HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/17/2004 . May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 39
p' I' U~Lj.
. w
' ~ C'ity •of Petaluyna, California
I85$ MEETING OF T:HE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION AND THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
PCDC/City Council'.. Minutes
Monday, May 1'7, 2004 - 3:00 P.M.
• Regular•Meeting
1 CALL TO ORDER
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Glass, Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
6 Absent: None
7
8 13. Pledge of Allegiance
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Geoff Cartwright, Pefalurna, addressed the City Council regarding improvements on
13 Highway 101, the Kenilworth Interchange, and the Lakeville/Hwy. 101 exchange.
14
15 Jessica VannG'ardner, Petaluma; addressed the City Council regarding the new website
-16 for the Petaluma Visitors Program which is www.visitpetaluma.com.
17
18 Jim Landa, Empire Waste Management,. addressed the City Council and reported they
19 had applied for and received funding for charitable organizations and are presenting to
20 the Council a $5,000 check to be used for the M'cNear Peninsula Park.
21
22 Janice ~~Cader-Thompson, Petaluma, addressed. the City Council regarding the
23 reconstruction of Industrial Drive. She questioned why the surrounding streets were also
24 resurfaced and. asked •is Redevelopment Agency funds were used for this project. She
25 also questioned if the City is following the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Streets'
26 recommendations. She additionally questioned when Payran would be resurfaced.
27
28 COUNCIL~COAAMENT
29
30 Council Member Thompson made. a Motion to have Item 8.B from the May 3, 2004 City
31 Council Agenda' regarding Lafferty Ranch reconsidered.
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan reported on the recent Spring Clean Up Event ahd thanked the
34 Police Department for helping him with his personal trailer that became unhooked.
35
36 Council Member Torliatt .commented that Payran Street is scheduled for reconstruction in
37 2006-07. In response to Mr. Cartwright's comments indicated Caltrans and the Regency
38 Grolup would be working together, to do the 'needed improvements to E. Washington
39 Street overpass when the I:ehilworfh property is improved. She noted coordination for
40 improvements to Washington Street to Lakeville should be considered at the same time.
Vol. 40, Page 40 May 17', 2004
1 She further noted staff should have Caltrans take a look. at a possible temporary report at
2 the southbound lake/ramp at Highway 101 and Washington Street.
3
4 Council Member O'Brien thanked Wdsfe Management for their generous donation. ,He
5 indicated he, too,. utilized the Spring Clean Up opportunity and commented on the great
6 job Waste Management staff did in running the event.
7
8 Council Member Healy reported he had been appointed to the SMART Board. He-also
9 reported on having. attended the Legislative Action Days in Sacramento last week. He
10 noted staff- is expected to meet with Caltrans next week regarding the Washington
1 1 St./Hvvy. 101 interchange:
12
13 Mayor Glass, in response to the. Motion to~ have the Lafferty Ranch Resolution,
14 reconsidered, noted it would be placed on the next regular City Council Meeting
15 agenda.
l6
17 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
18
T9 C'ity`Manager Bierman :noted at the May 3, 2004 City Council Meeting, the City Council
20 extended the Empire Waste contract: He commented on having 'hdd contact with
21 Sonoma County regarding the issue of pulling out' of the JPA and suggested there be a
22 subcommittee of the- Council to negotipte with the County. He indicated that'
23 representatives . of the County had suggested Council Member Healy serve onthat -
24 subcommittee along with one additional Council Member.
25
26 In addition, the, City Manager noted the Council is in receipt of a letter from ~~leyers Nave
27 regarding their perceived. conflict of interesf in dealing. with the City's RFP and ultimate;
28 selection ofi a company for a franchise agreement for waste disposal which additi~rially
29 suggests the City obtain independent counsel
30
3'1 Mayor Glass ,suggested Ghat Council Members: Healy' and Torliatt. serve on a Councf-
32 subcommittee to negotiate with the County regarding the -JPA. ,
33
34 Vice Mayor Moynihan suggested the City wait fora Letter from the County before
35 appointing the subcommittee.
36 ~ ~ .
37 City Manager Bierman, after Council discussion, .ihdicated the Council couldwait until a
38 letter is received and then place the-matter on a_ Council Agenda for action: .
`39
40 Council Member Healy •indicated it is highly likely fhe `City would receive Elie- fitter;from:
41 the County in a day or two. He .encouraged the Council to .appoint a subcornrimittee;ta
42 authorize them to talk with the County.
43
44 Council .Member O'Brien indicated he'agrees that there is a need to meet and talk with
45 the County and he, too,. is interested in serving on the subcommittee.
46
47 City Manager Bierman .indicated he will: place the matter on the May 24, 2004 Council
48 Meeting Agenda for action.
49
50 Mr. Bierman noted receipt of a memo from Rick Skladzien, Director of Public Works. and
S i Facilities regarding the STP/CMAQ Cycle 2 Funding Process Summary. He added a; copy
52 of the memo has been provided to the Council on the. dais.
53
May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 41
1 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS
2
3 Mayor Glass noted that Item 5.C would be discussed first following the Consent
4 Calendar. It was also noted that Item 7.A would be moved to the June 7, 2004 City
5 Council Meeting agenda.
6
' 7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
8
9 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -City Council and PCDC
10
1 1 A. City .Council /P,CDC Minutes of April l9, 20Q4
12 B. City Council lvliriutes of:April 20, 2004
13
14 Council Member Torliatt indicated she had called the City Clerk with
15 minor non-substantive changes, and with those would MOVE approval:
16
17 M/S Torliatt/O'Brien. CARRIED UNAN, IMOUSLY.
18
19 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
20 '
21 Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of June 7, 2004.
22
23 City Council discussion, ensued regarding the request for reconsideration of the
24 Lafferty Ranch resolution from May 3, 2004.
25
26 City Attorney D'anley noted the Council's policy for reconsideration of items.
27
28 The MOTION to recohsider the item was SECONDED by Council Member O'Brien,
29 with Council Members. Thompson, Glass and Torliatt recommending that the
30 reconsideration be scheduled for discussion and a~tion'on the June 7, 2004 City
31 Council agenda'in th'e afternoon.
32
. 33 Vice.. Mayor Moynihan requested ,the Quarterly- Treasurer's Report be brought
34 forward and that. a Quarterly Litigation Report be scheduled for Closed Session.
35
36 MOTION to adopt the June 7, 2004 Proposed.Agenda as amended:
37
38 M/S Moynihan/Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
39
40 3. .CONSENT CALENDAR
41 '
42 Council .Member Torliatt asked, that Item 3.F .be removed from the Consent
43 Calendar for separate discussion.
44
45 Council Member O'Brien requested Item 3.G be reCnoved from the Consent
46 Cdlenciar for s'epardte discussion.
47 '
48 MOTION fo approve the balance of the Consent Calendar:
49
50 N1/S O'Brien/Healy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
51
52 A. Resolution 2004-076 N.C.S. Upholding the Appeal by Delco Builders and
53 Developer, Inc., of the Site Plgn and Architectural Review Committee's
Vol. 40, Page 42 May 17, 2004
1 (SPARC) :decision to deny the:.46- Unit Single Family and ~6=Unit Townhouse .
2 Gatti/Stratford Place Subdivision at 7Y0 Sonoma Mountain Parkway, .
3 Including Direction on Desired' Site. Plan Modifications to th'e Townhouse
4 Portion, Subject to SPARG Review end Approval. (Moore/Robbe)
5 '
6 B. Introduction .(First Reading) of .Ordinance 21'82 N.C.S.. Revising .Ordinerice
7 2T60 NC.S. Modifying the Conditions of Approval as Necessary to Allow
. .
8 .the: Plan Approved by SPARC at -their April .22~d Hearing. -Gatti/Strdtford
9 Place ,Subdivision. (Moore/Robbe) -
10
11 C: .Resolution 2004'-07T N.C.S. A"mending Resolution .2001-OZ5 N:C.S'.
12 Authorizing the Finance Director- to Execute all Requests for Payment
13 under Urban Streams Agreement P13-024 with the State Department of
14 Water Resources; for .Land Acquisition (Gra'nge) end Restoration of a
15 Portion of the Denman Reach of the Petaluma River. (Tuft) •
16
1.7 D,. Resolution 2004-078 ~N:CS:: Approving a Change Order with Argonaut
1.$ Constructors: to 'Add the Upland .Improvements. for the Denmarr ,Reach-
1'9 River Plan Improvement Projecti .Consisting of the'Staging Area' and 'Street
20 Frontage Improvements. (Tuff),
21 -
22 E. 'Resolution -2004_-079 N.C.S. AcceP#ng Claims and Bills' for March and April
23 2004.(Netter)
24
25 F. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance (a) Authorizing, Execution of an .
26 Option Agreemenf .wifh Regency Realty Group,,. lnc,,; fora .Nonexclusive
27 Pedestrian and "Vehicular Access Easement Between East Washington:
28 Street and the Kenilworth School•~Site (b,), :Authorizing .Execution of ari
29 Easement Agreement Following Satisfaction of Specified Conditions, .and
30 (c) Authorizing ;the Negotiation and ,Execution of a lease Amendment #o
_ - .
31 Add the Payran Firehouse: Property fo the Fairgrounds Lease- qnd to
32 Exclude -the Easement Area and Skateboard/Solar Collector Areq:
33 (Ivlarengelld) ~ ~ •
34 _
35 G. Resolution Accepting Bitls from Henry°,Gurtis Ford, Petaluma, for: #2004.-04
36 ~ - Public'W:orks Vehicles (20);;; #2004-05 - SporF Utility Vehicles (:4~p; #2004-06
37 -Passenger Sedans (2): ,(Netter) `
38 •
39 ITEMS. REMOVED FROM CONSENT: -
40
41 F. Adoption. (Second Reading) of .Ordinance 2181 N.C:S: ;(a) Authorizing,
42 Execu'ti'on of an Option °Agreement with Regency Realty Group, Inc. for a
43 Nonezclusiye Pedestrian a,nd Vehicular.Access: Easemenf `.Betunreen East
44 Wgshingtorr. Street and the ~ Kenilworth School Site,' (b) Authorizing =
45 Execution of an' Easement,;Agreement Following Satisfaction of Specified
46 Conditions, and (c) Authorizing the Nego#iatio'n~ and Execution of a '.Lease
47 Amendment to Add the Payran Firehouse Property to the F'airgrouncts
48 Lease and to Exclude the Easement .,Area and Skateboard/Solar Collector
49 Area. (Merangella)
50
51
52 -
53
}
Ma 17 2 04 Vol. 40 Pa e 43
y 0 g
i
1 Public Input:. ~
2 r
3 Janice Cader=Thompson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council with
4 concerns as to what will happen to the ball fields, pool and soccer fields?
5 She stressed it s'irpportant for the community to have those amenities and
6 indicated her~supports for the development cis long as there is relocation
7 of the pool and fields.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt commented on the need to provide for
10 consistent language as it relates to referring to the Skateboard/Solar
1 1 Collector Area. She also noted the need to make sure the Exhibits are
12 refined and complete.
13 _
14 MOTION to adopt the Ordinance:
15
16 Ivl%S Torliatt/O'Brien. CARRIEIJ UNANIMOUSLY.
17
18 G. Resolution 2004-080 N.C.S., Accepting.. Bids from Henry Curtis Ford,
19 Petaluma, for:. #2004-D4 - Public Works Vehicles (20); #2004-OS -Sport
20 Utility Vehicles (4); #2004-Ob -Passenger Sedans (2). (Netter)
21
22 Council Member O'Brien questioned why the bids were being rejected.
23
24 Staff responded they are rejecting the bids because there was only one _
25 bid. received.
26
27 Council Member O`Brien cornrnented he does not feel. there is a need to
28 .reject the bids and to postpone the purchase of the vehicles: He
29 MOTIONED to accept the bid and award to Henry Curtis Ford.
30
31 N1/S O'Brien/Healy. CARRIED BY~THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
32
33 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt
34 NOES:. Glass
35
36 Mayor Glass .noted he voted 'no' because he feels the City would benefit
37 from having more than one bid.
38
39 The City Council then moved to New Business Item 5.C for consideration.
40
41 5. NEW .BUSINESS , .
42
43 C. Resolution 2004-075 N.C.S. Encouraging the Board of Directors of; the
44 Sonoma-Morin Area Rail Transit Authority to" Place a Quarter Cent Sgles
45 Tax. Measure on the November 2004 Ballot to Support Passenger Rail. .
46 (Healy)
47
48 Rick Brown, at the request of Council Member Healy, went over the public
49 opinion results regarding the SMART Survey. It was noted the questions
50 asked were very specific and the results were favorable:
51
52 Vice Mayor Moynihan voiced concern with the impact of this proposal.
53
Vol. 40, Page 44 May 17, 2004
1 ~ Council Member Torliatt- commented on MTC's concept of 'hot: lanes in
2 the Bay Area. She voiced concern that if "hot lanes" were added it may
3 compete with rdif.
4 "
5 Mr. Browne noted: the highest utilizers of rail are those who drive alone. He
6 added +he driven a 'PKius and is looking forward to being in a "hot ,'lane!'
7 himself. He stressed the need for all alternatives,. note just one above the
8 other.
9
1.0 Council Member Torliatt commented on the oppo"rtunty'to bond.on the
1 1 revenues from a "hot lane:"
12
13 Council Member Healy commented on the' funding potential for the
14 segment to Santa Rosa and made the MOTION: o adopt the resolution.
15
16 Vice Mayor Moyniha"n indicated. he is not supportive. of` this resolution until
17 ~ ~ the irnpdcts are known. He indicated without a presentation and proposal
18 for funding #here are. sub"sfdntial subsidy questions. He stated he is not
19 clear on what would actually be voted upon.
20
21 Public,Input: •
22
23 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the. City Council indicating, there
24 are so many interests vying for citizens' money. ~ He noted concerns when
25 q Council Member stacks a survey such as -this one.
26
27 ~ MOTION previously made by Gouncil Member Healy to adopt the
28 Resolution:
29
30 M/S Healy/Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
31
32 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson; Torliatt, O'Brien, Glass
33 NOES: ~ Moynihan
34~
35 4. PUBLIC HEARING
36
37 A. Resolution 2004-.081 N.C.S..Confirming'the Annual Report of the Downtown
38 Petaluma Business Improvement :District and Levying an Annual
39 Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004. (Marangella)
40
41 •Council ..Member Neaiy recused himself as his office is • wiihin fh"e
42 boundaries of fhe district.
43 ,
44 Director of Economic Development antl Redevelopment. Paul Marangega
45 gave the staff report and asked for Council's support of levying the
46 assessment.
47
48 Gouncil Member Harris clarified the' proposed budget at $72;000 .and.
49 questioned what the contingency plan would be.
50
51 Staff responded. grid indicated there has been a lot of confusion
52 regarding th'e BID and fhey are making changes to make it 'far less
' May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 45
1 confusing:With these changes, they are hoping to see an increase in the
2 .revenues..
3
4 Council,Member'Torliatt clarified the process and was informed that the
5 City bills the merchants and the City collects the funds. The BID will be
b responsible- for the enforcement of nonpayment. of accounts. She also
7 questioned whatsteps have been taken to collect past debt.
8 .
9 Jeff .Mayne, President, Petaluma Downtown Association, responded the
10 BID doesn't have. the means to enforce and relies heavily on the City to
1 1 assisf.
12
13 Mr. Marangella noted the. City has done nothing to enforce. But, the PDA
14 wily be' esfablishing a policy that would ensure delinquencies would be
15 sent to collection.
16
17 Public Input:
18
19 Geoff ~ Cartwright, Petaluma; addressed the City Council and
20 acknowledged that Council Member Heply had cecused himself from
21 discussion of this issue and inferred Council Members Moynihan and
22 Thompson may be conflicts as well.
23
24 Council Member Thompson indicated he does sell insurance to ..people in
25 the'BID area- but has concluded he does not have a conflict of interest.
26 '
27 Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated the impact is a general dollar amount
. 28 and there is no direct impact for him to recuse himself.
29 '
30 Tom Maunder, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and spoke in
31 opposition to the assessment. He noted the creation of the assessment
32 ~ wds done incorrectly. He noted he had polled businesses in the area and
33 found more merchants in favor of defeating the BID. Ne indicated there is
34 a miscorieeption as to what the BID actually is. He concluded by stating
35 the City and Petaluma Downtown Association are doing a lousy job in
36 getting information out .fo the business-owners.
37
38 Hearing no further requests to speak, Mayor Gass closed the Public
39 Hearing..
. 40
41 Council Member Torliatt indicated she was serving on the Council when
42 the BID was put in place and is discouraged with.. the. results.
43
44 Mr: Mayne. indicated collections will be difficult, but they are prepared to
45 invest time and effort to collect them. He stressed their intent to re-
46 educate the business-owners.
47
48 Council. Member Torliatt commented on the fairness issue relating to those
= 49 people who pay versus those who do not pay.. She stressed the need for
50 the City to get the billing :strategy together and indicated she would like
51 to see a copy of the budget on how the monies have been and would
52 be spent.
53
Vol. 40, Page 46 May 17, 2004
1 Council Member Thompson suggested approving the assessment and '
2 bringing the. issue back. tq the Council in one.year for a status report.
3 .
4 Council Member Harris °indica ed.he has reservations about getting to 90%
5 collection of the assessment. He agreed.. with Council Member
6 Thompson's;suggestion of reviewing th_ is in' one year.
7
8 Council Member O'Brien commented. on funding for improvements in the
9 down,fown and quesfioned if' "these anticipafed funds would mdintain
10 what we':re 'doing now. He voiced concern with the program being in
1 1 place for three years and `fhere has' not' been a plan in place for .
i.2 collec#ions. He suggested there be a business plan and. procedures put in
13 place.
14
15 Mayor Glass indicdted whafever the City does,, it needs to work.
16
17 Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated he doesn't think if merchants were, polled
18 that they would support this. He noted if this were extended for one snore
19 year, he-would like to see h'ow Finance would hdndle fhe billing and
20 collections. Ne ;ndicated with the local businesses already `being
21 burdened'v;<ith fire inspections fees, ete., he would like. to 'see feedback
22 -from them when this is revisited in one year as to 'if it is .helping or hurting '
23' their businesses. '
24 .
25 City 'Mbndger Bierman .stressed there has been, confusion in -the past as;.fo
26 whether this assessment' is voluntary or mandatory and he stilted very
27 clearly that this assessment is~mandatory~and all efforts will be made to
2.8 collect.
29 .
30 Council: Member Torliatf indicated there appears to be Council. support
31 ~ for extending this. one more year, but she too would stress that the .
32 Finance Department needs 'to work with the ,BID to have. a billing and
33 collection plan. She would like tg see. a report back on what wps
34 collected and what monies'were spent on.
35 ~ ~ .
36 Council discussion ensured' as to whether ,a report back. to: thee, Council
37 should be made at mid-year budget review, and it' was agce`ed that a
38 report with informdtion on how the. program is .proceeding should be
39 ~ distrifjuted fio the Council in six months, with a full report and accounting.
40 of .income and expenditures; in one year.'
41
42 MOTION to adopf `fhe Resolution:
43 '
44 M'/S Thompson/Torliat;t. CARRIED.UNANIMOUSLY.
45
46 Council Member'Heoly returned to fhe Council Chambers at'this~fime.
47
48 5. NEW BUSINESS .
49
50 A. Discussion and Action 12egarding the Adoption of Ordinances Amending.
51 the Redevelopment,Plans for the Community' Development Project Area
52 and the Central Business .District Project- .Area to Extend the. Plan
May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 47
1 Effectiveness Date and the Time Limitation on Receipt of Property Tax
2 Increment and Debt .Repayment by One Year. (Marangella)
3
4 .Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance -21.83 N.C:S. Amending
5 Community Developmeht Project Area Redevelopment Plan.
6
7 Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 2184 N.C.S. Amending
8 Cerifral Business District Project Area Redevelopment Plan.
9
10 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella
1 1 gave the staff report and asked for Council`s support of the ordinances.
12
13 MOTION to introduce the ordinances:
14
15 M/S Torliatt/Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16
17 B. Introduction. (.First Reading) of Ordinance .2185 N.C.S. Amending the
18 Petaluma Municipal Code, Title 9, Animal Regulations. (Bierman/Tavares)
19
20 Animal Services Manager 'Nancee .Tavares gave the staff report and
21 - urged Council's approval of the recommended changes to the
22 ordinance. She also noted the additional desire to have mandatory rabies
23 vacations for cats included in the ordinance.
24
25 Council discussion ensued regarding the prohibition of feeding animals in
26 the park .and the enforcement of restrained/tethered animals.
27
28 Council Member Torliatt commented as the Council's- Liaison to the
29 Animal Services Advisory Commitfee and indicated she would like the
30 issue of mandatory vaccination of cats to come back to the Council
31 sooner rather than later.
32
33 Council. Member Healy thanked Ms. Tavares for bringing this clean-up
34 legislation forward;. He clarified with her the number of feral cat colonies in
35 the City and indicated he would support a 'h mile radius rather than a
36 mile radius for the prohibition of feeding cats near the Petaluma
37 Wetlands.
38
39 MOTION to adopt the ordinance with the amendment. to include that
40 there be a'h mile radius of the Petaluma.Wetlands prohibiting feeding of
41 feral cats.
42 _
43 M/S Moynihan/Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
44
45 D: :Resolution 2004=082 N:C.S. Approving the .Selection of the City's External
46 Auditors, and Authorizing the City Manager'to Draff and Execute a Formal
47 Agreement Between the Selected Audit Firm and the City for Audit
48 'Services for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004, and the Four (4) Subsequent Years,
49 Which End 2007-2008. (Netter)
- 50
51 ..Interim Finance Director Joe Netter gave the staff report and urged
52 support for the proposed resolution. •
53
Vol. 40, Page 48 May 17, 2004
1 Mayor Glass indicated 'his support for the selected auditors, Caporicci
2 and Larson,. Certified P-ublic Accountants.
3
4 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
5 -
6 M)S O'Brien/Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7
8 E. Resolution 2004-.083 N.C.S. Encouraging the Califomia Coastal
9 Conservancy, California Wildlife Conservation Board and the California
10 Parks. and Recreation Department to. Support the Sonoma County Open
1 1 Space. Distric# -and Board of Supervisors i,n. Acquiring;.the Tolay Ranch as a
12 Regional Park'forSonoma County. (Harris/Moynihan/Thompsonj
13 _
14 Vice Mayor Moynihan gave an overview of the proposed .resolution.
15 , -
16 - Council Member Healy indicated he would rather' ee this continued for
17 ~ more information a5 he feels there is an effort -fo move this forward with
18 little notice to the .public. He noted there is no back up for the proposed.
19 resolution and no one from the County is presenf to provide information.
20 He would rather see this issue continued :for two weeks to get information
27 and hopefully a unanimous vote of :the Council.
-22 ,
23 Mayor Glass indicated he would be: supportive to continue this issue for .
24 two weeks or even have a special rneefiing to allow Supervisor Kerns the
25 opporfunity~to appear before the Council and..make a presentation.
26
27 Council Member Torliatt questioned if there is a time constrain#, funding
28 request, de4dline or urgency to this resolution°. The response was 'no:' She
29 indicated further that she would like the opporfunity for a tourof the area
30 and see what it; is sh'e`s voting on. She would also like to have a snore
31 detailed presentation by Supervisor Kerns. She' also questioned if this area.
32 would be a storage facility forse~ver or pipeline water in the future.
33 ~ _
34 Mayor Glass -indicated he has a good relationship ,with $upervisor:Kecns.
35 He noted he would be abstaining. from voting on this issue as he. feels the
36 Council would be missing an opportunity" to explore. more in-depth
37 information.
38
39 Public Input:.
40
41 Janice: Cader=Thompson,. Petaluma, addressed the City CounciY and
42 questioned why this was 'placed on the agenda last ,minute. She
43 indicated this is quite a large expenditure: and indicated "she, had hedrd
44 the Coastal Conservancy was pulling out of the project: She stressed' there
45 is a need to look at this before acting.. -She urged' the Council to get more
46 information ,before supporting this..
47
48 David Libchitz, Petaluma, addressed the. £ity Council indicating this is not
49 abou:f Lafferty vs. Tolay. He noted the cost is estimated at $18M for 17 .
50 acres of pasture. He-stressed this. should not be acted: upon until there has
51 been° appropriate public input. He concluded by stating this is a, costly
52 project and should be dropped.
53
May 17, 2004 Vol. 40; Page 49
1 Larry Modell, Petaluma, addressed the City Council indicating he is an
2 advocate for open space but feels there are some unanswered questions
3 left from one. year' ago. He indicated this issue should have a public
. 4 meeting for .citizens in Petaluma and Supervisor -Kerns should be
5 approached. for a presentation to the public, along with Open Space
6 staff and ;County Parks staff. He urged the Council to not act on this
7 resolution tonight.
8
9 Connie .Madden, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and indicated
10 that most citizens do no# know the Council is considering this today. She
1 1 stressed this issue deserves. a public meeting. She also -noted she would like
12 to see the Ba,y Trail added and concluded by stating concerns regarding
13 Lafferty. She urged the Council to not act on this today.
14
15 Geoff. Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council indicating they
1 b may have met the legal requirements in bringing this issue forward, but
17 the public doesn't know it is being considered. He urged the Council to
18 provide for the appropriate public process.
19 -
20 Bill Kortum, Petaluma, addressed the City Council indicating he has 25
21 years of experience wifh Tolay., He indicated this issue should have a more
22 public process and attention should be paid as to how the Open Space
23 District spends its. money. He thanked the majority of the Council who -
24 voted for the Lafferty resolution.
25
26 Cour?cil Member Torlidtt indicated since: there. is no time constraint to this -
27 issue, she would ask that this be deferred so she can go out to see the
28 project area: She asked that action be deferred .for two weeks.
29
30 Mayor Glass indicated he has never been out to Tolay and would also like
31 the opportunity to talk with Supervisors. kerns and Smith. He volunteered. to
32 . call. a Special Meeting to ;accommodate. the Supervisors' schedules in
33 order to receive a presentation.
34 ,
35 Council.. Member Healy indcafedP he would support that
3b recommendation. He would 'like to get ~fio the goal of unanimous Council
37 support for this resolution and would be willing to consider the item if
38 agendized in a couple of,weeks.
39 - -
40 Vice Mayor Moynihan referenced Mast week""s newspaperarticle
41 regarding open space. He noted there are other competing-open space
42 projects that could usurp the funds for this project. He suggested Council
43 move forward with ado,ption,of this resolution and -then to ask Supervisor
44 Kerns to make a presentation at a,later date. -
45 -
4b Council Member Torliatt indicated -the Council should give Supervisor
47 Kerns the opportunity to come to the Council' asking for the Council's
48 supports. She indicated she has not seen a letter of request from him at
49 this point.
50
51 Council Member Healy indicated he has. been on the property a couple
52 of times and. he is willing to be persuaded to support the resolution. He
53 indicated he is concerned about Supervisor Smith's vote and suggested it
Vol. 40, Page 50 May 17, 2004
1 may not' be-realistic. to achieve ~18N1 for thy, purchase. price. He would like
2 to see findings' and develop a plan for the purchase of the property.
3
4 Council Member Healy read from the 'Council's Rules and Regulptions
- 5 regarding abstaining from ~decis~ions and indicated the Mayor should vote
6 - either yes or no on the matter.
7
8 Mayor Glass indicated, in that case, he would be voting 'no' on the
9 resolution:
10 -
1 1 ~ Counc'il' Member Torliatt noted this is not the message 'she wants to send
1.2 to the Cardoza family. -
13
14 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
15
l 6 M/S Moynihan/Thompson..CARRIED BY THE' FOLLOWING VOTE:
17
18 AYES: Harris, Moynihan, Thompson, O'Brien
19 NOES: Healy; Torliatt; Glass.
20
21 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
22
23 The City Council adjourned 'fo Closed.Session at 5:4'5 p.m.
24
25 . PUBLIC COAAMENT
26
27 There was none. ~ -
28 .
29 CLOSED SESSION
30
31 ¦ CONFERENCE WITH LABOR~NEGOTIAT.ORS (Government Code §54957.6),
32 City Designated Representatives: Mayor David. Glass and Council Member Healy _
33 Unrepresented. Employee: City Attorney
34 CONFERENCE WITy': LEGAL :COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION --Significant Exposure to Litigd~tion;
35 (Government Code §54956.9(bf;)- (l ~matfer)
36 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE .PERFORMANCE' EVALUATION `Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957.(e): City
37 Manager
38 GONFERENGE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency N;egotiafor:
39 Michael 'BiermanZParnala Robbins. Employee Orgdnization9 AFSCME; (AFF Local 1415 and
40 Unrepresented Employees..
41 CONFERENCE'WITH REAL PROPERTY-,NEGOTIATOR: (Government Code §54956.8) - Removed
42 Properties° -
43 • Easement ;Over .APN #'•007-660-032 Adjacent to P.efaluma River, Madison Village
44 Homeowners Association, FropertyOwner'
45 Easement Over APN #007 04`,1-q05, CloverSf'ornetta Fauns, Property Owner
46 Easement Ower APN # 007-OF9=026 Scalamiri/Sprout, Property Owner
47 City Negotiator: Michael,Bierrnan
48 Negotiating; Parties: City, of'Petaluma and Respective `Property Owners
49 Under Negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment, or~Both -
50
51
52 ~ -
53
54
55
May 1.7, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 51
1 MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 -EVENING SESSION
2 7:00 P.M.
3
4 CALL TO ORDER -7:08 p.m.
5
6 CALL TO ORDER
7
8 A. Roll Call
9
10 Present: Glass, Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien> Thompson, Torliatt
11 Absent: None
12
13 B. Pledge of Allegiance
14 C. Moment of Silence
15
16 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS TAKEN
17
18 There was nothing to report.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21
22 Pierre Mitemont, Petaluma, addressed the City Council. regarding a contest to fine the
23 finest pothole in town. He .noted the contest will be ih mid-June and there will be a
24 $300.00 reward for designating the best pothole. He indicdted people could get more
25 information at www.petalumapothole.com.
26
27 Dan Kammerer, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the recent rate
28 increase at the turning basin. He noted one particular boat that stayed in the turning
29 basin for 1'/2 years and paid nothing.
30
31 COUNCIL COMMENT
32
33 Council Member O'Brien commented he had received an email from a taxi company
34 doing business in town asking that the. City look at raising the rates they could charge. He
35 asked that staff look into this and see what can be done.
36
37 With regard to the Marina rates, he noted the average charge per foot per year is $6.00,
38 which he feels is not out of line. He did request staff to look into the possibility of giving. a
39 cost break to anyone who is commercially licensed.
40
41 Vice Mayor Moynihan commented. on the upcoming .budget hearings and indicated he
42 sees this as an opportunity to establish policy. He indicated the Council is here to serve
43 the entire community and there is a need to fairly compensate employees as a part of
44 that policy. He commented that compensation costs continue to go up, which this year
45 amounts to $2 million. He added this year's budget proposes elimination of monies for
46 tourism, and parks and. recreation maintenance funds, while looking at only $1 million in
47 street maintenance. He encouraged the Council. and citizens to approach this budget
48 year cautiously. He called for no compensation increases across the board.
49
50 Council Member Healy repotted on having attended the Legislative Action Days LOCAL
51 Meeting last week. He commented on the Governor's counter of new legislation for a
52 two-year deal as opposed to the League of California Cities Initiative measure, which
53 has qualified for.the November ballot. He indicated the Governor's proposal would result
Vol. 40, Page 52 Mciy l'7, 2004
1 in cities, redevelopment. agencies and counties taking an additional hit for the next two
2 years. He concluded by indicating the cities had supported going forward with the
3 compromise measure, noting that the initiative would remain'on the ballot.
4
5 Council Member Torliatt commented on how these .are challenging times in local
6 government and concluded by asking staff to look into the turning basin fee issue.
7 ,
8 Mayor .Glass explained the effects of binding arbitration and. negotiations with police
9 and fire on the City's budget. He then commented on the. initiative petition being
. 10 circulated in the community regarding general fund monies being designed for street
1' 1 maintenance and, stressed the negative impact that would' have on the Gity's budget.
12 He concluded by stating the Council will address the streets when the appropriate
13 amount. of money'is available.
14
15 Council Member Healy urged members of the community to read the fine print- of the .
16 streets initiative being circulated and cautioned the monies are slated to be used for
17 street maintenance. He noted the majority of streets that are in critical need of repair are
18 below the 70% standard and would require to be reconstructed. Those dedicated
19 monies from the initiative only provide ~ for the maintenance of streets and riot
20 reconstruction.
21
22 Vice Mayor Moynihan. commented that street maintenance is one component and
23 street reconstruction is another. He added that the City is not taking care of the basic
24 maintenance of streets, which results in the need for street reconstruction. He~ stressed the
25 importance of having respect for the communify and that we should strive to be better.
26
27 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
28
29 There were none. .
30
31 6. PUBLIC .HEARING .
32
33 A. .Public. Hearing to Hear Testimony Regarding the Formation of a
34 Landscape and' Lighting Assessmenf District for the Washington Creek
35 Village Subdivision and the Counting of Ballots. (Anchordoguy)
36
37 Resolution 2004-084 N.C.S. Declaring the Results of Balloting Tabulated
38 in Accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution and
39 California :Government Code Section 53753, Ordering .Improvements
40 aril Confirming the Diagrams and Annual Assessment for the.
41 ~ Washington Creek Village Subdivision Pursuant to the Landscape and
42 Lighting Act of 1972 for the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year.
43
44 Parks qnd Recreation Director Jim Carr gave the .staff report. and
45 asked for the City Clerk to report on the tabulated ballots.
46
47 City Clerk=Gayle Petersen reported, that five ballots were returned, and
48 the majority of the votes east were in favorof the assessment district.
49
50 Mayor, Glass opened the Public Hearing and hearing no requests to
51 speak, the:Public Hearing was closed.
52
53 MOTION to adopt the Resolution:
.May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 53
1
2 M/STorliatt/O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3
4 B. Paula Lane Subdivision: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding a
5 Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Deny a Request. for
6 General Plan Amendment, Prezo,ning, Tentative Subdivision Map,, and
7 Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 21-Unit Residential .Subdivision
8 Located at 431 Paula Lane, at the Corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive.
9 APN 019-080-009 8~ 01.0, Project Files ANX01002, GPA01002, PRZ01003,
10 SPC01048, TSM01003 {Moore/Borba)
11
12 Vice .Mayor Moynihan recused himself from this matter as the party
13 related to the. applicant has been a .source of income to his firm, Nexus
14 Realty Group and indicated he would be.stepping down on this matter.
15
16 Gouncil_ Member Torliatt reported. that she did trade phone calls with the
17 developer but was. never able to contact him. So she has not met with the
18 developer, but she did meet with the neighborhood group.
19
20 Mayor Glass noted he had met with the neighborhood and added he did
21 have a lengthy conversation with the applicant.
22
23 Council Members Harris and Healy indicated they had done the same.
24
25 Council Member Thompson 'indicated he had spoken briefly with the
26 developer.
27
28 Chris Hawke and Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties, gave an overall
29 presentation of the proposed development., They read into the record a
30 letter from. Alice Vesterfelt, property owner; urging the Council to give
31 favorable review and approval to their proposed development.
32
33 Mayor Glass opened the Public Hearing.
34
35 Public Input:
36
37 Bill Edwards, Petaluma,. addressed the City Council in support of the
38 applicant. He read his letter;: dated May 17, .2004 into the. record. He
39 noted he and his wife own 245 Paul Lane, ix acres contiguous to and on
T 40 the southern line of Alice Vesterfelt's 11.22-acre parcel He indicated. they
41 purchased the property 30 years ago and it is currently rented to Susan
42 Kirks. He urged Council to approve the proposed development.
43
44 Dr. Stephen Carle, .Petaluma, addressed the City Council urging the
45 Council to oppose the project and stated concerns with groundwater
46 that he believes is inadequate for municipal supplies.
47
48 Bill Bennett, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
49 .proposed development citing water drainage issues, traffic concerns, and
50 indicating the impact from Rockpointe Ridge is yet to be felt in their
51 neighborhood.
52
Vol. 40, Page 54 May 17, 2004
1 Narma Billing, i'etalumn, addressed the City Council in opposition to fhe .
2 proposed development, 'urging th`e Council to leave this beautiful, pristine
3 land alone..
4
5 Council Took a recess from 8:38 p.m. to 8;45 p.m.
6
7 Julian- Podbereski and 'Susan Kirks, PLAN, Petatumq, .addressed the City
8 .Council and. gave a presentation in opposition to the development. They
9 supported the property owner's right to sell the property;, but :cited
10 concerns with. bird habitat, traffic, badger habitat, deer habitat, anal
1 1 sewage disposal. They cornrnented on -the opportunity for a matching
12 grants application for open... space and noted' that would generate
13 revenue for Petaluma.. They stressed the need. of, the owner and
14 developer to work with the City and :County on the best use for this
15 property.
16
17 Sherby Sanborn, Consulting Arborist for -PLAN, addressed the City CounciF
18 in opposition, to the development and reported that the trees, .as they
19 exist on the. site at this fime, offer a better wildlife habitat as they exist
20 rather than trying to replace them with newer trees.
21
22 Carrissa Bishop-Sage, Petaluma, addressed the City Council yin opposition
23 ~ to the proposed~developrner5t and stressed' Petaluma is cherished for its
24 heritage.
25
26 Kim Fitts, Mammal Biologist for PLAN, addressed the City Council, in
27 opposition to the proposed development and provided a report on the
28 badger habitat that exists 'on the property.
29
30 Rollin Bruce, Petaluma, addressed the. City Council indicating he is not
31 opposed to• developing the sight at the current AR-2 zoning. He further
32 cited negative impacts regarding the current proposal, which included
33 additional wdter runoff. and. sewer pumping station issues. Ne added.. he is
34 opposed to this developmenf because his property is rnost~ affected by
35 the proposed water runoff. .
36
37 Charles Carle, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
38 .proposed developmenf. and, urged the Council to deny the application:
39 ~ _
40 Paige Schwartley, Bcaudt=Hawley Law Group, addressed the City Council
41 urging them to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to
42 deny the project. She wenf on to cite: the significant environmental
43 impacts and stressed if the Council did not deny the project, they must
44 require an EIR.
45
46 Art. ''Melling, Pe#aluma, addressed the City Council, in opposition to the
47 proposed development and .indicating with the way things are going
48 people will just build and build until. they get to the ocean.
49
50 Betsy Ginkel, Petaluma, .addressed the City Council in opposition to the
51 proposed, development and cited concerns with:. the effect on habitat.
52
May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 5.5
1 Steve Rubardt, Petaluma, addressed the Gity Council in opposition to the
2 proposed development. He cited negative traffic conditions on Pdul lane,
3 water runoff issues; as well as water pressure concerns. He concluded by
4 stating the zoning change is not in the best interests of the City.
5
6 Ken Miller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council stating his opposition to
7 the proposed project and stressed there is no way to quantify the
8 importance of the beauty of the area.
9
10 Hannah Jern Miller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to
1 1 the proposed development citing traffic, noise, sewage, and wildlife as
12 concerns. She cautioned the City ,Council that if they approve this there
13 would be irreparable. damage to: the spirit of the .neighborhood.
14 _
15 Tom Pfaff, Petaluma, addressed the City Council noting the urban growth
16 boundary should be adhered to. He indicated he lives in the County and
17 does not have a say in this vote, but "urged the Council to deny the
18 project.
19
20 Dirk Atkinson; :Petaluma, addressed the City Council .in opposition to the
21 proposed developmen#.
22
23 Caroline McCall, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to
24 the proposed development.
25
26 Joyce Williams, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
27 proposed development, citing quality of life issues.
28
29 Patrick Schafer; Petaluma, .addressed the City Council in opposition to the
30 proposed development.
31
32 Katie O'Connor; Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
33 proposed development stating annexation, rezoning, density, open
34 space., water runoff; and water pressure as concerns. 'She indicated this
35 development would be out=of-character with the surrounding _
36 neighborhood and perhaps the open, -space could be used as an
37 educational' tool for teaching abouf habifat and ecology for students. ~ "
38
39 Steve Kay, Petaluma, .addressed. the City C.ouneil . in, opposition to the
40 ~ proposed development and' noted the :number of people" who had
41 signed pefstions in opposition thaf~have come to the meeting this evening.
42
43 Melissa .Wilson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
44 proposed development and in support of open spgce and preserving the
45 wildlife habitat.
46
47 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the Cify Council regarding
48 concerns with water runoff, water re-chdrge concerns and in opposition
49 to the proposed development.
50
51 Dru West, Petaluma; addressed the City Council and, noted, although not
52 a resident of Petaluma, she is famili6~ with. Paula Lane. He noted PLAN
53 had done a great job in researching the issues and stated concerns with
Vol. 40, Page 56 May 17, 2004
1 ~fraf#ic on the west: side oftown. She indicated development here would
2 only increase the traffic and congestion. She urged denial of the project..
3
4 Hearing. no furfh`er requests to speak, the. 'Mayor Glass closed the Public
5 Hearing.
6
7 Council recessed at 10:15 p.m. fo 10:20 p:m.
8
9 Marti Buxton, Developer, attempted to address some ~of the issues
10 expressed.
11
12 Edie Robbins; -Sfuber-:.Stroh,. responded to the .issues and .concerns raised
13 relating to water and indicated there is adequate flow for fire pressure
14 andcited a report using the City's water model that says the water
5 pressure is' fine. She further noted that is enough water supply for- the
16 ;project .and cited, the Zone. 2 Water .System, which would be used': She
17 indicated there are. no supply or capacity problems existing.
18
19 AI Cornwell; addressed, concerhs raised regarding the recharge area;.
20 peak°flows-which would be less than what exists today; aril the location
21 of the sewer pump station which- would. be similar to the one on Sunset
22 "Lane..
23
24 NVe,da Bunzie, addressed. the issues stated°with the historic resources; of the
25 .property. She noted the property has been referred to as an historic: rural
26 landscape, but the integrity has not been maintdined.
27
28 :Marti Buxton, readdressed the Countyzoning of the property, commented
29 ~ on 'feathering, indicated, the .sight -was not suitable for a park; and
30. indicated the proposed homes were preliminarily reviewed by SPARC'.
31
32 Margo Bradish, Attorney;. commented on the CEQA issue and indicated. a
33 ~ negative declaration wilt ;be prepared. She noted there are is no .
34 substantial evidence that the development impacts would have a
35 significant impact on =the area and concluded by stating the disputing
36 opinions are.unsubstantiatedfay opinions.
37 '
38 - It was noted, lastly, that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
39 the, Genera}.Flan Amendment.
40 '
41 `Council Member"Harris noted he would. like more information on the traffic
42 ~coneerns, badger habitat and would. like to know the exact development
43 fees t;o be gained by this .project.
44
45 Council Member Healy commented he would like more clarification. on
46 whether an' EIR would be required or not, questioned what the
47 'implications'would be or what would happen if the project were denied,
48 and requested' staff to get a clear answer from the County ..regard. ing the
49 po;tehtial of purchase of this site foropen space.
50
51 •Councif,~;Member. Thompson :indicated 'he is satisfied with the- response
52 given regarding the water .pressure, acknowledged ~ there may be
53 badgers on.the site and indicated the proposed project is too dense:
May 17, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 57
1
2 Council Member Torliatt noted a General Plan Policy discussion needed to
3 take place before she would be able to make a decision regarding the
4 proposal.
5
6 Council Member O'Brien indicated his questions had been answered.
. 7
8 Given the lateness of the hour, the City Council indicated no action would
9 be taken this evening and' the item would, be continued to their June 21,
10 2004 Regular City Council Meeting fo.r Council discussion and action.
11
12 7. NEW BUSINESS
13
14 A. Re-Certifying Water Recycling :Facility and River Access Improvements
15 Prbjecf'Environmental Impact Report, as Modified by the Water Recycling
16 Facility and River Access Improvements EIR Addendum; Approving the
17 Project 'Revisions;. and Making Findings of Fact and Statement of
18 Overriding Considerations and Adopting: a Revised Mitigation Monitoring
19 Program Therefore. (Ban)
20
21 At the beginning of the Council Meeting; it was noted that this item has
22 been moved to the June T, 2004 City Council Meeting Agenda.
23
24 ADJOURN _
25
26 The meeting was adjourned at 1 1:05 p.m. to the Special Council Budget Workshop to be
27 held Tuesday, May 18,:2004~at 6;00 p.m.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 d Glass, M yor
35
36 Attest:
37
38
39
40 Gayle Pet rsen, City Clerk
41
42
43
44 ,
45
46
47
48