HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1.A 01/05/20041A
January 5, 2004
W
City f Petaluma Caclifornia
IsSa MEETING OF ;PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL AND THE
PETALUMA CO'M'MUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Draft City Council/PC-DC Minutes
Monday, December 1, 2003 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
3:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL
1
CALL TO ORDER .
2
3
A. Roll Call
4
5
Present: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor O'Brien, Moynihan,
6
Moynihan
7
Absent: None
8
9
B. Pledge of'Allegiance
10
C. Moment of Silence
11
12
PUBLIC COMMENT
13
14
There was no public comment..
15
16
COUNCIL COMMENTS
17
18
Council Member "Torliatt dttended the Water Advisory Committee meeting this morning.
19
Meetings will resume in'January.
20
21
Council Member Moynihan made a MOTION for- reconsideration of an item that
22
appeared on the agenda at the November 17, 2003 meeting. It was a resolution
23
approving amendment to solid waste collection request for proposals, authorization to
24
solicit proposals, and; resolution extending Empire Waste Management's agreement.
25
26
He continued that he. had provided Council with copies of an email he sent to Mayor
27
Glass regarding changes to today's agenda since it was approved at the last meeting.
28
He was unhappy that discussion regarding street and maintenance, as well as the
29
General Plan, were removed from the agenda. He asked that the employee
30
compensation items on the agenda be removed and agendized for a thorough
31
discussion in Closed Session. He believed; issues needed to be discussed which were not
32
addressed in staff reports before Council today.
33
34
Regarding the FY 2003 -04 adopted City ,budget, which was recently distributed, he
35
noted that' special revenue funds for street reconstruction and maintenance were
36
incorporated as Council had requested. Direction of Council was to expend $15 million
37 of Redevelopment Agency funds over a five -year period on street reconstruction. The
• 38 new budget does not reflect those funds coming from Redevelopment over the five -year
39 period, as it should. He asked to seelthis corrected in the mid -year budget review.
Vol. XX, Page 2 December 1, 2003
1 Regarding street maintenance funds, the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended
2 that $3.1 million per year be spent on street maintenance = adjustments need to'be
3 made to the budget to show that $2.2 million is beingapent, not $1.7 million. He would
4 liketo see adjustments made to the budget to,provide' the necessary funds to prevent
5 additional deterioration of the streets. He added that they adopted budget under funded
6 street maintenance this year, along with maintenance of community facilities and parks,
7 while incorporating an 8.5% increase in employee compensation. He urged Council to
8 give direction to staff to come back with a scenario for increasing street maintenance
9 funding to the minimum outlined by the Citizens Advisory Committee.
10
1 l Mayor`Glass noted that Petdluma became the first City on June 2 to adopt. "Smart
12 Growth." This, is only one of many was that this Council has been fiscally responsible,
13 others including raising development impact fees to the revitalization of downtown. He
14 referred to a 1958 article from the Petaluma Argus - Courier entitled, "The face of the .City
15 depends on an urban renewal program." Some forty -five years later, the promise made:
16 in 1958 is finally being fulfilled - because of this Council. Government does move slowly.
17 This Council has moved as rapidly as possible while dealing with issues more complex.
18 than any faced by previous Councils and continues to -try , to "provide voters more_ with
19 less." He thought it unfair to take a myopic viewpoint on isolated issues and point out
20 where City is spending money with out also acknowledging the economic benefits that
21 the City is deriving fromthe money invested. He cautioned Council against "putting a•
22 pothole up against the long -term economic vitality of "th'is community. Unless we build.
23 the type of community that is sustainable economically, that can afford to address those
24 potholes °ih and year out off into the future, you will visit the some issue again and
25 again." The Redevelopment Agency must not be stripped of the ability to create long-
26 term wealth in the community,.
27
28 Council Member :Healy noted there are many demands on the City's fiscal resources
29 and Council needs 'to be cognizant of current events in Sacramento, when considering
30 changes to the City's budget.
31
32 Council Member T.orliaft asked Council consider a letter regarding Santa Rosa 'sr
33 proposed incremental recycled water program. One option they are considering is to
34 discharge into the Russian River, directly upstream of where Petaluma's drinking water is
35 collected.
36
37 In response to, letters, to the editor in the. Petaluma , Argus - Courier regarding the
38 roundabout at Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Corona Road, which inferred that the
39 City spent money on the roundabout instead of potholes, she explained that the
40 roundabout was a condition of approval for the Traditions 'subdivision, and was paid for
41 by the developer.
42
43 She referred to the Golden State Mobilehome Owners newsletter, which contained an
44 article regarding Senate Bill SB740, which would rnobilehome owners the first right of
45 refusal to purchase a mobileh "ome park if'the owner is going to sell. The article asked for
46 cards and letters of support. She Would like to find out if Council could have some input.
47
48 Councilr Member Canevaro spoke regarding complaints aboutdayworkers loitering in
49 front of homes problems with dumping on Water Street behind the Goodwill store, and
50 public safety concerns at Kodiak Jack's.
51
•
0
December 1, 2003 Vol. XX, Page 3
1 Vice. Mayor O'Brien agreed that items being dumped behind the Goodwill Store create
2 a bad impression to visitors. He would like to possible solu't'ions.
3
4 Council Member Harris asked if there was a motion on the floor.
5
6 Council Member Torliatt explained that it was to have it voted on for
7 reconsideration at the next meeting.
8
9 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Changes to current agenda only).
10
1 1 Council' M'emberMoynihan reiterated his, request to make the changes to the agenda
12 he outlined in his e -mail to Mayor Glass.
13
14 Mayor Glass stated he would be willing to remove the items from the Consent Calendar
15 for discussion, but would not be willing to reagendize them for a future Closed Session.
16
17 Vice Mayor O'Brien noted,he did not support the suggestions in Council Member
18 Moynihan's e- mail.
19
20 Council Member Harris supported pulling the items and agendizing them for Closed
21 Session.
22
23 Council Member Healy concurred with Vice Mayor O'Brien.
24
25 Council Member Torliatt ' concurred with Vice Mayor O'Brien.
26
27 Mayor Glass'recognized consensus of Council to leave the current agenda as is.
28
29 1. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
30
31 Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's. Regular Meeting of December 15,
32 2003.
33
34 Council Member Moynihan asked for clarification on the item correcting the FY
35 2003 -04 Appropriations Limit.
36
37 Finance Director Bill Thomas,explained that it was an adjustment necessary
38 because of an incorrect population number.
39
4:0 Council Member Moynihan asked when, the General Plan discussion would be
41 coming ,back.
42
43 City Manager Bierman explained that the consultants were having difficulty
44 loading the traffic data. This is expected. to come, back to Council in January.
45
46 MOTION to approve the agenda. for the December 1,5, 2003 Council Meeting as
47 presented. M/S Torliatt /O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
48
49 1 ' CONS ENT'`.CALENDAR
50
51 Council Member Torliatt asked that Item 2D be removed for discussion.
52
Vol. XX, Page 4
December 1, 2003
1 Council Member Moynihan asked that Items 2F, G, H, and i be removed.for •
2 discussion.
3
4 Council Member Harris asked'that Item 2J be removed for discussion.
5
6 MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar (Items 2'A, B, C, E, K_, and
7 Q. M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.'
8
9 A. Resolution 2003 -232 N.C.S. Awarding a Contract for the FY 2603 -2004
10 Phase ,8 On -Call Street Repair Project No. 9732 -8. (Skladzien /Castaldo)
11
12 B. Resolution 2003 -233 N.C.S. Accepting Completion of the Paula Lane Tank
13 Drain. Line installation and Gully Repair Project. Final contract cost:
14 $45,000: Funding Source: Water Fund: Contractor: DAMA Construction
15 Inc. (Nguyen)
16
17 C. PCDC 'Resolution 2003 -`14 Determining the Necessity of Expending Funds
18 for the Planning and Administration of Projects and. Programs, which
19 Facilitate the Production, Improvement or Preservation of Low and
20 Moderate - Income Housing for FY 2002 - 2003. (Gaebler)
21
22
D.
Resolution 2003 -235 N.C.S. Granting Easement to -SBC (Pacific Bell) for a
23
Fiber Optic Cabinet at Washington Creek and Sonoma Mountain,
24
Parkway. (Moore /Spaulding) - Removed from Con_ sent Calendar for
25
separate discussion.
26
-
27
E.
Resolution 2003 -234 N.C.S. Certifying Results of November 4, 2003' Special
28
Municipal Election. (Results of Measures C and D Regarding a Charter
29
Amendment to Allow for a Utility Users Tax).
30
31
F.
Resolution .2003 =236 N.C.S. Ratifying the Memorandum of Understanding
32
Executed between the City of Petaluma and the American Federation of
33
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 675 for
34
Employees of Unit 1 (Confidential), Unit 2 (Maintenance),. and Unit 3
.35
(Clerical /Technical). (Robbins) - Removed from Consent Calendar for
36
separate discussion.
37
38
G.
Resolution 2003` -237 N.C.S. Approving the FY 2003 =2004 Compensation
39
Plan for Unit 4' - Professional. - Removed from Consent ,Calendar for
40
separate. discussion.
H. Resolution 2001-238 N.C.S: Approving the FY 2003 -2004 Compensation
Plan for Unit 8 - Department Heads. - Removed from Consent Calendar for
separote discussion.
46 I. Resolution 2003 -239 N.C.S. Approving the FY 2003 -2004 Compensation
47 Plan for Unit 9 - Mid- Management. - Removed from Consent jCalendar for
48 separa to discussion.
49'
d December 1, 2003 Vol. XX, Page 5
1
J.
Resolution 2003' -240. ,N.C.S. Authorizing Purchase of One Paratransit Bus
2
and Provision of Local Match for' Second, Paratransit ,Bus to be Purchased
3
by'Petaluma People Services Center. (Thomas) - Removed from Consent
4
Calendar for separafe discussion.
5
6
K.
Adoption (Second Reaaing) of .Ordinance 2:1:67 N.C.S. Amending
7
Petaluma Municipal 'Code Chapter` 304,' PERSONNEIL; Section 3/04/130,
8
APPEAL. (Robbins)
9
10
L.
Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance.2168 N.C.S. Authorizing the City
11
Manager to Execute the 'Necessary Documents to Complete the
12
Exchange of Property (Lot Line Adjustment) ,and the Acceptance of the
13
Dedication, ,of a Public Easement °with Shamrock Materials, Inc. to
14
Facilitate `the .Connection of othe McNear Peninsula Park, Phase 1 Trail
15
System'to'Hopper Street (Tuft)
16
1.7
Items Removed for'lDiscussion
18
19
D.
Resolution 2003 -235 N.C.S =. 'Granting Easement to SBC (Pacific Bell) for a
20
Fiber'Optic Cabinet at Washington Creek and Sonoma Mountain
21
Parkway. (Mo.ore /Spaulding)
22
23
Council;Member Torliatt asked to.have included in the resolution a
24
requirement for SBC /Pacific Bell to set aside or give the City $1,000.00 in
•
25
26
maintenance funds to maintain this cabinet; which she described as
currently' °extremely unsightly. This'would enable the City to hire someone
27
to clean up the area if SBC, does not follow through.
28
29
MOTION to adopt Resolution 2003 7 235 N.C.S., amended to require SBC to
30
provide $1,000:00 to the City.of maintenance of the cabinet. M/S
31
Tor_liatt /O.'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
32
33
F.
Resolution 2003 -236 N.C.S. Ratifying the Memorandum, of Understanding
34
Executed between the City „of Petaluma and the American Federation of
35
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 'Local 675 for
36
Employees of Unit 1 '(Confidential), Unit.2 (Maintenance), and Unit 3
37
(Clerical /Technical). (Robbins)
38
39
Council Member Moynihan stated that the community could not afford
40
what he termed a "majorincrease in compensation.'” He noted that
41
health benefits have also gone up. This increase would mean there would
42
not be enough. money to maintain parks, streets, and community facilities.
43
He believes Petaluma employees' compensation is 15 ,to 20% over private
44
sector'for similar jobs.
45
46
Council Member Healy sympathized with what Council Member
47
Moynihan was trying to achieve in broader sense, but disagreed with his
48
analysis. He T hought the 1 % pay raise called,for was not excessive, and
49
was considerably lessl than inflation. Hot hought it important to send a
50
message to the City's work force that they are valued.
51
Vol. XX, Page 6 December 1, 2003
Council,Member O'Brien commented that employees of the, City are
valuable-and do a great job, in spite of many'offices being understaffed-..
He warned that cutting wages and benefits might save money - but the
City would end up. with no one to do the work.
Council Member ° Torliatt pointed out that this is not a long -term financial
obligation - only one year, noted that'salaries'for comparable
positions in other cities are higher: -She supported looking into 0. cafeteria,
plan. She added that employees need; to know they are valued.
Counc'ii Member Harris thought the f% increase fiscally prudent.
Council Member' Canevaro clarifie..d that increase in
medical'benefif costs were the resuIt replacing a previous, inadequate
plan. He; supported forward with the item`
Mayor Glass supported the 1,% increase, predicting that if salaries and
benefits cut, the City would come to a standstill because its qualified
Workers would ,go elsewhere. The cost to the City of such a scenario must
be considered.
MOTION to adopt Resolution 2003 -236 N.C.S. M/S Healy /O'Brien
AYES; Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor O'Brien,
Torliatt
NOES- Moynihan •
ABSENT: None
G. Resolution 2003 -237 N.C.S Approving` the FY 2003- 2 Compensation
Plan for Unit 4 -Professional. (Robbins)
H. Resolution 2001!238 N.C.S. Approving the FY 2003 -2004 Compensation.
Plan for Unit 8 - Department-Heads. (Robbins)'
Resolution. 2003 -239 N.C.S. Approving the FY 2003 -2004 Compensation
Plan for Unit 9 - Mid- Managemenf. (Robbins)
CouncilMember.Moynihan noted that these itemsswere not dealt with in
Closed, Session but-are coming directly to Council. He asked where the
money was coming from for these items.
Finance. Director Thomas stated that :sufficient funds have been
appropriated to cover these increases.
Council Mernber'M'oynihan repeated, for thel record, that he would not
support the items for fhe same reasons he did not support not support for
some reasons he did not support item 2F.
MOTION to adopt Resolutions 2003 - 237; 2003 -238, and 2003 -239 N C.S.
M/S Healy' /O'Brien.
December 1,,, 2003 Vol. XX Page 7
I
AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass; Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor O'Brien,
' 2
'Torliatt°
3
NOES:. Moynihan,
4
ABSENT: None
5
6
J. Resolution 2003 -240' N.C.S. Authorizing Purchase of One Paratransit Bus
7
and Provision of Local Match for Second Paratransit Bus to be Purchased
8
by Petaluma People, Services Center. (Thomas)
9
10
Council Member Harris - asked for` clarification of the staff report, which
1 1
referred to "piggybacking on'the Petaluma People Services Center's 5310
12
grant."
13
14
Finance. Director Thomas explained that the City would be
15
"piggybacking" on the bid so that `it would not be necessary to rebid.
16
17
MOTION, to adopt Resolution 2003 =240 N:C.S. M/S Harris /Torliatt.
18
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19
20 3.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - PCDC /CITY COUNCIL
21
22
A. PCDC Discussion and Action Authorizing the. Execution of the First
23
Amendment to an Owner Participation Agreement Between LOK Petaluma
24
Marina Hotel Company, LLC and the Petaluma Community Development
25
Commission. (Marangella)
• 26
27
Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment,
28
presented , the staff report and , outlined the proposed amendment to the
29
OPA. He described the proposed_ changes to the agreement as "minor."
30
31
Mr. Marangella in Gerry Ramiza, attorney with the firm
32
McDohough, Holland & Allen, who'was involved in the crafting of the
33
original OPA, and Tom Birdsall, representing WG Investments.
34
35
Extensive Commission discussion ensued regarding the proposed
36
amendment and the original OPA, with concerns expressed about:
37
38
• Tax increment loan disbursements
39
• Ways to secure any future money the City might lend
40
o The living wage provision
41
0, The manner in which hotels are granted ratings and whether the hotel
42
has maintained the ratings specified in the original OPA
43
Potential defaults to the agreement by the hotel owners
44
• The possibility of terminating the original OPA
45
• The current owners' plans. for the hotel
46
47
Public Comment
48
49
Tom Birdsall, WG Investments, said he was not involved with the original
50
OPA. WG'Investments: made an "offer in S'eptemb.er after months of
51
discussion with City Manager Bierman. They renegotiated the agreement
52
with the union and addressed all issues the City raised. He expressed
Vol. XX, Page 8 December 1, 2003
frustration that WG has not been notified of any potential defaults. They •
are prepared to, cure any defaults. He said that currently, the City is
technically in default for not making disbursements to the; hotel This
Sheraton is one,of the best rated in the,coun'try, in terms of customer
satisfaction. With the amendment, all of the elements of the original,
agreement would remain in place At this time, if the City approves the
amendment to'the OPA, WG lnvestrhents has no plan to foreclose.,
Nothing would change about ownership of the hotel.
Mayor Glass noted that everyone wanted to see the hotel succeed. He
would like to find •a way to protect the City's position as it wasn''t
protected in the original deal. He asked what protection the City could
have if it continued to lend.
Council Member Healy expressed concern about the possibilitythat WG
Investments intended to "just clean the property up and sell .i -t." He.asked
Mr.. Birdsall if WG Investments planned to se_ ll the property, or were "in if for
the long- term."
Council Member Torliatt suggested thei amendment include an
agreement that the hotel would not be sold for ten years. She thought it
would recoup its value within that, time...
V
Mr,: Birdsall; pointed out that the principals of WG Investments are local
entrepreneurs, who have brought a tremendous number of.jobs to
Pefaluma. He thought it unfair of the Commission to apply such constraints
on how WG operates a business. There is currently no plan to sell the hotel.
:Mayor Glass clarified that it would not prevent the hotel from being sold;
however;, if, it were sold within a certain period, the City would be treated
as first trust deed.
Mr. Birdsall asked what would be quid pro quo - what the City would give
the hotel or primary lender.
City 'Manager Bierman cautioned ;Mr. Birdsall that this could not be
negotiated on the floor.
Council Member Torliatt recalled that when the PCD.0 negotiated the
original agreement in 2000, then Mayor Clark Thompson specifically asked
what securities there were for the City. She added she thought it
incumbent on the City, in a friendly.manner, .to notice the owners on
potential defaults.
'Council Member Moynihan was not comfortable with anything that
provided for Subordination of the City's existing position. He would like the,
agreement modified to obligate the repayment -of all disbursements, past
and future. That is,hot happening in what is proposed.
Mayor , Glass understood the City wouldn't be put in a weaker position; it
would just'b;e in `the same weak position in which it's always been. He
would ask for some kind of collateral that's "real;" and not from'a limited
December T,, 2003 Vol. XX, Page 9
l iability e 1 Million, He was willing to say the $900,000
.�' 2
„
already l the ri ve "
3
4
Mr. Birdsall opined, that WG Investments would never have lent money
5
without being in first position. He encouraged the City to "be real" with
6
what °they asked for.
7
8
CouncilMember Moynihan wanted to modify the OPA to eliminate the
9
subordination. He thought a'b:etter course of action would be for staff to
10
negotiate termination of the OPA and secure, under better terms and
11
conditions, a deed of trust and promissory note, and come back with a
12
more solid agreement and exit strategy. To the extent the City feels an
13
obligation, the PCDC can continue to rebate a percentage of the TOT
14
funds that the Sheraton generates in the future. Terminating the OPA
15
would mean the hotel owners would not be at a disadvantage with
16
regard to labor rates or negotiating with unions. He did not think it an
17
appropriate role for government to say that a private employer must
18
unionize or must pay a certain wage.
19
20
Council'Member Healy would like to come to closure on this. The
21
alternativesare to either approve the amendment or stay with the original
22
deal. He would be willing to allow staff "one more crack at this" to see if
23
they can address some of the issues raised tonight. That could lead to
24
another alternative on the fable. He did not think some of the things the
25
Commission was wishing for would be agreeable to WG Investments.
26
27
Council Members Torliatt,'Harris; and Canevaro agreed with Council
28
Member Healy.
29
30
City Manager Bierman agreed that staff could. make another attempt.
31
The Commission would then have to make a decision.
32
33
B. PCDC Resolution 2003 -15 Awarding the Contract for the Water
34
Street /Riverwaik improvements Phase I - Utility Undergrounding Project
35
No. 9891 to Northbay Construction. (Marangella)
36
37
Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment,
38
presented the staff report; explaining the bid process and the Ghilotti Bros.
39
protest.
40
41
Public Comment
42
43
Mike Ghilotti, President, Ghilotti Bros., explained why he believed
44
Northbay Cons'truction's bid proposal .was non responsive. The City put
45
together a set of rules for bidding on the project. All bidders -were
46
expected to follow the rules. Northbay's document does not indicate the
47
work that was, deleted. The bid does not provide a cost for that work, and
48
is inconsistent with the rules.
49
50
Vice Mayor O'Brien pointed out that the'Ghilotti Bros. bid protest was filed
51
after the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
52
Vol. XX, Page 10 December 1, 2003
Council Member Torliatt asked Mr. Ghilotti if he was continuing to protest •
the bid.
Mr. Ghilotti that he was.
Steve Geney, Vice President, Northbay Construction, stated that the
subcontractors who bid knew that item would. be deleted and there was
no cost. He. thought that at the last Council Meeting a resolution was,
passed to reject all bids.
Mayor GI'ass explained that the matter Was continued to this meeting; all
options were still open.
Mr. Geney stated that Northbay Construction feels it.should be awarded
the contract.
Council Comment
Vice Mayor O'Brien noted these are two very reputable companies. The
Ghil
otti. Bros. protest did not come in on time. He would Pike to award, the
contract ao Northbay Construction.
City Manager,Bierman recommended that Council reject all bids and
come back in January.
Council. Member Torliatt agreed with City Manager Bierman,.in order to
avoid threat of litigation.
Council Member Harris felt Council was on sound footing to move forward
and'award the contract to Northbay Construction.
Counci6Member Healy supported rawarding the contract to Northbay,
Construction and rejecting the Ghilotti Bros. protest.
CounciLMember Canevaro stat;ed'he hated, to see "two good companies
clashing," but he was prepared to support awarding the contract to
Northbay' Construction.
Council Member Torliatt was concerned that the C_ ity would spend more
money if the bid award was challenged and thought the safest thing to
do would be to rebid in January. She would'not support awarding the
contract tonight.
MOTION to adopt PCDC Resolution,2003 -15 Awarding the Contract,to
Northbay Construction, Inc:; and Rejecting the Bid Protect by Ghilotti Bros.
M/S Moynihan /Harris.
AYES: Canevaro, Harris, Healy, Moynihan
Vice Mayor. 0'' Brien,
NOES; Mayor Glass, Torliatt
ABSENT: None
December 1, 2003 Vol. XX, Page 11
1 4. NEW BUSINESS - PCDC /CITY COUNCIL
2
3 A. Introduction of Ordinance 2169 N:C.S. Adding Petaluma Municipal Code
4 Chapter 1. 18, "Claims Against Cit ,J' to R
; equire that. All Claims be
5 Presented to the City. Prior to the Initiation of Litigation. (Rudnansky)
6
7 MOTION to Introduce Ordinance 2169 N.C.S. M/S Healy /Canevaro.
8 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9
10 B. Introduction. of Ordinance 21:70 N'.C.S. Amending Petaluma Municipal
1 1 Cod'e Section 1.04.060(6), Amending Penalties for Violations Classified as
12 infractions Under the City�Code., (Rudnansky)
13
14 Council Member Harris asked what fund the fines would go into.
15
16 Mayor Glass indicated they would go into the General Fund.
17
18 Council Member Healy asked if there was a distinction in the City's
19 municipal code between an infraction and a misdemeanor.
20
21 City Attorney Rudnansky replied affirmatively; the difference was spelled
22 out in an ordinance.
23
24 MOTION 'to: Introduce Ordinance' 2170 N.C.S. M/S Healy /Canevaro.
25 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
26
27 CITY COUNCIL CLOSED, SESSION
28
29 PUBLIC COMMENT - . - None
30
31 ADJOURN, TO CLOSED.SESSION - 5:20 p.m.
32
33 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54957:
34 City Attorney.
35
36 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.8.
37 Property: Kenilworth School Property Located at 998 E. Washington Street. Agency
38 Negotiator: Michael Bierman. Negotiating Parties: City of Petaluma and Petaluma
39 School District. Under negotiation: Price and Terms.
40
41 EVENING SESSION 7:00 P.M.
42
43 CALL TO ORDER
44
45 A. Roll Call
46
47 Present: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor O'Brien,
48 Moynihan, Moynihan
49 Absent: None .
Vol. XX, Page 12
December 1, 2003
1
2 B. Pledge of Allegiance
3 'C. Moment of Silence
5 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS"TAKEN
6
7 There was noreportable action taken during Closed Session.
8
9 PUBLIC COMMENT
10
I 1 Marc'Ashton addressed the. City Council regarding the recent Adobe Creek article in the
12 Argus- Courier and explained there is another side to the story. He indicated'the Creek, is
13 also about people who use it for`illegal activities , and that issue needs to be addressed at
14 some point in the future., He commended those who cleaned up the .Creek and invited
1.5 the Council to walkwith,him at the Creek -so'he could point out his issues and. concerns.
16 ;
17 Richard; Parker, Petaluma, addressed the City Council regarding a concern at Corona
18 Creek School with parents who park in front of his: house while dropping and. picking up
19 students.. He indicated the persons parking in that area are obstructing mail delivery and
20 possibly emergency services. He stated there should be a limit to who can park: there
21 and suggested possibly,painting one of the curbs red. He concluded by asking Council
22 to have, the Police Chief look into the situation on Hartman Lane.
23
24 CORRESPONDENCE
25
26 There was none.
27
28 COUNCIL'COMMENT AND LIAISON REPORTS
29
30 Council Member ,Torliatt commented on the recent clear cutting at the Creek and
31 indicated she has been a supporter of the need for maintenance of the creeks. She
32 added there is a fine line and a balance needed with regard to maintenance and
33 - suggested is may not be as bad as portrayed in the Argus- Courier, but we should': have
34 safe traversing along the, Creek.
35
36 With regard to Mr. Parker's comments; she, recommended sending a letter to the
37 administration at Corona Creek'School and indicated this is a community issue and the
38 City would like to work together with them to resolve the 'issue.
39 ,
40 Council Member. Healy commented this is a. common condition at elernentary schools
41 and added there arel efforts at certain schools to, address this issue. He suggested having
42 staff pull together some best practices from other schools and try to work proactively
43 with Corona Creek School. He concluded by indicating this is an ongoing issue and has
44 been for some time.
45
46 Council Member Moynihan commented he has been out checking streets ana they are
47 still not fixed. He expressed' frustration that the funding necessary to address this issue was
48 on the agenda but has been removed. He added'he is looking' forward to the discussion
49 scheduled for December 15, 2003. He stated the agenda today is indicative of "talking
50 the talk" but not taking action.
51
•
December 1, 2003
Vol. XX, Page 13
1 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
2
3 There were none.
4
5 5. NEW BUSINESS
6
7 A. Resolution 2003 =241 N.C.S. Revising the Amount of Fees Payable In -Lieu of
8 Providing Affordable Housing Units as Required by Program 1 1 of the 1999-
9 2006 Petaluma Housing Element. �Gaebler)
10
11 Bonne G.aebler, Housing Administrator, presented the staff report and
12 recommended adoption of the appropriate resolution.
13
14 City Council discussion ensued regarding the cost for all impact fees per
15 house, which was $10,000.
16
17 Council Member Moynihan expressed concerns with increased sewer and
18 water fees, building permit fees, and park fees. He concluded by
19 commenting on the burden created by'now considering this housing fee.
20
21 Public Comment
22
23 Vera Ciammetti, Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, addressed the City
24 Council, commented that Petaluma's Affordable Housing Program has
25 been successful, and offered support for the proposed in - lieu fees.
26
27 The City Manager noted his recommend0 ion would be to adopt Option
28 #1 .or-- sliding scale #2.
29
30 Council Member Healy agreed with staff recommendation and indicated
31 he would support the sliding scale-'option #2.
32
33 Council Member Torliatt commented if you look at the Santa Rosa fees.
34 versus. Petaluma's Option #2, the crossover point is about 1800 square
35 feet. She added suggested a compromise proposal that would be for
36 homes under 1800 sq. feet to be subject to option #2 and home above
37 1800 square feet to be subject to the Santa Rosa model fee schedule.
38 She indicated'she feels this would' be fair and equitable.
39
40 Council Members Harris and'Canevaro stated their support for Option #2.
41
42 Council Member Moynihan stated his support for Option #2, but indicated
43 he still hasn't gotten a summary of all the fees and what it costs to build a
44 2000'square foot home in Petaluma. He continued by noting while the
45 study said more could be. charged he feels it would have an adverse
46 impact on low - income homes in the community. He commented on the
47 need to represent all incomes in the community and indicated he still has
48 difficulty in setting fees without the whole picture. He concluded by
49 stating with all these fees, housing will ultimately be less affordable.
50
51 Mayor Glass stated the Council did ask to see the sliding scale in Santa
52 Rosa
Vol. XX, Page 14
December 1, 2003
1
2 Council Member Torliatf, voiced frustration `that her suggestion was not
3 receiving any discussion. She indicated she will support the motion but
4 believes the fee study that was done substantiates having higher fees for
5 larger homes.
6
7 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2003 -241 N.C.S: ,with Option #2, Sliding Scale
8 Based on Square footage Starting at $2,400.00.M /S Healy and O'Brien.
9 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10
1 1 The Mayor announced that the Council would be hearing Item 5. C at this time.
12
13 C'. Discussion Regarding 2005 RTP Funding Sources and Priorities.
14 Presentation by Suzanne Wolford, Executive Director, Sonoma County
15 Transportation Authority.
16
17 Suzanne Wolford, Executive: Director of the Sonoma County Transliorf'ation
18 Authority,, gave a presentation regarding RTP Funding Sources and
19 Priorities.
20
21 Extensive Council discussion took place ,regarding the lack of funds
22 available for prioritized projects.
23
24 Council Member Moynihan inquired as to how Petaluma can ensure their
25 top priority, a cross -town connector, gets' into the RTP plan. Discussion
26 ensued regarding the ranking of ,projects in the countywide plan and ,it •
27 was noted if there were outside funding earm&ked• for such a project, it
28 would get on the RTP.
29
30 Council Member Torliatf commented on the difficulty for huge projects to
31 get federal funding and added that getting a cross -town connector for
32 Petaluma on the list for funding is not likely.
33
34 Council Member Healy noted his top priority is widening of the 101
35 Freeway'.
36
37 There was no action taken by the City Council on this matter.
B. Introduction of Ordinance 2171, N.C.S. Implementing an Affordable
Housing Linkage Fee for Nonresidential Development in the City of
Petaluma (Gaebler)
Bonne, Gaebler, Housing Administrator, presented the staff report and
recommended introduction of the ordinance.
.Council Member Torliatt noted if the Council implements this fee schedule
as presented, it would result in redevelopment areas only paying 50 %. She
noted if you look at the retail fee and you look at the City's
redevelopment areas, there are only two shopping centers that are
outside redevelopment areas or potential areas in which to build retail,
which are the G and G Market and the Arroyo Shopping Center. She ..
added she does not see those as huge retail redevelopment
December 1, 2003 ' Vol. XX, Page 15
1 1
opportunities. So, she added, in effect' 'if the City implements this fee
2
schedule proposed; the Council would only be implementing half of what
3
the per square foot rate is, as it'pertains to retail. She indicated she would
4
like to see and would propose the Council consider a compromise and
5
only charge half in the Central Business District or the Central Petaluma
6
Specific Plan Area; and the other areas that are in the larger
7
redevelopment agency area would be subject to the full retail fee. She
8
stated. she feels that will be where most, of the retail development will
9
locate and when you do the math and 'this is fully implemented with the
10
City's retail strategy, until the retail fee we're only looking at a total of
11
$1.35 million with building 750,000 square feet.
12
13
Council Member Moynihan' clarified the Retail Study was done on a
14
regional basis and questioned the validity of the nexus between this fee
15
and the study that was done. He also clarified with 'staff that no additional
16
jurisdictions have adopted such .a fee. He indicated he is troubled that
17
staff has not identified whaf will be funded with the fee.
18
19
Council recessed from 8.30 p. m. to 8 40 p, m.
20
21
Public Input:
22
23
Victor Checanover Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
24
commented that commercial development should be paying for housing
25
just like .other developers. He indicated he didn't see a definition of
26
"workforce housing" in the ordinance 'and noted "workforce" should
27
have the same meaning as affordable housing. He urged adoption of the
28
ordinance and stated the Chamber of Commerce is separate from "the
29
people" of Petaluma. He urged the Council to do what they felt is right for
30
the people of Petaluma.
31
32
Steve Benjamin, Petaluma, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.
33
34
Steven Harper; Interfaith Shelter Network, addressed the Council
35
indicating this is awexcellenf proposal and stated his support. He thanked
36
the Chamber of Commerce "for their efforts and stated his only issue is the
37
fee will only be 50% in Petaluma''s redevelopment areas. He publicly
38
acknowledged the leadership Petaluma has taken with regard to low -
39
income housing.
40
41
Margo Merck, Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group, addressed the
42
City Council in support of the :ordinance.
43
44
'Ann'- Hudgins, Sierra. Club, Sonoma Group, addressed the Council and
45
strongly urged' them to pass this ordinance.
46
4.7
Allen '_Robinson,. Volunteer .Coordinator /Habitat for Humanity, Sonoma
48
County, addressed the City Council in support of the proposed ordinance.
49
50
Paula Cook, Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, addressed the City Council
. 51 in support of the proposed ordinance.
52
Vol..XX, Page 16 December 1,.2003
Ma'ida Gibson, Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, addressed the City •
Council ,in support of the proposed ordinance. She further asked the
Council to consider confining the reduction in fees to 50% for the Central
Business' District or do away with the fee in that area altogether.
John Records; COTS, addressed the City Council in support of the
proposed ordinance.
Kelly Brown;. Greenbelt Alliance, addressed the City Council in aup,port of
the proposed ordinance.
Sonia Taylor; Coalition for a Better Sonoma County, add_ ressed the City
Council in support of the proposed 'ordinance.
Eileen Morris, 'Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition, addressed the City
Council in support of the proposed ordinance.
Stan Gold, Petaluma, addressed .the; City Council in support of the
proposed ordinance and added the implementation should take place
earlier rather than January 2005 and suggested perhaps July 1.
Cindy Thomas,, Petaluma, addressed 'the City Council in support of the
proposed ordinance. She added if you have people working_ and living in
this community, you would take. people off the freeway.
Council Member Healy stated be shared the sense of excitement of the
community and added this. has been a long time coming. He noted if is
no surprise that Petaluma will be the first City in, the County to adopt this
ordinance and added he feels it is critical to maintaining a long -term
healthy environment in this. community. He added the proposed
ordinance ,reflects a reasonable compromise and indicated he does
support the phasing -in of the fee: He concluded by stating he supports
the language regarding.redevelopment areas paying 50% of the fee.
MOTION. f introduce Ordinance 2111 N C:S.
Vice Mayor O'Brien. .indicated his support for the fees and added he
supports the 50% reduction in redevelopment. areas. With regard to
Petaluma being the first to introduce- such an ordinance he stated
somebody has to be first.
Counc,il,,Member Moynihan stated the City is moving' -in `the right direction
and would like to see this move forward, but he feels the ordinance is not
currently in a format to take action tonight. He indicated the City hasn't
yet defined "workforce housing nor defined what the program will ,do
and' how 'the program will be detailed to address the needs we're trying
to, address. He stated he feels the definitions of workforce and what the
plan, will be should be consistent before actions are taken. He added .
once a prograrn is designed, funding levels could be determined He
stated the need for a, local nexus study and indicated support for the
concept of phasing in the fee. He also stated he supports the Chamber
of Commerce's pledge 'to go to other jurisdictions to get them to do the
December 1, 2003 Vol. XX, Page 17
same thing. He continued by indicating a phasing -in of the fee would be
2
appropriate and indicated he would' support language to "kill" the
3
program if 80% of the other agencids don't adopt a similar ordinance. He
4
expressed concern that if there were notsupport by other jurisdictions, the
5
businesses of Petaluma would be jeopardized. He commented there
6
needs to be a clarification of " in . construction" only and that median
7
income should be clarified to provide: a definition for workforce housing.
8
He added there. should also be' 'a definition for the "in -lieu" program. He
9
concluded by stating he would like to look at this regionally instead of
10
locally and if there were modifications made, along with the phasing -in
1 1
we would have a better program.
12
13
Council Member Harris indicated he does have a problem with what this
14
does to our municipality economically; but a phased -in approach does
15
help.'He concluded by stating he hopes other municipalities will support a
16
!Similar ordinance.
17
18
Council Member Canevaro commented on the issue of the linkage fee
19
and a nexus. He added businesses in. the community make the numbers
20
work and 'having the Chamber's buy -in is 'a plus as they represent a lot of
21
businesses. He indicated he feels responsible businesses throughout
22
Petaluma wilGwant to support.this and indicated it's not just numbers -'it's
23
community impacts which is just as important. He concluded by stating
24
his support for the phased approach and for Council Member Healy's
25
motion to approve.
26
27
Council Member Torliatt stated she is proud there will be the votes here
28
tonight to implement this. She added she will support the motion, but
29
would like to see the 'fee implemented sooner; rather than later. She also
30
indicated she would like to see the fee not cut in half for the
31
redevelopment areas. 'She also stated it is Important to keep in
32
consideration the retail 'strategy report that was just reviewed. She
33
commented this is` a great step policy -wise and added long before she
34
was on the Council' there had been a history of Council's support of
35
affordable housing. She.'; concluded,' by commending Housing Director
36
Bonne. Gaebler for her efforts and indicated the City wouldn't have the
37
programs that are in place without her:
38
39
Mayor Glass made a verbatim statement for the - record: "This Council has
40
done a number of things that have been fiscally prudent and responsible
41
and have not been easy votes. Not; easy votes from the standpoint of
42
perhaps people have contributed to their campaigns' and [ congratulate
43
this Council for doing the right thing for this community. With that, I think
44
public comment... Council Comment' has been heard here and we're
45
ready for a vote."
46
47
Council Member Moynihan asked if. the maker of the motion would be
48
willing to modify the motion to apply to new construction only, and for the
49
ordinance *to redefine the median income percentage for workforce to
50
1.00% to 140% as defined by the Chamber of Commerce.
51
Vol. XX, Page 18 December 1;.200.3
yindicated, p first l had
idd
2 prove an as tohow that t
would d one; and withtrefs respect
3 to the second issue, other members of the Council have indicated that is
4 something that can be tweaked over the next year and he looks forward
5 to doing that. . He .concluded that he w ould not propose to amend his
6 motion.
7
8 M/S Healy and O'8rien.. CARRIED by the following vote:
9
10 AYES: Harris, Canevaro, Healy,, O'Brien, Glass and Torliatt
11 NOES; Moynihan
12 ABSENT:
13
14 ADJOURN
1.5
16 The Meeting was adjournedat 9:30 p.m.
17
18
19
20 David. Glass; Mayor
2.1
22 A ttest:
23
24
25
26
27 Claire Cooper, Deputy City Clerk
28
29
30
31
32 Gayle Petersen, City Clerk
33
34
35
36 cis to
37
38
39
40
41
42
43