HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 1.A-Minutes 06/07/2004f -
J 799 004 �� �,
GF
May 3, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 1
r ,
City of Petaluma California-
MEETINGOF THE MA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMM SSION AND THEUPETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT PCDC /City Council Minutes
Monday; May 3, 2004 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting,
1 CALL TO ORDER
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Glass> Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O''Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
6 Absent None
7 ,
8 B. Pledge of Allegiance -
9
10 PUBLIC, COMMENT"
12 Tom Maunder, Petaluma, addressed the City Council ;in protest of the assessment for the
38 revenue is $32,051,700, for the General Fund; th'e estimated expenses are $31;860,450. This
39 reflects the necessary ' adjustment for the °increase in PERS costs of approximately $1.7
40 million. The balancing of the budget was accomplished by eliminating 10 vacant
' p
Dterest wn Business Im ,rovement Distract and indicated ' he feels the PDA has a conflict of
14
15
16
COUNCIL COMMENT
17
-18
Council ,Member Torliaft reported on the Water Advisory Committee meeting where
19
discussion took place; regarding the Memorandum of Understanding and the new Master
20
Water Agreement. She indicated both of these documents will be coming before
21
Council and she has asked staff to provide Council with a red -lined copy for the
22
committee's review. She indicated once this happens she will be asking for. this to be
23
agendized for discussion to give her direction for negotiations.
24
25
Council Member Thompson commented on the noise that firefighters °in Station # 1 are
26
putting up with due to construction, taking place next door, and referenced the
27
recruitment fared Risk Manager. The City Manager clarified the City` is not looking for a
28
Risk Manager.
29
30
Mayor Glass mentioned progress is being made on the Flood Control Project and that
31
SMART, the railroad authority, has signed off on the final flood control project. He
32
indicated this project should be completed within, two more winters.
33
34
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
35
36
City Manager Bierman presented the, Fiscal Year 2004 -05 Preliminary Budget document
37
to Council. He stated. the budget is balanced and has .service impacts. The estimated
38 revenue is $32,051,700, for the General Fund; th'e estimated expenses are $31;860,450. This
39 reflects the necessary ' adjustment for the °increase in PERS costs of approximately $1.7
40 million. The balancing of the budget was accomplished by eliminating 10 vacant
Vol. XX, Page 2 May 3, 2004
1 positions, reducing one -time expenses, reducing overtime, supplies, and freezing wages
2 and benefits where possible. He expects five special budget meetings with the first to 'be
3 held May 18th. By mid -May Jhe City may know what the State will be taking. He
4 expected. $350 'million from the cities and $250 million from the RD'A's over the next two
5 years. He credited staff for their hard work and diligence. .
6
7 AGENDA CHANGES AND DEL'ETIO'NS
8
9 Mayor Glass announced Item 2.1 had been moved- to New Business 5.13 and Item 4.13
10 would be the last order of business before adjourning to Closed Session
11
12 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
13
14 Procla_ matign for Older Americans Month /Presentation by Healthy Com "munity
15 Consortium (HC2).
16
17 Vice Mayor Moynihan presented the Older Americans Month proclamation to Dorothy
18 Morris.
19
20 Pat Landrum, Executive Director of the Healthy Community Consortium, explained the
21 accomplishments and goals of the organization.
22
23 APPROVAL -OF MINUTES
24
25 None submitted.
26
27 1. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
28
29 A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council /PCDC's meeting of May 1'7,
30 2004.
31
32 MOTION to approve the proposed agenda:
33
34 M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
35
36 2. 1 CONS ENT'CALENDAR
37
38 Council, Member O'Brien requested Items 2.A and 2.E be removed from the
39 Consent Calendar'for separate discussion:
40
41 MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar:
42
43 M /SO'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
44
45 A. Resolution Awarding Contract to Ashlin Pacific Construction, Inc. for
46 Construction of the East Washington ' Street Sewer Main Replacement`
47 Project 0501:300. (Ban /Eckerson). Item removed' from the Consent
48 Calendar for separate discussion.
49
50 B. Resolution 2004 =056 N.CS Approving the Award of the Sonoma- M'arin Fair
51 Law Enforcement , 'Service Contract on June 16 through June 20', 2004' to -�
52 the Petaluma Police Department. (Hood /Lyons)
2
3
1.2
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,
L'
49
50
51
May 3 2004 Vol. XX, Page 3
C: Resolution .:2004 =057 N.C.S Authorizing the. Police Department to Accept a
Traffic. Safety Grant From the California .Office of Traffic Safety for a Seat
Belt Compliance in the amount of $34,874.00. (Hood /Thomas)
D. Resolution 2004 -058 N:C.S Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a
Traffic Safety .Grant from the California.Office of Traffic Safety for a Driving
Impaired Restraint Enforcement (DIRE) Project in the amount of $37,720.00.
(Hood /Lyons)
E. Resolution Accepting Completion of`th - e 2002 Water Well Project C501100
(NorCal Pump and Well Service). `(Ban /Simmons) Item removed from the
Consent. Calendar., for separate discussion.
F. Resolution 2004 -059 NI.CS Accepting "Completion of 2003 Residential
Street 'Reconstruction Project C500600 (Ghilotti Construction).
(Skladzien /Castaldo)
G. Resolution '2004 -060 N.CS Approving a Three (3) Year Extension of
Wittman Enterprises for a Professional, Services Agreement for Ambulance
Billing. ;(Netter)
H. Resolution 2004 -061 N.C.S in , Support of California's Law to Reduce Global
Warming Pollution.
Items rerrip ed1rom the Consent Calendar for separate discussion:
A. Resolution 2004 -.062 N.C.S Awarding Contract to Ashlin Pacific
Construction; Inc. for Construction of the East Washington Street Sewer
Main Replacement' Project: C561.300:_ (Ban /Eckerson).
Council Member O'Brien questioned the cost and the balance in the
fund.
.Interim Water Resources and Conservation Director .M ke.;Ban explained
that over 200,000 is remain
$ ing
''M'OTION to adopt the Resolution:
M/S O'Brien and Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Actions. (Ne e4 This item was moved to New Business, Item
t. B.
I ,
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.2
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,
L'
49
50
51
May 3 2004 Vol. XX, Page 3
C: Resolution .:2004 =057 N.C.S Authorizing the. Police Department to Accept a
Traffic. Safety Grant From the California .Office of Traffic Safety for a Seat
Belt Compliance in the amount of $34,874.00. (Hood /Thomas)
D. Resolution 2004 -058 N:C.S Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a
Traffic Safety .Grant from the California.Office of Traffic Safety for a Driving
Impaired Restraint Enforcement (DIRE) Project in the amount of $37,720.00.
(Hood /Lyons)
E. Resolution Accepting Completion of`th - e 2002 Water Well Project C501100
(NorCal Pump and Well Service). `(Ban /Simmons) Item removed from the
Consent. Calendar., for separate discussion.
F. Resolution 2004 -059 NI.CS Accepting "Completion of 2003 Residential
Street 'Reconstruction Project C500600 (Ghilotti Construction).
(Skladzien /Castaldo)
G. Resolution '2004 -060 N.CS Approving a Three (3) Year Extension of
Wittman Enterprises for a Professional, Services Agreement for Ambulance
Billing. ;(Netter)
H. Resolution 2004 -061 N.C.S in , Support of California's Law to Reduce Global
Warming Pollution.
Items rerrip ed1rom the Consent Calendar for separate discussion:
A. Resolution 2004 -.062 N.C.S Awarding Contract to Ashlin Pacific
Construction; Inc. for Construction of the East Washington Street Sewer
Main Replacement' Project: C561.300:_ (Ban /Eckerson).
Council Member O'Brien questioned the cost and the balance in the
fund.
.Interim Water Resources and Conservation Director .M ke.;Ban explained
that over 200,000 is remain
$ ing
''M'OTION to adopt the Resolution:
M/S O'Brien and Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Actions. (Ne e4 This item was moved to New Business, Item
t. B.
;.
Vol. XX, Page 4 May 3, 2004
r•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
51
52
Resolution 2004 -063 N.0 S Accepting, Completion of the 2002 Water Well
Project C501100 (NorCal Pump and IWell'Service). (Ban /Simmons)
Council Member O'Brien commented this project was brought in under
budget and complimented staff.
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
M/S O'Brien and Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution Levying an Annual Assessment
for Fiscal Year 2004 for the Downtown Business Improvement District.
Mayor Glass opened, the public hearing and, entertained a motion to
close and continue to May 17, 2004.
MOTION to continue the hearing to May 17, 2004:
M/S Moynihan and O'Brien. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Harris, Thompson, O'Brien, Moynihan, Torliatt, Glass
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Healy
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Resolution No. 2004 -064 N.C.S. Discussion' and Possible Action Amending.
Resolution 2004 -028 N.C.S. 'to Reduce Transient Occupancy Fees at the
Turning Basin to'$20.00 Per Day Year - Round.
City Manager Mike Bierman noted he had met earlier with 'fhe Petaluma
Yacht Club representatives and they agreed to $20.00 , per day fee. The
collection issue was taken care of by the Yacht Club who will set up '
secure "pass- through" for the payment of fees and improve instructions to
visiting yacht clubs for collection.
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
M/S O'Brien and Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council then moved to item S.A.
5. NEW BUSINESS. - City Council' and PCDC
A PCDC Resolution 2004 -06 Authorizing the Purchase ' of a Prefrabricated
Pedestrian Bridge to-Cross 'Wdihington Creek as Part of the Petaluma River
Trail Project 9876/C200503.
Director of Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella presented
the project and explained the enhancements to river.access. He wanted
•
May 3, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5
1
to award the purchase in advance. of t he" construction because of the 12
2
weeks required to construct the bridge.
3
l
4
Mr. Marangelfa: explained that alternative bids for asphalt and other
"
5
paving materials will' be offered and that "Quarry Finds" are crushed
6
granite. He also referred to the report "Item 4. Financial Impacts" and
7
explained °the physical 'length of the project and indicated there will be
8
options when the bids are awarded to reduce the length of the
9
improvements. He explained $1 -.3 million has been appropriated for the
10
pathways to implement the River Access Enhancement Plan and it would
1 1
be up to Council to determine how far to continue the path after installing
12
the bridge.
13
14
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked for clarification and if this would link the
15
Lynch Creek Trail and provide access to the Oak Creek Trail to the
16
Johnson property and the Chelsea, project.
17
18
Mr: Marangelia explained the trail would connect the end of Lynch Creek
19
to Poyran only.
20
21
PUBLIC COMMENT
22
23
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma addressed the City Council and indicated this
24
was going to be an amenity for the community to enjoy the River.
25
26
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
27
28
M/S Torliatt and Healy. CARRIED ON A 6-1 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
29
30
AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, Torliatt, Glass
31
NOES: O'Brien
32
33
Council Member O'Brien explained his "No" vote and indicated he-didn't
34
want to get caught in "we've gone, this far, we can't stop. " He noted he
35
felt money is an issue this year and the Council has to watch all
36
expenditures.
37
38
,Mayor Glass ; explained his "Yes"' vote and indicated he: felt it was a safety
39
issue and would consistently vote for bike paths of a class 1 variety.
40
41
Council Member Torliatt reminded everyone this is an implementation of
42
the Petaluma River Enhancement Plan to bring people downtown.
43
44
B. Resolutions of the City Council of Petaluma:
45
1 Resolu io to Levy Reassessment for
4�
D strict 24 C (Lakeville H ghway) and 25 (McNear
48
Landing); and
49
2. Resolution 2004 -066 N.C.S Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of
50
Limited Obligation : Refunding Improvement Bonds Relating to
51
Assessment District 24 '(Lakeville Highway) and 25 (McNear
52
Landing); and,
Vol. XX, Page 6 May 3, 2004
. 1
3
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
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
51
52
Resolution 2004 -067 N.C:S Approving Related Documents and
Authorizing Official Actions .Related to Assessment District 24
(Lakeville Highway) and 25 (McNear Landing). (Netter)
Interim. Finance Director Joe Netter stated that 'this, process was
necessary to refund assessment district bonds from the 1.996
Lakeville Highway Assessment and the McNear Landing„
Assessment District of, 1,997. He explained that this action would
take advantage of lower interest rates and would save
approximately $205,000, as well as providing $25,000 in
administrative fees for the City. He ex0loinedl the timing of
issuance is important due to the instability of the market.
Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned the $115,000 it would cost to
issue the new bond of and asked if the fear of interest° rate
increases -was behind this.
Mr. Netter explained that interests rates are at a 40 -year low and
with the $205,000 in savings -and the anticipated increase; in
interest rates, he felt this was a good time to move forward.
Mayor Glass asked if the bonds were insured, would this make the
interest rate lower.
, Director *Netter stated he did not believe so, and the costs of the
insurance would probably exceed any savings.
MOTION to adopt the resolutions:
M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Council, considered Item S.D prior to S.C.
D. Discussion and Action Regarding the Introduction of Ordinance 2180
N.C.S. (a), Authorizing Execution of an Option Agreemenf With Regency
Realty Group, Inc. for a Nonexclusive Pedestrian. and Vehicular Access
Easement Between East Washington Street and Kenilworth School` Site (b)
Authorizing Execution of an Easement Agreement Following Satisfaction of
Specified Conditions; and (c) Authorizing the Negotiation and Execution
of a' Lease Amendment to Add the. Payran Firehouse Property to the
Fairgrounds Lease and to Exclude the Easement Area and
Skateboard /Solar Collector Area, (Marangelld)
Director of Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella explained .
the background of the School District's attempts to sell the site and the
City's role in bringing Regency Group to purchase the property and urged
Council's approval of the proposed ordinance and legislative documents.
Council Member Torliatt clarified her desire for public participation and
asked what the process would be to bring this project forward and; how
would the City's ball fields, 'Swim Center and skate park facilities services
May 3, 2004
Vol. XX, Page 7
l be continued and /or relocated.`during the process. She supported this
2 project, and pointed out the need for consistent terms to be used. She
3 indicated 'she felt the public would, fully understand and have an
4 opportunity to participate in the process. And noted that this was the
5 beginning of the implementation of the City's retail strategy.
6
7 Mayor ;Glass ,reiterated that,,this process had to proceed quickly to bring a
8 new junior high to the City 'rather than renovating Kenilworth Junior High.
9 He noted the proposal makes f he best use of the Kenilworth site as well as
10 replacing a swim center that has met' its useful life.
11 -
12 Before was taken on Item SA the staff�report was given on Item S.C:
13
14 C. Discussion' and Action Adopting a Resolution 2004 -068 N.C.S. Authorizing
15 th'e 'City Manager'to' Enter Into an 'Exclusile ;Negotiating Rights Agreement
16 With Regency Realty Group Regarding the Possible Sale of Petaluma Swim
17 Center and Adjacent Property. (Ivlarangella)
18
19 M`r. Marangella briefly explained, :this item and the exclusive negotiating
20 rights agreement with Regency Group including the purchase or lease of
21 the pool as an integral piece for the whole project to go forward.
22
23 Council :Mernbet Healy questioned the draft agreement calling for a
24 "Confidentiality Ciause" and wanted to make sure this did not preclude
25 the public and interested organizations from participating.
26
27 Mr. Marangella explained that this language was similar to items discussed
28 in Closed Session in regard :;to property acquisitions with terms not being
29 discussed until the City is ready to award - the project.
30
31 Vice Mayor:Moynihan wanted clarification of exclusive negotiation rights
32 for a municipality to dispose of; public property without allowing multiple
33 bidders. He also wanted to know if' 'dn outside party could make a
34 competitive bid for the property.
35
36 City Attorney Rudnansky explained that this type of agreement has been
37 used in the past and is appropriate since it is not surplus property that
38 would have !to be offered to other'entities. He clarified that under this as a
39 one -year negotiation agreement. If there were another bid, the City .
40 would accept the best terms to advance the redevelopment of the site.
41
42 Council Member Torliatt wanted to make sure the: process goes through
43 CEQA and includes all City approvals and wanted this added. to the
44 language. She once again asked for a public meeting !between the
45 School District, the City Council, and the Fair Board to discuss the financial
46 'issues, retail strategy, and impacts on the Fair, etc.
47
48 City Attorney Rudnansky explained that the 'option agreement requires
49 Regency to meet a number of conditions, including entitlements, to
50 exercise their option on the easement.
51
Vol. XX, Page 8 May 3, 2004
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated concerns about taking 'hasty action on this •
project and stated he would rather see the pool and skateboard park
replacement issues worke&out first. He noted he wanted a long -term plan
developed for the fairgrounds to extend the lease and the shared use of
the facility along with the replacement , of fhe Little League field (Carter
Field) that needs to be well defined before the project goes further. He:
said the Parks and Recreation Commission, as part of the General Plan;
had designated the Fairgrounds as a -park site, He felt Carter Field could
be located 'on the Fairgrounds property and used during the non -fair
season and added that with the possibility of the need for a third. Junior
High and High School to Petaluma; it seemed inconsistent to sell this piece
of property without the School District providing an explanation. He also
noted that the circulation proposed for this project would have an impact
on an already congested Washington' Street and another cross -town type
connector °is needed.
Council Member Harris said he would enthusiastically endorse, this since
this site was listed on the Retail Leakage Study as an appropriate retail
site. He questioned why the skateboard park was not listed as being
replaced at the developer's expense as was the Swim Center.
Mr. Marangella confirmed that the proposal would include replacement
of all facilities.
PUBLIC..COMMENT
Troy Sanderson„ : President Petaluma National Little League, Petaluma,
•.
addressed the 'City Council and stated the baseball diamonds on the
Kenilworth property are the home fields for his league. His is willing to work
with the City to move the league to a suitable, appropriate, and
equitable location.
Lou Steirberg, Petaluma School Board Petaluma, addressed the City
Council and encouraged them to approve both measures. The_ school
district will help mitigate any of the issues raised regarding the project and
the replacement 'ot the community's amenities. He suggested relocating
part of the ballparks: to Petaluma Junior ,High as well as providing football
fields for Pop. Warner at the new junior high. He explained the timing issue
is part of the State of California's requirements for upgrading of schools
and if the new site were not acted upon quickly, the funds would have to
be used to upgrade the current site; which is unacceptable.
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated he wanted clarification of the need
identified in the General Plan for a third junior /high school and where
would it be located.
Mr. Steinberg explained that the school' board does long -term
demographics to meet the future. needs of Petaluma. He noted
Elementary enrollment has declined, and, with the pricing of new homes,
they expect the decline to continue over the next ten to twenty years. He
added the General Plan information reflected old demographic
information that is not supported by current enrollment" figures.
i
May 3,.2004 Vol. XX, Page 9
l�
2
Geoff, Cartwright Petaluma addressed the City Council in support of all
3
the proposals. He noted ; concern with the secrecy clause as well. He
4
pointed out that improvements to th& Street overpass are in
5
Caltrans' plans and this project will push it along.
6
7
Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
-„
8
questioned the acceptance of the offer; execution of the lease; the time
9
frame for .moving the Kitchen and Opportunity Center after the
10
completion of the Mary Isaac Center and new wastewater treatment
11
plant;', and if there are restrictions on the amount of commercial
1.2
development allowed in the.City.
13
14
Vice, Mayor- Moynihan stated concerns about Carter Field, the traffic
15
impacts, adequate funding at Old. Redwood Highway and the cross -town
16
connector interchange, and suggested using redevelopment funds for
17
lo,ngi term transportation circulation issues. He closed by stating if these
1 8
were all taken care of, he was comfortable with the project.
19
20
Council Member ;Healy, Torliatt dnd 'City Attorney Rudnansky discussed
21
thei inclusion of language to require the developer to not only meet CEQA
22
but all City approvals as well before the project was approved.
23
24
Council Member Torliatt- agreed that if all the City approvals were
25
included, in addition to CEQA, she.would'MOVE the item.
®
26
27
MOTION to adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance for items
28
5.C: and 5.D.
29
30
M' /S T,orliaft and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
31
32 4.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
33
34
B. Resolution 2004 -069 N:C.S. Approving Extension of Contract with Empire
35
Waste Management for Solid Waste Collection Services, for a Period Not to
36
Extend' Beyond February 28,:2005. (Bi'ermdn) (Moved to after 51)).
37
38
city Manager Bierman explained Empire 'Waste has agreed to withhold a
39
rate increase in January :2004 and January 2005 as well as including
40
additional street sweeping and recycling. The County will increase the
41
"tipping" fee from $54.40 to;$ ,0 per ton July 1 st, If the City remains with the
42
County;, Empire Waste could,,not absorb this increase in costs and would
43
increase its rate by 6.6 1 %. Other options were to decrease the rate 3.6% to
44
8.8% depending on the type of customer; keep $250;000 as a lump sum;
45
uSe., of this. money to sfay in the Joint Powers Agreement with Sonoma
46
County Waste Agency with a c ost "of approximately $1'25,000 per year.
47
Staying with the County would result in a rate increase and continued
48
participation in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The Redwood Landfill
49
option' would end membership with Sonoma County Waste unless the City
50
continues to pay. This option would .result in losing recycling services such
®
51
as household hazardous waste, composting, wood waste recycling, and
52
would require the City to 'file waste reports with the State. He
Vol. XX, Page 10 May 3, 2004
recommended, the Redwood Landfill option that would provide a rate
decrease to the City's customers, and, if desired, stay with the County's
JPA.
Council Member Torliatt had a question about losing the recycling options
and if this could be replaced, and if so, by whom.
Jim. Landa, Empire Waste, stated ,there are curbside oil programs and his
company could do the AB939 reporting. For household hazardous waste
the City could use the $250;000 in any manner it would like to.
Council Member Healy wanted clarification and the cost to replace the
programs provided by the JPA.
Jim Landa explained that this, included public education valued at about
$30 $50,000. He estimated the household hazardous waste service would
be about $123,000. He agreed that the City would have fo have funds
reserved to provide these services.
City 'Manager Bierman indicated he wasn't sure if the City could continue
as a member of the County's JPA and noted the County could' "punish"
the City for
PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan Klassen; County of Sonoma, - Department of Transportation and
Pubiic Works, urged the City Council to wait on the out -of- county hauling
until the four proposals are evaluated. The Mayor wanted an explanation
of the costs to send out -of- county but she did not have an answer for this.
She explained. that losing the fees that Petaluma pays has a big impact
on their system.
Council Members O'Brien and Torliatt also questioned the variance of
costs with 'the: County as compared to out -of- county.
Council Member Thompson made a, to remit the payment to
remain in the JPA, to utilize Redwood Landfill, spread the rate increase
across the board,. and maintain as much of the recycling and other
services to residents as possible.
Council Member Torliatt was assured that the City Manager would talk
with the JPA to, see if they would provide the educational services.
City, Manager Bierman cautioned staying with the County may result in
increases of 6.61 '74 in rates and that programs with Waste Management
may cost something as well.
1
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated he is all for savings to the ratepayer and
he is open to the out-of-county option. He noted recovery rates have
been an issue for him and he is unimpressed with the JPA and their
management of the landfill.. 0 .
May -3, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 1 1
1 Mayor Glass indicated he is supportive of the MOTION and that the JPA is
2 not functioning at this time to fill our needs.
3
4 MOTION to adopt the Resolution, which would include extending the
5 contract, utilizing Redwood Landfill and spreading the savings to residents
6 and- accounts:
7
8 M/S Thompson and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9
10 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
11
12 The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at °5:`16 p.m.
13
14 CLOSED SESSION
15
16 ■ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Gov. Code §54956.9(a))
17 Brarnblett et cilr vs. City of Petaluma et al (Sonoma County Superior
18 Court Case # MCV- 174982)
19 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant Exposure to Litigation
20 (Governmerif Code §�54956.9(b)) (1 matter)
21 PUBLIC. EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
22 Manager
23 ■ PUBLIC EMPLOYEVPERFORMANCE EVALUATION (G'overnmenf'Code §54957)
24 Title: City Attorney.
25 CONFERENCE' WITH LABOR, NEGOTIATOR (Government Code §54957.6)
26 Agency. Design ated Negotiator: City Manager
27 Unrepresented; ;Employee: City Attorney
28 a CONFERENCE CE WITH NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
29 Michael Bierman /Parnala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME and IAFF Local 1415.
30
31 EVENING SESSION - 7 :00 P.M.
32
33 CALL TO ORDER
34
35 A. Roll .Call:
36
37 Present: Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt, Glass
38 Absent: None
39
40 B. Pledge of Allegiance
41
42 C. Moment'of Silence
43
44 PRESENTATIONS
45
46 Proclamation for Salvation Army Week - May 10 -1.5, 2004.
47
48 Proclamation for Bicycle -to= Work /School Week - May 17 -21, 2004.
49
50 Council Member O'Brien presented the proclamation for Bicycle -to- Work /School Week
51 to Bernie Album of the Pedestrian Bicycle Committee, who explained the various events
52 planned during the week.
53
Vol. XX, Page 12 May 3, 2004
1
PUBLIC COMMENT
•
2
3
Bruce Hagan, Friends of Lafferty Park, addressed the City Council and presented a copy
4
to Council of regarding Sonoma Mountain Road improvements.
5
6
Janet Gracyk, .Petaluma High School Library Boosters, addressed the City Council and
7
advised them of one of the fundraising efforts, "A Taste for Literature," to maintain the .
8
high school library service that is threatened by State budget cuts.
9
10
Richard Brawn, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and explained the amount
1 1
needed annually for street improvements would be computed as $7500 per mile x 500
12
miles of City streets amounting to $3,750,000 /year.
13
14
David Yearsley, Petaluma River Keeper addressed the City Council on behalf of the
15
Petaluma River Clean -up Committee and thanked participants.
16
17
Gerald Moore, Petaluma Wetlands Alliance, addressed the City Council and thanked the
18
Council and City Manager for the completion of the purchase of the Gray "s ranch and
19
explained the goals and objectives of the `organization. He asked for a designated name
20
that would include- "Marsh" or "Wetlands" to identify the newly purchased wetlands.
21
22
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and presented a sketch of
23
overpass improvements for Washington Street that Caltrans could support and would
24
benefit the whole community.
25
26
Peter Tscherneff, Petaluma, addressed the City Council regarding various to and
•
27
commented on strawberries and Mexican farm workers' lack of drivers' licenses.
28
29
COUNCIL COMMENT
30
31
Council Member O'Brien requested the meeting be adjourned in the memory of
32
Josephine Brown, Mayor Glass's mother, and offered his condolences.
33
34
Council Member Torliatt mentioned the River Clean -Up and the Chili Cook -off in which
35
she participated as a, judge and noted the Petaluma. Fire Department won best ;overall
36
chili. She supported endorsing a name for the Gray's Marsh. and suggested the Petaluma
37
Wetlands Alliance could work on this. She supported Geoff Cartwright's thoughts on the
38
Washington Street overpass improvements and wanted Caltrans to present an update of
39
planned highway 101 improvements to Council.
40
41
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated he would like to add the quarterly litigation budget
42
review to a future agenda
43
44
.CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
45
46
There were none.
47
48
b. PUBLIC HEARING
49
50
A. Resolution 2004 -07.0 N.C.S. Ordering Abatement of .Nuisance Consisting of
51
Weeds Growing on Public /Provide Property in the City of Petaluma and
•
y
May 3, 2004 Vol XX, Page 13
1 Ordering the Fire Chief to Remove Said Weeds by Contract or his Own
2 Forces: (Ginn)
3
4 Mayor Glass opened the public hearing. Hearing no requests to speak the
5 public hearing -was closed.
6
7 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
8
9 M/S O'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10
11 7. NEW''BUSINESS
12
13 A. Public Meeting to Hear Testimony Regarding the Formation of a
14 Landscape-and Lighting Assessment District for the Washington Creek
15 Village Subdivision. (Anchordoguy)
16
17 Resolution 2004 -071 N.C.S. Proposing�,Formation of the Washington Creek
18 Vi' .
llage Subdivision Landscape and •Lighting Assessment District.
19
20 Resolution 2004 -072 N.C.& Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report for
21 the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape and Lighting
22 Assessment District.
23
24 Resolution 1004 -073. N.C:S '.'L Intention Jo Order Levy and Collection of
25 Assessments for the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape and
26 Lighting Assessment District.
27
28 Parks and Landscape Manager Ed Anchordoguy presented the first of two
29 session's necessary to establish 'the Washington Creek Village Landscape
30 and Assessment District Fund for the maintenance of the common
3,1 landsc_ aping area and street lighting. He indicated the estimated annual
32 maintenance cost would be $121821' with 37 lots in the subdivision
33 amounting to '$347 per residence and that this assessment could not be
34 increased without a majority vote of property owners. He concluded by
35 indicating the. formation process ,will conclude on May 17, 2004 with a
36 public hearing and a counting of the ballots.
37
38 The Mayor called for public comment on this item and there were no
39 requests to speak.
40
41 MOTION to adopt the Resolutions:
42
43 M /S Torliatt and Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY..
44
45 8. UN FINISH ED'BUSINESS
46
47 A. Presentation by Proposers for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard
48 Trimming Collection Services. (Bierman)
49
50 City,Mana,ger Bierman introduced the consultants from Hilton, Farnkopf &
51 Hobson, LLC to present information regarding the' proposals, followed by
52 presentations by each of the four proposers.
I
Vol. XX, Page 14 May 3, 2004
Tracy Swanborn, Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC gave an overview of the
proposals without an evaluation,'which will be presented later. She gave
the background of the procurement process and explained the four
different scenarios that were presented to the proposers to develop their
proposals for waste disposal that would meet the City's needs. She
explained the proposals with some preliminary information on rate
structure. She expected to have the final evaluation to Council on July 19,
.2004 with a start of service with the new franchise in March 2005.
Jim panda, Empire Waste Management, gave an overview of their
proposal which included. an 'immediate residential rate reduction of 10%
and that there would be no disruption to the customer. He indicated
Empire. Waste is a leader in customer service, 'safety, and maintenance
and they would reduce costs to seniors in mobile home parks, and would
provide three annual public recycling /waste opportunities for City-
sponsored events. 'He. added the company has a full -time environmental
educator; a recycling facility is available; and they will offer single-stream
I ecycling with emphasis on commercial customers to lower their costs.
Michael Gross; Green Waste, gave an. overview of their proposal and
indicated their company has increased landfill diversion over the past four
years from 42% up to,80% in the cities. they serve. He indicated Industrial
Carting iand Z -Best Composting are their subcontractors and, their
proposal offered Option 1 with 50% diversion and Option 2 with up to 80%
diversion with a guarantee of 70 %. He continued by noting their proposal
would reduce truck traffic as well because of the "split- truck" design..He
added the company offers a vey good safety record, customer service,
street sweeping, and community outreach.
,John Legnito, Nor -Cal Waste Systems, gave 'an overview of their proposal
and indicated first year costs would be approximately , $8.9 million with a;
full -.time manager and facilities in Petaluma. 'He noted the first year rate to
the City would be $7.5 million and any difference would be amortized.
over the term of the contract. They would hire the current work force with
a "wage.and benefit package to match what they have. They offer:
• Single- stream recycling
• 3 -cart recycling program
• Match the diversion level the City desires
• Composting of food waste
• Outreach /Education /Environmental Education program
Rick Powell, North; Bay Corporation, gave an overview of their proposal
and indicated they would continue to use the Sonoma. County Integrated
Waste Management System and maintain employee continuity with the
, same pay and benefits with a seamless transition. He added they will pay
the City of Petaluma $300,000 per year. He stressed their proposal would
offer more revenue to the City through franchise fees on temporary debris
boxes and recycling revenue and concluded by stating they are
'designing a new processing plant °to'enhance and increase the diversion
level.
1r.
May 3, 2004
Vol. XX, Page 15
1
2
® Single;'Stream,recycling
3
• Weekly green waste recycling
4
® Free commercial recycling
5
. Free service. to public schools /Santa Rosa Junior College
6
C Free refuseand.portable toilets for all City- sponsored events
7
• Curbside pick =,up of Christmas`'trees
8
o Public Education /Outreach program
9
Exceeds AB 939 and proposes a 70% diversion goal
10
11
PUBLIC COMMENT
12
13
Diane "Reilly- Torres, Petaluma, ,addressed the City Council and indicated
14
she wanted.- recycling carts with wheels to make it easier to, take items to
15
the curb;'a low income option; asked' if the $300,000 could be passed as
16
savings to the customer; and if the 50cents that is currently paid for street
17
sweeping would remain.
18
19
Kathy Oilstrap; Petaluma, addressed the City Council and indicated she
20
works„for Whole Foods and is in partnership with Nor -Cal to handle all their
21
green waste.for composting and.endorse's them.
22
23
David Uarsley Petaluma, addressed the City Council and indicated he
24
wanted to bring attention to the impact of this contract to the Petaluma
25
River and' Marsh. He noted the Redwood Landfill borders the Petaluma
26
River and sits in an environmentally sensitive area. With plans to almost
27
double its size, he felt. this site poses az threot to the River /Marsh in case of
28
a failure and also the bird, diversion program affects wildlife,
29
30
Jane Hamilton, Petaluma, addressed' the City Council and reiterated the
31
safety records of every , °.company should be considered for each
32
company; commented on,'the number of trips a truck would be taking;
33
and diversion and recycling should be at the highest level possible. She
34
suggested site visits to each"proposer's
35
36
Kevin Drew,. Petaluma,,addre.ssed the City Council and indicated he is the
37
Residential Recycling Coordinator for the City of San Francisco. He
38
suggested Council look -carefully' at the construction and demolition,
39
commercial sector, and multi - family sector of each proposer's diversion
40
program and how to work °toward' zero waste as they build their facilities.
41
He concluded by sup_ porting the idea of Council Members visiting the
42
sites.
43
44
Council : Member Torliatt asked if all the proposers were charging for
45
commercial recycling. She also wanted to look at the
46
deficiencies /success rates, in' the different categories and how the
47
proposers will approach this. She also wanted information *on how many
48
trips each would. generate. •She 'asked for clarification of how franchise
49
fees will be applied to different revenue sources.
50
51
Mr: Hilton explained that the companies were requested to provide what
52
their costs would be and expld'in in the franchise agreement how their
Vol. XX, Page 16
May 3, 2004
compensation would be adjusted. The Council would make the decisions
and set the rates: There are detailed forms .for both costs and operational
information to allow a comparison of the different companies. The truck
trip information will be compared as well. The franchise fee will be broken
out,separately and determine what enhancements are proposed.
Council Member Harris had questions about the "full -time equivalence"
dedicated to the services and about customer service set -up and billing.
Empire Waste indicated that theirs is 26.35.
Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned the numbers presented and the
compliance with AB939. With the possibility of going out of county, he
wanted to look at the 50 %diversion level and wanted the proposals to be
,adjusted to meet this. He clarified with the consultant that they will look at
these issues and come back with an answer.
Council Member Healy wanted the consultant to explain how to move
forward; how to evaluate the rate impacts and how to compare the
proposals on an° equal basis.
The consultant responded ;they would work with the companies to °reach
an agreement on the exact numbers. They will present the first and
second year total costs and over the term of the agreement 'then
compute a °ne.t present value" analysis to compare. They will present
options available but the focus will be'on the costs reported.
Council Member. Thompson asked, the consultants to clarify with North Bay
when the facility on Belleview will; be fully operational and added
NorCal's "Estimated Average Rate Imp- act" was high and questioned how
is this related to building a new facility.
Council Member O'Brien wanted the following clarified:
• Empire ,Waste Management` regarding the 10% reduction - why
weren't the rates reduced by this amount before? How much more
would the cost be if there was a Petaluma facility? What percentage
of their customer service goals are being met?
• Green Waste -'Is the 80% diversion their figure: or 'a State figure? Where
would C & D sorting take place? How much would it raise rates to
have a. facility in Petaluma? He had questions about the ".split trucks"
since trucks -can only carry so much weight and how many trips would
be generated.
• North Bay - How would rates; be affected, if they had a facility in
Petaluma Is 'their, Redwood Landfill site permitted?
• N'orCal - How much less would their proposal be if they didn't build a
new ;facility in Petaluma?
He wanted clarification of the truck trips and pollution generated to'
haul the trash out of the City. How much, would be r saved by using
"CNG "'vehicles?
0
Mayor Glass 'stated he understood North Bay °was the least expensive, but
.questioned how much will residents, save compared to Empire Waste.
May 3, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 17
l
Management 'who is a ' known entity and has a higher diversion rate. He
2
noted .Green:.Waste''s immediate diversion of 70 -80 percent at a cheaper
`
3
cost was notable. He indicated he wanted iclarification of NorCal's higher
4
costs and if 'it :could be decreased: He supported the idea of a
5
subcommittee -visit to the sites.
6
7
8
B. Resolution, 2004 -074 N.C.S. Encouraging the California Coastal
9
Conservancy, the California State Park- System, and Local Government
10
Officials; to Work Together to- Create a Park and Trail System of Regional
11
Significance on Sonoma Mountain. (Carr)
12
13
Parks and Recreation Director. Jim Carr presented background
14
information regarding a potential easement on Sonoma Mountain to
15
connect Jack London 'State Park with Lafferty Ranch. He noted after field
16
trips, the Recreation', Music and Parks Commission passed a Resolution in
17
2003• with suggestions to enact an "Over the Mountain" Trail; encourage
18
Sonoma County Board, of Supervisors to support this .trail; and begin
1 9
dialogue with the appropriate officials and agencies to accomplish this.
20
He' added one of the suggestions was 'to sell Lafferty Ranch to the State
21
Parks. He indicated the City's Ordinance 'indicated the Ranch should be
22
made available for passive recreational use and that the property could
23
not be sold without the vote of the citizens.
24
25
Council Member Torliatt proposed; s "om'e changes to the resolution under
•
26
"Whereas" number five to read as 'follows: "Whereas, it would be a
27
regional benefit if the California Coastal Conservancy and the California
28
State Park system were to acquire and develop a more extensive park
29
system with unsupervised access on Sonoma Mountain." She also
30
suggested striking "than that within the abilities of the City of Petaluma."
31
.In section 6, and proposed ".Whereas, the City of Petaluma would only be
32
interested in selling Ldffert.yRanch to the State for inclusion in such a larger
33
pdrk:system." She wanted to delete, "qs an alternative to the City's plans
34
to open Lafferty as o'stand -alone municipal park without linkages to other
35
trails or parks. She felt these deletions�were important to establish linkages
36
in the future to other trails or parks even without a sale.
37
38
PUBLIC COMMENT
39
40
Bruce Hagen, 'Petaluma, addressed the City Council and supported the
41
amendments, especially "unsupervised access." He said there would be
42
some marketing necessary to -sell the property.
43
44
Robert . Ramirez, Petaluma, addressed .the City Council and requested
45
they unanimously approve the resolution with the changes requested.
46
47
Elaine Ramirez, .Petaluma, addressed `the City Council and reminded them
48
of the'problems at Oak Hill Park with a neighbor who wanted to dictate
49
the use of the public park and compared this with the situation at Lafferty.
50
She requested that the Council pursue the easement because it is an
51
incredible opportunity.
52
Vol. XX, Page 18 May 3, 2004
Bill Kortum, Petaluma,, addressed the City Council and indicted the offer
of the easement by Bonnie Mitsui will fulfill the ambitions of the park system
to connect parks with ;trails and makes it a regional park. He urged
Council to approach the. Coastal Conservancy to establish this easement.
He indicated because of the State's fiscal crises, it would be important - to
move quickly and the sale would help to recapture the legal fees spent
and provide public access.
Council Member Healy indicated he .wanted to begin the discussion with
the different State agencies to explore a mutually beneficial
arrangement. He supported the first change to the resolution of
"unsupervised access" but felt the other changes to the language might
undermine the validity of the EIR to support future City plans for the park.
Mayor Glass clarified the changes to the resolution language would. be
inserted after, - "a more extensive park system;" with, "unsupervised access
on Sonoma Mountain," and on the following whereas, "the 'City of
Petaluma would only be interested in selling Lafferty Ranch to the State."
Council Members Healy and Torliatt agreed on the changes.
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated he has visited the Matsui easement
property and reminded Council that the offer was to negotiate an
easement with 'terms and conditions that need to be worked out. He
referred to the resolution language and indicated it was to support the
general goal of linking the trail system to Sonoma but he. did not feel it
had the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission full consensus. He stated
he would like the Board of Supervisor's support on this and supported the
creation of a subcommittee to work with the Board. He was open to the
sale of Lafferty to the State or Open Space District.
Council ,Member O'Brien noted from the map that there was no
connection from the Matsui property to Jack London State Park. He feels
that the County should be consulted and the sale should be a.n, , open
process.
Mr. Carr explained that there is not a contiguous property line. The State is
trying to negotiate a 500 -foot area that would join the two parcels.
Council Member Thompson agreed with the resolution and indicated he
would like some guarantee that if the State agrees to pursue this, the City
would develop a subcommittee and go. through a public process
regarding the sale of this property. He wanted to clarify the sale requiring
a vote of the people to assure that the City would follow-this.
City Attorney Rudnansky explained that the ordinance is still in effect and
the passive use is also consistent with this ordinance.. He clarified with 'a
majority of Council votes, the ordinance could be amended.
Council Member Healy suggested adding language to assure a full public
process.
'
May 3, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 19
1
Council arrpldiidhed t want' to interfere with the Tolay Ranch
2
purchase being a e riri
3
4
Mayor Glass supported 'Healy, Thompson and Torliatt. He wanted to open
5
the public's property to the people and sees this as a method to achieve
.,
4
6
thi s oal. He indicated he feels that transferring this to another
g
7
overnmental agency wou "Idn't require an appraisal.
g g Y
8
9
Council, 'Mernber Torllatt� ''indicated, she wanted to address the Tolay
10
acquisition.. She added this" property purchase was not fully supported by
1 1
the Supervisors because of the "$9 million cost, but noted she would like to
12
see two parks if possible in southern Sonoma County.
13
14
Council :Member Healy' presented the' changes to the resolution that
add as, follows, "Whereas if talks with the
o' uld another Whereas cla
16
Ouse
St r_te � of California become sen � us possible surplusing of Lafferty
a , the
17
Ranch .would be the subject df d public process, including at least one
18
public hearing before a decision. to sell Lafferty Ranch to the State would
19
be made." A "Furthermore'" would be added to read, "The Council will
20
appoint a subcommittee to discuss better cooperation with the County of
21
Sonoma regarding poterntial - park land development in the South
22
Co un'ty:
23
24
Council' Member Moynihan stated that the implications of this action are
25
unknown 'if the adoption of the resolution is enough for the Coastal
•
26
Conservancy to act: on or for State Parks to put this easement into the
27
process. , He felt that this resolution ,brings competition for funds and the
28
County should be consulted before adopting this resolution and wants to
29
use Assemblyman Joe Nation to support this process.
30
31
Mayor Glass stated he felt Assemblyperson Migden would become
32
California' senator and represents the City as such. Her enthusiasm and
33
support for the resolution would , support Bonnie Matsui's offer and result in
34
action: "He did not feel that Jhere� is„ competition with Tolay Ranch and
35
there will be money for both.
36
37
Council Member Torliatt, referred to° the Outdoor Recreation plan goals
38
and that the, trail connecting .Lafferty is consistent with the trail plan
39
adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and will help implement that plan.
40
41
Council Member O'Brien did not see the rush to act on this and indicated
42
he wants the public involved. before -the Council votes: He sees
43
inconsistencies with the letter from Mary Mitsui and the ;property being in
44
her name, not Bonnie. Mitsui's.
45
46
Council Member Healy supported the Mayor''s enthusiasm for opening
47
publicly owned ;property to;'fhe public, He supported cooperating with the
48
Board of Supervisors and working together on this trail enhancement.
49
50
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
51
52
M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRIEb'BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
Vol. XX, Page. 20 Ma)i3; 2004
2 AYES: Healy, Thompson, Torliaft, Glass
3 NOES: Harris, Moynihoh,,O'Brien
4
5 ADJOURNED
6
7 The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. in memory of 'Josephine Brown
8
9
10
12
13 David Glass, Mayor
14
15 ATTEST:
16
17
18
19
20 Gayle Petersen, City Clerk
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
51
52
0