Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/05/1996Febniary 5, 19~ Vol. 29, Page 327 z MINiJTES s OF A REGULAR 1VIEETING a PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL O s MONDAI', FEBRUARY, 5, 1996 ~ ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m. ~ Preseut: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Sliea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss s Abseut: Hamiltou 9 PUBLIC COMMENT io Jeff Harriman spoke on behalf of the Petaluma Downtown Association regarding a film ~~ policy which needs to be more detined. ~a Bob Graf, location manager talked to several merchants regarding filming. There i3 needs to be some rules and restrictions for film companies to follow. ia John Thayer, JM Consulting Group, 844 Dubuque South San Francisco spoke ~s regarding Communication Towers. His group would like an exception to Ordinance i~ No. 2003 NCS to build an attached antenna and roof top telecommunication facilities i~ within the Light Industrial or General Industrial districts as long as the application ~s meets the height limit and all other requirements. i~ COUNCIL COMIV~NT ao Mary Stompe spoke on behalf of residents of Oak Street, who would ]ike a stop sign ~i put up. This was referred to the Traffic Committee. aa Matt Maguire received a letter from the Sonoma County Oftice of Human Rights ?3 Commission about a Hate Crime Forum scheduled for Thursday, February 15 at the Za Lucchesi Center. 25 MINUTES z~ The minutes of January 16 were approved as amended: Page 319, under Council ~~ Comment, Councilmember Shea asked to place on a future agenda for discussion, the ~/ ?s city hosting an open house where citizens could view the different departments and a~ fac~lities. ~o Page 317, the 5 Year Water CIP Council also removed the conservation project for 3i City Council review and directed staffto do more work on that. 32 Clarification of minutes Page 320, 20 % is correct. 33 CONSENT CALENI)AR sa The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the 3s City Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Mary 36 Stompe, and seconded by Lori Shea. 37 Ayes: Stompe> Maguire Read, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss 3s Absent : Hanultou Page 328, VoL 29 Febniary 5, 1996 ~ RESO. 96-30 NCS z CLAIMS AND BILI,S 3 Resolution 96-30 NCS approving Claims and Bills #5206Q through 52672. a RESO. 96-31 NCS s PAYRAN BRID~E I)EMOLITION ~ Resolution' 96-31 NCS accepting completion of the Payran Street Bridge Demolition ~ Project No. 9831 by D. C. Crane & Excavating. 8 ORDINANCE 2002 NCS ~ 1200 CASA GRANDE RI). PURCHASE ~o Adopt Ordinance 2002 NCS authorizing City Manager to negotiate and exeeute a11 ~i documents in relation to the purchase by the Open Space District of a 27 acre (more or ~~ less) portion of the Alman property (a.k.a. Van de Warlc) at the end of Casa Grande i3 Road. ia ORDINANCE 2003 NCS is COMMLTNICATION TOWERS ~~ Ordinance 2003 NCS extending the moratorium on receipt, processing or approval of ~~ permits for communication towers and/or related facilities which was introduced and ra adopted December 18, 1995, as Ordinance 2001 NCS. It established a 45 day ~~ suspension on receiving or processing any applications for communication towers. The ?0 120 days will expire July 4, 1996. ai ORDINANCE 2004 NCS ?? REZONE McNEAR Y~ANDING ~O PUD zs Adopt Ordinance 2004 NCS rezoning McNear Landing from a former PUD to a za current PUD. ~s RESO. 96 32 NCS z~ McNEAR I;ANDING TENTATIVE NYAP a~ Resolution 96-32 NCS approving Tentative Map for McNear Landing Subdivision. zs RESO. 96-33 NCS a~ d,ETTER AGREElVIENTS-AI.MAN & McNEAR PEIVINSUi,~1 3o Resolution 96-33 NCS authorizing City Manager to execute letter agreements relating 3~ to the Open Space District matching grant program. s~ RESO. 96-34 NCS s3 INVESTMENT POLICY FOI~ 1996 3a Resolution approving the Investment Policy tior 1996. 4 Febniary 5, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 329 ~ ~SO. 96-35 NCS ~ BACKSTOPS AT CASA GItAND~ HIGI~ SC~IOOL 3 Resolution 96-35 NCS approving plans and specitications and awarding contract to a construct backstops at Casa Grande High School to Able Fence Company for $22,894. 5 TEEN PROGI~AM STATUS ~ Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation reported that a teen dance was held on ~ Friday at the Kenilworth Center. There were 198 paid attendance with no problems to s report. ~ Councilmember Shea, asked if the Fair Board was in agreement with the Park and Ride io Lot. She also asked if the City has the land for the Skateboard Park and if we have ii title. iz Mr. Salmons advised Council that part of the Park and Ride agreement will be the ,3 release of the Skateboard Park land from the 4th District Agricultural Association ~a lease, but physically it has not been released from the lease as yet. There is still the is actual detail of the agreement that has to be worked out. Mr. Salmons also advised the i~ Council that the City is obligated to use the funding and get the project completed in ~~ the fall of 1996. is BUD~ET COMMITTEE ~PORT i~ Staff renort on Bud~et Conmiittee Salarv Surve zo Pierre Miremont gave a brief overview of the salary survey stating there is no perfect a~ clone for jobs performed by city employees. Salaries & benefits represent 75 % of the ~z entire General Fund , 60% of those salaries and benetits are paid to Police and Fire z3 which cannot be compared to in the private sector. The recommendation is that an ~a independent study be compared to the public and private sectors so that the salaries of zs similar positions can be equalized over time. 2~ Bud~et Conunittee renort on Budget Format ?~ Camile Suave and Barbara VanCleave Smith reviewed the format using four approaches ?s to budgeting which are Object of Expenditure, Performance Based Budget, Program or ~~ Planning Programming Budgeting, and Zero-Base Budgeting. If the city were to 3o change the budget format full implementation could take a year, but one department 3i could be implemented at a time. 3z Council would like to have a workshop on developing a Performance Based Budget. 33 LAKEVILLE HWY ROAD Il~IPRC)VEMENTS ASSESSNYENT DISTRICT 24 34 A recap of the October 16 hearing was made by Finance Director David Spilman. At ss that time the letters of protests represented 59% of property owners. The protests have 36 now been reduced to 35 %, as of February 5, 1996. Page 330, Vol. 29 Febn~ary 5, 1996 ~ LAKEVILLE ~IIGHWAY - AD 24 cont'd. ~ The project cost is estimated at ll million with 4.3 million to be funded by the Ciry 3 and State sources and 6.7 million from the private assessments. There is a continued a effort to look for additional funding sources. s The following questions were asked by Council: 6 1. The proposal allows for 14% discount if businesses pay up front. If there were ~ additional funds received and we helped pay down the bonds would that benefit s those property owners that paid up front? ~ 2. Whatever additional funds that were received would be pro-rated against a11 of the io property owners. The property owners who paid up front would get a cash ii payment going directly to them ~z 3. What is the reasoning tior a deferred Assessment District? ~s 4. Finance Director Spilman: The deferred Benetit Assessment District is a ~a mechanism that was established by the Council in 1991. This is to be used is specifically with Assessment Districts when there are certain parcels within the ~~ Assessment District that still would receive the benefit of the improvements, but ~~ there are some limitations placed on this property that prevent them from receiving ~s those benefits at the time the assessments are levied. i~ He went on to say: There are three properties that are recommended to be included in ao the Benefit Assessment District. Two of the parcels do n~t have a land use or zoning. z~ The third parcel is on the Environmental Protection Agency Super Fund clean-up list. zz 5. How many acres of the Sola property is the detierred assessment? z3 Spilman; Approximately 15 acres za 6. What portion is Sola paying and what portion is being deferred? ?s Spilman: The property that is bein~ deferred is approximately $136,000. The property ~~ that is developed is be~ng assessed 255,000. ~~ 7. Once EPA gives clearance they would then come under the assessment? ~a They would be required to pay the benetit assessment $136,000. The benetit ?9 assessment runs the same number of years as the bond issue does. 3o Dennis Klingelhofer-Assessment Engineer: Some of the questions asked by the si property owners are: (a) why isn't the community at large paying for this project as 3z opposed to assessing property owners within the Assessment District? Because of the 33 direct benefits from the improvements that properties within the Assessrnent District 3a receive. (b) has adequate credit been given to property owners who have already paid 3s for a part of the improvements? Those property owners who, as a condition of 36 development, have been required to construct frontage improvements on Lakeville 3~ Highway or have paid for other improvements are not being reassessed for the same 38 improvement. ~, ,::. . .u`.«'; 5 ~ ' IL7 ~. ' F' .. ' ~,r. ., .: 9 Febniary 5, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 331 ~ LAKEVILLE gIIGI-~WAY - AD 24 cont'd. 2 The public hearing was opened. s David Meisle, 1004 Santa Clara, spoke against the Assessment District. The noise a level from the truck traffic on Lakeville is extremely high. He would like to see the s trucks rerouted from Highway 37 to Highway 101. 6 Valerie O'Brien, Stero Company - In the 1980's a General Plan was adopted regarding ~ the Lakeville area. There were very little disclosures made during that time period s regarding future assessments or tax increases. Stero does not have access to their 9 properry from Lakeville Highway; they voluntarily closed the access gates several years ~o ago in the interest of safety for employees. The company uses a private access road i~ that allows employees and trucks to enter on Cader Lane. They are concerned about ~2 the special Benetit Assessment District, particularly Sola Optical's inclusion in this 13 district. Stero believes it is a violation of public policy to allow a company who has ~a contaminated their own property, to award them a benefit that is not available to the is other property owners, by allowing them to defer their assessments. There is no ~~ guarantee that the money wi(1 be paid by those companies in the special Benefit i~ Assessment District. ~s Keith Minor, his family owns a parcel of undeveloped land in the proposed Assessment i~ District. They feel it is unfair to place the burden of the Assessment District on just a ~o few property owners, especially properties that are undeveloped and not revenue 2i generating. 22 Doug Noren, General Manager of Stero Company - Mike Evert from the City's 23 Engineering Department informed them that Cader Lane could possibly be pushed aa through to Lakeville Highway. The property had two in and out gates facing zs Lakeville. These gates were closed off, and they are now accessing their property from 2~ Cader Lane. He questioned the fairness of the Assessment District. ~~ Patricia Peck, property owner, 5 Casa Grande Road. She objects to the concept of the Zs Assessment District. Questions if local governments have the power to force small z~ groups of the private sector of communities to undertake the tinancial defaults of the 3o state government. She does not feel the reduction in percentage of protests was done in 3i a fair manner. This has left the smaller business owners in a severely handicapped sz position to receive further funding. The city should seek other means of funding from 33 other agencies. 34 Gil Pritchard, manager Barbara's Bakery - He is offended by what he felt to be 3s manipulation oti the Assessment District process. Property owners should have been s~ offered 6% interest rate, versus the 8% bond rate. He feels staff did not work with 3~ property owners. As a resident, he is against this project being funded by the City, ss particularly under the proposed tinancial format recommended by staff. There is a 3~ very high probabitity that in twenty years the Sola property will still not be ao developable. ai Chris Christensen, Lakeville Mini Storage - Advised Council that the access to his a? business is off Casa Grande Road not Highway 116. He also advised that the property a3 owners had to pay for the soundwall at no benetit to the business properties or any of 44 the other properties on that side (southerly and south-westerly) of the highway. The as total benefit of the soundwall went to the residents with no cost to them. He feels there 46 are more vehicles using Highway 116 from private homes than from the industrial a~ users. Traffic counts indicate that on the average about 7% of the total traffic using as Highway 116 comes from the assessed parcels. Page 332, Vol. 29 Febniary 5, 1996 i LAKEVILI.E ~IIGI-~WAX - AI) 24 cont'd. a The Public Hearing was closed. 3 Council Comments and Staff Responses a 1. Were all property owners in the Assessment District contacted? s David Spilman, Finance Director: Notices of this rr~eeting and property owners 6 meeting and all the subsequent meetings were sent to the addresses on the City's ~ mailing list. Since October, staff has been in contact with the State to insure that s Petaluma was going to obtain the State funding. Staff has been in contact with Mrs. 9 Peck regarding the lobbyist effort. ~0 2. Are there other sources of funding? i~ Spilman: Staff is pursuing funds from a seismic retrotit program. We are looking at ~2 other avenues in bridge replacements that might help with the Adobe Creek Bridge. ~s ~ 3. What happens at the end of the 20-year assessment, if for instance, Sola has not ia gotten the Environmental Protection Agency clearance? ~s Spilman: If at the end of the twenty years a property that has not gotten an EPA ~6 clearance or zoning they are not obligated to pay the assessment. The cost will be i~ absorbed by the city. is 4. What is the status on banning the use of compression brakes within the City limits? Spilman: It was recommended that banning the use of compression brakes within the city limits be a component of the city's Noise Ordinanee. An application has been made to the State for a permit to install signs on Lakeville Highway reading "No Compression Brakes" which would be enforced by the city once it became part of the ordinance. The speed limit was checked afiter the tast Council meeting, and it was determined that the speed limit had already been lowered as requested of the State. The current speed limit on Lakeville Highway from "D" Street to Caultield is 40 mph. That speed limit continues to just east of Marina Way. From there the speed limit to a site beyond Frates Road is 45 mph. Lowering the speed limit by 5 mph would no longer allow speed enforcement with radar, because of the judicial and state regulations on establishment ofi radar enforceable speed limits. The Police have been asked to step up enforcement of both speeding and no parking. The City did post additional "no parking" "no stopping" signs and the Police are issuing citations. 3? The State does have a program wherein property .owners that meet certain income 33 requirements can defer assessments. Property owners that qualify for that payment 3a deferment program may postpone their assessments until they sell the property or are 3s deceased. Upon death, the assessments become due from the eventual sale of the 36 property. In either case, the payment shall include interest incurred during the deferral 3~ period. b . ~ ... 9 Febn~ary 5, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 333 LAKEVILLE ~IIGHWAY - AD 24 cont'd. 2 Spilman: This is an Assessment District that includes a great diversity of land uses. 3 There are properties that are developed to their maximum economic use, properties that a are in a transitional level of development, and vacant properties. In levying s assessments one has to look at what the beneYits to the property are, and if its ~ developed to its highest and best use. The improvements that are being constructed are ~ designed in such a manner that will allow properties to develop to that highest and best s use. How a property owner chooses to use his property, or when he chooses to ~ develop it, are economic decisions for the property owner. io Councilmember Shea is not comfortable with the City having to absorb the deferred i~ assessment after twenty years, if the land is not developed. The Resolution on the ~z deferred assessment does not have the conditions of the Benefit Assessments stated. ~s She would like to see some language in one of the Resolutions that the City continue to ia pursue State and Federal funding. It is a State Highway, the City has no jurisdiction is over the speed limit, but she would like to see what the City can do about enforcement. ~~ Pamela Tuft, Planning Director, read the Site Plan and Architectural Review ~~ Committee conditions of approvals as foliows: Mini-Storage Warehouse facilities by ~s Christensen and Wilkinson on August 25, 1983, the approval included the wording, ~~ "The applicant shall dedicate the area required for the Lakeville Highway widening ~o project, and shall participate in the planned future assessment district for the widening zi project." Barbara's Bakery: the Planning Commission conditional use permit ~~ conditions of approval included the wording "this property shall participate in any ?s future benefit assessment district for Lakeville Highway corridor improvements." Mrs. ?a Tuft has indicated that in her research of archive records, it appeared that the terms ?s "assessment district" and "benetit assessment district" were used by the Planning staff z~ interchangeably, as ret7ected in the preceding examples. a~ The consensus of the Council was to let the people know about the State deferment as program if they are really a hardship case; to revisit the `speed limits' and the `no ?~ compression brakes' issues, even if an ordinance has to be adopted. If Lakeville is to 3o be widened, Council owes it to the homeowners to do their best to mitigate the 3~ impacts. 3z RESO. 96-36 NCS 33 OVERRULING PROTESTS - I.AKEVILLE AD 24 3a Resolution 96-36 NCS overruling protests. Introduced by Nancy Read, seconded by 3s Vice Mayor Barlas. 36 AYES: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss 3~ NOES: Nove 38 ABSENT: Hamilton 3~ ~2ES0. 96-37 NCS ao PUBLIC CONVEI~IIENCE & NECESSITY - LAKEVILLE AD 24 al REQUIItE ~IE IMPI~OVEMENT az Resolution 96-37 NCS Finding and Determining that the Public Convenience and 43 Necessity require the Improvement. Introduced by Matt Maguire, seconded by Lori 44 Shea. as AYES: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Sliea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss 46 NOES: None a~ ABSENT: Hamilton Page 334, Vol. 29 Febniary 5, 1996 i RESO. 96-38 NCS a AMENDED 1tEPORT & ASSESSMENT & ORDEItING IlVIPlltOVE1VIENT - s LAKEVILLE AD 24 a Resolution 96-38 NCS approving amended Report and Assessment and Ordering s Improvement. Introduced by Matt Maguire, seconded by Lori Shea. 6 AYES: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss 7 NOES: None 8 ABSENT: Hamilton 9 RESO. 96-39 NCS io ESTABLISH LAKEVILLE I~WY BENEFIT DISTRICT i~ Resolution 96-39 NCS establishing the Lakeville Highway Benefit District. Introduced ~z by Matt Maguire, seconded by Lori Shea. t3 AYES: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss ta NOES: Noue ts ABSENT: Hamiltou ~6 RESO. 96-40 NCS i~ LAKEVILLE AI) 24 is AUTHORIZE ElV1INEN'~ DOMAIN PROCEEI)INGS IF NECESSAR~' Resolution 96-40 NCS of Necessity to condemn property for right-of-way for the Lakeville Highway Widening Project. Resolutions were written to cover the following eleven properties. [The owners of these properties all everitccally slgned. the necessary docunients and tlie enainent domain proceedi~igs liave not been needed to date (Marclt 19, 1996). ] A) Lakeville Highway - Sierra Lumber B) Lakeville Highway - U-Haul C) Lakeville Highway - Courtesy Auto c~r, Truck D) Lakeville Highway - Stero Company E) Lakeville Highway - Petaluma Poultry Processors F) Cader Lane - Sola Optical G) Lake~ille Highway - 7-11 Store H) Lakeville Highway - Giacomo's Restaurant I) Lakeville Highway - Yardbirds799 Baywood Drive J) Lakeville Highway - Public Storage K) Baywood Drive - Offices 3s Introduced by Matt Maguire, seconded by Lori Shea. 36 AYES.: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hi1liEoss 3~ NOES: Noue 3s ABSENT: Hainilton 39 ORD. 2005r NCS _ r; ao AMENDING 1VIOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORI:IINANCE ai [ntroduce Ordinance 2005 NCS amending Ordinance 1949 NCS omitting Section az 6.50210 which reads "This ordinance shall terminate on June 30, 1997 unless repealed a3 earlier by the Petaluma City Council". R Febn-ary 5, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 335 ~ On the March ballot is an initiative titled "Limits on Mobilehome Rent Control Low z Income Rental Assistance". If this passes it may prohibit cities from extending local 3 ordinance governing rent control if that ordinance contains a sunset clause. Introduced a by Lori Shea, seconded by Matt Maguire. s AYES: Stompe, Maguire, Read, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss 6 NOES: None 7 ABSENT: Hatniltou s John Lawless, Jr. Crown Road, thanked the Council for all their support with the 9 Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance. ~o RESO. 96-41 NCS 11 PAYI~AN STREET ~R~GE ~z Resolution 96-41 NCS Approving Plans and Specifications for the Payran Street Bridge ~s Project. Jack Balshaw, Kearney Court, Would like to see the city reconfigure the ia roadway and sidewalks for the Payran Street Bridge and Lakeville Bridge and possibly is save money. i6 He proposes two 12 foot lanes plus 2 8' sidewalks that could be used by bicyclists. i~ Recommendation by staff was to allow a 40' roadway, 2 5' sidewalks, 2 8' is shoulder/bike/parking and 2 12' lanes. Council would like to see this bid both ways and i~ brought back at the next meeting. Introduced by Lori Shea, seconded by Matt 2o Maguire. 2i AYES: Stouipe, Maguire, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor Hilligoss z2 NOES: Read 23 ABSENT: Hamiltou Za CLOSED SESSION Zs Council went into a closed session at 6:40 p.m. to have a conference with legal counsel 2~ on anticipated litigation - signiticant exposure to litigation Government Code § 27 54956.9(b) - one matter. There was nothing to report from the Closed Session. ~~ RECONVENE ?~ ROLL CALL 7:10 p.m. so Present: Hamilton, Stompe, Maguire, Read, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor 3i Hilligoss 32 Absent: None 33 PI.EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 34 35 3~ Tom Northen spoke regarding the recent filming in downtown 3~ some restrictions in place for fiilm companies to follow. MOMENT OF SI~ENCE PUBLIC CONINIENT There needs to be Page 336, Vol. 29 Febniary 5, 1996 i Bill Berliner, Old Chicago Pizza sees no benetit to filmir~g in Petaluma. He feels the 2 City should have to pay for lost business income and wages for employees when s businesses are closed because of tilming. a Ken Bradley, Aunt Julie's Toys - He advised Council that he received no s compensation from the film company. The businesses on Kentucky street were also 6 affected by the Lolita filming. Mr. Bradley is against filrr~ing in the downtown area. ~ Jack Cummins, Executive Producer for the film company coming in March. He agrees s there needs to be a defined policy for t7lming in Petaluma. 9 Jeff Harriman, McNears - T'here needs to be guidelines for tilming downtown. ~o Roger Rewdleman, He feels Petaluma has a great wealth of value to tilm makers and ~~ Petaluma can lend a lot to the industry. ~~ Robert Ramirez spoke again in opposition of the Moon/Lafferty Ranch swap. i3 John Stover, he and his four year old son toured both Lafferty Ranch and Moon Ranch. ~a He thought it was a magicai place. is Bruce Hagen, spoke against the swap of Moon/Lafferty. ~6 Yigal Toister, spoke against the action taken recently by the Open Space District in n voting to buy an open space easement over Moon Ranch. ~s Jerry Price read a letter from the oftice of Joseph Alioto stating that he urges the City ~9 Council to take a strong stand and resist abandoning the Lawler Water System. ao COiJNCIL COMMENT ~i Mary Stompe corrected some untruthful statements reported in a publication of the aa Sonoma County Conservation Action. ~3 Matt Maguire suggested to the Open Space District Authority that they try to negotiate Za a better price regarding the open space easement over Moon Ranch. He would like to Zs go on record as saying he feels it is time tior our Supervisor to tind a new representative a~ for Petaluma. z~ Nancy Read would like to know if there is any consensus on the City Council regarding 2s a joint meeting or study session with the City of Novato. One of the items we could 2~ discuss is the proposed Indian gaming facility at Lakeville Highway and Highway 37. 3o PROCLAMATION 3i The Mayor read a proclamation proclaiming National Engineers Week, February 18- 3? 24. 4 ~ Febniary 5, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 337 1 RICHARD ROOS-COI.LINS ~ WATER SUPPLY 3 Richard Roos-Collins, Attorney in San Francisco specializing in Water and Land Use 4 Law is representing Citizens for Latiferry Ranch with regard to the proposed swap and s also with regard to the proposed abandonment of Lawler Water System. Mr. Roos- 6 Collins advised Council that they cannot transfer Lafferty Ranch into private ownership ~ and that they cannot abandon Lawler Water System without amending the General s Plan. 9 Several Councilmembers would like the Lafferty/Lawler Water System brought back io for further discussion. It was suggested that the City Attorney look at the General Plan ~~ with regards to the trade. iz John Scharer, City Manager suggested bringing this back the second meeting in March i3 which would be March 18. 14 ELLWOOD OPPORTUNITY CENTER is Staff reported on the funding for the Ritter House in San Rafael . The Ritter House has i~ two sources of HUD funding, $15,000 in Block Grant funds and a one time $150,000 i~ grant from HUD for the Innovative Homeless Program. is At both of the Payran neighborhood meetings, the neighbors voiced concern regarding ~~ the negative impacts of the Kitchen run by St. Vincent de Paul located at the Ellwood ~o Center on Payran Street, and the impacts of the Petaluma Public Library. Some of ai those impacts are the misuse of neighborhood properties, and inappropriate use of the ?? Library which is located across from the Kitchen. z3 Staff suggests that these impacts can be mitigated through the renewal of the lease with za St. Vincent de Paul, and new rules that can be enforced by the library staff and through zs law enforcement. 26 There has also been complaints about loitering before and after the hours of operation ~~ of the homeless program at the Armory. The city and COTS has already instituted Zs mitigation measures for the impacts of that program. ~~ The proposed Opportunity Center will match the hours the Armory is open so people so are going from one place to the other and not hanging around the neighborhood. 3~ Bob Oliker, Attorney, speaking on behalf of some property owners. He believes an 3z environmental review needs to be done for the Armory, Kitchen and Opportunity 33 Center before any funds are committed. 34 Frank Phoenix, Volunteer at Kitchen. In support of the Opportunity Center but not in 3s that location. 3~ Tom Sipes, Owner of Childrens Corner, Does not feel the Opportunity Center should 3~ be placed next to the Library and playground. 3s Paul Maselli, spoke in opposition of the Opportunity Center located in back of the 3~ Kitchen. His family owns property at the corner of East "D" Street and Payran. s.} ; ;y... _ Page 338, Vol. 29 Febniary'S, ]996 i John Records, COTS, he feels the Opportunity Center will have a positive impact in z the neighborhood. Mr. Records stated that there will be a number of provisions 3 regarding employment, housing, drug & alcohol abuse issues, counseling, health and a education. A volunteer will be on staff with job seeking and interview skills. The s Employment Development Department has agreed to come on site to provide their 6 services. Donated computers will be available, on 5ite contacts with temporary ~ agency's, telephone calls to local employers, and several other services will be s available. 9 Ed DeCarli, owner of Lyon's property on corner of East Washington and Payran. Mr. io DeCarli's family offered to start a fund raiser with a$10,000 donation to build the i~ Opportunity Center in another location. i~ Bill Brotman, owner of Dodge City located on the Fairgrounds. This is not the proper ~s location for the Opportunity Center. He believes ther~ are two types of homeless, ~a those that want help and those that do not. Petaluma has created an attractive nuisance ~s for people to come to. i6 Camille Przewodek, East "D" Street, She is opposed to this location. The Opportunity i~ Center is just a band-aid, it is not going to deal with existing problems. is Catherine Thompson, Valiejo St., She is opposed to the Opportunity Center at this i~ location. zo Ed Conroy, Sixth St., call homeless people "Citizens who are Broke" zi It was Council consensus to approve the Ellwood Opportunity Center, form a zz neighborhood advisory council, continue to look for other sites, have a monthly status ?s report and bring back to the Council for review in six months. Za Rich Rudnansky, City Attorney for the record the Public I~earing was closed last week. zs With respect to the CEQA issue he believes that based on the preliminary review there a~ is enough there for the argument to be made that CEQA has been complied with and 2~ that a negative declaration with conditions is a reasonable position. Zs RESO. 96-42 NCS z9 ELLWOOD OPPORTLJNITY CENT`ER so Resolution 96-42 NCS. Introduced by Matt Maguire, Seconded by Carole Barlas to 3~ deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use 32 Permit for the Ellwood Opportunity Center (305 Payran Street) including establishing a 33 Neighborhood Advisory Council with representatives from the neighborhood, Library, 34 COTS, and Teen Center Coordinator, continue looking at other sites and review in six 3s months. 3~ AYES: Hamilton, Stompe, Maguire, Read, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas 37 NOES: Mayor Hilligoss 3s ABSENT: None . 9 Febniary 5, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page339 1 CLEAVER 902 "F" STREET 2 Jim McCann presented the Council report on the non-conforming accessory structure at 3 902 "F" Street. It was determined that the structure was legal, but not in conformance a with setbacks. It is located approximately 1'2" from the rear property line which needs s to be determined. Ms. Cleaver requests approval of an exception to permit ~ renovation of the accessory structure utilizing the existing setbacks. Planning ~ Commission approved an exception to allow the renovation of the accessory structure s with a 6" setback that exists for the side yard with a maintenance easement and a 3' 9 rear setback. The Planning Commission states that a restriction shall be placed on the io Grant Deed precluding future establishment of accessory dwelling. If such a ii conversion of an accessory structure to an accessory unit were to occur either by this ~z owner or any subsequent owner the City would commence abatement. i3 Tlie Public Hearin~ was opened. ia Tim Connor, 302 9th Street - tiled an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to ~s approve an exception to the setback standards to permit renovation of the non- i~ conforming accessory building at 902 F Street. Mr. Connor feels the applicant should i~ have to follow regulations set by the Zoning Ordinance which allows a 5' setback from is the rear yard and a 3' setback on the side yard. ~9 Mr. Connor handed the City Clerk a claim for the costs of fees that he has accrued Zo during this process. 2~ Claudia Cleaver 902 "F" Street, she has bought the property intending to renovate the az rear building to Live in and rent out the main house. She has tried numerous times to ~3 renovate the accessory structure, but because of money problems, lack of permits this ?a has not come about. The Planning Commission said the building was to be moved. zs She did not have the money at that time and the building sat. A new application was ?~ submitted for a garage/guest room studio. The Planning Commission then allowed her z~ to do this with either a maintenance easement or move th~e building. ~s She can get a maintenance easement from her side neighbor so she does not need to ~~ move the building for tlle side yard setback and she can get behind the building to 3o maintain it without moving it. 3~ Jeff Sacher 902 "F" Street, he feels the neighbors do not want a second unit on the 3z property. The building has been there between forty and sixty years. 33 Vorhees Mount, believes the setbacks outlined in the Zoning Ordinance should be sa adhered to and that the unit should be limited to a garage/storage only. 3s George Dowd, 912 "F" St., the accessory structure violates all city codes and should 3~ be torn down or moved and rebuilt to conform to the codes and setbacks. 37 Public Hearing Closed 3s Pamela Tuft, Planning Director, advised Council that this building is an accessory 3~ structure and therefore is subject to the potential granting of an exception as stated in ao Section 21.201.1(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is very clear in a~ the authority granted to the Planning Director to grant a variance. . i-,. 'e.Tr. _. . . . . . . ~ . . " ~ . • '~ ' Page 340, Vol. 29 ~ RESO. 96-42 NCS z CLEAVEpZ 902 ~~F' ST. Febniary 5, 1996 'Y 1a~3'" ~:=_'!~' 3 Resolution 96-42 NCS resolving the appeal of Connor/Dowd/Mount regarding the a Planning Commission's approval of an exception fxom the setback standards. s Council's motion is to add a soundwall, two hour tire wall, no windows in west side of 6 building, 6" side yard setback with maintenance agre~ment and 18" rear setback. ~ Introduced by Matt Maguire, seconded by Jane Hamilton s AYES: Hamilton, Magiiire, Read, Sl~ea, Vice Mayor Barlas 9 NOES: Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss io ABSENT: No~~e ii ADJOiTRN i2 The meeting was adjourned at inidnight. 13 14 ~ 15 .. A /L - ~~~ ~~°!J 16 1~ `" M. Patricia Hilligoss, 1V~ayor 18 i~ ATTEST: zo ~~ ~/~` . 0 . $'~ ~ , ~. ~ ~.... 1 z3 Paulette Lyon, Deputy Cilly~lerk