Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/13/1998 July 13, 1998 r 1 ~3~ , Vo1.32, Page 23 n MINUTES s OF A 1tEGULAIt MEETING 3 PETALUMA CITY C®UNCIL a M®NDAY, JULY 13, 1998 y It®LL CALL. 7:00 p.m. 6 Present: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss ~ Absent: Vice Mayor Maguire s PLEDGE ®F ALLEGIANCE 9 Former Councilmember 1Vlichael Davis .led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. io M®MENT ®F SILENCE 11 PUBLIC C®MMENT iz Jeff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive - on flooding. Are the rights of the wealthy property owners 13 than the rights of the less wealthy property owners? All men are created equal. is Gene Hamm, 1644 Moclips Drive -the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is talking is about Highway 101 becoming a toll road through Petaluma. There are better options. You 16 have to connect to three separate transportation systems to get to Santa Clara and it takes i~ twice as long to take public transportation as it does to drive. Transportation companies is should communicate with each other so their connecting schedules can be more helpful. Los i9 Angeles transportation system does a better job. Please write a letter opposing this proposal Zo for a toll road; and start with coordinating transit schedules before this sort of transportation zi system is considered. 2i Steve Block, 19 Warrick - he lives in Village East subdivision and is particularly concerned z3 with the difference in grade between Village East (rear yards) and Cross Creek (rear yards). za There have been drainage problems and it appears that the neighboring back yards of Cross Zs Creek are catching their drainage. Also there is a gap between the fences. 26 Dave Tieken, 7 Brengle Court -there has been an unusual amount of early morning noise 2~ from the workers who are constructing the new section of Cross Creek. He asked that the as City intervene on their behalf. Please red tag the building, ask the developer to complete a z9 supplemental environmental report on the changes in grade. What that developer said to us is 3o not the reality of the situation. 31 Beth Meredith, 104 5th Street - is waiting for an answer about NR's attendance at a Sonoma 3z Mountain Conservancy meeting. What occurred, why was she there, why did someone ask 33 the busiest person in the community to sit at a meeting with 30 people, some people were 34 asked to leave. What are guidelines for behavior at Closed Sessions where this battle is 3s discussed. She would like to see this discussed. This was supposed to be on the agenda. 36 The City Manager said In the future he will communicate with. the public if such an agenda 37 item is taken off the agenda. Silence on the part of the Council is not an answer. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember.Iane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 24, Vol. 32 July 13, 1998 i COiJNCII, C'®IVIlVI<ENT z NR attended a 10 a.m. meeting with the NWP RR Authority. On the agenda was City of 3 Petaluma status report on the Central. Petaluma Specific Plan. There will be a letter coming a form the Joint Powers Authority requesting the policy of the Council has address the long s range planning needs of the rail and the bus authority. I would like to have that letter 6 agendized. She told them that the Central Petaluma Specific Flan is still continuing on and ~ they haven't determined the land use issues. yet. That is near and dear to the railroad s authority's heart and the would like to be able to have an indication what will happen to the 9 six acres of railroad land. The second thing that 'was discussed was regarding Old Elm io Village which is a project that is proposed. for 359 West Payrar~ Street. She would like to be ii brought up to date on that project. Saturday's Urban Growth Boundary workshop was very iz good. There were 200 people there. Thank the 200 people who showed up. 13 MS requested the City get the questions on Cross Creek and have a discussion of that at an is upcoming Council meeting. is DK -thanked all the folks who came to the Urban Growth Boundary workshops. On Cross 16 Creek problems, do we have any recourse where it appears there was behavior that could~not ~~ be construed as harassment? What controls do we have? What recourse do they have? is Should the neighbors call the Police? Planning Director Tuft has planned to speak to the 19 Public Works Inspector and to try to witness this activity and to talked to the developer to zo ask that this ceases. ILK wants responses to the complaints given to the Council. The 2i Sonoma County Transportation Authority today has agreed to put together a subcommittee as on environmental analyses and planning issues .around the construction that would come from 23 the tax measure - rail, roadway, freeway and associated roads, to begin to get a handle on za how that would be handled from a environmental review process. He will be on that zs subcommittee. This ties into Mr. Hamm's question coordinating services throughout the z6 North Bay, the Authority viewed this as an opportunity to take a look at land. use planning a~ for the region; then look at larger issues of transportation and put into larger context than 2s what the environmental review required. 29 We requested that Caltrans prioritize four project study reports - at Steele bane and Highway 30 101, at Highway 101 widening from East: Washington to the Petaluma bridge including East 31 Washington Street interchange, Highway 116 east southbound. on-ramp, Highway .1.01 from 32 Santa Rosa east to Highway 116 at Cotati, Highway '116 .improvements between Petaluma 33 and Sonoma. There will be another meeting of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Thursday 3a at Lucchesi Senior Center at 6:00 p.m. 3s JH regarding Cross Creek, the sooner we have discussion between the developer, the 36 neighbors and so on, the better, it will be for everybody. We can get something resolved this 37 way. If it cannot be fit onto an agenda soon enough, she suggested having an informal 3s meeting with a couple of Councilmembers and staff to work this out. When will the dredging 39 of the turning basis be competed (City Manager Stouder said the Federal funds have not been ao released to date). Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Dice Mayor Matt ,Llaguire FS -City Manager Stouder July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 25 i PT agrees with the previous comments on Cross Creek. Would like staff at least to deal with a the issue. We might want to have the letter from Gene Hamm forwarded to the Sonoma 3 County Transportation Authority. Perhaps the Council would like this to be on an afternoon a agenda. The City Manager's report included the League of California Cities regarding s vehicle license fee and there are changes in the proposal to reduce vehicle license fees and 6 . now they are talking about some sort of car tax credit or rebate and support of taxpayer relief ~ for credit paid by state general fund. Would like to see the Council send a letter or resolution s saying we are in favor of that. Attended the Urban Growth Boundary workshop last 9 Saturday. She appreciated the participation of the public. io CONSENT CALENDAR ri The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City tz Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by NR and seconded by 13 JH. to Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss 1s Noes: None i6 Absent: Vice Mayor Maguire 17 ORD. 2072 NCS is ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS - CARDROOMS 19 Adopt Ordinance 2072 NCS amending the text of Chapter 21 of Zoning Ordinance 1072 zo NCS relating to Card Rooms. Introduced on June 1, adopted the first time on June 15 and zi adopted again this date: z2 • add Section 1-203 Definitions -Ancillary Use z3 • add Section 21-301.5 -relates to Intensity of activity 2a • add Section 21-303.5 -relates to proportion of total space utilized 2s • add Section 21-420 -adds Definitions -Hours of Operation, Patron Safety and Security z6 Plan, and Wagering Limits to cardroom definitions z~ add Section 21-420..8(b)(7), (8), and (9) -relating to Permit Application ss • add Section 21-420.10(a)(7),(8)and 420.10(C) - relating to Grounds for Permit s9 DeniaURevocation 30 • add Section 21-420.14(E), (F) -relating to Conditional Use Permit Valid for Specified 31 Location, Establishment, Permittee 3z • Amend Section 21-420.16 -Sale or Transfer of Business 33 • Amend and add Section 21-420.18,(E), and (F) -New Conditional Use Permit Required 34 • Amend Section 21-420.26B -relating to Limit on Locations 3s • add Section 21-420.30(A)(10) -relating to Operations Regulations 36 .Amend Section 21-420.30(C)(1) -relating to General Requirements 37 • Amend and add Section 21-420.30(C)(4)(a) and (d) -relating to General Requirements 3s • add Section 21-420.40 -relating to House Players 39 * * * * * End of Consent Calendar * Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 26, Vol. 32 July:,l3, ~ 1998 t ®RID. 2073 NCS z REZ®NE CAPRI CREEK APARTMENTS 3 Adopt Ord. 2073 NCS rezoning Capri Creek Apartments from Agricultural to PUD. a Introduced by PT and seconded by JH. s Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss 6 Noes: None ~ Absent: Vice Mayor Maguire s RES®. 98-134 NCS 9 CAPRI CREEK PLANNED UNIT IDEVOPMENT ro Resolution 98-134 NCS adopting the Planned Unit Development Plan for Capri Creek rr Apartments. This was removed from the agenda to change the references to the bicycle path. r2 All the references to Class 2 Bicycle Path are to be changed to a Bicycle Lane pertaintng to a r3 public street, because it's not a path. The Council talked about this when tt .came before ra them last time. Also there was a recommendation that there be; two gated areas going to the is southern boundary, not just additional areas established for bike access but there be an actual 16 gate there and you can put a sign as a condition of approval stating that there would be future r~ pedestrian and bike access along that area. Introduced by PT and seconded by JH. rs Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss 19 Noes: None 20 Absent: Vice Mayor Maguire ai Public Fiearin~ on Urban Growth Boundary 22 Planning Director Tuft talked about the second workshop last Saturday. There were eighteen a3 maps worked on by participants at the workshop. Sixteen of the maps did show an Urban Za Growth Boundary line. They were posted on the wall of the Council Chambers. This is the as type of public input that Planners dream of doing with the public. A summary of the public's 26 comments is available to the public and the Council this everting. Regarding any trends 2~ developing on the sixteen maps, the only trend she saw was there was no trend: The diversity 2a of the comments were incredible, from put the. Urban Growth Boundary -along the ridge lines 29 not streets, put the Urban Growth Boundary at streets, not ridge lines. There has been an 3o attempt to identify at least those areas that were included in the background report, those 3r opportunity areas that were illustrated those four areas that were identified originally from 3i the first workshop as opportunty areas did not seem to generate a great deal of interest this 33 past Saturday. Whether the Council chooses to discount them for further consideration for 34 inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary or would like to generate some discussion in 3s addition to those areas, that is up to the Council. Those areas were shown on the summary 36 report prepared for this evening's meeting. There was. little interest in having the Urban 37 Growth Boundary go beyond Adobe Road up to the Sonoma Mountain corridor area in the 3s Marin Creek area there was very little interest in taking it north of Corona Road east of Ely 39 Road or south to the Kastariia area, south towards the community separator that separates ao Novato and Petaluma. The remairting opportunity areas there was literally just a very mixed ar blend of comments as to whether to include them, exclude them. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice. Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder ~_ k: ,t July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 27 i Most of the sixteen maps did indicate an interest by at least some of the participants at each a table to maintain the Urban Growth Boundary whether the Council directs it to be a 3 boundary of seven years or a boundary of twenty to be within the existing Urban Limit line as a delineated on the existing adopted General Plan. There was also some discussion at some of s the tables about excluding areas that are within the existing Urban Limit Line and they are 6 also identified that included some discussion of the Varnhagen piece which is out located at ~ Western and Windsor and was the subject of a recent project withdrawal called Hillside s Village. There was also some discussion about reduction of the existing Urban Limit Line for 9 the Urban Growth Boundary of the property line west of Petaluma Blvd. North north of the no existing limits there was some just very few but a few indications the interest to exclude the n n 40 plus acres at the corner of Frates and Lakeville. So we attempted to show you some ~2 trends, there is a list of eery very brief pros and cons for each of those areas that just to n3 stimulate interest. na The meeting tonight is the intent of tonight's meeting is to afford the public an opportunity to is present their opinions to you for you to provide some direction to staff on the very very 16 preliminary shell document that has been prepared by Richard Taylor of Shute, Mihaly & i~ Weinberger and me to offer any direction that you aught like us to fine tune the exceptions ns that we have provided for you for your discussion and consideration and to answer any n9 questions that we .might have this evening. so The Planning Commission will be hearing the same topics and will receive the same packet zn you received this evening we will have delivered to them first thing tomorrow since I finished zz it about 6:15 this evening. So we'll get it delivered to them and their recommendation to you z3 will be summarized and brought back and hopefully delivered to you early Thursday for your za final consideration next Monday so that we can clean up any direction on the shell document as and get it finalized and get the introductory supporting statement for the ballot prepared in a 26 timely manner. So Richard Taylor from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger is here this evening to a~ answer any questions and I would be glad to respond to any inquiries, Zs NR to Pamela Tuft, Planning Director, you have done an outstanding job in the last 72 hours. z9 We thank you. 3o PT tomorrow night the Planning Commission will be hearing the Urban Growth. Boundary 3n issue again, as well, so member of the public who were not able to attend the meeting tonight 3z or would like to speak again at the Planning Commission meeting you are welcome to come 33 and participate again. 34 Planning Director Tuft invited members of the public to call or come in to obtain the 3s information that is available on the Urban Growth Boundary. Copies will be delivered to the 36 Community Center and to the Library tomorrow. 37 Michael Davis, 1648 Northstar Drive -you are moving ahead too fast on this issue. This is a 3s fiscal crisis in the making. The right way to do this is to do it in conjunction with the General 39 Plan update. The wrong way is to do it too fast without appropriate environmental studies. ao Please consider these things and put it offuntil the General Plan update. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 28, Vol. 32 July 13, 1998 i Don Weisenfluh, 1092 Wren Drive -you are doing a very good job of moving this ahead. z This is putting the responsibility where it belongs, with the people of this town. The Urban 3 Growth Boundary should be put in place as soon as possible, at least along the Urban Limit a Line as we see it. You can't, keep chasing your tail. Please keep that line tight. Keep the s quality of life is the goal of this small charming town with agrici~ltural bases. 6 Karen Newman -the usual process in Petaluma is two years. vVhy is there a rush? If we had 7 enough studies that would be fine. We need more information before this goes on the s November ballot. 9 Tom Baker, 1 1Vlorrings Drive - he spent two years on the General Plan committee which io was ten years ago. It is a good document. This is a big xush. He has no problem with ii making changes, but more information is needed before this is done. Home prices are iz skyrocketing. If it is too stringent. and passes, building .will stop, prices and rents will 13 continue to escalate. There will be no place for young families. Are we casting our own is children out. Please leave room for enough growth in the plans to leave room for all of us. is Kay Russo, 837 Rancho Way -she is adamantly opposed to voter mandated boundaries. 16 Your responsibility is~ to make complicated land- use .decisions. A voter mandated Urban i~ Growth Boundary is usurping your responsibilities. You haven't done an economic analysis is or General Plan update. This is only a political emergency. Do the studies first. Please do 19 not put this on the November ballot until you have done your work. zo Jay and Linda Walsh, 4412, Kastania Road (Kastania Ranch) -~ you have placed parts of the zi ranch within the Urban Growth Boundary but not the old farm house and barns. Please zz include the farm house and the barns as well. z3 Deborah Friedenberg, 43 Windsor Lane -the workshop was very good. She likes the za community outreach. Please exclude the Hillside Village property from the Urban Growth zs Boundary line to show we uphold the principles of the General Plan. She compares z6 Petaluma to Irvine. We are being governed without an opportunity to choose our course. z7 Have the community learn lessons from other parts of the state. za Walter Bragdon, 447 Amber Way -This is a very big issue. It will affect this town for 20 z9 years. You should seriously deliberate the options and take into consideration the economic 3o nmpact. It has to grow. He ~s not sure what the rush to get this on the ballot. 31 J. T. Wick, 112 Fifth Street - we are being asked to determine -the end without a way to 3z determine the means. The Urban Limit Line has been defended and protected by the Plamm~g 33 Commission and the Council for a number of years. Are you considering the Urban Growth 34 Boundary to be the same as the Urban Limit Line for the length of the General .Plan? If 3s people feel there should be changes to the General Plan then we should revise it now. 36 John Barella, 496 Jasmine Lane -the meeting on Saturday was helpful. He is sad that there 37 couldn't be more workshops. There are a lot of things to go ®ver. There was a lot of input. 3s He feels he needs more time to find out whether or not it is right for Petaluma. We need 39 economic studies. He is pro-growth, but he wants good growth. There are so many issues ao we need to understand before we go with a ballot measure in November. Why are we trying ai to rush through this? Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MNI--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder t r ` ~ "~ .;'~'; `' ` July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 29 i This should be taken care of with kid gloves. He feels we need a lot more input. z Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Court - as President of the Chamber of Commerce, he read a 3 letter from the Chamber Board of Directors, dated June 9, requesting that the economic a impact. be shown to the community.. The General Plan expires in 2005. It appears there is s inadequate information available now. We should have an econorruc fact report to do this . 6 The letter looked for a response from the City. He questions the base numbers. There were ~ estimated numbers from the Central Petaluma Specific Plan working papers. Using numbers s of a specific plan that hasn't been finalized is questionable, at best. There needs to be an 9 evaluation of this issue and the results using guesstimate numbers may be rrusleading. He io questioned the lack of reference to CEQA (NB - On a measure to be voted on by the public, ii CEQA is not a required issue.) There are rune elements of the General Plan that will have to iz come into conformance with the Urban Growth Boundary. He doesn't see any reference to 13 that in the proposed text of the Urban Growth Boundary. Economic impacts need to be is raised. He strongly encouraged economic vision. The City would benefit from that. The is problems with a rush to doing this may trash the General Plan. Let's stick with our current i6 Urban Limit Line until we can come up with a better plan. i~ Janice Cader Thompson, 732 Carlsbad Court -for the last number of years You have gotten as money from sewer hook-ups. We can't just stop a process because the process never began. i9 We have never had one. I don't want to see Petaluma grow to 60,000 people and the rural zo area grow to 5,000. I don't think this community can support these people. We are going to zi be in gridlock. She supports the Urban Growth Boundary. There has been sprawl. There zz are areas where we can expand. She doesn't think we can bring in 80 acres or 200 acres. z3 This is a quality of life issue. Regarding econorruc development. Stop and rethink, no za sprawl, there is enough in the current boundaries. Economic development is important, so is zs quality of life. z6 Steven Geney, 22 Benjamin Lane -take time to perform the economic impact study or there z~ could be negative financial impacts as a result. Developer fees are the basis for parks and for zs infrastructure. There is a basis for the econorruc study. The Council was worned about the z9 economic impact of Highway 101 but you are not worried about the economic impact of this 3o Urban Growth Boundary. 31 Linda Buffo, 841 Schuman Lane -the Central Petaluma Specific Plan workshops were more 3z interactive and more productive than the Urban Growth Boundary workshops. We need 33 more time to accomplish this task. I have a lot of questions I need to have answered before I 34 use my pen to make a line on a map for a Urban Growth Boundary. As a representative of 3s the business community she would be happy to discuss how this would impact the business 36 district. Please give us an opportunity to do that. Please don't rush this. 37 Tony Varrihagen, 1129 Douglas Street, San Francisco -owns the property at Western 3s Avenue and Windsor Drive (Hillside Subdivision proposal site) - to change the Urban Limit 39 Line now will undermine !lard work done ten years ago. We complied with the request on ao the Hillside Subdivision, The City put a road right through the middle of our property ai despite us being in the Williamson Act Preserve. Windsor Drive bisects our property and az forces our tenant to periodically escort his cattle across the road. Our property is surrounded a3 on three side by residential development. The rancher has had troubles with the trespassers, as vandals, people's dogs harassing the cattle. It is not very desirable cattle grazing land any as more. We are on our third tenant rancher in eight years. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder r',: , rc. Page 30, Vol. 32 July 13, 1998' ~ Tony ~Iarnhagen continued - A USDA Soil Conservation Service report has deemed our s property not suitable to grow crops. Twice the City has.used its power of eminent domain to 3 greatly reduce the agricultural utility of our~property. To•exclude us from the Urban Growth a Boundary is the equivalent of taking our land. Please don't change the Urban Limit Line on s our ranch. 6 Bill White - We have very strong light industry here We have brought industry here to the 7 City and we have brought jobs. Companies need the ability to grow here. We hope you s allow the ability to do so. I agree that we ought to be developing. the downtown area. But, I 9 don't think that's enough. An economically successful community is one that does a io combination of many factors and in Petaluma we have what is now a very successful 11 economic community, strong agriculture, strong small business, strong retaifl, i2 telecommunication industry, software industry, and there are other businesses. , Fifteen to T3 twenty years we all embarked on a major program to bring business to this comrnunuty that is did provide high paying jobs. We've done that very successfully. The companies that are is here need the ability to be able to grew in this community. I a:>k you to consider that as you 16 continue on this process. ~~ The numbers that were used in the base data for the Industrial and' Commercial end. IIe gave is definitions: Commercial Land, as I understood it from reading that study, is basically retail 19 shopping center land. Industrial Land is everything else other than residential land. Take the 20 commercial land aside and look at what is•Industrial Land, what it doesn't consider is the fact zi that there is really a separate market that'isn't Industrial `in this community, that's Office and s2 Research and Development Land and that distinction isn't ever made and it needs to be made. a3 If you look at it again and I tried over a four day period to look at each parcel that,is in what za was supposed to be a 17 to 23 years of Industrial Land availability, and I've tried to look at as each parcel and it what wasn't ever considered in putting that together is various constraints 26 on some of those parcels. The size of the parcels, for instance, you can't build art offnce a~ building on certain parcels. Office buildings like to be grouped together ,if at all possible. Zs There are some size constraints, there are some flood constraints, .there are other constraints z9 on. that industrial land and there a couple of areas •that land simply doesn't exist that was 3o stated to exist. That was a tough. job to do, and the errors may or may .not be minor. I 31 would like to consider seriously the need for a broad range of jobs in this commuri~y, 32 because that's what makes it the healthy communuty it is. 33 Dan Libarle, 1319 IStreet - he was on the Planning Commission when the General Plan was 3a adopted. We came up with a wonderful General Pflara. gie has mixed emotions about why we 3s don't take more time to do this Urban Growth Boundary decision. Why can't we do more 36 studies like the General P-an. The sewer p-an has been studied for a. number of years. We 37 have looked upwards, sideways, and downwards on projects, and here in 90 days we want to 3a affect the community for 20 years. Also, he takes offense to the comment `urban sprawl.' It 39 is ludicrous. We owe the citizens of Petaluma an opportunity to know what this is all about. ao Bruce Bauer, D Street at 7th - he attended the workshops. T'he 1Vtay one was great. Last 4a weekend we didn't draw our map because someone overpowered our table. If you study az economics, it will go on for years. We should take care of the flooding. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmeaaaber Jane Hamilton, Nlt-Councilmember Nancy Read PH--Mayor M. Patricia Flilligoss, a~ISCouncilnaemberMaryStoanpe s- DK Councilmember David Kellcr, P'1=Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-vice Mayor ~ifatt Maguire e~S -City Manager Stouder July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 3fl r Tom Scott, 389 Corona Road -his family would like the Urban Growth Boundary to s encompass their boundary. The land is not agricultural any more because of too much traffic 3 and development. 4 I~rista Shaw, 520 Mendocino #225, Santa Rosa -Greenbelt Alliance -she asked what was s the rationale for the 25% low and very low income exception. This should be a decision of 6 the voters. ~ Mike Gallagher, McBail Corporation -much of the land within the Urban Limit Line is no s longer available for use. This should be done through a reasoned process. However, in the 9 event you proceed, we suggest the Urban Growth Boundary go to Ellis Creek (at the ro .southeastern part of town). He showed the Council a map of the area which indicated i r potential. land uses between the City Limits and Ellis Creek. rz Deanna Issel, 1296 Ponderosa Drive - we need the new Urban Growth Boundary. We need n3 to stop variances. Once it is paved over for variances you can't change. n4 Robert Ramirez, 611 West Street - is not a strong supporter of Urban Growth Boundaries. is With the small amount of work you've done for the 20 year future, he doesn't feel sufficient r6 time has been allowed for the work that needs to be done. We need more information. This i~ is planning by the ballot box. People are more exciting today than they were 10 years ago. is That wouldn't have happened with a Urban Growth Boundary. He doesn't think the town is 19 out of control. This seems more political. Urban Growth Boundaries are truly untested. zo Allow the public to be more involved. Maybe that's a better solution. sn Charlie Carson, 608 Jonas Lane - he noted that the proposed legislation indicates that the zz General Plan amendments are consistent with the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. He i3 says that they are not. He .noted the legislation says the potential impacts of the Za amendments have been assessed and.have been determined not to be detrimental to the public 2s health, safety or welfare. Mr. Carson said the revenue needs to be included in the system and z6 it is not addressed. Sales tax revenues are not addressed and they need to be addressed. A a~ lot of lip service has been given to in-fill housing, but the streets and the traffic will be zs affected. We really will see grumbling. Those impacts need to be looked at. There are z9 abused phrases such as `quality of life.' What does that mean? The November election is 3o driving the train on this. There are a lot of different elements yet to be considered including 31 park maintenance. 3z There is a manufacturing element, retailers' element aril a housing which all work as a unit. 33 If building comes to a screeching halt, much revenue will be lost. Nearly all the land within 34 the Urban Limit Line has been designed. You are suggesting that for expansion, 25% of the 3s land should be low income housing. You need a sizable project to pay for that. The cost of 36 land will be going up. Expansion can take place only if land is not designated "Ag." Look 37 at all of the Open Space areas, Commurity Separators and Ag Zones there are. 3a We are moving too fast on this. 39 Hank Flum, 1721 Stonehenge Way - it is an emotional issue. The community wants to put its 4o arms around how big we do become. If we don't do the Urban Limit Line we will grow ai times three. He canoed in the sloughs last weekend. The bank was very high. If you make 4z the river 200 feet wide you will solve the problem. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor~l~l. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MNI--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 32, Vol. 32 July 13, 1998 a Recess 9:30 to 9:55 p.m. (Mayor Hilligoss left the meeting.) Councilmember Read led the z meeting. 3 Richard Taylor of Shute, Mihaly.& Weinberger and Council discussion: a Richard Taylor -The purpose and findings of the measure are in Section-1. This will it will s lay forth the rationale for an Urban Growth Boundary measure,. how that will serve the public 6 interest for the City of Petaluma. The findings that are in Section. B~ are the Council's ~ standard findings that you make: in connection with General Plan amendments. These may s not need to be in the body of'the measure itself, but they can be in the measure that actually 9 puts this on the ballot. io There were a couple of questions in the public comment period about CEQA compliance. u When matters are submitted to a vote of the people, the CEQA guidelines provide and i2 Courts have affirmed that those measures are not actions subject to CEQA. The Legislature 13 and the Courts have concluded that CEQA doesn't apply when there is going to be an is election addressing something. So that part will be amended. It is just based on the standard is format that the City usually uses. The last portion of Section ]~ is an attempt to be a concise 16 summary of what the initiative actually does, so when people are reading the full text of the i~ measure, it serves as an introduction. This will be completed when we have the actual is measure. 19 Section 2 is where we get into the actual policy amendments. Section 2.1 amends the Land 20 Use Map to establish the Urban Growth Boundary. They way we have drafted it for the time ai being is to say that the Urban Growth .Boundary will be the Urt~an Limit Line. except.... And it zz will be your Council's decision as to whether you conclude the Urban Growth Boundary is 23 the Urban Limit Line without change or you might say this has been added and this has been 2a deleted. 2s There will be an illustrative map that goes with the issue when it goes to a ballot. It will not i6 be parcel specific and it will refer to parcel specific maps that ai~e available. z~ FS may I clarify something please, I understood the answer the ballot measure will refer to 2s parcel specific maps that are available at the time of the ballot measure, is that what you are z9 saying? 3o Richard Taylor -yes, and we would have a textual description in here that would allow 31 somebody reading the measure to know where the line would be. 3i Fs - so at what time is there will there have need to be prepared parcel specific maps with the 33 Urban Growth Boundary identified. By what time?. 34 Richard Taylor - if we have a description, the maps may be required until later. We will need 3s the actual description next week. We will need the metes and bounds. 36 Pamela Tuft - if we modify the Urban Limit Line is parcel specific and. can be identified by 37 Assessors Parcel Number and the parcel specific data is indicated on the General Plan Land 3s Use Map. If the Council's direction is to expand it or delete it I would assume we would do 39 so by use of Assessors Parcel Numbers. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jame Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy, Read PH-Mayor M Patricia. Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder c. rh E` 4 ~ July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 33 i Richard Taylor -that would be fine. 2 Pamela Tuft - because I have assured the City Engineering Department that I will not ask 3 them to prepare a metes and bounds description of the Urban Growth Boundary between a now and next week. s Fs that would have to be prepared by then by what date? 6 Pamela Tuft - I would assume that specific direction from the Council will be received and ~ that I will have that prepared in time for Council action on the 20th. I will know those parcel a specific delineations and be able to tell the Council by AP Number what is in and what is out. 9 NR we have today is the 13th of July. We have no City Council meetings until July 20. We io have not even put a pen to map yet to determine what those parcels are of nt's in or out in the ii first place. How, Pamela, how do you expect that to happen if we are not having another iz meeting until July 20? 13 Pamela Tuft - if you don't start drawing little pink lines on the map tonight, the Planning is Commission will do so tomorrow night and if the Planning Commission recommends to you is you'll either draw lines on the map on Monday or you'll accept the Planning Commission's 16 recommendations, or you'll continue to a date specific which I believe is tentatively held for A~ July 22. is MS I have the same concerns. We have a whole lot of `xxxx's' to fill in on this document. 19 We don't have tlvs was just done which is great but I would like to see reductions of all of so this. I'd like to look at each of the rationale for the drawing of each of these. There's just zi too much that we need to study in order to make an informed decision and I will not be a2 prepared to support this on the 20th because I really feel like this is being rushed and it's been i3 brought up over and over again with comments many many comments from the public feeling za that there is not been adequate public participation. There has been public participation, but 2s not enough. The whole economic study that I brought up a couple of weeks ago that I feel z6 very uncomfortable with where other communities that are going forward with the Urban z~ Growth Boundary they are either doing it as part of their General Plan update they are zs including an economic study and I'm extremely concerned. I~think we need to do this right z9 and to make a decision in seven days when we don't have another meeting for seven days and 3o we have a whole lot of information we've just started discussing this. It's really, it's 31 improper decision-making and I won't support pushing this through to get a decision made 3z on the 20th. 33 JH I'd like to address the rush issue. Just in response to that. Right after I got elected 3a because I had. gone through an election I wanted to have a discussion about Urban Growth 3s Boundaries with the Council. The first time that I was elected to the Council. That was six 36 years ago. Or almost six years ago. The discussion was about a ten minute discussion and it 37 took a long time to get on to the agenda. There was no interest there was no impetus, not 3a from the public. From the public there was, but from the Council there wasn't and from 39 anybody who is In this room tonight, there wasn't. There was no willingness to have this ao discussion although the citizens have been pushing quite a bit to have an Urban Growth ai Boundary. And I would prefer to have an Urban Growth Boundary that was put on by the az Council than by a citizens group. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Sane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MINI--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 34, Vol. 32 r.~. July`13;"'1998 ~ '~ n Now maybe it would be better in my way of thinking it would be more inclusive to have it z come from the Council and the Council to put it on the ballot than a citizens group to put it 3 on just put their vision instead of try to capture the .community's vision. 'That's why I asked a to have it put on the ballot and .I asked the Council to go through this right now. And I still s think that it's appropriate if there wasn't this council right now we, wouldn't be having this 6 discussion. Nobody would engage in the discussion.. And that was my experience and this is ~ my opportunity to have this discussion and to put it before thee. voters. I think it's very s appropriate to give the voters control of how their town grows. And that's what the citizens 9 here really want, They want to have some control of the geographic growth of their no community. That doesn't and then this is as valid as leading with economic growth.. It's just rn a different lead. I also expect that this community will need to redo our General Plan well n2 before it expires and I think we would be smart to start out doing that right away and that n3 through that General Plan .process, there may be changes to the Urban Growth Boundary, na and if one is passed in November that could be put on the ballot and if the community has ns bought into and has participated in the General Plan process they would be very they will n6 pass it because it will make .sense and they will understand it. I don't believe that the voters i~ are ignorant and emotional and I think it's an emotional issue but .I don't believe that the ns voters are incapable of understanding and grappling with the growth issue that every n9 community is going through right now in this country: zo I~I~ I'm willing to proceed. It's important to d® and I think that we can come up with a ai result that can go to ballot and if the voters' don't approve it that's the measure of its z2 validity. If they do approve it so be it. Then we get to work with that But I think we can 23 make reasonable procedure here and continue on with the legislation. 2a Richard Taylor -.Section 2.2 explains what we are leading into and how amendments are zs shown. We are now at the top of page 3. Some of these are situp-y confornung amendments a6 to replace the term `urban limit line' with `urban growth boundary' and to refer to the fact 2~ that the boundary may exist beyond 2005, if that's the term that the Council chooses to 2s propose. 29 Policy 1.1 includes a key definition.. ~JVhat we've said is that there will be no urban 3o development beyond the Urban Growth Boundary is the basis structure of this measure. And 31 the term `urban development' is defined in Policy 1.1 as development requiring basis 3z municipal services. That goes on to say what that is. 33 Pamela and I in our discussion I have we conclude that municipal, services ;include these 3a services but shall not include open space uses, public and quasi-public uses such as schools, 3s public safety facilities et cetera., I would. recommend that we work to define `et cetera' a 36 little bit further to remove debate further down the road as to what is a public and quasi- 37 public use. The Council may wish to refer to city policies that refer to those uses. You may 38 wish to come up with a definitive list. You may choose to leave it a little bit open ended the 39 way that it is now. ao Policy 3.1 addresses the City services issue and says that no urban development beyond the an Urban Growth Boundary shall be served by City services except as provided in the existing az Clty service resolution policies and then later on we adopt an amendment to those policies. Ivey to abbreviations: ,IH-Councilmember.lane Hamilton, NR-Courrcilmember Nancy React PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilntember David Keller, PT-Councilmenrber Pamela Torliaft MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS - City ~llanager Stouder July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 35 i Policy 3.2 sets the term of the Urban Growth Boundary which in this draft is 20 years. 2 Policy 4 is a conforrrung amendment. 3 Policy 4.1 presents the exceptions to the measure. a Policy 4.1 A says the City Council may without a vote of the people reduce the size of the s Urban Growth Boundary. 6 DK that could be by majority, super majority? ~ Richard Taylor -the way it is drafted now it would be a simple majority of the Council s DK what is your experience in other localities on that? 9 Richard Taylor - in the main localities like to keep it a simple majority. There are super io majority requirements that have been applied, but they tend to apply only to some of the i i exceptions. It goes both ways. i2 JH why did you include that. It is one that doesn't quite make sense to me. 13 Richard Taylor -, In some Urban Growth Boundary measures it's the feeling of the sponsors is of the measure that if the Council in the future decides the Urban Growth Boundary should is be smaller that's a decision they trust the Council with, if you will, and they don't believe 16 that's something that needs to go to a vote of the people. i~ JH -what would be reasons for wanting to shrink it? What I wanted to know, is that in there is because communities have found they needed that? I can't see the need of it ever arising. ~9 Richard Taylor - I haven't ever heard of it being used. 20 JH -okay it's just a throw away: Zi Richard Taylor -it's in some and not in others. 22 Policy 4.1 B is one that I referred to in earlier discussions with you. State Law requires the z3 City to insure that it has adequate capacity for its fair share of regional housing need. There za are two ways to assure that you meet that. One is through the projections that go into zs looking at available land within the Urban Growth Boundary when we designate it. Actually z6 there are three ways. There is that. Then there is the land use policy that applies within the 2~ Urban Growth Boundary. And the third way is through including an exception such as this 28 which says that if we find ourselves in a situation where there isn't any land within the Urban 2v Growth Boundary we can amend the Urban Growth Boundary by Council action without a 3o vote to make sure that theme is adequate land available. And, this then goes through and says 31 these are the conditions under which such circumstances would arise. There is room for 3a varying degrees of flexibility with each of these conditions, obviously. The first one provides 33 that the land be immediately adjacent to existing comparably developed areas with adequate 3a services available. 3s DK where you have in parentheses [or other agencies] if that could be other relevant agencies 36 Richard Taylor - or there could be other agencies that you could specify. 37 The 25% low and very low income housing again the percentage there or whether you have a 3a percentage or not is policy question. 25% is an absolute number. You know whether you are 39 there or not. Other measures have said, shall consist of primarily low and very low income ao housing. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember.Iane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe " ' ~' DK -Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-ti ice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 36, Vol. 32 July 13, 1998 i That leaves room for more interpretation by the Council, creates 'more: work for your City a Attorney at that time in deciding what is primarily, exactly. Arid°we have seen that question 3 come up. At the same time it's within the Council's discretion to :make it a combination- of a what primarily consists of. And I don't think that you would be in any legal jeopardy if you s used that approach. 6 PT I guess that one of the issues that we are dealing with is people are saying well it's going ~ to increase the price of housing within the Urban.Limit Line. Ifthe Urban Limit Line or if the s Urban Limit Line were moved. pursuant to this condition it almost seems to me that the true 9 need would be for very low or low income housing because supposedly the. prices of housing io within. the Urban Limit Line would have skyrocketed. Using a theory. So if this I'm I don't i i know if we increase the percentage or if we leave it more vaguE; as Mr. Taylor has suggested is could be done. 13 JH I'd be very cautious about leaving vague language and then letting everything be open to is legal challenges and interpretations. I think we should be as specific as we can just so it's is clear and straight forward. is PT maybe my suggestion is that we increase the percentage anti I'm not quite sure what I'm i~ just putting it out there for input in a 50% because I'm thinking if there's an exception it is should be for a good reason and it should have balanced housing so for as -much high income 19 housing you would as much low or very low income housing. zo NR maybe staff could come back with some possible percentage and the rationale behind 2i each one given the fact that the policies that we have with our own housing at the present z2 time is to provide that wide mix already. Does it need to be included in here or not. You tell 23 US. za FS - is that something• we feel comfortable by providing by Thursday, because. that's the next Zs date we want to get all these materials to the Council by Thursday, if its going to have any 26 impact on these deliberations. z~ PT its not a major impact but I'm I'd like staff to respond. 2s Pamela Tuft -our current General Plans says 10 - 15% of every project is required to provide z9 10-15% affordable or pay the in-lieu housing fee. VVe presently in the last .decade have 3o exceeded 20% so the reason I left 25% in there is that is.that s~;ems to be the very successful 31 trend that we are close to meeting with our housing program anal I see a great deal of support 3a for the housing program from the Council and the number of projects and the need that we 33 are meeting with our programs so I felt that was attainable and could be applicable to any 34 development that would be proposed at the edge of the City to meet the continuing need. I 3s could talk to our housing administrator and see what she thinks is possible. 36 PT maybe including an additional percentage maybe not for thE; low and very low but maybe 37 for moderate income housing and adding an additional 10 or 15% for that so we end up 3s receiving a mix if in fact that's the case and development oceu.rs that we mix those types of 39 housing and I think that's one of the things we're striving toward is to mix all of those types ao of housing. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder ::~;~,: ,;~, n:. .y,ri~,: July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 37 i DK I think, if I understand the intent. of this is really not to make an exception here that can 2 be used on a regular basis to provide large tracts of land or ever, mid sized` tracts of land for 3 additional housing of which you happen to throw 5, 10, 20, 25, 40% whatever to low or very a low housing. I think really the intent is to say we are going to grow inward. We are going to s use the land that's available, redevelop what's there, use vacant land where it's available and 6 essentially drive the market within the boundaries and I don't want to have an exception that ~ makes it attractive to go outside of the boundary unless there is a very clear perceived need s to be able to meet our mandate for low and very low income housing. So I'd rather not see it 9 expanded in a way that makes it easier to do. We do have a requisite finding in here #5 io proposed development is necessary to comply with state law requirements for provision of ii low and very low income housing. Maybe that answers that question. In which case iz essentially you can't have larger tracts bumping out unless it is because we need to meet the 13 requirements for low and very low income housing which the other housing can help support. is But I'm not sure that I'd want to add moderate into that because then we are changing the is way we are. going to do our mix and the way we are going to do the judgment. I think 16 leaving it at 25% low and very low at this point works for me. i~ Richard Taylor -Item 3 and Item 4 in this list go together, basically saying there is no is existing residentially designated land within 'the Urban Growth Boundary and there's no land fl9 that is reasonably feasible to redesignate to accommodate the proposed project. zo Item 5 goes to the purpose of this exception which is to make sure the City doesn't get boxed Zi in with the problem of complying with the State housing laws. zz The Exception C provides that the City Council may amend the Urban Growth Boundary this 23 time by a super majority vote. If there's evidence in the record that the application of the za Urban Growth Boundary policies would constitute the taking of somebody's property which ss you have land use regulations that deprive people of all economically viable use of their land. i6 The Urban Growth Boundary will be drafted in such a way that won't occur, but it's got a 20 z~ year term, things change, this gives the Council the opportunity to address those concerns zs without having to take something to a full vote of the people. z9 PT maybe I just don't understand but there are seven of us, so. 3o Richard Taylor -this is a draft outline, the idea we were trying to get across there is a super 31 majority would be 5/7. 3z PT so its five or six votes. Six votes? So. Okay 33 Richard Taylor - D is an exception to allow for employment generating uses that are transit 34 oriented. ~'ou'll note the `xx' on Line 33 there that's a policy question of how much land 3s could be made available for this purpose at any one time, which is very community 36 dependent. And I don't know if Pamela wants to 37 Pamela Tuft -one of the issues that we are that was brought up in both workshops and again 3s this evening is that the buildable acreage of industrial as we if it ends up being a 20 year 39 Urban Growth Boundary that we start to deplete land potential and that if you were ao interested in seeing a reasonable build-out over a 20 year period we could plug in those last ai number of years into a formula that would allow some expansion to provide for employment a2 based expansion for development. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire ~ FS -City Manager Stouder :<- ~.:. Page 38, Vol. 32 ~~ ,~~~ ~Jiily 13;1998 ~~' ,~; ` i PT more of a typographical ques`tori`I guess it says the larids aretd:esignafed to accommodate 2 lands to be designated for Office of Light Industrial, that should be``or' Light Industrial. 3 DK Rich, you said that no more than `x' acres of land to be brought in, you said at any one 4 time. Did you mean that or by or over the s Richard Taylor -the way .this that's one approach that people have used the way this is 6 drafted is over the life of the Urban Growth Boundary we can bring in `x' number of acres. 7 DK and it can be brought in in one year, it can be brought in spread over '~ s Richard Taylor -exactly. I want to call the Council's attention to the criteria that are on the 9 following page that would limit what kind of land that could be brought in and under what io circumstances, and obviously those are criteria that can be adjusted, and you might want to ii say that there could be `x' acres brought in over the life but no rnore than 5 acres at any given is time. i3 DK and one of the questions that was raised was well, you ..know, we surrounded by AG is zoning, so essentially if one of those parcels were to be the subject of a future annexation or is addition essentially it requires cooperation with the County to change the zoning at the i6 County level as well as to incorporate that within i~ Richard Taylor -actually the way this is drafted that wouldn't work. is DK it's the zoning ... 1998 i9 Richard Taylor -right 20 DK gotcha zi Richard Taylor -one thing the Council might want to consider is are there places that if the 2z Urban Growth Boundary is going to be amended, this is where we should look first, and you 23 could specify that In here and so you could say well not these kinds unless we're in this part 24 of town. is JH I need to have that explained. 26 Richard Taylor - the ~ way that this is drafted right now, a Council considering making this z~ exception could change the Urban ,Growth Boundary at any point along the perimeter 2g consistent with these findings. The Council might wish to say, well if we're going to amend a9 the Urban Growth Boundary we want that growth to occur first at this spot along the Urban 3o Growth Boundary or at one of these two spots along the Urban Growth Boundary. And 3i that's where we should look first. And if it's in one of those two spots, then these criteria in 32 finding (a) on the top of page 6 wouldn't apply. 33 NR in other words in trying to achieve an east/west balance, trying to achieve a certain goal 34 in a certain area to provide Key to abbreviations: JH-Courrcilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Courrcilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Courrcilmember David Keller, PT-Courrcilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder ~~, July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 39 ~ Richard Taylor -exactly 2 Pamela Tuft -would it also be utilized, if I may, to divert development potential from those 3 areas those designated lands that are specified in (a)? a Richard Taylor -yes, one option also would be to just change the list of land uses in (a) s DK to read 6 Richard Taylor - if you have fewer things listed here, there is more opportunity ~ Pamela Tuft -would it and what would the impacts be, if I may, Chair, if it was not stipulated s that the lands were designated as of July 20 thereby allowing the due process should the 9 County propose for it or approve the General Plan designation change because of whatever io decision-making process where you could protect these land as long as they continue to exist ii and would allow the flexibility of the County changing them. such as something occurs where r2 there is no longer designated as critical habitat or land intensive agriculture 13 Richard Taylor -there is no legal problem with that. It could be saying we (can't understand na this) County has made these determinations it's reasonable for us to have this different is change in policy. 16 Richard Taylor -the .remaining exceptions track the way your housing exceptions, there are i~ services available,. that there is no existing place within the Urban Growth Boundary for use is that's being contemplated. n9 PT on page 6 (b) it says that land to be included in immediately adjacent to should be 20 `included immediately' zi Richard Taylor -yes z2 PT I was trying to okay z3 Richard Taylor -Line 28 -any other exceptions the Council deems appropriate, we have Za given you a menu of the exceptions that have been included in the Urban Growth Boundaries zs in Northern California. There may be other exceptions that are important to the Council. i6 PT maybe it's not necessarily exception but it's a thought regarding the existing that there is z~ no existing Office or Light Industrial Land designated Land available in the Urban Growth as Boundary to accommodate the proposed development is not reasonably feasible to 29 accommodate proposed development by redesigning lands within the Urban Growth 3o Boundary for Office or Light Industrial uses and my thought regarding that and extending 31 and extending an Urban Growth Boundary is that the cost associated with adjusting Urban 3z Growth Boundary and the cost of extending those service should be borne by the 33 development if it is to go outside the Urban Growth Boundary and I'm not sure where that 3a should be placed or if that is something that the Council would consider as part of this some 3s (sounds like) cheatback on that 36 Richard Taylor -you've got City service policies here that could be included in the city's 37 service policies. There maybe city policies that already 3s Pamela Tuft - if I may, the outside 89-68 and 91-160,70 the outside sewer and water policies 39 already provide for anyone requesting it to bear all costs of the physical improvements but if ao you are suggesting that they also bear the cost of all Urban Growth Boundary amendment ai related costs such a putting it on the ballot and that type of thing Key to abbreviations: JN-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder ,. Page 40, Vol. 32 July 13~, I998 ~; ~ :. , i Richard Taylor - in this case it wouldn't be there wouldn't be any need'to put it on the ballot .; :~ 2 Pamela Tuft - so it would just.beahrough the findings made 3 DK relevant to the cost questionwhich I think is appropriate one of the reasons that we are a kind of in the mess that we are is that. we have had' a tremendous amount:of development that s hasn't paid its cost. And oriel ofahe attempts here is as we go through this and I hope as we 6 go through- the General Plan next year that we relook at that policy and`;:make sure that new 7 development in fact does pay fo`'r~itself and that means: no"t just the actuaY:physical cost but the s externalized cost, the police; the'~fire, the traffic, the; circulation, the transportation, all of that 9 stuff has to be part of the picture, otherwise we are going to continue to be on the red side of io the ledger. So I am wondering if there's a way to include we have that cost of services for ii utility extension.. Is there some way or is it necessary to call out in this measure in Section i2 (d) Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, Planning and School District have 13 capacity and are reimbursed for their incremental cost or the .increment of costs .are is reimbursed to the appropriate agencies. Somehow in there to insure that that's really part of is this planning picture. What does the rest of the Council think about that? 16 PT I guess that was part of the intent of my comments. I don't guess I know that is the i~ intent and so I'm looking to Richard for some suggestions on is Richard Taylor -the need to make a finding that these departrne;nts have adequate capacity to i9 accommodate the proposed service, that in itself provides the Council an opportunity to say, 20 no, there isn't adequate capacity. Where our response time is `x' our target our level of Zi service standard is higher than that. It is being exceeded right now so we don't have the 22 capacity to provide the service. The only way the Council could then make that finding z3 would be if there was some solution to a development agreement or some other process to as get that to provide actual basis for the Council to make that finding at the time. zs JH I think that these findings are adequate and give enough room and I wouldn't want to just 26 try to start writing everything in. a~ Richard Taylor -okay zs Richard Taylor -there is more here. At the bottom of page 6 is a procedural requirement 29 that prior to making any of the exceptions, the Council bald a hearing devoted to the 3o exception and that would be in addition to the other hearings that would typically be required 31 through the General Plan process. 3a The following page is confirming amendments. So on Page 8 33 DK on Policy 6 on page 7 Line 6,7,8 necessary infrastructure for growth will be provided 3a within the Urban Growth Boundary, is that an obligation or is that how is that what does that 3s mean `will'? What level of commitment is that? is the question. 36 Richard. Taylor -the City has it's a General Plan policy the Cit~/ has to administer its General ., 37 Plan policies, it has to, the Courts allow you to administer- them within the reasonable 3s constraints of running a government. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder ~a s ; r- -~. ft :t: July 13, 199i$ Vo1.32, Page 4fl i So this .doesn't require you to extend them but it does imply that that's the city's intention z that, and that's consistent with Urban Growth Boundary planning principles, as well. On 3 Page 8, the measure would add a new policy to the City's existing outside sewer and water a service policies simply setting forth the circumstances under which said services could be s extended when the extension requested beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. And once 6 again these are drawn to be very narrow to address extreme circumstances. It will require ~ that you're extending it to a use that's consistent with applicable policies of the General Plan. s Now that would mean if your General, if you are extending it to land in the County and you 9 don't have any policies that apply to it and the land use is consistent with the County General io Plan policies, you could go ahead and extend it to that use. But if you have a policy that was i i inconsistent with County policies, the person requesting services was fully in compliance with ~2 the County laws, this would say that you couldn't extend it to those uses. The Land Use is 13 compatible with Open Space uses as defined in the Government Code. It doesn't interfere is with the accepted agricultural practices. that it's adjacent to immediately adjacent to land is that is already served by services that you are providing. And there are specific circumstance 16 unique to that property. i~ One thing that I've discussed with City staff that doesn't apply in some cities is your it is my is understanding that your services extend in many areas outside the City boundaries. And, you 19 may want to consider you have existing policies for existing (couldn't understand) so you 20 there could be people at some distance from the City boundaries if their septic system fails or Zi their water system water source fails it might be difficult to provide service to those people Zi consistent with the policy as we have drafted it here and you may want to make exceptions a3 for the people whose uses were existing prior to 1983 or who have their perrruts prior to Za 1983 as you do in your existing water and sewer service policies. zs NR Pam Tuft we do have that in existence, Denman, Orchard, Penngrove, South of town, z6 Pamela Tuft -west of town, the water service boundary area and that's why Richard we've a~ discussed this and we'd like to introduce more flexibility in here but we wanted to hear it a zs concurrence from the City Council because we do have a~water service area we either need to z9 exempt the Penngrove district completely from this and because they are not going to be 3o within the Urban Growth Boundary in all probability but they are within the sewer district 31 that is served by agreement with the County so we need to clearly define that in here but also 3i we have those little what we call spaghetti lines out in the water service boundary are and it 33 might not be someone with a failing well due to nitrates or some other reason and not be able 34 to (can't understand) it's not something simple as drill another one particularly if its nitrates if 3s the house next door is just lucky enough be in an aquifer or doesn't have water because it is 36 vacant under these very very strict exceptions you would not be able to grant that person 37 water and we are concerned that really going against the existing policies that I think have 3s served the City well for a number of years 39 NR and in cooperation with LAFCO. ao PT I feel like there should be some flexibility and that respect and would be willing to ai entertain language as to those type of things exceptions az DK I would agree with that a3 YII also Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 42, Vol. 32 July 13, T998 ~ ., ~m ~;,, ~ Richard Taylor - on Page 9 -Section 4 a policy that is, there+to make' sure that. the voter 2 approval requirements would' apply to the substance of the u'rtiari growth boundary measure 3 don't interfere with Council reorganization, readoptiori, adoption of a new General Plan. The a point is that the policies stay in the plan what they are called where sit isn't relevant. The rest s are implementation provisions that I would be happy 'to answer your questions. They are 6 very very standard. ~ PT on Page 10 Line 27 it says including housing for senior or for lower or very low income s should it be low? yes. 9 NR thank you Richard. The public hearing will remain open. I encourage everyone be here io at the July 20 meeting and be willing'Io stay to 3 o'clock in the morning with your pink pen n i in hand if necessary and answer those final question whether we are going to have existing is Urban Limit Line that is going to be before the voters or are we going to have 7 year Urban 13 Limit Line which becomes the Urban Growth Boundary, we'll be in conformance with the is General Plan, if we are going to have a 2 year Urban Limit Line or a 20 years Urban Limit fls Line. It seems to me those are the major questions that we need to ask first before ei~e start R6 putting the pen on the paper. I appreciate the legislation staff has given Lts and how it will i7 apply and what's there but affer the Planning Commission tomorrow night and after the input is that is going to be given to us, this is going to be a work session that will change the face of 19 Petaluma or continue the planning histoa-y that it has yet we haven't answered yet at this Zo council how what's the length and the term of this Urban Limit Line and that's my comment z~ tonight and so if there are other people who wanted to comment on the time maybe now is za the time now is the appropriate place to say it. z3 DK I would like to see it go fora 20 year period. ®ne of the critical reasons for that is that as we get no County support for their growth limits outside our Urban Growth Boundary unless 2s it is a 20 year measure, if it's anything Hess that, the County is free to do what they wish with z6 lands beyond our control. Measure D specifies that their support for a city's ~Jrban Growth z~ Boundary is one of the criteria is that it is a 20 year measure, so if we want to do anything zs less than a 20 year measure, we really risk asking of the city and the public to be able to 29 exercise efficient and effective control of what the county does and I think recent as welfl as 30 long term history says we can't dep~idd on that. 31 PT actually its for Richard one the language that we have gone over tonight whether it's a 7 32 year or a 20 year it pretty much doesn't make a difference what the time limit is language 33 would be the same. 3a Richard Taylor -that's correct 3s PT my other statement I guess is that we have received a lot of public input and it has taken a 36 lot of time on the Councilmembers' parts to participate in the fUd'llms, read the rraateriafl, and I 37 ,believe that I will be able to make a decision. on July 20 or July 22 whichever it takes and I 3~ am willing to discuss the issue with-the public and with the other Councilmembers so if other 39 members of the public would like to call me, give me their input, ~ am willing to talk to you ao and will continue to listen. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councibnember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH--Mayor M. Patricia Ililligoss, MS-Councilrnenaber Mary Stompe DK- Councllmember David Keller; P7=Councilmenaber Pamela 7°orliatt MNl dice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder ?.~S'~r~~ ' 5; guar ,.r~:=,rC,~~;. July 13, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 43 i JH no closing remarks z NR well we have heard one person who has stated they want a 20 year Urban Limit Line 3 proposed, I can only hope that all 7 Councilmembers will be able to make that decision and 4 possibly make that vote first before the pens even start. That's the ultimate question how s long this is going to be and be willing to work and to stay and see if there is an Urban 6 Growth Boundary or there can be a majority vote to decide whether it goes on the ballot or ~ not. The public hearing will stay open. We invite everybody back tomorrow night and on s July 20 and if there is any burning desire on anybody to stand up and speak I'll allow them to 9 speak now or to come back. io Don Weisenfluh -again on this draft initiative on Page 7 policies Paragraph 10 where it starts ii with Policy 7 is that going to be included actually wrrtmg out what it says here in will that be iz included in the ballot measure? or just a reference so people know what Policy 7 is and it 13 won't show up in the initiative? is Pamela Tuft -that's the exception for certain projects and it will be in the initiative. is Don Weisenfluh -Page 7 16 Pamela Tuft - of Page 7 I am sorry r~ Don Weisenfluh -Policy 7 which is Page 10 on that page. is Pamela Tuft -Line 10 19 Richard Taylor -the way it is drafted this measure would appear in the measure that would zo be on the ballot and reaffirmed and readopted by the voters. zi NR does that answer your question? ....._ ... zz Don Weisenfluh -just partially, what I am then concerned with is the fact that there is no z3 definition in the General Plan as to how limiting density is dealt with there is no formula and za we already have a very bad example of what has occurred at Cross Creek where they have zs excessive they went over the land use designated by 5 they are up there in the stratosphere z6 and increased their densities so they can turn around and do feathering right along the Urban z~ Limit Line and was in total contravention to a number of mandatory policies in the General zs Plan and I would really like the either this document, or the General Plan to specifically z9 designate how limited density will be worked. And I am talking measurable and if anybody 3o ever wanted to know listen to it I'm talking about taking the mean the average there on the 31 land use designator not using the high land and not using the low land going right to the 3z center, that times the acreage ~s the number of properties you'd be able to develop m a parcel 33 that joins the Urban Limit Line or in this case the Urban Growth Boundary, but there is no 34 definition currently In your General Plan and that has created problems. 3s John Barella speaking again, I just hope you know listening to the Council comments tonight 36 it sounds like three that I am bolting at right in front of me right here, Ilamilton, Torliatt and 37 Keller, have pretty much made up their mind made up. I hope that's not a true story because 38 we haven't hit the commission which we are going to be hitting tomorrow. Just listening to 39 your comments, it sounds like you are pretty well got you minds made up and I hope that's 4o not a true story because I don't think more public input there and I hope that they have good 41 public input that will also listen to. This is how I am feeling from the inside. After going to az the workshop on Saturday and after getting this evaluation report, like I said if you go 43 through and read it, it sounds like public opinion wants to you to do some more studies. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder Page 44, Vol. 32 July 13, 1998 i I don't care what kind of studies, there are a lot of different studies they are asking for. If z you look at those maps on the. wall, you see the same stories written on those maps. I don't 3 know you say you are listening to the public and you want to .listen to the public, I hope that a you are listening to the public, because what I am hearing tonight was overwhelming public s support to slow the process down. I don't see that happening. Thank you. 6 Bryant Moynihan - I alluded ;to.~ a question that I stanted.~with and I:was just hoping that if ~ possible we could ask the nice lawyer to possibly address it and basically my question,is how a did the proposed General Plan amendments that you have in front of you impact the internal 9 consistency of the General Plan's nine different elements? io Richard Taylor -our review this far doesn't indicate that there may be minor conforming n amendments to the General Plan but depending on the actual. Urban Growth Boundary line iz that is adopted there could be an Urban Growth Boundary line that would result in an internal 13 inconsistency but if that Urban Growth Boundary is comparable to the Urban Limit Line as it is exists now I don't expect there to be any serious problems. is NR what if it's not, though, Richard? 16 Richard Taylor -then that's an analysis that we'll have to make, i~ PT I have one more I'm sorry one more question for Richard, a burning. question, after the i8 City goes through a new General Plan process which the Council has asked the City Manager i9 to prepare a timeline for, can the City put a measure on the b111ot even if an Urban. Growth zo Boundary is adopted now? Can in two years the City put another Urban Growth Boundary zi on the ballot that is in conformance with the General Plan after the process has been gone zz through? z3 Richard Taylor -yes za PT and that can be supersede the Urban Growth Boundary measure that has been put on the zs ballot if its on the ballot in November z6 Richard Taylor -that's what State law requires, that's what the initiative provides. A group z~ of citizens can come and put a measure on the ballot at the next election saying they want the zs Urban Growth Boundary to be different, so that's absolutely a way that that's the way that z9 this will be changed. 3o NR the key is that it passes. 31 PT so it doesn't if the Urban Growth .Boundary measure goes on the ballot in November it 3z does not preclude another Urban Growth Boundary that has additional studies in it such as 33 the General Plan. ®kay. That's what I want to know. 34 FS - I just want to make a comment in reference to a comment made earlier by a member of 3s the audience. As you know I'm relatively new to the comrnurity but I have yet to confuse 36 Mi. Moynihan and Ms. Cader Thompson and I know them both well. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Cou~vcilrnemberMaryStompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire FS -City Manager Stouder .... ~. July 13, 1998 x/01.32, Page 45 1 z At 10:55 p.m., the Council adjourned. 3 ADJ®iJRN 4 - i l 5 6 7 M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor s ATTEST: ' 9 ' ~~ 10 ~f' 11 t~G~i i2 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk Key to abbreviations: JH-Counci/menrber.Iane Harnilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe DK- Councilmerber David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt I11M-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire; FS -City Manager Stouder