Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/25/1991February 25, 1991 ApP~oJi2d 0.5 ~,rrec+4ei~ 3-'k 9/ Vol. 26, Page 167 1 ~ 1VIINUTES OF A ItEGLTLAR 1VIEETYNG 2 PETALUMA CITI' COUNCIL 3 ~ FE~1ZiTARY 25,1991 4 7:00 p.m. -ROLL. CALL 5 PRESENT: Read, Davis, Woolsey, Vice Mayor Cavanagh, Mayor Hilligoss, 6 Sobel, Nelson 7 ABSENT: None 8 COUNCIL. C®MIVIENTS 9 Michael Davis asked if the drinking fountains in Wiseman Park are going to be turned io on. 11 BAY AREA.AIR QUALITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 12 Jean Roggenkamp, Environmental Review Manager, reviewed. the proposed 1991 13 Clean Air Plari.for ahe Bay Area (will be available. m draft form late in March, 1991). 14 She noted the air in the .Bay .Area is cleaner than most other portions of the State; 15 however, we still experience days when the ozone and' particulate levels are above 16 acceptable State and Federal guideline levels.. In, addition, the prevailing westerly 17 winds cause a concentration of these products in certain portions of the area. 18 In order to achieve improved levels of air .quality, the development of a Transit 19 Management Plan by the Bay Area Air Quality District has resulted. The theory is 20 that reduction of the number of vehicle miles,will;assist in reduction of air pollutants. 21 This alone will not. completely xeduee the level of pollutants to Federal .and State 22 requirements. Included m the Transit Management, Plan is a land use link. The Bay 23 Area .Air Quality- District- currently reviews and comments on environmental impact 24 reports with this land use link in mind. Their goal is to encourage development -that 25 would encourage future use of mass transit facilities. In most. cases, however, there is 26 very limited mass transit availability partly due to the fact. that individuals prefer to 27 travel in their own automobiles, partly due to the very high cost to provide transit, and 28 partly due to the independent lifestyle chosen.by most people. 29 Councilmembers expressed their concern- that. these State and Federal Clean Air 3o mandates will eventually, be an additional fiscal burden to local governments. Ms. 31 Roggenkamp-was thanked for her report. No action was taken by the Council. 32 SOLAR_ACCESS 33 The Council considered information regarding regulation. of solar access in the. -City of 34 Davis. Speakers included. Bill Hollibaugh from Holly Solar Produces, Jennifer Barrett 35 from our Planning staff, Bob Berna from the Building Inspection Department, and 36 Planning Director Warren Salmons. 37 - It was noted that. there are solar tracking devices that can enhance the 38 effectiveness of roof mounted solar appliances. . 39 - Staff advised that by the regulation of vegetation, solar access could be assured. 40 The ability to develop effective .enforcement of any vegetation regulation was al questioned. Page 168, Vol. 26 •February 25, 1991 i - Orientation of glazing was suggested as a facet of .passi.ve solar construction. 2 - Development and submittal of bulding~'and fence shadow diagrams. in 3 connection with the building permit approval process. was also suggested as; a , 4 method of the solar access assurance.; ;, ~~ 5 - It was suggested that there should be no ,prohibitions to solar installatons.,in 6 the CC&R's .being. created. for all the new ,subdivisions. Currently there ..are 7 many subdivisions-with CC&R's 'that do not.. allow anything on the roof. It was s noted that the Solar .Act of 1978 states that any CC&R. which prohibits, or 9 restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is, void and io unenforceable. 11 The Council asked. for meeting time. in the future to discuss solar energy policies and 12 building' guidelines. i3 BAY VISION 2020 14 The Council discussed the potential impacts of future growth in the Bay, Area as is outlined lii the January, 1.991, Bay Vision 2020. Commission Review Draft Report. 16 Tlie Convenors of the .Commission were elected' officials of City 'and' County 17 governments .in 'the Bay Area and the Regional Issues Forum. created b`y the'Bay Area 18 Council. and. the' Greenbelt Alliance. Their ;charge was: to :make. a one-year 19 examination of the ways in which 'the ,nine-county Bay •Area is growing in population 20 and changing in. character, to adopt a general vision fc~r the Bay Area in the year 2020 21 and to recommend measures; to achieve that vision. The sole. Sgnoma County 22 representative bn thi's committee, was Armando Flores, superintendent. of Bellevue 24 -e~ on School District and former .Mayor of Rohnert .Park.. ''~''= ~ --~-~ ~--©-electe~d- 1~-g~gl>]:~C]~7ha.3c~y V~sip ZoZd mom 1m~S7~sion was co+~.pcstdo~P:rc.~_a;~ G''~~~i.R r j, .u~[. P2. AC G~{ C~!' ~ OG~ e.~ 5 0.,~'PD:~ n'vC O~ '~?7 ~-~i~~ 4,ro ~e.~. 25 The Commission has ~eoncluded that;. "thee beauty, livability, .economic- strength and ` 26 opportunities, here are iri jeopardy;. because we: have no effective means for addressing 27 the problems that :cross city and, county boundaries.. Only by-soine -changes in 28 structure of government° in the region can we.'taclc_1'e increasing traffic congestion, long 29 commutes between home and job, shortages of affordable housing;;'loss of°valued open 3o space to' urban sprawl, predictable air pollution and deferi'oration. of our economic 31 base." 32 The current 6 million population is anticipated to become, more than 7 million by 33 2020. They conclude :managed -growth may- fake the form: 'of channeling and 34 encouraging development. in some areas and dscourag"ing, or preventing. growth in 35 other ,areas. They also fate that adequate densities :arid concentrations~'in residential 36 and• commercial areas make it :essential to ensure`puhlc transit° is financially possible 37 and 'attract'ive to people along with the necessity of reduction. of private vehicle trips. 38 They noted there is "no shortage" of gover~nrnent in "the Bay Area; :but .t needs to. be 39 organized to do what is needed for the future. .'The- Bay. Vision 202:0 Commission 4o advocates "~:igorous .leadership in Sacramento ,to establish state growth-management 41 policies and to provide -ways to .finance school's, transportation .systems, and. other 42 infrastructure;.anew, nine-county 'Bay Area agency 'for :r..owth ;management that 43 would initially. combine 3' existing major. regional agencies ~.e. 'Bay Area Air Quality 44 :Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission and -the: Association 45 of Bay Area, Governments}; and local government planning and decision-making 46 .effectively exercised in conformity with state and regional growth-management 47 policies." February 25, 1991 Vol. 26, Page 169 1 The Council's concerns include: 2 1. Any regional governmental agency should be created so that there is an equal 3 voice for large and small entities. Planning Director Salmons suggested the 4 theory of "representation by population and by entity could be copied from the 5 United States Senate and Congress., '~ r o~gr 4,0.- ds a b. cu.me„rod b~~y. 6 2. There should be no usurping of the decision-making capability in Petaluma, a.~+~9 ei~ewl+e.~re.. 7 3. It is acceptable to combine the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the s Bay Area Air .Quality District and Association of Bay Area Governments into 9 0~, a organization, with the ;proviso there be equal representation, ~ •~;+ c.a.» b~ Shown tc d o o..r. o.d e~u.ct~c..10 ~ io 4. The body could act as a referee on land use issues with regional impacts. 11 5. With special reference to Assembly Bill 3, there should be no assumptions 12 made about any local agency. (The real author of AB3 says Petaluma's "no 13 growth" is an example of the need for a regional regulatory agency on housing 14 supply policy.) 15 6. There needs to be a way for local entities to address a grievance. 16 7. The regional agency's formulas (for determ Wing the amount of any amenity 17 that a local jurisdiction "should" provide). be made available to the local 18 jurisdiction. 19 8. There should be clear answers to the questions posed by the City Manager and 20 Planning Director: 21 A. What issues would best be handled by a regional agency? 22 B. What is the. definition of regional? 23 C. Should there be sub-regions? 24 D. How can fair representation be assured? • 25 E. In a regional government model, how far' reaching should decision- 2b making'be? 27 F. How does anyone expect to level out the revenue stream by decisions of 28 a regional body? 29 It was agreed to defer the City's response until after the March meeting of Sonoma 3o County's Mayors and Councilmembers when there will be a county-wide elected 31 officials' discussion on Bay Vision 2020. 32 LIAIS®N REP®RT 33 Brian. Sobel noted the Sonoma County Transit Authority will meet again on March 4 34 and. the .Highway 101 Corridor will hold .its next meeting at Lucchesi Community 35 Center at 8:00 p.m. on March 13. He invited Councilmembers to attend the March 13 36 meeting. 37 AI).T®URN 38 At 10:.10 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. G~~ 39 M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor 4o ATTEST i 41 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk