Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10/03/1994October 3, 1994 i MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING s PETALUMA CITY COUNCL. 3 MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1994 4 5 Present: Parkerson, Read, Shea, *Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 6 Absent: Hamilton, Barlas -~~~ `%~ 35~ Vol. 28, Page ROLL CALL 3:00 a.m. ~ PUBLIC COMMENT s Jack Balshaw -Kearny Court, spoke about disarray with closed businesses in particular the v old Taco Bell on Washington, old real estate office on Washington St. (staff noted that a io letter has been written to the owner requesting maintenance) and the landscaping at the ii Sonic Drive-In on Petaluma Blvd. North at Payran Street. iz Youth - he has read an analysis on all that the city has done for the youth and it adds up to t3 nothing. is COUNCIL COMMENT is Nancy Read -Attended the Fair Board meeting on September 21 and gave an impassioned 16 speech on providing for the youth of this community. i~ MINUTES is The minutes of September 19 were approve as amended: iv Page 345, line 35, change f~olf to golf. zo Page 348, line 17, cha e Harvey Bragdon to Wall Bragdon, and line 18 & 19 change zi Critchet to Critchett~ zz CONSENT CALENDAR i3 The following items which are noncontroversial and have been reviewed by the City Council za and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Lori Shea and seconded by Zs Ross Parkerson. 26 AYES: Parkerson, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel*, Mayor Hilligoss 27 NOES: None 2s ABSENT: Hamilton, Barlas 29 * -arrived at 3 :20 p. m. 3o RESO. 94-265 NCS 31 CLAIMS AND BILLS 32 Resolution 94-265 NCS approving Claims and Bills #39369 through 39763. 33 RESO. 94-266 NCS 34 EFFLUENT IRRIGATION MAIN EXTENSION 3s Resolution 94-266 NCS accepting completion of the Effluent Irrigation Main Extension 36 Project No. 9800 by Lemmings Irrigation, Inc., for $108,482. 37 RESO. 94-267 NCS 3s LIBERTY FARMS SUBDIVISION 39 Resolution 94-267 NCS approving the Final Map for Liberty Farms Subdivision. 'y•~'-Page 354, Vol. 28 October 3, 1994 i RESO.94-268 NCS a TIIERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING MACAINE 3 ..Resolution 94-268 NCS approving purchase of a Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Machine a for $11,459.78 from Linemaster Engineering of Long Beach, CA. s ORD. 1968 NCS 6 COTTONWOOD GOLF CLUB ~ Adopt Ordinance 1970 NCS authorizing an amendment to the lease for Cottonwood Golf a Club, Inc. 9 **** End Consent Calendar **** io PRESENTATION n On behalf of the National Automobile Association and the California State Automobile iz Association Mayor Hilligoss was presented an award for pedestrian safety. 13 TEEN PROGRAM STATUS is Recreation Director Jim Carr reviewed the Teen Programs. He had appeared before the rs Fourth District Agricultural Association Fair Board on September 21 regarding utilization of 16 the fair site for a skateboard park: Staff approached Kenilworth school about using. the i~ tennis courts and were turned down. is Staff would like to go back to the Recreation Commission and take another look at i9 alternative sites the city owns. Zo Lori Shea would like to see a video of what skateboard parks look like, and hopefully to ai have an answer from the Fair Board by the next council meeting. z2 ORD. 1969 NCS i3 TRiP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS z4 Adopt Ordinance 1969 NCS repealing Section 11._90.:030 "Definitions" of the Trip zs Reduction Ordinance Program of the Municipal Code and replacing it with a .new Section 26 11.90.030 "Definitions". This will. allow the businesses in the City to file only one survey z~ each year. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has adopted a trip reduction rule 2s and this requires the businesses to file the necessary information with them annually.' This i9 will save the City approximately $2,000. 3o AYES': Parkerson, Read, Shea, Mayor Hilligoss 3t NOES: None 32 ABSENT. Hamilton, Barlas, Vice Mayor Sobel 33 RESO. 94-269 NC5 34 COUNCIL, APPOINTMENT ZONE 2A 3s Resolution 94-269 NCS .appointing Nancy Read as Council Representative to the Sonoma 36 County Water Agency -Zone 2A. This committee deals with flood control. Vice Mayor 37 Sobel arrived at 3,:20 p.m. Introduced by Ross Parkerson, and seconded by Lori Shea. 3a AYES: Parkerson, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 39 NOES: None ao ABSENT: Hamilton, Barlas October 3, 1994 Vol. 28, Page 1 RESO. 94-270 NCS z PROPERTY RESTRICTION - 984 BOI)EGA AVENiJE 3 Resolution 94-270 NCS approving modification of the Property Restriction Agreement to a 984 Bodega Avenue to allow the creation of one lot with less than 20;000 square feet in area s to allow separate sale of the existing single family dwelling under the affordable housing 6 regulations of the City of Petaluma. Introduced by Vice Mayor Sobel, seconded by Ross ~ Parkerson. a AYES: Parkerson, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 9 NOES: None to ABSENT: Hamilton, Barlas 11 CASA GRANDE LANDFILL lz This item was continued to October 17. 13 AD.I®I1RN la The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. for dinner at New Yorker Pizza, 3 Petaluma Blvd. is North. 16 RECONVENE & ROLL CALL 7 : o o p . m . 17 Present: Parkerson, Read, Hamilton, Barlas, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor is Hilligoss 19 Absent: None 20 21 The pledge of allegiance was led by Felix Weylie. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2a MOMENT OF SILENCE 23 PITBLIC COMMENT za Carlos Berguido asked that the City Attorney's office conduct an investigation of the out of 2s town shopping center owners and the other groups supporting Measure E and Measure F on 26 the November ballot to see if any fraudulent acts or omissions are confirmed and report s~ these to the voters of Petaluma, the judge in the ballot argument case, the media and the Fair 2s Political Practices Commission. z9 Katha Hair - 408 8th Street, commented on how well the dog leash ordinance is working. 3o PROCLAMATIONS 31 Mayor Hilligoss read a proclamation for Fire Prevention Week. Battalion Chief Dan Simpson 32 accepted the Proclamation. 33 RAINIER AVENUE EXTENSION ANI9INTERCFIANGE 34 Assistant City Manager, Warren Salmons, gave a brief summary regarding new information 3s that was presented to the Council. 36 Cost - A revised cost. estimate, including the time value of money, which totals $29.6 37 million. Construction .mitigations; i.e., additional turn lanes and bus pads totaled $1.5 3s million. Biological mitigations include wetlands, wood land and tree replacement. The $1.2 39 million includes acquisition of sites, the construction involved in grading or pl~~nting and ao includes the monitoring program that runs 10 years after the construction project. -~T• ";Page 356, Vol. 28 October 3, 1994 We believe the cost of right-of--.way has gone down because land values have declined since our estimate a .few years ago. Project management and engineering, the cost. of overseeing design etc., has increased by $1 million.. The total updated ,adjustments equal $3.1 million. Approximately $15.9 million would be financed. $1.3 million represents the cost of issuing the debt and the cost of financing. The updated preliminary cost as of today would be $26.7 million. It is anticipated the life of the bond issue would be 20 years. Potential Assessment .Area, or assessment and benefit -The traffic studies. that have been a done provide that there is a relationship nexus. The project funds were raised on a much 9 wider basis than. just an assessment area, such as the Traffic Mitigation money, Community io Development Fees and Redevelopment. Funds and they are all based on new development or ii increases in property assessments. By resolution the Council could establish some ground ~2 rules for the Council's intent in forming an assessment district as to which properties would 13 not be assessed. is Funding of study area* improvements - (*Study area means that the City would assume that is Rainier Extension would be there when the evaluation is done on possible .improvements at i6 McDowell and Washington.) i~ Staff was asked if those items which are funded in the Capital Improvement. Program would is be constructed whether or not Rainier was constructed. Staff advised that is up to the 19 Council. Those additional traffic improvements are in the Capital Improvement Program in ao order to achieve the trafhc service level which is anticipated in the General Plan. zi Washington and McDowell - to date the City has done an origin and destination survey, and Zz the City has begun to list possible road improvements for that vicinity. Ultimately; when the zs City decides what will be done in that .location, staff needs to know whether the Rainier za overcrossing and interchange, or only a partial project, or even a phased project will be Zs constructed, because that information is going to indicate how the various improvements 26 that might be undertaken at Washington and McDowell would function. At this point, Mr. 2~ Salmons noted the City is not far enough into the study to have targeted improvement is specifics. 29 Interchange versus Connector -The question about the need for the interchange had been 3o demonstrated in a 198.5 study which concluded that a "connector only" would not reduce 31 congestion at East Washington Street'without the allied interchange. That was also reflected 3z in work done for the Corona-Ely area. The Rainier project supports previous decisions that 33 relied on the construction of the Rainier Interchange: The need for the interchange is 34 documented by comparing the traffic analysis for the full project versus the connector only. 3s The "connector only" does not allow for our traffic standards to be met; unless. we either 36 change the standards or change our assumptions in the General Plan. 37 Improvements in other .Areas -Interchange improvements at other locations would not 3s alleviate the need for the full project, if were going to achieve the Levels of Service that the 39 City has set `out for itself. ao Corona Interchange - Regarding a Corona Interchange and trip reduction that could be ai assumed from such a project, the locations where trip reductions would have an impact are a2 in the areas of employment centers along Old Redwood. Highway, LakevilleHighway, and a3 the downtown area. An interchange at Corona would not provide sufficient capacity to meet as the objectives of the cross town project as evaluated in the Corona-Ely Specific Plan. ~~~ October 3, 1994 Vol. 28, Page i Trip Reduction -The traffic modeling of trip reduction measures did not indicate there 2 would be the sufficient amount of traffic reductions that would be needed along East 3 Washington Street, which is the corridor that is impacted. The Origin and Destination study a indicated that the ridership per vehicle was rather high. As a result of the studies, it has been s concluded that trip reduction, in conjunction with an interchange only at Corona, would not 6 meet the objectives of the cross-town project. ~ The cross-town connector is a vital link in the system. You need something between s Washington and Corona to make the circulation system work. 9 Commercial Land Use versus Business Park -Avery brief traffic analysis based on those io two different land uses on the Gray/Friedman parcel (McDowell at Rainier) indicated the i i peak hour trips would be higher from the commercial use than from a business park. The iz resulting impacts would affect the Rainier and McDowell Intersection. Mitigations beyond 13 what you have seen in this Rainier overcrossing/interchange project, including the additional is mitigations that are reflected in the construction cost mitigations, would be required to is accommodate that extra 400 vehicles at peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.). The commercial use 16 of this site might free capacity at Washington Street and McDowell. If that i~ McDowell/Rainier land were to go commercial, it could provide an alternate location to is some people on shopping trips. 19 The Petaluma River Enhancement Plan is meant to provide a set of policies to protect ao resources and to provide an open space corridor to mitigate open space losses. We have yet 2~ to see whether the policies of the Petaluma River Enhancement Plan will provide open space az along the river. There is a debate as to whether or not mitigation measures may be allowed 23 to be installed within this corridor or whether the mitigations must be accomplished at some Za location(s) within a larger area. Zs Master Plan for Corona Reach The approval of the factory outlet project included the 26 requirement of a Master Plan for the Corona Reach area which is the segment of the z~ Petaluma River between .Lynch Creek and Corona Road. The Petaluma Community zs Development Commission .recently agreed that the area of the Pacific Cinemas needs a s9 master plan and decided to extend $25,000 toward its cost. Mr. Salmons went onto say that 3o he thought that a Master Plan effort would be working in the dark without some direction 31 about whether there will be a project at Rainier. The 35 acres at Rainier could be folded into 32 this master plan. 33 Mitigation Fees Staff was asked if the project doesn't go through, what happens to those 34 mitigation fees from the Corona Ely area that the City has received? Does that have to be 3s given back? This question was referred to the City Attorney. 36 The Origin and Destination Study at Washington Street and McDowell Boulevard was 37 completed last June. Mr. Salmons said the staff is convinced that about half of the work 3a trips that are using the intersection now during the survey "peak afternoon" period (the 39 hours 4:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.) would logically use an alternative if an alternative were ao available. Three thousand nine hund"red survey's were distributed during a 2 hour and 15 ai minute period on Wednesday June 8, 1994, when school was in session and Tittle League a2 was in session. Over 1,000 surveys were returned to the City to provide the statistical 43 sample from which we drew the information that you have. Just for reference about 24% of 44 the trips going & coming through the intersection were for shopping purposes, about 44% as work purposes, personal business was 16% and recreation 6%. '-~ Page 358, Vol. 28 October 3, 1994 i A Councilmember noted that the largest origin to destnatgn was east side to east. side trips. z The second largest was east side to west -side. The survey stated that traffic from the U. S. 3 Highway 101 accounts for 15% of all vehicles. passing through fhe intersection. Trips going a south on U.S. Highway 1..01 contribute 5% of the vehicles .entering the intersection. The s next paragraph says a smaller portion of the traffic passing through. the East Washington and 6 McDowell Blvd. intersection, or 6%, come fromthe north on U:S. Highway 101, and 8% of ~ the trips leaving the intersection are going north. on U.S. Highway 101. This is a good a example why we could use a :cross town connector, but its questionable that we need 'an 9 interchange. Mr. Salmons. noted 'that the survey was peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.), so it io wasn't a full day. The Traffic Engineer-noted that 35% of the employed people commute out ~ ~ of Petaluma, which former Sonoma County Transportation Authority Chairman Sobel noted iz was down from 49% a few years ago. 13 Ml'. Salmons then gave a brief overview of the environmental findings is Council Comments: is We have talked about the connector only. We have talked about trip reduction. Regarding i6 the land use issues, we could do mixed uses and high density. We are trying to get people i~ out of their cars, but what do we do with the cars that are already here? is Brian Sobel - Going .back to rtiy time as Chair of the Sonoma County Transportation 19 Authority we were looking at ways to ;get businesses to. reduce parking on-site and to utilize zo flex time. That has to be a Council commitment on every project on a project by project zi basis. If we are serious about reducing the use of cars, we need to apply this to every single 2z project that comes before us. Reducing traffic is a long term project, and the City is dealing z3 m the long term. za The automobile will cross the area, and the railroad line bisects the area. There is not zs another location. where you can get the rail; bus, pedestrian, bicycle, and auto systems at one z6 place at one time; and, we have the opportunity to do that here.. z~ Linda Scott -Spoke. on behalf of residents on Arlington Drive. They would like: to have a za soundwall along U. S. Highway 101, alongside the backyards. They also, would like to z9 know who is respgnsible for such, a soundwall, the City of Petaluma or CALTRANS. These 3o residents' would like help getting, into the HB-311 Program that CALTRANS sponsors. 31 Could:. the City be reimbursed by CALTRAIVS by that construction? 3z It was noted that all.. of he information that was asked for has been given. Given the .fact 33 that the Police Department, the Corona-Ely Specific Plan, the Santa Rosa Junior 'College, 34 and the Petaluma Valley Hospital were all considered and approved with the "knowledge" as that the Rainier extension was going to be built. 36 The city attorney should look into the traffic mitigation fees and whether or not they can be 37 used if this project is disapproved. 3a I very much am hoping that this council -will deal with approving the project. I'm in favor of 39 the connector only .option therefore I want it to be part, of the EIR so that it could be an ao option that we could choose. The EIR should have a supplement rather than an addendum. ~5g October 3, 1994 Vol. 28, Page 1 City Manager Scharer asked if the Council finds it necessary to do the supplemental EIR for 2 across town connector. 3 MOTION FAILED a s 6 7 8 9 to It was moved by Jane Hamilton ''and 'seconded by '>.Carole Barlas, that we >~ use this information and circulate ' it as a supplemental EIR. AYES: Hamilton, Barlas NOES: Parkerson, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, ,'..Mayor Hilligoss ABSENT:''None> 11 The report is very thorough. It adequately analyzed the difference between the connector 12 and interchange. It tells us very clearly the supplemental EIR is not a process that is going 13 to tell us anything more than we've already learned from the analysis that was done by staff. la It tells us that considering the two projects, the Rainier extension with the interchange is the is better project. That project satisfies the General Plan policies. It satisfies the circulation 16 network that was part of the General Plan proposals. 17 We need to certify the. EIR, including an informational addendum of the Rainier Avenue is crosstown connector and the responses to comments. We can deal with the project 19 separately. 20 Since we cannot vote to okay the EIR because we need the conditions and findings, we 21 could take a straw vote to certify the EIR and direct staff to prepare the appropriate 22 legislation. 23 In response to a Council question, the City Manager advised that the assessment numbers 2a given to the. Council in a previous report had an average assessment listed in the 2s neighborhood of $1.67 a square foot over the entire 200+ acres. That includes interest. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ao al 42 Theistrawwote to ask>~staff o prepare legislation to''certify`the EfR was as follows: AYES: Pa~kerson, Read, Shea, Vice`Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss NOES: Hamilton; Barlas The EIR describes in great detail how the roadway is going to be extended, how it will pass over the railroad and the river. There are numerous photographs and illustration of how the extension looks from various points of view, from the freeway, from the railroad, from Petaluma Blvd. North, all of that is described in a way in which a person can get some sense of how this structure will be and what impact it is going to have on the countryside. I'd like to have that area master planned. The City Manager noted that defining an assessment district boundary cannot occur without public hearings on that boundary. He recommended the Council specify what they are not going to assess. The straw vote' on excluding residential' properties from any assessment district for't}>;s project was as'follows: AYES' ,Read, Slea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss NOE .Hamilton, Barlas ~~RKERSON '' t . Page 360, Vol. 28 October 3, 1994 i ABATEIVIENT 1304 PACIFIC AVE a The City Council considered the Order to Show Cause regarding abatement of a public 3 nuisance at 1304 Pacif c Avenue which consists of operating a carpet business out of a a residence. All speakers who planned to speak took the Veracity Oath. Jane Thomson, s Senior Planning Technician, advised the City Council of the numerous pieces of 6 correspondence with Brian Miller, owner of the business. There .also have been several ~ complaints of noise and increased traffic in the direct vicinity. It was requested. of Mr. Miller s to obtain a Home Occupation Permit, which he agreed to do but then he failed to follow 9 through. Site inspections were made regarding allegations of carpet on the lawn, several io employees, upwards to .approximately 5 vehicles, and activity,going on that clearly seemed u to exceed the limitations imposed by a Home Occupation Permit. After receiving additional is complaints a letter was forwarded to Mr. Miller -noting he was still in violation of City 13 ordinances. Due to the continued inaction and the City's continued receipt of complaints, is the matter was referred to the City Attorney's office `for abatement. The City Attorney's is office sent a letter to Mr. Miller and to the property owner informing them .of the public 16 nuisance abatement proceedings. i~ Mr. Miller was in violation of two conditions of a Home Occupation permit which requires is that the business shall not be identifiable from the property line by any means, including but i9 not limited to site, smell and noise. The. other condition states that it shall not create zo pedestrian, automobile traffic, truck traffic or parking in residential neighborhoods in excess zi of that which is normally associated. with residential use, and with no more than 2 non- Zz occupant vehicles present on the street at any given time. 23 An Order to Show Cause was posted on September 23, 1994, notifying Mr. Miller that the 2a staff would be taking the proceedings to the City Council. The public hearing was opened. is The following persons spoke: z6 Sue Allen, 1300 Pacific Avenue -Has had to go to Mr. Miller's residence and ask that 2~ vehicles be moved from her driveway so that she could get her car in and out. 2s Olivia Williams, 1308 Pacific Avenue -She and her mother have been affected by the noise 29 of loading and unloading carpet, noise from sawing,. dust; and dirt. She entered pictures as 3o evidence showing the visibility of the: operation, i.e., cutting carpet in the street blocking 31 traffic. They are awakened anywhere from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. by the voices and 3i general noise from the business. 33 Dave Carroll, 1301 Pacific Avenue -Has noticed things that have been in Mr. Miller's front 3a yard, but associated that with his remodeling. He has. seen carpet in vans and cars parked in 3s front of his house. As far as carpet being on, the street, where else are you going; to cut 36 carpet except on a flat surface. I do not see anything wrong with what Brian is doing. He 37 has upgraded the neighborhood by remodeling his home; he has been a very gracious 3s neighbor. 1 October 3, 1994 Vol. 28; Page i Gregory Martini, 1305 Pacific Avenue -Has not seen 5 cars nor 20 employees. He has been z a gracious neighbor and has created no problems to his knowledge. As for the carpet being s cut in the street, that was for the residence itself. a Brian Miller, 1304 Pacific Avenue -Advised Council he had been operating a business out of s his residence. Mr. Miller has taken steps to rectify the situation by leasing a warehouse in 6 Novato for his business, and he has filed for a business license in that city. Mr. Miller ~ assured the Council there are no carpet business related activities taking place at 1304 s Pacific Avenue at this time. The public hearing was closed. There was no action by the 9 Council since the business had already been abated by Mr. Miller. to ~ AI),TbURN 10:00 n.m. 11 - M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor / lz ATTEST: 13 Paulette Lyon, Deputy Cit rk 14 ~T t,l