HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Minutes 08/16/2004T.A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
12
13
�14
15
16
17
1.&
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.32: 1
34
35
36
, 37
38
39
4,0
41
42
X I
o0eta Uma, California
MEETING OF PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
` COMMUNITY -I
COMM
IS,S'ION/CITY 66 6 N CIL
AUq UST 10 2 UViF4
DRAFT, City PCDC/Coijn6l,MifiUt6s�
Monday June 21200*,= 2!4�P-M.,
pr
R6gul `�W� ee ' - 1.
,
CALL IO 6RlJtk`2'00"1P.M.1,
A. Roll Call
Present: Members Harris, Healy, M6yn-ihan, O 'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
and Mayor Glass
Absent . �None
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN TOICLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
• CONFERENCE ; 'WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code; §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
Michael 'BiefmaniParndlo' Robbins. 'Em 0 AFSCME, lAFF Local 1415 and.
Unrepresented,Emplbybes..
•
C ONFERENCE W10f LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code '.§54'957.6)
%City Designated Reprosentatives: Mayor David Glass and • Council Member Healy.
Unrepresented Employee: City Attorney
• iCONFtRE'NCE WITH LEGAL:�COUNSEL-A - Sig Exposure Litigation
�ode ` " , I
(Government C § 54:956.9 (b)) (I matter)
•
PUBLIC EMRLOYEt .PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
Manager
RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
A.'
CALL TO ORDER AFTERNOON OPEWSESSION - 3:10 p.m.
Roll Call
Present
Mgm rs Harris, Healy, Moynihan, UBrien, Thompson, Torliatf
andi�ayor Glass
Vol. XX, Page 2 June 21, 2004
1
Absent None
2
3
B. Pledge ,of Alleglance
4
5
PUBLIC.COMMENT
6
7
Frank Simpson, Petaluma 'involved Neighbors (PINS), provided a letter for each °C.ouncil
8
Member and the City Clerk. His group has contacted 'various stores at the district and
9
corporate level with respect to cart management practices and policies. Their response,
10
has been very positive a nd a ction has, been taken. He w a nte d the Cou to en dorse
.11
the "CAP-S" system and�establish cart guidelines for new stores.
1 2
`
13
Torn Gordoni,. Petaluma; 'promoted "Celebrate Accordion- Day" that will be held the
14
fourth Saturday of ,June each year. He invited all to attend.
15
16
Phil Greschner;, Petaluma, described the actions of a do.or4o -door salesman who came
17
to his fdmily' door and ,became irate when be declined their product. He asked for
18 ,
Council's assistance: in pr6Venting this company, and o thers like it, from doingi business in
19
the City.
20
21
Pat McShane,; President St Anthony's Farm .Auxiliary; Petaluma, distributed a pa " to
22
CbuhtR that 'expldh St. Anthony's ,Farm 's g o al as a 'rehabilitation, Center for persons
23
without income.. They will be celebrating their 50th anniversary, this year.
24
25
Victor Chechanover, Petaluma,, distributed information regading the 'current budget
26
agreement b etween 1 1 government and the State.
27
• ,
28
REPORT OUT' -OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS'TAKEN
29
30
No reportable: action was - taken.
31
32
COUNCIL COMMENTS
33
34
Council Member O'Brien attended the opening day of the Sonoma -Marie Fair and
35
lauded :the young men and women, for their participation at the. fair.
36
37
He -mentioned that North :Bay Disposal had a booth with a sign that said, "Lowest Bid,
38
Best Service," He asked that the City's consultant' look 'into 'this .so that the process of
39
choosing a provider 'isn't tainted.
40
thank t
cl thanked' PINS group for their 'efforts regarding shopping carts
42
and paemborrliatt
iss
43
44
She reported that the City received approximately '$250;000 from am EPA Brownfields
45
grant to Use in the redevelopment area : to , clean =up hazardous Waste sites; another grant
46
may follow later this year..;She welcomed fhis federal funding.
47
48
Last Thursday, she and the. ,Mayor toured the. County's 'Iandfill, Empire. Waste
49
Management's facilities, North Bay Corporation facilities, ,Industrial Carting Facilities and
50
Redwood Landfill`s; facilities. The tours of Nor -Cal and a sife -;in Gilroy will follow and a
51
52
report will b& given July ,19th.
June.21., 2004 UoI, :' x Page 3
l Ma ,or' Glass ex lained his experience
_- y p with North. Bay at the . Fair and his impression of
2 their, presentation to fairgoers: He stated thaf "e franchise decision is very complicated
3 and the issue will °come back to Council.
4 ,
5
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
6
7
There were no comments.
8
9
AGENDA "CHANGES AND DELETIONS "(Cf'anges!to currentagenda only).
10
11
None.
12
13
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
14
15
1. APPROVAGOF MINUTES
16
17
A. City Co'un`c Minutes of Budget "1Norkst op''Meeting of June 1, 2004.
18
19
MOTION Ito adopt the Minutes:
i 20
21
M/S Torliatt and O'Brien. 'CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
22
23
2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
24
_
25
A. Approval'of -Agenda'for Council's Regular Meeting of July °12,
�,.,. 26
',
2004.
27
•
28
Council: Member Healy wanted,° to add a decision to accept the .Casa
'
otel s ite as a re lacem ent for Fire Station #1. The City Manager
30
urane "ste
"` d thi ssed at either the July 12th or July 19th
gg could b e addre
31
meeting;.
32
33
Vice, Mayor''Moynihan asked, about the. PCDC and CIP discussion.. City
34
Manager Bierman going � ing over 'these budgets at a special
`
35
ame fling in July and' indicated he will ge.f back to Council regarding the
36,
date.
3T
38
Council Member Torliatt wished; to 'add to the Rainier 'issue that she
39
wanted staff �to rovide co aced inf and whether alternatives
p
4Q.
will show an ,at - grade rail road rossing or a structured: crossing 'of the
" 41
:,, rail`road. She also `Wanted. Council's „ -.di'rection to Sonoma County
42.
p y CalTrans to- move funds "for the .auxiliary lone
.,Transportation Authoritwa
43
• ,
widenin from East n Stre
�ngto et to Lakeville for use on' the.
` 44
Washington Street overpass to createa northbound on -ramp from the
45
East side of town, as well as widening improvements that need to be
46
c0ordm6_ted from Ellis Street to 'the southbound freeway on -rarbp at East
47
Washington Street. She expressed , f h'at this was necessary. for ' the
48
coordination of the `Regency project ;to provide a funding source for
49
improvementsto thatmintersecfionm
50
Vol. XX, Page 4 June 21, 2004
Ir
1
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
K
33
34
.35
3 " 6
37
38
39
40
41
49
43
44
45
46
47
48'
49
°50
�51
52
Additionally, she noted she felt that :Council:supported a to
be,giveh on "Hold, the Flo and wanted to l(nbw 'His would be
before the Counc , il.
Council Member Healy indic,afed he had raised "the ,, 5am ' .e , question With
CaRrans' and requested that Jhe City Manager contact the-SCTA and
Caffram representatives: to Coordinate a timely Meeting.
MOTION f o, ad"cipf the proposed agendd
m/s Hedly�cfnd CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Glass requested item 3.0 be removed for separate disc
MOTION to adopt the balance. of the Consent Calendar
M/S Torlidtf and O'Brien., CAR RIED UNANIM USLY
A. Adoption : Reading). of ,Ordinance, 221^ N.C.S. ,Authorizi
Amendment No. I to Two Niher, Inc. Ground Lease. Located
at the
Retaluma, Municipal Airpc;rt. (Sklaclzien/Gloso)
B. Resolution 2004-1,02 N.C.S'. Approving the fhas'e I Final Map for the
Stratford Place /Gatti Subdivision (Bates)
C. Resolution Authorizing the 'Developer; •,O'Brien', Group, to, Comme6ce
GradihgActiVity Prior to Final Map,ApprQval on the Site of Magnolia Place
Subdivision locati§d on Magnolia Avenue, Samuel - Drive and ;Gos
Avenue, (Moorell3ales), This 'item was,rem.oved for separate discussion 'by
the City C ouncil:.
D., Resolution 2004t-103 N.C.S. Approving 3% Increase in the Petaluma
Municipal Airport 2004-2005 - Rental Rates for Kangars and Ti .in
Spaces. (Skladzie n/Glose)
E. Resolution 2004 N.C.S; Approving "Correction /Modification ' , of Grant
Deed: and Conditions" (F�etplUma Ecumehical Properties (PEP) P) . . (Gaebler)
F. Resolution. 2064-105 N.C.S., Approving the Final Map for fhe
Subdivision (Bates)
Ifesolution.2004w 106 KCS... Approving Claim-s and Bills (Netter)
FURTHER. DISCUSSION OF ITEM , 3C.
C_. Resolution 2004 - 107 N.C.S, Authorizing the Deyeloper,. O'Brien Group, to
Commence, Grading Activity Prior 't0 FindlWap Approval on the, Site :of
Magnolia Place Subdivision located on Magnolia Aven . ue, Samuel Drive
and Gossage,AVenue. (Moore /Bates')
.0
June 21, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5.
1
2
,
Vice Ma yor Moynihan recused ,himself.. as the. applicant (Mission Valley
,3
Pro ertie s, Inc: has a.finaricial interest:withl,�a y client of his Nexus Realty firm
4
nd`p th ,
alefte Council Chambers during discussion of this item.
5
6
Mayor Glass explained hevould be voting;. "No" on this item'because the'
7
grading applicationisrunusuai:
8
9
Council ;Member, Healy requested further clarification °regarding how
1.0
many.ladditional trees were' to be removed and notification to the
11
neighborhood,'
12
13
Council,''Merriber Torliatt wanted clarification. if this was contingent upon
14
SP.ARC approval
15
16
Community Development Director Mike. Moore explained that a grading
1`7
per m-i not a, public notice item "as it is essentially a building permit. This
18
process is offered to all_ applicants due to the time limitation on grading.
19
Tree removal' is tied to S l A, CM's review of 'the landscape. plan and has to
20
be consistent with the tree removal plan that had been reviewed by
21
CDD.. This'will,be reviewed at SPARC and the public has been notified.
22
23
,
emb y C'ouncif' :Mer Heal asked for of the approval of the
24
grading permit that 'would not, allow the developer to go above and
25
beyond the. approved tree removal plan presented in the initial approval.
26
'27
Director , Moore explained that if the -grading permit is approved, the
28
_developer , 'Would have to submit''a revised tree removal plan based on soil
29
reports and engineer analysis': This grading plan would have to. be
30
'consistent with .all their approvals. He did not know however, if the
31
ad'ditior'aI trees were part of the publiclnotice.
'32
33
Betsi Lewitter, Planner stated that; the landscape plan; submitted to SPARC .
34
did, not jinclude the tree mitigation plan A- Condition of Approval has
35
been added to the landscape plan requiring the tree removal to be in
36
conformance with the tree- mitigation plan "that would 'come back for
37
SPAR C: approval.
13 8
39'
Council, Member Healy requested cfarifcation of what trees were to. be
40
removed. He Was concernedaboult the trees in. question behind Kathleen
41
W ay that the neighborhood wanted to preserv
42
43
Ms. Lewitter stated the trees would be removed from the north side. She
44
explained that' ;these trees; , would have to be removed because of an
45
eno soils issue. She - explained that. the soils analysis required
4.6
excavation of up to thirteen feet adjacent to -the property line to prevent
'
47
sli_ a e. and sedirments from affectin 'homes to be
pp.g � g foundations' of the
48
�����_ built. The iarborist identifiedthese :'eucalyptus trees as sprouts from trees
49
„ _ that have ; been cut 'd and , could. ,be a hazard to the homes. She
50
suggested that�,Eric Keller -of t h "e O' Brien 'Group clarify this issue. She said
51
the. live oaks would be relocated according to. the tree mitigation plan.
52
11
Vof.. XX,, Page �6 June 21, 2004
Council, Member Healy asked. if after the oak.reiocation, if the only net loss •
would be ''eucalyptus trees. He requested further explanation concerning
the 142 trees! were these just recently identified or were 'they counted
previously; if the 'difference was known;_ and what had changed since
project approval?
Ms. Lewit#er indicated. that when the initial.'study was done ;.;70 trees were
to be removed and '83' were to be "impacte,d." Now, 1.42 'total trees are -
going to ,be •removed out of1he 425 trees on the parcel. Of the 142„ 126
are non - indigenous and 34 trees of which all but one is live oak; will be
impacted., The approval requires •replacement of all 142 trees at a ratio of
, 3 , .2" 1 Thist plan would provide 454 native trees replanted on the.sight..
Council Member Torliatt requested clarification that none of the grading
would .occur until the .SPARC approval is complete.
Ms: •Lewitter. responded "no "Io this as the developer" - wanted
the grading
permit now before the end. of construction season. SPARC wilh, look at it for` .
the, first •time this Thursday. The Condition of Approval requires a, Final
Landscape.Plan, that includes all `the information, from•the tree mitigation
plan to come back for SPARC approval •= •so the grading would occur
before the final plan comes back to SPARC for approval.
Council Member TorliatF clarified' that the grading plan would allow the
developer to grade according to the existing plan but not .removing the
trees that they are proposing 'to remove.
0
Ms. kewitter'explained that the grading permit approval would allow them
to remove`tre,es and to grade according to the neW soils report,.
Council ,Member. 'Torliatt ;stated that !she would 'not support this item
because the neighborhood has not been noticed of this specific 'issue, it
'has, not-gone. to SPARC, and is not contingent upon SPARC. approval of
the grading and tree removal.
Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley ,Pro perties Inc., 'he,addressed the notification
of neighbors issue by stating that a letter was sent to the affected
neighbors. regarding, the additional, :free loss along with the current plan,
and the provision'for the planting' of `new trees..
Council Member'Torliatt'asked staff to explain why Council was not made
aware of this n0fi ication by the developer.
Mr: Moore explained that the Department did not do ,d public notice; the
developer did 'it on t heir 'own accord.
Council. Member Torlialt explained that she thought, the City would'
perform public noticing in conjunction with the SPARC ,appli,cation
addressing specifically the issues.fhat had been changed. She stated that
the tree removal issue was. ,not specifically mentioned 'in the 'revised;
notice:
' l
June 21, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 7
Mr Moore said ;that the notice seri t tor'`SPARC wasa notice that the entire
•'
2
protect would: be coming before; SPAR:C and did not specifically identify
3
the tree removal issue.
4
5
Council Member torli'att" asked 'that: the grading permit, not be granted
6
until there is full SPARC' approval of they site plan. This would allow
7
neighbors the opportunity for omment and that the noticing
8
should be a_m inirnum 300 feet from area.
b affected
9
10
Mayor' Glass stated that this project °, came to City Council after several
1'1
Planning Commission rejections qnd, the Council gave assurance to the
12
neighborhood °that SPARC would have full review of this. He stated that
13
the 142 .trees are all that were left of what. was a forest protected. in the
14
General 'Plan: He felt that the 'neighbors should have this reviewed by
15
SPARC'bef.ore more trees are, remove'd.
16
17
Eric Keller, O'Brien.-Group., explained, that presently- there are 445 trees on
_ 18 a
the,; sight. The original reports re qu.i red further soil investigation. This
19
investigation .uncovered areas of no
g = engineered fill regpiring soil to be
20
excavated and re- compacted with engineered ",. fill from three feet to
21
thirteen feet, depending on the location. He explained that excavating
22
soil'.;near second and third ;generation eucalyptus results in undermining
23
the tree's, shallow root system and creates a hazard which already exists
24
on this site to :adjacent homeowners to the .,north of : .the property. He
25
stated .previous plans called for-70 trees „foibe':rernoved, now a net add of
•
26
27
72 frees 'has been. identified..IThe, initial report showed several more native
oak trees to be removed - that are now being preserved through the
28
.
arborist's ,relocation process that have been successful in .other projects.
29
He explained. the impact :on the,site's,wetlands that were created by a
30
storm drain. A Corps permit was necessarywith an'authorization requiring.
31.
mitigation., To accomplish this their engineers proposed: a 6:1 ratio to
32
create the wetlands because the: soils are very, loose and makes itdifficult
33
for Wptland species to,.grow. •The creation of the wetlands required
34
removing .additional trees: The Regior`ghQuality, Control Board. (RQCB)', the
35
Army , Corps of Engineers,. and the "Department of Fish and Game
36
approved the wetland mitigation monitoring program. The developers
37
undlerstood all thisi hadi to go before SPARC, but they wanted Council to
38.
dpprovethe grading with the understa'ndirg that the 3t.1' ratio to replant
39
with native trees was part of the'project. He,supported the tree 'removal'
40
process.as_'necessary due'. to' the geotechni'cal reports ion the soil and the
41 " '
eucalyptus trees. The .RQCB'bh1 d the Corps require ,these improvements to
42
be completed by October l 5, This process will, take them eight weeks to
43
complete.
44
ry
45
Mayor Glass stated 'that all the reasons support why the parcel should
46
have remained as a' ,park and he "would not support this. He said that
47
more trees were being subtracted; and the promise to: the neighborhood
48
" w,ould.,be involved when it went to SPARC. He, wanted to know "what's in
49
if for the CityV
50
Vol. XX,'Page 8 June 21, 2004:
Council Member Healy questioned the map showing the: re_rnovaf of the
.non - engineered fill and how this would impact trees outside the
developer',s property line.
Mr. Keller stated that they would, have'to work with the adjoining property
owners for the•frees located. on the north side near -the private lane.
.•Council -Member Healy stated be would approve a grading ;permit
consistent with the original' approval of the project and allow the final
work to be done when SPARC approves? the landscape plan and other
issues
Director Moore stated that these are technical issues and are better
questions for the builder. The'soil reports require that the trees be removed
to allow'the project to proceed.
Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properfles, stated that when the soil report was
originally° done, the site had been leveled in the 19.50's and the outer
edges were• not 'of` a concern. He did not feel that SPARC had the
authority to tell the developer to leave 'the trees based on the soil.
conditions.
CO,Undil 'Member Healy had questions regarding the removal, of trees on
'the developer's property and 'the structural - impact on._ neighboring
property 's trees because of the grading up to the property line. He asked
.if anything on the Magnolia- sight had changed:
Mr. Aguilar. stated .that there were no K changes'-to the Magnolia site. He
commented that "the park -site is not where the tree loss would occur,
Mr. Keller answered Council'' Member Healy's concerns' regarding the
Gossage side by , stating that the number of trees located on the -other
side of "the property line was .not significant: They would have to surveYthe
exact property' line and that tree removal would occur before the
grading began, He, - added; that any tree removal on the adjacent
property would 'require that their plan, be amended.
Council Member Healy risked' how fhis'would be accomplished based on'
the grading request.
Mr: 'Kelier explaihed> that this, would be 'a mitigation 'measure tied; to
SPARC approval of`the project:
Council .Member Healy :supported issuing a grading permit. for the
Magnoli'a.site but not the Gossage sit&of this time.
Council' Member Thompson ,asked if letters had been sent -to the, adjoining
pr,.operty owners whose trees Would be impacted;
Mr: Keller explained that letters were, isent Monday, : June 14`, 2004
informing neighbors of the meeting :tonight and; also of ;the tree mitigation
plan along - with copies of the exhibits. He'stated that three parcels would
�k j
�4
•
.be affected: He stated the de'Veloperwould, m"oke, it a condition to obtain
affected neighbors permission lbetbr&femoving the•trees..
Cou!ici.l. would be acceptable to him, He
- that he •COold not �dpprove. the', grading until property owner
permissions! are
J
Mr. Keller stated that they would . agreeto this and bring this to SPARC as a
conditiOh of approval.
Council Wernbqr� .O'Brien questioned granting the grading permit
contingent on.,.SPARC approval and permission to remove the trees from
the affected neighbors.
Director. Moore stated that this would be acceptable and the Council
coold conditions".
Mr. Keller'stafed that they would'.pgree -to not 'e
remove any, trees along the
northerly Gossdge Avenue property tine until they had SPARC approval of
the pre - mitigation plan to issue the- grading permit absent the site
adjacent. to the trees.
JU06,21,i 2004 Vol. XX, Page 9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Council., Member Torliatt commented, that if the soils reports. had been
done, in d fimely fashion clutihg application process `this could."have
been dedlf'with at that timer11
Mr. Keller replied, stating that the two previous engineers had followed.
prbt,oco'l, regarding t he sbils report: : The , `use Of , - ,three ° test boring& missed t he
fact that this. was not engineered fil] - Q.s required for the improvements.
Their - group - dug - d pit and the .,cross-�sec tiOnJoveciled the soil problem. He
felt it b would b eneficial , fo b& monitorin P g the situation this winter rather
:than.td0si d " eldytolhis,groupr.
Council M6rhberlorlidtf stated fhdtif PARC, recommend the tree
removal 'or relocation; this would; affect the decis'ion Council would make
She fielf an expert "h6�ededto'�evii��v�, this . before Council makes kes a decision.
supported Council Member O'Brien's 0
C ou n cil, . " . M - b I . p roposal
and wanted!* a'dd,'hand deliv'e'ring. within a -300-foot radius over the nexf
day or , two and including more- detail in the letter regarding what will �be
covered in, the Meeting,. He reiterated . his 06"posal, to approve the
g,rading',0ermJ,t for the Magr hth 'approva for t he grading
iiq parcel with
p6tmit on the Gosscige parcel conditioned on SPARC'-s approval of the
,landscap&,pja
n, d'nd. agreements with the neighbors.
Council Member O'Brien wanted' to `add that if the trees need to be
remoyed.,lo'etause of a hazard liability, that whoever makes the decisio
to leave the trees assumes person liability for that decision.
'Mayor . , Grass 'stated that if this 'grading permit' were approved as
reqQestecl, in light of t he complications and lack ,of neighborhood notice,
bewb0ld,,.noi support this project.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
,28
29
30
31
32
33
,34
`37
38
39
40
41
42
43
A4
45 ,
47
48
4?
50
5,1
52,
Vol. XX, Page 10
June 21 2004
Council Member Healy motioned to uppiove the requested, grading
ing
permit with respect to the Magnolia parcel and to approve z the grading
Oermit for the Gbssdge parcel conditioned on,'aloproval'. of 'the
landscaping plan. by SPAR additional
notice to the neighborhood for
SPARC and for the applicant to reach on agreement with neighbors
whose'! trees willbe impacted by this. proposed pl an.
Council Member 7orliatt stated she would not support - this becawse the
Magnolia parcel needs to be part of the SPARC approval' before the
grading moye§ forward beca0se frees will be removed - on the Magnolia
parcel.'
As. Lewifter stated that SPARC would not have' the final 'landscape plan
for f his. Thursday's. meeting; "The preliimin o plan subMifted to
-SPARC, did not show the current. tree removal proposal. She stated that
with this motion:, Council would review the free removal except for the
Magholia
1,
MOTION.,to adopt the resolution:
M/S Healy and Thompson. .CARRIED ON A. 4 - 2 - 1 'VOTE AS FOLLOWS::
AYES: Healy, Thompson, Harris, O'Brien
NOES; Glass, Tbrliatt
Retused Moynihan
Vice Mayor Moynihan returned to the Coun cil' Chambers.
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Matter of Discussion and 'Adoption the l froppsed 2604-05 City of Btfdg6t
Olifion 1:
• Resoluflon,Ad.opting, FY,2004_105 'City of-Petalumd� Budget.
W Introduction and Adoption -, of an Oid _!Providing for
APpropridti.ohs. for FY 2004-2005 and `Declaring an Urg6ncy.,
OR
Option 2:
• -Resolution Adoptiing,tbp FY1004-0 City of Pettiluma Budget.
• Introduction (First Reading ) of an Ordinahce. Providing -f or
Appropriations for F.YY 2004-2005. (Netter) ,
• 'Resolution 2004-1108 N..C;S; Providing for TeMpprary Appropriation of
Operation 'of the City of Petaluma B e giinhing
2004. '(Wetter)
0
I*..
III f
I;
:li
June 21, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 11
`
cit B Manager
ty `' g r ierman explained the two options.. Items that were
2
requested tb added included .$350 000 `for- items funded out of the
u
3
„ Transien t::Occupancy Fund; $1`30,000 added,.to the Police DepartmentJor
4.
the Narcotics: Officer and Gang. Task. Force membership; and $11'0;000
5
added to Parks- and Recreation for additional park maintenance supplies.
6
These re;Venues came from: athe State; motor vehicle fees, which were
u
7
increased by The ending ° balance:'of $215,000 from TOT funds;
$155,000 fro6n! Jhe General• Fund' carry- over balance from the current year;
9
ands $50,000 from PCDQJbr tourism efforts °,totals $590,000 and allows for a
I
10
11
balancedtbudget.-
.
12
Vice Mayor Moynihan had the following questions concerning the budget
13
process naming the number of positions ,,.elimincifed; transfer- ins /ou
14
requested a' . sources • and uses i�summary,; and a ' restatement- of" an
1.5
incorrect street reconstruction fund report. He stated he would not
16
support the 'emergency ordinance without. the PCDC and CIP budget
17
inform_ at,ion, but he would su.pport,giving staff time -to provide this.
18
19
Council Member O'Brien explained that he would not support passing the
20
budget.' because of the following; He felt that some of the budgets. were
'
21
incomplete: or inaccurate.. He noted Community Development's short:
22
counter hours, .no cross training, and lack of Code Enforcement. He felt
23
PCDC projects burden' other departments with maintenance and. without
G
Council c rmine; "how,'°it affects other
, annot . dete
25
t budget;
depart D C budgets.
26
27
Finance Director. Netter clarifield that according, to the Charter, the;
28
appropriation bill •allocates the (funding, Adopting _the budget,wasn'.t
F ,
29
ti he appropriation
Me- sensitive; but t' bill of $10 million allows the City to
30
continue. issuing checks.
31
32
PUBLIC COMMENT
33
34
`Victor 'Chechanover, Petaluma, wanted clarification. of the Parks
Department receiving an addition,
° p g al' $300,000,or was $150,000 promised?
e ,.
` 36
37
ot Bierman clarified =the numbers as follows: $110,000, $130,000
38
and $350 000'as the final numbers.
39
'
40 ..
Co.uncil ;Member Toriiatt cl'arifie ,'d for
- Mr. 'Chechan'over 'that a Council
41
Member had proposed - an increase to' $300,000, but this would require
42
cutting in, other areas and ;no proposal„ was offered to support this
43
$1.10,000 was brought back. She supported approving the budget as one
44
document including the PCDC !and CIP and adopting the resolution for
45
the,-$10 million dollarappropriatibh
47
MOTION by Council - Member 'Healy . and seconded by Mayor Glass to
48
adopt the Resolution, Adopting 'the FY 2004 City of Petaluma Budget.
49
MOTION: DIED by the following vote:
50
5.1
AYES Glass, Thompson, Healy
N,
52
NOES Moynihan, Torliatt O°'Brien
i t
Vol. XX, Page 12 June 21, 2004
1
2
Vice M''a,yor Moynihan :motioned to adopt Resolution Providing. for
3
Temporary Appropriation of $10,000,000 for .Operation of the City of
4
Petaluma Beginning; onJuly "1, 2004.
5
6
M/S Moynihan and Torliatt.'CARRIED 'UNANIMOUSLY.
7
8
B , Resolution 2004-109 N C:S. Ordering Abatement of''Nuisance 'Consisting ofi
9
Weeds Growing on Public /Provide Property in the City of ;P.etaluma and
10
Ordering; the Fire Chief to Remove Said Weeds by contract or - : his Own
1 1
Forces. (Ginn)
12
13
Fire;'Chief Chris'Albertso.n presented the weed abatement item They had
14
invited citizens to attend 'a public hearing *regarding the plan to remove.
15
weeds.
16
17
Mayor Glass , the public hearing, but hearing no ;requests to
18
speak, closed "the public hearing
20
MOTION to adopt °the resolution: .
21
22
MIS O'Brien and T,orliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
23
24 ,
5. UNFINISHED_ BUSINESS
25
26
A Reconsideration of Action Taken on May 3, 2004 , Resolution 2004 -074 ,
27
N:C.S Encouraging the California Coastal Conservancy, 'the California
'
28
State Park System, and `Local Governmen'f Officials to Work Together to
29
Create a Park..and Trail Systerh of Regional Signifidance, on Sonoma ;
30
Mountain. (A motion was made on June 7, 2004 by Council ; Member
31
Thompson, seconded' by Council Member O'Brien and carried
32
unanimously, 'to set ihis maffer for'discussion on. June 21, 2004.)
u;
33
34
Council Member Thompson gave. a brief, history of this controversial, item
35
He - stated that he hard a -,negdti.ve response from the State and would
36
therefore not support this `"resolution. He ,suggested forming a committee
37
and agendize fhis to put forth a united fIronf' from Petaluma to do
38
something with. the land..
39
40
Council: Member To.rliatf wanted clarficdtion of the phrase ''do something
41
with this land:" ":
42
43
Councif Member Thompson explained` that whatever the committee or
44
the City decid.es'.. '
45
46:
Mayor Glass also wanted clarification. He recalled that the resolution did.
47
not meet Council Member Thompson's wording requirement:
48
49
Council Member 'Thompson stated that the wording' at the end of the
50
resolution was premature and he wanted, .all the citizens behind this issue
51
to move forward with the` property.
52
a(n N
June 21., 2004 Vol. XX,'Page 13
1
Council Member Torliatt suggested, leaving the asset in its existing state
M ,.
3
pa�i the time comes when resources are, available to make it a public
4
5
Vice Mayor Moynihan supported -looking at all the alternatives, the
6
form ation, of a .committee and agendi2ing the item.
7
8
Mpyor'Glass,,stated he was expecting new language that would change
9
the resolution '`'instead of disregarding it. He wanted specific wording to
10
correct the'language of the current resolution.
.
11
12
Council 'Member Healy requested clarification whether it would be a
lt forming a citizen's
l mmittee.
14
co He was onc
c e ned that he Coas tal C onservancy funds were
15
time- sensitive,. and ;if the statement of interest by the State was removed, it
:
16
might jeopardize those funds He preferred,: to use the language indicating
1.7
the "city was prepared to discuss options with the State and Coastal
18
Conservancy
19
20
Council Member .O'Brien supported Council Member Thompson's
21
suggestion of .either a citizen or council committee. He wanted public
22
input on this item.
23
24
Co.until Member Harris supported a ;sub- commiftee either , of Council or
25
citizens and to have this agendized.
26
.
27
ouncil Me
C mb,er Torliatt 'wanted clarification that the sub-committee
28
would. specifically .look at' parkland development on Lafferty.
29
She stated It hat the community is fully aware,, that the Council had been
30
pu rsui n g park and their decision was to pursue that goal by
31
the St as1
g as a funding partner:
32
33
Vice Ma.yor•Moynihan also Wanted clarification and wanted to agendize
34
this for Council discussion ,and give direction.
35
36
Council Member Harris wanted an appraisal and, subcommittee.
37
X38'
Council ; Member Torliatt wanted feedback from the Council regarding
319
changing the vision of developin. g Lafferty as a park.
40
41
Council Member Thompson' stated he wan "ted Council to decide where
42
they are going on this as to whatever use Council agrees'upon.
43
44
PUBLIC "COMMENT
45°
46
Bill Kortum, Petaluma, felt that Council Member Thompson was reversing
47
himself on the, current .resolution, t hat ;;he proposed, and mentioned that
48
the public supports action on Lafferty He noted the regional significance
49
of Lafferty ,linking to Jack London State Park. To create a regional park,
regional cooperation is needed with the state park system and the
'I
51
Coastal . Conservancy.. He supported keeping the resolution in place to
III *L
52°
impress these organizations of Petaluma's resolve.
,I ou r'y
Vol.'XX, Page 14 June 2f, 2004
Jerry Price, Petaluma, talked about he opportunity of Having, a frail from
Petaluma to Jack ,London State 'Parka H e wanted the resolution to go
forward and support the generous offer of the easement offered by a
Sonoma Mountain landowner. He supported the Council to vote the
resolution as it stands.
Larry :Modell, Petalumd, reminded' Council that the_' stated policy of the
City, -of Petdluma was to open Lafferty and keep it `in public ownership
under Resolution 2022; He felt the mountain belongs to the citizens of
Petaluma -and wanted to keep the as it`was.
Will Stapp, Petaluma, saw the importance of Lafferty as a public
that would link 'to a regional -trail system. He, wanted to move:forward and
adopt the resolution.
Pty'.Attorney Rudnan§ky reminded.,Cou,ncil than the item, before Council is
the reconsideration, of the prior resolution, not to change' policy or to
establish a'subcommittee.
MOTION to rescind ' the resolution:
M/S Thompson and Moynihan.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Council :Member' Harris' requested clarification that` a "yes" vote would
rescind the; resolution. The City °Attorney said yes..
Mayor Glass .stated that this. was brought back with 'the intention that
Council MemberThompson was going to amend the- resolution.,When fhe
Council votes to rescind the motion it will be as if nothing had'been done.
Any further policywbuld have to reagendized'.
Council Member Healy requested that this ifQM� be added the next
meeting "s agenda to establish either a citizen or. subcomm the
charter of the committee; and the timeframe involved. He expected, this
to not take: more than two months.
Council Member Torliatl stated she was comfortable with current City
policy, which!was to pursue establishing ,a park.. She: wanted to agendize
;this. item only if Council Members wanted to change this policy with a
specific request to do so..
Vice. Mayor Moynihan stated that four Council" Members supported this.
He wanted to know what would' happen fo the original resolution that was
voted on for reconsideration.
Council Member Torliatt clarified that there are four members on the
Council who want to agendize a discussion on Lafferty' to change the.
current policy of ; moving forward, with Lafferty as :a park.
H
June 21, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 15
1
on
Moti fibh made .by Thompson, seconded by Moynihan, CARRIED BY THE
l m
2
Fo _NG OTE.
3
4
AYES. Q,' Brien: Moynihan, Harris, Thompson
5
NOES: :Healy, T.orliatt, Glass:
6
7
B. Continued Discussion. and Possible Action Regarding Prequalification of
8
Contractors for'Bldding of Public Works: Projects. (Bierman /Ban)
9
„
10
W:ater� Resources. and Conservation Director M iBan gave a presentation
1 1
on the screening of potential bidders according to criteria established by
12
state law in I followin guidelines: to' establish a
13
standardized que� ion to ad opt, nd apply - a' uniform rating system-
14
and fo adopt an appeals procedure for contractors. He explained the
15
two options for pre.qualification of ContraoforS either for a single contract
-
16
o�Lto prequalify a `pool of contracfors. for multiple projects. This would allow
17
#hose. contractors to bid on a series of contracts for .up to one year; To
1 8
implement', he recommended that fhe ,depa continue developing
19
th&.prequalification packgge for the 'water., recycling facility and when
20
this is approved, it could be Used as a � emplate,for future projects.
2
22
Vice -,Mayor Moynihan had several.. questions regarding the
23
prequalificatior process.and affects th'e: general contractor and his
24
fe am " Of• subcontractors, :Director .Ban - ,and City Manager Bierman
25
answered these,
I ,
26
�
27
Council Mem_'ler.,H'ealy supported the Alternative I recommendation for
28
-
major projects. He wanted an explanation of why it wooldn It be helpful to
29
do it "on �an annual basis like for street reconstruction and to approximate
30
what the cost Would be to do this annually.
31
32
ManagerBiermdn replied fhdt prequal fication was to identify a particular
33
level of skill thot a contractor would offer'.
34
�
35
The. City Council accepted the report and indicated they will discuss.
.36
program details' in August.
37
38:
C. 13i dsSlerl end PeSSible .e G +ibR
39
Vie...... a;= Moering Feed — iffier )— (Deleted" from' agenda until
40
Mgnager'looks at facilities. It "is anticipated this item will be,heard'7 /12%04).
42 6.
' NEV_ L BUSINESS
43
44
A. Introduction and Adoption of Ordinance °21°87 N.C.S. to Amend' Ordinance
45" °' "'
Nb. 21.79 1 N.C..S -. Recl'aring an Urgency To Change Certain Appropriations
46
for the Operations of the City_ - of Petaluma from July -1, 2003 through June
47
30, 2004. (Netter)
49
Finance Director Joe Netter ex lainecl'this rocedure as required annually
50
to 's.ub financial ; Statements to federal and national agencies for the
51
Certificate of Performance and. Financial 'Reporting. It requires that all
'
52`
appropriations be � at a zero I'evel, especially for the' general and
H
Vol. XX, Page 16 June 21, 2004
governmental', funds. The three, accounts, exceeding were: . Qorh'munity
Develo
pmerit ($200,000), Transit Enterprise ($450,000) and Vehicle
Replacement fund ($4150,000). This must be dporbved prior to June
30,2OQ4.:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Glass reminded the comrrfuFn - ity that 'fher'e would be. no ad ditional ddit i ' ' pnol
financial impacts; all the expenditures have been approved by City
Counc il.
Vice Mayor Moynihdn noted that every amendment 'adds -to the total
doorolihatibris. He wanted to reduce instead of addi . hg to t he
appropriations.
Director Netter, explained this Js a line-itern. budget that pre ludes
transferring from one line item to the next.
MOTION - to adopt, the Ordinance:
M/S,He* and 0`8rie'n. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
R. Resolution 20134-1 N.C.S. Appotntments, to Various Boards CbrntnIffe'es
and ,. Applicants to various vacancies and/or terms on
boards, committees and commissions that are 'expiring 'on June. 3 - 0, 20, 04.
(Petersen)
City .Clerk Gayle Petersen explained the, -process (jhdL applicant
information.
City Manager. Bierrhah requested removing the Airport Commission from
thebppoihfmen,ts.
ANIMAL SERVItES •ADVISORY. COMMITTEE -, Appointed -Erin :Laughlih,
Charlie ,Reinh'arf , and Dan Zimmerman..
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS`- Appointed Brent Russell
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCL E A - DVI SORY COMMITTEE Appointed Bernie
Album,' Tom Maunder and JdredVollrner:
VOTE:: Council was una4 Mous'.
City Manager Bierman suggested !elih ndt - ihg,fh6.Personnel!Board.'
PLANNING COMMISSION App6ihiecl Stephanie -McAllister.
VOTE: Mayor Glass, Thompson, Kealyjorliatt voted for Stephanie
McAllister.
Harris, Mqynihah, O'Brien : voted for Mark-Fergu.son.
RECREATION, MqSI'C! AND PARKS COMMISSION. - Appointed. Joseph Noriel �'
Jun& 1, 2004; col. XX, Page 17
2
VOTE:' Harris, Healy; Thompson, Moynihan, Torliaft, O'Brien voted
3
for Joseph Noriel'„
p �., .
4.
Mayor Glass voted or LindaPos�tenrider
;.
5
6
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - Appointed John Mills
7
and Lawrence Reed.;-
8
9 ..
VOTE: Ma y ' or Glass -voted for David Rapp and Lawrence 'Reed
10
�l'Harris voted! for John Mills - an'd.1awrence Reed.
1 1
Healy-voted fb(Lawrenc "e Reed and Mary Shearer.
12
Thompson.voted' for John Mills and Lawrence Reed.
13
Moynihan voted for Johr,Mills and Mary.Shearer.
14
Torliatt voted for David Rapp and Lawrence Reed.
.',
.15
O'Brien "voted "for John Mills .and Lawrence Reed.
16
_
17
TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEEr_ Appointed; Lofroos, Meyer and Wilson were
18
appointed to the two- year1erm
19
20
Dan ; Zimmerman was appointed to the one -year term.
21
22
VOTE: ;Council was unanimous
23
24
YOUTH COMMISSION_ - James; Burleson was appointed to the two - year
25
term and Rata Herfindal and Dan Zimmermdn were appointed to the one-
26
27
year term.'
28
.VOTE; Council was unanimous.-
29
30
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
31
32
'M /S Glass and "Thompson. CARRIER UNANIMOUSLY.
33
34
'
35
B,.. Resolution 2004' -uI2 N.C.S Awarding a Construction Contract for FY 2003 -
36
2004 Redevelopmenf"Area - , Local /Residential''Street Rehabilitation Project
37
No: 03' 62011' 04= 1.4formerly`03- C501604 -1.). (Skladzien /Castaldo)
38
39
Public , .Facilities and Services Director Rick <Skladzien presented this
40
resolution that ofstreets'in the area;'the:bid`was
q
41 .
awarded fo North Bay Construction., This ',project would bring the StfeetS in
42
. the' residential area to a rdtih0 of 90 -1;00 in fhe redevelopment area.
43
44
ION to adopt the resolution to,include: list of all'the streets:
MOTION:
"
4'6
M3 S O, .B
. % , ' Tien and Torli'att: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
47
48'
C:;` Resolution 200.4 -11.3` N.C.S.' ' Setting City. of Petaluma Holidays.
49
(Wetter /Robbins)
50
�
1 � ,
5 1
MOTION,�'f o adopt the resolution
5
I
- 2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
118
19
20
. 21
22
23
24
25
'26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
85
'36
37
88
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5.0
5.1
52
Vol. 0, Page 18
June 21, 2004
MIS O'Brien and Torliatt.. CARRIED UNANIMO-USLY,,..
D. Discussion d 'Possible Actio.n of Walver Request from Meyers Nave
Riback Silver &Wilso
h Regard! ng Legal'Review of'Proposed Amendments
to the Sonoma - County Waste Management Agency -ncy Joint, . Powers
,Agreement (Bierman)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Council Member. Healy asked if Meyers Nave, Attorneys had bepn
1hvblve.d in negotiating the Joint Powers Agreement and how would this
affect the City Attorney's ability to cooperate in the City's Cit y' Attorney Attorney Rudnansky replied that he di'dr) "t remember- negotlafino''the
a gre e m e h t but it may have beeri'cevie.W
'ed for ,s I ign=off.
Vice Mayor Moynihan had qgesfion regdrdih if igations were to arise,
would another waiver be necessary.
City Manager- Bierman explaihedfhaf this; waiver wouldbe for all garbage
related issues. The City would, have to hire another attorney to represent
the Ci,tV'in regards to -the JPA andthe:C'Ountyllandfill.
Vice Mayor Moynihan said that he would .not support thit waiver if Meyers
Nave iled. the. litigation against the Cify of Petaluma and ' cifi'esin the
-county.
City Ma
naget.'Bierman explained that -this could occur, but woul not
involve "City Attorney Rudn persbnally-
CoUncil Torlia# asked. if 'th& City- had a choice to say whether
ancJher,cityVs6s,M.eyers Nave.
represen
Afforne s 'Outside
RUdhansky s ated that the: must be unanimous.
counsel Would, the City: 1 Meyefs would not ,de - designate
1 , ' e 000
,
him. as the attorney; in this
,case He. stated that thi$F i a. broacl,waiver and if
-there were litigation, there would be 'th6 possibi I lity that 'Meyers Nave
would be involved.
Council Member Tbrliatt her motion.
Council'Vember O?,Brien confirmed that; City Attorney Rudnonsky would
be precluded from discussing anyinformatibn about Pet .1
with his
law firn
.
Council Member H�edly motioned * he would;.. support -this waiver. He
stated, that lwith the ethical wall required, of City Aftorbey R'*
udna,ns-ky, it
, would , be the ,direst to. the "other Cities.
7 i
M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED .04 A 6-1 VOTE'At FOLLOWS:
AYES: Mayor Glass, Hedly, Torliatt_Har(i Thompson, O'Brien
•
a
h ,
•
1 .
1
3
4
6
7
9
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
3.9
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
4.
June, 29 Vol. XX, Page 19
'NOES: Moynihan
ADJOURN
The afternoon session adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
MONDAY- JUNE 2004 - 'IVENING.SESSION
7:00, P.
J.,
CALL. TO' 'ORDER
u
A. Roll Call'
Present.' Members Harris; - Healy .Moynihan, Thompson, Tor liatt
and Mayor Glass
Absent: O "Brien:
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C Morneni, of Silence
PUBLIC COMM I EINT
Susan Gilmore PCSD, explained a proposed measure ,for the ballot and indicated this
was a similar rn'easure o lashyear's Measure 'C except for.the secondary-schools would
be on the November :ballot to keep 'libraries open, reduce class, size, provide. two
computer technicians, funding for hardware and software and fund music and fine arts
materials': F
Charles Carle, Paula Lane Action Network,. stated that the public process must proceed
and requested the Paula Lane item, be agendized as soon as possible.
Betsy Ginkel, Paula Lane Aetion Network stated that she would like the Council to
remember the group's; request to not support the..Poula Lane development.
Vince.., L andof , , . , Petaluma, objected to the "Chinese pagodas" at the
Washington, /McDowell intersection instead of, providing, for a right turn lane ;to head
north. He did not feel it was right for citizens to pay for the entire 'developmen't- required
infrasttuctur&. e
Janice Catler- Thompson, Petaluma, presented two letters to. Council'regarding the River
Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village that referred to possible conflict of interest with
Nexus Realty, ,Asian Insurance, Council Member O''Brien's security business; Council
Member, Harris's , 'employer Cross Check and the selling of- stocks /bonds /real estate to
receive benefit from .the: Council's" support "of this project. She also mentioned the
Rainer /Gross Town connector as being within 500 feet of property represented by Nexus
Realty, and Council "Member Moynihan. should recuse himself because of this
financial interest.,
Vol. XX, Page 20 June 21, 2004
Council Member,Moy"nihan responded as , a point of" honor that Ms -.Coder- Thompson .hds
repeatedly _made' these 'assertions. He state6 that he does not own property in the "are_ a:
but'that she does
Jerry ,Price Petaluma, stated that 'he supported the "development within downtown by
Basin Street :as an implementation of the River Enhancement Plan. H 'congratulated
Council for fheir°support of the Petaluma Central Specific Plan.
Jane ' Refdluma, wanted information, regarding C payment 'Of the
traffic mitigation'fee andi if it included interest and penalties, and why it was for $950,OQ0
not the full $f rnilliori owed. -
David Keller; Petaluma, had :questions about the $965,000 payment 'received from
Chelsea. He feels that the agreement with 'Chelsea " as co- signer of a joint City bank,
account. conflicts with how' the .money would ;l?e spent: He. stated that this new
agreemenf would be a. Brown Act' violation He stated that the 'interest and penalties
dating "from 1996, which would have amounted to about $l.million, appear' -to, have been
waived. He reported that Simon. Group had purchased the Chelsea Property Group for
$3 billion so. `they, could well afford to. pay these penalties. He pointed out conflicting
wording on the publishpd',agenda as "'Council may possible" action"' conflicted with
another version that "was mailed which stated :" Council"will presentation by staff
and applicgnt and, open the public hearing for. comment; no decision on' the
application will be made, at the meeting of June 21.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Vice: Mayor- `Moynihan stated -that the debt" has been collected and'that this debt had
been ignored, by previous Council Members!. Since this debt was to specifically provide!
for the Rainier /Cross Town connector,, he felt , thaf th'e suggestion that a new deal has
been negotiated was incorrect. He felt that `the City was fortunate to get this M"o'ney ,in
light of'so many years 'passing without the Council'collecting' the funds:
Council Member Torliatf referred `fo Marilyn. Sullivan's request at the April l 5', 2004 meeting
regarding a review by the- Planning Commission of the cond'i,tions of approval for the
G&G :Macke #' development. She asked that d'rhe"mo explain °why •staff has not placed this
on the Planning" Commission, agenda and to contact" the: cifizen with an ekplandtiion, or
that Council-'be noticed as to when it would be on the Planning Commission's a- genda.�
She commented ori`"the Paula Lane item 'and wanted to' know' if 'there was a timeline for
the application to be heard by City Council since -the Planning Cornmis - sion took action.
'City Attorney. Rudnansky stated, that he was not aware of any specific time limit that
needs to be met to bring it back. He clarified that ,if there "are specific regulations that'
require additional environmental review then,'they would have to be addressed.
Council Member Torliatt. stated that she h.ad:not met with the developers of -the Chelsea
Project for two to three. years. She would like the :City Manager to' address th
negotiations regarding the money owed, the fees and penalties owed to: the- City, and.
the initial obligation of Chelsea. She wanted "to enforce that "the dollar amount was paid
included penalties and 'interest. She also wanted clarification of where, the '$9,65,OQO
figure came from, and whether the: Council plans to waive interest and penalties, which .
she did not support.
June 21,2004 Vol. XX, Page 21
Cou'ncil ;Member" Healy was also concerned about the noticing of the hearing on the
2:
agenda. He feels that the Council was not in a.position tb take action at the meeting.
3
4
Mayor Glass °tabled this itern;and went :to item 8A- Landscape_` .Assessment District.
5.
6
8. NEW BUSINESS
7'
8
A. Public Meeting Hear Testimon Regarding the Annual Assessments for
9
fhe Landseap�e Assessment Districts and the Setting of the FY 04 -05
10
Landscape Assessment Districts,Annual Assessments. (Anchordoguy)
12
Resolution 2004114 N.C.S De scn Improvements and Directing
13
Preparation of 'E'ngine'er Report.bi'ng
for Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
14
15
Resolution 200.4. -115, N C S'. .Prelim nary .Approval of Engineer's .Report for
16
Landscape „Assessment lDistricts.for Fisc0-1,16ar 2004 =05.
17
18
, Resolution 2004 -116 N.C:S. Intention to Order the. Levy and Collection of
19
AssessMents.for Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
20
21.
ks a p g” oguy presented` the annual
Par rid Landscape Manager Ed Anchotd
22'
setting of the assessments for Fiscal Year ,04705; the Public Hearing' would
23
be sef for July 12, 200 He Mentioned the removal of most. of the, debt in
t v assessment districts b . the, transfer of Assessment District 21 in last
Y
25
Y earsbudget into the e LAD's. Threeyrernaining districts will operat e' in; :the
26
27
red but ,a vote this fall to either increase the assessment or lower the
maintenance• should this.
.,resolve Assessments were lowered' in eight
28"
distric "f .
29
„
30
PUBLIC COMMENT
31
32
There was none:
33
34
City Attorney° Rich Rudnansky cautioned that the affected Council
35
Members themselves even.'in thenoticing of the Public Hearing.
36
37
C,quncil'Member Healy motioned for resolution with the recusaf of
38
C,ound Member Torliaft for Kingsfield.
139
40
M/S Healy anp Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSL'_Y with O'Brien absent
41
and Torliattirecusing herself.
42
43
Council Member Healy motioned for the resolution for Corona Creek ll.
44 '
45
M/S Healy and Thompson: '.CA'RRIED ,UNANINIOUStY" with b'6rien absent
46
and Harris recusing himself.
47
48 ,
Council Member Healy motioned for the resolution for Greystone Creek.
49'
I
50
N1' /S" Healy and. Thom oson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY �� p ": with O'Brien absent
51
and Torliatt recusing herself.
.52
Vol. XX, Page 22 June 21`, 2004
Wce Mayor M to adopt the remaining districts:
2
M/S Moyhihdn:drid Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4
5 MaY.'6r Wass: ref erred to the process ,,of appr . oying, the 'Magnolia 'Grading-
8 as causing 'procedural issues because the Flap ning, Comm ission"s denial
7 of the project did "n.0f, 'allow the Commission to ' provide their
8 recommendatibns Jo Council. The only way' to' accomplish this WOU'l , d be
.9 for the Co mmission to 'have 'approved the, proj tt with- their negative
10 recommendations. He Would like to see procedural changes. made.
12 City"Manager, Bier ekolairied"fhal the total amount owed by Chelsea,
.13, Was $1.2 million. Chelsea paid $235,000. and I the $965,000 was the
14 remainder of 'the total amount. This money . is in a joint account with, " the
15 City and Chelsea. He stated' .the I997 CCR''s on the project are still in
16 f or
effect m d "that at the end' of this year the � money Was to be used
17 Rainier and then traffic impact fees for any purpose the Council
1,8 designdted.'Th,e, $-I.2 million applied only to 'the originialpr9ject and did
1 not limpac'f the current information before Cbuncil for the expqnsiOn.
20
2 Council Member Todiaff clarification of the interest and penalties
22 owed.
23
24 City Manager Bierrii'ah, explained that the $965,000 did not�'in`dlucle, any
25, interest .or stated that the 1197 d0te&_nent was used and he
26 �signed, only the. documen f t - sfor hejo bank-ciccount.
27
28 Coun,6111 Mernber'Torflaff asked if the: City was. entitled to interest and
29 ppinq1ties. pursuant to those :provisions ; the 1997 CC'&R's. And,, it' so, had'.
30' there been any promises to not.collect them.
31
32-, _(ZOy Att orney R . Udtiafislky stated that he , did not know; he would have to
33 look gat the CC The 1997CC&Rss did retl ire that an, set e
escrow b:
I P. P.
34 and t his � was n at tel 0 n e. He u n d erstoo d th al els ea- wa s paying di re ctly to
35 the; City and stro ' pped this when their request for the establishment of' an
36 escrow account not'atted upon. The City Manager tried . to resolve
37 this matter,.
38
39 Council, Aern ber Tdrlliaif r'eqQested that-, the City Attorney look . into
40 wheffi6r are intere and pen - d1ti . es� thbt'shoUld' bO,:assessed I I to the
41 unpq.i.d bala that was due d0ring lhe, time period. She . also wanted to
42 knbw if an y promises have been Made regarding payment bf interest , and
43 penaltiesjh City'Manager stated. "No.
44
45 Mayor Glass returned talfern 7A.= River Odks/PdtdlUMa Factory Outlet Village:
46
47 7. PUBLIC HEARING
48
49 A. River- Od lks06td 1 u m d4d dtory'Outl et Village: Location: 2200 Pefalum'd
50 -Bo 039',,007-40 007-40.1-044'(Parcel,A);
007-391-009�'(Pdrcel B); 0,48-080-038 (,Parqel 048-080-03 8, 007239
52 (Abandoned Railroad rig . ht-of-'way
.- I r )). i Project File'No. REZ0200,1
June 21;,.2004 Vol. XX, Page 23
Con sideration
and p ossible le a on a rec' ` mmendation from the
p o
�,,'.,
2
. . gon,
Plannin Commissionre ardin
3
4
A Final Subsequent Enuironmentdl ..Impact Report for Proposed
5
Development. of 'P,arcels'B and C of the Former River Oaks /Petaluma
6
. Factory'O.utlet Village
7
8
A Modification
■ to the River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village
9
Master Plan to Allow Development of Parcels B and C as Proposed in
10
the Petaluma 'Village .Marketplace Planned Community District
11
General Development Plan.
12
13
City Planner Betsi Lewitt,er°I began with a •'history of the 72 acres as a
14
Planned Community District IP.CD]' established in 1991. This was to allow
15
development of the Factory Outlet Village. The site was developed as
16
three parcels; the northern Parce[ C consisted of 16 acres; Parcel A, the
'
17
middle. consisted of 25 acres and "Was developed as the Factory Outlet;
18
Parcel B," the southernmost parcel, consisted of- almost 23 acres. Three
19
creeks : are included, Corona Creek, Capri' Creek and Deer Creek. The
20
Master'Plan was included 'in the original rapproval and the specific uses for
21,
the remaining parcels.were meet the:General Plan definition of Special
22
Cornmercia The. development of` Parcels B and C requires a modification
23
to the approved Master Plan. The new plan is referred to as the General
24
Development Plan and addresses,.. project objectives, permitted, uses,
25
architectural; landscape and River Walk.. circulation. In ;'1991 the EIR was
26
certified with a Condition, of,Approval requiring additional environmental
27,
analysis when Parcels B '8, C were developed., The City has hired a
28
cgnsultant_ to prepare a subsequent li EIR. The review period ended
29
February 3-2003 She explained `that the adequacy of an EIR is described
30
by tCEQ;A as what is "reasonably feasible" :in light of the magnitude of the
31
project, and the- severity of the likely environmental impacts. To certify 'the
32
subsequent EIR, - it ,must be found that the document has been completed
33
in compliance with CEQA and it had been reviewed and considered
34
before project approval: She stated that the Council must certify the
35
subsequent EIR andthe- consideration of the modification of the Petaluma
36
Factory Outlet VillageI'Master :Plan to allow, development of Parcels B & C.
pp pl arre C I? r osing up to 9,63,000 sf of retail and parking on
38
Paecel propose up to 8T,000 sf`of retail_ and parking. A
39
proposed new road, called Village Drive, ,would cross the River from.
4Q
Petalu,m Boulevard North and provide entrance to Parcel B and
:..'
41
continue behind Parcels• A & . B to access Parcel C. The River Walk on
•
42'
Parcel A.'would be extended to provide public access to-'the River. She'
43
explained that: the quality ' of the mitigation wetlands' - impressed the
44
representatives from various agencies .during:an April 2004 on -site visit as
'
45
b °ein` su erior,to original:wetlands. Traffic and'air emissions were listed
g p
46'
as, `'�impacts from the development, but these were determined to be
47
mitigated by improvements to the intersection and roadway and
48
adoption by Councilof an exemption of 'intersections from level of service
49'
thresholds. She stated that the Council has to balance the benefits of the
50
project against he :unavoidable project- related' environmental effects.
51
The Planning Commission recommended certification of the subsequent
52
EIR), and after five additional public hearings, the Commission voted for
VoL- XX, Page 24 June 21, 2004
r
approval. of the PCD modification with several conditions of approval.
One ,special condition. was a 14 -foot access corridor for the . Petaluma
Trolley, which the. ,developer has allowed for as well as addressing the
overall parking -ratio; the 'extension of the .River Walk. to Parcel B;
establishing) d conservation easement .to preserve the triangular portion
on Parcel' B near *Deer Creek, and indemnification against any due
to flooding if the hydrology report is inaccurate:
Co.uncib.Member Torliatt requested a copy of the notes to be provided to
her.and, Council.
Mayor GI'ass polled the Council to: determine who had met° with the.
Developer.
City Attorney Rudnansky indicated that to provide. the public with
information regarding their decisions; Council Members would indicate
whethe0hey have had conservations•with the developer.
Mayor Glass and Council ,Member ' . Torliatt did not meet with the
developer.
Council Member' Harris stated he had an approximately 20 minute
conservation that was a!general overview of the project.
Council Member He a ly indicated he has met' with the' developer in the
past; 'but not within •the. last six :months.
Council
Member' Thompson rnet with the developer a , couple of years
ago but could not recall 'the specifics.
Council Member Moynihan met and the topic was "where's the money: ?"
and he evaluated the preliminary plan ,and discussed circulation issues:
He'went into detail regarding his concerns and ideas about the cross-
town connector at this meeting. .
Matt. Connolly,. Chelsea ;Properties felt that fhe purchase by Simon was a
plus for the, mall' and Petaluma. He, stated that the' developer has
complied With all conditions ,of approval, He stated the project would
, continue the implementation of the'PetalLima River Plan to create' public
access to River,,will provide a•n annual contribution of over a million dollars
in sales and property taxes,, development tees will total over $3.5
the project would contribute to infrastructure 'improvements; offer'
employment. 'opportunities; provide additional retail and commercial
opportunities and reduce retail;leakage.'He presented a letter - from Basin
Street stating that the expansion at, the outlet•,mall will complement not,
compete with their project. He intrgduced the architects working on the
project who gave a presen'tation eXplallhing the ',project's site plan and
landscape plans.
Council Member Healy asked if this had, been presented to SPARC.
June 21, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 25
Mr. Connolly answered that, it had 'been to SPARC but this would have
2
been,.before the revisions negotiated with the City Manager and Planning
3
Commission.
4.
5
Council Member. Healy asked. what Chelsea would be looking for in a
6
development agreement.
7
8
Fred Etzel, Counsel for, Chelsea Properties, indicated he hoped for a
9
development agreement that followed th& City's ,general form similar to
10
the agreement with Basin Street with the five-year initial term and possible
11
extensions.
13
M ayor Glass pointed out that' this site was different 'from Basin Street, and
14
as recognized by the Retail. Leakage Study, as a. -site that should be
15
developed in the' lo_ ng -term.
16
17
, , Mr. Etiel" indicated that Chelsea ,is not precluded from being a sales tax..
18
success land he feels that .the ;expansion would enhance the site. The
1.9
project will "extend the River.'Trail and' help implement the River Access
20
Plan.
21
22
Council Member Torliatt addressed Matt Connolly regarding .the sales tax.
23
and 'property ,tax figures and requested a copy of the figures he
24
presented. Sh - e also requested clarification from the architect regarding
25
Parcel C' being in the flo6cIplain and Parcel 'B not being in the floodplain
26
area.
27
"
28
Mn Connolly explained that this would .:be a'zero- net -fill development and
29
would -use�a more conservative flood plain than in the EIR as both sites are
30
impacted by the flood plain.
31
32
Council Member Torliatt: said ahoy. she would 'need to see a "Site
33
Constraints,Map' and "waste_ "d'a map that showed in color the flood plain
34
constraints; enhancement- and any other constrainfs.pursuant to the
35
Planning documents that would' show where the buildings would be
36
placed when .all the site constraints were in place. She also noted that the
37
design was -.not a factory ouflef !expansion but a plan is for a "Big Box"
38
development.
39
40.
Mr. Connolly clarified that the these two parcels were identified as
41
"Special Commercial' with no spec ificrlimitations except the requirement
42
for do environmental review as a condition of approval.
43
„
44
CouncWMember Harris wanted to clarify if ;the major tenants or the access
45
'to;Highway 1 affected the' retail leakage ranking.
47
yr. epended; on who the major tenants
Cit Bierman indicated it-d
48
were an d t ne development is more of a "strip mall" design.
4.9
50'''
Co "uncff4_ .cessed;at 8:45; p.m: to 8:55:p:m.
�
52
CounciLMember Thompson left the Council meeting at this time.
Vol. XX, Page 26 June 21, 2004
Council Member'Torliatt .wanted to know what the construction : schedule
was for project.
Mr. Connolly explained that' if it was approved fhis year, they could` begin:
construction hex.t "year and if would fake'fhree to,six years to complete. It
would., depend on the tenant interest and would be built in phases.
PUBLIC COMMENT , ON THE' ADEQUACY OF THE 'ENVIRONMENTAL- IMPACT
REPORT
Dodie Cooper, `Petaluma, ;owns property on the'Boulevard and thinks that
the City has allowed Chelsea to make a" big `investment and the,City has .
not done enough to ,help the Factory Outlet: be "successful.
David , Kelier, Petaluma, made 'a presentation regarding the ;EIR and
stated that it was deficierit -with a breach of CEQA process and ,not
addressing cumulative - impacts on Petaluma.
Eileen Morris, Living Wage Coalition,, felt that housing overcrowding would
result bec_apse the jobs created will not provide a living wage allowing
employees tc , afford housing.
Ellen. Bic heler; ;Petaluma, concurred` "with Eileen Morris and was concerned
about preserving existing. habitat; she- disagreed with -the trail, "
enhancement'too.
Vince Landot; Petaluma, was also concerned about the quality of jobs
.bein"g created not providing a living wage.
Janice Cader - Thompson, Petaluma,.. gave history back to 19,92 when a
citizen's group :sued the City''for the inadequacy of the EIR for the- Factory
Outlets, "specifically "traffic congestion, air quality, and the Rainier
inte.rchange.. She stated, that the EIR, does not address cumulative "impacts
and the degrading of the flood control project.
Wayne Morganthaler, Petaluma, saw this as a conversion to "Big Box"
retail that will damage the health. of the downtown retaik district, he
wanted to have cumulative impacts addressed.
Jane ,Hamilton, Petaluma, felt' this" was 'hot an expansion of 'the Factory
Outlets and that the project -did not meet the necessary EIR: requirements
and `flooding and rCumolative impacts heed to be addressed.
Fred; Schram, Petaluma, agreed with the prior speakers and did not
support the develo ment.
Con - nie Madden agreed'wifh the prior speakers and did not
support the development as it would ,not preserve the town's character
.and would hurt downtown businesses.
i
' ' , .� � .;it dlµ � ,
• -
"
June 21 2004 Vol. XX, Page 27
it
'
� „
Vic. tor; Chechanover, Peta lu regarding the air
pro�e Reta I fions
qualit and the tankin of this Leakage. Study.
y g
3
Bob concerned about the" floodplain being
in, P
5
epla ed a e o as
inthe b enefit of the Cor ps
b
project. He wanted. floodplain compatib e dIevelo pment.
7
8
Wayne Eckstrom, Petaluma; disagrees with the proposed' plan and cited
9
traffic'; poor road conditions, police° and fire level of service, 'native
10
habitat, 'air qudlity, infrastructure,, and sewage' needs for the additional
1 1
growth.
12
y „,. Petaluma, alleged' the inaccuracies of the EIR from 1991
14
and caused the'flooding'thot occurred in 1998. He. wanted this project to
15
use the General Plan's hydrology' methods,
16
,.
17
Kirk Andrade, ,Petaluma,. felt :that 'the . project would cause additional
„
18
flooding.°
19
20
Geoff, 'Cartwright, Petaluma, (Ramona Paul= ceded her public comment)
21
referred to .Ref ail Leakage Study that ranked the Outlet site as 8 out of
22
8'. note&'thewater supply:shortage; traffics mitigation, Rainier financing;
23'
fl'oodplain ” pretend "' mitigation issues. in fher area , and the impacts on the
24
community.
25
26
COUNCIL COMMENT
C.ou on Member Torliatt' requested clarification of the anticipated 9,760
29
al daily car -trips as one -way or round trip.
30
31
John Courtney, Longford' „Gregory, ':explained that the- transportation
32
analysis person was not availableand: he would defer to his expertise.
33
.
34
Council Member Torliatt computed, ,that the $439,000 annually with 9,760
35
additional trips: would amount to about 12 `cents per trip and how this
- 36
would' impact traffic congestion in the community.
37
38.
Council; Member ' Healy reguested' that the applicant respond to the
39
procedural issue s with: a memo taddressfirig changes during the EIR
40
process; development in other .areas of town; the 'leakage study; Living
41
Wage issues; downtown impacts; housing demand; .'and what
42
environmental issues are, and are '.not, addressed `in an EIR.
43,
"
44,
wanted to clarify the, additional ind emnific a tion
Coe cr ga �floodi
45
-rd�g g� g clauses that .the Planning Commsion
46
recommended. 'He 'also wanted to see a performance standard for the
°47
wetlands monitoring.,.
48
49
" - Council Member Torliatt mentioned the method of noticing this item as a
50
factory.outlet expansion was misleading.
51,
Vol. XX,: Page 28 June; 2004
I Council Member iMoyriihan, wanted
evaluation of the circulation pldn for .
2 a north /sOuth corrid "or along the' highway linking Corona Road'to either .
3
Shasta or Graylawn with a gradejevel crossing at :the - railroad to lower the
4 dependence :on the BouleVard: He' also wanted an.:evaluafion of the
5 "Village Road" to .four lanes, to ,provide• for future improvements.
6
7 Mayor Glass announced this item would be continued to July 19, 2004 pt
8 which„ time the people who did not.speak this .evening would be t - e first
9 to speak on the 19'r..'
10
11 ADJOURN
12
13 The meeting was,adjourn6d.at ,1.015 %p.m.,
1
15
16 „
18 David Glass, Mayor
1`9 Attest:
-20
21;
22
23 Gayle Petersen,, City Clerk
r