would we aeree that Performance Bonds should be in any new contract? The Recreation 3s Director said, "Yes." Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, IbR-Councilmemoer:Vancy Read PH-:~favor~tf. Patricia Hilligoss, ~fS-Councilmember.~farv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmemoer Pamela Torliatt 11L1-f-Vice ~favor.~lattMaguire Page 76, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i A man came to the microphone saying they have been trying to get Ryder Homes to complete z the landscaping...for three months they have been trying. s DK requested that Parks, Planning and Finance get together and come up with a resolution to a twist Ryder's arms. s The hearing was closed. 6 I2ES0.98-150A NCS ~ RESOLUTION ORDER.IlVG IMPROVEMENTS s Resolution 98-150 NCS ordering improvements in the Landscape Assessment Districts with 9 the annual rate for each landscape assessment district to be as follows: io .- City of Petaluma 1998-99 Annual ii Landscape Assessment District Assessments iz Americana 74.00 i3 Anna's Meadows 98.44 1; Cader Farms 33.84 1 ` Cader Farms Highlands 71.29 i6 Casa del Oro 17.28 17 Corona Creek 2 142.60 is Corona Ranch _ i9 Country Club Estates 87.53 20 Crane Glen 50.69 zi Cross Creek 89.90 ~z Fairway Meadows 47:36 ~ Glenbrook 48.86 2a Graystone _ zs Hillview Oaks 40.00 z6 Judith Court 66.85 Kingsfield 94.72 ~:ev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councibnember Nanry Read PH-Mavor a1 Patricia Hilligoss, :1fS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~LfLf--mice Alavor A1att:~faguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 77 t Kingsmill 70.34 s Liberty Farms 130.27 s Magnolia Terrace - a McNear Landing 54.35 S Meadow park 56.55 6 Mountain Valley 57.02 ~ Park Place 22.38 $ Sequoia.Estates 35.75 9 Shelter Hills 18.54 io Sonoma Glen single fam. 40.70 tt Sonoma Glen townhome 26.34 tz Spring Meadows 38.40 is St. James Estates 58.82 to Sycamore Heights 34.32 is Tatum - i6 Twin Creeks 252.48 1? Village East 64.70 18 Village Meadows 83.96 t9 Westridge 55.45 zo - - Wisteria 100.00 it Woodside Village 54.14 zz Introduced by ]H and seconded by MM. 2s Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor za Hilligoss 25 Noes: None 26 Absent: None Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH Mayor M Patricia Hilligoss, ~fS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt .tM Vice ,Mayor ~Llati Maguire Page 78, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 t DK on herbicides, he would like staff to come back in the Fall with guidance from other cities z how they are dealing with pesticides and herbicides. PT said the landscape contractor could s be a help with this. a RESO.98-150B NCS s KYNGSFIELD Landscape Assessment District s Resolution 98-151 NCS ordering improvements for the Kingsfield Landscape Assessment ~ District. a Introduced by MM, seconded by NR 9 Ayes: Keller, Hamiltoq Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss to Noes: None t t Abstain: Torliatt (lives within the district) 12 Absent: None t3 STATUS.REPORT ON PAYRAN PROJECT is It was noted that the City will meet tomorrow at Lucchesi Pazk with the property owners and is neighbors to talk about moving homes from Jess and Rocca. 'The railroad .bridge design is 16 being worked on. The wllowbrook Bridge plan is also being worked on. George Dennis, t~ Chief Engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers who is the person from that agency that. has is been working on the project from the beginning spoke to the Council. The U-shape channel i9 is 85% complete. The trapezoidal channel design upstream is 8Q-85% complete. It is hoped zo construction can begin in March of next year. They are waiting on the issue of the design of zi the flood wall. They will try to keep the noise levels down. zz URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY z3 Verbatim minutes follow. za PH: Continued hearing and discussion, and possible action on Urban Growth zs Boundary. 26 ??: Madam Mayor, Council Member Read, asked. her this afternoon If we had any z~ suggested format for the discussion this evening, and as I mentioned that the ballot issue zs agenda and the way that that's structured, we think does lend to a generally efficient. way to z9 discuss this because it deals with the time frame option first. And I think if we were to make a 3o suggestion discussing the time frame for the boundary would then lead you into the variations 31 on that theme, and you may want to begin with that after you heaz testimony. In. addition, 3z Planning Director Pamela Tuft has some additional materials to hand out regarding those 33 options and from some of the discussion this afternoon. So when you're ready. for that 34 discussion after you hear any additional testimony, if that's what you're going to do. In fact, I 3s would suggest actually let Pamela Tuft go through that, 'cause that may impact some of the 36 testimony. 37 PTUFT: Thank you Madam Mayor and City Council Members. For the sake of the 3s audience I will very, very quickly run through the information that was shared with the City 39 Council in the begtnning of the top, the conversation this afternoon. Just a little bit of the ~o history. In late March, the City Council directed staff to commence the effort of preparing an Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-:t~fayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, ~LfS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-~ce Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 79 I urban growth boundary. The updates have been provided to council through the City z Manager's office every two weeks or so, to keep you updated on the progress to date. We 3 scheduled two public workshops, both taped by the Public Access Channel to be aired a numerous times in the last month. The discussion of policy issues related to UGB were s discussed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Based on those discussions and s a number of the comments received at the public workshops, we have also displayed this ~ evening the maps from the second workshop on July 11th. Staff has prepared a draft ballot s measure and map exhibits for council consideration. Also distributed to you this afternoon 9 were blank copies of the recommended Urban Growth Boundary map and colored pens are Io available. The contents of the ballot measure first. First topic offered for discussion is the II term of the Urban Growth Boundary itself. Option one provides for the adoption of a UGB Iz that coincides with the term of our existing General Plan. An option within this option itself I3 provides that a statement could be incorporated that provides for the intent to again present Ia in the Urban Growth Boundary before the voters upon the preparation of a new General Is Plan. This future UGB could be offered to the voters either before or after the adoption of IG - the new General Plan. Also included in this action, should the council so desire, is a request I7 to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors that they honor the community separators iri Ia good faith. Located in the vicinity of Petaluma for the period covered by the UGB ballot I9 measure while the city undertakes Its new General Plan effort. Also presented In this draft zo ballot measure and in the staff report is option two, which is to adopt an urban growth zI boundary for a period of twenty years or until the first statewide elecrion following the zz adoption of a new General Plan. This statement does not in any way preclude the council z3 from putting an urban growth boundary on a ballot prior to adopting a new General Plan. As za stated in the staff report, the 12-month period provided in the option provides adequate time zs for a citizen initiated ballot measure should the city council in seat at that time choose not to zs place the urban growth boundary on the ballot. z~ Following council discussion this afternoon, staff and the outside council prepared an zs amended wording for option two for your consideration. Tom's not here. Tom's going to z9 help me with the lights. Thank you. This would a$'ect any location in the ballot measure that 3o provides the option one, two or three for the term limit. For the public, the first one would 3I be on page five. The explanation for ballot, the options one, two and three starts on page 3z two of the long staff report. The actual wording, though, that would be-this would replace, 33 is at the top of page five, the second in the three connected boxes. Staff is offering for 3a council consideration and recommending for council consideration the alternative B, which 3s states the urban growth boundary shall remain in effect until December 31, 2018, or until 36 after an election is held in which the voters of Petaluma vote on a revised Urban Growth 37 Boundary and related General Plan policies, whichever occurs first. Such an election shall be 3a - - undertaken in conjunction with the adoption of a new General Plan. When a new General 39 Plan is adopted by the City Council and an election on a new UGB is held, this measure shall ao expire 60 days following the declaration of the results of that election. ai ]H: Madam Mayor, l have a question about that. az MM: Thank you. Pamela, in alternative B, if the new General Plan's urban growth a3 boundary fails in the vote, this would provide then that the existins one that has been adopted as expires also. Thereby, there would be no more voter mandated or 20-year UGB in place. as Correct? ab PTUFT: The new one would take effect. If it failed in election... Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-,lfayor~lf PatriciaHilligoss, M~CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M~f-irce Mavor Man Maguire Page 80, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 MM: If a new one was voted on and turned down by the electorate... z PTUFT: Under this wording, it would expire 60 days after the results of that s election. a MM: In which case there would be no existing 20-year voter mandated... s PTUFT: It wouldn't be voter mandated, then it would be just General Plan. s Assuming if you did a vote before the General Plan, then I'm aasuming the council in seat at ~ that time probably wouldn't go forward with the adoption of that General Plan but would go s back to the community and ask for some more input. 9 JH: Madam Mayor? io PH: Yes. ii JH: The way I understood this, I went over the wording again and again. It sounds iz like once the General Plan is done, twelve months later, if a new UGB is not placed on the 13 ballot; the original one would expue. So effectively, what it says if we started the General is Plan process nght now, alternative B is athree-year UGB. It had took us three years to do is the General Plan, and then that this UGB, if we'do it now, and say we say a 20-year UGB, it ~6 will expire basically in three years. i; PTUFT: B says that you will hold an election on a UGB in conjunction with the new is General Plan and then that UGB will be the UGB. i9 MM: Unless it doesn't pass by the... zo PTUFT: Unless it doesn't pass. zi MM: In which case there is then no mandated, voter mandated UGB in place. zz PTUFT: That's correct. zs PTOR: Madam Mayor? Then I don't understand why the UGB that the voters would vote z: on this time around wouldn`t just be the default and stay in place. z~ PTUFT:" That could be: We just would need to amend the wording of option two if z6 you chose to do option two. I'm sorry. I misunderstood and thought we had at least some r, interest, which is why we worked on this, and I apologize if I picked it up wrong, that you zs were interested in having an option considered, for consideration, that would require a new z9 General Plan to bring a UGB with it. 3o MM: Madam Mayor? 3 ~ PH: Yeah. 3~ MM: I believe, yeah, you're correct, but I thinl: it just doesn't go quite far enough to 33 what I was thinking, but then I didn't have an opportunity to discuss it this afternoon; and 3~ that's why I was asking the question, because my thinking is, is that I think that's what we Key to abbreviations: JN-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-Mavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Mt1 ice Mmnr Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 81 i need to do here tonight, adopt that provision, but should it not pass by the voters, you know, z the new one, then the one that has been, you know, presuming there is one pass by the 3 voters, that one should remain in effect. a PTUFT: I can work on that while we proceed with the discussion and allow for s public input. 6 ??: The other thing we need to remind ourselves is the ballot measure has to be limited z to 75 words, so both of those options, including the amendment of Part B that indicates that g if the vote fails the existing line stays in place, needs to be confined to 75 words. 9 PTUFT: I'll work on that. io MM: Pam can do it. i i ~ PTUFT: I can count words. Okay. Let's go on. That's option two. You now have iz kind of 2-A, 2-B, 2-C options, the one that was ongirially presented in the staff report and 13 these two alternatives that are all up for discussion. You might have 2-D by the time we get to through the discussion, and I'll work on that for you. So all nght. Option three provides for is adopt a UGB for a time period of 20 years until December 31, 2018, with the exceptions set 16 forth in the draft ballot measure. That means that at any point in time in the future the City t~ Council or the citizens as a group or a very active individual could present at any time a is ballot measure to be considered by the voters that would overturn, replace or amend the i9 adopted UGB, assuming approval by the voters this fall. Okay. That's option three. zo Subsequent to or going beyond the teen options that we've just discussed, we move into the zi exception options, five of which are offered. Option one is the UGB size reduction. And I zz have noted in the staff report that although the planning commission declined to make a z3 recommendation to the city council, there was a perceived consensus by the Planning za Commission to eliminate this option. Option two is the affordable housing option. It zs provides an exception where and when needed to comply with state law for the requirement z6 of providing affordable housing. z~ NIlV1: And Pamela, just to let the public know. zs PTUFT: Certainly. z9 MM: You may want to point out that affordable housing would allow no more than five 3o acres of land to be brought into the UGB per year. 31 PTUFT: That's correct. Okay. 3z JH: If there is not acceptable land within the... 33 PTUFT: It has, it provides for a number of findings that have to be provided. 34 DK: And that is not cumulative? 3s PTUFT: It is not cumulative, and that was brought up this afternoon, and we will 36 amend if it's a consensus of the council that we will provide wording to that effect. And that 37 can be discussed by the council. Option two, or option that the affordable housing is option Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-:Lfayor:~t Patricia Hilligoss, r~lS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~M-ice ~Lfavor Matt 1Lfaguire Page 82, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i two. Option three is the takings. That is to address the unconstitutional takings issue. z Option four is prepared at the request and direction of the city counc~ and the Planning s Commission, and that addresses transit oriented or industrial development, again, with these a specific findings that have to be provided..,.. ,_ s MM: And again, in that case with a general maximum of 100 acres for the 20-year term. s PTUFT: That's correct. Option five is the agriculture, again proposed at or ~ prepared at the request of the council to address agriculture, agricultural support or related s development. Subsequent to the preparation of the draft ballot measure, we prepared several s minor amendments in response to council comments or comments from the legal counsel. io And the first of which again relates to the pages and line numbers in your staff reports. ii Starting on page 5, line 10, providing a little more clarity. I hear pages turning by me, so iz we'll again page five, line ten. That is to add the clarifying words that ,shall not include and 13 then adding providing municipal or public services to, and then goes on to define the open is space uses. Same--yes, sir? is DK: I wonder for clarity purposes, because this is a definition of urban development 16 shall mean development requuzng blab, blab, blab, but not .limited to a listing, semicolon, but i~ shall not include, and Pm wonderYng if that word, instead ofusing the word include, the word is is actually but shall not mean. 19 PTUFT: Okay. zo DK: So that we don't get confused between what is included as acceptable and as zi opposed to definitions meaning. zz PTUFT: Certainly. Okay. Line, oops, I'm sorry. z3 DK: I'm sorry. There's another place where that same thing applies as well. We'll get to za it. zs PTUFT: Page 11. z6 DK: Yeah. n PTUFT: No, page 1-0, I believe, it might address it, but we can catch that as we za move through it. Page five, line 12, two lines later. We are recommending that a sentence be z9 added ~ to that paragraph, which reads said municipal or public. services or facilities can be 3o developed beyond the UGB to provide services within UGB. I believe within fits a little bit 31 better rather than inside. And that is to state that the city may now or In the future own 3z properties outside the city that may be developed to provide services for properties or 33 citizens located within the UGB. An example of that would be a .new wastewater treatment 3-i plant or park. Iii response to a number of comments on Section three, which is located, Pm 35 sorry I didn't write the page, page five, Policy 3.1, .right below the paragraph we were just 36 talking about. The outside legal counsel, Shute, Ivfihaly and Weinberger and I have been 3; discussing a number of concerns with the amending of resolutions through a ballot measure. 3s So we are recommending the replacement of that entire paragraph on page five, lines 14 39 through 17, and I apologize for the length of this amendment, but. A planner can say it in ~ four lines, an attorney can say it in 15. So, no, I'm sorry, Chris. It's very adequately, very rev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember.4fary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mawr Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 83 i thoroughly eliminates the need to amend our outside sewer and water policies that were 2 adopted in 1991, by incorporating those policies herein and thereafter within the General 3 Plan. It makes good sense and planning staff supports it entirely. But I a~ologiZe to the a public .for the length. Here's the next page. Leave it on. Again, as I said, it addresses the s specific findings that must be made. They are similar to the resolutions that we currently s operated under and have for the last nine to, seven to nine years, under the two policies. ~ Next one is page seven, could we go back to that one? Thank you. Page seven at the s request of a council member under- item one, third line, has provided sufficient evidence, it's 9 adding the word sufficient to qualify the deed, termination by the council of the quality of the io evidence submitted. Moving on to page nine, which is a statement that is repeated on page ti 11, is to amend 2-C on page nine, bottom half of the page, after the words the existing UGB, iz add the words and can be provided, parentheses, to serviceable water and sewer connections. 13 And that is repeated again in another option under agricuhure on page 11 in subsection 1-C. is Back to the same paragraph under page nine, 2-D, again to qualify and to clarify at the edge is _ of the crossout city limits and substitute proposed. urban growth boundary expansion area. It ~6 means the same to the planner, it now makes perfect sense ~to the public and to anyone i~ reading it subsequent to the adoption. Okay. Thank you, Tom. Nope, that's not all. That's is all for that page, though. Okay. On that same page, page nine, a question this afternoon 19 arose by the City Council as to the intent of the four expansion areas and requested that staff zo qualify it. Subsequent to this afternoon's meeting, the outside legal counsel, Chris Taylor, of zi Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger and I worked on the words and are suggesting that D-3 be zz amended, just the opening sentence which is at the bottom of page nine, delete that the land z3 to be included is located in one of the following areas, and substitute the following areas have za been primarily identified as appropriate for potential future expansion of the UGB subject to zs the council making the findings set forth in D-1 and 2 above. The list is not intended to be z6 exclusive, and again, of course, retain the areas as presented in the draft. And I believe that is z~ all of the revisions that we are recommending. I did earlier today present a definition of zs agricultural support businesses in support of the option five for exceptions and at the request z9 of the council will amend the definition to state an industrial manufacturing or mixed use 3o project which is determined by the city to support the regional agricultural community and is 31 dependent upon municipal services to exist. If you have any questions on the text, the 3z amendment to Chris Taylor of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger is here and Pm available to 33 answer any questions from the council or from the public. Thank you very much. 3a JH: Madam Mayor? 3s PH: Each person will have three minutes and the Vice Mayor is going to take care of 36 _ the stop and right. And also, the ones that have not spoken last week will go first, to make 37 sure that everybody gets taken care of. 3a MM: And Madam Mayor? . 39 PH: Yes.. ao MM: Please folks, if you spoke last week, please do not repeat your comments. I wasn't ai here but I did review the tape. Everybody else heard the comments in person, so for the sake az of time and expediency, please do not just get up and repeat what you said before. In fact, 43 you know, please focus on new information. Thank you. a.s PH: The first one is Art Kerbel Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PHalavor.'l! Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember~i~fary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt 1t L1-f-trce 1'~tavor Matt Maguire Page 8~, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i AK: Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is Arthur Kerbel. I live in Adobe z Creek. I just want to speak on one part, the Frates area, to urge you to maintain what I 3 guess you call now the current urban lirnrt line and not extend it as requested by a developer. a I just want to hit one point on this. The council, in its wisdom a few years ago, refused s development along .Casa Grande and Lakeville as it was not appealing as an entranceway to s Petaluma, as you may well remember. I think you agree with me that there are only really ~ two appealing entranceways to Petaluma right now. One is the .far end of West D Street and s the other is a very lovely area of Lakeville/Frates East. We have a lovely golf course and 9 well thought out development and swell-landscaped apartment area now. And the open io space. I urge .you to maintain that. And not allow an outside developer to come in here, i~ develop something to the foothills, you spend 40 minutes tonight discussing a ridge line. You iz develop in front of those foothills, you have no foothills. Oh, that's going to be an interesting 13 discussion, a real interesting discussion. So, it's very simple. Maintain that, don't .allow a is taking advantage of this process and the process is, set to allow the. people of Petaluma to is determine the future of their open land. Don't let anybody take advantage of this and hold i6 that line exactly where it is. And I thank you. ~; PH: Thank you. Matty Patterson? is MP: Good evening. I'm the only one tiny so far this evenng. Thank you. I'm here to 19 support the current urban limit line as it is located along Frates Road. I also support a 20- zo year urban growth boundary that will be approved by the vote of the people. I also want to ~ compliment the city council for taking on this difficult issue and I encourage you to do the __ right thing for Petaluma residents by protecting our quality of life. z3 PH: Gigi Antonoff? z; GA: Pm Gigi Antonoff. ~~ JH: The only way are people who are watching Cable Access can hear is if you speak z6 in the microphone. z, GA: I have a letter here from a homeowner who is out of town at this time, and he zs wanted me to read it. He would like to go on record as being strenuously opposed to the z9 proposal to expand Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary. 3o We strongly favor a 20-year urban growth boundary that could be, that should be approved 31 by the vote of the people, and we urge the Petaluma City Council to make the proper 3. decision. Sincerely yours, Mr. and Mrs. Sims Gordon. For myself, personally, I am forever, 33 all of my life, a California resident. Born in San Francisco, reared in San Mateo County, lived 34 in Santa Clara County for 40 some years, and I have felt that our communities are losing their ss uniqueness. They are losing their individuality. San Mateo County and Santa Clara County 36 are now just an urban sprawl of just one town after another with no Individuality anymore at 3- all. And I don't like to see it happen in this county. I think this. county has an opportunity to 3s preserve what they have and to continue the uniqueness of their towns. Thank you. 39 PH: Myrita Henry? -iH: Good evening, ,Madam Mayor and Council Members. It's nice to be back. My ai name is Myrita Henry and I live at 210 Chapman Lane. I have owned property there since I:ev to aboreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayoral. Patricia Hilligoss, M~CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M~Lf--TTCe Mm~or Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 85 i 1973. Did I buy the property speculating to some day irresponsibly develop it? No. I s bought it to be a responsible steward of the land. Marie Creek borders my property and since 3 the development of land upstream I have had devastating flooding and erosion along its a banks. Much of the sediment and silt in the turning basin comes from the development of s open land above us. I am very much in favor of an urban growth boundary. And I ask that s the boundary line exclude the Varnhagen property, the same property that the owner is ~ attempting to overdevelop. We have proof in a 500-page environmental impact report, which s you have seen, that proves that over development of the Varnhagen property would cause 9 many serious problems in our community. To name a few, flooding, traffic congestion, io crowding of schools, wear and tear on our country roads, inadequate police and fire i i protection, and placing greater demands on our non-renewable resources. Thank you. is PH: It looks like Marilyn Polo. Is that right? 13 MP: Madam Mayor. I live in 1811 Falcon Ridge Road in Adobe Creek. I have nothing is prepared. I just came here with my support that I do not want the boundary line and McBail is to be able to build where they are trying because of traffic congestion and it loses what it has, i6 because I moved from Novato to come up here because it was more country and it's just i~ changing' so rapidly and the homes are so close together. It loses all what it was meant to be is in the beginning. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. i9 PH: Mario Atkinson? 20 MA: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. Mark Atkinson. I live at 757 Elm zi Drive. Pd like to say thanks for the given the time to speak and for presenting thank you for zz presenting this forum giving us all a chance to speak. I strongly support an urban growth i3 boundary and the establishment of a 20-year limit on that boundary. And most strongly, I za support the requirement for a public vote to make any kind of change to anything they get set ss in any kind of a boundary. Thank you. s6 PH: Cindy Mast-Gough? 2~ CM: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Cindy Gough .and my zs husband and I reside at 514 Greenwich in Petaluma. I'm here tonight in support of an urban s9 growth boundary, UGB. I personally have no problem voting on the measure if placed on the 3o November ballot. 31 However, I do understand the apprehension some of the citizenry may have who though in 3z principle ace strongly for a UGB, which more discussion and study aS to where a 20-year 33 urban limit line should be placed and economic effects. 3a Therefore, I feel some compromise may need to be struck. This issue is too important to be 3s cast aside by a nervous citizenry or a city council which may in the future not be hearing what 36 the citizens of Petaluma ultimately want. I personally find possible a suggestion by the City 37 Planning Commission made last week. They suggested, and correct me if I'm wrong, a 3a seven-year urban growth limit line using the current urban city Limit lines. This would 39 subsequently be followed by a 20-year urban growth boundary drawn in conjunction with the ao 20-year General Plan to be developed in the year 2005. I would take this suggestion and ai compromise one step further. The seven-year urban growth boundary should have no a2 exceptions outside of those that are state oriented. Also, the urban growth boundary line Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-Mayor,Lf. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt IL~Lf--Vice ,tiavor Matt Maguire Page 86, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i should be part of the foundation of the General Plan which encompasses 20 years. I feel 2 most. of the. citizens of Petaluma are utited, no more urban .sprawl. Build in, not out. Our 3 community, our health, our sanity, depend on our controlling our environment for the a betterment of all. Please do not take this opportunity, excuse me, please do not let this s opportunity to control our quality of life slip through all of our fingers. Thank you very 6 much. ~ PH: Doug Garrison and Cult--I can't read it. a DG: Mayor Idilligoss and Council Members. I'm Doug Garrison, Dean of Santa Rosa 9 Junior College, Petaluma Center at 680 Sonoma Mountain Parkway. Pm here this' evening ro with. a colleague, Curt Groniga, the Dean of Administrative Services, to speak to policy three i 1 of July 17th draft. of the proposed UGB. Dr. Groniga will offer some specific commentary to i2 you and then we'll both be available for some questions. is CG: Thanks, Doug. Specifically, we are here to speak in support of the policy three to statement noted on Exhibit A on page five of the July 17th draft, and given the language is change, will probably have one question at the end here. Santa Rosa Junior College is quite i6 proud of its Petaluma Center and the overwhelming reception to it by the Petaluma residents ~~ and ?other south county residents. While the college has no specific expansion plans in is Petaluma or elsewhere in Sonoma County, the college is mindful of the state's desire to have 19 the college further expand and develop its programs for the educational benefit of county and zo city residents. The college does anticipate the need to further develop its programs 21 throughout the county and in Petaluma. It is the college's hope that the urban growth i. boundary would not preclude the city and. the college at some future time in expanding either z3 its current program sites or future locations should they be outside a defined urban growth sa boundary. Occasionally, special educational programs unattached to a specific campus or is center site require new properties to support them. A most recent example would be in the i6 Town of Windsor where we have located our criminal justice training center.. The Town of z~ Wmdsor adjusted its General Plan to include the annexation of property in order to .have the zs training center site within the confines of the town. The college has found, through the years, s9 that working with a specific municipality has been of mutual benefit to the city and to the 3o college. We believe the college shares a nice working relationship with the City of Petaluma 31 and believes it will continue. It would be helpful that should the need arise that a urban 3z growth boundaries not preclude the future expansion of existuig and/or new program sites. 33 Therefore, the college does support policy three language and specifically, as we understood 33 it prior to tonight's meeting, the last phrase saying but shall not include open space uses, 3s public or quasi public uses such as schools .or public safety facilities. The one question that 36 we would have is the one adjustment that the planning director noted tonight regarding the--I 3 % think it's services to those entities, I guess, in that last phrase. 3a Pm assuming that means providing services, utilities and so on and so forth. My recollection, 39 if it serves me well, is that that would be consistent with what happened when we developed ao the Petaluma site. The city didn't provide us services. It was part of a benefit [inaudible] ai assessment district and we cooperated with the developers in that area. That's all we have. 4= ??: Thank you. a3 PH: J.T. Wick? Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Revd PH-:tat-~or af. Patricia Hilligoss, M.~Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-irce MaNOr Matt Maguire July Z0, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 87 i JW: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Good evening. I'll not try to repeat my z comments from last week. I spoke then- as an individual and this evening I speak as a 3 representative of the Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce. It's the consensus of our Board a of Directors that the council should strongly consider the adoption of an urban growth s boundary .for the life of the existing General Plan and with a line that's in the same place as 6 the urban limit line in the current General Plan. We think this offers the same balance of ~ environmental and social and economic factors that are currently in the General Plan. It s offers you a presumptively valid internally consistent and legally supportable basis for your 9 decision. And we think it still offers you a guarantee that unless the people vote for it, the io line will not move. We think this is a responsible way of putting the study before the result. i i And we strongly urge you to take this position this evening. Thank you. iz PH: Steve Buckley? 13 _ SB: Madam Mayor. City Councilmen. People. Okay. I'm Steve Buckley, 5.01 East is Washington Street. I'm also Secretary of Petaluma Golf and Country Club. I came here is tonight to check and make sure that Petaluma Golf and Country Club has been inside the i6 urban limit line for many years now and we don't want to be left out of any future UGB. I've i~ looked at Exhibit A and A-2, I guess, and I guess maybe my worries were a little unfounded. is But some day we may want to-we have no plans for development now, but we may want to 19 come to you for a sewer connection if we expand our clubhouse and that would entail a zo major problem for us if we were outside the UGB. Personally, I'd like to say a few words zi supporting the majority of the Planning Commission members. Despite a tremendous number zz of hours by your stall; I also do not feel there is enough economic data available to guide the z3 city council in making what is basically a permanent decision for the next 20 years. There za just wasn't enough time. Such a permanent line would be better off being done as a General zs Plan update, which would enable the needed studies to be completed. We have a great z6 General Plan and this proposed 20-year voter mandated UGG would, in my opinion, be in z~ conflict with it. There should have been an alternative four as far as I was concerned with zs when I read what I picked up here tonight. And that should have been to, as the Planning z9 Commission considered, moving it back and doing it at the next General Plan, not putting rt 30 on the ballot. A UGB is definitely a necessity in today's planning process, but we all know 31 that if you decide to put a voter mandated UGB line on the ballot, it will pass no matter 3z where you draw it. Once escrow closes on a house, the buyers all want to retain the small 33 town atmosphere which brought them here in the first place. That attitude will always be 3a there. And I am thankful that the citizens back in the 70s allowed me to move here. I love 3s living and working in Petaluma as much as anyone, but I am willing to share our city with 36 - _ people who also desire to live here as long aS it occurs under a controlled growth program. 3z Actually, we don't need to go at all, if we just all agree not to have any more kids. A tight 3s 20-year urban growth line will raise house prices, rents and the general cost of living here in 39 Petaluma. You can`t rent a house on the east side of town for less than $1,300 now. Where ao are our kids going to live if we don't have some space for them? ai It would be a shame to lose an opportunity to build affordable housing• or possibly locating a az heavy job producing company here because of a tight UGB. The Rainier overpass and a3 cloverleaf is under great scrutiny by the council right now. And I share their concerns that as have been brought up over the past three months, especially flooding. But if the overpass is as not going to be done, we should have expanded south of town over the past six years rather as than northeast of town. Whatever we end up doing with Rainier should have a tremendous Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, ~~7Z-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-:1~lavorM Patricia Hilligoss, ~lf~CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM trce Mawr Matt :lfaguire Page 88, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 r impact on the UGB. I think the UGB should be awaiting that decision as to what we do with z Rainier. Does that mean I'm o$? Thank you. • 3 ??: You don't need to stop in mid sentence. If you could... a SB: Well, Td just like to say that I think that the UGB would be better offwaiting until s after we've decided what we're going to do with .Rainier than ahead of it. I think that's s important. And again, I just want to stress, this just. looks--I didn't understand any of this ~ tonight. I think we need more time. I don't think there was enough time to accomplish what s you wanted to accomplish. Thank you. s MM: Thank you. Mark Green? ro MG: Snood evening. I'm Mark Green, Executive Director of- Sonoma County • ri Conservation Action, and it's a pleasure to spend some quality time with you at 9:45 this iz evening. I would imagine it'll be a while. -As you know, you've received hundreds of letters 13 this year from citizens who want to see a 20-year voter approved urban. growth boundary is with a tightly drawn line for this city. The experience of our field staff as they walked earlier is this spring and knocked on all those. doors in Petaluma was very, very clear. By an eight to 16 one mongol, there was an overwhelming support for a-very strong regiment of growth control i~ in Petaluma. And the feedback that we got,more than anything else was why didn`t it happen is ten years ago? Why are we so far behind the curb? Why are we one of the last cities to be 19 considering an urban growth boundary for Petaluma? So what I would like to do is zo encourage you, indeed, to support an urban growth boundary at the current limit line and to zi talk a little bit about criteria for the policies that should be applied to that line. Let's talk for a zz second about what an urban growth boundary is. You can apply the label to just about z3 anything, but a real urban growth boundary that fulfills its fiinc;tional requirements reigns in za sprawl, eliminates incentives for speculation on the urban fringe, and removes insider political zs influence from the question of the city's expansion. It has to meet all those criteria in order to zs be able to be a real UGB. Now, let's look. at the three options that are before us here. z~ Number one does nothing to meet the question of land speculation or of the flip-flop of the za city council so that you don't get a long term vision. If you look at Rohnert Park, you get a z9 very clear picture of what happens when you approve a short term ballot measure to try to 3o solve this kind of a problem. So option one clearly doesn't meet the criteria. When you look 3i at number two, that leaves room for--this is odd, it seems to pick, me up more when I'm to the 3z side of it than, I don't know. Number two leaves room for political .manipulation and 33 therefore _actirally encourages land speculation on the fringe. If I were a developer, and 3a option two were implemented, I would apply my efforts to overturning the city council and to 3s getting something new in place into influencing the General Plan process so that we could get 36 anew line drawn that worked to my advantage rather than looking at redevelopment 37 opportunities and infill opportunities. and' creative opportunities within the current urban 3a boundary, which is part of what. you want to see from a planning standpoint in a UGB. . 39 Finally, option two needs to be recognized for what it is. Okay. It's a tactic. It's a tactic. ~o The overwhelming majority of the people in this community want to see strong growth ai management and an urban growth boundary that they .can rely on for 20 years. Knowing the az depth of that popularity„ those that don`t want to see something like that happen are fighting 43 for something that looks like a compromise. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-afayor ~t Patricia Hilligoss, M~Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember Dovid Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~liM-Dice Mavor,ltatt ~llaguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 89 i But the conditions are right now to do the right thing, to do the right thing. The thing that z the public is asking for, and the conditions are right for that now. They may not be like that 3 again. So what it takes is a little courage, 'a little vision and I believe you have that. And I a urge you to take the step tonight by approving option three, a 20-year voter approved urban s growth boundary at the current Petaluma urban limit line. Thank you. s MM: David Glass? ~ DG: I can make this pretty short. I agree with what he said. David Glass, 41 O~£ord s Court. I want to take this opportunity. I am going to shorten it up because that was perfect. 9 I want to thank David Keller. I want to thank Pam Torliatt. I want to thank Jane Hamilton. io I want to thank Matt Maguire for the courage that they have had to bring this issue before us, i i because I feel very strongly that it would not be here had it not been for the courage that you iz have in pursuing this goal. I do have some things that I want to say. Infill development can 13 be accomplished through several means including but not limited to the following: allowing ~a - the market value of land to rise from reduction of the land availability to a level when is demolition and redevelopment is financially feasible. In other words, market forces through 16 an urban boundary Limit that would drive the price to where it would be economically feasible i~ for developers to pay their own bills. Or other ways you can encourage infiIl development. is Providing incentives through the reduction of development impact fees for specified types of 19 infill development such as resident in the central business azea. That means concessions to zo developers. Or use of city funds to provide physical improvements such as infrastructure. zi Again, concessions to developers. So of course, they're not for this. Because it's item zz number one that'll be used instead of two or three. Studies will make on the urban growth z3 boundary. I'm trying to edit this 'thing down after that preceding speech. Page 88 of our za General Plan says that you will find that it has been determined in a study by Research zs Institute of the University of San Francisco the growth control system has had little or no z6 impact on housing prices and regional housing development. No impact. Market forces. z~ Petaluma is not an island. We live in a great big financial sea out there. We don't control the zs prices here. ,The market will. The entire region. The entire azea. Looking at things that z9 might give you some encouragement. Do we have adequate information to make an 3o educated decision on this item? Staff s analysis is affirmative yes. Not a haphazard guess, but 3 ~ an educated, informed decision. The answer is yes. The urban growth boundary, page 22 of 3z the May 30th report, item 66 of the staff report says' the effects of a UGB will provide a 33 greater degree of long term continuity and certainty regarding city land use policies. I find 3a that a tremendous plus myself. I don't want to find the Empire State Building one day next 3s door because city council members said it was now consistent with the new revised General 36 Plan. This plan that you're about to embark on is only giving the voters an opportunity to 37 ~ - vote for it. No one should be scared of the democratic process. My hat's off to you. Thank 3s you for doing this. 39 MM: Ron Gordo? I believe it's Ron Gordo? 1874 Adobe Creek? Not here. Bill ao Lawrence? ai BL: I'm Bill Lawrence of 830 Middle Field Drive, Petaluma. And I am against this. I az think that you're going way too fast and that slow down like the others, some of the speakers a3 ~ have mentioned that the General Plan is up for renewal. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-~lavor,tl. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~M Yice Alatibr Matt ILtaguire Page 90, Vol. 32 July 20, T998 i And I think they're forgetting about their children and their grandchildren if this goes through. z The costs, the rentals, and .houses will be so expensive they will never, won't be able to live 3 here, just like in Maria County now. So Pm, put me down as somebody against it. a MM: Thank you. Gale Philum, 280 Chapman Lane. Sorry, but I can't read your s handwriting, folks. Just tell us your name when you get up here. s GP: My name is Gale Phillips. My husband and. I live at 280 Chapman Lane. We're on ~ Maria Creek We`ve experienced the problems with flooding. We don't -want to wait while a you study the problem. We have to keep the creek clean. We're having problems with land 9 erosion. We're in the county, so our problems we address to the county. The county says io well actually your problems are caused by the city development, talk to thecity. The city ii says talk to the county. I really am asking you tonight to please place ~on the ballot a.20-year iz urban growth boundary line. Let the voters decide. Let's not make back room deals. One of 13 the biggest things I learned this year or iIl November was hnw we have a beautiful award- is winning General Plan, but how many times are you asked to amend it, to change it, to do is something not with its real intent. Let the voters learn how often you have to amend the is General Plan and to change it until there's a patchwork quilt and not a plan. Let them learn u how developers with money and political clout can place their property, which is outside the is city, limits but within the sphere of influence, into an agricultural preserve under the 19 Williamson Act. We get all the benefits of paying low taxes. Meanwhile, they proceed to zo allow the city and encourage them to develop their property by placing a road across it .and z i other improvements right across the preserve, thereby preparing the land for future zz subdivision while reaping the tax benefits for keeping the land rural .and undeveloped until it z3 comes out of the act. That's the Varnhagen property. Let them learn how new owners or za owners of large tracts of land which is zoned for. 60 to 65 units intend to have the city zs approve development on the land for 240 to 480 units. This is the pressure a city council has z6 to deal with, I imagine, almost every meeting: The fact .that it will bring immediate money z~ and revenue ~ but the amount what it wdl do to our resources. They talk about prices going za up. Prices are going to go up because there are more people and the land use is limited. We z9 have to look at other ways of developing. We have to play by the rules. You have an award 3o winning General Plan that you can't really follow. Let the voters decide. The voters are 3 ~ smart enough. They will have time to study this. All of the arguments will be put out. Let's 3z let this be a real democratic process, one of the most heartwan7ung things was to go to those 33 workshops and work with people at a table saying what they would like. So I hope that you 34 do put this on the ballot. Thank you. 3s MM: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could hold your applause till the end, 36 we ll get through this quicker. Carmen Herrera? 3~ CH: Hello. Honorable City Councilmen. I'm very happy to be here today, this. evening, 3s I should say: And my background is in housing. I have expertise in housing. I've done that 39 for close to. 15 years. And one of the reasons why I'm here today is because I am a ao homeowner of Adobe Creek Golf Course community. And I'm asking you to vote against ai any development across my home southeast of Frates Road to Ellis Creek, for the following az reasons. It will affect and impact the property value as it will lower the property values of a3 approximately 350 homes, newly built. Also,. rt will obstruct my beautiful country views and as foothill views which I paid $15,000 more for similar situated lots in the development of as Adobe Creek. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torlratt M,L!-Dice ,4fmbr,~fatt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 91 i Also, I support the preservation of farm land and the lots of urban growth boundary option z cumber three, ,therefore denying the exception option four only as rt relates to deluieated 3 areas southeast of Frates Road to Ellis Creek as shown in Exhibit 2-A. And that's pretty a much what I have to say. The other thing that I would like to recommend to the city council, s earlier there was a dispute going on between planner and a gentleman that wanted to build a 6 home. My expertise is in housing. I do mediation. And I do recommend, not myseliy but I ~ recommend that the City Council consider a mediator to possibly help the two gentleman to s come to some agreement. Okay? 9 MM: Thank you. io CH: Thank you. ii NiiV1: Dave Aulet? iz DA: Good evening. My name is David Aulet. I live at 1870 Adobe Creek Drive. That 13 was my wife. I just would like to follow the comments of the majority of the people who ~a have supported that you put this on the ballot. But I would like to specifically use my tune to is ask Director Pamela Tuft a question with regard to the amendment on page tune of the draft i6 dated July 17th, and while she does that I'm going to refer you to the comments of the i~ previous planning commission in which I think council member Torliatt and Mr. Maguire is were out of town, if I understand correctly. i9 PTUFT: I'm on the commission so I heard the comments. zo DA: Okay. This documents were available at the earliest here tomorrow meaning July zi 14th, less than six days to the public for those of us who don't have the time to attend to zz every meeting or all those workshops. Yet, even today, this afternoon, we learned about a z3 parncular language change which seems to me substantial. I-would like to understand how za come this potential lands. that were previously considered at the edge of the city limits now zs are suddenly considered suitable and ready for development, just this afternoon. And where z6 did that change come from and more specifically, how rt was included in those meetings. z~ MM: Pamela, would you care to respond? za ??: Can you clarify that? z9 PTUFT: First of all, the are not deemed to be suitable for expansion by any means, 30 ~ - shape or form. Based on the Planning Commission discussion and the desire to identify 31 option areas where should into the 20-year term, should opportunities for job generating 3z locations be identified, this Planning Commission asked that we identify certain expansion 33 potential areas, not that they have been identified or approved for expansion or even 34 incorporation within the urban growth boundary. In fact, staff is recommending that they not 3s be included in the urban growth boundary, but under the direction of the Planning 36 Commission, wherein they asked for identification of exceptions that would provide the 37 opportunity for job relating businesses, we've identified those four areas that are defined in 3s the staff report at the--following the council discussion this afternoon, they asked that we 39 qualify that to identify how they were--not how they were selected but to clarify the ao identification of the four areas by preliminary identified as appropriate for potential future at expansions of the UGB. They are not recommended for inclusion within the UGB at all. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-,Llavor Al Patricia Hilligoss, ~llS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt 1LL'I1 Vice Mayar Matt Maguire Page 92, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i DA: That's what I would like to elaborate on. How did that appropriate for potential z future expansion came about and how does that affect the option three? s PTUFT: If I may, vice Mayor Maguire, the options that are presented for a consideration by council were generated either by staff and the outside legal counsel in order s to ensure compliance with state law or from input- -from the council and the Planning s Commission following the two discussions on policy :issues, primarily- the generation ~ industrial and/or transit oriented businesses came from the Planning Commission and a council's discussion on policy issues as did the agricultural support. The other two, with 9 regard to affordable housing and takings, are recommended by staff to comply with state law, io and option number one with regard to size reduction is entirely voluntary for your i i consideration. iz PTOR Mr. Chair? i3 MM: Thank you. Yes. is PTOR: I'd also like to clarify for the gentleman that was just up here that these exceptions is only-are allowed if there is not sufficient land within the urban limit line or the urban. growth i6 boundary. So they have to provide suffident evidence that they cannot put this development i~ within the city limits, and according to the studies that have been provided to the councilthat is there isn't sufficient land for residential, industrial and office type uses within the urban limit i9 line for the 20-year period. zo JH: Mr. Vice Mayor? zi MM: Yes. zz JH: I think it should. be fairly obvious that we are not going to get past the urban z3 growth boundary discussion to item, the last two items on the council agenda. And I'm za concerned that there would be people here who .are waiting to talk about the :Petaluma zs School District administrative off ce or about the Sonoma County Law Enforcement protocol z6 review. MM: The protocol review has been... z7 JH: I'm working from an unrevised agenda and I left the wrong one at home, but the za Petaluma School District administrative office and 200 Douglas Street. I want to hear what z9 the rest of the council thinks, but I can't imagine that we would actually have time to talk 3o about that tonight. 31 MM: Let's see who's here. Is there anybody here for the Petaluma School District 3z administrative office hearing? So Isee--pardon me? 33 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And there are people intending to come back that are 3a watching on TV. 3s MM: Okay. Council, what's your pleasure? The. council woman has brought up the 3G question that it's now ten o'clock, we still have about another- 20 to 25 speakers and it's 37 unlikely we're going to get through our deliberations and the public hearing by 11 o'clock 3s when we usually quit. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-,LfgvorAl Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~Af-irce Mcnror;Llatt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 93 i ??: My understanding, this was time sensitive but Pamela? i PTUFT: John Silvastrini and Steve Bowman representing the school district are s here. I know the school board is very, very anxious to start construction, and they are, of a course, not going to award a contract for the improvement of that site until such time as the s General Plan amendment and rezoning has occurred. So if the audience is willing to be s patient and the council's willing to go a little later, we might be able to get through ~t. We ~ have facilitated a meeting with a neighbor, some of the neighbors and the school distnct, and s hope that we have been able to respond to some of their concerns, if not all. So I'm not sure. 9 MM: Pamela, is there any mandated time requirement here? io PTLTFT: No. There is, but we're well within the permit strearnIining act. ii MM: okay. Thank you. is ??: Mr. Vice Mayor? Is there a meeting scheduled for next Monday night? 13 FRED: Yes, there is a meeting on the 27th with two items at this point. Council is appointments to various commissions and committees if you wanted to do that, that is is somewhat time sensitive, however, you may need more time for that issue and I'm glad you 16 raised that question, because we could postpone that to a later month and have those on commissions about to expire continue month by month. The other item on is the appeal of is Maxwell Subdivision, which is an advertised hearing on an appeal. That would have to i9 appear on the 27th. You could choose to do just, that issue and extend the school question, so if you so want and the neighbors and the school are willing to do so until the 27th. zi PTOR: Can we just move it to the 27th? zz MM: Council, is that your pleasure? i3 PTOR: Please. za NR: Yes, thank you. Is that adequate notification to the school board that it's delayed zs one week and then to those that are here? One week? i6 PTUFT: If you continue to date specific, then those who are interested will either z~ hear it on TV, be here or will call the office. And I don't anticipate doing an additional zs mailing for a one week continuance. There are representatives here. s9 NR: Is there a sign up sheet out there for people who signed up that we can physically 3o call them and let them know it's the 27th? 31 MM: Put a sign up sheet out there and then anybody here, who's here for item 19, please 3z put your name on there, whether you intend to speak or not, so that we can make sure that 33 you have the proper date. It sounds like we want to reschedule this for one week from 34 tonight, Monday, the 27th. 3s JH: Mr. Mayor, if we didn't do that, it would be one in the morning and I'm quite sure 36 and I would, I don't think good decisions are... Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, ~1S CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM Vice Mavor Matt Maguire Page 94, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 n MM: So, staff, would you go ahead and reschedule that for one week from tonight? z And follcs, for number 19, you're welcome to stick around and watch the UGB issue. Okay. 3 Shall we go on? All right. Marne Coggan? a MC: My name is Marne Coggan. I live at 43 WindsorJLane. I'm here to speak in favor s of a 20-year voter approved urban growth boundary, a strong one with minimal exceptions. 6 Petaluma has a great quality of life, a lot of that comes from the General Plan. ~ There are times since the city council can amend the General Plan with as few as four votes, s that the people of Petaluma need to have the ability to directly address issues close to their 9 quality of life.. One such issue almost came before you that was the hillside village property no or the hillside village development on the. Varnhagen property. That is precisely the kind of u development that needs to come before the people on a UGB type of ballot. That is why I nz would like you to draw the urban growth boundary to exclude the Varnhagen property so if n3 that: propDSal does come before the city again, that it will require a vote of the people to is approve rt. Thank you. is MM: George Morrison? i6 GM: Council Members, Pm George Morrison. My wife and I live at Adobe Creek. i~ Been here three years. We love it. We oppose the development east of Frates Road and is support the existing urban limit. Thank you. 19 MM: Steve Geney? zo SG: Members of the Council. My name is Steve Geney, 22 Benjamin Lane. So far in ii the last week. or so, and even tonight, I hear all this stuff about .putting this 20-year ballot sz measure out. And everybody's just really concerned about the residential sprawl and all that z3 stuff. Well, I haven't heard anybody talk about the other things that affect this community 2a and that's the commercial, industrial and the business aspect. The Press Democrat this is morning had a wonderful article about Telecom Valley. Okay. Out of the 14 z6 telecommunications companies that .are in Sonoma County, seven of them are in Petaluma. z~ There is some stuffthat was mentioned in here in the interviews with the owners of several of zs these businesses, that I think tie into this valuable situation we have here and the way of life i9 that everybody keeps bringing up in Petaluma. Last year, and I°ll quote from this article, last 3o year !Telecom Valley Companies pumped $120 million into Sonoma County in paychecks 31 alone. That's a lot of money that's coming back into Sonoma County and back into the City 3z of Petaluma. Some companies and Telecom Valley are beginning to mount .corporate 33 programs that offer employees' children's educational experiences. Advanced Fiber, for 3a example, runs a summer youth employment program that exposes teenagers to Telecom 33 careers. Across the street, DSC Communications contributed money and tutors to programs 36 that teach students about using Inrternet and host after school programs that introduce kids to 3; careers. One of the most unportant things that we can be doing is contribute to the 3s continuous improvement of education in Sonoma County. That was quoted by Dave Urith, 39 Vice President for Strategic Business Development at DSC. The point I'm trying to make ao here is that by rushing through and not looking at all the economic unpacts that this 20-year ai ballot is going to provide, how can we continue to have this type of lifestyle that we're used a: to if we're going to run the potential of cutting these businesses out, move them to other a3 areas, Mann County, Contra Costa County, Solano County's really pumping the charm to as these businesses, trying to get them over there, and we ought to make sure that this is done Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-,LfayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--rice Mayor Matt Afaguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 95 i right. I'm not against urban growth boundaries, I'm not against, certainly not against voter s mandated issues at all. I vote every time I have the opportunity. What Td hke to see is you 3 take the time out on this thing, make sure it's done properly, get all the resources that you a need, do the investigation that's needed and put this thing on the ballot properly. You know, s everybody's just jumping to conclusions here and thinking that this is going to be the catchall. 6 Well, the same people are going to be the ones screaming ten, fifteen years from now when ~ we don't have the money to do the things we need to do because these businesses have left. a Thank you. 9 MM: John Cheney? io JC: John Cheney, 55 Rocca. What an opportunity to come after he came in here with 11 telemarketing. They went after Redwood Business Park and put in a second flood fix that 12 flooded my home this year. That was because of big money, got that money to put it. That's 13 .. the reason we need urban growth boundaries. We are selling this town out to the highest is bidder. We got a sign up there that should have never been put up. The factory outlets and is the flood area where it floods, it looks like a bunch of chicken coops and it shouldn't have 16 been put iri there. It's not on the gen--your award-winning General Plan was not for a factory i; outlet. That was an exception. If we don't put the 20-year boundary and cap it off right now is while we have the opportunity and the money will push big time to change the predictions of 19 this council, when I sat up here years ago and talked and absolutely nobody was listening. zo Please, let's take a hold of the opportunity to let the people speak, put on the boundary, on zi the electorate, and when we get it elected in there, leave it locked in there for 20 years. If we z~ do a plan or something, we can put it up there. The people aren't dumb. If we need the z3 money, we're going to give up some things if we do this. But we're not going to give up the sa quality of life that this Petaluma town's all about. I don't want to--I was sitting out there ten zs years from now with one of my grand kids, standing on Water Street, we're looking at six- z6 foot fence, you can't see the river and I said look at that, can you see over this wall now, kid? z~ That's where we used to bring up steamboats. Please, with our bowls filled down here, we is need the 20-year plan now, and let's get it on, put it in front of the voters, and I believe a z9 hundred percent that no way anybody ever stop that's gonna sterol it in. Thank you. 3o MM: Suzanne Murphy? 3 i SM: I want to thank the council members for sitting and listening to all of us who have 32 strong opinions about this beautiful place in which we live. I want to speak mainly and 33 humbly about the beauty and about the poetry of this land. I'm very much a proponent of 3a _ plain language. My mother was a Iesa1 secretary. My father was a journalist. And my 35 rebellion was in the direction of speaking plainly. Twenty years goes by very fast. Can you 36 hear me? I will say it again. Twenty years goes by very fast. An example of that is that 30 3" years ago I used to drive up here from Marin County with my parents on what was an 3a indelible memory of beautiful Sunday drives. I moved away. Thirty years have passed. And 39 driving up through 101 and through that corridor which I fondly remembered as an entryway ao to a peaceful time, I was very chagrined to notice the build up of commercial billboards and ai those things which detract from one's sense of peace, which is brought upon us by the beauty az .here. That corridor was restful for the eye and for the soul. Re-entry into Sonoma County 43 still maintains that respite for the eye and the image which one sees upon visiting here is one u of rolling hills and native trees gently rustling in the breeze. I was gone from this land for 30 as years, and where did I live? Los Angeles. I don't want to see that happen here. I do not .~ want to see congestion. I do not want to see smoke in the air. We have nothing to fear by Ke_v to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-,Lfayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, 1LfS-Councilmember.~lary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt 1VL~f--Vice Mavor Matt Afaguire Page 96, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 ~ waiting. We have nothing to fear. Twenty years will go by fast. We'll have another s opportunity probably sooner than we think. I am in favor of alternative three. Thank you. 3 MM: Thank you. Nancy Chien-Eriksen? Again, follcs, if you please hold your a applause, you know, we've still got a number of speakers to get through and we would like s to .have some time to deliberate. 6 NC: Good evening. My name is Nancy Chien-Ericksen. I live at 389 Ely Road. And I ~ have a lot that I'd like to say. I may forget a lot, but I commute back and forth in different a .states here. 9 I try to make money out of state and I try to bring it here to Petaluma. And I spend time in io Colorado Springs area. There's whole towns everywhere there without the. proper services. ii It's a travesty because it's very-it's sad because it's a beautiful area. Is it still on? And iz ironically, .when I was speaking to the head planner in Castle .Rock, which is a wonderful 13 community, kind of like how Petaluma waS some years ago, I was asking about growth there, is and he sand oh, the Petaluma, plaq and I said I live in Petaluma. There's a legacy that's is nationwide called the Petaluma Plan. And I think we ,should live to this plan. This is-we i6 started it here. And there was a reason because there was an intelligence here and there was i~ something that was valuable that we perceived. And it's really, really too easy to let it leave, is just disappear. The communities here in Sonoma County do have UGBs, they weren'i easy 19 to get, but they managed to .get it, and'. here Petaluma is a town that's still just thinking about zo it. I live just outside the city limits and as my husband and I were just sitting here talking zi about it, I strongly support this urban growth boundary. Now, I might be really cutting my zz throat because I could be making a lot of money off of development of my land. But I have z3 been here for about a decade and I agree 20 years will go by fa.5-t, because I can't. believe. how za fast this one decade's gone by. What I have seen, I don't think. Petaluma has anything to fear zs about not developing fast enough, because I live at Corona and Ely, and if you live on the zs west side; you probably would never, ever know what. goes on there that every day, every z~ day, it's different. Every day there's a construction site going up and every day the roads zs have some kind of blockage for equipment. So we are developing and I think, you know, z9 we're not-there's not a loss in that direction. I would like to see the limit line as it is .now, 3o the General Plan line, be the 20-year limit and I would like to see certain amenities still 31 allowed. I agree that the J.C. would. be allowed to. expand, and we can get-there is space 3z definitely in the-for the telecom industry also. Thank. you for listening to me. I sent a letter 33 to the Planning Commission and I didn't quite understand the time limits. I really do urge you 34 now,;now that I understand better, to vote tonight and put it to the people to make their 3s decision. Tfiank you. 36 MM: Thank you. Could we have Kip Spragens and then I'd like Carol- Fullerton to 37 follow Kip Spragens. 3s KS: Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor and council members. My name is George 39 Spragens, more familiarly known as Kip, and I'm sure many of you remember me from ao matters I brought before you when the hillside village issue was before you, relating to the ai Williamson Act complications affecting that project. And when a project proposal comes az back before you agann on that parcel, I will be back here renunding you of what the city a3 council said in June 23rd, of 1986, when it approved 237 units for what was then called as Sonoma I-Fighlands, now known as Vctoria. At that same meeting, your minutes note that as the council also noted they feel there should be a maximum of 340 units, including Sonoma Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-Mawr M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Counrilmember Mary Stompe DK- .Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-~ce Mavor,Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 97 i Highland, Varnhagen and Scott properties, Scott being the parcel that's on the D Street end, z in that valley. And if you do the subtraction, you'll realize that what that council was doing at 3 that time was reaffirming what they had just said in their newly adopted General Plan, about a the, densities .that they wanted out there, which confirmed to--also conform with the county s General Plan. As you know, it's my belief that whr7e that Williamson Act still continues to be s in place, and it will be for a little more than two and a half years yet, it'll go into 2001, that ~ any request for approval of development on that land should go to Sonoma County, not to s the City of Petaluma, and the surest way to indicate that, especially if you are talking about a 9 short term UGB here, would be to draw your line on the city limit side of that property rather io than on the outside of it, so it necessarily would go to the county. ii I don't think .it's a bad idea to draw the line on the city limit side even it's longer term. iz Another thing that troubled me a little about this packet that came out was the crosshatched 13 area that's south of Frates.Road. AS I read this, I assumed that that was to be included within is the long term UGB if that's the option you chose, but even if it's to be one of those exception is ~ areas that you have to go through some decision making about, that particular area out there 16 really concerns me because it's outside one of your urban separators, and I thought those 17 things were sacred. And I hate to see this city councd indicating that It isn't, so I would very is much like to see you pull. that piece off if you're gonna do the--go for the 20-year. Okay. 19 And I also submitted a letter to you suggesting a different alternative if you feel you're not zo ready at this point to put the UGB on the ballot. Thank you very much. zi MM: Thank you. Carol Fullerton, and Carol will be followed by Jesse Rhodes. zz CF: Mr. Vice Mayor, council members. My name is Carol Fullerton. I live at 250 z3 Sunnyslope Road. I put some thoughts together this afternoon. I started out by saying I'm za addressing a council that when all is said and done we71 remember as a council who studied, zs listened, discussed, and sent out to be subject to review. I have to withdraw that. People, I z6 don`t think you've done your homework. There are a lot of other communities who have z 7 urban separators, urban growth boundaries. I doubt very much that they did this much za amount of work since last week. Last week you were thinking that you- would have fifty z9 percent of low to very low income housing, and perhaps but you thought not, moderate 3o income housing. And this week it's 25 percent of each. You've done a tremendous amount 31 of work. I don't believe that youwe done a study to find out what the financial impact will be 3z on this community. I think that of all the communities that have done urban growth 33 boundaries, I don't believe any of them have done them In three and a half months. I am for 34 an urban growth boundary. I'm not for racing into arrything. And I am not for scaring the 3s electorate. The feeling seems to be that if we don't do rt now, if it's not on this ballot, it won't 36 - ' happen, and we all know that's not true. I believe that more work needs to be done. Thank 37 yoll. 3s MM: Jesse Rhodes? Jesse Rhodes? Roy. Smith? 39 RS: Good evening. My name is Roy Smith. I live on the west side. I don't belong to ao any group or organization. I just wanted to come out tonight because I was really riled up by ai this issue. I think it's great that you guys are addressing it. I think the issue is not that do we az want urban growth boundary. I think that's a given. I think everybody agrees that's a great a3 thing to have. The issue is how do we go about doing this? And that means when does it as come in effect? How long does it stay in effect? And who controls how it stays in effect? If as it's going to be a preservation measure, the only way it can work as a preservation measure is Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember :~'ancv Read PH-:flavor M. Patricia Hilligoss. 1LIS-Councilmember.ltary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M1Li--vice Mavor Matt :tlaguire Page 98, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i to come into effect immediately, to stay in effect as long as possible and to be controlled by s the people. If it is not a preservation measure, we do not bring it into effect, we limit its 3 length and we control it by small groups. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. a MM: Charlie Davis? Is there a Charlie Davis, 1850 Adobe Creek? Okay. I think we're s gonna go back to people who have spoken before now. Actually, Robert Breen, I don't think s you spoke last week ~ RB: My name is Robert Breen. I live at 404 Smith Court. The Press Democrat, in a a recent editorial, said in the end the people will decide. It is that simple.. There. are people 9 tonight who think things are .going too fast. And there are people here tonight who think io things have been going too slow. Let the people decide. I usu~illy trot out this speech once a i i year and it's my right to vote speech. It goes like this. Nothing is more important in a is democratic society than the right to vote. 13 An essential characteristic of a democratic society is the right of suffrage. No privilege is traditionally to citizens is more important than the right of suffrage. The extent to which the is people are allowed to exercise that right determines to a large degree the democratic or 16 undemocratic character of the government. I have renewed faith of the character of the i~ government of Petaluma. It's a democratic one. And in the end they will let the people is decide. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. 19 MM: Thank you. V'ulce Landof? zo VL: Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, Petaluma. Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor, city zi council, staff. Pm here to say I'm in favor of the 20-year voter approved UBG ballot measure zz as presently perceived. When I moved here in '74, I remembered the award-winning General i3 Plan that went clear to Washington, DC And I was kind of proud to be a new member of this za community when I saw that. I think that with the new UGB, it would instill. the will to open zs up businesses, industry of the type where employees could afford to purchase a car, a home, z6 raise a family, what have you. Right now, it's not so much true. I think also that this would z~ cease to be the bedroom community atmosphere that. supports Marin County and San zs Francisco as it is right now. I know, I lived in Marin County for 18 years. We have to z9 provide police, fire, sewer and water services as well as schools to handle all of this excessive 3o commumty housing developments. Petaluma also has to provide for entertainment and 31 recreational facilities to handle this urban sprawl as it's been going on. Mann County is 3z happier than hell than we're stuck with this and not them. I think we should take care of our 33 much needed.infrastructure improvements now. We have that opportunity. There's plenty of 3a room in this city for developers to go ahead with completing infill projects, but I also wish to 3s applaud .you four council people, Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, and Maguire, :for listening to the 36 people carefully weighing each facet, in spite of all the hits yoll've been taking for dragging 37 your feet and exercising caution and having the guts, fortitude, and the courage to go with 3s the present proposed UGB plan. Thank you. 39 MM: Thank you. We're going to have Tony Varnhagen followed by Bill Kortum, ao followed by Ruben Goldstein. ai TV: Thank you; council members. I'm Tony Varnhagen and my .family has owned the az property at 2323 Western Avenue since 1971. And we've had a few speakers tonight that a3 have voiced the opinion that we should be excluded from the urban growth boundary, even Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-~ce Mayor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 99 i though we've been within the city's urban limit line for over 30 years. I believe that to s exclude a parcel from the urban growth boundary, if it's been with the urban limit line, there 3 must be some compelling reasons to take such a radical step. A previous speaker alluded to a the environmental unpact report that was done for the Idillside Village development, and I s wanted to say on the record. that EIR, which was done by a reputable film chosen by the city, 6 did not find unmitigable problems with the development. In fact, it was very favorable for the ~ ITillside Village protect. So that's, to my knowledge, the only factual document. It may have s problems with it, I think it's a good document but I don't know of another one that's any 9 better that could justify us not proceeding at some future point. But if something comes up, I io think that we don't want to do anything that would diminish the quality of life for our i i community and certainly not our neighbors. I regret that we didn't take the time to meet with iz our neighbors and discuss the virtues of the development and it met with very unfavorable 13 reaction, and we've withdrawn that project, that application has been withdrawn and I would is like to encourage neighbors and any interested people in the community to contact me. is ,. Pm listed in the San Francisco phone directory. If you want to come up to me afterwards, 16 I'm very interested in fears and ideas that people have. I think that we have a lot of common i~ ground that we can move forward on, and I certainly am not in favor of anything which is reduces anybody's quality of life. We all want the same thing. Thank you. 19 MM: Thank you. Bill Kortum? zo BK: Bill Kortum, Ely Road. I'm passing out a recent article in the Wall Street Journal 2i that we've-the strongest argument you've heard from the business community is the concern zz about the industrial capacity of the town. That article explains how the manufacturing group 23 in Santa Clara, which employs 285,000 people, got behind the urban growth boundary of San za Jose. So they're enlightened and they realize that they can`t continue the way they are. We Zs always point out San Jose as what we do not want to be and I think they're a little late in i6 pushing an urban growth boundary. We should do it while we have a chance. z~ I have an overhead here just to back up Bob Breen's comments that this city has a really zs strong value system when it comes to land use, and when land use issues are allowed to go 29 on the ballot so the voters of this city can vote on those issues, they come through 3o resoundingly. Back in 1973, that's been mentioned, the residential growth issue was passed 31 by 82 percent. In 1982, measure A was put on the ballot by citizens through the initiative 32 because the city council had violated the General Plan and put the Frates Ranch up for 33 development. Even with the citizens' initiative that was passed by 56 percent, saying no to 34 Frates. In 1990, Sonoma County's measure A to create the Sonoma County open space 3s _ district passed in this city by 69 percent; This community is concerned about the Land outside 36 the city boundary. In 1996, Sonoma County Measure D, which put the County in the urban 37 growth boundary business, there was no campaign whatsoever, it passed in Petaluma by 71 3s percent. What I'm saying is when this public of this town has a chance to vote on land use 39 issues, they make very wise decisions. The argument that we should wait for the General .so Plan is one that I'd use the Frates Ranch as an example. That passed by such overwhelming a~ majority that when the General Plan came around to revise, I was on that committee of 84, ~: we didn't even touch Frates. My point is we should direct our city by establishing an urban a3 growth boundary and when the General Plan does come along we can build within that urban a-; growth boundary. Thank you. as MM: Thank you. Ruben Goldstein? hey to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Marv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM- ice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 100, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i RG: Vice Mayor Maguire, .members of the city council. Once again, I address you. The z question came up earlier this. evening about exceptions that were indicated on the plan. And I 3 have an exception to the exception, which is already, as you are well aware of, an established a sewer district. The City of Petaluma is obligated to service the sewer district. s MM: Excuse me, Mr. Goldstein. Is this the same stuff we went over this afternoon s when you spoke? ~ RG: Yes. Yes. a MM: Since you spoke before, we do have some more people to speak, could you 9 summarize quickly? to RG: Very quickly. Because I heard one of the speakers e<zrlier asking Pamela to explain u the exceptions. Well, if you would turn to the document that indicates Exlu'bit A 2, it shows rz that one of the exceptions on the east of the Old Redwood FGghway, on the Denman Flat r3 area. la In 1962, we had paid for an assessment, a sewer assessment bond which was .identified as the is sewer assessment district number six. Now, this area is already entitled to a city sewer r6 system, so you're looking at an exception of the exceptions. The other three exceptions have 17 to identify their own reasons for being an exception. We are legitimately and legally entitled Is to the city sewer system in this area. 19 MM: Thank you. zo RG: Oh, just one more thing.. A lesson in ,economics. Please. Bear with me. Pm really zl sorry that some of the people who were applauding so loudly :had left already. A lesson in zz economics. Industry will not move into a community unless there is a labor force. And how zs do you maintain a labor force? By inviting people to move to Petaluma to buy homes here so za that when an industry looks at community, rt says yes, there is a labor force. We can .identify, zs we can build here, we can operate, we can function here. That is a lesson in economics. z6 MM: Mike Healy: z~ MH: Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council, Mike Healy, 304 Kentucky. It's been a zs while.; But I came down here tonight because well,. last week, somewhat to my surprise, I z9 think Iwas-the appointed member of the Planning Commission who was most in favor of 3o putting an urban growth boundary on this .November's ballot. And I wanted to come down 31 tonight to make a pitch for what's now being called option B. Either the one in the staff 3z report, or option 2-B that was presented by Pamela earlier this evening. And I think Pm the 33 first speaker that has come up with that request. And I make this request very mindful of'Tim 3a Hightower's well-known Texas witticism that the only thing to he found in the middle of the 3s road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos. But I think that option 2 would give everyone in 36 the community what they really need out of this ordinance. And I think it's a way of diffusing 37 some of the tension .and finding a way of going forward in a less contentious way. And I 3s certainly did not put forward this suggestion at the Planning Commission as a tactic, as a 39 previous speaker alluded. This is a good faith effort to find a sUlution that keeps everyone's ao interests satisfied. It's flexible enough to accommodate whatever schedule the city ultimately ai chooses for adopting a new General Plan if it's in the next two or three years, if it gets slid to Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, DK Councilmember David Killer, MNI- ice Mayor Matt Maguire NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 101 i the year 2005, or alternatively 1f it slides a year or two beyond that, and it introduces to a z Petaluma in a very unambiguous way, the concept of 20-year urban growth boundary, which, 3 as I think is clear, is what the populace ultimately wants. But this is a way to do 1t 1n such a a manner without doing violence to the planning process. And I think it would be an untenable s situation to go through an urban, a new General Plan and then at the end of the day have that 6 General Plan adopted and then have the urban limit line in that General Plan not be the urban ~ growth boundary: I just don't see how we could do that and be consistent any kind of way s with sound planning practices. And as I said last week at the commission, I don't think the 9 people of the community really need to be afraid of the General Plan process. I am rather io confident that when we go through this exercise in the next couple of years or seven years i i from now, the urban limit line is going to look a lot like what we've got now. The exceptions iz are going to be relatively modest. We all know what the most sensitive spots are. And I 13 would say that I'm, as a previous said, Pm also not afraid of the voters. I would trust the is voters to do the right thing in two years or three years or seven years, and to adopt an urban is ^, growth boundary at that time, because I think if anything the consensus in the community is keeps growing stronger and stronger in favor of this kind of a measure. 17 And we just need to do it in a way that is respectful of sound planning and sound economic is development. Thank you. 19 MM: Thank you. Hank Flum? zo HF: Good evening. I want to speak to those in Petaluma who want to delay putting zr the UGB initiative on the ballot come November, and instead study it. Study it to death. zz Results of uncontrolled growth and sprawl are like a cancer. Sprawl never stops. Everyone z3 can recite a roll call of cities that were once decent places to live. If only 20 years ago, those za city councils had the courage to put a UGB on the ballot. I urge this city council to let the zs citizens decide how big and how fast Petaluma shall grow. One of the earlier speakers z6 quoted the Press Democrat in terms of the need for growth, business growth, for Telecom z; Valley. I would like to point out what the article also said. It said relative to location and so zs on, and I quote, at the same time Sonoma County's rural setting offers a quality of life that z9 vanished years ago in crowded, paved over and high priced Silicon Valley. There is more to 3o the story and I think we have to realize that quality of life is something that we have and we 31 must preserve it. Thank you. 3z MM: Thank you. Kay Russo? Kay Russo? John Barella? 33 _ JB: Vice Mayor, members of the council. My name is John Barella. And I live at 496 34 Jasmine Lane. I think you've seen enough of me. I'm back again to hopefully convince you 35 to take a ,second look at this UGB, take a hard look at the consequences it may have on this 36 community. I was born and raised In Petaluma. I've been here almost 51 years. The more I 37 hear about this UGB, maybe 30 years ago I should have put it on a ballot and maybe half the 3s people wouldn't be sitting here. I'm not sure. But I love this community also and I've been 39 here I figure a lot longer than most of you people who are wanting to see this UGB get as pushed through without too much thought. And Pve got several concerns, I think I ai mentioned before I'm not going to get into them, I'll make it short. I attended your May 30th az workshop. We had a hundred people that said-we asked about the growth on it, on the a3 research that came back from Pam, I think I said last time, 65, 68 of them said that we were as moving too fast, that we should do more research. We went to the next council meeting, we as voiced our opinions. We had a pretty good crowd here. I think somebody said there was 25 Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmemoer Nanry Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, M~Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt 1Lf~f--Vice Mavor Matt Maguire Page 102, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 r to 14 who talked. I went to the Planning Commission hearing. I guess you guys have read z because I just got this packet today, and it has everything that was said by the Planning 3 Commissioners. And the Planning Commissioners voted six to one~thinking we should slow a down. So no? Well, maybe you didn't vote, but the consensus of opinion was six to one as I s recall. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, I'm wrong or yes, Pm right. 6 PTOR: Yes, you're wrong. We didn't-the Planning Commission didn't take a vote, and I ~ think that the Commission came to consensus for a recommendation on a couple of issues. s And so Pamela, I'm sure, can reiterate what exactly those issues are.' 9 JB: I'd like her to, because the way I read it, unless I've got bad hearing, was that every ro commissioner stated the reports are in here, what they wanted .said, what they said was here, ri and if Pm reading this wrong, please correct me. Pamela? iz PTUFT- This is the same man last Tuesday said in public comment that I should be r3 committed so Pm supposed to... is JB Maybe it's me. is PTUFT: I'm supposed to defend this man? I'm sorry. I couldn't. miss the 16 opportunity to get even. No. We included in this evening's packet the Planning i~ Commissioner's discussion of July 14th, which was last Tuesday, and the council or the is commission declined to make a motion and vote, and each commissioner offered their 19 comments. There were a number of commissioners who felt that it should not be rushed. zo And the general concluding comment was offered by commissioner Bennett. Oh, Pm out of zi time, sorry. That there is a lack of consensus from the commission, but if you'd like me, I zz could go through and pick out each. z3 JB: I don't think it's necessary, but I think the .end result was I was there and I think a za lot of other people were there, and the consensus was it was six: to one. Nobody was really zs in favor of putting this UGB on the ballot. And that's the way I read the consensus. And z6 maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion. I know my time's up so I`ll get off of this, but the z~ only other things I have in conclusion is the fact that I'm still concerned with all the other zs comments on these maps, people, they're still looking for some expansion, some room for i9 some future growth. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. Getting this packet 3o today;~I feel the same way you feel, Pam. It's hard to make a decision on anything when you 31 get something at 5 o'clock In the evening. And that's when I got. this packet. And I want to 3z make a decisron on the first item of agenda because you didn`t have enough information. I 33 feel we dons have .enough information to make a legitimate decision out here tonight. So, I 3a just pray that, you know, whatever you do, you do in the best .interest of Petaluma. Thank 3s you very much. 36 MM: Thank you, John. Christa Shaw? 37 CS: Good evening. I have a few comments that I'd like to make specifically to the 3s document at hand. First of all, I'd like to express [inaudible] strong support for option three. 39 Option three over option two. And in fact, I personally believe and I believe that although I ao didn't see the documents before now, our hundreds of members in Sonoma County would ai agree with me, that option two does not constitute a 20-year urban growth boundary at all. az What it does is set us up and say we're putting a 20-year urban growth boundary on the ballot Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Irce Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 103 i but we're going to change it in a few years. Essentially, what I think that Petaluma's setting s itself up for is a situation where structure is so intense between now and when that General 3 Plan update is completed, that you're going to see not an urban growth boundary process a happening now, but an urban growth boundary process and a conflict that continues between s now and the end of that General Plan process. It seems really important to keep in mind that 6 Petaluma's staff have done a good job of putting together reports that do show that the ~ current urban limit line contains enough land to accommodate those needs of the community. a And with reasonable exceptions, a 20-year urban growth boundary that's approved by the 9 voters, that also has the ability to go back to the voters for important changes, seems like a io good idea. Bill Kortum pointed out that Measure D passed vv~th 71 percent of the vote in ii Petaluma, and that was 71 percent of the voters said we want to have our community iz separators next to this community protected at such time as we approve a 20-year urban 13 growth boundary. And that's more, the percentage 3I1 Petaluma was larger than the is percentage by which Measure D passed countywide. That is very important. Further, option is .- three is a way to provide long term stability for the community and some end to the real 16 estate speculation. When you saw people, there were dozens of people here tonight from i~ different parts of the community who had been impacted by real estate speculators who came is forward and had ideas for an area that they were fi-ightened by. And under those kinds of 19 circumstances some people have been talking about. well, we've got, we don't have enough so time to go through this process, we don't have enough time. What's really important actually Zi is if you put a 20-year urban growth boundary on the ballot now, the community has many s. more months to discuss it. If you use option B, or option two I guess is what it is, what's ~3 going to happen, in my opinion, is that you will see the same exact sides, the same exact za conflict going on between now and then. And when the process comes up again for another ss 20-year urban growth boundary, you're gonna have the same people staking out the same z6 sides. It's not healthy for the community. Is that really what you want? I hesitate to answer z~ that question because I don't think that the answer is yes. I have a few other comments on za different exceptions. I'm perfectly okay with exception options two and three, dealing with i9 affordable housing and takings. They are fairly standard exceptions and I have no issue with 3o them. As far as exception four on transitory development and industrial, I like of within 1500 31 feet, I believe that that was suggested by a planning commissioner. I think that's a very good 3i idea. I think a hundred acres over the lifetime of the boundary seems excessive, if you're 33 looking at a rail station for that 1500 feet. Further, I think a hundred acres for industrial is 3a also too much. Other communities in Sonoma County do have exceptions for job producing 33 things. Windsor, for instance, has, I believe, about ZS acres. Sebastopol has 13. Petaluma is 36 about double the size of Windsor, so if you would choose to go with the number of SO acres, 3 ~ that might be more reasonable. Thank you. 3a MM: Thank you. Bill White? 39 BW: My name is Bill White, 1318 Redwood Way. We've heard many people talk ao tonight and over the last three or four meetings about the overwhelming desire to have an ai urban growth boundary for the City of Petaluma. a~ I don't deny that and I don't know that I disagree with it. But I think that the citizens of the a3 community also want a stronger job growth and a balanced and strong economy. I'm also as willing to make the leap of faith, and for me it is a leap of faith, that infill development will as work and we'll be able to handle a lot of the business that we want to keep growing in the a6 community. But I don't believe no more than a hundred acres over a 20-year period will a; allow for the balance growth that we need in this community, unlike Miss Shaw, who Key to abbreviations: JH-Councllmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councllmember ~~'ancv Read PH-:tfavor:'~f. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember.llarv Stompe DK- Councllmember David Keller, PTOR-Councllmember Pamela Torliatt AL~Lf-ice :favor Matt Maguire Page 104, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i preceded me, who wants to cut it in half, I don't have a specific number. I think a hundred s acres is just not enough. for 20 years, and that's what we're looking at, even with the infill 3 development, and I do buy into the infill development concept. I do appreciate the council's a making an effort by reviewing this and the existing situation ui 2006. But I think it needs to s be a realistic review. I think we .need to keep our- options open for job growth, and I think s and what we're proposing right now we're not necessarily doing that. If'the job growth isn't ~ there, it won't be needed, or if we don't want to encourage it, the city council doesn't have to a approve any specific project. But we should keep some options open for' job ..growth. 9 There's also no question in my mind that somebody brought up a few moments ago that one io of the strong reasons why the telecommunications industry as so attracted to this area and has ii been over the years is the quality of life and the rural nature of the community. I think that's, iz you know, I've talked to many, many of these people and they want that, they don't want us n3 to get destroyed. And, you know, I think that that bodea well for them and for the na community. It's a very definitely fine line to travel here .for us, but I also have a serious ns concern 2hd I know many of the people in the communications industry have a` serious i6 concern that we are just going to restrict them basically out of the community over the next i~ 20 years. So I would ask you to reconsider if the path you've taken tonight is the path you as want to take, I would ask you to reconsider the number of acres, give yourself some 19 flexibility, give this community some flexl~bility and job growth. Thank you very much. so MM: Thank you. Richard Braun? zi RB: Good evening. I'm Richard Braun, 141 Grevillia:Dnive. And my first comment is I s: think that Pamela Tuft has done an absolutely fantastic job, particularly of taking notes at the z3 Planning Commission meeting. Somebody was really listening and Pm not sure -all the za commissioners were. We're talking now a quality of life issue. It's quality of Iife. Economics zs and land use are subordinate to what the people want.: Those things will follow. Anything s6 less than 20 years is just simply not an urban. growth,boundary. We the voters are perfectly z~ capable of looking after our own. economic interests. We don't need somebody claiming zs they're looking after our interests for us. Economics 101 says that if you make a place, a z9 good place to live, you'll get good people coming there. There are very, very few people In 3o this world that actually make a difference, and those people, whether they be ;professional or 31 whether they be~ entrepreneurial, they don't go after the money. They go after the fun of 3z doing things and they go after living m a nice place, and if we make this place nice, we will 33 see the incomes rising and not just a few incomes but everybody's income rising. And I think 34 that's' what we're all after. And I hope this can be seen, by the business community, and that's 3s the way it works. Again, I compliment the council on taking this up. Great job. I hope you 36 get to vote tonight. 37 MM: Thank you. Tom Baker? And it looks like Don Weisenfluh will follow Tom. 3s TB: Vice Mayor Maguire and members of the council. I'm Tom Baker. I live at 39 number 1 Morning Sun Drive. I'm a third generation Petaluman. And aS John reiterated ao before, I also wonder what would have happened 30 years ago if we had done the same at program. Probably most people wouldn't be here tonight. I have reviewed the proposed plan az and I'm very disappointed in it. a3 I feel it does not adequately leave enough room for our children to be able to have a place or as work and live in our community. I also believe that it will definitely change .our quality of life as by putting too much pressure on infill along the river and along the boulevard, creating more Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-~Lfavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, M~Cowacilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-irce Mavor Matt ;ilaguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 105 i of the problems that we've already done from some of our mistakes in the past. Housing s demands must be mei and going upward will create more traffic and more stress in a smaller 3 area, giving us less space per capita. A UGB will have its affect on agriculture by pushing the a ancillary businesses, such as hay trucks, feed stores and ag mechanics, out of our community. s It will increase rents and have prices, home prices, causing many families to double up, which s we do see in some of the other cities around us, or perhaps they must have to leave. ~ Something as important as deciding the future of our community should be well thought out, s should be studied ai least as much as our General Plan was and should be in the future. It 9 should have all the information possibly available, and I don't believe we do have all that at io this time. This council spent a year deliberating a single piece of property. It spent six years i i looking at sewer district. The Rainier overcrossing, it's been 20 years. Yet, in just a few is short months, we're deciding the entire firture of our community. Please take the time to be 13 sure your decision is right. Thank you. is MM: Thank you. Wayne Veler? is WV: Council members. My name is Wayne Vieler, and I wanted to comment on a 16 couple of things. One of them is that some of the comments that have been coming forward i~ with regards to the Planning Commission and how we saw things last week Argus-Courier is front page says Commission says hold UGB. The Planning Commission never said any such 19 thing, and I wanted to make that very clear to yourselves and also to the public. The so Planning Commission reached some measure of consensus with regards that they believe zi there should be a UGB. There was concern over the duration of time and there was also z2 concern over the ability of being able to do some economic feasibility studies within the s3 UGB. Towards that end, what consensus there was basically reached the agreement of tying Za a UGB to the existing General Plan and creating some sort of a mandate or something along Zs those lines that when a new General Plan was put into place the UGB at that time would also i6 be put up for vote fora 20-year term to coincide with the new General Plan. So I wanted to s~ clarify that. Also, for the other speakers that have come. forward. There was a gentleman 2s notably just a short while ago that said It was six to one in favor of putting it on hold. There i9 was no such thing. I do-I very much agree with the idea. of an urban growth boundary and I 3o do think that the time to do it is now. Iwe heard several quotes. Commissioner Healy, for 31 one, with the idea the only thing in the middle of the road. I've been going to a lot of movies 3i lately and one of the quotes that I've been hearing a lot has been a quote from Will Rogers, 33 who's been saying that, who was quoted as saying that even if you're on the right road, if you 34 sit it in too long you'll be run over. I would like to see a UGB drafted at this time and put on 3s the ballot. I would h7ce to see it mandated so that at the time that a new General Plan is 36 completed, that it is brought back to the voters by law on a November election so that there's 37 - not a special election that has to take place or doesn't cost the City something extra. There is 3s one point of disagreement that I do have with some of the things that I heard earlier this 39 evening when Planning Director Tu$ was going through some of the revisions. I do have a ao lot of trust in the ability of the people to decide for themselves. I think that the people would ai feel much more misted if any decision that's made with regards to a UGB at this time is also az given the opportunity at the next election that we have spoken of in regards to a new General 43 Plan, so that at that time they have the decision making process and the opportunity to say as no, we've decided that a UGB is a wrong decision and rather than being Iocked into a 20-year as decision at this time and having that default position in the future, leave that in place, they a6 have the opportunity to say no or to put a new 20-year plan in effect at that point. Thank a~ you. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, 1~l.~Councilmember.~lary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~ill~f--Vice Mavor Matt Maguire Page 106, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i MM: Thank you. And could we have Gary Broad as long as we're on a roll with the z Planning Commission? 3 GB: I didn't know so many other commission members were going. to weigh in tonight. a MM: The Planning Commission knows a party when they see one. s GB: Thank you, Mr. vice Mayor. And Planning Commission. Essentially,. I just want s to, I think, repeat'the same item I mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting,. just so it's ~ not lost in the shu$le or somehow lost in the reading of the minutes. As I stated then, I am a firmly committed to the urban growth boundary concept. Speaking not as a planning 9 commissioner but once again as someone who lives within this community and as a member io of the community, I would like to see the urban growth bound~ry,happen. I think it's a great i i idea. From what I see is the planning director of a community that cannot move outward, iz what I i~nd happening is better infill development ocean under utilized and not so 13 appropriately utilized. Property is redeveloped to the good of both the property owner and is to the community. And my feeling on this whole issue is the council has certainly heard a lot is of input from members of the community and I think it's been a terrific dialog, and I think i6 ultimately it falls back on the shoulders of city council members, and if the majority of the t~ council is comfortable that you have thoroughly studied the issue and that you are is comfortable with the answers, then I think you should go ahead and put it on the ballot and 19 put it on the ballot for 20 years, and let's get it done. And. if you're not comfortable with the zo issue, then I think we should take the. additional time we need, and put it on the ballot as soon zi as the council is comfortable with that issue. But I'd tike to see it done and'Pd like to see it z. done for 20 years when it is done. Thank you. z3 MM: Thank you. Don Weisenfluh? za DW: Mr. Vice Mayor, City Council Members. Last week I was. at the city council zs meeting and I was at the Planning Commissioners' meeting, and I heard a great deal of talk of z6 the UGB issues, and one thing that caught my attention very specifically was the Ellis Creek z~ area presented by McBail Associates to sprawl out past the existing urban limit line which zs runs along the golf course and down Frates and extends out into once was farmland and then z9 down the Route 116. And, okay, you can take that one off there. And I would like to show 3o who owns that land, so let's put a pazcel map up there very quickly. It's out of focus, I think. 3 i Oh, rt's all right, maybe just weak print. Yeah. Okay. ,All right. And I'd like. to let you know 3z who owns that, going nght down the list. From the top, number ten, is Mr. Pfendler, 93.13 33 acres,: and-the next one down I think is number twelve. That's IvlcBall at 120 acres. The next 3a one down is Lucy Webb, which is circle 13. I think that's 30 acres. Lucy Webb again at 98 3s acres.. And now we're down to .19, I believe, and there is four owners for that. A Mr. 36 Bazella, a Mr. Baker, a Mr. Henri and Mr. Offenbach. And those are all subject to being 3 ~ developed' and this.kind of gives you an idea of just who's against this. People who stand to 3s make a profit, very specifically, a profit for themselves. There's .50;000 people in this town 39 and there's only a few people on that-list and that's gonna hurt the town. Would you. put the ao next slide up,please? There they are, but I'm gonna get that one down in a minute because ai we have one other item to put up there. Okay, could you take that down now and put the az tast one up. Back in '73, as you can see, the file stamp number up in the right hand corner, a3 the town went through an ordeal and the people against the city's right to control growth is as the Construction Industry Association of:Sonoma County, the San Francisco Peninsula and Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor ~f. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-tree ~Llataor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 107 i Redwood Empire Building Industry Association, Petaluma Partners, and a Mr. William s Lawrence. I don't know these folks but this is the--I do know these folks? Okay, fine. 3 These are the folks who make a buck off of you, and that's all there is to it. We have a a character of town. This is a small town. It's a charming town. It's an agrarian town. And s sprawl and small don't mix. Homebuilders Association, formerly the--excuse me, the s Chamber of Commerce believes the UGB issue may be rushed. The homebuilders believe ~ that it's moving along too fast. Those seeking to delay or stop the adoption of the UGB s argue that there are two few facts available to make the decision and that more time is 9 needed. They urge the city to delay until an economic plan is developed. The fact is delay io would assure the anti UGB pro-sprawl contingent that the UGB initiative would never ever ii reach the ballot. If you lose this council's responsiveness to the will of the people, come the iz November election you may very well lose the opportunity to save your town. So what's the 13 rush? Petalumans counter the what's the rush ruse with then own question. Why, when the is old planning commissions and the old city council were so pro-development was no is ~ economic plan developed? It's rhetorical, to say the least, but I'll be perfectly clear. Over 15 i6 years, all during the previous administration's reign, the city has dismissed any attempts to i~ develop an economic plan. It would have interfered with their business as usual protocol, is that is, build now, pay later. That's precisely what has gotten Petaluma so concerned. The 19 argument that an economic plan is necessary to properly plan the UGB location is totally so without merit. As pointed out, sprawl for the purpose of economic health is fallacious. What zi about the cost of sprawl? Those folks didn't discuss that last time. They walked right around sz it. Nobody has addressed that point because we know the taxpayers pay. We have no--have 23 so much to fix in this town from the excesses of the build now and pay later crowd of za preceding administrations, that we can't even fix the flooding of the Payran neighborhood. Zs This is a perfect example of the ineptness or greed of the foot draggers. Who approved s6 development in a flood plan zone anyway? Three guesses and the first two don't count. z~ Additionally, burgeoning traffic and the failure of the past administration to charge the zs builders appropriate fees prevented Petaluma from fulfilling its obligation to our children i9 regarding adequate educational facilities. Sprawl hurts the school districts and the kids. We 3o need to get back to basic. Residential sprawl never pays for itself. Had it, we wouldn't be 31 looking for 30 million for a new sewage treatment plant. The General Plan is a preeminent 3z goal. Keep the town small charm and agrarian People come to a nice town to enjoy quality 33 of life, the views, the architecture, quaintness, sense of community, its beauty. Business 3a seeks good locations for their personnel. Good locations sell themselves. Small town charm 3s and quality of life are what good businesses seek. Press Democrat, 19 July, these other 36 gentlemen talked about it, but they omitted, quote, Sonoma County's rural setting for a 3~ quality of life that vanished years ago. That's the reason for telecom firms are moving to 3s - Sonoma County. Folks, the UGB will only enhance this town's ability to effectively and more 39 efficiently meet its financial demands with considerable negative impact brought on ao development mavens. The UGB issue has been present in Sonoma for the past five years, ai maybe more. Voters of other towns have adopted it, five other towns, Healdsburg, Windsor, a2 Sebastopol, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and the County. a3 MM: Don, can you wrap it up, please? as DW: Okay. I just want to make sure that--let you folks know that you're doing the right as thing, go for a tight one, 20 years voter approved, put it on the ballot, let the people make the as decision. Thank you. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-,flavor .f1 Patricia Hilligoss, ~fS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 108, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 ~ MM: Thank you. One more speaker, I think. Dick Lieb. Dick, go ahead. s DL: Dick Lieb, Number One Highland Road, Petaluma. It's been a long evening, it's 3 been a long process. The plan squeaks, staff has done quite a job. Pamela has worked a probably 70 hours a week. I think we need a consensus and compromise here on this whole s issue. We hear speakers on both sides of issues, some get pretty radical about naming people 6 in this town that have done a hell of a lot of good for this town. I think we :need the situation- ~ -I think we need what J.T. Wick has proposed. We're all for an urban growth boundary in a this town for all kinds of reasons. The 101 widening epazatinn between here and Novato. 9 For years, there's been thought of land. buying up here on the hill north of Petaluma,. which is io being done for open space. Out Bodega Avenue we're pretty well stopped in many ways i i because sewer problems, big pump stations. The hills over by Westridge, that's it. I think is that we should do is put it on the ballot .for atwo-yeaz period, get our General Plan up, 13 created anew General Plan and then at the end of two years, the General Plan process will is decide to gut it on the ballot again and extend it or we go by a General Plan. I think'we need is some conciliatory compromise in this town. We've been under siege, 'a lot of us, on both 16 sides:::of this .issue. I have a lot of friends who are on both sides of .these issues. I'm in a i~ situation where I work everyday and compromise to work out planning and design, and I is think,we need to look at J.T. Wick's idea. I really, strongly believe it. Put it on the ballot for 19 UGB. but it's atwo-year sunset clause until we get a new General Plan and change, then we 20 decide what we're gonna do as far as a 15- or 20-yeaz plan. I believe in infill and so forth,. but zi I just believe we ought to head down this road in this direction and to diffuse this, go through zz a nice General Plan process that we've done three or four times since I`ve been in. this city. c3 And I think we'll get more consensus and people working together in this town we've had for za years. Thank you. is MM: Thank you, Dick. Council, I believe that's the end of testimony. is 7H: Mr. Vice Mayor? 1'd like to ask for afive-minute break. I've been sitting here z~ since... ss MM: All right. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have one more? Can we wait for i9 one more speaker? 3o JH: Sure. 31 MM: Okay. Is there gonna be anybody else who wishes to speak on this issue? This 3i will be the last speaker then. And then we will take afive-minute break. 33 JW: Thank you. We all want a break. I'm Jay Walsh,. 441?. Kastania Road. I just do--I 34 am for the urban growth. boundary. But with the perspective that there have been many 3s references to this being agrarian and cattle raising and all. My father-in-law started: a ranch 36 up here and he is an accomplished rancher who came from Southern California and for seven 37 years, properties only about .180 acres, and, he barely made enough money on grating the 3a cattle and a hundred cows, a hundred pairs to pay the taxes. This is not an agrarian town. It 39 is not in a rural economy based center of actlvlty, and anyone who wants to hold in that ao position is going on down the yellow brick road. I feel that the idea of putting an urban ai growth boundary, nailing it down for 20 years based on present knowledge and beliefs of az where you want rt to stay is premature. If you look at the shifts on what's happening, people a3 commuting to the city, cotrung back here, it's a bedroom conununity, extension of Mann Itev to abbreviations: .TFI-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MavorAf. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~f irce Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 109 i County, you're talking about. making this into a telecommunications based center for growth z in the future. If that is the issue, you should build in enough area for this growth to occur s and to encourage the employers to come here. But nail it down with a profile and some a flexibility. So perhaps tied in with the General Plan. That's my feeling. Things are not right s now the way they will be in 15 years, no matter what, and you want people to have a place to s live and a place to work Thank you. ~ NIlVI: Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing. And now, let's take a precisely s five-minute break. We will come back at 20 after to that clock and then talk about the 9 process. io MM: Ladies and Gentlemen. I'd like to reconvene the meeting. i i It's not working. Fred, it's not working still. It had to warm up. It had to warm up. iz Mine's not on. 13 MM: David Keller? ~a David Keller, please come home. is MM: Come to the podium. All right, Council, before we get into the meat of the subject i6 here, I think since it's 20 after 11:00, it's appropriate that we discuss how we want to proceed i~ here tonight. Are we prepared to go ahead tonight and continue discussing this and is deliberate, or do we want to continue to a date? i9 To July 22nd. zo July 22nd? zi Mr. Vice Mayor? zz MM: Councilwoman? z3 I'd like to suggest that we continue it. We have a relatively light meeting on July 27th. za We continue discussion on July 27th? zs MM: That would be this Wednesday? z6 - No, no. It's... z~ Mr. Vice Mayor? I will be out of town on the 27th, and I would like to--I'm completely zs prepared to go through and finish tonight. I don't need another meeting. z9 MM: Councilwoman? 3o Well, about three o'clock this afternoon, I said what's the process going to be and here we 31 are again at 11 o'clock trying to find out. I will be here the 27th and I'm available, but if we 3z can go through the four steps of determining how long this line is, where this line is, and 33 those four steps first, then at least maybe if we have to postpone it or get it to the 27th, at 3a least those questions have been answered. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH tl~lavorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember.ltary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~LLI-f-Tice Mavor,~Iatt Maguire Page 110, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i MM: Councilman Keller? z DK: I would prefer to tackle it this evening. I think it's all fresh. I know there are s difficulties in attendance on .successive meetings. And. I think it's important for as many of us a to be here as possible, and I'd like to proceed this evening: I think we can make considerable s progress on this. s MM: Councilwoman Torliatt? ~ PTUFT: I'm in concurrence with the majority of the members to look at it tonight. s MM: I'm willing to go ahead with it tonight. I was apprised at the break that the 9 audience would like the pain to be over. io Mr. Ch,~ir'? We are missing a member. Can I suggest that we go tih midnight and then re- ii evaluate. I have to leave at rrudnight. iz MM: I'm willing to have the council discuss it, if it's the council's pleasure. 13 At midnight? is MM: Okay. Comments? is Can we do a check-in at midnight? 16 MM: We can do a check-in at midnight. Council? Councilman Keller? t7 DK: Thank you. I think--you want to go down the line? is MM: Just go ahead. i9 DK: Sure. Okay. It's okay with me. Oh, I start, huh? Starting with the question that zo council member Read raised earlier about what's the term for this measure. I think the only zi thing that we can do that is responsible is to make this a 20-year measure without exception. zz At any time down the line if the council or the citizens wish to bring it back up for revision, z3 they can do that under the conditions of law and the conditions. of this measure. And one of za my reasons for wanting to make it a 20-year measure, not only the economics to stop land zs speculation_on the edge of town and increase the investment in the city, or as a developer in z6 town put it more succuictly, I'd like to make a lot of money in Petaluma and then move some z~ place :nice. That's an actual quote. We have a very considerable issue on the length of this zs measure as it relates to Measure D. As you well know, 7I percent of the voters in Petaluma z9 voted:.for Measure D. Measure D requires that the county set up community separators 3o around cities that adopt a 20-year measure and nothing less. And the conditions on that are 31 very explicit. Requires meeting the following. requirements. Creation of a continuous urban 3z growth boundary which does not encroach in any community separator, is a voter approval 33 requirement for the enactment, repeal, revision, or amendment to the measure and C, a 3a provision prohibiting automatic termination in this ordinance in less than 20 years. If we do 3' anything Ness than that, we do not get the urban separate, rather, the community separator 36 support from the county, and so we will continue to see this speculation along Frates, .along 3; South Boulevard, along the north end of town, and anywhere else where people wish to Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor fLf. Patricia Hilligoss, ~ tLl~Councilmember,Ltary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-lice Mayor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 111 i speculate. I do not feel that presenting the voters, or I should say I feel that presenting the z voters with anything less than a clear 20-year growth boundary is deceptive, because we will 3 not get the backup that we need from the county and that the people have voted for in the a past. So as a consequence, anything less than a 20-year measure is entirely unacceptable to s me. 6 MM: Who would like to speak next? ~ NR: May I ask a question? Are you going to split it up and we can talk term, and we s can talk--and then talk line. 9 MM: What does the council want to do? io JH: Pd like to speak term first. Length of time, then let's talk about the line, then let's i i talk about any exceptions. iz NR: Line and exceptions. 13 MM: Very well. Who would like to speak? is PTOR: Mr. Chair? Pm in favor of a 20-year urban growth boundary. is MM: Thank you. We may as well go straight on through. 16 7H: Okay. I want to be in favor of option two, alternative B, because I really want to i~ compromise and I want, like the last speaker said, I would love to bring the community is together and find something where everybody could feel they were getting something that i9 they wanted. But when I read the language of option two, alternative B, it really is just zo saying it's not substarrtial. It says UGB shall remain in effect until December 31, 2018, that's zi the 20-year, or until after an election is held in which the voters of Petaluma vote on a revised zz urban growth boundary and related General Plan policies, whichever occurs first. Now, if we z3 adopt a 20-year urban growth boundary, there is always the option to do it, I mean, I think za there is a general consensus that we want to go ahead and do the General Plan. There will zs always be that option It doesn't need to be put into the measure. If; through the General z6 PIan process legitimate recommendations and consensus comes out of that process and z7 makes a recommendation for changes to the boundary, those recommendations can be put on zs the ballot as amendments to the UGB. And that can be done anyway. I don't like tying it to z9 the General Plan and setting up a series of things that have to happen and if they don`t happen 30 - then this happens. I think it's much cleaner to say a 20-year urban growth boundary and 31 understand that there is a process that everybody can engage in. I think that's the cleanest 3z and clearest thing, and from the input I have had from citizens in the last four months, since 33 we have been working on this, it has been just overwhelmingly a 20-year urban growth 34 boundary. The voters in this community want control and they want to be holding the reins 3s on growth. And I asree with many of the speakers that the voters are not ignorant and 36 they're not dumb. They will make changes if the changes are going to improve their quality 37 of life and make this a better place to live. 3s MM: Councilwoman Read? Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-:favvor M. Pabicia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M1-f-lice .flavor Matt Maguire Page 112, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i NR: Okay. Petaluma has had an urban limit line for almost 30 years. And the reason s why we're here right now is because we're almost there. And this town is almost at build-out. 3 Yet, how we got here and utilize that urban limit line was with the General Plan that. went a parcel specific all the way around this town, and it took two years back in '85 to '87 to s determine where to put that line. I am in favor of utilizing the General Plan once again to be 6 able to create that urban limit line which can become the urban growth, boundary. But I ~ would like to do it in correlation with the General Plan. Putting on a General .Plan, putting s on an urban growth boundary for seven years would get us to the General Plan revision of 9 2005. If you want to call it a 20-year~urban limit line, that's fine with me. But it needs to be is for the term and the life of the General Plan. So I don't know what option that is, I guess it i i starts with option number one, but I'd be in favor of it for the life of the General Plan. - . is MM: Thank you. Couna7woman Stompe. 13 1ViS: ~ support a 20-year urban growth boundary, but not at this time. ~ Not option three. is I would support option one and I would support option two, alternative B..I think there's is been;enough concerns raised. about the process and the timing and information. I agree we i6 are late in this process, but I don't think that justifies a shortened process. I think it makes i~ perfect sense that we do protect the community now against urban sprawl by adopting our is current urban limit line. But I also think we need to update our General Plan and at that n9 point put forward to the voters again exactly what's in the General Plan after full public zo process. Again, I would support either option one or option two, alternative B. s i IviM: Thank you. This council has been--some of us have been accused of trying to rush zz this process. There are marry of us in this town who have locked to the day when a UGB z3 would come to pass for many, many years. And although we have put an undo bwden on sa staff to come. up with some of the information to help us :make an informed decision, staff has zs done that and I am comfortable with the level of'information that we do have. And I believe s6 I can make an informed decision. I've been wavering '.between option three and option two. z~ What I have heard consistently year after year is people want a1.0-year voter mandated urban ss limit line. Obviously, option three gives that to us. However, I, in my position as a city i9 council member, see a dire need for us to get to work on a General Plan update. That is a 3o very important thing we need to do. We've got a lot of major projects. going on in the city 31 that are interrelated, and for us to try to make the best planning decisions on them without 3s looking at the overall context increases our risk of poor planning for the future. However, 33 the option for the community to be able to speak and say what they want for themselves is 3a not so much a nuts and bolts question as is say, Rainier overpass or the wastewater treatment 3s plant, which are things where you definitely have to measure the flow, the demand, you 36 know, the resources, et ceteras. This is much more of the higher :level decision making. And 37 this is; a rare opportunity for the public to have a. chance to make this decision. Now, if the 3s public; if we put on a 20-year voter mandated UGB on the ballot and the public adopts it, 39 that is the public saying we are speaking our. feelings, we are speaking our desires, we are ao speaking our needs. And those are all appropriate. Those are all legitimate things for the ai people of this community to speak to. Yes, we do need to look at the impacts on the a2 economy, because a community is not just houses. It is homes, businesses, open space, you a3 know, non-profit organizations, et cetera. So, with that understanding, I tend to want. to go as to option two. However, with the wording as it is currently written, if we go through a as General Plan process, if we adopt this proposed UGB for 20 years and then we go through a a6 General Plan process, and we come up with a new UGB' and it goes to the vote and it doesn't a~ get passed, then we don't have any voter mandated term beyond that point, beyond its Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS: Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MALI--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire July 20, :1998 Vol. 32, Page 113 i expiration as so worded. Therefore, if we're going to adopt option two, I would require that s we change the wording, which we discussed a little earlier at the beginning of this evening's s session, to reflect that should there be another UGB voted on after this one is adopted and a that new one fails, that this one should stay in effect for the remainder of its 20-year term. s That I would support because basically then we have the option to look at a General Plan s amendment, seriously, you know, if we had to go, you know, parcel by parcel, we can look ~ at that. And we can look at the effects of that. And that is more related to the General Plan s process that we had which gave us our current General Plan. However, I do, you know, I 9 personally would require that there be the fallback default position that should that not pass, io that the existing voter mandated UGB remain in place. Now, the second point, though, is ii should a new UGB come up and it be worked upon and it be put up for the vote: once again, iz I would look to that to be a 20-year UGB, a new 20-year span startmg at that point. That is- 13 -so, if there's feedback from the council, I'd like to hear it, because those are my thoughts on ~a where we're at on the term. is ~ DK: Just a quick one. The problem with any language that requires a new vote on a 16 new UGB is that it invalidates the county backup. The language in the county measure is i~ explicit. Anything that requires automatic termination of an ordinance in less than 20 years is voids the county backup. No 20-year mandate, no county backup on community separators. i9 And it's as simple as that. It's either a 20-year measure and come back at the option of a Zo future council or public initiative at any time in the future, but unless the language is explicit, zi there is no county backup, and I'm not willing to risk that. s2 MM: I would refer to our city attorney, Ivtss Golpoyne, could you give us your opinion z3 on whether the reiteration that I proposed constitutes an automatic... sa PTOR: Should we move on to where the line should be and then we can get some ss comments back as soon as they've been able to discuss it. s6 MM: Let's do that. z~ NR: Okay. The questions can be kind of jumped into the line. Then having heard the zs initial first time, a 20-year term seems to be getting the majority of the vote here. That if s9 there was a line attached to this 20-year-if there is a line, whatever that line is, attached to 3o this 20-year, that this city has yet to do a fiscal analysis of what's gonna happen over those 20 3 i years without line. And that's the waiting part to find out what the line is going to be, but 3z without making a fiscal analysis and determining the--well, at least the land available for 33 _ everything: and not just in a 30-day or a 40-day period that was done, Pm a little skeptical to 3a hear what is going to happen which what line it is. And the one that I--I'll say it right now is 3s the existing urban limit line. 36 PTOR: Where the line is? 37 ??: We're on that one now? Where the line is. Okay. 3a FRED: Well, is the attorney ready with the comment regarding the consistency with the 39 county's 20-year and option for a voter prior to the 20-year? Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MavorM. PatriciaHilligoss, >LI~CouncilmemberMarvStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torlian 111111-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 114, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i PTTL7FT: All this wonderful when you put in a planner and an attorney together, it z works when they're both the same person. But based on the comments received earlier this 3 evening, we offer this wording for consideration. Like me to read it? a MM: Yeah, please. s PTUFT: The UGB shall remain in effect until December 31, 2018, unless replaced s by a UGB measure passed. by an election held in which the voters of Petaluma vote on a ~ revised urban growth boundary and related General Plan policies. Such an election shall be s undertaken in conjunction with the adoption of a new General Plan. When a new General 9 Plan is adopted by the city council an election on a new .UGB is held and passed, this measure io shall expire 60 days following the declaration of the results of that election. The only thing ii that does not state which we could plug.n, is that the next election would also be fora 20- iz year urban growth boundary, and we could easily plug that in at the appropriate 20-year. i3 MM: We will have to count the words, but I have a griestion for Chris Taylor, our is counsel. Chris, the Measure D from the county, as Councilman Keller has cited, says that is any automatic shortening of a 20-year UGB would then make Measure D not be in effect. i6 My question is would that wording that was just proposed constitute an automatic shortening i'7 of the term? is CT: The wording that was just up on the overhead provides that a UGB will remain in i9 effect, either this one or another one that is another 20-year UGB that succeeds it. So we zo would certainly argue to the county that that was within the intent. zl MM: So that that would meet the count}~s criteria? zz CT: Without having talked to the county, that's right. z3 DK: The issue I have with that is again, the language is very explicit and it says that za there has to be a voter approval requirement for enactment, repeal, revision or amendment to zs the measure, and that there is a provision prohibiting automatic termination on this ordinance z6 in less than 20 years. This language automatically will terminate this UGB under succession z~ of UGB, and particularly with the language such an election shall be undertaken in is conjunction with the adoption of a new General Plan. If it was such an election may be z9 undertaken in conjunction with the new General Plan, then. you've avoided that. But then 3o why even say it in the first place, because that's already the nature of the beast. 31 3z the... 33 DK: I'm concerned about the purity on this, because we will be challenged. We will be 34 challenged. We received a letter this afternoon from HBA; Homebuilders Association of 3s Northern California, in which they say basically we do not have the legal prerogative to give 36 this to the voters: We can't give away this legislative .authority. We will be challenged and 39 any opening in this that gives that kind of.challenge a toe hold is anathema to me. I'm not 3s willing to have any kind of language in here that isn't clean. A UGB can be revised, can be 39 changed, any time that this council or future council wants or that the public wants by ao initiative or by voting to put it on the ballot. And therein constitutes any backup that 41 anybody who wants to do a new General Plan and says it no longer--the UGB doesn't meet Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, 1l~Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-~ce Mayor Matt Maguire CT: Council member Keller, this is certainly compromise language. It's not as pure as .July 20, 1998 Vol. 3Z, Page 115 r the criteria for a new General Plan, put it on the ballot. But if you put that language in here s you give organizations like HBA a toe hold to challenge this successfully. And I don't want 3 to do that.. I don't want to give them an ounce of opportunity to say go back to square one. a MM: Councilman Keller, do you have a copy of the language of Measure D that you s could give to Chris Taylor to look at here? s DK: Sure. ~ MM: Because although I understand the argument you're making, Pm not entirely s convinced that it would trigger if we were challenged. 9 DK: If the Vice Mayor could explain to me what's the difference if you say in the ro language? r i - MM: The difference is that the vote may happen and a new UGB may not pass. iz DK: I understand. Why can't we just say here's a 20-year UGB, knowing very well that 13 the voters or the council at the time of the General Plan or any other time can just put ra another UGB on the ballot if that's what they wish? is MM: Yes, that is true. And I mean, in my estimation, that's undeniably true, but I think i6 in the interest of trying to develop some cooperation in the spirit of working together, that i~ there would be some indication of intent. ra DK: The letter that we got from HBA is not in the spirit of cooperation i9 MS: Mr. Vice Mayor? so MM: Councilwoman Stompe, then Hamilton. zi MS: I appreciate the Vice Mayor's attempt to, I think, address concerns that were zz raised by community members. Basically, you're right, council member Keller, this is--option ~ two is very similar to option three, but it assures those members of the public that are za concerned about the process that we have gone through, that we will go through a General is Plan. And with arevised--a new General Plan, with a revised wording that's proposed, if the 26 voters don't like the new urban growth boundary that's been proposed with the new General 2~ Plan, then the fallback position is the existing urban limit line. So I support that. I think it's a zs - compromising position that really addresses everybody's concerns while protecting the s9 community. 3o JH: Mr. Mayor? 31 MM: Councilwoman Hamilton? 3z JH: Okay. I have questions about whether it's legal. I have questions about whether 33 it's legal to mandate now that a later ballot measure will be a 20-year measure, and I just 34 don't know, you know, I have questions about that and I don't want to go with option two, 3s alternative B and find out later that it's really not supportable and that we can't do it, and we 36 missed our deadline, especially when I know that it's just stating something that is true and Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, hR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, ~L1~CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MrLf-1TCe Mayor Matt Maguire Page 116, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i that we can do and that it doesn't need to be put into words. I mean, it really is the same and z I don't know that it's necessary to put conciliatory language into our ballot measure to try to 3 build a bridge. Let's just build the bridge. a MM: Chris Taylor, could you step to the podium to answer that, please? Let's get you s on camera, here. 6 CT: The question was is it legal, essentially to require the new UGB to be put on the ~ ballot as part of the General Plan process. a ]H: To require that it be a 20-year UGB. To define it already. To say, see, I know we 9 can't define the future line, you know, on a later election, but to define, to say, well, when io you .put this on, it's going to have to be a 20-year no matter vdrhat the community consensus i i came out of the General Plan or whatever. ' iz CT: ~ `Again; the answer is this is an attempt to compromise and an attempt to come i3 within both county Measure D and get the council an opportunity to do something that our is understanding was the council wanted to do, which was make it clear that there was going to is be a subsequent vote. The 20-year, the straight 20-year provision would be clearly legal is based on what we've done in the pasta What we're talldng about now with option two has not 17 been done before. It's not as clearly, easily, legally valid as option three is, but we could is certainly defend it. You know, that's the problem with a compromise. I mean, that's the 19 honest answer. zo MM: Councilwoman Torliatt. zi PTOR: Okay. So we'll talk about the line now. zz MM: Actually, before we go onto the line, I'd like us to continue talking about the term. z3 PTOR: Well, I think, hopefully, we can gain some consensus on some of the issues, so I'd za like to go forward and also explain some of my thoughts about an urban growth boundary zs and about some of the issues that have been raised, which I collected my ideas before the zs meeting and wanted to make sure that I expressed them clearly. I'm for the current, or the z~ urban growth boundary to be consistent with the current urban limit Line. I wanted to address za the public input and information and timing of the ballot measure issue. Since March, I've z9 attended every public hearing on this .issue including the bus tour, the two planning 3o commission meetings, three city council meetings, and the two Saturday workshops. Iwe 31 read all the material provided 'to the public and the city council. It's my feeling -that the 3z citizens of Petaluma are very excited and enthusiastic about the concept of an urban growth 33 boundary. Many questions have been asked and will continue to be asked regarding the 3a effects of this measure. We will continue as a community to answer them as best we can with 3s the information we have before us. As I stated back in March when this issue came before 36 the council, I still believe the time is now to allow citizens $rl opportunity to vote in the 37 geographic size of their community. I think the importance of an urban growth boundary, I 3a had these feelings. I've been part of the process of making land use decisions for the City of 39 Petaluma for the last five and one-half years. During the consideration of each development ao proposal, whether it .was residential, industrial, office, retail or mixed use, the prevailing ai premise was always that urban development would not be allowed or permitted outside the az current urban limit line. Hopefully, the urban growth boundary that will be presented to the Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hillrgoss, M~Councilmember Mary 3tompe DK- CouncilmemberDavrd Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M~f--Tice Manor Matt Maguire _ July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 117 i voters will be the same boundary as the urban limit line. As has been stated in public z testimony on this issue, there is a tremendous amount of public participation to create--there s was a tremendous amount of public participation to create the urban limit line. I believe this a council is willing to allow the citizens another opportunity to reaffum a line that has already s been decided upon. This is not a change in policy or growth pattern, because, quote, no 6 urban development, quote, beyond the urban limit line has been m the plan all along. This ~ ballot measure that should have been adopted in 1987 in conjunction--this ballot measure s should have been adopted in 1987 in conjunction with our current General Plan. The issues 9 have been raised regarding the economic analysis and study. Issues have been raised io concerning the lack of an economic study or plan for our community. I also share these ii concerns. Every time I read the City of Petaluma's budget, I am reminded of the huge iz economic impact growth has had on our city services, such as fire, police, parks, public 13 works, planning and engineering. The more we grow out, the more financial liability the city is incurs. If the citizens adopt an urban growth boundary, it will allow city government to is .- assess the long-term liabilities we as a community have created. A quote from the Bay Area 16 Economic Pulse, Summer of 1998, Volume 3, Issue 3, states, The challenge of land use in the i~ Bay Area isn`t about making more land available for development. Rather, it's about making is intelligent decisions concerrng the land already designated for development. Our community i9 has an opportunity to send a message to its city government and othcials stating that they zo want to work toward creating infill and redevelopment policies in our city rather than looking zi outside our urban growth boundary. I am willing to give the citizens this opportunity. It's zz been stated that recommendations for an economic strategic plan have been on the city z3 council's desk since 1991. As a planning commissioner in 1995, I requested on numerous za occasions to have economic development agendized. Finally, when it was agendized, five zs people came to speak on the issue, .two of whom tried to tell the commission that the z6 planning commission should not be dealing with this issue. It was a city council issue. So I z~ brought the minutes of the planning commission to the city council and asked at public zs comment for their support to look at economic development, and I expressed a willingness of z9 the commission to help in any way they could. 3o What happened? Nothing. What this city council did is to make sure as part of the City 31 Manager recruitment process, that our new City Manager had experience in developing an 3z economic strategy. The reality is, folks, that this city council is the first city council that has 33 recruited and directed our City Manager to prepare a time line and schedule for a new 3a General Plan to include an economic vision in process and create an economic strategic plan 33 for the City of Petaluma. Another thought on our agricultural community. Very short. If 36 this UGB measure is approved by a vote of the people, it also sends a message to the 37 - agriculture community that the citizens of Petaluma support agriculture and their support 3s uses. The policies proposed in this measure support decreasing the pressure of urban 39 development on agriculture land and allows for an exception in the UGB if an agricultural use ao has suthcient ment. So, I wanted to make sure that I explained my reasonings for wanting ai the--for explain the reasons I felt the way I did. And I hope that's--for me, it's sufficient and I az just wanted to let the council and the citizens of the community know where I was coming a3 from. So thank you for listening, council. as MM: Thank you. as MS: Mr. Vice Mayor? We are checking out at midnight, but I want to weigh in on the a6 line. I did mention the existing urban limit line and that's what I support. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor,~1 Patricia Hilligoss, M~Councilmember,~fary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt tlLl~f--lice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 118, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i JH: Existing urban limit line. z MM: That's my feeling, too. Okay. 3 7H: No exceptions? a DK: I would like, if we could, there were claims by some members in the community s that this would be a rigid belt around the. city and would stifle. its economic growth, and that s we needed to have an economic plan before we could decide how far the city was .going to ~ grow, lest this become a wasteland unless we get passed over by development to other cities a who are willing to spread out into vacant land. If that was true, then every city that is s contained by other cities would be disasters. We can go straight down the peninsula from io Petaluma, .San Rafael, Larkspur, Corte Madera, .Sausalito, Mill Valley, San Francisco, i i Belmont, halo Alto...revitalization through investment ,inside the city, they're going through a iz very' successful revitalization that is making those cities more and more attractive. -.That 13 azgument that a limit on our physical growth will turn this into a wasteland is absurd. It is' to contradicted by experience around the globe.:In that context, we're looking at putting our is urban growth boundary where our curreat urban limit line is. I support that strongly. In 16 terms of future :growth, where exceptions. are needed, that's what the language is about. To i~ provide for those exceptions. And it's targeted specifically at areas that aze developable. If is you look at the entire east side from Corona Road down to Frates and Lakeville, we have 19 determined that that azea is already 'off limits for expansion. There is an urban separator that zo is continuous along that. entire edge. We have tapered off sewer and water lines so that they zi are not expandable past that line. On the east side the Line is much further, much more zz reduced, essentially azound the end of victoria azound back through the back of Westridge z3 Knolls and down at the south end of town along the back of Country Club, Petaluma Golf za Club and going across the river back up towards the sewage treatment ponds..Those areas zs aze akeady constrained. On the west side there is no room to bounce out beyond those z6 because of elevations, because of the ranchette and small rural development that occurs in z~ northwest Petaluma. Those are not areas suitable for expansion. The areas. that aze left for zs expansion aze the north end of town along Redwood Highway, perhaps along Corona Road, z9 the south end of town along South Boulevard and perhaps. along Lakeville. 3o And those aze really the only areas that are left. And those aze constrained- by flood plain, 31 access, utility service and the cost of increasing or providing utility service. Lest anybody in 3z the audience or in the public forget, when you expand city services it cost money. The 33 General Plap has said that new development shall pay for itself If that was true, this city 3a would be in golden shape. It has not been true. We don't even know how much new 3s development actually costs. That needs to be part of our General Plan considerations. What 36 does it cost to expand services? We've never looked at it. ~ And other cities have looked at it, 37 and they found that when they look at the cost of development versus the income taken in by 3s that, they are well on the red side of the ledger. That'needs'to tie part of our considerations 39 in the General Plan review as well. On any economic review, that's a critical component. It's ao not cone-way street. So with that, let's go on to exceptions. ai MIVI: Council, we said we'd check in at midnight. Obviously, council woman Stompe az checked out. 43 NR: She's got to go to work iri five hours. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MavorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-ITCe Mawr Matt Maguire - July 20, 1998 r MM: Like the rest of us. s ??: Yeah, like the rest of us. s MM: Do we want to continue? a JH: Yes, I do. Absolutely. Vol. 32, Page 119 s NR: And this is another part that I'm fearful about, Mr. vice Mayor, is the exceptions 6 part. And if the exception is going to be the exceptions to those five exceptions in the ~ legislation, is that the exceptions we're talking about? Or are you going to talk about parcel a specific exceptions? And that's what I'm asking you, what are you driving right now? 9 MM: Well, in my estimation, you know, let's start the discussion using the exceptions as io listed by staff. I haven't heard anybody else delineate any additional exceptions. So, I think i i _ we can keep it to that. i2 DK: Do you want to do them as exception number one, option number one and down rs through the...? is MM: Sure, I mean, you know, so, council, we will go on then? is NR: If that's okay. i6 ??: Oh, sure. i~ MM: Okay. Why don`t we go with exception by exception then. And David, but why is don't we start with Nancy at this end and work the other way. i9 NR: Well, you know, the exceptions of the five exceptions that were given to us, Pm so sure they can all keep us out of court. Yet, once again, this goes into my next step, that I Zi would, I can't say if I'm in favor of any of the five exceptions if this council's going to go z2 ahead with the next step and do any parcel specific exceptions. That's why I asked which one zs you were going to do. za MM: Okay. Well, I think since we've all stated that we have consensus on using the ss same urban limit line as our UGB, that... 26 _ NR: Then you're taking that, that that means there's no shrinking and there's no z~ expanding. is MM: That is my understanding. If there is anything different, let the council speak. 29 PTOR: So, option one is out if that is, in fact... so NR: That's what I'm asking. s i MM: Is there a consensus on that? sz NR: No. No, no, because...go ahead. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-lifayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, M~CouncilmemberMarvStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~1 Lt~f-ice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 120, Vol. 32 1 z 3 4 s 6 7 s 9 to 11 lz 13 la is 16 17 la 19 zo zl z~ 23 2a zs 26 z7 July 20, 1998 PTOR: You had asked council member Read, I thought we were going to go through each of the exceptions. MM: Yeah. Let's go to exception one. Does anybody... DK: Is option one, which allows for reduction in size by vote of the city council? MM: Yes. DK: The question is to delete that from the measure corlipletely. MM: How do you feel about that? DK: I would be willing to delete that one. MIvI: ^ Okay. Councilwoman Torliatt? PTOR: I would be willing as well. MM: Councilwoman Hamilton? JH: I was willing to and I suggested that we do it a.t the last meeting, but then I thought of a few instances in which it might be appropriate for the council may be requested to do that, and it might be an appropriate thing to do. And so, I thought it-okay. Then... MM: As one reaches. NR: No. IvilVi: No, you're not willing to delete? NR: That's right. I may want to have it in there. PTOR: Oh, you want to include it? NR: No, no, no, no. No. You guys are saying this is the exception. Do you want exception number one in there. Do you want it in the legislation. MM: And you're saying no, you do not want it in there. PTOR: You're saying delete number one? DK: Delete or include? NR: Delete it. DK: Delete it. PTOR: Okay. So we're all in agreement. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmembe~,7ane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember,~lary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 121 i MM: Okay. So... z NR: But my--going through all the five exceptions does not mean that Pm going to be s voting for this. Depending on how it all happens. a MM: That's fine. Everybody reserves the right to vote how they see fit. Exception s option two, affordable housing. Council? Who would like to start? 6 NR: That's fine. ~ PTOR: I don't have a problem with it. s DK: It's fine with me. I just wanted to know whether council felt that it was necessary 9 council meaning SEI., to indicate explicitly that the five acres per year is not cumulative. io ~ MM: Not cumulative in what... ii DK: Meaning if it's not used in one particular year, it doesn't roll over to the next year. iz My preference is that it not roll over. is MM: Okay. Councilwoman Torliatt? is PTUFT: I don't really have a problem of having it cumulative. is JH: I don't either. i6 MM: Councilwoman Read? i~ NR: It doesn`t make any difference. is MM: I have no problem with it being cumulative. I do want to ask council, this is saying i9 that this would require a super majority of three quarters vote, I believe, is that on this one? zo PTOR: Six sevens. zi MM: It is six sevens. Are we comfortable with six sevens, or would we prefer five zz sevens. zs PTOR: Six is fine with me. za PTUFT: I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, the six sevenths, it would be a simple majority zs because of the takings and the transit oriented are required six sevenths, but we did not z6 apply... z~ DK: Affordable housing is currently listed as majority. zs PTUFT: Right. Simple majority. z9 1~Lti1: State requirements? Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-,~favorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ttiL~f ice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 122, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i PTLJFT: Yes. z MM: Okay. So never mind on that. The only other question, a couple of questions, are s we comfortable with the proposed development will consist of at least 25 percent moderate a income housing and at least 25 percent low and very low income, my question, being that if s were going to push the UGB out because there is a housing need, and my understanding the 6 highest need is usually most for the least cost housing.. Do we wish to make that 25 ~ moderate, 50 percent, low, very low, do we want to do something in between? s DK: If the acreage was to be cumulative then I would want to increase the percentage 9 very low to low. io MM: To how much? u DK: td be willing to go 40 percent on that. is NIlVI: Forty percent? Okay. Council? is JH: No, I'd like to keep it at 25. ~ a MM: Twenty-five. is PTOR: As well. i6 MM: Twenty-five i~ NR: Twenty-five. 18 MM: Twenty-five. Okay. I guess I'll go with 25, too. Is that okay, David? One other ~9 thing, I know that last week a speaker brought up the issue of density and feathering. and the zo absolute density. I would like a section, option 2B6 to speak to that, which would say that zi the density would be required to be feathered, that the mean density under the existing zoning ss would be the maximum allowed and no transfer of development rights. zs NR: Including no transfer development right? za MM: Pm specifying no TDRs. is NR: Mr. Yce Mayor, that maybe inconsistent with the General Plan. z6 MM: Council? Staff? 2~ PTUF'T: My concern is internal consistency. The. General Plan does provide for is density transfers, so we can work on the feathering and reducing of densities and things like z9 that. But I would caution you against precluding.. transfer development rights. We also have a so policy that talks about actually doing a TDR ordinance to facilitate it. si MM: My concern is that in past Cross Creek, specifically, density towards the edge was 3s increased with TDRs, was it not? And so I'm concerned that, you. know, while that in Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, MM- irce Mayer Matt Maguire NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 123 i practical terms the General Plan requirement of feathering towards the edge of the city has z not been able to be enforced. So that's my concern. Pamela, if you could speak to that. s PTOR: Or, Mr. Mayor, that could be dealt with in the General Plan process. And if it was a the consensus of the community that TDRs should not be included, it couldn't be a change in s the General Plan when the new General Plan comes through. So it's just a suggestion and it s can be looked at in further depth. ~ MM: Pamela, do you have any further? s PTITFT: Certainly under the existing General Plan, the issue of feathering is a 9 subjective determination by each council as the council member Torliatt, that could be io tightened, clarified, and firmly defined within a new General Plan at the direction. ii MM: Council, would that be your preference? Okay. iz PTLJFT: If I may, could I, I believe I saw a consensus that you would like it to be i3 allowed to be cumulative. is DK: I do have one question. That means essentially that we are allowing up to 100 is acres of land for this purpose. i6 MM: You know, actually, come to think of it, I don't see the way it's worded now how i~ it can be cumulative, because that's not five acres a year. It would--so it can't be... is PTUFT: That's why I was asking for clarification. Because if you want it i9 cumulative, I'd like to fix the wording so it's clear. Because as of right now, it's a little so nebulous. It does say for this purpose in any calendar year, but it's not clear. So if it is, the zi consensus of the council, I'd like to fix it. z~ MM: Do we wish to alter the five, the maximum of five acres a year and allow an ~ accumulation in later years? ~a PTOR: No. ~s MM: I hear one no. Okay. So I hear another that says that's okay as worded. 26 JH: I would like to provide more flexibility than five acres. z~ MM: That's for an accumulation. ss PTOR: Or we could say a maximum of 50 acres. i9 JH: Yeah. I would like to put a cap on it. so MM: Okay. si DK: How would that read? Kev to abbreviations.• JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nanry Read PH-:flavor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember 1Ltarv Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt 1LL~!-Vice MavorMatt Maguire Page 124, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i MM: So not more than. five acres a year, or should not be used in one year, maximum 2 accumulation of 50 acres. s JH: Yes. a MM: Does that work, Pamela? Because actually... s ??: Yeah. _ 6 MM: Because we're saying ifyou did five a year for 20 years, you`ve got a hundred. ~ ??: So it's 50 acres fora 20-year period. s PTOR: Correct. 9 DK: ~ Over a 20-year period, maximum of 50 acres. io NIlVI: So that should be clear. i i NR: That's not enough. Reducing the amount. i2 MM: Well, potentially, you could do five acres a year for 20 years for a total of 100 i3 acres as currently worded. If we say five acres a year, cumulative with a max of 50, you have is potentially lost 50 acres. is DK: It also assumes, and you have to go to condition number three, which says that i6 there is no existing residentially designated land within the UGB to accommodate .proposed i~ development and given the inventory of land currently available, this provision is not going to is be needed for a number of years. i9 ??: Yes. so DK: So there's no real problem in having an upper cap on it. si MM: So you're saying we would never reach a hundred anyway, and it's true. It's z2 extremely unlikely we would ever fulfill the one hundred. Is council comfortable with a cap ~ on 50? sa PTOR: Yes. ss M1VI: And allow .five per year but it's cumulative with a maximum of 50. Is that. clear, s6 staff? Okay. Exception three, takings. Yeah. Okay. Consensus. Exception four, transit 2~ oriented or industrial development. Council? I don't hear anybody speaking. 28 ]H: I'm going to speak It says the lands to be included within the UGB will be used z9 for transit oriented residential and local serving commercial development within 1500 feet of so a rail transit station. Oh, and the fire department. Okay. si MM: Do we want that to be a transit station or a rail corridor? Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, IVR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M1~f-~ceMayorMattMaguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 125 i JH: .And does the General Plan also say--where do the 1500... z DK: It's walkable distance. s JH: ...come from? a DK: That's a usable walkable distance for access to a transit station, whether it's bus or s rail. s JH: Is this with any specific property in mind? ~ DK: This is not parcel specific. s MM: But there would be the Scott property. 9 ~- ]H: Well, the Scott property is 1600 feet. io MM: From the... ii JH: From the transit. iz MM: So you couldn't use all of it. is DK: No, it's--there's portions of the property that are well within 1500 feet. If Corona is were to be a transit stop, which makes a lot of sense, that property is on the rail line itself. is It's right across the street. is JH: Okay. i~ DK: Yeah, so it's immediately adjacent to the rail station. So it's well within the 1500 is feet. i9 MM: Council, comfortable with 1500 feet? zo ??: Yes. zi MM: Okay. Are we comfortable with the six sevenths in this case? n - TH: Yes. z3 NR: By myself for 20 years. za DK: Why stop now? zs NR: Why stop now? z6 MM: You know, in the prior draft, there was a section under this option that this z~ exception would be limited by the county General Plan designation. And I wasn't clear why za that was dropped in this case. Pamela, maybe you could speak to that. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancv Read PH-:1~favor,Lf. Patricia Hilligoss, M~Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Couneilmember Pamela Torliatt MLf-Y-ce Manor Matt Maguire Page 126, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i PTLTFT: You're addressing the constraint of the community separator? s ]VIlVI: Yeah, it was like, you know, it had a list of, you know, these can't take place in ag 3 intense areas. I forget the exact wording...,. I can dig it up here, but agricultural... a ~ PTLJFT: It would have to be within your four growth areas, and we attempted to s draw the expansion areas that would respect the sensitive uses. Such as the land extensive 6 ag, the community separator. There was also some discussion. at both the workshops and the ~ planning commission that there is a benefit of having our urban limit line directly abut up a against such designations at the county as community separators so that we don't end up with 9 this limbo land. Somebody called it planning purgatory. The area between the county and io the city, when it's nebulous as far as land. use controls. Also, another compatible boundary to u our. urban separator could be the scenic corridor. That was one of the benefits of taking it iz towards Ellis Creek to some certain distance because Ellis Creek has a scenic comdor, and it 13 would be"a lovely addition or expansion of our urban separator. Same with the Scott is property, it abuts community separator. is MM: So the list of prioritized expansion areas under Section E1, DE1, respects those i6 county designations? i~ PTLJFT: Yes. is MIvI: Okay. We have talked earlier tonight about changing the language on Section i9 DE1. Is everybody comfortable with that change in language? se DK: Can we go back up and we just were on D 1, which ~. t)~ ~rer~Clodarientn$~rtable with that ch zi residential local servuig commercial development. Can we do D2? zz MM: Yes. z3 DK: And just make sure that it's covered, which is office or light industrial uses to za improve local employment, hundred acres, no land brought in prior to January I, 2006. zs MM: I'm comfortable with it. Okay. In fact, I was looking at the table. We've currently z6 got about 350 vacant or under utilized acres under the industrial land survey. It does include z~ the central Petaluma plan with the 43 acres, but I think the hundred .acres should be ample. I zs know. Ivir. White spoke to that earlier and is not sure that that would be enough. However, z9 I'm pretty certain that if we see a serious choking off of, you know, a significant benefit to the 3o commumty, the community can respond to that. 31 DK: And I think really, this is really the heart of economic redevelopment in the city, 3z which, as long as it's easy for flatland developers to go out and scrape the surface and stir up 33 some more buildings, that money, the bankers, the developers who can do the infill, who 3a want to do the infill, won't be in this town. And it requires getting a new set of developers. 3s We have transition developers like Bill White, who vv~th his sons, has taken on a downtown 36 project, and my hat's off to him. But the big flatland developers, residential or commercial, 37 who are out there looking for agricultural land to take for development, it's time for those 3a guys to move on somewhere else and time to get the developers into town who are a lot 39 smarter, who know how to do that stuff, who know how to infill and make it work. There's ao lots of experience around to do that and I welcome them into Petaluma. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliati M1Lf-ice Mgvor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 127 i MM: So, Council, are we comfortable with the existing list of priority areas for s exception expansion? 3 DK: No. I do have a problem. On number one, targeted expansion areas south of a Frates Road to Ellis Creek, I have a problem with that because that essentially says we're s inviting land speculation to jump the existing urban separator, which we've been very clear s about. There's been a lot of consternation about jumping the urban separator, movuig the ~ urban separator across creek, and right in this first policy statement here rt says come on in, s follow that acreage on the other side of Frates Road, we're willing to consider rt, and it says 9 to those landholders, the McBail Corporation, which. doesn't buy land because they're feeling io homey about it, they don`t want to farm cows or hay there, they want to farm homes. And ii this says to them, you guys are on target, hang on, we'll be there. And it leads me to-and I i2 need to bring this into the discussion because I think it's. very important for how we view 13 these exceptions. And I want to read something very quickly from HB News, Homebuilders is Association News, this is the June '98 issue. Because this really sets out the policy of where is HBA is going. HBA, if you remember, is a successor organization to one that sued the city i6 in 1972 to void our growth control. Okay. Well, they're at it again. The HBA says there ~s i7 little Bay Area land needed to fix housing crisis research shows. And what they're talking is about is on their projections they want Sonoma County, for instance, in the nine Bay Area 19 counties, to cough up another 804 acres a year over the next 22 years. And Petaluma's share, 20 just by a pro rata percentage, it's 81 acres a year. They want to be able to pull in about zi 116,000 units over the next 22 years in Sonoma County or in the Bay Area, close to a million z2 units in the nine Bay Area counties. They want 6800 acres a year to be converted to homes i3 In the Bay Area. Petaluma is 6700 acres. They want a Petaluma addition to urbanization 2a every year. And what do they say if they don`t get it? The HBA will call on each county and is their respective municipalities to annex, zone, and entitle enough land to meet their legal and s6 moral duty to house their own work force. if county leaders do not respond positively, HBA z~ of Northern California plans to work with its statewide organization, the California Building is Industry Association, in crafting a bold legislative initiative that would create new legal tools z9 forcing county officials to maintain a balance of jobs and housing. Under this proposal, cities 3o blocking their fair share of housing from being constructed would be made to pay mitigation 31 fees so new homes for residents could be built nearby. And they go on to say very explicitly 3z there's an abundance of marginal land, which they classify as grazing land and chaparral. 33 Well, Petaluma is surrounded by that kind of land. The state must be handed--must hand 3a county officials powerful new legal tools and mandates. Such a law would give county the 3s responsibility of overseeing the cumulative General Plans of all of its cities so as to ensure 36 enough housing is being provided. 3~ MM: Excuse me, David. 3s DK: Yeah. 39 MM: I think youwe made your point clearly. ao DK: Okay. What I'm sayine is that this is an organization that is willing to go to ai legislative means to force cities to jump their boundaries. az MM: Okay. So we get that you're not comfortable with... Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember.~ancv Read PH-:~tavor ~f. Patricia Hilligoss, ~!S-Councilmember.~farv Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~lt~f-Lice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 128, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i DK: I am not comfortable saying Frates Road to Ellis Creek. I'm willing to say that we s can look at land along Lakeville Highway at the edge of the city. But I'm not willing to say s to Ellis Creek or south of Frates Road. a MM: Okay. So out of the four that are listed there, you're saying that you are s comfortable vv~th, what is it, two and four? s DK: Two, three, two, which is Old Redwood Highway near Denman Road, Orchard ~ Lane... s M11R: Give us... 9 DK: ~ Well, it's for the public as well. Haystack Landing area along Petaluma Boulevard io South..-Those are fine with me. Northeast corner of Corona and railroad tracks, Pm not ii quite: sure- what it means north of Sonoma Mountain Parkway. I don't understand that iz language. If you can make the entrance, or north of the intersection. 13 MM: Okay. Councilwoman Torliatt, how do you feel about this list? is PTOR: I'm willing to discuss number one, but I'm fine with two, three and four. is JH: I have a question for Councilman Keller. On numbe;r one, the reason I felt that I i6 was okay is that it's really only one of the logical--I mean, I think all of these are the most i; logical places for any expansion to happen. So how did you want--you just went over it very is quickly. You wanted to say off of Lakeville. i9 DK: To be willing to say in the area of Lakeville close to Frates Road. But I'm not so willing to say to Ellis Creek. s~ JH: Because of the:.. zz DK: That's a huge amount of land and that really changes entirely our service area, ~ encroaches on areas that are potentially within the wind, downwind of the sewage treatment sa plant. It encroaches on corridors and... Zs JH: So you don't want to define it as being Frates to Ellis... is DK: Correct. s7 JH: ...Creek, just you want to point in that area. I'd be happy to do that. za DK: I would be happy to say near the intersection of Frates Road and Lakeville z9 Highway. 3o MIVI: Okay. 31 ]H: I'd be happy to say that. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS CounrilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M1Vf-ice Mavor Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 129 i NR: Well, I think you're getting right back into parcel specific in determining what's in z and what's out. All of it should stay. ff you're going to put an urban growth boundary for 20 s years in front of the voters, then it should all be there. a JH: We're not talking about changing the boundary. s MM: This is just the exceptions. I'm willing to make that modest change to say south of s Frates Road in the vicinity of Lakeville. ~ PTLTFT: V ce Mayor, Maguire, if I may qualify. Certainly, the definition was vague. s It was not intended to take from Frates all the way to Ellis Creek, which is why the dashed 9 lines kind of stay with a stepping of the urban growth boundary to allow the continuation of io an urban separator in the same kind of like pattern that you presently see on the east side. ii And the crosshatch on exhibit A-2 kind of hangs down to the vicinity of extension of Ely iz down and then stepping down towards Ellis, was the intent of the exhibit and I apologize for is - not making that clear. is MM: I think the exhibit shows better what the intent is, but I think the language needs to is reflect the exhibit a little bit better. So if we just take out the to Ellis Creek and modify that i6 we'll be okay. Any other issues with areas two, three and four? i~ DK: Clarification of the language of north of the intersection with Sonoma Mountain is Parkway. t9 MM: Okay. Yes, if we could clarify that. Okay. Exception option five, agriculture, ag zo support or related development. Any questions, issues, concerns? zi DK: It was today's definition. zz MM: Today's updated language with our... z3 NR: No, that was yesterday's updated language. za MM: Yesterday's modern language. zs NR: Yesterday's updated language. z6 DK: Does that mean it's out of date already? z~ MM: All right. So then that looks like we've got consensus on the exceptions there to zs eliminate the first one and to accept the others as modestly changed. z9 DK: I do have a question on the language for staff. On the first page under purpose. 3o MM: What page is that, David? 31 DK: This is page one. I'm just not sure about the language. Where it says purpose and 3: then it goes into the last sentence. Accordingly, the measure ensures that until, blab, blab, 33 blab, blab, and it's a question of how the language, how that sentence is read. It sounds like Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-:~favor.4l. Patricia Hilligoss, M~CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MIf--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 130, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i there's a missing phrase. Accordingly, the measure ensures that until blab, blab, blab, such a s date, something will happen, but that's not there. And I think..,. 3 MM: It's in box three. a DK: Oh, so it would be the date, comma, with the phrase after that? s ??: Right. 6 DK: Okay. ~ M1VI: And the phrase actually, I think, is in box three. a DK: Box three. Yeah, option three. 9 MM: UGB shall be changed by vote of the people. io DK: Okay. In that case, never mind. ii MM: Thank you. Okay. Any other topics for discussion on this tonight? tz JH: I have a question about the section on outside utility service policy amendments. is MM: We do have the updated language.... is JFi: Oh, we have exceptions and it's on page 11, and then there's some updated is language to it. i6 MM: For Policy 3.1? i~ JH: Yeah. And I just wanted to ask Pamela, who's bus•,~, I just want to ask if when it is says public in quasi public, does that, would that .apply to something like Wilson School iv wanting to buy water from us or a church that's on the corner of Adobe and Washington so wanting to get water. Okay. si MM: Any other discussion on the proposed urban growth boundary measure? z~ PTOR: 3'he only item we have that.. we haven't come to a consensus on is the term. ~ MM: Yeah, let's go back to that. Options two and three. Discussion. sa NR: I will start it out, because I believe that utilizing an urban growth boundary, not zs utilizing our existing urban limit line is a false hope and just a feel good. Another tool in the s6 tool box without a General Plan to back it up. That we are creating a unlivable urban growth z~ boundary for our community, and what I would like to see put before the voters is a number is one, which would include the existing urban limit line through the term of the General Plan. z9 MM: Thank you. Councilwoman Hamilton. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton. NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH Mawr M. Patricia Hilligoss, M~Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Cvuncilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--lice Mawr Matt Maguire July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 131 i PTOR: I have a question for council member Read. Council member Read, I thought you z stated or maybe I didn't hear you right, that you were willing to look at option number two. 3 NR: No, that wasn't me. No, that was Mary. a PTOR: Council member Stompe. Okay. s MM: Okay. s JH: We will do a General Plan process and out of that process, if there are ~ recommendations of changes to our current urban limit line or our current urban growth a boundary, if it's adopted, then I would expect that that would go on the ballot and the 9 community would adopt it because there would be community consensus. And the council io certainly isn't going to turn away, whoever the council is at that time is not going to turn i i down a recommendation from their General Planning committees to change the urban growth iz - boundary. So I feel quite safe in adopting a 20-year urban growth boundary and allowing the 13 process to be applied. And I don't feel safe with option, the option two, alternative B, is because it's-we had our legal counsel tell us that they would try to defend it, but it wasn't- is there was no experience. She had no experience in doing it and had never seen that language 16 before, and it doesn't seem like a safe route. I also feel that the county Measure D, i~ protection of the urban separators in the county, is extremely important and I would like to is keep it very clear and simple to the voters exactly what we're doing. And I would like this 19 council to start on a General Plan process right away. so PTOR: Mr. Chair? zi NR: Is that number three? z2 JH: The last thing I want to say, the last thing I want to say is that we're not-this z3 council is not adopting an urban growth boundary which is how everybody has been talking sa about it. We are talking about putting, allowing the people who live in this town to choose is whether to adopt an urban growth boundary for 20 years or not. And if they don't choose to, z6 then the question's been answered. 2~ MM: Council? is PTOR: Mr. Chair, I concur with that analysis and I agree with council member Hamilton. i9 And I'm assuming that was option three that you are tallang about. 3o DK: Option three, it's time for Petaluma to vote on a 20-year urban growth boundary. 3i MM: In the interest of trying to, you know, generate cooperation and a willingness to 3i work together, my true preference is for 2-B, however, as Jane has pointed out, essentially 33 we have the right to, under option three, at any time, you know, a citizens' group, a city 3a council, as a by-product of a General Plan update, can put something on for voter approval at 3s any time. Option three does not constrain us in any way for what option 2B gives us. Option 36 2B does have a higher risk level of enforceability, so in terms of a pragmatic decision, I 37 believe I would have to go with option three aS well, because it is really true aS to what the 3s sense of the communirv that I hear is saving and that is that, you know, that it gives the 39 community the opportunity to vote on that 20-year limit voter enforced. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-afavor M Patricia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt M111 f Yrce Mayor Matt Maguire Page 132, Vol. 32 July 20, 1998 i PTOR: Mr. vice Mayor? I also want to add that on June 22, I believe the s recommendation from the council, there was no vote, but. the recommendation and. direction 3 to the city manager was that was start a new General Plan process and put together a time a line and a schedule as I had stated earlier, including an economic visioning process with the s strategic plan. And as far as I understand, the city manager has put together an executive s management team to look at that process and has started it, and is probably goin to et ~ something draft back to us in probably the next couple of weeks of how we're going to start s tackling that. So I want to assure the public that our intent is there. Our direction to the city 9 manager is there and that we're going to go forward and go through the process. io Motion ~ - - - ii 1VlM: Thank you. Would somebody like to make a motion regarding the urban growth i2 boundary? 13 JH: I'd like to make that motion. . is PTOR: And I'll second it. is MM: -And that is with the changes that... i6 JH: With the changes that we just defined right here. I~ MM: And before we vote, is there a comment from sta$'? is PTUF'T: Yes, if I could. I would like the council to give staff the flexibility to i9 amend the wording to reflect the council direction tonight. Weave got some fine tuning to do so to... zi IVIIVi: Would the maker of the motion and the second, maker of the second, approve u that? i3 PTLTFT: We've taken... sa JH: I don't understand what you're asking. ss PTLTFT: Page six. There has been a lot of consensus building by the council this s6 evening, the outside legal counsel, and I would appreciate a little bit of flexibility for us to n amend this, adopt it with direction to council to amend to reflect the consensus. And let's zs work on it and bring a copy back to you. You will have already taken the vote, but we just s9 want to be able to finalize the wording, make sure it's squeaky clean and run it back through 3o you, not for further action, just here it is, this is what we heard you did: 3i MM: I'm comfortable with that. 3i JH: Okay. I don't understand how that's different. from the motion that I made,. which 33 was, I made the motion to adopt the measure that we discussed and with the changes that we 3a discussed. 3s PTUFT: That's correct. Kev to abbreviations: JH-Counctlmember Jane Hamilton, PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilltgoss, DK- Counctlmember David Keller, tLIM-ice Mayor Matt Maguire NR-Counctlmember Nancy Read M.~Counctlmember Mary Stompe PTOR-Counctlmember Pamela Torliatt 1 2 3 4 s 6 ~. s 9 to 11 .. Iz 13 14 JH: Okay. July 20, 1998 Vol. 32, Page 133 Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire Noes: Read Absent: Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss NR: Discussi n. Mr. ice Mayor? I think that it should go before the voters but not option three. And that's why I stayed with option one. ' MM: Thank you. Thank you everybody for your participation and your patience. And I adjourn this meetmg. DK: Thank yolu to staff and... ??: Yes, thank you, Pamela. DK: Pamela? Pamela? The rest of the month off (Mayor I~'illigoss left at 10:30, Councilwoman Stompe left at 11:00.) is At 12:45 a.m. the mil eting was adjourned 16 'i i 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 ATTEST: Patricia E. Bernard, Matt Maguire, ice ADJOURN I Key to abbreviations: JH-C uncilmemberJane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read - PH-:Lfavor:~1. Patricia Hilligoss, <<~Councilmember,Lfary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PTOR-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt AL~•f-i!ice Alavor Matt Maguire I