HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/21/1991N-`f-t3i
October 21, 1991 Vol. 26, Page 427
1
2
3
4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
' S PETALUMA CIS COUNCIL
6 -~ - • MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1991 > ,
7 ~ ~ ~ -~ -
8 -
9
.~. 10
11 ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
. 12 PRESENT: Read, Davis, Cavanagh; Vice
. 13 ~ .Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss, Sobel,
14 ABSENT: Nelson
_ 15
16 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
17 . 'The,.Pledge of Allegiance was led by two high school students
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20 Frank Gilner, Petaluma Youth Soccer League Director- requested Council assistance
21 in reducing the amount of watering of certain soccer .fields i.e., McNear Park is still
22 being watered too often and Lucchesi Park soccer field needs soil brought in to fill in
23 holes around the field.
24
25 Elderly .Gentleman, Native Son of Petaluma, 82 years old. Loves Petaluma and thinks
26 there is nothing wrong- with the Petaluma Auto Sign. He believes it is a credit to the
27 City of Petaluma. Also thinks there is an Ordinance that needs enforcing regarding
2s the advertising of garage sales etc.., posted on utility poles. He wants to see the city
29 cleaned up.
30
31 COUNCIL COMMENT
32 Michael Davis - Received a letter in the mail .from People Involved in Proper
33 Planning soliciting funds .for' their lawsuit against the City of Petaluma in connection
34 with the Auto Plaza sign. The second paragraph states that the sign is not in
35 compliance with zoning anti general plan requirements.. The city feels they were in
36 compliance and it will be left up to a judge to determine.
37 There was a letter in the newspaper with. reference to _skateboard parks and what has
38 and. has not been done. He would like staff to respond to that letter.
39
4o Brian Sobel -Commended the different. Fire Departments for their Mutual Aid during
41 the firestorm in Oakland.
42
Q'fitg .
43 Terry Knout -Fire Chief .reported that there were five c-~t~=s m Sonoma County
44 providing mutual aid to the Oakland Fire Department, Petaluma, Two Rock Coast
45 Guard, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Penngrove.
Page 428, Vol. 26
October 21, 1991
1 It was reported that. the men from Petaluma were able to save :five homes. {Captain
2 Daryll Nockleby,: Fire Engineer Dan Graveman, Paramedic 1Vlartin :Learn, ,Fire
3 Engineer Chuck Gantt).
4
6~ ' ' fac litat noolaey - Complimented Mary T,upa, :.Information .System., -Manager for
g workshop at the League of ~ California City's meering ~ held .~in San
. ~7,' ~ .Francisco the week of October 13. ~ a
8 ..
~ , ~ ~: Treasurers. report -would like to have a comparison ofthis year'vs. last year.
10 r , ,
11 .MINUTES
12 The minutes of October 7 were approved as submitted
13 ~ '
14 CONSENT CALEIVIDAR
,,::.
15 The following items which are, noncontroversial and have been. reviewed by the City
16 Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Nancy Read
17 and seconded by Vice Mayor Woolsey.
1s AYES: Read; Davis, Cavanagli, Sobel, Vice Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss:
19 NOES: None
20 ABSENT: Nelson
21
22 RESO.91-304 NCS.
23 CLAIMS AND BAILS
24 .Resolution 91-304 NCS approving Claims and' Bills # 14362 through # 14699:
25
26 ORI). 1871. NCS
27 LEASE'-CELLULAR ONE ANTENNA - LA CRE'STA TANK SITE
28 Adopt Ordinance 1871 NCS authorizing execution' of a 12 monthground lease option
29 .for telecommunication facility at La Cresta tank.. site for. Cagalr~ Cellular
3o Communisations Corporation for a microwave facility to tie into their cellular'phone
31 network. to benefit users in the Petaluma area.
32
33 RES®. 91-305. NCS
34 DESTRUCTION OF OBSOIETE'BUILDING PLANS
36 beenimi ono 91 -305 .NCS .authorizing destruction of obsolete building plans which have
med.
__
37
3s RESO.91-306 NCS
39 FENCE INSTALLATION AT-:KENILWORT~I PARK
4o Resolution.91-306 NCS awarding contract to Able Fence Company for the installation
41 of a. fence on the west side of Kenilworth Recreation Center.
October 21, 1991 Vol. 26, Page 429
1 IZESO.91-307 NCS
2 EMEItGI'J-NCI' SANITATION SYSTEM I?;EPAIItS - IIiJM[AN'RESOUIZEE CENTER- 1500.
3 PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH
4 Resolution 91-307 NCS approving emergency repairs by Pump Repair Service of San
5 Francisco to the sanitation lift station at the Human .Resource Building located at
6 1500 Petaluma Boulevard South which houses the Petaluma People Services Center
~ and COTS.
s
9
10
11 * * * *End Consent Calendar*
12
13
14
15 ~ ORD. 1872 NCS
16 BOYS AND. GILLS CLUB REZONE TO COMPACT RESIDENTIAL.
17 Planning Director, Pamela Tuft expanded on the wording of No. 4 under Findings to
18 read `Public necessity, , convenience,,,and;general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the
19 proposed amendment because restrictions ,of ~thecurrentzoning°district make development
20 of the odd shapedsite impractical and without the change, the land would remain useless
21 to the community': Adopt Ordinance 1872 NCS. rezoning. the Petaluma.Boys and Girls
22 Club surplus .lands plus the adjacent properties fronting on Eighth Street to Compact
23 Residential. Introduced,by~Jack Cavanagh, seconded by Michael Davis.
24 AYES: ~ Read, Davis,. Cavanagh, Sobel
25 NOES: Yice'1Vlayor Woolsey
26 ABSENT:' Nelson ~ -
27 ABSTAIN: Mayor Hilligoss*
2s
29 *Mayor Hilligoss was absent at~ the time this Ordinance was introduced,
3o therefore she abstain'ed'~from votingJ~on t'`at the time of adoption.
31
32 RESO.91-308 NCS
33 SUBDIVISION NAME. CHANGE .FROM MT. VALLEY SUBDIVI_ SIGN TO MONTAGE
34 SUBDIVISION
35 Subsequent to Council meeting, it was determined that this action was not necessary
36
37 RESO.91-309 NCS
38 MT. VALLEY LAD INITIATE PROCEEDINGS..
39 Resolution 91-309 NCS initiating proceedings for Mt. Valley Landscape Assessment
4a District. Introduced by Brian Sobel, seconded.'by Vice Mayor Woolsey.
41 AYES: Read, Davis, Cavanagh, Sobel, Vice Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss
42 NOES .None
43 ABSENT:: Nelson
... - ~, ,.
Page 430, Vol. 26 October 21, 1991
1
2
3 RESO.91-310 NCS
4 MT VALLEY LAD ENG-INEERING SERVICES
5 Resolution 91-310 NCS` approving Engineering Services Agreement with .Nystrom
6 Engineering for 1VIt. Valley Landscape Assessment District. Introduced by Brian
~ Sobel,. seconded by Vice .Mayor Woolsey
s AYES: Read,, Davis, Cavanagh, Sobel, Vice Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss
9 NOES: None
1o ABSENT;. Nelson
11
12
13 RESO.91-311 NCS
14 MT. VALLEY, LAD BOND COUNSEL SERVICES
15 R'esolufon~ 91-31.1, N,CS'~ ''approving Legal. Services' Agreement with' Sturgis, ,1V,ess .
' .;
16 Brunsell and Sperry fo'r~ 1VIt.. Valley Landscape Assessment: District. ' Introduced by .:
17 Brian. Sobel_', seconded by~ Vice ^1Vlayor _Woolsey,' ~ ~ ~ `.
.. ~ ~ ..
1s AYES: Read,. Davis, Cavanagh, Sobel, Vice. Mayon Woolsey, -Mayor -Hilligoss
19 NOES: None. _ < - ,,r
20 ABSENT: Nelson ~ ~ - '
d.
21 - .
22
23 RESO.91-3.12 NCS ~ .
24 MT. VALLEY LAD ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS -~
25 Resolution 91-312 NCS Ordering Improvements for Mt: Valley Landscape
26 Assessment District. Introduced by Brian. Sobel, seconded by Vice Mayor Woolsey
27 AYESs Read;.Davis, Cavanagh; Sobel, Vice Mayor`Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss
28 NOES: None
29 ABSENT: Nelson
30
31
32 RES0.91-313 NCS
33 COLD WEATI~'ER SHELTER~PROGRAM -NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
34 Grayson James, Executive Director of COTS stated that. the $24,OOQ ~aliocated for the
35 use of the National' Guard Armory during: the cold weather, season_ is for a four (4)
36 month period.. He would like to propose .that in the event the Governor' extends. the
37 time period that we agree on a monthly pror"ata. that can b'e applied to any period of
38 time which the armory is extended.
39 As part of the motion Councilman.Brian Sobel would.Tike brought back.to the Council
4o a budget that would cover any extension of'time the armory would be open.
October 21, 1991
Vol. 26, Page 431
2
3 Resolution 92-313 NCS authorizing City Manager to sign .Memorandum of
4 Understanding. with COTS to operate the Cold Weather Shelter Program at the
5 National Guard Armory for the Winter of 1991-92. Introduced by Brian Sobel,
6 seconded by Vice Mayoi Woolsey:
7 AYES: Read, Davis, Cavanagh; Sobel; Vice Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss
s NOES: None
9 'ABSENT: Nelson
to
11
12 VINR~.-+uGn(tG~,p F-IASn~R~? Diu"i.t~~Nta ~~'o~-~r ~R`H:-i$331~{~'S
13; I~Cr-S£~~$BP~T-~~33-~~~D-~P`I*-~A-B I£$P~l~ T~
14
15 Jim Schultz, Chairman of the Unreriforced~Masoriry Buildng,`Committee, spoke on
16 behalf of the committee.. The. Unreinforced Masonry Building Law was passed by
17 Governor Deukrrieji'an"in.June of 1986. "The intent of the law is to reduce the hazards
is posed by California'sestimated- '50,000 ~ existing unreinforced masonry buildings in
19 seismically active regions by way of. locally adopted hazard mitigation programs. The
20 law required local governments to .inventory unreinforced masonry buildings and
21 establish earthquake :hazard mitigation programs for those buildings by January 1,
22 1990. The buildings included in these inventories defined by the unreinforced
23 masonry .law as potentially hazardous are those constructed prior to the adoption of
24 local building codes (legislature has passed a minimum statewide standard which will
25 become part of the building, code in January. 1993 and become effective July 1, 1993).
26 Of the 98 unreinforced' masonry buildings in Petaluma they affect the future of more
27 than 400 businesses, more than 1,000 employees, taxable sales in excess of 81 million
28 dollars representing .more than 20% of the: total retail economy, the home of
29 numerous events which. attract more than. 100,000 people annually, more than 60
3o properties on or qualifying for the national register of Historic Places and the focus of
31 advertising. and media coverage appearing in publications throughout the United
32 States.
33
34
35 Because of these reasons :and others the committee recognizes that historic
36 unreinforeed masonry ..in Petaluma contribute both calculable and incalculable
37 economic and social benefits to the community as a whole.
iY+. ~, '.~~':rri ~ ~ ~ ; j : d'i n ~S~.µ;.. ~ .fib[ .i1t•
Page 432, Vol. 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
7.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
:October 21, 1991
There are: seven structural characteristics typical to unrenforced masonry which can
contribute to seismic.related failures, Those characteristics are:-
1. Parapets Stability
2. Wall" anchorage
3. Shear resistance ~ . '
4 Wall buckling ~ ' ' t~ ~ '
5. Open- walls '
6. Shear walls ' _ ,
7. Diaphragm stiffness
Not all unrenforced masonry buildings are: structurally inadequate in all of .the
characteristic 'categories. = - - ~ .
. >:, .
r. .
The committee confirmed `that ~a mandatory retrofit 'of all. 7 .=characteristics; would be
prohibitively _expensive.for Petaluma:, The committee .concluded that.it is~the~~abilrty of
the. community (the piiliic and private sectors) within the limits of the ::focal ,economy
to finance any .improvements that must .be considered °'as a; key element in the
recommended. mitigation program. and in itsimplementation;
After months,'of research the committee in the, interest of reducing life safety;risks and
reducing, real ',property and -economic loss, in the event of an eartfiquake, .agreed .that
some level of amprovemerit must be made to a, number of inadequate structures, The
.committee is recommending that :only three, ;of the .seven structural characteristics
identified as typical. to unreinforced masonry..be improved based :on costs .arid benefits
in terms of life, safety and,propertyprofection. Those characteristics are:
1. Parapets stability
2: Tension anchors
3. ~ Repointing.
32 The .committee. classified the buildings into four risk groups.
33 1. .Occupancy factors
34 2. Currerit use '
35 3. Proximity of .the buildings to concentrations of;pedestrians
36 4. Physical height '
37
38 The ordinance specifies that all of the required retrofit work for the' buildings in
39 Group; One be completed within five ears: The. parapets,• item one. in the list of 'the
y ,, ~,
4o three standards must be retrofitted, if necessary within seven years: the: remainder of
41' work for Groups Two, Three, andF., our, to `be completed within, l0, 15, and 20 years.
42 Because of their occupancy size and .location, the; buildings 'in Group. ,,.One are
43 considered by the committee. to pose the. greatest threat of damage, in the event of a
4a structural failure. '
October 21, 1991 Vol. 26; Page. 433
1 The staff has received contractor opinions. based on locally completed projects for the
2 retrofitted. work alone .ranging from .$5 to $ l0 a square foot. As a group the property
3 .owners. do not; agree about the necessity for this program nor can the property owners
4 afford the cosfrepairs for these requirements.
5
ur4u2
6 It is the committee's reeornmendation that the 'Council: ~ the adoption of a local.
7 program as .the best protection against the expense of more comprehensive state
8 requirements.
9
to Olive Ramirez owner of the Opera House states that she has all of her savings
11 invested. in the purchase of this property. A structural engineer went through the
12 property during the process of purchasing it and he estimated it would cost $400,000 to
13 meet the'seismie standards.
14
15 .Her tenants have leases and therefore, cannot afford. to displace them in order to do
16 the work on the building. An electrical engineer and contractor told her if nothing
17 goes wrong it would take approximately eight (S) weeks to complete the work and
18 that is too long a period of time for her.
19
20 Tom Baker, 64 Century .Lane: Co-owner of 125 Petaluma Boulevard North, 145
21 Petaluma Boulevard North, 155 ,P.etaluma Boulevard North and the son and nephew
22 and manager of the owners ~of 134 Petaluma Boulevard North. Recipient of two
23 awards from Heritage ..Homes for remodelling old buildings.
24 Mr. Baker has been the "owner/developer/builder of over a dozen single family
25 residences and' half a dozen commercial, buildings,, He .has aeryed on various city
26 committee's including the last General -Plan' Committee at which time preserving
27 Petaluma's heritage and major'characteristi'c were of ,the utmost importance. He also
28 is a_ member .of the~~ iJnreinforced 'Masonry Committee; but'-does not totally concur
29 with the committee's findings.
30
31 Throughout the many meetings `with the committee no evidence was ever presented
32 that the brick%masonry. buildings `located ori'Pe"taluma soil are a life threatening issue.
33 History has proven thee. brick building to perform well: In the eleven major quakes to
34 hit California snce.1857,~1ess than 200•deaths are attributable to the failure of brick or
35 unreinforced masonry buildings.. Petaluma has ninety-eight fully occupied buildings
36. that the proposed Ordinance demands ao be fixed when they are not broken. The
37 spiral economic''affect~ could be 'a greater disaster than the biggest earthquake. Who
3s is going to absorb the cost? Can the tenants absorb this? Will the banks finance this?
39 Will it be economically ;feasible to -fix, or demolish and start over. The committee
4o workedlong and hard: to come up~wth the proposed Ordinance, but it is to serve the
41 State Seismic Safety Commission not the citizens ,of Petaluma.
``~e ~,. '~
Page 434, Vol. 26 .October 21, 1991
i If there has to be an Ordinance let it. be voluntary not. mandatory:
2 This. would allow 'the .property- owners to choose `which. way to go: When a building
3 becomes vacant and starts to loose its'' economic value, that °is the time to come in and
4 remodel and bring.it up to.the safety standards.
6 Jim Schultz advised that as it stands `now the state standards do not api?ly unless ,you
7 actually do work fo a building: in 1993, The trigger the state keeps tryi-ng~ to use _s if
s there i5 a sale or transfer of property that. is when the building .has to be brought up to
9 state standards.
io ,
11 Michael .Davis would .like a letter to go "to the League: of California City's regarding
12 tfie 1/4 ales tax that is now being- used in, conjunction with the 1989 Loma. Prieta
13 earth. quake ands to possibly have `that extended and' appropriated for 'these ;kind of
14 repairs. •
15
16 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky advised- Council, to implement the best mitigation
17 program you can based on all.factors. The three big. issues. being timing;, furidng,~and
is what standards Petaluma will use.
19 A ... .
20 .Councilman Sobel believes Petaluma ;is .facing; a~ potential for utter destruction ~of the
21 downtown on. the basis that we `cannot afford , to fix it. I feel. the state needs to be a
22 partner in this: If state lawn are goin''g to :lie~passed that are so onerous then" the state
23 should try .to help pay for it. There are no ~ resources to help. The; ,financing elements
24 will become the most•crtcai:nour debater= ''• - ~~
25
26 Steve Lynn. -Property owner, spoke with Randy ;Shaw head of the .Tenderloin
27 Association:in San:Francisco advised that'.°tlis issue is-very controversial ~betwe~en~ San
28 Francisco. and the State of. California, He also spoke with Richard Conrad, Executive -.
29 Director of the Buiylding..Committee and was advised that it 'was lies impression. the
30 State Ordinance would not preempt the loca'1, ordinance;. but tliat~'it was not `totally
31 .resolved. .<~
32 ~ ~,
33 Jeff Harirnan - McNear Building, the, main ;significant knowledge he gained was that
34 the parapets perhaps are a weak part of the building and most city's have elected to
35 have them br-aced.. I think this is. ~a .fair .request to ask any property owner.. to per-form
36 for the- safety of pedestrians: I_ believe there sfiould be some community involvement
37 when. it comes to paying £or the implementation of any more standards. 'The 1VIcNear
38 building is' approximately'S0,000 square feet and at a cost of $20 a square foot.would
39 bring the repairs up to a ullon. dollars when: complying with.-the. three standards:. Mr.
4o Harriman would like the Council to think hard :about. the course it fakes. The
41 committee might want to reconvene and concentrate on the issue of'funding.
October 21, 1991
Vol. 26, Page 4'35
1
2 Pam Torliatt, 1017 G Street, the Council should ask the .committee to research other
3 communities facing the same problem and back each other so we will be heard louder
4 at the state level.
5
6 It was Council consensus that the committee come back to the Council with answers to
7 the following:
8
9 1. Legal. aspects of a voluntary vs. mandatory Ordinance
l0 2. 'Explore the idea of legislation that would give us our own destiny
11 3. Financing,
12 4. Lookf at some of those things like fining: the parapets that may take us
. 13 further down the road and solve some other problems
14 5. Look at what San Francisco is doing and find out if we should get
- 1S behind ,them to make their case stronger
16 6. Dates - of public hearings `so .representatives from the community at
17 large;`1oca1 officials and other city's, may voice their concerns and points..
18 ~~ of view.
19
20
21 Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. in memory of those who died in
22 the Oakland fires of October 20.
23
24
25 -
~.
26
27
28 `~ ayor
29
30
31 ATTEST:
32
33
34
35
36 eputy ity er
37