HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/21/2004 June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 119
~SAI'U~
a ~ .
City ®f Petalu~aa, Califor~aaa
J MEETING OF PETALUMA CC7MMlJNITY DEVELOPMENT
Isla COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
City PCDC/Council Minutes
Monday, June 21,.2004-2:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
1 CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 P:M.
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Members Harris,. Healy, Moynihan, O'.Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
6 and Mayor Glass
7
8 Absent: None
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 None.
13
14 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
15
16 CLOSED SESSION
17
18 CONFERENCE WITH 'LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code '§54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
19 Michael Bierman/Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME, IAFF Local 1415 and
20 Unrepresented Employees.
21
22 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code §54957.6)
23 City Designated Representatives: Mayor Dayid Glass and Council Member Healy.
24 Unrepresented Employee: City Attorney
25
26 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATEp LITIGATION -'Significant Exposure to Litigation
27 (Government Code §54956.9(b)) (1 matter)
28
29 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
30 Manager
31
32 RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
33 .
34
35 CALL TO ORDER-AFTERNOON OPEN SESSION-- 3:10 pam.
3b
3T
38 A. Roll Call
39
40 Present: Members Harris., Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
41 and Mayor Glass
42
Vol. 40, Page 120 June 21, 2004
1 Absent: None
2
3 B. Pledge of Allegiance
4
5 PUBLIC COMMENT
6
7 Frank Simpson, Petaluma Involved Neighbors (PINS),, provided a letter for' each' Cou_neil
8 Member and the City Clerk. Mis group, has contacted various. stores at the, district and
9 corporate level with respect to cart management practices and .policies.. Their response
10 has 'been very' positive grid action: has been taken.. He wanted the Council to ehdorse
1 1 the "CAPS" system and establish. cart guid'eliries for new stores.
12
13 Tom Cordon, Petaluma, promoted "Celebrate Accordion Day" that will be held 'the
14 fourth Saturday of June each year. He invited all to attend.
15
16 Phil Greschner, Petaluma, described.. the actions of a door-to-door salesman who came
17 to .his family's .door and became irate when he declined their product: Ne asked for
18 Council's assistance in preventing this company, ahd others like it, from doing business'in
19 the City.
20
_
Paf`McShane; President St. Anthony's Farm Auxiliary, Petaluma, distributed a packet'fo
22 Council that explained St. Anthony's Farm's goal as a rehabilitation center for persons
23 without income. Theywill be celebrating their 50i" anniversary this year.
24
25 Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, distributed information regarding the current budget
26 agreement between local government and the State.
27
28 REPORT OUT•OEGLOSED,SfSSION ACTIONS TAKEN
29 - -
30 No reportable action was taken.
31
32 COUNCIL C011AMENTS
33
34 Council. ,Member O'Brien attended the opening day of the Sonoma-Morin Fait and
35 lauded the young men and women for their participafioh at the fair.
36
37 Hemeritioned That North. Bay Disposal had. a booth, with a sign that 'said, "Lowesf Bid,
38 Best Service." He asked that-.the City's consultant' look into this so that the process of
39 cho~sirig a provider isn't tainted. .
40
41 Council Member Torliatt thanked the ,PINS group for their efforts regarding shopping carts
42 and RV parking issues.
43 .
44 She reported fhdt the City received approximately $250,000 from. an EPA. Brownfields
45 grant to use in the redevelopm°ent area. to clean-up hazardous waste sites; another grant
46 may follow later fhis.year.'She welcomed this federal funding.
47 ~ _
48 Last Thursday, she and the ;.Mayor toured the County's landfill, Empire Waste
49 Managemerf's facilities, North Bay Corporation facilities, Industrial Carting, Facilities and
50 Redwood Landfill's facilities. The tours of Nor-Cal and a site in Gilroy will follow and a
51 report will be gi,Ven .July 19t".
52
June 21, 2Q04 Vol. 4Q, Page 121
1 Mayor Glass explained his experience with North Bay at the Fair and ~ his impression of
2 their presentation to fairgoers,. He stated .that the franchise decision is very complicated
3 and the garbage issue will come back to Council.
4
5 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
6
7 There were no comments.
8
9 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Changes to current agenda only).
10
11 None.
12
13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
14
15 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
16
17 A. City Council Minutes of Budget Workshop Meeting of June 1, 2004.
18
19 MOTION, to adopt the Minutes:
20
. _
- "21 - - - ~ - ~ M7STorliaft drill O'Brien: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
22
23 2. APPROVAL'Of PROPOSED AGENDA
24
25 A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of July 12,
26 2004.
27
28 ~ Council Member Healy wanted to add a decision to accept the Casa
29 Grande Motel site ds a replacement for Fire Station #1. The City Manager
30 suggested this could b e dddressed at either the July 12t" or July 19tH
31 meeting.
32
33 Vice. -Mayor Moynihan asked about the PCDC and CIP discussion. City
34 Manager Bierman. suggested .going over these budgets at a special
35 meeting in July and indicated he will get -back to Couricil regarding the
36 date.
37
38 Council Member Torliatt wished to .add #o the Rainier issue that she
39 wanted .staff to provide cost-reldt.ed iriformatiori and whether alternatives
40 will show an at-grdde railroad crossing or a structured crossing of the
41 railroad. She also wanted Council's direction to Sonoma County
42 Transportation Authority ahd CdlTrans to move funds for the auxiliary lane
43 widening from East Washington Street to Lakeville for use on the
44 Washington Street overpass. to 'create a northbound on-ramp from the
45 East side of town, as well as widening improvements that need to be
46 coordinated from Ellis Street to the southbound freeway on-ramp at East
47 Washington Street. She expressed that this was. necessary for the
48 - coordination of the Regency project to provide a funding source for
49 improvements to that intersection.
50
Vol. 40, Page 122 June 21, 2004
1 Additionally, she noted she felt :fhat Council. supported a, presentation. to
2 be given on "'Hold the. Flow'' arid' wanted to `know when this would be
3 before the. Council
4
5 Council Member Healy indicated. he had raised the. same: questign with
6 CalTrans and requesfed that the City .Manager contact` the SCTA and.
7 CalTrans representatives to coordinate a timely meeting.
8
9 MOTION to'adopt .the proposed :agenda:
10
1 1 M/S Healy and Harris. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12
13 3: CQNSENT CALENDAR
14
15 Mayor Glass requesfed item 3.C be removed for, separate. discussion.
16
17 M'OTION'to adopt-"the balance of the Consent Calendar:
18
19 Ivl/S Torliatt and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
20 . ,
21' A. Adoptiori ~ ~(Secorid~~Reading) of brdiriance~ 2186 N C:S: ,Authorizing
22 Amendment No. 1 i'o Two Niner; Inc. Ground :Lease Located at the
23 Petaluma Municipa(Airport. (Skladzien/close)
24
25 B, Resolution. 2004=1'02 NC.S: Approving the Phase. I Final Map for the
26 Sfirdtford Place/G:atti Subdivision. (Bates)
27
28 C. Resolution Authorizing the Developer, O'Brien Group., to. Commence
29 Grading Activity Prior to Finial Nlap Approval on the Site of Magnolia Place.
30 Subdivision located on Magnolia. Avenue, Samuel Drive and Gossage
31 Avenue. (Moore/Bates) This item was removed for separate discussion: by
32 the City :Council.
33 '
34 ~ D. Resolution 2004-103 N:GS: Approving 3% .Increase- 'in the Petaluma
35 Municipal Airport 2004-2005 Rental Rates for' Hangars and Tie-Down -
36 Spaces. (Skladzien/close) .
37
38 E. Resolution :2004-104 N'.C.S. Approving `'Correction/Mod' ification. of Grant
39 Deed and~Conditions" (Petaluma Ecumenical Properties (PEP). (Gaebler)
40
41 F. Resolution 2004-1.05 N.C.S: Approving. the Final Ahap for the 'Premo
42 Subdivision: (Bates)
43
44 G. Resolution.2004-'106 N.C:S. Approving Claims. and Bills. (Netter)
45
46
47 FURTHER DISCUSSION OF 1TEM_3C:
48
49 C. Resolution.. 2004.-107 N:C.S: Authorizing the Developer, O''Bci'en Group, to
50 Corrimence Grading Activity 'Prior to Final Nlap Approval on the Site of
51 Magnolia 'Place Subdivision, located on Magnolia Avenue:, Samuel' prive
52 and Gossage Avenue. (Moore/Bates)
' June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 123
1
2 Vice Mayor Moynihan recused himself as the applicant (Mission Valley
3 Properties; Inc:) has a firidncial'interest with a client of his Nexus Realty firm
4 and left the Council Ghgmb..ers during discussion of this item.
5
6 Mayor Glass explained he would be voting "No" on this item because the
7 grading permit application. is unusual.
8
9 Council Member Healy requested further clarification regarding how
10 many additional trees were to be removed .and notification to the
1 1 neighborhood.
_ 12
13 Council Member Torliatt wanted clarification if this was contingent upon
14 SPARC approval.
15
16 Community .Development Director Mike Moore explained. that a grading
17 permit is not a public notice item ds it is essentially a building permit. This
18 process is offered to all applicants due to the time limitation on grading.
19 Tree removal is tied to SPARC's review of the landscape plan and has to
20 be -consistent with the tree removal plan that had been reviewed by
_ _ - - -
21 ~ - - ~ f ~CDD: This will be reviewed dt'SPARC and the public has been notified.
22
23 ,Council Member Healy asked for clarification of the approval of the
24 grading .permit that would ..not allow the. developer to go above and
25 beyond the approved tree removal plan presented in the initial approval.
26
27 Director Moore explained that if the grading permit is approved, the
. 28 developer would have to,submit a revised tree removal plan based on soil
29 reports and engineer analysis.-°This~ grading plan would have to be
30 consistent with all their approvals. He did not know .however, if the
31 additional trees were part of the public notice.
32
33 ~ Betsi Lewitfer, Planner stated that the landscape plan submitted to SPARC
34 did not include the tree mitigation plan.. A Condition of Approval has
35 been added to the landscape plan requiring the tree removal to be in
36 conformance with the tree mitigation plan that would come back for
37 SPARC approval.
38
39 Council Member Healy requested clarification of what trees were to be
40 removed.. He was concerned about the. trees in question behind Kathleen
41 Way that the neighborhood wanted to preserve.
42
43 Ms. Lewitter stated the trees would be .removed from the north side. She
44 explained that these trees would have to be removed because of an
45 engineering soils issue,- She explained that the soils analysis required
46 excavation of up to thirteen feet adjacent to the property line to prevent
47 slippage and sediments from affecting founddtions of the homes to be
48 built. The arborist identified these eucalyptus trees as sprouts from trees
49 that .have been cut down and could be a hazard to the homes. She
50 suggested that Eric Keller of the' O'Brien Group clarify this issue. She said
51 the live oaks would be relocated according to the tree mitigation plan.
52
Vol. 40, Page 124 June 21, 2004
1 Council Member Healy asked ifi.after the odk relocation, if the only net loss
2 would be eucalyptus trees. He requested further explanation concerning
3 the 142 trees: were these :just recently identified or were they counted
4 previously;. if the: difference 'was known; and what had changed since
5 project approval?
6
7 Ms. Lewitter .indicated that when the initial study was done, 70 trees were
8 to be removed and_83 were to be."impacted." Now, 142 tofal trees are
9 going to be removed out of the 425 frees on the parcel. Of the 142, :126
10 are non-indigenous. and' 34 trees; of which all but one' is live oak; 'will be
1 1 impacted. The approval requires replacement of all 142 trees at a. ratio o.f
12 3.2:1. This plan would provide 454 native trees replanted on the sight..
13
14 Council. Member Torliatt requested clarification that .none of the grading
15 would occur until -the SPARC approval is complete.
16
17 Ms. Lewt#er responded "no" to this as the developer wpnted the grading
18 permit now before the end of construction. season. SPARC will look at if for
19 the first time this Thursday. 'The.. Condition of Approval requires a Final
20 Landscape Plan that includes all the information from the. tree mitigation
2~1 ~ plan to'come ~back~"for- SPARC '"approval- so the ~g~ading would . occur -
22 before the final plate ,comes back toSPARC for approval.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt clarified that the grading plan would allow the - -
25 developer to grade according' to the existing pldn but not .removing the
26 trees that they are proposing to remove.:
27
28 Ms. Lewitter explained that the grading permit approval would :allow them '
29 to remove trees and to,grade.according to the new soils report.
30
31 Council Member Torlialt stated that she would not suppgrt this 'item
32 because the neighborhood has not been .noticed of this specific issue; it
33 has not gone to SPARC, and is not contingent upon SPARC approval 'of - _
34 the grading and tree removal.
35 -
36 Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Propertie"s, Inc.; he addressed the notifica}ion
37 of neighbors issue ,by stating that a letter was sent to the affected:
38 neighbors:-regarding the additionai tree loss along with the current plan,
39 and the provision for the planting of new trees.
40
41 Council MemberTorliatt askedstGff to explain why Council was not made
42 aware of this notification by the developer.
43 '
44 Mr. Moore explained that'the Department did not do a public notice; the
45 developer did it on their own accord:
46 -
47 Council Member Torliatt explained that she thought the City would
48 perform public noticing in conjunction with the SPARC application
49 addressing pecifically the issues that had been .changed. She. stated that
50 the free removal issue was not specifically mentioned in the revised
51 notice.
52
June 2;1, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 125
1 Mr. Moore saiel that the notice senf for SPARG was a notice that the entire
2 .project would be coming before SPARC and did not specifically identify
3 the tree removal'issue.
4
5 Council Member iorliatl asked that the grading permit not be granted
6 until there is full SPARC approval of the site plan. This would allow
7 neighbors. the opportunity for public comment and that the noticing
8 should be a minimum 300 feet-from the affected area.
9
10 Mayor Glass. stated .that this project came to City Council after several
1 1 Planning Commission. rejections and the Council gave assurance to the
12 neighborhood that SPARC would have full review of this. He stated that
13 the 142 trees are dll that were left of what was a forest protected in the
14 General :Plan. He felt that the neighbors should have this reviewed by
15 SPARC before more trees ace~removed.
16
17 Eric. Keller, O'Brien Group, explained that presently there are 445 trees on
18 _ the sight. The .original reports required further soil investigation.. This
19 investigation. uncovered areas of non-engineered fill requiring soil to be
20 excavated aril re-compacted with. engineered fill from three _ feet__to . ,
21 ~ thirteen "feet, depending ~on~ the..Iocation. He explained that excavating
22 soil near second and third .generation eucdlyptus results in undermining
23 the tree's shallow root system and creates a hazard which already exists
24 on this site to adjacent homeowners to the north of the property. He
25 stated previous plans called for 7Q trees to be removed, now a net add of
26 72 trees has been identified. The initial report showed several more native
27 oak trees to be removed that are now being preserved through the
28 prborist's relocation =process that have been successful in other projects.
29 He explained the impact on the: site's wetlands that were created by a
30 storm drain. A Corps permit was necessary with an authorization requiring
31 mitigation. To accomplish this their engineers proposed a 6:1 ratio to
32 create the- wetlands because the soils are very loose and- makes it difficult
33 for wetland species to grow. The creation of the wetlands required
34 removing additional trees. The Regional Quality Control Board (RQCB), the
35 Army Corps of Engineers, and , the Department of Fish dnd Game
36 ~ Approved the wetldnd mitigation monitoring ,program. The developers
37 understood' all this had. t:o go before SPAR.C,. but they wanted Council to
38 approve. the „grading with the understanding; that the 3:1 ratio to replant
39 with native trees was part of the project. He supported -the tree removal
40 process as necessary. due to the geotechnical reports on the soil and the
41 eucalyptus trees. The RQCB and the Corps require, these improvements to
42 be completed by October 15. This process will take them eight weeks to
43 complete.
44 .
45 Mayor Glass stated that al( the reasans support why the parcel should
46 have remained as a park and, he would not support this. He said that
47 more trees were being, subtracted and the. promise to the neighborhood
48 would be involved when it went to SPARC. He wanted to know "what's in
49 it for the City?"
50
Vol. 40, Page 126 June 21, 2004
1 Council Member Healy questioned the map showing the removal. of 'the
2 non-engineered fill and how this would impact trees outside the
3 de~efoper's..property line.
4
5 Mr: Kelferstated that theywould.have to work with the adjoining: property
b owners for the trees located on fhe north side near the private lane.
7
8 CounciP ~Mem6er Healy stated he would- approve a grading permit
9 consistent with the original approval of the project :and allow the findl.
10 work to be done when SPARC approves the landscape ,plan and other
1 1 issues:
12
13 Director Moore stated that these are fechnical issues and are better
14 questions. for the builder. The soil reports: require that the :trees be removed
15 to allow the project to proceed.
16
17 Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properties, stated that when the soil report wds
18 originally done, the site. ha,d been leveled in the 1950's and fhe outer
19 edges were not of a concern. He did not feel. that SPARG .had the
20 authority `to tell .-the- developer to leave the trees based on the soil
- ~ conditions. - -
,22 .
23 Council M,emberNealy :had question"s regdrding the removal of trees on
24 the developer's property and ;the,, structural impact on neighboring
25 property`s trees, because of the grading up to the property line. He asked
26 if anything on'.the Magnolia sight had changed.
27
28 Mr. Aguilar .stated that" there were no' changes to the Magnolia sife. He
29 commented that the. park-site is not where the tree loss would:occur.
30
3`1 Mr. Keller answered Council Member Healy's concerns regarding the
32 Gossage;,side by stating `than the number Hof`trees located' on the other
33 side of the property line was not si.gnificanf's They`w.ould have to survey the '
34 .exact property. ,line qnd `that tree 'removal would occur before the
35 grading began'. He added that any tree removal on the adjacent
36 property.would', require; that their plan be amended.
37
38 Council. Member`Healy-asked how this would be`accomplished based on
39 the grading request.
40
41 Mr: Keller explained fhat this w_ ouid be a mitigation measure tied to
42 SPARG approval of the project. -
43
44 Council Member Healy supported issuing a grading. permit for the
45 Magnolia site. but not th`e,Gossage site at this time.
46
47 Council Member Thompson asked. if. letters had been sent to the adjoining
48 property owners: whose trees would b'e impacted.
49
50 Mr. Keller explained that letters. were sent Monday, June 14, 2004
51 informing. neighbors of'the meeting tonight and also of the tree mitigation..
52 plan along with copies of the exhibits. He stated that: three parcels would
June 21, 2004 Vol, 40, Page 1..27
1 be affec ed'. He stated..the developer would make it a condition to obtain
2 affected-neighbors permission before removing the trees.
3
4 Council Member Thompson said, that this would be acceptable to him. He
5 stated that he could not approve the grading, until property owner
6 permissions are obtained.
7
8 Mr. Keller stated: that they would agree to this and bring this to SPARC as a
9 condition of approval.
10
11 Council Member O'Brien questioned .granting the grading permit
12 contingent on .SPARC approval and permission to remove the trees from
13 the affected, neighbors.
14
15 Director ,Moore stated thclt this would be acceptable and the Council
16 could apply additional conditions.
17
18 Mr. Keller stated that they would agree to not remove any trees along the
19 northerly Gossage Avenue property line until they had SPARC approval of
20 the pre-mitigation plan to issue the grading permit absent the site
1 ~ddjacent~to ~th~e'trees:
22
23 Council Member Torliatt commented that if the soils reports had been
24 done in d timely fashion during the application process this could have
25 been dealt with at that time.
26
27 Mr. Keller replied, stating that the two previous engineers had followed
28 protocol regarding the soils report.. The use of three test borings missed the
29 fact that this was not engineered fill. as required for the improvements.
30 Their group dug a pit and the cross-section revealed the soil problem. He
31 ,felt it would be beneficial to be monitoring the-.situation this: winter rather
32 than causing delay to his group.
33
34 Council Member Torliatt stated that if.SPARC doesn't recommend the tree
35 removal or relocation, this would affect the decision Council would make.
36 She felt an expert needed to review this before Council makes a decision.
37
38 Councif Member Healy supported Council Member O'Brien's proposal
39 and wanted to add hand delivering within a 300-foot radius over the next
40 day or two and including more detail in the letter regarding what will be
41 covered in the meeting. He ,reiterated his proposal. to approve' the
42 grading permit for the Magnolia parcel with; th.e approval for the grading
43 permit on the Gossage parcel conditioned on SPARC's approval of the
44 landscape plan and agreements with the neighbors.
45
46 Council Member O'Brien. wanted to add that if the trees need to be
47 removed. because of a hazard liability, that whoever makes the decision
48 to leave the trees assumes personal liability for that decision.
49
50 Mayor Glass stated that if this grading permit were approved as
51 .requested, in light of the complications and lack of neighborhood notice,
52 he would not support this project.
Vol. 40, Page 128 June 21, 2004
1
2 Council 'Member Healy motioned to approve the requested ;grading
3 permit with respect to the Magnolia parcel and to .approve ;the grading
4 permit for 'the .Gossage parcel conditioned on approval of the
5 landscaping .plan by SPA'RC; additional notice #o the: neighborhood for
6 SPARC; and for the applicant to reach an agreement with neighbors
7 whose trees_will be impacted by this proposed plan.
8
9 Council Member Torli'att stated, she would not support this because the
10 Magnolia parcel needs to be part 'of the SPARC approval. before the
1 1 grading moves forward because trees will be removed on the Magnolia
12 parcel'.
13 .
14 Ms. Lewitter ;stated that SPARC would not have the final landscape plan
15 for this 'Thursday's meeting. The :preliminary landscape pldn submitted to
16 SPARC did not show the cur~enf tree removal proposal. She stated that
17 with this motion, Council would review the tree removal except #or the
18 Magnolia parcel.
19
20 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
21
22 M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED ON A 4-2-1 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 AYES: Healy, Thompson, Harris, O'' Brien .
25 ,NOES: Glass, Torliatt .
26 Recused: Moynihan
27
28 Vice Mayor Moynihan returnees to the Council Chambers. -
29
30 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
31 .
32 A. Matter of Discussion and Adoption of the Proposed 2004-05 City' of Budgef:
33
34 Option_1:
35
36 o Resolution Adopting the FY 2004-05 City of Petaluma Budget.
37
38 ~ Introduction and Adoption of an :Ordinance Prodding fo"r
39 Appropriations for FY 2004.-2005 and- Declaring an Urgency. (Netter)
40 _ O f2 -
41
42 Option 2
43
44 ~ ' . Resolution Adopting the FY 2004-05 City of :Petaluma Budget.
45
46 Introduct,ionP (First Reading) of an Ordinance Providing for
47 ~ "Appro.priations for FY 2004-2005. (Netter)
48 ~ "
49 Resolution 2004-108 N.C.S. Providing 'for Temporary Appropriation of
50 $,1 O;000,OOO for Operation of''the City of Petaluma Beginning on July 1, .
51 `2004: Netter)
52
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 129
1 City Manager Bierman explained the two options. Items that were
2 requested to be added included $35Q,000 for items funded out of the
3 Transient Occupancy Fund; $130,000 added to the Police .Department for
4 the Narcotics Officer and Gang Task Force, membership; and $110,000
5 added to Parks and Recreation for additional park maintenance supplies.
6 These revenues came from the State motor vehicle fees, which were
7 increased °by $170,000. The ending balance of $215,000 from TOT funds;
8 $155,000 from the. General Fund carry-over balance from the current year;
9 and $50,000 from PCDC for tourism efforts totals $590,000 and allows for a
10 balanced budget.
11
12 Vice Mayor Moynihan had the following. questions concerning the budget
13 process: naming the number of positions eliminated; transfer-ins/outs;
14 requested a .sources and uses. summary; and a restatement of an
15 incorrect street reconstruction fund report. He stated he would not
16 support the emergency ordinance without the PCDC and CIP budget
17 information, but he would support giving staff time to provide this.
18
19 Council Member O'Brien explained that he would not support .passing the
20 budget because of the followmg_ : He felt that some of the budgets were
21 -incomplete~~o~~~inaccurate ~He nofed Community Development's short
22 counter hours, no cross trdining, and' lack of Code Enforcement. He felt
23 PCDC .projects burden other departments with maintenance and without
24 the PCDC budget; Council cannot determine how it affects other
25 department's budgets.
26 ,
27 Finance. Director Netter clarified that according to the Charter, the
28 appropriation bill allocates the funding. Adopting the budget wasn't
29 time-sensitive, but the appropriation bill of $10 million allows the City to
30 continue issuing checks.
31
32 PUBLIC COMMENT
33
34 Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, wanted clarification of the Parks
35 Department receiving an additional, $300;000'or was $150,000 promised?
36
37 City Manager.Bierman clarified the.numbers as follows: $110,000, $130,000
38 and $350,000 as the final numbers.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt clarified for Mr. Chechanover that a Council
41 Member had proposed an increase fo $300,000, but this would require
42 cutting in other areas and.. no proposal was, offered to support this; the
43 $1 10,000 was brought back. She supported approving the budget as one
44 document .including the PCDC and C(P and.. adopting the resolution for
45 the $'10 million dollar appropriation.
46
47 .MOTION by Council Member Healy and seconded by Mayor Glass to
48 adopt the '.Resolution Adopting the: FY 2004 City of Petaluma Budget.
49 MOTION DIED'by the following vote:
50
51 AYES: Glass, Thompson, Healy
52 NOES: Harris, Moynihan,Torliatt; O'Brien
Vol. 40, Page 130 June 21, 2004
1
2 Vice. Mayor .Moynihan rriotiohed fo ~ adopt Resolution Providing- for
3 Temporary Appropriation of $10;000,000 for Operation of the City of
4 Petaluma Beginning on July 1, 2004.
5
6 M/S Moynihan and Torliatt. CARRIED UNAryNIMOUSLY.
7
8 B. Resolution ;2004=109 N.C.S., Ordering Abatement of Nuisance Consisting of
9 ~ Weeds Growing, on Public/Provide property~n the City of Petaluma and
10 Ordering the Fire Chief to Remove Said Weeds by contract or his.: Own
1 1 Forces. (Ginn)
12
13 Fire Chief` Chris Albertson presenfied the weed abatement item. They had
14 invited citizens toattend a public hearing regarding the. plan to remove
15 weeds.
16
17 Mayor Glass opened the public hearing, .but hearing no requests to
1$ speak, closed the public hearing.
1'9 ~ _
20 MOTION' to adopt the resolution:
21 - _ . , - _ . _ _ - . . - - - . - _ _
22 M/S O'Brien and Torliatt: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
23
24 5. UNFINISHED"BUSINESS -
25
26 A. Reconsideration. of Action Taken on May 3, 2004 of Resolution 2004-074 -
27 N.C.S Encouraging the California Coastal Conservancy, ;the California
28 State' Park System, and. Local Goy,ernment Officials to Work Together to
29 Create a Park' and. Trail Sysfem of Regional Significance on Sgnoma
30 Mountain: (A motion was made on June Z, 2004 by Council Member
31 Thompson; . secontled by Council Member O'Brien, and carried
32 unanimously; to set this matter for:discusson on June 21, 2004.)`
33
34 Council Member Thompson gau'e ,a brief history of this controversial item.,
35 He stated that he had a ,negative .response from the State, and would
36 therefore not support: this resolution.. He `suggested forming.. a committee
37 and agendize: this to put forth a united front from. Petaluma to do
38 something with the land:
39
40 Council. Mei~iber Torliatf~wdnted clarification of the phrase "do something
41 with fhis'land."
42
43 Council.. M`emb-er Thompson explained` that whatever the committee or
44 the City decides.
45
46 Mayor Glass :also wanted clarification. He .recalled that th,e resolution did
47 not meet Council Member Thompson's wording requirement.
48
49 Council ,Member Thompson stated. 'that' the wording at the end of the
50 resolution. was premature and ;he wanted 'dll the citizens b'ehi'nd this issue
51 to .move forward with the property:
52
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 131
1 Council Member Torliatt suggested leaving the asset in its existing state
2 until the time comes when resources are avdilable to make it a public
3 park.
4
5 Vice Mayor Moynihan supported looking at all the alternatives, the
6 formation of a committee and agendizing the item.
7
8 Mayor Glass stated he was: expecting new language that would change
9 the resolution instead of disregarding it. He wanted specific wording to
10 correct the language of the current resolution.
11
12 Council Member Healy requested clarification whether it would be a
13 .citizen or a Council committee and .supported forming a citizen's
14 committee.. He was concerned that the Coastal Conservancy funds were
15 time-sensitive, and if the statement of interest by the State was removed, it
16 might jeopardize those funds. He preferred to use the language indicating
17 the City was prepared fo discuss options with the State and Coastal
18 Conservancy .
• 19
20 Council .Member O'Brien supported ,__Council Member Thompson's _
21 - ~ - ~-suggestion-of~either a cifizen oYcounC'il committee. He wanted public
- 22 inpuf on this item.
23
24 Council Member Harris supported asub-committee either of Council or
25 citizens and to have this agendized.
26
27 Council Member ~Torliatt wanted clarification that the sub-committee
28 would specifically look at potential parkland development on Lafferty.
29 She stated that the community is fully aware that the Council had been
30 pursuing Lafferty as a park and their decision was to pursue that goal by
31 talking to the State as a funding partner.
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan also wanted clarification and wanted to agendize
34 this for Council discussion and give direction,
35
36 Council Member Harris wanted an appraisal and a subcommittee.
37
38 Council Member Torliafil wanted feedback from the Council regarding
39 changing the vision of developing Lafferty as a park.
40
' 41 ~ Council Member Thompson stated he wanted Council to.decide where
42 they are going on this as to whatever use Council agrees upon.
43
44 PUBiIC COMMENT
45
46 .Bill Kortum, Petaluma, felt that Council Member Thompson was reversing
47 himself on the current resolution that he proposed and mentioned that
48 the: public supports action on Lafferty. He noted the regional significance
49 of Lafferty .linking to Jack London State Park. To create a regional park,
50 regional, cooperation is needed with the state park system and the
51 Coastal Conservancy. He supported keeping the resolution in place to
52 impress these organizations of Petdluma's resolve.
Vol. 40, Page 132 June 21, 2004
1
2 Jerry Price, Petaluma, tdlked about the-opportLnity of .having a trail from
3 Petaluma. to Jack London State Park. He wanted the resolution to go
4 forward and support the .generous. offer of the easement offered by a
5 Sonoma .Mountain landowner. He supported the Council to vote for the
6 resolution as if stands.
7
8 Larry Modell, Petaluma; reminded Council that the stated policy .of the
9 City of" Petaluma was, to open Lafferty :and keep it in ypublic ownership
10 under Resolution ,2022.. ~He felt the. rnountdin belongs to fhe citizens of -
1 1 Petaluma and wanted to keep the resolution as it was.
12
13 Will Stapp; Petaluma; saw the importance of Lafferty as a public property
14 that would. link to a regional. trail .system. He wanted to .move forward and
15 adopt the resolution.
16
17 City Attorney Rudnansky reminded Council that the item before Council is
18 the reconsideration of the prior resolution, not to change" policy qr to
19 establish a subcommittee.
20
"-21~~ ~ - MOTION to'~escind the resolution:
22
23 M/S Thompson and Moynihan
24
25 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
26
27 Council ;Member :Harris requested clarification that a "yes" vote would ~ -
28 rescind the resolution. The Ci f y Attorney said yes.
29
30 Mayor Glass stated that this was brought back with the: intention that
31 Council Member Thompson was going. to amend the resolution... When~the
32 ;Council votes to rescind the ",motion it will: be as ~if nofhing had been done.
33 Any furth"er policy would have to reagendized.
34
35 Council Member ,Healy requested that this item be added to the next -
36 meeting's agendc to estdblish either a citizen or subcommittee; the
37 charter of the commiftee; and th,e timefrarne involved'. He expected, "this ~
38 to not take more than two months. -
39
40 Council Member 'Torliatt stated- she was comfortable with current City
41 policy, which was:. to pursue establishing a park. She wanted to agendize-
42 this item -only if .Council Members wanted to change this ;policy with a .
43 specific request to do so.
44
45 Vice Mdyor Moynihan, stated that four Council Members supported this..
4,6 He wanted to know what would happen to the original resolution that was
47 voted on for reconsideration.
48
49 Council. Member `Torliatt clarified .that there- are :four members on the
50 Council who want to agendize a discussion on 'Lafferty, to change -the
51 current policy ofi moving forward with Lafferty as a park.
52
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 133
1 Motion. made ,by Thompson, seconded by Moynihan, CARRIED BY THE
2 FOLLOWING~VOTEc
3
. 4 AYfS: O'Brien, Moynihan, Harris, Thompson
5 NOES: Healy, Torliatt, Glass
6
7 B. Continued Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Prequalification of
8 Contractors for. Bidding of Public Works Projects. (Bierman/Ban)
9
10 Water Resources and Conservation Director Mike Ban gave a presentation
1 1 on the screening of potential bidders according to criteria established by
12 state law in 1999 with the following. three guidelines: to establish a
13 standardized questionnaire; to adopt and apply a uniform rating system;
14 and to adopf an appeals procedure for contractors. He explained the
15 two options for prequalification of contractors either for a single contract
16 or to pregualify a pool of contractors for multiple projects. This would allow
17 those contractors fo bid: on a series of contracts for up to one year. To
18 ~ implement, he recommended that the department continue developing
19 the prequalification package for the water recycling facility and when
20 this is a roved, it could be used as a ternplate_for future projects.
.21. _ - --pp _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
22 Vice Mayor Moynihan had several questions regarding the .
23 .prequalification process and how,it: affects the general contractor and his
24 'team of subcontractors, Director Ban and City Manager Bierman
25 answered these. .
26
27 Council Member Healy supported the Alternative I recommendation for
28 major projects. He wanted qn explanation of why it wouldn't be helpful to .
29 do it on an annual basis like for street reconstruction and to approximate
30 what the. cost would be to do this annually.
31
32 Manager. Bierman replied that~~prequalification was to identify a particular
33 level ofakill that a contractor would offer.
34
35 The .City Council accepted t_he report and indicated they will discuss
36 program details in August.
37
38 C.
39 Gsmmercial Meeting Fee~~~iermen7--(Releted from agenda until
40 Manager looks at facilities. It is anticipated this item will b'e heard 7/12/04):
41
42 6. NEW BUSINESS
43
44 A. Introduction and Adoption of.Ordindnce 2187 N:C.S. to Amend Ordinance
45 No. 21.79 N.C.S.;. Declaring an Urgency, To. Change Certain Appropriations
46 for the Operations of the City o$ Petaluma from July 1, 2003 through June
47 30,.2004. (Netter)
48
49 Finance Director Jo.e Netfer explained this procedure as required annually
50 to .submit financial statements to federal and national agencies for the
51 Certificate of Performance and 'Financial Reporting. It requires that all
52 appropriations be at a zero level, especially for the general and
Vol. 40, Page 134 5une 21, 2004
1 governmental funds. The three accounts exceeding were Community
2 Development ($200,000), Transit Enterprise ;x$450,000) "and 'Vehicle
3 Replacement fund ($450,000). This .must be approved prior to June
4 30,2004.
5
6 COUNCIL. DISCUSSION
7
Mayor Glass: reminded the community that there would, be no additional
9 financidl impacts; all the expendifures have been approved by the City
10 Council
11
12 Vice. Mayor Ntoynihan noted that every 'amendm'ent adds to the total
13 appropriations.. Hey wanted to reduce instead of adding to the
14 appropriations.
15
16 Director Netter explained this.. is a. line-item budget that precludes.
17 trdnsferring from one line item to the next.
18
19 MOTION to adopt the Ordinance: •
20
~ - - -N17S'-Healyarid~0"Brien, CARRIED UNANIMOUSiY.
22 . ,
23 B. Resolutionr20U4-111' N.CrS. ;Appointments to Various Board"s, Committees
24 and Commissions. Applicants fo various vacancies and/or terms on
25 boards,. committees and commissions'that are expiring on June 30, 2004.
26 (Fefersen)
27
28 :City Clerk Gayle- Petersen explained the process and applicant
29 `information.
30
31 City Manager Bierman requested removing the Airport Commission from
32 the appointments.
33
34 ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - :Appointed Erin 'Laughlin;,
35 Charlie Reinhart and Dan~Zirrmrne~man.
36
37 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS - Appointed Brent Russell
38 _ .
39 PEDESTRIAN AND' BICYCLE :ADVISORY COMMITTEE' - Appointed Bernie
40 Album, To`m Maunder and •Jared Vollmer
41
42 VOTE: Council`was unanimous.
43
44 CityMdnager Bierman sugge"steel ~elimiridtirig the Personnel Board.
45 -
46 PLANNING COM"MISSION =-Appointed•Sfephanie McAllister.
47
48 VOTE: Mayor Glass„ Thompson, Healy, Torliatt voted for Stephanie
49 McAllister.
50 Harris, NSoynihan, O'Brien voted. for Mark Ferguson,
51
52 RECREATION, MUSIC AND PARKS COMMISSION -Appointed Joseph Noriel
June 21, 2004 Vol:. 40, Page 135
1
2 VOTE: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, Torliatt, O'Brien voted
3 for Joseph Noriel
4 Mayor Glass voted for Linda Postenrider
5
6 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE -Appointed John Mills
7 and Lawrence Reed.
8
9 VOTE: Mayor Glass -voted for David Rapp and Lawrence Reed
10 Harris voted for John Mills grid .Lawrence Reed.
1 1 Healy voted for Lawrence Reed and Mary Shearer.
12 Thompson voted fbr John Mills and Lawrence Reed.
13 Moynihan voted for John Mills and Mary Shearer.
14 Torliatt voted for David Rapp and Lawrence Reed.
15 O'Brien voted for John Mills and Lawrence Reed.
16
17 TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE -Appointed Lofroos, Meyer and Wilson were
18 appointed to the two-year term.
19
20 .Dan Zimmerman was appointed to the one-year term.
_
22 VOTE: Council was unanimous.
23
24 YOUTH COMMISSION - Jarnes Burleson was appointed to the two-year
25 term and Patt Herfindal and. Dan Zimmerman;vvere appointed to the one-
26 year term.
27
28 VOTE: Council was unanimous.
29
30 11AOTION to adopt the resolution:
31
32 M/S Glass and Thompson.. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
33
34
35 B. Resolution .2004-112 N.C:S. Awarding ,a. Construction Contract for FY 2003-
36 2004 Redevelopment Area.- Local/Residentia.l S#reet Rehapilitation Project
37 No. 03-C201 104-1 (formerly 03-C50~1604-1 (SKladzien/Castaldo)
38
39 Public Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzen presented this
40 resolution that would repair 57 segmerifs of s"treats in the area; the bid was
41 awarded to North Bay Construction. This project would bring the streets in
42 the residential area to a rating of 90=100 in the redevelopment area.
43
44 MOTION to adopt the resolution to include a list of all the streets:
45
46 M/S O'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSL'Y..
47
48 C. Resolution 2004-113 N.C.S. Setting .City of Petaluma. Holidays.
49 (Netter/Bobbins)
50
51 MOTION to adopt the resolution
52
Vol. 40, Page 136 June 21, 2004
1 NITS O''B~ien and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2
3 D_ Discussion pnd Possible Action, of Waiver Request from Meyers Nave
4 Ribaek Silver & Wilson Regarding Legal Review of Proposed.Amendments
5 to :the. Sonoma .County Waste Management Agency Joint Powers
6 Agreement: (Bierman).
7 ,
8 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
9
10 Council Member Healy asked if Meyers Nave. Attorneys had been
l 1 involved in negotiating' fihe Joint Powers Agreement and how would this
12 affect the City Aftorney's abilfy to cooperate in the City's defense.
1'3
l4 City AtFomey Rudnansky replied that.he didn't remember negotiating the
15 agreement but`it may have been .reviewed for sign-off.
16
17 Vice ;Mayor Moynihan. had questions regarding if litigdtions were to arise,
i 8 would another waiver be necessary.
19
20. City. Manager Bie"rman explained. that this°waiver would be for all garbage
- '2`l ~ - - ------~relat~ed issues.-"'The City-would-have to hire- ariother attorney to represent
22 the City in .regards to fhe JPA and. th`e County landfill.
23
24 Vice Mayor Moynihan said that he would not support this waiver if .Meyers '
25 Nave led the litigation against the City of Petaluma and other cities in the
26 county:
27
28 City Manager Bierman. explained that this could occur, but would not
29 involve City Attorney Rudnansky persohally.
30 -
31 Council~Member Torliatt asked if tfie City had a choice to say whether
32 another cit'y,uses Meyers Ndve.
33 -
34 Attorney Rudnansky stilted that the waiver must be_ unanimous. Outside
35 -counsel. would represent the :City and Meyers Nave would not designate
36 _ him as the attorney in~ this case. He stated that this is a broad waiver and if
37 there were: litigation,~`there would be the possibility that Meyers Ndve
38 would be` involved.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt: withdrew her motion.
41 -
42 Council Member O'Brien confirmed that City Attorney Rudnansky would
43 'be precluded from discussing any information about Petaluma with his
44 law firm.
45
46 Council Member Healy motioned. that he would' support this- waiver. He
47 stated that .with the ethical wall required of City Attorney Rudnansky,. it
48 -would be the fairest t`o the other cities.
49
50 M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED ON A 6-1 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
51
52 AYES: Mayor Glass, Healy, Torliatt`, Harris; Thompson, O'Brien
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 137
1 NOES: Moynihan
2
3 ADJOURN
4
5 The afternoon session adjourhed at 6:30 p.m.
6
7
8 MONDAY. JUNE 27, 2004 - EVENING:SESSION
9 7:00 P.M.
10
1 1 CALL TO ORDER
12 .
1.3 A. Roll Call
. 14
15 Present: 'M'embers Harris, Healy; Moynihan, Thompson, Torliatt
16 and Mayor Glass .
17
18 Absent: O'Brien
19 '
20 B. Pledge of Allegiance
__...21-
22 C. Moment of Silence
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT
25
26 Susan Gilmore, PCSD; explained a proposed measure for the ballot and indicated this
27 was a similar measure to last year's Measure C except for the secondary schools would
28 be on the November ballot to .keep libraries open, reduce- class size, provide two
29 computer technicians, funding for hardware and software and fund music and fine arts
30 materials.
31
32 Charles Carle, Paula Lane Action Network, stated that the public process must proceed
33 and requested the Paula Lane item be agendized as soon as possible.
34
35 Betsy Dinkel, Paula Lane Action Network, stated that she would like the Council to
36 remember the group's request to not support the Paula Lane development.
37 V'
38 Vince Landof, Petaluma, objected to the ''Chinese pagodas" at the
39 Washington/McDovvell intersection instead of providing for .a right turn lane fo head
40 north. He did not feel it wds right for citizens. to pay forthe entire development=required
41 infrastructure.
42
43 Janice C'ader-Thompson, Petaluma, presented two letters to Council regarding the Riper
44 Oaks/Petaluma 1=actory,Outlet Village that referred to possible conflict of interest with
45 Nexus; Realty, Asldn Insurance, Council Member O'Brien's security business, Council
46 Member Harris's employer Cross Cheek and' the selling of stocks/bonds/real estate to
47 receive benefit from the Council's support of this project. She also mentioned the
48 Rainier/Cross Town connector as being within 500 feet of property represented by Nexus
49 Realty- and .thus Council 'Member Moynihan should recuse himself because of this
50 financial interest.
51
Vol. 40, Page 138 June 21, 2004
1 Council Member.Moynihan responded as a point ofi honor that Ms.Cader-Thompson has.
2 repeatedly made these assertions. He sfidted that he does not own property in the area
3 but that she does.
4
5 Jerry Price, Petaluma., stated that he supported the development within downtown by
6 Basin Streef as an implementation of the River 'Enhancement Plan. He congratulated.
7 Council-for their support of the Petaluma Central Specific Plan.
8
9 Jane Hamilton, Petaluma, warned. information. regarding Chelsea's payment of the
1.0 traffic mitigation fee and if it included interesa and penalties, and why it`was for $950,000
1 1 not the full $1 million owed.
12
13 David Keller, -,Petaluma,. had questions about the $965;000 payment .received from
14 Chelsea:. He feels that fhe agreement with; Chelsea as co-signer of a joint City bank
15 account conflicts with 'how the money would be spent. He saated that this new
16 agreement would be a Brown Act violation: He stated that the interest and
penalties
17 dating'from 1996, which would have.dmounted to about $1 million, appear to have been
l8 waived. He reported that Simon Group had purchased the Chelsea Property Group for
T9 $3 billion so they could well afford fo ,pay these penalties. He pointed out conflicting.
20 wording on the put7lishedagenda as,"Council may,.take_possble_ac#on"_conflicte.d with.__.._
~2l' another version that was. mailed which stated "Council will ,hear presentation by staff
22 and applicant .and .open the public hearing for comment,. no decision on ~ the
23 application will be made at the meeting of June 21."
24
25 COUNCIL;COMM'ENTS
26
27 `Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that the debt has been collected and hat this debt had
28 been i nored b _
g y previous Council Members. Since this debt was to specifically provide
29 for the Rainier/Cross Town connector, he felt that ahe suggestion that a new .dell has
30 been negotiated was incorrect. He felt that the City was fortunate to get this money `in
31 light of so many years passing without fhe Council collecting the funds.
32
33 Council Member To~liatt referred to Marilyn Sullivan's request at the April 15> 2004;meeaing
34 regarding a review by the Planning Goi7imission of the conditions of approval for the
35 G&G Market development: She asked-.that a: memo explain whystaff has not placed ahis
36 on the Planning Commission agenda. a.nd to contact''the citizen with .an~ explana:tion, or
37 that Council be noticed_as to when it would be;. on the Planning; Commission:`s agenda.,
38 She .commen_ted on the Paula Lane .item and wanted to know if a.here was.a timeline for
39 the application to be heard `by City~Council since ahe~Planning Commission took action.
40
41 City Attorney Rudndnsky stated that he was, not ,aware of any specific time limif Ghat
42 needs to be met to „being it back. He clarified that if there are specific regulations that' -
43 require additional environmental review then whey would have to be addressed.
44
45 Council Member Torliatt stilted that she: had noa rrm,et with'the developers of-ahe Chelsea
46 Project for two to three years. She would. like :the City Manager to address the
47 negotiations regarding ahe ..money owed, the fees and ;penalties owed to the City, and
48 the initial obligatiop of Chelsea. She wanted' to enforce that the: dollar amount wa_ s. paid
49 included penalties. and interest. She also wanted clarification of where the $465,000
50 figure came from and whether the Council plans. to waive interest and penalties, which
51 she did not support.
52
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 139
1 Council Member Healy was also concerned about the noticing of the hearing on the
2 agenda. He feels that the Council was not in a position to take action at the meeting.
3
4 Mayor Glass tabled this item and went to item 8A-Landscape Assessment.District.
5
6 8. NEW BUSINESS
7
8 A. Public Meeting to Hear Testimony Regarding the Annual Assessments for
9 the Landscape Assessment .Districts .and the Setting of the FY 04-05
1.0 Landscape. Assessment Districts Annual Assessments. (Anchordoguy)
11
12 Resolution .2004-114 N.C.S. Describing Improvements and Directing
13 Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
14
15 Resolution 2004-115 N.C.S. Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report for
16 Landscape Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
17
18 Resolution 2004-11:6 N.C.S. Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of
19 ~ Assessments for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
20
2T Parks and Landscape :Manager Ed Anchordoguy .presented the annual
22 setting of the assessments for Fiscal -Year 04/05; the Public Hearing would
23 be set for July 1.2, 2004. He mentioned the removal of most of the debt in
24 twelve assessment districts ~by the transfer of Assessment District 21 in last
25 year's budget into the LAD's. Three remaining districts will operate in the
26 -red ;but a vote this fall to either increase the assessment or lower the
27 maintenance should resolve this: Assessments were lowered in eight
28 districts.
29
30 PUBLIC COMMENT
31
32 There was .none.
33
34 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky cautioned that the affected Council
35 Members recuse themselves even in the noticing of the Public Hearing.
36
37 Council Member Healy motioned for the resolution with the recusal of
38 Council Member Torliatt for Kingsfield.
39
40 M/S .Healy and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY with O'Brien absenf
4`l and Torliatt recusing herself.
42
. 43 Council Member Healy motioned for the resolution for Corona Creek II.
44
45 M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY with O'Brien absent
46 and Harris recusing himself.
47
48 Council Member Healy motioned for the resolution for Greystone Creek.
49
50 M/S Healy and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY with O'Brien absent
51 and Torliatt recusing herself.
52
Vol. 40, Page 140 June 21, 2004
1 Vice Mayor Moynihan` MOTIONED `to adopt the. remaining districts:'
2
3 M/S Moynihan and Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4
5 Mayor Glass referred to the process of approving the Magnolia Grading
6 as causing procedural -issues because the Planning Comrriission's denial.
7 of the project did not allow the Commission to provide . their
8 recommendations to Council. The only way to aceoniplish this would be:
9 for the Comrnissiori to have approved the project with their negative
10 recommendations. He would like to see procedural changes made.
11
12 City Manager'Bierman explained that the': total. amount owed! by Chelsea
13 was $1.2 million. Chelsea paid; $235,000 and' the $965,000 was the
14 remainder of the total amount: This money is in a joint account with, the
15 City and' Chelsea. He stated. the 1997 CCR's on the. project are. still in
16 effect aril that at the end of this year the money was to be, used: for
17 Rainier and then traffic impact fees for any. purpose the Council
18 designated.l"he $1.2 million applied only~to the original project and did
19 not impact the current information before Council for the expansion.
20
- `21 ~ Council Member Torliatt wanted clarification of the interest and penalties
22 owed:
23
24 City 'Manager' Bierman explained- that the '$965,000 did not `include any ~ ,
25 irate"rest or penalties.. He stated that :the 1997 .agreement was used and he
26 signed only the documents for the'joint bank account.
27 -
28 Council Member Torliatt asked: if the City was entitled to .interest and
29 penalties pursuanf to those provisiohs in the 1997 CC8~R's: And, if so> had
30 there been any promises to not collect them.
31
32 City Attorney Rudnansky stated that he did not khow; he would have to
33 .look at the CCB~R's. The 1997 CC&Rs did require that an escrow be set up
34 and this was not done.. He uhdersfood that Chelseg was paying directly to
35 the City acid stopped this when their request for the establishment of an
36 escrow account was not acted upon. The. City Manager tried.'to resolve ~ "
37 this matter.
38
39 Council Member Torliatt requested that fihe City" Attorney look: into
40 whether fihere are interest and penalties that should be assessed to the
41 unpaid balance that was due during "the time period. She also wanted to
42 .know if any promises have been made regarding payment of interest and
43 penalties. The City Manager stated "No. "
44
45 Mayor Glass returned'to Item 7A -'River OakslPetaluma Factory Outlet Village
46 -
47 7. PUBLIC: HEARING
48
49 A. River~0aks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Villages .Location: 2200 Petaluma
50 Boulevard North. j~APNs 048-080-039., 007-401-043., 007-401-044(Pcircel A)'';
S1 007-39.1-009 (Parcel B); 048-080'-038` (Parcel C); 048.080-033,007-391-035 ~ -
52 (Abandoned Railroad. right-of-way),]:, Project File No. REZ02001
June 21, 2004, Vol. 40, Page 141
1 Consideration .and possible action on a recommendation from the
2 Planning Commission regarding:
3
4 A Final Subsequent Envi~orimental Impact Report for Proposed
5 Developmerit ofi Parcels B and C of the Former River Oaks/Petaluma
6 Factory Outlet Village.
7
8 A Modification. to the- River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village
9 Master Plah to Allow Development of Parcels B and C as Proposed in
10 the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned Community District
1 1 General Development Plan.
12
13 City Planner Betsi Lewitter began -with a history of the 72 acres as a
14 Planned Community District (I'CD) established in 1991. This was to allow
15 _ development of the Factory Outlet Village. The site was developed as
16 three ,parcels; the northern Parcel C consisted of 16 acres; Parcel A, the
17 middle consisted of 25 acres and was developed as the Factory Outlet;
18 Parcel B, the southernmost parcel, consisted of almost 23 acres. Three
19 creeks are included, Corona Creek, Capri Creek. and Deer Creek. The
20 _ _ _ __Master .Plan was included in the original approval and_the specfic_uses_for. _ , . _ _ _
21 the remaining parcels were to meet the General Plan definition of Special
22 Commercial. The develo.prnent of Parcels B and C requires a modification .
23 to the approved Master Plan. The .new plan is referred to as the General
24 Development Plan .and addresses,. project objectives, permitted uses,
25 architectural, landscape andRiver. Walk. circulation. fn 1991 the EIR was
26 cerfifieci with a Condition of~ Approval requiring additional environmental
27 analysis when .Parcels B & C were developed. The City has hired a
28 consultdrit to prepare a ..subsequent EIR.. The review period ended
29 February 3, 2003. She explaihed that: the adequacy of an EIR is described
30 by CEQA ds what is "reasonably#easible" in'light of the magnitude of the
31 project and the severity of the likely environmental impacts. To certify the
32 subsequeht EIR,'it must be found that the document has been completed.
33 in compliance with CEQA and it had been ..reviewed and considered
34 before ~p~oject approval. She stated that the Council must certify the
35 subsequent EIR and the consideration of the modification. of the Petaluma
36 Factory Outlet Village Master.Flan to allow development of Parcels B & C.
37 The applicants are. proposing up to 163,000 ~sf of retail arid parking on
38 , Parcel B; on Parcel C they propose up to'.81,000 sf of retail and parking. A
39 proposed- hew road., called' Village. Dri.v;e, would cross the River from
40 Petaluma Boulevard North. and ,provide entrance to Parcel B and
41 continue behind Parcels A. B to access Parcel C. The River Walk on
42 Parcel A would be extended to provide public access to the River. She
43 explained .that' the quality ~of the mitigation wetlands impressed the
44 represehtatives from various agehcies during fan April 2004 on-site visit as
45 being superior to the origin_ab wetlands. Traffic and air emissions were listed
46 as .impacts from the development, but these were determined to be
47 mitigated by _improvements to the intersection and roadway and
48 adoption by Council of an exemption of intersections from level of service
49 thresholds. She stated that the Council has to balance the benefits of the
50 project agaihst the unavoidable project-related environmental effects.
51 The Planning Commission recommended certification of the subsequent
52 EIR, and after five additional public hearings, the Commission voted for
Vol. 40, Page 142 ~ Ju'ne 21, 2004
1 approval of the PGD modification with several conditions of approval.
2 One special condition was a 1:~-foot access corridor for the .Petaluma
3 ~ Trolley, wl'ich the developer has allowed for as well. as addressing the
4 :overall parking ratio; the- extension of the River Walk to Parcel B;
5 establishing a conservation easement to preserve fhe triangular portion
6 ,on Parcel. B .near Deer Creek; and indemnification against any losses ,due-
7 to flooding if the hydrology report is inaccurate. .
8
9 Council Member Torliatt `requested a copy of the nofes to be provided to
10 her and Council.
11
12 Mayor Glass polled the Council. to determine who had rnet with the
13 Developer.
14
15 City Attorney Rudnansky indiedfed that to ;provide: the public with
16 information regarding their decisions, 'council Members would indicate
17 .whether they have had conservations with the developer.
18
19 Mggor Glass and Council Member Tgrliatt did not meet with the
20 developer:
22 ~ `Council Member Harris stated he had an approximately 20 minute
23 conservation that was a;general overview of the project..
24
25 Council.Member Healy indicated:.he lids met with the developer'in the
26 past, but not within the~last six~months.
27
28 Council` Member Thompson met with the developer a couple of years
29 ago but--could not recall. the specifics.
30
3} Council Member Moynihan met aril the topic was '`where's the money?:"
32 ~ and he evaluated the preliminary ,plan and discussed circulation. issues.
33 He went into detaiC regarding lis concerns and ideas about .the cross-
34 ~ town connector at this meeting.
35
3b Matt Connolly, Chelsea Properties, felt that. the purchase by,Simon:was, a
37 plus. for- the mall and Petaluma: 'He `sta'ted., that 'the. developer has
38 complied: with aq conditions of approval. He atat'ed `the project would
39 continue =the implernent_atior of the' Pe.tafurna River Pfan to create :public .
40 access to River; will pr"oude an annual contnbution of over a rnillion dollars
41 in sales and property taxes; development fees will total over $3.5' million;
42 the project would contribute fo infrastructure irnprovemenfs; offer
43 employment opportunities; provide additional retail and commercial
44 opportunities; and reduce retail ledkdge. He presented a letter from Basin
45 Street statingthat the expansion a,t the. outlet mall will complement not
46 competewith their project. He introduced the architects working, on the
47 ~ project who gave a `presentation explaining the project`s site ,plan and
48 landscape plans.
49
50 ~ Council Member_Healy asked. if;:this had been presented to SPAR:C.
51
III
L
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 143
1 Mr. Connolly answered that it had been to SPARE but this would have
2 been before the revisions negotiated with the City Manager and Planning
3 Commission.
4
5 Council .Member Healy asked what Chelsea would be looking for in a
6 development agreement.
7
8 Fred Etzel; Counsel for Chelsea. Properties, indicated he hoped for a
9 development agreement that followed the City's general form similar to
10 the agreement with Basin Street with the five-year initial term and possible
1 1 extensions.
12
13 Mayor Glass pointed out that this site was different from Basin Street, and
14 as recognized' by the Retail Leakage Study, as a site that should be
15 developed in the long-term.
16
17 Mr. Etzel indicated that Chelsea is not precluded from being a sales tax
18 success and he feels that the expansion would enhance the site. The
19 project will extend the River Trail and help implement the River Access
20 Plan.
- . - - - -_------v_ - - - - -
21
22 Council Member Torliatt addressed Matt Connolly regarding the sales tax
23 and properfy tax figures and requested a copy of the figures he
24 presented. She also requested clarification from the architecf regarding
25 Parcel C being in the floodpfain and Parcel. ~B not being in the floodplain
26 area.
27
28 Mr. Connolly explained that this would be a .zero-.net-fill .development and
29 would use d more conservptive flood plain than in the EIR as both sites are
30 impacted by the flood plain.
31
32 Council Member Torliatt said that she would need to see a "Site
33 Constraints Map'` and wanted a .map that showed in color the flood plain
34 constraints, river enhancement an'd any other constraints pursuant to the
35 Planning documents that would. show where the buildings would be
36 placed when all the site constraints,.were in place. She also noted that the
37 design was not a factory outlet expansion, but a plan is fora "Big Box"
38 development.
39
40 Mr. Connolly clarified that the these twa parcels were 'identified as
41 "Special Commercial' with no specific limitations except the requirement
42 for an environmental review as a condition of approval.
43
44 ~ Council Member Harris wanted to clarify if the major tenants or the access
45 to Highway l Ol affecte.d the retail leakageranking.
46
47 City Manager Bierman .indicated it depended on who the major tenants
- 48 were and the development is more of a "strip mall" design.
49
50 CounciFrecessed at`8:45 p.m. to 8:55 p.m.
51
52 Council Member Thompson left the Council .meeting at this time.
Vol. 40, Page-144 - June 21, 2004
1
2 Council Member Torliatt wpnted to know what the construction .schedule
3 was for project.
4
5 Mr. Connolly explained that if it was approved this year, they.could begin
6 construction next year and it would take three to six years to complete.lt
7 would depend on the tenant interest and would be built in phases..
8
9 PUBLIC COMM'ENT' O'N THE ADEQUACY` "bF 'THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
10 REPORT
11
12 Dodie Cooper, Petaluma, owns. property on the Boulevard and thinks that
13 the City has allowed Chelsea to make a big investmenf and the City '.has
14 not done enough to help the Factory Outlet be successful.
15
16 David Keller, Petaluma, made a presentation regarding the .EIR and
17 stated thdt it was deficient with a breach of CEQA process and not
T8 addressing cumulative impacts on Petaluma.
19
20 Eileen Morris Living Wage Coalition, felt that housing overcrowding would
result because the jobs created .will not provide a living wage dllowing
22 employees to afford housing. -
23
24 Ellen Bicheler, Petaluma, concurred with Eileen Morris and was concerned.
25 about preserving existing hatjitat; she disagreed with the trail
26 enhancement too.
27
28 Vince 'L°andof;, Petaluma, wps .also concerned about the quality of jobs:
29 being created not providing a living wage.
30
31 Janice. Catler-Thompson, Petaluma, gave history back to 1992 when a
32 citizen's group sued the_City for the inadequdcy of the EIR. for the 'Factory
33 Outlets; specifically traffic congestion, air quality, and fhe ;Rainier
34 in'terehange..Shectated that the EIR :does riot address cumulative. impacts
35 ~ and the degrading of the flood control project.
36
37 Wayne Morgantfialer, Petaluma,. saw this ds a conversion to "Big Box"
38 retail that will da.ma,ge the health of the downtown .retail district; he '
39 wanted to.have cumulative impacts addressed.
40 -
41 Jane ,Hamilton, Petaluma; felt this was not an expansion of the Factory
42 Outlets and' that the project did, not meet the necessary EIR requirements
43 and flooding and.;cumulative impdcts need to be addressed.
44
45 Fred. Schram; Petaluma; .agreed with. the prior speakers and. did .not
46 ~ support th'e"development;
47
48 Connie: Madden, Petaluma, agreed with the prior speakers and did not
49 .support the development as it would not preserve the town' character
50 and' would hurt .downtown businesses.
51
June 21, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 145
1 Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, addressed questions. regarding the air
2 quality and the ranking of this project on the Retail Leakage Study.
3
4 Bob Martin, Petaluma, was concerned about the floodplain being
5 replaced with. retail development and reducing the benefit of the Corps
6 project. He wanted floodplain compatible development.
7
8 Wayne Ec,kstrom, ,Petaluma, disagrees~~with the, proposed plan and cited
9 traffic, poor ..road conditions, police and fire level of service, native
10 habitat, air quality, infrastructure, and sewage needs for the additional
1 1 growth.
12
13 John Cheney, Petaluma', alleged the. inaccuracies of the EIR from 1991
14 and caused. the flooding that occurred in 1998. He wanted this project to
15 use, the General Plan's hydrology methods.
16
17 ~ Kirk .Andrade, Petaluma, felt that the .project would cause additional
18 flooding.
19
20 _ Geoff .Cartwright, _Petaluma _~Ramona ,Paul.,. ceded_ her_public_comment)_ .
- - 2l referred to the Retail ,Leakage Study that ranked the Outlet site as 8 out of
22 8. He noted. the water supply shortage, traffic mitigation, Rainier financing,
23 floodplain "pretend" mitigation issues in the area, and the impacts on the
24 community.
25
26 COUNCIL. COMMENT
27
28 Council .Member Torliatt requested clarification of the anticipated 9,760
29 additional daily car-trips as one-way or round trip.
30
31 John Courtney, Langford Gregory, explained that the transportation
32 analysis person was not available and he would defer to his expertise.
33
34 ~ Council Member Torliaft computed' that the $439,000 annually with 9,760
35 additional trips would amount to about 12 cents per trip and how this
36 would impact traffic congestion in the community.
37
38 Council Member Healy requested that the applicant respond to the
39 procedural issues with a memo addressing changes during the EIR
40 process; development in other areas of town; the leakage study; Living.
41 Wage issues; downtown.. impacts; housing demand; and what
42 environmental issues are, and are not, .addressed in an EIR.
43
44 Council Member Harris wanted to clarify the additional indemnification
45 issue. regarding flooding clauses that the Planning Commission
46 recommended: He also wanted to see. a performance standard for the
47 wetlands monitoring.
48
49 ~Gouncil Member Torliatt mentioned the .method of noticing this item as a
50 factory outlet expansion was misleading.
51
Vol. 40, Page 146 June 21, 2004
1 Council Member Moyriihdn wanted'-evaluation of th.e circulation plan for
2 a north/south corridor along the :highway, .linking Corona Road to either
3 Shasta or Graylawnwith a grade-level crossing at the railroad to lower fhe.
4 dependence on the Boulevard. He also wanted an evdluation, of the
5 "VillageRoad" to four lanes tb provide~forfuture improvements.
b
7 Mayor Glass announced this ifiem`would be continued to July 1`9, 2004: at
8 which time the people who did not speak' this evening would be the first
9 to speak on the 19tH.
10
11 ADJOURN
12 -
13 The meeting was adjourned at 10:1'5 p.m.
14
15 '
16'
17
18 avid' Glass, Mayor
19 ATTEST:
20 '
2 ~
22
23
24 ~ .
25
26
27 ayle P tersen,'CityClerk
28
29
30
31
32