HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/05/1992October 5, 1992
Vol. 27, Page '1'79A
1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
2 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
3 MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1992
4 ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m.
5 PRESENT: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor
6 Hilligoss, Nelson
7 ABSENT: Sobel (Councilman Sobel was attending the Sonoma County
8 Transportation Authority meeting in Santa Rosa)
9
CONSENT CALENDAR
to The following items which are noncontroversial and have been reviewed by the City
11 Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Bonnie Nelson
12 and seconded by Vice Mayor Cavanagh.
13 AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Nelson, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor Hilligoss
14 NOES: None
15 ABSENT: Sobel (Councilman Sobel was attending the Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting
16 in Santa Rosa)
17 RESO. 92-256 NCS
1g CLAIMS AND BILLS
19 Resolution 92-256 NCS approving Claims and Bills #22735 to #22968.
20 RESO. 92-257 NCS
21 APPOINT IIISTORICAL & CULTURAL PRESERVATION MEMBERS
22 Resolution 92-257 NCS appointing the SPARC members plus Elbert Hopkins (Historic
23 Library) and James Webb (Heritage Homes) to the Historical & Cultural Preservation
24 Committee for cone-year term.
2s RESO. 92-258 NCS
26 FEDERAL AID URBAN - PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH
27 1992 STRF,F.T RFT~ARiT.TTATT(1N PR(ITF.("1'
2s Resolution 92-258 NCS approving City Manager's signature to Program Supplement
29 #005 to Local Agency/State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects #04-5022 for street
3o rehabilitation of Petaluma Blvd. North. The FAU share is $132,000 of the $355,685
31 project. The remaining grant funds will come from Gas Tax; the City's share of the
32 grant portion of this work is $78,000.
33
34
ORD. 1903 NCS
ADOPT HIV REGULATIONS
35 Adopt Ordinance 1903 NCS approving addition to the Municipal Code of Chapter 8.32
36 AIDS Nondiscrimination Ordinance.
37
38
RESO. 92-259 NCS
FIRE HOSE -SURPLUS
39 Resolution 92-259 NCS declaring 80 lengths of fire hose surplus and authorizing sale of
40 same.
Page 180~Vo1. 27
October 5, 1992
i ORD. 1905 NCS
2 CORONA RANCH APARTMENTS AlVI~ TOWNHOUSES -REZONE
3 Adopt Ordinance 1905 NCS amending Zoning Ordinance 1072 NCS by adoption of the
4 rezoning of Corona Ranch Apartments and Corona Crescent Townhouses from PCD to
5 PUD.
6 RESO. 92-260 NCS
7 CORONA RANCH APARTMENTS AND TOWNIOUSES -PUD
g Resolution 92-260 NCS approving Corona Ranch Apartments and Corona Crescent
9 Townhouses Planned Unit Development and written guidelines for the project.
io RESO. 92-261 NCS
ii CORONA RANCH APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOUSES -TENTATIVE MAP
12 Resolution. 92-261 NCS approving the tentative map for Corona Ranch Apartments and
13 Corona Crescent Townhouses.
i4 ORD. 1904 NCS
is ENCROACHMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
16 Adopt Ord. 1904 NCS amending the encroachment regulations of the Municipal Code
17 Chapter 13.04 to allow adoption of encroachment fee by resolution.
is RESO. 92-262. NCS
t9 ENCROACHMENT FEE
20 Resolution 92-262 NCS approving encroachment fees.
21 RESO. 92-263 NCS
22 AWARD CONTRACT WELL DRILLING
23 EAST WASHINGTON PARK WELLS #1 & #2
24 Resolution 92-263 NCS approving contract for the drilling, casing .and testing of two
25 municipal water supply wells in the East Washington Park site (aka Community Athletic
26 Fields). The contractor is Les Petersen Drilling of Santa Rosa who bid the work at
27 $34,710.75. The wells will be called East Washington Park Wells #1 and #2
2s RESO. 92 264 NCS
29 DAVII) GRIFFITH - SB-90 REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS
3o Resolution 92-264 NCS approving execution of an agreement with David Griffith for
3t continued SB-90 reimbursement claims coordination with the State of California. The
32 City costs for reimbursement are in the following listed categories: underground fuel
33 storage clean-up costs, fire department clothes and equipment, domestic violence calls,
34 missing persons, miscellaneous reimbursements, personal safety alarms, .disabled
35 motorist, business tax reports, investment reports and open meeting act. In-the fiscal year
36 ending June 30, 1992; the City received $197,148 for costs that equalled $285,317. The
37 State of California in adopting its budget did not carry many of the reimbursements
3s forward' for this year.
39 * * * * * End of Consent Calendar
October 5, 1992
Vol. 27, Page 1$1/~
1 RESO. 92-265 NCS
2 BUILDING I~ EES
3 Resolution 92-265 NCS approving Building Division Fee schedule:
4
5 Microfilm (incoming plans) $1.00
6 (with a minimum cost of $6.00
7 Microfilm (incoming documents) $1.00
8 (25 pages minimum) $2.50
9 (additional pages) $0.10
to
11 Building Survey $55.00
12
13 Plan Check Fee (Production homes) $30.00
14
15 Plan Check Fee (Other) $60.00
16 Introduced by Bonnie .Nelson, seconded by Nancy Read.
17 AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Nelson, Vice Mayor Cavanagh,
18 Mayor Hilligoss
19 NOES: None
20 ABSENT: Sobel (Councilman Sobel was attending the Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting
21 in Santa Rosa)
22 RESO. 92-266 NCS
23 AGREEMENT WITH RALPH ANDERSON RE -BUSINESS LICENSE TAX SURVEX
24 Resolution 92-266 NCS approving execution of an agreement with Ralph Anderson of
25 Sacramento for doing a business license tax survey at a cost of $21,980. It is anticipated
26 they will complete their study in 3 to 4 months. Introduced by Lynn Woolsey, seconded
27 by Michael Davis.
28 AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Nelson, Vice Mayor Cavanagh,
29 Mayor Hilligoss
30 NOES: None
31 ABSENT: Sobel (Councilman Sobel was attending the Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting
32 in Santa Rosa)
33 FILMIN~i P®LICY
34 The filming fees and filming regulations were examined by the City Council. Assistant
35 City Manager Gene Beatty recommended some of the filming fees be changed:
36 Barricades up from $1.50-5.00 to $5.00 - $20.00; City Vehicles up from $50/hr. to
37 $100/hr. ; Street Use up from $300 to $500/residential and $1,000/day/arterial, this is
38 minimum per street, per day, per block. The City Council approved the
39 recommendation. Legislation with the addition that a "Community Service (negotiable)"
4o category will be added to the fee schedule and will be brought to the Council at the next
41 meeting.
42
SMOKING ORDINANCE
43 The City Council debated revising the smoking ordinance for a long time. Speakers
44 included Rich Krop, Executive Director of the North Bay Health Resources; Sarah Kuh
45 who works with Mr. Krop; Floy Russell of Wilson Street who experiences health
46 complications from secondary smoke in restaurants where she has worked much of her
47 life; Dr. Goldberg, Director of Education for the County Health Department; Stan
48 Janiah, Director of American Cancer Society; Victor DeCarli; Robert McGaughey of Mr.
49 Magoo's Restaurant.
Page 182 Vol. 27 October 5, 1992
1 The message from all the people who spoke was to protect the people from secondary
2 smoke. The gentleman from Mr. Magoo's noted that a great percentage of his customers
3 smoke. They have turned the bar area into a dining area as well and they find that is
4 always overflowing with customers. He said creating any legislation that would prevent
5 smokers from enjoying the restaurant of their choice would be very detrimental to some
6 of the businesses in Pefaluma.
7 The Council asked for a scientific. survey. Staff will work on a recommendation that
s would be an effective way to reduce secondary smoke at the least cost. There may be a
9 need to explore more than one way.
to CLOSED .SESSION AND ADTOURN TO 7.00 P M
11 The Council went into Closed Session with the City Attorney to discuss litigation.
12 R_ OLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
13 PRESENT: Read, Davis; Woolsey, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor
14 Hilligoss, Sobel, Nelson
15 ABSENT: None
16 PLEDGE Od+' ALLEGIANCE
17 Finance Director-David Spilman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
is PUBLIC COMMENT
19 Carlos Berguido, 1722 ,Capella Court -expressed concern about the newspaper coverage
20 of the vanous groups who have endorsed candidates. and any implications that may be
21 inferred. by the readers of the local newspapers.
22 COUNCIL COMMENT
23 Brian Sobel - :asked about the appointment of a Counclmember to the LAFCO alternate
24 position. Mayor Hilligoss noted that she is voting for Councilmember Read.
25 Bonnie Nelson -commented. on her personal .knowledge of the effects of the current State
26 budget on low income persons: .She also commented on the unfortunate correspondence
27 with the newspaper by Phil Jberger. It was full of errors in fact..
28 Michael Davis - is surprised the newspaper editor did not point out those irregularities.
29 LA>FhERTY RANCII STATUS REPORT
3o Staff advised. the Council about the issues that have been raised since. they last talked
31 about the future use of Lafferty Ranch. The key issues are (1) Access to the.property; (2)
32 Scope of public access to the site; (3) Open Space Easement; and (4) Environmental
33 concerns.
34 Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner, noted the various issues that would. be considered in the
3s environmental documentation.
36 John Fitzgerald, civil engineer, talked about the mapping of Sonoma Mountain Road. It
37 appears that the property lines go to the center of the road. At this point, the title search
38 has not been completed for access to the Lafferty property. As an aside, he noted that
39 old maps showed vineyards up there.
October 5, 1992
Vol. 27, Page 183
~ The following persons spoke against public access:
2 John Saen, 600 Sonoma Mountain Road
3 Scott Stevens, 1048 ?Drive
4 Randall Smith, 2970 Sonoma Mountain Road
5 Bill Hunter, law firm of Pettit & Martin, representing the area homeowners
6 Peter Pfendler, 750 Sonoma Mountain Road
~ Tom Furrer, teacher, Casa Grande High School
s Eric Spector, 3200 Sonoma Mountain Road
9 Patricia Cheda, 3272 Old Adobe Road
1o Anna Arntz, 501 Sonoma Mountain Road
11 Roy Elliott, 3150 Sonoma Mountain Road
t2 Suzanne Smith, 2970 Sonoma Mountain Road
13 Anthony ? , 600 Sonoma Mountain Road
14 David Murphy, 2960 Sonoma Mountain Road
is Douglas Dade, 511 Sonoma Mountain Road
15 The reasons given for their opposition to public access included the following:
17 The Sonoma County Department of Fire Services letter outlined access, fuel load,
~g surety of increased medical and rescue vehicle calls and the reality of causing the
19 City as sole ambulance responder and the noting it will be the City's liability for
20 costs of fire suppression. The County Fire Service cannot be counted on for much
2t protection at. all. It was noted there is no volunteer fire department and the
22 County's contractual services with Penngrove Fire Department to cover this area
23 have been dropped by the County.
24 The scattering of litter of every kind. (A sample of,one day's litter pick-up by the
25 residents of Sonoma Mountain Road' was available for .viewing on the City Hall
26 front lawn. It was taken to the dump by the residents, as is all the litter they pick
27 up on a regular basis.)
2s The vehicle accidents, paraplegic causing incident and deaths that have occurred
29 on Sonoma Mountain .Road by non-residents. The narrow road which is also steep
3o and has many short "sight-distance" problems.
31 The. failure on the part of people to heed the "No Trespassing, Private Property"
32 signs. The taking and destroying of these signs.
33 This potential use is covered by the California Environmental Quality Act and
34 nothing further should occur until the requirements of that law are complied with.
35 Although there has been a method whereby teachers could bring students to the
36 area, this has not occurred over the past five years. Prior to that time, visits by
37 supervised students were infrequent.
3s There is some concern that the Hayward-Rogers Creek Fault may show activity in
39 the "near" future. A corner of the property includes this earthquake fault line.
4o The steelhead trying to make acome-back in the stream that flows through the
41 property. The Casa Grande High School group of United Anglers have tried for
42 eight years to remake the appropriate habitat for these fish to become familiar
43 sights again. This year less than 10 came back to a safe place. Ten were killed
44 by people carrying rocks down by Lakeville Highway. That's an example of how
45 careful some of the public is.
Page 184, Vol. 27 October 5, 1992
1 LAk FEItTY ~tAN.C>FI cont' d.
2 There is some feeling that this strain of steelhead may be unique and have an
3 unusually short breeding time. There is a possibility that. they may be identified as
4 endangered species.
5 The number of fence jumpers has increased, and would increase even more if
6 public access were approved.
~ The steepness of the land more than likely would cause people to climb on the
s creek's rocks than on the soft, steep hillside.
9 What is the goal of having a park five miles into. the country? There would be
10 only a small number of people that would really be able to go up there versus
11 going to a park that was accessible more easily for the majority of City residents
12 as well as those covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, such as wheel
13 chair bound individuals.
t4 The potential of losing property insurance if the land was kept open., even a little
1s bit, for public access.
16 It was stated that every single rancher up there is scared of the potential impacts.
17 The few golden eagles that are trying to make a home up there would be ,driven
1s away by hikers. Whether by' the proximity of people or by other questionable
19 means.
20 This land. was purchased as a watershed, not. as a park. If it is no longer being
21 used as a watershed, then uses other than a park should be investigated.
22 It was noted that a .telephone call' to the sherff-one night to stop people from being
23 on the City's land resulted in no sheriff response at all.
24 There is a long history of hikers causing fires in publ.ia areas. There is a real
25 potential of the existing ;fuel load to have rapidly changing burning indexes, except
26 where. the cattle have kept it under control.
27 There will be increased traffic on this narrow road.
2s The people who come up to this road seem to not realize the potential problems
29 they may encounter on the road and after their problems occur, they come to any
3o house they find asking for help.
31 Although some have said this should be part of the existing Bay Area Ridge Trail,
32 it was noted the Bay Area Ridge Trail has only one piece in Sonoma County, and
33 that is at Sugar Loaf Park.
34 People .have been found wandering around people's homes and have told the
35 owners how nice their homes are inside, although these persons were not invited
36 into the homes.
37 Problems of the parking and the people at Crane Canyon have been observed by
3s some of the Sonoma Mountain Road residents.
39 This land will be more than difficult to supervise. Giving out keys will enable
4o people to have duplicates made.
41 A limited .access area that is going to be publicized the way this is will cause many
42 more visitors than you can imagine.
October 5, 1992
Vol. 27, Page 185
1 I,AFFERTY RANCH contd.
2 The Council discussed the matter for a time. After a 10 minute recess at 10:00 p.m. they
3 resumed their deliberations. It was the Council consensus that a subcommittee of the
4 Council, the homeowners, the environmentalists, and staff should meet to continue to
5 work towards a resolution to some of these issues, prior to requesting an environmental
6 study. The hearing was closed and the matter will be brought before the Council when
~ the committee has met.
s CHATEAU SENIOR HOUSING AGREEMENT DISCUSSION
9 This was removed from the agenda due to insufficient information from the developer.
> o RESO. 92-267 NCS
~ ~ TRANSIT ROUTE CHANGES
12 Resolution 92-267 NCS approving the route changes, free rides for the blind plus the
13 reduction of Saturday service by the Petaluma Buses. The public hearing was opened
14 after Transit Administrator Jim Ryan completed his presentation about the proposed route
> 5 streamlining. Staff is attempting to increase ridership in order to reach the mandatory
16 14.76% fare box ratio. That is to say, 14.76% of the cost of the bus system is required
17 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to come in through the fares. If
1s not, the difference between the fare box income and 14.76% must come from the City.
19 The bulk of the transit cost in Petaluma or 85.24% comes from MTC.
20 The public hearing was opened.
21 Jack Cox, Petaluma Hotel, noted he is blind and asked why the Petaluma transit does not
22 give blind people a free ride like the other transit companies.
23 Nelly Keezer, Petaluma Estates -deleting Saturday service would cause the riders some
24 problems. Sometimes they need to obtain medicines and food. We need to go to Tuttles
25 and to the Petaluma Market. Will you change the route to allow us to do that?
26 Barbara Rose, Petaluma Estates -please give us some afternoon Saturday service.
27 Richard Mitchell, .Dave's Transportation -there will be an opportunity for those with
2s needs to go to Tuttles from Petaluma Estates. The new routes will work well for them.
29 Pam Torliatt -thinks the removal of Saturday service needs to be reviewed.
3o Sandra Shaeffer -needs to get to the Golden Gate bus more quickly.
31 Linda Johnson -driver -these recommended improvements to the bus routes should be
32 very helpful to the ridership. She has been asked for service to Petaluma Blvd. North.
33 Jody Henry, 306 Mountain View Avenue - we have 6 people from this housing location
34 that use the bus. There has been a problem with transfers. Please don't completely cut
35 off Saturday service.
36 Maxine Mathias, 306 Mountain View Avenue - we go through areas of expensive homes
37 and no one uses the bus.
3s Dave Johnson, driver -these new routes will be much better service for the people.
39 It was noted the route to Petaluma Blvd. North came by way of North McDowell' Blvd.
4o with only 3 persons at Leisure Lake. They quit riding the bus, so the service was
41 dropped. It was also noted that the Westridge area has an unusually high number of
42 student riders.
43 The Council agreed that the Saturday service should be reduced but not eliminated. Blind
44 people should be able to ride the bus for free. With those amendments, the resolution
45 was introduced by Lynn Woolsey, seconded by Bonnie Nelson.
46 AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Sobel, Nelson, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor Hilligoss
47 NOES: None
48 ABSENT: None
Page 186, Vol. 27
October 5, 1992
1 RESO. 92-268 NCS
2 PURCHASE OF PARATRANSIT VEIiICLE
3 Resolution 92-268 NCS approving purchase of a paratransit vehicle (for persons with
4 physical challenges). This vehicle will cost. $41,259.83 and is being purchased from The
5 Bus Stop of Newman California through a consolidated procurement with Sonoma County
6 Transit as the lead agency. The vehicle will be a 1993 Collins Civitran bus. Introduced
7 by Michael Davis, seconded by Brian Sobel.
8 AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Sobel, Nelson, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor Hilligoss
9 NOES: None
10 ABSENT: None
11 ANNEXATION FEES - OUTS~E SEWER SERVICES
12 The Planning Department brought the request from sUme o,utsde.residents on I :Street
13 who wish to have outside sewer but do not wish to pay the annexation .impact fee until
14 such time as they are annexed. This item was continued to the first item on the October
15 19 evening agenda.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RESO. 92-269 NCS
NEW WASTEWATER k'ACIILITY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Resolution directing staff to issue a request for proposals for the new wastewater facility
Environmental Study. Introduced by Vice Mayor Cavanagh, seconded by Michael Davis.
AYES: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Sobel, Nelson, Vice I4layor Cavanagh, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AD.TOURN Thee meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
.. ~
~D
M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
atricia E. Bernard, City Clerk