HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/06/2004 December 6,2004 Vol. 40, Page 331
W~ A. L U;~ .
a ~ City of l'eta-lama, ..Calif®rn~a
MEETING OF'THE PETAGUMA CITY COUNCIL/
j85a PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/PETALUMA
PUBLLC FINANCING CORPORATION
City Council/PCDC/PPFA Minufes
Monday December 6, 2004 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
1 MONDAY, DECEMBER d, 2004 -AFTERNOON
2
3 CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 p.m.
4
5 A. Roll Call
b
7 Present: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, .O'Brien,
8 Thompson, Torliatt
9
10 Absent: None
11
12 B. Pledge of Allegiance -.Council Member O'Brien
13
14 PUBLIC COMMENT
15
16 Terrence Garvey, Petaluma, congratulated Council forgetting a lot done this year.
17
18 John Records, Petaluma, thanked Council on behalf of COTS for their support as
19 individual's as well as a Council. He gave each Council Member a "Miracles Happen
20 Every Day" calendar.
21
22 COUNCIL COMMENT.
23
24 Council Member O'Brien thanked John Records for his dedication and passion in helping
25 the needy.
26
27 Vice- Mayor Moynihan said he would like two items on the December 20th meeting.
28 agenda -discussion of Rainier and the need. to select project manager, engineers, and
29 begin irnplernenfation. He said. he also wanted a street update on what had been.
30 accomplished' this year and what it will take to be on top of the problem. He stated the
31 City Manager's evaluation needed to be completed. He said it was the Council's
32 responsibility and supported holding the meeting.
33
34 Council .Member Torliatt -liaison to Animal .Services Commiftee -reported that 5,000
35 brochures had. been printed for soliciting donations to the file program. She explained
36 that a $100 donation. would provide a file at the shelter in someone's memory; honor,
~ 37 etc. She said interested parties could contact the Shelter or committee members. She
38 stated. the Animdl Services Cornmiftee was committed to retiring the debt on the Animal
39 Shelter.
Vol. 40, Page 332 December b, 2004
1
2 She also gave a .report on the Water Advisory Commit ee meeting. She said the new.
3 restructured. agreemerit negotiations were discussed.. She mentioned the need for a new
4 development policy to have water, efficiency on the front end and to look at having d
5 ,zero. footprint. She- also put forward to not increase overall water demand:" She stated she
6 wanted to challenge: contractors: to "look outside the box" far ways :to decrease water ,
7 use. She said' Council Member' Healy had ;talked about- inserting language..to not:allow
8 contractors to apply for additional water rights over the l O1 >0.00 acre feet .until this
9 amount had been secured.
10
1 1 CITY MANAGER COMM-ENT -None.
12 .
13 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS Changes to current agenda only).
14
15 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
16
17 A. City Council/PCDC Minutes of November 15„ 2004.
18
19 MOTION to approve minutes as submitted. -
20 M/S: O'Brien/Fiealy
21 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
22
23 2. APRROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
24
25 ~ A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for"Council's Regular Meeting of !anuary
26 3, 2.005.
27
28 Council Member Healy said the agenda was fine but felt a .goal sef'ting
29 workshop should be scheduled in January. .
30
31 Council Member TorliatF commented on the. acceptance .of .the tennis
32 court; refinishing .item, stating she had received a .phone call. regarding the
33 quality of the vvork.:She said Council aria sfaff might want to ook at the
34 resurfacing projects to assure her that the job was done properly.
35
36 Council. Member O'Brien wanted' to define the roles of .commissions and
37 committees.
38
39 Vice MayorMoynihari reiterated his request to have a December 20
40 meeting.
41
42 Mayor Glass said he was not available that date and that it, was
- 43 customary to have- an opportunity to spend Christmas with family
44 members., He said he missed his summer vacation. fo participate, in City
45 business and was not willing fo miss Christrneis.
46
47 Vice Mayor .Moynihan .stated that if there. -was a quorum,.. Council should.
48 follow protocol and canceling meetings .would. cause projects fio be
49 delayed.
50
51 Council 'Members O'Brien, Torliatt, and "Thompson said they would.,be out
52 of town. "
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 333
1
2 Council Member Harris said he was available.
3
4 Council Member Healy said he preferred to not have a meeting.
5
6 Mayor Glass'said there could be a December 20th meeting if Council
7 members wanted it.
8
9 MOTION to approve the agenda for the January 3, 2005 meeting.
10
1 1 M/S: O' Brieri/Healy
12 CARRIED BYTHE FOLLOWING VOTE:
13 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, O'`Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
14 NOES: Vice Mayor Moynihan
15
16 3. CONSENT CALENDAR
17
18 Council Member Harris removed 3D for discussion; Council Member Torliatt
19 removed 3B for discussion; Council Member Healy removed 3H for discussion.
~20
21 MOTION to approve items 3A, 3C, 3E, 3F, and 3G (.Resolutions.2004-217 N.C.S.,
22 2004-218 N:C.S., 2004=2fi9 N.C:S., 2U04-220 N.C.S., and 2004-221 N.C.S.)
23
24 M/S: ,Moynihan/O' Brien
25 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
26 ,
27 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
28
29 A. Resolution 2004-21.7 N.C.S..Accepting the Completion of the 2003-2004
30 Wafer Service.Replacemerit Project: (Ban/Nguyen)
31
32 B. Resolution 2004-222, N:C.S. Awarding Construction Contract for the 2004-
33 2005 Water Main Replacement Project. (Ban/Nguyen) This item was
34 removed for discussion.
35
36 C. Resolution 2004-218 N.C.S. Accepting Claims and Bills from October 2004.
37 (Netter)
38
39 D. Resolution. 2004-223 N:C:S. Extending the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
. 40 .Program Until April 30; 2015. (Hood%Lyohs) This item was removed for
41 discussion.
42
43 E. .Resolution.. 2004-219 N.C.S. Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a
44 Traffic Safety Grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety for a Safe
45 Streets Petaluma Project in the Amount of $58,802.00. (Hood/Lyons)
46
47 F. Resolution. 2004-220 N.C.S. Authorizing. the Police Department to Accept a
48 Traffic Safety Grant.From the California Office of Traffic Safety for a Sobriety
49 Checkpoint Program in the Amount.of $18,435.00. (Hood/Thomas)
50
Vol. 40, Page 334 December 6, 2004
1 G. Resolution 2004=221 fV.C:S: Ratifying the Agreement for .Distribution of Fines
2 and Forfeitures :Revenue Between the County of Sonoma and the City of
3 Petaluma.. (Hood)
4
5 H. Resolution `2004=224 N.C.S'. Certifying the Results of the November 2, 2004
6 General. Murcipal Election. (Petersen) This. item was removed for
7 discussion.
8
9 Ordinance 1Vo. 2198 N:C.S. An Ordinance of the Voters of, the Citq of
10 Petaluma Amending Chapter 1.30 of the Petaluma Municipal .Code and
11 Setting .Mandatory Limits on Campaign Contributions to City Council and
12 City .Mayor Candidates,. Enacting Mandatory Public Disclosure
13 Regulations, Prescribing Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties for
14 Violations.
15
16 ITEMS REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION
17
18 B. ~ Resolution 2004-.222 N:C.S. Awarding Construction Contract for the 20U4'-
19 2005 Water Main Replacement Project. (..Ban/Nguyen)
20
21 Council Member Torliatt requested .clarification of point #4 -Financial
22 impacts regarding the'reprioritization of water projects.
23
24 Water Resources and Conservation Engineering Manager Dean, Eckerson
25 explained this involved money that had been: budgeted..for water main
26 improvements _on ~ East Washington Street being 'shifted to other water
27 main, irnprovernents. He said the long term plan wds to `install. a 1.6`' water
28 main from 'the east to west side of the City and this was a'lower priority .
29 than; other projects. He said the priority would be to provide additional ~ - •
30 water services on Ely Boulevard and. fund the proposed project covered:' _
31 by the resolution. He explained on page 3; Table 4 should be titled "Water
32 Main Improvements. Project." ,
33
34 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004-222 N.C:S.
35 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
36
37 D. .Resolution 2004=.223 .N:C:S..Extending the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
38 Program Until Aprif 30,.2015'. (Hood/Lyons) .
39 ~ .
40 Council NCember Karris had a ,question regarding the money collected.
41 annually ~ and how the monies. were divided'. and' if this was. a
42 reimbursement plan.
43 _
44 Police Captain Dave Sears. explained `the. monies were divided: by
45 population; the larger Cities,get mote money get.back. He said if vvas'not
46 a reimbursement but d supplemenfiary fund:to cover some of the costs
47 incurred with the vehicle abatement program.. He said it did not cover -
48 100% of the actual cost of the program.
49
50 Council Member Torliatt asked for wording change on the resolution to ~
51 state the City of Petaluma, not Sebastopol.
52
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 335
1 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004-228' N.C.S.
2
3 . ~ M/S¢ Harris/Torliatt
4 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5
6 H. Resolution :2004-224 N.C:S. Certifying the Results of the November 2, 2004
7 General Municipal Election. (.Petersen)
8
9 Council Member Healy asked .what the effective date of Measure R
10 Campaign Finance item was.
11
12 City Attorney Rudnansky said he could .not remember the exact wording
13 included in the measure that stated the effective date.
14
15 City Clerk Petersen clarified, that once the election results are certified,
16 (Council would be `doing this by approving this item today), the effective
17 date would.be ten days from today.
18
19 MOTION to adopt Resolution:2004-224. N.C.S.
20
21 M/S: ,Healy/O'Brien
22 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
23
24 ? Ordinance No. 21.98 N.C.S. An Ordinance of the Voters of the City of
25 Petaluma. Amehding Chapter '1.30 of the Petaluma Municipal Code and
26 Setting Mandatory Limits on. Campaign Contributions to City Council and
27 City Mayor Cari.didates, Enacting .Mandatory Public Disclosure
28 Regulations., Prescribing 'Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties for
29 Violations.
30
31 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:..- CITY GO.I]NCIL AND P.CDC
32
33~ A. ..Resolution.. _200.4-225 . N:C:S. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to
34_ Appropriate Funds Not to Exceed $2,500 for Cost of Fiscal Impact Report
35 for Living Wage. Analysis. `(Bietmah)
36
37 Council Member Healy asked for clarification of the $2,500 amount:
38
39 City Manager Bierman. explained' this item should be $2,100 because
40 each supporting Council Member was giving $700 and the rest would be
41 paid by the Coalition.
42
43 Vice Mayor Moynihan said he thought this required an ordinance, not a
44 'resolution. _
45
46 City Attorney Rudnansky stated there was a ,provision in the
47 appropriations ordinance that allowed the City Manager to transfer funds
48 admihistratively within a department. He said it also allows Council, by
49 resolution; to transfer funds as well.. He said this, plus coupling it with amid-
50 ' year budget adjustment, had been interpreted as being in compliance
51 with Charter requirements.
52
Vol. 40, Page 336 December 6,:2004
1 ~ Vi'ce :Mayor .Moynihan clarified this' would be re-approved at mid-,year
2 budget review' ordinance. He wanted to be -sure that. everyone was
3 committed to~ adopting a livin, g wage ordinance and. note- waste money'
4 on the study.
5
6 Council Merrier Healy responded that he wanted to see what the study
7 said. He clarified that the Manager could :disburse the funds. He moved
8 for the approval with the change fo state $2,100:
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Ben .Boyce, Coardinafor for Living Wage Coalition. (LW:C),~stated that ,the
13 Coalition wanted to go forward with thestudy to enable Council to make
14 an informed public policy decision. He explained the process would
15 involve sending. a questionnaire to City contractors with q letter"from the
16 City .Manager. He said-the LW.C'would pay'any cost overruns and AFSCME
17 675 wou_Id contribute $500 if necessary. He explained that the study was
18 necessary to see which contractors would be impacted anal. to what
19 ~ degree. He submitted a copy of another City's study document to. the
20 Clerk.
21
22 Council Member.Harris said he wanted to see 1~he study but public funds
23 should not be spent' on this;
24
25 Vice. Mayor Moynihan stated he didn''t see the poinf of.increasing the,cost
26 to the .community for projects. He stated he did not 'think. this type of
27 public policy was in the co:mmunity's best interest. He said he would not
28 supportthis aril did not have a very hgfi~opinion otthose who would.
29
30 Mayor Glass stated. he thought this was necessary. and did not necessarily
31 cost the cornrnunity more money; and in tact; may save money. He said
32 through 'the Council's ability to mdke decisions. about public pools of
33 money,'it was only right that`all~have-the right to share fhis pool equitably..
34 ~ and..he looked forward to seeing'tfie;results of s"tudy.
35
36 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004:225 N'.C.S. (as amended to read -
37 "$2,100")'_;
38
39 ~ M/S: Healy/O' Brien
40 `CARRIED:BY THE' FOLLOWING VOTE:
41 AYESt Mayor Glass, Healy, O`Brien, Tocliatt
42 NOES: Harris, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Thompson
43
44 B. Resolution. 2004:-226 N:C.S Approving. And Authorizing Execution of
45 Professional Services .Agreement with the Redwood Empire Insurance
46 Fund (RE.M.LF;) for the Workers- Compensafian Claims Administration
- 47 Services. Netter/Blanquie/Robbins)
48
49 - Ron Blanque, Risk Manager,. presenfed the staff report.
50 _ i -
51 MOTION to adopt Resolution 20U4-226 N.C.S.
52 .
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 337
1 M/S: O'Brien/Healy
2 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY'(Harris absent)
3
4 C. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2197 N.C.S. of the Council of
5 the City of Petaluma Adding Chapter 13.06, Newsrack Regulations, to the
6 Petaluma Municipal' Code. (Marangella)
7
8 Council Member O'Brien stated the last time this was discussed, Council
9 was told the City Attorney had done ten drafts and the cost of this had
10 not been provided. He asked for clarification of the $3,800 to transition
11 from the old racks to the new, or if this amount was to add a cover to .
12 prevent people from placing drinks on top, which he would not support.
13
14 Economic Development and '.Redevelopment Director Paul Marangella
15 explained the $3,800 was paid by the City to obtain consensus among the
16 .twenty news rack vendors to cover the cost to provide a crown on the
17 racks. He said these funds were included in the downtown streetscape
18 improvement budget, so therefore the cost in the ordinance was $0; the
19 cost of the cap in the streetscape plan was under $3,800.
~20
21 Council Member O'Brien asked where the cost of the City Attorney's time
22 was listed.
23
24 Director Marangella explained that the drafts involved minor changes at
25 the request of the newspaper vendors and did not involve major hours by
26 the City Attorney.
27
28 City Manager Bierman stated that this is not done for other ordinances
29 and wanted to continue.
30
31 Gouncilmember Healy stated this had been a long-term goal of
32 downtown merchants and would be valuable in making downtown more
33 attractive.
34
35 Council Member O'Brien ~ said he appreciated this improvement, but
36 wanted to see the co`sfs of any project thaf comes forward.
37
38 MOTION to adopt Ordinance: 219.7.N.C.S. ,
39
40 M/S: Torliatt/Healy
41 CARRIED BY THE.FOLLOWING VOTE:
42 AYES: Mayor Glass, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Thompson, Torliatt
43 NOES: O'Brien=
44 ABSENT: Harris
45
46 D. PCDC Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications Prepared by
47 Pentagram Design and Redevelopment Staff, Approving the Project
48 Budget, Awarding ;the 'C'ontract for the Petaluma. Wayfinding.Signs Project
49 No. C200603'. Estimated Maximum Total Project .Cost: $664,500 Funded by
50 Central Business District Fund (3300).. (Marangella)
51
Vol. 40, Page 338 December b, 2004..
1 Economic Development: and Redevelopment, ,Director ,paul Marangella
2 ~ provided the staff report: ~Ne explained, this item was rejected last. year
3 because only one bid of $'680,000 was presented. He said :a. vendorhad
4 been. found offering, an installation. price of $302,000. ~He. gaye, Gouneil a
5 handouf that ,described the. sigrs° and, their costs anal explained the
b process that; led.-to.determining what type of signage would be suitable
7 downtown and how this plan had been approved.
8
_ .
9 Council Member;O'Brien;asked if the cost of $15,031. was per-sign or for all
10 four signs. He was told it was pe; sign.
1l
12 Director Marangella explained that the arrival signs are very large and
}.3 require a large #oundation. He explained fhe vdrious signs and that fhe
14 cost. of new poles was high. He. stated that he had worked for over a year
15 ~ on, this program with all interested parties and'. the presentation provided':..
16 an attractive solution to the City's signage needs.
17
18 Council Merrmber Healy asked for an explanation of the additional cost
19 over the base bid.
20
21 .Director' Marangella referred to the budgef on page. 4 and detailed the,
22 various costs for Council.
23
24 Vice Mayor .Moynihan Expressed his concern about ,spending.: half q
25 million on signs. He said the contingency of $100,000 indicated costs were
26 not.in control. ~ ~ -
27
28 Council Member Thompson asked if the signs were. visible at night and if
29 they could'be:changed easily. The answer was yes to both concerns.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt; said she was still having: a lough f~ime °with the _
32 cost of `these signs. Shersaid she would make a couple of tweaks to the.
33 ignage -particular to vehicular signage. with the direction. to the fheater
34 always placed as top. of the sign.'She wanted signage located as people
35 exit the parking garage to direct them to the highway. .She also wanted
36 signage to identify and coordinafe ahe garages. She felt the community
37 needed. q signage program but further discussion would be necessary.
38 ~ .
39 Council Member O'Brien said he was also cancerned about the. cost: He
40 ..asked if SPARE knew°the cost of the signs when they made~their decision.
41 - ~ .
42 - ~ Director Marangella answered, no_, He explained this was a cornpefif~ive
43 bid and portions could be deleted if Council directed but (here was _
44 urgency because they wanted. to complete fhe signage before the:
45 -streetscape was completed.
46
47 Council MemEier; O`.Brien asked if 'cosfis could be reduced by using fewer
48 colors. H'e suggested contacting. the high school metal shop to
49 manufacture; and if aluminum could tj.e used in place of stainless.
50
51 Director" Aarangella thought the manufacture of these signs was well
52 beyond the skill level of high school students.
December b, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 339
1
2 Mayor Glass asked what the process would be fo separate this and focus
3 on the downtown to have everything in place for traffic flow.
4 _
5 Director Marangella answered that the bid could be awarded with the
6 deletion of .the. large signs at the freeway.
7 _
8 Council Member Thompson sdid he was willing to move forward. He said
9 this was the second discussion grid the bid was .lower; he didn't want to
10 redesign it.
11 _
12 ~ MOTION to approve the resolution.
13
1.4 M/S: Thompson/Healy
15
16 :Mayor Glass clarified the motion. He asked if Council was to move what
17 staff presented with the direction to reduce the costs or to use Director
18 Marangella's suggestion to remove entry signs.
19
20 Council Member Thompson stated he did not want to remove the entry
21 signs but he wanted .staff to reduce costs, specifically the contingency
22 dnd administration costs. He also wanted more information about the
23 general fund overhead amount.
24
25 Ci#y Attorney Rudnansky said he thought the suggestion. to move forward.
26 arid let staff do value engineering appropriate but not before the award,
27 since this wds d competitive bid' process.
28 .
29 ~ Malyor. Glass stated the ,motion directed staff to do value engineering
30 where possible.
31
32 Council .Member Harris said- it was common sense to direct people around
33 town,. but the price was too.high aril he didn't support this.
34
35 Council Member Torliatt sdid she couldn't support the motion. She said it
36 needed refining .because the: costs ofi some signs were extremely high.
37 She sdid she wanted to support a signage program downtown but the
38 costs dssocidted with it were not acceptable.
39 _
40 Council Member O'Brien said he couldn't support at this time because of
41 the costs and the specifications for .materials, particularly the stainless
42 steel. He stated he was concerned. with liability placed on the General
43 Fund if the signs were defaced. or damaged.
44
45 Council Member Healy said that this issue had been.discussed for many
- 46 years without coming to closure on it. He stated that If Council didn't
47 approve this, he didn''t think there would ever be a signage program. He
48 said he felt the direction to staff was not specific enough and sending it
49 back to be redesigned and reviewed :would obliterate any costs savings.
50 He said he too was concerned with costs, ($50,000 had been spent on
51 ~ design and consultant costs so far) and felt this was the "one shot at it."
52
Vol. 40, Page 340 December 6, 2004
1 Council Ntemper Torliatt disagreed with the tirneliriess since the projects
2 that the signage "would indicate hddn't been completed. She felt due to
3 the .highly visible nafure of this project, theCouncil had to be very
4 comfortable with-the approval of this.
5
6 Vice Mayor- Moynihan supporea' a vote on this item and made d MOTION
7 to reject-this item.
8
9 Council Member To~liatt did not wdnf to reject but wanted more time. to
10 look at this in detdif with staff.
}1
1'2 A/layor Glass concluded fhe ifem would come back; presumably on'
13 January 3; 2005. ~ •
14~
15 5. NEW BUSINESS
16 _
17 A. Resolution 2004.-227 N:C.S. Approving Purchase. of Granicus Media
18 Management Software to Provide. '.Internet Access and Sear.,ch Ability of
19 City Documents and to Facilitate Video Streaming of Gity Council
20 Meetings. (:Petersen)
21 -
22 City Glerk Gayle Petersen introduced Tom Spengler, CEO of Gtanicus and
23 presented the report to Council: A demonstration of the program's'
24 capabilities was provided to Couricil. -
25
26 'Council Member Torliatt asked how the video was tdken.
27
28 City Clerk. Petersen: explained. it was done .same way it was; done
29 currently. She said the City would purchase. software that would; allow
30 uploading fo the.Granicus system so no additional video capability would
3'1 be needed. She pointed out' that the. Council Chamber's computer,. .
32 which is fairly. old; can run it,:and the access to the general public would,
33 l?e very good. She said t5hat with. the`'cost savings. in the hours spent
34 transcribing apd getting information 'for .citizens, a kiosk could, be installed
35 in City Hall for citizensto use for research and lookup items.
36
3T Council Member Torl,att asked if a citizen without a computer could. come.
38 to City Hap grid print information and whaf the charge "would be. ,
39
40 City :Clerk .Petersen ;replied that citizens could p~inf at.City Hall aril also
41 the library. She.said even if they only jotted down the ddfe of a mee.fng,
42 the Clerk's office could provide the information.
43
44 Council Member Torliatt said this made it very important to have PCA
45 videotape meetings.
46
47 City Clerk Petersen explained-that..even if PCA was not available,. having
48 stationary cameras would l?e workable for City staff.
49
50 Council Member Torliatt said her perception that these were. two different
51 services with PCA. providing live. TV and the. Granicus would be a way to
52 do research.
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 341
1
2 City Clerk Petersen explained that this would make it possible for people
3 to keep in touch if they don't have cable or access to the public
4 channels. She said this would be uploaded in the middle of the night so
5 people would have access by 5.:00 a.m. the next morning. She said
6 -annotated minutes would be uploaded with it.
7
8 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if it was possible to download video stream
9 and rebroadcast in a different format.
10
1 1 Tom'Spengle~, CEO, Granicussaid that staff can download but not via the
12 lnfernet since it uses streaming, not downloading. He said his company
13 works, with forty. cities and had never had anyone show up with a
14 downloaded copy from the web.
15
16 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked. about the. indication of "Budget - N/A."
17
18 City Clerk Petersen said that this was not a funded program and the
19 salary savings in the Clerk's Office would offset the costs.
20
21 City Manager Bierman said this was an operating cost and the savings
22 would be offset in staff'time.
23
24 (NOTION to adopt Resolution~2004-227 N:C.S.
25
26 M/S: Torliatt/O'Brien
27 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
28
29 B. Presentation and Discussion of Draff Sonoma County General Plan
30 Transportation and Circulation Element. (Greg Carr, GP Manager, Sonoma
31 County)
. 32
33 Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Kerns gave a brief presentation of the
34 County's Draft General Plan with Jennifer Barrett, Scott Briggs, and Greg
35 Carr. He said they beganthis process in March 2001 with the formation of
36 a citizen advisory committee. He mentioned Rohnert Park's General Plan
37 update irSvolved a working group of elected officials and the discussions
38 during these meetings brought a realization of regional impacts of
39 development. and the need to mitigate these. He suggested forming a
40 group of County staff with elected officials to discuss the City's General
. 41 Plan process. The rest of the County group gave their presentations.
42
43 Council Member Healy asked about the regional impact fee for
44 transportation, and, if pursued, how would this proceed.
45
46 Greg Carr, Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management, said he
47 wasn't sure how it would come about; he thought probably through
48 SCTA. He said if the whole County doesn't work together, smaller regions
49 could participate in needed improvements. He felt there would have to
~ 50 be general agreement about what improvements in the system should'be
51 shared by everyone.
52
Vol. 40, Page 342 December 6, 2004 '
1 Council Member Healy mentioned his concerns dbouf ;widening :Stony
2 Point; widening Lakeville Highway to• four .lanes out to Highway 37; and
- 3 more creative Penngrove soCutions.
4
5 Supervisor Kerns said .that Caltrans had indicated, it wanted a, full
6 interchange that would involve taking private property and. did, not
7 support a partial interchange. He mentioned supporting widening. the
8 bridge at Railroad Avenue .for an additional on-ramp.
9 .
10 Council Member Torlidtt asked about the modeling and if it included the
11 existing urban growth boundaries for, each. city qnd the potential casino in -
12 Rohnert Park. She pointed out that. the modeling showed an "F minus"
13 rating with the existing urban growth" boundaries and she hoped this
14 would result in a 'focus. on infill developmenf.. She wanted language fo
15 indicdte the need to work with Marin County to potentially consolidate
16 transit systems. "
17
18 County Staff said several. scenarios were done. and some did include the
l9 casino. He said the modeling did include the various" cities' urban growth
20 boundaries.
21 "
l2 Vice Mayor .Moynihan referred to the voter °'mandate" for Rainier ;in the
23 last election ,and the support' for Measure ''M." He wanted the Citizens
24 Advisory Committee to make Rainier a priorify project. He uv~as concerned
25 about the regional :rail system 'th'at would impact locdi circulation with.~its
26 nine at-.grade crossings. Hewahfed a Ludy of-this .impact and mentioned
27 the heavy subsidies .required for rail. He wanted f"o control "expenditures
" 28 and modify how operations were. carried out. He also mentioned street
29 maintenance at the County and City levels had not :been meeting. the •
30 infrastructure needs and he wanted a`Countywide program to address
31 this.
32 -
33 PUBLIC, COMMENT .
34
35 Bill Paxton,. Petaluma, said he attended. every transportation and
36 circulation meeting the County held. We said this process had brought a
37 new direction. for solving transportation problems. He emphasized ,the
38 regional need aspect for. the. whole General Plan process with the County
39 and cities working. together.
40
41 6. PUBLIC HEARING
42 ,
43 A. Public Hearing Concerning Levy of Assessment Proposed for the
44 Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement ,District .for Fiscal Year 2005.
45 (Marangella)
46
47 Council Member Healy recused himself - 'his business is within .the
48 boundaries of the district..
49 -
50 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul M'"arangella
51 presented the annual. report for review and approval. fo designate the
52 annual assessment. He introduced members of 'the Petaluma. Downtown
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 343
1 Association: JoAnn Pozzi, Jeff Mayne,; .Marie McCusker, Gayle Valentini
2 and Jane.Jernigan: He presented the protest letter from Mike's Glass.
3
4 JoAnn Pozzi, 'Petdlum'a; CPA, Vice President of Petaluma Downtown
5 Association; referred. to the budget request and attachments with the
6 definitions that Council had requested. She also indicated a business plan
7 for Council's review as well. as other pertinent information. She indicated
8- from collection detail provided by Jim Balshaw that 404 of the 778
9 businesses billed had paid a,; total of $48,500. Of the 374 that had not paid,
10 1.74 were exempt or left the districf. The 200 remaining owed
11 _ approximately $27,500 which would be corrected to $23,900. She said their
12 efforts to ..improve the collection rate had resulted in a 50% increase and a
13 collection rate .of b7% for the businesses in the BiD.
14
15 Gayle Valentini read from a statement` prepared by Jim Balshaw.
16
17 Council Members; my.apologies for not being able to present
18 this information; personally, but I have had to take my wife to
19 the doctor. Since the mid-year meeting at which the Council
20 challenged the PDA to turn, around the BID to make an
21 effective program; we have pursued every tactic we could
22 and I believe we have made a great difference in the
23 effectiveness of collet ing assessments in 2004 with an even
24 brighter outlook for 2005. We have rndde great improvements
25 to the database. INe have updated, added, removed, or
26 marked as exempt hundreds of :businesses to get what I
27 believe is now a very accurate database on which to base the
28 BID. assessment. To cgcrect the database, we have processed
~29 all of the returned snail to get current addresses; taken and
30 re urhed hundreds of phone cdlls to correct zone; business
31 ~ type; employee count, and. to .inform the public of the BID
32 uses; obtained lists. of tenants from major landlords to add new
33 records;-merged the ~databgse with an extract from the City's.
34 business license records to' identify new businesses and
35 combined the data to prepare it for easy inclusion on the
36 business licenses in' the future; created automated and
37 .manual processes to confirm and correct zones which had
38 sortie major problems; and qutomated the calculation of each
39 ~ assessment to erid the manual process of the past.
40
41 In addition to alf of this; you probably already know that we
42 worked with the Finance Department to come up with a
43 written sea of policies on how to answer questions, took all of
44 the customer service calls; created PR pieces to inform the
45 community, and defined the ~ policy for the second billing
46 ~ pendltes and .final collections. With our accomplishments to
47 ~ date; we have increased payments received by 50~ over the
48 best prior year,. achieving a 67~ payment rate so far. The
49 collection effort will be the final. part of 2004's efforts which will
50 furfher.increase the~available funds and help the 2005 effort by
51 finally getting through to people that this is a City assessment,
52 not a voluntary contribution.
VoL 40, Page 344 ,December-6;.,2004
1
2 This new perspective• and' imprpved pro.cess•shovld see even
3 grey er benefit ih.2003. This program. was a good idea from the
4 start and now finally has the funding to live 'up to its potential.
5 Thank :you for your time and consideration, Jim Balshaw, PDA
6 Board Member and owner of Preferred Sonoma. Caterers.
7
8 PUBLIC COM'IVIENT
9
10 Ruth 'Gerke, Mike's Glass; Petaluma, spoke .regarding.. the draft: PDA
11 distributed;. in 20Q0; st.ating not dll busihesses received it. She read from
12
page. 4 - " if he district is supported by q majorify of businesses...," then
13 later"stated 51,x% this ci;eated a contradiction withih the same statement.
14 She vwahted to .know how much was colleet:ed' AFTER a threat of
15 collection.. She said that to her the PDA` BID district is supporting:, a 4 to b
16 ~ block radius and -the security did not extend beyond this core area. She
17 said the core .area should run their owh fund raisers -and no"t make
18 everyone else pay for what. is behefiting a small- area. She .suggested
19 ballots, not petitions, ~ needed to be sent. out to preserve anonymity
20 because some businesses are.ihti'midcited by their PDA clients or landlords.
21
22 Tom .Maunder, Petalumc;: stated, he had been irvolved in the.. BID from the
23 beginning: He referred to the meeting of October 16, 2000 and the
24 .promises made. by PDA. He said he was coh~ihcea the Council was
25 hoodwihked ahd promises made had not ,been kept. He` men'tioned' `the
26 letfers fhregtening collection if th`e BID. is hot paid. He played an excerpt
27 ~ from the meeting' dfi 2000' ihdicating, that people would pay volunfarily
28 and collection would probably not: be pursued.
29 •
30 Claudia Phelps, ,Ascetic Approach,, said she anticipated .having a paper
31 vote.ahd was not sure ,how many `businesses supported BID.. She said he
32 was interested in solutions and .there was; .an overlap between .BID and
33 PDA and the. Keller Street Garage assessment heeding funding. She felt
34 that there were resources to keep the City secure., clean; and provide.
35 promotion to save money to use for th"e PDA. She •.corrimehfed on the
36 signage item and uggested using resources suggesting a contest.
37
38 Council Member Torliat# asked for clarificatioh That. the ,money received
39 for the BID goes to PDA to decide how tospend.,
40 .
41 Director Marangella answered that the mohey` is :collected by the City
42 :and the ~P-pA acts as the Board of Directors for 'the BID -the City keeps
43 none of'the funds.
44 ~ • -
45 Pdm Ballestrazze, Petaluma .Pet Groomer, suggested a'ballof vote. She has
46 customers and uses businesses=that, are on the PDA, and ,felt awkward
47 without anonymity. She felt that other business owners `fait the same way.
48
49 Council Member O'Brien requested clarification if the merchahts wanted
50 tb eohtihue the BID. _
51
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 345
1 City Attorney Rudnansky' explained that th`e~;State statute indicated that
2 once the notice of intention is sent_out - if ;there is a 50% protest it would
3 go no further. There was no indication for an affirmative ballot but rather a
4 protest ballot.
5
6 Council Member O'Brien referred to page 7 "voluntary contributions to
7 the district..." and asked, if these are voluntary, how business owners
8 could be sent to collection agencies and forced to pay.
9
10 Director Marangella explained that this section referred to people who
1 1 are outside the district and could choose to contribute, but would not be
12 required to continue.
13
14 City Attorney Rudnansky said (here was a mention of boundary later on in
15 the section to which Council Member O'Brien was referring.
16
17 Council Member O'Brien said he understood that the boundary "shall not
18 be modified as d result of contribution."
19
20 Director Marangella explained his,ihterpretation was that if a business was
21 outside the district and contributed to the district, that business could not
22 be gerrymandered into the district.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt clarified that the original businesses were notified
25 and this was not done on an annual basis.
26
27 City Attorney Rudnansky said this was done at the time of initial formation
28 and this time as well •
29
30 Director Marangella explained that under the"statute, when the district
31 was created there was a noticing process. He said once it's formed, there
32 was an annual process and if it's. protested by 50%.plus one, the process
33 stops.
34
35 Council Member Torliaft asked when this occurred and what the deadline
36 . for the protest was.
37
38 Director Marangella said this hearing was the deadline for the protest. He
39 said it was noticed ih the newspaper twice after the Last meeting,. on
40 November 15, 2004..
41
42 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if anything. prevented a.:polling to determine
43 if business owners supported, the current strucfure and payment levels.
44
45 City Attorney Rudnansky said this could be done but' t`o-disestablish the
46 BID there was an ordinance process to follow.
47
48 Vice Mayor Moynihan said :the issue was if there was support behind this
49 whole approach and if it needed to be reaffirmed.
50
51 City Attorney Rudnansky said state, law required a protest vote in order to
52 .not move forward with the assessment. He suggested that if polling the
Vol. 40, .Page 346 December 6, 2004
1 businesses was desired, this could be done.. He said in terms of the. original
2 formation, the resolution, of intention established a 50%. protest vote of the
3 owners'who pay 50%~of "fhe totals was necessary to stop the proceedings.
4
5 Vice Mayor Moynihan said he had supported this in the past: He felt the
6 concept~,should be what the businesses pay' for and what is fair. He felt
7 the City was responsible for rnaintenanee of the streets. and security. He
8 said the City seems to be shirking its responsibilifies by asking businesses to
9 pay for these°.
10
11 Council Member Thompson asked how often the ;PD_ A board rnet and if it
i 2 was a public meeting. He clarified that PDA sends a newsletter and felt it'
13 was best to take direction from th'e PDA as to how the money should be
14 spent. He .clarified that the Council would be voting on the: BiD and go
15 forward in the light that collection had been improved and this had
16 angered' people.
17
18 Ms. Pozzi replied PDA meets twice a month and yes.it is a public meeting.
19
20 .Council 'Member O'Brien asked for a change 'to the resolution's second
21 "Whereas" .from""....may be funded" f'o'' "shall be funded."
22
23 Ms> Pozzi said they could not fund all the items on the list.
24
25 Council Member `O'Brien said ne would not support this item and he
26 thought a ballot was necessary.
27
28 "City Atto"r"ney Rudnansky said if there was an issue amid business owners
29 that they didn't want this; there was a: provision in the ordinance to
30 disband the- BID with a petition by 50~a of the owners who pay 50% of the
31 total assessment and.the Council would consider the petition...
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked Joann if the PDA cauld poll business owners.
34
35 Ms. Pozzi said this would be difficult and pointed to the major
36 improvements to the ;process. She promised they would create an
37 opportunity 'for feedback from therriembers..
38
39 Council Member Harris asked if. the "may" is changed to "shall" and the
40 percentggesstaythe same, wo01d this resolve the issue.
41
42 ~ ~ Mayor Glass said the percen,iages were derived from the total. .
43 -
44 Council Member 'Torliatt wanted' fo disci;s5 whether the collection was
45 voluntary~or~enforced.`
46
47 Ms. Pozzi clarified ~fhat the origina,f ordinance had the authority to enforce.
48 She said the board of directors at the time .did not foresee that this would
49 become an issue. .
50 _ .
51 MOTION `fo adopt,Resolution 2004-.228 N.C.S.
52 _
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 347
1 M/S: Thompson>Gla_ss
2 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
3 AYES: Thompson, Glass, Torliatt, Harris, .Moynihan
4 NOES: O'Brien
5 RECUSED: ' Healy
6
7 B. Resolution 2004-229 N.C.S. "Authorizing the Issuance of a Certificate of
8 Public Convenience and Necessity to Mark Neese Authorizing the
9 Operation of George's Taxi/Yellow Cab, an Eight-Cab Taxi Service Inside
10 Petaluma City Limits. (Fish)
11
12 M"OTION to adopt Resolution 2004-.229 N.C.S.
13
14 M/S: O'Brien/Torliatt.
15 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
16
17
18 ADJOURN. TO: ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
19 PETALIIMA PUBLIC' FINANCING CORPORATION
20
21 7.. NEW BUSINESS o
22
23 A. Annual Meeting of the Petaluma Public Financing Corporation
24
25 Finance Director Netter introduced the report and explained the
26 information provided.
27
28 Approval of Minutes ofiOctober 27, 2003 and January 5,.2004.
29 • 'Status Report on Activity'for Year 20.04.
30
31 MOTION to approve the minutes and status report.
32
33 M/S: O'Brien/Harris
34 CARRIED'UNANIMOUSLY
35
36 ADJOURN TQ CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION.
37 -
38 PUBLIC. COMMENT -None.
39
40 CLOSED SESSION
41
42 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENTc„pursuant to Government Code §:54957; City Clerk.
43 • PUBLIC°ENIRGOY"EE PERFORMANCE EVACUATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City
44 Manager:
45 ® CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government. Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
46 tviichdel..Bierman/'Unrepresented Employees -Unit 8.
47 • ~ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code §54956.9)
48 Bramblett.Vs. Petaluma. (Sonoma County'Superior Court. Case # MCV 174982)
49 • CONFERENCE WITH' REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR.°(Government Code §54956.8)
50 Property: 138 L`dkevi`Ile Street (APN 007-072-031)
51 Negotiating pdrties:' Mike Bierman (City), George and Judy Weiner, trustees of the Weiner trust
52 (Property owners) Under negotiation: price, terms of payment, or both
53 Property: 365 East Washington Street {APN 007-072-041)
Vol. 40; Pgge:348 ;December 6,.2004
1 Negotiating parties: Mike Bierman (;City)', Robert Zukin, J.R. Zukin Corporation (Prop'erfy owner)
2 Under negotiation: price; terms; of, payment,:or both
3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL.-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure tb Litigation
4 Pursuant.. to Subdivision (b) of §5956.9: Potential Cases: 1
5
6 MONDAY,. DECEMBER 6, 2004:- EVENING~SESSION
. ~ .
8 CALL TO ORDER = 7:00 p:m.
9
10 A. R'oII Cdll
11 ~ .
92 Present: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moyningn,~ O'Brien,
13 Thompson; Torliatt
14
15 Absent: ~ 'None
16
17 B. Pledge of Allegiance- Council Member Thompson
18
19 C. Moment of Silence
20
2J REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS TAKEN -None.
22 .
23 RECOGNITION OF O ITGOING CITY COUNCIL~MEMBERS
- 24
25 Outgoing Council Members Moynihan. .and Thompson were honored. A certificate ofi
26 appreciation was presented to Council Member Clark'hompson and gift..
27 .
28 A certificate of :appreciation,. plaque, and gift were presented to Vice. Mayor Bryant
29 Moynihan':
30
31 Council Member ,Canevaro thanked Council Member Clark- Thompson for taking phis
32 place, and presented' him with a"gift.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT -None.
35
3'b COUNCIL'C'OMIl4ENT
37
38 Council Member Harris stated he 'was unable to be at November- 15 meeting and
39 wanted to know whaf the next steps would be .regarding Rainier:
40
41 Council Member O'Brien thanked' Vice Mayor Moynihan' and CounciF Member Thompson.
42 for their service to City. He referred fo the: letter :from Ed DeCarli of Best Western
43 regarding the Sonoma County Tourism Board appointment asking that his manager be
44 appointed to fhe board. He said he supported this appointment.
45
46 Council Member Healy said to Vice Mayor. Moynihan .that it had' been an interesting four
47 years. He thanked Council Member Thompson foh filling in so ably:
_ 48
49 Council Member Torliatt; thanked Vice Mayor Moynihan and. Council Member Thompson
50 for their dedicated service. on the Council.
51
52 Vice Mayor .Moynihan :thanked everyone for their kindness. He said the last four years
53 had ..been d learning experience. He mentioned the petitioh results on Citizens for.Safe
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 349
1 Streets. He said this showed people in the community really believed that the City
2 needed to get on top of the street problem. He once again said it was far cheaper to
3 maintain than make costly repairs. He stated he hoped the City would meet this
4 challenge. He wished Council Member Elect Karen Nau good luck and welcomed
5 Council Member Keith Canevaro back.
6
7 CITY MANAGER COMMENT -None.
8
9 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10
11 A. Resolution ,2004-.230 N.C.S. Upholding an Appeal by Lon and Peggy Wiley
12 of the Decision by the Planning Commission to Uphold in Part and Deny in
13 Part an Appeal of a Decision by the Community Development Director
14 and City Engineer to Administratively Approve a Tentative Parcel Map for
15 Property Located at 3 Ricci Court. (Robbe/Moose)
16
17 Council Member OBrien stated there had been an allegation that he had
18 a conflict because his brother lives next door to the Wileys. He said he had
19 no financial interest in~ his brother's property, and according to FPPC he
20 had rio conflict. He said to avoid any inference of impropriety, he would
21 recuse himself from this issue. Council Member'O'Brien leff the dais.
22
23 Planner Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report, which requested further
24 modification to the tree preservation .conditions. Staff recommended
25 upholding the Planning Commission's decision and denying the appeal.
26
27 Council `Member Torliatt and Mayor Glass indicated they had both visited
28 the site individually and had talked with the Wileys.
29
30 Peggy Wiley, 'Petaluma, stated that she and her husband had been
31 targeted by lies and innuendos, She spoke about the personal impacts
32 the .process had on them. She said they had made it known when they
33 moved in they intended to subdivide the property and build another
34 home. She mentioned: that the Blues moved into the neighborhood after
35 they did and when .they found out they were subdividing the property
36 they began a campaign of slander against them to stop the subdivision.
. 37 She mentioned bureaucratic problems with the Planning Department as
38 well and hoped fhat procedures would be changed to prevent problems
39 for future citizens.
40
41 Lon Wiley, Petaluma, .presented the appeal, giving the history of their
42 purchase of the property and how they began the process of subdividing.
. 43 He explained the improvements the subdivision would provide and the
44 preservation of oaks- they planned. He said the last item of controversy
45 was tree.. T-8, which; in its preservation, would force their front porch to be
46 almost 100 feet from the front of the lot creating a very small backyard.
47 He. said his. research showed that most other subdivisions removed more
48 trees than what they planned and many homes were built within the tree
49 drip-lines.
50
Vol. 40, Page 350 December 6, 2004
1 John. Mesefve, consulting arborist, said he hda looked at the site a
2 number of times and t all the trees were in place and looked firie: He said
3 he would answer questions: .
4
5 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked the arborist to expldin to Council about Tree
6 T-8.
7 .
8 Mr. Meserve said. 'the tree was in good health. He stated it was an
9 aesthetic issue as the tree was a bit of a " Dc. Seuss free" =one sided and
10 causing crowding of the other trees. He stated it would benefit the other
1 1 trees if it were removed.
12
13 'Vice Mayor Moynihan if any mitigation had been proposed and was
14 advised that the tree would be repldced with three, 24" boxes.
15
16 Mayor Glass asked to hear ;from neighbors.. He stated he understood this
17 was an emotional issue, but asked for the demeranor to be pleasant.
18
19 Linda .Blue; Petaluma, explained that she. stood behind everything she. said
20 as being entirely true and, felfi that she had beers. personally attacked. She
21 said the Wileys were givers, a buildable area without degrading the
22 neighborhood. She said. the Wileys were riot' disclosing why they wdnted to
23 remove tree T-8 which, if it remained, would hinder their plan for a
24 detached.. three-ear garage that the neighbors found objectioridble. She
25 said that she, and' the. neighborsfeel that. everything rpossible should be
26 done to save The oak trees~.a_n, d the Wileys should fee_I obligated to protect .
27 the trees. She said the floor plan of her home had suffered to allow
28 preservation of the frees on her Lot. She said their view would be affected
29 by the Wileys development.
30
31 forest .Blue, Petaluma, said they moved to the neighborhood because of
32 the trees. He d'id not support removing any trees to build a structure and
33 they could be built without cutting down. the trees.
34
35 Ken Bonning, Petaluma, stated. that the reason they moved to this
36 neighborhood was because ,of the trees. He said their :house-is .set back
3Z from the street vvifh a small backyard in -order .to ,preserve the beauty of .
38 the oaks. He supported the Planning Commission's decision.
39
40 Sue Burnett;, Petaluma, wanted to clarify the-tree trimming that took place
41 on her property. She said the trees were actually on 'the Wifeys property
42 bu:t were leaning .into .her property. She'hdd Sonomd County Tree Experts
43 thin the portions that hung over her property. .
44
45 Lon Wiley added. that all the things his wife: stated in the letter were part of
46 the public, record. .
47
48 Vice 'M'ayor Moynihan asked about the. free i-e'~lanting requirements ahd
49 mitigations. ,
50
51 Lon Wiley answered that. as he'remembered, they had offered 3:1 in 24"
52 boxes.
~ - ,
' December b, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 351
1 .
2 Vice .NI'ayor Moynihan asked if this was one of the conditions that
3 remained that was not part of the appeal.
4
5 Mayor Glass explained the only item was the removal of tree T-8 and the
6 construction in the drp'line of two of the oaks.
7
8 Vice Mayor Moynihan clarified that hand trenching for the utilities and 6"
9 under the preserved-trees was~also part of the issue. He asked if the
10 Wileys were offering to, replace tree T-8 with. a 24 inch box - Mr. Wileysaid
11 they would mitigate tree T-8 as required and replace the other trees with a
12 five-gallon variety.
13 '
14 Council Member Harris asked ,if the Wileys were willing to mitigate the
15 other recommendations regarding hand trenching, the drip line and
16 construction. hours. Mr. Wiley said he understood the conditions and as far
17 as hours,~he could do interior work until the appropriate construction hours.
18
19 .Council. Member Healy asked -about the Fire Marshal's requirement to
20 have no parking on one side of. Ricci Court.
21
22 Planner Robbe explained the court was too narrow to allow parking in
23 front of the Blues' home. The condition required that a sign be placed to
24 state no parking on either side of the street.
25
26 ~Couneif Member Healy, .asked why a sign had not been required up till
27 now.
28
29 Planner Robbe stated she; could not address this.
30
3} Council Member Healy said this' had worked up till now and didn't
32 understand 'why the Blues' couldn't park in front of their home. He was
33 advised the Fire Marshal would. not allow parking within their 20' right-of-
34 way. .
35
36 Mayor .Glass clarified that the Wileys wanted to remove T-8 to move the
37 house forward and fhe''substitute tree would be a tree for the front yard.
38
39 Mr. Wiley said that SPARC would make suggestions as to where to plant
40 `the trees.
41
42 Mayor Glass -wanted assurance that the envelope would be limited to
43 prevent expansion of the house beyond what the neighbors expected.
44
45 Mr. Wiley said yes, :and' pointed-to the maps showing with the removal of T-
46 8 he could expand the building envelope.
47
48 Uice Mayor Moynihan asked for clarification of why the Planning
' 49 Commission was compelled to save tree T-8. He commented that the lot
50 was very large even with the setbacks. '
51
52 Council Member Harris said he had asked the same question.
Vol. 40, Page. 352 December b, -2004
1
2. Council Member Torliatt stated. the question was. " wh~;y get rid' of it?"
3 ~ "
4 Mr Wiley said. he did not plan to build a 4,500 SF home.
5
6 Planner Robbe .clarified the building envelope. was 4,500 SF with, the
7 .deduction. of` the three-car garage. She stated,. that because it was a
8 ' ` ~ tentative parcel map "hone of,the details of construction were required qr
9 prodded. She:- -said they would be required to build within the stated
10 building envelope. She said 'the house proposed would not be reviewed
11 by SRARC; the lot was R-6500 with straight zoning; and they could build
12 whatever they chose. She said .the garage. wds proposed but the area .
1'3 was .eliminated because of the preservation of T-4 8~ T-8 and therefore not -
14 included in the building envelope. -She said what was .approved was the
15 drea under T-4 and T-8 .so the garage would not be located in this area
16 but a part of a structure could'be located' uhde~ those drip lines.
17
T8 Council Member Hegly said h'e also visited the site ahd thought it would
1'9 be a: better project with T=8:removed with appropriate. mitigations. Ne said
20 he would be prepared to uphold app"eal ~,in most respects if it~ was
21 conditioned. oh SPARC reviewing the actual house to be constructed so
22 the neighborhood would be assured. of a sensitive design.. He proposed to
23 uphold the appedl with the removal.. of T-B; the allowance of construction
24 within T-6 and T-9; the:hand trenching for utilities; and he would not uph"old
25 the appedl wifh respect to- hours of constructioh. He was still perplexed by
26 ~ the mystery parking issue and. wanted staff to. see if the vehicle trip. count ~ -
27 would allow the no parking to be~`ori the. far side of. the streef~ onlyao the
28 Blues and other neighbors could park in front of their homes.
29
30 Mr. Wiley stated. he was 'not appealing hours of construction - he
31 undecstoo~d he could, do quiet thing's:like painting, etc.
32
33 Council Mernb~er Torliatt had a question about the T6 and T9 drip line
34 building issue.
35
36 Arborist.Meserye explaihed about construction. in drip lines and he didn't
37 expect a significant impact to the trees.-
38
39 Council Member Torlidtt said she would like at least" 3:1 ratio for tree
40 .replacement and this direction would be provided to .SPA_RC with the
41 ~ opportunity for neighbors to c~mmeht. .
42
43 MOTION to approve Resolution 2004-230~N.C;S~.
44
45 M/S: Healy/Thompson
46 AYES:> Harris, Healy,, Vice'Mayor~~Moynihan, Thompson, Tocliatt
47 NOES: MayorGlass
48 ABSTAIN: O'Brien
49
50 ~ Mayor Gldss explain'e.d his vofe. He said with the .unanimous approvdl of
51 the Planning Commission and staff recommendation; he felt it was ,difficult
S2 to override their decisions.
{ '
'.December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 353
1
2 B. .Resolution 2004-231 N.C.S. Establishing a Rule 20B Underground Utility
3 District. in the `Vicinity of "D" Street Between First Street and Fourth Street,
4 and First Street Between "D" and "F" Street. ("D" Street Underground Utility
5 District). (.Marangella)
b
7 Economic Development and Redevelopment Director Paul Marangella
8 presented the staff report and explained the process as part of the .
9 Theater District construction requirements.
10
11 PUBLIC COMMENT
12
l3 Michael Lidwalk asked what the assessment per property would be.
14
15 Director Marangella answered that the amount spread across all parcels
16 is approximately $375,000 for the assessment district.
17
18 COUNCIL.COMMENT
19
20 Council Member Torliatt also asked about the assessment and where the
21 ~ money would come from.
22
23 Director Marangella answered that there were two. issues. One is the
24 formation of Rule 20-B Underground Utility District, which does not indicate
25 how the district would be ppaid for, it is, only a mechanism to tell PGB~E how
26 it will be formed: The second part would involve coming before Council to
27 form an assessment district and when the Council would consider the
28 feasibility 'of forming the special tax district.
29
30 Council Member Torliatt asked if there was one property owner who had
31 a mdjorify of the district. She atated Council was creating an assessment
32 district that would give one property owner the majority vote and she
33 would vote against this.
34
35 Director Marangella said lie did not know in 'terms of the square footage
36 and' referred to the map that showed Basin Street with the largest burden.
37 He answered that by looking, at the map it would appear Basin Street had
38 the majority.
39
40 Council Member Moynihan asked why .the area was reduced to ending
41 at "F" Street and why other developments were not part of the
42 redevelopment area. He asked how the redevelopment funds would be
43 recovered in the future. and he was: concerned about the expenditure of
44 PCDC funds.
45
46 Director Marangella replied the °issue was that the district could be _
47 expanded at a dater time. but PG'&E wanted specific projects approved
48 .and ready to be built: He said the assessment district that was to be
49 formed would ,also be added to the area and the funds had been
50 earmarked under the Owner Participation Agreements with any costs to
51 expand the district to be additional. He said he had talked to all but two
Vol. 40, Page 354 Decernher.6, 2004
l of the, property owners and they were "okay" with the fiormation of the
2 underground utility district.
3
4 Council; Member Healy said in his discussion with utility representatives;
5 there were no "economies of scale" since the cost is based on a fixed_
6 dollar.:amount per foot of undergrounding done.
7
8 Council Member torliatt -said she. supported 'the undergrounding but was
9 concerned about, the property owners that were underrepresented and
10 who did not know how much it would cost. She said she would not- vote
11 for this:
12
13 MOTION to approve .Resolution 2004--231: N:C:S.
14 M/S: HealyjThompson
15 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
16 ,AYES: ~ Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan; O"Brien,
17 Thompson
18 NOES: Torliatt
19
20 C. River .Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village: Location: 2200 Petaluma
21 Boulevard North. [APNs 048-080-039, :007-401-043, 007-401-044 (Parcel A)'
22 007-391.-009 (Parcel B); 048-0$0-038 (Parcel C); 048-080-033,007-391'-035
23 (.Abandoned Railroad right-of way);.]. Project File No. REZ02001:
24
25 Consideration. of an Application by .Chelsea Property Group to Amend
26 the River OaksjPetaluma .Factory Outlet Village Master Plan to Allow
27 Development ofi Parcels B and C as Proposed. in the Petaluma Village
28 Marketplace Planned Community Distric# General Development Plan,
29 including 163,000 Square Feet-of Retail and 775 Parking Spaces `on Parcel
30 'B and, up to 81.;00.0 S:c~uate. Feet of Retail and 445 Parking Spaces on
31 Parcel C.`Th2 Environmental Impact Reporf for this project was certified. by
32 the City Council on' September 13,; 2004. (Moore)
33
34 Planner Befsi Lewitter presented the staff' report and gave a hisfbry of the
35 development starting from -1'991; :when the 72-plus acre sight wds zoned;
36 into a' Planned Community Disthict (PCD) to allow development of the
37 Petaluma. Factorq Outlet Village, She explained the different parcels and
38 the mgster plan fhat was included in the original approval were designed
39 to meet the General Plan: designation of Special Commercial: She;
40 explained the ,present' plan to. develop Parcels ?`B'' and "C" acid the.
41 gzneral developmentplan for those parcels .including, a subsequent EIR
42 that w,as .approved ih;September 2004. She. expldined the modification to
43 the Master Plan tha"t Chelsea proposed.
44
45 Matt Connolly; Chelsea, Prope"sties spoke that after talking to .City officials..
46 and receiving inpuf regarding Parcel. C and the additional design work
47 they felt' was; needed for ffli's parcel. He said. Chelsea .requested •that
48 Council drecf 'the City Manager :to meet with- Chelsea regarding the
49 redesign of Parcel C, and re"port. to Council on the progress and plans: He
50 said Chelsea understands any redesign would require a public review arid.
51 evaluation before{ Council would: conducf hearings.. He said ,they also. .
52 understood'.that no guarantees were given regarding the plans in
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 355
1 meeting with the City Mariager. He 'said it would not be productive to
. 2 continue with the project with the current design for Parcel C.
3
4 Mayor Glass asked if Chelsea` was asking that Parcels "B'' and "C" would
5 come back with new desigris and put the hearing in abeyance until the
. 6 Council could review and go back 'to the City Manager for further
7 negotidtons. The answer was yes.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt asked which City officials and others had Chelsea
10 spoken with.
11 .
12 Fred Etzel, Chelsea Counsel, explaihed that in speaking with staff and
13 from comments during the City Council meeting when the EIR. was
14 certified it became apparent thafi a vote on the project would not be
15 favorable and Chelsea should. go buck and re-think the project. He said
16 this process had worked well, when. the Planning Commission directed
17 Chelsea to meet with the City Manager to work-out other details resulting
18 in a favorable vote dt thanlevel. He .said he understood there were no
19 guarantees and the project would have to come back to Council for
20 review.
21
22 PIIBEIC HEARING
23
24 David Keller, Pefaluma, (speaking for the Petaluma River Council, with
25 NI`atti Christensen, Petaluma, and Wayne Morgenthal, Petaluma, ceding
26 their time)., said he apprecidted Chelsea's willingness to revisit the project
27 and Council would also have~to revisit the EIR since Chelsea did not have
28 astable and definable project and the CEQA was not adequate or
29 legally complete. He .said there no demonstrable public b_ enefit that
30 would allow Council to pass the overriding co_ nsiderations.
31
32 Connie Matlden; Petaluma, said, he Chelsea expansion would be
33 additional retail, not an outlet mall.. She. said that people were concerned
34 ~ about things. changing so fast and the huge traffic impact from what has
35 already-.been approved..She asked if more retail was really necessary with
36 the redevelopment of Centrdl' Petaluma and why would expansion be
37 done in fhe area that'the Rstdil Leakage Study showed.as least desirable.
38
39 Rick Partner, :Petaluma, said he wanted to go on record as opposing the
40 outlet mdll expansion. He tdlked about the. cumulative impact to
41 impermeable surfaces', about flood plain .management capacity, and
42 traffic impacts.
43
44 Barry Bussewitz; Petaluma, said there were better places for a project than
45 in the-flood plain with traffic 'impacfs and undermining redevelopment _
46 ~ downtown. He saw big boxes on the City's riverside.
47 _
48 Paul .Johnson, Petaluma, repeated the salient .points regarding big box
49 development, economic impacts, and :building in the flood plain. He
50 ~ explained his experience in New Jersey where the city built in the flood
51 plain 'and.: new homes flooded as a result.
52
Vol. 40, Page 356 December 6, 2004
1 Ellen Bickler, Petaluma, said she was rpaki.rig qn .emotional appedf .based .
2 ° `on ancient oaks,-prime riparian property, ahd ehdangered~.species.in -the
3 area. She' rnenfioned the Retail Leakage Study,. traffic, 'low wages; an'd
4 flooding would result from this developmeht and she wanted . a
5 cornmunify iixipact report.
6
7 .John Cheney, Petaluma,, said if City planners 'make changes without
8 approvals there-would be more flooding problems.
9
10 .Murray Rockgwitz, Petaluma, said many good arguments. had:. been.
- 11 made about building. in the floodway,, riparian habitat, and traffic
12 .congestion, He said: thee. CPSP would. bring. retail. and ,only so much can ,be
13 supported;, he wanted the. Council fo consider this. He mentiorne_ d
14 Petaluma's uhqueness and character.
TS
l b IVlichael Litwalk; Petaluma, stated he was .opposed to the project. He said
17 he ;didn't understand the indemnity issue and wanted to .bind Chelsea for
1'8 flood ,damage.. He said he dives in the flood: plain. and has talked to his
- 1,9 neighbors about their experiences from tie 1982 flood. He said this plan
20 reduced the abilify of the land to. absorb water resulting in the flood
21 control improvements being undermined by adding development
22 upstream.
23 _
24 _ Bruce Hagen, Petaluma, (,Steve Kirk.: and two others ceded their time)
25 gave a Powerpoint presentation called "It's a ~INonderful Town." His
26 presentation illustrated what would -:happen to Petaluma if Council
27 approved every ..retail development that, arose. Fie used his- hometown,
28 Gilrgy, California>; as ,an example of`over-development, with. retail power
29 centers, big box retail, and how the choices that were .made negatively
30 affe_ cted the town.
31
32 Christop.h.er Stevik, Petaluma, spoke regarding. the right-of-vvay~(RO1N) for
33 the trolley in filie outlet development area and that Chelsea had
,34 continued to place parking spaces. in this ROW. He' said ;this ROW had
35 been clearly defined in planning documents. He said he wanted the
36 Trolley open. space dedicated and he provided directives for
37 development. Me :said the Heritage Trolley Line :would be a draw for
38 Petaluma and an assef for the Factory Ouflets.
39 ~ _
40 David Libschitz; Petaluma, visited the Outlet Mall and said it was very.
. 41 empty. He didn't understand why Chelsea would. want to develop the
42 area further. He mentioned flooding, fhe Retail Leakage: Study;- and
.43 wanted the City to work on. the Kenilworth. and DSC sites for retail.
44
45 AAary Ann Hansen, Retaluma, mentioned contamination. of groundwater
46 ih the area .and that the Factory Outlet area is prime. land for groundwater
47 recharge.
48
49` COUNCIL COMMENT
50 - ' .
5] Council Member H'a~ris said he wanted to save- his co_ rnme_nts, until after
52 negotiations when the exact plan is known.
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 357
1
2 Council Member Healy said Chelsea's proposal was a productive step. He
3 addressed some of the public's concerns regarding setback
4 improvements explaining the riparian .corridor was protected; square
5 footage on Parcel B was reduced by about 10,000 SF; use restrictions with
6 a conservation easement on the southern portion of "B"; a view corridor
7 established; and it would open this area to the public. He felt Parcel C
8 was a work in progress and' would. like the City to acquire it for beneficial
9 uses. He mentioned the flood plain issue with Parcel B mostly out of the
10 flood plain and Parcel C almost entirely within the flood plain. He said the .
11 General Pian would be coming to Council next year with surface water
12 information relating to this project. He wanted the Manager to work on
13 acquiring Parcel G, as well as a small portion of the south end of Parcel B.
14 He said he would like to accommodate the.trolley alignment and wanted
15 further refinement of retail .usage on Parcel B that would be consistent
16 with the Retail Leakage Study.
17
18 Council Member Thompson said he was happy the Planning Commission
19 reviewed B and C portions. He stated he agreed with Council Member
20 Healy and would be inclined. to vote for the project if nothing were to be
21 built on Parcel C since it is in the flood plain. He mentioned the triangular
22 portion. on the south end of Parcel B and wanted the City to purchase this.
23 He also supported the trolley process.
24
25 Vice Mayor Moynihan spoke about the Army Corps flood project and the
26 misconception of how it would. be diminished. He stated it was designed
27 to :mitigate incremental .impacts of development in the flood plain. He
28 stated-this project would not have an adverse impact on the flood control
`29 design. He mentioned the Retail Leakage Study outlined what sales tax
30 dollars .the City was losing. He supported approval of the project to
31 increase revenue. He said building all the retail on Washington Street
32 would create a problem and' that competition was good. He said since
33 there was no trolley - it was an un-funded vision. He mentioned Parcel C
34 as a park acid that the community lacked funds fo purchase, develop,
35 and operate the .proposed pcirk. He said. the outlet needed good access,
36 such as Rainier, to improve its viability:
37
38 At tfie request of the Vice Mayor, the following is verbatim:
39
40 1. "Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits for Parcels C and B, a four
41 lane intersection and access road (Village Road) shall be built and
. 42 dedicated to the City, of Petaluma, by the applicant, from
43 Petaluma Boulevard over the Petaluma River via a 4-lane bridge
44 curving south 'on the easf side of the river and terminating. at the
45 triangular section of'Parcel B."
46
47 2. "Applicant shall dedicate the triangular portion of Parcel B from
48 the terminus of Village Road and the northern .top of slope of Deer
49 Creek fo the southern most part of Parcel B contiguous to the
50 railroad mainline. The triangular portion of Parcel B is to be
51 retained by the City of Petaluma for a future circulafiori
52 improvement project and possible. connection to the Rainier
Vol. 40, Page 358 December 6, 2004
l Avenue/Highway 101 cross-town connector and highway
2 interchange project. The applicant shall enter into an agreement
3 with the City to, pay some fair share. contribution to this fv,ture
4 project .dnd wdive the right. to -protest he formation of a special
5 assessment district. The applican shall also pay-for the. costs of the - ,
6 - future .bike and pedestridn .improvements :across the triangular .
7 portion of Parcel B."
8
9 3. "Prior to the Issuance of Building ,Rercnts for Parcels C and B, ,a two
10 lane highway frontage road shalt be :built and dedicated to the
1 1 Cify of Peaaluma, by the applicant, .from the southern terminus 'of
l2 Village :Road to fhe north end of Parcel C along the former
13 railroad-spur line. Applicant will`:realign. the parking driveways to
14 connect to this frontage road and to provide vehicular
15 ~ connectivity between parcels."
16 -
17 Council M_ ember Torliatt said her direction to the City Manager was to
18 convince ;Chelsea to withdraw their entire application and keep this in
19 open apace. She added that there was plenty of other retail being
20 developed in more appropriate areas. and when these are .built out the
21 City may .be over-retailed. She showed the rnap of Parcel C and pointed
22 out how ..much of it was in the flood plain... She said the City .should ,NOT
23 - build in Parcel C. She also showed the .map of Parcel B with a majority
24 located in the flood plain. She !stafed she would support building in the
25 "white'" area that wasn't in the flood plain. She said she didn'f support ,
26 building in. this area either, bu.t if it is approved, she wanted to rniri.rriize
27 the amount of building in the flood plain; reduce the parking ratios. dt
28 .least down to 4; .indemnification language: was ,needed; a requirement for
29 _ conditional use- permits for any- usage over 30,000 SF; ,and she .would want
30 the City Manoger to have Chelsea provide a :Community Impact Report:
31 She: also. wanted the use changed to possibly office use or something
32 other than retail to reduce traffic trips. She said Chelsea needed to put up ,
33 a ,sufficient dollar amount to have. the infrastructure improvements
34 completed, .including the widening. of Old Redwood Highway and
35 potentially a Rainier cross-town .connector. She said the Council ;had the
36 authority to say what it wanted and what the developer could .build fo.
37 benefit the .community as a whole: She said if Parcel C was not
38 developable,. the: price would be reduced and the City should partner
39 with others to fund this. She wanted conservation easements pursued. on
40 both parcels to preserve the .flood plain, to provide recreation and. open
41 space opportunities. She mentioned the Trolley and the preservation. of -
42 the opportunity to provide this. -
43
44 Council Member O'Brien mentioned the Retail Leakage Study comments
45 and ;fhen the comments thdt the project would cause so much traffic., He -
46 felt it was ridiculous fo say this property should be kept in open space
47 since 'it was listed within the UG,B as developaE7le land. He directed, the
48 City Manager to negotiate,. the best deal for the City. He thought Chelsea
49 had. presented a good compromise proposal.
50
51 Mayor .Glass said the flood .control project was as effective as it could be
52 depending on decisions made in the future. He said the flood control
December 6, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 359
1 project was effective. if the .river was dredged on regular .basis. He said the
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' web page information showed over the
3 course of the next 40 years, if there was build-out of the Sonoma County
4 General Plan as anticipated, and build-out of the Petaluma River
5 watershed as anticipated, the protection of the flood control project .
b would ,deliver about a 40-Year event protection. He said looking at
7 economic benefit as an overriding consideration of the project, it was
8 imperative that Chelsea and the City produce a Community Impact
9 Report to prove an economic benefit, not just a transfer of wealth. He
10 mentioned traffic was a concern; excessive parking, even after being
11 scaled down; indemnification for flooding; penalties for the late payment
12 of the $1.2 million for traffic 'mitigation should be pursued, if feasible. He
13 mentioned purchasing the property and supported Council Member
14 Torliatl's suggestion to use the property as open space. He said if a far
15 superior plan. was broughf back he would look at it with an open mind.
16 He stated he was concerried with "over-refailing." He clarified the Retail
17 Leakage Study said that it the other more preferable sites were
18 developed and did not meet the demand, then to look at the Outlet site.
19 He said when looking at downtown development, he was not anti-growth
20 but wdnted to channel growth between Highway 101, Washington Street
21 heading west, to Petaluma Boulevard South to build "Petaluma's Miracle
22 Triangle.°' He stated he wanted to move away from retail that would
23 "cannibalize" the new retail being developed downtown. He mentioned
24 the cumulative impacts of traffic on various intersections, flooding, and
25 the Old Redwood Highway overpass as a priority commitment.
26
27 Council Member iorliatt said it had been no secret how she felt about this
28 property or whether she supported UGB. She mentioned the community's
29 overwhelming support for the establishment of the UGB. She said the
30 community cherished open.. space:; supported .retail in other areas, and
31 saw the vision. .
32
33 9. NEW BUSINESS.
34
35 A. '.Resolution 2004-232 N.C.S. Appointing Claire Cooper Interim City Clerk.
36 (Bierman) .
37
38 "MOTION to approve resolution 2004-.232 N.C.S.
39
40 M/S: Torliatt/Moynihan
41 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
42
43 ADJOURN
44
45 The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
46
47
~48
49 - avid Glass, Mayor
50
51
52 ATTEST:
Vol. 40, Page° 360 December 6, 2004
1
. 2
3 ~
4 Claire Cooper, Deputy City lerk
5 ,
b cis ~
7
8
9
10
11
12