HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/16/2004 Augusf 16; 2004 Vol. 40; Page T97
~~LLT
a
,Cif ®f etalu~aa, C'alifo~a~~a
X85$ M`EETJNG OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL/PETALUMA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
City Council/PCDC Minutes
Monday, August 16, 2004- 3:00 P.M. '
Regular Meeting .
1 CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 p.m.
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt, Mayor Gfass
6 Absent: Harris
7
8 B. Pledge .of Allegiance .
9
10 C. Moment of Silence
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT
13
. 14 There were none.
15
16 COUNCIL COMMENT
17
' 18 Council Member O'$cien asked if the sidewalk project that was to be finished in July 2003
19 was available for C'ouncil's review-or its status if the report wasn't finished.
20
21 Council Member Torliatt indicated sidewalk maintenance was on a future agenda.
22
23 Council: Member Torliatt gave ah update from the Animal Services Advisory Committee
24 regarding an e-mail asking Council to oppose SB 1548. regarding canine ear cropping.
25 The Committee; after reviewing the bill,. chose to .not take. action at this time because of
26. the short response time. In the future they will be looking at this legislation and make
27 recommendations to Council to support/oppose this .practice.
28
29 She also reported on the challenge to Cotdti'`s Rent Stabilization/Mobile Home
30 .Ordinance and 'asked' Council. to support Cotati with a resolution to prevail in this
31 litigation, which may have statewide _significanc'e. She reported from the Water Advisory
32 Committee meeting concerning the new "Peaking .Allocation" that will be proposed in
33 the new Memorandum of Understanding that Council will be-considering next month.
34 She felt the City wds okay with the allocation.
35
36 She commented on °the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
37 for the Generai'Plan and referred to "the memo that was soliciting for concerns now. She
38 stated she was concerned about how to ask the community to comment on an
39 alternative that` hasn't been chosen yet.
VoL 40, Page 198 August 1 b, 2004
1 Mayor Glass thanked Council: Membe"r Thompson. for participating' .in the. tripe to
2 Washington, D.C. to complete the flood contro_I project. The City'S request was "for $4.4
3 million.
4 ~ ~
5 CITY MANAG'ER-CO"MNIENT
6
7 There was none.
8
9 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Charges to.current agenda only).
10
1 1 There were none.
12
13 PRESENTATIONS/PROCIAIUTATIONS
14 ~ .
15 There were none.
lb
17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
18
19 1. APPROVAL OF NIlNUTES
20
21 A. City Council/PCDC .Regular Meeting Minutes of June 21., 2004. "
22 B., City Council/PCDC Regular Meeting Minutes of July 12,:3004'.
23 D. City Council%PCDC Regular Meeting Minutes of July 1"9, 2004,
24
25 MOTION to approve the June 21, July 12 and July 19, 2004 Minutes as
26 Submitted:
27
28 M/STorliaft/O"Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
29 .
30 C. City Council/RCDC Budget Workshop MeetingMin~utes.ofJuly fi4, 2004.
31 .
32 ~ MOTION'. to approve fhe July 14,.2004 Ivlihut.es.assubmitted:
33
w~
34 Ivt/S Torliaft/Moynihar.. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING' VOTE:
35 -
36 AYES: Healy, Thompson, Moynihan,. Glass- and Torliaft
37 NOESs None _
38 ABSENT: Harris
39 ABSTAIN:. O'Brien
40
41 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
42 -
43 A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Special Meeting of-August 23,
44 2004.. ~ -
45
46 City Manager Bierman referred ;t_o a revision with' a Closed Session from
47 6;:00 p.m. to 7':00 p.m., followed by Open Session at 7:00 p:m.
48
49 MOTION fo approve the agenda: .
50
51 M/S O'Brien/Torliaft. C~ARRI,ED'UNANINI'OUSLY.
52 ~ '
August 1 b, 2004 'Vol. 40; Page 199
1 B. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of
2 September 13, 2004.
3
4 Council Member Healy requested moving the Casa Grande ;Site item to
5 the evening agenda due to a scheduling conflict; .dnd to move fhe
6 Sweed School item to the end since he lives within 500 feet of the project
7 and will not be participating.
8
9 MOTION to approve the agenda:
10
i 1 M/S Torliatt/Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12
13 3. CONSENT CALENDAR
14
15 Council Member Torliatt asked that 3.D and 3.1 be removed.
16
17 Council. AAember Healy asked that 3.E be removed.
18
19 Council IUlember O':Brien also asked that 3.D be removed.
20
21 MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar:
22
23 M/S O'Brien/Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
24
25 A.. Resolution 2004-143 N.C.S. Accepting the Claims and Bills from July 2004.
26 (Netter)
27
28 B. Resolution 2004-144 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the
29 Agreement Between ABAG Power and the City of Petaluma to Wind.. Up
30 Electric Program. (Ban)
31
32 C. Resolution 2004-145 N.C.S. Accepting the Completion of the Phase i
33 Recycled Water Pipeline Project. The Project Involved Installing
34 Approximately 19,000 Feet of .Recycled Water Pipeline to Convey
35 Secondary Recycled Wdter from the Oxidation Ponds to Rooster'Run Golf
36 Course in the Near Term and to Serve Other Locations in the .Long Term.
37 .Final Contract Cost: $2,700,000. Funding Sources: Sewer Funds and
38 Sonoma. County Water Agency Recycled Water Tier 2 Funding Program.
39 Contractor: TerraCon Pipelines, Inc. (Ban)
40
41 D. Resolution Accepting Completion of the 2003-2004 Traffic Signal
42 Modification Project 3306--1. Funding Source: Traffic Mitigation.
43 (Skladzien/Castaldo) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar
44 for separate discussion.
45
46 E. Resolution Encouraging the. California Coastal Conservancy; California
47 Wildlife Conservation Board, and the California Parks and Recreation
48 Department to Support the Sonoma County Open Space District and
49 Board of Supervisors in Acquiring the Tolay Lake Ranch Property as a
50 Regional Park for Sonoma County. This item was removed from, the
51 Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
52
Vol. 40, Page 200 August 16', 2004
1 F. Resolution. 2004-146 N.C:S. Approving the Phase II final Map for the
2 - Stratford Place/Gatti Subdivision. (Bates/Nloore)
3
4 G. .Resolution 2004-14.7 N.C.S. Authorizing. City Manager fo Sign dll Fotms,
' 5 ~ Certifications, Authorizations, and Requests for Authorizations Related to
6 ~ State-Administered Federal Funding Projects. (Gaebler) .
7
8 H. .Resolution 2004-1`48 N.C.S. .Authorizing Grading Prior to Final Map
9 Approval for Phase I of Southgate Subdivision.'([3ates/Moore)
10
1 1 I. Resolution Awarding the Petaluma Senior .Center Expansion, Project to
12 Carr's Construction of Windsor, Authorizing,'the. Use of Proposition 40 (Park
13 Bonds) Monies to Augment the Project Budget, and Authorizing Staff to
14 Work with the Contractor Through Vdlues Engineering to Bring 'the
15 Contract Price; Within Allowafjle Budgetary 'Limits. (:Carr)- This item.. -was
16 removed from. the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
17
18 Items. Removed for Separate Discussion:
19
20 D. Resolution 2004-149 N.C. S. Accepting; Completion of the 2003.,2004 Traffic
21 Signal AAodifica#ion Project 3306-1. Funding Squrce: Traffic Mitigation.
22 (Skladzien/Ccisfaldo)
23
24 Council AAember Toriiatt asked for additional .information on 3.D,. to
25 provide statistical infcrmation to show ,that the five-element signal heads
26 in use at various intersections have reduced accidents .arid vehicle idling-
27 time.
28
29 _ .Public Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzien said he would
30 provide this .information and that he an'd the Assistant Traffic Engineer
31 reviewed accident reduction. for left-turn movernenf only. The timesaving
32 information will be provided as well.
33
34 k MOTON to adopt the resolution:
35
36 ~ M/S Torliaft and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
37
38 E. Resolution. 2004-1'50 N:C.S. Encouraging the California Coastal
39 Conservancy, Galitornia Wildlife ronseruation Board, and. the California
40 Parks and Recreation Department to Support the Son"o,ma County Open.
41 Space District. and' Board of Supervisors in Acquiring the Tolay Lake Ranch
42 Property ds a Regional Park'for Sonoma County:
43 ~ .
44 ~ Council Member Healy stated he would not support this and requested a
45 motion.
46
47 PUBiIC COMMENT:
48
49 David Yearsley, Petaluma Rive"rkeeper -Explained the importance. of
50 Petalucna's full support- for this acquisition. H'e .has driven the road in a
51 ~ school. bus. and is familiar vvitii~ access to the property. He .stated that due
August 1 b, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 201 .
1 to the timeline requirements of the acquisition it was important to .move.
2 on it.
3
4 -Grant Davis, The Bay Institute -Supported the timely acquisition of fhe
5 Tolay property to create a wonderful regional park and asked for full.
6 Council supporf.
7
8 Mayor Glass closed public comment.
9
10 Council Member Healy explained his action on this item. His concern
1 1 about ca realistic chance of obtaining partnership funds had been partially
12 addressed with the'support from the Wildlife Conservation Board on other
13 properties. The other issue of concern was the disparate treatment and
14 standards for Sonoma Mountain Road and Manor Lane as compared to
15 access to the Cardoza property.
16
17 1VIOTION tb adopt the resolution:
18
19 NI/S Torliatt/Moynihan. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
20
21 AYES: Glass> Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
22 NOES: ~ Healy
23 ABSENT: Harris (NOTE: Council Member .Harris voted in favor of the
24 prior resolution on this item.) .
25
26 I. .Resolution 2004-T51 N.C.S. Awarding: the Petaluma Senior Center
27 t:xparisi'on Project to Carr's Construction of Windsor, Authorizing the Use of
28 Proposition 40 (Par,k Bonds) Monies to Augment the Project Budget, and. ,
29 Authorizing Staf# to Work. with the Contractor Through Values Engineering
30 to Bring the Contract Price Within Allowable Budgetary Limits. (Carr)
31
32 Council Member Torliatt asked what projects would potentially be
33 eliminated. She asked about framing for the skylights to allow for later
34 installation.
35
36 Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr stated. that no projects were to be _
37 eliminated. He said due to. the size Arid the design for the skylights they
38 could not be framed for later installation. With the necessary changes to
39 the roof's engineering, he ,said' at leas# two of the skylights would be
40 .installed in the reception area and. hopefully the office area-.
41
42 .MOTION to adopt the Resolution:
43 ~ _
44 N1/S Torliatt/O"Brien. CARRIED.UNAN111AOUSLY.
45
46 4. PUBLIC .HEARINGS
47
48 A. Public Hearing Re: 'Resolution 2004=1.52 N.C.S. Authorizing the Allocation
49 of FY 04-05 Supplemental Law Eriforeement Service Funds (SLESF) for the
50 Computer .Aided Dispatch/Records Management System (CAD/RMS)
51 (Netter/Rubaloff)
52
Vol. 40, Page 202 August 16, 2004
1 Interim Administrative Services Director'.Joe Netter explained thaf this. is an
2 annual, appropriation for public safety purposes funded through state in
3 the'arnount of approximately $i 10,000..
4
5 Mayor Glass opened the public hearing. ,and hearing no requests to
6 speak, the public hearing was closed.
7
8 'MOTION to adopt the resolution:
9
10 Nl/S O'Brien/Torliatt:'CARRIED UNANINOUSLY.
11
12 B. Public Wearing :and Resolution 2004=T53 ~ N.C.S. Confirmation ~of Cost- .of
13 Abatement of Weeds. (Ginn): `
14
15 Fire. Marshal Mike Ginn asked council to affirm the cost of weed
1.6 abaternent.'The names of tn~ 13 property owners who did not pay-would
17 be forwarded. 'to~ the Assessor's Office for collection of "the outstanding
18 fees:
19 _
20 Mayor Glassy opened. the public .healing. and hearing no requests ~to
21 speak, the°.public hearing was closed,. '
22
23 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
24 ~ _
25 M/S O'Brien/Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
26
27 5. UNF-WISHED BUSINESS -CITY COUNCIL A'NO PCDC .
28 "
29 A. Discussion of Rule 20A Underground Utility Districts, Designating Bodega-
30 Avenue: as :Priority 1, and the ~ `Intersection of Old Redwood '
31 ~ Highway/Industrial Avenue/Stony Point Road as .Priority 2• Underground
32 Districts, .and Resolution 2004=154 'N.C.S: Setting Date and Time. of the
33 PuEjlic Kearing for 13ode~a Avenue Underground Districf. _
34 (Skladzien/! ackie)
35
36 Director of Pu61ic 'Facilities and Services: Rick'Skl'adzien .introduced Project
37 Manager Susan Lackie; wha gave the. project:report with the. hisfory and
38 extern'" of the: improvements to~ Bodega Avenue and the Old` Redwood
39 Highway/Industrial' Ave_rue/Stony Point Road intersections. She explained
40 the Rule 20A funding"allocation processfor'the Gouncil`S consideration.
41
42 .Council. Member Healy encouraged staff 'to convert the industrial/Stony
_ 43 Pt. ..Road/Retaluma Boulevard Noah from Rural 206 to 20A to 'take
4.4 advantage of''PGB~E funds .and save `Redevelopment funds.. He had a
45 question regarding the- prognosis for th"e .actual dollars to back-up the
46 allocations at'this time. '
47-
48 Shawn Hoover;. PG.&E Project Manager answered that the funding for Rural
. 49 20A had not been allocated ;for 2005 and beyond. She di'd not know'what
50 'the funding would be and could not guarantee that PGB~E could fund fhis
51 in 2005. The funding for engineering must be allocated first. to make the
52 construction dollars follow.
,August 16, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 203
l -
2 Council Member Torliatt asked .when PG8~E's fiscal year runs and when
3 .would the budget be determined.
4
5 Ms. Hoover answered that they usually do not know .until late in the fourth
6 - quarter of the calendar year.
7
8 Council Member Healy was concerned about the funding and wanted
9 Council to weigh-in with the League of California Cities; he will pursue this.
10
1 1 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked what this would cost ratepayers.
12
13 Ms: Hoover explained that this program is mandated and when the
14 project is operative its cost- are put into the system-wide rate base; she
15 could not give an amount.
16
17 Mayor Glass clarified that this project addresses safety and service issues
18 ,rather than just aesthetics.
19
20 Ms. Hoover explained that it is harder to locate/repair problems
21 underground.
22
23 Council Member Torliatt mentioned the Lakeville Highway gateway as a
24 potential Rural 20B project, She suggested that when the Old Redwood
25 Highway area sheet improvements are engineered, it should be looked at
26 to install, conduits as was, done with Bodega Avenue. She would like a list
27 of Rural 20B projects as well.
28
29 Council Member Healy explained that the project was time-sensitive to
30 begin the engineering budgeting ..process. The recommendation to use
31. the 20A for Industrial/Stony Point was not as time-sensitive. He stated
32 Lakeville was much more expensive because of the length of the project
33 -.and would require the use of 20B Redevelopment funds for repaving. He
34 felt he substitution of 20B for 20A would slow down the Lakeville project.
35
36 Council .Member Torliaft was concerned that this was to be an Assessment
37 Distriet~cather than affecting ratepayers in the community.
38
39, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul ,Marangella
40 explained that for Lakeville,. Council had approved the design and would..
• 41 allow considering the feasibility of .crea#ing an Assessment District but
42 there would be some Redevelopment seed money too.
43
44 Council. Member Torliatt was coricecned about establishing Assessment
45 Districts in some areas but not others.
46
47 Ms: lgckie explained that it was a timing issue with the Old Redwood
48 Highway project being about ten years away. Lakeville Highway was a
49 higher priority for the Redevelopment area.
50
Vol. 40, Page 204 August 16, 2004 -
1 Mr. Marangella explained .that the engineering would be done next •year
2 for.Lakev.ille and a budget recommendation for the Spring/Summer,. so it
3 would be about atwo-year horizon..
4
5 Council. Member Thompson asked the. 'PGB~E Project Manager what the
6 next steps,would be to take the Bodega. Avenue project forward.
7 ,
8 Ms. Hoover, answering. Council Member Thompson's questions explained
9 the next steps would be to begih the Bodega Avenue ;project, She
10 explained.. there would be a formalized walk with all the utility companies
1 1 present to determine where riser poles will be. installed;. right-ot=.ways; and
12 who would be the ledd engineer/contraci`or to create the composite.
13 PG'&E„requires a composite .before budgeting; could be presented to the
14 Rule 20A Program Manager:~n San- Francisco. The process is an internal
15 forum, usually in October or No~embec;.when I'G8:E representatives such
16 as she ali negotiate for abailable money; .
l7
1.8 Mayor Glass clarified that this is an allocation of funds and thaf the City is
19 going fo request the funds. ~ .
20
21 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
22
23 M/S Moynihan/Healy. CARRIED UwANIINOUSLY.
24
25 B. Adoption (Second- .Reading) of Ordinance 2188 N.C.S.- Providing for
26 Appropriation of Funds for the .Operation o_ f the City of Petaluma,. CA from
27 July 1', 2004 through June 30, 2005. {Tofial Appropriations $146,584;700; All
28 City Funds,. including Petaluma: Community Development commission
29 (PCDC), ,Capital Improvement .Projects (CIP). and the Low to Moderate
30 Income. Housing Programs/Projects.
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan aid hE felt this, budget= reduced services to the
33 community for things such.. ds park and street maintenance and that" the -
34 .Service and Supply .expenditures are under-funded and will need '
35 adjustment.. He didn't support the employee compensation increases and J
36 felt they were overpaid which results in shorting servicE.;levels.
37 ,
38 MOTION to adopt the.ordinance: -
39. - - .
40 M/S O'Brien/Healy. CARRIED-~Y THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
41 -
42 AYES: Healy, O'Brien; Thompson, Torliatt, Glass
43 .NOES: Moynihan -
44 ABSENT: Harris
45 _
46 1. ..Resolution 2004-155 N:C.S. Adopting the Council Subcommittee's
47 Recommenddtions forthe Allocation of`Transient Occupancy'Tax (TOT)
48 Funding for FY '04/05., Funding. Source:: $300:,000 General Fund and
49 $90,000 PCDC (.Bierman)
50
51 City Manager Bierman explained the committee's recorrimendations
52 for funding.
S- 7
August 16, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 205
1 _
2 Vice :Mayor ..Moynihan questioned the City Manager's earlier
3 recommendation for not funding non-profits and the Visitors Program.
4
5 City Manager Bierman explained his .recommendation changed due
6 to the Council vote of 5 - 1 to enact the budget.
$ Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned this funding when services are
9 being cut. He requested the sub-committee to explain why they are
10 recommending this funding to non-profits.
11 -
12 Mayor Glass answered that he originally agreed with not funding
13 these programs but when Council agreed to fund the Visitors Bureau,
14 he _ didn't feel it made sense not to fund other fine programs,
15 especially with the community response in support of funding these
16 ,programs.
17
18 Council Member Torliatt explained that funding the Visitors Program
19 would help achieve the $1 million in TOT funds that. are budgeted this
20 year:
21
22 Council Memb°er O'Brien agreed with the Mayor and Council Member
23 Torliatt.• He changed his mind after talking to citizens.
24
25 Council ,Member Healy viewed that TOT revenues were dynamic and ;
26 come from: investing iri the programs that the community enjoys and •
27 also help to bring people from other areas to spend money in the City.
28
29 - MOTION to adopt the. resolution:
30
31 M/S Torliatt/O'Brien. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
32
33 AYES: Healy, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt, Glass
34 NOES; Moynihan
35 ABSENT: Harris
36
37 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated for the record he could not support
38 giving away $90,000 in public funds while intentionally under funding
39 public service levels. .
40
41 C. Resolution 2004:-156 N.C.S., Authorizing General Contractor and Electrical
42 Subcontractor Prequalificafion for the .City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water
43 Recycling Facility Project. (Ban/Orr)
44 - _
45 Water Resources and Conserydtion Engineering Manager Margaret Orr
46 presented this item with an explanation of the need for prequalification of
47 bidders for the Water Recycling Facility Project due to its complexity and
48 the technical expertise and experience required.
49 •
50 Vice~Nlayor Moynihan questioned why "Prevailing Wage" was required.
51
Vol. 40, Page 206 August ,1.6, 2004
1 Ms. Orr explained that this was necessary t,o receive State and Federal
2 , funding.
3
4 Council _Memb.er Healy suggested adding to the: prequdlification
5 requirements that contractors .provide information on' all their pubic works
6 projects, of a million dollars or more that have been completed within fhe
7 last five years.
8 ~ -
9 Councif 'M'ember O'Brien suggested. also. adding p requirement for the
10 contractors/sub'contractors lasf motor carrier inspection.
11
T2 Vice Mayor .Moynihan asked if the prequalification would delay moving
13 forward.
14
15 Ms. Orr replied that it would not.
1b
17 Council Members Torliatt and Thompson. amended their motion and
18 second to include Council.Members Healy and' O'.Brien's 'suggestions.
19 -
20 MOTION to adopt the resolution.
21
22 M/S Torliatt/Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
23 _ -
24 D. PCDC .Resolution 2004-15. Discussion 8~ Action Adopiing a Resolution
25 Approving the Plan-s .and. ,Specifications Prepared by Winzler 8~ Kelly
26 Consulting Engineers and ZAC. Landscape: ,Architects,: Approving the:
27 Project Budgef, and Awarding the. "Contract for the Petaluma Railroad
28 Depot Renovation Project, Phase 11; Project ~No. C200303; Authorizing -thee
29 Purchase of Trees from Sweet Lane Wholesale. Nursery:. ,(Work Entails
30 Infrastructure Improvements Including Installation 'of Sanitary Sewer; Storm.
31 Drain, Gas, Electrical, Railro.dd Signal Inaerconnect, .Irrigation Water, and
32 Lighting. Work Also Includes; :Landdscape dnd Hardscape Improvements,.
33 and Installation of. Site Furnishings. Esti_maTed Maximum Total Project Cost:
34 $1,342,734..50 Funded by Central Business District Fun 3300:) (Marangellaj
35
36 ;Director-of Economic Development and' Redevelopment Paul Marangella
37 presented this item ao Council and answered their questions regarding
38 construction costs, maintenance, access, turf, trees; -and concrete areas.
39 He explained that the rebidding resulted `in a substa`ntia! savings.
40
41 Vice Mayor Moynihan .questioned spending $3.1 million on property that is
42 - not owned by the City.
43
44 Council Member Healy answere.el, stating that, the prominence of ahis. site
45 and investment'is necessary to entice a priwgte developer to partner with
• 46 SMART and the City to do intense redevelopment of the block that will
47 generate fax income revenue:
48
49 Mayor Glass also commented on the process' of re.development° to cure
50 blight,- restore historical iandmdrks and provide ofher amenities 'for the
51 City. He stated it makes economic sense for the future -and that
August 16; 2004 VoL 40, Page 207
1 developers look for this type of commitment to improvements before they
2 invest.
3
4 MOTION. t.o: adopt the resolution:
5
6 M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
7
8 AYES: Healy, O'Brien> Thompson, Torliatt, Glass
9 NOES: ~ Moynihan
10 ABSENT: Harris
11
12 6. NEW :BUSINESS
13
14 A. .Introduction ;(First Reading) of .Ordinance. 2189 N.C.S. to Re-Establish or
15 AmencJ .Speed Limits. on Various Arteri'gl and Collector Streets Within the
16 . City of Petaluma. (Skladzien)
17
18 ,Director of Public Facilities and Services Rick Skladzien presented to
19 Council the first phase to be followed by the second in September, He
20 answered questions regarding speed limits, safety, and enforcement on
21 .Petaluma Boulevard South.
22
23 MOTION to introduce the ordinance:
24
25 M/S Torliat:t/Thompson: CARRLED UNANIMOUSLY.
26
27 6. Resolution 2004'-157 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
28 Professional Services Agreement with Revenue 8~ Cost Specialists, LLC for
29. ~ the Purpose of Assisting the. City in the implementation of the Community
30 Development Enterprise Fund (Moore)
31
32 Director- of Community Development Mike Moore presented the item to
33 Council .and answered questions regarding budgeting for this item,
34 .service performance standards; staffing, public hours, creating an
35 Enterprise. Fund, subsidy and revenue information, controlling expenses,
36 and Council control of funding.
37
38 Council .Member O'Brien inquired if there were proposed performance
. 39 standards for the community .Development Department and expressed
40 concern with this information not being included. .
41 ,
42 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated he -does not recall Council discussing the
43 pros and/or cons of establishing .Community Development qs an
44 enterprise fund. He expressed reservations regarding the lack of discussion
45 regarding this proposal, service: levels of the department and. how the
46 department would be impacted. He indicated a desire to more discussion
47 and/or information before making a decision.
48
49 Mr. Moore stressed the Community Development Department would not
50 be turning a profit by becoming an enterprise fund.
51
Vol. 40, Page 208 August l b, 2004
1 City Manag'er' B'ierrnan explained the proposed study would show what
2 the Ciry's subsidy is for various services. Community Development provides.
3
4 Nlr. Moore ex gained where enerated' revenues
i? g go within the General
5 Fund.
6
7 Council Member`Mike, Harris arrived at4:4'S p.m.
8
9 City Manager Bierman added they could add in that someone is
10 available at the front desk' from 8~ a,m. to 4 or 5 p.m. ff they didn't perform,
1 1 the applicant would' get a seduced .rate.
12
13 Council Member O'Brien indicated he feels the Community Development
14 ~ D.epartment knows 'the concerns with their restricted counfer .hours. He ,
15 stressed' the need fo know what the penalties would be~ to the _
. 16 department if' expected deadlines are not met..
17 '
18 Council ,Meember Wealy :noted there> is a..need for this professional'. services:
l 9 agreement to make an 'info;rmed decision regarding whether or not to
20 make them an enterprise fu"rid.
21
22 Mayor Glass stated his support for the proposed enterprise fund and
23 noted it is all atjout cost recovery:
24
25 Vice Mayor Moynihan commented' we~~ don't, need. to streamline and
26 provide better ervice - he questioned if`we ace currently giving the public -
27 goodservice:
28 '
29 - NIOiIQN to adopt the resolution: _ -
30 ~ -
31 M/S,Healy/Thompson. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING~VOTE:.
32
33 AYES; Healy,. Thompson, Torliaft, Glass- ,
34 NOES: Harris, Moynihan, O'Brien
35 .
36 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CiOSED SESSION' ~ ~ '
37
38 PUBLIC COMMENT '
39
40 ADJOURN TO COSED SESSION - 5:00 p.m.
41
42 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR`. Goxernrnent Code §54957:6.. Agency NegotiGtor:
43 .Michael Bierman/Pamala Robbins.: Employee Organization: AFSCME, IAFF Local 14:1.5 and
44 Unrepresented.Employees.
45 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION; 'Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e}: City .
46 Manager
47 CONFERENCE. WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION: Government Code §54956.9~a)
48 Brarriblett et al vs, City of Petaluma et al (Sonoma County Superior Court Case #IvICV-L749820.
49
50
51
52
53
August l 6,-2004 Vol. 40, Page 209
1 MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004 -EVENING SESSION
2 7:00 P.M.
3
4 CALL TO ORDER 7:08 p.m.
5
6 A. Roll Call
7
8 Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
9
10 B. Pledge of.Allegiance -Council Member Torliatt
11
12 C. Moment of Silence
13
14 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS TAKEN
15 .
16 ~No reportable action was taken.
17
18 PRESENTATIONS
19
20 Jim Wanderscheid, Marin/,.Sonoma Mosquito and' Vector Control - Gave a Special Report •
21 on the discovery of dead' birds that were. infected with West Nile Virus in Petaluma. He
22 explained the process that his. organization follows to detect if mosquitoes in Petaluma
23 are infested and,. so far, have shown that insects tested were not infected. He answered
. 24 Council and the public's questions regarding this disease and how to protect oneself
25 with repellent; long sleeves/pants, and reporting mosquito sources that the organization
20 would not be 'aware of. Once the virus is in the mosquito population, it will be in the area
27 permanently. He explained the symptoms as flu-like, with low-grade fever, headache,
28 nausea; a high fever indicates the virus is active. The virus can affect mammals and
29 amphibians. He explained the pesticide used is a BTI enzyme product (bacteria) that
30 acts on the gut of the developing mosquito larvae. He stated that the storm drains are a
31 source of the larvae.
32
33 PUBLIC COMMENT
34
35 Bill Donahue, Sandalwood. ,Homeowners Association -Requested the Council to issue a
36 resolution in support of the City of Cotati`s' Rent Control Ordinance from the 9th Circuit
37 Court of Appeals decision on Cushman vs, City of Cotati concerning the vacancy
_ 38 portion of their ordinance as unconstitutional.
`39
40 Geoffrey H, Cartwright, Petaluma -Addressed the illegal fill at the Adobe. Lumber site that
41' had been permitted by the County of Sonoma. He cited FEMA's designation and
42 ,explained where the water normally would. flow and how it has affected citizens
' 43 downstream and had resulted in increased flooding.
44
45 Tom 'Maunder, Pedestrian ~ Bicycle Advisory Committee - Read a memo from the
46 Committee regarding their support for filling the open position of Traffic Engineer to
47 address traffic safety problems in Petaluma.
48
49 Judy Hillery, Petaluma -..Stated that without developers there would be no eastside in
50 Petaluma or much of the Westside. She supported Rainier to allow access for citizens and
51 to relieve the extra traffic on Washington Street from the additional planned
52 development.
Vol. 40, Page 210 August 16, 2004
1
2 Stan. Gold, Petaluma - Spoke' about "overriding considerations" and the :Council's
3 responsibility to determine if the project were worthwhile despite negative findings;.
4' would the project .meet a real community need, and be willing to accept the
5 consequences.
6
7 Ron Kinyon; Petaluma -Requested Council to support Cotati's Rent Confrol Ordinance
8 against the court's decision. _
9
10 Councif Member Torliatl, regarding the rent control ordinance, asked if Cotati had a
1 1 draft resoluaion. 'Mr. Donahue said there was a statement of support and he will 'find out
1.2 more and let Council know.
13
1-4 Andrew Packard, Petaluma -Addressed Ch,elseq's no'n-payment of $1.2 million in fiunds ,
15 owed from. ten years ago for traffic mitigation. He wanted a full public accounting of'the
16 status of this contract including penalties and interest owed.
1'7
18 CQUNCIL.GONIAAENTS
19 _
20 Council Member Harris invited interested parties to the Dan Fager Memorial Scholarship
2l dinner and golf tournament:
22
23 Council Member Torliatt reported on her support of a fundraiser toybenefit the .Petaluma
24 .People Services Center.
25
26 Council'.Member Healy had a question for the .City Attorney concerning Cotati's issue.
27
28 City Attorney Rudnansky answered that .thee League of California Cities-. Advocacy -
29 Cornmi,ttee •was looking into this decision and he'would follow=up to -see what, comes out •
30 of their meetings. He also had a call to Cotati's City Attorney. He understood that Cotati
31 does plan to fight this decision and they have requested a re-.hearing.
32'
33 Council Member Healy requested that the City Attorney. monifor Phis situation and bring. it
34 to Council when action is needed.
35
36 City Attorney Rudnansky said his .office and other city attorneys 'are following this very
37 closely. He mentioned -that. one justice.,wrote a very strong dissent, _
38
39 Mayor Glass: had'. a question regarding Petaiuma's rent control and if it could. be ,
40 challenged because of the Cotati decision.
41
42 City Attorney Rudnansky said that tfe statute of limitations issue.. is involved in this and
43- Cotati's is different. He did not think Petaluma's was challengeable except possibly for
44 rent increases.
45
46 Mayor Glass wished to support 'Cotati.
47
48 Vice Mayor Moynihan commented on reading in the newspaper that the Regency
49 Project would include town homes and he wanted a major retail center: He requested •
50 identification of target areas to meet the future retail needs of'the community.
51
August 1 b, 2004 Vol. 40, Page'21 1
1 Council Member Torliatt wanted Council support of Cotati and asked. if this. could be put
2 on the .August 23~d agenda. Regarding the status of the Chelsea contract, she also
3 requested;information~on the contact and pursuing inferest and penalty monies owed.
4
5 Council ,Member O'Brien agreed with Council Member Healy's recommendation
6 regarding supporting Cotati's efforts.
7
8 Mayor Glass also wanted to know the resolution of Chelsea's contract,. the final date,
9 and any penalties and. interest owed.
10
1 1 Vice Mayor Moynihan said he had read the agreement and. did not see where penalties
12 and interests were allowed. He felt it was time to move on and the money collected was
13 sufficient.
14
15 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
16
17 There were none.
18
19 7. PUBLIC HEARING
20
21 A. River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village• Location: 2200 Petaluma
22 Boulevard ;North. [APNs 048-080-039,'007-401-043> 007-401-044(Parcel A);
23 007-391-009 (Parcel B); 048-080-038 (Parcel Cj;}048'-080-033,007-391-035
24 (Abandoned Railroad right-of-way)].. Project File No. REZ02001
25 Consideration and possible action on a~recommendation from the
26 Planning Commission regarding:
27
28 A Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Proposed
29 Development of Parcels B and' C of the. Former River Oaks/Petaluma
30 Factory Outlet Village.
31
32 o A Modification to the: River ..Oaks/Petaluma ;Factory Outlet Village
33 Master Plan. to Allow Developrnent°of.Pq~cels B and C as Proposed in
34 the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned Community District
35 General Development Plan.
36
37 -PUBLIC COMMENT .
38
39 Mayor Glass explained that public comment was , to: address the
40 adequacy of the Environmental ,Impact Report and .not the merits of the
41 project. If the Council decided that the EIR adequately addressed the
42 environmental issues,. then ,public comment on the merits of the project
43 would. be taken at a .later meeting.
44
45 Planner Betsi Lewitter introduced the project and the environmental
46 review process. She stated staff' had provided additional information in
4.7 response to questions raised by Council at the previous public hearing. If
48 the public hearing and Councib deliberation was concluded, Council
49 could take action on fhe adequacy of the subsequent EIR before taking
50 public input on the project ifself.:At Council Member Torliatt's request, and
51 for the ;benefit of the public, Ms. LewitYer gave a brief outline of the
52 project's history.
Vol. 40, .Page 212 August 16, 2004
1
2 Community Development Director Mike Moore explained the ;m.emo ~frorn
3 staff in response to David teller's attorneys' that. had been placed on the
4 Council's .dais, The attorney had reque"seed thaf the subsequent EIR be re-
5 circulated to which the Department responded that the EIR was: legally
6 adequafe. The. memo is available to the public.
7
8 Mayor Glass explained that it had been agreed at the last public meeting
9 to have peaple• who had commented at the first meeting to speak after
10 the new speakers had made their comments.
11
12 John :Klein, Senior V.P. of Real Estate;: Chelsea Property" Group;. Petaluma
13 Village Market. Place addressed the merger of Chelsea with Simon
14 Property Group of Minrieapolis: Thee purpose of the merger was :due to
15 Simon's evaluation ofi Chelsea as the best developer of outlet.rnalls. They
16 have .developed three properties in ,a joint- venture. and the purpose of'this
17 merger was to create growth` and, expand the multi-tenant platform of .
18 both companies.. Chelsea will. be a division of Simon and' wilt have the
19 same management team. The merger is expected to be completed this
20 fall and they plan fo continue with the full:" development of the. Petaluma
21 ~ V.illage Market Place..
22
23 Council M'em6er Torliatt. had questions about ~fhe performance of
24 Petaluma Village Market Place as 'comp`ared to Chelsea's other outlet '
25 malls..:
26
27 Mr. Klein said that it was average in its performance and it is their hopeto
28 expand uses of the Marketplace.
29
30 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
31
32 Theresa ~ Mahoney; Petaluma -Stated it was important to maintain
33 balance 'in afamily-oriented' community :and she would like to see this
34 area developed into parks and playing fields.
35
36 Michael Litwak; Petaluma ~ Objected to the expansion but. was not
37 ,familiar with the ,EIR. He referred"_. to his previous home 'in San Fernando
38 ~ ~ Valfey and the developmenf that occurred o create a poor
39 environrnert. He' asked theCouncil fo look at a qualitative 'perspective
40 . - ~ rather -than just the legal issues.
41 - ~ _
42 Jerry Price; Petalumb -Stated". that a retail: study listed this project as
43 number 9 out of 9 :as a :desirable retail site. He wanted to see a report on
44 the cumulative -traffic impacts in the EIR as it rel -aced to retail and
45 preventing' sales tax leakage: He also .mentioned `flooding that would
46 create future liabilities -and that he supported creating ball fields/parks'in
47 the•area.
48
49 .Murray Rockowitz, Petaluma -Referred to the overall consideration of'the
50 .business climate, the .floodpldin, habitat, charac er of the city,,.-traffic, and:
51 the need fbr open space and `ball fields.. He felt: the development in the'
August 16, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 213
1 CPSP (Central Petaluma, Specific Plan) and, •at Kenilworth would provide
2 enough retail and that there is only so much retail to go around.
3
4 Council Member O'Brien asked about the speakers not addressing the EIR.
5
b City Attorney Rudnansky agreed that the only agendized item is the
7 subsequent EIR but the speakers addressing the merits of the project does
8 not affect how the agenda was worded.
9
10 Mayor Glass did not support denying anyone their comment-time
1 1 .because the item is on the agenda. He asked the public to focus on the
12 adequacy of the EIR. •
13
14 Harold Bard, Petaluma - He found it frustrating that .issues like this have
15 been ,before the Council for years and resented the efforts of special
16 interest groups to prevent any growth at all. He asked Council to support
17 and approve the. EIR as adequate.
18
19 Cindy Thomas, Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition -Felt that the
20 . community is part of the environment and the EIR impacts did not address
21 fhis. The Coalition suggested a Community Impact Report (CIR) to assess
22 the social and economic. impacts on the.;comrnunity. The low-wage jobs
23 created at the Outlet would result in subsidizing these jobs with welfare
24 and health care because the employees would not be self-supporting.
25 She sdid other cities are using GIR's.
26 .
27 Barry Bussewitz, Petaluma -Supported parks; open space ball fields, retail,
28 and sales tax revenue. He referred to the sites rating from the Retail Sales
29 Leakage Study and that he felt this development would take away parks,
30 open space and ball fi'elcls.
31
32 Bonnie Bard, Petaluma She read the EIR, and, from her past experience
33 reviewing EIR's, she supported the EIR as being adequate and asked for
34 Council's acceptance.
35
36 Stan Gold, Petaluma,-..Addressed. the Traffic S,tudy~ in the EIR and stated
37 that the mitigations: cannot be put into practice and are therefore not
38 mitigations. He thought the Kenilworth and CPSP developments and other
39 retail development wouldcreate retail that the City could not support.
40 -
41 Nick Wilson, Petaluma,.- Was concerned with the .streams that are on the
• 42 property and the flooding issues. From an article he reported that
43 aesthetically, the Petaluma Outlet .Mall was vofed the ugliest in Sonoma
44 County a few years back. He saw vacant stores and little patronage
45 when he visited.
46
47 David Yeclrsley, Petaluma River Keeper Was against paving over the
48 River corridor and explained the positive environmental affects of the
49 riparian area. He stated there was a better place for creating retail areas.
50
Vol. 40, Page 214 August T6, 2004
1 Ray Pete"r§on; Petaluma-;Addressed the EIR. and brought pictures showing
2 the flooding at the Outlet- Mall. He went' through the sequence ;of events
3 that brought the development and did not support the expansion.
4
5 Bill. Phillips, Petaluma -Stated the .need for more parks ih Petaluma and
6 saw the area:as an ideal spot for a park and the EIR did not address this.
7
8 Ettamarie: Peterson, Petaluma -Stated that water is necessary to recharge
9 the aquifer and. paving it over`will prevent this and this was not addre_ ssed
10 in the EIR"; and'the parkinglot run-off pollutes.
11
12 Ruth Feldman; Petaluma - -Stated that all of these issues were. covered. in
13 1994 when the mall was established. She supported revenue from sales
14 tax that °fhe mall will generate. She wanted to know what the Council`s
15 position was if the City was not going to get this additional sales. tax..
16
17 Matti Christensen, Petaluma -She felt that the outlet expansion and the
18 apartments planned would. cause more flooding. She proposed =that th"e
19. owners of the project or the writers of fhe hydrology report .post ap
20 annually renewing'.bond'to cover the property owners-$800` per year flood
21 insurance cost,. to indemnify the City from flood damage caused by
22 development; .and also indemnify property owners for their'incre,mental
23 loss of property value caused by flooding. ,(Elise Wilson, Petaluma ceded
24 herpublc c'orriment time fo NCatti Christensen).
25
26 H.R. Downs,, O.W. l: Foundation, Penngrove - He did not feel fhe EIR
27 adequately addressed the'serious water supply problem or groundwater
28 managernent`coneerns in:Sonorna County.
29
30 Jean Logan, Petaluma -Shev.isited the site. and noted vistas, creeks',
31 certain wildflowers, grasses and vernal pools in the area. She reiterated
32 the groundwater and run-.off issues and stated that the land. is serving its
33 appropriate purpose. _ ~ .
34
35 .John ,Mills, Petaluma - .H.e did not„support the creation. of ball fields on the
36 property ;and an .EIR would be required for that too.
37
38 Wayne Morgenthaler; .Petaluma -Referred to Council Members O'Brien,
39 Nealy; Thompson`s position, on the Rainier initiative and the development
40 of : th.e adjacent land. 'He suggested an EIR .'that included. cumulative
41 impacts on the-`whole-area and would avoid piecemeal planning.
42
43 Connie M'atlden, Petaluma' - Agreed with Michael Litwak, She wdnted to
44 know what the overall environmental, cultural. and financial impact ~on
45 the City would be from, this project.
46
47 John .Cheney; Petaluma - :He stated he was against this EIR. He wanted
48 this plan ;to be analyzed ,by the General Plan~`'s hydrology program. He
49 also talked,about'traffic,.arurrent FEMA Report> and asked the Council to.
50 not support the EIR and put it off for a year until FEMA and the hydrology
51 study was do`n'e:.
52
August 16, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 215
' - 1 .Geoffrey Cartwright, Petaluma - (.Ramona Paul and .Bill Donahue ceded
2 their timme.) Reminded Council that 400 homes are flooded in this area
3 when. a floodoccurs. Stated.. the -EIR is not adequate: He went over-the
4 FEMA reports that ,showed various cubic feet per second of water flow
5 that determine EIR impacts were lower than .several other studies of the
6 area. He felt that the EIR did .not address fhe cumulative effects of
7 flooding, .groundwater recharge'. needs, and traffic impacts that the
8 development projects would create. He referred ~ to letters and
9 information he had provided to the City regarding flooding issues in
10 Petaluma that were not addressed in the EIR.
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE,ADEQUACY OF THE EIR CLOSED
13
14 Council Recessed from 9:34 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., at which time Council Member Thompson
15 leff fhe-City Council Meeting for the evening.
16
17 MayonGlass explained that brief comments from the applicant or Council
' 18 Members would be taken this evening on the EIR and then at another
19 ~ meeting, at which Public Comment would not be reopened, Council
20 Members would offer their comments at length.
21
22 Discussion among Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Moynihan,. Council Members
23 Healy and Torliatt and City Manager Bierman. resulted in a decision to
24 certify the EIR first and then address the merits of the project. The timeline
25 would be September 13, 2004 to finalize the Council's decision on the
26 adequacy of the .EIR only.
27
28 Vice Mayor Moynihan. had .questions for staff regarding his concerns
29 about circulation and traffic issues and their proposed mitigations and
30 mitigations that were not considered.
31 -
32 Mr: Moore explained that the final 'EIR would represent the extent of the
33 analysis and the comments and responses to the analysis. Any issues that
34 were separate from the .EIR .could be suggested as Conditions of
35 Approval. If the Council .felt that issues were riot covered in the EIR, then
36 Council could request additional analysis that might require re-circulation
37 of the EIR and rehearing.
38
39 Council Member Healy clarified that if Council certified the EIR and.then
40 after discussion of the project wanted to add conditions, this would -not
41 require re-circulation of the EIR.
42
43 Mr. Moore ariswered that if the Council determines that the EIR is
44 adequate then Council could move on to the project's issues. He
45 explained how the environmental impacts of the mitigations would be
46. evaluated: He explaihed that if the Council determines that the EIR is
47 inadequate and if issues are not covered to a Council Member's
48 satisfaction, then those concerns should be addressed now.
49
50 Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated that he felt anorth-south corridor would
51 benefit the project, particularly,along the. rail .line from Corona to Rainier.
52 He wanted to know how this new' access would affect the impacts on
Vol. 40; Page 216 August 16, 2004
1 intersections that- ;the current EIR deemed as sufficient. He asked if -this
2 would require: voting " No" on the EIR dt this point or would it be a
3 condition; of,the projecf.
4
5 Mr. Moore indicafed that 'this could be a condition of ffe project
6 approval and: he said this° access was covered in the ElR, and, because it
7 was not part ofi'the project #here were no traffic impacts. He, stated this
8 road .could' be included ip the Conditions of Approval.
9
10 Councif Member Torligti asked again f.or a colored Site Restraint Map
1 1 showing. all the constraints with the ite plan. overlaid so that she could see
12 the constraints with and: without mitgafior.
13
14 Vice ;,Mayor Moynihan commented on retail's special' neEds for location
15 aril the preseht location was nofi utilized, to° its full extent because of
16 access constraints. He felt 'the- project w.as dependent on the cross- town
17 connector and the cross 'town connector was dependent on the project.
1$ He once- again explained his support for the four-lane Village Road
19 alternative.. He felt that the project should pay for its access, and thdt
20 ~ without this access, the project would fail, he wanted a plan that was do-
21 ~ able..
22
23
24
25 ADJOURN
26
27 The meeting was'adjourned at 10:07 p'.m.
28
29
30
31~
32 _
33 -
34 .
35 'David Glass, Mayor ~ ,
36
37
38 '
39 Attest:
40 _
41
42 Gayle P~ rsen, City Clerk '
43
44
45
46
4$
49
50
51
52