HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Minutes 05/17/2004April 19, 2004
4. eerL 77N
City of Petaluma, California,- j85$ MEETING OF PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION AND THE:PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
Draft Pca( /City Council. Minutes
Monday,.April 19, 2004- 3 :00 P.M.
Regular ~Meeting'
1
CALL TO ORDER
2
3
A. Roll Call
4
5
Present! Harris; Thompson, Healy,' O'Brien Mayor Glass, Torliatt, Moynihan
6
Absent:' None
7
8
B. Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Thompson
9
1.0
PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12
AI Alys, Petaluma, Yacht Club, addressed the City. Council with concerns regarding the
13
fees adopted df 'the `meeting of March '10, 2004. He noted the Visiting Boaters Fee was
raised last ear to . $ 3 $1,5. He felt increasing the fee to
y 0 from $ 10, and then restated t
15
$30 would be counterprod Would reduce uctive and ' the number of visiting boaters. He
16
mentioned that' people. would expect more from the City like security, trash receptacles;
17
and repair, of vandalized electrical boxes„ He also raised concern that the $15 fee is not
18
collected in most instances. He urged Council to reconsider the Visitors Overnight Fee
19
and to have it remain at,$]5,per day and find an appropriate means to collect the fee
20
to enhance the flow of visitor- dollars. He would !be happy to work with the City and has a
21.
number of suggestions to improve the collection of fees.
22
23
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and mentioned the General Plan
24
Process and the FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Maps with the proposal to reduce the
25
footprint of the floodplain on those maps. He indicated reducing the footprint would
26
result in removing the backing of the federally funded flood insurance and urged the
27
Council not to reduce the footprint and maintain the baseline as it is now.
28
29
He had a quesfi'on' regarding 16 Western Avenue - he wanted to know if Vice Mayor
30
Moynihan was stilkin.. a business arrangement with the owner of .this., property. He wanted
31
to clarify this because the PCDC Five Year.lmpfementation Plan discussion could present
32
a conflict.
34
Bill Hammerman, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and .mentioned that the City's
35
sesquicent is corning up in ,2008 arid that April 12th was the City's birthday. He
36
indicated the Petaluma Sesquicentennial Roundtable ad -hoc group has had several
„, 37
meetings and presented a progress report and suggestions of how the City may put
Vol. XX, Page 2 April 5,'2004
1 together a celebration of this - event., He suggested the Council might want to provide
2 guidance to them on how they should continue to help the City celebrate this event.
3
4 Tom Griffith, Petaluma Yacht Club, :addressed the City Council and raised three issues
5 concerning the increase of the overnight .fees in. the :docking area. He felt the fee
6 increase was excessive and one of the highest fees he has seen for overnight docking.
7 The Chamber of Commerce calculated that the amount of revenue produced' by each
8 boat was approximately $500. The Visitor's Program has 90 reservations for the Memorial'
9 Day weekend, which would result in $4,500 in revenue generated. The facilities have no
10 public restrooms, no garbage receptacles, and no security, as is provided at other
11 docks. The City doesn't have a plan for collecting the fees. Currently the Visitor's Center
12 is sending iouf an envelope with their packet requesting 'the, visitor to remit. This doesn't
13 work and a system needs to be developed to collect the fees on the day of the visit t. He
14 recommended the ,City continue the fees at $15 until the facility can be improved to
15 Meet 'the standards other docks in the Bay Area.
16
17 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked how long it has been since the Bridgetender collected the
18 fees and ,Mr. Griffith said that it had been done on a regular basis, which worked, and
19 then stopped about two years ago.
20
21 Council Member Torliatt clarified -with Mr. Griffith that 90 boats had been reserved but not
22 all may show lupi he expected 60 - 70. She asked if he_ had had security issues on the
23 dock in the last year. He replied that he had not and that boating numbers - are
24 improving.
25
26 COUNCIL COMMENT
27.
28 Council Member O'Brien commended. Mr. Hammerman and his ad -hoc committee ;for
29 their work on the 150th anniversary of the City.
30
31 Regarding the mooring fees in the Turning Basin, he indicated he would definitely like this
32 issue revisited since he didn't vote on the original item; He stated he feels the Yacht Club
33 representdtives are absolutely correct.. The "Bay and Delta Yachtsman" publication 'is
34 widely read and last year there was an article that stated that Petaluma was unfriendly
35 to boaters because of the increase in fees. He felt that fees were going, to, have to go up
36 some because of increased costs and suggested rolling them back to $20 per night. He
37 would like to find out about the lack of collection. He would like this subject to come
38 back at the. next meeting.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt indicated she too wanted to revisit the mooring fee issue and
41 wanted staff to clarify the actual collection process and why it may not be working.
42
43 She also wanted clarification on the historic floodplain base line as it compares to the
44 new General Plan, She felt he existing flood plain baseline must be maintained as it
45 compares to areas of past flooding so that decisions to build in the, floodplain are done
46 with eyes "wide open."
47
48 She mentioned the concerns expressed by neighbors of G & G Market and indicated she
49 would like this issue agendized to discuss problems concerning the shopping center. She
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 3
�e
1
indicated she would :also like clarification from staff about the shopping center meeting
2
its conditions of approval:
3
1 ,
4
She reported as' .alternate liaison to, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority that
5
the Draft 2005 Regional Transportation Plan list of projects contained no changes. The
6
City - of Petaluma should receive; additional funds from the. State Transit Assistance
7
program in the amount of about $225,000 that normally goes to the bus service; this had
8
been calculated, ,a' different population figure. The adjustment will result in additional
9
funding that she would like to see used to enhance the City's public transit. and improve
10
11
publicity -for, the system.
12
She "reported on the $233 million earmarked for the highway improvement list for the Bay
13
Area from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Sonoma County was listed for $9
14.
million to widen Hwy 1 and reconstruct on -ramps between Steele Lane and the Town
15
of Windsor. Another $13 million was earmarked for the Marin /Sonoma Narrows widening.
16
17
Council,Member Harris wanted a timeline for the garbage contract with a listing of what
18
the next steps will be. Concerning the mooring tees;,.he agreed with the speakers and
19
with the desire to make Petaluma' a destination place, he stressed he wouldn't want to
20
"disincentize" visitors' Petaluma.
21
22
Council Member Healy commented on Geoff. Cartwright's concerns and indicated he
23
expects a full discussion on these issues as part of the General Plan. He felt the G & G
24
issues should go, back to the Planning, Commission to check compliance with the
25
conditions of approval. He commented on the earmarks for highway projects, indicating
'
26
they are not final but progress is being made.
I '
27
!
28
Council Member Thompson agreed on the boating situation and suggested the yacht
29
clubs preparing to come to Petaluma,send two-,thirds-of their`money in advance.
30
31
Vice Mayor Moynihan supported the roffer to meet with the Yacht Club to determine
32
how other cities handle the issue. He' wanted to hear .in the near future when the Five
33
Year Capital Improvement Program is coming back for Council discussion.
34
35
Mayor Glass commented on the docking fees and indicated he expects them to be
36
reviewed. He noted the fees can be lowered, but they need ,to be collected.
37
38
He commented on the G & G situation and that' the center is an asset for the community
39
but local residents must ' not be unfairly impacted beyond what they were told they
40
would experience.
41
42
CITY MANAGE COMMENT
43
44
City.Manager stated the mooring fees and their collection :need to be clarified
45
and would'be put back on the agenda for Council reconsideration. The'$15 fee for the
46
boaters- coming on Memorial Day would be honored even though the fee increase was
47
scheduled'tor May I s'.
48
49
50
Vol. XX, Page 4 April 5, 2004
AGENDA CHANGES:AND „DELETIONS
Mayor Glass followed Vice Mayor Moynihan's suggestion to move the "Consent
Calendar” to'immediately following the "Approval of Minutes."
PRESENTATIONS /PROCLAMATIONS
Council,Member °Harris: presented a�Proclamation recognizing' May 2, 2004 as Petaluma
River Clean -up Day to Al Alys of the Petaluma Yacht Club.
Also recognized was May 2 - May 8, 2004 as National Wildflower Week with the
proclamation accepted by Joan Grosser.
A presentation by Community Development Director Mike Moore and G.IS Technician
Andrew D'OtFdVlo was given regarding updates to the City's new website to improve the
building permit process.
Council Member'Torliatt wanted to be sure that the credit card service charge was not '
incurred by the City and was. assured by 'Mr. D'Ottavio that this is an incremental`fee that
is being worked on and would be paid by the applicant.
She also suggested placing the survey at the beginning may not be a good location and
that a link on each page to direct the user would be easier to use.
Council Member Thompson asked about the water heater permit and how many are
installed that the City does not know about or collect for.
Mr. Moore said it is difficult to trace but they find this out when the homeowner sells the
property in the lists if permits were obtained.
COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
I. Appointment of Council Member to the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Legislative
Committee. Council Members Torliatt and Healy expressed interest in the
appointment.
By a show of hands, the vote was 4 -2 in favor of Council Member Healy, with Vice
Mayor Moynihan abstaining.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Minutes of March 1, 2004
Council Member Thompson, had a question about the format of the
minutes.
Council Member Torliatt explained she had not requested verbatim
minutes but had requested the inclusion of the Council discussion on the
Southgate item since none was indicated in the first set of minutes.
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5
1
Council Member Thompson asked if all the members had agreed at the
2
•
dais to do this. He suggested the whole Council should agree to have
3
detailed minutes.
4
5
Council Member Healy agreed with Council Member Thompson's
6
concerns and that the Council had agreed to the summary format for
7
minutes..
8
9
Mayor Glass indicated that due to the complexity of the Southgate item
10
and what was discussed, he thought there was a benefit to this request.
11
12
Council Member Torliatt suggested that when Chelsea comes back, the
13
same format should be followed.
14
15
Council Member O'Brien agreed with Council Member Thompson's
16
suggestion that a Council majority should be required to request the
17
verbatim-type minutes.
18
19
MOTION to adopt the minutesassubmitted:
20
21
M/S Torliatt and Moynihan. CARRIED ON A 6 -0 -1 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
22
23
AYES: Harris, Healy, Moynihan, Glass, Thompson, Torliatt
24
NOES: None
25
ABSTAIN: O'Brien (indicating he was not present at.that meeting)
26
"
`
• 27
Council Member Healy left the Council Chambers at this time.
28
29
B. City Council Minutes of April 5, 2004
30
31
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked that the minutes be amended under City
32
Manager, Comment to.reffect that it was the consensus of. the Council to
33
send the letter to Paul Kelley, Chair of the SCTA with the addition of the
34
followirig "::. and received consensus to send the letter."
35
36
Council Member Harris indicated he was wishing the City of Petaluma a
37
"Happy 146th birthday."
38
39
Council Member Torliatt stated she would not vote for this motion as she
40
felt it would be more appropriate for the Clerk to review the tape
41
regarding Council's consensus or not for.sending the letter to Paul Kelley.
42
43
Mayor Glass indicated he would also vote "no" because he doesn't see
44
the purpose of doing it today as opposed to the next meeting and to
45
take care of this under item 5A regarding Council Rules and Procedures.
46
47
MOTION to adopt the Minutes as amended:
48
49
M/S Moynihan and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
50
F_ - I
L_J
Vol. XX, Page 6 April 5, 2004
1 AYES: Harris, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson
2 NOES: Glass and Torliatt
3 ABSENT: Healy
4
5 3.- APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
6
7 A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of May 3,
8 2004.
9
10 It was noted, due to public comment, that the. issue regarding the Turning Basin
11 Fees would be placed on the agenda.
12
13 MOTION to adopt the proposed agenda:
14
15 M/S Torliatt and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16
17 4. CONSENT CALENDAR
18
19 Mayor Glass requested Item 3.D be pulled from the Consent Calendar for
20 separate discussion since he had received a speaker card on that item:
21
22 MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar:
23
24 M/S Moynihan and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Healy absent)
25
26
27 A. Resolution 2004 -049 N.C. S. Accepting Completion of Traffic Signal Loop
28 Installation Project 3306 -3.
29
30 B. Resolution 2004 -050 N.C.S Establishing the Ely Blvd. /E. Washington Creek
31 Crossing as Part of the 03 -04 Washington and E. Washington Creek. Multi -
32 Use Path, Project No. C100401 -3399* and Resolution 2004 -051 ,N.C.S
33 Authorizing Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for
34 Fiscal Year 2004. Transportation Development Act, Article, 3 Project
35 Funding ( *former CIP No. 02- 9046 -1).
36
37 C. Resolution 2004 -053 N.C.S. Awarding Two-Year-Weed Abatement Contract
38 to Remove Weeds Within the City and Authorizing the City Manager to
39 Execute a Contract for Such Abatement Program.
40
41 Items Removed from Consent for Separate Discussion:
42
43 D. Resolution 2004 -052 N.C.S. Authorizing Program Administration Fees for
44 Mobile Home Park Space Rent Stabilization. Program for 2004.
45
46 PUBLIC INPUT
47
48 Bill Donahue, President, Sandalwood Home Owners Association,
49 addressed the Council and called attention to the. Agenda Report. He
•
•
d, •,,
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 7
1
indicated with regard to Item 2, it should read ''...191 spaces .. ," instead
2
of`99 spaces, to make sure these remain under rent control.
3
4
Council :Memb Torliatt requested this change to be reflected in the
5
minutes and. MOVED approval of the Resolution.
6
7
Vice Mayor Moynihan requested clarification of revenue to determine if
8
this is a reimbursement of expenditures and .how much is coming from
9
space fees.
10
11
Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler explained there is not any other
12
cost reimbursement that she -is. aware of. She understands the entire
13
amount is from the administrative 'fee that is charged half to the owner
14
and .half to the residents for all spaces. She would have to talk to the
15
Finance Director to answer the question of the wide variance of the fee
16
and get back to Council She clarified that the administrative fee had
17
changed from $15 to $3&lost year:
18
19
Vice Mayor Moynihan ,requested' a memo to clarify the financial
20
information on .the spreadsheet..
21
22
Council Member Thompson momentarily left the Council Chambers.
23
24
M/S Torliatt and Harris. CARRIEb, ON' A 5-0 -2 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
25
26
AYES: Harris, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt, Glass
27
NOES` None
28
ABSENT: Healy and Thompson
29
'
30
Mayor Olass recalled that the agenda order had been ,changed and that Item
31
2, Public Hearing PCDC was' the next order of business.
32
33
2. PUBLIC HEARING
34
35
A. PCDC ' Resolution 200445 Discussion, and Action Concerning a Mid -Term
36
'Review of th,e "Five -Year Implementation Plan:"
37
38
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated that his realty group, Nexus Realty Group,
39
manages some properties in this district and he believed that he has one
40
potential conflict of interest on Item 3m,, "Storefront Improvement Program."
41
42
Council Member Torliatt referred to a previous meeting in, which she, Council
43
Members Moynihan, Thompson, and"' H'eal h'ad to recuse themselves
44
because of" receiving income from or ,residing within the redevelopment
45
areas. She stated she no longer manages property in the .area so she will no
46
longer have ;a financial interest conflict.
47
48
Council Member Thompson' .indicated that he has a couple of areas of
49
conflict and that he can abstain from these ,areas:
Vol. XX, Page 8 April 5, 2004
City Attorney Rudnansky gave some background -and direction to Council.
He referred to the meeting of April 2001 concerning the vote taken .relative to
the Redevelopment Plan Amendment implementation. At that time there.
Was so much interrelation it was decided that if there were a conflict. with, any
particular area the Council Member would have to recuse him or her self. This
resulted 'in four current members recusing. A drawing of straws was taken with
Mr. Moynihan coming back under the '`Rule of Necessity." He advised that
the review of the implementation plan to make decisions regarding funding
for certain projects would require each Council Member to analyze if, they
had a conflict that would materially affect the He instructed each Council
Member to decide if his or her conflict is interdependent and segment his or
her recusal.
City Manager Bierman suggested that the full presentation be completed
and then •a line /bullet -item vote be taken on each item.
Paul .Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment
began his presentation with some history of` the plan and explained the two
project areas, the Central Business District (CBD) and the larger Petaluma
Community Development project (PCD) area.
Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned that PCDC was going to be doing $8.5
million of street work instead of Public Works as a Capital Improvement Project .
and staff explained that these are streetscape improvements, not' strictly'
paving.
Council Member Torliatt explained this was part of the implementation of the
CPSP and the Council is familiar with this as a rehabilitation /upgrading of 'the
streets. in the: area. The actual cost of these improvements will, be :brought
back to Council.
Council. Member. Healy had questions regarding the entire figure as including
Paying and Mr. Marangella said he was correct. He wanted to know what
portion of this figure would be for repaving; Director Marangella stated he
would have to get this 'figure. Council' Member Healy asked if this would
include a "Road Diet" and was advised that it would.
Mr. Marangella explained the "Road Diet" requires the street be reduced
from the City limits through the core of: the City to one lane in each direction
with bicycle paths and on- street..parking ;, this hasn't been designed yet.
City.Manager' Bierman interjected that these are staff recommendations and
the Council can make changes: He stated that the exact details of the
agreement needed to be looked at:
City Attorney Rudnansky cautioned Council that there are potential conflicts
that have not been clarified but if there were specific areas in the general
overview of the project where a member may have conflicts, he would
caution them not to ask questions.
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 9
1
2
Mayor Glass asked for the continuation of the legally required general
3
overview with staff recommendations then "go back to questions when
4
Council Members can more clearly recuse themselves as necessary.
5
6
Vice Mayor Moynihan had concerns regarding new projects being proposed
7
from the direction of- committees. He felt a comprehensive approach is
8
needed., for the long. -term Capital Improvement Programs with the
9
redevelopment agency as the funding° agency with Council setting the
10
priorities. He ,suggested bringing this 'back as part of the Five -Year CIP for the
1 1
new project as
12
13
City Manager Bierman .agreed with Vice Mayor Moynihan that these
14
recommendations are based on what the City wants to do in this large area.
15
He suggested hearing the presentation and on May 3rd the Capital
16
Improvement Plan (CIP) will be, presented and all of the projects mentioned
17
this evening will be in the CIP.
18
19
Council discussed the amount of business to' be covered, and the timeline for
20
addressing the Five Year Plan: The Manager's direction was to continue the
21
presentation and move it to following meetings as necessary. Council
22
Members agreed to move: it to ' the May 3d agenda after hearing the
23
presentation. .
24
25
Mr. Marangella continued his presentation.
26
27
City Manager Bierman explained that the state might continue to take
28
property tax and sales tax, The $2.3 million ERAF may go up since the state will
29
be using the economic development agencies of the cities as a funding
30
source.
31
32
Mr. Marangella summed up ,the presentation, stating that the assumptions of
33
growth in the CBD tax increment does not include the impact of the Theatre
34
District project,. A _conservative projection has been developed in the PCD tax
35
incrementwith. only a 5% growth assumption that does not take into account
36
impending development. He stated the report is based on ERAF as a
37
permanent shift of funding.
38
39
Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler explained that the major goal of the
40
implementation plan was to be sure that the City met its ABAG` "Fair Share
41
Goals. :" The.: City has exceeded these goals and other goals and projects are
42
on schedule with any new developments coming to Council at budget time.
43
44
Mr. Marangella suggested the Council amend the resolution to state it
45
accepts the report to meet the requirements of state law.
46
47
Vice.,Mayor Moynihan suggested identifying what funding sources would be
48
used °for the maintenance of these Jmprovements.
49
50
r�
.ail. R i
Vol. XX, Page 10 April 5, 2004
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 No speaker cards were presented and the Mayor called for anyone
4 interested;, seeing no one, Public Comment: was closed.
5
6 City At#o.rn.ey Rudnansky �expldined that 'it' was his. understanding the motion
7 was to accept the report and. n, o action was to be taken that would affect
8 any Council- Mernber's financial interest'in the plan area and that no conflict
9 of interest would be raised.
10
I I Council Member Harris had a 'question about " Frbject Status" on the 'Staff
12 Report concerning the approximate $5.5 million in road 'improvements
13 planned annually over the next three years. He wanted clarification of
14 annually.
15
16 City • Manager Bierman explained that there are more road projects
17 throughout that add more money to roads.
18'
19 Council Member Torliatt called for the question and the Mayor seconded.
20
21 MO,AON':to adopt the Resolution accepting the Mid -Term Review.
22
23 M/S Moynihan and O'Brien, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
24
25 3. APPROVAL L65 PROPOSED AGENDA
26
27 'A Approval of Proposed Agenda for Regular Council Meeting of May 3, 2004.
28
29 Vice Mayor .Moynihan requested an .update on the streets on the next
30 agenda with a current status. He also wanted the Council to agendize the
31 establishment of a Citywide compensation policy before entering into
32 negotiations this year.
33
34 Council Member Healy wanted clarification of when the PCD item would be
35 discussed.
36
37 City Manager.'Blerman stated this would be discussed at the May 3rd.. meeting
38 and wrapped up with the Capital Improvements. He stated that the street
39 conditions will not be completed by the May 3rd meeting and will be done by
40 memo.
41
42 MOTION to adopt the proposed agenda:
43
44 M/S Torliatt and Thompson. CARRIED, UNANIMOUSLY.
45
46 5. NEW `BUSINESS
47
48 A. Discussion, Review and Consideration of a Resolution Amending Petaluma
49 City Council Rules, Policies and Procedures. City Attorney Rudnansky
April 19, 2004
Vol. XX, Page 11
1
instructed that this is the required annual review of the Council's
•
2
procedures to make any necessary changes.
3
4
Mayor Glass asked if the wished to review this or move on to the
5
next items to get on to Closed Session.
6
7
Council' Member Healy thought this was non - controversial item and
8
should be approved.
9
10
Mayor Glass explained that there was one speaker card on this and this
11
would be an item for a light agenda.
12
13
14
PUBLIC COMMENT
15
16
Jose L. Sanchez, Press Democrat addressed the City Council on the
17
format of the minutes'stating that a verbatim transcript is helpful to the
18
public to understand the issues.
19
20
It was the consensus of Council to that Item 5A be moved to a
21
krter date.
22
23
B. Resolution 2004 -054 N.C.S. Approving the Annual Report of the Downtown
24
Petaluma Business Improvement District and Intention to Levy an Annual
25
Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004. (Marangella)
26
27
Council Member Healy recused himself because he lives within the
28
designated area.
29
30
Vice Mayor Moynihan recused himself as well due to a possible source of
31
income conflict and, at the City Attorney's request, named .the sources as
32
Ivlaggie.S'alinger, Peter Haywood, James Toda, and Louie Toda.
33
34
Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella
35
presented the resolution to set 'a hearing on May 3, 2004 for the Business
36
Improvement District and asked the Council to adopt the resolution.
37
38
MOTION to adopt the Resolution:
39
40
M/S O'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
41
42
AYES: Harris, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Glass
43
NOES: None
44
RECUSED: Healy and Moynihan
45
46
C. Resolution 2004 -055 .N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
47
Agricultural Recycled Water Use- Agreements.
48
49
Water Resources and Conservation Director Michael Ban presented the
50
report. He explained the histoy of the recycled water program explaining
Vol. XX, Page 12 April 5, 2004
that currently the City contracts individually . with each individual .
landowner. He recommended that the City go forward with renewing the
contracts with the seven landowners with the same compensation rate;
addition of a maintenance allowance. for equipment replacement;
reduce the amount of water to these landowners' to accommodate
Rooster Run Golf Course; and establish a term of four years with a renewal
option.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Rene Cardinaux, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and indicated he
has been in partnership with the City for over 20 years. He asked that
some kind of condition be included in the agreement to allow for inflation
and to not keep the terms fixed.
Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
mentioned that the sewer charges have gone up considerably over the
last two years and would like an accounting of the changes in the.
charges.
Council Member Torliatt explained that in 1998 the Council thoroughly
reviewed the cost to the ratepayers that resulted in reducing the cost
from $300 /acre -foot to $210 /acre -foot. She estimated that over the past
years the City had saved approximately $800,000 to the ratepayer. She
addressed Mr. Cardinaux's issue and asked staff if contract amendments
can be negotiated.
Mr. Ban responded they could.
Council Member Torliatt also asked if there is extra wastewater after the
ranchers and Rooster Run have their met their allotments, can the
ranchers have additional , water beyond their cap without City
reimbursement.
Mr. Ban stated that, in the past, if a rancher needed water beyond the
cap the water was provided with no compensation and the contract
presented tonight continues this practice.
City Attorney Rudnansky clarified Council Members' questions about
protecting the City in case: of inflation or high- energy costs. He stated
there were some outstanding issues of the injunctive relief to allow the City
to cure an "irreparable harm" if the ranchers do not dispose of the water.
This allows the City to go to court to require the ranchers to do what they
agreed to.
City Manager Bierman stated he was aware of this issue and it is not a
cause for concern.
Council Member Torliatt asked if this-was the only issue that hasn't been
agreed on and asked Mr.. Cardinaux to "respond.
•
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 13
•
•
1
2 Mr. Cardinaux mentioned this is the first time this has been included in the
3 contract. He feels it gives the City possessory interest in the ranchers'
4 property and he. doesn't feel it is necessary. He mentioned that if
5 something happens to the rancher, the heirs cannot recover their costs
6 because the terms of the lease are fixed.
7
8 Mayor Glass asked if his concern would be alleviated if the costs were
9 indexed to the CPI and Mr. Cardinaux agreed.
10
11 Council Member Torliatt said that she would go forward with the motion
12 with the exclusion of the injunctive relief issue. She felt this could be
13 negotiated with staff, the ranchers and the City Manager agreeing that
14 the costs would be based on the CPI.
15
16 Council Member Healy had questions on page 4 /VIII of Attachment A
17 and wanted some protection included such as the CPI or the ranchers
18 could get out of the contract on notice. He wanted the injunctive relief
19 included.
20
21 City ° Affbrney Rudnansky reiterated that this would enforce what the
22 ranchers agreed to do. He explained that the City would not come onto
23 the land. This protects the City from harm and would allow a court order
24 to continue the disposal of the water.
25
26 MOTION to adopt the Resolution as presented in the staff report:
27
28 Council Member Healy restated the motion to adopt the resolution as
29 presented in °the staff rep_ ort.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt was assured that the City Manager would
32 negotiate the issue brought forward by Mr. Cardinaux.
33
34 M/S Torliatf and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
35
36 PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION
37
38 There was none.
39
40 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
41
42 • CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code,. §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
43 Michael Bierman /Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME and IAFF Local 1 415.
44 0 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
45 Manager
46 • CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: (Government. Code §54956.8)
47 Properties:
48 Easement Over APN # 007 -660 -032 Adjacent to Petaluma River, Madison Village
49 Homeowners Association, Property Owner
50 Easement Over APN # 007 - 041 - 005,, Clover- Stornetta .Farms, Property Owner
51 • Easement Over APN # 007 -019 -026 Scalamini /Sproul, Property Owner
Vol. XX, Page 14
April 5, 2004
1
City Negotiator: Michael Bierman
2
Negotiating Parties: City of Petaluma and Respective Property Owners
•
3
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment,, or Both
4
5
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:30 p.m.
6
7
Monday, April 19, 2004 EVENING SESSION 7:00 P.M.
8
9
CALL TO ORDER
10
11
A. Roll Call: All members were present.
12
B. Pledge of Allegiance
13
C. Moment of Silence
14
15
PRESENTATIONS /PROCLAMATIONS
16
17
Proclamation Declaring April 23, 2004 as Childrens' Memorial Day.
18
19
Council Member Torliatt presented the proclamation to Greg Spaulding, President of
20
MOVES, 'who explained the organization's goals and presented a flag for the City to
21
display.
22
23
PUBLIC COMMENT
24
25
David .Yearsly, Petaluma River Keeper, addressed the City Council and invited all to
26
attend the Petaluma River Clean -up on May 2nd.
•
27
28
Marilyn. Sullivan, Concerned Citizens Across from G &G. Market, addressed the .City
29
Council and expressed problems with the noise from the market's refrigeration unit. She
30
requested that her group be put on the agenda for next month's Council meeting.
31
32
Karen Nau, Petaluma River Festival Association, addressed the City Council and
33
indicated their group is coordinating activities after this weekend's Butter and-Egg Days
34
parade. She gave a presentation of events to be offered and invited everyone to
35
attend.
36
37
Joe Manthey, Vietnam Veterans of California, addressed the City Council and made
-38
them aware of the upcoming "Wonder of Boys" Conference at Sonoma State University
39
on May 8th and explained what would be offered.
40
41
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and explained flooding events in
42
Petaluma since 1998 and the effects construction and illegal fill has had on this problem.
43
44
Stefan Gutermuth, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in response to the Outlet Mall
45
ad stating that the expansion would bring in a million dollars in revenue. He said this is
46
highly suspect as shown with current revenue statistics. He wanted to know who was
47
paying for.this ad.
48
49
Peter Tscherneff addressed the City Council regarding world peace and homelessness.
I 4
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 15
2
Andrew Packard, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and requested an update on
3
the Chelsea Properties negotiations concerning the developer's promise to pay $1.2
4
million. He understood that the City Manager would not negotiate with Chelsea until the
5
money is paid. He said that interest and penalties` provided in the contract should be
6
collected. He wanted clarification of what negotiations -are underway.
7
8
Mayor Glass explained there was a schedule, for ,payment to be paid in installments with
9
real estate taxes beginning in 1996 with final payment due in 2000. He felt that there did
10
not seem to be penalties and interest payments added and will more information on the
11
matter.
12
13
Mr. Packard said that from his public records request information it appeared only
14
approximately $ $400,000 was paid unless there was more current information
15
that he has not•seen.
16
17
COUNCIL:COMMENT
18
19
Council Member Torliatt talked about her participation in the "Race for the Treasure" to
20
kick off Butter and Egg Day Week and thanked the. Petaluma Valley Athletic Club.
21
22
She addressed Ms. Sullivan's concerns about G,&G and the conditions of approval will be
23
looked into as well as enforcement of these with direction to the Planning Commission to
24
review.
25
26
Council Member Torlatt staffed she has asked the Council to set up and endorse a joint
R 27
meeting with the Petaluma. School District, and the Fair Board to discuss the Petaluma
28
Junior High site. She..wants the communityinforrned about the challenges, and the price
29
necessary for the School Board to build a new school.
30
31
She addressed the Chelsea :proposal and the, amount that was initially due to the City.
32
She stated that, Chelsea should be totally current`, with any money owed to the City
' 33
before any new proposal or negotiation is considered. She requested a memo from the
34
City Manager as to - whether they are current with mdneis owed and that it shouldn't be
35
agendized until the developer is current`. She q'ue'stioned entering into a development
36
agreemernt.without .having a set procedure for the City to follow and indicated she
37
wanted the applicant to come before Council. She asked that the City Attorney define
38
the differences between conditions of approval in a development agreement /project
39
approval and what extra enhancement and rights .it gives to an applicant. She felt the
40
community needs to know the differences and. Council needs to know if the City
41
Manager' is entering .into a development agreement with an applicant. She requested
42
that this be agendized before any'future development agreements are negotiated.
43
44
Viee..M'ayor Moynihan stated that he met with Chelsea GCA and others and felt that the
45
unpaid funds are way overdue and the City Manager has stated clearly that these funds
46
must: be paid. He explained that'there, had.,b'een a, disagreement with how the escrow
47
accouhi� should be established and the payments were discontinued because of this. He
48
noted over a' year ago; an agreement was reached to., set up a new account but this
49
hadn't been done. He supported no further discussion regarding future development
50
agreements, until the.account is up to date.
Vol. XX, Page 16 April 5, 2004
Council. Member Harris addressed. the G &G Market issues and supported their concerns
with a request to look a the conditions of approval. He indicated a desire to agendize
his request for a Charter Review Committee and would like outline on how to address
the noticing issues concerning the Argus -C- ourier versus the Press Democrat.
Council Member Healy also mentioned the G &G Market neighborhood issues and stated
he understands the. difficulty of documenting the problems. He indicated he felt the
Planning Commission should agendize this and clarify compliance:
Council Member Thompson supported the results of the meeting with Chelsea and that
nothing should come forward to the Council until the money issue is resolved.
Mayor Glass stated that from his perspective, Chelsea couldn't comply with the original
agreement until they have paid the total $1.2 million owed by the year 2000. He cited
from the agreement that if the Rainier connector is not completed by December 31,
2004, the City can apply the total amount to the City's choice of projects. He was not
aware of the meetings or the delinquency issue.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
None.
6. UNFINISHEb BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Setting of A Public :.Hearing on May 3, 2004 to Discuss and
Determine the Cross -Town Connector/ Interchange, Local Roadway •
Alignment Options, for Inclusion in the General Plan 2004 -2025 Preferred
Plan. (Tuft)
This item was introduced by City Manager Michael Bierman, who
mentioned several development applications proposed for the Highway
101 corridor in the vicinity of Rainier that may have an impact on the
cross =town connector choice., He .gave direction to the consultant; CSW
Stuber- Stroeh, to.look at what kind of connections could made with an
interchange at Rainier with the different alternatives. He introduced
Wayne Leach of CSW Stuber- Stroeh to explain the three alternatives and
asked the Council to set the public hearing date of May 3, 2004 evening
session for discussion.
Mr. Leach began by discussing the three alignments for Rainier and
explained how the interchanges would connect to McDowell Boulevard
and Petaluma Boulevard. He identified the alternatives and reviewed
each ,alternatives alignments:
• Petaluma Valley Plaza DSL Sight
• The Oak Creek Apartment; Site /Shasta Avenue /Johnson Property
• The Chelsea Property - Petaluma Village Market Place
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 17
City Manager Bierman 'requested that these be brought forth on May 31d
•
2
to discuss these as well as any others that may arise.
3
4
Council Member Healy had questions about the height of Alternative 1
5
with an elevated crossing of Rainier over the railroad tracks and the River;
6
he was advised it was fifteen feet or.less but would need to be steep.
7
8
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked about the amount of grading. Mr. Leach
9
explained. that ,because of 'Cinnabar Hill, the road would require
10
11
substantial grading and cuts /fills.
12
Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification of the planned height of
13
fifteen feet over the railroad tracks and how much of an incline there
14
would be.
15
16
Mr. Leach answered that the design has not been taken to that detail as
17
of yet and would be part,of a study..
18
19
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked how the transit mall identified in the general
20
plan would be accessed.
21
22
Mr. Leach said that would have to be looked at with other design issues
23
including retaining walls, etc.
24
25
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked how much of a contribution the landowners
26
would snake according to their benefit.
27
28
Mr. Leach said that had not been looked at.
29
30
Council Member O'Brien asked for clarification of the "at grade crossing
31
at the freeway."
32
33
Mr. Leach answered that was correct and he explained this would be
34
accomplished in conjunction with the Caltrans widening project plan as
35
an underpass below grade.
36
37
Mr. Leach was asked to briefly explain alternatives 2 and 3 by the mayor.
38
39
Vice Mayor Moynihan needed further clarification of a "savannah" along
40
the River that dealt with an environmentally sensitive area requiring a
41
curvature with shifting to minimize the grade change.
42
43
Mr. Leach explained that the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement
44
Plan would have to be reviewed as well as any other City plans.
45
46
PUBLIC COMMENT
47
48
Janice Cader- Thompson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
49
invited anyone to accompany her to walk the Corona Reach and read a
50
letter that she had sent to Council regarding the cross -town connector
Vol. XX, Page 18 April 5, 2004
and her views on it. She also stated she heard on an open mike at the last
Council Meeting "that all we have to do is take Corona out of the
General Plan, put Rainier in, and then we're fine." She stated that this
might be a Brown Act violation.
David Keller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and stated that the
real question is "how do we get people, goods and services delivered
around the City ?" He asked Council to consider the long -term
consequences and identify what the transportation objectives are in
measurable terms; he supported an overpass at Corona Road.
John Cheney, Petaluma, addressed the- City Council indicating he
favored Corona as a better alternative to Rainier Avenue, as Rainier
Avenue would result in development that would produce flooding.
Jerry Price, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and criticized the cross-
town connector alternatives and supported Corona Road as the best
route as a true cross -town connector. He suggested the land should. be
used for parks and ball fields instead of development.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and stated that
Rainier is not a traffic solution or a, cross -town connector because planned
development in the floodplain will create congestion. He said Corona
Road is a cross -town connector and should be explored, as an alternative.
Ettamarie Peterson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and stated she •
wants to stay outside the Urban Growth Boundary and keep her farm.. She
feels a Rainier Avenue over crossing gives, the Chelsea Corporation a
"free lunch`` and that the flood issue is serious. She asked the Council to
honor the river.
Richard Brawn, Petaluma, addressed the Council and stated concerns
about the cost - benefit analysis related to this project as, well as any others. •
He asked the City to evaluate the tax revenue a project will generate and
the cost of mitigations to assure the City does not end up paying for the
development.
Dianne Reilly- Torres, Petaluma, addressed the City Council with specific
questions: 1) When is the scoping session (the date) for the General Plan
EIR? 2) Confirm this item 4/19/04 is funded from CIP NOT General Plan
funds? And 3) When did CSW Stuber- Stroeh join the General Plan team?
Council Member Healy had questions of Mr. Leach regarding Alternative
2, if if was at grade or elevated.
Mr. Leach indicated it is at -grade at the railroad. He clarified Alternative
1, with General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuff's assistance, was also an
at -grade crossing at the railroad and would ; span the River.
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 19
Council Member Healy stated his understanding of where the at -grade
2
crossings would occur.
3
4
Mr. Leach' said he was correct but the plans may change to address any
5
new•alighments °for improved access; they are showing four lanes from the
6
HDR study.
7
8
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated .that HDR met with Caltrans and the design
9
was for'four.lanes. ;.
10
1 1
Council discussion continued about the number of lanes and the grade
12
level crossings necessary.
13
14
Counc h Member Torliait had questions about Alternative 3, the Johnson
15
property and ..wanted clarification that the property owner disagreed
16
with the alignment and Lthe, four =lane design going through the housing
17
subdivision. Mr. Leach said this is correct.
18
1
Mayor Gldss asked if'the Johnson °s agreement was necessary to achieve
20
this; alternative: and he was skeptical L that an dt -grade crossing of the
21
railroad track would be achieved. He wanted the Johnson's concerns
22
considered in this alternative.
23
24
Council. Member Healy; referring to the HDR analysis that showed a
25
different alignment at �Shdsta, offered that this could be an Alternative 3b
26
with two 'lanes being sufficient and would take less property from the
27
Johnsons, even if it Were four lanes. ,
28
29
Council 'Member Toiliait asked that" if this two -lane alternative was
30
considered; would circulation .and capacity improvements be achieved
31
with a Rainier alignment that becomes two-lanes.
32
33
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that the Johnsons prefer a Factory Outlet
34
alternative that impacts their property 'the least, resulting in Shasta being
35
the most `impacted. They offered to' shift their claim for a grade level
36
,crossing at .Shasta to the Factory Outlet ;proposal as long as they could
37
achieve.seconda ry .access to their project. '
38
39
Council Member' Healy directed staff 'and the consultants to come
40
at the next meeting more information on all three alternatives.
41
42
Mayor Glass asked each Council Member to list what information he or
43
she needed to make a decision.
44
45
Vice Mayor'Moynihan stated that HDR went to Caltrans directly and the
46
report lists what can and cannot be done. , He wanted to focus on which
47
alternative makes the most-sense and "incorporate it into the General.Plan
48
discussion and the Capital Improvement Plan.
49
Vol. XX, Page 20 April 5, 2004 .
Council Member Harris was comfortable that he had enough information
to make a decision.
Council. 'Member Healy listed what he needed to make a decision as
follows: an .Alternative 3b with the alignment presented in January's
meeting; a Corona Road alternative with the question of whether the
existing structure can be used to add an interchange; a transportation
utility score; a: rough estimate of construction costs; auxiliary lanes'
between Rainier Avenue and Washington Street; that any alternative
must have fully mitigated flood impacts; and Caltrans' level of
acceptance.
Council. Member 'Thompson indicated he would_ like to see the traffic
modeling for Rainier Avenue and Corona Road; if the studies show Rainier
Avenue is the best choice, it must be analyzed and put to a cost benefit
analysis to make .if, clear to the 'public; construction costs;. and Caltrans'
level of acceptance.
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated he did not see the purpose of studying
Corona again. He feels the Rainier Avenue alignment makes the most
sense and provides another cross -town connector. He wanted to
determine how this could be paid for through developer contributions
according to the benefits received and explained how each alternative
could achieve this. He didn't see the benefit to creating :an alternative
3b. He supported the Factory Outlet alternative.
Council Member Torliatt stated the Rainier Avenue alternative: is
contingent: upon the widening of Highway 101 that might begin in 2011.
'She indicated there are many reasons that Rainier Avenue has not been
feasible. She wanted to look at the' alternatives with the assigned land use
and to let the public know that withou "t knowing when the highway will be
widened, the Council can't move forward.
Council Member .O'Brien indicated he wants to see all three alternatives
come. back and noted he would like to have representatives from
Caltrans or'HDR attend the meeting to address what is acceptable.
Council :Member O'Brien made a MOTION to set a hearing for May 3,
2004.
Mayor Glass reiterated the Council's needs to make a decision as follows:
Corona Road to be included as an alternative; Caltrans needs to
approve the proximity of interchanges; wants to review the at -grade
crossings; wants to see a cost- benefit analysis done; and wants "buy -in"
from Mr. Johnson :if necessary to get the at- grade crossing unless Council
is willing to use eminent domain.
Discussion continued about how much time it would take to get the
information necessary to make a decision about the alternatives.
April 19, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 21
2
3
5
7
8
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
City Manager Bierman indicated he would contact the necessary people
to see. when the answers to Council questions can be provided and
would then set the next public hearing.
Council Member O'Brien. withdrew his motion because of the time
'necessary for staff to get all the information necessary.
ADJOURNED TO-CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Rudnansky noted the Council would be going back into Closed Session to
continue discussion regarding the aforementioned-items.
ADJOURN
The City Council adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to Closed Session.
David Glass, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gayle Petersen, City Clerk
0