HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes 10/16/2000 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Draft Minutes,of a
2 City'of;;Petaluma, California_
3
City,Council Meeting
4
5, Regular Meeting
6 Monday, October 16, 2000
7
8
9 Members of the:;public, and Council Members,with.the exception of Mayor Thompson and
10 Council Member Healy, met atMishiApparel, 201 Western Avenue, at.2:15 p.m. for a tour
ii of the facility in connection with its water conservation strategies.
12
13, The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 3:05.p.m."in the Council Chambers.
14
15 'ROLL CALL •
16 •
17 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson (3:15 p.m..) Hamilton, Keller, Maguire;
18 Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
19
20 ABSENT: Council Member Healy
21
22 PRESENTATION
23
24 . Incentive Check for Water`Efficiency Program•to,Mishi Apparel.
25
26 Director of Water Resources and Conservation,. Tom Hargis, provided background
2+7 lhformation about the various wafer conservation programs the City had in conjunction with
28 the Sonoma CountyWater Agency.
2.9
30 Tom Roth, representing Congresswoman Woolsey's office, thanked'the City, the Sonoma
31 . .County Water Agency (S:C.W,A.), and Mishi Apparel'for their success in the voluntary
32 industrials water conservation program. He stated that;Congresswoman Woolsey was'to
33 introduce to>Gongress an Industrial Conservation and Water Act.
34
35, Council Member Keller advised that the Council was prepared to support-that legislation.
36
37 Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Kerns acknowledged the participants who made the
38 program a success and presented a .check from the :Sonoma County Water Agency
39 (S.C.W.A.) for $2,000.00 the ownerof'Mishi Apparel, Hamish Hefner.
4'0
41 Hamish Hafner, owner of Mishi Apparel; accepted the check and-commented that he did
42 not engage in the program for the purpose of a financial rebate and expressed his
43 gratitude, adding that he really hoped'the program would grow in the community.
Draft Minutes
City;of Petaluma,California
City,Council Meeting
Monday;October 16,2000
Page 1
f.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Mayoghompsdn thanketrMri,Hafnerfccrhis participation in"the'water conservation
2 programand'presented`him with a:check from the City•for$1,,140:00;
3
4 Council McMberMaguire presented°Mr. Hafner with a bouquet of sunflowers.
5
6 Mr. Hafner thanked'the Mayor and Council.
7
8 Vice Mayor Torliatt commented that Solar,Petaluma:Poultry Producers, and Clover
9 were scheduled to participate in this voluntary industrial water conservation program.
10
11 PUBLICCOMMENTS
12 •
13 Cliff Eveland, Petaluma High School Music;Department, reported that the Petaluma
14 Invitational BandReview'held on Octob er 79h was an o utstanding,success and thanked the
15 Council for approving the event.
16 .
17 Council Member Cader-Thompson and the Council lacknowledged the efforts Of Mr.
is Eveland in.bringing the event to the community.
19
20 Geoff'Cartwright,!56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition to theproposed Rainier overpass.
21.
22 CORRESPONDENCE
23
24 Correspondence-was provided in:the'packet and at places.
25
26 COUNCIL COMMENTS
27
28 Council Member Cader-Tho mpsonteported there was<a change of meeting dates-for the
29 scheduled Zone 2-A meeting, addressed remarks that she had made,at the last meeting:
3:0 •and comments'that had,been made:atthe Candidates,forum regarding th'e:lackofSafetyfor •
. 31 the public in Petaluma.
32
33 Council;Member Keller noted that on October 28`h are-dedication of the'D' Street Bridge
34 wouidtake.placebetween 8:30 a:m. -9:30 am.;and would begin at Fire:Station.One;.'next
35 to the bridge on-'D' Street:
36 •
37 CITY_MANAGEMENTCOMMENTS
38
39 None
40 -
41 PROCLAMATIONS'
42
43 Mayor Thompson_read.the"proclamation insupport':of United Nations,Day as•October,24;
Draft Minuies
City of Petaluma,,California
City;Council Meeting"
Monday,;October 16,.2000;
Page 2
•
•
•
DRAFT' DRAFT DRAFT
i 2000:
,3 MINUTES
4
5 August 30, October Z:2000
6
7 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded.by Hamilton to approve
s • - the minutes•as presented.
9
10 MOTION
i1 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Healy absent) •
12
13 AGENDA"CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
14
is Council agreed to move the Water Summit Discussion..item,.to follow agenda item 8.
16
17 CONSENT CALENDAR
18
19 On a motion made by Council Member Maguire, seconded by Cader-Thompson, the
20 Consent Calendar was approved 6/0/1 (Healy absent).
21
22 1. Resolution 00-186 N.C.S. Approving Claims and.Bills. (Thomas) •
23
24 2. Resolutions 00-187 N.C.S: Approving Reclassifications Reflecting the City's
25 Reorganization and Reassignment of Job Duties. (Acorne)
26
27 Council Member Keller expressed his appreciation;to City management for their work on
28 this project. -
29
30 3. Resolution 00-188•N:C.S. Approving Selection,ofBanking Services. (Cornyn)
31. .
32 4. Resolution 00-189 N CS. Authorizing the Purchase of a Digital Imaging;System,
33 Related Software and Maintenance from ImageWare,Systems, Inc., for Cost of
34 $77,674.27. Funding: 'State of California::Law Enforcement Technology Equipment
35 Program (CLETEP) Grant for $62,319.86, City Funding in Amount of 15 354.41 .
36 (Parks/Aboudara)
37
38 5.. Resolution.00-190 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma Adopting a Conflict of'Interest
39 Code For Public Officials and Designated Employees as Required by the Political
40 Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair' Political Practices Commission and
4.1 Repealing Resolution No. 99 - 227 N.C.S. (Kline)
42
43 6. Resolution 00-1,91 N.C.S. Awarding Contract for Geographic Information
Draft Minutes
. City of Petaluma, California
City:Council Meeting
Monday,October'16,2000
•
Page 3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Systems '(GIS):Parcel Data Conversion.Services to Brown and Caldwell for an
2 Amount Not-to-Exceed $42,000' (Tufti Cooper)
3
4 UNFINISHED.BUSINESS •
5
6 7. McDowell Boulevardiand East Washington Street Intersection Transportation
7 Improvement Project Assessment District#2000-01 (Project No 9863, Phase 3).
8 (Skladzien/Evert)
9
10 A. Adopt°'Resolution to Make Acquisitions:and Improvements
11
12 B. Adopt;Resolution to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer's Report, Directing
13 Actionslwith;RespectThereto, and;Setting'the Public Hearing for'December
14 4, 2000.
' 15
16 Supervising Civil,Engineer,Mike:Evert°provided background information,and introduced
17 .other members of the;teamtworking on the project:,
18
19 Mary Grace ,Pawson of Harris and Associates! provided background '.information.about+
zo assessment districts and;Proposition;218,.the legislation°that addressed:creating special
21 assessment districts., She then presented overhead Slides that depicted the properties
22 involved in:the proposed assessment district, reviewed the costs of the`project"and the
23 projected assessments for the major property owners within the proposed assessment
24 district and answered Council's questions. '
25
26 Discussion ensued that included'
. 27
28 1. How.the.Benefit AssessmeneD.istrict(BAD) boundaries were determined:
29 2. Whether there had been ant accounting of the benefits to the hospital as a major
30 employer:in the area,
'31 3. Whether properties planned:formixed use were taken into consideration.
32 4: What happen;if,the BAD"ballot were unsuccessful; .
33 5: The,,20% benefit to property-owners who paid the assessment upfront should the
34 BAD be-successful:
35
36 Ms. Pawsonend,Mr. Evert;replied to Council's satisfaction,and,agreed to revisit some of
37 the issues with the highway engineer and provide substantiating documentation as Was
.38 requested:
39
40 MOTION`., Council MemberCader-Thompson moved, secondediby Maguire to
41
42 A. Adopt Resolution 00-492 N.C.S. to Make Acquisitions.and
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City CouncilMeeting
Monday,October.16,2000.
Page 4
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1. ' • Improvements.
2 B. Adopt Resolution 00 - 1.93 N:Cq$: to Preliminarily.Approve
3 the Engineer's Report, Directing Actions with Respect
4 Thereto,-and Setting the'Public Hearing for December 4,
5 2000.
' 6
7 MOTION
8 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Healy-absent) -
9
10 8. Report Regarding Status ofPayran Project and.Discussion and_Possible Direction
11 • Regarding, Payran Flood Management Project Financing and Budget.
12 (Hargis/Stouder)
13
14 Mr. Hargis provided a status report of the Payran Flood Management Project.
15
16 Consultant Paul Marangella,provided astatus report:of the financial reimbursement the
17 City pursued with the U.S. Armytorps of Engineers.
18
19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Manager Lynn Galal provided a status of the
20 contract stating the contract;was 89 h complete. A meeting to,cliscuss additional warranty
21 and maintenance, funding, and responsibilities, was scheduled to take place on October
22 30, 2000 with.City Manager Fred Stouder and Ms. Galal's supervisors.
23
24 Council and City managementdiscussion included:
25
26 1. At the meeting•on October 30th,address that the.City not be responsible for
27 mitigation during the implementation period. .
28. - 2. Where the'debris;from the project,was taken.
29 3. The timing for FEMA (Flood'Emergency Map Act):
30 4: 'Ms: Galathadiaccepted'anotherjob opportunity;would leave the U'S. Army
31 Corps of Engineers as of November, and introduced he •replacement.
32
33 The•Council expressed'their gratitude for Ms. Galal's efforts and agreed taissue a letter'of
34 commendation.
35 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked about what appeared to be dumping at the
36 marina. •
.37 •
38 Mr. Hargis replied that he was not aware but would look into the,matterand report back.
39 -
40 Public Comment
41
42 Geoff Cartwright,. 56 Rocca Driver commented 'on Ms. Gales' work with the U.S. Army
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting'
Monday;October 16,2000
• Page 5
DRAFT DRAFT- DRAFT
i. •
Corps arid in opposition to'development upStream of-thaflood management project.
2 •
3 • End of:pdbliC Comrtient
4
5 No Action Taken
6
7 11. Discussion and Possible Direction on Petaluma Water Summit to,be•Hosted,by the
8 City of Petaluma on Thursday, October 19, 2000, at the Petaluma Community
9 Centen(Continued From-October 2ndlMeeting)
10
11 The subcommittee members, Vice .Mayor Torliatt and Council Members Hamilton and
12 Keller, reported that the project was progressing very well and gave some highlights of
13 program.
14 •
15 No Action Taken
16
17 PUBLIC COMMENT
18 -
19 None' • • (
20
21 CLOSED SESSION
22
23 City•Attorney:RiCh Rudnansky announced the following items to badiscussed in Closed
24 Session:
25
26 Conference With Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to
27 Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Gdverriment Code § 5495629. (Two Matters) _
2 8
29, Conference With Legaltounsel, Existing Litigation Subdivision (a),Government Code
30 §54956.9 Raymond vs. Escalante et.al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case #ISCV-
31 220339.
32
33 Public Employee ,Performance 'Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
34 DiscussiOn-of•City Attorney Evaluation.
35
36 Public Employee 'Performance ,Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
•
37 Discussion of CitYClerk Evaluation.'
38 .
39 Mayor Thompson advised the public that after the-ClosedSession Council Members would
40 go to Dempsey's for dinner.
41
42 .
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma;California
City COunal Meetinb
• Monday,October 16,2000
Pag
•
•
•
DRAFT .DRAFT DRAFT
a ADJOURN
3 The Closed Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
4
5 . . * . . : + *.
6.
7 RECONVENE
8
9 The City Council reconvened its regular meeting on this day at 7:00 P.M. in'the Council
io Chambers.
13 •
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, 'Hamilton, Keller, Maguire, Mayor
15 Thompson; Vice MayorTorliatt •
16
17 ABSENT: Council Member.Hamilton •
18 -
19 'PLEDGE-OF ALLEGIANCE
20 •
21, Atdherequest of MayorThompson, Dick Sharkey led the Pledge'of Allegiance.
22
23 PROCLAMATIONS
24
25 Mayor Thompson read the proclamation declaring the-Week of October 23-31 , 2000 Red
26 Ribbon Wee_k.
27 -
' 28 Aaron White, member of the McDowell Drug Task Force, presented the Mayor with a
29 plaque that traced the origins of Red'Ribbon Week.as Drug Awareness Week.
30
31 PUBLIC.COMMENTS
32
33 Dee Brillhart, Animal Advisory:Committee, 113 Upham,Street, spoke in favor of animal
34 adoption and introduced Princess, a one-year old female dog who was available for
35 adoption. •
36
37 Rudy Rentzel 1,10,Roundwalk Circle, spoke in favor of the City publishingcouncil packets
38 on the Cit_y's website for the public to access.
39
40 Sherry Cardo, 501 *Bryce Canyon Court spoke'in.support of'the City's Animal Shelter.
41
42 David Glas-s,, 51 Oxford, spoke regarding the high rate"of flood insurance protection to
Draft Minutes
City.of Petaluma,,California
Cit cduricil Meeting
Monday,"October 16,2000
Page.7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
a members of the community, in concern for public safety,.againstdevelopment upstream.of
2 the flood project, and in support of'having:the FEMA;maps updated.
3
4 Bob Martin, 171 Payran, spoke regarding floodplaintmanagement.
5
6 Terrence Garvey, 83: Maria Drive,• spoke .in support of the Scouts' and regarding the
7 upcoming North Bay%Water Summit. •
8
9 Kelly :Schultz 1521: East..Madison Street, spokeregarding the recent improvements to
to traffic safety'in the East Madison Street neighborhood and in opposition'to remarks she
11 read in the .newspaper that indicated that Council candidate,. Mike O'Brien had made
12 ethnic slurs.
13
14 Bryant Moynihan, 102,Dawn Place, spoke regarding fire safety equipment.
15
16 Council Member Cader-Thompson invited the publicto.speak directly with Fire Chief•Krout
17 about fire,safety=_equipment.
18
19 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, spoke regarding her television show, • •
20
21. John Mills;spoke regarding the Rural Heritage Initiative and the cross-town connector.
.22 .
23 Geoff Cartwright, 56'Rocca Drive, spoke regarding•the•flooding problemin Petaluma.
24
25 COUNCIL COMMENTS •
26
27 Council Member Maguire spoke in support of the Animal Shelter andacknowledged''the
28 work'of',the Animal Advisory:Committee, and addressed Mr. Mills' comments.
29
30 Vice'MayorTorliattcommented,thatshe-had`attendeda meeting•with the water contractors
31 last week and that,the!consensus was that,theYdid not want'to have separate agreements
32 and that they would attend the lupcorning North Bay Water Summit. One of the goals of
33 the Summit.was to move.forward with.4 governance process. She then addressed:Mr..
34 Moynihares comments, noting that'an ambulance,:the ladder truck,,and equipment were
35 backordered andthat:was why the=vehicle waSanotin service.
36
37 Council Member Keller noted that on October 20°', the Marin`Sonoma Advisory Committee
38 • would.meet to,put together an overall program to expedite theCalTrans project between'
39 .Petaluma"and Novato: At the SCTA (Sonoma`County Transportation Agency).me eting;on
40 Monday,,SCTA votedunanimously`,to leverage $5;million from CalT,rans.for an auxiliary
41 lane;southboundfromuEastWashington to'Lakeville, the additional funds,;wouldbe heldin
42 reserve. Ae then read a letter he had sent to the Argus Courier regarding remarks he
43 viewed-as ethnic slurs'made by Council°candidateMikeO'•Brien'':he.anticipated that,letters'
Drafi'Minutes
CityofPetaluma;,Califomia
City Council Meeting
Monday'October;16 2000; Page 8
•
DRAFT ' . DRAFT DRAFT
1 otrebuttal,calling him'overly sensitive'would:be forthcoming. •He asked:that Mr. O'Brien be'
2 1nVestigated asia suitable representative on the Cify's•Personnel Committee.
3
4 'Council Member Cader-Thonipson:spoke in opposition,to campaign practices that smeared
i5 candidates in name of truth;.in support of the Animal:Shelter, and noted the success of
6 the recent Petaluma Band competition.
7
a Council Member Healy commented on landlocked property at the proposed Rainier
9 Overcrossing and the Corona Overcrossing.. He noted That serious questions had been
10 raised about retaining the aquifer and, the long-terms ramifications:of"continued gravel
11 mining in the Russian River. He supported the City's adoption of an Ordinance to ban'the
12 use of aggregates from the;Russian River. He then commented:about the Animal Shelter
13 and noted that'he was concernediabout the rising costs of the project and wanted to.make
' 14 sure:that_the Animal ServicesAdvisory Committee-had'thoroughly•reviewed suggestions
15 .made,by Hank Flum.
1'6
17.1 Mayor Thompson expressed that he thought Mr. Keller''s remarks were a "political hit
is piece."
19
20 Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that she believed the campaign had sunk to
21 extreme lows, personal attacks on Council Members and their families.
22
23 PROCLAMATIONS
24
25 Mayor Thompson read the proclamation declaring October 17,;2000 as PetalumaNet Day •
26 and presented it to Bill Hammerman, PetalumaNet.
27 .
28 Bill Hammerman accepted the proclamation and spoke regarding the success of the recent
29 PetalumaNet Anniversary.
30
31 PUBLIC;HEARING
32 -
33 9: Business Improvement District(BID): (Tuft/Beatty)
34
35 A. Discussion/Public Testimony on Establishment of Downtown Petaluma
36 Business Improvement District.
37 B. Introduce Ordinance 2104 N.C:S. Adding a Chapter to,. the Petaluma
38 Municipal Code Establishing the Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement
3.9 District. -
4'0
41 Assistant:CityManagerGene Beatty introduced Cheryl Wagner, Circle of Friends owner,
42 as the spokesperson for the BID:
!Draft-Minutes
City of Petaluma;,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, October 16,2000'
Page 9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Cheryl Wagnerprovidedbackground information anda statusreport of the formation of the
2 BID.
3
4 Public.Comment
•
•
•
5
6 Joseph H. Wagner, 136"Kentucky Street, Circle of Friends, stood in supportt ofithe BID.
7
8 Ray Farris,,Cavanagh Inn, 10-Keller:Street;,stood.in support of thelBID.
9
10 Tom Maunder; 200'Liberty Street#D,:spoke in opposition'of the BID. .
11 -
12 Joseph H. Wagner; Circle of Friends, 136 Kentucky Street, spoke in.support of the BID.
13 „
14 Jane Jernigan, Petaluma':Downtown Association;01187 Schuman, stood-in support of the
15 BID.
16
17 Maggie Salenger, Petaluma Association, 16000'Gehriche Road;;Sonoma stood
18 in support of the BID.
19
20 Mary Neal, Petaluma,Downtown Association, 625 Second Street, stood in:support of'the
21 BID.
22
23 Jeff Harriman,spoke ins support of the BID..
24
25 Wayne Vieler, owner of Kodiak Jack's, 256 Petaluma Boulevard North, had questions
-26 about the wording on'the resolution, the creation of`.a,-parking assessment district; and
2,7 wanted an;'explanation from the Petaluma Downtown Association regarding how his
28 business would benefit; he was willing to support it,butwanted explanations.
29 ,
30 Consultant Dave Kilbor`n addressed;Mr. Vieler's concerns related to parking, stating;that.
•
31 although it was not included-in the BID at this it could be added in=the future,
32
33 Steve Magnani, 220 Western Avenue, owner-of;La Famiglia,, spoketin opposition to'the
34 BID.
35
36 Gina Pittler, Petaluma Downtown Association;:stood in support of the BID.
37
38 JoAnne Retko P-,bzzi, 320 Washing-ton;Street, spoke in support of the BID. -
39
40 End ofPublic Comment
•
41
•
42 •
•
43 •
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,-�Califomia
,City,Council Meeting
•
Monday,October 16,2000
Page-10
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Council.discussion included:
2
3 1. Direction for the City to work together with the BID:to clean up the garbage
4 downtown. •
5 2. Page Two of'the FeeStructure, line 25, shouldisay "retail and restaurant."
6 3. The fee structure.
7
8 MOTION: Vice'Mayor•Torliatt moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson to adopt
9 • an Ordinance :2104 N.C.S. Adding a Chapter to the Petaluma
10 • MunicipalCode Establishing theDowntown Petaluma Business
11 Improvement District (First reading).
12
13 MOTION" •
14 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent) •
15
16 Recess: 9;00 p.m.
-
•la Reconvene: 9`10.p.m.
19
20 UNFINISHED,BUSINESS.
21
22 10. Discussion and Possible Action on Interim, Surface Water Management
2:3 Strategies. The Resource Management International, Inc: (RMI) Detention Pond
24 Feasibility'Study Discussions Have Led to Several Alternative Options for the City •
25 to Consider Including Banning or Restricting Construction in the Flood Plain, •
26 Modifying Zero Net Fill Requirement, Fee for'Development Impacts as Well as
27 Construction of Detention Facilities. This Item Will Seek Council Direction for
28 Various Options'for°Interim Surface Water Management.Strategies. (Hargis)
29
30 Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis provided background
31 information.and recommendations from City managed ent,regarding various options for
32 interim surface water Management strategies. City management identified three objectives
33 they hoped to achieve:
34
35 1.. Reduction of health and safety risks to citizens.
36 2. Reduction the repetitive damages to both public'and„private properties.
37 3. Reduction'of the post disaster public'and private^recovery costs.
38
39 He reviewed three proposals for the Council to consider as direction to City management:
40 ”
41 1. Expand: the existing Zero-Net Fill .policy to all land covered by the floodplain
42 combining'the,district upstream'of the Payran'Streef Bridge.
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma;California
City Council Meeting
Monday,October 16;'2000 .
. Page 11
DRAFT • DRAFT • DRAFT
1 2. Adoloticin of a Zero Run-Off policy; Which would limit any development from
• 2 constructing onsite.detenticin, or for all to have to construct'detention
3 Orialt•S.
4. 3: Establish a moratorium on construction so that there would be no additional runoff
5 jilterth.0tPayr,ah Street area until the General Plan was developed.
6 •
7 Mr, Hargis stated that the area encompassed the floodway and the flood plain, which
s constituted the one hundred yearflObb plain, also referred to as the flood plain combining
9 district, He believed the City needed to lead by example, that'is, this was a watershed
10 issue, nbt water basin issue., In order to .gain,attention, regionally, the City needed to
1.1 address the issues within the CitOimits,and then,move forward with the County.
12
13 Council Member Ceder-Thompson:agreed with Mr. Hargis and stated that City needed
14 to focus first on protecting the,members of the ',community and businesses from future
15 flooding; continued development in the floodplain would lead to greater•Probletrs. She
16 supported expansion of a Zero-Net Fill policy and expressed that the City should lbok..at "
17 the pros and cons of implementing this•,.policy:Citywide, She wanted a Counóil discussion
la of the benefits of a,moratorium upstream from the Payran weir that owitlealo Industrial
19 Drive.
20 •
21 In response.to questions from Council Member Healy, Mr. Hargis?Stated that when the
22 FEMA Mapewere.reVised,the floodplainpleVatibris would charigershOWinTahigrier 100- '
23 year.floodplain eleyatibn,,upatream-frot the weir Downstream from the weir, the downtown
24 area, would still show Upstream, the benefits friaMtheWeir'dithinish.-around
25 three to four hundred Thepenefits,a1SddiminiShed and there was a 100-
26 year overflow through the old Frieditian!§ site that impacted the downtown area The
27 premise of floodPlaifibordiiance§,wa§ timalldW development, that is, to fill in the floodplain
28 with the prOyis6,thatithel 00-year flood elevation Would not be increaSedby ritorethan a
29 foot !Siricele89,.there had been ongoing development pursuant tti•regUlations prior to a
3o Zero-Net Fill policy and the detention pond concept There was.,development in the
31 County resulting in additional hardscape that increased runoff in the City. Noionetha(he.
32 was aware of had determined what the likely changeswoulctbe•to•th&floodplain elevati6n.
33 FloodPlain studies were on a ten-year schedule for teVjew/revision.,and one could.
34 anticipate that changes may occur in 1999/2000 as the CoUrity'e floodplain maps Were
35 recently updated,by FEMA.
36
37 Council Member Healy noted that her,serita memo the City Mari-000f a fewiWeeks?earlier
38 asking for a. oalculation of how much net fill' was added as a result of the recent
39 construction behind Fire-Station #2 and wanted to know if Mr? Hargis or someone in his
40 department was working on that request.
4.1
42 Mr. Hargis replied that he.'underetoocr it was being worked on Hedid not know how many
43 cubityarawere added. He explained that itiregUireda review tifthe•gradihg•Plans to.See
Draft'Minutes
'City of:Petaluma,,Californie
City Cpuneil Meeting
MonclaOotober 16,-2000
•
Page 12
DRAFT - • DRAFT DRAFT
It there:was a; dirt balance,and-cans','indication' of how much fill.,. This could involve
2 contacting the original developer for information;
3.
4 Pubiic',Comment -
5
6 John Cheney,55 Rocca Drive, spokain support of a moratorium:on construction so that:
7 there would be no additional, runoff into the Payran Street area at least until the flood
s project was completed.
9
10 Matt Connolly spoke in support of expanding the existing Zero-Net;Fill Policy to all land
11 covered by the floodplain, combining the district upstreamrof the.Payran Street Bridge and
'12 the adoption of a Zero Run-Off policy:which would limit,any;development from constructing
13 onsite detention, 'or for all development to have to construct detention onsite. He was in
14 opposition to a moratorium.
15
. 16 Bob Martin, 141 Payran Street, presented a map of areas where water had been
17 displaced. Hastated his concerns regarding water that.had previously accumulated in the
is floodplain and was displaced.to another area by development; He spoke in support of a
19 moratorium and encouraged the City to pursue people who had:'done bermed landscaping
20 and elevated parking areas; such as at the multi-screened'cinema.
21
22 Council Member Healy clarified that all of the areas [covered on the map Mr. Martin
23 presented, withcone minor exception,'were, up until now, not included in the;Zero Net Fill
24 area, which City management had proposed to include.
25
26 Wayne 830-1/2'C' Street,-supported the Zero Net Fill area and expanding it as City
27 management recommended;'hedid not support a moratorium.
28 • .
29 Bryant,Moynihan, 1,02 Dawn Place, did not support any of the proposed actions as he
30 thought that they would not keep the costcof housing affordable,nor meet the needs of the
31 community to provide affordable housing. He pointed out that the alternatives
32 recommended did not coincide'with the RMI consultants;:report regardingidetention,ponds. •
33 He recommended taking no action ,and/or moving forward with the regional decision
34 makers, such:as Randy Poole of the Sonoma CountyuWater Agency (S.C;W A.); the Zone'
35 2A Committee, and`the Board of-Supervisors, to update the entire regional'watershed plan,
36 implement.new'policies°and mitigation measures that serve the community better.
37
38 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, did not supporte development and stated that he
39 supported all,three recommendations made by City, management.
40
41 End of Public Comment
42
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,:Califomia
City,Council Meeting
Monday;October 16,2000
Page 13
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council,Membet Kelle(Providedihistorical backgroundlregardinglecieral[policy. The City,
2 he stated„ needed a comprehensive ftx three components were before the Council,
3 which, he believed, were necessary: The extension of zero net fill ir,i:theLflood0lain lands
4 upstream Of the.Payran Bridge, it was necessary to haves:zero increment'in storm water
runoff and he wanted-the fbiloWing included, "and no change in peaks and timing." He
6 supported the upstream moratorium on floodplain construction until.coinpletiondftheCityls
7 Surface Water Management:Plan including the modeling, the validation of models,the
s verification of"calculations from any developmentproject and the process by which it was'
9 to be verified,, a list of practices that developers, could use to achieve acceptable and
lo recommended results. ;It required coordination of all the efforts including the need a
11 'working; current, validated:model, ioning, and:bestmenagertient practiCea!! The costs to
12 incorporate these practices needed to be included with development fees..
13 •
14 MOTION:. Council Member Kellermoved, seconded by Cader‘ThoMpton, to directCity.
15 'management to:
16
17 1. Expand the existing Zero-Net Fill policy to all land covered by the
18 floodplain combining the district upstream of the Payrah ,Street
19 " Bridge.
20 "2. Prepare for adoption eZerb Run-Off'policyand jnclude change in
21 peaks and timing," which would limit any deVeldprnent ffoin
22 constructing onsith detention, or for all development to have to
23 OdnatrObt.detentitin onsite.
24 3. Establish a moratorium on cOnStrdction; so that there Would be no
25 additional runoff into the Payran,Street area until completion of the
26 ' City's Surface Water Management Plan, including the modeling and
27 validation of the models, the verification of calculations from any
28 development project and the process bywhich it was verified a
29 lisVafpracticeS that developers couldusato achievaacceptableand
30 recommended:results!
31
32 Council Member Cader-Thompson provided historical background regarding flooding in
33 the area and stated she wanted the City to:take;a:proactive approach to resolve flood
14 :mitigation problems She .supported 'development but not in an area or :manner that
35 jeopardized thasafety of community.
36 •
• 37 Council Member Healy, noted his frustration with the slow progress, stating that on
38 'November 1-, 1999, he submitted a:Memo ta,theCouhcilthat suggested expansion of the
39 Zero Net Fill area to include the 100-year floodplain On,both:SideS of thehighWay„cahaider
40 an interim ordinance that required new development in the entire watershed
41 Payran to;deitiOnStrate,zerbitnpact on netrunoff. He supported the resolution and was
42 favor of taking a king-tort approach to the ptcibleM.
43
DraftNinuteo •
, City Of;Petaluma,Conklin's
City CouncilrMeeting •
Mo-nplOy,OctobeF.161'.2000
Pag?:14
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
.1 He believed the .real ,issue'for retaining.the long-ten-1i -viability of the flood fix was a
2 watershed issue, not a"floodplain issue. He wanted:to see an;ordinance brought forward
3 that comprehensively addressed a requirement for zero net increment runoff for all projects
4 of a certain size upstream from Payran. He noted thatAonsite detention was not always the
5 best solution; as in some instances:it would be necessary to haveithe'capability to move
6 the water through more quickly than on others. He wanted to move forward with the
7 detention ponds the RMI report recommended and get.,a funding mechanism in place to
8 accomplish this He was willing to,look.at amending,theordinance to include fill within a
9 foot higher, or what City Management recommended, of'the current floodplain to foresee
10 problems.
11
12 He wanted to see as future projects,came forward or asexisting-projects were redeveloped
13 that fill brought into.the floodplain not be given "grandfather rights, such as Adobe.Lumber
14 and the Auto Mall." He did not believe there was basis for a moratorium in the floodplain
15 and explained that expansion of thezero-net fill, in ameaningful way, and addressing the
. 16 watershed issues, were•the criticalielements for preserving long-term effectiveness of the
17 flood fix: Hequestioned the city yAttorneyregarding thelegal requirements that predicated
is a moratorium; he recalledthere;was a.necessity for specific findings based on evidence
19 and specific majority vote requirements. •
20
21 Mr. Rudnansky replied the State statute that addressed interim.moratorium ordinances
22 required a four-fifths vote; 'that is, *a .requirement of six votes of the seven Council
23 Members, and that.there must,bea finding that there wasa necessity for the ordinance
24 due to health, safety and welfare reasons.
25
26 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for clarification of the statute.that required;a four-fifths majority of
27 the voting members,and asked:if that meant those present or theentire body.
.28 -
29 Mr. Rudnansky replied:thatsix of the seven Council Members must vote "yes" to adopt the
3o urgency ordinance.
31 •
32 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Rudnansky if there;needed.to be specific findings.
.based
33 on evidence•that supported the particular boundaries of a moratorium or the moratorium in
34 general.
35 •
. 36 Mr. Rudnanskyreplied that it was helpful to have those findings., He added that in the
37 past, many moratorium ordinances had exceptions,and that,it was very important when
38 crafting exceptions to be consistent; that is, not to work against the objective of the
39 ordinance; including boundary areas.
40 • .
41 Mayor Thompson stated his concurrence`with Council Member Healy's comments. He
4-2 noted that there was:a motion on the floor to vote on Options One, Two and Three as set
OraftMinutes
City or Petaluma;California
City Council Meetingr
Monday,October 16,2000
Page 15
DRAFT • DRAFT DRAFT
• 1 forth in Citymanagement's report. tie stated'that;he did.not,believe there was sufficient
2 majority of.the!Council to;adopt an interim<':ordinance or a moratorium ordinance.
3
4 MOTION •
5 AMENDED:' Council Member Keller moved,,seconded:by Cader,-Thompson,;toamend the
6 motion and,vote on,Options,One, Two and Three separately.
7
8 MOTION •
9 PASSED:; Lack-of a fo rural vote on the motion was deemed as Council's agreement to
io amend the motion asstated.
11
12 Vice:May_ or Torliatt inquired'what property owners had.been noticed regarding,the agenda
13 item.
14 •
is Mr: Hargis replied„that noone'was noticed;'what)City Management wanted wasdirection
16 from the Council!on;any of the three recommendations. That would;initiatea process that;
17 included,formal noticing. Hel.anticipated a significantly larger notice to`thelpublic than was
•is customarily donefor discussions regardingdetention ponds.
-19
20 Vice Mayor Torliattstated:a concern'that she had was that there was a requirement of a six
21 out of seven votes to carry any of the ;recommendations.and asked, if that should be
22 considered;.first. She=added that all people who,may be:affected by-the decisions made
23 should,be involved in the discussions: the land:owners; those with options on property, •
24 Payran residents, Central Petaluma Specific Plan residents; property, and business
25 "owners, the Council and the::Planning Commission: The developers needed to knowwhat
26 the impactsiwere to people, A building,moratorium could only be established for attwo-
27 year period: During'that time, the City could complete its Surface Water and Drainage
28 Management Plan:: She,believed there wascatuse`for"concern about how'the City would
29 handle development and or redevelopment proposals over the next two,years;the.City
3 0 needed to see where the interest was Currently yforbuilding on those:properties. She,had:a •
31 list of,things!she wanted to address thattcame up during the discussion,,`in particularly; the
32 increase housing"costs'due to the,Urban^Growth Boundary. She believed the'increasein
33 housing costs was due to the economic+.growth within the community and`the number of
34 jobs, created. The City, was exploring high-density housing at a variety of sites in the
35 community. Also;:regarding.the "shiftt(of peaks” and Council Member Keller's statements
36 that there'"would;be no "shift of peaks," she thought the Council should look^at the benefit
37 of possibly"shifting the peaks" in certain areas. •
38
39 Council Member Keller:replied thatthe Cityhad no effective models for the basin;, Once.a
40 model was in place, the.City could determine where.and by'how'much if wantedto "shift
41 peaks." This'was an interim policy until a Surface Water MenagementjPlan•was in place'
42 and resolved through calculations and modeling. ,
43
• Draft'Minutes
City,of{Petaluma;California
city,,Council Meeting
Monday,October 16;.2000
Page 16
DRAFT _ DRAFT DRAFT
VicWayoriTorliatt continued-that she concurred With her colleagues that there was no
2 single solution. The City needed to have'detention ponds with',the:existing conditions, let
'3 alone additional development in the floodplain. She believed that-minimally,the;Council
4 should adopt a zero net fill expansion policy of the lands,affected. This Council had talked
`5 with its `Supervisor and the Sonoma County Water Agency (S'.C.W.A.), Randy Poole
6 specifically, about a Regional Watershed Plan, drainage, run-off, water supply, and
'7 -groundwater-: She stressed'. the importance of managing what was going on in the
's community. She referred to-Council Member Healy's,comment that, in-a memo he had
9 written'to the Council he,asked'for the expansion of the Zero.Net Fill policy; she clarified
io that it was not the Council who had not moved forward and was-not active in its pursuit to
11 move it forward. The Council had waited for-City management to come`forward with it
12 •
13 Council Member Healy disagreed, stating that.City management responded to Council
14 priorities'and he restated that:'he•was disappointed that it had taken this long to,get'to the
15 point where Council-had the:opportunity to expand-the Zero Net Fill policy.
16
17 Vice.Mayor Torliatt did not agree: City-management had'iworked on otherprevalent issues
1s in the community such as the flood control project; they had worked diligently to get
19 reimbursement, and to get:the job completed. She believed she shared the same desire
2',o as Council 'Member Healy to have other items prioritized and scheduled on an agenda.
21 She wanted Council and the community for discuss priorities for
22 development/redevelopmenfin the floodplain, itapproved:Prioritization needed to reflect
23 where the community-Wanted-to build.,
2,4
25 Council Member Maguire echoed Vice:Mayor Torliatt's sentiments that the Council was not
26 the hold up on the Zero Net Fill. He recalled that he had asked for this item to come
27 before the Council prior to Council Member Healy'being elected to the Council. There
28 were other things that had come up, such'as getting thebudget done in a timely manner to
29 which each Council Member had contributed. It wasa gestalt, they all.contributed to what
30 ended up on the agenda. If ohe was culpable all were culpable: ',He preferred to view it in
3,1 a more positive light. Council made tremendous strides in:the,operations of the City and
3`2 moving forward with this item now was an example of their progress. He was glad the
33 maker of the motion had separated the recommendations. He supported expanding the
34 Zero Net Fill Policy as proposed by City management and upon preparation of a refined
35 Zero Runoff Policy, he thought it should,,"be brought-back,to Council for consideration and
36 adoption.
37
3s Vice.Mayor Torliatt,agreed.
39
40 Council Member Maguire stated that=the detention ponds as proposed by the RMI Study
41 presented an effective tool, but as.Council Member Keller stated, there was•-a need to
42 know the modeling to make it work. Regarding aimoratorium,,it was a mistake to build in
43 the floodplain. He did'not believe there was a four-fifths vote to adopta moratorium now or
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, October 16,2000 .
Page 17
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 in thenear'future., He referred to Vice:MayorTorliatt's suggestion that°ifthe;City was to
2 allow building,in the;floodplain, it was:important.to;prioritize and define where ittwas better
3 to allow it-:and:Where itwasworse total low'it.
4 •
• 5 'Council Member Cader-Thompson r wanted;a •vote,on no development in the floodplain
6 upstream from the Payran,weir. She thought','it was very important to vote on the:issue,
7 though she knew it would probably not be successful: She wanted it to be a "matter of
s record that'the proposal came forward and howdmembers of the Councilvoted on<it. She
9 referred..to discussion about the;RMI Study and'noted that it addressed putting detention
to ponds on properties :whose owners.had told tfie Council they`did not want the City of
ii Petaluma takihg.their land so,it could change:water flow to avoid'flooding'problems. The
12 RMI Study;would be outdated within twenty thirty years and it was incumbent.upon'the
13 Council tomake:decisions with vision. The,Council was responsible for"making decisions
14 now that Would'protect the community now and in the future. Shetadded that'theMaster
15 Drainage Plan for•the County was.outdatedrand therewas a need'to update it, a great,deal,
16 needed to be done`and the'County and;the City°needed.work,together. She supported a
17 rt th pt l P g ectivetwo years'
18 houdhobe allowed: She addedhat consideration of development upstream
. 19 flood control project (which had iaiSi4 million cost)was not reflect fiscal responsible,.
20
21 Council Member Maguire, though:in agreement with a number of things'Council Member
22 Cader-Thompson:.addressed, did not support,a vote of the Council now regarding, a
23• moratorium. The item had not been:noticed to the public`as a;significant land use:issue'
24 and even if a moratoriium.wasrratified in concept, it would engender a great deal.of distrust,,
2'5 The:Council took pride?in;extending;maximum participation to;the.community in its decision
26 making`process: .
27
28 Council Member-Ceder-Thompson replied that she was.asking"for a°vote,at:that time
29,
30): Council Member Healywanted"to parse the motions separately, walk`through themFand
31 have limited;dlscussions<on each one.,
32
33 Council Member Maguire replied that the motion was already on the floor.,
34
•
35 Council Member Healy agreed and added he wanted;confirmation:of the first motion,that
36 is, City management's;recommendation of the;expansion.of Zero Net Fill.,He was;not'clear,.
37 after listening to City:management, whether the motion was to adopt,the-draft.resolution
• 38 provided immediatelyexpanding theZero Nef Fill. He'explained'that was what he wanted. .
39 to-accomplish:.He ricifeellhat Council had waited a long time for this;to come forward and'
40 asked for clarification;if further study was to be;done and the item was ta,consequently be .
41 rescheduled to.come backtothe Councilfor something else
42
•
Draft Minutes.
City:of Petaluma;California,
City'Council Meeting'
Monday,:Ootober416,2000
Page718.
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
i Mr. Hargis clarified'the intent was to receive°direction to City managementif the Council
2' supportedia resolution expanding Zero Net Fill If so; a public'notice regarding an action
3' based,on the drat resolution would'be published'and distributed:
t. 4„
5' Council Member Healy summarized that Council had a draft resolution, the matter was
6 scheduled on the agendasfor discussion and possible action, and questioned the City
7 Attorney whetherthe Council was in a position to legally adopt the resolution.,
8
9 Mr: Rudnansky replied that the Council was probably procedurally in a position to take that
10 action. In a discussion he .had.With Mr. Hargis,. it :was;"recommended that additional
11 language and protection be built�into•any resolution`the'Council adopted.
12
13 Council M ember Keller stated that,he understood;that,the action•wasto legitimize giving
14 direction to City management' to come ..back+. with a final resolution on each
15 recommendation. His motion was to,affirm that the Council wanted to move ahead with it,
16 develop the'formal resolutions; provide comprehensive;,public notice,.and bring them back
17 as soon as possible for Councikaction.
18'
19 Council Member Healy,noted that he would support the motion. He wanted,a clarification
2 o that should the time frame for the development of the three recommendations differ
z 1 substantially, he wanted them decoupled and brought back as they were completed. He
22 believed that:the Zero Net Fill Expansion Policy should,be less complicated. He wanted
23 the Zero 'Net Fill Expansion,brought back in two weeks, that is, he,did not want to wait
24 another year for it to be broughtbackto the Council: •
25 •
26 Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested that the Zero Net:Fill Expansion Policy be scheduled as a
27 Consent Calendar item at the next regular meeting`of the Council.
28
29 Council Member Maguire agreed.
30
31 Mr. Hargis indicated that he did not believe that would provide ample time for a
32 comprehensive notice to the public to be accomplished.
33
34 Council Member Keller supported having the Zero'Net Fill,Expansion Policy brought back,.
35 independent of recommendations One and Two as-provided by City management.
36
37 Mayor Thompson stated the intent was to expedite the item as soon as possible.
38
39 Council Member Maguire noted that he supported items One and Two
4.0
41 Mayor Thompson clarified that if recommendation One, Zero°Net Fill Expansion Policy,
42 would take less time than recommendation Two, Zero unoff Policy, he wanted to have it
43 return independently oftheZero Runoff Policy.
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma;California
City Council Meeting
Monday,October 16,'2000.
Page 19
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
I Council Member: Keller statedltiat given where he senseclffie Votes Were et•the time, he
2 wanted to vote on,all'three‘with direction to CitymenagernentAO brin4thentback,as quickly
3 as possible, to group:,therrilas expeditiously as possible to havetherrilbrithetanie agenda.
4 He thought that recommendation Three, themoratoriurn,,Was problenletiC;;they would find
5 out quickly whether there was Council support to bring back royisedend more defined
6 recommendation He,thoughtLounciF;needect to take the vote and he called for the vote.
7
a. Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed,
9
10. Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for clarification motion was on the table
11
12 MOTION. . •
13 RESTATED.: Council Member Keller restated the motion was direction, to City
14, Management to formalize *resolution and provide pObliO;notide to expandt
15 . the existing Zero-Net Fill policy to all land covered by the .floodplain
16 combining the distribt upstream of the Payran StreetBridge,and_brin.glit back
17 to Council for consideration, discussion and possible action 18
19 MOTION:
20 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
2.1
22 MOTION'
23 RESTATED: Council Member Keller clarified that the OPYrigil!wastO vote on next •
24 was to direct City Management to!prepareforadOption and provide public
25 notice for:a Zero Run-Off Polibylhat would require zero increment in storm:
26 water runoff upstream of the Corps of Erigineert''weir(bt Payren.Bridgae8
27 _ City management defined it best) and that therebei'Thoighendein:OeakSend
28' timing" which would limit any development from aonSifucting .oriSite
29 detention, or for all development to have to construct defehtiatiOnSite until
30 such time as$a full Comprehensive Plan was in place
. 31 •
32. Discussion' by Council Members included giving City management more flexibility, and
33 depending,on levels of comfort, to incorporate findings detailed in the WM:study. It was
34 agreed that should'City;management want bring it back with an argument for or against
35 the "changes in.peaks ancb,timing,"Ihe baseline,was no increment! in,runoff from storm
36 water.
37 • -
38 MOTION
39 RESTATED: Council Member Keller restated that the motion was direction, to City
' 40 management to 'bring' back a resolution that established a, policy to
41 implement zero increment runoff of storm water upstream of the Corps. of
42 Engineers,weir (or Payran Bridge:aS City Management best definesyand •
Draft'MinCtes
City of Petaluma California
CityCauhail:MOtin-g:
Monday„Octiter 16,2000
Page20
•
RAFT DRAFT T • DRAFT
with that a'policy:ofno=;adverse.change.of,peaks and timing; the baseline
• 2 `being zero increment°instorm water runoff,••the'alternative A and B is with or
3 without a policy on,changes of peaks and timing,
4
• 5 MOTION
PASSED: ;6)011 (Hamilton absent).
7
8 MOTION
9 RESTATED: Mayor Thompson restated that the:motion was_direction to City Management
10 to prepare and adopt. an interim ordinance that suspended further
ii development on the land:designated floodplain combining district with the
12 • General Plan 2000-2020 is completed.
13
14 Mr. Rudnansky noted that the passage ofra moratoriuth ordinance required a four-fifths
is vote. The motion was a direction toCity management to bring something back and would
16 not require a four-fifths voter He stated that Council input regarding exceptions and
17 boundaries, for example, was:necessary and suggested that City management bring back
18 a skeletal,moratorium,ordinance with,the uriderstanUing that Council would fill in the gaps •
19 at that time and establish a date that;.it would come to the Council for consideration and
20 adoption if there was support. He stated that the• project would require considerable
21 resources and emphasized,the importance that there•be sufficient Council support prior to
;22 City management 's commitment of those resources.
23
24 Council discussion indicated agreement with Mr: Rudnansky's clarification and suggestion
25 and included direction to City manage_ment toprovide,the Council with any knowledge they
26' had as to what projects were being discussed and who the participants were for future
27 development/redevelopment of floodpiain properties with:specific boundaries.
28 _
29- Community Development Director Mike Moore in anticipation of that request, provided a
so list of projects currently-in the floodplain combining district'that"were in various stages of
3'1 processing listed'.by'project name location, project size:.and type, application status, and
32 noted that they were not listed in any particular order:
33
34 Council discussion.:continued and Vice Mayor Torliattthanked Mr Moore for providing the
35 information and asked him to provide°thesameto Mr. Hargis'so it would be included with
36 City'management's report when it returned'to Council. Council Member Keller noted that
37. the list provided by Mr: Moore included of thirteen projects with over a million square feet
38 of space, and was larger than what he-expected. He pointed out that was why the Council
39 needed to address the issue. City management was,directed to divide the list to reflect
4o projects on the north sideof the Payran Bridge and"those;to the southrand that a map key
41 was included., Requests fora straw.vote were unsuccessful.
42
43 •
Draft Minutes
City.of Petaluma,.California
City Council Meeting
Monday,October 16,2000
Page 21
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 MOTION
2 RESTATED:. Council Member Keller. moved, seconded by. Maguire; to give City
3 management direction to bring the item back as a discussion item for
4 development of a moratorium.
5
6 Council Member'Keller'called:forthe'vote.
7
8 Council discussion followed and clarified that:the action did not implement a'•moratorium,
9 that discussion about the development of'a moratorium would•come back to the Council
io after proper public notice was done and City management was prepared to:address the
11 Council on.the.matter
12
•13 Council Member Healy asked'for a point,of;clarification.from the maker of the:motion aslto
14 whether or notCity management was.directed to come back with a moratorium of the entire
15 floodplain memorialized in,a document.
16
17 Council :Member Keller replied that it was•as Mr: Rudnansky had suggested, that City
is management.bring back to Council a skeletal outline,of'What a moratorium would/could
19 look with ens%Yariety o"r possibilities that City,management was,appropriatefor the!Couricii
20 to discuss. That would become initial discussion for whether or not the.Council.and the
21 public wanted to proceed with a moratorium. •
22 •
23 Council Member Healy indicated that he wastwiilling tochangehis vote; he.was'will_ingto
24 lookaVtheki'ssues in more'detail,.
25
26 Council asked:to re-vote on the motion.
27'
•
28 MOTION
29" PASSED; 6/0/1'(Hamilton absent)
30
31 ADJOURN..
32
33 The meeting adjourned at 1.1:15 p.m.
34
35 -
36 E'. Clark Thompson, Mayor
37' •
3s ATTEST:
39
40
.41 Beverly J.'Kline, City Clerk
42
4.3 •' * * * ,r ,r •- *
Draft'Minutes
.City of Petaluma;California
,City Council,Meeting
Monday,October 16,i 2000
Page 22