HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council/PCDC Minutes 04/19/2004April 19, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 485
`~ A L U~t
a '~
City of'I'etaduma, Calif®i~nia
X85$ MEETING OF PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION AND THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
PCDG/City Council Minutes
Monday, April'19, 2004 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
1 CALL TO ORDER
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Harris, Thompson, Healy, O'Brien, Mayor Glass, Torliatt, Moynihan
6 Absent: None
7
8 B. .Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Thompson
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 AI Alys, Petaluma Yacht Club, addressed the City Council with concerns regarding the
13 fees adopted at the meeting of March 10, 2004. He noted. the Visiting Boaters Fee was
14 raised last year to $30 from $10, and then restated to $15. He felt increasing the fee to
15 $30 would be counterproductive and would reduce the number of visiting boaters. He
16 mentioned that people would expect more from the City like security, trash receptacles,
17 and repair of vandalized electrical boxes. He also raised concern that the $15 fee is not
18 collected in most instances. He urged Council to reconsider the Visitors Overnight Fee
19 and to have it remain at $15 per day and find an appropriate means to collect the fee
20 to enhance the flow of visitor dollars. He would be happy to work with the City and has a
21 number of suggestions to improve the collection of fees.
22
23 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and mentioned the General Plan
24 Process and the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps with the proposal to reduce the
25 footprint of the floodplain on those maps. He indicated reducing the footprint would
26 result in removing the backing of the federally funded flood insurance and urged the
27 Council not to reduce the footprint and maintain the baseline as it is now.
28
29 He had a question regarding 16 Western Avenue - he wanted to know if Vice Mayor
30 Moynihan was still in a business arrangement with. the owner of this property. He wanted
31 to clarify this because the PCDC Five Year Implementation Plan discussion could present
32 a conflict.
33
34 Bill Hammerman, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and mentioned that the City's,
35 sesquicentennial is coming up in 2008 and that April 12th was the City's birthday. He
36 indicated the Petaluma Sesquicentennial Roundtable ad-hoc group has had several
37 meetings and presented a progress report and suggestions of how the City may put
vol. 39, Page 486 April 19, 2004
together a celebration of this event. He suggested the Council might want to provide
guidance to them on how they should continue to help the City celebrate this event.
Tom Griffith, Petaluma Yacht. Club, addressed the City Council and raised three issues
concerning the increase of the overnight fees in the docking area. He felt the fee
increase was excessive and one ~of the highest fees he has seen for overnight docking.
The Chamber of Commerce calculated that the. amount of revenue produced by each
boat was approximately $500. The Visitor's Program has 90 reservations for the Memorial
Day weekerid, which would result it $4,500 in revenue generated. The facilities have no
public restrooms, no garbage receptacles, and no security, as is provided at :other
docks. The City doesn`t have a plan for collecting the fees. Currently the Visitor's Center
is sending out an envelope with their packet requesting the visitor to remit: This doesn't
work and a system needs to be developed to collect the fees on the day of the visit. He
recommended the City continue the fees at $15 until the facility can be improved, to
meet the standards of other docks in the Bay Area.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked how long it has been since the Bridgetender collected the
fees and Mr. Griffith said that it had been done on a regular basis, which worked, dnd
then stopped about two years ago.
Council Member Torliatt clarified with Mr. Griffith that 90 boats had been reserved.. but not
all may show up; he expected 60 - 70. She asked if he had had security .issues on the
dock in the last year. He replied that he had not and that boating numbers are
improving.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Council Member O'Brien commended Mr. Hammerman and his ad-hoc committee for
their work on the 150th anniversary of the City.
Regarding the mooring fees in the Turning Basin, he indicated he would definitely like. this
issue revisited since he didn't vote on the original item. He stated he feels the Yacht Club
representatives are absolutely correct. The "bay and Delta Yachtsman" publicafion is
widely read and last year there was an article that stated that Petaluma was unfriendly
to boaters because of the increase in fees.. He felt that fees were going to have to.go up
some because of increased costs and suggested rolling them back to $20 per nighf. He
would like to find out about the lack of collection. He would like this subject to come
back at the next meeting.
Council Member Torliatt indicated she too wanted to revisit the moorina fee issue and
wanted staff to clarify the actual collection process and why it may not be working.
She also wanted clarification- on the historic floodplain base line. as it compares to the
new General Plan. She felt the existing flood plain baseline should be maintained as a
baseline policy as it compares to areas of past flooding so that decisions to build in the
floodplain are done with eyes "wide open."
She mentioned the concerns expressed by neighbors,af G 8~ G Market and indicated she
would like this issue agendized to discuss problems concerning the shopping center. She
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 487
1 indicated she would also like clarification from staff about the shopping center meeting
2 its conditions of approval.
3
4 She reported as the alternate liaison to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority that
5 the Draft 2005 Regional Transportation Plan list of projects contained no changes. The
6 City of Petaluma should receive additional funds from the State Transit Assistance
7 program in the amount of about $225,000 that normally goes to the bus service; this had
8 been calculated on a different population figure. The adjustment will result in additional
9 funding that she would like to see used to enhance the City's public transit and improve
10 publicity for the system.
1.1
12 She reported on the $233 million earmarked for the highway improvement list for the Bay
13 Area from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Sonoma County was listed for $9
14 million to widen Hwy. 101 and reconstruct on-ramps between Steele Lane and the Town
15 of Windsor. Another $13 million was earmarked for the Marin/Sonoma Narrows widening.
16
17 Council Member Harris wanted a timeline for the garbage contract with a listing of what
18 the next steps will be. Concerning the mooring fees, he agreed with the speakers and
19 with the desire to make Petaluma a destination place, he stressed he wouldn't want to
20 "disincentize" visitors to Petaluma.
21
22 Council Member Healy commented on Geoff Cartwright's concerns and indicated he
23 expects a full discussion on these issues as part of the General Plan. He felt the G 8~ G
24 issues should go back to the Planning Commission to check compliance with the
25 conditions of approval. He commented on the earmarks for highway projects, indicating
26 they are not final but progress is being made.
27
28 Council Member Thompson agreed on the boating situation and suggested the yacht
29 clubs preparing to come to Petaluma send two-thirds of their money in advance.. .
30
31 Vice Mayor Moynihan supported the offer to meet with the Yacht Club to determine
32 how other cities handle the issue. He wanted to hear in the near future when the Five
33 Year Capital Improvement Program is coming back for Council discussion.
34
35 Mayor Glass commented on the docking fees and indicated he expects them to be
36 reviewed. He noted the fees can be lowered, but they need to be collected.
37
38 He commented on the G & G situation and that the center is an asset for the community
39 but local residents must not be unfairly impacted beyond what they were told they
40 would experience.
41
42 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
43
44 City Manager Bierman stated the mooring fees and their collection need to be clarified
45 and would be put back on the agenda for Council reconsideration. The $15 fee for the
46 boaters coming on Memorial Day would be honored even though the fee increase was
47 scheduled for May 15r.
48
49
50
Vol. 39, Page 488 April 19, 2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS
Mayor Glass followed Vice Mayor Moynihan's suggestion to move the "Consent
Calendar" to immediately following the "Approval of Minutes."
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS.
Council Member Harris presented a Proclamation recognizing May 2, 2004 as Petaluma
River Clean-up Day to AI Alys of the Petaluma Yacht Club.
Also recognized was May 2 -May 8, 2004 as National Wildflower Week with the
proclamation accepted by Joan Grosser.
A presentation by Community Development Director Mike Moore and GIS Technician
Andrew D'Ottavio was given regarding updates to the City's new website to improve the
building permit process.
Council Member Torliatt wanted to be sure that the credit card service charge was not
incurred by the City and was assured by Mr. D'Ottavio that this is an incremental fee that
is being worked on and would be paid by the applicant.
She also suggested placing the survey at the beginning may not be a good location and
that a link on each page to direct the user would be easier to use.
Council Member Thompson asked about the water heater permit arid how many are
installed that the City does not know about or collect for.
Mr. Moore said it is difficult to trace but they find this out when the homeowner sells the
property in the disclosure lists if permits were obtained.
COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Appointment of Council Member to the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Legislative
Committee. Council Members Torliatt and Healy expressed interest in the
appointment.
By a show of hands, the vote was 4 -2 in favor of Council Member Healy, with Vice
Mayor Moynihan abstaining.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Minutes of March 1, 2004
Council Member Thompson had a question about the format of the
minutes.
Council Member Torliatt explained she had not requested verbatim
minutes but had requested the inclusion of the Council discussion on the
Southgate item since none was indicated in the first set of minutes.
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 489
1 Council Member Thompson asked if all the members had agreed at the
2 dais to do this. He suggested the whole Council should agree to have
3 detailed minutes.
4
5 Council Member Healy agreed with Council Member Thompson's
6 concerns and that the Council had agreed to the summary format for
7 minutes.
8
9 Mayor GI4ss indicated that due to the complexity of the Southgate item
10 and what was discussed, he thought there was a benefit to this request.
11
12 Council Member Torliatt suggested that when Chelsea comes back, the
13 same format (more detailed minutes) should be followed when
14 documenting the Council's comments.
15
16 Council Member O'Brien agreed with Council Member Thompson's
17 suggestion that a Council majority should be required to request the
18 verbatim-type minutes.
19
20 MOTION to adopt the minutes as submitted:
21
22 M/S Torliatt and Moynihan. CARRIED ON A 6-0-1 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 AYES: Harris, Healy, Moynihan, Glass, Thompson, Torliatt
25 NOES: None
26 ABSTAIN: O'Brien (indicating he was not present at that meeting)
27
28 Council Member Healy left the Council Chombers of this time.
29
30 B. City Council Minutes of April 5, 2004
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked that the minutes be amended under City
33 Manager Comment to reflect that it was the consensus of the Council to
34 send the letter to Paul Kelley, Chair of the SCTA with the addition of the
35 following "... and received consensus to send the letter."
36
37 Council Member Harris indicated he was wishing the City of Petaluma a
38 "Happy 146th birthday."
39
40 Council Member Torliatt stated she would not vote for this motion as she
41 felt it would be more appropriate for the Clerk to review the tape
42 regarding Council's consensus or not for sending the letter to Paul Kelley.
43
44 Mayor Glass indicated he would also vote "no" because he doesn't see
45 the purpose of doing it today as opposed to the next meeting and to
46 take care of this under item 5A regarding Council Rules and Procedures.
47
48 MOTION to adopt the Minutes as amended:
49
50 M/S Moynihan and Thompson. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
Vol. 39, Page 490 April 19, 2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
AYES: Harris, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson
NOES: Glass and Torliatt
ABSENT: Healy
3. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of May 3,
2004.
It was noted, due to public comment, that the issue regarding the Turhing Basin
Fees would be placed on the agenda.
MOTION to adopt the proposed agenda:
M/S Torliatt and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Glass requested Item 3.D be pulled from the Consent Calendar for
separate discussion since he had received a speaker card on that item:
MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar:
M/S Moynihan and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Healy absent)
A. Resolution 2004-049 N.C. S. Accepting Completion of Traffic Signal Loop
Installation Project 3306-3.
B. Resolution 2004-050 N.C.S Establishing the Ely Blvd./E. Washington Creek
Crossing as Part of the 03-04 Washington and E. Washington Creek Multi-
Use Path Project No. C100401-3399* and Resolution 2004-051 N.C.S.
Authorizing Application to tl~e Metropolitan Transportation Commission for
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Project
Funding (*former CIP No. 02-9046-1).
C. Resolution 2004-053 N.C.S. Awarding Two-Year Weed Abatement Contract
to Remove Weeds Within the City and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Contract for Such Abatement Program.
Items Removed from Consent for Separate Discussion:
D. Resolution 2004-052 N.C.S. Authorizing Program Administration Fees for
Mobile Home Park Space Rent Stabilization Program for 2004.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Bill Donahue, President, Sandalwood . Home Owners Association,
addressed the Council and called atfention to the Agenda Report. He
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39,, Page 491'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
indicated with regard to Item 2, it should read "...197 spaces ..." instead-
of 99 spaces to make sure these remain under rent control.
Council Member Torliatt requested this change to be reflected in the
minutes and MOVED approval of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Moynihan requested clarification of revenue to determine if
this is a reimbursement of expenditures and how much is coming from
space fees.
Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler explained there is not any other
cost reimbursement that she is aware of. She understands the entire
amount is from the administrative fee that is charged half to the owner
and half to the residents for all spaces. She would have to talk to the
Finance Director to answer the question of the wide variance of the fee
and get back to Council. She clarified that the administrative fee had
changed from $15 to $30 last year.
Vice Mayor Moynihan requested. a memo to clarify the financial
information on the spreadsheet.
Council Member Thompson momentari/y /eft the Counci/ Chombers.
M/S Torliatt and Harris. CARRIED ON A 5-0-2 VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Harris, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt, Glass
NOES: None
ABSENT: Healy and Thompson
Mayor 6/ass recalled that the agenda order had- been changed and that Item
2, Pub/ic Hearing PCOC was the next order of business.
2. PUBLIC HEARING
A. PCDC .Resolution 2004-05 Discussion and Action Concerning a Mid-Term
Review of the "Five-Year Implementation Plan."
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated that his realty group; Nexus Realty Group,
manages some properties in this district aril ~ he believed that he has one
potential conflict of interest on Item 3m, "Storefront Improvement Program."
Council Member Torliatt referred to a previous meeting in which she, Council
Members Moynihan, Thompson, and, Healy had to recuse themselves
because of receiving income from or residing within the redevelopment
areas. She stated she no longer represents property in. the area so she will no
longer have a financial interest conflict.
Council Member Thompson .indicated that he has a couple of areas of
conflict and that he can abstain from these areas.
Vol. 39, Page 492 April 19, 2004
City Attorney Rudnansky gave some background and direction to Council.
He referred to the meeting of April 200T concerning the vote taken relative fo
the Redevelopment Plan Amendment implementation. At that time there
was so much interrelation it was decided that if there were a conflicf with any
particular area the Council Member would .have: to recuse him or trier self. This
resulted in four current members recusing. A drawing of straws was taken with
Mr. Moynihan coming back under the "Rule of .Necessity." He advised. that
the review of the implementation. glean to make decisions regarding funding
for certain projects would require each Council Member to analyze if they
had a conflict that would materially afifeet them. He instructed each Council
Member to decide if his or her conflict is interdependent and segment; his or
her recusal.
City Manager Bierman suggested -that the -full .presentation be completed
and then aline/bullet-item vote be taken on each item.
Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment,
began his presentation with~sorne history of the plan and explained' the two
project areas, the Central Business District- (CB.D) and the larger Petaluma
Community Development project (PCQ) area. .
Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned" that PCDC was going to be doing X8.5
million of street work. instead of Public Works as a Capital Improv.emenf Project
and staff explained that these are streetscape improvements; not strictly
paving.
Council Member Torliatt explained this was part of the implementation of the
CPSP and the Council is familiar with this as a rehabilitation/upgrading of the
streets in the; area. The actual cost of these improvements will be brought
back to Council.
Council Member Healy had questions- regarding the entire figure as.including
paving and Mr. Marangella said he. was correct. He wan#ed to know what
portion of. this figure would be for repaving; Director Marangella stated he
would have to get this figure.. Council Member Healy asked if' this would
include a "Road Diet" and was advisee! that it would.
Mr. Marangella explained the "Road: Diet" requires the. street'- be reduced
from the City limits through the ,core of fhe City to one lane in each direction
with bicycle paths and on-street parking; this hasn't been designed yet.
City Manager Bierman, interjected that these are staff recommendations and
the Council can make 'changes. He stated. that: the exdef details of the
agreement needed to be looked at.
City Attorney Rudnansky cautioned Council that there are potential. conflicts
that have not been clarified but if .there were specific areas in the general
overview of the project where a member may have conflicts, he would
caution them not to ask questions.
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 493
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Mayor Glass asked for the continuation of the legally required general
overview with staff recommendations then go back to questions when
Council Members can more clearly recuse themselves as necessary.
Vice Mayor Moynihan had concerns regarding nevv projects being proposed
from the direction of committees. He felf a comprehensive approach is
needed for the long-term Capital Improvement Programs with the
redevelopment agency as the funding agency with Council setting the
priorities. He suggested bringing this back as part of the Five-Year CIP for the
new project aspects.
City Manager Bierman agreed with Vice Mayor Moynihan that these
recommendations are based on what the City wants to do in this large area.
He suggested hearing the presentation and on May 3~d the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) will be presented and all of the projects mentioned
this evening will be in the CIP.
Council discussed the amount of business to be covered, and the timeline for
addressing the Five Year Plan. The Manager's direction was to continue the
presentation and move it to following meetings as necessary. Council
Members agreed to move it to the May 3~d agenda after hearing the
presentation. .
Mr. Marangella continued his presentation.
City Manager Bierman explained that the state might continue to take
property tax and sales tax. The $2.3 million ERAF may go up since the state will
be using the economic development agencies of the cities as a funding
source.
Mr. Marangella .summed up the presentation, stating that the assumptions of
growth in the CBD tax increment does not include the impact. of the Theatre
District project. A conservative projection has .been developed in the PCD tax
increment with only a 5% growth assumption that does not take into account
impending development. He stated the report is based on ERAF as a
permanent shift of funding.
Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler explained that the major goal of the
implementation plan was to be sure that the City met its ABAG "Fair Share
Goals." The City has exceeded these goals and other goals and projects are
on schedule with any new developments coming to Council at budget time:
Mr. Marangella suggested the Council amend the resolution to state it
accepts the report to meet the requirements of state law.
Vice Mayor Moynihan suggested identifying what funding sources would be
used for the maintenance of these improvements.
1
2
3
4
6
T
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Vol. 39, Page 494
PUBLIC COMMENT
April 19, 2004
No speaker cards were presented and the Mayor called for anyone
interested; seeing no one, Public Comment was closed.
City Attorney Rudnansky explained that it was his understaridirig the: motion
was to accept the report and no action, was to be takeri that would_ affect
any Council Member's financial interest in the plan area and~that no cohflict
of interest would be raised.
Council Member Harris had a question about "Project Status'' on the Staff
Report concerning the approximate $5.5 million in road improvements
planned annually over the next three years.. He wanted clarification of"
annually.
City Manager Bierman explained that there are more road projects
throughout that add more money to roads.
Council Member Torliatt called for the question and the Mayor seconded.
MOTION to adopt the Resolution accepting the Mid-Term Review.
M/S Moynihan and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Regular Council Meeting of':May 3, 2004.
Vice Mayor Moynihan requested an u,pddte on the streets on the next
agenda with a current status. He also wanted the- Council to agendize the
establishment of a Citywide compensation policy before entering into
negotiations this year.
Council Member Healy wanted clarification of when the PCD item would be
discussed.
City Manager Bierman stated this would be discussed at the May 3~d' meeting
and wrapped up with the Capital Improvements. He stated. that the street
conditions will not be completed by the May 3~d .meeting and will be done by
memo.
MOTION to adopt the proposed agenda:
M/S Torliatt and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion, Review and Consideration of a Resolution Amending Petaluma
City Council Rules, Policies and Procedures. Cify Attorney Rudnansky
April 19, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 495
1 instructed that this is the required annual review of the Council's
2 procedures to make any necessary changes.
3
4 Mayor Glass asked if the Council wished to review this or move on to the
5 next items to get on to Closed Session.
6
7 Council Member Healy thought this was non-controversial item and
8 should be approved.
9
10 Mayor Glass explained that there was one speaker card on this and this
1 1 would be an item for a light agenda.
12
13
14 PUBLIC COMMENT
15
16 Jose L. Sanchez, Press Democrat, addressed the City Council on the
l7 format of the minutes stating that a verbatim transcript is helpful to the
18 public to understand the issues.
19
20 It was the consensus of Counci/ to that Item 5A be. moved to a
21 later date,
22
23 B. Resolution 2004-054 N.C.S. Approving the Annual Report of the Downtown
24 Petaluma Business Improvement District .and Intention to Levy an Annual
25 ~ Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004. (Marangella)
26
27 Council Member Healy recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of
28 the designated area.
29
30 Vice Mayor Moynihan recused himself as well due to a possible source of
31 income conflict and, at the City Attorney's request, named the sources as
32 Maggie Salinger, Peter Haywood, James Toda, and Louie Toda.
33
34 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella
35 presented the resolution to set a hearing on May 3, 2004 for the Business
36 Improvement District and asked the Council to ~rdopt the resolution.
37
38 MOTION to adopt the Resolution:
39
40 M/S O'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
41
42 AYES: Harris, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatf'and Glass
43 NOES: None
44 RECUSED: Healy and Moynihan
45
46 C. Resolution 2004-055 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
47 Agricultural Recycled Water Use Agreements.
48
49 Water Resources and Conservation Director Michael Ban presented the
50 report. He explained the history of the recycled water program explaining
Vol. 39, Page 496
April l9, 2004
that currently the City contracts individually with each individual
landowner. He recommended that the City go forward with renewing the
contracts with the seven landowners with the same compensation -rater
addition of a maintenance allowance for equipment replacement;
reduce the amount of water to these landowners to accornmodate~
Rooster Run Golf Course; and establish a term of four years with a renewal
option.
PUBLlC COMMENT
Rene Cardinaux, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and indicated he
has been in partnership with the City for over 20 years. Ne asked that
some kind of condition be included in the agreement to allow for infl'afion
and to not keep the terms fixed.
Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, addressed the City' Council and,
mentioned that the sewer charges have gone up considerably over the
last two years and would like an accounting of the changes in the
charges.
Council Member Torliatt explained that in 1998 the Council' thoroughly
reviewed the cost to the ratepayers that .resulted in reducing the cost.
from $300/acre-foot to $210/acre-foot. She estimated that over the past
years the City had saved approximately $800,000 to the ratepayer. She
addressed Mr. Cardinaux's issue and asked staff if contract amendments
can be negotiated.
Mr. Ban responded they could.
Council Member Torliatt also asked if there is extra wastewater after the
ranchers and Rooster Run have their met their allotments, can the
ranchers have additional water beyond their cap without City
reimbursement.
Mr. Ban stated that, in the past, if a rancher needed water beyond the
cap the water was provided wifih no compensation anal the confracf
presented tonight continues this practice.
City Attorney Rudnansky clarified Council Members' questions about
protecting the City in case of inflation. or high-energy costs. He .stated
there were some outstanding issues of fihe injunctive rElief. to: allow the City
to cure an "irreparable harm" if the ranchers do not dispose. of fhe water.
This allows the City to go to court to require the ranchers fo do what they
agreed to.
City Manager Bierman stated he was aware of this issue -and it is° not a
cause for concern.
Council Member Torliatt asked if this was the only issue that hasn't been
agreed on and asked Mr. Cardinaux to respond.
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 497
1
2 Mr. Cardinaux mentioned this is the first time this has been included in the
3 contract. He feels it gives the ~Gity possessory interest in the ranchers'
4 property and he doesn't feel it is necessary. He mentioned that if
5 something happens to the rancher, the heirs cannot recover their costs
6 because the terms of the lease are fixed.
7
8 Mayor Glass asked if his concern would be alleviated if the costs were
9 indexed to the CPI and Mr. Cardinaux agreed.
10
1 1 Council Member Torliatt said that she would go forward with the motion
12 with the exclusion of the injunctive relief issue. She felt this could be
13 negotiated with staff, the .ranchers and the City Manager agreeing that
14 the costs would be based on the CPI.
15
16 Council Member Healy had questions on page 4/VIII of Attachment A
17 and wanted some protection included such as the CPI or the ranchers
18 could get out of the contract on notice. He wanted the injunctive relief
19 included.
20
21 City Attorney Rudnansky reiterated that this would enforce what the
22 ranchers agreed to do. He explained that the City would not come onto
23 the land. This protects the City from harm and would allow a court order
24 to continue the disposal of the water.
25
26 MOTION to adopt the Resolution as presented in the staff report:
27
28 Council Member Healy restated the motion to adopt the resolution as
29 presented in the staff report.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt was assured that the City Manager would
32 negotiate the issue brought forward by Mr. Cardinaux.
33
34 M/S Torliatt and Thompson. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
35
36 PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION
37
38 There was none.
39
40 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
41
42 • CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government'Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
43 Michael Bierman/Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME and IAFF Local 1415.
44 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
45 Manager
46 • CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: (Government Code §54956.8)
47 Properties:
48 • Easement Over APN # 007-660-032 Adjacent to Petaluma River, Madison Village
49 Homeowners Association, Property Owner
50 Easement Over APN #007-041-005, Clover-Stornetta Farms, Property Owner
51 • Easement Over APN # 007-019-026 Scalamini/Sprout, Property Owner
Vol. 39, Page 498
April 19, 2004
1 City Negotiator: Michael Bierman
2 Negotiating Parties: City of Petaluma and Respective Property Owners
3 Under Negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment, or Both
4 .
5 Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:30 p:m. '
6
7 Monday, April 19, 2004 EVENING SESSION 7:00 I'.M.
8
9 CALL TO ORDER
10
1 1 A. Roll Call: All members were present.
12 B. Pledge of Allegiance
13 C. Moment of Silence
14
15 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
16
17 Proclamation Declaring April 23, 2004 as Childress' Memorial Day.
18 -
19 Council Member Torliatt presented the proclamation to Greg Spaulding; Presides#: of
20 MOVES, who explained the organization's goals and presented a flag for the City to
21 display.
22
23 PUBLIC COMMENT
24
25 David Yearsly, Petaluma River Keeper, addressed the City Council and. invited all to
26 attend the Petaluma River Clean-up on May 2^d.
27
28 Marilyn Sullivan, Concerned Citizens Across from G&G Market, addressed the City
29 Council and expressed problems with the noise from fhe market's refrigeration unit. She
30 requested that her group be put on the agenda for next mo,nth's Council meeting'.
31
32 Karen Nau, Petaluma River Festival Association, addressed the City Council and
33 indicated their group is coordinating activities after this: weekend's Butter and Egg Days
34 parade. She gave a presentation of events to be offered and invited everyone to
35 attend.
36
37 Joe Manthey, Vietnam Veterans of California, addressed. the City Council. and made
38 them aware of the upcoming "Wonder of Boys'".Conference at Sonoma State University
39 on May 8th and explained what would be offered. -
40
41 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council'arid explained. flooding evenfs in
42 Petaluma since 1998 and the effects construction and illegal fill has'hael' on this problem.
43 ~ ..
44 Stefan Gutermuth, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in response to the Outlet Mall
45 ad stating that the expansion would bring in a million dollars in revenue..-He said this is.
46 highly suspect as shown with current revenue stdtistics. He wanted; to know who was
47 paying for this ad.
48
49 Peter Tscherneff addressed the City Council regarding world-peace and. homelessness.
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 4.99
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Andrew Packard, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and requested an update on
the Chelsea Properties negotiations concerning the developer's promise to pay $1.2
million. He understood that the City Manager would not negotiate with Chelsea, until the
money is paid. He said that interest and penalties provided in the contract should be
collected. He wanted clarification of what negotiations are underway.
Mayor Glass explained there was a schedule for payment to be paid ih installments with
real estate taxes beginning in 1996 with final payment due in 2000.. He felt that there did
not seem to be penalties and interest payments added and will more information on the
matter.
Mr. Packard said that from his public records request information it appeared only
approximately $300,000 - $400,000 was paid unless there was more current information
that he has not seen.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Council Member Torliatt talked about her participation in the "Race for the Treasure" to
kick off Butter and Egg Day Week and thanked the Petaluma Valley Athletic Club.
She addressed Ms. Sullivan's concerns about GB~G and the conditions of approval will be
looked into as well as enforcement of these with direction to the Planning Commission to
review.
Council Member Torliatt stated she has asked the Council to set up .and endorse a joint
meeting with the Petaluma School District and the Fair Board to discuss the Petaluma
Junior High site. She wants the community informed about the challenges, and the price
necessary for the School Board to build a new school.
She addressed the Chelsea proposal and the amount that was initially due to the City.
She stated that Chelsea should be totally current with any money owed to the City
before any new proposal or negotiation is considered. She requested a memo from the
City Manager as to whether they are current with moneis owed and that it shouldn't be
agendized until the developer is current. She questioned entering into a development
agreement without having a set procedure for the City to follow and indicated she
wanted the applicants to come before Council. She asked that the City Attorney define
the differences between conditions of approval in a development agreement/project
approval and what extra enhancement and rights it gives to an applicant. ,She felt the
community needs to know the differences and Council needs to know if the City
Manager is entering into a development agreement with an applicant. She requested
that this be agendized before any future development agreements are negotiated.
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that he met with Chelsea GCA and others and felt that the
unpaid funds are way overdue and the City Manager has stated clearly that these funds
must be paid. He explained that there had been a disagreement with how the escrow
account should be established and the payments were discontinued because of this. He
noted over a year ago an agreement was reached to set up a new account but this.
hadn't been done. He supported no further discussion regarding future ;development
agreements until the account is up to date.
Vol. 39, Page S00 April 19, 2004
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4d.
45
46
47
48
49
Council Member Harris addressed the G8~G Market issues and supported. their concerns
with a request to look at the conditions of approval. He indicated d desire to agendize
his request for a Charter Review Committee and would like an outline on how to address
the noticing issues concerning the Argus-Courier versus the Press Democrat.
Council Member Healy also mentioned the G8~G Market neighborhood issues and stated
he understands the difficulty of documenting the problems,. He indicated he felt. the
Planning Commission should agendize this and clarify compliance.
Council Member Thompson supported the results of the meeting with Chelsea and that
nothing should come forward to the Council until the money issue is resolved...
Mayor Glass stated that from his perspective, Chelsea couldn't comply`~ivith the,origindl
agreement until they have paid the total $1.2 million owed by the year 2000. He cited
from the agreement that if the Rainier connector is not completed by December;31,
2004, the City can apply the total amount to the City's choice of projects. He was not
aware of the meetings or the delinquency issue.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
None
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Setting of A Public Hearing on May 3, 2004 to Discuss and
Determine the Cross-Town Connector/ Interchange, Local Roadway
Alignment Options for Inclusion in the General Plan 2004-2025- Preferred
Plan. (Tuft)
This item was introduced by City Manager Michael Bierman, who.
mentioned several development applications. proposed for the Highway
1..01 corridor in the vicinity of Rainier that may- have an impact on the
cross-town connector choice. He gave direction to the consultant; CSW
Stuber-Stroeh, to look at what kind of connections could tje made"with an
interchange at Rainier with the different alternatives. He introduced
Wayne Leach of CSW Stuber-Stroeh to explain the three alternatives and
asked the Council to set the public hearing date of May 3, 2004 evening
session for discussion.
Mr. Leach began by discussing the three alignments for Rainier and
explained how the interchanges would connect to McDowell Boulevard
and Petaluma Boulevard. He identified the alternatives and reviewed
each alternatives alignments:
m Petaluma Valley Plaza - DSL Sight
a The Oak Creek Apartment Site/Shasta Avenue/Johnson Property
o The Chelsea Property -Petaluma Village Market Place
April 19, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 501.
City Manager Bierman requested that these be brought forth on May 3~d
2 to discuss these as well as any others that may arise.
3
4 Council Member Healy had questions about the height of Alternative 1
5 with an elevated crossing of Rainier over the railroad fracks and the River;
6 he was advised it was fifteen feet or less but would need to be steep.
7
8 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked about the amount of grading. Mr. Leach
9 explained that because of Cinnabar Hill, the road would require
10 substantial grading and cuts/fills.
11
12
Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification of the planned height ,of
13 fifteen feet over the railroad tracks and how much of an incline there
14 would be.
15
16 Mr. Leach answered that the design has not been taken to that detail as
17 of yet and would be part of a study.
18
19 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked how the transit mall identified in the general
20 plan would be accessed.
21
22 Mr. Leach said that would have to be looked at with other design issues
23 including retaining walls, etc.
24
25 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked how much of a contribution the landowners
26 would make according to their benefit.
27
28 Mr. Leach said that had not been looked at.
29
30 Council Member O'Brien asked for clarification of the "at grade crossing
31 at the freeway."
32
33 Mr. Leach answered that was correct and he explained this would be
34 accomplished in conjunction with the Caltrans widening project plan. as
35 an underpass below grade.
36
37 Mr. Leach was asked to briefly explain alternatives 2 and 3 by-the mayor.
38
39 Vice Mayor Moynihan needed further clarification of a "savannah" along
40 the River that dealt with an environmentally sensitive. area requiring a
41 curvature with shifting to minimize the grade change.
42
43 Mr. Leach explained that the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement
44 Plan would have to be reviewed as well as any other City plans.
45
46 PUBLIC COMMENT
47
48 Janice Cader-Thompson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
49 invited anyone to accompany her to walk the Corona Reach and read a
50 letter that she had sent to Council regarding the cross-town connector
Vol. 39; Page 502 April 19, 2004
and her views on it. She also stated she. heard on an open mike at the last
Council Meeting "that all we have to do is take Corona out. of the
General Plan, put Rainier in, and then we're fine." She stated that this
might be a Brown Act violation.
David Keller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and stated fhat the
real question is "how do we get people, goods and services c3eliyered
around the City?" He asked Council to consider the long-term
consequences and identify what the transportation objectives are in
measurable terms; he supported an overpass at Corona Road.
John Cheney, Petaluma, addressed the City Council :indicating he
favored Corona as a better alternative to Rainier Avenue, as Rainier
Avenue would result in development that would produce flooding.
Jerry Price, Petaluma, addressed the -City Council and criticized the cross-
town connector alternatives and supported: Corona. Road as the best
route as a true cross-town connector. He suggested the land should be
used for parks and ball fields instead of development.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and stated that
Rainier is not a traffic solution or a cross-town connector because planned
development in the floodplain will create congestion. He~ sa'id Corona
Road is a cross-town connector and should be explored as an' alternative.
Ettamarie Peterson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and stated' she
wants to stay outside the Urban Growth. Boundary and keep her farm: She
feels a Rainier Avenue over crossing gives the Chelsea Corporation a
"free lunch" and that the flood issue is serious. She asked the Council to
honor the river.
Richard Brawn, Petaluma, addressed the Council and stated concerns
about the cost-benefit analysis related to this project as we11 qs any others:
He asked the City to evaluate the tax revenue a project will generate and
the cost of mitigations to assure the City does- not end up paying fo"r' the
development.
Dianne Reilly-Torres, Petaluma, addressed. the City Council with specific
questions: 1) When is the scoping session (the date) for the General Plan
EIR? 2) Confirm this item 4/19/0 is funded from CIP NOT General Plan
funds? And 3) When did CSW Stuber-Stroeh join the General Plan team?
Council Member Healy had questions of Mr. Leach regarding Alternative
2, if it was at grade or elevated.
Mr. Leach indicated it is at-grade at the railroad. He clarified Alternative
1, with General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuft's assistance; w.as also. an
at-grade crossing at the railroad and would span the River.
April 19, 2004 Vol: 39, Page 503
Council Member Healy stated his understanding of where the at-grade
2 crossings would occur.
3
4 Mr. Leach said he was correct but the plans may change to address any
5 new alignments for improved .access; they are showing four lanes- from the
6'. HDR study.
7
8 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that HDR met with Caltrans and the design
9 was for four lanes.
10
1 1 Council discussion continued about the number of lanes and the grade
12 level crossings necessary.
13
14 Council Member Torliatt had questions about Alternative 3, the Johnson
15 property, and wanted clarification that the property owner disagreed
16 with the alignment and the. four-lane design going through the housing.
17 subdivision.. Mr. Leach said this is correct.
18
19 Mayor :Glass asked if the Johnson's agreement was. necessary to achieve
20 this alternative and he was skeptical that an at-grade crossing of the
21 railroad track would be achieved. He wanted the Johnson's concerns
22 considered in this alternative.
23
24 Council Member Healy, referring to the HDR analysis that showed a
25 different aligriment at Shasta, offered that this could be an Alternative 3b
26 with two lanes being sufficient and would take less property from the
27 Johnsons, even if it were four lanes.
28
29 Council Member Torliatt asked that, if this two-lane alternative was
30 considered, would circulation and capacity improvements be achieved
31 with a Rainier alignment that becomes two-lanes.
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that the Johnsons prefer a Factory Outlet
34 alternative that impacts their property the least,, resulting in Shasta being
35 the most impacted. They offered to shift their claim for a grade level
36 crossing at' Shasta to the Faetory° Ou;tle,t proposal as long as they could
37 achieve secondary access to their project.
38'
39 Council Member Healy directed .staff' and the consultants to come back
40 at the next meeting more information on dll three alternatives.
41
42' Mayor Glass asked each Council Member to list what information he or
43 she needed to make a decision.
44
45 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that HDR went to Caltrans directly and the
46 report lists what can and cannot be done: He wanted to focus on which
47 alternative makes the most sense and incorporate it into the General Plan
48 discussion and the Capital Improvement Plan.
49
Vol. 39, Page 504
April 19, 2004
Council Member Hdr'ris was comfortable that he 'had enough .information
to make a decision.
Council Member Healy listed vvhaf he needed to make a decision as
follows: an Alternative 3b~ _with the alignrtient presented in January's
meeting; d. Corona Road :alternative with the question of whe her- the
existing structure can be used to add an interchange; a transportation.
utility` score;' a rough estimdte .of construction costs; auxiliary lanes
between Rainier Avenue and Washington Street; that any alternative
must have fully mitigated flood impacts; and Caltrans` level of
acceptance.
Council Member Thompson indicated 'he would like to_ see the traffic
modeling for Rain,ie~ Avenue and Corona Road; if the sfudies show Rainier
Avenue is the bes`f choice; it must be analyzed and put to a cosf benefit
analysis to make it clear to the public; construction costs; and Caltrans'
level of acceptance.
Vice. Mayor Moynihan stated he did riot see the purpose of studying
Corona again. He feels the Rainier Avenue alignment makes. the most.
sense and provides another cross-town connector. He wanted to
determine. how' this could be paid' for through developer contributions
according to the benefits received and explained 'how each' alternative
could achieve this. He didn't see the benefit to creating an alternative
3b. Ne supported the Factory Outlet alternative.
Council Member Torliatt stated the Rainier Avenue. alternative is
contingent upon fhe widening of Highway 101 that might begin. in 2011.
She indicated. there. are many reasons That, Rainier Avenue has riot:been
feasible. She wanted to look at the alternatives with'the assigned wand use
and to let the public know that without knowingwhen the highway wilt be
widened, the Council can't move forward.
Council Member O'Brien indicated he wants to see all three alternatives
come back and noted he would like to have representatives from
Caltrans'or HDR aftend the meeting to address what is acceptable.
Council 'Member O'Brien made a MOTION to set a hearing for .May "3~,
2004.
Mayor Glass reiterated. the Council's needs. to make a decision as follows:
Corona Road to be included as an alternative; Caltrans needs to
approve the proximity of interchanges; wants to .review the at-grade
crossings;: wants to see acost-benefit analysis done; and wants "bu.yin"
from Mr. Johnson if necessary to get the at-.grade crossing unless Council
i willing to use eminent domain.
Discussion continued about hove much time it would take to get the
information necessary to make a decision, about the alternatives. -~ -
April 19, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 505
1 City Manager Bierman indicated he would contact the necessary people
2 to see when the answers to Council questions can be provided and
3 would then set the next public hearing.
4
5 Council Member O'Brien withdrew his motion because of the time
6 necessary for staff to get all the. information necessary.
7
8 ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION
9
10 City Attorney Rudnansky noted the Council would be going back into Closed Session to
1 1 continue discussion regarding the aforementioned items.
12
13 ADJOURN
14
15 The City Council adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to Closed Session.
16
17
18
19 *********
20
21
22 `
23
24
25 "
26 David Glass, Mayor
27
28
29 ATTEST:
30
31
32
33 ~'~ L
34 Gayle Pe rsen, City Clerk
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50