Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/30/1990April 30, 1.990 4aeeo�tz As epeetcYtb 5111ao Vol. 25, Page 317 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, APRIL 30,1990 4 5 PRESENT: Tencer, Woolsey, Cavanagh, Balshaw, Davis, 6 Mayor Hilligoss 7 ABSENT: None s 9 ROLL CALL 7:00 D.m. Vice Mayor Sobel, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT 10 Bob Martin, 171 Payran ,Street - regarding Twin Creeks Subdivision, he asked for 11 clarification of the comment in the Sunday, Press Democrat, which said the River 12 flood fix.will not be completed for ten years. Councilman Balshaw clarified the record 13 and noted the comment was taken from the context of the Planning Commission 14 meeting but he did not say the project will not be completed in ten years. 15 Peter Weller, 882 Dixon Hill Road - requested the Council include the Petaluma Post 16 Blues Festival on a future agenda (already scheduled for May 7). 17 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 18 Michael Davis --the stop: light at Maria and East Washington can be changed by one 19 automobile waiting on Maria which ties up the traffic on the arterial. He asked that 20 the traffic signal priority could be revised to allow a more smooth flow of East 21 Washington Street traffic. 22 - The intersection of North McDowell Blvd. and Corona Road backs up past the 23 second mobile home park and he wants something done `about it now. 24 Larry Tencer - regarding recycling, he would like to receive information on the 25 specifics of the recycling that is being done by the City and recommendations on how 26 the City's effort to recycle can be expanded. - This includes purchase of recycled 27 products as well as disposition of rec clables: He suggested the City 'consider a 28 elopment requirement which either7or Planning *or •SPARC could impose to have 29 e o esigned into projects 30 - Regarding the Adobe Creek Golf Course, he ,asked staff to contact the new 31 owners of the project regarding -the green. fees they intend to charge_ the *public and he 32wants assurance the things related to the Adobe Creek are being, taken care of. 33 Vice Mayor BrianSobel - regarding the Adobe Creek Golf Course, he was told by 34 representatives of the owners they are meeting with their people in. Tokyo to clarify 35 some of the questions the City Manager has posed to them and they expect to`be able 36 to respond to the City in a few weeks. 37 Larry Tencer - asked staff to look at the Vacaville street financing plan which appears 38 to have developer support and to schedule a discussion with the City Council. Both 39 the similarities and differences between the Vacaville and proposed Petaluma 40 methods are to be discussed. Page 318, Vol. 25 April 30, 1990 1 Lynn Woolsey - complimented the local Earth Day committee for a successful event. 2 - Asked staff to make a. public statement about the activity on the site of 3 Westridge IV and V so thepublic is aware of the reason;for the grading activity. 4 - Rainier Avenue overpass noted there is a nice stand of oak trees that she feels 5 should be preserved and staff should arrange the plan line accordingly. 6 John Balshaw - The owners of the land will have the ultimate control over the fate of 7 those oak trees. 8 - Regarding the growth management ordinance that was recently adopted, he 9 wants the reference to the senior .housing, -attached units as defined in the Civil Code 10 to be deleted fromthe ordinance. This Civil Code section is the authority to build 11 housing projects such as Oakmont and that is not the City's intent. 12 Michael Davis - wants the city to look into utilization of an electrically generated 13 automobile. 14 Mayor Hilligoss - she has asked the City Manager to look into utilization of natural 15 gas for, City vehicle fuel. 16 - She toured the earthquake devastation in Santa Cruz last week, and reported 17 the stores have set up shop in large tents while the town is rebuilt from the October 18 17, 1989, quake. 19 - She complimented the Main 'Street Association for a great Butter and. Eggs 20 Day Parade last weekend. 21 MINUTES 22 The April 16 minutes were discussed: 23 Page 3.13, Line 41, Fire Code Sprinkler requirements: The City Clerk- was asked, to 24 ascertain the water pipe size for the residential sprinklers.: The !Fire Marshal 25 confirmed that 3/4 inch water supply to each sprinkler is to: be the standard'. The 26 minutes stand ,as written:, 27 CONSENT CALENDAR 28 The following Consent Calendar action was taken: 29 Introducedby. Jack Cavanagh;; seconded by Lynn Woolsey. 30 AYES: Tencer, Woolsey, Cavanagh; Balshaw, 31' Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 32 NOES: Norte 33 . ABSENT: `None ABSTAIN: Davis '3a' * COU Davis was absent°whe'n these were discussed. 35 - ORD. 1798 NCS 36 REZONE FAIRWAY MEADOWS TO -PUD 37 RE SO., 00-1-35 NCS' 38 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FAIRWAY MEADOWS' 39 'Resolution 90435 NCS approving the development plan for Fairway Meadows (Ely 40 Blvd. South between. Casa Grande Road and Frates Road). 41 RESO.90-136 NCS 42 TENTATIVE MAP' FAIRWAY_ME'ADOWS 43 Resolution .90-136 NCS approving, the tentative map for Fairway Meadows. April 30, 1990 Vol. 25, Page 319 RESO. 90-137 NCS PARATRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL 3 Resolution 9.0-137 NCS appointing the Petaluma People Services Center as the City 4 representative to the Paratransit Coordinating Council. Introduced by John Balshaw, 5 seconded by Vice Mayor Sobel. 6 AYES: Tencer,'Woolsey, Cavanagh, Balshaw, Davis, 7 Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 8 NOES: None 9 ABSENT: None 10 VAN BEBBER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 This item has been before the City Council at the following listed meetings: 12 December 4, 1989; January 2, 1990 (cont. to February 5 to allow more time for interested 13 parties to meet with staff) 14 February 5, 1990; April 12, 1990 (cont. to April 30) 15 Sometime after the last action by the Council, the City received a letter from Mr. Van 16 Bebber's attorney indicating that unless those provision or the complete Condition 1, 17 which dealt with the river access, and the Condition 5, which dealt with the sprinkler 18 requirement, were not- deleted,, then they would initiate litigation. Based on that 19 letter, it was Mr. Rudnansky's opinion that the City faced a substantial exposure to 20 litigation, and a Closed Session was held to discuss this matter.. After discussing the 21 matter in Closed Session, it is being brought back to the Council with Mr. Rudnansky's 22 recommendation to delete two paragraphs from the first condition but keep the 23 Number 5 condition in place (sprinklers). 24 The City Attorney made it clear that the City is not setting a precedent in this case 25 that would restrict the City from obtaining access along the river. This is action on a 26 single location, and on a single land use entitlement under the facts and conditions of 27 this particular case. 28 The City Attorney went on to say by going along with this recommendation, the 29 Council is not abandoning the goals and ideas of a river enhancement program, and 30 the City is not abandoning the goals set forth in the General Plan. The General Plan 31 indicates that river access is a goal, but Constitutional requirements supersede even 32 the City's General Plan. 33 Mr. Rudnansky saidthe main legal issue is whether or not the addition requested by 34 Mr. Van Bebber has any impact or any connection with that strip of land from which 35 we were requiring him to dedicate. In the City Attorney's opinion, it would be very 36 difficult`,to sustain that in a Court of law, if the condition were kept the way it was. 37 What we are dealing with is a legal issue and a decision made regarding threatened 38- litigation. 39There was considerable discussion about whether or not there was a legal requirement 40 for a, public hearing .at this point. The attorney noted this matter was noticed for the 41., public :,hearings at, the Planning Commission and Council. The appellant, Ms. 42 Hamilton. was made aware of and did not voice any strong objection to what we were 43 doing and expressed her understanding of the reasons. However, the matter was then 44 continued to this date at therequest of Ms. Hamilton by way of a written message sent 45 to -the City by telephone Tines from Santa Cruz. There have been 10 or 11 days that 46 the -.appellant arid others were aware that something was going on with respect to this 47 : project. It is about4n ,addition and it is about whether or not we can extract or put 48 conditions regarding an easement because of that addition. To avoid any due process 49 -type of arguments, the City Attorney recommended that the Council proceed to hear 50 from the public. �o..1�4F� Page 320, Vol. 25 April 30, 1990 1 The Council commented that behind the new building 'is a mandatory (Zoning 2 Ordinance) 25 foot. setback and questioned the need to place this 25' foot..setback as a 3 specially 'identified condition of approval. With the proposed building to be- located 4 150 feet from the River and with the required .25 -,foot setback from rear property line, 5 it was asked if the river access question was moot. 6 Planning Director Salmons advised the reason for the conditional use permit is the 7 existing -operation was established when the zoning was different and: the addition 8 could not be accomplished unless the use permit was obtained to cover- the entire 9 preexisting operation as well as the additional building. 10 In response, to the Council's inquiryas to when the City will receive a response_ from 11 State Lands regarding the survey to deternime the boundary between. State Lands 12 property and private property on this site, staff advised they haven't applied -to State 13 Lands because staff had wanted to commence the request. for the whole stretch of the 14 river in connection with the river enhancement grants that have been requested by the 15 City. 16 The following named persons spoke: Jane Hamilton, 110 G Street, Scott Hess of 1709 17 Spring Hill Road and David Keller of 1327 I; Street. 18 Jane Hamilton said 'a representative from. Group Coast called. me and said that they 19 had the money together to pay an attorney to .review the whole Van. Bebber' issue and 20 see if ;it made sense. And then they called be back on Friday and said; well;, since it's 21 going to come up; on Monday night, there- wouldn't be enough time to do that., So you 22 werel asking' if there would be somebody would come here with an attorney, :an 23 attorney with a different opinion and argue it. There may have been that possibility. 24 And that person wasn't able to_ be here tonight. 25 In response to the Council's question whether or not she had notified any of the 26 Coun&lmembers about the attorney, she responded that she, had not', because she 27 didn't know if that person could argue it or not: This other person was going .to have 28 an. attorney look at it and then see what the attorney said. In response to the .Mayor's 29 question had she changed her mind again, now, because in her letter, she said, 'While 30 I understand and condone the action..", .Jane said she hadn't changed her mind, that 31 she does understand. and is willing to accept it. She went on to say she isn't the only 32 person involved in, this issue and she is speaking for other people who are not here 33 tonight because it wasn't a public hearing, and, they didn't come because it wasn't a 34 public hearing, and they may:have had something to say, and she is interested in the 35 issue being °publicly discussed. That is why she filed the appeal was to bring the issue 36 forward in the public and to have some positive public debate about public access on 37 the Petaluma River. She .said there was a public hearing and then there waslra-turn of 38 events. 39 It was noted by the Council that there. was a public hearing. (At the hearing -the_ 3 40 speakers were Jane. Hamilton, Royce VanBebber, and a.Liberty Street resident.) 41 Jane. Hamilton, said she would like to understand the policies that we dreoperating 42 from, and that's why she is bringing up about the attorney because it , makes her 43- uneasy when procedures are breached. 44 The City Attorney said if someone wished they could challenge: an action if it were 45 done in a timely manner, but the practical point is that even, if' they challenge and for 46 some reason are successful, it's going to come back and in'his opinion the l'eg'al issue. 'is 47 not: oing, to change. We're going to be, right back to where we° were, We've wasted 48 funds and we've delayed Mr. Vagi Bebber. April 30, 1990 Vol. 25, Page 321 1 He went on to note that one of the reasons that Mr. Van Bebber wants this matter 2 pushed at this point is his concern that if he takes the benefit of that use-permit,'he. 3 will lose his right to challenge the paragraphs of that condition that he :suggested the 4 Council delete. One possible alternative is to indicate publicly and to Mr.. Van Bebber 5 that he may process and proceed with the construction of his building and that his 6 taking the benefit of that conditional use permit will- not be used against him or 7 argued that he has waived his right to oppose -these conditions. And; if the Council 8 wants to then put on this particular isolated issue for a -public 'hearing, do so, but at 9 least Mr. Van Bebber can move forward with his plans. = 10 It was moved :by Lynn Woolsey and seconded by John Balshaw, to allow Mr. Van 11 Bebber to proceed with his building, '.to * acknowledge his * right to .challenge , the: 12 "proposed access" condition of the use permit, to hear from the Coastal attorney, .and 13 set the matter for hearing in 30 days. 14 Before voting on the motion, the Council asked to hear from those in the audience 15 who wished to speak. 16 Jane Hamilton continued her presentation. She said the main thing is the way this=has 17 all unfolded has had the effect of causing a lot of' confftision and clouding the issues 18 and at this point, it is very difficult for the public to understand what is going on, and it 19 is hard to support or' oppose an issue if you can't understand it. At this point what's 20 coming out in the papefs-is just very confusing. 21 Ms. Hamilton thinks it would behoove the Council to make some very clear 22 communications tonight to the public about two crucial questions: (1) What will the 23 Council do with the next conditional, use permit that comes before them on this 24 portion of the river and how will the issue of public access be handled; we still don't 25 have a plan, so what will -be the policy and how will the General Plan be upheld and 26 where are the plans for doing that? (2) When will work on a master plan begin? If a 27 directive isn't given tonight to begin creating a committee or whatever the steps are 28 that will start that master plan process, it will just hang there and every time the issue 29 comes up it'll just,'it's like the State Lands thing. That was six months ago and that's 30 when this began. If there 'had been a directive, maybe State Lands would have an 31 answer and we wouldn't even be talking about Van Bebber's riverfront. It might be a 32 moot point. 33 Ms. Hamilton requested clarification of the wording of the proposed resolution, 34 specifically, the 4th Whereas, "Whereas, the City Council by this action is not 35 abdicating its authority .to require dedication of public access easements for future 36 riverfront projects" and the last Whereas, "Whereas further review and research 37 indicates that. there exists other methods of obtaining a public access easement for 38 future-riverfront projects when such a project is developed." She commented it's alike 39 a bill going to Sacramento and different things are put on it because different people 40. on the Council feel different ways about it. 41 City Attorney Rudnansky responded that the 4th Whereas clause essentially is saying 42 that in the right situation, we are not giving away our right to condition a use permit or 43 require dedication. The last Whereas clause essentially indicates that there are 44 methods of obtaining access, one of which is eminent domain. 45 The Council reminded the appellant that the proposed action does not mean that the 46 City is not going to develop the river access. What it means is that we are not going to 47 go out and pay for a.lawsuit that we could use the same money to for eminent domain 48 and buy that 44+y -property. .i :y'A ., ,. " v:. �u..-4'�S o'ayrM.: • dFt Page 322, Vol. 25 April 30, 1990 1 Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter reported the City has two grants ,pending, currently 2 through; ,the Coastal Conservancy. he first ;amounts to $67,000 fora marsh 3 enhancement', plan for the area between- the -new marina -and the sewage treatment 4 ponds. -.The City has $100,000 in hand from the. Coastal Conservancy which has been 5 earmarked for a river enhancement plan. The initial conversation. with some .61 consultants. indicates that's. not: enough to complete the entire length of .the .river from 7 the Highway 101' bridge at the, south of town all the way up through. Redwood Business 8 park. , We have applied to the Coastal. Conservancy to match the $,10.0,000 that we 9' :already have. We are scheduled for the August. agenda before the Coastal 10 Conservancy Board for their approval of the City's master plan, and, work program. 11, Before it gets to. the "Coastal Conservancy,. the City 'Council will- .consider the ,plan and 12 work program: The citizens advisory 'board will be on board prior to that Council 13 action. 14 The Council directed staff to place the discussion of committee make-up on the. same 15 agenda as the hearing. 16 Vice Mayor Sobel reported that he spent a, couple of hours with our lobbyist in. 17 • -Sacramento working with Coastal Conservancy on this particular issue to bring more 18 money- down, here. 19 The neat speaker was the applicant, Royce Van Bobber. Hes a-id'his building is 150 20 feet back from the river, and we don't even know"where State Lands property line is. 21 Let me build my building -and let's .cover the river access when we get to. it. Mr. Van 22 Bebber said he 'had, indicated at the Planning Commission that he would be willing to 23 serve on ,a'committee to help study the river access. He said that he pushed very hard 24 for a vote back in December, and it just keeps 'going on and on. I'd like to see the vote 25 on. the appeal. Thank you 26 The third speaker was David Keller, 1327 1 Street. He said he felt- there should be 27 another public hearing. 28 The last speaker was Scott Hess, 1709 Spring Hill Road, who asked, please -let us know 29 who owns the land. 30 The City Attorney repeated his, recommendation to allow Mr. Van Bebber .to build, 31 acknowledge his right to question the "'access condition", to schedule :a hearing on that 32 "access condition"; and if an attorney from the Group Coast has some facts to add to 33 the issue, he would be happy,to look at them. 34 Councilwoman Woolsey° amended hermotion and John Balshaw seconded, to take 35 what the City .Attorney has said and add that as art amendment, The motion was 36 restated, that we have a public hearing, -limited to just that condition, within 30 days 37 before we make a final decision and in,the meantime Mr. Van Bebber, can go ahead 38 with his project without- waiving any right that -he had to` challenge that condition. 39 The City Attorney asked if Mr. Van Bebber has any problem with the proposed 40 motion. Mr. Van Bebber called for the vote. 41 As the Planning Commission liaison, Johnn-Balshaw noted the City has :already. had one 42 additional action (Haake) and perhaps another may be. coming soon for some 43 development rights in the same area. The Planning Commission said whatever 44 condition applies to Van Bebber, applies to the Haake application. He said that he 45 will be happy to take 'that. as direction to the Planning Commission .to .change, their 46 action on the Haake 4natter. April 30, 1990 Vol. 25, Page 323 1 There was discussion by the Council whether or not to seek additional legal counsel or 2 whether the advice that has been received and the impact of the Supreme Court 3 relating to Nolan is sufficient to satisfy. 4 The .Council discussed whether or not this would be a precedent setting action. It was 5 noted that one of the reasons for a use permit is that each use is to be looked at on an 6 individual basis just as all of the land use matters have to be looked at on an individual 7 basis and supported by their own findings of fact. Each project deserves review on 8 individual merit. The Council suggested that they have the City Attorney present 9 some of the various papers and a summation of the opinions that they are currently 10 dealing with. 11 Councilman Cavanagh called for a vote on the motion. 12 The motion was rephrased: 13 To adopt a resolution allowing Mr. Van Bebber to build his building without waiving 14 his rights by taking out the permit and hold a public hearing in 30 days on the 15 condition in question. 16 AYES: Woolsey, Balshaw, Davis 17 NOES:. Tencer, Cavanagh, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 18 ABSENT: None 19 Resolution 90438 NCS was introduced by moved by Vice Mayor Sobel, seconded by 20 Larry Tencer: _ _r 21 Based on�the followi'n2 findinvst 22 (A) The property in question is within a setback that cannot be built on whether it 23 is,now or six rnonths from now or a year from now 24 B) We will have some- information from State Lands 25 �C) The Council's intent is this shall not be interpreted as a precedent setting 26 action 27 (D) There will be prompt formation of the river access committee... 28 The following actions are taken: 2 e C ty Council :denies the appeal o t e Planning Commssiomaction and 30 2 Within 30 days :we:.wi11 hold' a public hearing on the entire question of the 31 t —,ront access 2 3 l... will>:.in.,l>.,..':all':.�f h1:.:.:,.:`>:irif,:r::.. _ ':::. O. d scuss o c ude t e atest o matron from. State. . 33 Lands and `: 34 (b) will include the �varlous legal issues 35 :..(3}:: The people will be given an gpporttinityao talk On each and every parcelahat 36 ahe` so desire yy 37 4 aVlr.:.Van Bebber can roceed with:h�s bii�ld�ng now. without waivm his ri ht O P.. g........... :::.:.. g........ g :.. 38 to;:ciia'11 n`.. h `>riv r: `fin i i ri e: ge t:.;e:..:..,:::,e access:.�..�.aio.._ 39 AYES: Tencer,, Cavanagh, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 40 NOES: Woolsey, Balshaw, Davis 41 ABSENT: None 42 The hearing was scheduled for the June 4 City Council meeting. 43 RECESS 8:40 to 8:50 n.m. .c' `?-xk ,�.; ..:i..� ,^ "•. x.11„� _X• ?i.,•'e.�i •' Page 324, Vol. 25 April 30, 1990 1 NORTH MC DOWELL ASSESSMENT'DISTRICT 2 Finance Director David Spilman presented the documents in connection with North 3 McDowell _Assessment: District No. 17. He noted, construction bids will be. opened on 4 May 15. There was considerable discussion about the Council's desire to have staff 5 solicit- bids for the underwriting services. The, following actions were taken by this 6 motion which was introduced by.Larry Tencer, seconded by Michael Davis. 7 AYES: 'Tencer, Cavanagh,'Balshaw; Davis, 8 Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss 9 NOES: Woolsey 10 ABSENT: None 11 REQUIRE SOLICITATION ,OF BIDS 12 NORTH MC DOWELL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT UNDERWRITER 13 RESO.90-139 NCS 14 APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP NORTH MC DOWELL AD 17 15 RESO.90-140 NCS 16 APPROVE BOND COUNSEL - STURGIS NESS BRUNSELIL & SPERRY 11 NORTH.MC.DOWELL AD 17 '18 RESO.90-141 NCS ' -19 APPROVE=ENGINEER - NYSTROM. ENGINEERING: 20 NORTH' MC DOWELL AD 17 21 RESO: 90;442 NCS 22 APPROVE.AGREEMENT FOR APPRAISAL, SERVICES-.CROCKER.HORNSBY 23 NORTH MC DOW -ELL AD 17. 24 RESO.90-143 NCS 25 INTENTION'TO ORDER IMPROVEMENT - NORTH MC DOWELL AD, 17 26 RESO.90-144 NCS 27 SETTING TIMEAND PLACE OF HEARING FOR DETERMINING PUBLIC 28 CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY :TUNE 4 - NORTH NIC DOWELL-AD 17 29 RESO.90-145 NCS 30 ACCEPTING REPORT AND SETTING HEARING OF' PROTESTS JUNE' 4 31 NORTH MC DOWELL AD 17 32 ALLOCATION DISCUSSION and 33 VILLAGE AT SOUTHPOINT 34 The City Council .had along, discussion about the allotment system. Principal Planner 35 Kurt Yeiter acknowledged the Council was working with a "maximum 1500 dwelling 36 unit count per each 3. -year rolling period' with no more than 1000 units being build in 37 any single year rather than 3 -year block. He read the definition of allocation which 38 are not a guarantee of authorization to build. Staff showed several charts including 39 one which showed total building permits issued and finalled (including residences 40 which are exempt, from.the growth management system). That chart included the 41 years 1983 through 1989 did not exceed the total number of allotments. 42 The City Council asked staff to look as possible fine-tuning of the growth management 43 system that would allow a development's proponent to request general plan and 44 zoning amendments prior to allotment request; however, the favorable. City .action on 45 the land use designations would in .no way guarantee development approvals of any 46 kind. The staff was also asked to develop a "cursory environmental assessment with 47 emphasis on school and traffic impacts” so the, allotment process would bring some 48 idea of the developmental effects prior to allotment time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s • C April 30, 1990 Vol. 25, Page 325 There was some discussion about the Village at Southpoint, but due to the lateness of the evening and the fact there is an agenda item on housing scheduled for the May 7 afternoon meeting, further discussion of the Village at Southpoint was continued to a more appropriate date. The City Manager will schedule a meeting with the developer of the Village at Southpoint to learn their plans regarding financing, low income housing and related matters. The Village will be discussed again in 30 days. AnTnTTRN At 11:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. 9 M. Patricia Hilligoss, May, 10 ATTEST: 11 P�a E. Bernard, City Clerk Page 326, Vol. 25 April 30, 1990 1 This page left blank.