HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council/PCDC Minutes 08/25/2003August 25, 2003 Vol. 39, Page 125
~AL~tr
a . ~ Cif of'etalua, Cal~fo~n~a
SPECIAL NIEETIIVG OF THE PCDC/
I85$ PETALUnAA- CITY COUNCIL
PCDC/City Council Minutes
Monday, .August 25, 2003 - 3:00 P:Afl.
Special Meeting
3:00 P:M: - CITY_COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
1 CALL TO'O,RDER
2
3 A. ROIL Call
4
5 Present: Members Harris, Canevaro, Healy, O'Brien, Mayor Glass,
6 Torliatt, Moynihan
7
PUBLIC COMMENT.
8
9 .Don Weisenfluh, .Petaluma, pointed out what he believes are weaknesses in the
10 proposed Utility Tax Ordinance. He feels the definition of "non-residential users" is
11 weak, and that the statement, "ihe Ci#y Council may, by ordinance or
12 resolution, establish thaw one or snore classes of persons or one or more classes of
13 utility services otherwise subject to payment of a tax imposed by this ordinance
14 shall be exempt; in whole or in part from such tax" needs clarification.
15
16 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 3:06 p.m.
17
18 PUBfC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt: Code Section
19 54957(e): City Clerk
20
21 4:00 P':M. - AFTERNOON SESSION
22 Joint City Council/PCDC
23
24 CALL TO ORDER:
25
26 A. ~ Roll Call
27
28 Members Harris, Canevaro, Healy, O'Brien, Mayor Glass, Torliatt, Moynihan
vol. 39, Page 126
August. 25, 2003
2 B. Pledge of Allegiance -Council Member Harris
3 C. Moment of Silence
4
5 PUBLIC COMMENT
6
7 Terence Garvey, Petaluma, spoke regarding the new wastewater t"reatment
8 plant. He would like: the value engiheering team to .explain. why the original
9 design was ,not acceptable and why the cost has increased sodramatically. He
10 would also appreciate response from Council, on.this matter.
11
12 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
13
14 Council Member Torliatt reported that the Petaluma Police: Department held the.
15 bt" Annua( K=9 Unit Trials Saturday. Ap.proxirnately 32 dogs carne from. as far away
16 as Redding to, compete. She attended t:he awards dinner that followed at the
17 Adobe Creek, GolfeCourse. She thanked the Police Department and sponsors for
18 their hard work and contributions to bringing this "inspiring" event to Petaluma..
20 Council Member Moynihan spoke regarding recent Ic~yoff at companies in
21 Petaluma and' unemployment in thecommunity. He referred to a Getter he
22 recently wrote to the Press Derno.crat requesting a peer review. for the
23 wastewater treatment pla_nt..He fee'Is the public needs an explanation of how
24 the cost of the plant increased to fhree times the ,project budget. He added he
25 continues t:o call. for a review of the City's budget.
26
27 He continued that. at the August 18th Council. Meeting, the agenda for today's
28 mee#ing was "somewhat changed of the dais,;'" and he did not realize there was
29 an evening session, scheduled for tonight. He believed it would be unproductive
30 to conduct the .evening session, for which discussion of :the casino proposal. issue
31 was scheduled. He asked :Mayor Glass to determine- if other Council Members.
32 felt the same..
Mayor Glass: fhought the community deserved the opportunity to speak
regarding this extremely controversial is"sue:. A c"asirio would have a tremendous:
impact on Petaluma.
Council. Member Healy felt it a disservice °to the public to cancel the evening
session.
Council Member T,orliatt asked to. adjourn the, rneetirrg in memory of Elbert
"floppy" Hopkins, who died last week. He was a memk~er of they Hstor"ical and
43 Cultural Preservation Committee, was a tremendou resource for everyone
44 ,interested in, Petafuma's history, and will .be greatly- missed. She was not in favor.
45 of canceling the evening session.,.
46
August 25, 2003 vol. 39, Page 1'27'
1 Council Member O'$rien wanted to cancel the evening session: Council had nnot
2 received' a staff report, he said, qnd was being asked to pass a resolution without
3 knowing the facts.
4
5 Council Member Harris agreed. and added Council needed a staff~report.
6
7 Councl:Member Canevaro also agreed. Council has heard "all of one side of
8 th:e story,," and hasn't heard anything' from "the ocher side." He thought the City
9 already knew where Council stood on the issue, as a group, and a meeting held
10 tonight would just be a "venfing session."
11
12 Council ..Member Torliatt believed that at the end of the resolution Council was
13 scheduled to consider this evening is a section authorizing the Mayor and City
14 Manager t.o enter into, "good faith discussions with the tribal representatives for
15 the purpose of minimizing and mitigating environmental, operational, and
16 economic impacts on the City caused by the location of the casino in Rohnert
17 Park." She. thought Council should be proactive on the issue and, would be
18 unfortunate if Council did not want to take a stand. She. pointed out that the.
19 August 26'" Sonoma County Board of Supervisors agenda includes a
20 presentation by the Federated Indians on the alternative site for the proposed.
21 casino and resort and. they are directing their staff to enter into negotiations with
22 the tribe to mitigate impacts. She thought it imperative that Council get "on the
23 .record" regarding this issue.
24
25 Council Member O'Brien did not think it necessary for Council to have discussion
26 and pass a resolution, in order for the City Manager and Mayor to have
27 discussions with the involved parties. He repeated that "without :facts," Council
28 could not move forward on the issue,."in good conscience."
29
30 Council Member Canevaro believed. fhe public had already been shown that
31 Council was not in favor of the casino.
32
33 Mayor Glass thought. that allowing the community .the opportunity to express
34 itself was part of the process of gathering information from which to make a
-35 determination: The meeting is agendized for 7:00 p.m., and people now have an
36 expectation that it will take place. He considered if unfair to the. public to cancel
37 the meeting during the 4;00 session. If it was going to be cancelled, that should
38 happen in front of the ,public at 7:00 p.m. He asked the City Attorney for
39 direction.
40
41 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky noted that historically, Council has sometimes
42 dropped items from the evening agenda in the course of the afternoon agenda.
4,3 Notice_ . of the-fact has.been posted immediately following the afternoon session.
44
45 . Council Member Healy stated that Council's Rules, Policies & Procedures
46 provided that, "Special Meetings may be ordered at any time by the Mayor,
47 whenever in his or her opinion, the public business may require it." He
Vol. 39, Page 1.28 August 25; 2003
1 announced his .intent to be;present at 7.:00 p:rn. to allow the .community to weigh
2 in on the subject.
3 '
4 Council Member Moynihan told .the Mayor there were four votes~amo'ng Council.
5 to cance,f t;he .evening meeting, If four .Council Members did not afte.nd, "you
6 have no meeting, you have no quorum." He asked Mayor Glass to announce
7 that the rn'eeting, was cancelled;.
8
9 Council Member Healy saw nothing in,, the Council's Rules,,, Policies & Procedures;
10 to allow a majorify o.f Council to cancel a special `meeting duly called under fhe
11 Rules by the Nlayor.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt agreed.
14
15 Mayor Glass reiterated that the evening's meefing was "c~ noticed'issue" that he
16 believes much, of the public cares about. He said that he would b.e present at
17 7:0.0 p:.m. to greet the public.
18 '
19 .Council Member Moynihan thought it'wrong to "keep staff working and spend.
20 the communifi'y's cnon:ey to hold an unnecessary rneefing."'
21
22 City Manager Bierman.stated That stgff"wds welcomet.o be present at 7':00 p.m.
23 if they so desired, and added that he would be present.
24
25 Council Member O'Brien asked, the Mayor -why he would ask Council"s opinion .
26 and then actin opposition to it.
28 Mayor Glass st.oted he believed 'i;t a mistake to cancel an agenda item on a
29 subject. so ;important to 'the community.. He had "made a promise'' to listen to
30 public inpuf and was ready to do so. He would like to see the .resolution passed
31 so he and, t;he City Manager could. represent th'e community :between now and
3,2 September 8, the date of fhe- next Council Meeting;. He thought it dangerous fo
33 leave file issue. "an open book," without formalizing fhe power the City Manager'
34 would Have. to deal with the issue going forward. H:e believed' there were
35 surprises yet' #.o come with fhe 'issue. Ne~ believes this is the ~"single most
36 eon#roversal issue to: hit Son.o'ma Counfy in decades," ..and did not think it a
37 "was#e of time to ga;fher and hear 'he public."
38
39 Council Mem, ber Moynihan repeated. that the meeting should be cancelled.,
40
41 Mayor Glass, re.p'eated that he "would be prese"nt at: 7:0.0 ;p:rn.to ,greet the.
42 members' of the;,community:. .
43 ~ ~ - .
44 Council •M'ember Torliatt' stated tha;f the Mayor hadcalled a Special Meeting
45 according ~ta the Council''s Rules, Policies 8~ Pro.ce,dures; and there would be a:
46 .meeting. If a quorum of the Council were not present; `those wh`o were present
47 would still be abje to'hear comments from` the,public~.
48 Council Member Healy agreed.
August.25, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 129
1
2 Couneil:Mernber'Canevaro thought Council had "taken an issue that we all
3 pretty much agree on :arid thrown it down'in the mud and trampled on it:" He
4 stated he~was emb_.arrassed by what had taken place. Nobody's opinion on the
5 issue would changer
6
7 1. NEW BUSffVESS
8
9 A. City Council ~ Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding
10 Developmenf Impact Fees. (Bierman/Thomas)
11
12 Scott Thorpe, Revenue and Costs Specialists, presented his firm's
13 report: .on Developrnent Impact Fees. He explained how each of
14 the impact fees was calculdted, based on different land .uses: The
15 relationship between the amount of use or impact, or the demand
16 for services, and the amount of the fee, he called "nexus."
17
18 Council Member Moynihan asked M'r. Thorpe if it was the legislation
19 passed as California AB 1600 that would allow the City to incur
20 Police and Fire Impact Fees.
21
22 Mr. Thorpe agreed, anal added that most cities have Police and
23 Fire Impact Fees:
24
25 CounciL;Member Moynihan asked the source of the list of projects
26 and capital. improvements. He noted projects in the Master
27 Facilities Plan that were not in the City's Capital Improvement
28 Program. He asked if the listwas based on staff recommendations.
29
30 Mr. Thorpe explained thdt some were from staff recommendations;
31 some were based on his knowledge that certain impacts and
32 demands for service would increase as land was developed. The
33 Master Facilities Plan covers the period through build-out of the
34 City, while the City's Capital Improvement Plan is fora much
35 shorter period.
36
37 He then explained the term "proportio'nality," which means that
38 future.°residents and businesses should eontr"ibute to completion of
39 infrastruc<ture as have previous generations of businesses and
40 residents, using the same standard or level of service.
41
42 Coun`ciL.Member Moynihan understood that AB1600 required that
43 specific projects be identified for the use of impact fees collected,
44 and that fees must",be refunded for any projects that did not move
45 forward within five years.
46
47 Mr. Thoepe- clarified _that as long as the funds. were committed for
48 the project, the monies did not have to be refunded.
Vol. 39, Page 130
August 25, 2003
2 ., y ~ . V~ih~eri the
Council Member Mo ,rnhan ,wanted to be".sure that "°
3 Council took action to set fees, if did not mean th"ey were.
4 "embracing" fh:e Jist of projects in the Master Facilities Plan..
5 ~ ~ ~-
6 -City Manager Bierman explained that the NI`aster Facilities Plan is
7 not afive-year Capital Plan; but covers the next fiftyyears. Some of
g fhem might be part of .future Capital Improvement Pfans. Many
9 projects would have to b°e dropped before: .fees would ,hate to be
l he didn't envision the "City ever "reaching thaf pdint;
d a
t
n
10 ur
e
re
na
11 This is a "wish list," not a bu"dget document.
..
12
13 Council Member Torliatt felt there were some things in the .Master
14 'Facilities Plan that- should not be",, and 'some that should be in the
15 Plan that were not. She mentioned the CAD.:/RNIS `project and the
16 Finance Department's new- software for payroll.; billing, etc. These
17 are already budgeted, but- with -the capacity t;o takes on new
lg developrnen,t. She wanted to be sure that,,these items and others
19 like fhem were included in the Plann..
20
21 Mr. Thorpe explained that they did not appear in the Plan b.ecau e
22 they were budgeted in this Fiscal Year, and are: part of the existing
23 equity: He referred. to the .Impact Free report#, where fhe items are
24 .listed as existing capacity.
25
26 Mayor Glass commended' Mr. Thorpe on his thorough knowledge:
27 of the reports.
28
29 PUBLIC COMMENT
30
31 Clayton, Engstrom, Petaluma, stated 'that the costs involved in
32 bringing a real estate project on line are guaranteed to be ;passed
33 on to the consumer. He feels that it is fair and appropriate: to
34 increase: fees; however; if' the City also imposes a linkage fee. for
35 low-income housing, housing will become even more expensive in
36 Petaluma.
37
"
3'8 ncrepsing impact
Sherri Fabre Ma[ca, Petaluma, spoke in favor of i
39 fees. `Sh'e noted that a number of "new hoi.~ es; in the $700.;000 and
40 above range were being built"in P_ etaluma and added. fhat,citzens
41 in a position to afford a .house. in~"`that price range could easily
42 dfford to contribute to impact fees. She added that residents who
'
43 ofi years "should not bear the"
have lived in Petaluma a number
44 burden dnd subsidize: riew development:. ".Everybody should- pay a
45 fair share, and it's up to yo'u fio determine v~rhat is a fair share.:" "
46
47 Alison ,M"arks; Petaluma, `Petaluma Arts Co~~ncil, requested that the
48 Council' look at including a percentage fcx-tf;e arts. as ..part of the,
August 25,.2003 vol. 39, Page t3l
1 discussion of;the impact. fees. She had submitted materia s to the.
2 Council. She listed other California cities with impact fees for fhe
3 arts. .
4
5 Council Member Tocliatt thought Santa Rosa had a percentage for
6 the arts.
7 .. . .
8 Ms. Marks confirmed this, and addeci that Santa Rosa had a
9 thriving public arts program and facilities.
10
11 Charlie Carson,. Petaluma, Home- Builders Association, stated thaf
12 developers want to pay their fair share, if for no other reason than
13 the fact that prospective homebuyers look at the financial health
14 of a city when deciding whether to buy. Fle referred to a chart he
15 had given to Council showing the number of building permits
16 issued by the City yearly since 1994. Recent numbers have been
17 lower than anticipated in Petaluma acid many other cities due to
18 such things as environmental considerations or CEQA processing.
19 He pointed out that in order for the City to collect impact fees, the
20 building, permits. must be pulled in the first place. Another chart
21 listed,impact fees collected by other cities in the area.
22
23 Council Member~Torliatt asked Mr. .Carson if he knew of other cities
24 that had undergone this .type of study to justify fhe impact fees.
25 Were'other cities trying to be as proactive as Petaluma?
26
27 NI_r, Carson `replied that this was the most comprehensive study
26 overall that he had seen.
29
30 Council Allernber Torfiatt pointed .out that comparing the. fee
3`1 increases Petaluma was asking for to other cities' increases was not
32 "comparing apples to apples" as other cities had not taken as
33 comprehensive a look at the issue as Petaluma has.
34
35 Council Member ,Moynihan noted that building all across the
36 County had dropped off considerably: However, some of the m'ulfi-
37 family units shown on .Mr. Carson's charts rpay need. a second look.
3'8 Some projects, such as senior facilities, were being counfed, yet the
39 City looked at: them as commercial. He also spoke to increases in
40 workers compensation and labilify insurance costs and their
4'1 impact. on the- cost of homes...
42
43 ~ Mr. Carson agreed that the insurance costs have created a "huge"
44 problem for the housing industry.
45
46 Mayor Glass asked that the discussion be limited to impact fees.
47 .
Vol. 39, Page 1.32
Augu"st 25, 2003
1 Council Mernb:er Moynihan replied thaw his questi:o,ns were aimed.
2 at deterrninin,g :the .impact of increasing .the; impact fees on the
3 affordability of homes.
4
5 ~-Mayor ,Glass stated that `the reports .before Council would I'ead
6 "any reasonable person fo conclude That [ra;sing a'he; impact-'fe.'es]
7 would not increase the cost of .a house:" He noted the reports,
8 reflected extensve~research and were not,merely''opinions:"'
9
10 Council, Member Moymlian aSke.d that Nlr,. Carson be allowed to:
11 finish dnswer-ing:his question regardinginsurance cows..
Y2
13 Mr Carson explained, that the inc~edse'in f~:es and the :increase in
14 insurdnce costs concerned those in the building .industry in terms. of
15 how housing could be,provided for fhe "average family;" which he
16 described as '`the hear,.f of fihe communify - (hose who would be
17 spending rrioneydowntown."
Diane .Reilly-Torres,, Petaluma; felt some members of the: public
were. allowed to talk ford ;much longer ,period than others; 'and;
,that it was very wrong to cancel the everiing session. Regarding.
the development irnp"act fees; she though"t they should a.t the very
least be cornpgrable to other cities:
25 Mr. Tho- rpe then spoke. to some of the questions. ands comments
26 from Council and the public. H"e state'd'th~a`f none of his: clienf cities
27 .had ever seen a decred"se in development because of the
28 adoption of impaca fees, nor has a city .ever shad to step .back from
29 them once adopted: He said it had been. his experience that an
30 increase in the Cosa, of doing busi"Hess was `spread out, arpong all'
31 those involved, and was not bowie "by any one group. He noted
32 ,that comparing fees from .city to city wds'very difficult, as different
33 cities provide different services and have varying requirements:.
34
35 Council Member"Healy ~r.eferred to Mr. Bierrr~dn's August 19'h rnerno;
36 which `indicated that Community Facilities fees ore currently $951
37 per unit; on ;page four residential developments are listed as being
38 charged $'1,902 per dwelling unit,. Me would like fhe correct figure. If
39 $1,:902 was, in fact, he~correct number, than the .proposed flee of
40 $1.;381 was a decrease. ' "
41
42 IVfi. Thorpe replied' that ,he wo~u;ld ~'consu t Finance Director Bill
43 Thomas, who. had compiled the, :figures, and confgct Council
44 Member Hedly'with ah answer.
45
46 Council Member Torlgtt believed that`the Community Facilities fee
47 was one of several that "involved. a 50% rebate of the acfuaLfee
48 $9:5'1 being 50% of $T,902: -
August 25, 2003 vol. 39, Page 133
1
2 Council .Member Healy referred to the Master Facilities Plan, page
3 31, where the. projected cost to "Upsize Two. Existing US-101
4 Crosstown Connections" was given as $1.4 million. He did not Think
5 that was a realistic figure. Regarding page 67, "Library Space
6 Expansion," he did not see the need for land acquisition. Regarding
7 "Parkland Acquisition and Park Construction," on page 78, he was
8 surprised to see the amount of money being proposed was in.
9 excess of what was being used for street reconstruction, etc. A
10 large number of park items were listed. All but the last were very
11 detailed items that had already been planned and discussed anal
12 ,totaled $23 million; the last item, simply titled "Parkland Acquisition
13 and Development of Additional Park Acres" was $54 million. He
14 thought every potential park site in town had already been
15 identified higher up on the list. On page 104, the basis for the
16 calculation of $54 rriillidn was the General Plan standard for acres
17 of park in town per 1,000 residents. He asked if the 25 items listed'o'n
18 page 78 were actually included as they represented a substantial
19 amount of incremental acre-age in many cases that would be
20 added in.
21
22 1111x. Thorpe confirmed that they were, and said he would provide
23 th'e Council with background documents on this subject.
24
25 Council Member Healy then referred to page 107 of the
26 Calculation and Nexus Report, and the calculation of the $22,544
27 maximum potential figure for In-Lieu Housing. He questioned some
28 of the assumptions used: a 2,200 square foot residence, at 6.5 units
29 per acre. The approximate size of the units in Old .Elm Village, for
30 example, wqs 1,100 square feet, and the development was built at
31 20 units to the acre: That would cut the Affordable Unit
32 Construction Cost to about $135,000. The Affordability Gap would
33 decrease from $148,790 to .something like $13,000. He thought this
34 area needed to be looked at in much greater detail. With those
35 issues addressed, he would be prepared to move forward with fhis.
36 item.
37
38 Council Member Torliatt asked to have this item agendized as soon
39 as possible.. She thought Council could continue to refine the
40 numbers, but she was concerned about the loss of revenue if
41 Council delayed moving forward. She would like to see this on the
42 next agenda.. She mentioned she .had questions about the wording
43 in some areas. She would .like to see Council consider an Arts fee,
44 as she felt it would be of significant- benefit to the community. She
45 requested a detailed explanation of the source of the
46 proportionality number in each of the categories for existing
47 facilities. Regarding street issues, she asked for more information on
48 whether the increase in impact on ALL streets and roads in the
Vol. 39, Page 134
August 25; 2003
1 community was taken into: account. She thought that could be a
2 significant number if poked a:t i.n that con.tex. t_ She stated .she
3 would submit ,some additional ideas and questions regarding the
4 expansion of ~Shollenberger Park, the existing; swirriming pool;
5 community gardens, the museum;'the 'airport, teen or youth center;
6 and ernergency.services.
7
g Council: Member Moynihan asked how average trips were:
9 calculated for difterenf land uses for the proposed Traffic Mifigation
10 fees.
11
12 ~ Mr. Thorpe explained that the nexus was; based on trip ends times
13 ,distance and referred to the schedule at the bottom page 62 of
14 the Calculation and Nexus Report. The average number and
15 length of trips varies widely among land uses, Commercial being by
16 far the highest 'in terms. of` trip ;ends; while- office and Industrial are
17 highest in trip lengths.
18
19 Council Member Moynihan thought it important for Council to
20 understand the economic .impacts ofi its actions and asked for a
21 cumulative summary of dll proposed fees. He asked ifdevelopmenf
22 impact fees would b.e reassessed if the use in a particular building
23 was increased, or changed. He risked if'the City would be chdrgirig
24 impact fees each time a commerciai building acquired a new
25 tenant; each time a building permit was pulled -what' would
26 'trigger new-fees?
27
28 Community Developrnen# pirector ;Mike More explained that the
29 ~ Gi#y currently reassesses on a change of use if it is a change. that
30 triggers additional fees; for example,, if an office converts to retail,
31 the owner pays the difference befw..een what was charged
32 originally, and what the new use requires. .
33
34 Council Member :Moynihan continued 'that he thought an Arts
35 impact fee was worthy of consideration. He would. like to review
36 the correspondence received at the delis, consider `the information
37 provided. at today's presentation, further re-read the reports, and
38 would' like feedback frorrl: staff regdrding this increase.
39
40 Council. Member Caneyaco stated that he, too, was .surprised .by
41 the figure for "Parkland Acquisition and ,Park Construction;" and
42 thought it excessive when ~ looking at some of the projects.
43 Conversely,. hethought 'the: figure for the aquatics Center was too
44 low. He would ~ like to see water and storm drains rolled into this.:
_.
45 Many ~drai'nage facilities in Petaluma are overgrown, and aCtho.ugh
46 fihey belong to the Sonoma County Water Agency,. he believes
47 there wilt. come a ;point when the City must step in anal maintdin
48 ,them if they continue to be neglected, He woulcj' like more
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
2,7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
X35
;36
37'
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
'August 25, 2003
explanation of the Streets figure versus
would definitely b'e willing to look. into an
imperative to "move forward on 'fhe 'issue
affend' a S:peciaf Meeting if necessary:
vol. 39,: P-age.`l;3'5
the _Parkland~ figure. Ne
Arts fee. He believed` it
soon, and was willing to
Council; Member Harris thought :the issue was straightforward. and
should be moved forward as soon as possible.
Council Member O'Brien stated that with what he h`ad heard
tonight and the consensus of Council, he would Like-the item to be
agendized as soon as possible.
'Mayor Glass thanked Mr. Thorpe for ..his comprehensive and clear
report. Ne assured the community that he is advocating, on a
personal basis,, to make sure that n'ew development that comes in
maintains the proportionality, and that the current community
maintains its current equity'in this community. This, he added, is the
right thing for a Council to do: protect the current residents and
businesses: in this community.
Govncil took.a five-minute break to deferrnine a meeting date for
this item fo come back to Council.
B. Discussion and Possible. Action Regarding. the Adoption of cin
Ordinance Implementing an Affordable. Housing Linkage Fee for
Nonresidential Development in the City of Petaluma.
Nqusing Ad.minisfrator Bonne. Gaebler deseribe.d the Sonoma
County Workforce Housing Linkage Fee Study and its 'implications.
for'Petaluma. She explained that although Petaluma has met dll ofi
its housing .goals and ABAG" Fair Share goals, and has been very
successful with housing for very low income and special needs
households, it remains difficult to provide housing for entry and mid-
level workforce households. They require larger units, more parking,
community centers, and playgrounds. More local funding, such as
impact fees, would .give the City the ability to address the
workforce housing. Staff's recommendation is to adopt an
ordinance and fee that are. very specific fo Petalurria's needs.
Councilmember Torliatt noted that currently there. are no housing`
impact fees charged to commercial, industrial, and retail
development. The study showed the link between the need for the
home and the location of the job.
Ms. Gaebler agreed.
Council :Member Moynihan thanked Ms. Gaebler for the report and
commended her on Petalurna's success with affordable or
Vol. 39, Page 136 August 25; 2003
1 ~ subsidized housing, He~explained that he had a hard time creating.
2 additionah #ees that could have, negative economic; ,impacts o,n
3 the businesses ,in the community: He. questioned th`e amount of the
4 proposed per-square-fioot fees.., He wondered if types of jobs and
5 salaries for those'jobs were considered:
6 -
7 Ms: Gaebler replied that the turfy looked at entry and- mid=level
g workers.
9
10 RU,BtIC.COMMENT
11
12
Kelly, Brown, Petaluma, Green Belt Allidnce encouraged Council'to
f3 approve the Affordable ,Housng Linkage Fee..
14
15 John Record's,: Committee on the Shelterless (COTS),, Petaluma,,
16 stated that tiie average working ,person wil(.not be able to affiord' a
17 house in Petaluma without; help, and told Council that they are the
lg on;es to make that happen: He would (ike his children to be able to
19 buy' houses in Petaluma. He continued tha:f because of the hard;
20 work and' success with affordable housing by Bonne G.aebfer and;
21 the City Council, other cities, in the area look to P'efaluma for
22 leadership: 'He was.:confiden.t Council, would. `make a good
23 decision; and offered his support aril thanks.
24
25 Vicfor Che~chanover, ';Pefaluma, Living Wage. Coalition, stated that
2(, the Coalition fully supports fhe idea tha~l employers should be
27 responsible,. in part; for the ability. of their workers t:o afford to;.live in.
28 or .near the community in which- they work. The Affiordable Housing
29 Linkage Fee will help this happen.
30
31 Eileen Morris, Petaluma„ Living Wage Coalition,.. urged Council to
32 adopt th'e,Affordable Housing Linkage Fee: The Coalition believes it
33 is one of everal reasonable steps the City t;an take to `increase the
34 took of housing fhat workers can afford. She 'feels i.t is clear that
35 the job .market" drives the housing mdrket,, and "thaf it is fair to ask
36 employers to .contribute to m-aking affordable housing, available for
37 their workers:. She added that the majority of ,jo;bs that. will. be
38 created in` the ,next fewyears,will not pay a wage that will meet the
39 cos# of h'ousirig°here. She offered to provide Council with the Lining,
40 -Wage Ordinance mpac# Reporf; which contains this information.
41
42 Ern':,e Cq_rpenter, , Cit: , .congratulated .Petaluma and its efforts to
43 address this issue, but.said more, needs to be done. He stated that
44 individuals filling 80% of f_he view jobs created in this community will
45 not. be able tq afford 80% of the view housing .being built. H`e
4b sttessed the importance of get'tirig an o,:rdinance in place. The City
47 decides how much i,t wants to charge. No cities in the Bray' Area
48 have rescinded such an ordinance once passed,. and plenty o.f'
1
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
August`25, 2003
Vol. "39, Page 137"
information is available showing that such fees do not hinder
development.
Council. Member AAoynih-an asked if calculations had been done to
show how much that 80% would drop if such a fee were imposed.
Mr. Carpenter suggested the City set up a program for working
families. Citizens who have, worked 'in Petaluma two years and are
at a certain. income level ~ could apply for assistance getting into
housing.. This' would help stabilize the City's workforce. As far as
quantifying success, he predicted it would be a case of, "a little
here, a little there and then you look up and Petaluma's made the
honor roll." ~ '
Terence Garvey, Petaluma, explained that his daughter has just
"received her teaching. credential. Her education cost everything
she had saved over many years. The best job offer she has
received will allow her to make ends meet if she is very, very frugal.
Affordable housing is very scarce.
Ms. Gaebler, in answer to Council Member Moynihan's question
about success rates, estimated the City's success rate would be
about 20%. She pointed out that people's housing choices are
often made based on something other than money.
Council Member Canevaro asked if there would be a requirement
thaf this money benefit people who work and live in Petaluma. He
felt that responsible businesses would want to take care of their
people, and that it made good business sense.
IVIs. Gaebler confirmed that City policy is to give first priority to
those already living and working in Petaluma.
Council Member Healy agreed that when the City uses
accumulated funds to develop projects i,n the community; priority
should ;be given. to people already living and/or working. in the
community.- He pointed out an important feature ofi the proposed
ordinance: the dollar amounts are cut in half for areas that are
within R$development. ,Agency jurisdiction. This is appropriate
because the tax increment for new construction comes .back- to
the City annually in redevel'oprnentfnnds, and at least 20% of those
funds are used toward affordable housing programs.
Concerning Petaluma being ,at d competitive disadvantage, he
pointed out -that Santa Rosa has long had a 5% utility tax, and he
has never 'heard that mentioned as a reason businesses were
choosing t:o lo.cate elsewhere: Additionally, he thought this
Vol. 39, Page 138
August, 25, 2003
1 program would reduce pressure, on the homebuilders re'g;arding In-
~
2 .
Lieu. fees on .new home and apartment consfructi'on:
3
4 He noted that :in th'e. long run, fhere is nothing more neg',ative for
5 business. than a lack of workforce housing 'in the. cgmmunity, citing
6 the exodus of businesses from Marin County as an example. He
7 suggested that the fees could be, made effective January 1, 2004,
8 if there is concern :about the current business environment. He
9 would be pleased to move this matter forward' tonight.
10
11 Councif Member Torliatt agreed with. comments made by Council
12 Members Canevaro~ and Healy. Many other cities in th:e Bay Area
13 have this type of fee: Petaluma has been very success#ul at
14 leveraging .its; dollars. She anticipates ~ similar success with funds
15 collected through an Afifordable Housing Linkage Fee. ,She
16 mentioned an additional benefit°af increasing additional workforce
17 housing in Petaluma: reducing traffic on City streets and the U5 101
lg corridor:.. She supported moving the item forward.
19
20 Council Member Moynihan enumerated. the successes Petaluma
21 has: already had with the funds available and thought the other
22 cities in the County should follow Petaluma's example before
23 Petaluma added more fees, and set even higher sfandards. Th`e
24 current business climate is unhealthy. He requested d complete
Z5 breakdown of what non-residential development is currently
26 paying, so .Council can understand increm. entally how this going fo
27 .impact development., and show the overall load is: He believes that
28 while the goal of the impact fe.e would be to help workers find
29 affordable housing in Petaluma, the end result would be tq "help
30 them find unemployment."
31
32 Mayor Glass referred to the August 26, 2002_:report"from the firm, EPS
33 (Economic & .Planning Systems')' to the. City of Santa Rosa entitled
34 "Economic ,Impacts of Affordable Housing. Linkage Fees; EPS.
35 # 1037.0," which explained thaf raw land would absorb .the cost of
36 the fee. He stressed. thaf the ordinance .should include strong
37 support for curren_f residents. He agreed with the other Council
38 .Members that this. item should move `f'orw;ard.
39
40 Council Member Healy agreed.
41
42 Council 'Member Can. ev6ro would like to meet with Bonne [Gaebler
43 and the Cflamber of Commerce before making a decision.
44
45 City Manager Biermcin added °that this item should come back at
46 the carne time as the Development Impact Fees.
47
48 This item will be scheduled for d~'Special /vleeting in September.
August 25,"2003
1
voi. 39' Page 1.39
2 C. PCDC' Resolutior 2003-,13 Approving the Plans and Specifications
3 Prepared. by' CSW/-S'tuber-Stroeh Engineering :Group, Inc.,
4 Approvi'n'g the Project` B`udg,ef, and Awarding t`he Contract 'for fh,e
5 Petaluma Downtown Improvements :Phase I Project N'o. 9Q53~ Base
6 Bid ± Additive Alternate ,A, + Additive Alternate B to Ghilotti Bros.:,.
7 Inc. ~(Mar•angell'a)
8 ~ ~:
9 City Council:action:
10
11 Resolution 2'003-1.71 N:C.S. Authorizing the Deferral of CI'P Water
12 Resources Projects in Favor :of Water and Sewer Services: in This
13 Petaluma Downtown Improvements Phase I Project No. 9053.
14
15 Economic. Development and Redevelopment Director Paul
16 Marangella presented the.~s'taffi report.. Staff recommends adopting
17 Alternative T, which will complete all proposed infrastructure. He
18 noted that the addition of water lines down Kentucky Street and
19 Petaluma Boulevdrd has been recommended.
20
21 Council Member Moynihan ,referred. to the proposal to defer ofher
22 projects on 'the long-term Capital Improvement Program (CIP) i'n
23 order to complete this project and asked the "reason for this.
24 _
25 Mr: Marangella explained that the Water Resources and
26 Conservation Department had determined that these projects
27 could ,be deferred.
28
29 Cify Manager Bierman pointed out that wastewater funds couldn"f
30 be used for water projects. He~ added that this project is more
31 important; the City does not need another fire on Kentucky Street:
32 -
33 Co-uncil Member Moynihan.-asked if the other projects couldn't be
34 continued.
35
36 City Manager Bierman explained ,that funding; 's'ources were
37 developed for specific activities; funds could not' be shifted -from
38 one area to a_ pother.
39
40 Council Member Moynihan thought that the City should proceed
4'1 with the scheduled projects since cash was available.
42
43 Council Member Torliatt suggested staff review the matter.
44 -
45 City Manager Bierman noted that this could be considered at the
46 Mid-Year Budget Review.
47 -
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Vol. 39, Page 140
PIJBUC COMMENT
Augus_t`25, 2003
- _ _.
Paut Dondldson> Ghilotti Construction Comeany;, spoke regarding
his company's bid ,protest, which stated that G'hilotti Brothers, the
apparent' low bidder; did.. "not.'list a concrete subcontractor., whife.
the .other bid~de~s did: He ~ believed', -this constituted, "skirting
subcontrac ing fair bid prat ices:"
Mike Ghilotti, Ghilotti Brothers Construction Company, explained
that his compgny~"rents t'he time. an:d eguipmenf" of the concrete
contractor,, and rescinding'the;hid was not warranted.
City Attorney Rich Rudnansky `noted that the matter was reviewed
and Ghilofti Construct'ion's, pi-otest~was n;ot substantiated...
MOTION to adopt both the~`PCDC aril C.i:ty Council Resolutions.
M/S~ Healy/T.orliatt: CARRIED U:NANIMO.USLY.
MOTION to adjourn the:meefing at~fhis time. M/S Moynihan./Canevdro.
Council Member Healy°ann, ounced his intention to remain to hear members ;o
fhe~public vvho would like to speak regarding the. Casiho issue.
Council AAe"mbec`Toeliatt announced that she would. stay as we .
Mayor Gldss reiterated his intention. to remain:
MOTION to calf for the question. M/S Moynihan/Hdrri's.
AYES:: Canevaro,, Harris, Moynihan, Torliatt
NOES: Mayor Glass, Healy, Vice Mayot• O'Brien
ABSENT: None
M'OTIO:N to adjourn. M/S Moynihan/Harris.
AYES:. Canevaro; Harris, Nloynih:an, Vice Mayor'O'Brien
NQES; Mayor Glass, Healy,.Torliatt
ABSENT:, None
ADJOURN:. The. meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p:m. Mayor Glass and Counei.l
Members aH:ealy and Torliatt remained to he°ar' informal comments from, the
public regarding the casino proposal issue.
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ATTEST:
August 25, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 141
av d Glass, Mayor
Claire Cooper
Deputy City Clerk
**~~~