HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes of March 20, 2000 03/19/2001 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Draft Minutes of a,
2 City of Petallima,'California
3 City Council Meeting
4
5 Regular Meeting
6 Monday, March 20, 2000
7 Council Chambers
8
9 The Petaluma.City Council met on this date at 3:00 p.m.,in the Council Chambers.
10
11
'12 • ROLL CALL
`13
14 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Healy, Maguire; Vice Mayor Torliatt;
15 . Mayor Thompson
'16
17 ABSENT: Council Members Hamilton, Keller
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENTS
20
21 None
.22 •
23 COUNCIL'COMMENTS;
24
25 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that Council Member Keller was at:the=Sonoma County
26 Transportation Authority Meeting and Council Member Hamilton was recovering from
27 eye surgery.
.2g
29 The Council wished her a speedy recovery.
30
31 Council Member Cader-Thompson was happy to see Loren Williams in the audience so
'32 the Council could discuss the Petaluma Trolley, '
33
34 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
35
36 None
37' •
38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
39 •
40 February 24, 2000
41
42 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire to Approve Minutes of
43 February X24,:2000.
4144
W45
Draft Minutes ofia
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting'
Monday, March 20,t2000'
Page 1
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 MOTION •
2 ,PASSED: 5/0/2(Hamilton, Kellen)
•
3
4
5 • CONSENT CALANDER•
6 •
7 1. • Adopt Resolution 00`46 NCS,Approving,Street Closures'for Annual Butter'&
• s Eggs Day Parade (April 29,2000)..
9
10 2• Adopt Resolution 00-47 NCS Accepting Cross'Creek Well Building
11 Cons truction Project.
12' •
13 3. Adopt Resolution 00-48 NCS Approving the Plans:and Specifications Prepared
14 by-the-Water,Resources and'Conservation Department and Awarding the
15 Contract for the 1999-2000. Sewer Main Replacement.Project; West Street
16 between Kentucky Street and Petaluma Boulevard'North, ProjectNo! 9799
17 (Phase•9). 'Estimated Projec€'Cost $73,;000. +Funding'Source: :Sewer Funds;
1s'
19 4. Adopt Resolution 00-49 NCS,Adopting Investment Policy for Year
20
21 5. Adopt Resolution 00-50 NCS!Authorizing the Filing of an Application with the
22 Metropolitan Transportati'on'Commission for Allocation of Transportation 2 •
• Development Act/State Transit Assistance Funds for Fiscal Y,ear`2000`2001..
24 .
25 Vice Mayor clanfled that most of the funding for the Butter.and,Eggs:Day
26 Parade catte.from the TOT Fund.
27
23 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Healy, to adopt iterns
29
30 MOTION
31 PASSED; • 5/0/2;(Hamilton, Keller absent)
-32
33 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
34 •
35 6. Central Business District,(CBD) Plan:` Adopt Resolution 00-51 NCS
36 Amending Resolution 6986 NCS by,Adding an.Additional Area to the CBD
37 Survey Areasand Redefining the CBD Survey Area Boundaries. •'
38
39 Mayor.Thompson recused himself because he sell's+insurance to many downtown.
4o businesses. -
41
42 Vice Mayor Torliatt disqualified, herself due the commissions she collects from one of
43 the in the area'.
44
45 Brent Hawkins confirmed that;shesishould recuse herself. . .
Draft•.Minutea..of<a,
City el Petaluma,California
City Councii;Meeting
Monday March 20 2000'
Page 2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
• 1
2 Council Member Maguireistated that.a quorum :was not present, 'and..questioned
3 whether the rule of necessity should be=employed.
4
5 Brent Hawkins recommended'that Council Members with conflicts draw straws.to
6 decide who will,be brought back in to make a quorum.
7
s Council Member Maguirequestioned,whethera coin"toss was acceptable.
9
10 Council Member Healy stated that would be fine.
11
12 Council Member Maguire asked Mayor Thompson to call heads or tails.
13
14 Mayor Thompson picked Heads:
15
16 Vice Mayor Torliatt picked Tails.
17
1s Brent Hawkins announced, '.`Heads."
19
20 Mayor Thornpson.resumed his'seat-at the podium.
21
22: Consultant Pau[Marangella„presented.the plan amendment completed as part ofdhe
23f overall redevelopment strategy to strengthen the Central Business District. The Council
`inr24 adopted a resolution, in May 1999, asking that the "butterscotch” area:be added to the
25 CBD and studied. This was approved by the Planning^Commission', with the additional
26 inclusion of the "emerald green" area On July 12, 1.999,, it was brought to the
27 Commission, but due to possible.conflicts, itwas not acted_upon. Mr. Marangella
2s explained that what Council had before them the Resolution to add the "emerald green"
29 area and conduct a feasibility study of this as an amended area.
30
31 Council Member Healy confirmed°thaf'the resolution,was tot authorize the studies o_ n
32 both the "butterscotch" and "emerald green" areas Hetasked if the 'walk through" had
33 led toa preliminary conclusion regarding the feasibility-oithose areas being included.
'34
35; Mr. Hawkins replied that the walk through with legal counsel and with Libby indicated
36 that they would meet blight requirements. The economic issues'required further study.
37
38' MOTION': Council MemberMaguir"emovedseconded by Cader-Thompson, to
39 Adopt Resolution'00-51 'NCS'•Amending Resolution 6986,NCS.by
,40• Adding an Additional Area to the Survey Area and Redefining
41 the CBD Survey Area Boundaries.
42
43 MOTION. •
44 PASSED: .411/2 (Torliatt recused, Keller, Hamilton absent)
Draft-Minutes ofa'.
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, March 20, 2000
Page 3
•
1 DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
1 7. Discussion:and.Possible Action on Request from Burbank:Housing Development •
2 Corporation for a Finding by the City Council that the U.S. Army Corps of
3 Engineers Flood Project has Progressed to an,Acceptable Level of Completion
4 to MeefiCondition 29 of Resolution.99-97Aand also Allowing Burbank Housing
5 ite Pay Detention Fees in Order to Proceed with Construction'of°Old'Elm Village
6 in Spring of 2000. . ,
7
8 'Housing Administrator Bonne Gabbier:presented the agenda,report:and;,summarized
9 the action; .Old Elm:Village is a proposed`8&unit;affordable.housing community to be
to developed on a four-acre^parcel generally located at`'the corner of iPayran.Street and
rl Petaluma Boulevard North.
12. •
13 Land use:approval has been received. Included `the PUD"application icodition_29,
14 which states that building;`permits shall not be lissued until such.time:as the U.S. Army'
15 Corpsrof Engineer Flood Way Project incomplete..
16
17 Burbank's request, with'City Management's concurrence, was that the+start of
is construction be:permitted. The Army Corps project will•be;complete before completion
19 of Old Elm'Village and the;hydrological impacts;of development were than
zo originally calculated.
21
22 Mitigation measure.#6 of The Negative Declaration stated that the applicant would.
23 provide payment of,storm..drain'impact fees••and incorporate onror'off-site detention.
24 Burbank concurred:with City Management that this measure be met by paying into this ' •
25 fund1for;an off-site detention pond. •
26
27 There were several issues regardingithe payment ofthe:detention pond impact fees
28 that must be worked out prior issuceocerficate .occupaney, wVer; there was a
29 approximately one year'in which-to de this:
30
31 1. . How much will the`fee.be and how will it.be calculated? • '
32 2. How will the impact>fees?;be•utilized?
33
• 34 Vice Mayor Torliatt thanked Ms.•Gaebler and asked'Director of Water Resources.,and
35 Conservation'Tom Hargis for'a'time frame for dealing,with those issues.
36, •
37. Mr. Hargis stated that the RMI Study°should be available'possibly April 3', 2000:;He
38 re"commend"ed that tie RMI.:Stud ,,�roceed throu h ublic�process In its;current state'.
Y - ,YP p 9 P �..
40 of the^General Plan. He'thought the study,was ready 'into tout to the e Water Element
39 and that the issues raised.b Council be incor orated
to go,out`to the public.`to •
at defermine"their reaction-to,the concept:
42
43. He explained thatthe°existing ordinance establishinga storm drain mitigation fee was
44 geared, at the time of its•adoption; to creation of detention ponds It included an option:
45 for paying:fees 'or creating detentlon°pondS. Wliat was,being discussing was making
Draft,Mihutes of.a, -
City of,Petaluma;California • . •
city Council Meeting
Monday,,March 20, 2000
Page 4
•
DRAFT DRAFT - • DRAFT
t detention mandatory. Fees collected in the past had been used to create some
2 detention ponds and to help fund!°a portion of•the City'e share,of the Corps of Engineers
3 Project.
4
5 Mr. Hargis had discussed,idetermination of appropriate`fees for detention ponds with
6 Ms. Gaebler and John Morgan, Burbank Housing-Development-Corporation. He
7 proposed that if the feeweredoubled it would be in,the.appropriate range. •
8 •
9 Council Member Maguire asked for an,approximate amount,
10
11 Mr: Hargis stated that the..Storm Drain Mitigation Feerwould be approximately $14,400,
12 plus inflation.
-13
14 Vice Mayor Torliatt expressed concern about.the City's responsibility/liability regarding
15 the detention pond and flooding issues: She wanted the City to have the option to make
16 developers responsible for finding off-site detention instead of paying a fee.
17
.18 Council Member Maguire asked how far the RMI Study was-frorn completion and
19 whether there were time constraints.
20
21 Mr. Hargis replied that residency:was scheduled for May 2001 ; a decision must be
22 made before that time. • •
.23
=24 PUBLIC COMMENT
25
26 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, stated that although the housing was needed, it was in a
27 sensitive area due to the flood.'issues.
28
29 Bill Bennett, Bodega,Avenue, questioned Council's decision.to allow construction to
30 proceed before occupancy and detention ponds.
31
32 Council Member Maguire explained that Burbank•Housing was asking to begin
33 construction and have on-site detention, which would filter water'thatgoes into the
34 river, pay a storm mitigation-fee and a+pond loop fee'so that when .the.RMI study-is
35 completed they would have already contributed towards that cost.
36
37 Mr. Hargis explained'that the ordinance was introduced in 1982. The City took on the
38 responsibility of'finding the land and building the first detention ponds.
39
40 Council Member Heal'yasked Mr:-Hargis if that practice had continued.
41
42 Mr. Hargis stated that some years ago the City decided to use themoney°for the Corp
43 projects and stopped using it for the detention ponds.
44
I
Draft Minutes of-a .
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, March 20, 2000
Page 5
DRAFT DRAFT .DRAFT
1 Council. Member Healy that;the fees had been set aside fordetention ponds' •
2 but were diverted;toc pay for the flood.project: •
g ,y City e moving and that requiring
4 He a reed;that this is the wa the Cit wanted to b
s contributions.to detention ponds should beta standard;part of development proposals;
6: He.thought the.proposal,-as it stood would `'get"the project going:" Hernoted that the
7 resolution needed to include the Mr: Morgan's,additional language regarding
8 occupancy.
9
to Vice Mayor Torliatt understood that aieflood management_project should be;done prior to
ti this being completed:,
12
13 Mr. Hargis.replied that there:bad been good progress with the construction; however,
14 there was,a'majorfunding issue that.needed;to be addressed and. resolved. He°.stat'ed
15 that the project as`is,was tested bythe?storm about four weeks ago: The flood level was
16 about four;feetbelow• whatittiad beentnithe past.
17
is Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that the developer should be responsible•for theaimpact`they
19 create; whether through detention ponds or flo od mitigation. She wanted to have the
zo `benefit of having the study:
21
22 Council Member Healy commented that what the City had been doing up until now, in
23 terms of detention ponds was nothiing;,so anything was;an improvement over nothing._ '
24 He was concerned that the kind of open-ended;flexibility being discussed;would make it
25 difficult for developers;to secure financing for,projects.,
26
27 Vice Mayor'Torliatt:clarified that Whet'She suggested;was a maximum dollar'amount.
28 The developer would have to determine how they would provide detention off-site,
29 witlout`paying"an impact fee. She.,wanted to allowthe project to goforward without
30 pufting.the•City'in aaposition of not being able to make a different decision after:the City.
31 Engineer completes his report:
32 •
33 Mr. Morgan agreed with Council Member that it would be good to have a,clear
34 number•to give the;construction lender,,when he reviews through„the=twenty•conditions •
35 in the approval regarding flooding. He:explained:A-at in November-2900, Dave Brown,
36 principal;of Adobe Associates, did,an estimateeof three detention options that the
37 Planning Commission asked to see His•estimate for:off-site`detentionwas,$11,000 -
38 $1;2,000 which turned out'tobe•less expensive than on-site detention;or on-site in
39 tanks `however, he did nothave the benefit;of an RMI Study or the comments that
ao Cou_ncil had made regarding:requirements fora detention pondiand:the;environmen_ tal
41 concerns. Regarding'Mr Hargis'.s suggestion to doublethefee, he foundthat,
42 reasonable and stated that'itfit,within his budget .
43
44 Council Member Maguire,asked how much that would Ibe.
45 S
DrafUMinutes of;a ..
City of Petaluma•.California
'City CounciliMeeting,
Monday,'Ma dh 20',.2000
• Page.6
•
•
•
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Mr. Morgan stated that the current figure was;$14,000, which was'based on 8/10 of an
2 acre-foot.
3.
4 Council Member Maguire asked if that was the Storm Impact Fee.
5
6 Mr. Morgan replied that it was, and that it was based on run-off volume of 8/10 of an
7 acre-foot.
8
9 Council Member Healy°clarified that Mr. Morgan would/continue to pay the $14,000 as
10 the normal mitigation fee and would set aside an additional $14,000 for the other fees.
11
12 Mr. Morgan disagreed. He`explained that he agreed to pay,.storm drain mitigation fees
13 and provide 125-130% of off-site detention. He thought he would agree to pay
14 times the fee if the Engineering Department agreed to look at Adobe's analysis and
is base his fee on actual run-off.
16
17 Council Member Maguire stated that,he appreciated Vice Mayor Torliatt's concerns;
18 however, there was a desperatemeed for housing. He described the proposal as
19 covering every possible base, hydrologically speaking. Regarding establishment of an
20 appropriate fee schedule or level', he thought $14,000.forthe storm drain mitigation fee,
21 plus 130%-150% of Adobe's estimate would be sufficient to cover foreseeable
22 requirements for detention.
• '3
24 Council Member Healy understood that the existing fee was based on a 0.8-acre fee
25 and the newer study showed that:being reduced by 75% to 0.2. He asked Council
26 Member Maguire if he was proposing to leave it at0.2.
27 -
2s Council Member Maguire clarified that it should be left at 0.8-for extra margin and
29 security purposes.
30
31 Council Member Cader-Thompson requested further from Mr. Morgan
32 about his willingness to pay three times the amount he`was'now paying.
33
34 Mr. Morgan confirmed that he thought it would be possible and asked that because he
3s was',the first:to pay a detention pond fee, it remain at $14000, but if necessary he
36 would be willing to pay 2-3 times the current'amount
37
38 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought'itbetter'to go with the higher number; it
39 could be reduced later if the:report warranted it She pointed out that even though the
.4o project was for low-income housing, 'ten] had an impact. She thought it important to
41 wait for the RMI Study, because the upstream development would have an upstream
42 impact. ,
43
44 Vice Mayor Torliatt concerned that-if the City wereto begin charging detention pond
•.4s fees it would be responsible•for any detention ponds that were not built. The developer
Draft:Minutes of;a
City ofPetaluma, California
City"Council Meeting
Monday March 20, 2000
Page 7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 2 wouldresponsible.'t be responsible because-they had paid the fees, and,the City shouldn't be
•
3
4 She thought Burbank•should budget a "dollar amount`; Staff and Burbank should have
5 the flexibility to saythatAhey may need to build their own facility.
6 •
7 Council Member Healy was prepared to agree---to either three times the $14,000 figure,
8 as proposed:by, City.Management, or Council Member'Maguire's proposal of 2.3 times
9 $14,000. In either case;,if the developer paid;in too much, it could be refunded.
10 _.
11 Council Member Maguire wanted to keep in mind that-the project had':merit that a
12 standard project would not Becauseof•that, he was willing to proceed without having
13 all the information-and have excess chargesgeturned if they turn out not to'be',required: , .
14 Regarding Vice,Mayor Torliatt's concern regarding liability, he presumed,that.contracts •
is would contain the appropriate indemnity clauses.
16
17 Ms: Gaebler confirmed that she•would'ask City Attorney Rich Rudnansky'toreview the
18 contracts to that end:
19
20 Council Member Maguire emphasized-that the,project didn't necessarily set;a precedent
21 for future-projects.
22 •
23 Vice Mayor Torliatt requested that the City Attorney address, unless.hedeemed it
•
24 unnecessary, the matter of potential liability.
s
26 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky indicated that it was impossible to speculate as to°what
27 impact the decision made today would have in the future.
28• •
29 Council Member Maguire questioned:if any action taken today would cause:a- precedent
30 that others could potentially try to exploit:
31
32 Mr. Rudnansky stated that?a decision-:today would not lock'them into similar decisions •
33 for future projects.
34 • •
3s Vice Mayor Torliatt e,w
asked-if someone:elsanting to build t in aiflood plain area could.
36 come in,and demand the same treatment. •
37
38 Mr, Rudransky indicated:that such demands could'bemade, but.Council would not'be
39 required to,agree to them.
40 •
41 Council Member'Healy agreed with Mr. Rudnansky. His understanding of the,detention
42 requirement was that it pertained to the portion outside the flood plain. He thought:the
43 watershed areavas the real issue and if was a much bigger,area.thanithe!flood plain
as area So the possible precedent concerned the entirePetaluma River Watershed — not
45 the flood plain area. •
Draft.Minutes of a,
City of Petaluma;California
City CounciMeeting, •
Monday, March 20,2000
,Page 8
DRAFT DRAFT . DRAFT,
• 1 Vices Mayor Torliattywas willing.to.have the project gotforward'; but wanted the benefit of
2 the Staff Report and policy making process before making any further decisions.
3
4 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Cader-Thom_ pson, to
5 Adopt Resolution 00-52 NCS, allowing'the:commencement of construction
6 by Burbank Housing Development Corporation(Burbank) and the
7 paymentof'"detention" fees as part ofan off-site pond fund three times
8 the amount:'of the storm drain fees, and,that language be added to the
9 resolution to reflectthat because of the uniquetcharacter of the project,
10 this decision is intended as policy only for this project. .
11
12 MOTION
13 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Hamilton, Keller absent)
14
15 1. Verbal Report Regarding Status of`Payran Project,and Discussion and
16 Possible Direction Regarding Payran Flood Management Financing.and
17 Budget.
1s •
19 Mr. Hargis reported_issues.with compaction of thestorm drain pipe on Vallejo Street.
20 These were being resolved as quickly as possible. He also presented a report in
21 response to a notice of violation from the Water Quality.Control.Board for the Corps
22 Contractor regarding not having proper erosion„prevention measures in place. Hewn!
�•23 provide Council with copies ofthe report.
24
25 City Manager Stouder announced the upcoming meeting in Washington D.C. The main
26 meeting would be:in the offices of the Assistant Secretary for the Army for Engineering,
27 the•Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and Budget, and possibly the Deputy
28 Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. The congressional'representatives were working
29 with the agencies involved. The goal was to break through some of the former
30 bureaucratic legal constraints of the.project, specifibally: when the projectwas first
31 conceived and'agreed to,;it'•was viewed appropriate to have it under.a section of U.S.
32 Army Corps authorizing participation with limits of $5„ and a maximum of
33 $7million. Council.and,City Management's,main mission was`to convince the.Army
34 Corps that this was not a Section 205 project and that it:should not be held to-those
35 limitation. Thiswas a Federal U.S. Army Corps flood control project.
36
37 1. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Naming and Dedication of Payran
38 ReachSridges.
39
.40 City Manager Stouder asked that any'comments or suggestions:regarding the Bridge
41 Plaque be provided; he would then.Meet with Mr. Vince Lan-doff and the project would
42 proceed.
43
44 Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested the plaque be entitled "Lakeville; Street,Bridge” and be
• 4s worded as follows: "The Lakeville Street Bridge and the Petaluma River Flood
Draft Minutes.of a
City"of Petaluma, California
• City'Council Meeting
Monday, March 20,2000
Page 9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
t Management Project are dedicated to theCitizens:of Petaluma and Petaluma's •'
2 Flood,Victims°to^Help:.ProtebeFutureGenerations•from'the,Dev_astating,Effects of
3 Flooding:'"
4 •
5 Council Member'Maguire,concurred'with Vice MayorTorliatt's ideas and wanted to
6 includethe words, '"for'their continued efforts
7
8 Council Member Healy confirmed thatthiswas for the new bridge.
9
10 MOTION; Council Member Maguire moved;..seconded by Healy„to approve;option
11 #2 and add the title of "Lakeville:Streef,Bridge"'and add thephrase
12 "Citizens.of Petalurria."
1.3
•
14 'MOTION •
15 PASSED: 4/172;;(-Todiatt voting no,_Hamilton, Keller absent)
16 •
17
18 NEW`BUSINESS'.
19 •
•20 1. Petaluma TreeAdvisory Committee's;Annual,Report.
21
22 Senior Planner Hans Grunt'reviewed':the;agenda report and introduced ,Rossi Parkerson.
23 andJoseph'Noriel of the TreeAdvisory Committee. •
24:
25 Tree Advisory Committee.Chair Ross Parkerson•provided information on;the
26` committee's accomplishments, including tree• in downtown and neighborhood
27 areas working'with 'Petaluma Tree Planters:to acquiregrants`and.moneyto cut the
28 sidewalks, buy trees, etc.
29
30 The Council,was acknowledged for help with the East 'D' Street project, which was a
31 phenomenal success and the East'Washington Street project, which is.:on going'.
32 Mr Parkerson then introduced Ed Anchordoguy, who manages the trees,on'East
33, Washington.
34
35° -Council Member Maguire stated;that the Liquid Amber trees infront`of Kentucky'Fried'
36 Chicken had received a severe pruning and reskeCI Mr: Parkerson if he thought:it;was
37 rtooSeVere-
38 •
39 Mr_ Parkerson.informed .Council.that thecommittee was`in the process of forming;a
ao letter of information to the communityon caring for trees
41
42 Council Member Maguire asked°if,the committee had talked about informing
43 'commercial property owners abouttare of maturing trees on their properties.
.44
Draft Minuteeof a
City,of P.etaluma;•California''
city/Council Meeting
Monday March 20;,.2000
Page 1'0'
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
• i Mr. Parkerson replied"that the committee was•developing a public outreach program,
2 with the Chamber of_Commerce newspaperas a .vehicle..
3
4 Council Member Caller-Thompson asked ifit:was possible to.have the businesses
5 contribute a fee and have a.professional prune their trees rather than a non-
6 professional. She asked if the'Tree•Committee would actually look'into;that and come
• 7 back with a dollar amount.
8
9 Mr. Parkerson thought it was a,good idea and would look into it.
10
t 1 Council Member Cader-Thompson clarified that she was speaking of the whole
12 Washington corridor. She wanted to know how'interested•citizens could get this
13 information.
14
1s Mr. Parkerson agreed that'there was always a need to plant frees and the outreach
16 program would be designed to reach everyone.
17
is He commented on a letter received from the Forestry Service;, There were four criteria
19 to be met in order for Petaluma to be recognized as a Tree City USA. The City must
20 have:
21 •
22 1. Tree Committee
�3 2. Tree Care Ordinance
24 3. Comprehensive Community Forestry Program
25 4. Arbor Day Observance
26
27 Mr. Parkerson explained that Petaluma met all four criteria, and then presented Council
28 with a plaque naming Petaluma as an official Tree City USA.
29
30 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked'if the Tree Committee had worked with the
31 shopping center on the•east;side as'the trees were looking quitemessy. She asked if
32 the committee could talk to'them about this.
33
34 Mr; Parkerson explained thatit-is private property, but the committee was;looking at
35 ways td approach'them and let them know that help;was available.
36
37 Council Member,Healy thought that the reason some trees.weren't'doing,well was
38 because they weren't planted in their,ideal location. He believed the approved tree list.
39 would contribute to the success of future tree planting. He'thanked the committee, Mr.
4o Anchordoguy and the Tree Planters for their efforts-to make Petaluma•a Tree City USA
41 and a beautiful placeto be.
42
43 Mr. Parkerson agreed. •
44
IP
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday; March 20, 2000
Page 11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Council Member.Maguire expressed'his appreciation and asked Mr..Parkerson if tree.
•
2 planting would take place on the side streets in the Old Eastside Neighborhood.
4 Vice Mayor'Torliatt;read a portion;of'the staff"report: The overall volunteer,time
5 provided bytheeseven-member committee:was estimated at 800 hours per year, City
6 Managementtimewas estimated at 155 hourssper year She acknowled'ged'what a
7 great effort:that:was, She noted that'a tree`was missing in Golden Concourse, there
8 was'only,a hole the tree
9 -
10 Mayor Thompson"thanked:;Mr. Parkerson and the committee for their efforts and
17 commented on how much more`heyenjoys the streets of Petaluma because of'the
12 natural beauty._Healso appreciatedaeing.a part.of the:tree,planting and especially
13 enjoys^watching those trees:grow and mature.
14
1.5 1. . Discussion and:'Possible Action on:Appointment of Two;Council Members,
16 to a,Youth Commission Subcommittee
17 .
1s .Mayor Thompson stated-that he4iad.received:a phone call from,Qbuncil Member Keller
19 asking that'this item.:be postponed until the evening,because he.:had a question •
20 regarding the mission or the mission';statement of this.item. Mayor Thompson'asked
21 Parks and Recreation Director Jim•Carr the appointments were made at this time,.
22 would Council Member Keller be-able to get his answer during the,evening meeting.
23'
•
24 Mr.. hewould, and added that the information Council Member'Keller
25 requested had,been provided the last time Council met regarding the Youth
26 Commission. The Council had granted City'Management and the Youth Commission•a
27 year developa mission statement, etc.
28
29 Council Member Maguire°suggested appointing the,Council Members at°this:time..
30 •
'31 Mayor'Thompson'noted that;Council'Members Cader-Thompson and Healy had
32 expressed,;interest in;being part of the committee:. .
33
34 MOTION: Vice Mayor'Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire, to appoint Council
35 MemberiCader-Thompson and Council Member Healyto.the Youth
36 Commission Subcommittee.
37
3s MOTION
39 PASSED. • 5/012 (Hamilton; Kellerabsent) .
40
41 Mr. Carr mentioned that the school;board and."-the hospital'foundation have:made their
42 !appointments: We have 13 written applications from interested adultssand we'd 'like to
43 seta date the first part of April so we can start the:interviews.
44
45 .
Draft Minutekofa
City of California.
City Council Meeting
Monday; Mardi-20;;2000_
Page 12 •
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• 1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 Mr. Loren Williams, 12 North Napa Drive, invited Council Members,to ride on the Trolley
4 in the Butter and Eggs Day Parade. He proposed creation of a Petaluma Trolley Living
5 History Museum and asked that the idea be brought to'Council for discussion and
6 possible adoption later in Spring. It would include suggested changes:to the draft to
7 allow inclusion of the Heritage Trolley idea.
8
9 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if this could be put on the agenda before the
it) Butter and Eggs Day Parade.
11
12 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought it should be on the Corona Reach Discussion Agenda.
13
14 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Mr. Williams for his hard work and for
is bringing his ideas for the community"to the Council.
,16
17 Mr. Stouder'stated that the idea was to have a single-purpose meeting with the Central
is Petaluma Specific Plan..
19 •
20 Vice,Mayor Torliatt encouraged Mr..Williams to-subm'itthe plans to City Management
21 prior to the,Central Petaluma Specific Plan Meeting'so they could incorporate some of
22 his ideas into their recommendations:to Council. She noted that she had attending the
23 Heritage Homes meeting last,Thursday night, saw the slide presentation and thought it
24 was fabulous, and looked forward to seeing it again.
25
26 Mayor Thompson thanked Mr. Williams and Don Campo for their time and hard work.
27
28 PUBLIC COMMENT
29
30 None
' 31
32 CLOSED SESSION
33
34 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced that Council would adjourn to Closed
35 Session for the following:
36
37 Conference With Labor Negotiator, Pursuant to Government Code §54957:6, Unit 7,
38 Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne/Beatty/Krout
39
40 Conference With Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation (Subdivision (a) of Government
• 41 Code§54956.9), City Petaluma vs. Holmberg; Sonoma County Superior Court Case
42 No. 222739.
43 •
•
Draft Minutes of<a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, March 20,2000 •
Page 13
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
t Conference With Legal;Counsel, Existing Litigatiorr(Subdivisibn (ay of Government
2 Code;§54956.9); City of Petaluma vs. Madison Village•Homeow_ners•,Associatio_n,
3 'Sonoma County Court Case No. SCV 2211052.
4
5 Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Governri-mentrCode §54957.
6 . Discussion Of'City Clerk Evaluation: (Kline)
7
8 ADJOURN
9
to Council adjourned to Closed Session at 4-25`ptm.
11 •
12
13, * *• +
14
15 •
16 RECONVENE
17
is The Petaluma City Council reconvened its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. 'in•the!Council
19 Chambers.
20 •
21 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED'SESSION,'
22
24 May Session.hOrp son announced that there was no re "bitable'action•taken'in Closed' • •,
y p p
25
26 ROLL CALL • . -
27 •
28 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, 'Healy, Keller, Maguire; Vice Mayor
29 Torliatt, Mayor Thompson
30
31 ABSENT: Council Member`Hamilton '
3�
33 PLEDGEOF ALLEGIANCE
34
35 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Boy Scout°Troop 8led the Pledge of Allegiance:,
36 -
a7 MOMENT.OESILENCE •
38 •
39 At the request of;MayorThompsorine momehtof silence was observed:
40 •
41 PUBLICICOMMENT • .
42
43 Wayne Bigelow 1617 Lancaster Drive, spoke regarding the recent acts ofFarson and
44 violence4at the Fishman Supply Company. He stressed the need to stand'together as.a
45 corimmunity against this type of`violence.
Draft-,Minutes of:a
City of Petaluma,:California
City-Council Meeting
Monday ,March 20;2000
Page 14 .
•
. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, spoke regarding-therecent violence at the Fishman
3 Supply Company an in opposition of°anti-SemiticFg raffi
d ti and,in"favor of the
4 establishment of a reward for information leading to the arrest„and conviction of the
5 perpetrators.
6
7 Petaluma Chamber of Commerce President Tom Knudsen spoke in opposition to •
8 vandalism at the Fishman Supply Company and anti-Semitic sentiments demonstrated.
9 He stated that'ta reward,fund was being established at the Petaluma Area Chamber of
to Commerce to assist in the,arrestof the person(s) responsible for this crime, adding that
1,1 he would have more information on the scope of the fund next week.
12
13 John Records, spoke regarding the recent violence at the Fishman'Supply Company
"14 describing it as an attack on the entire'community. .
15 -
16 Bill Fishman (not involved'in the family business)spoke regarding'the recent violence-at
17 the Fishman Supply Company and in`opposition of anti-Semitic graffiti, bigotry and
is expressed his appreciationto all speaking for his family this evening. He expressed
. 19 thanks and admiration to the Petaluma Police=and.Fire Departments„for their help and
20 support with regard to the incident.
21
22 Saul Fishman expressed his'family's appreciationtotIthe City and community for their
•z3 aid and support.
.�4
25 Diane Reilly-Torres, Rainier Avenue, spoke regarding Public•Access charges
26
27 Patricia Tuttle Brown spoke in opposition of thewandalism'tat the Fishman Supply
28 Company and theanti-Semitic"sentiments demonstrated..
29
30 COUNCIL COMMENTS
31
32 Council Member Cader-Thompson spoke regarding"thetrecentviolence at the Fishman
33 Supply Company and in opposition of anti-Semitic.graffiti and-.bigotry. She thanked the
34 members of the public speaking tonight and expressed her love for and fond memories
35 Of the Fishman Family.
36
37 Council Member Keller empathized with:those .who spoke in.opposition of the recent
3s violence at the Fishman Supply Company, anti-Semitism, bigotry, ethnic and racial
39 prejudices. •
40
41 He congratulated the Petaluma High School Girls•Trojans for their sportsmanship and
42 accomplishments Regarding the Sonoma County'Transportation,Association meeting
43 of this afternoon, a motion^for.a summit"to develop a tax or financing proposal was
44; defeated 6-5: There had been some concern expressed.that Senator Burton would
• 45 move forward with a;statewide measure for a sales tax vote on 50%•+ 1 county by
DraftMinutes of a
City,of Petaluma;California
City Council Meeting
• Monday„March 20, 2000
Page 15
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 county to support county4nfra-structure IISCRAwere tosgatorwardWith a!eutithit.br
2 any other process, assurance was'needeeljrom the Board of Supervisors that whatever
3 wasdevelopectWoutd be put on the Oallot. That might not happen the,groOpidid agree
4 to pursue additional State and Federal gas tax returns and SCA3.or some variation
5 thereol'for sale S tax on the project.
6 •
7 CouncirMeMberMaguire asked WhO the Supervisors were.
8
9 Council Mei-hber Keller replied Tim,Smith,'Mike Kerns and Mike Reilly
to
ii Vice Mayer Torliatt asked who voted againsphaVirigla summit.
12
13 CouncihMember Keller replied thatht was 'Mike Kerns, Tim Smith, Sharon Wright,
_
14 :PhyllisfCarterfrom Sonoma, and. Eric Zeidrich from'Healdsburg.
15
16 Council,Member Maguire asked fora show'cif hands from the people who Were present
17 in support of the.:Fishmans`this everiihg.
18
. . _
19, Eighty-five percent otthe audience raised their hands.
20
21 Council Member Maguire spoke regarding the community's,„opposition'to prejudice and
22 hate crimes He hoped education could eliminate motivation for such crimes. ' He gave
23 his supportJo:the Fishmans.
2-4 • •
25. Council Member Healy spoke against the Supply indidentlandlih favor of
2$ eciutatibh for the youth-of the cornrridhity:
27
.28. Vice Mayor Torliattthanked*Boy Scout Troop 8 for leading the Pledge of Allegiance.,
29 She spoke regarding the:Rohnert Park City Council's working group.workshogthat was
39 formed to deal their gerieratplanproceSs.iSheWaanted COLincirtthtelk with
Supervisor Miite,Ketrfe'„Open Space District representatives and the Sonoma Land
32' Trust about the need to focus on algreenbeit around Petaluma She was in a "state of
33, disbelierWherLshelearnedpfJhe Fishman incident She apologized to the Fishmans
34 on behalf of the perpetrators.
35 • . •
36 Mayor Thompson spoke in opposition of the crime against the Fishman family He .
37 asked Bill Fishmaittcyread'a jwolation h'e.had'brought with him,.
38: • •
39 Mr. FiShrnan read the following:
40'
41 "When they cAme:tor.the Communists, did tnOtt Speak because twas not
42 a ColtiviOist., When trioycan*factife:Jqyvs, ictlithnotipeak because I
• ,
43, TIA0t4 Jew •When tliek,Catnei;fOr the:Union Leaders, I did.nbrspeak
44 ipetaue 'FWAS not 6,Union;Leacieh When theyicarnefOr me; there was no
One left to,speak."
'40
•
Draft Mint40 oto
Cify.of.Petaluma,. .e.ali6rnia
city Council Meeting
'I.VIon0y;,MarcN20, 2000
•
'Page 16
•
DRAFT - DRAFT DRAFT'
2 COUNCIL AND CITY',MANAGEMENT REPORTS'
3 •
4 None •
5 •
6 AGENDA CHANGES,.ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
7
8 None -
9
to PRESENTATIONS t.
1`1
12 Presentation of Checks to High Schools for Toilet Retrofit Program.
. 13
14 Mayor Thompson reat a statement'_regarding the recent successful program, which
15 raised $7.,100.00 each for Casa Grande and Petaluma High,Schools and replaced 957
16 toilets; the two schools will receive $1.5.00 for each toilet replaced for a total of
17 $7,110:00 per high school. He thanked the following for their leadership: Jane Decker,
18 Student Activities Director, Petaluma High; Jacob Avery and David Sterrep of Casa
19 Grande High School, and especially the highschool students. He also thanked Joe
20 Devito and Darren Hanson for the "Talking Toilet" video, and Craig Spaulding, Tony
21 Tescano, Ted Andersen, Floyd Crane for their assistance.
22
• 23 Mr. Hargis,with the assistance of Allie Davidson and Lynne Hulme of the Sonoma
24 County Water-Agency presented the checks.
25
26 Ms: Davidson asked for a.round•:of applause for Jane Decker,'Petaluma High, and
27 David Sterrep, Casa Grande High. She then presented the "big"checks.
28
29 A student,representative spoke regarding Casa Grande High School's current project,
30 "Project Tolerance;" andi invited Mr. Fishman and the Council to the presentation in
31 mid-April.
32
33 Mayor Thompson stated that Casa Grande High School won the.Academic:Decathlon
34 for the second yearrin a row and Council would be presenting them'with a proclamation.
35
36 Ms. Davidson Introduced the Student Body President of Petaluma High School, and
37 recognized his efforts and hard work withihe Toilet Retrofit project.
38 •
39 Presentation on Green Power:
40
41 Natalie Peck, 1.1-year'P•etaluma resident; asked Council to find and use renewable
42 energy sources and/or providers.
43
44 Kari Smith, Center for Energy Efficiencyand'Renewable Technologies, explained what
qp45 electric restructuring is and how it effects the City. Generation of electricity is now
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, March 2Q 2000
Page 17
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 competitive. Transmission and distribution are still owned and operated by PG&E and •
2 regulated,by CPUC; but the City now has the ability choose how electricity will be
3 generated.
4 .
5 Vice MayorTorliatt asked Ms. Smith to define "renewable energy'•and.to clarify whether
6 she was asking the City to switch to Green Power.orthe City..and residents,
7
8 Ms. Smith explained that "Green Power,' as defined by California law,,included wind,
9 solar, biomass, landfill gas andsmallihydro and geothermal power..She'clarified that
to she was proposing the Cityswitch its;municipal.load,;seive as a leader in doing so,:and
it help.to educate the community on how to do the same:
12
13 Council;'Member Maguire thanked Ms. Smith'forthe information. Heiasked if'the.powe'r
14 would be _new power or'repackaged ;power and asked what she had seen,as part ofthe
is contract renewables.
16
17 Ms. Smith;replied°that Oakland RFP,have specified being E-certified, Green E:isrra
is program run by Resources for Solutions ,which is nonprofit. They require all marketers
19 who,sell Green E-certified product+to include,5% new;generation by the year 2001 and
20 10% by theyear.2002.
. 21.
22 Council Member Maguire asked if that percentage would increase.
23 •
24 Ms.,Smith„replied;that it..currentlystopped,at;10% She pointed but that'if a user were to •
25. not switch to 100%renewable, thatuser would still be buying 90% "dirty";and paying for
26 the production and distribution ofathe dirty power. The Center for Energy Efficiency and
27 Renewable Technologies'.goal was`to slowly switch the market over time and'di'splace
28 the dirty power, putting all resources toward'the purchase of'renewable energy.
29 .
30 Council Member Maguire inquired if:there:was currently a 15% rebate available:
31
32 Ms. Smith replied that itwss a'50%rebate.
33'
34 Council Member Maguire asked how long;that would;remain'in effect.
•
35 .
36 Ms. Smith`answered-that rebates would be issued °until the money runs out:
37
3s_ Council MemberMaguire:asked how much money'was available-for rebates.
39
40 Ms. Smith!did,not have that;information°with her She explained that;it was:a State
at funded program run by California Energy Commission.,
'42
43 Council Member"Maguire mentioned that th e Citysigned up to,participate witttABAG
44 several years.ago in their pooling of purchasing..He wondered what thel;status was on
45 the contract with ABAG.
Draft-Minutes of a.
City of Petaluma; California
City council'Meeting
Monday,4Mardh.20;2000
Page 18
DRAFT ,DRAFT' DRAFT
•
2 City Manager Stouder replied that he though the City was just,ending their second year
3 in the program. He recalled receiving a rebateicheck and a report about two weeks
4 ago.
5
6 Ms. Smith stated that'ABAG had recently decided to offer a Green.Power product; her
7 organization was working with ABAG because many cities felt,more comfortable buying
s through ABAG.
9
10 City Manager Stouder thought the City was participating in the current program He will
11 provide Council with'copies of`the report he had recently received.
12
13 Council Member Maguireasked for information on the convergence of cost.
14
15 Ms. Smith replied that"one:of.the,.things the companies were looking for was recognition
16 of providing Green=,Power to larger customers. She thought the City would be in a good
17 negotiating position for agood deal with a marketer. She urged the City to issue an
is RFP for 100% purchase to switch 100% of its load.
19
20 Council Member Maguirespoke regarding an article he read about the City of Santa
21 Rosas attempt to pump wastewater to the geysers to,creatasteam in the steam fields.
22 Some of the Green Power is geothermal power from the geysers.
23
24 Council Member Keller thanked Ms. Smith her presentation. Regarding State
25 regulations and the definition of small-scale hydroelectric, he asked if that was "new" or
26 "existing."
27
28 Ms. Smith said it could be new There was a new qualification being considered called
29 "low-impact hydro." American River's,project was working closely with the Center for
30 Resource Solutions (CRS) to come up with new criteria.
31
32 Council Member Keller asked if American River was currently working on a new
33 definition.
34
35 Ms, Smith replied that they were, together with a number of environmental groups,
36 including NRDC.
37
38 Council Member Keller thoug ht it best to ask ABAG what difference there would be in
39 fees if the City switched to 100% Green Power. He also asked Ms. Smith to provide
40 model RFP's for City Management.
41
42 Council Member Healy stated that an article in the L.A. Times stated that their extra
43 cost was $115,000 per year for Santa Monica. He wanted to see what Petaluma's cost
44 difference would be; that kind'of a cost level would be difficult for the City, given its
i
Draft.Minutes:of a
City of-Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, March 20, 2000
Page 19
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
t currentflnancial situation. He thought Cbuncil;needed'to,subject this Lb some've y
2 careful scrutiny.
3
4 Vice MayorTorliatt.pointed out that a Council Member from the City of Santa Monica
s was at the local government conference;-at.Yosemite£and;gave a presentation on‘the
6 program.'She stated`that there was a5% increase in cost for the power but-,that by •
7 using Green Power coupled with other energy measures, they actually saved'that,5%.
8
9 Council Member Maguire requested that City"Management provide:status report on the
10 current ABAG program and more information about what would be involved in .issuing
it an RFP and pursuing a Green Powerbasis4or'the.City's consumption of:power.
12
13 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Ms; Smith.;She added that;she would like .
14 to look atthis,as part of the General Plan:
15!
16 Mayor Thompson asked Ms. Smith if she had copies of,other City sAFP's.-
17
18 Msi Smith,replied that she did not have them with her but she would provide copies-of
19. RFP's.to Council. She extended an invitationr'to Council Members,to:attend a
20 presentation on,March 4, 2000 about'how cities"could''switch to Green Power and how
21 to use landfill gas to generate electricity for the cities..
22
23 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Ms. Peck for her hard work.
•
24'
• 25 Council Member Maguire asked that information on the:50% rebate also be provided.
26
27 APPOINTMENTS
28'
29 it Tree Advisory Committee One vacancy. Two letters of interest received.
30
31 Gabe Kearney stated thathe had reviewed the Tree Committee's plan'and had;done,.
32 some research regarding the possibility of attaining those goals',,including the:Tree;City
33. USA program:
34
35 Mayor Thompson asked Mr: Kearney if he had participated in any horticultural
36 programsat Santa Rosa Junior College. •
37
38 Mr. Kearney stated that there°was:a horticultural program and'in Petaluma the Creek
39 Restoration Program was,atthe juniorcollege campus.
40
41 Stephen Stafford stated that he•did+not have any education or expertise in horticulture
42 of land use,;but he had kept up,with the progress the City had-madewand would"like"to
43 getinvoived and help make;Petaluma more beautiful.
44'
Draft Minutes ofa
Cityof Petalurna;,California
City'Council Meeting
Monday: March 20,%2000
Page 20
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mayor Thompson thanked Mr. Kearney and Mr. Stafford.-He thenasked Council
- 2 members to cast their votes. .
3
4 Gabe Kearney received 5 votes: Cader-Thompson, Keller, Maguire, Thompson,
5 Torliatt. -
6'
7 Stephen Stafford received 1 vote: Healy.
8
9 Candidate selected: Gabe•Kearney(Resglution 00-53•NCS)
10
11 • Airport Commission One vacancy. Three letters of interest received.
12-
13 John E. Cunningham was not present.
14
15 David Hansen, a resident of Petaluma, referred,to'hi"s letter of experience and his
16 interest in the airport-and,the.rest of the community.
17
,18 Walter Magnon, Petaluma resident and business owner,;spoke about the airport's
}9 needs, present and future. .Fie would like to be involved in the continued growth of the
20 airport.
21
22 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky addressed the Council regarding three potential areas of
23 conflict of interest for Mr. Ivlagnon .sh'ould he be appointed to the Airport Commission.
24 Mr. Magnon had a rental agreement with the City at'thed airport, which qualified as an
25 "interest'in real property:" Mr: Magnornowns"a business atthet airport„which presents a
26 "business entity" issue. Thirdly, there was the question of his voting on issues that could
27 affect his sources of income..Mr. Magnon's appointment alone would not present a
28 conflict of interest; however, every`,decision he made..would'have to be analyzed under
29 those three potential areas of conflict.
30
31 Council Member Maguire asked if there were an issue of building more hangers for.the
32 consumers, would that constitute a conflict of interest?
33
34 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky stated that it would depend on the level of involvement:
35 If it directly involved Mr. Magnon's business, any potential increase in.his revenue.
36 would be a conflict; if he were indirectly involved; there was another set of standards •
37 involved.
38
39 Council Member Keller asked if City Attorney Rudnansky or City Manager Stouder.knew
40 if'anyotherCommission members had businesses or economic interests in•the•airport.
41
42 City.Attorney Rich Rudnansky replied that he.did not know; some may have tie-down or
'43 hangar agreements, but those may not fall into the "business or source of income"
44 category.
10'45
Draft Minutes.of a'
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, March 20, 2000
Page 21 •
•
DRAFT DRAFT `DRAFT
1 Council Member Keller was about current commission men hers having �!
2 ownership:or'economic'interest,in the airport, other than for storage.
3
4 City Manager'Stouder commented^„that;several commission mefnbers.had rental
5 agreements or lease agreements for hangers;;but he didn't know•that any of the_m •
6 owned the hangars:
• 8 City Attorney Rudnanskyclarified that:ownership'of'a hangar wastnot,likely to present a
9 problem; .however, owning'a business;or',having other sources';of income atthe;airport'
to could present a conflict.
it
12 Council Me_ mberKeller asked whose would make the ultimate decision regarding
13 conflicts. •
14
15 City Attorney Rudhansky replied that it would ultimately be Mr. Magnon's decision:
16
17 Mayor Thompson instructed Council to vote.
18
19 Dave Hansen received.5'votes:, Healy,Keller, Maguire;,Thompson,,Torliatt. -
20 ..•
21 Walter Magnon'received,l.vote: „Ceder-Thompson
22
23 Candidate:selected`: Dave;Hansen ',(Resolution:00754;NCS)
24
25 i Association of Bay.Area Governments Delegateiand Alternate.- 1 year term
26
27 MOTION; Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Mayor Thompson to
28 appoint Vice Mayor Torliatt as=the.sCity's Delegate to the,Association,of
29 Bay Area Governments:,
30•
31 'MOTION • - •
32 PASSED:: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
:33
:34 Recess:' . 8:35 0.4. '•
35
36 Reconvene: 8:40 p,m. •
37
38
39 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued'from January-1'8, 2000•and MarcM6, 2000)
40
41 12. Discussion and Possible,Action.on the;Draft%Bicycle Plan;
42 •
43 1_. Resolutionrn00-55 NCS Adopting a Negative'Declaration for the;Petaluma',
44 Bicycle Flan:
DraftMinutesJof4a'.
City of Petaluma,,california
• City Council;Meeting. •
Montlay ,March;4:2000
Pager22
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
2. Resolution 00-56 iNCS Adopting an Amendment to,the General Plan
• 2 Circulation' Elem ent'and Circulation Map to Include the Petaluma Bicycle Plan
3 in its Entirety:
4 3. Introduction of-Ordinance 2099 NCS Repealing Sections of, and Adding
5 Sections to, the Petaluma Municipal'.Code, Including Article 17 (Zoning
6 • Ordinance) in Accordance with Appendix,A of the Petaluma Bicycle Plan. .
7 4. Resolution 00-57 NCS Authorizing an„Amendment to the Engineering
s Department Public:Street Standards and-Specifications in Accordance with
9 Appendix A ofthe Petaluma Bicycle Plan.
10
t1 Consultant Vin Smith announced:he-had'no•additional'comments to make but there
12 was one change to the,agenda description: added a future action request to adopt new
13 Department of Engineering:Standards for Bike,Plans, Facilities-and Roadways. This
14 was at request of'the?new.Director of.Public Facilities and Services.
15
16 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to make one addition to the plan: At the time that the
17 Fairgrounds were developed she would like a bikepath included on the map.
18
19 Mr. Smith reiterated thatwhatwas on the map:and what was in the plan remained
20 proposed and the implementation of those projects would 'ha\e to come back for review
21 and approval.
22
023 PUBLIC'COMMENT
24
25 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue;;spoke,of her'concerns regarding the Old Redwood
26 Highway Bridge over Willow Brook Creekwith regard to-the; Petaluma Access and River
27 Enhancement Plan.
2s
29 Monica Martinez thought Council needed to give°the Kenilworth.over-crossing more
30 time and consideration. She did not think her opinions were.being heard.
31
32 Vice Mayor Torliatt addressed Ms. Martinez regarding the number of discussions the
33 City Council and members of Council had undertaken'. She-clarified that the City did
34 not own the Kenilworth site and they had been investigating[alternatives for working
35 with the School District. She:rand' Mayor Thompson hosted a, meeting last June with
36 school staff to:discuss;issues'regarding the overpass. .She.haCtspoken to Sergeant
37 Phimister of the Petaluma Police Department and told him she would be happy to be a
3s liaison. She was sorryto hear that•the neighborhood felt the City had abandoned them.
39 She spoke about the Schultz Foundation Fund and how that could lbe used She
•40 announced that there would:be public hearings to decide Whether the overcrossing
41 would be opened 24/7.
42
43 Council Member Maguire empathized with Ms. Martinez-about-her distrust of the
44 Council regarding the process.-He explained'that there was a Bike Plan°that would
•45 probably be adopted; however, that didn't automatically mean that the Kenilworth
Draft Minutes of
City of Petaluma, California
City,Council Meeting
Monday„March 20, 2000
Page 23
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 overcrossing would be opened That matter still had td go'through an individual
2 process,'whibh would includethe neighborhbod,.to approve-the plan. The•Council'e,
3. hope was to meet all concerns.
4
5 . Ms:,Martinez appreciated knowing about future;;hearings,and hoped they-took place ina
• 6 timely manner.
7'
8 Vice Mayor Torliatt addressed Ms. Reilly Torres s.domments regarding the flooding
9 issues,specifically the Willb-NAr Brook"'issue, which,the BikeCorrimittee and City
10 Engineering Department looked at in„depth. That will collie back to the Council.
11
12' She met:with Superintendent of Schools Carl Wong and 'the Bike Committee to go;over
13 any issuesregateing opening access to school sites and he was in support!of that
14 There was:also a=member of the Police Department on the committee for a time?so the
is committee and the Police Department were able to-communicate about Bike Plana
16
17 MOTION: Vice.Mayor Torliatt,moved,seconded,by Maguire, to:,
18
19 • Adopt Resolution 00=55 NCS-,,,adopting Negative,Declaration for the Petaluma
20 Bicycle_Plan,
21 • Resolution 00-56 NCS Adopting an Amendment to the General Plan Circulation -
24 notice. p p ait apr per to
23 include tD' StreiettoaKeni worth Overl ass fo Pfuture�im Bementat on with propel= �;
25 • Introduction of Ordinance 2099 NCS.Repealing,Sections of, and',Adding Sections to,
26 . the PetalumaMMunicipal Code, Including.Article 17.(Zoning Ordinance) in
27 Accordance With„Appendix A of the Petaluma Bicycle Plan:
28 • •Resolution 00=57 NCS Authorizing;an Amendment to the Engineering Department
29 ' Public"'.Street'Standards and Specifications in Accordance with Appendix,A of'the
30, Petaluma Bieycie'Plan.
31
32 MOTION •
33 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
34
35 Mayor'Thompsonthanked Patricia Tuttle Brown'for her time and energy-and hardiwork
36'. and,alsothanked the:committee. 'He`thanked'P,atricia.Stanley for her-tolerance; Lillian
37 and Steven-for their tolerance, also, and extended his appreciation in working with
38 them. •
39
40 Council Member Cader=Thompsonvi'ndicated,that not alternate had been selected to
41 serve for,ABAG and that she was interested.
42 •43 MOTION:: Council Member Healy`moved,'seconded by Maguirepto appoint J anice
44 Cadet-Thompson to Serve asalternate'for ABAG.
45 40;
Drat Minutes iof,a, .
City;of Petaluma, California
:City Council"Meeting
Mohda9,'March,20,.2000' •
Page 24
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• 1 MOTION
2 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
3
4 Patricia Tuttle Brown thanked the Council and assured the Kenilworth neighborhood
5 that opportunities-would`be pre§ehted and that their voices would be heard.
6
7 ADJOURN
8
9 9:10 P.M.
10
11
12
;13
14
is E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
16
`17
.18 ATTEST:
19
20
21
.22 Beverly J. Kline, City Clerk
023
24
25
26 * * ** * *
27
28
29
30
31
'32
:33
34
'35
36
-37
38
'39
•
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma,California
City Council.Meeting
Monday,March 20, 2000
Page 25