Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09/12/19946~ ~ ~ BPS ~3.Z 9 t3~ b ~ September -12, 199,~e~ Vol. 28, Page 331 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL- MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 Present: Parkerson, Read, Hamilton, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss Absent: Barlas CABLE TELEVISION ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION The Council heard Sue Buske, consultant for the cable franchise renewal, review the process that has transpired to date. She mentioned some of the potential uses for cable television. It was noted that the current Viacom system in Petaluma needs to be expanded in order to allow "room" for the sending of more channels to their subscribers. Also noted was the fact there are pockets in town where there are no cable television connections available. The Council subcommittee has solicited answers to questions regarding desirable added features to the cable system. They are working on evaluation of that information now. They have met with representatives of Viacom to discuss the franchise renewal. It is the understanding of the Cable subcommittee that Viacom will be .asking for an extension of the renewal date which is now the end of the year. The Council saw video tapings of various local access uses of the cable television system. One tape showed a local access facility from Napa. The most successful local access facilities- appear to be located permanently in dedicated locations which are available to the public, usually in a vacant public facility; i.e. school, government building, and the like. T M ORS Kl Karen T.~u~ Sonoma Office of Education, also showed a video in support of a dedicated local access facility. -David Dawson, Petaluma Valley Hospital, said they look forward to utilizing cable service for various health educational topics. Steve Collins, School District, also said they school is looking forward to having the ability to utilize the cable service for various instructional needs. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The Council went to dinner at Kwei Bin at 613 East Washington. RECONVENE AND ROLL CALL 7:00 n.m. Present: Parkerson, Read, Hamilton, Barlas, Shea,. Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENT Peter Rodda, 23 Meadowglen Drive - he asked about developers fees going to Prince Park. City Manager John Scharer advised him that these funds are placed in a special fund account and are utilized only for their stated purpose. Page 332, Vol. 28 _' September 12, 199 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive -asked if any of the Council .members, past or present, have invested in'lands near the proposed Rainier extension. City Manager John Scharer noted the City Clerk has copies of all the Council members reportings of Form 721 -Conflict of Interest, and anyone who wishes to may request an opportunity to see them. The City Manager said those documents speak for him. C®NTINUATION ®F PiJBLIC HEARING RAINIER AVENUE EXTENSION ANID INTERCHANGE Warren ,Salmons, Assistant City Manager; gave. a brief review of the ;process and noted there are several alternatives for the Council to select after the hearing is closed. The attendance at the meeting had caused the Council Chambers to overflow way back into the lobby. Because of the number of people present, the Mayor asked that persons make their comments three minutes long, so that everyone has a chance to speak. The hearing was opened, and the following persons spoke: Fred Mattei, former Mayor and Councilman -~ he noted the hospital originally looked at 2 sites. One was on Troudy Lane and the other was the present location of Petaluma Valley Hospital on North McDowell. When the location was selected, it was agreed that Rainier would be extended across the freeway to Petaluma Blvd. North.. When the Police Department was placed at its site on Petaluma Blvd. North, the Council selected that site because Rainier was going to' connect North McDowell with Petaluma Blvd. He urged the Rainier project to be constructed. . Sharman Cippa, 447 Pipestone Circle - an interchange is not necessary for access to the hospital. Supports an overerossing of L1. S. Highway 101. She is concerned about children and traffic as well as increased crime. Jim Becker, 953 Gossage Avenue,. Chamber of Commerce and Northwest Petaluma Concerned Citizens -fie thanked the Council.members for meeting with the Chamber. They :have concluded Rainier is the only answer to the transportation problems. The General Plan should not be altered, and Rainier should, be built. Continuing to delay will cause the cost to increase.. If you put an interchange at Corona.Road, it will become a blood alley. Please vote for Rainier. Annette Crolterman, 1..060 Skillman Lane and Northwest Petaluma Concerned Citizens Coalition - we present °a petition to you with signatures of 225 persons. The petition states their support of the General Plan and its city centered development including the Rainier Avenue Freeway Interchange, and they request that the Council approve its ,construction. They oppose a Corona interchange. :Please proceed with this development. Phil Brooks, 31'.00' Skillman Lane and Northwest Petaluma. Concerned Citizens Coalition - we support. Rainier overpass. He showed. a picture of Skillman flooding after only a moderate rainfall.. We need the overpass. ~4' September 12, 199 Vol. 28, Page 333 Ray Peterson, 636 Gossage Avenue and Northwest Petaluma Concerned Citizens Coalition - we ask you to construct Rainier as planned. The traffic from the Factory Outlet will need the opportunity to exit onto the freeway at Rainier. Payran Street has to be relieved of the traffic. We object violently to adding any traffic to Skillman because of potential problems for Cinnabar School and the cattle auction yard. To lose the only cattle auction yard in the west bay would be very hard on agriculture. Build at Rainier. He asked the people of the Northwest Petaluma Concerned Citizens Coalition to stand. John Quinn, 2318 Magnolia -Cinnabar School Board - we would like you to consider us in the future on projects like this one. Please give us more attention. Our school district covers both sides of the freeway. We are concerned for our children and the negative impact an interchange at Corona Road would bring. Kim Sarsfield, 436 Redrock Way -her home backs onto Rainier. She is a working mother and is worried about the children. There is no sound wall, no fencing around the apartments. The planning for Park Place has been inadequate to allow those "quad" driveways on a busy thoroughfare. Sound walls are on Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and there are no residential driveways there. It is the cross town traffic that needs to be reworked, not highway traffic. Neil Martin, 400 North McDowell, Petaluma Valley Hospital -The Petaluma Valley Hospital Board has discussed the interchange. Since we began to plan on the interchange, the population has doubled. There are bottlenecks at Washington/McDowell and at Redwood Highway/McDowell. Life-saving services are being delayed. That causes concern for the Board and for him. This access needs to be constructed. The congestion on Washington is constant. Rainier makes imminent. more sense. Patty Murch, 1818 Skillman -was born and raised in the "sphere of influence". She is concerned about any negative impacts on the auction yard if an interchange were built at Corona. Rainier is a more logical place for. this overpass. Vincenza Scarpaci, 23 Meadowglen Drive -what is the objective of Rainier? More cars? The internal traffic in town is more probably addressed by an overpass. Place more parking lots at the north and south ends of town. Use shuttle buses from there to town and to the Factory Outlet. You are going to need projects to develop the area to raise taxes to pay for the improvements. Carlos Berguido, 1722 Capella Court -spoke in support of Rainier. If you built an interchange at Corona Road, and a train blocked North McDowell Blvd. which he has seen it do, public safety would have problems getting where they needed to go along that corridor. Petaluma Valley Hospital is there because Rainier is supposed to be constructed. This would also apply to the police station location. Multiple units often respond. Amore direct access route would be beneficial. Santa Rosa Junior College will soon be open on Sonoma Mountain Parkway: It is time to act. Do not let the opponents trash our General Plan. We are counting on you to complete this. Karen Emge, 1622 Big Bend Drive -she is against Rainier interchange. It is unneeded at this time. There is not enough police patrol. Y~r L ~_ ~~ Page 334, Vol. 28 September 12,199 Their car ,got broken into and all they got out of the Police Department was information on how to fill out a form the Police would mail to them. The Police said they were busy and short handed. You can use helicopters to get patients to the hospital. They have a landing pad. We have the best paramedics here. She has never had a problem on Payran. Janet Calvo, .192 Banff Way - is concerned about the children and the potential crime she feels would come with an interchange. People run yellow lights, and even red stop lights. There will be speeders. Cars coming off the freeway drive faster. They have to brake for the vehicles exiting from the "quads". Sonny da Costa, 546 Benbo. Drive -there are very valid arguments for Rainier as opposed to Corona interchange: They didn't know about the interchange when they bought their house. Is opposed to the interchange. In the future, there. will be more housing in the area east of Rainier, The crossing would be acceptable to him. People travel too fast on Rainier. Yes, we need access for the hospital. Keep Petaluma a little more rural for a little longer. Madeline Ashe, .421 Yosemite Court -the EIR doesn't contain cost. figures. There will be zoning changes. The curvature of Rainier causes sight distance problems. Cutting back trees and. bushes causes people to speed. Reduce: the dependence on the .automobile. She is concerned about earthquakes and seismic needs. The city's tax revenues will be shifted but will not be increased. Businesses will move to new shopping centers and leave the old ones empty. Gordon Blumenfeld, 112 7th Street - he employs 50 people. He gave an .easement to the City at Rainier. He urged the Council to approve the EIR and to construct Rainier. This will improve access. Stan Felix, Petaluma Plaza South - he is one of the "maligned" shopping center owners. There are 6,000 people who signed petitions. The Rainier project is woefully underfunded. Says the dollars must come from someone. If you vote on this tonight, you. will be thumbing the voters of Petaluma. Mark Friedman, 6456 Landis Avenue, Carmichael. - he owns Washington Square Shopping Center. He is one of the proponents ofMeasure E (November ballot). What. is the interchange going: to :cost and who is going to pay for it?' If you take into account the footnotes listed. in the EIR, the cost will reach the $40+ Millions. Where are you going to look for the money? Jerome Popky, .1549 Rainier - I want. to live in a city that has a healthy business environment. He is opposed to another shopping center on North McDowell. Empty stores look shabby and invite crime. True Value Hardware store is' closing. We don't. need another interchange to send shoppers to new shopping: centers. Bob Parr, 276 Banff Way -you tried to get money for Police and.Fire on the June ballot, and it went down because it had the General. Fund attached o it. We are talking about the flow of traffic through. the town, not the outside area (referring to the Northwest Petaluma Concerned Citizens Coalition). Why can't the City vote for the one or two plans that are before you tonight? . Y September 12, 199,E Vol. 28, .Page sss Mark Green, 540 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa -Executive Director of Sonoma County Conservation Action - we have 1500 members in Petaluma; we are for sound planning and a democratic process. This is a child endangering project in the neighborhood. People have addressed their opposition of the issue to you.. Wait until after the election to act on this. Gary Harmon, 216 Prince Albert Court. -his children go to school in the neighborhood. Some vehicles have to back out of their "quad" houses. He agrees there needs to be a plan for life saving services. He is not against the overpass, but the interchange frightens him. Ned Orrett, 625 2nd Street - we need to have an innovative way to solve some of these problems. It appears we have one neighborhood against the other neighborhood. We should create economic pockets and diversity of neighborhoods. You should build the overpass only. Katha Hair, 408 8th Street -Rainier has always been an arterial. East D Street has turned into an arterial. You should continue to work towards your consistent growth plan and your traffic control plan. She empathizes with the parents of children crossing the streets. To just throw these plans away is not a good idea. Safety concerns need to be addressed. Linda Buffo, 841 Schuman Lane - I travel by automobile through these streets as my business takes me there. It is practically impossible to move through this city. No one takes the responsibility for that. Let's get on with the project. She supports the project. David Keller, 1327 IStreet -this is a growth inducing plan. There are long term ramifications of Rainier. There is no master plan on the river. This is inefficient planning. Use trip reduction plans; that can reduce traffic 10%. The alternative of Corona only is not in the EIR. Taco Bell should never be put on Washington Street at the corner of Lakeville and Washington. People should be listened to. Recess 9:10 to 9:20 n.m. David Keller (Clyde Calvo gave him his 3 minutes) - we are going to have to deal with this again. $30 or $40 Millions could be better spent. Anita Latch, 402 Keller Street -she enjoys shopping in town. You are elected to represent us and to make your judgment on the consensus of the community. Matt Maguire, 626 East DStreet -this bears more investigation in the financing and impacts. It is a mistake to accommodate automobiles so much. He supports the connector. The increased dependency on automobiles needs to be addressed. Let's look at alternatives to get people out of their cars. Is there anything we can do to get ISTEA funds for this? This is a theory issue. Karen Greene, 311 Olympic Court -their home backs up to Rainier. The EIR is inadequate. She showed a number of overhead views listing the City's anticipated costs of the project. She asked how all of this was going to be paid. She wondered where the funds will come from on the "undecided source". She noted that Planning staff had incorporated a note in a recent document that construction of Rainier will help Washington Street. As a result of that comment, she thinks that. a property owner in the Rainier extension area would take the City to court on the nexus issue, if the City feels ..Rainier will help Washington Street yet does not assess Washington Street property owners. This project will cost more than is shown on the Capital Improvement Program. Where will that money come from? Page 336, Vol. 28 ~ September 12, 199 Don Bennett, 1717 Pine Avenue - 27 years ago they bought their -home which backs onto Washington Street., We had hoped that sooner or later there would be another overcrossing. Circulation .and transportation are in a funnel at this time. In 1986 we put together a large group of citizens to create the General Plan which showed Rainier extension in it. If we are going to solve-the problem, we either do it, or we .send the General Plan out the door. This is about people who have different ideas about the General Plan. Bryant Moynihan, 111 Post Street -where are we going to go in the next 30 years. Do we want: planned or unplanned growth? We have the Corona Ely area with planned housing units that will be built. Growth is going to occur. There is Santa Rosa Junior College and the' Outlet Village are coming into town. We need the overpass/interchange. The crosstown connector won't work. Don't waste time or money to study it. Sue Ellen Thompson, 1013 Palmetto Way -she spoke both as Vice President of the Hospital Board and as a citizen. .She .hasn't heard anything new this evening. Let Rainier be the short term solution. Continue to address the problem. Continue to reduce vehicle movement and keep our people safe. I implore you; you were elected to do a job. Don't put. it off on the people; and don't duck it because it's uncomfortable with an election coming up. Janice :fader-Thompson, 732. Carlsbad Court - we talked about the traffic- flow from one end of town to the other. Traffic will be brought in because of new retail stores. The 30 acres on North McDowell will. be a big impact. The EIR did not address: issues that could be raised by the "Vestar" project. (A drawing showing the possibility of a shopping center at Rainier done some months ago.) The EIR should be looking;at the entire area. This is going to impact the neighborhood and the downtown. The EIR did not address the safety issues. The public hearing was closed at 10:15 p.m. Council comments and questions for inclusion of responses and answers in the EIR: Ross Parkerson: This has been part of the General Plan for 30 years or more. Traffic studies have shown us that Washington Street can no longer serve the increasing traffic demands of 47,000 people. By the year 2000 we will have 50,000 to 55,000 people here. Rainier Interchange Project benefits -The project would substantially reduce the congestion and the level of other traffic improvements; benefit and reduce congestion on the entire Washington Street corridor from Ely to Petaluma Blvd. downtown; Corona Road, Skillman Lane and Old Redwood Highway would also benefit by reduced congestion; improve emergency response times to Petaluma Valley Hospital with a .more direct route between the east to west sides; reduce the existing traffic barriers by passing over the freeway, the~river and the railroad; and, provide improved mass transit services, access and improved bicycle/pedestrian. Looking at .the crosstown connector only concept,: it will really never provide the benefits of the: interchange. The overcrossing and interchange are the best benefit to satisfy all future transportation needs of the community. September 12, 199' Vol. 28, Page 3s~ The EIR should be certified and this should be constructed. He moved and Lori Shea seconded a motion for certification, approving the project based on the Planning Commission's recommendation and legislative findings previously provided at the first hearing on August 1, 1994. Lori Shea• General Plan -The General Plan identifies the need for a crosstown connector and interchange. Corona El~nroject -The traffic mitigation for the Corona Ely area development included the understanding that the Rainier overcrossing and interchange would go in. Those 2,800 houses out there are already contracted to be developed over a period of time. Petaluma Valle,~pital -The hospital was put there with the plan for the Rainier Avenue interchange. Other Comments -The EIR demonstrates this is a superior project. Even without the project, there will be an increase in traffic on Rainier. Safety is an issue and a concern. We can control the speed there. The EIR adequately addresses the issues. Legislation doesn't stop because there are ballot initiatives out there. Carole B~rlas: Rules -There are certain rules and orders that we follow in our process because it has been the way it has always been since King James or some king and frankly I am tired of playing by somebody else's rules. Long term affect on town -Yes, points can be made that this EIR is adequate. But come on folks what are we really talking about here? We're talking about something that is going to affect the way this town looks, feels, acts and behaves for the next quarter century, at least. Now I'm not saying whether I am for or against these initiatives, but they are a public process, they're in motion, they exist. Election -This Council would be unconscionable to make a decision tonight and not wait for that election. Cost -You may and may not agree with everything that Mrs. Greene said, there was no dollar figure given for the extra things listed. that would increase the project cost; we were given no dollar figures for those items. There are $6 or $7 Million right there. I am sick and tired of trying to pull off things without adequately demonstrating where the real costs are. Let's put up the information as clearly as we can and then make our decision. J1ne Hamilton: Connector - We had consensus of the Council to study the crosstown connector only, and we are here without that information. We do need a connector. Survev - We need to know who needs to get on the freeway and we need some data that would prove that this is the best way to achieve our transportation goals, i.e. the interchange. I'd like to knew what the results are of the survey that we asked to have done at East Washington, the destination survey of where they are coming from and where they are going. ~~ ~. ~t~p`17... SfI4^!O. .~~. T?~C~ 13i~.~~ikv1 Page 338, Vol. 28 September 12,199 Improvements to Petaluma Blvd North and East Washington Street -Once the improvements are made to Petaluma Blvd... North and that: interchange (at Redwood Highway) and once improvements are made to East Washington Street, are we going to need a new interchange and how soon are we going to have to have it? Project Phasing -The EIR alludes to a phased project; I'd like to know more about that, doing the connector and then phasing in the interchange project. "Vestar" proposal area.. - (undeveloped area near N. McDowell were Rainier extension would go) I'd like staff to answer the question about the land where the Vestar proposal. was made. The traffic counts in the EIR for that area consider that land to be for industrial and office zoning, and it seems pretty obvious that it isn't. More realistic traffic counts are needed, so that we can look at the those impacts on everything. Cumulative Impact -That brings up the whole issue of cumulative impact. What is the cumulative impact? What's really going to happen in all these areas. It's going to require intensive development to pay for assessments resulting from the interchange construction. What's the whole picture going to look like? What are the traffic figures going to be like and what can we expect? I don't feel that's answered in the EIR. Master Plan - We didn't do the master plan in connection with the factory outlet. This was supposed to be begun in 90 days. The EIR addresses that and says that we didn't do it because there were lawsuits. I want an adequate answer as to when are we going to start it. It's put in a very linear fashion where you -can see just this much, and then later on down the road we'll reveal the rest. At one point in the EIR it says that cumulative impacts are going to be addressed through the river master plan. Which simply is not true.. I'm on the River Committee and we're not addressing cumulative impacts for that area. Assessment District Size -Since the EIR states .over and over that Rainier is of immense benefit to the Washington corridor, then how could we not assess the Washington corridor, and how do we assure ourselves that will not be brought up in a legal challenge at some point by somebody in the proposed assessment district who' doesn't feel that their assessment is fair or doesn't want to pay that high a price. Is there something like making a binding commitment in the deed of those lands upon sale that they won't challenge the assessment if it is sold. That's one of the concerns that all those people signing the initiatives had. What assurances do we have that the assessment district will be what we say it's going to be,' and that it won't spill out into other commercial or residential areas. Financins -The financing of the road segment improvements to mitigate intersection level of service isn't addressed. Federal and/or State funding -Regarding the Federal and State .money, is it available to improve Corona or at an interchange at Corona, because it is a State road? Would we be able to use State acid Federal funding to pay for sound walls or merger lanes? Have we precluded that option because we aren't going to be certified NEPA? ., 'September 12, 19 Vol. 28, Page 339 Cost - I'd like an up to date version of the cost that did include the financing cost and the mitigations and maintenance of the financing costs of improvements on McDowell and Petaluma Blvd. and Rainier. I would like estimates for the agency fees and the permits and just a comprehensive picture of what we can plan for. I think I already asked for this, I want to see a rundown of the phased project alluded to in the EIR with the overcrossing now and the interchange later. Developer Contribution . - I'd like another chart that takes the developer contribution from Chelsea and gives a more realistic picture how that money is phased in according to that agreement that we saw on the overhead tonight. Recent Changes in Redevelopment Law - I have a question on changes in redevelopment law that .came about in January. I want to know if that will affect the way we can use the redevelopment funds, if that will affect Rainier. The money we have already accumulated for Rainier or money in the future that we. would like to accumulate .for Rainier. This is a big decision, and we are engaging in the process in a responsible and careful way. If the decision comes a week after the election, that's fine. If it comes in January, it's still fine. The process works, and the right thing is going to come out of it. Nancy Rend• Complete Loop, Answer questions - I have difficulty with the motion being brought before the Council before the loop of this EIR is completed, and this loop's not completed. We have questions that were raised here tonight. There is also quite a lengthy list of questions that have been added by the Council that need to be addressed. Connector - I would like an informational addendum addressing the concerns of the connector only. Does the existing EIR adequately address the environmental impacts of a crosstown connector only at the Rainier location? Does it state that the traffic data and air quality data would different of no interchange improvements are included? Supplemental EIR versus addendum to EIR - Do we have to have a supplental EIR or an addendum to study the connector only? At this time, I would like to request that the motion and the second be rescinded and we get the answers to all these questions just as soon as possible. Sobelo He asked what was the motion? The motion was as follows: To close the public hearing, certify the final EIR, approve the project per the Planning Commission's f ndings, of which we have Exhibit A and B which deal with the EIR and the Exhibit B deals with the mitigations and findings to approve the project. .9Z./ tf h •. ~~ Page Sao, Vol. 28 September 12, 199Y Cost - I think that we have heard tonight adequate concerns about the construction costs. We need to have a public discussion about it. I will not support. a plan where residential properties became a part of the benefit assessment district. The assessment will be borne by properties that are given a chance to develop and/or the undeveloped properties. It is also true that people would have questions about a missing amount of funding. How is that to 'be bridged? We. need to have a credible response to that. We should be able to say we would guarantee "x" dollars would be available. New Laws - We have seen changes in laws. What are they and how will they affect this project? Seismic Codes -are there any changes that have occurred in the past few years that would affect this? Assessment Spread - In Mrs. Greene's testimony she made the point that only one developer has to opt out to throw this into a legal situation where somebody can challenge whether the assessment indeed can be spread across the City. Now rather than pretend that that is not an issue, we need to talk about the money and either we say, here's. what. we know we have in the bank, .here's what we can project; and again here's_what we can't project and we don't know where it is going to come. from. And if we can't get it; there will be no building. of an interchange. Or, we will do something else. Interchange vs. connector - We need to decide the issue of the interchange versus the crosstown connector. Supplemental vs addendum to EIR - I want staff to tell me whether this is indeed a supplemental EIR or whether this can be handled with an addition to the current EIR by adding an amendment. Is it defensible if we make that choice? Timing of Council action -People have lobbied me heavily on -this, .and I will not allow the election in November to take precedence over doing'this right. We need to take the time to research the issues. What does November 8 have to do with a hill of beans in the future of this city, is my question. We are going to have to live with our decision for a long, long time. Corona Road - I will .say having looked at this at ,great .length .several times; the issue of the Corona area as an option, to me is nothing more than a stalking horse, frankly it doesn't work for me for all the reasons listed in the EIR. Traffic reduction - The idea of traffic reduction in tandem with another- solution does make some sense to look at. The Planning staff should take a run at whether a combination of trip reduction and many other employee options would help. I bring this from two years of chairing the Sonoma, County Transportation Authority where we did nothing but talk about this all the time. We have an opportunity to really get into the meat of`it and discuss it. To ignore it, even if it's not feasible right now, doesn't make a-lot of sense. Financin Plan. -What has come down the road that may affect our` financing plan? ~•September 12, 199 Vol. 28, Page s.~i Quad construction on Rainier - I would like a little bit more discussion on quad construction. I've been assured through this EIR that the quad construction and the traffic patterns there are handled by cars being able to back up from those quads and go out front first. I believe that to be true, but as long as people have raised it, I think we need to talk about it again. I think, Allen (Tilton), the traffic engineer, needs to talk about that. Old and new questions need answers - As to not hearing anything new, it isn't a matter of hearing anything new, necessarily, it's a matter of not getting answered some of the old. And that's what we have to do. I would ask the maker of the motion to withdraw it at this point. As for weekly meetings, unless somebody can tell me that the answers to a lot of these questions can be brought to us in a fashion that a meeting every week makes sense, I think not. We've been dealing with this issue for two decades. If it takes a few weeks to get the best answer we can possibly get from staff, that is alright. Warren Salmons: In answer to how long will it take to get these answers, Assistant City Manager Warren Salmons said he thinks we project three weeks for the work to be prepared, and then there is a public review period, if indeed it has to be a supplement because of CEQA .requirements. The financing I think can be evaluated. I think we can do a better job of cost estimating in that same time period. Much of the testimony tonight I think can be addressed by referencing previous responses. Do we need to do a mitigation plan for all of the development that may occur along the river corridor to satisfy the one point? I know that is a question that has been raised many times by Fish and Wildlife service. It's a matter of degree. How can we address wetland mitigation for Rainier and projects as yet unplanned in acres that lie along the river, I'm not sure we can provide a satisfactory answer for you.. Factory Outlet mitigation - We did a delineation of all the acreage, but not a mitigation plan for all the acreage because we did not have precise development plans for C or B, only for Parcel A. So we did not know, and yet do not know, what the mitigation requirements would be for the parcels. Planning review of unimproved land -The staff adheres very strictly to the General Plan.. We don't speculate on what future land uses might be. It's totally inappropriate for us to do that unless the Council wants to do "what ifs". If you would like us to do "what ifs" and traffic reports and that sort of thing, then you're going to have to direct us to do that. In response to a comment that the General Plan is not meant to be altered regularly, it was stated by a Councilmember that we amend the General Plan all the time based on what we believe is in the best interest of the community. It has been followed very carefully over the years, but we do indeed take a look at things from time to time and decide that. a different use is appropriate. Page 342, Vol. 28 . `. `~ September 12, 192F1 Rescind 1st motion,. move :second motion: Mr. Parkerson, the maker of the motion, offered to rescind the first motion and submit a second. which was #4 in the staff report. The second of the first motion was rescinded and this motion was seconded by Lori Shea. To close the public hearing; direct staff to provide only minor additional information or clarification as an addenedum to the final EIR. An addendum would not require additional public review. The .alternative would enable the Council to certify the final ~EIR and. more immediately make a decision on the project. This alternative would not provide for supplemental information on the connector only alternative. Assistant City .Manager Warren Salmons said the reason the connector only was not included in the EIR was when the EIR was being prepared, what they looked at was the General Plan and the objectives established in the General Plan, not just the objectives in the transportation chapter, circulation chapter, but objectives throughout the document. They also looked at various alternatives.. They found that Rainier crosstown and interchange, and an alternative the Corona interchange, and were felt might meet that range of objectives as outlined in the General. Plan. We did not study the crosstown only because we did not feel. that it fully met the basic objectives of the project that the General Plan established. The City Attorney noted if there is any new information that has substantial impact environmental impact, that, something that the staff would need to address, including what they have heard tonight, whether there is anything new in what they have .heard and whether or not that evidence has any substantial impact on the environment. I think they've already given the indication or the reason why the connector only was not included as an alternative, and perhaps that can be addressed further when they come back. The .question was called and the motion was read again. There was still discussion. The City Attorney .said that when staff brings back all that information, it would be up to you as a Council. to determine whether or not you. want the. connector in at all. If the Council as a whole wants it in, then staff must determine whether a supplemental EIR is necessary. If the Council as a whole does not want it in as an alternative .and accepts staffs reasoning as to why it's not necessary for the EIR, then there doesn't seem there is any need to go further with it. City Manager John Scharer offered a suggestion. The earliest we could come back to the Council is October 3. We are supposed to have traffic survey done by October 1. Staff can come back. with the work that has been completed on what would be needed for a supplemental E]R, with the results of the traffic. model, the result of the air quality data, :then you can tell us if wish us to proceed. based on the benefit or lack of benefit or deny it because of lack of benefit From that alternative you would tell us to circulate it for 45 days, schedule the Planning Commission hearing and then finish the supplemental EIR, and incorporate it into the final EIR. September 1'2, 199 Vol. 28, Page sas At 11:30 the question was called again. It was read again. To close the public hearing and if needed to direct staff to provide only minor additional information or clarification as an addendum to the FEIR. An addendum would not require additonal public review. This alternative would enable the Council to certify the FEIR and more immediately make a decision on the project. This alternative would not provide for the supplemental .information on the connector only alternative. The motion failed. The vote was: AYES: Parkerson, Shea, Mayor Hilligoss NOES: Read, Hamilton, Barlas, Vice Mayor Sobel ABSENT: None It was moved by Brian Sobel, seconded by Jane Hamilton to -Close the public hearing, provide directionto staff on any additional information deemed necessary and continue the discussion on the merits of the project to a future meeting date. This alternative would provide immediate direction to staff to prepare supplemental information regarding the Connector Only Alternative already under study to be brought back to us at a future date. The City Attorney asked for one minor clarification, that is that the connector only is not an alternative in the EIR. Most Councilmembers said yes. AYES: Read, Hanulton, Barlas, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss NOES: Parkerson, Shea, ABSENT: None At 11:35 p.m. the meeting was adjourned in honor of Peril Talamantes who very great here in Petaluma. ~ f ~ ATTEST: ,~ atricia E. Bernard, City Clerk Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor